From Huskies to Pipers

2003-08-20T10:34:00.000-05:00

Conservatives on Campus

The Scholars have a great post with links about an article in The Economist last month. It's a must read.

I wasn't aware of this article but it is great press for the CRs and other conservative groups.

Let's hope we can keep the pace going this year.

2003-08-17T09:08:00.000-05:00

The problem is this blog is several levels above my IQ. I am not capable of such thought. Maybe my brother would be. Would you believe he got a 30 on the ACT. I only got a 24.

2003-08-15T13:14:00.000-05:00

Coulter Slash and Burn

Apologies in advance: I'm a bit of a techno-schmuck, so I still haven't figured out how to indent.

From yesterdays column (via Towhall.)

Harkening back to the days when Gray Davis was being considered by some to be a possible VP candidate:

Both [Gore and Davis] were said to be "cautious, moderate 'New Democrats.'" Both were veterans, after a fashion, of Vietnam, which would make a Gore-Davis presidential ticket the only compelling argument yet in favor of friendly fire.

Ouch! Maybe a bit over the top. O.K. It is over the top, but we're all guilty for laughing.

On Davis' budget failures:

There are reports that Argentina and the Congo are sending their fiscal policy experts to Sacramento to help stabilize the situation. California's credit rating has been slashed to junk-bond status, and citizens are advised to stock up for the not-too-far-off day when cigarettes and Botox become the hard currency of choice. At this stage, we couldn't give California back to Mexico.

On the Competition:

The fact that Arianna Huffington hasn't been laughed off a stage yet is a pretty good gauge of the public's frustration with Davis.

On Democrat reactions:

Most touchingly, Democrats claim to be shocked at the exorbitant cost of a recall election. They were not such penny-pinchers when contemplating Enron-style pensions for school crossing guards. Nor did their fiscal conservatism kick in when Davis announced this week that he would sign legislation providing "intolerance and hatred control training" for all California schoolteachers. Yeah, this is the guy who wants another crack at straightening out the budget.

On California's public sector:

Strictly adhering to formula in California, as the private sector was bleeding jobs and money, Gov. Davis signed off on comically generous pensions for government workers. Government employees in the Golden State earn more than the private-sector workers who pay their salaries – and that's excluding the job security, health benefits and 90 percent pension plans that come with "Irish welfare," [Betsy's offended!] as government jobs used to be called.

Economists refer to this backward ratio between public and private-sector salaries as "France." (Inasmuch as they are paid more and work less than private-sector employees, perhaps we could ease up on treating public schoolteachers like Mother Teresa washing the feet of the poor in Calcutta.)

Check it out.

2003-08-15T12:51:00.000-05:00

Iowa Electronic Markets

The money's still on the "rest of the field" and the differential is growing. I suppose we should assume this means Howard Dean since HRC is already listed and Al Gore probably won't run.

It's still early, but if Dean pulls it off, it could be good news for the President. Dean's the hallmark of the "Angry Left" and could go down as another McGovern or Dukakis.

So far, the election is the President's to lose.

2003-08-13T10:24:00.000-05:00

WFB on the Gay Marriage Debate

If the Supreme Court is going to continue to perform as a standing constitutional convention, then it becomes a conservative warrant to employ constitutional defenses...

The necessary amendment need go no further, nor should go any further, than to limit the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to exclude any requirement to abide by laws or judicial findings authorizing same-sex marriage. If individual states wish to authorize civil unions between members of the same sex, they would be free to do so, but not free to plead immunities particular to their own state as extending to all 50 states.

Check it out.

2003-08-13T09:20:00.000-05:00

Newt on Nukes

A good debate in today's USA Today, with Newt writing the "opposing view," on whether or not the US should proceed with the R&D of low-yield, nuclear bunker busters.

The USA Today gives four critiques of the proposed policy change, two of them strong and the others wanting.

First, the name: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. They say it sounds like something out of "Dr. Srtrangelove" and they're right. It seems that we do have a bit of a naming problem lately. With the exception of the recently showcased MOAB, which can be nicknamed Mother of all Bombs; our names have been weak. "Iraqi Freedom" was kinda weak; a definite departure from "Desert Storm" and the latest push, operation "Ivy Lightning" seems somewhat over-poetic for the circumstances. But this is minor.

The other decent point they make has to do with the contamination of battlefields. O.k., I can see that. Nevertheless, we have to weigh that potential cost against the costs of an operational WMD lab and the contamination it would bring should it surface on its own. I'm sure we can hammer that debate out should these RNEP's prove necessary.

