April 08, 2005
Sounds Like the School Handled This Just Right
I wonder if the kids wore their shirts to class, and how the school dealt with that if they did.
For what it is worth, I don't necessarily support the actions of these kids. It sounds to me, though, like these kids were condemning homosexuals as well as homosexuality. Ihave to say that I disagree with that point of view.
I don't believe that homosexual orientation is sinful, though I believe homosexual sexual activity is (a very distinct difference). And while I oppose same sex marriage, I do not support Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And while I support making sure that schools are a safe place for students regardless of sexual preference, I oppose presenting homosexuality as just one more option to be celebrated while suppressing other points of view as anti-social.
I wonder if the kids wore their shirts to class, and how the school dealt with that if they did.
What began as an anti-gay rally at a Rohnert Park high school today soon turned into an exercise in free speech when a group of students with a different viewpoint came out to challenge protesters.
April 13th is set aside by some to honor the gay and lesbian community nationwide, but a number of students Rancho Cotate High School in Rohnert Park don't think that's right.
In a protest organized by the group Gay Marriage No and the school's Conservative Club and its student president and founder, Tim Beuler, about a dozen students from the school wore anti-gay sweat shirts and waved anti-gay signs as trucks drove around town emblazoned anti-gay slogans.
The gathering took place across the street from the school as protestors gave up their lunch hour to send their message to other students and people driving by. Other students from the school who support the April 13th “Day of Silence” observance weren’t quiet about letting the anti-gay protestors know they didn’t support their views.
Though things got a little tense as both sides loudly voiced their beliefs, district superintendent Michael Watenpaugh recognized the need to protect freedom of speech for all students. “It's a delicate situation.We need to preserve the rights of the students and we need to make sure that learning continues in the classroom."
Because the protest was not on school grounds, the school did not organize or try to break up the event. However, administrators did contact the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety, which had officers on hand to make sure the protest did not turn violent.
For what it is worth, I don't necessarily support the actions of these kids. It sounds to me, though, like these kids were condemning homosexuals as well as homosexuality. Ihave to say that I disagree with that point of view.
I don't believe that homosexual orientation is sinful, though I believe homosexual sexual activity is (a very distinct difference). And while I oppose same sex marriage, I do not support Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And while I support making sure that schools are a safe place for students regardless of sexual preference, I oppose presenting homosexuality as just one more option to be celebrated while suppressing other points of view as anti-social.
Posted by: Greg at
12:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.
Sounds Good To Me
After all, they are freely choosing how to direct their own cash. That is precisely what we on the right have always said they should do.
I’d just like to know – how many Senators and Congressmen who opposed the Bush tax cuts are kicking their money into the pot? You know, putting their money where their mealy mouths are.
I bet not many.
After all -- it's their money, not ours.
They're rich, they're outraged, and they're not going to take it anymore -- their tax refund, that is.
A Boston-based group that wants to close the nation's "wealth gap" announced on Wednesday that its members have agreed to turn down their share of "tax cuts for the wealthy" by signing a "Responsible Tax Pledge."
Individuals who have taken the pledge this year are due an average estimated 2004 tax break of $20,000, the group Responsible Wealth said.
Responsible Wealth (a project of United for a Fair Economy) is calling on rich Americans to "redirect their federal tax breaks -- by giving their "unwanted and unneeded 'windfall'" to grassroots organizations that are working for "fairer" taxes.
Those groups include Responsible Wealth; and the Fund for Tax Fairness at the Tides Foundation - the foundation frequently mentioned during the 2004 presidential campaign because it is supported by charitable donations from Teresa Heinz Kerry.
I’d just like to know – how many Senators and Congressmen who opposed the Bush tax cuts are kicking their money into the pot? You know, putting their money where their mealy mouths are.
I bet not many.
After all -- it's their money, not ours.
Posted by: Greg at
12:55 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.
Dumb Stunt Leads To Minuteman Investigation
On one hand, this is almost funny, a little bit of twisted gallows humor about the job the Minutemen are doing since the Border Patrol cannot or will not do it. On the other hand, I fear that it may be used to discredit an honorable movement doing good work.
The border-jumper (what is this “entrant” garbage) was then turned over to the Border patrol, unharmed.
Barton, who is seeking the GOP nomination for a congressional seat in San Diego, denies any wrongdoing, as does the other man being investigated. They deny detaining the border-jumper against his will.
And of course, the Open Border activists who put the rights of immigration criminals above the rights of American citizens and the security of the United states are making the most of the situation.
No, they didnÂ’t, as over 200 border-jumpers detained based upon the reports of the Minutemen proves. What this situation really demonstrates is that, given enough beer and enough time, even otherwise mature, responsible men will engage in antics reminiscent of a fraternity house.
Oh, and by the way, Ms. Allen -- the investigation showed that the Minutemen did nothing to the border-jumping invader that he was not willing to participate in for twenty bucks.
Cochise County officials said they are investigating two Minuteman volunteers after an illegal entrant complained Wednesday to authorities that he was held against his will.
One of the men paid the illegal entrant $20 and gave him a T-shirt to hold up while he filmed the encounter. The T-shirt read: "Bryan Barton Caught an Illegal Alien and all I got was this T-shirt," said Carol Capas, spokeswoman for the Cochise County Sheriff's Department.
The border-jumper (what is this “entrant” garbage) was then turned over to the Border patrol, unharmed.
Barton, who is seeking the GOP nomination for a congressional seat in San Diego, denies any wrongdoing, as does the other man being investigated. They deny detaining the border-jumper against his will.
And of course, the Open Border activists who put the rights of immigration criminals above the rights of American citizens and the security of the United states are making the most of the situation.
"This shows what we've been saying all along," said Jennifer Allen, director of the Border Action Network.
"It was nothing but a media sham to mislead the public," she said. "Clearly they misrepresented the situation. They misrepresented themselves."
No, they didnÂ’t, as over 200 border-jumpers detained based upon the reports of the Minutemen proves. What this situation really demonstrates is that, given enough beer and enough time, even otherwise mature, responsible men will engage in antics reminiscent of a fraternity house.
Oh, and by the way, Ms. Allen -- the investigation showed that the Minutemen did nothing to the border-jumping invader that he was not willing to participate in for twenty bucks.
Posted by: Greg at
12:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
April 07, 2005
You Knew It Had To Happen
When Andrea Yates murdered her children just a few miles from my home, my wife and I wondered how long it would be until Russell Yates started looking for another woman to breed a few more. We raised the same question again when he divorced her a couple of months back.
Well, guess what – he now says he is ready to “move on” and start a new family.
No word on who the the object of his affection is.
What sort of sick woman would even consider marrying this guy?
Other than Andrea, of course.
Well, guess what – he now says he is ready to “move on” and start a new family.
"I'm kind of in a phase where ... I'm through, I think, a lot of the healing and at a point where I'm starting to look more to the future," Russell Yates told the newspaper.
Yates, who has a new assignment with NASA as project manager for development of a sensor to detect damage on the space shuttle, talks of earning a master's degree in software engineering.
He's dating, though he declined to give details. He said he might eventually remarry and have more children.
"I have the freedom now," he said. "I'd like to do that someday and possibly have a family again. ... But I'm not 20. I'm 40. So I have to reassess where I'm at, what I have to offer."
No word on who the the object of his affection is.
What sort of sick woman would even consider marrying this guy?
Other than Andrea, of course.
Posted by: Greg at
04:45 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.
One More Assault
Well, another conservative speaker has been pied.
Well, David, you have them labeled exactly right. I hope your version of the story is correct, and that three of the four punks were arrested.
The perps need to be prosecuted and expelled.
A conservative activist who criticizes what he calls the leftist domination of college campuses was struck with a pie Wednesday night at Butler University.
David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, had just started a lecture at Butler when he was hit.
Horowitz's supporters followed the assailants out of the hall, and confronted them with what a witness called "pushing and shoving." However, the attackers got away.
"There's a wave of violence on college campuses, committed by what I'd call fascists opposing conservatives," Horowitz said. "It's one step from that to injury."
Well, David, you have them labeled exactly right. I hope your version of the story is correct, and that three of the four punks were arrested.
The perps need to be prosecuted and expelled.
Posted by: Greg at
04:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.
Mexican Invaders Hinder US Military Training And Readiness
Well, one more reason to seal the borders. The border-jumping invaders coming into this country with the approval and assistance of the Mexican government are putting our own troops in danger.
There has also been the issue of humanitarian concern. The border-jumpers might get hurt.
And the problem is not just confined to the Marines at this one base. It also hurts training at Army and Air Force bases near the border. Immigrants simply wander into – or are directed by smugglers into -- firing ranges where live ammunition and bombs are in use.
We simply cannot and should not endanger the training and readiness of our men and women in uniform – not to mention our national security – in the name of protecting those who violate our borders and our laws. Maybe the solution is simple – don’t stop the training exercises. We’ve all seen the humorous signs that read “Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted”. Perhaps the time has come to post those around these training ranges in both English and Spanish, and then act accordingly.
If that sounds harsh, so be it.
Better a dead criminal than a dead soldier.
Well, one more reason to seal the borders. The border-jumping invaders coming into this country with the approval and assistance of the Mexican government are putting our own troops in danger.
Virtually every Marine squadron headed to Iraq or Afghanistan receives combat training at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, which for nearly 40 miles touches the US-Mexico border in the southwestern corner of Arizona. The Border Patrol's focus in recent years on tightening the border in the eastern part of the state, where volunteer citizens this month have established their own observation posts, has pushed more undocumented immigrants westward.
Since July 2004, the training range has been shut down more than 500 times because of immigrants spotted on the range, causing a loss of more than 1,100 training hours, said Colonel James J. Cooney, the base's commanding officer.
''That's equivalent to almost 46 days of training. We're getting overrun here," he said in an interview. ''Any moment we take away from a Marine's experience base could cost him his life in combat."
Cooney said Marines intercepted more than 1,500 undocumented immigrants on the training range last year and, in the first three months of this year, more than 1,100. Base personnel detain the immigrants and call in Border Patrol agents to pick them up.
''I have to use Marines that aren't trained in that to do that, which puts me at a liability," said Cooney, a Boston College graduate. ''It's completely counterproductive to our whole training operation."
There has also been the issue of humanitarian concern. The border-jumpers might get hurt.
Another big concern, he said, is the potential danger to undocumented immigrants: ''We just don't want them to come here, because we're firing lasers, we're shooting machine guns, we're shooting 209-millimeter cannons, and we're dropping practice bombs, and we don't want to hurt anyone."
Last summer a Marine pilot dropped a practice bomb on a target and seconds later, a few feet away, a small group of illegal immigrants scrambled from underneath a bush and ran down the range. The near miss was caught on a training tape that Cooney has reviewed.
And the problem is not just confined to the Marines at this one base. It also hurts training at Army and Air Force bases near the border. Immigrants simply wander into – or are directed by smugglers into -- firing ranges where live ammunition and bombs are in use.
Two other bases in Arizona, one the Army's and another the Air Force's, have experienced similar problems.
At the Army Yuma Proving Ground, near the Marine Corps Air Station but about 30 miles north of the border, an increasing number of undocumented immigrants have invaded military space and disrupted training.
''The smugglers just drive them up the highway and dump them off, and these illegal immigrants stumble right onto our testing range," said Chuck Wullenjohn, spokesman for the Army base.
As one of the largest military installations in the Western world, the Army Yuma Proving Ground is constantly conducting tests for ground forces on artillery and ammunition, including tank rounds, mines, mortars, and helicopter guns.
''Having anyone on this range that doesn't belong here is extremely dangerous," said Wullenjohn. ''The illegal immigrant issue is becoming a bigger problem all the time."
The Air Force said it has had to interrupt exercises with F-16 pilots after undocumented immigrants were spotted on a bombing range east of Gila Bend, north of the border.
''In 2004 we suspended range operations 55 times for a net loss of 122 hours," said Jim Uken, director of the 56th Fighter Wing range management office.
We simply cannot and should not endanger the training and readiness of our men and women in uniform – not to mention our national security – in the name of protecting those who violate our borders and our laws. Maybe the solution is simple – don’t stop the training exercises. We’ve all seen the humorous signs that read “Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted”. Perhaps the time has come to post those around these training ranges in both English and Spanish, and then act accordingly.
If that sounds harsh, so be it.
Better a dead criminal than a dead soldier.
Posted by: Greg at
04:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.
We Can’t Let The Cops Ask About Crimes, Can We?
Police officers are in the business of tracking down and arresting criminals. Unfortunately, the Open Borders crowd has succeeded in getting a lot of locales to forbid making inquiries about immigration status. That results in absurdities like this one from the Left Coast.
