I had a blast at the state convention. Lots of fun. Always nice to see the party come together in a spirit of 83% unity. I am glad Jan Ting won with such a large margin, and it is unfortunate for the party that Mike Protack wishes to force a primary. Also, I enjoyed listening to Governor Pataki, though he is a conservative in name only.

I think most of all, I enjoyed spending time in beautiful Sussex County, only having been to Lewes previously for Coast Day in 2000. It really is wonderfull down there.

By the way, the Delaware Conservative Bloggers Alliance has officially endorsed Jan Ting for US Senate. Delathought wrote the endorsement with some member contribution. Here is the link.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:44 PM | Permalink | |

I'm off to Dewey for the convention. I'll have a report up by Sunday night (hopefully).

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:23 PM | Permalink | |

I couldn't find any real heroes this week. As, I am going to try to see United 93 before I weigh in on it, but I did find two hacks in the realm of entertainment. Enjoy:


My hack this week is rock's Neil Young, for his "Impeach the President" song. Tucker Carlson has the scoop:

t’s been 40 years since Neil Young produced his first album in the United States. For the last 20 or so, he hasn’t had many hits. But Young hopes to change that with a new song he’s calling, "Let’s Impeach the President."

The lyrics are as subtle as the title, and just about as smart. (Keep in mind that convicting Bush would make Dick Cheney the president.) In any case, here’s a sample of Young’s latest protest tune:

What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees

Would New Orleans have been safer that way

Sheltered by our government’s protection

Or was someone just not home that day?

What does that even mean? The U.S. government is sheltering Al Qaeda? In New Orleans? Huh? It's literally nonsense.

But politically, it does mean something: good news for Bush. An arrogant, out-of-touch rich guy from Canada weighing in on American political issues he clearly doesn’t understand? That’s a political gimmee, manna from Heaven for the GOP. As a strategist I spoke to tonight put it, "It’s people like Neil Young who give Republicans a chance."

The New York Times reports on monopoly:

ATLANTIC CITY, April 27 — It has been a long time since anyone could try to buy a hotel on Ventnor Avenue for $400.

But news that the toy maker Hasbro is planning to drop Atlantic City from its flagship version of Monopoly has left people on the streets of this gambling resort startled and local officials protesting.

Since the game made its debut in 1930, it has sold 250 million copies, making famous the names of Atlantic City's byways, like Baltic Avenue, Park Place and the Boardwalk. And while the game has spawned 200 spinoffs — including Hawaii-opoly, Star Wars Monopoly and even a SpongeBob SquarePants edition, set in the fictional town of Bikini Bottom — Atlantic City has remained the locale for the standard edition, which is by far the most popular.

Now, however, Hasbro has announced plans to update the game to a "here and now" version, raising rents and letting the public vote on streets, neighborhoods and national monuments to fill the 22 properties on the board. And Atlantic City is not among the choices.

The company will still produce the Atlantic City-based, "classic" version of the game, but the "here and now" version is projected to be their best sellers.

In Atlantic City, where many residents consider their connection with Monopoly a point of civic pride, Hasbro's decision makes about as much sense as Scrabble without vowels, and has spurred officials to organize a lobbying campaign to pressure Hasbro into reconsidering.

"Sure, put in the Statue of Liberty and Disney World and other places," said Jeffrey Vassar, executive director of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, which has a "Help Keep Atlantic City on the Board" petition on the city's Web site, www.atlanticcitynj.com. "But it's a slight to not have the Atlantic City Boardwalk as one of the stops," he added.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:06 PM | Permalink | |

I uploaded some pics I took today on campus to Flikr.
Here's a teaser.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:22 PM | Permalink | |

Evan Coyne Maloney has a post on the reasons for high gas prices, and why it is really everybody's fault:

When it came to the economy, there used to be two distinct political parties in America. Democrats generally favored larger government, more controls over the economy, and higher taxes. Republicans preferred smaller government, a more free economy, and lower taxes. But in the dozen years since the Republicans gained control over Congress, they have inexplicably begun to morph into the party that they displaced.

Government spending under the Republican Congress is out of control, and the high price of gas is causing Republicans to dust off socialist terminology like "price gouging" and "obscene profits." The one remaining difference between the parties seems to be on tax policy--Republicans still tend to favor lower taxes--but given the Republicans' abandonment of their other principles, I wonder how long that will be the case.

