The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, a nonprofit organization that represents native Aleuts in Alaska has rejected lower cost heating oil from Venezuela because of (T)Hugo Chavez's remarks at the UN. These are among the poorest people in the entire state of Alaska and they pay some of the highest oil prices because of the high cost of transportation.

And they rejected the bribe Chavez wanted to give them.

And yet a few villages are refusing free heating oil from Venezuela, on the patriotic principle that no foreigner has the right to call their president "the devil."

The heating oil is being offered by the petroleum company controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, President Bush's nemesis. While scores of Alaska's Eskimo and Indian villages say they have no choice but to accept, others would rather suffer.

"As a citizen of this country, you can have your own opinion of our president and our country. But I don't want a foreigner coming in here and bashing us," said Justine Gunderson, administrator for the tribal council in the Aleut village of Nelson Lagoon. "Even though we're in economically dire straits, it was the right choice to make."

Nelson Lagoon residents pay more than $5 a gallon for oil — or at least $300 a month per household — to heat their homes along the wind-swept coast of the Bering Sea, where temperatures can dip to minus-15. About one-quarter of the 70 villagers are looking for work, in part because Alaska's salmon fishing industry has been hit hard by competition from fish farms.

The donation to Alaska's native villages has focused attention on the rampant poverty and high fuel prices in a state that is otherwise awash in oil — and oil profits. In 2005, 86 percent of the Alaska's general fund, or $2.8 billion, came from oil from the North Slope.

The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, a native nonprofit organization that would have handled the heating oil donation on behalf of 291 households in Nelson Lagoon, Atka, St. Paul and St. George, rejected the offer because of the insults Chavez has hurled at Bush.

Maine has also refused any dealings with Citgo. About 150 Aleut villages have accepted the aid from Citgo (and it is hard to fault them, please do not take it that way). But I have to tell you, the action by the the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association is one that makes me proud.

The Association's website is here. If you can spare a few bucks, I'm sure they can find a good use for it. If you can't afford to send money, a thank you email would probably be appreciated.

Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard.

Where that plutonium that North Korea is using came from, the "Agreed Framework" arranged for the stabilization of 8,000 spent fuel rods the North Koreans had allowed to deteriorate to a point where they were in danger of falling apart. I'm still trying to find the inspector's report that stated how close to an accident those rods were. You know, where they would have been rendered unusable and unrecoverable. (Found it here. That fuel was almost at a stage where the plutonium would have been unrecoverable).

The remaining 7,700 fuel rods were in a window-lit cinder block building with peeling paint, where they sat in a concrete-lined pool of water roughly the size of a rectangular backyard swimming pool. The entire core had been hastily removed from the reactor in the spring of 1994 after a growing confrontation with the IAEA.

Two years earlier, the agency had found evidence that North Korea had reprocessed more than the 80 grams of plutonium 239 it had officially disclosed. When the IAEA then asked to inspect the reprocessing laboratory and radioactive waste tanks and analyze the spent fuel, North Korea refused, declaring instead that it would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But now, tensions were reduced.

Because of the sunlight and seasonal temperatures, there was a layer of algae on the top of the water. We could barely see several rods not so neatly tumbled into the metal baskets, which were stacked two or three upon each other. The water was made murky by a suspension of magnesium oxide–rust from the fuel cladding. It looked something like a diluted form of "Milk of Magnesia" (also a form of magnesium oxide).

Attempts to clean the water and reduce the erosion of the cladding had clogged the filter equipment; it was broken and heavily contaminated. The North Koreans had then added large amounts of sodium hydroxide (lye), a caustic chemical, to try to retard the erosion. Unfortunately, sodium hydroxide can create pinhole leaks in the cladding–exposing the uranium metal to water. Once that happens, the uranium will interact with the moisture and give off flammable and explosive hydrogen. If the uranium fuel is pulled out of the water it may spontaneously ignite.

Our fears about the danger of the North Korean spent fuel were confirmed. The cladding could seriously erode in the not so distant future, allowing highly radioactive materials to escape into the pool, creating a severe radiological hazard. Fires caused by wet uranium added another risk. We left a few days later, sobered by what we had observed.

