Now I chose that title very deliberately. That isnÂ’t the way the story is being presented in the media, or being argued by the teacher and his lawyers. But when one cuts through all the rhetoric, histrionics, and outcry, that is what this story comes down to.

A Gwinnett County teacher was fired early Friday after refusing to raise a student athlete's grade he lowered because the student appeared to be sleeping in class.

The Gwinnett County School Board voted 4-1 early Friday _ after a marathon Thursday night meeting _ to fire Dacula High School science teacher Larry Neace, said school system spokeswoman Sloan Roach.

Neace left the building after the ruling and would not comment.
His lawyers said they planned to appeal the dismissal to the State Board of Education within 30 days.

Now that sounds pretty damning, doesn’t it. It certainly has all the right villains – student athlete, building administrators, school board members – arrayed against one poor defenseless teacher who is trying to stand up for excellence in education. Unfortunately, that isn’t what I see going on here. What I see is a teacher using a poor educational practice in direct contravention of district policy, and then engaging in insubordination when directed to conform his grading and classroom management practices to district policy.

Neace, who has taught at Dacula High for 23 years, was removed from class after he refused to raise the grade he had given a football player on an overnight assignment. Neace said he cut the student's perfect grade in half because he thought the student had fallen asleep at his desk the day the assignment was made.

School officials said they gave Neace a chance to restore the football player's grade. When he refused, they sent him home. He has not been allowed back at school since April 14, when he was told he could resign or face being fired.

Superintendent J. Alvin Wilbanks recommended to the board that Neace be fired.
"He cannot have a policy that supersedes board policy," Wilbanks said. "He had no right to do that."

Neace said he had a practice of reducing the grades of students who waste time or sleep in class. His course syllabus warns that wasting class time can "earn a zero for a student on assignments or labs."

No administrators had previously complained about the practice, which he adopted more than a decade ago, Neace said.

Let’s look at what happened. You had a kid who may or may not have fallen asleep in class on Wednesday (a pet peeve of mine that earns kids a d-hall with me the following afternoon, I might add) being penalized on a homework assignment that was not required to be completed or turned in until Thursday morning (I’m speculating on the days of the week to make the point). The student completed the assignment within the allotted time, and did it well – but was given a failing grade instead of the grade he earned. That isn’t reasonable, and it violates district policy. The superintendent has the matter exactly correct when he says that teachers do not get to override board policies with which they disagree.

Nease says he has done this for years. What that means is that he has been lucky. No one has complained that he has been dealing with disciplinary matters by lowering grades. Someone who knew what was allowed finally complained, and the administration became aware what the teacher was doing. When they attempted to enforce district policy, the teacher refused to comply with a legitimate and legal directive. That is insubordination. Case closed – fire him.

The fact that we are dealing with a football player is essentially irrelevant to the issue. The Board says that such grade penalties are forbidden. Neace could have given a detention, referred the student to the office, called the parents, or even called the coach (something athletes at my school seek to avoid at all costs). Instead he decided to apply a penalty that is forbidden to he, and he got slapped down when the parents complained about the violation. When it comes right down to it, Larry Neace is the guy who thinks he is above the rules, not the student athlete and his parents.

Let's look at some of the grading policies in my district. By Board policy, the grading scale is set, the percentage weight given to test and non-test assignements is set, and grades cannot be docked for behavior that doesn't involve academic dishonesty. Under Texas law, no one other than me can change a grade I assign without me signing off on it -- unless it can be documented that I have assigned a grade in violation of School District policy or state or federal law, in which case the superintendant or his designee (the building principal) can make the change if I refuse. That law preserves the integrity of my grades, but prevents me from being arbitrary and capricious in my grading.

For those of you who work in private industry, especially if you own a business, look at the situation objectively. What happens to employees who violate management policies and, when ordered to follow them, refuse to do so and claim management is unreasonable? They get fired, and it is rare that such terminations ever become an issue.

Do I have a concern here? Sure I do – I’d love to know why the administration didn’t know that Neace was applying a penalty that was forbidden under Board policy. That needs to be looked at by the Board. But the belated decision to make a teacher comply with the same rules that apply to every other teacher in the district is not a problem in my book.

Others, though, have a variety of views on the case, including Zero Intelligence, The Force Arena, Palm Tree Pundit, Ramblings' Journal, Michelle Malkin and Winfield Myers.

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1006 words, total size 6 kb.

Besides teaching World History to high Schoolers, i also teach a college level American Government class as part of a paralegal training program. One of the issues that we often get into at great length is the notion of whetehr the Constitution is a static or a dynamic document. Students often start out with the position that the Constitution is a living document -- until I ask them how many would accept the notion that their mortgage ageement was a living document that the bank could decide had "grown over time." Suddenly, I find myself in a room full of originalists.

Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at Texas A & M today on the Constitution and the merits of originalism over "living document" jurisprudence. Perhaps the most eloquent advocate of the originalist school, Scalia spoke forefully about the need to be bound by the meaning ascribed to the text by the Founders.

Scalia, who has been on the court since 1986, described himself as an "originalist," someone who thinks the Constitution means the same thing now as when it was first drafted.

Calling the idea of the living Constitution "terribly seductive" for judges, Scalia said originalism is the "only game in town."

"You either tell your judges to be bound by the original meaning of the Constitution or you evolve our Constitution the way you think is best," he said. "That is not a road that has a happy ending."

An unhappy road indeed, one on which there is no map and the landscape changes seemingly at random. We have seen all too many such cases over the last several years, notably the Lawrence and Simmons cases. Of most concern is that one can never know whose vision of the proper Constitutional landscape will be imagined on to such an evolving map.

Scalia also noted the danger inherrant in the notion that judicial appointees should be "moderate."

"We want a moderate judge. What in the world is a moderate judge?" he said. "What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution? Halfway between what it really says and what you'd like it to say?"

Perhaps one could say that moderation in the pursuit of constitutional change is no virtue, and extremism in the defense of original intent is no vice.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

Lady Thatcher's endorsement is good enough for me.

In a letter to Bolton made available to reporters on Thursday, Thatcher praised his candor and intellect and said she could not imagine anyone better suited for the job.

Bolton's nomination has been dogged by allegations that he bullied State Department subordinates and tried to pressure analysts to write reports that conform to his hard-line views.

Thatcher, nicknamed the "Iron Lady," told Bolton "how strongly" she supported him for the job, saying "on the basis of our years of friendship, I know from experience the great qualities you will bring to that demanding post."

"To combine, as you do, clarity of thought, courtesy of expression and an unshakable commitment to justice is rare in any walk of life. But it is particularly so in international affairs," Thatcher said.

"A capacity for straight talking rather than peddling half-truths is a strength and not a disadvantage in diplomacy," she added.

"Those same qualities are also required for any serious reform of the United Nations ... I cannot imagine anyone better fitted to undertake these tasks than you," she said, signing her letter "All good wishes, yours ever, Margaret."

Lady Thatcher, Presidnet Reagan, and Pope John Paul the Great brought down Communism. I defer to the wisdom of the last of those three giants on this nomination as UN Ambassador.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

There are some matters that are so clearly established inhistory that their denial is patently absurd. One of those is the historical fact that the Soviet Union illegally occupied and annexed the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940, and then again following World War II.

Russia has denied it illegally annexed the Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1940.

It has also rejected demands to admit illegally occupying the three countries at the end of World War II.

A Kremlin spokesman said Soviet troops were deployed with the agreement of the Baltic governments of the time.

Correspondents say the annexation issue has provoked a major diplomatic row as Russia prepares to host celebrations to mark the end of World War II in Europe.

Soviet authority was established in the Baltics in 1940.

German forces then held the states from 1941 until the Soviet army returned in 1945.

Russia has made defiant remarks on the issue of the occupation.

"There was no occupation. There were agreements at the time with the legitimately elected authorities in the Baltic countries," the Kremlin's European affairs chief Sergei Yastrzhembsky said on Thursday.

I guess i shouldn't be surprised by this stubborn refusal of the Putin government to concede the error of Russia's ways at the time of the Second World War. After all, Putin is a former KGB official and an admirer of Stalin, who has been undergoing something of a rehabilitation recently.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

You've got to love this police chief's twist on the state's criminal trespass law.

A small-town police chief used a criminal trespassing charge to try to turn back one illegal immigrant, saying he was frustrated that lax federal enforcement means "if you make it past the border patrol, you're free and clear."

New Ipswich Police Chief W. Garrett Chamberlain charged a Mexican citizen with criminal trespassing _ a violation comparable to a traffic ticket _ on April 15 after immigration officials refused to take him into custody.

Jorge Ramirez, 21, was having trouble with his sport utility vehicle and had pulled along a state road. When a police officer asked for identification, Ramirez admitted he was living in the United States illegally, working for a construction company.

Ramirez pleaded guilty to the trespassing charge as well as operating a vehicle without a valid license. He agreed to report to immigration authorities by Friday.

Chief Chamberlain says he was simply fed up with the fact that once a border jumper got across from the border, he or she is essentially "free and clear". As a result, he decided to take action.