He also links to James K. Glassman's piece on TCDaily.com that attacks Bush for a policy that is a "sad example of political capitulation by a former Texas oilman who certainly knows better." Glassman also cites the reason for high gas prices, including higher demand from the developing world, an unstable Iran, and the inability (due to the current political climate) to increase supply on our end. Maloney expands:

Did you know, for example, that a new oil refinery hasn't been built in the United States in the past 30 years? Or that environmentalists have blocked new oil drilling virtually everywhere in the country? And since oil isn't an option, what about nuclear power? Nope, environmentalists have blocked that, too. Even wind farms are out of vogue; the great environmentalist Kennedy clan helped kill a wind farm project in the Nantucket Sound that might have marred the view from their Hyannisport compound. In other words, many of the people using the high price of gas to push for government intervention in the economy are the very people who created the energy supply shortfall in the first place.

But that doesn't let the Republicans off the hook. In fact, it makes it more important to take them to task for their irresponsible economic rhetoric. I expect Democrats to employ socialist arguments; it's what they do. But when Republicans join them, it makes me wonder what the point of voting Republican is. I doubt I'm alone in feeling this way, and if so, the Republicans have a reason to worry about the election in November. They are supposed to be the party that understands basic economic laws like supply and demand. Maybe a good old-fashioned electoral ass-whoopin' is what the Republicans need to remind them of that.

Bring on the nukes, and the windmills!

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:18 PM | Permalink | |

After some speculation, Tony Snow is the new Press Secretary. This is great, and he is going to be fun to watch. I appeared on the Tony Snow Show briefly when he was here on campus on September 22, 2004 (the wee infancy of this blog!). Here is my write-up from then (man has my writing improved since then!):

I appeared today on "The Tony Snow Show," which is syndicated and on FOXNews Radio on satellite. Tony's show was live today from my college, the University of Delaware, and so, I went. During the hour spent discussing Dan Rather, I asked the first audience question relating to the matter, which was, "If it weren't for cable news, and the internet acting as checks on broadcast news, would we have ever known that the memos were bogus?" Tony answered "No, probably not," and then went on to praise bloggers, like myself, and Free Republic. He said the blogs are changing the face of media, "for the first time we have free-market media." I got a Fox News sweatshirt out of it (Yes!). right after me was RNC Chair Ed Gillespie, who commented on Rathergate and the recent poll putting his home state of New Jersey in play this election. I was also interviewed by WVUD, the campus radio station. Very cool.

I still have the sweatshirt, by the way, and wear it in cold weather. I even appeared in the UDaily article about the event (announcement here). Here is my picture:

Yes, my back is to the camera, but I can attest that is me on stage with Tony Snow. Here is the post-event write-up, the source of these pictures.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:31 PM | Permalink | |

Guess the economy is just...ahem...barrelling along:

Consumers shrugged off higher gasoline prices in April and sent a widely watched barometer of consumer confidence to its highest level in almost four years, a private research group said Tuesday.

...

The Conference Board said that its consumer confidence index rose to 109.6, up from a revised 107.5 in March. April's reading was the highest since the index touched 110.3 in May 2002. Analysts had expected a reading of 106.4.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:25 PM | Permalink | |

For longer than I can remember, I have not been listed on The News-Journal's blogs page. That has now changed. Not sure why now...but I'll take it.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:06 PM | Permalink | |

Twice in the same weekend, I have been accused of being "indistinguishable" from the Delaware Republican Party. Once by a commenter on my post about the Ting-Protack debate I attended last week, and once by Dana Garrett, from whom the word indistinguishable was borrowed from. Well I am not paid or endorsed by the DEGOP. I have friends in the state organization, but given that Delaware's political scene can only be so big, I do not see this as a big deal, or even that amazing. I will also refer you to the disclaimer that appears at the bottom of every page on this blog:

"All Posts Reflect the Opinions of Jokers to the Right and no one else. Copyright 2004-2006. All Rights Reserved. Not Affiliated with College Republican National Committee or the Republican National Committee and corresponding state/regional organizations."

That disclaimer has been there for well over six months, and will continue to be there. Jokers to the Right will remain "fiercely independent," "fair and balanced," and any other marketing buzzwords you want to throw in there. I have never been compensated financially for any blogging I have done. That includes Delaware2006, which was formed by conservative bloggers in Delaware to be used as an aggregator for news and our opinions of the upcoming elections, providing an "open-source" alternative to the News-Journal and other news resources. To my knowledge none of us are under the employ of the DEGOP.

