I'm headed back to school on Monday -- but I still have time for a couple more nights of rodeo (and four nights next week, for that matter).

In the mean time, why don't you folks link up here with some of your best? It's time for our regular all-weekend linkfest!

I won't set any limits on how many you can link back here -- I just ask that you be reasonable in terms of quantity.

No porn or ads, though.

And hopefully a few more trackbacks than Wednesday!

OTHER OPEN TRACKBACKS:
Conservative Cat -- Conservative Cat

Can You Eat an Ice Cream Bar and Blog? -- Blue Star Chronicles

Bacon Break — Dance Party Weekend -- TMH's Bacon Bits

Friday/Weekend Open Trackbacks -- The Liberal Wrong Wing

Big Bucks Extended Weekend Trackback Party & Linkfest Mar. 10-12 -- Stuck On Stupid

Friday Forum - It's All About Books -- The Median Sib

Roundup and Weekend OTA Open Trackbacks -- third world county

The Return of the Knucklehead Weekend Open Trackbacks -- Adam's Blog

Welcome Tiberius Gracchus / Weekend Open Post -- The Real Ugly American.com

Friday News Roundup -- The Uncooperative Blogger

Posted by: Greg at 08:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 3 kb.

Time to focus in on one of my favorite sites -- Townhall.com, with its many great columns by conservative (and even some not very conservative) writers on politics and culture. Over the last two days, I've noticed a number of great columns -- even though Mike Adams has been silent.

So here goes, in no particular order.

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Todd Manzi writes on the Jay Bennish story, and raises the issue of who should determine what is said in the classroom. Is it the teacher, the district, or the taxpayer who foots the bill?

Who determines what a teacher can and cannot say? Many teachers like Bennish think it should be the teacher. The school districts think it should be them. Lawyers and teachers unions think it is the teacher. How about the taxpayer? IsnÂ’t there a reasonable expectation that the tax dollars funneled to government schools are not used for propaganda against the capitalist system that generated them?

* * *

On the Today Show, Bennish said, “My job as a teacher is to challenge students to think critically about issues that are affecting our world and our society.”

Many parents might think BennishÂ’s job is to teach their children geography.

Manzi has a point here, though I think he drops the ball at the end. He clearly does not know that teaching critical thinking skills is part of the social studies standards in most states, and that Bennish is therefore partially correct -- teaching critical thinking IS his job in a geography class. Unfortunately, Bennish isn't doing that, as I discussed earlier. But it is, ultimately, the taxpayers and their elected representatives who should set what is to be taught, as long as the school system is taxpayer funded.

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 AM | Comments (75) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

John Stossel notes that he has pissed off the teachers unions by shining a spotlight on what is wrong in American education. He notes that they don't refute his data, merely attack the messenger.

Instead, teachers' unions announced that Wednesday (3/ , they will hold demonstrations against me and ABC in New York City, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, and elsewhere. One police permit suggests the crowd outside my office will number 750-1,000 people. It should be interesting.

"We want to make sure that ABC hears the voices of incredibly hard-working teachers," says the union website, quoting New York City's UFT President Randi Weingarten. "The network needs to hear how unfair and biased those of you in the trenches believe their broadcast to have been."

I'm sorry that union teachers are mad at me. But when it comes to the union-dominated monopoly, the facts are inescapable. Many kids are miserable in bad schools. If they are not rich enough to move, or to pay for private school, they are trapped.

It doesn't have to be that way. We know what works: choice. That's what's brought Americans better computers, phones, movies, music, supermarkets -- most everything we have. Schoolchildren deserve the joyous benefits of market competition too.

Unions say, "education of the children is too important to be left to the vagaries of the market." The opposite is true. Education is too important to be left to the calcified union/government monopoly.

Which is, of course, one reason I'm glad that I don't have to be a union member down here in Texas. Now if only he will focus in on the politicians who don't know squat about education -- they make some real stupid policy decisions that need light shed on them.

MORE AT: GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 05:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

Linda Chavez points to another problem with the ports, overlooked in the hub-bub about Dubai Ports World -- the corrupt, mobbed-up labor union that controls hiring at most of the ports in the United States.

Regardless of whether or not a Dubai-owned company manages operations at these ports -- currently the source of much hand-wringing in Washington -- many of those with the most direct access to the billions of tons of cargo that move through those ports owe their jobs to the mob.

How can that be? It all has to do with the peculiar institution of the union hiring hall. No matter who owns or operates the ports, the union, not the employer, actually assigns workers to jobs. You can't work unless you carry a union card. And on East Coast and Gulf ports, the union card belongs to the International Longshoreman's Association (ILA), one of the most mobbed-up unions in the country.

In July 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against the ILA, which targets the entire 31-member ILA executive council, including the president, secretary-treasurer, executive vice president, general vice president and more than two dozen others.

* * *

Among the top recipients of ILA PAC money in the last few elections were Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, Robert Menendez, D-NJ, Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, all of whom represent states with important ports. Some of these same senators are among the chief critics of the Dubai port deal, but they are noticeably silent when it comes to mob influence in the union that actually controls who works on these ports.

Union bosses who would rob their members of pensions and health benefits, extort money to secure jobs on the docks, and use the docks to run gambling, loan sharking and other illegal enterprises could just as easily facilitate terrorists hoping to slip agents or weapons into the country, perhaps unwittingly, for the right price. But few in Washington seem to have considered the risk. The Dubai deal is not the only port issue that deserves more congressional scrutiny; ILA corruption surely deserves a close look as well.

I guess that since they give money to Democrats, we won't hear these same Democrats raising a stink about the threat to security that organized crime represents. After all, the union has already purchased the right Congressmen and Senators.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | Comments (52) | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

Marvin Olasky presents a list of books that might help the reader understand Islam -- both the radical version and its more benign-appearing moderate cousin.

Since 9-11, I've received numerous letters like this recent one: "What can be done to help educate people on the dangers that radical Islam poses to Western civilization? I don't think this ideological conflict will go away."

No, it won't. It is likely to be for the first half of the 21st century what the Cold War was for the last half of the 20th -- a long, subtle struggle with occasional days of fire. How to educate folks? Use of all media will be needed, but here's a list of books I've read and found useful. There are many more that I haven't read.

First, to understand radical Islam, some sense of basic Islam is essential, and that starts with the Quran. Muslims insist that unless you've read it in Arabic, you haven't read it. Maybe so, but in theology as well as in horseshoes, leaners are better than nothing, so I'd recommend either reading a translation on the Internet or buying the new Quran translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem that came out last year in paperback from Oxford University Press.

The list that follows is comprehensive and accessible -- and the information the books contain should help anyone with an open mind understand why we need to fight the terrorists and promote Western values in the Islamic world.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Brent Bozell raises the question of media bias -- outright anti-Catholicism, as a matter of fact -- in Katie Couric's interview with Tom Monaghan regarding his plans to form a town which is infused with Catholic values.

You'd think Katie Couric would aspire to be an anchorwoman for all the American people now that CBS appears to be wooing her for the Throne of Rather. So why did she have to be so rough on Thomas Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza, for being a Catholic?

Monaghan has an extraordinary American story. After struggling badly with his brother in a failing pizza business, he bought his brother out in 1960 and, by the 1980s, had accumulated amazing riches. He was enjoying them, too, all the gaudy trappings of success, and then he read the book "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Reading about the great sin of pride, his life changed dramatically. He stopped concentrating on material things, instead focusing his energies, and his wealth, in pursuit of spiritual good. He poured millions upon millions of dollars into pro-life and Catholic philanthropy. Among other ventures, he founded Ave Maria University. After facing zoning problems with his first location in Michigan, Monaghan struck a deal in southern Florida, not to merely build a Catholic college, but a truly Catholic town, open to anyone aspiring to live in communion with traditional values.

That, of course, is when he earned the ire of Katie Couric. Monaghan and his developer partner Paul Marinelli appeared on the three network morning shows on March 3, but whereas ABC and CBS were calm, Couric's performance on NBC was so harsh it was jaw-dropping.