Of course, the folks in charge of border enforement are upset that they are being made to do their jobs.

Paula Grenier, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, criticized the tactic.

"The police chief is choosing to use this alien to grandstand about illegal immigration," she said. "We prioritize our investigations on criminals and criminal networks that pose a threat."

Uh, Ms. Grenier. Ill concede that this was probably not someone who would have made your top 10,000 list of wanted border jumpers. However, once the guy was in custody it would not have required any further investigation on your agencey's part to DRIVE YOUR ASS to New Ipswich to take the guy into custody. That, however, seems to be a task that put a strain on your priorities, so now you are whining about the fact that Ramirez is coming to you to be processed under a court order.. I bet if we eliminated a spokeswoman slot, there would be an actual working agent to handle the matter. Please clear your desk and pack up your office so that the real work of ICE (which is not generating press releases) can be done.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

The Battle of Puebla was slightly important when it happened. In Mexico today, it is still a national holiday -- but has roughly the significance of Flag Day here in the United States. But for some reason, the date -- May 5 AKA Cinco de Mayo -- is treated like it is the most significant day in Mexican history.

In Mexico, Cinco de Mayo passes virtually without fanfare — nothing near the events for its Independence Day.

Most of the festivities take place in Mexico City and all over Puebla state, where the battle celebrated that day took place.

Cinco de Mayo honors the 1862 Battle of Puebla, where Mexican forces overcame better-equipped French forces who invaded the country demanding repayment of loans from the 1846-48 Mexican-American War.

In the United States, however, today is a day of merriment: full-blown celebrations for Anglos, Mexican-Americans and anyone else who wants to partake in the food, music and dance.

"Nowhere is Cinco de Mayo celebrated nearly as enthusiastically as it is in the U.S.," barks a Mexico Tourism Board news release.

So I'm going to celebrate it like most Mexicans -- by ignoring it completely.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

If these charges prove true, I hope that Lawrence Frankiln and his handlers are dealt with harshly.

A Pentagon policy analyst, under investigation for passing U.S. secrets to Israel, was arrested Wednesday and charged with disclosing classified information about U.S. troops in Iraq to two former members of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the Justice Department said.

A criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday against Lawrence Franklin, 58, a specialist on Iran and a Defense Department employee since 1979, also alleges that he made unauthorized disclosures to a "foreign official" and to unidentified members of the media.

Franklin also was charged with storing dozens of other classified documents — with dates spanning his three decades of government service — at his home in West Virginia without previous approval. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, if convicted.

The charges against Franklin are the first stemming from a more than two-year FBI investigation that has raised questions about U.S. relations with a long-standing ally and the activities of one of the most influential lobby groups in Washington.

While I may support Israel's existance and acknowledge her importance as an ally, I will not excuse the betrayal of our country by those seeking to assist her. I join Michelle Malkin in her challenge to other conservatives to be as tough on Franklin as they were on Sandy Berger.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not going to get into the rude behavior of the folks who protested Ann Coulter last night in Austin. I'm not going to point out that fart noises, gestures of mastubation, nise-makers, and obscene questions are beyond the bounds of civility in a polite society. I won't even argue that such folks deserve to be removed from the university community for antics which disgraced the school, showing them unfit for higher education.

No, I want to focus on the bias of The Daily Texan in reporting on the speech and the opponents of freedom who disrupted it.

First, there was the news story.

Incessant heckling and shouting culminated in an arrest Tuesday night during a speech by Ann Coulter, an extreme right-wing pundit, at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum.

Shouts became so pervasive during the question-and-answer session that Coulter informed the organizers she would no longer take questions if the hecklers were not silenced. For a time, the shouts were considerably lessened, until the issue of gay marriage was broached.

Coulter said she supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman on the basis that a good woman civilizes and inspires a man to strive for something better, leading to a question that was met with a stunned silence

Then there was the opinion column.

To be honest, I was surprised there weren't more protesters.

When the auditorium filled up to see Ann Coulter last night, I only saw about 15 people in the back with signs. They looked like the usual protest crowd. Earth tones, shaggy hair, somber faces, folks who have their own wipe-board signs to adapt for every situation.

I guess for a conventional extremist like Ann Coulter there is no good rallying point for the local upstarts. She does not particularly irritate any specific campus community.

She just generally rubs all liberals the wrong way. Yet, one can always rely on that most reliable of protest groups, the one-size-fits all International Socialist Organization.

Who gets labeled in politically unflattering terms? Is it the folks who engage in low-grade terrorism to prevent free speech in a public place? Or is it their victim?

