Hypocrisy in action

Due to a recent SCOTUS nomination, there's been quite a bit of noise made on both sides of the political spectrum about where Robert's stands on abortion. The simple fact that they are worrying about a single issue is a different post. What bothers me is the logic, or lack of logic I should say that these people are using to justify being so worried about abortion.

The majority of of the squeaky wheels in this case have been on the left. They maintain that they have to know if Roberts would uphold the Roe decision or if he'd overturn it cuz the Constitution guarantees this particular right. This is the first mistake they make. The Constitution makes no mention of abortion at all. The founders knew that they couldn't foresee everything that would possibly come into play over the years so they worded the document in such a way so that it left the majority of the power to the states and, by extension, to the people. The Constitution states that if something is not addressed within itself then the choice for such a matter devolves to the states and populace. Hence, Roe should have been a choice left up to the states and people, not to SCOTUS.

The reason this ends up being hypocritical on the part of the left is almost amusing. There have been multiple tries over the past few years by the left to do away with the electoral college. They keep repeating "One person, one vote" like it's some form of protective mantra. So they want the people to have the final say in who is the President, but when it comes to one of their pet issues, they don't trust the people with that choice. They'd rather SCOTUS made the decision as opposed to trusting the unwashed masses to vote the way the left wants them to.

To sum up: the left is guilty of blatant hypocrisy, yet they refuse to see it. They trust everyone to vote for President but when it comes to a 'real' issue they feel that you and I and every other citizen aren't qualified to have anything to do with the final decision. They feel that choice should lay with the 9 person focus group known as The Supreme Court of the United States. Considering the SCOTUS track record and considering the left's constant 'for your own good' assault, I'm not reassured.

Battle of the Letters

Recently, a local Imam and myself have gotten into a bit of an argument by means of the 'Letter to the Editor' page in our local paper. Here's his letter:


The Islamic Center of Topeka joins Muslims worldwide in condemning the recent barbaric bombings in London. Our prayers have been offered along with Jews, Christians and other fair-minded people for world peace and condolences to the families of the victims.

This was a calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded atrocity and the wrong-doers will be brought to justice, if not in this world, surely the next. The Qu'ran says, "If anyone kills the innocent people it is as if he killed all of humanity," chapter 5, verse 35. The Qu'ran also condemns the act of taking one's own life (suicide) chapter 4, verse 29. Prophet Muhammad said, "The one who takes his life with a piece of steel will wake up in Hell repeating the same act."

The Islamic Center of Topeka asks the media to stop using misleading terms like Islamic terrorist, Muslim terrorist and Islamic extremist. The words Islam and terrorist together create an oxymoron. They simply do not go together.

A criminal is a criminal, period. To identify a suspect by the religion that he or she proclaims is biased, unfair and negative stereotyping.

Members of the Irish Republican Army aren't referred to as Catholic terrorists, but many of them are Catholic. It is reported that Hitler was a devout Christian, but he was never referred to as a Christian terrorist after exterminating more than 6 million Jews.

After 400 years of slavery in this country, history has never referred to white America as Christian slave masters. However, many of them were indeed Christians. The BTK killer is not referred to as a Christian serial killer and he was an active member of his church.

The bottom line is this, we can't commit crimes and blame it on religion. Prosecute the criminal to the full extent of the law, but please leave a person's sacred religion out of it.


IMAM OMAR HAZIM



Here's my response to him:


Recently, Imam Omar Hazim called for us to separate the religion of a criminal from the criminal act. He wrote, "We can't commit crimes and blame it on religion." He referenced the IRA as an example of a terrorist organization that was distanced from its religious beliefs. In that, he is incorrect as the IRA was often noted to be a Catholic organization.

He goes on to say that the media is using misleading terms such as "Islamic terrorist, Muslim terrorist and Islamic extremist" that are oxymorons. Firstly, these criminals are terrorists, so that word is applicable. Secondly, these criminals are followers of Islam, so Islamic or Muslim would apply. Lastly, in regards to the word extremist, I would hope that these criminals wouldn't be representative of Islam as a whole so extremist is also correct.

In fairness, the Imam is trying to distance the Islamic faith from the brutal acts being committed by a tiny minority. It's an understandable reaction, yet it's a counter-productive one.

The terrorists aren't trying to free imprisoned comrades or extort money from governments. They are using their religious beliefs as justification for the very acts that the Imam claims are against the Islamic faith.