I have many issues with Mr. Protack, none of which revolve around the state party's attitude towards him. He is not a conservative, first and foremost, and he is a poor candidate. He has no chance of beating Carper, and would be a sad representative for Delaware in the Senate were he able to pull a Crazy Ivan and actually win both the primary and the general election. Even if Mr. Protack does manage to win the DEGOP nomination or the primary, I will not endorse or support him. There it is.

That's my statement.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:47 AM | Permalink | |

Let's try this again.

Last night I attended the New Castle County Committee Debate between Mike Protack and Jan Ting, who both wish to run as a Republican against the incumbent Carper. Rick Jensen, host of the afternoon block on WDEL, hosted the debate, adding a level of entertainment not normally seen in this kind of event.

Ting won the toss and went first with the opening statements. Mike Protack started out in an ominous fashion, trying to crack a joke 'from Washington' about the Pope and George Bush walking on water. A Pope joke? Really?

The issue of Ting's mild anti-Vietnam War past was not avoided. Protack warned that veterans, as a block would refuse to vote for Ting, calling them "pro-flag people." How many people are anti-flag? Ting suggested it was an insult to veterans to say that they were not independent thinkers and voters.

Protack also decimated his "conservative record" by calling for Universal Health Care, the details of which are on his website. One of the attendees remarked to me that Protack's website was "a website reminiscent of the 2004 Kerry campaign...a portal through which information lives, which the candidate does not know by memory."

Jan Ting won the straw poll with 39 votes to Protack's 15. Ting has won every debate.

When will Protack realize he is not a viable candidate and drop out?

Cross-posted at Delaware2006

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:39 PM | Permalink | |

My hero this week is bittersweet. It is the New Orleans Police Department, attempting to return the guns confiscated from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

NEW ORLEANS - Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, police this week began returning guns confiscated after Hurricane Katrina.

The police department is making the guns available three days a week. At the close of the second day Wednesday, police said only 17 of about 700 weapons had been returned.

Police and soldiers removed guns from houses after the storm flooded the city, and they confiscated guns from some evacuees.

The NRA and other groups sued the city, saying it took away people's means of protection amid the lawlessness that gripped New Orleans.

"Natural disasters may destroy great cities, but they do not destroy civil rights," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which joined the NRA in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was dropped after the city agreed to return the guns.

Some owners complained it was difficult to get them back. Gun owners must bring a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number. Police also are running criminal background checks on those claiming weapons.

Some gun owners found the weapons were evidence in a crime and not eligible for release. Others did not have the proper paperwork.

Percy Taplet, 73, said the National Guard and state police confiscated his shotgun when they arrived to tell him to leave his house. When he tried to get his gun back this week, police told him he would have to contact state police.

"I won't ever see that gun again, believe me," Taplet said. "It's gone like everything else in that storm."

Police Superintendent Warren Riley said police had legitimate reasons for confiscating weapons.

"We took guns that were stolen that were stashed in alleyways. If we went into an abandoned house and a gun was there, absolutely we took the weapons," he said. "Obviously there were looters out there. We didn't want some burglar or looter to have an opportunity to arm themselves."

Obviously, the NOPD did not want the citizens of New Orleans to be able to defend themselves from those armed looters.


A historical hack this week in President Abraham Lincoln. Just a solemn reminder that he was the first to institute a national income tax in the United States. Kind of fitting that his date of death, assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, is tax day.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:30 AM | Permalink | |

I had a post about the Ting/Protack debate I attended earlier this evening, but Blogger ate it. I am too frustrated to retype the whole thing. I will try to have it some sometime Friday.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:44 AM | Permalink | |

We have two new members in our ranks, and this public welcome by me is long overdue.

Frist, Anonymous Opinion is just that, though her opinions are well defined. She also holds the distinction of being the first female member of our little Alliance. She is definately a good conservative because he has even been known to find a way to avoid some unnecessary taxes:

A friend at work pointed out that because I don't have a landline but do have a cell phone I can save money by not paying taxes.

Ok, it's not as like I won't have to pay Federal or State Taxes, but why should I be taxed on a service I don't use?

