Economics For Kidz

Since I’m busy working on a couple other projects, I thought I’d keep the blog rolling along by posting something from my book, “Because That’s The Way God Decided to Do It! – A conservative father fields confusing questions from his confused kids about a confusing world”. It’s available at Amazon.

This is sliced from a chapter entitled “Why do we need money?” (you can read a small sample from each chapter here). Okay, shameless plug over. Let’s get on with it…

All of my kids now have a piggy bank, and are showing a more than casual interest in money. Recently, I decided to try and teach them about economics in today’s age of big, intrusive government, so I wrote a glossary of terms with definitions that kids can hopefully understand.

Asset: Anything you own that is paid for. Your skateboard, Playstation II, television, etc.

Liability: Legal fees your parents owe, perhaps because your friend fell off the skateboard in your living room, onto a joystick from your Playstation, and in painful reaction, thrusted backwards and put his head through your TV screen.

Tax: Money taken from you by the government, usually “for the children.” Let’s say you helped your neighbor carry in her groceries, and she gave you $2. The tax is the dollar that the government took. Chances are that, if this makes you angry, you’ll be called greedy, get frustrated and stop helping your neighbor carry in her groceries. The government will then borrow against taxes it hopes to collect from your future grocery-carrying jobs – which you have no intention of taking – so they can pay $500 per bag to your neighbor’s new federal grocery carrier.

Unemployment: After your neighbor’s taxes were raised to hire the new federal grocery carrier, she couldn’t afford much food anymore, so there was nothing to carry. The federal grocery carrier was laid off after the Department of Utilizing Money Badly (DUMB) was shut down, you’re not working, and Bart, the bag-boy at Carl’s Grocery, loses his job because Carl can’t afford to pay him due to the fact that they’re not selling groceries to your neighbor. The three of you are unemployed, but the government hopes you’ll all feel good about it because, after all, the taxes were “for the children.”

Capital gains tax: If you bought a bicycle for $50, and sold it to your friend Timmy for $60, the government takes $4 of the $10 you made, then gives the IRS $1 of that $4 so they can pay people to figure out how to get your remaining $6. Many of the more cunning find ways around these taxes, treating them as you should drugs, alcohol or invitations to jammy parties at the Neverland Ranch – with avoidance.

Zero-sum game: Theory that claims any gains made by one is exactly balanced by losses to the other. Imagine that you’re playing baseball and the score is 4-4. Your team scores a run, so the other team loses a run, making the score 5-3. If you score another run, the score would be 6-2. The good news for the team with two is that by applying “zero-sum game,” even though they’re down by four, they’ll only have to score two runs to tie the game. You’ll find, as you go through life, that those who embrace the zero-sum game theory are usually the ones who are behind.

Supply-Side Economics: If you rake somebody’s leaves, and they give you $8 for your piggy bank, the government may end up with $4. “Supply Side” says that if the government only took $2 of it, then more of your friends would want to rake leaves, each giving the government $2, thereby increasing the amount the government collects. Less per kid but more kids raking. This is about the point where some Democrat will propose federal regulation of rakes.

Net worth: All of your toys minus the toys that the bank doesn’t own, or that the government can’t take away if your parents don’t pay their taxes. “Net worth” is often referred to as “zilch”, “nada” or “zip.”

Aggregate demand: You ask your mother for a slice of cheese, your brother asks for a cookie, and your sister asks for a glass of milk. Your demand is only the cheese, but the “aggregate demand” on your mother is all three. By the way, all three of you may end up getting Ramen noodles (see “Tax”).

Savings incentive: Something that makes you want to save your money. That incentive used to be more money, but now it’s usually a toaster, cooler, or a cheap knockoff of the “George Foreman Grillin’ Machine.”

Laffer Curve: Chart showing the highest amount of your babysitting money that can be taken from you without making you think you’re wasting your time babysitting. Draw a graph with an up-and-down line inside of a curve that looks sort of like half of Anna Nicole Smith laying on her back. This graph clearly concludes that Art Laffer had latent Freudian issues.

