American Atrocities

Perhaps you wonder what ever happened with the investigations of those recent reports coming out of Iraq of horrible massacres perpetrated by American troops. It turns out that they were lame, if fervent, attempts by the jihadis to propagate a little misinformation and to drag the world media into another round of lamentation over America's loss of the "moral high ground," etc.

The American Thinker has the details here, but you probably knew all along that the stories were a crock. Indeed, the best indicator that they were phony was that TruthOut.org touted them as if they were a modern My Lai. When TruthOut gets excited about something that reflects poorly on the United States, which they do with remarkable frequency, you can bet your home equity that there's nothing to it.

The American Thinker article describes the first horrifying episode this way:

Over the past few weeks, two serious accusations of mass murder by Coalition units have surfaced, both involving current operations - one against the Jihadis, the other against illegal militia. Both were given a wide airing in the international media.

At Ishaqi, a village near Samarra, at some time between 1:30 and 2:30 (reported times are inconsistent, as are other details of the story) on the night of March 16, a firefight took place between U.S. troops involved in Operation Swarmer and at least one member of Al-Queda in Iraq hiding out in an isolated house.

According to the locals, the troops fought their way into the house, owned by aschoolteacher, Faiz Mratt, and tied up, beat, and then shot Mratt, his wife, their three children, his sister, her three children, his father, and a woman who was visiting. Afterward they blew up the house, set fire to three cars, and, to top things off, killed all the livestock as well.

As it turns out the story is largely false. Read the article at The American Thinker to learn what really happened.

Paris As Mother Teresa

An Indian movie director said he hopes to persuade Paris Hilton to play the role of Nobel laureate and prospective Catholic Saint, Mother Teresa, in an upcoming film.

"Her features resemble Mother Teresa," director T. Rajeevnath told AFP from the southwestern coastal state of Kerala.

The filmmaker said Hilton is on his shortlist after a computer-generated image showed a close facial match between the hotel heiress and the Albanian-born nun.

Yes, the resemblance between the two is uncanny. And who better to play the role of Mother Teresa than a rich, dumb, narcissistic socialite whose previous movie experience included a home-made sex video made by a former boyfriend that appeared on the Internet, and parts in several Hollywood B-films.

She's the perfect choice.

This Year's Pollys

Diversity run amok, suppression of free speech, discrimination against Christians, conservatives, and patriots and other rancid fruits of contemporary liberalism continue to be the norm in American higher education. The Collegiate Network (CN) has once again chronicled the worst of those abuses in its 9th Annual Campus Outrage Awards called The Pollys.

Tongue-Tied has a summary of this year's winners:

The Collegiate Network's annual nod to the PC ninnies of American academia, the Pollys, are out today. Yale University takes the top award for admitting a former Taliban bigwig with a fourth-grade education -- in the name of diversity, of course.

DePaul University also gets a nod for, as the judges put it, declaring war on free speech.

"First, the university suspended -- without a hearing -- a veteran adjunct professor for daring to debate students handing out pro-Palestinian literature on campus. Next, the administration branded as 'propaganda' a College Republican protest of a Ward Churchill speech on campus. Finally, college officials shut down an affirmative action bake-sale sponsored by the campus conservative club and charged the club member who organized the event with harassment," the network says.

The third place award is shared by officials from Stanford University and at the College of the Holy Cross, both of which tried to silence conservative alternative newspapers on their campuses after The Stanford Review and Holy Cross' The Fenwick Review mocked or criticized sacred PC cows on campus.

For the full story on why these worthies were selected to receive the highly coveted Polly go here.

The Clock is Ticking in Tehran

Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly reports that Washington insiders are forecasting a late summer air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The good news is that there is still time for the mullahs in Tehran to give up their dreams of a nuclear bomb with which to attack Israel and to blackmail, and possibly attack the U.S., through terrorist intermediaries.

If they don't, however, it looks as if war will be inevitable.

