Professor Steven Calabresi argues that the Democrats have already won the battle to keep conservative women, minorities, and Catholics off the Supreme Court by their use of the filibuster against Bush Appellate nominees. Miguel Estrada has withdrawn himself from consideration. Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl have yet to be confirmed, though Pryor sits on the bench through a recess appointment. He presumes that the failure of the Senate to confirm these judges is grounds for keeping them off the Supreme Court, noting that only older white men are mentioned as possible nominees in the event of a Supreme Court resignation or death. I disagree with Calabresi, but let me come back to that later.

This has happened, of course, due to the desire of Democrats to avoid the appointment of a certain kind of justice to the Supreme Court.

When George W. Bush became president in 2001, the legal left and the Democratic Party rallied around the slogan "No more Clarence Thomases." By that they meant that they would not allow any more conservative African Americans, Hispanics, women, or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments. The Democrats have done such a good job of this that, today, the only names being floated as serious Supreme Court nominees are those of white men.

This is what is at stake in the fight that rages now over whether the filibuster of judges gets abolished. Leading Democratic activists like Bruce Ackerman have called on Senate Democrats never to allow another Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. If they succeed in establishing the proposition that it takes 60 instead of 51 votes to get on the Supreme Court, conservatives can forget about ever again appointing a Scalia or a Thomas.

On this point, I agree. Compromise with the Democrats, never a good idea when we are dealing with principle or constitutional matters, is impossible on this point. Senate Republicans need to choke the life out of the filibuster of judicial nominees now, for that tactic will surely be used this summer when Chief Justice Rehnquist (presumably) will resign due to ill health. The nation's highest court, the only one actually established by the Constitution, must not be allowed to continue to be a tool of the political minority.

More to the point, the Democrats must not be allowed to post a metaphorical "No Conservative Minorities Allowed" sign on the bench of our nation's highest court.

Why are Senate Democrats so afraid of conservative judicial nominees who are African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, and women? Because these Clarence Thomas nominees threaten to split the Democratic base by aligning conservative Republicans with conservative voices in the minority community and appealing to suburban women. The Democrats need Bush to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court whom they can caricature and vilify, and it is much harder for them to do that if Bush nominates the judicial equivalent of a Condi Rice rather than a John Ashcroft.

Conservative African-American, Hispanic, Catholic, and female judicial candidates also drive the left-wing legal groups crazy because they expose those groups as not really speaking for minorities or women. They thus undermine the moral legitimacy of those groups and drive a wedge between the left-wing leadership of those groups and the members they falsely claim to represent.

These are mainstream jurists with mainstream political philosophies. Most have been handily reelected to judicial office by the voters of their states, or confirmed handily for District Court seats by the Senate. There is no reason for them not to be confirmed. But what Senate Democrats do not realize is that they may be creating their own worst nightmare. I hope President Bush simply bumps one of these nominees up to the Supreme Court.

Some of you may ask how that could happen. After all, they don't have Circuit Court experience. My response is that the lack of such experience is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Sandra Day O'Connor was a state judge in Arizona at the time of her nomination. William Brennan was a state Supreme Court justice in New Jersey. William Rehnquist was an assistant attorney general. Earl Warren was governor of California. Hugo Black was a US Senator from Alabama. I could name others as well, but I think you see the point. Experience on the federal bench is not now and never has been a requirement to be nominated to the Supreme Court -- and each of those I mention is considered to be a great or near great justice.

Now here is where I disagree with Calabresi. I do not think that some of these potential Supreme Court nominees need be taken out of consideration. Justice Janice Rogers Brown and Justice Priscilla Owens have current background checks, have had hearings and Judiciary Committee votes in recent weeks. There is no need to reinvent the wheel with either of them. George W. Bush could take a stand and make the nomination to the Supreme Court and justify it with the state Supreme Court experience and the complete record that has been compiled for the current confirmation battle. Hearings could be abbreviated (after all, what more is there to bring out?), and the new justice seated quickly. That would be the ideal moment for the nuclear option to be used.

For that matter, the president could let it be known privately that the nominee had better be approved quickly, lest his replacement nominee be even less palatable and more bulletproof. Who might the nominee be? Either Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, whose criticism of Owens while he was a Texas Supreme Court justice is used as an excuse to hold up her nomination and who was recently confirmed; or Senator John Cornyn, who like Gonzalez is also a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court and whose status as a Senator would make him difficult for Senate Democrats to reject. Rather than allow either of the alternatives to be put forward, Democrats would likely fold their hand and give in.

(Hat Tip -- Southern Appeal)

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1038 words, total size 7 kb.

Principal John Brucato of Milford High School in Milford, Massachusetts, sees the issue as a very clear one. The shirts that a few students wore to school on Tuesday were inapporpiate, and had to go.

"It's analogous to somebody wearing a slogan T-shirt that's an advertisement for drugs or alcohol -- that's against our philosophy," he said.

What were the horrendous words on the shirts? Why, they were pro-life messages. They said that "Abortion Kills" and "Abortion Is Homicide".

In Brucato's defense, he was merely upholding a school policy that reads as follows.

The Milford High School Student Handbook states, "Individual attire that is disruptive to the educational process or causes distraction to others will not be tolerated. Inappropriate dress will be defined as any clothing/accessory that disrupts the regular learning process and leads to distraction or is offensive, vulgar or provocative to other students, faculty, staff or administration."

It also details the banned items as, "clothing which displays tobacco or alcohol advertising, profanity, racial slurs, disruptive images or words, drug or gang related symbols" and "offensive images or words that would be considered socially, culturally or ethically inappropriate and disrupt the educational process."

Unfortunately, that would appear to conflict with the following two policies. There is this one.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is generally known as the First Amendment, and it was extended to cover state actors, including school districts, by the Fourteenth Amendment, as is noted in Tinker v. Des Moines.

The other may be found here in the Massachusetts Constitution.

Article XVI. Liberty of the Press; Freedom of Speech. - The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restained in this commonwealth. The right of free speech shall not be abridged.

That amendment is further amplified in Pyle v. School Committee of South Hadley

The principal, though, claims that the message on the shirts worn by a couple of high school girls caused a disruption. His evidence?

Principal John Brucato said about three or four students brought the shirts to the attention of Assistant Principal Kevin Maines.

"They were very upset that these slogan T-shirts were being displayed by kids," Brucato said. "One was upset enough to have left school and maybe a couple of others visited the adjustment counselor."

Brucato said it is his job to protect all students and he does not believe anyone's rights were violated.

"Everybody has a right to self-expression, however the law states very clearly that school buildings are limited open forums for self-expression," Brucato said. "The reason the law states that is because it grants school authorities the ability to protect everybody as a whole."

So, Principal Brucato, the fact that you have three or four kids who don't like the message is enough to shut that message down? It strikes me that the problem is the failure of your school to teach the principles contained in the First amendment and Article XVI. After all, these students should know that the right the mere fact that they are offended or upset is not a basis for the government to prohibit speech. Heck, I'm rather concerned that you are unaware of the controlling legal principles here.

So tell me, sir, objectively, what was wrong with these shirts? Not the subjective issue of "someone got upset and complained," but an actual objective standard that applies so that these students would have known that the shirts were a violation of the policy. Your own words indicate that there isn't one.

Under your explanation, a couple of Yankees fans could come to you sniffling and weeping and you would have to ban Red Sox jerseys and t-shirts from your school. All they have to do is claim to be distraught and offended. I'm sure your Muslim students will be glad to know that they can ban any Christian expression in school in precisely the same manner. And of course, you have now given the students on your campus who oppose homosexuality the tool they need to shut down any pro-homosexual propagandizing by their classmates -- they just need to burst out in tears and beg to see the "adjustment counselor." After all,such messages would have caused a disruption of similar size and nature, and you are supposed to "protect everybody as a whole."

And that is what you said in explaining why you don't believe this is a free speech case.

"These young ladies have the right to express their views and opinions -- they have not been denied those rights," he said. "What we said simply was this type of advertisement is offensive to others in the community. I've been consistent. If even one or two individuals finds something offensive I'm going to ask that individual to remove it. I'm exercising my authority and judgment as a school administrator to administrate to the population as a whole."

Principal Brucato, you had better be damned even-handed in the future, because you have set the standard here -- having knowledge of one or two individuals complaining now REQUIRES that you apply EXACTLY THE SAME STANDARD in every case. You are no longer the principal of Milford High School -- you are the Supreme Censor. Enjoy your new role.

My closing comment is this -- I admire the young ladies in question, and think they behaved appropriately in this case. While I would have liked to have read that Amanda Chattman, Autumn Gerami and their classmates had told Supreme Censor Brucato to take a flying leap, I understand their reluctance to do so. The article does not make clear what disciplinary threat Brucato bullied them with to get them to forego the liberties guaranteed them under not merely one, but two separate constitutions, so I cannot judge if they surrendered their freedom too cheaply. I just hope that they do pursue the litigation that is clearly warranted, and that in the mean time they hold Brucato's feet to the fire by monitoring what other messages are allowed and by making complaints regarding ANY they find offensive (and maybe even a few they really don't, just to make the point). Good luck, girls!

Posted by: Greg at 05:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1085 words, total size 7 kb.

Not long ago, The UK's Association of University Teachers decided to boycott two Israeli Universityies and examine the possibility of expanding that boycott to cover all Israeli schools. There has been an uproar since then, and now it appears that the boycott will never go into effect. Why not? Because of a grassroots rebellion by union members, some of whom have resigned while others are circulating a demand for an emergency meeting to repeal the ban.

The first academics to resign from the AUT, Shalom Lappin and Jonathan Ginzburg, have circulated an open letter calling on members to join them in breaking away from the union.

"For the past several years an ugly campaign of anti-Jewish provocation has been building on the margins of the Israel hate-fest that the boycott supporters have been promoting on campuses throughout the UK," they said in the letter.

"There comes a time when an organization discredits itself to the point that it can no longer be taken to stand for the values that it purports to represent. When this point is reached, one has no alternative but to disassociate oneself from it."

It seems that, contary to the expectation of the union's anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic leadership (more on that later on) , Jewish professors and supporters of israel would not stand by silently while the union supported terrorists who advocate a new Holocaust.

The condemnation has not just come from within Great britain, but has also been heard from around the globe.

A letter from the New York Academy of Sciences told the AUT that its resolution, "by selecting individuals and universities for boycott, is a very clear reminder of 'McCarthy-like' tactics of accusation."

The letter concluded: "We call upon the AUT to take immediate steps to rescind their regressive vote and join forward-looking academics the world over in voting for cooperation and not boycott."

In the mean time, the repeal movement has already gained significant headway.

Chris Fox, lecturer in Computer Science at Essex University, told The Jerusalem Post that the 25 signatures by AUT local association members required to submit a motion calling for the repeal of the boycott resolutions were being collected.

The motion would be heard in an emergency national meeting. Fox said that if the executive failed to call such a meeting, the AUT could expect further resignations.

"I will be resigning in the next few days if the national executive of the union fails to indicate an intention to act directly to reconsider or rescind the boycott," said Fox....

One Oxford Middle East studies professor has responded to the boycott by insisting that he be added to the boycott list, standing in solidarity with colleagues at the two boycotted universities.

Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, of the Middle East Center at St. Anthony's College at Oxford University, has written to AUT general-secretary Sally Hunt requesting to be included in the boycott.

"Oaths of political loyalty do not belong to academia. They belong to illiberal minds and repressive regimes," wrote Ottolenghi. "Based on this, the AUT's definition of academic freedom is the freedom to agree with its views only. Given the circumstances, I wish to express in no uncertain terms my unconditional and undivided solidarity with both universities and their faculties.

"I know many people, both at Haifa University and at Bar Ilan University, of different political persuasion and from different walks of life. The diversity of those faculties reflects the authentic spirit of academia. The AUT invitation to boycott them betrays that spirit because it advocates a uniformity of views, under pain of boycott."

"In solidarity with my colleagues and as a symbolic gesture to defend the spirit of a free academia, I wish to be added to the boycott blacklist. Please include me. I hope that other colleagues of all political persuasions will join me," Ottolenghi conclude.

Now some of you may argue that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. That argument has always been a weak one, but one British author and columnist makes it clear that, especially in this case, they are one and the same.

Author and columnist Howard Jacobson said that the boycotts underlined the fact that "Anti-Zionism is, after all, anti-Semitism."

Referring to Sue Blackwell, the Birmingham University lecturer who tabled the boycott motions, Jacobson said that "For Blackwell, the argument of history is only circular anyway. It is no defense of Israel that it has had to fight against being driven into the sea, because the sea, in her view, is where it belongs."

Howard also said that Blackwell's "feverishly pro-Palestinian Web site is under investigation by a Common's Committee [for] possible links with a site blaming Jews for 9/11." Blackwell later said that her Web site had included the link "inadvertently."

Blackwell has posted a triumphant message on her Web site, entitled: "Victory to the academic intifada!" Underneath a photograph of herself wearing a dress made from the Palestinian flag, and flashing a victory sign, the lecturer told readers: Yes folks, we won.

"Anti-Zionism, now, is anti-Semitic," said Jacobson, "because by the actions of its members, the Association of University Teachers has made it so."

So, what we have here is a group of terrorist supporters who have hijacked a union and politicized it in favor of their political goals. In this case, it is acting in support of those who murder Jews for being Jews, and who wish the six million Jews of israel to join the six million Jews of Europe slaughtered by Hitler. Fortunately their anti-Semitism has not spread so far into academia that there is no opposition.

And when they are through dealing with the jew-haters in their midst (indeed, among their leaders), maybe the membrship of the Association of University teachers will consider the issue of whether that corrupt organization needs to exist at all.

Posted by: Greg at 05:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 979 words, total size 6 kb.

Here is a little something for my fellow history geeks!

Egyptian archaeologists have discovered a number of rare Pharaonic seals of soldiers sent out on desert missions in search of red paint to decorate the pyramids, Egypt's culture minister said Thursday.

The 26 matchbox-sized seals belonged to Cheops, who ruled from 2551 to 2528 BC, in whose honour the greatest of the great pyramids of Giza southwest of Cairo was built, and show Pharaonic soldiers' ranks, the MENA news agency quoted Faruq Hosni as saying.

"These seals were used by a mission sent by Cheops to collect ferric oxide, which is necessary to make red paint," said Zahi Hawwas, secretary general of the Higher Council of Antiquities.

Over 50 pottery fragments bearing imprints from the clay and stone seals were found nearby in the region of the Giza pyramids.

"Artisans at the time needed ferric oxide to decorate the pyramids as well as (other) material and funerary installations of the IVth dynasty," to which Cheops belonged, said Hawwas.

"The seals proved the official nature of the missions sent to desert regions," he added.

"The mission was made up of 400 men and a group of people whose job it was to cook during the journey," according to inscriptions on the pottery pieces.

"Archaeologists also found a number of leather bags containing ferric oxide brought back by the mission," he said.

I will never cease to be amazed that, four and a half millenia after the fact,we are still finding the discarded refuse of the ancients and using it to learn about their lives and activities.

Posted by: Greg at 05:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, the GOP has tried to accomodate the obstructionism of the Democrats in the Senate. Bill Frist offered 100 hours of debate on each nominee to the Courts of Appeals, followed by an up or down vote on the nomination. The Democrats, of course, reject any solution that allows the will of the majority of Americans to be carried out.

Reid characterized the Frist offer in an interesting manner.

he Senate's top Democrat immediately expressed doubt about the proposal, calling it "a big wet kiss to the far right."

