"I've never been on InstaPundit. I don't even know what that is."

So claims my old favorite, Jodi Wilgoren. (Via InstaPundit.) The first part of the statement -- "never been on" -- may in the strictest and most literal sense be true, but "not knowing what that is?"

Come on, Jodi!

This latest display of "ignorance" is downright cute. Coy. Genuinely endearing.

But cuteness aside, there is such a thing as objectivity in journalism. Considering the prominence of Glenn Reynolds, as well as Ms. Wilgoren's (and her family's) stated interest in tracking what's said about her in the blogosphere, I think either she's either not reading the links carefully enough (as unlikely as it would be unprofessional), or else she's just pretending not to notice.

Is the latter the case? Deliberately concealed ignorance passed off as objective disinterest?

I'm not sure whether to call that journalism, but it's certainly professional.

NOTE: While I don't have time to start a Jodi Wilgoren fan club, I have devoted two posts to her (here and here), because I know talent when I see it, and I think she may be the next Maureen Dowd.

The Center for Islamic Suicide? If that sounds too ridiculous, read the link.

Not that people in the West don't commit suicide, but it's nothing to be proud of. We don't tend to brag about it. Suicide is simply a bad thing. If done at all, it's an admission that life has no meaning.

If you ask me, the fact that people want to do it really isn't much of a lifestyle advertisement for whatever the hell lifestyle they're advocating.

I am not saying that suicide is Islam, but obviously some deranged people continue to think it's the highest form of Islam.

It may scare the hell out of people, but in balance, as a form of PR, it's a loser. Furthermore, as a war tactic, advertising that you want to die is an admission of the stupidity -- and futility -- of your cause.

Have high class call girls been manipulating the new media?

Is it blogging, or is it a real scandal?

Come again?

This is par for the course in Washington, and nothing new.

Why, it didn't even start with Watergate! (It's just that Watergate hasn't been outed yet.)

The world's oldest profession (and it is a profession) has finally gotten some real attention in the blogosphere, and I am not surprised, or even impressed. Not a shred of moral outrage or indignation here.

Whatever moral outrage or indignation I might have had was long ago spent. It's been ten years since I learned that at the heart of Watergate was a high class hooker ring, which was systematically covered up, and which continues to be systematically covered up.

I don't know how else to put it, or how many times I have said it, but this country has been had before, and on a much greater scale. Michelle Malkin comes pretty close to the truth in her characterization of the media, but I think that she, and everyone concerned would do well to ask why anyone should be shocked when modern "investigative journalism" (and what Glenn Reynolds and Peter Morgan have called the "Big Bang" of what passes for modern political "ethics"), has its origin in the world's oldest profession.

Yeah, folks, once again I want to remind everyone that Watergate involved a coverup of a (gulp) prostitution ring. (I have an old, tired, blog with links for anyone wanting more detail....)

No foundation, all the way down the line!

I'm not cynical; I'm way past that stage....

(Yawn.....)

On a serious note, happy Memorial Day, everyone! Try to remember the veterans, whose sacrifices should not be forgotten as hawks turn into doves, and vice versa.

No blogging today because I spent it in New York. Here are a few photos.

For starters, a graffiti-covered building which appears to have last housed a bread company near the turn of the century:

NOTE: As graffiti has now been linked to "mob violence," that's what I titled the picture.

Next, some red-eared slider turtles (grown versions of the little green ones once sold in pet stores) which live in a "green guerilla" park in the Bowery:

Echoing the reptilian theme, a gargoyle in an otherwise abandoned-looking store window:

And last but not least, a turn-of-the-century, classical-meets-modern sculpture near Penn Station:

That's it for today!

Not until you've read the 47th Bonfire of the Vanities, that is....

This week it's hosted at Laurence Simon's luscious new blog, This Blog is Full of Crap.

Some highlights:

A very enjoyable bonfire, so please read them all.

Then flush and burn!

Because the stories continue, an update on Nick Berg's decapitation is overdue, whether I like it or not.

Tim Blair fisks the theory that because the white plastic chair Berg was seated on looks like the chairs at Abu Ghraib prison, that this proves Nick Berg was beheaded by Americans in a false flag operation.

I'd note that there are lots of these chairs around; for example, here's the same chair. (Some of them have been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Little wonder they're in Iraq....)

I don't mean to make light of this, but I own a couple of them, and they are wobbly. But they were very cheap; around five dollars or so.

The UCSD Guardian reports that a "Library Walk" screening of the Berg beheading was canceled by school authorities.

It seems the students can't see it anywhere else, and I don't know why.

We don't have censorship, do we?

Finally, Nick Berg's sister is suspicious of Michael Moore's claim that he interviewed Nick for his film Fahrenheit 9/11. I'd be suspicious of anything Moore claimed.

As to the beheading video, it's obviously edited heavily, and appears to have been shot with more than one camera in an amateurish manner. (Professional spooks, I believe, would have done a much better job had they faked the video.) I made it available here because it was not being shown to the public, despite the fact that they were being inundated with abu Ghraib images on a daily basis. Obviously, I am in no position to vouch for its authenticity in any way. In terms of cold-blooded horror, it reminds me of the Daniel Pearl video, which I also posted for streaming. I've been criticized for streaming it, but I'll do it again the next time something like this happens.

As to the conspiracy/false flag allegations, I am not convinced at all, as I already explained in a comment. One thing which might have put such talk to rest would have been an autopsy, because pathologists can at least determine whether cut human tissue was alive at the time it was cut. But that would not silence those who believe the beheading wasn't the work of terrorists, because they'd simply drop the claim that Nick was already dead when he was decapitated, and just say that the CIA obviously beheaded him while alive.

Can I prove that Bush/CIA didn't do it?

No, but I also can't prove that Al Gore and John Kerry didn't do it.

Al Qaida in Iraq?

Those are fighting words to anyone who opposes the war in Iraq, because it seems to be an article of faith with them that there has never been a connection between al Qaida and Iraq.

How did Al Gore put it the other day?

THE PRESIDENT CONVINCED the country with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda.

And if you believe in these false assertions, why, there's a study which shows you're suffering from "misperceptions."

Stephen F.Hayes has written a book documenting the numerous connections between Iraq and al Qaida.

You can read some of it here. But no matter what the evidence is, it won't convince any of the true disbelievers....

I read about it in 1999, in a book called Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America.

Yeah, war was declared, but in those days no one was looking. No one cared whether al Qaida and Iraq were linked either.

That's because it just wasn't an election issue.

Truth these days depends on political considerations.

For what it's worth, I have posted about the connection between al Qaida and Iraq connection in this blog repeatedly (here, here, here, here, and here.)

UPDATE: Because I have cited it repeatedly in this blog, I think it's appropriate to quote a couple of passages from the Bodansky book.

