Killing King’s College

King’s College is a small school, over 40 years old, that lived a quiet existence in the suburbs of New York City. No one took much notice of the small evangelical school, despite its reputation for excellence, until it moved into the NYC itself and took up residence in one of the city’s great icons – the Empire State Building. There it began to focus on politics, philosophy, and economics, seeking to prepare its students for positions in government and business. And now, suddenly, its accreditation by the New York Board of Regents is at stake.

King’s College has been accredited by the New York State Board of Regents for over 40 years, and all was on track for yet another renewal. After the college was scrutinized by the New York State Board of Education and an external site visit team, the Regents’ own Advisory Council recommended a five-year extension of King’s accreditation. So the stage was set for a fascinating experiment in higher education — an ultimate encounter of red and blue America.

That was until King’s College caught the attention of John Brademas, a quintessentially liberal politician, and one of the newest members of the State Board of Regents. Brademas had been a liberal Democratic congressman from Indiana, but was defeated in 1980 (according to this study with major opposition from the Moral Majority). After his defeat, Brademas went on to serve as president of New York University for a decade — a period during which NYU consolidated its reputation as a liberal bastion.

As soon as the question of King’s College’s accreditation came before the Regents, Brademas began to throw up a series of patently bogus objections, all of which were answered in the written material prepared by the Regents own Advisory Council. Brademas harped on the college’s small library — yet neglected to note that King’s is across the street from the Science and Business Branch of the New York Public Library, and seven short blocks from the library’s main building. That gives King’s a better library than all but a handful of colleges and universities in New York State.

But the silliest objection of all was the claim that the college has a misleading name. After all, said Brademas, King’s College was the original name of Columbia University. Wouldn’t that mislead prospective students into thinking they’re attending Columbia, instead of an evangelical Christian school? Trouble is, Columbia University changed its name from King’s to Columbia over 200 years ago — after the Revolution broke our ties with England’s king. And, of course, the King honored in King’s College’s name is God. New York’s Regents have accredited this college for over 50 years under the name of King’s. So why the problem now?

Frankly, it appears that there is no basis for the objection. The school has met the standards of the Regents for around half a century. More to the point, Joseph Frey, the state Education Department’s Assistant Commissioner of Quality Assurance, has stated that the school is in compliance. Now they have given the school only a single year’s accreditation – despite the fact that their own rules call for a five year accreditation, and provide for a shorter period (two years) only in the event that a school given conditional or probationary accreditation. The only folks who are out of compliance with the rules of the New York Board of Regents are the Regents themselves!

Now I won’t go quite to the lengths of those who have said that this is the case of religious discrimination, though I think that a prima facie case can be made that this unique abuse of a small evangelical college is religiously based. I’ll simply call it what it is – an immoral violation of due process. I won’t get into the question of whether or not the Regents should exist, or whether the state has any place doing accreditation when the private sector handles the process quite well through a variety of accrediting bodies. But I will say that there is a clear injustice here.

What can you do? Might I suggest writing to the Regents in protest? They can be contacted through the board secretary at djohnson@mail.nysed.gov.

Let’s tell them that they cannot kill King’s College.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 714 words, total size 5 kb.

Killing KingÂ’s College

King’s College is a small school, over 40 years old, that lived a quiet existence in the suburbs of New York City. No one took much notice of the small evangelical school, despite its reputation for excellence, until it moved into the NYC itself and took up residence in one of the city’s great icons – the Empire State Building. There it began to focus on politics, philosophy, and economics, seeking to prepare its students for positions in government and business. And now, suddenly, its accreditation by the New York Board of Regents is at stake.

King’s College has been accredited by the New York State Board of Regents for over 40 years, and all was on track for yet another renewal. After the college was scrutinized by the New York State Board of Education and an external site visit team, the Regents’ own Advisory Council recommended a five-year extension of King’s accreditation. So the stage was set for a fascinating experiment in higher education — an ultimate encounter of red and blue America.

That was until King’s College caught the attention of John Brademas, a quintessentially liberal politician, and one of the newest members of the State Board of Regents. Brademas had been a liberal Democratic congressman from Indiana, but was defeated in 1980 (according to this study with major opposition from the Moral Majority). After his defeat, Brademas went on to serve as president of New York University for a decade — a period during which NYU consolidated its reputation as a liberal bastion.

As soon as the question of King’s College’s accreditation came before the Regents, Brademas began to throw up a series of patently bogus objections, all of which were answered in the written material prepared by the Regents own Advisory Council. Brademas harped on the college’s small library — yet neglected to note that King’s is across the street from the Science and Business Branch of the New York Public Library, and seven short blocks from the library’s main building. That gives King’s a better library than all but a handful of colleges and universities in New York State.

But the silliest objection of all was the claim that the college has a misleading name. After all, said Brademas, King’s College was the original name of Columbia University. Wouldn’t that mislead prospective students into thinking they’re attending Columbia, instead of an evangelical Christian school? Trouble is, Columbia University changed its name from King’s to Columbia over 200 years ago — after the Revolution broke our ties with England’s king. And, of course, the King honored in King’s College’s name is God. New York’s Regents have accredited this college for over 50 years under the name of King’s. So why the problem now?

Frankly, it appears that there is no basis for the objection. The school has met the standards of the Regents for around half a century. More to the point, Joseph Frey, the state Education Department’s Assistant Commissioner of Quality Assurance, has stated that the school is in compliance. Now they have given the school only a single year’s accreditation – despite the fact that their own rules call for a five year accreditation, and provide for a shorter period (two years) only in the event that a school given conditional or probationary accreditation. The only folks who are out of compliance with the rules of the New York Board of Regents are the Regents themselves!

Now I won’t go quite to the lengths of those who have said that this is the case of religious discrimination, though I think that a prima facie case can be made that this unique abuse of a small evangelical college is religiously based. I’ll simply call it what it is – an immoral violation of due process. I won’t get into the question of whether or not the Regents should exist, or whether the state has any place doing accreditation when the private sector handles the process quite well through a variety of accrediting bodies. But I will say that there is a clear injustice here.

What can you do? Might I suggest writing to the Regents in protest? They can be contacted through the board secretary at djohnson@mail.nysed.gov.

LetÂ’s tell them that they cannot kill KingÂ’s College.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 5 kb.

How Effective Are The Minutemen?

Let’s see – in their first four days, they were involved in the apprehension of 118 border jumpers.

So far, 118 illegal aliens have been arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol based on calls from Minuteman volunteers along a 20-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border, where limited patrols began Friday.

"This is not about racism or hate, but the rule of law," said Bob Wright of Hobbs, N.M., who spent the weekend helping to map out the group's observation posts.

"I would hope the two governments would try to do something. ... What is happening to these people who risk their lives to come into the United States is a travesty."

Not only that, they can see other groups of would-be immigration criminals can be seen waiting for the Minutemen to leave. They know that if they try to cross they will be caught.

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

Student Wins Net Speech Dispute

Ryan Dwyer was an eighth grader at Maple Place Middle School in Oceanport, New Jersey, didn’t like his school. He disliked it so much that he created a website about it – one which provided a forum for others to talk about school and encouraged other students to make “I Hate maple Place” stickers for their notebooks. In other words, he acted sort of juvenile – just like a normal eighth grader.

Until the school decided his site constituted a threat, demanded it be shut down, and suspended the boy because the site offended school officials. No policy or law was ever cited by any district official as grounds for the punishment, just vague claims that the site contained threats and constituted possible criminal conduct.

Launched in April 2003, the Web site greeted users with the legend, “Welcome to the Anti-Maple Place — Your Friendly Environment,” and said: “This page is dedicated to showing students why their school isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. You may be shocked at what you find on this site.”

Ryan urged students to make stickers that said “I hate Maple Place” and also wrote, “Don’t even try to make me take my Web site down because it is illegal to do so!”

Users who wished to leave comments were instructed not to use profanity and “no threats to any teacher or person EVER.”

Some visitor comments criticized the school and its teachers, but others, the lawsuit conceded, “were arguably crude, sophomoric and offensive.” Ryan never made threats or profanity, it said.

[Judge] Chesler wrote that the defendants “could only have lawfully disciplined Ryan for statements and other content created and provided by him, and not for any comments made by other individuals in his guest book.”

Perhaps most alarming is that despite the familyÂ’s cooperation with the schoolÂ’s censorship of out-of-school speech, Ryan was suspended for a week, banned from the school baseball team for a month, and denied the right to go on a class trip to Philadelphia. It seems pretty clear that the goal was not just to remove any material that violated school policies (there were no such policies), but to punish the boy for activities over which the school had no legitimate basis for controlling.

Today, Ryan is a sophomore at Shore Regional High School, and he noted the following about the case.

“When I was in eighth grade, it kind of just seemed like I couldn’t do anything about it,” Ryan said. “Now I realize that I missed out on a lot of things, and it feels good that they got proved wrong about what they did.”

“I was really surprised that the school administrators actually thought they could punish me for just saying a couple of things about them,” he said.

Sadly, there are still too many school administrators out there who forget that students do not shed their liberties at the schoolhouse gate, and that whatever limits are legitimate at school do not follow the student home. Sadly, the judge ruled that the principal and superintendent could not be held personally liable for their violation of RyanÂ’s rights. ThatÂ’s too bad, because only that will convince some administrators that the dictates of the US Constitution apply to their actions.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

What Would They Do About Tic Tacs?

They were only mints, not drugs. They contained caffeine and another ingredient often found in energy supplements. But they caused a panic at a school in Ohio when several students ate them and began to feel their hearts race.

Now the boy who brought them to school will “only” be suspended for 10 days under a policy banning any item that resembles a drug.

