I lifted a bunch of quotes from several FoxNews/AP stories:

al-Zawahiri

Al Qaeda now views "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."

"It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahiri said. "We will attack everywhere."

"My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit ... and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies ... make yourselves martyrs."

"The shells and rockets ripping apart Muslim bodies in Gaza and Lebanon are not only Israeli (weapons), but are supplied by all the countries of the crusader coalition. Therefore, every participant in the crime will pay the price."

"We cannot just watch these shells as they burn our brothers in Gaza and Lebanon and stand by idly, humiliated."

Muslims everywhere must rise up to attack "crusaders and Zionists" and support jihad (holy war) "until American troops are chased from Afghanistan and Iraq, paralyzed and impotent ... having paid the price for aggression against Muslims and support for Israel."

Ahmadinejad

Israel and its supporters "should know that they cannot end the business that they have begun."

"The occupying regime of Palestine has actually pushed the button of its own destruction by launching a new round of invasion and barbaric onslaught on Lebanon."

Hugo Chavez meets Ahmadinejad

Chavez pledged that his country would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition."

Ahmadinejad: "I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chavez.  We think Iran and Venezuela should share all experiences of each other, stay by each other and they have to be supporters of each other."

Chavez: it meant Venezuela could eventually export guns and ammunition to Bolivia and other allies once it opens a factory to make Russian-developed Kalashnikov rifles under license.

...accused the United States of "threatening" to stop supplying replacement parts for the weapons to leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales' government. If the U.S. follows through, "we could supply Bolivia... and other friendly countries that also require a minimal level of defense."

"Maybe in the future we'll become an [arms] exporting country."

Ahmadinejad: "We do not have any limitation in cooperation.  Iran and Venezuela are next to each other and supporters of each other. Chavez is a source of a progressive and revolutionary current in South America and his stance in restricting imperialism is tangible."

Hugo Chavez Receives Medal from Iran

"The medal was awarded as an expression of gratitude for Chavez's support for Iran's stance on the international scene, especially its opposition to a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency."

These words speak for themselves, though I suppose it behooves me to offer some commentary.

1. Hugo Chavez has apparently noticed there's a vacancy in the axis of evil.

2. Chavez and Ahmadinejad clearly can't cooperate -- the former is a secular leader while the latter is an Islamic radical, just like Sadaam and Al-Qaeda.

3. Perhaps the Democrats are right; if we just pull our troops out of Iraq, click our heels together and repeat "there's no place like home" over and over again, this will all go away.

A couple Washington lawyers discuss Israel's right to fight in the Houston Chronicle:

Unfortunately, heavy civilian casualties are the inherent and inevitable result of the type of asymmetric warfare deliberately waged by Hezbollah and similar groups. They intentionally operate from civilian areas, both to protect their military capabilities from attack and to increase civilian deaths, which can then be trumpeted for propaganda purposes. But the presence of a large civilian population does not immunize Hezbollah or Hamas forces from attack. Responsibility for any additional civilian casualties must be attributed to those groups, not to Israel. The adoption of any other rule would encourage the illegal behavior of such "unlawful" combatants, which would result in more danger to civilians in the future.

Israel may legally seek victory in Lebanon, even if it requires a combination of ground and air operations, takes weeks to accomplish and results in civilian casualties. It is under no obligation to agree to an early cease-fire unless the terms of that agreement would vindicate its legitimate war aims: the security of its population from attack.

The legal rights Israel is exercising to defend itself are the very same legal rights on which the United States must rely in the war on terrorism. Attempts to revise the traditional laws of war — moving toward a law-enforcement paradigm — so that law-abiding states cannot effectively protect their populations from attack or even defend their territory from armed incursion are not humanitarian advances. They simply make the world safer for those who reject any notion of law in war.

Therefore I urge Israel not to exercise restraint, but to exorcize Hezbollah.

Marc Gunther discusses Wal-Mart's new penchant for environmental friendliness in Fortune Magazine.  There's some goofiness to be sure, starting with a visit by the High Priest of Environmental Doom, Al Gore.

