PETA wants to take away your chicken nuggets and ban your perfume and drugs because of animal testing, but guess what – they kill most of the pets left at their animal shelter. Yeah, that’s right – it isn’t a no-kill shelter.

Between 1998 and 2003, PETA put to death over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other creatures that the group publicly calls “companion animals.” Not counting those that PETA held only temporarily -- for spaying or neutering -- the group killed over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003.

That’s right – the $29,000,000 they took in last year wasn’t enough for the “animal cruelty/animal rights” organization to make sure the animals went to good homes.

Look at the numbers – they are shocking.

Fortunately, the Center for Consumer Freedom is blowing the whistle on them with a Times Square billboard.

Posted by: Greg at 02:33 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

I donÂ’t see a single good reason for bringing charges to begin with in this case.

Lloyd Jamal Whitaker Jr.'s departure on Sept. 29 from the home he had shared with Carolyn Taylor did not go smoothly.

He had made several trips to his car with boxes of belongings from the house in the 1300 block of Enfield Avenue.

But Taylor, 33, told police that he had choked her during one of his trips back to the dwelling, and she had locked the door behind him and put a .22-caliber pistol in her pocket.

When Whitaker, 28, kicked in the door and choked her again, she fired a shot downward to get him away from her, she said. The bullet lodged in Whitaker's pelvis, and he bled to death from what appeared at first to be a superficial wound.

Taylor pleaded guilty in January to involuntary manslaughter, and Richmond Circuit Judge Richard D. Taylor sentenced her yesterday to serve three years and four months in prison.

LetÂ’s go back over that one more time.

When Whitaker, 28, kicked in the door and choked her again, she fired a shot downward to get him away from her, she said.

In other words, she engaged in her HUMAN RIGHT to defend herself from a violent attacker. In a civilized society, what she did is called justice.

I love the comment from this idiotic prosecutor.

Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Diane Abato told the judge that Taylor could have left the apartment or called police to keep the confrontation from escalating.
"But as so often happens in this city, people arm themselves and think that solves the problem," she said.

Yeah, she could have. Doing so would have relegated her to the status of victim, if not corpse. Instead she stood up on her own two feet and decided to be a human being, possessed of the right to be secure in her home. For that she is going to jail.

Ms. Abato, Carolyn Taylor did solve the problem. She put down a violent animal before it could harm her again. She deserves the thanks of society, not its condemnation. You should be ashamed of yourself for contributing to her victimization. And if you are ever attacked, I hope you have made yourself as defenseless as believe Ms. Taylor should have been -- and that you are lucky enough to survive unharmed until help arrives.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Go Condi!

In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.

Birmingham, where Rice was born in 1954, was a focal point of racial tension. Four black girls were killed when a bomb exploded at a Birmingham church in 1963, a galvanizing moment in the fight for civil rights.

Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."

Rice said the Founding Fathers understood "there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

"I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution," she said in the interview, which was taped for airing Wednesday night. "The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."

One more reason IÂ’m ready to back you in 2008, Dr. Rice!

Posted by: Greg at 02:31 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

But I thought the Democrats were the party of the common people, and that the GOP was the party of the rich.

The financial chieftains of the far-left of the Democratic Party met recently to discuss ways to win back the majority of American voters.

The elite group, comprised of several dozen millionaires, dubbed itself the "Phoenix Group," and is led by billionaire George Soros. Details of the group's deliberations were closely guarded, but reports indicate that the liberal financiers plan to fund multiple left-of-center groups in order to formulate a "new" party message.

This from the folks that think money corrupts the political process.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Malkin notes that Teddy Kennedy is complaining about the “rush to judgment” on the nomination of Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She then supplies the following timeline regarding Pryor’s consideration by the Senate.

3/12/2003 Pryor nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit by President Bush

7/23/2003 Passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee with favorable recommendation

7/31/2003 Democrats refused to allow vote on nomination (cloture denied 53-44)

11/14/2003 Democrats refused to allow vote on nomination (cloture denied 51-43)

2/20/2004 Given recess appointment to 11th Circuit (expires end of 109th Cong; 1st Session)

Two years. It has been over two years since the nomination was made, and nearly two since the nomination was sent to the Senate floor. How much more consideration does it need?

But maybe this desire for deliberate speed explains his decision not to engage in undue haste in attempting to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne or reporting the accident in which she was killed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ve taken heat in a number of forums for agreeing with President Bush that the agreement to permit/accept (you pick the word – it’s a difference that makes no difference) Soviet domination of Eastern Europe that was wrong.

Setting aside those who call me a blind right-wing ideologue (usually blind left-wing Alger Hiss-wannabes who would have supported Stalin), IÂ’ve been accused of not accepting the fact that Eastern Europe was already in Soviet hands at the time, or wanting to fight another war that would have been long, drawn out, and possibly nuclear.

Those who say that are wrong.

Jonah Goldberg quite clearly sums up my attitude in todayÂ’s column.

It's ironic: Liberals celebrated Bill Clinton's numerous apologies for America's Realpolitik "mistakes" during the Cold War as a sign of great statesmanship. But when an apology reflects poorly on the mistake that basically launched the Cold War, they bang their spoons on their highchairs about any attempt to tarnish FDR's godhood.

This raises the larger moral point. After a war to end one evil empire, we signed a piece of paper accepting the expansion of another evil empire. And it happened at Yalta.

When all is said and done, we can debate forever the practicality of Roosevelt and ChurchillÂ’s decision to ally with Stalin, HitlerÂ’s former ally, after he was betrayed in the summer of 1941. We can debate whether it was proper to allow Stalin to achieve every bit of what he was promised in his treaty with Hitler and more. But what cannot be debated by anyone with a love for freedom is that the result of these decisions was half a century of oppression by Stalin and his heirs. IsnÂ’t that alone worth a few words of regret?

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Post has a wonderful story about Marines fighting the foreign forces of terror in Iraq. It is one of the more moving things IÂ’ve read on the subject.

IÂ’m particularly struck by this line from one of the Marines.

"They came here to die," said Gunnery Sgt. Chuck Hurley, commander of the team from the 1st Platoon, Lima Company, of the Marines' 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment, that battled the insurgents in the one-story house in Ubaydi, about 15 miles east of the Syrian border.

"They were willing to stay in place and die with no hope," Hurley said Tuesday. "All they wanted was to take us with them.''

Notice the clear evidence that these are not Iraqis that shows up later in the article.

The costly equipment, as well as body armor later recovered from the bodies of dead insurgents, suggested that the fighters were foreigners, the military said.

Crying “Allahu Akbar,” these foreign fighters are out to kill as many Americans as possible before they die. Godspeed, Marines, in giving them the death they desire – sending them to burn in hell with the false god they serve.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

We keep being told by the Democrats (who are carrying water for a host of liberal special interests) that Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court is an extremist. IÂ’ve written about that before, but would like to share a little more based on another column IÂ’ve encountered. It seems that one of the problems with Brown is that she is capable of making common sense judgments.

The author, David Reinhard, offers three of the cases cited against her as evidence of the specious nature of the attacks on the justice. They are Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car, People ex. rel. Gallo v. Acuna, and Kasky v. Nike.