Discourage ALL immigrant witnesses or victims, or discourage border-jumping witnesses and victims from reporting crimes? Well, we all know the answer there. Allowing the police to question someone about immigration crimes would discourage immigration criminals from turning to the police. Could you imagine preventing cops from asking drug dealers about drug sales because it might keep them from reporting robberies when someone steals their drug money?
Ms. Cardenas, this is about the police dealing with crimes. You may not have realized it, but it is a violation of the law for the border-jumpers you are trying to protect to even be in this country without the proper legal documents. By definition, seeking their removal is dealing with a crime. If you want that law change, you need to lobby your Senators and Congressmen to decriminalize illegal immigration and throw open the borders of the country to every Tomas, Rico, and Geraldo who can swim the Rio Grande or sneak across the desert.
Yeah, that’s right, these activists are afraid of the possible arrest and re-deportation of convicted violent felons, especially narco-terrorists. They don’t care about the crime – they care about getting more of their people into the country. They are, in effect, the fifth column of the Mexican invasion force.
Central American community leaders on Wednesday demanded to meet with Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton to discuss proposed guidelines allowing police to make limited immigration inquiries about convicted felons they suspect reentered the U.S. illegally.
Under Special Order 40, adopted in 1979 to encourage illegal immigrants to report crime, LAPD officers are prevented from inquiring about a person's residency status.
However, Bratton plans to issue a clarification stating that officers can check on felons, mostly violent gang members, who were deported only to return illegally.
More than half a dozen of the community activists said clarifying the police's relationship with federal immigration officials could discourage immigrant witnesses or victims from turning to authorities to help fight crime.
Discourage ALL immigrant witnesses or victims, or discourage border-jumping witnesses and victims from reporting crimes? Well, we all know the answer there. Allowing the police to question someone about immigration crimes would discourage immigration criminals from turning to the police. Could you imagine preventing cops from asking drug dealers about drug sales because it might keep them from reporting robberies when someone steals their drug money?
The activists said they wanted to hear from Bratton himself about the specific policy language as well as safeguards to prevent police from "casting a wider net" to target illegal immigrants.
"The Los Angeles Police Department should deal with crime," added Isabel Cardenas, a longtime Salvadoran American community organizer. "Immigration should be totally separate. The change could give way to abuse."
Ms. Cardenas, this is about the police dealing with crimes. You may not have realized it, but it is a violation of the law for the border-jumpers you are trying to protect to even be in this country without the proper legal documents. By definition, seeking their removal is dealing with a crime. If you want that law change, you need to lobby your Senators and Congressmen to decriminalize illegal immigration and throw open the borders of the country to every Tomas, Rico, and Geraldo who can swim the Rio Grande or sneak across the desert.
Assistant Chief George Gascon said Wednesday that Bratton was willing to meet with the group, not only to discuss the clarification but also to spell out the reasons behind it.
"The policy is very clear," Gascon said. "The clarification has to do with people who were convicted of a felony, deported from this country and have reentered illegally, and we become of aware of it. It's very narrowly focused."
Police say some officers are confused about how to approach previously deported criminals — most with ties to violent international street gangs — with multiple misdemeanor or felony convictions.
Yeah, that’s right, these activists are afraid of the possible arrest and re-deportation of convicted violent felons, especially narco-terrorists. They don’t care about the crime – they care about getting more of their people into the country. They are, in effect, the fifth column of the Mexican invasion force.
Posted by: Greg at
01:25 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.
We CanÂ’t Let The Cops Ask About Crimes, Can We?
Police officers are in the business of tracking down and arresting criminals. Unfortunately, the Open Borders crowd has succeeded in getting a lot of locales to forbid making inquiries about immigration status. That results in absurdities like this one from the Left Coast.
Discourage ALL immigrant witnesses or victims, or discourage border-jumping witnesses and victims from reporting crimes? Well, we all know the answer there. Allowing the police to question someone about immigration crimes would discourage immigration criminals from turning to the police. Could you imagine preventing cops from asking drug dealers about drug sales because it might keep them from reporting robberies when someone steals their drug money?
Ms. Cardenas, this is about the police dealing with crimes. You may not have realized it, but it is a violation of the law for the border-jumpers you are trying to protect to even be in this country without the proper legal documents. By definition, seeking their removal is dealing with a crime. If you want that law change, you need to lobby your Senators and Congressmen to decriminalize illegal immigration and throw open the borders of the country to every Tomas, Rico, and Geraldo who can swim the Rio Grande or sneak across the desert.
Yeah, that’s right, these activists are afraid of the possible arrest and re-deportation of convicted violent felons, especially narco-terrorists. They don’t care about the crime – they care about getting more of their people into the country. They are, in effect, the fifth column of the Mexican invasion force.
Central American community leaders on Wednesday demanded to meet with Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton to discuss proposed guidelines allowing police to make limited immigration inquiries about convicted felons they suspect reentered the U.S. illegally.
Under Special Order 40, adopted in 1979 to encourage illegal immigrants to report crime, LAPD officers are prevented from inquiring about a person's residency status.
However, Bratton plans to issue a clarification stating that officers can check on felons, mostly violent gang members, who were deported only to return illegally.
More than half a dozen of the community activists said clarifying the police's relationship with federal immigration officials could discourage immigrant witnesses or victims from turning to authorities to help fight crime.
Discourage ALL immigrant witnesses or victims, or discourage border-jumping witnesses and victims from reporting crimes? Well, we all know the answer there. Allowing the police to question someone about immigration crimes would discourage immigration criminals from turning to the police. Could you imagine preventing cops from asking drug dealers about drug sales because it might keep them from reporting robberies when someone steals their drug money?
The activists said they wanted to hear from Bratton himself about the specific policy language as well as safeguards to prevent police from "casting a wider net" to target illegal immigrants.
"The Los Angeles Police Department should deal with crime," added Isabel Cardenas, a longtime Salvadoran American community organizer. "Immigration should be totally separate. The change could give way to abuse."
Ms. Cardenas, this is about the police dealing with crimes. You may not have realized it, but it is a violation of the law for the border-jumpers you are trying to protect to even be in this country without the proper legal documents. By definition, seeking their removal is dealing with a crime. If you want that law change, you need to lobby your Senators and Congressmen to decriminalize illegal immigration and throw open the borders of the country to every Tomas, Rico, and Geraldo who can swim the Rio Grande or sneak across the desert.
Assistant Chief George Gascon said Wednesday that Bratton was willing to meet with the group, not only to discuss the clarification but also to spell out the reasons behind it.
"The policy is very clear," Gascon said. "The clarification has to do with people who were convicted of a felony, deported from this country and have reentered illegally, and we become of aware of it. It's very narrowly focused."
Police say some officers are confused about how to approach previously deported criminals — most with ties to violent international street gangs — with multiple misdemeanor or felony convictions.
Yeah, that’s right, these activists are afraid of the possible arrest and re-deportation of convicted violent felons, especially narco-terrorists. They don’t care about the crime – they care about getting more of their people into the country. They are, in effect, the fifth column of the Mexican invasion force.
Posted by: Greg at
01:25 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.
Oh, No!
Right after I call for an end to Daylight Savings Time, along comes this atrocity.
I don’t see why it will have that effect – last time I checked, we would continue to have 24 hour days with the same day/night cycle. As I pointed out, the effect of DST on me is making me drive to school in the morning in the dark instead of daylight. Darkness at the start of the day rather than at the end. The savings are truly miniscule.
If Congress passes an energy bill, Americans may see more daylight-saving time.
Lawmakers crafting energy legislation approved an amendment Wednesday to extend daylight-saving time by two months, having it start on the last Sunday in March and end on the last Sunday in November.
"Extending daylight-saving time makes sense, especially with skyrocketing energy costs," said Rep. Fred Upton (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., who along with Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., co-sponsored the measure.
The amendment was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee that is putting together major parts of energy legislation likely to come up for a vote in the full House in the coming weeks.
"The more daylight we have, the less electricity we use," said Markey, who cited Transportation Department estimates that showed the two-month extension would save the equivalent of 10,000 barrels of oil a day.
The country uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day.
I don’t see why it will have that effect – last time I checked, we would continue to have 24 hour days with the same day/night cycle. As I pointed out, the effect of DST on me is making me drive to school in the morning in the dark instead of daylight. Darkness at the start of the day rather than at the end. The savings are truly miniscule.
Posted by: Greg at
12:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.
April 06, 2005
An Act Of Kindness -- Remembered 60 Years Later
This story by Roger Cohen of the International Herald Tribune is moving and beautiful, a story of kindness and compassion that arose out of the ashes of the Holocaust and the Second World War. It is also a family story, about his mother-in-lawÂ’s experience after surviving the Nazi horrors.
That it also serves as a moving tribute to the young man involved on the occasion of his passing makes it that much more beautiful. I could not help but weep as I read this story of the meeting between a young Jewish girl and a Polish seminarian.
I urge you to read the rest. It so clearly shows that Karol Wojtyla was truly every bit the man of kindness, decency, and holiness that we would all come to know as Pope John Paul II.
That it also serves as a moving tribute to the young man involved on the occasion of his passing makes it that much more beautiful. I could not help but weep as I read this story of the meeting between a young Jewish girl and a Polish seminarian.
During the summer of 1942, two women in Krakow, Poland, were denounced as Jews, taken to the city's prison, held there for a few months and then sent to the Belzec extermination camp, where, in October, they were killed in primitive Nazi gas chambers by carbon monoxide from diesel engines.
Their names were Frimeta Gelband and Salomea Zierer; they were sisters. As it happens, Frimeta was my wife's grandmother. Salomea, known as "Salla," had two daughters, one of whom survived the war and one of whom did not.
The elder of these daughters was Edith Zierer. In January 1945, at 13, she emerged from a Nazi labor camp in Czestochowa, Poland, a waif on the verge of death. Separated from her family, unaware that her mother had been killed by the Germans, she could scarcely walk.
But walk she did, to a train station, where she climbed onto a coal wagon. The train moved slowly, the wind cut through her. When the cold became too much to bear, she got off the train at a village called Jendzejuw. In a corner of the station, she sat. Nobody looked at her, a girl in the striped and numbered uniform of a prisoner, late in a terrible war. Unable to move, Edith waited.
Death was approaching, but a young man approached first, "very good looking," as she recalled, and vigorous. He wore a long robe and appeared to the girl to be a priest. "Why are you here?" he asked. "What are you doing?"
Edith said she was trying to get to Krakow to find her parents.
The man disappeared. He came back with a cup of tea. Edith drank. He said he could help her get to Krakow. Again, the mysterious benefactor went away, returning with bread and cheese.
They talked about the advancing Soviet army. Edith said she believed her parents and younger sister, Judith, were alive.
"Try to stand," the man said. Edith tried - and failed. The man carried her to another village, where he put her in the cattle car of a train bound for Krakow. Another family was there. The man got in beside Edith, covered her with his cloak, and set about making a small fire.
His name, he told Edith, was Karol Wojtyla.
I urge you to read the rest. It so clearly shows that Karol Wojtyla was truly every bit the man of kindness, decency, and holiness that we would all come to know as Pope John Paul II.
Posted by: Greg at
11:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.
Sheriff Uses Driver's License Records To Track Down Critic
Imagine this scenario – you write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. In the letter, you criticize an elected law enforcement official. A short time later, you receive a letter in response from the official. How did he locate your address? That’s simple – he ran your name through the state Driver’s License database.
Beary claims that responding to a “citizen concern” is part of his duties, but that hardly constitutes a “law-enforcement purpose.” I’m with the guy from EPIC – I think his method was illegal. For that matter, I think his letter was abusive and unprofessional. The goal seems to have been to place Gawronski in fear of litigation (notice the charge of slander made repeatedly by the Beary), not answer her concerns.
What is it about Florida?
Orange County Sheriff Kevin Beary had his aides use the records to get the address of Alice Gawronski so he could send her a scathing letter, which some say violated federal privacy law. It is illegal to access a driver's license database to obtain personal information, except for clear law-enforcement purposes, under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994.
"I recently read your slanderous remarks about the Orange County Sheriff's Office in the Orlando Sentinel," Beary wrote Gawronski on March 23. "It is unfortunate that people ridicule others without arming themselves with the facts before they slander a law enforcement agency or individual."
Gawronski said, "I thought I was exercising my First Amendment right of free speech -- expressing an opinion in an open forum about a paid public official." She considered Beary's letter a form of intimidation.
Violators of the driver's privacy act can be sued in U.S. District Court for damages of at least $2,500, punitive damages, attorney's fees and all other relief the court determines to be appropriate.
"If I were her, I'd sue and get him in front of a jury. He'd probably get laughed out of the courtroom," said Chris Hoofnagle, the senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "This is the most common problem with surveillance -- who's watching the watchers."
