Friday, February 24, 2006

Should we de-port the UAE?

I haven't felt like I've had time to weigh in on the whole "UAE in America's ports" thing, but Jonah Goldberg had exactly the same thoughts I did, and more time to research and organize those thoughts. So here's a link to his article on the matter. I hope to start getting into the routine of blogging every Saturday or every other Saturday, but don't hold your breath.

SRS

Monday, February 13, 2006

Fewer posts to come

I may be blogging far less often soon. Schedule change, and all that. We'll see. Just thought you, my faithful reader(s), should know in advance.

SRS

In defense of "ragheads"

It seems that in a speech at a conservative political gathering (CPAC) Ann Coulter has referred to the enemies of the U.S. as "ragheads." I heard about that a day or two ago, but I didn't think it was worth commenting on. But then I realized, I have referred to Ann Coulter as my heroine. So, to explain why I'm not going to change that, I am writing this post.

First, Ann Coulter says and writes outrageous things. That's what she does to make the money she lives (and thrives) on. There must be a market for it. I have a theory on why that is. First, right-wingers hear all the time about how they're nazi-racist-sexist-bigot-homophobes (as Rush Limbaugh would say - at least, he used to say that, but I don't listen to him much anymore). After hearing over-the-top vitriol spewed at us and those we admire, and seeing no consequences for those who spew, we have a tendency to want revenge. Ann Coulter toes the line between rational conservative thought and vindictive bile. All conservatives hate being lashed out at by "leftist weenies," but Coulter is one of very few who lash back. It makes for an interesting weekly read, and her columns, in my experience, are much more intelligent and thoughtful than her publicized comments from CPAC.

Did I mention that it's humour? Ann joked about killing liberal Supreme Court justices, and Bill Clinton, and I think those jokes are not funny. If I had kids, I wouldn't let them joke like that. And I don't think Ms. Coulter should have uttered them. (If you're a Democrat, ask yourself whether or not this is any worse than Al Franken's jokes.) Perhaps you're wondering why I didn't mention the "raghead" comment. Well, I don't think it's as bad as joking about murdering people.

Here's what Ann Coulter said that has everyone calling her a "racist:"
"I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."

What race is offended by that? Muslims? Does that mean that Ted Kennedy is racist against conservatives? Is the NY Times racist against Christians? Islam is not a race. People choose to be Muslims, or not to be Muslims - or at least, in America that's still a choice. It's not racist to disparage a religion. It may be insensitive to that religion, but it's not like hating people because they're born, say, Jewish. If you were to make a political cartoon that depicted Hebrew Jews as, say, bloodsucking warmongers, that would be racist. But one can choose not to be a Muslim. Even in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, people have been risking their lives to choose not to be Muslims - proving that "Muslim" is not a race.

Now, should Ms. Coulter have called Muslims who speak out against the U.S. "ragheads"? No. I wouldn't. Again, if I had kids, I wouldn't let them use the term "raghead." But then again, most people are unoffended when they watch a WWII movie and someone says "kraut." That's an ethnic slur, at least as bad as "raghead," considering that there were many hard-working, law-abiding, on-our-side German-Americans in the U.S. in WWII, just as there are hard-working, law-abiding, on-our-side Muslim Americans in the U.S. now. Yet American "krauts" got over it. They got on with their lives, and they proved that they were on our side. They condemned Naziism. Too many Muslims in America are just looking around for something to complain about, be it Ann Coulter's injudicious comments, or some non-terrorist Muslim who was deported because he had violated his visa, or some turn of phrase that some low-level bureaucrat used, or what have you. They should look to German-Americans and Japanese-Americans of WWII as examples of how to be American.

Again, I don't think Coulter should have used the word "raghead." Even worse, I think, is calling for the assassination of people who should, at worst, be put in prison. Obviously, she was having a bad day. Maybe she just wanted the controversy so she would have something to write about in her next column. Whatever.

If you are a Muslim who believes in freedom, just remember that calling on the government (or anyone other than Ms. Coulter) to make her watch her language, is very anti-freedom. Remember that many in America see institutions like CAIR pretending to be moderate Muslims, then turning around and aiding and abetting the U.S.'s enemies. You need to find a way to be more visible and more vocal if you don't want "Muslims vs. America" or "Muslims vs. freedom" to be good ways of describing the most important conflict the 21st century. Remember that Muslim governments like those in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, and many others, are very tyrannical, and make it very dangerous to be a Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Democrat, Republican, or even the wrong kind of Muslim in those countries. Remember that Muslims in France rioted for weeks and destroyed many cars in sad display of mindless violence. These are the things that people see when they look at the Muslim community from the outside. Maybe you are a peaceful, freedom-loving Muslim. If you are, speak up, speak out, not against Ann Coulter, but against those who are really a threat to the freedom of Muslims: the religious and political tyrants of Muslim countries. Support America, the one country that represents freedom more than any other country in the world.

