I'm not one for offering parayer requests on my site, but I have two that i would like to put out today. One is a source of concern, the other a source of joy.

The first strikes too close to home. As I've said many times, my darling wife has several health problems. Late this afternoon we got a call from our family doctor, who discussed hospitalizing her immediately because of some test results. The decision was to keep her home for a couple of days on absolute bed rest, with the tests to be run again on Thursday. Pray for a quick recovery and good results.

The second involves a friend. At the start of last year, I got a new colleague in the room across the hall, fresh out of college. I've watched her grow personally and professionally since then. I also heard a lot about a certain young man. They married this afternoon in Utah, surounded by loved ones. May God bless them today and in all their days and years together.

UPDATE -- 12/24/05: My darling wife was not hospitalized, but the test results do indicate some additional problems. Some of them may have to do with how medications interact with each other, but one may require some longer term lifestyle adjustments. More tests next week.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey, libertarian buddies (and anyone else, for that matter).

Vin Suprynowicz has this in his column today -- an opportunity to help someone outand get a good book in the process. It involves a gift he gave to author Claire Wolfe, and how it ended up on E-Bay.

Like a small stone starting a landslide, you never know where some small act of generosity may lead.

A couple of weeks back, I sent an autographed copy of the leatherbound collector's edition of "The Black Arrow" to Claire Wolfe, a fellow author whose contributions to the freedom movement include "Don't Shoot the Bastards (Yet)" and most recently (with Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) the young people's novel "Rebelfire: Out of the Gray Zone."
Advertisement

It's Christmas time. I wanted to acknowledge Claire's help and support. As an act of generosity, sending off a book that retails at $48.95 was not exactly something to write home about.

As it turns out, Walter Bark, the founding webmaster and guiding spirit of The Claire Files discussion forums has cancer, and is not expected to be with us much longer. Claire reports that, up Montana way, his friends Elias Alias, Basil Fishbone, and Iloilo Jones have been bearing the entire cost of the herbal (and other) medicines that are making Bark's final days tolerable.

Claire e-mailed to ask if I would object to her putting her autographed book up for auction on e-Bay, with the proceeds going to cover some of the costs of Walter's care.

I said fine -- it's her book now, after all. Hers, as well, is all the credit for this generous gesture. I did joke that I'd try to resist the Philistine urge to someday declare that a copy of one of my books had "sold for hundreds of dollars on e-Bay."

We both laughed at that "hundreds of dollars" part. The book went up for bids Wednesday, with an account of the charitable use to which the proceeds would be put, at a starting bid of $19.95, and a reserve of $39.95.

Claire was very pleased when the reserve was reached within hours. She offered to take back her expression of amusement about my "hundreds of dollars" comment when, by suppertime, it hit $305. She proceeded to declare herself "speechless" at around $400, I believe. As I sit down to write this at lunchtime Thursday, bidding has reached $615.

Make no mistake: no one thinks a single copy of this book is worth $615. What's happening is a spontaneous outpouring of generosity, without compulsion, without publicity (well, till now), without any firm guiding hand of government telling anyone how much it's his or her "duty to share."

It's tempting to say we don't know the ending, since the auction doesn't wrap up till Monday.

But in fact, we already know this story has a happy ending. Don't we?

Merry Christmas.

You stil have time to get the book and make a dying man's last days comfortable, so bid NOW.

God bless you Vin. God bless you, Clair. And most especially, God bless you Walter, whose writings i've never read -- may your days, be they many or few, be filled with comfort, joy, and love.

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.

Can you believe that only six decades after the liberation of Auschwitz and the other National SOCIALIST death camps, a major international leader wants to argue that it didn't happen -- and condemns those who object to his abrogation of documented historical fact as emotional and illogical?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust is a matter for academic discussion and the West should be more tolerant of his views, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman said on Sunday.

Ahmadinejad last week called the Holocaust a myth and suggested Israel be moved to Germany or Alaska, remarks that sparked international uproar and threaten diplomatic talks with Europe over Iran's nuclear programme.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi defended the president's remarks, which also drew a rebuke from the U.N. Security Council.

"What the president said is an academic issue. The West's reaction shows their continued support for Zionists," Asefi told a weekly news conference.

"Westerners are used to leading a monologue but they should learn to listen to different views," he added.

Some 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their allies between 1933 and 1945.

Ahmadinejad, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who was elected president, also said in October Israel was a "tumour" that must be "wiped off the map".

A statement drafted by European Union leaders described last week's Holocaust comment as "wholly unacceptable". The White House termed the remarks "outrageous".

Asefi denounced international condemnation as emotional and illogical.

"The EU statement is not based on international diplomatic norms. They should avoid illogical methods," he said.

"Westerners are used to leading a monologue, but they should learn to listen to different views."

Fine -- you want scholarly debate and discussion? I'll give you a proposition to debate in a scholarly fashion, and demand that you not engage in emotional and illogical responses.

Muhammad (may pigs shit upon him) was a deranged pedophile whose demented ravings, as recorded in the unholy Koran, have been the leading source of untold misery and evil over the last 14 centuries.

Now stick that in your hookah and smoke it, Mahmoud.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't go to movie theaters. In fact, I think the last time I went to a movie theater to see a first run film was a couple of years ago when my wife and I received some free movie passes as a gift from a friend, and so went to see (loathe as I am to admit it) Scooby-Doo. We check out movies from the public library (Harris County does a good job of getting relatively current DVDs) or, once in a great while (perhaps three times in the last five years) renting them from Blockbuster. Otherwise we wait for thm to show up on commercial television.

Even more than cost, the main reason we don't go to movie theaters is the fact that medical issues cause my wifeto have a difficult time sitting that long in an uncomfortable theater seat with folks crawling over her in the dark.

But if we did go, I have totell you that the following story would be reason enough for me to quit going.

The National Association of Theater Owners wants the Federal Communications Commission to allow the blocking of cell phone signals in theaters.

John Fithian, the president of the trade organization, told the Los Angeles Times theater owners "have to block rude behavior" as the industry tries to come up with ways to bring people back to the cinemas.

Fithian said his group would petition the FCC for permission to block cell phone signals within movie theaters.

Some theaters already have no cell phone policies and ask moviegoers to check their phones at the door, Fithian said.

I don't think so. I'll put my phone on vibrate, but I won't check my phone at the door. And I sure as hell won't go someplace that would have the audacity to block me from receiving or making an emergency call unless using the phone endangers the lives of others (like at a hospital). For theaters to demand a special exemption from laws prohibitting the blocking of cell phone signals is obscene.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

In an unwarranted move to delay consideration on an important legal issue, Judge Pat Priest yesterday cancelled a December 27 hearing at which he was to have considered prosecutorial misconduct charges against Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle in seeking a second indictment agaisnt Congressman Tom DeLay.