Then their argument breaks down.

1) It would "Require a resumption of testing."

The USA today worries that other countries would then be given "the green light to accelerate their own programs."

I believe that we must differentiate the motives of such nations. Our own nuclear arsenal serves as deterrence against foreign nuclear threats - mutual assured destruction and all that. When we look at North Korea, we can't say the same. It's Nuclear Program is either to be used to threaten South Korea or deter our conventional forces. Alternatively, it is possible that Pyongyang wants to sell them to terrorists.

The point is if we test these low-yield nukes, it is not the same as North Korea, or Iran testing their arsenals. Too often we see the word "nuclear" and refuse to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.

Take a hypothetical: The U.S. tests a RNEP somewhere out in Utah. In Iran the Mullahs get mad and decide that they would like to speed up their program and threaten to test in the future.

Given that the US is in the business of preventing terrorist attacks and Iran is in the business carrying them out, and if you can't decide who has the moral upper hand...

Of course, if the paper is right, there may be a tactical advantage to having these nut-ball states speed-up their programs: The faster they go, the greater chance they'll screw it up, or we'll find them. If so, we can take 'em out before the threat becomes imminent. As one of my co-workers says, the "fasterer you go the behinder you get."

2) Provoke our enemies.

Umm, I think itâ€™s a little late to worry about that. Newsflash: They already hate us. I believe there are diminishing returns on hate. There comes a point where if you already hate someone, it gets harder to hate them more.

Besides, if there is to be a new arms race, as the paper suggests, we have a pretty good arms race record. Hell, we're 1-0. And that was against a more formidable opponent!

The USA today worries that hostile states may in turn use our actions as an incentive to use nukes in regional wars. But what incentive do they have now that prevents them from doing so? It's not as if that the US, by not developing these weapons can be assured that this won't happen.

Even if one accepts that our actions toward these new weapons imply a harsher WMD climate among our enemies, it is not the necessarily the case that our inaction will lead to the inaction of our enemies.

In other words, it is foolish to assume that these terror states will be on their best behavior. Rather, we should pursue every possible option that may increase our tactical advantage. It is not enough to say that since we are already superior we shouldn't look for ways to improve. Dismissing an option before it is properly researched is irresponsible. While the politics of this option will be tricky, let's hope that they can be negotiated so that we don't miss out on an opportunity as has already happened with the terrorism futures market.

Like Newt says, "After all of the public threats of Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and others, how can we not be prepared to defend ourselves if necessity requires it?"

2003-08-12T18:18:00.000-05:00

VDH

Check out Victor Davis Hanson in todays NRO. As usual, his insights and commentary on military matters and security will knock your socks off.

2003-08-12T16:06:00.000-05:00

Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law

Hey, the Human shields are back in the news. The Washington Post is reporting that the Treasury department may impose fines of up to $10,000 on our lovely protester friends for violating U.S. trade sanctions laws.

Apparently, there isn't a whole lot going on at over at the Treas. Come on, if these human shields are still alive enough to be charged with this violation of US laws, then they never actually did what they set out to do in the first place. They must be humiliated. Haven't they been through enough?

Nah.

I wonder if SCSU's Baghdad Betty falls into this category?

2003-08-11T13:23:00.000-05:00

Limbaugh and Bloggers

This whole thing seems a bit outrageous doesn't it? I don't think Rush has to worry about bloggers stealing market share from him. And bloggers are growing while talk radio continues to attract new audiences.

Except among some of the more hard-core fans of either medium, the two shouldn't be considered substitutes, but rather compliments. Some people like ketchup, some mustard, but many like both.

Besides, blogging and talk radio require different levels of audience participation. Radio is often used as a background distraction to whatever one happens to be doing at the time. Blogging, on the other hand takes a lot of effort. Reading, hitting links, before you know it you have so many browsers going that it's easy to get lost.

Conservatives and our whacky libertarian friends should embrace both.

2003-08-10T19:19:00.000-05:00

What would you do with $200 million?

A great column from Ron Faucheux over at Campaignline on the possible Bush '04 strategeries. Motivating stuff for us campaign slaves, eh Zach?

2003-08-10T18:46:00.000-05:00

Jesse and Arnold

To play of the Scholar's theme, this is from the AP (via the Pioneer Press).

2003-08-10T18:23:00.000-05:00

A word from Newt

"People have been trying to figure out how to put me in a box, and it's vety hard because I don't fit in boxesvery well. The best description of me is that I'm a conservative futurist."
-1994

He never really explains what that means, but judging from what we know of Newt, it seems to be just an updated version of Reagan's optimism (shining city on a hill or whatever).