In a future book, we may talk about what “Freudian” means, and discuss his slip as well.

—–

Note: Sunday’s New York Times is running the following poll: Would you date a Republican? So, in fairness, I thought it only right to ask the opposite: Would you date a Democrat? Go to the poll and choose one of the seven possible responses. It’s that easy.

If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here

The Final Front Tear: Fake Boobs Won't Fly In Space

First Hooters Airlines goes out of business and now this?

Virgin Galactic, a private firm that will soon offer space tourism for customers who can afford it, said that women with breast implants won’t be able to go. The implants, due to pressure changes associated with space flight, could cause the faux jigglies to expand either tear or blow up.

Of the 157 people who have paid Virgin Galactic $200,000 for a brief space flight in 2008, those with breast implants may find themselves flat out of luck.

Company spokesman Will Whitehorn told The Sun safety concerns have come to light for those who want to be launched in groups of eight to an altitude of more than 60 miles for 7 minutes of weightlessness.

“We’ve discovered there may well be issues with breast augmentation,” he said. “We’re not sure whether they could stand the trip — they could well explode.”

In two words: Sorry, Demi.

When will the space flights take place? Here’s a little info from Virgin Galactic:

The first flights are planned to begin in 2008. We are now starting to take reservations and deposit commitments for the first year of operations. The ticket price has been set at US$200,000 and the minimum, fully refundable deposit to secure your spaceship seat is US$20,000.

You can fill out your own astronaut application form here.

These trips are getting a little more affordable, though. In 2002 Lance Bass of ‘NSinc was trying to pay the Russian government $20 million for a flight on a Soyuz spacecract.

The trip was delayed due to paperwork snags between the two countries caused by a lack of computer compatibility. The reason for the incompatibility was clear– Americans use windows-based operating systems, and the Russians didn’t have any computers.

Then the trip was canceled. It turns out the “paper” in “paperwork” was the green kind, because Bass couldn’t afford the $20 million. That last CD must not have sold as well as he’d hoped.

Now, however, these trips are much more affordable to those who aren’t super-wealthy, but still have a couple hundred grand sitting around. For some women, the trick will be to find somebody who has that amount of money who didn’t spend it on a boob job.

I guess that’s a good rule. No need for added sexual tension up there. They didn’t want their first public flight to take off as “Virgin Galactic” and return as simply “Galactic”.

—–

On a completely separate subject…Would you date a Democrat?

Sunday’s New York Times will run the following poll: “Would you date a Republican?” So, I thought it only fair to take the opposite poll, “Would you date a Democrat?” There are seven possible answers. Take the **poll here.

(**margin of error of plus or minus four liberals)

—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.

The Final Front Tear: Fake Boobs Won’t Fly In Space

First Hooters Airlines goes out of business and now this?

Virgin Galactic, a private firm that will soon offer space tourism for customers who can afford it, said that women with breast implants won’t be able to go. The implants, due to pressure changes associated with space flight, could cause the faux jigglies to expand either tear or blow up.

Of the 157 people who have paid Virgin Galactic $200,000 for a brief space flight in 2008, those with breast implants may find themselves flat out of luck.

Company spokesman Will Whitehorn told The Sun safety concerns have come to light for those who want to be launched in groups of eight to an altitude of more than 60 miles for 7 minutes of weightlessness.

“We’ve discovered there may well be issues with breast augmentation,” he said. “We’re not sure whether they could stand the trip — they could well explode.”

In two words: Sorry, Demi.

When will the space flights take place? Here’s a little info from Virgin Galactic:

The first flights are planned to begin in 2008. We are now starting to take reservations and deposit commitments for the first year of operations. The ticket price has been set at US$200,000 and the minimum, fully refundable deposit to secure your spaceship seat is US$20,000.

You can fill out your own astronaut application form here.

These trips are getting a little more affordable, though. In 2002 Lance Bass of ‘NSinc was trying to pay the Russian government $20 million for a flight on a Soyuz spacecract.

The trip was delayed due to paperwork snags between the two countries caused by a lack of computer compatibility. The reason for the incompatibility was clear– Americans use windows-based operating systems, and the Russians didn’t have any computers.