A state judge said Saturday he will not immediately consider separating two criminal charges against Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to allow an early trial, another blow to the former House majority leader's hopes of regaining his post.

Earlier this month, Judge Pat Priest dismissed a conspiracy charge against DeLay but refused to throw out more serious allegations of money laundering. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle served notice Monday that he intends to ask an appeals court to reinstate the conspiracy charge.

DeLay's attorneys had hoped Priest would separate the charges in an effort to move forward on the money-laundering charge while waiting for the appeals court decision.

DeLay, who denies wrongdoing, has been pressing for a quick resolution to his case so he can regain the majority leader's position before his GOP colleagues reconvene in late January and call for new leadership elections.

Priest rejected the defense bid on Saturday, saying he would not act until after the state's 3rd Court of Appeals rules. Priest also canceled a Dec. 27 hearing at which he was expected to consider the defense team's allegations of misconduct against prosecutors who brought the charges.

Now I don't find Priest's decision not to sever the charges to be unreasonable, despite the potential for violating DeLay's right to a speedy trial. As he notes in his ruling, appeals courts are supposed to expedite decisions in cases regarding dismissals of indictments. However, his failure to consider the misconduct allegations raises the specter of a second dismissal of charges and a second appeal by Earle -- which would further slow the process in a manner that makes a mockery of DeLay's right to a speedy trial.

DeLay's two co-defendants in the alleged scheme to violate a ban on corporate contributions to Texas candidates are not seeking a speedy trial. Priest said that although DeLay may be entitled to sever the charges, he thinks that "to go to trial on his case alone would require at least two trials where otherwise one would suffice for all three defendants."

"Out of considerations of judicial economy, I have determined to let my decision concerning a severance of counts wait until after the Third Court of Appeals of Texas, sitting at Austin, has made its ruling," Priest wrote.

Priest noted that state law directs the appeals court to give precedence to this sort of appeal, and he said he is "confident the court will act with all reasonable dispatch."

DeLay, in Washington on Saturday, said the judge's ruling does not mean the case will drag on for months. But even an expedited appeal could take six weeks, said his attorney Dick DeGuerin, of Houston, dimming the congressman's prospects for a January trial.

DeGuerin said he plans to file a motion Monday morning asking the appeals court to dismiss the appeal.

The desire of DeLay's co-defendents not to seek a speedy trial has, from what I can see, no bearing upon the right of DeLay to a speedy trial. Furthermore, the timing of the indictment brought by the partisan hack from Austin was intended to get the trial heard right during the heart of election seaso here in Texas, in an obvious attempt to influence the outcome of DeLay's race and those of other Republican cnadidates/

DeLay said Earle is being driven by a "living hate" and "makes so many mistakes he's actually helping us expedite this process." The congressman commented on the latest legal twist in his case after attending a closed-door meeting in the U.S. Capitol with fellow House Republicans, who were discussing the completion of legislative business.

DeGuerin also said Saturday that he thinks Earle is bringing the appeal solely to postpone the trial.

"I disagree with the judge's ruling, but what I'm most upset about is that the state is being so unscrupulous about how they're doing everything they can to drag this out, make it last as long as possible," he said.

What we have here is a political prosecution brought by the lowest form of vermin infesting the judicial system -- a corrupt prosecutor. Judge Priset should reconsider his cancellation of the December 27 hearing and issue a ruling on the prosecutorial misconduct charge at the earliest opportunity, so that the appeal of that ruling and the earlier dismissal of a charge of violating a non-existant stute can be heard at the same time, vindicting the right of Tom DeLay to a speedy trial.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.

Confederate Yankee points to this article from the News-Observer about the Wilmington Riot of 1898.

The 1898 riot that killed an unknown number of blacks in Wilmington was part of an organized, statewide effort to put white supremacist Democrats in office and stem the political advances of black citizens.

And in the wake of the riot, white supremacists in state office passed North Carolina's Jim Crow laws.

Those laws disenfranchised African Americans until the civil rights movement and Voting Rights Act of the 1960s.

In a 460-page document released today, the Wilmington Race Riot Commission describes the riot and accompanying coup d'etat as a watershed moment in North Carolina history.

"Because Wilmington rioters were able to murder blacks in daylight and overthrow Republican government without penalty or federal intervention, everyone in the state, regardless of race, knew that the white supremacy campaign was victorious on all fronts," the report says.

Democratic leaders, including News & Observer editor Josephus Daniels, developed a strategic campaign to put white supremacist leaders in the General Assembly and U.S. Congress during the 1898 elections. The Democrats were working to drive out a coalition government of Republicans and Populists, which had the support of black voters.

In Wilmington, Democrats fueled a push against a Republican-controlled city council. The day after the 1898 election, a mob of several hundred white men burned the building of a black-owned newspaper. African Americans in the city fled as the building burned, with families hiding in swamps and cemeteries for days with little more than the clothing on their backs, said LeRae Umfleet, a researcher with the state Office of Archives and History who authored the report.

The white mob overthrew the democratically elected city council and had all black city workers fired. Leading black figures were forced out of town.

No one was arrested for this act of rebellion against lawful authority during time of war (treaty negotiations to end the Spanish-American War were still underway in Paris), and Josephus Daniels, whose active support for white supremacy in the pages of his newspaper led to him being referred to by one historian as the "precipitator of the riot", eventually became Secretary of the Navy for the entire two terms of the Wilson administration.

So the next time you hear Democrats and their allies start talking about the "Bush regime" and "taking back our country", remember that this is their heritage -- they have done it before and will do it again given the chance.

Is it any wonder that they fear the Second Amendment -- for a well-armed citizenry is the bulwark against such nefarious deeds.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The hypocrisy of the Dems knows no bounds. These facts should be known to a lot of people, and let them judge after that. God bless

Posted by: Miguel at Fri Dec 16 23:49:47 2005 (UofLY)

2 As you have pointed out, history repeats itself time after time. With only a few changes, this could easily have been the recorded history of the Mormons being forced to leave Navoo in the middle of winter November, 1838. An extermination order was issued by the governor of Missouri, in effect giving mob rule the power to either kill or force the Mormons out of Missouri.

The point is that even in America, there has been sufficient evidence of hatred run rampant, for the purpose of race or religion it pops up from time to time in some very ugly ways.

Posted by: TF Stern at Sat Dec 17 08:05:55 2005 (dz3wA)

3 Yeah judge a political party on the happenings of 100 years ago. You can do that and we can judge the GOPigs on little things like Teapot Dome, Watergate, and Iran-Contra, difference is your shit happened in order 80, 33, and 18 years ago. G'head make that specios argument you hack ass hole

Posted by: effufucktard at Sat Dec 17 09:04:47 2005 (Sfcu+)

4 Hmmmmm -- so you equate a financial scandal, a second-rate burglary and a policy difference with the murder of 42 blacks and the overthrow of the elected government in a coup d'etat. Nice to know that you hold black lives to be so worthless.

