We are counting down the seconds until it arrives -- that delisious Spring Break that we get every March! It falls right in the middle of RodeoHouston, and also gives me a day to work as Election Judge for the GOP primary on Tuesday without having to take one of my personal leave days. So we will be rodeoing and poll-working this coming week.

Just hope and pray that I survive Friday -- kids have been wild all week, and progress report grades are due before we leave.

* * *

This is, of course, my usual Weekend linkfest post.

You know how it works -- you link to this post and send a trackback, and your post will display here. So link away -- I won't set a maximum number of items you can link with here, but I would hope that you would consider exercising prudent judgement on the matter. No porn, please, and no advertising -- just interesting stuff.

So come on, folks -- Cowboy Up!

Posted by: Greg at 06:25 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Andrew Saraf, one of the students involved in the Maryland "Peace Studies" course controversy, has graciously accepted my invitation to write a guest piece for Rhymes With Right on the issue. I think you will see there are some interesting differences between how the story is reported and what he has to say about the course and his suggestions.

The reaction to Sunday's Washington Post article, in particular the critical reaction to the views I expressed therein, seem to consist of two main charges. The first is that we are conservatives, or Republican "chickenhawks" as one blogger put it, bent on the removal of liberalism from the classroom. In other words, we are witch-hunters. This is absolutely erroneous. First of all, Avishek and I are not conservatives. Avi has described himself as being quite liberal, and I consider myself to be a very traditional liberal with a skeptical take on many of the ideas that have come out of liberalism since the 1960s. Avi and I are also not on any "witch hunt" against those with certain political ideologies. My mother is a teacher; I therefore have a pretty clear understanding of the fact that teachers are human beings with political views. A certain degree of bias is to be expected in any classroom lecture. The difference is that Peace Studies is a class whose very mission is biased. Mr. McCarthy has in the last few days said such things as this: "People say, 'You don't give the other side.' And I say, 'You're exactly right'. " In classes sometimes disparagingly called 'traditional' or 'mainstream', bias is fought, and hopefully kept at a minimum. In Peace Studies, there is a resolute refusal to do so. And why? Or, at least, what is the stated reason for this? "This is the other side," Mr. McCarthy claims, to what we get elsewhere. Every other source of information has a conservative bias. In the meanwhile, as the class learned in a recent reading, we are "on a moving train", and "you can't be neutral". So the class, and its current practices, are based on two rather questionable assumptions: The first is that outside the class, the bias is a conservative one. The second is that neutrality is neither possible nor desirable because history is moving in one clear direction. The moment the existence of other points of view is acknowledged, these assumptions simply fall apart. We find that the liberals complain of a conservative bias, a "right-wing media", while the conservatives believe that the media and the public school system are controlled by left-wing radicals. Who is right? Is this issue settled? And as for the "moving train", in truth, we are not yet clear on what direction the train is moving in. What is the course of history? Who has defined it? Who has been responsible for the progress that has been made? Once again, these issues are not settled. But the class is taught as if they are. And that is the problem.

The second charge made against us is that, because we have not taken the class, we are in no position to speak on it or protest it. This is absolutely absurd. By that rationale, what has become a high visibility issue is in fact reserved to the select few who have had the privilege of being seniors at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School and the infinite wisdom and good judgment required to choose to take the class. This means that parents, bloggers, commentators and all those younger than 17 or 18 have no place in this debate. What I suggest is that we be more rational. Just as a parent with a son or daughter in the class has every right to discuss it, I feel that as a student who has done extensive research into Mr. McCarthy's educational philosophy, and who has spoken at length with a number of Peace Studies students, none of them with an "Anti-Peace Studies" agenda, I too have a right to engage in discussion about this issue. And my allegations, which were much more tentative at first, have only been further confirmed in the last few weeks. We asked a student and self-described supporter of McCarthy's whether he himself ever presented facts or positions that contradicted his own ideology. The answer was "no". Not once have I heard of statistics provided in the class that would support a conservative interpretation of the issues; but again and again I have heard impassioned talk by his students on the differences in the amount of money spent "on war" and "on the poor", and on the inequalities in the distribution of wealth in the world, and so on and so forth. The only opposing speaker that has been brought in (of the many speakers), as far as I have heard, has been a parent of one of the students. His cause? He supported animal testing. On every other issue, not one student of Mr. McCarthy's has been able to produce an example of someone brought in with an alternative view. I have asked them to do so a number of times.

