He is “traveling abroad”. I’d be surprised if he bothers returning to the country.

A fundraiser and political confidant of Gov. Rod Blagojevich missed his arraignment Friday on federal charges that he swindled investors and used fraud to get a $10 million loan.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, 51, was traveling overseas but intends to return to face the charges next week, defense attorney Joseph J. Duffy told U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel.

Wednesday's indictments caught the real estate and fast food entrepreneur by surprise, Duffy told the judge.

"I spoke with him this morning and he told me that he was aware of his obligation as a citizen, and he was prepared to meet that obligation," Duffy said. The judge continued the arraignment to next Thursday.

The attorney said Rezko also would miss a court appearance later Friday on separate charges that he and millionaire campaign contributor Stuart Levine plotted to shake down investment firms seeking state business for kickbacks.
Duffy told reporters he did not know Rezko's exact whereabouts.

Prosecutors had said after the two indictments were unsealed that Rezko, of suburban Wilmette, could be considered a fugitive if he failed to show up for his arraignment. An arrest warrant was issued earlier this week.

Given the level of corruption endemic in the Illinois Democrat Party, the shakedowns and kickbacks of which Mr. Rezko is accused are no surprise. Starting with the Chicago machine and oozing on Downstate, there is a long history of such shenanigans among Democrats in the state. Indeed, that is why the state went over two decades without electing a Democrat as governor – and why the GOP refused to stand behind former governor George Ryan when his illegal conduct was uncovered.

My question is when the indictment of Blagojevich will be handed down.

Posted by: Greg at 12:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

That seems to be the strategy of Ronnie Earle in the Tom DeLay case. After all, how else can you explainthe fact that only a few hundred dollars of expenses related to the Tom DeLay investigation were reported prior to the indictment of the former GOP congressman, while tens of thousands were reported afterwards?

Weeks before Texas Republican Tom DeLay resigned from Congress, five of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's staffers traveled to Washington, D.C., and pursued their investigation of DeLay at a cost of more than $40,000.

The expenditures, made six months after DeLay was indicted by a grand jury that heard evidence presented by Earle's staff, are documented in records obtained by the Houston Chronicle on Thursday. Under open records law, the newspaper had asked for material on the cost of the probe.

Rosemary Lehmberg, a top Earle deputy, said Thursday that Earle's team traveled to Washington from Austin to interview witnesses in preparation for DeLay's trial, which is still pending.

Almost all the spending for the investigation of DeLay was made only after he was indicted in September 2005, according to the records.

Of the $41,103 that Earle's office said reflected all the money spent pursuing the case, only $313 was documented before the indictment. Yet Earle's probe of DeLay began in February 2003.

Lehmberg said it is possible some of the expenses, such as a $3,000 fee for transcribing witness statements, involved witnesses interviewed before DeLay was indicted and that the transcripts were produced afterward.

Oh, and by the way, Earle refuses to disclose how he is spending the public's money for nearly half his expenses related to the case. I gues that we, the little people, just ae not entitled to know how he pissed-away $19,000.

Ronnie Earle -- unethical by any definition.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

It is a sign of two things -- the lack of a substantive platform and the desire to win at any cost. The Democrats have decided that if they cannot win on substance, they can just dig up dirt -- real or imagined -- on their opponents.

In the wake of the Mark Foley page scandal, Democrats are targeting the personal lives of Republicans in numerous key House races as part of a campaign to capitalize on voter disgust with the messy personal lives and alleged character defects among elected officials.

Although Democrats' internal polling shows that the Foley scandal is resonating deeply only in half a dozen races, party operatives are calculating that GOP candidates are now unusually vulnerable to personal attacks, several candidates and strategists said.

Opponents are questioning how one candidate tried to pick up women in a bar. Another wants to raise allegations of violence against a fomer girlfriend that were investigated by the police and found lacking. Still another wants to focus on a three-decade-old DUI and a car accident years later. None of the charges are particularly relevant to the race in which they are being raised, but instead show a desperation and a desire to sink into the mud as a strategy for victory.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been trying to sort through Harry Reid's confusing financial disclosure scandal for the last couple of days. I'm still trying to get a handle on all of the details, but have come to a conclusion similar to that of the Washington Post.

THE BEST CASE for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is that he was sloppy about financial disclosure rules in accounting for a real estate deal on which he made a $700,000 profit. The more unattractive case is that the senator's inaccurate description of the investment was an effort to disguise his partnership with a Las Vegas lawyer who's never been charged with wrongdoing but whose name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery since the 1980s. As of now, the evidence points toward sloppiness; Mr. Reid's friendship with Jay Brown isn't exactly a secret in the state. But either way, an Associated Press report about Mr. Reid's dealings doesn't cast the senator in an attractive light. Neither does his response to the AP story, which indicates a casual disregard for the importance of accurate reporting of lawmakers' financial affairs.

The real problem here is not necessarily the deal itself -- it is the cover-up. Why hang up on a reporter who calls asking questions? Why attack teh integrity of those who raise questions about the deal? Why not simply issue amended financial disclosure materials? By failing to act, Harry Reid created an appearance of impropriety where I and others would have been willing to let the matter go. Instead, like any number of perceived financial irregularities by politicians on both sides of the aisle, we are forced to look more closely for wrongdoing where there may not be any.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Does religious tolerance dictate silence about those things that a faith says may not be discussed? Does the freedom to speak critically about historical figures, theology, and uncomfortable truths endure even when such speech offends religious believers? That is an issue that is being faced today in France, and in much of the Western world.

Most, I suspect, would agree that murders, looters, polygamists and such deserve little respect. Why then cannot there be an honest debate over whether Mohammed was -- as M. Redeker alleges -- a "merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist"? Simply because Islam allows of no debate when it comes to Allah, his prophet, and his word. And the French government is fine with that.

That's where provocateurs like M. Redeker come in. Redeker is simply trying to kick-start that debate, even at the price of his own hide. That takes guts, I think, something the French politicians lack. And something Muslim intellectuals like Prof. Tariq Ramadan, the French university lecturer, cannot comprehend. Ramadan ominously warned M. Redeker that he can write what he likes, "but he must know what he wanted -- he signed a stupidly provocative text."

It is clear, in the case of Tariq Ramadan, that those who speak uncomfortable truths or dare to critically examine things held sacred by some believers deserve to be attacked verbally and physically – and indeed have chosen a course to action that merits such assaults and even death. Strangely enough, Ramadan does not extend his crabbed view of freedom to those who, like himself, espouse the hateful teachings of jihadi Islamism. After all, he is currently suing in a federal court demanding that he be allowed to travel to the US to take a position at a major university, and makes the claim that a denial of a visa is illegitimate because it is based upon a desire to censor his views. Perhaps we simply need to clarify to this Islamist swine that until he learns to respect the rights of non-Muslims to speak negatively about Islam (or any other religion), he is not welcome on our continent.

Posted by: Greg at 09:24 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

Am I the only one troubled by this “culture of surveillance” that is developing in too many pats of the country?

Security and terrorism won't be an issue if Chicago wins the right to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games because, by that time, there'll be a surveillance camera on every corner, Mayor Daley said Wednesday.

"By the time 2016 [rolls around], we'll have more cameras than Washington, D.C. ... Our technology is more advanced than any other city in the world -- even compared to London -- dealing with our cameras and the sophistication of cameras and retro-fitting all the cameras downtown in new buildings, doing the CTA cameras," Daley said.

"By 2016, I'll make you a bet. We'll have [cameras on] almost every block."

Now how, exactly, will these cameras be used? Will they be strictly limited to providing evidence of crimes for investigatory purposes? Will they be monitored and reviewed looking for offenses – and will such monitoring be for major crimes of revenue enhancing offenses? Or will they be a surveillance tool – which, given the Chicago Police Department in monitoring political dissent, could mean that those whose views offend the powers that be could have their movements monitored and documented with staggering consequences.

