You have to love it when those in the mainstream media stop running liberal talking points long enough to look at the facts. The Chicago Tribune did a serious piece on the multiple justifications for going to war in Iraq, examining what was said, what we now know, and the veracity of the original claims. The results must be disheartening if one lemmings chanting the mantra "Bush lied, thousands died!"

Biological and chemical weapons

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

The Bush administration said Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Officials trumpeted reports from U.S. and foreign spy agencies, including an October 2002 CIA assessment: "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Many, although not all, of the Bush administration's assertions about weapons of mass destruction have proven flat-out wrong. What illicit weaponry searchers uncovered didn't begin to square with the magnitude of the toxic armory U.S. officials had described before the war.

THE VERDICT

There was no need for the administration to rely on risky intelligence to chronicle many of Iraq's other sins. In putting so much emphasis on illicit weaponry, the White House advanced its most provocative, least verifiable case for war when others would have sufficed.

In other words, the President was wrong in magnitude but did not lie.

Iraq rebuffs the world

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

In a speech that left many diplomats visibly squirming in their chairs, President Bush detailed tandem patterns of failure: Saddam Hussein had refused to obey UN Security Council orders that he disclose his weapons programs--and the UN had refused to enforce its demands of Hussein.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Reasonable minds disagree on whether Iraq's flouting of UN resolutions justified the war. But there can be no credible assertion that either Iraq or the UN met its responsibility to the world. If anything, the administration gravely understated the chicanery, both in Baghdad and at the UN.

THE VERDICT

Hussein had shunted enough lucre to enough profiteers to keep the UN from challenging him. In a dozen years the organization mass-produced 17 resolutions on Iraq, all of them toothless. That in turn enabled Hussein to continue his brutal reign and cost untold thousands of Iraqis their lives.

The President spoke the truth, though one can question the necessity of war based on this point..

The quest for nukes

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

Intelligence agencies warned the Clinton and Bush administrations that Hussein was reconstituting his once-impressive program to create nuclear weapons. In part that intel reflected embarrassment over U.S. failure before the Persian Gulf war to grasp how close Iraq was to building nukes.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Four intel studies from 1997-2000 concurred that "If Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year." Claims that Iraq sought uranium and special tubes for processing nuclear material appear discredited.

THE VERDICT

If the White House manipulated or exaggerated the nuclear intelligence before the war in order to paint a more menacing portrait of Hussein, it's difficult to imagine why. For five years, the official and oft-delivered alarms from the U.S. intelligence community had been menacing enough.

That is what had been concluded by the intelligence community for years. Relying on that conclusion was proper, though some of the details may have been incorrect.

Hussein's rope-a-dope

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

The longer Hussein refuses to obey UN directives to disclose his weapons programs, the greater the risk that he will acquire, or share with terrorists, the weaponry he has used in the past or the even deadlier capabilities his scientists have tried to develop. Thus we need to wage a pre-emptive war.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Hussein didn't have illicit weapons stockpiles to wield or hand to terrorists. Subsequent investigations have concluded he had the means and intent to rekindle those programs as soon as he escaped UN sanctions.

THE VERDICT

Had Hussein not been deposed, would he have reconstituted deadly weaponry or shared it with terror groups? Of the White House's nine arguments for war, the implications of this warning about Iraq's intentions are treacherous to imagine--yet also the least possible to declare true or false.

A judgement call that ultimately comes down to how much faith and trust one wishes to place in Saddam Hussein. Based upon his past behavior, the President made a legitimate call -- but those of you who hate Bush can side with the deposed Iraqi leader who had used such weapons against his own people if you think he has greater credibility.

Waging war on terror

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

Iraq was Afghanistan's likely successor as a haven for terror groups. "Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror ... " the president said. "And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

The White House echoed four years of intel that said Hussein contemplated the use of terror against the U.S. or its allies. But he evidently had not done so on a broad scale. The assertion that Hussein was "harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror" overstated what we know today.

THE VERDICT

The drumbeat of White House warnings before the war made Iraq's terror activities sound more ambitious than subsequent evidence has proven. Based on what we know today, the argument that Hussein was able to foment global terror against this country and its interests was exaggerated.

In other words, the intel pointed to this, but there remains serious doubt about how serious Hussein was about sponsoring terrorism. But again, there was no lie.

