Paul Smith, Jr. has a great post on the conservative message in one of my favorite movies, Ghostbusters:

Meanwhile, the only people able to solve the problem and save the world are the privately operating Ghostbusters. In their University days, before results were expected of them, they were ne'er-do-wells and accomplishing little. Once forced by circumstance on their own, they become celebrities, presumably wealthy, expanding their business and hiring new people.

Let's hear it for the free market!

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:19 PM | Permalink | |

Philadelphia landmark Geno's Steaks (I prefer Jim's to both Geno's and Pat's for both better steaks and less tourists) declared English the official language for its steak shop. This is pretty cool, and kind of funny:

[Owner Joseph] Vento, who lives in Shamong, put up the signs when the
immigration debate seized national headlines six months ago.

With Geno's Steaks tattooed on his arm, Vento is used to publicizing things, especially what's on his mind. Speak English signs also poster his Hummer. He has driven through South Philadelphia blaring through the SUV's P.A. system denunciations of neighborhood business owners who hire illegal immigrants.

"I say what everybody's thinking but is afraid to say," Vento said.

While David Weigel doubts that "wiz wit'" (how I order) is an accurate test of English skills, I think this demonstrates that some business owners will not hire illegals, even though they could, and employ Americans.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:16 PM | Permalink | |

The Send-a-Brick campaign may be working:

One letter, which was wrapped around a brick and mailed to the senator, says: "I can't take a day off from work to go stand in the street and protest all day long like an illegal immigrant. But I did have time to send you this brick so that you could get started building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico."

The writer, whose name was redacted by Allard's staff, warned that he would oppose any politicians who vote to give "amnesty" to illegal immigrants.

It was signed, "Mad as hell."

Awesome.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:52 PM | Permalink | |

Jonathan Alter writes in Newsweek that all successful leaders in America, from the Founders on, have relied on the mastery of earned media, and in 2008, the Internet could make the difference for a presidential campaign, calling it "the rise of open-source politics."

No one knows exactly where technology is taking politics, but we're beginning to see some clues. For starters, the longtime stranglehold of media consultants may be over. In 2004, Errol Morris, the director of "The Thin Blue Line" and "The Fog of War," on his own initiative made several brilliant anti-Bush ads (they featured lifelong Republicans explaining why they were voting for Kerry). Not only did Kerry not air the ads, he told me recently he never even knew they existed. In 2008, any presidential candidate with half a brain will let a thousand ad ideas bloom (or stream) online and televise only those that are popular downloads. Deferring to "the wisdom of crowds" will be cheaper and more effective.

Alter goes on to talk about a centrist group with a weird plan to nominate a third-party candidate. That could be interesting, but centrist candidates seem weak to me, as what kind of convictions does a moderate have?

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:59 PM | Permalink | |

Well I am now temporarily blogging from Arlington, Virginia for my internship, and will be for the remainder of the summer. Sometimes I wonder about the decision to put the nation's capital (and thus many things political) in a swamp. OK, time to get back to work.

In the meantime, check out the DCBA News Feed!

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:21 AM | Permalink | |

This whole global warming thing is one of my pet peeves, and I try to post on it when I can. See this post, which is probably my best on the subject thus far. If The Day After Tomorrow wasn't bad enough already, Al "I invented the Internet" Gore has a "documentary" coming out. It is titled An Inconvenient Truth, which I find a highly ironic title for a film which the people profiting off it are propogating a lie as fact (and no, that was not intended as a cheap shot at The Da Vinci Code, which I did see, and would asses the book as better).

Anyway, An Inconvenient Truth even has its own blog, which is kind of funny. But I would like to set the record straight with some truths about the film. First, Dr. Roy Spencer had a TCS Daily column up yesterday with some "Questions for Al Gore," after seeing the film. He poses eight questions, and here's number one:

"Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?"

