On one level, I have to agree with Justice Scalia on this point – but on another level, I think he is dead wrong.

During an appearance at Iona College, Scalia said Florida's handling of the recount, which was the key to determining whether Republican George W. Bush or Democrat Al Gore became president, was a clear violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

"Counting somebody else's dimpled chad and not counting my dimpled chad is not giving equal protection of the law," Scalia told an audience of 700 who attended his speech at the Mulcahy Gymnasium.

Scalia, who was appointed to the court in 1986, noted that seven members of the court agreed that Florida's handling of the recount represented a violation of the equal protection clause. The controversial part of the ruling - which caused a 5-4 split on the court - was the decision that there was not enough time for Florida to develop proper standards to count the ballots.

"The whole world was laughing at the world's greatest democracy," Scalia said "They could not complete an election."

Scalia's comments about perhaps the most controversial decision of his tenure came during a brief question-and-answer period that followed his half-hour speech. He let it be known that it's time for people to stop rehashing the decision.

"It's water over the deck - get over it," Scalia said, eliciting a loud burst of laughter from the audience.

Now as a practical matter, I think that Antonin Scalia is correct – over six years after the fact, the time is long-since past for folks to let their hate and vitriol fall by the wayside. On the other hand, I think there is precedent value in this case that is important, and it therefore needs some rehashing. After all, the equal protection analysis of the case does have serious ramifications for future election cases.

There is also a comment quoted at the end of the article that I think needs to be dealt with – a comment from a young man in the audience, not Justice Scalia.

Scalia also savaged the notion of the Constitution as a living document, noting the problem with that view.

"The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake," Scalia said. "It's a legal document."

Accepting a living Constitution, Scalia said, means, in reality, giving the governing majority the ability to constantly rewrite the document to meet society's views of the day and add new rights and new governmental powers that were never intended by the authors. He warned that such a practice is not healthy for a democracy.

"Freedoms will be eliminated just as freedoms will be added," Scalia said.
The best example of the living-Constitution argument, Scalia said, is the evolving view of the 8th Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, he explained, the death penalty was a commonly accepted punishment but now it is argued as unconstitutional.
Abortion, Scalia noted, is another issue that is being framed in constitutional terms when it is better handled by legislatures.

On this point, Scalia is 100% correct. Legal documents are supposed to be static, and interpreted according to the original language and intent of those who entered into the contact. After all, would you sign a mortgage or a contract that was a “living document” that evolved and changed over time in ways that you could not foresee? Of course not.

There is a process for making changes to the terms of legal documents – but it isn’t “make it up as you go along”, which often appears to be how certain justices approach some elements of the US Constitution. That is the amendment process, one which is little used and often neglected as activist judges simply recast and reconstrue the language that is already there in ways antithetical to the historical understanding and common-sense reading of the document.

And then there is this comment, made by one of the students in attendance, that I think needs to be dealt with.

"I think he was a little biased," said Josh O'Brien, a junior at Iona who is majoring in political science. "He showed a conservative bias. ... I think that as the times change, the laws also have to change."

O’Brien simply misunderstands the view that Scalia and the originalists have of the law and the Constitution. I know of no one who holds to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution who disagrees with the idea that the law must change as the times change. Where we part company with the “living document” proponents is HOW the law and the Constitution must be changed. Simply put, we believe that the process laid out in Article V should be followed. The alternative makes constitutional law the equivalent of quicksand, with no certain meaning to any provision.

UPDATE: Looks like Kennedy and O'Connor have also spoken on the case.

"A no-brainer! A state court deciding a federal constitutional issue about the presidential election? Of course you take the case," Kennedy told ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg in her new book, "Supreme Conflict."

Kennedy said the justices didn't ask for the case to come their way. Then-Vice President Al Gore's legal team involved the courts in the election by asking a state court to order a recount, Kennedy said.

* * * O'Connor said the Florida court was "off on a trip of its own."

She acknowledged, however, that the justices probably could have done a better job with the opinion if they hadn't been rushed.

Still, O'Connor said the outcome of the election would have been the same even if the court had not intervened.

She was referring to studies that suggest Bush would have won a recount limited to counties that Gore initially contested, although other studies said Gore might have prevailed in a statewide recount.

I do have one problem with this new article, though -- while it repeatedly argues that the case was decided 5-4, that was not the case. The decision was 7-2 that the recount as conducted under the supervision of SCOFLA (Supreme Court of Florida) was unconstitutional. The 5-4 portion regarded the remedy -- whether there should be another recount or not. Unfortunately, the appropriately named SCOFLA had run the clock out in such a way as to make a recount impossible under the constitutional and statutory deadlines that existed under Florida and federal law.

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1001 words, total size 7 kb.

On one level, I have to agree with Justice Scalia on this point – but on another level, I think he is dead wrong.

During an appearance at Iona College, Scalia said Florida's handling of the recount, which was the key to determining whether Republican George W. Bush or Democrat Al Gore became president, was a clear violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

"Counting somebody else's dimpled chad and not counting my dimpled chad is not giving equal protection of the law," Scalia told an audience of 700 who attended his speech at the Mulcahy Gymnasium.

Scalia, who was appointed to the court in 1986, noted that seven members of the court agreed that Florida's handling of the recount represented a violation of the equal protection clause. The controversial part of the ruling - which caused a 5-4 split on the court - was the decision that there was not enough time for Florida to develop proper standards to count the ballots.

"The whole world was laughing at the world's greatest democracy," Scalia said "They could not complete an election."

Scalia's comments about perhaps the most controversial decision of his tenure came during a brief question-and-answer period that followed his half-hour speech. He let it be known that it's time for people to stop rehashing the decision.

"It's water over the deck - get over it," Scalia said, eliciting a loud burst of laughter from the audience.

Now as a practical matter, I think that Antonin Scalia is correct – over six years after the fact, the time is long-since past for folks to let their hate and vitriol fall by the wayside. On the other hand, I think there is precedent value in this case that is important, and it therefore needs some rehashing. After all, the equal protection analysis of the case does have serious ramifications for future election cases.

There is also a comment quoted at the end of the article that I think needs to be dealt with – a comment from a young man in the audience, not Justice Scalia.

Scalia also savaged the notion of the Constitution as a living document, noting the problem with that view.

"The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake," Scalia said. "It's a legal document."

Accepting a living Constitution, Scalia said, means, in reality, giving the governing majority the ability to constantly rewrite the document to meet society's views of the day and add new rights and new governmental powers that were never intended by the authors. He warned that such a practice is not healthy for a democracy.

"Freedoms will be eliminated just as freedoms will be added," Scalia said.
The best example of the living-Constitution argument, Scalia said, is the evolving view of the 8th Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, he explained, the death penalty was a commonly accepted punishment but now it is argued as unconstitutional.
Abortion, Scalia noted, is another issue that is being framed in constitutional terms when it is better handled by legislatures.

On this point, Scalia is 100% correct. Legal documents are supposed to be static, and interpreted according to the original language and intent of those who entered into the contact. After all, would you sign a mortgage or a contract that was a “living document” that evolved and changed over time in ways that you could not foresee? Of course not.

There is a process for making changes to the terms of legal documents – but it isn’t “make it up as you go along”, which often appears to be how certain justices approach some elements of the US Constitution. That is the amendment process, one which is little used and often neglected as activist judges simply recast and reconstrue the language that is already there in ways antithetical to the historical understanding and common-sense reading of the document.

And then there is this comment, made by one of the students in attendance, that I think needs to be dealt with.

"I think he was a little biased," said Josh O'Brien, a junior at Iona who is majoring in political science. "He showed a conservative bias. ... I think that as the times change, the laws also have to change."

