And takes the whole national security/defense team with him. How's that for a display of confidence in the troops and the Surge?

President Bush greeted his war commanders with salutes Monday during a surprise visit to a U.S. air base in Iraq's Anbar province.

Air Force One touched down at Al Asad Air Base at 3:43 p.m. (7:43 a.m. EDT) under a blazing sun.

The White House said the base was chosen because of the "remarkable turnaround" in the mostly Sunni region west of Baghdad.

Bush plans to eat dinner with U.S. troops and to meet with top military commanders, the U.S. ambassador, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and provincial tribal leaders.

Bush has hailed Anbar as a success, citing the U.S. military's alliance with tribal leaders in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.

Marine commanders on the ground told Bush that "morale is high," despite long troop rotations.

The president was expected to deliver televised remarks from the base at about 12:30 ET.

* * *

Also joining Bush on the Iraq visit are U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, a senior White House official said.

Jules Crittenden has a great roundup of the news of the visit. And i do wish that the President would take up the suggestion of a visit to Fallujah or Ramadi. Not only our troops, but the Iraqi people need the sign of support that such a visit would be.

Captain Ed offers this analysis.

How will this affect the debate on Iraq here in the US? It will show that more of Iraq has been secured in a rather dramatic fashion. A year ago, a presidential visit to Anbar would have been a ludicrous suggestion. His meetings with tribal leaders may have been even more ludicrous regardless of whether they occurred in Anbar or Baghdad. It cuts through the filters of conventional wisdom and media narratives to make a rather bold point about the progress since the start of the surge.

More importantly, how does this affect politics inside Iraq? By meeting with Maliki, Bush can assuage some hurt feelings over calls for Maliki's ouster by Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. However, his meetings with tribal leaders will demonstrate that the US will be willing to work with a broad range of political leadership, a move that should send a message to Maliki. It will be a recognition of tribal leaders who have chosen political engagement rather than terrorist support, which will strengthen the momentum towards political reform.

It's a smart move in all directions. Bush has once again shown the relevance and the power of the presidency, and he chose the best possible time for this demonstration.

He is exactly right in this -- as the Petraeus report looms on the horizon, it is important that the President see what is going on in Iraq, just like the many members of Congress who have visited over the last few weeks -- most of them expressing confidence in the troops and the mission after their return.

In addition, could you imagine the response of the leftards who are now frothing over this visit if President Bush had not broken his journey to Australia with a stop in Iraq? We'd be hearing that he is a coward, that he doesn't care about the troops, and that Iraq isn't really safe. Instead they are angry that he did stop to visit. it must be great having BDS -- no matter what W does, you can always use it as a reason to hate him!

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 613 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I thought President Bush visit was terrific.
Furthermore the media did not point out the President Bush did not wear a flap jacket or an other protective garment.
A great leader is President Bush!

Posted by: Vincent at Tue Sep 4 02:19:02 2007 (fTfVs)

2 comment2, Short Skirt Gallery Online
, publ, whole life insurance
, %[[[, very short skirts
, 184774, transparent bikini
, 4452, Gas Powered Scooters Pictures
, > ,

Posted by: claussberg at Wed Feb 11 21:25:04 2009 (gDU3s)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A number of Dem congresscritters seem to think so.

Many of the Democratic congressmen who ousted Republicans in marginal House districts last year privately express concern about the impact on their re-election prospects if Hillary Clinton is nominated for president.

Because of the strong possibility that Clinton indeed will be the party's candidate, these congressmen will not openly express their fears. But they dread her impact from the top of the ticket.

Clinton's opponents don't raise the question in public. But there is such underground talk in Iowa, the state opening the battle for convention delegates, questioning her ''electability.''

The prospect of another Clinton in the White House will fire up the GOP base. After all, we still hold Billzebubba in contempt, and the nation is still paying for his foreign policy failures. The Clinton team clearly does not deserve a second chance.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

According to this analysis, it most certainly does.

Does denying Florida delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention violate Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act? This Section essentially requires the U.S. Department of Justice to review - before it becomes operational - any change in any law, regulation, standard or procedure that might adversely affect minority voting rights in a covered jurisdiction like the Sunshine State. This "pre-clearance" process makes those advocating the change prove their proposed action will not have the effect of leaving minority voters worse off in terms of voting strength. Until recently, Florida's minority voters had the power to help choose the next Democratic presidential nominee. Historically, these citizens are overwhelmingly Democrat and have used the party's quadrennial presidential primary to express their view on which individual should be the occupant of the Oval Office. But recently, the Florida State Legislature pushed-up the date of the Democratic presidential primary. In turn, the rules and by-laws committee of the Democratic National Committee voted last month to strip the Sunshine state of it's 2008 convention delegates for violating the agreed-to national primary schedule. Assuming this decision is backed by the full DNC membership, it will be an unprecedented dilution of minority voting in the Democrats presidential primary system, in terms of Florida or any state, since the passage of the Voting Rights Act 42 years ago.

As they say in the law, this is Res ipsa loquitur: "The thing speaks for itself." Assuming neither Florida or the DNC backs down, the state's minority citizens will be subjected to the ultimate voter dilution. But what change is to blame, in terms of the Voting Rights Act? Taking away the Sunshine state's convention delegates punishes the wrong people: the voters, including millions of minority citizens protected by the most storied civil rights law passed by the Congress in American history.

According to this analysis, the Justice Department could order either the state or the DNC to give way on this one. And in one persuasive part of the essay, the author notes that since the decision to move the primary disenfranchised nobody (and was rationally related to increasing voter turnout by connecting it to another election) while the decision to strip Florida delegated explicitly disenfranchises voters, the easiest action would be to require the DNC to overturn its decision.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems that treatment might just be in the offing.

Who knows -- maybe their delusions can be gone by election time.

Standard treatment for jihadism, however, will remain the high-velocity injection of lead, 5.56 mm at a time.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

For those in the mission field, travel is a big deal. How does one travel from one's home to the place where one has been called by God? How does one make it home? Most travel agencies and airlines are not set up to help with the special needs of missionary travel, with its low budget and pressing time constraints.

Golden Rule Travel is a company that specializes in assisting missionaries with their travel needs. For over 20 years, the company has been making travel arrangements for missionaries, their families, and people traveling abroad for international adoptions. To judge from the many testimonials on their site, they do a fantastic job. Not only that, but they go the extra mile to aid those who travel with them. Golden Rule offers a special toll-free number to its customers to receive assistance with their travel needs in the event of problems.

Posted by: Greg at 08:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Kudos to Neptunus Lex for this great PhotoShop of everyone's favorite Islamist.

I guess he missed the memo.

On the other hand, I give Lex two thumbs up!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:05 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 2 kb.

OK, ladies, here it is -- HerFabLife-Your one-stop lifestyle guide to all things fabulous!. HerFabLife is a social lifestyle community for women who are up with all the latest trends and interested in the latest styles and the best places to eat, drink, shop and relax. HerFabLife even provides you with information about upcoming entertainment events in your area. best of all, ladies, you can even add your own content to the site, making you part of a fabulous social network. So drop by HerFablife.com and see what they have to offer you!