You can read the other eight here. Also, on Thursday, Patrick Michaels, "senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown" (I have to dig out my copy) had a column in the Washington Times about the movie. He has a pretty damning quote from Gore himself:

So here's what Al told Grist Magazine about global warming: "I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

Michaels also hits the nail on the head with why "global warming" has cropped up:

"Then issues compete for public attention (i.e. funding). Presenting them in as important a light as possible is required by such competition. And without funding, there's no research, which means, for most scientists, a new job.
That's "The Inconvenient Truth" about global warming. Prominent scientists feel it's perfectly fine to exaggerate, and so does the former vice president."

I did some poking around in the campus library and found this jewel:

It is from 1976, and is out of print, not surprisingly. Now the science of this book may be questionable, but the author, Lowell Ponte, says in his foreward (page xvi), "It is acold fact: the global cooling presents humandkind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenege we have had to deal with for ten thousand years" (emphasis his). Interesting.

I have done some reading on climate change, and am maintaing a Listmania! list at Amazon.com to keep track of it.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:38 PM | Permalink | |

I corrected and amended last week's Hero/Hack.

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

Exam week has been kind of rough, and my toughest exam next to Arabic is tomorrow morning, after another Econ exam. I am also in the process of moving out, and will be moving into my summer residence on Monday. I have a post on global warming and Al Gore in the works, and I very much doubt hero/hack will make an appearance. But you never know.

I will do my best to blog the summer, but we'll see if life decides to interceed.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:02 PM | Permalink | |

Tony Blankley, writing at The Washington Times, has "A modest proposal" that suggests Vicente Fox and Al Gore run as a team for president and VP, to lead Americans north into Canada and adjust to global warming. But what about the French Canadians you ask? Blankley has a simple solution:

It's true there are some pesky French up there. But Americans know how to deal with bothersome local tribes who don't know their place. We'll put the French on reservations and let them run gambling casinos. After all didn't the French invent the croupier. Think of policeman Louis Renault in Casablanca only pretending to be shocked at the fact of gambling going on at Rick's Place.

And:

Meanwhile, with global warming Hudson's Bay will become our new Chesapeake Bay -- except immensely larger. We will set up 500 miles of oyster beds and corner the world crab market. The Canadians have just really done nothing with the world's largest bay (You know, its almost as big as the Gulf of Mexico.)

I loves me some political satire!

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:43 AM | Permalink | |

Peter Wehner debunks some revisionist history over at the WSJ:

Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them.

You really should read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:38 PM | Permalink | |

I went into Philadelphia today (my hometown), shopping for clothes for my internship. Got a really nice jacket, and then walked around the historical sites. I really like the way this picture turned out.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:28 PM | Permalink | |

Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and Salazar (D-CO) are my heroes this week, for spearheading a movement to make English the official language of the United States:

s part of the ongoing debate on immigration reform, the Senate on Thursday voted on two amendments to make English the "national language," as well as set a "common and unifying language." The first definition was pushed by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the second by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the goal of President Bush's immigration-reform plan is to make sure that at the end of the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, people have command of English. Snow pointed out that statistics show that people who learn the language do better at work, and have a better chance at "the American dream."

"What the president has said all along is that he wants to make sure that people who become American citizens have a command of the English language," Snow told reporters. "It's as simple as that."

The above image may now apply to Jews and Christians and Iran, not just Jews from Nazi Germany. This makes Iran's government very much deserving of the "hack" distinction this week. Canada has more:

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

UPDATE 5/26/2006 1:15PM:
Apparently, Canada jumped the gun on this story (like ABC and Hastert?), and I was too busy to notice this week due to exams. In the mean time, as others defend Iran, the nation whose leader is a holocaust denier, and others accuse Bush of starting this story (see the Anonymous commenter at 9:30AM), I'll give some space to the courage of real dissent, the Iranian university students. They burned down their own dorms to protest the government's policies. That's hardcore. All the "dissent"-ers do here is wave flags and shout Bush's name framed by explitaves.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:35 PM | Permalink | |

From "Definitions of Rascism" on the Seattle Public Schools website:

Cultural Racism:
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers. [Emphasis Added]

I would argue (and have) that collectivism only leads to more rascism, not less. Not to mention that this policy itself is rascist against whites.

h/t: Volokh, by way of Hit & Run

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:52 AM | Permalink | |

Mexico may be decending into communism:

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Illegal immigration to the United States is "Mexico's disgrace," caused by the government's failure to create enough jobs, the country's leftist presidential candidate said on Tuesday.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who trails conservative Felipe Calderon in polls ahead of July 2 elections, accused President Vicente Fox's administration of causing the flight of millions of Mexicans to the north, which prompted President Bush to order National Guard troops to the border.

