Ninth Circuit In First Amendment Tussle

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, is not know for being part of the religious right. The court, best known for declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional a couple of years ago, is now facing charges from an atheist lawyer that it unconstitutionally promotes religion. At issue is the courtÂ’s seal.

The case was brought by an attorney who was admitted to practice before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June. In his lawsuit against the San Francisco-based court, Ryan Donlon said the certificate admitting him contains the court's seal which unlawfully contains what he believes is a tablet object representing the Ten Commandments.

Cathy Catterson, the court's clerk, said the seal highlights a woman, known as "the Majesty of the Law" who is reading a large book. At her feet is a tablet with 10 unreadable lines on it - what Donlon believes is the Ten Commandments.

Catterson said the tablet has "the same shape" of the Ten Commandments but "you can't read the text of it."

She said the drawing became the court's seal decades ago, and is a depiction of a tile mosaic in one of the century-old courthouse's ornate courtrooms.

Now let me see if IÂ’ve got this straight. The mere depiction of tablets representing the Ten Commandments, without a single word upon them, is unacceptable in an allegorical work. The mere presence of the tablet in the context of the larger work unconstitutionally entangles church and state. Have we reached a new level of absurdity in this country?

Like it or not, the Western legal tradition has many sources, one of which is the ancient Hebraic law represented by the Ten Commandments. Its depiction is an acknowledgement of an important source of law. Its presence on the seal in no way requires an affirmation of religious belief or an endorsement of the contents.


UPDATE: Look who weighed in on the case -- and thinks this suit is pretty silly.

Others were skeptical of Donlon's suit, including the lawyer who persuaded the 9th Circuit in 2002 that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to a government endorsement of religion.

"I'm not impressed," said Michael Newdow, the Sacramento atheist-doctor-lawyer who ultimately lost his challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court but is still fighting the issue on other fronts. After examining the seal and the markings in question, he said: "It could be the Bill of Rights. I don't know what the heck that is."

Newdow said Donlon appears to be hostile toward religion.

"You look at that seal and you don't get the sense that someone is pushing religion," he said. "It's not the same as putting up a giant monument out of nowhere."

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

Call For Saudi Sanctions

By no stretch of the imagination is Saudi Arabia a beacon of freedom. It is a repressive theocracy that fails to meet the basic standards of human rights necessary to be considered a civilized nation. That we receive half-hearted support in the war on terrorism is hardly grounds for our turning a blind eye to the religious repression that goes on there. Saudi Arabia strictly prohibits all public religious expression other than those that follow the government's interpretation of Islam, and regularly detain individuals who violate religious laws under cruel and demeaning conditions. And even though Saudi Arabia was labeled a “country of particular concern” by the State Department’s religious freedom watchdog, that designation carried with it no sanction. Some folks want to change that.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, the [U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)] recommended that the U.S. identify Saudi government officials responsible for severe violations and not allow them entry into the country. It should also bar officials who propagated around the world "an ideology that explicitly promotes hate, intolerance, and human rights violations."

The government should also issue a demarche (warning), urging Riyadh to stop funding or other support for literature or other activity promoting hate, intolerance, and human rights violations, "including the distribution of such materials in the United States and elsewhere outside of Saudi Arabia."

Further, the U.S. should not issue licenses to export "dual-use" items - materials that could be used for both military and civilian purposes -- to any Saudi government agency responsible for severe abuses, it recommended.

Last year, shackles, leg-irons "and other items that could be used to perpetrate human rights violations" were among goods exported from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia.

"As world events of the past several years have confirmed, ensuring that governments respect freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief both advances our strategic interests and is a vital component of securing broader freedoms," Bansal said.

The presidentÂ’s recent inaugural address dealt with freedom around the world. LetÂ’s continue to promote such freedom by placing these limited sanctions on the Saudis. After all, we must hold our allies to a standard higher than the one to which we hold our enemies.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.

Unclear On The Concept

LetÂ’s see. Ward Churchill is a professor at Colorado University, a state school funded through legislative appropriations of taxpayer money. And yet he has the gall to make this statement?

"I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you. . . . The Board of Regents should do its job, and let me do mine."

Uh, dude, you might want to rethink that position. The reality is that you do work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. Your job exists only at the sufferance of the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. The legislature of the state of Colorado could abolish you department, or even the entire university, tomorrow. Now there might be room for discussion of what your employment by the taxpayers of the state of Colorado allows you to do, but make no mistake -- you work for those taxpayers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Judge Stands Up For Military

One of the more outrageous practices in recent years has been the ban on military recruiting on some college campuses because of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Congress passed the Solomon Amendment in 1995, penalizing schools that receive federal money if they refuse to allow recruiters on campus. Unfortunately, that law was recently struck down by a federal judge. But I like the response by another federal judge, U.S. District Judge William Acker Jr., who has decided that he will no longer hire law clerks from those schools.

Acker wrote that he was exercising the same freedom of speech that U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall supported when she ruled Jan. 31. She backed the faculty's claim that their rights to free speech were violated by enforcement of the Solomon amendment, which requires schools to provide access to military recruiters or lose federal funding, including student loans.

In response, Acker said Yale Law School students need not apply.

"Some of my very best law clerks have been from the law school from which I proudly graduated," Acker said. "I therefore recognize that this publicly announced decision will hurt me more than the allowing of military recruiters would hurt YLS."

I suspect the judge will find some very fine law clerks from other schools. The contempt that elitist institutions are showing to America will provide students from other schools with a chance to show their ability, and to prove that the mere fact that a school is old does not mean it is superior. I hope more judges will have the guts to stand up to the anti-Americanism of institutions which lack the patriotism and commitment to freedom to allow their students the opportunity to talk to military recruiters.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Pizza Delivery -- By Any Means Necessary

When I was in seminary, I heard stories from some of the priests on faculty about the lengths they had to go to, decades before, to get pizzaÂ’s surreptitiously delivered to what was then a closed campus. Those stories floated to the top of my mind as I read this article.

The lieutenant stopped off in his Lynx chopper to deliver the takeaway during a training exercise, The Sun newspaper reported.

His landing in the Stanford area was cleared, but the delivery of the pizza was not, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said today.

The 25-year-old Army Air Corps lieutenant pilot, based in Wattisham, Suffolk, was delivering the pizza to his girlfriend, an officer cadet.

A MoD spokesman said: "There was a training sortie by Lynx helicopter on Jan 25.

"The training exercise consisted of low-level map reading. It involved a landing in the Stanford area.

"The pilot took it upon himself to basically deliver this pizza.

"He has been made aware that the chain of command doesn't condone his actions and has been disciplined."

But you’ve got to admit – it will be a great story to tell the grandkids some day.

Posted by: Greg at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Problem Solved

I recently blogged on a story in which a trapped vacationer urinated his way out of his snow-covered car after being caught in an avalanche. Now IÂ’ve found this story about putting snow to good, if unexpected, use.

Romanian firefighters managed to put out a fire in an apartment by throwing snowballs through the window.

They used snowballs because they could not got their fire engines close enough to the building in Sibiu.

