Remember how the Houston Police Department ordered officers not to engage in any activities that might frighten or disturb the immigration criminals who have jumped the border illegally? Well, it looks like the Minutemen are going to do the cops' job for them.

The Minutemen are coming to Houston.

Leaders of the controversial group dedicated to stopping the flow of illegal immigration said they will patrol the streets of the Bayou City beginning in October, as part of a campaign that will extend north from the Mexican border. Houston volunteers will gather near day labor centers and corners where immigrant workers solicit work, in an effort to draw critical attention to the city's hands-off policy toward illegal immigrants.

"We will be videotaping the (day laborers) and we will be videotaping the contractors who pick them up," said Bill Parmley, a Goliad County landowner who heads the Texas chapter of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. The Minutemen will only observe to draw attention to the problem and will not attempt to make arrests, he said.

The city and the Chronicle, of course, don't like the fact that American citizens want American law enforced.

It was not immediately clear what reaction the Minuteman effort would have in greater Houston, which is home to an estimated 350,000 to 400,000 illegal immigrants, according to demographers. Polling finds Houstonians generally support immigration.

Nearly 60 percent of Houstonians do not think illegal immigrants are a major cause of unemployment in the area, and 67 percent think the diversity brought by immigration is a good thing, according to recent data from the Houston Area Survey, annual studies conducted by Rice University sociologist Stephen Klineberg.

I'll say it right now -- this Hustonian welcomes the Minutemen, and wants to see them successfully identify the immigration criminals and the businesses that illegally employ them. I want to see the border-jumpers deported, and the employers prosecuted. And if I can help in any way, I am interested in being a part of the program.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Border Freebies: Using the Race Card To Get an Education by The Education Wonks, and Today I Leave for the War by The Makaha Surf Report.

Congratulations to the winners, all who received votes, and all other nominees.

Posted by: Greg at 06:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

Three bombs exploded in London's subway system yesterday, and one in a bus. Could it be that the bus bombing happened because the subway bombs closed the system before the fourth bomb could be detonated? Could the bus bombing have been "Plan B" for a terrorist who was supposed to blow up another train in the Tube?

That is my conclusion after reading this BBC report.

A bus passenger says he may have seen one of those responsible for the bomb attacks in London.

Richard Jones, from Binfield, near Bracknell, Berks, had got off a bus just before it was blown up in Tavistock Square on Thursday.

Mr Jones, 61, an IT consultant, has told BBC News he saw a man acting suspiciously on the bus.

He said the man was fiddling with something in his bag and seemed in an agitated state.

Mr Jones, who was forced to take the bus from Euston after Tube services were suspended, said: "He was standing next to me with a bag at his feet and he kept dipping into this bag and fiddling about with something.

"I was getting quite annoyed with this because it was a crowded bus.

"Everybody is standing face-to-face and this guy kept dipping into this bag."

I've seen reports of undetonated bombs being found in the subway system. Might it be that this man, unable to plant his device and unwilling to abandon it unexploded, found a secondary "target of opportunity" upon which to carry out hiscowardly act of murder?

Posted by: Greg at 03:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been involved in the pro-ife movement, on one level or another, for over 20 years. I've marched, I prayed, I've written letters -- and I have always been scrupulous to stay on the right side of the law. The same is true of 98% of pro-life advocates I've known during that time. That is why I find folks like this guy to be repulsive, and why I condemn such actions as inconsistent with pro-life principles.

A man who once claimed to be on a mission from God to kill abortion providers was sentenced Thursday to 19 years in federal prison for mailing hundreds of letters with fake anthrax to women's clinics.

Clayton Lee Waagner, 48, was convicted in 2003 of mailing the letters and of posting a message on an anti-abortion Web site claiming he'd been following clinic employees and was "going to kill as many of them as I can."

At his trial, Waagner called himself a terrorist and said people who provide abortions deserved to be shot.

It is my profound hope that this individual never sees another day of freedom. He is warped, evil, dangerous -- and has done more harm to the cause of life than all the abortionists he wishes to murder.

And I feel it is fair to say that my view is the mainstream view of the pro-life movement in America.

Posted by: Greg at 03:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 1 kb.

The press has presented it as a win for the prosecution, but I cannot help agreeing with Rush Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, that it is a victory for Limbaugh.

July 6, 2005 -- Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, issued the following statement regarding the release today of some of Rush Limbaugh's medical records to investigators and the return of most of the records to Mr. Limbaugh.

I am confident that the State Attorney will find nothing in these records to support a charge of doctor shopping, because there was no doctor shopping. The records show that Mr. Limbaugh received legitimate medical treatment for legitimate medical reasons.

We are grateful to Judge Barkdull for providing the review of the records for relevancy that we requested. Most of the records were returned to me today, and were not given to the prosecutors. This proves our point that the State's wholesale seizure of Mr. Limbaugh's medical records was improper.

Now I think this is key. The prosecution did NOT get the wholesale access to the records that they wanted. The privacy of medical records was upheld, except insofar as they are directly related to the investigation at hand. That means no trolling through the records looking for evidence of criminal activity -- there already has to be some basis for looking at the records.

But it is the second part of Black's statement that I find interesting.

The prescription records that are in the search warrant affidavits should be put in perspective. Of the 2,130 pills prescribed, only 1,863 were painkillers, and of those only 1,733 were for hydrocodone. These were to be taken over a period of 217 days, from the date of the first prescription until 30 days from the date of the last prescription. The dose averages out to a little over eight pills a day, which is not excessive and is in fact a lawful dose.

Ninety-two percent of the pain medication was prescribed by two doctors who were treating Mr. Limbaugh for back pain. They work in the same office from the same medical file, and there could be no doctor shopping between them. One of these doctors also prescribed 117 pills of a drug used to treat high blood pressure or to help wean patients off of painkillers.

The other two doctors are the California surgeon who implanted the cochlear implant to restore Mr. Limbaugh's hearing and a Florida doctor he was seeing for follow up on the surgery. Of the 180 pills prescribed by the surgeon, 100 were vitamin pills. Of the 110 pills prescribed by the fourth doctor, 50 were non-painkillers prescribed for tinnitus, ringing in the ears.

This makes sense to me, as my wife suffers from medical condidtions that cause chronic and constant pain. Her combined dosages of all medications (not just the hydrocodone or other pain medications) is significantly in excess of the eight pills per day taken by Limbaugh. While her doctors have tried other pain medication, hydrocodone seems to be the most effective for her, and we have seen her dosage and quantity increase over the last few years. I could easily imagine the day coming when she is taking eight-a-day under doctor's orders.

The explanation of multiple doctors also makes sense. My wife has two she sees regularly, and a third she sees intermittently. Each is a solo practitioner, but they keep each other well-informed of what the other is doing. But prior to seeing her current neurologist/pain management doctor, she saw another doctor who was part of a group practice. The same was true of our former family practitioner. In both offices, she would usually see her primary physician but could see one of the others if the primary was unavailable. In both offices, whoever saw her would have access to, and make notes in, the same chart as her regular doctor. Thus while there might be different doctors writing prescriptions for her medication, there was no question of "doctor shopping", because she remained within the same practice at each office. It appears that for the bulk of the prescriptions, Limbaugh has done the exact same thing. The other two doctors would appear to be related to his much-publicized ear surgery, and seem to have written prescriptions for a negligible amount of medication.

Now I realize that Black is Limbaugh's attorney, and that as such he is supposed to present Limbaugh's side of the story. But based upon the knowledge and experience I have, the story has the ring of truth. That leaves me wondering -- why, other than celebrity, is the prosecutor in Florida pursuing this case?

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 776 words, total size 5 kb.

From Catallarchy, and extended by the author (Scott Scheuele) at My Back Pages:

So I Was Teaching Highschoolers Entertainment Law This Morning

And the chapter was about intellectual property.

“Now why,” I asked, “do we need property? Why don’t we just let everything belong to everyone?”

One of my students raised his hand. “Because,” said he, “that’s called Communism. And Communism sucks.”

I have to say that I feel more than a little bit envious of Scott. Sounds like he has skimmed the cream right off the top of the bottle with this bunch.

As a classroom teacher in an urban school with over half my students falling into the lower quarter of the socio-economic system, I feel blessed when I have a kid advance a political opinion beyond "I think Clinton was the greatest president ever 'cause he was a P-I-M-P PIMP, baby!"

Although I will concede that said observation on the merits of the Clinton presidency may be more astute than that made by a kid who, when confronted about his Che t-shirt told me "He wasn't a Communist; he was an agrarian reformer." -- and then could not define "agrarian reformer" for me.

Posted by: Greg at 05:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Some folks just don't get that we are at war because we suffered an unprovoked attack by Islamofascists on 9/11. Some of these are voicing complaints about a float in the Fourth of July parade in Chesterton, Indiana.

A Fourth of July parade float depicting a shackled, bloodied Osama bin Laden has divided some residents between those praising the display as patriotic and others who see it as un-American.

The float, which won the prize for most patriotic unit in the northwestern Indiana town's parade, featured a man dressed as Uncle Sam holding a leash that bound the hands of a bearded man in a robe and turban. The robe was splattered with fake blood because it was a leftover Halloween costume, said Penny Kozinski of Supporters of the Military, which sponsored the display.

The group intended to use the entry to publicize its mission of sending care packages to troops overseas.

"We were just showing we were capturing the bad guys," Kozinski said. "We're going to catch the bad guys and then our guys can come home."

Kozinski's husband, David, is in Iraq with the Indiana National Guard, and her son Micheal, a Marine, is scheduled to depart for a third tour in Iraq this month.

Chesterton resident Kathy McMahan, however, said she was bothered by the float.

