Rhymes With Right

September 03, 2005

Of Football Games And Hurricanes

I hadn't planned on writing any more today, but I had to click on one last link, sent by a friend. What I read is disquieting in more ways than one. I may not agree with Ana Menendez of the Miami Herald on everything, but she does raise one proper point.

It seems that some hotels in Talahassee are telling folks displaced by Hurricane Katrina that they are to be displaced by Miami Hurricanes and FSU Seminoles arriving for the big game between the two schools on Monday night. They have reservations, you see, some paid in advance no doubt, and these folks from Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana didn't plan ahead for their homes to be destroyed by the biggest natural disaster in the United States in at least a century.

Cancel the stupid game.
Let the Hurricanes, the Seminoles and their hollow mascots play another day. I don't care how long the fans have been waiting for the FSU-Miami showdown in Tallahassee Monday night. I don't care about Devin Hester's kick return.
What kind of country amuses itself with choreographed violence while the world burns? How low have we sunk on the moral scale when hotels in Tallahassee are kicking out victims from the real hurricane to make way for a bunch of football fans?
New Orleans is burning. Its people are waiting in lines that stretch for half a mile. Tens of thousands have lost not just homes, but an entire way of life. A city is gone. We are facing one of the biggest displacements in the country's history. And the few evacuees who have managed to find shelter in hotels around Tallahassee have to pick up and go because of football?
''We have to let them know what's going on in town and they're going to have to leave,'' a hotel manager told The Herald's Mary Ellen Klas.
The manager added: ``Many of them are trying to get closer to home anyway.''
I guess that would be those who still have a home.

Yeah, I find Menendez a bit shrill, but I agree with her on her larger point -- no person displaced by this disaster should be displaced by a mere football game. Yeah, Iknow that is near blasphemous coming from someone from Texas, but it is also the simple truth.

But I have to disagree with menendez when she proposes that all revenue from the game -- tickt sales, concessions, and salaries -- ought to be turned over to charity. She may be offended when University of Miami atheletic department spokesman Mark Pray rejected the idea out of hand and noted that she wasn't giving up her salary for the duration, but Pray had it right. Afte all, how many of those concession workers and ticket takers are working those jobs for the money they need for necessities, not for a little extra spending money? Would Ana and her press pass care to explain why these folks should get stiffed while she continues to draw her pay and her expense-account money? Probably not, but as a member of the MSM she feels she is semi-divine royalty entitled to be treated with a different standard that the commoners whose work does not involve the First Amendment.

But while I think that most of what Menendez has written is simply shrill socialism, she does strike a note with me. Because of a pair of seats in the back of Section 541.

Most folks know that we've got some 15,000 people displaced by Hurricane Katrina living in the Astrodome (more properly the Reliant Astrodome, thanks to a naming rights deal). Two other buildings in Reliant Park -- the Reliant Arena and Reliant Center -- have also been taken for emergency shelter. There are folks downtown at the George R. Brown Convention Center, too, some miles from the the other three locations. The mayor has rightly challenged groups or businesses with cancelled events to sue, and then explain in court why their event was more important than disaster relief.

But one facility at Reliant Park is not in use for temporary shelter, despite being literally only a Hail Mary pass or kickoff return from the Astrodome. That is the crown jewel of Reliant Park -- Reliant Stadium, home of the Houston Texans, where those two seats are located.

I'm left with some uncomfortable questions because of that. Questions that, being asked, are likely to bring some outraged fans looking for me on September 18, the first regular season home game for the Texans.

There is only one event booked into Relaint Stadium between now and the start of October -- the Septembr 18 game against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Does that game need to be moved to provide more shelter for the victims of this disaster? I'm not sure -- but I have an answer gnawing in the pit of my stomach that might not be too popular with my fellow Texans fans.

And beyond the shelter question is the reality that many of the folks sleeping on cots in the other three buildings are still going to be there in two weeks. Is it responsible, is it proper, to surround them with game day crowds and the orgy of tailgating that we find in the parking lots surrounding their place of refuge? It somehow seems. . . less than ideal. But one has to wonder if the game does not belong somewhere else for that reason alone.

Please, no one hear me as taking a shot at the Houston Texans. Team owner Bob McNair made a $1,000,000 donation to disaster relief on Thursday night, matching the donations called in by Texan fans during the teams final pre-season game in Tampa Bay. I'm sure players and coaches, as well as fans, have shown generosity in this time of crisis. And there will no doubt be the obligatory Red Cross collection at the gates on September 18.

But I think there is a question that still needs to be asked by the state, county, and city, the fans and ticketholders, and the Houston Texans.

Is the biggest gift that the we can give to the victims of Hurricane Katrina the gift of our home opener?

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1045 words, total size 6 kb.

Why Do We Need Him Involved?

Noted race 'ho' Al Sharpton (I refuse to dignify him with the title of Reverend) was in Houston to call on local black congregations to help with huricane relief.

One problem -- this slick poverty pimp came to a community where churches of all denominations and ethnicities are already engaged in the process of helping those in need.

While government's emergency planning may have failed the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, the Rev. Al Sharpton called on Houston's black houses of worship today to feed, shelter and comfort the evacuees.
Speaking to about 50 of the city's faith leaders and a handful of politicians gathered inside North Houston's Community of Faith Church, the civil rights activist and former presidential candidate from New York said religious congregations must play a leading role in the relief effort.
"The black church community has always been the anchor in the storm when we have a problem," Sharpton said. "If our people, or any people that come to this city can't depend on the church to open its doors and open its hearts, then we ought to take down the crosses and quit claiming to serve God."
Harris County Judge Robert Eckels and Andrea White, the wife of Mayor Bill White, also attended the meeting, which was arranged by U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and the Rev. James Dixon II. Dallas Mavericks basketball coach Avery Johnson was there to announce a charity basketball game scheduled for next Sunday at Toyota Center.
Most agreed to take time during their sermons this morning to call on their members to open their homes to displaced families and volunteer to help those who have lost everything.
The Rev. I.V. Hilliard, pastor of New Light Christian Center Church, opened telephone hot lines for evacuees to reconnect with their pastors in Houston.
It's a service that's needed, said the Rev. Charles Southall III, pastor of First Emanuel Baptist Church in New Orleans. He attended today's meeting seeking help for members.
"I have a 1,200-member church and we're just trying to get stabilized," said Southall, who carries a folder full of Omni Hotel stationery filled with handwritten names and numbers of members he's reached so far. "I hear useful planning here today and I'm optimistic."

If Sharpton wants to really engage the Christian community, he will quit distinguishing between the "black church" and the "white church", for God knows no white or black or brown. And he will notice that the churches of Houston have opened their hearts and their doors to people of all races in this time of need.

Al, speaking as a Christian, let me say that we don't need a lying race-baiter (who still won't apologize for his lies in the Tawana Brawley case or for getting people killed because they were "white interlopers" doing business in the black community) to come into town to sow division between black and white. We don't need some charlatan to draw lines and create divisions between members of the body of Christ..

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 3 kb.

I Guess The Cruise Is Off

My darling wife and I haven't had a good vacation in years -- the last was a trip to Boston via Logan airport about a month before 9/11. We've been talking about taking a cruise this Christmas, and had recently decided one.

Well, I guess the ship will be otherwise engaged this year.

Some Katrina evacuees will be housed aboard three Carnival Cruise Line ships, including two initially slated to be docked in Galveston.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is chartering the vessels, which will be crewed by Carnival employees, for six months, Carnival spokesman Vance Gulliksen said today.
The Ecstasy, normally stationed in Galveston, and Sensation, normally stationed in New Orleans, are planned for Galveston, Gulliksen said. Both can hold 2,600 people, he said. The ships will be pulled from regular service Monday.
A third, the Holiday, which normally sails out of Mobile, Ala., will be docked there. It can hold up to 1,800 people, Gulliksen said.

I was looking forward to a getaway on the high seas -- but maybe next year. These folks are more than welcome to our cabin.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Leftist Seeks Bush Overthrow

Found on Americablog:

How do we get all the bush people out of this country's government ? I can not believe there is anyone in this country that still supports him. Anyone in government who does should be voted out of office. Until then any more harm he has in mind to do to this country, the congress should not allow to happen. There have to be some republicans that still are honest enough to help stop his policys, and tax cuts. They are so busy getting the spin and talking points going. These were, and are citizens of this country, we can not let those who have brought this mis-handling of help, to now start spinning out of it. I used to be so proud of America, I want to be again.
snobird | 09.03.05 - 2:38 pm | #

Do you believe this guy was ever proud of America?

Posted by: Greg at 07:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Krugman Lies Again -- Again

It seems that Paul Krugman just can't admit that George W. Bush won the 2000 election fair and square.

None of this has any bearing on my original point, which was not that the outcome would have been different if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened - the Florida Supreme Court had not, in fact, called for a full statewide manual recount - but that the recorded vote was so close that, when you combine that fact with the effects of vote suppression and ballot design, it becomes reasonably clear that the voters of Florida, as well as those of the United States as a whole, tried to choose Mr. Gore.

1) The only vote suppression in Florida in 2000 was by the Gore camp, making sure that members of the military could not get their absentee ballots counted.

2) The problem with "ballot design" seems never to have been a problemin Illinois, where the butterfly layout used in Palm Beach was used for the last several decades -- and which subsequent studies showed could be accurately voted by a four year old.

But we don;t want mere facts to get in the way of Paul writing his column, do we?

Posted by: Greg at 07:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Explain This, Nagin

Now the last time I checked, sir, the President of the United States lacked the authority to do anything with these school buses that might have facilitated an evacuation. On the other hand, the Governor of Louisiana could have ordered a mandatory evacuation sooner (she did so only after the President urged her to do so), and the Mayor of New Orleans could have directd that the school buses be used for such an evacuation.

As is pointed out by one of Jonah Goldberg's readers, a significant number of folks could have been evacuated if the above officials hac been competent in their pre-hurricane planning and ordered that these buses be put to use rather than be abandined to the storm.

Jonah:
I count 205 busses. When I was a kid, I remember that school busses could carry 66 people. If that is still the case, 13,530 people could be carried to safety in ONE trip using only the busses shown in that picture.
One trip.
Joe

Let's presume that the buses only seat 55 (66 strikes me as sort of high) and they don't over-pack them -- that is still over 11,000 people per trip. In other words, even one run would have evacuated half of those who took shelter at the Superdome -- had the state and local authorities been competent in their disaster preparations. These vehicles might have been able to make multiple runs, and would certainly be available now for evacuation duty. Too bad that nobody order them used

Now explain to me precisely who it was who failed to "get off of their goddamn asses" to make sure that these people were evacuated using available resources? Was it the President? Or was it the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana?

(Hat Tip -- RedState.Org and Junkyard Blog)

Posted by: Greg at 03:33 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Wow. What a profound misunderstanding of the problems you display here. Here's a brief recap, so you can understand. Nagin did order an evacuation, and most citizens did leave. This being New Orleans, some did not, and Nagin did the wise thing in opening up the Superdome so that citizens could ride the storm out. Complete evacuation at that point would have been nice, but it simply was not going to happen, and it did not appear absolutely necessary.

Had the levees held, the citizens could have returned and begun rebuilding their lives at that point.

Unfortunately, the levees did not hold (if you want to learn why, do a little research for the sad truth). At that point, the need for complete evacuation came to fruition, and the buses pictured above became useless.

And then the waiting for a response began.

And it continued.

On.

Day after day.

While Bush played guitar and ate cake.

And people died of dehydration.

And reinforcements were nowhere to be found.

And water was nowhere to be found.

And food was nowhere to be found.

But shoes could be found by Rice.

And the estate planning attorney that Bush had appointed to lead FEMA began to sweat.

And more people died.

And Michael Brown didn't even know, AS I KNEW, that people were in the convention center.

Disgusting.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Sep 3 04:52:24 2005 (aSKj6)

2 What a doofus response. It was a *mandatory* evacuation, one that probably would not have happened without Bush personally calling for it.

This being New Orleans, some people did not have the *means* to evacuate themselves. The city had the means, but didn't use them. Their disaster preparedness plan called for the use of city buses (see junkyardblog.net), but they ignored it.

So hundreds of buses were not used to evacuate the poor, they were not placed on higher ground for evacuation after the storm, they were left to flood and rot.

And you blame Bush for not personally leading a convoy of federal buses (you know, from the federal school bus parking lot and the federal public transportaion parking lot) from Washington, D.C.

duh...

Posted by: Joe at Sat Sep 3 05:14:37 2005 (H8wE/)

3 And th evacuation should have been ordered by the incompetent Democrat governor on Saturday.

And teh buses should have been used by the incompetent mayor to evacuate the citizens.

