Who are the feminists – those who stand up for the dignity of women, or those who make the claim but defend their oppression by backwards cultures in the name of “diversity”?

EACH time Germaine Greer visits Australia - such as last week when she turned up at the University of Sydney to receive her honorary doctorate - one is reminded how Western feminists have dropped the ball on what really matters on the feminist front.

Greer's feminism is the worst example of Western indulgence.
It's not so much what she says that matters - for it's all rather farcical these days - but what she and other so-called feminists do not say that betrays how feminism has lost its way.

On Friday Greer told her audience: "The intellect is a little bit like sexual ability: use it or you lose it." True enough and nice work if you can get it. But hardly cutting-edge feminism at work there.

Back in late 2002, Greer was back on the soapbox in Australia lambasting the medical profession for imposing unnecessary medical tests on women, such as pap smears and mammograms.
When asked about the impending war in Iraq, Greer suggested that women protest by dressing up in burkas. Go girl! Don the preferred garb of Islamic oppression to protest against what exactly? The continued oppression of women in countries such as Iraq?

Last Friday while Greer was preaching about the importance of knowledge for knowledge's sake, in New York another feminist was delivering a more sobering message. Last week Mukhtaran Mai, a 33-year-old Pakistani woman, collected an award for "her incredible courage and optimism in the face of terrible violence".

Mai was gang-raped by five men on the order of a Pakistani tribal council in 2002 as punishment for her brother's alleged love affair with a woman from another tribe. This illiterate and working-class young woman then did the unthinkable. She took her grievance to court.

A near impossible task in Pakistan where Hudood laws - a series of Islamic decrees applied in conjunction with the country's secular laws - mean that if a woman is raped, a conviction requires four adult male witnesses or the rapist confessing. If sex is held to be consensual, the woman can be charged with zina - extramarital sex - illegal under Hudood laws. In Mai's case, the five rapists were duly acquitted. While the Pakistan Supreme Court has suspended those acquittals, it remains to be seen whether the perpetrators will be punished.

When Mai received $US2500 ($3400) in compensation from the Government for her ordeal, she immediately used that money to build a school for young girls. Through a translator this shy young woman, dressed in a headscarf and flowing robes, told her glittering New York audience that her goal was to end oppression through education. Spot the feminist. Mai or Greer?

Really – one mouths meaningless platitudes against the West, while the other steps up on behalf of women. Why aren’t the feminists cheering the destruction of patriarchal systems of oppression in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, that’s right – to do so would require taking a positive view of America – and conservative Americans in particular.

And then there is this Australian atrocity.

Who can forget the footage of the Chief Justice from the Northern Territory descending on the Yarralin community. He took his courtroom to the indigenous community to sentence a 55-year-old Yarralin man for bashing and raping a 14-year-old girl.

The anal rape of a crying, screaming child saw the man go to prison for just one month because the girl was promised to the man under customary indigenous law. And who were the leading critics of this case? Chris Ellison (a white man), Warren Mundine (a black man) and a few indigenous women. But where was the white feminist outcry?

Now had this been a Catholic priest, these same feminists would have been outraged. But let it be someone following the morally corrupt and backwards social customs of an ethnic minority commit such a crime and the white feminist matriarchs stand mute. After all, they would argue, who are we to judge. Their “blowin’ in the wind” values make it impossible for them to label wrong as wrong when the perpetrator has a higher VQ (Victimization Quotient) than they do. After all, that would make them oppressors – and so they remain mute in the face of the violent sexual assault of a child.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.

I could have told you this, and saved you the cost of the study.

Stanford University researchers have determined humor is processed differently in the brains of men and women, and women get more enjoyment from it.

In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, psychiatrist Dr. Allan Reiss, who led the study, explained magnetic resonance imaging was used to detect blood rushing into active areas of the brain. The heads of each of the 20 volunteers were carefully restrained so as not to jiggle and blur the image if the person laughed, the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News reported.

The study found that when looking at funny cartoons, women activated the language parts of their brains more than men did. Their reward centers also lit up more intensely, possibly because they didn`t expect the cartoons to be as funny as the men did, and so felt more intense pleasure when they got the punch line.

Reiss said if women react more intensely to funny things, 'could that also imply that they process negative stimuli, stressful stimuli, in a different way? It`s definitely worth following up.'

Ask any guy who has been married for more than two or three weeks if men and women view humor (or anything else) differently. We learn that one the hard way, as jokes fall flat and the wives attempt to get us to watch reruns of Britcoms on PBS.

But then again, why should we be surprised that academic scientists spend wads of cash studying the obvious?

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

I could have told you this, and saved you the cost of the study.

Stanford University researchers have determined humor is processed differently in the brains of men and women, and women get more enjoyment from it.

In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, psychiatrist Dr. Allan Reiss, who led the study, explained magnetic resonance imaging was used to detect blood rushing into active areas of the brain. The heads of each of the 20 volunteers were carefully restrained so as not to jiggle and blur the image if the person laughed, the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News reported.

The study found that when looking at funny cartoons, women activated the language parts of their brains more than men did. Their reward centers also lit up more intensely, possibly because they didn`t expect the cartoons to be as funny as the men did, and so felt more intense pleasure when they got the punch line.

Reiss said if women react more intensely to funny things, 'could that also imply that they process negative stimuli, stressful stimuli, in a different way? It`s definitely worth following up.'

Ask any guy who has been married for more than two or three weeks if men and women view humor (or anything else) differently. We learn that one the hard way, as jokes fall flat and the wives attempt to get us to watch reruns of Britcoms on PBS.

But then again, why should we be surprised that academic scientists spend wads of cash studying the obvious?

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, well, Terrell – I see contrition comes late, and only after you’ve been told that the Eagles plan on sidelining your sorry, self-centered, arrogant butt for the rest of the season. No TV time, no on-field heroics, not highlight reels for you, not unless you can get yourself back into the good graces of Coach Reid, your teammates, and the Eagles management.

In your statement, you almost sounded sorry for your words and actions.

"I fight for what I think is right. In doing so, I alienated a lot of my fans and my teammates," Owens said, reading a statement outside his house outside Philadelphia.

No, letÂ’s tell it like it is. You fight for Terrell Owens, for his press clippings and his personal satisfaction. Right has nothing to do with it. After all, we all know that Andy Reid is a straight-shooter, and look at what he said.

The decision resulted from "a large number of situations that accumulated over a long period of time, during which Terrell had been warned repeatedly about the consequences of his actions," Reid said.

Wanna know what you can do to make yourself beloved among fans and make it clear you are willing to sacrifice for the team? Here it is – demand that the team renegotiate your contract. Insist that you will not take a penny OVER the league minimum for the rest of the season. Demand that the contract drop any and all incentive bonuses beyond those tied to TEAM accomplishments, such as playoff and Super Bowl appearances. Include a gag order on yourself until training camp next year. In other words, make an entirely self-effacing move to show that you are really all about the game, not all about T.O.; prove to us that you recognize that you recognize that the game is more important than any one player.

Maybe then you will convince some of us that you are worth caring about or cheering for. Otherwise you will just b one more piece of rubbish cast by the roadside – talented, but too unstable and self-important to fit on the playing field with 10 other guys in the same-colored jersey.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

There are nine proposed constitutional amendments on the Texas ballot today. Here is my take on them.

Prop 1 – Creating a rail relocation and improvement fund.

NO – This is a private sector responsibility, not something that is the responsibility of the government.

Prop 2 – Defining marriage as one man and one woman.

YES – This keeps Texas from becoming Massachusetts.

Prop 3 – Declaring certain economic development programs don’t create government debt.

NO – The courts are at work on this one, which is really a fix for one program near Austin – let the case resolve the issue before acting.

Prop 4 – Denies bail for accused felons who have already broken the condition of their bail.

YES – Duh!

Prop 5 – Allowing the legislature determine the interest rate that constitutes usury in commercial loans.

YES – This would allow for Texas banks to make commercial loans to Texas companies in a fashion competitive with out of state banks.

Prop 6 – Adding members to the State Judicial Conduct Commission.

YES – This gives representation to one more type of judge governed by the Commission, and to an additional citizen. Seems reasonable to me.

Prop 7 – Authorizing reverse mortgages.

YES – This will allow for better financial planning by older Texans, and allow them to make use of the value of their primary asset – their home.

Prop 8 – Relinquishing state claims to certain land due to a surveying error.

YES – An error was made some 170 years ago in a survey. It went unnoticed until a couple of years ago. Any state claim would be little more than theft, given that everyone has relied on a common understanding of the lines that predates the erroneous survey.

Prop 9 – Staggering terms of members of regional mobility authority board members.

YES – While I’d rather see these unelected government agencies abolished, staggering the terms seems reasonable. After all, we saw a power grab here in Houston several years ago by a former mayor. This would prevent such a mess.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

There are nine proposed constitutional amendments on the Texas ballot today. Here is my take on them.

Prop 1 – Creating a rail relocation and improvement fund.

NO – This is a private sector responsibility, not something that is the responsibility of the government.

Prop 2 – Defining marriage as one man and one woman.

YES – This keeps Texas from becoming Massachusetts.

Prop 3 – Declaring certain economic development programs don’t create government debt.

NO – The courts are at work on this one, which is really a fix for one program near Austin – let the case resolve the issue before acting.

Prop 4 – Denies bail for accused felons who have already broken the condition of their bail.

YES – Duh!

Prop 5 – Allowing the legislature determine the interest rate that constitutes usury in commercial loans.

YES – This would allow for Texas banks to make commercial loans to Texas companies in a fashion competitive with out of state banks.

Prop 6 – Adding members to the State Judicial Conduct Commission.

YES – This gives representation to one more type of judge governed by the Commission, and to an additional citizen. Seems reasonable to me.

Prop 7 – Authorizing reverse mortgages.

YES – This will allow for better financial planning by older Texans, and allow them to make use of the value of their primary asset – their home.

Prop 8 – Relinquishing state claims to certain land due to a surveying error.

YES – An error was made some 170 years ago in a survey. It went unnoticed until a couple of years ago. Any state claim would be little more than theft, given that everyone has relied on a common understanding of the lines that predates the erroneous survey.

Prop 9 – Staggering terms of members of regional mobility authority board members.

YES – While I’d rather see these unelected government agencies abolished, staggering the terms seems reasonable. After all, we saw a power grab here in Houston several years ago by a former mayor. This would prevent such a mess.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

As you know, Christians around the world are facing serious persecution on a daily basis. Those of us in America are comparatively well-off, given the nature of the persecution elsewhere.

The most important thing you can do for these persecuted brothers and siters around the world is pray.

Stacy over at Voice of the Martyrs' PersecutionBlog points out these three reasons for participating in the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church, which takes place on November 13.

Out of obedience?