In the Avis case, Justice Brown rejected the notion of a court imposing prior restraint on the use of words by all employees in every context. As a rule, that is not permitted under the First Amendment, and so, consistent with a civil libertarian view of the First Amendment, she dissented from a decision upholding such prior restraint. But she did not do this out of love for the individuals who had engaged in racist speech in the workplace.

"Today, this court holds that an idea that happens to offend someone in the workplace is 'not constitutionally protected' . . ." she wrote. "Why? Because it creates a "hostile . . . work environment" . . . in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) . . . he court has recognized the FEHA exception to the First Amendment."
Now, it's possible to reject her view, but to say she's blind to discrimination or indifferent to its remediation ignores all she wrote. She called the speech "offensive and abhorrent" and favored a "middle ground" that "preserves both the freedom of the speaker and the equal dignity of the audience." Workers can sue for damages from bosses who tolerate such speech.

Think about it. Can a mere statute create an exception to free speech rights? The answer is obvious. On the other hand, it can impose a duty on the employer to stop racially abusive speech. Justice Brown offered an approach that did the least damage to the Constitution – and for that she is excoriated as an enemy of the Constitution.

On the other hand, in the Gallo case Justice Brown was unwilling to allow the First Amendment to be used as a shield for actual criminal activity. A violent street gang had made a neighborhood in Rocksprings, California unlivable. Residents were subjected to street crime, drug dealing and gunfire, among other ills. The city sought to do something about the problem, getting an injunction banning the offending gang members from the neighborhood – an injunction that was upheld by the California Supreme Court. Writing FOR THE MAJORITY, Justice Brown dismissed the First Amendment claims of the gang-bangers to continue their illegal activities in the neighborhood. She noted that their actions were antithetical to the notion of peaceable assembly.

"To hold that the liberty of the peaceful, industrious residents of Rocksprings must be forfeited to preserve the illusion of freedom for those whose ill conduct is deleterious to the community as a whole is to ignore half the political promise of the Constitution and the whole of its sense."

The Nike case is particularly interesting. Justice Brown sided with Nike in a case involving whether errors in a press release could be grounds for a lawsuit against the company by an activist group. The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court, where it was dismissed on a technicality. But while some argue that Justice BrownÂ’s opinion was out of step with Supreme Court jurisprudence on commercial speech, it is interesting to note that the justices themselves did not think so.

The high court dismissed the case on a technicality and an out-of-court settlement has since been reached, but Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter argued that the case raised important constitutional questions. And Stephen Breyer, joining Sandra Day O'Connor in dissent, wrote that if the case was decided on its merits, Brown's view would likely prevail.

Which two justices definitively agreed with her? That would be liberal Justice Stephen Breyer and swing-voter Sandra Day O’Connor – hardly folks the Left wants to label as out of the mainstream. And notice which other justices were at least open to her position – Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg, who constitute with (with Breyer) the remainder of the Court’s liberal wing! If she is outside the mainstream on this case, I hope that Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer will have the integrity to introduce articles of impeachment against those five justices so that we can get some mainstream folks to take their places.

I guess the best way to put it is to say that the arguments against Janice Rogers Brown are hogwash – no insult to hogs intended.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 835 words, total size 5 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If liberals believe that questioning judges and their rulings is an attack that threatens the independence of the judiciary, why are their attacks on Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Judge William Pryor, and other sitting judges who have been nominated to the Circuit Courts of Appeals and their rulings acceptable? After all, donÂ’t such attacks threaten the independence of the judiciary?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Crackpots. American Taliban. The Gestapo. Reactionary. Religious zealots. Extremists.

Those were some of the constructive, positive terms applied by supporters of Senator Ken Salazar to religious people and groups who oppose his position on judicial filibusters. Those supporters denied their language was derogatory.

"Some individuals (here) feel that way, and that's their right," said Denver's former director of public safety, Butch Montoya.

So I guess it isn’t the right of people who disagree with them to do so. Disagreement makes one a member of the crackpotextremistreactionaryreligiouszealotAmericanTalibanGestapo, and merits abusive language from these “mainstream” religious and political leaders.

The language of these folks was so extreme that Salazar even rejected their support.

"Obviously, people on all sides of this issue have strong feelings," Cody Wertz said. "But I can say for sure that Senator Salazar would not associate himself with those remarks."

A spokesman for Focus on the Family noted the intellectual vacancy of the arguments presented at the press conference.

"Holy smoke, I'm glad they didn't call us the Antichrist," said Tom Minnery, vice president of Focus on the Family. He was referring to a slur Salazar directed at the organization earlier but has since said he was sorry for. "If they had an intellectual argument, they'd use it, but the left is without argument, so they resort to name-calling. That demeans the process."

Probably the most damning quote of the day came from former state senator Polly Baca. She meant it as praise for Salazar, but it just indicates how unprincipled that he and his supporters are.

"Ken has a very deep-seated faith that grounds his values and that drives his behavior," Baca said. However, that doesn't mean one's faith should necessarily drive one's public life, she said.

In other words, none of them believe in anything strongly enough to act upon it. Some might call that being a hypocrite, but I believe the term that Christ used was “lukewarm.”

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Crackpots. American Taliban. The Gestapo. Reactionary. Religious zealots. Extremists.

Those were some of the constructive, positive terms applied by supporters of Senator Ken Salazar to religious people and groups who oppose his position on judicial filibusters. Those supporters denied their language was derogatory.

"Some individuals (here) feel that way, and that's their right," said Denver's former director of public safety, Butch Montoya.

So I guess it isn’t the right of people who disagree with them to do so. Disagreement makes one a member of the crackpotextremistreactionaryreligiouszealotAmericanTalibanGestapo, and merits abusive language from these “mainstream” religious and political leaders.

The language of these folks was so extreme that Salazar even rejected their support.

"Obviously, people on all sides of this issue have strong feelings," Cody Wertz said. "But I can say for sure that Senator Salazar would not associate himself with those remarks."

A spokesman for Focus on the Family noted the intellectual vacancy of the arguments presented at the press conference.

"Holy smoke, I'm glad they didn't call us the Antichrist," said Tom Minnery, vice president of Focus on the Family. He was referring to a slur Salazar directed at the organization earlier but has since said he was sorry for. "If they had an intellectual argument, they'd use it, but the left is without argument, so they resort to name-calling. That demeans the process."

Probably the most damning quote of the day came from former state senator Polly Baca. She meant it as praise for Salazar, but it just indicates how unprincipled that he and his supporters are.

"Ken has a very deep-seated faith that grounds his values and that drives his behavior," Baca said. However, that doesn't mean one's faith should necessarily drive one's public life, she said.

In other words, none of them believe in anything strongly enough to act upon it. Some might call that being a hypocrite, but I believe the term that Christ used was “lukewarm.”

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

I posted this Walter Williams column outside my classroom today. No response from kids yet. The real heart of the piece is found here.

The Children's Defense Fund and civil rights organizations frequently whine about the number of black children living in poverty. In 1999, the Bureau of the Census reported that 33.1 percent of black children lived in poverty compared with 13.5 percent of white children. It turns out that race per se has little to do with the difference. Instead, it's welfare and single parenthood. When black children are compared to white children living in identical circumstances, mainly in a two-parent household, both children will have the same probability of being poor.