O’Brien simply misunderstands the view that Scalia and the originalists have of the law and the Constitution. I know of no one who holds to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution who disagrees with the idea that the law must change as the times change. Where we part company with the “living document” proponents is HOW the law and the Constitution must be changed. Simply put, we believe that the process laid out in Article V should be followed. The alternative makes constitutional law the equivalent of quicksand, with no certain meaning to any provision.

UPDATE: Looks like Kennedy and O'Connor have also spoken on the case.

"A no-brainer! A state court deciding a federal constitutional issue about the presidential election? Of course you take the case," Kennedy told ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg in her new book, "Supreme Conflict."

Kennedy said the justices didn't ask for the case to come their way. Then-Vice President Al Gore's legal team involved the courts in the election by asking a state court to order a recount, Kennedy said.

* * * O'Connor said the Florida court was "off on a trip of its own."

She acknowledged, however, that the justices probably could have done a better job with the opinion if they hadn't been rushed.

Still, O'Connor said the outcome of the election would have been the same even if the court had not intervened.

She was referring to studies that suggest Bush would have won a recount limited to counties that Gore initially contested, although other studies said Gore might have prevailed in a statewide recount.

I do have one problem with this new article, though -- while it repeatedly argues that the case was decided 5-4, that was not the case. The decision was 7-2 that the recount as conducted under the supervision of SCOFLA (Supreme Court of Florida) was unconstitutional. The 5-4 portion regarded the remedy -- whether there should be another recount or not. Unfortunately, the appropriately named SCOFLA had run the clock out in such a way as to make a recount impossible under the constitutional and statutory deadlines that existed under Florida and federal law.

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1010 words, total size 7 kb.

Here is a historical tidbit on the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It seems that the pair wanted to avoid the possibility of a double vacancy – and that Rehnquist’s decision to stay forced O’Connor out. But then again, she wanted to go, given her husband’s slow descent into the twilight world of Alzheimer’s disease.

By June, with only weeks left in the term, O'Connor went to visit her old friend again. Even though he had been coming to the court every day, she, like the other justices, still believed he would be retiring soon. She'd begun to think she would spend one more year on the court before retiring herself.

She knew that Rehnquist believed emphatically that the court shouldn't have two retirements at the same time. She guessed that he would imminently announce his retirement, allowing her to stay one more year.

She guessed wrong.

He stunned her by telling her: "I want to stay another year."

O'Connor was caught off guard. Rehnquist's implication was clear: She must retire now or be prepared to serve two more years. Rehnquist was unilaterally deciding both of their fates.

Now these two had known each other for over half a century, dating back to Stanford Law School. I believe IÂ’ve even read, though I do not remember where, that at some point the two future justices may have dated once or twice. They were certainly more than colleagues, they were friends.

And that leads me to wonder. Was Rehnquist’s decision one predicated upon personal stubbornness and a refusal to face his on mortality? Or was it a personal sacrifice by one friend on behalf of another – trying to stick it out so that O’Connor could have that last bit of quality time with the man she loves, despite Rehnquist’s own infirmity? I don’t know, but I’d like to believe it was the latter. And while his decision resulted in that very double vacancy that the Chief Justice wished to avoid, I believe the result is a stronger Supreme Court.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

If these three young men are, in fact, guilty as charged, they need to be locked away for a very long time.

Three football players at Guilford College, a school with a Quaker background, face assault and ethnic intimidation charges after an attack on three Palestinian students, authorities said.

The victims were beaten with fists, feet and brass knuckles early Saturday by attackers who called them "terrorists" and used racial slurs, the News & Record of Greensboro reported Tuesday.

School officials believe about 12 people were involved in the altercation, Nic Brown, spokesman for the college in Greensboro, told The Associated Press. Administrators were still trying to determine whether some were fighting or trying to break it up, Brown said.

"We've had a very, very unfortunate event, unfortunate conflict among students who actually knew each other, and who had lived and interacted in the same residence hall with no conflict among themselves," Brown said.

Authorities charged Michael Bates, 19, of Reidsville, North Carolina; Michael Robert Six, 20, of Greensboro, North Carolina; and Christopher Barnette, 21, of Semora, North Carolina, with ethnic intimidation and assault and battery, according to court documents. They were released Monday on $2,000 (euro1,500) bail.

Now I’m opposed to the “ethnic intimidation” charge on principle, but the assault charge alone is disturbing. The victims of this attack, assuming this was an unprovoked altercation, did nothing to deserve what happened to them. Forget the ethnicity angle and focus on the real crime – seemingly random violence against fellow human beings.

But I do urge that everyone wait until the investigation is complete and the evidence is in -- because there seems to be a lot more evidence left out of this report than what is included.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

If these three young men are, in fact, guilty as charged, they need to be locked away for a very long time.

Three football players at Guilford College, a school with a Quaker background, face assault and ethnic intimidation charges after an attack on three Palestinian students, authorities said.

The victims were beaten with fists, feet and brass knuckles early Saturday by attackers who called them "terrorists" and used racial slurs, the News & Record of Greensboro reported Tuesday.

School officials believe about 12 people were involved in the altercation, Nic Brown, spokesman for the college in Greensboro, told The Associated Press. Administrators were still trying to determine whether some were fighting or trying to break it up, Brown said.

"We've had a very, very unfortunate event, unfortunate conflict among students who actually knew each other, and who had lived and interacted in the same residence hall with no conflict among themselves," Brown said.

Authorities charged Michael Bates, 19, of Reidsville, North Carolina; Michael Robert Six, 20, of Greensboro, North Carolina; and Christopher Barnette, 21, of Semora, North Carolina, with ethnic intimidation and assault and battery, according to court documents. They were released Monday on $2,000 (euro1,500) bail.

Now I’m opposed to the “ethnic intimidation” charge on principle, but the assault charge alone is disturbing. The victims of this attack, assuming this was an unprovoked altercation, did nothing to deserve what happened to them. Forget the ethnicity angle and focus on the real crime – seemingly random violence against fellow human beings.

But I do urge that everyone wait until the investigation is complete and the evidence is in -- because there seems to be a lot more evidence left out of this report than what is included.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

If, as this quote indicates, he does, then perhaps we local GOP activists need to work to get rid of him. This exchange occurred on the Alex Jones radio show. (MP3 here)

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

JACK BLOOD, GUEST HOST: I think it's fair to say that of all the candidates out there, the one most interested in reopening the investigation and clearing the questions is Dr. Paul; and you should be commended for that.

Now maybe he was humoring the moonbat caller. Maybe he was lacking in his normal grace with the English language. Or maybe he was revealing a side to his views that places him so far outside the mainstream as to require people with common decency and common sense to take action against him.

Needless to say, I'm disturbed -- and I hope the good congressman will clarify his views and explain (if he can) these comments.

H/T Right Wing News

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the question that columnist and blogger Daniel Friedman asks in this piece, “Can I Be President?”

Forget Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Obama, and Clinton. There is only one candidate that every American envisions in the White House: oneself. Which American, at least as a child, never once daydreamed of sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office Â… leader of the free world Â… fighting evil and protecting freedom?

And I was no different. Well, slightly different. I was born and raised in London, spoke the Queen's English, and never heard the date 1776 mentioned in school. But as an American citizen — born to an American mother and a British father — I too dreamed of being president. Sure being prime minister was cool, my friends certainly thought so, but who dreams of being Robin when you can be Batman?

A high school teacher shattered these dreams (don't they always?) by telling me that "natural born citizen means born in America." Sidekick it was from then on. But while living in Brussels a few years ago, an American colleague pointed out — after I told him that he was doing his children a disservice by not having them in America — that it's unclear whether children born to American citizens overseas really can't be president.

Friedman notes that many people argue that he cannot. On the other hand, my answer has always been quite the opposite – that natural born, rather than native born, would certainly be inclusive of those born American citizens regardless of their place of birth. That would include those Americans born abroad to American citizens, such as military dependents, the children of diplomats, and other expats. After all, if they are not naturalized citizens, they must be natural born citizens.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve always supported legislation like this – it proves that those who claim that they are not taxed enough either really don’t believe it or are just plain hypocritical.