Reform in the Middle East

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

Supplanting Hussein's reign with self-rule would transform governance in a region dominated by dictators, zealots and kings. The administration wanted to convert populations of subjects into citizens. Mideast democracy would channel energy away from resentments that breed terrorism.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

U.S. pressure has stirred reforms in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and imperiled Syria's regime. "I was cynical about Iraq," said Druze Muslim patriarch Walid Jumblatt. "But when I saw the Iraqi people voting . . . it was the start of a new Arab world... The Berlin Wall has fallen."

THE VERDICT

The notion that invading Iraq would provoke political tremors in a region long ruled by despots is the Bush administration's most successful prewar prediction to date. A more muscular U.S. diplomacy has advanced democracy and assisted freedom movements in the sclerotic Middle East.

Spot on correct judgement of the situation.

Iraq and Al Qaeda

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

President Bush: "... Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.... Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Two government investigative reports indicate that Al Qaeda and Iraq had long-running if sporadic contacts. Several of the prewar intel conclusions likely are true. But the high-ranking Al Qaeda detainee who said Iraq trained Al Qaeda in bombmaking, poisons and gases later recanted.

THE VERDICT

No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein's regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war.

The case was not nearly as clear-cut as the President stated it. What he said was true -- but was it accurate?

The Butcher of Baghdad

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell: "For more than 20 years, by word and by deed, Saddam Hussein has pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East using the only means he knows--intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Human Rights Watch estimates that Hussein exterminated 300,000 people. Chemical weapons killed Iraqi Kurds and Iranians; Iraqi Shiites also were slaughtered. Tortures included amputation, rape, piercing hands with drills, burning some victims alive and lowering others into acid baths.

THE VERDICT

In detailing how Hussein tormented his people--and thus mocked the UN Security Council order that he stop--the White House assessments were accurate. Few if any war opponents have challenged this argument, or suggested that an unmolested Hussein would have eased his repression.

The world stood by too long in the face of massive human rights violations in Iraq. The President called a spade a spade and acted to bring an end to the manifest evil of the murderous Iraqi regime.

Iraqis liberated

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

President Bush and his surrogates broached a peculiar notion: that the Arab world was ready to embrace representative government. History said otherwise--and it wasn't as if the Arab street was clamoring for Iraq to show the way.

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

The most succinct evaluation comes from Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.): "Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them."

THE VERDICT

The White House was correct in predicting that long subjugated Iraqis would embrace democracy. And while Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites have major differences to reconcile, a year's worth of predictions that Sunni disaffection could doom self-rule have, so far, proven wrong.

Once again, the call seems to have been correct.

In other words, a fair view of the resons for the war shows that Bush spoke the truth as he knew it -- even if he overstated some of the evidence -- when the war began. Those who accuse him of lying are engaged in the "Big Lie" themselves, presumably for their own political advantage.

(Hat Tip --, Right Wing Nut House, Blogs for Bush, Sister Toldjah)

Posted by: Greg at 05:18 PM | Comments (68) | Add Comment
Post contains 1699 words, total size 11 kb.

Washington State is preparing to consider legislation that will give special protection to professional information providers, but not to citizen-journalists who provide news content as a hobby or side-activity.

The fact that New York Times reporter Judith Miller's badge of courage has been tarnished does not diminish the need for shield laws to protect journalists' use of anonymous sources in the legitimate pursuit of information.

Congress would do well to pass a national shield law that allows states to adopt broader protections. In the meantime, Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna has proposed a bold but reasoned shield law for professionals in this state.

The legislation already has an impressive list of sponsors going into the legislative session that begins Jan. 16., including Sens. Adam Kline, D-Seattle; Stephen Johnson, R-Kent; Karen Keiser, D-Kent; and Dave Schmidt, R-Mill Creek.

McKenna proposes absolute protection against court-ordered disclosure of an anonymous source and qualified protection for a journalist's work product -- unpublished notes, photos and tape recordings. The measure would set conditions for disclosure in criminal or civil cases.

The proposal also is valuable in that it would define members of the "news media" as those in the regular business of disseminating news or information to the public and who earn "a substantial portion of his or her livelihood" that way. Included in that definition are researchers and scholars.

The reason journalists need such a shield is because information is an essential check when governments go too far.

Unfortunately, the definition leaves out those of us in the blogosphere who engage in citizen-journalism with no salary. It would provide less protction to student-jpurnalists on college newspaper than to their professional colleagues. And it would permit a journalist to withhold a source in a criminal case even when doing so could result in a miscarriage of justice.