And, of course, there is the inevitable invocation of the class' status as an elective. This is a very appealing argument to make, because Avishek and I can thus be cast as curmudgeons who just want to keep everyone else from having fun. The problem is that it ignores two fundamental facts: First of all, Montgomery County Public Schools has a duty to apply the same basic standards of educational quality to every class that is offered, whether the class is an elective or not. Among these standards is a recognition that the major issues of our time are not settled; political ideologies are not the equivalent of algebra or physics. Mr. McCarthy has said that not everyone believes in algebra, and that not everyone believes in physics, but that they are taught anyway, but to attempt to make a comparison between science and math and political beliefs is simply ridiculous. If a only one political ideology is being taught, the class should not be offered. The second fundamental fact is the nonexistence of an alternative. Peace Studies is a class tailored to liberal tastes. The 2nd period Peace Studies class, which we have visited, has only one or two Republicans in it. So the choice is between a political class that represents left-wing views or no political class at all. This could hardly be called a choice.

I would finally like to clarify my goals with this effort. Despite the Washington Post's unfortunate misstatements, Avi and I are not calling for the "banning" of the Peace Studies class. We recognize that certain aspects of the class are of value. But we believe that alternative lecturers must be brought in, individuals who would teach with Mr. McCarthy on alternating days. That way, both sides will be presented, while the unconventional nature of the experience is preserved. In spite of what some of our critics have said, this does not mean that students will also be "taught war" or "taught violence". It simply means that more than one narrow view of peace will be presented. Most political ideologies, and surely almost all Americans, 'believe in peace'. The question is how peace is to be achieved and approached. There is more than one way, and students should be taught as such.

Frankly, I think Andrew's position is a reasonable one. The class appears to be a propaganda course, with rather nebulous academic standards. I understand that the major requirement for an A is respiration and attendance -- making this an attractive "gut course" for students seeking to inflate a GPA, which really makes it a sort of academic fraud. In a manner not dissimilar to the clown in Colorado, McCarthy is using the classroom as a pulpit from which to preach.

And Andrew's response to the "it's an elective" argument is most important. In the setting of a taxpayer-funded, government-run school, every citizen has a voice. The notion that nobody except the handful of kids in the class has a right to comment is, dare I say it, unAmerican.

Most importantly, Andrew and Avi are proposing a solution to the problem. While I don't know that the structure proposed above is a workable one, it indicates a desire to mend a course that could have merit, rather than simply sweep it aside. Andrew offers compromise, not a hardened position from which he to advocate reform -- a much tougher position than the extreme position ascribed to him and Avi.

Oh, and Andrew confirms something I suspected after I did a Google search on him the other day -- he is no conservative, and no ideologue. I found information on him at his home congregation's website (I won't disclose it -- do the legwork if you must), and can assure you that he comes from a spiritual/philosophical tradition that is a world away from the religious right. I suspect that most of the members of the congregation would disagree with him -- yet at the same time be quite proud of his actions and integrity in raising the issue. Well done, young man, and thank you for taking the time to enlighten us all.

Other Voices: Michelle Malkin, Thunder Run, Dread Pundit Bluto, Pillage Idiot, Cranky Professor, Elephants in Academia, Hello, MoCo

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1572 words, total size 10 kb.

Will this development drain the Pro-Abortion voters from Pro-Life (at least for a) Democrat Bob Casey?

A prominent abortion-rights activist, Kate Michelman, said this week she is considering running as an independent in the race for the seat held by Sen. Rick Santorum.

Santorum, the No. 3 Senate Republican, and his leading Democratic opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, have both said they are opposed to abortion. Casey upset some Democrats when he said he supported the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Michelman, the past president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, splits her time between Washington and central Pennsylvania. She said some women's rights activists have asked her to run.