It is, of course, An Coulter, not the folks who deserve to be labeled as totalitarians-in-training for their attempt at speech suppression.

Maybe this is an issue that needs to be examined by the UT administration -- the failure of the journalism department to teach proper journalistic standards like fairness and balance, and the failure of the school paper to implement them.

UPDATE: For another overwrought view of AnnCoulter, visit here.

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

I spent the morning running my darling wife around to doctors and x-rays after she took a nasty spill this morning. While we are still waiting for results, we're pretty confident that she will be quickly on the mend. Given her health issues, though, I cannot help but be concerned that one day she will seriously hurt. That is why this story touches me in a special way, and chills me to the bone.

Evelyn Roberts, the 88-year-old wife of evangelist Oral Roberts, injured her head in a fall and was comatose today at a California hospital.

Roberts, who lives with her husband in California, fell en route to a dental appointment Tuesday and struck her head on the ground, said Jeremy Burton, spokesman for Tulsa-based Oral Roberts University.

She briefly lost consciousness after the fall and was taken to a hospital where tests revealed internal bleeding, Burton said. She fell into a coma a short time later.

"The Roberts family is asking the public to pray for Evelyn and their family," Burton said.

I know some may argue about Oral Roberts' theology and his politics. My response is that all of that is simply irrelevant. At a time like this, all of those things need to be set aside out of love for fellow human beings who are scared and hurting.

May God's will be done.

UPDATE: Mrs. Roberts passed away Wednesday evening. May God be mercful to her as she enters his Kingdom, and may he shower the Roberts family with comfort at this time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 09:11 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

It is well known that the Democrat head of Broward County Elections, Miriam Oliphant, was an incompetent boob. She and her half-assed staff screwed up multiple elections, until she was removed by Governor Jeb Bush, who appointed a capable relacement. Now Oliphant is suing Bush, claiming that she was fired because she was a black female.

Former Broward County elections supervisor Miriam Oliphant said Wednesday she will sue Gov. Jeb Bush in federal court, claiming that race was a factor his decision to remove her from office amid allegations of negligence and a botched 2002 primary.

"My civil rights have been violated and my constitutional rights have been violated by the state of Florida," Oliphant said.

Oliphant and her attorney, Ellis Rubin, announced the lawsuit one day after the state Senate voted 32-7 along racial lines to uphold Bush's 2003 decision to suspend Oliphant, who is black. Oliphant's supporters in the Senate argued that she was singled out even though white election supervisors in other counties also made mistakes in the 2002 election.

"Yes, there are racial overtones to this whole matter and we intend to bring those before a federal judge," Rubin told reporters. He said the lawsuit would seek millions of dollars in damages but did not specify an exact amount.

Oh, by the way, the replacement appointed by the governor was former school administrator Brenda Snipes, a black female Democrat who defeated Oliphant and several other candidates in the 2004 election.

Hey, I've got it -- she needs to sue the voters of Broward County as well!

Posted by: Greg at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's see. Every poll shows the Americna public opposed to it. Every vote of the people on the matter has brought about a ban on it. But a third state Democrat party is about to embrace homosexual marriage.

The state Democratic Party plans to endorse same-sex marriage next week, just days before the first anniversary of legal gay weddings in Massachusetts, the party's chairman said.

The party's 3,000 delegates will gather at the Tsongas Arena in Lowell on May 14 to add the endorsement to its platform, state chairman Philip Johnston told The Boston Globe.
``I don't anticipate any serious debate about it,'' he said. ``I think most delegates will support it. In this state, the more people get used to the idea, the more support there is.''

Gay weddings began in Massachusetts last May 17, making it the first state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples and sparking a national backlash.

Voters in 11 states have since approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, bringing the number of states with such bans to 18. In addition, 24 states have enacted legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now this is the state that gives us John Kerry Ted kennedy, and Barney Frank -- with Kerry being the most conservative of the three -- so I'm not surprised to see the party proclaiming "We're outside the mainstream of American values!" I know this will be one more albatross around the neck of John Kerry in 2008, and will have to be dealt with by every Democrat running for president that year.

Posted by: Greg at 08:18 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

The friendly folks at Fresh Politics share their take on this bit from National Review.

College administrators have been enthusiastic supporters Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues and schools across the nation celebrate “V-Day” (short for Vagina Day) every year. But when the College Republicans at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island rained on the celebrations of V-Day by inaugurating Penis Day and staging a satire called The Penis Monologues, the official reaction was horror. Two participating students, Monique Stuart and Andy Mainiero, have just received sharp letters of reprimand and have been placed on probation by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The costume of the P-Day “mascot” — a friendly looking “penis” named Testaclese, has been confiscated and is under lock and key in the office of the assistant dean of student affairs, John King.