Posted by: Greg at 09:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

And, as usual, they are bad for the prosecution and its flimsy case.

he dancing partner of the woman who accuses three Duke Lacrosse players of raping her refutes a key part of her partnerÂ’s account of the alleged crime.

Kim Roberts, who danced at the same party where the alleged rape took place, makes the revelation in an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley this Sunday, Oct. 15, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Roberts' answer to BradleyÂ’s question directly contradicts a crucial statement the accuser gave to police. Bradley asks whether she, Roberts, who goes by the stage name "Nikki" when she performs, was holding onto the accuser at the beginning of the alleged crime.

Says Bradley, "In the police statement, [accuser] describes the rape in this way: 'Three guys grabbed Nikki,' 'That's you,'" says Bradley, "'Brett, Adam and Matt grabbed me. They separated us at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other. Bret, Adam and Matt took me into the bathroom.' Were you holding on to each other? Were you pulled apart?"

"Nope," replies Roberts, who says she was hearing this account for the first time.

Roberts also denies the accuser's statement to the police that after the alleged rape, Roberts came into the bathroom and helped one of the rapists dress her.

When pressed by Bradley about whether she saw signs of rape from the accuser, such as complaining about pain or a mention of an assault, Roberts says, "She obviously wasn't hurt...because she was fine."

Bradley's report also contains interviews with the three defendants, Collin Finnerty, Reade Selligmann and David Evans, all of whom proclaim their innocence, and others involved in the case.

It seems to me that, unless there is some bombshell information is ut there, DA Nifong needs to drop this case.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

One has to wonder, though, what the full story is.

Did the former governor recognize he can’t defeat Godzillary? Is there some family issue that takes precedence over political ambitions – or perhaps a potentially embarrassing revelation Warner wants to forestall. Or should we take his statement at face value?

Former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) announced this morning that he will not seek the presidency in 2008, saying he wants to spend more time with his family.

In a statement released shortly before his 11 a.m. press conference here, Warner said, "This has been a difficult decision, but for me, it's the right decision." He said he made up his mind after celebrating this father's 81st birthday in Connecticut and touring colleges with his oldest daughter.

"I know these moments are never going to come again. This weekend made clear what I'd been thinking about for many weeks -- that while politically this appears to be the right time for me to take the plunge -- at this point, I want to have a real life.

"And while the chance may never come again, I shouldn't move forward unless I'm willing to put everything else in my life on the back burner."

Maybe I’m a cynic, but I’m guessing that this is not all there is. After all, “spending more time with my family” is often a euphemism for “I’m trying to avoid a scandal.” But I hope that isn’t the case, because even while I disagree with Mark Warner on many issues, I have always had the impression that he was a decent guy – and I’m not so cynical that I wouldn’t like to see him be every bit as clean as he appears at first glance.

Posted by: Greg at 09:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that this is not at all out of line with the underlying intent of the Founders – not that government should be restricting the ownership and possession of firearms, but rather that they should be encouraging it as part of one’s duty as a citizen.

Say an earthquake snaps a dam and the full force of the Boise River floods the Treasure Valley, driving untold thousands toward high ground.

Or maybe the subdivisions spreading west from Boise finally push big-box, subwoofer, exit-ramp America right up to this plateau of mint and alfalfa fields, where rural lives have passed in peace since Quakers settled a century ago.

However humanity’s rush may arrive, a town must prepare. Greenleaf, population 862, is not taking the task lightly. Thus the proposed language for Section 2, Chapter 6, Subsection 2 of the Greenleaf City Code.

“Heads of households to maintain firearms,” the heading announces.

“In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants,” the proposal says, “it is recommended that every head of household residing in the city limits maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and obtain appropriate training relating to proper, safe and lawful handling of firearms.”

I’m for more guns in our society, not fewer. Today’s gun laws are destined to keep the law-abiding, responsible citizens of this country disarmed and vulnerable – both to the criminal class and the government. But Jeffersonian principles support the idea that the people should always be able to overpower a tyrannical government that has become destructive of their liberties, which has the side-benefit of enabling them to deal with those of their fellow citizens who would threaten their life, liberty, or property.

In the end, gun ownership is about ensuring self-reliance and not dependence on government.

Posted by: Greg at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that this is not at all out of line with the underlying intent of the Founders – not that government should be restricting the ownership and possession of firearms, but rather that they should be encouraging it as part of one’s duty as a citizen.

Say an earthquake snaps a dam and the full force of the Boise River floods the Treasure Valley, driving untold thousands toward high ground.

Or maybe the subdivisions spreading west from Boise finally push big-box, subwoofer, exit-ramp America right up to this plateau of mint and alfalfa fields, where rural lives have passed in peace since Quakers settled a century ago.

However humanityÂ’s rush may arrive, a town must prepare. Greenleaf, population 862, is not taking the task lightly. Thus the proposed language for Section 2, Chapter 6, Subsection 2 of the Greenleaf City Code.

“Heads of households to maintain firearms,” the heading announces.

“In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants,” the proposal says, “it is recommended that every head of household residing in the city limits maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and obtain appropriate training relating to proper, safe and lawful handling of firearms.”

I’m for more guns in our society, not fewer. Today’s gun laws are destined to keep the law-abiding, responsible citizens of this country disarmed and vulnerable – both to the criminal class and the government. But Jeffersonian principles support the idea that the people should always be able to overpower a tyrannical government that has become destructive of their liberties, which has the side-benefit of enabling them to deal with those of their fellow citizens who would threaten their life, liberty, or property.

In the end, gun ownership is about ensuring self-reliance and not dependence on government.

Posted by: Greg at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm not a fan of video games. I don't play them, and haven't done so with any regularity since the days of video arcades, featuring Space Invaders Tempest and Frogger. So I really don't have any knowledge about the game Bully. But I find the implications of this suit and the possible outcome to be quite disturbing.

The Bully is taking a beat-down. Game publisher Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. was ordered to demonstrate an upcoming video game titled "Bully" for a judge to determine whether it violates Florida's public nuisance laws. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Ronald Friedman issued the order yesterday.

The move is a major coup for conservative Miami attorney Jack Thompson, known for his crusades against pornography and obscene rap music, and now the video game industry. He claims that the makers of the game have designed a "Columbine simulator" in Bully, which follows the life of a prep school student as he navigates the social ladders of a fictional school called Bullworth Academy.

Thompson filed the lawsuit a month ago, claiming that the game would violate Florida's public-nuisance laws, which are more typically used to prosecute environmental polluters. Besides Take-Two, the suit also names retailers Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and GameStop Corp.

"My view is that the game potentially impinges on public safety," he said. "I'm pretty sure that the game is harmful to minors."

Since the game has not been released yet, how does this idiot lawyer know that it is a "Columbine simulator", And even if it were a "shooting gallery" game set in the halls of a high school, would that make any difference from a First Amendment standpoint? After all, if the game is a public nuisance, what about movies, television shows, and music that glorify certain sorts of anti-social behavior. Might a judge be able to declare them to be a "public nuisance" subject to special regulations or outright bans, the guarantees of the US Constitution notwithstanding? Heck, I could see lawsuits declaring certain religious groups to be a "public nuisance" because of their unpopular or "intolerant" (read that "in accordance with traditional Christian teaching") teachings constituting a threat to others

A better move, from my point of view, would be to declare Jack Thompson, the lawyer in this case, to be a public nuisance, to strip him of his license to practice law, and to forbid him to file any future lawsuits seeking censorship of others.

After all, if you don't like the game then don't buy it and don't allow your kids to buy it. I realize that some folks have a real problem with such radical concepts of personal responsibility over government regulation, but it strikes me as much more important from the standpoint of balancing individual liberty over government power.