Calderon has accused Obrador as being "in the same mold" as Hugo Chavez. I dug up a Free Republic Article from last month that says there is a connection between the two:

For the past five years, Chavez has sent money and agents to Mexico to finance and infiltrate local political groups on the left, according to a Mexican news daily The goal is ideological -- pro-Chavez operatives want to dominate the increasingly powerful left wing in Mexico.

- - -

Obrador claims not to have any affiliations beyond Mexico's historical political traditions, but his supporters include militant socialists who openly support the communist rebels in Colombia, a conflict which has taken tens of thousands of lives. Many others have developed a loyalty to Chavez and his particular brand of Marxism.

Chavez has borrowed from Lenin, Mao, and Fidel Castro of Cuba, among others, to develop "bolivarian" socialism, what is termed "21st century socialism," which, so far, looks very similar to other Marxist schemes. The term "bolivarian" comes from the name of the great South American liberator, Simon Bolivar, who defeated Spanish colonial forces in the early 19th century.

As Glenn Reynolds points out, the silver lining to this is that a communist Mexico would put the wall on the border themselves!

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:07 PM | Permalink | |

I think I am with Captain Ed on this one:

My initial reaction? President Bush tried reaching for the center -- a position he has occupied on this issue all along. He tried a one-from-column-A, two-from-column-B approach that probably will leave all sides more or less dissatisfied. His declaration that catch-and-release would end was the most welcome news in the entire speech. He delivered that well and sounded forceful and presidential, but most people will wonder why this practice didn't end on September 12, 2001. His tone remained measured and firm and he insisted that Congress pass a comprehensive plan that includes both tight security and normalization.

This could be a decent start, but if this is the maximum Bush is willing to give on border security, it is a serious disappointment. We can't have the border patrol there permanently. A fence, a true Gulf-to-Pacific fence would be much more effective, not to mention cheaper in the long term. Color me disappointed.

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

Jerry Taylor, writing at Cato@Liberty, thinks that the new Congressional resolution on emissions caps is an empty one, and that this reveals something about the movement:

If the Greens really think that global warming is serious, they are demonstrating both political and intellectual cowardice by backing pablum like this. All this resolution would accomplish is to allow politicians to claim environmental virtue from empty political gestures.

So why would the enviros provide an easy out for politicians who want to appear Green but not do anything real to advance the Green agenda? Because it’s the best the enviros can do right now. That speaks volumes. This is a resolution that advertises Green political weakness, not Green political strength.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:51 PM | Permalink | |

I just got back from seeing United 93 with a contingent of the Delaware Conservative Blogger Alliance (DCBA). In attendance were Hube (and spouse), Paul Smith, Jr., Mark Levin Fan (and spouse), Miss AO, and Anna Venger. Delaware2006 will have a roundup of reactions to the movie. Yes, it is after 2AM, but I wanted to do this while the film was as fresh as possible in my mind.

First, I was not sure I was "ready" to see this movie, but I nonetheless thought that it was important to see. As it turns out, I doubt I will be ever be "ready." The day of September 11, 2001 will most likely be forever imprinted upon my consciousness in the same way my parents remember when JFK was assassinated. United 93 incorporates CNN footage into the movie, as those not on the plane see the events unfold before them. It may have been the first time since that day that I watched the second plane streak across the sky and hit the World Trade Center. I remember exactly where I was, and the realization I felt that we were under attack. I do not believe it was "too early" to revisit that experience.