You have got to read about the over-reaction of the administration to this satire by the ever-outrageous Roger Williams University College Republicans. The free speech implications here are clear, given the officially sponsored antics of the Vagina Warriors who put on The Vagina Monologues.

And remember -- unlike the last censorship case I wrote on involving the play, this involves college students on a college campus.

I'm particularly amused by the administrator who thought that Testacles was a giant mushroom.

UPDATE: For additional commentary, visit Joanne Jacobs, Number 2 Pencil, The Education Wonks, and Moonbat Central.

UPDATE 2: Here is a really funny take on the play and the story.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

One reality that depresses this history teacher is that too many Americans do not understand the fundamental evils that were Nazism and fascism. Take these little cretins from Middlebury College.

The controversy began when the college announced on March 10 that Mr. Giuliani had been selected as the commencement speaker because "of his actions on 9/11," said Mr. Benoit.

The rest of the episode goes like this: Ben Gore, a senior Middlebury student from Maryland, wrote an opinion piece, "Giuliani Is a Punk, Un-invite Him," that assailed the former mayor's legacy and referred to him as a "racist," which many students find "morally reprehensible." Though Mr. Gore wrote that Mr. Giuliani was "coming to be considered a fascist," before Sept. 11, he did not take the leap of comparing Mr. Giuliani to Hitler. That was left to the retouched photo that ran next to the column [run at the direction of editor Andrea Gissing], which depicted Mr. Giuliani with a Hitler-style haircut and mustache giving a Nazi salute.

I donÂ’t suppose that either of these historically illiterate individuals would care to offer examples that actually constitute fascist or Nazi tendencies on the part of Mayor Giuliani. You know, just one or two things that might justify identifying him with two of the most malignant ideologies that scarred the twentieth century. I suggest that they would be unable to tell us what the defining characteristics of those two movements might be, much less frame a coherent argument as to how the former mayor of our nationÂ’s largest city fit within either. And I do not say that as a Rudy fan, because I have my own criticisms of the man.

No, the problem that exists today is that there is a segment of the American population that has decided that the words “Nazi” and “fascist” mean “people who dare to disagree with my political ideology.” Thus clearing the streets of aggressive panhandlers and squeegee-men is no different than the industrialized genocide conducted at Auschwitz. Opposition to terrorism, in the eyes of such individuals, is no different than the brutal suppression of political dissent. The irony is that their abuse of such loaded historical terms is a form of McCarthyism and red-baiting, a practice which they would no doubt condemn if we were to label their left-wing ideology as Communist – the third malignant ideology of the twentieth century, and the one which caused the most damage.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

IsnÂ’t Egyptology fun. It seems like there is always something new and interesting to find when you deal with a civilization that spanned three millennia! Even though this is from a relatively late period of Egyptian history (I'm not sure if it is Ptolemaic or if it is slightly earlier, given the date in question) , it is still fascinating.

SAQQARA, Egypt (AP) - A superbly maintained 2,300-year-old mummy bearing a golden mask and covered in brightly colored images of gods and goddesses was unveiled Tuesday at Egypt's Saqqara Pyramids complex south of Cairo.

The unidentified mummy, from the 30th pharaonic dynasty, had been closed in a wooden sarcophagus and buried in sand at the bottom of a 20-foot shaft before being discovered recently by an Egyptian-led archaeological team.

"We have revealed what may be the most beautiful mummy ever found in Egypt," Zahi Hawass, chief of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, said as he helped excavators remove the sarcophagus' lid to show off the find.

Hawass said experts will use CT scanning technology within the next week to reveal more details about the ancient Egyptian's identity and he had lived and died.

Afterward, the mummy will be displayed at Saqqara's museum of Imhotep, the famed architect who designed the Stepped Pyramid - Egypt's oldest.

The mummy, found two months ago, was covered from head to toe in brightly colored cartonage burial material depicting a range of graphic scenes, including the Goddess Maat of balance and truth who was shown with outstretched arms that took the shape of feathered wings.

Also shown were the four children of the falcon-headed god, Horus, and the rituals and processes to mummify the person, who Hawass believed must have been wealthy considering his burial location and fine gold used for the mummy's mask.

"The artists who made this mummy more than 2,000 years ago demonstrated the brilliance of the ancient Egyptians by using stunning colors and depicting his face so graphically," Hawass said.

The mummy had been buried within the necropolis of King Teti, a funerary area containing scores of burial chambers, false doors that ancient Egyptians said the souls of the dead would use to leave their tombs, and temples.

