Let's just call it the Pelosi/Reid slowdown -- after all, the Rush economic policies enacted by a GOP Congress have resulted in a steadily growing economy during his term (excluding the immediate aftermath of 9/11). Now that the Democrats have taken charge of both the House and Senate, the economy has slowed and appears to be heading for a recession.

The government cut in half its estimate of economic growth in the first quarter, reporting the slowest rate of expansion since the end of 2002.

Before todayÂ’s numbers were released by the Commerce Department, it was clear the economy was downshifting from the rapid 5.6 percent expansion of the first quarter last year. But the new data reinforced how significant the slowdown has been.

Growth advanced just 0.6 percent, compared with an initial estimate of 1.3 percent. IThe chief reasons for the revisions were adjustments to the estimates of imports and business inventories. Imports, which subtract from the gross domestic product, were stronger than the government first thought. At the same time, businesses cut production and accumulated smaller inventory stockpiles.

Despite the adjustments to the growth figures, inflation in the first quarter was essentially unrevised. Prices excluding food and energy, a measure preferred by the Federal Reserve, advanced by 2.2 percent in the first quarter, still above what the central bank has said it considers acceptable.

While there is still optimism among economists, I'm sure that continued bad-talking of the American economy can produce a recession in no time --and will certainly do so if the policies proposed by the current crop of Democrats running for the White House get adopted.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Around here, I'm reasonably sure that neither my wife nor I are top dog.

As the demographics of America have changed, so too has the nature of pet ownership. It used to be that most pets were bought by families. Now, the majority of pet owners, 61 percent, are childless—singles, unmarried couples waiting to have kids, gay couples, empty-nesters. Invariably, these owners tend to treat their pets like surrogate babies, and they spoil them accordingly. To help these childless pet-parents spend their disposable income, the pet products industry has mushroomed in the past decade. This year we’ll shell out more than $40 billion to keep our furry friends fed, adorned, amused and healthy—the latter a huge growth category, with more and more owners paying top dollar for elaborate medical treatments to forestall that inevitable last visit to the vet. By the end of the decade, we’ll be spending $50 billion on pet products, according to the APPMA. Walk the aisles of Petco or PetSmart, past the Hawaiian shirts and sunglasses for your dog and the $140 Catnip Chaise Lounge for your cat, and you’ll discover just how well-trained we Americans have become. “I don’t know who’s been domesticated: the animals, or the humans?” says Jeff Corwin, Animal Planet’s globetrotting wildlife biologist.

Let's be honest here -- the adorable ball of fur pictured above is our child -- to the point that folks are surprised to find that my wife and I don't really have any kids (unfortunately). And my students are amused by the (small) framed picture of our pampered pooch on my desk. However, we are nto quite this goofy.

Some 56 percent of dog owners and 42 percent of cat owners buy their pets Christmas presents. Pets can listen to their own Internet radio station (Elvis Presley’s “Hound Dog” is one of the more popular songs on DogCatRadio.com), post their pictures and make play dates on dogster.com and catster.com, and earn frequent flier miles on United. They even have cell phones now: PetsCell is a bone-shaped telephone that attaches to your dog’s collar and allows you to ring him up (sorry, incoming calls only). And there’s a new beer for dogs (from Amsterdam, no less), called Kwispelbier, which is Dutch for “waggy tail” brew. The recent scare over tainted pet food has made feeding your animal a pricey proposition: I’ve switched Samantha to “holistic” kibble and wet food, hormone-free chicken strips and handmade cookies from a local dog bakery, along with the occasional whole-roasted chicken that we share for dinner. She also gets dried pig hearts, which cost $5 apiece (those, we don’t share).

Still, we do get Carmie the best of vet care, and ensure that she has good food and plenty of treats. And if she is getting a bit chubby, what can I say -- she is 11 years old, which would put her somewhere in her mid-70s if she were a person. It's OK that she has lost her girlish figure.