"It is more about them wanting to express great frustration," Michelman said.

Casey is leading Santorum in the polls. His campaign released a statement saying, "Democrats are stronger when we work together on the many issues where we have common ground, and Bob Casey looks forward to doing that in the U.S. Senate."

A Kate Michelman candidacy may be a real gift for the incumbent.

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

I tread softly when it comes to politics in my classroom – the venom is saved for this blog.

My students know – generally – what my politics are, because as a social studies teacher I sometimes discuss current events along with history. But when I give opinions, I always label them as such, and I try to offer a rough balance in the discussion (including being the “devil’s advocate” for the side I disagree with if there isn’t a kid who can do it).

I cannot ever imagine doing this.

An Overland High School teacher who criticized President Bush, capitalism and U.S. foreign policy during his geography class was placed on administrative leave Wednesday afternoon after a student who recorded the session went public with the tape.

In the 20-minute recording, made on an MP3 player, teacher Jay Bennish described capitalism as a system "at odds with human rights." He also said there were "eerie similarities" between what Bush said during his Jan. 28 State of the Union address and "things that Adolf Hitler used to say."

The United States was "probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth," Bennish also said on the tape.

Bennish, who has been part of Overland's social studies faculty since 2000, did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday. Cherry Creek School District officials are investigating the incident, but no disciplinary action has been taken, district spokeswoman Tustin Amole said.

Bennish was placed on leave "to take some of the pressure off of him" during the investigation, which could wrap up in a week, Amole said.

I’ve got to tell you – at my school this guy would need a couple weeks off to get relief from the crap the rest of his colleagues would give him. We’re about 75% conservative, and even our socially liberal gay colleague is a Navy vet with somewhat hawkish views on foreign and military affairs. Personally, I’d be inclined to fire him for his abuse of his position, and I believe my colleagues would agree. Our objection would be his obvious ignorance and his polemical presentation, not the position he took.

Michelle Malkin has a transcript of the rant (audio here) that certainly would support terminating Bennish for cause.

Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.

Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!

What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

Make sure you get these definitions down.

Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.

Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.

Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.

There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!

0345.

[Pause.]

I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.

Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.

0452

...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!

0530.

Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.

The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.

Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.

Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.

So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]

0625.

Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?

This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!

He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.

0759.

Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.

I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?

0841

Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.

We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.

What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!

0950.

*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*

Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?

1007

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.

If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Allen: So, you're saying the United States has the intention to kill innocent people?

Now my basis for supporting a termination is NOT his politics. Rather, the problem comes down to the one-sided preaching of a particular ideology at students -- and one which contains repeated and obvious misrepresentations of historical facts. He was not educating his students, he was misinforming and indoctrinating them. What I do not object to is his detour into current events and government -- assuming the social studies standards in Colorado are similar to those in texas, there is a component of the standards that requires all social studies teachers to include relevant current issues and events in the course. The State of the Union address was therefore an appropriate topic -- his methods were the problem.

On the other hand, there are a couple of interesting little wrinkles here that struck me. The one is the use of the MP3 recorder. That would be forbidden at my school, under the policy forbidding the use of cell phones, CD players, radios and MP3s during the day. I wonder if the kid faces any sanctions for having brought and used the device to record the class.

The second involves Dad going to the media with the recording. I almost always oppose parents doing this, absent an immediate and serious threat to the physical well-being of the students. I suspect that this situation could have been resolved quickly without going to Mike Rosen, by a phone call to the principal or the superintendent. Heck, a call to a couple of school board members would have even been appropriate. Stay in the chain of command, folks, and try to resolve the situation there. Calling the press, especially as the first step, is like calling a lawyer – the result may be what you want, but it sets a bad precedent.

