I donÂ’t have much sympathy for those who drive while intoxicated. But at the same time, I do have a problem with a policy that throws common sense and statutory law out the window. Take the practice of the Washington, DC police and prosecutor regarding DUI cases

Elizabeth Wingo, chief of the criminal section in the D.C. Attorney General's Office, said her office prosecutes cases regardless of blood alcohol level, as long as there is sufficient evidence of impairment.

"We have zero tolerance for drunk driving. It doesn't matter what your blood alcohol level is," Wingo said. "If you blow .02 and officers can tell you're impaired, you'll be arrested for DUI."

The law says people can be found guilty if they drink enough alcohol "to appreciably disturb or interfere with their normal mental or physical faculties."

Now that sounds perfectly reasonable – .07 and .08 are mighty close, and the impairment level is insignificantly different. But DC police and prosecutors are bringing charges against folks with a BAC of .03, .01, and even .00, based upon breathalyzer results, on the basis that their alcohol consumption had impaired them. In one case, the basis for a determination of impairment was the driver’s failure to turn on her headlights soon enough in the twilight to suit the police officer. Another case involved a woman who answered her cell phone while driving.

Drunk and drugged driving is a serious offense. LetÂ’s not trivialize it by making every driver who has had a single glass of wine guilty of a criminal offense.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

I was starting to warm to the idea of Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. I now have to reject that possibility, given that she has indicated that she sees the Federalist Society as too political, but does not see the NAACP as being political at all!

Q. Ms. Miers, are you a member of any predominantly minority organizations, such as the NAACP, Black Chamber of Commerce, Urban League or any other predominantly minority organizations?

A. Women minorities?

Q. Well, maybe predominantly racial and ethnic minorities?

A. No.

Q. . . . . In your capacity as an at-large member do you think being involved in such organizations might assist you in having a perspective that – bring a perspective to your job that you don’t have?

A. I attend meetings designed to give me that input. However, I have tried to avoid memberships in organization s that were politically charged with one viewpoint or the other. For example, I wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society any more than – I just feel like it’s better to not be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you. I did join the Progressive Voters League here in Dallas during the campaign as part of the campaign.

Q. Are you active in the PVL now, do you intend to be?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Do you think the NAACP and Black Chamber of Commerce are in the category of organizations you were talking about?

A. No, I donÂ’t. . . . .

Transcript of Trial, Roy Williams et al. v. City of Dallas, No. CA-3-88-152-R, pages V-46 to V-47 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 1989).

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

The LA Times provides a lot of details in its breakdown of information about priests accused of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

been alleged at roughly 100 parishes. But because the accused priests moved around the archdiocese on average every 4.5 years, the total number of parishes in which alleged abusers served is far larger — more than three-fourths of the 288 parishes, according to the study, which examined records back to 1950.

The affected parishes were in neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties both rich and poor, suburban and urban, some predominantly white and others with African American or Latino majorities. The study does not support the contention made by some critics of the church that problem priests were dumped into poor, Latino and African American communities.

Based on the allegations, the number of abusive priests peaked in 1983. More than 11% of the diocesan priests — those who worked directly for the archdiocese, rather than for religious orders — who were in ministry that year eventually were accused of abuse.

Now one issue I have with this survey is that it appears to presume that every accusation was a valid accusation. Some weren’t – and one of my mentors during my seminary years was the victim of a false accusation, so I am quite sensitive to that reality. Another is the implicit assumption that those who relied on the advice of psychologists giving the best current clinical advice decades ago were somehow insensitive and immoral in their actions of sending accused abusers to counseling and then reassigning them after treatment. They were following the best practices of the day – practices we know are wrong.

But one thing we did not get from the times is this little tidbit of information that was noted by the Catholic League’s William Donahue – information that strikes me as rather significant in discussing the abuse scandal.

“We know from the files that have been released that in 79 percent of the cases, the alleged victim was male; this comports with the figure of 81 percent cited by the John Jay study of priests nationwide. And we know from the latter study that almost 8 in 10 of the alleged male victims were postpubescent, meaning that the problem is homosexual priests. Yet many in the media continue to lie—they say the problem is pedophilia when the data directly say otherwise. No, homosexuality does not cause molestation, and there are many good gay priests, but the fact remains that most of the problem priests are gay.

Yeah, you read that right – the problem was not pedophilia. It was homosexuality. Pedophilia, properly defined by the psychological sciences, is sexual desire and contact with prepubescent males. A man having sex with 15-18 year olds is not a pedophile, but is instead likely a homosexual acting out a homosexual orientation. The behavior is still wrong and still unacceptable, but let’s at least name it as what it is. So let’s tell the truth and state that about 60% of all priest sexual misconduct was homosexual activity with teenagers – that would go a long way towards making it clear what happened and why.

That is not to blame all homosexual priests for the abuse, or to label them as abusers. They are not. But it does explain why there might be a desire on the part of senior members of the Catholic hierarchy to discourage the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.

Washington State GOP leasers are concerned about the failure of public officials to address documented voter fraud and double registrations brought to light by the fraud and incompetence laden gubernatorial election.

Just one month before voters decide the future of King County's Democratic executive, Ron Sims, Republican Party leaders yesterday accused his administration of failing to remove thousands of duplicate registrations from the voter rolls.

GOP officials and Republican members of the Metropolitan King County Council said they officially will challenge the registrations of about 2,050 voters Monday.

In all, they said they found nearly 3,400 voters they suspect are registered twice with the county's Elections Office. They say they are challenging only those they can fully document.

As I recall, following the 2000 election debacle, the GOP went to great lengths to correct problems uncovered in Florida. Washington Democrats, on the other hand, are less interested in fair elections than in hanging on to power in an illegitimate fashion.

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Larry Elder makes this observation of George W. Bush and his policies regarding the poor and minorities.

Bottom line, under President Bush, the nation has seen the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted spending since President Lyndon B. Johnson. Indeed, much to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives, President Bush's budgets -- even excluding defense and homeland security spending -- make him the biggest spending president in 30 years.

But, Bush doesn't care about the poor.

There's a saying: We don't care how much you know, until we know how much you care. If one measures compassion by "outreach," the president placed more minorities and women in his government and with power positions than any president before him. If one measures compassion by spending, the president owes no one an apology.

None of this matters, of course, as long as you're a Republican. If "love means never having to say you're sorry," being a Republican means always having to say it.

But facts, of course, are irrelevant when it comes to liberal charges of racism, sexism, and hard-heartedness.

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

You just have to love some headlines. Take this one.

400-500 gallons of Halliburton acid spills on Colorado highway

Not just acid – it is Halliburton acid. Is that really the most important point to the story? Couldn’t you have instead informed your readers of what sort of acid it was – a matter of no little import – so that they could take appropriate precautions?

No, it is much more important to inform us that the acid belongs to a major defense contractor with ties to the Vice President.

Posted by: Greg at 02:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

LetÂ’s split the Ninth Circuit. No, not because it is the goofiest of liberal courts in the land, but because it is too large and to slow to really be effective.

The Ninth Circuit, which covers nine states, is considered the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts. It is larger than the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th , 5th , 6th , 7th , and 11th Circuits combined. The Ninth Circuit contains the fastest growing states in the U.S.

According to the Census Bureau, by 2010, the population of the states the Ninth Circuit covers will grow to over 63 million.

The court's increasing caseload negatively impacts the judges' ability to stay on top of legal developments, Murkowski said. It handles more cases than any other Circuit. Last year alone, 14,272 cases were filed.

The Ninth Circuit is the only circuit in which all judges do not review panel decisions, and it allows the court to be comprised of 11 members compared to the full 28 members. Every other Circuit requires a review by its full panel, thus resulting in the need for only six members of the 28 to have a majority opinion, Murkowski added.

As it stands now, the average time to get a final disposition of an appellate case in the Ninth Circuit is about five months longer than the national average.

Anything would be an improvement over the current system.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.

This will certainly raise the hackles of the professional homosexuals in this country.

A debonair New York socialite filed a $5 million legal notice against the Catholic Church yesterday — claiming his molestation at age 7 at the hands of a young priest led him to become gay.

J. David Enright IV — a scion of Albany's renowned Van Rensselaer and de la Grange families — told The Post he was repeatedly sexually abused by the Rev. Joseph Romano, a seminarian counselor at upstate Camp Tekawitha on Lake Luzerne, in 1961 and 1962.