* * *

Couric betrayed her secular liberal allegiances by baldly concluding the interview: "Well, we'll probably be following this story, because I know the ACLU is, too." Then she laughed.

Even today, other religions have started up communities founded on their beliefs. In southwestern Iowa, some New Age Hindus have created the town of Maharishi Vedic City, a religious center based on the principles and teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. There's been no dire civil-liberties alert from Couric yet, even though the city has banned the sale of non-organic food and the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

Stop the presses! Get Couric on the line! Civil rights at risk! Intolerance and bigotry afoot! Oh, wait ... wait. You said Hindus? Oh, never mind.

But don't you understand, Brent? Hindus are a part of the new, diverse America that left-wing moonbats and bimbos like Katie Couric are so fond of. Catholics -- at least ones who actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches -- are alien to America and never to be trusted. I'm surprised she didn't use this old Thomas Nast cartoon as a graphic.

Who says that anti-Catholicism is dead in America?

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 4 kb.

Loredana Vuoto reviews Michael Deaver's new anthology, Why I Am a Reagan Conservative.

In Why I Am a Reagan Conservative, Deaver compiles personal accounts by conservative icons on how Reagan shaped their conservative beliefs. This fun, easy-to read book gives great insight into the thought of some prominent conservatives such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, former GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole, ReaganÂ’s Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Rick Santorum, as well as columnist Robert Novak and film critic Michael Medved.

Many of these conservatives were drawn to the simple, pragmatic truths of conservatism. They perceived the harm of big government, which corroded individual responsibility and stifled initiative. The ever-expanding welfare state of the 1970s proved detrimental to the economy and was responsible for many social ills such as high unemployment, increased teen pregnancy and the decline of marriage. They realized that government was not the solution to societyÂ’s woes, but the overarching problem.

* * *

Reagan’s greatest contribution to modern conservatism is that he helped to redefine a movement that had become ideologically and politically bankrupt following the Great Depression and World War II. Many of the conservative leaders of that era—for example, Robert Taft and Herbert Hoover—championed isolationism, protectionism and a xenophobic nationalism that no longer resonated with the public. Reagan (along with other key figures before him such as William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater) modernized conservatism, thereby making it appealing to broad swaths of the electorate.

Today, conservatism has become the dominant political and cultural force in the country. This was shown in November 2004, when George W. Bush won re-election to a second term, making him the first two-term Republican president since Reagan. Moreover, the GOP controls both houses of Congress. Conservative thought pervades the marketplace. Think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation continue to thrive and produce ground-breaking work. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, The Weekly Standard and National Review produce some of the finest and most influential political commentary in the country. And conservative radio talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Schlessinger dominate the airwaves. The same holds true for the Fox News Channel, which has leapfrogged both CNN and MSNBC in the number of television viewers and overall media clout.

Conservatism is on the march. Whether it will ultimately triumph is anyoneÂ’s guess. But one thing is for certain: ReaganÂ’s leadership and charisma were primarily responsible for the movementÂ’s current success. For this, he deserves the gratitude of conservatives everywhere.

One of the questions I hope is dealt with is that of the nexus between Reagan conservatism and neo-conservatism. Are they, ultimately, compatible? Given the continuing expansion of government (much of it in the name of national security), how much influence does Reagan conservatism have today, and how can it again become ascendant?

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, the Ditch Bitch finally admits it .

It seems that the protests of "Saint Cindy Sheehan, Our Lady of the Martyred Soldier" has made it clear that her protests have nothing to do with her son, Case, who was killed in Iraq.

MODERATOR: Cindy, here's a question for you... "Over the past several months you've become a lightning rod for the anti-war movement, and a polarizing figure for military families. Is this what Casey would have wanted? Or are you doing this for yourself?"...

...CINDY SHEEHAN: I'm doing this for... the troops to come home.

(applause)

CINDY SHEEHAN: And... I'm not doing this for Casey. Casey's already dead. I wish I would have done it for Casey before he was killed.(emphasis added)

Let's not forget -- Casey reenlisted knowing that he would be sent to Iraq -- and supported the mission there. He was a hero before he died, is a hero after death, and the exploitation of his good name by those who oppose his choice and the sacrifice he made is hideous.

And that Mama Sheehan stands upon the dead body of her son to use him as a pulpit to preach against what he believed is truly vile.

By the way, Cindy -- when will you buy Casey's headstone? His grave is still unmarked. But you can afford a new convertible. It is really clear that you aren't doing this for Casey -- you are doing this for you.

Your 15 minutes are up, woman -- and your allegedly unquestionable moral authority has evaporated.

Posted by: Greg at 06:13 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Will hate crime charges be pending against these church burners?

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- Two Birmingham college students have been arrested and a third is being sought in the string of church arsons that destroyed or damaged nine rural churches in Alabama last month, federal law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details are under court seal and the formal announcement is to be made later, said the two are being charged with conspiracy and individual counts in the arsons at five Bibb County churches and four in west Alabama.

Arson investigators scheduled an afternoon news conference at the Tuscaloosa airport to discuss the arrests.

Federal law officers said the two arrested were students at Birmingham-Southern College, and the third person being sought was described as a student at another Birmingham school.

The two in custody were brought to the federal courthouse in Birmingham for their initial appearance before a federal magistrate.

It will be interesting to see what traits these three mutts share in common. I won't speculate, but I have some suspicions.

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like Dan Patrick stomped his competition in SD 7.

Calling his victory the start of a revolution, radio talk-show host Dan Patrick on Tuesday won the Republican nomination to succeed state Sen. Jon Lindsay, trouncing three politically experienced opponents.

Patrick, in his first bid for elected office, used his name identification from more than 20 years as a local TV and radio personality to win the District 7 nomination without a runoff.

With most precincts reporting, Patrick had 68 percent of the vote. State Rep. Peggy Hamric claimed a distant second at 17 percent.

"The revolution started tonight," Patrick said. "The people of SD7 want their party to stand up and take action on the issues that are important to them. I hope Republicans in Austin realize this is not isolated to SD7."

Two of his opponents, Hamric and state Rep. Joe Nixon, conceded in phone calls to Patrick. The third, former Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis, said he would support Patrick as the GOP nominee.

Hamric and Nixon will give up what had been safe House seats.

The District 7 race was closely watched and became the most competitive and expensive state legislative battle. The four contenders spent a combined $1.5 million in the heated race. The district is solidly Republican, so Patrick will be the favorite in November against Democrat F. Michael Kubosh.

Patrick said he will focus on property tax relief, overall spending and immigration.

The retiring incumbent, a major league RINO, is already attacking his probable successor.

Lindsay, who endorsed Hamric as his successor, has said that Patrick will "have to change his ways" to succeed in the Senate.

For example, Patrick has argued that the Senate should do away with the rule that requires a two-thirds vote for a bill to be brought up for debate.

"That's how we keep composure on that side of the rotunda. It's a good rule. It causes everyone to think through what they are attempting to do," Lindsay said.

John -- this vote is a stunning repudiation of the "business as usual" approach that you practiced for years. The notion that the majority should act like a majority may stun you, but it is common sense to your average Texan.

The Lindsay-loving Houston Chronicle is already out to get Dan, though. Look at this column in today's paper.

It will be fascinating to watch how Patrick strives to make an impact in Austin. Will he roll up his sleeves in committee work and find all the "fat" he claims is in the budget?

Occasionally a freshman demagogue has come along who declined to do that but who made a grand stand for cutting taxes when the day for the final budget vote came.

They don't last long. Their colleagues tend to find a convenient place to cut the budget: in the demagogue's district.

At least as fascinating will be how Patrick meshes his radio station with his political career.

He has used the station brilliantly in his campaign. How would he use it to govern?

Would he offer air time to Senate colleagues to gain favor? Would he attempt to get them on the air so that listeners can press them for pet measures?