And the New Orleans cops shouldn't have cut and run like cowards.

I realize you are part of the Blame Bush First Brigade -- but the problem arose because of incompetent state and local leadership AND decades of Democrat looting of the state of Louisiana nad city of New Orleans.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Sep 3 05:28:11 2005 (mHbBi)

4 Oh, no, RWR, I'm with you that there is plenty of blame to go around. I'm not blaming Bush first, but I am definitely blaming him. And, yes, you're right, in hindsight, Nagin could and should have done more to evacuate the city, though, again, until the levees broke, it appeared that the evacuation was sufficient (though, OTOH, had Katrina pummeled NO as badly as it might have, things could have been worse right away).

Where I blame Bush, though, is for failing to move troops and ships into position before the storm, just in case, and for truly horrifying failures after the levee broke.

And, Joe, come on. Where did I suggest that Bush should have led a caravan? Where? Why are you so silent? Because you made stupid stuff up? Because the truth provides such thin broth for your Bush defense that you ridicule me with lies? That's just plain idiocy, Joe. In my household, you would be sent from the room as being unfit to participate in grown-up discussion.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Sep 3 05:43:36 2005 (aSKj6)

5 But you hit the problem right on the head -- there is not one disaster in New Orleans, but two going on simultaneously.

You argue that Bush should have, "just in case", prepositioned and anticipated, etc -- but excuse Nagin and Blanco because it looked like preparations were sufficient until the second disaster hit and they didn't take "just in case" precautions. Which is it -- were preparations sufficient or not? Was there sufficient anticipation or not? You cannot have it both ways.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Sep 3 06:05:10 2005 (25x0k)

6 Well said. That is the liberal mindset. The local officials are given a pass for obvious failures when they have the resources locally to make a difference NOW.

The federal government is wantonly condemned for not bringing redundant resources from across the nation sooner.

Never mind logic, though, its funner to pretend that Ceasar Bush played the guitar while New Orleans burned. The hippie chicks dig it!

Posted by: Joe at Sat Sep 3 09:15:30 2005 (QmI9R)

7 What I have not heard mentioned anywhere is that this is the first new diaster response under the National Response Plan. It calls for declaring an event an "Incident of National Significant" and having a "Principle Federal Official" My guess is that the Major of NO, the Governor of LA, and everyone at the state of LA have no idea that there is a new plan and are still trying to operate under the old system.

Remember, on Tuesday, the governor stated that civil order did not mean anything to her. She sowed the seeds for diaster and that is what NO (but not most of Mississippi) has become.

Posted by: superdestroyer at Sat Sep 3 09:26:18 2005 (bTjjA)

8 RWR - Perhaps my first post was unclear. I agree with you that Nagin and Blanco should have ordered a mandatory evacuation earlier. I evacuated my daughter from NO on Saturday. I do blame them for that failure.

That failure, however, does nothing to excuse the spectacular, internationally embarassing, criminally negligent failure of Bush and his estate planner Michael Brown to get relief there on Monday.

I truly don't want it both ways.

If this had happened on Clinton's watch, I would be joining you (because you would be calling for his impeachment, wouldn't you?) in condemning him.

And, Joe, where do you come up with this stuff? Again, conjuring off-point silliness. Does truth prove too boring for you?

Posted by: Dan at Sat Sep 3 10:57:00 2005 (aSKj6)

9 1) You are trying to have it both ways. You say that Nagin could have done more -- but everything looked OK until the levees broke. The you say that Bush, on the other hand, should have anticipated the very thing that Nagin didn't anticipate -- "just in case" the levees failed or some other catastrophe took place. Right there you are attempting to have it both ways -- implicitly absolving Nagin (and, by implication, Blanco) for not taking extra precautions while damning Bush for for not doing so. And remember -- Bush asked Blanco to call a mandatory evacuation on Saturday, but she and Nagin did not implement that until Sunday. The first, and most important, failures were at the state and local level.

2) No, I would not be calling for Clinton's impeachemnt over this. And I do not see any actions by the president as "criminally negligent". Would you care to cite a statute that proves me wrong, or are you just "shooting off at the keyboard"? Just as the courts have continuously ruled that the government has no obligation to protect you from a crime, the government cannot be held responsible for failing to protect individuals from an act of nature.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Sep 3 11:59:18 2005 (j+86E)

10 As a person who lived through Hurricane Ivan, who did not resort to looting or shooting at relief workers, I am saddened that liberals are still trying to blame Bush for the lack of planning on the parts of the liberal LOCAL governments.

It is not the US Governments fault they did not have soldiers and equipment/food ready to go in.

The state has to ask for the help, you know that pesky States rights thing you liberals don't like.

The state also, after declaring a state of emergency then needs to declare martial law in order for troops to be deployed to help with law enforcement. You know that pesky Constitution requires that, and we all KNOW how much the Liberals hate that document.

I am not saying the US Government is without fault, but that there is more fault at the state and local government,which are liberally controlled, than at the federal level...

Posted by: Scubachris at Tue Sep 6 03:48:41 2005 (AktpP)

11 I keep asking the following: It would have taken a thousand buses to take the people out of the New Orleans area who were taken out after the flood (not all of the flood evacuees were in the city of NO, they were in greater NO, over which Nagin has no control). 1) WHERE do you think they would have been taken? Every shelter, church, and hotel/motel in 500 miles was full to the gills, buildings in surrounding communities were flattened and it took more than 24 hours of hundreds of folks working around the clock to get the Astrodome ready - you think they would have been able to just dump them in HOuston or Dallas (and they would not have had time for a second round trip) 2) The highways were in gridlock as far as Houston with evacuees from the ENTIRE AREA - it was taking cars as much as 18 hours to make it to Houston. The buses could have made one trip at most. A lot of people turned around and went to teh Superdome because they did not think they had enough gas to sit in the traffic AND make it to safety.
THis catastrophe was too large for one Mayor in one of the nation's poorest cities to handle - this has been a known disaster waiting to happen for years and legislation that would address the core problems has been shelved for years.

Posted by: gmm at Thu Sep 8 14:26:01 2005 (d/pae)

12 It is completely ignorant to say that the situation in NO was the fault of the incompetent NO mayor or the incompetent LA governor. According to a former Republican senator of LA, the problem was bigger than any of them. The root of the problem is the rerouting and dredging of the Mississippi river and the potential for catastrophe has been acknowledged for decades - the real culprit is that our politicians, regardless of party, didn't give enough of a damn to pass legislation that would have addressed the core of the problem - the fact that Louisiana is losing a football field of wetlands every day.

Posted by: gmm at Thu Sep 8 14:35:27 2005 (d/pae)

13 I'm online friends with an avid dog-lover who's been sending me all sorts of stories about people not leaving because of their pets. Today I saw our military tackle an elderly woman to force her to leave against her will, because she didn't want to abandon her beloved pets. Just because some people don't understand pet-lovers devotion to their critters doesn't change the fact that some people will refuse to abandon their pets, even if it endangers their life.

When they weren't sure where Gilbert would go, our local goverment asked if people could please evacuate early in case Gilbert did strike us. Since I was only working the next night and had the other nights off after that, I called in and evacuated. I dropped my pets off with my parents who lived further north. If I didn't have someone to drop them off with, I would have taken them with me and camped instead of staying overnight in a hotel.

I don't think a pet should take a human's place on a bus though, but I think it's reasonable to allow pets to evacuate with their humans if they're kept on their human's lap, or between their feet. And I wouldn't mind caging or muzzling my pet because I realize the problems that could if they weren't controlled/contained.

And I would understand if people with pets were last to be evacuated after the people without pets. I'm positive that a lot more people would have left if they were allowed to bring their pets, who are considered a family member.

I realize that other people don't feel as strong a bond for pets as some do, but expect us to feel the same as you, and just accept that many people will stay behind to face disasters just because they can't bring their pets.

Posted by: Sherri at Thu Sep 8 19:14:37 2005 (fwbIy)

14 That last sentence should have been:

...but DON'T expect us to feel the same as you...

Posted by: Sherri at Thu Sep 8 19:18:08 2005 (fwbIy)

15 My wife and I have no children, and will likely never have any due to medical issues.

We have one dog who is as spoiled as six-month-old milk. She rules the roost.

Any evacuation plan we make includes her -- including getting ut of town early so that we can make arangements for her. But in the end, should it come down to a choice between her lives and ours, I've made it clear to my wife that the dog is a goner (my wife, on the other hand, says she'll save the dog first and me second).

As far as those buses are concerned, how many people could have been evacuated if the ey had started getting folks out on Saturday, like the evacuation plan called for?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Sep 8 22:56:44 2005 (I9kpx)

16 Yes. I wonder if it was like with the Thailand Tourists Board thing while trying to decide whether to evacuate the beaches after they were warned about the earthquake that caused the tsunami? Since all their money depended on tourism, they didn't want to risk losing their main cash flow on the chance it might not be too bad.

Posted by: Sherri at Sat Sep 10 02:34:34 2005 (yChaN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Apartments Available For Evacuees

It looks like our friends from Louisiana and other areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina may be staying here in Texas for a while. Fortuantely, there are long-term solutions to the housing problem, since the Astrodome and other shelter facilities are not designed to be permanent housing.

An estimated 18,000 vacant apartment units statewide opened for hurricane victims Friday when the federal government waived special income requirements, Gov. Rick Perry announced Friday.
Families eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency financial aid can receive vouchers to move into the apartments.
The governor sought the Internal Revenue Service waiver as the state mobilized aid for those fleeing Hurricane Katrina.
"We will do all we can as a state and a people to help our neighbors to the east who have lost so much," Perry said.
The effort to move as many hurricane evacuees out of shelters and into more permanent housing coincided with more than 15,000 beds opening up in shelters stretching from Austin to Corpus Christi to El Paso, the governor's office said.
"We're just trying to cut through the red tape for them and get them permanent housing. Obviously the Astrodome is not a permanent home," said Perry spokesman Robert Black.
About 7,000 units are in the eastern, more populated parts of Texas.

I suspect that the Red Cross and FEMA would be the folks to contact about getting into these units around the state.

Posted by: Greg at 02:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

DeLay Statement About Cindy Sheehan

The Cindy Sheehan "It's All About Me" Tour made an appearance in Houston on Thursday, as the city was ramping up its efforts to help our fellow citizens whose lives were disrupted by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

She and her fellow-travellers showed up at the offices of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to demand (not request -- demand) an immediate meeting while the Delay and his staff were working to secure the resources necessary to care for the many people in need of shelter, food, and medical care.

I wouldn't usually include a politician's press release or campaign mailing in my blog -- certainly not a whole one, at any rate. And I've had my own disagrements with DeLay, who is my congressman, and I've expressed those on this blog and its predecessor, as well as in letters and calls to DeLay's office. But i think this statement needs to stand on its own, for it sums up Sheehan's narcissistic arrogance quite well.

So I offer for your consideration this statement from the Tom DeLay Congressional Committee.

WeÂ’ve all heard about Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war mother who camped out in Crawford demanding to meet with the President.
Yesterday Ms. Sheehan crossed the line. While our community worked tirelessly to care and prepare for thousands of evacuees from the hurricane Katrina disaster, Ms. Sheehan renewed her attacks on the President and specifically targeted Congressman Tom DeLay.
As Congressman DeLay was working to rally federal resources to help with disaster recovery efforts, Ms. Sheehan and her media-seeking crew Â“made an appearance?Â” at the CongressmanÂ’s Stafford office demanding a meeting.
Without the slightest bit of concern for the refugees, the disaster efforts that are underway, and the sheer scope of the task in front of our community, Sheehan and her group stated, Â“WeÂ’ve come a long way, and we want a meeting before we leave tonight.Â”
Right now, there is a critical need for water, food and basic necessities across the entire Gulf Coast, including in the Greater Houston Area where more than 25,000 refugees are receiving aid and shelter.
Congressman DeLayÂ’s offices are working day and night to help lend support to the relief effort. Thousands of volunteers have pitched in and Houstonians are opening their hearts and wallets to care for the masses leaving Louisiana.
Ms. Sheehan and MoveOn.orgÂ’s media stunts show a complete lack of respect for our community, the tragedy we are coping with, and it serve as further evidence of how little they care for anything but their own agenda.
We felt a little background information was in order as a reminder of what this agenda is really about and how bizarre their message is:
Ã¢Â€Â¢Sheehan says America is Â“not worth dying for.Â”
Â“George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,Â” [Sheehan] said tearing up a bit. Â“America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.Â” (SFSU Hosts A Terrorist, www.frontpagemag.com, 5/2/05)
Ã¢Â€Â¢Cindy Sheehan attacks moms who support the War on Terror.
Sheehan calls mothers who have lost children in Iraq and still support President Bush Â“the continue Â‘the murder and mayhemÂ’ momsÂ”. (Cindy SheehanÂ’s blog, 8/27/05)
Sheehan blames America for the problems in Iraq Â“We caused these problems. America caused these problems.Â”
Ã¢Â€Â¢Sheehan alleges the War on Terror is one big Israeli conspiracy.
Â“. . . my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel.Â” (Letter to ABCÂ’s Nightline, 3/15/05)
Sheehan is backed by - and has become the tool of - MoveOn.org, professional protestors, and radical PR gurus.
* In the 2004 Presidential campaign, she appeared in MoveOn.org ads attacking President Bush. (www.moveonpac.org)
* Sheehan has developed media savvy with assistance from the national public relations firm Fenton Communications, which has also worked with Moveon.org... (Houston Chronicle, 8/11/05)
* And Lisa Fithian, Â“a veteran of the Seattle WTO riots and scores of other protests [has] been with Sheehan from the startÂ” helping her coordinate her protest in Crawford and upcoming bus tour. (National Review, 8/29/05) http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200508290901.asp
Cindy Sheehan and the MoveOn.org road show is focused on attacking the President, undermining the gallant efforts of our troops overseas, and taking back Congress for the Democrats. This has been their agenda since the 2004 Presidential election and no hurricane disaster effort is going to cause them to let up.

