Besides teaching World History to high Schoolers, i also teach a college level American Government class as part of a paralegal training program. One of the issues that we often get into at great length is the notion of whetehr the Constitution is a static or a dynamic document. Students often start out with the position that the Constitution is a living document -- until I ask them how many would accept the notion that their mortgage ageement was a living document that the bank could decide had "grown over time." Suddenly, I find myself in a room full of originalists.

Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at Texas A & M today on the Constitution and the merits of originalism over "living document" jurisprudence. Perhaps the most eloquent advocate of the originalist school, Scalia spoke forefully about the need to be bound by the meaning ascribed to the text by the Founders.

Scalia, who has been on the court since 1986, described himself as an "originalist," someone who thinks the Constitution means the same thing now as when it was first drafted.

Calling the idea of the living Constitution "terribly seductive" for judges, Scalia said originalism is the "only game in town."

"You either tell your judges to be bound by the original meaning of the Constitution or you evolve our Constitution the way you think is best," he said. "That is not a road that has a happy ending."

An unhappy road indeed, one on which there is no map and the landscape changes seemingly at random. We have seen all too many such cases over the last several years, notably the Lawrence and Simmons cases. Of most concern is that one can never know whose vision of the proper Constitutional landscape will be imagined on to such an evolving map.

Scalia also noted the danger inherrant in the notion that judicial appointees should be "moderate."

"We want a moderate judge. What in the world is a moderate judge?" he said. "What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution? Halfway between what it really says and what you'd like it to say?"

Perhaps one could say that moderation in the pursuit of constitutional change is no virtue, and extremism in the defense of original intent is no vice.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

Lady Thatcher's endorsement is good enough for me.

In a letter to Bolton made available to reporters on Thursday, Thatcher praised his candor and intellect and said she could not imagine anyone better suited for the job.

Bolton's nomination has been dogged by allegations that he bullied State Department subordinates and tried to pressure analysts to write reports that conform to his hard-line views.

Thatcher, nicknamed the "Iron Lady," told Bolton "how strongly" she supported him for the job, saying "on the basis of our years of friendship, I know from experience the great qualities you will bring to that demanding post."

"To combine, as you do, clarity of thought, courtesy of expression and an unshakable commitment to justice is rare in any walk of life. But it is particularly so in international affairs," Thatcher said.

"A capacity for straight talking rather than peddling half-truths is a strength and not a disadvantage in diplomacy," she added.

"Those same qualities are also required for any serious reform of the United Nations ... I cannot imagine anyone better fitted to undertake these tasks than you," she said, signing her letter "All good wishes, yours ever, Margaret."

Lady Thatcher, Presidnet Reagan, and Pope John Paul the Great brought down Communism. I defer to the wisdom of the last of those three giants on this nomination as UN Ambassador.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

There are some matters that are so clearly established inhistory that their denial is patently absurd. One of those is the historical fact that the Soviet Union illegally occupied and annexed the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940, and then again following World War II.

Russia has denied it illegally annexed the Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1940.

It has also rejected demands to admit illegally occupying the three countries at the end of World War II.

A Kremlin spokesman said Soviet troops were deployed with the agreement of the Baltic governments of the time.

Correspondents say the annexation issue has provoked a major diplomatic row as Russia prepares to host celebrations to mark the end of World War II in Europe.

Soviet authority was established in the Baltics in 1940.

German forces then held the states from 1941 until the Soviet army returned in 1945.

Russia has made defiant remarks on the issue of the occupation.

"There was no occupation. There were agreements at the time with the legitimately elected authorities in the Baltic countries," the Kremlin's European affairs chief Sergei Yastrzhembsky said on Thursday.

I guess i shouldn't be surprised by this stubborn refusal of the Putin government to concede the error of Russia's ways at the time of the Second World War. After all, Putin is a former KGB official and an admirer of Stalin, who has been undergoing something of a rehabilitation recently.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

You've got to love this police chief's twist on the state's criminal trespass law.

A small-town police chief used a criminal trespassing charge to try to turn back one illegal immigrant, saying he was frustrated that lax federal enforcement means "if you make it past the border patrol, you're free and clear."

New Ipswich Police Chief W. Garrett Chamberlain charged a Mexican citizen with criminal trespassing _ a violation comparable to a traffic ticket _ on April 15 after immigration officials refused to take him into custody.

Jorge Ramirez, 21, was having trouble with his sport utility vehicle and had pulled along a state road. When a police officer asked for identification, Ramirez admitted he was living in the United States illegally, working for a construction company.

Ramirez pleaded guilty to the trespassing charge as well as operating a vehicle without a valid license. He agreed to report to immigration authorities by Friday.

Chief Chamberlain says he was simply fed up with the fact that once a border jumper got across from the border, he or she is essentially "free and clear". As a result, he decided to take action.

Of course, the folks in charge of border enforement are upset that they are being made to do their jobs.

Paula Grenier, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, criticized the tactic.

"The police chief is choosing to use this alien to grandstand about illegal immigration," she said. "We prioritize our investigations on criminals and criminal networks that pose a threat."

Uh, Ms. Grenier. Ill concede that this was probably not someone who would have made your top 10,000 list of wanted border jumpers. However, once the guy was in custody it would not have required any further investigation on your agencey's part to DRIVE YOUR ASS to New Ipswich to take the guy into custody. That, however, seems to be a task that put a strain on your priorities, so now you are whining about the fact that Ramirez is coming to you to be processed under a court order.. I bet if we eliminated a spokeswoman slot, there would be an actual working agent to handle the matter. Please clear your desk and pack up your office so that the real work of ICE (which is not generating press releases) can be done.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | Comments (69) | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

The Battle of Puebla was slightly important when it happened. In Mexico today, it is still a national holiday -- but has roughly the significance of Flag Day here in the United States. But for some reason, the date -- May 5 AKA Cinco de Mayo -- is treated like it is the most significant day in Mexican history.

In Mexico, Cinco de Mayo passes virtually without fanfare — nothing near the events for its Independence Day.

Most of the festivities take place in Mexico City and all over Puebla state, where the battle celebrated that day took place.

Cinco de Mayo honors the 1862 Battle of Puebla, where Mexican forces overcame better-equipped French forces who invaded the country demanding repayment of loans from the 1846-48 Mexican-American War.

In the United States, however, today is a day of merriment: full-blown celebrations for Anglos, Mexican-Americans and anyone else who wants to partake in the food, music and dance.

"Nowhere is Cinco de Mayo celebrated nearly as enthusiastically as it is in the U.S.," barks a Mexico Tourism Board news release.

So I'm going to celebrate it like most Mexicans -- by ignoring it completely.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

If these charges prove true, I hope that Lawrence Frankiln and his handlers are dealt with harshly.

A Pentagon policy analyst, under investigation for passing U.S. secrets to Israel, was arrested Wednesday and charged with disclosing classified information about U.S. troops in Iraq to two former members of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the Justice Department said.

A criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday against Lawrence Franklin, 58, a specialist on Iran and a Defense Department employee since 1979, also alleges that he made unauthorized disclosures to a "foreign official" and to unidentified members of the media.

Franklin also was charged with storing dozens of other classified documents — with dates spanning his three decades of government service — at his home in West Virginia without previous approval. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, if convicted.

The charges against Franklin are the first stemming from a more than two-year FBI investigation that has raised questions about U.S. relations with a long-standing ally and the activities of one of the most influential lobby groups in Washington.

While I may support Israel's existance and acknowledge her importance as an ally, I will not excuse the betrayal of our country by those seeking to assist her. I join Michelle Malkin in her challenge to other conservatives to be as tough on Franklin as they were on Sandy Berger.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not going to get into the rude behavior of the folks who protested Ann Coulter last night in Austin. I'm not going to point out that fart noises, gestures of mastubation, nise-makers, and obscene questions are beyond the bounds of civility in a polite society. I won't even argue that such folks deserve to be removed from the university community for antics which disgraced the school, showing them unfit for higher education.

No, I want to focus on the bias of The Daily Texan in reporting on the speech and the opponents of freedom who disrupted it.

First, there was the news story.

Incessant heckling and shouting culminated in an arrest Tuesday night during a speech by Ann Coulter, an extreme right-wing pundit, at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum.

Shouts became so pervasive during the question-and-answer session that Coulter informed the organizers she would no longer take questions if the hecklers were not silenced. For a time, the shouts were considerably lessened, until the issue of gay marriage was broached.

Coulter said she supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman on the basis that a good woman civilizes and inspires a man to strive for something better, leading to a question that was met with a stunned silence

Then there was the opinion column.

To be honest, I was surprised there weren't more protesters.

When the auditorium filled up to see Ann Coulter last night, I only saw about 15 people in the back with signs. They looked like the usual protest crowd. Earth tones, shaggy hair, somber faces, folks who have their own wipe-board signs to adapt for every situation.

I guess for a conventional extremist like Ann Coulter there is no good rallying point for the local upstarts. She does not particularly irritate any specific campus community.

She just generally rubs all liberals the wrong way. Yet, one can always rely on that most reliable of protest groups, the one-size-fits all International Socialist Organization.

Who gets labeled in politically unflattering terms? Is it the folks who engage in low-grade terrorism to prevent free speech in a public place? Or is it their victim?

It is, of course, An Coulter, not the folks who deserve to be labeled as totalitarians-in-training for their attempt at speech suppression.

Maybe this is an issue that needs to be examined by the UT administration -- the failure of the journalism department to teach proper journalistic standards like fairness and balance, and the failure of the school paper to implement them.

UPDATE: For another overwrought view of AnnCoulter, visit here.

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

I spent the morning running my darling wife around to doctors and x-rays after she took a nasty spill this morning. While we are still waiting for results, we're pretty confident that she will be quickly on the mend. Given her health issues, though, I cannot help but be concerned that one day she will seriously hurt. That is why this story touches me in a special way, and chills me to the bone.

Evelyn Roberts, the 88-year-old wife of evangelist Oral Roberts, injured her head in a fall and was comatose today at a California hospital.