Yes: Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. Hebrews 13:3 (NIV)
See also Galatians 6:2; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; Ephesians 6:18

Out of compassion?

Yes: Dear brothers and sisters, I urge you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. Do this because of your love for me, given to you by the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:30 (NLT)
See also 2 Corinthians 1:8-11; Matthew 22:39

Out of zeal for the kingdom and glory of God?

Absolutely! Pray then like this: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' Matthew 6:9-10. (ESV)
See also Psalm 22:27; Psalm 110:1; Isaiah 42:1-4 & 55:10-13; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Hebrews 10:13

I encourage all my readers to become involved in the ministry of prayer for the persecuted church -- and to urge other Christians you know to do the same.

Posted by: Greg at 05:26 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Wilson-CIA Cover Up? by The Strata-Sphere, and And Another Thing by Cathy's World.  You can access the full results of the vote over at the weekly announcement post.

I truly have mixed emotions about the winning piece among the non-council entries. I nominated Cathy for consideration, believing she had written a piece of deep seriousness -- but regret terribly that life presented the situation about which she wrote. Know, Cathy, that you are in my prayers, that God may strengthen you in every way as you fight this battle.

Posted by: Greg at 05:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess not, if it gets special resources for the few of a darker hue.

The Chicago school district plans to open an all-boys high school primarily for black teenagers.

The Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men must be approved by the Board of Education this month, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Mayor Richard Daley plans to open 100 schools in the city in the next five years. Plans for the next two years include a virtual elementary school, a high school operated by the University of Chicago and a high school stressing business entrepreneurship.

Urban Prep would be located inside Englewood High School. Backers say it is aimed at a group that has the lowest graduation rate of any in the city.

"We're going to take our students where they are and help them gain admission to college and succeed once they are there," said Tim King, the founder of Urban Prep. "Clearly there is a high need for figuring out how to serve these kids academically."

I’m all for getting students – of every race or ethnicity – prepared for success in life. Heck, that is what my career is about. But I am concerned any time we set up programs that include a race or ethnicity based admissions formula or criteria.

Posted by: Greg at 04:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

Before I started teaching, I never considered the possibility that it could happen.

But it does.

It has even happened a few times at the school where I teach over the years. They hauled a 18-year-old football player out in handcuffs when they caught him on the stage with his 14-year-old girlfriend my first year there. During the height of Monica-gate, the girls basketball team walked into the gym for practice and found a couple doing the Full Lewinsky. And then there was last spring, when a somewhat shaken student returned from girls restroom and informed me that there were two girls engaged in "hot lesbian action" in the handicapped stall.

I assumed that such incidents were rare, and could be accounted for by the huge enrollment at our school (grades 9-12 have grown from 3300 to 3900 in the last decade). But it seems like it is getting more and more common -- and that some kids don't even find it shocking.

Perhaps the most shocking thing about students having sex in a high school auditorium was that other students didn't find it very shocking at all.

"I glanced over and, whatever, I just let him continue on with his business," said a 16-year-old linebacker on the Osbourn High School football team who, along with a friend, stumbled upon a couple engaging in oral sex. "I stayed for five to eight minutes, just talking. We weren't worried about it. When the janitor came in, everyone started running."

Manassas school officials weren't as laid back. The students -- eight in all -- were quickly identified and suspended, and the matter prompted the small school system to confront an issue many adults would rather not face: in this case, two girls and three boys engaging in oral sex or intercourse on school property while three other boys watched, according to sources familiar with what happened.

"In all the years that I've been in education, I've never run into this one before," said John Boronkay, the school system's acting superintendent. "It's a new one."

Actually, it's not so new. According to some teenagers, sex on school property is more frequent than adults might imagine. And some adults who work with teenagers said it's happening more often these days.

There's anecdotal evidence to support that:

Two students were discovered recently having sex in an Anne Arundel County high school gym. Four students at Col. Zadok Magruder High in Rockville were arrested in June after performing sex acts in the school parking lot. A boy and a girl at Springbrook High in Silver Spring were caught "touching inappropriately" in a school bathroom. Last year, three teenage boys at Mount Hebron High in Howard County were arrested after a student accused them of sexually assaulting her in a school restroom, but charges were dropped after the boys said the sex was consensual and the girl recanted.

"Students would have intercourse on the stairwells, locked classrooms, in the locker rooms," said Ihsan Musawwir, 18, a recent graduate of Dunbar Senior High School in the District. "It was embarrassing for me to walk in on it."

Jessica Miller, 19, who graduated in June from T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, said that for some students there, sex on campus is a popular fantasy -- and sometimes a reality -- particularly in the auditorium.

"It's so big, it's so dark," Miller said. "There's a lot more places to find privacy -- behind the stage and on the catwalk."

But what's the appeal? "Just being rebellious," she said. "Coming back to class and saying, 'Ooh, guess what I just did? I just had sex in the auditorium.' "

Deborah Roffman, a Baltimore-based sexuality educator, said she has been hearing more about similar occurrences in the past five years. "Schools are calling me, asking, 'What do we do? We've had this incident at our school.' "

The fact that teenagers have sex is well established: Roughly half of all 15- to 19-year-olds have had vaginal intercourse, and more than half have had oral sex, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But getting a handle on the reasons students are emboldened to risk having sex at school is as tricky as figuring out how many are doing it. Musawwir, the Dunbar graduate, who has helped lead teen forums on sex, said she thinks students have sex in school because they have nowhere else to go. "And it's the thrill of getting caught or not. And the media has a lot of things to do with it. They think that if they see it on TV, they can get away with it in real life."

What is shocking is that many schools are finding out that they don't even have such situations covered in their handbook or district policies.

Many schools don't have rules specifically banning sex on campus but punish students who do it through a clause prohibiting "immoral conduct" or behavior that offends the community's morals, said Naomi Gittins, a staff attorney at the National School Boards Association. Gittins added that more specific policies would make it easier for schools to defend themselves against legal challenges.

Gotta love that -- the rules are needed not to prevent exploitation, not to encourage proper behavior, not to encourage morality, but rather to use as a legal shield! Where are our priorities?

So, folks, what do you think? Do your really believe that it isn't happening at your schools? Do you really think it isn't your kids? And what would do you think should be done?

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 936 words, total size 6 kb.

Ian Robinson of the Calgary Sun offers this tip to all those gangbangers who think that its "cool" to hold their guns sideways while shooting, lust like they do in the movies.

NOTE TO MORONS: The front and back sights of a weapon are on the top of the barrel so that you can use them to hit the target. You hold the thing sideways, and you don't know what you're going to hit. Plus the spent cartridge ejects from the weapon and flies backwards. You hold it properly, it goes over your right shoulder. Do it the way they do it in the movies, and it catches you in the centre of your forehead.

Can you say ouch, moron?

I'd encourage you to read the whole article, which delves into such issues as gun ownership, regulation of shooting ranges, and the social acceptability of owning a gun in the People's Republic of Kanuckistan. It makes for a great laugh -- and for some serious thought.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

I started reading Dear Abby as a kid, and have long continued to do so for entertainemnt value.

This letter, though, is much more important.

It praises those men and women who work to save the lives of those wounded in the service of our country -- and is from a person who knows.

Dear Abby:

Q: I was a soldier serving in Iraq. Last April, I was in a vehicular accident while part of a military convoy and was medevaced to the nearest medical treatment facility.

I didn't mind sharing the trauma room with the Marine who had arrived there before me. He had been shot three times in the face. While I was in the room with this brave Marine, the trauma crew fought valiantly to save his life. He flat-lined seven times in just the short period after I got there. Finally, the doctor told them it was over, and they covered him up. I never knew his name. I lay on my litter while they started to work on my arm, which had been pinned under the truck during my accident and crushed, crying silently for the life that had been lost.

I'm writing this to you, Abby, to let that Marine's parents and friends know how hard the doctors and crew fought to save his life. Besides the medical crew, I'm the only one who knows. He wasn't just a face or a name on a memorial to them. He was a life, and many people tried hard to keep him alive. If he had been my child, I would want to know.

ANOTHER SOLIDER, Clarksville, Tenn.

Dear Soldier:

A: Thank you for your letter and for taking the time to share the last moments of life of that Marine. I'm sure your feelings are shared by all of the parents who have lost sons and daughters in this war, as well as the parents of those whose lives are on the line every day they serve on active duty.

I, too, thank you for sharing this, and for your efforts on behalf of freedom.

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washingtn Post's story on the shutdown of a lawfirm run by an outspoken activist in favor of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and economic rights illustrates just how far the People's Republic of China needs to progress before it can be considered a civilized nation.

Judicial authorities in Beijing have shut down the law firm of a prominent civil rights lawyer after he refused to withdraw an open letter urging President Hu Jintao to respect freedom of religion and stop persecuting members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement.

Gao Zhisheng, among the most daring of a generation of self-trained lawyers who have been pushing the Chinese government to obey its own laws, said that the Beijing Bureau of Justice ordered his firm suspended for one year on Friday. The move came just hours after he filed an appeal on behalf of an underground Protestant pastor accused of illegally printing Bibles and other Christian literature.

According to Gao, the government said the firm was being suspended because it had failed to register with the authorities after moving into a new office this year. But he said the action followed his refusal to renounce the open letter to Hu and withdraw from politically sensitive cases as demanded by officials during a series of recent meetings.

Gao said that his firm notified the government when it moved but that officials refused to let the firm register at the new address.

"We're very angry," Gao said by phone Saturday. "By doing this, the Chinese Communist Party is demonstrating it defies all laws, human and divine. They are saying that anyone who believes in law, who criticizes the political system, who exposes crimes against the people, will be targeted."

You've got to love it -- the government will not allow the registration, and then shuts them down for failing to register. And the real offense? Supporting the right of a pastor to minister to those in his flock and to print religious material without government interfrence. Despite alleged reforms in the legal system and supposed relaxation of religious persecution, it is clear that nothing substantive has really changed in Red China.

Gao, of course, has done a bit more than that. he has also investigated other acts of religious persecution -- including those directed at Falun Gong

In an Oct. 18 letter addressed to Hu and Premier Wen Jiabao that he posted on the Internet and distributed widely by e-mail, Gao described several cases he had investigated involving Falun Gong practitioners who have been detained, sent to labor camps and tortured. In one case, he said, a man was hanged from overhead pipes until his legs rotted.

In another case, he said, police tracked down and arrested a practitioner, a college sophomore, after he posted a note on the Internet announcing his resignation from the Communist Youth League.

Under the direction of Hu's predecessor, Jiang Zemin, the Chinese government in July 1999 banned Falun Gong as an "evil cult" and has all but crushed it in an often violent campaign involving the arrests of thousands of people. As practitioners have been released from labor camps in recent years, Gao said, the government has renewed its brutal campaign.