SRS

Saturday, February 11, 2006

So many funny videos, so little time

Another great video, this time from RightWinged.com. I almost gave myself a hernia laughing at it. If it seems kind of boring at first, just wait - it gets better.

SRS

Newsflash: actual comedy on Comedy Central

I'm not usually a fan of Comedy Channel or Comedy Central or whatever they're called nowadays (as you may have gathered from this post's title). Ever since they ditched what was then the best show on television, sending it to the Sci-Fi Channel, of all places, they just haven't been the same. Haven't had anything consistently good, in fact. (What was then the best show on television has been ditched by Sci-Fi too, but is being released, rather haphazardly, on DVD.) But Malkin has a CC video that's hilarious and inciteful - my favourite kind.

SRS

Friday, February 10, 2006

Biblical and Constitutional exegesis

I came across this article at The Claremont Institute's website. I found it a little difficult to read - but very rewarding. (This puts it in the same league with many of their articles.) This one is a review of a book about Biblical and Constitutional exegesis (that is, analysis and application of the text), and a paragraph near the end of the article traces similar changes in the American view of the meaning and application of both documents through the 19th century. Please click on the link and read the article for yourself.

SRS

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Bill Clinton as Jimmy Stewart?

I have another blog that's mostly about movies, football, and flat attempts at humour. I didn't know whether to post this at that blog or this one. But I realized that people who read that one and don't read this one probably won't know who Coretta Scott King was, and it's much easier to adequately sum up The Philadelphia Story than to do justice both to the late Mrs. King's life and to brevity as well. If that dichotomy doesn't pique your interest, then I don't know what will.

The Philadelphia Story is a 1939 movie in which Cary Grant stars as an old-money divorced man, and Katie Hepburn as his snobby divorcer. Someone who is not as widely remembered as Grant or Hepburn plays her new-money fiancé, and Jimmy Stewart plays an underrated novelist who writes for gossip rag to make ends meet - and later falls in love with Hep, whom he's been assigned to humiliate in print.

It's more complicated than that, but I just wanted to say that Bill Clinton's elegy for Mrs. King, especially the part where he says she's a real woman, sounded, both in the qualities of his voice and in the words he used, hauntingly similar to Stewart's protestation of love for Hep. I don't think there's anything to be read into that. That's just what it reminded me of.

SRS

A trip to Seattle

I've found a guy I shared a plane ride and a conversation with on a trip to Seattle recently (and by that I mean almost two months ago). Or at least, I've found his blog. It was easy. I just clicked on Technorati up there in the top right of this page (something I once put on here and promptly forgot what it was, and why I put it on), and then I clicked around on the people who have linked to my page, and voila! It's the lefty from the flight to Seattle. (And I mean "lefty" in the best possible way.) He has written a post about our discussion, and, while brief and from his point of view, is nonetheless much better than I could do, because he has a much more detailed memory than I do, and he's fair (almost as fair and balanced as I am).

I cannot vouch for the material on his whole blog, that is, its appropriateness for children (or adults for that matter), but I have read the post I've linked to, and it's unobjectionable and informative. Check out the post.

SRS

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

It happened twenty years ago

Phyllis Schlafly recalls an interesting story about a man who was raped by our court system - proving, once again, that conservatives would be idiots to trust blindly in the police and in DA's. We need to look out for each other, and prevent anything like that from happening in this country ever again.

SRS

Sunday, February 05, 2006

South of the border, down Mexico way. . .

I was catching up on my Malkin, and I came across this story at CNN.com. Do we really need any more evidence that "they just want to work" is just a sloppy generalization? It's going to be hard work to keep out all the crooks and terrorists. Even though I'm the friendliest guy in the entire world to those who want to immigrate and work and abide by our laws henceforth, I'm also realistic about the threat posed by our lack of border security. Unfortunately, many politicians aren't.

American readers: please support candidates for public office who take the issue of border security seriously.