I've only clipped a link to an NPR clip and the final few sentences at the end that discuss DeLay's probable Democrat opponent. But I do think that her actions here in houston make quite clear that her actions are more about Cindy Sheehan than they are about what is good for the United States, otherwise she would have cancelled the multiple Houston stops of her "Honk If You {heart} al-Zarqawi" caravan.

UPDATE: CINDY CUTS AND RUNS -- I guess her 'personal business is more important than either helpin with the hurricane relief in the region where she is travelling or the anti-American goals of her travelling snake-oil show.

Posted by: Greg at 02:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.

A Half Century Of Service

Eddie Corral joined the Houston Fire Department in 1955., only the fourth Hispanic to serve as a firefighter in the city's history.

His career was marked by a drive for excellence and dedication to serving and protecting the people of Houston.

He retired from active service to the people of Houston yesterday.

Corral worked his way up the department ladder, rung by rung, taking competitive exams for the next highest post, including the fire marshal job he returned to after being chief.
When he came on board as chief, the fire academy was closed. Twenty-two fire stations had leaking roofs.
"The men had to arrange buckets all over the floors when it rained," he said. There were only two women in the entire department.
When he left, the academy was up and running, the roofs were fixed, there were 80 female firefighters and hundreds of ethnic minorities had been recruited.
Corral jokes that his biggest accomplishment was the annual calendar featuring firefighters. But, as chief and fire marshal, Corral launched several innovative programs that were imitated nationwide, including the Juvenile Firesetters Prevention Program; the Cease-Fire Club, a civilian fire prevention program; and the Triad, a cooperative high-rise safety program with owners of tall buildings.
The fire chief runs the department. The fire marshal, who reports to the chief, is in charge of fire prevention.
Both jobs brought different challenges, Corral said, but he is most passionate about prevention.
"There have been 400,000 people killed in fires across the country since I began my career. But 90 percent of all fires can be prevented. As fire marshal, I took that on as a challenge," he said.

You know, I don't care about Eddie Corral's heritage so much as I do about his accomplishments. He wasn't merely one of the best Hispanic fire chiefs and fire marshals in the country -- he was one of the best, period. Ethnicity didn't enter into the equation. That he is also a fine role model for the Hispanic community is simply a bonus, in my opinion.

There are two quotes that I think sum up Corral's career, both taken from interviews he gave yesterday.

The first talks about how the job of a firefighter has changed over the decades, and how it has become more professional.

"When I started at the fire department, we used have a motto. It was, 'You light them, we fight them.' Now the motto is, 'Seeking opportunities to serve.' That kind of tells you the different thinking that prevails now."

The second tells you of his love for the job, the profession, that has been his passion for half a century.

"I'll miss the excitement of helping people and the sense of duty but, after 50 years, it's time to go. It's been great," Corral said.
"Some wise man said, 'If you find something you like to do, you never have to work a day in your life.' I haven't worked a day in 50 years."

Don't you wish you could express that sort of love for what you do?

And then there is his observation on the men and women of the Houston Fire Department while visiting a number of fire sttions and fires around the city on his final day as fire marshal.

"You can't find a better group of people to work with," Corral said proudly.

Thank you and God bless you, Eddie Corral. May you have a happy retirement.

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

September 02, 2005

Hurricane Katrina -- What's Up At My School?

You people know I almost never blog about school, and when I do I am very circumspect.

I will be general in this post, too , but I have to say that I'm going to be a bit more specific in what I say here.

I teach on the east side of Houston, at a 9-10 grade high school campus. We have about 2300 students, 80% minority, well-over half qualifying for free/reduced lunch. We are blessed by an industrial base, as we straddle I-10, and we are also a growing residential community because of new home construction on the north side of the district. I won't name the school or district.

We are being touched by Hurricane Katrina in a small way. My campus had four students fom Louisiana enrolled as of the start of school today. Our sister campus (grades 11-12) had 10. I would speculate the district probably had received 30-40 as of this morning. Who knows how many came in to the district today? I won't even begin to speculate about what will happen next week, though I will note that we already have a lot of students with Louisiana roots whose cousins are likely to turn up.

We got word from the district today -- we will take all comers without question. What's more, the word out of the district offices is that none of these students is expected to lay out a penny for anything -- not pens and pencils, not paper, not notebooks. To quote my principal, "If they don't have clothes, we will take them clothes shopping." I applaud my district for taking that stand, which I suspect goes even furhter than TEA requires of us.

But the commitment goes further than that. There aren't any openings in the district now (we pay well for the area, and have a reputation as a good place to work), but the district is planning to hire on some of the displaced teachers from Louisiana as long-term or permanent substitutes, so that they have money coming in. It won't be anywhere near their regular salaries as teachers, unfortuantely, but it will be something. After all, a lot of schools are closed for the foreseeable future over in Louisiana, and teachers have been told that they are on their own.

The district has asked employees to help. At our faculty meeting today, we were challenged to donate at a certain level (varying depending on whether the employee is uncertified, a teacher, or an administrator). We approved that by acclamation. Proceeds will be going to the school district in Pascagoula, Mississippi, with which there is a pre-existing relationship.

Our kids are in on this, too. One of our service organizations is running a clothing/bedding/canned goods/toiletries/everything-but-the-kitchen-sink drive. Students at the New Arrival Center (for recent immigrants needing to learn English) on one of our other campuses will be sponsoring a car wash tomorrow.

And then there was the fundraising drive by student council. I'm not sure how much they raised, but I suspect that it was in excess of $5000 just from sending someone around to each classroom during third period. I suspect my class ponied up about $50-60. A colleague tells me of one boy who, before going to lunch, pulled out his wallet and emptied the contents into the can -- at least $20.00. I've got this kid in one of my history classes, and know he comes from one of the worst neighborhoods in the district and from a family that doesn't have much. I know he wors after school and on weekends to contribute to the family budget, and doesn't keep much for himself -- so it was probably all or most of what he has for a week or two. He's the type of kid that I refer to when I tell folks that I teach the best kids in the world -- he may not be the best student, but he is an outstanding human being.

I don't doubt that the other schools in the district are responding in exactly the same way.

I'll update you folks about how Katrina impacts my school and my district as time goes on. One thing I can tell you, based on what has happened so far -- we WILL step up. And so will every other Texas school and district.

(Michelle Malkin has a round-up of relief efforts here in Texas -- and Lone Star Times is covering the action at the Astrodome)

UPDATE: As of mid-morning on Friday, at least 6100 students displaced by katrina have enrolled in schools around the state of Texas, according to the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin talks about the situation in Pascagoula

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 801 words, total size 5 kb.

1 What a great school, everyone there! This makes me glad that the feds declared Texas and Arkansas disaster states so we'd be able to obtain federal money to help these people that probably lost everything.

But something about the federal disaster money thing I heard on the news bothered me: 'This means that ANY county in Texas will be able to apply for money under the disaster declaration'. Well if ALL the counties that apply for money are taking in evacuees, then it doesn't bother me, but will every county that applies for it be required to have taken in, or helped evacuees? Will someone be watching out for that? Because naturally we don't trust almost all politicans when there's money to be had, plus remember those stories about how some communities used the terrorism-prevention funds on really dufus stuff.

I just hope they're able to catch the opportunist BEFORE they try to take advantage of it, instead of reporters finding out about it way after the fact.

Posted by: Sherri at Sat Sep 3 11:04:14 2005 (KfpHD)

2 I'm reasonably sure that you have to show that you have expenses related to the hurricane to get the money. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Sep 3 11:22:54 2005 (j+86E)

3 It's wonderful to hear how not only people but local government is helping.

Posted by: muse at Wed Sep 7 02:43:57 2005 (h9BKc)

4 BRAVO for your school! We it get tough in this great country, we Americans rise to the call and bust our butts to help our fellow Americans.

Our school (7-8 JHS, low socio area) is having a minor fundraiser; our kids get to wear blue jeans if they contribute some cash.....I have my advisory kids working on it in a bigger way as their community service requirement.

Just an idea: For "others" to contribute to obtaining supplies for your 'new' students, maybe asking for money cards for Wal-Mart would work better than sending cash or checks or mailing supplies (which the postage eats up alot of the supplies that could be obtained otherwise).

Have a great school year !

Posted by: Polski3 at Wed Sep 7 14:33:34 2005 (M7kiy)

5 God bless you all. Our high school got our second student today, and our principal gave the people money for food and supplies, and a possible connection to a job for the dad. There are no words for the situation these victims face. We must welcome them all and try to heal their pain.

Posted by: Ms. Cornelius at Wed Sep 7 16:10:58 2005 (BwM5X)

6 I think this story that she wrote was good but I need somethings that rhymes lke Humty Dumty or something else that is very cool and interesting for adults,teachers and student to read and entertain.

Posted by: Bernnie at Tue Oct 18 20:01:47 2005 (3LacL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

ACLU Hypocrisy

The ACLU is objecting to a town logo that includes a rosary as a reflection of the history and heritage of the community.

The New Mexico chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to the new logo for the Village of Tijeras. Some village residents are objecting to the ACLU.
At issue is the village seal, an image containing depictions of a conquistadorÂ’s helmet, a sword and a Catholic rosary. ItÂ’s the last item that has the ACLU concerned.

I'm curious -- why do they not object to the native American religious symbol also depicted on the logo? Could it be an anti-Catholic -- indeed, an anti-Christian -- bias on the part of the Anti-Christian Liberals Union.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

Who Cares?

After all, these guys are opposing Judge Roberts based solely upon ideology, not competence or qualifications.

In a letter to Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat, respectively, on the Senate Judiciary Committee, 160 teachers of law from 63 institutions stated their opposition. They said it was based on Roberts' memos as a Reagan administration lawyer, the briefs that he signed as deputy solicitor general in the George H.W. Bush administration and his rulings on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
That record, the letter said, suggests that Roberts "holds a limited view of Congress' authority to enact key worker, civil rights and environmental protections and a similarly narrow view of the vital role our courts and our government play in safeguarding individual rights, especially civil and women's rights."
At a news conference, Duke University Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky said Roberts was "likely to be much more conservative than O'Connor" and could overturn narrow decisions upholding affirmative action, the right to privacy and separation of church and state.

In other words, there is no question of fitness for the Supreme Court, simply an objection based upon philosophy. Since the ABA has given the judge its highest rating, this letter is simply a disgrace.

And i love the justification these folks use to justify the rejection of Judge Roberts -- the rejection of Robert Bork, generally considered to be the nadir of confirmation politics and the classic example of the destruction of a highly qualified judge based upon ideological considerations.

Chemerinsky compared O'Connor's departure from the court with the 1987 retirement of moderate Justice Lewis Powell. The Senate rejected Judge Robert H. Bork, then-President Ronald Reagan's first nominee to replace Powell, and the seat eventually went to the moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Fine -- just wait for us to Bork any future liberal nominee -- as should have been done to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

September 01, 2005

Disaster's Reach Extends Beyond New Orleans

Michelle Malkin provides a great post reminding us all that the city of New Orleans is not the only place touched by Hurricane Katrina.

Her post discusses the death and destruction in towns outside of new Orleans (indeed,outside Louisiana) that have been severely effected by the storm.