Pianka's Predicament

University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka denies that he endorses bio-terrorism, and maybe he doesn't, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that he does. Bill Dembski writes the following:

The scientific establishment is closing ranks and now portraying Pianka as a benefactor of humanity despite his recommendation that 90% of humans be eliminated by airborne Ebola (see previous entries about Pianka on this blog). For an example of the spin, look here. Interestingly, a video interview with Pianka that is available at that site has now been doctored. At the close of the interview (before it was doctored, and which was available earlier today), Pianka is heard saying: "We need to plan our collapse rather than just let it happen to us." One could almost think this is an invitation to bioterrorism.

Before you buy the upcoming media spin on Pianka ("he's just a kindly, saintly old biologist deeply concerned about overpopulation who is being misrepresented by right-wing extremists"), ask yourself if it doesn't strike you as odd that prior to making his speech before the Texas Academy of Sciences (the speech that led to all the uproar), Pianka requested cameras and tape recorders be switched off because folks aren't ready to hear what he has to say. And now, when word of what he said gets out, he wants to play the part of the injured, misunderstood party.

Let's be clear: Pianka has not recanted anything. But he is now overtly denying what he said. Not to worry. The local newspaper and Texas Monthly have tapes of a second speech in which he made essentially the same points about ridding the earth of humans. Transcripts of the second speech are being made and will be available shortly.

Professor Pianka, according to the local paper linked to at the beiginning of this post, seems to have cleaned from his web-site a lot of information that could reasonably be interpreted as inculpating. We'll be interested to see what the afore-mentioned transcripts have to say.

Berlinski, Part 3

David Berlinski continues his tongue-in-cheek interview with himself in part 3 at Intelligent Design the Future. Along the way he discusses how odd it is that there has been such a vigorous allergic reaction in the evolutionary community to Intelligent Design.

A Public Disgrace

Michelle Malkin has a photo of Cynthia McKinney's Get Out of Jail Free card:

The radio news reported last night that McKinney is going to file charges against the police officer who tried to stop her from entering the Capitol Building without going through the metal detector. This poor guy probably barely makes enough money to provide a comfortable living for his family, yet he nevertheless is prepared to defend our politicians with his life. He performs his duties as he is required by stopping this arrogant, pompous, self-important knucklehead, and she smacks him for his impertinence and calls him a racist. Then she threatens to press charges against him. These are the tactics of a low class bully.

Laboring under the delusion that she's nobility rather than a public servant, this woman evidently thinks that being elected to public office makes her somehow superior to those whose job it is to protect American citizens. She doesn't have to follow the rules that apply to the rest of us commoners. Her attitude toward this policeman, and others with whom she's had similar unseemly altercations, is a fitting metaphor for the left's attitude toward national security.

She claims that her only crime was being in Congress while black when, in fact, her crime is being in Congress while simultaneously being an imbecile.

Ms McKinney doesn't belong in the position she's in. Not only does she lack the intellectual heft required for the job, she also lacks the moral qualifications necessary for the role of a Congressperson. That someone as d�class� as she would be elected to a position of such high responsibility is a national disgrace and embarrassment.

The Right Brothers on Video

The Right Brothers rock on for Bush. Good stuff, as far as it goes. Sounds a lot like Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire.

Now, if only Bush were as right on immigration and spending as he has been on the matters the Brothers praise him for we'd be singing right along.

9 in 10 Need to Die

You're going to die an awful, painful and premature death, and what's more, you should.

One of the arguments we hear from those scientists who oppose teaching Intelligent Design in public schools is that ID will turn students off to science. Students won't want to engage in research, we're assured, if they think that biological phenomena do not have a completely physical explanation. This is nonsense, of course, but we wonder what those who are so worried about what young minds are exposed to in science class rooms think of Professor Eric Pianka down at the University of Texas.

Professor Pianka instructs his students that we have far too many people in the world right now, and that the solution is to kill off 90% of us through some natural means such as the Ebola virus. The mind reels. Do UT officials blanche at this endorsement, by one of their esteemed faculty members, of genocide on a massive scale? Yes, indeedy. They'll have none of it, sort of.

For instance, Neal Armstrong, vice provost for faculty affairs, lays down the law:

Profesor Pianka is free to say whatever he wants in his classes, Mr. Armstrong allows, but when he's advocating the deaths of 90% of the world's people in public lectures, why, then he better make it clear to his audience that he's not speaking for the University. Or else ... or else, we'll get really, really miffed.