I suppose that we could therefore characterize the Democratic obstruction of the majority rule as the extended fellatio of the extreme left.

Senate Republicans must do something. Either invoke the nuclear option or insist that the Democrats engage in a real filibuster by speaking 24/7, resulting in the shut-down of all Senate business.

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Shush your silly babblings. Bush already nominated more than 200 judges and nearly all of 'em were approved except for 10 judges. That is less than 10 percent ... and you still whine?

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:28:34 2005 (nWmj6)

2 Well, Ridor, good to see you have mastered the DNC talking points -- which conveniently ignore that the judges approved were almost all District Court judges, not Appeals Court judges. Because of the unwarranted filibuster of judges deemed qualified under the standards announced by Leahy and Schumer in 2001 BEFORE THEY WERE NOMINATED, Bush has the lowest confirmation rate for Appeals Court judges in 50 years.

Now I realize that such facts get in the way of your meme, but truth is truth. Deal with it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 02:30:24 2005 (40i+f)

3 Bada bing!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:27:09 2005 (LmcbS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Just when it appeared that the Red Chinese might be ever so slightly softening their line towards Vatican involvement in Chinese Catholic affairs, they turn around and make a move like this.

Seven priests of the underground Catholic Church were arrested in China's Heibei province on Wednesday, April 27, the Cardinal Kung Foundation reports.

The priests had been attending a spiritual retreat led by Bishop Jia Zhiguo of the Zhending diocese-- who had been under 24-hour surveillance by police for most of the past month. Bishop Jia had reportedly been warned by Chinese officials that he should not schedule any religious activities.

The tight surveillance of Bishop Jia had begun when the death of Pope John Paul II appeared imminent, and continued through the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The Chinese government has established a history of crackdowns on the underground Church at times when religious sentiments are high-- such as Easter and Christmas-- as well as the time of major national holidays and Communist Party meetings.

The article does not indicate what has happened to Bishop Jia. Based upon this report, I presume he is still at liberty, though under observation by Chinese Security forces.

This action shows that the status quo is unchanged in China, despite official condolences offered by Beijing on the death of Pope John Paul II and congratulations to Pope Benedict XVI. Chinese Christians who refuse to be worship under the auspices of the official churches controlled by the Communist government will remain the subjects of persecution and martyrdom for the forseeable future. The international community will, of course, continue to ignore thse human rights violations, and China will continue to serve as a member of the UN Human Rights Commission.

UPDATE: If you want to see the degree to which Chinese Catholics are persecuted, follow this link. The shear number of priests and bishops prevented from exercising their ministry to their flocks is shocking.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’m a big defender of free speech, including speech that I profoundly disagree with. That said, I think these folks have crossed the line. Look at this skit from Err AmericaÂ’s Randi Rhodes Show, as reported by Drudge.

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

This isnÂ’t the first time Rhodes has advocated the murder of George W. Bush. Last year, according to Michelle Malkin, Rhodes did this little number last May.

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.

Buh-bye, bitch – we’ll see you in 10-20 years. Such statements about killing the president are a crime.

UPDATE: It seems this is a serious story on which Drudge got the scoop. Even the folks from Err America are investigating Randi.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve written about the plight of Chinese Christians who refuse to join the state controlled churches. They are subject to arrest, torture, and other forms of abuse for exercising the freedom to believe and to worship as they choose. One would think such persecution would be of interest to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Sadly, though, it is not.

Not only is it not of interest to that organization, but one of its members, China, recently forced the suppression of testimony about the atrocities it commits against Christians. On April 5, Bob Fu of the China Aid Association, appeared before the group to testify about the case of Cai Zhuohua, a pastor imprisoned for printing Bibles without government permission. Fu noted the use of various instruments of torture, in Chinese prisons. This brought a most disturbing result.

One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices — and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua — is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.

Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.

So, it is more serious to offend the government of a repressive dictatorship than it is for that state to engage in the torture of citizens exercising their human rights. How interesting. How pathetic. And they wonder why so many of us do not recognize the legitimacy of the UN any longer.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Aww, boo hoo -- what about the Inquisitions? The Catholic Church savagely murdered thousands of people, perhaps a million, and stole their properties to enrich themselves and now you whine about these damned Chinese X-ians?

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:35:31 2005 (nWmj6)

2 And no doubt you look at the Holocaust and say "The Hebrews slaughtered the Amorites and stole their riches, and now you complain about these damned European Jews?"

Posted by: Rgymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 02:37:18 2005 (40i+f)

3 This is about relatively current events and not something that happened 500 yeas ago. Funny how people keep referring something that happened 500 years as valid but turn a blind eye that's going on in our backyards.

Typical. Only in NYC...wait, make that Philadelphia.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:48:58 2005 (LmcbS)

4 Still reading my blog from day one, mcc -- get a life.

HOlocause was caused by whom? Christians. Starting with the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church -- both preached for years to castigate the Jews. And Hitler picked up on it.

Whose fault was it? Yours, of course -- only in New Mexico would think that no Xian is responsible for it.

R-

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat Apr 30 15:02:38 2005 (nWmj6)

5 Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jewish (insert your favorite religion) were responsible for a lot of human misery back then. Shall I go about whose to blame for the AIDS thing?

Figures.

As for reading blogs, I read alot of people's blogs, including yours. I've admitted this already before...Key Lime, Shifting Realities, wam bam, daily kos, Malkin, Powerline, GOPbloggers, etc...

Know your enemies.

However, what I didn't do is go about complaining, "your blog is so boring and I'm not going to visit it again" and yet you keep coming back to read my blogs and keep making the same complaint 3 or 4 times. And yet I banned you recently a week ago for violating my rules, and you're a hair away from getting banned at RWR. Yet, you tell me to "get a life"???

I don't whine and complain...

http://www.google.com/search?q=ridor+mccock&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&filter=0

That certainly is funny.

But hey, if I catch you make a mistake on your blog, I'll certainly make a note of it in my blog to correct you.

Onward ho!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:16:51 2005 (WvGhb)

6 Let's see -- the Holocaust happened because an anti-Semitic group of Social-ists gained political power and scapegoated the Jews for Germany's problems.

These Social-ists received less than a majority of the German vote, and their lowest vote totals came from the Catholic regions of Germany.

While the Jews received the worst from this gang of Social-ists, the Catholic Church and its institutions were also heavily mistreated.

It is estimated by reputable historians that the Catholic Church saved some 750,000-1,000,000 Jews from the death camps set up by these murderous Social-ists, with the figure of 860,000 being the best documented number.

Two succesive popes (Pius XI & Pius XII) denounced both anti-Semitism and the Social-ist regime's persecution of the Jews in Germany -- something that the governments of the United States and England (to name two) did not do until much later.

While the Social-ist group in question is ostensibly rejected by the Left today, its general support fo terrorists who seek to destroy Israel and murder its people prove that the Left remains as committed to the destruction of the Jews today as it was in 1935.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 16:28:15 2005 (HZavY)

7 Hmm...kool aid drinkers come to mind. The Jim Jones Society of today is indeed quite dangerous, RWR.

Ethnic cleansing, to them, is always justifiable while the many of us abhor it.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:40:08 2005 (WvGhb)

8 I dont drink kool aid -- I hadn't drink one in years.

You may as well as go ahead and drink some.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 12:38:18 2005 (nWmj6)

9 Problem is, I don't justify ethnic cleansing in any way shape or form. You might want to look in the mirror again, R.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 1 15:15:59 2005 (xXUn0)

10 Sometimes it is necessary to wipe the planet off its infections -- like you.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 21:35:53 2005 (nWmj6)

11 Absolutely outrageous, Ridor -- I can only imagine the degree of anger you would express if such a someone had made that comment when we were discussing HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community on the other thread.

The difference -- I would have joined you in expressing anger at that kind of hate -- while you perpetrate it here.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 1 23:00:54 2005 (Zi3ux)

12 Right, RWR. I've never advocated ethnic cleansing...even with HIV realm on ever suggesting that. I'm however outlining stupidity of people who know better regarding the dangers of STDs, even when they have the information.

The thing is, I don't just hate. But what I do hate is seeing stupidity. That's all.

Posted by: mcconell at Mon May 2 02:55:47 2005 (7AMlr)

13 The whole point is that abstinence programs do not work. Just teach the prevention will. And if the gay rights are enacted, the risks will go from high to low because of self-worthiness. I know because I am there. I can see the high risks associated with promiscuity because of self-worthiness perpetuated by discrimination from the family, churches, government. Go figure.

That does not mean that I have the HIV -- I routinely tested every six months and I can see how it is bad for others when they lacked the support from anyone else in particular.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 08:23:50 2005 (nWmj6)

14 "Routinely tested." - that says alot.


And certainly, abstinence does work. It's up to the person. You're not going to die practicing abstinence. However, not doing so could certainly be the case.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 10:14:54 2005 (LmcbS)

15 And of course, Ridor, teaching people not to drink and drive diesn't work either -- so let's get kids drunk and put them behind the wheel to teach them to be safe drunk drivers.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 10:34:06 2005 (PMXcw)

16 McWeenie, if one person does not want to have sex, that is fine with me. But common sense dictated that the majority of them will have sex sooner or later, like it or not.

So better to teach them the means to prevent themselves from getting STDs. What is so wwrong about it? Why so relentless on abstinence? Most teenagers will not listen to that crap, trust me.

It certainly worked but very few ones will practice abstinence whereas the rest will do it anyway -- so let's do the prevention for the majority. Stop lying around.

Routinely tested is a personal thing, it is none of your business to determine what kind of person I am. You simply do not know who I am. NOr do I with you. Stay out of mine and I'll stay out of yours.

RWR, as always, your logic is flawed.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 12:32:12 2005 (nWmj6)

17 And as usual, you do not bother to refute an actual argument, but instead banter about your personal stuff.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 12:48:08 2005 (PMXcw)

18 Like I said, R, I don't "kiss and tell" and you having an open book in your blogsite doesn't help either. And for you to make comments here, doesn't help either.

Abstinence works. It's a choice when you give them all the options and provide them the risk analysis and awareness, and the graphic reality of contracting STDs. Condoms are not 100% effective, while abstinence is. Simple as that even though they may want to try sex but they need to see the absolute reality of STDs and pregnancy first hand early enough in their life. Nothing wrong with that, either. It all boils down to an informed decision.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 12:52:23 2005 (LmcbS)

19 Abstinence does NOT work for the MAJORITY of the population. It is merely a *choice*.

Hell, I'll just stop talking to you both. I'm done with you both. You simply refused to reason but to berate repeatedly to your advantages.

What I do with my life is none of your business. I chose to be honest about who I am, and if you want to ridicule, so be it. Go ahead. But guess what? I won't participate.

See ya later, f*ers.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 17:48:54 2005 (nWmj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

IÂ’ve written about the plight of Chinese Christians who refuse to join the state controlled churches. They are subject to arrest, torture, and other forms of abuse for exercising the freedom to believe and to worship as they choose. One would think such persecution would be of interest to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Sadly, though, it is not.

Not only is it not of interest to that organization, but one of its members, China, recently forced the suppression of testimony about the atrocities it commits against Christians. On April 5, Bob Fu of the China Aid Association, appeared before the group to testify about the case of Cai Zhuohua, a pastor imprisoned for printing Bibles without government permission. Fu noted the use of various instruments of torture, in Chinese prisons. This brought a most disturbing result.

One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices — and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua — is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.

Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.

So, it is more serious to offend the government of a repressive dictatorship than it is for that state to engage in the torture of citizens exercising their human rights. How interesting. How pathetic. And they wonder why so many of us do not recognize the legitimacy of the UN any longer.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Aww, boo hoo -- what about the Inquisitions? The Catholic Church savagely murdered thousands of people, perhaps a million, and stole their properties to enrich themselves and now you whine about these damned Chinese X-ians? R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:35:31 2005 (nWmj6)

2 And no doubt you look at the Holocaust and say "The Hebrews slaughtered the Amorites and stole their riches, and now you complain about these damned European Jews?"

Posted by: Rgymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 02:37:18 2005 (40i+f)

3 This is about relatively current events and not something that happened 500 yeas ago. Funny how people keep referring something that happened 500 years as valid but turn a blind eye that's going on in our backyards. Typical. Only in NYC...wait, make that Philadelphia.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:48:58 2005 (LmcbS)

4 Still reading my blog from day one, mcc -- get a life. HOlocause was caused by whom? Christians. Starting with the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church -- both preached for years to castigate the Jews. And Hitler picked up on it. Whose fault was it? Yours, of course -- only in New Mexico would think that no Xian is responsible for it. R- R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat Apr 30 15:02:38 2005 (nWmj6)

5 Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jewish (insert your favorite religion) were responsible for a lot of human misery back then. Shall I go about whose to blame for the AIDS thing? Figures. As for reading blogs, I read alot of people's blogs, including yours. I've admitted this already before...Key Lime, Shifting Realities, wam bam, daily kos, Malkin, Powerline, GOPbloggers, etc... Know your enemies. However, what I didn't do is go about complaining, "your blog is so boring and I'm not going to visit it again" and yet you keep coming back to read my blogs and keep making the same complaint 3 or 4 times. And yet I banned you recently a week ago for violating my rules, and you're a hair away from getting banned at RWR. Yet, you tell me to "get a life"??? I don't whine and complain... http://www.google.com/search?q=ridor+mccock&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&filter=0 That certainly is funny. But hey, if I catch you make a mistake on your blog, I'll certainly make a note of it in my blog to correct you. Onward ho!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:16:51 2005 (WvGhb)

6 Let's see -- the Holocaust happened because an anti-Semitic group of Social-ists gained political power and scapegoated the Jews for Germany's problems. These Social-ists received less than a majority of the German vote, and their lowest vote totals came from the Catholic regions of Germany. While the Jews received the worst from this gang of Social-ists, the Catholic Church and its institutions were also heavily mistreated. It is estimated by reputable historians that the Catholic Church saved some 750,000-1,000,000 Jews from the death camps set up by these murderous Social-ists, with the figure of 860,000 being the best documented number. Two succesive popes (Pius XI & Pius XII) denounced both anti-Semitism and the Social-ist regime's persecution of the Jews in Germany -- something that the governments of the United States and England (to name two) did not do until much later. While the Social-ist group in question is ostensibly rejected by the Left today, its general support fo terrorists who seek to destroy Israel and murder its people prove that the Left remains as committed to the destruction of the Jews today as it was in 1935.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 16:28:15 2005 (HZavY)

7 Hmm...kool aid drinkers come to mind. The Jim Jones Society of today is indeed quite dangerous, RWR. Ethnic cleansing, to them, is always justifiable while the many of us abhor it.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:40:08 2005 (WvGhb)

8 I dont drink kool aid -- I hadn't drink one in years. You may as well as go ahead and drink some. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 12:38:18 2005 (nWmj6)

9 Problem is, I don't justify ethnic cleansing in any way shape or form. You might want to look in the mirror again, R.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 1 15:15:59 2005 (xXUn0)

10 Sometimes it is necessary to wipe the planet off its infections -- like you. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 21:35:53 2005 (nWmj6)

11 Absolutely outrageous, Ridor -- I can only imagine the degree of anger you would express if such a someone had made that comment when we were discussing HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community on the other thread. The difference -- I would have joined you in expressing anger at that kind of hate -- while you perpetrate it here.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 1 23:00:54 2005 (Zi3ux)

12 Right, RWR. I've never advocated ethnic cleansing...even with HIV realm on ever suggesting that. I'm however outlining stupidity of people who know better regarding the dangers of STDs, even when they have the information. The thing is, I don't just hate. But what I do hate is seeing stupidity. That's all.