"If the Founding Fathers saw that, they'd freak out," she said. "It was just hate, pure and simple."

Oh dear -- we can't hate Osama! That - that - that's unAmerican! We're supposed to love the guy who sent suicide jihadists to hijack planes and murder Americans ina spectacular attack. We can't feel anything other than love for the man who has been waging war on the US for a decade. And we certainly shouldn't be angry at the man whose minions are killing our soldiers in Iraq and innocent civilians today in London! That would be so wrong! Snivel! Snivel!

Sorry folks, I don't think the float was specific enough. A batteredOsama on a leash? Fine with me -- but let's have him being sodomized by a pig. Better yet, let's make sure it is a pig with the Koranic verses supporting jihad written on its side in both English and Arabic. Let's make it clear that his warped Islamism is held in contempt in the United States by every loyal American, of every faith -- and that anyone offended by that is clearly on the side of the terrorists.

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Don't you suppose that scrawling verses from the Koran on a pig would be offensive to loyal Americans who are Muslims? Just curious.

Posted by: Cameron at Thu Jul 7 13:26:47 2005 (TAp0U)

2 No -- because they are the verses that Osama has desecrated by using them to justify his attacks on the US. Those who are loyal will gladly repudiate them.

If I were out to offend Muslims, I would have suggested that the pig be made of papier-mache using the pages of Korans. Instead I suggest treating with contempt what is already soiled by the Islamist terrorists, and leaving the rest of the Koran alone.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jul 7 14:09:11 2005 (w9muW)

3 But surely it's the words of the Koran that Muslims care most about, not the physical pages. As a Christian, I can't imagine that if someone desecrated any Bible, I could acccept the explanation that someone else desecrated it first.

Posted by: Cameron at Thu Jul 7 14:32:28 2005 (TAp0U)

4 And your position on government funding of Serrano's "Piss Christ" was...?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jul 7 15:35:44 2005 (w9muW)

5 I don't, on the whole, favor government funding of artistic work, for various reasons, and I try not to expend too much energy on ridiculous people like Serrano. That said, the fact that someone whom I don't respect (Serrano) has done something reprehensible surely doesn't justify my doing the same thing to someone else. His guilt does not mitigate my own, I think.

Posted by: Cameron at Thu Jul 7 15:48:29 2005 (TAp0U)

6 I think in this scenario, we have to ask ourselves, What Would Jesus Do?

Posted by: at Sat Jul 9 14:04:58 2005 (vfZM5)

7 Among other things, I think he would sign his name to his comment.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jul 9 14:15:42 2005 (O8Joo)

8 Agreed on that point.

Posted by: Cameron at Sat Jul 9 16:48:03 2005 (TAp0U)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As I mentioned below, I've already heard Leftists on C-Span calling in to blame-America-first for the attacks in London, rahter than putting the responsibility on the Islamist murderers who carried out these cowardly crimes. I decided to look around the blogosphere for a few examples as well.

Now I will admit that I have seen some truly decent posts from folks with whom I often disagree but generally like and was even surprised by the decency of the folks who run DU but it is sad to see the depths to which some folks sink.

Look at the comments on a couple of the posts I linked to above. And the DU comments as well -- though it appears that the moderators are taking down the truly egregious ones. Kos and friends are at it as well. You have anti-Semites blaming the Mossad, wishes for Bush to burn in hell, recriminations against Blair as personally responsible for the terrorist attacks, and all the typical Leftist ways of deflecting blame from the terrorists.

Please note -- I'm not blaming all Democrats or all liberals -- just noting how such things bring the moonbats out of hiding and into the light.

And speaking of moonbats, Brit-bat George Galloway has spoken on their behalf.

We extend our condolences to those who have lost their lives today and our heartfelt sympathy to all those who have been injured by the bombs in London.

No one can condone acts of violence aimed at working people going about their daily lives. They have not been a party to, nor are they responsible for, the decisions of their government. They are entirely innocent and we condemn those who have killed or injured them.

The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years.

We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world. We argued, as did the Security Services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.

We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.

Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

Translation -- We would never condone these attacks, but they are all the fault of Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Cut and run!

UPDATE: Also blogging on the same issue are Michelle Malkin, Decision '08, and Debbie Schlussel.

Iowa Voice is keeping a fine round-up of posts on the assault on our British allies.

UPDATE -- 7/9/05 -- Michelle Malkin and Wizbang note a purge of extreme moonbats at Kos -- but it is only temporary.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 541 words, total size 5 kb.

Debra Saunders documents the ethical lapses of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in her column today.

* As the Washington Post reported, last week Pelosi filed delinquent reports for three trips she herself accepted from outside sponsors. The biggie was a week-long 1999 trip to Taiwan, paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce. The tab for Pelosi and her husband: about $8,000.

* A senior aide to Pelosi, Eddie Charmaine Manansala, went on a $9,887 trip in 2004 sponsored by the same Korea-U.S. Exchange Council as sponsored DeLay's excursion -- then failed to file the mandated paperwork until a reporter asked about the trip.

* [The] Federal Election Commission fined her after Team Pelosi created a second political action committee to skirt a $5,000 gift limit. "The main reason for the creation of the second PAC, frankly, was to give twice as much dollars," her treasurer, Leo McCarthy, told Roll Call.

Add to that the fact that in the last five years Democrats took 3, 458 privately funded trips while GOP representatives took only 2,666 and you see that if such trips pose the ethical problem that Pelosi and the Democrats claim they do, then it is the minority Democrat party with an ethics problem.

Posted by: Greg at 03:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.

The text of the al-Qaeda confession of guilt in the London attacks.

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.""

Screenshot of Letter

Iowa Voice is keeping a fine round-up of posts on the assault on our British allies.

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

The Vatican has sent the following telegram to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, archbishop of Westminster.

"Deeply saddened by the news of the terrorist attacks in central London, the Holy Father offers his fervent prayers for the victims and for all those who mourn," the telegram said. "While he deplores these barbaric acts against humanity, he asks you to convey to the families of the injured his spiritual closeness at this time of grief."

"Upon the people of Great Britain, he invokes the consolation that only God can give in such circumstances," said the telegram, signed by the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano.

Iowa Voice is keeping a fine round-up of posts on the assault on our British allies.

Posted by: Greg at 03:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

It isn't just us infidels any more.

"We announce in the al-Qaida in Iraq that the verdict of God against the ambassador of the infidels, the ambassador of Egypt, has been carried out. Thank God," a written statement in the Web posting said.

The video does not show him being executed. Instead, it shows a man who appears to be the diplomat, Ihab al-Sherif, blindfolded and wearing a polo shirt.

This is the group run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Posted by: Greg at 03:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

At least six seven four (?) explosions have hit the London mass transit system in central London at the height of the rush hour. Prime Minister Blair has spoken, will return to London to survey the situation, then return to the G8 summit in Scotland later today. Rescue operations underway in London subway system, double decker bus blown-up on city street. Television reports as of 12:20 PM London time (7:20 AM Eastern time) indicate al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility. Sky News reports (as of 12:40 PM) that a suicide bomber blew up the bus, which is the only picture we the press is showing at the moment (the other explosions are in the Tube).

In America, moonbats calling C-Span are already blaming "US murder of civilians in Iraq" for the bombings and comparing the terrorists to "fundamentalist Christians blowing up abortion clinics."

Tube stations hit: Aldgate East, Edgware Road, Kings Cross, Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Russell Square

Blast on bus at Tavistock Square

London explosions: timeline

0849 BST: First explosion occurs on the Metropolitan Line between Liverpool Street and Aldgate

0922: King's Cross and Edgware Road stations evacuated. Entire London Underground network evacuated soon after

0928: Metronet, a Tube maintenance company, reports that the explosions have been caused by a power surge

0933: Explosion reported at Edgware Road

0934: A police spokesman says there are "walking wounded" at Aldgate

0946: Explosions reported at King's Cross, Old Street and Russell Square Tube stations

0951: Scotland Yard declare a "major incident" on the London Underground. Overground trains are diverted from Moorgate to King's Cross

0952: A British Transport Police spokesman says that two Tube trains are stuck in tunnels near Edgware Road

0953: Rescue workers report several injuries at Edgware Road

1000: The National Grid reports that there has been no power surge that might have contributed to the incident

1013: Union officials report that there has been at least one explosive device on the London Underground

1016: Witnesses report an explosion on a bus at Russell Square

1019: Some mainline rail companies close lines in central London and terminate trains outside the capital. People are urged not to travel to London

1023: Scotland Yard says there are reports of an explosion at Moorgate

1035: Metropolitan Police confirm that there has been an explosion on a bus in Tavistock Square, near Russell Square in Central London

1120: The Army is patrolling the streets of Covent Garden

1130: Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, confirms that there have been six blasts in London and that traces of explosives have been found at at least one site

1138: A City of London Police spokeswoman confirms that two people have died at Aldgate

1139: A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman says that armed police and that Army have sealed off the area around the palace

1214: Tony Blair says that it is "reasonably clear" that the explosions were the result of terrorism

1216: Police have been called to Leicester Square Underground station, according to the London Ambulance Service

1224: Der Spiegel, a German news magazine, reports that responsibility for the attacks has been claimed by a group calling itself the "Secret Organisation Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organization in Europe" in a message posted on an unnamed website popular with Islamic militants

1234: Washington DC's underground system tightens security, sending armed police and sniffer dogs to patrol the network

1244: Police say that several people died in the bus bombing at Tavistock Square

1245: Police confirm "a number of fatalities" at Edgware Road Tube station

1256: The Home Secretary tells the House of Commons that "a number of terrorist attacks" have occurred in Central London, including at least four explosions. There was one explosion at Edgware Road Tube station, one on the Tube between Aldgate and Liverpool Street stations, one between Russell Square and King's Cross stations and one on a bus at Tavistock Square