MORE AT Slapstick Politics, The Malcontent, North American Patriot, Sister Toldjah, Blogmeister USA, Independent Conservative, Hoodathunk, Conservative Thinking, Moonage Political Webdream, Right Wing Howler, Wizbang, Defiance, Colorado Democrat, Bluto, Flynn Files, Mike's America, Flynn Files, Mike's America, Rhodey, Hashmonean, Portia Rediscovered, Junkyard Blog, Machine Overlords, Stop The ACLU, Dad's Corner, Radioactive Liberty, Donkey Stomp, Iowa Voice, Moderate Conservative, Education Wonks, Median Sib, Jawa Report, Blogs for Bush

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Blue Star, customer servant, Bacon Bits, Don Surber, Jo's Cafe, Basil's Blog, Mental Rhinorrhea, Right Wing Nation, Freedom Watch, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 03:24 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 2529 words, total size 19 kb.

Would someone tell this arrogant woman that President Bush won the elections of 2000 and 2004 – and that there is no constitutional basis for his blocking the nomination of a judge out of a fit of pique.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California announced Wednesday she will block the nomination of an Idaho judge to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because she contends the seat should go to someone from California.

Feinstein, a Democrat, made the announcement during 6th District Judge Randy Smith's nomination hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington.

Smith was picked by President Bush in December to replace Judge Stephen Trott, who moved to Idaho from California after his appointment to the court in 1988. Trott declared senior status in December 2004, meaning he will take a much lighter caseload. Since then, Idaho has not had an active judge on the court.

Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said the seat should go to a California judge because tradition holds that judgeships remain in the same state. They have been protesting since last March after they learned the seat was promised to Idaho.

"To allow a judge's personal choice of where to live to change the allocation of future Court of Appeals sets a dangerous precedent," Feinstein told the Judiciary Committee. "As this nomination ignores the judicial needs of the 9th Circuit and the state of California, I must oppose it, and I intend to place a hold upon this nomination."

In other words, Dianne Feinstein believes that Idaho is not entitled to any judges on the 9th Circuit – California is just too important. It is time to go nuclear on this nomination, as it is the clearest case of obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism.

Oh, and by the way – no more nominees from California. Fill every California judgeship with out-of-staters. After all, payback is a bitch -- and so is Senator Feinstein.

MORE AT Sensible Mom, Idaho Times, Idaho Examiner, Confirm Them

Posted by: Greg at 03:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

On a comment thread on another blog, a leftard accused me of having bought into a philosophy of cultural supremacy.

Dana Garrett Says:
February 26th, 2006 at 10:39 pm

Nice try, Rhymes. All one need to do is go to your site and see all those posts about the evil Muslims to see that you have already been recruited by supremacist views.

And also here.

Dana Garrett Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 1:18 am

* * *

Oh, I have read your diatribes against Muslims. There is no doubt that you are a cultural supremacist.

IÂ’ve let that accusation sit for a while, so that I could reflect upon it.

I’ve come to realize that he is right – my statements on Islam do clearly show that I believe Western culture – especially as expressed in America – to be superior to the culture prevalent in the Muslim world.

When I compare the religious freedom and tolerance of this country to the oppression and dhimmitude prevalent in the Muslim world, I find American freedom to be superior.

When I look at the relatively unfettered speech and press rights of our country and the limits placed on these fundamental rights in the Muslim world, I find American liberty to be superior.

When I consider the relative equality of the sexes in America and the chador/burqa/abaya-clad chattel who are subject to so-called “honor killings”, I find American culture to be superior.

In fact, I cannot find anything in Muslim culture that is superior to its Western (especially in its American form) counterpart – a reality I can trace back at least five or six centuries.

If that makes me a "cultural supremacist", then I gladly plead guilty to the accusation.

But then again, maybe that does not make me a “cultural supremacist”. Maybe that just makes me someone with common sense and a love of freedom -- and, to use a word which is anathema to folks like my accuser, a patriot..

Posted by: Greg at 03:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

Must every situation turn into a lawsuit – and must the claims be so expansive?

A woman filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging a Chicago steakhouse was negligent when it served her a salad in which an olive still contained a pit.
Michelle Brass filed the suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Gibsons LLC and Mykonos Import-Export Inc.

Brass was eating a salad at Gibsons on April 10, 2004, when she bit into an olive, striking her tooth on the it, causing herself pain and injuries, the suit claims. The menu showed the salad contained pitted olives, the suit claims. Due to her biting into the pit, Brass claims she had to pay for medical care and miss work.