Second is Anna Venger (an alias, I assume). She is a mother of two, and a Christian conservative. From the looks of it, she is very adept at covering things that most of the rest of the DCBA doesn't, which is conservative-minded pop culture. From Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, to a review of Anne Rice's Christ book, she's got it covered, not to mention her own take on politics!

Welcome aboard ladies! If there are any other conservative bloggers in DE who want to join, the only requirements are that you are from DE, conservative, and a blogger!

Cross posted at Delaware2006

UPDATE (3:51PM): Sorry AO...just an issue of anonymous bloggers...

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:35 PM | Permalink | |

I'll admit it, until a few moments ago, I thought that "the generals" were right. I thought Rumsfeld should resign. Now, I am not so sure. Glenn Reynolds posted one of his reader's e-mails:

The only thing that matters to me is that the generals--be they retired or active, Iraq veterans or not--claiming that more troops in Iraq would solve all the problems are dead wrong. Rumsfeld is right. More troops would have inflamed Islamic passions, created a disincentive among the Iraqi Security Forces to improve, cost the U.S. much more money, and--most importantly--cost us many more casualties.

Rumsfeld knew this, and he knew it by studying the last time a great western power fought a protracted Islamic insurgency, which was the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962).

The French had 500,000 troops in Algeria, which at that time had a population of 9 million. If you scale the troop-to-citizen ratio up to match Iraq's population, that would mean we'd need 1.5 million troops in Iraq. We currently have 138,000.

The French lost 18,000 troops killed over an eight-year period, or 2250 a year. Again, if you scale it up to Iraq ratios, it would be 6750 a year. We're losing about 700 a year, and that figure is falling.

Between 350,000 and 1.5 million Algerians were killed. To scale those figures up to Iraq, multiply them by three. So far in Iraq, about 32,000 have died, including terrorists.

The French used a policy of collective punishment in Algeria: If a village harbored insurgents, the village was bombed from the air or hit with artillery strikes. The French also tortured suspects to death, rounded people up by the thousands and shot them without trial, and put about 2 million in concentration camps. And they still lost the war.

With less than 10% of the troops (proportionally) that France had in Algeria, and with a policy not of conquest but of partnership, look what we've accomplished. More importantly, look at the slaughter we've avoided.

Something to thank Rumsfeld--not the generals--for.

The post linked above has a bunch of commentary, but that was one viewpoint I had not heard before. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:00 AM | Permalink | |

Details forthcoming. Could it be Tony Snow?

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:52 AM | Permalink | |

The Times (UK):

China and Russia last night thwarted a year-long diplomatic drive by Britain to impose United Nations sanctions on the perpetrators in of the violence in the Darfur province of Sudan.

The two powers, joined by Qatar, used their position on a UN sanctions committee to block the imposition of a UN travel ban and asset freeze on four unnamed Sudanese, including one government official, proposed by Britain.

The United States, which backed the British initiative, reacted angrily by threatening to call a public vote of the 15-nation Security Council that would force Russia and China into making a formal veto.

“This will be a test for the council to see if the sanctions procedure is going to work at all,” John Bolton, the US Ambassador, said.

The Security Council voted a year ago to impose sanctions on individuals responsible for the violence in Darfur, where Janjaweed Arab militia have made two million black villagers homeless since 2003.

The effort languished over fears that separate peace talks on Darfur would be affected.

Go Bolton!

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:38 PM | Permalink | |

Jeff the Baptist took this quiz, and as one who had serious doubts about the Catholic Chruch in the recent past, I found this to be interesting. Here are my results:

You scored as Roman Catholic. You are Roman Catholic. Church tradition and ecclesial authority are hugely important, and the most important part of worship for you is mass. As the Mother of God, Mary is important in your theology, and as the communion of saints includes the living and the dead, you can also ask the saints to intercede for you. Roman Catholic 75% Modern Liberal 61% Classical Liberal 57% Neo orthodox 57% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 54% Emergent/Postmodern 46% Charismatic/Pentecostal 29% Reformed Evangelical 21% Fundamentalist 14% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:05 PM | Permalink | |

I have updated my "Best of JttR" page. The link is located on the top of the sidebar (you should be able to see it here

<----------

if you are using Firefox, but if you have Internet Craptacular Explorer, it will appear at the bottom of the main content, due to a slight problem in the IE source code. I know what the problem is, and what should fix it, but eventually I would like to do a major overhaul of JttR. Time however, has different ideas. In anycase, if you haven't been reading JttR, or are just looking for some good stuff to read when you are bored, check it out.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:45 PM | Permalink | |

My heroes this week are South Park creators Matt Parker and Trey Stone, for having the gusto to ridicule their own network for censoring them depicting a cartooon of Muhammad:

Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Its executives would not comment further.