But if you want more recent Democrat shenanigans, might I sugget that you consider the butterfly ballot created in 2000 in Palm Beach County by a Democrat official which is claimed to have disenfranchised thousands, the concerted effort by the Gore campaign to disenfranchise military voters in 2000, a century of Democrat efforts to prevent the passage of civil rights legislation championed by the GOP...

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 17 12:17:03 2005 (E4lNa)

5 While my friend Effie is a little harsh in his language, any sensible person knows that the democrats of today are not the democrats of 100 years ago, and that your run of the mill racist redneck votes republican these days.

Posted by: Dan at Sat Dec 17 13:25:55 2005 (aSKj6)

6 Yeah -- maybe some of them do, but the party denounces them and works to defeat them when they run for office.

On the other hand, very special racists get the title of "elder stateman" and, when the Democrats have a majority, President Pro Tem of the Senate

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 17 13:57:34 2005 (E4lNa)

7 Democrats believe in redemption. Byrd has changed with the times, and cannot fairly be accused of racism in his current behavior anymore than Bush should still be tagged with his leaving the TANG so that he could campaign for a racist.

Posted by: Dan at Sun Dec 18 06:18:39 2005 (aSKj6)

8 That's amusing -- given the fact that a courtly compliment to an old man on his 100th birthday (long after changing his stripes and supporting civil rights) was sufficient to get Trent Lott tarred as a racist.

Oh, yeah, that's right -- racist Democrats only believe in redemption for other racist Democrats. Republicans will be accused of racism without any significant evidence whatsoever. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given that FDR is trumpeted as a friend of the blacks despite refusing to desegregate the military, refusing to push for civil rights or anti-lynching legislation, and putting a known Kluxer on the Supreme Court.

Oh, and by the way, your slur directed against Winton Blount has only one problem to it -- a lack of supporting evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winton_Blount

I guess it is your own blind bigotry that leas you to presume that since the man was a Republican and a white southerner that he must be some sort of racist. I guess that makes you a lying liberal sack of shit, dan.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Dec 18 09:24:55 2005 (bSDky)

9 No, RWR, it wasn't blind bigotry that made me call Blount a racist. It was the fact that he was part of the infamous Republican "Southern Strategy", and that he used billboards claiming "A vote for Red Blount is a vote against forced busing . . . against coddling criminals . . . against welfare freeloaders."

You may be surprised that I agree with you that Trent Lott got shafted - it was a stupid thing to say, but it shouldn't have done the damage it did.

And your silly slams on FDR may be answered by the equally silly accusation that Lincoln did not integrate the army, did not support suffrage for women, and was, similarly, a product of his times.

Posted by: Dan at Sun Dec 18 11:50:51 2005 (aSKj6)

10 In other words, you have no evidence to support an accusation of racism against Blount.

Let's look at those three points on the billboard.

1) Opposition to forced busing. A legitimate position, given that such plans broke up community ties and resulted in long bus rides for students based solely on the color of their skin. The major (if unstated) premise of the busing plans was that black students were incapable of learning if not exposed to a sufficient number of white students every day. In addition, it remains a reasonable proposition that the mandate of ending segregation set forth in Brown (designed to get kids sent to the closest school, regardless of race) did not require forced integration (which sent kids away from the closest school because of their race). In addition, the forced busing programs were imposed by judges who took away local control of schools in a fundamentally anti-democratic manner. Opposition to forced busing is therefore not proof of racism.

2) Opposition to coddling criminals. One of the major criticisms of the Warren Court of the 1960s was the emphsis on the rights of criminals and the accuse over the rights of society to punish criminals. The Warren Court revolutionized the criminal justice system in many ways -- but at the cost of making it more difficult to obtain evidence, obtain convictions, and punish criminals. Unless you believe -- as you obviously do, based upon your comment -- that "criminal" and :lack" are synonymous, there can be no case made for calling someone a racist for taking a hard-line on crime and criminal justice issues.

3) Opposition to the welfare state. Lyndon Johnson's great Society programs were controversial -- and, ultimately, a disasterous failure in that they created generational poverty and incentives to avoid getting off the government teat. Exactly as Blount and others warned at the time.

As for the Sputhern Strategy, popular left-wing mythology paints it as a plot to appeal to racism. Actually, it was a plan to strip the Democrats of their southern base by taking a middle ground between the liberal Democrats (Kennedy, et al.) of the North and the racist Democrats of the South (Wallace, maddox, Byrd, et al.). By creating a viable alternative to the racists that controlled the southern Democrats for decades (with the acceptance of the allegedly nn-racist liberal Democrats of the North), the Republicans built a non-racist conservative coalition that dominates American politics to this day.

And as for my points about FDR, i was trying to point out how Democrat Klansmen and other racists have always been embraced byt the Democrat party without really repenting of anything.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Dec 18 12:44:28 2005 (bSDky)

11 Hah. You're still defending the billboard. Umm, sorry, I wish I had a way to break this to your more gently, but, YOU LOSE!!!! Your strained arguments don't pass the giggle test.

I don't mean to prolong your pain any further, and, if I were you, I'd probably ignore all this and tell Bush to spy on more citizens, but, anyhow, why did the republicans apologize for the "sputhern strategy" if it was so noble???

Posted by: Dan at Sun Dec 18 17:16:28 2005 (aSKj6)

12 Gee -- now we are into typo flames? That is the sure sign of a losing argument.

As for defending the billboard, you claimed that the points were racist and I explained that they are not.

And frankly, i don't think there should have been any apology for the Southern Strategy. Mehlman bought into the liberal Democrat mythology about it and pandered.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Dec 19 02:44:56 2005 (vfAbE)

13 Sorry about the ding on the typo - I thought it was a pretty funny typo. But I certainly don't want to be held up for ridicule based on my typing difficulties, either.

You didn't explain that the billboard wasn't racist, you just came out with the same claptrap a racist back then would have used to excuse the positions.

And the fact that you understand the background and motivations behind the Southern Strategy better than Mehlman does is, to use a carefully chosen word, incredible.

Posted by: Dan at Mon Dec 19 04:20:38 2005 (lw0Ed)

14 Those are the arguments that would have been used because they were true three decades ago. I think it says more about liberals that they believe "Criminal=black" and "welfare cheat=black" than it does about conservatives.

By the way -- pat buchanan recently demolished the "racist southenr strategy" argument.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Dec 19 09:09:18 2005 (KJjoZ)

15 Is that the same Pat Buchanan who defends Nazis and admires Hitler? Is that the same Pat Buchanan who called Dr. Martin Luther King a fraud? The same one who thought WMDs were called BLTs? You run in some freaky circles, my friend . . .