Ultimately, journalists are no different than any other citizen of the United States. Laws regarding subpoenas and the production of information in criminal and civil cases must apply to them in the same fashion as they do to every other American.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday we found that the Google has a sex toy as the top search item for the words "baby jesus".

Today we find that the internet giant, which usually acknowledges holidays with seasonal graphics, ignores "the reason for the season" entirely.

I guess the only folks it is safe to offend and ignore in the name of "tolerance and diversity" are Christians.

MORE AT: Wizbang, Verum Serum

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

It's only been a couple of weeks since British cops tried to silence children's author Lynette Burrows. Now the same thing has happened to a British couple because they asked to place literature on an equal footing with a homosexual group.

POLICE questioned a retired couple for 80 minutes about their “homophobic” views after they asked their local council if they could display their Christian literature next to gay rights leaflets, it was reported last night.

Joe and Helen Roberts said that police officers warned them that their actions “were close to a hate crime” after they complained to Wyre Borough Council about its gay rights policies.

The couple claimed that the police told them they were “walking on eggshells”.

Mr Roberts, from Fleetwood, Lancashire, said he had been offended because of the councilÂ’s distribution of the gay rights leaflets and its promotion of its theatre as a venue for civil partnership ceremonies.

He said he complained to Paul Deacon, the council officer responsible for WyreÂ’s part in the Navajo Charter Mark campaign being run by several local authorities to offer assistance to gay and lesbian people.

Mr Roberts, 73, told the Daily Mail: “I told him I was offended. I asked him if I could put Christian literature on display alongside the gay material. He said I couldn’t because it would offend gay people.

“I said we had no objection to gay people, but we thought that homosexual practice was wrong and we were offended by the gay culture which the council is promoting.

In other words, what Mr. and Mrs. Roberts did was an act of pure speech, petitioning their government to allow them equal footing to that of others placing literature. They sought to have their views placed on par with those of others. None of that is unreasonable.

They got the following response from the council.

Mr Roberts had asked if the council would display Christian leaflets, and was told all applications would be considered, but nothing that would offend minority groups would be approved.

In other words, the council won't offend minorities -- but is more than willing to offend the beliefs of Christians.

What the request also got them was a visit from the local police and the threat of possible criminal charges. Mr. Roberts, in fact, asked a question that the police refused to anwer -- and that silence is, in and of itself, quite telling.

“They warned me that being discriminatory and homophobic is in line with hate crime. The phrase they used was that we were ‘walking on eggshells’. I asked the officer, if I phoned the police with a complaint that the council were discriminating against Christians would he go to interview them?”

Got that -- holding and expressing the wrong beliefs places one in jeopardy of being arrested, tried, and potentially imprisoned. That's a far cry from the the vaunted rights of Englishmen, the violation of which inspired our own Founding Fathers to revolt against English tyranny.

Lancashire police said its visit to the Robertses’ family home was a matter of routine after a complaint from the council. A spokesman added: “Words of suitable advice were given and we will not be taking any further action.”

What this really means is that the police told them that if they dare to speak their mind again on the subject of homosexuality, they will go to jail -- and maybe even a reeducation program modelled on those of Mao's Cultural Revolution. If you think I am overstating the matter, consider the response of the council spokesperson to questions from the Times.

A council spokesman said the couple had “displayed potentially homophobic attitudes”.

He added: “The council referred this matter to the police for further investigation with the intention of challenging attitudes and educating and raising awareness of the implications of homophobic behaviour.”

Or, put differently, they had attitudes and beliefs which are seen as criminal -- welcome to the world of real thought crimes!

One more proof that those who demand tolerance of diverse views will tolerate any view except diverse ones.

(LINK TO: Pirates! Man Your Women!)

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 PM | Comments (97) | Add Comment
Post contains 707 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm sure you've heard the one about the student questioned by the student in Massachusetts who was questioned by the FBI regarding a request for Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. And you may have even read the piece by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas Regal) commenting on it.

Guess what -- the alleged victim of this intrusive government spying on innocent Americans admits that it is a lie.

Or so one of the professors involved tells us -- because he won't identify the student. Neither will the Boston Globe, which interviewed the student this week.

It rocketed across the Internet a week ago, a startling newspaper report that agents from the US Department of Homeland Security had visited a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth at his New Bedford home simply because he had tried to borrow Mao Tse-Tung's ''Little Red Book" for a history seminar on totalitarian goverments.