Looking at the big picture, there seems to be a trend that business is expected to do all kinds of "good" for society, above and beyond the traditional good of providing products and services at low prices to people who want them.  I disagree for two reasons:

1. There is disagreement on what is good (example: Planned Parenthood -- discuss amongst yourselves).  Rather than charge me a higher price to let a corporate board (and the activists who pressure them) decide what is worthy of charitable funding, lower the price and let me decide.

2. The effect of business being responsible for charity is the ejection of religious influence from the same.  For example, not long ago, Target Corporation was pressured into disallowing the Salvation Army from placing donation kettles in front of their stores.   Businesses, understandably, want to sell their products to lefties, conservatives, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and tree-huggers alike.  But while tree-hugging is generally tolerated by the non-tree-huggers, traditional religion is much more controversial.  The best business strategy, then, is to remove anything smacking of God from their charitable activity.  (The same thing, of course, happens when government "does good".)

Anyhow, here's a fun example of loopy priorities from the article:

A study found that Wal-Mart's average spending on health benefits for its employees was 30% less than the average of its retail peers. The company's environmental record was nothing to boast about either: It had paid millions of dollars to state and federal regulators for violating air- and water-pollution laws.

Ok, we can all agree that polluting the air and water is, well, bad.  But spending less on health care is a good thing.  In fact, companies have been wracking themselves trying to figure out how to control health care costs over the last several years.  Furthermore, as with education, increased spending on health care doesn't necessarily make people more healthy (try it on an individual basis).  Besides, Wal-Mart could increase health care spending in a heartbeat -- simply purchase a Cadillac plan for their employees, require that they all participate, and pay them less.  It's amazing how the removal of personal choice can appease the do-gooder activists.

Meanwhile, here are some examples of non-loopy priorities:

On Kid Connection, its private-label line of toys, for instance, Wal-Mart found that by eliminating excessive packaging, it could save $2.4 million a year in shipping costs, 3,800 trees, and one million barrels of oil.

On its fleet of 7,200 trucks Wal-Mart determined it could save $26 million a year in fuel costs merely by installing auxiliary power units that enable the drivers to keep their cabs warm or cool during mandatory ten-hour breaks from the road. Before that, they'd let the truck engine idle all night, wasting fuel.

Yet another example: Wal-Mart installed machines called sandwich balers in its stores to recycle and sell plastic that it used to throw away. Companywide, the balers have added $28 million to the bottom line.

These are classic examples of how capitalism, or "corporate greed" is often good for the environment.  As it turns out, greed causes companies to cut waste because it makes them more money.  And cutting waste typically cuts pollution.

On the other hand, the worst thing for the environment is a centrally planned economy.  Compare East Germany vs. West Germany before reunification.

According to the Voice of America:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he will sign a billion-dollar arms deal in Moscow Thursday to acquire jet fighters and produce combat rifles in his homeland.

Mr. Chavez spoke Wednesday in Russia, just hours after Moscow dismissed objections to the deal from the United States.

And if that isn't bad enough, the Malaysian Star reports:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday called for Venezuela, Russia and other major oil exporters to work toward maintaining "fair'' oil prices. 

Chavez, whose government has been a longtime price hawk among the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, said that he would discuss oil prices when he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday. 

"We will surely talk about this because all of us - Russia, Venezuela and OPEC - are interested in maintaining oil prices, fair oil prices, and in maintaining production at an appropriate level to assure the supply of oil to the world,'' Chavez said in comments broadcast by Venezuela's state TV channel from Moscow. 

Chavez suggested at an OPEC meeting in Venezuela last month that the oil cartel trim production and establish a minimum price of US$50 (euro40) a barrel.  

He added that an appropriate upper-end for prices would be "infinity.''

The "fair" rhetoric sounds so noble when Democrats use it to justify the minimum wage.  It's nice of Hugo Chavez to illustrate its vapidity.

Meanwhile, can we please connect... the... dots?  We refuse to drill our own oil, and so we put our fate in the hands of these jokers.  Putin has already shown a willingness to shut off natural gas to Ukraine.  He probably won't be so blunt with us -- they'll turn the screws slowly.

According to the Washington Times, the security situation in Baghdad has deteriorated such that the US military is going to send in troops to bolster the Iraqi forces.