"I believe that my life would be very different now," said Enright, 51, dressed in a custom-made English suit and French cuffed shirt. "I'd probably be married, living in Greenwich, with four children in boarding school.
"Romano bent my life."

The story, of course, is a tragedy. But for Enright to win, he has to establish that homosexuality if not a genetic trait. Instead, homosexuality has to be a trauma-induced defect – call it post-traumatic sexual disorientation. If the latter is the case, then homosexuality is a disorder to be treated and overcome, not a condition to be accepted and normalized.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

Former Congressman Bob Barr offers this observation, which in many ways mirrors mine. We don’t think that Harriet Miers is anything other than a smart lady and a fine lawyer – but we just don’t see her as having a clearly defined judicial philosophy or a deep concern for the constitutional law issues that are the bread-and-butter of Supreme Court cases.

I know there have been lawyers who have served with distinction on the Supreme Court — men like Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas and even the outstanding Louis Brandeis — whose first judicial job was on the U.S. high court.

The parallels really don't hold up well, Mr. President, because all of those justices actually had well-known records of serving in professional and academic venues in which they were called on repeatedly to issue opinions on complex matters involving constitutional and judicial issues.

Miers, despite have blazed a pioneering trail as the first woman head of the Texas Bar Association, is not possessed of such a record. Indeed, even though her defenders in your administration have noted that her duties as White House counsel necessarily include dealing with matters involving constitutional issues, you have already made it clear you will refuse to allow public or even Senate access to White House documents relating to her official duties.

Thus, even if there existed a paper trail irrefutably establishing that Miers' legal reasoning were every bit as profound as Justice Brandeis', we'll never know, because you refuse to show us the proof.

Moreover, the issues on which your counsel's constitutional bona fides might be established necessarily would relate to a fairly narrow range of matters, and all would necessarily involve justifications for your exercise of certain powers (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, defense of executive privilege). After all, that's what White House counsels are paid to do — find ways to justify whatever power a president wants to claim.

I’ll say it quite clearly – if this were a District Court nomination, I would be strongly supportive of a Miers nomination. I’d fight hard for a Circuit Court confirmation, too. But elevation to the Supreme Court requires an almost intangible something more – and I just don’t see this nominee as possessing it.

May God bless Harriet Miers – and may he keep her off this honorable court.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

As much as I believe in organ donation, and as much as I lament the lack of transplantable organs, I have to oppose this proposal.

Look, I'm not saying we need more body-snatching, obviously. What we need is a policy - already law in 20 countries - called "presumed consent."

Presumed consent simply presumes that once you die, you consent to have your body parts given to the living, unless you have specifically indicated otherwise.
From Singapore to Spain to Sweden and Italy, it's a done deal. Anyone who does not want to donate simply joins a national registry of those "opting out." They get "opt out" cards to carry.

Here in America, however, our posthumous policy is exactly the opposite: The government presumes you don't want to donate. If, however, you do, you have to "opt in" by signing a space on your driver's license and/or talking about it with your next of kin. Since most people don't bother to sign anything and are disinclined to discuss the disposal of their bodies in any event, we don't have the 98% participation rate that presumed-consent countries like Spain have.

The short answer is that my body belongs to me. It is not government property, to be disposed of by government dictate after I die. If I choose to donate my organs (and I do – I signed up for organ donation when I got my first driver’s license, and have signed every renewal since then), that is my decision – but if I choose to take them to my grave I should be permitted to do so without having to overcome some government hurdle.

And in this case, unlike in the case of abortion, the mantra of “my body, my choice” is actually accurate.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Under state law, citizens may contribute up to $4950 to mayoral candidates. But under federal law, congresscritters are limited to raising only $2100 for such candidates. Looks like John Kerry may have crossed the line.

A Sept. 15 E-mail from Kerry to potential Ferrer donors failed to note that the former presidential candidate is barred from hitting up Ferrer supporters for more than $2,100. That could violate the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

"Under a reasonable reading of the regulations and the advisory opinion, the lack of a disclaimer violated the rule about soliciting soft money," said Larry Noble, of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Kerry's missive had links to a page on Ferrer's Web site that allows donors to select amounts up to $250 - or write in a figure.

In New York, donors to a mayoral candidate may contribute up to $4,950. But as a senator, Kerry's solicitations are limited by federal rules, and according to a Federal Election Commission opinion, he must "expressly qualify or limit" his request with a disclaimer to make it clear he's only soliciting funds that comply with federal law.

This is just one more example of the stupidity of campaign finance laws. He is forbidden from soliciting LEGAL donations. Time to repeal all of the campaign participation restriction laws.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Maybe those helmets were a sign that the Minnesota Vikings are a horny bunch. Consider this story about a recent charter cruise involving a number of players from the team.

The Hennepin County Sheriff's Department is investigating allegations of criminal sexual conduct by Minnesota Vikings players after a boat cruise on Lake Minnetonka turned into an out-of-control party that included lap dances and sexual acts, an attorney for the charter boat company said Tuesday.

Stephen Doyle, a lawyer representing the owners of Al and Alma's, a company that charters cruises on the lake, said cornerback Fred Smoot and another Vikings player, whom he declined to name, reserved a charter for a night-time excursion Thursday.

"From our end, I don't know the name of the other primary person, but we turned over to the police today documents that show signatures or credit cards or whatever was associated with closing this deal," Doyle said.

A woman called Mound police Thursday night to report "possible prostitution, drugs and live sex acts" on the two boats. According to the police report, the woman said she and her brother's girlfriend served as hostesses on the boats.

Doyle said he didn't learn details of what allegedly happened until he met with six of the eight crewmembers Tuesday.

Doyle said about 90 people were on the two boats. According to a Vikings player who spoke on the condition of anonymity, about 15 Vikings players were on a charter as part of what he described as a "team event." The player said he was unaware of any sexual acts and that the cruise lasted less than 90 minutes.

Doyle said he believed it to be a tradition for Vikings rookies and first-year players to take their teammates out.

Upon returning to the dock, the player said, there were no police officers present and he did not know of any problems on the boats.

It could be really interesting to see how this situation all plays out. After all, isn’t this just about sex, and isn’t there a need for us to all just move on. After all, who hasn’t had drunken public sex with a prostitute on a boat? Everyone does it – sort of like getting oral sex from a subordinate in the office and lying to your spouse and the American people.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 2 kb.

It must suck to be this guy -- everyone will be gunning for him in 2006.

The son of Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle plans to run for the Texas House.

Jason Earle will campaign for House District 47 in Southwest Travis County.

The district's current representative Terry Keel said he won't run for reelection. Instead, he is seeking a seat on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Earle will formally announce his candidacy at 10 a.m. Tuesday at Pease Elementary School in Central Austin.

Gee -- thanks dad!

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Again, words fail me in the face of such a disaster.

Up to 40,000 people have been killed, at least 60,000 injured and two-and-a-half million left homeless by the devastating south Asia earthquake, according to latest figures.

Behind the raw and rising statistics, the dreadful human cost of the tragedy was emerging in ruined towns across Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

The mountainous province of Kashmir was the worst hit, but the effects of the quake were felt in a 300-mile belt from Jalabad in Afghanistan to Srinagar in northern India. The earthquake struck at 0450BST on Saturday and is the worst to hit South Asia in a century.

"It is a whole generation that has been lost, the maximum number affected was schoolchildren," Major General Shaukat Sultan, Pakistan's military spokesman said.

"Rescuers are pulling out dead children in Muzaffarabad [the capital of Pakistani Kashmir, and the epicentre of the 7.6 quake] but there is no-one to claim the bodies. The parents, too, are dead."

The United Nations ChildrenÂ’s Fund (Unicef) said today that between 30,000 and 40,000 people had died. The figure is likely to rise further as rescue teams reach isolated towns and villages whose water supplies, power and road links have been wiped out.

The numbers are mind-boggling.

Please offer prayers, and help, to the survivors.

Posted by: Greg at 12:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

Mary Mapes claims in her new book that there was a "vast right wing conspiracy" to get her, Dan Rather, and CBS News in the wake of the use of fake documents to accuse President Bush of failing to complete his Texas Air National Guard service.

But the revised edition of David Blum's book on 60 Minutes provides a different take on the scandal.