United 93 provoked a visceral reaction that I have never felt while watching a film before. Sure, I may get a little choked up when I watch Field of Dreams, but this was far and beyond the definition of gut-wrenching. This was even beyond what I felt when I saw The Passion of the Christ. I do not say this to demean Mel Gibson's movie or the Passion itself, but United 93 certainly hits closer to home.

The movie starts out with a very "everyday" feel. For most people, it was going to be just another day at work. However the plot unfolds in a way that is now crystal clear to those of us who remember watching the events unfold, but is completely baffling to the people experiencing these events for the first times. Many of the air-traffic controllers and NORAD peoeple appeared as themselves, reliving a role that they once played for real.

As the movie builds towards its climax, it is readily apparent that these are real people caught in ths extraordinary situation. They have no coheasive plan of action. None have military training. Yet they act in a heroic way. One of the passangers, a German-speaking European, attempts to reason that this is just a hijacking for extortion, and the plane will land somewhere safe. Through the use of the plane phones and cellular phones, the passengers discover that the Rules of Engagement have changed, and that "this is a suicide mission." With this, they deicide to retake the plane. United 93 crashed as a result of their action, saving countless innocent lives.

Thoughout these events, I kept asking myself, "What would I do in that situation?" I can only hope that I would have the courage to do what those brave people did. In the Global War on Terror, it was civlians who were first attacked by the forces of evil, Islamofascists, and it was American civilians that made the first anti-terror strike, at the sacrifice of their own lives. The passengers of United 93 deserve their place in American history next to Paul Revere, Jimmy Doolittle, and others. George Will believes it is everyone's civic duty to see this movie. I am inclined to agree.

If it were up to me, United 93 would get Best Picture at every award show this year. Delaware2006 will have a link to all DCBA reviews as they get posted.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:02 AM | Permalink | |

“You know, lots of senators want to be president. That’s part of the problem. I do think it’s a very tough job to be a majority leader and try to run for president at the same time. What is best for a run at president may not be best for majority leader position.”
-Senator Tom Coburn

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:56 PM | Permalink | |

My hero this week is Egyptian blogger and free speech activist Alaa Abd El-Fatah was arrested by the Egyptian government last Saturday. It is horrible that someone who has been working for peaceful change in the Middle East has been detained by the Egyptian government. Please sign this petition to help free Alaa. Yesterday, he managed to get some word out from prison by passing ia handwritten note to someone so they could post it to a blog (link).

Freeman Hunt: "Protesters in the US need to look at these protesters in Egypt. This is bravery. This is 'patriotic dissent.'"

This isn't the only thing happening in Egypt this week. They get the hack designation. The Mubarak regime, that is.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:42 PM | Permalink | |

Delathought wrote a very well-crafted endorsement and why Brian Moore is the right candidate for the 20th Rep District. Here it is.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:10 PM | Permalink | |

Helle Dale has an Op-Ed in my favorite newspaper, The Washington Times, that takes a slightly different view of the Iranian letter:

For instance, the Middle East is one of the regions of the world with the highest proportion of Internet users, with one computer per 18 persons, compared to a worldwide average of 78 persons per computer. Here we have a fertile field in which to mine innovative approaches to Iranians. Despite efforts by Iran to control Internet access, the phenomenon of blogging has exploded exponentially in recent years. This is one area where U.S. public diplomacy may have promising contributions to make.
The problem on our side is that we do not have in this area a particularly well thought out governmentwide strategy as to how to change public opinion in the Middle East. This is one of the points made in the newly released report by the General Accounting Office, "State Department Efforts to Engage Muslim Audiences Lack Certain Communication Elements and Face Significant Challenges." At the very least, a strategy that focused on reaching the Iranian public should be concomitant with our efforts at diplomacy through the United Nations, possible sanctions and contingency military planning.
Who knows? They may even listen if we get the message right.

We really need a democratic Iran.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:45 PM | Permalink | |

Sweet. BBC:

Under an accord between the countries' space agencies, India's first unmanned lunar mission will carry two scientific payloads from the US agency, Nasa.