This is from page 324:

....[T]wo of bin Laden's senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdallah Qassim, visited Baghdad between April 25 and May 1 [1998] for discussions with Iraqi intelligence. The importance of these contacts to Baghdad was shown by their meeting with Qusay Hussein, Saddam's son, who is now responsible for intelligence matters and was personally involved in both the Iraqi contribution to the Somalia operation and later the intelligence cooperation with Iran. Both sides were very satisfied with the results of the negotiations.

One of the first concrete outcomes of these contacts was Baghdad's agreement to train a new network of Saudi Islamist intelligence operatives and terrorists from among bin Laden's supporters still inside Saudi Arabia. Special clandestine cross-border passages were organized by Iraqi intelligence to enable these Saudis to make it to Iraq without passports or any other documents. The first group of Saudi Islamists crossed over in mid-June for a four-week course in the al-Nasiriyah training camp. Most were trained in intelligence—how to collect intelligence on American targets and plan and launch strikes. The Other Saudis were organized into a network for smuggling weapons and explosives from Iraq into Saudi Arabia, This group has returned to Saudi Arabia and is operational, having smuggled in the first loads of weapons and explosives. Later in the summer a second group of eleven Saudi lslami'stS received a month of training in the most sophisticated guerrilla techniques. By then Iraqi intelligence anticipated a marked expansion in the training of Saudi Islamisrs, for Iraqi intelligence took over two training camps they had previously used for training the Iranian Mujahideen-ul-Khalq.

Bin Laden moved quickly to solidify the cooperation with Saddam Hussein. In mid-July, Ayrnan al-Zawahiri traveled to Iraq clandestinely. He met senior Iraqi officials, including Taha Yassin Ramadan, to discuss practical modalities for the establishment of bin Laden's base in Iraq, the expansion of training for his mujahideen, and a joint strategy for an anti-U.S. jihad throughout the Arab world and North Africa. Baghdad could not have been more helpful, conditioning its support on bin Laden's promise not to incite the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood into establishing an Islamic state in Iraq; in other words not to compete with Saddam Hussein's reign. While in Iraq, Zawahiri was also taken to visit a potential site for bin Laden's headquarters near al-Fallujah and terrorist training camps run by Iraqi intelligence. In al-Nasiriyah he saw the training provided to Saudi Islamists. In the name of Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri assumed responsibility for a training camp in the al-Nasiriyah desert established by Iraqi intelligence in about 1997 for terrorists from Saudi Arabia and the gulf states.

From page 346:

In retrospect, the U.S.-Iraqi crisis of mid-November [1998] was the turning point in galvanizing Baghdad's resolve to strike out and sponsor an unprecedented terrorist campaign. A well-connected Arab source stated that "Saddam Hussein became convinced for the first time that Washington was seriously seeking to topple him and had decided to bring him down in any possible way. He chose to confront [the United States] with all possible means) too, particularly extremism and terrorism) since he had nothing else to lose." Convinced that he had Co act urgently, Hussein held lengthy discussions with the two people he truly trusts -- his sons Qusay and Uday -- on how to confront the Unired States and spoil its designs against their family. Qusay argued, and Saddam ultimately agreed, that there was no way emaciated Iraq could deflect a determined American attempt to assassinate them and bring down the regime. The key to their survival was in deterring such a campaign in the first place through a series of devastating anti-American terrorist attacks that would persuade Washington of the futility of challenging the Hussein regime. The option of conducting such a terrorist campaign under bin Laden's "deniable" banner was irresistible.

A few days after this conversation Qusay dispatched rwo of his most loyal intelligence operatives—al-Jubburi and al-Shihabi—to Afghanistan. They held a series of lengthy meetings with bin Laden, Zawahiri, Abu-Hafs, and other senior Islamist terrorist commanders in an isolated building not far from Kabul. Al-Jubburi and al Shihabi brought with them detailed lists of Iraq's contributions to the joint effort, including the anticipated arrival of the chemical weapons experts. They then worked out a detailed, coordinated plan for a protracted anti-American war. They decided that spectacular and martyrdom operations should be carried out throughout the world. In addition bin Laden agreed that Islamist hit teams should hunt down Iraqi opposition leaders who cooperated with the United States and the West against the Hussein regime. Bin Laden assured the Iraqis that the Islamists could now reach areas that Iraqi intelligence could not. The series of meetings concluded with an agreement to study closely and formulate details of specific operations and then meet again to decide on the first round of strikes.

This contradicts the common view that al Qaida only established a presence in Iraq because of "Bush's war." If anything, it shows that the Iraqis decided to team up with al Qaida because of Bill Clinton.

My apologies for any misspellings in the above, for I had to transcribe the damn thing, and it wasn't easy.

Hope someone can use it!

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds notes that it is an antiwar "article of faith" that there was "no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda." He's interested in hearing their response to the Hayes book, but I'm not holding my breath.

(Most likely, the response will consist of attacks on the author. Should I be holding my breath?)

MORE: Here's an October 7, 2002 statement from George Tenet, which pretty much confirms what I read in 1999:

"We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

And even Newsweek and ABC reported similar stuff, back in 1999:

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:

Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.

Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden.

Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for his link to this post, and a warm welcome to all InstaPundit readers!

UPDATE: The above post by Glenn Reynolds on the Hayes book appeared in hard copy in the Blog Cabin section of today's Philadelphia Inquirer.

Glad to see it!

MORE: Newsmax.com reports that Iraq's new Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has "vouched for the authenticity of evidence that links Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks."

Though the notion that Iraq played a role in 9/11 is considered heresy in U.S. intelligence circles, newly appointed Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said in December that a document purported to be from Saddam's intelligence service that places lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks was indeed "genuine."

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," Allawi told the London Telegraph at the time. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

As reported by the Telegraph at the time, the document - a handwritten memo dated July 1, 2001 - provides a short resume of a three-day "work program" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's terrorist training camp in Baghdad.

Nidal was executed by Saddam's secret police in August 2002 in what some suspect was a bid to keep him from telling what he knew about 9/11. (HT G. Gordon Liddy Show.)

MORE: Deroy Murdock offers more intriguing evidence on the Iraqi connection with Mohamed Atta, including perfidy by the New York Times:

Czech authorities have defended their story despite the American media's valiant efforts to discredit it.

On October 21, 2002, the New York Times reported on its front page that "The Czech president, Vaclav Havel, has quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports that Mohamed Atta, the leader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague just months before the attacks on New York and Washington, according to Czech officials."

Havel quickly spurned the Times's creative writing. Within hours, his spokesman, Ladislav Spacek, dubbed the Times story "a fabrication." He added, "Nothing like this has occurred."

That same day, Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross reasserted his government's finding, complete with unique spellings of the names of two key characters:

"In this moment we can confirm that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on the 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status."

