Monday, January 30, 2006

Happy Tet!

The Vietnamese community here in Oklahoma celebrated their new year's eve Saturday night, and we all woke up in the year of the dog yesterday.

Speaking of which, the Sunday Oklahoman had a front-page article on how the state budget is spent. More than half of it goes to education. This comes out after the local branch of the NEA teachers' union filed a lawsuit this month to increase education's share of the state budget. (Original is registration only: Google cache here.) The Oklahoman notes:

The Oklahoma Education Association wants $4 billion more to educate students and upgrade school facilities statewide. The lawsuit supposedly reveals vast funding problems in the state's school finance system but we've yet to hear a plausible solution as to how to pay for what it deems an "adequate" education.

The entire budget of the Great State of Oklahoma is $6.2 billion. $3.1 billion already goes to education, so the OEA is actually suing for a total education budget that exceeds the entire state budget.

One reason it's not so much fun blogging politics anymore is that our honorable opponents have turned themselves into clowns recently. Galloway in a leotard, Kerry rushing home from Davos to lead a filibuster, the teachers' union here ...

Anyway, the Republicans aren't doing so well themselves -- more lobbying corruption? Man, and after McCain-Feingold, I thought they all went honest. (cough)

Yeah, welcome to the year of the dog.

Monday, January 23, 2006

George Galloway Leotarded!?

This is utterly unbelievable. It has to be a joke, but I can't see anything to suggest it is. Anyone else? Please, someone show me this is satire.

Sample:
First he shocked TV viewers and his colleagues by pretending to be a cat and lapping milk from Rula Lenska's hand.

Now George Galloway is set to attract further derision after performing a dance routine on Celebrity Big Brother - in a tight-fitting, red leotard.

The Respect MP, already under fire for taking part in the show instead of representing his constituents, ad-libbed a dance routine for his latest stunt.


(Mug tip to Right Thinking People in the appropriately-titled post, "Gaaah! My Eyes!")

Update: No, apparently it's real. Here's a Times Online report on it:
Mr Galloway, a left-winger who was expelled from the Labour Party over his attacks on Tony Blair and the decision to commit British troops to the invasion of Iraq, inflicted a shock defeat on his former party when he narrowly captured the Bethnal Green seat from Ms King, a Blair loyalist, in May's general election.

Last night, he sauntered along the red carpet into the Big Brother house to a chorus of boos from the crowd, before pausing to make a victory sign and shout "Stop the war!".

Once inside the house he introduced himself to the others, accompanying each handshake with the words: "I’m a Member of Parliament".


Update 2: Pajamas Media is on the case with a better, er, worse, photo, and interesting links.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Pressing On Towards the Chocolate Cookies

Well, I've started a new class, taken the GRE, am preparing to apply for grad school, have been asked to read at a poetry reading & have been preparing for that (crikey! poetry is hard after so long!). I have started some part-time work, and am looking for more. If all goes well, next fall I'll be a happy grad assistant, torturing undergrads and living the freewheeling life on campus.

As a concerned man, I have to say that the typical 57% female, 43% male ratio seems to hold on campus, and I am very concerned that our educational system seems to be failing boys. As a single man, however, I have to say there is an up side ...

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Monday, January 09, 2006

"More Blogging Soon ..."

Did I actually write that? I don't think so; it must be aliens. (Speaking of which, saw a sign today outside a local restaurant that said "Earth is full, go home.")

Anyway, lots is happening in my non-blog life right now, though whether any of it will be productive or not is still up in the air. So, I'm hiatusing for a bit.

Catch ya later!

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Happy New Year!

I had a pretty good break. I hope everyone else did too!

More blogging soon ...

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Well, Heck

I'm trying to write the wrap-up to my first set of policies to deal with illegal immigration, and I'm beginning to really understand why politicians don't want to mess with this. It goes way beyond the Hispanic vote, too.

The additional problems I see with my own policy suggestions are:

1. The economic fallout in the US would be bad -- suddenly we'd have millions of unemployed illegal aliens with no way out. Deporting them, assuming we could catch all of them, would be extremely expensive. Polipundit suggested that, if they couldn't get work, the illegals would deport themselves, but I don't believe that. Some, maybe many, would be forced into crime, which is made more likely as increased pressure from the US government would allow Mexican organized crime groups in the US to have greater power over the illegals. Also, as our cheap labor pool dried up, prices would go up.

2. I recently read that remittances sent from people in the US constitute Mexico's second largest source of income. (I'll try to find the article and link it.) If even half of the money being sent there is from illegals, then carrying out these policies will actually make Mexico's economy worse, which will exacerbate the problem.

3. The Mexican government has lost control of segments of the nation. It is no longer in firm control over the police or military, both of which have been thoroughly infiltrated by drug lord agents and both of which have, in the past, acted to protect drug lord interests over the interests of Mexico. Any worsening of the situation in Mexico could further weaken the government and strengthen criminal organizations.

Thoughts? Ideas? Solutions?

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Finals Week

It's that time of year, folks. I'll reformulate my Illegal Immigration 1 policy and post a new policy proposal in the near future.