As long as they are using Islam as their primary motivation, it is impossible to separate their acts from their religion. If the majority of the Muslim population truly wanted to separate themselves from the barbaric actions of a very few, then they need to denounce the acts and the perpetrators themselves, not the media for using correct verbiage. Any attempt to distance Islam from these crimes is disingenuous until the leaders of the Islamic global community are willing to stand forth and denounce the crimes and the criminals instead of the victims.



In my opinion, the Imam is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, he condemns the acts as barbaric but then turns around and wants the media to not label them in such terms. I maintain that, no matter what those in Western civilizations do, until those of the Muslim population who disagree with the terrorist activity actually stand up and let it be known, in both word and deed, that they will not tolerate those kinds of actions we will not be rid of this brand of barbarism. We can kill every terrorist that crops up and it won't stop, not until the culture that is spawning such creatures makes it clear that it will not allow them to continue down such a path. If the Muslim global community truly believes that terrorism is wrong and evil then this kind of fanaticism can be stopped. If, however, they are only paying lip service to such a view then nothing will change.

IRA no more?

This is encouraging. If the IRA actually follows through on this(Good Friday accord anyone?) then this is a great chance for Ireland to become one country again, and a peaceful one at that. As one of Irish lineage, I do have a selfish interest in seeing a true peace in Ireland, as opposed to an uneasy cease-fire.

The primary reason this is so encouraging is that it reinforces what a lot of people have been saying about the Muslim communities response to terrorism. Over the years, the Irish support for the IRA has turned into the opposite. The public pressure to move away from violence finally became too much of a stigma for the IRA to operate under. This same series of events can happen in regards to the Islamic terrorists as well. When the global Islamic population begins actively opposing the violence being perpetrated in their religions name, the terrorists will run out of options and will eventually disappear. For more of my thinking on this, see the most recent post.


In the meantime, go mbeannaí Dia thú Éire.

Montage

Warning in advance, this will probably be a long post and it will jump around. So much has been going on lately and I want to hit a bunch of it. For the record, I am going to be negative towards certain people in this post, which seems like a contradiction of an earlier post of mine, but really isn't. I'm not personally calling names or attacking people. I'm attacking their actions as tasteless, rude, and in all three cases, just wrong. Except Phelps. I am attacking him.

First of all, to whatever lowlife scumbags felt the need to start a fire under the car of the recently widowed wife of a soldier, you'd better pray to whatever gods you believe in that your identities never get discovered. For those who read that as a threat, it's not. It doesn't have to be. What'll happen if these perps are ever found out is pretty straightforward. They'll be arrested. They'll be thrown in jail. They'll come before a judge and they'll be thrown back in jail for a much longer timeframe. Considering the cowardly nature of the act(stealing flags and lighting them under a car at 5:30 AM when everyone's asleep and can't see you) I kinda doubt these losers have the necessary backbone to be anything other than Bubba's bitch in jail. No 10 AM checkout here fellas. You're here for the duration.

Second loser of the day is actually a politician. Lt. Gov Catherine Knoll of PA crashed, wasn't invited to but crashed, the funeral of an American soldier. It's one thing to show up to pay your respects, and I could've lived with that. The problem comes in when you're a politician and you start handing out cards and saying that, "Your government is against this war." When did the FUNERAL of soldiers become a stumping ground? When did it become advertising? "This funeral paid for by Citizens for Kathleen Knoll. I'm Kathleen Knoll and I approve this funeral."

Since we're on a funeral roll, we'll go with a local loser for this one. Fred Phelps gained national infamy with the picketing of Matthew Shepard's funeral. Well, thanks to people paying attention to him, he's reusing that tactic. Fred and his crew are picketing the funeral of every single American soldier that they can get to. Are they against the war in Iraq? Are they against the military? Nope. They feel that the deaths are God's punishment on America cuz someone tried to bomb their church six years ago. That's right, the war in Iraq, 9/11, the tsunami were all God's revenge on us because someone went after Fred. Basically, Fred thinks God is his personal bodyguard. It's funny, cuz if I had God as a bodyguard, you'd think I'd have a bigger following than he does. Even in his hometown of Topeka people can't stand him. The only reason he hasn't been shot yet is because most people understand that martyrdom is really all he has left to look forward to.


Okay, on to more political stuff as opposed to simple losers. There's been a lot of turmoil on the left about what to do about the Roberts nominations. Some want to just push him through and get back to Rove. Some want to make sure that Robert's only gets in if he approves abortion. Some don't want to see any Bush nominee make it. All three of these positions are inane.