Dan Rather’s future on CBS News certainly looks less than assured, just as the updated paperback edition of David Blum’s 60 Minutes tell-all, Tick . . . Tick . . . Tick . . . , hits stores this week. Among Blum’s new revelations: The night before last fall’s controversial National Guard piece aired, Rather called 60 Minutes Wednesday executive producer Josh Howard from the anchor desk to find out why he wasn’t running promos for the story. When Howard told him he couldn’t promote it—CBS News president Andrew Heyward hadn’t seen it yet, nor had the lawyers, and they hadn’t even contacted the White House for comment—Rather threatened to take the story to the Times that night. (Rather later backed down.) The anchor was feeling a good deal less of a cowboy after the story blew up in his face. According to the book, on the night before his on-air apology, Rather confessed to Howard that he’d had doubts about the veracity of the memos all along. “I knew when I did the [document consultant Marcel] Matley interview that something wasn’t right with all this,” Rather confessed to Howard, belying his stalwart public position. A CBS News spokesperson, Sandy Genelius, said, “I have no way of verifying this, these were private conversations,” before noting that they weren’t in the 224-page report of the CBS investigation. Rather was overseas and unavailable to comment.

Rather, it seems, was much more interested in getting it out fast than in getting it right -- and was even willing to hand the story to the New York Times to do so.

So, Mary, are we talking about a vast right wing conspiracy to smear you, or simply shoddy journailsm by folks more interested in bringing down another Republican President?

Posted by: Greg at 12:18 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

It seems that producer Stephen Bing has made a small contribution to a group opposing the non-partisan redistricting of California legislative and congressional seats. The measure is designed to stop Democrat gerrymandering of districts that keeps Republicans from coming close to winning the number of seats their voting strength suggests they should hold.

Hollywood producer Stephen L. Bing has donated $4 million to oppose Proposition 77, which would strip legislators of the power to draw the boundaries of their districts.

The donation - the largest, single contribution from an individual in the special election campaign - was given to a committee headed by University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Daniel Lowenstein, a former chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

The committee's backers include Democratic members of California's congressional delegation. Some members' jobs could be in jeopardy if voters approve Proposition 77 on the Nov. 8 ballot. The initiative would authorize a panel of retired judges to determine legislative and congressional boundaries, rather than legislators.

The group had previously raised only $1.4 million -- meaning that Bing's donation is equivalent to nearly triple the amount previously raised by the group.

I'm curious -- if corporate donations, no matter how small, are corrupting of politics, and if unlimited donations to individual candidates are corrupting of politics, what can one say about this sort of contribution to a Democrat front organization?

And what's in it for Bing? What favors will he get in return from the group's supporters among the Democrat legislators?

It seems to me that the money should be returned, in the spirit preserving good government and clean campaigns -- at least if liberals really believe that campaign donations are corrupting of the political process.

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are LGF Spots the Gilded Cage by Gates of Vienna, and Lessons From a Decent Man by Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred.  Full results may be found in this week's results post.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Public schools were etablished to educate students. The idea was that they would prepare students to be productive citizens in a democratic society. Somewhere along the way, though, this notion got corrupted. Schools came to be seen as the one-stop social service center for students. Thus we saw the establishment of free and reduced lunch programs, school breakfast programs, and health clinics, as well as special programs for young women who are unable to keep their knees together and get knocked-up -- as well as free day care for their babies.

So why should it be surprising that the liberals of this world expect schools to keep on feeding kids at taxpayer expense during the summer? The Houston Chronicle is upset that some local school districts have not caved into its demands that they arrange meals for students during the months of July and August, after summer school ends.

Let me restate what I said back in July on this very subject.

Who Is Responsible For Feeding The Children?

No, I'm serious -- who is responsible for feeding the children? Is it the parents, or is it the government?

That is my reaction to an editorial in today's Houston Chronicle.

Last month, needy children ate more than 2 million free, nourishing meals thanks to the Houston Independent School District. The Galena Park school district fed wholesome meals to 48,000 hungry youngsters.

Both school systems should be commended for recognizing the importance of a reliable, accessible source of food for children whose parents can't provide it. So it's inexplicable that both districts left the same kids utterly adrift when both shut their doors to prepare for the school year.

Now wait just one minute here. What is the business of a SCHOOL district? Is it providing an education for its students, or is it the complete care and feeding of the kids year round? I think the answer is obvious to sensibele, thinking people. That would explain why the Chronicles editorial staff gets the answer wrong.

Now I have to be careful here, because I work in one of these districts, but it seems to me that we have lost focus on the mission of the public schools. That mission is the intellectual, social, and moral education of children. It is not to be a one-stop medical/feeding/day-care center. During the school year, my district offers a free day-care program for the offspring of our students, a free/low-cost heath care clinic for students, and a free/reduced lunch program for all students. This summer it offered free breakfast and lunch for any "child" who walked in off the street, regardless of income -- and "child" was defined as AGE 20 AND UNDER! That's right. We had "children" age 18-20 (what most thinking people would generally refer to as "adults") walking into school buildings and being fed at taxpayer expense. What was even more absurd, the regulations imposed by the federal government forbade the sale of these same meals to school employees who were working in the building, including those of us who were actually teaching summer school!

Now, though, that the program is over, the Chronicle is upset that these districts are shirking some sort of purported moral responsibility to feed the children when there is no school in session.

Like other school districts around the country, Houston and Galena Park are eligible for reimbursement from the federal government for food and operating costs of student free meal programs. The government pays $2.74 for each meal a child consumes, which can be used to hire staff to handle the food and monitor the number of meals served. But as summer school ends and the fall semester starts to loom, school systems apparently find it difficult to keep serving the federally-funded meals on their campuses. Galena Park stopped serving its meals Friday; HISD shut most of its 256 cafeterias several weeks earlier.

This needless lapse in stewardship should not be allowed to happen. Even if entire school systems must close their doors for maintenance, the schools can still act as conduits to get that free food to poor children. Even after a district has ended its program for the summer, it can restart it again as a sponsor for another site, almost until the start of the school year. All the district needs to do is contact nonprofits, whether community centers or churches willing to provide a site where children can eat. Schools can invite teachers or contract cafeteria personnel to freelance as food managers at the interim locations. More than likely, some parents and other community members would be happy to oversee a meal program for free.

Arranging interim food service in the summer might be time-consuming, but what task could be more urgent?

I don't suppose that the Chronicle ever considered proposing that private groups run such programs without government money or oversight. After all, how can we possibly expect there to be positive results without government involvement? And I can't help but laugh at the notion that teachers should volunteer to run such programs -- after all, Texas teacher salaries are only about $6000 below the national average. Why doesn't the Chronicle send its employees out during the middle of the day to run such programs if, as they claim, "there is no task which could be more urgent"? All of this overlooks such antiquated notions as having the children fed a meal at home, prepared by a parent or other family member.

It's certainly feasible: In San Antonio, the schools have organized an almost seamless transfer of summer meals. There is no excuse for Harris County school districts to deny the same services for our own hungry children.

Right now, tens of thousands of Houston children are going without needed meals. Administrators at HISD and GPISD should get on the phone to help them right now. They'll likely find plenty of nonprofits eager to lend a hand. Galena Park Boxing Academy, which is also a child enrichment center, has space for 200 children to eat free meals at once, academy President Kenny Weldon said. The facility can even supply a monitor.

"Of course we'd be willing," Weldon said. "What do you do — take care of kids for one part of the year but not the other?"

But then again, maybe I am too hard-hearted. Maybe the editorial is right. Children need to be fed year-round, and parents are clearly not up to the task.

But what about other school breaks and holidays? These children should not be left to fend for themselves for a week or two at Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Spring Break! Clearly, the cafeterias must remain open during those times off as well.

And what about the irresponsible practice of sending children home on Friday afternoon and closing the cafeterias over the weekend? It seems absurd that we would expect children to survive through a Saturday and a Sunday without a hot breakfast and lunch. School districts need to keep the cafeterias open on the weekend as well, to avoid subjecting our nation's children to two whole days without nutrition.

I've also got a solution to what I see as the "dinner problem". By extending the school day by two or three hours, we can make sure that each student gets a hot dinner, ensuring three square meals a day. The interim time could be devoted to additional instructional time, though I certainly see the objections of those who see the extra classroom time as educators over-emphasizing academics.

But what I've not managed to solve is how to guarantee that evey child gets a bowl of ice cream and a kiss on the forehead before bed. What do you think -- are parents up to such a task?

Now let me begin by saying that additional reflection has led me to recognize that my comment about children getting a kiss on the forehead and a bowl of ice cream at bedtime is a bit insensitive. After all, I left out both the mint on the pillow and the turn-down service that is given at any decent five-star hotel. My sincerest apologies for not including them in the expected services that schools should be expected to provide for their students!