And the adoration of the canine is certainly preferable to this sort of disgusting display.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, DeMediacratic Nation, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 588 words, total size 5 kb.

Nancy Pelosi just does not get it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) said Monday she led a congressional delegation to Greenland, where lawmakers saw "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality," and she hoped the Bush administration would consider a new path on the issue.

Actually, Nancy, I know of very few folks who doubt climate change outright. What we question is the cause, the mechanism, behind it.

The California Democrat pointed to her delegation's weekend stop in Greenland, "where we saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality; there is just no denying it."

"It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland — it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world," she said.

Scientists have noticed that Greenland's output of ice into the North Atlantic had increased dramatically, doubling over the decade that ended in 2005.

Yes, it has -- but has it been caused by human beings? Or has it been part of a cyclical change in climate that occurs over a 1000-1500 year period -- after all, have you never thought of why it was called GREENland by those who discovered it? The climate was much more temperate a millenia ago, while we are now coming out of a period which is often referred to by historians and climatologists as the Little Ice Age.

Oh, and by the way -- who rejected Kyoto? Try Bill Clinton, who never submitted it to the Senate -- and the unanimous Senate that expressed its opposition to the treaty in 1998.

Posted by: Greg at 05:20 AM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm stunned by this one.

Vandals burned dozens of small American flags that decorated veterans' graves for Memorial Day and replaced many of them with hand-drawn swastikas, authorities said Monday.

Forty-six flag standards were found empty and another 33 flags were in charred tatters Sunday in the cemetery, authorities said. Swastikas drawn on paper appeared where 14 of the flags had been.

Members of the American Legion on this island off Washington's northwest coast replaced the burned flags with new ones Sunday afternoon.

The vandals struck again on Memorial Day after a guard left at dawn, the San Juan County sheriff's office said. This time, the vandals left 33 of the hand-drawn swastikas.

"This is not an act of free speech. This is a crime," Sheriff Bill Cumming said in a statement released Monday afternoon

Burn your flag -- free speech. Burn someone else's flag, especially one from a soldier's grave -- criminal vandalism.

Catch these scumbags and throw the book at them.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

You'll be punished if you try to bar homosexuals from your establishment in Australia -- but gay establishments can bar heterosexuals with impunity.

An Australian hotel catering for homosexuals has won the right to ban heterosexuals from its bars so as to provide a safe and comfortable venue for gay men.

In what is believed to be a first for Australia, the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled last week that the Peel Hotel in the southern city of Melbourne could exclude patrons based on their sexuality.

Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent people being discriminated against based on race, religion or sexuality.

But Peel Hotel owner Tom McFeely said the ruling was necessary to provide gay men with a non-threatening atmosphere to freely express their sexuality.

"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance," Peel told Australian radio on Monday.

Welcome to Animal Farm -- where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a revolting development.

One of the world's most prestigious health journals has lashed a fast-growing trend in the United States and Britain for "designer vaginas," the tabloid term for cosmetic surgery to the female genitalia.

The fashion is being driven by commercial and media pressures that exploit women's insecurities and is fraught with unknowns, including a risk to sexual arousal, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) says.

Known as elective genitoplasty, the surgery usually entails shortening or changing the shape of the outer lips, or labia, but may also include reduction in the hood of skin covering the clitoris or shortening the vagina itself.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the practice is spreading fast in the United States as well as in Britain, but the picture is unclear, the BMJ says.

If we in the West are going to continue to decry the genital mutilation of young girls for religious and cultural reasons, how can we countenance the mutilation of women in the developed world for reasons of fashion?

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

When the reporting of good news from Iraq merits its own news coverage, then you know the American people are not being given the whole story by the media.

TIME Magazine's Joe Klein — a longtime critic of President Bush and the Iraq war — writes this week — "There is good news from Iraq."
Klein details progress in Anbar province against Al Qaeda — including some days in which there have been zero effective attacks by insurgents.
He credits alliances between U.S. troops and local tribes — and writes that at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces are seeking similar alliances.