One senator already expressed concern that with Patrick as part of a caucus, now-private discussions may become talk-show fodder.

Patrick is a self-proclaimed Christian, so he is presumably aware of two types of leadership in the Church.

There are prophets and bishops.

Prophets — and false prophets — prosper on the airwaves.

But bishops do better in conclaves.

But then again, Rick Casey and the Chronicle despise all things conservative.

Too bad for them that Texans don't.

Give 'em hell, Dan!

Posted by: Greg at 05:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like all the folks who said support was weak for Tom DeLay didn't know what they were talking about. He won 62% of the vote in a four-way race for the GOP nomination, handily defeating his opponents.

Still facing legal battles, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay won a pivotal political fight Tuesday by defeating three challengers in the Republican primary for his Houston-area seat.

Opponent Tom Campbell, former general counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, fell short of forcing the former House majority leader into a runoff.

DeLay won 62 percent of the vote in the 22nd Congressional District, which covers parts of Harris, Brazoria, Fort Bend and Galveston counties, according to the totals from 97 percent of precincts.

"I have always placed my faith in the voters, and today's vote shows they have placed their full faith in me," DeLay said in a written victory statement. "This race was about who can effectively represent the values and the priorities of the people in this district, and I'm proud to have earned, and overwhelmingly kept, that trust among Republican voters."

"Not only did they reject the politics of personal destruction, but they strongly rejected the candidates who used those Democrat tactics as their platform," he added.

In second place with 30 percent of the vote was Tom Campbell, former general counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Lawyer Mike Fjetland and former teacher and oil industry credit manager Pat Baig each took less than 5 percent.

"I'm kind of shocked," Fjetland said at the Fort Bend County Republican Party's Primary Night soiree at the Ragin Cajun restaurant in Sugar Land. "I'm very concerned about the future of the Republican Party."

Yes, Tom DeLay ran behind his traditional 82-86% of the primary vote -- but he has never had three opponents before.

One political scientist has this to say.

DeLay's totals show that "nearly 40 percent of an ideologically committed (Republican) vote has decided to bail on him," said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson. "He still has a hell of a fight in the general election."

I'm going to disagree with this assessment.

Delay has always had about 15% of the district Republicans opposing him. That is how a non-entity like Fjetland did as well as he did in his earlier races against DeLay. We also had a heavy cross-over vote this time around -- I recognized about 10% of those at my precinct as partisan Democrats. After all, when you ask someone if they are coming to vote in the Republican primary and get a response like "Never before, never again, but this time yes," you can be pretty sure that they are not a part of the GOP base.

But I do think there is 20% of the GOP base that opposed Tom DeLay because of his legal troubles, wanting a solid GOP candidate like Campbell to ensure that the seat will be held by a Republican in the event that DeLay's legal troubles continue or get worse. Most of this last group will support Tom DeLay in November.

And the remaining 62%? We don't want outsiders picking our Congressman for us. We don't care if it is Ronnie Earle, the Democrat National Committee, or these guys.

Coming to churches, bowling alleys and living rooms near you: The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress.

As former House Majority Leader DeLay readied himself Tuesday to accept his party's nomination for another congressional term in Washington, D.C., two Texas filmmakers announced plans to release a scathing documentary in DeLay's Sugar Land district, criticizing the popular politician. Tentative plans also call for a screening in Houston, they said.

Numerous liberal groups stepped up to sponsor the film's expected release in early May, including Houston's Pacifica radio station, KPFT-FM (90.1). The film will rely heavily upon releases in small venues and at a few select theaters.

Filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck spent three years following the path of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's criminal investigation, which resulted in indictments against DeLay and two political associates.

And I hope every penny spent to produce and show this film is counted as a contribution to Nick Lampson and the Democrats -- making most of the expenditures illegal under federal and state campaign laws.

And, of course, i think this is exhibit #1 in Delay's case for dismissal of the charges against him AND the disbarrment proceedings against Ronnie Earle.

Let me say this -- We, the Constituents of Texas Congressional District 22, will pick our Congressman.

The rest of you can go to hell.

UPDATE: Tom DeLay has this to say, emphasizing the point I made above.

"I'm honored . . . to defend this district from the funding and activism of America's most radical Democrats," he said. "Liberal activists like Barbra Streisand, George Soros and Nancy Pelosi all have a dog in this fight, and his name is Nick Lampson."

Especially if you think back to how the Democrats aced out a popular local minority politician who actually lives in the 22nd District.

OPEN TRACKBACKS/LINKFESTS: Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch USA, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Cao's Blog, Right Wing Nation, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 05:26 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 882 words, total size 6 kb.

Yesterday was primary day in Texas.

I was up at 0400 to get ready to be at the polling place at 0600. Shower, shave, drive to the poling place.

At 0600, I and only one of my staff arrived torunn the polling place. One was ill, and so called to let me know she couldn't come. One bopped in around 0630, in time to still be some help.

Polls opened at 0700. About 0720, my last poll worker arrives -- had to take the girls to school. It really isn't a problem, since we've only had five voters by this point, including me and my staff.

We had a slow day -- only around 135 voters -- but 50 folks early voted. I don't know what the Donks got over at their polling place, but I suspect the numbers were smaller. That's why I had time to post intermittently yesterday, since we had long stretches of no voters at all.

We shut down promply at 1900, and held the precinct convention at 1930. The participants were the usual suspects -- me, the guy who was my predecessor and his wife, and one of the local activists and his mom. All rsolutions passed, and we were out by 1957. Turned in the voting supplies and computers at 2045, and was home by 2145, having stopped to pick up dinner for my darling wife and I.

And collapsed into a sound sleep once the last bite was done.

I'll look up the results in a few minutes and post on them.

* * *

In the mean time, folks, it is time for my Wednesday Linkfest -- go ahead and link to me with anything interesting.

You know how it works -- you link to this post and send a trackback, and your post will display here. So link away -- I won't set a maximum number of items you can link with here, but I would hope that you would consider exercising prudent judgement on the matter. No porn, please, and no advertising -- just interesting stuff.

OTHER OPEN TRACKBACKS/LINKFESTS: Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch USA, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Cao's Blog, Right Wing Nation, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 03:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

Vic over at Darth Apathy found this little bit on an Indymedia site.

The Rachel Corrie Memorial Committee of Victoria Invites you to a pancake breakfast at DennyÂ’s Restaurant Sunday March 12 , 2006 10 am.

The Public is invited to a memorial pancake breakfast at DennyÂ’s Restaurant on Douglas Street near Finlayson, 10 am, Sunday March 12, 2006 to celebrate the life and untimely death of Rachel Corrie, Peace Activist with the International Solidarity Movement.

There will be a reading of selections from Ms. CorrieÂ’s letters and diary, followed by a ceremony at Topaz Park, where a stone cairn will be erected in her honour.

Attendees are encouraged to wear their keffiahs, and to dress in black.

No weapons, drugs, or alcohol please.

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/

ISM offers many ways for you to get involved in the struggle for Palestinian freedom. Whether youÂ’re thinking of traveling to Palestine to work with us, or youÂ’d like to work to educate your community about the reality in Palestine, we welcome your involvement.

I'm utterly speechless.

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Dan Frazier is scum, exploiting dead military personnel over the objections of their family members. And he intends to keep making a profit off the dead bodies of dead soldiers, sailors, and airmen, no matter what.

That is why Yvette Burridge is fighting for legislatitonzier an to stop Frazier and other war profiteering ghouls like him.

An Acadiana mother has a message for anti-war protestors. She wants them to stop profiting from the death of her son. And, it's a fight she's hoping to take to Washington, D.C.

The mother of a Marine killed-in-action tells how she hopes to protect her son's name.

Yvette Burridge has been spending every free moment on the internet, fuming over one site in particular - carryabigsticker.com, which promotes and sells anti-war and anti-President Bush paraphernalia.