Roberts, who lives with her husband in California, fell en route to a dental appointment Tuesday and struck her head on the ground, said Jeremy Burton, spokesman for Tulsa-based Oral Roberts University.

She briefly lost consciousness after the fall and was taken to a hospital where tests revealed internal bleeding, Burton said. She fell into a coma a short time later.

"The Roberts family is asking the public to pray for Evelyn and their family," Burton said.

I know some may argue about Oral Roberts' theology and his politics. My response is that all of that is simply irrelevant. At a time like this, all of those things need to be set aside out of love for fellow human beings who are scared and hurting.

May God's will be done.

UPDATE: Mrs. Roberts passed away Wednesday evening. May God be mercful to her as she enters his Kingdom, and may he shower the Roberts family with comfort at this time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 09:11 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

It is well known that the Democrat head of Broward County Elections, Miriam Oliphant, was an incompetent boob. She and her half-assed staff screwed up multiple elections, until she was removed by Governor Jeb Bush, who appointed a capable relacement. Now Oliphant is suing Bush, claiming that she was fired because she was a black female.

Former Broward County elections supervisor Miriam Oliphant said Wednesday she will sue Gov. Jeb Bush in federal court, claiming that race was a factor his decision to remove her from office amid allegations of negligence and a botched 2002 primary.

"My civil rights have been violated and my constitutional rights have been violated by the state of Florida," Oliphant said.

Oliphant and her attorney, Ellis Rubin, announced the lawsuit one day after the state Senate voted 32-7 along racial lines to uphold Bush's 2003 decision to suspend Oliphant, who is black. Oliphant's supporters in the Senate argued that she was singled out even though white election supervisors in other counties also made mistakes in the 2002 election.

"Yes, there are racial overtones to this whole matter and we intend to bring those before a federal judge," Rubin told reporters. He said the lawsuit would seek millions of dollars in damages but did not specify an exact amount.

Oh, by the way, the replacement appointed by the governor was former school administrator Brenda Snipes, a black female Democrat who defeated Oliphant and several other candidates in the 2004 election.

Hey, I've got it -- she needs to sue the voters of Broward County as well!

Posted by: Greg at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's see. Every poll shows the Americna public opposed to it. Every vote of the people on the matter has brought about a ban on it. But a third state Democrat party is about to embrace homosexual marriage.

The state Democratic Party plans to endorse same-sex marriage next week, just days before the first anniversary of legal gay weddings in Massachusetts, the party's chairman said.

The party's 3,000 delegates will gather at the Tsongas Arena in Lowell on May 14 to add the endorsement to its platform, state chairman Philip Johnston told The Boston Globe.
``I don't anticipate any serious debate about it,'' he said. ``I think most delegates will support it. In this state, the more people get used to the idea, the more support there is.''

Gay weddings began in Massachusetts last May 17, making it the first state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples and sparking a national backlash.

Voters in 11 states have since approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, bringing the number of states with such bans to 18. In addition, 24 states have enacted legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now this is the state that gives us John Kerry Ted kennedy, and Barney Frank -- with Kerry being the most conservative of the three -- so I'm not surprised to see the party proclaiming "We're outside the mainstream of American values!" I know this will be one more albatross around the neck of John Kerry in 2008, and will have to be dealt with by every Democrat running for president that year.

Posted by: Greg at 08:18 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

The friendly folks at Fresh Politics share their take on this bit from National Review.

College administrators have been enthusiastic supporters Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues and schools across the nation celebrate “V-Day” (short for Vagina Day) every year. But when the College Republicans at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island rained on the celebrations of V-Day by inaugurating Penis Day and staging a satire called The Penis Monologues, the official reaction was horror. Two participating students, Monique Stuart and Andy Mainiero, have just received sharp letters of reprimand and have been placed on probation by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The costume of the P-Day “mascot” — a friendly looking “penis” named Testaclese, has been confiscated and is under lock and key in the office of the assistant dean of student affairs, John King.

You have got to read about the over-reaction of the administration to this satire by the ever-outrageous Roger Williams University College Republicans. The free speech implications here are clear, given the officially sponsored antics of the Vagina Warriors who put on The Vagina Monologues.

And remember -- unlike the last censorship case I wrote on involving the play, this involves college students on a college campus.

I'm particularly amused by the administrator who thought that Testacles was a giant mushroom.

UPDATE: For additional commentary, visit Joanne Jacobs, Number 2 Pencil, The Education Wonks, and Moonbat Central.

UPDATE 2: Here is a really funny take on the play and the story.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

One reality that depresses this history teacher is that too many Americans do not understand the fundamental evils that were Nazism and fascism. Take these little cretins from Middlebury College.

The controversy began when the college announced on March 10 that Mr. Giuliani had been selected as the commencement speaker because "of his actions on 9/11," said Mr. Benoit.

The rest of the episode goes like this: Ben Gore, a senior Middlebury student from Maryland, wrote an opinion piece, "Giuliani Is a Punk, Un-invite Him," that assailed the former mayor's legacy and referred to him as a "racist," which many students find "morally reprehensible." Though Mr. Gore wrote that Mr. Giuliani was "coming to be considered a fascist," before Sept. 11, he did not take the leap of comparing Mr. Giuliani to Hitler. That was left to the retouched photo that ran next to the column [run at the direction of editor Andrea Gissing], which depicted Mr. Giuliani with a Hitler-style haircut and mustache giving a Nazi salute.

I donÂ’t suppose that either of these historically illiterate individuals would care to offer examples that actually constitute fascist or Nazi tendencies on the part of Mayor Giuliani. You know, just one or two things that might justify identifying him with two of the most malignant ideologies that scarred the twentieth century. I suggest that they would be unable to tell us what the defining characteristics of those two movements might be, much less frame a coherent argument as to how the former mayor of our nationÂ’s largest city fit within either. And I do not say that as a Rudy fan, because I have my own criticisms of the man.

No, the problem that exists today is that there is a segment of the American population that has decided that the words “Nazi” and “fascist” mean “people who dare to disagree with my political ideology.” Thus clearing the streets of aggressive panhandlers and squeegee-men is no different than the industrialized genocide conducted at Auschwitz. Opposition to terrorism, in the eyes of such individuals, is no different than the brutal suppression of political dissent. The irony is that their abuse of such loaded historical terms is a form of McCarthyism and red-baiting, a practice which they would no doubt condemn if we were to label their left-wing ideology as Communist – the third malignant ideology of the twentieth century, and the one which caused the most damage.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

IsnÂ’t Egyptology fun. It seems like there is always something new and interesting to find when you deal with a civilization that spanned three millennia! Even though this is from a relatively late period of Egyptian history (I'm not sure if it is Ptolemaic or if it is slightly earlier, given the date in question) , it is still fascinating.

SAQQARA, Egypt (AP) - A superbly maintained 2,300-year-old mummy bearing a golden mask and covered in brightly colored images of gods and goddesses was unveiled Tuesday at Egypt's Saqqara Pyramids complex south of Cairo.

The unidentified mummy, from the 30th pharaonic dynasty, had been closed in a wooden sarcophagus and buried in sand at the bottom of a 20-foot shaft before being discovered recently by an Egyptian-led archaeological team.

"We have revealed what may be the most beautiful mummy ever found in Egypt," Zahi Hawass, chief of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, said as he helped excavators remove the sarcophagus' lid to show off the find.

Hawass said experts will use CT scanning technology within the next week to reveal more details about the ancient Egyptian's identity and he had lived and died.

Afterward, the mummy will be displayed at Saqqara's museum of Imhotep, the famed architect who designed the Stepped Pyramid - Egypt's oldest.

The mummy, found two months ago, was covered from head to toe in brightly colored cartonage burial material depicting a range of graphic scenes, including the Goddess Maat of balance and truth who was shown with outstretched arms that took the shape of feathered wings.

Also shown were the four children of the falcon-headed god, Horus, and the rituals and processes to mummify the person, who Hawass believed must have been wealthy considering his burial location and fine gold used for the mummy's mask.

"The artists who made this mummy more than 2,000 years ago demonstrated the brilliance of the ancient Egyptians by using stunning colors and depicting his face so graphically," Hawass said.

The mummy had been buried within the necropolis of King Teti, a funerary area containing scores of burial chambers, false doors that ancient Egyptians said the souls of the dead would use to leave their tombs, and temples.

The necropolis is built alongside the collapsed pyramid of Teti, who ruled during ancient Egypt's 6th dynasty, more than 4,300 years ago. Hawass said a "lost" pyramid had been located in the Saqqara area and would be uncovered after two months.

Saqqara, located about 12 miles south of Cairo, is one of Egypt's most popular tourist sites and hosts a collection of temples, tombs and funerary complexes.

It is stuff like this that makes me long for a summer on a dig in Egypt.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m positively dumbfounded by the naiveté displayed by the ordinarily rational columnist for the New York Times

Bill Frist should have taken the deal.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

Reid couldn't put this offer in writing because it would outrage liberal interest groups. Frist said he'd think about it, but so far he's let it drop — even though clearing the way for a Supreme Court pick is one of the GOP goals in this dispute.

First, the reason that Reid wouldn’t put the agreement in writing is that he would never follow through with it. The Democrats will try to prevent any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court – especially if it is a female or minority nominee.

Second, Reid wanted to block some of the most qualified nominees – Brown, Owen, and Pryor – who would be likely future Supreme Court picks. Why should Frist agree to hamstring the current president or his successor by agreeing to keep these judges off the bench when doing so means conceding to the unconstitutional acts of the Senate Democrats.

Third, establishing the principle that the minority gets to determine what judges are acceptable in the face of majority support is antithetical to the will of the people. The Democrats have not come out on top in a national election since 1996, and haven’t controlled Congress since 1994. They have been rejected in every election since then. For the party supported by the people to surrender to those opposed to the people’s will would be a rank betrayal of the electorate.