How much does racial discrimination explain? So far as black poverty is concerned, I'd say little or nothing, which is not to say that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated. But let's pose a few questions. Is it racial discrimination that stops black students from studying and completing high school? Is it racial discrimination that's responsible for the 68 percent illegitimacy rate among blacks?

The 1999 Bureau of Census report might raise another racial discrimination question. Among black households that included a married couple, over 50 percent were middle class earning above $50,000, and 26 percent earned more than $75,000. How in the world did these black families manage not to be poor? Did America's racists cut them some slack?

The civil rights struggle is over, and it has been won. At one time, black Americans did not have the same constitutional protections as whites. Now, we do, because the civil rights struggle is over and won is not the same as saying that there are not major problems for a large segment of the black community. What it does say is that they're not civil rights problems, and to act as if they are leads to a serious misallocation of resources.

If I get any interesting responses, IÂ’ll let you know.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

This story has some interesting issues in it, but I’m not sure what I think.

Kerry Lofy figures that girls get to wear dresses to the Lake Geneva Badger High School prom, so why couldn't he?

But now that he has been suspended from school for three days, is being forced to miss his last track meet (and a chance for the school's pole vaulting record) and has to pay a $249 ticket for disorderly conduct, Lofy's not so sure he picked the right battle to fight.

"Things got a little crazy," Lofy said Tuesday from home, where the 18-year-old senior is serving the suspension after Saturday night's antics.

High school officials are not returning calls for comment on the case, but to hear Lofy tell it, this is a classic case of the price you pay for fighting for your rights of self-expression.

Lofy said he thought it would be funny to show up at his senior prom Saturday wearing a dress. Lofy went to the prom with Victor Anderson, a friend. Lofy says the school did not have any problem letting two males attend prom together, but school officials who had heard of Lofy's plan to wear a black dress warned him that he would not be allowed in the dance if he showed up dressed as a woman.
Lofy says he is not gay. He says he agreed to go with Anderson, who is gay, because Anderson is his friend and he wanted to go to the prom but didn't have a date. Anderson confirms this. Lofy concedes that he was uneasy going to prom with another male, and wearing a dress was a way to deflect other people's suspicions.

Are girls permitted to wear traditionally male attire – such as a tuxedo?

Would the dress have been acceptable if it had been wore by the gay student?

What about if the gay student self-identified as a “transgendered” individual?

Does any of that matter?

Like I said, there are issues here, and I don’t even begin to know where to begin to address them.

But I was struck by this sentence at the end of the article.

Lofy plans to go to Colorado Mountain College in the fall and major in ski hill management.

Ski Hill Management is a major?

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 2 kb.

This story has some interesting issues in it, but IÂ’m not sure what I think.

Kerry Lofy figures that girls get to wear dresses to the Lake Geneva Badger High School prom, so why couldn't he?

But now that he has been suspended from school for three days, is being forced to miss his last track meet (and a chance for the school's pole vaulting record) and has to pay a $249 ticket for disorderly conduct, Lofy's not so sure he picked the right battle to fight.

"Things got a little crazy," Lofy said Tuesday from home, where the 18-year-old senior is serving the suspension after Saturday night's antics.

High school officials are not returning calls for comment on the case, but to hear Lofy tell it, this is a classic case of the price you pay for fighting for your rights of self-expression.

Lofy said he thought it would be funny to show up at his senior prom Saturday wearing a dress. Lofy went to the prom with Victor Anderson, a friend. Lofy says the school did not have any problem letting two males attend prom together, but school officials who had heard of Lofy's plan to wear a black dress warned him that he would not be allowed in the dance if he showed up dressed as a woman.
Lofy says he is not gay. He says he agreed to go with Anderson, who is gay, because Anderson is his friend and he wanted to go to the prom but didn't have a date. Anderson confirms this. Lofy concedes that he was uneasy going to prom with another male, and wearing a dress was a way to deflect other people's suspicions.

Are girls permitted to wear traditionally male attire – such as a tuxedo?

Would the dress have been acceptable if it had been wore by the gay student?

What about if the gay student self-identified as a “transgendered” individual?

Does any of that matter?

Like I said, there are issues here, and I donÂ’t even begin to know where to begin to address them.

But I was struck by this sentence at the end of the article.

Lofy plans to go to Colorado Mountain College in the fall and major in ski hill management.

Ski Hill Management is a major?

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

Last time I checked, a sincere apology usually implies that you believe you did wrong. Did Half-Truth Harry Reid lie last week?

If Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada still feels remorse for calling President Bush a loser, he didn't show it on Tuesday.

In a news conference, Reid was asked if his comment about Bush would make it more difficult to negotiate with Republicans.

"I tell people how I feel about things. I don't try to hide how I feel," Reid said.

"Maybe my choice of words was improper, and I have indicated that maybe they were, but I want everyone here, I repeat, to know I'm going to continue to call things the way that I see them, and I think this administration has done a very, very bad job for this nation and the world."

So, Harry, were you lying when you called the president a loser, or when you apologized -- or both?

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Some jabs are too good to ignore. This one from Francis J. Beckwith over at Southern Appeal is one of those.

According to the Washington Times: "Republicans were particularly outraged when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, referred to Justice Owen and other Bush nominees as 'neanderthal.'" In order to extend the irony, perhaps Kennedy should have called her fat, ugly, the son of a bootlegger, and that she once drove drunk and left the occupant of her car to drown in a body of water adjacent to the bridge into which she crashed. Look, if Ted Kennedy gave a California condor a ride home it would consistute a violation of the endangered species act.

Ouch!

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Let me get this straight – a principal found a shirt with these two messages offensive and disruptive?

A teenager was back in class on May 6 after receiving a one-day suspension for wearing a T-shirt with slogans including “freedom of expression” and “don’t drink and drive” that school administrators considered disruptive.
Hanna Smith, 18, a junior at Tift County High School, said Principal Mike Duck told her that if she wore the shirt again she would be suspended for the remainder of the year.

The principal was arrested six years ago for DUI and running a stop sign, The Tifton Gazette said May 6 in a story on SmithÂ’s suspension. Duck made a public apology for the DUI and was himself suspended for five days.

SmithÂ’s mother, Tracy Fletcher, said she would defend her daughterÂ’s right to express herself, even if it meant hiring an attorney and taking the case to court.

“They want everyone to fit into a mold, and there’s no room for individuality. These kids are our future, I think they should be treated with a little more respect. Their opinions count. Their thoughts count,” Fletcher said.

The principal confirmed that Smith was back in class on May 6 without the banned T-shirt, which also had a peace symbol on the front and “Veritas,” which means truth, written on the back.

Now let’s look at this and try to discern what is offensive here. A peace sign? Hardly. The word “Veritas”? Most kids probably couldn’t pronounce it, much less tell you what it means. Could it be “Freedom of Expression”? One would hope not, given that teaching the concept is mandatory in any American government or history class. Well then it must be “Don’t Drink and Drive”. I guess that the drunk who the school board unwisely allows to run a high school had his feelings hurt by that message, one which simply urges that the laws of the state (and common sense and common decency) be followed. Certainly there isn’t anything that would disrupt school in any of those messages, so that must be it.

But I love this quote from Principal Mike Duck.