The suit alleges Gibsons placed a defective and unsafe product in the salad, allowed the pit to be served inside the salad, and failed to properly inspect the product prior to serving. Mykonos was accused of importing a defective and unsafe product. The suit seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

Let’s see here – surely there is (or was in the past) a better way of dealing with such injuries. Business owners would pay legitimate bills for legitimate injuries, and either absorb the cost or submit it to insurance. I’m willing to bet that some such offer was made by Gibsons, if only for the benefit of PR. I don’t doubt that Mykonos would have done the same.

But “importing a defective and unsafe product”? I think that everyone recognizes that, every now and then, an olive pit is going to be missed in the pitting process and make it into the can or jar. That isn’t a defect – and pits in olives hardly make olives “unsafe”.

Sounds to me like Ms. Brass and her lawyer are out to make a quick buck out of what is really nothing more than an accident. And if the restaurant and he manufacturer were reckless or negligent in their conduct, couldnÂ’t the same be said of Ms. Brass, who obviously failed to exercise reasonable care in her consumption of the salad?

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Last week, the president made the following challenge.

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.”

This leads Michael Reagan to respond as follows.

All of this begs the only legitimate question that can be posed by this deal: is it in the interests of the security of the American people? If it is, the deal is acceptable. If itÂ’s not, we ought to run away from it as if it were a case of bird flu.

Unfortunately, ReaganÂ’s response ignores the PresidentÂ’s point.

The deal was reviewed and approved under the normal standards applied to such transactions. The determination was hat there was no significant degradation of American security. As a result, the purchase was approved.

It seems to me that the “legitimate question” has been answered. Unfortunately for Michael Reagan, Michelle Malkin, and a host of other conservatives who I respect (and a whole bunch of liberals who I don’t), the answer of those with the power to make the decision and with the access to information that makes their judgment valid is different from the conclusion of the knee-jerk opponents of the deal. Disagreement on the outcome is not “begging the question.

Now, folks, since your question has been answered, why don’t you offer a coherent answer to the President’s challenge – why hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a European country? Any answer that boils down to “because they are Arabs/Muslims, just like the 9/11 hijackers” supports the contention of Grover Norquist (with whom I’ve rarely agreed, going back to his days running the College Republican national Committee).

"The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots."

IÂ’m hoping that my fellow conservatives, with whom I respectfully disagree on this issue, can start to provide answers that prove themselves to be better than NorquistÂ’s jibe paints them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.

What can i say -- Trisha Yearwood has one of the most beautiful voices in country music. Sadly, the Ash Wednesday night crowd was quite sparse -- so sparse that there was no announcement of attendance figures over the PA system in Reliant Stadium.

Perhaps the only disappointment of the evening was the announcement Trisha made early in the show -- "Sorry folks, he's not here. The laundry was really pining up so I made him stay home to do it." So much for the chance to hear her do the beautiful duet with her new hubby, Garth Brooks.

Rodeo performances were fantastic as well, with http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/rodeo/3695257.html">a new arena record being set in Barrel Racing by the lovely Lynn Brown.

The Chronicle's RodeoBlog talks about carnival food -- in particular, about Fried Oreos (let's not even get into the fat content there!)

Tickets are still available for the Rodeo and concert -- Melissa Etheridge, filling in for the ailing Sheryl Crow. The Rodeo has, appropriately, declared this to be Breast Cancer Awareness Night, so wear pink if you can.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

I want to be President

Seriously -- and I need your help.

You probably wonder what is up -- have I finally lost my mind?

Actually, no.

I'm playing the game associated with Prayers for the Assassin, the new book by Robert Ferrigno

I'm running under my old college radio handle, Tony Scott.

What can you do.

Click a link, and then click to give me the highest possible donation -- $10,000 (So much for McCain-Feingold). The more I raise, the more likely I will win.

So make the right choice -- and shudder at the thought that any such world could ever come to pass.

Vote for Tony Scott!

Posted by: Greg at 05:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 2 kb.