The necropolis is built alongside the collapsed pyramid of Teti, who ruled during ancient Egypt's 6th dynasty, more than 4,300 years ago. Hawass said a "lost" pyramid had been located in the Saqqara area and would be uncovered after two months.

Saqqara, located about 12 miles south of Cairo, is one of Egypt's most popular tourist sites and hosts a collection of temples, tombs and funerary complexes.

It is stuff like this that makes me long for a summer on a dig in Egypt.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m positively dumbfounded by the naiveté displayed by the ordinarily rational columnist for the New York Times

Bill Frist should have taken the deal.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

Reid couldn't put this offer in writing because it would outrage liberal interest groups. Frist said he'd think about it, but so far he's let it drop — even though clearing the way for a Supreme Court pick is one of the GOP goals in this dispute.

First, the reason that Reid wouldn’t put the agreement in writing is that he would never follow through with it. The Democrats will try to prevent any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court – especially if it is a female or minority nominee.

Second, Reid wanted to block some of the most qualified nominees – Brown, Owen, and Pryor – who would be likely future Supreme Court picks. Why should Frist agree to hamstring the current president or his successor by agreeing to keep these judges off the bench when doing so means conceding to the unconstitutional acts of the Senate Democrats.

Third, establishing the principle that the minority gets to determine what judges are acceptable in the face of majority support is antithetical to the will of the people. The Democrats have not come out on top in a national election since 1996, and haven’t controlled Congress since 1994. They have been rejected in every election since then. For the party supported by the people to surrender to those opposed to the people’s will would be a rank betrayal of the electorate.

No, don’t compromise – go nuclear.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m positively dumbfounded by the naiveté displayed by the ordinarily rational columnist for the New York Times

Bill Frist should have taken the deal.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

Reid couldn't put this offer in writing because it would outrage liberal interest groups. Frist said he'd think about it, but so far he's let it drop — even though clearing the way for a Supreme Court pick is one of the GOP goals in this dispute.

First, the reason that Reid wouldn’t put the agreement in writing is that he would never follow through with it. The Democrats will try to prevent any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court – especially if it is a female or minority nominee.

Second, Reid wanted to block some of the most qualified nominees – Brown, Owen, and Pryor – who would be likely future Supreme Court picks. Why should Frist agree to hamstring the current president or his successor by agreeing to keep these judges off the bench when doing so means conceding to the unconstitutional acts of the Senate Democrats.

Third, establishing the principle that the minority gets to determine what judges are acceptable in the face of majority support is antithetical to the will of the people. The Democrats have not come out on top in a national election since 1996, and havenÂ’t controlled Congress since 1994. They have been rejected in every election since then. For the party supported by the people to surrender to those opposed to the peopleÂ’s will would be a rank betrayal of the electorate.

No, don’t compromise – go nuclear.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 2 kb.

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

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

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Janice Rogers Brown was born the daughter of sharecroppers in the segregated South. She has risen to the top of her profession, earning the respect of supporters and (most) opponents along the way. Yet her nomination remains bottled up in the Senate, as Democrats are afraid to allow a vote on a candidate supported by the majority of Senators.

What is it in her judicial philosophy that they fear? It would appear to be her staunch defense of freedom.

LetÂ’s examine some of her opinions. There is her dissent in San Remo Hotel vs. San Francisco (2002).

Consider her dissent in San Remo Hotel vs. San Francisco (2002), a case that upheld the extortionate fee that San Francisco charges owners of small residential hotels if they want to rent rooms to tourists instead of housing the homeless. Brown noted that these mostly mom-and-pop businesses are "a relatively powerless group" that have been arbitrarily singled out for social- welfare duty. The Fifth Amendment, she observed, prohibits government from forcing "some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."

She reminded her colleagues that "the free use of private property is just as important as ... speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion."

Notice, she is defending the right of individuals to control the use of their property free of unreasonable government interference. That view is contained in the US Constitution itself, and is only controversial if one accepts the socialist premise that the government has the ultimate right to determine the best use of your property. Her view is the same as that espoused by Madison, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders.

Of course, perhaps they object to People vs. McKay (2002), in which Justice Brown noted that the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is meaningless if a police officer can use as a pretext trivial offenses that are based less on public safety than on the color of the arrested individualÂ’s skin.

Her libertarian impulse was displayed in her dissent in People vs. McKay (2002), concerning a bicyclist, riding against traffic, who was pulled over by police. When the cyclist failed to produce identification, he was arrested and searched. The court's decision upholding this action, Brown concluded, stretched Fourth Amendment protections to the breaking point. "If full custodial arrest is authorized for trivial offenses, the power to search should be constrained," she wrote.