Maybe Russel Kirk was right when he said that conservatism is the negation of ideology. I mean, if it is so hard for so many of us to actually explain it like a bold-faced term in some 8th grade social studies text than maybe we shouldn't try.

Regardless, until we sort this out, following the Maha Rushi, Chang Limbang (proven to be equal 97% of the time), or El Rushbo shouldn't lead you too far astray.

2003-08-10T11:10:00.000-05:00

Regarding the issue of conservative typecasting I would say that the honorable Sgt. Byma may someday develop his own type of neophilosophical conservatism. I would suggest that you check out Rush's page regarding blogging this weekend, dude. I would have to say that I am a limbaugh conservative. You know, one of those guys who marches in lockstep with everything the Great Rush says. I don't develop my own opinions, I simply regurgitate his daily memos. I have a little Rush Budda that I pray to...

2003-08-09T23:50:00.000-05:00

Taranto Rocks!

I know it's a day late, but I was just reading through yesterday's Best of the Web. Here is a little quip regarding a phone call from a MoveOn.orger regarding a BotW characterization of MoveOn.org as "far left", and "pro-Saddam."

"One enterprising chap even tracked down our home number and phoned to express his outrage that we accused MoveOn of being (his word) "extremist." Later in the conversation he informed us that Saddam Hussein's regime posed no threat and that George W. Bush isn't really the president."

Now that's funny.

2003-08-08T19:58:00.000-05:00

The Evil John Ashcroft II

It seems much of the blogoshpere is in a tissy about the Ashcroft memo that I whole-heartedly supported in my last post. Curmudgeonly Clerk (link via Instapundit) writes, "What was that about conservatives favoring localized decision-making?"

I some ways, I guess, I see his point. Mainly, jurisprudence should be treated much in the same way as academic freedom. But according to Eric at Isthatlegal the Justice Department has always had the final say of which sentencing cases are appealed.

Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that the DoJ will, in the future, appeal more cases then they do currently. Rather, it means they will have better information regarding which judges consistantly decide to not follow the guidelines.

This brings us back to the reason why I, at first reading, supported the Ashcroft decision: That measures to reign in activist judges can, over time, bring back some legislative power to the legislature.

It would be interesting to see, though, exactly what percentage of these so called departures from the minimum guidlines involve drug convictions. These cases, given the current movements toward decriminalization of certain drug violations (which I support),are clearly a matter of judges attempting to re-write the law.

2003-08-08T13:28:00.000-05:00

The Evil John Ashcroft

If John Ashcroft's work in thus far preventing another terrorist attack on American soil isn't enough to make your blood boil, than this will:

According to the Pioneer Press:

"The Justice Department is ordering federal prosecutors here and
elsewhere to report federal judges who impose lighter sentences
than recommended... "

The horror! I didn't think sending criminals to jail was such a bad thing, but some people are obviously upset.

"This will have a chilling and intimidating effect on judges, and who now
this is why I no longer draw criminal cases,'' said Paul Magnuson, a
senior federal trial judge in Minnesota handles mostly civil cases. 'I predict
that the number of departures by federal judges from
sentencing mandates will fall to virtually zero.'''

Can anyone tell me what this guy is complaining about?

The article goes on to explain the rest of the controversy. It seems to me, though, that the AG's goals are honest enough: he is trying to ensure that criminal sentencing is applied evenly everywhere. If you don't do that, what is the use in having guidlines at all?

The author hints that sentences for drug convictions make up a major portion of sentences that are issued below the federal guidlines. If that is the case, then the problem is judges who want to make the law not just interperet it, thereby ignoring legislative prerogative.

You want things decriminalized, or shorter sentences given to the perpetrators of certain crimes? You'll have to work with the legislature, because trying to find an activist judge just got a little harder.

Thanks, Mr. Ashcroft.

2003-08-08T08:23:00.000-05:00

Bad News from the War on Terror

My mom is reporting this morning that my younger brother, an Army Reservist from New York serving on active duty in Texas, was injured in skateboarding accident. The injuries are not life threatening and he is expected to make a full recovery.

I've been silent on this issue for too long. It seems clear to me that the President lied, and our troops aren't safe. Texas remains a dangerous place. We should bring our boys home now! Who are we to think that we can just occupy Texas. Let those Texans deal with there own problems!

2003-08-08T07:59:00.000-05:00

Bad Food

2003-08-08T07:57:00.000-05:00

Good News from the War on Terror

The Financial Times is reporting some progress on the Afghan rebuilding front. It seems that the new national army is groing strong, and with the training from American troops has begun assuming some of the security details from our boys.