Posted by: Greg at 10:29 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

But hey, at least he didn't send anyone a creepy email. And I'd love to know why the GOP is not all over this scandal.

With all the Democrats screaming about Mark Foley, we wonder why there's hardly a peep from Republicans about Dean P. Proffitt.

DebbieSchlussel.com has learned that Proffitt--the indicted chief of a Missouri Trucking School----is THE Democratic candidate for the Missouri House of Representatives from Missouri's 151st District. As we reported in September, Proffitt was indicted because, as superintendent of the South Central Career Center Truck Driver Training School in West Plains, Missouri, his school provided answers for the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Test to Muslim students seeking to fraudulently pass the test and seek CDLs and Hazardous Materials hauling certificates.

A whopping 60% of those taking the CDL test at Proffitt's trucking school were Muslims, who'd traveled from all over the U.S. and the world to take the test specifically at the school. That's because his school enabled Muslims to cheat. Some never even attended classes and can't drive trucks. As we reported yesterday, there has already been one fatality linked to a Muslim driver from the school, the killing of an Oklahoma State Trooper. True to the phonetics of his surname, Dean Proffitt apparently cared more about making a profit than America's security.

So let's get this straight. This guy is under indictment for enabling hundreds of folks to fraudulently get a CDL -- which makes it possible for a potential terrorist to create and transport an 18-wheel truck-bomb. Not only that, but one of his alums who obtained his license fraudulently recently murdered an Oklahoma state trooper. But nobody is saying anything about it? Why is this not a serious scandal?

H/T Debbie Schlussel

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

“Professional queers” like Mike Rogers tell us that homosexuals have a right to be left alone, and to reveal their sexual orientation in their own time and own way – or not at all.

But that rule doesn’t apply to homosexuals who dare to engage in the heresy of independent thought and deviation from the political orthodoxy of the “gay rights” movement.

Homosexual activist Mike Rogers said he will reveal the identities of homosexual Republicans on Capitol Hill each day "for hypocritically opposing gay rights for political reasons when they themselves are gay."

But according to Rogers, who runs a web log called BlogActive.com, he's "reporting on hypocrisy," not "outing them."

"The right wing of this country is so out of control beating up gay people," Rogers told Cybercast News Service on Tuesday.

Rogers named two congressional staffers who he believes had "a vested interest in protecting closeted men like former Republican Congressman Mark Foley so the majority can remain in power." One of those staffers left Capitol Hill earlier this year.

Rogers also blamed the Republican Party for pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment and the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

"It's [because of] those kinds of things that it's time to say 'enough, it's over,'" Rogers said. "Those who equate being gay with immorality will be surprised just how diverse the House Republican Caucus is when it comes to sexual orientation.

"The party is over for these guys who think they can be gay and beat up gay people, and there are a lot of them in the Republican Party," Rogers added.

In other words, homosexuals are only as free to exercise their political rights as the “queer mafia” like Rogers are willing to permit them to be. If they don’t hew the right (or is that “left”?) political line, they lose what we keep being told is an essential right.

It rather makes me wonder if folks Rogers and his ilk are behind the Foley scandal, outing him not because of his sex talk with a former page but because of his politics. After all, folks like Rogers still view Gerry Studds as a hero and a role model, even though he actually engaged in sex acts with a page while that boy was serving his internship. The difference (other than the fact that Studds’ actions were much more repulsive) is that Studds is appropriately “progressive” in his politics, while Foley was a conservative. Thus Studds was and is exempt from criticism while the activists seek to destroy gay Republicans because they dare to support conservative policies.

What moral midgets like Rogers fail to recognize is that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are significantly more tolerant of homosexuals than he is. We judge them based upon their individual behavior and character, not upon their adherence to the correct set of political beliefs. We don’t use their sexuality as a club to beat them into submission – that is the job for Mike Rogers in the other intolerant leftists of the gay no-rights movement.

And remember, this is not the first time Mike Rogers has attempted to intimidate gay conservatives.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.

But, of course, we wouldnÂ’t want folks to have to prove their identity and citizenship in order to register or vote, would we? That might make it even easier to detect fraudulent registrants.

St. Louis Election Board officials say they've discovered at least 1,492 "potentially fraudulent" voter registration cards - including three from dead people and one from a 16-year-old - among the thousands pouring in before today's voter registration deadline for the Nov. 7 election.

City Republican elections director Scott Leiendecker said the board's staff expects to find even more bogus voter-registration applications among the thousands remaining to be processed. The board plans to turn all the questionable cards over to city Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce for investigation and possible prosecution, said board chairman Kimberley Mathis.

The board says all the questionable cards were turned in by one group - the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, commonly known as ACORN.

Brian Mellor, the group's election counsel, said that it welcomed any prosecutions of workers who turn in fraudulent cards. "We try very hard to monitor the employees, but there are chances of things slipping through," he said.

My buddy Dan keeps telling me that he is unaware of any history of voter fraud in Missouri – maybe this will stick in his memory next time we talk about requiring the same sort of identification necessary to get a passport or cash a check.

And is anyone else struck by the fact that fficial">once again it is ACORN that is the source of hundreds of fraudulent registration cards? They have a history of this sort of stuff around the nation whenever they run voter registration drives. Think we could get a RICO prosecution over this issue?

Posted by: Greg at 10:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

This declaration from international HIV expert marginally talented actress Scarlett Johansonn tells us more about her morals and activities than about what responsible adults should be doing.

While most people have a dental check-up every six months, Scarlett Johansson has revealed that she has two HIV tests a year. She said it was "part of being a decent human to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases".

* * *

"I do think on some basic level we are animals and by instinct we kind of breed accordingly. But, as much as I believe that, I work really hard when I'm in a relationship to make it work in a monogamous way.

"I get tested for HIV twice a year. . . One has to be socially aware. It's part of being a decent human to be tested for STDs. It's just disgusting behaviour when people don't. It's so irresponsible."

No, most of us simply have sufficient self-control to keep needles out of our veins, keep our pants on, and stay in stable monogamous relationships. Those are the actions of decent human beings. Failure to engage in them is disgusting and irresponsible.

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, a ban on a symbol is a ban on a symbol -- even if the symbol is being mocked and deprecated.

Juergen Kamm, the owner of a small German mail-order business, makes a modest living fighting neo-Nazis. His firm sells sloganeering T-shirts, music albums and books as part of a campaign to rid the country of extremists. "Smash Fascism!" one hot-selling button urges.

Last week, however, a court in the city of Stuttgart ruled that under German law Kamm might as well be a Nazi himself. His crime? Selling items bearing swastikas, the Nazi symbol that has been forbidden here since the end of World War II.

Never mind that Kamm's company, Nix Gut, loosely translated as "No Good," displayed the swastika only inside a crossed-out circle or as part of other designs intended to impugn Nazis and their ilk. A panel of judges agreed with state prosecutors in Stuttgart that any reproduction of the symbol, no matter the context, risked making it socially acceptable again in Germany.

"The danger of familiarization is ever present," said presiding Judge Wolfgang Kuellmer. "In particular, this mass-market business risked undermining its taboo status."

I hate the swastika. I also hate the ubiquitous Che photo. But I wish that they are never banned -- because making them illegal just makes them attractive to a small segment of non-conformist, not just the moral midgets who accept the underlying philosophy.

Free speech is the key to killing malignant ideologies -- from Nazism to Communism to Islamism.

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

I've noticed this trend over the last few years -- many of my kids cannot use cursive writing and continue to print. Not only that, some don't even print well.

The computer keyboard helped kill shorthand, and now it's threatening to finish off longhand.

When handwritten essays were introduced on the SAT exams for the class of 2006, just 15 percent of the almost 1.5 million students wrote their answers in cursive. The rest? They printed. Block letters.