Posted by: Greg at 06:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

For those of you who think that government-paid and managed healthcare would be great, consider the power that bureaucrats would have under John Edwards' plan.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal healthcare proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

''It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,'' he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. ``If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.''

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat ''the first trace of problem.'' Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory healthcare plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

''The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death,'' he said.

Got that. The government will decide when you MUST see the doctor.

So yes, ladies, you get that Pap smear and mammogram -- in fact, you MUST get that Pap smear and mammogram. And I'll be REQUIRED to see the podiatrist to check out my feet since I'm diabetic. No longer will Americans be responsible for their medical decisions -- some bureaucrat will tell you what doctors visits you need to make, and presumably when and where you have to go.

No telling what the penalty will be for not keeping to the governmentally-dictated medical regime.

I don't know about you, but it appears that the only decision that the government won't be intruding upon is the liberal sacrament of abortion -- after all, they tell us that's a medical decision to be made between patient and doctor.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters, Don Surber and Liberty Papers, Betsy's Page, RWN, Poliblog

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, that's what the London Times is claiming is in the offing.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the IraniansÂ’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.

Frankly, I don't buy the argument -- and I think the article is much to speculative to believe that it is accurate.

besides, I think Israel is more likely to do the job than we are.

Meanwhile, over at the Cloaca Maxima of the Internet AKA Daily Kos, there is this piece of excrement floating around.

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

* * *

I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth.

"I donÂ’t think itÂ’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

Somehow, I think this is all a load of crap.

If false, I think this qualifies as a violation of Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 § 2388 of the US Code, to wit:

(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; . . .

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Of course, if this information is true we have the possibility of treason and espionage charges being brought, as well as a host of charges under the UCMJ against the person who disclosed the information to the KOSsack in question.

Here's hoping that the investigations have already begun. I know at least one bloggger has made a report to the Office of Naval Intelligence. Seems like a prudent step to me.

More At Confederate Yankee, Neptunus Lex and Stop the ACLU

UPDATE: Here's something even more insane than the Kos piece mentioned above (which even Kos himself seems to have disavowed -- and now pulled from his site).

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's News & Views, DragonLady's World, Webloggin, Cao's Blog, Stageleft, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 697 words, total size 6 kb.

Ask any teacher -- a good substitute is worth his or her weight in diamonds and gold. And when retired teachers come back into the classroom as substitutes, they are usually the ones you want to get.

Especially since qualifications to work as a substitute are even lower than the pay for the work.

Qualifications for substitutes vary from system to system, with some requiring a bachelor's degree and others only a minimum number of college credits. The pay also varies, from about $75 a day to $103 for retired teachers.

My district does require some college to substitute -- a whole 30 hours of college credit. In other words, you can have kids who graduated the previous year coming back as substitutes if they took a couple of summer school classes and AP or dual-credit during their high school career. Fortunately, the district tries to keep them out of the high schools.

And don't fool yourself -- substitutes are a big expense for a district. Mine spent $1.7 million on subs last year -- for a variety of reasons, ranging from personal days and conferences to illnesses and maternity leave. And as it was, there were still classes that were covered by administrators, teacher, and even secretaries if there was no substitute available through our system.

Probably the best news I've gotten is that one of my recently retired colleagues is coming back as a substitute after a year of retirement. I know I will fight to schedule him into my class if i know in advance that I will be out of school.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Just to remind you what savages run the Terrorstinian Anarchy.

Hamas gunmen opened fire on their own supporters Saturday, killing a teenager at a protest on the Gaza-Egypt border, hospital officials said.

Tens of thousands of flag-waving Hamas supporters gathered at the Rafah border crossing with Egypt to demand it be reopened. The border, Gaza's only gateway to Egypt, has been shut since Hamas' bloody takeover of the Gaza Strip in June.

Hamas gunmen guarding the border fired in the air as hundreds of protesters tried to rush the border terminal and go into Egypt.

A 17-year-old was shot in the head and later pronounced dead, medics said. Seven others were trampled or wounded by gunfire.

I'm truly beginning to believe that there are some people who cannot run their own affairs -- and the Terrorstinians are clearly among them. Given tehm a state of their own? You must be kidding!

Posted by: Greg at 03:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Will this decision put those two states in the GOP column in November of 2008?

The Democratic candidates have signed a pledge that would forbid them from campaigning in states such as Michigan and Florida that have sought to move their presidential primaries into January 2008.

Democratic leaders in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states that had been designated by the Democratic National Committee to hold early primaries, demanded in letters Friday that the candidates not participate in the early primaries of other states. The candidates either had to sign the pledge or risk annoying officials in those key states.

Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), along with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, signed the pledge within hours on Friday. By yesterday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, had joined them.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign said in a statement. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

The best thing for the GOP to do at this point is to step aside and announce that it will not penalize the early states at the convention. It would then be very important for the GOP candidates to actively campaign in Michigan and Florida, indicating that they actually value the voice of the people of those states. That is part of a strategy for electoral victory in 2008 -- because after all, would you vote for any presidential candidate so beholden to special interests that he or she would refuse to even ask for your vote?

And while I agree with the NY Times that something needs to be done to rationalize the process, disenfranchising and ignoring voters is not the way to do so.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters

Posted by: Greg at 03:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Frankly, I think it is way too soon for a book like this to be published. Such reflections are more appropriate after a president's term ends, now with 16 months left in his presidency.

But there is a quote that some folks are making great fun of in the BDS-afflicted left-o-sphere that I think illustrates something quite interesting about the nature of the modern presidency.

Then he said, "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," where he will be running what he called "a fantastic Freedom Institute" promoting democracy around the world. But he added, "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

Now the leftards have been having fun with that three-word "fantastic Freedom Institute" excerpt (wouldn't you like to see the whole quote -- I bet it is significantly more substantive), what strikes me is the latter part of that paragraph.

I think the quote illustrates something very important -- the presidency, for all its power and perks, is a gilded prison. It strips the ability to be normal from the occupant of the Oval Office.

How many of you can decide that you want to make an impromptu road-trip on the weekend because you are bored or stressed? Probably all of you. What you see in Bush's statement is his yearning to be able to do exactly that.

I live here in Houston. I'm a teacher, not anyone of great social importance. And yet I see George & Barbara Bush at community events on a regular basis. They have a freedom to come and go as they choose that they lacked for the dozen years of his Vice Presidency and especially his Presidency. I believe their son is looking forward to that.

Some will argue that Bush's weakness is being exposed here. I'd argue that we are getting a glimpse of his humanity in a way that we have never seen the humanity of a president before.

Posted by: Greg at 02:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

And in the process ignores why such commemorations remain important to us as a nation.

Again it comes, for the sixth time now — 2,191 days after that awful morning — falling for the first time on a Tuesday, the same day of the week.

Again there will be the public tributes, the tightly scripted memorial events, the reflex news coverage, the souvenir peddlers.

Is all of it necessary, at the same decibel level — still?

Each year, murmuring about Sept. 11 fatigue arises, a weariness of reliving a day that everyone wishes had never happened. It began before the first anniversary of the terrorist attack. By now, though, many people feel that the collective commemorations, publicly staged, are excessive and vacant, even annoying.

