…Unfortunately for the paper [NY Times] more questions than answers have been thrown up by Ms Miller’s abrupt volte-face.

Should she be celebrated as a media martyr who stood up for the right of reporters to protect the identities of sources? Or is this to do with her – and the paper’s – mistaken reporting before the Iraq war of Saddam Hussein’s purported stash of weapons of mass destruction?

…In March 2004, the paper published an astonishing mea culpa, singling out six articles that had given credence to the administration’s claims about weapons of mass destruction without sufficient evidence. Four of those were written by Ms Miller.

…There is much still to be explained. It has also been reported that among those who went to visit Ms Miller in prison was the controversial US envoy to the UN, John Bolton. No one knows what his involvement in this affair might be.

Critics speculate the following, however: Ms Miller’s reputation was in shreds after the Iraq invasion. Going to prison on behalf of journalists everywhere provided a good distraction.
independent.co.uk

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – A Dubai-based newspaper said Sunday it stands by a story in which it quoted Iran’s president as saying he might curtail oil sales if his nation is referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program.

However, the Khaleej Times acknowledged that the confusion might have arisen because the reporter, a freelance journalist, told the president she was working for another paper.

After the story quoting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared Saturday, the president’s office issued a statement saying he “never had an interview, either oral or written” with the newspaper.

On Sunday, the newspaper said the reporter on several occasions “presented herself (to Ahmadinejad) as a reporter with the American-based Arabic News, and not as a Khaleej Times reporter, though she has given this report exclusively to Khaleej Times.”
news.yahoo.com

Iran Hints of Reductions of Oil Sales Over Nuclear Dispute
The NY Times does not mention the controversy.

Species are dying out faster than we have dared recognise, scientists will warn this week. The erosion of polar ice is the first break in a fragile chain of life extending across the planet, from bears in the north to penguins in the far south.

The polar bear is one of the natural world’s most famous predators – the king of the Arctic wastelands. But, like its vast Arctic home, the polar bear is under unprecedented threat. Both are disappearing with alarming speed.

Thinning ice and longer summers are destroying the bears’ habitat, and as the ice floes shrink, the desperate animals are driven by starvation into human settlements – to be shot. Stranded polar bears are drowning in large numbers as they try to swim hundreds of miles to find increasingly scarce ice floes. Local hunters find their corpses floating on seas once coated in a thick skin of ice.

It is a phenomenon that frightens the native people that live around the Arctic. Many fear their children will never know the polar bear. “The ice is moving further and further north,” said Charlie Johnson, 64, an Alaskan Nupiak from Nome, in the state’s far west. “In the Bering Sea the ice leaves earlier and earlier. On the north slope, the ice is retreating as far as 300 or 400 miles offshore.”

Last year, hunters found half a dozen bears that had drowned about 200 miles north of Barrow, on Alaska’s northern coast. “It seems they had tried to swim for shore … A polar bear might be able to swim 100 miles but not 400.”

His alarming testimony, given at a conference on global warming and native communities held in the Alaskan capital, Anchorage, last week, is just one story of the many changes happening across the globe. Climate change threatens the survival of thousands of species – a threat unparalleled since the last ice age, which ended some 10,000 years ago.

The vast majority, scientists will warn this week, are migratory animals – sperm whales, polar bears, gazelles, garden birds and turtles – whose survival depends on the intricate web of habitats, food supplies and weather conditions which, for some species, can stretch for 6,500 miles. Every link of that chain is slowly but perceptibly altering.
independent.co.uk

…The army said that the boy had been killed when soldiers in the West Bank town encountered Palestinians throwing stones and bottles at them. Thinking an armed Palestinian was approaching them, it said, they opened fire. But Mr Tantawi said a medical examination had shown several bullets were fired at his son’s chest.

He told the Yedhiot Ahronot website: “You need to look at the body to understand it was a targeted shooting with the intention to kill.

“One bullet pierced his heart and exited his back. No religion in the world, no morality or law can explain what happened.” He said children who had been with the boy at a local park had told him they were playing at the time of the shooting. His comments came as Hamas lost ground to the dominant Fatah party in the West Bank municipal elections.
independent.co.uk

Some ‘Intelligence’ are intelligent enough to question this abundance of “top lietenants”:

“U.S. intelligence officials and counterterrorism analysts are questioning whether a slain terrorist—described by President Bush today as the “second-most-wanted Al Qaeda leader in Iraq”—was as significant a figure as the Bush administration is claiming.”
The ‘Second’ Man: The slain Abu Azzam may not have been Zarqawi’s top deputy after all September 29, 2005

Recalling that back in 2004, it was reported :