Posted by: mcconell at Mon May 2 02:55:47 2005 (7AMlr)

13 The whole point is that abstinence programs do not work. Just teach the prevention will. And if the gay rights are enacted, the risks will go from high to low because of self-worthiness. I know because I am there. I can see the high risks associated with promiscuity because of self-worthiness perpetuated by discrimination from the family, churches, government. Go figure. That does not mean that I have the HIV -- I routinely tested every six months and I can see how it is bad for others when they lacked the support from anyone else in particular. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 08:23:50 2005 (nWmj6)

14 "Routinely tested." - that says alot. And certainly, abstinence does work. It's up to the person. You're not going to die practicing abstinence. However, not doing so could certainly be the case.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 10:14:54 2005 (LmcbS)

15 And of course, Ridor, teaching people not to drink and drive diesn't work either -- so let's get kids drunk and put them behind the wheel to teach them to be safe drunk drivers.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 10:34:06 2005 (PMXcw)

16 McWeenie, if one person does not want to have sex, that is fine with me. But common sense dictated that the majority of them will have sex sooner or later, like it or not. So better to teach them the means to prevent themselves from getting STDs. What is so wwrong about it? Why so relentless on abstinence? Most teenagers will not listen to that crap, trust me. It certainly worked but very few ones will practice abstinence whereas the rest will do it anyway -- so let's do the prevention for the majority. Stop lying around. Routinely tested is a personal thing, it is none of your business to determine what kind of person I am. You simply do not know who I am. NOr do I with you. Stay out of mine and I'll stay out of yours. RWR, as always, your logic is flawed. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 12:32:12 2005 (nWmj6)

17 And as usual, you do not bother to refute an actual argument, but instead banter about your personal stuff.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 12:48:08 2005 (PMXcw)

18 Like I said, R, I don't "kiss and tell" and you having an open book in your blogsite doesn't help either. And for you to make comments here, doesn't help either. Abstinence works. It's a choice when you give them all the options and provide them the risk analysis and awareness, and the graphic reality of contracting STDs. Condoms are not 100% effective, while abstinence is. Simple as that even though they may want to try sex but they need to see the absolute reality of STDs and pregnancy first hand early enough in their life. Nothing wrong with that, either. It all boils down to an informed decision.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 12:52:23 2005 (LmcbS)

19 Abstinence does NOT work for the MAJORITY of the population. It is merely a *choice*. Hell, I'll just stop talking to you both. I'm done with you both. You simply refused to reason but to berate repeatedly to your advantages. What I do with my life is none of your business. I chose to be honest about who I am, and if you want to ridicule, so be it. Go ahead. But guess what? I won't participate. See ya later, f*ers. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 17:48:54 2005 (nWmj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Some folks want a big church wedding. Others would prefer something more low key, such as getting married by a judge at the County Building. But it appears that there is even a “no frills” way of getting married that eliminates all the ceremony – a wedding at which neither party has to appear. Believe it or not, you can do that in the state of Montana – even if both of you are not physically in the state. Believe it or not, it is legal, and can be done for under $1000.

Who gets married this way? Here's one typical couple.

First Lt. Derek Ping couldn’t wait to marry his fiancee. So he got hitched from 7,000 miles away, without even saying “I do.”

“When she told me we could get married without either of us being there, I thought it was pretty weird,” the 25-year-old soldier admitted. “Now that we did it — well, it’s still weird. But I’m glad we did it.”

The couple’s double-proxy marriage — a legal ceremony requiring neither party to be present — is among about 30 weddings organized by S&B Inc, nearly all military.

While several states allow a stand-in to say the vows for one spouse, the completely absentee nuptials are an option only in Montana; the union is recognized by all 50 states and the U.S. military.

The Pings, who live in Waco, Texas, had to fill out several identification forms and submit notarized statements of their sworn love before they received a marriage certificate in the mail. But for the couple, it was the only way to tie the knot while he was deployed in Iraq.

Soldiers are realizing that if they donÂ’t make it home, the woman they promised to marry later will have no access to benefits if he dies. So rather than waiting, there is a way for the couples to get married now. It may not be romantic, but it is practical. Most couples apparently have a church wedding latter.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

At the University of California – San Francisco, it will be "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day" on Thursday, with the program sponsored by the Center For Gender Equity. Unfortunately, the term “Gender Equity” has quite an Orwellian meaning. All you have to do is look at the scheduled program to understand that the program is being run in a manner that can only be described as “separate and unequal.”

For example, the 9- and 10-year-old daughters are being invited to participate in 17 hands-on activities such as working with microscopes, slicing brains, doing skull comparisons, seeing what goes on in the operating room, playing surgeon, dentist or nurse for a day, and visiting the intensive care unit nursery, where they can set up blood pressure cuffs and operate the monitors.
They can learn about earthquake and disaster preparedness, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to operate several types of equipment -- even fire a laser.

And what do the boys get to do?

Learn about "gender equity in fun, creative ways using media, role playing and group games" -- after which, the boys can get a bit of time in with a microscope or learn how the heart works.

Yeah, you’ve got it – the girls get to experience all the neat things the University has to offer, while the boys get political indoctrination in Double-Plus-Good feminist thought. The Center’s director defends the two-track program this way.

Longtime center director Amy Levine, however, tells us the program isn't intended to give boys and girls the same learning opportunities -- nor, she says, is it a career day.

"It's about dealing with effects of sexism on both boys and girls and how it can damage them," she said.

Hence, while the boys undergo gender sensitivity training, the girls focus on their capabilities -- be it handling a scalpel or microscope.

Well, at least they are not claiming that the programs are equal – but I am a little bit scared that Ms. Levine is so proud of fostering discrimination at a public university using public dollars. What led to the decision to set up the two tracks?

UCSF tried mixing the boys with the girls a few years back, but Levine says it just didn't work out.

"It mirrored the same sexism that occurs in the classroom daily," she said, "where boys raise their hands more often, demand more attention and have discipline problems."

So now the boys have their own gender sensitivity program, where "they learn about violence prevention and how to be allies to the girls and women in their lives," Levine said.

So because boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, there needs to be a separate program to emasculate the males and turn them into pathetic little Alan Aldas and Al Frankens. I hope that parents at UCSF have the courage to just say no to this pathetic attempt at social engineering, and that UCSF either mends it or ends it by the time next year rolls around.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

At the University of California – San Francisco, it will be "Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day" on Thursday, with the program sponsored by the Center For Gender Equity. Unfortunately, the term “Gender Equity” has quite an Orwellian meaning. All you have to do is look at the scheduled program to understand that the program is being run in a manner that can only be described as “separate and unequal.”

For example, the 9- and 10-year-old daughters are being invited to participate in 17 hands-on activities such as working with microscopes, slicing brains, doing skull comparisons, seeing what goes on in the operating room, playing surgeon, dentist or nurse for a day, and visiting the intensive care unit nursery, where they can set up blood pressure cuffs and operate the monitors.
They can learn about earthquake and disaster preparedness, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to operate several types of equipment -- even fire a laser.

And what do the boys get to do?

Learn about "gender equity in fun, creative ways using media, role playing and group games" -- after which, the boys can get a bit of time in with a microscope or learn how the heart works.

Yeah, you’ve got it – the girls get to experience all the neat things the University has to offer, while the boys get political indoctrination in Double-Plus-Good feminist thought. The Center’s director defends the two-track program this way.

Longtime center director Amy Levine, however, tells us the program isn't intended to give boys and girls the same learning opportunities -- nor, she says, is it a career day.

"It's about dealing with effects of sexism on both boys and girls and how it can damage them," she said.

Hence, while the boys undergo gender sensitivity training, the girls focus on their capabilities -- be it handling a scalpel or microscope.

Well, at least they are not claiming that the programs are equal – but I am a little bit scared that Ms. Levine is so proud of fostering discrimination at a public university using public dollars. What led to the decision to set up the two tracks?

UCSF tried mixing the boys with the girls a few years back, but Levine says it just didn't work out.

"It mirrored the same sexism that occurs in the classroom daily," she said, "where boys raise their hands more often, demand more attention and have discipline problems."

So now the boys have their own gender sensitivity program, where "they learn about violence prevention and how to be allies to the girls and women in their lives," Levine said.

So because boys acted like boys and girls acted like girls, there needs to be a separate program to emasculate the males and turn them into pathetic little Alan Aldas and Al Frankens. I hope that parents at UCSF have the courage to just say no to this pathetic attempt at social engineering, and that UCSF either mends it or ends it by the time next year rolls around.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.

We got new textbooks at school last year. As I began to flip through them, I noticed that they used the traditional B.C./A.D. dating convention rather than the newer B.C.E./C.E. convention that has become more popular in recent years. Personally, I donÂ’t have a problem with using either system, but it seems that folks on both sides of the debate are somewhat more worked up over it.

In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out.

The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.

Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.

For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.

This raises the question: Can old and new coexist in harmony, or must one give way to the other to reflect changing times and attitudes?

Now I don’t see why both sides cannot exist in harmony. The breaking point is still the same, and that is the life of Christ. But while I am generally accepting of the B.C.E./C.E., I was initially taught it as Before Christian Era and Christian Era. In my classes, I present both dating systems, and discuss the underlying reasons for using each. I also tell my students that they ultimately have to make a choice in what system to use, and that either one is acceptable – and then proceed to use B.C. and A.D myself for the rest of the year.

Now I am particularly shocked at this criticism that shows up in the article, indicating extreme ignorance or extreme bias.

Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.

Hold on just one moment. There is no 33-year gap between the eras. The year 1 B.C. is followed by 1 A.D., marking the traditional year of the birth of Christ (who probably was born between 7 B.C. and 4 B.C.) – there are no years floating around in limbo, falling into neither category. And the lack of a Year 0 is a rather absurd idea as well. After all, when we start counting something, we do not begin by labeling the first one as zero. No, we count them out sequentially, beginning with the number one. The arguments the article makes are just plain stupid, and I cannot imagine any serious scholar offering them.

Now there is a legitimate argument to be made against using B.C. and A.D., and that is the fact that it makes every date into a statement about a religious figure who is rejected by about 75% of the people of the world – more, if one recognizes there are a lot of folks out there who call themselves Christian who have no particular faith in Christ. I certainly understand where making a religious profession every time one uses a calendar might trouble them.

"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

I accept that argument, which is why IÂ’m not troubled by the usage of B.C.E. and C.E. as meaning Before Christian Era and Christian Era. It accurately acknowledges the reason for the reason for making a change in dating in the traditional Western calendar system, but avoids requiring anything that resembles a profession of faith. At the same time, it does not engage in religious cleansing, in that it acknowledges the historical centrality of Christianity in the Western world.

Not everyone agrees with me, though.

Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.

"The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.

For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.

"I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."

Now I think de Russy overstates the case. The original use of the term in Hebrew schools was designed to be sensitive to both Christians and Jews, and I think that principle certainly extends beyond those two groups and into the world as a whole. But I think Nash carries the argument too far, given that the logical implication of his position is that we should develop a whole new calendar that begins with the year 1 B.W.S.S. (Because We Say So). And that ignores the fact that for some 15 centuries, dates in the West have been calculated according to the system set up by Dionysius Exiguus. It has become the de facto dating system of the world.

In the end, I find myself coming down on the same side as the Professional Association of Georgia EducatorsÂ’ Tim Callahan.

"Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."

The entire debate is rather silly. There are much greater issues for us to look at. In the end, any of the usages should be considered acceptable. This is a battle that does not need to be fought by either side, and from which all should disengage with an understanding that all three dating conventions will be tolerated. Anyone who cannot do that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1103 words, total size 7 kb.

The liberal wing of the US Supreme Court upheld the right to keep and bear arms today, against the dissents of conservative judges who sided with the Bush administration in its attempt to restrict firearms ownership. And the entire case revolved around the question of whether or not a statute should be read literally.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that U.S. law, which prohibits felons who have been convicted in "any court" from owning guns, applies only to domestic crimes.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said interpreting the law broadly to apply to foreign convictions would be unfair to defendants because procedural protections are often less in international courts. If Congress intended foreign convictions to apply, they can rewrite the law to specifically say so, he said.

"We have no reason to believe that Congress considered the added enforcement advantages flowing from inclusion of foreign crimes, weighing them against, say, the potential unfairness of preventing those with inapt foreign convictions from possessing guns," Breyer wrote.

He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Congress intended for foreign convictions to apply. "Any" court literally means any court, he wrote.

"Read naturally, the word 'any' has an expansive meaning, that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,'" Thomas said.

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Small had answered "no" to the felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, a few days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws in that country.

Small was indicted in 2000 for lying on the form and for illegally owning two pistols and 335 rounds of ammunition. He later entered a conditional guilty plea pending the outcome of this case.

The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions.

It seems somewhat ironic here that the conservative reading of the statute brought the dissenting justices into support for one more liberal gun-grabbing scheme, and that the liberals supported gun ownership. After all, these folks would usually line up the other way on Second Amendment issues. However, Thomas has the matter right in noting that the plain language of the statute does not exclude foreign convictions. Breyer’s disregard for the plain meaning of the word “any” is one more example of the tendency of liberal judges to make the law say what they want it to say, not what it actually says.

On the other hand, I would have preferred that the entire statute be tossed as a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

The liberal wing of the US Supreme Court upheld the right to keep and bear arms today, against the dissents of conservative judges who sided with the Bush administration in its attempt to restrict firearms ownership. And the entire case revolved around the question of whether or not a statute should be read literally.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that U.S. law, which prohibits felons who have been convicted in "any court" from owning guns, applies only to domestic crimes.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said interpreting the law broadly to apply to foreign convictions would be unfair to defendants because procedural protections are often less in international courts. If Congress intended foreign convictions to apply, they can rewrite the law to specifically say so, he said.

"We have no reason to believe that Congress considered the added enforcement advantages flowing from inclusion of foreign crimes, weighing them against, say, the potential unfairness of preventing those with inapt foreign convictions from possessing guns," Breyer wrote.

He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Congress intended for foreign convictions to apply. "Any" court literally means any court, he wrote.

"Read naturally, the word 'any' has an expansive meaning, that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,'" Thomas said.

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Small had answered "no" to the felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, a few days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws in that country.

Small was indicted in 2000 for lying on the form and for illegally owning two pistols and 335 rounds of ammunition. He later entered a conditional guilty plea pending the outcome of this case.

The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions.

It seems somewhat ironic here that the conservative reading of the statute brought the dissenting justices into support for one more liberal gun-grabbing scheme, and that the liberals supported gun ownership. After all, these folks would usually line up the other way on Second Amendment issues. However, Thomas has the matter right in noting that the plain language of the statute does not exclude foreign convictions. Breyer’s disregard for the plain meaning of the word “any” is one more example of the tendency of liberal judges to make the law say what they want it to say, not what it actually says.

On the other hand, I would have preferred that the entire statute be tossed as a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’m not an Ann Coulter fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel I should comment on this story. It shows the hypocrisy of liberal academics when it comes to conservative speakers.

The Rev. Dennis Dease, President of MinnesotaÂ’s University of St. Thomas, condemned a speech by author and columnist Ann Coulter given last week at his school.