Then the trip was canceled. It turns out the “paper” in “paperwork” was the green kind, because Bass couldn’t afford the $20 million. That last CD must not have sold as well as he’d hoped.

Now, however, these trips are much more affordable to those who aren’t super-wealthy, but still have a couple hundred grand sitting around. For some women, the trick will be to find somebody who has that amount of money who didn’t spend it on a boob job.

I guess that’s a good rule. No need for added sexual tension up there. They didn’t want their first public flight to take off as “Virgin Galactic” and return as simply “Galactic”.

—–

On a completely separate subject…Would you date a Democrat?

Sunday’s New York Times will run the following poll: “Would you date a Republican?” So, I thought it only fair to take the opposite poll, “Would you date a Democrat?” There are seven possible answers. Take the **poll here.

(**margin of error of plus or minus four liberals)

—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.

Would You Date A Democrat?

According to Editor and Publisher Magazine, this coming Sunday’s issue of The New York Times will feature the following poll: “Would you date a Republican?”

Though it’s admirable for the Times to be so charitable in trying to help the seven single Republicans in The Big Apple secure dates, it’s only fair to ask the reverse question.

Take a second to answer the following poll question: **“Would you date a Democrat?” There are seven choices, and no, Bill Clinton didn’t put me up to this.

Don’t forget to look for next week’s poll, “Would you date somebody from The New York Times?”

**This poll has a margin of error of plus or minus four liberals.

—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.

Sharon Stone to Kids: If Somebody Pushes You For Unwanted Sex, Blow Them Off

Forty-eight-year-old Actress Sharon Stone, who’s starring soon in Basic Instinct II: Like The First One But Three Inches Lower”, is encouraging teens to kick the oral sex up a notch, apparently even if they don’t want to:

“Young people talk to me about what to do if they’re being pressed for sex? I tell them (what I believe): oral sex is a hundred times safer than vaginal or anal sex. If you’re in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a blow job. I’m not embarrassed to tell them.”

A hundred times safer? I guess Stone has never met guys who were dating women with chipped teeth or braces.

I’m betting that Sharon’s policy of “Just say blow” probably won’t go over big with parents. What’s funny is that Stone is described as an AIDS “activist”… With that advice, I’d say she’s more of an AIDS “advocate”.

Breaking News: Sharon Stone is cornered in the produce section of the supermarket right now being “pressed for sex” by three teenage boys standing near the zucchini display spraying their zippers with WD-40.

Bonus Stone tidbit: Sharon recently said that Hillary Clinton is “too sexy” to run for president. “I think Hillary Clinton is fantastic, but I think it is too soon for her to run…Hillary still has sexual power, and I don’t think people will accept that, it’s too threatening.”

Stone said a woman should be “past her sexuality” before running for office.

Yep, you wouldn’t want tens of thousands of guys with uncontrollable erections, which of course is the natural effect Hillary has on men, running into voting booths across the country. They might punch the wrong hole and accidentally vote for Buchanan.

See you on the ticket in ’08, Hillary, you vixen you.

—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.

CFR Circus Will Perform Without A 'Net — For Now

In 2002, the Federal Election Commission voted 4-2 to exempt the Internet from the “Campaign Finance Reform Act” – better known as the “McCain-Feingold law.”

In 2004, a federal judge overturned that FEC exemption, and with it dug up a shot at a source of revenue the government’s been wringing their hands over since Al Gore invented it– the Internet. Outcry from bloggers, free-speech advocates and some politicians, slowed the federal steamroller, but it was still in gear with the motor running. For now, the motor’s been turned off. This from the A.P.:

The Federal Election Commission decided Monday that the nation’s new campaign finance law will not apply to most political activity on the Internet.In a 6-0 vote, the commission decided to regulate only paid political ads placed on another person’s Web site.

The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the Internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending and contribution limits.