"The persecution of Falun Gong compatriots by some local officials has already reached the point where they are doing whatever they please," Gao wrote in the open letter. "We cannot accept these brazenly inhumane, savage atrocities to occur in the society of mankind in the 21st century."

"This evil catastrophe did not begin with you, but the catastrophe has continued while you two have led the government," he told Hu and Wen.

Gao also urged the government to accept that a revival of religious faith in China was inevitable. In addition to working on behalf of Falun Gong members, Gao is one of several lawyers who have volunteered to defend Cai Zhuohua, the pastor of a house church in Beijing who has been jailed on charges of "illegal business practices" for printing and distributing hundreds of thousands of Bibles. The Bush administration has expressed concern about Cai, who was arrested with several other Christian figures in September 2004.

Gao has also drawn official ire for backing an impeachment case against a village chief and to prosecute a suit regarding the illegal seizure of $1 billion in oil wells from private investors.

Human rights in china is not a religious issue -- it is a moral and humanitarian issue. I'd like to encourage bloggers of all political stripes to become involved in speaking out on behalf of the oppressed Chinese people . And I would also like to encourage teh Bush administration to impose all possible sanctions upon the Communist tyrrants of Beijing, so that one day Red China might be Free China.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 809 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I can not understand how we can give the Red Chinese nation most favored nation status. While they threaten Taiwan just for existing, have consistantly trampled on basic civil rights of their own people. They have aimed missles at our country guided by technology they have stolen from us.
In the mean time Cuba is due for changes, Castro is not going to live forever. Shouldn't we open up trade just a little with the Cubans. With trade comes dialog and an exchange of ideas. It hasn't worked at all in China, but the one place it might work we have tightened trade rather than loosen it.

Yeah, its true... Its the really about the cigars

Posted by: Liberty at Sun Nov 6 06:38:24 2005 (fbUHM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here is a case of an HMO simply abusing the process to the complete disregard of the health of the patient.

Little Jack Zembsch suffers from a very rare form of dwarfism that will likely kill him without treatment available only one place in the country.

But the doctor isn't in network.

So the family HMO, Health Net, has taken a series of steps that amount to a directive to let Jack die.

"You just keep thinking that you are going to wake up and it is all resolved,'' he says. "It is so clearly the right path for Jack. I keep thinking I am going to get the letter from some guy saying, 'Sorry, he fell through the cracks. We will get this done.' ''

That isn't going to happen. It didn't happen when the Zembschs' primary-care physician, Dr. Jane Hunter at Alta Bates Medical Center in Berkeley, wrote a note to Health Net saying "it is imperative'' that Jack see Mackenzie.

It didn't happen when Health Net sent Jack to the highly regarded UCSF medical center to be treated by Dr. Mohammad Diab, a surgeon who is in charge of pediatric orthopedics. Diab told the family he essentially had no experience with the surgery Jack needs and wrote to Health Net that Jack should see Mackenzie immediately.

"The door is closing, if not closed,'' Diab wrote.

It doesn't get any plainer than that. Jack needs an operation. He will die without it.

"I thought it was a no-brainer at that point,'' says Arnold Levinson, a San Francisco health care insurance attorney.

Apparently not. In all there were four appeals. Some were filed twice. In every case, Health Net took the entire 30 days allowed by law to respond, then came up with another rejection or roadblock. Finally, on Oct. 12, Health Net ruled that Jack should go back to Diab.

So everyone, including the doctor that Health Net wants treating Jack, are on the same page -- only Dr. Mackenzie has the expertise to treat Jack. But Health Net does not care. Better one child should die for the good of the shareholders. than the bottom line be impacted negatively.

But a lawsuit is coming -- Monday.

As the spouse of a chronically ill patient, I hope that Health Net gets crushed.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, doesn't it always, if you consider how rarely the Washington Post agrees with election results coming out of my state.

Now, though, the Post wants to use teh DeLay case to tell us how to select judges.

Most states have some form of an elected judiciary, but the Texas system is particularly bad: All judges are selected through partisan elections. As then-Chief Justice Tom Phillips, a Republican, said in 2003, "Our partisan, high-dollar judicial selection system has diminished public confidence in our courts, damaged our reputation throughout the country and around the world, and discouraged able lawyers from pursuing a judicial career." The dispute over who will hear the DeLay case is a symptom of a larger problem.

Yeah, we can't have the peole picking judges -- it might give everyone the idea that the judicial branch is answerable to the people and not the other way around! Our system allows the people to serve as a check upon an out-of-control judiciary in a way that the people of , for example, Massachusetts cannot. Wrong-headed decisions may stand, but wrong-headed judges do not.

And as far as the quote form our former chief justice is concerned, he is pretty much alone in taking that position. I was at a meeting a couple of years ago at which he tried to push a non-partisan plan for electing judges for endorsement by a Republican group -- and was soundly rejected because it would taken power away from the people.

What the Post doesn't consider in this case is that we had a relatively unique situation -- a partisan prosecutor on a political vendetta against a leader of the opposing party, being heard by a judge who had in the past stated that he could not be impartial against a defendant whose opponents he had supported financially and who had made larger contributions to an organization that had actively opposed the current defendant. The totality of circumstances made it quite clear that the judges impartiality was subject to serious question. The subsequent challenge by the prosecution was merely a tit-for-tat by an unethical prosecutor who even admitted in his motion that he did not really believe the judge to have a conflict of interest.

No, there is nothing wrong with the current judicial system in Texas -- at least nothing that cannot be solved by dismissing all charges against Tom DeLay and disbarring Ronnie Earle and any of his staff involved in the bringing of the current charges.

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm adding new blog to the blogroll.

The first is written by Katelyn, a wonderful young lady from Sacramento. She is conservative, pro-life, and very Catholic.. She's also been expelled from her Catholic high school because her family is conservative, pro-life, and very Catholic and the school isn't. So go take a look at her blog -- Stand Up And Speak Out (I love that name).

To get the gist of this awful situation, you need to look at the following posts made over the last three weeks.

Abortion Controversy at Loretto Catholic High School
Loretto Teacher Fired: Part 2
Loretto Update
Expulsion from Loretto
Press Release
"Fired Loretto teacher files complaints"

Welcome to the blogroll, Katelyn -- and good luck with your fight.

Posted by: Greg at 06:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

Soldier's Angels has launched Project Valour-IT, seeking to provide Voice-Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops in military and VA hospitals. For more information, visit the homepage.

In honor of my father, a retired US Navy officer and my biggest living hero (how many men can say that at 42 years old and really mean it?), I've signed up as a part of the Navy team. The link to donate is on Rhymes With Right's index page.

This is important, folks. Give what you can.

Posted by: Greg at 02:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Gary Hart says we are moving towards theocracy.

America risks becoming a theocracy because of the religious right's sway over politics, former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart warned Thursday in a talk in Denver.

At a lunch at the Oxford Hotel sponsored by the Denver Forum, the Democrat touched on his faith journey, took a few jabs at the Bush administration's foreign policy and reassured the audience that it's all right to be a liberal.

Hart, the author of some 15 books, was touting a slim new volume, "God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics."

"The language of politics in the last 10 years has more heavily gravitated toward faith and values," Hart said. "He who controls the definition controls the debate."

To illustrate the shift in religion's role in politics, Hart told of how conservative Protestants worried in the 1960s that President Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, would let the Vatican call the shots. In 2005, the Bush White House sought to reassure evangelicals that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was one of them.

Imagine, Hart said, the reaction if the Kennedy White House had sounded out the pope about a high-court nominee.

"Guess who would have gone up in orbit?" he said. "The religious right in America."

Well, there is an itty-bitty difference here. The pope is a foreigner and the head of state of a foreign country. The evangelicals in question are American citizens and voters. Is its hart’s contention that religious voters – at least one who are part of the so-called “religious right” – have no place being involved in the American political system?

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Gary Hart says we are moving towards theocracy.

America risks becoming a theocracy because of the religious right's sway over politics, former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart warned Thursday in a talk in Denver.

At a lunch at the Oxford Hotel sponsored by the Denver Forum, the Democrat touched on his faith journey, took a few jabs at the Bush administration's foreign policy and reassured the audience that it's all right to be a liberal.

Hart, the author of some 15 books, was touting a slim new volume, "God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics."

"The language of politics in the last 10 years has more heavily gravitated toward faith and values," Hart said. "He who controls the definition controls the debate."

To illustrate the shift in religion's role in politics, Hart told of how conservative Protestants worried in the 1960s that President Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, would let the Vatican call the shots. In 2005, the Bush White House sought to reassure evangelicals that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was one of them.

Imagine, Hart said, the reaction if the Kennedy White House had sounded out the pope about a high-court nominee.

"Guess who would have gone up in orbit?" he said. "The religious right in America."

Well, there is an itty-bitty difference here. The pope is a foreigner and the head of state of a foreign country. The evangelicals in question are American citizens and voters. Is its hart’s contention that religious voters – at least one who are part of the so-called “religious right” – have no place being involved in the American political system?

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

I can’t help but sympathize to this response to the lowlifes who destroy property with their “artwork”.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has suggested that those who deface freeways with graffiti should have their thumbs cut off on television.

Goodman, appearing Wednesday on the ``Nevada Newsmakers'' television show, said, ``In the old days in France, they had beheading of people who commit heinous crimes.

``You know, we have a beautiful highway landscaping redevelopment in our downtown. We have desert tortoises and beautiful paintings of flora and fauna. These punks come along and deface it.

``I'm saying maybe you put them on TV and cut off a thumb,'' the mayor added. ``That may be the right thing to do.''

And I must say I wouldnÂ’t mind seeing this restored in schools.

Goodman also suggested that whippings or canings should be brought back for children who get into trouble.

``I also believe in a little bit of corporal punishment going back to the days of yore, where examples have to be shown,'' Goodman said.

``I'm dead serious,'' said Goodman, adding, ``Some of these (children) don't learn. You have got to teach them a lesson, and this is coming from a criminal defense lawyer.''

One of my colleagues used to teach in Singapore. She tells me discipline was so much better thereÂ…

Posted by: Greg at 02:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

If a hacker did this, there would be jail time involved. SonyÂ’s installation of malicious and dangerous code on computers without disclosure merits similar treatment.

Earlier this week, computer security researcher Mark Russinovich published an analysis showing that some new Sony CDs install software that not only limits the copying of music on the discs, but also employs programming techniques normally associated with computer viruses to hide from users and prevent them from removing the software.

Russinovich's findings -- posted on the Web site (http://www.sysinternals.com/) that he runs with another researcher -- indicated that the CDs in question use software techniques that behave similarly to "rootkits," software tools that hackers can use to maintain control over a computer system once they have broken in.

He found that traditional methods of uninstalling the program would not work, and that attempts at removing it corrupted the files needed to operate his computer's CD player, rendering it useless.