Mainers could contribute to their favorite state government programs through the state Web site under legislation a Sabattus lawmaker proposed.

Republican Rep. Scott Lansley said his is a serious proposal — even as he smiled at its name, the Tax Me More Fund.

"I got a lot of people who laughed about it at first and then said that’s a good idea and signed on as co-sponsors," Lansley said last week. He said the name makes a broader political point.

"People are either going to be hypocrites about it and not do it, or they are going to be out there saying, ‘I should pay more taxes for this or that program,’" he said. "Well, if you think that a program needs more money, here you go, pay more in taxes through this fund."

Lansley said the measure would make it easy for Mainers to pay additional "taxes" by making contributions through the state government Web site.

So I hope all you folks in Maine will get behind this proposal – and that every person who argues that taxes are too low will simply cut a check to the Tax Me More fund in their own state (if they have one). After all, if you REALLY believe that you are keeping money that should not be yours, this is the perfect way to divest yourself of it without imposing your personal morality on the rest of us!

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve always supported legislation like this – it proves that those who claim that they are not taxed enough either really don’t believe it or are just plain hypocritical.

Mainers could contribute to their favorite state government programs through the state Web site under legislation a Sabattus lawmaker proposed.

Republican Rep. Scott Lansley said his is a serious proposal — even as he smiled at its name, the Tax Me More Fund.

"I got a lot of people who laughed about it at first and then said thatÂ’s a good idea and signed on as co-sponsors," Lansley said last week. He said the name makes a broader political point.

"People are either going to be hypocrites about it and not do it, or they are going to be out there saying, ‘I should pay more taxes for this or that program,’" he said. "Well, if you think that a program needs more money, here you go, pay more in taxes through this fund."

Lansley said the measure would make it easy for Mainers to pay additional "taxes" by making contributions through the state government Web site.

So I hope all you folks in Maine will get behind this proposal – and that every person who argues that taxes are too low will simply cut a check to the Tax Me More fund in their own state (if they have one). After all, if you REALLY believe that you are keeping money that should not be yours, this is the perfect way to divest yourself of it without imposing your personal morality on the rest of us!

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

If you needed any more evidence that Scientology is a cult for over-privileged, intellectually-deficient celebrities, here it is.

TOM Cruise is the new “Christ” of Scientology, according to leaders of the cult-like religion.

The Mission: Impossible star has been told he has been “chosen” to spread the word of his faith throughout the world.

And leader David Miscavige believes that in future, Cruise, 44, will be worshipped like Jesus for his work to raise awareness of the religion.

A source close to the actor, who has risen to one of the church’s top levels, said: “Tom has been told he is Scientology’s Christ-like figure.

“Like Christ, he’s been criticised for his views. But future generations will realise he was right.”

Cruise joined the Church of Scientology in the Â’80s. Leader L Ron Hubbard claimed humans bear traces of an ancient alien civilisation.

UhhhhhÂ… yeah.

But then again, what do you expect of a hoax made up by a hack science fiction writer?

Posted by: Greg at 10:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't know how they will enforce this one without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley wants offensive use of the "n-word" to be punishable by a fine of up to $500 in his town.

"It's not a particular problem in Brazoria," Corley said, "but it's a national problem."

Corley said he got the idea while watching two black ministers talking on television about how offensive that word is. "I just think it would be great if this little town of Brazoria, with 2,800 people, leads the way in fighting against this offensive language," said Corley.

He said if the ordinance passes, he may ask for it to be expanded to include other racial slurs.

He believes Brazoria would be the first place in the country where the racial slur would be outlawed. But at least one legal expert said Monday that such an ordinance may not stand up in court.

The ordinance wouldn't forbid anyone from saying the word, Corley said, but would outlaw using the word in an offensive or aggressive manner. Violators would be charged with disturbing the peace, he said.

"It would be up to somebody who was offended to file a complaint, like any other disturbance complaint," he said.

Ah, but who will decide what constitutes an "offensive" use of the word, and what constitutes an "inoffensive" use of the word? Will I, a white man, be able to file a complaint against a bunch of teenagers standing on the corner saying "nigga this" and "nigga that"? Or will this be a crime that only a black can report, because "its a black thing"? The article makes clear that it would be the latter. since "friendly" uses of the wod would be allowed.

And if the expansion to cover other terms is made, will it become a de facto "hate speech" ban, which is repugnant to the First Amendment?

What can I say -- their hearts are in the right place, but the authors of this ordinance need to wrap their minds around the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

It is a rather interesting notion, isn't it? The liberal Democratic solution to the so-called 'corruption" caused by campaign donations may be about to be killed -- by Senator Hillary Clinton!

The public financing system designed to clean up presidential campaigns in the wake of the Watergate scandal may have died on Saturday when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced her bid for the White House.

Little noticed amid the announcement rollout was a page on her Web site in which she asked potential contributors to give her campaign checks of up to $4,200. That figure signaled not only that she plans to forgo public funds for primary season but also that, if she becomes the nominee, she will not take public money for the general election.

By opting out of the system, Clinton will be able to spend as much money as she can raise, both for the primaries and for the general election, rather than being forced to abide by strict spending limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission on candidates who accept public financing.

Others have opted out of public financing for the nomination campaigns, but Clinton is the first since the current structure was created in 1974 to declare she will forgo public financing in the general election as well.

Clinton's decision will put pressure on other candidates in both parties to follow suit, and if they do, the 2008 campaign will complete what has been the rapid disintegration of a system designed to rein in unlimited spending in presidential campaigns.

I have to ask -- does Hillary's decision make her the candidate of corruption and special interests? Or does it make her a free speech heroine? Or, more realistically, does it put her somewhere in the middle?

From my standpoint, this is a good thing. The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, established a system which allowed for unlimited speech on political matters -- provided you could afford it. What Clinton is doing is simply departing from the constitutional monstrosity that was established over three decades ago, and returning to the originalist paradigm.

Now if we can only do away with the other part of this abomination -- the contribution limit. After all, if a candidate has the right to spend as much as he or she wants for purposes of engaging in political speech, there is no legitimate argument for preventing a candidate's supporters from donating as much as possible to that cause. After all, Americans associating for purposes of engaging in political speech is not a crime -- it is a right under the US Constitution.

And by the way, I'd like to encourage my readers to help kill this offense agains free and full participation in the electoral system -- DO NOT check the box on your tax return directing your money to public financing of presidential campaigns!

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

A quick news flash about state Senator Mario Gallegos of Houston -- the recently elected president pro tem of the Texas Senate.

State Sen. Mario Gallegos underwent liver transplant surgery late Friday night and is recovering at the Texas Medical Center, according to his family.

Gallegos, a Houston Democrat, had cirrhosis of the liver, which necessitated the transplant.

Gallegos had said earlier that his doctors estimated he will need 18 days of recovery time after his surgery before he can return to work.

I don't like the man's politics, and I'll work against him in 2008 -- but in 2007, I wish him only the best of health and the smoothest of recoveries.

Because, as I have said so often, some things are simply more important than mere politics.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

I am married to a wonderful woman, who I love dearly. I can think of only one character flaw that she has (well, other than voting Democrat -- just kidding, dear!). That is her ability to hold a grudge for a very long time.

And ever since we first started dating, I've known that she held a grudge against a certain no-talent actress she knew growing up -- one she refers to as "that bitch" and whose appearance on a television screen causes a quick grab for the remote.

And so this "professional recognition" for her childhood rival warms my beloved to the very depths of her soul.

At least someone was happy Sharon Stone reprised her notorious femme-fatale role with "Basic Instinct 2."

The box-office bomb received seven nominations Monday for the Razzie Awards that mock the bottom of Hollywood's barrel, among them worst picture and worst actress of the year.