Indian officials called the deal a "milestone". The Indian spacecraft is due to be launched in early 2008.

The Nasa instruments will scan the Moon's surface for minerals and ice. Devices from the European Space Agency and Bulgaria will also be on board.

Today is an important milestone in the co-operation between Nasa and Isro Isro Chairman Madhavan Nair

The deal is being seen as another sign of increasingly close ties between Washington and Delhi after years of Cold War suspicion.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:34 PM | Permalink | |

CENTCOM has released the translation of captured al Qaeda documents that focus on the state of the insurgency. The al Qaeda writer:

At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad.

Captian's Quarters has a much more detialed analysis than I could provide.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:06 PM | Permalink | |

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:20 PM | Permalink | |

We should also ease global oil supplies by helping other nations to use technology to “reduce their own demand for crude and gasoline.” [The Iranian fanatics claiming they need nuclear power plants will be pleased with that concept.] Meanwhile, the President wants you to know we have enough domestic coal to last 250 years. Unfortunately, despite $1.6b in federal funding, we’re still don’t have the technology to burn coal “in environmentally friendly ways.” As for America’s vast gas reserves, “we need to increase environmentally-responsible production of natural gas from our federal lands.” And then the big one: nuclear power. “It’s time for America to start building again.” Good luck with THAT one.

In fact, the nuclear power plant debate-- or lack thereof-- encapsulates all that’s wrong with America’s energy policy: we don’t have one. As long as environmentalists set the political agenda, as long as our oil companies go along to get along, America’s push for energy independence is doomed. President Bush’s finale about leaving our children a “cleaner, a healthier and a more secure America” reveals the extent to which our future has been hijacked by environmental politicial correctness. The truth is, unless we detach ourselves from imported oil first and fast, all those clean, healthy Americans and their life-sustaining economy will continue to be at the mercy of foreign despots.

If you disagree with Bush on energy, in any way, read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:13 PM | Permalink | |

Counterterrorism Blog:

Osama bin Laden is correct when he states "success in Baghdad will be success for the US, failure in Iraq the failure of the US." It is imperative for the United States to make Iraq an Iraqi fight, and continue to encourage the political process while building up the capabilities of the security forces. The Iraqis are increasingly hunting and fighting al-Qaeda, as the terrorist tactics and Taliban rule of law are seen as foreign influences designed to tear the Iraqi nation apart. Insurgent groups in Anbar province, no friends of the Americans, have formed the Anbar Revenge Brigade to rid al-Qaeda from the region. This is but the latest development of "red-on-red" fighting between the insurgency and al-Qaeda.

The Iraqi Muslims' willingness to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq is an ideological dimension of the war that is virtually being ignored. al-Qaeda, however, recognizes how a stable Iraq threatens the plan to establish a regional and ultimately global Islamist caliphate. Note how bin Laden fears the establishment of democratic institutions, media outlets and U.S. basing in the region. For these reasons, bin Laden calls Iraq the "epicentre of these wars" and Zawahiri calls it "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:55 PM | Permalink | |

John MacIntyre from RealClear Politics:

It's likely some individual state results in 2006 will have an impact on laying out the electoral battlefield in 2008, but the biggest impact will be whether or not the Democrats can recapture the House. While it may not be the best thing for the Bush administration, a Democratic takeover of the House would likely be a huge assist to the overall Republican campaign in 2008. It would deprive Democrats of the very powerful campaign message that after eight years of near total GOP control it was time for a change. It would also put Speaker Pelosi and committee Chairmen like Rangel, Waxman and Conyers front and center for public view. More than anything else in 2006, a Democratic take over of the House would change the dynamic of the 2008 race and, ironically, would probably be good news for Republicans.