Cities and towns included are:
CHALMETTE, LA.
SLIDELL, LA.
METAIRIE, LA.
PASS CHRISTIAN, GULFPORT, AND LONG BEACH, MISS.
GRETNA, TERRYTOWN, HARVEY, AND MARRERO, LA.
MANDEVILLE AND COVINGTON, LA.
BILOXI, MISS.
MOBILE, BALDWIN, WASHINGTON, CLARKE CHOCTAW ANDSUMPTER COUNTIES, AL.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Some Have No Shame And No Soul

Sometimes an article makes one lament that there is no way to round up some members of a community and "vote them off the island".

This is one such case.

Amid the overwhelmingly compassionate response to hurricane evacuees in Houston, a less-welcoming undercurrent is developing among people worried about the impact of thousands of needy, desperate people.
E-mails, blogs and callers to the Chronicle wonder why refugees draw such immediate assistance while Houston's poor continue to suffer. Others fear an increase of crime.
Some are blunt. "Yes, let's rush to bring over the looters and destroyers of public and private property," wrote a blogger.
Some are thoughtful. "I have grave concerns about a city that can't help the people here now that are going hungry and cannot pay the high cost of utilities," e-mailed a Houston woman.
Others feel a burden has been foisted on Houstonians. "I am not a Christian, but I am charitable. That being said, there's a difference between me making a personal choice to give $50 to the Red Cross and my elected officials inviting 25,000 homeless into the middle of my city," a resident wrote the Chronicle's SciGuy blog.
Laurence Simon, a tech support employee for a local company, has mixed feelings.
"I'm glad that we're putting out a welcome mat. These people have to go somewhere. But I don't know if officials are appreciating the extent of what it's going to take," said Simon.
"You can hold the door open on the elevator for more and more people but, at some point, the elevator gets too full and the cable snaps."
About two-thirds of the population of New Orleans and many of the evacuees are black. Some of the e-mails and calls have a racist bent.
But the unease cuts across racial lines. Michelle Louring, an African-American resident of the Greenspoint area, said her neighborhood already has experienced an increase in petty crimes and nuisances she blames on refugees.

Those to object to public and private efforts to provide relief to people effected by Hurricane Katrina would do well to shut up and help o improve the Houston area -- by finding somewhere else tolive. Your sort are not welcome in this town..

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 2 kb.

Gasoline Shortage A Short-Term Problem?

I've seen prices jump 40 cents at the station behind my school in 24 hours. I'm not sure if it is a shortage causing it, speculation, or just plain greed. And I'm not sure where the prices will go from here. I do know that I saw prices at $3.00 in Pasadena Texas -- you know, the town where all those refineries from Urban Cowboy are located.

We hear, of course, about the damage to and closure of energy-related facilities. That is bad.

But we may not be in for rising prices for long, if this information is correct.

Gasoline futures fell for the first day in five as some fuel pipelines shut by Hurricane Katrina were reopened and as refiners prepared to restart plants along the Gulf coast.
Colonial Pipeline Co. expected yesterday to raise gasoline and distillate shipments to 61 percent of their normal rate. Royal Dutch Shell Plc said it may next week re-start the Motiva refinery at Convent, Louisiana. At least eight U.S. refineries, more than 10 percent of the nation's capacity, remained shut for a sixth day because of flooding and blackouts from Katrina.
``It's certainly going to take a while to get everything back up,'' said Bob Frye, a commodity broker at Access Futures & Options Trading Inc. in Woodlake, California.
Gasoline for October delivery fell as much as 4.9 cents, or 2 percent, to $2.36 a gallon in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $2.365 at 9:41 a.m. Sydney time.
Yesterday, the contract surged as much as 9.3 percent to $2.4650, before closing at $2.409 a gallon, marking a 30 percent gain this week. Prices today have almost doubled from a year ago.
The Gulf of Mexico receives more than half of U.S. oil imports and is home to about 50 percent of the nation's refining capacity. Power cuts, flooding and a lack of workers are hampering refiners' efforts to inspect plants and restore output.

So it looks like many of the facilities may have come through the storms in better shape than we feared -- but getting to them and getting folks to work at them may be a bigger challenge.

And we are being advised by the administration to expect $3.00 gas through Halloween.

But look at the bright side -- only through Halloween. We may have a restoration of supply to near normal before winter sets in.

Posted by: Greg at 03:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Stating The Obvious

I had no intention of writing about the sad story from Hattiesburg, Mississippi, of a woman shot and killed by her brother over a bag of ice. Then I saw this at the end of the story.

The shooting is being treated like a homicide, [Police Chief David] Wynn said.

Why wouldnÂ’t it be treated as a homicide?

After all, the killing of another human being by another IS homicide, by definition.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

A Step Forward For Fatherâ€™s Rights â€“ And For The Victims Of Paternity Fraud

What would you do if your wife cheated on you and became pregnant by another man? What if they conspired to keep the secret from you for decades? This is the interesting question raised by a New Jersey case.

A man who found out 30 years after his youngest child's birth that he was not the father had the right to sue the biological father for nearly $110,000, the cost of raising the child, an appeals court ruled yesterday.
In the first ruling to extend a statutory deadline in a paternity case, the appellate panel said the man could collect the money even though he missed the deadline under New Jersey's Parentage Act by eight years. The court said it made sense because the biological father, along with the duped man's wife, never told him he was not the boy's father.
The attorney for the biological father said his client had not decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
"The court has finally shed light on the parameters of the Parentage Act and what it covers and how far it can go," said the attorney, Scott Bocker. "Unfortunately, I don't necessarily agree with everything they said, but ... they have the say in how the statute is interpreted."
Family court expert John Paone Jr. called it "a groundbreaking case."
"There is no precedent in New Jersey where a parent has been compelled to pay child support more than 15 years after the emancipation of a child," said Paone, who has been practicing family law for more than 20 years.
Paone said he does not expect the ruling to be applied widely.
"I still think it's going to be the rare case that the biological father knows he's the father and participates in the fraud," Paone said. "The facts of this case call out for a remedy you don't normally see in the court."
In a 30-page opinion that does not reveal the identities of either man, the mother or the son, the appeals court upheld a nearly $110,000 award granted by a Morris County judge in 2003.
Under the state's Parentage Act, an action to determine paternity could be filed up until the child in question turns 23. But the man who raised the boy did not find out until 1999 -- when the child was 30 -- that his ex-wife had had an affair with his friend in the late 1960s and had gotten pregnant. She gave birth to a son in 1969, and as a friend of the family, the biological father, identified in the ruling as P.J.S. Jr., agreed to be the boy's godfather, the decision said.
Ten years after the child was born, the couple divorced, but the plaintiff, R.A.C., paid child support and kept a relationship with all three of his children.

Now ordinarily I would be troubled by the statute of limitations question. But there is a long-standing legal doctrine â€“ one which I believe dates back to common law -- which the courts have applied to this situation.

The biological father, however, appealed on the grounds the Paternity Act does not allow lawsuits to be filed after the child turns 23.
But the appeals court said just as murderers who avoid detection for years before they are caught can be sued for wrongful death long after the statute of limitation, so too can a duped man sue for child support from a biological father.

The doctrine of equitable tolling, as it is called, "applies to prevent a statute of limitations from being used as a sword by a defendant whose conduct contributed to the expiration of the statutory period," the decision said.
"Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the child," the judges said.

In all honesty, I do not know if I would ever have sued in a case like this, but I respect the plaintiffâ€™s right to do so.

I wonder, though, if the ultimate solution to the problem of paternity fraud might be to require paternity tests at birth. What do you folks think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 4 kb.

A Step Forward For FatherÂ’s Rights Â– And For The Victims Of Paternity Fraud

A man who found out 30 years after his youngest child's birth that he was not the father had the right to sue the biological father for nearly $110,000, the cost of raising the child, an appeals court ruled yesterday.
In the first ruling to extend a statutory deadline in a paternity case, the appellate panel said the man could collect the money even though he missed the deadline under New Jersey's Parentage Act by eight years. The court said it made sense because the biological father, along with the duped man's wife, never told him he was not the boy's father.
The attorney for the biological father said his client had not decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
"The court has finally shed light on the parameters of the Parentage Act and what it covers and how far it can go," said the attorney, Scott Bocker. "Unfortunately, I don't necessarily agree with everything they said, but ... they have the say in how the statute is interpreted."
Family court expert John Paone Jr. called it "a groundbreaking case."
"There is no precedent in New Jersey where a parent has been compelled to pay child support more than 15 years after the emancipation of a child," said Paone, who has been practicing family law for more than 20 years.
Paone said he does not expect the ruling to be applied widely.
"I still think it's going to be the rare case that the biological father knows he's the father and participates in the fraud," Paone said. "The facts of this case call out for a remedy you don't normally see in the court."
In a 30-page opinion that does not reveal the identities of either man, the mother or the son, the appeals court upheld a nearly $110,000 award granted by a Morris County judge in 2003.
Under the state's Parentage Act, an action to determine paternity could be filed up until the child in question turns 23. But the man who raised the boy did not find out until 1999 -- when the child was 30 -- that his ex-wife had had an affair with his friend in the late 1960s and had gotten pregnant. She gave birth to a son in 1969, and as a friend of the family, the biological father, identified in the ruling as P.J.S. Jr., agreed to be the boy's godfather, the decision said.
Ten years after the child was born, the couple divorced, but the plaintiff, R.A.C., paid child support and kept a relationship with all three of his children.

Now ordinarily I would be troubled by the statute of limitations question. But there is a long-standing legal doctrine Â– one which I believe dates back to common law -- which the courts have applied to this situation.

The biological father, however, appealed on the grounds the Paternity Act does not allow lawsuits to be filed after the child turns 23.
But the appeals court said just as murderers who avoid detection for years before they are caught can be sued for wrongful death long after the statute of limitation, so too can a duped man sue for child support from a biological father.

The doctrine of equitable tolling, as it is called, "applies to prevent a statute of limitations from being used as a sword by a defendant whose conduct contributed to the expiration of the statutory period," the decision said.
"Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the child," the judges said.

In all honesty, I do not know if I would ever have sued in a case like this, but I respect the plaintiffÂ’s right to do so.

I wonder, though, if the ultimate solution to the problem of paternity fraud might be to require paternity tests at birth. What do you folks think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 4 kb.

A Few Questions For Those Who Cry â€œChickenhawkâ€

Iâ€™ve heard the charge of â€œchickenhawkâ€ thrown around frequently by left-wingers who think that it has some sort of meaning. Iâ€™ve even heard it used against veterans who did not serve in combat -- in one case against the head of the Ameican Legion, who spent his time in the Army in Germany rather than Vietnam.

The irony is that those using it seek to undermine the moral authority of those who have not served or are not currently serving, while at the same time arguing that those who serve are either evil killers and terrorists or incompetent victims too dim to understand their exploitation. Ultimately, they believe only in the moral authority of themselves and those who are â€œenlightenedâ€ enough to agree with them.

Lately Iâ€™ve been asking these folks if they have taken their turn shielding Iraqi civilians from the folks who are setting off car bombs among them. Andrew Cline offers a few more questions for them in a piece in the American Spectator.

Conservatives need to start flipping that coin to its other side by asking the following questions of anyone who levels the "chickenhawk" charge:
* Why are you not in Darfur feeding starving children?
* Why are you not on the Gulf Coast rescuing hurricane survivors?
* Why are you not in China protesting the political detention of dissidents?
* Why are you not in Swaziland teaching people how to prevent the spread of AIDS?
* Why are you not in Latin America training revolutionaries to overthrow corrupt regimes?
* Why are you not providing abortions to teenage girls?

Unfortunately, these sorts of questions donâ€™t do much to shut up the average hardcore Leftist, but it might get through to those who havenâ€™t consumed too much Kool-Aid yet.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Okay, here's how I would answer the chickenhawks who support a war they are too cowardly to join. First off, I did not support a president who unilaterally caused the crisis in Darfur, the hurricane, Chinese detention of political dissenters, AIDS, corrupt regimes in Latin America, or unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps if I had supported a president who caused those situations, I would be under a moral obligation to do so.

Secondly, if you are proposing a new public service corps, where I will have military-style pay, benefits, opportunity for advancement, analogous to those we provide soldiers, so that I can help address those problems, sign me up. I'm no gutless chickenhawk when it comes to promoting social good, even though I am under far less of an obligation to sign up than the chickenhawks who support the war but are too cowardly to fight it.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 08:15:57 2005 (HBqfk)

2 Yeah -- but since I never supported Saddam Hussein, I can't be said to have supported the president who unilaterally caused the situation in Iraq, either.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:01:32 2005 (a2u3C)

3 And i love how liberals find a way to avoid their responsibility to put it on the line for policies they support.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:15:08 2005 (a2u3C)

4 I do support the policies I support, and I wish I could do more. And Bush attacked Hussein, not vice versa.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 11:19:09 2005 (aSKj6)

5 Hussein violated every single UN resolution following the Gulf War -- compliance with which was a condition for the cessation of hostilities in 1991. As such, the US was under no obligation to refrain from completing the job that Bush 41 uwisely failed to complete in 1991. The responsibility for this resumption of hostilities therefore lays directly at the feet of Saddam Hussein.