Why is she angry? Burridge's son, Marine Private First Class David Paul Burridge was killed in Iraq in 2004 when a suicide bomber attacked his convoy.

Now, his name and the names of other fallen military personnel are listed on anti-war stickers and t-shirts, all of which read, "Bush lied, they died."

Yvette Burridge says it is something she doesn't want to be associated with and knows her son doesn't want to be associated with it either.

Burridge claims she is not alone, saying the families of other fallen soldiers are disgusted over this website and other anti-war sites that profit from their loved one's deaths.

And so Burridge is seeking to protect the good name and honorable service of her son and other American heroes through legislation banning the exploitation of the names and images of war dead without the permission of their survivors. Such legislation is pending in Oklahoma.

Not that the objections of family members matter to a scumbag like Frazier, who makes money by treading on the corpses of those killed in the war on terror.

Meanwhile, the owner of the website - carryabigsticker.com says he will not remove any soldier's names from his products.

Dan Frazier says he's a firm believer in freedom of speech and feels that if soldiers are going to be listed, all of them need to be listed, and remember all of them and treat them all equally.

Dan Frazier says his intention is not to be disrespectful to any of the fallen soldiers, and he is sorry some families feel that he is.

It isn't a question of feelings, Mr. Frazier. It is a question of fact.

Contact him and let him know what you think.

Posted by: Greg at 08:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

In a continuation of the scandal at Houston's city hall, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado has stepped aside from that position (but not her City Council seat).

"I intend to temporarily Â… step aside from the office of the mayor pro tem pending the outcome of the grand jury investigation," said Alvarado at MondayÂ’s news conference. "I did nothing improper and IÂ’ve accepted responsibility."

Hopefully the people of of Houston will end Alvarado's career at the first opportunity.

Posted by: Greg at 07:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Has Iran committed an act of war against the US by supplying the Iraqi terrorists with weapons to attack American troops -- including specially designed bombs with the ability to pierce American armor?

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

Screw their nuclear program -- if this is actually the case, then the Iranians are engaged in intentional acts against American military personnel. Time to take action.

MORE AT: Vince Aut Morire, Captain's Quarters, Generation Why?, Ace of Spades, Dread Pundit Bluto, Protein Wisdom, Confederate Yankee, Jawa Report

Posted by: Greg at 06:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

But what else can you call this?

A University of North Carolina graduate from Iran, accused of running down nine people on campus to avenge the treatment of Muslims, said at a hearing Monday that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah."

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar was accused of driving a sport-utility vehicle through the Pit, a popular campus gathering spot, injuring nine people Friday. None of the victims was seriously hurt.

University Police Chief Derek Poarch said Taheri-azar told investigators he intentionally hit people to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world." In a 911 call after the incident, Taheri-azar said he wanted to "punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world."

Taheri-azar, 22, appeared in Orange County District Court on nine counts of attempted murder and nine counts of assault.

His bail was set at $5.5 million and he was assigned a public defender, but he said after the hearing: "The truth is my lawyer."

And the truth is that we have had a low-grade Islamic terrorist attack on an American college campus, but no one wants to call it terrorism.

Well, that isn't quite true -- no one in an official capacity wants to call it terrorism. Students at UNC are not so hesitant.

On campus, UNC students held what they called an "anti-terrorism" rally. "We don't want terrorism here, and we're not going to stand for that where we live and where we go to school," said Kris Wampler, a student at UNC and member of the College Republicans, which helped organize the rally.

About 50 students attended the rally, including several Muslim students who debated with organizers and said Taheri-azar had not been linked to any terrorist group.

One Muslim student tried to discount the connection to terrorism.

"When you think in terms of a global context, this was an isolated incident," said student Khurram Bilal Tariq, 22.

While that is true, that does not meant that we are dealing with a terrorist attack -- just that we are dealing with a terrorist attack. It simply means that we are dealing with someone who is engaging in terrorism independent of the larger groups. UNC student Stephen Mann put it well.

"If you try to hurt someone in the name of a cause, that's terrorism," he said.

While I might polish that statement just a little bit, I think he is essenially correct.

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Shish's Corner, Ranting Profs, Scared Monkeys, Uncorrelated, Democrat on the Redneck Riviera, Michelle Malkin, A Blog for All, Okie on the Lam, All Things Conservative, Plank's Constant, Junk Yard Blog, Church and State, HyScience, Outside the Beltway, Noisy Room, Tapscott's Copy Desk, Strata-Sphere, Unpartisan, FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog, The Stupid Shall Be Punished, RapidRecon

Posted by: Greg at 04:23 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 5 kb.

ItÂ’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world except for Lola.

Hood College is reviewing its homecoming rules after a lesbian was crowned king, a college official says.

But Jennifer Jones, the 21-year-old senior who beat out three men for the honor, says her victory last month was a plus for the private liberal-arts college.

"It is cool that Hood allows people to be themselves," Jones, of Newark, Del., told The Frederick News-Post. "If people didn't want me to be king, they wouldn't have nominated me and voted for me."

Waves of discontent are still rippling through the 2,100-student campus in western Maryland more than two weeks after Jones was crowned at the Feb. 18 homecoming dance, the News-Post reported Monday.

One student sees it as a very simple question.

"She is not a man," said Singleton Newman, a 22-year-old senior who was among the queen candidates. "It is a gender issue, and she is a woman."

And I really think that is fundamental. Sometimes gender/sex does matter.

Posted by: Greg at 03:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

One attendee at Sunday nights Academy of Friends AIDS fundraising gala in San Francisco made this unintentionally funny comment.

Caralee Schmitt, who attended the event with her husband, marveled at the cowboy couture on display Sunday, which she had never seen growing up in Bozeman, Mont.

"My father was a cowboy, but not at all like these kind of cowboys," said Schmitt, who lives in South San Francisco.

Must.

Not.

Go.

There.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Each week, Watcher of Weasels seeks out the best posts from around the blogosphere. The winning entries are determined by a jury of 12 writers (and The Watcher) known as "The Watchers Council."

The Council have submitted their choices from among last week's nominated posts.

Council Member Entries: Done With Mirrors took first place with Our George.

Non-Council Entries: Michael J. Totten garnered the most votes with his post from Iraq called The Beginning of the Universe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

A very long time ago, most folks learned that if you regularly take money from someone, they can pretty well set any condition upon its continued receipt. For most of us, that lesson came in the form of parents punishing us by not paying us our allowance.

College and university administrators, along with law professors, are so far removed from the real world that they had forgotten this lesson that most folks learn by the time they are about seven-years old. The Supreme Court had to slap them upside the head with a unanimous 2x4 to re-teach that lesson.

The Supreme Court, in a case stemming from the military's policy toward gays, unanimously upheld today a federal law forcing colleges and universities to permit military recruiting on campus over their objections.

The universities, specifically law schools, had argued that making them host military recruiters on campus or lose federal funding was a form of "compelled speech" that made it appear that they were endorsing the government's exclusion of gays in the military, thus violating their rights of free speech and expression under the First Amendment.

What these over-educated idiots failed to recognize was that nobody was compelling these schools to do anything. All they had to do was get off the federal teat, and the requirement would disappear (presumably -- but more on that later). No, they wanted that cash and the right to cut the strings that went along with it. In that, they remind me of an old episode of the Andy Griffith Show, in which Opie argued he should get his allowance without doing any chores, since an allowance is money kids are "allowed" to have.

After all, nobody requires these schools to take federal grants for research, Pell grants, guaranteed student loan money, or other federal government cash that flows into their coffers. All they need to do is spend the endowment money to provide financial aid, and get private grants for research projects, and they would be free of the requirement to allow military recruiters on campus. No cash, no chores.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous court, swept their arguments aside.

The law, called the Solomon Amendment, "neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court. "Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy. . . .

"Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies," Roberts wrote.

The law regulates conduct, not speech, the court said. And unlike flag-burning, which is protected under prior decisions, the hosting of recruiters is not "expressive" conduct that sends out a message as a form of protest.