Sony spokesman John McKay said the technology has been deployed on just 20 titles so far, but that the company may include it on additional titles in the months ahead.

Did you get that – Sony has knowingly installed programs that are hidden and which damage your computer if you try to play some of their CDs. Not only that, they plan to keep installing it, even knowing that attempts to remove the programs will destroy your computer. That arrogance is criminal, and merits prosecution.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

I tell these kids something like this could happen if they are sagging.

A man suspected of stealing discs from a video store was tripped up by his baggy pants, falling twice before police captured him, authorities said.
James Green, 30, of Detroit, took about a half-dozen DVDs on Sunday night, and initially made his getaway on a bicycle, police said.

Officers spotted him in an alley, and he abandoned the bike and ran, but his pants fell to his ankles and he tripped, Ferndale Detective Sgt. Patrick Jones told The Daily Tribune of Royal Oak. "Finally, he kicked off his pants and shoes" and then jumped a fence into the backyard of a house where he was captured, Jones said.

On Monday, Green pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and retail fraud and was ordered jailed for 30 days.

Maybe the old urban legend is correct – perhaps undercover cops did start this trend to make it easy to catch the criminals.

Posted by: Greg at 02:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

When will the congresscritters realize that the First Amendment gives special protection to political speech? Not soon, I guess, as the House of Representatives refused to pass a measure ensuring the political speech on the internet remains as free as the Founders intended political speech to be.

Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign-finance law, the House decided yesterday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.

The House voted 225-182 for H.R 1606, which would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.
The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign-finance law that banned unlimited “soft-money” contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.

“This is a major unraveling of the law,” Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, “it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process.”

Actually, Marty, the internet politicking of the last few years has shown how more and freer speech can shed light on matters of public importance, and challenge the corruption that exists within the major parties and MSM.

Those who are more concerned about Constitutional principle than “political corruption” (freely expressed political opinions that threaten the interests of entrenched incumbents) see matters differently.

The billÂ’s sponsor, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said the federal government should encourage, rather than fetter, a phenomenon that was bringing more Americans into the political process.

“The newest battlefield in the fight to protect the First Amendment is the Internet,” he said. “The Internet is the new town square, and campaign-finance regulations are not appropriate there.”

Without his legislation, Hensarling said, “I fear that bloggers one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate’s press release to an e-mail list.”

Bloggers from liberal and conservative perspectives made similar predictions at a hearing on the subject in September. “Rather than deal with the red tape of regulation and the risk of legal problems, they will fall silent on all issues of politics,” said Michael J. Krempasky, director of the Web site RedState.org.

Some clearly will fall silent. Others, including this site, will continue to write and publish what we believe until we are silenced by the FECÂ’s jackbooted thugs. They will be prying this keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.

Posted by: Greg at 02:33 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

I understand the desire of historians and others to see this article about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Heck, I want to read it – but I have no problem waiting a few more weeks until all the related documents are declassified and free for public inspection.

National Security Agency officers mistranslated interceptions involving the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, and their mistake was covered up by deliberate falsifications, says a researcher trying to obtain an article that lays out what happened.

Now, says researcher Matthew Aid, the NSA is blocking release of the article, by an NSA historian, about the incident that led to a massive U.S. buildup in Vietnam by President Lyndon B. Johnson with the near-unanimous backing of Congress.

Aid, who requested the article last year under the Freedom of Information Act, said it appeared that NSA officers made honest mistakes in translating the intercepted messages about what was reported as a North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers in the gulf off the coast of what was then North Vietnam.

Rather than correct the mistakes, the 2001 article in the NSA's classified Cryptologic Quarterly says, midlevel officials decided to falsify documents to cover up the errors, according to Aid, who is working on a history of the agency and has talked to a number of current and former government officials about this chapter of American history.

Aid said he had been told that the article, written by NSA historian Robert Hanyok, analyzes problems found in interceptions about the events. He said the nature and extent of the mistakes remained unclear, and that some senior officials at NSA who were not involved with the errors had taken issue with the journal article.

Let’s look at this objectively. It takes time to declassify documents – especially if they hint at our capabilities and methods for intercepting information today. Let the process work -- especially given the planned release date of the declassified documents.

In a written statement, NSA spokesman Don Weber said the agency had delayed releasing the article "in an effort to be consistent with our preferred practice of providing the public a more contextual perspective." The agency plans to release the article and related materials next month, he said.
"Instead of simply releasing the author's historical account, the agency worked to declassify the associated signals intelligence ... and other classified documents used to draw his conclusions," Weber said.

In other words, Aid will get the documents sometime around Christmas. There is no critical need to release the documents to the public today, given that we are dealing with incidents that are decades old.

Except, of course, that Aid seems o have a political agenda in his demand for immediate release of the article absent the supporting evidence.

Aid drew comparisons to more recent intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that overstated the threat posed by President Saddam Hussein's arsenal.

"The question becomes, why not release this?" Aid said of the article. "We have some documents that, from my perspective, I think would be very instructive to the public and the intelligence community ... on a mistake made 41 years ago that was just as bad as the WMD debacle."

In other words, he wants to analogize the conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq. He is not particularly interested in the accuracy of the Hanyok article or the analogy. He simply wants a club with which to beat the administration on a matter with which he disagrees.

HereÂ’s hoping the agency sticks to its guns so that everything comes out at once, allowing a full review of HanyokÂ’s conclusions.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 609 words, total size 4 kb.

Did Diddy run afoul of federal election law with his “Vote or Die” campaign last year?

A formal complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission Thursday claims Sean "Diddy" Combs violated federal law during the U.S. presidential campaign.

The National Legal and Policy Center, NPLC, claims Diddy violated the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Internal Revenue Service Code, when he rallied support of Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, AllHipHop.com reported.

The NLPC alleges a Detroit rally conducted by Diddy's non-profit group, Citizen Change, included speeches from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick urging the crowd to oust President Bush from office.

The complaint asks the FEC to investigate whether Diddy used his company's corporate funds to illegally support Citizen Change.

The complaint also alleges Diddy may have used his "Vote or Die" campaign as a commercial endeavor to make money for his clothing line.

Combs was not available for comment.

Non-partisan activities are supposed to remain non-partisan. Non-profit groups are not supposed to be about making a profit. As a result, I have to say these questions are worth asking – though I have to admire the man for his efforts o get people out to vote.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.

Unbelievable! Why give the Democrats an extra month to manufacture dirt?

The Republican-controlled Senate will begin hearings Jan. 9 on Judge Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court, spurning President Bush's call for a final confirmation vote by year's end.

"It's simply wasn't possible to accommodate the schedule that the White House wanted," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He outlined a schedule that envisions five days of hearings, followed by a vote in committee on Jan. 17 and the full Senate on Jan. 20.

I guess we just can't have Congresscritters working during the holidays like normal folks.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

The Ninth Circuit was willing to let a single non-custodial parent determine whether or not every child could say – or even hear -- the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. But they don’t believe that parents have the right to control the exposure of their own children to sexual material at school.

On Wednesday the court dismissed a lawsuit brought by California parents who were outraged over a sex survey given to public school students in the first, third and fifth grades.

Among other things, the survey administered by the Palmdale School District asked children if they ever thought about having sex or touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex."

The parents argued that they -- not the public schools -- have the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."

But o n Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit dismissed the case, saying, "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children...Parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the panel, said "no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty."

Funny, I always believed that the right to raise oneÂ’s child and to control their education was one of those things that fundamentally predates civilization as a whole, and which society may therefore not infringe upon.

I guess that the State really is their mother and their father – at least in the Ninth Circuit, and as long as the state doesn’t use permit the use of the “G-word” around them.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

When is a black man not a black man? When he dares to think for himself, using his brain and not his skin.

Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

But then again, when havenÂ’t the elites of the Left seen an independent, successful black man stepping into their world as an equal -- or a superior -- to be a threat?

And then there is this bit on Dr. Condoleezza Rice – note how her intellect and accomplishments are seen as diminishing and negating her blackness.

The dominant personality in the Bush Cabinet is the ultimate meritocrat, Condoleezza Rice, a black woman from Alabama who rose to the top of American life in an A student's bubble that kept her from the harsher realities of race.

Raised in the Democrat-segregated South, deprived of a friend by the bomb of a Klansman, and often one of a handful of blacks in the many fields in which she has excelled, Rice’s striving and succeeding are viewed by liberals as a sign of her disconnectedness from the great mass of American blacks. After all, in their book the only real Negro is a downtrodden Negro. Excellence is just “acting white”.

Well, there you have it. Not only do they all look alike to the lamestream media, but they all think alike, too.

Posted by: Greg at 04:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, racism is this year’s black in politics – as long as it is directed at uppity black men and women who think for themselves and don’t subscribe to the identity politics of the Democrat Party.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mfume, a long-time Uncle Tom for the Party of Slavery and Segregation is thereby arguing that such racial slurs disguised as political commentary are appropriate if the speaker believes them to be the truth.

Similarly, at least one Democrat Aunt Jemima from the Maryland House of Delegates resorted to slave imagery to describe the politics of Lt. Gov Steele.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Gee, Salima, which is less in the best interests of blacks – conservative politics or the notion that thinking and believing differently from the majority is harmful to blacks? Is following the crowd a black virtue, or will it take independent thought and independent action to help the black community advance. In short, do you endorse the freedom to think, speak, and believe as one sees fit, or do you demand the slavery of conformity?

And there is, of course, the racial abuse of Lt. Gov. Steele by Steppin’ Fetchit Gilliard.

But then again, why should we be surprised that the prominent blacks in the Democrat Party are trotted out to sling the slurs for their liberal overseers? They serve the role of slave catchers, punishing those who seek to escape the liberal plantation to discourage others from thinking about freedom.

Oh, and by the way – if you take offense at this satirical piece which makes use of these repulsive racist terms as a means of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left, please give me one logical, principled reason why their use by the groveling Democratic House Negroes is acceptable but mine is not?

UPDATE -- Well, Mfume seems to be trying to parse his statements in such a way as to condemn that which he yesterday approved -- but other top Dems in Maryland think racial slurs are fine and dandy.

Posted by: Greg at 04:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, racism is this year’s black in politics – as long as it is directed at uppity black men and women who think for themselves and don’t subscribe to the identity politics of the Democrat Party.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mfume, a long-time Uncle Tom for the Party of Slavery and Segregation is thereby arguing that such racial slurs disguised as political commentary are appropriate if the speaker believes them to be the truth.

Similarly, at least one Democrat Aunt Jemima from the Maryland House of Delegates resorted to slave imagery to describe the politics of Lt. Gov Steele.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Gee, Salima, which is less in the best interests of blacks – conservative politics or the notion that thinking and believing differently from the majority is harmful to blacks? Is following the crowd a black virtue, or will it take independent thought and independent action to help the black community advance. In short, do you endorse the freedom to think, speak, and believe as one sees fit, or do you demand the slavery of conformity?