No, don’t compromise – go nuclear.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m positively dumbfounded by the naiveté displayed by the ordinarily rational columnist for the New York Times

Bill Frist should have taken the deal.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

Reid couldn't put this offer in writing because it would outrage liberal interest groups. Frist said he'd think about it, but so far he's let it drop — even though clearing the way for a Supreme Court pick is one of the GOP goals in this dispute.

First, the reason that Reid wouldn’t put the agreement in writing is that he would never follow through with it. The Democrats will try to prevent any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court – especially if it is a female or minority nominee.

Second, Reid wanted to block some of the most qualified nominees – Brown, Owen, and Pryor – who would be likely future Supreme Court picks. Why should Frist agree to hamstring the current president or his successor by agreeing to keep these judges off the bench when doing so means conceding to the unconstitutional acts of the Senate Democrats.

Third, establishing the principle that the minority gets to determine what judges are acceptable in the face of majority support is antithetical to the will of the people. The Democrats have not come out on top in a national election since 1996, and havenÂ’t controlled Congress since 1994. They have been rejected in every election since then. For the party supported by the people to surrender to those opposed to the peopleÂ’s will would be a rank betrayal of the electorate.

No, don’t compromise – go nuclear.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 2 kb.

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Janice Rogers Brown was born the daughter of sharecroppers in the segregated South. She has risen to the top of her profession, earning the respect of supporters and (most) opponents along the way. Yet her nomination remains bottled up in the Senate, as Democrats are afraid to allow a vote on a candidate supported by the majority of Senators.

What is it in her judicial philosophy that they fear? It would appear to be her staunch defense of freedom.

LetÂ’s examine some of her opinions. There is her dissent in San Remo Hotel vs. San Francisco (2002).

Consider her dissent in San Remo Hotel vs. San Francisco (2002), a case that upheld the extortionate fee that San Francisco charges owners of small residential hotels if they want to rent rooms to tourists instead of housing the homeless. Brown noted that these mostly mom-and-pop businesses are "a relatively powerless group" that have been arbitrarily singled out for social- welfare duty. The Fifth Amendment, she observed, prohibits government from forcing "some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."

She reminded her colleagues that "the free use of private property is just as important as ... speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion."

Notice, she is defending the right of individuals to control the use of their property free of unreasonable government interference. That view is contained in the US Constitution itself, and is only controversial if one accepts the socialist premise that the government has the ultimate right to determine the best use of your property. Her view is the same as that espoused by Madison, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders.

Of course, perhaps they object to People vs. McKay (2002), in which Justice Brown noted that the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is meaningless if a police officer can use as a pretext trivial offenses that are based less on public safety than on the color of the arrested individualÂ’s skin.

Her libertarian impulse was displayed in her dissent in People vs. McKay (2002), concerning a bicyclist, riding against traffic, who was pulled over by police. When the cyclist failed to produce identification, he was arrested and searched. The court's decision upholding this action, Brown concluded, stretched Fourth Amendment protections to the breaking point. "If full custodial arrest is authorized for trivial offenses, the power to search should be constrained," she wrote.

She also saw a larger issue, involving race: "I do not know Mr. McKay's ethnic background. One thing I would bet on: he was not riding his bike a few doors down from his home in Bel Air, or Brentwood, or Rancho Palos Verdes -- places where no resident would be arrested for riding the 'wrong way' on a bicycle whether he had his driver's license or not. Well ... it would not get anyone arrested unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood."

Or maybe it is her controlling opinion in Hi-Voltage Wireworks vs. San Jose (2000) that frightens her detractors, holding as it does that the underlying principle of civil-rights law is equality of opportunity for individuals, not equality of result for different groups.

Brown's belief that no one should be treated less equally because of skin color is recorded most strongly in Hi-Voltage Wireworks vs. San Jose, a 2000 case that enforced Proposition 209, the measure banning race and sex favoritism by state and local government. She wrote the controlling opinion striking down a public-works program that gave preferential treatment based on race. She quoted the late Yale Law School Professor Alexander Bickel: "[D]iscrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." Prop. 209, Brown wrote, embodies the civil-rights principle: "equal opportunity for all individuals," not "entitlement based on group representation."

If one reads these opinions fairly, it is impossible to see anything other than a judge who is faithful to her duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And maybe that is what the Left-Wing Extremists who control the Democrat Party fear. These forces are aware that their extreme philosophy is rejected by the majority of Americans, and that the route to enshrining their ideology in American law is through the decree of judges who will place those principles beyond the reach of the American people and their elected representatives by declaring them to be part of an ever evolving, changing and unknowable (except to liberal judges) Constitution that bears little resemblance to the document displayed in the National Archives. That makes the filibuster of Justice BrownÂ’s nomination (and those of her fellow nominees) a supreme act of ideological arrogance that must be ended by the Senate majority at the earliest opportunity.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 816 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, there seem to be no important issues for the California legislature to deal with this session. How can I tell? I think the introduction and debate of this proposed law is a pretty good indication.

California, home of the first company to offer made-to-order pet clones, would become the first state in the country to ban the sale of cloned and genetically engineered companion animals under proposed legislation.
The bill, authored by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, is driven by a philosophical position that custom-making pets isn't a worthy use of biotechnology.
"There's no social benefit," Levine said. "Just because we can doesn't mean we should."
The bill is scheduled to be heard Tuesday in Room 127 of the Capitol before the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.

Now I can partially agree with Levine over this. I donÂ’t see a great social benefit to cloning pets or engaging in genetic engineering of animals for pleasure. But the mere fact that there is no social benefit doesnÂ’t mean that the state can or should ban an activity. After all, I donÂ’t see any public benefit in driving a Hummer, voting Democrat or watching reruns of Seinfeld, but I oppose banning such them on the grounds that people have the right to make stupid choices. The same is true here. If IÂ’ve got $50,000 to blow making a carbon copy of my adorable pound puppy, then it isnÂ’t the business of the legislature to interfere.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | Comments (91) | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

So, pro-terrorist ex-Congressman Pete McCloskey (who urged Americans to vote for Kerry last November) and a group of “Republican elders” are trying to find a candidate to run against my congressman, Tom DeLay. They even met with a former primary opponent (DeLay beat him by a 4-to-1 margin) who ran as an independent last time around, finishing 3rd in a 4-way race (I believe he beat the Libertarian).

"Tom DeLay is an embarrassment to the Republican Party," said McCloskey, who represented Northern California from 1967 to 1983.

He met Sunday with Michael Fjetland, who was defeated by DeLay in Republican primaries in 2000 and 2002 and as an independent in the 2004 general election.

McCloskey is one of nine former congressmen who have formed an informal group he called the "revolt of the elders," to oppose congressmen who they think are guilty of ethics violations.

"Nobody can come into a Texas district and tell the voters who to support," McCloskey said.

But, he added, that just as DeLay raises money from outside the district, his opponents in the next election will also probably get national support.

Interestingly enough, the Chronicle article leaves out a crucial detail – the identity of these other eight “Republican elders” who are trying to determine who will represent me in Congress. It seems to me that it would be in the public interest for the Chronicle to tell us who they are, but doing so might interfere with their DeLay-bashing. And besides, if they were all identified it might allow readers to conclude that the so-called “Republican elders” are outside the mainstream of the GOP.

UPDATE: My friends over at Lone Star Times have a couple of great pieces on McCloskey and Fjetland. No word, though, on who the "Republican elders" are -- which would be of interest to this 22nd Congressional District GOP Precinct Chair.

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

American defense officials redacted elements of the "Sgrena Incident" investigation when it was released. Unfortunately, the PDF version of the report still contained the redacted text in hidden form, and the Italian newspapers are glad to tell you how to get it. The revealed material includes basic operational details and deployment information regarding American forces.

According to Slashdot, the following information has been put into the public domain by the Italian press.

* An itemization of IEDs and VBIEDs deployment techniques which have been most effective,

* An analysis of the tactical strengths and weaknesses of specific checkpoints along "Route Irish",

* Combat readiness assesment of the units and soldiers involved,

* A detailed description of how the checkpoint is laid out,

* Exact grid locations of various assets.

* Details of how checkpoint searches are set up and executed

* Details of how checkpoints are expected to deal with approaching vehicles, including threat assesment methods.

* A statistical analysis of "normal" traffic approaching the checkpoint.

* It names the soldiers involved and details the specific actions taken by those soldiers. It names the soldier who killed Calipari.

* It briefly describes U.S. Embassy procedures for transporting VIPs along Route Irish and in general.

* It details movement of U.S. and Italian Embassy personnel.

* It describes possible future procedures and configurations for checkpoints.

In other words, our putative Italian "allies" are all too willing to put into general circulation information that will make it easier for terrorists to conduct operations that could kill American military personnel and diplomats, Iraqi leaders and citizens, and foreign VIPs.

But I guess we shouldn't be surprised -- Old Europe's elite have always been against any action that brings freedom to oppressed people.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

Posted by: Greg at 09:09 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, I guess I'll be adding Bruce Springsteen to my personal boycott list.

Why?

Because of Springsteen's response to a shouted comment at his Glendale Arena concert in Phoenix, Arizona last night.

He ad-libbed a "That's right" after one audience member yelled "(Expletive) the president" at one point.

(Expletive) Springsteen!

That's right.

Posted by: Greg at 08:37 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that even I am shocked by the cynicism displayed in this article.

God does not side with the Republicans, Sen. John Kerry said in a fiery speech last week, accusing Republican leaders of politicizing religion to further their agenda.

This week, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy quoted Jesus from the Bible. It was a rebuttal, he said, of Republicans' claims that Democrats are “against people of faith.”

And Rep. John Olver, an Amherst Democrat, said he's considered buying an “anthology of good biblical quotations,” which he'd use to neutralize Republicans' religious references.

Am I the only one who thinks that Olver might do better to buy (and read) an actual BIBLE rather than an "anthology of good biblical quotations"?

