Clinton Administration Official Arrested

No, not Sandy Berger, though he probably outght to be sent to Guantanamo Bay for his theft of documents.

This time it is Hazel O'Leary, former Energy Secretary who was recently named president of Fisk University.

Seems Hazel's plane was diverted due to bad weather, and then delayed on the tarmac. Her response? Cause a scene on the plane and attempt to enter the cockpit to demand that she be allowed off of the plane.

What I love is the difference in viewpoints between Hazel and the flight crew.

Hazel:

"I regret the unfortunate misunderstanding that occurred," she said in a statement. "The situation was resolved. At no time was I rude or disrespectful to anyone."

Flight Crew:

The United Airlines crew told police that O'Leary was "getting loud and abusive" after the flight was diverted to Richmond, Va., because of storms Thursday night, said Cpl. Frank Donkle of the Richmond International Airport Police.
A flight attendant restrained O'Leary when she tried to get into the cockpit, Donkle said, and she was escorted off the Nashville-to-Washington flight and questioned by the FBI.

The sad thing is that no charges seem to have been filed, despite the fact that the FBI had to intervene to remove her from the plane and question her. We would be rotting in a hole somewhere.

Posted by: Greg at 05:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

I Have NO IDEA What To Make Of This

The Houston Chronicle reports

Five teenage boys are under investigation in the shooting of two other boys with a pellet gun at a vacation Bible school, Montgomery County Sheriff's deputies said Wednesday.

Neither victim was seriously injured in the July 15 attack.

Deputies said four of the boys are accused of blocking doors at The Fellowship of The Woodlands while the fifth fired the air gun at the victims while quoting Bible verses

Really, I have no idea.

Posted by: Greg at 05:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

The Challenge of National Myths, Part II

Spain, as most educated folks know, spent some eight centuries occupied (in whole or in part) by the Moors, Muslim invaders from North Africa. Since 844, the patron saint of Spain has been St. James the Moor Slayer (not to be confused with Buffy the Vampire Slayer), who is said to have appeared during a battle to spur n the Spanish troops. Many Spanish churches have statues of St. James, surrounded by dead Muslims to commeorate the event -- not exactly the most ecumenical move.

Terrorist fears following the 3/11 bombing in Madrid led church officials at the the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela to decide to remove the statue from the premises. Public outrage has caused the decision to be reversed. Apparently the Spanish are not prepared to surrender their faith as quickly as they surrendered their governemnt following the attacks.

Posted by: Greg at 05:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

The Challenge of National Myths, Part I

I love The King and I. I have ever since I was a teenager, when I was blessed to see Yul Brenner in the a revival of the play during the late 1970s. I became fascinated with that fascinating figure, King Mongkut/Rama IV.

As a prince, he is credited with the discovery of the three-foot tall stone obelisk known as "Inscription One". It allegedly dates to the reign of King Ramkhamkaeng. Now a British scholar, Michael Wright seeks to debunk that claim, alleging that the monument is, in fact, a forgery made at the command of Mongkut.

This has caused an uproar in Thailand, and there is talk of criminal charges being filed. Wright and Thai colleague Piriya Krairiksh, the director of the Centre for Thai Literary Studies at Thammasat University, have also been ritually cursed

Residents of Sukhothai gathered to protest at a statue of King Ramkhamkaeng amid the ruins of his capital. In imitation of a ceremony described in the inscription, they rang a bell to attract the king's attention and told him of their grievances. They then carried out a cursing ritual, burning chillies and salt and the names of the two men written on scraps of paper.

All-in-all, I would find that preferable to a Katie Couric interview.

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Stop enforcement of non-existent laws!

Photographers around the country are being harassed by police and Homeland Security officials for violating the law against photographing government buildings and facilities. One slight problem -- there is no such law. This isn't about national security -- it is more a sign of paranoia on the part of a few law enforcement folks.

Frankly, there are lots of places open to the public which provide a wide-open view of sensitive facilities. I live less than two miles from a sensitive industrial area, and cross the Houston Ship Channel daily. I could be to Johnson Space Center in less than fifteen minutes -- under ten if I just slip on my sandals and catch every traffic signal. All these places can be observed from public streets and parks, and easily photographed. What's more, there isn't anything particularly suspicious about doing so, absent some other thing to flag the activity. To harass people for taking pictures in public places is absurd.

Posted by: Greg at 03:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

OK -- Here's the Trial Details

We finished up the case Friday, after about two weeks of testimony and arguments.

And there was much rejoicing. At least among us jurors, and perhaps by the defendant, his family, and his lawyer.

The plaintiff, needless t say, was somewhat less pleased by the outcome.

Oh -- you want to know what the case was about.

Try here, then here.

Upon reflection, there are a number of things I could say about the case.

First, I believe Barbara Markham got screwed when she was fired by the Chambers County Narcotics Task Force. I believe that her boss, later fired for his own wrong-doing and eventually jailed for still more, wanted to clear her out because she "knew where the bodies were buried." That said, I didn't see either of her underlying claims of sex discrimination or whistle blower retaliation as particularly valid. The evidence arguably suggested that she committed the act for which she was fired (perhaps accidentally), trivial though it was. That act (reloading computer games on task force computers) probably doesn't justify firing, but does provide cover for firing an employee in Texas, which is an "employment at will" state.

That said, I understood Blair Brininger's strategy of following a path that would lead to mediation. He didn't have a lot to work with, so he made an attempt to get his client what he could. He saw mediation as the best way to get his client the best result. He also planned on a "trial by ambush" strategy if they did get into court, taking only one deposition (despite client suggestions) and holding all witness testimony until the time of trial, so that he might be able to surprise the lawyer for Chambers County with evidence she could not rebut. Both elements are acceptable strategy in the legal community. Still, I think he should have taken depositions from every single cop Barbara suggested as a witness. After all, cops regularly die in the line of duty (Blair looked like that thought had never crossed his mind before when I mentioned that to him after the trial was over).

