I got one of those emails last week.  You know.  The ones that have really inflammatory comments supposedly made by the guy across the aisle politically.  The over-the-top comments that are supposed to ignite a fire and passion in the reader so that he becomes a one-man vigilante, a political crusader. 

Usually, I ignore those emails and when I do choose to read them through, I invariably check the source. This time I read the message and immediately typed www.snopes.com into my web browser's address bar.  I was surprised to find verification of every single quote in the email. 

The email contained quotes from "Hispanic Leaders" speaking out about immigration and issues involving the growing Mexican immigrant (legal and illegal) community.  Most of the quotes are from the nineties but seem particularly relevant when you consider the current immigration issue.  They reveal a mindset that is extremely radical and disturbing. From the email:

Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets; "Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die . . . Through love of having children, we are going to take over.

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council. "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over . . . We are here to stay."

Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico, "The American southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas; "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population . . . I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."

Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, "Remember 187 — proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens — was the last gasp of white America in California."

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country ... I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General , "We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California."

Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos ..."

Are these just the words of a few extremists? Consider that we could fill up many pages with such quotes. Also, consider that these are mainstream Mexican leaders.

I encourage you to click the link above (Hispanic leaders) and to read the rest of the email, if for nothing more than curiousity's sake.  As for my take on it, here goes:

I wonder if Sr. Cebada has considered the ramifications of old white men packing up their toys and leaving the playground.  After all, it is the old white men who are funding the FREE education his kids are getting and who are giving housing and benefits to his illegal and legal border crossing compadres. 

I wonder if Sr. Cebada would consider it difficult to make such radical statements in a country where old white men hadn't written free speech into the most powerful political document ever penned.  I wonder, if those white men hadn't come with their outlandish ideas about liberty for all,  if Sr. Cebada would live in a country free enough to publicly declare his racist opinions without fear of retribution. 

Old white men have made many mistakes, but as far as I can tell, they did a hell of a lot better job than say, those nicely tanned folks in your homeland.  Oh by the way, how is that country that your own people ran into the ground doing these days?  Rumor has it they are on the verge of electing a die hard communist as the national president.  I guess lining up for toilet paper will make even more of your people flock to old white man's land. 

Let me make it clear, Sr. Cebada and you other idiotas who are speaking such hate filled non-sense.  I don't care if you are black, white, or purple.  This land is for people of any color who value freedom and liberty.  It is not an institutional sugar daddy like you seem to think.  And the only people holding Mexican immigrants back are people like you who are determined to make victims out of lawbreakers and hard working law abiding immigrants alike.  You are hurting the people who want a free future.  You are hurting the cause you claim to espouse.  You are the racist bigots who are undermining the cause of those who, but for their own illicit entry into the nation, could be enjoying the liberty and upward socio-economic mobility that my parents achieved for their children in one generation.  You, Sr. Cebada.  You.

And while we're using racist rhetoric, Sr. Cebada, why don't we address the racism that exists in latin America where fairer skin is at a premium.  I lived there for years.  Alone, as a non-citizen. Not as a military wife but in my younger pre-wife and mommy days and I know exactly what it is like.  There, where you "populists" condemn anyone darker than a very creamy cup of java.  Don't come here using colorful talk like that when your apple doesn't fall far from the same historically racist tree. 

As for the whole idea of reconquista, well, you can't reconquer something that the idiots in Washington are willingly giving away. 

That's how I feel, unabridged, uninhibited, uncensored. I still believe that we need some humane and reasonable immigration policy but I also believe we need much stronger enforcement of the laws keeping illegals out.  They must come through the system.  They need to be paying taxes and paid at American wage rates.  They need to be assimilated and welcomed as future Americans not as Mexicans living abroad.  They need the same legitimacy and possibilities that are open to all Americans - that is what drives assimilation and pushes people to move out of the ghettos and barrios and into the suburbs.  And once they have earned their way into the middle class (which usually takes a generation) and are enjoying the American Dream they will be hard pressed to give it up for the likes of Sr. Cebada.  

America - write to your congressmen and senators and lets get some reasonable and humane immigration policies on the books, remove the disincentives to legal entrance, and demand some serious enforcement measures.

A little rated R Democrat on Democrat rumble is happening in Brooklyn.  I'd make more of a comment but hey, what can you say?  It's New York.