1303: Brian Paddick, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, says that 150 people have been seriously injured. There was no specific warning about the attacks, he says

1341: President George W. Bush makes a televised statement to say that he has instructed the Department of Homeland Security to make sure that American are "extra vigilant"

Coverage of the story, as it breaks.
Reporters' Log: London explosions -- BBC (updates regularly)

6 Blasts Rock London, Killing at Least Two
SURVIVORS DESCRIBE TUBE EXPLOSIONS
Two killed in London explosions
UK's Blair set to leave G8 summit -- "All the leaders share our determination to defeat this terrorism." -- PM Tony Blair
BUS 'RIPPED IN TWO' -- "The top of the bus had clearly been blown off and looking at the wreckage it looks as if the bomb or whatever it was placed at the back of the top deck. People were using tables from a nearby hotel as a stretcher."
Bombs strike terror in London -- A Government spokesman has talked of 20 people dead in the incidents. A rescue operation is underway on the Underground at King's Cross station.
GROUP CLAIMS ATTACKS -- A terror group linked to al Qaeda has claimed it carried out a series of terror attacks on London that have left a number of people dead and hundreds injured.
London blasts fit al Qaeda-type pattern-analysts "The first thing that's very obvious is the synchronised nature of the attacks, and that's pretty classic for al Qaeda or al Qaeda-related organisations," said Budapest-based security analyst Sebestyen Gork.
Muslim leaders join condemnation"We are simply appalled and want to express our deepest condolences to the families. These terrorists, these evil peoplewant to demoralise us as a nation and divide us. All of must unite in helping the police to hunt these murderers down."
Text of Scotland Yard Statement -- They confirm only four explosive devices.
Text of Bush's Remarks on London Blasts"We will find them. We will bring them to justice. And at the same time we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate."

Interesting post from Powerline.

Michelle Malkin has pictures and other posts, including one regarding conflicting casualty figures.
Pictures from BBC, Instapunk & Flickr.

The Command Post has a blog roundup -- several British blogs included. Also, visit the UK Blog Aggregator.

Analysis of the attacks may be found at The Counterterrorism Blog.

Good commentary from Tim Blair on these threads on his site.

Now at least 37dead confirmed.

Iowa Voice is keeping a fine round-up of posts on the assault on our British allies.

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1096 words, total size 9 kb.

As a former UCC member, I won't get into the recent United Church of Christ (Denominational Motto: "God Keeps Changing His Mind") resolution endorsing homosexual marriage. Suffice it to say that I consider the resolution to be flawed from a Biblical perspective, and one more symptom of the problem that causes the denomination to continue to shrink. Besides, I suspect that a large number of congregations will simply ignore the resolution, and continue to permit only traditional marriages to be performed in their churches and officiated by their pastors.

But there are a couple of things in the resolution that I find striking. Let me highlight them for you.

The marriage equality resolution (1) affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage;... and (7) urges congregations and individuals of the UCC to prayerfully consider and support local, state and national legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples regardless of gender, and to work against legislation, including constitutional amendments, which denies rights to couples based on gender.

So you see those statements?

"Declares that government should not interfere...."

"Urges congregations and individuals to... support local, state and national legislation... and to work against legislation...."

I don't know about you, but that sounds like the UCC is not merely taking a doctrinal position, but is also making a call for the laws of the United States to be changed to reflect the teachings and beliefs of the UCC. It gives marching orders to church members regarding what sort of legislation they should support and oppose, and by implication what candidates they should support and oppose.

Now given my understanding of the First Amendment as it was originally written and intended by the Founding Fathers, I have no problem with the UCC taking such a position. But given the understanding of the First Amendment by the Left, I would have expected a loucd public outcry denouncing the UCC for "theocratic" behavior. After all, that has been the strategy of the Left every time religious conservatives have sought to see policies enacted which reflect their religious beliefs, policies on matters like school vouchers, abortion, and homosexual marriage. But so far there has been nothing but silnce from the Left -- when they have not actively applauded the "progressive" action of the UCC General Synod.

And we won't even get into the Left's silence about the synodal resolution urging President Bush to appoint a "moderate" justice to the Supreme Court (does anyone need additional evidence that "moderate" means "liberal"?). If one subscribes to the liberal definition of theocracy, one would have to condemn this as well. Again, the silence is deafening.

Could it be that the Left in this country does not believe in separation of church and state at all. Rather, they believe in the separation of conservative churches and state -- but are more than willing to see extreem and out of the mainstream religious beliefs of liberal churches imposed on the majority of Americans who reject them?

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.

A woman was murdered because of her race. The perp admits that his actions were based upon the victim's race -- and even claims she was not an innocent victim because of her race. Sounds like it meets all the criteria to me. Or does it, because the perp is black and the victim is white?

A homeless black man told police on videotape that he was fighting a race war and killed a 56-year-old woman at a Westchester County mall last week because she was white.

The man, Phillip Grant, 43, appeared in shackles and a bulletproof vest in a White Plains courtroom for a felony hearing Tuesday. In the 45-minute videotape played during the hearing, Grant told police "all I knew was she had blond hair and blue eyes and she had to die."

He claimed Connie Russo Carriero "was not an innocent victim because she was white."

Carriero, a legal secretary and mother of two grown children, was stabbed to death while walking to her car at the Galleria Mall parking garage. She was buried Tuesday.

Grant, a convicted rapist, was charged with second-degree murder and weapon possession in the knife attack. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 25 years to life in prison.

Now down in New York City, a couple of white guys are facing hate crime charges for beating a couple of black guys who came into their neighborhood in search of a car to steal. But up in Westchester County, enhanced charges won't be filed against a black man who admits a clear racial motivation. What happened to equal protection of the law? Do hate crime laws apply only to crimes committed by whites against minorities, but not the other way around?

Posted by: Greg at 03:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

"Do not bother the wetbacks"

Those are the orders given to the police here in Houston after a meeting between police officials and pro-border-jumper groups here in Houston. It seems that a couple of police officers responding to a trespassing call had photographed a group of day laborers in order to document their presence in the event they again trespassed on the property. This upset the men, who are in the country illegally, and let to complaints by community groups.

The Houston Police Department has instructed officers not to photograph illegal immigrants seeking day jobs, after an incident last month prompted an outcry from an immigrant rights group.
ADVERTISEMENT

Houston police Capt. Juan Trevino made the pledge to 400 people who attended a meeting Tuesday night organized by The Metropolitan Organization, an interfaith grass-roots political action group.

Trevino said that "an isolated handful of officers" took immigrants' photographs after a business owner on North Shepherd recently complained that they "were walking on private property."

Addressing the TMO gathering in Spanish and English, Trevino said that the Houston police department will work with the organization to encourage immigrant workers to seek work at the east side day labor center.

"We have initiated a policy where, at this time, we are instructing all officers that they cannot photograph any of the day laborers that are currently out in the field," Trevino said.

So let's get this straight. City policy already states that police cannot inquire about immigration status, and cannot report border-jumpers to the INS. Now they cannot even engage in reasonable steps to document their property crimes, and must direct them to a day labor center where they can illegally obtain work.

Am I the only one who sees the absurdity in this? I thought the police were supposed to support and uphold the law, not facilitate breaking it.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

America has lost a hero -- James Stockdale, whose heroic actions as a prisoner of war in the during the Vietnam War led to his being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, has died.

During the Vietnam War, he was a Navy fighter pilot based on the USS Oriskany and flew 201 missions before he was shot down on Sept. 9, 1965. He became the highest-ranking naval officer captured during the war, the Navy said.

He endured more than 7 1/2 years as a prisoner, spending four of them in solitary confinement, before his release in 1973. He was tortured repeatedly, according to the Navy.

Stockdale received 26 combat decorations, including the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest medal for valor, in 1976. A portion of his award citation reads: "Stockdale ... deliberately inflicted a near mortal wound to his person in order to convince his captors of his willingness to give up his life rather than capitulate. He was subsequently discovered and revived by the North Vietnamese who, convinced of his indomitable spirit, abated their employment of excessive harassment and torture of all prisoners of war."

He retired from the military in 1979.

Stockdale suffered serious torture during his time as a prisoner of war.

Stockdale was taken to Hoa Lo Prison, known as the "Hanoi Hilton." His shoulders were wrenched from their sockets, his leg had been shattered by angry villagers and a torturer, and his back was broken. But he refused to capitulate.

Rather than allow himself to be used in a propaganda film, Stockdale smashed his face into a pulp with a mahogany stool.

"My only hope was to disfigure myself," Stockdale wrote in his 1984 autobiography "In Love and War." The ploy worked, but he spent the next two years in leg irons.

After Ho Chi Minh's death, he broke a glass pane in an interrogation room and slashed his wrists until he passed out in his own blood. After that, captors relented in their harsh treatment of him and his fellow prisoners.

Stockdale spent four years in solitary confinement before his release in 1973.

Stockdale was one of the many POWs whose injuries exposed the lie of the North Vietnamese that all prisoners were treated humanely.

Stockdale was one-of-a-kind, a legend in the Navy and well-respected by his peers among the POWs from Vietnam. Following his retirement, he served as president of the Citadel. He later served as a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution. In 1992 he reluctantly ran as Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate, a position he accepted out of gratitude for the assistance that Perot had given his wife in setting up a support organization for POW/MIA family members, on the condition that Perot would replace him before the election (he didn't).

May you rest in peace, sir, and may a flight of angels accompany you home.