Two days later, America's so-called "Paper of Record" retreated. On October 23, 2002, it quoted Spacek, Havel's spokesman. "The president did not call the White House about this. The president never spoke about Atta, not with Bush, not with anyone else." (Via InstaPundit.)

Well, it's Friday, and as usual, I am bugging myself to death by taking more silly online tests. It's the price I must pay to support the War Against Seriousness -- a war I take most seriously! But, to paraphrase Drayton Sawyer, just because there's some things I gotta do, that doesn't mean I gotta like it....

On to the tests. By now I'm onto almost all of them.

_______________________________________

The first one -- The Cicada Test -- , while fun, gave me a result which makes little to no sense, but here it is anyway:

Take the Cicada Test!

(Via Jay Solo.)

Trading what? For what?

Let's see.

________________________________

Most of the political online tests I have seen have told me I am some sort of libertarian or other, and there's a new one -- A Satirical Political Beliefs Assessment Test -- which is no exception.

The following description comes from the test's author, Donald J. Hagen:

A Humorous Political Party Quiz to Test

If You're an Archconservative, Leftwing Wacko,

Antigovernment Libertine or a Commie Sympathizer

What else could a Trading Spaces Cicada be other than a libertarian? But is seventeen years spent living underground worth a few measly days of hedonistic liberty, followed by an undignified death?

And what about the cicada killers? I don't especially like the idea of coming out to breed, only to be dragged back underground, paralyzed with poison, and eaten alive by a bunch of young WASP larvae! This fearsome terroristic spectacle goes mostly unreported, but many a wholesome American cicada suffers precisely such a fate as the one displayed here!

A fate worse than death itself!

Why aren't we being told about these things? Is the liberal media trying to instill feelings of complacency? WASP appeasement? Wholesale surrender?

I don't like it!

_______________________________________________

As to the search for a partner, here's "THE LOVE TEST" -- which promised to tell me what partner I seek:

CRAZY ONE. You need crazy partners. You dont mind
if he/she takes alc or drugs or smokes he is
not allowed to be boring. Open-Minded for
everything our partner should spent much time
with you. Your partner shall be spontaneous and
love danger. It is not that important if she/he
is rich or if he/she cuts his nails she/he must
follow you .You take the domination over the
relationship, you decide most of the times
where to go. If the sex is not good (any
more)you quit the relationship
For you it is better to leave than to see your
love restrained.
PLEASE VOTE, I want to know what you think about my
quiz, I worked hard on it.You can always
message me or tell me how I can improve that
quiz. Ill sure write back.


~THE big LOVE TEST!! What do you need? With PICS! For girls and boys!~
brought to you by Quizilla

But I don't want to be followed!

Or bugged!

See what I mean about these tests?

________________________________________

The final test -- What Monty Python Character are you? -- offers a small ray of hope, because I get to be King Arthur, who many historians these days seem to think was a Roman holdover of one sort or another. However, the controversy continues, and I doubt it will ever be settled.

Well, u-- um, can we come up and have a look?


What Monty Python Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Whoever or whatever Arthur was, I am glad to be someone who hates the French and upholds the Classical theme of this blog!

I really shouldn't call myself a "war blogger" because I don't write much about the war. I don't like to write extensively about things I don't know about, and I just don't have access to anything except publicly available information on the war in Iraq. It bothers the hell out of me to see a story one day, then see another two or three contrasting versions of it, or else find out that the story everyone thought to be true has turned out to be a fabrication, or else greatly exaggerated. For example, I am still sore about the notorious "museum looting scandal" which turned out to be nothing. Yet I was outraged by what I thought was the destruction of irreplaceable artifacts, and I argued that this showed a lack of preparation, etc. Then I saw I'd been had.

The "wedding attack" is another, more recent one. I read the first reports in the Philadelphia Inquirer, but I was too cynical to comment. Then I saw the story change, and change some more. I suppose one can link to these stories and comment on them, and while I think people should do that, I just get this sinking feeling that it's a waste of time to expend energy on something that might not be what it seems to be. So, notwithstanding my support for the war, I don't want to shoot off my mouth in the dark.

Bill Whittle's "Strength" essay was a notable exception, because it doesn't require reliance on the latest breakdown of the latest version of the battle with Moktada al Sadr's Mahdi Militia or the accuracy of the latest photos purporting to come from abu Ghraib.

Similarly, I was intrigued by Cathy Seipp's reference to Dieppe:

a bloody but necessary dress rehearsal to D-Day that established the futility of invading a fortified European port.

Here's the (hardly pro-war) BBC on Dieppe:

The Dieppe Raid was planned by British Combined Operations HQ and GHQ Home Forces. The Canadians were keen to be involved and the 2nd Canadian Division under Major General JH Roberts was nominated to take part. Just under 5,000 Canadians were joined by 1,075 British and they landed at Dieppe on 19 August 1942.

The force left from five different British ports divided into 13 groups. The men had support from a naval force of 237 warships, and eight destroyers opened fire as the troops were landing. A combined Allied air force prepared for a battle with the Luftwaffe.

The attack was launched at dawn and covered a ten-mile front taking in the towns and villages of Varengeville, Pourville, Puys and Berneval. A small German convoy had already exchanged fire with part of the landing force, blowing their cover so the essential element of surprise was gone. Some of the force was landed late or in the wrong place, both fatal mistakes. They immediately came under attack from German troops led by General Kurt Zeitzler. Allied air reconnaissance had failed to locate gun positions hidden in the cliffs surrounding the port and it was these that caused such devastation.

The infantry landed as planned but they had poor support and the German defenders were quick to recover. The tanks that got ashore were caught in roadblocks. Roberts ordered two of his reserve units ashore; Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal were pinned down and the Royal Marie 'A' Commando were fortunate to have a commanding officer who turned back some of the landing craft to avoid fatalities.

Within a few hours, 3,367 Canadian men were either killed, wounded or captured. Of the British, 275 died. One destroyer and 33 landing craft were lost, with 550 seamen killed. The air battle was no more successful: 106 aircraft went down. Only one commando (No 4) led by Lord Lovat had success; the Hess Battery on the right flank was destroyed and the commando evacuated to sea with few casualties. Captain Porteous (RA) won the Victoria Cross as a result.

The raid left the British administration red-faced. It was admitted that an air bombardment prior to landing would in future be ordered. A need for improved amphibious capabilities was also recognised. Allied commanders claimed that valuable military information was gained from the Dieppe Raid and Admiral Lord Mountbatten commented that 'for every soldier who died at Dieppe, ten were saved on D-Day'. No written record remains of the Chiefs of Staff approving the raid and it is possible that Mountbatten proceeded without authorisation. There was no denying that the raid was an expensive fiasco at an important juncture in the war.

