Dan Froomkin is arguing that a cover-up worked in the Plame-Wilson case. And one of his big complaints? The standard that Patrick Fitzgerald used to investigate teh case and to seek indictments.

Just because a lot of the things Fitzgerald discovered evidently fell short of his very conservative prosecutorial standards -- they weren't out-and-out, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt crimes -- doesn't mean they were up to the standards the public reasonably expects from its White House.

Yep -- that little "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard seems to have gotten in the way of the indictments and the release of confidential information. Froomkin demands that there be a sliming of everyone involved with the publication of the truth about Valerie Plame -- that she was a CIA employee (not currently operating under cover) who decided to feather her husband's nest (and thereby her own) by recommending him for an assignement for which he was not competent, and that her husband repeatedly lied about his wife's role in obtaining that appointment for him, about the data he had access to, and the CIA's conclusion about the reliability of his conclusions.

In other words, Dan Froomkin wants those who told the truth to the American people (Rove and Libby) punished and driven from Washington -- and those who lied (Wilson and Plame) held up as heroes. Why? Because Froomkin wants to see the War on Islamic terror undermined by any means necessary. It may not quite rise to the level of treason as set forth in Article III, but this column certainly qualifies as sedition in time of war.

And if this means using an investigation by a prosecutor for political purposes, thereby uundermining the credibility of the justice system, then Dionne is willing to sacrifice the integrity of an entire branch of government to bring down another.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

In one of the more disgusting displays of political opportunity, Senator Charles Schumer desecrated the dead body of Rosa Parks for political purposes as she lay in state in the US Capitol today.

This morning I went and visited Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda to pay my respects.

Being in the presence of Ms. Parks was awe-inspiring. This was a woman who changed history with one thin dime. She paid her fare and took her rightful seat on the bus and America was never the same again.

Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place.

Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important.

A preliminary review of his record raises real questions about Judge Alito's judicial philosophy and his commitment to civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights, the rights of average Americans which the courts have always looked out for.

All right, Senator -- let's have the specifics. What rights is he out to roll back? What is your evidence for this accusation? And if he is, as you seem to indicate, acting in a manner contrary to his oath to follow the Constitution, why have you not introduced articles of impeachemnt due to his failure to exercise "good behavior" on the circuit court?

Could it be that you know that Judge Alito is not ruling contrary to the Constitution, merely contary to the Democrat platform which has been rejected by the American people in the last two elections?

And why, Senator, when you talked about the need for uniting Americans instead of dividing them, did you pimp the corpse of a great American like Rosa Parks to cast doubts upon the character of a highly respected judge and sow division between Americans based upon race sex, class, and ideology?

Posted by: Greg at 03:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

Fifteen years ago, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg called Samuel Alito “impartial, thoughtful and fair” and offered whole-hearted support for his confirmation.

Today, though, Flip-Flop Frank is singing a different song.

“Fifteen years ago, I supported Samuel Alito to be a judge based on his record as the United States Attorney for New Jersey, but his tenure on the appeals court has been marked by troubling decisions. Judge Alito has demonstrated a hostility to fundamental civil rights, and his record on the bench must be closely scrutinized by the Senate.

“New Jersey has a proud tradition of producing great judges, most notably former Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. Justice Brennan was chosen for the Supreme Court based on his legal knowledge and wisdom, unlike what we see today, in which nominees are chosen based on litmus tests that cater to narrow ideological groups.”

OK, Senator -- which "fundamental civil rights" has Judge Alito demonstrated a hostility towards? Given your statement, it should not be hard for you to produce a detailed list with copious documentation.

Or could it be that the litmus test in question comes from "narrow ideological groups" on the Left, those that want abortion on demand and perpetual racial preferences -- in other words, the Democrat base?

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess I am taken aback by attempts to limit contact between students and the United States Armed Forces.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. A civil-liberties activist says school officials should better inform parents of their right to keep their children's information from military recruiters.

Beth Wilson says some schools are putting notices in handbooks or newsletters rather than providing separate forms to students. Wilson is director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. She recently sent a letter to 176 school superintendents.

The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to provide names, addresses and phone numbers to recruiters or risk losing federal funding -- unless parents "opt out." The law didn't specify how schools should notify parents of that right, and procedures vary among schools.

Kentucky education officials let districts decide how to notify parents.

This fall, about 24 percent of Louisville public high school students opted to keep their information private, up from about 20 percent last year.

Military recruiters say information from schools helps them to make home visits and calls and to send promotional material.

Now i see a real problem here. Assuming these kids are American citizens, do they not have the right to receive communication from their own government? Is it not a violation of the rights of the child to permit a parent to interfere with their right to communicate freely with agents of their government?

And what I find particularly amusing is that folks who don't believe parents have the right to be notified of, much less consent to, their child undergoing an invasive surgical procedure (abortion) now want to let parents control their child's access to career and educational opportunities. Groups that object strenuously to parents being permitted to pull their child from programs discussing what they view as immoral lifestyles are willing to permit them to opt their child out of contact with a government agency. Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here?

UPDATE: The Washington Post has a longer article on the issue.

Now many parents -- aided by such anti-recruiting groups as the San Francisco-based Leave My Child Alone -- are demanding that school boards make it easier for families to prevent military recruiters from contacting their sons and daughters. They are mounting e-mail and letter-writing campaigns telling families they can block school systems from releasing student information to military recruiters. Even such national educational groups as the PTA are getting involved in the effort to get the word out.

But the military is spreading its own word -- about the benefits of a career in the armed services. This month, the Pentagon launched a $10 million marketing campaign aimed at encouraging parents to be more open to allowing their children to enlist. Although officials say the effort is not tied to growing antiwar sentiment, the commercials feature kids broaching the topic of enlistment with apprehensive parents and urge mothers and fathers to make it a "two-way conversation."

Many states have long allowed military recruiters access to student phone numbers and addresses, but the practice received a boost from the federal No Child Left Behind act. School systems that decline to release the information now risk losing federal dollars.

The advocacy is putting school officials in a quandary, particularly principals who say they want to be responsive to parents but also want to be fair to military recruiters, who by law are allowed the same access to student information as college recruiters. And, principals point out, although some parents wish to prevent military recruiters from reaching their children, others view military service as a good option.

"I'm just trying to follow the rules -- and the rules are the same for everyone,'' said James Fernandez, principal at Albert Einstein High School in Kensington, where recruiters have visited four or five times this year. Last year, five students from the school enlisted in the armed forces.

As i said, I'm a bit taken aback by those on the Left who don't care about the views of parents on any other isue DEMANDING that parents be able to prevent the federal government from talking to their children.

And, of course, they seem to have no problem with that same government funding the school those children attend. In fact, they usually want more.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear the proto-Sheehans tell the truth? "We loath the military and would prefer to leave the US vulnerable to attack."

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 750 words, total size 5 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Syria and the Hariri Conspiracy by Right Wing Nut House, and Race and the Unconscious by ShrinkWrapped.

The full results of the vote may be found at the Watcher's site.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

CBS White House Correspondent set a new low in journalism today – he even outdid his Dan Rather, one of his predecessors.

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”

The all-knowing, all-seeing Matt Drudge provides this tidbit of information for us.

”Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’”

Talk about an inappropriate no-class comment.

UPDATE: As pointed out in the comments on this thread, Roberts has apologized.

“At the morning White House gaggle, I used an unfortunate choice of words in a question to Scott McClellan. Please be assured that there was no perjorative intent to my question. I was merely attempting to reconcile past statements about Harriet Miers with the President's new nominee for the Supreme Court.