* * *

Stone previously won a Razzie as worst-actress for 1994's "The Specialist" and "Intersection."

"She's what we call a Razzie repeat offender. Perhaps even a recidivist," Wilson said.

"Basic Instinct 2" also had a nomination for worst screen couple for Stone's "lopsided breasts." Also nominated were co-star David Thewlis for worst supporting actor and the movie's director, Michael Caton-Jones.

And as my darling shouted when she heard that second nomination -- "They aren't even real!"

Posted by: Greg at 10:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Gov Bill Richardson of New Mexico has declared his candidacy for the Democrat nomination for president. And sad to say, he doesn't really have a chance of getting the nomination, despite being the best qualified of the bunch.

Democrat Bill Richardson took the first step Sunday toward a bid to become the first Hispanic president, saying the country needs his extensive experience as a governor, cabinet secretary and ambassador.

The 59-year-old New Mexico governor announced in a video posted on his Web site that he would set up an exploratory committee that will allow him to begin raising money and assembling his campaign organization.

His candidacy would make history as the field of Democratic candidates would be the most diverse ever. On Saturday, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she wanted to be the first female president. Last week, Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois jumped in, a formidable contender who would be the first black commander in chief.

Richardson, whose father was an international banker from Boston and whose mother was Mexican, said he believes the country "has changed enough" that voters are ready for a woman or minority president.

And I've dealt with that issue in the past -- I'm more interested in a qualified president than I am in one who can check off boxes on an affirmative action form. With his resume, Richardson should not be playing the ethnicity card -- he should be touting his qualifications and the relatively weak credentials of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. Bill Richardson is a substantive candidate, unlike the rest of the Democrat field. And while I tend to disagree with his policy positions, I find him to be presidential timber in a way the rest are not.

Oh, and one other note on the ethnicity thing. Not long ago, I was talking presidential politics with one of my classes when we finished up a bit early. When I mentioned Richardson as a Hispanic candidate, they dismissed him -- on the basis that his Anglo name doesn't connect with the average Hispanic. Now I wouldn't make much of that observation by a group of tenth graders, except for the fact that the class was 2/3 Hispanic and many of the students are first generation Americans. I wonder if that reflects a wider sentiment, or merely a limited vision based upon age and lack of political sophistication.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has two good analyses at Captain's Quarters -- one about Richardson as Hillary's worst nightmare, and the other noting that he is the most well-rounded of the Dem candidates so far.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

Don't think about it, don't talk about it. Just rule it out completely right now. You are not what the GOP and the nation need in 2008, Mr. Gingrich.

First, Newt Gingrich said he would run for president in 2008 only if no other Republican emerged as a clear front-runner. Now, the former House speaker says he will run only as a "last resort."

His assessment came in response to a question by Chris Wallace, host of "Fox News Sunday."

"You sound as if you think about running for president as a last resort, not as a first resort?" Wallace asked.

"Exactly," Gingrich answered. "I mean, nobody's ever said it quite that way, but you're right."

Gingrich said he first hoped to influence the presidential race by providing candidates in both parties with his "solutions" to problems such as health care, energy, education, national security and immigration.

I'm sorry Newt, but while you may be one of the brightest idea people in the conservative movement, you've got some pretty high negatives among the general public. And given that your love life is almost as sordid as Bill Clinton's, do you really think that you can serve as a credible standard-bearer for a party that still considers family values to be one of its cornerstone issues?

There's simply no place for you in the 2008 race -- or any other year, either.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 1 kb.

Call it one more attempt to tighten border security in this age of terrorism -- US citizens returning by air from Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean will now need a passport to get back into the country. And starting next January, ANY border crossing will need one -- even just to zip over to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls or go shopping in Juarez or Tijuana. And that requirement applies to children, too -- not just adults.

A United States citizen flying home today from a ski jaunt in Canada, a beach break in Mexico or a honeymoon in Jamaica can flash a driverÂ’s license or a birth certificate at airport customs officials and walk on through.

Tomorrow, those documents will no longer work.

Starting then, United States citizens, including children, returning to this country by air from any country in the Western Hemisphere will have to present a passport.

In another change, citizens of Canada and Bermuda traveling to the United States by air will also have to show passports to enter the country. Previously, they too could use driverÂ’s licenses and birth documents.

* * *

The new measure applies only to air travelers. Officials in the Department of Homeland Security said they expected to roll out the same restrictions for passengers arriving by land and sea by Jan. 1, 2008.

I understand the need for border security, and I support it. Still, I cannot help but wonder about the impact on the tourism industry. And we are still failing to deal with the real border security issue -- the constant flow of border-jumping immigration criminals into this country from Mexico, who simply bypass all border control checkpoints and go to work without documents. I find it rather galling that my government is more interested in making it difficult for me to travel in and out of the country legally than they are to stop the illegal border crossings.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

That seems to have become the way that many health care institutions in Great Britain are dealing with their old folks. And this is the universal health care model that the Democrats wish to follow in the United States?

A health minister made the shameful admission that elderly people are effectively being starved in care homes and hospitals.

Ivan Lewis said some are given just a single scoop of mash as a meal.

Other bedridden pensioners are 'tortured' with trays of food placed just out of their reach.

The minister's words are a stunning acknowledgement of how the care system still lets down the frail and elderly after nearly ten years of Labour rule.

They follow years of campaigning by charities and the Daily Mail to expose appalling deficiencies in the care of the over-65s.

Mr Lewis will launch an official campaign this week to improve the quality of food offered to thousands of vulnerable old people.

But his belated move drew a lukewarm response from campaigners. Help the Aged said: 'This is an issue we have been lobbying over for a long time and something the Government has known about for years. I hope it gets the proper attention and investment now.'

A spokesman for the charity Independent Age said: 'The Government has now finally realised, after years of campaigning, that it has a problem. Now it has to ensure its plans and initiatives are carried forward.'

See what happens when government subsidies remove the need to provide adequate care? Adequate care stops.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

There is a silent persecution going on in Burma, and most people do not know about it. What is more, the hints have been available for some time, but little has been done.

Now there is a document available that makes this evil undeniable.

The military regime in Burma is intent on wiping out Christianity in the country, according to claims in a secret document believed to have been leaked from a government ministry. Entitled "Programme to destroy the Christian religion in Burma", the incendiary memo contains point by point instructions on how to drive Christians out of the state.

The text, which opens with the line "There shall be no home where the Christian religion is practised", calls for anyone caught evangelising to be imprisoned. It advises: "The Christian religion is very gentle – identify and utilise its weakness."

Its discovery follows widespread reports of religious persecution, with churches burnt to the ground, Christians forced to convert to the state religion, Buddhism, and their children barred from school.

Human rights groups claim that the treatment meted out to Christians, who make up six per cent of the population, is part of a wider campaign by the regime, also targeted at ethnic minority tribes, to create a uniform society in which the race and language is Burmese and the only accepted religion is Buddhism.

The term for such a program is "genocide".

Will people of good will speak out?

Will world leaders?

Will the United Nations?

More to the point -- will anyone do anything to stop it?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:13 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 5 kb.

I usually look at the editorial page of the Las Vegas review-Journal on Sundays, just to see what Vin Suprynowicz has written. I don't allways agree with him, but as one of the few true libertarian voices in media, he makes for an interesting read. While I'm there, I usually read the other columnists, including the paper's Geoff Schumacher, who this week seems to draw precisely the wrong conclusion about Barack Obama's chances for winning the White House.

As a college senior in Reno in 1988, I recall proudly standing up for the Rev. Jesse Jackson at a Democratic presidential caucus meeting. This precinct, encompassing the university district, ended up going to Jackson -- perhaps the only Nevada precinct he won that year outside of Las Vegas.

But I believe most of us who supported Jackson knew he couldn't win. By contrast, if Obama runs this time, I think he has a legitimate chance to go all the way. He appears able to transcend racial politics in a way that Jackson could never manage.