Police won't charge a 13-year-old boy who was suspended for 10 days after he brought caffeine-laced mints to school and his classmates got sick.


Nine students between the ages of 12 and 14 were sent to a hospital last month after eating the mints. The students at Jackson Memorial Middle School near Canton were treated and released for symptoms such as a racing heartbeat.

Police considered filing charges against the boy until they tested the ingredients in the Blast Energy Supplemints.

"We found no illegal substance whatsoever. Just caffeine," said Major Tim Escola.

Besides caffeine, the pills contain taurine, a common ingredient in energy drinks such as Red Bull.

Police estimated about 39 mints could have been eaten by the students. According to the label, a single serving is six mints, which contains 15 milligrams of caffeine. That's about half the amount of caffeine in a regular can of soda.

The mints are distributed by Bally Total Fitness Corp. and advertised on the company's Web site as an ephedra-free pick-me-up for "quick energy support for work, play, school, athletics, weight training and much more."

The boy's mother said she bought the mints at a drug store and that her son took them from her purse without her permission.

School officials suspended the boy for 10 days because school policy prohibits anything that resembles a drug.

So how much caffeine did the kids get from this so-called look-alike drug? About half that provided by a can of soda in the school cafeteria.

Incredible!

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

Watcher Post

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.

And there is an open seat on the Watcher's Council. Contact the Watcher if you are interested.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, The Loons Are Out!

America's most vile hatemonger, Fred Phelps, is at work showing the world what a Christian is not. His take on the Pope's Death can be found here and here.

I'd suggest deluging him with email, but I somehow doubt that it would have any effect on his demented mind.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Thief Steals Motorcycle At Accident Scene, Leaves Body

I know they say there is no honor among thieves. Would it have been too much to expect a little bit of decency in this case here in Houston?

A man was killed this morning when his motorcycle crashed into a northwest Houston house, but the motorcycle soon disappeared, police said.

The man's body was found around 6 a.m. today between two houses in the 1800 block of West Gulf Bank near Donley. He had suffered major head trauma, said Houston Police Department Sgt. David Crain.

Homicide investigators and crime scene unit officers were initially called to the scene, but determined the man had been injured in some sort of traffic accident after finding broken bits of the motorcycle nearby and discovering a tire track leading up to the house.

Officers also found a spot where the man's head had hit the house. He was not wearing a helmet, Crain said.

Police determined the man had been driving a motorcycle southbound on Donley Street at a high rate of speed, then crossed over West Gulf Bank and hit the house.

After the impact, someone came along and took the motorcycle, leaving the man's body there, police said. Police were still looking for that motorcycle later today, Crain said.

The depravity of some people is beyond my understanding.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Cardinal “In Pectore” –Who Is It?

As has been mentioned a number of times in recent days, Pope John Paul II did not announce one of his appointments as cardinal during the 2003 consistory. The name still has not been made public. That leads to an obvious question – who is this cardinal “in the breast”? There is much speculation.

The first possibility is, of course, that the pope told no one who his selection was, and did not leave any written indication of the choice. In that case, the man in question can never be known. But what if the identity was revealed, one way or another? Who might it be?

Observers divide into two camps on the identity of our “undercover cardinal.” On the one hand, it might be a prelate from an oppressed church who would face danger if named publicly. On the other, it could be someone quite close to John Paul, perhaps a priest or prelate in the Vatican whose elevation would have created difficulties if publicly known.

Those who hold the latter view have a candidate in mind. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the Pope’s private secretary for many years. He was ordained a priest by then-Bishop Karol Wojtyla in 1963, and served as his secretary in Krakow and the Vatican. Naming him a cardinal publicly would have been difficult, as it would have likely meant the loss of his services. It would not have been out of character for John Paul to have withheld the public acknowledgement of that appointment until after his death, leaving a final gift to the one man to whom he was closest. If this is the case, we will soon know, because Dziwisz is young enough to participate in the conclave, and near enough at hand to make the announcement of his appointment a simple task.

And there is an element of danger in announcing the appointment of a bishop from an oppressed church. Such a cardinal would almost certainly come from the People’s Republic of China or, perhaps Vietnam. In those nations, making the appointment public would subject the cardinal to arrest, torture, or even martyrdom. Such appointments were not unprecedented under the late pope.

John Paul has named three other "in pectore" cardinals whose names were later revealed, including Marian Jaworski, archbishop of Lviv, Ukraine, for Catholics who follow the Latin rite, and Janis Pujats of Riga, Latvia.

Both Ukraine and Latvia formerly belonged to the officially atheist Soviet Union.

The third was Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei, an elderly Chinese bishop who spent 30 years in Chinese prisons for defying attempts by China's communist government to control Roman Catholics through the state-run church.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, speculation has centered on Bishop Julius Jia of China, but there are others who might also have been chosen by John Paul II. Would it be possible to announce the name of the secret cardinal and get him safely to Rome in time to participate? Would he be allowed to return home in the event he did participate? Those questions would need to be answered, and the consequences considered, before making the announcement.

What impact would this cardinal, the name made public only after the late pope’s death, have at the conclave? Dziwisz certainly knew the mind and heart of the pope better than anyone. What weight would his voice be given? Would he be a desirable candidate himself, or would the election of a second Polish pope in as many conclaves be tone too many? Would a stranger from a strange land, one who has lived under the bootheel of totalitarian oppression (much like a certain Polish cardinal in 1978) have great influence – or even bee seen as the key to liberating his homeland if elected, just as John Paul II’s words and deeds were instrumental in liberating Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc?

So much could hinge on the identity of the cardinal “in pectore,” if only we learn his identity.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 666 words, total size 4 kb.

Cardinal “In Pectore” –Who Is It?

As has been mentioned a number of times in recent days, Pope John Paul II did not announce one of his appointments as cardinal during the 2003 consistory. The name still has not been made public. That leads to an obvious question – who is this cardinal “in the breast”? There is much speculation.

The first possibility is, of course, that the pope told no one who his selection was, and did not leave any written indication of the choice. In that case, the man in question can never be known. But what if the identity was revealed, one way or another? Who might it be?

Observers divide into two camps on the identity of our “undercover cardinal.” On the one hand, it might be a prelate from an oppressed church who would face danger if named publicly. On the other, it could be someone quite close to John Paul, perhaps a priest or prelate in the Vatican whose elevation would have created difficulties if publicly known.

Those who hold the latter view have a candidate in mind. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the PopeÂ’s private secretary for many years. He was ordained a priest by then-Bishop Karol Wojtyla in 1963, and served as his secretary in Krakow and the Vatican. Naming him a cardinal publicly would have been difficult, as it would have likely meant the loss of his services. It would not have been out of character for John Paul to have withheld the public acknowledgement of that appointment until after his death, leaving a final gift to the one man to whom he was closest. If this is the case, we will soon know, because Dziwisz is young enough to participate in the conclave, and near enough at hand to make the announcement of his appointment a simple task.

And there is an element of danger in announcing the appointment of a bishop from an oppressed church. Such a cardinal would almost certainly come from the PeopleÂ’s Republic of China or, perhaps Vietnam. In those nations, making the appointment public would subject the cardinal to arrest, torture, or even martyrdom. Such appointments were not unprecedented under the late pope.

John Paul has named three other "in pectore" cardinals whose names were later revealed, including Marian Jaworski, archbishop of Lviv, Ukraine, for Catholics who follow the Latin rite, and Janis Pujats of Riga, Latvia.

Both Ukraine and Latvia formerly belonged to the officially atheist Soviet Union.

The third was Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei, an elderly Chinese bishop who spent 30 years in Chinese prisons for defying attempts by China's communist government to control Roman Catholics through the state-run church.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, speculation has centered on Bishop Julius Jia of China, but there are others who might also have been chosen by John Paul II. Would it be possible to announce the name of the secret cardinal and get him safely to Rome in time to participate? Would he be allowed to return home in the event he did participate? Those questions would need to be answered, and the consequences considered, before making the announcement.

What impact would this cardinal, the name made public only after the late pope’s death, have at the conclave? Dziwisz certainly knew the mind and heart of the pope better than anyone. What weight would his voice be given? Would he be a desirable candidate himself, or would the election of a second Polish pope in as many conclaves be tone too many? Would a stranger from a strange land, one who has lived under the bootheel of totalitarian oppression (much like a certain Polish cardinal in 197 have great influence – or even bee seen as the key to liberating his homeland if elected, just as John Paul II’s words and deeds were instrumental in liberating Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc?

So much could hinge on the identity of the cardinal “in pectore,” if only we learn his identity.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 672 words, total size 4 kb.

The Catholic Church Is Not A Democracy

ThatÂ’s why I find this poll to be more than a little bit absurd.

The U.S. Catholic church is struggling with a variety of problems, including a dramatically shrinking U.S. priesthood, disagreement over the proper role for lay leaders, and a conservative-liberal divide over sexuality, women's ordination and clergy celibacy.

About two-thirds of those polled, 69 percent, said priests should be allowed to marry and almost that many, 64 percent, said they want women in the priesthood. Six in 10 Catholics supported each of those steps.

More than four in five Americans — and about the same number of Catholics — said they want to see the next pope do more to address the problem of priests sexually abusing children.

The church has been trying to deal with an abuse crisis that bubbled to the surface in January 2002 in the Archdiocese of Boston, then spread throughout the country. Since then, the church has adopted a toughened discipline policy, enacted child protection and victim outreach plans in dioceses, and removed hundreds of accused priests from church work.

Americans were divided when asked from where the next pope should come. Just over a third said he should be from Europe, while a similar number said he should be from a part of the world where Catholicism is growing fastest, like Africa or Latin America. The rest weren't sure.

