Lots of heroes and hacks all around this week, certainly a busy one in the political one was Congress tries to wrap things up for the Fourth of July recess and the Supremes released some rulings.

Mark Tapscott himself isn't my hero, but he's got a good roundup on why this week was a better week than conservatives have had in a long time.

I am going to name Reps. Peter Hoekstra and Mike Pence my heroes this week, for leading the fight against idiocy in Congress (always a worthy cause).

Hoeskstra introduced a one sentence resolution in the House Republican _ to oppose the Senate immigration bill, which passed and I think was certainly another death knell for that bill. Amanda Carpenter, who works where I intern, wrote a piece earlier this week about it:

114 Republicans voted in favor of the one-line resolution: “Resolved, the House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill."

In a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, Hoekstra said the purpose of holding a vote on this was to “send a clear message to the people back home that we are not where the Senate or where the White House is on this.”

When asked if he was concerned about backlash from the White House for his actions, Hoekstra said, “No.”

Right on!

Mike Pence (the man who should be minority leader), killed any whisperings about bringing back the fairness doctrine (from Tapscott's piece aboeve):

"Today the House of Representatives affirmed that freedom will continue to reign on the airwaves of America. Thanks to the support of 308 of my colleagues, Congress has ensured that the Fairness Doctrine will remain in the grave for now. This was a resounding victory for free speech."

Also, iPhone update. I still want one. Real bad. Which brings me to this week's hack, Philadelphia Mayor John Street. What is Mayor Street doing right now? Waiting for the iPhone.

Donning a white baseball hat and warmup suit -- complete with an iPod strapped to his arm -- a casual Philadelphia Mayor John Street patiently sat on a lawn chair on a South Philadelphia sidewalk, hoping to get his hands on the new Apple iPhone Friday morning.

Street said he was No. 3 in a line of about six people, but said he was sure things would pick up later in the day.

"I'm out here with the rest of the gang, and we're all waiting for the iPhone," said Street, a self-proclaimed technology advocate. "This is the latest and I’m going to have it.

It's not like he has anything better to do, right? Not like, run a city or anything. Sheesh.

UPDATE (3:28PM): Frequent reader/commenter G Rex points out that the Mayor isn't like anymore:

Street, who showed up outside an AT&T store at 3:30 a.m., left shortly after a 22-year-old sporting a mohawk asked him, "How can you sit here with 200 murders in the city already?" The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on its Web site.

Thanks, G Rex! As he puts it, "Gotta love those Philly punks!" Well said.

Labels: Apple, Congress, Hero/Hack, Illegal Immigration

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:25 AM | Permalink | |

All I have to say is:


The Hill has the breaking story:

The comprehensive immigration reform bill that has dodged attacks from the left and right for weeks, survived “poison pill” amendments, and was once pulled from the Senate schedule failed its most important test Thursday. Passage of the legislation now appears unlikely.

Labels: Illegal Immigration, Immigration

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:31 AM | Permalink | |

Popular Mechanics has a great article on the coming of weaponizing space, stemming from China's destruction of a satellite in January. Check it out:

Every industrialized country relies on satellites every day, for everything from computer networking technology to telecommunications, navigation, weather prediction, television and radio. This makes satellites especially vulnerable targets. Imagine the U.S. military suddenly without guidance for its soldiers and weapons systems, and its civilians without storm warnings or telephones.

Some satellites, however, are at greater risk than others. Most spacecraft — including spy sats — are in low Earth orbit, which stretches 1240 miles into space. As the Chinese test proved, such targets could be hit with medium-range missiles tipped with crude kill devices. GPS satellites are far higher, orbiting at about 12,600 miles. Many communications sats are in the 22,000-mile range. Destroying them requires a much more powerful and sophisticated long-range ballistic missile — yet it can be done. "You'd need a sky-sweeping capability to comprehensively negate a space support system that is scattered all over," says John Pike, a space analyst at GlobalSecurity.org. "You'd need ICBM-size boosters — hundreds of them."

Such an all-out satellite war would render space useless for decades to come. "There'd be so much debris up there," Clark says, "that it wouldn't be safe to put anything up in space."

It's a fascinating article, and the ruining of the usefulness of space would be a dark day indeed.

Labels: China, Space

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:53 AM | Permalink | |

The album with that may have the longest name in rock history, The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society, is now a book. It is part of the "33 1/3" series, now comprising over 40 volumes, with more on the way. Each volume is about an album, with musical acts far ranging from The Band to The Beastie Boys. The series caught my eye in the bookstore recently because of the nice covers, and because Borders had a nice endcap in the music section featuring several of the books.

This particular volume, about the Ray Davies-led 1968 effort The Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society, is written by Andy Miller (many different authors have contributed to the series thus far). Seeing is how there wasn't one about Rush, I immediately picked up the one about The Kinks, one of the most underrated bands of the British Invasion.