Mr. Bush said that improved military conditions outside Baghdad will make it possible to move U.S. military police and other forces to the capital, where an estimated 100 people a day are being killed. The crimes, blamed largely on sectarian death squads, usually go unsolved.

And here's the understatement:

Mr. al-Maliki's plans for curfews and other measures have had no lasting effect.

As I've noted before, the other measures include a ban preventing people from carrying guns when they leave their homes.  Hello!  This is one of the world's most dangerous places, and innocent, law-abiding Iraqi citizens are being told they can't defend themselves.  What's worse, the terrorists who hunt them are being told their targets can't defend themselves.  Am I the only one who thinks this is insanity?

Want to solve the security situation in Baghdad?  Spend a little money and provide every person a revolver and ammunition.  Make it harder for the death squads, not easier.

...that God gave the communist regime of Cuba.

According to the Washington Times:

Cuba is drilling for oil 60 miles off the coast of Florida with help from China, Canada and Spain even as Congress struggles to end years of deadlock over drilling for what could be a treasure trove of offshore oil and gas.

Heaven help us.

According to the Voice of America, world trade talks collapsed over farm subsidies.  Though Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile clung to a pro-life position:

"No, it is not the death blow of Doha. The round is not dead," he said. "The round is put in a state of suspension until we can find the ingredients that will carry it forward and deliver on the mandate of Doha.

The blame was spread liberally:

The European Union blamed the failure on the United States, saying it showed little willingness to compromise. EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the United States had been unwilling to reduce government subsidies paid to American farmers.
But Washington said the EU and other WTO members had not done enough to lower farm tariff barriers. U.S. officials also blamed Brazil and India for refusing to cut barriers on industrial imports.

Which reminds one of a certain song by the J Geils Band:

You love her
But she loves him
And he loves somebody else
You just can't win

I can understand why various countries would want to protect their domestic farming industry.  After all, from the standpoint of national security, we wouldn't want to have to rely upon, say, Venezuela, the Middle East or Russia for our food like we do with, well, oil.

Ok, maybe that's a bad analogy.  We're addicted to oil, you see.  Though come to think of it, we're addicted to food too.

It's the environment!  Pricking a hole in the frozen moonscape known as ANWR is clearly an environmental disaster compared to plowing under thousands of acres of pristine Iowa prairieland.  No, that's not it.

Oil is not sustainable.  Bingo.  Since to our knowledge there is a limited supply, then we shouldn't try to find any more.  Inescapable logic!  And we can apply the same logic to iron and copper and aluminum and bauxite and limestone and granite and...

Only one explanation remains, then.  Farmers are one of the two politically protected professions (teachers being the other).  We idealize them; we idolize them, and we hold the first presidential primary in Iowa.

Ed Feulner at the Heritage Foundation* makes a libertarian/ federalist case against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research:

At a recent panel at The Heritage Foundation, Dr. Kelly Hollowell, a molecular and cellular pharmacologist, noted that despite widespread media hype over embryonic stem-cell research, it hasn’t been attracting significant private investment.

Rep. David Weldon, a Republican from Florida and a medical doctor, was on the same Heritage panel. He pointed out that science is rapidly moving away from an emphasis on embryonic stem cells and toward the study of adult stem cells. “In a few years, the embryonic people are probably going to give up,” Weldon said, “because they’re just not getting good research results.” On the other hand, “the adult stem cell work and, in particular, the cord blood work is just phenomenal.”

So hey -- it's evil and unprofitable.  No wonder embryonic research got overwhelming support in Congress.

And then there's this perverse incentive:

Rep. Weldon said that some researchers have a selfish motive for focusing on embryonic stem cells. “If you developed a highly successful intervention for treating sickle cell anemia with cord blood, that is not really a patentable intervention under our current laws,” Weldon explained. But, he noted, if someone could develop the same treatment with embryonic stem cells, that person would be a millionaire.

I believe this is Ed commenting here:

If individuals, companies, universities or even state governments want to fund such research, there is nothing stopping them. California plans to spend some $3 billion on stem-cell research, including embryonic stem-cell research. In the spirit of federalism, other states may follow suit, if that’s what their voters want.