Nevertheless, I fear that the country's still not ready, that in the privacy of the voting booth, we will not take the leap.

I hope I'm wrong.

So there we have it -- Obama's failure will not be about his qualifications or policy positions. No, it will be because we, as a country, are unwilling to vote for a black man for the nation's highest office. No doubt he would make a similar observation about Hillary Clinton, and claim that her defeat would be based upon our unwillingness to elect a woman.

Nonsense!

Barack Obama is an interesting man. He has, however, only weak credentials for the office he seeks. Furthermore, he is an unabashed liberal, unquestionably an inhabitant of the left quarter of the political spectrum. As such, there is a percentage of the American public that will reject him not over questions of race, but over questions of preparation and ideology. Indeed, many of us who fall into that category are quite ready to support an African-American in a run for the highest office -- and many were unabashed supporters of Condoleezza Rice until she unreservedly and unquestionably took herself out of contention for the GOP nomination. Similarly, many of us were supporters of Michael Steele, not Mel Martinez, for head of the GOP. Our opposition to Obama is based upon other criteria -- and we conservatives are doubtless a sizable segment of the American population.

Indeed, Schumacher unintentionally falls into a trap that many commentators on Obama's candidacy and race fall into -- the notion that votes against the man would be based upon his race, and that his defeat would prove that America has not gotten bast the racism of the past. But I'd argue quite the opposite. That Obama -- or Rice -- could be seen as a credible candidate by the overwhelming majority of Americans is the test, regardless of whether or not one of them ever reaches the Oval Office. Even the defeat of Obama, in a race based upon ideas and issues, would be a sign of the elimination of racism as a significant factor in American life, because Obama would have been treated precisely like any other candidate.

And after all, what more can we ask for as proof that we have achieved the goal of treating African-Americans like everybody else?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 08:21 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 7 kb.

I love it -- the corrupt prosecutor persecutor in the Duke Rape Frame-Up Case has retained counsel to defend him against misconduct charges. Hopefully, he will soon need additional lawyers to handle the criminal and civil cases that are going to arise out of his unethical and illegal conduct in this case.

The prosecutor who removed himself from the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case has hired a well-known law firm to defend him against ethics charges before the North Carolina State Bar.

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has retained Winston-Salem lawyers David Freedman and Dudley Witt, law partners known for defending lawyers facing professional misconduct charges.

* * *

Nifong filed rape charges against three lacrosse players in March, when a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a team party said she was raped. He has since dropped the rape charges after the accuser changed a key detail in her account.

The three players still face sexual offense and kidnapping charges. All three strongly maintain their innocence.

The bar's complaint cited dozens of remarks Nifong made to the media in the early days of the case that it said amounted to "improper commentary about the character, credibility and reputation of the accused."

In one comment, Nifong referred to the defendants as "a bunch of hooligans."

Being disbarred needs to be the least of the penalties imposed upon this man.

Posted by: Greg at 07:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

On the basis, I would presume, that it is a porn site!

After all, how else do you explain its classification as "Adult/Mature Content"?

News Bukit has the story.

So I'm sitting at my favorite Panera/St. Louis Bread Company, eating and mooching Internet. Uneventful, I know. That, of course, is not the story.

The story is that when I went to check out what was new at StoptheACLU.com, a fellow conservative blogger, I was greeted with this message from the restaurant's filtering service.

"Forbidden category," eh? I was intrigued. Blogs are a forbidden category?

Apparently not, because when I went to the SonicWALL link to have the site reconsidered, guess what I found out?

You read that right: "Adult/Mature Content." Looks like a Moonbat has been here. Maybe from StopStoptheACLU.com?

I've entered a request to get it unblocked. Click here to add your voice, too. Don't know how many of these have been locked out, but I'll update if I see any more.

I urge all of you to click the link above and request that SonicWall fix this rating, and allow the free-flow of information to its users.

UPDATE -- 1/23/2007: SonicWall will not budge, refusing to reclassify StopTheACLU.com.

Dear Customer:

You submitted the following rating request to SonicWALL CFS Support:
Rate stoptheaclu.com as "25.Political/Advocacy Groups" at 2007-01-21 10:25:00.247

The request has been reviewed and rated as:
"6.Adult/Mature Content" at 2007-01-23 03:28:59.453

You should see this rating change reflected within 1 to 3 business days.

Thank you for your request,
SonicWALL CFS Support

Keep writing -- keep pushing -- keep supporting free speech and an end to political censorship by web-filtering companies.

UPDATE 2 --1/23/2007: On the other hand, they seem to have changed their mind, based upon this email just forwarded to me.

Dear Customer:

You submitted the following rating request to SonicWALL CFS Support:
Rate stoptheaclu.com as "25.Political/Advocacy Groups" at 2007-01-23 11:25:00.660

The request has been reviewed and rated as:
"25.Political/Advocacy Groups, 16.Abortion/Advocy Groups" at 2007-01-23 13:40:03.437

You should see this rating change reflected within 1 to 3 business days.

Thank you for your request,
SonicWALL CFS Support

So I guess that persistence does pay off!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:53 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 7 kb.

Not that Jimmy Carter or other apologists for terror would think this is a bad thing.

Islamic Jihad militants launched homemade rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip on Sunday in retaliation for Israel's continuing military operations against their group in the West Bank.

The rocket attacks came despite a two-month-old cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza.

The group said it fired seven homemade rockets toward the Israeli towns of Sderot and Ashkelon. The Israeli army said several mortar shells had landed in empty areas in Israel on Sunday morning, causing no injuries.

How long is Israel expected to restrain itself before it takes the sort of actions permitted any other country when repeatedly attacked by terrorists?

Posted by: Greg at 06:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Texas Southern University has a checkered past, to say the least. Created to keep black students out of the University of Texas and its law school, it has never achieved the level of excellence folks might have hoped for it. Furthermore, it has been mired in scandal for well over a decade. Yet some – especially member of the black community, want to keep it going. Now, J. Timothy Boddie Jr.,the school’s interim president, is seeking to improve the school.

As we prepare to commemorate the 60-year anniversary of TSU, know that our commitment to provide quality educational opportunities as the second-largest historically black university in the nation is unwavering. We recognize that repairing our image and regaining the trust of our diverse constituency will not be a quick fix, but we are focused on achieving these goals. Let there be no doubt that accountability is the order of the day.

As we meet with members of the Texas Legislature during the 80th session, we will be presenting measurable plans to improve graduation and retention rates, repair dilapidated structures and create an environment where our globally renowned faculty and dedicated staff can provide our students with the tools and information they need to be leaders.

Moving the ship from dry dock to calm waters will require a collaborative partnership that includes the greater Houston community, alumni, business leaders and legislators. Join with us to take TSU to the next level of excellence. The time has come to right this ship and make accountability the order of the day. At the end of the day, our students, and our community, deserve this and more.

I’m sorry, sir, but your article is long on generalities and short on specifics. And more to the point, you and your supporters fail to note that TSU is walking distance from the University of Houston, a school with a sterling reputation and record of accomplishments. What clearly needs to happen is that TSU simply needs to be merged into the UH system, as part of the main UH campus. The results would be beneficial to students of both schools, and the elimination of service duplication would be much more efficient.

In short, TSU, rooted in racism and mired in corruption, is a bad experiment and one that has clearly failed.

End it, don’t mend it.

Posted by: Greg at 06:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

Texas Southern University has a checkered past, to say the least. Created to keep black students out of the University of Texas and its law school, it has never achieved the level of excellence folks might have hoped for it. Furthermore, it has been mired in scandal for well over a decade. Yet some – especially member of the black community, want to keep it going. Now, J. Timothy Boddie Jr.,the school’s interim president, is seeking to improve the school.