TKATVGPS is a wonderful album, and being born almost 20 years after its initial release I was completely unaware is was a flop upon release. Miller's volume sheds light on the creation of the album, the recording sessions, and the relationship of the band to the album's material.

It tops out at 150 pages, and it's about six inches high, so it's a nice little volume. It doesn't, however, go into the meaning of the lyrics as much as I'd like, but I think that's a point of personal preference.

Overall, this volume of the 33 1/3 series is pretty well written, and a great gateway to understanding a great album. My only reservation is that the cover price on these is about $10. A couple dollars off of that and I'd be quick to buy several more.

If they have one about an album you're especially fond of, pick t up. This is a very cool series of books, and I hope it continues long into the future (or at least until they make one about Rush!).

Related:

• The 33 1/3 Blog
• Books #1-40
• Books #41+

Labels: Book Review, Books, Music

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:32 PM | Permalink | |

I want one real bad.



The rate plans were announced today, and they're not bad. Competitive at least, and if you are already an AT&T wireless customer, it seems like it might save you a little bit (I am now, RIP Cingular).

So if anyone wants to spring for the cost of the phone ($500 or 600), I'll get one and do a full review!

P.S. Steve Jobs, I hate you.

Labels: Apple

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:23 AM | Permalink | |

So Dick Cheney's not a member of the legislative branch?

It's an interesting argument, and "clever, devilishly clever" by Commissioner Gordon's standards for sure. But is it legit?

I think there is something to be said for the fact that the Vice Presidency does operate as part of both the legislative and executive branches. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit (a law professor) explains:

The argument that the Vice President is a legislative official isn't inherently absurd. The Constitution gives the Vice President no executive powers: The VP's only duties are to preside over the Senate, and to become President if the serving President dies or leaves office. The Vice President really isn't an Executive official, and isn't part of the President's administration the way that other officials are -- for one thing, the VP can't be fired by the President: As an independently elected officeholder, he can be removed only by Congress, via impeachment. (In various separation of powers cases, the Supreme Court has placed a lot of weight on this who-can-fire-you test).

. . .

But here's the thing: Whatever executive power a VP exercises is exercised because it's delegated by the President, not because the VP has it already. So to the extent the President delegates actual power (as opposed to just taking recommendations for action) the VP is exercising executive authority delegated by the President, but unlike everyone else who does so he/she isn't subject to removal from office by the President (though the President could always withdraw the delegation, of course). However -- and here's where the claim that Cheney is really a legislative official creates problems for the White House -- it seems pretty clear that the President isn't allowed to delegate executive power to a legislative official, as that would be a separation of powers violation. So to the extent that this is what's going on, the "Cheney is a legislative official" argument is one that opens a big can of worms.

So like I said, a very clever argument, but in the end I don't think it holds water, and this may be the biggest blunder of Cheney's tenure. In the end, though, abstract legal arguments don't really engage the public, so this isn't going to anger the American people at all, really.

I do admire Rep. Rahm Emanuel's (D-IL) tactic in combating this, however:

“The vice president has a choice to make,” Mr. Emanuel said over the weekend. “If he believes his legal case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive
branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the vice president should be consistent.”

Brilliant. No idea if it will go anywhere, but kudos to finding an equally clever response.

Also, to all you Impeachists out there, Reynolds has a warning for you. If impeached, Dick Cheney could preside over his own trial!

Labels: Cheney, Constitution

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:17 PM | Permalink | |

My hero this week is Michael Yon.

Yon's been reporting from Iraq off an on for a while now, and his courage and candor is well worth reading. His on-the-ground reports are honest and up front. And he does it all out of pocket or through donations.






My hack this week is Barack Obama, who apparently is not a friend to bloggers. Even ones that are sympathetic.

At least, that was Jerid from Buckeye State Blog's experience. He writes:

Apparently that didn't matter. It was of no consequence that I'm a Democratically slanted activist who's trying to learn as much about all of the candidates in New Hampshire as I can. It didn't matter that I phonebank and canvas for candidates I support. I didn't matter that I put my "super friendly blogger hat" on when I go to these events and am respectful of folks privacy, taking great care with what I write about. All she saw was the press.

The Obama campaign, along with some of the other prezzies, don't understand the concept of citizen journalists. There's a lot of old school politics out here on the NH campaigns - some of the communications folks desperately need to refresh their understanding of how bloggers work. You see, we're not all the same. Just like regular folks, there are friendly bloggers that want to help, and there are bloggers bent on screwing you. It's up to a campaign to discern who's who and dole out special access depending on such. However, we're regular folks too - we volunteer, vote, and try to help because we believe in the Democratic party. So you can't really lump bloggers entirely into the press category - last time I checked Brian Williams wasn't passing out door hangers for his local Democratic Party. That's hard for folks on campaigns, locked into one particular mentality or another, to understand. It's a nuance to which some campaigns are tone deaf.