The early morning White House gaggle is an informal, free-wheeling and often irreverent forum, which is not broadcast and generally not publicly available.

Obviously, my tone this morning was a little too casual.

As we all experience from time to time, it was one of those 'oops' moments which we wish we could rewind and re-record.

I apologize to anyone who took offense to my poor choice of words. I can assure you I meant none."

Not only did he do so in the statement released by CBS, but heoffered his apologies to Scott McCllena at a press briefing as well.

"Scott, on the subject of rude, my apologies for my unfortunate choice of words this morning to you."

Not only that, but he has even posted a response to some of the comments that appeared on the CBS PublicEye blog.

After reading some of the posted comments in response to my apology, I remain deeply troubled and wanted to take a moment to try to clear this situation up.

I can assure you that in no way did I intend to use the phrase 'sloppy seconds' in either a sexual connotation or a perjorative way. Rather, I was thinking 'second choice' - or 'second best'. If Harriet Miers was the "best person for the job" - then - where did that leave Alito? It was a poor choice of words, for which I am deeply sorry.

Many posters seem to think that it is indicative of an 'agenda' or 'reveals my true thinking' about the White House. That is simply not the case. I goofed. And I freely admit it. The words had barely escaped my lips when I cringed and thought 'oops - that was a stupid thing to say'.

Again, the forum was informal and is never broadcast, so I my linguistic guard was down. I uttered a phrase that is used colloquially these days to describe a number of situations. At no time did the sexual connotation ever enter my mind, but I agree, it has no place at the White House.

I have offered my apologies to Scott McClellan, and he has graciously accepted. Scott and I have a good working relationship and he is confident that I meant nothing untoward.

And I offer a humble apology to anyone who took offense upon reading the text of my question. Journalists must be held to high standards, and in this case, I fell short.

You can be confident that it will not happen again.

With highest regards,

John Roberts
Chief White House Correspondent
CBS News

Fine, he sounds contrite and the explanation is plausible. We've all put our foot in our mouths from time to time. We'll have to give him a break on this one.

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.

Following the Miers debacle, the President has nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the US Supreme Court. While not my preferred candidate, he certainly fell on what I would call my “top five” list of possible successors.

Samuel A. Alito Jr., 55, is a jurist in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Nicknamed "Scalito," or "little Scalia," by some lawyers, the federal appeals court judge is a frequent dissenter with a reputation for having one of the sharpest conservative minds in the country.

Educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in 1990. He had worked for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration and served as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

The linked Washington Post piece offers further links to some of Alito’s more significant opinions while on the bench – including his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He writes well, logically, and bases his opinions on solid constitutional and statutory grounds. I therefore concur with my brother and sisters on the right in supporting this selection.

I think Mark Levin puts it best.

I have known Judge Alito for two decades. We served together in the Meese Justice Department, where he worked in the Solicitor General's Office and was considered the sharpest of Charles Fried's assistants. He is every bit as smart and personable as Chief Justice John Roberts. He is an expert on constitutional law. And he obviously has a longer judicial record, so his judicial philosophy is well-known. Judge Alito is soft-spoken. He is his own man (efforts in the media this morning to paint him as "Scalia-lite" or "Scalito" are intended to fire-up the leftwing base). If he is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, then no conservative is qualified.

So letÂ’s get the hearings scheduled and the votes taken. Sandy wants to get back to the ranch and her ill husband, and an ideal candidate is ready to take her place.

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, they finally did it. The Houston Texans eked out a win over the Cleveland Browns.

The Houston Texans are winless no more.

They didn't find the end zone after their first possession today, but managed to eke out an ugly 19-16 win over the struggling Cleveland Browns and break a seven-game losing streak.

Kris Brown kicked a 40-yard field goal, his fourth of the day, with 2:45 remaining, to give Houston (1-6) the come-from-behind win. The winning kick was set up by a 63-yard kickoff return by rookie Jerome Mathis.

Houston's losing streak spanned back to a 22-14 loss to Cleveland in last season's finale. The loss is the third straight for Cleveland (2-5).

I'll telly you what -- the "Back Row Crew" in section 541 was pleased -- even if it was not the prettiest ballgame we have ever seen. While the hopes of a perfect 0-16 seqason were dashed, we have to console ourselves with the knowledge that a 10-6 season is still a methematical possibility.

Oh, and the consensus in our car was that Jerome Mathis is on his way to becoming the fan favorite. He is the "little engine that could" sort of player who made a couple of big plays that set up the success the rest of the team had.

By the way -- about those jerseys. Since you missed us today, we'll look for them on November 20 when you play the Chiefs.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Will someone remind me again why Islam is entitled to the smallest amount of respect by civilized people? How do we respect those who do stuff like this?

Three Christian teenage girls were beheaded on Saturday in the latest attack against non-Muslims in the troubled Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi, police said.

The three high school students were found with their heads severed early on Saturday in the sectarian-divided town of Poso, said provincial police spokesperson Rais Adam.

The girls were believed to have been murdered while they were walking to school, Adam said.

He said two of the victims' heads were found near a police post while the third was discovered outside a local Christian church in Poso.

"We are still waiting for results from investigation in the field. We are still trying to determine whether this case is religiously-motivated or not," he told AFP.

A policewoman on duty in Poso confirmed to AFP that the triple murder had taken place and that the killings were being investigated.

A fourth girl was seriously wounded in the attack.

Still investigating? Fine -- but it seems clear that the murder of girls headed to school using the method common among Islamist terrorists tells us who is responsible -- especially given that Indonesia is a hotbed of Islamist terror. And that one of the heads was placed outside a church -- a warning to Christians who dare to step out of dhimmitude and demand to be treated as full citizens and human beings -- would serve as further confirmation that the "Religion of Peace" is behind the murder of these young martyrs for Christ.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

I got an interesting phone message at home today.

It was from Dunta Robinson of the Houston Texans.

He was just calling to remind my wife and I how important we are to the team and that we really need to make it to the game against the Cleveland Browns on Sunday. Dunta tells us it helps give the winless Texans a "home field advantage".

Our seats in the back of section 541 have been filled every game this year. We've cheered, even as we have watched some pretty weak football. We plan on making it to Reliant Stadium for the rest of the games -- even if the ultimate outcome is an 0-16 season. We will probably even renew our season tickets for next year, finances permitting.

A couple of wins would be nice at this point -- or at least a couple of games in which the Texans at least appear to be an NFL franchise. An offensive line to protect our quarterback would be a good move. If you want to really wow me personally, you could have Toro deliver a couple of jerseys to my wife and I -- sizes 3XL and 4XL, please, since we both like to wear them a bit big. But the key thing for me is that you improve the quality of the product on the field over the long term, starting in the short term.

But please understand one thing. I am a fan, and i will support this team. I may not be one of the maniacs in the Bullpen, and I may not be one of the folks with the dough for a luxury box, but I am there because I love the game and am willing to be loyal to a team that has gone the extra mile to make the experience of an NFL game a positive one. I have yet to deal with a member of your organization that has not done that -- and I can only point to positive experiences with stadium staff since some of the first-season glitches were resolved.

Still, the best thing you can do for me is improve.

Oh, yeah -- and those jerseys.

Posted by: Greg at 04:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 375 words, total size 2 kb.

Few men or women become an icon during their own lives.

Rosa Parks did.

It is therefore fitting that she lie in state in the Rotunda of the US Capitol .