Beary claims that responding to a “citizen concern” is part of his duties, but that hardly constitutes a “law-enforcement purpose.” I’m with the guy from EPIC – I think his method was illegal. For that matter, I think his letter was abusive and unprofessional. The goal seems to have been to place Gawronski in fear of litigation (notice the charge of slander made repeatedly by the Beary), not answer her concerns.
What is it about Florida?
Posted by: Greg at
11:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.
Ninth Circuit Finds A Limit To Free Speech
That limit is the lap-dance. Such erotic dances are not constitutionally protected “expressive speech”, and are therefore outside the bounds of the irst Amendment. Therefore, local government (and presumably state government) can implement policies which regulate stripper/patron contact.
I don't know about you, but I'm somewhat surprised by this decision. Given that we are talking about the Ninth Circuit, I would have expected a requirement that lap dances receive public subsidies.
The city of La Habra requires that lap dancers stay at least 2 feet away from customers during their performances.
Badi "Bill" Gammoh, who owns the Taboo Theater, contends the rule infringes on freedom of expression. The strippers said they also lost money because of the requirement.
A federal appeals court has refused to reconsider a January ruling that upheld the 2-foot rule. But Gammoh's lawyer said their fight isn't over yet.
I don't know about you, but I'm somewhat surprised by this decision. Given that we are talking about the Ninth Circuit, I would have expected a requirement that lap dances receive public subsidies.
Posted by: Greg at
10:58 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.
ACLU Declares Prayer 'Un-American And Immoral'
Well, we clearly know who the enemy is in this case.
Now there may be a problem with the prayer before the game, based upon the Santa Fe case, but the court is probably wrong on the school board prayer ruling. There is no basis for excluding school boards from the same rules that apply to other elected bodies.
As for "un-American and immoral", I think that label is more accurately applied to the judge and the ACLU than it is to prayer.
ACLU of Louisiana executive director Joe Cook says it was “un-American and immoral” to allow an adult to pray over Loranger High School’s public address system.
Cook says members of the school board should be fined or jailed for failing to stop it.
Last month, the ACLU asked Judge Ginger Berrigan to hold the same school board in contempt for letting an elementary school student recite the LordÂ’s Prayer before its meeting.
Berrigan ruled in February that school boards, unlike most government bodies, cannot hold public prayers. That ruling was denounced by Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and is being appealed.
Now there may be a problem with the prayer before the game, based upon the Santa Fe case, but the court is probably wrong on the school board prayer ruling. There is no basis for excluding school boards from the same rules that apply to other elected bodies.
As for "un-American and immoral", I think that label is more accurately applied to the judge and the ACLU than it is to prayer.
Posted by: Greg at
10:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.
Homosexual Marriage Loses Again
Well, this now makes it 18-0 for the traditional marriage side. You see, each and every time the people speak on the issue, homosexual marriage loses. That explains why the supporters of homosexual marriage have consistently turned to the courts to impose it on an unwilling nation.
Some folks clearly do not understand the implications of a 70%-30% margin.
Oh, please. A 70% margin means that it IS reflective of typical Kansans, folks. The reality is that EVERY SINGLE POLL shows the result to be reflective of typical AMERICANS. There is simply no historical basis for arguing that any provision of the Constitution of the US, or of any state in the Union, was intended to establish and protect homosexual marriage. So Mr. Brown, you have are right, moderate Kansans have stood up and said they have had enough – of folks like you pushing your agenda.
Oh, and by the way – you don’t suppose that the 18-0 record of voter approval of state amendments banning homosexual marriage constitutes a trend and a consensus, like that they discovered in the Simmons case on the juvenile death penalty, do you? Or do such judicial creations only apply to liberal causes and positions?
Some folks clearly do not understand the implications of a 70%-30% margin.
Opponents who gathered near the state Capitol in Topeka were disappointed but not surprised by the results.
The vote is not reflective of the typical Kansan, said Steve Brown of Prairie Village, a member of Kansans for Fairness, a group that worked to defeat the amendment.
“Eventually, moderate Kansans are going to stand up and say they've had enough,” Brown said.
Oh, please. A 70% margin means that it IS reflective of typical Kansans, folks. The reality is that EVERY SINGLE POLL shows the result to be reflective of typical AMERICANS. There is simply no historical basis for arguing that any provision of the Constitution of the US, or of any state in the Union, was intended to establish and protect homosexual marriage. So Mr. Brown, you have are right, moderate Kansans have stood up and said they have had enough – of folks like you pushing your agenda.
Oh, and by the way – you don’t suppose that the 18-0 record of voter approval of state amendments banning homosexual marriage constitutes a trend and a consensus, like that they discovered in the Simmons case on the juvenile death penalty, do you? Or do such judicial creations only apply to liberal causes and positions?
Posted by: Greg at
10:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
Ridor Calls For Natural Disaster To Wipe Out Conservatives And Christians
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have this nasty habit of saying that natural disasters happen to punish the sins of groups of people, especially homosexuals. Now I disagree with that theology, and I have condemned such comments when they have been made. For that reason, I feel perfectly appropriate condemning the words of our resident troll, Ridor.
Now, could you imagine the outrage voiced by Ridor if Falwell or Robertson changed the disaster location to San Francisco and suggested that it would "be delicious to witness the death of filthy sodomites, dirty lesbians and transgendered pigs"?
Why is such a double standard acceptable? Why do you think you and your words are exempt from standards of fundamental moral decency to which you seek to hold others?
When I drove eastward to Cody from Yellowstone, the drive down the massive mountain was absolutely stunning. I even stopped by the gas station to fill the tank. I turned my back to gaze upon the road that I drove few minutes earlier. I was astonished by its massive size. Yellowstone National Park sits on the top of the mountain. It is a sleeping giant waiting to erupt once again.
And when it does, it shall overwhelm Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado and the parts of Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas and Minnesota -- the hotbed of Republicans, Conservatives and X-ians. Surely, it will be delicious to witness the death of filthy Republicans, dirty Conservatives and X-ian pigs. Of course, Ann Coulter would still blame the Liberals for causing the dormant volcano to erupt in the first place.
Now, could you imagine the outrage voiced by Ridor if Falwell or Robertson changed the disaster location to San Francisco and suggested that it would "be delicious to witness the death of filthy sodomites, dirty lesbians and transgendered pigs"?
Why is such a double standard acceptable? Why do you think you and your words are exempt from standards of fundamental moral decency to which you seek to hold others?
Posted by: Greg at
10:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.
April 05, 2005
No Freedom For Teachers In Soviet Kanuckistan
This Canadian case chills me to the bone, as I am a politically active Republican in addition to being a teacher. I thank God for our First Amendment, because if I lived in Canada I would be out of a job -- possibly for this blog.
Think about this. The implications for non-PC teachers in Canada are astounding.
Dr. Kempling plans on fighting his suspension through the district grievance process and through the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, on the basis that he is being discriminated against on the basis of political association. But do not hold out much hope for him -- a Canadian teacher was recently suspended and denied relief for writing a letter to the editor denouncin homosexuality. Ther eis no particular reason to expect better in this case.
In a decision handed down yesterday, Quesnel School District Superintendent Ed Napier suspended school counsellor Dr. Chris Kempling for three months. Dr. Kempling has been employed as a counsellor since 1990, and has been active in a wide variety of volunteer positions in the community. He is also the local spokesperson of the federal Christian Heritage Party, and had written a letter to the editor of the local newspaper on behalf of his party, criticizing the Liberal government's same sex marriage legislation. The school district did not provide a single example of disruption to the school system, or any negative effect of the letter. They also ignored over a dozen letters of reference from supervisors and community members written in support of Dr. Kempling.
Think about this. The implications for non-PC teachers in Canada are astounding.
- The freedom to participate in political activities does not exist if you are a Canadian educator. Taking the "wrong" political position can leave you subject to suspension, or even termination. Implicit in this employment action is the threat that other party members might be so disciplined.
- Freedom of speech also does not exist for Canadian educators. The principles of "tolerance", "diversity", and "sensitivity" trump the the speech rights enshrined in The Canadian Charter of Liberties and Canadian law.
- Religious freedom is also endangered for Canadian teachers. After all, the Christian Heritage Party is based upon certain lon-standing religious teachings of the Christian religion. Would membership in a Church espousing the same position as the party, if it became publicly know, be grounds for employment sanctions?
- Canadian educators are now threatened with disciplinary action for actions taken or words spoken on their private time, not in their public role as an educator but instead in their role as private citizen. No disruption of the school or of the education of students needs be demonstrated.
Dr. Kempling plans on fighting his suspension through the district grievance process and through the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, on the basis that he is being discriminated against on the basis of political association. But do not hold out much hope for him -- a Canadian teacher was recently suspended and denied relief for writing a letter to the editor denouncin homosexuality. Ther eis no particular reason to expect better in this case.
Posted by: Greg at
01:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.
Killing King’s College
King’s College is a small school, over 40 years old, that lived a quiet existence in the suburbs of New York City. No one took much notice of the small evangelical school, despite its reputation for excellence, until it moved into the NYC itself and took up residence in one of the city’s great icons – the Empire State Building. There it began to focus on politics, philosophy, and economics, seeking to prepare its students for positions in government and business. And now, suddenly, its accreditation by the New York Board of Regents is at stake.
Frankly, it appears that there is no basis for the objection. The school has met the standards of the Regents for around half a century. More to the point, Joseph Frey, the state Education Department’s Assistant Commissioner of Quality Assurance, has stated that the school is in compliance. Now they have given the school only a single year’s accreditation – despite the fact that their own rules call for a five year accreditation, and provide for a shorter period (two years) only in the event that a school given conditional or probationary accreditation. The only folks who are out of compliance with the rules of the New York Board of Regents are the Regents themselves!
Now I won’t go quite to the lengths of those who have said that this is the case of religious discrimination, though I think that a prima facie case can be made that this unique abuse of a small evangelical college is religiously based. I’ll simply call it what it is – an immoral violation of due process. I won’t get into the question of whether or not the Regents should exist, or whether the state has any place doing accreditation when the private sector handles the process quite well through a variety of accrediting bodies. But I will say that there is a clear injustice here.
What can you do? Might I suggest writing to the Regents in protest? They can be contacted through the board secretary at djohnson@mail.nysed.gov.
Let’s tell them that they cannot kill King’s College.
King’s College has been accredited by the New York State Board of Regents for over 40 years, and all was on track for yet another renewal. After the college was scrutinized by the New York State Board of Education and an external site visit team, the Regents’ own Advisory Council recommended a five-year extension of King’s accreditation. So the stage was set for a fascinating experiment in higher education — an ultimate encounter of red and blue America.
That was until King’s College caught the attention of John Brademas, a quintessentially liberal politician, and one of the newest members of the State Board of Regents. Brademas had been a liberal Democratic congressman from Indiana, but was defeated in 1980 (according to this study with major opposition from the Moral Majority). After his defeat, Brademas went on to serve as president of New York University for a decade — a period during which NYU consolidated its reputation as a liberal bastion.
As soon as the question of King’s College’s accreditation came before the Regents, Brademas began to throw up a series of patently bogus objections, all of which were answered in the written material prepared by the Regents own Advisory Council. Brademas harped on the college’s small library — yet neglected to note that King’s is across the street from the Science and Business Branch of the New York Public Library, and seven short blocks from the library’s main building. That gives King’s a better library than all but a handful of colleges and universities in New York State.
But the silliest objection of all was the claim that the college has a misleading name. After all, said Brademas, King’s College was the original name of Columbia University. Wouldn’t that mislead prospective students into thinking they’re attending Columbia, instead of an evangelical Christian school? Trouble is, Columbia University changed its name from King’s to Columbia over 200 years ago — after the Revolution broke our ties with England’s king. And, of course, the King honored in King’s College’s name is God. New York’s Regents have accredited this college for over 50 years under the name of King’s. So why the problem now?
Frankly, it appears that there is no basis for the objection. The school has met the standards of the Regents for around half a century. More to the point, Joseph Frey, the state Education Department’s Assistant Commissioner of Quality Assurance, has stated that the school is in compliance. Now they have given the school only a single year’s accreditation – despite the fact that their own rules call for a five year accreditation, and provide for a shorter period (two years) only in the event that a school given conditional or probationary accreditation. The only folks who are out of compliance with the rules of the New York Board of Regents are the Regents themselves!
Now I won’t go quite to the lengths of those who have said that this is the case of religious discrimination, though I think that a prima facie case can be made that this unique abuse of a small evangelical college is religiously based. I’ll simply call it what it is – an immoral violation of due process. I won’t get into the question of whether or not the Regents should exist, or whether the state has any place doing accreditation when the private sector handles the process quite well through a variety of accrediting bodies. But I will say that there is a clear injustice here.