The school systemÂ’s dress code forbids disruptive clothing, grooming and symbols. Principals decide whatÂ’s disruptive.

“I have an obligation to maintain an orderly environment,” Duck said. “The courts give me the authority and the right to make those decisions and as long as I’m sitting in this chair that’s what I’m going to do.”

Frankly, sir, based upon that addled comment I’m surprised you are sitting in the chair instead of falling out of it trying to get to that bottle of Smirnoff you keep in the back of your desk drawer to calm your DTs. But if you want a quick primer on the rights of students, might I direct you here and here. In case your hangover is giving you too much trouble, I’ll give you the highlights – Tinker v. Des Moines, “Students don’t surrender their rights at the school house gate”, First Amendment, civil rights and liberties, arbitrary abuse of power. You know, the same stuff I keep writing about regularly on this site and on my previous one.

And I cannot help but admire the stand taken by this young adult, 18-year-old Hanna Smith.

“I think it’s silly that we can’t practice the freedoms that they teach us here,” Smith said. “You would think that school officials would have respect for the law and people’s rights, or at least they should.”

You’ve got it exactly right, Hanna – it is impossible to teach our students to be citizens of a free society while granting them no greater liberty than an inmate in a maximum security penitentiary, for the habits necessary to survive as the latter are not those necessary to prosper as the former.

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 648 words, total size 4 kb.

Could you imagine the liberal outrage if this were a senior GOP lawmaker doing this to a female candidate at an event, rather than the actual perpetrator and victim in this case?

Openly gay U.S. Rep.Barney Frank got caught blatantly fondling an up-and-coming politician's buttocks at a public event. According to gay weekly the Washington Blade, the frisky Frank was escorting rising gay politico Mike Evans into the VIP section at Philadelphia's Equality Forum when he boldly seized the opportunity to cop a feel from the younger man. The tush-grabbery was caught by alert photogs covering the event, and the pictures soon surfaced on the Internet. A rep for Frank, who is in a relationship with his domestic partner, Sergio Pombo, declined PAGE SIX's request for comment.

I’m serious here – folks on the Left would be having conniption fits if Tom DeLay were to feel-up some GOP cutie at a public event. But as we saw years ago with Barney’s live-in male prostitute, being a high-ranking gay Democrat means never having to say you are sorry.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Could you imagine the liberal outrage if this were a senior GOP lawmaker doing this to a female candidate at an event, rather than the actual perpetrator and victim in this case?

Openly gay U.S. Rep.Barney Frank got caught blatantly fondling an up-and-coming politician's buttocks at a public event. According to gay weekly the Washington Blade, the frisky Frank was escorting rising gay politico Mike Evans into the VIP section at Philadelphia's Equality Forum when he boldly seized the opportunity to cop a feel from the younger man. The tush-grabbery was caught by alert photogs covering the event, and the pictures soon surfaced on the Internet. A rep for Frank, who is in a relationship with his domestic partner, Sergio Pombo, declined PAGE SIX's request for comment.

I’m serious here – folks on the Left would be having conniption fits if Tom DeLay were to feel-up some GOP cutie at a public event. But as we saw years ago with Barney’s live-in male prostitute, being a high-ranking gay Democrat means never having to say you are sorry.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Folks from Planned Parenthood are complaining about the refusal of pharmacies to carry so-called “emergency contraceptives”.

A pro-abortion group says its survey of 920 pharmacies across Missouri found that only 29 percent of them stock emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill.

"Women in rural Missouri are most at risk of not having access to this birth control," said the NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation, which conducted the survey.

More details will be announced Tuesday at a news conference in Jefferson City, the foundation said. Those details include "statistics on pharmacies that refuse to order the legally prescribed medication for female customers," the press release announced.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved the prescription-only sale of emergency contraception, pharmacies are not required to stock any particular medication.

So let me get this straight – pharmacies and pharmacists are making a choice not to participate in what they view as a form of abortion, and so the nation’s leading ”pro-choice” group is troubled. Could it be that their label is a lie – given that they object to any choice that doesn’t involve the facilitation of the slaughter of the unborn -- and they are really pro-abortion?

Now I understand that it can be inconvenient to have a pharmacy refuse to stock a particular medication. It recently took us 10 days to fill one of my wife’s pain prescriptions because we had trouble finding a pharmacy in the area that stocked the medication. In talking with a couple of the pharmacists, I discovered that they do not even carry other medications, in particular Oxy-Contin (which she has never been prescribed), because doing so simply subjects them to additional scrutiny from state and federal regulators. In other words, they exercise their right to decide what medications they will and will not stock, according to their best professional and business judgments. It really isn’t the place of the state to force them to carry a medication.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Folks from Planned Parenthood are complaining about the refusal of pharmacies to carry so-called “emergency contraceptives”.

A pro-abortion group says its survey of 920 pharmacies across Missouri found that only 29 percent of them stock emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill.

"Women in rural Missouri are most at risk of not having access to this birth control," said the NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation, which conducted the survey.

More details will be announced Tuesday at a news conference in Jefferson City, the foundation said. Those details include "statistics on pharmacies that refuse to order the legally prescribed medication for female customers," the press release announced.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved the prescription-only sale of emergency contraception, pharmacies are not required to stock any particular medication.

So let me get this straight – pharmacies and pharmacists are making a choice not to participate in what they view as a form of abortion, and so the nation’s leading ”pro-choice” group is troubled. Could it be that their label is a lie – given that they object to any choice that doesn’t involve the facilitation of the slaughter of the unborn -- and they are really pro-abortion?

Now I understand that it can be inconvenient to have a pharmacy refuse to stock a particular medication. It recently took us 10 days to fill one of my wifeÂ’s pain prescriptions because we had trouble finding a pharmacy in the area that stocked the medication. In talking with a couple of the pharmacists, I discovered that they do not even carry other medications, in particular Oxy-Contin (which she has never been prescribed), because doing so simply subjects them to additional scrutiny from state and federal regulators. In other words, they exercise their right to decide what medications they will and will not stock, according to their best professional and business judgments. It really isnÂ’t the place of the state to force them to carry a medication.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

If you really need to ask yourself if the Democrats are the de facto Socialist party in the United States, the fact that Vermont congressman Bernie Sanders – a self-described Socialist – caucuses with the party should have been sign enough. But this new development should make it even clearer.

Breaking party lines, former Gov. Howard Dean said Monday he supports Rep. Bernard Sanders' bid for the U.S. Senate, saying the Independent makes a "strong candidate."
"A victory for Bernie Sanders is a win for Democrats," Dean said in a telephone interview Monday.

So, the head of the DNC is acknowledging it – a victory for an avowed Socialist is a victory for the Democrats. What’s more, Sanders’ staff acknowledges it as well.

"I think Gov. Dean and Congressman Sanders share an interest in beating back a very aggressive reactionary agenda of President Bush and congressional Republicans," Weaver said. "We intend to win this seat and Bernie will be a strong voice against the Bush agenda."

So, my fellow Americans, let’s be real clear here – a vote for the Democrats is a vote for Socialism and against the American way of life. And that comes from no less than Screamin’ Howard Dean, the nation’s top Democrat.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, yet another false report of hate crimes and harassment.