And there is, of course, the racial abuse of Lt. Gov. Steele by SteppinÂ’ Fetchit Gilliard.

But then again, why should we be surprised that the prominent blacks in the Democrat Party are trotted out to sling the slurs for their liberal overseers? They serve the role of slave catchers, punishing those who seek to escape the liberal plantation to discourage others from thinking about freedom.

Oh, and by the way – if you take offense at this satirical piece which makes use of these repulsive racist terms as a means of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left, please give me one logical, principled reason why their use by the groveling Democratic House Negroes is acceptable but mine is not?

UPDATE -- Well, Mfume seems to be trying to parse his statements in such a way as to condemn that which he yesterday approved -- but other top Dems in Maryland think racial slurs are fine and dandy.

Posted by: Greg at 04:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

I think it should be clear after reading this article.

As Detroit lays off hundreds of civil servants, city Clerk Jackie L. Currie has used taxpayer dollars to hire a friend as a $1,000-per-week adviser to help her handle allegations of tainted absentee ballots, the city's director of elections testified Tuesday.

I canÂ’t even begin to summarize the corruption found in CurrieÂ’s office. You must read it to believe it.

Posted by: Greg at 04:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

DonÂ’t you love it when someone mischaracterizes a dispute.

The Blagojevich administration said Tuesday it's guns vs. police when lawmakers decide this week whether to support the governor's veto of three controversial gun measures.

"There isn't really any middle ground on this issue," State Police Director Larry Trent said at a Statehouse news conference. "You either stand with the gun lobby or you stand with law enforcement."

IÂ’ll agree there is no middle ground, but I must dispute how Trent characterizes the conflict.

IÂ’d argue that either you stand with law-abiding citizens who believe in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution or you stand with proto-fascist government officials who donÂ’t.

I guess we know which camp Mr. Trent falls into – and should be worried that he will be armed regardless of the outcome of this vote, while supporters of the Constitution may be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.

Posted by: Greg at 04:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, we see the foes of equal opportunity and non-discrimination pimping the corpse of Rosa Parks to score cheap political points. Today’s guilty party? One United Michigan, an group opposed to ending racial discrimination in government programs and college admissions.

After a Michigan appeals court ordered that a proposed state constitutional amendment to end affirmative action in college admissions be placed on the ballot for consideration by Michigan voters, the spokesman for One United Michigan dragged out the dead woman and sexed her up for the press.

"The irony is that in the week when the country is paying tribute to Rosa Parks, this is an effort to turn Michigan civil rights efforts back to pre-1950 levels," said David Waymire, spokesman for One United Michigan, a coalition of business, labor, religious and political groups opposed to the plan.

No, the irony is that you would use the occasion of the death of a woman who fought for a society in which the government did not distribute benefits based upon race as a tool for promoting the distribution of government benefits based upon race.

You used the unburied body of this heroine for civil rights to argue that blacks and other minorities are incapable of competing intellectually and academically against whites.

You turned the concept of civil rights for all into “government gimmes” for the few of the right hue.

After all, affirmative action judges based upon the color of one’s skin rather than the content of one’s character or the merit of one’s skills and abilities. And your position is nothing less than an affirmation of the old, pre-1950 belief that blacks just don’t have the same level of talent, skill, and ability to compete with white folks.

Frankly, Mr. Waymire, you disgust me, for your position is no different than that of the KKK. And that you would use Rosa Parks to promote such offends me even more.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, we see the foes of equal opportunity and non-discrimination pimping the corpse of Rosa Parks to score cheap political points. TodayÂ’s guilty party? One United Michigan, an group opposed to ending racial discrimination in government programs and college admissions.

After a Michigan appeals court ordered that a proposed state constitutional amendment to end affirmative action in college admissions be placed on the ballot for consideration by Michigan voters, the spokesman for One United Michigan dragged out the dead woman and sexed her up for the press.

"The irony is that in the week when the country is paying tribute to Rosa Parks, this is an effort to turn Michigan civil rights efforts back to pre-1950 levels," said David Waymire, spokesman for One United Michigan, a coalition of business, labor, religious and political groups opposed to the plan.

No, the irony is that you would use the occasion of the death of a woman who fought for a society in which the government did not distribute benefits based upon race as a tool for promoting the distribution of government benefits based upon race.

You used the unburied body of this heroine for civil rights to argue that blacks and other minorities are incapable of competing intellectually and academically against whites.

You turned the concept of civil rights for all into “government gimmes” for the few of the right hue.

After all, affirmative action judges based upon the color of oneÂ’s skin rather than the content of oneÂ’s character or the merit of oneÂ’s skills and abilities. And your position is nothing less than an affirmation of the old, pre-1950 belief that blacks just donÂ’t have the same level of talent, skill, and ability to compete with white folks.

Frankly, Mr. Waymire, you disgust me, for your position is no different than that of the KKK. And that you would use Rosa Parks to promote such offends me even more.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ll concede that dead teenagers are usually a tragedy, and I have a certain amount of compassion for the families who lost children in this accident – but when they are dead because they wrecked the stolen car they were riding in, I find the outpouring of public grief to be unseemly. I’ll explain later.

In the two days since four teens died in a car crash, sadness blanketed Huber Heights. Children cried in their classrooms at Wayne High School, parents wept in their houses and on a rural road in western Clark County where the bodies of the victims were found, more tears were shed.

The sadness was palpable. Cars drove by on Old Troy Pike with the boys' names on their windows. A restaurant put a sign up front praying for them to Rest in Peace. And Monday night at a candlelight vigil on the high school's football field, the sobs of about 250 students filled the air as they held up candles and prayed. They had gathered there to remember their friends, and many of them hugged each other as they wept.

Ian Bailey, Joseph Bruce, Joshua Flemming and Dustin Van Hoose were killed when the stolen Ford Crown Victoria they were riding in hit two trees on Lake Road early Sunday . A fifth teen — possibly the driver — was taken to a hospital in Dayton on Sunday morning and questioned there by police. He remained in the hospital Monday night, in the custody of Montgomery County Children Services.

The car was stolen from Mozart Avenue in Huber Heights, where police found broken glass on the street, Officer Mark Bruns said.

Now the story goes on to stir up sympathy for the driver who survived and a sense of loss of these boys – none of whom was old enough to drive the car they stole. They all get presented as good kids – even though they were out well after curfew joyriding in a stolen car. I have no evidence of possible drug or alcohol use, but I won’t be surprised if it turns out that the boys were drunk or high – it would fit with what we do know from the article.

As you may have figured, this story doesn’t sit well with me. It takes me back in time to my seminary days, and another tragic accident involving teenagers. In that case, the girls had been drinking, and were driving too fast on a hilly road. They crossed the center line and hit another car, killing all four girls and the other driver. The local press made a big tragedy out of the deaths of the girls – and ignored the death of the father of three who was the only innocent victim. His son was one of my fellow seminarians. The lesson learned by the young people of the community? No matter how irresponsible the decisions, no matter how grave the consequences, you end up a tragic hero to your peers and the community at large.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

I’ll concede that dead teenagers are usually a tragedy, and I have a certain amount of compassion for the families who lost children in this accident – but when they are dead because they wrecked the stolen car they were riding in, I find the outpouring of public grief to be unseemly. I’ll explain later.

In the two days since four teens died in a car crash, sadness blanketed Huber Heights. Children cried in their classrooms at Wayne High School, parents wept in their houses and on a rural road in western Clark County where the bodies of the victims were found, more tears were shed.

The sadness was palpable. Cars drove by on Old Troy Pike with the boys' names on their windows. A restaurant put a sign up front praying for them to Rest in Peace. And Monday night at a candlelight vigil on the high school's football field, the sobs of about 250 students filled the air as they held up candles and prayed. They had gathered there to remember their friends, and many of them hugged each other as they wept.

Ian Bailey, Joseph Bruce, Joshua Flemming and Dustin Van Hoose were killed when the stolen Ford Crown Victoria they were riding in hit two trees on Lake Road early Sunday . A fifth teen — possibly the driver — was taken to a hospital in Dayton on Sunday morning and questioned there by police. He remained in the hospital Monday night, in the custody of Montgomery County Children Services.

The car was stolen from Mozart Avenue in Huber Heights, where police found broken glass on the street, Officer Mark Bruns said.

Now the story goes on to stir up sympathy for the driver who survived and a sense of loss of these boys – none of whom was old enough to drive the car they stole. They all get presented as good kids – even though they were out well after curfew joyriding in a stolen car. I have no evidence of possible drug or alcohol use, but I won’t be surprised if it turns out that the boys were drunk or high – it would fit with what we do know from the article.

As you may have figured, this story doesn’t sit well with me. It takes me back in time to my seminary days, and another tragic accident involving teenagers. In that case, the girls had been drinking, and were driving too fast on a hilly road. They crossed the center line and hit another car, killing all four girls and the other driver. The local press made a big tragedy out of the deaths of the girls – and ignored the death of the father of three who was the only innocent victim. His son was one of my fellow seminarians. The lesson learned by the young people of the community? No matter how irresponsible the decisions, no matter how grave the consequences, you end up a tragic hero to your peers and the community at large.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

1 you a dumba.. , sure this kids were in the wrong for driving a stolen car, but in your estimationg everyone that makes a bad choice and dies has no room for sympathy. Do you realize if everyone paid the ultimate price for a bad decision there would be no one left including you........

Posted by: don at Fri Nov 4 09:32:28 2005 (cn7Im)

2 How dare you judge these boys that you do not know. Only ONE of them had been drinking, only ONE of them stole that car and went around after a footbal game picking up other kids. The truly sad thing is, is that the ONE who did these things is the ONE still alive. Those four boys were someones children, brother, grandchild and friend. The kids and adults that are mourning their passing have that right, how dare you judge them.

Posted by: teemu at Fri Nov 4 09:53:06 2005 (cBhyf)

3 I don't say they "deserved" to die -- I did not indicate that had no sympathy. I indicated that I found the presentation of these boys as tragic heroes to be unseemly. I don't question anyone's right to mourn. And teemu -- since you seem to have such a strong objection to my judging people (I'm not -- I'm judging their presentation of the boys as "only the good die young" heroes) -- how dare YOU judge ME. But then again, I guess hypocrisy is a strong suit on your part.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Nov 4 13:26:32 2005 (X/70j)

4 "Now the story goes on to stir up sympathy for the driver who survived and a sense of loss of these boys – none of whom was old enough to drive the car they stole. They all get presented as good kids – even though they were out well after curfew joyriding in a stolen car. I have no evidence of possible drug or alcohol use, but I won’t be surprised if it turns out that the boys were drunk or high – it would fit with what we do know from the article." Do you know who stole the car? Do you know if all of the boys were aware if the car was stolen? We don't and we're family. "Tragic Heroes?" What the hell is heroic about suddenly losing your child? Hero?? They aren't being porojected as heroes, the community has gathered in sympathy for loss of life at such a young age. My condolences to your experience during your seminary days, but what gives you the right to comment on something YOU don't know the facts about? Ian was my nephew, his mother is my sister, and you, Mr. Rhymes with right, are an ass. Seminary???