Of course, there is still a long way to go before life is all hunky-dory there, and one hopes that in the future it won't be necessary to have army security checkpoints at all, but nontheless this is good news indeed.

This had me rolling though:

"When the Afghan programme started about a year ago, the dropout rate was 40 per cent as recruits objected to the rigid 10-week training regime and bad food."

Ooh-freakiin'-rah! That's good training.

The FT goes on to report that the dropout rate has fallen to a more respectable 15 percent.

2003-08-08T07:25:00.000-05:00

Much Obliged

We made the blogroll of at the Scholars. I hope we can keep them entertained.

2003-08-07T13:01:00.000-05:00

Free Market Transportation Solutions

A great article in todays Washington Times about using toll roads and technology to ease the pain of traffic congestion.

If this proves to be helpful in Northern Virginia, which I know from living there is hell on earth compared to driving in the Twin Cities, it could certainly work here.

Similiar to Rep Kennedy's ideas.

2003-08-07T11:37:00.000-05:00

Vichy Cons?

John Zmirak reprints one of his recent speeches on the whole palea-neocon debate that has been fuming for a couple of months now. (Link via The Corner.)

Interesting.

I've been thinking about this for a while.While I have a soft spot in my heart for Pat Buchanan (My Dad voted for him in '92 and occasionally still waxes nostalgic of that year's GOP primary debates.)

Still, I can't lablel myself a paleo given some of their harder views on imigration and trade policy. I'm too young to be considered a "neo." And Bill Kristol and the President's "compassionate conservatism" seems to embrace a big government stance on many issues pushing me away from that philosophy.

Jay Nordlinger fancies himself a "Reaganite." That gets a little closer to a summation of my own beliefs, but again I'm a little too young.

I suppose I'm more of a "Gingrichian." I was captivated when "Contract With America" took the country by storm and have read it like a million times.

That's it: Gingrichian. Or maybe one could call it "political Newtism."

You can check out the Newtsters latest stuff at AEI.

2003-08-07T09:57:00.000-05:00

The Gay Bishop

The Pioneer Press weighs in on the issue with a couple of stories.

It seems like it was a heck of a fight in Minneapolis the last couple of days.

The press does a good job summarizing the scriptural debate at play here. Detractors of the newly elected Bishop point to several scripture passages in both the Old and New Terstaments in which appropriate sexual conduct is defined. Supporters of the Bishop counter by pointing out that there are many things in the Bible that "we" don't follow any more, ergo what's the big deal? "The greatest of these is love, etc."

This is troubling. While of course there are things in the Bible that most of the Church do not follow. Yet these examples are largely made up of somewhat trivial comands from the Old Testament, many of which were thrown out in Jesus' time, like how far one may walk on the Sabbath and the eating of certain foods.

But, in my opinion this is a clear case of personal conduct that is well defined as the linked article points out. I don't think it has any more to do with homosexuality than heterosexuality outside the confines of marriage.

Maybe we hold church leaders to too high a standard. Certainly his actions should not be considered criminal, and as well, the even if we consider his conduct to be sinfull, the Scriptures make no attempt to rate one sin more of a sin than another.

Nevertheless, it seems natural for people to seek spiritual guidence from someone whom, in their eyes, walks the walk.

I doubt the issue has ended here. Maybe we'll see a split in the church or possibly just the continuing exodus of former main-line churchgoers to the more conservative evengelical denominations.

Either way, it was nice to see an open debate on the subject. Shame it won't happen in academia.

2003-08-07T08:55:00.000-05:00

Welcome to 1968

Dick Morris has an interesting piece that highlights the similiarities between the coming '04 election and the 1968 presidential election.

Morris writes:

"Will the role Robert F. Kennedy was preparing for be played by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Lyndon Johnson by George W. Bush and Eugene McCarthy by Howard Dean? As that famous philosopher Yogi Berra said, 'It?s d?j? vu all over again.'

"Bill and Hillary Clinton have one central idea in their uncluttered, ambitious minds: Hillary in 2008. Let Bush get re-elected, use the ?04 primaries and general election to clean out the underbrush of competing Democratic candidates, and proceed unimpeded to the ?08 nomination. Use the book tours to build support and popularity, but let somebody else take the fall in 2004.

"But those well-laid plans would go awry if somebody else beats Bush."

But is it just a trick? (Scroll down a bit.)