The war in Iraq strikes me as having two very different components: one is to fight radical Islamists who want to kill me and every other American, and the other (apparently), is to introduce democracy to a place which has not had it in recent memory, and if the radical Islamists have their way, will never obtain it. Iraq is further complicated by the fact that the place seethes with internal strife between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni Muslims -- many of whom would love to slaughter each other in the hope of gaining power. Under Saddam Hussein, there was a ghastly "balance of power" which kept everyone in a state of terror, thus holding back any hope of genuine self determination by any of these Balkanized groups. Perhaps unwittingly, the United States military, whether are loved or not, serves as a stronger force right now than any of these individual groups. The war against terrorism aside, when the U.S. leaves Iraq (which will happen, barring a long-term occupation), I fear it will be as natural for the Iraqis to fight among themselves for power as it was for Muslims and Hindus in India and for Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, and Herzegovinians in Yugoslavia. Lord Mountbatten, despite his considerable diplomatic skills, proved unable to prevent the breakup of India into India and Pakistan, because with the British leaving, their stabilizing force no longer stood in the way of certain genocide.

It was the same thing when Tito died, and that is because power abhors a vacuum. Is the U.N. up to it? I doubt it. Success in Iraq this becomes a question of how success is defined. Removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing, but that does not mean that what follows will be wonderful. What I can see plainly is that al Qaida is all over Iraq, and al Qaida is the number one enemy in this war.

A stable Iraq, while desirable, is not as important as the primary goal.

I know it's cruel, but that's war.

If people don't like it, they might ask who started it.

Those who think Bush started it are in my opinion very wrong. This war is a lot bigger than Bush, and it started years before Bush was in office. It escalated just months after he took office.

The difference is, we are now fighting back, and we weren't before. Arguing over tactics is one thing, but to argue that we shouldn't be in this war strikes me as even less logical than it would have been to argue -- after Dieppe -- that we shouldn't have been in World War II.

The World War II analogy, of course, really fails where it comes to war coverage in the media today, because the media had to toe the line and support the war effort.

Here's an example:

The avowed press policy of Admiral E. J. King, Chief of Naval Operations, was "Don't tell them anything until the war is over, then tell them who won." He was not, I think, being facetious. However, journalists were put in uniform, with the equivalent rank of major. The Army and Navy provided support. There was pretty heavy censorship. Most didn't complain.

I'll say this: I am biased against the enemies who attacked us on September 11, who before that were behind the operation in Somalia, the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing, the Khobar Towers terrorist bombing, the African Embassies terrorist bombings, and the U.S.S. Cole terrorist bombing.

And who (though some still doubt it) have repeatedly declared war on the United States and want to kill all Americans.

UPDATE: In a thought-provoking piece, Wretchard from the Belmont Club highlights the interrelationship between media and war:

There is now no real distinction between winning the "media war" and cleaning out a sniper's nest in Ramadi; between Abu Ghraib the prison and Abu Ghraib the media event. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Take a for-instance. The media cries that U.S. troops detained a group of wives of enemy combatants, and raped them. If I am on the side of the troops, then I will suspect a media lie, and look to undermine it. The media, being against the war, will do everything they can to stand by their atrocity story. Truth becomes largely secondary. And considering that the "facts" in these cases usually come from a varieity of conflicting sources, the "truth" may never be known.

Rather tough for those who look for truth. If the truth is not known, and will never be known, then the only truth becomes whatever helps win the war.

And the bottom line is, I just want the U.S. to win this damned thing. Considering my stated bias, a good argument can be made for just ignoring all debate.

Well, I finally found the time for a post, but things are looking kind of sleepy in the blogosphere right now, and I'm on the verge of sleep myself. Not much earth-shaking news (you know it's bad when the front page shows a cicada buzzing President Bush's head!), and it seems the media is taking a break from anti-gun stories, so my blogfather Jeff didn't write a forced Weekly Check on the Gun Bias (but read this and this). Still, Jeff's having a ball with the biker candidate John Kerry, who's having a hell of a time trying to decide whether to be nominated. What are they waiting for, anyway? Another terrorist attack?

Hope this isn't the calm before the storm....

As to the cicadas' harassment of Bush being front page news, I will have my readers know that my dog Puff has plenty of experience with the buggers.

The last time a cicada decided to sit on my knee while I had my camera handy, Puff was happily, unsuspectingly, sitting in the yard. The perspective shows them to be about the same size.

But eventually (with a little prompting), Puff came over to investigate. When the cicada moved, Puff suddenly lurched at the thing, and his head was a blur:

I told him the cicada was his friend, and he calmed down -- just a bit -- allowing me to take a more civilized photograph. Well, I had to calm him down a bit:

Cicadas cause indigestion, you know....

(At least, so says the Inky, which always keeps the bugosphere informed.)

UPDATE: Hey, speaking of nothing, I hear there's a book coming out, which will no doubt detail all the things that Bill Clinton did about al Qaida's 1993 operation in Somalia, the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing, the Khobar Towers terrorist bombing, the African Embassies terrorist bombings, and the U.S.S. Cole terrorist bombing....

On second thought, the book can't just be Bill Clinton's What I Did About Al Qaida, or else it will have to go on this list.

Time for blogging is in very short supply today, but every once in a while I find something that really captures my imagination....

I seriously suggest that everyone interested in the First Amendment read this post by Jeff Jarvis. It's about The Week's conference on indecency, in which a variety of big name journalists -- left, right, and libertarian -- weigh on with fascinating pronouncements on media censorship.

A couple of gems, one from Bill Maher:

"The biggest threat of censorship is on college campuses. They are out of control.... The kids today. Somebody needs to slap them. They do not understand what free speech is. And it's coming from the left...." He tells a story of speaking at Smith and a student who walked out of watching the final episode of Ellen because it was boring was threatened with being thrown off of campus for a "hate crime."

Malkin: "Those Abu Ghraib pictures were journalistic pornography." She says that if you ask a journalist to report on the details of partial-birth abortion "they all of a sudden get too delicate."

"What [Monica Crowley]'s saying is that the definition of a liberal is a conservative who's just been censored, if I may paraphrase that."

Read it all!

One of the most irritating things I've had to put up with as a blogger is not disagreement, which I can handle. It's when people put words in my mouth, then attack and refute their own words as if I had said them. This is an ancient rhetorical trick, and it really shouldn't require much of a defense, because there is no need to defend what one did not say. But then, if one remains silent, the folks who launch this kind of attack will maintain that they defeated your "argument" -- even though the argument was constructed by them and not you, and was thus theirs to defeat.

Most of the time, this sort of attack has come from leftists (example here), but today I saw it coming from someone I can't call a leftist, but don't want to call a rightist. He calls himself a Jacksonian Christian and he finds me guilty of hypocrisy based not on things I said here, but on things he must have wanted me to say. Excerpt:

....the writer hopes that the sexual connection is made by the public in hopes that such behavior would be seen as acceptable.