Don't get me wrong, the Plame leak(if there was one) is important and does need to be sorted out. But it's not as important as a Supreme Court LIFETIME appointment. The people who want to get back to Rove ASAP are the worst kind of people. They don't care about the country. They just care about anything that hurts the administration. That's not a political platform. That's spite.

For those wanting Robert's approved only if he backs abortion I have one question. When did the Supreme Court of the United States become The Abortion Court of the United States? There are more issues to deal with than just abortion. Wanting to turn down a nominee because of his views on one issues is asinine. Using Roe vs Wade as THE benchmark for a nominee is about as ridiculous as saying all Muslims are terrorists. Neither is a good way to handle things.

The group that just wants to block any Bush nominee are almost as bad as the first group. Again, they're not worried about the country or what's actually good for it. They just want to hurt the administration and if that means they have to block some potentially good judges, then so be it. They just don't care. These are the people who rejoice to see the bombings and body counts increase cuz they think it makes Bush look bad. What they don't understand is that by taking a perverse joy in the pain, suffering, and death of others they are simply making themselves look like trolls.

So what should be the approach to a SCOTUS nomination? What should people want to know about a judge? Actually, it's very simply. Does the judge support the Constituion as written or do they view it as a 'living' document that needs reinterpreted through the years? That's it. All other issues with the legality of something stem from that question. If they are an originialist or a revisionist. We'll discuss the two in a different post as the bell is about to ring. That's it for today class. See you tomorrow.

Tell me what to do?

Personal responsibility has pretty much joined common sense as a non-viable option to use in politics anymore. The number of people who need to be told what to do in almost every aspect of their daily lives are swiftly becoming a majority. These are the people who feel that RealID and the Patriot Act are acceptable. They are willing to trade self-determination for security(not safety).

The problem with this is that when you give up the right/ability to make the choices for yourself, and I mean that ones that matter not which fast food joint to get dinner at, you have given up any legitimate reason to take offense at the choices made by those you have given power over you. For some people this is fine as they never wanted responsibility for themselves anyway. It was too frightening a concept for them. It's a relief for them to relinquish the burden of responsibility to someone else. Keep in mind, this is rarely a conscious decision by the individual. This surrender of choice is almost always going to be an unconscious choice. A decent indicator for this mentality would be the people who dither about making a choice till it's too late to do so. They'd rather lose the chance to make the choice than to actually have to face the choice itself.

There are those of us however, that don't accept this pseudo-life. For us, the ideas of self-reliance and liberty are sacred and as such we will not go quietly into the night if they are threatened. We believe in the principles this country was founded on and which have been diluted through years of political Benedict Arnold selling out their fellow citizens rights for the "common good" or "society." We are not volcanic where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." We are Americans who see personal choice, and it's follower consequence, not as a burden but as a right granted us that we will not relinquish.

To the Hillary Clintons and Pat Robertson's of the country who would choose to legislate "for our own good" I would suggest you take care of yourself and let the rest of us live our lives as we see fit. I don't want to live as you do. I choose to live as I do making the choices I make. I choose to accept the consequences of the choices that I do make as any rational person does. As long as my choices do not infringe upon the rights, not feelings but rights, of others then I have done no wrong. If you are incapable of understanding this ideal then I pity you. You will never be able to experience a full life as long as you allow yourself to be guided from one day to the next by others.

I am officially angry.

Anarchangel's life has been threatened. What did he do that was incentive enough for someone to intimate that they would kill him? Assault? Rape? Child molestation? No, no, and no. He defaced property THAT HE OWNED!!! He did nothing that affected anyone but himself. However, since the property in question was a Koran a fatwah has been issued and has been taken seriously enough that FBI showed up at his house to make sure he knew about the danger he was in. For those saying, "Well, you should've known they'd react that way" or "You were just trying to piss them off and now you've got what you deserved" you really should think before you speak. Just a suggestion mind you.

Here's the situation as I see it. Anarchangel exercised his rights as an American to do as he would with his property. End of story. Or should have been. If these people are so intent on protecting a BOOK from desecration I'm curious as to why the rioters in Afghanistan aren't being killed. After all, they burned down a library with copies of the Koran in it. How is that okay but this isn't?