And don't you dare think that UT doesn't have a social conscience. Mr. Armstrong goes on to leave no doubt where the University stands on the matter of encouraging genocide:

"Students should be able to discern on their own the validity of views like Pianka's, but if allegations of Pianka actively advocating human death were to be confirmed, there might be some discussion about the appropriateness of that subject. I would hope that's not what's intended. I don't think that's appropriate for the classroom, but that's my personal statement."

There might be some discussion? Not appropriate? Armstrong doesn't think it's appropriate, but, hey, that's just his opinion, and we all know that nobody's opinion is any better than anyone else's, so what does it matter? Translated, all that this mealy-mouthed administrator-speak means is that UT won't touch this issue with a ten foot pole.

Those critics, however, who, unlike administrators, are given to plain-speaking and clear thinking raise disquieting questions:

Does Pianka believe, for example, that nature will bring about this promised devastation all by herself? Or is humanity's own dissemination of a deadly virus the only answer? And more importantly, is this the motive behind his talks?

As if responding to these impertinent queries, Pianka says forthrightly: "Good terrorists would be taking [stealing] Ebola ... so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of the people."

Good terrorists?!

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether Pianka is encouraging students to facilitate the spread of an epidemic, or encouraging them to accept mass death when it comes, or whether he's simply pointing out the consequences of over-population. If it's the first, how's what he's doing any different than a terrorist urging the masses to rise up and kill the larger population?

He may be right that a worldwide pandemic is likely to happen relatively soon, but he steps beyond his field of competence, and beyond any fundamental principles of humanity, if and when he suggests that such a horror should happen.

If this is, indeed, what he believes and what he's teaching, he'd certainly have made a good and useful German in Hitler's Third Reich.

Blacks Need a War

Errol Louis calls upon his fellow blacks to go to war, but he wants them to battle against what has come to be known as black "culture." Some excerpts:

What we need is a culture war. Specifically, we need aggressive, concerted action by members and institutions of the respectable black middle class to do open combat against the rise of an ancient enemy: a bold, seductive street culture that exalts lawlessness, addiction and anti-family behavior like pimping, sexual promiscuity, ignorance and personal selfishness.

[Tavis] Smiley and civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson tend to gloss over a split that has run through black culture for more than a century: the need to choose between the narcissistic pursuit of short-term pleasure and the plodding but rewarding business of building strong families and communities, where learning is sacred and the needs of the next generation trump the cravings of the moment.

In other words, black Americans need to talk more about culture. We need to fight over it.

My former professor, Orlando Patterson of Harvard, recently weighed in on the topic in The New York Times, scolding black leaders for "the rejection of any explanation that invokes a group's cultural attributes - its distinctive attitudes, values and predispositions, and the resulting behavior of its members - and the relentless preference for relying on structural factors like low incomes, joblessness, poor schools and bad housing."

"What sociologists call the 'cool-pose culture' of young black men was simply too gratifying to give up," Patterson wrote. "For these young men, it was almost like a drug, hanging out on the street after school, shopping and dressing sharply, sexual conquests, party drugs, hip-hop music and culture."

That mirage of street life tempts countless kids to discard the virtues of education, hard work and personal decency.

More teachers, preachers, politicians, journalists and other black Americans with a pulpit need to enlist in the battle against the self-defeating lure of street culture.

All we are saying is give war a chance.

It has become the convention in our society that only blacks are permitted to say such things about other blacks. If a white man were to have written this column Cynthia McKinney and her hangers-on would be screaming about "racism" and "blaming the victim" and all the other threadbare slogans which have served only to rationalize black failure and which have done nothing to instill in blacks a sense that they are in charge of their own lives.

We can all, black and white, be thankful, however, that more blacks are recognizing how poorly served they have been by the culture of victimhood that the left has sold them and the reluctance of most whites to criticize a mode of life that everyone knows is deeply dysfunctional but few dare say so out loud. Whites have been so intimidated by the "who are you to judge?" menatlity that it's easier to just not say anything than to waste hours of one's time seeking to absolve oneself of the inevitable charges of racism.