The president of the University of St. Thomas on Monday condemned a speech at the Catholic school last week by conservative author Ann Coulter, saying "such hateful speech vulgarizes our culture and goes against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for."

The Rev. Dennis Dease wrote in Bulletin Today, a university newsletter, that "although her presentation may have been meant as an 'act' or a 'shtick' to entertain by provoking those who disagree, such behavior unfortunately contributes to the growing dark side of our culture -- a disrespect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs."

Now I find Coulter a bit to vituperative for my taste, but you wonÂ’t find me condemning her speech at St. Thomas. After all, I wasnÂ’t there, and havenÂ’t seen a transcript.

That didn’t stop Dease. You see he didn’t attend the speech either, but has merely relied on second-hand accounts of the event. It’s sort of telling when an intellectual feels he can condemn the content and tone of a speech that he didn’t attend. Doesn’t THAT go against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for? Or does Rev. Dease think that “respect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs” doesn’t include giving them a fair hearing before condemning them for expressing those sincerely held beliefs? And would Dease have made the same sort of statement against Ward Churchill?

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 AM | Comments (97) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Robert Downey, Jr. had this unusual exchange with interviewer Lorraine Kelly on the UK show This Morning.

The former Hollywood bad boy had daytime viewers choking on their cornflakes when he made the remark on ITV1 show This Morning.

Kelly, wearing an orange cardigan and black camisole which revealed a hint of cleavage, was hosting the show in place of Fern Britton.

She welcomed Downey Jr to the show by telling him: "You look fantastic, you look really well."

The 40-year-old actor replied: "Thanks. I was going to say that your t*ts look great too!"

A clearly shocked Kelly, 45, said "Thank you, that's nice," as Downey Jr added: "Particularly today."

Kelly managed to say: "Oh good, well I'm glad I made you happy."

Gazing down at her cleavage and adjusting her top, she said: "I didn't realise they were so out."

Kelly's co-host Jeremy Kyle, on his first day as temporary replacement for Phillip Schofield, stepped in to change the subject by saying: "Let's move swiftly on."

An embarrassed Kelly agreed: "I think we should."

Could you imagine such an exchange with Katie Couric?

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Couric? She hasn't any.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Apr 26 14:25:01 2005 (JQ7tV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Some stories are just too good to ignore.

PIKESVILLE, Md. (AP) - A herd of buffalo somehow got loose and wandered around an upscale neighborhood Tuesday, disrupting traffic and alarming homeowners before officers managed to corral them in a tennis court.

More than a dozen police cars and a police helicopter were used to herd the roughly 10 beasts, authorities said.

"Somehow they figured it out; I've got to give a lot of credit to the creativity of our officers," police spokesman Shawn Vinson said.

Authorities have identified the owner of the buffalo but did not release the person's name immediately.

Residents in the Baltimore suburb first reported that buffalo were meandering along the road about 7 a.m.

Police shut down several major traffic arteries, including a section of the Baltimore Beltway, while they tried to anticipate which way the buffalo would roam.

Officers eventually managed to maneuver the buffalo onto the tennis court about a mile from where they first were spotted.

No word on deer and antelope sightings.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

Some stories are just too good to ignore.

PIKESVILLE, Md. (AP) - A herd of buffalo somehow got loose and wandered around an upscale neighborhood Tuesday, disrupting traffic and alarming homeowners before officers managed to corral them in a tennis court.

More than a dozen police cars and a police helicopter were used to herd the roughly 10 beasts, authorities said.

"Somehow they figured it out; I've got to give a lot of credit to the creativity of our officers," police spokesman Shawn Vinson said.

Authorities have identified the owner of the buffalo but did not release the person's name immediately.

Residents in the Baltimore suburb first reported that buffalo were meandering along the road about 7 a.m.

Police shut down several major traffic arteries, including a section of the Baltimore Beltway, while they tried to anticipate which way the buffalo would roam.

Officers eventually managed to maneuver the buffalo onto the tennis court about a mile from where they first were spotted.

No word on deer and antelope sightings.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

When you are in a poetry class, you are supposed to write poetry. Or at least that is what Southern Connecticut State University graduate student Edward Bolles thought when he signed up for English 202, Introduction to Poetry. But he and the professor, Kelly Ritter, had differences of opinion over the liberal political themes of poems selected by Professor Riitter, and the two developed a dislike for one anotehr. That led to Bolles to write a satirical poem about a racist white professor, loosely based upon Ritter.

That is when the crap hit the fan.

Southern Connecticut State University barred a student from a poetry class after his professor said a poem he submitted contained veiled threats to sexually assault her and her 3-year-old daughter.

The student, Edward Bolles, said his poem entitled "Professor White," was meant to be a satirical piece about globalization. In it, a Mexican student named Juan has a sexual encounter with the daughter of his white professor.

Bolles' professor, Kelly Ritter, found the poem "disturbing," according to an April 8 campus police report, and said she believed the poem was a threat. University officials prohibited Bolles, who is Mexican, from attending his poetry class while he was investigated.

Now there are some key differences between Bolles and Juan, and between Ritter and the poem's title character. The main one is that the daughter with whom Juan has a sexual encounter is a college student, not a three-year old, while Bolles was unaware that Ritter had a daughter at all.

Bolles said the poem's interracial affair symbolizes white America's feeling that Mexicans are corrupting their culture. The encounter is not violent, and the professor's daughter brings Juan home to meet her disapproving mother.

"I came in using a different set of reasoning as context to look at the craft of poetry, and she was put off by it," Bolles said.

The poem ends with the professor trying to get Juan kicked out of school by calling one of his poems racist.

Ritter, claiming that the poem was a threat of sexual assault against bothe her and her daughter, filed a police report and demanded Bolles be removed from her class. Not only that, but she demanded that the student be required to submit to a psychiatric evaluation. Presumably the results of that evaluation, had it been required, would have been the basis for seeking Bolles expulsion from the college.

Bolles, though, fought back. After being put out of his class, he began a protest around campus. It got the results he wanted, probably because of the embarassing publicity that his actons generated.

Bolles began publicly protesting the university's decision Monday, wearing a "Save Professor White" shirt and handing out fliers on campus. After that protest began and university officials received calls from The Associated Press Monday, Bolles received a hand-delivered, one-sentence letter from the administration:

"As a result of the investigation, I wish to inform you that no formal disciplinary charges will be filed on behalf of the university and you are permitted to return to your English 202, Section 1, course, Introduction to Poetry," Christopher Piscitelli, director of judicial affairs, wrote.

Bolles remains concerned about his return to the class. He declines to offer Ritter any apology, nor do I believe he should. Of greater concern is how he will be received by classmates following the two week absence from the class and Ritter's possible comments on it. He is also concerned about having fallen behind due to Ritter's persecution of a student she didn't like or agree with, amd whether or not he will be given a fair chance to recover from his forced exile.

And as an outside observer, I have to wonder what action will be taken against Professor Ritter for her unjust and unfounded actions against Edward Bolles.

Posted by: Greg at 03:43 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Hi,

I thank you for your interest in the controversy that I am involved in. The issue touches upon several topics that are hot today: free speech and academic terrorism on campus, immigration, and globalization.

Thanks,
Edward Bolles

Posted by: Edward Bolles at Tue Apr 26 07:25:00 2005 (7fvI5)

2 Just one clarifying point: Yes, Edward missed two weeks of class. But, two of the four days were due to his choice not to show up. He did not bother to show up to his class on the day that he turned the paper in (was that very courageous?) and the following day. So, at least part of his absences were due to his own choice. I think it is significant that he is willfully changing that fact in his press release.

Posted by: Anonymous SCSU Teacher at Tue Apr 26 08:45:40 2005 (7fvI5)

3 Please explain what 'courage' has to do with this? If anyone should be held to the flame for 'courage' it should be the professor. Her inability to overcome her obvious fear of an opposing viewpoint goes against the grain of what a lit teacher is supposed to be all about. Thank god she wasn't Henry Miller's professor. Her insistence on a 'psych evaluation' is a further embarassment to teachers everywhere. On top of that, her willingness to twist the facts is inexcusable, and I would hope that she is asked to answer for her actions.

A quote form the story I read is as follows:

"Bolles said the poem's interracial affair symbolizes white America's feeling that Mexicans are corrupting their culture. The encounter is not violent, and the professor's daughter brings Juan home to meet her disapproving mother."

For the teacher to twist it into a violent sexual episode and claim it was about her 3 year old daughter (when was the last time a3 year old brought a college kid home to meet mom, introducing him as a date?) is a gross misuse of her authority.

Maybe she thought the she could leverage the mindset of the post-columbine age, where 1 in 138 of every americans is incarcerated (that figure also predates the recent 10,000 person roundup in operation condor), to meet her own agenda it is despicable. In addition, the attempt by the 'anonymous' SCSU teacher (talk about courage, why not go on the record with a name??) to point out that he missed two days of his own volition is a lame attempt to obsfucate the issue here. The issue, from my view point,is clearly intolerance and censorship, with possible racist overtones.

Welcome to education in the new millennium.

Posted by: Tony Tedesco at Tue Apr 26 11:03:31 2005 (fnEAK)

4 Until you've read the poem, Mr. Tedesco, you have no way of knowing if any of what you say is true. You've taken sides based on nothing but your prejudice. If Mr. Bolles would care to post his poem, then there would be a basis for discussion here. Until that time, however, there is no basis for anything substantive.

Posted by: Michael at Wed Apr 27 00:32:36 2005 (RLG/j)

5 I read the poem, and it seemed like nothing but a piece to strictly irk the teacher and nothing more. It seems the "globalization" excuse is nothing but a cover-up for the real problem, whatever it may be. Anti-globalization, especially from whites to hispanics is almost non-existant. Almost every English-speaking Hispanic I've ever met refers to himself as a "coconut" (white on the inside, brown on the outside) - their term, not mine. I see lots of interracial couples, and there's more hispanic/white relationships than there are black/white - from my personal POV. Mr. Bowles issues seem to be more self-inflicted than anything, and it seems he is the racist one. The main reason, if any, why whites don't get involved with hispanics (especially in smalltown America), is because not every white person habla espanol. And no, I don't know either of these individuals. My question is what race is the wife of Mr. Bowles? Could it be he has hatred towards whites because he was never accepted into a white family, though many many other hispanics are accepted into white families in this day and age? I'm not a racist person, because I'm white and I have dated outside of my race moreso than within my race - and mostly hispanic (Mexican and Puerto Rican). Living in TX, I see many Mexican men/White women couples, every day, all the time - and many Mexican men have bragged to me that they are with a white woman. Why is that? A trophy, maybe? To me, love is love no matter what gender or race you are with, so I don't see the sense of bragging about who you're with, unless you're just with somebody that makes you so happy that you have to tell everyone about it. But why bring your partners race into it when you're rubbing it in (as if you have to in the first place)? Just a little food for thought while we're on this subject, so maybe somebody can explain this to me. I never met a hispanic person until I was in 10th grade in high school LOL, and from my experience, it's just as tough for a white person trying to be accepted into a hispanic family as it is for a hispanic person into a white family. If anybody needs to work on the "globalization" thing, it's BOTH sides, not just whites.

Posted by: keepingitreal at Wed Apr 27 00:56:35 2005 (jm7xX)

6 Michael,

I have requested to read a copy of the poem, and am still waiting to hear back about getting a copy. I am taking sides based on the information available to me at the time I made my initial post.

Apparently you missed me saying that these things I said were from 'my point of view'. My point of view is not one based on predjudice, but on what i satetd the facts as I have come to know them though the various press releases I have read to be. Are you saying that the poem did indeed have a violent sexual encounter with a 3 year year old? This point, the inane comment the anonymous teacher made about 'courage', and the recently released DOJ statistics were the only were the points that I stated as fact.

Maybe your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up on, or maybe you simply need to read before you comment on something I have posted. To that point, and for the record, the use of the word 'Maybe'in my penultimate paragrah should clearly delineate an opinion not a fact. As in 'Perhaps' or 'Could it be?'

Since Ritter has refused comment to the press on the issue, I can only comment on what I have read. It is certainly within my rights to make a comment if I feel that I have something to say. Your attempt to silence me through psuedo bully tactics like you seem to be employing here is futile.

Awaiting your response..

Tony

Posted by: Tony Tedesco at Wed Apr 27 06:55:48 2005 (fnEAK)

7 We all need to see this poem. Until that occurs, it simply is just people taking sides.

If Bolle's case is as he suggests, then the most overwhelming piece of evidence would be the poem. Why then does he not display it?

On the outside looking in, it appears he stepped over the line, and is now painting himself as a victim.

I call for the release of the poem by a third party.

Posted by: redjalapeno at Wed Apr 27 07:03:37 2005 (rN6GS)

8 Keepingitreal,
Is there somewhere that I can read a copy of the poem? After reading your post, I am even more interested in reading this poem than before.

My 'problem' with the teacher involved is one simply of censorship and a closed mind on an educator's behalf. Let me ask you, was there violent sex or sex of any kind with a three year old (or someone not of 'dating age')involved? If so, then I will gladly (and publicly) eat a helping of crow. If not, then I will consider myself vindicated (for Michael's sake) in reagrds to my earlier post.

This is the point that my cause for posting rests on. The fact that Ritter 'apparently' twisted the facts to persecute a student, even one who may have been attempting to 'irk' her is reprehensible.

I would also like to comment that maybe your experience with the hispanic community, percentage of interracial relationships, and the attitude of 'whites' towards globalization may be a product of your proximity to the border. I can assure you that in the Northeast, there are more than a handful of whites who are anti-globalization. In addition, the area i live in has quite a substantial hispanic community, and from my experience with my neighbors and co-workers I can say that the environment and my experiences here here do not parallel the ones where you live.

Regardless, I am very interested to read this poem. I frankly don't care if it's racist, pro-globalization, anti-globalization, or intended to irk. There has always been, and always will be, incindiary literature. My main point of interest is about this teacher's 'apparent' attempt to have this student castigated by creating hysteria over a poem and lying about it's contents. I have a concern over this country's direction, as a whole, towards a police state. Incidents like this, and other recent ones where a high school student was temporarily persecuted for a ficticious short story have me concerned for the future of this country. If students are taught fear and silence over speaking their minds, especially in a lit class, the horsemen of the apocalypse might as well be suiting up.

Posted by: Tony Tedesco at Wed Apr 27 07:22:57 2005 (fnEAK)

9 Redjalapeno,
If he overstepped the line, why did the school find no wrongdoing? Why not stand by their guns if he truly 'overstepped' the line?

That being said, I agree until the poem is displayed it is just folks taking sides, but I suspect that once the poem is displayed it will still be people taking sides.

I stand by my original point that unless the poem indicates violent sex and sex with a three year old, the teacher is completely out of line.
On the other hand, if the poem does indeed indicate violent sex with a three year old, I am clearly and completely out of line.

Tony

Posted by: Tony Tedesco at Wed Apr 27 07:27:54 2005 (fnEAK)

10 OK,
I have received a copy of this poem from the author himself, I find myself completely amazed at the the fact that this guy was persecuted over this as well as keepingitreal's comment that he actually read the poem. I can not find anything to correlate KIR's points to the actual piece.

This poem is clearly about globalization, not from a political perspective but rather a personal one and the effects of gentrification of culture that is outside the bounds of the WASP society. How even at universities, the sanctuary of our melting pot cultures, can turn hostile when ideal meet reality.