And among the examples are the following.

There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me—confirming reports from several other sources—that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters. And, as TIME's Bobby Ghosh has reported, an influential leader of the Sunni insurgency, Harith al-Dari, has turned against al-Qaeda as well. It is possible that al-Qaeda is being rejected like a mismatched liver transplant by the body of the Iraqi insurgency.

None of that is to say that the situation is perfect – nor that everything will be fixed in six months. And there are certainly problems with the current government – but it is a heck of a lot better than the murderous Saddamite regime ever was.

Nd let me say it – I understand the desire to see this war come to an end. Having grown up in a military family and having repeatedly sought a military career during my college years (injuries in a car accident ended that dream), I recognize that war is horrible and produces thousands of deaths in combat that each constitute a monumental individual and national tragedy. I wept the night that the war began, and I have wept over this war every day since then. But my study of history tells me that there is no acceptable substitute for victory in Iraq, and that choosing failure will result in a tragedy that far outstrips the horrors of Cambodia’s killing fields – and will render the sacrifices of the troops a meaningless waste of human life.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.

Because after all, the terms are vague and undefined, leaving those potentially accused with no way of knowing if they are in compliance.

The House, eager to do something about record high gasoline prices in advance of the Memorial Day weekend, voted narrowly Wednesday to approve stiff penalties for those found guilty of gasoline price gouging.

The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to go after oil companies, traders or retail operators if they take “unfair advantage” or charge “unconscionably excessive” prices for gasoline and other fuels.

The White House called the measure a form of price controls that could result in fuel shortages. It said President Bush would be urged to veto the legislation should it pass Congress.

Define "unfair advantage" What is an "unconscionably excessive" price for a product? There really is no standard for measuring either -- especially if one is not out to repeal the law of supply and demand (take ECONOMICS 101 at your local community college for details). What next -- Hugo Chavez-style nationalization of oil companies?

Get that veto pen out, Mr. President -- this bill is awful.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Because in the end, the birth of a baby is to be celebrated.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a grandfather for the sixth time.

According to the vice president's office, Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, 37, and her longtime partner, Heather Poe, welcomed 8 lbs., 6 oz. Samuel David Cheney into the world at 9:46 this morning at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Now some conservatives did themselves great discredit with negative responses to the announcement of the pregnancy some months ago. Even if one accepts the notion that the best environment for a child is a two-parent family with a married father and mother (and that is my view), and even if one believes that encouraging such families is proper policy, once there is a pregnancy we are morally obliged as a society to give support to th mother and a joyous welcome to the new child among us.

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

The Houston Chronicle is right -- defeating this bill for technical reasons is wrong. However, i'd argue that defeating it because it is a bad idea is a better thing.

One of the most egregious and undignified maneuvers occurred on Monday, when a lawmaker used a minor omission in a bill analysis to waylay legislation at the last minute that would have provided limited protections for journalists seeking to keep their sources confidential.

The bill, titled "The Free Flow of Information Act and sponsored by Houston's Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Democrat, and Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, a Republican, had already passed the Senate and was headed for its final legislative hurdle in the House.

Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, acting on behalf of district attorneys who opposed the law, seized on the insertion of a sentence into the bill by committee counsel that was not referenced in the legislative analysis. As a result, the shield law was ruled out of order. Although its supporters have not yet given up on finding an alternate route to consideration, time is running out.

The bill would provide journalists with protections against being subpoenaed by prosecutors to reveal confidential sources except in limited circumstances. It would also require a court hearing where the evidence and necessity for divulging the information would be weighed by a judge and would set out guidelines for jurists to use in reaching their decision. Thirty-three other states and the District of Columbia have similar statutes.

Sen. Ellis expressed disappointment that the effort to pass the shield law had been undercut by such a trivial objection.

