Liberals and Sleep

The so-called "liberal (actually leftist) world is a tough one. The latest study. shows the following about liberal vs. conservative sleep patterns:

Among his findings, Kelly Bulkeley discovered that liberals are more restless sleepers and have a higher number of bizarre, surreal dreams -- including fantasy settings and a wide variety of sexual encounters. Conservatives' dreams were, on average, far more mundane and focused on realistic people, situations and settings.

Gosh. It has always seemed to me that liberals were lucky. They don't even need to be asleep to have "bizarre, surreal dreams." They merely need to be talking politics.

Rioting for Ramadon

I don't know much about how Ramadan is historically celebrated, but in Brussels, it is celebrated by rioting according to the Brussels Journal.

Any ideas on how to invite Mulsims to join the civilized world?

National Intelligence Hoop-de-Doo

I really don't get the hoop-de-doo about the leaked and then released National Intelligence report on the relationship between terrorism and the war in Iraq.

The Democrats have gotten all frizzy about the report's conclusion that the United States invasion of Iraq made Muslims mad. OK, we did it and they are mad.

The Republicans are upset, understandably, that Pravda West aka the New York Times and its ilk, won't tell people that that report says that success in Iraq will discourage future jihadists. Of course it will. People of every culture prefer to be associated with a winner, not a loser. Jihadists don't want to waste their deaths, but want to know their suicide deaths bring Islam closer to military victory.

No surprises really. So why all the hype? The Democrats look backward to lay the blame game. The Republicans look forward to what do we need to do now. Wouldn't any rational person have to agree with the Republicans on this one?

Lives versus Principles

I don't have the answers, so I am just going to pose questions.

A suspected Islamic Jihad terrorist picked up by police within the United States. The police suspect that a person has engaged in illegal, terrorist activity that after an investigation, could be prosecuted. The police also believe that the suspect has information that if divulged, would save hundreds if not thousands of lives. If the police torture the suspect, any information received would be tainted. Any future investigation of the suspect for his or her terrorist activity would be compromised. No confession obtained under torture would be useable. It is likely that the suspect would go free under the American system of justice. The question is, should the police be permitted to torture the suspect to obtain the information that would save lives?

Given the same situation, but the suspect is not a United States citizen picked up by the United States military in a foreign country. We are not at war with any country and the suspected terrorist was not wearing a uniform of any country. Should the military be permitted to torture the suspect to obtain the information that would save lives?

If the United States condones torture in any circumstance, don’t we compromise our principles, our moral high ground? Is the saving of lives worth the damage to our national reputation? Should pragmatism control over principle?

Does it make any difference how many lives would be saved?

Does it make any difference if one of the lives were one of your children?

Scantily Clad Women Worse than 202 Dead.

Muslim logic.

Quote without comment:

"So, if I am asked which is more dangerous, naked women or the Bali bombs [which killed 202 people], then my reply is of course those women in skimpy clothes," Antara quoted [alleged terror leader Abu Bakar Bashir] as saying at a public rally calling for the imposition of Islamic law in Indonesia.

Source: International Herald Tribune.

Democrats Defending Bush

Congratulations to Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel for defending President Bush over the nasty remarks of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The angry defenses by Democratic representatives Pelosi and Rangel were right on target. Both of them have serious disagreements with President Bush. But they rightly take umbrage at a foreign president coming to United States soil for the purpose of insulting our president.

Good for them. It is good sense. It is good politics. Their outrage is right, just, and appropriate.

As for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, remember that Citgo Petroleum Company is owned by Venezuela. Personally I boycott Citgo.

Update: Huga Chavez's remarks should serve as a warning to Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel and their comrades that their frequent unhinged remarks about the president uncourages foreign potentates to equally unhinged criticism of the U.S.

I have no problem with reasoned disagreement internally. A loyal opposition is healthy. Unhinged hate-speech by home-grown leftists about the president and his policies reaps ill rewards internationally.

Desperate for Moderate Spokespeople

From a Columbus Dispatch editorial today about the Pope's remarks:

The West cannot comprehend why these believers fail to see the illogic of their violent acts. If they don’t want people to think they’re violent, why resort to violence?

Regardless, if such dangerous conflagrations are to be avoided — if, for example, Christian holy sites across Italy are ever to be able to relax the extraordinary security measures they’ve taken since the incident — the West must better understand the siege mentality that inspires such Muslim outrage.

That doesn’t mean the West must capitulate to irrationality and surrender the right to speak freely. It does mean that Western leaders should look harder among the many strains and styles of Islam for the moderate thinkers who might be able to bridge the gap.

The West is desperate to find moderate Muslim spokespersons. They are so very hard to find. Is it because they fear for their own and their family's safety if they were to speak out in moderation?

This blog has lauded the few moderate Muslim spokesperson that have expressed themselves in public. America, Europe and the world need more of them.