The story, first reported in last Saturday's New Bedford Standard-Times, was picked up by other news organizations, prompted diatribes on left-wing and right-wing blogs, and even turned up in an op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Globe.

But yesterday, the student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter.

The professor, Brian Glyn Williams, said he went to his former student's house and asked about inconsistencies in his story. The 22-year-old student admitted it was a hoax, Williams said.

''I made it up," the professor recalled him saying. ''I'm sorry. . . . I'm so relieved that it's over."

The student was not identified in any reports. The Globe interviewed him Thursday but decided not to write a story about his assertion, because of doubts about its veracity. The student could not be reached yesterday.

Williams said the student gave no explanation. But Williams, who praised the student as hard-working and likeable, said he was shaken by the deception.

''I feel as if I was lied to, and I have no idea why," said Williams, an associate professor of Islamic history. He said the possibility the government was scrutinizing books borrowed by his students ''disturbed me tremendously."

I have several reactions to this.

First, I never doubted that the story was a hoax. That particular book wouldn't get you watched when the Cold War was at its height -- why would it today?

Second, why won't those who know identify the hoaxer? They were more than willing to report the story -- why not "the rest of the story"?

Third, will UN-Dartmouth take disciplinary action against the student?

Fourth, are criminal charges an option given the seditious nature of the lie that was told?

A certain segment of the American public hates this country and identifies with its enemies. They are willing to lie, steal, and commit acts of violence to undermine the US in the Crusade Against Islamist Terrorism. There needs to be a cost to such misdeeds -- and a high one.

(H/T -- Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers,, Politburo Diktat)

UPDATE: Looks like Senator Kennedy (DUI-Chappaquidick) is not backing down from his column -- and is saying that the truth doesn't matter.

But Kennedy isnÂ’t apologizing. Far from it, his spokesman is adopting a variant of the Dan Rather fake-but-accurate line:

Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ‘’public reports” in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.

So the SenatorÂ’s negative opinion, based on fiction, somehow is still real. Because feelings matter more than facts, I suppose.

If Kennedy were a man, he would publicly apologize to President Bush for repeating a vicious lie about him and giving it credence. But of course, if Kennedy were a man, Mary Joe Kopechne would be alive.

Indeed.

MORE FROM: Michelle Malkin, Right Wing Nut House, In The Bullpen, Pirates!, Verum Serum, Slant Truth, Paladin Blog.

Posted by: Greg at 09:27 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 6 kb.

This situation raises some real concerns for me regarding the Iraqi elections.

An Iraqi court has ruled that some of the most prominent Sunni Muslims who were elected to parliament last week won't be allowed to serve because officials suspect that they were high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

Knight Ridder has obtained a copy of the court ruling, issued Thursday, which has yet to be circulated to the public.

The ruling is likely to dampen Bush administration hopes that the election would bring more of the disaffected Sunni minority into Iraq's political process and undermine Sunni support for the insurgency. Instead, the decision is likely to stoke fears of widening sectarian divisions in a nation already in danger of descending into civil war.

Adil al-Lami, the head of the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, said he would honor the court's decision and that none of the accused Sunnis would appear on the final list of parliament members.

And thoe disqualified are not just minor individuals -- they include a number of leading Sunni candidates.

But preliminary results showed that some of the prominent Sunni politicians on the list had likely won seats. Among them: Adnan al-Janabi, the second-highest-ranking member of the constitutional committee and a top candidate on U.S.-backed former prime minister Ayad Allawi's slate, and Rasem al-Awadi, a National Assembly member and also on Allawi's slate. Five members of the Iraqi Accord Front, the principal Sunni electoral slate, also were on the list.

Saleh Mutlaq, a prominent Sunni politician, said that the ruling would agitate already frustrated Sunnis who are questioning the validity of the elections.

The commission said it would have the final list of winners sometime next month.

So what we have here is the post-election disqualification of candidates who have won seats in the new parliament. Such a move is, in my view, corrosive of the ethos of democracy that we have been attempting to instill in Iraq. The candidate lists have been out there for some tome -- and several of those disqualified were even involved in writing the new iraqi constitution -- why wait until the election is over?