Here is where the fundamental principle behind the terrorist mentality raises it's ugly head. They are incapable of accepting anything that would possible prick their pride. It has nothing to do with religion or faith. It has everything to do with the fact that they feel PERSONALLY insulted and cannot abide that kind of affront. This is a problem for the terrorist apologist cuz they don't want to attribute such base motives to the 'noble freedom fighters' and 'insurgents' that are fighting the Evil Empire that is America.

Until those who would blame terrorism on the victims realize that this is a fight that cannot be won by compromise we are in trouble. The people we are fighting would only become more encouraged and more proud if we appear to give into them. I am not a person who is big on appearances. Substance over style nearly every time. In a situation like this though, perception is everything. If we are perceived as weak and willing to give in to their demands under minor pressure then they have won and will continue to press us. Anarchangel chose to draw a line and no longer allow his rights to be dictated by the tyranny of terrorism. Whether or not we agree with his actions has nothing to do with it. We can no longer afford to make our choices based on our concern with what a truly evil minority think.

It's time to realize that rights are meaningless if we allow ourselves to not exercise them for fear of offending. At that point we have sacrificed our nations history and principles on the altar of sensitivity and expediency and neither one of those are worthy of that kind of sacrifice.

It's amazing to me the hypocrisy people exhibit in their daily lives when dealing with those who have opposing viewpoints. Given the fact that we live in a country founded on the principles of self-determination it's quite sad actually. Currently this country is acting like spoiled children in a shouting match on a playground fighting over who gets the swingset.

The number of rational people is swiftly dwindling into oblivion. There are a few left and they have no problem with people disagreeing with them as long as it's in a thoughtful manner designed to elicit a discussion as opposed to simple name-calling. As amusing as it can be to occasionally read references to 'wingnuts' or 'moonbats' it should be in the realm of humor that those labels are used. If you are incapable of forming a logical counterpoint to someone's argument then why resort to name-calling? All you do then is make it into a contest over who can yell louder. A "Tastes Great!! Less Filling!!" competition doesn't benefit anyone. When people realize that this country and it's people are not well-served by diatribes and personal attacks there will be a lot of politicians and pundits out of jobs.

There are those recently who advocate moving away from rational argument and moving to the internet version of verbal assault. One in particular comes to mind. He "blogs with a hammer" as others have said. Here's his post wherein he basically goes, "I'm not gonna bother being civil or rational cuz you won't" and then says it's okay because he doesn't expect to convince people. Well, if you abuse people and point fingers then you don't have to worry about convincing anyone of anything other than you're a rude, abrasive person. Don't worry about bringing anyone around to your point of view. We'll find our own that probably won't agree with yours.

The really funny thing about his premise is that it is completely opposite of what most on the left, and probably him as well, would espouse as a viable face to put to society. We constantly hear arguments about how we need to get rid of the death penalty because that makes us no different than the criminals yet Mr. Leiter is happy to throw civility out the window and has no concerns with being no better than his opponents. We are told to be tolerant and understanding, usually from people on the left, of everything that should be abhorrent to us as Americans but will the left apply their own standards to themselves? Of course not. That would be too much like right. If you disagree with them, you are branded as any number of things up to and including a traitor.

For those on the right thinking I'm on your side I hate to break it to you, but I'm not. The right is now in control of the entire government(save judicial and even that may not last) and they've resorted to the exact same kinds of tactics that had the left so vilified for so many years. The right is launching personal attacks and smear campaigns against their opponents and show no signs of stopping. For the 'moral' party this is disappointing. For an elected official with a JOB to do it's unforgivable. Unfortunately, with so many people agreeing with Mr. Leiter's views that this kind of activity is okay it appears that nothing will change anytime soon. Until we can get past the idea that yelling and browbeating are acceptable in our daily lives we can expect no real changes in the way our government is run and even less change in the solidarity of the USA's citizenry.

I challenge all of you out there to not fall into the trap the people such as Mr. Leiter have. Maintain your standards of civility and dignity. Do not succumb to the desire to tell the person screaming at you where they can go or what they can do. The moment you do that you've only validated their actions for them. Demand better from our elected officials in their dealings with each other. This isn't some pointless squabble over a sandbox. This is not about personal power or oneupmanship. This is about the governing of the greatest and most powerful nation in the world. We CANNOT allow it to descend into petty infighting. Take the country back from the screamers and the whiners and the mudslingers. Let's make America stand for something again.

Before it's too late.