Did Barbara hear a threat of criminal prosecution during the first mediation session? I think she probably did, but that this was subjective interpretation on her part and not what an objective observer would have heard. That said, she eventually signed a settlement after negotiating some changes and waited nearly four weeks to even begin to raise the issue. It makes it hard to believe that she was really all that intimidated -- she is one tough cookie. I understand Blair's refusal to raise the issue with the Court, though I disagree with it. And since he still had a contract permitting him to direct legal strategy and decide how to proceed, I understand his decision.

Had I been Barbara Markham, I would have fired Blair Brininger at this point. Correction. I would have fired him when he didn't take the depositions the previous fall. But for all her talk with other lawyers and voluminous email correspondence with Blair, she didn't do so. She gave him her documents and authorized sending them in exchange for the settlement check. He sent them, shortly before she changed her mind again. And so he completed the process by accepting a settlement check his client no longer wanted and followed bar association rules by depositing it in a trust account (where the money still sits today, five years later). Barbara finally fired Blair two weeks later.

Quite bluntly, I came to the conclusion that there were multiple "right ways" to handle this case, and that Blair Brininger used one of them. He got a sure result, but not the best outcome available. And I believe he and Barbara Markham were never on the same page as to what would be accomplished by a "file purge" of the charges against her. The result was an unhappy client who never embraced the settlement, never fully followed its terms, and who was certain to be unhappy when she didn't feel she had gotten justice (probably the thing she values most highly in this world). That has led to a couple of additional suits involving Chambers County, a renegotiated settlement agreement on better terms (with a different attorney) and this suit. But in the end I just couldn't find it to be malpractice, though I was one of those who began the deliberations siding with Barbara and against Blair.

My impression of the parties? I think Barbara Markham has what it takes to be a good cop, and I hope she can get back into the field. I think Blair Brininger is not the guy I would want to litigate for me in most matters, with the exception of the ERISA cases that are his specialty. I'd hire either of their attorneys, but won't tell you which I'd call first. And as for our judge, Tad Halbach, I'll definitely support his reelection, and also any pursuit of higher judicial office. I was very impressed.

But I'm glad it is over.

Posted by: Greg at 08:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 856 words, total size 5 kb.

He May Have The Name, But He Lacks The Principles

Less than two months after the death of the most popular GOP president since. . . well, ever, Ron Reagan will tarnish his father's memory by addressing the Democrat Convention in Boston. The younger Reagan will call for the resumption of fetal stem-cell research.

"The conservative right has a rather simplistic way of characterizing it as baby killing. We're not talking about fingers and toes and brains. This is a mass of a couple hundred undifferentiated cells."

He also indicated he will support Kerry or "any viable candidate who can defeat Bush."

From a journalistic standpoint, there are two items of note in the last sentence. The first is the identification of Michael Reagan, the late president's oldest son, as an evangelical despite the fact that Ron Reagan's religious leanings are nowhere mentioned in the article. The second is a bald-faced lie about Michael Reagan's position on stem-cell research. As he points out in his article, "I'm With My Dad on Stem Cell Research," Michael Reagan supports research on adult stem-cells, based upon the best available scientific research on both types of research. And he also quotes his father on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception:

"My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

Perhaps Ron should honor his father by heeding his words.

Posted by: Greg at 05:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

ICJ Declaration: No Right To Defend Against Terror!

One detail little noted in the uproar over the ICJ's decision on the Israeli self-defense fence -- the decision limits a nation's right to defend itself to attacks by other nations. Response to attacks by non-state actors across international borders are forbidden without the express permission of the UN Security Council. In doing so, the ICJ has rewritten Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Thus, even the US pursuit of Osama bin Laden is suspect under the ICJ's bizarre revision of Article 51, which authorizes response "if an armed attack occurs".

Sounds like one more reason to end our membership, cut our funds, and boot the UN right out of the US.

Posted by: Greg at 05:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Bush DIDN'T Lie -- Wilson & Plame Did

We've all heard the denunciations of President Bush as a liar by former Ambassador and Clinton appointee Joseph Wilson. He has repeatedly claimed that his report on Iraqi attempts to buy "yellowcake" uranium from Niger disproved the story, and that the administration knew -- or should have known -- that the British report that Bush relied upon in the 2003 State of the Union address was wrong.

The only problem is that Wilson's charges are false. Not only that, but his report to the CIA bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.

More damning still is the obvious falsehood of his statements that his wife, CIA employee Veronica Plame, had nothing to do with the decision to send him to investigate. According to the Washington Post,

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson also claimed that during his investigation, which mostly consisted of sipping mint tea on verandas with VIPs and government officials from Niger, convinced him that the names and dates were wrong on certain documents later determined to be forgeries. One small problem -- the documents were not in US hands until eight months after the Niger trip, and Wilson had never seen them or been briefed on them.

I guess that just goes to show who the liars are when it comes to national security.

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Dead Chihuahua Trumps Presidential Candidate

Now I haven't made much attempt to hide my intention to vote for George W. Bush this November. After all, I am a Republican Precinct Chair here in Harris County, Texas, and I prefer him to the crew that would slither in along with John Kerry. That said, I wouldn't mind another viable choice, and I find Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik to be an interesting fellow.


And he certainly deserves more coverage than a drowned chihuahua.

And thanks to the blog at MichaelBadnarik.org

Posted by: Greg at 08:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

President reinvited to NAACP

NAACP president Crazy N'Fuming has reinvited President Bush to speak at the NAACP convention in Baltimore.

"I'm hoping the president will change his mind," Mfume said. "We think democracy is enhanced by having both candidates here."

The NAACP head also pointed out that Bush was warmly received at the 2000 convention.

I still think the President should boycott the proceedings. Why? because despite Kweisi Mfume's call to "get over" the strained relations with the group, it is hard to forget some minor details like
1) NAACP "voter education" ads featuring James Byrd's daughter which denigrated the candidate for refusing to sign a hate crimes bill -- while the sounds of a truck dragging shains was heard in the background. It left out the fact that two of Byrd's killers received the death penalty, while the third (who testified against the others) received a life sentence.