He paints the professor as a liberal who does all the right liberal things (Kerry supporter, etc.), but once faced with the real face of change and someone and something different shows their true colors. This is especially driven home when the professors COLLEGE AGE Daughter ("That in the same dorm and just over next door" 6th stanza, second line) and the professors face drops to the floor when faced with the reality the betrays her liberal posturing.

I can only hope that Edward posts his poem here or somewhere else publicly and all can see the point that I am trying to make about society's current trend to prosecute that which makes them uncomfortable. It only took an email to edward at the email address listed above in this thread to get a copy of the poem.

Tony

Posted by: Tony Tedesco at Wed Apr 27 07:46:47 2005 (fnEAK)

11 Overstepped as in he may have been purposely provoking the Professor, and then received the notoriety he sought out.

Some posters are looking for actual detailed words depicting sex acts. Ritter said the poem contained "veiled threats to sexually assault her and her 3-year-old daughter." I surmise those posters will be disappointed.

This being a poetry class, conjecture, euphemisms, etc. would be the norm, not direct and detailed accounts.

Is the Professor completely out of line if a student continually attempts to be provocative unnecessarily, for no other reason than to irk the Professor, and is finally called on it? What is the Professor supposed to do with a student like that?

Using an assignment to attack the Professor because you ideologically oppose them is pathetic at best.

Allowing one student to continually behave in this manner would lead to other students doing the same, and so forth.

The fact, if it is indeed a fact, that he by his own choice did not show up for class twice and then misrepresented this to the media, coupled with the absence of the poem, smells funky.

Yes, sides will be taken regardless however, we need to see the original unedited poem as it was turned in by Bolles.

As to the poster that says Ritter is suspect due to lack of comment to the press, perhaps she is letting this one play itself out. Perhaps she is employing a 'give'em enough rope' tatic, aka the high road.

The university investigated, and seems to have resloved the issue. There will be no psychiatric exam and the student can return to class.

Posted by: redjalapeno at Wed Apr 27 07:57:20 2005 (rN6GS)

12 Hello friends and foes,

Here are some details that you might find useful.
Included is a narration of the events that are
occurring, a pasted version of the police report, and
a pasted version of the poem.


***
April 14, 2005

An English Student Gets Barred Indefinitely from
Poetry Class For Writing a Satiric Poem.

Edward Bolles was escorted out of a classroom by SCSU
officials on April 13 at 10:01 AM just before his
Introduction to Poetry Writing class started. He was
later told that he was barred from returning to class
indefinitely until a mediated interview with his
professor could be arranged to define parameters for
the opinions and creative content of Mr. Bolles'
future poetic works.

The poem at the center of controversy is titled
Professor White, which is a satire about globalization
and its effects on cultural traditions. While the
protagonist character, Juan Diego, desires to escape
tradition and compete in the global economy, his
professor, Dr. White, wishes to protect Juan from
intellectual influences that might dilute his racial
and cultural identity.

After reviewing the poem, which was submitted on April
8, Mr. Bolles' professor, Kelly Ritter, believed the
poem to be a coded message that expressed Mr. Bolles'
intention to sexually assault her. This accusation she
deduced from a scene in the poem where Juan Diego
develops an interracial relationship with fictitious
college student who happened to be the daughter of
Professor White. This interpretation was made despite
Prof. Ritter's repeated comments in class that
students should not read meanings that are not
explicit in the poems.

Professor Ritter, on pretext of fear for her sexual
security, put a restraining order on Mr. Bolles as the
latest attempt to censor his opinions and creative
content, says Mr. Bolles. In the morning of April 13,
Mr. Bolles was escorted out of the classroom by Chris
Piscitelli, Director of Judicial Affairs, while Prof.
Ritter hid in her office, and taken to a room for
interrogation. It was there that Mr. Bolles was told
that he was barred from attending future poetry
classes until a mediated interview could be arranged
between Mr. Bolles and Prof. Ritter. The topic of the
interview, Mr. Bolles was told, would be about how the
opinions expressed in his future poems could be
changed to conform to the liking of Prof. Ritter.
Throughout the semester, Mr. Bolles has observed
efforts by Prof. Ritter to put pressure on him to
conform to her parameters of acceptable opinions and
creative content. He claims that he was called a
racist earlier in the semester by his professor. He
claims that, after their first confrontation about
ideology, his grades have suffered unfairly, and that
when he sought explanations for the decline in his
grades he was given unclear and contradictory
explanations.

The great irony is that these unfolding events
parallel the plot in Professor White. In the poem,
Juan Diego was reported to the dean by his professor
for writing a controversial poem. The dean missed the
sarcasm and therefore had Juan Diego expelled from the
University and, consequently, from the United States.
Interestingly, the poem declares itself to be satire,
yet Southern Connecticut State University considers it
to be a serious intellectual threat, and is taking
pragmatic actions with the intention of containing
that threat.


***
LOG OF EVENTS

April 18- I was interviewed by Marie Kuhn of the
Southern News, a SCSU student news paper.

April 19, 11:45 AM- I was invited by Chris Piscitelli
to attend an intermediated interview with Prof. Ritter
for the morning of April 20. He refused to release
information about the case to Southern News.

April 19, 5:30 PM- Prof. Rosso of the English
department called me and wanted to mediate terms
between Prof. Ritter and I. He told me that Prof.
Ritter was terrified of me and that my interview with
the Southern News only made her more fearful of my
aggression.

April 20, 10:10 AM- I was chased down in the hall by
an intern of Judicial Affairs. He wanted me to go to
the mediated meeting. I told him that I would not
attend a meeting until I was supported by attorney.

April 20, 10:15- I was chased down in the hall by
Chris Piscitelli, Director of Judicial Affairs. He
wanted me to attend the mediated interview with Prof.
Ritter. I told him that I would not attend and come to
terms without my attorney (I had the Fire in mind). I
also told him that I would attend the meeting only
after he let me sign a form permitting the release of
information about the case. He flatly refused to let
me sign. He again urged me to attend the meeting
immediately but I walked away from him.

April 20, 10:25 AM: I was invited to another interview
with Marie Kuhn. She told me of the possibility of the
whole poem being published with the article.

April 20, 6:00 PM- Prof Rosso called again. He
suggested, as the intermediary, that I not return to
class and take an independent study with a new
professor for the rest of the semester. I told him
that I would forward the suggestion to my attorney. He
asked me why I would not respond to the suggestion
directly. I told him that I am not trained in law and
that the terms of agreement should be discussed with
an attorney. He said that he suspected I would make a
stand for free speech and he declined to volunteer as
an intermediary any further.

April 21, 12:20 PM- I was informed by a classmate that
Prof. Ritter was in the hall requesting security
officers to guard her office.

April 25, 10:30 AM- I set up a table outside of
Engleman Hall and started to distribute propaganda. I
also distributed homemade t-shirts, buttons, and pens
that said, “Save Prof. White!”
April 25, 11:00 AM- I called Associated Press
reporter, Matt Apuzzo, He was interested in the story
and asked for e-mail containing information about the
case and the poem.

April 25, 11:15 AM- I was approached by Prof. Florey
who told me that my actions were inappropriate and
could jeopardize my academic career in at SCSU.

April 25, 11:20 AM- I was handed a certified letter by
Judicial Affairs stating that formal disciplinary
charges would be dropped and that I could return to
the next class.

April 25, 1:15 PM- I was interviewed by Associated
Press.

April 25, 2:30 PM- I called The Fire to tell them that
the case was settled.

April 25, 4:00 PM- I was interviewed by Marie Kuhn to
update her on the protest. She took some pictures.

April 25 4:30 PM- I posed for an AP photographer in
front of the SCSU Library.

***


Police Report:
Complaint No. 05-1783/ Date of incident 04-08-05/ Type
of incident: Threatening/ Investigating officer: C.
McLean

"On 04-08-05, at 12:37 hrs, this officer was
dispatched to SCSU - Engleman Hall, Rm. D-259 to meet
with faculty member Kelly A. Ritter. Ms. Ritter was in
her office and was speaking with both Mr. Richard
Farricelli and Mr. Christopher Piscitelli about this
incident. Ms. Ritter stated on this date, student
Edward K. Bolles turn in a poem assignment that was
disturbing to Ms. Ritter- Ms. Ritter said she feels
the persons in the poem referred to herself and her 3
year old daughter. Ms. Ritter said, Mr. Bolles is
never happy with her grading and referred to himself
in the past as a lazy Mexican. The poem is (4) pages
long and has racist and sexual tones. Both Mr.
Farricelli and Mr. Piscitelli plan to contact Mr.
Bolles and have psychiatric help. Mr. Bolles will be
put out of classes until he has been cleared by a
doctor and university counselling [sic] staff."


***

Edward Bolles
English 202.1
April 4, 2005
Workshop Poem #2, Second draft.

Professor White

In New Haven she taught, a liberal city,
Famed for its doctors and dirty drug dealers.
Dr. White who had seen it did ponder and pity
How blacks were oppressed and seen as such stealers.
This professor protested and with a grand pithy,
She was so well known as a sensitive feeler,
How there could be such a bad blatant division
Between poor reality and kindly vision.

Her department was English, a liberal art,
Where halls did so moan when Bush won again.
Those economists she hated who said, “Liberals aren't
Qualified to say Bush plays zero sum games.”
Economists were enemies she hated to heart.
“To quantify feelings; Profession so lame!”
Kerry did plaster her newly tan office.
She was an admirer, a true fan of his.

She taught prose and poetry, her students were liberal
Who wrote about feelings and kisses and tears
One day came a student, and with him his libro all
Tattered. He sat and awakened her fears.
He had riddling eyes that invited a brawl,
And a sharp voice that would shoot to her ears.
He was named after Juan, artistic and saint,
He came from the arts, got messed up with paint.

A talented artist, a genius at best,
He painted a Muslim and faithfully dressed her,
A black burka yes, but embossed was her breast.
The art teacher was jealous and started to pester,
“Submit to me Muslim girl at my behest!”
That tart creature hid in her office and caressed her.
She got too excited and made a wet dent,
Insulted poor Juan and away he went.

So, in poetry class a poor poem they read,
That made Gringos greedy, and Mexicans martyrs.
Juan Diego protested of hatred and said,
“The Gringos just did things much better and smarter.”
White called him a racist, her face went all red.
Juan thought of this challenge; how next he can smart her.
“She wants me to hate Gringos,” thought clever Juan Diego,
“But tables will turn, Oh! Señora tan ciego!”

So by well made chance , Juan Diego found out,
That in the same dorm and just over next door,
A beautiful girl, with a squishy round snout,
Slept every day. He could hear her great snore.
One night she walked by, her blue eyes funned out.
She bumped into Juan, just a night shirt she wore.
“My nick name is Snow and my mother is White”
Juan's brown eyes did widen, his pants did grow tight.

It seems to be custom, just here in the States,
That after a girl loves a boy for one night,
She brings him to dinner, though her mother hates
The sight of new boys with their smiles so bright.
So Juan was invited to great White estate.
He rang the door bell and held Snowy so tight.
White opened the door and there was a great swap.
As one face lit up, so the other face dropped.

Then White became livid and worked up her panic
To think that her daughter infringed and corrupted
The purity of Juan and his culture Hispanic.
She ripped out her hair like a real eruption
And started to think up a number of antics.
To put Juan on the run and by shoring up shun.
She told the professors that Juan had to go,
He did not belong there and this they should show.


Sincerely,
Edward Bolles
256 Meadowbrook Court
West Haven, CT 06516
cell: 203-640-0095

Posted by: Edward_Bolles at Wed Apr 27 08:12:05 2005 (7fvI5)

13 Hi!, and yes, here is the poem at this URL:

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=97103#post97103

Now this is posted allegedly by Mr. Bowles himself. To me, the piece seems chopped in between the end of this paragraph: "One night she walked by, her blue eyes funned out.
She bumped into Juan, just a night shirt she wore.
“My name is Snow, my mother is White”
Juan's brown eyes widened, his pants grew tight."

And the beginning of the next:
"It seems to be custom, here in the States,
That after a girl loves a boy for just one night,
She brings him to dinner, though her mother hates
The sight of new boys with smiles so bright."

Obviously there is something that Mr. Bowles is NOT sharing when he's posting his piece online for his fellow neo-nazi conservatives to read. Something seems to be missing in between those 2 sections, which seemed to have upset his teacher/professor. I want to read the full original piece, not the chopped up version, so we can see exactly what offended Mrs. Ritter. Though the so-called encounter is being called "non violent", the version Mr. Bowles is sharing isn't mentioning the encounter at all. So either Mr. Bowles is just wanting some media attention to please his buddies over at protestwarrior, or something else fishy is up. Inquiring minds want to know the whole truth.

Posted by: keepingitreal at Wed Apr 27 08:17:50 2005 (jm7xX)

14 "when he's posting his piece online for his fellow neo-nazi conservatives to read."

Fellow neo-nazi conservatives... well, keepingitreal, that says a lot about how you want to see this situation.

Anybody who invokes Godwin's law so quickly isn't to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Tim at Wed Apr 27 08:43:09 2005 (EXXba)

15 I emailed Edward and he sent me two versions of the poem. One is the original rough draft, and one is the version you all see here on this site.

I have also asked Edward if the college is allowed to release the version of the poem that he turned in to Prof. Ritter. I am waiting a response from him.

I suspect that answer will be 'no'.

My English Professor uses student examples for teaching guides if the essay is suitable for that however, the Professor must ask and recieve permission from the student before she can publish the work online for all students to see.

I will publish Bolles' remarks about the release of the poem by the college should he respond back to me.

The log of events posted by Bolles does contain hyperbole as in 'chased down the hall.' He also has displayed an unwillingness to join in the colleges' attempt to resolve the matter in a diplomatic way. By his own admission in the log of events, he seems to relish in being confrontational.

I suspect, suspect mind you, that this confrontational behavior has been present throughout the course of this class. The poem itself is an obvious poke at Prof. Ritter.

As Drudge would say: 'developing'.

Posted by: redjalapeno at Wed Apr 27 09:07:14 2005 (rN6GS)

16 Real,
Thanks for the link. I have to say though that i am enjoying the exchange more on this board then that board.

You raise an interesting point about the possibility that something was left out. It didn't cross my mind that that anything was chopped out. The pants growing tight and the reference to 'girl loves a boy after just one night' was enough for me to infer that there was an 'encounter'. Of course, it can be argued that i may be looking at this from a decidedly slanted perspective. To that, it seems we are looking at it form our own perspective though. Maybe , just maybe (humor me on this one K) this is really all there is to this. Will you at least admit that if this is all there really is to this then Ritter overreacted in an extreme matter? I would be very suprised if, in that instance you did not agree with me.

I need to take the stand that Bolles is innocent until proven guilty,and that unless something else comes to light, this is all there is.

I do find it interesting though that red stated Ritter may be taking the 'high road' by not commenting, yet Bolles is 'hiding' something by not coming clean with the poem. An interesting point of view. I like how the burden of proof lies on the accused. Let's not forget who the accussed is in this case.

I seriously doubt we will see the poem to your liking or as you say 'as submitted'. I guess that means that there will always be doubt. For me, the burden is on Ritter to prove what she found so offensive that she needed to request guards, a restarining order, expulsion and a psych evaluation. At least that was the way our republic was structured to work last time I checked.

Unless of course there are those who think that the police report, request for guards and request for a restraining order are fabrications

Students speaking out against their teachers is nothing new, and as an educator she should have aken the 'high road' then, not once she claimed to see Edward, Goody Osborne, and the devil dancing nood (the site didnt like n*de) under the full moon.