Rosa Parks, the African American seamstress who refused to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Ala., 50 years ago and lent a spark to the beginnings of the modern civil rights movement, will make history again as the first woman ever to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, after the House today passed a resolution permitting the tribute.

The Senate approved a resolution last night. U.S. Capitol Police and the staff in the office of the Architect of the Capitol already had begun working on logistics for the event, which the resolution said would take place Sunday and Monday. Details are still being worked out and will be released later today.

Her former boss, Congressman John Conyers, strongly supported the idea.

After looking at the list of tributes he envisioned since her death -- " a statue, a stamp, a resolution, a memorial service" -- Conyers said it occurred to him that only the vigil reserved for statesmen or warriors would be right. He authored the resolution to permit Parks to lie in honor inside the Capitol.

"We think having her body lie in honor in the Rotunda is probably the most expressive way that we in government can let everyone know that the legacy of Rosa Parks is embraced by the federal legislature," Conyers said yesterday. "I must say that the bipartisan support has been excellent."

I cannot help but agree with Conyers -- the historical significance of Rosa Parksis such that she merits this rare honor. I can imagine no person, of either party, finding this objectionable.

It is approrpaite that Rosa Parks will break another barrier in death.

It would be the first time a woman has been so honored and one of the few occasions for a citizen who did not hold an elected office. Americans have quietly shuffled past the coffins of presidents Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, among others. They have mourned the unknown soldiers of both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. In 1998, a Rotunda vigil was held for U.S. Capitol Police Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective Mike Gibson, who were shot to death in an ambush inside the Capitol. Chestnut was the first African American to be honored; Parks would be the second.

Rosa Parks served her nation well in life. Now we will honor her in death with a special tribute.

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby today.

Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted today by a federal grand jury after a nearly two-year investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

Capping a week of political turmoil in Washington, Libby promptly resigned and left the White House. He expressed confidence that eventually he would be "totally exonerated," and both Cheney and President Bush praised his talent and dedication. "Obviously, today is a sad day for me and my family," Libby said in a statement.

***

Libby, 55, was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. The five-count indictment charges that he lied to FBI agents and to the federal grand jury about how and when he learned classified information about the employment of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and disclosed that information to three journalists. If convicted on all counts, Libby faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine.

What today's indictment of Scooter Libby seems to establish is the following.

1) The so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame broke no law -- most likely because the individuals involved did not know that she was operating under cover.

2) The problem with special prosecutors is that they are like a knight-errant roaming to countryside looking for a worng to right. The result is that they find it necessary to bring some sort of charge to justify their investigation. There has to be a better way.

3) Laws on perjury and false statements need to be made much more clear, so that a mere error does not become the basis of criminal charges.

4) When summoned to testify before a grand jury, take the Fifth. When invited to talk to investigators, refuse. The exercise of one's constitutional right to avoid making incriminating statements is perfectly legitimate when your words are going to be combed over looking for the slightest inconsistency, no matter how unintended.

But let me state this for the record -- if it can be shown that Libby or anyone else intentionally lied to or misled investigators, the full sanction of the law should fall on them. Too bad that the Democrats don't support this principle when the liar is one of their own.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.

I found this piece from back in July, talking about a candidate for the Supreme Court who I could support – and who would be hard for the Democrats to oppose. She is Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan.

Corrigan, a justice on one of the country's most conservative state courts, may have just what some Republicans are looking for: practical experience away from the bench and a firm commitment to judicial restraint.

As First Lady Laura Bush and other court watchers urge the president to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman, Corrigan could be an attractive choice—perhaps without the nasty confirmation battle that is almost certain with some of the more outspoken candidates on the list.

"On the Michigan scene, as far as I can see, I've never heard or read that people think that she's an extremist," said Robert Griffin, a former U.S. senator from Michigan who also served with Corrigan on the Michigan Court of Appeals. "She's very competent, does a very good job."

A mainstream conservative. A woman. Oh, yeah – she’s Hispanic, too.

Her pre-judicial resume is impressive, though not elitist. Her career as a judge has included repeated reelection by the people of Michigan, which should make it clear difficult for Democrats to tar her as an extremist.

Corrigan graduated from Marygrove College, a Catholic liberal arts college in Detroit, and received her law degree from the University of Detroit in 1973. She served as a law clerk at the Michigan Court of Appeals for one year before becoming an assistant prosecuting attorney for the state. In 1979, she became the chief of appeals in the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit, where she worked for a decade, eventually becoming the chief assistant U.S. attorney. In 1989, Corrigan moved to a private law firm in Detroit, Plunkett & Cooney, where she specialized in defending local governments in criminal and civil rights cases, said Mary Massaron Ross, a lawyer at the firm.

Ross said few lawyers in the firm were surprised when Michigan Gov. John Engler appointed Corrigan to the state Court of Appeals in 1992. Corrigan was twice elected by Michigan voters to that court and then was nominated by the Republican Party in 1998 for an open seat on the Michigan Supreme Court—a seat that she won. From 2001 to 2004, she served as the court's Chief Justice and has presided over what some describe as one of the most conservative state courts in the country.

Corrigan has been at the center of a court that is clearly grounded in the textualist approach favored by Justice Scalia.

Since 1999, four of the seven justices on the court, including Corrigan, have strongly emphasized their commitment to following legislative intent through "textual analysis," a philosophy of judicial restraint championed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. In a 2004 article, Corrigan criticized activist judges for relying on an "antidemocratic premise that judges just know better . . . . The constant temptation in judging is to be expedient, to reach out and fix what appears to be wrong. I know that I was not elected as chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court to be a philosopher-king."

The court's four conservative justices make up the core of the court's 5-2 Republican majority that almost always prevails. The split on the court has led to many heated dissents from the court's two liberal justices. Some criminal-defense lawyers say the court's philosophy has made it difficult for them to win appellate cases, yet other observers say the court's rulings have become much more predictable and consistent since 1999.

"The court is a court that sees its role as having a more limited perspective than the courts in the 1970s and 1980s because it gives great deference to legislative intent," said Patricia Boyle, a former justice on the Michigan Supreme Court.

That takes care of the judicial philosophy issue. Sounds like exactly what was promise during the 2004 election. In Justice Corrigan we would get a justice who recognizes the limitations of the judiciary envisioned by the Founders.

There is one additional bonus. Maura Corrigan is a state judge, not a federal judge. She will bring with her a different perspective from the current crop of justices, all of whom have been federal judges at the time of their appointment to the High Court. In that she will bring on a perspective that will disappear with the retirement of Justice OÂ’Connor. That is a benefit, as I see it.

So, my conservative brothers and sisters – what do you think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 776 words, total size 5 kb.

Consider this post.

Ms. Miers Withdraws

I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.

She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies.

No, Hugh, Miers was not ill-treated by most of us who criticized her. She was weighed in the balance and found wanting as a nominee for the Supreme Court by many people, and they exercised their right as Americans to speak out.. If anyone treated her unfairly, it was President Bush. Miers was the wrong person at the wrong time for the wrong job. I would have supported her nomination to the District Court or the Circuit Court – but I do not believe she was ripe for the Supreme Court.

I will agree with one point – Miers does deserve our thanks for her service to the country. She has made significant contributions to the success of the Bush aadministration – but accepting the nomination is not one of them. Her decision to withdraw is.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

TodayÂ’s editorial on the Miers withdrawal strikes exactly the right note.