Fire crews arrived within minutes of the alarm being raised by neighbours of the elderly woman who lived in the apartment.

But icy roads prevented them from getting close enough to the building to use their hoses so they resorted to desperate measures.

Chief firefighter Florian Chioar told National newspaper: "We had to do something because our cars couldn't get near that building. So we used the snow and put out the fire in about 30 minutes."

So remember, folks, that that delinquent that pegged you with a snowball isn’t really a delinquent – he’s practicing fire safety skills!

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

The Problem With Activist Jurisprudence

Judges are not philosopher kings, no matter what they may believe in their heart of hearts. Their continued failure to recognize their subordinate role in the constitutional order endangers the whole structure. Such activist judges tend to write in terms of sweeping principle not explicitly contained in the Constitution. Consider this famous example from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, devised by Justices Kennedy, OÂ’Connor, and Souter.

"Intimate and personal choices," the justices wrote, are "central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Such a principle sounds reasonable, but it contains in it the seeds of many a decision overturning long-standing legal principles and time-honored laws supported by the people. It was used in Lawrence v. Texas to knock down the Texas sodomy law, and has been cited by those out to legalize homosexual marriage. James Taranto points out the problem with reliance on such a judicially created principle.

Abortion and same-sex marriage, by contrast, do spark strong opposition, but not on privacy grounds. Abortion opponents argue that life before birth is worthy of legal protection, while the case against same-sex marriage is that it confers public approval on gay relationships--approval the New York and Massachusetts courts have given without public consent.

When judges find rights in hidden constitutional meanings, they run a twofold risk. If they limit those rights, striking balances and compromises between such competing values as privacy vs. life or privacy vs. morality, they act as politicians, only without democratic accountability. The alternative, to let those rights expand without limit, seems more principled and thus is more appealing. But it ignores democracy's most important principle of all: the right of the people to govern themselves.

In effect, the judges limit the people and their elected representatives to the regulation of matters that are unimportant, reserving to themselves the role of determining what the law shall be on important matters. This overthrows the constitutional understanding of our republican form of government by making judges, rather than the people, supreme. And if the supremacy of the people is eliminated, does it not take with it the legitimacy of the government?

Posted by: Greg at 03:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.

The Chalabi Challenge

Ahmed Chalabi is emerging as an important in the new Iraqi political landscape. That may create some problems for the US, since AmericaÂ’s former fair-haired boy has been roughly treated by American officials and their allies in the Provisional Government. Barbara Lerner presents an interesting review of the charges made against him by his enemies. It isnÂ’t flattering to the folks at CIA and State.

Her conclusion?

All in all, it is in America's interest to explore the possibility of a new relationship with a newly empowered Ahmed Chalabi, because clinging to the old slanders is more likely to damage us than him. An apology for having maligned him unfairly in the past would be a good way to start.

Sounds like a good plan to me. We need friends on all sides in Iraq -- and if divorcing the policy errors of the former powers-that-be at CIA and State will do it, then it needs to be done.

UPDATE: The New York Sun has an interesting analysis of the Chalabi situation.

Posted by: Greg at 02:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Good Things Happen To Good People

If your boss disappeared, could you keep the business afloat for several months – without access to the checkbook? Could you keep the employees paid, inventory stocked, and generally make a go of it? I would personally say no – but I think Dawna Lentz would disagree with me.

Dawna Lentz, the manager who ran a Quiznos Sub shop on a shoestring after the owners went absent, won't lose her job as she'd feared.

On the contrary, Quiznos is flying the 25-year-old to its Denver headquarters to meet company President Steve Shaffer and to go through training to become a certified manager.

"She's shown loyalty to Quiznos like no other employee has," corporate spokeswoman Stacie Lange said yesterday. "Her ability to keep that store afloat through a very difficult time needs to be commended."

Lentz received an outpouring of support after her story appeared in The Seattle Times on Friday. For the past two days, customers lined up at the Holman Road Northwest store, which on Tuesday was out of just about everything but bread and lunchmeat.

Some people gave kudos, some offered jobs, and others just ordered subs that had been off the menu for weeks after store ran out of the special Quiznos ingredients.
"It was so wonderful to have sales," Lentz said. "That big weight was taken off my shoulders."

Lentz and her crew of three had kept the franchise afloat since November, when the bank account ran dry and one of the principal owners stopped showing up. The other partner, an absentee owner, would check in occasionally but hadn't been seen for weeks, Lentz said.

Lentz used the daily cash flow to buy the necessary food supplies, pay employees, and keep the doors open. She paid employees in cash daily, and made sure that wages were kept up to date as best she could. Most folks would have walked away. Is it any wonder that Quiznos wants to keep her and that others want to lure her away with better job offers?

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

Voter Fraud = Political Insurgency

The dilapidated house at 1717 Ohio St. in East St. Louis symbolizes the insurgency that is oppressing this once-great city.

Nine people are registered to vote there, even though it has been vacant for years. Five of those people cast absentee ballots in the March 2004 primary, and one of them voted in person on Nov. 2. This no doubt is just one example of many.

Like the insurgents in Iraq, the political insurgents of East St. Louis don't want democratic elections. Instead of bombs, they use vote fraud to disrupt the process. But in both places, their power comes from fear, not strength.

Yeah, having worked elections in East St. Louis many years ago, I can attest to that. The political movers and shakers will do anything to keep their power – whether it meant vote fraud, running stalking horse candidates, or out-and-out intimidation of folks who challenge the status quo. It has taken years, but the authorities are finally going after the election fraud in that town. Maybe that means that some day there will be meaningful voting there.

The Belleville News Democrat offers some advice to church and community groups that are concerned about fair elections. I think it should be heeded by folks in every community where there are concerns about the integrity of the voting process.

The city's election commission either can't or won't stop the problems. So we encourage church and community groups to start policing the election process.
Pick a precinct and walk it to compare the registered voters with addresses, so places like 1717 Ohio St. are detected. Organize impartial election observers to watch at the polls during the next election. Report problems to the U.S. attorney's office, which is working to clean up the mess, and [the local media].

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Reid Whines -- "Quit Telling The Truth!"

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has charted a course of obstructionism ever since he assumed his leadership position from Tom Daschle. He has indicated in interviews that he intends to use whatever methods necessary to block the president and his supporters from implementing the agenda endorsed by the American voters last November.

Now Reid is angry -- and demanding that President Bush silence the GOP.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid on Monday urged President Bush to stop the Republican National Committee from calling him an obstructionist and criticizing his Senate record, a tactic the GOP used to help defeat Reid's predecessor.

Bush repeatedly has said he wants work with Democrats, most recently during his State of the Union speech last week, Reid noted in a speech on the Senate floor.

"Why didn't he stand and tell the American people last Wednesday that one of the first items of business we were going to do in Washington is send out a hit piece on the Democratic leader?" Reid said.

The Republican committee plans to send a 13-page document to more than a million people -- including in Reid's home state of Nevada -- analyzing and criticizing his votes and stances before he officially took over as Senate Democratic leader in January.