In the meantime, here's some philosophy for you:

Definition: Kneehighlism - the belief that fruit-flavored softdrinks are better than Nothing.

And a holiday joke I stole:

Did you know that the three wise men were firemen? Yeah, it says they came from a far.

And finally, folks, remember: A solipsist has only imaginary friends.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Dean Fisked Like a Snake in a Wagon Rut Wearing a Tophat

Howard Dean: "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway."

Jason Van Steenwyk replies:
...thanks to the Abrams Doctrine and former SecDef Melvin Laird, the active component cannot function without significant commitment from the reserve forces.

This is because, combat formations aside, much of the required medical, transportation, supply, administrative, communications, civil affairs, legal, and combat support needed to conduct a deployment comes from the reserve components.

If you pull reserve forces out, you will rip the heart out of our combat divisions. You may not even be able to fly them home.

Tell the Brigade commander "you know that truck company you rely on to move a battalion of soldiers to and from the fight? Send them home.You know that -30 level maintenance unit you rely on to get your crew-served weapons firing and to repair your damaged and broken vehicles? You don't get them anymore. You know those MPs already working 12 hour shifts guarding your detainees? Say bye-bye. And you really don't need those Arabic linguists do you? We're sending a whole battalion of linguists home...


In other news, Howard Dean to Bring Christmas Cheer to Troops.

Heh.

###



PS, if you haven't advised me on my future presidential immigration policy yet, please do!

And remember, AGIP 2008!

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Wiki-wild

Instapundit sends us to a roundup on the Wikipedia wars.

I like the idea of Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia anyone can add to or edit, a great deal. The execution, however, is sometimes lacking a great deal. Worse, sometimes it is making up a great deal, like adding treason to bios.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Illegal Immigration 1

Here's your chance to affect presidential policy! This is the second in my series of policy discussions. These posts are rough drafts of my future presidential platform planks (AGIP 2008!), and I heartily welcome the comments of my presidential policy formation team (i.e., my blog readers). At the beginning of each week, I'll post a new policy discussion post, and at the end of each week, I will summarize and re-draft that week's policy proposal.

Illegal immigrants and immigration are complex issues, and so this post more than anything else discusses how to change immigration and employment policies to control illegal immigration. What this post does not address are border security, how to deal with the 7 million+ illegal aliens in the US this program will upheave, as well as how to handle the economic fallout of ending a large, cheap labor pool. Those three things will be the focus of next week's policy discussion (though, of course, feel free to comment on them here).

This post represents both domestic and diplomatic proposals to help end the problem of illegal immigration. I am greatly indebted for many of the ideas to various posts by Dr. Demarche on The Daily Demarche, a blog by two foreign service officers which has given the most informed ideas to address this issue I've seen. I have collected, organized and modified some of the ideas I found there and added my own as noted below.

Ten Answers to the Illegal Immigration Problem

In El Otro Lado, Dr. Demarche laid out five steps the US could take to resolve the problem of illegal immigration and explained them. I have quoted from his list (all direct quotes are from The Daily Demarche), added my own ideas, and posted these steps below. You can click the link to read his explanations. I have added three more steps from other posts at The Daily Demarche, including guest poster Criticalreactor. Finally, the last two proposals are my own.

1. "Punish American firms that hire illegal workers- this is the most important step." I would expand this to simply say 'Punish Americans who hire ...' It isn't just firms. Small businesses and individuals are also doing this. On the enforcement side, I would start with the big fish and work down, of course.
2. "Establish a more secure employment document- the Social Security card does not work." Issue new SS cards with photos and all the anti-counterfeiting features. Showing a valid new SS card would also be required to be able to vote in federal elections, and encourage states & cities to pass similar legislation for state elections. From Polipundit, I found out the Social Security Administration is already implementing an online database employers can check SSNs on, which is great -- I don't have to add this to my platform! I would make checking a requirement, however.
3. "Revise and expand the H2 [guest worker] visa category- not just for Mexicans, but for all, and require that issuance only occur in the country of origin of the alien."*
4. "Require legal workers to pay into Medicaid, and deny public benefits to illegal aliens found in America."
5. "Reduce the amount of foreign aid granted to any country by a set or variable amount based on the costs associated with each illegal immigrant detained/treated/deported."
6. Institute a waiting period for applications for visas after a denial. Currently, once denied a visa, an applicant can pretty much immediately re-apply, which is choking the system. This and steps 7 and 8 would greatly enhance our ability to control to whom we issue visas.
7. Professional visa adjudicators would take over the visa lines, currently manned by newby FSOs who do the job for a year or two and move on. They would be "...well versed in law and policy who speak the local language at a high level ..."
8. End all visa category restrictions on the use of section 214(b) to deny visas. 214(b) "... is the catch-all refusal used to turn down applicants (tourist, business, student, etc) that the officer feels are not being truthful, or has other suspicions about." Currently, religious visas (Islamist imams, anyone?) and some others are exempt from denial under this section. (Guest poster Criticalreactor suggested ending the exemption on religious visas, but I don't see any reason to stop there.)
9. Deny a visa to anyone who has publicly incited violence against the US or its interests within the last ten years, and deport any resident aliens who do or have done this.
10. From the date of passage of the legislation, any child born on US soil whose parents are in the US illegally will not be granted US citizenship. This decreases the incentive for pregnant women to cross illegally.