She also saw a larger issue, involving race: "I do not know Mr. McKay's ethnic background. One thing I would bet on: he was not riding his bike a few doors down from his home in Bel Air, or Brentwood, or Rancho Palos Verdes -- places where no resident would be arrested for riding the 'wrong way' on a bicycle whether he had his driver's license or not. Well ... it would not get anyone arrested unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood."

Or maybe it is her controlling opinion in Hi-Voltage Wireworks vs. San Jose (2000) that frightens her detractors, holding as it does that the underlying principle of civil-rights law is equality of opportunity for individuals, not equality of result for different groups.

Brown's belief that no one should be treated less equally because of skin color is recorded most strongly in Hi-Voltage Wireworks vs. San Jose, a 2000 case that enforced Proposition 209, the measure banning race and sex favoritism by state and local government. She wrote the controlling opinion striking down a public-works program that gave preferential treatment based on race. She quoted the late Yale Law School Professor Alexander Bickel: "[D]iscrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." Prop. 209, Brown wrote, embodies the civil-rights principle: "equal opportunity for all individuals," not "entitlement based on group representation."

If one reads these opinions fairly, it is impossible to see anything other than a judge who is faithful to her duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And maybe that is what the Left-Wing Extremists who control the Democrat Party fear. These forces are aware that their extreme philosophy is rejected by the majority of Americans, and that the route to enshrining their ideology in American law is through the decree of judges who will place those principles beyond the reach of the American people and their elected representatives by declaring them to be part of an ever evolving, changing and unknowable (except to liberal judges) Constitution that bears little resemblance to the document displayed in the National Archives. That makes the filibuster of Justice BrownÂ’s nomination (and those of her fellow nominees) a supreme act of ideological arrogance that must be ended by the Senate majority at the earliest opportunity.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 816 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, there seem to be no important issues for the California legislature to deal with this session. How can I tell? I think the introduction and debate of this proposed law is a pretty good indication.

California, home of the first company to offer made-to-order pet clones, would become the first state in the country to ban the sale of cloned and genetically engineered companion animals under proposed legislation.
The bill, authored by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, is driven by a philosophical position that custom-making pets isn't a worthy use of biotechnology.
"There's no social benefit," Levine said. "Just because we can doesn't mean we should."
The bill is scheduled to be heard Tuesday in Room 127 of the Capitol before the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.

Now I can partially agree with Levine over this. I donÂ’t see a great social benefit to cloning pets or engaging in genetic engineering of animals for pleasure. But the mere fact that there is no social benefit doesnÂ’t mean that the state can or should ban an activity. After all, I donÂ’t see any public benefit in driving a Hummer, voting Democrat or watching reruns of Seinfeld, but I oppose banning such them on the grounds that people have the right to make stupid choices. The same is true here. If IÂ’ve got $50,000 to blow making a carbon copy of my adorable pound puppy, then it isnÂ’t the business of the legislature to interfere.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

So, pro-terrorist ex-Congressman Pete McCloskey (who urged Americans to vote for Kerry last November) and a group of “Republican elders” are trying to find a candidate to run against my congressman, Tom DeLay. They even met with a former primary opponent (DeLay beat him by a 4-to-1 margin) who ran as an independent last time around, finishing 3rd in a 4-way race (I believe he beat the Libertarian).

"Tom DeLay is an embarrassment to the Republican Party," said McCloskey, who represented Northern California from 1967 to 1983.

He met Sunday with Michael Fjetland, who was defeated by DeLay in Republican primaries in 2000 and 2002 and as an independent in the 2004 general election.

McCloskey is one of nine former congressmen who have formed an informal group he called the "revolt of the elders," to oppose congressmen who they think are guilty of ethics violations.

"Nobody can come into a Texas district and tell the voters who to support," McCloskey said.

But, he added, that just as DeLay raises money from outside the district, his opponents in the next election will also probably get national support.

Interestingly enough, the Chronicle article leaves out a crucial detail – the identity of these other eight “Republican elders” who are trying to determine who will represent me in Congress. It seems to me that it would be in the public interest for the Chronicle to tell us who they are, but doing so might interfere with their DeLay-bashing. And besides, if they were all identified it might allow readers to conclude that the so-called “Republican elders” are outside the mainstream of the GOP.

UPDATE: My friends over at Lone Star Times have a couple of great pieces on McCloskey and Fjetland. No word, though, on who the "Republican elders" are -- which would be of interest to this 22nd Congressional District GOP Precinct Chair.