No conservative should be in a celebratory mood now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. For one thing, reasonable conservatives who considered her unqualified for the Supreme Court conceded that she has had an accomplished career and that she has served the president loyally and, for the most part, well. Gloating would be unseemly. For another thing, the object of conservative agitation against Miers was to get a solid justice confirmed. So the conservative opponents of her nomination have not yet won a victory.

I am pleased that the nomination has been withdrawn. I hope to see a good nomination made – but will be content to see the confirmation of a justice whose writings and career show him or her to be a competent, thoughtful expert in the law who has demonstrated a devotion to constitutional principles. That is the sort of nomination I expect of the George W. Bush – and I expect it to be one that conservatives on both sides of the tracks can support.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

At Duquesne University, an allegedly Catholic institution of higher learning, you can openly oppose and violate Catholic teaching without fear of sanction. On the other hand, speaking in a manner consistent with the Catholic faith – even in a non-university forum – can get you punished, and even potentially expelled.

A Duquesne University sophomore will risk being kicked out of school rather than write an essay as punishment for expressing his view that homosexuality is "subhuman."

Ryan Miner, 19, of Hagerstown, Md., was sanctioned by Duquesne after posting his view in The Facebook, an online directory that is not related to the university.

Miner opposed an effort by other students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance group, an issue that is still being debated by the university.

"I believe as a student that my First Amendment rights in the Constitution were subverted and attacked," said Miner.

After Miner's comments appeared online, some students complained to the school.

After a hearing, the Office of Judicial Affairs found Miner guilty of violating the University Code, which prohibits harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other groups.

A 10-page paper was assigned as punishment. Miner said he refuses to write it and will file an appeal.

On what basis, I wonder, is this punishment being dished out? The Facebook is not a university publication. The university does not own or control the internet. Where is the nexus between this speech and the university that would subject Miner to university disciplinary action? I donÂ’t see one.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Mark Bibi is familiar of the tactics of those Leftists who will brook no opposition to their anti-human agenda.

Animal-rights fanatics have figured out that you beat medical research that uses animals not by going after the researchers, but by going after those who do business with the researchers. They cow Wall Street, not by flying into buildings, but by trashing members' clubs.

Bibi knows what it is like to be a target. Anonymous thugs vandalized his house, smashed his car's windshield and made nasty phone calls to his home in the middle of the night.

Skip Boruchin, the only trader who refused to be scared out of business with Life Sciences Research, testified about the relentless intimidation he and his family endured. Activists painted his yard red with slogans such as "Skip is a murderer." On line, they called him a "child pornographer." One Web site instructed people to send sex toys to his ninetysomething mother at an assisted-living home. Another Web site listed the names, phone and Social Security numbers of 19 neighbors, and threatened to publicize information about their credit cards or medical history.

Violence? Well, there were the two bombs set at Chiron's Emeryville offices in 2003. Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first-responders arrived. The FBI also believes the violence is escalating.

And their actions are violent – not limited to harassment or property crimes. And what’s more, they are willing to publicly state – under oath before a Congressional committee – that they endorse homicidal violence as justified against their opponents.

Jerry Vlasak, a Southern California physician who is spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, also testified Wednesday. Vlasak dismissed the intimidation of Boruchin and others as "getting a little spray paint on the wall."

Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., questioned Vlasak about a statement Vlasak had made defending the assassination of medical researchers. Once again, Vlasak justified violence. For "people who are hurting animals and who will not stop when told to stop," he answered, one option would be murder, a "morally justifiable solution."

Imagine, if you can, the outrage that would exist if mainstream pro-life groups took such a position (they condemn violence) – or if opponents of homosexuality endorsed the killing of homosexuals “who will not stop when told to stop.” There would be loud outrage from the Left – but there is not a word of condemnation when it is their ideological allies engaged in such threats of violence against those involved in legal activities – medical and scientific research designed to improve human lives.

And it isnÂ’t just medical researchers and their associates who get it. Consider this incident from Chicago.

A day after speaking out against the city's proposed ban on foie gras, chef Didier Durand arrived at his River North bistro Wednesday to an unwelcome sight: a shattered window splattered with a liquid resembling blood and busted-up flower boxes strewn on the sidewalk.

Police say Cyrano's Bistrot and Wine Bar at 546 N. Wells was vandalized between 11 p.m. Tuesday and 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.

Durand, who had spoken at a City Council committee meeting Tuesday about the proposed ban, suspects animal rights activists are behind the damage. The Health Committee voted in favor of the ban.

That’s right – not only do they want control of your diet, but they will do their best to punish those who dare to speak against their radical agenda.

The time has come to shut down the “animal rights” terrorists. The freedom of Americans -- and our lives and health – demand it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

Why is it that a liberal blogger and a liberal newspaper both published altered photos of prominent black Republicans designed to play upon the lowest of racist stereotypes? Could it be a bit of racist intolerance for those who dared to stray off the plantation?

I found out about the first while making my daily pass through GOPBloggers.

Liberal Racists...

If you haven't seen it already, click here to see what kind of disgusting tactics liberal will go to when they are running scared...

The link will take you to a post full of racial slurs directed at Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland -- and a photo doctored by the racist who owns the site, Steve Gilliard, to make Lt. Gov. Steele appear to be a character from a minstrel show or an episode of Amos 'n' Andy. Gilliard offers the old "I'm black -- you can't criticize me for my racism" defense. Sorry, Steve, but I will follow the teachings of Dr. King and judge you not by the color of your skin but by the content of your character. -- and I find that character to be lacking indeed. That you find it necessary to engage in race-based insults against a man for daring to disagree with your ideology shows just how low you will go to fellate the folks who run the Slavocrat Party that has kept you and your people down for a couple of centuries.

Captain Ed also offers analysis.

And then there is the USA Today incident. Michelle Malkin goes into great detail in a couple of posts, as does Lone Star Times. Suffice it to say that the altered photo gave Dr. Rice glowing eyes that could be described as those of a wild animal or a demon. Malkin posts these analyses of the doctored photo.

The doctored photo of Condi Rice has been removed from USA Today's website with this editor's note:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

More photog feedback from Brad:

I am a professional photographer and have used Photoshop on a daily basis for many years. This malicious retouch of Condi's image is not only intentional, but must have cleared the photo director as well. In other words as a collaborative effort or a wink and a nod.

I don't believe the eye treatment could be the result of over-sharpening alone, but probably involved some heavy handed levels or curve adjustment as well, and the eyes had been isolated from the rest of the image by selection or masking.

And Jason R...

USA Today's explanation is bull. I've been working with Photoshop professionally for years and I don't buy it. If I was editing the image and simply sharpened and lightened her face a bit as they explain, I would hit Command-Z just as fast as I could if my result looked anything like theirs. Trust me, it's both amateurish and deliberate.

And reader KC...

Very interesting explanation from USA Today - what's also semi-comical is that they're in a tight spot as I would most of us would think brightening and sharpening a picture of Condi's ethnic background could also be construed as being racist.

Frankly, the newspaper's explanation just does not make any sense. It would take specific intent to make the eyes appear that way -- and if, by some outlandish chance, the result was unintentional, the decision to run the doctored photo was not. After all, it isn't like the effect is subtle or only in the eye of the beholder. Editor and Publisher has an interesting article that hews to the USA Today party line.

Interestingly enough, the professional Negros are silent. I've not been able to locate a word of outrage from Jesse, Al, or Louis, nor from any of the other swarm of folks who appear any time they can imagine a racial slight or slur. I wonder what the possible reason could be.