Posted by: Suzy at Tue Nov 8 12:00:29 2005 (cUSQ4)

5 i cant believe you can sit here and judge these four lost souls. they are family to everyone and if you ask any body they would sit here and tell you that they love each and every one of those kids. its not there fault. they didnt know that if they made that decision to get in the car that later that night they would reck it and die. i believe not one of them should of died or even got hurt but for you to sit here and tell me that they were all drunk and high is an outrage to alot of people. i think that you should really get your facts straight. i can say that these kids being killed taught us a lesson about our selfs and the decisions made by teenagers these days. but i really didnt believe the ones who everybody loved had to go out and die like that.

Posted by: drew at Sat Dec 17 09:47:26 2005 (5QTR3)

6 I don't judge their souls -- I judge their actions. As for the "It's not their fault" line, then whose fault is it? Were they forced into the car at gunpoint? I didn't think so -- they made a choice to engage in reckless and illegal activity that had, sadly , their deaths as a consequence. By the way, I don't tell anyone they were drunk and high -- I speculate that they might have been, but i do not in any way shape or form assert that such was the case. In fact, i make a specific point that we have NO evidence in the story to support the speculation. One of my former students was stabbed to death a couple of weeks ago. He went to a party where he was not invited, got into a fight, followed the folks he fought into their home to continue the fight, and was stabbed to death by one of them. For me to say that the young man made some bad choices that resulted in his death would be to make an accurate statement. For me to try to make a hero of him because he died as a result of those choices would be wrong, no matter how much I cared for him.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 17 12:26:30 2005 (E4lNa)

7 you know what? two months later, it still feels like yesterday. i lost my brothers, my best friends that day. and you have the GALL to sit here and judge their actions, their souls, whatever. it doesnt matter whos fault it is. the point is two months ago we lost four amazing people to stupid mistakes. and two months later, we still mourn. so get off your damn high horse and be a human. for crying out loud. fault, actions, and motives dont matter now. think about this, and remember them. -cassie.(the head doctor)

Posted by: Cassie at Sun Jan 8 11:59:00 2006 (htes/)

8 I guess what gives me the "GALL" (see, I can use all caps, too) to judge the actions of these boys is that I have some moral values -- it seems to me that you don't. And actually, fault and actions do matter now -- expecially after folks in your community held these boys up to be some sort of tragic heroes. There was no heroism in what happened to them -- only tragedy. As a teacher, I've seen too many young people die after making a series of bad choices. I've seen them held forth as "only the good die young" heroes, despite the fact they were killed dealing drugs, robbing gas stations, driving drunk, or engaging in gang activity. Such kids are not heroes, and we do the young people of our communities not one ounce of good by memorializing them as such. Am I saddened by the deaths of thes kids? Yes, I am. Do I feel for you and have compassion for your loss? Yes, I do. If you wee here, I would take you in my arms and cry with you, as I did the Monday after Thanksgiving with a student whose brother (a former student) was killed in a fight with opposing gang members. There is nothing right or fair about the way your brother (or hers) died, and I would never tell you there is. Your brother and his friends did not deserve to die. But I also have compassion for all the kids who are not hearing the message that needs to be spread after deaths like these -- bad choices have bad consequences, and those who lose their lives under such circumstances are models of "what not to be," no matter what redeeming qualities they had. And if you are still too close to this deep personal loss to accept my words, I hope that one day you can understand what I am trying to say.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 8 14:42:56 2006 (PGZ7z)

9 hey one of my friends were friends with all these kids which would make me friends so dnt say bad stuff bout them if it hurts her then it hurts me

Posted by: caras friend at Thu Feb 9 08:41:05 2006 (sjD9Q)

10 You need to learn to read more closely -- what I said was that they should not be celebrated, not that they were evil or should not be mourned. Their deaths are sad and tragic, and I know they cut very deeply, but they were the result of bad choices they made. Look at the comment above yours to understand what i am trying to communicate.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Feb 9 10:33:46 2006 (h9417)

11 Put yourself in the situation. Think of the person who means the most to you. Now, put them in of of the four boys' postitions. No disrespect. But, you cannot tell me or anyone else you would not show even the least bit of emotion. We are human. We all make mistakes. It is in our nature. And nobody, not even you, is perfect. Whether you want to believe it or not. Oh and they weren't the ones who wrecked the car. The driver did, obviously, so you cannot blame it on those four. But, don't diss the driver either because he has to live with killing four of his best friends for the rest of his life. That is enough punishment. I also take it very offensively that you say these kind of things. Everyone of those boys were loved and cared so much about by many many people. One of them happened to be one of my best friends I've ever had. I'm sure everyone else takes your bullshit offensively too. I don't see why they wouldn't. I know this is going to sound really screwed up, but I do not nuder any circumstances mean anything by it. I hope your (most important person in your life) dies in a horrible car accident the same way these boys did. Do you take that offensively at all? You can't even deny that you do. But, once again, it was an example, nothing was meant by it.. If your going to keep on saying this shit, your making yourself a bigger ass than what you already have. This here shows you are a very self-centered person who cares about himself/herself and hi/her self only. Your not right about everything. Obviously, you think you are. But, really your not. Now, if you want to say anything else to this, I'll be more than happy to listen cause I am a bitch and I will say whatever I want to no matter how screwed up it may be. So, dear. Try me. And don't pull a you-don't-know-me, because you deffinately didn't know any of those boys. Thank you and have a nice fucking day.

Posted by: Paige at Thu Jun 29 16:14:46 2006 (Ffvoi)

12 How can you call yourself a teacher. i mean with you being a teacher i though you would understand more then most people. I mean you as a teacher see how kids can make mistakes and clean up. or see thing because kids mess up its not always there fault. What about if something has a bad homelife. Or if the kids parents dont care. For the kids to be out that late the parent didnt care what there kids did. I mean yea its thier fault for gettin in the car, and all that. But i mean all kids make mistakes at one time. With each mistake people learn. I believe all things happen for a reason. But i kno what you are doin is wrong. I mean these boys should be remembered for there whole lifes not for the one thing they did wrong. I mean for you to call ur self a teacher makes me sick. how why And one of those boys was my friend. And you kno what dont believe everyhting you hear. Because this boy was in some trouble.. but he was gettin better.. he was a sweet kid. ALOT of people liked him. I just think these boys should rest in peace and be remembered for the good and the bad.. i mean have you done ur homework..did u even try to learn who these boys were... fuck no you didnt.. then you shouldnt post anything with out the facts.. What you are sayn is your opinion and you are aloud to have it. But you kno what u have said has hurt alot of people. i wanted to cry after all that reading. all of us have been threw enough. and with what you said doesnt help. in fact it brings all back and pisses me off.. i hope you are happie.. you have hurt alot of people....

Posted by: Myranda at Thu Jun 29 16:30:54 2006 (eXQVK)

13 Oka, Paige is very correct. And so are all these other people. I believe there is a God. You may not. I really don't give two shits about what you think right now. God forgives each mistake a person makes if you follow his footsteps. One of these boys was among the greatest guys every. I'm sure they all were. I'm pointing out one in particular. He was a very great friend of mine.He used to live in my old city and then when I moved, he returned to the same city i moved to also. They didn't deserve to die, whether their actions were wrong or not. Do you have no soul? How dare you say those God-awful things about these boys. I know, they would have grown up to be amazing young men. You need to fuck off and grow a heart. As what Paige said before, I also am a bitch at heart and will tell you what it is. These boys deserve gratification for the things they have accomplished. I can't get over the fact how someone that probably didn't even know these boys at all can come off saying such hurtful things. One day, someone will realize that it was you that wrote this and you will be faced with horrible tribulations. You will, get what you deserve for writing this. And making it public. I guess I will end here. By the way, Fuck Off And Die

Posted by: Lenia at Thu Jun 29 16:32:27 2006 (Rpzfx)

14 Oh by the way Get bent you sorry so-called sick ass "teacher"

Posted by: Lenia at Thu Jun 29 16:34:59 2006 (Rpzfx)

15 Listen, you little punk, I don't give a shit that you are offended. In fact, your expressed desire that the most important person in my life die in such an accident indicates that you are a screwed-up little child with no moral values who will no doubt be making equally irresponsible choices soon -- probably ones resulting in you becoming a serial baby-mama spawning fatherless little brats that you expect gainfully employed taxpayers like myself to support. Let's look at the situation from an OBJECTIVE point of view. Five kids went joy-riding in a stolen car. Four were killed when the driver wrecked it. Their deaths were the direct result of the inappropriate and irresponsible behavior of each and every one of them. That does not make them heroes to be celebrated -- that makes them bad examples to be rejected. As I said in some of the comments above, i don't have a problem with your mourning these boys -- Lord knows that grieving is healthy and there is much to be mourned in the deaths of these boys. I even feel bad for you, since no one should have to lose friends so young in such a senseless manner. What I am saying is that they should not be celebrated, for it gives the wrong message. That you cannot see that is an indication of your own moral blindness. Oh, you are right about one thing -- I didn't know these boys. However, my years teaching high school give me a pretty good sense of what they were like, and I have probably had similar young men walk through my door over the years. If anything, that CONFIRMS my views.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 29 16:38:47 2006 (1zEfi)

16 Ah, looks like the rest of the gang is out to spew profanity and ignore my point. When folks die as a result of their own poor choices and criminal behavior, they are not heroes. To treat them as such is irresponsible. Some years ago, a student from my school tried to rob a gas station. The clerk fired three shots with the gun under the counter, hitting the kid twice and killing him dead on the spot. When asked if I felt any sadness, I lied to my students -- I told them no. Actually, I did -- I felt it was a terrible waste of the bullet that missed him. Do I judge these boys nearly that harshly? No , I do not. They did not deserve to die (I think the young man in the story above did). But I do not believe they should be treated as celebrated -- indeed, they should be held up as examples to be rejected by the community. Maybe when that starts to happen, we will begin to see reductions in crime, violence, and illegitimacy in your neighborhood.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 29 16:49:23 2006 (1zEfi)

17 Ok... all i have to say is that YOUR A FUCKING ASSWHOLE, YOU DIDNT EVEN KNOW THESE BOYS!!! keep your damn thought to yourself!!