Now hold on here. What is wrong with analyzing Reid's record? How is it wrong to point out differences between how Reid's position on the issues differs from the GOP? Notice, the senator is not questioning the veracity of the Republican claims. Rather, he is objecting to their being made at all. What has Harry got to hide?

RNC spokesman Brian Jones said Reid is picking up where Daschle left off.

"Harry Reid right now is the leader of the party of 'no,'" Jones said. "He is the party's chief obstructionist, and we're going to continue to talk about this in the months to come."

Bingo. Harry Reid doesn't want the American people to know who he is and what he is doing. He wants to obscure the record, because knowing his record will show that he is nothing more than another left-winger who is out of step with the American people.

Bush can't divorce himself from what the RNC is doing, Reid said.

The RNC "is the president's organization," Reid said. "He can't say one thing to the American people and then ... send out scurrilous letters saying that I'm a bad guy. In great detail. I mean, is President George Bush a man of his word?"

No, the president cannot divorce himself from the RNC -- no should he. There is nothing to be ashamed of in what is being done. He has said he wants to work with the Democrats, but when members of the Democrat leadership have indicated an unwillingness to work with the GOP for the good of the American people it is appropriate to respond in kind.

Tell you what, Harry -- we will stop the briefing letters just as soon as the Senate Democrats allow an up-or-down vote on every single judicial candidate pending whose nomination is currently pending. Call it a sign of good-faith on your part. And if you can't let that vote happen, just remember this simple truth.

The truth hurts.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

All he Wanted Was A Fair Count

The dispute over a Houston area election for state representative is over. Republican Representative Talmadge Heflin withdrew his challenge to the election of Democrat Hubert Vo to represent District 149.

Vo joined Heflin at the conclusion of the afternoon news conference at which Heflin announced his decision. The two shook hands, and Vo said he would seek counsel from the veteran lawmaker on issues in the southwest Houston district.

Heflin's challenge was scheduled to go to a special House committee on Tuesday. He withdrew hours after state Rep. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas, issued a report to the committee saying Vo won the election by at least 16 votes.

Hartnett also concluded that Heflin had produced "no evidence of any intentional voter fraud'' that would have affected his Nov. 2 loss to Vo in District 149. Vo won then by 33 votes.

"We didn't have the data to meet the hurdle," Heflin said of his effort to convince Hartnett and the House that the participation of ineligible voters put the result of the election in doubt. "When you see that you can't meet a criteria that is thrust upon you, it makes no sense to move ahead."

I think the key here is that there was no intentional fraud. While Vo may have benefitted from illegally cast votes, there was no organized attempt to undermine the process. Will Hartnett set a very high standard of proof for Heflin, one that couldn't be met without compelling folks to reveal their votes under oath. So while voters from othr districts (othr counties, in fact) may have voted in the election, proving the impact of those votes is impossible. But the fact that Vo and his campaign were in no way involved in the casting of those illegal votes makes such a high standard proper.

Congratulations, Representative Vo. Do your job and do it well.

Best wishes, Representative heflin. You have my respect, sir, and I wish you well.

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

A Dynasty Is Born

NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS -- 24
PHILADELPHIA EAGLES -- 21

The New England Patriots don't have to proclaim greatness. The NFL record book does it for them. The Patriots won their third Super Bowl in four years Sunday, 24-21 over the Philadelphia Eagles, and now they are challenging history.

It was their ninth straight postseason victory, equaling Vince Lombardi's Green Bay Packers. It was coach Bill Belichick's 10th playoff victory in 11 games, one better than the great Lombardi. And it matched Dallas' run of three championships in four years in the early 1990s.

"We've never really self-proclaimed ourselves anything," said Tom Brady, who is 9-0 in the playoffs. "If you guys say we're great, we'll accept the compliment."

This one wasn't overpowering, and at times it was downright ugly. But not even Belichick seemed to care about that.

"To me this trophy belongs to these players," Belichick said. "They met all comers this year, a very challenging year. We're thrilled to win. These players played great all year, their best in the big games and they deserve it, they really deserve it."

What more is left to be said?

Posted by: Greg at 04:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

A Liberal Looks At Ward Churchill

I'm not a big fan of Professor Paul Campos, the Rocky Mountain News columnist who teaches law at the University of Colorado. But I find his observations on the Ward Churchill case interesting because he teaches on the same campus.

Should a serious research university consider hiring a fascist? This question doesn't have an easy answer.

After all, prior to World War II Europe produced several brilliant political theorists and philosophers who could be characterized as fascists, or proto-fascists, including Joseph de Maistre, Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger.

Whether, post- Auschwitz, it's possible even in theory to advocate similar views in intellectually plausible ways is an interesting question.

It is not, however, a question that has any relevance to the case of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, despite the obvious fascistic streak in Churchill's writings and public performances.

An interesting question. I would be inclined to say no -- especially if we are dealing with a taxpayer-funded state university, and even more so if that "scholar" regularly provided intellectual coverage for the enemy during time of war. I mean, should any American college have hired Heidegger or kept him on staff in 1942? The answer should be obvious.

As a political inclination and an aesthetic style, fascism is marked by, among other things, the following characteristics:

• The worship of violence as a purifying social force. This often manifests itself as an aggressive and romanticized militarism, that produces a kind of cult of the warrior, and that advocates violent action as a mechanism for social change, and an appropriate way of crushing dissent.

• A hyper-nationalistic ideology, that casts history into a drama featuring an inevitably violent struggle between Good and Evil, and that obsesses on questions of racial and ethnic identity.

• The dehumanization and scapegoating of opponents, who are characterized by turns as demonically clever conspirators plotting to undermine the possibility of a virtuous society, and soulless automatons mindlessly carrying out the orders of a vast and evil bureaucracy. This dehumanization often leads to demands that the evil in our midst be eradicated "by any means necessary," up to and including the mass extermination of entire nations and peoples.

• The treatment of moral responsibility as a fundamentally collective matter. The supposed virtues and sins of a nation or people are ascribed to all of its individual members, so that, for example, one speaks of "the Jew" (meaning all Jews collectively and each Jewish person individually) being responsible for the decadence of modern culture.

An interesting observation. I wish those on the Left who are constantly throwing around the terms "fascist and "Nazi" -- or invoking the name of Hitler -- anytime the oppose a policy or politician would consider this definition. Generally speaking, it doesn't fit, the rantings of MoveOn.org and other left-leaning groups notwithstanding.

Anyone who reads widely in the collected works of professor Churchill, and especially anyone who listens to his speeches, will, if they are not blinded by certain ideological commitments, recognize the essentially fascist tendency of his work. If a white American were to speak of any foreign people or nation in anything like the way Churchill discusses America and Americans, the fascist character of his work would be obvious to everyone.

This point is only underlined by the behavior of Churchill's supporters, who, while not actually wearing brown shirts, did a quite convincing impersonation of fascist thugs at Thursday's meeting of the University of Colorado Regents.

All this was merely par for the course for Churchill, who believes that a Columbus Day parade is an incitement to genocide, and therefore something that he and his followers have a legal right to disrupt.