What can you do? Might I suggest writing to the Regents in protest? They can be contacted through the board secretary at djohnson@mail.nysed.gov.
Let’s tell them that they cannot kill King’s College.
Posted by: Greg at
11:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 714 words, total size 5 kb.
Killing KingÂ’s College
King’s College is a small school, over 40 years old, that lived a quiet existence in the suburbs of New York City. No one took much notice of the small evangelical school, despite its reputation for excellence, until it moved into the NYC itself and took up residence in one of the city’s great icons – the Empire State Building. There it began to focus on politics, philosophy, and economics, seeking to prepare its students for positions in government and business. And now, suddenly, its accreditation by the New York Board of Regents is at stake.
Frankly, it appears that there is no basis for the objection. The school has met the standards of the Regents for around half a century. More to the point, Joseph Frey, the state Education Department’s Assistant Commissioner of Quality Assurance, has stated that the school is in compliance. Now they have given the school only a single year’s accreditation – despite the fact that their own rules call for a five year accreditation, and provide for a shorter period (two years) only in the event that a school given conditional or probationary accreditation. The only folks who are out of compliance with the rules of the New York Board of Regents are the Regents themselves!
Now I won’t go quite to the lengths of those who have said that this is the case of religious discrimination, though I think that a prima facie case can be made that this unique abuse of a small evangelical college is religiously based. I’ll simply call it what it is – an immoral violation of due process. I won’t get into the question of whether or not the Regents should exist, or whether the state has any place doing accreditation when the private sector handles the process quite well through a variety of accrediting bodies. But I will say that there is a clear injustice here.
What can you do? Might I suggest writing to the Regents in protest? They can be contacted through the board secretary at djohnson@mail.nysed.gov.
LetÂ’s tell them that they cannot kill KingÂ’s College.
King’s College has been accredited by the New York State Board of Regents for over 40 years, and all was on track for yet another renewal. After the college was scrutinized by the New York State Board of Education and an external site visit team, the Regents’ own Advisory Council recommended a five-year extension of King’s accreditation. So the stage was set for a fascinating experiment in higher education — an ultimate encounter of red and blue America.
That was until King’s College caught the attention of John Brademas, a quintessentially liberal politician, and one of the newest members of the State Board of Regents. Brademas had been a liberal Democratic congressman from Indiana, but was defeated in 1980 (according to this study with major opposition from the Moral Majority). After his defeat, Brademas went on to serve as president of New York University for a decade — a period during which NYU consolidated its reputation as a liberal bastion.
As soon as the question of King’s College’s accreditation came before the Regents, Brademas began to throw up a series of patently bogus objections, all of which were answered in the written material prepared by the Regents own Advisory Council. Brademas harped on the college’s small library — yet neglected to note that King’s is across the street from the Science and Business Branch of the New York Public Library, and seven short blocks from the library’s main building. That gives King’s a better library than all but a handful of colleges and universities in New York State.
But the silliest objection of all was the claim that the college has a misleading name. After all, said Brademas, King’s College was the original name of Columbia University. Wouldn’t that mislead prospective students into thinking they’re attending Columbia, instead of an evangelical Christian school? Trouble is, Columbia University changed its name from King’s to Columbia over 200 years ago — after the Revolution broke our ties with England’s king. And, of course, the King honored in King’s College’s name is God. New York’s Regents have accredited this college for over 50 years under the name of King’s. So why the problem now?
Frankly, it appears that there is no basis for the objection. The school has met the standards of the Regents for around half a century. More to the point, Joseph Frey, the state Education Department’s Assistant Commissioner of Quality Assurance, has stated that the school is in compliance. Now they have given the school only a single year’s accreditation – despite the fact that their own rules call for a five year accreditation, and provide for a shorter period (two years) only in the event that a school given conditional or probationary accreditation. The only folks who are out of compliance with the rules of the New York Board of Regents are the Regents themselves!
Now I won’t go quite to the lengths of those who have said that this is the case of religious discrimination, though I think that a prima facie case can be made that this unique abuse of a small evangelical college is religiously based. I’ll simply call it what it is – an immoral violation of due process. I won’t get into the question of whether or not the Regents should exist, or whether the state has any place doing accreditation when the private sector handles the process quite well through a variety of accrediting bodies. But I will say that there is a clear injustice here.
What can you do? Might I suggest writing to the Regents in protest? They can be contacted through the board secretary at djohnson@mail.nysed.gov.
LetÂ’s tell them that they cannot kill KingÂ’s College.
Posted by: Greg at
11:24 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 5 kb.
How Effective Are The Minutemen?
Let’s see – in their first four days, they were involved in the apprehension of 118 border jumpers.
Not only that, they can see other groups of would-be immigration criminals can be seen waiting for the Minutemen to leave. They know that if they try to cross they will be caught.
So far, 118 illegal aliens have been arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol based on calls from Minuteman volunteers along a 20-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border, where limited patrols began Friday.
"This is not about racism or hate, but the rule of law," said Bob Wright of Hobbs, N.M., who spent the weekend helping to map out the group's observation posts.
"I would hope the two governments would try to do something. ... What is happening to these people who risk their lives to come into the United States is a travesty."
Not only that, they can see other groups of would-be immigration criminals can be seen waiting for the Minutemen to leave. They know that if they try to cross they will be caught.
Posted by: Greg at
11:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
Student Wins Net Speech Dispute
Ryan Dwyer was an eighth grader at Maple Place Middle School in Oceanport, New Jersey, didn’t like his school. He disliked it so much that he created a website about it – one which provided a forum for others to talk about school and encouraged other students to make “I Hate maple Place” stickers for their notebooks. In other words, he acted sort of juvenile – just like a normal eighth grader.
Until the school decided his site constituted a threat, demanded it be shut down, and suspended the boy because the site offended school officials. No policy or law was ever cited by any district official as grounds for the punishment, just vague claims that the site contained threats and constituted possible criminal conduct.
Perhaps most alarming is that despite the familyÂ’s cooperation with the schoolÂ’s censorship of out-of-school speech, Ryan was suspended for a week, banned from the school baseball team for a month, and denied the right to go on a class trip to Philadelphia. It seems pretty clear that the goal was not just to remove any material that violated school policies (there were no such policies), but to punish the boy for activities over which the school had no legitimate basis for controlling.
Today, Ryan is a sophomore at Shore Regional High School, and he noted the following about the case.
Sadly, there are still too many school administrators out there who forget that students do not shed their liberties at the schoolhouse gate, and that whatever limits are legitimate at school do not follow the student home. Sadly, the judge ruled that the principal and superintendent could not be held personally liable for their violation of RyanÂ’s rights. ThatÂ’s too bad, because only that will convince some administrators that the dictates of the US Constitution apply to their actions.
Ryan Dwyer was an eighth grader at Maple Place Middle School in Oceanport, New Jersey, didn’t like his school. He disliked it so much that he created a website about it – one which provided a forum for others to talk about school and encouraged other students to make “I Hate maple Place” stickers for their notebooks. In other words, he acted sort of juvenile – just like a normal eighth grader.
Until the school decided his site constituted a threat, demanded it be shut down, and suspended the boy because the site offended school officials. No policy or law was ever cited by any district official as grounds for the punishment, just vague claims that the site contained threats and constituted possible criminal conduct.
Launched in April 2003, the Web site greeted users with the legend, “Welcome to the Anti-Maple Place — Your Friendly Environment,” and said: “This page is dedicated to showing students why their school isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. You may be shocked at what you find on this site.”
Ryan urged students to make stickers that said “I hate Maple Place” and also wrote, “Don’t even try to make me take my Web site down because it is illegal to do so!”
Users who wished to leave comments were instructed not to use profanity and “no threats to any teacher or person EVER.”
Some visitor comments criticized the school and its teachers, but others, the lawsuit conceded, “were arguably crude, sophomoric and offensive.” Ryan never made threats or profanity, it said.
[Judge] Chesler wrote that the defendants “could only have lawfully disciplined Ryan for statements and other content created and provided by him, and not for any comments made by other individuals in his guest book.”
Perhaps most alarming is that despite the familyÂ’s cooperation with the schoolÂ’s censorship of out-of-school speech, Ryan was suspended for a week, banned from the school baseball team for a month, and denied the right to go on a class trip to Philadelphia. It seems pretty clear that the goal was not just to remove any material that violated school policies (there were no such policies), but to punish the boy for activities over which the school had no legitimate basis for controlling.
Today, Ryan is a sophomore at Shore Regional High School, and he noted the following about the case.
“When I was in eighth grade, it kind of just seemed like I couldn’t do anything about it,” Ryan said. “Now I realize that I missed out on a lot of things, and it feels good that they got proved wrong about what they did.”
“I was really surprised that the school administrators actually thought they could punish me for just saying a couple of things about them,” he said.
Sadly, there are still too many school administrators out there who forget that students do not shed their liberties at the schoolhouse gate, and that whatever limits are legitimate at school do not follow the student home. Sadly, the judge ruled that the principal and superintendent could not be held personally liable for their violation of RyanÂ’s rights. ThatÂ’s too bad, because only that will convince some administrators that the dictates of the US Constitution apply to their actions.
Posted by: Greg at
11:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.
What Would They Do About Tic Tacs?
They were only mints, not drugs. They contained caffeine and another ingredient often found in energy supplements. But they caused a panic at a school in Ohio when several students ate them and began to feel their hearts race.
Now the boy who brought them to school will “only” be suspended for 10 days under a policy banning any item that resembles a drug.
So how much caffeine did the kids get from this so-called look-alike drug? About half that provided by a can of soda in the school cafeteria.
Incredible!
Now the boy who brought them to school will “only” be suspended for 10 days under a policy banning any item that resembles a drug.
Police won't charge a 13-year-old boy who was suspended for 10 days after he brought caffeine-laced mints to school and his classmates got sick.
Nine students between the ages of 12 and 14 were sent to a hospital last month after eating the mints. The students at Jackson Memorial Middle School near Canton were treated and released for symptoms such as a racing heartbeat.
Police considered filing charges against the boy until they tested the ingredients in the Blast Energy Supplemints.
"We found no illegal substance whatsoever. Just caffeine," said Major Tim Escola.
Besides caffeine, the pills contain taurine, a common ingredient in energy drinks such as Red Bull.
Police estimated about 39 mints could have been eaten by the students. According to the label, a single serving is six mints, which contains 15 milligrams of caffeine. That's about half the amount of caffeine in a regular can of soda.
The mints are distributed by Bally Total Fitness Corp. and advertised on the company's Web site as an ephedra-free pick-me-up for "quick energy support for work, play, school, athletics, weight training and much more."
The boy's mother said she bought the mints at a drug store and that her son took them from her purse without her permission.
School officials suspended the boy for 10 days because school policy prohibits anything that resembles a drug.
So how much caffeine did the kids get from this so-called look-alike drug? About half that provided by a can of soda in the school cafeteria.
Incredible!
Posted by: Greg at
11:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.
Watcher Post
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.
And there is an open seat on the Watcher's Council. Contact the Watcher if you are interested.
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.
And there is an open seat on the Watcher's Council. Contact the Watcher if you are interested.
Posted by: Greg at
12:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.
April 04, 2005
Well, The Loons Are Out!
America's most vile hatemonger, Fred Phelps, is at work showing the world what a Christian is not. His take on the Pope's Death can be found here and here.
I'd suggest deluging him with email, but I somehow doubt that it would have any effect on his demented mind.
I'd suggest deluging him with email, but I somehow doubt that it would have any effect on his demented mind.
Posted by: Greg at
11:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
Thief Steals Motorcycle At Accident Scene, Leaves Body
I know they say there is no honor among thieves. Would it have been too much to expect a little bit of decency in this case here in Houston?
The depravity of some people is beyond my understanding.
A man was killed this morning when his motorcycle crashed into a northwest Houston house, but the motorcycle soon disappeared, police said.
The man's body was found around 6 a.m. today between two houses in the 1800 block of West Gulf Bank near Donley. He had suffered major head trauma, said Houston Police Department Sgt. David Crain.
Homicide investigators and crime scene unit officers were initially called to the scene, but determined the man had been injured in some sort of traffic accident after finding broken bits of the motorcycle nearby and discovering a tire track leading up to the house.
Officers also found a spot where the man's head had hit the house. He was not wearing a helmet, Crain said.
Police determined the man had been driving a motorcycle southbound on Donley Street at a high rate of speed, then crossed over West Gulf Bank and hit the house.
After the impact, someone came along and took the motorcycle, leaving the man's body there, police said. Police were still looking for that motorcycle later today, Crain said.
The depravity of some people is beyond my understanding.
Posted by: Greg at
11:15 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.
Cardinal “In Pectore†–Who Is It?