For more tributes:
Michelle Malkin
Jeff Quinton
Brainster's Blog
Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense
Commonwealth Conservative
Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
The Conservative Man
Joust The Facts
Outside The Beltway
Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis)
Hube's Cube

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 537 words, total size 4 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The Left's "Word Deficit" by Right Wing Nut House, and Ehrlich's Wit and Wisdom by MaxedOutMama.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, the Red Chinese regime has chosen to deny the human rights of Chinese Catholics following a brief period of goodwill towards the Vatican. The tyrants of Beijing have arrested Bishop Jia Zhiguo, a Catholic bishop who remains loyal to the Pope.

China, which does not recognize the Vatican, has arrested an underground Roman Catholic bishop, a U.S.-based religious rights group said, quashing hopes of any sudden rapprochement between Beijing and the Holy See.

China has not had diplomatic relations with the Vatican since 1951 and believers must attend state-sanctioned churches led by bishops who pledge loyalty to Beijing. But a parallel church loyal to the Pope practises in secret.

"Bishop Jia Zhiguo, the underground Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Zheng Ding in Hebei province, was arrested again by two government officials at his house ... and driven away to an unknown location," the Cardinal Kung Foundation said.

It said Jia, 70, was arrested on Monday but did not specify on what charge.

The Vatican has regularly accused China of violating human rights and criticized the government for what it sees as the repression of religion, a charge the government denies.

Jia had previously spent 20 years in jail and had been arrested six times since January 2004, the foundation, whose mission is to promote the Roman Catholic Church in China, said.

Where is the public outcry? Where is the international condemnation? When will the head of Amnesty International and the International Red Cross travel to China to call out the dictators like they have done towards George W. Bush (whose policies conform with international law)? I think we all know the answers to those questions.

Posted by: Greg at 06:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Over at Captain's Quarters, I found a post that merits serious consideration by every American this Fourth of July. It is about why our soldiers fight this war, and who they are. May God bless the Caelestis, may God bless his and his brothers and sisters in arms, and may God bless America.

Today I leave for the war

Well it's time to go and do what I have been called to do. Today I head for to the war for the third time and I have some things to say. To me this is a blessing, a calling from God to do what I can to help our brave men and women in uniform. Also this post is for my family as some of them still don't understand why I am on my third trip to Iraq. First of all:

K, you have been the best sister a brother could ever have, you and I had some good fights when we were kids, but you were always there if I truly needed you. We don't see eye to eye on anything political, and you are one of those people calling for our troops to come home now. I love you, but you are wrong in this count, you have three boys and if we don't do this right, it will have to be done again and it could be your boys next time. When I'm in Iraq, I think about my three nephews and how I don't want to see them in DCU's in the next decade, I want to fight our enemies in their country until they either surrender or become so ineffective they aren't a threat to any of us. I don't want my nephews fighing a fight that I couldn't finish, I want them to go to college or play professional soccer, or be beach bums. However,if they choose to become soldiers I would be proud to be in the same chain that links all military personnel past present and future, the chain that holds America together. That being said I would prefer they not have to fight the war I have seen, I would prefer they not lose any friends like I have and I wish that they would never lose their innocence by having to kill another human being. War takes so much out of a person, it changes us in ways that are almost never positive and I would not want your boys to have to go through what I have. I hope one day you understand, that I don't do this for the money, that Bush is not Hitler, and that the people of Iraq deserve as much a chance at a better life as we were given. You and G and the boys will be on my mind the entire time I am in Kirkuk.

Mom, I was the baby of the family and I know you still view me as that little boy that wouldn't eat his green beans and only wanted peanut butter. I am still that little boy inside, but I am so much more now, I am a husband and a veteran, and now a successful man with my own family. I chose to go back to Iraq this time, because I believe in a better world. At 30 I am more of an idealist now than I was at 20, I believe one person can make a difference. I know you will worry about me the entire time I am gone, but you won't tell me how scared you are. I just wanted to say it's ok, I am on the path that brings me the greatest happiness. No matter what happens to me, I am doing what I believe is my destiny, I come from a family of warriors, your family and Dad's were all warriors, it's what they knew. I am a product of their collective service to nation, this isn't about adventure or money or some deathwish, it's about doing the right thing. The men and women and especially the children of Iraq are worth fighting for, when I see them I know that any sacrifice I can make is worth it. What kind of man would I be if I refused to help someone in need? How could I live my life knowing that someone was being tortured and I stood by and sipped my latte and refused to get off my ass? I don't know if you will ever understand what drives me Mom, just being able to help one Iraqi is worth my life. People on this planet are so hell bent on persecuting others, they are so concerned with appearing strong that they prey on the weak and the helpless. Mom, the people of Iraq were helpless and being crushed by a petty clone of Adolf Hitler, now they have hope where before they had none. Iraq is a mess, but it is a mess because freedom is messy, we had to fight a Civil War that nearly killed 500,000 of us just to make all men and women free. Iraq is already having to fight a soul searing conflict with itself to find itself. How could we abandon these people to this chaos? I will continue to support this cause until we win, we lose, or I am knocked out of commission. I cannot call myself a man and abandon the men, women and children of Iraq to brutal butchers, I've made my choice. You'll be in my heart everyday.

Dad, you are my hero, I don't know if I've ever told you that, but you are. You served in Vietnam and came back and made a life for yourself and your family. You did everything you could to provide for K and I, you worked extra hours to make sure we never went without. You never took sick time even though you were out in the elements everyday, you are the definition of what a man is, I hope one day I am half the man that you are. I think you understand what drives me and why I have to keep doing this job. When you were here in Hawaii to visit me and you told me you were proud of me was a moment I'll never forget. I can't let the people of Iraq suffer without doing something, I know I am only one person, but you were only one person and you did so many things in your life. I want to be like you, but I want to do so much more, I know I'm not going to "save the world", but everyday I can do a good deed, whether in Iraq or in Hawaii is a day that I feel like I have done my job as a man and an American. I know you understand!

Jan, my wife, my love, my life, this has got to be the hardest on you. This is the third time I have asked you to take a leap of faith and believe that no harm will come to me in Iraq. Three times I have left you and our puppies behind to pursue some quixotic belief that I can make the world a slightly better place. Three times I have left you behind to pay the bills, and manage the house and so many other things that no one should be forced to do by themselves. I have not been with you for 3 of our seven anniversary's because of my commitment to this. All I can say to you is thank you! I will always love you for your patience and your support of me and my ideals. I know that I make your life hard with these deployments, and for that I am sorry, I wish that it were easier to be away from you,but it's not. In fact, each deployment it gets harder and harder for me to say goodbye, I've lost friends now and had a few close calls myself, but I can't quit doing this. You know why, you more than anyone else understand why. You and I both believe it is our destiny to do whatever we can to make the world better. We are two tiny fish in the enormous universal ocean, but we both know one person can make a difference. When I am in Iraq I know you are in my heart at every moment and that our faith and love protects me. I firmly believe God has a plan for both of us, we are his instruments to do what we can to make the world better. So don't worry about me this time, I am doing what I was meant to do, and I have never been happier. So go and find my molly-molly and give her a scratch behind the ears.

For anyone that reads this; yes I am a 30 year old idealist, at 20 I was a cynic, but now I have a mission in life and a purpose. I found God, but I am far from a religious fanatic, I found a God that inspired me to do good deeds just for the sake of doing good. I can feel his prescence in everything around me, the sunset, the waves crashing on a Hawaiian beach and even in the evening breeze that is laced with plumeria. I would call myself a soldier of God, but not in any way that says he favors me or my cause. I am a soldier of our lord because I choose to serve the side of good, good is opening a door for a stranger, or helping your neighbor empty his trashcan, or going to Iraq because you want to help a people find their voice and feel what we feel when we think of our freedoms. The most fundamental question I ask myself everday is: If I have the chance to do good, even if there is a terrible price to pay, why wouldn't I? I wish more Americans would ask themselves this question, if you can do good, what on earth would stop you from following through?

Finally I just wanted to state one more time, Iraq is the whole bag of marbles, if our ideas win there, then militant islam will wither on the vine and eventually die. If we lose in Iraq, the world will become a much darker place where the evils of the past such as slavery and holy wars will become the norm. I ask the people of America this question; We are the last hope for this planet to realize its potential, the europeans are too weak to do it, what kind of world do we want for our children to live in? I made my choice, and now I leave to do what I believe is my duty. God bless my family, God bless our brave men and women in uniform, God bless all Americans and God bless America.

Caelestis

P.S. Love you my hummingbird

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1850 words, total size 9 kb.

Well, word is that we might soon have the third named storm of the current hurricane season -- Tropical Storm Cindy -- if the tropical depression moving across the Yucatan peninsula follows the usual pattern of picking up force once it hits the gulf. If that happens, we will see it become Cindy overnight tonight -- and possibly Hurricane Cindy in the next day or so.

Where is the storm headed -- we don't know yet. Warnings have been issued for the Louisiana coast. It is considered possible, though, that it might be headed towards Galveston/Houston. That means I may have to bug out in the next few days, depending on the storm's path and intensity. So send prayers and good thoughts my direction, and to folks all along the path of the storm.

Here is where you can keep track of the storm system.

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Now some of you may look at the above headline and ask me what a "Hashemite" is. Cut down to its essence, a Hashemite is a member of the family of Muhammad. The Kings of Jordan are the last Hashemite rulers on Earth. That makes their words quite important -- more important than those of the House of Saud, whose claim to rule Arabia is relatively recent and based upon their support by the British in their rebellion against the Ottoman Turks during World War I. After all, they are the family of the Muslim Prophet, not upstart Bedouins.