Why not regulate the internet? Well, it would be politically unpopular to say the least. Also, nobody has figured out an effective way to do so– not even close. Even if somebody figured out an ineffective way to regulate the ‘net and collect money from it, they’d do so. Come on, it’s the government. If it can be regulated, even in a half-assed idiotic fashion, a way will be found. Just not yet.

Once the regulation of direct political advertising on the Internet has some of the kinks worked out, they’ll come full bore for the rest of it.

Give it time. Some members of Congress are just figuring out how to log on to their Commodore 64’s. Once they do, watch out.

CFR Circus Will Perform Without A ‘Net — For Now

In 2002, the Federal Election Commission voted 4-2 to exempt the Internet from the “Campaign Finance Reform Act” – better known as the “McCain-Feingold law.”

In 2004, a federal judge overturned that FEC exemption, and with it dug up a shot at a source of revenue the government’s been wringing their hands over since Al Gore invented it– the Internet. Outcry from bloggers, free-speech advocates and some politicians, slowed the federal steamroller, but it was still in gear with the motor running. For now, the motor’s been turned off. This from the A.P.:

The Federal Election Commission decided Monday that the nation’s new campaign finance law will not apply to most political activity on the Internet.In a 6-0 vote, the commission decided to regulate only paid political ads placed on another person’s Web site.

The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the Internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending and contribution limits.

Why not regulate the internet? Well, it would be politically unpopular to say the least. Also, nobody has figured out an effective way to do so– not even close. Even if somebody figured out an ineffective way to regulate the ‘net and collect money from it, they’d do so. Come on, it’s the government. If it can be regulated, even in a half-assed idiotic fashion, a way will be found. Just not yet.

Once the regulation of direct political advertising on the Internet has some of the kinks worked out, they’ll come full bore for the rest of it.

Give it time. Some members of Congress are just figuring out how to log on to their Commodore 64’s. Once they do, watch out.

Charlie's Conspiracy Angels

Today’s column at WorldNetDaily, “Charlie’s Conspiracy Angels“, revolves around actor Charlie Sheen’s recent statements that he wants further investigation into 9/11 because it looks like it could be an inside job.

Actor Charlie Sheen, speaking to a radio station last week, called for more investigation into 9-11 because the World Trade Center buildings look like they “came down in a controlled demolition.” He finds it unlikely that 19 amateurs with box cutters took over four commercial airliners and hit 75 percent of their targets, and questioned whether it was a plane that hit the Pentagon.

OK, Chuck. Fair enough. Bring on another investigation, and another, and another – and keep doing it until it turns out the way you want it to. Then you can go back to your “Two and a Half Men,” I’ll go back to my two sons and a daughter, and we can move on. Deal?

It goes on from there. Check it out and then come back here for the rest of this post.

First off, if you’re unfamiliar with my columns, I usually just set out to have fun. I leave saving the world to the intellectuals who are emailing me wondering why I didn’t write an entire book on why Charlie Sheen is a God for coming out like this.

After putting up some comments about Sheen in a blog post from late last week, I have been written to by dozens of people, most sending links for me to look at. They said “learn more about it and you’ll also think something is up!”

I’d already heard or read about a lot of it, but I checked it out again. A funny thing happened. The more I looked into it the more I was convinced there was no conspiracy. I was beginning to feel immersed in Oliver Stone’s bathwater.

Regular readers of my columns will know that, though, yes, I am a Republican, and therefore support conservatives in Congress and for President, I have a very skeptical view of government as a whole, and believe that third parties need to infiltrate the majors in order to clean things up.

Gigantic bureaucracies are slow and stupid, usually because they’re trying to win a potato sack race with thousands of people in the same bag. With the exception of the U.S. military, who are charged and funded by the slow and stupid with being fast and smart, I don’t think government is capable of pulling off a nearly undetectable huge conspiracy on the level of 9/11.

Let’s consider the CIA for a moment. They would have certainly had to have been in on a 9/11 plot. That organization told the president and congress that they were certain Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. When they weren’t immediately found, if the CIA was so cunning or crooked, why not just plant a small nuke in Iraq to immediately show the world that Saddam had WMD? They didn’t do that even to save face and reputation, but they helped pull off 9/11 for… what reason?

