Say Anything Blog

On the heels of the Padilla trial juror selection where a substantial number of perspective jurors blame the president fot the 9/11 attacks or are not sure who is responsible, there is this Rasussen poll entitled 22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.

The mistrust of government lsrgely instigated by leftist groups over the ages is paying big dividends for the hate mongers.  Of course, Bush bashing has made a big contribution to this mistrust since I don’t believe that this would be the poll result if the oresident had been a Democrat at the time of the attack.  As usual, the media has been a major accomplice in the sowing of mistrust as has the liberal indoctrination in our schools.

In this country, there is much debate as to the position of the Democrats on Iraq. Although the Democrats are pushing for an exit date, they still claim to be patriotic and support a peaceful Iraqi solution.  However, there is one group, the Islamic Jihadists, that believe they fully understand the Democratic motives and furthermore agree with them.  From WorldNetDaily aricle Democrat debate ‘victory for Iraqi insurgents’

Democratic presidential hopefuls flashing their anti-war credentials last night at a national debate by stating they would immediately withdraw from Iraq, encouraged Palestinian terrorist leaders here, who labeled the debate a victory for Iraqi insurgents and “resistance movements” throughout the world.

The debate was widely covered today by the Palestinian and pan-Arab media.

“We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically,” said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization.

I think democrats will do good if they will withdraw as soon as they are in power,” he said. Abu Jihad said he believes if elected to the White House, the Democrats will immediately order a withdrawal from Iraq. He warned if a retreat is not carried out, the U.S. will likely be attacked on the home front.

“The (Democrat) debate showed that like in Vietnam the American people needed these thousands of soldiers killed to see that invading other people will always result in a failure. ... I think the Democrats will win and apply an immediate withdrawal, but if they don’t (withdraw), the revolutionary movements in Iraq will intensify attacks, and I think you should prepare for another big attack in the U.S.”

Abu Nasser Aziz, the deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in the northern West Bank, told WND last night’s Democrat primary debate proved “the invasion of Iraq was judged by Allah to be a failure. America needs to stop letting its foreign policy be dictated by the Zionists and the Zionist lobby. The Democrats understand this point and want to prevent this scenario.”

The terrorists told WND an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are “tired.” They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

It’s hard to believe that a major political party could be so blind to the world wide Islamic threat.  By being oblivious to the danger posed by Islamic extremists, the witless Democrats are putting our entire nation and indeed the world itself at risk and are playing into hands of the Islamic terrorist, just like a good allie.

I for one have never been happy with the free ride that Saudi Arabia has gotten in the war against terror.  After all, most of the muslims that flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11 not to mention Bin Laden are products of the Saudi culture.  Additionally the Saudis have been exporting their radical version of Islam, Whabbism, all over the world.  In his New York Sun article Saudi Royals Mask A Jihad Agenda, Youssff Ibrahim writes

Keeping Saudi Arabia’s royal family safe from radical Islamists is the West’s strategic concern and delusion.

The only intelligent question for America about Saudi Arabia is: Should we deal with the royals of the house of Saud or go directly to their bearded, Kalashnikov-toting Osama bin Laden-loving followers?

For half a century, the West has preferred to believe that its choice in Saudi Arabia is the moderate, friendly Saudi royal family or the wild-eyed, sandal-clad zombies of jihad, disregarding the seamless relationship between the two.

We have blithely ignored that Mr. bin Laden was a product and a protégé — even a full-fledged member — of the ruling establishment in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, his 52 brothers and other members of his family have intermarried widely with the royal family.

Since Abdulaziz Al-Saud founded his kingdom in 1932, power in Saudi Arabia has rested in the hands of one rabid group of Muslim jihadists: the 40,000 perfumed princes and princesses of the Saud tribal dynasty. They are the public face of Saudi Arabia, the folks who show up in the White House as ambassadors to America.

In Saudi Arabia, these royals nurture a vast entourage and infrastructure of palaces, attached mosques, religious schools, and charitable networks at home and, more important, abroad. These institutions are tied to elegant public princes, but also to many more we never see overseas. They dole out the money and in return demand blind obedience and a steady stream of Wahhabite devotees.

Saudi royal wealth has funded not only hundreds of religious schools inside the kingdom, but also hundreds more in Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Britain, America, and Asia. The network stretches far and wide, and Wahhabi recruits create the fodder that supplies suicide bombers for Hamas, the Taliban, Iraqi jihadis, and Pakistani-British transit bombers.

So the question, again, is whether we want to deal with the royals or the nuts. I propose the latter. For starters, it serves transparency.

Why allow an enemy to hide behind seductive royals when most of the family consists of die-hard jihadists who fund Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic terror groups worldwide? The game allows “royals” to pose as friends as they supply our former presidents and politicians — President George H.W. Bush, President Clinton, President Carter, and our current commander in chief, among others — with hefty business deals and promises of more to, in effect, give cover to a jihad agenda.