Quite simply, folks, the time has come to get schools to refocus on their primary mission, which is providing an education. Lunch and breakfast programs are fine during the school year, but parents must take responsibility for providing basic necessities for their children. Schools need to get out of the business of providing medical care and social services to children. Speaking as a teacher , I can tell you that those of us on the frontlines of education in a classroom are simply being overwhelmed by the additional demands placed upon us that go beynd the scope of providing an education to our kids. We cannot be all things to all people, nor can we provide all services to all children, if we are to effectively fulfill our primary role of teaching our students. Please, for the sake of our children, let us get back to teaching!

Unfortunately, it looks like one of the districts (or at least the district spokesperson) has fallen into the Chronicle's trap of conceding district responsibility for feeding children year-round.

But Galena Park has not made any effort to transfer its meal service. The Parks and Recreation Department contacted the school district to discuss the matter, but the district did not follow up on that conversation, spokeswoman Staci Stanfield said.

"It's a priority to make sure that our students are fed," she said. Nevertheless, she added, the district has taken no action "at this point in time" to fulfill that priority.

I wish you had given a better answer, Staci. The correct answer to the question was "It's a priority to make sure that our students are educated, and the district plans on taking no action at this time or any other to operate or facilitate any program that detracts or distracts from our focus on that mission. As such, it is up to the private sector to see to the feeding of children when we are not in session."

Of course, giving that answer would require a level of courage and honesty that those who rise to the rarified heights of district spokesperson or other district administrative positions have long-since lost in their quest to make more money and have less day-to-day contact with children in that messy setting that is a classroom. It also would have required remembering that the primary task of a school district is education.

And sadly, too many of those who set educational policy have lost focus on that task.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1803 words, total size 11 kb.

Bill White has said the following regarding Proposition 2 (as set forth in Texas HJR 6), which would insert the traditional definition of marriage overwhelmingly supported by Texans int he state Constitution.

Houston Mayor Bill White took no official stance but suggested the amendment is divisive.

"As mayor, I avoid commenting on state and federal laws and policies I do not influence," White said. "I intend to vote 'no' on the proposed state constitutional amendment to protest its use as a wedge issue."

Gee -- how is it divisive to pass a law that is overwhelmingly supported by virtually every demographic group in the state of Texas? Isn't the division actually being cause by those who would impose their values on the state of Texas through the courts, against the will of the people of Texas? You know, those who seek to force the overwhelming majority of Texans to act contrary to their religious beliefs for the benefit of no more than 5%?

Despite the Chronicle's attempt to paint the issue as divisive, by this time next mont it will be clear that Texans are united in opposition to homosexual marriage. -- and it will be clear who is sowing division.

Oh, and by the way, don't forget that there are nine proposed amendments on the November ballot. You can find them here.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

This time they were in Paris, and their weapon of choice was a cream pie.

French anti-fur activists said they struck Anna Wintour, editor of the U.S. edition of Vogue, in the face with a cream pie on Saturday to protest against her support for the use of animal fur by the fashion industry.

Wintour, dressed in a fur-trimmed black jacket, was hit in the face with a tofu cream pie as she left the Chloe fashion ready-to-wear show at the Tuileries Gardens in central Paris, members of the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said.

It was the second such attack this year on Wintour, an unapologetic fur supporter decried by animal rights groups as a "pelt pusher."

"Wintour is fur-bearing animals' worst enemy because her magazine continues to feature dozens of pages of pro-fur editorials and advertising each year," PETA campaigner Yvonne Taylor told Reuters by phone in Paris.

"She takes big glossy advertisements for fur and she refuses to run any anti-fur ads, even paid ones, so she's a big fur supporter," Taylor said.

Wintour was unavailable for comment on the incident.

I'd like to encourage Ms. Wintour to purchase a firearm, and to make use of it the next time she is so approached. It is time to meet their acts of violence with a response that will catch their attention -- and the attention of their survivors.

Posted by: Greg at 01:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Not if you consider the implications of this statement from Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter.

Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who presides over confirmation hearings, offered a blunt assessment that was yet another sign that the nominee faced an uphill battle on Capitol Hill. Though Mr. Specter called Ms. Miers "intellectually able," he said she had a "fair-sized job to do" to become fluent in the language of constitutional law, which will be essential for senators who want to examine her judicial philosophy in deciding whether to confirm her.

"She needs more than murder boards," Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview, referring to the mock question-and-answer sessions most nominees use to prepare for their confirmation hearings. "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."

Excuse me, but shouldn't a candidate for the highest court in the United States already be "fluent in the language of constitutional law"? Shouldn't she (or he) be sufficiently well-versed in the field that there is no need for a "crash course in constitutional law"? Can any candidate described in this manner be said to be ready for the Supreme Court?

Sounds like Specter has supplied us with another "Hruska moment".

Please, Mr. President, withdraw this nomination.

(Hat Tip -- Southern Appeal)

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Columnist EJ Dionne attempts to argue that many on the right are being hypocritical in their use of Harriet Miers' religious affiliation as a tool to discern her judicial philosophy.

Shortly after Bush named John Roberts to the Supreme Court, a few Democrats, including Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., suggested that the nominee might reasonably be questioned about the impact of his religious faith on his decisions as a justice.

Durbin had his head taken off. "We have no religious tests for public office in this country," thundered Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, insisting that any inquiry about a potential judge's religious views was "offensive." Fidelis, a conservative Catholic group, declared that "Roberts' religious faith and how he lives that faith as an individual has no bearing and no place in the confirmation process."

But now that Harriet Miers, Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, is in trouble with conservatives, her religious faith and how she lives that faith are becoming central to the case being made for her by the administration and its supporters. Miers has almost no public record. Don't worry, the administration's allies are telling their friends on the right, she's an evangelical Christian.

Dionne, of course, may have a minor point in noting the hypocrisy of objecting to Durbin's questions while offering assurances based upon Miers' evangelical Christianity. But he is is wrong on the much more substantial question of religious tests -- for neither the Durbin question nor the evangelical assurance constitutes a religious test of any sort -- and certainly not as understood by the Framers of the Constitution.

I pointed this out some months back, responding to an editorial in the New York Sun.

Now we all know that these religious questions are primarily a proxy for questions about abortion and the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Again, these are proper areas for scrutiny. If a hypothetical nominee were, for example, a member of the Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy dressed up with a facade of theology), would it not be proper to inquire about the nominee's ability to uphold the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the Civil Rights Acts enacted pursuant to them? Of course it would -- and the failure of the nominee to give "the right answers" would be a more than sufficient basis for rejection without running afoul of Article VI.

But how does that square with the many weighty and serious quotes from the Founders regarding religious tests for office?

Coxe, in his examination of the Constitution ("No religious test is ever to be required of any officer or servant of the United States. The people may employ any wise or good citizen in the execution of the various duties of the government") to William Lancaster of North Carolina ("... we form a government for millions not yet in existence. I have not the art of divination. In the course of four or five hundred years, I do not know how it will work. This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that chair, and Mahometans may take it" ) to Luther Martin ("there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism") to Edmund Randolph ("A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States"), the Founders debated the religious test from every angle and then, by an overwhelming margin, excluded it.

The answer, of course, is to understand what constituted a religious test in the mind of an educated American in the latter part of the eighteenth century -- to strictly construe the original intent of the text at the time of its writing and adoption. These were men whose context was fundamentally British, and whose historical points of reference were usually those which came from that heritage. It is no accident, for example, that the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are a reaction to the abuses of the British monarchs over the previous two centuries. Viewed in that context, the prohibition on religious tests is designed to prevent the imposition of "test oaths" which excluded members of certain sects from holding public office or exercising certain rights. The most famous of these were the anti-Catholic oaths which forced individuals to repudiate certain tenets of the Catholic faith and the authority of the pope. Those who refused to take such an oath were barred from public offices and faced certain restrictions on their liberties. Such is not the case with Durbin's questions, which could NEVER rise to the level of a "religious test" in the sense intended by the Founder. Durbin's refusal to vote for a candidate because of those views also does not violate the religious test provision, any more than my refusal to vote for a Satanist does.

Mr. Durbin insisted to reporters last week that he wasn't interested in applying a "litmus test" to judicial nominees. The senator told Judge Roberts, "If you will be honest and forthcoming, you're going to find a warm reception from our side of the aisle, even if we disagree with you on any given issue." But two days later, Mr. Durbin went on NBC's "Meet the Press" to say that if Judge Roberts did not find an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, on which the right to abortion is based, "It would disqualify him in my mind."