Why has no steel high rise, before or since 9/11, collapsed because of fire? The first question in response is, of those others, before or since, how many were smashed into by nearly fully fueled 767’s? Maybe somebody knows. As for WTC 7’s collapse, who knows. I don’t know what it’s like to be a building very close to two collapsing 110-story buildings, but it can’t be pretty.

So, not being a particular fan of bureaucracies and government as a whole, I’m open to all sorts of theories. Hell, I still think there’s far more to the story of Vince Foster than we know, but none of this 9/11 stuff adds up to anything more than Islamic terrorists with motive and opportunity.

Besides, if you’re George W. Bush, and plotting all this (he’s a frickin’ genius for being such a “dumb” guy), wouldn’t you put yourself in a place where you’re doing something a little more heroic than reading to school kids? He’s bright enough to pull all this off, but so stupid that he doesn’t act surprised or move quick enough for these people? Bush was thick into the ingenious plot but too stupid to plan out his own role?

Admit it… if you were putting this all together, you’d make sure you were in the position to run out of the White House and shoot down an incoming missile with an automatic weapon. Instant hero!

And then there are the people “in the know”. “But Doug, read what General So-And-So said about it.”

So, for the last few days I’ve been told that government and high ranking members of the military must have been in on all this, and then I’m asked to trust one of them? There’s no honor among thieves, folks.There are so many good reasons to be skeptical of the government. I’m not sure this isn’t one of them.

In the mailbag:

A reader writes and says, “sure, and kerosene can melt steel”, and another says “explain to me how gasoline can melt steel.”

I never said the jet fuel did melt the steel. Besides, It doesn’t have to “melt steel”. I encourage everybody to read the Popular Mechanics article. Some obviously don’t want to though– If you’re one who thinks the PM article is BS because somebody there is a relative of Michael Chertoff, then try this one…hopefully not written by an administration relative.

Somebody else wants to know that if my “Mrs. Kravitz Paradox” theory holds water, how must we explain The Manhattan Project? I thought I outlined that I was referring to conspiracies, and I don’t consider The Manhattan Project a conspiracy, though it’s not a stretch to assume that some would. If I didn’t make that point clear enough, my bad.

Tom writes:

So what is YOUR theory how that THIRD tower came down, never hit by a
plane, hours and several hundred feet from the twin towers ?

Good question, and thanks for asking, but I have no idea. I don’t pretend to know one way or the other, like some of the people I’m hearing from. Although I must say the chances it sustained some sort of tower crash/collapse damage we’re either aware or unaware of that brought it down are far greater than these big, winding sinister plots that I’m reading about.

Darryl says:

The Popular Mechanics article only addresses their own made up conspiracy theory:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

And it isn’t exactly unbiased: http://www.google.com/search?q=popular+mechanics+c
hertoff

When searching and reading stuff about this topic, I found the PM piece, then I found sites debunking that, then I found sites debunking the debunkers of the PM piece… on and on it goes. Where does it end? For me, with plausibility.

Richard says:

Your “fine with another investigation”, huh?  That’s great to hear, Doug.  Such passion for the truth is what continues to make this country great.

An international commitee would be just dandy.

It’s tough to be passionate about a truth I don’t think exists. I could be “passionate” about proving 2 plus 2 equals 5 as well, but passion doesn’t equal sanity or reason.

International committee? Yeah, they’d be unbiased.

Plus, I think that what really makes this country great is not knowing the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

Yet another letter:

How could the buildings have collapsed straight down in their own footprint?

I’m no scientist, but I believe it’s called “gravity”. If the base wasn’t stressed and “pushing” the collapse in another direction (like when a tree is chopped down… oops, apologies to Al Gore), where else was the top portion going to fall? 

Pat disagrees with most of the dozens who have written so far:

I guess the GOP also killed one of their operatives, Barbara Olson, just to make it look good. (Or is she still in hiding?) And of course because the president didn’t jump up and leave the classroom when Andy Card whispered in his ear, that meant he knew everything beforehand. Charlie Sheen isn’t the first nutcase. This same thing gets brought up on C-SPAN several times a week. They all point to a website whatreallyhappened.com for the proof that the government did it.

