16 January 2009 @ 8:28AM >> Today’s Quote of the Day:

[L]et me take this opportunity to say that of all the innumerable print and broadcast journalists who have interviewed me in the U.S. and abroad since I arrived on the scene nearly 20 years ago, Katie Couric was definitively the stupidest. As a guest on NBC’s “Today” show during my 1992 book tour, I was astounded by Couric’s small, humorless, agenda-ridden mind, still registered in that pinched, tinny monotone that makes me rush across the room to change stations whenever her banal mini-editorials blare out at 5 p.m. on the CBS radio network. And of course I would never spoil my dinner by tuning into Couric’s TV evening news show. That sallow, wizened, drum-tight, cosmetic mummification look is not an appetite enhancer outside of Manhattan or L.A. There’s many a moose in Alaska with greater charm and pizazz.—Camille Paglia

15 January 2009 @ 9:26AM >> We’re all doomed!

Back in the 1970s, scientists were predicting global cooling, including at least one prominent scientist who later became a global warming alarmist.

Then, in the mid-1980s, we were all told to fear “acid rain,” which was the big looming environmental disaster of the time. Funny, we don’t seem to hear about acid rain anymore.

The scare-mongers then shifted focus to “the greenhouse effect” which eventually became known as “global warming,” a term that has fallen out of favor lately because the warming predictions haven’t been coming true in recent years.

So, after some embarrassing blunders with faulty data, global warming has been re-branded as “climate change.” That way, any time there’s a change in temperature, they can claim it as evidence supporting their beliefs. (Of course, since the dawn of Earth’s history, continual change has been the only constant with respect to the climate. So, by definition, anyone predicting the climate will change is always going to be proven correct eventually.)

Now it turns out that sea ice levels have risen to the highest point since 1979, after one of the coolest years in recent memory. Pravda, a preferred news outlet of radical environmentalists during the Soviet era, is even declaring that “[t]he earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science.”

While some people now claim they knew all along that the La Ni~na ocean cycle would cause temporary cooling, during the early years of global warming alarm, I can’t recall anyone saying, “in a few years, the temperature will cool because of a well-known oceanic phenomenon.” I can’t find a single Al Gore chart predicting a temporary lowering of the temperature for the latter part of this decade. Nope, the original predictions were for temperatures to keep going up, up, up.

But if we’re now supposedly on the brink of an ice age, then maybe environmental alarmism is just like women’s fashion, and we’re once again at the beginning of the hype cycle, right where we were back in the ’70s.

Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.

14 January 2009 @ 9:12AM >> Once Washington starts handing out the money, eventually everybody lines up:

With the financial industry, auto makers and more getting assistance from the federal government to stay afloat during the recession, the adult industry decided it would try to get something as well.

Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis and “Hustler” magazine publisher Larry Flynt have said they will petition Congress for financial aid along the lines of what the Big Three auto makers are getting.

Francis said that he and Flynt are asking for $5 billion, and that they have sent letters to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Congress and their local Congressman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) with the proposal. Rep. Waxman’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

With the $5 billion, they would “invest in building new means of distribution, and shoring up our distribution right now to prevent further erosion from factors like Youporn and other Internet content that has seriously affected our business over the past few years,” Francis said in an interview with FOX Business. “We will use the money wisely, and we will create more jobs.”

Francis said that if invited, he and Flynt would drive across the country in a hybrid vehicle to present their plans to Congress.

The press release noted that DVD sales and rentals for the adult industry have decreased by 22% in the past year, partially because people are turning more and more to the Internet for adult content.

“People are too depressed to be sexually active,” Flynt said in the press release. “This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex.”

Francis said he and Flynt would also be willing to discuss the possibility of the government buying equity stakes in their companies, as was done with financial firms.

“If the government would like to be a partner with Mr. Flynt and I, we’re certainly amenable to it,” he said.