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 760 words, total size 5 kb.

May she rot forever in a dank dungeon cell for her facilitation of terrorist actions.

The First Amendment provides no refuge for a civil rights lawyer who said she was unfairly convicted of providing material support to terrorists for publicly releasing the message of a notorious jailed terrorist, a federal judge said yesterday.

In a 54-page ruling that recounted key trial evidence, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl rejected all of attorney Lynne Stewart's arguments that the Feb. 10 verdict should be tossed out.

Stewart, 65, had argued that her client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was engaging in protected speech when he expressed his opinion about a cease fire by Islamic militants in Egypt that Stewart passed along in a 2000 press release.

Koeltl said the fact that the sheik participated in a conspiracy to kill people in a foreign country by communicating words from the prison where he is serving a life sentence did not make his participation constitutionally protected.

"The First Amendment lends no protection to participation in a conspiracy, even if such participation is through speech," he said.

Koeltl cited an earlier ruling Chief Judge Michael Mukasey made on the same issue in 1994 when Mukasey wrote that speech "is not protected by the First Amendment when it is the very vehicle of the crime itself."

In short, you cannot be the messenger for terrorists and then wrap yourself in the First Amendment.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Lt. Governor Michael Steele struck just the right note as he announced his bid for the GOP nomination for US Senator from Maryland.

"Too many in Washington today are not working toward that common goal of growth and freedom and an equal opportunity for every individual," Steele noted. "Instead, too many on the left have their feet set in the concrete of old fears, old divisions and the old ways of government.

"And no people can prosper when its leaders believe the route to empowerment lies not in the advancement of the individual, but in the promotion of an opportunistic government," he added. "We can do better."

Imagine that – focusing on individual ability and merit rather than tribalistic groupings based upon group membership. Why, that could tear down the traditional ties that bind minorities to the Democrat Party.

Who is Michael Steele? What sort of man is he? IÂ’d argue he is in the mold of Condoleeza Rice. The Washington Post includes this bit of biographical information.

The grandson of sharecroppers whose father died an alcoholic and whose stepfather drove a taxi, Steele directed the first portion of his speech to his mother, Maebell Turner, who watched from the front row.

"My mom worked 45 years in a laundromat making minimum wage and still managed to put her kids through parochial school," he said. "She never took a penny of public assistance because, as she put it, she didn't want government raising her kids."

Steele graduated from Archbishop Carroll High School, a D.C. Catholic school, determined to enter the priesthood. After college, he wore the white robe of an Augustinian monk for about a year.

During that time, "I discerned and I believe God revealed to me" that the priesthood was not his calling, Steele said in a 2002 interview. He earned a law degree at Georgetown University in 1991.

In short, Michael Steele started at the bottom and worked his way to the top, relying on faith and his own ability. That is a message that is needed in our country today – one which I hope resonates with Marylanders of all races, ethnicities, and religions.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

Just a reminder by those who think emote that 2000 lives lost in Iraq are too many.

U.S. military deaths, from combat and other causes during World War II, numbered 407,316. But even World War II did not produce the heaviest death toll.

That distinction belongs to the U.S. Civil War -- 558,052 dead.

Given that Cindy Sheehan is a raving anti-Semite, we know that she would have been horrified at the loss of 400,000 Americans in a war that would help save Jewish lived. But I’m curious – how many dead Americans were too many in a war that had the aim of freeing black slaves and preserving the Union?

Oh, that’s right – Sheehan doesn’t think America has ever been worth dying for.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Joe Wilson does not understand his own actions and the White House response to them.

As more of an observer than an actor in the Beltway drama, Wilson said, he has no sense of the case's lingering effect on the Bush presidency or its historical significance. But, he said, the people he has met around the country understand why it's important — that it's not right for the White House to go after individuals who disagree with the government.

Uh, that is not quite what happened here, Mr. Ambassador. You did not merely disagree with the government – you called the President of the United States and his closest associates liars. You made specific representations regarding how you came to have this knowledge. What happened then is what is called a “response” – and included both evidence that your representations wee incorrect and questions as to the accuracy of your statements and your reliability as a source. That is a pretty standard part of the political process – heck, it is a pretty standard part of life.

One of the issues broached was how you came to be sent to Africa in the first place. The evidence shows that you were selected because of your family ties to one of those involved in making the selection – namely your wife. That goes to your qualifications – especially since you claimed to have gotten the mission in another fashion. You made factual claims that have been demonstrated to be false. Is it your contention, sir, that no government official had the right to “go after” you on these matters? Are you so arrogant as to claim a right to have the last word on the issue of the Nigerian uranium?

Now you are calling this matter a “civil rights issue”. I’d like to point out, sir, that no one prevented you from speaking or writing on your alleged findings. But you have no civil right to remain uncontradicted by those you attacked, and any claim to the contrary is indicative of your desire to see the rights of others to speak – whether they are government officials or journalists -- sharply curtailed.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm told this did not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed this womanÂ’s career and personal life over the last several years.

Calling life in the closet "miserable," three-time Olympic gold medalist and reigning WNBA MVP Sheryl Swoopes announced she is gay in an exclusive interview in the current issue of ESPN The Magazine.

"My reason for coming out isn't to be some sort of hero," Swoopes, a forward with the Houston Comets, says in the article. "I'm just at a point in my life where I'm tired of having to pretend to be somebody I'm not. I'm tired of having to hide my feelings about the person I care about. About the person I love.

And, of course, about the big endorsement deal you just signed.

Houston Comets forward Sheryl Swoopes, the WNBA's 2005 most valuable player, will announce today that she will become a spokeswoman for Olivia, a cruise line dedicated to lesbian travelers, and that she is a lesbian, according to a person close to the three-time Olympian.

"The talk about the WNBA being full of lesbians is not true," Swoopes says. "There are as many straight women in the league as there are gay.”

Uh – if there are, then there is a serious overrepresentation in the league, and the concerns the WNBA has had to deal with about being a league for lesbians are very real. After all, don’t the studies show that lesbians account for no more than 5% of the American population, not 50%? Is there perhaps a need for an affirmative action program for straight women in the WNBA?

Personally, I’m not interested in Swoopes’ personal life. I’m really not even a fan of her sport (in the male or female leagues), though I hear about her from my colleagues who coach and watch basketball. But I do hope that her career is not harmed – or helped – by her sexual orientation.

UPDATE: What do you make of this?

"Do I think I was born this way? No," Swoopes said. "And that's probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are."

Does that mean that she made a choice to be a lesbian -- exactly the opposite of what the professional homosexuals tell us is the case?

(Hat Tip -- Safety for Dummies and Brothers Judd)

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Yes, this is an overindulgence of a child – but I’m not nearly as offended by that as I am by the neighbor’s complaints and the government’s intervention. After all, it’s only a treehouse.

When Les Firestein, a television producer, and his wife, Gwyn Lurie, a screenwriter, wanted to do something really special for their daughter, Sydney, they enlisted their friend Roderick Wolgamott Romero.

Romero is a renowned builder of elaborate treehouses for such celebrities as Sting and Donna Karan. His work can be found in the "fantasy gift" section of this year's Neiman Marcus holiday catalog. Beginning price: $50,000.

In the backyard of the Firestein-Lurie home, which sits on a tree-studded half-acre north of Sunset Boulevard, Romero and his buddies built a roughly 10-foot-by-10-foot structure of reclaimed wood, salvaged windows and vintage stained glass from Buenos Aires that would quicken the heart of any fun-loving child or parent. The treehouse includes a viewing deck bordered by a railing crafted from tree branches from the backyard.