And, of course, there we have the double standard. Churchill's spewing of hatred is considered as acceptable due to his position on the left-wing of the political spectrum, especially since he claims (falsely) that he is a Native American, and therefore a member of one of the special classes of people protected under the guise of "diversity." Opposition is not permitted, and so we are often treated to the spectacle of progressive pogroms against those who dare to differ with their agenda.

But while the question of whether a brilliant scholar with a fascist streak ought to be considered for a place on a university faculty retains at least some academic interest, it has nothing to do with Churchill, whose writings and speeches feature an incoherent farrago of boundless paranoia, wildly implausible theories, obscene celebrations of murder, and atrocious prose.

The question of whether a serious research university ought to hire someone like Churchill is laughable on its face. What's not so funny is the question of exactly how someone like him got hired in the first place, and then tenured and named the head of a department.

That, in the end, is a more important question than what will or ought to happen to Churchill now. Churchill is a pathetic buffoon, but the University of Colorado is far from alone in having allowed itself to toss intellectual integrity and human decency overboard in the pursuit of worthy goals.

Yeah, it is the moe important question. And the answer is that the academicians of the liberal left have been allowed to dominate the academy for too long. In recent weeks, months, and years, we have heard about the dominance of the liberal left on faculties throughout the country. Such a lop-sidedness has seen the spread of ideas that are celebrated as "cutting edge" but never critically examined, because to do so would be "racistsexisthomophobicandelitist", a charge that will kill an academic career. Churchill was clearly a beneficiary of this trend, and that it has taken decades to recognize the problem and begin to confront it is the surest sign of the decline of higher education in the West.

Speaking truth to power, giving a voice to those who have been silenced, pursuing controversial and unpopular ideas in an intellectually rigorous way - these are all things that the university in general, and this university in particular, has done and continues to do.

That through whatever combination of negligence, cowardice and complicity we have allowed Ward Churchill to besmirch those ideals by invoking them in the defense of his contemptible rantings is now our burden and our shame.

And I agree with Campos here. Colleges and universities should be a place where new, controversial and unpopular ideas can be espoused. But it should also be a place where old ideas have a place of honor, where they meet and interact to truly push back the darkness of ignorance and expand the horizons of mankind. But instead we have seen the college classroom become a place where contempt for our own culture is taught, and where critical thinking has been replaced by propaganda and indoctrination.

Can the academy save itself? I don't know. It may be that the negligence, cowardice, and complicity noted by Campos have allowed the rot to spread too far. It may be that outside forces -- legislators, donors, practitioners -- will have to act to reconstruct the our institutions of higher education. And it may be that the absolutist understanding of academic freedom might be jetisonned in the process, and with it extremists like Ward Churchill.

Posted by: Greg at 10:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1221 words, total size 8 kb.

Hmmm... An Interesting Contrast

I mentioned the case of Professor Hans Hoppe at UNLV in a post yesterday. Here's a situation in which a liberal professor gave offense and not only was not punished, but even filed a counterclaim against the student who complained.

Shane Calchera, a student and military veteran, accused associate history professor David Stowell of harassment, saying the antiwar and anti-Bush administration statements on his office door created a learning environment that is hostile to veterans.

The college cleared Stowell of the charge -- a charge he did not learn of until receiving a letter stating he had been exonerated -- but the professor said that the investigation itself was an attack on his free-speech rights.

He filed a complaint Wednesday with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"I was investigated because of my political views because someone objected to them, and that's frightening," Stowell said. "Everyone on campus should be concerned."

Now of course, the statements on his door were typical liberal slogans often seen on the bumpers of Subaru Socialists and Caviar Communists who are in denial that the 1960s are over. And I even agree with the professor -- we should be concerned when a university is inversitgating and sanctioning political or social views. But here is an interesting twist.

Calchera said he took a picture of Stowell's office door late last year, planning to show it to various veterans groups and cite it as evidence that Stowell violated the college's harassment policy.

Calchera said the two talked, and he later tacked a notice about the policy on Stowell's door.

Then Stowell filed a harassment claim, which was later dismissed, though Calchera was ordered not to contact Stowell again, Calchera and Stowell said.

Interesting, isn't it, that the professor engaged in retaliation against the conservative student who filed the complaint -- and that the student was then ordered to stay away from the professor despite the fact that the complaint was dismissed. I guess that freedom of speech only goes one way when you are a liberal. But could you imagine the uproar if Professor Hoppe at UNLV had filed a complaint against his accuser? He would no doubt be facing termination.

Posted by: Greg at 10:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 3 kb.

Will This Be Investigated?

The FBI investigated sermons at a Christian church. When will they begin the formal inquiriies into these mosques? Yeah, I know -- never.

The libraries of a number of American mosques feature Arabic-language writings published by the Saudi government or top clerics in the desert kingdom that virulently denounce Muslims from different traditions as well as Christians and Jews, and say devout Muslims should think of America as enemy territory, a new study said.

Freedom House, a conservative-leaning human rights organization based in New York, said in its report released last week that the books and publications in question say, among other things, that Muslims who employ a non-Muslim maid or cook "have to hate her for Allah's sake."

The publications espouse the hard-line fundamentalist views of the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia.

The Wahhabi publications "remain widely available in America, in some cases dominate mosque library shelves, and continue to be used to educate American Muslims," said the report by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom. Freedom House was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt in 1941, and its current chairman is former CIA director R. James Woolsey.

The 57 publications discussed in the report "state it is a religious obligation to hate Christians and Jews, and warn against imitating, befriending or helping such 'infidels' in any way," the study said. "They instill contempt for America" as well as "a Nazi-like hatred for Jews."

To read the entire report, click here.

For the press release summarizing the report, click here.

For the main website for Freedom House, click here.


UPDATE: Jeff Jacoby comments on the report, and what those Muslims who reject Wahhabi extremism need to do in response to it.

Posted by: Greg at 09:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

Innocuous Comment, Serious Sanction

Hans Hoppe is a professor of economics at University of Nevada-Las Vegas. He is currently under threat of sanction from the university because ONE anonymous student was offended by a comment he made in the course of a 75 minute lecture and didn't feel that the professor took the concern seriously enough.

Hoppe, 55, a world-renowned economist, author and speaker, said he was giving a lecture to his money and banking class in March when the incident occurred.

The subject of the lecture was economic planning for the future. Hoppe said he gave several examples to the class of about 30 upper-level undergraduate students on groups who tend to plan for the future and groups who do not.

Very young and very old people, for example, tend not to plan for the future, he said. Couples with children tend to plan more than couples without.

As in all social sciences, he said, he was speaking in generalities.

Another example he gave the class was that homosexuals tend to plan less for the future than heterosexuals.

Reasons for the phenomenon include the fact that homosexuals tend not to have children, he said. They also tend to live riskier lifestyles than heterosexuals, Hoppe said.

He said there is a belief among some economists that one of the 20th century's most influential economists, John Maynard Keynes, was influenced in his beliefs by his homosexuality. Keynes espoused a "spend it now" philosophy to keep an economy strong, much as President Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Hoppe said the portion of the lecture on homosexuals lasted perhaps 90 seconds, while the entire lecture took up his 75-minute class.