G: How so?

S: Who would you rather be confronted by, your mugger or your murderer?

G: The mugger, without doubt!

S: So you approve of the next mugger who assaults you?

G: I see! False dilemma. By demanding that a choice be made between the lesser of the two evils, actual torture and sexually based humiliation, the author hopes to obscure the fact that the American people have the choice of choosing to support neither.

S: Very good, but another irony remains.

G: How so?

S: The motive imputed to our brothers is sexual repression, with the implied threat of violence, while the author's motives is disinterested freedom and liberty.

G: But the accusation is not true. If anything, the evidence of honor slayings, the imposition of the veil, and of female circumcision (or I should say, clitoral mutilation), upon the part of the Islamists, with a corresponding lack of such acts on the part of Christians, should prove that a difference should be made between the two.

S: Not entirely. There may not be honor slayings, but the concept of dishonoring the family via sexual indescretions still exists. Christians do not impose the veil, but insist on modesty in dress and behavior. Female circumcision is imposed to physically destroy the supposed mainspring of infidelity. What did the Crusaders use to ensure fidelity while they were gone?

G: Chastity belts. A barbaric, ignorant time, since those who wore them incurred infections that either killed them or rendered them infertile. Not much different in effect than clitoral mutilation, and much more deadly, because the belt prevented medical intervention.

S: Correct. However, the goal was to preserve the woman's capacity for pleasure as well as her chastity. It's use miserably failed due to incompetence, like everything else about the Crusades. The intent of the alternative was to destroy the possiblity of pleasure alltogether, by design and full intent, not by accident. Today, we insist on the will and devotion of both partners to discharge the task of defending the honor of the marriage bed while they are absent from each other.

G: So there is no difference between us Christians and the Islamists?

S: Only in implementation, and only marginally in motive and degree. And therein lies the irony.

G: How so?

S: Because the author pleads that the differences between what happened at Abu Ghraib and what happened there while Saddam ran it are also those of motive, degree, and implementation.

G: I see! He implies that such differences are relevant for his argument, but not for ours! Indeed, he deliberately counfounds and conceals the differences between Islamists and Christians, and hoping that nobody notices.

S: Indeed, hoping to transfer the just wrath one feels at the foul deeds of the Islamists unjustly upon Christians who insist on modesty, discretion, and moderation.

G: So he is a hypocrite?

S: Yes, but see that you do not mention it while we are there. We would be guests there, and should not be insulting, no matter how true it is or how deserving he is of it.

G: My thanks for sparing me that indescretion! However, what does that have to do with the question of substance and their good opinion?

S: Do you covet the good opinion of a hypocrite? Theoretically speaking, of course.

G: No, because he may be hypocritical about it. Theoretically speaking, of course.

S: And what harm would come of his bad opinion?

G: Unless we fell to blows, naught whatsoever.

S: So, do you fear anything now?

G: No. Let us proceed to defend our brothers in the faith, then!

S: We already have.

.......

G: What of our witness?

S: Pleasing the ears or mores of those in the world, and who appear hostile to the things of God, is not the way of giving our witness. The Christ did not say that the world would know we are his disciples by being nice and deferential to those hostile to him and his ways. Or being generous and charitable to the unfortunate. They would know us by the way we loved one another, those who know and love him.

G: In that, I fear, we Christians are not as good as the Islamists, who rise up in response to the pains and sufferings of their bretheren more readily than we rise up in response to the sufferings of our own.

S: Quite Right.

I guess I should look at this piecemeal.

the writer hopes that the sexual connection is made by the public in hopes that such behavior would be seen as acceptable

How the hell do they know what I hoped? I never argued that sexual humiliation is acceptable; only that I do not see it as the equivalent of physical torture. While I would prefer sexual humiliation (I mentioned the man leashed as a dog) to physical torture, to say that I hoped such behavior would be seen as acceptable is absurd.

Bear in mind that I was responding to a man named Robert Knight, who made the illogical assertion that homosexuals, pornography, and Howard Stern (!) are guilty of creating a climate which led to Abu Ghraib, and the beheading of Nick Berg. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous, and hence my post (as well as an earlier one).

False dilemma. By demanding that a choice be made between the lesser of the two evils, actual torture and sexually based humiliation, the author hopes to obscure the fact that the American people have the choice of choosing to support neither.

Where did I "demand" that such a "choice" be made? Both are bad, but saying the latter is worse than the former is as valid as if I said that beatings and sleep deprivation are not as bad as being fed feet-first into a plastic shredder. If I said the latter, would that be a "false dilemma?"

S: The motive imputed to our brothers is sexual repression, with the implied threat of violence, while the author's motives is disinterested freedom and liberty.

G: But the accusation is not true. If anything, the evidence of honor slayings, the imposition of the veil, and of female circumcision (or I should say, clitoral mutilation), upon the part of the Islamists, with a corresponding lack of such acts on the part of Christians, should prove that a difference should be made between the two.

First, what's with this "brothers" business? If Robert Knight is the man's brother, then I see his point. But if not, then why does he call Knight a "brother"? Are not all men brothers? Or does he refer only to Christians as brothers? If so, does he include Christians who do not subscribe to his particular interpretations of religious texts? Or are those Christians who disagree with him not Christians? I don't know, but because of the tone, I tend to suspect the latter.

As to "sexual repression, with the implied threat of violence," I don't impute such a thing to anyone except those who believe in it. Those who would utilize the power of the state to arrest and imprison other people for unapproved, consenting sexual acts between adults do, by their own admission, believe in sexual repression by means of an explicit threat of violence, directly applied to the sexual offender. I don't believe it is a good form of Christianity, but in fairness they have just as much right to call themselves Christians as I do. What bothers me is when they assert that those who don't share their view are not Christians.

the evidence of honor slayings, the imposition of the veil, and of female circumcision (or I should say, clitoral mutilation), upon the part of the Islamists, with a corresponding lack of such acts on the part of Christians, should prove that a difference should be made between the two

Damned right there is a difference between the two, and I have said so in this blog. Why the need to attack me for saying things I not only did not say, but do not believe?

But that's because right after that I must stand convicted of "deliberately counfound[ing] and conceal[ing] the differences between Islamists and Christians, and hoping that nobody notices."

As I have said before, there is a vast difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists:

Despite my regular differences with Biblical literalists of the Christian variety, I should make it clear that Koranic literalists are far worse -- and far more dangerous.

Remarkable!

Then there's the conclusion, which I find troublesome.

we Christians are not as good as the Islamists, who rise up in response to the pains and sufferings of their bretheren more readily than we rise up in response to the sufferings of our own.