Dealing directly with the bearded and the sandaled also makes America far more secure.

Thanks to the current system of bribery, the Saudis have gotten away with murder. In the 48 hours after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the White House — under pressure from the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar — permitted more than 50 members of the bin Laden family to leave America secretly when almost every other flight in and out of the country was grounded.

Detaining and questioning some of this group would have landed a few of them in Guantanamo and yielded crucial information, but they purchased a White House pass to escape. And had it not been for the “special relationship” between America and Saudi Arabia, 15 of the 19 hijackers who flew planes into buildings that day would not have been allowed to live and train here in the first place.

Most of all, the ability to call a spade a spade would increase America’s credibility in the Muslim world immensely. This royal family, so beloved by the Bush administration and other White Houses, carries out beheadings, cuts off legs and hands, orders women stoned for adultery, and has reduced half of its society to the status of concubine.

Dumping it will give a considerable boost to any noble American project in the Arab world.

The old saw ‘With friends like that, who needs enemies’ would seem to apply to the Saudis.  The blindness of the Bush administration to recognize the Saudis for what they really - a bunch of radical jihadists exporting terror over the world is unconscionable.  To Bush bashers who will be salivating over this post, the previous administration were no better in pandering to the Saudi royalty.  Personally, I don’t believe that victory in this war is not possible if we can’t recognize the enemy when it’s bodly in front of our face.

In his Sun-Times article Let’s be realistic about reality Mark Steyn comes down hard on the folly of gun free zones.

I think we have a problem in our culture not with “realistic weapons” but with being realistic about reality. After all, we already “fear guns,” at least in the hands of NRA members. Otherwise, why would we ban them from so many areas of life? Virginia Tech, remember, was a “gun-free zone,” formally and proudly designated as such by the college administration. Yet the killer kept his guns and ammo on the campus. It was a “gun-free zone” except for those belonging to the guy who wanted to kill everybody. Had the Second Amendment not been in effect repealed by VT, someone might have been able to do as two students did five years ago at the Appalachian Law School: When a would-be mass murderer showed up, they rushed for their vehicles, grabbed their guns and pinned him down until the cops arrived.

But you can’t do that at Virginia Tech. Instead, the administration has created a “Gun-Free School Zone.” Or, to be more accurate, they’ve created a sign that says “Gun-Free School Zone.” And, like a loopy medieval sultan, they thought that simply declaring it to be so would make it so. The “gun-free zone” turned out to be a fraud—not just because there were at least two guns on the campus last Monday, but in the more important sense that the college was promoting to its students a profoundly deluded view of the world.

I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world.

The “gun-free zone” fraud isn’t just about banning firearms or even a symptom of academia’s distaste for an entire sensibility of which the Second Amendment is part and parcel but part of a deeper reluctance of critical segments of our culture to engage with reality. Michelle Malkin wrote a column a few days ago connecting the prohibition against physical self-defense with “the erosion of intellectual self-defense,” and the retreat of college campuses into a smothering security blanket of speech codes and “safe spaces” that’s the very opposite of the principles of honest enquiry and vigorous debate on which university life was founded. And so we “fear guns,” and “verbal violence,” and excessively realistic swashbuckling in the varsity production of ‘’The Three Musketeers.’’ What kind of functioning society can emerge from such a cocoon?

Can rational people be so dislusionary to believe that merely designating certain areas as ‘gun free’ will make it safe from gun violence?  The answer to this question should be obvious,

From the article Ethanol plants come with hidden cost: Water

In Missourt, the former state conservation official was horrified by news that a thirsty ethanol plant might rise up near his home in southwestern Missouri. The plant would draw 1.3 million gallons of water from the ground every day to produce the corn-based fuel.

Then there’s the 400,000 gallons per day of contaminated water from the plant — water that would be sprayed on land around the plant by irrigation equipment and then seep back into the ground.

The ethanol industry says it takes about 3 gallons of water on average to produce a gallon of ethanol and that recycling and other water-saving innovations will reduce that amount.

Sometimes that consumption is understated: In Minnesota, one of the few states that require reporting of water use, a state study in 2005 found that ethanol plants used an average of 4.5 gallons for every gallon of ethanol.

The water drawn for ethanol is a cost borne by communities — or whole regions — and a price sometimes ignored in the planning stages for new plants, experts say.

In St. Louis, National Corn Growers Association CEO Rick Tolman said his organization has advised ethanol plant builders about the limitations of water. “The water question will not be an impediment to ethanol expansion overall, but it certainly will limit expansion in certain locations,” he said.

Since water is not an inexhaustible commodity, there will always be competition for water rights.  Ethanol production simply adds another player to that scene and a very glutonous one at that in water consumption.  With all the negative results associated with ethanol production and ethanol itself (e.g. agriculure prices, lower gas mileage) one can’t wonder if ethanol is worth the price that society has to pay for ethanol mass production.