Foul-mouth pol

Weiner goes bleepin' wild

BY ELIZABETH HAYS DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

State Sen. Karl Kruger (below), recipient of verbal beatdown from Rep. Anthony Weiner (top). Anthony Weiner's mother is probably reaching for the soap right now. In a moment that went far beyond the usual frank dialogue among politicians, the Brooklyn congressman publicly laced into a fellow Democrat - using language that would make a sailor blush. "Do you have a f------ problem with me?" the 2005 mayoral candidate said to state Sen. Carl Kruger at an annual Mill Basin fund-raiser Thursday night, witnesses said. Weiner, thought to be an early mayoral 2009 favorite, also called the Brooklyn senator a "p---y," witnesses said. "I'm going to give you a bad hair day," Kruger shot back, apparently vowing revenge. The exchange, which occurred in the lobby of Temple Shalom, was prompted by Weiner's fierce opposition to acting legend Paul Newman's proposal to bring Grand Prix-style racing to Brooklyn. "They were screaming at each other. It got very close, chest to chest and nose to nose," said one shocked observer. Kruger supports Newman's proposal to bring auto racing to the long-closed Floyd Bennett Field in Gateway National Recreation Area. Weiner has called it "illegal." But what apparently annoyed Weiner was an earlier incident during an April 21 briefing on the Champ car project by Newman himself. At that briefing at the Brooklyn Marriott, witnesses said Kruger tore into a young Weiner staffer in front of the roomful of honchos after he conveyed Weiner's objections to the project. "It was totally inappropriate. He was just a kid and Kruger started screaming at him in front of everyone," said a local pol who was at that meeting. "Weiner was just giving it back to Kruger. If he did it to a member of my staff I wouldn't have waited a week," quipped the pol. Weiner acknowledged he blew a fuse at the 41st Assembly District Democratic Club dinner, but stressed that it was over his staffer's treatment by Kruger. "The conversation I had with Sen. Kruger, I'm sure made it very clear to him that I will not tolerate him abusing my staff," said Weiner. "I don't recall using any profanity. However if the language was too salty for some ears I regret that." Kruger said he was "shocked" by the outburst and said that at the previous meeting he was just trying to send a clear message to Weiner through his staffer. "His temper is a known fact, but to act as he did in a temple in front of a host of community leaders, I thought was very inappropriate." One attendee at the dinner acknowledged that staffers "had to close the door to the banquet room because the dinner was going on and everybody could hear it." When Weiner ran for mayor last year, his mother, a retired public schoolteacher, occasionally appeared with him - making headlines once when she publicly corrected her son during an education speech. Political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said he didn't think the eruption would hurt Weiner's career - but tangling with Kruger could pose problems. "Weiner is showing he can't be pushed around and that's a fine thing, but Kruger ... tries to settle all scores behind the scenes," Sheinkopf said. "That's the way politics works in that part of Brooklyn." With Jotham Sederstrom Originally published on April 29, 2006

Ayn Rand, the Russian born novelist penned those words, and this week in an effort to refuse sanction to the evils of the world, a band of bloggers has dedicated itself to exposing hate-filled terrorist rhetoric.  You could hardly log on to bloghi this week without noticing a post about Dr. Julio C. Pino, apparently known to some as Lover of Angels, and the individual behind the global-war blog.

Tonight's post is less about Pino and more about us.  Our little band.  We've never met except for online encounters and we have no relationship other than a likemindedness when it comes to protecting our nation.  Our views on politics vary wildly on some issues and on others we wholeheartedly agree.  We are ordinary citizens.  With one exception, we are not widely known and wouldn't even know each other if we met on the street.  In spite of our seeming insignificance and our almost absolute anonymity, we found a common purpose this week in denouncing the online writings of Lover of Angels and demanding that his employer, a public university, be held to account for using our tax dollars to fund his anti-American elocution.

As for myself, I find the most offense in the writings that describe, in vivid detail, the torturous pain and suffering he hopes will be visited upon our troops. But, then, it is the job of an Army wife to worry about her man in uniform.  And I do.  And that is why I ask that you speak out.  Don't wonder if your voice matters.  Don't wonder if the ACLU will come to this man's defense.  Don't wonder if signing your name to a petition is enough to stem the tide of hate and anti-American sentiment.

Just believe, as we do, that whether or not it is enough, it is right.  And that is all that matters.