There were no questions or any discussion from the students about the homosexual comments, he said.

"I have given lectures like this for 18 years," said Hoppe, a native of Germany who joined UNLV's faculty in 1986. "I have given this lecture all over the world and never had any complaints about it."

But within days of the lecture, he was notified by school officials that a student had lodged an informal complaint. The student said Hoppe's comments offended him.

A series of formal hearings ensued.

Hoppe said that, at the request of university officials, he clarified in his next class that he was speaking in generalities only and did not mean to offend anyone.

As an example of what he meant, he offered this: Italians tend to eat more spaghetti than Germans, and Germans tend to eat more sauerkraut than Italians. It is not universally true, he said, but it is generally true.

The student then filed a formal complaint, Hoppe said, alleging that Hoppe did not take the complaint seriously.

The school originally threatened a letter of reprimand and the loss of a week's pay. That was rejected by the Hoppe's dean and the University provost. Now the school has said they will issue a reprimand and require that Hoppe forego his next pay increase -- an economic sanction that will follow him the rest of his teaching career at the school and beyond, as it would have an ongoing, cumulative effect on his future salary and retirement benefits.

Frankly, I don't see where there is a basis for action against the good professor. In context, there was nothing wrong with his comments. There is apparently some support for his position among professionals in the field. Other than treading on the over-wrought feelings of some (presumably, but not necessarily, homosexual) student, there is no substance to the entire complaint. Must the entire educational process come to a screeching halt because some member of a class of people deemed by the politically correct to have special rights complains?

I hope the university loses -- and that any litigation names not just the school and the officials involved, but also the offended student. The original complaint was frivolous, and Hans Hoppe has been damaged by this attempt to limit his academic freedom and First Amendment rights.

Posted by: Greg at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 4 kb.

"Cookie Cuties" Find Americans Are Generous

I briefly noted this story about two girls from Colorado who were sued over their anonymous delivery of cookies to a neighbor in my abbreviated post for Friday. Their plight after performing a "random act of kindness" has prompted an outpouring of generosity from people around the country.

The Cookie Defense Fund has swelled to thousands of dollars.

Hundreds of Denver Post readers e-mailed and called to express "shock" and "outrage" that two 18-year-old Durango girls were sued for something they did last summer: drop off a plate of cookies and a paper heart on a neighbor's porch.

Taylor Ostergaard and Lindsey Zellitti lost in Small Claims Court in La Plata County on Thursday. Their impulse to bake cookies and treat neighbors by knocking, dropping off and running away went awry. One of nine neighbors who received a plate of cookies said the pounding on her door about 10:30 p.m. July 31 frightened her into an anxiety attack. A Durango judge awarded about $900 to the 49-year-old woman to cover some medical bills incurred when she ended up at the emergency room the next day.

If the people who called and wrote make good on their pledges, that $900 will be recovered many times over. Several people offered to personally cover the whole amount themselves.

The attention has been overwhelming.

The girls will be appearing on "Good Morning, America", and have an invitation (probably to be rejected) to appear on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno.

Posted by: Greg at 07:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Embryos=Human Beings

This ruling out of Illinois makes clear the basic scientific and legal truth -- human life begins at conception.

Alison Miller and Todd Parrish hoped to conceive a child with help from the Center for Human Reproduction, but the one fertilized egg the couple created was thrown out "in error" by a clinic worker.

Friday, Judge Jeffrey Lawrence II said "a pre-embryo is a 'human being' ... whether or not it is implanted in its mother's womb" and the couple is entitled to seek the same compensation awarded to other parents whose children are killed.

"Philosophers and theologians may debate," he wrote, "but there is no doubt in the mind of the Illinois Legislature when life begins. It begins at conception."

Hurrah for Judge Lawrence!

Posted by: Greg at 07:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

What Hypocrisy!

In light of the threat by the Mexican government to use all means at its disposal to overturn Arizona's Proposition 200, doesn't this seem to be monumentally hypocritical?

President Vicente Fox's office retorted that Mexico "does not permit judgment from any foreign government about political actions taken to confront its problems."

Hey, Vincente -- roll it in a tortilla and shove it!

Maybe the time has come for us to take Joe Farah's suggestion.

Posted by: Greg at 07:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Friday Round-Up

I took last night off because I was tired and thought I might be getting the virus that is slowly picking off my colleagues and students. So now that I don't feel like I'm catching the flu, here is a quick round-up of all the items I was too tired to post about.

Assaults on marriage continue, as a New York judge attempts to impose homosexual marriage on the state and the Utah Supreme Court appears poised to strike down the state's ban on polygamy. See what happens when you tinker with the settled definition of a social institution?

The Washington governor's race still continues, as a judge refuses Democrat demands that the outcome of the fraud-tainted election be left to the Democrats in the legislature.

Rocky Mountain News columnist Mike Rosen presents a case (which I don't necessarily agree with) for firing fake Indian, 9/11 apologist and generally anti-American professor Ward Churchill.

Rich Lowry points out that HIV testing for newborns has resulted in more maternal testing during pregnancy -- and helped bring about a decrease in HIV infected babies because their mothers can get on a treatment program that cuts the chances of the child becoming infected.

Archaeology and history geeks (folks like me) might enjoy this article on Raleigh's "Lost Colony". Have historians and archaeologists been looking in the wrong place?

Is it anti-Americanism or support for Catholic teaching? Marquette shuts down College Republican fundraiser to buy equipment to assist American snipers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then there is the absurd story of the two girls who baked cookies for their neighbors and delivered them anonymously that night -- who were then sued and found liable for the medical bills of a neighbor who had a panic attack.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 3 kb.

FBI Investigating Christian Sermons -- But Will It Look For Terror Links At Mosques?

The concept of spiritual warfare is a common one in Christian theology. In the evangelical church, the concept is a regular part of preaching and teaching. It is apparently also grounds for an FBI investigation. Just ask Randy Steele, senior pastor at Southwest Christian Church in Mount Vernon, Illinois. He found out that preaching on spiritual warfare regarding abortion and homosexuality will bring the FBI to your door, demanding that you answer questions and show them copies of your sermons.

When two FBI agents arrived at the church, Steele said they traded small talk for a few minutes before the suspense got to him and he asked about the nature of their visit.

Their answer stunned him.

“One guy opened a file,” Steele said. “And he said, ‘This is pertaining to a sermon that you preached on Memorial Day.’”

On Memorial Day 2004, Steele was in the middle of preaching a sermon series he called “Life Issues” dealing with controversial cultural issues from a biblical perspective. One such sermon was about abortion and Steele chose Memorial Day to preach about it.

“I shared the number of people who have died in wars versus the number who had died through ‘legal’ abortion since 1973,” Steele said. “I stated that we are in a different type of war that is being fought under the 'presupposition of freedom.’”

Steele said that he went on to name an abortion clinic in Granite City, Ill., a city just outside St. Louis, and pointed out that they perform as many as 45 abortions per week.