As is often the case with Parker and Stone, they built "South Park" around the incident. In Wednesday's episode, the character Kyle is shown trying to persuade a Fox network executive to air an uncensored "Family Guy" even though it had an image of Muhammad.

"Either it's all OK, or none of it is," Kyle said. "Do the right thing."

The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point where Muhammad is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network."

My hack this week is the state of New Jersey, which passed a public smoking ban that went into effect today. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, but I fear that once government has the power to regulate behavior it finds offensive (note: not immoral or damaging to society) it has the power to ban everything from 50 Cent CDs to Cheez-Its. Insanity.

Yes, I know that Delaware also has a smoking ban, and I find it equally egregious.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:18 AM | Permalink | |

Here is what they wrote:

Jokerstotheright.com
Description: Political commentary
Author Bio: Ryan Silberstein, a Philadelphian studying at the University of Delaware, according to the site’s profile.
Quote: “The Democrats are for three things: big government, big labor, and scoial [sic] ‘equality.’ Ignoring the hypocracy [sic] the last one has generated, the first two are tied together.”
Political leaning: Conservative
Comments: A few regular commentators
Language: Clean
Been around since: September 2004
Updated: Almost every day

Now I know my spelling isn't all it should be, but I think they could have picked a quote that was not only more representative of me, but also a little more flattering. That quote is from a post in early February, and makes it seem that my goal in this whole blog is to attack the Democrats, which I don't do on a regular basis. I tend to go after individual representatives of that party and sometimes the ideology, but I am not a GOP soundboard. The article on the whole seems shaky, especially as Colossus is described as "Conservative. 'ultra-conservative' even," which is pretty funny.

Hat tips to PolitaKid and McLefty

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:36 AM | Permalink | |

When did it become accepted practice that taxing people with higher income at a higher percentage is fair?

My family is not at all subject to it (possibly one member) but this does not seem "equitable" to me. Any theories on that?

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:47 PM | Permalink | |

Richard Lidzen, a professor of Atmopheric Science at MIT, writing on OpinionJounrnal, highlites some of this obivous idiocy:

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

This is insane! The scientific process has decended into politics. The Democrats want to run on science? Then get it right first! This is just another example of rational dissent being silenced by ideology.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:18 PM | Permalink | |

US Ambassador to the United Nations spoke at University of Delaware today as part of the Global Agenda Lecture Series. Video and podcast should be available on this page eventually. Here are my thoughts.

Bolton started out by calling the UN a "troubled institution," and that it has strayed far from the UN Charter of 1945, something that I have hinted at previously. He said that reform for the UN must take a pragmatic and not an ideological position, and must start from the Volker report on the Oil-For-Food Scandal. He said even worse than a culture of corruption is a culture of inaction. He said this is what the President and Secretary Rice wish to rectify.

The Ambassador then went on to discuss the three biggest challenges facing the Security Council. Number one on his list is Iran. Bolton dismissed Iran's claims that the nuclear program is purely peaceful, that is it for when their oil and national gas reserves will run out eventually by citing that these will be depleted...in 300-400 years. He also said Iran is akin to a central bank for Islamic terror, and that Iran funneling WMD material to terror groups was not an entirely unrealistic possibility.



He cited Security Council gridlock as one major obstacle to a peaceful resolution to this problem, and that "negotiations are not cost-free," pointing out that the former Iranian nuclear negotiator said that he had been 'fooling the Europeans for two years,' and that Iran was manipulating oil and natural gas prices to affect the behavior of other nations, such as China, Russia, and other Central Asian republics. He said that the resolution to this is all in the hands of Iran. He brought up the Libyan example, whose nuclear program now resides in Oakridge, Tennessee. Mr. Bolton stated that "there is plenty of room at Oakridge next to the Libyan program for Iran's."

The question of Syria/Lebanon was his second challenge, and mentioned how the UN and the US was putting pressure on the Syrian government to try to resolve the 15 assassinations of pro-Lebanese officials in the government of Lebanon. The Ambassador called for a "major shift in the nature of regimes in the Middle East," and declared that democracy was a great opportunity for the people of the Middle East.