Journalistic Liberalism

Is the media liberal? Do birds fly?

A recent poll by the people at the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 94% of print journalists and 82% of broadcast journalists agreed that homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society.

Additionally, 55% of all journalists think the coverage of the Bush presidency is not critical enough. About 35% think it is fair.

Those two sets of data would certainly seem to indicate that journalists as a whole reside on the liberal side of town, but they themselves apparently don't see it.

For example, 59% of the journalists responding couldn't think of any daily national news organization that is especially liberal in its coverage of the news - not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, not CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN - but 82% had no trouble at all thinking of at least one that is conservative.

Not only are journalists political southpaws, but this last item suggests that they are evidently oblivious to the fact. They believe that their convictions are reasonable and therefore they must be moderate. Those media outlets which share the same convictions as they must therefore also be moderate, and those which oppose their views must perforce be irrational right-wingers. What could be more clear?

Cynthia

Quick Quiz: Which of the following best explains the expression on Cynthia McKinney's face?

a. She just stuck her finger into a hot light socket.

b. She's being goosed by Hillary Clinton.

c. She's just been told that Dick Cheney is running for president in '08.

d. She's just been told that being a black woman does not entitle her to slug police officers.

America the Beautiful

Peggy Noonan has an absolutely lovely column in Opinion Journal that should be read by every American. America, she insists, has no shortage of heroes, and it's the greatest country in the history of the planet, yet we're placing it all at risk because we have come to doubt the inherent goodness of our principles and of our people. We no longer teach love of country, and we've allowed ourselves to lose our sense of being a mutually interdependent community. We are, she says, like a big box store. Everyone wants to go there, but there's no spirit, no real loyalty to the place, no sense of belonging to something bigger than ourselves.

She crafts a wonderful piece of writing which you can read here.

Up From Atheism

How's this for irony? One of the most influential atheists of the last half of the twentieth century is being presented an award by a conservative Christian university named in honor of one of the seminal figures in the Intelligent Design movement:

La Mirada, Calif. - British philosopher Antony Flew, once considered the most prominent defender of atheism in the English-speaking world, will accept the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth on May 11 from Biola University, a Christian university in Southern California. Flew, 83, argued in books such as God and Philosophy (1966) and The Presumption of Atheism (1984) that one should presuppose atheism until evidence for God proves otherwise. Then, in 2004, the Oxford-educated philosopher stunned the intellectual world by relinquishing his long-held atheism, claiming that the natural sciences supplied evidence for the existence of a designing intelligence. Flew said that he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."

The Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth was given to Flew for his lifelong commitment to free and open inquiry and to standing fast against intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression. Flew drew scorn from skeptics following his shift in views. When informed that he was this year's award winner, he remarked, "In light of my work and publications in this area and the criticism I've received for changing my position, I appreciate receiving this award."

There's more on both Flew and the award at the link.

Jill Carroll

Jill Carroll, able to speak freely without fear of retribution, shares her feelings toward those who held her captive and murdered her friend:

I'm so happy to be free and am looking forward to spending a lot of time with my family. I want to express my deep appreciation to all the people who worked so long and hard for my release. I am humbled by the sympathy and support expressed by so many people during my kidnapping.

In the past few days, the US military and officials have been extremely generous, and I am grateful for their help. Throughout this ordeal, many US agencies have committed themselves to bringing me safely home.

My colleagues at The Christian Science Monitor have worked ceaselessly to secure my release, and worked with security consultants to do so. Many other news organizations, both inside and outside of Iraq, as well as many officials from Iraq and other countries, worked hard to bring about my freedom.

So many people around the world spoke out on my behalf. Thank you, all of you.

During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me they would let me go if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. I agreed.

Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not. The people who kidnapped me and murdered Alan Enwiya are criminals, at best. They robbed Alan of his life and devastated his family. They put me, my family and my friends--and all those around the world, who have prayed so fervently for my release--through a horrific experience. I was, and remain, deeply angry with the people who did this.

I also gave a TV interview to the Iraqi Islamic Party shortly after my release. The party had promised me the interview would never be aired on television, and broke their word. At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times.

Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: That I refused to travel and cooperate with the US military and that I refused to discuss my captivity with US officials. Again, neither is true.

I want to be judged as a journalist, not as a hostage. I remain as committed as ever to fairness and accuracy--to discovering the truth--and so I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes.

Now, I ask for the time to heal. This has been a taxing 12 weeks for me and my family. Please allow us some quiet time alone, together.

Those who were quick to criticize her for her earlier statements are probably feeling a little chagrined right about now.

America's Baghdad Bob

Either Howard Dean is astonishingly mendacious or he inhabits some alternative universe where truth has no correspondence to objective reality and is instead whatever one happens to be saying at the moment. The AP, scarcely able to believe it themselves, reports that:

Howard Dean accuses Bush, GOP of exploiting immigration issue

Democratic Party chief Howard Dean accused President Bush and the Republican Party on Friday of exploiting the immigration issue for political gain by scapegoating Hispanics. Dean and Bush agree on the legislation at the heart of the debate. Both support a Senate bill that would expand guest-worker programs for an estimated 400,000 immigrants each year.

However, at a speech in an Oakland union hall, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate sought to tie Bush to a much tougher House bill that would tighten borders and make it a crime to be in the United States illegally or to offer aid to illegal immigrants. Bush does not back the House bill.

"This is a nonsensical proposal put out by far right-wingers in the Republican Party who have been endorsed for re-election by the president of the United States," Dean said. "The president has a moral obligation to rein in the right-wing extremists in his party and stop this divisive rhetoric about immigrants."

Bush has spent his political career courting Hispanic voters, the nation's fastest-growing voting bloc, and he has helped double the GOP's share of the Hispanic vote since 2000. Nevertheless, Dean accused Bush and fellow Republicans of demagoguery in the immigration debate, saying it fit with a long-standing pattern. He cited the president's opposition to the University of Michigan's affirmative-action program and Bush's decision to "pick on" homosexuals - an apparent reference to the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election.

"In 2006 it's immigrants. That's what their strategy is on the Republican side: divide people, scapegoat them, set them aside, point the finger at them," Dean said. "Well, that may be good for the Republican Party, but it's bad for America, and we're not going to do that."

Danny Diaz, a Republican National Committee spokesman, said Dean was twisting the facts on immigration. "While Republicans are engaged in a debate to reform immigration so it benefits our country as a whole, Dean and the Democrats are focused on manipulating the subject in a way that benefits no one but themselves," Diaz said. "It is clear that the chair of the Democrat Party does not feel constrained by the truth or the facts."

In Mexico on Friday, Bush said the United States must enforce the laws protecting borders but he also repeated his support for a "guest worker program that would allow undocumented immigrants already in the country to remain."

Diaz has it right. Howard Dean will say anything, no matter how much at variance with the facts it may be, as long as it will benefit the Democrat party. The man is shameless, but, we have to hand it to him, he is entertaining. He's amusing in the same odd way that Baghdad Bob, the guy who kept appearing on tv during the Iraq invasion to tell us that the Marines at the gates of Baghdad were really still back in Kuwait, was amusing.

If Only

The Associated Press is reporting that congressional Democrats, led by Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi have put out a statement today which notes that the U.S. is involved in grave undertakings around the world and that these matters are of too serious a nature to be hindered by partisan political jockeying.

These Democrat leaders therefore wish to announce that they stand foursquare behind the president and his administration as he seeks to navigate the ship of state through treacherous shoals, and they offer him their full support for the duration of these perilous times.

They state that although he has made missteps in his conduct of foreign and domestic policy, on balance he has provided outstanding leadership to our nation during several very trying crises, and that the seriousness of his task requires nothing less of a loyal opposition than full support and constructive, rather than destructive, criticism. Henceforth, Senator Reid declared, the president can count fully on the Democrats for that support.

When asked for a reaction a White House spokesman noted that today is April 1st.

A National Embarrassment

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, whose attic has never been completely furnished, declares herself to be the victim of sexism, racism and any other odious "isms" that may be lurking about among those detestable Capitol Police. Her entourage of assorted nitwits and race hustlers concur with her judgment.

