Say Anything Blog

I just noticed this lovely tidbit in the news scroll below the comments box,"Celebrities Protest Malibu Gas Facility.” This is just priceless. The enviro crowd has been screeching about clean energy, and then when it is being worked on they protest. According to the article it would be 14 miles offshore. Jeebus! People would not even be able to see any of it, with the exception of the aircraft warning lights.
The brazen stupidity of these people is simply stunning. No matter what is done to improve the situation they kick and scream and fight it every step of the way.

From Ace of Spades:

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an ‘impartiality summit’ called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC’s ‘diversity tsar’, wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: ‘There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

‘Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC’s culture, that it is very hard to change it.’

...

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: ‘The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.’

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to ‘correct’, it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it ‘no moral weight’.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a ‘very senior news executive’, about the BBC’s pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: ‘The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.’

[...]

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who ‘would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King’.

Read the whole thing.

Now if the NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe and PBS would just be this honest, not to mention all the major TV news networks.

Yet Another Democrat-Skewed Poll

Noel Sheppard in The American Thinker

It seems the closer we get to Election Day, the more polls we’re going to be subjected to that over-sample Democrats. The latest entrant comes from Newsweek (hat tip to Stop The ACLU). In this one, 24 percent more Democrats were surveyed than Republicans.

[...]

In this instance, as reported by Reuters: 282 Republicans were questioned versus 349 Democrats and 330 Independents. As such, assuming it was important for the sample to accurately reflect the electorate, telemarketers could have smiled and dialed for another hour or two to make sure that was the case. In fact, a media outlet concerned with the integrity of the data it is disseminating would demand and pay for nothing less.

Of course, as these are the same media that subscribe to the junk science involved in advancing global warmingism, we shouldn’t be at all surprised by their love for junk math when it comes to polls that assist them in advancing their agenda.

Read the whole thing.

As we get closer to election day, the Dems and their enablers in the MSM get more and more desperate, and continue to ratchet up the lying.  One of their favorite techniques is to manufacture a poll, and then report the results as real news.  They then formulate policy on the basis of the deceptive poll.  The only poll that counts is the one that takes place in the polls on election day.

When Harold Ford loses the Tennessee Senate race he can look back on this moment as when he lost it.

It’s just hilarious how quick he goes from the offensive to realizing that he just blew it.



What’s he going to do now? The Tennessee Ford family don’t do anything but run for office.

Thanks to Powerline.

Sorry that wasn't the clip I was thinking. Click on the second video in the little box on the left. This is the clip that shows him when Ford realizes he just stepped in the kaka.

Well, it seems a bit late since you torpedoed a successful, legal and secret program.  I’m sure that the Terrorists networks changed their procedures know that the Terrorist Times did their research for them.
Michelle Malkin (Blogger-Babe)

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

I’m on record that although the Times ran with this story for treasonous reason I don’t think we should challenge their First Amendment protection.  (Or mine as a citizen and Blogger.) However that protection does not apply to the Times source who should be punished for Treason!  Anyone know what the Constitution provides for that crime?

I actually heard it. Some poor fellow called in from Connecticut and began talking about how proud he was to be supporting the GOP candidate no matter what and Rush suggested Lieberman had a chip on his shoulder and would have revenge to take out on the Dems if elected?!?!? I thought my ears were hallucinating, but no… it was a veridical experience. Rush said he knew what the poor Republican from Connecticut was thinking but then continued on to endorse the leftist Lieberman.
See here.

D’oh! At least the RNC is showing some bipartisan support besides Lieberman. I would at least correct the grammatical errors if I was her…

The plagiarized statements were uncovered by a Westminster woman who said she was researching the race between Rainville and Democrat Peter Welch. She saw a reference to one policy’s similarities with a White House statement and became curious about others. By Googling phrases she soon found several more examples of work copied from a variety of politicians.

Rainville’s energy policy, for instance, used the same phrase used by U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. A Rainville statement about putting the federal budget online carried the same phrasing, with a grammatical error intact, as Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat.

Original article here.

D’oh! After kicking al-Sadr’s ass in Amarah, we decided maybe we would want to negotiate with him (and Syria). Infact,

A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown “arrogance” and “stupidity” in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America’s war in Iraq.

“We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq,” he said.

Original article here.

From the U of Washington website:

If you think the world is on the verge of running out of oil or other mineral resources, you’ve been taken in by the foremost of seven myths about resource geology, according to a University of Washington economic geologist.

“The most common question I get is, ‘When are we going to run out of oil.’ The correct response is, ‘Never,’” said Eric Cheney. “It might be a heck of a lot more expensive than it is now, but there will always be some oil available at a price, perhaps $10 to $100 a gallon.”

Changing economics, technological advances and efforts such as recycling and substitution make the world’s mineral resources virtually infinite, said Cheney, a UW professor emeritus of Earth and space sciences. For instance, oil deposits unreachable 40 years ago can be tapped today using improved technology, and oil once too costly to extract from tar sands, organic matter or coal is now worth manufacturing. Though some resources might be costlier now, they still are needed.

[...]