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

American defense officials redacted elements of the "Sgrena Incident" investigation when it was released. Unfortunately, the PDF version of the report still contained the redacted text in hidden form, and the Italian newspapers are glad to tell you how to get it. The revealed material includes basic operational details and deployment information regarding American forces.

According to Slashdot, the following information has been put into the public domain by the Italian press.

* An itemization of IEDs and VBIEDs deployment techniques which have been most effective,

* An analysis of the tactical strengths and weaknesses of specific checkpoints along "Route Irish",

* Combat readiness assesment of the units and soldiers involved,

* A detailed description of how the checkpoint is laid out,

* Exact grid locations of various assets.

* Details of how checkpoint searches are set up and executed

* Details of how checkpoints are expected to deal with approaching vehicles, including threat assesment methods.

* A statistical analysis of "normal" traffic approaching the checkpoint.

* It names the soldiers involved and details the specific actions taken by those soldiers. It names the soldier who killed Calipari.

* It briefly describes U.S. Embassy procedures for transporting VIPs along Route Irish and in general.

* It details movement of U.S. and Italian Embassy personnel.

* It describes possible future procedures and configurations for checkpoints.

In other words, our putative Italian "allies" are all too willing to put into general circulation information that will make it easier for terrorists to conduct operations that could kill American military personnel and diplomats, Iraqi leaders and citizens, and foreign VIPs.

But I guess we shouldn't be surprised -- Old Europe's elite have always been against any action that brings freedom to oppressed people.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

Posted by: Greg at 09:09 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, I guess I'll be adding Bruce Springsteen to my personal boycott list.

Why?

Because of Springsteen's response to a shouted comment at his Glendale Arena concert in Phoenix, Arizona last night.

He ad-libbed a "That's right" after one audience member yelled "(Expletive) the president" at one point.

(Expletive) Springsteen!

That's right.

Posted by: Greg at 08:37 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that even I am shocked by the cynicism displayed in this article.

God does not side with the Republicans, Sen. John Kerry said in a fiery speech last week, accusing Republican leaders of politicizing religion to further their agenda.

This week, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy quoted Jesus from the Bible. It was a rebuttal, he said, of Republicans' claims that Democrats are “against people of faith.”

And Rep. John Olver, an Amherst Democrat, said he's considered buying an “anthology of good biblical quotations,” which he'd use to neutralize Republicans' religious references.

Am I the only one who thinks that Olver might do better to buy (and read) an actual BIBLE rather than an "anthology of good biblical quotations"?

And am I the only one put in mind of the Fourth Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew when Kennedy said that his ability to quote scripture is proof that Democrats are not "against people of faith"?

1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"
5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple,
6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"
8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
9 And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."
10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"
11 Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

Notice, please, that even the devil can quote Scripture. So, too, do these "Matthew 4 Democrats", if they think that it will further their agenda.

Posted by: Greg at 06:25 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

I liked John Cornyn when he was on the Texas Supreme Court. I supported Cornyn when he ran for Attorney General here in Texas, and think he did a great job in that office. And I gladly campaigned for him during his Senate run in 2002, and have had no regrets since then. But now his website gives me one more reason to like Cornyn's style. It's the new Name That Speaker feature, which provides anti-filibuster quotes from a number of amnesiac Democrats.

[Cornyn spokesman Don] Stewart has built an arsenal of quotes culled from 13 years of congressional records showing Democrats speaking out against the filibuster, which the minority party uses to slow down actions of the majority.

In Cornyn's game, quotes are posted on his Web site ( cornyn.senate.gov/namethatspeaker), and political Webheads guess who said them.

Stewart has about 60 quotes ready to go. The ones he used in the inaugural week were uttered by Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara Boxer of California, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Cornyn said the Web postings are "informative and use humor" to make a point.

So drop buy and view the best in Democrat arguments in favor of using the "constitutional option" to secure confirmation of judicial nominees supported by a majority of the US Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 03:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Can you believe this outrageous quote from has-been Democrat Mario Cuomo?

Cuomo, in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, said Senate Republicans "are threatening to claim ownership of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, hoping to achieve political results on subjects like abortion, stem cells, the environment and civil rights that they cannot get from the proper political bodies."

Uh, Mario, that has been the strategy of the liberals for the last half century or more. When the people and the political branches oppose a liberal article of faith, get the judges to impose it as a matter of unalterable "constitutional law." How do you think we got the most liberal abortion laws on the face of the earth? How do you think homosexual marriage and civil unions got into place? Liberals used courts to get them all, because "they cannot get [them] from the proper political bocies" without judicial coercion.

Posted by: Greg at 03:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.