Posted by: Kayla Lee at Thu Jun 29 16:57:37 2006 (i0TrF)

18 And you, Kayla, appear to be ignorant and semi-literate. If you could read at grade level, you would see that my point is more about your community and its messed-up values as it is about these boys. If you didn't get that out of my original post, you would have gotten it out of the comment thread. And since you don't know me, keep YOUR damn thoughts to yourself. By the way -- the word "asshole" does not have a "w" in it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 29 17:05:44 2006 (1zEfi)

19 well I THINK YOU SHOULD GET UR ASS KICK FOR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND I THINK YOU SHOULD KEEP UR SHIT OT URSELF NO ONE GIVES FUCK ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY AND IF I EVER SEE YOU BELIEVE I WILL KILL YOU B/C I KNEW ALL OF THEM VERY WELL BESIDES ONE AND THAT WAS DUSTIN SO FUCK YOU

Posted by: bethany hearrell at Thu Jun 29 17:24:06 2006 (q8cMy)

20 You have crossed the line "Rhymes with Right." Or "teacher." I'm not sugar coating anything anymore. Here is the real deal. So you knew of students just like these four boys. HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU POSSIBLY SAY THAT IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THEM? You can't. Leave them be. It's none of your God Damned business. You don't have to butt your self into shit just so you can fucking amke it about your damn self. You know what, for this, I hope you go through the same exact thing with one of the most important people in your damned life as we all fucking did. I hope to God it does. Infact, I'm going to pray that it does. THAT IS WHAT YOU FUCKING NEED. Experience it your fucking self. Then try and take someone saying that about your loved one. MAYBE you'll get it through your thick head. Or maybe you'll be the one who dies in a random car accident because of some other drunk driver. Maybe you'll be in the wrong place at the wrong time JUST LIKE THEY WERE. No one deserves to die. Not even you. But, you do deserve to carry on a guilt for the rest of the life you have left. You deserve to be fuckin pushed around and disrespected. You don't deserve any respect after you fucking disrespect the dead?! Your so ignorant!!!! Damn. Do you not have any feelings at all? THIS MATTER DOES NOT CONCERN YOU. Your intitled to your own damn opinion. But no publicly. Stay the fuck out of their business and worry about your own damn problems. Did you get everything you wanted as a kid? Were you rich and handed everything? Could you do and say whatever you wanted and there would always be someone there to get you out of it? Or were you the lil sorry ass girl who has grown up to be so bitter because everyone made fun of her and stated their opinions so you have to get someone back? Thats how your coming off to me. Your a very insecure bitch, you know that. Focus on your own damn problems, not everyone elses across the fucking world. Oh yeah... God, its me, Paige. So, you know about Rhymes With Right. I think the teacher talking all that talk needs to experience a tragedy herself, first hand. Could you please have something terrible happen to someone she is really close to? I think it would do her a lot of good.

Posted by: Paige at Thu Jun 29 17:40:32 2006 (dnUjv)

21 Come and get me, Ms. Hearrell -- just remember that Texas is a concealed carry state and that using a gun to repel an assault on one's person won't even result in an arrest, much less a conviction. And that is not a threat -- that is just an observation about the way we do things down here. By the way -- you and your little girlfriends here are doing a fine job of honoring the memories of your friends and showing off what constitutes "community values" in your neck of the woods.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 29 17:41:57 2006 (1zEfi)

22 Actually, I am a "he", Paige. If you had bothered to look, my name is Greg. And by the way, I've shown no disrespect for the dead. I've said they should not be honored as heroes, not that they deserved to die. I've said that because of the manner of their deaths they should be seen as examples of what not to become. Oh, and that's a great little bit of blasphemy there at the end of your post -- clearly you have no relationship with the God of the Bible, for if you did you would know that we are to bless those who curse us, not beg God to curse those we disagree with. Now why don't you run along to the street-corner and get back to work, you foul-mouthed little gutter-snipe.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 29 17:50:39 2006 (1zEfi)

23 Okay, I'm going to take the ininative and be the bigger man here. Your a teacher. You've been through college. So your an adult. You atleast in your 20's. Your argueing with teenagers!!! Most of which are 16!!! Wow, your not showing yourself much maturity. You should be the bigger man. But, I beat you to it, sucka. THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY MATTERS IN THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT BETWEEN ALL OF US WHO DID KNOW THEM AND WERE FRIENDS WITH THEM AND YOU IS THAT WE ARE STILL, EVEN AFTER THEY PAST, PROVEING OURSELVES GOOD FRIENDS. YA KNOW, THAT ACTUALLY MAKES ME FEEL PRETTY DAMN GOOD ACTUALLY. WE ARE STANDING UP AND SPEAKING OUT FOR THEM. WE ARE STILL STANDING BESIDE THEM. THEY AER STILL OUR FRIENDS. MAYBE THEY AREN'T HERE IN PERSON, BUT THEY ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE IN OUR HEARTS. NO MATTER WHAT YOU FUCKS SAY. Oh, I don't know about anyone else. But, they ARE hereos to me. Everything happens for a reason, and because of them, so many people have discovered how precious life really is and how much to often they take people for granted. We've all realized that your best friend may not be back to school the following Monday because of an unexpected accident. Or any day for that matter. Ya know, it really sucks that it had to be them... But, because of them everyone has been more cautious about what they are doing. I'm not saying I'm happy this happened. No way. But, I'm glad there was good that came out of it. We all learned something that day. Something we will never forget. In my heart and mind, they are hereos. Our hereos.

Posted by: Paige at Thu Jun 29 18:27:52 2006 (dnUjv)

24 Actually, Paige, try 40s. And why am I arguing with you? because I have enough respect for teenagers to believe it is a worthwhile and important thing to do. Because I spend my days surrounded by kids your age, I know that you are capable of rational thought and moral reasoning. And if I had to (metaphorically speaking) bop you girls over your noses with a rolled up newspaper to get you to drop the crazy talk, so be it. And so that meant that I had to push you past the emotion and into the intellect -- so you didn't beat me, you joined me, which means we have finally met as equals. Welcome to a little bit of adulthood, my dear. If you notice, I'm not suggesting any of your friends was evil, or that they deserved to die. They didn't -- and I've said that in comments above the ones tonight. Their deaths SUCK, and offend me deeply, because kids are not supposed to die. But they do, and we are all left to make sense out of it. We are all left to learn from it, in cases like this one -- and it sounds like maybe you and some of your friends have. But you finally acknowledged a big part of my point without realizing it -- if they are role models, then they are negative role models of what not to do and how not to make decisions. Any good that comes out of their death is good that comes from NOT following their examples. Do you not see where we are saying very much the same thing? The problem with celebrating these boys as heroes is that it leads to minimizing their wrong decisions and the fact that wrong choices led to their deaths. Several years ago a kid from my neighborhood died when he ran his car into a ditch while trying to outrun the cops going 90 MPH. Lat fall a former student died in what was essentially a gang fight. I mourned them both as kids with potentially who would never meet it -- and as kids of whom I was particularly fond (Adam, the second boy, was 18, recently married to another former student, and the father of a new baby). Neither boy "deserved" to die -- but they didn't deserve to be whitewashed and canonized as if their wrong actions were irrelevant to their deaths. And so I say to you, as I have been saying this whole thread -- mourn them, miss them, love them in your heart forever. Just don't make them out to be innocents gone too soon and positive models of what other young people should strive to be, for the choices that led to their unfortunate deaths necessarily serve to define them. You want examples of that? Benedict Arnold was a great general and a hero of the American Rebolution, until he decided to sell-out the 13 colonies -- and that decision will ever define him. So, too, will Judas' betraying kiss define him -- even though he was the disciple who was trusted by Jesus to control the money they all shared in common. Their wrong choices and theconsequences define them. Can we agree on that?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 29 19:03:35 2006 (1zEfi)

25 Go play in traffic you fucking moron rhymes

Posted by: proxima at Thu Jun 29 22:38:09 2006 (OLMLi)

26 Your a fucking moron rhymes, go play in traffic

Posted by: proxima at Thu Jun 29 22:38:33 2006 (OLMLi)

27 Proxima -- I have the wisdom not to play in traffic, or in stolen vehicles.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 00:51:16 2006 (1zEfi)

28 I can somewhat see what you are trying to say. But, the way you have worded it in your articles above bring everyone to understand it in a comlpetely different way than you do. Will you consider that? And no, they weren't innocent. Not one of them. But, I guess we don't look at their guilty roles in the whole situation because of the drver's mistakes. I do have to say that I have come to realize, most of us are focusing on Jeremy, the driver. We are focusing on all the wrong he did because he was simply the only one that survived, the fact that he was the one driving and lost control, and the fucked up things he did that night. Trying to put one of the boys in the drivers seat. Trying to get away and not call for help so it would look like he wasn't involved. The four boys were the victims of those selfish and inconsiderate ways. That is all we are focusing on. We do though, need to look at the fact that it was indeed their choice to get into that car, and take it into consideration. Every one of those boys knew the possiblities of drinking and driving. We all do. They took their chances, just as may of us do today. I know that if we could talk to them, they would take their part of the blame. Atleast, I know Dustin would. Each one of them knew what they were doing was wrong and was very risky. The did have a choice in that matter. They made the wrong choice, and instead of it being temporary and tmie taking it away, it's permanent. They didn't mean for it to happen. I hope that Jeremy really did loose control and didn't purposely wreck the car. He didn't mean for it to happen. I think that we all just need to leave them at reat and quit argueing about it. I know I argued somewhat, so don't call me hypocrite. I am now realizing. I mean there is nothing we can do to change what has happened. What is done is done. I believe in God. He is the most importnat thing to me. All I know is, they are in a better place. It was their time to go. I believe it was in God's plans. Not to kill them, but to bring them home. With that said and done, can we all just quit argueing about this. Let the four boys Rest In Peace. Quit with all the negative feelings and words, it isn't helping. I know I said things. I apologize. Rest In Peace *Dustin Shane Van Hoose* December 14, 1989 - October 30, 2005 *Joey Bruce* *Joshua Flemming* *Ian Bailey*

Posted by: Paige at Fri Jun 30 07:25:41 2006 (y6n8O)

29 While I don't agree with you in all that you said, please know that I respect all of what you said in that last comment. It shows the better angels of your nature, and your reach towards true maturity. Well done, dear girl, and know that you (and even the ruder folks above) have always had my deepest sympathies in your time of loss. I have no qualms about saying that all of you were innocent victims. In truth, my criticism was less directed at these boys than at an attitude that is all too prevalent in our society. May your friends rest in peace, and may their friends be comforted.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 08:04:04 2006 (J7UgM)

30 Thank you I appreciate it. Now, to anyone else who comes across this. Do Joey, Josh, Ian, and Dusitn a favor. Just let them rest in peace.