Please read the following posts and then consider whether or not your tax dollars should subsidize speech such as this.

Have you forgotten?

Who is Lover of Angels?

Okay, I'll admit it.  I love Tony Snow.  It's not his opinion, it's his presentation.  He just comes across as a nice guy.  And he knows it.  He is hoping to bring a return to civil discourse and I applaud him for the noble desire.  I only hope it holds up when confronted with the likes of Helen Thomas and David Gregory. 

From his interview in Examiner.com:

Over the course of this year I have been trying to instill within my 3 young sons an appreciation for the blessing that it is to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.  We have studied geography and American history, they know the pledge and many patriotic songs better than most adults in this country, I'd wager.  You should hear my four year old sing "America the Beautiful",  it's really something.  In spite of my best intentions, it became clear today that some ideas were still a little muddled. 

We've been learning the song "This land is My Land"  and so I pulled the map off the wall and spread it across the table to talk about where the redwood forests are and to help them identify just exactly where the gulfstream waters lie.  We got carried away discussing all the places we have lived and where mommy and daddy were born.  I showed each of the kids where they were born and we talked about those states.  My four-year old began crying when I reminded him he was born in Georgia.  "No," he said,  "I wanna be from Texas!"  We finally calmed the situation by assuring him that while he was born in Georgia, he definitely had the soul of a Texan.

Later this afternoon, my five year old was playing trains on the porch with a neighbor friend.  "Hey Sarah, this train is named Peter Sam."  He told her, showing off on of his Thomas the Tank Engine trains.  "But he's a little different." he virtually whispered,  "He's from California."

Needless to say I almost wet myself laughing so hard.  I'm sure that must've been something heard on t.v. because I've never said anything that funny in my life, much less around my kids.  I love home schooling.

Men having babies - wrong!

Paying a man to speak seditious words and undermine the very government that writes his paycheck - wrong again!

Freedom of speech, particularly the political and religious speech that we prize so highly, should be afforded every human being.  With only minor exceptions for inciteful speech, people ought to be able to speak their minds freely and without fear.  That includes condemning America and her government's policies.  It includes speech expressing anger and hate for the military and the commander in chief.  It even includes waging a personal war against this nation.  What is does not include is a government funded platform or an institutional endorsement, implied, if not explicitly stated,  through silent tolerance. 

If you feel that Americans should not pay a salary to people who declare themselves threats to national security,  please take a stand and read about one way you can announce to our institutions of higher education that you are tired of being taxed to subsidize terrorist rhetoric.

From this week's blogburst for academic accountability:

Lover of Angels, apparently known to some as Dr. Julio C. Pino of Kent State University has attracted the gaze of anti-terrorist activists.  While LOA hasn't shown anything but reasonable deference in his comments on this blog, (much obliged, Dr.)  he has definitely used his own blog, global-war, as a stump for pro-islamofascism.  His anti-American writings have many readers incensed and determined to see him removed from his post as a professor at a public university in Ohio.  For a look at the petition making its way around the country, click here

Supply-side conservatives are calling it like is it with respect to the national economy. President Bush's biggest failings in office have less to do with the war on terror, immigration policy, or hurricane Katrina and more and more to do with the nominal changes to the tax code which have created an even more bloated system of loopholes and regulations than ever. 

President Bush isn't alone in his failures at fiscal policy - Congress, as always, is mostly to blame.  But, then, Congress didn't promise to simplify the codes and improve the American tax system either.  The policy, albeit it warranted in some areas, of excessive spending combined with tax cuts has left the nation with a projected deficit that is astounding.  The number of tax regulations has grown over Bush's term by 40%.  The failure to remain true to fiscal conservatism has many Republicans outraged and demanding a return to tighter purse strings and much more accountability and restraint in Washington.

Supply-siders have pointed for nearly thirty years to the failings of the high-rate, progressive tax systems and yet the government has done little or nothing to bring about reform.  The Bush tax cuts were a good start but they will not likely become permanent and the increasing number of allowances and loopholes only creates more wiggle room for those who wish to avoid handing their money over to the IRS.