My personal favorite so far, is Art, who signed his letter “Irate Citizen”, wrote, called me “Meathead, said that I “suck”, and was a “dumb critic”. The reason Art wrote? To chastise me for all the ad hominem attacks in my column. Good one, Art.

From the “Fair and Balanced” department, I include this one. Here’s a letter written by Charlie Sheen to the media challenging them to “find the truth”. Thanks to Beau for sending this along.

One final thing for all the people who are buying 100% that the U.S. government (or some shadow entity thereof) planned and carried out the 9/11 events. Why is Zacarias Moussaoui on trial? Why isn’t his defense “I had nothing to do with anything”? If this information implicating the government is so iron-clad, I’m sure a good defense attorney could use it to help his client.
—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.

Charlie’s Conspiracy Angels

Today’s column at WorldNetDaily, “Charlie’s Conspiracy Angels“, revolves around actor Charlie Sheen’s recent statements that he wants further investigation into 9/11 because it looks like it could be an inside job.

Actor Charlie Sheen, speaking to a radio station last week, called for more investigation into 9-11 because the World Trade Center buildings look like they “came down in a controlled demolition.” He finds it unlikely that 19 amateurs with box cutters took over four commercial airliners and hit 75 percent of their targets, and questioned whether it was a plane that hit the Pentagon.

OK, Chuck. Fair enough. Bring on another investigation, and another, and another – and keep doing it until it turns out the way you want it to. Then you can go back to your “Two and a Half Men,” I’ll go back to my two sons and a daughter, and we can move on. Deal?

It goes on from there. Check it out and then come back here for the rest of this post.

First off, if you’re unfamiliar with my columns, I usually just set out to have fun. I leave saving the world to the intellectuals who are emailing me wondering why I didn’t write an entire book on why Charlie Sheen is a God for coming out like this.

After putting up some comments about Sheen in a blog post from late last week, I have been written to by dozens of people, most sending links for me to look at. They said “learn more about it and you’ll also think something is up!”

I’d already heard or read about a lot of it, but I checked it out again. A funny thing happened. The more I looked into it the more I was convinced there was no conspiracy. I was beginning to feel immersed in Oliver Stone’s bathwater.

Regular readers of my columns will know that, though, yes, I am a Republican, and therefore support conservatives in Congress and for President, I have a very skeptical view of government as a whole, and believe that third parties need to infiltrate the majors in order to clean things up.

Gigantic bureaucracies are slow and stupid, usually because they’re trying to win a potato sack race with thousands of people in the same bag. With the exception of the U.S. military, who are charged and funded by the slow and stupid with being fast and smart, I don’t think government is capable of pulling off a nearly undetectable huge conspiracy on the level of 9/11.

Let’s consider the CIA for a moment. They would have certainly had to have been in on a 9/11 plot. That organization told the president and congress that they were certain Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. When they weren’t immediately found, if the CIA was so cunning or crooked, why not just plant a small nuke in Iraq to immediately show the world that Saddam had WMD? They didn’t do that even to save face and reputation, but they helped pull off 9/11 for… what reason?

Why has no steel high rise, before or since 9/11, collapsed because of fire? The first question in response is, of those others, before or since, how many were smashed into by nearly fully fueled 767’s? Maybe somebody knows. As for WTC 7’s collapse, who knows. I don’t know what it’s like to be a building very close to two collapsing 110-story buildings, but it can’t be pretty.

So, not being a particular fan of bureaucracies and government as a whole, I’m open to all sorts of theories. Hell, I still think there’s far more to the story of Vince Foster than we know, but none of this 9/11 stuff adds up to anything more than Islamic terrorists with motive and opportunity.

Besides, if you’re George W. Bush, and plotting all this (he’s a frickin’ genius for being such a “dumb” guy), wouldn’t you put yourself in a place where you’re doing something a little more heroic than reading to school kids? He’s bright enough to pull all this off, but so stupid that he doesn’t act surprised or move quick enough for these people? Bush was thick into the ingenious plot but too stupid to plan out his own role?