That depends on how you define "brethren," doesn't it? There are Muslims like Sayyid Kutb who believe that Muslims who disagree with them are not Muslims, and (as I have said before) there are Christians who believe that Christians who disagree with them are not Christians.

Of course, I have not read enough of this blog to know one way or another whether he believes those who disagree with his interpretations of religious texts are not Christians, so I will not put words in his mouth. (Saying someone said something he did not say is inconsistent even with my low standards.)

When I lived in Berkeley full time, I used to read the East Bay Express regularly. Perhaps I still should, because this article shocked me to my cynical core.

An excerpt:

"....I came to Berkeley -- because of its strong romantic aura of the Free Speech Movement and Mario Savio," he recalls. "Then I got here and discovered that that light seems to have been extinguished. You have this vitriol. You feel it everywhere. Berkeley is now the epicenter of real hatred."

Almost three years later, Weinberg graduates this month as a student whose days at Cal were marked by what he calls "pinnacles of horror," in the pinched tone of a man betrayed. He remembers pro-Palestinian protesters insisting that Israeli border crossings are as bad as Nazi death camps. He remembers the glass front door of Berkeley's Hillel building -- where he attends Friday night services -- shattered by a cinderblock, with the message FUCK JEWS scrawled nearby. He remembers the spray-painted swastikas discovered one Monday morning last September on the walls of four lecture rooms in LeConte Hall accompanied by the chilling bilingual message, "Die, Juden. " (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Here's Abdel Malik Ali, an African-American imam affiliated with Oakland's Masjid Al Islam mosque, addressing the sixth annual Muslim Students Association West Conference, held on at the Berkeley campus in February:

"Neo-cons are all Zionist Jews," he continued. He scanned the hall, wondering aloud whether Jewish infiltrators were among his listeners. If so, he had a message for them: "You made all the mistakes we wanted you to make. You went after Cynthia McKinney" -- the outspoken African-American former Georgia congresswoman who was frequently cited as the most anti-Semitic member of Congress. "So now black folks don't like you. ... You're walking into all the traps we want you to walk into. You hijacked American foreign policy."

Is this what Mario Savio and his followers had in mind? I doubt it.

I forwarded the East Bay Express link to a good friend in Berkeley, and here's his partial reaction:

It has now gotten to the point that I often lie about being Jewish when I am on campus, and I'm asked about my ethnicity. I'm not ashamed of being Jewish. Its just a matter of personal safety. When I am in a situation in which I am unsure about the people around me, I say I'm Greek. I used to do that in Baltimore 30, 40 years ago. "Xxxxxxx" [name omitted] is a common last name in Macedonia (northeastern Greece). Nobody beats up Greeks, so its relatively safe. Of course, it is sad that I feel that I need to do this.

It's a disgusting and shameful situation, and I can't believe that I am writing about the unbelievable spectacle of a Jewish friend being forced into "passing" for reasons of personal safety.

Readers should not make the mistake of dismissing this as "Oh well, what do you expect from a place like Berkeley?" Berkeley is not only part of the United States, it has been a trend-setting place for many years. I've watched as things like rent control, bans on smoking, attacks on the free market, a vicious intolerance for all things branded politically incorrect, and much more spread from Berkeley to the East Coast, then gradually made their way across the rest of the country until they were "in."

And now, anti-Semitism is "in" in Berkeley.

Anyone who thinks it will remain confined to Berkeley is mistaken.

Earlier today I drove to Doylestown, Pennsylvania, where I saw some nice old Victorian houses. I thought I'd share a few which typify the area.

Here's one which was surrounded by trees:

And here's one which wasn't:

The temperature was well into the nineties. Here's one which reflects the heat:

Unlike most of the Victorians in California, these places have seen extremes of hot and cold, and are none the worse for wear.

They remind me of the first car I ever bought (a prewar 1941 Plymouth), because they're built to last.

While it is not the purpose of this blog to refute or debunk the innumerable 9/11 conspiracy theories, I just can't ignore them anymore, because they are rapidly becoming mainstream. Once again, if you don't believe me, try google. I'm inclined generally to agree with Nick Packwood (the one and only Ghost of a flea) that this is a waste of time, because there's no arguing with the invincibly ignorant. Indeed, there's no better way to say it than Glenn Reynolds' quote from Schiller:

Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.

But I am still pissed, and I have my blog, so where else can I go but here?

I previously mentioned a series of 9/11 conspiracy conferences, Phase 1 in San Francisco, and Phase 2 in Toronto on May 25. Considering the hearings in Washington, the timing is no accident, and considering the extreme anti-Bush hatred, it is also no accident that these theories are gaining momentum. Ultimately, they may unwittingly help Bush (for reasons I've already explained), but that really isn't my problem, because I am not writing about this to help Bush or Kerry. I am just fried that well-meaning people are being suckered into this stuff so readily, and that not enough is being offered in refutation. Sitting back while lies pile up strikes me as a dangerous thing to do -- perhaps even more dangerous than the waste of time it is to attempt to refute them.

The two leading minds behind these theories are Barrie Zwicker and Michael Ruppert.

Zwicker, a Marxist author/activist and the leading moderator of Phase 1 in San Francisco, stated his case succinctly at that conference:

My offering is that 9/11 was what the anarchist Bakunin called "the propaganda of the act." That it was "Reichstag Fire 2001." That it was the greatest deception of its kind ever foisted. And that's saying something, in light of the long and totally-neglected history of this kind of war-triggering deception perpetrated by powerful special interests to sway public opinion in favour of deadly agendas that almost always result in serious grief for just about everyone.

My offering is that 9/11 was arranged to jump start the so-called war on terrorism, which in turn is the cover and heat exchanger for hot wars, these being the toxic tip of the machinery for world domination. At the levers is a clique of neocons that has hijacked this country's foreign policy at the behest largely and to the benefit mainly of Big Arms and Big Oil, with the rest of the worst at the top, giving the thumbs-up and boarding the gravy train.

Judging by your response to the questions I posed, the focus tonight within the general subject 9/11, may tend to be:

Not whether the take on 9/11 is along the lines I've expressed, but on the who's and the how's and the what-to-do's.

I hope we'll find time to address visions of a better future, one much freer of vast dark tax-funded bureaucracies of deceit, deception, assassination and destabilization of civil societies abroad -- and at home, in your country, and in mine.

A prerequisite for opening up a wider path to that better future is that a larger percentage of the hypnotized public than at present have its patriotic trance broken and be willing to question the provenance of 9/11 and its iconic power.

The hypocritical verbiage and bald false assertions of George Bush and his dark cabal of reactionary revolutionaries and oiligarchs who "mix greed, inept economic management, business corruption, crony capitalism, triumphalist Pentagon sable-rattling and Axis of Evil foreign policy theology," have been deconstructed by most people around the world. (By the way, I don't want to be accused of plagiarization. Most of what I just said is a direct quote from Kevin Phillips, a leading Republican theoretician.)