As has been mentioned a number of times in recent days, Pope John Paul II did not announce one of his appointments as cardinal during the 2003 consistory. The name still has not been made public. That leads to an obvious question – who is this cardinal “in the breast� There is much speculation.
The first possibility is, of course, that the pope told no one who his selection was, and did not leave any written indication of the choice. In that case, the man in question can never be known. But what if the identity was revealed, one way or another? Who might it be?
Observers divide into two camps on the identity of our “undercover cardinal.†On the one hand, it might be a prelate from an oppressed church who would face danger if named publicly. On the other, it could be someone quite close to John Paul, perhaps a priest or prelate in the Vatican whose elevation would have created difficulties if publicly known.
Those who hold the latter view have a candidate in mind. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the Pope’s private secretary for many years. He was ordained a priest by then-Bishop Karol Wojtyla in 1963, and served as his secretary in Krakow and the Vatican. Naming him a cardinal publicly would have been difficult, as it would have likely meant the loss of his services. It would not have been out of character for John Paul to have withheld the public acknowledgement of that appointment until after his death, leaving a final gift to the one man to whom he was closest. If this is the case, we will soon know, because Dziwisz is young enough to participate in the conclave, and near enough at hand to make the announcement of his appointment a simple task.
And there is an element of danger in announcing the appointment of a bishop from an oppressed church. Such a cardinal would almost certainly come from the People’s Republic of China or, perhaps Vietnam. In those nations, making the appointment public would subject the cardinal to arrest, torture, or even martyrdom. Such appointments were not unprecedented under the late pope.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, speculation has centered on Bishop Julius Jia of China, but there are others who might also have been chosen by John Paul II. Would it be possible to announce the name of the secret cardinal and get him safely to Rome in time to participate? Would he be allowed to return home in the event he did participate? Those questions would need to be answered, and the consequences considered, before making the announcement.
What impact would this cardinal, the name made public only after the late pope’s death, have at the conclave? Dziwisz certainly knew the mind and heart of the pope better than anyone. What weight would his voice be given? Would he be a desirable candidate himself, or would the election of a second Polish pope in as many conclaves be tone too many? Would a stranger from a strange land, one who has lived under the bootheel of totalitarian oppression (much like a certain Polish cardinal in 1978) have great influence – or even bee seen as the key to liberating his homeland if elected, just as John Paul II’s words and deeds were instrumental in liberating Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc?
So much could hinge on the identity of the cardinal “in pectore,†if only we learn his identity.
The first possibility is, of course, that the pope told no one who his selection was, and did not leave any written indication of the choice. In that case, the man in question can never be known. But what if the identity was revealed, one way or another? Who might it be?
Observers divide into two camps on the identity of our “undercover cardinal.†On the one hand, it might be a prelate from an oppressed church who would face danger if named publicly. On the other, it could be someone quite close to John Paul, perhaps a priest or prelate in the Vatican whose elevation would have created difficulties if publicly known.
Those who hold the latter view have a candidate in mind. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the Pope’s private secretary for many years. He was ordained a priest by then-Bishop Karol Wojtyla in 1963, and served as his secretary in Krakow and the Vatican. Naming him a cardinal publicly would have been difficult, as it would have likely meant the loss of his services. It would not have been out of character for John Paul to have withheld the public acknowledgement of that appointment until after his death, leaving a final gift to the one man to whom he was closest. If this is the case, we will soon know, because Dziwisz is young enough to participate in the conclave, and near enough at hand to make the announcement of his appointment a simple task.
And there is an element of danger in announcing the appointment of a bishop from an oppressed church. Such a cardinal would almost certainly come from the People’s Republic of China or, perhaps Vietnam. In those nations, making the appointment public would subject the cardinal to arrest, torture, or even martyrdom. Such appointments were not unprecedented under the late pope.
John Paul has named three other "in pectore" cardinals whose names were later revealed, including Marian Jaworski, archbishop of Lviv, Ukraine, for Catholics who follow the Latin rite, and Janis Pujats of Riga, Latvia.
Both Ukraine and Latvia formerly belonged to the officially atheist Soviet Union.
The third was Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei, an elderly Chinese bishop who spent 30 years in Chinese prisons for defying attempts by China's communist government to control Roman Catholics through the state-run church.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, speculation has centered on Bishop Julius Jia of China, but there are others who might also have been chosen by John Paul II. Would it be possible to announce the name of the secret cardinal and get him safely to Rome in time to participate? Would he be allowed to return home in the event he did participate? Those questions would need to be answered, and the consequences considered, before making the announcement.
What impact would this cardinal, the name made public only after the late pope’s death, have at the conclave? Dziwisz certainly knew the mind and heart of the pope better than anyone. What weight would his voice be given? Would he be a desirable candidate himself, or would the election of a second Polish pope in as many conclaves be tone too many? Would a stranger from a strange land, one who has lived under the bootheel of totalitarian oppression (much like a certain Polish cardinal in 1978) have great influence – or even bee seen as the key to liberating his homeland if elected, just as John Paul II’s words and deeds were instrumental in liberating Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc?
So much could hinge on the identity of the cardinal “in pectore,†if only we learn his identity.
Posted by: Greg at
11:11 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 666 words, total size 4 kb.
Cardinal “In Pectore” –Who Is It?
As has been mentioned a number of times in recent days, Pope John Paul II did not announce one of his appointments as cardinal during the 2003 consistory. The name still has not been made public. That leads to an obvious question – who is this cardinal “in the breast”? There is much speculation.
The first possibility is, of course, that the pope told no one who his selection was, and did not leave any written indication of the choice. In that case, the man in question can never be known. But what if the identity was revealed, one way or another? Who might it be?
Observers divide into two camps on the identity of our “undercover cardinal.” On the one hand, it might be a prelate from an oppressed church who would face danger if named publicly. On the other, it could be someone quite close to John Paul, perhaps a priest or prelate in the Vatican whose elevation would have created difficulties if publicly known.
Those who hold the latter view have a candidate in mind. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the PopeÂ’s private secretary for many years. He was ordained a priest by then-Bishop Karol Wojtyla in 1963, and served as his secretary in Krakow and the Vatican. Naming him a cardinal publicly would have been difficult, as it would have likely meant the loss of his services. It would not have been out of character for John Paul to have withheld the public acknowledgement of that appointment until after his death, leaving a final gift to the one man to whom he was closest. If this is the case, we will soon know, because Dziwisz is young enough to participate in the conclave, and near enough at hand to make the announcement of his appointment a simple task.
And there is an element of danger in announcing the appointment of a bishop from an oppressed church. Such a cardinal would almost certainly come from the PeopleÂ’s Republic of China or, perhaps Vietnam. In those nations, making the appointment public would subject the cardinal to arrest, torture, or even martyrdom. Such appointments were not unprecedented under the late pope.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, speculation has centered on Bishop Julius Jia of China, but there are others who might also have been chosen by John Paul II. Would it be possible to announce the name of the secret cardinal and get him safely to Rome in time to participate? Would he be allowed to return home in the event he did participate? Those questions would need to be answered, and the consequences considered, before making the announcement.
What impact would this cardinal, the name made public only after the late popeÂ’s death, have at the conclave? Dziwisz certainly knew the mind and heart of the pope better than anyone. What weight would his voice be given? Would he be a desirable candidate himself, or would the election of a second Polish pope in as many conclaves be tone too many? Would a stranger from a strange land, one who has lived under the bootheel of totalitarian oppression (much like a certain Polish cardinal in 197
have great influence – or even bee seen as the key to liberating his homeland if elected, just as John Paul II’s words and deeds were instrumental in liberating Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc?
So much could hinge on the identity of the cardinal “in pectore,” if only we learn his identity.
The first possibility is, of course, that the pope told no one who his selection was, and did not leave any written indication of the choice. In that case, the man in question can never be known. But what if the identity was revealed, one way or another? Who might it be?
Observers divide into two camps on the identity of our “undercover cardinal.” On the one hand, it might be a prelate from an oppressed church who would face danger if named publicly. On the other, it could be someone quite close to John Paul, perhaps a priest or prelate in the Vatican whose elevation would have created difficulties if publicly known.
Those who hold the latter view have a candidate in mind. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the PopeÂ’s private secretary for many years. He was ordained a priest by then-Bishop Karol Wojtyla in 1963, and served as his secretary in Krakow and the Vatican. Naming him a cardinal publicly would have been difficult, as it would have likely meant the loss of his services. It would not have been out of character for John Paul to have withheld the public acknowledgement of that appointment until after his death, leaving a final gift to the one man to whom he was closest. If this is the case, we will soon know, because Dziwisz is young enough to participate in the conclave, and near enough at hand to make the announcement of his appointment a simple task.
And there is an element of danger in announcing the appointment of a bishop from an oppressed church. Such a cardinal would almost certainly come from the PeopleÂ’s Republic of China or, perhaps Vietnam. In those nations, making the appointment public would subject the cardinal to arrest, torture, or even martyrdom. Such appointments were not unprecedented under the late pope.
John Paul has named three other "in pectore" cardinals whose names were later revealed, including Marian Jaworski, archbishop of Lviv, Ukraine, for Catholics who follow the Latin rite, and Janis Pujats of Riga, Latvia.
Both Ukraine and Latvia formerly belonged to the officially atheist Soviet Union.
The third was Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei, an elderly Chinese bishop who spent 30 years in Chinese prisons for defying attempts by China's communist government to control Roman Catholics through the state-run church.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, speculation has centered on Bishop Julius Jia of China, but there are others who might also have been chosen by John Paul II. Would it be possible to announce the name of the secret cardinal and get him safely to Rome in time to participate? Would he be allowed to return home in the event he did participate? Those questions would need to be answered, and the consequences considered, before making the announcement.
What impact would this cardinal, the name made public only after the late popeÂ’s death, have at the conclave? Dziwisz certainly knew the mind and heart of the pope better than anyone. What weight would his voice be given? Would he be a desirable candidate himself, or would the election of a second Polish pope in as many conclaves be tone too many? Would a stranger from a strange land, one who has lived under the bootheel of totalitarian oppression (much like a certain Polish cardinal in 197
have great influence – or even bee seen as the key to liberating his homeland if elected, just as John Paul II’s words and deeds were instrumental in liberating Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc?
So much could hinge on the identity of the cardinal “in pectore,” if only we learn his identity.
Posted by: Greg at
11:11 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 672 words, total size 4 kb.
The Catholic Church Is Not A Democracy
ThatÂ’s why I find this poll to be more than a little bit absurd.
First, the poll does not limit itself to Catholics only. In that regard, it is somewhat insulting. Could you imagine a survey of all Americans regarding whether Jews should change the rules on what is kosher to include pork? But beyond that, I would be curious to find out how many of the “Catholics” were actually practicing Catholics. My guess would be no more than 10% of those included in the sample were actually baptized Catholics who have set foot in a Catholic Church for anything other than Easter, Christmas, weddings, and funerals during the last 12 months. In other words, why should we care what 90% of these people think on issues related to the Catholic Church.
Second, the Catholic Church is not run based upon opinion polls and focus groups. It doesnÂ’t matter how many folks in the US think the Pope should come from the Third World, Europe, or Sheboygan, Wisconsin. And given that Americans are a relatively small subset of the Church, the opinions of Americans are not highly relevant.
Still, an exercise like this one could be interesting if done right. You know, if they had surveyed Catholics about their views on Catholicism. Not that it would have had any impact on who or how the new pope would be chosen.
The U.S. Catholic church is struggling with a variety of problems, including a dramatically shrinking U.S. priesthood, disagreement over the proper role for lay leaders, and a conservative-liberal divide over sexuality, women's ordination and clergy celibacy.
About two-thirds of those polled, 69 percent, said priests should be allowed to marry and almost that many, 64 percent, said they want women in the priesthood. Six in 10 Catholics supported each of those steps.
More than four in five Americans — and about the same number of Catholics — said they want to see the next pope do more to address the problem of priests sexually abusing children.
The church has been trying to deal with an abuse crisis that bubbled to the surface in January 2002 in the Archdiocese of Boston, then spread throughout the country. Since then, the church has adopted a toughened discipline policy, enacted child protection and victim outreach plans in dioceses, and removed hundreds of accused priests from church work.
Americans were divided when asked from where the next pope should come. Just over a third said he should be from Europe, while a similar number said he should be from a part of the world where Catholicism is growing fastest, like Africa or Latin America. The rest weren't sure.
First, the poll does not limit itself to Catholics only. In that regard, it is somewhat insulting. Could you imagine a survey of all Americans regarding whether Jews should change the rules on what is kosher to include pork? But beyond that, I would be curious to find out how many of the “Catholics” were actually practicing Catholics. My guess would be no more than 10% of those included in the sample were actually baptized Catholics who have set foot in a Catholic Church for anything other than Easter, Christmas, weddings, and funerals during the last 12 months. In other words, why should we care what 90% of these people think on issues related to the Catholic Church.