2) NAACP propagation of false accusations of disenfranchising blacks against the president and his brother following the 2000 election.

3) Regular outbursts by NAACP officials against the president, defaming him in the most scurrilous of terms, such as NAACP Chairman Julian Bond's statements that the president had "appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and he picked Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection."

Besides, on what legitimate basis should he appear before an organization that claims to represent an ethnic group that gave him a mere 9% of the vote in the 2000 election? That ethnic group is "out of play", and will continue to be as long as leaders insist that a president who has placed more blacks in senior positions than any in history is unconcerned about including blacks in the political process.

UPDATE: Bond was at it again in his speech this year

"They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division," Bond said Sunday night in the 95th annual convention's keynote address. "They've tried to patch the leaky economy and every other domestic problem with duct tape and plastic sheets. They write a new constitution of Iraq and they ignore the Constitution here at home."

And they wonder why Bush had no interest in speaking. Maybe it is time for the NAACP to put Julian Bond behind it.

Posted by: Greg at 08:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.

Vets to Dorgan: Apologize!

Senator Byron Dorgan willingly acted as a useful idiot in Michael "Jabba the Hutt" Moore's movie, Farenheit 9/11. Now two constituents who served the United States in Iraq want an apology for his service to Saddam and Osama.

Dorgan appeared in the film asking questions about who authorized the departure of bin Laden family members and other Saudis in the days following the terrorist attack on our country.

"Not only will I not apologize for asking these questions, I intend to continue to ask them at every opportunity," Dorgan said in a statement. "The American people deserve to know."

Bin Laden praised the attacks, and 15 of the 19 people who took part were Saudis. Dorgan said he wants to know who gave permission for the flights to depart.

"I'm not alleging any kind of conspiracy," Dorgan said. "I think this is an example of gross incompetence by some in our government, and I want to know who's accountable."

Unfotunately for Dorgan, the answer has already come out. Richard Clarke, a Bush critic and Moore hero, admits that he authorized the departures after the FBI interviewed those leaving and gave each individual clearance to depart. The filmmaker neglected to put that acknowledgement of responsibility in his film, despite its availability during the period when the film was being made.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

MIA -- Jury Duty

You folks may have noticed that I haven't been around this week. No, I'm not secretly John Edwards bloging as a conservative -- I got picked for jury duty for a two week long (we hope) civil trial. And with just a pinch of irony, it is in the 333rd State District Court. I'll tell you more next week, after the case is over.

And yes, I have time-stamped this so it is on top.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Congressman Threatens Archbishop!

I think the time has come for formal excommunications. Bell book and candle, the whole nine yards. I say this after reading a news report indicating that Congressman William Lacy Clay (D-MO) stated in an interview that:

I think Archbishop Burke has gone too far; he is now delving into politics. Perhaps the Catholic Church should surrender their 501-C status.

So there we have it. Attempting to enforce the moral teachings among members of a church is going too far, and grounds for lifting tax-exempt status. All Archbishop Burke has said is that the protection of human life is so crucial to Catholic teaching that failure to uphold that teaching is a serious sin that merits the denial of the Church's sacraments. That is his obligation as a bishop, and any attempt by the government to interfere with that is a violation of the First Amendment.

But Clay doesn't care. He says he intends to block the communion line if a priest has the audacity to refuse communion to him, a congressman, on the dirction of a mere archbishop. He claims that the Church is out of step. Unfortunately, that view means that Clay is out of step with the Church.

Clay's implicit threat is clear. The archbishop should start the excommunications with him.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

Ditka for Senate!

The leftists in the media did-in the GOP's Senate candidate with a no-sex scandal, but they may have gotten more than they expected in return. A grassroots movement has begun to promote the candidacy of Mike Ditka, former player and coach for the Chicago Bears. He has name recognition and the affection of folks in all parts of the state. And more to the point, he has been active in GOP politics for a number of years. He was already being touted as a candidate for state GOP chair, but the current situation may have made it critical for him to step into a larger role, one that only "Iron Mike" can fill at this critical time in the Land of Lincoln.

For more info:
http://www.draftditka.com/

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Leftists Degrade Wounded Vet in Parade -- Organizer Justifies It

Baby killer!

Murderer!

Those were the words that greeted Jason Gilson as he marched in the Fourth of July parade on Washington State's Bainbridge Island carrying a sign that read "Veterans for Bush." He was booed and insulted by the crowd, and verbally degraded by the parade announcer.

The response of the parade organizer?

I'm sure it wasn't so much directed at the kid as it was the president. A soldier with a sign represents that.

I'll be staying far away from Washington, as it represents the nadir of Kerry's America.

And since the leftists find such stuff acceptable, I'll be making up my "Kerry is a War Criminal" sign


UPDATE: I love it when a little light shed on the situation gets apologies from the wrong-doers.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome to John Kerry's America!

The Kerry/Edwards ticket raised itself and the DNC over $7 million in cash last night at a star-studded fundraiser. It was also profanity-laced, as the candidates and their wives laughed it up when Whoppi Goldberg launched into an act in which she made repeated reference to President Bush and female genitalia. Others accused the president of hostility to Hispanics and treason for his tax cuts. At the end of the event, Kerry stated that

"every performer tonight ... conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."

I don't know about you, but those are not the heart and soul of MY America!

UPDATE: Neither the candidates nor their campaign have found it necessary to apologize for the slime-fest. The campaign also refuses to release a tape of the event to the media, despite repeated requests to do so. But in an another amazing flip-flop (a Kerry trait), spokeswoman Marry Beth Cahill has said

"It is not what Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards would say and they don't approve of some of the comments that have been made."