First, the poll does not limit itself to Catholics only. In that regard, it is somewhat insulting. Could you imagine a survey of all Americans regarding whether Jews should change the rules on what is kosher to include pork? But beyond that, I would be curious to find out how many of the “Catholics” were actually practicing Catholics. My guess would be no more than 10% of those included in the sample were actually baptized Catholics who have set foot in a Catholic Church for anything other than Easter, Christmas, weddings, and funerals during the last 12 months. In other words, why should we care what 90% of these people think on issues related to the Catholic Church.

Second, the Catholic Church is not run based upon opinion polls and focus groups. It doesnÂ’t matter how many folks in the US think the Pope should come from the Third World, Europe, or Sheboygan, Wisconsin. And given that Americans are a relatively small subset of the Church, the opinions of Americans are not highly relevant.

Still, an exercise like this one could be interesting if done right. You know, if they had surveyed Catholics about their views on Catholicism. Not that it would have had any impact on who or how the new pope would be chosen.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

Treating Healers Like Pushers

I hope you never ever have to live with chronic pain. I hope none of your loved ones ever has to live with chronic pain. It is a hell that no individual should have to live with. Medically, there is only one treatment – high doses of pain-killing drugs, including opiates. Trust me – I know. My wife is one whose only relief comes from a pharmaceutical cocktail.

Doctors are hesitant to prescribe these drugs because writing “too many” prescriptions for “too many” pills at “too high” a dosage brings scrutiny that doctors would prefer not to face. My wife’s pain management doctor recently informed us that he had changed office policy to forbid a practice that is standard in most physician’s offices – giving refills to a pharmacy by phone. If my wife (and every other patient) wants a refill, she must make an office visit and be seen by the doctor. Why? Because of cases like this one.

In December, after a federal jury convicted McLean, Virginia, pain doctor William Hurwitz of running a drug trafficking operation, the foreman told The Washington Post "he wasn't running a criminal enterprise." Don't bother reading that sentence again; it's not going to make any more sense the second time around.

Hurwitz, who is scheduled to be sentenced on April 14 and will go to prison for life if U.S. District Judge Leonard Wexler follows the prosecutors' recommendation, was charged with drug trafficking because a small minority of his patients abused or sold narcotic painkillers he prescribed for them. Prosecutors argued his practice amounted to a "criminal enterprise" based on a "conspiracy of silence"—i.e., a conspiracy in which Hurwitz did not actually conspire with anyone—because he charged for his services and should have known some of his patients were faking or exaggerating their pain.

Judging from the comments of the jury foreman, Ralph Craft, the jurors did not really buy this theory. Perhaps they still harbored the legally unsophisticated notion that drug traffickers are people who engage in drug trafficking. But they convicted Hurwitz anyway, because they didn't like the way he practiced medicine.
"I'm not an expert," Craft conceded, while expressing the opinion that Hurwitz was "a little bit cavalier" in prescribing opioids. "He ramped up and ramped up the prescriptions very quickly," he said. "This is stuff that can kill people. He should have been extra careful."

Craft and his fellow jurors were appalled by the sheer number of pills Hurwitz prescribed. "The dosages were just astounding," he said, calling them "beyond the bounds of reason."

But they are not beyond the bounds of reason. The body builds up a tolerance to these medications, as a physical dependency develops. Where one pill getting up and one pill at dinner might have provided relief early on, in a year or so the dosage will need to reach four pills a day, just to be able to move around the house. From there the dosage must increase, or a new medication must be introduced. Some medications are not even considered – Oxy-Contin, for example, because of the scrutiny it brings due to the high level of abuse. And even with all the changes and increases, the pain continues to progress. Still more medication is necessary, just to have some semblance of a normal life.

Those dosages are pretty intense. I was recently prescribed one of my wife’s medications when I had a muscle spasm in my neck and back that went on for two weeks. My dosage was lower, and less frequent than what my wife regularly takes. The first dose took away all my pain – and left me incapable of walking any further than the bathroom for the next six hours – and so frightened that I refused to take the medication again. My wife, on the other hand, is completely clear-headed when she takes a dosage twice as high four times a day. Why? Because her body has built up a tolerance to the medication, and its effect on a systemic neuro-muscular disease is palliative, not intoxicating.

In a letter they wrote before the verdict, six past presidents of the American Pain Society rebuked Ashburn for this statement, along with several other misrepresentations of pain treatment standards. "We are stunned by his testimony," they said. "Use of 'high dose' opioid therapy for chronic pain is clearly in the scope of medicine."

As these pain experts recognized, Hurwitz was not the only person on trial at the federal courthouse in Alexandria. So was every doctor who has the courage to risk investigation by treating people who suffer from severe chronic pain with the high doses of opioids they need to make their lives livable.

In poignant letters to Judge Wexler, who has fairly wide latitude in punishing Hurwitz now that the U.S. Supreme Court has made federal sentencing guidelines merely advisory, dozens of his former patients recount how he saved them from constant agony caused by migraines, back injuries, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and other painful conditions that left them disabled, homebound, despondent, and in some cases suicidal. They outline the difficulties they had in getting adequate treatment before they found Hurwitz and the trouble they've been having since the government put him out of business.

"Good pain doctors are hard to find," writes one. "I am saddened that Dr. Hurwitz is branded a criminal for helping me and helping people like me." Another argues that Hurwitz's "crime"—trusting his patients—was one of his greatest virtues. "It is to Dr. Hurwitz's credit," he says, "that he chose to trust that his patients were genuinely seeking relief from pain that cannot be objectively measured. This trust is, in my experience, all too rare." Threatening doctors with prison for viewing their patients with inadequate suspicion will make it even rarer.

What has happened here is that the War on Drugs has turned into a War on Doctors – and by extension, into a War on Patients. Prosecutions like the Hurwitz case make it harder for patents like my wife to get needed medications in therapeutic doses. And it leaves me asking uncomfortable questions.

Will the day come that my wifeÂ’s doctor is going to refuse to give her the medication she needs in order to keep out of jail?

Will this kind and decent man be put on trial because some patient overdoses or sells medication?

Will some prosecutor be second–guessing my wife’s medical care?

Or will needed medications, and the physician's to prescribe them, remain available?

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1091 words, total size 7 kb.

"Mail It In" -- How To Avoid The Filibuster

Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that Senator Robert Byrd (Klan-Dogpatch) is correct. No where does the Constitution require an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee. It just isn't in there. But then again, the Constitution does not mandate a vote at all. It simply calls fo the "advice and consent" of the Senate. So notes a piece in today's Opinion Journal.

As the Senator says, Article II of the Constitution is silent on how the Senate shall exercise its "advice and consent" power in confirming judicial nominees. For more than 200 years, however, that body has interpreted the Founders' injunction to mean that a simple majority of Senators--51 in our age--must vote to confirm. That's why we cried foul in President Bush's first term when Democrats filibustered 10 appeals-court nominees, thereby denying them an up-or-down vote on the floor--even though every candidate had the support of a bipartisan majority. A vote to end a filibuster requires a super-majority of 60 Senators.

But now that Senator Byrd has expressed the view that the Senate doesn't have to vote at all, here's a better idea for ending the impasse over judicial nominations: Fifty-one of the 55 Republican Senators can simply send the President a letter expressing their support for his candidates. Under Mr. Byrd's Constitutional analysis, the Senate will have exercised "advice and consent" and the judges will be confirmed.

Sounds reasonable to me. Having advised the President to reappoint those candidates denied a floor vote, the explicit consent of a majority of senators, communicated to the President constitutes "advice and consent". The Constitutional mandate having been met, the nominations are, by any Constitutional standard, approved and the judges confirmed.

Thank you, Senator Byrd, for providing the solution to the current crisis. Let the filibuster rule remain unchanged -- just follow the Constitution. Problem solved.

Posted by: Greg at 07:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Maligned Minutemen Save Border Jumper

And I thought they were supposed to be gun-wielding racists out "hunting for Mexicans". What happened? Could it be that the leftists, the Preseident Bush, and Pendejo Presidente Fox have misled us -- perhaps intentionally so?

Minuteman Project volunteers helped an illegal entrant in distress late Friday. The incident was the first documented encounter between the volunteers and Mexican nationals sneaking across the border, officials said.

The incident happened around midnight when a tired and thirsty illegal entrant who'd been separated from his group approached Minuteman volunteers at the Bible College in Palominas, said U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame. Project volunteers have been camping out at the college.

Not, of course, that this changed anyone's point of view about American citizens engaged inlegal activity attempting to help the Border Patrol.

Officials from both sides of the issue said that Minuteman volunteers proved helpful in the first contact with an entrant.

"In this particular case, it was helping us. In this sole incident, it was a help," Adame said, adding the Border Patrol still doesn't support the Minuteman Project, which involves volunteers stationed along areas on the border looking for illegal entrants.

One case of providing help doesn't make the monthlong protest acceptable, said a member of a border rights group.

"The fact that they encountered a migrant and did the right thing, yes I'm glad. Does it suddenly make them OK in our communities? No," said Kat Rodriguez, an organizer for the Tucson-based Derechos Humanos, a rights group that has spoken out against the project.

And therein lies the problem. The administration is more concerned with kissing the butt of maintaining good relations with the Mexican cabron president than with protecting our borders and enforcing our laws, hence the opposition from the Border patrol. And the so called "border rights groups" (read that "pro-crime groups") are always going to be opposed to any enforcement of our nation's laws at all -- they are the immigration equivalent of members of the Osama Fan Club. The result is that no matter what the Minutemen do, they will be maligned by those who are opposed not only to their presence, but to their agenda.

UPDATE: Well, now they've tipped Border patrol officers to a group of border jumpers coming into the country illegally -- 18 border jumpers arrested.