Second, the Catholic Church is not run based upon opinion polls and focus groups. It doesnÂ’t matter how many folks in the US think the Pope should come from the Third World, Europe, or Sheboygan, Wisconsin. And given that Americans are a relatively small subset of the Church, the opinions of Americans are not highly relevant.
Still, an exercise like this one could be interesting if done right. You know, if they had surveyed Catholics about their views on Catholicism. Not that it would have had any impact on who or how the new pope would be chosen.
Posted by: Greg at
11:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.
Treating Healers Like Pushers
I hope you never ever have to live with chronic pain. I hope none of your loved ones ever has to live with chronic pain. It is a hell that no individual should have to live with. Medically, there is only one treatment – high doses of pain-killing drugs, including opiates. Trust me – I know. My wife is one whose only relief comes from a pharmaceutical cocktail.
Doctors are hesitant to prescribe these drugs because writing “too many” prescriptions for “too many” pills at “too high” a dosage brings scrutiny that doctors would prefer not to face. My wife’s pain management doctor recently informed us that he had changed office policy to forbid a practice that is standard in most physician’s offices – giving refills to a pharmacy by phone. If my wife (and every other patient) wants a refill, she must make an office visit and be seen by the doctor. Why? Because of cases like this one.
But they are not beyond the bounds of reason. The body builds up a tolerance to these medications, as a physical dependency develops. Where one pill getting up and one pill at dinner might have provided relief early on, in a year or so the dosage will need to reach four pills a day, just to be able to move around the house. From there the dosage must increase, or a new medication must be introduced. Some medications are not even considered – Oxy-Contin, for example, because of the scrutiny it brings due to the high level of abuse. And even with all the changes and increases, the pain continues to progress. Still more medication is necessary, just to have some semblance of a normal life.
Those dosages are pretty intense. I was recently prescribed one of my wife’s medications when I had a muscle spasm in my neck and back that went on for two weeks. My dosage was lower, and less frequent than what my wife regularly takes. The first dose took away all my pain – and left me incapable of walking any further than the bathroom for the next six hours – and so frightened that I refused to take the medication again. My wife, on the other hand, is completely clear-headed when she takes a dosage twice as high four times a day. Why? Because her body has built up a tolerance to the medication, and its effect on a systemic neuro-muscular disease is palliative, not intoxicating.
What has happened here is that the War on Drugs has turned into a War on Doctors – and by extension, into a War on Patients. Prosecutions like the Hurwitz case make it harder for patents like my wife to get needed medications in therapeutic doses. And it leaves me asking uncomfortable questions.
Will the day come that my wifeÂ’s doctor is going to refuse to give her the medication she needs in order to keep out of jail?
Will this kind and decent man be put on trial because some patient overdoses or sells medication?
Will some prosecutor be second–guessing my wife’s medical care?
Or will needed medications, and the physician's to prescribe them, remain available?
Doctors are hesitant to prescribe these drugs because writing “too many” prescriptions for “too many” pills at “too high” a dosage brings scrutiny that doctors would prefer not to face. My wife’s pain management doctor recently informed us that he had changed office policy to forbid a practice that is standard in most physician’s offices – giving refills to a pharmacy by phone. If my wife (and every other patient) wants a refill, she must make an office visit and be seen by the doctor. Why? Because of cases like this one.
In December, after a federal jury convicted McLean, Virginia, pain doctor William Hurwitz of running a drug trafficking operation, the foreman told The Washington Post "he wasn't running a criminal enterprise." Don't bother reading that sentence again; it's not going to make any more sense the second time around.
Hurwitz, who is scheduled to be sentenced on April 14 and will go to prison for life if U.S. District Judge Leonard Wexler follows the prosecutors' recommendation, was charged with drug trafficking because a small minority of his patients abused or sold narcotic painkillers he prescribed for them. Prosecutors argued his practice amounted to a "criminal enterprise" based on a "conspiracy of silence"—i.e., a conspiracy in which Hurwitz did not actually conspire with anyone—because he charged for his services and should have known some of his patients were faking or exaggerating their pain.
Judging from the comments of the jury foreman, Ralph Craft, the jurors did not really buy this theory. Perhaps they still harbored the legally unsophisticated notion that drug traffickers are people who engage in drug trafficking. But they convicted Hurwitz anyway, because they didn't like the way he practiced medicine.
"I'm not an expert," Craft conceded, while expressing the opinion that Hurwitz was "a little bit cavalier" in prescribing opioids. "He ramped up and ramped up the prescriptions very quickly," he said. "This is stuff that can kill people. He should have been extra careful."
Craft and his fellow jurors were appalled by the sheer number of pills Hurwitz prescribed. "The dosages were just astounding," he said, calling them "beyond the bounds of reason."
But they are not beyond the bounds of reason. The body builds up a tolerance to these medications, as a physical dependency develops. Where one pill getting up and one pill at dinner might have provided relief early on, in a year or so the dosage will need to reach four pills a day, just to be able to move around the house. From there the dosage must increase, or a new medication must be introduced. Some medications are not even considered – Oxy-Contin, for example, because of the scrutiny it brings due to the high level of abuse. And even with all the changes and increases, the pain continues to progress. Still more medication is necessary, just to have some semblance of a normal life.
Those dosages are pretty intense. I was recently prescribed one of my wife’s medications when I had a muscle spasm in my neck and back that went on for two weeks. My dosage was lower, and less frequent than what my wife regularly takes. The first dose took away all my pain – and left me incapable of walking any further than the bathroom for the next six hours – and so frightened that I refused to take the medication again. My wife, on the other hand, is completely clear-headed when she takes a dosage twice as high four times a day. Why? Because her body has built up a tolerance to the medication, and its effect on a systemic neuro-muscular disease is palliative, not intoxicating.
In a letter they wrote before the verdict, six past presidents of the American Pain Society rebuked Ashburn for this statement, along with several other misrepresentations of pain treatment standards. "We are stunned by his testimony," they said. "Use of 'high dose' opioid therapy for chronic pain is clearly in the scope of medicine."
As these pain experts recognized, Hurwitz was not the only person on trial at the federal courthouse in Alexandria. So was every doctor who has the courage to risk investigation by treating people who suffer from severe chronic pain with the high doses of opioids they need to make their lives livable.
In poignant letters to Judge Wexler, who has fairly wide latitude in punishing Hurwitz now that the U.S. Supreme Court has made federal sentencing guidelines merely advisory, dozens of his former patients recount how he saved them from constant agony caused by migraines, back injuries, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, and other painful conditions that left them disabled, homebound, despondent, and in some cases suicidal. They outline the difficulties they had in getting adequate treatment before they found Hurwitz and the trouble they've been having since the government put him out of business.
"Good pain doctors are hard to find," writes one. "I am saddened that Dr. Hurwitz is branded a criminal for helping me and helping people like me." Another argues that Hurwitz's "crime"—trusting his patients—was one of his greatest virtues. "It is to Dr. Hurwitz's credit," he says, "that he chose to trust that his patients were genuinely seeking relief from pain that cannot be objectively measured. This trust is, in my experience, all too rare." Threatening doctors with prison for viewing their patients with inadequate suspicion will make it even rarer.
What has happened here is that the War on Drugs has turned into a War on Doctors – and by extension, into a War on Patients. Prosecutions like the Hurwitz case make it harder for patents like my wife to get needed medications in therapeutic doses. And it leaves me asking uncomfortable questions.
Will the day come that my wifeÂ’s doctor is going to refuse to give her the medication she needs in order to keep out of jail?
Will this kind and decent man be put on trial because some patient overdoses or sells medication?
Will some prosecutor be second–guessing my wife’s medical care?
Or will needed medications, and the physician's to prescribe them, remain available?
Posted by: Greg at
11:02 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1091 words, total size 7 kb.
April 03, 2005
"Mail It In" -- How To Avoid The Filibuster
Let's concede, for the sake of argument, that Senator Robert Byrd (Klan-Dogpatch) is correct. No where does the Constitution require an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee. It just isn't in there. But then again, the Constitution does not mandate a vote at all. It simply calls fo the "advice and consent" of the Senate. So notes a piece in today's Opinion Journal.
Sounds reasonable to me. Having advised the President to reappoint those candidates denied a floor vote, the explicit consent of a majority of senators, communicated to the President constitutes "advice and consent". The Constitutional mandate having been met, the nominations are, by any Constitutional standard, approved and the judges confirmed.
Thank you, Senator Byrd, for providing the solution to the current crisis. Let the filibuster rule remain unchanged -- just follow the Constitution. Problem solved.
As the Senator says, Article II of the Constitution is silent on how the Senate shall exercise its "advice and consent" power in confirming judicial nominees. For more than 200 years, however, that body has interpreted the Founders' injunction to mean that a simple majority of Senators--51 in our age--must vote to confirm. That's why we cried foul in President Bush's first term when Democrats filibustered 10 appeals-court nominees, thereby denying them an up-or-down vote on the floor--even though every candidate had the support of a bipartisan majority. A vote to end a filibuster requires a super-majority of 60 Senators.
But now that Senator Byrd has expressed the view that the Senate doesn't have to vote at all, here's a better idea for ending the impasse over judicial nominations: Fifty-one of the 55 Republican Senators can simply send the President a letter expressing their support for his candidates. Under Mr. Byrd's Constitutional analysis, the Senate will have exercised "advice and consent" and the judges will be confirmed.
Sounds reasonable to me. Having advised the President to reappoint those candidates denied a floor vote, the explicit consent of a majority of senators, communicated to the President constitutes "advice and consent". The Constitutional mandate having been met, the nominations are, by any Constitutional standard, approved and the judges confirmed.
Thank you, Senator Byrd, for providing the solution to the current crisis. Let the filibuster rule remain unchanged -- just follow the Constitution. Problem solved.
Posted by: Greg at
07:16 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.
Maligned Minutemen Save Border Jumper
And I thought they were supposed to be gun-wielding racists out "hunting for Mexicans". What happened? Could it be that the leftists, the Preseident Bush, and Pendejo Presidente Fox have misled us -- perhaps intentionally so?
Not, of course, that this changed anyone's point of view about American citizens engaged inlegal activity attempting to help the Border Patrol.
And therein lies the problem. The administration is more concerned withkissing the butt of maintaining good relations with the Mexican cabron president than with protecting our borders and enforcing our laws, hence the opposition from the Border patrol. And the so called "border rights groups" (read that "pro-crime groups") are always going to be opposed to any enforcement of our nation's laws at all -- they are the immigration equivalent of members of the Osama Fan Club. The result is that no matter what the Minutemen do, they will be maligned by those who are opposed not only to their presence, but to their agenda.
UPDATE: Well, now they've tipped Border patrol officers to a group of border jumpers coming into the country illegally -- 18 border jumpers arrested.
Now who are the bad guys here? The Minutemen, or their opponents?
Minuteman Project volunteers helped an illegal entrant in distress late Friday. The incident was the first documented encounter between the volunteers and Mexican nationals sneaking across the border, officials said.
The incident happened around midnight when a tired and thirsty illegal entrant who'd been separated from his group approached Minuteman volunteers at the Bible College in Palominas, said U.S. Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame. Project volunteers have been camping out at the college.
Not, of course, that this changed anyone's point of view about American citizens engaged inlegal activity attempting to help the Border Patrol.
Officials from both sides of the issue said that Minuteman volunteers proved helpful in the first contact with an entrant.
"In this particular case, it was helping us. In this sole incident, it was a help," Adame said, adding the Border Patrol still doesn't support the Minuteman Project, which involves volunteers stationed along areas on the border looking for illegal entrants.
One case of providing help doesn't make the monthlong protest acceptable, said a member of a border rights group.
"The fact that they encountered a migrant and did the right thing, yes I'm glad. Does it suddenly make them OK in our communities? No," said Kat Rodriguez, an organizer for the Tucson-based Derechos Humanos, a rights group that has spoken out against the project.
And therein lies the problem. The administration is more concerned with
UPDATE: Well, now they've tipped Border patrol officers to a group of border jumpers coming into the country illegally -- 18 border jumpers arrested.
Volunteers for an effort to patrol the Mexican border reported their first sighting of suspected illegal immigrants, resulting in 18 arrests, authorities said Sunday.
Participants in the Minuteman Project spotted the migrants Saturday near Naco as the volunteers were surveying the border to familiarize themselves with area. When agents arrived, they apprehended 18 people, Border Patrol spokesman Andy Adame said.
"You observe them, report them and get out of the way," said Mike McGarry, a spokesman for the project, which begins Monday and is to continue for a month.
Now who are the bad guys here? The Minutemen, or their opponents?