2003-08-06T17:12:00.000-05:00

The Latest NR

Lots of good stuff here. I almost didn't make it to work on time 'cause I was up all night reading it.

Jay Nordlinger has a great article on those little "race boxes" we have to check on almost every form we complete. I have long thought those things to be an annoyance. For a while now I have stopped answering them. I managed to transfer to a new school without checking any "race boxes."

Nordlinger's article consists of a bunch of letters from readers who similiarly don't care enough to answer the race question.

Maybe we "race box rebels" are at the start of a national trend. If enough people balk at this meaningless question it would basically ruin about two-thirds of budding sociologist's careers!

2003-08-06T17:02:00.000-05:00

Terror Futures Market

A nice editorial in the Pioneer Press today about the now faded controversy over the Pentagon's plans for a futures market to help predict terrorist atacks as well as other geo-political events.

The very idea of using the power of markets to solve such complicated problems predictably sent many Liberal leaders into community theatre Chicken Little audition mode. Probably because it just might work.

I'm afraid we may have missed out on a great idea. Using futures markets to attempt predictions has been around for, well, forever. Applying the same principle to a matter of national security seems to me as just the kind of 'outside-the-box' thinking we need.

2003-08-06T16:28:00.000-05:00

Z-man!

It's nice to see that Zach has remained au courant with his talent for finding the hammer and sickle locked in the modern liberal mind.

For a tast of the Z-man's Birchian (a complement!) opinions on the subject, click here. (Registration required. Scroll Down, second letter.)

2003-08-06T09:36:00.000-05:00

Damm Communists.

2003-08-05T22:42:00.000-05:00

Pro-Union, Anti-Worker

More Star Tribune. This article tells a flattering tale of Sen John Kerry's campaign swing through Minnesota today.

Apparently Kerry is trying to fire up his union base by blasting the Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's plan to revamp an archaic overtime law.

Now, to me, labor laws in the 21st century are generally bad. And it is common knowledge that unions drive up wages and by strong-arming the companies that employ them, amd prevent employment for people who are willing to work for less.

But all that aside, this proposed change to the law will actually "help" low income workers by raising the income level below which an employer can declare a worker inelligable for overtime from around $8k per year to about $22,100 per year.

In theory this should allow more low income workers to reap the benefits of overtime pay. Sen Kerry, this great man of the people, is against that because the law would also declare workers who make >$65,000 per year exempt from overtime benefits.

Of course, all this is a bunch if hullaballoo. Workers who already have union contracts will not be affected. It's just a scare tactic. Besides, what is there to worry about? It's a free county (over-used, I know). If some machinist or whaterver making $65k is upset if he or she has to work a couple extra hours a week, he or she can just leave.

It's as simple as that. A worker sells his service to firms that need his particular service. If the price ain't right the worker moves on, until he either gets the right price or comes to the conclusion that he is asking too much. Tens of millions of Americans go through this process every day. I think the smart guys call it the "Labor Market."

Kerry needs to get over himself and actually think abourt the "little guy" he claims to represent.

For another description of the proposed policy go here. (Scroll down, second article.)

2003-08-05T21:58:00.000-05:00

He's Back???

The Star Tribune has this story (registration required) about a possible rematch between Bill Luther and Rep John Kline in the second district. This could be interesting. We'll have to wait and see.

I suppose this is the typical speculative article that appears in the papers when the political news is slow, but there are some things of interest.

For one, according to the Trib, Luther has some catching up to do in the fund-rasing department. If we recall the last time these two faced off, and the time before that, and the time before that, we know that money is key. If history is any indicator this possible race will be fought over the air waves and should provide us all with some wholesome entertainment while we are trying to study.

But there are other things of interest. We know that Luther and former Kennedy opponent Janet Roberts are, to put it nicely...close. Luther keeps a residence in Stillwater (6th district). Could the cold old lady push him to run against Kennedy? Hmmm.

Bring it on punk.

2003-08-05T21:32:00.000-05:00

As this is my first blog entry and I'm not really sure if there is supposed to be some kind of ceremonial fluff I'll just get right to it. Hell, I'm not big on introductions anyway.

The Washington Times is reporting that the POTUS is standing behind diplomat John Bolton just as North Korea is calling for his ouster from the upcoming "talks."

Bolton as you probably recall recently refered to life in the DPRK as a "hellish nightmare."

Good for Bolton. A little truth in diplomacy can't be such a bad thing. And cheers to the Pres for not doing the easy thing and caving to the Stalinists every little tantrum. (A refreshing change in Korea policy from that of his predecessor.)

Give it a read.