Volunteers for an effort to patrol the Mexican border reported their first sighting of suspected illegal immigrants, resulting in 18 arrests, authorities said Sunday.

Participants in the Minuteman Project spotted the migrants Saturday near Naco as the volunteers were surveying the border to familiarize themselves with area. When agents arrived, they apprehended 18 people, Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame said.

"You observe them, report them and get out of the way," said Mike McGarry, a spokesman for the project, which begins Monday and is to continue for a month.

Now who are the bad guys here? The Minutemen, or their opponents?

Posted by: Greg at 06:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 4 kb.

Anti-JPII Bias At New York Times

Hindrocket over at Power Line found this unbelievable bias from the friendly folks at the New York Times.

It seems that they had a very critical obituary chock-full of quotes from critics and opponents ready to run when Pope John Paul II died this afternoon -- but somehow hadn't gotten around to finding anyone with something good to say about one of the most beloved figures on the planet. Compare the screenshot of the original version with the current version of the same story. Notice the line that appears right before they bring in a theologian so heretical that he had his teaching credentials yanked by the Vatican!

Even as his own voice faded away, his views on the sanctity of all human life echoed unambiguously among Catholics and Christian evangelicals in the United States on issues from abortion to the end of life.

need some quote from supporter

John Paul II's admirers were as passionate as his detractors, for whom his long illness served as a symbol for what they said was a decrepit, tradition-bound papacy in need of rejuvenation and a bolder connection with modern life.

"The situation in the Catholic church is serious," Hans Kung, the eminent Swiss theologian, who was barred by from teaching in Catholic schools because of his liberal views, wrote last week. "The pope is gravely ill and deserves every compassion. But the Church has to live. ...

In my opinion, he is not the greatest pope but the most contradictory of the 20th century. A pope of many, great gifts, and of many bad decisions!"

I have to say it -- this is absolutely beyond belief, even for a once-great newspaper turned third-rate birdcage-liner like the New York Times.

(Hat Tip -- Michelle Malkin)

Posted by: Greg at 05:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Sede Vacante -- RIP Pope John Paul II

V. Eternal rest grant unto them him, O Lord.
R. And may perpetual light shine upon them him.
V. May the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.
R. Amen.

Pope John Paul II, the Polish pontiff who led the Roman Catholic Church for more than a quarter century and became history's most-traveled pope, has died at 84, the Vatican announced in an e-mail Saturday.

"The Holy Father died this evening at 9:37 p.m. (2:37 p.m. EST) in his private apartment. All the procedures outlined in the apostolic Constitution `Universi Dominici Gregis' that was written by John Paul II on Feb. 22, 1996, have been put in motion."

Posted by: Greg at 08:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

Papabile -- Possible Popes

UPDATE -- April 9, 2005: After reading this post, consider going to my new post on the conclave, Thoughts On The Papal Election of 2005. It looks at the upcoming conclave in light of events of the last week, and considers the chances of some of "possible popes" mentioned below, along with some additional candidates who have emerged since the death of John Paul II.

* * * *

In theory, the next Pope can be any baptized Catholic male. That leaves a lot of possible candidates out there. But the likelihood of us seeing the election of Ted Kennedy, Feddie from Southern Appeal, or one of my old seminary classmates is pretty remote. It has been centuries since someone NOT a member of the College of Cardinals was elevated to the Throne of St. Peter. That narrows the field significantly, to fewer than 200 "princes of the Church. When we exclude non-voting members of the College (over age 80) as likely too old to be elected, that leaves us with 117 (of the maximum 120 allowed by Church law) Cardinal Electors. In 2003, the Pope did create one Cardinal "in pectorre", meaning the name has been kept secret. It is believed that the secret Cardinal is one of the bishops of the Catholic Church loyal to the Vatican which has been oppressed in the People's Republic of China. The Vatican could quickly announce his name and have him participate in the conclave IF he can be safely gotten out of China and if he is under 80.

Different names are already circulating as papabile -- "possible popes" -- as we head towards a likely conclave in the month of April. I've written on this before (and got 300 hits on this earlier post just yesterday, since I am #3 on Google's search on the subject), but I think it is time to look at the topic again, as a conclave seems much closer than it did in February.

Generally speaking, church observers group the 117 cardinals eligible to elect the next pope into four overlapping constituencies:

There are those, likely a majority, who decidedly don't want the next papacy to last as long as John Paul's, who was elected Pope in 1978 at age 58.

They will favour an older man, maybe a caretaker pope, to nanny the church as it adapts to a new era without John Paul's fist on the tiller, but who will not stay in the job too long.

There are cardinals who will want a pope from the global South, where nearly 70 per cent of the world's Catholics now live.

Opposing them will be cardinals who think one of John Paul's great failures was his inability to address European secularism, and who, therefore, feel the next pope should be a Western European.

And there will be cardinals who, despite sharing John Paul's conservative theology — which virtually all of them do — have chafed under his centralized iron authority and will want the next pope to be more collegial, which is Catholic code language for allowing national churches and bishops to be more in charge of their own show.

What names are being tossed around as serious papabile? Well, here are a number I have encountered.

• Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, 71, of Milan, a conservative moral theologian who has tolerated the relaxing of the strict interpretation of the Church's teaching on condom use when Catholic groups distributed condoms to prostitutes for protection from HIV/AIDS. He is also a strong supporter of Opus Dei.
  
• Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos of Colombia, 75, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. An ideal candidate if the Cardinals are looking for a candidate from outside of Europe.
• Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany, 72, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.
• Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, age 77, a German who has served as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith for most of the current pontificate. He is doctrinally conservative and is a lightning-rod for criticism among Church liberals. At the same time, he is personally popular, an intellectual giant, and a man who, like the current pope, is a believer in ecumenical work and is also not afraid to defend the teachings of the Church when they are called into question. He is dean of the College of Cardinals.
  
  
• Cardinal Angelo Sodano, 77, an Italian, the Vatican Secretary of State and vice-dean of the College of Cardinals. He is one of those closest to the current pope, and has the advantage over Ratzinger of being an Italian. There are about 20 Italians who will be voting in the conclave if it comes now.
  
• Cardinal Claudio Hummes, 70, Archbishop of Sao Paolo, Brazil. He is a likely candidate if those who believe a candidate from the Southern Hemisphere should be elected, especially if the desire is for a pastoral rather than a curial candidate.
  
• Cardinal Francis Arinze, 72, of Nigeria. He is currently Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, he is seen as one of the bright stars of the Curia. Cardinal Arinze is frequently mentioned as a candidate for the papacy, and would be the first African pope in some 1500 years. He would also, as best can be determined, be the first black pope.
• Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, 78, retired Archibishop of Paris. A Jew by birth, he grew up a yellow-star wearing boy named Aaron and lost his mother in Auschwitz. he is actively involved in inter-religious dialogue.
  
• Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, 60, Archbishop of Vienna, Austria. He is probably a bit young to be elected this conclave, as he would likely serve for a period of time similar to the John Paul II, who was elected at 58. On the other hand, he is theologically close to the current pontiff, and has a similar warm pastoral style. If the decision is for another non-Italian Western European, this would likely be the man. Another plus is that he took over in Vienna following a sexual abuse scandal forced out his predecessor and Schönborn dealt with the situation very effectively. Such a background would,sad to say, be useful given the scandals of recent years. If an older pope is elected, expect Schönborn to be seen as a leading candidate in the next conclave.
• Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, 62, Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. He is not as hard-line as the current pope in many areas, but is widely respected among the latin American Cardinals. He is often mentioned as papabile.
• Cardinal Ivan Dias, 68, Archbishop of Mumbai(Bombay), India. He is a native of india, a former member of the diplomatic corps, and is fluent in many languages. Dias followed the path common for such previous popes as Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI. He would be the first Asian pope, and is considered to be a dark-horse among possible candidates.
  
  

One thing to note is that each of them (except Schönborn & Rodríguez Maradiaga) is an older man, indicating that we are likely to see a "caretaker pope" who will likely give the Church a little breathing room after the third longest papacy in history, one defined by arguably the strongest papal personality in a century. Such popes are not generally expected to do much, but can be surprising. The last "caretaker" was Pope John XXIII, who was expected to do little more than correct Pius XII's failure to appoint Milan's Archbishop Montini to the College. Instead he issued the call for the Second Vatican Council, changing the Catholic Church forever.

Ultimately, we don't know who the next pope will be, or where he is from. That is up to the Holy Spirit, acting through the Cardinal Electors in the conclave.

UPDATE:

Here is an Australian article that matches up well with much of my list, though with some differences.

This ABC News article is also sort of interesting.

The Houston Chronicle carried this article from Reuters giving a list with biographies. There are some significant additions and subtractions from my list.

In addition, I've got one Czech reader pushing his personal favorite, along with a list of other candidates.

Posted by: Greg at 03:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1372 words, total size 11 kb.

Seattle Secretly Selling Sick Brains From Morgue

This sounds almost like a sick joke -- but it isn't.

Imagine the moment of deepest loss. Your spouse, parent, sibling or child is dead. You've lived for with the difficulties that came with this loved one's mental illness. You've hoped and prayed for a cure of some kind for the disease from which they suffered for years. And now someone from the lab asks for tissue samples from their brain and other organs for research purposes. It would be hard to say no. And that's what they counted on -- that, and the probability that you would ask no further questions.

Folks on Vashon Island called him "Cool Gary," a local schizophrenic who loved hitchhiking and playing practical jokes.

When Gary died jumping into traffic in November 1998, his body wound up at the King County Morgue.

Less than 72 hours later, Gary's brain was removed and mailed to Bethesda, Md. It became property of The Stanley Medical Research Institute, a multimillion-dollar company that studies mental disorders.