That's just sad. Both sides need to be much more open with citizen journalists, or it's going to come back to bite them later.

Like this example. Rather than writing a glowing pro-Obama post I never would have read, I found Jerid's post through Instapundit, and now several thousand people have heard this negative thing about Obama. Great job!

Labels: 2008 Watch, Barack Obama, blogging, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:26 AM | Permalink | |

It's time like this, with Congress' approval rating at 14%, that I lament that 2008 is so far away. The American people have lost faith in the governing class, and I am not sure if it can be recovered before the next election. Mark Tapscott has more:

The highest confidence levels were for the military at 69 percent, small business at 59 percent, and the police at 54 percent. Organized labor remained among the lowest at 19 percent, along with HMOs at 15 percent and Big Business at 18 percent.

If we define America's political class - aka "the chattering classes" or the "Washington Establishment" - as consisting of the three branches of the federal government, plus the mainstream news media, some tentative conclusions are suggested:

First, the dramatic reversal of partisan political power seen in the November 2006 election was either simply a fluke or, more likely in my view, an inevitably lost opportunity for the winning Democrats. Short of an historically unprecedented philosophical reversal of course by the majority, it is hard to see Congress regaining anything remotely like a high level of public respect any time soon.

There's lots more to that article, and it's recommended reading. And the Republicans haven't been benefiting from this lapse in approval, because they were already voted into minority for the same thing the Dems are doing now.

Also, tell us what you really think: "The Capitolist" is a website for people on the Hill to tell us what they really think. [Language Warning] Snapped Shots has highlights.

Labels: Congress, Culture of Corruption

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:15 PM | Permalink | |

Last night, the American Film Institute did their 10th Anniversary Special of their 100 Years 100 Movies List, with a new list taking into account the films made in that 10 year period. Or so they told us.

I missed the special itself, but looking at the list this morning, I find myself pretty disappointed. I'm not going to really talk about the rankings themselves (except for noting that Jaws should be much higher on the list), because they're pretty subjective, but I want to look at the new additions and the films that got bumped.

Now, I will admit I don't generally watch movies made before World War II. It isn't that I don't like them, I just tend to not be able to relate as well. I'm not particularly fond of Citizen Kane (the #1 movie) either. I find it odd that 4 films from that era are 'New Additions" to the list.

Only three movies from the last 10 years were added to the list: Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, The Sixth Sense, and Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Those I've seen, and I think that they should have just added The Lord of the Rings. It really is just one film, released in three parts, like the books. Not sure Titanic or The Sixth Sense really belong on this list.

To me, the tragedy is some of the films that got bumped for other movies I've never heard of. Those include: Amadeus, An American in Paris, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Doctor Zhivago, Fantasia, The Manchurian Candidate, and Patton. (The Third Man is on its way from Nexflix, incidentally)

So what do you think about the list? Also, a Schrutebuck to anyone who has actually seen Sullivan's Travels.

The List.

Labels: Movies

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:03 AM | Permalink | |

I say good riddance. Bloomberg was really only a Republican so he could ride Giuliani's coattails. He claims to be a centrist, but in reality, he's a guy with a lot of money, little conviction, and a want of power. However, if he does get in the race for president, it's going to hurt Democrats:

Several analysts argued that a three-way race with Mr. Bloomberg running as a third-party candidate could ultimately prove more of a threat to Democrats than to Republicans. Until he ran for mayor in 2001, Mr. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat, and his success in New York reflected his ability to draw Democratic votes: he is for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control.

Now some may ask what the difference is between Bloomberg and Giuliani. First, Giuliani has been a Republican for a long time, and at the very least, he shows leadership and the ability to stand his political ground. Bloomberg's had as many political parties as Giulani's had wives.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Giuliani

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

I don't always see eye to eye with John McCain (at least, when I can figure out what his position is.), but this is something I think he's absolutely correct on. At the last Republican presidential debate, McCain said:

And when Senator Clinton says this is Mr. Bush's war, that this is President Bush's war -- when President Clinton was in power, I didn't say that Bosnia, our intervention there was President Clinton's war. When we intervened in Kosovo, I didn't say it was President Clinton's war.

What Senator Clinton doesn't understand that presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't lose wars.

Nations lose wars, and nations lose the -- have the consequences of failure.

At the time, two weeks ago, that statement didn't even warrant a mention in my post on the debate. However, in those two weeks, Senator McCain's words have been bouncing around in my head.

I don't remember if any Republicans called Bosnia or Kosovo "Clinton's War." It's possible some did, and that would have been the wrong attitude to have. Certainly, the anti-war crowd, to a large extent, has been using the phrase "Bush's war" to a great degree. McCain's remarks above, were in direct rebuttal to Senator Hillary Clinton's remarks at the Democratic Presidential debate two days prior:

And I think it's important particularly to point out: This is George Bush's war. He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war.