“I may sound callous, but doesn’t grieving have a shelf life?” said Charlene Correia, 57, a nursing supervisor from Acushnet, Mass. “We’re very sorry and mournful that people died, but there are living people. Let’s wind it down.”

Some people prefer to see things condensed to perhaps a moment of silence that morning and an end to the rituals like the long recitation of the names of the dead at ground zero.

But many others bristle at such talk, especially those who lost relatives on that day.

The article goes on to compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, and even a maritime fire that killed nearly 1100 people in New York harbor. In doing so, I believe the article mises the point.

The events of September 11 still resonate for three reasons.

First, they are the event that we mark in our minds as the beginning of the current war between the United States and jihadi terrorists. As such, the horrific events of that day serve as a pointed reminder of why we fight -- indeed, of why we must fight -- the Islamist foe. The Confederacy is dead and buried. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany have been defeated and emerged as valued allies. But this latter day enemy is still at war with us, in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and dozens of cities and town where planned terrorist plots have been thwarted. Commemorations of that day's horror keep us focused on what we are up against, and the price of failing to be vigilant and prepared.

Second, 9/11 is an event different than any other in American history. America has been attacked by foreign enemies in the past -- but never has that attack been so directly aimed at our civilian population using the ordinary elements of our daily lives. Like it or not, Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor are fundamentally different because they were military attacks upon military forces at military installations -- and I've often argued that the reason the attack upon the Pentagon resonates differently with Americans is not merely a question of numbers, but also of our recognition that our military personnel have signed up to face America's enemies while office workers and janitors in a skyscraper have not.

Lastly, we lived those events with an immediacy that we did not, indeed could not, live any other event in American history. Television, radio, and the internet placed every single one of us at Ground Zero immediately We remained there for days There is a psychic connection nationwide that no other event in American history to this point can match. While some are ready to move on, a great many of us still feel an attachment to the events of September 11 and those who died that day.

Is it time to scale things back? I don't think so, and I don't know when it will be.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters & Right Wing Nut House

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 631 words, total size 4 kb.

Sponsored Post

At age twelve, I knocked out one of my front teeth. It was reimplanted, but remained a source of constant trouble well into adulthood, when it had to be surgically extracted. My dentist decided the best option for me at that point was a bridge to replace the empty spot that would be left in the middle of my smile.

In hindsight, I wish I had explored dental implants as an alternative to having two other teeth shaved down so that they could anchor that bridge. Wouldn't it have been so much better for me to have one replacement tooth, anchored in place to the bone, to replace the damaged tooth and fill the hole it left? It would certainly be better not to need special cleaning devices and a lower likelihood of future complications.

If you are interested in dental implants, check out DentalImplants.com to find a dentist who can help you make the best decision about your mouth.

Posted by: Greg at 08:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are NYT: Analogies Are Meaningless (Unless They Favor the Left) by Big Lizards, and Like a Suppository, Only a Bit Stronger by The Dissident Frogman.  Here are the full results of the vote:

Posted by: Greg at 07:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 5 kb.

Sponsored Post

One of the common causes of vision problems for older adults is macular degeneration (AMD), which occurs when deposits are made on a weakened retina, causing blurring and color changes in the central area of one's field of vision.

Once it begins, it is hard to stop, and few effective treatments exist for the condition. But there are steps that one can take to help prevent macular degeneration. Vitamins for eye health prevent visual impairment from AMD, reducing the risk for the disease by 70% and even slow the progression of the disease by 25%. This is significant for retaining healthy vision in old age. If you are at risk for AMD, you need to take steps now to help preserve your vision. more...

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

I can only assume that the Democrats will start a little housecleaning of their own.

Bruce at GayPatriot offers some suggestions.

These are in the order of importance based on the damage they have done to the Congress and our nation as a whole.

1 - Jay Rockefeller. For illegally leaking classified intelligence material to the news media due to his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Such acts constitute treason in a time of war.

2 - Nancy Pelosi. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For conducting illegal foreign policy with a sworn enemy of the United States (Syria).

3 - Harry Reid. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition.

4 - John Murtha. For slandering the United States Marines in a time of war for accusing them of murder and rape in the Haditha incident where no charges were filed at the time, and where now most all charges have been dropped, and by all military investigatory accounts — no crimes were committed.

5 - Ted Kennedy. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For violating Senate ethics rules by serving in the US Senate for 30 years following his drunk driving murder of a young woman.

6 - Dick Durbin. For statements against the President in a time of war that constitute sedition. For slandering the US military in a time of war by equating them with Nazi storm troopers.

7 - William Jefferson. For blatant corruption in office and abuse of power during the Katrina disaster.

Might I add Patrick Kennedy for his DUI incident, Patrick Leahy for leaking classified documents and getting a US operative killed, and Dianne Feinstein for steering contracts to her hubby's firms.

Feel free to add more.

UPDATE: Some additional observations from Gateway Pundit.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

I hate the University of Michigan -- so this story makes me very happy.

What was supposed to be a tuneup turned into a stunner: Appalachian State 34, No. 5 Michigan 32. Julian Rauch's 24-yard field goal with 26 seconds left put the Mountaineers ahead of the Wolverines and Corey Lynch's blocked field goal in the final seconds sealed one of college football's biggest upsets.

The two-time defending champions from former Division I-AA were ahead of the nation's winningest program 28-14 late in the second quarter, then their storybook afternoon seemed to unravel late in the fourth quarter.

Mike Hart's 54-yard run put the Wolverines ahead—for the first time since early in the second quarter—with 4:36 left.

One snap after the go-ahead touchdown, Brandent Englemon intercepted an errant pass, but the Wolverines couldn't capitalize and had their first of two field goals blocked.

Appalachian State drove 69 yards without a timeout in 1:11 to set up the go-ahead kick, but it still wasn't over.

Chad Henne threw a 46-yard pass to Mario Manningham, giving Michigan the ball at Appalachian State's 20 with 6 seconds left.

Lynch blocked the kick and returned it to the other end of the field as the final seconds ticked off, and his teammates rushed across the field to pile on Lynch as the coaching staff and cheerleaders jumped with joy.

Appalachian State has won 15 straight games, the longest streak in the nation.

Hurrah for the Mountaineers!

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

And if the decision in Avery Doninger's case is upheld down the road, it appears that this ruling will effectively mean that no student has First Amendment rights to speak on any matter related to school at any time or in any place free from the heavy hand of censorship and punishment by the school administration.

Avery Doninger may have been off campus when she wrote an Internet post calling officials in her Burlington school district a derogatory name.

But school officials were within their rights when they punished her for the comment as if she had made it on campus, a federal judge ruled Friday, because Doninger's writing related to school and was likely to be read by other students.

U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz's ruling marked the court's first stance on a lawsuit that Doninger's mother, Lauren, filed against two officials in the Region 10 school district after Avery Doninger, then 16, was prohibited from seeking re-election as secretary for her class at Lewis S. Mills High School in May. Punishing Avery Doninger for the comment - she called school officials "douchbags" (sic) in her Internet blog - violated her right to free speech, the Doningers argued.