NEA: Nashunal Edjewkashun Asoseeashun

Welcome to the modern United States of America ladies and gentlemen. To your right you'll see religious activism. To your left you'll find people who don't care about teaching "the children" to learn to spell activism. There's been a lot of noise lately here in Kansas about school funding and making sure "the children" get an education. It's too late and doesn't matter how much money you throw at it cuz the NEA has decided it has more important things to do than educate "the children" of the US.

Here's the agenda that the NEA approved at their recent annual meeting. Of the first 20 items on the list 5 are about social security. How many are about education? Well, if you go all the way to 30 you'll get two whole points about education. When did the NEA cease to mean National Education Association and change to No Educated Americans? Some of the items that were higher on the list than their actual job were making sure that the words "other" and "multi-ethnic" get added as categories on all forms. My personal favorite though is the NEA president ordering an article on the dangers of "exposure to fragrance chemicals." NEA now stands for No Estee Allowed.

Further down the list they mention "political training" for politicians. We can teach politicians how to do their job but we can't be bothered to teach kids. That is so last century. Here's an example of the kind of political training they want though. "Opposing the Deceptive Michigan Civil Rights Initiative." Wanna know what that evil initiative does? IT SAYS NO MORE DIFFERENT TREATMENT BASED ON RACE, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN!!!! What the hell is there to fight with about that? The whole point of the proposal is to get rid of any kind of racism. Hate to break it to ya folks, but affirmative action is racist. If you are using someone's skin color as a factor in a decision, that is racist. Whether positive or negative it's still racism.

Social Security was a big beef with the NEA. There was more about SSI and pension plans on this agenda then there was about educating American youth. They did mention schooling Iraqi children though, and let's face it, the NEA has done such a bang-up job here at home that we should export them to other countries. No more worries about losing to other countries in math or science scores cuz they'll all be just a dumb as we are. NEA: Nincompoop Earth Association. They are also changing their slogan to "Wurld Peas thru meedeeah....meediahc...thru stupidity" To quote a beloved cartoon hero, "Th-th-th-that's all folks."

Public Education at Work

This is a little close to home considering I have family in Seattle and if this is an example of the governance they're receiving, they need to move.

Probably the funniest is the project manager for the building thinking that the reason the electric costs are so much higher is that the lights are further away from the floors. Bet she just aced her science classes in high school.

For those who may not be familiar with the area Seattle is a green town. I don't mean Irish either. It's an urban environmental activist dream. The highways are small and hard to navigate in order to discourage those nasty people who own cars. Recycling is mandatory(I know it's a good idea, but mandatory?? come on). My personal favorite though, and this is more Washington as opposed to just Seattle, but if you are in a boat in the sound and a whale comes up near or under you then you get fined.

There was actually a cruise ship that came into port and at some point on it's route it had hit a whale. There were people calling for the captain to be jailed, fined, tarred and feathered. I'm guessing the people who went for this never took a biology or wildlife course. Here's a crash course. Whales are aquatic creatures(that means they live in the water for you public school grads). You've seen them in such movies as Free Willy or Star Trek IV. As aquatic creatures, they eat, sleep, dive, mate, sing, HEAR underwater. Cruise ships make a lot of noise. Whales would easily be able to hear this noise. For a whale to get caught on the bow of a ship requires one of three things: a mortally wounded whale, an already dead whale, or a suicidal whale. No way to OD in the big blue. No bridges to jump off of. If only we could understand whale song we might have been able to talk him down from the ledge....so to speak.

Bottom line, when the people making the decisions on policies that involve science wouldn't even understand the basic Bill Nye episode on Saturday morning TV we have a problem. Maybe it was Rove's fault.

And now for something completely different...

When will people understand that this War on Terror is not going to be over even if we pull every single American troop back to the US? The individuals who support the 'insurgency' in Iraq are in denial of the worst sort. Iraq was "safe and peaceful until the Americans came" and "the occupation...is the cause of all these tragedies" are just two examples of the depth to which some people have stuck their heads in the sand.

This is not a war over land, or money, or oil(as much as some people would like to believe). This is an ideological war. There are people who feel that Western cultures, America in particular, are evil and need to be destroyed. It's no coincidence that America is specifically listed in interviews such as this while no mention of England, or France, or Germany is made. If the occupation is where the problem lies than all allies should be listed, not just America.

My personal favorite part of the above linked transcript is at the end where Al-Siba'i goes from saying it's bad to not recognize civilians and 3 seconds later says that there is no such thing as a civilian according to Islamic law. This would be the same Islamic law that he earlier chose to denigrate by saying the religious scholars are wrong and Al-Zarqawi is right. Is it any wonder that non-muslims can't keep it straight when the muslims themselves argue left and right over whether or not it's okay to kill?