Other myths that he wants to dispel include:

* Only basic extraction and processing costs affect economic geology. That fails to account for such costs as exploration, transportation, taxes and societal and environmental programs.

* Production always damages the environment. Accidents do happen, Cheney said, but much of the perception is based on problems of the past and don’t reflect current reality. “It’s inevitable that there are going to be oil spills, just like tere are traffic accidents on the freeway,” he said. “We hope we can manage them, but nothing is risk free.”

* Mineral deposits are excessively profitable. Despite widely reported huge oil company profits in the last year, Cheney notes that as a percentage of company revenues oil profits lag far behind those of some major software and banking companies.

* Transportation costs are trivial. In fact, the retail cost of building materials such as sand and gravel are largely driven by the cost of moving them from one place to another, particularly in crowded urban areas. Moving quarries and pits farther away from where people live only increases those costs.

* Ore deposits are uniform. While a valued ore can be found in a large continuous deposit, often it is mixed with other kinds of minerals and extraction becomes more expensive.

* Resources are randomly distributed and so, if human population encroaches, a mine or quarry should simply be able to relocate.

[...]

“The point is that we have to have members of the public who are not geologists and who know something about mineral resources. There are going to be some important policy decisions in the next decades, so we need to have some smart voters,” he said. “We can start in colleges by dispelling myths in courses for students who are not going to become professional geoscientists.”

Read the whole thing.

It’s time to stop the scareology being promoted by the enviro extremists and make our energy policy based on truth.

I have been giving that some thought lately. The “stay the course” and the “tinker with tactics” arguments don’t appear to grasp the reality of armed interests competing to fill the power vacuum created when Saddam was deposed. The “cut and run” argument may tempt those opposed to the seemingly endless expenditure of American resources but it flies in the face of a standard of responsibility shared by most of us...some call it the “you broke it, you pay for it” philosophy while others refer to the “we’re in it now so we have to finish it” dictum. They aren’t expressing the problem in exactly the same way but the endpoint is the same. One can choose between two distasteful options or one can hope that some third option reveals itself.

A coup in Iraq wouldn’t solve any of the significant regional issues that American policy is intended to address but it would seem politically expedient for America.

According to a local newspaper, The Twinsburg Bulletin, Al Franken brought the splendor of his high powered persona to the University of Akron last week, in support of Democratic candidates. One thing you should know about Northeastern Ohio, they love their football here, and they love college football even more!

Picture a large stadium filled with cheering fans…picture the parking lot… a sea of cars…now, picture Franken’s audience, filling…the band section! Yes, according to page 22 of the Twinsburg Bulletin, Al Franken spoke to “More than 250 people…” at the University of Akron.  250! Wow!

Colleges are full of impressionable young minds, mostly liberal. Sir Winston Churchill was quoted as saying, “If a man is not a liberal when he is 18, he has no heart.” (Sagely, Sir Winston went on to say, “If a man is not a conservative by the age of 30, he has no brain!”) Still, on a campus of enthusiastic and exuberant, liberal leaning youth, barely a corporal’s guard shows up to hear what Franken had to say.

Kinda gives you hope for the future, doesn’t it?

Check out the Apple Mecca satire on “The People’s Cube.” Brilliant!

I’d do a link, but I’m technologically challenged. Really, what I mean to say is I’m a chimp when it comes to computers and I don’t know how to do a link. Gonna have to learn that someday.

Original article here...

“The cartels use automatic assault weapons, bazookas, grenade launchers and improvised explosive devices,” the House Homeland Security oversight subcommittee report said. “In contrast, U.S. Border Patrol agents are issued 40-caliber Beretta semiautomatic pistols.”

“Lookouts for the cartels, using military grade equipment, are positioned at strategic points on the U.S. side of the border to monitor movements of U.S. law enforcement,” it continued.

Hezbollah members already have entered the U.S. from Mexico, the report confirmed.

“As if narco-terrorist violence were not enough, extensions of Middle East terrorism have crept into the United States,” the report stated. “Islamic radical groups that support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiya Al Gamat are all active in Latin America.”

Kevin Mooney

CNSNews.com Staff Writer

The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.

“We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger,” said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.

In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party.

[...]

At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.

“There’s a lot more to be found here,” Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “This was a shocking revelation.”

[...]

Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.

“Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan,” Kengor said. “But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders.”

In Kennedy’s view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan’s unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.

”Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war,” Kengor said. “He hoped to counter Reagan’s polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects.”

As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow—to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.

In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.

But Kennedy’s attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.



In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor’s estimation.

“If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can’t imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did,” Kengor told Cybercast News Service. “Things could have gotten ugly.”

In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan’s policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a “gracious concession” after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.

Read the whole thing.

Any of this sound familiar? The Democrats haven’t learned anything from our own history, apparently. They still see our enemies as being better than a President who is willing to stand up to them. Just another reason the Democrats can’t be trusted to run this country properly.
In the same way that they blame President Bush for "making the world hate us", they were telling the same lie about Reagan.
When it comes to foreign policy, the Democrats want us to be submissive and passive.