More to the point, their argument was bound to fail for the same reason that a school that claimed that ending seregation was compelled speech and a violation of freedom of association (and implicitly, freedom from association) would be bound to fail. In fact, these arguments parallel the arguments of segregationists quite nicely. Heck, upholding their position would have undone Title IX and the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that ended segregation in higher education.

And having brought such a frivolous argument forward, they got a decision that goes well-beyond what they complained about.

The U.S. Supreme Court sharply rebuked America's far-left law professors today, ruling unanimously (that's 8-0, Justice Sam Alito having joined the court too late to participate) that Congress was within its authority to withhold federal funding from law schools that discriminate against military recruiters. In the case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the court actually went further (citations omitted):

The Constitution grants Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence," "o raise and support Armies," and "o provide and maintain a Navy." Congress' power in this area "is broad and sweeping," and there is no dispute in this case that it includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters. . . .

This case does not require us to determine when a condition placed on university funding goes beyond the "reasonable" choice offered in Grove City and becomes an unconstitutional condition. It is clear that a funding condition cannot be unconstitutional if it could be constitutionally imposed directly. Because the First Amendment would not prevent Congress from directly imposing the Solomon Amendment's access requirement, the statute does not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds.

That is, Congress could force colleges and universities, even if they receive no federal funding, to treat military recruiters equally. It's very impressive that Chief Justice John Roberts, Rumsfeld's author, was able to command unanimous support for such a sweeping decision.

In other words, Congress is within its power to require each and every college and university to allow recruiters on campus REGARDLESS OF THEIR TAKING FEDERAL MONEY. Not only did they roll snake-eyes in this crap shoot, the dice burst into flames and exploded when they came to rest on the table.

UPDATE: This gem from Chief Justice Roberts' opinion is pointed out by the proprieter of Okie on the Lam in LA

"Â…Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the militaryÂ’s policies. We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policyÂ… Â…Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

Ouch!

MORE AT: Colossus of Rhodey, Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Independent Conservative, Stop The ACLU, Iowa Voice, Publius Rendevous, Ace of Spades, Red State Rant, Yankee Sailor, Sister Toldjah, Random Thoughts Of Yet Another Military Member, Amy Proctor, Flopping Aces, Protein Wisdom, Left Wing = Hate, Small Town Veteran

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Mark My Words, Don Surber, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Third World Country

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1040 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Alito's just a little too busy defending himself in the 3rd Circuit, still trying to weasel out of his Judicial Misconduct Complaint

Posted by: JimBD at Wed Mar 8 16:37:09 2006 (GoE0N)

2 Wrong, Jim. He was not seated when the case was heard.

Now feel free to get back on your knees for the loon in PA, now that you are done wasting bandwidth here.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Mar 8 17:43:48 2006 (EqS+g)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Don't you think that should get me a place on her blogroll?

Compare this post on Rhymes With Right with this post on Michelle Malkin's site.

Looks like I beat her to the punch by several days. Maybe it has something to do with my decision to invite Andrew to submit something about the Peace Studies controversyfor publication the day the Washington Post story came out.

I'm not making any sort of accusation -- just noting that I scooped her.

Posted by: Greg at 09:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if a white candidate ever told a white audience that his political oponents "don't look like us"?

Well, the racist buffoon who runs New Orleans, Ray Nagin -- the guy who left school buses to flood and residents to drown -- is being much more specific about his vision for a "chocolate city".

In a speech organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People civil rights group, Nagin discussed the recovery of New Orleans and explained the complicated absentee voting procedures for those who have not returned to the city.

Nagin, who sparked controversy recently by saying New Orleans would become a "chocolate city" again, told the mostly black audience of about 50 people that the election could bring a sea change to New Orleans politics, which has been dominated by blacks for more than two decades.

"There are 23 candidates running for mayor. Very few of them look like us," he said. "There's a potential to be a major change in the political structure in New Orleans."

Nagin is trailing Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu (son of a former mayor of New Orleans and brother of a current US Senator from Louisiana) and , who is white, so he needs to flog the race card at every opportunity.

And I guess I must be deaf -- I haven't heard a single complaint from the NAACP or any major black leader about this blatantly racist appeal for votes. Surely such condemnations have been made. Haven't they? Or perhaps the words of Martin Luther King have been repudiated by the black establisment, and are we now to judge people based upon the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Sister Toldjah, The World According To Carl

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

You see, it really comes down to a question of following the Constitution.

And this proposal doesn't.

President Bush plans to send proposed legislation to Congress on Monday that would allow him to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills, a Bush administration official said.

The president, who has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give him line-item veto power.

Bush plans to announce that the proposed bill is headed to Congress during his remarks at the morning swearing-in ceremony for the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have sought the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure.

And I fully support giving the line-item veto to the president. But it cannot be done via legislation.

Afte all, as this article itself points out, the SUpreme Court has spoken on the matter.

President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law.

Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

Sorry folks, you need to do this via an amendment, not via statute. It really is that simple.

Follow the Constitution.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Kip, Esq., SCOTUSBlog, Uncooperative Blogger, Jurist, Blogs for Bush (again), Hugh Hewitt, A Certain Slant Of Light, Marginal Revolution, Say Anything, World Magazine, MoxieGrrrrl, Dohiyi Mir, Middle Earth Journal, Suburban Guerrilla, The News Blog, The Next Left, The Blue Voice

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 3 kb.

I've never denied the existance of good, decent, patriotic Muslims. I'm glad to read this story, and I hope there are many more like this in the weeks and months to come.

Holy Toledo, we have terrorists in Ohio. But here's the good news: They were caught before they could blow up anyone because the FBI got a phone tip - from someone in the Islamic community.

That's right - the same American Islamic community that has been scorched for failing to condemn terrorism now gets credit for reporting three alleged terrorists in Toledo.

The FBI indicted Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Wassim Mazloum on charges of plotting to use improvised explosive devices to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Amawi also was charged with threatening to kill the president. They pleaded not guilty.

* * *

Morckel said many details cannot be revealed about the investigation or the phone tip that led to the latest arrests. "But if you look at the London bombings, people in their community knew about the men who did that and didn't report anything."

Toledo is a different story. It has a large Muslim population that has been part of the city even longer than the Toledo mosque has been a landmark beside Interstate 75. So long that many think of themselves as Americans first.

Some have sons serving in Iraq, who could be killed or maimed by bombs from Toledo. "We are harming ourselves," imam Farooq Aboelzahab told the Los Angeles Times.

In that same story about Toledo Muslims, Dorothy Mehki said, "I don't want a whole yard full of flags in our yard to prove that we are Americans. That is silly. There are good Americans, and there are bad Americans."

True. And some of the best are American Muslims.

Most Muslims in this country are decent people. Most are highly moral individuals. I may have little respect for their religion, but I have great respect for them as human beings.

And I hope we see a lot more of them dropping a dime on the terrorists in their midst.

Posted by: Greg at 05:38 AM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

Medical professionals do not want to work with these evil freaks, and so it is impossible to fully staff "treatment" facilities for them.

The $388-million facility sprawled on the desolate outskirts of this Central Valley town was intended to answer a pressing problem: what to do with hundreds of repeat pedophiles and rapists in California who have served their prison terms but are deemed too risky for release.

This was to be a hospital dedicated primarily to such "sexually violent predators," who can be lawfully detained for mental health treatment.

It was the first state mental hospital built in more than half a century, and few amenities were spared. Shiny keyboards and drum sets now grace private music rooms. Woodworking and printing studios resemble professional shops. A Native American sweat lodge is in the works.

Treatment, however, is in short supply.

Despite vigorous recruiting efforts, not enough nurses, doctors and technicians want to work at this remote outpost. As a result, six months after the 1,500-bed hospital opened to the speeches of lawmakers, only about 170 patients have moved in. More than 400 sexually violent predators await transfer from Atascadero State Hospital near San Luis Obispo.