As unlikely as it sounds, I wouldn’t discount the possibility of the government giving bailout money to the porn industry. After all, politicians and porn stars have a lot in common: their jobs both involve screwing people.

12 January 2009 >> As reported by the Washington Post:

With fuel prices declining, government mandates that automakers build highly fuel-efficient cars will be no more effective than combating obesity by forcing clothing manufacturers to make only small sizes.

Attributed to Bob Lutz
Vice Chairman of Global Product Development
General Motors

2 January 2009 @ 9:25AM >> A fun fact for the new year:

From 2000 to 2007, 93% of all new jobs created in the state of New Jersey were government jobs.

(Source: Wall Street Journal.)

31 December 2008 >> Just days before Barack Obama was elected president, Pepsi unveiled a new logo. According to some, the updated logo bears a striking resemblance to Obama’s campaign logo. Wonkette said it was “what would happen if a can of Tab had sex with Barack Obama.”

To me, the notion that Pepsi would consciously mimic the Obama logo seems like a bit of a stretch. Considering how fickle poll numbers can be, why would a major mass-market brand risk being seen as promoting a particular politician? Nobody in politics remains popular forever.

But when I left work Monday evening, I saw something that made me wonder if I my assumptions were wrong.

You see, my office is in Times Square, where advertisers are revving up for the millions of people who will see tonight’s New Year’s Eve festivities.

And directly across the street from my office, at the base of the building where a crystalline sphere counts down the final seconds of every year, Pepsi placed a sign that looked familiar:

In case your memory wasn’t jogged by the photo above, here’s a hint:

If Pepsi is invoking Obama’s campaign materials deliberately—and I have no reason to believe that they are—then maybe the folks behind it see some business sense in doing so.

Judging from the volume of painted plates and limited-edition coins being hawked on TV ads that gush about Obama’s “kind eyes and warm smile,” the Merchandising of the President-Elect might be the only growth industry left.

Here in NYC, you can’t walk a block in midtown without passing several street vendors pushing Obamawear. But maybe I’m only perceiving this avalanche of advertising and street trinkets because I’m stuck inside the New York bubble.

Could Obama’s campaign imagery help sell sugared water to a entire nation?

I’m skeptical. The United States isn’t Manhattan, and selecting a particular brand of cola isn’t usually where people make political statements.

If the new Pepsi logo was designed to evoke the Obama logo, maybe the Ad Men of Madison Avenue—unable to see outside the New York bubble themselves—simply miscalculated on something that could backfire. Or maybe they launched this redesign fully aware that they were using one of the world’s most recognizable brands as collateral in a big bet on the political fortunes of one person.

Mad Men indeed.

5 December 2008 @ 8:57AM >> On Monday, I referenced the story of a Canadian university that cancelled a cystic fibrosis fundraiser because the disease “has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men.”

Instead of raising money to fight an illness that only affects oppressors, a reader from New Orleans suggests a novel way to bring the races closer together:

There has long been a glaring disparity between blacks and whites in longevity. I think this calls for nothing less than a moratorium on all life-saving medical services for white people. It would also be helpful to remove seatbelts and airbags from their automobiles and police protection from their neighborhoods. Eventually this would lead to equality in longevity, thus contributing to peace and harmony between the races.

26 November 2008 @ 8:52AM >> A nice, succinct e-mail from a fan:

From: nw
To: Evan Coyne Maloney
Date: November 4, 2008 11:20:45 AM EST
Subject: You are a liar therefore a MORON

No body, all subject. I especially like the use of “therefore.”

4 November 2008 >> Although I didn’t vote for him myself, I do know there are a lot of people celebrating the symbolism of America electing its first black president. I’m happy for them. Considering that this country once counted black Americans as only three-fifths of a person, this aspect of the outcome is something about which all Americans can be proud, even if you would have preferred a different result.