Anyway, that means that King Abdullah II of Jordan has a special place among the rulers of the Arab world. Here is what he has said about the Islamists.

Abdullah called on the gathering to help implement a Jordanian initiative launched in November — dubbed the “Amman Message” — urging Muslims to reject extremism, embrace moderation and tolerate other religions.

“As a start, let us confess that we, Muslims, have not always fulfilled our obligations toward ourselves,” Abdullah said. “Some Muslims, or those who promulgate ’Islamic’ slogans, have defamed Islam and Muslims, intentionally or non-intentionally.”

The king apparently referred to Islamic extremists in Iraq responsible for scores of attacks targeting U.S.-led coalition troops, Iraqi security forces and in many cases ordinary Iraqis in their self declared holy war, or jihad, against that countryÂ’s foreign occupation.

So hear that, al-Qaeda and the rest of you terrorist scum. The family of your own Prophet rejects your words and actions as antithetical to Islam. The enemy of Islam is therefore not the United States -- it is Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and the rest of the terrorist scum who engage in terrorism who are the real enemies of Islam.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Houston Chronicle financial columnist Shannon Buggs adds her voice to those calling for eminent domain reform in light of the Kelo decision. She uses her own home as an example of the type of situation in which a city might override the hopes and dreams of homeowners for the benefit of a private developer.

My Inner Loop home is a block away from urban blight.

To the west are duplexes and fourplexes in various states of disrepair, home to renters with little means to improve their housing situation.

My home also is a block away from urban renewal.

To the east are well-maintained, owner-occupied single-family homes, a renovated two-story that sold for more than $250,000 and a new house built on a long-vacant lot.

My husband and I decided to invest our money, time and energy in our neighborhood, with an optimistic attitude.

The blight to the west was a growth opportunity, not a sign of encroaching decay.

The stability to the east was proof that the neighborhood could and would grow in value.

All we would have to do was update and maintain our home, pay our mortgage and taxes and keep the property as long as we wanted it.

That's the wealth-building strategy known as the American Dream. But now I'm not so sure if my neighbors and I — or any other American not living in a high-priced enclave or an upscale suburb — will be able to fulfill our dream.

Yeah, that's right -- the American dream is dead. Or at least on life support until some developer decides to play Michael Schiavo with your plans for the future.

But Buggs notes that here in Texas there is a likely solution, in the form of a proposed state Constitutional amendment under consideration during the special session of the state legislature. Assuming it is adopted, the measure will be put before the people of Texas in November. Buggs offers some specifics for improving what is already a good idea.

By not setting standards for how municipalities determine what is blight and economic development, the Supreme Court is telling us to trust our elected officials.

That's a nice idea in concept, but a bad one in practice.

We, the people, need to make sure our voices drown out those of developers in the discussions about this ruling.

Bills in the Texas Legislature calling for a constitutional amendment prohibiting eminent domain from being used for the primary purpose of economic development are scheduled for hearings Tuesday and Wednesday.

If a bill passes in the special session, voters will then get their say in the Nov. 8 election.

Giving us a chance to voice our opinion on this issue through a vote is a good start.

The Legislature could also make sure that when economic development is cited as a secondary reason for taking land, governments:

•Only use it to reverse and retard blight.

•Define blight using statistically sound measurements.

•Submit economic development plans to citizens for comments before making commitments to developers.

•Include in economic development plans an analysis of how the people whose land is being taken will or will not benefit from the changes.

A majority of the Supreme Court may not have wanted to tell elected local officials what to do when they exercise their right to use eminent domain, but it is each citizen's duty to do just that.

Well done, Shannon. Here's hoping the folks up in Austin take these suggestions and incorporate them into legislation. And those of you in other states, push for them to be passed into law there, too. After all, any taking for economic development should have to meet an objective standard before it can be approved. And the people must be given a voice in determining that the change is one that we find acceptable.

After all, it will be our homes taken, our money used to do it, and it will be all done in our names. It is only right that such actions have our approval.

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

I've written about the flawed Kelo decision several times recently, but have been particularly concerned about the threat to property rights when I have done so. But I have also had another concern, one related to economics and the nature of the real estate market. Unfortunately, I feel I lack the expertise in the latter to do a good job discussing the former, and so I have held off doing so pending some research time. And then I woke up this morning and saw my very concern addressed in the Houston Chronicle by a local developer, Mark A. Anawaty. As he notes correctly, the Kelo decision effectively does away with the notion of "market value". Heck, it even raises the question of whether or not "just compensation" survives Kelo.

Maybe because I live in this world daily in my business of trying to acquire property for private development, I think the decision has a soft underbelly in another area that hasn't been much discussed. The decision may likely erode the distinction between two core concepts in real estate development — just compensation and true market value.

Eminent domain robs property owners of the premium we optimistic developers are often willing to pay in true arm's length negotiations. It exchanges this market test for the notion of just compensation which, if it were just, theoretically wouldn't be so regularly fought over in the courts. Why pay the market price when a politically connected developer can rely on eminent domain?

After all, if governemnt can step into the picture and end the notion that real estate is worth "market value" (what a willing buyer and willing seller agree to by mutual consent for their mutual benefit), instead substituting some nebulous concept of "just compensation", then real estate no longer has a real market value in the development market. And I will be very clear on this -- I'm willing to take significantly less for my house if it will become the home of a family with a couple of kids than I would ever consider taking from a developer who wants to tear down my home and build a grocery store, bank, or gas station -- or even one wanting to put up million-dollar McMansions. After all, the relative values to the buyer differ in each of those scenarios, and it is my right to take full advantage of such differences. That is, after all, the very essence of the market. But instead we now have a willing buyer and an unwilling seller who is forced to accept a price he does not want for property he does not wish to sell.

That leads us back to the question of "just compensation", which I've dealt with in elsewhere. Who decides what constitutes just compensation? Why, the government, which acts as the buyer in this transaction. Imagine the fun I could have had four years ago if I, as the willing buyer, had been able to select my house and set a more-or-less non-negotiable price for it, whether or not the owner had any interest at selling, regardless of price! I can think of a number of places in the area that I would have been glad to purchase instead of my current house (which suits my needs very well) -- an extra 1000 square feet, with a larger yard on the lake or the bay might have been a bit more desirable for my wife and I had we simply been able to walk in and giver the owner notice to vacate the property in return for the price we felt was just. While eminent domain actions do offer the option of challenging the level of comensation, the goal is often to get a low-ball figure accepted. After all, how many of us have the ability to pursue the matter in court against the relatively unlimited funds available to governmement can then add value to it by changing the zoning and re-selling it to the developer at a higher price -- therefore taking for itself profit that morally belongs to the owner to whom was paid "just compensation"!

And then there is the question of competition. When government subsidizes a project -- especially when it becomes a partner in the project -- it has the effect of squeezing out competitive ventures.

Hampered by low investment returns in the stock market and buoyed by rising real estate values across the nation, ambitious officials (some elected, some not) are eager to shape the world according to their vision by making what they view as fail-safe investments in real estate. The growth in the number of requests for proposals from municipalities and economic development groups across the country has been exponential in the past three years.

This is all coming at a time when many long-term real estate professionals believe many land uses are nearing the peaks of their cycles.

These well-intentioned groups have supported public-private partnerships without fully appreciating the potential conflicts and risks that encouraging public entities to cross the line into the private sector can bring — even in the most thoughtful, well-executed plans.

As a private developer I can't help wonder about a conflict such as the following hypothetical: Ambitious City X teams up with grateful Developer Y to design a mixed-use project for a blighted area. Of course, the plans take a while because the project must be fully vetted with numerous city departments. Market cycles get missed, or the end product is not what the market desires — the proverbial design by committee — and only a portion of the project attracts tenants.

Meanwhile, Private Developer Z has an anchor tenant and wants to start her more desirable building in the same market area.

Will the city feel compelled to allow a competitive product in the marketplace?

Will the city subsidize the rents in its project, thus usurping Developer Z's ability to lease the remainder of her project?

These public subsidies serve to make private development less appealing to those not working in partnership with governemnt. And why shouldn't this be the case? The government is taking money from the private developer in the form of taxes and giving it to the competition, in effect forcing the private developer to comete against himself while realizing none of the benefits of the subsidized development!

No, Kelo is a disaster for many reasons. We need to slay this beast on the state level, assuming there is not a national solution to it.

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1087 words, total size 7 kb.

No, it doesn't. In fact, it cannot even support its own weight. But it survives, over 190 years later, and is soon to emerge following a seven year, $18.6 million conservation project. That's right -- THE flag that flew over Fort McHenry in 1814, that inspired the composition of our national anthem by Francis Scott Key, will soon be back on display in the Smithsonian.

Even then, Sept. 14, 1814, the huge garrison flag was frayed at the ends and faded from a year's daily use. Over the next 190 years, it deteriorated to the point that it has become one the country's most fragile cultural treasures.

"The first time I saw it, my stomach just dropped," said Marilyn Zoidis, the Smithsonian's senior curator for the flag. "It was so fragile that it couldn't even support its own weight. I really wondered whether we would ever be able to save it."

Since the project began, a cadre of chemists, conservators and textile experts have labored over the red, white and blue rectangle of wool bunting with cotton stars.

Because of the flag's size and fragility, technicians have to work while lying prone on a gantry that lets them "hover" 4 inches above it. Exhaust ducts dangle like elephant trunks to remove chemical vapors. Increased air pressure keeps dust out. The temperature is maintained at 68 degrees, and the lights are kept low to prevent further deterioration.

Congress has authorized $3 million. The rest of the money, including $10 million from Polo Ralph Lauren and $5 million from the Pew Charitable Trusts, is from private sources.