Friday's ruling didn't decide the case, but resolved a request by Doninger's attorney for an injunction to allow Avery Doninger to run for class secretary. Kravitz's ruling denying the request noted that Doninger had not shown "substantial likelihood" that she would succeed in challenging the constitutional validity of her punishment.

But Kravitz's ruling also foreshadowed a case involving far more than a misspelled insult posted on the Internet. It concerns what kind of expression schools can regulate, whether schools can sanction behavior outside school, and just what can be considered on- or off-campus in the Internet age.

"The whole issue of blogs and off-campus e-mails is coming to the fore. Courts themselves are kind of feeling their way along," Kravitz said in court Friday. "These are difficult issues."

Now as one commentator notes, the Courant article is not completely accurate in its characterization of this decision, because this decision dealt with the issue of a pretrial injunction rather than the actual merits of the case. However, it does show that the judge is initially predisposed to rule in favor of the district based upon an initial presentation and examination of the facts at hand.

But let's consider the judge's opinion itself (34 pages long, yet miraculously issued a mere 45 minutes after closing arguments!).

In the opinion, Judge Kravitz states that the internet presents new challenges for school administrators, and that the courts have yet to fully shape the boundaries of school authority when it relates to the Internet. But in his recitation of the facts of the case, Judge Kravitz makes one important factual concession that shows his decision to be wrong.

Avery, J.E., P.A., and T.F. decided to send an email to various taxpayers, informing them of the situation and requesting that they contact the school superintendent, Paula Schwartz, in the LMHS central office to demand that Jamfest be held in the auditorium on April 28.

This email, which urges the public to contact public officials on a matter related to the operation of a public school, clearly qualifies as political speech. And given that Avery's later posting on her LiveJournal site reproduced the email in its entirety, it is virtually impossible to argue that the LiveJournal post does not similarly constitute political speech -- and it is that post which was used as the basis to prevent Avery from seeking reelection to her class officer position AND which later led the school to refuse to count write-in votes for her and to attempt to hide the ballots and the vote tally when repeated FOIA requests were made for them.

Now the judge conflates the standards found in the Morse and Fraser cases to argue that the school's action is justified in this case because the speech was disrespectful, uncivil, and potentially disruptive (despite the fact it took place away from school, the judge ruled that Internet speech can be treated as on-campus speech if any member of the school community can read it). But in doing so, he ignores Justice Alito's concurring opinion in the Morse case, which essentially controls and limits the reach of school authority in cases of political speech.

I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that. . . (b) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue. . . .

As such, the most recent Supreme Court decision regarding student speech, which Judge Kravitz uses to permit the school to take action against Avery Doninger, clearly prohibits the school from doing so. And given that the standard in Tinker requires the speech to cause a substantial disruption before it can be suppressed, A side-by-side reading of the two decisions must lead to the conclusion that the school's actions were wrong.

As for the application of the Fraser standard, it needs to be remembered that the lewd sexual language in that case occurred in a middle school auditorium, before a captive audience of students. No one can maintain that the facts here are even remotely similar. Calling an administrator a "douchbag" on a webpage might be uncivil, rude, and (arguably) inappropriate, but no one who does not voluntarily access the page is exposed to that message -- and it is possible to prevent any disruption caused by blocking the page from the school computers. The facts simply do not fit with the Fraser precedent.

In light of that analysis, I'd go further. Judge Kravitz cites a series of cases in which courts have held that students have no right to participate in extracurricular activities. While I am generally in agreement with him, I think the reasonable application of the Tinker and Morse standards is necessary here. If, in fact, students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, and if schools may not restrict political speech, then it is absurd to argue that a student might be banned from extracurricular activities for their speech on political or social issues. No rational legal scholar would argue, for example, that the Tinker children could not be suspended or expelled for the black armbands but could be denied a place in the school band, on an athletic team, or in student government for that same anti-war speech. No judge would rule that an administrator could bar a student who maintained a blog that commented against abortion or in favor of gay rights from membership on the debate team or the chess club. And more to the point, it would be seen as frighteningly un-American if a school district were to impose an extracurricular ban upon students who maintained a website opposing a school bond issue.

And quite frankly, the judge probably needs to consider the Supreme Court ruling in Cohens v. California as well. If the word "fuck" is protected speech in a political context, it is impossible to argue that "douchbag" (or its correctly spelled version) does not maintain similar protected status -- especially given that no action was taken against a student who posted a comment on the blog referring to the district superintendent BY NAME as a "dirty whore".

Another issue to consider is the fact that Judge Kravitz has ruled that speech on the Internet can be considered on-campus speech if it relates to school and students can see it at any time, including while at home using their privately-owned computers. This treats the Internet in a manner different from any other media, and essentially exempts it from First Amendment protection. I seriously doubt, for example, that Judge Kravitz would have ruled that Julia's use of the word "douchbag" on a picket picket-sign on a public sidewalk in front of the administration building during a protest of the cancellation of Jamfest could be treated as on-campus speech, even if students passing by on vehicles saw the sign. Similarly, were the protest covered by the news media, photos or video of such a sign in the press coverage could not convert her speech into an on-campus disruption of the educational process. Neither would placing signs in her yard, posters in public places, or an ad in the local newspaper. And were she to write a column on the issue that appeared in the press -- perhaps in a local alternative newspaper -- I cannot imagine any judge declaring her use of the word "douchbag" to be on-campus speech merely because a fellow student could read it. On what legitimate basis does the judge treat the Internet differently and place it beyond First Amendment protection under Tinker, Fraser, and Morse?

At this point, the only individuals directly harmed by this decision are Avery Doninger and the students who wrote her name in during the class election (incidentally, she won the office according to a tally of the ballots when they were eventually obtained under the states FOIA). And yet the speech of every student in her school is chilled by the decision allowing even a temporary victory to the officious administrative douchebags who chose to make an example out of her for her exercise of her First Amendment rights in her home using her own computer outside of school hours. But the potential for damage to the First Amendment rights of every American student is even greater. Judge Kravitz's decision must be overturned.

UPDATE: I've been in touch with Avery's mom, and she assures me that they are appealing to the Second Circuit. However, the pursuit of this lawsuit is a financial drain. Would you consider helping out?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1705 words, total size 13 kb.

According to reports, Senator Larry Craig will resign from the Senate today.

Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, plans to resign his seat on Saturday after Republican leaders put intense pressure on him to leave in the aftermath of an undercover sex sting, Republican Party officials said Friday.

Through intermediaries and unusually harsh public statements and actions, party officials made it clear they wanted Mr. Craig to quit before Congress returned from its summer recess next week, hoping to quickly conclude an embarrassing episode that threatened to complicate an already difficult election cycle for Senate Republicans.

Republican Party officials said Friday evening that they had been notified of Mr. CraigÂ’s intention to give up his seat as of Sept. 30 and that Gov. C. L. Otter, a Republican, would name a replacement.

Let me say for the record -- Craig's resignation is probably a good thing, and I think it should be immediate, not effective in a month. That said, I think it is necessary only because of Craig's poor choices in handling his arrest in an airport restroom.