And am I the only one put in mind of the Fourth Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew when Kennedy said that his ability to quote scripture is proof that Democrats are not "against people of faith"?

1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"
5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple,
6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"
8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
9 And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."
10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"
11 Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

Notice, please, that even the devil can quote Scripture. So, too, do these "Matthew 4 Democrats", if they think that it will further their agenda.

Posted by: Greg at 06:25 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

I liked John Cornyn when he was on the Texas Supreme Court. I supported Cornyn when he ran for Attorney General here in Texas, and think he did a great job in that office. And I gladly campaigned for him during his Senate run in 2002, and have had no regrets since then. But now his website gives me one more reason to like Cornyn's style. It's the new Name That Speaker feature, which provides anti-filibuster quotes from a number of amnesiac Democrats.

[Cornyn spokesman Don] Stewart has built an arsenal of quotes culled from 13 years of congressional records showing Democrats speaking out against the filibuster, which the minority party uses to slow down actions of the majority.

In Cornyn's game, quotes are posted on his Web site ( cornyn.senate.gov/namethatspeaker), and political Webheads guess who said them.

Stewart has about 60 quotes ready to go. The ones he used in the inaugural week were uttered by Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara Boxer of California, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Cornyn said the Web postings are "informative and use humor" to make a point.

So drop buy and view the best in Democrat arguments in favor of using the "constitutional option" to secure confirmation of judicial nominees supported by a majority of the US Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 03:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Can you believe this outrageous quote from has-been Democrat Mario Cuomo?

Cuomo, in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, said Senate Republicans "are threatening to claim ownership of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, hoping to achieve political results on subjects like abortion, stem cells, the environment and civil rights that they cannot get from the proper political bodies."

Uh, Mario, that has been the strategy of the liberals for the last half century or more. When the people and the political branches oppose a liberal article of faith, get the judges to impose it as a matter of unalterable "constitutional law." How do you think we got the most liberal abortion laws on the face of the earth? How do you think homosexual marriage and civil unions got into place? Liberals used courts to get them all, because "they cannot get [them] from the proper political bocies" without judicial coercion.

Posted by: Greg at 03:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Professor Steven Calabresi argues that the Democrats have already won the battle to keep conservative women, minorities, and Catholics off the Supreme Court by their use of the filibuster against Bush Appellate nominees. Miguel Estrada has withdrawn himself from consideration. Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl have yet to be confirmed, though Pryor sits on the bench through a recess appointment. He presumes that the failure of the Senate to confirm these judges is grounds for keeping them off the Supreme Court, noting that only older white men are mentioned as possible nominees in the event of a Supreme Court resignation or death. I disagree with Calabresi, but let me come back to that later.

This has happened, of course, due to the desire of Democrats to avoid the appointment of a certain kind of justice to the Supreme Court.

When George W. Bush became president in 2001, the legal left and the Democratic Party rallied around the slogan "No more Clarence Thomases." By that they meant that they would not allow any more conservative African Americans, Hispanics, women, or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments. The Democrats have done such a good job of this that, today, the only names being floated as serious Supreme Court nominees are those of white men.

This is what is at stake in the fight that rages now over whether the filibuster of judges gets abolished. Leading Democratic activists like Bruce Ackerman have called on Senate Democrats never to allow another Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. If they succeed in establishing the proposition that it takes 60 instead of 51 votes to get on the Supreme Court, conservatives can forget about ever again appointing a Scalia or a Thomas.

On this point, I agree. Compromise with the Democrats, never a good idea when we are dealing with principle or constitutional matters, is impossible on this point. Senate Republicans need to choke the life out of the filibuster of judicial nominees now, for that tactic will surely be used this summer when Chief Justice Rehnquist (presumably) will resign due to ill health. The nation's highest court, the only one actually established by the Constitution, must not be allowed to continue to be a tool of the political minority.

More to the point, the Democrats must not be allowed to post a metaphorical "No Conservative Minorities Allowed" sign on the bench of our nation's highest court.

Why are Senate Democrats so afraid of conservative judicial nominees who are African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, and women? Because these Clarence Thomas nominees threaten to split the Democratic base by aligning conservative Republicans with conservative voices in the minority community and appealing to suburban women. The Democrats need Bush to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court whom they can caricature and vilify, and it is much harder for them to do that if Bush nominates the judicial equivalent of a Condi Rice rather than a John Ashcroft.

Conservative African-American, Hispanic, Catholic, and female judicial candidates also drive the left-wing legal groups crazy because they expose those groups as not really speaking for minorities or women. They thus undermine the moral legitimacy of those groups and drive a wedge between the left-wing leadership of those groups and the members they falsely claim to represent.

These are mainstream jurists with mainstream political philosophies. Most have been handily reelected to judicial office by the voters of their states, or confirmed handily for District Court seats by the Senate. There is no reason for them not to be confirmed. But what Senate Democrats do not realize is that they may be creating their own worst nightmare. I hope President Bush simply bumps one of these nominees up to the Supreme Court.

Some of you may ask how that could happen. After all, they don't have Circuit Court experience. My response is that the lack of such experience is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Sandra Day O'Connor was a state judge in Arizona at the time of her nomination. William Brennan was a state Supreme Court justice in New Jersey. William Rehnquist was an assistant attorney general. Earl Warren was governor of California. Hugo Black was a US Senator from Alabama. I could name others as well, but I think you see the point. Experience on the federal bench is not now and never has been a requirement to be nominated to the Supreme Court -- and each of those I mention is considered to be a great or near great justice.

Now here is where I disagree with Calabresi. I do not think that some of these potential Supreme Court nominees need be taken out of consideration. Justice Janice Rogers Brown and Justice Priscilla Owens have current background checks, have had hearings and Judiciary Committee votes in recent weeks. There is no need to reinvent the wheel with either of them. George W. Bush could take a stand and make the nomination to the Supreme Court and justify it with the state Supreme Court experience and the complete record that has been compiled for the current confirmation battle. Hearings could be abbreviated (after all, what more is there to bring out?), and the new justice seated quickly. That would be the ideal moment for the nuclear option to be used.

For that matter, the president could let it be known privately that the nominee had better be approved quickly, lest his replacement nominee be even less palatable and more bulletproof. Who might the nominee be? Either Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, whose criticism of Owens while he was a Texas Supreme Court justice is used as an excuse to hold up her nomination and who was recently confirmed; or Senator John Cornyn, who like Gonzalez is also a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court and whose status as a Senator would make him difficult for Senate Democrats to reject. Rather than allow either of the alternatives to be put forward, Democrats would likely fold their hand and give in.

(Hat Tip -- Southern Appeal)

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1038 words, total size 7 kb.

Principal John Brucato of Milford High School in Milford, Massachusetts, sees the issue as a very clear one. The shirts that a few students wore to school on Tuesday were inapporpiate, and had to go.

"It's analogous to somebody wearing a slogan T-shirt that's an advertisement for drugs or alcohol -- that's against our philosophy," he said.

What were the horrendous words on the shirts? Why, they were pro-life messages. They said that "Abortion Kills" and "Abortion Is Homicide".

In Brucato's defense, he was merely upholding a school policy that reads as follows.

The Milford High School Student Handbook states, "Individual attire that is disruptive to the educational process or causes distraction to others will not be tolerated. Inappropriate dress will be defined as any clothing/accessory that disrupts the regular learning process and leads to distraction or is offensive, vulgar or provocative to other students, faculty, staff or administration."

It also details the banned items as, "clothing which displays tobacco or alcohol advertising, profanity, racial slurs, disruptive images or words, drug or gang related symbols" and "offensive images or words that would be considered socially, culturally or ethically inappropriate and disrupt the educational process."

Unfortunately, that would appear to conflict with the following two policies. There is this one.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is generally known as the First Amendment, and it was extended to cover state actors, including school districts, by the Fourteenth Amendment, as is noted in Tinker v. Des Moines.

The other may be found here in the Massachusetts Constitution.

Article XVI. Liberty of the Press; Freedom of Speech. - The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restained in this commonwealth. The right of free speech shall not be abridged.

That amendment is further amplified in Pyle v. School Committee of South Hadley

The principal, though, claims that the message on the shirts worn by a couple of high school girls caused a disruption. His evidence?

Principal John Brucato said about three or four students brought the shirts to the attention of Assistant Principal Kevin Maines.

"They were very upset that these slogan T-shirts were being displayed by kids," Brucato said. "One was upset enough to have left school and maybe a couple of others visited the adjustment counselor."

Brucato said it is his job to protect all students and he does not believe anyone's rights were violated.

"Everybody has a right to self-expression, however the law states very clearly that school buildings are limited open forums for self-expression," Brucato said. "The reason the law states that is because it grants school authorities the ability to protect everybody as a whole."

So, Principal Brucato, the fact that you have three or four kids who don't like the message is enough to shut that message down? It strikes me that the problem is the failure of your school to teach the principles contained in the First amendment and Article XVI. After all, these students should know that the right the mere fact that they are offended or upset is not a basis for the government to prohibit speech. Heck, I'm rather concerned that you are unaware of the controlling legal principles here.

So tell me, sir, objectively, what was wrong with these shirts? Not the subjective issue of "someone got upset and complained," but an actual objective standard that applies so that these students would have known that the shirts were a violation of the policy. Your own words indicate that there isn't one.

Under your explanation, a couple of Yankees fans could come to you sniffling and weeping and you would have to ban Red Sox jerseys and t-shirts from your school. All they have to do is claim to be distraught and offended. I'm sure your Muslim students will be glad to know that they can ban any Christian expression in school in precisely the same manner. And of course, you have now given the students on your campus who oppose homosexuality the tool they need to shut down any pro-homosexual propagandizing by their classmates -- they just need to burst out in tears and beg to see the "adjustment counselor." After all,such messages would have caused a disruption of similar size and nature, and you are supposed to "protect everybody as a whole."

And that is what you said in explaining why you don't believe this is a free speech case.