However, the new, Republican-controlled Congress did not share our urgency, and congressional leaders made no secret of their desire to kill the Agreed Framework. Despite the unprecedented access we were given to the Yongbyon nuclear complex, Congress only grudgingly funded the spent fuel project, which cost about $20 million.

Each individual spent fuel rod was brushed in clean water, rinsed, and placed in a stainless steel tube. To retard the generation of hydrogen, inert gas was injected before the tubes were sealed and tagged for IAEA inspectors. U.S. contractors with special equipment were brought in, and North Korea supplied labor. Because of radiation and fire concerns, the operation involved partitioning the existing pool to allow for an area of clean water where the underwater processing and canning of the rods by remote instruments could be observed. My last visit to North Korea was in January 1995, when we finalized arrangements. Subsequently, I was responsible for hiring contractors and developing the project budget for congressional approval in the fall of 1995.

By October 1997, the spent fuel rods were safely encased in steel containers, under IAEA inspection. The reactor remained closed, construction on two other, larger reactors had stopped, and the reprocessing plant sat idle. After the spent fuel project was established, I went on to other work, leaving my memories locked away like a disturbingly vivid dream.

Before they were helpfully stabilized by the Clinton administration. At US taxpayer expense.

UPDATE: Well, that didn't take long. John "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat" Kerry is, of course, laying all the blame at Bush's feet. Kind of misses the point of where Kim got his plutonium there, Johnny-boy.

Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard.com. (Yes, I know I've been really bad about posting here).

Allah has video of Brian Ross from ABC News making an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. Ross confirms that the harsh questioning technique called "waterboarding" did, with absolute certainty according to Ross, produce detailed information that saved lives. Ross said the information came, in part, from CIA sources firmly opposed to the practice. Those sources appear to also have acknowledged that the technique worked.

It is very harsh. While it will not kill or produce permanent harm, it apparently makes a person feel like they are drowning. But, according to Ross, it also makes the subjects talk and give good information. There is no doubt, to me, that the techniques that the White House now wants approved, which do NOT include waterboarding, are not torture. Waterboarding appears to be very close to the line, however. It produces no permanent physical damage, but it sure inflicts severe psychological distress. While I am not fully comfortable with it, I would certainly have to - however reluctantly - agree that in a ticking time bomb situation, I would be a lot less squeamish about it.

So, I invite comments here, but I do not want to hear platitudes, high-minded principles or talking points thrown out with no justification. Let's make it specific so we're all starting from the same place. Let's make it a very limited discussion and put hard rules on it: A terrorist suspect is captured with detailed plans for a nuclear bomb, a target list that includes major US cities and a piece of paper that says the detonation date is three days from now.

What would you do? Would you or would you not agree to use waterboarding? Justify your answer.

(Comments should be left at Blue Crab Boulevard)

Georgia's law requiring positive voter ID law was struck down by a state judge earlier. He will not get a chance to strike this one down. The US House of Representatives today approved a bill that would require voters to provide a valid ID that proves US citizenship in order to vote. The bill specifies that the states must provide the IDs for free to those who cannot afford them.

Anyone who tries to claim this is tantamount to a "poll tax" - as some are already doing, by the way - are covering for voter fraud. They know it. So do the American people. I want every, single legal voter to be able to vote exactly as they choose. But I do not one one, single fraudulent vote or fraudulent voter. This law, even though it pertains only to Federal elections, is a huge step toward stopping voter fraud. Period.

The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.

House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.

Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."

"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."

But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly — groups that tend to vote Democratic — who might have trouble producing a photo identification.

"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said he was initially denied a voter ID required under a Missouri state law because he doesn't have a driver's license and couldn't immediately produce a passport or birth certificate. His congressional ID card was not accepted.

A Missouri court earlier this month struck down the state law, and on Tuesday a state superior court judge in Georgia ruled that that state's law requiring a photo ID was an unconstitutional condition for voting.

The bill would require everyone to present a photo ID before voting in federal elections by 2008. By 2010 voters would have to have photo IDs that certified they were citizens. In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.

Notice the arrogance of Representative Skelton? He was not carrying ID that he would have been required to show to cash a check and he's outraged, outraged I say, because he couldn't obey the laws of his home state. What a blatant bit of hypocrisy that was.