President Bush is left with egg on his face over this issue and Congress, always the real villain when it comes to tax legislation has failed miserably.  And yet, we can only wonder if the midterm elections will reflect any of the discontent felt by conservative economists.  The vast majority of Americans are concerned with issues other than the national deficit and the real impact of global finance is an almost abstract concept to middle class workers for whom having enough is, well, enough.  The long-term impact of living in the red nationally, much like living on credit at home, is fixable.  But it requires restraint and an overwhelming will.  With three more years of George W. Bush in the White House, conservatives need to push the envelope when calling for limited government spending.  And the President needs to prioritize the agenda with a much stricter hand.

Very good articles on this issue:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060501/1edit.htm

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GRDNGRG

According to last week's The Economist, women workers are making up an increasingly higher percentage of the labor force.  "A Guide to Womenomics" suggests that the change is due in some measure to the shift of the class of work required in developed nations.  With the expanding number of jobs in the service sector, more women are employable on an equal footing with their male counterparts.  Apparently, girls are proving to be better students, more women are getting college degrees than men, and women are filling most new jobs.  "Arguably, women are now the most powerful engine of global growth."

The most interesting segment of the article, in my opinion, was a section discussing the relationship between fertility rates and the percentage of women workers. While some argue that encouraging women to enter the workforce will result in a fertility decline, the numbers seem to prove the exact opposite.  The nations with the highest percentage of women workers also enjoy the higher fertility rates.  Personally, I don't know how you can make a direct correlation because averaging the number of children born to working women and the number born to stay at home moms seems very disingenuous.  According to the national average, I have born my share and another woman's as well.  But I certainly wasn't thinking of carrying some other lady's statistic when I was in that labor and delivery room. 

The article makes the assertion that countries that make a concerted effort to make motherhood compatible with a career will see marked improvements in national prosperity.  "This may mean offering parental leave and child care, allowing more flexible working hours, and reforming tax and social-security systems that create disincentives for women to work."  The countries that offer less support for working mothers find lower rates of working women and lower birth rates because many women postpone childbearing.  "Japan, for example offers little support for working mothers: only 13% of children under three attend day-care centers, compared with 54% in America and 34% in Britain."

The article also suggests that as women grow in number and value in the labor market, they can provide "a sounder base for long-term growth" and help to finance rich countries' welfare states.

My take:

Okay so women are supposed to have children turn them over to day-care centers and then public schools to raise so that they can fund the lifestyles of people on the welfare roles?  And 54% of American toddlers and preschoolers in day-care is a good thing?

I would argue that if we paid men enough to support their families, then fertility would rise because women would have the liberty of raising their own children.  I would also argue that the welfare roles - and by this I mean all of those government subsidized handouts to people who ought to be working - would be a lot shorter if mother's were educated and skilled women who chose to stay home because they saw the wisdom in teaching young human beings to be self-reliant, responsible and prosperous with the work of their own hands.  Furthermore, if women were at home to teach their children and took that task as the most significant opportunity available to any human being, there would be fewer sons and daughters living out their lives in prison cells.  There would be fewer junkies in need of government funded treatment and services.  There would be fewer runaways and child prostitutes.  There would be substantially fewer social ills requiring government money made on the backs of women who have abandoned the most sacred duty afforded them by God, evolution or the universe.

But that's just the opinion of one educated, skilled and capable woman, who has chosn to see the long term value in walking away from a paycheck in exchange for something of much greater worth.

That sucking sound you hear isn't just the President's poll numbers going down the toilet.  That loud whooshing is Randi Rhodes' audience switching off the radio and running for the door. 

Matt Drudge reports: "the just released radio Winter Book [Jan-Mar 2006] from ARBITRON shows AIR AMERICA in New York City losing more than a third of its audience -- in the past year!  Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006.  During PM drive, host Randi Rhodes plunged to 27,900 listeners every quarter hour, finishing 25th place in her time slot, down from 60,900 listeners every quarter hour in the fall." 

The book touted as revealing the progressive movement's takeover via the blogosphere isn't doing so hot either. "A book hyped by major media as documenting a progressive revolution of "blogs" and political power, DAILY KOS 'CRASHING THE GATE,' has sold only 3,630 copies since its release last month, according to NIELSEN's BOOKSCAN. [NIELSEN claims only 2,062 copies of DAILY KOS have been purchased at the retail level; the rest coming through 'discount' outlets.]" 

Sounds like the only thing crashing is the movement.

One must wonder if Kent State University intentionally fosters an atmosphere for terrorist rhetoric to flourish or if the good Dr. is just another crazed liberal with tenure.  Here's the story again.  Check the bottom of the post for the latest bloggers to join the effort.