As we prepare to commemorate the 60-year anniversary of TSU, know that our commitment to provide quality educational opportunities as the second-largest historically black university in the nation is unwavering. We recognize that repairing our image and regaining the trust of our diverse constituency will not be a quick fix, but we are focused on achieving these goals. Let there be no doubt that accountability is the order of the day.

As we meet with members of the Texas Legislature during the 80th session, we will be presenting measurable plans to improve graduation and retention rates, repair dilapidated structures and create an environment where our globally renowned faculty and dedicated staff can provide our students with the tools and information they need to be leaders.

Moving the ship from dry dock to calm waters will require a collaborative partnership that includes the greater Houston community, alumni, business leaders and legislators. Join with us to take TSU to the next level of excellence. The time has come to right this ship and make accountability the order of the day. At the end of the day, our students, and our community, deserve this and more.

IÂ’m sorry, sir, but your article is long on generalities and short on specifics. And more to the point, you and your supporters fail to note that TSU is walking distance from the University of Houston, a school with a sterling reputation and record of accomplishments. What clearly needs to happen is that TSU simply needs to be merged into the UH system, as part of the main UH campus. The results would be beneficial to students of both schools, and the elimination of service duplication would be much more efficient.

In short, TSU, rooted in racism and mired in corruption, is a bad experiment and one that has clearly failed.

End it, donÂ’t mend it.

Posted by: Greg at 06:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

Maybe this time they will keep this four-time drunk-drive locked up.

But then again, they should have done that a whole lot earlier – not just when he killed a local police chief and fled the scene.

Needville ISD Police Chief Ernest V Mendoza was killed on the way to his home in Wharton on Friday night when a four-time-convicted drunken driver hit him nearly head-on, officials said.

Superintendent Curtis Rhodes said Mendoza, a 54-year-old father of seven, was all about family and God.

"He was a very Christian man, a quality man," Rhodes said.

The 29-year-old driver of the other vehicle, Guillermo Paniagua, ran from the scene but was captured by the end of the night and charged with felony murder and failure to stop and render aid, said Texas DPS Senior Trooper Gary Pflughaupt.

He said Paniagua, a construction worker in Wharton, smelled of alcohol and slurred his words when he was captured.

Paniagua has drunk-driving convictions in Texas and Georgia, Pflughaupt said. His bond was expected to be set this morning.

Mendoza had served as police chief for the school district in Fort Bend County for 10 years.

He worked security at a basketball game Friday night, and was a mile from home when he was struck.

I pray for the family of Chief Mendoza – and for all the students, faculty and staff of Needville ISD. And I pray that Paniagua quickly gets his just punishment.

Posted by: Greg at 06:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Is “Never Again” becoming “Never Happened” even in the West?

More than a quarter of young Britons do not know if the Holocaust happened, according to a poll on Friday that sparked alarm among Jewish leaders determined the world should not forget the Nazi genocide.

"This poll reinforces the necessity to observe the motto -- Never Again", said Winston Pickett, spokesman for the umbrella group, the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

The poll, conducted by The Jewish Chronicle to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, showed that 28 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds in Britain do not know if the Holocaust happened.

But teachers were given some comfort by the poll -- just one percent of those surveyed by YouGov pollsters thought the Holocaust was a myth.

I wonder what percentage of the doubters is part of the “Asian” (read that “Muslim”) population that is a growing, radicalized segment of the British populace. After all, that community’s leaders refuse to participate in or mark any commemoration of the Holocaust.

Posted by: Greg at 06:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are MLK Day -- A Singular Holiday by Rhymes With Right, and A Framework for Thinking About Iraq Strategy by Small Wars Journal.  You can find links to the full results of the vote here.) 

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

I win! I win!

Not that I've felt down because of a long dry spell or anything. But I will say that this win is a bit humbling, because I was up against some really great competition, as the close vote totals show.

Posted by: Greg at 05:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 5 kb.

If you want to learn more about GOP history, or se some good commentary on current events involving the Grand Old party, Might I recommend this new site to you -- Grand Old Partisan.

It is run by Michael Zak, author of Back to Basics for the Republican Party, who also operates the site www.republicanbasics.com.

Drop by and take a look -- you'll like it.

Posted by: Greg at 04:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

This is apparently what passes for "free speech" and "political dialogue" when you are a Democrat.

Invoking Thomas Jefferson and Mr. Hankey from the television series "South Park," the lawyer for an ex-professor accused of leaving dog feces at a congresswoman's office said her client's actions qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment.

Kathleen Ensz faces a misdemeanor charge of "use of a noxious substance." She is accused of taking dog feces from her backyard, wrapping it in a political mailer from Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, and leaving it at the Republican's office, according to court documents.

Ensz, a Democrat, was angered by repeatedly receiving mailings from Musgrave, the documents said.

That's odd -- I simply trash the mailers I get from Democrat candidates and supporters of al-Qaeda.

And as a supposedly educated woman, I would have thought she might have found some more mature, creative way of expressing her political beliefs. Oh, that's right -- expecting maturity out of a Democrat activist is usually wasted effort (although I'm blessed with a wonderful one who serves as my alternate election judge -- she is the second best Democrat I know). And lest you think she is just some run of the mill registered Dem or occasional volunteer, please realize that she is (or was) the vice chair of the Democrat organization for Colorado Senate District 13 -- an elected position voted upon by her fellow Democrats.

And then there is this inane argument from her lawyer.

"What she did was probably crude and boorish," Patricia Bangert, one of Ensz's attorneys, argued during a hearing Tuesday, when she likened the conduct to a form of political protest such as Jefferson's criticism of the King of England.

Bangert held up Mr. Hankey, an animated, talking piece of human excrement from "South Park," as evidence of how commonplace feces is for expressing disdain.

"Etiquette and propriety aside, it is commonplace in today's society to equate a distasteful or disliked person, situation or thing, to feces," Bangert said.

Yeah, the comparison is one that is often used, but the analogy breaks down there. If I say you are full of sh!t or that you are a piece of sh!t, that is one thing. If I throw sh!t at you, that crosses a line that takes my actions out of the realm of free speech and into the realm of assault. Similarly, Enz committed a violation of the law when she shoved sh!t in the congresswoman's mail box. Jefferson, whose name is taken in vain by the shyster in question, would quickly acknowledge the difference.

On the other hand, if Enz really believes that she was just giving the congresswoman a piece of her mind, perhaps that is evidence that the professor has sh!t for brains.

H/T Gateway Pundit

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:51 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 7 kb.

This got my hopes up.

Hillary returns to Antartic for final time

Unfortunately, it was the wrong Hillary. I should have known that the Hildebeast wouldn't retreat to the South Pole -- but I could hope.

We get the joys of this headline instead.

Sen. Clinton Launches 2008 Campaign

Yeah -- the anti-climax has arrived.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) today announced she will establish a presidential exploratory committee, launching a 2008 campaign that could make her the first female president in history and the only former first lady to succeed her husband in the White House.

In a posting on her campaign Web site, Clinton announced her decision with a headline that read, "I'm In."

I'm surprised that she put that on her website -- that is usually Billzebubba's line.

Her big money quote?

"The stakes will be high when America chooses a new president in 2008," Clinton said in the written statement. "As a senator, I will spend [the next] two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism."

Odd -- when conservatives acted to limit the damage done by her husband, she labelled it a "vast right wing conspiracy." When she does the same thing, it is patriotic and grounds for electing her president despite her lack of substantive accomplishments as a Senator -- or in life.

Now the race for money is on -- and speaking of money, will she have lost the support of many of her husband's former supporters? After all, Barack Obama is this year's Howard Dean-style rock star candidate.

Her entrance into the race followed Mr. ObamaÂ’s by less than a week, and highlighted the urgency for her of not falling behind in the competition for money, especially in New York, where the battle has already reached a fever pitch.