Another obstacle to reconciliation between western and islamic countries is readily evident when you look at the familial differences between them. In western cultures women are considered equal to men. They are not made to cover themselves in burkhas. They are not property. They are allowed to own property, vote, and hold jobs. Most islamic countries either don't allow or actively discourage any of this. Then there's so-called 'honor killings.' For those who aren't familiar with this despicable practice, an honor killing is where a woman is killed by a male member of her family for bringing 'dishonor' upon the family. In one recent case the 'dishonor' was caused by a young girl holding a job and dating someone who wasn't muslim so her brothers killed her. They are not in jail and feel they did nothing wrong. The only person in the US who can understand that is the BTK criminal.

These Islamic faith is not a "Religion of Peace" as many would have it called. It not only promotes violence against non-muslims but enables violence against it's own believers with it's cavalier attitude towards women and fanatical reliance on 'honor' as a justification for actions.

Can those of the Muslim faith embrace peace? Just as Christianity, one of the bloodiest religions of all time, can turn to peaceful co-existence, so too can Islam. The question is not whether or not it's possible. The question is when the muslim world will get fed up with such a miniscule percentage of their population as the Islamic representatives for the world. When the muslim world no longer tolerates terrorist acts and joins the world in fighting extremism of that sort will we be able to see the end of terrorism.

Who's afraid of Karl Rove?

To start with we're going to look at, you guessed it, the Karl Rove issue. Is he evil? Did he out Plame to revenge the administration on Wilson or was Rove just upset cuz he's nicknamed Turd Blossom? Maybe both.

My problem with this whole mess is that nobody has answered any of the questions that mean anything. The moment Rove's name got mentioned one half of the population went into convulsions demanding Rove's apology and head on a platter...and not necessarily in that order. Why? If you want someone fired shouldn't you make sure that what you're so upset about is actually true though? There's enough questions surrounding who actually revealed the information on Plame that, to borrow from the left here, hasty action won't accomplish as much as sitting back and making sure we get it right. Kerfluffles raises an interesing point on this.

There are some others out there, but as they tend to be on Powerline or NRO, too many people refuse to even read them since those sites are just "right-wing propaganda machines." Funny, I still read the NYT with an open mind but I guess the same in return is too much to ask from some people. Another intersting double standard that I don't see anybody pointing out is that the press constantly refers to the people having a right to know. Well, as this is involves a very highly placed governmnet official, I have a right to know who Miller's source is so how come the press isn't calling for her to reveal the source since we obviously have a right to know? To paraphrase a cartoon legend, "Hypocritical, ain't it?"

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

Here's a good article that just illustrates to me how so many people are willing to take comments and articles out of context to prove their point. The author brings up 8 issues that have been given the most attention in regards to issues with the Iraq war. The problem is that the 8 issues were, and are still bogus. They're based on either accidental or intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data and statements. Accidental I have no real problem with. That's what's called a mistake. Intentional I do have issues with. That's called lying. As in "Bush Lied" which is a popular sentement nowadays. Guess what? He didn't. Get over it.

Vacation

Recovering from typical post-vacation doldrums. This is how out of touch I was on vacation. I didn't find out about London till Sunday. I also found out that there's no end of people willing to take this tragedy and turn it for political ends.

Lefties are saying its a conspiracy by Blair/Bush to elicit support for the war and are also accusing the right wing of trying to capitalize on the attack. Right-wingers are saying this is more proof that we need to work harder to fight terrorism before it gets to US shores while pointing fingers right back at the left for taking advantage of the situation.

I see this as progress actually. Both sides are in agreement that the bombing is being used for political gain. We have found common ground. Not very useful common ground but as polarized as this country has become, I'll take what I can get.

Here's what I get from the bombing and subsequent reactions: Nothing has changed. Politicians still twist facts to fit their platforms. Citizens still discard facts that don't agree with their views. Logic and common sense are no longer applicable in this day and age.

Dozens of people killed and hundreds injured and all we can do is spit invective back and forth like children squabbling over a favorite toy. Grow up people. Realize that the world is not how you see it. Realize that there are other views out there that may have validity. Realize that in order to get through this mess we are going to have to WORK TOGETHER!!! Enough with the fighting and backstabbing and bitching. Let's get back to making this country work instead of work against itself.