Craig should not have entered a guilty plea to any charge -- at most, he should have entered a nolo contendere or Alford plea. In addition, as Captain Ed points out, there is a serious question as to whether any conduct Craig engaged in constitutes criminal activity and whether the plea was coerced with political threats. Indeed, does the mere act of seeking gay sex constitute criminal activity in the post Lawrence v. Texas world, where consensual sodomy has been held to be a constitutional right? This is especially true if, as in this case, there was no exchange of money, no indecent exposure, and no actual sexual contact in a public place. Are shoe-bumping and hand gestures actually barred under disorderly conduct statutes?

This is not to say that I approve of Larry Craig's actions in that lavatory, if he was, in fact, seeking sex. I just wonder where the crime is -- and how homosexual activist groups can stand by and not argue that arrests such as this one are legally wrong. Is the greater hypocrisy being a homosexual or bisexual opposed to homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military, and the inclusion of homosexuals in hate-crime laws, or in objecting to the criminalization of homosexual activity but remaining silent while a political opponent faces criminal charges that in other circumstances you would argue are legally and constitutionally dubious? I'd argue it is the latter.

And let me add that while I oppose homosexual marriage and certainly reject the notion that the 14th Amendment or any other provision of the US Constitution or the constitutions of any state that requires homosexual marriage, that does not indicate an antipathy toward gay individuals -- I simply believe that the authors of any of those documents had any intention of legalizing that which they all condemned. And while I reject the holding in Lawrence v. Texas as flawed, I personally stand with the view expressed by Justice Thomas that laws like the statute struck down in that case should not be on the books because of the nonsensical restriction on individual liberty they impose -- but they do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. And while I oppose including homosexuals under hate-crime laws, it is because I oppose the very notion of hate-crime laws and believe that such statutes undermine the notion of equal protection of the law and potentially impact First Amendment rights if used to restrict so-called "hate speech". But as I have said in the past, I am fully supportive of removing any restriction on military service based upon sexual orientation, and I have see no reason to legally restrict individuals from any profession based upon their sexual orientation.

And as for the issue of homosexuals holding public office, I have no objection to it. I have supported candidates I have known to be gay in the past, and will do so in the future. All other things being equal, I'd be supportive of keeping Larry Craig in office as an open homosexual. But the pattern of conduct -- especially in the face of the investigation into his activities by the largest newspaper in his home state -- shows a profound lack of discretion and judgment. That, my friends, is why Larry Craig has been so damaged by this incident, and why he needs to leave the Senate.

Early speculation has already begun about Craig's eventual replacement in the Senate.

A slightly different perspective at The Van Der Galiën Gazette.

UPDATE: Craig has announced his resignation, effective September 30.

Early word is that Idaho Gov. Butch Otter will appoint former governor and current Lt. Gov. Jim Risch as Craig's successor

If Jim Risch becomes the U.S. Senate's newest member, expect him to hit the ground running.

"I don't see him sitting around and saying, ‘I better learn the ropes here and take it easy and see how things are going,'" said Albertson College of Idaho political science professor Jasper LiCalzi.

"It will be interesting to watch him in a different legislative body," Boise State University professor emeritus Jim Weatherby said. "He's been so effective in the state Legislature, but he goes in as senator No. 100, as an appointed senator.

"But knowing Jim Risch, he is going to make the most of it."

Sources told reporters Friday that Gov. Butch Otter had chosen Risch, a fellow Republican, to succeed Sen. Larry Craig, who is expected to resign this morning. An Otter spokesman said that wasn't true, but Risch makes a lot of sense to Statehouse watchers like LiCalzi and Weatherby.

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Amy Proctor

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, , Conservative Cat, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, and CORSARI D'ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1032 words, total size 10 kb.

Absolutely shocking.

The Social Security Administration cannot start sending out letters to employers next week that carry with them more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, a federal judge ruled Friday.

Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation's largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called "no-match" letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday.

The AFL-CIO lawsuit, filed this week, claims that new Department of Homeland Security rules outlined in accompanying letters threaten to violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers. Chesney said the court needs "breathing room" before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.

She set the next hearing on the matter for Oct. 1.

Excuse me -- you are required to have a valid SSN to work. Such letters have been sent for years, but employers have ignored them. How is making the penalty stiffer a violation of anyone's right -- except the right of illegal aliens to work illegally, and the right of employers to break the law by employing them?

Posted by: Greg at 04:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

Mike Nifong again gets off too easy.

Embattled former district attorney Mike Nifong was held in criminal contempt of court and sentenced to one day in jail Friday for his actions in the flawed Duke lacrosse team rape case.

Nifong must report to jail September 7, Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III said.

The judge said Nifong's withholding of DNA evidence from defense attorneys was an affront to the integrity of the judicial system.

The evidence potentially would have cleared the three lacrosse players of sexual assault charges months before North Carolina's attorney general dropped them in April.

The players initially were accused of raping an exotic dancer during a party last year.

The specific evidence Nifong was accused of withholding was that DNA profiles found on the alleged rape victim were from unidentified males, but did not match any of the 46 lacrosse team members.

He also was accused of telling the court in a September 22 hearing that a lab report contained complete information on DNA test results, when it omitted that information.

Given that the entire investigation and prosecution was a travesty, designed to boost Nifong's election campaign rather than achieve justice, a one-day sentence is absurdly short.

Instead, Nifong needs to be imprisoned for the exact length of time each of these young men was forced to bear these false accusations -- with the time to be served consecutively.

Posted by: Greg at 03:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if any mainstream publication were to publish an article like this about any racial or ethnic group?

A new working paper from economists Victor Lavy of Hebrew University and Analía Schlosser of Princeton attempts to unpick the peer effects associated with gender, using data on nearly half a million students passing through Israel's school system in the 1990s. They compared consecutive year groups passing through the same school, figuring that if one year's group was 55 percent boys and the next year's was 55 percent girls, that difference was very likely to be random and thus susceptible to meaningful number crunching.

Their answer chimes perfectly with the conventional wisdom: Boys benefit from being in a classroom with girls, but girls do not benefit from being in a classroom with boys. What is interesting about Lavy and Schlosser's work is that it uses survey data provided by the children to work out what is causing the effects. The survey questions ask, for example, about violence in school, respect for teachers, classroom distractions, and relations among students.

Boys pollute the educational system, it seems, for a number of unmysterious reasons: They wear down teachers, disrupt classes, and ruin the atmosphere for everyone. And more boys are worse than fewer boys, not because they egg each other on but simply because more of them can cause more trouble in total.

One could, using the same sort of evidence, make similar claims regarding racially-mixed educations. A look at disciplinary records and academic performance data would likely bear that out. But is that a basis for advocating a return to racially segregated education? No -- and indeed, it has been the basis for arguing that there is a crisis in schools and that more resources need to be devoted to making sure that minorities do better in school and that steps be taken to end the "bias" in discipline.

And then there is this little gem at the end.

A social planner might thus conclude that all education should be single-sex. The difficulty is to combine this perspective with the principle of parental choice. I have the answer: a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting girls' education with their testosterone-fuelled little monsters. The money could go toward hiring extra teachers—and riot police.

Again, could you imagine the outrage if someone were to write an argument arguing that there should be a congestion-charge-style tax on parents who insist on polluting whites' education with their Spanish and Ebonics speaking little gang-bangers? But in this case, the silence will be deafening.