In return, Romero asked for a week's worth of lodging and all the Baja Fresh meals he could eat. With his tattooed arms and braided, knee-length hair swept up under a tweed cap, Romero and his pals worked for days, even in the rain.

Richard Fleming, the couple's next-door neighbor and a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, was not amused.

He feared that children could perch in this aerie and look in on him and his wife in their backyard pool and hot tub. He suspected, also, that city codes had been violated.

Enter the city of Los Angeles. As the treehouse neared completion last Thursday, city inspector Thomas Sze arrived on the Firestein-Lurie doorstep, responding, he told them, to an anonymous complaint.

"Oh, that's big," Lurie said he told them after looking at the treehouse and the much larger platform on which it rested. Sze also expressed concern about the structure's safety. On Friday, he delivered a written order that all work be halted.

"We're requiring plans and permits if [they] want to continue," Dave Keim, the city's chief of code enforcement, said in an interview Tuesday. "We'll work with them to try to legalize thisÂ…. It's not going to be easy."

The morals in this story?

1) There is too much government when even treehouses are regulated structures.

2) Some folks need to learn that their property rights end at their property line.

3) Kids are not allowed to be kids today – we either coddle them so much that they never experience the simple joys of childhood, or we overindulge them so much that they never experience them as simple pleasures.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

What are GOP Senators saying about the Miers nomination? It does not sound supportive to me.

"I am uneasy about where we are," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican on the Judiciary Committee who had so far expressed only support for the president's choice. "Some conservative people are concerned. That is pretty obvious."

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, called Republican sentiment toward Ms. Miers's nomination "a question mark."

"There is an awful lot of Republican senators who are saying we are going to wait and see," he said.

Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican in the political middle of his party, said he needed "to get a better feel for her intellectual capacity and judicial philosophy, core competence issues."

"I certainly go into this with concerns," Mr. Coleman said.

And these are the ones who are commenting publicly.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

What are GOP Senators saying about the Miers nomination? It does not sound supportive to me.

"I am uneasy about where we are," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican on the Judiciary Committee who had so far expressed only support for the president's choice. "Some conservative people are concerned. That is pretty obvious."

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, called Republican sentiment toward Ms. Miers's nomination "a question mark."

"There is an awful lot of Republican senators who are saying we are going to wait and see," he said.

Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican in the political middle of his party, said he needed "to get a better feel for her intellectual capacity and judicial philosophy, core competence issues."

"I certainly go into this with concerns," Mr. Coleman said.

And these are the ones who are commenting publicly.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Every little girl has a stuffed teddy bear – but eight-year-old Sierra Stiles will have one that is a little bit different than most. She just shot and killed hers – a 211-pound black bear – with a .234 rifle in this year’s Maryland bear hunt, becoming the first hunter to score a kill in the state.

After winning one of 200 bear-hunting permits granted by lottery this year -- and acing the required safety test with a score of 98 -- Sierra recalled being rousted out of bed by her mother at 4:58 a.m., wolfing down a bowl of cereal and heading outside, to a field on her granduncle's farm. They waited two hours in the bush under a steady, cold rain.

"I was dragging," Sierra said.

It got a bit brighter as the sun glowed sullenly through a thick blanket of clouds, she said. Sierra's granduncle, Robert Harvey, saw a dark shadow in the distance, but he didn't know what it was. Her father thought it was a bear.

"I froze up," she recalled. Regaining her composure, Sierra stood behind a tree, waiting until the bear was about 50 yards away, she said. Then she took careful aim and squeezed the trigger. The bullet struck the bear behind the shoulder.

Unfazed by the rifle's light recoil, she said, she ejected the casing, reloaded and fired another round.

It hit. The bear ran about 150 feet before collapsing.

"I was really, really, really happy," Sierra exclaimed. "They won't eat now. They won't eat a thing."

Well done, little girl! That will be a heck of a story to tell your kids and grandkids – and one heck of a family heirloom, too, when you bring it back from the taxidermist!

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Of all the incredibly dumb ideas!

The city of Rome has banned goldfish bowls, which animal rights activists say are cruel, and has made regular dog-walks mandatory in the Italian capital, the town's council said on Tuesday.

The classic spherical fish bowls are banned under a new by-law which also stops fish or other animals being given away as fairground prizes. It comes after a national law was passed to allow jail sentences for people who abandon cats or dogs.

"It's good to do whatever we can for our animals who in exchange for a little love fill our existence with their attention," said Monica Cirinna, the councilor behind the by-law.

Good grief! we're talking about goldfish.

The newspaper reported that round bowls caused fish to go blind. No one at Rome council was available to confirm this was why they were banned. Many fish experts say round bowls provide insufficient oxygen for fish.

And we know this because...?

Clearly some folks have too much time on their hands -- and Italian lawmakers are among them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

As a supporter of Proposition 2 here in Texas, I have to say that I am NOT happy to have these clowns holding a rally to support my side of the issue.

The city has given permission of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a rally on Saturday, November 5. The group says they want to have a pro-family values rally in front of City Hall that afternoon to get voters to vote against gay marriage.

The city has reserved the Austin City Hall's south plaza on Lavaca and Cesar Chavez from 1-3 pm on Saturday, November 5.

Well, this just goes to show that even the most evil and immoral of groups can get things right from time to time. And as much as I would prefer that they not rally, I will defend their right to do so under the First Amendment.

I guess my biggest concern comes from this communique from the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

In an e-mail to the city for permission, a representative for the American White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan wrote: "Our speech will not be inflammatory, but we all know the reputation of the name of the KKK, so we expect anti-Klan demonstrators to be there who may become violent. We certainly don't want any of our people hurt nor any city officials. We just want to come and encourage people to vote for Christian Family Values and against legalized homosexual marriage in the state of Texas."

Given recent events in Toledo, and given the nature of some of the folks on the other side of the issue, I fear violence.

And to the members of the Klan, let me say that I do not believe you know a thing about Christ or Christian values -- if you did, you would not be cross-burning degenerates.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

I saw the news as i returned home from teaching my night class. Interestingly enough, I had talked about Rosa parks a couple of classes back, using her story as an example of how interest groups (such as the NAACP) can influence public policy.

The Washington post pulled its long-written obituary out of the files and ran it. It is every bit the hagiographic piece that one would expect. I was particularly struck by this analysis.

Parks said that she didn't fully realize what she was starting when she decided not to move on that Dec. 1, 1955, evening in Montgomery, Ala. It was a simple refusal, but her arrest and the resulting protests began the complex cultural struggle to legally guarantee equal rights to Americans of all races.

Within days, her arrest sparked a 380-day bus boycott, which led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that desegregated her city's public transportation. Her arrest also triggered mass demonstrations, made the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famous, and transformed schools, workplaces and housing.

Hers was "an individual expression of a timeless longing for human dignity and freedom," King said in his book "Stride Toward Freedom."

"She was planted there by her personal sense of dignity and self-respect. She was anchored to that seat by the accumulated indignities of days gone and the boundless aspirations of generations yet unborn."

She was the perfect test-case plaintiff, a fact that activists realized only after she had been arrested. Hardworking, polite and morally upright, Parks had long seethed over the everyday indignities of segregation, from the menial rules of bus seating and store entrances to the mortal societal endorsement of lynching and imprisonment.