Let’s hope this truly does usher in a post-racial America, one in which we move beyond the hatreds of the past and divisive policies like racial preferences. After all, if a black man can become president, do we really need laws that judge people on the color of their skin and not the content of their character?

I wish we knew more about Barack Obama’s worldview. During the campaign, we’ve seen plenty of hints, but the core of his true political philosophy has never been fully illuminated. (And for that, we can thank our selectively-inquisitive media.)

But all of this is a moot point now. Barack Obama will soon be our president. And when he is, we’ll see how he governs, and we can begin to assess his presidency.

I’m sure there will be many times when I will vigorously oppose our future president. But for tonight, my congratulations to Barack Obama and to his supporters.

27 October 2008 @ 8:24AM >> An e-mail that’s making the rounds:

In a local restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08” tie [...]

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need—the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

(Hat tip: Robert Bluey.)

9 September 2008 @ 6:28PM >> An illuminating quote of the day:

Tuition has risen at twice the rate of per capita income and this year it will cost just under $50,000 to attend the average private college. If the cost of milk had risen as fast as the cost of college since 1980, a gallon would be $15.—Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vermont)

When other industries are seen as gouging the consumer, Congress likes to hold showy hearings and investigations. How long until the honchos of higher ed are hauled before some subcomittee or another?

20 August 2008 @ 9:07AM >> I know Senator Joe Lieberman isn’t that popular among Democrats anymore, but this Associated Press characterization is a bit much:

His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent.

13 August 2008 @ 6:51AM >> From Scott Johnson’s “Driving Mr. Bin Laden” post at Power Line comes the Quote of the Day:

On Sunday the Guardian reported that Barack Obama’s Hollywood buddy George Clooney is planning a film that will provide a sympathetic portrayal of Salim Hamdan and Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, Hamdan’s military lawyer. Hamdan was of course Osama bin Laden’s driver. It’s a relief that Hollywood has finally found an American officer connected to the war whom it can lionize.

5 August 2008 @ 8:23AM >> And, no, it’s not from The Onion:

Man gets Windows Vista to work with printer

I guess that’s one of those man-bites-dog stories.

18 July 2008 @ 9:10AM >> With the cult-like hype around all things “green” these days, it seems like everyone is hopping on the bandwagon.

Sensing a marketing opportunity, companies are embracing the new culture of conspicuous planet-saving.

This week, a gift from a relative arrived in which Macy’s placed a postcard-sized note explaining that the package was shipped with “Earth-loving packing material” designed to “protect our environment.” Aside from the small matter of unnecessarily using the Earth’s resources to explain to me how Macy’s is saving the Earth’s resources, there was something rather comedic about the company’s presentation.

The gift arrived in a box over 2 feet tall. Width and length-wise, the box was 19 inches. It was a pretty big box, so when I picked it up, I expected something heavy. I was a bit surprised to discover how light it was, at least until I opened it up.

You see, the self-congratulatorily eco-friendly Macy’s filled this huge box with an item that was only one inch tall, 10 inches wide, and 15 inches deep. This wasn’t exactly a fragile item, either; it was essentially a block of wood. Macy’s could have put a stamp right on the item itself with no packaging and sent it out without much chance of damage.

So, the one inch tall item had 25x as much vertical space as necessary, along with an extra 9 inches of padding in one dimension and an extra 4 inches in another. Several dozen more of the shipped item could have fit in the box comfortably.

But after realizing the extent of the wasted space, I was quite relieved to pull the card out of the box telling me how environmentally friendly it all was.

30 June 2008 >> This is an old quote from a six-time Socialist Party candidate for President who died in 1968, but as the years go by, it looks more and more accurate:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
Norman Thomas

4 June 2008 >> The psychology of Bill Clinton as portrayed in the recent Vanity Fair piece “The Comeback Id” (you know, the article that caused the former president to refer to its author as a “sleazy,” “slimy” “scumbag”), reminded me of how I described my perception of the man in “The Shallowness of Clinton.”