And hundreds of other beds, which could be filled with patients with other mental disorders, remain unoccupied in a system that otherwise is badly overcrowded.

The largely empty Coalinga State Hospital embodies twin problems of the state's mental health system: its struggle to hire licensed staffers and its difficulty accommodating sexual offenders, who some experts say don't fit conventional definitions of mental illness.

No release date -- no need for treatment/special state hospitals.

But on the bright side, I think we may have found the perfect residence for Bill Clinton if he ever becomes "First Lady". I bet they have saxophones in those music rooms.

Posted by: Greg at 05:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

He should have gotten the maximum sentence for his betrayal of the public trust.

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term meted out to a congressman in decades.

Cunningham, who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year, was spared the 10-year maximum by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns but was immediately taken into custody. He also was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution for back taxes and forfeit $1.85 million in valuables he received.

Cunningham accepted money and gifts including a Rolls-Royce and $40,000 Persian rugs from defense contractors and others in exchange for steering government contracts their way and other favors.

Federal prosecutors sought the maximum and his attorneys asked for mercy, but Cunningham, choking up as he addressed the judge, focused on accepting blame. "Your honor I have ripped my life to shreds due to my actions, my actions that I did to myself," he said.

"I made a very wrong turn. I rationalized decisions I knew were wrong. I did that, sir," Cunningham said.

I think the judge summed up my view of this individual and his crimes quite nicely.

"You weren't wet. You weren't cold. You weren't hungry and yet you did these things," Burns said. "I think what you've done is you've undermined the opportunity that honest politicians have to do a good job."

Given Cunningham's age, perhaps we will get lucky and see this be, in effect, a life sentence -- which i believe should be the minimum for such self-serving misdeeds.

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

And they even named you after his mom.

MADONNA is trying to buy a house overlooking the Sea of Galilee at the place where followers of her Kabbalist faith expect the Messiah to reappear to herald world peace.

Representatives of the 47-year-old US singer have been cold calling home-owners in the picturesque mountain retreat of Rosh Pina and offering to pay any price to secure a property on her behalf.

The star — who was raised an Italian Catholic but adopted the Hebrew name Esther several years ago — wants the house to turn it into a Kabbalah study centre where followers can pore over the mystical texts.

When she made a highly publicised trip to Israel 18 months ago she visited many sites important to Kabbalah.

Kabbalists believe that the Messiah will appear at Safed and walk to Tiberias on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, travelling along the ravine that cuts through Rosh Pina.

But at least her soul is striving in the right direction.

She could have become a Scientologist.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, here's another fellow who has eaten the fruit of Mohammad's poisonous tree.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- Authorities say 23-year-old Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove a silver Jeep Grand Cherokee into The Pit at the UNC-Chapel Hill campus around noon Friday, injuring five students and a visiting scholar.

Police intend tocharge Taheri-azar, who graduated from UNC in 2005, with nine counts of attempted murder and nine counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, said Capt. George Hare of the UNC Department of Public Safety.

The FBI joined the case because Taheri-azar, a native of Iran, "allegedly made statements that he acted to avenge the American treatment of Muslims. The ongoing investigation will work to confirm this," said Special Agent Richard Kolko, an FBI spokesman in Washington.

Six people were taken to UNC Hospitals with minor injuries, hospital spokesman Tom Hughes said. Five had been treated and released late Thursday afternoon, while one person was still undergoing treatment but was not expected to be admitted. Three other people declined treatment on the scene, according to police.

Authorities later found the vehicle on Plant Road near Franklin Street and Taheri-azar was taken into custody. Authorities said that drugs and alcohol are not believed to have been involved.

A student who witnessed the event, said that the SUV was going between 40 and 45 mph when it hit the students at the Pit, which is located in an open area surrounded by two libraries, a dining hall and the Frank Porter Graham Student Union on campus.

We have a confession from an admitted terrorist. Let's get him to a military tribunal immediately.

Posted by: Greg at 02:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

We are counting down the seconds until it arrives -- that delisious Spring Break that we get every March! It falls right in the middle of RodeoHouston, and also gives me a day to work as Election Judge for the GOP primary on Tuesday without having to take one of my personal leave days. So we will be rodeoing and poll-working this coming week.

Just hope and pray that I survive Friday -- kids have been wild all week, and progress report grades are due before we leave.

* * *

This is, of course, my usual Weekend linkfest post.

You know how it works -- you link to this post and send a trackback, and your post will display here. So link away -- I won't set a maximum number of items you can link with here, but I would hope that you would consider exercising prudent judgement on the matter. No porn, please, and no advertising -- just interesting stuff.

So come on, folks -- Cowboy Up!

Posted by: Greg at 06:25 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Andrew Saraf, one of the students involved in the Maryland "Peace Studies" course controversy, has graciously accepted my invitation to write a guest piece for Rhymes With Right on the issue. I think you will see there are some interesting differences between how the story is reported and what he has to say about the course and his suggestions.

The reaction to Sunday's Washington Post article, in particular the critical reaction to the views I expressed therein, seem to consist of two main charges. The first is that we are conservatives, or Republican "chickenhawks" as one blogger put it, bent on the removal of liberalism from the classroom. In other words, we are witch-hunters. This is absolutely erroneous. First of all, Avishek and I are not conservatives. Avi has described himself as being quite liberal, and I consider myself to be a very traditional liberal with a skeptical take on many of the ideas that have come out of liberalism since the 1960s. Avi and I are also not on any "witch hunt" against those with certain political ideologies. My mother is a teacher; I therefore have a pretty clear understanding of the fact that teachers are human beings with political views. A certain degree of bias is to be expected in any classroom lecture. The difference is that Peace Studies is a class whose very mission is biased. Mr. McCarthy has in the last few days said such things as this: "People say, 'You don't give the other side.' And I say, 'You're exactly right'. " In classes sometimes disparagingly called 'traditional' or 'mainstream', bias is fought, and hopefully kept at a minimum. In Peace Studies, there is a resolute refusal to do so. And why? Or, at least, what is the stated reason for this? "This is the other side," Mr. McCarthy claims, to what we get elsewhere. Every other source of information has a conservative bias. In the meanwhile, as the class learned in a recent reading, we are "on a moving train", and "you can't be neutral". So the class, and its current practices, are based on two rather questionable assumptions: The first is that outside the class, the bias is a conservative one. The second is that neutrality is neither possible nor desirable because history is moving in one clear direction. The moment the existence of other points of view is acknowledged, these assumptions simply fall apart. We find that the liberals complain of a conservative bias, a "right-wing media", while the conservatives believe that the media and the public school system are controlled by left-wing radicals. Who is right? Is this issue settled? And as for the "moving train", in truth, we are not yet clear on what direction the train is moving in. What is the course of history? Who has defined it? Who has been responsible for the progress that has been made? Once again, these issues are not settled. But the class is taught as if they are. And that is the problem.

The second charge made against us is that, because we have not taken the class, we are in no position to speak on it or protest it. This is absolutely absurd. By that rationale, what has become a high visibility issue is in fact reserved to the select few who have had the privilege of being seniors at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School and the infinite wisdom and good judgment required to choose to take the class. This means that parents, bloggers, commentators and all those younger than 17 or 18 have no place in this debate. What I suggest is that we be more rational. Just as a parent with a son or daughter in the class has every right to discuss it, I feel that as a student who has done extensive research into Mr. McCarthy's educational philosophy, and who has spoken at length with a number of Peace Studies students, none of them with an "Anti-Peace Studies" agenda, I too have a right to engage in discussion about this issue. And my allegations, which were much more tentative at first, have only been further confirmed in the last few weeks. We asked a student and self-described supporter of McCarthy's whether he himself ever presented facts or positions that contradicted his own ideology. The answer was "no". Not once have I heard of statistics provided in the class that would support a conservative interpretation of the issues; but again and again I have heard impassioned talk by his students on the differences in the amount of money spent "on war" and "on the poor", and on the inequalities in the distribution of wealth in the world, and so on and so forth. The only opposing speaker that has been brought in (of the many speakers), as far as I have heard, has been a parent of one of the students. His cause? He supported animal testing. On every other issue, not one student of Mr. McCarthy's has been able to produce an example of someone brought in with an alternative view. I have asked them to do so a number of times.