"I can't believe what is happening here," said Bill Lynn, Gary's father.

Bill Lynn says he's never heard of Stanley. He at first thought KIRO Team 7 Investigators were kidding when we showed him proof that King County profited from harvesting his son's brain.

"You're crazy! I didn't raise my kids to sell 'em. This is unreasonable. Why would I agree with any hospital or anybody to receive any money for any body parts? No way! I'm just not built that way," Lynn said.

So what about this written "consent form" provided to KIRO Team 7 Investigators by King County as proof that Bill authorized the brain donation?

"Something is rotten in Denmark, that's for sure. No, I never, I didn't sign anything. That's not my writing here," Lynn said.

Here's what Lynn says did happen: The Medical Examiner's office called on the phone, asking for a "skin and brain tissue donation."

"They didn't tell me they were going to sell it. I'd have said 'no' right off the bat," said Lynn.

I could imagine an honest conversation about what was going on. Tell me what you think.

"Hi, This is Bob from over at the county morgue. I'm mighty sorry your son died. Would you be willing to give us your son't brain so we can sell it to a company? No sir, you and your family won't get a share of the profits. It'll all go into the office budget so we can buy copier supplies and some new equipment."

Who wouldn't have said no? I mean, what person in their right mind (forgive the phrase) would take that deal? The entire notion is obscene. And while I was a bit flip about what the money was being spent on (it isn't clear where the money went, exactly), I think the point is pretty clear.

Lynn's story is a familiar one. KIRO Team 7 Investigators contacted a half dozen families, which we confirmed had donated brains via King County. None knew of Stanley. None knew of money changing hands.

"It was my feeling that they were maybe going to run some tests on his brain tissue," said Vicki Hendricks.

Hendricks's son Jim died suddenly at 36 years old. She gave permission for King County to take brain "samples" thinking they needed them to determine cause of death. Jim's whole brain instead ended up at Stanley Medical.

"Those are public servants, people we rely on to be there for us, and if you can't feel comfortable with them, then it's kind of scary," Hendricks said.

What are teh ethics of such a program. KIRO-TV, which did the investigation, asked medical ethicist Dr. Elliot Stern about that.

Contracts vary a little each year, but the one in 2003 said "the KCME will try to collect a minimum of 50 specimens." For those efforts, Stanley sent big monthly checks to the medical examiner's office -- far exceeding the true costs of removing and shipping brains.

"That's a huge breach of public trust," said Dr. Elliot Stern.

Stern is a recognized expert in donation ethics. He says King County has big trouble ahead. If next-of-kin are not fully informed, courts consider that no consent at all.

"I would not have made a donation," Dr. Stern said. "I don't know a reasonable person who would have made a donation knowing money was going to change hands and enter county coffers in excess of harvesting costs."

So yeah, there is a big problem there. The consent gien probably is not legally valid due to the details left out.

When there was consent at all.

Records indicate more brains shipped than there were consent forms.

This could get really ugly.

Posted by: Greg at 03:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 797 words, total size 5 kb.

One Cool Site

I hadn't realized that there was someone doing this, but there is a site called "The Pope Blog".

They have, since last summer, been posting papal news.

I highly recommend it as a good source for reasonably up to date material.

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Religious Speech Less Free Than The Rest At Air Force Academy

I agree with and applaud efforts by officials at the Air Force Academy to prevent religious harrassment. But I am a bit uncomfortable with one aspect of the training program, called Respecting the Spiritual Values of All People, or RSVP.

RSVP begins first with educating faculty and staff on Air Force policy and directives that proselytizing and religious jokes and slurs are forbidden.

"Once we've gotten that across ... then we can say, 'Now, let's dialogue,"' said Col. Michael Whittington, senior chaplain at the academy. "Let's have this very healthy discussion, even argue - that's OK. Let's go ahead and find out: 'How can we show respect without believing that somehow I'm condoning what you believe?"'

The problem is the relegation of religious speech to a second-class status. A prohibition on all proselytizing speech? It seems to me that by placing such a restriction, you violate the very respect for religious beliefs that the program is about preserving. What the ban says is that such speech (and, implicitly, the belief system associated with it) is not respected, and is in fact officially disapproved. That strikes me as a rather extreme restriction on the civil liberties of individuals training to protect our civil liberties.

Now I recognize that good order and discipline may require restrictions on the exercise of those civil liberties, but this one goes too far. Does the good of the service really require the restriction of freedom of speech and freedom of religion to such a degree?

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Dumb Comment Du Jour

I don't generally cover affirmative action bake sales any longer. While i think they are a great tool for making a point, the mere fact that one is controversial is not a big deal to me. One has to get shut down to really get my attention.

Or someone has to do/say something really stupid. Like this guy as Arizona State University.

Several students took on the [College Republicans] Tuesday. Many of them approached the booth screaming and accusing the club of being racist.

"They're [the club] trying to say affirmative action is based on race, but it's not," said Juan Fortenberry, a kinesiology freshman.

Uh, Juan, can we talk? Affirmative action is exclusively based upon race and ethnicity. It is the giving of preferences, based upon race and ethnicity, to applicants who would not otherwise be considered for employment or admission. Even if we reverted back to its benign form, as opposed to today's malignant version, it would still be about taking steps to include candidates in the hiring/admissions pool based upon race and ethnicity. What did you think it was, dude?

My guess is that Juan is a beneficiary of the program at ASU.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

John Paul II – We Love You!

I remember chanting that line when the Holy Father was in Denver in 1993, along with a crowd of other young people as we welcomed him to various World Youth Day events. I remember that at the end of the final Mass, The crowd began the chant one final time and that before he left, the Pope responded -- "John Paul II loves you, too."

Though I have since struggled with the Church and would definitely qualify as a lapsed Catholic (though still a believer in Christ), that does not in the least reduce my love and respect for that man.

I know he will be leaving us soon.

Here’s a quote that set me to weeping.

"This evening or this night, Christ opens the door to the pope," Angelo Comastri, the pope's vicar general for Vatican City, told the crowd.

And all I can respond with is this – Around the world, Your Holiness, there are hundreds of millions whose hearts echo that chant from Denver.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

John Paul II – We Love You!

I remember chanting that line when the Holy Father was in Denver in 1993, along with a crowd of other young people as we welcomed him to various World Youth Day events. I remember that at the end of the final Mass, The crowd began the chant one final time and that before he left, the Pope responded -- "John Paul II loves you, too."

Though I have since struggled with the Church and would definitely qualify as a lapsed Catholic (though still a believer in Christ), that does not in the least reduce my love and respect for that man.

I know he will be leaving us soon.

HereÂ’s a quote that set me to weeping.

"This evening or this night, Christ opens the door to the pope," Angelo Comastri, the pope's vicar general for Vatican City, told the crowd.

And all I can respond with is this – Around the world, Your Holiness, there are hundreds of millions whose hearts echo that chant from Denver.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

When Do They Begin The Assassinations?

We conservatives have spent years dealing with the Left attempting to shout-down and silence our voices. We have found it necessary to put up with thugs stealing newspapers and prevent speeches. In recent weeks, the Left has been busy engaging in assaults upon conservative speakers. In the last couple of days, both William Kristol and Pat Buchanan have been assaulted by food-wielding terrorists. Kristol gamely continued with his speech after being pied, but Buchanan was forced to stop his talk after having a bottle of salad dressing dumped over his head.

"Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, "Thank you all for coming, but I'm going to have to get my hair washed."

The demonstrator, identified by authorities as a 24-year-old student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, was arrested and faces a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. He was released on a $100 cash bond, pending his April 14 arraignment.
"He could have faced a felony assault charge, but Pat Buchanan decided to not press that charge," university spokesman Matt Kurz said.

Frankly, Pat was wrong – he should have insisted upon the felony assault charge. His failure to do so lowers the stakes for such attempts to silence the Right on Campus.

KristolÂ’s attacker faces even less sever punishment.

Kristol, editor of the influential conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff to Vice President Quayle, was splattered by a student during a speech Tuesday at Earlham College in Richmond, Ind.

Members of the audience at the Quaker college jeered the student, then applauded as Kristol wiped the pie from his face and said, "Just let me finish this point." Kristol then completed his speech and took questions from the audience.

The student, who was not immediately identified, was suspended and could face expulsion following a disciplinary review, Earlham Provost Len Clark said Wednesday.
Clark also issued a written apology complimenting Kristol for his "graciousness.".

What next? Will we see these folks using guns to shut up unwelcome viewpoints? Will conservative speakers be banned on campus because of the real threat of bloodshed, caused by those whose political philosophy is so bankrupt that they must engage in violence to suppress the other side? These attacks that so many folks laugh at are nothing short of civil rights violations – an interference with the rights guaranteed these speakers under the First Amendment.

Oh, and one other thing. I noted this paragraph in the middle of the article.

Buchanan's visit had evoked controversy on campus because it fell on the birthday of the late Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez. Buchanan favors tighter controls on immigration.

I donÂ’t see why the fact that it was his birthday should have been the source of any controversy at all. Chavez opposed illegal immigration because it suppressed the wages of farmworkers who had to compete with the cheaper pay given to illegals. He urged his unionÂ’s (mostly Hispanic) membership to report border jumpers. He even staged rallies outside of INS offices to protest the failure of the government to secure the borders. WhatÂ’s more, the UFW even set up a border operation, the Wet Line, to stop illegals from entering the country (shades of the Minuteman Project). If anything, Buchanan and Chavez would agree today on the need to do something about the sieve that is the US-Mexico border.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 621 words, total size 4 kb.