Posted by: Greg at
06:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 4 kb.
April 02, 2005
Anti-JPII Bias At New York Times
Hindrocket over at Power Line found this unbelievable bias from the friendly folks at the New York Times.
It seems that they had a very critical obituary chock-full of quotes from critics and opponents ready to run when Pope John Paul II died this afternoon -- but somehow hadn't gotten around to finding anyone with something good to say about one of the most beloved figures on the planet. Compare the screenshot of the original version with the current version of the same story. Notice the line that appears right before they bring in a theologian so heretical that he had his teaching credentials yanked by the Vatican!
I have to say it -- this is absolutely beyond belief, even for a once-great newspaper turned third-rate birdcage-liner like the New York Times.
(Hat Tip -- Michelle Malkin)
It seems that they had a very critical obituary chock-full of quotes from critics and opponents ready to run when Pope John Paul II died this afternoon -- but somehow hadn't gotten around to finding anyone with something good to say about one of the most beloved figures on the planet. Compare the screenshot of the original version with the current version of the same story. Notice the line that appears right before they bring in a theologian so heretical that he had his teaching credentials yanked by the Vatican!
Even as his own voice faded away, his views on the sanctity of all human life echoed unambiguously among Catholics and Christian evangelicals in the United States on issues from abortion to the end of life.
need some quote from supporter
John Paul II's admirers were as passionate as his detractors, for whom his long illness served as a symbol for what they said was a decrepit, tradition-bound papacy in need of rejuvenation and a bolder connection with modern life.
"The situation in the Catholic church is serious," Hans Kung, the eminent Swiss theologian, who was barred by from teaching in Catholic schools because of his liberal views, wrote last week. "The pope is gravely ill and deserves every compassion. But the Church has to live. ...
In my opinion, he is not the greatest pope but the most contradictory of the 20th century. A pope of many, great gifts, and of many bad decisions!"
I have to say it -- this is absolutely beyond belief, even for a once-great newspaper turned third-rate birdcage-liner like the New York Times.
(Hat Tip -- Michelle Malkin)
Posted by: Greg at
05:13 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.
Sede Vacante -- RIP Pope John Paul II
V. Eternal rest grant unto them him, O Lord.
R. And may perpetual light shine upon them him.
V. May the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.
R. Amen.
R. And may perpetual light shine upon them him.
V. May the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace.
R. Amen.
Pope John Paul II, the Polish pontiff who led the Roman Catholic Church for more than a quarter century and became history's most-traveled pope, has died at 84, the Vatican announced in an e-mail Saturday.
"The Holy Father died this evening at 9:37 p.m. (2:37 p.m. EST) in his private apartment. All the procedures outlined in the apostolic Constitution `Universi Dominici Gregis' that was written by John Paul II on Feb. 22, 1996, have been put in motion."
Posted by: Greg at
08:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
Papabile -- Possible Popes
UPDATE -- April 9, 2005: After reading this post, consider going to my new post on the conclave, Thoughts On The Papal Election of 2005. It looks at the upcoming conclave in light of events of the last week, and considers the chances of some of "possible popes" mentioned below, along with some additional candidates who have emerged since the death of John Paul II.
* * * *
In theory, the next Pope can be any baptized Catholic male. That leaves a lot of possible candidates out there. But the likelihood of us seeing the election of Ted Kennedy, Feddie from Southern Appeal, or one of my old seminary classmates is pretty remote. It has been centuries since someone NOT a member of the College of Cardinals was elevated to the Throne of St. Peter. That narrows the field significantly, to fewer than 200 "princes of the Church. When we exclude non-voting members of the College (over age 80) as likely too old to be elected, that leaves us with 117 (of the maximum 120 allowed by Church law) Cardinal Electors. In 2003, the Pope did create one Cardinal "in pectorre", meaning the name has been kept secret. It is believed that the secret Cardinal is one of the bishops of the Catholic Church loyal to the Vatican which has been oppressed in the People's Republic of China. The Vatican could quickly announce his name and have him participate in the conclave IF he can be safely gotten out of China and if he is under 80.
Different names are already circulating as papabile -- "possible popes" -- as we head towards a likely conclave in the month of April. I've written on this before (and got 300 hits on this earlier post just yesterday, since I am #3 on Google's search on the subject), but I think it is time to look at the topic again, as a conclave seems much closer than it did in February.
Ultimately, we don't know who the next pope will be, or where he is from. That is up to the Holy Spirit, acting through the Cardinal Electors in the conclave.
UPDATE:
Here is an Australian article that matches up well with much of my list, though with some differences.
This ABC News article is also sort of interesting.
The Houston Chronicle carried this article from Reuters giving a list with biographies. There are some significant additions and subtractions from my list.
In addition, I've got one Czech reader pushing his personal favorite, along with a list of other candidates.
* * * *
In theory, the next Pope can be any baptized Catholic male. That leaves a lot of possible candidates out there. But the likelihood of us seeing the election of Ted Kennedy, Feddie from Southern Appeal, or one of my old seminary classmates is pretty remote. It has been centuries since someone NOT a member of the College of Cardinals was elevated to the Throne of St. Peter. That narrows the field significantly, to fewer than 200 "princes of the Church. When we exclude non-voting members of the College (over age 80) as likely too old to be elected, that leaves us with 117 (of the maximum 120 allowed by Church law) Cardinal Electors. In 2003, the Pope did create one Cardinal "in pectorre", meaning the name has been kept secret. It is believed that the secret Cardinal is one of the bishops of the Catholic Church loyal to the Vatican which has been oppressed in the People's Republic of China. The Vatican could quickly announce his name and have him participate in the conclave IF he can be safely gotten out of China and if he is under 80.
Different names are already circulating as papabile -- "possible popes" -- as we head towards a likely conclave in the month of April. I've written on this before (and got 300 hits on this earlier post just yesterday, since I am #3 on Google's search on the subject), but I think it is time to look at the topic again, as a conclave seems much closer than it did in February.
Generally speaking, church observers group the 117 cardinals eligible to elect the next pope into four overlapping constituencies:What names are being tossed around as serious papabile? Well, here are a number I have encountered.
There are those, likely a majority, who decidedly don't want the next papacy to last as long as John Paul's, who was elected Pope in 1978 at age 58.
They will favour an older man, maybe a caretaker pope, to nanny the church as it adapts to a new era without John Paul's fist on the tiller, but who will not stay in the job too long.
There are cardinals who will want a pope from the global South, where nearly 70 per cent of the world's Catholics now live.
Opposing them will be cardinals who think one of John Paul's great failures was his inability to address European secularism, and who, therefore, feel the next pope should be a Western European.
And there will be cardinals who, despite sharing John Paul's conservative theology — which virtually all of them do — have chafed under his centralized iron authority and will want the next pope to be more collegial, which is Catholic code language for allowing national churches and bishops to be more in charge of their own show.
- Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, 71, of Milan, a conservative moral theologian who has tolerated the relaxing of the strict interpretation of the Church's teaching on condom use when Catholic groups distributed condoms to prostitutes for protection from HIV/AIDS. He is also a strong supporter of Opus Dei.
- Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos of Colombia, 75, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. An ideal candidate if the Cardinals are looking for a candidate from outside of Europe.
- Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany, 72, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.
- Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, age 77, a German who has served as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith for most of the current pontificate. He is doctrinally conservative and is a lightning-rod for criticism among Church liberals. At the same time, he is personally popular, an intellectual giant, and a man who, like the current pope, is a believer in ecumenical work and is also not afraid to defend the teachings of the Church when they are called into question. He is dean of the College of Cardinals.
- Cardinal Angelo Sodano, 77, an Italian, the Vatican Secretary of State and vice-dean of the College of Cardinals. He is one of those closest to the current pope, and has the advantage over Ratzinger of being an Italian. There are about 20 Italians who will be voting in the conclave if it comes now.
- Cardinal Claudio Hummes, 70, Archbishop of Sao Paolo, Brazil. He is a likely candidate if those who believe a candidate from the Southern Hemisphere should be elected, especially if the desire is for a pastoral rather than a curial candidate.
- Cardinal Francis Arinze, 72, of Nigeria. He is currently Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, he is seen as one of the bright stars of the Curia. Cardinal Arinze is frequently mentioned as a candidate for the papacy, and would be the first African pope in some 1500 years. He would also, as best can be determined, be the first black pope.
- Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, 78, retired Archibishop of Paris. A Jew by birth, he grew up a yellow-star wearing boy named Aaron and lost his mother in Auschwitz. he is actively involved in inter-religious dialogue.
- Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, 60, Archbishop of Vienna, Austria. He is probably a bit young to be elected this conclave, as he would likely serve for a period of time similar to the John Paul II, who was elected at 58. On the other hand, he is theologically close to the current pontiff, and has a similar warm pastoral style. If the decision is for another non-Italian Western European, this would likely be the man. Another plus is that he took over in Vienna following a sexual abuse scandal forced out his predecessor and Schönborn dealt with the situation very effectively. Such a background would,sad to say, be useful given the scandals of recent years. If an older pope is elected, expect Schönborn to be seen as a leading candidate in the next conclave.
- Cardinal Oscar Andrés RodrÃÂguez Maradiaga, 62, Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. He is not as hard-line as the current pope in many areas, but is widely respected among the latin American Cardinals. He is often mentioned as papabile.
- Cardinal Ivan Dias, 68, Archbishop of Mumbai(Bombay), India. He is a native of india, a former member of the diplomatic corps, and is fluent in many languages. Dias followed the path common for such previous popes as Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI. He would be the first Asian pope, and is considered to be a dark-horse among possible candidates.
Ultimately, we don't know who the next pope will be, or where he is from. That is up to the Holy Spirit, acting through the Cardinal Electors in the conclave.
UPDATE:
Here is an Australian article that matches up well with much of my list, though with some differences.
This ABC News article is also sort of interesting.
The Houston Chronicle carried this article from Reuters giving a list with biographies. There are some significant additions and subtractions from my list.
In addition, I've got one Czech reader pushing his personal favorite, along with a list of other candidates.
Posted by: Greg at
03:36 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1372 words, total size 11 kb.
Seattle Secretly Selling Sick Brains From Morgue
This sounds almost like a sick joke -- but it isn't.
Imagine the moment of deepest loss. Your spouse, parent, sibling or child is dead. You've lived for with the difficulties that came with this loved one's mental illness. You've hoped and prayed for a cure of some kind for the disease from which they suffered for years. And now someone from the lab asks for tissue samples from their brain and other organs for research purposes. It would be hard to say no. And that's what they counted on -- that, and the probability that you would ask no further questions.
I could imagine an honest conversation about what was going on. Tell me what you think.
"Hi, This is Bob from over at the county morgue. I'm mighty sorry your son died. Would you be willing to give us your son't brain so we can sell it to a company? No sir, you and your family won't get a share of the profits. It'll all go into the office budget so we can buy copier supplies and some new equipment."
Who wouldn't have said no? I mean, what person in their right mind (forgive the phrase) would take that deal? The entire notion is obscene. And while I was a bit flip about what the money was being spent on (it isn't clear where the money went, exactly), I think the point is pretty clear.
What are teh ethics of such a program. KIRO-TV, which did the investigation, asked medical ethicist Dr. Elliot Stern about that.
So yeah, there is a big problem there. The consent gien probably is not legally valid due to the details left out.
When there was consent at all.
Records indicate more brains shipped than there were consent forms.
This could get really ugly.
This sounds almost like a sick joke -- but it isn't.
Imagine the moment of deepest loss. Your spouse, parent, sibling or child is dead. You've lived for with the difficulties that came with this loved one's mental illness. You've hoped and prayed for a cure of some kind for the disease from which they suffered for years. And now someone from the lab asks for tissue samples from their brain and other organs for research purposes. It would be hard to say no. And that's what they counted on -- that, and the probability that you would ask no further questions.
Folks on Vashon Island called him "Cool Gary," a local schizophrenic who loved hitchhiking and playing practical jokes.
When Gary died jumping into traffic in November 1998, his body wound up at the King County Morgue.
Less than 72 hours later, Gary's brain was removed and mailed to Bethesda, Md. It became property of The Stanley Medical Research Institute, a multimillion-dollar company that studies mental disorders.
"I can't believe what is happening here," said Bill Lynn, Gary's father.
Bill Lynn says he's never heard of Stanley. He at first thought KIRO Team 7 Investigators were kidding when we showed him proof that King County profited from harvesting his son's brain.
"You're crazy! I didn't raise my kids to sell 'em. This is unreasonable. Why would I agree with any hospital or anybody to receive any money for any body parts? No way! I'm just not built that way," Lynn said.
So what about this written "consent form" provided to KIRO Team 7 Investigators by King County as proof that Bill authorized the brain donation?