And those college hopefuls are just the first edge of a wave of U.S. students who no longer get much handwriting instruction in the primary grades, frequently 10 minutes a day or less. As a result, more and more students struggle to read and write cursive.

Many educators shrug. Stacked up against teaching technology, foreign languages and the material on standardized tests, penmanship instruction seems a relic, teachers across the region say. But academics who specialize in writing acquisition argue that it's important cognitively, pointing to research that shows children without proficient handwriting skills produce simpler, shorter compositions, from the earliest grades.

Scholars who study original documents say the demise of handwriting will diminish the power and accuracy of future historical research. And others simply lament the loss of handwritten communication for its beauty, individualism and intimacy.

I'd add one additional reason for the use of printing -- the increase in the number of foreign-born or first-generation Hispanic students. The Mexican education system teaches block printing -- to the point that students do written work on what in this country considers to be graphing paper, with one letter to the box. Studetns who started school south of the border learned that system, and the children of such immigrants are often taught that at home. The result is a shift in style.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

I mentioned new author Naomi Novik's series">series several weeks ago as one of my favorite new finds. Look's like Peter Jackson is interested in giving them the Lord of the Rings">Lord of the Rings treatment.

Naomi Novik has written three fantasy novels chronicling the Napoleon-era adventures of a swashbuckling ship captain and a heroic dragon named Temeraire who fight to rescue Britain from a French invasion.

Now she has a dramatic tale of her own: Geek Girl Makes Good.

Ms. Novik has just sold the film rights to all three of her books to Peter Jackson, the director of such blockbusters as “King Kong” and “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The deal has completed her ascent from a computer programmer to a virtually unknown writer to a newly minted member of a select group of authors — J. R. R. Tolkien among them — whose novels could receive the extravagant high-tech, big-budget Jackson treatment.

Sitting in the living room of the tidy Upper East Side apartment she shares with her husband, Charles Ardai, Ms. Novik, a petite, pale and bookish-looking 33-year-old, said she had always hoped her novels would catch Mr. JacksonÂ’s eye.

“I fantasized about Peter Jackson,” said Ms. Novik, surrounded by bookshelves crammed with “Star Wars” figurines and vintage toys that bring to mind the apartment of the lead character in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” “Before we ever sent the books to Hollywood, really, I was talking, we were joking with friends. Even my parents were saying, ‘Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the man who did ‘Lord of the Rings’ bought your books?’ ”

“I’m a big geek and a fangirl,” she said, referring to her penchant for fantasy fiction. “If you wanted to make a dragon movie, I would be incredibly excited about it, just for that. And if it’s mine, so much the better.”

It is nice to see science fiction and fantasy works going more and more mainstream instead of being treated like escapist fare for pimple-faced teenagers with no friends. Some of the best writing today is found in the genre, which is so much more than Star Trek and Star Wars.

By the way, to give you a quick taste of what reviewers are saying of Novik's work, I encourage you to look at this.

Reviewing her first novel, “His Majesty’s Dragon,” in The Washington Post, Rachel Hartigan Shea wrote that the book contained a “generous dollop of intelligent derring-do.” The Times of London called it “Patrick O’Brian crossed with Anne McCaffrey: historic, seafaring adventure, with dragons.”

And now, coming soo to a theater near you!

And speaking of Anne McCaffrey, when will we get a film or television adaptation of the Pern novels?

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 4 kb.

We hear of such moves from time to time -- will the Latin Mass be brought back as an option for the Catholic Church?

THE Pope is taking steps to revive the ancient tradition of the Latin Tridentine Mass in Catholic churches worldwide, according to sources in Rome.

Pope Benedict XVI is understood to have signed a universal indult — or permission — for priests to celebrate again the Mass used throughout the Church for nearly 1,500 years. The indult could be published in the next few weeks, sources told The Times.

Use of the Tridentine Mass, parts of which date from the time of St Gregory in the 6th century and which takes its name from the 16th-century Council of Trent, was restricted by most bishops after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

This led to the introduction of the new Mass in the vernacular to make it more accessible to contemporary audiences. By bringing back Mass in Latin, Pope Benedict is signalling that his sympathies lie with conservatives in the Catholic Church.

During my seminary days, i knew any number of my fellow seminarians and lay people who wanted to see the Tridentine Rite made more available, due to both an attachment to the Church of their youth and a respect for the history o the Church. This will help to satisfy those folks. It may also help to heal the rift between schismatic supporters of the Latin Mass and the Catholic Church. This seems like a measured, moderate move on the part of a Pope who seems most interested in bringing reasonable people of faith together, not dividing them.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, we get reports of Christian parents murdering their children because they want to leave the faith every day -- don't we?

A RELIGIOUS feud between a Muslim father and his teenage daughter may have sparked a bloody domestic dispute on Queensland's Gold Coast which left the man's wife dead and him fighting for life in hospital.

Police are investigating suggestions the violence erupted after the 17-year-old girl told her father she wanted to opt out of the Islamic faith and convert to Christianity. The girl's mother is believed to have stepped in to protect her daughter, only to be fatally stabbed with a kitchen knife.

Neighbours reported hearing "blood-curdling" screams before the hysterical girl ran half-naked from their Southport home unit covered in scratches.

Police later found the body of the girl's mother, 41, inside the blood-smeared unit. Her husband was taken to the Gold Coast Hospital with a stab wound to the chest. He was last night in a critical condition under police guard.

I've known parents who were sad or angry over the decision of a parent who chose to convert from Christianity to some other faith. But I've never met, or read about, a parent who tried to kill a child over that issue.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

Ken Silverstein of Harpers explains why he didnÂ’t run the Foley story months ago.

But interestingly enough, we should consider the reaction of several lefty websites.

Among those who received information about the story but declined to pursue it were liberal outlets such as Talkingpointsmemo.com, Americablog.com, and The New Republic (The Hill, Roll Call, and Time magazine also had the Foley story, though I'm not certain when it came to their attention.).

Excuse me – these reliably liberal websites and publications knew about the story but didn’t see fit to go public? Weren’t Josh Marshal and John Aravosis sufficiently concerned about the safety of the pages to publish the information on their site – or to turn the material over to the police or FBI? Shouldn’t they have known that these emails indicated serious predatory behavior? Or did they simply see emails that were creepy, inappropriate, and unprofessional, but not really indicative of anything more?

Or do they hold themselves to lower standards than they hold the House leadership?

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are "Peace" and War on an Autumn Afternoon by Gates of Vienna, and Observations on Arabs by Rants and Raves.  Here is a link to and to the full results of the vote.  Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 5 kb.

Of all the unmitigated gall!

First your try to prevent a speech by interrupting the speaker.

Then you rush the stage and unfurl banners, stopping the program.

You drive the speaker from the stage.

And when the college you attend seeks to punish you for violating the First Amendment rights of the speaker and his sponsors, as well as the academic freedom of the university community, you claim that you are the real victims!

The protesters who rushed the stage at Columbia University Wednesday night when the founder of a volunteer border-patrol group tried to speak are crying foul, asserting that they were the victims of the violence and that they should not be disciplined by the university.

After the students climbed onstage, overturning tables and chairs and causing mayhem, President Lee Bollinger called the students' disruption of the event "one of the most serious breaches of academic faith that can occur at a university."

"It is unacceptable to seek to deprive another person of his or her right of expression through actions such as taking a stage and interrupting the speech," Mr. Bollinger said in a statement, adding that "of course" the university is investigating the incident.

Three students who claimed responsibility for taking the stage and interrupting the speech by the border-patrol group known as the Minutemen held a press conference yesterday on Broadway outside the university. One of the students, Karina Garcia, the political chairwoman of the Chicano Caucus, said that she and her fellow protesters were the victims of a "massive campaign of vilification and demonization."

Flanked by members of the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism group and the National Lawyers Guild, which have rallied to the student protesters' cause, Ms. Garcia said,"We wanted the whole world to know that the Minutemen are racists who terrorize defenseless immigrant families" and that the protesters set out to "sabotage them."