Well, team, what do you think?

###


Update: Dr. Demarche has a new post on this topic up at American Future which is worth the read.

*Dr. D., if you read this, could you please explain why you would require the issuance in the country of origin, instead of simply outside the US? For example, why is it a bad idea to allow a Chinese worker to apply from Japan?

Polipundit link mug tip to Michelle Malkin.

And remember, vote A Guy in Pajamas in 2008!

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Bush vs. ET Wrap-up

Well, Jean was the only one who gave a serious response to the discussion, so there's not much to wrap up. Thanks, Jean!

It was an impulse post, however, and most of my readers are folks coming in from Google searches for different kinds of pajamas, so maybe my expectations were a bit too high.

Tomorrow or Monday I'll post another question. Maybe I can make this one a bit more engaging.

Update: Just wanted to say, this was not meant as a 'poor me' post. If I can't generate reader interest, that's my problem, not my readers' problem for not commenting, etc. I hope I didn't sound like I was whining. I really do appreciate my readers, without whom I would have quit blogging long ago.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Discussion: Bush vs. ET?

From PRWeb:
On September 25, 2005, in a startling speech at the University of Toronto that caught the attention of mainstream newspapers and magazines, Paul Hellyer, Canada’s Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head."

Mr. Hellyer went on to say, "I'm so concerned about what the consequences might be of starting an intergalactic war, that I just think I had to say something."

Hellyer revealed, "The secrecy involved in all matters pertaining to the Roswell incident was unparalled. The classification was, from the outset, above top secret, so the vast majority of U.S. officials and politicians, let alone a mere allied minister of defence, were never in-the-loop."

Hellyer warned, "The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning. He stated, "The Bush administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."

Hellyer’s speech ended with a standing ovation. He said, "The time has come to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today."


Indeed. And what a great issue to launch my new discussion theme. At the beginning of each week, I will endeavor to post an interesting question for discussion, and wrap it up at the end of the week.

First Question: How should the US respond to these extraterrestrials? Is it better to be armed and polite, or mostly harmless and polite? Or something else?

Side Question: If you were Condoleeza Rice, how would you reply to Mr. Hellyer's comments? (Remember, you're secretary of state -- this would be an official statement!)

(The topic has been around the block a bit: WSJ's Best of the Web & InakaYabanjin, among others.)

Monday, November 28, 2005

Good Discussion of Media Coverage of Iraq

There are articles, polls, & discussions of this going on over at AOL. (Yes, I'm trying to influence the polls.)

I'm Not Dead

Really. (In fact, I'm feeling much better now. I'm. Happy! I'm. Happy!)

But, the Good Doctor is now demised. He'll be posting over at American Future, which I'll soon bagel. That old bagel is looking pretty moldy over there, come to think of it.

Well, Diplomad, Chrenkoff, Allahpundit, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ...

To blog or not to blog, that, Ferns, Romulans, Fellow Bloggers, is the sow's ear I need to consider. Whether it is better to suffer the worms and maggots of outrageous decomposition, or to go gently into that good night, or to awake, and awakening, dream of new themes and posts, aye, posts, there, me lads and lasses, is the rub.

Monday, November 14, 2005

A Broader Pro-Liberation Response

It seems the president wasn't giving a one-off defense of going to war, which was something that worried me. The facts are in our favor. There is only so long you can be a gentleman and ignore slander.

From the AP:

Bush relied on the collective judgment of the intelligence community when he determined that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"Turns out, we were wrong," Hadley told "Late Edition" on CNN. "But I think the point that needs to be emphasized ... allegations now that the president somehow manipulated intelligence, somehow misled the American people, are flat wrong."

Republican lawmakers and other officials who appeared on Sunday news shows echoed Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush said Democrats in Congress had the same intelligence about Iraq, and he argued that many now claiming that the information had been manipulated had supported going to war. The president also accused his critics of making false charges and playing politics with the war.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean rejected the criticism on Sunday and said, "The truth is, the president misled America when he sent us to war."

...

Contending that the president has not been honest about the size of the deficit as well as the war, Dean said, "This is an administration that has a fundamental problem telling the truth."


Hmph. Sounds like the most fundamental problem a sizable number of Democrats still have is just making crap up. Go on 'Face the Nation' with McCain, Mr. Dean. See how far that BS takes you.

Back to the AP article:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Democrats have a right to criticize the war but that it was disingenuous to claim that Bush lied about intelligence to justify it.

"Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians, the French ... all reached the same conclusion," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation."


Not to mention Clinton.

Let's hope the pro-liberation crowd keeps it up. As for me, for whatever it's worth, I'm writing my representatives to let them know I expect them to keep it up. We have the facts on our side; we need to use them.