SRS

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Economic interests vs. nostalgia (exploring a hypothetical)

Del Monte will stop growing pineapple in Hawaii. (That's not the hypothetical part, that's real.) Some obsrvers expect the other two major pineapple growers of Hawaii (Dole Food and Maui Pineapple Co.) to pull out also. (Because, as a Del Monte statement put it, it's cheaper to buy pineapples on the open market than to grow them in Hawaii.) I think the others will stay, at least a little while, until "those costs" get even worse.

Why is it so expensive to grow pineapple in a place where the soil and climate are perfect for pineapple? I'll let you economic planners figure that one out. I want to talk about a "what if." What will Hawaii do if no one chooses to grow pineapple in Hawaii anymore? You can bet some people would be upset at the break with tradition, just as they were when sugar growers pulled out of Hawaii. Maybe someone will demand government aid for the pineapple growers, so they can compete, and save those Hawaiian jobs. Perhaps a philanthropist will come along and grow Hawaiian pineapple to sell it at a loss, just to preserve the tradition of growing pineapple on the island state. If there comes a day when no more pineapple is grown on the Hawaiian archipelago, you can bet the farm that people will be nostalgic for the good ol' days.

"It's a travesty!" Some will say. "How can people disregard such a long and beautiful tradition just for economic reasons?" People easily forget that all of our old traditions and all the good ol' ways came about for almost purely economic reasons. Why do you think people planted vast pineapple farms on Hawaii in the first place? It wasn't because they had a massive jones for pineapple. They didn't have a vision of improving everyone's health by getting them to eat more fruit. They saw that the soil and climate of the islands were perfect for growing something that could be sold to mainlanders at a tidy profit. So they grew pineapple, and they profited. Now that they can't make a profit, is anyone surprised that they want to stop?

Maybe something can be done to make Del Monte's Hawaiian pineapple profitable again, or to ensure that Dole and Maui stay profitable. (Ask me, and I'll tell you.) But even if not, let's not bribe or threaten companies to do what is otherwise not in their best interests. (For the record, I haven't yet heard or read of anyone trying to bribe or threaten Del Monte, but I will be very surprised if Dole and Maui move out without attempts made to bribe or threaten them.) Let's just accept that economic motivations are just as valid as sentiment for planning what to do. In fact, more valid, because sometimes someone's survival depends on his pursuing his economic best interest. (That's why it's sometimes called "vital economic interest.")

Now then, enjoy your pineapple, and if you feel very strongly about where it's grown, check with your local grocery store manager. Personally, I'll chance the Filipino and Costa Rican pineapple, if it saves me a few bucks and I can't taste the difference.

SRS

Friday, February 03, 2006

To spray or not to spray (it's up to the osprey)

Here's an interesting story about bed bugs, which you never would have expected me to link to from this blog. "What does this have to do with politics," you are probably asking. Well, I'll tell you.

Bad policy results in people being inconvenienced, losing money, and even being hurt or killed. When it's government policy gone bad, the consequences can be national or even international. Look at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the story for the real reason there's a surge in bed bug populations: that's right, environmental protection policy. U.S., Australian, British, and European governments have "led the way" in protecting our environment from the very things that protect us from the environment (i.e. bed bugs). It's one thing for an American or Australian to get bitten by a bed bug, contract a blood disease, go to the hospital and get treated, and maybe lose a lot of money, and sue the hotel where he stayed. It's quite another when self-righteous environmental crusaders get the U.N. to ban DDT, the only affordable substance that can stop the spread of malaria in poor, third-world countries.

It's not hard to see why banning DDT was so easy in America: nobody dies of malaria in America. DDT probably causes a thinning of the eggshells of raptors (not the dinosaurs, the birds of prey), so they have a harder time surviving. These birds are among the most photogenic and popular in nature (the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the golden eagle, the postal stamp-commemorated American kestrel). Thus the need to ban DDT. But malaria kills 1.5-3 million people outside the U.S. and Europe every year, and DDT is undoubtedly the cheapest, most effective way to stop it. "What to do," moan the American left. If we repeal the ban on DDT, the birds might die, maybe even become extinct. But if we don't, we really are everything we accuse conservatives of being: racist white elitists who don't care about the poor. Well, the American (and European) left has decided to do what it always does with a serious problem: ignore it and hope it goes away. But malaria is not going away, not unless we can bring back DDT in Africa.

As for the bed bugs, I'm willing to patronize an establishment that sprays, heck with the environment. You can feel free to boycott them, though. I won't mind.