“A Jordanian extremist suspected of bloody suicide attacks in Iraq was killed some time ago in U.S. bombing and a letter outlining plans for fomenting sectarian war is a forgery, a statement allegedly from an insurgent group west of the capital said.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq “during the American bombing there,” according to a statement circulated in Fallujah this week and signed by the “Leadership of the Allahu Akbar Mujahedeen.”
The statement did not say when al-Zarqawi was supposedly killed, but U.S. jets bombed strongholds of the extremist Ansar al-Islam in the north last April as Saddam Hussein’s regime was collapsing.
It said al-Zarqawi was unable to escape the bombing because of his artificial leg.
Before the Iraq conflict began last March, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said al-Zarqawi received hospital treatment in Baghdad after fleeing Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence sources said he apparently was fitted with an artificial leg.
The statement said the “fabricated al-Zarqawi memo” has been used by the U.S.-run coalition “to back up their theory of a civil war” in Iraq.”
Iraq militants claim al-Zarqawi is dead March 4, 2004.

Does Zarqawi have an infinite supply of lieutenants/deputies/aides/associates/second-in-commands/etc., or do we just arbitrarily declare that every 100th insurgent we capture or kill is “a top aide” to Zarqawi?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Below is an almost comprehensive list (I’m sure I missed a few) of Zarqawi’s “top lieutenants” we’ve captured, killed, or acknowledged over the last two and a half years. I count 33.
uruknet.info

Sunni death cult is pushing Iraq towards civil war
…Most of the insurgents are by the admission of the US military Iraqi Sunni nationalists fighting to end the occupation. The neo-Salafi differ because they see this as only part of their struggle to create a fundamentalist Islamic state in Iraq…

The foreign volunteers are used as cannon-fodder and supply most of the suicide bombs. Most volunteers come from Saudi Arabia. The exact role of Zarqawi is uncertain because he claims all attacks. The US has been happy to promote him as bogeyman and all-purpose demonic enemy. He renamed his group al-Qa’ida in Iraq in October 2004 but appears never to have met Osama bin Laden.

Despite the impact of the foreign suicide bombers, the number of foreign fighters in Iraq is low, about 3,000 out of 30,000 insurgents in total. The US military said this summer that 90 per cent of the resistance is Iraqi and Sunni.

Mr Cordesman believes that “Zarqawi does not dominate the neo-Salafi and Sunni extremist insurgency in Iraq, but he has become its symbol”. At times his statements are directed against Shias as whole; at others he distinguishes between the pro-government Shia and Kurdish parties and those that are more nationalist, such Muqtada al-Sadr’s movement. Whatever the rhetoric, car bombs and suicide attacks are directed at killing as many Shia civilians as possible.

The neo-Salafi groups, believing they are fighting in God’s cause, will never negotiate and have no interest in seeking compromise. Their ferocity makes them difficult to uproot. In Fallujah last year they told 11 imams of mosques whom they considered hostile that they would kill their children in front of them if they did not stop preaching.

Well all these years we have had it pounded into our heads that the Shia are the fundamentalist extremists. How does supposed’Zarqawi’ who supposedly fought with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan emerge as a symbol for Sunnis? You’d think that Shi’ite Nationalists like al Sadr would appeal to peace-loving US and UK, but look at Fallujah. The idea I keep in mind is that anybody fomenting civil war is a friend to/creature of Blair and Bush.

Middle-Class Family Life in Iraq Withers Amid the Chaos of War
…Educated, invested in businesses and properties and eager for change, the middle class here had everything to gain from the American effort.

But frustration is hardening into hopelessness, as families feel increasingly trapped by the many forces that are threatening to tear the country apart.

Insurgents fight gun battles on their streets. Sectarian divisions are seeping into their children’s classrooms and even their own dinner table discussions. Their secular voices are barely audible above the din of religious politicians and the poorer Iraqis they appeal to.

The daily life the middle class describe is an obstacle course of gasoline lines, blocked roads and late-night generator repairs.

In these families’ homes, the talk is mostly about leaving. “For Sale” signs dot the gates of the houses on their block. But gathering children and extended families is proving difficult, and many families, potentially the most skilled builders of democracy here, are bracing themselves for a future that appears to them increasingly under siege.

by Justin Felux
Bill Bennett, a prominent right-wing blowhard, has recently come under intense fire for remarks made on his radio show, in which he stated, “I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could … abort every black baby in this country.” He quickly backed away from the proposition, saying “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.” It’s unfortunate that Bennett chose to be so politically correct, because I think he may be onto something here. He’s just wrong about the target. If we really wanna get tough on crime, it’s the white babies who should start getting the coat hanger treatment.