I guess you just have to choose the right target for your bigotry.

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

And somehow I don't expect CAIR and the other Muslim groups to retract their claims of innocence and racial profiling -- even after the convictions come based upon these indictments.

wo Egyptian students at the University of South Florida were indicted Friday on charges of carrying explosive materials across states lines and one was accused of teaching the other how to use them for violent reasons.

Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, 24, an engineering graduate student and teaching assistant at the Tampa-based university, faces terrorism charges for teaching and demonstrating how to use the explosives.

He and Youssef Samir Megahed, 21, an engineering student, were stopped for speeding Aug. 4 in Goose Creek, S.C., where they have been held on state charges.

The two men were stopped with pipe bombs in their car near a Navy base in South Carolina where enemy combatants have been held. They were held on state charges while the FBI continued to investigate whether there was a terrorism link.

Mohamed was charged with distributing information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction, which is a terrorism-related statute, a Justice Department official said. The crime carries a maximum of 20 years in prison.

He and Megahed both face with charges of transporting explosives in interstate commerce without permits, which carries a 10-year prison penalty. Their defense attorney, Andy Savage, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

And it appears that there is a third suspect who fled to Canada. Could we have ANOTHER international terrorist plot centering around the Muslim community in Florida?

Posted by: Greg at 02:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Sponsored Post

Debt is a two-edged sword. It can allow you to acquire things you want or need right no, but it can also strangle you economically over the long term if you are not careful.

I look at the situation some friends found themselves in not too many years ago. They are a nice couple -- he in his 50s and her in her 40s, with two wonderful kids approaching college age. Unfortunately, they had allowed themselves to live a lifestyle that was well beyond their means. They were in serious financial trouble. They had lots of unsecured and secured loans -- everything from student loans to car loans to credit cards to a mortgage, not to mention almost weekly use of payday loans just to keep up with it all. And then he lost his job as an executive with a local company, and they nearly lost it everything. Fortunately, a new job quickly materialized and the opportunity to refinance the mortgage loans to lower monthly payments and tap into their equity in their house allowed them to recover and live a more scaled-back life.

If you are facing financial need and you are looking for a way to restructure your debt to better manage it, might I suggest Rebuild.org?

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

A man who never should have been US Senator has now announced he is leaving the US Senate after three decades in office.

John William Warner, who was best known for marrying actress Elizabeth Taylor when he entered the Senate 28 years ago but who grew into an elder statesman and Republican maverick highly regarded for his expertise in defense matters, announced his retirement Friday.

Warner, 80, chose the north steps of the Rotunda at the University of Virginia, where he studied law a half-century ago, to reveal his widely anticipated decision not to seek a sixth term next year.

"So I say that my work and service to Virginia as a senator . . . will conclude upon the 6th of January, 2009, when I finish . . . my career of . . . 30 years in the United States Senate," Warner said. The former Navy secretary and past chairman of the Armed Services Committee said he wrestled with the question, coming to closure only "in the last day or two." He postponed a decision, he said, until completing a trip to Iraq last week. Warner has been a leading GOP critic of the Bush White House's war policy.

The rigors of Senate service as he enters his 80s and the importance of letting the next generation of Senate leaders step up drove his choice, he said.

"I'm going to quietly step aside," he said as his third wife, Jeanne, stood at his side.

Warner's departure triggers a round of political jockeying that will change the political landscape nationally and in Virginia.

Some view this departure as a negative for Republicans. I do not. And not just because of Warner's mushy moderation in recent years. At age 80 and finishing his fifth term in the office, Warner needs to step aside so that a new generation of Republican leaders can step to the lead.

For my own part, I have mixed emotions about John Warner.

I met his several times, the first when I was twelve and he visited Guam during the Bicentennial celebrations, which he headed up under President Ford. Later, as a student at Warner's alma mater, I met Senator Warner at a number of GOP events while I was active in the College Republicans. And in the years since, I've encountered him a time or two. My mpression is one of a decent man who has been a competent public official -- but whose views I don't always agree with.

And I remember, too, that he was not the man who should have become US Senator from Virginia in 1978. Only the unspeakable tragedy of August 2, 1978 allowed Warner to become the GOP candidate for US Senate in 1978, when Dick Obenshain the man who can rightly be called the father of the modern Virginia Republican Party was killed in a plane crash. I knew Obenshain's son, Mark Obenshain, several years later through the state College Republicans, and have always wondered how the presence of his more consistently conservative father in the Senate would have changed the face of America.

And yet that historical reminiscence and speculation is today less important than determining how we as a party can hold on to the Senate seat Warner is vacating next fall.

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

Yes, I have to admit to being "one of THOSE people" -- my dog certainly owns me every bit as much as I own her. My wife sometimes has to offer me a pointed reminder on who is supposed to be in charge -- "Greg, YOU are the person, not Carmie."

I'll readily concede that I dote on Carmie (as does my wife), in large part because, with no children in our home, she is truly a pet-child. That is why I spoil her. And with our sweet girl having reached her eleventh birthday recently, we are all too aware that she is aging and starting to slow down just a little bit. One of these days it will be more than just being gray around the muzzle -- she may lack the spring in her step to jump up on our bed, and may need a bed of her own (though I honestly believe that she thinks that she is generously sharing HER bed with us).

As I've started looking at dog beds, I have seen a number that seem like good possibilities for Carmie. No, not her own chaise lounge (my wife would kill me if the dog got a chaise before she did), but something that would fit in with our decor. Or maybe we should get her something orthopedic that would help to soothe those old bones and joints and make Carmie comfortable when we can't lift her up to join us in our bed. After all, she has been a wonderful companion for all these years, and she deserves to be treated with all the love that she has shown us over the years.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

One of the strangest laws on the books in Texas has been a statute forbidding any person or organization from operating an educational institution referring to itself as a seminary or awarding theological degrees without licensure and supervision by the State of Texas. It seemed out of place, for the teaching of theology and the determination of the qualifications of those who have a theological education for a degree has always seemed to be decidedly a matter for churches, not the state.

Today, the Texas Supreme Court agreed.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions today and ruled that state restrictions on what unaccredited religious institutions can call themselves and their education training violate the First Amendment.

The court said banning an institution like the Tyndale Theological Seminary in Fort Worth from using the term "seminary" in its name violates the Constitution.

Three religious organizations waged the legal fight. Tyndale, one of the schools, was cited in 1998 for violating a law that requires seminaries to be accredited and prevents unaccredited institutions from awarding degrees. It was fined $173,000 by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Plano-based Liberty Legal Institute represented the schools and argued before the court in 2005 that the state has no business regulating how pastors are trained.

State law requires institutions to meet certain standards if they call themselves a college, university or seminary. The court ruled that the law as it pertains to seminaries intrudes upon religious freedom.

"This decision is a huge victory for all seminaries not only in Texas but nationwide," said Kelly Shackelford, the institute chief counsel. "Seminaries are going to now be free to be seminaries ... The shackles are off."

The case is not about secular teaching and degrees, but about purely theological education, he said. Shackelford said the ruling means the plaintiffs can try to recover attorneys' fees incurred in the case.