Given that Sunnis are already protesting the results of the election and questioning their legitimacy, I can't help but think that this ruling will simply magnify the problem.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

They look like minority businesses and qualify for the plum jobs available only to minority firms under affirmative action programs -- but they aren't. In a case highlighting just the sort of fraud that such unconscionable government-sponsored discrimination programs inevitably spawn, a major highway contractor has been penalized for setting up several puppet firms to qualify for work that it could not otherwise get.

Williams Brothers and its owner and chief executive, James D. "Doug" Pitcock Jr., are Texas construction legends. Formed 50 years ago to take advantage of the new Interstate Highway Act, the company has built and rebuilt virtually every freeway in Houston and had more than $400 million in revenues in 2004, virtually all from the Texas Department of Transportation.

The state transportation department started its program for "historically underutilized businesses" in 1983.

Anyone receiving federal highway dollars would have to make sure a percentage was subcontracted to women and minorities, later changed by court cases to anyone who could prove a disadvantaged background.

According to FHWA case files and depositions, Pitcock asked two of his Hispanic workers if they would like to become a company.

Williams Brothers sold the men equipment it had been using to mix concrete, loaned them part of the money for the purchase and co-signed on loans for the rest. The men did business exclusively with Williams Brothers.

The FHWA and state transportation department both argued the subcontractor wasn't independent enough, and the state eventually decided to "graduate" it from the affirmative action program for exceeding the program's cap of annual business.

The company folded soon thereafter.

The federal penalty concerns a second and third subcontractor.

Williams Brothers sold the equipment from the defunct subcontractor to a man who in turn leased it to his wife. She sold concrete back to Williams Brothers.

Such programs invite this sort of fraud. By awarding contracts based upon critereia other than quality and price, there is always an incentive to find a way to "buck the system." There is no telling how much money such programs have cost the taxpayer over the years -- and cases like this show that a fair chunk of it was spent enriching those engaged in fraud.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

And you would have to be a racist to read anything other than economics into a decision to change radio station formats.

A Denver radio station's switch from R&B to country is drawing criticism from a Denver city councilwoman.

KDJM's "Jammin" made the switch this week. The station fired its 7-member on-air staff and management.

On Tuesday afternoon, city councilwoman Elbra Wedgeworth went to CBS Radio of Denver to voice concerns.

"I'm not really comfortable (with the situation), but I think that the bigger picture is how we move forward and how we work with this station in the future," said Wedgeworth, who said she's concerned about the "constituencies that have lost their station."

Don Howe of CBS Radio of Denver told Wedgeworth was ratings and not race that prompted the move away from the urban format.

"In the last few reports, (when consulting) Arbitron rating reports, it became even more clear that the format was really never gonna crack ... the barriers that we needed it too," Howe said. "The audience simply wasn't there."

Hey, Elbra you whack-job, they gave the R&B format SIX YEARS to work. folks were not listening at a level needed to make a profit. You know -- profit -- that reason people invest their money in companies to begin with. I know that goes against all of your leftist beliefs, but it is simple Econ 101 stuff. "The Man" is not out to "oppress" your "People" by taking away their favorite radio station. in fact, if it were their favorite radio station there would be no reason to make the change of formats.

Now don't you have some work to do on behalf of the people of Denver -- like working to lower crime and ridding the city of law-breaking border-jumpers?

(Hat Tip: Right Wing News)

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

The First Amendment is very important to liberals -- unless it allows someone to speak truths that the Left finds inconvenient -- like the fact that John Kerry is a traitorous fraud.

In that case, the government needs to strip media outlets of their broadcast licenses and award them to those who are more politically correct.

Local media activists in Iowa are preparing to file a petition with the FCC to deny a license renewal for Sinclair Broadcast GroupÂ’s ABC affiliate KGAN Cedar Rapids. The group, Iowans for Better Local Television, says the station violates FCCÂ’s ownership rules by failing to provide sufficient local news, supplying inadequate broadcast signals and failing to meet standards for childrenÂ’s programming.

The group has been working for more than a year to gather evidence and support for its petition. Former FCC commissioner Nick Johnson, a well known critic of big-media ownership, has been advising the efforts.

KGAN’s license came up for renewal in October, and, under FCC guidelines, the public has until Dec. 30, 2005, to file its petition. The Local Iowans group is calling on the FCC to hold a public hearing to determine if KGAN has met its “statutory public interest” standards before renewing the license.

Iowans for Better Local TV originated last fall, outraged by Sinclair's airing of the documentary Stolen Honor, which called into question presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) Vietnam service and subsequent anti-war activities. In advance of its broadcast, local activists called on advertisers to boycott the station.