All in all, I don't think the Dems have a chance at the House.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:04 PM | Permalink | |

The US released a video akin to a 'blooper reel' of Zarqawi fumbling with a gun. I thought it would make a funny Vonage commercial (a byproduct of my Arabic homework earlier). I posted it to YouTube. Enjoy:

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:50 PM | Permalink | |

The 9-11 family members who stood defiant against Moussauoi at this trial this week are heroes. Confronting an evil madman cannot be easy, especially when that person contributed to the deaths of 3,000 loved ones.

Lisa Dolan, who lost her husband, Bob, in the attack on the Pentagon, was one of three family members of victims allowed to speak at the brief sentencing hearing. She turned to Moussaoui and said, "There is still one final judgment day."

Moussaoui sat in his chair staring at Dolan and the other family witnesses, Rosemary Dillard and Abraham Scott, betraying no emotion as they spoke.

Wow, Mexico just wants to piss us off. First they send 12 million of their own to invade our country, and now they want to allow drug users to roam free:

On Tuesday, Fox's spokesman had called the bill "an advance" and pledged the president would sign it. But the measure, passed Friday by Congress, drew a storm of criticism because it eliminates criminal penalties possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamines and PCP, as well as marijuana and cocaine.

Earlier in the day, the U.S. government expressed a rare public objection to an internal Mexican political development, saying anyone caught with illegal drugs in Mexico should be prosecuted or given mandatory drug treatment.

"U.S. officials ... urged Mexican representatives to review the legislation urgently, to avoid the perception that drug use would be tolerated in Mexico, and to prevent drug tourism," U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Judith Bryan said.

Vicente Fox has sent the bill back to his Congress, but even so, this is pretty much insane. If they want drugs that bad, go to Holland.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:03 AM | Permalink | |

Here is the hilarious music video from the single "Illegal Alien" off their eponymous 1983 release:

Lyrics here.
This verse seems to ring true:

"Consideration for your fellow man
Would not hurt anybody, it sure fits in with my plan
Over the border, there lies the promised land
Where everything comes easy, you just hold out your hand"

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:54 PM | Permalink | |

As I have alluded to before, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), is my favorite Senator currently in office. Today, on the floor of the Senate, he once again demonstrated why I like him so much:

Mr. President, I believe that in this time of war and disaster recovery the American people expect us to make hard choices about spending. Taxpayers want us to be serving in a spirit of service and sacrifice, not searching for new ways to raid the public treasury.

Congress is raiding the treasury in two ways with this bill. First, many of the items in this bill should be considered in the regular appropriations process and through the regular order. The War on Terror is no longer a surprise. We're entering our fifth year of this war. It shouldn't come as a surprise to Congress that we have needs related to this effort. We've also developed a good understanding about many of the priorities in the Gulf Coast that could have been addressed in the regular budget process.

Congress has also added billions of dollars for items that have no connection to the War on Terror and the Gulf Coast recovery. Again, few of these items are true emergencies. The American people deserve to understand what defines a true emergency. According to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 all of the following five criteria must be met to be considered an emergency:

o Necessary, essential, or vital;

o Sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time;

o An urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action;

o Unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and

o Not permanent, temporary in nature.

Designating a project as an "emergency" excuses Congress from paying for a project. The result of abusing the "emergency" designation is an even greater emergency. Our nation's debt is nearly $8.4 trillion. Each American's share of this debt is $27,964.86. Our national debt is increasing by an average of $1.95 billion per day. Social Security, Medicare and the standard of living of future generations of Americans are in jeopardy as a result of decades of fiscal irresponsibility and rationalizations for spending more money today without considering the consequences tomorrow.

This really sums the spending issue nicely:

Families across this country are faced with hard choices every day in order to live within their budget. They have elected us to make hard choices. Our refusal to do this only reinforces the perception that we are disconnected from the priority-setting reality that governs the rest of the country.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:18 PM | Permalink | |

If Bush went on TV tonight and said that we were going to take over Venezuela, Mexico, and Iran, purely for their oil, and promised lower gas prices, he would probably begin tomorrow morning with approval ratings in the high 70s. Would the US have the "moral authority" to do so? Glenn Reynolds suggests yes. (This is besides that it might not have the desrired effect wouldn't allow production to be increased and prices to fall, unless we subsidized or taxed other oil somehow, nor could we pull this off militarily.) This builds off the Friedman article I highlighted yesterday. Glenn:

Of course, if we seized the Saudi and Iranian oil fields and ran the pumps full speed, oil prices would plummet, dictators would be broke, and poor nations would benefit from cheap energy. But we'd be called imperialist oppressors, then.