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Six Conservative Principles

The House Republican leaders have issued members a wallet-size card containing six principles of conservatism that should guide them in considering legislation. They emphasize that these points undergird the philosophy of the "Goldwater-Reagan" wing of the party that has prevailed over the last four decades. All legislation should be evaluated based upon whether it would

• Tend to reduce government regulations, size of government, eliminate entitlements, or unnecessary programs.
• Promote individual responsibility in spending, or reduce taxes or fees.
•Encourage responsible behavior by individuals and families and encourage them to provide for their own health, safety, education, moral fortitude, or general welfare.
•Increase opportunities for individuals or families to decide, without hindrance or coercion from government, how to conduct their own lives and make personal choices.
•Enhance the traditional American family and its power to rear children without excessive interference from the government.
•Enhance American security without unduly burdening civil liberty.

Would that they would follow these principles.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

Kerry/Edwards -- A ticket that looks like ultra-liberal America

In a move that surprised few, billionaire white giggolo John Kerry picked multi-millionaire white trial lawyer John Edwards to be his running mate for the fall election.

No blacks, women, Asians, women, or individuals with disabilities were considered for the position and the only Hispanic under consideration bowed out of the running early (perhaps because he knew he was not a factor).

And yet we keep being told that the Democrats are the party of inclusion.

Posted by: Greg at 09:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

Defense of Marriage Act? What Defense of Marriage Act?

I almost skipped over this story when I saw the headline. After all, we all knew that some homosexual couple would file suit to force the recognition of their Massachusetts marriage outside the borders of that state. That is how liberals operate -- if the voters and the legislature won't give it to them, they bypass the democratic process and go to court to obtain the heretofore unobtainable. That has been what happened every step of the way in this battle, and a large part of why the movement for gay marriage has no legitimacy.

But then I saw this little gem, part way down the page:

Katy, an FBI agent, said she has already used her marriage license to obtain medical benefits for Kristin under her health plan at work. With the dangerous nature of her work, Katy, 40, also rushed to have Kristin, 38, listed as her beneficiary on her life insurance and pension.

HOLD EVERYTHING!

Don't we have the Defense of Marriage Act? Isn't it federal law and federal policy that marriage is a heterosexual thing only? How on earth has this woman been able to obtain her putative spouse benefits through her job as an FBI agent? What action has been taken to deal with this situation in which an FBI agent appears to be flouting the law by obtaining benefits for someone not legally entitled to them?

I guess this is one more reason for passing the Federal Marriage Amendment -- to keep folks in fraudulent marriages from fraudulently obtaining benefits for their significant other.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Post-Dispatch: Abortion trumps religious mission, academic freedom

A couple of weeks back, I blogged here and here about the decision of Catholic University of America to deny recognition to a campus chapter of the NAACP due in part to the parent organization's support for abortion. Well, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has decided to weigh in on the decision in an editorial.


I'll give you one guess as to which side they favor.

And that's fine, since there are certainly good arguments out there for recognizing the group, even though I think the better ones are on the side of refusing recognition. But as the editorial points out,

A university is supposed to be a place where students are exposed to and are allowed to explore ideas, including unpopular ones that might be at variance with the values of the university itself.

I can agree with this. Students should explore those ideas, and decide for themselves whether or not to embrace them. And no doubt they are explored in the classrooms of Catholic University. That is a hallmark of academic freedom, something that Catholic University has long been noted for protecting. It may be the only educational institution officially sponsored by the Catholic hierarchy in this country, but that does not make it parochial in the sense of being narrowly focused.

The editorial goes on to say that

Catholic universities have every right to weigh moral issues in the context of church teachings.

Gee, that's right neighborly of them to concede that the same First Amendment that permits them to publish this piece of trash on their editorial page alows Catholics and their institutions the right to exercise religious freedom in the context of discussions of morality.

But the very next sentence is where they whipsaw us with this gem:

But that shouldn't mean making abortion a litmus test for deciding which student organizations and speakers will gain approval from school officials.

In other words, say what you want, but don't you dare act like you mean it. The writer argues it is mandatory that school money and resources be used to bring in speakers and sponsor organizations which contradict the mission of the univerity. In short, Catholic University shouldn't behave like it is Catholic!

Of course, the conclusion of the editorial makes it clear that the liberal Sacrament of Abortion trumps all else, pontificating that

Women should and do have the right to safe abortions. That's the law. It's a right that no university or church can take away or should be afraid to debate within its walls.

The Post-Dispatch has spoken ex cathedra. All must give assent.

Posted by: Greg at 06:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

A bad idea whose time is past

So they want to try for a flag burning amendment. Bad idea. It's not that I am not sympathetic to the sentiments expressed by the supporters of the amendment, but I think they miss some key points.

First, most flags are private property. As such, an owner has a virtually unfettered right to modify his or her flag in any way he or she desires, or to destroy it outright. The amendment strikes at the heart of the ownership interest of every flag-owner. The courts have already held that one can punish someone for burning a stolen flag, both for theft and vandalism.

More importantly, the flag is hardly the thing folks fought and died for. Soldiers swear to defend the Constitution, not the flag. It is the Constitution that is at the heart of what it means to be an American, not the flag. Similarly, the Declaration ofIndependence more truly represents what America is. But I see no great uproar to protect either of those.

Flag burning is a trivial problem. Just ignore the folks who do it and we'll be fine.

Posted by: Greg at 05:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

A Quick Note

I'm making sure this post goes at the top of the page because I never thought to do what I will do today. I'm about to blog several stories out of one paper, and no place else. And no, it isn't my local paper, the Houston Chronicle. Nor is it a "national" paper like the New York Times, Washington Post, or LA Times. It is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Why?

It is just that some days there are so many stories in one paper that strike my fancy on the topics that concern me. They are all about one of my driving passions. And all (with one exception -- I'll note it) are in today's paper, linked from either the front page or the op-ed page. More to the point, they are all GOOD articles to write about.

So here goes!

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Right result, faulty reasoning -- on the part of the editorialist

The concluding paragraph got it right when it praised Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia:

What is reassuring, though, is that in the term just completed, the justices were able to put principle ahead of politics as they charted a course through turbulent times.

Unfortunately, that was the only thing the editorialist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch got right in this editorial.