I will pause only momentarily to point out that this s obviously hypocritical of the former First Lady, as the President did not simply send over several thousand troops overnight and undisclosed. She and her Congressional compatriots voted for the war. They authorized what some now call "Bush's war."

This language allows the anti-war crowd to distance themselves from the war by associating it with someone who is their opposite. When they "Bush's war," what they mean is "It's His war, it doesn't belong to us. We don't want anything to do with it."

Let me use an analogy. Two brothers are inside the house together, while their mother is out in the yard working on the garden. The older brother (older by only a few years), encourages the other brother to fill up the bathtub so they can play with their toy boats. The younger does so, but then both kids hear their mother calling them from the yard. They rush out, forgetting about the tub precariously filling with water.

After a while, mother and sons reenter the house, only to find water leaking through the first floor ceiling. The older brother says to his mother, "Not my mess. He did it." He says this knowing full well that he is equally responsible for the current predicament.

In this analogy, the brothers represent the Republicans (younger) and the Democrats (older), the mother the American public, and her calling them into the yard represents election time.

This is exactly the attitude the Democrats have to the war. This presents a problem, especially in the international arena. And especially in the non-democratic world. One of the reasons McCain's words bounced around in my head so much goes back to hearing Bernard Lewis speak.

As I related in May:

Lewis said that bin Laden & co. were not expecting the reaction they got to 9-11 because of their experiences in Beirut, Khobar Towers, Eastern African embassies, the USS Cole, etc. This was because where they come from, said Lewis "elections don't change governments, governments change elections." (Emphasis Added)

In this mentality, a victory for al Qaeda in Iraq or Muqtada al Sadr in Iraq is a victory against the United States, not George W. Bush. They do not see the differences between a Bush Administration and a Clinton Administration, they see the United States.

A failure in Iraq, like so many on the left seem to want, or a pullout in reaction to the insurgency, and al Qaeda and Sadr will be able to claim victory against the superpower, similar to how the Taliban and bin Laden believe themselves responsible for the downfall of the USSR.

Saying Iraq is not part of the War on Terror (sorry, it's just a bumper sticker anyway, right?) is like saying fighting Japan or Italy wasn't a part of World War II. This is a war with many fronts, including the homeland.

It's time for Democrats to realize this is their war too.

Labels: Blame it on Bush, Iraq

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:00 AM | Permalink | |

Not anymore! I have added a graphic above for my Townhall.com blog, Permanent Waves.

I don't know why I didn't think of it earlier.

Generally, Jokers to the Right will have longer, more essay-like pieces, while Permanent Waves will be full of linky goodness.

Check it out!

Labels: blogging

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:17 PM | Permalink | |

The "father of climatology" speaks out on global warming:

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

"It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." (Emphasis mine)

The article mentions that he's been coming into the office without pay just about every day since retiring, but that won't stop the global warming cultists from claiming he's probably being paid by Exxon-Mobil. But as to Bryson's answer on why scientists are so concerned about global warming? It's all about the money:

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Labels: Climate Change

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:37 AM | Permalink | |

WaPo:

At a critical moment for him, his presidential campaign may be paying the price for a career of positions seemingly calculated to alienate constituencies that according to Washington custom should be prime sources of campaign cash. Mr. McCain’s campaign filings show just $61,000 from the military industry in the first quarter — less than half as much as the long-shot campaign of Democratic Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The twist is lost on no one: a candidate who has spent decades fighting to minimize the influence of money on politics is under extraordinary pressure to scare up tens of millions of dollars to prove he can jump-start his campaign. And after months of trying to make up with factions of the conservative coalition he has snubbed in the past, fund-raising has turned into another example of the balancing act he faces as he tries to appeal to the Republican establishment without giving up his aura as a straight-talking reformer.

He does have some wealthy natural allies: American Indian casino owners, who appreciate his investigation of schemes by corrupt lobbyists to bilk tribal clients, have supported him eagerly in the past. But Mr. McCain has foresworn accepting any contributions from the casino owners, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

I give him credit for the Indian casino thing, and I think his heart is in the right place, but this is what happens when you try to limit speech.

Labels: 2008 Watch, McCain

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:20 AM | Permalink | |

You are The Joker

The Joker 68% The Clown Prince of Crime. You are a brilliant mastermind but are criminally insane. You love to joke around while accomplishing the task at hand. Click here to take the Supervillain Personality Quiz Hat tip: Duffy

Labels: Pointless things online

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

My hero this week is Guvernator Ahh-nohhld Schwarzenegger, for taking a stand for assimilation:

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and avoid Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

"You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster," Schwarzenegger said.

"I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say, and I'm going to get myself in trouble," he said, noting that he rarely spoke German and was forced to learn English when he emigrated from Austria.