Now notice, please, that Durbin's basis for giving or denying his vote is NOT religious, but is instead based upon constitutional interpretation. That is a legitimate basis for a Senator to use in making a decision. After all, a nominee who stated that he believed that Plessy is right and Brown is wrong would merit rejection. While I disagree with Durbin's litmus test (and it is a litmus test, despite his protestation to the contrary), I don't have a problem with rejecting a nominee on the basis of jurisprudential principles, regardless of the source of the "deeply held personal beliefs" which lead to such a conclusion. I wish we on the conservative side had made a practice of doing so over the last few decades.

I'll say about Miers what I said about Roberts -- to the degree that inquiries and assertions regarding her religious beliefs are the basis for discerning a judicial philosophy and/or her basic competence to do the job of a Supreme Court Justice, there is no religious test being imposed.

(Another commentary on Dionne at Captain's Quarters)

Posted by: Greg at 05:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1147 words, total size 7 kb.

It looks like a pragmatic realism is going to be the basis of the Vatican's policy on the ordination of homosexual candidates to the priesthood. This was my hope and my expectation. A quick examination of the policy shows why it makes sense.

A forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuals in seminaries will not demand an absolute ban, a senior Vatican official told NCR Oct. 7, but will insist that seminary officials exercise "prudential judgment" that gay candidates should not be admitted in three cases.

Those three cases are:

* If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
* If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
* If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.

In any case, the Vatican official said, whether or not these criteria exclude a particular candidate is a judgment that must be made in the context of individual spiritual direction, rather than by applying a rigid litmus test.

I spent four years in the Catholic seminary before leaving and, little more than a year latter, marrying.

Now let's look at those three points very closely. What are the conditions unde which someone should not be admitted to the seminary as a candidate for the priesthood?

* If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;

May I say "DUH!" These men are entering a process of formation for lifelong celibacy. Is it an unreasonable expectation that they should show the capacity for celibacy by having lived it for a period of time? Speaking from experience, I believe that a three year period of celibacy prior to entering the major seminary should be a minimum requirement for everybody. Being celibate for such a period is not an easy thing to do in today's society if you do not have such a calling. To live a life of celibacy with integrity is hard work -- and I've known many deeply spiritual men who would have made great priests who have recognized that they could not continue with their studies because of their inability to live a celibate life with integrity. The issue played no small part in my decision not to complete my preparation for priesthood.

* If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);

The teachings of the Church on homosexuality are unequivocal. If a man is taking a public stand against the teachings of the Church on the matter, is the priesthood really an appropriate place for him? It is all well and good to seek to be an agent of change in a democratic society, but the unchanging truths of the Christian faith are not open to debate.

* If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.

Some folks, both heterosexual and homosexual, are led around by their sex drives. We all know such folks. In the case of a homosexual male who is very sexualized, being thrust into the all-male world of seminary life and priesthood could be an occassion of sin. I recall one young man who quit the seminary when his older partner broke off their relationship a few weeks prior to diaconate ordination -- while the older man was willing to be celibate (though not until the 11th hour), the younger thought of the priesthood as a much more exclusive gay bar. At least one of them (and probably both) should never have been permitted to enter the seminary to begin with -- for the same reason a heterosexual man who expressed a desire to remain sexually active should not be admitted to the seminary.

I encourage people to notice something about the position taken in this document. Homosexuals are not deemed to be more sinful than other people. They are not deemed "unworthy" of ordination. Rather, special guidance is being offered on which individuals should and should not be admitted to the seminary based upon their ability to live out the priesthood as models of Christ's love and as teachers of the truths found in Scripture and Tradition. Far from being based upon hatred and bigotry, they are based upon love and pastoral concern.

Posted by: Greg at 05:11 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

The DeLay camp is alleging unethical and illegal conduct by Ronnie Earle in securing the second indictment against the Majority Leader after initially securing an indictment for a crime that did not exist.

"During the five-day period of Sept. 29, 2005, to Oct. 3, 2005, Ronnie Earle and his staff engaged in an extraordinarily irregular, and desperate attempt to contrive a viable charge and get a substitute indictment of Tom DeLay before the expiration of the statute of limitations on Oct. 3, 2005," the motion states.

The motion claims that Earle and his staff "attempted to browbeat and coerce" a grand jury to change its decision to no-bill DeLay on a separate money-laundering charge. In addition, the motion says that the prosecutors "unlawfully attempted to cover up and delay public disclosure" of that no-bill.

Richard Bernal of Austin, foreman of the grand jury that didn't indict DeLay, said he had no comment on the allegations in DeLay's motion. He said he had not spoken with DeGuerin or anyone on DeLay's legal team.

On Oct. 3, a newly sworn-in grand jury indicted DeLay on money-laundering and conspiracy charges. Earle said then those indictments were based on "additional information" that had come to his attention.

The motion also accuses the district attorney's office of inciting the foreman of the first grand jury to talk "publicly, and on the record, to the media, in an effort to bias the public and sitting grand jurors."

That foreman, William M. Gibson Jr. of Austin, has given interviews to reporters. He has not discussed the evidence against DeLay but has said that Earle did not pressure the jurors to vote to indict.

On Thursday, Gibson, 76, told Austin radio station KLBJ that Earle's staff said "that we were free to talk to the media if we wanted to, that the media was a very good source of information for everybody."

On Friday, the retired state insurance investigator told the Houston Chronicle that Earle did not incite him to talk.

He said he answered questions when reporters called but didn't divulge any secret information.

"I don't think I did anything wrong," said Gibson.

Now let's look at this very closely. After three years and (if I remember correctly) six grand juries, Ronnie Earle finally got DeLay indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws in 2002. The problem was that the statute did not go into effect for nearly a year after DeLay's actions -- and DeLay's participation in the conspiracy was his failure to attempt to stop a financial transaction that the PAC's lawyers said was legal and commonplace. By the time the flaw was discovered, the grand jury had been dismissed because its term had expired. That grand jury was told it was free to talk to the press about the case, according to its foreman, a partisan Democrat who admits that his decision to indict was based upon press reports and other information that was not (and could not have been) presented to the grand jury.

By the next day, the indictment had been torn to shreds by a great number of commentators and analysts, including many who oppose Tom DeLay. The Travis County DA therefore sought an additional indictment to backstop the first, and presented the same evidence to another grand jury that was about to expire, hoping to get an indictment that the pliant first grand jury refused to give him. Earle expected the second indictment to be forthcoming, because they would not have heard all of the contradictory evidence given to the first grand jury during its term, just the evidence that Earle cherry-picked to make his case. But an indictment wasn't forthcoming, and the grand jurors no-billed the case. Ronnie Earle was visibly angry and attempted to pressure the grand jurors into doing his biddingdespite their conviction that ther ewas no basis for charges. He then instructed them that grand jury secrecy rules applied to them even after their term was up and that they could not speak to the media.

Over the weekend, Earle and his employees called the members of the expired grand jury to discuss the "additional evidence" that was presented to the second grand jury -- which appears to be a violation of grand jury secrecy, since it involved the discussion of the activities decisions and deliberations of that grand jury with individuals who were not a part of that or any other sitting grand jury -- and polled them on whether they would have issued an indictment on specific charges. This action certainly crosses ethical boundaries,and probably legal ones as well.

On October 3, Ronnie Earle presented the same evidence to the a brand new grand jury -- supplemented by the opinions of the members of the defunct grand jury which had indicted on a charge that didn't exist. These opinions were the "new evidence" which constituted the basis for presenting the evidence to the third grand jury in less than a week. The third grand jury was persuaded in a matter of hours to return an indictment on charges that could bring life in prison for one of Ronnie Earle's biggest political targets to date, despite the fact that one grand jury had found no evidence of a crime and the other had only been willing to return an indictment on a much less substantial charge. Why? Because Earle presented material that was not evidence, but rather a statement of opinion of the former grand jurors. Thus the Travis County DA secured an indictment by saying that he and the other grand jury had made a mistake, and here's how we want you to fix it

In short, what we have here is an example of the old saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants it to -- but only if he has access to a sufficient number of grand juries to do so.

(More at Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 6 kb.

How else can we explain the pregnancy of a young woman who publicly vowed not to wait for her wedding night to have sex?

APPARENTLY Tom Cruise had it in him after all.

The Hollywood superstar and Scientologist has announced he is expecting a child with Katie Holmes, the 26-year-old actor who swore she would remain a virgin until the pair married.