Ever wonder how John Lennon is spending his afterlife?  Well, apparently people find this a question worth answering to the tune of $9.95.  Pay tv service In Demand aired a show Monday night in which a seance was held to reach the passed on Beatle and according to the show's producer and crew he spoke from the grave through EVP (electronic voice phenomenon).

  "Peace... the message is peace."  That was Lennon's comment to psychic Joe Power, or at least to Joe's audio feed which went dead for a few seconds only to buzz, whir and hum back to life with something audible suddenly appearing on it.  At that point the psychic translated John's words and sought the expertise of "EVP specialist", Sandra Belanger to verify the transmission was indeed otherworldly. 

In response the the high demand for advice from the great beyond, I will be setting up a paypal account in the morning after which I will gladly accept $9.95 from anyone who is interested in hearing the wisdom of Buddy Holly.  Once your money is deposited, I will send you an email with the exact transcript of any transmissions I receive during tomorrow's seance.  The transmissions will be verified by an independent SOS transmission expert (Stuck On Stupid).  Thank you and goodnight.

Just a reminder:  There's a $25 Million Dollar Bounty on this guy's head

Looks like it's time to free this guy and give him a new mission... (Don't know if he's even remotely for real but, hey, what've we got to lose?)

Although I try diligently never to rip off people's ideas,  I just loved the GOP ad that Amy Proctor is showing over on her blog. For me, just watching this brought back a flood of memories because I actually remember watching the speeches, lectures, and interviews that are strewn together in this video clip of history.  It is a vivid reminder of the shameless way that many Washingtonians play politics with our security and our military.  And it begins in 1998.

1998.  I spent most of that year pregnant and half of it in internal exile (pronounced Kan-sas) in a crummy, old apartment that we rented with the words military families know so well, "It's only for (fill in length of time here) long..."  Overwhelmed with a first pregnancy and nearly complete isolation from family and friends, I spent a lot of time watching my growing belly and eventually rocking my newborn son in front of news shows and the internet. 

There wasn't much to do in the off post apartment complex and I made very few friends - most families doing their stint at Command and General Staff College were living on post - so I whiled away countless hours consumed with the news of the day.  That was when I discovered the internet as a forum for discussing politics.  It was also the first time I watched the entire and seemingly interminable coverage of the Joint Chiefs meeting with the Armed Services committee.  Yup - I had no life.

The Religious Coalition for Marriage spoke out today and released the following statement with wide support from religious organizations across the nation.  The list of signers on this statement is impressive.  It includes, Jews, Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Presbyterians, you name it. 

The Coalition's website includes a list of ways that individuals can make their voices heard before the June 6th vote on the marriage amendment.  I wholeheartedly endorse this effort and encourage all who value traditional family values to do the same.

I have posted the statement in its entirety below.

A Letter from America's Religious Leaders in Defense of Marriage

Throughout America, the institution of marriage is suffering. As leaders in our nation's religious communities, we cannot sit idly by. It is our duty to speak. And so across the lines of theological division, we have united to affirm, in one voice, the following:

For millennia our societies have recognized the union of a man and a woman in the bond of marriage. Cross-culturally virtually every known human society understands marriage as a union of male and female. As such marriage is a universal, natural, covenantal union of a man and a woman intended for personal love, support and fulfillment, and the bearing and rearing of children. Sanctioned by and ordained of God, marriage both precedes and sustains civil society.

Marriage is particularly important for the rearing of children as they flourish best under the long term care and nurture of their father and mother. For this and other reasons, when marriage is entered into and gotten out of lightly, when it is no longer the boundary of sexual activity, or when it is allowed to be radically redefined, a host of personal and civic ills can be expected to follow. Such a point has always been stressed by the world's great monotheistic religious traditions and is, today, increasingly confirmed by impeccable social science research.

Long concerned with rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers, we have recently watched with extreme alarm the growing trend of some courts to make marriage something it is not: an elastic concept able to accommodate almost any individual preference. This does not so much modify or even weaken marriage as abolish it. The danger this betokens for family life and a general condition of social justice and ordered liberty is hard to overestimate.

Therefore, we take the unprecedented stand of uniting to call for a constitutional amendment to establish a uniform national definition of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on the whole of our society. We encourage all citizens of good will across the country to step forward boldly and exercise their right to work through our constitutionally established democratic procedures to amend the Constitution to include a national definition of marriage. We hereby announce our support for S.J. Res.1, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

May God bless all marriages and all those who labor to protect the sanctity and promote the goodness of marriage throughout this nation.