After the election, the group joined up with former University of Iowa professor Ted Remington, who had started a blog to counter on-air editorials by Sinclair PR chief Mark Hyman. The segments, called “The Point,” air on most Sinclair stations as part of its centralized news operation, News Central. Critics say Hyman's editorials are a way for the company to push a right-wing agenda over public airwaves.

The Iowans say theyÂ’ve reached out to local KGAN managers asking for meetings but they have been rebuffed.

So what we have here is a group that admits that it wants censorship -- after all, they are concerned about the "right-wing agenda" of the broadcaster. But refusing to renew a broadcast license over the"pushing' of such an agenda would be content-based censorship -- a clear violation of the First Amendment.

However, part of me hopes that the effort succeesd and is upheld by the courts. Could you imagine the fun we could have shutting down every NPR and PBS station, all of Pacifica Broadcasting , the affiliates of Air America, and the entire CBS network!

Be careful what you ask for, folks -- you might just get it in spades.

Posted by: Greg at 05:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess that the best and brightest of New Orleans went somewhere else, leaving Houston with the dregs of New Orleans society. How else do you explain the great leap in murder and other crimes in the city since the start of September?

An upward swing in the city's homicide rate — up by nearly a quarter from last year — isn't the only thing concerning Houston police. Officers say they are seeing more stranger-on-stranger crime, a resurgence of gang activity and more violence around apartment complexes, especially those swelled with an influx of Katrina evacuees.

Not, of course, that the police are willing to come out and say that there is a relationship between the influx of huricane refugees and the increase in crime.

Though officials acknowledged that at least eight of the homicides involved hurricane evacuees, Houston Police Department Chief Harold Hurtt said Wednesday that it was incorrect to assume that "the reason that crime is up in the last quarter of this year is evacuees from Louisiana. A lot of this is (attributed) to homegrown citizens."

To date, 324 homicides have been reported this year, unofficially, compared with 263 in the same period in 2004, he said. That's up more than 23 percent.

Most of the spike has come since mid-November, when 14 homicides were reported during the four-day Thanksgiving holiday weekend. Police and city officials, who said they already had been aware of an increase in crime since earlier this year, then launched a series of initiatives intended to increase police presence in high-crime areas.

That high death toll hits close to home for me -- one of the victims was a former student, the brother of a girl I currently teach. And while that killing was likely not related to the Katrina evacuees, it is part of a general increase that we have seen in violence in Houston. I know everyone saw the mini-riot a few weeks ago at one Houston high school -- that was related to the influx of gang members from New Orleans. Not even the ever-so-PC HPD can deny that there is an increase of gang activity related to Katrian evacuees.

Eight slayings have involved hurricane evacuees as suspects, victims or both, officials said.

"You're bringing people with different cultures, different backgrounds; they have different lifestyles there in New Orleans than we have in Houston," said Capt. Dale Brown of the homicide division. "The equilibrium was thrown out of whack, with people competing for jobs, competing for turf, or whatever it is."

* * *

Hurtt said that after talking with state and regional officials, he is "pretty certain that (Louisiana) gang members did relocate here to Houston."

Capt. Brown said the department is still gathering intelligence on what role, if any, Louisiana gangs may have played in recent homicides.

"Is it possible and probable that there were gang members involved in some of those, I think the answer's yes," he said. "We're just not prepared to say it's a Louisiana problem at this time."

Hurtt said the department is "making headway" in gathering intelligence about Louisiana gang members in the city, despite difficulties obtaining information from a database of known gang members from Louisiana authorities, whose records were damaged by the hurricane.

Now i will concede that there is a connection to local gangs as well.

Capt. Brown said a number of recent homicides have been pinned on the increased activity of one local gang, and a gang murder squad within the division will more closely target gang crimes.

"The face of murder in Houston over the last year or so has changed somewhat and we're seeing more groups of individuals involved in violent crimes," Brown said.

Seven members of the Houston based La Tercera Crips gang were arrested and charged Friday in connection with various violent crimes committed during the last year, including 10 slayings — four of them in the last two months.

"They're rapidly getting more and more dangerous ... and more and more bold," said Sgt. Brian Harris of the homicide division.

I would not be terribly surprised to find that the increase is due to a conflict between the new arrivals and the local gangs.

Posted by: Greg at 03:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 4 kb.