Money power, firepower and propaganda power are all spilling out of the closet. What's still mainly hidden in the closet, is the power of deception and the extent of deception. And the single deception which, if exposed in a politically-relevant way, would have the most impact, is the most brazen deception of all, 9/11. That's why this meeting and others like it are crucial.

(Perhaps because it's all such a waste of time.)

Zwicker has been identified as the source of former Blair cabinet member (and current Member of Parliament) Michael Meacher's accusations that Bush was behind 9/11, and that the war on terrorism is bogus.

Fortunately, some really good bloggers have been on top of this stuff. Bill Herbert has debunked Barrie Zwicker repeatedly.

The above links I found via Damian Penny, who has likewise devoted a great deal of time to debunking the 9/11 conspiracy claims, AND Barrie Zwicker: here, here, and here. (The latter link is noteworthy for documenting a rather interesting far left/far right convergence.)

Parenthetically, Mr. Penny links to this valuable post from Jeff Jarvis that the conspiracy crowd is now turning Nick Berg into a political pawn (unfortunately with the help of his father, which shows that family disagreements sometimes survive even tragic deaths).

There's an excellent web site -- REFUTING THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES -- which goes into great detail with lots of links.

I don't mean to belabor my point, but I think more people should say something, because sites like this spring forth, are copied endlessly, and multiply. They're already dominating the Google hits.

What's next? 9/11 conspiracy copycat blogs? So that commentators can claim that consensus is changing in "the blogosphere"?

And what is public opinion, after all, but a game of numbers?

Forgive my cynicism.

UPDATE: An observation by Andrew Sullivan offers confirmation of my (long-held) suspicion that allowing such conspiracy theories to grow unchecked may very well be conscious strategy:

As is often the case with president Bush, his style is to allow his severest critics to overplay their hand....

I know yesterday was Friday (which is normally online test day at Classical Values), and I didn't offer any tests. I have been too swamped to keep up with things.

And, to make matters worse, I am increasingly dissatisfied with the results of these tests!

I don't know who writes these tests, but I offer the results anyway.

You Are a Plain Ole Cup of Joe But don't think plain - instead think, uncomplicated You're a low maintenance kind of girl... who can hang with the guys Down to earth, easy going, and fun! Yup, that's you: the friend everyone invites. And your dependable too. Both for a laugh and a sympathetic ear. What Kind Of Coffee Are You? Take This Quiz :-) Find the Love of Your Life (and More Love Quizzes) at Your New Romance.

Via Marie at Ordinary Galoot. Marie got the same result, and it's the sanest of all my "strained" results today.

____________________________________

I can relate to coffee, and I think that ties in with the results of the next test -- "Which American City Are You?"

Taking a clue from the esteemed Ghost of a flea, who retested himself and found his city had changed, I found that my city remains the same:

Take the quiz: "Which American City Are You?"

Seattle
Your dark exterior masks a caffeine driven activism. You'll take up a cause and you'll get ugly to advance it.

(No doubt this is because I have unfinished work in Seattle, defacing the Stalin Lenin statue or something.....)

___________________________________________

I should have stopped there, but no! There's more!

So now for the truly insulting results: "What Mythological Creature Are You?"

I'm, um, a fairy!

Faerie:
Faeries are sweet loving beings who love to help
people. They are not held back by reality and
love to dream and fly around. You probably are
very creative and although not the most popular
person in the world you are probably loved by
many for your sweet caring personality.


What Mythological Creature Are You (Many Results and Beautiful Pics)
brought to you by Quizilla

Never thought of myself that way. Vampire yes; fairy no!

G-r-r-r-r-r-r.......
__________________________________________

Along a similar theme, I saved the worst for last. A test called "Which Dysfunctional Care Bear Are You?" says I'm "Gay Bear!"

Gay Bear


Which Dysfunctional Care Bear Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Sheesh!

Is this for real or what?

In my defense I should point out that I never watched the show or bought the products.

Does the "theory" of the destruction of the World Trade Center by "Muslim pilots" who crashed hijacked planes into the towers defy the laws of physics?

I don't see why it is incumbent on me to do the debunking, but the kind of people who subscribe to these and other such theories tend to think that if you're silent, it's not because you think these things are beneath you, but rather, it's because you are either willfully ignorant of the "facts" -- or are part of some sinister Osama Bush coverup. This web site seems to be as good a starting point as any:

The official story has it that the towers collapsed because (a) the only connection between the outer perimeter wall and the central core were flimsy lightweight trusses, (b) the plane impact weakened these trusses and the heat of the fires caused them to buckle until (c) the trusses at the impact floors gave way and (d) the floors above lost their support and fell upon the lower floors causing all floors to pancake.

That this "truss theory" is false has been demonstrated in The World Trade Center Demolition.

Firstly, there must have been strong connections between the perimeter wall and the central core so that the wind load on the towers could be transmitted to the central core. If this wind load were not transmitted then the perimeter wall would move several feet in a strong wind and the central core would not have moved, so the floors would have buckled, which never happened. Thus there must have been strong steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core, not merely trusses. These girders would not have suffered catastrophic failure as a result either of the impact or the fires.

Secondly, the assumption that there were only lightweight trusses connecting the perimeter walls with the central core leads to a calculation of the amount of steel in the towers which is only 2/3rds of the amount known to have gone into their construction, leaving 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for. Thus the assumption is false. Those 32,000 tons are accounted for by steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core.

Thirdly, there is photographic evidence of these, officially non-existent, horizontal beams.

This truss theory is a fabrication which has been spread about to give an appearance of plausibility to the official story as to how the towers collapsed. There have even been a couple of made-for-TV "documentaries", complete with "experts", promoting the truss theory, and suggesting that, because of the trusses, the design of the Twin Towers was fatally flawed, and that the trusses were not properly fire-proofed. The refutation of the truss theory is a refutation of the official "explanation" as to "how the towers fell".

Another problem with the official story is the fact that both the Twin Towers collapsed evenly and smoothly.

If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over ... How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel? ...

When the platters [the floors] fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them. — Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I

Whatever damage the fires did would not have been evenly distributed (especially in the case of the South Tower, where the jet struck a corner of the building). If the collapse was due to the fires then it too would be irregular, with parts of the Twin Towers remaining intact and connected while other parts fell. But both towers collapsed completely symmetrically, with the floors pancaking upon themselves, exactly as we have seen in other cases of controlled demolition of tall buildings.

It is interesting to note that the contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene — to cart away the rubble that remains — is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! — The Blockbuster

Could there be more of a connection between these two building collapses than the identity of the contractor who supervised the removal of the debris?