In case you haven't had a chance to review the facts about Iraq's WMDs,  Sam Pender lays out some interesting information in the The New Media Journal.  In a five part story he extrapolates the story behind the story of Saddam's WMD program from the Duelfer Report and Saddam's Secrets,  a book written by Iraqi General Georges Sada.

To peruse Pender's prose click the ad:

In a slam dunk of an article that begins with the Duke Lacrosse rape case and ends with an "Amen and Praise Jesus!",  Ann Coulter points out the simple truth behind humans behaving badly.  This is a great read, even for Liberals, and if you can ignore the pointed political jabs for just a moment, you'll find an underlying truth that we should all be able to agree with.

  Check out Ann's article Lie Down with Strippers, Wake up with Pleas.

Bin Laden speaks and rails against the West for abandoning Hamas and what does Hamas do in response?  They back slowly away, hoping that no one sees them slinking toward to door.  (I think that whimping sound you hear is Sami Abu Zuhri begging for money...)

Hamas Distances Itself From Bin Laden  By IBRAHIM BARZAK  The Associated Press

Osama, apparently, awoke in a bad mood.  No, no one peed in his Corn Flakes.  He's just a little miffed because Western governments have decided to stop forking cash over to the Hamas led government of Palestine.  Clearly, Bin Laden is a flaming liberal and, like his Berkeley educated ideologues, has confused the American taxpayer with a great big fee-free Automated Teller Machine.

Not only are we supposed to babysit anyone and everyone who considers hard work a hassle, now we're supposed to pass checks out to those who demand the right to blow us up in the middle of the market.  Now that Saddam's assets are frozen, it would appear that Hamas needs a new sugar daddy.  I guess life's tough when you're a terrorist...

See His Helplessness here:

******************************Update****************************************

Now His Highness of the handouts is calling for a boycott of Western goods (yeah!  That'll teach us!)  And did I mention he wants the Mohammad cartoonists turned over to Al-Quaeda to (cough, cough) stand trial?

After the startling announcement last night by the press that the second stripper in the Duke Lacrosse rape case actually contacted a NY PR firm to ask how to spin her story for personal benefit, more news out of North Carolina seems to indicate that the facts are being hung like window dressing to create a picture of an alledged rape that may or may not be accurate. 

Apparently, the photo identifications made by the 27 year old stripper whose accusations have made national headlines, may be completely invalid.  Instead of providing the mother of two with a random sample of photos with the Duke players pics added to the mix, the Durham PD only showed her photos of the white Lacrosse team players.  This eliminated the possibility that the stripper's credibility could be at issue and garuanteed that she would pick suspects from within the group.  Sounds like these guys learned how to operate from political poll takers!  Talk about a loaded question.  "Which one of these men raped you?"  And then they hand her the team photo. 

Aside from assuring that the Durham PD would get an answer they liked, and eliminating the possibility that the stripper could reveal any inconsistencies in her story by selecting wrong pictures from the lineup, this skewed procedure eliminated the possibility that anyone else was in attendance at the party.

The most fascinating aspects of this story are still unfolding.  A taxi driver positively identified one of the boys that the stripper fingered with "100% accuracy" as having been in his cab and headed across town at virtually the same time the rape was supposed to have taken place.  Can't wait to see the commercial receipt that proves he was not even at the party at the time of "the incident" - that's what defense attorneys claim to have on hand.  This case just keeps getting weirder and weirder....

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga writes an interesting article for the American Prospect attributing a personal, political shift from Republican to Democrat to a short three year stint in the Army.  The Soldier in Me describes the author's experience in combat boots as a revolutionary, ideology-changing period that altered forever perceptions about the relationship between society and government and the individual.

There’s a reason most vets running for office this year are running as Democrats. The military is perhaps the ideal society -- we worked hard but the Army took care of us in return. All our basic needs were met -- housing, food, and medical care. It was as close to a color-blind society as I have ever seen. We looked out for one another. The Army invested in us. I took heavily subsidized college courses and learned to speak German on the Army’s dime. I served with people from every corner of the country. I got to party at the Berlin Wall after it fell and explored Prague in those heady post-communism days. I wasn’t just a tourist; I was a witness to history.