Posted by: Dan at Mon Dec 19 10:15:29 2005 (lw0Ed)

16 Defends Nazis -- you must mean the fellow who was "conclusively" proven to have been a sadistic concentration camp guard by the government, only to have that identification thrown out by courts in both the US and Israel.

Admire Hitler? You care to prove that? A quick Google search shows no evidence of that.

As for the King comment, you seem to have taken that one out of context. What i have found is a quote that says others view him that way, not that he does.

And why do I cite him (even though I have little use for him)? Because he was one of the architects of the Southern Strategy. That might give him a certain expertise that we both lack.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Dec 19 12:52:06 2005 (axH3w)

17 He may have expertise in race-baiting in the south, but he doesn't have credibility. Not as much as me or you.

Posted by: Dan at Mon Dec 19 14:16:16 2005 (aSKj6)

18 No, Dan, the only race-baiting I see is yours.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Dec 19 16:19:55 2005 (o9+7O)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If this stands, I suspect I will need to be available on December 27, since the partisan vermin hack running the Travis County Prostitutor's Prosecutor's are seeking to intimidate those who dare to engage in free speech in support of Tom DeLay.

Could the Travis County D.A. possibly be using his office to persecute his political opponents? Perish the thought!

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has subpoenaed two officials at the Free Enterprise Fund in connection with ads the conservative group has run criticizing him for his indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). The ads attacked Earle, who has a history of indicting his political enemies in both parties, comparing him to an attack dog.

The draft subpoena served to the organization demands that FEF communications director Todd Schorle and executive director O’Brien Murray testify in Texas at DeLay’s change of venue hearing on Dec. 27 — the Tuesday after Christmas.

In the subpoena, Earle also demands "any and all documentation regarding the advertisements that have been produced or paid for by the Free Enterprise Fund.

Excuse me, but doesn't this smack of an egregious violation of the constitutional rights of Americans ? After all, if criticism of a public official will bring a court order to appear on pain of imprisonment, won't that discourage such speech?

Ronnie Earle needs to be removed, disbarred, and imprisoned for his abuse of office.

UPDATE: The Washington Times reports that there is a particular item that Ronnie Earle wants to get his hands on.

What Mr. Earle wants, a source with special knowledge of the request tells this column, is a copy of the organization's donor list, so he can find out who paid for the ads.

The better to go after political opponents with, my dear -- a move clearly reminiscent of past Democrat prosecutors, who tried to shut down the NAACP by demanding lists of members and donors during the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

Posted by: Greg at 09:19 AM | Comments (69) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are America's Kids and Two Days of Infamy by The Education Wonks, and An Open Letter by Silent Running. 

Here are the full results of the vote.

Posted by: Greg at 08:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, we canÂ’t allow a city festival to be hijacked by Christians mentioning Jesus Christ, can we? Folks might be offended.

At the city's annual holiday celebration, a rabbi lighted a menorah. A dance troupe performed a traditional prayer to the gods.

But six young girls were told they they couldn't perform because they were wearing shirts emblazoned with a silver cross and the words "Jesus Christ" on the front.

The "Jesus Christ Dancers," a group of 8-to-12-year-olds who describe themselves as Christian hip-hop dancers, were scheduled to make their citywide debut at the Dec. 3 holiday festival.

Moments before taking the stage, employees from the city's Parks and Recreation Department barred them from performing, saying they did not want to convey a religious message in the show.

According to the group's dance instructor, Lita Ramirez, the dancers was asked to turn their shirts inside out. The group was also asked if its music had a religious message.

"I told him our music says 'You are my God' and 'We will worship You,'" Ramirez said. "I also said I think it mentions Jesus."

So letÂ’s make it clear what the rules are in this country where most folks are (at least nominally) Christian.

Rabbis lighting menorahs – OK.

Prayer to pagan gods – Acceptable.

Hip-hop music with Christian themes and shirts that mention Jesus – Absolutely not.

After all, it isnÂ’t like Christmas is His birthday.

Posted by: Greg at 08:29 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Kennedy Klan.

AS an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development.

Yeah, like anyplace where you and your fellow wealthy/liberal friends might have to ever see it or think about it.

Posted by: Greg at 11:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't wait to see this Democrat cockroach exterminated by the DeLay's team.

Rep. Tom DeLay's attorneys filed a subpoena Thursday seeking the testimony of grand jurors, including those who indicted the former House majority leader and those who rejected charges.

DeLay's legal team wants to prove prosecutorial misconduct by District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who they say "shopped around" the campaign finance case against DeLay to three different grand juries before finding one that would indict DeLay on money laundering and conspiracy charges.

State law prohibits prosecutors from attending grand jury deliberations, but the defense alleges that Earle unlawfully participated in the second grand jury's deliberations and tried to force those grand jurors to indict DeLay. Earle denies the allegations.

Grand jury testimony is secret and Earle does not have to release transcripts unless he's ordered to by a court, so the defense has asked Senior Judge Pat Priest to allow the grand jurors to testify.

DeLay's legal team points to a flurry of grand jury activity beginning with his initial indictment Sept. 28 on a charge of conspiring to violate state campaign finance laws in 2002.

A second grand jury considered the case after questions were raised about whether the appropriate law was used to indict DeLay. That panel did not indict.

Days later, a third grand jury indicted DeLay on more serious money laundering and conspiracy charges. That grand jury is still seated and is under oath not to discuss their proceedings.

Earle has said he went to the third grand jury after finding new evidence, which he didn't specify. In court documents, Earle maintains that the prosecutorial misconduct allegation is not a sufficient reason to violate grand jury secrecy.

Delay lawyer Dick DeGuerin said he would be prepared to argue the misconduct case at a Dec. 27 pretrial hearing with or without grand jury testimony.

"I don't think it's make or break, but it's very, very important," DeGuerin said. "We have other outside evidence to present."

My personal opinion is that Ronnie Earle will be very lucky if he manages to stay out of jail, much less retain his law license, after the amount of unethical and potentially illegal conduct he has engaged in as part of this politically-motivated vendetta.

Posted by: Greg at 05:06 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

Can you believe Harry Reid's audacity in making this statement?

Democratic leaders sternly criticized President Bush yesterday for saying former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is innocent of felonious campaign finance abuses, suggesting his comments virtually amounted to jury tampering before DeLay stands trial.

"The president of the United States said a jury does not need to assemble, that Tom DeLay is innocent," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "To have someone of his stature, the president of the United States, prejudge a case is something I've never seen before."

Now hold on just a minute. Democrats have universally been painting DeLay as guilty ever since the original indictment (trying to engage in an ex post facto application of the law) was handed down. They see no need for a jury to assemble to determine Tom DeLay's guilt. Yet when the president expresses his confidence in the innocence of a long-time friend and supporter, they go ballistic!

