Stupidity in “top” American Universities

I thought you had to be smart to get into MIT or Columbia University. Apparently not.

How stupid do you have to be to falsely represent yourself as someone carrying a bomb into the airport where two of the four 9/11 attack planes launched from? A lot of people risk life and limb in non-productive endeavors as the MIT sophomore did, but they don’t intentionally do things that are likely to shut down major transportation hubs. That takes a special kind of self-absorbed, ignorance-cultivated, stupidity - the kind that can only be cultivated in a “top” American university.

How stupid do you have to be to give the leader of the world’s leading terrorist state a global platform to propagandize against America? Once again, it is the kind of self-absorbed, over-indulgent, head-in-the-sand type of stupidity that can only be cultivated at a “top” American university.

How stupid do you have to be to allow the leader of the worlds leading terrorist state to maneuver you into a no-win situation?

There is nothing new to learn about this man. We know it all. He has told us what he stands for. Even if, as the university claims, he will be “challenged” by the students, what will it accomplish? Well, again, he holds all the cards. His mind will never be changed. He can filibuster so that only a limited number of questions can be asked, effectively eliminating the so-called challenge. If the students react to him as they did to the minutemen (which we all know is extremely unlikely), he is given propaganda to take back to his world showing the evidence that Americans are “rude and unholy.” It’s a no win situation, you idiots. Checkmate – he wins no matter what.

Once again, I ask “How stupid do you have to be to let this happen? How hungry for your 15 minutes of fame do you have to be to be eager to play a part in this fiasco? Apparently, you have to be stupid enough to believe the politically correct crap that is fed to students in our “top” universities in 2007, completely ignoring the lessons they should have learned on 9/11. Personally, I think it’s time for a major revision of the syllabus.

New York City officials, by contrast, saw right through the ruse to visit ground zero to lay a wreath in honor of the fallen – his fallen, not ours. What’s the moral of the story?

There are two really:

First, it makes you question the value of a college education, if these are the results.

Second, if you want a real education in New York City, join the NYPD or the FDNY, and stay as far as you can from Columbia University lest it infect you.

Suicide Bombings Are Apparently OK Now?

I guess all is right with the world then, isn’t it? According to the Pew Research Center poll of 1,050 young Muslim adults in the United States, 26% said that suicide bombings are an acceptable tactic to defend their religion.

When you break that number down, 2% say that it can be justified often, 13% say sometimes, and 11% say rarely. That 2% is still a lot of potential suicide bombers, and that is cause for concern.

This same poll shows 5% expressing favorable views of Al Qaeda with about 25% abstaining. Why abstain? There is only one reason that I know of, and that is fear of the 5% becoming 30%, which I now must assume to be the real number. Additionally, only 40% believed Arab men carried out the attacks of 9/11/2001, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The implication is that we need to resume strip-searching little old lady grandmother types. Yeah, right!

This group also favors the Democratic Party by six to one. What does that tell us? Let’s see. 86% of a group deluding itself about the worst attack ever by foreigners on American soil and has a 30% favorable view of Al Qaeda favors Democrats. That tells me that the Democrats are perceived as BFFs (Best Friends Forever) of Al Qaeda by the Muslim community. I agree with that, incidentally, and I don’t come to that conclusion lightly or based only on the Pew Survey.

Recall the interview of left-wing producer Michael Moore by libertarian Bill O’Reilly. During that interview, Moore at one point asked O’Reilly if he would sacrifice his child to go die in Iraq. Ignore for the moment the incredible irrelevance of the question (since the fate of O’Reilly’s child is in the child’s hands – not O’Reilly’s) and focus on the implication. The tactic is one common among anti-war interviewees. Could that indicate a dearth of actual logic? Let me save you the trouble; the answer is yes.

The trap is to fall for an irrelevant premise, another indication of just how stupid we here at the bottom are perceived by the left-wing in America. Say “No” and you are a hypocrite. Say “Yes” and you are a hateful, unloving parent, but at least you have a conviction and may be respected for it. The 26% of the Muslim community as represented in the Pew poll has said yes to their Iraq-equivalent question, and are therefore, by implication, worthy of respect from the left wing. What does that make the left wing? In my view, it makes the left wing Al Qaeda’s BFF.

Other indications are there as well, ranging from the retreat from fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, to protests that blame America for 9/11.