I remember, as a kid living in the Washington area, seeing that flag every time we visited the museum. While I may have wanted to see the dinosaurs, mummys amd aircraft that fill the various buildings, I always found it a special moment when we went to see the flag. And we did go to see the flag every single time. even then, thirty years ago, the flag was in sorry shape. So I was pleased sevral years ago to hear that this important cultural icon would be safeguarded for future generations.

A small gallery with a 50-foot-long window looking onto the flag conservation lab has become the museum's largest attraction, with 10 million visitors since it opened in 1998.

Most visitors are struck by the sheer size of the banner, so frayed in spots it is almost transparent. Designed to fly from a 90-foot pole, the flag measured 30 by 42 feet. Now it is 30 by 34 feet, reduced by wear and tear at Fort McHenry and by uncounted bits and pieces snipped off as mementos.

The conservation team's inch-by-inch survey found 165 previous repairs, 37 patches, and a spectrum of soiling that included sulfur and nitrogen residue left by exploding British shells and contemporary grime, auto exhaust and mold.

Some parts were strong enough to be gently vacuumed, but most had to be patted clean with dry cosmetic sponges and gently bathed with diluted solvents. Uneven aging has produced at least five shades of red, six kinds of white, and three hues of blue.

Because the flag can't support its own weight, technicians have been attaching it to a synthetic backing.

Like I said, it was in pretty sorry shape, though I would never have imagined it had become that fragile. I wish the last few years would have enabled me to see the conservation effort, but such is life. In the next few years, we will need to make a trip out east to see the results of this effort.

Posted by: Greg at 04:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.

Last night, while lecturing my class of aspiring paralegals on the judicial branch, we talked about Supreme Court vacancies. I pointed out that I had expected to have one earlier in the week, and that I saw every reason for there to be one by the end of the course (July 14), if not by the time they have their next test (July 5). I noted that it was very likely that we might be surprised by the announcement -- and pointed out that there have been rumblings that Justice O'Connor might be the retiree. Little did I know that it would be only a bi more than tweleve hours before that very scenario would come to pass.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search), the first woman to serve on the nation's highest court, submitted a letter of retirement to President Bush on Friday, setting the stage for a contentious battle over her replacement.

O'Connor — who often provided the deciding, or swing, vote in Supreme Court decisions — will step down from the bench upon the appointment of her successor.

"It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms," O'Connor wrote in the one-paragraph resignation letter. "I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."

She told the president and associates that she wanted to spend more time with her family. Her husband has been in failing health in recent years.

On one level, I am sorry to see her leave the bench. As a moderate/conservative justice, she has more often voted in ways I have liked than in ways I have disliked. When she has written opinions, they have been good with flashes of brilliance. My major complaint, though, is that I never felt like she was operating out of a sense of legal principle, in the manner of justices like Scalia and Thomas, or even Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I could never locate that nugget of core belief within her jurisprudence that separates a great justice (Story or Douglas, for example) from one who is merely good.

As to the question of who should replace Justice O'Connor, I have some thoughts. While there will be pressure to appoint a woman to replace her, I don't know that keeping hers reserved as a "woman's seat" is necessarily an overriding considerationg. I expect that we may see another minority -- perhaps Judge Garza of the Fifth Circuit -- placed on the court instead. If this is to remain a "woman's seat", look for the nomination of Judge Edith Brown Clement or Judge Edith Hollan Jones of the Fifth Circuit. I think the long filibuster of two highly qualified appellate judges, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen, make them impossible nominees right now. Don't be surprised, though, if a US Senator is nominated, as they generally are easily confirmed by their colleagues. Definitely out, though, is Alberto Gonzales, as the GOP base is agaainst him.

I'm guessing a nomination will come in about a week -- and possibly two, if the Chief Justice decides to follow O'Connor's lead in departing the Court at this time.

Posted by: Greg at 06:47 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

I used to be a big fan of Bob Geldof. I liked his music, and I admired his activism on behalf of the poorest of the poor. I didn't always agree with him, but I found what he was doing to be worthy of admiration. That is why I find this decision regarding the (misguided) Live8 concert to be so shocking to the conscience.

Collecting food for the homeless and hungry is taking a back seat to poverty in Africa as organizers for Saturday's Live 8 concert ban charities from collecting donations at the event.

Organizers have said local fundraising could "dilute the focus" of the concerts, which includes encouraging the world's G8 leaders to eliminate the debt currently owed by African countries.

"That decision came right from Sir Bob Geldof, himself," said Live 8 spokeswoman Katherine Holmes, referring to the Irish rocker fronting the Live 8 concerts.

No, we cannot let there be any effort to actually help the homeless and the hungry -- that would imply that individuals and not just governments have a responsibility to take action on their behalf. Not only that, it would detract from the focus -- that you show your caring and concern more by going to a concert than by actually doing something for another human being.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

I understand Planned Parenthood not being charged in this case -- after all, they did the absolute minimum required of them by law. While it might have been desirable for them to take the extra step and actually verify that this little girl had given them the number for a parent rather than the adult who was raping her, such fundamental decency is not required under the law. Instead, they unwittingly facilitated the statutory rape of a 14-year-old.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters announced today that no criminal charges will be filed against Planned Parenthood over an abortion it performed on a 14-year-old girl on March 30, 2004.

Questions about the legality of the abortion came up after the girl's family filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court earlier this year alleging the abortion was performed without parental notification as required by law.

An investigation by Deters' staff found that the girl provided the incorrect phone number for notification. Instead of giving the agency her parent's phone number, she gave officials the telephone number of her 21-year-old boyfriend, the father of her unborn child.

"Apparently they made no effort to confirm to whom they were speaking when they placed their call to notify the parents," Deters said. "They did the minimum they could under the existing law."

Now I am curious about something else, though. Aren't doctors, nuses, and other staff of medical facilities mandatory reporters under the child abuse laws of the state of Ohio? If not, why has this case not produced an outcry from the public toplace upon them the same obligation that teachers and other professionals in a position to become aware of abuse have?

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

I've wondered why the two boys (I will not dignify them with the title of "men") in this incident haven't been charged with a hate crime. After all, their crime was based upon antipathy towards the victims based upon their actual or perceived national origin, as indicated by an American flag flying from the front of their homes.

Those guys didn't set fire to flags they owned in some sort of symbolic gesture. They burned flags that were someone else's private property, something with a value to the owners that goes beyond the cost of the cloth.

But far worse than that, some of those flags were on poles attached to the owners' homes.

Burning those flags goes way beyond expressing contempt in a petty-criminal sort of way. It is a chillingly dangerous and invasive act.

That makes this less like stupid kiddie-acting-up-anarchism and way too much like the real thing. It is a serious crime.

It is also just like the Ku Klux Klan burning a cross on someone's lawn to terrorize a family or an entire community. The damage isn't just to the wood, and it isn't a crime because of the symbol that was destroyed. The damage is the fear it creates for people in their own homes.

Aren't we told that the reason for hate crime laws is the impact of the crime that goes beyond the impact on the victim personally? Well, we have that here -- won't folks be afraid to express their pride in their country for fear that some creting is going to use that symbol of pride to burn the house down around their ears?

Or is a hate crime a hate crime only when it is expressing hate against the "right" people?

UPDATE: I had not seen this story when I wrote the above post.

A white teenager was charged with a hate crime Thursday for allegedly beating a black man with a baseball bat in the Howard Beach section of Queens, the site of an infamous racial confrontation two decades ago.

Police said Nicholas Minucci, 19, confessed to the Wednesday attack, which left the victim in critical condition with multiple skull fractures and a bruised kidney.

Minucci was charged with assault as a hate crime punishable by a minimum of eight years in prison as well as robbery and criminal weapon possession. Police also arrested a suspected accomplice, 21-year-old Anthony Ench, who was to be charged Friday with assault as a hate crime, authorities said.

A third companion surrendered to police and was being described as a witness.

Minucci's attorney, Lori Zeno, said the victim, Glenn Moore, 22, had tried to rob Minucci and threatened him with a screwdriver. Police said they did not believe Minucci's account.

Police said Moore and two other black men were walking in Howard Beach early Wednesday when they were attacked by three white men. One of Moore's friends said he was intending to steal a car, but Moore was not aware of the plan, officials said.

Prosecutors said Moore's assailants hurled racial slurs and allegedly told him, "That is what you get when you try to rob white boys."

Hate crime? Possibly -- but there appears that there could be an addiional angle of a possible crime by the victim or the group that he was with. I'll be watching how this plays out in the days and weeks ahead.

But again I'll ask the quyestion -- why is this a hate crime, but acts of arson committed against folks for flying an American flag not a hate crime?

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh, wait -- they are only Democrats. It's not as if the convicted vote-cheats are Republican or anything like that.

A federal jury on Wednesday found five East St. Louis Democrats guilty of vote fraud.

The defendants were found guilty on all counts following a four-week trial in U.S. District Court in East St. Louis.

Four of the defendants -- Jessie Lewis, Sheila Thomas, Yvette Johnson and former city official Kelvin Ellis -- were found guilty of conspiracy to commit election fraud and election fraud.

Democratic Party boss and former City Councilman Charlie Powell was found guilty of one county of conspiracy to commit election fraud.

The five were charged with paying voters up to $10 a vote to vote for Democratic candidates during the Nov. 2 general election.

The jury deliberated about five and a half hours before returning the verdicts.

"This is a wake-up call for East St. Louis," said juror LaMont Reed Jr. of East St. Louis. "I've seen this corruption all my life."

Judge G. Patrick Murphy, who presided over the trial, will set a sentencing date later.

Now when will we hear anything about this PROVEN vote fraud from Howard Dean, Michael Moore, MoveOn.Org, or any other members of the liberal cabal?