A rash of gay-bashing incidents at Tamalpais High School was the work of a student gay leader who claimed she was the victim of hate crimes, it was disclosed yesterday.

The 17-year-old girl, a top athlete who leads the school's Gay-Straight Alliance, told authorities she was the perpetrator of the incidents, which included scrawling "die fag" on her car and at school.

"The individual's own statements substantiated the evidence previously gathered as to the source of the vandalism and annoying phone calls," Mill Valley Police Capt. James Wickham said in a press release.

Other incidents involved teachers who got threatening phone messages and a typed message using anti-gay language that was sent to administrators.

"Evidence developed during the course of the investigation indicated that the student/victim was actually the person" responsible for the crimes, Wickham said. "It has been determined that all the incidents have been committed by a single individual."

The student was not identified by police.

The school wants her to get counseling, though it “may” suspend or expel her. The police made no arrest, and filing no charges, despite her confession. That despite the fact that she committed a hate crime against the other victims, as well as against her heterosexual classmates by framing them for her actions. Would such false “compassion” have been show n if the perpetrator had been a straight student? We both know the answer.

What is more, the local professional victims group is upset that the information about the hoax was made public.

Paula Pilecki, executive director of San Anselmo's Spectrum, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group, was surprised that police released a statement on the matter.

"It is unfortunate that this information is being released to the public in this manner," she said. "The next few weeks will no doubt be difficult for everyone involved, and I hope the community reacts with compassion."

So what you would have preferred would have been for everyone just to quit talking about the situation with no information given to the public. That way, you would be able to use these incidents as proof of the need for more tolerance programs and reeducation sessions. You could blame the evilrightwingconservativechristians for the “climate of fear and intolerance” that exists at the school, and complain that the school and police authorities were doing nothing to combat it. Now you’ve lost all that great publicity.

And as far as reacting with compassion goes – this girl deserves no more compassion than the killers of Matthew Shepard. Here’s hoping she does some prison time for her acts of hate.

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

Today marks four years since the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to the appellate bench. As of this date, she still has not been given an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Today her former colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, Senator John Cornyn, spoke on behalf of her nomination.

I know Priscilla personally, because we served together on the Texas supreme court. Throughout her life, she has excelled in virtually everything she has ever done. She was a law-review editor, a top graduate from Baylor Law School at the remarkable age of 23, and the top scorer on the Texas bar exam. She entered the legal profession at a time when relatively few women did, and after a distinguished record in private practice, she reached the pinnacle of the Texas bar — a seat on the Texas supreme court. She was supported by a larger percentage of Texans than any of her colleagues during her last election, after enjoying the endorsement of every major Texas newspaper.

Unsurprisingly, then, the American Bar Association, after careful study, unanimously rated her well qualified to serve on the federal bench — their highest rating.

Unsurprisingly, she enjoys the enthusiastic support of a bipartisan majority of senators.

Yet a partisan minority of senators now insists that Owen may not be confirmed without the support of a supermajority of 60 senators — a demand that is, by their own admission, wholly unprecedented in Senate history. Why? Simple: The case for opposing her is so weak that changing the rules is the only way they can defeat her nomination.

Cornyn goes on to demolish every argument against the confirmation of Priscilla Owen. When will the Democrats be forced to stop playing politics with our nationÂ’s courts? When will Priscilla Owen be given an up or down vote? It needs to be soon.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Jonah Goldberg notes a recent comment by Bill Maher.

"Comedian" Bill Maher, for example, recently explained that he thought the charges were no big deal, even if true. After all, Jackson didn't rape anyone, he's merely accused of "servicing" young boys — and that's not nearly as bad as getting beaten up by schoolyard bullies.

Gee, I seem to recall his condemning the Catholic Church because a few priests were guilty of “servicing” and being “serviced” by young boys. Does Mr. Maher have one standard for his friends, and another for those whose beliefs he rejects?

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that the same porous-border policies that led to an increase in border jumping has also resulted in an increase in violent home invasions in the Tucson area. Why? Because of the vast quantity of illegal drugs smuggled in from Mexico, and the number of “safe houses” set up in residential neighborhoods to store the illegal goods.

Residential robberies in metro Tucson are on a record-setting pace.

Funded by the growing trafficking of Mexican marijuana, smugglers are setting up stash houses throughout the metro area. Rival drug traffickers may target those homes, looking to steal cash or pot or to recover stolen marijuana that can be sold on the street for as much as $500 a pound.

What that means, law officers said, is that more innocent people are at risk of being hurt or killed because traffickers may mistakenly break into their home.

"You have incidents when the bad guys hit the wrong house, or the target moved out a month or so ago ... that's the real danger," said Pima County sheriff's Lt. Michael G. O'Connor, head of the crimes against persons section.

Sometimes in these terrifying robberies with violence or threats of violence, also known as home invasions, the robbers hit a residence based on nothing more than a street rumor, said Eugene V. Mejia, a retired police detective sergeant who worked for TPD from 1974 to 2000.

Acting on rumors leaves plenty of opportunity for mistakes. Robbers, for example, may have the right house number but go to the wrong street.
Upping the stakes, robbers often are high on drugs during the break-ins.

How bad is the problem? While Tucson and Pima County used to get fewer than 50 such crimes reported a year 15-20 years ago, the number is now up to nearly 250. How many more go unreported by criminals who donÂ’t want police scrutiny of their activities? And we wonÂ’t get into the deaths or serious injuries that often accompany these home invasions.

Who says we donÂ’t need to secure the border?

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What we need to do is arm everyone. Then eliminate punishment for killing someone who broke into your house. We'll see how many break-ins there are after several get shot and killed on the spot.

Posted by: Elliott at Mon May 9 17:37:56 2005 (oG0U1)

2 While I don't condone giving everyone a firearm, can we all see R with a pistol?? , I do agree there need to be more Laws on the books like the one just passed here in FL.

It gives people protection for protecting themself.

No longer can someone be sued for protecting themself because a relative/family member/spouse of a criminal decides to sue them for killing/wounding the bread winner.

Sorry never knew crime was considered a "Bread Winning Job".

Posted by: Scubachris at Tue May 10 02:27:17 2005 (AktpP)

3 There are lots of criminals because it IS a bread winning job; you've heard the expression that crime doesn't pay? Wrong. The proof is in the number of crimes. No doubt people will argue that crime results from dysfunctional families, poor schools, a crime-gene -- and who knows but that some of this isn't true. So what? When people go to jail in Japan, they hardly ever go back in the slammer a second time once released. The Japanese do not engage in hand slapping; more like body slamming -- so criminals get the message. American's seem to encourage criminal behavior because we tolerate it.

Posted by: Mustang at Tue May 10 03:00:45 2005 (nP7cz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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.

Posted by: Greg at 07:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a great piece on my favorite among the Bush nominees denied a vote by the Democrats. It provides some interesting details about her life, and some intriguing quotes from one of her opinions that show her to be a crusader for justice under the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

In her dissent [in People v. McKay], Brown even lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court and - pay close attention, my liberal friends - criticized an opinion written by its most conservative member, Justice Antonin Scalia, for allowing police to use traffic stops to obliterate the expectation of privacy the Fourth Amendment bestows.