I know you all are probably tired of reading about the Virginia Tech massacre, however Mark Steyn always has a interest twist to events that needs to be told.  In A Culture of Passivity Mark writes

On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”

Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

Point two: The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage).

As I wrote up north a few years ago: Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision.  As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

Personally I can’t help wondering how the situation could have been changed if instead of acting like defenseless sheep a group of students would have tried to succumb the shooter.  After all there was only one gunman and a signifcant greater number of students.  Sure some of the might have been killed but they were killed anyway and they might have been successful in overcoming the shooter.

There has been much controversy on the effects of cell phone radiation on the physical health of the users.  From The Independent blog

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today’s teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.

Perhaps more alarming is the suspected link between mobile phone radiation and the mysterious disappearance of countless bee colonies. 

Some scientists are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees’ navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive’s inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London’s biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world’s crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, “man would have only four years of life left”.

While there is currently no absolute certainty the mobile radiation is causing bee deprivation, there is a least one study that seems to confirms it.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a “hint” to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: “I am convinced the possibility is real.”

If indeed it is proven that mobile phone radiation is wiping out bees and in turn our food supplies, would cell phone users be willing to quit using their phones?  The cloice could be between starvation and cell phone convenience.  What do you think would be the outcome?

Robert Tracinski at RealClearPolitics throws some fuel on the global warming fire when he questions the scientific legitamcy of Climatology.

Given that we’re being asked to rely on this kind of climate prediction as the basis for massive new regulations that will overturn the whole basis of our economy, we need to ask a crucial, fundamental question.

Is climatology a science?

I don’t mean to ask whether the climate is being studied using scientific methods and theories. Here’s what I mean: is climatology a complete, developed, mature science? Is it the kind of science that is capable of making accurate, reliable predictions? Is the field of climatology, in its current state, capable of producing “settled science” on any broad conclusion?

I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when the New York Times reported that some scientists were balking at Gore’s exaggerations of the scientific certainty of climatology, with one of them commenting that “Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory.” If the basics of climatology are still up for debate, how can we rely on the kind of complex predictions—not only about continued global warming, but about its effect on the weather of specific regions—that are still being pumped out by the United Nations?

Writing in Newsweek recently, MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen detailed the uncertainties and the enormous gaps in the evidence for claims about human-caused global warming and concluded, “Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence.”

Those who claim the authority of science for speculations about human-caused, catastrophic global warming are abusing the reputation earned by established, mature sciences. They are attempting to steal that reputation on behalf of a premature hypothesis put forward by practitioners of a science still in its infancy.

I think that many climatologists would agree that with the thousands, perhaps millions, of variables that could affect weather on this planet that the development of a reliable prediction model is a goal that is currently unattainable.  Without the model, one might as well consult a psychic than a climatologist to determine future weather conditions.

Several recent articles concerning weather patterns and other global climate changes caught my attention.  First there is Weather Trends International Forecast Highlights which states in part

April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years - a dramatic change from last years #1 warmest ever. Even after some late month moderation, April 2007 will likely keep the month in the top 7 coldest in history

Next there is Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.

Lastly there is “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change” which is a series of videos giving expert opinion as to the real causes of global climate change. 

Read and view it all.

Pope Benedict, speaking as the European Union marked its 50th anniversary without a mention of its religious heritage, said a society that lacks a Christian conscience will end up failing.

The Pope’s comments came a day after he lambasted the European Union for not mentioning God and Europe’s Christian roots in declarations marking its founding.

“A society in which the Christian conscience does not live anymore loses direction, does not know anymore where to go, ends up empty and bankrupt,” the Pope told parish elders on Sunday.

Such a conscience was needed to promote justice and a sense of responsibility among one another, he said.

The remarks came as the European Union celebrated its 50th birthday in a Berlin ceremony that included unveiling a broad, aspirational “Berlin Declaration” that left out mention of religion or the continent’s Christian roots.

Much like the communists that precede them, the secularist/socialists are trying to wipe their Christian heritage from their history and with their shunning of their Christian past, they have also abandoned to some extent the moral law associated with Christianity.  Regardless of how one feels about the Popes expressed concerns, it is somewhat of a truism that those that abandon their past have dim hopes for their future.  i.e. If you don’t know where you’ve been, you don’t know where you’re going.

It should come as no surprise that the one blocking reference to Christianity in the EU constitution is French president Chirac.

The Pope, like his predecessor John Paul, often calls for including God and Christianity in the European Constitution. Plans to put a reference to Europe’s Christian roots in a previous EU constitutional treaty were blocked by French President Jacques Chirac

.

This story, 7 Large Tunnels Beneath U.S.-Mexican Border Raising Security Concerns is a great example of Home Securities ineptness in dealing with border problems.