"To fight for so long and to move this bill so far and to have it snatched away on something that is completely nonsubstantive is neither good government, nor good for the people of Texas," he said.

Texas media representatives have argued that a shield law is necessary to make it possible for whistleblowers to share information with journalists without the fear that their identity will later be revealed.

However, this bill really only serves the special interests of Big Media (you know, companies like the Houston Chronicle), as it is pretty clear that corporate media will be the only folks that qualify as reportesr under this bill.

\And as I pointed out yesterday, it is the definitions and exclusions that make such laws either dangerously broad or arbitrarily and capriciously narrow -- and in reality serve no public interest at all.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, once you exempt “the press” from the laws that apply to the rest of us, you then get into the question of who qualifies as a “journalist”. Take this case here.

A lawyer trying to get an Internet writer to testify and turn over notes for a court case says Web bloggers shouldn't have the same rights as mainstream reporters.

Attorney William McCorriston, in a lawsuit brought by landowner James Pflueger over the failure of the Kaloko Dam, claims that Malia Zimmerman of Hawaiireporter.com is a blogger who isn't entitled to withhold her sources of information.

But Zimmerman, an editor and reporter for the Web site, says she is a legitimate journalist, not just some hack who offers half-baked commentary on the news of the day.

"Any journalist who gives their word that they'll protect somebody's information or keep them in confidence, you have to abide by that," Zimmerman said. "It's not the medium you publish in, it's what you do with that information."

Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Gary Chang has ordered Zimmerman to submit to questioning under oath by McCorriston, likely in June. She can refuse to answer questions, but she must explain her reasons for doing so, and the judge would later rule on whether she's justified.

Hawaii does not have a journalist shield law like those enacted in 31 states to protect reporters' rights to keep their sources confidential.

That means there will be two issues for Chang to decide: whether Zimmerman is a bona fide journalist, and whether reporters have a qualified privilege to refuse providing confidential information to lawyers in a civil case.

Now letÂ’s be real honest about this website here -- Hawaiireporter.com posts lots of news, including original content, along with commentary. Zimmermann tries to differentiate herself from bloggers in tone and content and does not consider her site to be a blog. Furthermore, she has worked with major media on stories in the past in her capacity as a journalist covering stories like the one that is at the heart of this matter.

But that really begs the question. In a day and age in which anyone can set up a website and establish themselves as proprietor and publisher of a news/opinion site, does the distinction between blogger and journalist really make sense – or is it purely arbitrary? This leads to the great conflict at the heat of this case involving the newest form of information media.

On the one hand, the plaintiffÂ’s attorney raises the specter of anyone being able to flout a subpoena if bloggers qualify as journalists.

"It seems to me that if a blogger is a journalist, everyone can produce a blog and never be subject to a subpoena," McCorriston said. "Are all bloggers journalists? It's a question that's never been answered anywhere."

On the other hand, if there is some legitimate basis for a reporterÂ’s privilege, why shouldnÂ’t bloggers and internet journalists like Zimmermann qualify?

"She's far more than a blogger. She's got an institutional publication. It just happens to come out on a computer," said Zimmerman's attorney, Jeff Portnoy. "She's not just sitting at home and every couple of days writing a note to people."

One constitutional law professor sees the case as having serious implications.

The courts will have to weigh how press freedom extends to the realm of the Internet, said Jon Van Dyke, a University of Hawaii constitutional law professor.

"How does she differentiate herself from the zillions of other people who use the Internet, posting things on MySpace or whatever?" he asked. "If we're going to give special protection to the press, we should have some idea of who's in it and who's not."

And therein is precisely the heart of the issue – if such a privilege is created, who is in and who is out? How does one differentiate between Zimmermann and A reporter for the New York Times? Between a news and commentary blogger like myself and a “serious journalist” like Robert Novak? Where does one draw the line – and how – without being fully arbitrary in the process?