George Soros, the billionaire New York philanthropist, has made maximum donations in the past to both candidates, for instance, and last week he faced a choice: support Mr. Obama, who created his committee on Tuesday, or stay neutral and see what Mrs. Clinton and others had to say. In his case, the upstart won. Mr. Soros sent the maximum contribution, $2,100, to Mr. Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois, just hours after he declared his plans to run.

“Soros believes that Senator Obama brings a new energy to the political system and has the potential to be a transformational leader,” said Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Mr. Soros.

Mrs. ClintonÂ’s presidential operation is only one day old, but she already finds herself in a breakneck competition against Mr. Obama for fund-raising supremacy in two towns that she and her husband have mined heavily for political gold: New York and Hollywood. Mr. ObamaÂ’s entrance into the race has also put up for grabs other groups that are primary targets for Mrs. Clinton, including African-Americans and women.

At this early stage in the nomination fight, securing donations and signing up fund-raisers are among the best ways of showing political strength in a crowded field (seven Democrats and counting). And Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are looking to raise at least $75 million this year alone.

Advisers said yesterday that they had begun corralling donors to build quickly on the formidable $14 million that Mrs. Clinton already had in the bank. They predicted that they would outpace Mr. Obama, though they acknowledged that he is moving impressively to try to match Mrs. ClintonÂ’s national fund-raising network, which has been in the making far longer than his.

Mrs. Clinton faces some fatigue among donors after more than 15 years of Clinton fund-raising, Democratic contributors and strategists said, and some skepticism about whether she can win. Yet she has the DemocratsÂ’ most popular rainmaker at her full disposal, former President Bill Clinton, and she has influential friends like the lawyer and power broker Vernon E. Jordan Jr. to help keep African-American donors and others by her side.

On the bright side, I've kept all my "Impeach Clinton" paraphernalia, so I am set for the horrific possibility of another Clinton Presidency.

And maybe she'll bring back that missing silverware.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:33 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 823 words, total size 9 kb.

How else can you interpret this “warning” – to George W. Bush, not the mad mullahs or the Holocaust-denying president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad., not Jimmy Carter).

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

So when the Iranians test their first nuclear weapon, Harry Reid says Bush cannot respond.

When the Iranians drop a nuke on downtown Tel Aviv, Harry Reid says George Bush is merely permitted to click his tongue.

And when the Iranians begin to terrorize the rest of the world following that attack, Harry Reid insists that the President cannot use our military to deal with the threat.

I wonder – does Harry Reid believe that American troops are allowed to respond to a direct attack by Iranian troops that have crossed the border into Iraq? Or do the troops have to flee in the face of the invasion, since military action is not authorized against Iran?

But then again, I wonder if Harry Reid is part of the 22% (see question #19) who need their asses kicked?

Posted by: Greg at 02:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

I'll concede that most sharks are harmless to humans -- but these folks do go a bit far for my taste.

onservationists are out to rehabilitate the image of the shark and rally support for protecting the misunderstood fish's dwindling numbers.

They say about 20 percent of the world's sharks are estimated to be threatened -- and are calling upon to public to give up its fear and start acting on the predator's behalf.

''They're not all just teeth,'' said Sonja Fordham, policy director of the Belgium-based Shark Alliance and director of the shark conservation program of the Washington-based Ocean Conservancy.

Fine -- protect them.

But "misunderstood fish"? That ranks up there with "undocumented alien". What next -- shoplifters as "cashless customers"?

Posted by: Greg at 02:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

I cannot believe that the principal of St Francis High School (a public, not private, school in Minnesota) decided he just had to keep this picture from a school play out of the school paper.

I'm sorry -- it just is not that offensive. More to the point, it is a fictional depiction of speech that would, according to the Supreme Court, be protected by the First Amendment.

A northern Anoka County school-district superintendent this afternoon is defending the censorship of a student newspaper on the grounds that photo depicts the destruction of the American flag.

Several First Amendment experts say the school officials are overstepping the law, and at least one civil liberties group said it might be interested in taking up the studentsÂ’ cause.

A blue box, big and bold on the front-page of the St. Francis High School student newspaper, stands in for a photo that student editors say was unjustly banned by the school principal.

Inside the box on the front-page of the new edition of The Crier: “Originally a photo was to be placed here, but was censored by the administration.”

The caption below hints to the sensitive issue that is framing the free-speech feud in the northern Anoka County school: “During the Fall Play Lead Actress Becca Bennett held up a prop, made from table cloth bunting, representing how a country could be torn apart by affecting the youth. The picture was removed off the wall in the PAC hallway.” (PAC stands for Performing Arts Center.)

Prop or not, the jarring photo — which the Pioneer Press will publish in its Friday editions — resembles the tattered remains of an American flag. The image is hardly unknown to the students and staff, since the scene was performed on stage and the photo itself hung in the school’s hall.

And I'll agree -- it is a jarring photo. However, clearly captioned there should be no problem with it.

But the principal and superintendent of the district view matters differently.

Neubauer did not immediately return a phone message left for him Ed Saxton, superintendent of Independent School Dist. 15, defended the St. Francis decision on the grounds that flag destruction can be offensive.

“It’s like a quote being taken out of context,” Saxton, a former principal of the high school, said. “That particular picture, although it’s a snapshot of what was in the fall play, standing in isolation, it could be taken in many different ways. It could be pretty offensive to veterans or people who serviced in the military. It’s kind of a community standards thing.”

Unfotunately for the two of them, the district has a policy that makes the paper an open forum, and has not exercised such editorial control in the past. As such, it is difficult to believe they can legally prevail on the issue, based upon past Supreme Court precedent.

However PrincipalChief Censor Neubauer is ready to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. He plans on filing a frivolous lawsuit against the paper for reporting and editorializing on his act of censorship, despite the information being accurate and he being a public figure in the context of the school.

One of the purposes of public schools is to instill respect for American values and governing principles. It appears, however, that Neubauer does not understand them himself -- and therefore needs to be removed from his position as the instructional leader of the school due to his obvious professional incompetence.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo,Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 708 words, total size 7 kb.

Looks like trouble on the John Edwards front.

When former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards finally succeeded last month in selling his imposing Georgetown mansion for $5.2 million after it had languished on the market, the names of the buyers were not publicly disclosed.

At the time, Edwards's spokeswoman told reporters that the house had been sold to an unidentified corporation. In reality, the buyers were Paul and Terry Klaassen, according to several sources and confirmed by Edwards's spokeswoman yesterday.

The wealthy founders of the nation's largest assisted-living housing chain for seniors, the Klaassens are currently cooperating with a government inquiry in connection with accounting practices and stock options exercised by them and other company insiders. They are also the focus of legal complaints by some of the same labor unions whose support Edwards has been assiduously courting for his presidential bid.

The grand 18th-century house had lingered on Washington's slowing real estate market for more than 18 months. The Edwardses paid $3.8 million in 2002 for the six-bedroom Federal-style house once owned by socialite Polly Fritchey, and they did substantial renovations. The final sale price was half a million dollars below the asking price but still $1.4 million more than the Edwardses paid four years earlier.

This looks bad, both in terms of the high-dollar profit from a seemingly corrupt source and what looks like a cover-up of the purchasers' identity by Edwards. What would the Dems say if this were a GOP candidate?

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

In New York, teachers will get the chance to evaluate their principals as part of a school reform package introduced by Mayor Bloomberg.

Allowing teachers to help evaluate principals has been a longstanding request of the teachersÂ’ union, and Mr. Klein seemed to be going out of his way to praise teachers a day after the mayor announced that tenure after a three-year probationary period would no longer be nearly automatic. Instead teachers will be rigorously evaluated.

“Because of our deep respect for our teachers, we’re looking for other ways to make sure that their wisdom becomes yet a more important part of each school’s culture,” Mr. Klein said. “Their views on how a school is being run are critically important, and we need to formalize the process by which those views are expressed and properly considered.”

