A College Republican Christmas

By Carroll Andrew Morse | December 8, 2006 |
|

To help usher in the Christmas season, the University of Rhode Island College Republicans are inviting people to a Christmas card party, where they will be preparing messages of Christmas cheer to be sent to members of the American Civil Liberties Union…

In response to the war on Christmas by radical leftist organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), members of the University of Rhode Island College Republicans will be facilitating an event for U.R.I. students to send Christmas Cards to members of the ACLU. Students will have the opportunity to write Christian themed Christmas cards to the ACLU, wishing them a very Merry Christmas, and reminding the leftist organization of the true meaning of Christmas. The event is free, and cookies and hot cocoa will be served.
The ACLU has attacked Christmas on the local level in the last several years, claiming the city of Cranston, R.I., erected holiday religious displays along with secular displays in violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.” The students hope that these efforts combined with those of students across the country will help the ACLU respect Christmas as one of the most commonly celebrated holidays of the United States.
Chairman Ryan Bilodeau blasted the ACLU, saying, “The ACLU advocates freedom of speech, but fails to apply that right to everyone. They are so out of the mainstream, that they are stifling people from celebrating the only actual reason for the season. Contrary to the tenets that leftist organizations like the ACLU promote in their lawsuits, we want to students of URI, and namely the ACLU themselves, to know that Christmas is, in fact, the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.”
The event will be held on Monday, December 11. Further details available here.

[Open full post]

Toward a New Direction in Rhode Island

By Justin Katz | December 7, 2006 |
|

Among the qualities that I love about Rhode Island is its size. For some Americans, for example, attending an event across their state requires a plane and a hotel. Rhode Islanders can traverse theirs without even stopping for gas. One can get to know this state; it’s manageable.
Of course, its manageability is also its great vulnerability. Entrenched powers, with their short-sighted self-interest, have been managing it right into a hole. So much is this true, it increasingly seems with each passing election that the only reasonable response is to give up on electoral politics. Between Rhode-apathy and the habitual voting practices — most notably those of voting Democrat and of granting the state government permission to grab new money for worthwhile expenditures that ought to have been included in its general spending — it is tempting to dismiss the system as unfixable.
So, many of us have begun to think it necessary to look for ways to work outside of the system, and here the state’s size emerges again as a wonderful quality — in terms of both effectiveness and opportunity for experimentation. Many of us have also begun to think that the way in which to implement the conservative approaches that can save this state is through the very conservative principle of community activity, the conservative ethos of open and plain discussion of facts, and the classically liberal application of universal freedoms. To put it into a credo: we must give everybody a forum in which to discuss matters of concern to us all, within the context of plain recitation of stubborn facts and honestly assessed principles, at the most basic levels of society.
One such, newly implemented, experiment is Bill Felkner’s Parents’ Forum for the Chariho School district. On the index page, the Web site offers links to more information than the average parent will have time or inclination to peruse. Perhaps more importantly, Felkner has set up a message board, in the form of a blog, through which parents can discuss matters of mutual interest. I encourage those to whom the site applies to participate, and those to whom it does not to pursue similar strategies.
The movement to push Rhode Island toward healthier societal construction will by necessity incorporate many roles, and it is crucial that we remember that, especially in this state, local involvement can have far-reaching effects.

[Open full post]

Liberal Social Engineering Summed Up

By Justin Katz | December 7, 2006 |
|

Jonah Goldberg notes that “New York City’s Board of Health unexpectedly withdrew a proposal yesterday that would have allowed people to alter the sex on their birth certificates without sex-change surgery.” Astonishingly, it turns out that such a policy would not only cause confusion but might even be abused, for example, by male inmates wishing to be moved to female prisons. I think City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas R. Frieden neatly sums up the great unspoken post facto thought of liberal social engineers everywhere:

“This is something we hadn’t fully thought through, frankly.”

Admission is the first step to recovery.

[Open full post]

Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and Conspiracy Debunking

By Marc Comtois | December 7, 2006 |
| | |

For those so inclined, I’ve put up a longish piece (WARNING: excessive scholarliness may induce drowsiness) over at Spinning Clio that touches on Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and conspiracies about each. (Though it is mostly about debunking the Pearl Harbor conspiracies.)

[Open full post]

Re: NYC Bureaucratic Heroes: Spare the Trans-fats, Save the World

By Carroll Andrew Morse | December 7, 2006 |
|

In what may come as encouraging news to New York City resident Kathy Ramirez, the London Evening Standard reports that even if a McDonald’s opens nearby, it is possible not to eat at it.…

McDonald’s is closing its outlet in a town known for quality food and healthy, local produce.
The fast food chain in Tavistock, Devon, simply wasn’t being used enough by locals.
So after seven years struggling to make ends meet in a town that has won many accolades for the quality of its food, McDonald’s will finally shut up shop on Saturday.