I wrote that piece in the spring of 2002, back when Bill Clinton was still a darling of devoted Democrats and the establishment media.

It’s a bit reassuring that so many of his former blind followers finally see him the way I always have.

But still, one thing bothers me...

Did all these folks really not notice the real Clinton? For eight years? Or did they just not care because he had the “right” political enemies?

Bill Clinton was a pretty good con-man, so maybe I should go a little easy on all you former patsies out there.

You’re a little late to reality, but we’ll welcome you anyway.

24 May 2008 @ 5:02PM >> Today’s Quote of the Day comes from the Richard Vance, a coach at Provo High School in Utah.

Coach Vance’s students were competing in a javelin competition when a newspaper photographer wandered into the area.

A javelin thrown by one of the students went through the photographer’s leg and had to be cut to pieces before he could be taken to the hospital.

The coach’s reaction?

One of the first things that came to my mind was, “Good thing we brought a second javelin.”

27 April 2008 @ 11:49AM >> Senator Barack Obama’s “spiritual advisor” and pastor of 20 years is the gift that keeps on giving... to the Senator’s opponents:

We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag, calling on the name a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem.-Reverend Jeremiah Wright

(Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt.)

22 April 2008 >> Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri seems upset that conspiracy theorists are robbing his terrorist network of the recognition it deserves.

CNN reports:

Al-Zawahiri also denied a conspiracy theory that Israel carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., and he blamed Iran and Shiite Hezbollah for spreading the idea to discredit the Sunni al Qaeda’s achievement.

Hey, Ayman! Don’t forget that the Western left has a stake in promoting the al-Qaeda-didn’t-do-it theory. After all, if they’re forced to acknowledge that the attack was perpetrated by al Qaeda, then they can’t also claim it was an “inside job” orchestrated by the U.S. government.

Al-Zawahiri accused Hezbollah’s al-Manar television of starting the rumor.

“The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it,” he said.

And plenty of Westerners have bought into it, too.

11 April 2008 @ 9:16AM >> In an apparent change of corporate policy, Starbucks is being a little more laissez faire about what it allows to be printed on its customizable Starbucks cards.

After the Wall Street Journal ran a piece on Monday in which Starbucks was accused of repeatedly rejecting the phrase laissez faire—apparently for violating an unspecified part of company policy—the story was covered widely online.

So, as a public service to you the reader, I decided to place my own order for a laissez faire Starbucks card. Perhaps as a result of the negative publicity, Starbucks is now allowing the phrase. My card, shown here, arrived yesterday.

7 April 2008 @ 8:09AM >> For some reason, the term laissez faire is verboten at Starbucks:

Laissez-faire. It’s a policy that made Starbucks vastly successful. But don’t try to put that phrase on a customized Starbucks Card.

The cards are supposed be personalized to reflect customers’ tastes and uniqueness. They are available in a range of colors, often given as gifts and used by regular customers who prefer to prepay for their java.

But when my friend Roger Ream, president of the Fund for American Studies, received a Starbucks gift card for Christmas, he found there was a limit to how personalized a card could be. His card required him to customize it on the company’s Web site. So he went to the site and requested that the phrase “Laissez Faire” be printed on his card. A few days later he was informed that the company couldn’t issue such a card because the wording violated company policy.

[...]

But why should it be considered inappropriate? The phrase itself is an imperative. It’s French for “leave us alone,” more or less. And it comes to us through history as advice offered to Jean Baptiste Colbert, finance minister under the French King Louis XIV in the 17th century. Colbert is best known for his statement: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.” When Colbert asked a group of merchants, “What do you want from us?,” the answer was, “laisser nous faire.” “Laissez-faire” is, then, an old piece of economic advice with an impeccable French heritage.

Maybe Starbucks considers the phrase inappropriate because it’s “overtly political commentary”? Certainly my friend regards it as a firm statement of political philosophy.