"Due to the widespread violation of minor traffic laws, an officer's discretion is still as wide as the driving population is large," she wrote. In her view, court decisions have freed police to search beyond reason not just drivers of cars but "those who walk, bicycle, rollerblade, skateboard or propel a scooter."

She reserved special scorn for judges who permit police to discriminate while advising the targets of discrimination to sue to challenge their oppressors. "Such a suggestion overlooks the fact that most victims ... will barely have enough money to pay the traffic citation, much less be able to afford an attorney. ... To dismiss people who have suffered real constitutional harms with remedies that are illusory or nonexistent allows courts to be complacent about bigotry while claiming compassion for its victims," she wrote.

"Judges go along with questionable police conduct, proclaiming that their hands are tied. If our hands really are tied, it behooves us to gnaw through the ropes."

And this is the woman that Half-Truth Harry Reid says wants to take us back to before the Civil War. Hardly -- this is a woman who is very much in line with the spirit of the Civil War-era Amendment that sought to make blacks full participants in American liberty, and whose philosophy is in keeping with that of Dr. King.

Confirm her now -- by any means necessary.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Jonathon Pollard is a convicted spy. In 1984 & 1985 he spied on the US for Israel, betraying his country for money. Now his lawyers are making specious claims of torture against the United States in a disgusting attempt to make the Israeli government declare him a "Prisoner of Zion" -- a category previously reserved for those persecuted because of their religion.

Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen who spied for Israel, has been subjected to electric shock, sleep deprivation and other "cruel and extreme" forms of torture while serving a life sentence in American prisons, his lawyer said Sunday.

A petition filed with Israel's Supreme Court says Pollard was kept naked for more than a year in solitary confinement in subzero temperatures. It claims his jailers also soaked him with ice water, forced him to sleep on a bare concrete slab, and lied to him that the Israeli government had arranged his release.

I believe this to be a lie. Pollard deserves to dance at the end of a rope for his betrayal of America. But even if the accusations are true, that still doesn't put him in the same category as the Jewish refusniks of the 1970s and 1980s.

For my previous statements on this treasonous piece of filth, click here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

When one hears the word "evangelical", the term "fundamentalist" is not far behind, along with the phrases "right-wing" and "theocrat". Such stereotypes are wrong, for most evangelicals support values that would have to be conceded to be mainstream -- not surprising, given that they make up some 40% of the American public. The only question, at times, is the proposed method of implementing those values. Mark Hall's piece in the Oregonian does a pretty good job of pointing that out.

What do evangelicals believe, then?

First, contrary to many stereotypes, evangelicals are among the most tenacious defenders of religious liberty. We have been fiery opponents of government attempts to dictate religious belief or actions.

Look at the leading "right-wing Christian" legal organizations -- they don't just defend Christians, but also Jews, Muslims, and others. Where these groups differe with the radical secularists is that they believe that neutrality doesn't mean driving religion from the public square. In that, they are exactly in line with American practice from the time of the writing of the First Amendment itself.

Second, evangelicals are concerned about the poor and dispossessed. Flippant critics chastise us for dropping the ball -- including evangelicals such as Jim Wallis, "Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," and Ron Sider, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience."

But the best historical and sociological studies show that evangelicals, along with other religious conservatives, are among the most generous Americans when it comes to donating our time and money.

Look at the statistics that are out there. It is generally those who identify themselves as religious who are the most generous with their giving. While many oppose government programs, it is because they believe that private charity is superior to those programs. And if one looks at the statistics, there is a point to that argument.

Third, evangelicals place a high value on family. We believe the right of parents to raise their children should be respected and supported by the state. Many evangelicals would extend this principle to enabling all parents to provide for their children an education that reflects their world views.

For all we hear the rabid secularists talk about programs "for the children," they tend to ignore the fact that those with the best interest of a child closest to their hearts are their parents. This is a big part of why evangelicals tend to support school vouchers -- because who is most concerned with the individualized needs of a student if not their parents? Granted, these vouchers still will not enable most kids to attend the private schools of the elite liberals, but it will allow them in many cases to do better than they do now, and will actually leave public schools with more dollars per child because no voucher plan proposed has ever taken all the dollars per student for a voucher.

Fourth, evangelicals believe innocent human life ought not to be taken without a very good reason. We overwhelmingly oppose abortion and euthanasia.

Notice the reason for the opposition -- respect for life. I once argued that Jefferson, in listing three inalienable rights, put them in order of importance. The violation of the right to lifeimplicitly violates the others, and so governemnt is obliged to protect us from the unjust taking of life -- including protecting us from ourselves if need be. This respect for life is why there is division on the death penalty among evangelicals, though most will accept it as legitimate, though not mandatory, on biblical grounds.

Strangely enough, it is not the evangelicals who are unwilling to dialogue on these mainstream values. It is their opponents who refuse to discuss, refuse to compromise, and dismiss any attempt by evangelicals to participate in the political process as "mixing church and state" or "attempting to impose a theocracy".

But how do we have a democratic republic if the beliefs of four out of every ten Americans are declared illegitmate and those Americans are excluded from the process? How is it that those values can be labeled extreme when they are shared by enough Americans to enable their supporters to control the executive and legislative branches? The short answer is that those who would exclude the evangelical voice from the political arena are attempting to gain through bigotry, fear, and discrimination that which they cannot gain legitimately at the ballot box because they are the ones outside the mainstream.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.

More proof that Putin's Russia is continuing the descent back towards the sort of oppressive government that marked the Communist era. One of history's most bloody dictators is being honored with a new statue.

AN enthusiastic crowd gathered for the unveiling of a new statue of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in the Siberian district of Mirny ahead of massive Russian commemorations of the defeat of Nazi Germany 60 years ago.

Dignitaries and thousands of local residents gathered for the ceremony in the eastern Siberian republic of Yakutia-Sakha, laying flowers beneath the monument to the wartime leader credited with helping vanquish Nazi Germany in World War II but reviled by critics for his bloody treatment of his own people.

"We have erected a monument to a great son of Russia who gave everything he had to his nation, his love and his dedication, without receiving anything in return," Mirny's mayor Anatoly Popov was quoted by Ria-Novosti news agency as saying.

"He died without a ruble in his pocket, without a bank account, without good furniture or buildings."

The new statue is the latest sign of Stalin's resurgent popularity among some Russians.

Utterly disgusting! What next-- statues of Hitler in Germany, honoring the dedication of the Fuhrer to the Fatherland?

I'd like to paraphrase the greatest American leader of the 20th Century.

Mr. Putin -- tear down this statue!

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

I want to know how a representative of a party that believes "Bush is a Nazi" is legitimate political speech, has a congressman give an interview to a gay website in which he calls the vice president an "ass-kisser", and whose Senate leader calls the president "a loser" in front of a class full of high school kids could have the guts to go on the air and make such a hypocritical radio address.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading Democrat in the fight over judicial nominees, urged President Bush to intervene and rein in the strongest conservative critics of Democratic opposition to some candidates.

Schumer, D-N.Y., delivered his party's weekly radio address today, in which he decried "a whiff of extremism in the air the likes of which we haven't seen in decades."

Without naming any, Schumer criticized "small groups ... trying to undermine the age-old checks and balances that the Founding Fathers placed at the center of the Constitution."

But he didn't stop there. He made it very clear that criticism of the Democrats and their filibuster strategy is "un-American."