Somebody in the church that day apparently misunderstood Steele’s “different type of war” comment to mean that he was actually calling his congregation to a physical war against abortion clinics, so he or she placed an anonymous phone call to the FBI.

The informant allegedly told the FBI that in addition to Steele calling for a war against abortion clinics, he also said he was willing to go to jail over such a cause.

Steele said that he had spoken about his willingness to go to jail, but that he made those remarks in a different sermon that dealt with homosexuality from the same sermon series.

“I had mentioned a pastor in Canada who had been arrested for speaking about homosexuality in his church,” Steele said. The pastor said he went on to tell his congregation that “if speaking the truth means that we go to jail, then by golly, that’s where I'm going to be and I’m going to save you a seat next to me.”

“That was the major gist of why [the FBI] felt like they could come here and look through my sermons,” Steele said.

Now I know Hope Clinic. I've picketted there, years ago when I lived in the St. Louis area. It is the biggest provider of abortions in the region. Of course it would be mentioned by name. And saying that you are willing to go to jail for preaching the Gospel -- hardly an outrageous concept. It really isn't too different from sermons preached in black churches in the 1960s, if you stop and think about it. The pastor was simply telling his congregation what the Gospel demands of them as Christians.

Steele said he was initially a little irritated that the FBI would ask to see his sermons, especially since he had to take time away from the grieving family in his congregation to answer questions, but he said he has no plans to stop preaching messages that are culturally relevant.

“As a pastor I believe that as Christians we are called to speak the truth no matter what,” Steele said. “And we have to continue to speak that truth in love to all people and to share the message of Christ because it’s the only message that's going to change the lives of people.”

Roger Lipe, senior pastor at Woodlawn Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist Convention congregation, in nearby Woodlawn, Ill., agreed with SteeleÂ’s position of speaking the truth in love to a culture that isnÂ’t always going to be tolerant of such a message.

“Just look at what’s happening in our society and what’s happening in Canada -- the laws that have been made there -- and the pressure on Americans today to enforce hate crime laws,” Lipe said. “Obviously it’s going to mean that someday when you [as a pastor] get into your own pulpit, your own church, among your own people to preach against subjects like abortion and homosexuality and other biblical things that we’ve got to preach on, then there’s probably going to be a price to pay.”

Yes, the Gospel does call upon us to pay the price for standing up for god and His Word. Many faithful Christians have paid it over the last two millenia, standing up to governments that would force them to live their life according to some philosophy or faith other than that which is rooted in Scripture. Christians have stood up against the manifest injustices and evils promoted by government, and many have paid the ultimate price. What Pastor Steele preached was no different, and meritted not one minute of FBI investigation. I only hope that the poor soul who made that call to the FBI has been given the grace to understand what Pastor Steele was saying in those sermons.

But I have an even bigger concern than the waste of resources on the harrassment of Chistian pastors who ware speaking well-within the bounds of their First Amendment rights. What about Islamist imams? Is the FBI monitoring them, questioning them and demanding to see the texts of their sermons? After all, we in the US are at war with terrorism -- a jihad declared by radical Muslims against the United States. Or will politically correct concerns about the profiling of Muslims stop such investigations, even when the imams and their congregations have a history of supporting terrrorist groups like Hamas, preaching jihad against Christians and Jews, or distributing radical Islamist literature which is supportive of the same philosophies that gave us the September 11 attacks?

In short, will loyal Americans who peacefully dissent from the politically correct liberalism of the American Left be investigated while the Islamist fifth column gets a pass?

Posted by: Greg at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1066 words, total size 7 kb.

British Columbia Courts To Legalize Polygamy?

I seem to recall Senator Rick Snatorum catching all sorts of heat for suggesting that the Lawrence v. Texas decision could open the door to polygamy. That hasn't happened -- yet -- in the US, but it looks possible in Canada, according the the Attorney General of the Canadian province of British Columbia.

Canada's law prohibiting polygamy is vulnerable to a legal challenge and could be struck down because of a conflict with religious freedom, says B.C. Attorney General Geoff Plant.

Mr. Plant, whose view is based on confidential legal opinions provided to the B.C. government on two occasions, said he has failed to convince the federal government to amend the anti-polygamy law.

He said the legal opinions have played a major role in the refusal by police over many years to lay charges against polygamists in the B.C. community of Bountiful, where girls as young as 13 have allegedly been forced to become "celestial wives" of much older men.

"There might well be a case where the court would have to deal with religious freedoms arguments, and I think there is at least some risk that those arguments might succeed," Mr. Plant said.

And why shouldn't it succeed, once the legal concept of marriage has become unmoored from its traditional Western definition of a union of one man and one woman?

And as I've said elsewhere, given the trend of using the laws and precedents of foreign countries continues among American judges (confirming conservative judges will hopefully check that trend), we ought to be concerned about the future impact of trends like this in our northern neighbor.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Dialogue Or Monologue On Homosexuality?

Should discussion of homosexuality in schools be a dialogue or a monologue? All too often, it is the latter, with only the pro-gay side being heard in school. Attempts to present a different view are labeled as intolerant hate speech which is implicitly and explicitly forbidden by school administrators. Attempts to get "the other side" presented are usually met with fierce opposition.

Which leads us to the case of Fairfax County School Board member Stephen M. Hunt.

In a Jan. 30 letter, Stephen M. Hunt (At Large) asked the principals to host speakers with an "ex-gay perspective" and offer students, teachers and counselors literature provided by the conservative group Concerned Women for America and other organizations.

"Children are being taught that homosexuality is normal and natural. It is neither," Hunt wrote. "To state that it is normal or natural is to promote the myth that accompanies the homosexual activist rhetoric."

Hunt's letter, which was not reviewed by other members of the 12-person board before it was sent, sparked sharp rebukes from some other board members and Superintendent Jack D. Dale.

Several board members said that although the letter was on private stationery, it was inappropriate because principals may have believed it was endorsed by the board. "By signing his name as a School Board member, it calls into question whether he is speaking on behalf of the board, and he is not," board member Jane K. Strauss (Dranesville) said.

Dale said he has written the principals to let them know Hunt's view is not sanctioned by the board or administration. "I very much regret that our principals received this letter, which is not representative of the School Board's views," Dale said in a prepared statement. "We want our schools to be seen as welcoming places for all individuals."

Really? You folks don't sound very welcoming of Mr. Hunt, an elected member of your board. You've chosen to condemn him and his point of view -- expressed in his capacity as a private citizen and taxpayer -- which certainly isn't a very welcoming way to behave. What message does this action send to a student who agrees with Mr. Hunt? Is it one of welcome, or one of condemnation and rejection? Especially given that such beliefs often have a religious component, can you say that your actions are welcoming for individuals whose faiths teach that homosexual behavior is immoral? And what does your response teach your students about their right to practice their faith, to speak about their faith, and to communicate their concerns about public matters with public officials and employees? Are they welcome to do such things, or are they and their beliefs, words, and concerns unwelcome?

Hunt claims he was trying to make sure that such students knew that they and their views are welcome, even as contrary views are presented. And he made it clear that his position was one of inclusion, not of exclusion.