"These young ladies have the right to express their views and opinions -- they have not been denied those rights," he said. "What we said simply was this type of advertisement is offensive to others in the community. I've been consistent. If even one or two individuals finds something offensive I'm going to ask that individual to remove it. I'm exercising my authority and judgment as a school administrator to administrate to the population as a whole."

Principal Brucato, you had better be damned even-handed in the future, because you have set the standard here -- having knowledge of one or two individuals complaining now REQUIRES that you apply EXACTLY THE SAME STANDARD in every case. You are no longer the principal of Milford High School -- you are the Supreme Censor. Enjoy your new role.

My closing comment is this -- I admire the young ladies in question, and think they behaved appropriately in this case. While I would have liked to have read that Amanda Chattman, Autumn Gerami and their classmates had told Supreme Censor Brucato to take a flying leap, I understand their reluctance to do so. The article does not make clear what disciplinary threat Brucato bullied them with to get them to forego the liberties guaranteed them under not merely one, but two separate constitutions, so I cannot judge if they surrendered their freedom too cheaply. I just hope that they do pursue the litigation that is clearly warranted, and that in the mean time they hold Brucato's feet to the fire by monitoring what other messages are allowed and by making complaints regarding ANY they find offensive (and maybe even a few they really don't, just to make the point). Good luck, girls!

Posted by: Greg at 05:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1085 words, total size 7 kb.

Not long ago, The UK's Association of University Teachers decided to boycott two Israeli Universityies and examine the possibility of expanding that boycott to cover all Israeli schools. There has been an uproar since then, and now it appears that the boycott will never go into effect. Why not? Because of a grassroots rebellion by union members, some of whom have resigned while others are circulating a demand for an emergency meeting to repeal the ban.

The first academics to resign from the AUT, Shalom Lappin and Jonathan Ginzburg, have circulated an open letter calling on members to join them in breaking away from the union.

"For the past several years an ugly campaign of anti-Jewish provocation has been building on the margins of the Israel hate-fest that the boycott supporters have been promoting on campuses throughout the UK," they said in the letter.

"There comes a time when an organization discredits itself to the point that it can no longer be taken to stand for the values that it purports to represent. When this point is reached, one has no alternative but to disassociate oneself from it."

It seems that, contary to the expectation of the union's anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic leadership (more on that later on) , Jewish professors and supporters of israel would not stand by silently while the union supported terrorists who advocate a new Holocaust.

The condemnation has not just come from within Great britain, but has also been heard from around the globe.

A letter from the New York Academy of Sciences told the AUT that its resolution, "by selecting individuals and universities for boycott, is a very clear reminder of 'McCarthy-like' tactics of accusation."

The letter concluded: "We call upon the AUT to take immediate steps to rescind their regressive vote and join forward-looking academics the world over in voting for cooperation and not boycott."

In the mean time, the repeal movement has already gained significant headway.

Chris Fox, lecturer in Computer Science at Essex University, told The Jerusalem Post that the 25 signatures by AUT local association members required to submit a motion calling for the repeal of the boycott resolutions were being collected.

The motion would be heard in an emergency national meeting. Fox said that if the executive failed to call such a meeting, the AUT could expect further resignations.

"I will be resigning in the next few days if the national executive of the union fails to indicate an intention to act directly to reconsider or rescind the boycott," said Fox....

One Oxford Middle East studies professor has responded to the boycott by insisting that he be added to the boycott list, standing in solidarity with colleagues at the two boycotted universities.

Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, of the Middle East Center at St. Anthony's College at Oxford University, has written to AUT general-secretary Sally Hunt requesting to be included in the boycott.

"Oaths of political loyalty do not belong to academia. They belong to illiberal minds and repressive regimes," wrote Ottolenghi. "Based on this, the AUT's definition of academic freedom is the freedom to agree with its views only. Given the circumstances, I wish to express in no uncertain terms my unconditional and undivided solidarity with both universities and their faculties.

"I know many people, both at Haifa University and at Bar Ilan University, of different political persuasion and from different walks of life. The diversity of those faculties reflects the authentic spirit of academia. The AUT invitation to boycott them betrays that spirit because it advocates a uniformity of views, under pain of boycott."

"In solidarity with my colleagues and as a symbolic gesture to defend the spirit of a free academia, I wish to be added to the boycott blacklist. Please include me. I hope that other colleagues of all political persuasions will join me," Ottolenghi conclude.

Now some of you may argue that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. That argument has always been a weak one, but one British author and columnist makes it clear that, especially in this case, they are one and the same.

Author and columnist Howard Jacobson said that the boycotts underlined the fact that "Anti-Zionism is, after all, anti-Semitism."

Referring to Sue Blackwell, the Birmingham University lecturer who tabled the boycott motions, Jacobson said that "For Blackwell, the argument of history is only circular anyway. It is no defense of Israel that it has had to fight against being driven into the sea, because the sea, in her view, is where it belongs."

Howard also said that Blackwell's "feverishly pro-Palestinian Web site is under investigation by a Common's Committee [for] possible links with a site blaming Jews for 9/11." Blackwell later said that her Web site had included the link "inadvertently."

Blackwell has posted a triumphant message on her Web site, entitled: "Victory to the academic intifada!" Underneath a photograph of herself wearing a dress made from the Palestinian flag, and flashing a victory sign, the lecturer told readers: Yes folks, we won.

"Anti-Zionism, now, is anti-Semitic," said Jacobson, "because by the actions of its members, the Association of University Teachers has made it so."

So, what we have here is a group of terrorist supporters who have hijacked a union and politicized it in favor of their political goals. In this case, it is acting in support of those who murder Jews for being Jews, and who wish the six million Jews of israel to join the six million Jews of Europe slaughtered by Hitler. Fortunately their anti-Semitism has not spread so far into academia that there is no opposition.

And when they are through dealing with the jew-haters in their midst (indeed, among their leaders), maybe the membrship of the Association of University teachers will consider the issue of whether that corrupt organization needs to exist at all.

Posted by: Greg at 05:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 979 words, total size 6 kb.

Here is a little something for my fellow history geeks!

Egyptian archaeologists have discovered a number of rare Pharaonic seals of soldiers sent out on desert missions in search of red paint to decorate the pyramids, Egypt's culture minister said Thursday.

The 26 matchbox-sized seals belonged to Cheops, who ruled from 2551 to 2528 BC, in whose honour the greatest of the great pyramids of Giza southwest of Cairo was built, and show Pharaonic soldiers' ranks, the MENA news agency quoted Faruq Hosni as saying.

"These seals were used by a mission sent by Cheops to collect ferric oxide, which is necessary to make red paint," said Zahi Hawwas, secretary general of the Higher Council of Antiquities.

Over 50 pottery fragments bearing imprints from the clay and stone seals were found nearby in the region of the Giza pyramids.

"Artisans at the time needed ferric oxide to decorate the pyramids as well as (other) material and funerary installations of the IVth dynasty," to which Cheops belonged, said Hawwas.

"The seals proved the official nature of the missions sent to desert regions," he added.

"The mission was made up of 400 men and a group of people whose job it was to cook during the journey," according to inscriptions on the pottery pieces.

"Archaeologists also found a number of leather bags containing ferric oxide brought back by the mission," he said.

I will never cease to be amazed that, four and a half millenia after the fact,we are still finding the discarded refuse of the ancients and using it to learn about their lives and activities.

Posted by: Greg at 05:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, the GOP has tried to accomodate the obstructionism of the Democrats in the Senate. Bill Frist offered 100 hours of debate on each nominee to the Courts of Appeals, followed by an up or down vote on the nomination. The Democrats, of course, reject any solution that allows the will of the majority of Americans to be carried out.

Reid characterized the Frist offer in an interesting manner.

he Senate's top Democrat immediately expressed doubt about the proposal, calling it "a big wet kiss to the far right."

I suppose that we could therefore characterize the Democratic obstruction of the majority rule as the extended fellatio of the extreme left.

Senate Republicans must do something. Either invoke the nuclear option or insist that the Democrats engage in a real filibuster by speaking 24/7, resulting in the shut-down of all Senate business.

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Shush your silly babblings. Bush already nominated more than 200 judges and nearly all of 'em were approved except for 10 judges. That is less than 10 percent ... and you still whine?

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:28:34 2005 (nWmj6)

2 Well, Ridor, good to see you have mastered the DNC talking points -- which conveniently ignore that the judges approved were almost all District Court judges, not Appeals Court judges. Because of the unwarranted filibuster of judges deemed qualified under the standards announced by Leahy and Schumer in 2001 BEFORE THEY WERE NOMINATED, Bush has the lowest confirmation rate for Appeals Court judges in 50 years.

Now I realize that such facts get in the way of your meme, but truth is truth. Deal with it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 02:30:24 2005 (40i+f)

3 Bada bing!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:27:09 2005 (LmcbS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Just when it appeared that the Red Chinese might be ever so slightly softening their line towards Vatican involvement in Chinese Catholic affairs, they turn around and make a move like this.

Seven priests of the underground Catholic Church were arrested in China's Heibei province on Wednesday, April 27, the Cardinal Kung Foundation reports.

The priests had been attending a spiritual retreat led by Bishop Jia Zhiguo of the Zhending diocese-- who had been under 24-hour surveillance by police for most of the past month. Bishop Jia had reportedly been warned by Chinese officials that he should not schedule any religious activities.

The tight surveillance of Bishop Jia had begun when the death of Pope John Paul II appeared imminent, and continued through the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The Chinese government has established a history of crackdowns on the underground Church at times when religious sentiments are high-- such as Easter and Christmas-- as well as the time of major national holidays and Communist Party meetings.

The article does not indicate what has happened to Bishop Jia. Based upon this report, I presume he is still at liberty, though under observation by Chinese Security forces.

This action shows that the status quo is unchanged in China, despite official condolences offered by Beijing on the death of Pope John Paul II and congratulations to Pope Benedict XVI. Chinese Christians who refuse to be worship under the auspices of the official churches controlled by the Communist government will remain the subjects of persecution and martyrdom for the forseeable future. The international community will, of course, continue to ignore thse human rights violations, and China will continue to serve as a member of the UN Human Rights Commission.