Let's be honest -- as a teacher, I know which members of the administrative team at my school are getting the job done, which are dead weight, and which are actively destructive of the school's mission. The same is true of my colleagues. And while w should not have the overwhelming say in hiring and firing decisions, our input ought to be considered..

By the way, this article also points out one reason I am glad that I teach in Texas -- reading the whiny comments of the union official makes me glad that here in Texas we can choose from a variety of teacher organizations, or refuse to join any of them.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's be honest --I can't live without my cell phone. It is my connection to the world. And the phones I prefer are from Motorola.

You may ask why. Believe it or not, it is because one of my seminary colleagues had, prior to following that vocation, been an R&D guy with Motorola. Fr. John didn't steer me wrong.

Well, I'm looking to get a new Motorola phone sometime soon. I'm partial to two of the latest -- the Motorola KRZR K1 and the Motorola Z3.

Maybe I've hung around my students too long, but I like the idea of a phone that can also play your music on the go. That would be teh Z3. On the other hand, having the photo capability of the KRZR would be nice, for those times when I don't have my digital camera around.

So tell me, what do you think?

Motorola Z3 or the Motorola KRZR K1?

Comment and let me know!

Paid Endorsement.

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

I didn't have a conversation this afternoon. I listened, politely, but chose not to engage.

Because there was simply no point.

The other part didn't want a dialogue -- they wanted a concession and/or an abject surrender.

"If three thousand dead Americans haven't convinced you that this war is wrong, then you are either stupid, immoral, or insane."

Good grief! How does one even begin to respond to that comment as if it deserves to be dignified at all? how does one pretend that there is any intellectual or logical rigor to it?And when the speaker brought up the possibility, of friends, former students, or family members dying in Iraq, how could I even pretend it was anything but pathetic emotional blathering?

But I do have a response -- one I could have given if I thought that an argument might have had any chance of producing a meeting of the minds, or even mutual respect.

You see, I'm willing to concede that much of the premise for this war was wrong -- though not that Saddam Hussein was uninvolved with terrorism. And I'll concede that knowing what I know today, I would oppose beginning the war. However, both of those points are irrelevant.

The reality is that we are at war, and the criteria for determining whether or not US involvement is warranted does not revolve around why the war began or even the raw number of Americans and/or Iraqis killed to date.

No, the correct measure is whether we have the ability to improve the situation, the means to do so, and a plan for doing so. Indeed, if the answer to the first two is yes, then there is something of an obligation to develop the third.

You see, our actions created the reality that now exists in Iraq. Our obligation is to help the Iraqi people attain stability. If that means making an additional commitment of troops to do so -- as was the position of the Democrats for most of the last two years -- then we should do so. Indeed, withdrawal should only be an option if it can be shown that it will lead to an improvement in the status quo. That is one of the lessons that needs to be drawn from the debacle in Southeast Asia thirty years ago -- the situation that followed America's withdrawal was infinitely worse than what preceded it. Our departure from Iraq would similarly lead to sectarian and ethnic strife being rachetted up, unless the paramilitary groups are neutralized and the terror groups defeated by securing Baghdad and Anbar OR unless the country is peacefully partitioned. The former is the President's goal, and it is attainable.

Now there is the focus on casualties. Iraq has been a relatively low-casualty conflict for American troops. During WW II, there were single days that saw more dead. Vietnam saw years with more casualties than the American military has sustained in nearly four. And while every death is an unspeakable tragedy, that does not mean it is a useless or senseless tragedy. I learned that lesson at my father's knee growing up, listening to him explain that the job of a soldier or sailor is to be prepared to die for something greater than himself. The only unacceptable death is one that does not come in the furtherance of a necessary objective in the conflict at hand. As such, the notion of "too many deaths" is almost a nonsensical one, provided that those lives are not being pissed away with no objective, or after it becomes clear that the objective cannot be attained. I do not yet believe that we are at such a point.

Does this mean I am evil? No, it means that I view the death toll as a gut-wrenching but unavoidable by-product of the nation's decision to go to war.

Does this mean I am insane? I think not, for my position is based upon facts and reality, not upon a spasmodic emotional reaction.

Does mean I m stupid? I do not believe so, as my position is one based upon an analysis of the facts.

On the other hand, I will concede one point quite willingly -- it is quite possible that my analysis of the situation is somehow flawed. Error, how ever, is not the same as immorality, insanity, or stupidity. I remain prepared to be convinced that I am wrong by a fact-based logical analysis of the consequences of withdrawal and/or our ability to improve the situation by staying.

Emotional attacks and ad hominem argument, on the other hand, will not even be acknowledged.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 783 words, total size 4 kb.

I condemned those wanting to make an issue of Barack ObamaÂ’s name and Muslim upbringing. I found their rhetoric disturbing at best, and un-American at worst.

However, there is one issue related to that upbringing that should be raised with the Senator/Presidential wannabe. It relates to the fact that he was raised a Muslim -- and the consequences of his having renounced that faith and become a Christian. Does he feel threatened due to his status as an apostate Muslim? As an apostate Muslim, is he willing to condemn the sharia law provisions that require death for an apostate.

The odds are high that he will answer no to the first and yes to the second. As an oily politician, he will try to squirm out of a clear definitive yes with no wiggle room. But it should not be difficult for a smart journalist to get him to agree without reservation that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states...
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief.
...applies to Muslims

Once Obama condemns the Moslem tradition of death for apostasy, then he can be asked:

The Koran famously quotes Allah as saying in chapter (sura) 2, verse 256 that there should be ‘no compulsion in religion.' Yet numerous sayings of Mohammed known as hadith which form the basis of Islamic Sharia law quote Mohammed as saying ‘If a Moslem discards his religion, kill him.' So are you telling Moslems that Allah was right but Mohammed was misquoted, and their Sharia law tradition on apostasy is wrong?

You can see how much fun there is to be had with this.

Now I don’t particularly like the “gotcha” tone of the above excerpt, but I do think it is a valuable question to raise in the context of a Presidential campaign.

I also think there is one more to raise. If elected, would his status as a Muslim apostate interfere with his ability to conduct foreign relations with the Muslim world – not because of any wrongdoing on his part, but based upon the rigid chauvinism and intolerance of Islamic culture in matters of religion.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

Professor Thomas Klocek was fired by DePaul University, without so much as a hearing, for creating a hostile campus environment. How? By daring to debate with some Muslim students about terrorism outside of class in a common area. It seems that free inquiry and pursuit of the truth is trumped at DePaul by the notion that minorities must be protected from hurt feelings under all circumstances.

Well, Klocek is returning to DePaul on January 24, as a speaker on the issue of free speech at Catholic universities.

CHICAGOÂ…DePaul University suspended adjunct professor Thomas Klocek without a hearing for disagreeing with Muslim students over the Arab-Israeli conflict in an out-of-classroom debate. Since then, his case has brought scrutiny on DePaul from international media and academic community while causing division among the UniversityÂ’s own faculty and students. For the first time since his suspension, Klocek will return to the school that silenced him to discuss the role of free speech at Catholic Universities. The forum will also include DePaul professor and Klocek supporter Jonathan Cohen, as well as highly controversial free speech activist David Horowitz. The event will take place in DePaulÂ’s Cortelyou Commons at 2324 North Fremont Street in Chicago on Wednesday, January 24th at 7:00 PM. The event is free and open to the public. ...
The event is sponsored by the Young America's Foundation and the DePaul Conservative Alliance. Event organizer Nicholas Hahn, of the DePaul Conservative Alliance, says, “We have heard of a leftist protest campaign hell-bent on preventing the event from happening. However, we will press forward with the forum. Now, more than ever, DePaul needs to enter the free speech discourse.”

If you are in the Chicago area, pleas try to attend – we have seen how vile and violent leftists will go to any extreme to prevent the airing of views with which they disagree. Supporters of free speech need to be in attendance to support the right of Klocek and Horowitz to speak.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.