We won't get into the genocide, the sheltering of terrorists, , etc that also justified the resumption of hostilities.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:50:56 2005 (a2u3C)

6 I do support the policies I support, and I wish I could do more.

Gee -- that is one of the arguments that leftists say is the sign of a so-called "chickenhawk". So I guess you do qualify as the liberal equivalent -- I support it, but doing anything about it would be mighty inconvenient."

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:52:41 2005 (a2u3C)

7 See above, RWR. Bush created this situation with your support - now you help him solve it.

I'm not arguing that Hussein was a good guy - I think the people who freely voted for him (were there any?) should also serve.

And I stand ready to enter the Public Justice Corps you have so generously offered to fund, and I'll encourage my children to do the same. Will the chickenhawks do the same?

Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 12:04:32 2005 (aSKj6)

8 Like I said -- Hussein is the one who is responsible for starting this.

And like I said -- you are just a typical liberal unwilling to inconvenience himself for the thins he claims to support.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 12:09:34 2005 (a2u3C)

9 Hussein did not start the war. He was a bad person and a bad leader, but the person you supported started the war. Bush made the decision to attack. And you supported him.

I did not support the decision to create Darfur. I, unlike the chickenhawks, though, am willing to participate in the solution if you create a military-type support structure for me.

Truth is, the chickenhawks are casting about looking for an excuse to justify their cowardice. They are trying to equate solving problems they created with solving problems I did not create. That's intellectual cowardice. They have yellow in their veins and in their intellects. Disgusting.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 13:54:21 2005 (aSKj6)

10 Yeah, i suppose if you start looking at the Iraq issue as of spring of 2003, you are right.

Unfortunately for you, intellectual honesty requires looking at the dozen or so years that predate the start of the current phase of the conflict in Iraq.

When looked at in its totality, Saddam Hussein is responsible.

I realize that means upsetting your little liberal house of cards -- as well as your "chickenhawk" mantra -- but thems the breaks.

And don't forget -- the decision was supported 2-1 by Americans.

So if chickenshits want to accuse us of being chickenhawks, so be it -- because they conveniently gloss over the broad base of American support for the war at its inception.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 14:48:53 2005 (dlwtI)

11 You know, RWR, you and I are not that far apart on this. I agree that Hussein was a bad leader, and that his evil predated Bush's invasion. I don't agree with you that Hussein's behavior justified an invasion, but I don't expect that I am going to convince you of my position (just as Bush's many, shifting "well, what about this reason?" arguments have not convinced me). I respect the fact that on this value judgment, your position is valid, as is mine.

I also agree that the war had substantial support at its launch - only a minority of us were pointing out that it was unjustified and unwise. I also agree that Bush won re-election by a 51-49 majority.

We just disagree on what those who supported the war and Bush's reelection should be doing. I think they should be standing up for what they believe. Others think they should cower.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Sep 3 04:30:31 2005 (aSKj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A Few Questions For Those Who Cry Â“ChickenhawkÂ”

IÂ’ve heard the charge of Â“chickenhawkÂ” thrown around frequently by left-wingers who think that it has some sort of meaning. IÂ’ve even heard it used against veterans who did not serve in combat -- in one case against the head of the Ameican Legion, who spent his time in the Army in Germany rather than Vietnam.

Lately IÂ’ve been asking these folks if they have taken their turn shielding Iraqi civilians from the folks who are setting off car bombs among them. Andrew Cline offers a few more questions for them in a piece in the American Spectator.

Conservatives need to start flipping that coin to its other side by asking the following questions of anyone who levels the "chickenhawk" charge:
* Why are you not in Darfur feeding starving children?
* Why are you not on the Gulf Coast rescuing hurricane survivors?
* Why are you not in China protesting the political detention of dissidents?
* Why are you not in Swaziland teaching people how to prevent the spread of AIDS?
* Why are you not in Latin America training revolutionaries to overthrow corrupt regimes?
* Why are you not providing abortions to teenage girls?

Unfortunately, these sorts of questions donÂ’t do much to shut up the average hardcore Leftist, but it might get through to those who havenÂ’t consumed too much Kool-Aid yet.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Okay, here's how I would answer the chickenhawks who support a war they are too cowardly to join. First off, I did not support a president who unilaterally caused the crisis in Darfur, the hurricane, Chinese detention of political dissenters, AIDS, corrupt regimes in Latin America, or unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps if I had supported a president who caused those situations, I would be under a moral obligation to do so. Secondly, if you are proposing a new public service corps, where I will have military-style pay, benefits, opportunity for advancement, analogous to those we provide soldiers, so that I can help address those problems, sign me up. I'm no gutless chickenhawk when it comes to promoting social good, even though I am under far less of an obligation to sign up than the chickenhawks who support the war but are too cowardly to fight it.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 08:15:57 2005 (HBqfk)

2 Yeah -- but since I never supported Saddam Hussein, I can't be said to have supported the president who unilaterally caused the situation in Iraq, either.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:01:32 2005 (a2u3C)

3 And i love how liberals find a way to avoid their responsibility to put it on the line for policies they support.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:15:08 2005 (a2u3C)

4 I do support the policies I support, and I wish I could do more. And Bush attacked Hussein, not vice versa.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 11:19:09 2005 (aSKj6)

5 Hussein violated every single UN resolution following the Gulf War -- compliance with which was a condition for the cessation of hostilities in 1991. As such, the US was under no obligation to refrain from completing the job that Bush 41 uwisely failed to complete in 1991. The responsibility for this resumption of hostilities therefore lays directly at the feet of Saddam Hussein. We won't get into the genocide, the sheltering of terrorists, , etc that also justified the resumption of hostilities.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:50:56 2005 (a2u3C)

6 I do support the policies I support, and I wish I could do more. Gee -- that is one of the arguments that leftists say is the sign of a so-called "chickenhawk". So I guess you do qualify as the liberal equivalent -- I support it, but doing anything about it would be mighty inconvenient."

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 11:52:41 2005 (a2u3C)

7 See above, RWR. Bush created this situation with your support - now you help him solve it. I'm not arguing that Hussein was a good guy - I think the people who freely voted for him (were there any?) should also serve. And I stand ready to enter the Public Justice Corps you have so generously offered to fund, and I'll encourage my children to do the same. Will the chickenhawks do the same?

Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 12:04:32 2005 (aSKj6)

8 Like I said -- Hussein is the one who is responsible for starting this. And like I said -- you are just a typical liberal unwilling to inconvenience himself for the thins he claims to support.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 12:09:34 2005 (a2u3C)

9 Hussein did not start the war. He was a bad person and a bad leader, but the person you supported started the war. Bush made the decision to attack. And you supported him. I did not support the decision to create Darfur. I, unlike the chickenhawks, though, am willing to participate in the solution if you create a military-type support structure for me. Truth is, the chickenhawks are casting about looking for an excuse to justify their cowardice. They are trying to equate solving problems they created with solving problems I did not create. That's intellectual cowardice. They have yellow in their veins and in their intellects. Disgusting.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Sep 2 13:54:21 2005 (aSKj6)

10 Yeah, i suppose if you start looking at the Iraq issue as of spring of 2003, you are right. Unfortunately for you, intellectual honesty requires looking at the dozen or so years that predate the start of the current phase of the conflict in Iraq. When looked at in its totality, Saddam Hussein is responsible. I realize that means upsetting your little liberal house of cards -- as well as your "chickenhawk" mantra -- but thems the breaks. And don't forget -- the decision was supported 2-1 by Americans. So if chickenshits want to accuse us of being chickenhawks, so be it -- because they conveniently gloss over the broad base of American support for the war at its inception.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Sep 2 14:48:53 2005 (dlwtI)

11 You know, RWR, you and I are not that far apart on this. I agree that Hussein was a bad leader, and that his evil predated Bush's invasion. I don't agree with you that Hussein's behavior justified an invasion, but I don't expect that I am going to convince you of my position (just as Bush's many, shifting "well, what about this reason?" arguments have not convinced me). I respect the fact that on this value judgment, your position is valid, as is mine. I also agree that the war had substantial support at its launch - only a minority of us were pointing out that it was unjustified and unwise. I also agree that Bush won re-election by a 51-49 majority. We just disagree on what those who supported the war and Bush's reelection should be doing. I think they should be standing up for what they believe. Others think they should cower.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Sep 3 04:30:31 2005 (aSKj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Clueless Celebrities And The Leftist Lies They Lie

Get this bit from has-been sex-symbol and Rolling Stone-castoff Bianca Jagger.

A SURVIVOR of a suicide bombing cursed out Bianca Jagger Monday night during a dinner party after the self-styled "human-rights activist" and her friends told him, "American soldiers are raping and killing women and children around the globe."
Jack Baxter, a New York filmmaker who was partially paralyzed in a suicide bombing in an Israeli cafÃƒÂ© two years ago, was in Los Angeles promoting his documentary about Israel, "Blues by the Beach," and decided to stop by a friend's birthday dinner at the Chateau Marmont.
Baxter says there were six people at the table including himself and his friend Cindy Lou Adkins.
"Bianca was there with two guys from Palm Springs," Baxter told PAGE SIX. "She starts talking about Iraq and saying how disgusting it was what the Americans are doing over there, and one of the Palm Springs boys says: 'Americans are knuckle-dragging barbarians.' "
Baxter claims Nicaraguan citizen Jagger, in the middle of an anti-President Bush rant, said: "I despise this country. I would never be an American citizen. The United States should leave Iraq immediately. Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq."
Baxter, shocked, then said: "Well, what about Saddam giving the families of suicide bombers $25,000 as reward for killing people?" Â— to which he claims Jagger replied, "So what?"
Baxter continued: "Then [Jagger and pals] start talking about Abu Ghraib and how American soldiers are raping and killing women and children around the globe and that's when I said, '[Bleep] you. Cindy, let's get out of here.' We were just about to leave when I went back to the table and said, 'Bianca, you know what? You're talking this anti-American horse[bleep] here while we got guys dying in Iraq Â— [Bleep] you! [Bleep] all of you!' Then I did leave.
"I used to be a part-time bouncer at Studio 54 and I remember her from those days. This chick used to flash anyone who cared to look and now she's trying to pass herself off as some kind of pseudo-activist? C'mon!"

Hey, this woman is entitled to believe whatever she wants Â– but since she despises this country so much, I think it is only appropriate that the borders be closed to her. IÂ’m curious Â– does Prada have a shop in Havana?

As for the Palm Springs boys, they provide proof that there are, indeed some knuckle-dragging Americans out there Â– and that they are found on the Left. Not only that, but they donÂ’t even have the cojones to stand by their anti-American comments when confronted.

But Jacob Hopkins, one of Jagger's Palm Springs pals who was at the dinner, said he could not "recall" Jagger saying those things, and added: "We were having a political discussion where she may have said that certain countries invaded Iraq because perhaps of natural resources . . . I don't recall her saying anything anti-American. [Baxter] was outraged and very rude to us. We were simply having a private conversation."

Well, buddy, IÂ’ll show you rude if you make those comments around me. As it is, the fact that you were willing to make them in the presence in the victim of terrorists shows exactly what sort of moral cripple you, your friends, and the used-up floozy you were dining with really are.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.

PC Politics Insults Memory Of Thurgood Mashall

Thurgood Marshall was one of the greatest Supreme Court litigators of all time Â– certainly the greatest of his generation. His place would have been secure in history even if he had not become the first African-American elevated to the US Supreme Court, where he was, in my opinion, a mediocre justice because his ability to use his extraordinary talents as an advocate was constrained by his role as a judge.

On the basis of principle, Marshall refused to accept honors from his home state of Maryland or the city of Baltimore. Yet the name of BaltimoreÂ’s airport will be changed to Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport. Only one member of the stateÂ’s Board of Public Works objected. But I think it is important to note WHY he objected Â– and that his objection was rooted in respect for MarshallÂ’s principles.