The Army taught me the very values that make us progressives -- community, opportunity, and investment in people and the future.

The expressed sentiments are true.  The Army is a community like no other and membership does have its privileges.  But what is noticeably absent from the author's description is the real purpose for enlisting or accepting a commission.  There is no talk of service to the nation.  No talk of patriotism and of a sense of obligation to the nation that offers you freedom and citizenship unlike any other place on this planet.  There is no reference to the selfless sacrifice.  Only a commentary on the benefits and personal rewards for swearing the oath.  Never a mention of self-sacrifice and duty.  No mention of honor or serving a greater good.  Only a litany of "what have you done for me lately". 

What those well-written phrases reveal is a desperate need to be less individual and independent and a desire to abandon self-reliance in favor of a communist style system of institutionalized care.  But let's set the record straight.  Those military benefits are compensation for long days and late nights, for deployments and field time.  They are compensation for willingly putting yourself at risk on behalf of an occasionally grateful nation.  They are not simply handouts issued like welfare checks or WIC coupons.  To suggest otherwise is demeaning to the men who put years of blood sweat and tears into the missions at home and abroad. 

That Zuniga escaped combat duty during a brief enlistment has created a false understanding of what it really means to serve.  In spite of the hand up military service offers to many,  it is not the hand out described in this author's opinion.  What the article is, however, is an eye-opening view at how this Daily Kos proprietor and the liberal left view the government:  as a paternalistic cash cow designed to fund a lifetime of self-indulgent behavior. 

Writes Zuniga: And after my three-year stint, while I was stationed in Germany and missed deploying to the Gulf War by a hair, I emerged as a Democrat.  Why am I not surprised?  After traipsing all over Europe, partying at the Berlin wall and being a "witness to history", the threat of being actually called upon to do the job you're paid for scared you into becoming a Democrat?  Notice, everything was all well and good when the benefits were doled out and the only requirements were ruck marches within the confines of an Army post but let someone ask you to do your job...

In spite of this warped view of military service,  I am grateful that Markos has penned these thoughts.  Let them serve as an expose on the real weakness of the liberal mind and it's lazy, self-indulgent and self-serving, socialist leanings.  And I'm grateful for one more thing:  that Zuniga ran fearfully from the ranks and abandoned the nation's true heroes.  Heaven forbid the cowardice set in when someone's life was actually on the line.

Okay, maybe not dinner, but they'll be hanging around the front gate at lunchtime.  Soulforce, the LGBT community's version of Hitler's youth have been traversing the country to fight "religion-based oppression".  They are parking themselves on college campuses nationwide to denounce religious and government refusals to accept homosexuality.  In the words of one of the "equality riders", he believes "the Soulforce Equality Ride can have a tremendous impact on spreading truth about the wholeness and goodness of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people".

The wholeness and goodness.  Interesting word choices.  They scream acceptance, not equal treatment.  Which I guess is why they are protesting at religious schools and military academies, church and the military being the last bastions of traditional family.  LOL.

I was thinking of counter-protesting with a sign that reads "We love the Boy Scouts of America".  ROTFLMBO...  Or maybe a picture of troops with the words superimposed, "Overgrown Boy Scouts".  What do you think?

The conspiracy theory and anti-Bush spokeperson du jour, Charlie Sheen, has been eviscerated by his soon to be ex, Denise Richards in court papers.  Ouch.  There's just not much to say about this - it's all too sick to delve into.  But if you're interested, the link leads to the smoking gun's site with all of the graphic and disgusting details.  It is interesting however that Charlie made headlines when he supported the 9/11 conspiracy theories recently.  With friends like these..... well, you know the rest.

If you search the internet with any regularity, you know that there appear to be a myriad of reasons to support the idea that our own government perpetrated 9/11 to lead us into a war with Iraq.  Of course, you can also discover that Elvis is alive and that aliens have impregnanted a man in northeastern London, but, I digress.  The fundamental flaw with this conspiracy is simple:  it doesn't pass the reasonable man test.

The reasonable man test is a diametrical opposite to Dr. Ian Malcolm's chaos theory.  Instead of suggesting that the same exact action could produce an unlimited number of widely varying and unpredictable results, the reasonable man argument suggests that there are reasonable courses of action for a given circumstance.  In the case of law, an attorney might ask, "What would a reasonable person of ordinary prudence have done in the defendant's situation?"  This presupposes that there are a limited number of reasonable behaviors for each circumstance.  It is basically, Occam's razor applied to human behavior. 