Consider the fact that whites commit three times as many violent crimes as blacks every year, just in raw numbers. This is just for ordinary “street crimes” such as assault. The numbers become skewed out of this world when you consider “white-collar” crimes (typically, the collar isn’t the only thing that’s white).

For instance, job-related accidents and illnesses claimed the lives of 70,000 Americans in 1992, a significant portion of which can be chalked up to white employers neglecting to comply with occupational health and safety laws. According to studies, up to 64,000 die every year due to pollution and other environmental hazards produced by industry. Another 21,700 die due to consumer product deaths, costing the nation $200 billion a year. Another $200 billion is lost annually due to white-collar embezzlement. These two statistics alone add up to over 26 times the amount of all the robberies and petty thefts committed every year combined!

We should also not forget the ravages of the white-owned health care system and insurance industry. Around 18,000 adults are killed every year as a result of a lack of medical coverage. Over 25 thousand die as a result of unnecessary prescriptions and surgeries performed by mostly white doctors. All in all, corporate criminals take about ten times as many lives as street criminals. And I haven’t even mentioned the white men who control the apparatus of state, which through war, sanctions, and other means kills hundreds of thousands, if not millions more. Over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq alone, for example.

I don’t know about you, but every time I see a white man in a suit I find a place to hide. Once I feel safe, I call the Department of Homeland Security to report his suspicious activity. I simply don’t feel safe knowing that all these savage, white thugs are out walking the streets. After all, from Bob Chambliss to Timothy McVeigh to Eric Rudolph, by far most of the terrorist attacks in America have been committed by whites.

Which brings me to my next point: even if a white guy isn’t wearing a suit, you still shouldn’t assume that he isn’t dangerous. One can find a plethora of deadly and pathological behaviors uniquely prevalent among whites who look just as ordinary as you and me. Most notable among them are spree killing, serial murder, and cannibalism. About 90% of all serial killers are white men. Some other white pastimes include animal torture, vampirism, Satan worship, witchcraft, self-mutilation, eating disorders, and child sexual molestation. White men engage in child sexual abuse at twice the rate of black men. By aborting all the white babies, we will be protecting a great many children from the horror of enduring abuse at the hands of white male sex perverts (pardon the redundancy), in addition to preventing the creation of new white molesters in the future.

Alas, even if we allowed white fetuses to continue living, and they manage to avoid the pitfalls of vampirism, corporate employment, and serial murder, the odds are still pretty good that they will turn out to be hopeless drunks. Whites are 74% more likely than blacks to binge drink regularly. In fact, there are more binge drinking whites than there are blacks in the entire population of the country! Naturally, whites are twice as likely as blacks to drive drunk, resulting in over ten thousand deaths every year. The same trend can be seen when considering drug use in general, contrary to popular belief. Whites make up 74% of illegal drug users, whereas only 14% are black. Whites make up a majority of drug dealers as well.

Given all of these facts, can there be any doubt that aborting every white baby would not only reduce the crime rate, but would also result in a much safer, cleaner, and happier existence for all Americans? I can already hear some of you sissy liberals whining about “human rights” or some other nonsense. In reality, you are soft on crime and lack the rugged individualism necessary to get things done. At the very least, we should start forcibly sterilizing white males, much in the same way we did to Latinas and black women up until the 1970s.

I think the most interesting debate will be over the question of what to do with mixed race babies. Should we apply the “one drop” rule, whereby one drop of white blood marks the fetus for termination? I doubt we’ll need to take it to that extreme. If the baby is say, 1/8 white, then its more destructive tendencies should be sufficiently diluted. Nevertheless, police and homeland security should still apply increased scrutiny to individuals whose skin looks suspiciously pale. I’m sure Bill Bennett wouldn’t mind taking a little harassment from the cops if it results in a safer America for everyone.
zmag.org

The only reason people in Africa are starving is because Africans do not control the vast majority of traditional prime and irrigated farmland as they once did before the White barbarian came and took control of that land for the very purpose of exporting food back to Europe and America (the prime export the US imported from Africa through their European colonial partners was the result of good African food, well raised healthy African slaves).

If Africans want to raise their standard of living they must seize the land where food is grown for export by the white controlled multinational agribusiness conglomerates and simply internalize those food stocks until everyone in Africa is guaranteed to eat well for the rest of their lives. If after that is accomplished and there’s room for exports so be it, but not until then.

As a part of land reform African nations must stop thinking in the western nationalistic format and go back to tribal thinking and simply redraw African borders to recreate tribal homelands in order to reduce tribal conflict over nationalistic power. The tribal system is not perfect however it is a great deal better than the nationalistic system and borders the put in place for the purposes of dividing and conquering tribal thinking.