I won't speculate on what role Scientology played in getting Katie pregnant now.

But I will ask one question -- did anyone think about the implications of the first sentence of this story? I mean seriously, I don't think it is an issue of whether Tom "had it in him", at least not as I understand the biological process involved.

(And yes, before anyone objects to my use of the term "Immaculate Conception", I do know the difference between the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth. The joke just worked better this way. If you are offended, you are cordially invited to get over it.)

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

The man who claims that corporate cash is corrupting to politics seems to have taken a fair amount of it himself.

Rep. Tom DeLay said District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who is prosecuting him for trying to involve corporate money in Texas politics, has taken such contributions himself.

"It's real interesting he has this crusade against corporate funds. He took corporate funds, and he's taken union funds, for his own re-election. That's against the law," Mr. DeLay told The Washington Times yesterday.

A review of Mr. Earle's campaign-finance filings in Texas shows that he has received contributions from the AFL-CIO, including a $250 donation on Aug. 29, 2000. He also has received contributions listed on the disclosure forms only as coming from the name of an incorporated entity, often a law firm.

Mr. Earle has said repeatedly that state law bars corporate and union contributions. Attempts to reach Mr. Earle yesterday for comment, including a phone message left on his assistant's voice mail detailing Mr. DeLay's charge, were unsuccessful.

So not only is he a politically motivated, partisan grand jury shopper, but he is also one of the very sort of corrupt politicians who he regularly rails against as being corrupted by corporate money.

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

When the County Commissioners in Hillsborough voted down an ordinance to ban discrimination against homosexuals in public and private employment, they did something much worse -- they made it more difficult for the people to speak directly on the issue.

Hillsborough County Commissioner Kathy Castor said she was only trying to repair Hillsborough's reputation as unfriendly to gay rights when she asked commissioners Wednesday to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation for private and public employees.

But the request backfired when commissioners, led by Ronda Storms, not only refused Castor, but voted 5-2 to make it harder for voters to decide the issue.

They required that the workplace protection of gays can't be put on a referendum ballot unless at least five commissioners approve it. Before Castor's request, only four votes were needed. Castor and Tom Scott dissented.

The decision by the commissioners was wrong, at least in part.

The non-discrimiantion provision in public employment should have been adopted, but the private employment provision was properly rejected as intruding upon the civil rights of employers (for the record, I oppose all non-discrimination laws that target private individuals and entities, as opposed to government). And under no circumstances should the commissioners have made it more difficult to get a measure on the ballot, The voice of the people should always be heard, not stifled!

I've condemned those legislators in Massachusetts who have refused to put homosexual marriage on the ballot. I've spoken against legislators in Massachusetts who have ignored the state constitution and the vote of the people on the definition of marriage. I've objected when courts have tossed-out the vote of the people on gay marriage and gay rights flimsy constitutional grounds that do not stand up under scrutiny. Honesty and principle require me to condemn Hillsborough County for this action as well -- for it isn't the result that is important nearly so much as it is the process.

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess this pathetic excuse for a warrior and his weak-kneed sons want there to be freedom from religion -- at least freedom from Christianity -- rather than freedom of religion as guaranteed by the US Constitution. His ultimate goal is clearly to striip believers in the military of their rights under the US Constitution.

A Jewish father of two Air Force Academy cadets sued the Air Force on Thursday, claiming senior officers and cadets illegally imposed Christianity on others at the school.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court by Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate and outspoken critic of the school's handling of religion.

Over the past decade or more, the lawsuit claims, academy leaders have fostered an environment of religious intolerance at the Colorado school, in violation of the First Amendment.

Weinstein has one son who graduated from the academy last year and another who is a junior there. Both were subjected to anti-Semitic slurs from evangelical Christian cadets, he said.

While I'll concede there are some things that needed to be addressed at the Academy, let's look at what Weinstein REALLY wants.

The lawsuit, which names the Air Force and its acting secretary, Pete Geren, as defendants, asks the Air Force to prohibit its members — including chaplains — from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting "to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty."

In other words, what this man wants is complete censorship of all religious speech -- including the religious speech of chaplains.

Time to slap down this anti-religious bigot, and to remind him that the Air Force is committed to protecting the Constitution, not gutting it. It is "freeddom of", not "freedom from" religion.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

I do wish folks would realize that private companies have the right to set certain standards on their property, and to refuse to serve those who engage in unacceptable behavior and speech.

Take this case.

A Portland woman's flight home was stopped short in Reno, all because the message on the T-shirt she was wearing.

Lorrie Heasley claims it's a freedom of speech privilege, but airline officials say the message brings safety concerns.

Heasley, "There are bigger problems in the country, I can't believe people can be so petty."

Heasley boarded her flight Tuesday morning in Los Angeles, headed for Portland, Oregon with a stopover in Reno. But when Southwest Airlines employees asked her to cover her shirt, her stop over became a stop off her flight.

"I was told that basically that I had to cover my shirt, or I was told if I cover the shirt I can basically stay on the plane."

So she covered the shirt, but during a nap while passengers were boarding in Reno the cover came off. And Southwest employees insisted, change the shirt, or change flights. "I didn't feel that I should have to change my shirt, because we live in the United States, and it's freedom of speech and it was based on the move "The Fockers", and I didn't think it should have offended anyone."
But it did.

The shirt had pictures of members of the Bush Administration, and a phrase based on the movie "Meet the Fockers," but with one crucial vowel changed.

Oh. You seem to think that you have the right to subject a captive audience to an obscenity. Wrong. The airline was well within its rights to tell you to change the shirt or go elsewhere. After all – it was protecting the rights of all the other passengers. I might have more sympathy with you if the objection wee based upon your infantile politics rather than your infantile form of self-expression, but the airline made the correct call here. For that matter, it would have even been acceptable, legally, to have required that you to remove the political speech, since it was by private directive rather than government mandate.

Let me give an example. Many years ago, I worked for an amusement park that used the Looney Toons characters as part of its theme. It had a policy of asking patrons who wore Disney character clothing to the park to change the clothing or turning the shirt inside out. One could argue that it was a bad idea, but it certainly was not a violation of any constitutional right – that would have required public action.

The moonbats are, of course, out in full force on the usual liberal sites. They have, of course, no leg to stand on – especially since liberals are usually the first to call for censorship of offensive speech.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

It sure looks that way, over the next few months.

High-quality crude oil fell below the psychologically significant $60 per barrel mark Thursday in London trading.

So-called Brent crude on the International Petroleum Exchange fell 67 cents to $59.45, the Financial Times reported.

In New York, a barrel of similar crude oil fell 1.4 percent to $61.90 per barrel.

Gasoline on the New York Mercantile Exchange dropped about 2 percent to $1.87 per gallon, and heating oil drifted down slightly to $1.9833 per gallon.

Natural gas, however, rose 1.6 cents.

The generally downward movement in energy prices reflects the slow resumption of production and refining operations from storm-battered sites in the Gulf of Mexico, analysts said. Chevron Corp., for example, said Thursday it had begun restarting its 325,000 barrel-per-day Pascagoula, Miss., refinery.

Now if we could just do something about the nearly $1.00 a gallon in gas taxes that push the pump price so high.

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 AM | Comments (61) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, here is another “animal rights” “activist” who does not have a clue.

Peter Daniel Young, 28, told The Associated Press during a jailhouse interview that serving time will be nothing compared to what caged animals suffer.

"As bad as it could get, it will never be as bad as it was for those mink," Young said. "I would do it all over again."

Now I’ll grant you that your jail sentence is not likely to end with you being skinned and turned into an article of clothing, but I think your time will be mighty unpleasant none the less. I’m curious – do you prefer the name “Susie” or “Michelle”?

Actually, I apologize for that question – I shouldn’t be joking about your place on the food chain in the Wisconsin state penal system (heh-heh-heh – I typed “penal”).

I guess what is particularly amusing is your self righteous belief that there was something noble and courageous about your actions.

Prosecutors believe Young and an accomplice were acting on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front when they broke onto mink farms in Iowa, South Dakota and Wisconsin in 1997 and freed about 7,000 mink. The FBI considers groups like ALF among the nation's top domestic terrorist threats.

Young, 28, scoffed at the comparison.

"If saving thousands of lives makes a terrorist, then I certainly embrace the label," Young said. "I would have been just as fast to act if those cages had been filled with human beings."