Ultimately, the statute had the state (either directly or through a private organization) determining the qualifications of teachers of theology and the structure and content of that education if a school wished to award academic degrees. Indeed, there was potential here for the state to deny a religious body the ability to credential its own clergy -- especially given the fact that the state recognized only one body for accrediting schools of religion, meaning that a group with unorthodox beliefs might be denied due to doctrinal and ecclesiastical governance issues. with which it was at odds with the organization granted a monopoly on recognizing such programs by the state.

Freedom of religion means nothing if the teaching of religion by religious organizations can be regulated and restricted by the state.

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, maybe that isn't exactly what she said -- but it is the only way this woman can plausibly claim she does not understand the conservative and Republican disdain and contempt for Hillary Clinton.

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says "hatred" of his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton would motivate Republicans to vote against her in the general election.

"I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified," Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview with Time magazine out this week. "I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality."

Well, let's see.

HillaryCare.

Cattle futures.

Whitewater.

Gennifer Flowers.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Rose Law Firm.

FBI files.

Craig Livingston.

"I don't recall."

And I think that only takes us through 1995. Does any of that ring a bell, Liz?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 4 kb.

That is what I'm left wondering after reading this WaPo article and the complaints from the congresscritters contained within.

The sheets of paper seemed to be everywhere the lawmakers went in the Green Zone, distributed to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials and uniformed military of no particular rank. So when Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) asked a soldier last weekend just what he was holding, the congressman was taken aback to find out.

In the soldier's hand was a thumbnail biography, distributed before each of the congressmen's meetings in Baghdad, which let meeting participants such as that soldier know where each of the lawmakers stands on the war. "Moran on Iraq policy," read one section, going on to cite some the congressman's most incendiary statements, such as, "This has been the worst foreign policy fiasco in American history."

The bio of Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.) -- "TAU (rhymes with 'now')-sher," the bio helpfully relates -- was no less pointed, even if she once supported the war and has taken heat from liberal Bay Area constituents who remain wary of her position. "Our forces are caught in the middle of an escalating sectarian conflict in Iraq, with no end in sight," the bio quotes.

"This is beyond parsing. This is being slimed in the Green Zone," Tauscher said of her bio.

My question – are the quotes accurate? Yes, in fact, they are. So how is it "sliming" if one accurately quotes the public words of a member of Congress? They strike me as honest, straight-forward comments that hardly can be described as defamatory.

Unless, of course, the representatives in question have defamed themselves and revealed their own personal sliminess by their criticisms of the Iraq war and their willingness to undercut the troops and their mission.

Especially when the polls show that over half of Americans believe victory is attainable.

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 AM | Comments (66) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Normally I'd oppose legislation to avoid a problem that does not exist. However, this one strikes me as a reasonable regulation by the California legislature.

Tackling a dilemma right out of a science fiction novel, the state Senate passed legislation Thursday that would bar employers from requiring workers to have identification devices implanted under their skin.

State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) proposed the measure after at least one company began marketing radio frequency identification devices for use in humans.

The devices, as small as a grain of rice, can be used by employers to identify workers. A scanner passing over a body part implanted with one can instantly identify the person.

"RFID is a minor miracle, with all sorts of good uses," Simitian said. "But we shouldn't condone forced 'tagging' of humans. It's the ultimate invasion of privacy."

Simitian said he fears that the devices could be compromised by persons with unauthorized scanners, facilitating identity theft and improper tracking and surveillance.

The bill has been approved by the state Assembly and now goes to the governor.

Nine senators opposed the measure, including Bob Margett (R-Arcadia), who said it is premature to legislate technology that has not yet proved to be a problem. "It sounded like it was a solution looking for a problem," Margett said. "It didn't seem like it was necessary."

I was surprised, though, to find out that one company, based in Ohio, already requires RFID chips for employees so that they can be tracked in the workplace.

To be honest, I'm glad to see legislatures preempting this. While I'm willing to give employers wide latitude on some things, chipping their employees crosses a line. It strikes me as a violation of one's bodily integrity that no employer has a right to demand.

Posted by: Greg at 09:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

I've got mixed emotions about this decision by Governor Rick Perry.

Perry issued the commutation order on a parole board's rare recommendation about seven hours before Kenneth Foster was to have been put to death — the narrowest gap by which he has halted an execution in his more than eight years in office.

Thursday's vote marked only the second time since Texas resumed carrying out executions in 1982 that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles endorsed stopping an execution with so little time remaining. And in that 2004 case, Perry rejected the board's recommendation and the prisoner, who had been diagnosed as mentally ill, was executed.

This time, Perry agreed with the board's recommendation that Foster be saved from lethal injection.

Foster, 30, learned of Thursday's board vote during a morning visit with his father. A warden told him of the governor's commutation about an hour later.

On the one hand, I firmly believe that every participant in this crime ought to be executed -- and that the guy merely driving the getaway car deserves to go to his death for his part in the criminal rampage that resulted in a murder.

On the other hand, I am troubled by the fact that two other participants did not get the death penalty.

In the end, though, I believe that Rick Perry's decision was wrong, and denies justice to the victim and his family.

H/T Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

Is there no seditious extreme to which the Democrats will not go in an attempt to undermine the war effort for political gain?

Saying the coming weeks will be "one of the last opportunities" to alter the course of the war, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he is now willing to compromise with Republicans to find ways to limit troop deployments in Iraq.

Reid acknowledged that his previous firm demand for a spring withdrawal deadline had become an obstacle for a small but growing number of Republicans who have said they want to end the war but have been unwilling to set a timeline.

"I don't think we have to think that our way is the only way," Reid said of specific dates during an interview in his office here. "I'm not saying, 'Republicans, do what we want to do.' Just give me something that you think you would like to do, that accomplishes some or all of what I want to do."

Reid's unwavering stance this summer earned him critics who said he was playing politics by refusing to bargain with antiwar Republicans. In the interview, he said that his goal remains an immediate return of U.S. troops but that now is the time to work with the GOP. He cited bringing up legislation after Labor Day that would require troops to have more home leave, forcing military leaders to reduce troop levels, a measure that has drawn some Republican support.

The Surge is working. Progress is being made. And yet we again see the Democrats seeking to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in order to gain political advantage in 2008.

And let me be clear -- I know of no Republican who does not want the war to come to an end and all the troops brought home. However, speaking as the son of a Vietnam vet, I know that we want to see it done in a way that honors the troops -- and the only way to do that is to pursue a strategy of victory an success, not retreat and surrender.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

A part of me admires the ingenuity and dedication of this kid in pulling off a classic sports prank. Is a suspension really an appropriate punishment here? Is any punishment warranted?

A high school student who tricked football fans from a crosstown rival into holding up signs that together spelled out, "We Suck," was suspended for the prank, students said.

Kyle Garchar, a senior at Hilliard Davidson High School in suburban Columbus, said he spent about 20 hours over three days plotting the trick, which was captured on video and posted on the video-sharing Web site YouTube. He said he was inspired by a similar prank pulled by Yale students in 2004, when Harvard fans were duped into holding up cards with the same message.

At the end of the video, Garchar wryly thanks the 800 Hilliard Darby High School supporters who raised the cards at the start of the third quarter during last Friday's football game.

"It couldn't have been done without you," reads the closing frame of the video.