Consider this quote from Screamin' Howeird Dean:

Tom DeLay is neither the beginning nor the end of the Washington Republicans' ethical problems. America can do better than leaders who use their power to promote their own personal interests instead of the interests of the American people who elected them.

Clearly this is a statement that DeLay is guilty.

Similarly, what about this one -- predating he indictment by several months -- in which Dean explicitly convicts DeLay without there even being a charge levelled.

“Tom DeLay is corrupt. No question about it,” Dean said Friday. “This is a guy who shouldn’t be in Congress and maybe ought to be serving in jail.”

The House ethics committee is investigating whether DeLay violated congressional rules by taking foreign trips paid for by lobbyists. The Texas Republican has not been charged with a crime, but Dean said he would not apologize for saying earlier this month that DeLay “ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence.”

Remember, please, that the jail sentence comment came in the same interview in which Dean expressed doubt about the guilt of Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks.

You know, Hyppocritical harry Reid was silent about those statements. Could it be that he believes in the standard of "guilty until proven innocent"? Or even "guilty, and we don't give a damn if he's innocent"? Certainly he sees noting in such statements that might harm the man's right to a fair trial.

But heaven forbid that anyone express an opinion that Tom Delay is innocent -- that's jury tampering!

Posted by: Greg at 05:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

Terrorists supporting racial discrimination by government agencies disrupted a meeting intended to bring a government agency into compliance with a court order and Michigan law.

Following a raucous, table-tumbling protest involving a couple of hundred impassioned Detroit area students, a state elections panel bucked an appellate court order Wednesday and failed again to place an affirmative action ban proposal on next year's ballot.

The Board of State Canvassers voted 2-1, with one member not voting, to certify the so-called Michigan Civil Rights Initiative for the November 2006 ballot. It takes three votes to certify.

The meeting was disrupted by an opposition group, By Any Means Necessary, which recruited students from Cody, Cass Tech, Crockett and Mumford high schools in Detroit and Oak Park High School to swarm the meeting and keep the board from voting.

I want to hear no more comments from so-called civil rights activists about disenfranchisement. This bunch is pursuing an agenda to disenfranchise the entire state of Michigan by preventing the people from ever getting a chance to vote on an amendment that meets all legal requirements to appear on the ballot.

It is time for the governor to call out the National Guard and for the appellate court to hold in contempt the members of the Board of State Canvassers thwarting the will of the people and violating the order to certify the MCRI.

UPDATE: Much greater detail from Discriminations and Chetley Zarko.

OTHER VOICES: GOPBloggers, What If?, Politics [Michigan] and Discriminations. The last quotes Thomas Bray of the Detroit News.

A string of recent debates on the issue also suggests the difficulty that supporters of affirmative action are having in trying to mount a reasoned defense of such policies. In a recent debate with Ward Connerly, who led the successful California fight to end preferences, the dean of Wayne State University’s law school asserted that race-based admissions is a “civil right.” That left even the veteran Connerly slack-jawed with wonder, ignoring as it did the language of the Constitution and a century of efforts to define civil rights as equality – not inequality -- before the law.

Had a mob of student conservatives invaded a meeting of state officials, it would have been denounced as fascist. The fascism of the left tends to be excused, even by those who know better, as a case of overwrought idealism. But voters may not be so easily fooled.

Indeed. But let's remembr that Mussolini was primarily a man of the Left, and that his German ally was the head of the National SOCIALIST Party -- so it is most appropriate to call the BAMN rioters "fascists".

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 4 kb.

We donÂ’t hear much about the federal marriage amendment these days. Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Brookman wants to ascribe that to insincerity and political opportunism.

Think back a little more than a year ago, to the political campaigns of 2004. One of the hottest issues in presidential debates and congressional campaigns was the threat to traditional marriage posed by gay people seeking the right to wed.

At the time, President Bush and others were warning that the threat could be averted only by the most serious step available under our political system, amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage outright.

You may also remember how heated and emotional some of the rhetoric became. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and probably the most influential of conservative religious leaders, reflected the tone quite well in his April 2004 newsletter.

"Barring a miracle, the family as it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself" unless the U.S.

Constitution is amended, Dobson wrote, charging that for more than 40 years, gay Americans have pursued a master plan "that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family."

That kind of rhetoric had its desired effect, driving conservative voters to the polls in large numbers, helping to re-elect President Bush and increasing Republican representation in Congress and state legislatures.

But a year later, it seems pertinent to ask: Have you heard or read a single word about a federal gay-marriage amendment since the election?

No, you have not, because this supposedly all-important issue has vanished from the political landscape. Judging from the available evidence, this dire threat to marriage and family, this looming peril to the very core of American society, has simply disappeared as a concern. Certainly, nobody's talking about it or trying to do anything about it any longer.

Now this is partially true. There just is not a lot being done about the federal amendment. The reason is simple – the votes in Congress simply are not there to get the thing sent on to the states.

That does not mean nothing is happening.

Just last month, Texas passed an amendment banning gay marriage. Several states have placed marriage amendments on their ballots for different dates over the next year. In addition, petition drives and legislative action to place them on the ballot in other states are also underway. In other words, the action is currently being found at the state level, since there is little likelihood of one passing at the federal level now.

So while it is possible to claim that the issue of gay marriage was simply a wedge issue in 2004, it is more accurate to see it as having been moved from one battlefield to another for the time being. But he is right on one matter – the issue will be raised in the 2006 elections.

Not as a wedge issue insincerely used to garner votes, but because more and more states are placing traditional marriage in their state constitutions because the will of the people is being ignored on the federal level.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

How on earth can you sue the police dog simply for being – well – a dog?

One of the defendants has more than a leg to stand on in a lawsuit filed by a convicted drug dealer.

Andi has four legs. He's a dog used by the Athens County Sheriff's Department.
County Prosecutor C. David Warren said to his knowledge, it's the first time the county's dog has ever been singled out as a defendant. Warren has volunteered to handle Andi's defense personally.

"That dog could've done something to me or one of my attendants," said Wayne Francis Green, 46, of Albany, who filed the suit Nov. 18 in Athens County Common Pleas Court.

And the nature of the claim against Andi?

Green said Wednesday that he felt endangered by Andi's presence.

"They've got a mean ol' dog, you know what I'm saying? I take that pretty serious," Green said, adding, "I'm a dog lover, but that's the limit."

So the dog did nothing at all – he was just present.

But you have to love this part. Someone wih the county has a sense of humor about the situation.

Last week, Andi the German shepherd was informed that he's being sued, sort of. With a paw print, the dog "signed" the paper indicating he had been formally served with the complaint.

Still, Green is very serious about his idiotic complaint, proving that he has been using his own “merchandise”.

Green said he wants prosecutors to look into the dog's actions. "I want him charged with several different felony counts."

Felony counts? You canÂ’t charge him with a felony, you moron. HeÂ’s a DOG!