After all, the editorial takes a slap at the 7-2 decision in Bush v. Gore that held that the Florida recount ordered by the Supreme Court of Florida (SCOFLA) was too constitutionally flawed to continue. Apparently the editorialist prefers a recount in which the standard for counting a vote varies from county to county within the state and from table to table within the counting room.

And there is also the labeling of abortion as a "basic right" despite the fact that it took nearly two centuries for it to be discovered by the Supreme Court. Even then the justices who decided Roe v. Wade couldn't agree on why abortion was a fundamental right and where it was found in the constitution, much less how it could have been consistently overlooked from the time of the Founders until January 22, 1973. The decision in the case is generally conceded to be among the worst in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

What the editorialist does not understand is that the two justices praised are possibly the two most consistently principled SCOTUS justices today. While Scalia's "originalist" views and Thomas' "textualism" may put these justices outside the mainstream of the editorial committees of the left-wing media, they are both judicial philosophies which hold as their bright-shining principle that the Constitution means what it says. It is the more liberal wing of SCOTUS that flies far afield, unmoored to any fixed principle upon which it can rely.

But since the editorialist only likes Scalia and Thomas (and, one would presume, Chief Justice Rehnquist) when their decisions are in accord with the ACLU view of the world, I'm inclined to believe that the editorialist cared not a whit for principle.

Posted by: Greg at 09:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.

Who runs the schools, if not the board?

This article about the schools in Dupo, Illinois caught my eye, since it is also from my old neck of the woods. Now I don't really have a dog in this fight, because I'm a long way away and am ambivalent about out-sourcing support services.

Then why am I writing about it? Well, it is because of two little nuggets, packed right together in the middle of the article:

School Board President Brian Thompson confirmed that the board had gone out for a bid, but he was not allowed to provide any more details on the subject. He also stated that seeking a bid was not the board's wish, but he would not comment on where that decision came from.

Really, Mr. Thompson? The elected board of the district didn't want to seek bids, but they are being sought anyway? Whose idea was it? Who authorized it? Why didn't the board stop it if seeking such bids is not in line with the wishes of the board? And why can't you provide any further details? You are the elected president of the board -- one of the people who is responsible for running the district! Who is running the show in the district ifnot you and your fellow board members?

"Everything's in negotiations and there is a media blackout on negotiations. When everything has been negotiated then everyone will get to vote, including them, on a settlement," said Superintendent Michael Koebel, as he motioned toward the protesting crowd.

Hold on. A media blackout? By whose orders? And what exactly is being negotiated? I thought you were only seeking bids. Sounds to me like you are already setting up a contract, and that a decision has already been made to let the contract. Is that the case? If so, who made that decision? And what kind of settlement are we talking about here? With whom? We've gone from bids to negotiations to settlements. And by the way -- since when do the voters of the district get to vote on contracts let by the district. Last time I checked, they only got to vote on bond issues, not day-to-day operational decisions.

Sounds to me like there is a fast one being pulled on the people of the Dupo School District. I hope they keep up the good work, and hold these folks accountable.

Posted by: Greg at 08:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

Schools try to stop perverts, but some just "pass the trash"

I've talked about child abuse and other sex-related misbehavior on this site before. When I commented on the Shakestaff study last week, I expressed my concern about it giving rise to a hysteria akin to what we have seen with regard to priests. Carolyn Bower's article doesn't reassure me. It includes examples in which teachers are simply allowed to resign to move to another district, and districts not checking up on the employment history of newly hired teachers. And it includes this little nugget:

The practice of allowing a school district employee accused of sexual misconduct to resign to take a job in another district is known among school officials as "passing the trash." The practice can perpetuate sexual harassment or abuse in schools.

The article then goes on to quote a lawyer for several districts, who claims that schools don't do this -- anymore. At least not in the last 10 years. We're then told that there are procedures in case to revoke teacher certification without a conviction, or even the filing of criminal charges.

I guess I still feel concerned. Both for victimized students, and for fellow teachers falsely accused.

Posted by: Greg at 08:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

Closed schools left to vandals; books, equipment, and student records abandoned

Some days you want to scream at the stupidity, waste, and irresponsibility of school district administrators. This story from St. Louis certainly provokes such a reaction from me.

The description of Lowell Elementary School makes the incompetence of those responsible for the mothballing of the school quite obvious:

Though the entire school is in disarray, the epicenter of the destruction at Lowell seems to be the art room. There, vandals found jugs of paint and splattered the contents around the building. The windows in one classroom have been painted black. Another room has a message on the chalkboard, "Save our Schools." Next to it is the date "July 15, 2003," the day the School Board voted to close Lowell.

A soda machine in the teachers lounge lies on its side. "They worked really hard at that one," Sirna says, eyeing the hacked machine. "Pepsi probably wants their machine back."

The closed schools were supposed to be cleaned out before they were locked up. It's clear the process stopped. Hundreds of books - encyclopedias, science texts, a collection of the Oedipus plays - lie abandoned.

Sirna says the bags of trash in the hallways are the work of district custodians who collected the garbage but never took it out of the building.

Perhaps most startling of what remains are file cabinets full of student records, some of which have been dumped on the floor of the former school office. One form is part of a student's special education learning plan. It shows he is "mildly mentally retarded," and has his Social Security number, phone number and mother's home address.

So let's look at the problems.

1. Confidential student records -- required by law to be stored in a place both secure and accessible to the students' current schools -- were left abandoned and unsecured. Right there you have several thousand violations of laws related to special education, student health, and other issues, all in one school.

2. School supplies were not removed. Why weren't books and other supplies taken to the nearest appropriate school, or even to a central supply warehouse, so that they could be used rather than destroyed? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars were left behind to rot?

3. Why weren't bags of trash taken out? It sounds to me like there was no supervision of the process of closing each school down.

4. The schools were given alarms, but those were quickly bypassed. According to the article, the schools were largely ignored from July to November. Why were they not better monitored? What is being done to liquidate this real estate? How much value was lost by allowing the deterioration of these properties?

5. When the problem was discovered, why did no one take sufficient action to deal with the above problems?

The Board just closed down five more schools in St. Louis, and vows to do a more thorough job. But what about Lowell and the other schools closed with it last summer?