In other words, the arrogant Ms. Garcia claims that she and her Leftist colleagues have the right to determine what views are acceptable and may be expressed on the campus of Columbia University. They claim the right to respond with violence to silence any view that they disagree with. That is typical of a totalitarian mindset. I won't even get into the inaccuracy of the characterization of the Minutemen, whose group includes members of all ethnic groups and is concerned with stopping the illegal crossing of our nation's borders, not the race of the border-jumpers.

In a reversal of standard accounts of Wednesday evening's events, Ms. Garcia said that when the protesters stormed the stage, they were attacked by the Minutemen and other students. "Shame on the administration for launching an investigation into peaceful protesters," she said. Ms. Garcia referred to video footage captured by the Spanish television network Univision that she said depicted the violence.The video shows students fighting over a banner that the protesters unfurled, but the violence to which Ms. Garcia said she was victim is not evident.

Ms. Garcia said that no disciplinary action had been taken yet. She nonetheless called on the public to send letters to Mr. Bollinger demanding that the investigation be halted. She said that he has already received over 3,000 such notes.

Student protesters attesting to the violence they said had been inflicted on them by the Minutemen followed Ms. Garcia at the podium. The student leader of the International Socialist organization, Monique Dols, said that the Minutemen's "violent backlash" was "in the same tradition of the attackers in Birmingham and Montgomery," referring to events of the Civil Rights era. Comparing the plight of illegal immigrants to that of blacks in the 1960s, Ms. Dols advocated for granting full rights to illegal aliens, noting, "Every movement for social justice has always been deemed untimely or too extreme. It's time for immigrant rights."

Ms garcia, what those who had reserved the stage and sponsored the talk were doing was defending themselves and their civil rights from a lawless mob intent on denying them their liberties as American citizens. Given the history of violent attacks upon defenders of American sovereignty by those who support immigration criminals, their actions were reasonable. You engaged in mob action, and they treated you like the violent gang you and your supporters proved yourself to be.

Ultimately, Ms. Garcia, you reveal yourself in one comment from the press conference.

Challenged by reporters to square her advocacy of free speech with her decision to take the stage at last Wednesday's event, Ms. Dols said, "The nature of these questions shows there's more concern for the Minutemen than for helpless illegal immigrants."

Damn straight -- we are much more concerned with preserving our nation and the rights and liberties enshrined in our Constitution than in allowing and assisting the violation of American law and American sovereignty. That comment proves that you place foreign law-breakers ahead of American citizens. You should be ashamed of yourself. Here's hoping that Columbia expels the lot of you.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 840 words, total size 5 kb.

I've got a Holocaust-deying troll who has been infesting my site for some time. He is an immoral, intellectually-deficient pseud-Christian hate-monger. But under no circumstance should he be considered a criminal for his holding and expression of a repugnant view that is contrary to the overwhelming weight of historical evidence.

A situation taking place in Europe now illustrates the folly of laws banning the publication of what the government decides is the only correct interpretation of historical evidence.

Turkey's painful progress towards European Union membership has been plunged into crisis by a dispute with the French over the massacre of Armenians during and after the 1914-18 war.

A Socialist-backed proposal, which could pass the National Assembly on Thursday, would make it illegal in France to deny that the killings amounted to genocide by Turkey.

The legislation, which has gained support from Right-wing assembly members, would see anyone denying that a genocide took place jailed for up to five years.

Armenians claim that as many as 1.5 million of their ancestors were killed between 1915 and 1923 in an organised campaign to eradicate them from eastern Turkey.

The Turkish government fiercely denies a genocide, saying that hundreds of thousands of Turks and Armenians died in a civil war.

Under Turkish law, it is illegal to accuse the state of genocide. Scores of Turkish writers and intellectuals who have debated the massacres publicly have faced prosecution under article 301 of the penal code, outlawing insults to "Turkishness".

The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, reacted with indignation to the French proposal, asking: "What would you do if the Turkish prime minister came to France and denied that the genocide had taken place? Arrest him?"

And therein lies the problem. Such an official, while clearly wrong about the history of his own nation, would not be a criminal in any moral sense -- merely deluded. After all, the documentary evidence is too strong -- including pictures of soldiers standing next to piles of severed heads of Armenian men, women and children.

But neither is the scholar who dares to present that evidence to document the grave evil that took place betwen 1915 and 1923 a criminal, for all of Turkey's attempt to punish those who dare to speak the truth about the murder of millions of Christian Armenians by Muslim Turks acting (for at least part of that time) on behalf of the religious government of the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

The study of history is not a crime. Stating one's conclusions should not be, either.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 3 kb.

So says Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, quoting US officials.

U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday.

U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.

"We're still evaluating the data, and as more data comes in, we hope to develop a clearer picture," said one official familiar with intelligence reports.

"There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives."

The underground explosion, which Pyongyang dubbed a historic nuclear test, is thought to have been the equivalent of several hundred tons of TNT, far short of the several thousand tons of TNT, or kilotons, that are signs of a nuclear blast, the official said.

The official said that so far, "it appears there was more fizz than pop."

A successful nuclear detonation requires a properly timed and triggered conventional blast that splits atoms, setting off the nuclear chain reaction that produces the massive explosions associated with atomic bombs.

Which means, of course, that the NorKs attempted to set off a nulear explosion, but that they failed to pull it off and instead got a blast far short of what they had anticipated.

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In her own words --Nancy Pelosi on the need for a missile defense program.

"The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile."

Really, Mrs. Pelosi?

There once existed a Democrat Party filled with men and women who supported a strong national defense. Except for Joe Lieberman, rejected by his own party, they are gone.

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

So not only does Mexico intend to continue violating American sovereignty by aiding its citizens as they illegally cross the border into the United States, now they want the UN to tell the United States it cannot act to stop the passage of these Mexicn citizens by building a fence inside the borders of the United States!

Mexico's foreign secretary said Monday the country may take a dispute over U.S. plans to build a fence on the Mexican border to the United Nations.

Luis Ernesto Derbez told reporters in Paris, his first stop on a European tour, that a legal investigation was under way to determine whether Mexico has a case.

The Mexican government last week sent a diplomatic note to Washington criticizing the plan for 700 miles of new fencing along the border. President-elect Felipe Calderon also denounced the plan, but said it was a bilateral issue that should not be put before the international community.

Derbez said Monday after meeting with French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy that it was a "shame" U.S. immigration policy had been used for what he claimed was a short-term political gain in the lead-up to midterm elections in the U.S. in November.

He said he discussed the issue with Douste-Blazy, and planned to bring it up in meetings with his Spanish and Italian counterparts during visits to Madrid and Rome. He vowed to work on the case until the "very last day" of President Vicente Fox's term, which ends Dec. 1.

The U.S. Senate approved the border fence bill last month and President Bush has said he will sign it into law - despite last-minute pleas from the Mexican government for a veto.

"What should be constructed is a bridge in relations between the two countries," Derbez said.

Well, that would mean we need to tell both Mexico AND the UN that they can go to hell. This is entirely an internal matter, not subject to UN interference according to the UN charter. No question of human rights is impacted here.

Of course, if the UN does order the US to stop building the fence and allow unfettered illegal immigration, they would have no reason to object when the 82nd Airborne chose to "illegally immigrate" to Mexico with the assistance of the US Air Force and the US demanded that the Mexican government accede to its demand that the Mexican authorities unconditionally surrender to the United States and submit to annexation.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

For national security reasons.

A MALE suspect in a major anti-terrorist investigation in Britain escaped capture by allegedly disguising himself as a Muslim woman dressed in a burka, The Times can reveal.

The man, who was wanted in connection with serious terrorist offences, evaded arrest for several days as police searched for him across the country.