And so, at my suggestion, my friend went back to the Web site and asked that his card be issued with the phrase “People Not Profits.” Bingo! Starbucks had no problem with that phrase, and the card arrived in a few days.

I wondered just what the company’s standards were. If “laissez-faire” is unacceptably political, how could the socialist slogan “people not profits” be acceptable?

My assistant and I tried to get the company to explain its policy. We started by trying to purchase a card with the phrase “Laissez Faire,” and were rejected as my friend had been. We then asked a company spokesperson why. He suggested that it might be because “laissez-faire” is a foreign phrase. That seemed possible and a reasonable precaution.

So we tried another foreign phrase – “Si Se Puede,” or “Yes we can.” It’s the United Farm Workers slogan, now adopted by Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. That sailed right through. The senator’s political campaign slogan was acceptable.

Starbucks has always been something of an alternate universe.

---

Update: Yesterday, I placed an order for my own “Laissez Faire” Starbucks card. I guess the publicity led to a change of policy, because today I got an e-mail saying the “order has been completed and will ship within the next business day.” (8 April 2008)

Update 2: My laissez faire Starbucks card has arrived!

4 April 2008 @ 10:20AM >> Apparently, if vodka maker Absolut had its way, Texas, California and much of the southwest United States would be given to Mexico.

At least, that’s the only conclusion one could reach after looking at an ad campaign Absolut is running in Mexico.

The ads, with the bold caption “IN AN ABSOLUT WORLD” show a fictional map of the United States where much of its territory has been taken over by Mexico.

Oddly, Absolut’s distributor, V&S Group, claims in their Corporate Responsibility statement, “We strive to achieve good relations with the world around us.”

Really? In what way does this ad further that goal?

Maybe this is how international borders would be drawn in an Absolut world. But in an Evan world, there will be no more drinking of Absolut vodka.

(Hat tip: Gateway Pundit and AbsolutAds.com.)

24 February 2008 @ 6:08PM >> Today’s Quote of the Day, from of John Hinderaker, over at PowerLine:

Cuban jails still contain hundreds of political prisoners. It’s too bad they aren’t terrorists, instead of just being non-Communists. Then they might get some sympathy.

20 February 2008 >> Commandments from on high:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

[...]

You have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged.Michelle Obama,
wife of Senator Barack Obama

12 February 2008 >> A Clinton-related conspiracy theory:

It isn’t all that hard to believe that a guy who’s alpha [male] enough to risk his entire political career and presidential legacy for a few hummers from a pudgy intern might subconsciously sabotage his wife’s ascent to power, is it?

Radley Balko, from “Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose?â€?

6 February 2008 >> If Senator Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination and goes on to lose the general election, there will undoubtedly be those who argue that his loss is a sign of racism among American voters.

So, after a primary fight in which Senator Hillary Clinton’s husband repeatedly and clumsily steered attention to Obama’s race, if Democrats subsequently reject Obama, is that a sign of racism among Democrats?

The race among Democrats is still very close, and Obama racked up some important wins last night. But it seems that Obama tends to do better in polls than he has in actual elections. He could have pulled into a commanding lead yesterday, but instead he finds himself nearly tied with Hillary in the delegate count.

Late polls had him winning last month’s New Hampshire primary and yesterday’s California contest by what, 8-13 points? Then he loses, and not by razor-thin margins. Are some Democrats lying to pollsters about their choice? And if so, why would that be?

Throughout the night, reporters on both CNN and Fox News cited exit polling data showing that Obama does much better among white male voters than he does among women, Asians or Hispanics, who support Hillary overwhelmingly.

If Hillary is nominated, it may be that identity politics prevented a black man from moving into the White House.

Who would have guessed that the one group that couldn’t be blamed for such a scenario would be white male Republicans?