There was a time when drummers could distribute a message anywhere in Africa in a day through the continent wide communications cooperation system that came out of the tribal thinking. Today with nationalistic thinking Africa is divided by conflict carefully manipulated to advance the European invader’s cause. European’s bought and sold African leaders within the Artificial Nationalistic Monetary System that every day pushes the average African outside the marketplace where they are left to starve to death.

There is a reason why tribal systems developed and tribal territories formed. It is because they work. By working I mean the instinctual hard wired goal of individual health and freedom of movement throughout the tribal territory and beyond to seek procreation are fulfilled. Nationalistic enterprises fail in this matter on all fronts. Nationalism makes malnutrition slaves of everyone allowing disease to set in and decimate populations.

Nationalism has long been a handy tool of Europeans when invading and occupying a territory for its resources and slave labor. This is because Europeans wiped out almost all of their own tribal knowledge and know-how through the tool of Christian imperialism. Tribal leaders became Christian ordained kings. Christian ordained kings built city-state’s where power became concentrated and lead poisoning drove the ruling class insane and paranoid causing the destruction of folk or peasant or tribal knowledge forcing the vast majority of the populations in Europe to rely almost completely upon psychotic ruling elite’s for guidance in their daily lives.

I know that this solution of rejecting all things colonial and global will be resisted by some corrupt African leaders but just as an example: when Mugabe attempted land reform during the first years of the newly formed government of Zimbabwe that replaced the former European regime of Rhodesia, that effort failed for the simple fact that the European and his global economy did not support it, did everything to sabotage it and most certainly did not give up any of the prime farmland in Zimbabwe in order to make it work. Instead ,corporate farming for export controlled by White corporate interests went on uninterrupted creating and entrenching resentment and the messy results of Mugabe’s present land reform program in which the slum dwellers in the cities are having their shanty shacks bulldozed forcing those slum dwellers to migrate back to rural areas in order to populate the recently seized white controlled plantations. Plantations where the Chinese are being contracted to create crop solutions which I am sure the Chinese are looking forward to taking advantage.

In other words Tony Blair and George Bush and for that matter any previous president or prime minister has never once suggested land reform for Zimbabwe or for any other nation and in fact Tony Blair and George Bush have moved aggressively in international currency markets to isolate Zimbabwe by devaluing Zimbabwe’s currency to nearly nothing.

When I hear White Liberals here in America complain about Mugabes’ latest land reform moves in Zimbabwe I have to scoff at them and ridicule them and say “what did you expect would happen?” “Did you expect the cute little Africans to just accept a limited form of political democracy with absolutely no economic democracy?” “**** off you stupid morons!” “Why are you not providing help to Zimbabwe? Economic models for land reform and the democratization of their economy?” “Why isn’t Tony Blair offering help to Zimbabwe to make sure land reform in Zimbabwe is really land reform? Instead Der Furor Blair is imposing economic isolation declaring economic warfare on the entire population of Zimbabwe?”

In Zimbabwe one tribe, the Shona, has dominated the other, the Matabele. These are the two major tribes that dominate the Zimbabwean population and politics. This within the single border nation state the British forcibly imposed has led to endless political conflict. Mugabe, who belongs to the Shona guaranteeing perpetual reelection, has finally gotten completely pissed off at the deceit of the Europeans and as much as it is very messy what Mugabe is doing, it is a lot less messy than what the European is doing globally.

If any White American and British subject or for that matter any colonial power with absolute economic control over any portion of Africa’s destiny wishes to comment or complain about what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe and be heard with any credibility by Africans they must first apologize to Africans at the UN just as the Germans had to apologize to the Jews. Then just as the Germans had to pay for their crimes against the Jews, they must pay reparations to Africa for everything the White barbarian robbed from Africa which includes the land they still control in Africa.
emergingminds.org

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) – Venezuela has moved its central bank foreign reserves out of U.S. banks, liquidated its investments in U.S. Treasury securities and placed the funds in Europe, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Friday.

“We’ve had to move the international reserves from U.S. banks because of the threats,” from the U.S., Chavez said during televised remarks from a South American summit in Brazil.

“The reserves we had (invested) in U.S. Treasury bonds, we’ve sold them and we moved them to Europe and other countries,” he said.
msn.com

Arab horsemen from distant Hejaz today galloped in triumph through the streets of Damascus. As the sun was rising over the mosques and spires, Major TE Lawrence, the young British officer whose tactical guidance has ensured the success of the Arab revolt, drove through the lines in an armoured car. One Arab rider waved his head-dress and shouted, “Damascus salutes you”.

