could write this opinion piece and keep his job. Fortunately Jason Whitlock is African American because he makes a very interesting argument.

It’s already starting to happen. A little-publicized fact is that the Colts and the Patriots — the league’s model franchises — are two of the whitest teams in the NFL. If you count rookie receiver Anthony Gonzalez, the Colts opened the season with an NFL-high 24 white players on their 53-man roster. Toss in linebacker Naivote Taulawakeiaho “Freddie” Keiaho and 47 percent of Tony Dungy’s defending Super Bowl-champion roster is non-African-American. Bill Belichick’s Patriots are nearly as white, boasting a 23-man non-African-American roster, counting linebacker Tiaina “Junior” Seau and backup quarterback Matt Gutierrez.

Unfortunately I think Jason misses the underlying argument. I’m willing to bet really good money that its not that the Patriots and the Colts have more white players but rather that they have more players that were raised by two parents instead of one. In this way, race serves as a rough measure for how many parents raised a child.

Is the only libertarian allowed to give reports in the MSM. Here he takes a look at global warming. I didn’t realize that the IPCC has non-scientists. Although it makes given how pro global warming it is.

Worst idea ever? Seriously concerned climatologists allying themselves with environmentalists.

NYPost has a story about how current surveillance laws hindered out intelligence agency’s ability to listen on Al Qaeda causing them to miss an opportunity to rescue a capture soldier.

U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.

Thank god my rights to talk to a suspected non-citizen terrorist in a different country are secure. Who cares about acquiring the intelligence needed to bring back a solider when my right to talk to non-citizens outside the country is in peril?

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the NYtimes to make this a front page story. They were the turncoats that made public this program while we were at war. See they betrayed the country because they care about it so much. Makes sense when you think about it. Inform our enemy of our actions to make our country better.

Given some of my readers absolute reluctance to give any kind of summary judgment, boose asks a great question:

on the whole, is killing innocent people bad?

I can already hear Dan’s response:

(+) Innocent people take up resources that can harm the planet.

(-) Innocent people really have done nothing to justify being killed.

(+) I don’t like people.

Or Darwin’s response:

The question of whether its bad to kill innocent people is unsatisfactory. Therefore I’m not going to answer other than to say I’m not an expert in the empirical effects of killing innocent people.

Jamie’s response:

Boose you are a simple minded, bigot and a racist.

And how can i forget Bettina? Her response:

Isn’t asking this question again redundant? Steve was clearly proven wrong about this question and he needs to post about the things I find interesting.

By the way my response is yes. On the whole, killing innocent people is bad.

On the whole, is smoking bad?

Reflecting the MSM bias, most news organization ignored the bulk of a general’s speech strongly denouncing media coverage of the war and focused only on the parts that criticizes the way the war is being currently ran. Captain’s quarters has more details.

Given that, it seems highly ironic that the journalists covering the story attempted to cover up the acidic, biting, and mostly accurate criticisms of their own performance in this war while giving front-page treatment to Sanchez’ criticisms of the political structure at the same time. If Sanchez has such credibility and standing to bring this kind of criticism to bear on Washington, why didn’t the Post and other news agencies give the same level of exposure to his media criticisms as well? He basically accuses them of cynically selling out the soldiers to defeat American efforts to win the war, and made sure that those accusations came first before his assessment of the political failures, but you’d never know that from the Post.

The Post then goes on to obfuscate a key part of the second half of Sanchez’ speech. While he criticizes the Bush administration in sharp terms, Sanchez blames the Democrats in equal measure. He calls out partisans on all sides for exploiting the war for their own political benefit rather than the good of the nation, and blames the lack of range for strategic options on the corrosive debate that has hamstrung the range of choices.

Here is a story about yet another foolish citizen defending his property with a gun. Really it would of been safer to have cowered in a closest praying for the state’s experts to show up. He puts himself and others in danger when he takes care of business on his own.

This out of control cowboy says this:

When you hear a pump shotgun click, it makes everyone think twice.

Thats the kind of attitude is how people get hurt. Especially the poor innocent ones trespassing on your property and stealing your stuff.

According to a post on Wired.com:

Leading House Democrats introduced the so-called RESTORE Act (.pdf) Tuesday that allows the nation’s spies to maintain permanent eavesdropping stations inside United States switching centers. Telecom and internet experts interviewed by Wired News say the bill will give the NSA legal access to a torrent of foreign phone calls and internet traffic that travels through American soil on its way someplace else.

I’m confused. Where is the extensive media coverage about how democrats are violating our constitutional rights?

This post does an excellent job of analyzing and breaking down the ideological diversity problem in academy.

I would of paid good money to see this debate in which the statement ‘We should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of Western values’ was argued. While some readers on this blog find merely discussing this kind of thing distasteful its nice to know what there are some willing to have this kind of debate.

I thought this was an excellent counter argument:

‘Our superiority need not be asserted violently.’ He reiterated a point made by David Aaronovitch about the crisis of Abu Ghraib. Ultimately the discovery that America had committed torture reaffirmed liberal values. ‘Lynndie England was found guilty,’ Murray said, ‘in the West. By the West. For the West.’

I very sympathetic to this position:

The winning majority howled with pleasure when Ibn Warraq summed up the debate: ‘I don’t want to live in a society where I get stoned for committing adultery. I want to live in a society where I get stoned. And then commit adultery.’

At the end the audience gets to vote and Western Value came out on top. Apparently the debate audience is more classically liberal than the liberals that read my blog.