As an immigrant himself, Arnold's certainly qualified to make that kind of suggestion, even if his English is heavily accented.

My hacks are Sens. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, for reviving the "mostly dead" immigration bill:

In a joint statement, Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell said: “We met this evening with several of the senators involved in the immigration bill negotiations. Based on that discussion, the immigration bill will return to the Senate floor after completion of the energy bill.”

This is proof that bad bills don't die.

Labels: Hero/Hack, Illegal Immigration, Immigration

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

Jeff the Baptist has an excellent post about the weakness of modernity, and I heartily concur with his friend's definition of tradition. Jeff also excellently ties it into the Second Amendment (you know, the one that protects the other 26):

One of my former colleagues has an interesting definition for "tradition." He called them "solutions to problems we have forgotten." One of the great problems with Modernism is that it is a philosophical system which deliberately has no memory. Unfortunately, Liberalism in its current incarnation is a strong adherent to this particular philosophy.

Recently, this flaw has been trotted out for all to see in the legal debate over the 2nd Amendment. Many scholars for and against private gun ownership have realized that the collective rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is has no clothes. Firearms ownership ought to be an individual right under the 2nd.

Labels: Conservaism, Gun Rights

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:54 PM | Permalink | |

Reader/Frequent commenter/Friend Mike McKain asks a question in the comments for this post:

How widespread do you think the distaste from Bush is in the mouths of most Republicans?

I think it is pretty widespread at this point Mike, and there are a couple reasons why. For the purposes of explaining this phenomenon, I will divide Republicans who are not happy with Bush into two groups: "The base," or conservatives and libertarians who's disagreements with the President is mostly ideological, and "the disappointed," those who may disagree with the President, but who's beef is motivated by Bush incompetence.

As for "The base," Bush's backing of the Senate immigration bill is merely the nail in the coffin for many conservatives. I for one did not expect Bush to be all that great on immigration, but it still angers me that the leader of the party does not listen to its primary supporters.

I think Peggy Noonan's recent WSJ Op-ed captures this well:

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

That list are all points of contention that many in "the base" have with President Bush, but as Noonan notes, immigration seems to hurt more because recently we haven't just been ignored, we've been directly affronted, with the President occasionally suggested we're unpatriotic, an insult usually reserved for those "on the other side."

The frustration grows when you consider that Bush has stopped defending anything that isn't the Senate immigration bill or Alberto Gonzalez. If his supporters are expected to fight battles over Iraq, support from the President would certainly do a lot of good.

Bush's first term was a rousing success, but his second term has been a miserable failure (though he had help from the Republican Congress). This is where "the disappointed" Bush supporters come in. I summarized Bush's second term in December, while lamenting the loss of UN Ambassador John Bolton:

Thank you for nothing, Mr. Bush. Thank you for squandering your political capital on issues that went nowhere (Social Security), nominations that were mainly laughed at (Harriet Miers), anti-conservative big government programs (Medicare Part D), and allowing the Democrats to shape the debate on Iraq. You must realize that this has cost you credibility on both the left and the right, and allowed you to squander anything meaningful out of your second term (besides John Roberts, and the later reversal of Miers to Alito).

I also should have mentioned on that list FEMA director Michael Brown (a lot of what happened in New Orleans was not in Bush's control at all, but that doesn't mean that 'Brownie' was competent, either). I'd also add to the list the should-resign Alberto Gonzalez, of whom I've never been fond.

I would characterize what Mike calls 'distaste' as frustration. Conservatives are frustrated Bush is following a hawkish neoliberal agenda, and the plain incompetence within the Administration certainly just makes it worse.

Labels: Bush

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:40 AM | Permalink | |

I hope not, but with Mohammad the second most popular name in Britain, it seems more things like this are going to happen:

A gentle kiss on a South London street captured on a mobile telephone camera sealed Banaz Mahmod’s fate.

When the photograph, taken by a member of the Kurdish community, was shown to Miss Mahmod’s uncle, Ari Mahmod, a family meeting was called where it was decided that the 20-year-old woman and her boyfriend, Rahmat Sulemani, must be murdered.

From the viewpoint of her uncle, a prominent figure among South London’s Kurds, and her father, Mahmod Mahmod, she had already walked out of an arranged marriage and was now bringing further shame on the family.

Two months later, Miss Mahmod vanished. None of her family reported her missing. Only Mr Sulemani went to the police to say that his girlfriend’s worst fears had come true.

Three months later, her naked body was found crammed into a suitcase and dumped in a 6ft makeshift grave below a pile of bin bags, a rusting fridge and a discarded television in a back garden in Birmingham. The bootlace that was used to strangle her was still tied around her neck.

Hooray multiculturalism!

Related:

• America Alone by Mark Steyn Review

Labels: Islam, Western Civ

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

And the Wall came down:

Labels: History, Ronald Reagan, Russia

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:43 AM | Permalink | |

I reviewed Falling Man by Don DeLillo over at Amazon.com. I would have cross-posted it here, but I wrote it for a very specific audience, as it takes on a "what to expect..." tone.