As for your post real about his unwillingness to resolve it in a diplomatic way, you have to be joking. Asking a lawyer to be present is not unreasonable. Once again, this guy had been threated with psych evaluations, restraining orders, etc. The burden of diplomacy should have laid with Ritter before running to the police. She is the one who made it a 'federal case' if you will.

In my opinion, any teacher who hasn't run into an obstinate student hasn't really faced the challenge of being a real teacher. Again, she needs to be the one setting the example. Don't get me wrong, I know physical violence and terrorism exists in the modern world, but more and more this case seems to be neither.

tony

Posted by: Tony Tedesco at Wed Apr 27 09:22:44 2005 (fnEAK)

17

Hi friends and foes,

I assure you that the pasted poem is complete, except for the foot notes which would have been difficult to put in. My foot notes are also a bunch of jokes. If you doubt my integrity, please feel free to e-mail Prof. Ritter and ask her about the poem. Her e-mail is in the SCSU web site.

The critic might want Juan to be an aggrssor but this would not work in the poem. Juan Diego is a victim of the ideology of the liberal academic environment. To have Juan rape another student would spoil this message.

Posted by: Edward_Bolles at Wed Apr 27 09:49:41 2005 (7fvI5)

18 Wow, what a bad poem.

Posted by: Steve at Wed Apr 27 10:24:07 2005 (X3Jye)

19 Tony,
Yes, I would agree with you that if this version of the poem found online is identical to the poem submitted to Ritter, then indeed she over-reacted, and all the other things that followed (restraining order, etc) was just unnecessary. With the exception of the possible psych evaluation, and since I don't know Bowles in-person, I'm neutral on that. If I was the teacher, I would find it rather disturbing if a student wrote a poem like this about me and about my daughter, fictional or human. I'm waiting for Ritters side of the story as well, then maybe people can decide for themselves who's right and who's wrong. I certainly wouldn't want to be in this class at all, with a student and teacher allegedly going back and forth LOL.

Several versions of the article I read on the poem said Juan's character vowed to turn the tables, and the way it comes across, is that he strictly slept with the daughter to piss the teacher/mother off. That's kinda the most immature and lowest way to get revenge with somebody. Maybe Bowles should leave the class and start writing softcore porn? LOL

It's funny, because on another board, we were discussing the movie 'Selena', a movie I watched last Sunday for the first time since 1997 - I guess that's why this subject over the poem got my attention. It seems in between performances of J-Lo, the father spends too much time making comments about how Mexicans aren't accepted by white people, then turns around and says how Mexicans don't accept Mexicans. And the comments are sprinkled throughout the movie, though worded differently each time. It comes across as a confused culture, whereas I don't see other latinos, like Puerto Ricans having issues mixing in with white people. I don't know if this makes sense to you or not, but it seems like it's not white people who are worried about Mexicans corrupting their culture, but it is Mexicans corrupting their own culture and holding themselves back by forcefully making themselves go in circles and not trying to integrate with white people because of their own personal prejudices, and then blaming white people for it. It would be kinda like being mad at the captain for not being picked for the volleyball team when you didn't raise your hand to join in the game in the first place. Sorry, I'm lacking sleep today LOL. I'm not trying to come across as hateful, because I gots love for all latinos out there, Mexican also. This is coming from a white folk raised in a small Kentucky town of 1500, approx 95% white, 5% black, 0% anybody else (though a few hispanics have moved there in recent years). I now live in TX, which has a large % of hispanics.

Posted by: keepingitreal at Wed Apr 27 10:29:44 2005 (jm7xX)

20 Tim,
No, it's not conservatives that I was particularly talking about - it's the so-called ProtestWarrior people I'm talking about. That group that would egg on drama like this. To me, PW is more or less a kiddie version of Fred Phelps and his clan. The difference is the ProtestWarrior guys (in particular the India guy Kfir or whatever his name is, and the blonde guy) make themselves look silly by being, for instance, anti-gay, but are obviously obsessed with mens muscles (the well-drawn logo), obsessed with taking pictures of each others butts (though it looks like they are supposed to be taking picture of whatever slogan the back of their shirt is saying, the camera ALWAYS gets the guys butt in the picture too - hmmmm), and those 2 guys are always sitting or standing peculiarly close to one another when it's just pictures of those 2. As they always say, a gay persons worst enemy is a closet case, and it seems those 2 should be protesting themselves. Maybe they do that in the bedroom LOL Be sure to pass that along to your boyfriends when ya'll have a menage-a-trois tonight.

Posted by: keepingitreal at Wed Apr 27 10:48:26 2005 (jm7xX)

21 Edward,
I did find the footnotes to be very entertaining. I shared the poem with the friend i mentioned in the email and made sure to point out the value of reviewing the footnotes..

Keep,
Thanks again for open dialog on this issue. I think the point you make about not wanting to be in the class while this was going on, underscores the differences in our baseline personalities. I would love to be sitting in on this kind of drama. I am sure I would be playing devil's advocate for entertainment's sake. After all it's a poetry class. A subject I hold dear but not seriously.

In regards to whether or not juan was attracted to the daughter for her relation to the mother, if that is the case, then he got his just rewards in the end..but for the record, my vote for lowest way to extract revenge is to cry wolf, call the cops and do everything in your power to expel someone from voicing their opinon from a lit class, just because you can..this poem has merit above and beyond revenge or being irksome. It makes a statement on gentrification, the dilemna of finding balance in ones history and personal culture and the ever changing world..

I will save the tounge in cheek remarks about kentucky to myself, as i do find you to be an open and intelligent sparring partner, and i do not want to drag this to a base level. I will say that in the northeast where i am from the percentages are much higher, and as i have stated before i do not see the issues you raise so clearly. It is true that the hispanic (mexican community) may like to keep their traditions and even their language while migrating here, but how is that any different than say the hassidic community? I would expect the hispanic community in texas to be even stronger than anywhere else (other than maybe so. cal) in reagrds to mainaining their own identity..after all it was not that long ago it WAS mexico.

tony

Posted by: Tony Tedesco at Wed Apr 27 11:12:53 2005 (fnEAK)

22 I don't see what the big deal is re:the poem. Ed and I had an off-campus affair a while back, and I'm white! It wasn't the worst experience, but it wasn't the best either. There wasn't any anti globalization in my bedroom
PS: Can I have one of the pink shirts from the picture, or is there just one?

Posted by: SCSU_Foxx at Wed Apr 27 12:20:45 2005 (jm7xX)

23 To be honest, I think it needs serious work -- but do not see a thing in here that justified a complaint, much less the school treating it with any degree of seriousness.

Who is the racist here, and who needs the psychological evaluation? Not Edward.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Apr 27 12:52:07 2005 (vrARD)

24 As a matter of closure if you will, Mr. Bolles did not respond to my last email which contained these two questions:

The final version of the poem being released by you will be the same as the one turned in to Prof. Ritter by you?

Is there a policy at the college that will prevent the college or Prof. Ritter from releasing the version of the one turned in to her by you?

In a way, he has 'answered' those questions by his post above. If there is a difference between the poems it will surface.

Otherwise...it's a wrap!

Posted by: redjalapeno at Thu Apr 28 06:25:42 2005 (rN6GS)

25 I can't answer the first question for you, but I can answer the second -- Federal (and probably state) student privacy laws forbid the university or the professor from releasing records regarding student academic performance or disciplianry measures without the express written permission of the student. Given that the university and the professor have been loathe to make any comment about the matter (note above, the university refused to accept a signed release for those records), we are unlikely to hear anything from them.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Apr 28 10:03:11 2005 (EFLao)

26 This is silly. It reminded me of a guy at Gallaudet who wrote about a story about raping the Professor -- the Professor attempted to kick him out of the class.

Everyone else was offended by this guy's antics.

One word: Immature.

{ EDITTED BY RHYMES WITH RIGHT -- SOME STUFF IS SIMPLY TOO HATEFUL TO BE PERMITTED }

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:45:16 2005 (nWmj6)

27 Geez...Rhymes..you got your work cut out for you already.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:51:14 2005 (LmcbS)

28 Hey, I've got a guy filibustering on another threadbecause he had facts that changed my position completely.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 13:24:19 2005 (vVeux)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The California Legislature is seeking to overturn the will of the people of California by considering Assembly Bill 19, “The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,” would amend the California Family Code to make marriage a gender neutral proposition in the state. This would, of course, make homosexual marriage legal and recognized in the state of California.

Unfortunately, this would also overturn Proposition 22, passed by the voters in 2000. It reads as follows.

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Now I may be a bit slow, but that seems pretty clear to me. Marriage, according to the California voters, is one man and one woman. It isnÂ’t two guys, two girls, or any other combination. The voters have spoken, approving Prop 22 with a 62% majority, and under the California Constitution the legislature cannot overrule that decision. But the supporters of homosexual marriage are still hell-bent on trying to validate and recognize something other than marriage between a man and a woman -- even if it means violating laws, constitutions, and the will of the people to get it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

I recently commented on the refusal of New York City law enforcement officials to file hate crime charges in a racially motivated attack where the perpetrators were black and the victims were white. Well, someone higher up on the food chain finally listened to the outrage of New Yorkers and other Americans, and have upgraded the charges.

City lawyers overruled the Police Department and charged a band of Brooklyn toughs with a hate crime for allegedly shouting, "Black power!" as they beat up a group of girls in Marine Park, The Post has learned.

In a case that roiled racial tensions in Brooklyn — and became a rallying point on white-supremacy Web sites — locals are now second-guessing law enforcement.

Cops locked up five of the alleged attackers — all juveniles — but did not charge them with a bias crime.

The city's Corporation Counsel Office, which prosecutes cases in Family Court, raised the charges against the assailants.

Sources said the initial report did not include the comments allegedly made by the suspects. "It should have been a hate crime from day one," fumed one parent.

The article makes it clear that this was no simple fight in the park, but rather a premeditated action in which the original aggressors repeatedly set out to get more help to make sure they significantly outnumbered the six victims.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

I recently commented on the refusal of New York City law enforcement officials to file hate crime charges in a racially motivated attack where the perpetrators were black and the victims were white. Well, someone higher up on the food chain finally listened to the outrage of New Yorkers and other Americans, and have upgraded the charges.

City lawyers overruled the Police Department and charged a band of Brooklyn toughs with a hate crime for allegedly shouting, "Black power!" as they beat up a group of girls in Marine Park, The Post has learned.

In a case that roiled racial tensions in Brooklyn — and became a rallying point on white-supremacy Web sites — locals are now second-guessing law enforcement.

Cops locked up five of the alleged attackers — all juveniles — but did not charge them with a bias crime.

The city's Corporation Counsel Office, which prosecutes cases in Family Court, raised the charges against the assailants.

Sources said the initial report did not include the comments allegedly made by the suspects. "It should have been a hate crime from day one," fumed one parent.

The article makes it clear that this was no simple fight in the park, but rather a premeditated action in which the original aggressors repeatedly set out to get more help to make sure they significantly outnumbered the six victims.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Also, there is a spot open on the Watcher's Council -- see this link for details.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't like the smutty novels that Father Andrew Greeley writes -- not so much because they are unbecoming of a priest, but more because they are not that good. I've been amused by his tentative efforts at science fiction, and more impressed by his scholarly works in sociology. As a teen, i was especially entranced by his study of American anti-Catholicism, and wish he would write more on the subject. He was the seminary classmate of one of my former pastors, and he cancelled speaking engagements some years ago to fly to be with some of my family's old neighbors and say the funeral mass for their teenage son when he was killed in a fall while rock-climbing. In short, I think he is a good man, even if I don't agree with him in a lot of areas. However today he writes a newspaper column that, in my mind, hits the nail squarely on the head.

Greeley begins by noting that young people seem quite entranced by the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI. How strange, he notes, that there is this "rock star" style enthusiasm for an old theology professor who espouses views that so many of these young people reject. Did John Paul II somehow endow future popes with this sort of charisma, an aura, that draws the young?

That possibility raises the question of whether the pope, almost by definition, enjoys an entirely new charisma -- an immediate appeal to young people. A second question follows on this day of Be Ne De To's installation as pope: Given the inexperience and shallowness of the young, how much is this charisma worth?

I submit that it is a license for a pope to teach and not an automatic guarantee of any other long-term religious impact. One heard often in Rome before the conclave that the new pope should be able to communicate with young people like the late pope. Yet, in truth, the religious attitudes and behavior of young people in every country where there has been a World Youth Day have not changed -- nor, for that matter, have the attitudes and behavior of adults changed in any of the countries John Paul visited. As collective religious rituals, these events were dramatic. They were a celebration of Catholic faith and Catholic heritage -- and as such eminently effective. But they didn't change much in ordinary human life.

My three pretty young Italian cheerleaders, unless they were different from typical Italian young women, would eventually sleep with their boyfriends before marriage and use birth control after marriage. They would see no contradiction between such behavior and enthusiasm for Benedict XVI. Does it follow that the new pope should try to teach as well as celebrate religious faith when he attends the next World Youth Day in Cologne?

An excellent question indeed, especially in a world faced with rising Islamist extremism and lukewarm Christianity that has too often surrendered to valueless secularism. What can Benedict XVI say to the assembled young people at this year's World Youth Day in Cologne (including some of my own students, traveling with a parish youth group led by one of my colleagues)? Greeley has an excellent suggestion -- start with the basics.

If he should tell them that they should reform their sexual lives, they will simply laugh. Far better that he listen to them talk about their religious faith and urge them to be patient and forgiving in all of their relationships and generous in helping others. Let sex wait for the next time or the time after. The re-evangelization of Europe cannot be done all at once. This is what I mean when I say that youthful admiration for the pope gives a license to teach -- wisely, cautiously and slowly, as any good teacher would.

Greeley is correct. Start with the basics of Christianity, and build from there. Begin with the fundamentals and build up from there. Just as one does not whip out The Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas and make it the starting point of catechesis and evangelization, one cannot begin with the nuanced and beautiful Catholic teachings on human sexuality without laying the basics. Too often since Vatican II, those basics have not been effectively taught, whether through neglect, rejection, or confusion, and have been drowned out by what then Cardinal Ratzinger called a "dictatorship of relativism" only a week ago. The Christian nature of Western society has been eroded over the course of decades, and there is no way that this pope will live to repair the damage. But the job is his to start, using the special affection this generation appears to have for the successor of St. Peter as a tool for evangelization. By beginning with the fundamentals of the faith, Benedict XVI may begin a revival of the Christian West that matches the fervor and explosive growth of Catholicism (and Christianity in general) in other parts of the world.

Posted by: Greg at 08:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 835 words, total size 5 kb.

One of the bad things about defending the First Amendment is that it sometimes means defending the right of someone to say something you find offensive. That is especially true when PC types attempt to shut down "insensitive" speech, or when someone tries to be "humourous" about a topic which is not, in the least, funny. One such current case involves the newspaper of the University of Nevada -- Las Vegas, The Rebel Yell.

That which passes for humor these days is often nothing more than profanity-laced crudity attempting to evoke uncomfortable titters through shock. However, the same shtick that can fetch a living wage on the comedy club circuit can draw the wrath of the politically correct crew on campus.
Advertisement

That was the scene a little more than a week ago at UNLV during a meeting of the advisory board of the campus newspaper, The Rebel Yell. About 40 students and faculty showed up to protest a column called "Ask Jubert."