All that was left yesterday was approval from the state's Board of Public Works. But state Comptroller William Donald Schaefer (D), as usual, had something to say about it.
"This is wrong, and it shouldn't be done," Schaefer told the original sponsor of the proposal, Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr. (D-Baltimore), during a lengthy and at times tense public exchange.
Although the name change won broad support this year in the General Assembly, the comptroller suggested that those who objected were forced to remain silent rather than face accusations of racial insensitivity.
"Nobody who is politically wise votes against this, and you know why, and so do I," Schaefer (D) told Burns at a meeting of the three-member panel, which eventually passed the measure, with Schaefer abstaining.
Schaefer said Marshall had in the past resisted being honored in Maryland, a state that denied him admission to law school because of his race. Schaefer, 83, a former governor whose position is up for reelection next year, said he was annoyed by Marshall's reluctance to attend the 1980 dedication of a statue in his likeness erected in downtown Baltimore, the city where the justice was born in 1908.
"He just didn't like Baltimore, and he so expressed it," said Schaefer, who was mayor at the time.

Justice Marshall is a man whose legacy deserves respect. I may have fundamental problems with his jurisprudence, but I would never allow that to undermine my respect for his civil rights work and the legacy of equality that goes with that work. But I find it fundamentally wrong to bestow honors upon him in death that he would have rejected in life.

Their response of the so-called civil rights leaders is exactly what one would have expected.

Civil rights leaders hailed the result, calling it fitting recognition for Marshall's contributions as a lawyer, activist and judge. When the governor signed the bill in May, Burns called it "the second-happiest day of my life," behind his wedding day. "Our purpose is to honor a great man," he told the crowd that day. "Generations yet unborn will ask the meaning of this -- and will be told that this governor, this lieutenant governor, this legislature chose to honor one of its own, a son of Maryland who changed the nation for all of America."
Yesterday, Burns tried mightily to contain his outrage at Schaefer's remarks. Burns attempted to tell Schaefer that many other cities, including Jackson, Miss., New Orleans and Atlanta, had named airports for prominent black innovators.
"You're doing it because others have done it?" Schaefer snapped.
"We did it because it's the right thing to do," Burns replied curtly.

So the forces of political correctness and the politicians who pander to them rammed through the proposal to rename the airport, despite the fact that rejecting it would have really been the right thing to do.

After all, how does one honor a hero by going against the principles he practiced during his life?

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 652 words, total size 4 kb.

A Sad Statement About The Situation In New Orleans

Search-and-rescue operations halted to stop looting and protect property?

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin also ordered virtually the entire police force to abandon search-and-rescue efforts and stop thieves who were becoming increasingly hostile.

First, the priority is wrong. Search-and-rescue needs to be the primary mission, not property protection. What needs to happen is that those caught looting Â– especially those armed thugs we have all been hearing about Â– simply need to be shot on sight.

Yes, I have sympathy for those who have been getting food, diapers, and other necessities. However, the situation is so out of control that order needs to be restored ruthlessly. I donÂ’t believe there are many recipes that call for a boom-box, a 32-inch flat-screen television or ten pairs of designer jeans.

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

August 31, 2005

Propety Rights Victory In Texas

Texas governements can no loner take private property in order to pass it on to private developers in the state of Texas. As such, the worst aspects of the Supreme Courts anti-property rights Kelo decision have been nullified here in Texas.

Texas' governor signed a law Wednesday strictly limiting the power of state and local government to seize private property for economic development.
The measure was in response to a Supreme Court ruling in June that said governments have broad power to bulldoze people's homes to erect shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue.
Gov. Rick Perry added the eminent domain issue to the summer legislative agenda, and the new law was approved by the House and Senate earlier this month.
At least 25 states have considered changes to eminent domain laws this summer.
Under the Constitution, governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Local governments have traditionally used their eminent domain authority to build roads, reservoirs and other public projects. But over decades, the high court has expanded the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., could take homes for a private development project. But the ruling also allowed states to ban the practice.

Mission accomplished.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

ATTN: Evacuees Seeking Shelter

If you are in the Houston area seeking shelter from Hurricane Katrina, DO NOT GO TO THE ASTRODOME! While those who are in the Superdome are being taken to that site, there are no current plans to open it up to those beyond the folks being specially transported from the Superdome in New Orleans.

Where should you go? Try the following locations, as listed on the Red Cross site.

HOUSTON Â– August 31, 2005- The Red Cross has opened 19 shelters in the Greater Houston area to help disaster victims forced from their homes by Hurricane Katrina. The shelters will remain open and additional shelters will be opened as necessary.
As of Wednesday evening
# Mont Belview Sr Center (Full 112 capacity)
11607 Eagle Drive
# Baytown Community Center (150/250 capacity)
2407 Market St
Baytown, Tx
# Memorial Baptist Church
(Full/capacity 135)
600 W. Sterling (full capacity)
Baytown Texas 77520
# St. Peter Claver
(Full/ capacity 220)
6005 N. Wayside Drive
Houston Tx
Moody Methodist Church
2803 53rd Street
Galveston, Texas
New Shelters
# Spring Tabernacle
(Full capacity 200)
3034 FM 2920
Spring, Tx 77338

# Gloria Dei Lutheran Church
(capacity 250)
18220 Upper Bay Rd-Nassau Bay
Houston, Tx

# St. Mary's Catholic Church
(capacity 200)
701 Church Street
Brenham, Tx
#

# Fairmont Park Baptist Church
10401 Belfast (150 Cap)
LaPorte, Tx

# New Life Central
2104 Underwood (350 Cap)
LaPorte, Tx

# 1st United Methodist Church
4308 W. Dallas
Conroe, Tx
(capacity 200)
# 1st Baptist Church
906 Ave A
Katy, Tx

# 1st Baptist Church
1229 Ave J
Huntsville, Tx
# Lee College Gym
200 Lee Drive
Baytown Tx
# St. Maximillian Catholic Church
10135 West Rd
Houston Tx
# Missouri street Church of Christ
3400 S. Hwy 146
Baytown, Tx 77520
# North Forest School Bldg
11433 Surburb
Houston TX 77016
# North Forest School Building
6511 N. Wayside
Houston, Tx
# Kingwood United Methodist
1799 Woodland Hill
Kingwood Tx 77339
#

Also a Red Cross information Hotline number regarding locations of shelters is available for Hurricane Katrina victims. Call Red Cross 1-(866) GET-INFO. Due to the high demand, the Houston Chapter has opened a local phone bank to provide information on Houston Area Red Cross activities at 713.313.5480. The number for the Louisiana State Police: 1.800.469.4828.
Families and individuals are advised to bring along basic personal items that they will need in the shelter. Those items should include pillows and bedding items, essential medications and health- related items, extra clothing, and a toy or activity for any children they might be bring with them.
The centers will provide a safe haven for individuals and families evacuated from homes affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

Left-Wing Arrogance

I got the following email in my box this morning. I wonÂ’t shame the guy by posting his name.

Date: Aug 31, 2005 1:05 AM

Subject: do you plan on writing anything about the hurricane?

Not as important as voter fraud or Cindy Sheehan?

Glad to see you have things in perspective. When you can't gas up your Hummer you might change your tune

Actually, I had tried a couple of times to write about the hurricane. But as often happens in times of overwhelming tragedy, I find that mere words just are not sufficient. So IÂ’ve refrained from posting rather than post some clichÃƒÂ©-ridden item about the horror of it all and wailing Â“Oh, the humanity!Â” Others have done a significantly better job of addressing the subject Â– especially Michelle Malkin. Their words have not failed them, while mine have.

So instead IÂ’ve written about stories that I find important that I think could be missed in the crush of Katrina coverage. If that strikes others as uncaring, too bad.

Ultimately, I think this writer is a bit confused. Does the presence or absence of a post about the hurricane on this blog determine what is or is not important? Is RHYMES WITH RIGHT the standard by which the importance of a story is judged? If it is, no one has told me. So either this guy vastly over-estimates my importance as a media source, or I vastly under-estimate that importance.

And while I may not be writing about the hurricane and its devastating impact that does not mean that I am doing nothing. The writer doesnÂ’t know whether I am sending money or to whom it is going. He has no way of ascertaining whether or not I am doing anything for the refugees that have fled into my own community in the face of this disaster. No, he chooses to interpret silence as apathy.

Now IÂ’ve not played politics with the storm. IÂ’ve not asked why Cindy Sheehan and her fellow terrorist-backers are not down in New Orleans instead of traveling the country to undermine the war effort (Did you know that while everyone else travels by bus, Cindy hops a plane to the next destination? Orwell was right about some animals being more equal than others.) DoesnÂ’t she care about the devastation? IÂ’ve not heard her address the crisis with her Â“unquestionable moral authorityÂ”. Why doesnÂ’t this writer hold her to the same standard that he wants to hold me? Heck, what about the fuel being eaten up by the buses and the planes used in her anti-American endeavor?

And we wonÂ’t get into the question of one of the writerÂ’s favorite haunts, Americablog, where the owner has played politics with the decision by the president to stay in Crawford and continue with some speaking engagements instead of returning to Washington immediately Â– and would have played politics by criticizing a decision to return to Washington immediately if he had. The writing there about the disaster has been so incredibly insincere Â– as have been the comments posted there by my email-critic.

As for the issue of my car and gas prices Â– IÂ’m a teacher in an 80% minority urban school district with a high poverty rate. What out-of-touch planet does this liberal fool live on if he believes I drive a Hummer? My car is seven years old and gets 30+ MPG. I need it to, because I drive 20+ miles each way to school. IÂ’d love to know what he is driving and what he does for a living/how much he makes. IÂ’m guessing he is a trust-fund baby who is seeking to assuage his liberal guilt by attacking conservative rather than giving away the money that feeds his lifestyle..

Posted by: Greg at 02:01 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

1 As a liberal, I have nothing to say here other than to hand my head. I don't even think it's worthwhile to point out the doofuses on the right who are guilty of similar idiocy. Suffice it to say, we both have idiots on our side.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Aug 31 16:09:27 2005 (aSKj6)

2 Reminds me of the guy who accused me of never having worked at physically hard jobs or in retail when I spoke out against the bashing of Wal-Mart by the left. He obviously didn't check my blog and find out that I served in the Army (that takes care of the hard physical labor issue). What he didn't know, because he stereo-typed me, is that I've worked retail and fast food, because I needed a job. It's the same old story. You are a neo-con (he assumes), you aren't playing emotional politics with the Hurricane, and thus you must be well to do and driving an expensive SUV, which is his image of all those who are not bleeding heart left.

Posted by: Eric at Wed Aug 31 16:52:15 2005 (Oc3Xt)

3 And for me, hurricanes will always be a source of particular dread.

At 13, my mother, little brother, and I had to ride out Typhoon Pam (either a category 4 or 5) in our house on Guam. The louvered windows in on-base housing were sheet plastic, and started to blow out of the frames during the first couple of hours of the storm -- we spent 16 hours holding them in place. And Dad was at work.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Aug 31 22:53:30 2005 (OByup)

4 Dan -- I agree.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Aug 31 22:54:36 2005 (OByup)

5 Dad at work?? You guys were literally holding down the fort and where was your Dad in all this?

Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Sep 1 10:07:20 2005 (CQ3Yp)

6 Dad was an officer in the Navy, on the staff of Comander Naval Forces - Marianas Islands. Because his particular job dealt with the deployment of every member of the military in the region, he was required to be on duty in the headquarters building on Nimitz Hill. We didn't see him for a 36 hour stretch beginning when he left for work the morning the storm was due to hit until dinner time the day it blew on past.

It wasn't the only time -- we didn't see him for 72 hours when the evacuation of Saigon began the year before, doubling the island's population with refugees.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Sep 1 12:07:56 2005 (eC8R5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Telling It Like It Is On Immigration

I really enjoy reading BaltimoreÂ’s Gregory Kane on virtually any issue. He offers the perfect analogy to explain the relationship between George W. Bush and Vincente Fox on immigration issues.

Mexican President Vicente Fox seems to think of the United States as his country's northern suburb. President George W. Bush doesn't have the guts to correct him.
In fact, the relationship between Fox and Bush can best be explained this way: If Fox and Bush were inmates in the same prison, Fox would be slapping Bush and taking his Christmas packages.
On the matter of illegal immigration, Fox has shown that Bush has a fully nurtured and developed wimp gene.

Yeah, that sums it up quite nicely. It seems that this president is more interested in placating our southern neighbor than telling it to quit encouraging and facilitating the violation of American sovereignty.

Make sure you read the column.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Why Wonâ€™t The President Meet With Her

No, this is not about Bush and Sheehan.

It is a question for the American Leftâ€™s new favorite dictator, Hugo Chavez.

A woman who rushed up on a stage to hand President Hugo Chavez a note was pulled away by bodyguards on Tuesday, and the Venezuelan leader urged supporters to remember there have been threats against his life.
The incident occurred while Chavez was addressing thousands of supporters in a Caracas convention center.
"It's dangerous, because I'm threatened with death, so you have to understand that the security team surrounding me is on alert," Chavez told the crowd.
The incident came more than a week after the U.S. religious broadcaster Pat Robertson drew condemnation from Venezuela's government and others for suggesting that Chavez should be assassinated because he poses a threat to the United States.