Will it be "never", or will it be later than that?

Posted by: Greg at 04:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

HereÂ’s a neat idea for dealing with Osama and every other terrorist on the planet. They are hostis humani generis -- the enemies of all mankind.

TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF DEFINING TERRORISM as a species of piracy, consider the words of the 16th-century jurist Alberico Gentili's De jure belli: "Pirates are common enemies, and they are attacked with impunity by all, because they are without the pale of the law. They are scorners of the law of nations; hence they find no protection in that law." Gentili, and many people who came after him, recognized piracy as a threat, not merely to the state but to the idea of statehood itself. All states were equally obligated to stamp out this menace, whether or not they had been a victim of piracy. This was codified explicitly in the 1856 Declaration of Paris, and it has been reiterated as a guiding principle of piracy law ever since. Ironically, it is the very effectiveness of this criminalization that has marginalized piracy and made it seem an arcane and almost romantic offense. Pirates no longer terrorize the seas because a concerted effort among the European states in the 19th century almost eradicated them. It is just such a concerted effort that all states must now undertake against terrorists, until the crime of terrorism becomes as remote and obsolete as piracy.

What would be the impact of classifying terrorism along with piracy?

If the war on terror becomes akin to war against the pirates, however, the situation would change. First, the crime of terrorism would be defined and proscribed internationally, and terrorists would be properly understood as enemies of all states. This legal status carries significant advantages, chief among them the possibility of universal jurisdiction. Terrorists, as hostis humani generis, could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. Pirates are currently the only form of criminals subject to this special jurisdiction.

Second, this definition would deter states from harboring terrorists on the grounds that they are "freedom fighters" by providing an objective distinction in law between legitimate insurgency and outright terrorism. This same objective definition could, conversely, also deter states from cracking down on political dissidents as "terrorists," as both Russia and China have done against their dissidents.

Recall the U.N. definition of piracy as acts of "depredation [committed] for private ends." Just as international piracy is viewed as transcending domestic criminal law, so too must the crime of international terrorism be defined as distinct from domestic homicide or, alternately, revolutionary activities. If a group directs its attacks on military or civilian targets within its own state, it may still fall within domestic criminal law. Yet once it directs those attacks on property or civilians belonging to another state, it exceeds both domestic law and the traditional right of self-determination, and becomes akin to a pirate band.

Third, and perhaps most important, nations that now balk at assisting the United States in the war on terror might have fewer reservations if terrorism were defined as an international crime that could be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court.

I encourage you to read the article by Douglas R. Burgess Jr., “The Dread Pirate Bin Laden”. It may come out of the Legal Affairs, but it is incredibly approachable.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

The spectre of the government throwing reporters into jail rightly strikes fear into the hearts of freedom–lovers everywhere. After all, that is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship. But not every jailing of a journalist is a bad thing – nor does it offend the First Amendment for a reporter to be held to the exact same standards and requirements of every other citizen. A recent USA Today column puts it well.

Another problem is that claims of privilege turn the press into a privileged class. If ordinary people witness a crime, they have to talk about it. If they participate in a crime — say, by receiving classified documents — they have to say where they got them. Journalists want to be treated differently, but the First Amendment doesn't create that sort of privilege. Nor should we.

The author, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds himself, is precisely right. While the First Amendment clearly protects the right to freedom of the press, that does not create a special privilege for some sanctified class known as “journalists”. Reporters are, in the end, subject to the exact same laws as every other American. What next – a claim for exemption from laws against speeding because they are rushing to cover a breaking story? A total exemption from libel laws on the grounds that the potential liability that arises from inaccurate reports inhibits the reporting of the news?

I can’t help but think back a couple of decades to my college days. The editorial staff of a campus newspaper went out for a night of heavy underage drinking at the local bars. Several of them drank to excess. On their way home, while crossing the railroad tracks, they decided to play chicken with the 11:30 Amtrak. Five jumped – and the chronically-depressed alcoholic who wrote wonderful satires about campus life embraced the train like a long-desired lover. When the police arrived, his five companions refused to give statements to the police – claiming that as journalists it would compromise their ability to cover the death of their colleague, as well as the (never-to-be-written) feature on under-age drinking in local bars. Any other person making such a claim would have been charged with obstruction.

Now the reporters in the Plame case could, of course, make a Constitutional claim to avoid testifying. They could cite their rights under the Fifth Amendment to not incriminate themselves. After all, they are possibly going to have to admit their role in a criminal enterprise. But doing that would require them to concede that they did something wrong, something criminal. They want to avoid doing so at all costs, for that conflicts with their self-images as paladins out to forthrightly expose the truth. But what they are really out to do is cover up the truth for their own personal convenience.

Reynolds also points out the problem with creating a reporter’s privilege.

Many people who support these privileges say that they would be limited to “real” journalists. But who decides when a journalist is real? If the government decides, isn't that like licensing the press, something the First Amendment was designed to prevent? And if journalists decide, isn't that likely to lead to a closed-shop, guild mentality at exactly the moment when citizen journalism by non-professionals is taking off? All sorts of people are reporting news via Web logs and the Internet. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same privilege?

Press freedom is for everyone, not just professionals. James Madison wrote about “freedom in the use of the press,” making clear that the First Amendment is for everyone who publishes, not just members of the professional-media guild.

Do we really want the government determining who is – and who is not – a journalist? Do we really want to give some bureaucrat the power to grant – or deny – a citizen the full rights guaranteed under the “free press” clause of the First Amendment? Because that will be precisely what will happen when government gets to decide that some folks are “journalists” and have greater rights than other citizens. Let's not create a royalty to whom the rules do not apply.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 4 kb.

The spectre of the government throwing reporters into jail rightly strikes fear into the hearts of freedom–lovers everywhere. After all, that is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship. But not every jailing of a journalist is a bad thing – nor does it offend the First Amendment for a reporter to be held to the exact same standards and requirements of every other citizen. A recent USA Today column puts it well.

Another problem is that claims of privilege turn the press into a privileged class. If ordinary people witness a crime, they have to talk about it. If they participate in a crime — say, by receiving classified documents — they have to say where they got them. Journalists want to be treated differently, but the First Amendment doesn't create that sort of privilege. Nor should we.

The author, Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds himself, is precisely right. While the First Amendment clearly protects the right to freedom of the press, that does not create a special privilege for some sanctified class known as “journalists”. Reporters are, in the end, subject to the exact same laws as every other American. What next – a claim for exemption from laws against speeding because they are rushing to cover a breaking story? A total exemption from libel laws on the grounds that the potential liability that arises from inaccurate reports inhibits the reporting of the news?

I can’t help but think back a couple of decades to my college days. The editorial staff of a campus newspaper went out for a night of heavy underage drinking at the local bars. Several of them drank to excess. On their way home, while crossing the railroad tracks, they decided to play chicken with the 11:30 Amtrak. Five jumped – and the chronically-depressed alcoholic who wrote wonderful satires about campus life embraced the train like a long-desired lover. When the police arrived, his five companions refused to give statements to the police – claiming that as journalists it would compromise their ability to cover the death of their colleague, as well as the (never-to-be-written) feature on under-age drinking in local bars. Any other person making such a claim would have been charged with obstruction.

Now the reporters in the Plame case could, of course, make a Constitutional claim to avoid testifying. They could cite their rights under the Fifth Amendment to not incriminate themselves. After all, they are possibly going to have to admit their role in a criminal enterprise. But doing that would require them to concede that they did something wrong, something criminal. They want to avoid doing so at all costs, for that conflicts with their self-images as paladins out to forthrightly expose the truth. But what they are really out to do is cover up the truth for their own personal convenience.

Reynolds also points out the problem with creating a reporterÂ’s privilege.

Many people who support these privileges say that they would be limited to “real” journalists. But who decides when a journalist is real? If the government decides, isn't that like licensing the press, something the First Amendment was designed to prevent? And if journalists decide, isn't that likely to lead to a closed-shop, guild mentality at exactly the moment when citizen journalism by non-professionals is taking off? All sorts of people are reporting news via Web logs and the Internet. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same privilege?

Press freedom is for everyone, not just professionals. James Madison wrote about “freedom in the use of the press,” making clear that the First Amendment is for everyone who publishes, not just members of the professional-media guild.

Do we really want the government determining who is – and who is not – a journalist? Do we really want to give some bureaucrat the power to grant – or deny – a citizen the full rights guaranteed under the “free press” clause of the First Amendment? Because that will be precisely what will happen when government gets to decide that some folks are “journalists” and have greater rights than other citizens. Let's not create a royalty to whom the rules do not apply.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 4 kb.

Why isnÂ’t this story getting more play in the mainstream media?

Senators from both sides of the aisle competed on Monday to extol the humane treatment of detainees whom they said they saw on a weekend trip to the military detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. All said they opposed closing the center.

"I feel very good" about the detainees' treatment, Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said.

That feeling was also expressed by another Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
On Monday, Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, said he learned while visiting Guantánamo that some detainees "even have air-conditioning and semiprivate showers."

Another Republican, Senator Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, said soldiers and sailors at the camp "get more abuse from the detainees than they give to the detainees."

In the last month, several senators, including some Republicans, have suggested that Congress should investigate reports of abuses at the detention center or that the military should close it to remove a blot on the country's image.

Oh, I see – the conclusions reached by the Senators is in direct contradiction to the editorial position of the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets. Therefore it needs to be hidden (like this one, on page A-15) or ignored completely.

But don’t worry – the facts won’t get in the way of Amnesty International and the rest of the rest of the Left making condemnations.

