This post's title is cruel. I was very excited for a moment. Then... ugh.

I'm imagining Matt Drudge doing the end zone dance from this episode of the Cosby Show (fast forward to 9:40)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meS2bNJ2VfE

I find the symbolism of the act offensive, both from a religious and a patriotic standpoint. If I'm staring at the Stars and Stripes while I pray, that's taking my attention away from something much, much more important; my relationship with God and the time I've taken out of my day to pray to him. Islam abhors such imagery, mixing the spiritual and sacred with the material and non-spiritual. All it does is increase what lies between you and God. And I agree with all statements above that this guy really needs to learn the proper respect for and treatment of the flag.

OK. How does that make that person's actions anything but completely inappropriate?

For the record, that burrito was from El Castillo near Civic Center. The order was chicken, cheese, black beans, rice, onions, and guacamole.  I generously added hot sauce myself, as you can see.  However, the best burrito I've ever had in my life was at Papalote in Mission. Fair warning: my two friends both got sick after eating it. Price of perfection, I suppose.

Interesting Humza's-burrito-obsession factoid: Before my November 2011 trip to SF, the best burrito I had ever tasted was in Seoul at Taco Chili Chili. Many disagree, but really, it was heavenly. Also, the best burrito in Tokyo can be had at Frijoles. Though Frijoles burritos resemble what you'd find at Chipotle in the US, they are the best dry burritos in T-town. As for wet burritos and chimichangas (if you MUST use a fork and knife) in Tokyo, check out JunkAdelic.

Can't tell you how good it felt to read this, the second question of the day: "JUSTICE KENNEDY: Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?"

There are some tensions with South Korea over historical issues and disputed islands, and every now and then Australia gets on Japan's case about whaling. Otherwise, Japan has fostered very friendly relations with almost all Asia-Pacific countries through decades of generous official development assistance; and tw0-way trade in the form of big imports of food, energy and raw materials, and steadily increasing levels of FDI from Japan to various Asia-Pacific economies.

Also, the Japanese government is actively promoting personal connections between rising leaders in Japan and the Asia-Pacific in the government, military, business and academic sectors. I've been personally involved in programs and seminars that either brought Asian professionals to Japan for study, training and conferences, and the other way around. It will be much to Japan's benefit in the future as their economic weight wanes in relation to China's, since they will have strong bonds with high-level officials throughout the region.

This discussion is beautiful. Oh Masters of the Rico-verse, this is why we need a serious, established economist regularly contributing to Ricochet! We need more intelligent discussions of taxing and spending patterns based on empirical economics, not just political-economic theory, which is generally where most Ricochet conversations on economic issues end up.

Valiuth, the security arrangement in Asia isn't quite NATO, but that's probably a good thing. It's called the "hub and spoke" system, which is a series of bilateral security agreements that the US shares with Asia-Pacific nations including all those you mentioned plus Singapore and Thailand. Though this system lacks the  collective action abilities of NATO, it does allow for collective security of a kind; a spoke may not come to another spoke's aid, but they are all backed by the US. The US providing highly-advanced military technology to the spokes would only increase the effectiveness of this quasi-collective security arrangement.

Aaron, the bigger problem is when the Chinese defense budget gets even bigger and they start muscling in on disputed territories in the South China Seas and possibly meddling in the protection of the Straits of Malacca. Their lack of transparency in both spending and procurement/development is the biggest problem because there's no way to confirm the "peaceful rise" rhetoric.

Focusing on social issues to the extent that Santorum has is a losing strategy in this general election. Do you guys really want another 4 years of Obama? Would the damage that he and his liberal kin do to our country be superficial, katievs? Further encroachment of the entitlement state on our rights? Increasing international irrelevance? A left-ward swing of the Supreme Court as aging justices die and retire that would make impossible any of your social policy goals?

My point is that if we can put a few important but not urgent issues to the side until a conservative is in office and we have our economic house in order, we will be better off for it.

I think the fact that a bunch of avowed conservatives are going at it like cats and dogs over this is telling. Social issues in politics only cause rifts and nobody can be convinced to come to the other side.

He is not correct that social issues could give rise to a third party. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal Americans seem perfectly happy labeling themselves independent and not worrying about what party to support.

That said, Mayor Giuliani is absolutely right in his assessment of how the ongoing culture war is making the Republicans look to social liberals. Foreign policy and economics can be logically argued and independents can be swayed. Morals, values and beliefs, on the other hand, are rarely engendered in an individual through a logical thought process.  So people tend to be much more staunch in their moral views and thus their view of what role government should play in such social questions as gay marriage and abortion.

This is why I hold that Rick Santorum will not only be an ineffective presidential candidate, but is already hurting the party. Social issues will not turn one independent. He has shown no ability to convince any voter of the superiority of his beliefs.

Mitch had it right. A temporary truce is necessary on social issues until we win this election and fix our economy.

I'm not saying that Santorum is overly prideful; I just don't think it's possible for any politician to display the humility that Lin has shown, constantly praising his teammates and opposing players. That is no way to draw votes, but it's a great way to conduct yourself as an athlete.

Santorum is starting to look like the Jeremy Lin of the Republican race: hyped up by everyone in spite of good but not stellar performances. But in Santorum's case, you can take out Lin's humility, inspirational story and raw talent.

Etoiledunord, I'm not so sure I agree. Converts have a much deeper insight into how to reach nonbelivers than those born faithful. Romney seems to be the best candidate to pull independents, better than lightning rod Gingrich and cultural crusader Santorum.