She was an activist already, secretary of the local chapter of the NAACP. A member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church all her life, Parks admired the self-help philosophy of Booker T. Washington -- to a point. But even as a child, she thought accommodating segregation was the wrong philosophy. She knew that in the previous year, two other women had been arrested for the same offense, but neither was deemed right to handle the role that was sure to become one of the most controversial of the century.

I wish that the article got more at the truth -- Rosa Parks wasn't some tire woman caught up in events -- given her history of activism, she was intended to be a test case. Her arrest was not a random event, but rather a calculated one. That does not make her any less heroic, and I would argue that it actually makes her more heroic. She intentionally put herself on the line, and was not simply a pawn who let events swirl out of control around her..

Farewell, dear Rosa, rest well, and may choirs of angels sing you to your heavenly reward.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

If you find pictures of me from the early 1980s, odds are you will dee me wearing a White Sox cap. I had a sentimental attachment to the team ever since I had the opportunity to meet that wonderful old man and baseball legend, Bill Veeck, when I was in high school.

While time and distance have weaned me from that loyalty, I have never been ashamed of the team or its fans . Until now.

Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen issued a public apology on behalf of his organization to Astros second baseman Craig Biggio, whose wife was slapped by a fan in the stands at U.S. Cellular Field.

"I feel like it's our fault, and I talked to (Biggio) about it, and he knows we're sorry," Guillen said. "He knows it was something we couldn't control. It wasn't like a fight. (The fan) hit the lady and left."

The incident occurred on Sunday night during Game 2 of the 101st World Series at Chicago's ballpark, where several members of the Astros' traveling party were harassed.

"He slapped her and ran," Biggio said of the fan who struck his wife, Patty. "She ran after him. My brother-in-law ended up putting him against the wall. That's pretty sorry."

Asked if Patty had been hurt, Biggio said his New Jersey-raised wife held her own.

"You don't slap a New Jersey girl and get away with it," he said. "That happens sometimes. It's terrible. It's over."

Added Guillen: "I wish she would have grabbed something and broken his head. If that happened to my family, it would have been a big problem. ... People should just go to the game and not bother people next to you, or you're not a White Sox fan or a baseball fan. Just enjoy the game. Drink if you want to drink; just respect the people next to you."

No criminal complaint was made against the fan, according to Chicago police.

I hope that charges are, eventually pressed. There is no need for stuff like this. I'm pleased that the White Sox are responding as they have -- and particularly respect Ozzie Guillen's comments.

Hopefully this will stirr up the Astros and their fans as the World Sseries moves to Houston

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.

This little puke from the University of Cincinnatti opposes the Academic Bill of Rights -- a measure designed to ensure that students are graded on their knowledge and competence rather than their politics, religion, and ideology. He thinks that his words are a refutation of the ABOR, ">but he is instead an illustration of why it is necessary.

Rather than tell him (and his sponsor in the Ohio House) to go take a hike, the IUC passed a resolution on Oct. 11 confirming the following truisms: "Ohio's four-year public universities are committed to valuing and respecting diversity of ideas, including respect for diverse political viewpoints. Neither students nor faculty should be evaluated on the basis of their political opinions."

Except that not all "political opinions" are made equal, especially since modern conservatism has become synonymous with intolerance: it is anti-intellectual, counter-scientific, socially inept, recklessly interventionist and fiscally extravagant - even as it still defends discrimination against blacks, women and homosexuals.

College helps folks un-learn these toxic beliefs. It doesn't teach that they're of equal value to tolerance itself.

The liberal viewpoint is something to be defended, not compromised, which is probably why today's conservatives feel so out of place on America's college campuses.

How tolerant! The purpose of college -- and a state-funded one, no less, which exists on tax dollars extorted at the point of a gun -- is to instill the values of one side of the political spectrum and eliminate those of the other.

Is it any wonder that we far-right-wing extremists (read that "Republicans") feel there is a need for protection from those who would turn institutions of learning into centers of extreme-left-wing anti-American propaganda?

(Hat Tip -- FIRE's "The Torch")

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

As most of you realize, Paula and I had to trave 400 miles to Oklahoma when we were threatened by Hurricane Rita. Why so far? It was the closest place that we could get a hotel room that welcomed our four-legged family member, Carmie.

I wish that this place had been on our way -- our canine companion was much better behaved than the screaming, stomping kids who lived above us and who ran up-and-down the halls at irregular but frequent intervals. The Winnipeg Star's columnist, Lydia Lovric, talks about the place.

An Austrian hotel owner fed up with rowdy young patrons has made headlines for deciding to ban kids. Dogs, on the other hand, are still welcome.

This may sound odd coming from someone who currently has the proverbial "bun in the oven," but I think kid-free hotels are a fabulous idea. Hopefully, an enterprising Canadian chain will soon follow suit.

Roland Ballner, 38, says he is tired of dealing with badly behaved children and will no longer allow kids under the age of 12 to stay at his hotel.

"My guests have a right to quiet and relaxation without the noise of children," insists Ballner.

Dogs will still be permitted because Ballner claims the four-legged guests are far better trained than most children. The furry guests also don't vandalize the hotel rooms, unlike certain pint-sized patrons.

He blames bad parenting, explaining that many moms and dads turn a blind eye to their child's transgressions. The parents "seem to feel they are here to relax and wash their hands of their children's bad behaviour."

Carmie is all we have in the way of family down here. We can't have kids and love them, but really could have used a quiet spot to bug-out during the evacuation. This would have been nice.

Oh, and by the way, I love the observation at the end of the column on why a hotel that bans kids could never open in Canada.

This is, after all, Canada -- where the only things we're allowed to ban are common sense, conservative professors and politically incorrect jokes.

Zing!

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like more Brits have been terrorized into "sensitivity" to Muslims. The latest move to dhimmitude involves the announced plans of several banks to discontinue giving away piggy banks

Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here.

Muslims do not eat pork, as Islamic culture deems the pig to be an impure animal.

Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, backed the bank move.

"This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers," he said.

However, the move brought accusations of political correctness gone mad from critics.

"The next thing we will be banning Christmas trees and cribs and the logical result of that process is a bland uniformity," the Dean of Blackburn, Reverend Christopher Armstrong, said.

"We should learn to celebrate our difference, not be fearful of them."

Khalid Mahmoud, the Labour MP for a Birmingham seat and one of four Muslim MPs in Britain, also criticised the piggy-bank ban.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

"We live in a multicultural society and the traditions and symbols of one community should not be obliterated just to accommodate another," Mr Mahmoud said.

"I doubt many Muslims would be seriously offended by piggy banks."

The only problem is that the extremists you folks have fostered and sheltered in your midst DO object to being confronted by the image of a pif -- and they have a tendency to repond explosively.

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

As a Texas Republican living in Tom Delay's district, I know that sounds funny. I am, however, tired of seeing district lines drawn to minimize competitive elections. Gerrymandering of districts to favor one party or another may be legal, but it is not right -- no matter which party is guilty.

Modern redistricting is a travesty. Politicians, using powerful computers, design districts that all but guarantee victory to one side or another. Sure, voters can go through the motions on Election Day, but few races are more than fictions. Sometimes the process is rigged to protect incumbents, sometimes to oust them, but maximizing competition and voter choice is never the goal when politicians get to draw the districts in which they or their friends will run. The result contributes to political polarization, since heavily Democratic districts tend to elect people far more liberal than average while heavily Republican districts tend to elect people far more conservative.