Come on, Hugo, meet with the poor homeless woman. You claim that the Venezuelan people love you and support you. What have you got to fear?

Or do you only meet with celebrity liberals and fellow dictators now?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Why WonÂ’t The President Meet With Her

No, this is not about Bush and Sheehan.

It is a question for the American LeftÂ’s new favorite dictator, Hugo Chavez.

A woman who rushed up on a stage to hand President Hugo Chavez a note was pulled away by bodyguards on Tuesday, and the Venezuelan leader urged supporters to remember there have been threats against his life.
The incident occurred while Chavez was addressing thousands of supporters in a Caracas convention center.
"It's dangerous, because I'm threatened with death, so you have to understand that the security team surrounding me is on alert," Chavez told the crowd.
The incident came more than a week after the U.S. religious broadcaster Pat Robertson drew condemnation from Venezuela's government and others for suggesting that Chavez should be assassinated because he poses a threat to the United States.

Come on, Hugo, meet with the poor homeless woman. You claim that the Venezuelan people love you and support you. What have you got to fear?

Or do you only meet with celebrity liberals and fellow dictators now?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Purging Fraudulent Registrations Problematic

Look at this excuse for the prevalence of fraudulent registrations in NYC.

Mr. [John] Ravitz [the executive director of the NYC Boad of Elections] responded yesterday to the officials' calls for investigations, saying: "If people really think two weeks before a primary that I can now have all my entire staff look throughout the voter rolls and look at an address that might be suspect on the face, it's an unrealistic feat."
He earlier said the board does not independently conduct systematic reviews of the voter rolls but will probe questionable registrations if someone brings specific charges to its attention. He added that it would be nearly impossible to investigate all registrant names that appeared suspicious, lest someone really named "Lou Gehrig," to use Mr. Ravitz's example, be subjected to unfair and undue scrutiny.
Moreover, Mr. Ravitz said, many of the dubious registrants and those who registered at questionable addresses would not be voting in this election, because their failure to cast ballots in the last four years rendered them "inactive" and thus ineligible to vote.
"I don't want anyone to think there are going to be Elmer Fudds voting in the primary," Mr. Ravitz said.

In other words, the city doesnÂ’t look for fraud. More to the point, the board doesnÂ’t want to hurt anyoneÂ’s feelings because they have a name that looks suspicious. Besides, Ravitz explains, it would cost too much money to actually investigate the voting rolls to detect fraudulent registrations and voting.

Elected officials are calling for action.

A candidate for Manhattan borough president and a member of the City Council, Eva Moskowitz, Democrat of the East Side, said the board must be "proactive."
Calling the board's approach "ridiculous" and "government at its worst," Ms. Moskowitz said investigating and rooting out potential irregularities in the voter rolls "is the Board of Elections' job."
"They don't have too much to do other than prepare for elections and make sure the lists are clear and honest," she said.
Mayor Bloomberg and some of the public officials trying to unseat him this year, meanwhile, responded by declaring their affection for the democratic process.
"Voting is a sacred right and responsibility," Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement sent by e-mail. "Abuse of this fundamental right is unacceptable. ..."
One of his Democratic challengers, C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president, said in an e-mail: "Placing false names and/or addresses on voter registration forms and other documents undermines the city's democratic process. Therefore, the entire election process - from signature collection to the actual act of voting - must be taken very seriously.
"For its part, the Board of Elections must work to improve its efforts to weed out false names and addresses. The board has an important role to play in this process and it cannot afford to be asleep at the wheel," the statement read.
The Democratic mayoral front-runner, Fernando Ferrer, said in a written statement that voting fraud disenfranchises everyone "and must be vigorously prosecuted."
The statement from the former Bronx borough president also said: "We must also be vigilant that efforts to crack down on voter fraud do not result in an illegal purging of legitimate voters from the rolls."

Maybe we will see some action Â– or is this all window-dressing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.

August 30, 2005

New York Voter Fraud

Look at these examples of voter registration fraud in New York City.

Dozens of voters have registered in New York City claiming to reside at addresses that correspond to city, state, and federal office buildings, public and private schools, churches and clerical offices, and major cultural attractions, a review of Board of Elections records conducted by The New York Sun found.
In addition to questionable residences, the search unearthed curious names given by registrants, including "Donald Duck," "Elmer J. Fudd," "Isaac Newton," "Napoleon Bonaparte," "Rhett Butler," and "Jesus Christ."
Searching the Board of Elections database by address yielded four New Yorkers who said their residence is 1 Centre St., site of the city's Municipal Building - and home to, among other city departments, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, the Department of Finance, and offices of the Manhattan borough president, the public advocate, the county clerk, and the mayor.
It is also, apparently, the home of "Valerie D. Cooper," who listed as her "Apt. No." 517 - an office of the city comptroller. Ms. Cooper could not be tracked down for comment, nor could her identity be confirmed by the Sun.

Among the other addresses with multiple registered voters are
Ã‚Â· 26 Federal Plaza
Ã‚Â· The Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building
Ã‚Â· Madison Square Garden
Ã‚Â· Radio City Music Hall
Ã‚Â· Lincoln Center
Ã‚Â· Macy's
Ã‚Â· St. Patrick's Cathedral
Ã‚Â· The Guggenheim Museum
Ã‚Â· Alfred E. Smith School
Ã‚Â· Harvey Milk High School
Ã‚Â· Edgar Allan Poe Literacy Development School
Ã‚Â· The headquarters of the New York County Republican Committee
Ã‚Â· The Episcopal Diocese of New York
Ã‚Â· The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York

When will the issue of ballot security be taken seriously?

When will we be permitted to purge the voter rolls of the nation and get rid of the fake, the dead, and the foreign?

How widespread is the problem?

And which party is benefiting from this voter fraud?

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Whatâ€™s Wrong With This Paragraph

I encountered this bit in one of the hagiographic articles about Cindy Sheehan. I guess this is what comes of allowing bloggers from Daily Kos to write your copy.

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, camped outside the president's Central Texas ranch a month ago to demand a meeting with him. The Vacaville, California, woman hasn't gotten an audience, but she attracted a lot of support. She's promised to carry her protest to Washington and beyond after Bush goes back to work.

Let me help you out.

1) She had a meeting with the President LAST YEAR. She can demand all she wants, but there needs to be honesty about what she really is seeking. Cindy Sheehan wants a second meeting with the president, one in which he doesnâ€™t talk and she gets to harangue him with her leftist rants about the war.

2) Sheehan has gotten support, but she has also gotten quite a bit of opposition. Why donâ€™t you mention that detail? Could it be that it doesnâ€™t fit your take on the story?

3) What is this â€œback to workâ€ crap? Donâ€™t you realize that the a presidential vacation is anything but a time of fun, sun. and no work? The briefings go on, the decisions go on, the work goes on â€“ just in a different location.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

WhatÂ’s Wrong With This Paragraph

I encountered this bit in one of the hagiographic articles about Cindy Sheehan. I guess this is what comes of allowing bloggers from Daily Kos to write your copy.

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, camped outside the president's Central Texas ranch a month ago to demand a meeting with him. The Vacaville, California, woman hasn't gotten an audience, but she attracted a lot of support. She's promised to carry her protest to Washington and beyond after Bush goes back to work.

Let me help you out.

1) She had a meeting with the President LAST YEAR. She can demand all she wants, but there needs to be honesty about what she really is seeking. Cindy Sheehan wants a second meeting with the president, one in which he doesnÂ’t talk and she gets to harangue him with her leftist rants about the war.

2) Sheehan has gotten support, but she has also gotten quite a bit of opposition. Why donÂ’t you mention that detail? Could it be that it doesnÂ’t fit your take on the story?

3) What is this Â“back to workÂ” crap? DonÂ’t you realize that the a presidential vacation is anything but a time of fun, sun. and no work? The briefings go on, the decisions go on, the work goes on Â– just in a different location.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.

August 29, 2005

A Higher Form Of Patriotism?

We always hear that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I guess that makes this moonbat from Americablog one of the most patriotic Americans out there, if one accepts that statement as true.

The best thing bush could do for NO, a city I love, and the rest of the country is go down there ASAP and drown.

But then again, these are the same people who think that the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are freedom fighters and that the US soldiers are murderers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

What The Cindy Sheehan Really Thinks Of Parents Of Dead Soldiers (Other Than Herself, Of Course)

Well, the Ditch Bitch revealed what she thinks of the parents of every dead soldier who disagrees with her in her online diary -- hosted by Daily Kos.

I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. . . . How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don't understand it. I don't understand how any mother could want another mother to feel the pain we feel. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these "continue the murder and mayhem" moms to see the light.

So what it comes down to is that there is only sympathy and respect if they agree with the Ditch Bitch. Otherwise they are "brainwashed" "continue the murder and mayhem" moms.

Which means that Ditch Bitch believes, ultimately, that her son Casey was a murderer.

So much for honoring the troops -- and Casey's memory.

But then again, we know which troops she supports -- the ones connected to al-Qaeda who killed her son, not the ones who Casey considered his brothers in arms.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Ditch Bitch"

Are you a grownup?

Posted by: actus at Tue Aug 30 03:06:53 2005 (CqheE)

2 While I'm not a big fan of using pejoratives, I'm curious if you say the same about her Actus? After all, she has called the president names countless numbers of times.

Bartleby

Posted by: Bartleby at Tue Aug 30 04:03:19 2005 (r/FBF)

3 "After all, she has called the president names countless numbers of times."

what names has she used?

Posted by: actus at Tue Aug 30 04:53:19 2005 (CqheE)

4 Yes, I am.

Are you?

It has been claimed all along that she, as a parent of a dead soldier, has "unquestionable moral authority" to speak -- but she questions the moral authority of other parents of the war dead who disagree with her and belittles them. As such, I think "Ditch Bitch" (a counterpoint to "Peace Mom", by the way, selected for its alliterative qualities) is a pretty mild epithet for Cindy Shaheed, who supports the troops who killed her son.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Aug 30 12:35:30 2005 (HUDeO)

5 Oh, and actus, I think "murderer" and "terrorist" constitute name-calling.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Aug 30 12:38:20 2005 (HUDeO)

6 I agree with you all the way. This lady is a nutcase. Anyone who says 'the rest of America' (is brain washed) has serious social and mental disorders. I don't see why she claims to be a mother of a dead soldier. She's a traitor of a mother of an American Serviceman who died with honor and nobility, defending his country from future attacks and spreading freedom and democracy throughout the middle east.

Blog on, brother.

Posted by: Republican Vet at Tue Aug 30 19:25:27 2005 (eDSy+)

7 'Oh, and actus, I think "murderer" and "terrorist" constitute name-calling.'

See I think those are different than simpler 'bad words' such as bitch, d*ckhead, a**hole. etc... Do you see a difference? The latter are all just pejoratives. The former have some substantive meaning. Like "murderer" and "terrorist" are strong words to use when you think someone is responsible for killing people. "bitch", not quite so much contetn.

"I don't see why she claims to be a mother of a dead soldier"

Rush was saying the other day that she was making all of this up. heh.

Posted by: actus at Wed Aug 31 03:13:24 2005 (CqheE)

8 Here's a few:

* Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war.
*. . . but I'm either gonna be in jail or in a tent in Crawford, waiting until that jerk comes out and tells me why my son died.
* So what really gets me is these chickenhawks, who sent our kids to die, without ever serving in a war themselves. They don't know what it's all about.
* So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger, George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me.
* And I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."

Just so you know, I said 'pejoratives' and 'names', I did not say curses. I don't care about the language used, I care about the lack of intellectual substance and honesty in her words. Her opportunism is astonishing, and she's polluting her son's memory to further her own political agendum.

Bartleby

Posted by: Bartleby at Wed Aug 31 09:30:56 2005 (lkCzp)

9 1) I'll tell you what, Actus -- I'll retract the word "bitch" after you have persuaded the folks over at Kos to go a week without cursing in the comment section. If that is your biggest gripe, you really need to get a life.

2) I've dealt with her more substantially on other posts. Try searching for examples.

3) I'll stand with Bartleby on the issue of Cindy's comments -- including bastard, which is not just a cuse word but also an insult directed at the president's parents.

4) As for Rush, I wouldn't know what he says -- I don't listen to him because I have a job. Your inability to make a substantial response here is ratehr sad -- you just engage in misdirection by raising issues of no substance.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Aug 31 11:04:08 2005 (uJXK3)

10 I guess that's the real problem with it, isn't it RWR? You called Sheehan names, but you've dealt with the (lack of) substance of her statements. I call her opportunistic, which is a pejorative, but is also a truism. I remember reading somewhere (maybe here?) that she threatned to run her son down with her car to prevent his going to Iraq.