Jubert is an amalgam of the names of the paper's editor and managing editor, Justin Chomintra and Hubert Hensen, respectively. The column, two-thirds of which is penned by Hensen, is meant to be a satirical send-up of advice-to-the-lovelorn columns, only written from the perspective of a doltish, misogynistic, rage-prone bully.

Until March the column reportedly had been met approvingly or indifferently. But then the March 7 "Ask Jubert" offered advice on how to "get back at an ex," by recommending -- tongue firmly in cheek and ripping off dialogue from the movie "Anchorman" -- that "the best way to seize revenge is with sudden, blinding violence. Punch the filthy pirate whore in her mouth. Show her exactly how you feel about her. The harder the punch, the more she'll realize how much you care."

Though it carried a disclaimer at the bottom saying, "The Rebel Yell does not condone any form of violence, especially domestic violence, nor cruelty against animals. (The column also contained advice on stringing up the ex's poodle.) 'Ask Jubert' is meant to be humorous and should not be taken seriously," it was taken quite seriously.

Now let's say this very clearly -- the piece is crude and offensive. I don't see why anyone would find it in the least bit funny. I don't understand why the young men in question would even think it was appropriate to publish something like that -- even if it is meant to be a satire on advice columns. That said, I also recognize that the First Amendment applies to it, and that those who wrote the column should not be in any way disciplined for their sophomoric attempt at humor.

Needless to say, there was a huge turnout at the next meeting of the paper's advisory board, demanding censorship of the paper and punishment of the offenders. Several law students had the audacity to demand that the paper be censored (did they sleep through their Constitutional Law class?) and that there be a ban on "hate speech" in The Rebel Yell (I'll bet they only wanted to ban hate speech against "protected classes", not whites, heterosexuals, males, or Christians). Fortunately, the board held the line and refused to impose such measures.

One professor, the head of the Women's Studies Department (raise your hand if you weren't surprised) joined in the call for censorship.

Several people found it a bit ironic that the chair of UNLV's Women's Studies Department, Lois Rita Helmbold, offered a jesting aside about refraining from using her martial arts skills on Hensen.

Helmbold conceded she made a joke but declined to elaborate. She described the advocacy of domestic violence as irresponsible journalism and not funny.

The professor also pointed out that student fees pay for operations of the campus newspaper, unlike other newspapers which people may choose to purchase or not. I thought that was a pretty good point and drew an analogy to taxpayers objecting to their money being used to sponsor "art" that consisted of a crucifix in a jar of urine. For some reason she didn't agree.

I love it when a liberal hypocrite doesn't commits the exact same act that she demands others be punished for, and refuses to concede that the principle of censorship that she supports could logically be extended to censor her point of view. After all, I imagine Professor Helmbold arguing, men are oppressors by nature, so they deserve to be beaten as an act of female liberation; and the patriarchal Christians are racistsexisthomophobes whose beliefs and symbols merit no respect.

In the end, the advisory board did not impose any sanctions or restraints on The rebel Yell. It did turn down Hubert henson's application to be the editor of next year's paper, but that decision appears to have been made on the merits of another candidate, not the controversy over teh column that caused such excitement. he plans on leaving the staff, and devoting himself to completing his degree in physics.

Advisory Board member Steve Sebelius, editor of the weekly CityLife newspaper and a former political columnist with the Las Vegas Review-Journal, makes this observation about those who turned out in favor of censorship and against freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

"If these people ever get hold of the apparatus of power, it will be a Hitlerian danger to free speech."

he is, of course, correct. And not just about those on the Left, but also about those on the Right who would require that words pass some ideological litmus test before being granted the protection afforded them without reservation by the First Amendment.

Posted by: Greg at 07:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 950 words, total size 6 kb.

We all know that the American broadcast networks are de facto arms of the Democrat National Committee. All one has to do is look at Memogate to confirm that reality. But when all is said and done, private businesses have every right to support whatever political philosophy they want. After all, the public can simply cut into their bottom line. A tax-supported broadcast outlet, such as the UK's BBC, needs to remain scrupulously neutral. Guess what -- they don't, and have now been caught formenting the disruption of a Conservative Party event.

The BBC was last night plunged into a damaging general election row after it admitted equipping three hecklers with microphones and sending them into a campaign meeting addressed by Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.

The Tories have made an official protest after the hecklers, who were given the microphones by producers, were caught at a party event in the North West last week. Guy Black, the party's head of communications, wrote in a letter to Helen Boaden, the BBC's director of news, that the hecklers began shouting slogans that were "distracting and clearly hostile to the Conservative Party".

These included "Michael Howard is a liar", "You can't trust the Tories" and "You can only trust Tony Blair".

Mr Black's strongly-worded letter accused the BBC of staging the event "to generate a false news story and dramatise coverage. . . intended to embarrass or ridicule the leader of the Conservative Party". The letter said that BBC staff were guilty of "serious misconduct". At least one of the hecklers was seen again at a Tory event in the North East, Mr Black added.

Last night, the BBC claimed that the exercise was part of a "completely legitimate programme about the history and art of political heckling" and said that other parties' meetings were being "observed". However, The Telegraph has established that none of Tony Blair's meetings was infiltrated or disrupted in similar fashion.

So, how did these folks get caught? What evidence is there that this was a BBC set-up, not simply a program on the political heckling?

Tory officials became suspicious at the meeting in Horwich, near Bolton, last Wednesday, when they saw BBC camera crew focusing on the hecklers rather than Mr Howard. They twice challenged the two men and a woman involved, and discovered they had been equipped with radio microphones.

Mr Black said that they described themselves as "shoppers". In fact, they were under direction from a BBC team making a programme called The History of Heckling for the BBC3 channel. The programme, whose producer is Paul Woolwich, is in the process of being edited.

Mr Black's letter said of the hecklers: "It is entirely clear to me that the success of their presence required an element of performance on their behalf, and that this was a premeditated event intended to disrupt the course of Mr. Howard's speech.

"I do not believe that the BBC should be in the business of creating news. It also appears that the same crew was at the Michael Howard visit to Stockton-on-Tees and it can be no coincidence that someone with them was one of these 'hecklers'.

Absolutely incredible! An arm of the British government supplied equipment to those looking to disrupt a rally featuring the head of the opposition party. This is serious stuff, given the fact that there is no evidence of the BBC sponsoring any such attacks on Tony Blair's Labour Party. Could you imagine the uproar in this country if PBS were to have perpetrated something like this against John Kerry during the last election? It would have been seen as proof positive that the Bush Administration was attempting to create a totalitarian regime (granted, the Left made that claim without any evidence whatsoever, but you see my point) and would have cost the president any chance at reelection. Heck, if the generally conservative Fox News had done this, it would have been viewed as a Karl Rove instigated dirty trick.

And yet this seems to have had little effect in the UK. That is too bad. If the British people had a little bit more spine, they would demand the resignation of the Blair government, the prosecution of those involved in this abuse of government power, and the end of the BBC as a tax-supported entity. Here's hoping there is at least enough spirit left in out cousins on the other side of the pond to see them reject Labour and its dirty tricks.

Posted by: Greg at 07:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 755 words, total size 5 kb.

In the West, Muslims practice their religion freely and with complete legal protection. This is fully in keeping witht he ideas that spring from the Enlightenment, that religious tolerance is necessary to a free society. But what of non-Muslims in Muslim countries? I think this example from Saudi Arabia says it all.

Forty foreigners, including children, were arrested for proselytizing when police raided a clandestine church in suburban Riyadh, the head of a wide-ranging security campaign in the capital said Saturday.

Lt. Col. Saad al-Rashud said the 40 were arrested Friday in the neighborhood Badeea. Their church, he said, contained crosses and was run by a Pakistani man who claimed to heal the sick. He allegedly was holding prayers, hearing confessions and distributing communion.

It is illegal to promote religions other than Islam in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. There are no legal churches in the conservative kingdom, where members of other religions generally can practice their faith in their own homes, but not try to convert people or hold religious gatherings.

Authorities said those arrested with him were foreigners, but did not specify nationalities.

A conviction on proselytizing can result in a harsh prison sentence followed by deportation.

Multiple thoughts spring to mind -- few of them suitable for publication. But I will say one thing, however unpopular.

If Saudi Arabia cannot see its way clear to allowing fundamental freedoms to its people, maybe it should be the next country liberated by the US military.

Posted by: Greg at 02:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

I didn't think I could get any angrier than I was when I originally posted on this last night. I was wrong. The San Francisco Chronicle has run a "news story" (actually a thinly disguised advocacy piece) about Lynne Stewart, the convicted terrorist supporter who admits that she passed operational information on behalf of the blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. Not only did this violate federal law, it violated special administrative measures (SAM) imposed by the Justice Department to prevent the terrorist leader from continuing to direct his folowers from a federal prison.

"I argued that lawyering can't be interfered with by government regulations,'' Stewart said. "SAMs now seem to override a lawyer's sense of what is right and proper to do for a client. The government will decide that now.''

Damn straight the government will decide those things, when it comes to protecting national security. You ignore two things in your flawed analysis. First, the man committed an act of war against the United States and had been duly convicted at the time you acted. Second, when an attorney becomes a party to a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, attorney-client privilege no longer applies. Your complaint is, in effect, that you got caught and were not held to be above the law because you are a lawyer.

If you live out in the San Francisco area and want to show your contempt for this traitor, here's where you can view her schedule.

And since the Left has organized a letter writing campaign in an attempt to get her a lenient sentence for her betrayal of the United States, I would like to urge loyal Americans to write the judge urging that Stewart face the maximum possible sentence. Send them to the court at the following address.

Honorable John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

My best advice is that they be typed, respectful, and note the seriousness of Lynne Stewart's actions and her utter lack of remorse for them. If you or someone close to you suffered any harm due to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center or other terrorist attacks on the United States, be sure to share that with the judge. Focus on the fact that America is currently in a battle for its survival against Islamist jihadis of the nature assisted by Stewart, and that her sentence should be severe enough to deter others from following her anti-American example. Urge the judge to sentence her to the maximum penalty of 30 years in prison.

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

When he became head of the Democrat National Committee, Howard Dean said he was going to change the tone of politics in America, talking about what is right with the Democrats rather than defining the Democrats as the anti-Bush party. Well, let's take a look at how he has done.

• In a speech in Kansas in February, not long after his election as DNC chairman, Mr. Dean said the contest between Democrats and Republicans was "a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

• In Florida earlier this week, he accused Republicans of being "corrupt," saying, "You can't trust them with your money, and you can't trust them with your votes. ... Evangelicals don't like corruption either."

• In a closed-door Democratic fundraiser in Lawrence, Kan., he said conservative Republicans were "intolerant" on the issue of abortion. "They don't think tolerance is a virtue. I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant."

• Speaking to Democrats Abroad, Mr. Dean called Republicans "brain-dead," saying the reason his party lost the 2004 race to the "brain-dead" Republicans was because of the Democrats' "tendency to explain every issue in half an hour of detail."

So, "Mr. Positive" (or should that be "Dr. Positive") has been anything but positive. Rather than defining what the Democrats are, he has maligned the Republicans as evil, corrupt, intolerant and brain-dead. Not only that, but after the Democrats complained about Republicans "politicizing" the Terri Schiavo case, Dean has promised to "use Terry Schiavo" to score political points against the GOP. Along the way, Dean has defined the Democrats as against Bush judges, against the Bush Social Security Plan, against Bush nominee John Bolton, and against virtually every policy initiative proposed or implemented by the Bush Administration.

So, Howard, where are your solutions? Where are your programs? Your platform can be summed up in two words -- "Oppose Bush". How can you claim to be positive when you spend your time engaging in nothing short of anti-Republican hate speech.

Posted by: Greg at 04:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

When I was about 14 or so, the chaplain at Naval Training Center -- Great Lakes, Fr. R. Conway O'Connor (may he rest in peace) got approval to offer a Saturday evening Mass in Latin. No, not the Tridentine Mass, but the current liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI following the Second Vatican Council. I got to serve mass, along with my brother and a couple of buddies. I was entranced by a language that I didn't understand, didn't recognize, but knew carried with it a weightiness and sense of the sacred that was missing in the regular vernacular mass that I was used to. Years later, while a seminarian, I was one of the guys who struggled to learn Latin from Sister Dorothy in the afternoons, though I soon dropped out of the class because it conflicted with choir practice. Looking back, i would have done better to drop choir.

The advent of the papacy of Benedict XVI may send a lot of folks scrambling for Latin dictionaries and classes in the classical tongue (or its ecclesiastical offspring). Just as a knowledge of Polish was helpful in the Vatican during the pontificate of John Paul the Great, it appears that Latin may become an important means of communication in a Church that has practically abandoned the tongue outside of "official" texts of documents.

Latin may be considered a dead language today, but for many centuries it was the language of the Catholic Church.

Forty years ago the Vatican decided to drop Latin as the official language of the mass and switch to the vernacular.

In the 1990s, even bishops stopped talking to each other in Latin when they went to official meetings at the Vatican.

When he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI originally supported the idea of dropping the Latin mass.

Now he is Pope, he has apparently had a rethink and Italians are struggling to keep up.

Now I am certain that the Tridentine Mass will not be making a major comeback, though this pope will probably allow its more liberal use where tehre is a desire for it. Nor do I think we will see an end to vernacular liturgies. What I believe we will see, though, is a move back towards the teaching of Latin in seminaries and the revival of the use of the language for liturgical purposes. I would expect that Catholics will be able to find a Latin liturgy in a local parish, if not their own, as one more option. And I suspect that we will see more use of the Latin language in liturgical celebrations for international gatherings, to communicate the message that the Church is universal and timeless institution.

And besides -- if we are to see the continued internationalization of the Catholic Church leadership, there needs to be one language that is shared among those who work in the Vatican and those back in the local dioceses and parishes of the world. It needs to be a langage that doesn't change from pontificate to pontificate, and which is clear and fixed in its meaning. So unless the Church is going to adopt Esperanto, there is one obvious candidate -- Latin, which was the language of choice for most of the history of the Church.

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 551 words, total size 3 kb.

Oh, those ever so tolerant Muslims! Their "holy" book is filled with anti-Semitism and negative comments about Christians. Their religious law calls for the death of those who dare to speak against their religion or their prophet. So it should be no surprise that a well-known Swedish minister is in police protective custody following a provocative sermon.

Celebrity Pentecostal preacher Runar Søgaard is under protection by Swedish police after receiving death threats. A high-profile sermon where Sögaard called the prophet Mohammed "a confused pedophile" has triggered fears of religious war.

Excuse me? His sermon has triggered fears of a religious war? I thought Sweden was a Western democracy where religious rights were guaranteed to all citizens. Did I miss it becoming an Islamic caliphate?

Consider this little gem from one Swedish paper, quoting one of the Islamists who dominate Islam today.

"Even if I see Runar while he has major police protection I will shoot him to death," a radical Islamist told Swedish newspaper Expressen.

So what we have here is someone who is prepared to commit murder because a Swede dared to exerciee his rights under Swedish law. I cannot help but notice that the story protects the man's identity, lest he be apprehended by police and prevented from carrying out his religious duty to murder someone for daring to disrespect the founder of the religion that has bred the bulk of modern terrorism. After all, identifying him might also have put the newspaper or the reporter at risk.

And it isn't just a couple of radicals mouthing off, either.

Persons connected to the Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam claim to have received a fatwa, a decree from a Muslim religious leader, to kill Søgaard.