UPDATE: Various people (with various degrees of enthusiasm) see the above as a call for invasion. It was, rather, a comment on the vacuity of the "imperialist oppressors" language. Though I was probably wrong there anyway: If we really were imperialist oppressors, the critics would be sucking up.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ah, I see that Scott Adams has engaged in a similar thought experiment. His closing line rings true.

But just to troll a bit more, I do think that seizing Saudi and Iranian oil would be entirely morally justifiable on terms usually approved of by the left: They didn't earn it, they inherited it (it's like the Estate Tax writ large!). They're extracting huge profits for fatcats at the expense of the poor. They're racist, sexist, homophobic theocrats! (Literally!) Surely if it's ever permissible to redistibute wealth by force, this is the case. Right?

Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias offers a practical objection: That there isn't enough surplus capacity in Saudi Arabia and Iran to make a difference. That's possible, but hardly undercuts the point. He also quotes Tim Lambert, who invokes Iraq -- but Lambert assumes, wrongly as usual, that Iraq was a war for oil. Had we wanted oil, we could have simply ended sanctions against Saddam, who after years of being limited to what he could launder through corrupt UN bureaucrats would have pumped plenty without us having to invade.

But practicalities aside, the point is -- why isn't war for oil not only morally permissible, but morally required, if the forcible redistibution of wealth in other ways (including "windfall profit" taxes) is OK?

An interesting thought experiment.

UPDATE 5/4/2006: Welcome Koz Kidz!

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:15 PM | Permalink | |

That big boycott on May Day, what effect did it have on the economy? I know I went about my life in the normal fashion and was basically unaffected, but let's see what the economists have to say:

But the protests didn’t bring the economy to a halt, as some organizers had hoped. And that, says one economist, is because Americans overestimate the actual impact undocumented workers have on our economy. “It’s a positive benefit, but it’s not the be-all end-all of the economy,” says James P. Smith, an economist at the Rand Corporation who specializes in immigration labor. He spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Jessica Bennett about the relationship between the U.S. economy and the nation’s 11 million undocumented workers. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Is it possible at this point to gauge the economic impact of Monday’s protests?
James P. Smith: At most, part of workers lost part of a day, [but] there’s no real effect on consumption. Whether it had a political effect or not—that’s a different question. But the economic impact was zero.

Well if they aren't having that much effect on the economy...we can just kick them out, right?

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

I've been drinking too much Starbucks lately (but the frappachinos...are so good!) and have decided to put up, at least for today, a word of the day in honor of the "Akeelah and the Bee" movie that Starbucks is ceaselessly pummeling me with adverstisements for. On days I decide to do this, I will say the word, spell the word, give the definition and use it in a sentence. On to todays word!

Today's word is:
Context (kntkst)
C-O-N-T-E-X-T. context.

con·text n.2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

"On the Internet, anything you say, write or think is garunteed to be taken out of context by somebody who whishes to berate your ideas without having to try."

or:

"I see the Cold War as being framed in the context of good versus evil, with Western capitalism being good and communism as being evil which should have been defeated at all costs."

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:15 AM | Permalink | |

Thomas L. Friedman, despite my anger with him over the updated The World Is Flat only one year after the first run came out, has an excellent essay in Foreign Policy magazine on what he calls the First Law of Petropolitics, which is that freedom and oil prices have an inverse relationship. You may disagree with Friedman (I do on occasion), but I always find his writing and ideas engaging a the very least. I'll link to the article here, but you need to buy it off the newsstand (like I did), or be a subscriber to read the whole thing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:48 PM | Permalink | |