In what way is that respect of his wishes? Funny thing how after he died, when she channeled him, his wishes mirrored hers entirely. I wonder why they didn't when other people could hear him. Maybe it's because she's willing to change fact to meet whatever makes her feel best, because that's what the world is about, isn't it?

Bartleby

Posted by: Bartleby at Wed Aug 31 13:05:01 2005 (r/FBF)

11 '1) I'll tell you what, Actus -- I'll retract the word "bitch" after you have persuaded the folks over at Kos to go a week without cursing in the comment section. If that is your biggest gripe, you really need to get a life.'

You gave me some examples. Which is what I hadn't heard, as I haven't followed cindy too much. I was also curious if Mr. Ditch Bitch was a grownup, but I guess he's as much as Cindy, who obviously has as much to gripe about as Mr. Ditch Bitch.

Posted by: actus at Wed Aug 31 13:46:49 2005 (Z3mEP)

12 Hey, actus, I gave you my answer.

Now, if you have any interest in contributing something other than literary critique to the site, why don't you do so? If not, quit engaging in your typical liberal whining about a peripheral issue.

You know, you could maybe make a substantive response to the post. If you are able to do so.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Aug 31 14:11:34 2005 (uJXK3)

13 FUCK YOU ASSWIPE SHITHEAD

Posted by: at Sat Sep 17 08:53:11 2005 (Sfcu+)

14 Well, I will give Cindy "The Anti-War Whore" Sheehan and her big fat public speaking fees (a career built on the corpse of her American hero son) -- she at least identifies herself publicly before she spews off a line of obscenities and insults without any logical content behind them.

That is more than I can say for the nameless coward above.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Sep 17 14:24:57 2005 (nkD2p)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Cheâ€™s Family Seeks To Control Use Of Image

I had a kid in my class wearing a Che Guevara shirt last week. He didnâ€™t know anything about the man whose face he was displaying, or the fact the man was a part of spreading and perpetuating the ideology that killed more people than any other in the 20th century.

Now the famed commieâ€™s family wants to control marketing of the iconic photo that turns up just about everywhere.

With his picture on rock band posters, baseball caps and women's lingerie, Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara is firmly entrenched in the capitalist consumer society that he died fighting to overturn.
The image of the Argentine-born guerrilla gazing sternly into the distance, long-hair tucked into a beret with a single star, has been an enduring 20th century pop icon.
The picture -- taken by a Cuban photographer in 1960 and printed on posters by an Italian publisher after Guevara's execution in Bolivia seven years later -- fired the imagination of rioting Parisian students in May 1968 and became a symbol of idealistic revolt for a generation.
But as well as being one of the world's most reproduced, the image has become one of its most merchandised. And Guevara's family is launching an effort to stop it. They plan to file lawsuits abroad against companies that they believe are exploiting the image and say lawyers in a number of countries have offered assistance.
"We have a plan to deal with the misuse," Guevara's Cuban widow Aleida March said in an interview.
"We can't attack everyone with lances like Don Quixote, but we can try to maintain the ethics" of Guevara's legacy, said March, who will lead the effort from the Che Guevara Studies Center which is opening in Havana later this year.
"The center intends to contain the uncontrolled use of Che's image. It will be costly and difficult because each country has different laws, but a limit has to be drawn," the legendary guerrilla's daughter, Aleida Guevara, told Reuters.

Now letâ€™s wait just one minute here. This is no different than the bin Ladens trying to profit off of pictures of Osama, or of the Hitlers trying to ensure that Adolfâ€™s image is used only in ways consistent with his principles. So while I would be thrilled to never have to look at some smug middle class brat in Old Navy jeans and a pair of Air Jordans ignorantly displaying the visage of an old commie who would have gladly executed the kid as a class enemy, I would donâ€™t want to see the family succeed. After all, allowing th4 family to make money off of Che would be a repudiation of the very principles they seek to uphold â€“ and the fact that the face of the revolution is so commercialized is the ultimate in ironic rejections of the hell-spawned ideology of communism.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

CheÂ’s Family Seeks To Control Use Of Image

I had a kid in my class wearing a Che Guevara shirt last week. He didnÂ’t know anything about the man whose face he was displaying, or the fact the man was a part of spreading and perpetuating the ideology that killed more people than any other in the 20th century.

Now the famed commieÂ’s family wants to control marketing of the iconic photo that turns up just about everywhere.

With his picture on rock band posters, baseball caps and women's lingerie, Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara is firmly entrenched in the capitalist consumer society that he died fighting to overturn.
The image of the Argentine-born guerrilla gazing sternly into the distance, long-hair tucked into a beret with a single star, has been an enduring 20th century pop icon.
The picture -- taken by a Cuban photographer in 1960 and printed on posters by an Italian publisher after Guevara's execution in Bolivia seven years later -- fired the imagination of rioting Parisian students in May 1968 and became a symbol of idealistic revolt for a generation.
But as well as being one of the world's most reproduced, the image has become one of its most merchandised. And Guevara's family is launching an effort to stop it. They plan to file lawsuits abroad against companies that they believe are exploiting the image and say lawyers in a number of countries have offered assistance.
"We have a plan to deal with the misuse," Guevara's Cuban widow Aleida March said in an interview.
"We can't attack everyone with lances like Don Quixote, but we can try to maintain the ethics" of Guevara's legacy, said March, who will lead the effort from the Che Guevara Studies Center which is opening in Havana later this year.
"The center intends to contain the uncontrolled use of Che's image. It will be costly and difficult because each country has different laws, but a limit has to be drawn," the legendary guerrilla's daughter, Aleida Guevara, told Reuters.

Now letÂ’s wait just one minute here. This is no different than the bin Ladens trying to profit off of pictures of Osama, or of the Hitlers trying to ensure that AdolfÂ’s image is used only in ways consistent with his principles. So while I would be thrilled to never have to look at some smug middle class brat in Old Navy jeans and a pair of Air Jordans ignorantly displaying the visage of an old commie who would have gladly executed the kid as a class enemy, I would donÂ’t want to see the family succeed. After all, allowing th4 family to make money off of Che would be a repudiation of the very principles they seek to uphold Â– and the fact that the face of the revolution is so commercialized is the ultimate in ironic rejections of the hell-spawned ideology of communism.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Un-Effing-Believable!

Some years ago, one of my teaching colleagues decided to quit fighting the battle against tired and lazy seniors in her English IV class. She included in her course description a statemen that students would be permitted to sleep no more than 10 minutes per 90 minute class. The result? Students who had never fallen asleep in class felt compelled to take a nap in their English class? Why? Because what had been intended as a way of limiting a problem behavior was perceived by the students as granting them the right to engage in the behavior.

Which leads to this situation in England.

A secondary school is to allow pupils to swear at teachers - as long as they don't do so more than five times in a lesson. A running tally of how many times the f-word has been used will be kept on the board. If a class goes over the limit, they will be 'spoken' to at the end of the lesson.
The astonishing policy, which the school says will improve the behaviour of pupils, was condemned by parents' groups and MPs yesterday. They warned it would backfire.
Parents were advised of the plan, which comes into effect when term starts next week, in a letter from the Weavers School in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire.
Assistant headmaster Richard White said the policy was aimed at 15 and 16-year-olds in two classes which are considered troublesome.
"Within each lesson the teacher will initially tolerate (although not condone) the use of the f-word (or derivatives) five times and these will be tallied on the board so all students can see the running score," he wrote in the letter .
"Over this number the class will be spoken to by the teacher at the end of the lesson."
Parents called the rule 'wholly irresponsible and ludicrous'.

This is not a plan to eliminate the use of the particular word Â– it is permission for the kids to use the word in question. Kids are going to feel that they now have the right to use the word. And since the consequence of going over the permitted limit of five is that the class (as a group) will be Â“spoken to by the teacher,Â” there is effectively no consequence for spewing out the profane term in question.

I can hear that discussion at the end of class Â– the teacher reminds students that the word is inappropriate in a classroom setting, to which someone responds Â“whatever you effinÂ’ say, teach!Â”

If this were my school and they persisted in following through with this stupid policy, my response would be Â“I effinÂ’ quit!Â”

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

No Gay Priests?

Is the Vatican about to put a stop to the ordination of gay men to the priesthood? Possibly, if the following report is true.

The new Pope faces his first controversy over the direction of the Catholic church after it was revealed that the Vatican has drawn up a religious instruction preventing gay men from being priests.
The controversial document, produced by the Congregation for Catholic Education and Seminaries, the body overseeing the church's training of the priesthood, is being scrutinised by Benedict XVI.
It been suggested Rome would publish the instruction earlier this month, but it dropped the plan out of concern that such a move might tarnish his visit to his home city of Cologne last week.
The document expresses the church's belief that gay men should no longer be allowed to enter seminaries to study for the priesthood. Currently, as all priests take a vow of celibacy, their sexual orientation has not been considered a pressing concern.

Now it is believed that Pope Benedict has reservations about the document. He should. My experience as a seminarian a decade ago was that at least 20% of my classmates were homosexuals, and probably more. Now I see that as a problem Â– but one of heterosexual men failing to respond to a call to priesthood rather than one of an overabundance of homosexuals. My experience is that many, if not most, of my gay classmates had excellent pastoral skills and are likely excellent priests today. I presume that they are faithful in their adherence to the requirement of celibacy, based upon conversations we had regarding the struggle to be chaste in contemporary society.

I find the reason given for the prohibition particularly troubling.

The instruction tries to dampen down the controversy by eschewing a moral line, arguing instead that the presence of homosexuals in seminaries is 'unfair' to both gay and heterosexual priests by subjecting the former to temptation.
'It will be written in a very pastoral mode,' Haldane said. 'It will not be an attack on the gay lifestyle. It will not say "homosexuality is immoral". But it will suggest that admitting gay men into the priesthood places a burden both on those who are homosexual and those they are working alongside who are not.'

The reasoning here does not work. The struggle to remain chaste is a part of every Christian life, and so to make the argument about Â“temptationÂ” is specious. And to argue that the presence of homosexuals is a problem for heterosexuals is just plain wrong-headed, and not from a politically correct point of view. Christians are called to minister to all Â– sometimes especially to those who make us uncomfortable. The sort of rejection that this proposed document calls for is simply wrong.

Now some may be surprised to read these words on my site. After all, I have been most forthright in dealing with issues of homosexuality and holding firm for traditional Christian teachings regarding human sexuality. But there is simply no legitimate theological or pastoral reason for such a restriction on ordination, provided the man in question is truly committed to and properly formed in the discipline of celibacy in a spirit of Christian chastity.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

But No One Wants To Leap To Conclusions

Was it an anti-Semitic hate crime? No one wants to say so, but what else do you call swastikas burned into the lawn along with obscenities and slurs about fascism?

Vandals burned swastikas and obscenities into the lawn of a Jewish family, splattering windows with eggs and fouling the front porch of their home.
Two swastikas were spray-painted in the road in front of Ginger Ragans' two-story home Sunday and a third was etched onto her lawn, along with the word "Fascist" and an obscenity scrawled in the grass. Her trees were draped with toilet paper and someone had urinated and defecated on the porch.
Gwinnett County police are investigating the vandalism in the town northeast of Atlanta and are uncertain whether to classify it as a hate crime, spokesman Darren Moloney said.
Ragans, 36, who has lived in the neighborhood for 10 years, said the incident likely was the work of neighborhood teens retaliating against her for her work as a neighborhood liaison for a community watchdog program.
In a recent edition of the community's newsletter, she mentioned that cameras had caught groups of teens hanging around the tennis courts long after the county's midnight curfew.

Now letÂ’s be honest here. If this had been an attack against the home of a black community activist that included a burning cross and the word Â“niggerÂ”, it would be quickly labeled as racist Â– and rightly so. The choice of slurs and symbols here are obviously motivated by the Jewish heritage of the victims. In my book, that is a hate crime Â– even if the trigger was the involvement in the community watch program.

And the fact that there is any hesitation in labeling this as anti-Semitism is proof of a bigger problem with anti-Semitism than anyone wants to admit.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

231kb generated in CPU 0.0582, elapsed 0.1707 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.1339 seconds, 185 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

September 03, 2005

September 02, 2005

September 01, 2005

August 31, 2005

August 30, 2005

August 29, 2005

Search Thingy

Categories

GOP Bloggers Blogroll

Live Liberty And Property Blogroll

101st Fighting Keyboardists

Texas Connection BlogRoll

Republican Attack Squad

Web Links

Counters and Stuff

Archives

Recent Comments

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds

Administrative Stuff

About Me

Support This Site

Advertising Disclosure

Munuvians