In his radio appeal, Schumer sought to draw Bush more directly into the fray by urging the president to denounce some conservatives who have used harsh language to criticize the Democrats.

"I am making a heartfelt plea to you, Mr. President. When you came to Washington, you said you wanted to change the climate in D.C.," Schumer said. "Those stating these abhorrent views count themselves as your political allies. One word from you will bring a halt to these un-American statements. That would be a way to strengthen democracy here at home."

So, would you count Senator Reid's statement that Justice Janice Rogers Brown "is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days" as an abhorrent view, or an un-American statement? or is that sort of crap just politics as usual from the Democrat leadership?

Now Senator, I would like you to answer a simple question -- on what basis do you believe the president has the power or authority to "rein in" the speech of any American? That sounds pretty antithetical to the First Amendment to me. Does the Senator propose setting up a "Senate Un-American Activities Commitee" to police these organizations -- thereby adding "Schumerism" to the political vocabulary of the United States?

Frankly, Chuckles, in the end I don't give a rat's ass if President Bush does as you ask on this matter (not that I think he will give your whine more than a moment's notice) -- I'll exercise my rights as an American to denounce you and your ilk. Your attempt to invoke the heavy hand of government censorship against your critics and political opponents is reprehensible -- and, might I also add, abhorrent and un-American.

Additional commentary from Right-Sided and Red State.

(Hat Tip -- Americablog)

Posted by: Greg at 08:24 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Senator Harry Reid needs to resign. He has shown himself not to have the temperament and the judgment necessary to serve in the US Senate, much less to be the leader of the minority party.

Speaking to a classroom full of high school juniors, the Nevada Democrat insulted the president of the United States.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.”

Inappropriate, Senator, in what was supposed to be a non-partisan educational setting. That you would even consider making that comment shows that you are deficient in judgment. We don’t care that you called Karl Rove to apologize later – the comment should have never been made.

And as if that wasn’t enough, you engaged in additional character assassination against the President’s judicial nominees.

Reid took students through a primer of the five most-disputed judicial nominees, arguing some were opposed to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion. He charged others with trying to dismantle government programs like Social Security.
"I don't want them. I think they're bad people," Reid said of the nominees
He described California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush nominees Republicans will probably float first for approval, as an African-American opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
"She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days," Reid said.

Really, Senator Reid, this black woman, the daughter of a sharecropper raised in the segregated Democrat-run South wants to recreate the days when blacks were slaves? Would you care to offer even a shred of evidence to support that outrageous slander, sir? And which of them has said they would try to dismantle Social Security? As for Roe, its overturn would leave the decision on the legality of abortion to the states – precisely the same place you say that the decision should be on recognizing homosexual marriage. Not one of these nominees is unqualified – at least not according to the ABA, the approval of which you folks on the Democrat side argued was the gold standard for judicial nominees in 2001 – so there is no legitimate basis for opposing them. I somehow bet you left that little bit out when you were presenting your so-called facts to these students.

But there will be no Reid resignation, and no denunciation of the Senate minority leader by the Democrats. That is because Senate Democrats don’t have any ethics when it comes to this issue. They want what they want and will get it any way they can, even if it means raping the Constitution to get it. And if it means letting Half-Truth Harry Reid skate again, then so be it.

Additional commentary fom Blogs For Bush, Hard Starboard, Red State, Iowa Voice, The Mighty Righty, and Say Anything.

UPDATE -- The White House responds.

"The president has worked to change the tone in Washington by elevating the discourse and reaching out to find common ground to get things done," [White House spokesman Scott] McClellan said.

"It has been a challenge and it has been disappointing that we haven't been able to make more progress on that front. I think the American people want their elected leaders to elevate the discourse and to reach out across partisan lines and that's what the president will continue to do," he said.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Harry -- and you too, Chuckles.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 5 kb.

Senator Harry Reid needs to resign. He has shown himself not to have the temperament and the judgment necessary to serve in the US Senate, much less to be the leader of the minority party.

Speaking to a classroom full of high school juniors, the Nevada Democrat insulted the president of the United States.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.”

Inappropriate, Senator, in what was supposed to be a non-partisan educational setting. That you would even consider making that comment shows that you are deficient in judgment. We don’t care that you called Karl Rove to apologize later – the comment should have never been made.

And as if that wasnÂ’t enough, you engaged in additional character assassination against the PresidentÂ’s judicial nominees.

Reid took students through a primer of the five most-disputed judicial nominees, arguing some were opposed to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion. He charged others with trying to dismantle government programs like Social Security.
"I don't want them. I think they're bad people," Reid said of the nominees
He described California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush nominees Republicans will probably float first for approval, as an African-American opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
"She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days," Reid said.

Really, Senator Reid, this black woman, the daughter of a sharecropper raised in the segregated Democrat-run South wants to recreate the days when blacks were slaves? Would you care to offer even a shred of evidence to support that outrageous slander, sir? And which of them has said they would try to dismantle Social Security? As for Roe, its overturn would leave the decision on the legality of abortion to the states – precisely the same place you say that the decision should be on recognizing homosexual marriage. Not one of these nominees is unqualified – at least not according to the ABA, the approval of which you folks on the Democrat side argued was the gold standard for judicial nominees in 2001 – so there is no legitimate basis for opposing them. I somehow bet you left that little bit out when you were presenting your so-called facts to these students.

But there will be no Reid resignation, and no denunciation of the Senate minority leader by the Democrats. That is because Senate Democrats donÂ’t have any ethics when it comes to this issue. They want what they want and will get it any way they can, even if it means raping the Constitution to get it. And if it means letting Half-Truth Harry Reid skate again, then so be it.

Additional commentary fom Blogs For Bush, Hard Starboard, Red State, Iowa Voice, The Mighty Righty, and Say Anything.

UPDATE -- The White House responds.

"The president has worked to change the tone in Washington by elevating the discourse and reaching out to find common ground to get things done," [White House spokesman Scott] McClellan said.

"It has been a challenge and it has been disappointing that we haven't been able to make more progress on that front. I think the American people want their elected leaders to elevate the discourse and to reach out across partisan lines and that's what the president will continue to do," he said.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Harry -- and you too, Chuckles.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 5 kb.

Speaking as a partisan, I can tell you that some stuff transcend politics. Death is one of these.

State Rep. Joe Moreno, D-Houston, was killed in an overnight traffic accident near La Grange, officials with the Texas Department of Public Safety said today.

Moreno, who was first elected to represent Houston's east side in1998, was traveling on Texas 71 when the wheels of his pickup truck evidently slipped off the road's shoulder, said DPS reports.

Reports indicate Moreno overcorrected to get the truck back on the road, sending it into a center median which caused the truck to flip end-over-end several times.

Moreno died at the scene of the accident.

Moreno, his family, and his constituents are in my prayers.

Moreno's passengers, State Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, and Monica Pinon, chief of staff for State Rep. Joseph Pickett of El Paso, were treated for injuries at Brackenridge Hospital in Austin. Anchia's injuries were minor and he was released, but Pinon suffered broken bones and was undergoing surgery this morning, officials said.

Anchia suffered an ankle injury and was returning to Dallas today.