UPDATE: If you want to see the degree to which Chinese Catholics are persecuted, follow this link. The shear number of priests and bishops prevented from exercising their ministry to their flocks is shocking.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’m a big defender of free speech, including speech that I profoundly disagree with. That said, I think these folks have crossed the line. Look at this skit from Err AmericaÂ’s Randi Rhodes Show, as reported by Drudge.

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

This isnÂ’t the first time Rhodes has advocated the murder of George W. Bush. Last year, according to Michelle Malkin, Rhodes did this little number last May.

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.

Buh-bye, bitch – we’ll see you in 10-20 years. Such statements about killing the president are a crime.

UPDATE: It seems this is a serious story on which Drudge got the scoop. Even the folks from Err America are investigating Randi.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve written about the plight of Chinese Christians who refuse to join the state controlled churches. They are subject to arrest, torture, and other forms of abuse for exercising the freedom to believe and to worship as they choose. One would think such persecution would be of interest to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Sadly, though, it is not.

Not only is it not of interest to that organization, but one of its members, China, recently forced the suppression of testimony about the atrocities it commits against Christians. On April 5, Bob Fu of the China Aid Association, appeared before the group to testify about the case of Cai Zhuohua, a pastor imprisoned for printing Bibles without government permission. Fu noted the use of various instruments of torture, in Chinese prisons. This brought a most disturbing result.

One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices — and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua — is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.

Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.

So, it is more serious to offend the government of a repressive dictatorship than it is for that state to engage in the torture of citizens exercising their human rights. How interesting. How pathetic. And they wonder why so many of us do not recognize the legitimacy of the UN any longer.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Aww, boo hoo -- what about the Inquisitions? The Catholic Church savagely murdered thousands of people, perhaps a million, and stole their properties to enrich themselves and now you whine about these damned Chinese X-ians?

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:35:31 2005 (nWmj6)

2 And no doubt you look at the Holocaust and say "The Hebrews slaughtered the Amorites and stole their riches, and now you complain about these damned European Jews?"

Posted by: Rgymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 02:37:18 2005 (40i+f)

3 This is about relatively current events and not something that happened 500 yeas ago. Funny how people keep referring something that happened 500 years as valid but turn a blind eye that's going on in our backyards.

Typical. Only in NYC...wait, make that Philadelphia.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:48:58 2005 (LmcbS)

4 Still reading my blog from day one, mcc -- get a life.

HOlocause was caused by whom? Christians. Starting with the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church -- both preached for years to castigate the Jews. And Hitler picked up on it.

Whose fault was it? Yours, of course -- only in New Mexico would think that no Xian is responsible for it.

R-

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat Apr 30 15:02:38 2005 (nWmj6)

5 Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jewish (insert your favorite religion) were responsible for a lot of human misery back then. Shall I go about whose to blame for the AIDS thing?

Figures.

As for reading blogs, I read alot of people's blogs, including yours. I've admitted this already before...Key Lime, Shifting Realities, wam bam, daily kos, Malkin, Powerline, GOPbloggers, etc...

Know your enemies.

However, what I didn't do is go about complaining, "your blog is so boring and I'm not going to visit it again" and yet you keep coming back to read my blogs and keep making the same complaint 3 or 4 times. And yet I banned you recently a week ago for violating my rules, and you're a hair away from getting banned at RWR. Yet, you tell me to "get a life"???

I don't whine and complain...

http://www.google.com/search?q=ridor+mccock&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&filter=0

That certainly is funny.

But hey, if I catch you make a mistake on your blog, I'll certainly make a note of it in my blog to correct you.

Onward ho!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:16:51 2005 (WvGhb)

6 Let's see -- the Holocaust happened because an anti-Semitic group of Social-ists gained political power and scapegoated the Jews for Germany's problems.

These Social-ists received less than a majority of the German vote, and their lowest vote totals came from the Catholic regions of Germany.

While the Jews received the worst from this gang of Social-ists, the Catholic Church and its institutions were also heavily mistreated.

It is estimated by reputable historians that the Catholic Church saved some 750,000-1,000,000 Jews from the death camps set up by these murderous Social-ists, with the figure of 860,000 being the best documented number.

Two succesive popes (Pius XI & Pius XII) denounced both anti-Semitism and the Social-ist regime's persecution of the Jews in Germany -- something that the governments of the United States and England (to name two) did not do until much later.

While the Social-ist group in question is ostensibly rejected by the Left today, its general support fo terrorists who seek to destroy Israel and murder its people prove that the Left remains as committed to the destruction of the Jews today as it was in 1935.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 16:28:15 2005 (HZavY)

7 Hmm...kool aid drinkers come to mind. The Jim Jones Society of today is indeed quite dangerous, RWR.

Ethnic cleansing, to them, is always justifiable while the many of us abhor it.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:40:08 2005 (WvGhb)

8 I dont drink kool aid -- I hadn't drink one in years.

You may as well as go ahead and drink some.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 12:38:18 2005 (nWmj6)

9 Problem is, I don't justify ethnic cleansing in any way shape or form. You might want to look in the mirror again, R.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 1 15:15:59 2005 (xXUn0)

10 Sometimes it is necessary to wipe the planet off its infections -- like you.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 21:35:53 2005 (nWmj6)

11 Absolutely outrageous, Ridor -- I can only imagine the degree of anger you would express if such a someone had made that comment when we were discussing HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community on the other thread.

The difference -- I would have joined you in expressing anger at that kind of hate -- while you perpetrate it here.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 1 23:00:54 2005 (Zi3ux)

12 Right, RWR. I've never advocated ethnic cleansing...even with HIV realm on ever suggesting that. I'm however outlining stupidity of people who know better regarding the dangers of STDs, even when they have the information.

The thing is, I don't just hate. But what I do hate is seeing stupidity. That's all.

Posted by: mcconell at Mon May 2 02:55:47 2005 (7AMlr)

13 The whole point is that abstinence programs do not work. Just teach the prevention will. And if the gay rights are enacted, the risks will go from high to low because of self-worthiness. I know because I am there. I can see the high risks associated with promiscuity because of self-worthiness perpetuated by discrimination from the family, churches, government. Go figure.

That does not mean that I have the HIV -- I routinely tested every six months and I can see how it is bad for others when they lacked the support from anyone else in particular.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 08:23:50 2005 (nWmj6)

14 "Routinely tested." - that says alot.


And certainly, abstinence does work. It's up to the person. You're not going to die practicing abstinence. However, not doing so could certainly be the case.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 10:14:54 2005 (LmcbS)

15 And of course, Ridor, teaching people not to drink and drive diesn't work either -- so let's get kids drunk and put them behind the wheel to teach them to be safe drunk drivers.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 10:34:06 2005 (PMXcw)

16 McWeenie, if one person does not want to have sex, that is fine with me. But common sense dictated that the majority of them will have sex sooner or later, like it or not.

So better to teach them the means to prevent themselves from getting STDs. What is so wwrong about it? Why so relentless on abstinence? Most teenagers will not listen to that crap, trust me.

It certainly worked but very few ones will practice abstinence whereas the rest will do it anyway -- so let's do the prevention for the majority. Stop lying around.

Routinely tested is a personal thing, it is none of your business to determine what kind of person I am. You simply do not know who I am. NOr do I with you. Stay out of mine and I'll stay out of yours.

RWR, as always, your logic is flawed.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 12:32:12 2005 (nWmj6)

17 And as usual, you do not bother to refute an actual argument, but instead banter about your personal stuff.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 12:48:08 2005 (PMXcw)

18 Like I said, R, I don't "kiss and tell" and you having an open book in your blogsite doesn't help either. And for you to make comments here, doesn't help either.

Abstinence works. It's a choice when you give them all the options and provide them the risk analysis and awareness, and the graphic reality of contracting STDs. Condoms are not 100% effective, while abstinence is. Simple as that even though they may want to try sex but they need to see the absolute reality of STDs and pregnancy first hand early enough in their life. Nothing wrong with that, either. It all boils down to an informed decision.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 12:52:23 2005 (LmcbS)

19 Abstinence does NOT work for the MAJORITY of the population. It is merely a *choice*.

Hell, I'll just stop talking to you both. I'm done with you both. You simply refused to reason but to berate repeatedly to your advantages.

What I do with my life is none of your business. I chose to be honest about who I am, and if you want to ridicule, so be it. Go ahead. But guess what? I won't participate.

See ya later, f*ers.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 17:48:54 2005 (nWmj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

IÂ’ve written about the plight of Chinese Christians who refuse to join the state controlled churches. They are subject to arrest, torture, and other forms of abuse for exercising the freedom to believe and to worship as they choose. One would think such persecution would be of interest to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Sadly, though, it is not.

Not only is it not of interest to that organization, but one of its members, China, recently forced the suppression of testimony about the atrocities it commits against Christians. On April 5, Bob Fu of the China Aid Association, appeared before the group to testify about the case of Cai Zhuohua, a pastor imprisoned for printing Bibles without government permission. Fu noted the use of various instruments of torture, in Chinese prisons. This brought a most disturbing result.

One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices — and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua — is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.

Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.

So, it is more serious to offend the government of a repressive dictatorship than it is for that state to engage in the torture of citizens exercising their human rights. How interesting. How pathetic. And they wonder why so many of us do not recognize the legitimacy of the UN any longer.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Aww, boo hoo -- what about the Inquisitions? The Catholic Church savagely murdered thousands of people, perhaps a million, and stole their properties to enrich themselves and now you whine about these damned Chinese X-ians? R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:35:31 2005 (nWmj6)

2 And no doubt you look at the Holocaust and say "The Hebrews slaughtered the Amorites and stole their riches, and now you complain about these damned European Jews?"