An official of Amnesty International, Jumana Musa, dismissed the visits as "this little Congressional show and tell." Ms. Musa said the statements did not address what she called the inadequate investigation of reported abuses.

"Whether or not people are being fed orange chicken," Ms. Musa said, "does not get at the heart of the issue."

Actually, it does go to the heart of the issue. These terrorist scum are not being abused, tortured, or killed, despite the claims of those who wish to make Gitmo into a gulag or a concentration camp. And the charges are being investigated, as the very report used by Senator Durbin proves.

But when will little things like the truth get in the way of the the LeftÂ’s irresponsible charge.

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

Those who have watched or read Field of Dreams may remember the character “Moonlight” Graham.

On June 29, 1905, Moonlight Graham -- so nicknamed, some say, because of his insomnia -- made his single major-league appearance.

The North Carolina native played right field for the New York Giants for one or two innings and never got a chance to bat. Seeing his baseball career going nowhere, he quit to become a physician. In 1909 he took a train to Chisholm to answer an ad placed by Rood Hospital.

Moonlight Graham became Doc Graham -- married a local girl who taught at the school, and took care of the town's children for the next four decades or so. No kid who needed medicine, glasses, or a ticket to the ballgame ever went without. The story is beautiful -- and is one of those that makes America great.

As is said by Moonlight Graham in the book -- "Son, if I'd only got to be a doctor for five minutes, now that would have been a tragedy."

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Those who have watched or read Field of Dreams may remember the character “Moonlight” Graham.

On June 29, 1905, Moonlight Graham -- so nicknamed, some say, because of his insomnia -- made his single major-league appearance.

The North Carolina native played right field for the New York Giants for one or two innings and never got a chance to bat. Seeing his baseball career going nowhere, he quit to become a physician. In 1909 he took a train to Chisholm to answer an ad placed by Rood Hospital.

Moonlight Graham became Doc Graham -- married a local girl who taught at the school, and took care of the town's children for the next four decades or so. No kid who needed medicine, glasses, or a ticket to the ballgame ever went without. The story is beautiful -- and is one of those that makes America great.

As is said by Moonlight Graham in the book -- "Son, if I'd only got to be a doctor for five minutes, now that would have been a tragedy."

Posted by: Greg at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Some folks are just plain sick. I think this qualifies.

A 45-year-old Gardiner, Maine, man was arrested Sunday on criminal trespass charges after a teenage girl found him staring at her from below an outhouse seat, police said.

Police pulled Gary Moody from the waste tank under a log cabin outhouse off the Kancamagus Highway at about 12:30 p.m. Sunday.

"We had to decontaminate him," said Capt. Jon Hebert of the Carroll County Sheriff's Department, adding that firefighters hosed the man down before police handcuffed him.

"We treated him as if he were hazardous material," Hebert said.

Moody, 45, of Nash Road in Gardiner, was arrested Sunday in the area of the Lower Falls off the Kancamagus Highway in the White Mountain National Forest, a popular swimming hole. He was charged with criminal trespass. Police said he may face additional charges.

Sick sick sick sick sick!

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

1 So sick, RWR repeated the article post 5 times in a row!

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 29 15:02:18 2005 (3kXfE)

2 Yow! How did that happen?????

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 29 16:21:37 2005 (EZbJ8)

3 Ha. It did seem as though you wanted to get your point across, 5 times.

Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Jun 30 02:29:18 2005 (jhRit)

4 Must have been a LIBERAL!

Jooooooke!

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 30 15:22:45 2005 (r/FBF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Douglas Wood's manners have been called into question.

Apparently the Australian Left is upset because of the ‘boorish” behavior of the recently freed hostage. His offense? Calling the terrorists who held him hostage and executed the Iraqis held with him “assholes”. Or at least that is the view expressed by Andrew Japsan, the editor of The Age, Australia’s most left-wing major newspaper.

Said Jaspan: "I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood's use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."

You must be kidding. Kidnapped, threatened with death, forced to make a propaganda tape – that constitutes “treated well”?

And Japsan is not alone.

Consider Bob Ellis, who has written speeches and slogans for a collective of Left leaders such as Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, NSW Premier Bob Carr and Greens leader Bob Brown.

Ellis now praises Wood's kidnappers as "honourable men (with) a well-treated captive". Keysar Trad, spokesman for the Mufti, Sheik Taj el-Din el-Hilaly, also agreed Wood had been "well looked after".

The readers of The Age also have a few words to say.

“For those of us on the left, it’s a bummer that he didn’t come out and condemn the war,” wrote internet commentator Shay after Douglas Wood’s rescue. “But just because he’s not of our political persuasion doesn’t mean we should move into attack mode.” Ha! Wood’s fate was sealed as soon as he opted for “God bless America” over the more acceptable “Allah Akbar!” Loathing increased when he sold his story to the Ten Network. “Mercenary to the end,” shrieked one web-based hater. Another seethed: “You are lucky your captors had ethics and did not dispose of you.” The captors, who murdered their Iraqi hostages, had ethics? “Douglas Wood is a disgrace. He should hang his head in shame,” bitched one of many at The Age’s website. “He was profiteering from this wholesale slaughter,” yelped someone who might have been correct had his remark been directed at Saddam Hussein during his oil-for-food orgy with the United Nations. “I think the Woods are stupidly rich and that Douglas is the one who likes being rich best,” announced insightful Mike W. “Was he there helping Iraqis or was he there making money and working for the coalition?” asked Age reader Gregoire, unaware that it’s possible to do both.

And, of course, the real offense of Douglas Wood.

It seems that to a Leftist, this makes Wood the boorish inferior of the killers who beat him and held him captive. It is why journalist Tracee Hutchinson, in an Age column, calls him a "blustering buffoon", moaning: "It was enough that his words God bless America had been played over and over on his release."

Yep, that’s it – he dared to speak well of America. Such words are unacceptable to the Left.

Paging Mr. Rove.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

Hopefully we will see more suits of this kind -- and citizen success -- in this post-Kelo world. I mean if the government is going to say that your land is “only” worth $14,000 when it takes it but then turns around and sells it for over four times as much, they clearly were in error on the market value of the property.

In May 2004, the city's Redevelopment Agency, a state-approved board, was granted a court order to employ eminent domain - the government's right to seize property - for Shennett's lot.

Last week, Shennett said he learned for the first time in January that his property had been taken. The city sent him letters in 2004, but Shennett says he never got them.

During a hearing on the matter in Superior Court last week, a judge ruled that Shennett was never properly informed and that the commissioners who approved the $14,730 compensation price for the property must meet again and allow Shennett to get his own appraisal.

The Redevelopment Agency, meanwhile, sold the property to Wayne Asset Management of Kinnelon for $60,000 in December.

Despite the discrepancy in price, which has been a source of contention, the city has the right to pay Shennett less for the property than what it was sold for, said William Ward, a Florham Park attorney with the firm Carlin and Ward, which specializes in eminent domain cases.

The city claims that the difference is due to a zoning change that went through in order to enable the development, and that the law therefore allows it to pay Mr. Shennett the value at the time they seized it from him – prior to its own actions that allowed itself to see a 300% increase in value. In other words, the city artificially kept the value down through zoning. Once it found a buyer for the land, it acted to jack the price up to what the new buyer was willing to pay – and as the owner, it received the benefit of the new market value.

Oh, and did I neglect to include a bit about the developer.

In the meantime, Wayne Asset is building a new house on Shennett's property.

Wayne Asset is run by Wayne Alston, a former city councilman who in 1992 was charged by federal authorities with taking $6,000 in bribes from a city landlord and paying himself $15,000 in bonuses from state funds.

But a mistrial allowed Alston to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and he was sentenced to five months in prison and a year of supervised release

Dirty politician, getting favirs from (and giving them to?) his buddies who are still on the council.

Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

Hopefully we will see more suits of this kind -- and citizen success -- in this post-Kelo world. I mean if the government is going to say that your land is “only” worth $14,000 when it takes it but then turns around and sells it for over four times as much, they clearly were in error on the market value of the property.

In May 2004, the city's Redevelopment Agency, a state-approved board, was granted a court order to employ eminent domain - the government's right to seize property - for Shennett's lot.

Last week, Shennett said he learned for the first time in January that his property had been taken. The city sent him letters in 2004, but Shennett says he never got them.

During a hearing on the matter in Superior Court last week, a judge ruled that Shennett was never properly informed and that the commissioners who approved the $14,730 compensation price for the property must meet again and allow Shennett to get his own appraisal.

The Redevelopment Agency, meanwhile, sold the property to Wayne Asset Management of Kinnelon for $60,000 in December.

Despite the discrepancy in price, which has been a source of contention, the city has the right to pay Shennett less for the property than what it was sold for, said William Ward, a Florham Park attorney with the firm Carlin and Ward, which specializes in eminent domain cases.

The city claims that the difference is due to a zoning change that went through in order to enable the development, and that the law therefore allows it to pay Mr. Shennett the value at the time they seized it from him – prior to its own actions that allowed itself to see a 300% increase in value. In other words, the city artificially kept the value down through zoning. Once it found a buyer for the land, it acted to jack the price up to what the new buyer was willing to pay – and as the owner, it received the benefit of the new market value.

Oh, and did I neglect to include a bit about the developer.

In the meantime, Wayne Asset is building a new house on Shennett's property.

Wayne Asset is run by Wayne Alston, a former city councilman who in 1992 was charged by federal authorities with taking $6,000 in bribes from a city landlord and paying himself $15,000 in bonuses from state funds.

But a mistrial allowed Alston to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and he was sentenced to five months in prison and a year of supervised release

Dirty politician, getting favirs from (and giving them to?) his buddies who are still on the council.

Shame!

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.