Anchia was seated in the front passenger's seat, Pinon in the truck's back seat. All three were wearing seat belts.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery for both Anchia and Pinon.

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 1 kb.

Does Tony Blair even have a mandate? Given the figures put forth in this article, I would have to say that the answer is “No.”

Labour received only 36.6 per cent of the vote, and with the turnout at just over 60 per cent, this meant barely 22 per cent of eligible voters cast a Labour ballot.

"This shows our voting system is bust," society spokesman Ken Ritchie said.
"It's quite absurd that a party with little more than a third of the votes should receive around 55 per cent of the seats and therefore be able to out-vote parties representing nearly two voters out of three."

Never has the case for electoral reform in Britain been so strong. The electoral boundaries are distorted, with the smallest constituency, Scotland's Western Isles, having only 21,900 registered voters while the largest, the Isle of Wight, has 106,300.

The Liberal Democrats were the worst-hit by the flawed voting system, which gave them only about 60 seats, despite the party achieving 22.4 per cent of the vote. The Tories, with 32.9 per cent, got three times as many seats, and six times as many went to Labour with 36.6 per cent.

So it isn’t just the drastic reduction in Labour seats that we need to be looking at – it is also the small percentage of the vote won by Labour and the disproportionate representation that brought the party. The question then remains – will Blair be able to maintain support within his own party for the length of the current term, or will he be replaced as PM? And if the Labour Party should be unable (due to local elections or defections) to maintain a majority, will the US find a Conservative Party nearly as in sync with the GOP as it did during the halcyon days of the 1980s when Lady Thatcher ruled the roost?

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Does Tony Blair even have a mandate? Given the figures put forth in this article, I would have to say that the answer is “No.”

Labour received only 36.6 per cent of the vote, and with the turnout at just over 60 per cent, this meant barely 22 per cent of eligible voters cast a Labour ballot.

"This shows our voting system is bust," society spokesman Ken Ritchie said.
"It's quite absurd that a party with little more than a third of the votes should receive around 55 per cent of the seats and therefore be able to out-vote parties representing nearly two voters out of three."

Never has the case for electoral reform in Britain been so strong. The electoral boundaries are distorted, with the smallest constituency, Scotland's Western Isles, having only 21,900 registered voters while the largest, the Isle of Wight, has 106,300.

The Liberal Democrats were the worst-hit by the flawed voting system, which gave them only about 60 seats, despite the party achieving 22.4 per cent of the vote. The Tories, with 32.9 per cent, got three times as many seats, and six times as many went to Labour with 36.6 per cent.

So it isn’t just the drastic reduction in Labour seats that we need to be looking at – it is also the small percentage of the vote won by Labour and the disproportionate representation that brought the party. The question then remains – will Blair be able to maintain support within his own party for the length of the current term, or will he be replaced as PM? And if the Labour Party should be unable (due to local elections or defections) to maintain a majority, will the US find a Conservative Party nearly as in sync with the GOP as it did during the halcyon days of the 1980s when Lady Thatcher ruled the roost?

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

DonÂ’t you love it when some geeks get a neat idea into their head and run with it?

Suppose it is the future - maybe a thousand years from now. There is no static cling, diapers change themselves, and everyone who is anyone summers on Mars.

"The odds of a time traveler showing up are between one in a million and one in a trillion," says Amal Dorai, who conceived the convention.

What's more, it is possible to travel back in time, to any place, any era. Where would people go? Would they zoom to a 2005 Saturday night for chips and burgers in a college courtyard, eager to schmooze with computer science majors possessing way too many brain cells?

Why not, say some students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who have organized what they call the first convention for time travelers.

Actually, they contend that theirs is the only time traveler convention the world needs, because people from the future can travel to it anytime they want.

"I would hope they would come with the idea of showing us that time travel is possible," said Amal Dorai, 22, the graduate student who thought up the convention, which is to be this Saturday on the M.I.T. campus. "Maybe they could leave something with us. It is possible they might look slightly different, the shape of the head, the body proportions.

The event is potluck and alcohol-free - present-day humans are bringing things like brownies. But Mr. Dorai's Web site asks that future-folk bring something to prove they are really ahead of our time: "Things like a cure for AIDS or cancer, a solution for global poverty or a cold fusion reactor would be particularly convincing as well as greatly appreciated."

I love the notion that there need be only one, as time travelers can always get there from any other point in the future. It reeks of the sort of cleverness that Douglas Adams showed in The Restaurant At the End Of The Universe.

And I love this explanation of why folks should come out for the party.

"If you can just give up a Saturday night, there's a very small chance at it being the biggest event in human history," he said.

Well, it certainly beats the reason for attending the annual St. Flatulus Day party back when I was in the seminary.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

Every rule has to admit that there are situations that are exceptions. Such exceptions often are tacit rather than written down. ShouldnÂ’t common sense have let there be one here?

A high school student was suspended for 10 days for refusing to end a mobile phone call with his mother, a soldier serving in Iraq, school officials said.

The 10-day suspension was issued because Kevin Francois was "defiant and disorderly" and was imposed in lieu of an arrest, Spencer High School assistant principal Alfred Parham said.

The confrontation Wednesday began after the 17-year-old junior got a call at lunchtime from his mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, who left in January for a one-year tour with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion.

Mobile phones are allowed on campus but may not be used during school hours.

When a teacher told him to hang up, he refused. He said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."

The word “Iraq” would have led me to turn a blind eye – and I would have been supported by every administrator on my campus. We all banded together a couple of years ago to look out for one of our boys when his mom, dad, and older brother all deployed at the same time. I know for a fact that he had the home and cell phone numbers of at least a half dozen teachers in his wallet, as well as personal email addresses. He had "walk-in" privileges at the principal's office, something that we teachers don't have. I somehow doubt that Kevin has been afforded any such consideration, despite the fact that his mother is his only living parent.

What I'm saying is that I wish this school had shown a bit more concern about this student's psychological and emotional well-being.

But then again, I may be biased.

After all, my dad was a Navy officer who we once figured was gone for six of my first 12 years, including multiple tours in Vietnam, so I can really identify with this boy.

Other takes on this story -- Michelle Malkin, Zero Intelligence, Outside The Beltway, Cam Edwards.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

The Chinese Communists have picked Pat Oliphant be the first American political to regularly appear in a Chinese newspaper.

Oliphant, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 1967, is expected to begin appearing in The Beijing Youth Daily within the next month, Universal said.

The message will be that "this is the way you should talk to your leaders and about your leaders," Oliphant said. "The way leaders should be criticized."

Beijing Youth Daily, with a circulation of 600,000, is the second-largest newspaper in China's capital. In December it became the first state media outfit to sell shares to foreign investors.

"We are pleased that we could ... be part of this historic movement toward a greater freedom of expression in China," said John McMeel, chairman of Andrews McMeel Universal, the parent company of Universal Press.

The newspaper, founded in 1955, is controlled by the Communist Youth League. While the government's grip on the media appears to be loosening, the Youth Daily still must observe official censorship rules.

Want to bet he was chosen because he is among the most anti-US editorial cartoonists who originate from this country? The Chinese people will get to see that “even the Americans think the American government is evil.”

No, the real sign of a loosening of press freedom is when the paper starts printing daily editorials and columns from the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.