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Once kids reach high school, they tend to slack off in the “teacher gift” department. I’m glad, given the number of cheesy Christmas mugs and ugly Dollar Tree ornaments I’ve received, not to mention one pair of truly strange Christmas socks one I received my first year of teaching. After all, my student count usually exceeds 150 each year, and I would rapidly be drowned in mountains of “stuff” that serves no purpose but it would be rude to dispose of via the circular file. It was with this thought in mind that I read the following in today’s Houston Chronicle.

Now, before parents of school-age children indignantly huff and cross me off their holiday shopping list, or worse, send me a lump of coal, hear me out. I am one of you.

I am a parent. For years before I entered the classroom full time as a teacher, I sent my own elementary children to school toting beautifully wrapped packages containing that cute useless junk. In exchange, a thank you note dutifully penned by exhausted teachers returned home, and I patted myself on the back for my well-meaning gestures.

Until my second full year of teaching, I didn't understand the magnitude of holiday junk that visits elementary teachers each year, the variety of stuff that pours in! And the candy — we mustn't forget the candy! Towers of Chocolate (delicious, expensive, but obscene), candy that can't go to the attic, candy I'm no longer permitted to share with my students per the "Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value" policies. And try as I may to make my family eat it all, it beckons me until it is purged from my home. And then more candy and sweets magically appear, abandoned in the teacher's lounge. Even my big jeans won't fit until March. Trust me, your kids don't need an overweight, sugar-tripping, chocolate-high teacher.

So the non-edible holiday haul accumulates in my dining room. Eventually, it makes its way up to the attic with the rest of the holiday "stuff," and then it reappears the next holiday season as we pull Christmas down for decorating. It gets sent to my kids' school for their class holiday auction, to the nursing home, to Goodwill — or dare I say it, it gets regifted!

But wait — not all of it. That Starbucks card really came to the rescue the morning after that late-night grading marathon, and the movie gift card sure was a treat. The mall or department store gift certificate was an indulgence; I could pick what I wanted. How nice to have La Madeleine, Chili's, Panera, Pizza Hut and even a couple of those McDonald's "dollars" that gave me a night off from cooking dinner for my kids when I had a ton of papers to grade. The manicure gift certificate was prized, as were the gift cards for the bookstore, even the grocery store. One dollar, five dollars, 10 dollars — none of those gifts went to the attic, or to someone else.

I am a reformed Christmas junk-giver. I have taken the oath. My kids' teachers, scout leaders, Sunday school teachers, piano teacher and others get gift cards now, as generous as I can be (and believe me, I do understand the multiplication, with three children times five to seven school teachers each).

Let me say that I donÂ’t feel that students have to give me gifts at all, especially given the socio-economic situation of some of their families. But if they do, I would much rather have it be something useful than something cute. Let it be something I can use in the classroom.

And no more mugs.

(Actually, I got a great gift last night. I ran into a former student last night at Walmart, having not seen her in four or five years. I got to catch up on old times and laugh with her as she was getting of work. It did my heart a world of good to be able to see that she had grown up into the very dear young woman I knew she would be – and to share some of her joys and pains. God bless you, Stephanie – and good luck as you start back to college in a few weeks.)

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 721 words, total size 4 kb.

I canÂ’t help but be amused by Richard CohenÂ’s criticism of Hillary! for supporting a ban on flag-burning.

The First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred. It protects our most cherished rights -- religion, speech, press and assembly -- and while I sometimes turn viscerally angry when I see the flag despoiled, my emotions are akin to what I feel when neo-Nazis march. Repugnant or not, popular or not, it is all political speech. Her sponsorship of the flag measure calls for reconsideration all around -- either by Hillary Clinton and her support of the flag bill or by liberals and their support of her.

Does anyone know if Cohen is so absolutist on freedom of political speech with regard to McCain-Feingold? Or does he privilege flag-burning and Nazi marches over citizen participation in the democratic process?

Posted by: Greg at 01:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

HereÂ’s a suit I hope succeeds. After all, why should immigration criminals get btter tuition than American citizens?

About three dozen students sued the University of California on Wednesday, charging that it had violated federal law by allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates while maintaining higher rates for out-of-state students.

The students, all from out of state, are represented by a legal team that includes Kris Kobach, a former Justice Department official who shaped national immigration policy under former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Kobach said the policy discriminates against out-of-state students who are U.S. citizens and pay higher tuition than students who are in this country illegally.

The move plunges California into the midst of a national debate over how to handle the millions of students living in this country illegally.

Federal law requires state universities that offer in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants to do the same for students from other states, imposing a steep financial barrier to the policy. But since 2001, nine states, including California, have passed laws to circumvent that requirement.

Sadly, Texas is one of those states that passed such a law. Hopefully this lawsuit will lead to the overturning of this travesty.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

Some stories (scroll down) stand without further comment.

The remains of a U.S. sailor missing for 63 years since his aircraft crashed on a northern Pacific island in World War II have been identified and returned home for burial, the Pentagon said.

Seaman 2nd Class Dee Hall of Syra, Okla., will be buried today with military honors at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery in San Antonio.

Hall was one of seven crewmen aboard a U.S. Navy PBY-5 Catalina that took off from Kodiak Island, Alaska, on June 14, 1942, to attack targets on Japanese-held Kiska Island. The aircraft encountered bad weather and heavy anti-aircraft fire near the target and crashed with all crewmen on board.

In August 1943, U.S. forces recaptured Kiska. Both the crash and burial sites were found and excavated in 2003. Military forensic experts identified Hall and the other missing crewmen, the Pentagon said.

A grateful nation humbly thanks you for your service and your sacrifice.

Rest in peace.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

What else are observers to make of the statements of Jim Wallis and his supporters, given the conflicting statements of organizers of yesterdays protest rally in Washington.

Jim Wallis makes it clear that the rally is based upon their religious faith, to protest a budget that their understanding of Christianity views as immoral.

The group's founder, Jim Wallis, called the event "a revival," adding that, "We're here because of Jesus, because of our faith." The group complained that the federal budget is "immoral" because it cuts spending on social programs.

Not, of course, that they are willing to come out and honestly admit that they want the budget to reflect their religious values.

But when asked by Cybercast News Service whether he was urging the government to promote Judeo-Christian values, Rivera said he was not. "What we're saying is that ... whether you have a religious tradition like many people here do, or just come out of a human tradition, we don't think the country should balance its budget on the back of its most vulnerable citizens."

Rivera said his group believes that "budgets reflect your priorities and church people from all over the country ... are here with their leadership asking that this budget not be passed."

He said tax cuts should be rolled back and that spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq "while cutting food stamps ... doesn't really reflect moral priorities."

So when it comes down to it, they are not willing to admit that what they want is THEIR interpretation of Scripture codified in the budget. After all, that would be (in the current parlance of the Left) the establishment of a theocracy – so they have to deny their religious motivations.