The fact that a fugitive remained at large after disguising himself in an Islamic dress which covered his face will further fuel the debate sparked by Jack Straw, Leader of the House of Commons, about the wearing of the veil.

Details of the manÂ’s true identity were circulated to ports and airports to try to prevent him leaving the country.

He was eventually caught and is now one of more than 90 suspects in British prisons awaiting trial on terror charges.

The suspectÂ’s name and the detail of the offences he is accused of cannot be revealed because of the danger of prejudicing his forthcoming trial.

It is the first time that a male suspect has allegedly disguised himself as a Muslim woman in Britain. However, the tactic has been used frequently by Islamist fighters — including suicide bombers — in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, often dressed in a burka to evade American forces hunting him.

If it can be done there -- and it has been done elsewhere in the world -- then it can be done here. Such full face coverings are therefore a danger to national security and law enforcement.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

No doubt the Left will be wanting to cry "retaliation!" However, I think there is significantly less to this story than meets the eye.

The Navy lawyer who led a successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration's military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been passed over for promotion and will have to leave the military, The Miami Herald reported Sunday.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, will retire in March or April under the military's ``up or out'' promotion system. Swift said last week he was notified he would not be promoted to commander.

He said the notification came about two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with him and against the White House in the case involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was Osama bin Laden's driver.

``It was a pleasure to serve,'' Swift told the newspaper. He added he would have defended Hamdan even if he had known it would cut short his Navy career.

``All I ever wanted was to make a difference - and in that sense I think my career and personal satisfaction has been beyond my dreams,'' Swift said.

The Pentagon had no comment Sunday.

The problem with this story (by the anti-American Guardian) is that the promotion decision would have been made weeks before the Hamdan case was decided by the Supreme Court. There are only a limited number of promotion slots to captain available, particularly in the JAG Corps, and a lot of highly qualified attorneys seeking to make that next step. Much like we see each fall in the NFL when rosters are pruned, good men of talent and integrity do not make the cut and find themselves taking an unplanned career detour.

As my dad said to me some years ago when a friend's father retired under similar circumstances, such decisions are not a reflection on the man but are instead designed to make room for the next generation of officers coming up the ladder -- or else we would rapidly find the military full of 40-year-old lieutenants waiting for 60-year-old commanders and 70-year-old captains to die or retire. Military readiness dictates that we not allow such a situation to occur.

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

When the Dems get hammered by a member of the Washington Post editorial board, you know ther policy proposals really suck, where they exist at all.

If Democrats cared about poor women and minorities, they would be clamoring to reform Social Security. But instead they get a childish gratification out of stamping their feet and refusing to discuss the subject.

They can't muster the courage to block the suspension of habeas corpus. But when it comes to blocking entitlement reform, the Democrats ride out to battle.

I'm not saying that Republicans are at all better, and of course elections breed some policy timidity. But the infuriating thing about the Democrats is that, just a decade ago, they knew how to empathize with voters' economic insecurities without collapsing into irresponsibility; they combined attractively progressive social policies with sensible pro-market fiscal responsibility. Now many in the party have lost interest in this necessary balance. If the Democrats win a measure of power next month, it's hard to see what they will do with it.

In other words, at least the GOP, for all its current problems, is trying to do something. It is difficult to find an agenda among the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.

I suppose there are a number of questions here. What was the content of the messages? What did Kolbe -- an openly gay Republican -- do about them? Who has been holding on to these messages since that time? What are the motives for releasing them now? And why is the Washington Post showing more deference to their secrets than to those involving America's nationl security?

A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline.

Now this takes the date at which someone knew about the Foley problem back five years earlier -- but there is a problem. The Washington Post won't tell us what is in the messages in question.

A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.

In other words, the Washington Post knows what was in the messages, but we are expected to take it on faith that there is something improper about them. While the paper is prepared to spill national security secrets on the front page, it will hold back information needed for the American people to decide for themselves whether Kolbes actions were responsible or gross malfeasance. Neither will the Washington post share the source of their information with us, to permit us to assessits credibility -- or determine when the source knew of the emails and why that source did not come forward earlier. Also undisclosed is whether these messages have been shared with the House Leadership so that they can be investigated by the Ethics Committee -- or the authorities for criminal investigation.

Indeed, there are more questions than answers in this story -- and at least some of them need to be answered by the Washington Post.

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, the North Korean dictator has taken the dangerous and destablizing step of conducting a test of a nuclear weapon.

"The field of scientific research in the DPRK successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions on October 9, 2006, at a stirring time when all the people of the country are making a great leap forward in the building of a great, prosperous, powerful socialist nation.

"It has been confirmed that there was no such danger as radioactive emission in the course of the nuclear test as it was carried out under scientific consideration and careful calculation.

"The nuclear test was conducted with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 percent. It marks a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the KPA and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defense capability.

"It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it."

The test resulted in a 3.56 earth tremor that was measured in Seoul.

North Koreas neighbors and the world community had expressed concern in advance of the test.

The move came as Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe began a visit to South Korea focused on pressuring North Korea to drop its planned nuclear test, and on improving bilateral relations soured by historical issues.

Abe arrived from Beijing, where he and President Hu Jintao had expressed "deep concern" about the test plan and vowed to push for the resumption of stalled disarmament talks.

North Korea's October 3 announcement that it plans to test a nuclear bomb in response to what it called US military threats and sanctions, had sparked worldwide alarm and condemnation from the UN Security Council.

What will be the reaction of South Korea and Japan? Of Red China? Of the US?

UPDATE -- Some world reaction here.

Although North Korea has long claimed it had the capability to produce a bomb, the test was the first manifest proof of its membership in a small club of nuclear-armed nations. A nuclear armed North Korea would dramatically alter the strategic balance of power in the Pacific region and would tend to undermine already fraying global anti-proliferation efforts.

"If the test (is) true, it will severely endanger not only Northeast Asia but also the world stability," Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso warned.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, facing his first major foreign policy test since his recent election, called for a "calm yet stern response."

South Korea said it had put its military on high alert, but said it noticed no unusual activity among North Korea's troops.

China, the North's closest ally and the impoverished nation's main source of food, expressed its "resolute opposition" to the reported test and urged the North to return to six-party nuclear disarmament talks. It said the North "defied the universal opposition of international society and flagrantly conducted the nuclear test."

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair said the test was a "completely irresponsible act," and its Foreign Ministry warned of international repercussions.

The White House said a test defied world opinion.

"A North Korean nuclear test would constitute a provocative act in defiance of the will of the international community and of our call to refrain from actions that would aggravate tensions in Northeast Asia," Snow said.

Russia, which borders North Korea, had urged Pyongyang not to conduct a nuclear test. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov last week voiced concern about the environmental consequences for Russia. The Foreign Ministry warned that a test would add to regional tensions and undermine the international nuclear nonproliferation regime.

And the Washington Post offers this analysis which comes down to "It's all Bush's fault!" Ditto MSNBC/Newsweek, which blames sanctions against North Korea for forcing the pathetic dictator in Pyongyang to act. NY Times, shockingly, blames the Red Chinese.

Reaction from the blogosphere at Captain's Quarters, Stop the ACLU (twice), Blogs for Bush, Belmont Club

UPDATE II: Russia claims NorK nuke significantly larger than estimated by others.

Russia's defense minister said Monday that North Korea's nuclear test was equivalent to 5,000 tons to 15,000 tons of TNT.

That would be far greater than the force given by South Korea's geological institute, which estimated it at just 550 tons of TNT.

By comparison the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima during World War II was equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT.

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 732 words, total size 6 kb.

I've mentioned the 1980s page scandal and the anemic response of the Democrat controlled House of Representatives to the physical sexual misconduct with pages. Former Carter Administration official Joseph Califano, who headed the investigation, offers his defense of his work. I think it falls short.