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or  entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

When predicting behavior, the reasonable man test implies that human action will follow a logical and fairly predictable course within the defined paradigms of its subject, and, according to Occam's razor, generally, the simplest, most reasonable expectation is the most accurate explanation. 

Even Palestinian suicide bombers are predictable within the paradigm of a certain set of beliefs as are serial killers.  Certainly, profilers predict characteristics of suspects by adapting the parameters of 'normal' behavior.  I'm not suggesting that we are unthinking robots rather that we nearly always act within reasonable and defineable parameters. 

When a behavior defies all the bounds of reason it is invariably either inaccurate or a readily apparent abberation.  This is why cases like that of Andrea Yates hold so many people fixated upon them - because the human behavior is so unpredictable.  Contrast the Yates case with the largely ignored case of any one of a number of liquor store robberies - the latter being cases where human behavior is driven by a self-interested need or addiction - a predictable and patterned course of action.

Back to 9/11. I sat through Loose Change in its entirety today (thanks to a scheduled teacher work day) and was consistently underwhelmed by both the science and the logic.  The piece relies heavily on fundamentally flawed premises such as the eyewitness accounts of emotionally involved observers,  film and photograph scrutiny of the same sort that felled Pierre Salinger, and the constant innuendo of a shadow conspiracy with weak motives, lurking like Dorothy's wizard, just behind the curtain.  

After watching this engaging bit of filmography and listening to various parts of the narration multiple times, it became apparent that the writers of the film were stringing together large compilations of unrelated and in many cases unsubstantiated bits of information.  The last three minutes were the most troubling, frankly, when there were references to trucks packed with gold under the trade center being evacuated.  The suggestion that all this was done for money is intrinsically flawed. 

If a reasonable man, and in this case very powerful, influential and wealthy, reasonable men wanted the gold, why wouldn't they just steal it?  If they were after oil,  couldn't they have manufactured more readily available disinformation?  They could have simply used that 'voice changing apparatus' to create false statements issued by Saddam.  Wham! Bam! Thank you, M'am.  It would've been a done deal.  They could have created tapes of him making threats and discussing dirty bombs with Osama.  That would've been so much more believable than the subsequent scramble for intelligence that has left the President and the entire Federal government looking foolish and incompetent. 

The film also indicates that the passengers of the hijacked flights were removed from the planes and are being held somewhere.  This begs the question, why such deferential treatment when nearly 4000 lay dead in the uptown rubble?  Perhaps, they are Lost on some deserted south Pacific island...(recently reunited with "survivors from the tail section")

Conspiracy ideas are being popularized and endowed with increasing legitimacy as the internet becomes a more respectable news source. Theories like the 9/11 myth are reaching a larger audience and becoming more and more commercial.  But that still doesn't make them reasonable or truthful.

It isn't that I don't believe in conspiracies, secret societies, or evil people working in league.  It's just that in this case, it is much more reasonable to believe that a group of dedicated conspiracy lovers who delight in uncovering sinister plots are fascinated with the nearly unbelievable and strange happenings of that September morning than that thousands of people are involved in keeping silent the murder of almost 4000 of their own neighbors, friends, and family members.  And in sending into war their sons and daughters and brothers at arms.  That just isn't reasonable.  There are so many opportunities for failure in a conspiracy of that size and scope that the odds of successfully carrying off an event of the magnitude of 9/11 have about the same chances of my winning the lottery - without ever buying a ticket.

And then there's the issue of the increasingly available stream of information that justifies the administration's choice to wage war with Afghanistan and Iraq. 

I will admit that President Bush and his administration have been hawkish and have changed American foreign policy in ways that I don't altogether agree with.  A preemptive strike position opens a veritable Pandora's box of problems with respect to intelligence and human rights - the worst case scenario is Minority Report on a national scale.  Nevertheless, the information slowly trickling out of the Middle East and reaching the masses via mainstream media at a dismally, and arguably, intentionally, lethargic rate corroborates the initial reasons for entering Iraq three years ago. And the strength of that position also undermines the 9/11 myth, if for no other reason than that the same outspoken critics of the war in Iraq are the among those adherents of the conspiratorial claims.