You know, the Democrats make a great storm and stink accusing others of voter fraud. But they make an even bigger storm and stink over a provision that would curb at least some of the most egregious offenses. My question is: why are they so foolish and arrogant as to believe the average voter does not see that for what it patently is? Support for voter fraud and rigged elections.

Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard

Quinnipiac puts Republican Tom Kean, Jr. in the lead over New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez among likely voters. The lead is within the margin of error, but it is, I believe, the first time the challenger has taken a lead. It also shows that corruption allegations against Menendez are beginning to really take a toll.

New Jersey State Sen. Tom Kean, Jr., the Republican challenger, leads Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez 48 - 45 percent among New Jersey likely voters, including leaners, in the U.S. Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Another 6 percent remain undecided.

Among registered voters, Sen. Menendez leads 41 - 38 percent each, compared to a slim 40 - 38 Kean lead in a July 17 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University.

In this latest survey, Republican likely voters back Kean 92 - 5 percent, while Democrats back Menendez 85 - 9 percent and independent voters split, with 46 percent for Kean and 44 percent for Menendez.

That last number should be worrying the Democrats. This was supposed to be a safe seat and it is now very, very much in play. Time for the NJ Dems to begin warming up for another lautenberg! Heck, they have the perfect candidate.

Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard

I do try to remember to cross post things here, but I manage to forget to do it on a daily basis. I post a lot, frankly a REAL lot, over at Blue Crab Boulevard, my main site. If I forget to cross post here, please to check over there.

Bah. As usual, the Guardian has it all wrong. They trumpet that they have found out the super-duper, tippity-top secret interrogation techniques that John McCain chose to block (by way of saying "ta-ta" to his presidential ambitions, incidentally). Those hideously brutal techniques?

The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called "the attention grab" where a suspect's shirt is forcefully seized; the "attention slap" or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the "belly slap"; and sound and light manipulation.

Gee. How. Awful.

Well, we here at Blue Crab Boulevard have the real scoop of the day. We obtained the real list while the Guardian obtained the official red herring list of silly things to get the leftists spun about™. We called out ultra-reliable sources at the Magic 8-Ball Intelligence Agency and Cut Rate Tires, Inc. and got the actual list of inhuman tortures that the CIA will really use, once McCain realizes he's screwed in 2008. Without further ado, the real list of Hideous, Inhuman Tortures®:

The McCruelty: Subject will be forced to consume twenty seven cups of a certain fast-food establishment's coffee in a row. Then will find out the restroom is out of order.

The TeleHorror: Subject will be strapped to a seat in front of a wall sized flat-panel television. Barney will be playing. On endless loop.

The Nosmo King: The subject, if a smoker will be sent into a room with 500 cartons of cigarettes, all his favorite brand. No matches will be provided. If a non-smoker, subject will be strapped to a chair in a sports bar during the playoffs. Of several sports. 

The Endless Wait: A subject will be made to stand in a grocery checkout line with a bag of potato chips and $3. Each of the twenty people in line ahead of the subject  will have a minimum of 35 items in their carts, will use 73 coupons, will require a minimum of five price checks AND will pay with a check.

The Infantifada: Subject will be placed in the coach section of an airliner in the middle seat between a 400 pound insurance salesman with terminal halitosis and a 450 pound conspiracy theorist who loves to talk and has not bathed in six months. Minimum. Every other seat on the airliner will be filled with mothers carrying screaming babies. Non-stop, New York to Tokyo. And back.

He'll crack. Trust me. Nobody could live through that last one without spilling.

(Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard)

At least some analysts think Hugo Chavez may have hurt his country's chances at a seat on the UN Security Council with his aggressive defense of Iran's nuclear ambitions at the Non-Aligned Movement meeting. One can but hope.

With trips abroad, speeches championing poor nations and generous bilateral oil deals, Chavez has devoted his foreign policy for months to winning a vote next month for a rotating seat on the top U.N. forum over U.S. objections.

His embrace of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a two-day visit that ends on Monday put him further at odds with the West and could alienate developing nations that welcome his anti-U.S. stances but worry about Iran's atomic ambitions.