Bolton's third names challenge was that of Darfur. He cited the obvious goal of stopping genocide and again cited obstruction on the Security Council on the part of some nations as an obstacle to acting clearly. Sudan, obviously, has lobbied to oppose any action, and any action of the Arab League is hindered, said Bolton, by their placement as the current chair of that organization. Bolton called for the shift of authority of the peacekeeping force from the African Union to the United Nations. He also wanted a resolution "that does not involve fighting the Sudanese government.

All three examples, Ambassador Bolton said, were the United States "attempting what critics of the Bush Administration have been telling them to do for five years." And obviously, those multilateral solutions are working (wouldn't that be nice?).



The first question was by a liberal student, who attempted to use Nuremberg and International Law to say that the Iraq War was a 'crime against peace.' Ralph Begleiter, the moderator of the lecture (who was surprisingly even-handed, not his usual biased self), attempted to keep order and reign in the disruptive student. Bolton answered the question, saying that the US acted justly under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Other questions involved India and nuclear material, which Bolton rightly answered was due to the world of difference between the nature of the Iranian and Indian regimes. The Ambassador also noted that the US should not have turned away from nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s. Sadly, I was not able to ask about gun rights as the next international human rights.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:38 PM | Permalink | |

Mark Steyn contrasts what is actually happening with immigration:

Here's another place where family values stops: The rubble of the World Trade Center. Deena Gilbey is a British subject whose late husband worked on the 84th floor: On the morning of Sept. 11, instead of fleeing, he returned to the building to help evacuate his co-workers. A few days later, Mrs. Gilbey receives a letter from the INS noting that as she's now widowed her immigration status has changed and she's obliged to leave the country along with her two children (both U.S. citizens). Think about that: Having legally admitted to the country the terrorists who killed her husband, the U.S. government's first act on having facilitated his murder is to add insult to grievous injury by serving his widow with a deportation order. Why should illegal Mexicans be the unique beneficiaries of a sentimental blather about "family values" to which U.S. immigration is otherwise notoriously antipathetic?

and:

Meanwhile, U.S. immigration is cracking down on classical violinists. Don't ask me why. Presumably, Brahms' violin concerto falls into the ever dwindling category of jobs Americans will do. At any rate, the Halle Orchestra of Manchester, one of England's great orchestras, has just canceled its 2007 concerts at Lincoln Center. Why? Because all 80 musicians plus the 20 support staff are required -- under new "homeland security" regulations -- to be interviewed personally at the U.S. Embassy in London before each visa can be issued. They can't go en masse on the tour bus: They have to make individual appointments stretched out over several weeks. And they can't go to the local U.S. consulate in Manchester because -- and this detail is worth savoring five years after 9/11 -- the consulate's computers cannot handle the biometric data. The orchestra worked out that in train fares and accommodation it would cost about $80,000 to get the visas and decided it would rather cancel the tour. The good news is that Lincoln Center subscribers don't have to worry about the tuba player having plastic explosives packed down there. The bad news is, if a rogue tuba player ever breaks through the system, Homeland Security won't be able to e-mail his data back to the U.S. consulate in Manchester for a background check.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:58 AM | Permalink | |

I am eagerly awating the release of United 93 (April 28), the first major movie to tell the story of 9-11. When I first heard of it and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center (August), I was worried about how these movies were going to be made, and how the directors would portray the people and events of recent history. However, after watching the trailer (link), I think I am ready to see this movie. From all inidications, the director is making this movie to serve as a reminder of 9-11, and I think that is an admirable goal. TIME has a pretty good article on the movie:

Many people will certainly feel they're not ready to see the film. And that's fine. But it's honorable and artful as a re-creation of history, and as a film experience it's both unbearable and unmissable.

"Movies need to address the way the world is," Greengrass says. "We have to tell stories about 9/11." He also notes, "The victims' families want this film made. Every single one of them." (Universal, the studio producing the film, is donating 10% of the first weekend's box-office gross to the Flight 93 National Memorial Fund.) Hamilton Peterson, whose father and stepmother died on the flight and who serves as chairman of Families of Flight 93, sees two reasons America needs this film. "One, we're proud of what these Americans did," he says. "These are ordinary citizens who in a matter of minutes overcame what very evil and capable people had planned for years. The passengers took action without police or official support. They knew right from wrong, and they acted on it. Out of the dark of 9/11 came these heroes. And two, it is an example that future world citizens can learn from. If you remember Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, he tried to engage a very dangerous bomb and was thwarted by the bravery of the passengers and crew. Flight 93 served as a beacon for them. I don't think you can reaffirm that message too often or too much."