End Daylight Savings Time

IÂ’ve never liked Daylight Savings Time. It is an annoyance to me as someone whose workday starts before 7:00 AM. I already have to drive to work in darkness much of the year, and the change in time forces me back into darkness. My students, finally arriving to school in daylight, are also required to travel to school in darkness, to the detriment of their safety. And as an additional hardship, the time change will cause me to once more lose the signal of my favorite talk radio station, with its lower signal strength between dusk and dawn.

John Miller writes about the problems presents a number of excellent reasons for doing away with DST in an article in National Review.

I recently wondered exactly why we observe Daylight Saving Time (DST). For some reason, I had harbored a vague notion that it had to do with farmers.
Well, it turns out that DST had nothing to do with farmers, who traditionally haven't cared much for it. They care a lot less nowadays, but when the first DST law was making its way through Congress, farmers actually lobbied against it. Dairy farmers were especially upset because their cows refused to accept humanity's tinkering with the hands of time. The obstinate cud-chewers wanted to be milked every twelve hours, and had absolutely no interest in resetting their biological clocks — even if the local creameries suddenly wanted their milk an hour earlier.
As Michael Downing points out in his new book, Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time, urban businessmen were a major force behind the adoption of DST in the United States. They thought daylight would encourage workers to go shopping on their way home. They also tried to make a case for agriculture, though they didn't bother to consult any actual farmers. One pamphlet argued that DST would benefit the men and women who worked the land because "most farm products are better when gathered with dew on. They are firmer, crisper, than if the sun has dried the dew off." At least that was the claim of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, chaired by department-store magnate A. Lincoln Filene. This was utter nonsense. A lot of crops couldn't be harvested until the morning dew had evaporated. What's more, morning dew has no effect whatsoever on firmness or crispness.

Perhaps farmers should take one for the team — i.e., put up with DST even though they don't like it because it keeps city cash registers chinging into the twilight. Yet the contention that DST is good for business is doubtful. It may help some businesses, but it also stands to reason that other ones suffer. If people are more likely to browse the racks at Filene's Basement in the daylight, then they're probably also less likely to go to the movies or take-out restaurants. And in the morning, when it's darker during rush hour, commuters are perhaps disinclined to stop at the corner store for a newspaper or the coffee bar for a latte. Although it's impossible to know the precise economic effects of DST, any attempt to calculate them carries the malodorous whiff of industrial policy.

We're also informed that DST helps conserve energy, apparently because people arriving home when the sun is still up don't switch on their lights. Didn't it occur to anybody that maybe they compensate by switching them on earlier in the morning? Moreover, people who arrive home from work an hour earlier during the hot summer months are probably more prone to turning up their air conditioners. According to Downing, the petroleum industry once was "an ardent and generous supporter" of DST because it believed people would hop in their cars and drive for pleasure — and guzzle more gas.

But the very worst thing about DST is that it's bad for your health. According to Stanley Coren, a sleep expert at the University of British Columbia, the number of traffic accidents and fatal industrial mishaps increase on the Monday after we spring forward. (Check out one of his studies here.) The reason, presumably, is because losing even a single hour of sleep over the weekend makes a lot of people a bit drowsier on what we might usefully call Black Monday. Unfortunately, there's no compensating effect of a super-safe Monday as we go off DST and "fall back" in the autumn.

So DST is deadly. But maybe we should keep that troubling little fact to ourselves, before Congress decides to impose the National Bedtime Hour.

LetÂ’s just let time be time. There are some natural phenomenon that Government cannot and should not tamper with. And if it can muck around with time, should we be surprised if some year or other they attempt to amend or repeal the Law of Gravity?

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 809 words, total size 5 kb.

Insipid Silliness And Mean-Spiritedness

I just donÂ’t understand how A led to B.

Janeal Lee, 30, who has muscular dystrophy and uses a scooter, was disqualified after she was shown in a picture in a newspaper standing up with her high school math students.

She says she has been made to feel like she's "not disabled enough" to represent disabled people in Wisconsin.

Lee had planned to go to the national pageant with her younger sister, who also has muscular dystrophy and won the competition in Minnesota. Students at Kaukauna High School, where Lee teaches, raised $1,000 for her trip to the national pageant.

But pageant officials are standing by their ruling that in public, the winner must mostly be seen in a wheelchair or a scooter. Otherwise, says an official with Ms. Wheelchair America, you risk offending women who can't stand or walk.

So the crown goes to the runner-up, Michelle Kearney, of Milwaukee, Wis., who will compete in the national pageant in July.

One picture? Tell me how that one picture constitutes a violation of the policy?

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

More Democrat Election Fraud And Incompetence

Notice, this is Democrat Miami-Dade, not a GOP part of the state, where incompetence reigns and votes go uncounted. It isnÂ’t in an area where the process is controlled by Republicans.

The elections chief of a key South Florida county has resigned amid revelations of voting problems in six elections.

Miami-Dade Elections Supervisor Constance Kaplan resigned Thursday. Her chief deputy, Lester Sola, will take over temporarily.

The veteran Chicago election official came on board in Miami in June 2003 to fix problems from the 2000 presidential election. The county was heavily criticized after 28,000 mostly punchcard ballots went uncounted. President Bush won the state - and thus the presidency - by 537 votes.

County Manager George Burgess said he questioned Kaplan about a special election on slot machines in which there were a high number of ballots with no recorded votes - known as undervotes.

Kaplan blamed a software fluke, he said.

Officials later identified elections in West Miami, Bay Harbor Island, Surfside, Golden Beach and Cutler Ridge with high undervotes.

Kaplan said the uncounted votes would not have changed any results, but pari-mutuel industry officials - who lost a bid to install slot machines at tracks and jai alai frontons - have asked for a new election.

Burgess said Kaplan's explanations for the problems were inadequate.

But why should we be surprised by the inability of this woman to conduct a free and fair and accurate election – her qualifications include a stint working with elections in Chicago, the capital of Democrat vote fraud.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Rebel Without A Clue

On Good Friday, Christian Legal Society members at Penn State Law School hide plastic eggs around campus, filled with candy and Gospel messages. This year, they found out someone beat them to it. The unknown culprit hid eggs with blasphemous cartoons inside depicting Jesus questioning his sexuality and calling God an “asshole”.

In a striking stand for the First Amendment, the group did not seek to have the perpetrator punished by the school. Instead, they held a forum to discuss the First Amendment implications of rules and laws against hate speech. Good for them.

The perpetrator finally came forward on Tuesday. He is George Black, a second-year Penn Law student. What does he say about the incident? He calls it a parody, and claims that he was trying to communicate message. The message?

“It's just annoying to me to have these fundamentalist ideas pushed down my throat," Black said in an interview. "It's interference with my education."

Black said he had attempted to voice his opinions through Law School listservs and announcement systems but was not permitted because he did not represent an official student group.

So Black was angry that he is having “fundamentalist ideas pushed down [his] throat.” I’m curious – how are they being pushed down his throat? Are group members tackling and forcing their materials down his throat? Are they hiding their materials in his food, forcing him to consume their literature unaware? Or are they merely engaging in free speech that he dislikes and wants stopped – something they clearly were not interested in doing with his much more offensive speech.

Yesterday, the CLS hosted a discussion about campus free speech led by David French, president of the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, in response to the egg incident. Gebelin said she hoped to foster an open dialogue about Christianity at the Law School. FIRE is an organization that was co-founded by professor Alan Kors in response to a free-speech incident on Penn's campus in 1993.

"If [Black is] interested in having a free exchange, let it be," Gebelin said. "We don't like what he did, [but] we wouldn't want him to be censored."

In other words, they defend Black’s right to speak, even as he uses that right to spew insults their direction and to engage in speech that could reasonably called blasphemy. If he had tried that sort of tactic to mock Muhammad, he would probably have already been banned from the campus for his own safety following the issuance of a fatwa calling for his murder. It seems to me that the CLS has taken a principled stand in trying to create a dialogue, rather than silence their opponent – which seems to be what Black wanted all along. And even after being defended by those he clearly hates, Black doesn’t get it.

Black, however, said the CLS's reaction has been too harsh.

"I thought it was funny," Black said. "I thought it'd be considered offensive, but I didn't think that people would have a stick up their ass about it."

Actually, the thing they have a “stick up their ass about” is freedom of speech, and the tendency in too many public settings to try to limit that speech, at best, to the bland and inoffensive, or, at worst, to the radical polemic of the Left.

(Hat Tip: The Torch)

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.

Stop This Prudish Farce

Some people are simply artistic Philistines. Take this case in Indiana.

The Venus de Milo had better wear a top and Michelangelo's David should put on some pants if they're going to be seen at a yard art business.

Bartholomew County officials told the business near Interstate 65 that it must move cement copies of the classical statues — and about 10 others — out of public view because they are obscene under Indiana law.

"It's not fair to point out our business, and personally, I don't find them offensive," Ginger Streeval, a co-owner of White River Truck Repair and Yard Art, told the Daily Journal of Franklin for a story Wednesday.

Frank Butler, the county's zoning inspector, disagreed.

"They have nudity ... and that should not be in the view of a minor," he said.
Indiana's obscenity law prohibits the display of nudity where children might see it, he said.

The law also stipulates that such material is harmful for minors if, "considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

IÂ’m left speechless by this idiocy.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Muslims Defile Temple Mount

When will Sharon seize control of this holy site from the Muslim barbarians who control it and sweep it clear of the latest defilement by the Ishmaelite horde – and those that they have perpetrated over the centuries?

A carved half-meter tall inscription of the word “Allah” in Arabic was discovered on the Temple Mount’s Eastern Wall, which police suspected had been made by Palestinians construction workers.

The laborers had been doing maitenance work on the wall in recent days.