Hunt said yesterday that he is concerned that students who do not support homosexuality may be afraid to speak up in school or labeled as intolerant. Hunt said he is not seeking to ban material or programs in place but believes that other information should be included.

Hunt said his letter specifically notes that students should respect the rights of gay peers. "If a person does choose a gay lifestyle, we should respect their freedom, their safety and their choice," he said.

But in the letter Hunt said students often are exposed to the "Will and Grace version of homosexuality." He contended in the letter that gays often suffer drug and alcohol abuse or physical abuse and that gay men don't live as long as heterosexual counterparts. "There are huge ramifications for people who may make a choice to go into that lifestyle, and we should make sure they are fully aware of the entire issue," Hunt said in an interview.

But probably the most troubling aspect of this situation is the comment from the head of the district PTA.

Lynn Terhar, president of the Fairfax County Council of PTAs, said that she's satisfied with the way sexual orientation is handled in the schools and that she hasn't heard concerns from parents. "In my personal opinion, his comments strike me as those coming from a religious point of view," Terhar said. "I don't believe there is any place for that in the Fairfax County school system."

I guess that Ms. Terhar didn't get the memo. She certainly doesn't sound very welcoming of individuals with diverse religious values. Her message to Christians is "Sit down! Shut up! Pay your taxes, but don't you dare try to influence what goes on in the public schools where your children are educated. Be happy you get to ride in the back of the bus."

I wonder when the Board will condemn Ms. Terhar's message of intolerance. Or will it?

Posted by: Greg at 01:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 823 words, total size 5 kb.

Will Texas Keep 10% Law?

Here in Texas, graduating in the top 10% of your high school class gets you an automatic berth at any state college or university. Now there is talk of eliminating or modifying it. That sort of talk is appropriate, as it was adopted to replace affirmative action following a court decision which (temporarily, it turned out) banned such programs. But there have been complaints about inequities in the program, including the problem with using a single measure to determine whether a student is eligible to enter the college of their choice.

Citing the unfairness of the law and the way it forces some students to take a lighter course load or even transfer to a different high school, Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, filed a bill this week to eliminate the rule altogether.

"The top 10 percent law is inherently unfair because it uses only one criteria on which to either accept or reject applicants to institutions of higher education in Texas," Wentworth said. "It would be like saying, 'We are not going to consider anything but your SAT score,' and that would be wrong, too."

The top 10 percent rule was enacted after a 1996 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision made affirmative action illegal in Texas. But last year, a U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying race could be used as a factor in admissions for public universities.

Since then, officials at the University of Texas at Austin have said they will consider race, while Texas A&M University officials said they will not.

"The reason we passed the top 10 percent rule in 1997 was in reaction to a federal judge's order," Wentworth said. "But that federal judge's order was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, so we don't need this anymore."

In other words, the very reason for adopting the program in the first place doesnÂ’t exist. That should be reason enough for eliminating it, at least if a campus plans on reinstituting race-based admisions. But then again, this is government. Since when does a program go away because it isnÂ’t necessary? After all, once a program is created, it has a constituency that will fight its elimination tooth-and-nail.


I personally like the proposal to modify the program that has been floated by Rep. Rob Eissler.

Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, has filed a bill that would allow UT and A&M officials to choose what campus to place a top 10 percent student in. For example, instead of being guaranteed admittance to the flagship in Austin, UT officials could admit a student to the San Antonio campus.

That makes sense to me – graduating in the top 10% should guarantee you a spot in the particular system, but not necessarily allow you to pick which campus. If your grades are high but your admissions test (SAT, ACT, or THEA) results in a score below a certain threshold, you probably don’t belong in Austin at University of Texas. This would also solve the problem we’ve had with kids who have a 1560 SAT and a 3.7 GPA from a top high school (such as Bellaire High School in Houston) finding themselves locked out of UT and A&M because they were not in the top 10% of their class because they took AP or IB courses, while others took average classes and graduated higher in the class. The advantage to this would be that students will be better matched to the campus they attend.

There are, of course, objections to any changes being made. But I hope enough members of the legislature will see the sense in Eissler's proposal to make it law.

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.

Will "Sheets" Byrd Seek Ninth Term?

Senator Robert Byrd has served in the US Senate since 1958. Now it appears that he plans to seek reelection to the Senate in 2006.

Byrd, 87, has been negotiating with Paul DeNino, one of the Democratic PartyÂ’s top fundraisers, to assist his reelection efforts, according to Democratic sources. ByrdÂ’s office confirmed that the senator had been talking with DeNino and other fundraisers but said no contract had been finalized.

Byrd, who maintains a tight circle of political advisers, told The Hill he does not want to talk about his political future now. “Not ready yet,” he said on the way to a Democratic Caucus meeting Tuesday.

“He has every intention to seek reelection,” said his spokesman, Tom Gavin, “but he has not made a final decision.” Gavin said Byrd would make a decision before West Virginia’s filing deadline next year.

Byrd hasnÂ’t held a fundraiser in the past six months and has less than $100,000 in his campaign account, although he would have little trouble raising the money needed for a campaign.

Even those close to Byrd said they donÂ’t know his definite plans. Some Senate observers said Byrd, elected to the Senate in 1958, intends to remain in office for the remainder of his life.

Byrd may intend to remain in the Senate for the rest of his life, but that doesnÂ’t mean we have to let him do it. His treatment of Dr. Rice showed the former Klan KleagleÂ’s unfitness for office. This racist relic should be resisted by every American.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

"No Class"-ocrats Sully Reagan Resolution

Resolutions honoring distinguished citizens and important dates in history are generally pretty non-controversial. One would think that a resolution honoring the late President Ronald Reagan would make it through a state legislature with little discussion or controversy. But not in Minnesota.

A resolution honoring the former Republican president's birthday caused partisan friction in the state Senate Thursday and passed only after it was retooled to mention the fact he never won Minnesota and tax increases that occurred under his watch.

The Democratic-controlled Senate spent more than 30 minutes debating the Republican-offered resolution, which recognizes Reagan's Feb. 6 birthday. Reagan died in June of complications from Alzheimer's disease at age 93.

Minnesota was the only state Reagan lost in 1984. It went for Democrat Walter Mondale, a native son.

Democrats criticized the original resolution as ideologically skewed. It said, among other things, that Reagan "worked in a bipartisan manner to enact his bold agenda of restoring accountability and common sense to government which led to an unprecedented economic expansion and opportunity for millions of Americans."

The revised version ends that sentence with "not paralleled until the Clinton presidency," a nod to the two-term Democratic president. Democrats also added lines about tax increases under Reagan and hold up his presidency as "a lesson to the current administration in the areas of bipartisanship, economic recovery, and the need for world support in foreign initiatives."

Shame! Shame! Shame!

But then what do you expect of a state and a party that turned Paul Wellstone's funeral into a campaign rally?

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road

Well, we keep hearing from folks that allowing gay marriages won't interfere with our rights if we are opposed to them. We keep hearing that religious organizations won't be forced to participate in what they view as pseudo-marriages.