Yeah, that’s the ticket – those nasty little rodents are identical to human beings. No doubt you find the industrial-scale murder that went on at Auschwitz to be no more evil that what goes on at that farm. That, Peter, is why your ideology is utterly bankrupt, and why you can only succeed in imposing your ideological preferences by campaigns of violence and property destruction, not by persuasion. After all, sane people recognize the difference between human beings and animals, and recognize that human life does have an innately higher value that that of other creatures. If you cannot recognize that human beings are different, then you clearly have a problem. Quick – a boy and a puppy are in the middle of a road with a truck rushing at them at 70 MPH. Which should you save, or does it make a difference?

"Most people are just appalled I'd be put in prison for freeing the animals," he said. "I wish nothing short of the end of the entire (fur) industry ... they kill for what they do."

Actually, you moron, most folks are not troubled at all that you are going to be put in prison for engaging in breaking and entering, malicious vandalism of private property, and the attempted destruction of a business. Personally, I am appalled that you are not facing two years in prison for each mink that was turned loose.

Oh, and by the way, you do realize that those 7000 farm-bred mink could not survive in the wild, and would therefore died an equally horrible death – and that you are responsible for that. Did you wan all the local predators of the immorality of eating these confused and defenseless creatures?

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 3 kb.

A little more on the activities of Ronnie Earle, Partisan Witch Hunter.

A Texas prosecutor tried to convince a grand jury that Representative Tom DeLay gave tacit approval to a series of laundered campaign contributions, and when jurors declined to indict, he became angry, according to two people directly familiar with the proceeding.

The grand jury was one of three that considered whether there was probable cause to indict DeLay. Two other grand juries did indict the former House majority leader, who had to step aside temporarily under Republican rules.

Both indictments focused on an alleged scheme to provide corporate political donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The two people interviewed, who commented anonymously because of grand jury secrecy, said Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle became visibly angry when the grand jurors last week signed a document declining to indict, known as a ''no bill."

One person said the sole evidence Earle presented was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor, in which DeLay said he was generally aware of activities of his associates. He is charged in an alleged money- laundering scheme to funnel corporate donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The person said that Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay ''didn't say 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

After the grand jurors declined to go forward, the mood ''was unpleasant," the other person said, describing Earle's reaction.

In other words, the grand jury that heard all the evidence determined there was no crime in DeLayÂ’s activities, but that was not good enough for Ronnie Earle. He therefore went to a grand jury that heard only cherry-picked elements of the case to secure the indictment that the better-informed grand jury refused to issue.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

1 yeah he sure is a witch hunter, given the 12 of his 15 political prosecutions have been democrats. you are an ass. Fucking moron.

Posted by: at Thu Oct 6 12:36:58 2005 (jU/el)

2 I see you got the MoveOn.org talking points.

The problem was that the Democrats are all in the far past, and were all folks who were running against candidates he supported. He used his office to bring charges against his political enemies at a time when they were still in the Democrat Party.

If you were someone who lived in Texas, or who had done a little research, you would know that.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Oct 6 14:00:00 2005 (wfdL5)

3 If Texas were the last inhabitable place on this earth I'd rather fucking die than live in that laboratory for shitty government.

Posted by: at Thu Oct 6 15:10:03 2005 (Oqxq2)

4 If the 12 out 15 who were indicted as Democrats, then that means Democrats break Texas laws at frequency 4 times greater than Republicans? If you take DeLay out (by which he didn't do anything in the first place) and Hutchinson, then it'd be a frequency of 5 times greater where well known Texan Democrats would have the tendency to break Texas laws in politics.




Nameless coward are you?

Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Oct 6 16:01:47 2005 (o58ig)

5 Actually, the laboratories for shitty government are found in New Jersey and Louisiana.

Posted by: RHymes With Right at Thu Oct 6 16:54:29 2005 (N3x4T)

6 Delay is a attack dog and it shows by his reaction that whole bunch rove delay and the white house attack whenever something pops out that catches them in wrong doing Outing a CIA agent is treason but will anything be done about it ?

Posted by: ikele 76 at Sat Oct 8 06:08:27 2005 (xW3w3)

7 This is insanity, M. Rhymes-- if conservative shit-gimps like yourself are honestly sure that Delay hasn't done anything wrong, why not just allow him to go to court and clear his name?

Posted by: James H. Pierce at Sat Oct 8 08:31:07 2005 (foso/)

8 Ok Rhymes lets accuse you of say Pedophilia and if your innocent it will be proved in court... maybe

Posted by: Mike Haskins at Sat Oct 8 08:43:56 2005 (REJwo)

9 Excuse me I ment Pierce

Posted by: Michael Haskins at Sat Oct 8 08:46:17 2005 (REJwo)

10 I love it when the Leftists show up spewing profanity and poorly punctuated talking points. But I think I will answer their points.

1) What do you expect him to do when he is indicted on a charge that did not even exist at the time he supposedly did the act -- sit quietly by and allow the prosecution to continue? Did you expect him to remain quiet when the prosecutor engaged in unethical -- and likely illegal -- activity with regards to securing the indictment? In such a case it is appropriate to go on the offensive.

2) Last time I checked, treason is clearly defined in Article III of the US Constitution, as is the standard for proving it. Insofar as i can tell, no one in the plame case has made war on the United States, adhered to the enemies of the United States (well, maybe Wilson did) or given them aid and comfort. I do not believe there are two witnesses to the same overt act. Therefore there could never be a conviction that would pass Constitutional muster.

3) Why not let DeLay go on trial? Simple -- because I don't believe that someone should have to defend themselves from a legally insufficient indictment. Such indictments are the stock-in-trade of the American Left -- witness the Ray Donovan trial during the Reagan Administration for an earlier example.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Oct 8 09:06:11 2005 (F3Bvt)

11 Funny how the left doesn't question why it took 3 years and 6 grand juries to finally come up with an indictment on a conspiracy charge? And yet that couldn't stick for obvious legal reasons. And a 7th grand jury was contrived for the sake of tacking a "money laundering" charge on top of the conspiracy charge in just a day.

Seems to me the evidence weighs more against Ronnie Earle at political hacking and prosecutorial misconduct than there is evidence of DeLay of money laundering. Earle's actions alone seemed to have did him in where he has tried for so long to come up with a charge just enough to get DeLay to step down as the House majority leader. Knowing full well that even if DeLay does clear his name, he would unable to return to his seat in time.

Now, looking in the past, not only did he indict Kay Bailey Hutchison within days after she won her Senate seat (the first such seat occupied by a Republican since 1875), but he also "investigated" or indicted Democrats who managed to get on his wrong side, like Gib Lewis, who once ran against Earle for office, and Bob Bullock, the Democrat political mentor of President Bush.

At a recent Democrat fundraiser, Earle compared Tom DeLay to a bully. Such a thing is not only in bad taste, but is probably also illegal, since the ABA's Canon of Ethics prohibits extra-judicial statements concerning "the character...of the accused" or "any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the evidence, or the merits of the case." Apparently, Earle is using his power to prosecute DeLay in the media before he tries to prosecute him in court. The potential for contaminating the jury pool is mind-boggling. It would be nice to bring down Ronnie Earle on ethics charges. Such a thing could happen -- Tom DeLay is a tough fighter and Ronnie Earle just may have met his match.
(from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493863/posts)

For Earle's antics alone on how he abused the court system and should be disbarred.

Send in your complaints regarding Earle to the Texas Bar Association demanding he be disbarred.

The required grievance form, download the document here:

http://www.law.uh.edu/libraries/ethics/attydiscipline/howfile.html


Address to send it:

http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=3961&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

It ain't over folks. Just as when bloggers do find the truth as they did on Rather's fakey Bush Memo case, they'll get to the bottom of it and show the true light of Earle's poltical hacking career.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Oct 8 10:38:44 2005 (CQ3Yp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As a teacher, I am on shaky legal ground requiring a student to stand for the ledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. Court cases have made that clear since at least World War II. How, then, did the teachers at this school think they could get away with this politically correct idiocy?

A recent Mexican Independence Day assembly at Larkin High may have taken cultural sensitivity one step too far, a Larkin parent said this week.

Robert Bedard said his son was reprimanded when he declined to stand for the Mexican National Anthem during a ceremony at the west Elgin school last month.

His 17-year-old son, a senior in the process of enlisting, feared honoring another nation’s anthem might jeopardize his military status. Sitting down cost him a trip to the office.

Bedard questioned this week whether the scales of cultural diversity may have tilted out of balance.