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:22 PM | Permalink | |

This is an all-porkbusters hero/hack, as last week focused on immigration.


Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL) are my heroes this week. Both in their first term, have introduced a "show us the money" bill in the Senate, called The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590).

The federal government awards roughly $300 billion in grants annually to 30,000 different organizations across the United States, according to the General Services Administration. This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities receiving federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount of federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the location of the entity. All federal assistance must be posted within 30 days of such funding being awarded to an organization.

“This public database will provide transparency to federal spending and will provide an important weapon taxpayers can use to hold the government accountable. The database also would help to reduce fraud, abuse and misallocation of federal funds by requiring greater accounting of federal expenditures,” Dr. Coburn said. “Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their hard-earned tax dollars."

“At the very least, taxpayers deserve to know where their money is being spent,” Senator Obama said. “This common-sense legislation would shine a bright light on all federal spending to help prevent tax dollars from being wasted. If government spending can’t withstand public scrutiny, then the money shouldn’t be spent.”

My hack this week is Senator Trent Lott (R-MI). Direct quote:

"I'll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina. We in Mississippi have not asked for more than we deserve. We've been very reasonable."

He's getting tired of hearing from the taxpayers. How sad. This sums it up:

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:45 PM | Permalink | |

So I am happy that the "compromise" from yesterday is stalled, but the reasons why are ludicrious, and really just show why the Republicans in the Senate need to grow a spine. Does Santorum want my vote in 2006 (I am a PA resident)? Does Frist want it in 2008? Then get behind the House plan.
The AP story actually hits some really good points, but they bury it at the tail-end of the story:

The House has passed legislation limited to border security, but Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and other leaders have signaled their willingness in recent days to broaden the bill in compromise talks with the Senate.

But Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., said anything with what he called amnesty would not get agreement from a majority in the House.

The immigration debate has given the American public a glimpse of what may lay ahead in 2008 GOP presidential politics.

Frist, R-Tenn., a potential presidential candidate in 2008, sought to establish more conservative credentials when he initially backed a bill limited to border security. At the same time, he has repeatedly called for a comprehensive bill _ adopting Bush's rhetoric _ and involved himself in the fitful negotiations over the past several days.

There is no point passing any bill that does not focus on border security. That is the most pressing issue, and the one that should be resiolved most quickly. In the words of Jan Ting, andf I am going to paraphrase here: Any immigration bill calling itself "comprehensive" is bound to fall far short of the mark.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:55 AM | Permalink | |

The Senate, in a move hailed as bipartisanship, approved a bill that seems similar to the Crappy Immigration Plan (CIP) today. Exact details are on the bill still forthcoming, but I don't like what I've hard so far. Also, John "Gang of 14" McCain supports it, which seems like a decent indicator of where I should stand. Smells like amnesty to me. And no mention so far of the desperately needed BFW (Big Frickin' Wall).

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:50 PM | Permalink | |

She says so:

Speaking to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, she claimed her work on behalf of New York constituents would run afoul of the House bill setting penalties for anyone who knowingly assists or encourages illegal immigrants to remain here.

"I realize I would be a criminal, too. My staff would be criminal. We help people with all kinds of problems," said Clinton, D-N.Y., prompting titters in the audience. [Emphasis Added]

Let's do it. Let's ciminalize her like a hooker hiding cocaine inside a concealed, unregistered handgun.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:48 PM | Permalink | |

While history will truely judge the Bush presidency, and the future of Iraq is still clouded by violence and uncertain government, one legacy of Bush that can be determined is the failure of neoconservativism.

Neoconservatives, for liberals, libertarians, and paleocons, who may throw the word around without quite grasping it, just because they all find the whole concept to be scary, are basically hawkish liberals. Bush happens to come from the Christian vein. A tenet of neoconservatism is the liberal theory of democracy, which states that free trade and democracy provide a stable basis for peace. This has been held true by history enough that neocons feel that bringing democracy to the shadows of tyranny, by force if necessary, is of the utmost importance. This is why neoconservatism came into prominence after the Cold War- liberals saw a chance to, like Woodrow Wilson, the misguided idealist of World War I, to "make the world safe for democracy."