While key entrance and exit points have been plugged in some of the biggest tunnels used to ferry people and drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border, the passageways remain largely intact raising concerns smugglers reuse them, according to a published report.

According to a report in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times, seven of the largest tunnels discovered under the U.S.-Mexico border have yet to be filled in, including the so-called Grande Tunnel found in January 2006 that extends nearly half a mile from San Diego to Tijuana.

Filling those tunnels would cost about $2.7 million, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection official

Of course they can’t find the money but have they considered other options?  Probably not.  First option is to get the Mexicans to fill them in since they were most likely dug by Mexicans.  Second option is to get the illegals to fill them.  This should be cakewalk for illegals that do a lot of contruction (destruction) work and you’d think from an estimated 11 million illegals in this country one could form enough work parties to take care of this job.  However the option I like the best is to sprinkle anti-personal mines thoughout the tunnels while informing the likely parties on both sides (smugglers, dope dealers, illegals, etc) of their presence.  That would effectively discourage the use of these tunnels and Darwinize those too stupid to try.

From the Cato Institute is the article Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier with an extended list of

Untruths and misconceptions about ethanol

Some of them are as follows:

. Ethanol will lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America last year were dedicated to ethanol production (14.3 percent of it was), U.S. gasoline consumption would drop by 12 percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all U.S. cropland, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land for cultivation on top of that.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes that the practical limit for domestic ethanol production is about 700,000 barrels per day, a figure they don’t think is realistic until 2030. That translates to about 6 percent of the U.S. transportation fuels market in 2030.

. Ethanol is economically competitive now. According to a 2005 report issued by the Agriculture Department, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce, or several times what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline. Without the subsidies, costs would be higher still. A study last fall from the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to $1.05-$1.38 per gallon, or 42 percent to 55 percent of ethanol’s wholesale market price.

. Ethanol is a renewable fuel. According to a group of academics from UC Berkeley who published in Science magazine last year, 5 percent to 26 percent of the energy content of ethanol is “renewable.” The balance of ethanol’s energy actually comes from the staggering amount of coal, natural gas and nuclear power necessary to produce corn and process it into ethanol.

. Ethanol reduces air pollution. A review of the literature by Australian academic Robert Niven found that, when evaporative emissions are taken into account, E10 (fuel that’s 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline, the standard mix) increases emissions of total hydrocarbons, nonmethane organic compounds, and air toxics compared to conventional gasoline. The result is greater concentrations of photochemical smog and toxic compounds.

There are a lot more.  Read them all.

From a link provide by LGF to of all places Huffington Post [Wow, I didn’t know they had conservative posters there!!], Brian Gutfeld coins the phrase The Patriotic Terrorist and then explains what they have in common with real terrorists.

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda want the US to abandon Iraq, for that reveals Bush and America to be monstrous, laughable failures. It does not matter to either group that the withdrawal from Iraq will make post-Vietnam look like an afternoon at Ikea shopping for a Hoggbo innerspring mattress.

-For patriotic terrorists and real terrorists, car bombs going off is music to their ears. It proves that you can’t offer democracy to troubled countries, as long as you’ve got terrorists standing in your way. And that’s great news for everyone who believes in checks and balances between the haves and the have nots! (Note: “haves” means the US. “Have nots” means those who hate the US)

-Patriotic terrorists and the more committed terrorists both believe that infractions at Guantanamo Bay are far worse than anything a genocidal dictator could muster, and such horrors possess far more PR potential in denigrating the US than anything involving Ed Begley Jr.

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists believe the US desires to control the Middle East, empower evil Israel and expand it’s power base at the expense of innocent Arab lives. But both groups also realize that the US is too stupid to achieve these goals - and that makes being a patriotic terrorist loads of fun!

You think that these definitions might fit some the commentors here. Anyway read the whole thing including the comments.

What happens when you shove diversity down peoples throats..

Authorities at Tarleton State University said they plan to investigate a Martin Luther King Jr. Day party that mocked black stereotypes by featuring fried chicken, malt liquor and faux gang apparel.

.
Never mind that this is largely a ‘white’ school and of course it is the race mongers from the NCAAP that have caused this stir.

“I feel like there is no excuse for this type of ignorance,” said Donald Ray Elder, president of the Stephenville school’s chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

More than 400 students attended a university-sponsored forum Wednesday night that Elder described as “a shaky baby step” in bridging a divide between black and white students on the campus, which had about 400 black students out of 7,800 overall last semester.

Read it all.

The consumer speaks

.."Hounddog," the simply awful movie in which 12-year-old Dakota Fanning’s character is raped, has no buyers.

“No one wants it after the terrible reviews,” one distributor told me,

That’s good news but it will not stop Hollywood from bring out more equivalent trash.