(more…)

[Open full post]

Chafee/Bolton/Republican Party Footnote

By Carroll Andrew Morse | December 7, 2006 |
|

For those still unconvinced that the national Republicans were as clueless as they seemed in this past election cycle, one convincing piece of evidence comes from syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Unbelievably, the White House was surprised by Senator Lincoln Chafee’s intransigence on confirming John Bolton as United Nations Ambassador…

The fecklessness at the White House in managing Bolton’s nomination is exemplified by the feeling there to the end that Chafee could be brought along. Having poured money into Chafee’s Rhode Island Republican primary campaign against a conservative challenger, Bush in private is furious over betrayal by the maverick Republican. Chafee’s fellow GOP senators believe that if he were re-elected, he would have permitted Bolton’s name to go to the Senate floor. Quirky to the end, Chafee says the Democratic election victory is reason to block Bolton.

[Open full post]

Thanks, Arlene

By Donald B. Hawthorne | December 7, 2006 |
|

Today is Arlene Violet’s last day on 920 WHJJ.
I had the pleasure of being on her show a number of times in the last year or so – to discuss education issues – and I want to thank her for her graciousness to me during those times.
Thanks, Arlene, for the last 16 years and best of luck in whatever you do next.
Here are some of the posts we discussed on the show:
For a high level look at the strategic questions in education, read Bringing a New Strategic Focus to the Education Debate and Empowering Our Children to Live the American Dream Demands School Choice.
For a more indepth look at the education debate, read The Moral Imperative for School Choice: The Complete Posting.
We also discussed the earlier East Greenwich teachers’ union contract dispute and some statewide education issues.

[Open full post]

What’s Wrong with the Baker Commission Report

By Carroll Andrew Morse | December 6, 2006 |
|

I haven’t had time to fully digest it yet, but I can already tell you about a basic problem with the Iraq Study Group’s report, which is full of statements like this one (page 50)…

The Study Group recognizes that U.S. relationships with Iran and Syria involve difficult issues that must be resolved. Diplomatic talks should be extensive and substantive, and they will require a balancing of interests.
Of course, to implement a balancing of interests, you first have to determine what the interests of your adversary are. To get a sense of what the Iranian government views as its long-term interests, we can start with this Agence France-Presse story (via Breitbart) on a speech delivered today by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad …
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God or “vanish from the face of the earth”.
“These oppressive countries are angry with us … a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.
“They are angry with our nation. But we tell them ‘so be it and die from this anger’. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth,” he said.
So, in a nutshell, the government of Iran sees its primary national interest as helping to eliminate from the face of the earth any Western nation that has not properly responded to its radical vision of God’s call. Now, can someone explain to me exactly how one goes about “balancing” this interest against anything else? Should the US adopt a policy of allowing the Iranian government to annihilate just a few (but not all) Godless Western countries, so long as the US receives some concessions from Iran first. Would that satisfy the balance-of-interest advocates out there?
In the end, the Baker commission recommendations are likely to be quicky forgotten because any plan that proposes dealing with ideologically driven expansionist power by seeking “stability” is destined to fail (see Neville Chamberlin). When one side is working for stability, while the other side is looking to expand, the expansionist side will continue to expand, as the stabilizers continue to seek stability. That means that the expansionists win.

[Open full post]

Froma Harrop Gets Fiscal Conservatism Right

By Carroll Andrew Morse | December 6, 2006 |
|

Without enough people noticing, liberals have mostly succeeded in redefining the term fiscal conservatism from its original meaning of “we must be extremely cautious about spending public funds” to something along the lines of “we must raise taxes high enough to pay for unlimited government spending”. Froma Harrop deserves credit for not falling for the switch. In today’s Projo, Ms. Harrop reminds people that a real fiscal conservatism begins with controlling the spending side of the equation…

Anger over Washington’s spending orgy was especially strong around Denver, Philadelphia and other formerly Republican suburbs. They went blue in the last election, but their voters haven’t signed on any dotted lines with the Democratic Party. If Republicans run Schwarzneggerian candidates who promise both stem-cell research and spending discipline, they could win those districts back.
Last week, we saw Ms. Harrop embracing free market principles for half of a column; this week she is touting controlling spending as half of a program for Republican success. Can an entire column on the sensibility of free markets and smaller government be far behind!?

[Open full post]

New House Intelligence Committee Chairman Presses for More Troops to Iraq

By Carroll Andrew Morse | December 6, 2006 |
|

Here’s a short news item that can be pondered as readers peruse the much-awaited release of the report from the Iraq Study Group. According to Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball of Newsweek, the incoming Democratic Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee favors sending more troops to Iraq…

In an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, [Congressman Silvestre Reyes] pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.
Congressman Reyes’ position is a direct result of the liberal inability to develop any position on the War on Terror. Without the benefit of a coherent strategy that he and his political allies believe in, the Congressman is left with the stark choice of pretending the War on Terror doesn’t exist or pressing ahead from our current position.
It’s good to see that there are still a few honest Democrats who realize that pretending it doesn’t exist is not an option. However, I’m not quite sure that the ISG has come to this realization…

[Open full post]