“This breaks the Antiquities Law; these people are supposed to renovate and fix the wall, not commemorate names (on it), and certainly not names that are irrelevant," Eilat Mazar, a spokesman for the Committee to Prevent the Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount, told Ynetnews.

Ten months ago, the committee said the site, holy to to Muslims and Jews, was "lawless" and lacked "archaeological supervision.

The Temple Mount is sacred to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but great restrictions have been placed on access to all except Muslims. A Muslim group controls Temple Mount, and has destroyed numerous antiquities while failing to keep retaining walls and other non-Islamic structures in good repair. The time has come for Israel to act, to preserve the religious heritage of both Judaism and Christianity – and those of Islam as well.

Posted by: Greg at 10:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

What’s Wrong With This Story About Homeless Vets?

Sometimes stories are written with a slant so dishonest that you just have to be appalled. Take this lead from a story on homeless veterans that appeared in the Detroit News.

Everywhere he looks these days, Ron Johnson sees yellow ribbons bearing the words "Support Our Troops." And every time he sees them, he wonders which troops they refer to.

Johnson, a U.S. Army veteran who has been homeless since losing his job just before Presidents Day, has come to believe that concern for soldiers stops as soon as they're discharged.

"It's fake," said the 53-year-old. "As soon as you're out of the service, you're automatically zero."

Advocates for Metro Detroit's homeless say the number of homeless veterans who, like Johnson, are seeking assistance, is on the rise. The state's largest assistance center for former soldiers reported a 36-percent increase in veterans seeking homeless assistance since last year. Nonprofit groups in Wayne and Macomb counties also reported significant increases.

Sounds awful.. This poor guy, just discharged, is out on the streets after being used and abused by the evil US military. How can you not be outraged? I know I was – right up to the point that I got to this part of the article.

While some veterans recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan have appeared at area shelters, most are veterans who have been out of the service or the reserves for several years.

Of the 323 veterans who received transitional housing through the Michigan Veterans Foundation, 54 percent were age 31 to 50 and another 39 percent were 51 to 61. Many are not combat veterans.

At 54, Herman Abila recently found himself in need of housing assistance. From 1980 to 1983, he was in the U.S. Army, stationed in places like Colorado and Germany.

"I enlisted because it was a regular job," said Abila, who was a sergeant when discharged and was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve through 1993. "The only thing you have to do to keep the job is keep your nose clean."

Abila was a mechanic until a workplace accident shattered his right elbow. After three surgeries and physical therapy, finding steady work became difficult.

Two weeks ago, his temp job dried up, leaving him with only his disability check.
"I was staying in a motel room but it was eating up my check," he said. With nowhere else to go, Abila turned to Veteran's Haven, which is providing him with temporary housing.

The problem is not with current soldiers returning from combat and being turned out on the streets by an uncaring country. These are older guys, who served in a peacetime military, who are facing hard times as the Rust Belt economy of the state of Michigan flounders. Mr. Abila is not homeless because the government turned its back on him – he is homeless because of an on-the-job injury that limited his employability. Look at the dates. He hasn’t been a reservist since the first year of the Clinton administration – and when Abila was last on active duty, Demi Moore thought it was cool to date a 27-year-old because he would be an older man.

In other words, they are not playing straight with us here. There may be a problem here, but it isn’t what they are telling us.

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 561 words, total size 4 kb.

WhatÂ’s Wrong With This Story About Homeless Vets?

Sometimes stories are written with a slant so dishonest that you just have to be appalled. Take this lead from a story on homeless veterans that appeared in the Detroit News.

Everywhere he looks these days, Ron Johnson sees yellow ribbons bearing the words "Support Our Troops." And every time he sees them, he wonders which troops they refer to.

Johnson, a U.S. Army veteran who has been homeless since losing his job just before Presidents Day, has come to believe that concern for soldiers stops as soon as they're discharged.

"It's fake," said the 53-year-old. "As soon as you're out of the service, you're automatically zero."

Advocates for Metro Detroit's homeless say the number of homeless veterans who, like Johnson, are seeking assistance, is on the rise. The state's largest assistance center for former soldiers reported a 36-percent increase in veterans seeking homeless assistance since last year. Nonprofit groups in Wayne and Macomb counties also reported significant increases.

Sounds awful.. This poor guy, just discharged, is out on the streets after being used and abused by the evil US military. How can you not be outraged? I know I was – right up to the point that I got to this part of the article.

While some veterans recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan have appeared at area shelters, most are veterans who have been out of the service or the reserves for several years.

Of the 323 veterans who received transitional housing through the Michigan Veterans Foundation, 54 percent were age 31 to 50 and another 39 percent were 51 to 61. Many are not combat veterans.

At 54, Herman Abila recently found himself in need of housing assistance. From 1980 to 1983, he was in the U.S. Army, stationed in places like Colorado and Germany.

"I enlisted because it was a regular job," said Abila, who was a sergeant when discharged and was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve through 1993. "The only thing you have to do to keep the job is keep your nose clean."

Abila was a mechanic until a workplace accident shattered his right elbow. After three surgeries and physical therapy, finding steady work became difficult.

Two weeks ago, his temp job dried up, leaving him with only his disability check.
"I was staying in a motel room but it was eating up my check," he said. With nowhere else to go, Abila turned to Veteran's Haven, which is providing him with temporary housing.

The problem is not with current soldiers returning from combat and being turned out on the streets by an uncaring country. These are older guys, who served in a peacetime military, who are facing hard times as the Rust Belt economy of the state of Michigan flounders. Mr. Abila is not homeless because the government turned its back on him – he is homeless because of an on-the-job injury that limited his employability. Look at the dates. He hasn’t been a reservist since the first year of the Clinton administration – and when Abila was last on active duty, Demi Moore thought it was cool to date a 27-year-old because he would be an older man.

In other words, they are not playing straight with us here. There may be a problem here, but it isnÂ’t what they are telling us.

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

Hey! You! Outta The Gene Pool!

Gotta love this story, in a sick sort of way. How stupid can someone be?

A teenage gangster has become the first victim of a craze for miniature "designer" guns disguised as key fobs.

Fabian Flowers, 19, a member of Manchester's Longsight Crew, is believed to have shot himself in the head while trying to test the weapon's apparently faulty firing mechanism.

Friends who were with him immediately fled the lap-dancing club where the test firing took place.

The tiny gun - just over 4ins long and with a barrel extending a mere 1½ ins - has never been recovered.

Dozens of similar weapons have been smuggled into Britain from Bulgaria in the past 18 months. They are sold initially as novelty flare guns but then modified by criminals to fire twin .25 bullets.

The weapons, which change hands for several hundred pounds, are notoriously unstable and lack accuracy. However, at point-blank range they are lethal.

Yeah, that’s right – little keychain guns that don’t look like guns. Here’s what seems to have happened.

On Feb 23 last year a group of youths, including some members of the Longsight Crew, were at the High Society club in Stockport.

At some point in the evening Flowers went to the lavatory with some of his friends. Police sources suggest someone had recently borrowed the key fob gun and was returning it.

An inquest yesterday heard that Flowers's final words to his friends were: "I'm going to put it to the test - watch."

One friend said: "He put it to his head and I heard a bang. I got the impression that he thought the safety catch was on and it was perfectly safe."

The gangster died from a single wound to the head. Police initially suspected he had been the victim of a gangland killing but became convinced that he had died at his own hand.

LetÂ’s just call that one a case of Darwin in action.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

Isn’t This Swell Of NYC?

You’ll have to excuse me. I was under the strange impression that the same First Amendment that applies here in Texas also applied up north in New York. What is this stuff about the city “agreeing” to allow freedom of speech on a public sidewalk? I thought that matter was settled law.

NEW YORK — The city has agreed that First Amendment activities including leafleting, petition-gathering, picketing and holding press conferences can occur on public sidewalks in front of schools, a civil rights lawyer said yesterday.

The agreement between the city and lawyers for the New York Civil Liberties Union was approved March 16 by a federal judge who was scheduled to preside at a trial over a 2003 lawsuit brought by a youth advocacy organization, the Ya-Ya Network, said Christopher Dunn, the NYCLU’s associate legal director.

The lawsuit was brought after students working with the group alleged they were threatened with arrest outside schools for handing out literature telling other students about their rights to keep personal information from military recruiters.
The NYCLU said it was “essential” for such student activities to be allowed to occur outside schools.

Now I will concede that I don’t like the group that is making use of the very rights that the military defends, but we even have to allow losers like these the freedoms that are the birthright of all Americans. And if, as the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. DesMoines, students do not shed their freedoms at the schoolhouse gate, how can anyone argue that they lack those freedoms before they set foot on campus?

It is cases like these that keep me from issuing a blanket condemnation of the ACLU and its affiliates. They do, in many cases, get it right when it comes to basic civil liberties.

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

IsnÂ’t This Swell Of NYC?

You’ll have to excuse me. I was under the strange impression that the same First Amendment that applies here in Texas also applied up north in New York. What is this stuff about the city “agreeing” to allow freedom of speech on a public sidewalk? I thought that matter was settled law.

NEW YORK — The city has agreed that First Amendment activities including leafleting, petition-gathering, picketing and holding press conferences can occur on public sidewalks in front of schools, a civil rights lawyer said yesterday.

The agreement between the city and lawyers for the New York Civil Liberties Union was approved March 16 by a federal judge who was scheduled to preside at a trial over a 2003 lawsuit brought by a youth advocacy organization, the Ya-Ya Network, said Christopher Dunn, the NYCLUÂ’s associate legal director.

The lawsuit was brought after students working with the group alleged they were threatened with arrest outside schools for handing out literature telling other students about their rights to keep personal information from military recruiters.
The NYCLU said it was “essential” for such student activities to be allowed to occur outside schools.