20 January 2008 @ 12:13PM >> Today’s quote of the day comes courtesy of the pastor at Senator Barack Obama’s church:

Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton because her husband was good to us. That’s not true. He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Trinity United Church of Christ

Now, in the interest of fairness, I should balance that critique of America’s First Black President with a few words in support of his wife:

2 January 2008 @ 8:57AM >> Two of my favorite creative minds in music—Thom Yorke and David Byrne—recently sat down to discuss the future of the music business. Last October, Yorke’s band Radiohead released its latest album, In Rainbows. But rather than releasing it through a traditional music label, Radiohead let fans download the music directly from its website. And rather than charging a fixed amount for the album, users were given the option of naming their own price—down to and including zero.

The sinking fortunes of the music industry establishment may have been instigated by technological change, but they are worsened by the industry’s unwillingness to let consumers buy music that isn’t locked to specific formats or media. It’s like peering into the future of the movie industry.

In both cases, you have industries whose fortunes have been protected for decades by the commingling of content and medium. Record albums weren’t just vinyl, they were vinyl with embedded music: the music couldn’t exist without the physical medium. As tapes replaced records and CDs replaced tapes, higher fidelity and increased convenience of each new format gave consumers a reason to re-purchase content that they already paid for in lesser formats. But when songs are stored as data and can be moved around like any other computer file, consumers will only ever need to buy one copy. As long as open formats are used, people will be able to play their music on any device devised in the future. There goes the upgrade gravy train.

Like the music industry, the film industry is rightfully concerned with piracy, because once music and movies aren’t tied to a physical medium, they can be copied endlessly. But consumers don’t care if this inconveniences the industry; people have shown that they want the convenience of digital content, and they are willing to pay for it. So the more that record companies lock down digital content in order to fight piracy, the less incentive legitimate customers have to buy the product in the first place. What good is the “music as a file” model if it is artificially burdened with the same limitations as physical media?

The movie business hasn’t been hurt by the shift away from physical media yet. But that’s only because technology hasn’t advanced far enough. It takes a lot more data to store a high-definition movie than an album’s worth of high-fidelity music. When a typical consumer’s Internet connection becomes fast enough to download high-definition full-length movies in a matter of minutes, the home market for movies will be subject to same technological dynamics affecting the music business today. And that future is only years away.

But that isn’t the film industry’s biggest problem right now. After all, people won’t pirate content that they don’t want to watch in the first place.

The problem with the film business is that too many insiders forgot that the rest of America doesn’t necessarily share the same view of the world as their friends in Hollywood. Instead, Hollywood has become its own echo chamber, which is why distributors keep pushing out flop after flop of military-bashing films. In Hollywood and at film festivals, such fare is highly praised. But in theaters around the country, the audience for films like Redacted is comprised mostly of empty seats. It’s almost as if Hollywood is producing films only for itself.

My experience in trying to get distribution for Indoctrinate U only confirms this. People in the film business just don’t take seriously the possibility that there’s a market for documentaries outside Hollywood’s typical Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview. I don’t know to what extent that’s out of political bias or the result of a simple Catch-22: they don’t see a market for anything different, but that’s because they’ve never tried distributing anything different.

That leaves us in the position of having to self-distribute Indoctrinate U. And because the Internet will allow us to put the film in people’s hands in the fastest, most cost-effective way possible, we’ll be able to conduct a little experiment of our own. Indoctrinate U will not be available on DVD right away. Instead, we’re going to focus our efforts on seeing whether the Internet can be used to route around the gatekeepers in Hollywood—without the shackles of physical media. (Although unlike Radiohead, I’m afraid, we’re not in a position to give our goods away for free.)

Who knows? Maybe the market can be proven without Hollywood’s help. I think it can. And once the market is proven, we’ll finally know who in the film business wants to serve customer desires instead of the dogma of Hollywood groupthink.

16 December 2007 @ 10:36AM >> If Muslims like Hassan Askari and Mansoor Ijaz got more attention from the media—and more support from their fellow believers around the world—we would have much less reason to worry about the future of humanity.