Frankly, I there can be only two legitimate outcome. Either every blogger qualifies as a journalist/reporter for purposes of press shield laws – or press shield laws must fall on the basis that they do not provide equal protection of the law to all citizens.

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.

No great loss here.

A CALIFORNIAN man who tried to kill his girlfriend by leaving her in a car parked across railway lines was himself killed when an oncoming train hurled the car into him as he fled.

His girlfriend survived, the Associated Press reported.

The man drove the car to the head of a line of traffic stopped at a level crossing in the San Fernando Valley neighbourhood of Sunland on Monday, police spokesman Mike Lopez said.

The man, who was seen arguing with the woman, then parked the car on the tracks and jumped out, leaving her behind, Mr Lopez said.

A 450-tonne commuter train hit the rear of the car, launching it into the man.
The girlfriend, who was injured , was taken to hospital in a stable condition.

Who said that the universe didn’t provide its own form of rough justice?

Prayers, of course, for the injured girlfriend.

H/T NRO’s The Corner

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

No great loss here.

A CALIFORNIAN man who tried to kill his girlfriend by leaving her in a car parked across railway lines was himself killed when an oncoming train hurled the car into him as he fled.

His girlfriend survived, the Associated Press reported.

The man drove the car to the head of a line of traffic stopped at a level crossing in the San Fernando Valley neighbourhood of Sunland on Monday, police spokesman Mike Lopez said.

The man, who was seen arguing with the woman, then parked the car on the tracks and jumped out, leaving her behind, Mr Lopez said.

A 450-tonne commuter train hit the rear of the car, launching it into the man.
The girlfriend, who was injured , was taken to hospital in a stable condition.

Who said that the universe didnÂ’t provide its own form of rough justice?

Prayers, of course, for the injured girlfriend.

H/T NROÂ’s The Corner

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

The NY Times is hardly at the forefront of reporting. I posted about this on May 15, when the NY Post wrote about Jerry Hauer's challenge to Rudy Giuliani.

As Rudolph W. Giuliani runs for president, his image as a chief executive who steered New York through the disaster of Sept. 11 has become a pillar of his campaign. But one former member of his inner circle keeps surfacing to revisit that history in ways that are unflattering to Mr. Giuliani: Jerome M. Hauer, New York CityÂ’s first emergency management director.

In recent days, Mr. Hauer has challenged Mr. GiulianiÂ’s recollection that he had little role as mayor in placing the cityÂ’s emergency command center at the ill-fated World Trade Center.

Mr. Hauer has also disputed the claim by the Giuliani campaign that the mayorÂ’s wife, Judith Giuliani, had coordinated a help center for families after the attack.

And he has contradicted Mr. Giuliani’s assertions that the city’s emergency response was well coordinated that day, a point he made most notably to the authors of “Grand Illusion,” a book that depicts Mr. Giuliani’s antiterrorism efforts as deeply flawed.

Seems to me that Hauer is out to make a buck off of his connection to Rudy and 9/11, and is prepared to sell him down the river to do so. Interestingly enough, this also shows the flaw of GOP elected officials being "bi-partisan" in their appointments -- the Democrat Hauer is more than willing to stab his old boss in the back as he heads into the presidential run.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

I think a probe of these companies may be in order – but would regulating them lend legitimacy to what is essentially the sale of snake-oil?

For those who support it, it offers the reward of "carbon neutrality" without having to lower one's standard of living. To critics, it allows guilt-free pollution. Either way, the burgeoning carbon offset industry needs more oversight, say two members of Congress.

In a letter to the Government Accountability Office, Republican Reps. Tom Davis of Virginia and Darrell Issa of California asked for an investigation into emission offset programs.

About 60 different companies sell carbon offsets to U.S. consumers but operate under virtually no standards, the congressmen said. They cited reports alleging that some organizations get money for emissions that don't exist and that others make large profits on cleanups that would have taken place anyway.