Chavez's support for a fellow OPEC country in the same week that he will go to the United Nations to lobby for a seat on a council is typical of the risk-taking style of a president whose confidence is buoyed by high oil prices.

"In making an alliance with Iran, Chavez's calculation is that whatever governments think about Iran, he believes they dislike the United States more," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington.

"It's a big gamble," he added.

The big problem for Chavez is that the vote is secret. He won't know who reneged on any deals he has made.

But some moderate African nations might now withdraw support for Chavez in the secret U.N. vote, said Larry Birns of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs think tank.

Neighbors such as Chile and countries across Europe and Asia that were not solidly behind the Venezuelan candidacy, face a fresh argument against Chavez, Shifter said.

Venezuelan officials say widespread support in Latin America and Africa, as well as backing from the Arab League and major powers such as Russia and China should assure victory.

But Birns was skeptical.

"Even though the U.N. vote is the most important item on his agenda, he may well have overplayed his hand at the expense of some votes that he had every reason to count on," Birns said.

That would be a very funny day to watch, It would be a very bad day to be a cat anywhere near Chavez, though.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pulled a maneuver that will force the Senate version of the just passed House border fence only bill to the floor. The howls are already beginning.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., used a legislative maneuver to get the bill to the floor as early as Wednesday, when the Senate could decide whether to move forward on the legislation.

"Border security is the essential first step of any effort to enact immigration reform. Only when we have convinced the American people of our commitment to securing our borders will we be able reach a consensus on comprehensive immigration reform," Frist said in a statement.

Democrats are likely to try to block the bill. They may try to attach the comprehensive immigration bill the Senate passed in May as an amendment and push debate into next week. A delay could be a problem as Congress tries to wrestle with legislation addressing treatment of terrorism suspects.

"This smacks of desperation and a clear repudiation of President Bush's support for comprehensive immigration reform. It's obviously designed to play to the base. Sen. Frist was for comprehensive immigration reform before he was against it," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

House Republicans, trying to keep the illegal immigration issue before voters, passed the fence bill last week by a vote of 283-138. The House had approved the same amount of fencing last December as part of a broader bill that would have made being in the country illegally a felony. That bill is stalled.

The statements from Reid's spokesman shows just how worried the Democrats are that this is going for a debate and vote. Because they know darn well it does not "play to the base", it plays to an absolute majority of the American public. This could be devastating for the Democrats if they oppose it. Frist just painted them into a corner. I predicted a long time ago that the first party to understand that Americans want that border controlled will win in November. (Gee, I wonder if Bill Frist reads the humble Crabitat?)

The editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics magazine, James Meigs, has a column in the New York Post today that simply debunks a few of the 9/11 conspiracies and shows what massive frauds these people really are. He stats the article like this:

ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals.

For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff. What had we done to provoke such outrage?

Research.

I think I must be part of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination myself now, since I've been pretty harsh with the "truthers". Which is a massive misnomer, of course. It would be more accurate to use the correct term: "liars".

Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

We talked to Walter and, like so many of the experts and witnesses widely quoted by conspiracy theorists, he told us he is heartsick to see the way his words have been twisted: "I struggle with the fact that my comments will forever be taken out of context."

Here's another: An article in the American Free Press claims that a seismograph at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory picked up signals indicating that large bombs were detonated in the towers. The article quotes Columbia geologist Won-Young Kim and certainly looks authoritative. Yet the truth on this issue is not hard to find. A published Lamont-Doherty report on the seismic record of 9/11 says no such thing. Kim told Popular Mechanics that the publication's interpretation of his research was "categorically incorrect." Yet the claim is repeated verbatim on more than 50 Web sites as well as in the film "Loose Change."

Every 9/11 conspiracy theory we investigated was based on similarly shoddy evidence. Most of these falsehoods are easy to refute simply by checking the original source material or talking to experts in the relevant fields. And yet even the flimsiest claims are repeated constantly in conspiracy circles, passed from Web site to book to Web site in an endless daisy chain. And any witness, expert - or publication - that tries to set the record straight is immediately vilified as being part of the conspiracy.