"Something is rotten in Denmark, that's for sure. No, I never, I didn't sign anything. That's not my writing here," Lynn said.
Here's what Lynn says did happen: The Medical Examiner's office called on the phone, asking for a "skin and brain tissue donation."
"They didn't tell me they were going to sell it. I'd have said 'no' right off the bat," said Lynn.
I could imagine an honest conversation about what was going on. Tell me what you think.
"Hi, This is Bob from over at the county morgue. I'm mighty sorry your son died. Would you be willing to give us your son't brain so we can sell it to a company? No sir, you and your family won't get a share of the profits. It'll all go into the office budget so we can buy copier supplies and some new equipment."
Who wouldn't have said no? I mean, what person in their right mind (forgive the phrase) would take that deal? The entire notion is obscene. And while I was a bit flip about what the money was being spent on (it isn't clear where the money went, exactly), I think the point is pretty clear.
Lynn's story is a familiar one. KIRO Team 7 Investigators contacted a half dozen families, which we confirmed had donated brains via King County. None knew of Stanley. None knew of money changing hands.
"It was my feeling that they were maybe going to run some tests on his brain tissue," said Vicki Hendricks.
Hendricks's son Jim died suddenly at 36 years old. She gave permission for King County to take brain "samples" thinking they needed them to determine cause of death. Jim's whole brain instead ended up at Stanley Medical.
"Those are public servants, people we rely on to be there for us, and if you can't feel comfortable with them, then it's kind of scary," Hendricks said.
What are teh ethics of such a program. KIRO-TV, which did the investigation, asked medical ethicist Dr. Elliot Stern about that.
Contracts vary a little each year, but the one in 2003 said "the KCME will try to collect a minimum of 50 specimens." For those efforts, Stanley sent big monthly checks to the medical examiner's office -- far exceeding the true costs of removing and shipping brains.
"That's a huge breach of public trust," said Dr. Elliot Stern.
Stern is a recognized expert in donation ethics. He says King County has big trouble ahead. If next-of-kin are not fully informed, courts consider that no consent at all.
"I would not have made a donation," Dr. Stern said. "I don't know a reasonable person who would have made a donation knowing money was going to change hands and enter county coffers in excess of harvesting costs."
So yeah, there is a big problem there. The consent gien probably is not legally valid due to the details left out.
When there was consent at all.
Records indicate more brains shipped than there were consent forms.
This could get really ugly.
Posted by: Greg at
03:11 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 797 words, total size 5 kb.
April 01, 2005
One Cool Site
I hadn't realized that there was someone doing this, but there is a site called "The Pope Blog".
They have, since last summer, been posting papal news.
I highly recommend it as a good source for reasonably up to date material.
They have, since last summer, been posting papal news.
I highly recommend it as a good source for reasonably up to date material.
Posted by: Greg at
02:15 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
Religious Speech Less Free Than The Rest At Air Force Academy
I agree with and applaud efforts by officials at the Air Force Academy to prevent religious harrassment. But I am a bit uncomfortable with one aspect of the training program, called Respecting the Spiritual Values of All People, or RSVP.
The problem is the relegation of religious speech to a second-class status. A prohibition on all proselytizing speech? It seems to me that by placing such a restriction, you violate the very respect for religious beliefs that the program is about preserving. What the ban says is that such speech (and, implicitly, the belief system associated with it) is not respected, and is in fact officially disapproved. That strikes me as a rather extreme restriction on the civil liberties of individuals training to protect our civil liberties.
Now I recognize that good order and discipline may require restrictions on the exercise of those civil liberties, but this one goes too far. Does the good of the service really require the restriction of freedom of speech and freedom of religion to such a degree?
RSVP begins first with educating faculty and staff on Air Force policy and directives that proselytizing and religious jokes and slurs are forbidden.
"Once we've gotten that across ... then we can say, 'Now, let's dialogue,"' said Col. Michael Whittington, senior chaplain at the academy. "Let's have this very healthy discussion, even argue - that's OK. Let's go ahead and find out: 'How can we show respect without believing that somehow I'm condoning what you believe?"'
The problem is the relegation of religious speech to a second-class status. A prohibition on all proselytizing speech? It seems to me that by placing such a restriction, you violate the very respect for religious beliefs that the program is about preserving. What the ban says is that such speech (and, implicitly, the belief system associated with it) is not respected, and is in fact officially disapproved. That strikes me as a rather extreme restriction on the civil liberties of individuals training to protect our civil liberties.
Now I recognize that good order and discipline may require restrictions on the exercise of those civil liberties, but this one goes too far. Does the good of the service really require the restriction of freedom of speech and freedom of religion to such a degree?
Posted by: Greg at
01:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.
Dumb Comment Du Jour
I don't generally cover affirmative action bake sales any longer. While i think they are a great tool for making a point, the mere fact that one is controversial is not a big deal to me. One has to get shut down to really get my attention.
Or someone has to do/say something really stupid. Like this guy as Arizona State University.
Uh, Juan, can we talk? Affirmative action is exclusively based upon race and ethnicity. It is the giving of preferences, based upon race and ethnicity, to applicants who would not otherwise be considered for employment or admission. Even if we reverted back to its benign form, as opposed to today's malignant version, it would still be about taking steps to include candidates in the hiring/admissions pool based upon race and ethnicity. What did you think it was, dude?
My guess is that Juan is a beneficiary of the program at ASU.
Or someone has to do/say something really stupid. Like this guy as Arizona State University.
Several students took on the [College Republicans] Tuesday. Many of them approached the booth screaming and accusing the club of being racist.
"They're [the club] trying to say affirmative action is based on race, but it's not," said Juan Fortenberry, a kinesiology freshman.
Uh, Juan, can we talk? Affirmative action is exclusively based upon race and ethnicity. It is the giving of preferences, based upon race and ethnicity, to applicants who would not otherwise be considered for employment or admission. Even if we reverted back to its benign form, as opposed to today's malignant version, it would still be about taking steps to include candidates in the hiring/admissions pool based upon race and ethnicity. What did you think it was, dude?
My guess is that Juan is a beneficiary of the program at ASU.
Posted by: Greg at
01:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.
John Paul II – We Love You!
I remember chanting that line when the Holy Father was in Denver in 1993, along with a crowd of other young people as we welcomed him to various World Youth Day events. I remember that at the end of the final Mass, The crowd began the chant one final time and that before he left, the Pope responded -- "John Paul II loves you, too."
Though I have since struggled with the Church and would definitely qualify as a lapsed Catholic (though still a believer in Christ), that does not in the least reduce my love and respect for that man.
I know he will be leaving us soon.
Here’s a quote that set me to weeping.
"This evening or this night, Christ opens the door to the pope," Angelo Comastri, the pope's vicar general for Vatican City, told the crowd.
And all I can respond with is this – Around the world, Your Holiness, there are hundreds of millions whose hearts echo that chant from Denver.
Though I have since struggled with the Church and would definitely qualify as a lapsed Catholic (though still a believer in Christ), that does not in the least reduce my love and respect for that man.
I know he will be leaving us soon.
Here’s a quote that set me to weeping.
"This evening or this night, Christ opens the door to the pope," Angelo Comastri, the pope's vicar general for Vatican City, told the crowd.
And all I can respond with is this – Around the world, Your Holiness, there are hundreds of millions whose hearts echo that chant from Denver.
Posted by: Greg at
11:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.
John Paul II – We Love You!
I remember chanting that line when the Holy Father was in Denver in 1993, along with a crowd of other young people as we welcomed him to various World Youth Day events. I remember that at the end of the final Mass, The crowd began the chant one final time and that before he left, the Pope responded -- "John Paul II loves you, too."
Though I have since struggled with the Church and would definitely qualify as a lapsed Catholic (though still a believer in Christ), that does not in the least reduce my love and respect for that man.
I know he will be leaving us soon.
HereÂ’s a quote that set me to weeping.
"This evening or this night, Christ opens the door to the pope," Angelo Comastri, the pope's vicar general for Vatican City, told the crowd.
And all I can respond with is this – Around the world, Your Holiness, there are hundreds of millions whose hearts echo that chant from Denver.
Though I have since struggled with the Church and would definitely qualify as a lapsed Catholic (though still a believer in Christ), that does not in the least reduce my love and respect for that man.
I know he will be leaving us soon.
HereÂ’s a quote that set me to weeping.
"This evening or this night, Christ opens the door to the pope," Angelo Comastri, the pope's vicar general for Vatican City, told the crowd.
And all I can respond with is this – Around the world, Your Holiness, there are hundreds of millions whose hearts echo that chant from Denver.
Posted by: Greg at
11:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.
When Do They Begin The Assassinations?
We conservatives have spent years dealing with the Left attempting to shout-down and silence our voices. We have found it necessary to put up with thugs stealing newspapers and prevent speeches. In recent weeks, the Left has been busy engaging in assaults upon conservative speakers. In the last couple of days, both William Kristol and Pat Buchanan have been assaulted by food-wielding terrorists. Kristol gamely continued with his speech after being pied, but Buchanan was forced to stop his talk after having a bottle of salad dressing dumped over his head.
Frankly, Pat was wrong – he should have insisted upon the felony assault charge. His failure to do so lowers the stakes for such attempts to silence the Right on Campus.
KristolÂ’s attacker faces even less sever punishment.
What next? Will we see these folks using guns to shut up unwelcome viewpoints? Will conservative speakers be banned on campus because of the real threat of bloodshed, caused by those whose political philosophy is so bankrupt that they must engage in violence to suppress the other side? These attacks that so many folks laugh at are nothing short of civil rights violations – an interference with the rights guaranteed these speakers under the First Amendment.
Oh, and one other thing. I noted this paragraph in the middle of the article.
I donÂ’t see why the fact that it was his birthday should have been the source of any controversy at all. Chavez opposed illegal immigration because it suppressed the wages of farmworkers who had to compete with the cheaper pay given to illegals. He urged his unionÂ’s (mostly Hispanic) membership to report border jumpers. He even staged rallies outside of INS offices to protest the failure of the government to secure the borders. WhatÂ’s more, the UFW even set up a border operation, the Wet Line, to stop illegals from entering the country (shades of the Minuteman Project). If anything, Buchanan and Chavez would agree today on the need to do something about the sieve that is the US-Mexico border.
"Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.
After he was hit, Buchanan cut short his question-and-answer session with the audience, saying, "Thank you all for coming, but I'm going to have to get my hair washed."
The demonstrator, identified by authorities as a 24-year-old student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College, was arrested and faces a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. He was released on a $100 cash bond, pending his April 14 arraignment.
"He could have faced a felony assault charge, but Pat Buchanan decided to not press that charge," university spokesman Matt Kurz said.
Frankly, Pat was wrong – he should have insisted upon the felony assault charge. His failure to do so lowers the stakes for such attempts to silence the Right on Campus.
KristolÂ’s attacker faces even less sever punishment.
Kristol, editor of the influential conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and former chief of staff to Vice President Quayle, was splattered by a student during a speech Tuesday at Earlham College in Richmond, Ind.
Members of the audience at the Quaker college jeered the student, then applauded as Kristol wiped the pie from his face and said, "Just let me finish this point." Kristol then completed his speech and took questions from the audience.
The student, who was not immediately identified, was suspended and could face expulsion following a disciplinary review, Earlham Provost Len Clark said Wednesday.
Clark also issued a written apology complimenting Kristol for his "graciousness.".
What next? Will we see these folks using guns to shut up unwelcome viewpoints? Will conservative speakers be banned on campus because of the real threat of bloodshed, caused by those whose political philosophy is so bankrupt that they must engage in violence to suppress the other side? These attacks that so many folks laugh at are nothing short of civil rights violations – an interference with the rights guaranteed these speakers under the First Amendment.
Oh, and one other thing. I noted this paragraph in the middle of the article.
Buchanan's visit had evoked controversy on campus because it fell on the birthday of the late Mexican-American labor leader Cesar Chavez. Buchanan favors tighter controls on immigration.
I donÂ’t see why the fact that it was his birthday should have been the source of any controversy at all. Chavez opposed illegal immigration because it suppressed the wages of farmworkers who had to compete with the cheaper pay given to illegals. He urged his unionÂ’s (mostly Hispanic) membership to report border jumpers. He even staged rallies outside of INS offices to protest the failure of the government to secure the borders. WhatÂ’s more, the UFW even set up a border operation, the Wet Line, to stop illegals from entering the country (shades of the Minuteman Project). If anything, Buchanan and Chavez would agree today on the need to do something about the sieve that is the US-Mexico border.
Posted by: Greg at
11:09 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 621 words, total size 4 kb.
191kb generated in CPU 0.0271, elapsed 0.0396 seconds.
24 queries taking 0.0194 seconds, 111 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
24 queries taking 0.0194 seconds, 111 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