Garchar, 17, created a grid to plan how the message would be spelled out once fans in three sections held up either a black or white piece of construction paper.

Directions left on stadium seats instructed fans to check that the number listed on their papers matched their seat numbers. Darby supporters were told the message would read "Go Darby."

"It was tedious," Garchar said. "I didn't really think it was going to work."

There was a day, not many years past, when folks would have found this humorous and the kid would have become one of those school legends that is talked about for years to come. Faculty and administration would have been at least marginally approving of the show of school spirit that went into the prank.

Today we make it a matter for serious discipline.

What do you think -- is the punishment appropriate or not?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 5 kb.

The Bush Administration will take steps to help homeowners facing financial problems due to their subprime home mortgages -- a move that will likely not satisfy his Democrat critics.

President Bush, in his first response to families hit by the subprime mortgage crisis, plans to announce several steps Friday to help Americans who have credit problems meet the rising cost of their housing loans, administration officials said Thursday.

The officials said Mr. Bush would call for the Federal Housing Administration to change its federal mortgage insurance program in a way that would let an additional 80,000 homeowners with spotty credit records sign up, beyond the 160,000 likely to use it this year and next.

The administration is offering his plan, which will include what one official called jawboning of lenders to persuade them not to foreclose on some borrowers, at a time of growing attacks on Mr. Bush from Democrats who say he has remained on the sidelines amid increasing anxiety over whether millions of Americans could end up losing their homes. Other elements of the plan would need legislative action, requiring Mr. Bush to win over the Democratic leadership in Congress.

Administration officials, who asked not to be identified, briefed a handful of news organizations on the proposals to be announced by Mr. Bush at an appearance in the White House Rose Garden on Friday morning.

The main objective of the package, one senior official said, is not to affect the stock markets but to help low-income homeowners, many of them concentrated in certain neighborhoods in several distressed areas of the country, such as Ohio and Michigan.

“The primary focus is to help individuals who have an opportunity to stay in their homes to stay in their homes,” this official said. “The subprime mortgage situation is having a crushing effect on a lot of communities right now.”

This does, of course, raise the issue of how far the government should go to help those who made poor financial decisions and are marginally able to afford their homes to stay in them. At what point does the government need to allow the market to apply economic realities to the situation, rather than having government provide a political solution?

In the coming weeks and months, Democrats (especially the presidential candidates) will push for more and more government involvement in the mortgage market if there is not a turnaround. It is in their nature. Where should the line be drawn?

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 PM | Comments (284) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

The discovery of more of the ruins of the Second Temple in Jerusalem clearly puts the lie to claims by some Islamists that there was never a Jewish temple on Temple Mount -- and seems to confirm the belief of some Jewish groups that renovations and improvements by Muslim religious authorities are really directed at destroying Jewish artifacts there.

Remains of the Jewish second temple may have been found during work to lay pipes at the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in east Jerusalem, Israeli television reported Thursday.

Israeli television broadcast footage of a mechanical digger at the site which Israeli archaeologists visited on Thursday.

Gaby Barkai, an archaeologist from Bar Ilan University, urged the Israeli government to stop the pipework after the discovery of what he said is "a massive seven metre-long wall."

Television said the pipework carried out by the office of Muslim religious affairs, or Waqf, is about 1.5 metres deep and about 100 metres long.

The compound, which houses both Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, is located in east Jerusalem, which Israel occupied in 1967 and then annexed. It is the third holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Medina.

For Jews it as known as the Temple Mount, which they revere as the site of the King Herod's second temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. It is the holiest site in Judaism.

All that remains today is the temple's Western Wall, or Wailing wall.

I agree with Barkari's assessment that the Israeli government must act to stop the construction work so that this historical treasure may be preserved, studied, and properly venerated by the Jewish faithful.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Inside the Northwest Territory, Nuke's News & Views, , Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 5 kb.

Sponsored Post

In order to gain credibility and traffic, you need to be well-placed on search engines. How on earth do you manage to do that, especially if you have a business to run and are not a professional web designer? By seeking a company that engages in search engine optimization for you.

Here's how it works. Not only do you need to have your site shows up early on searches. Let's be honest -- you can have the best product or site in the world, but if you turn up as the 17th site listed on page 16 when a search is run, you likely won't be seen by the folks doing the searches. So by determining what word combinations will be most likely to bring the search engines to your site, a search engine placement company can help you present your site to its maximum advantage.

Since 1997, SubmitAWebsite.com is a search engine placement services that has been helping businesses and individuals submit and optimize their websites for the best effect. Their work often results in exponential traffic (and sales) increases. If you are looking to increase traffic and revenue, you want to seriously consider their services.

Posted by: Greg at 09:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

The waiting game is almost over. Fred Thompson will declare his candidacy for the presidency next week.

Republican Fred Thompson will officially launch his presidential bid Sept. 6 in a Webcast on his campaign site, followed by a five-day tour of early primary states.

"I believe that there are millions of Americans who know that our security and prosperity are at risk if we don't address the challenges of our time; the global threat of terrorism; taxes and spending that will bankrupt future generations, and a government that can't seem to get the most basic responsibilities right for its citizens," the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor said in a statement Thursday that laid out themes of his campaign.

Thompson, 65, is vying to be seen as the most consistent mainstream conservative in the race.

Aides disclosed details about how he will formally enter the race in a conference call with supporters.

Evening house parties will be held nationwide on Sept. 6. A tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will quickly follow the Internet announcement on http://www.imwithfred.com, with later stops in Florida, and a homecoming event in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., on Sept. 15.

Next Wednesday, Thompson will appear on NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" but he won't participate with his Republican rivals in a debate that same night in New Hampshire.

Thompson brings to the eight-man GOP field a right-leaning Senate voting record with a few digressions from GOP orthodoxy and a healthy dose of Hollywood star power. He is hoping to attract conservatives who are lukewarm about the current crop of candidates.

I personally think it is about time that he make the move -- but that he should make the announcement on September 4 and participate in the big GOP debate on September 5. I don't think he is intentionally dodging that event, but it would have made for a great opportunity to place himself next to the otehr candidates at the start of his formal campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 09:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Sponsored Post

Here's an interesting idea -- an "opt-in" permission based voice marketing system! Vontoo voice messaging allows you to create your message for your target audience, send it, and track it to determine what sorts of messages are effective.

I'm particularly impressed by that opt-in messaging feature. I don't like telemarketing calls, and don't answer those that slip past the Do Not Call registries. But with Vontoo, folks actually sign up to receive specified calls, so there isn't an issue of bothering folks who don't want to be bothered. Your target audience is those who have indicated that they want to hear what you have to day -- which certainly will help you effectively target your marketing dollar.

Vontoo campaigns can be very effective. Take an example here in my neck of the woods – Houston. LaKisha Jones, one of the stars of this season’s American Idol, was coming to host a special program at a nightclub for young and trendy African-Americans. How best to get eh word out to the public – especially to the intended audience? The company in question chose to use Vontoo voice marketing – with LaKisha actually being the voice for the phone call. The result? An incredibly successful and well-attended event with which attendees were highly satisfied. What more could any advertiser ask for?

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 1 kb.