I think that is called “bearing false witness”.

UPDATE: Bob Ellis of Dakota Voice has a great piece on this issue.

UPDATE 2: I hadnÂ’t seen this article about the different issues taken up by the religious right and religious left. It makes me question the Christian witness of Jim Wallis even more.

"It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important," said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. "But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that."

Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders "have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees," he said. "They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical."

What Wallis misses, though, is that it is the very conservative Christians he is bashing who do a great deal of the “leg-work” to help the poor through private programs. One can legitimately question the balance of public vs. private involvement in helping the poor without being unbiblical. Indeed, I would argue that it is more biblical to support charitable private action on behalf of the poor than it is to call for mandated involuntary giving through increased taxes, spending, and transfer payments. Indeed, Wallis and his ilk are calling upon government to replace and assume the role of the Church – on the very theocratic model of Old Testament Israel that the Left in this country claims to reject.

Indeed, Wallis has to come up with his own personal translation of Isaiah 10:1-2 in order to even find a biblical leg to stand on.

"Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan."

The verses are more commonly translated differently – and the closest thing I could find is the following from the New American Bible.

1 Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and who write oppressive decrees,

2 Depriving the needy of judgment and robbing my people's poor of their rights, Making widows their plunder, and orphans their prey!

But even if you accept the Wallis translation, you would first have to determine that the statutes are “unjust” (does one have, as a matter of justice, a right to the fruits of the labor of others?). Furthermore, you would have to get around the niggling little detail that the second verse is, based upon the original source, dealing with issues of failing to protect the rights of the poor, widows, and orphans in courts, not in terms of legislation. Wallis, I daresay, is clearly reading in to the text what he wants there rather than reading out of it what is there – a clear failure for one who wants to be taken seriously as a judge of what views are “unbiblical”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 837 words, total size 5 kb.

There are two different versions of the resignation of Professor Paul Mirecki from his position as department chair of the Religious Studies Department at the Kansas University.

One paints the resignation as voluntary.

KU spokeswoman Lynn Bretz, in an e-mail to the Journal-World, said Mirecki met with Romzek on Dec. 6 to discuss the department’s recommendation that he resign from the chairman’s post. After the talk, Mirecki concluded he should submit a resignation, she said.

“At a computer in Strong Hall, away from his departmental office in Smith Hall, Professor Mirecki composed and typed the letter himself, with no one else in the room,” Bretz wrote. “He pushed the print command button, sending the letter to a printer in another room, next to a secretary’s desk. The letter was printed on the letterhead at hand. Professor Mirecki retrieved the printed letter from the secretary, signed it in front of the secretary and left it there. … In addition, Professor Mirecki had told at least one KU administrator on Dec. 5, following the departmental faculty meeting that day, that he felt the need to step down as chair.”

The other, put forth by Mirecki and his lawyer, is a bit different.

In a fiery statement to the Journal-World on Friday, Mirecki said he had “no choice about signing the resignation” and he pointed out the resignation letter was typed on stationery from the office of Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Mirecki’s attorney, David J. Brown, said the issue was a frequent matter of dispute in labor situations.

“If you’re forced to sign a resignation letter, have you voluntarily resigned or have you been fired?” Brown said. “If he’d typed his own resignation letter, it would probably have been on his stationery.”

* * *

“It’s not how he described things to me,” Brown said. “The point he made was very clear that the dean and another administrator made it clear to him that he had to resign.”

In the end, I do not see the differences as significant. The important thin is that Mirecki is out of a position in which he could no longer be effective. His colleagues in the department told him that they wanted him out, presumably because the controversy rendered him tainted goods that would harm the department.

I’ve offered an analogy other places in the blogosphere in comment sections. Imagine that a professor was chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies at a major university and had a major gripe with the direction that the civil rights establishment was headed. Imagine that he submitted a letter to a semi-public internet forum in which he said he was going to offer a course demolishing the mythology of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as a “slap in the face” to the “darkies” (or some other slur), and that the letter made it into the press. How long could this professor effectively continue to serve as department chair? How long, in fact, would he be likely to last as a member of the department at all, given his apparent hostility towards a major segment of those about whom he was teaching?

That is precisely the situation in which Mirecki finds himself – caught out in the open as hostile to a major segment of Christianity, using his position to push a hostile agenda, and using bigoted slurs to lash out at those he clearly despises. Personally, I have no problem with dealing with creation stories as mythology in a class – my Old Testament professors did as much when I was in the seminary.

What I see as problematic is the unprofessional agenda-driven nature of the proposal, which he intended to use to discredit the beliefs in a one-sided manner so as to denigrate those who hold them. That is simply unacceptable – and is ample reason for Mirecki’s departure, whether it was voluntary or not. Indeed, I would hope that such unprofessional behavior would be grounds for dismissal.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 4 kb.

There are two different versions of the resignation of Professor Paul Mirecki from his position as department chair of the Religious Studies Department at the Kansas University.

One paints the resignation as voluntary.

KU spokeswoman Lynn Bretz, in an e-mail to the Journal-World, said Mirecki met with Romzek on Dec. 6 to discuss the departmentÂ’s recommendation that he resign from the chairmanÂ’s post. After the talk, Mirecki concluded he should submit a resignation, she said.

“At a computer in Strong Hall, away from his departmental office in Smith Hall, Professor Mirecki composed and typed the letter himself, with no one else in the room,” Bretz wrote. “He pushed the print command button, sending the letter to a printer in another room, next to a secretary’s desk. The letter was printed on the letterhead at hand. Professor Mirecki retrieved the printed letter from the secretary, signed it in front of the secretary and left it there. … In addition, Professor Mirecki had told at least one KU administrator on Dec. 5, following the departmental faculty meeting that day, that he felt the need to step down as chair.”

The other, put forth by Mirecki and his lawyer, is a bit different.

In a fiery statement to the Journal-World on Friday, Mirecki said he had “no choice about signing the resignation” and he pointed out the resignation letter was typed on stationery from the office of Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

MireckiÂ’s attorney, David J. Brown, said the issue was a frequent matter of dispute in labor situations.

“If you’re forced to sign a resignation letter, have you voluntarily resigned or have you been fired?” Brown said. “If he’d typed his own resignation letter, it would probably have been on his stationery.”

* * *

“It’s not how he described things to me,” Brown said. “The point he made was very clear that the dean and another administrator made it clear to him that he had to resign.”

In the end, I do not see the differences as significant. The important thin is that Mirecki is out of a position in which he could no longer be effective. His colleagues in the department told him that they wanted him out, presumably because the controversy rendered him tainted goods that would harm the department.