Led by Emir Feisal, son of Sherif Hussein, now to be King of Syria, and his British friend Lawrence, who had fought the Turks all the way from Arabia, the Arabs were first into the capital.

…There is a serious danger that law and order may break down in a place packed an excitable mixture of desert and city Arabs. Notables who until the last minute worked with the Turks now proclaim their loyalty to the Allies. Already there are reports that some have been shot. General Allenby’s first task will be to install a military government to keep order and restore the city’s public services.

Conforming to arrangements agreed with Britain, the French will take control of Syria. General Allenby’s army is preparing to move east to link up with French forces whose task is now to take the port of Beirut in Lebanon.
guardian.co.uk

Hmm…could history provide a clue about Islamic rage? Your war of liberation from the Turks delivers your people into European hands.

Conservative commentator William Bennett yesterday defended comments he made on his radio talk show suggesting that aborting black children would reduce crime, saying he was merely musing about a hypothetical argument and he made plain to listeners that he was not stating his own position.

Bennett, a former U.S. education secretary and national drug policy director, is under fire from Democrats, civil rights leaders, black conservatives and, as of yesterday, the White House and the Republican Party for saying Wednesday that “you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.”

He added immediately that such a thing would be “an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do.”

Yesterday, with the storm over these comments intensifying, Bennett released a defiant statement saying critics unfairly had pulled his comment out of context: “A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, in a statement typical of a parade of similar comments from Democrats, denounced the remarks and called on Bennett to apologize. “Bill Bennett’s hateful, inflammatory remarks regarding African Americans are simply inexcusable,” he said. “. . . Are these the values of the Republican Party and its conservative allies?”

The White House and other Republicans made haste to say that the answer to Dean’s question is no. Asked President Bush’s reaction to Bennett’s remarks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, “The president believes the comments were not appropriate.”

Similarly, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who has been reaching out to African Americans and other minorities, called Bennett’s comments “regrettable and inappropriate.” But Mehlman also lashed out at liberals whom he accused of engaging in racially divisive rhetoric when it suits their interests: “What’s much worse is the hypocrisy . . . from the left.”

The combative Bennett, whose syndicated radio show airs on the Salem Radio Network, offered no apologies. He explained that his comments came in response to a caller who suggested that Social Security would be in better financial shape if abortion were illegal, leaving more people to pay into the system. Bennett cautioned against making such far-reaching arguments and drove home his point by offering what he called “a noxious hypothetical analogy” to reducing crime by aborting black children.

Bennett’s statement went on to say that “the whole issue of crime and race” has been on people’s minds in light of the situation in New Orleans, and is aired frequently in academic settings. Given that, he called his comments barely noteworthy.

“Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week,” his statement said.

Others disagreed. Michelle D. Bernard, senior vice president of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, said Bennett’s remarks underscore why many African Americans distrust conservatives even if they share similar values on some social and religious issues.

“In choosing to use the hypothetical genocide of black children as a way to reduce crime . . ., Bennett shamefully traded on the pervasive stereotype that it is African Americans who are responsible for all of the crime in the United States,” she said. “People wonder why black people don’t trust . . . notions such as compassionate conservatism, and Bill Bennett just added fuel to the fire the Bush administration has worked hard to put out.”

Robert Woodson Sr., president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, said “it was stupid” for Bennett to even ruminate on such an explosive topic but defended him as a good man. “Sometimes intellectuals become detached from common sense,” he said.
washingtonpost.com

First ‘impossible’, then ‘ridiculous’, and only then ‘morally reprehensible.’ Arrogant fool that he is Bennett does not get it. A ‘thought experiment’ indeed. Maybe some wishful thinking. Look at the splitting that goes on: despite it all he’s ‘a good man.’ Hypocrite Dean chimes in, the guy who said the way to deal with race is by not dealing with it at all

Media Matters article:
Addressing a caller’s suggestion that the “lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years” would be enough to preserve Social Security’s solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such “far-reaching, extensive extrapolations” by declaring that if “you wanted to reduce crime … if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies “would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,” then added again, “but the crime rate would go down.”

Bennett’s remark was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But Levitt and Dubner argued that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett’s race-based argument.

From the September 28 broadcast of Salem Radio Network’s Bill Bennett’s Morning in America:

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I’ve read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn’t — never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they’re all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don’t know what the costs would be, too. I think as — abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don’t know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don’t know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don’t know. I mean, it cuts both — you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well —

CALLER: Well, I don’t think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don’t think it is either, I don’t think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don’t know. But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could — if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.