Admit it… if you were putting this all together, you’d make sure you were in the position to run out of the White House and shoot down an incoming missile with an automatic weapon. Instant hero!

And then there are the people “in the know”. “But Doug, read what General So-And-So said about it.”

So, for the last few days I’ve been told that government and high ranking members of the military must have been in on all this, and then I’m asked to trust one of them? There’s no honor among thieves, folks.There are so many good reasons to be skeptical of the government. I’m not sure this isn’t one of them.

In the mailbag:

A reader writes and says, “sure, and kerosene can melt steel”, and another says “explain to me how gasoline can melt steel.”

I never said the jet fuel did melt the steel. Besides, It doesn’t have to “melt steel”. I encourage everybody to read the Popular Mechanics article. Some obviously don’t want to though– If you’re one who thinks the PM article is BS because somebody there is a relative of Michael Chertoff, then try this one…hopefully not written by an administration relative.

Somebody else wants to know that if my “Mrs. Kravitz Paradox” theory holds water, how must we explain The Manhattan Project? I thought I outlined that I was referring to conspiracies, and I don’t consider The Manhattan Project a conspiracy, though it’s not a stretch to assume that some would. If I didn’t make that point clear enough, my bad.

Tom writes:

So what is YOUR theory how that THIRD tower came down, never hit by a
plane, hours and several hundred feet from the twin towers ?

Good question, and thanks for asking, but I have no idea. I don’t pretend to know one way or the other, like some of the people I’m hearing from. Although I must say the chances it sustained some sort of tower crash/collapse damage we’re either aware or unaware of that brought it down are far greater than these big, winding sinister plots that I’m reading about.

Darryl says:

The Popular Mechanics article only addresses their own made up conspiracy theory:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

And it isn’t exactly unbiased: http://www.google.com/search?q=popular+mechanics+c
hertoff

When searching and reading stuff about this topic, I found the PM piece, then I found sites debunking that, then I found sites debunking the debunkers of the PM piece… on and on it goes. Where does it end? For me, with plausibility.

Richard says:

Your “fine with another investigation”, huh?  That’s great to hear, Doug.  Such passion for the truth is what continues to make this country great.

An international commitee would be just dandy.

It’s tough to be passionate about a truth I don’t think exists. I could be “passionate” about proving 2 plus 2 equals 5 as well, but passion doesn’t equal sanity or reason.

International committee? Yeah, they’d be unbiased.

Plus, I think that what really makes this country great is not knowing the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

Yet another letter:

How could the buildings have collapsed straight down in their own footprint?

I’m no scientist, but I believe it’s called “gravity”. If the base wasn’t stressed and “pushing” the collapse in another direction (like when a tree is chopped down… oops, apologies to Al Gore), where else was the top portion going to fall? 

Pat disagrees with most of the dozens who have written so far:

I guess the GOP also killed one of their operatives, Barbara Olson, just to make it look good. (Or is she still in hiding?) And of course because the president didn’t jump up and leave the classroom when Andy Card whispered in his ear, that meant he knew everything beforehand. Charlie Sheen isn’t the first nutcase. This same thing gets brought up on C-SPAN several times a week. They all point to a website whatreallyhappened.com for the proof that the government did it.

My personal favorite so far, is Art, who signed his letter “Irate Citizen”, wrote, called me “Meathead, said that I “suck”, and was a “dumb critic”. The reason Art wrote? To chastise me for all the ad hominem attacks in my column. Good one, Art.

From the “Fair and Balanced” department, I include this one. Here’s a letter written by Charlie Sheen to the media challenging them to “find the truth”. Thanks to Beau for sending this along.

One final thing for all the people who are buying 100% that the U.S. government (or some shadow entity thereof) planned and carried out the 9/11 events. Why is Zacarias Moussaoui on trial? Why isn’t his defense “I had nothing to do with anything”? If this information implicating the government is so iron-clad, I’m sure a good defense attorney could use it to help his client.
—–

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed by clicking here.