To read about this in incredible detail, try googling the phrase "Muslims suspend laws of physics." (I got 702 results.)

Googling "World Trade Center" and "controlled demolition" brought over 2000 hits.

Almost every one of these pages argues for a conspiracy theory.

Well, there's this. In the New Scientist, an engineer explains why it looked like a controlled demolition. But (yawn....) it wasn't:

The explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors in a snowballing effect.

On Tuesday, the impacts of aeroplanes on the higher floors replaced the explosives. The collapse of the higher floors caused the floors below to be crushed. "It cascaded down like an implosion," says Taylor.

The lack of collapse in higher stories was one reason why the 454 kilogram bomb detonated in the underground garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 failed to destroy the building.

That's not interesting, of course....

I couldn't help but notice that the proponents of the controlled demolition theory invariably display pictures showing that the buildings fell neatly down, in straight lines. You have to look elsewhere to see pictures like this. And here's the accompanying story:

Reports indicate that the impact of each plane compromised the structural integrity of each tower, knocking out perimeter columns and the interior structure. The explosions then caused further damage, sweeping through several floors. "These were airliners scheduled for long flights, full of fuel, causing massive explosions," says Richard M. Kielar, a Tishman senior vice president. "No structure could have sustained this kind of assault," says Kielar.

As the fires burned, the structural steel on the breached floors and above would have softened and warped because of the intense heat, say sources. Fireproofed steel is only rated to resist 1,500 to 1,600° F. As the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets, and other materials, became an enormous, consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the frame below.

Jon D. Magnusson, chairman-CEO of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire Inc., Seattle, one of the successor firms of Skilling Ward Christiansen Robertson, structural engineer for the original World Trade Center, agrees: "From what I observed on TV, it appeared that the floor diaphragm, necessary to brace the exterior columns, had lost connection to the exterior wall."

When the stability was lost, the exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down, he says.

Then there's this report, showing that the towers did not collapse in the identical manner these conspiracy sites claim:

A big question for implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., the Phoenix, Md., is why the twin towers appeared to have collapsed in such different ways.

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping.

The twin towers were part of a seven-building complex designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki that covers eight city blocks. An 800 x 400-ft foundation box, 65-ft-deep and with 3-ft-thick retaining walls, is under more than half the complex, including the twin towers and the adjacent hotel. The complex was completed in phases beginning in 1970 (ENR 7/9/64 p. 36). The 1.8-million-sq-ft Seven World Trade Center, constructed in the mid-80s, also had a steel moment frame from the seventh story up (ENR 11/28/85 p. 30).

Bill Herbert does a pretty good job of debunking these theories too. But the debunkers are far, far outnumbered by the proponents.

If you don't believe me, try Googling around.

I spoke to a Bush hating friend about the latest fast-growth industry I've recently posted about here (the paranoid Osama-Bush 9-11 stuff), and he opined that Bush is so bad that the people who hate him feel helpless, and have nowhere to go. Thus, they vent their anger and frustration by believing in irrational claims like the notion that no plane ever hit the Pentagon.

That may be true about the followers -- the attendees of conferences like this -- but I think the people behind it are playing regular old hardball politics, if a newer, more vicious version of it.

I think much of this is fueled by cynical political operatives -- some of whom are anti-American, but others of whom are engaged in simple retaliation for the Clinton hate machine, which blamed the Clintons for numerous deaths, including teenagers run over by trains if I remember correctly. I am not sure that such retaliation is an effective political strategy right now, but the authors of it didn't ask for my advice.

So I'll give it anyway. Concocting paranoid conspiracy claims about Bush, then funding them and using Hollywood heavies like Asner and Moore (or academic celebrities like Zinn) to boost attendance -- all in the hope of building a hard-core "base" of Bush hatred in the Democratic Party -- does not strike me as a good way to win the election. (Certainly, it didn't help Howard Dean's campaign.)

Because, if this stuff builds -- as it now is -- to a point where it can no longer be ignored at the family dinner table or on the evening news, then the regular old experts (the huge number of civil and aeronautical engineers with no axes to grind) will calmly debunk these claims.

Then, worse for the Democrats, Bush will be able to point the finger at them and very gently remind the American people that he was not behind 9-11, or partners with Osama bin Laden, but that all these people are saying he was, "and that's bad for the country."

The problem for the Democrats is that for millions of Americans, he'd be right.

On a related issue, I marvel at the number of comments I have been getting from people who think the crudely edited Nick Berg video was either fake or else (like 9-11) another false flag Bush/CIA/Mossad operation. Why the Zionist conspirators couldn't have done a better job of faking it escapes me. And why would they kill Nick Berg before beheading him? Kindness?

Only Osama-Bush knows......

Spare me.

Another road trip today, so no posts until later. But anyone who has come here looking for a new post should go immediately to Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and read the 87th Carnival of the Vanities. I wish I had time to review my favorites, but I don't. Ed's blog is outstanding, as is his editing of the Carnival posts. (And I thank him for including my very late entry!)

So don't miss it!

It's getting tougher and tougher to "agree to disagree."

There's a growing movement in this country which I have ignored for too long, and I don't know how to address it except in this blog.

Basically, a meme which sounded kooky a year or two ago has now evolved into an ever-larger, constantly growing movement -- at the core of which is the almost religious belief that 9-11 was a Great Deception, a CIA false flag operation, which Bush knew all about. An initial conference, the International Inquiry into 9-11 Phase One, was held in San Francisco in March. Phase Two will be held in Toronto next week. (Ed Asner is one of the more prominent supporters. You may think he's nuts, but I am here to tell you that a lot of gullible Americans trust the guy.)

Among the theories which are presented as gospel truth:

It goes on and on. The number of web sites devoted to these issues is truly mind-boggling. Here are just a few samples:

http://www.oilempire.us/bushbinladen.html

http://www.septembereleventh.org/

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/features/?s=UnansweredQuestions

http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=19

http://www.planetfriendly.net/calendar/item.php?id=2452

What bothers me is that I try to be as easy going as humans will allow me to be, but things are approaching a point where it's no longer a question of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, or even libertarians (like me) who try to squeak by with lame lines like "I really don't fit in with either party."

No. People who attend these conferences think Bush is an evil Nazi, a guy who really wants to destroy the world. Really and truly. Try for a moment to put yourself in their position, and imagine believing what they believe. If you can do that, you might sympathize with what I'm going through right now.

It's no fun being considered evil.

UPDATE: Somehow I got through today without until now seeing these comforting words from Rudolph Giuliani:

Our enemy is not each other, but the terrorists who attacked us.... The blame should be put on one source alone, the terrorists who killed our loved ones.

It's been a real eye opener for me. A reminder that life's lessons are not always pleasant.