The only thing is: Who knew the pay would be this lousy for being part of such a massive conspiracy? Anyway, here's my contribution to the debunking: The yield strength of structural steel is reduced by 80% at 600° C. No office building can withstand losing 80% of it's structural integrity. Here's a link to a handy-dandy point by point rebuttal of the whack-job's theories. And, as always:

Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change, Loose Change,

Anne Applebaum has a column in the Telegraph that punctures one of the enduring myths about 9/11 that is being pimped really hard by the left and by a malleable mainstream media. The fairy tale goes something like, "America squandered all the good will that sprang from the 9/11 attacks. Their actions since have (insert any dire statement here)." As Applebaum points out, the so-called goodwill was completely gone from sight within hours of the attacks. It had dissipated before the rubble of the World Trade Center had stopped smoking.

Nevertheless, I think it's worth looking back at what people really felt on September 11, 2001, because not everyone felt the same, then or later. Certainly it's true that, five years ago, Tony Blair spoke of standing "shoulder to shoulder" with America, that Iain Duncan Smith (remember him?) echoed him, and that Jacques Chirac was on his way to Washington to say the same.

But it's also true that this initial wave of goodwill hardly outlasted the news cycle. Within a couple of days a Guardian columnist wrote of the "unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population". A Daily Mail columnist denounced the "self-sought imperial role" of the United States, which he said had "made it enemies of every sort across the globe".

That week's edition of Question Time featured a sustained attack on Phil Lader, the former US ambassador to Britain – and a man who had lost colleagues in the World Trade Centre – who seemed near to tears as he was asked questions about the "millions and millions of people around the world despising the American nation". At least some Britons, like many other Europeans, were already secretly or openly pleased by the 9/11 attacks.

And all of this was before Afghanistan, before Tony Blair was tainted by his friendship with George Bush, and before anyone knew the word "neo-con", let alone felt the need to claim not to be one.

The dislike of America, the hatred for what it was believed to stand for – capitalism, globalisation, militarism, Zionism, Hollywood or McDonald's, depending on your point of view – was well entrenched. To put it differently, the scorn now widely felt in Britain and across Europe for America's "war on terrorism" actually preceded the "war on terrorism" itself. It was already there on September 12 and 13, right out in the open for everyone to see.

This myth, that somehow the US and George Bush squandered all that goodwill is complete nonsense. People with any kind of memory at all should be able to recall how vitriolic European opinion toward the US was well before 9/11. This is just the latest excuse in a long line of justifications for that irrational dislike. That our own left also parrots back the same nonsense is unfortunate but not really surprising. They have long shared common attitudes with Europe. Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Sister Toldjah says not to miss the comment section under Applebaum's article. The hornets have come out to play. There are also a few good comments that are worth digging for:

I honestly don't believe that your average British person feels the hostility that the British media so obviously have towards America. I've been outraged time and again in the last two weeks by the BBC etc saying. "9/11 was America's fault for not preventing it by listening to the security experts that warned it could happen". Thank God for America, it's the only country that is standing up to this grave threat.
Posted by Jeff Potter on September 12, 2006 11:49 AM

(Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard)

Not the good book. A Yemeni man was arrested after TSA officers found a knife "artfully" concealed inside a book. The man, who had bought a one way ticket to Yemen despite being a legal US resident living in Michigan with his family, said he had no idea how the knife got there. He told authorities he was going to Yemen to get married. With that one way ticket, of course.

Mohammed Ghanem, 21, of Hamtramck, was jailed Saturday on $500,000 after being arraigned on a charge of possessing a weapon in the sterile area of an airport.

Ghanem was arrested Thursday at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after Transportation Security Administration officers detected the knife "artfully concealed" in the book, airport spokesman Michael Conway said.

Someone had carved out the inside of the book and placed the knife inside it, said Ghanem's attorney, Nabih Ayad.

"He said he didn't know where the knife came from," Ayad told the Detroit Free Press.

Sounds like a perfectly valid excuse. I have often found people excavating my books to hide things inside them. That's exactly how I acquired the crown jewels of England, in fact. Oh, and I have some really nice real estate in Florida if anyone's interested in buying it.

(Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard)

Mary Katherine Ham admits to having a bad week that challenged her optimism. Really, who can blame her? It has been a week where a lot of cards have been shown openly in the high-stakes political game that is being played out right now. The left has shown they are more than happy to openly promote real censorship as opposed to their phony cries of being repressed. The Democrats have embraced this insanity, going so far as to having Democratic Senators threaten ABC's broadcast license.

The whole thing's got me, not just angry, but pessimistic. It's not an emotion that often overcomes me. But over the last couple days, I've watched the new face of the Democratic Party applaud two threats (one from the actual Senate) on ABC's broadcast license. I've watched their unabashed intellectual dishonesty in abandoning the "larger truth" argument when it doesn't suit their objectives anymore (yes, it was a flawed argument, but some consistency at least?). I've watched them nominate a 9/11 Truther for Congress , and I've watched "Screw Loose Change," an extensive debunking of the Truthers' arguments. 

It's easy to read this stuff, blog about it, acknowledge it as loopy, and never let the sheer weight of the crazy hit you, you know? Maybe it's some sort of self-defense mechanism for the eternal optimist. But this week? Wow.

Listen, I'm a conservative and a Republican. I'm not exactly one for getting all Kumbaya with Democrats, especially since that usu sally means going all maverick and dropping most of your principles. But, I do believe in the need for two, strong, viable national parties to check each other.

She is, of course, exactly right here. What is scary about this is the utter contempt the left is showing for the ultimately sound judgment of the American electorate. The voters actually do know how to separate fact from fiction, and they actually do recognize who is really trying to curtail speech in this country. The left assumes them to be stupid and easily led. This is an appallingly bad assumption on their part. It is also a recipe for electoral disaster in the long run. Continue to talk down to the people you need to support you and you will not remain a viable party in the long run.

That is, as Mary Katherine points out, not at all good for the country. I am not yet completely pessimistic about the political situation, but I am becoming worried that the Democrats are going off a cliff, following the lemmings on the far left.

The words of Renee Kelly of Marlboro, Md, who was asked if she knew anybody who had been a victim of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2006. She had tears streaming down her face. More than 1,000 people came to the Pentagon for a public tour that included a visit to the simple memorial room and chapel.

WASHINGTON - A solemn marker outside the Pentagon conveys a simple message: "We will never forget."

True words, judging by the lines of people — from all corners of the country, even the globe — who took time on a sun-splashed weekend to honor the 184 people who perished when a hijacked jetliner slammed into this symbol of American military.

"We are here for a happy occasion. But we have to remember the sad occasions in our country's history also," said Pam Gambacorta of Buffalo, N.Y., who was in town for a wedding. She was one of the first in line for the walk-in tours, only the second available to the general public since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

More than 1,000 people took the tour that began outside the building, where American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the side, and continued inside to a chapel and memorial. Reconstruction has made the impact point impossible to detect.

Ethan and Debbie Fleischman of Cincinnati made the memorial tour their first stop in Washington. While it lasted only about 15 minutes, they said they came away with lasting memories of the building and of the others who came to pay tribute.

"They didn't forget their country," Ethan said, nodding toward the crowd. "It really touches the heart."

Some deny, some remember. I know which group I belong to.

(Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard)

Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has refused to provide any state resources to handle security for former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami's weekend visit to Harvard. He calls the lecture nothing but propaganda and will not have anything to do with it. Federal authorities are providing security.

Khatami is due to speak on Sunday at Harvard University in Cambridge on the "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence."

Romney said Khatami will not receive a state police escort or any other state help. Federal officials will attend to his security.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the state normally provides a police escort to visiting dignitaries. He said U.S. State Department officials had contacted the state police's tactical unit, which typically coordinates traffic-stopping escorts, prior to Romney's statement.

Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, called the visit "a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11."

"The U.S. State Department listed Khatami's Iran as the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism," Romney said. "For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple."

Frankly, he's quite right. Those who have left comments here that Khatami is nothing more than a private citizen, therefore there is no problem with him meeting with Jimmy Carter are caught in their own logic on this one. If he's a private citizen, he is not entitled to state resources for security. Can't have it both ways, though I'm sure there will be some who will try. Good for Romney for calling this lecture for what it most surely is.

Cross post from Blue Crab Boulevard.