I have no problem with cultural celebrations. I have no problem with students learning about other countries. Good Lord – I am a world history teacher who has to spend a lot of time dealing with the cultures of many different societies over the span of at least five millennia. I’m therefore not too bothered by the existence of programs to teach awareness of Mexican (or, more broadly, Latin American) culture and history.

On the other hand, this seems to have crossed the line from being a learning experience into an indoctrination program. It was a celebration of the patriotic holiday of another country, when most schools do not even mark all of the American patriotic celebrations, such as Columbus Day, Veterans Day, of President’s Day (interestingly enough, schools around here only mark four national holidays – Thanksgiving, Christmas, the socialist-inspired Labor Day, and the politically correct Martin Luther King Day). None falls into the category of “patriotic holiday”. Why mark the independence of a foreign country with a patriotic program – and punish the failure of students to demonstrate sufficient patriotic fervor for that country?

In this case, the father has a clear issue about patriotism.

“If they have an assembly, I would be happy if they will not try to force students to honor patriotic elements of another culture unless they also honor our flag, our anthem as well,” Bedard said. “It’s just respect for both cultures.”

I think the point needs to be made even more forcefully. This is America – our public institutions do not mark the patriotic celebrations of other countries, only our own.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

As a teacher, I am on shaky legal ground requiring a student to stand for the ledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. Court cases have made that clear since at least World War II. How, then, did the teachers at this school think they could get away with this politically correct idiocy?

A recent Mexican Independence Day assembly at Larkin High may have taken cultural sensitivity one step too far, a Larkin parent said this week.

Robert Bedard said his son was reprimanded when he declined to stand for the Mexican National Anthem during a ceremony at the west Elgin school last month.

His 17-year-old son, a senior in the process of enlisting, feared honoring another nationÂ’s anthem might jeopardize his military status. Sitting down cost him a trip to the office.

Bedard questioned this week whether the scales of cultural diversity may have tilted out of balance.

I have no problem with cultural celebrations. I have no problem with students learning about other countries. Good Lord – I am a world history teacher who has to spend a lot of time dealing with the cultures of many different societies over the span of at least five millennia. I’m therefore not too bothered by the existence of programs to teach awareness of Mexican (or, more broadly, Latin American) culture and history.

On the other hand, this seems to have crossed the line from being a learning experience into an indoctrination program. It was a celebration of the patriotic holiday of another country, when most schools do not even mark all of the American patriotic celebrations, such as Columbus Day, Veterans Day, of President’s Day (interestingly enough, schools around here only mark four national holidays – Thanksgiving, Christmas, the socialist-inspired Labor Day, and the politically correct Martin Luther King Day). None falls into the category of “patriotic holiday”. Why mark the independence of a foreign country with a patriotic program – and punish the failure of students to demonstrate sufficient patriotic fervor for that country?

In this case, the father has a clear issue about patriotism.

“If they have an assembly, I would be happy if they will not try to force students to honor patriotic elements of another culture unless they also honor our flag, our anthem as well,” Bedard said. “It’s just respect for both cultures.”

I think the point needs to be made even more forcefully. This is America – our public institutions do not mark the patriotic celebrations of other countries, only our own.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Every year, several of my students get knocked up. Most are 15 or 16, dating guys who are 18-20. I recently had to report a case to CPS regarding a girl who is 15 sleeping with a 23 year old male. So yeah, I agree with this.

A new analysis of the sex lives of high schoolers has this advice: Teach the older teens to keep their hands off the younger ones.

One in four girls under 18 who have had sex say their first lover was with a male 3 or more years older, according to a new analysis of federal data.

One in 10 boys who have had sex say they lost their virginity to a female 3 or more years older.

Some of these cases involve teens with older adults. But, said the lead author of the report, "most of these sexual experiences occur between young teens and older teens.''

The analysis, by the think tank Child Trends, described the typical scenario as a 14-year-old girl having sex with a 17- or 18-year-old male.

So parents –know who your daughter is dating, and equip her to make good decisions. And do not be afraid to cut the guy out of her life if it seems that sexual activity is possible/probable. That is the first line of defense to protect these young women from sexual exploitation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 1 kb.

I love this interpretation of polling data regarding the Hurricane Rita evacuation.

About 70 percent of those who left were afraid of the storm — fearing for their safety from wind and flooding — as Rita seemed poised for a near-direct hit. Only one in five listed evacuation orders as the primary motivation for taking flight, according to the poll of residents in Harris and seven adjacent counties.

Now I live in one of the mandatory evacuation zones, but if asked I would have said I left because I was afraid of the storm. Hell, I live four blocks from Galveston Bay, halfway between Houston and Galveston. All the models showed that my entire house was going to be under water. Damn straight I was afraid – that’s why I got ou I didn’t need someone to tell me “Greg, there is an evacuation set – you’ve got to leave” before I decided it might just be a good thing to get out of Dodge. I had already made the decision to go because I didn’t want to be one of those people trapped in an attic drowning. The fact that the government was telling me to go was simply an additional spur that determined when I left, not if I was going to go. I suspect the same mindset was at work for many others in the mandatory evacuation area.

What shocks me is that there were actually 20% that wouldnÂ’t sufficiently concerned to leave if we were getting a storm like was predicted in the days before the evacuation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

Earlier this week, Rep. Charlie Rangel made the following statement regarding Vice President Dick Cheney.

On Friday evening, Rangel was asked in a follow-up talk on the station if he thought Cheney should step down.

"He should never have stepped up in the first place," Rangel said. "He's too old for the job and doesn't have the experience."

Cheney, responding, offered the following observation about Rangel, who is some 11 years older than the Vice President.

Months of verbal attacks from Rangel turned into a back and forth on Monday when the 64-year-old vice president said Rangel is "losing it," later adding that "Charlie is a lot older than I am, and it shows."

Now Rangel is waxing indignant over Cheney's comment -- arguing that Cheney ought to be ashamed of himself for attacking him for being a senior citizen!

"I think it ends when he apologizes for attacking me as a senior citizen. It's true that I'm much older than he is, but that has nothing to do with mental alertness," Rangel said.

I guess its true -- there are much more permissive standards for Democrats than Republicans, especially if the Democrat is black.

(Hat Tip -- Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

Gee -- the human population of the palnet would have been inconsequential in 5000 BC. What caused the advent of global warming then?

Archaeologists have unearthed the prehistoric equivalent of the M1, apparently built in a hurry across flooding peat bogs during global warming around 5000BC.

The track of parallel pine logs on Hatfield Moors, near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, is one of the earliest of its type to be found in Europe and was described by English Heritage as "internationally significant". More than 50 metres of track has been excavated in the past year.

Findings suggest that the roadway, discovered accidentally by a Doncaster man, Mick Oliver, was laid out hurriedly as rising seas spilled on to the moor.

Would any of you care to rethink the notion that humanity is reponsible for current climate changes -- which are much more likely cyclical in nature.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

One would think that a citizen of the United States would be able to engage in the intended use of a bench in a city park without finding him or herself in trouble with the law.

Not in New York City, apparantly, where good intentions combined with lack of common sense on the part of law enforcement recently.

It's an only in New York story. A woman was given a ticket for sitting on a park bench because she doesn't have children.
The Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side has a small sign at the entrance that says adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child.

Forty-seven-year-old Sandra Catena says she didn't see the sign when she sat down to wait for an arts festival to start. Two New York City police officers asked her if she was with a child. When she said no, they gave her a ticket that could bring a one thousand dollar fine and 90 days in jail.

As one might imagine, the laudable goal of the law was to keep pedophiles away from the playground. Unfortunately, these good intentions were supplemented with an utter disregard of common sense by cops who couldn't see that the better option was to ask Ms. Catena to move along.

If we have at last reached the day when sitting by a playground is a criminal offense, then we to recognize that government has gone too far in micromanaging our daily lives "for the public good".

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

Kay Bailey Hutchison wants local police to be able to arrest border jumpers on immigration charges.

Hutchison, R-Texas, planned to propose legislation Wednesday that would allow local officials to arrest and detain illegal immigrants for immigration violations. She also planned to propose a Border Patrol marshals program that allows states to license police officers, marshals and FBI agents who want to volunteer to patrol the border.

Using local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws has been a divisive issue among police and other law enforcement officers. Some want the authority to enforce immigration laws, but others say they don't have the resources to do so and that doing so hurts their ability to investigate other crimes involving the immigrant community or that may have been witnessed by immigrants.

It is about time someone has taken action to try to get immigration criminals arrested, deorted and securely place on the right side of the border.

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.