"We want to understand the products sold in these markets and make sure they are doing what they say they are," said Davis, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"Offsets are becoming a convenient shortcut for individuals and industry to become 'carbon neutral.' Now that we see legislation introduced to direct the federal government to do the same thing, we need a complete picture," Davis said.

Frankly, the notion of selling “carbon offsets” seems no more legitimate to me than the notion of selling indulgences in the Middle Ages – with the additional drawback that while sin is real, man-made global warming is not. I’m therefore troubled by the notion of a governmental imprimatur upon what is effectively a fraud upon the gullible – or, if you really believe in man-made global warming, a license to go on sinning. Where are the latter-day Luthers?

Posted by: Greg at 02:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess there are limits to paternity tests.

Twin brothers Raymon and Richard Miller are the father and uncle to a 3-year-old little girl. The problem is, they don't know which is which. Or who is who. The identical Missouri twins say they were unknowingly having sex with the same woman. And according to the woman's testimony, she had sex with each man on the same day. Within hours of each other.

When the woman in question, Holly Marie Adams, got pregnant, she named Raymon the father, but he contested and demanded a paternity test, bringing his own brother Richard to court.

But a paternity test in this case could not help. The test showed that both brothers have over a 99.9 percent probability of being the daddy— and neither one wants to pay the child support. The result of the test has not only brought to light the limits of DNA evidence, it has also led to a three-year legal battle, a Miller family feud and a little girl who may never know who her real father is.

"'Did you sleep with him [Richard Miller] while in Sikeston for the rodeo?'," Cameron Parker, Richard's lawyer, said she asked Holly Marie Adams in 2003 court testimony, to which she answered "'Yes ma'am.'" "She then said she went to appellant's [Raymon Miller's]home where they had sex later that night or early the next morning," Parker said.

IÂ’m sure glad IÂ’m not the judge in this case. Personally, though, I like the idea of splitting the support payments 50-50 -- after all, they both played, so they both can pay.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the charge made by some former employees in the lawsuit of Jared Paul Sterns against News Corp of America. Stern and former NY Post employee Ian Spiegelman make some startling claims.

For example, Spiegelman claims that Murdoch ordered his editors at The Post to kill any negative stories about President Clinton and his wife Hillary.

He also said that Murdoch ordered a story about a Chinese diplomat and his visits to a New York strip club to be killed because it might have angered the Communist regime and endangered News Corp's broadcasting privileges in China.

It also suggests that Murdoch cancelled the publication of a book, by Harper Collins, a News Corp subsidiary, by former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten that was critical of the Beijing regime.

At the same time, claims Spiegelman, Harper Collins was ordered to publish a flattering book about Communist Party boss Deng Xiaoping, written by his daughter Deng Rong. Although Spiegelman claims it is "stunningly awful" Deng Rong was given, he alleges, a $1 million advance.

And there are other juicy allegations in the case as well – this one could be incredibly titillating and fodder for all sorts of fun press stories as the case moves forward.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

I just love it when liberals set up a strawman to attack the GOP. Michael Kinsley does exactly that in this current Time column.

The official position of the Republican Party on abortion is more extreme than most people realize. All of its recent platforms have declared that "the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children." The 14th Amendment is the one that protects fundamental rights and "equal protection of the laws." If "unborn children" are a protected group under the 14th Amendment--like blacks, women and so on--abortion is unconstitutional. A state couldn't legalize abortion even if its citizens wished to. Women who procure abortions and doctors who perform them would have to be prosecuted for murder, just like a woman who hires a gunman to kill her child. Death-penalty states would have to either stop executing murderers or start executing women who have abortions.

Actually, not quite, Michael. Yes, abortion would be banned in all states, but that would not require that abortion be treated as first degree murder or force the execution of abortionists and their clients. Just as there are currently multiple different criminal penalties for various sorts of homicide, abortion could be treated at any of those levels – or even placed in its own class. For that matter, criminalization of abortion would not be required – after all, there is no constitutional requirement that a state have laws against murder.