The second event that propelled neoconservatism into the mainstream, and revealed the ideology of Dubya was 9-11 (no, it really wasn't the founding of The Weekly Standard). When America was attacked on 9-11, the neocons, the "compassionate conservatives" showed the world they had the answer. The country was open to the idea of foreign wars, and thus the rest of Bush's presidency has been captured by this.

Neocons, being liberals, are open to social programs, and spending way to much money, especially, in the Christian-vein case, those faith-based initiatives. This is a tenet of neoconservatism I have never agreed with, though I admit I was a neocon until December or January of 2004-5. The election of Bush in 2000, and then the rallying of support behind him in 2001 after 9-11 indicated that Bush had a mandate to follow neocon beliefs. This led to the subsequent invasion of Iraq, which I supported, and still support, because screwing up Iraq by leaving too soon would be worse than never having invaded at all.

A lot has changed since 9-11, and not all in the way I would have hoped. A spirit of unity and patriotism unheard of in recent history flared up, but soon enough petty partisanship returned. The events on 9-11 challenged Bush and the Republican Congress. The Department of Homeland Security has been slow to act, and isn't where is should be, non-terror legislation has been inserted into USA PATRIOT, and FEMA was outperformed by Wal-Mart in New Orleans. Support for Iraq is at a low now, and unless things begin to visibly stabilize, the American people will not get behind it again.

This all indicates that the legacy of George W. Bush may turn out to be the failure of neoconservatism to gain popular support and to remain as a mainstream political view. Besides Bush and Cheney, the only other high profile neocons I see in public office right now are Sens. Bill Frist and Joe Lieberman. For better or for worse, it seems that the American people cannot stomach a years-long conflict, at least when it seems we have already "won," with the end of "combat operations." In reality, the invasion was a rousing success, but the occupation has been the failure. This combined with a debt ceiling of $9 trillion, has angered liberals and conservatives alike, though both dislike neoconservatism for different reasons. It seems that makes neoconservatism juxtaposed with libertarianism, and that may be true, though hawkish libertarians like Glenn Reynolds support the president and Iraq.

The fall of neoconservatism has been pushed along not just by budget hawks, but by the immigration debate as well. The illegal immigration "question" has ripped this seam in the GOP coalition wide open. The 1980-2000 coalition was mostly middle-class Americans, libertarians, small business owners, and big business, as well as social conservatives. The Bush coalition was founded on neocons and the Christian Coalition, and retained most of the Reagan-Gingrich GOP. Ken Mehlman understands that the Hispanic vote is the new battleground for "painting the map red," and this wrongly-aimed pandering does not strengthen the coaltion, but widens the fissures that already exist. Bush has floundered in his second term, with Social Security Reform, Katrina aftermath, the cartoon-ports debacle, and now immigration showing the administration at its worst. Bush is shaping up to have not a disasterous legacy by any means, but his philosophy is failing him.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:29 AM | Permalink | |

I seriously think either McCain or Tancredo could go third party, and split the GOP vote enough to cause a Democrat to slide in.
More here and here.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:58 PM | Permalink | |

Back from spring break, which I spent relaxing at home with family and canines. I saw this story in The Philadelphia Inquirer this morning, and thought it was a himourous illustration of wasting taxpayer money:

State Rep. Mark Cohen left the Barnes & Noble near Harrisburg in March 2004 loaded down with 15 new titles, including Clinton and Me, a book by the former president's joke writer.

The bill: $303.

For him, money wasn't an object. He wasn't paying. You were.

Over the last two years, the state has reimbursed the veteran legislator $28,200 on bookstore spending sprees, a review of expense records shows. He spent $1,118 in September alone, making nine trips to bookstores.

This has allowed the Philadelphia Democrat to expand his personal library by more than 800 titles.

That's more than one book a day for the legislator who describes himself as "a voracious reader."

How voracious?

Here's the kicker!

Cohen's book bill for 2004 and 2005 is more than what the Philadelphia School District spent to stock library shelves at the two high schools and two middle schools in his legislative district. The four schools, which have a combined enrollment of 5,000 students, spent $21,600 on books and periodicals in that two-year period, officials said. [Emphasis Added]

Supposedly, this makes him a "better legislator." Sheesh.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:23 PM | Permalink | |