Posted by: Rgymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 02:37:18 2005 (40i+f)

3 This is about relatively current events and not something that happened 500 yeas ago. Funny how people keep referring something that happened 500 years as valid but turn a blind eye that's going on in our backyards. Typical. Only in NYC...wait, make that Philadelphia.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:48:58 2005 (LmcbS)

4 Still reading my blog from day one, mcc -- get a life. HOlocause was caused by whom? Christians. Starting with the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church -- both preached for years to castigate the Jews. And Hitler picked up on it. Whose fault was it? Yours, of course -- only in New Mexico would think that no Xian is responsible for it. R- R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat Apr 30 15:02:38 2005 (nWmj6)

5 Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jewish (insert your favorite religion) were responsible for a lot of human misery back then. Shall I go about whose to blame for the AIDS thing? Figures. As for reading blogs, I read alot of people's blogs, including yours. I've admitted this already before...Key Lime, Shifting Realities, wam bam, daily kos, Malkin, Powerline, GOPbloggers, etc... Know your enemies. However, what I didn't do is go about complaining, "your blog is so boring and I'm not going to visit it again" and yet you keep coming back to read my blogs and keep making the same complaint 3 or 4 times. And yet I banned you recently a week ago for violating my rules, and you're a hair away from getting banned at RWR. Yet, you tell me to "get a life"??? I don't whine and complain... http://www.google.com/search?q=ridor+mccock&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&filter=0 That certainly is funny. But hey, if I catch you make a mistake on your blog, I'll certainly make a note of it in my blog to correct you. Onward ho!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:16:51 2005 (WvGhb)

6 Let's see -- the Holocaust happened because an anti-Semitic group of Social-ists gained political power and scapegoated the Jews for Germany's problems. These Social-ists received less than a majority of the German vote, and their lowest vote totals came from the Catholic regions of Germany. While the Jews received the worst from this gang of Social-ists, the Catholic Church and its institutions were also heavily mistreated. It is estimated by reputable historians that the Catholic Church saved some 750,000-1,000,000 Jews from the death camps set up by these murderous Social-ists, with the figure of 860,000 being the best documented number. Two succesive popes (Pius XI & Pius XII) denounced both anti-Semitism and the Social-ist regime's persecution of the Jews in Germany -- something that the governments of the United States and England (to name two) did not do until much later. While the Social-ist group in question is ostensibly rejected by the Left today, its general support fo terrorists who seek to destroy Israel and murder its people prove that the Left remains as committed to the destruction of the Jews today as it was in 1935.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 16:28:15 2005 (HZavY)

7 Hmm...kool aid drinkers come to mind. The Jim Jones Society of today is indeed quite dangerous, RWR. Ethnic cleansing, to them, is always justifiable while the many of us abhor it.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:40:08 2005 (WvGhb)

8 I dont drink kool aid -- I hadn't drink one in years. You may as well as go ahead and drink some. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 12:38:18 2005 (nWmj6)

9 Problem is, I don't justify ethnic cleansing in any way shape or form. You might want to look in the mirror again, R.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 1 15:15:59 2005 (xXUn0)

10 Sometimes it is necessary to wipe the planet off its infections -- like you. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 21:35:53 2005 (nWmj6)

11 Absolutely outrageous, Ridor -- I can only imagine the degree of anger you would express if such a someone had made that comment when we were discussing HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community on the other thread. The difference -- I would have joined you in expressing anger at that kind of hate -- while you perpetrate it here.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 1 23:00:54 2005 (Zi3ux)

12 Right, RWR. I've never advocated ethnic cleansing...even with HIV realm on ever suggesting that. I'm however outlining stupidity of people who know better regarding the dangers of STDs, even when they have the information. The thing is, I don't just hate. But what I do hate is seeing stupidity. That's all.

Posted by: mcconell at Mon May 2 02:55:47 2005 (7AMlr)

13 The whole point is that abstinence programs do not work. Just teach the prevention will. And if the gay rights are enacted, the risks will go from high to low because of self-worthiness. I know because I am there. I can see the high risks associated with promiscuity because of self-worthiness perpetuated by discrimination from the family, churches, government. Go figure. That does not mean that I have the HIV -- I routinely tested every six months and I can see how it is bad for others when they lacked the support from anyone else in particular. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 08:23:50 2005 (nWmj6)

14 "Routinely tested." - that says alot. And certainly, abstinence does work. It's up to the person. You're not going to die practicing abstinence. However, not doing so could certainly be the case.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 10:14:54 2005 (LmcbS)

15 And of course, Ridor, teaching people not to drink and drive diesn't work either -- so let's get kids drunk and put them behind the wheel to teach them to be safe drunk drivers.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 10:34:06 2005 (PMXcw)

16 McWeenie, if one person does not want to have sex, that is fine with me. But common sense dictated that the majority of them will have sex sooner or later, like it or not. So better to teach them the means to prevent themselves from getting STDs. What is so wwrong about it? Why so relentless on abstinence? Most teenagers will not listen to that crap, trust me. It certainly worked but very few ones will practice abstinence whereas the rest will do it anyway -- so let's do the prevention for the majority. Stop lying around. Routinely tested is a personal thing, it is none of your business to determine what kind of person I am. You simply do not know who I am. NOr do I with you. Stay out of mine and I'll stay out of yours. RWR, as always, your logic is flawed. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 12:32:12 2005 (nWmj6)

17 And as usual, you do not bother to refute an actual argument, but instead banter about your personal stuff.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 12:48:08 2005 (PMXcw)

18 Like I said, R, I don't "kiss and tell" and you having an open book in your blogsite doesn't help either. And for you to make comments here, doesn't help either. Abstinence works. It's a choice when you give them all the options and provide them the risk analysis and awareness, and the graphic reality of contracting STDs. Condoms are not 100% effective, while abstinence is. Simple as that even though they may want to try sex but they need to see the absolute reality of STDs and pregnancy first hand early enough in their life. Nothing wrong with that, either. It all boils down to an informed decision.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 12:52:23 2005 (LmcbS)

19 Abstinence does NOT work for the MAJORITY of the population. It is merely a *choice*. Hell, I'll just stop talking to you both. I'm done with you both. You simply refused to reason but to berate repeatedly to your advantages. What I do with my life is none of your business. I chose to be honest about who I am, and if you want to ridicule, so be it. Go ahead. But guess what? I won't participate. See ya later, f*ers. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 17:48:54 2005 (nWmj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Some folks want a big church wedding. Others would prefer something more low key, such as getting married by a judge at the County Building. But it appears that there is even a “no frills” way of getting married that eliminates all the ceremony – a wedding at which neither party has to appear. Believe it or not, you can do that in the state of Montana – even if both of you are not physically in the state. Believe it or not, it is legal, and can be done for under $1000.

Who gets married this way? Here's one typical couple.

First Lt. Derek Ping couldn’t wait to marry his fiancee. So he got hitched from 7,000 miles away, without even saying “I do.”

“When she told me we could get married without either of us being there, I thought it was pretty weird,” the 25-year-old soldier admitted. “Now that we did it — well, it’s still weird. But I’m glad we did it.”

The couple’s double-proxy marriage — a legal ceremony requiring neither party to be present — is among about 30 weddings organized by S&B Inc, nearly all military.

While several states allow a stand-in to say the vows for one spouse, the completely absentee nuptials are an option only in Montana; the union is recognized by all 50 states and the U.S. military.

The Pings, who live in Waco, Texas, had to fill out several identification forms and submit notarized statements of their sworn love before they received a marriage certificate in the mail. But for the couple, it was the only way to tie the knot while he was deployed in Iraq.

Soldiers are realizing that if they donÂ’t make it home, the woman they promised to marry later will have no access to benefits if he dies. So rather than waiting, there is a way for the couples to get married now. It may not be romantic, but it is practical. Most couples apparently have a church wedding latter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

At the University of California – San Francisco, it will be "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day" on Thursday, with the program sponsored by the Center For Gender Equity. Unfortunately, the term “Gender Equity” has quite an Orwellian meaning. All you have to do is look at the scheduled program to understand that the program is being run in a manner that can only be described as “separate and unequal.”

For example, the 9- and 10-year-old daughters are being invited to participate in 17 hands-on activities such as working with microscopes, slicing brains, doing skull comparisons, seeing what goes on in the operating room, playing surgeon, dentist or nurse for a day, and visiting the intensive care unit nursery, where they can set up blood pressure cuffs and operate the monitors.
They can learn about earthquake and disaster preparedness, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to operate several types of equipment -- even fire a laser.

And what do the boys get to do?

Learn about "gender equity in fun, creative ways using media, role playing and group games" -- after which, the boys can get a bit of time in with a microscope or learn how the heart works.

Yeah, you’ve got it – the girls get to experience all the neat things the University has to offer, while the boys get political indoctrination in Double-Plus-Good feminist thought. The Center’s director defends the two-track program this way.

Longtime center director Amy Levine, however, tells us the program isn't intended to give boys and girls the same learning opportunities -- nor, she says, is it a career day.

"It's about dealing with effects of sexism on both boys and girls and how it can damage them," she said.

Hence, while the boys undergo gender sensitivity training, the girls focus on their capabilities -- be it handling a scalpel or microscope.

Well, at least they are not claiming that the programs are equal – but I am a little bit scared that Ms. Levine is so proud of fostering discrimination at a public university using public dollars. What led to the decision to set up the two tracks?

UCSF tried mixing the boys with the girls a few years back, but Levine says it just didn't work out.

"It mirrored the same sexism that occurs in the classroom daily," she said, "where boys raise their hands more often, demand more attention and have discipline problems."

So now the boys have their own gender sensitivity program, where "they learn about violence prevention and how to be allies to the girls and women in their lives," Levine said.

So because boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, there needs to be a separate program to emasculate the males and turn them into pathetic little Alan Aldas and Al Frankens. I hope that parents at UCSF have the courage to just say no to this pathetic attempt at social engineering, and that UCSF either mends it or ends it by the time next year rolls around.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

At the University of California – San Francisco, it will be "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day" on Thursday, with the program sponsored by the Center For Gender Equity. Unfortunately, the term “Gender Equity” has quite an Orwellian meaning. All you have to do is look at the scheduled program to understand that the program is being run in a manner that can only be described as “separate and unequal.”