If you're interested in hearing what I think about the book in more detail, especially in how accurate the portrayals of post-9/11 feelings are, comment and I can cook something up. There's a lot to say, but I'm not sure about how big of an audience there is for it.

UPDATE (9/1/2007) So I can find it again later, here is the full text of my review:

I enjoyed this book very much, having enjoyed some of Don DeLillo's other novels. A couple things to know about this book:
1. This is not mainstream fiction. DeLillo uses his own conventions and the conventions of postmodern fiction to great extent.
2. This novel is not primarily a retelling of the events of 9/11. Rather, it is an exploration of the mindset of New Yorkers (and one European) after 9/11, how this particular watershed event changed people's worldview.
3. This is not a political work. It does not seek to espouse any political point of view.

That being said, I very much liked this book. I found it very chilling at some points, and difficult to read. I found myself dealing with emotions I had not felt since the days just after 9/11 (deftly referred to in the novel as 'since the planes'), and an exploration much different from the film United 93.

I did feel some of the characters were hollow, but that is kind of typical of DeLillo's storytelling style. Characters in DeLillo works tend to be people to whom things happen, reactors as opposed to actors. I felt that this helped enhance the feelings of some of the characters in this work, accentuating the helplessness and fear I know I certainly felt in the wake of 9/11.

While the book does deal directly with the events of 9/11 (those were some of the most emotionally difficult to read), it is primarily an exploration of the 'post-9/11' world. In this, I feel it succeeds, and is a brilliant work.

Labels: Book Review, Books

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:24 PM | Permalink | |

I believe in God, I believe in Christ, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God and to be literally true in all aspects. I believe in science, including evolution, geologic history, and quantum physics (well as least as much as the general scientific community does, anyway). I also believe that these two sentences are completely congruent.

Faith in the Christian God(1) and belief in scientific fact are 100% compatible, and if the two seem to be in conflict, you are missing something about one or the other.

When I say that I take the Bible to be literally true, I mean it. But I don’t mean that any literate person can read the Bible and fully understand its meaning. People assume that that holds true for Shakespeare or James Joyce, why wouldn’t it be true for the Word of God? This view has been held by almost everybody for two thousand years, and St. Augustine makes the argument for this understanding of the Bible.(2)

Let’s take the beginning. Genesis says that God created the world in six days. Considering that we measure ‘day’ and ‘night’ by the movements of the sun, and the sun isn’t created until Day Four (Gn 1:14-19), it seems odd that the ‘days’ in Genesis Chapter One would refer to 24-hour periods. Maybe it was millennia, maybe it was an instant, I don’t know. The use of the word ‘day’ seems most likely as a helper for human beings to understand the order of creation, maybe, as opposed to the particular details. I say leave the geology to the geologists. They are a better source for how old the Earth is, though they probably can’t explain fully how it got here.

On evolution: God is omniscient. That means he knows everything that it is possible to know. So it seems reasonable to me to say that if the fossil record indicates that species evolved from other pre-existing organisms, fine by me. I have my doubts about the proof, but it seems a reasonable explanation. I only disagree with the Darwinist cause for why certain species evolved the way they did. Because God knows everything, it seems reasonable that he would know the evolutionary “path” of a species from the moment he gets the idea for it, and could work through natural pathways to manifest this idea.

So there you go, no conflict between science and religion Don’t go to the Creation Museum, hit up the Natural History Museum instead.

1. I say Christian God mostly because that’s what I am most familiar with, though I don’t think it would change for most Jews or Muslims, either.
2. Everyone interprets the Bible. Most of the fundamentalists, the ones that say the Earth is 6,000 years old or so, don’t think that Christ literally meant ‘this is my Body,’ and Catholics generally think the inverse.

Labels: Religion, Science

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:54 PM | Permalink | |

My heroes this week are the scientists who worked on the recent stem cell breakthrough. So far, it works with mice, and seems really promising:

The technique, if adaptable to human cells, is much easier to apply than nuclear transfer, would not involve the expensive and controversial use of human eggs, and should avoid all or almost all of the ethical criticism directed at the use of embryonic stem cells.

“From the point of view of moving biomedicine and regenerative medicine faster, this is about as big a deal as you could imagine,” said Irving Weissman, a leading stem cell biologist at Stanford University, who was not involved in the new research.

Great news! Human scientific ingenuity is able to account for respect of human life. Everyone's a winner!

My hacks this week are President Bush, Senator John McCain, and Senator Ted "Jabba" Kennedy for handling the immigration issue so poorly.












