Author: Bryant

Den Beste notes a $500 million drop in American tourism over in France. Meanwhile, the ITA Office of Travel and Tourism notes a 7.6% drop in visitors to the United States for Q1 2003. This follows a 8.3% drop last year.

Putting that into perspective, a little over 600,000 fewer people visited the US in the first quarter of 2003. If each of those people would have spent an arbitrary $1,000, which is probably low, then the US has lost over $600 million in one quarter. The article on France implies that their drop is $500 million total. Per capita, $500 million represents more for France than $600 million does for the US, of course.

The point being not that we’re suffering more, because right now we aren’t. The point is that economic ties go two ways.

Addendum: what the heck happened to my dollar signs?

I have, on occasion, argued that attempting to control terrorism by controlling the states that sponsor terrorism is futile. It’s too easy for non-state sponsored terrorists to build weapons, and getting easier. As evidence, I offer the home-made cruise missile.

The similarities between this (here’s part two) and this are amusing as all hell. This doesn’t really say much about the people parodied, though, since both of ‘em are pretty similar to this (with another part two — will wonders never cease?).

Lesson: pundits are goobers.

Eric Rudolph — you know, the guy who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, a gay bar, and a couple of abortion clinics — was captured over the weekend. About time. It appears that sympathetic locals may have helped him stay a fugitive.

The Washington Post goes for the gusto and labels him a Christian terrorist. Given the typical bent of the Christian Identity movement, I don’t see why we shouldn’t just go all the way and label him a Christianofascist.

Rudolph is a powerful reminder that there is a native terrorist movement in this country. Further, it’s one that’s supported by a significant number of people.

I actually wasn’t gonna link to the long list of administration statements about Iraq’s WMD. But then I thought about it some more, and I came up with a thought experiment.

Let’s assume the best. Let’s assume Bush and the rest believed everything they said. Let’s assume Wolfowitz’s rationale for misinformation is justified.

Great. But now you know the government either a) bungles intelligence information, or b) is willing to stretch the truth a good long way to get your support. So when the next one comes around — when Bush starts talking about Iran’s Al Qaeda connections — how can you trust that? You gotta have more evidence than just his assertions, because they have been proven wrong before in similar situations, and that is true no matter who you blame or don’t blame for that inaccuracy.