Now I will concede that I donÂ’t like the group that is making use of the very rights that the military defends, but we even have to allow losers like these the freedoms that are the birthright of all Americans. And if, as the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. DesMoines, students do not shed their freedoms at the schoolhouse gate, how can anyone argue that they lack those freedoms before they set foot on campus?

It is cases like these that keep me from issuing a blanket condemnation of the ACLU and its affiliates. They do, in many cases, get it right when it comes to basic civil liberties.

Posted by: Greg at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Should We Be Frightened Or Comforted?

After all, shouldnÂ’t we already have operational control of our own borders?

The U.S. Border Patrol will more than double its fleet of helicopters and airplanes and bring 534 agents to the Arizona border this summer, in an effort to gain "operational control" of the border at this, its most vulnerable point, said U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner.

The term was pounded home; Bonner used the phrase "operational control" four times during an hour-long press conference Wednesday to announce this latest federal roll-out to control the Arizona line with Mexico. He also spoke of living in a "post-9/11 era," and "terrorism" as well as "not overnight" and "cost."

Bonner also answered questions that were previously not answered by federal officials. He said nationally, about 300,000 to 400,000 people manage to successfully enter the country illegally each year. He also said that the latest border control effort, the Arizona Border Control Initiative Phase II, will help protect the United States against terrorism, though nobody has been arrested coming in from Mexico on terror-related charges.

"Look, the reason we have to get control along the borders of our country is because we have an enemy that is bound and determined to attack us, and that's al-Qaida and its associated terrorist organizations," he said.

"We will shut down - and I mean shut down - the West Desert Corridor," Bonner said. "We will gain control Â… of what is the weakest part of the border with Mexico." The West Desert comprises the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. It's a sore point for illegal entry and was the focus of the Border Patrol's efforts last year during the first Arizona Border Control Initiative.

The plan this year is to control that area, then turn attention to Cochise and Yuma counties.

Gaining operational control of the border can't happen overnight, Bonner said, but will happen over time.

This is great – they are doing something. But it is years to late and not nearly enough.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

Two Blows Against Racism In Government Employment

We've seen two jury verdicts today ripping governemnt employers who use race as a deciding factor in hiring, firing, and promotion. One case comes from New Orleans, the other from Milwaukee.

The New Orleans case involves the mass firing of employees in the district attorney's office. Upon taking office in 2003, DA Eddie Jordan fired 53 of 77 non-lawyers in the office and hired black replacements.

Under U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval's instructions, jurors had to find Jordan liable if they concluded the firings were racially motivated. Jordan has acknowledged he wanted to make the office more reflective of the city's racial makeup, but he denied he fired whites just because they are white. In fact, he said, he did not know the race of the people fired.

The law bars the mass firing of a specific group, even if the intent is to create diversity.

Both sides agree on the facts of the unusual case: eight days into his term, Jordan fired 53 of 77 white workers who were not lawyers — investigators, clerks, child-support enforcement workers — and replaced them with blacks. Some seven out of 10 whites were fired, to be replaced by blacks.

Months later, 44 of the whites sued him, and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later made a preliminary finding that Jordan had been racially biased. One of the plaintiffs eventually dropped out of the suit.

But Jordan has insisted that he paid no attention to the race of his support staff. He has portrayed himself as more focused on the legal staff than the support staff — keeping, he pointed out, 56 white assistant district attorneys.

Jordan and a top deputy who testified have admitted that experience wasn't necessarily their top consideration. Instead, they have made it plain they were looking to populate the office with loyalists.

The whites' lawyers concentrated on showing that many of those who were fired had far more experience and scored higher in job interviews than blacks who were either hired anew or kept on.

Could you imagine the outcry if, in an agency where minorities are over-represented based upon their share of the population (say the EEOC), there were a mass firing of minorities so that whites could be fired to reflect the ethnic makeup of the country? No administrator would even consider such a move, nor should they. Why, then, did Jordan think he could get away with what is clearly the explicit use of racial criteria as the deciding factor in employment?

And then there is the Milwaukee case. A jury determined that 17 white officers were discriminated against a cummulative total of 144 times in the selection of minority candidates for positions as police captains by former Chief Arthur Jones.

Jones said he was disappointed by the verdict.

"I believe that it is a blow to diversification, and I think that's very important to a municipal police department, especially here in Milwaukee," he said.

Jones also defended his record, saying that his promotions included four white females, three black females, two black males, two Hispanic males and one male Pacific Islander with an "understanding" that more than half his 41 promotions to captain were white men.

"I think the numbers speak for themselves," Jones said. "I don't see where any discrimination against white males took place."

Each of the 17 plaintiffs asked for $300,000, an immediate promotion to captain if applicable - two are now captains, two others are retired - and other punitive damages in the initial lawsuit. Testimony in the damages trial is expected to take three days, Curran said, then, the same jury will deliberate over what each plaintiff deserves.

During the trial, Rettko methodically explored how promotions to captain occurred under Jones' leadership.

Under Jones, as under other Milwaukee police chiefs, a candidate for a captaincy was nominated by the chief, then sent to the Fire and Police Commission for approval. The commission rarely levies criticism of a candidate - only one of Jones' nominations received a single negative vote - but the commission sees only one candidate at a time. Several commissioners testified that their roles were to make sure the chief's nominations were qualified to do the job, not to weigh them against other potential nominees. In his testimony, Jones admitted that he picked his nominees mostly by his personal evaluations of their skills, without consulting résumés, personnel evaluations or the men's permanent records in the Milwaukee Police Department.

Rettko sent each of his plaintiffs to the stand to discuss his credentials at length and his thoughts about how those who were promoted compared. Often times, the comparison favored the 17 plaintiffs, which Rettko underscored by repeating that everyone Jones promoted to captain after less than two years in a lieutenant's job was not a white male.

Incredible. Skin-color and genitalia were mor eimportant than qualifications in promotion to senior positions in the police department. makes you feel safe from criminals, doesn't it.

And the worst part is that it will be the taxpayers, not the guilty parties, who will end up paying for the malfeasance in office on the part of these racial bigots.

Posted by: Greg at 04:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 872 words, total size 6 kb.

Maybe It WILL Make You Go Blind!

We all have heard the old wive's tale (old spouse-of-indeterminate-gender's tale, for those from Massachusetts) about a the bad effects of various forms of sex -- everything from hairy palms to insanity. One of my favorite ones's was "It will make you go blind!"

Well, check out this study on Viagra, if you can see the screen.

In a new study, US researchers describe seven patients who developed nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), an eye problem that can result in permanent vision loss, after taking Viagra (sildenafil) for erection difficulties. Combined with past reports, this study brings the total number of sildenafil-related NAION cases to 14.

"For years, we've known that some men who take Viagra will experience temporary color changes in their vision and see things as blue or green," study co-author Dr. Howard D. Pomeranz, from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, said in a statement. "NAION is a much more serious condition because it can lead to permanent vision loss."

With the exception of one patient whose symptoms began 24 to 36 hours after using Viagra, the patients developed symptoms within 24 hours of use. In all patients, the initial symptoms were blurred vision and some degree of vision loss. In one patient, both eyes were affected, whereas in the remainder, just one was involved.

All of the patients had one or more heart disease risk factors. High blood pressure was invariably present and most men also had high cholesterol levels. Three patients had preexisting eye problems that may have increased their risk of NAION.

The final vision in the patients' affected eye(s) ranged from perfect vision to only light perception, the investigators note in the Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology.

I guess we'll be seeing lots of executives with trophy wives and seeing eye dogs.

Posted by: Greg at 04:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

It's Not Like A Democrat Would Change Much

At least that was my thought upon getting this news.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., on Wednesday ruled out a run for the Senate in 2006, saying he could better serve his constituents by staying in the House and serving on the Appropriations Committee.

Kennedy has been in Boston caring for his mother, Joan Kennedy, who was hospitalized with a concussion and a broken shoulder after a passer-by found her lying in a street Tuesday.

In a statement, Kennedy did not cite family responsibilities as a reason for his decision, but he and his brother and sister recently took temporary guardianship of his mother to ensure she receives treatment for her alcoholism. Patrick Kennedy was seeking to become her permanent legal guardian.

"I am grateful for the support and encouragement I have received to run for the Senate," he said. "But over the past few days, I have determined that I can make the greatest difference in the lives of Rhode Island families by remaining on the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives and fighting for their priorities." The committee controls about a third of the nearly $2.6 trillion federal budget.

Kennedy had been encouraged to run for the Senate against Republican incumbent Sen. Lincoln Chafee, after Rhode Island's other Democratic congressman, Jim Langevin, decided not to seek the Senate seat.

I mean be honest here -- Chafee is practically a Democrat anyway.

And I would like to add that my prayers are with the Kennedy kids and their mother as they deal with Joan Kennedy's situation. She has been such a tormented soul for years.

Posted by: Greg at 04:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Mike Rogers Attempts To Silence Another Blogger

This time he went after Richard Shurbet of LimeShurbet.com, for echoing GayPatriot's earlier post calling Rogers a terrorist for his outing campaign.

Shurbert has a number of posts on the matter up on his site, which was briefly shut down by HostingMatters in response to whining by Rogers. Shurbet also offers this banner for folks who want to protest the misdeeds of Mike Rogers.




I'm not gay, and I have many points upon which I differ with both Shurbet and GayPatriot. That said, I don't approve of the tactics and methods used by Rogers to shut down his political enemies. And yes, I freely admit that I hold a particular grudge against Rogers for his outing of an old family friend, Congressman Ed Schrock, last summer.

Posted by: Greg at 05:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.