It really was just a bad piece of legislation all around, and I really hope it is dead. That remains to be seen, but this debacle has come with a cost:

This latest Senate vote likely will add to the growing public perception that the immigration bill is fatally flawed. The USA Today/Gallup Poll found that among those who have an opinion of the immigration bill, opponents outnumber supporters 3-1.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll found that among all Americans, only 29 percent approve of the way Bush is handling the immigration issue. That’s the lowest Bush has ever been on the issue in the survey.

Note, too, that overall approval ratings of the Democratic majority in Congress are even lower than those of the president.

Clearly, most Americans don’t approve of promise breakers.

Labels: Hero/Hack, Illegal Immigration, Stem Cells

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:02 AM | Permalink | |

Here is a list and my brief thoughts about the 2008 Field as it looks right now.

The Republicans:
The race to distance oneself has begun, unless you're John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thomson. Wait...aren't those the top three candidates? Right now the (official) Big Three are vying to jump out in front, and the second tier is trying to jump into the top tier.

Top Tier

Mayor Rudy Giuliani: I used to say that "America's Mayor" was far too moderate to win the nomination, but as Chris Matthews has said (paraphrasing here) you don't ask a cop that saves you from being mugged how many times he's been married. I think he has a real shot, and could be exactly what voters are looking for. His performance in the debates thus far has been getting better, and he is coming to answer the abortion question without sounding completely offensive to pro-lifers. Sounding being the key word there. Giuliani may be the choice of suburban 'security moms' nationwide.

Senator John McCain: I think he's been stalled by McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold with conservatives, and the war in Iraq with moderates. He has a solid base of support, but it doesn't seem to be expanding at all. Lots of people are aware of John McCain, and they either love him or hate him.

Gov. Mitt Romney: He seems to be handling "The Mormon Question" decently enough, and he certainly has won Hugh Hewitt over. He's been polling well in Iowa and New Hampshire from what I've been hearing, and that means he has a well-funded, well-organized ground game, he's a master at Clinton-style retail politics, or both.

Second Tier

Senator Sam Brownback: Three things I like about Sam Brownback: He's Catholic, he's 100% pro-life, and he cares about Darfur. Three things I don't like about Sam Brownback: He wants to give out amnesty, he has little charisma, and he agrees with Joe Biden on Iraq.

Gov. Jim Gilmore: From the debates, all I know is that he says "conservative" and "Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia" a lot. Is he raising any money?

Gov. Mike Huckabee: I heard him speak at CPAC, and I was really impressed. I saw him in the three debates and continue to be impressed. I think he has the potential to break out of the second tier, but not sure if there is room or if he can pull it off. I good showing in either New Hampshire or Iowa would keep him in the race long enough to be a good VP choice.

Rep. Duncan Hunter: His performance at the debates has been decent enough, but nothing groundbreaking here.

Rep. Ron Paul: He's a real maverick, having voted against the Iraq War, and strong Libertarian Party ties. He has a lot of support on the internet, where a lot of people seem to 1) skew more libertarian than average, and 2) be more ticked off at the establishment than average. No idea if this translates into supporters who will do things other than vote in internet polls and digg stories.

Rep. Tom Tancredo: Did decently well at the debates, but probably scared some people when he said he wanted to put a hold on legal immigration. However, he wins because McCain acknowledged his position, and that's a victory only Ron Paul has been able to achieve. Immigration is his issue, and McCain-Kennedy passing might help him in leading a campaign to repeal it once in office.

Gov. Tommy Thompson I still keep forgetting he's running, and he and Duncan Hunter blend hopelessly together for me.

Wild Cards
Gov. Haley Barbour: I would still love to see Barbour run, and he's got national experience (back when being the RNC Chair was a good thing) and positive vibes from post-Katrina. Would lock up the South for the GOP as a VP.

Newt Gingrich: I loved Winning the Future, and I think it is chock-full of platform building ideas for 2008. " He says he's only running if he doesn't like anyone else. Doesn't sound like the Newt we know and love. Not sure I embrace the idea of a Newt candidacy though. Stick with town hall meetings and alternative history fiction.

Fred Thompson: Still not sure if he's in or out, though he is raising money. I have my qualms about Fred Thompson's candidacy, one that he isn't serious enough about it (nothing to do with him coming in in July, more that he had a reputation for getting bored and not liking the hours of being a Senator), and two that he may be the candidate most connected to the Bush Administration.

The Democrats:
The Democrats have a lot of infighting, with Hillary trying to play statesmen, Obama being Obama, and Edwards nipping at their heels.

Top Tier

Senator Hillary Clinton: I am very scared at the prospects of Hillary getting the nomination. If she can continue to out-class Obama and keep the far left appeased (not tasks to be taken lightly) she may be able to lock it up. She looked really good in the last Democratic debate. I also think the right-wing punditry talks about her way too much. This obsession is a little tedious, and by the time the general election comes around, people may feel that we've been banging the same drum since 1992.

