Prior to a screening of his film "World Trade center", Oliver Stone
pulled out a rubber
chicken blasting Bush and the war.  I’m sure they lapped it all up.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_en_mo/film_oliver_stone

The other quote that caught my eye was Stone saying,
""I think that conspiracy-mongering on 9/11 is a waste of
time".  Let’s see how much time he wastes making a movie about 9/11
conspiracy theories, as has been the rumor.

Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Ayyub Masri, acknowledged, for most likely the first time, losses of foreign
terrorists.

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20060928-010922-7554r.htm

The crucial fact is that these  are 4,000+ foreign born
terrorists.  They went to Iraq for the sole purpose of killing Americans
and now they can’t harm anyone.

Since Hugo’s infomercial on Chomsky, his book sales have increased and you
have to wonder if Hugo gets a commission.  For those of you who don’t know
Chomsky’s background, WSJ Opinion Journal has a good intro. 

Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008997

Read the entire article Who
Is Noam Chomsky? by Roger Scruton.

Its origins are questionable, but simply put, the rubber
chicken is just a comedy prop that has been around probably longer than the
whoopee cushion. The gag is so old the prop now represents hackneyed gags; when
in doubt pull out the rubber chicken for a guaranteed laugh.

So I have this theory about celebrities, which I suppose by my standards
includes actors, musicians, comedians, and authors (though their actually
celebrity status may be in question), that when desperate to get attention they
rely on their own rubber chicken – bashing Bush.

Are you’re an aspiring comedian or perhaps you’ve been around for a while but
your material is getting stale? Or are you a washed up musician in need of a hit
album or tour promotion? An actor looking to plug a new movie or a neophyte
looking to get in the door? All you need is a rubber chicken.

The latest Rubber Chicken is showing up at George
Michael’s latest tour. Drudge was running a link to the story. Roger
Waters floated his a few weeks ago, but he cleverly disguised it as a pig.
Even Burt Bacharach
whipped out his rubber chicken a while back.

Going forward, I’ll have a Rubber Chicken Alert when it makes an appearance.

British police will now have consult Muslim leaders before conducting
raids.  Since when do civilian panels get to determine whether police have
evidence enough to conduct raids?

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2372471,00.html

Oh, they’ll have to promise not to tell!  Now I feel
better.  Will other groups start asking for these privileges?

I think treatment like this has to be earned.  Let these
leaders start working with law enforcement to root out terrorists from their
communities and once you have a positive track record maybe then you can start
doing this.  Essentially, London police are acting as their informants.

Michelle
Malkin has more info and thinks America will follow suit.

I wasn’t going to comment on Hugo Chavez’s U.N. speech and the chatter
that ensued.  But now I just can’t help it.  A co-worker, in one movie
reference, completely captured the moment when describing the statements by
Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi.

As you might know, trying to score some easy points with the public, they
jumped all over his criticism of President Bush.

He
can’t do that…

The use of torture to gather intelligence from terrorists is under great
scrutiny lately. There are those who believe torture works and those that don’t.

This Hot Air story should put that to rest.

Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

What concerns me is the term "torture", which is being thrown about
a bit carelessly lately and unless Americans actually perform some due
diligence and find out what the interrogation techniques are, they’ll probably
be left with a Hollywood
interpretation of "torture".  Here are some real techniques:

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1874823,00.html

Attention grab? Belly slap? Where is the wet
willie? I’m sorry, this is not torture. Though I never want to experience
any of these things, I still don’t see it as torture. Even Brian Ross’
description of water boarding, as horrific as it sounds, leaves no permanent
physical damage. Some may argue that the recipient is left with permanent mental
trauma, possibly unable to function under certain circumstances.  I find
these things to be too subjective.  Should we stop a highly effective
procedure because a small percentage may have lingering negative psychological
effects?

Torture, by my definition, is dismemberment, being put on the rack, or in the iron maiden
and mental torture is watching someone you care about get racked or cut up.  The methods currently used are effective and, I
would wager most Americans agree, perfectly acceptable.

USA Today carried a story on September 19, it was actually suggesting the
recent decline in gas price may spur inflation.  

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/rates/2006-09-18-gas-fed_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

There’s a reason that Economics has been called "The Dismal
Science". "Dismal" has a meaning beyond gloomy. It is:
"characterized by ineptitude, dullness or lack of merit". If inflation
is a rise in the overall (average) price level, including fuel costs, then other
prices would have to rise by more than the fuel cost decline in order for the
overall (average) price level to rise. If other prices don’t rise as much, or
not at all, then falling fuel prices are disinflationary. One had to pay
attention in 7th grade arithmetic to figure that out.

-Zorroaster

Watching Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak at the U.N. about how
his country’s nuclear aspirations are "transparent, peaceful and under the
watchful eye" of the United Nations, something didn’t sit right with me.

As he implied that American forces were purposely releasing terrorists
captured by Iraqi government in order to facilitate violence and an extended
stay, I was just distracted by something.

I scratched my head when he said American foreign policy had something to do
with hurricane Katrina, though the words weren’t the itch. With
furrowed brow I listened as he suggested the U.S. government willfully ignored
intelligence leading to 9/11.

There is something wrong with this man. He’s not wearing a tie.

When the camera pans around the room, everyone I see is wearing either a tie
or traditional clothing of their country. It looks like he was wearing a suit,
but I wonder if that’s the house jacket.

George Ajjan may how found the real reason:

Source: http://www.ajjan.com/2006/07/dress-code-of-revolution-iran-style.html

He’s just too cool for school!

Stay tuned for the next issue of "Informal Leader Quarterly" where
we explore the wardrobe of Bolivian Leader, Evo Morales.

A few years ago, someone sent me a link to a 9/11 conspiracy website. I can’t
remember which one, but it concerned itself mostly with the Pentagon. In line
with most of today’s conspiracy theorists, it claimed a missile hit the
Pentagon, not a hijacked commercial jet.  I dismissed it.

Now, all this time later, these theories are picking up major steam. 
What concerns me though, is not the theorists themselves (they’re going to be
around forever), but the increasing belief in these theories. It is now becoming
mainstream to believe 9/11 was an "inside job" cooked up mainly as an
excuse to go to war in the Middle East.

A recent Scripps survey reveals the following:

Source: http://newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=55

The enthusiasm that Americans have in embracing these theories finally struck
me when I ran into an old friend shortly after the foiled airline terror plot
this summer. She mentioned having to take a flight in the near future and though
she had some worries, she felt the plot was fiction.

Here she was, feeling quite comfortable admitting to buying into some sort of
conspiracy theory in spite of the dangers. It was then I realized conspiracy had
gone mainstream.

So I’ve been trying to figure out why. Why are people so willing to believe
these theories? And I’ve concluded it is the unwillingness to admit to an enemy
whose devotion to killing us goes far beyond what my generation has ever
known.  It is a belief out of convenience.

It’s easier to believe your government did this because you can vote them out
of power, they can be held accountable, you can scream, spit venom, and call for
impeachments without fear of retribution. It is easier to sleep at night when
there really aren’t fanatics waiting to blow your morning flight out of the sky.

Fighting radical Islam is a daunting task that in even the best estimations
will take decades and cost many lives. This is hard to grasp, hard to live with;
it takes will. A will few Americans have anymore.  And fortunately for
them, if it is real, they can still blame the government for not doing enough to
protect them.