The New York Times yesterday presented on its Web site a piece that its author declared to be a "public service" - offering specific ideas on how terrorists with limited resources could "maximize terror" in America.
So what did Steven D. Levitt, a University of Chicago economics professor, come up with as "the best terrorist plan I have heard"?
"Arm 20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrange to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country," suggested Levitt - a notion that he credited to his father.
How droll - though we suspect Levitt wouldn't be laughing if "20 terrorists with rifles and cars" took up his idea and Dear Old Dad wound up with a bullet between his eyes.
But not only did Levitt offer his ideas on how to wreak havoc on America with his own version of 9/11, he also asked readers to contribute their ideas, which he figured would be "far better."
And by late yesterday, the article had attracted nearly 600 responses, filled with suggestions ranging from from biological attacks, to blowing up bridges, to shutting down natural gas lines.
A few - only a few, sad to say - seemed to get it.
"Thanks for the tip," said one poster. "I'll pass your idea on to the rest of the members of my cell, you twit."
"Twit" seems about right - though "arrogant jerk" would fit, too." (source)
Has a giant portion of the country (which seems to be mainly journalists and academia)? Have they not heard top terror leaders using word-for-word quotes from the American press and American politicians? Are they unaware that our enemies are reading, or do they just not care?
Yes, I realize I'm re-publishing it here, but considering I have yet to hear of a fatwa against Blonde Sagacity...I doubt they're reading this.