Senator John Edwards: He did singlehandedly bring poverty back on the Democratic agenda, but will it pay off? He's the only candidate to apologize for his Iraq vote, and I am not sure how that is playing with the netroots. He seems to be the choice of the "Clinton's too moderate and Obama's too inexperienced" demographic.

Senator Barack Obama: I like hearing him speak. He just gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling, at least when he's speaking in abstracts (so, most of the time). If the rest of the field were running on an 'anti-hope' platform, he'd win hands down. The thing he has going for him is that he may be attracting people new to being interested in politics. That's a powerful thing to have on your side, and if it is true, it could be a major source of money for him.

Second Tier
Senator Joe Biden: Joe's made a nice recovery from his low point of complimenting Barack Obama, and I think when he speaks during the debate, people listen. He is sticking to his guns on Iraq, and voted for war funding even when Obama and Hillary didn't. His outburst on Darfur during the second debate was actually pretty moving. I hope he stays in the race for a while, because he's actually offering ideas as opposed to just rhetoric.

Senator Chris Dodd: He comes off as aloof, angry, and bitter during the debates, but I'm not always sure at who or about what. Has too much of the "cranky old man" vibe.

Senator Mike Gravel: He may have been out of politics longer than I've been alive, but he certainly provided much-needed fireworks during the first debate. I like that he stands for what he believes, and has the gusto to attack the Democratic establishment.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Has been slightly more substantive in the debates than I thought he would be, but he's still too out there, not to mention his utter failure at being mayor of Cleveland.

Governor Bill Richardson: The Latino Bill Clinton, and I think he is a formidable candidate in either the President or VP slot, as he has arguably the most experience of anyone in his party. It's one hell of a résumé, but he's fairly unknown. He seems to be a slight equivalent to Ron Paul in that he's more popular online than in wider polling. If his debate performance had been anything but lackluster, he might have been able to break into the top tier by now. Still waiting for the "I feel your pain," moment Clinton had.

Wild Cards
General Wesley Clark: He had a good shot in '04, before he started hanging out with Michael Moore. He could make a strong showing for a VP slot with a first tier candidate weak on national security.

Vice President Al Gore: People apparently want him to run. Is he the Fred Thompson for the Democrats? No one else fits, so turn to someone who's been to Hollywood? Perhaps, but he's been very coy about running to date.


The (Rumored) Independents

Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Apparently he could pull an H. Ross Perot and completely finance his own campaign. All billion dollars of it. He's a moderate's moderate, but does anybody really like him?

Senator Chuck Hagel: He's been outspoken and critical on Bush vis-à-vis Iraq (but has found a more mainstream audience than Ron Paul), and some people are saying he could make a break and even team up with Bloomberg. No idea if it is going to happen, but stranger things have, and this is an especially strange cycle.



Overall: I'm hesitant to support anyone completely this early out, and especially hesitant about people with the title of Senator. This is going to be a long and interesting race.

Labels: 2008 Watch, Barack Obama, Biden, Bill Richardson, Brownback, Fred Thompson, Hillary Clinton, Huckabee, John Edwards, McCain, Newt, Romney, Ron Paul, Tancredo

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:31 PM | Permalink | |

New format! Going to limit it to five things, and then actually explain each one!
Here goes:

The Clinton Impeachment - Yes, Bill committed a crime. No, it wasn't about sex (the lying was, the impeachment wasn't). I still think that in the end, the GOP lost more than it gained over this whole thing, after repeatedly falling in the "Bill Clinton's a bad man, and if everyone knows he's a bad man, he'll lose the election/reelection/political power!" trap. It didn't work, and now half the American population thinks impeachment is the answer to everything. Gas prices too high? Impeach Bush! Toast came out burnt to a crisp? Impeach Bush!

The McCain-Kennedy(-Bush) Immigration Bill - It's just a bad bill, whether or not you agree with all of the provisions. Typical Washington overstuffed "comprehensive" solution to things that need to be separated out into different pieces of legislation to be dealt with more effectively.

Wolf Blitzer - He's just annoying. And extremely pompous. I'll take odd'ball' questions from Chris Matthews any day over ol' Wolfie.

The Avignon Papacy - The 702nd anniversary of "the Babylonian captivity" of the papacy was two days ago (Clement V's papacy) and the French takeover of the Papacy in the 14th century was just bad on the whole, for everybody. People got so mad at the pope they blamed the papacy in Avignon for the arrival of the Black Death in Europe. Also led to the "Western Schism." Just a nasty affair all around.

The severe lack of European/world football on American television - OK, I enjoy watching soccer from time to time. And when I do (God bless the World Cup and the Olympics), I want to watch the best. Half the time, the only way to watch an Arsenal game is in the middle of the night and in Spanish. Oh well. Note: this may be that I can't afford some fancy satellite or cable package, but that doesn't change my frustration. Also, I think I may be adopting Everton as my favorite team, if anyone's curious.