Posted by: Greg at 08:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 3 kb.

Priests support Archbishop Burke, face challenge

We've heard a lot about Archbishop Raymond Burke in recent weeks. After all, he is the archbishop who explicitly denied John Kerry communion in his archdiocese. He has also indicated that those who vote for pro-abortion politicians would sin by doing so.

Liberals, of course, have been outraged. But many of his priests are supportive, though faced with pastoral challenges. The folks in the pews are concerned -- especially since the president's position on allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest is not completely pure from a Catholic perspective. Some wonder if they can vote for any presidential candidate without sinning. Seems to me that the priests of the diocese have their work cut out of them between now and the election -- and beyond. It is a matter of suplying good moral formation.

I was very nearly ordainded for the diocese just across the river from St. Louis. I actually looked at studying for the Archdiocese, so I have thought about this a lot. If I were one of these priests, the issue would an easy one. Some political positions are so far outside the bounds of moral acceptability that a vote for a candidate who takes sucha position is objectively sinful. One could never morally vote for a candidate who supported a return to slavery. One could never legitimately back a candidate who one knew favored genocide without sinning gravely, regardless of how good the rest of his positions were. Support for the status quo on abortion falls into the same category -- it is a sin to knowingly vote for a candidate who supports it if there is another option available. That is even more true if one embraces that candidate (even in part) because of that support for the abortion status quo.

But what about the situation in which there is no completely pro-life candidate? The answer, then is equally simple. One must cast the vote that is most likely to reduce the number of abortions. One has an obligation to try to stop evil in its tracks, and in such a clear-cut case there could be little moral doubt on how to vote.

Posted by: Greg at 07:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 3 kb.

A plea to vote Democrat

I found this posted at Chasing the Wind and thought I would share. Seems to be the most effecive case I have seen made for a Kerry vote.

Dear Voters:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my mind. I lost my job this past year.

When Clinton was president, I worked in a prosperous enterprise. But in the last year, we had to close our operations.

Far worse, I lost two of my sons in BushÂ’s evil war in Iraq. They gave their lives for their country, and for what? My pain of losing my sons is indescribable.

While it is trivial next to the loss of my sons, I regret to say that I also lost my homes. I simply have nothing left.

I am a senior citizen with various medical problems. IÂ’m not in a position to begin a new career. I was reduced to the point of homelessnessÂ… all because of President Bush.

And when the authorities found me, did they have any compassion for my misfortune and ailments? No, I was arrested and even my family and friends were wrongly kept from seeing me for many days. I am still waiting for my trial.

If I had any money left, I would donate most of it to the Democratic party. If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, I would still have a job, a home, and most importantly, my sons.

We need to get out the vote this year. Vote Kerry!

Regards,

Saddam Hussein

Posted by: Greg at 05:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

And you wonder why I don't join the NEA

Once again proving that NEA membership should be grounds for termination from any position in education, the NEA is about to award the "2004 Virginia Uribe Award for Creative Leadership in Human Rights" to Kevin Jennings of GLSEN, a group dedicated to "incorporating homosexual concepts into all curriculum."


There is a loud objection from two NEA specialty caucuses within the NEA, calling for the award to be canceled. Members of the NEA Republican Educators Caucus object to the award because Jennings has admitted in one of his books that he failed to make a report of child sexual abuse as mandated by law. And the head of the NEA Ex-Gay Educators Caucus points out that Jennings advocates the ruthless suppression of speech in school that supports the position that a homosexual can change his or her sexual orientation.

I find a couple of interesting points in all of this. First, the NEA seems to have defined "Human Rights" to mean "Gay Rights." The award itself is named for a gay educator who specialized in creating programs on behalf of gay students. This would seem to leave out some 95-98% of the human race.

Second, that Jennings does not face the same type of moral condemnation and scorn heaped on Cardinal Law despite his failure to act to stop the sexual exploitation of a student is indicative of the double standard that exists in our society. Homosexuals are generally allowed to prey on young people in a manner that heterosexual pedophiles are not, because of the fear that acting to protect a child will be labeled "homophobic." I recall, for example, that police even returned Jeffrey Dahmer's last victim, a drugged underage boy running down the street in his underwear, to the cannibal killer because they had been instructed not to make a big fuss about the issue of gay men and underage boys out of "sensitivity" for the "gay community."

Third, Jennings is not tolerant, nor is he willing to allow for an open exchange of ideas in an academic setting. He wants to shut down debate and punish dissent. Such a position is the antithesis of academic freedom, and should be condemned by real educators.

Lastly, how does one incorporate homosexual concepts into all subjects? I'm all to aware of the attempts to classify historical figures as homosexual at a distance of several centuries based upon scanty evidence. I've seen the textbooks with "gay and lesbian literature" of dubious quality that teachers are "encouraged" to teach to be "inclusive." But how do you teach "Queer Chemistry" or "Transexual Typing"? And I don't even want to know about word problem in GLSEN-inspired math classes.

That's not to imply hostility to gay and lesbian students in my classroom. Quite the opposite. I demand that students show and be shown fundamental respect. I clamp down on anti-gay slurs in my room with an unambiguous ferocity. But what I refuse to do is suppress the beliefs of my students either way. Because of this my gay students know they have an advocate who respects them, while those on the other side of the issue know that they and their beliefs are respected. The result is that my students in both categories learn who to live and work together cooperatively without being marginalized or homogenized. THAT is what education should be about.

Posted by: Greg at 06:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

Bad taste? Or illegal threat?

New book centers on murder of President George W. Bush

One of my memories as a high school kid was the resignation of Jackie Kennedy Onassis from her job as a book editor at Viking because of her disgust over the company's plans to publish Shall We Tell the President?, by Jeffrey Archer. In it, he posited an assassination plot against President Teddy Kennedy. She found it unacceptable to make him the target given family history and acted to call attention to something very wrong. To this day it remains one of the things I most admired about her.