And, of course, there is the inevitable invocation of the class' status as an elective. This is a very appealing argument to make, because Avishek and I can thus be cast as curmudgeons who just want to keep everyone else from having fun. The problem is that it ignores two fundamental facts: First of all, Montgomery County Public Schools has a duty to apply the same basic standards of educational quality to every class that is offered, whether the class is an elective or not. Among these standards is a recognition that the major issues of our time are not settled; political ideologies are not the equivalent of algebra or physics. Mr. McCarthy has said that not everyone believes in algebra, and that not everyone believes in physics, but that they are taught anyway, but to attempt to make a comparison between science and math and political beliefs is simply ridiculous. If a only one political ideology is being taught, the class should not be offered. The second fundamental fact is the nonexistence of an alternative. Peace Studies is a class tailored to liberal tastes. The 2nd period Peace Studies class, which we have visited, has only one or two Republicans in it. So the choice is between a political class that represents left-wing views or no political class at all. This could hardly be called a choice.

I would finally like to clarify my goals with this effort. Despite the Washington Post's unfortunate misstatements, Avi and I are not calling for the "banning" of the Peace Studies class. We recognize that certain aspects of the class are of value. But we believe that alternative lecturers must be brought in, individuals who would teach with Mr. McCarthy on alternating days. That way, both sides will be presented, while the unconventional nature of the experience is preserved. In spite of what some of our critics have said, this does not mean that students will also be "taught war" or "taught violence". It simply means that more than one narrow view of peace will be presented. Most political ideologies, and surely almost all Americans, 'believe in peace'. The question is how peace is to be achieved and approached. There is more than one way, and students should be taught as such.

Frankly, I think Andrew's position is a reasonable one. The class appears to be a propaganda course, with rather nebulous academic standards. I understand that the major requirement for an A is respiration and attendance -- making this an attractive "gut course" for students seeking to inflate a GPA, which really makes it a sort of academic fraud. In a manner not dissimilar to the clown in Colorado, McCarthy is using the classroom as a pulpit from which to preach.

And Andrew's response to the "it's an elective" argument is most important. In the setting of a taxpayer-funded, government-run school, every citizen has a voice. The notion that nobody except the handful of kids in the class has a right to comment is, dare I say it, unAmerican.

Most importantly, Andrew and Avi are proposing a solution to the problem. While I don't know that the structure proposed above is a workable one, it indicates a desire to mend a course that could have merit, rather than simply sweep it aside. Andrew offers compromise, not a hardened position from which he to advocate reform -- a much tougher position than the extreme position ascribed to him and Avi.

Oh, and Andrew confirms something I suspected after I did a Google search on him the other day -- he is no conservative, and no ideologue. I found information on him at his home congregation's website (I won't disclose it -- do the legwork if you must), and can assure you that he comes from a spiritual/philosophical tradition that is a world away from the religious right. I suspect that most of the members of the congregation would disagree with him -- yet at the same time be quite proud of his actions and integrity in raising the issue. Well done, young man, and thank you for taking the time to enlighten us all.

Other Voices: Michelle Malkin, Thunder Run, Dread Pundit Bluto, Pillage Idiot, Cranky Professor, Elephants in Academia, Hello, MoCo

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1572 words, total size 10 kb.

Will this development drain the Pro-Abortion voters from Pro-Life (at least for a) Democrat Bob Casey?

A prominent abortion-rights activist, Kate Michelman, said this week she is considering running as an independent in the race for the seat held by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, and his leading Democratic opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, have both said they are opposed to abortion. Casey upset some Democrats when he said he supported the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Michelman, the past president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, splits her time between Washington and central Pennsylvania. She said some women's rights activists have asked her to run.

"It is more about them wanting to express great frustration," Michelman said.

Casey is leading Santorum in the polls. His campaign released a statement saying, "Democrats are stronger when we work together on the many issues where we have common ground, and Bob Casey looks forward to doing that in the U.S. Senate."

A Kate Michelman candidacy may be a real gift for the incumbent.

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

I tread softly when it comes to politics in my classroom – the venom is saved for this blog.

My students know – generally – what my politics are, because as a social studies teacher I sometimes discuss current events along with history. But when I give opinions, I always label them as such, and I try to offer a rough balance in the discussion (including being the “devil’s advocate” for the side I disagree with if there isn’t a kid who can do it).

I cannot ever imagine doing this.

An Overland High School teacher who criticized President Bush, capitalism and U.S. foreign policy during his geography class was placed on administrative leave Wednesday afternoon after a student who recorded the session went public with the tape.

In the 20-minute recording, made on an MP3 player, teacher Jay Bennish described capitalism as a system "at odds with human rights." He also said there were "eerie similarities" between what Bush said during his Jan. 28 State of the Union address and "things that Adolf Hitler used to say."

The United States was "probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth," Bennish also said on the tape.

Bennish, who has been part of Overland's social studies faculty since 2000, did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday. Cherry Creek School District officials are investigating the incident, but no disciplinary action has been taken, district spokeswoman Tustin Amole said.

Bennish was placed on leave "to take some of the pressure off of him" during the investigation, which could wrap up in a week, Amole said.

I’ve got to tell you – at my school this guy would need a couple weeks off to get relief from the crap the rest of his colleagues would give him. We’re about 75% conservative, and even our socially liberal gay colleague is a Navy vet with somewhat hawkish views on foreign and military affairs. Personally, I’d be inclined to fire him for his abuse of his position, and I believe my colleagues would agree. Our objection would be his obvious ignorance and his polemical presentation, not the position he took.

Michelle Malkin has a transcript of the rant (audio here) that certainly would support terminating Bennish for cause.

Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.

Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!

What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

Make sure you get these definitions down.

Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.

Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.

There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!

0345.

[Pause.]

I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.

Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.

0452

...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!

0530.

Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.

The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.

Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.

So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]

0625.

Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?

This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!

He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.

0759.

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.

I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?

0841

Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.

We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.

What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!

0950.

*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*

Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?

1007

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.

If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Allen: So, you're saying the United States has the intention to kill innocent people?

Now my basis for supporting a termination is NOT his politics. Rather, the problem comes down to the one-sided preaching of a particular ideology at students -- and one which contains repeated and obvious misrepresentations of historical facts. He was not educating his students, he was misinforming and indoctrinating them. What I do not object to is his detour into current events and government -- assuming the social studies standards in Colorado are similar to those in texas, there is a component of the standards that requires all social studies teachers to include relevant current issues and events in the course. The State of the Union address was therefore an appropriate topic -- his methods were the problem.

On the other hand, there are a couple of interesting little wrinkles here that struck me. The one is the use of the MP3 recorder. That would be forbidden at my school, under the policy forbidding the use of cell phones, CD players, radios and MP3s during the day. I wonder if the kid faces any sanctions for having brought and used the device to record the class.

The second involves Dad going to the media with the recording. I almost always oppose parents doing this, absent an immediate and serious threat to the physical well-being of the students. I suspect that this situation could have been resolved quickly without going to Mike Rosen, by a phone call to the principal or the superintendent. Heck, a call to a couple of school board members would have even been appropriate. Stay in the chain of command, folks, and try to resolve the situation there. Calling the press, especially as the first step, is like calling a lawyer – the result may be what you want, but it sets a bad precedent.