The most troubling aspect of the Mark Foley scandal is not his conduct, disgusting as it was, but what the response of the leadership reveals about the rancid state of partisanship and the consequent decline of the House of Representatives. Speaker Dennis Hastert presides over a legislative body so infested with mistrust that it doesn't even have a functioning ethics committee. Since the House is incapable of washing its own dirty laundry and policing itself, the speaker has to turn over that responsibility to the attorney general and the executive branch of government.

Compare the current situation with the way Speaker Tip O'Neill and the House handled the last scandal involving sexual misconduct with pages, in the summer of 1982.

Yes, let's compare the responses -- because the GOP comes off looking much better than the Democrats, by any reasonable standard.

On The CBS Evening News With Dan Rather that June, two former pages, their teen-age faces silhouetted to hide their identity, claimed they were victims of sexual abuse by members of Congress. One described homosexual advances by members; the other shocked the nation when he said he had engaged in homosexual relations with three members and procured prostitutes for others. The CBS broadcast sparked a wildfire of reports and rumors about sexual abuse of pages and drug use by members and pages.

I cannot help but note that the original charges were later recanted by the pages , who claimed that the CBS reporter put words in their mouth and distorted what they said. Seems that Dan Rather's newscast was lying to the American people from a very early date.

But let's set aside the sins of CBS and note a difference. One situation involved charges of ACTUAL sex between members and pages. The other involved (initially) several emails that were weird but not overtly sexual. That explains the difference in how the leadership would respond.

Within a week the House had authorized its ethics committee to conduct a full investigation of allegations of "sexual misconduct, illicit drug distribution and use, and offers of preferential treatment in exchange for sexual favors or drugs by Members, officers or employees of the House." House Speaker O'Neill and Minority Leader Robert Michel asked me to be special counsel to the ethics committee, co-chaired by Ohio Democrat Lou Stokes and South Carolina Republican Floyd Spence. I was allowed to select my own staff and given a commitment that I could follow the evidence wherever it led, because, as O'Neill and Michel said, "The integrity of the House is at stake."

And within hours of the salacious IMs being made public, the House leadership had driven Foley from Congress. Within a week an investigation was announced, but the Democrat leadership refused to consent to the appointment of a respected former head of the FBI to head the investigation because he had criticized the Democrat president under whom he had served and had donated money to the current Republican president. Clearly the current Democrat leadership believes that something more important than the integrity of the House is at stake -- the chance to use the scandal as a wedge issue to seize control of the House.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General Rudolph Giuliani was the point man for the Justice Department and its grand jury investigation of the charges. We agreed to exchange all relevant information and that there would be no leaks. Allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use were raw meat for a voracious, scandal-hungry Washington press corps, and Giuliani and I came across rumors and fragments of information about many members of Congress. We shared them all with each other, and there were no leaks from him or me.

The big surprise came when the two pages whom CBS had put on its evening news show recanted. They testified under oath that they had lied and that CBS reporter John Ferrugia had put words in their mouths. But uncovering the lies of the pages and the reckless reporting of CBS didn't end our investigation. We had received a host of allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use and sale by other pages and House members. We interviewed, under oath, some 2,000 past and present pages, adults who had supervised and taught them, congressional staffers, and House members. We issued scores of subpoenas.

And the FBI (which concluded the initial set of emails was not a criminal matter) is investigating again now that the IMs have been turned over to it. The matter will be investigated by the Ethics committee. Remember -- we are only 10 days from the initial revelation of the IMs.

We found no evidence of widespread sexual misconduct. We did find that Rep. Daniel Crane, R-Ill., had had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female page and that Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., had sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page and had made advances to other teen-age male pages.

When I reported our findings to O'Neill and Michel, the dishonor that these members had brought on the House infuriated the two leaders. "Get it out," they said, "and let the committee recommend disciplinary action," which its four Democratic and four Republican members did, unanimously, in July 1983. Crane and Studds were censured by the House. Crane resigned his seat. Studds chose to stay on and was retained in office by his constituents for 13 more years.

But O'Neill didn't want the Ethics Committee to expel either of the members who engaged in sexual conduct with pages. Rather than really deal with the integrity of the House and say that such conduct was wrong, he supported mere censure. Newt Gingrich argued for expulsion of both the abusive congressmen -- including close ally Dan Crane -- but the Democrat-controlled leadership firmly opposed such a move. Democrats kept Studds -- a sexual predator -- around for over another decade and even gave him a committee chairmanship. Sonds like they had no concern at all about the integrity of the House. On the other hand, Crane was thrashed in his reelection attempt.

But the ethics committee had done its job well, we believed. Our investigation found other misdeeds:

House members — two Democrats and a Republican — had used drugs. And between 1978 and 1982 a number of House and Senate employees were involved in illicit use and distribution of drugs. All were named (Barry Goldwater Jr., who retired from the House; Fred Richmond, who admitted buying and using drugs and later pleaded guilty to tax evasion; and John Burton, who entered rehab and became a recovering addict with a productive career in the California state legislature). The employees were fired and prosecuted. The House adopted all the changes we recommended to provide far more attentive supervision of pages.

Note again -- the Republican, scion of a major political family, was run out of Congress. The Democrats continued to have active careers in politics -- until one pleaded guilty to other crimes. The other is referred to with respect. Interestingly enough, only staffers and aides were prosecuted -- no member of Congress faced criminal charges.

The course the House took in that scandal, and its reaction to the current one, show the difference between a leadership that saw a threat to the integrity of the House of Representatives and one that sees a threat to its continuing control of the institution. It's useful today to remember that there was a time when partisanship took second place to trust and the House leadership had the strength to wash its own dirty laundry.

Califano dishonors his work with this closing paragraph. The Democrat leadership allowed child molesters to stay in the House after knowing they had sex with pages. The GOP ran a member out of Congress after discovering conduct that may well be criminal but which involved no physical abuse of pages, only sexual talk. Who is the partisan here? Clearly the Democrats -- who would be howling if a gay Congressman were outed and disgraced over the initial emails.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 1406 words, total size 9 kb.

I'd like to think I could achieve this level of forgiveness. I don't know that I could.

Dozens of Amish neighbors came out Saturday to mourn the quiet milkman who killed five of their young girls and wounded five more in a brief, unfathomable rampage.

Charles Roberts, 32, was buried in his wife's family plot behind a small Methodist church, a few miles from the one-room schoolhouse he stormed Monday.

His wife, Marie, and their three small children looked on as Roberts was buried beside the pink, heart-shaped gravestone of the infant daughter whose death nine years ago apparently haunted him.

About half of perhaps 75 mourners on hand were Amish.

"It's the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed," said Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain from Morrison, Colo., who had come to Pennsylvania to offer what help he could and attended the burial. He said Marie Roberts also was touched.

"She was absolutely deeply moved by just the love shown," Porter said.

I disagree with various points of Amish teaching and theology -- but I do respect the group. Acts such of this show why their witness among the Christian community is so important.

UPDATE: Got to Church this morning and guess what the sermon illustration was.

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

Come on, guys -- get your mind out of the gutter.

I'm talking real, Texas-sized meat. Indeed, 72 ounces of sirloin goodness.

You used to have to travel to Amarillo to get it, but now it is just a mouse-click away -- meaning you can eat your meat in the privacy of your own home, instead of on display before a curious audience.

Since 1960, the Big Texan Steak Ranch in Amarillo has vigorously promoted its free 72-ounce steak dinner to thrill-seekers, hungry truckers and anyone else willing to pit human digestive capacity against 4 1/2 pounds of beef.

Now, they're offering the home version.

"At this point, I would say (the 72-ouncer) is accounting for at least 35 to 40 percent of total sales," said Kathie Greer, who oversees Big Texan's new mail-order business, www.ilovesteaks.com.