Fast forward to 2004. Author Nicholson Baker has written Checkpoint, all about an attempt to murder President George W. Bush. It is to be published in August by Knopf. I've got a problem with that, every bit as big as I did with the Archer plot to kill Teddy (a man I despise). Responsible people do not write about, plan about, the murder of the sitting president, whoever he may be.

here's hoping that Knopf gets a serious case of responsibility and pulps this piece of trash, or at least is responsible enough to wait until Mr. Bush is out of office, whether we are talking January 2005 or January 2009.

Posted by: Greg at 06:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

Presumption of Innocence/Presumption of Guilt

Dan Abrams has an interesting piece on Jewish World Review today. In it, He talks about the legal concept of presumption of innocence. His point -- it does not and should not exist outside the courtroom.

Think about it. For to us presume someone innocent is for to us presume the authorities got it wrong whenever they arrest someone. I'm not willing to assume that unless I'm a juror. It's a legal fiction that was designed for the courtroom. Since the authorities have the power to take away someone's freedom, we force them to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and give the defendant the presumption of innocence.

Now that will be important for me next Tuesday, because I'll be headed downtown to the Jury Assembly room, and may get picked to sit on a case. I've got to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. But that does not meant that I have to assume that the Harris County sheriff or Precinct 8 Constables are a bunch of screw-ups incompetent to investigate even the source of the mess in a baby's diaper. I instead need to require that the prosecution show me sufficient evidence to convince me that their judgment is correct.

What that does not mean is that I cannot make judgments on every other case in the world besides the one I sit on. If I have concluded Michael Jackson to be a marauding pedophile and Scott Peterson to be a philandering sociopath, I've done nothing wrong. I am not required to believe that Kobe's accuser is a lying slut after money just because there is not yet a conviction (though that may be his defense). The fate of those men is not in my hands.

I'm pleased that I don't know of any big cases coming up here in Houston at this time. I'm glad I dodged the Clara Harris (4 miles away) and Andrea Yates (7 miles away) cases. I got picked last time for a capital murder case and caused a mistrial -- how could I know during voir dire that on the first day I would look out, see one of my former students in the midst of the victim's family, and realize that she was the victim's little sister? The fact that I had held her in my arms outside my classroom a few days after the murder while she wept her way through an explanation of why she wasn't ready for my test made me incapable of presuming innocence.

So here's looking to Tuesday. I hope I get excused.

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

Liberal outrage as Bush encourages white churches to politic like black churches!

It is no secret that religious conservatives are a core constituency of the Bush campaign, and of the GOP as a whole. So it should be no surprise that the Bush campaign is seeking to activate conservative Christian voters. These efforts have produced much heavy breathing among liberals, who find the notion of white churches doing for Republicans what black churches traditionally do for Democrats to be both illegal and immoral.

The Bush campaign has been encouraging religious supporters to campaign within their congregations. A checklist has been sent to members of churches identified as Republican friendly, asking them to send copies of church directories and urging them to ask their pastors to hold a "Citizenship Sunday", complete with a voter registration drive and a reminder of the duty of Christians to vote. These supporters, who are usually individual parishioners rather than church staff members, are also encouraged to recruit volunteers, speak to church organizations, and distribute issue guides.

In other words, what is being sought is individual participation, not church endorsements. Such things have been customary in the black community for generations. And the Bush appeal falls far short of the pulpit endorsements that we have seen black pastors make over the years, anointing the Democrat candidate with the mantle of "God's candidate" and (here in Texas where we have early voting) loading up charter buses to take folks to the polling station immediately after the sermon.

Perhaps most amusing is this paragraph:

"I think it is sinful of them to encourage pastors and churches to engage in partisan political activity and run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status," said Steve Rosenthal, chief executive officer of America Coming Together, a group working to defeat Bush.

Sinful? Really? Well who are you to attempt to impose your morality on anyone. And since when is political action by individuals, even religious individuals, grounds for punishment by the government. Almost every request is for the individuals to act, not the churches. Those things that a church might do are expressly permitted under the law, or have been in the past when black churches did them. Why are you afraid of white Christian participation?

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Eliminate the border with Mexico?

Better idea -- let's just invade and push the US border south to Guatemala. Half of Mexico is already here anyway.

The new Mexican official in charge of border affairs wants to eliminate the border between the US and Mexico. Arturo Gonzalez Cruz has as an immediate goal making border crossing easier for purposes of trade and immigration, but has said the eventual goal is to eliminate it.

From an American perspective, this is a bad idea. We have too many illegal aliens in this country already. These folks have too great an influence on our government as it is, aided and abetted by the Mexican government. What we need to do is make it harder to cross, even at the risk of decreasing trade.

Either that, or rev up the tanks and forcibly annex Mexico down to the Guatemalan border.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

A Heresy Trial for Kerry?

In a that is as bold as it is stunning, a canon lawyer from Los Angeles has filed a complaint with the ecclesiastical court of the Archdiocese of Boston accusing Senator John Kerry with heresy. The filing, which could result in the excommunication of Kerry from the Catholic Church, has been undertaken by Marc Balestrieri, an official with the ecclesiastical court of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and member of the conservative Catholic organization "DeFide". A copy of the filing is on the organization's website, as is a link enabling the public to add their names to the complaint.

In the complaint, Kerry is accused of publicly adhering to the "Right to Murder heresy" for his pro-abortion speeches and votes during his Senate career. By doing so, Kerry is alleged to have placed himself outside the Catholic Church and to have done harm to it by representing his position as authentically and acceptably Catholic. According to Balestrieri, his action comes because of the failure of bishops to act on the matter of pro-abortion Catholic politicians in the 31 years since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court.

Canon law experts cited in the article note that the Archdiocese of Boston may choose to take no action. In that event, Balestrieri has the option of appealing to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

A BAD problem

But also a problem with a bad definition

A report by Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft (no jokes, please) estimates that approximately 1 in 10 students suffer some form of inappropriate sexual conduct by teachers and other school personnel during their time in school. Another researcher, Robert Shoop of Kansas State University, suggest that the estimate may be too low due to the historical underreporting of such offenses.