Child: Mom, California is doing it!
Mother: If California jumped of a cliff, would you do it too?
Q.E.D.

* Full disclosure: I maintain a membership with the Heritage Foundation.  And I should have disclosed this earlier -- ditto with the National Rifle Association.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute offers up an interesting book excerpt by Timothy Carney detailing egregious, anti-competitive government regulation:

Pennsylvania state law ... keeps prices high for hair-braiding. Hair braiders must take a 1,250 hour training course in "cosmetology" before they can legally braid hair in Philadelphia or anywhere else in the state. As a point of comparison, federal law requires pilots to log 40 hours of flight time before getting a license.

While the reason for the braiding regulation is hard to imagine, the harmful effects are clear. Hair braiding could be the ideal job for a black woman—either a mother re-entering the work force, or someone looking for a second job. In cities where the practice is fairly unregulated, such as Washington, D.C., the field provides exactly this opportunity. In Philly, the state has made it much harder to pursue this line of work. Of course, keeping the number of hair braiders low drives up the price for consumers—which is good news only for those who had the time and the resources to get their license. Once again, government has created a cartel, not only in Pennsylvania, but also in seventeen other states that require hair braiders to obtain training and licenses.

Another example:

In Louisiana, for example, florists can run afoul of the law if they practice floristry without a license. The state requires any would-be florist to pass a licensing exam. Who are the judges? They are currently practicing florists. The result: a majority of applicants fail. In short, the state has given current florists the power to keep potential competition out of the market. Only with the help of big government could the existing businesses maintain such an oligopoly. Such pro-incumbent-business regulations abound.

Of all harmful government activities, onerous regulation is the easiest to perpetrate, because legislatures effectively spend other people's money without the bother of collecting taxes to do it.

William Tucker writes an informative piece in the WSJ Opinion Journal:

In the first place, the whole idea that there is such a thing as "nuclear waste" is a bit of a misconception. More than 98% of the material in a spent nuclear fuel rod is being recycled in other parts of the world. About 97% of spent fuel is uranium: 2% is fissionable U-235 isotope, the fuel that powers the reactor and the other 95% is good old U-238, the same non-fissionable isotope that comes out of the ground. It can't be used for bombs. Sure, it has a half-life of four billion years (that's why environmentalists think they have to sit and watch it for a million years) but this is the same stuff that's in granite.

No, the isotope everybody really worries about is plutonium-239, which is formed when small amounts of U-238 absorb neutrons during the three-year cycle. It makes up 1% of spent fuel. Separating it and putting it back in a reactor as "mixed oxide fuel" (uranium plus plutonium) is no problem.

Unfortunately, back in 1976, Jimmy Carter decided that if we extracted the plutonium, somebody might run off with it and make a bomb. Therefore he cancelled fuel recycling. That created the problem of "nuclear waste." France recycles all its fuel rods and has never had any plutonium stolen. As for the remaining 2% of the fuel rod--the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission byproducts--it is all stored in a single room in Le Havre.

Recommended reading.

John Hinderaker at Power Line writes the following:

Expanding federal funding to include research on "leftover" embryos is not an issue of great import; it is a political trap laid by the President's enemies. I don't think it makes any sense to fall into it. And for this minor issue to be the occasion for the President's first veto strikes me as worse than odd.

Here's the problem -- whatever you fund, you eventually get more of.

Fiscal conservatives understand this in other arenas.  For example, if you pay people not to work by giving them lavish unemployment or welfare benefits, you get more people not working (see Europe).  If you subsidize ethanol, you get more corn farming (or strip-mining for corn, as I like to call it).  Likewise, if you fund research on "leftover" embryos, you get more "leftover" embryos.

This begs the question, so what?  The only reasonable explanation is that President Bush really believes a fertilized human embryo is a distinct human life; he fears someday he will meet his Maker, and he won't be able to look Him in the eye and say "it's not an issue of great import; it was a political trap laid by my enemies, and I didn't think it made any sense to fall into it."

The corollary is President Bush believes he won't run into George Mason or James Madison in the afterlife; otherwise he wouldn't have signed McCain-Feingold into law.