For example, the 9- and 10-year-old daughters are being invited to participate in 17 hands-on activities such as working with microscopes, slicing brains, doing skull comparisons, seeing what goes on in the operating room, playing surgeon, dentist or nurse for a day, and visiting the intensive care unit nursery, where they can set up blood pressure cuffs and operate the monitors.
They can learn about earthquake and disaster preparedness, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to operate several types of equipment -- even fire a laser.

And what do the boys get to do?

Learn about "gender equity in fun, creative ways using media, role playing and group games" -- after which, the boys can get a bit of time in with a microscope or learn how the heart works.

Yeah, you’ve got it – the girls get to experience all the neat things the University has to offer, while the boys get political indoctrination in Double-Plus-Good feminist thought. The Center’s director defends the two-track program this way.

Longtime center director Amy Levine, however, tells us the program isn't intended to give boys and girls the same learning opportunities -- nor, she says, is it a career day.

"It's about dealing with effects of sexism on both boys and girls and how it can damage them," she said.

Hence, while the boys undergo gender sensitivity training, the girls focus on their capabilities -- be it handling a scalpel or microscope.

Well, at least they are not claiming that the programs are equal – but I am a little bit scared that Ms. Levine is so proud of fostering discrimination at a public university using public dollars. What led to the decision to set up the two tracks?

UCSF tried mixing the boys with the girls a few years back, but Levine says it just didn't work out.

"It mirrored the same sexism that occurs in the classroom daily," she said, "where boys raise their hands more often, demand more attention and have discipline problems."

So now the boys have their own gender sensitivity program, where "they learn about violence prevention and how to be allies to the girls and women in their lives," Levine said.

So because boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, there needs to be a separate program to emasculate the males and turn them into pathetic little Alan Aldas and Al Frankens. I hope that parents at UCSF have the courage to just say no to this pathetic attempt at social engineering, and that UCSF either mends it or ends it by the time next year rolls around.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.

We got new textbooks at school last year. As I began to flip through them, I noticed that they used the traditional B.C./A.D. dating convention rather than the newer B.C.E./C.E. convention that has become more popular in recent years. Personally, I donÂ’t have a problem with using either system, but it seems that folks on both sides of the debate are somewhat more worked up over it.

In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out.

The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.

Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.

For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.

This raises the question: Can old and new coexist in harmony, or must one give way to the other to reflect changing times and attitudes?

Now I don’t see why both sides cannot exist in harmony. The breaking point is still the same, and that is the life of Christ. But while I am generally accepting of the B.C.E./C.E., I was initially taught it as Before Christian Era and Christian Era. In my classes, I present both dating systems, and discuss the underlying reasons for using each. I also tell my students that they ultimately have to make a choice in what system to use, and that either one is acceptable – and then proceed to use B.C. and A.D myself for the rest of the year.

Now I am particularly shocked at this criticism that shows up in the article, indicating extreme ignorance or extreme bias.

Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.

Hold on just one moment. There is no 33-year gap between the eras. The year 1 B.C. is followed by 1 A.D., marking the traditional year of the birth of Christ (who probably was born between 7 B.C. and 4 B.C.) – there are no years floating around in limbo, falling into neither category. And the lack of a Year 0 is a rather absurd idea as well. After all, when we start counting something, we do not begin by labeling the first one as zero. No, we count them out sequentially, beginning with the number one. The arguments the article makes are just plain stupid, and I cannot imagine any serious scholar offering them.

Now there is a legitimate argument to be made against using B.C. and A.D., and that is the fact that it makes every date into a statement about a religious figure who is rejected by about 75% of the people of the world – more, if one recognizes there are a lot of folks out there who call themselves Christian who have no particular faith in Christ. I certainly understand where making a religious profession every time one uses a calendar might trouble them.

"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

I accept that argument, which is why IÂ’m not troubled by the usage of B.C.E. and C.E. as meaning Before Christian Era and Christian Era. It accurately acknowledges the reason for the reason for making a change in dating in the traditional Western calendar system, but avoids requiring anything that resembles a profession of faith. At the same time, it does not engage in religious cleansing, in that it acknowledges the historical centrality of Christianity in the Western world.

Not everyone agrees with me, though.

Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.

"The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.

For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.

"I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."

Now I think de Russy overstates the case. The original use of the term in Hebrew schools was designed to be sensitive to both Christians and Jews, and I think that principle certainly extends beyond those two groups and into the world as a whole. But I think Nash carries the argument too far, given that the logical implication of his position is that we should develop a whole new calendar that begins with the year 1 B.W.S.S. (Because We Say So). And that ignores the fact that for some 15 centuries, dates in the West have been calculated according to the system set up by Dionysius Exiguus. It has become the de facto dating system of the world.

In the end, I find myself coming down on the same side as the Professional Association of Georgia EducatorsÂ’ Tim Callahan.

"Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."

The entire debate is rather silly. There are much greater issues for us to look at. In the end, any of the usages should be considered acceptable. This is a battle that does not need to be fought by either side, and from which all should disengage with an understanding that all three dating conventions will be tolerated. Anyone who cannot do that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1103 words, total size 7 kb.

The liberal wing of the US Supreme Court upheld the right to keep and bear arms today, against the dissents of conservative judges who sided with the Bush administration in its attempt to restrict firearms ownership. And the entire case revolved around the question of whether or not a statute should be read literally.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that U.S. law, which prohibits felons who have been convicted in "any court" from owning guns, applies only to domestic crimes.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said interpreting the law broadly to apply to foreign convictions would be unfair to defendants because procedural protections are often less in international courts. If Congress intended foreign convictions to apply, they can rewrite the law to specifically say so, he said.

"We have no reason to believe that Congress considered the added enforcement advantages flowing from inclusion of foreign crimes, weighing them against, say, the potential unfairness of preventing those with inapt foreign convictions from possessing guns," Breyer wrote.

He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Congress intended for foreign convictions to apply. "Any" court literally means any court, he wrote.

"Read naturally, the word 'any' has an expansive meaning, that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,'" Thomas said.

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Small had answered "no" to the felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, a few days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws in that country.

Small was indicted in 2000 for lying on the form and for illegally owning two pistols and 335 rounds of ammunition. He later entered a conditional guilty plea pending the outcome of this case.

The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions.

It seems somewhat ironic here that the conservative reading of the statute brought the dissenting justices into support for one more liberal gun-grabbing scheme, and that the liberals supported gun ownership. After all, these folks would usually line up the other way on Second Amendment issues. However, Thomas has the matter right in noting that the plain language of the statute does not exclude foreign convictions. Breyer’s disregard for the plain meaning of the word “any” is one more example of the tendency of liberal judges to make the law say what they want it to say, not what it actually says.

On the other hand, I would have preferred that the entire statute be tossed as a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

The liberal wing of the US Supreme Court upheld the right to keep and bear arms today, against the dissents of conservative judges who sided with the Bush administration in its attempt to restrict firearms ownership. And the entire case revolved around the question of whether or not a statute should be read literally.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that U.S. law, which prohibits felons who have been convicted in "any court" from owning guns, applies only to domestic crimes.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said interpreting the law broadly to apply to foreign convictions would be unfair to defendants because procedural protections are often less in international courts. If Congress intended foreign convictions to apply, they can rewrite the law to specifically say so, he said.

"We have no reason to believe that Congress considered the added enforcement advantages flowing from inclusion of foreign crimes, weighing them against, say, the potential unfairness of preventing those with inapt foreign convictions from possessing guns," Breyer wrote.

He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Congress intended for foreign convictions to apply. "Any" court literally means any court, he wrote.

"Read naturally, the word 'any' has an expansive meaning, that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,'" Thomas said.

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Small had answered "no" to the felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, a few days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws in that country.

Small was indicted in 2000 for lying on the form and for illegally owning two pistols and 335 rounds of ammunition. He later entered a conditional guilty plea pending the outcome of this case.

The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions.

It seems somewhat ironic here that the conservative reading of the statute brought the dissenting justices into support for one more liberal gun-grabbing scheme, and that the liberals supported gun ownership. After all, these folks would usually line up the other way on Second Amendment issues. However, Thomas has the matter right in noting that the plain language of the statute does not exclude foreign convictions. Breyer’s disregard for the plain meaning of the word “any” is one more example of the tendency of liberal judges to make the law say what they want it to say, not what it actually says.

On the other hand, I would have preferred that the entire statute be tossed as a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’m not an Ann Coulter fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel I should comment on this story. It shows the hypocrisy of liberal academics when it comes to conservative speakers.

The Rev. Dennis Dease, President of MinnesotaÂ’s University of St. Thomas, condemned a speech by author and columnist Ann Coulter given last week at his school.

The president of the University of St. Thomas on Monday condemned a speech at the Catholic school last week by conservative author Ann Coulter, saying "such hateful speech vulgarizes our culture and goes against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for."

The Rev. Dennis Dease wrote in Bulletin Today, a university newsletter, that "although her presentation may have been meant as an 'act' or a 'shtick' to entertain by provoking those who disagree, such behavior unfortunately contributes to the growing dark side of our culture -- a disrespect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs."

Now I find Coulter a bit to vituperative for my taste, but you wonÂ’t find me condemning her speech at St. Thomas. After all, I wasnÂ’t there, and havenÂ’t seen a transcript.

That didn’t stop Dease. You see he didn’t attend the speech either, but has merely relied on second-hand accounts of the event. It’s sort of telling when an intellectual feels he can condemn the content and tone of a speech that he didn’t attend. Doesn’t THAT go against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for? Or does Rev. Dease think that “respect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs” doesn’t include giving them a fair hearing before condemning them for expressing those sincerely held beliefs? And would Dease have made the same sort of statement against Ward Churchill?

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | Comments (96) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.