Really, I want to see elections in which the issues are being discussed and a choice is offered. I want to see an end to 96% reelection rates in Congress.I'm tired of one member of my household -- be it me or my wife, a partisan Democrat -- going into every election cycle knowing that there is no hope of electing a candidate to office becasue the lines were drawn to prevent it. Frankly, I want democracy to have a chance of working.

Both sides play the gerrymandering game -- and have since nearly the founding of our nation. But two centuries is enough. Slay the gerrymander.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

I always love it when the Left plays games with numbers. Take this example regarding polling data on affirmative action found in today's Detroit News.

But a January poll suggests a slim majority of Michigan voters support a ban on affirmative action in admissions and state hiring. A Detroit News poll conducted Jan. 7-12 of 400 registered voters found 64 percent of respondents favored a ban on affirmative action; 23 percent were opposed.

Now let's see here -- nearly two out of every three Michigan voters want to end affirmative action, and fewer than one in four want to keep it. Where I come from, that is not a "slim majority". In any election, those numbers would be considered a landslide.

Could we be seeing an example of "agenda driven math"?

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Many of us on the right side of the blogosphere have been speaking out against the Miers nomination. For a variety of reasons, we feel she does not merit elevation to the Suprem Court. Now N.Z. Bear of The Truth Laid Bear has made if possible for supporters and opponents to speak clearly on the issue, and to link together to be counted.

Why do I oppose this nomination? Let me offer you a series of links which explain.
The Miers Nomination
Miers And Gay Rights
ShouldnÂ’t She Already Have This?
George W. Bush Is Clearly Delusional
EJ Dionne And Religious Tests
Is Miers Really The Best?
One More Voice Against Miers
I Am Unalterably Opposed
Mr. President -- Withdraw Miers Nomination
I Take Exception To Your taking Exception, Senator

If you read closely, you will see that my objections are not based upon her gender, her religion, or her failure to graduate from an Ivy league school. I do not question her skill as a lawyer. What I do have concerns about is Ms. Miers' lack of writings and speeches that indicate she is intimately familiar with the Constitutional issues of the day. She may be a first-rate intellect, but she does not have the right sort of experience for this particular position -- one that has a lifetime tenure. Given the lack of clarity as to what sort of judge she will be, I feel there is insufficient reason to support this nomination.

For that reason, I oppose the Miers nomination and hope for her withdrawal, or eventual rejection by the Senate.

(A great post from Confederate Yankee)

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Howard Dean has supplied us with more proof that he is delusional -- he seems to be completely unaware of the Clinton-era cesspool of corruption.

The Bush White House is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history since President Warren G. Harding's, said Howard Dean during his first visit to Maine as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's comments Saturday came as top White House advisers are being investigated for their roles in the outing of a CIA operative and Tom DeLay, the former second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, faces conspiracy and money-laundering charges.

"The first thing we're going to do is we're going to have ethics come back to Washington again," said Dean, the keynote speaker at Saturday night's annual fundraising dinner for the Maine Democratic Party at the Lewiston Armory.

To deal with the "culture of corruption," Dean said, there needs to be an ethics code in Congress and stronger campaign finance laws.

Would that code of ethics include no leaking of classified information that got someone killed? If so, then goodbye Senator Leahy.

Would it include the elimination of those who leave innocent women to drown while they go to sleep off the evening of drinking and plot a cover-up? Hasta la vista, Teddy.

How about those who allow their home to be used to run a prostitution service? Tho-long, Barney.

Perjury? Buh-bye, Mrs. Clinton.

I could go on, but you see the point.

More at Blogs for Bush, robwestcott, and In The Bullpen.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

For those on the Left -- especially those in the black community who discount her blackness because she dares to espuse conservative principles -- this should serve as a reminder that Condoleezza Rice knows well just how far the nation has come as part of the struggle for civil rights, and exactly which people were and are the real enemies of African-Americans.

Forty-two years after the church bombing that killed four little girls and inflamed the civil rights movement, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped honor them Saturday by recalling one of the victims as a friend with whom she played with dolls and sang in musicals.

On the second day of a trip to highlight the civil rights era as an example for countries struggling to achieve democracy, Ms. Rice and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain visited the 16th Street Baptist Church, where the bombings occurred, and watched as plaques honoring the girls were unveiled.

"As God would have it, they were at Sunday school when America experienced homegrown terrorists of the worst sort," Ms. Rice said in an emotional ceremony at a park across the street from the church, which was bombed in 1963. In her speech, she sought to connect her childhood in the segregated South to her work as the first African-American woman to be the nation's top diplomat.

"It was meant to shatter our spirit," she said of the bombing. "It was meant to say that we shouldn't rise up. Just a few weeks after Dr. Martin Luther King said, 'I have a dream,' it was meant to tell us that, no, we didn't have a dream, and that dream was going to be denied."

For listeners, particularly Mr. Straw and visiting Britons, the ceremony was a reminder of how much had changed since the city of Ms. Rice's birth was known as "Bombingham," when it was inconceivable that someone from her tight-knit, middle-class, churchgoing community could rise to such prominence.

Four little girls were murdered that day, by those who would stand in the way of the dream of freedom and equality that was and is at the heart of what it means to be an American. They were Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair.

"Denise was my friend," Ms. Rice said. "We played together, we sang together in little musicals. We were children together, and we played with dolls. And that picture of Denise with the dolls will always be near and dear to my heart."

And I would argue that contributions made to this country by Dr. Condoleezza Rice stands as one of the great memorials to her friend -- and to all who sacrificed and died so that she could rise to the place she is today. Those who dishonor her dishonor them and that cause.

And would someone please get the editors at the New York Times a copy of their own stylebook -- given that the Secretary of State has an earned doctorate, it is inappropriate to refer to her as "Ms. Rice".

(UPDATE: Gene Robinson of the Washington Post writes a different sort of view about Rice's visit to Alabama.)

Posted by: Greg at 06:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 3 kb.

Look what Quinnipac found in New Jersey. People think that the Democrats are corrupt.

Most of you think corruption in government is a serious problem in New Jersey. According to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University, 92 percent of you think itÂ’s a serious problem in this state.

But more people think Democrats are the most corrupt according to the findings of the Quinnipiac poll. Half of the people responding to the poll said they associate government corruption to the Democratic Party. Is it no wonder?

Democrats like Bob Torricelli, Jim McGreevey, Charles Kushner, Gary Taffet, Paul Levinsohn, Roger Chugh, David DÂ’Amiano, Golan Cipel, William Watley, Lesly Devereaux, Robert Janiszewski and Anthony Impreveduto head up the long list of recent Democrats caught in a long run of scandals tied to corruption in recent years.

Oh donÂ’t think Republicans are immune, but only 22 percent of respondents in the polls said they associate corruption to the GOP.

That is interesting data, days away from a gubernatorial election.

Oh thereÂ’s no doubt about it. Corruption is a serious problem in the Garden State and its growing like a weed.

There is a very telling aspect to the Quinnipiac poll - Forrester wins in the eyes of voters as a person who is part of the solution in ridding the state of corruption.

Bad news for Corzine. More people - 43 percent - think Corzine is part of the problem when it comes to corruption, while 42 percent think he can solve the problem.

The old teeter totter is in play.

More people are convinced Forrester can solve the stateÂ’s problems. Forrester continues to win the confidence of voters in the poll as the man who can tackle out-of-control property taxes. Forrester continues to win the confidence of voters in the poll as the man who can tackle corruption.

The upshot of this? Expect a Forrester win on November 8.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.