This study is not based on new research, but is instead an extrapolation from earlier research by the American Association of University Women and other researchers.

Needless to say, there is outrage on the part of teachers groups, lawmakers, and others concerned with education.

But there is a problem with the data. Or more accurately, with the characterization of the data and the definition used of sexual misconduct. The report certainly categorizes molestation and rape as sexual misconduct, but it also expands the definition to include telling a dirty joke or conduct that might qualify as sexual harassment.

And I guess this is where my problem with the study arises. Does a problem exist with sexual abuse in schools? You bet it does. I've worked in a school where the guidance counselor divorced his wife in March and ran off with the valedictorian to get married in Vegas the day after graduation, only to have a baby in November. And we will never forget Mary Kay what's-her-name getting knocked up by her middle school beau. Folks like that need to be ruthlessly exposed and put where they can never harm a child.

But there is behavior which is less egregious that got lumped together with such misdeeds. And I don't mean to minimize inappropriate conduct, but it trivializes the truly serious incidents to put garden-variety inappropriate comments and looks in the same category as sleeping with a student. And since there was no new research conducted, and no standardization of methodology, I wonder about the validity of the study's conclusions.

But my biggest fear of all is that we are about to see a witch hunt very like that which has so recently taken place in the Catholic Church. I fear that the whisper of an allegation will be as good as a conviction, and that good teachers will be destroyed by misguided zealots armed with this study. Call me paranoid if you will -- but I watched the "guilty until proven innocent" standard take hold a dozen years ago, and remember the mantra that "the victim must always be believed." I saw Crucible-style justice meted out, with one dear friend utterly destroyed because a parent made an accusation that the alleged-victim (by this time in his mid-20s) vehemently denied.

I would rather not relive those days.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

School backs down in the face of backlash

I've been following the developments in the case of NYC student Tiffany Schley, the valedictorian of the High School of Legal Studies who was denied her diploma for criticizing the school in her graduation speech. The more details that emerge in this case, the more unacceptable the conduct of the administrators appears. The fact that the school board refuses to apologize is simply outrageous.

What was her crime? It was commenting on the various administrative changes that impacted her education during her senior year of high school. Since end of her junior year the school has had FOUR different principals. The administration has been less than open to student concerns about the changes, and repeatedly told students who did express concerns that the issues were none of their business. Tiffany chronicled it all in her speech about the challenges she and her classmates had faced on their path to graduation. The result was the refusal of the school to give her the diploma she had earned and to have security escort the girl and her mother off campus when they arrived to pick up the diploma as scheduled.

Now it turns out that the school had been trying to censor her speech all along. Advisors repeatedly removed references to school problems and inserted praise for the very people who had shown nothing but lack of concern for the education of students.

Fortuantely, Tiffany will get her diploma Thursday night in a special ceremony at her church. And the incident will do nothing to keep this spunky young lady from starting her education on time this fall. SHe will be a freshman at Smith College, on full academic scholarship.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

FRAUD AT THE POLLS!

Well, we hope not.

I know that is my fondest home, as a member of the Harris County GOP's Ballot Security Committee. We work really hard to make sure that Election Judges, Alternate Election Judges, and Precinct Workers are all trained in election law so as to ensure free, fair, and clean elections in the county. Considering the Alternate Election Judge in Precinct is the Loyal Opposition (I am the Election Judge), I have no doubt of that in our corner of the world.

National GOP Chair Ed Gillespie has proposed that the GOP and Dems set up joint pollwatching teams to monitor elections in Missouri. The idea is transparent, non-partisan investigation and observation of the polls so as to ensure clean elections. The goal would be to cut down on fraud and increase credibility of charges of voting irregularities., especially in light of large voter registration drives in that state by liberal groups MoveOn.org and America Coming Together.

Like I said, sounds like a good idea to me. Free and clean elections have always seemed important to me.

But guess what -- the liberals are already saying this is about vote suppression.

I assume clean elections are too much for them to handle.

Posted by: Greg at 05:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Buckley steps down!

"The question is choose some point to quit or die onstage, and there wouldn't be any point in that."

While we are talking about legends, let me stop to express my shock at the decision of William F. Buckley, the father of National Review, to step aside from his duties of controlling the magazine. If anyone has earned a right to a good rest it is Buckley, who for half a century had been one of the most recognizable voices in conservatism. No, that isn't sufficient -- more than any single man, he is responsible for defining what is and is not within the mainstream of conservative thought in the US. National Review has always been open to the various voices of conservatism, but Buckley made a point of closing it to racists and anti-Semites, including the ejection of Joe Sobran from its pages in a well-publicize dust-up in the 1980s.

One thing I found interesting -- in half a century NR has never shown a profit. Rather, a group of 1000-1500 donors makes up the difference at the end of every year.

Posted by: Greg at 05:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Giving Miss Essie her due.

I've always been ambivalent about Strom Thurmond. I think that is true of most Americans. After all, here was a man who was an arch-segregationist, who filibustered much of the leading civil rights legislation of the 1950s and 1960s (he went nearly 24 hours on one bill -- we should make the Hildebeast do the same on judicial nominations) who later became a supporter of equal opportunity. Here is a man who should have been political toast after the Dixiecrat fiasco, but who went on to serve close to five decades in Washington aftewards, and who died something f a beloved institution (Trent Lott not withstanding).

But not long ago we found out about the skeleton in his closet -- an illegitimate daughter, fathered on a 16 year old black maid some eight decades ago. Essie Mae Washington-Williams held her piece for decades, living in the shadows of the world where such children existed for generations. Out of loyalty for a father who provided opportunities for her when and as he could, but who never publicly acknowledged her existance, she kept the secret of his youthful indiscretion through times when she could have literally destroyed him and only came forward after his death.

And now she will be added to his monument in the South Carolina capitol -- assuming her rightful place in the public eye as his eldest child. It is fitting and proper.

God bless you, Miss Essie.

Posted by: Greg at 05:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.