The National Rifle Association notes the US Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to protect the gun rights of citizens during emergencies.

After Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Superintendent issued orders to confiscate firearms from all citizens, allegedly under a state emergency powers law. With that one order, he stripped the one means of self-protection innocent citizens had during a time of widespread civil disorder. This legislation guarantees that will never happen again.

In passing this legislation, the United States Senate acted to protect the self-defense rights of citizens when those rights are most vital. There was no 9-1-1 or police to rely on while looters and rapists and thugs ran rampant and honest citizens were left to their own devices to protect themselves, their families and their neighbors. I want to thank Senator Vitter for introducing this amendment and all the Senators who supported it.

Words can't express the abject stupidity of what the NO Police Superintendent did after Katrina.  But that's an example of the gun control mentality one must possess to become a major city police chief.

A similar bill has been introduced to the House.

Sadly, according to the Washington Post, they're doing the same thing in Baghdad.  Expect violence against civilians to increase there.

According to this FoxNews Article, Congress has approved funding of embryonic stem-cell research.  Notable quotes follow.

by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md:

"To me and millions of other Americans, deliberately taking the lives of innocent human embryos is an unacceptable trade-off. A number of scientists have now proven what I have argued for the past five years. It is scientifically unnecessary to destroy human embryos to obtain pluripotent stem cells."

by a Senator from New York:

"There has been an upsurge of demand," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Support for the legislation "has crossed every line we could imagine, certainly partisan lines, ethnic, racial, geographic lines."

Leave it to Hillary to view an issue which has nothing to do with race, through racial lenses.  And geographic lines?  Did anyone really expect that West-New-York-Americans would see the issue differently from East-New-York-Americans?  This woman is profound.

Polls show as much as 70 percent public support for embryonic stem cell research.

Loose Gravel rule #1: be suspect of any poll reaching 70% in one direction.

Rule #2: be as suspect of the generic word "polls" as you would of the phrase "critics charge."

Ramesh Ponnuru discusses the polls in the National Review:

A pro-funding organization commissioned a poll by Democrat Peter Hart that got a lot of attention. It purported to show that Americans strongly supported funding, and that the more informed voters were, the more likely they were to support it. But the poll was, at best, extremely sloppy. It found that voters were more likely to support the funding when they were “informed” that the research “offers the best hope we have today for curing such diseases as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, which today cause pain and suffering to more than 100 million Americans.” They were also “informed” that “highly respected” groups favor the research, including “the National Institutes of Health.” The “highly respected” label stacks the deck, and in truth the NIH — a division of the Bush administration — does not support liberalized funding. The poll also counted voters as supporting funding the research when they may have merely supported allowing it. Unbiased polls find that most people do not know much about the issue and are open to appeals from both sides. Gallup found that 54 percent of the public favored the research, but that poll didn’t ask about taxpayer funding.

It is sad the debate is not whether such a vile practice as experimenting with human embryos should be legal, but whether it should be taxpayer-funded.  Re: funding, here's a compromise -- don't force conscientious taxpayers to fund a practice abhorrent to them.  If this modern version of snake oil really will cure everything from spinal injuries to baldness, then let the Heinzes, the Kennedys, George Soros and Warren Buffet fund it

As reported in the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Colorado state legislature, which is Democrat-controlled, passed a really tough illegal immigration bill, which Governor Owens signed into law.  The Gazette quotes a local pollster:

Owens and other Republicans put politics aside and accepted the policy, but in doing that, they handed Democrats a win.  Now immigration is off the ballot, and Democrats are now in a position to argue that they have orchestrated the nation's toughest immigration enforcement legislation.  It would be hard to think of a worse result for Republicans.

Interesting analysis.  As far as I'm concerned, I hope the Democratic Party at all levels trounces the Republican Party by enacting Republican policies.  If I could trust them to do so on a consistent basis and not just prior to an election, I'd vote for them myself.

It's Sunday.  For fun and profit, let's quote the Bible:

Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon.  Nothing shall be left, says the LORD.  And some of your own sons, who shall be born to you, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."  Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, "The word of the LORD that you have spoken is good."  For he thought, "Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?"

(2 Kings 20:16-19 ESV)