I've long struggled with the problem of anonymous sources being cited in news stories. Such sources create a serious problem when it comes to assessing the validity of information passed on. How can I, as a reader, evaluate the significance and veracity of information from such a source, especially the more cloaked in secrecy the identity of such a source is.

Take this story from today's Washington Post.

We'll start with the headline.

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel

All right. On the face of it, this seems like there may be some real meat in the story. But then you read the first few paragraphs. I'll highlight what I consider to be the significant bits of information.

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

So let's recap here. Judge Robertson submitted his resignation without any explanation, and refuses to elaborate upon it. Two other people ascribe a motive for his resignation, but Robertson himself pointedly does not do so. It really seems hard to call it a protest if the man utters not one word of protest, isn't it?

But we go much further on in the artcle, and find this bit of information.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Ah -- the word of an anonymous source who is repeating information about private conversations. Was this source a party to the conversations in question, or is the information second or third hand? We don't know. Information to assess the credibility of the source is utterly absent -- and the Post (consumate violator of national security related restrictions on classified information) boldly asserts a national security basis for not identifying the source! Never mind that identifying the judge or judges (the membership of the FISA court is public information) raising such questions in no way discloses anything about the cases, and therefore violates no restrictions on classified information.

So what we have here is a story that says "A FISA court judge resigned without further information -- but the gossip we hear is that it is over the domestic spying information made public despite the harm to national security. You'll have to trust us though -- disclosing the sources would be a violation of national security."

Incredible!

Posted by: Greg at 04:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 642 words, total size 4 kb.

Can you believe that only six decades after the liberation of Auschwitz and the other National SOCIALIST death camps, a major international leader wants to argue that it didn't happen -- and condemns those who object to his abrogation of documented historical fact as emotional and illogical?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust is a matter for academic discussion and the West should be more tolerant of his views, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman said on Sunday.

Ahmadinejad last week called the Holocaust a myth and suggested Israel be moved to Germany or Alaska, remarks that sparked international uproar and threaten diplomatic talks with Europe over Iran's nuclear programme.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi defended the president's remarks, which also drew a rebuke from the U.N. Security Council.

"What the president said is an academic issue. The West's reaction shows their continued support for Zionists," Asefi told a weekly news conference.

"Westerners are used to leading a monologue but they should learn to listen to different views," he added.

Some 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their allies between 1933 and 1945.

Ahmadinejad, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who was elected president, also said in October Israel was a "tumour" that must be "wiped off the map".

A statement drafted by European Union leaders described last week's Holocaust comment as "wholly unacceptable". The White House termed the remarks "outrageous".

Asefi denounced international condemnation as emotional and illogical.

"The EU statement is not based on international diplomatic norms. They should avoid illogical methods," he said.

"Westerners are used to leading a monologue, but they should learn to listen to different views."

Fine -- you want scholarly debate and discussion? I'll give you a proposition to debate in a scholarly fashion, and demand that you not engage in emotional and illogical responses.

Muhammad (may pigs shit upon him) was a deranged pedophile whose demented ravings, as recorded in the unholy Koran, have been the leading source of untold misery and evil over the last 14 centuries.

Now stick that in your hookah and smoke it, Mahmoud.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't go to movie theaters. In fact, I think the last time I went to a movie theater to see a first run film was a couple of years ago when my wife and I received some free movie passes as a gift from a friend, and so went to see (loathe as I am to admit it) Scooby-Doo. We check out movies from the public library (Harris County does a good job of getting relatively current DVDs) or, once in a great while (perhaps three times in the last five years) renting them from Blockbuster. Otherwise we wait for thm to show up on commercial television.

Even more than cost, the main reason we don't go to movie theaters is the fact that medical issues cause my wifeto have a difficult time sitting that long in an uncomfortable theater seat with folks crawling over her in the dark.

But if we did go, I have totell you that the following story would be reason enough for me to quit going.

The National Association of Theater Owners wants the Federal Communications Commission to allow the blocking of cell phone signals in theaters.

John Fithian, the president of the trade organization, told the Los Angeles Times theater owners "have to block rude behavior" as the industry tries to come up with ways to bring people back to the cinemas.

Fithian said his group would petition the FCC for permission to block cell phone signals within movie theaters.

Some theaters already have no cell phone policies and ask moviegoers to check their phones at the door, Fithian said.