Well, the same arguments were made up north in Canada, where the courts have imposed gay marriage on most of the country and the Liberal government is seeking to impose it on the rest, regardless of the will of the people. And so you get a case like this one.

Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith found just the hall they wanted to rent for their wedding reception. It was located behind a church in the Vancouver suburb of Port Coquitlam and managed by the Knights of Columbus, an organization they thought was the same as the Elks.

That mistake -- confusing the Elks with the Knights -- has taken them into the epicentre of the national debate on same-sex marriage, with Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives citing the couple as Exhibit A in the Tories' declaration that government legislation unveiled yesterday permitting homosexuals to marry will result in severe assaults on Canadians' freedom of religion.

Prime Minister Paul Martin defended the bill, insisting that no religious organization will be forced to perform homosexual marriages if their teaching is opposed to them. But he also said that "Canada is a country where minorities are protected" -- a claim the Tories sought to turn against him by saying the debate on same-sex marriage will be all about protecting Canadians' religious freedoms.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has just finished hearing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith's claim that the Knights, a Roman Catholic men's fraternal and philanthropic society, discriminated against the couple by refusing to rent the hall to them after learning it was for a same-sex wedding reception.

The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed.

That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months.

So, religious groups won't be forced to participate against their principles? Then why is this case even being heard? The Knights are clearly a Catholic organization, and are clearly adhering to Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality.

Their case points to what many legal scholars and religious leaders say is a murky area between protection of freedom of religion and protection against discrimination. They say it could lead to religious organizations and individuals by the phalanx heading to courts and rights tribunals once the same-sex marriage legislation becomes law.

"It's going to be endless," said University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman, a specialist in freedom of expression and legal regulation of adult relationships.

The B.C. Knights of Columbus case focuses on whether a church-related organization is the same as a church and whether freedom of religion extends beyond refusing to perform a same-sex marriage to refusing to celebrate one.

Given Canada's dreadful record in cases in which religious believers have asserted their right to publicly dissent on matters involving homosexuality, it is unlikely that the rights of the Knights will be respected here. The ersatz right to enter a same-sex marriage will be allowed to trump the human right to hold and follow one's religious beliefs.

Now folks may attempt to dismiss the relevance of this case because it isn't happening in this country or under American law. But that is a smokescreen. The Texas Sodomy Case, Lawrence v. Texas, was decided in part upon the legal trends and practices of foreign nations. As such, this case from British Columbia could be used to undermine the rights of religious believers in the United States to live out their beliefs.

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 4 kb.

An Ultimatum To Iraqi Terrorists

We need more of this going on.

The chief of police in the Iraqi city of Mosul has given insurgents two weeks to give up their weapons or face a crackdown by security forces emboldened after the election.

But al Qaeda militants in Iraq issued a new threat to assassinate the northern city's governor.

"Hand over your weapons or we will come and get you," police chief Brigadier Mohammed Ahmed al-Jabouri said in a television address on Tuesday.

The Brigadier claims to know where the terrorists are hiding. While I'd ratehr see a quicker deadline, it is good to see that action is being taken.

Hopefully the election will embolden some folks in authority to take similar action.

Posted by: Greg at 03:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Malkin Rocks Atlanta

Michelle Malkin (EDITED) tells us all that she had a grand old time at Emory yesterday.

Highlights include a column in the campus paper insisting that the College Republicans were irresponsible for bringing such an offensive speaker to campus. Why? Because of her book on the Japanese internment, which was totally unrelated to the topic of her speech.

The College Democrats hastily organized a speaker to rebut her book immediately following the speech, but didn't bother to invite Malkin to defend herself. But the ever resourceful Michelle publicly shamed the Democrats and their speaker into extending an invitation to debate the topic -- and Malkin appears to have cleaned the floor with her opponent, who even had the nerve to suggest that her pregnancy while would prevent her from doing adequate historical research on the subject. Do the critics of Larry Sumner Have anything to say about that charge?

Her little travelogue is certainly worth the read.

Posted by: Greg at 03:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Mama Manis Mania

First she was doing detention with her delayed daughter. Now Susan Manis is doing time for her deadbeat delinquent son.

The arrest warrant was issued after Manis failed to make a monthly payment on fees and fines levied against one of her sons when he was a juvenile.

"I accepted responsibility for them," Manis said. Because her son, now 19, doesn't have a steady job, she agreed to send the court $50 a month to repay about $10,000 he owes from three different convictions of offenses as a juvenile. She said she was unable to make last month's payment.

She said she was handcuffed, put in a patrol car and taken to a holding cell at the Brazoria County Jail.

While the officers and jailers treated her with respect, being in jail wasn't pleasant.

"I just cried at first," she said.

Her husband, Steve Manis, called a judge, who called the jail and ordered her release. She was in court Monday and agreed to make a payment by Thursday.

Frankly, I am not disturbed by this arrest. What does she thinks happens to folks who fail to pay their fines? That her husband was able to get her sprung without a hearing is much more disturbing to me. Why shouldnÂ’t she have to wait in jail like anyone else would? It must be that she thinks that the rules donÂ’t apply to her and her family. Maybe thatÂ’s why she has such a difficult time allowing her children to accept responsibility and punishment for their own wrongdoing. I can now certainly understand why the people of Pearland rejected Susan and her husband for school board last year.

I also have to wonder if this is the reason for her failure to complete her reply to my earlier post the other night. She suddenly trailed off, and didn't come back to finish. Maybe it was because she was being "cuffed and stuffed" by her local police.

Posted by: Greg at 04:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

How Should Fans Respond?

Carlos Delgado the newly-signed first baseman for the Florida Marlins, refuses to stand for God Bless America during the seventh inning stretch. That is his right. His actions are appropriate in form, time, and place. So says Howard Wasserman of the Florida International University College of Law. And to be honest, IÂ’d have to agree with him.

An essential element of free speech is the right to counter-speak, protest and dissent from the original message. Delgado does that by declining to stand, but he does so in a way that in no way interferes with the ability of the Marlins, his teammates or the fans to make their statements through the song. Nor can it be that Delgado has forfeited his right to protest U.S. policies because he makes $13 million per year. Attaining financial success cannot rob one of the right to criticize government and society.

The other simple answer is that fans remain free to counter-protest Delgado's protest. They can sing God Bless America louder. They can display signs reaffirming their support for U.S. policy and signs criticizing Delgado for his dissent. They can boo him.

In fact, it might be interesting to see what happens when Marlins fans' political passions collide with their passion to root for the home team. On the other hand, many fans may support Delgado, either because they agree with his position or simply because they respect his willingness to take a stand by not standing.
The point is that this exchange of views on weighty matters, initiated by one ballplayer willing to speak out, occurs comfortably in the public forum that is a Major League baseball game.

But fans in Florida are, as Wasserman points out, perfectly within their right to make their voices heard. Or better yet, to not make their voices heard. How about if Marlins fans refuse to cheer, refuse to boo, and refuse to acknowledge anything that Delgado does on the field.

After all, heÂ’s really not all that important, and baseball can and will go on without him.

Posted by: Greg at 03:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.