According to police and witnesses, Ms McKinney, showing no identification, circumvented a metal detector in the Capitol Building and refused to stop when instructed to do so by a police officer. When the officer, following procedure, sought to detain her she punched him in the chest. This has apparently become chronic behavior for the Georgia congresswoman, and the police plan to press charges.

In response, she claims her only crime was "being in congress while black." The mind groans wearily upon hearing this mindlessly juvenile resort to the allegation of racism once again trotted out to justify unjustifiable behavior on the part of some liberal black politico.

You can see video of Ms McKinney's press conference here. After watching the lady give her statement we've decided she doesn't need to spend time in jail - she needs to be placed in an asylum.

We wonder if the Georgia voters who elected her are as embarrassed as we are that this person somehow got to be a United States congresswoman.

Immigration Advice

Dick Morris comes very close to articulating our own position on the immigration issue, and consequently he composes a very sensible column on the subject. The only thing that he might emphasize more forcefully than he does is this: Once the fence - which is itself the sine qua non of any solution to the problem - is in place, there need be no concerted effort to hunt down aliens who are here illegally. The practicalities of such a policy are daunting and may not be worth the effort as long as the invasion of immigrants has been stanched. However, any illegal who gets into further trouble with the law, or who is chronically out of work, should be deported. The existence of the fence will prevent them from leaking back in.

What's going on in the Senate concerning their immigration bill is just a charade. It's as dumb as it is futile to pass a law that requires illegals to pay a fine and learn English unless there is some serious sanction imposed for failing to do it. Since the Senate seems to think that there need be no penalty for not registering or taking English classes, their bill is worse than useless. It would be largely ignored by illegal aliens, and there would be no real cost for ignoring it.

Build the wall, deport law breakers (unless they commit felonies), and let the oxymoronic law-abiding illegals do what they came here for. Give them a registration card that they must possess in order to be hired - let them work and pay taxes - but they should not be granted any of the rights or benefits of American citizens without going through proper channels to acquire citizen status.

One additional thing we'd like to see changed in our laws regarding citizenship: People who are born here to illegal aliens, or to any non-citizens, for that matter, should not automatically be granted citizenship. We do not object to allowing them to apply for it when they reach the age of eighteen, if they've maintained regular residency in the U.S., but we see no reason why it should be bestowed automatically simply because of an accident of birth.

Energy

Why am I bullish on energy investments? Here are several reasons.

Oil is presently above $67 per barrel. One might ask why this is so. In the early '70s oil was around $2 per barrel. Of course the price of a barrel of oil hasn't actually gone up but rather the purchasing power of the US dollar has gone down. Consequently, OPEC simply wants to maintain a fair relative value for a barrel of oil which, as an asset, has remained constant in terms of its utility.

There's also a certain fear factor component that no doubt is added to the price of oil because of the political climate that exists today. This contributes to the price of a barrel of oil in the form of a premium.

Additionally, the demand for oil (and other commodities) is increasing because China is experiencing its own industrial revolution just as the US did 100 years ago. India also contributes to the demand for the same reason.

There's concern about the future availability of oil due to the theory of "Peak Oil". This theory implies that the global supply of oil has peaked and has been or will be reached soon and future supply of oil will be more expensive to extract as the quantity of it declines. A concern for the supply of oil in the ground and the ability of OPEC to deliver it is beginning to be questioned by experts in the industry.

The bottom line is that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the single most important product in the world and the subsequent availability of it. Is the fact that action in the Middle East is the largest component of the news these days just a coincidence?

Given all of the uncertainty and the declining purchasing power of the dollar, companies involved in the energy industry stand to make substantial gains in their share price. One can invest in individual companies or they can buy into mutual funds that offer diversification across the energy market.

Personally, I'm inclined to leave the analysis of individual companies up to the guy at the mutual fund company whose job is to be an expert on the domain.

Below are two mutual funds from Fidelity that specialize in energy. By way of disclaimer, I have holdings in both of them. Visit their website and scroll down to the respective funds, check out their performance, and you'll see why.

Fidelity Energy (FSENX

Fidelity Energy Service (FSESX)

Read about these funds and decide for yourself if they're right for you.