MORE AT Slapstick Politics, The Malcontent, North American Patriot, Sister Toldjah, Blogmeister USA, Independent Conservative, Hoodathunk, Conservative Thinking, Moonage Political Webdream, Right Wing Howler, Wizbang, Defiance, Colorado Democrat, Bluto, Flynn Files, Mike's America, Flynn Files, Mike's America, Rhodey, Hashmonean, Portia Rediscovered, Junkyard Blog, Machine Overlords, Stop The ACLU, Dad's Corner, Radioactive Liberty, Donkey Stomp, Iowa Voice, Moderate Conservative, Education Wonks, Median Sib, Jawa Report, Blogs for Bush

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Blue Star, customer servant, Bacon Bits, Don Surber, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, Mental Rhinorrhea, Right Wing Nation, Freedom Watch, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 03:24 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 2529 words, total size 19 kb.

Would someone tell this arrogant woman that President Bush won the elections of 2000 and 2004 – and that there is no constitutional basis for his blocking the nomination of a judge out of a fit of pique.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California announced Wednesday she will block the nomination of an Idaho judge to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because she contends the seat should go to someone from California.

Feinstein, a Democrat, made the announcement during 6th District Judge Randy Smith's nomination hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington.

Smith was picked by President Bush in December to replace Judge Stephen Trott, who moved to Idaho from California after his appointment to the court in 1988. Trott declared senior status in December 2004, meaning he will take a much lighter caseload. Since then, Idaho has not had an active judge on the court.

Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said the seat should go to a California judge because tradition holds that judgeships remain in the same state. They have been protesting since last March after they learned the seat was promised to Idaho.

"To allow a judge's personal choice of where to live to change the allocation of future Court of Appeals sets a dangerous precedent," Feinstein told the Judiciary Committee. "As this nomination ignores the judicial needs of the 9th Circuit and the state of California, I must oppose it, and I intend to place a hold upon this nomination."

In other words, Dianne Feinstein believes that Idaho is not entitled to any judges on the 9th Circuit – California is just too important. It is time to go nuclear on this nomination, as it is the clearest case of obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.

Oh, and by the way – no more nominees from California. Fill every California judgeship with out-of-staters. After all, payback is a bitch -- and so is Senator Feinstein.

MORE AT Sensible Mom, Idaho Times, Idaho Examiner, Confirm Them

Posted by: Greg at 03:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

On a comment thread on another blog, a leftard accused me of having bought into a philosophy of cultural supremacy.

Dana Garrett Says:
February 26th, 2006 at 10:39 pm

Nice try, Rhymes. All one need to do is go to your site and see all those posts about the evil Muslims to see that you have already been recruited by supremacist views.

And also here.

Dana Garrett Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 1:18 am

* * *

Oh, I have read your diatribes against Muslims. There is no doubt that you are a cultural supremacist.

IÂ’ve let that accusation sit for a while, so that I could reflect upon it.

I’ve come to realize that he is right – my statements on Islam do clearly show that I believe Western culture – especially as expressed in America – to be superior to the culture prevalent in the Muslim world.

When I compare the religious freedom and tolerance of this country to the oppression and dhimmitude prevalent in the Muslim world, I find American freedom to be superior.

When I look at the relatively unfettered speech and press rights of our country and the limits placed on these fundamental rights in the Muslim world, I find American liberty to be superior.

When I consider the relative equality of the sexes in America and the chador/burqa/abaya-clad chattel who are subject to so-called “honor killings”, I find American culture to be superior.

In fact, I cannot find anything in Muslim culture that is superior to its Western (especially in its American form) counterpart – a reality I can trace back at least five or six centuries.

If that makes me a "cultural supremacist", then I gladly plead guilty to the accusation.

But then again, maybe that does not make me a “cultural supremacist”. Maybe that just makes me someone with common sense and a love of freedom -- and, to use a word which is anathema to folks like my accuser, a patriot..

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

Must every situation turn into a lawsuit – and must the claims be so expansive?

A woman filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging a Chicago steakhouse was negligent when it served her a salad in which an olive still contained a pit.
Michelle Brass filed the suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Gibsons LLC and Mykonos Import-Export Inc.

Brass was eating a salad at Gibsons on April 10, 2004, when she bit into an olive, striking her tooth on the it, causing herself pain and injuries, the suit claims. The menu showed the salad contained pitted olives, the suit claims. Due to her biting into the pit, Brass claims she had to pay for medical care and miss work.

The suit alleges Gibsons placed a defective and unsafe product in the salad, allowed the pit to be served inside the salad, and failed to properly inspect the product prior to serving. Mykonos was accused of importing a defective and unsafe product. The suit seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

Let’s see here – surely there is (or was in the past) a better way of dealing with such injuries. Business owners would pay legitimate bills for legitimate injuries, and either absorb the cost or submit it to insurance. I’m willing to bet that some such offer was made by Gibsons, if only for the benefit of PR. I don’t doubt that Mykonos would have done the same.

But “importing a defective and unsafe product”? I think that everyone recognizes that, every now and then, an olive pit is going to be missed in the pitting process and make it into the can or jar. That isn’t a defect – and pits in olives hardly make olives “unsafe”.

Sounds to me like Ms. Brass and her lawyer are out to make a quick buck out of what is really nothing more than an accident. And if the restaurant and he manufacturer were reckless or negligent in their conduct, couldnÂ’t the same be said of Ms. Brass, who obviously failed to exercise reasonable care in her consumption of the salad?

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Last week, the president made the following challenge.

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.”

This leads Michael Reagan to respond as follows.

All of this begs the only legitimate question that can be posed by this deal: is it in the interests of the security of the American people? If it is, the deal is acceptable. If itÂ’s not, we ought to run away from it as if it were a case of bird flu.

Unfortunately, ReaganÂ’s response ignores the PresidentÂ’s point.

The deal was reviewed and approved under the normal standards applied to such transactions. The determination was hat there was no significant degradation of American security. As a result, the purchase was approved.

It seems to me that the “legitimate question” has been answered. Unfortunately for Michael Reagan, Michelle Malkin, and a host of other conservatives who I respect (and a whole bunch of liberals who I don’t), the answer of those with the power to make the decision and with the access to information that makes their judgment valid is different from the conclusion of the knee-jerk opponents of the deal. Disagreement on the outcome is not “begging the question.

Now, folks, since your question has been answered, why don’t you offer a coherent answer to the President’s challenge – why hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a European country? Any answer that boils down to “because they are Arabs/Muslims, just like the 9/11 hijackers” supports the contention of Grover Norquist (with whom I’ve rarely agreed, going back to his days running the College Republican national Committee).

"The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots."

IÂ’m hoping that my fellow conservatives, with whom I respectfully disagree on this issue, can start to provide answers that prove themselves to be better than NorquistÂ’s jibe paints them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.

What can i say -- Trisha Yearwood has one of the most beautiful voices in country music. Sadly, the Ash Wednesday night crowd was quite sparse -- so sparse that there was no announcement of attendance figures over the PA system in Reliant Stadium.

Perhaps the only disappointment of the evening was the announcement Trisha made early in the show -- "Sorry folks, he's not here. The laundry was really pining up so I made him stay home to do it." So much for the chance to hear her do the beautiful duet with her new hubby, Garth Brooks.

Rodeo performances were fantastic as well, with http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/rodeo/3695257.html">a new arena record being set in Barrel Racing by the lovely Lynn Brown.

The Chronicle's RodeoBlog talks about carnival food -- in particular, about Fried Oreos (let's not even get into the fat content there!)

Tickets are still available for the Rodeo and concert -- Melissa Etheridge, filling in for the ailing Sheryl Crow. The Rodeo has, appropriately, declared this to be Breast Cancer Awareness Night, so wear pink if you can.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

I want to be President

Seriously -- and I need your help.

You probably wonder what is up -- have I finally lost my mind?

Actually, no.

I'm playing the game associated with Prayers for the Assassin, the new book by Robert Ferrigno

I'm running under my old college radio handle, Tony Scott.

What can you do.

Click a link, and then click to give me the highest possible donation -- $10,000 (So much for McCain-Feingold). The more I raise, the more likely I will win.

So make the right choice -- and shudder at the thought that any such world could ever come to pass.

Vote for Tony Scott!

Posted by: Greg at 05:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 2 kb.