There is one more troublesome point about the Pew poll. It does not define what constitutes an attack on Islam. I think we can safely assume that Osama bin Laden would be among that 26% suicide bombing enthusiast number. In his view, not being what most of us consider to be radical Muslim fascist would constitute an attack on Islam. What is the definition for this 26% - make that about 273 potential suicide bombers? That’s a lot of potential innocents’ death, and it’s just a small statistical sample. And as for that 2% - about 21 people – look out. That’s more than it took to kill 3,000 innocents in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Still, let’s all join the lunatic conspiracy theorists and the Muslim community that denies that 9/11 was executed by Arab men despite the crowing by the Arab men who executed it. And while we’re at it, we had better leave our borders open for a few more decades and step up our strip searches of grandmas before it’s too late.

Dead Heroes=9/11 Victims - The Ignored Upside

Not too long ago we reached a grizzly milestone in Iraq – to the apparent glee of the blathering anti-war crowd so deeply invested in American defeat. Almost as depressing is the fact that the conservative commentators that I have heard have blown this off as irrelevant. If they don’t believe that they haven’t blown it off, they certainly haven’t emphasized or embraced the silver lining in this dark cloud enthusiastically enough to suit me. They are wrong. It is extremely relevant and extremely silver.

What is most relevant is that the grizzly milestone was reached more that 5 years after 9/11/2001 and after 4 years of combat in Iraq. To see what is most silver, let’s do a little math, keeping in mind that the purpose of the military is, ultimately, to protect the citizenry who supports them at home while they implement and support diplomatic policy and initiatives at home and around the world.

I’ll use round nice numbers in an attempt to keep this simple enough for even the most logic-challenged anti-war activist to follow. On 9/11, 3,000 people were killed by terrorists in an unprovoked attack here on United States soil. REMEMBER? In the months after 9/11, the military disrupted ongoing terror operations that would have killed more Americans – by most estimates, many more Americans. How many? Although I firmly believe that there could have been the equivalent of a 9/11 about every 3 months, I am willing to concede a minimum of 1 per year.

Doing the math based on the minimum yearly 9/11-equivalent, the military and related intelligence has saved about 15,000 (3,000/year for 5 years) American lives at a minimum. The more realistic scenario of a 9/11-equivalent every 3 month would yield a total of 60,000 (3,000/quarter for 5 years) American lives. And this doesn’t even take into account all the dead terrorists who will never harm anyone again, American or other – BONUS! Keep in mind that a single dirty bomb would likely triple this number and a single nuclear strike could send the number soaring into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Overstated you say? Not with maniacs out there who already have nuclear capability or are trying desperately (happily risking the well-being of their citizens) to develop nuclear capacity and are unrestrained by instructions from their God that using it would be wrong.

So is the military doing its job? You betcha! Has the cowboy from Texas done his number one job? Yep! Do Americans recognize and appreciate it? Based on the polls, I must conclude that they apparently do not.

Are the anti-war, cool-aid drinkers really that anxious to have us all incinerated or do they require some remedial math? I have done my best to provide the remedial math, but, truthfully, I have no clue. Maybe you do.

But I do know two things:

• Right now, this much maligned cowboy-President from Texas, his Vice-President (hated in America for once running a successful American corporation successfully, of all things), and his team are all that stands between you and the next holocaust.
• We have less than 2 years to find someone as tough and principled as President Bush to take his place and be willing to stand between us and the next holocaust despite the politically-correct pressure to surrender and the lack of appreciation demonstrated by the American public.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the armed services and intelligence services as well as to your chains of command.

Jesus WOULD BE appalled?

This past weekend, John Edwards said: "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," then added "I think he would be appalled, actually."

What does John Edwards mean WOULD BE? Christians believe in a living Christ. Either he IS disappointed and appalled or he ISN’T. If you are speaking in a religious context, then the term “Would be” implies that Jesus is either dead or otherwise unaware of world events.

It is one thing to speculate on what Jesus would SAY or DO, since he doesn’t usually speak out or assault anyone publicly. It is quite another to speculate on what Jesus WOULD THINK, and another yet to speculate on what we believe he DOES THINK. Each implies a different view of the spiritual world

John Edwards is a trial lawyer by trade. He chooses his words carefully in order to get those big decisions from juries – decisions that have made him wealthy enough to run for president. We must assume that his words reveal his insincerity and opportunistic character.