Posted by: Paige at Fri Jun 30 11:35:11 2006 (HXqNL)

31 OK let me start by saying, i know what you mean. No They shouldn't be labeled as heros because they were kids, they should be labeled as heros because of who they were at heart. Good People Fuck Up Too. There is no point for anyone else to get on here and cuss "Greg" out. It's Dumb. We're all getting worked up for nothing...just don't read this dumb shit anymore. He has stated his opinions and thats just grand. Theres noway we can change it, and by "fighting" with this "Teacher" will do nothing positive for your greiving process. Move elsewhere and forget about this dumbass site. If we all tried to protect the ones we lost then we would never truly be happy. Kiddos it comes down to this, cussing at him...praying that he feels the same pain we do...tring to say his opinion is wrong....Its all pointless and a complete waste of time. This guy will never truly know anything about who these kids were. Never smile with them. Never tell crazy ass jokes with them. Never get into trouble with them. Never talk to them. Never know what kind of hell some of them went through at home. Never feel guilty for his death when he shouldn't. Never have nightmares about the inccident. Never have to see the faces of loved ones crying as they stare down at the cold, lifeless, broken, body that barely resembled the real sweetheart you once held. No, he will never know any of those things...so theres no point in trying to teach the teacher. All i can say to reverse the damage thats already been done is to tell you guys to stay strong and keep moving on with life...live life to the fullest, but be cautious, live it as if you were living to make up for the life they will never get to finish. Love you guys so much. Clearly you are amazing friends... As For You "Greg" Start A Journal Sweetie, Really, What Kind Of "Teacher" Deals With Students Mourning All The Time And Claims To Know What They Are Going Through Would Write Such Strong Opinions? You Had To At Least Have An Idea That It Would Offend People Mouring. I Mean, Would You Post This On The Bullitin Board At Your School For All Your Kids In Griveing To Read? Use That Collage Leveled Brain Of Your To Think About Others. Why In Gods Name Would You Call Teenagers "Punks" Or Comment That They Should Be On A Corner Working Is Above And Beyond A Dumbass Move On Your Part. Clearly You Need To Take A Break From Working To Help Kids And Find A Better Job...Like A Police Officer. Then Let Me Know How You Feel When You Have To Tell The Familys That Someone Died. Tell Them How You Really Feel About Them. Hopefully You Dont Get The Reaction From People You Deserve.... Killing An Officer Is Highly Frowned Apon These Days Darlin... Ok, Now I'm Back To Being The Brittany I Was At The Beginning, Forget Him Lovelys And Stay Strong...

Posted by: Brittany Lynne at Fri Jun 30 13:03:24 2006 (tPVRw)

32 Well, Little Miss Bitchy (that is your My Space name, I see), might I suggest that you learn a little bit of respect for your elders and not presume to give us career or other counseling. Develop some basic literacy skills first, you spoiled child. And as i have said above, my goal WAS to offend people -- that is usually the response you get when you tell the unvarnished truth. But what people ought to be offended at is turning a bunch of kids who died breaking the law into a heroes and role-models, not my criticism of those who make that mistake. As for my more pointed comments, they were directed at what I perceive as the level of morality of the person involved, bivven the insults, profanity, and threats directed my way. You don't like it -- don't talk to me that way. I'm usually a much more accommodating host. Want an example? Notice the different way I engaged Paige when she decided to apply a little bit of intellect rather than the initial insulting barrage. I respect her -- but your response merits no respect at all.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jul 1 05:45:05 2006 (ZjpIs)

33 AAAlllllrrrriiight People. Lets drop it. No matter what we say or how much we agrue it's not going to change the fact that they are dead and are never coming back. They made a mistake, we all do. We just need to accept the facts. Lets respect eachother's opinions and be done with this. You may not agree, but everyone is intitled to thier own opinion. Now can we all agree to drop this? I mean come on. Its been exactly 8 months and a day. Let's just drop this arguement.

Posted by: Paige at Sat Jul 1 11:22:05 2006 (vyJ4U)

34 *nods in agreement*

Posted by: proxima at Sat Jul 1 23:03:36 2006 (OLMLi)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I guess I should not be surprised that Jesse Jacksonhas jumped up on top of Rosa Parks’ corpse along with Chucky Schumer to pimp the deceased civil rights pioneer's corpse. After all, this is the lowlife who built a career on the lie that he held the dying Martin Luther King in his arms and who wiped blood from the railing of the Lorraine Hotel on his shirt to give himself “street cred” on that awful April day.

Take his latest column in the Chicago Sun-Times.

There are those who will honor her now in the morning while working to overturn her legacy in the afternoon. President Bush honored her and then nominated Samuel Alito, a states' rights, strict-constructionist throwback to a bygone age, to the Supreme Court. Alito is a "favorite" of the conservative right wing in the nation that has stood on the opposite side of history from Rosa Parks. His legal foundation is clearly adverse to civil rights, women's right to self-determination and labor. He has even earned himself the nickname "Scalito," after Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's most radical reactionary.

To truly honor Rosa Parks, we urge three simple steps: First, support Rep. Jesse Jackson's (D-Ill.) bill to place a permanent statue of Rosa Parks in the Great Hall of Congress. Give Rosa a chance to stare down the champions of slavery and segregation that line those halls. Second, Congress must pass the extension of the Voting Rights Act, the key provisions of which will expire in 2007. Finally, the Senate must stand up against those judicial nominees who would turn their backs on equal opportunity for all. We cannot afford to go back to the age when the law worked against equal rights.

Really, Jesse? Last time I checked, it was the GOP that stood foursquare in favor of civil rights while it was your Slave-ocrat Party that supported Jim Crow. States rights is a legitimate constitutional principle that was abused by Democrats to deny rights to blacks; that does not make it illegitimate in a host of other areas. And as far as Alito being “adverse to civil rights, women’s rights to self-determination and labor”, please offer some concrete, indisputable details rather than vague accusations.

As for your three simplistic steps, I see only one that has merit – the Rosa Parks statue. The termination of the VRA provisions is a long-delayed part of that landmark piece of legislation which will do nothing to harm voting rights but will make the laws of the US apply equally in all states. And to deny this highly qualified and thoughtful jurist a place on the nation’s highest court would be a travesty which would disgrace ms. Parks, not honor her or her legacy.

Actually Jesse, let me point out that Ms. Parks was an honorable, honest woman who lived a life that was unquestionably exemplary. Perhaps the best way of honoring her is for a lying, cheating, stealing adulterer like yourself to retire from public life and to live out your life in a penitential fashion doing more good for others than for yourself.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

That is the question asked by Herbert E. Meyer in the American Spectator today. He poses it to Chucky Schumer and the rest of the Screamin’ Mimis of the Left who want to paint a superior nominee to the Supreme Court as somehow outside the mainstream of the American way of life.

He then proceeds to offer some possible answers.

For instance, is anyone who’s pro-life, or who thinks their kids’ schools should let parents know before organizing an abortion for their daughter, a “right-wing extremist”? Is anyone who thinks it’s okay for kids to pray in school, or to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, a “right-wing extremist?” Are you a “right-wing extremist” if you believe our economy is over-regulated, and that entrepreneurs should have a bit more elbow-room to create jobs for all the rest of us? How about anyone who thinks the United Nations is a vicious kleptocracy that can only be saved with a dose of tough love? Or anyone who thinks that other countries can behave however they like, but if they attack the US or lend support to those who do – we ought to kick their rear ends and not apologize for it?

In other words, is one a “right-wing extremist” if one holds beliefs that are supported by a majority of Americans and many of which were, prior to 1972, considered mainstream within the Democrat Party.

But best of all, Meyer offers some hallmarks of “left-wing extremism” for us to consider.

A “left-wing extremist” is an individual who believes:

• That the thing growing inside a woman’s body isn’t human, and can be disposed of at any time before birth.

• That our Judeo-Christian heritage is an abomination, that religion ought to be removed from the public square, and that our country should become a secular society.

• That the State, rather than parents, should have the primary responsibility for raising children.

• That private enterprise should be tolerated, because it generates the wealth for politicians to redistribute, but that entrepreneurs are evil.

In addition, a “left-wing extremist” is a politician who:

• Professes to love our country, but who shows more concern for the rights of terrorists than for the survival of the Americans they’re trying to kill.

• Shows up at every memorial service for the victims of 9-11, but whose speeches and votes make clear that he or she really believes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were legitimate responses to US policy, and that in effect we “had it coming.”

• Uses the phrase “I support our troops” as a code-word for “I hope we lose the war in Iraq so the Bush Administration will be a failure.”

In other words, a “left-wing extremist” is someone who holds the views put forth by Chucky Schumer – one of the most malignant influences on US politics today.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

That is the question asked by Herbert E. Meyer in the American Spectator today. He poses it to Chucky Schumer and the rest of the ScreaminÂ’ Mimis of the Left who want to paint a superior nominee to the Supreme Court as somehow outside the mainstream of the American way of life.

He then proceeds to offer some possible answers.

For instance, is anyone who’s pro-life, or who thinks their kids’ schools should let parents know before organizing an abortion for their daughter, a “right-wing extremist”? Is anyone who thinks it’s okay for kids to pray in school, or to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, a “right-wing extremist?” Are you a “right-wing extremist” if you believe our economy is over-regulated, and that entrepreneurs should have a bit more elbow-room to create jobs for all the rest of us? How about anyone who thinks the United Nations is a vicious kleptocracy that can only be saved with a dose of tough love? Or anyone who thinks that other countries can behave however they like, but if they attack the US or lend support to those who do – we ought to kick their rear ends and not apologize for it?

In other words, is one a “right-wing extremist” if one holds beliefs that are supported by a majority of Americans and many of which were, prior to 1972, considered mainstream within the Democrat Party.

But best of all, Meyer offers some hallmarks of “left-wing extremism” for us to consider.

A “left-wing extremist” is an individual who believes:

• That the thing growing inside a woman’s body isn’t human, and can be disposed of at any time before birth.

• That our Judeo-Christian heritage is an abomination, that religion ought to be removed from the public square, and that our country should become a secular society.

• That the State, rather than parents, should have the primary responsibility for raising children.

• That private enterprise should be tolerated, because it generates the wealth for politicians to redistribute, but that entrepreneurs are evil.

In addition, a “left-wing extremist” is a politician who:

• Professes to love our country, but who shows more concern for the rights of terrorists than for the survival of the Americans they’re trying to kill.

• Shows up at every memorial service for the victims of 9-11, but whose speeches and votes make clear that he or she really believes the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were legitimate responses to US policy, and that in effect we “had it coming.”

• Uses the phrase “I support our troops” as a code-word for “I hope we lose the war in Iraq so the Bush Administration will be a failure.”

In other words, a “left-wing extremist” is someone who holds the views put forth by Chucky Schumer – one of the most malignant influences on US politics today.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.