Muslim organizations have called Søgaard's sermon, which is on sale on CD at the Stockholm Karisma Center's web site, a hateful attack on Islam and fear the type of violent conflict that scarred the Netherlands after filmmaker Theo van Gogh was killed by an Islamic extremist for a controversial film.

Notice, they claim they fear that the sermon will cause a violent conflict. They claim they don't want it. Well, fine, then why don't you Muslims act to restrain the radicals among you who threaten to murder an innocent man for expressing his opinions? How dare you blame him for the problem, as if his rights were somehow subordinate to the feelings of the followers of your murderous sect?

That isn't, of course, what they are out to do. Instead they are making demands that Swedish Christians submit to Islam in order to be spared bloodshed and a reign of terror in their streets.

Imam Hassan Moussa, head of Sweden's imam council, demanded that Christian communities repudiate Søgaard's remarks, and promised that Sweden would avoid the ugly scenes experienced in Holland.

Yeah. Swedes should submit to the foreigner among them in their own country, and allow an alien cult to determine their religious rights. In other words, the people of Sweden need to submit to dhimmi status.

What needs to happen is for the Swedish government to follow the precedent set by Ferdinand and Isabella at the end of the Reconquista. Muslims must convert to Christianity or be expelled for the good of the nation, to protect the liberties of the Swedish people. Threats of jihad cannot be tolerated.

And as such threats appear in other countries in Europe or the Western Hemisphere, the same course of action must be followed. Otherwise Western civilization is doomed.

UPDATE: DhimmiWatch has this post about the case. It appears that some Muslim authroities are calling for restraint. On the other hand, at least one denies the words of the hadith in order to deny the charge made against Muhammad.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 633 words, total size 4 kb.

If this does not make your blood boil, nothing will. Lynne Stewart, convicted of knowingly and intentionally giving assistance to and communicating messages for the terrorist mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is being allowed to go on a public speaking tour!

A federal judge is letting convicted terror lawyer Lynne Stewart jet across the country as part of her campaign to argue that she was unjustly prosecuted and to rally her supporters to raise funds for an appeal.

Trial Judge John Koeltl approved Stewart's request to travel to the Left Coast, where she has arranged to speak at nine events in the San Francisco Bay area and participate in at least six radio and TV interviews, starting today.

A jury convicted Stewart Feb. 10 of fraud, providing material support to terrorism, and filing false statements while she represented blind Egyptian terror cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Her sentencing has been pushed back to September.

Stewart faces up to 30 years in prison.

Frighteningly enough, this is not Stewart's first trip to give a speech to her fellow radicals and terrorist supporters. Since her conviction, Stewart has been permitted to travel to Florida, California and Boston. Seems that she is not considered to be a flight risk. Still, isn't she a security risk, given her past actions?

Frankly, I don't know why she was even allowed to stay on the streets pending her sentencing. She ought to be in a cage down at Gitmo, with the low-level terrorists who have made war on our nation!

Posted by: Greg at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

It has been 90 years since the Muslim Turks began their genocide of 1.5 million Christian Armenians, but the Turkish government still will not admit to that crime.

VARAZDAT was six when his family were driven from their home by Turkish troops in 1915. But even 90 years after Ottoman troops began the slaughter of up to 1.5 million Armenians, fear still flickers in his eyes.

As the family and 200,000 other Armenians fled east from their homes in Van, near modern Turkey’s eastern border, Turk and Kurdish forces opened fire from both sides. “They killed so many. Mothers threw their children in the lake. They said it was better to drown them than let the Turks have them,” Varadzat Harutyuniyan told The Times.

Turkey still denies responsibility, minimizes the number of Armenian dead, and paints the Turkish people as the greater victim. It is illegal in Turkey for anyone to claim that this genocide happened. It refuses to have diplomatic relations with Armenia and refuses to allow traffic across the border the two countries share. This unacknowledged genocide is one of many factors that stands in the way of Turkey’s admission to the EU – no less that 15 countries have demanded that Turkey do so before the EU allow Turkey to become a member.

How deep is this denial and refusal to acknowledge TurkeyÂ’s crime against the Armenians? Look at the high level denial of the genocide by a high level Turkish official.

On Wednesday the head of the Turkish Armed Forces, General Hilmi Ozkok, called on Armenia to drop the genocide allegations. The 1923 Lausanne Treaty, which established modern Turkey, “put an end to the baseless genocide claims politically and legally,” he said.

Yet in the end, this political claim cannot hide the historical truth of the murder of over 1 million people by the Turks. A treaty cannot deny the reality of photographs of Turkish soldiers posing with severed Armenian heads held (or stacked) as trophies. Until Turkey is willing to admit its historical guilt in the matter, there can be no allowing it into the EU.

Former Polish President Lech Walesa makes the case clearly.

“The truth must come out,” said Lech Walesa, the former Polish President, at this week’s conference. “It is a just claim of the Armenians that Turkey’s entrance into the European Union should come after admitting genocide.”

When will our president label what happened as genocide? When will he join other world leaders in making it clear that Turkey cannot be considered a member of the civilized world until it acknowledges the crime of its jihad against the Christian Armenians?

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

Wouldn’t this be neat to see? A 5000-year-old tomb, the largest pre-dynastic funerary structure ever discovered, containing 7 bodies – including four who appear to have been human sacrifices.

The necropolis was discovered by a joint US and Egyptian team in the Kom al-Ahmar region, around 600 km (370 miles) south of the capital, Cairo.
Inside the tombs, the archaeologists found a cow's head carved from flint and the remains of seven people.

They believe four of them were buried alive as human sacrifices.

The remains survived despite the fact that the tombs were plundered in ancient times.

Egypt's chief archaeologist, Zahi Hawass, said the discovery would add greatly to knowledge of the elusive pre-dynastic period, when Egypt was first becoming a nation.

The complex is thought to belong to a ruler of the ancient city of Hierakonpolis in around 3600 BC, when it was the largest urban centre on the Nile river.

Egyptologists say the city probably extended its influence northwards defeating rival entities. The unification of Upper and Lower Egypt eventually led to the establishment of rule by the Pharaohs.

Excavations at the site started in 2000 under the leadership of Egyptologist Barbara Adams, who died in 2002.

The site contains some of the earliest examples of mummification found in Egypt.

Call me a geek, but I find this stuff really cool.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Are cows happy? The California Milk Producers Advisory Board has run a series of commercials making the claim that "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California." PETA filed suit in 2002, claiming that the ads were false and that cows live miserable lives, repeatedly being milked and impregnated before being killed.

"False advertising is no less harmful when it comes from government-run businesses," said Matthew Penzer, the attorney for PETA in the lawsuit. "Painting a 'happy' image of an industry that sends 400,000 cows to slaughter every year and their calves to the isolation of veal crates is deceptive, no less so because it is the government doing the deceiving."

California courts have ruled that the Board is immune from lawsuits, just like other state agencies.

And the liberals wonder why we need lawsuit reform. This case is a classic argument

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

10th Grader Shot and Killed

There is only one conclusion to be drawn. The story must be about some school shooting.

And then you read the actual story.

Police in Niagara Falls say a 10th grader was shot and killed after he tried to rob a pizza delivery man Wednesday night.

Detectives say the pizza driver admited he shot and killed 16-year-old Anthony Maurice Sheared, after he and another teen pulled a BB gun on him while he was making a delivery on Pierce Avenue.

Police say they will not charge the delivery man. They say he was acting in self-defense. "The driver was told to go to 1319 Pierce and was told to go to the back door and when he got out he was jumped by two men and they tackled him to the ground," says Niagara Falls Police Lieutenant Ernie Palmer.

The other teen, 16-year-old Aldeaz M. Lewis, was located by police and charged with second degree robbery.

Now, why is the fact that the dead felon is in 10th grade the issue being highlighted? He isn’t a victim of anything but his own criminal behavior and the preparedness of a guy just trying to make a living. There is no tragedy here – unless, perhaps, you consider the fact that the delivery guy didn't ventilate the other young felon as well.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 1 kb.

When someone dies before their time, I tend to view that as a tragedy. But you know what, I can’t muster up a whole lot of sympathy in this case.

A convicted sex offender apparently committed suicide in despair over signs posted in his neighborhood calling him a child rapist.

Clovis Claxton, 38, was found dead by his father with one of the signs beside his body. It was less than a day after his release from a psychiatric hospital.

His mother blames Marion County Commissioner Randy Harris for her son's death. Harris proposed putting up flyers in the neighborhoods of sex offenders to alert neighbors.

Sheriff Ed Dean objected. He says he understands the concern of parents but doesn't want to see hysteria.

Sorry, Sheriff, but you have this one dead wrong. This guy is a convicted sex offender. The public has a right to that information. You have no right to hold it back out of some misguided concern for the criminals. Better that this guy be known by his neighbors to be a potential threat than that we have another kid killed by a child rapist who law enforcement isn’t keeping track of.

And as for the Claxton family, I’d like to say I’m sorry for your loss – but I won’t because I am not. Your son showed himself to be a self-centered bastard who violated others in an attempt to overcome his own inadequacies as a human being. Once he found out that he couldn’t hide from society and its disapproval, he took his own life rather than stand up like a man and face the consequences of his actions. Quite bluntly, I am glad he won’t victimize anyone else, and that is a sentiment I am sure is shared by anyone worthy of being called a civilized human being.

UPDATE: It seems that someone altered the posters in question, adding Claxton's address and the words "CHILD RAPIST" to the poster. That is appears to be a violation of Florida law, and a spokesman for the Marion County Sheriff's Department is talking about investigating the matter and referrign it for prosecution. I hope the local prosecutor has the decency not to file charges over someone adding truthful information to more fully inform the public of the monster in their midst. And if charges are brought, it sounds like an excellent time for a little bit of jury nullification.

UPDATE II: After pawing around Bob's website, I finally found some information to show that the accusation that Claxton was a Child Rapist or a continuing threat was untrue. As such, I have to change my view that his death was anything other than a tragedy/ Those who posted the innacurate signs should be prosecuted and convicted. That said, I still believe that all neighbors should be notified of the presence of sex offenders in their midst.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

When someone dies before their time, I tend to view that as a tragedy. But you know what, I canÂ’t muster up a whole lot of sympathy in this case.

A convicted sex offender apparently committed suicide in despair over signs posted in his neighborhood calling him a child rapist.

Clovis Claxton, 38, was found dead by his father with one of the signs beside his body. It was less than a day after his release from a psychiatric hospital.

His mother blames Marion County Commissioner Randy Harris for her son's death. Harris proposed putting up flyers in the neighborhoods of sex offenders to alert neighbors.

Sheriff Ed Dean objected. He says he understands the concern of parents but doesn't want to see hysteria.

Sorry, Sheriff, but you have this one dead wrong. This guy is a convicted sex offender. The public has a right to that information. You have no right to hold it back out of some misguided concern for the criminals. Better that this guy be known by his neighbors to be a potential threat than that we have another kid killed by a child rapist who law enforcement isnÂ’t keeping track of.

And as for the Claxton family, I’d like to say I’m sorry for your loss – but I won’t because I am not. Your son showed himself to be a self-centered bastard who violated others in an attempt to overcome his own inadequacies as a human being. Once he found out that he couldn’t hide from society and its disapproval, he took his own life rather than stand up like a man and face the consequences of his actions. Quite bluntly, I am glad he won’t victimize anyone else, and that is a sentiment I am sure is shared by anyone worthy of being called a civilized human being.

UPDATE: It seems that someone altered the posters in question, adding Claxton's address and the words "CHILD RAPIST" to the poster. That is appears to be a violation of Florida law, and a spokesman for the Marion County Sheriff's Department is talking about investigating the matter and referrign it for prosecution. I hope the local prosecutor has the decency not to file charges over someone adding truthful information to more fully inform the public of the monster in their midst. And if charges are brought, it sounds like an excellent time for a little bit of jury nullification.

UPDATE II: After pawing around Bob's website, I finally found some information to show that the accusation that Claxton was a Child Rapist or a continuing threat was untrue. As such, I have to change my view that his death was anything other than a tragedy/ Those who posted the innacurate signs should be prosecuted and convicted. That said, I still believe that all neighbors should be notified of the presence of sex offenders in their midst.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 494 words, total size 3 kb.

Yesterday I commented on Mort KondrackeÂ’s column on the filibuster of nominees to the appellate courts. I mentioned the views of Jonathan Turley, a liberal scholar of the law and judiciary, which Kondracke himself had referenced. Well, what should appear in my local paper this morning but a column on the subject by Turley himself?

The decision to nuke or not to nuke has obscured the real issue: Are the Republican nominees qualified or are they flat-Earth idiots? As a pro-choice social liberal, I didn't find much reason to like these nominees. However, I also found little basis for a filibuster in most cases. Indeed, for senators not eager to trigger mutually assured destruction, there is room for compromise.

Turley then goes on to analyze each of the judges that the Democrats label extremists who are unfit for the bench – or who they object to because a Republican president is not deferring to their home state Democrat senators. He indicates that the judges in question are generally well-qualified and within the mainstream of the law. In most of the cases he shows that the criticism is either wrong or insignificant. So strong are his objections to the use of the filibuster that he says, “For nine of the Republican nominees, Democratic opposition looks as principled as a drive-by shooting.”

Only three of the nominees present a problem for Turley.

Democrats are on good ground in filibustering William J. Haynes II, who signed a memo that appeared to justify torture of POWs and suggest that the president could override federal law — an extreme view that preceded abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Then there's 9th Circuit nominee William G. Myers III, a former mining lobbyist who, as an Interior Department official, advocated extreme-right positions on Native American and environmental issues, often in contravention of accepted law. Given the centrality of such issues to the 9th Circuit, there is reason to bar his confirmation.

Finally, there is the closer case of Priscilla R. Owen. She has a "well-qualified" ABA rating, but she is also indelibly marked by a prior public rebuke. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, her colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, said she engaged in "an unconscionable act of judicial activism" in restricting a minor's access to an abortion. That and other charges of activism leave Owen damaged goods for confirmation.

Of these three, I agree on one – the Haynes nomination. It is not that I think that Haynes was necessarily wrong in his position, because I don’t. But at this time, I think the issue is one that is too radioactive. Haynes might be a good nominee in a couple of years – just not now.

I’m not sure about Myers. Do his political positions prevent him from being an acceptable candidate for the judiciary – or at least for the appellate level, beyond which most cases never go? Perhaps. That he lacks experience on a lower court troubles me, because it prevents determining if Myers has an appropriate judicial temperament. I would not be troubled by his confirmation, but would not be troubled by his rejection, either. I just don't see his nomination as a hill worth dying for.

And then there is Priscilla Owens, on whom I steadfastly disagree with Turley. She has been a good justice here in Texas, and while I have disagreed with her position on a number of issues, I have accepted the reasonableness of her rulings. Turley wants to write her off because of an ad hominem attack by one of hercolleagues, the current attorney general. Frankly, I find that to be a pretty weak argument, given that the same statement could have been made against then-Justice Alberto Gonzales in the same case. More to the point, the ABA rated her well-qualified (the alleged “gold standard” for nominees, according to Senate Democrats at the time of Owens' original nomination) and the people of Texas have overwhelmingly reelected her to the bench since that case was decided. Those two facts, taken together, show that she is not an extremist, and is eminently qualified for the federal appellate bench.

Overall, however, I agree with Turley. Now, are there enough honest liberals -- more to the point, enough honest liberals in the Senate -- for such clear thinking to carry the day?

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.