I’ve offered an analogy other places in the blogosphere in comment sections. Imagine that a professor was chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies at a major university and had a major gripe with the direction that the civil rights establishment was headed. Imagine that he submitted a letter to a semi-public internet forum in which he said he was going to offer a course demolishing the mythology of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as a “slap in the face” to the “darkies” (or some other slur), and that the letter made it into the press. How long could this professor effectively continue to serve as department chair? How long, in fact, would he be likely to last as a member of the department at all, given his apparent hostility towards a major segment of those about whom he was teaching?

That is precisely the situation in which Mirecki finds himself – caught out in the open as hostile to a major segment of Christianity, using his position to push a hostile agenda, and using bigoted slurs to lash out at those he clearly despises. Personally, I have no problem with dealing with creation stories as mythology in a class – my Old Testament professors did as much when I was in the seminary.

What I see as problematic is the unprofessional agenda-driven nature of the proposal, which he intended to use to discredit the beliefs in a one-sided manner so as to denigrate those who hold them. That is simply unacceptable – and is ample reason for Mirecki’s departure, whether it was voluntary or not. Indeed, I would hope that such unprofessional behavior would be grounds for dismissal.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 696 words, total size 4 kb.

Sorry, Mr. Khan, but you are simply too soft on illegal immigration for my taste.

About 40 protesters, including Republican City Councilman M.J. Khan, appeared in front of City Hall on Tuesday to oppose a resolution that would require Houston police to enforce immigration law.

City Councilman Mark Ellis has introduced the resolution, which is not expected to get support from a council majority. Critics led by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now gathered for a protest before the second public hearing on the proposal.

Khan made it clear he strongly opposes illegal immigration. But he said it is the responsibility of specially trained federal officials to check for valid visas and passports.

Asking Houston Police Department officers to enforce immigration law would invite racial profiling, Khan said.

"Chances are, someone with broken English who looks like me is going to get detained," said Khan, a native of Pakistan and a naturalized U.S. citizen.

City offices are officially nonpartisan, but Khan is widely known to be one of the council's eight Republicans. Ellis has said Khan and Shelley Sekula-Gibbs are the only Republicans who haven't supported his proposal.

Yeah, you are right – it is likely that folks who look like you with poor language skills are going to be detained. Unfortunately, such individuals are more likely to be in this country illegally. But the measure in question is not going to require HPD to go around conducting immigration raids – it will simply be a citizenship check in conjunction with other law enforcement contacts, doing away with the de facto sanctuary policy that has been in effect for years in Houston. It is much more probable that someone who looks like you – broken English or not – will not ever be asked about their citizenship at all.

Oh, and Shelley – don’t expect me to be offering you any support when you seek higher office after the end of your term-limited service on City Council unless you get behind this proposal NOW.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

Sorry, Mr. Khan, but you are simply too soft on illegal immigration for my taste.

About 40 protesters, including Republican City Councilman M.J. Khan, appeared in front of City Hall on Tuesday to oppose a resolution that would require Houston police to enforce immigration law.

City Councilman Mark Ellis has introduced the resolution, which is not expected to get support from a council majority. Critics led by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now gathered for a protest before the second public hearing on the proposal.

Khan made it clear he strongly opposes illegal immigration. But he said it is the responsibility of specially trained federal officials to check for valid visas and passports.

Asking Houston Police Department officers to enforce immigration law would invite racial profiling, Khan said.

"Chances are, someone with broken English who looks like me is going to get detained," said Khan, a native of Pakistan and a naturalized U.S. citizen.

City offices are officially nonpartisan, but Khan is widely known to be one of the council's eight Republicans. Ellis has said Khan and Shelley Sekula-Gibbs are the only Republicans who haven't supported his proposal.

Yeah, you are right – it is likely that folks who look like you with poor language skills are going to be detained. Unfortunately, such individuals are more likely to be in this country illegally. But the measure in question is not going to require HPD to go around conducting immigration raids – it will simply be a citizenship check in conjunction with other law enforcement contacts, doing away with the de facto sanctuary policy that has been in effect for years in Houston. It is much more probable that someone who looks like you – broken English or not – will not ever be asked about their citizenship at all.

Oh, and Shelley – don’t expect me to be offering you any support when you seek higher office after the end of your term-limited service on City Council unless you get behind this proposal NOW.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

What is more important – getting rapists and child abusers off the street or making sure that parents don’t know about significant events in the lives of their children? Normal people with even a scintilla of decency would pick the first option. Planned Parenthood picks the second – and boasts of it on their website.

The Web site for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, the San Francisco chapter of Margaret Sanger's organization, features a section of "Shared Stories,", which it describes as "real stories" from its customers. Here is the top story listed in the section, exactly as it appears on the site [if that link doesn't work, the page is in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine]

It Keeps Us Safe I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way. I was 14 when I decided to start having sex, the day I made that choice I made an appointment to get birth control pills. I'm 17 now, I've been with my current boyfriend for about two years. During that time i've been HIV and STD tested four times. Right now I'm
sitting in the waiting room while my boyfriend gets the results for his HIV test. We love each other so we're responsible and Planned Parenthood helps us to do that.

- name withheld -

"It Keeps Us Safe"? Safe from what? Safe from parents finding out their little girls were raped? It certainly doesn't keep children safe from rapists.

To recap: An 11-year-old girl walked into Planned Parenthood, saying she had been raped. Not just statutory rape, either; forcible rape.

Planned Parenthood assured the girl that it would not contact her parents, and it was true to its word. Likewise, it must not have contacted the authorities either, otherwise the parents would certainly have been notified.

Thanks to Planned Parenthood, the rapist remained at large, still free to attack other little girls.

Teachers, social service personnel, and medical professionals are required to report sexual abuse of minors. Either Planned Parenthood is operating in violation of California law or they go to great lengths to insulate their mandated reporters from coming in contact with or becoming aware of abuse details – a situation which certainly raises questions about the quality of their treatment and their concern for the young women. After all, just among the medical professionals the mandated reporters include the following.

Health care personnel who are mandated reporters include:

a physician and surgeon, psychiatrist, psychologist, dentist, resident, intern, podiatrist, chiropractor, licensed nurse, dental hygienist, optometrist, marriage,
family, and child counselor, licensed clinical social worker or any other person who is currently licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of
the Business and Professions Code; any emergency medical technician I or II, paramedic, a person certified pursuant to Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code; a psychological assistant registered pursuant to Section 2913 of the Business and Professions Code; a marriage,
family and child counselor trainee, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 4980.03 of the Business and Professions Code; and unlicensed marriage, family and child counselor intern registered under Section 4980.44 of the Business and Professions Code, a state or county public health employee who treats a minor for venereal disease or any other condition, a coroner, or a medical examiner, or any other person who performs autopsies (P.C. 11165.7).

Regardless, it is clear that PP is so concerned with the privacy of minors that they would prefer that rapists and abuser run free, despite at a minimum having a moral obligation to take action. Do you want such folks operating in your city or town?

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 5 kb.