Although the gargantuan top sirloin is free in the fabled restaurant — provided the customer puts up a $72 deposit and also polishes off a salad, shrimp cocktail, baked potato and dinner roll in one hour — it costs $99.95 to get the same slab of beef delivered with extras, including an apron and spice rub.

"Already, in three months, we've sold more than we sold the entire previous year," she said.

The restaurant has long sold mail-order meat but didn't dedicate a Web site to it until this summer.

Of course, long-distance conquests of the signature cut don't count toward Big Texan's records. Of about 42,000 in-house attempts, only about 8,000 have succeeded. Women make up a small minority of contestants, but have won their meals about half the time while the macho men have racked up an impressive failure rate.

If you ever get a hankering for a huge steak, Greer offers a tip: Make it medium rare. Overcooked steaks can be dry.

So try your luck with a Texas legend!

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like the Dictator of Havana will be taking up residence in hell before too long. It seems that they Cuban strongman may be so ill with cancer that he will be unable to ever resume power.

Fidel Castro has terminal cancer and will not return to power as Cuba's leader, anonymous U.S. officials tell TIME magazine.

However, the officials said the intelligence reports on the ailing, 80-year-old Cuban president are not definitive.

Last month, Castro said in a statement that he has lost more than 41 pounds since he had intestinal surgery but added that the "most critical moment" was behind him.

The statement was accompanied by 10 photographs of Castro during his convalescence, in all of them sitting up and wearing either short-sleeved navy blue or light-blue pajamas. In several he is reading or writing.

Start chilling the champagne -- the parties in Miami and other places where freedom is still loved will begin immediately upon the announcement of the good news.

Posted by: Greg at 11:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Women don't participate in sports at the same rate as men. Why then should men be denied the opportunity to compete in order to achieve some sort of "balance" in opportunities for women?

The James Madison University menÂ’s and womenÂ’s cross-country teams had run especially well against an elite field during a competition late last month in eastern Pennsylvania. Afterward, Coach Dave Rinker gathered a giddy, excited group of athletes with tears in his eyes.

RinkerÂ’s runners noticed he was not smiling. In the middle of the meet, back here on the James Madison campus, the university had announced it was eliminating menÂ’s cross country and track, along with eight other, mostly menÂ’s, sports to comply with Title IX, the federal gender-equity law.

“Title IX was created in 1972 to prevent sex discrimination, and it was needed,” Jennifer Chapman, a senior on the women’s cross-country team, which is not being eliminated, said four days later as she led a protest rally of 400 students on campus. “But look what’s happening now. We rode the bus home from Pennsylvania for four hours, 14 guys and 19 girls all crying together. How is that supposed to have been Title IX’s intent?”

* * *

James MadisonÂ’s student body of 17,000 is 61 percent female, and one provision for complying with Title IX instructs institutions to have the percentage of participating athletes match the ratio of men to women on campus. At James Madison, the elimination of seven menÂ’s sports (swimming, cross country, indoor and outdoor track, gymnastics, wrestling and archery) and three womenÂ’s sports (gymnastics, fencing and archery) will boost the proportion of female athletes to 61 percent from about 50 percent.

When the cuts take effect in July, James Madison will be left with 12 womenÂ’s sports and 6 menÂ’s sports, the minimum required to participate in N.C.A.A. Division I competition. Three full-time coaches and eight part-time coaches will lose their jobs, and 144 athletes will be without a varsity team.

Officials conceded that the three womenÂ’s sports eliminated might not be termed exclusively Title IX cuts. Rose said that fencing had struggled with a dwindling roster, that archery was a niche sport that might be better suited as a club team, and that gymnastics was not a conference sport and had few nearby rivals for competition.

Title IX is a good idea gone horribly wrong. The interest is there for the eliminated men's sports. The eliminated women's sports were struggling programs with limited interest. But because it has become a results-oriented game rather than an issue of providing the opportunity to participate in sports, men are consistently denied the chance to participate in activities in which they are interested and which women are not. Shouldn't the real measure not be matching the percentage of students enrolled, but rather the percentages of students interested in participating in sports?

Maybe we can start applying that logic to academic programs. We'll cap enrollments based upon sex, and eliminate programs that are so seriously out of balance that they are unredeemable. I suspect that we will then see a drop in the number of Women's Studies programs around the country.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.

That is how this case should be handled.

Deny the claim.

Dismiss the suit.

Deport the plaintiffs.

A group of illegal immigrants who worked for Wendy's International Inc. is suing the restaurant chain because the company fired them after discovering it had missed a deadline for joining a federal program that would have helped them attain legal status.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in state district court in Houston, is a companion to a similar class-action suit filed last month in Dallas against Dublin, Ohio-based Wendy's, its subsidiary Cafe Express and the Houston-based business law firm Boyar & Miller.

The immigrants, who worked for Cafe Express, are seeking unspecified damages.

Between the two lawsuits, 40 illegal immigrants say they were fired after the company recently found that Boyar & Miller, the law firm Wendy's had hired, never filed paperwork for a 2001 legalization program that allowed immigrants with employer sponsorship or an American spouse to apply for citizenship.

Once the discovery was made, Wendy's was forced by law to fire the employees because of their illegal status. Immigrants in the program would have been insulated from being fired.

They are here illegally.

They had no right to be employed.

The company had no obligation to participate in the program.

The law required the firings.

As such, I don't see the basis for any legitimate claim -- and indeed, I only see the basis for the federal government to impose sanctions against Wendy's for employing the border-jumping immigration criminals in the first place.

So it is time for the federal government to do their duty in this case.

Round 'em up!

Ship em's back!

Rawhide!

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, the Democrats blamed every negative event over the last six years on George W. Bush -- including a recession that began a year before he became president and misdeeds at Enron that happened under Clinton's watch -- so it is obvious that the good news is also entirely the responsibility of George W. Bush.

The nation's unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent last month, down from 4.7 in August, and average wages rose by 4 percent over the previous year -- the best performance for both measures in five years.

The monthly Labor Department report released yesterday revealed that 51,000 new jobs were reported last month, a disappointing figure, but job gains were stronger than reported earlier for the previous year and a half.

"The economy is actually stronger than these employment numbers suggest," said Bernard Baumohl, executive director of the Economic Outlook Group, a Princeton, N.J., economic-advisory firm. The figures were mixed and elicited widely varying reactions from financial markets and analysts.

Add to that record-high stock prices and dropping oil prices -- along with a deficit that is decreasing at a rate even greater than that predicted by the administration, and it is clear that George W. Bush and the GOP Congress are doing a fantastic job with the economy.

Let's hope America doesn't mess with a good thing and elect the Democrats to enact the economy killing policies they support.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

He couldn't pass the bar exam, but he has tried to pass himself off to the voters of Tennessee as a lawyer.

Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Harold Ford Jr. referred to himself as a lawyer earlier this week, but the congressman has not passed the bar exam.

Michael Powell, senior adviser to the Ford campaign, said U.S. Rep. Ford took the Tennessee bar exam in February 1997 and failed. He said that was the only time Rep. Ford has taken the test.

Rep. Ford, of Memphis, got his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1996, according to his congressional Web site.

He said Tuesday during a meeting with Chattanooga Times Free Press editors and reporters that Republican opponent Bob Corker has said the next senator should be a businessman and not a lawyer.

"I told Senator (Lamar) Alexander, I said, ‘I won’t hold it against you if I’m elected, and there’s two lawyers in the delegation who try their hardest to work through the issues," Rep. Ford said.

Corker campaign spokesman Todd Womack said, "If Congressman Ford will stretch the truth about his own resume, what else will he stretch the truth about?" Mr. Powell said it is his understanding that Rep. Ford was joking when he made reference to being a lawyer during TuesdayÂ’s meeting.

Sorry, that explanation makes no sense. It is obvious that Ford was not joking -- he was lying about his qualifications.

Posted by: Greg at 02:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.