I don't think so. I'll put my phone on vibrate, but I won't check my phone at the door. And I sure as hell won't go someplace that would have the audacity to block me from receiving or making an emergency call unless using the phone endangers the lives of others (like at a hospital). For theaters to demand a special exemption from laws prohibitting the blocking of cell phone signals is obscene.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

How on earth can you sue the police dog simply for being – well – a dog?

One of the defendants has more than a leg to stand on in a lawsuit filed by a convicted drug dealer.

Andi has four legs. He's a dog used by the Athens County Sheriff's Department.
County Prosecutor C. David Warren said to his knowledge, it's the first time the county's dog has ever been singled out as a defendant. Warren has volunteered to handle Andi's defense personally.

"That dog could've done something to me or one of my attendants," said Wayne Francis Green, 46, of Albany, who filed the suit Nov. 18 in Athens County Common Pleas Court.

And the nature of the claim against Andi?

Green said Wednesday that he felt endangered by Andi's presence.

"They've got a mean ol' dog, you know what I'm saying? I take that pretty serious," Green said, adding, "I'm a dog lover, but that's the limit."

So the dog did nothing at all – he was just present.

But you have to love this part. Someone wih the county has a sense of humor about the situation.

Last week, Andi the German shepherd was informed that he's being sued, sort of. With a paw print, the dog "signed" the paper indicating he had been formally served with the complaint.

Still, Green is very serious about his idiotic complaint, proving that he has been using his own “merchandise”.

Green said he wants prosecutors to look into the dog's actions. "I want him charged with several different felony counts."

Felony counts? You canÂ’t charge him with a felony, you moron. HeÂ’s a DOG!

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

What is more important – getting rapists and child abusers off the street or making sure that parents don’t know about significant events in the lives of their children? Normal people with even a scintilla of decency would pick the first option. Planned Parenthood picks the second – and boasts of it on their website.

The Web site for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, the San Francisco chapter of Margaret Sanger's organization, features a section of "Shared Stories,", which it describes as "real stories" from its customers. Here is the top story listed in the section, exactly as it appears on the site [if that link doesn't work, the page is in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine]

It Keeps Us Safe I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way. I was 14 when I decided to start having sex, the day I made that choice I made an appointment to get birth control pills. I'm 17 now, I've been with my current boyfriend for about two years. During that time i've been HIV and STD tested four times. Right now I'm
sitting in the waiting room while my boyfriend gets the results for his HIV test. We love each other so we're responsible and Planned Parenthood helps us to do that.

- name withheld -

"It Keeps Us Safe"? Safe from what? Safe from parents finding out their little girls were raped? It certainly doesn't keep children safe from rapists.

To recap: An 11-year-old girl walked into Planned Parenthood, saying she had been raped. Not just statutory rape, either; forcible rape.

Planned Parenthood assured the girl that it would not contact her parents, and it was true to its word. Likewise, it must not have contacted the authorities either, otherwise the parents would certainly have been notified.

Thanks to Planned Parenthood, the rapist remained at large, still free to attack other little girls.

Teachers, social service personnel, and medical professionals are required to report sexual abuse of minors. Either Planned Parenthood is operating in violation of California law or they go to great lengths to insulate their mandated reporters from coming in contact with or becoming aware of abuse details – a situation which certainly raises questions about the quality of their treatment and their concern for the young women. After all, just among the medical professionals the mandated reporters include the following.

Health care personnel who are mandated reporters include:

a physician and surgeon, psychiatrist, psychologist, dentist, resident, intern, podiatrist, chiropractor, licensed nurse, dental hygienist, optometrist, marriage,
family, and child counselor, licensed clinical social worker or any other person who is currently licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of
the Business and Professions Code; any emergency medical technician I or II, paramedic, a person certified pursuant to Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code; a psychological assistant registered pursuant to Section 2913 of the Business and Professions Code; a marriage,
family and child counselor trainee, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 4980.03 of the Business and Professions Code; and unlicensed marriage, family and child counselor intern registered under Section 4980.44 of the Business and Professions Code, a state or county public health employee who treats a minor for venereal disease or any other condition, a coroner, or a medical examiner, or any other person who performs autopsies (P.C. 11165.7).

Regardless, it is clear that PP is so concerned with the privacy of minors that they would prefer that rapists and abuser run free, despite at a minimum having a moral obligation to take action. Do you want such folks operating in your city or town?

Posted by: Greg at 02:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 5 kb.