SRS

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Why Sheehan should be allowed to wear whatever she wants in the Capitol during the State of the Union address

I can see I'm the only person on the right side of the blogging world who thinks people in the Capitol to watch the SOTUA should be allowed to wear t-shirts with politically-charged messages. The fact that someone was taken out for wearing "Support Our Troops" shows how sticky it is to decide what is and what is not a politically-charged message. One could pretty easily make the case that "Support Our Troops" is a very nonpartisan message. Democrats in public office want you to think it is. Joel Stein and the Kos are the only two people in America who openly oppose our troops. And yet someone thought "Support Our Troops" was a political message. Maybe "I [heart] Freedom" would be a political message. Perhaps "Obey the Constitution" would get unde a lot of congressional skin. Who is deciding what is a political message and what isn't?

Maybe someone will make the case that among the House of Reps' many rules is a "no t-shirt" dress code. That's not what I read. I read Sheehan and Mrs. Young were escorted out for "protesting," which is especially ludicrous in Young's case. And if it's a matter of banning clothes with words on them, I would support abolishing that rule. As long as someone is silent, and not physically interfering with anyone, she is not disrupting the address or anything else. If TV cameras want to focus on an audience member's t-shirt, that just shows where they are. I don't think wearing a t-shirt, even the most wildly partisan one, should be prohibited in the nation's Capitol.

Going back for a moment to the woman who was asked to get off a plane because she had a t-shirt that was wildly partisan and also obscene, I think that was completely within the airline's rights. The Constitution does not hold airlines or any other business to the free speech standard. That's only for the government (which includes the House of Representatives). Businesses set their own rules (or at least they should be allowed to), and the Constitution is not binding on them, nor should it be. As I noted in an earlier article about companies "invading their employees' privacy" by making sure they weren't smokers, it's a violation of a business' rights and freedoms to have government come force it to allow its customers and employees all the same freedoms they would (or should) be afforded in a government facility. If potential airline passengers don't want to patronize airlines that have a decency standard for what you wear on their airplanes, they don't have to. If you don't want to work for a company that goes to great lengths to keep its employees from smoking, you don't have to (or at least, you wouldn't as long as it's not federal law that requires businesses to discriminate against smokers).

Freedom: learn it, live it, love it.

SRS

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Condolences to Mr. Ott

The strong right straight would like to extend condolences to Mr. Ott of Scrappleface, until that Day when he sees his grandmother again.

SRS

An aimless, incoherent rant

Cindy Sheehan is a member or supporter or liker or something of a bunch of folks called "CODEPINK, a group pushing for an end to the Iraq war," according to the AP. What a coincidence. I too am pushing for an end to the Iraq war. I have something in common with Cindy Sheehan.

Another thing I have in common with Cindy Sheehan is that I think it is totally ridiculous to take someone out of the Capitol because of something that can be read on her t-shirt. But then, I've never been a fan of dress codes. Cindy Sheehan was forced out of the State of the Union address for wearing a "[two-thousand some-odd] dead, how many more?" t-shirt. The wife of a Republican rep was escorted out because of a "Support the Troops" t-shirt she was wearing. Each somehow, incomprehensibly, thought her own case was that of partisan singling-out. Obviously this is yet another matter of bipartisan idiocy. They're t-shirts for crying out loud. As a matter of fact, there was no crying out loud. That's my point. How can you be disrupting a speech when you're not making any noise?

Another thing: Sheehan wanted to be arrested. I'll bet she's giddy that they escorted her out without provocation. I'm not saying Capitol (Keystone) cops are leftists. I still stand by the bipartisan/nonpartisan idiot comment.

Why not allow t-shirts into the Capitol during the SOTUA? I think that congress is more and more interested in limiting the speech of all the commoners, and getting away with it more and more. You'll notice that when they get caught misbehaving, instead of repenting, they use it as an excuse to take more of our freedoms away (see "Campaign Finance Reform"). They'll do it again if this Abramoff thing results in any new legislation.

We need to start taking our congress back, especially at the primary level. The Republicans haven't done what they promised. They just borrow and spend as a not-so-welcome break from Democrats' tax-and-spend strategy. Every politician that behaves differently in office than he promised during his campaign should not be selected in primary, let alone elected.

Also, let's demand a constitutional amendment banning pork (federal spending on goodies for individual states or counties or towns). I could write one this week that would improve the U.S. economy substantially and free up congress' time. . . wait, maybe that's not such a good idea after all.

SRS
Subscribe to Backlog Bob's strong right straight