None of this, though, matters to Kinsley – who would rather alarm folks than illuminate them. After all, Kinsley knows that most Americans support sharp limits on abortion, if not an outright ban. So Kinsley has to scare people – and isn’t about to let the actual facts get in the way. You know, things like this from the next paragraph in the platform.

We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.

But then again, when you want to paint your opponents as heartless extremists it wouldnÂ’t do to tell the whole truth.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Why would your party not punish active participants in murder?

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 06:35:39 2007 (IU21y)

2 As that question comes from a member of the party that celebrates those murders and considers committing them to be a civil right, I won't even dignify that with an answer.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 10:05:34 2007 (4g2Ps)

3 Actually, Dan, I do -- but given the refusal of you and your party to even acknowledge abortion as the taking of a human life, I don't see where any answer I give will satisfy you.

But then again, your party didn't see blacks as humans until the 1960s, so why should I be surprised at the callousness of the Democrats today?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 11:36:54 2007 (4g2Ps)

4 You don't know my position on abortion, and I'd strongly suggest that you stop leaping to assumptions.

Expletive.

But, seriously, how do you square that logic? If abortion is murder, how can you possibly excuse the mother from her involvement? Is it that murder is okay in that circumstance - for the mother, anyhow? Is it that the fetus is not really worthy of protection? Is it not really murder, after all?

Or is it that the picture of sending crying young women to prison for a choice many choose to make is a bad public relations image for the anti-choice lobby?

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 12:01:51 2007 (IU21y)

5 Well, Dan, your choice of terminology clearly puts you in the anti-life left-stream of the Democratic Party -- so now I don't have to leap to any conclusions about your being an anti-lifer.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 12:21:11 2007 (ayoM5)

6 And Dan, if you read the platform in question, you would know the answer:

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.

The short answer, as you can see, is one of compassion for someone who clearly has not been able to access the resources necessary to bring that child to term. On the other hand, the abortionist in such situations is clearly profiteering off the misery of others, and is clearly a more morally culpable -- and is usually as serial killer to boot.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 12:46:30 2007 (ayoM5)

7 That doesn't make any sense.

I think you know that.

If a woman gives birth, and is in a difficult situation, you would not support her decision to kill the child, would you?

Being in a "difficult situation" is not typically a murder defense. Is killing a fetus murder or not?

What if Paris Hilton gets pregnant, out of sheer sluttiness and a stupid refusal to use contraception? What if she would face no particular difficulty in having the child? What if she decided to abort because she thought it would be funny to piss of the religious right? Why would that not be premeditated murder? Why would she get off scot free?

Are you SURE this isn't just a PR issue? Because it would be a whole lot more consistent if you treated murder like murder, don't you think?

As for your jumping to conclusions, you're quite silly. These are difficult issues I've struggled with for years. I find that most people on both sides have shallow and stupid reasoning. The platform is certainly guilty of that. I'm beginning to suspect you may, as well, though I'm eager to be proven wrong.

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 15:07:54 2007 (IU21y)

8 Actually, I find any reasoning that doesn't lead to a pro-life position to be inherently shallow and stupid -- not to mention based in selfishness and self-indulgence.

From my experience dealing with those who have had abortions, most of them have not particularly been willing participants. I think of the 17 year old girl whose boyfriend and his mother took her "for shopping and lunch" and then drove to the regional abortuary and informed her that she could go in and have the procedure done -- or call her parents (who didn't yet even know she was pregnant) and a have them drive 100 miles to pick her up from the parking lot. I think of the one who took a home pregnancy test and was pressured into the abortion by her boyfriend -- only to discover, after she and her parents went to court to force access to her medical records from the facility that she had never been pregnant in the first place. And yes, I think of a number of clients when I worked at the homeless shelter who were told that abortion was their only option by "compassionate" people who had "struggled with the issue".

And yes, Dan, I'm sure it isn't just a PR issue -- but if folks like you insist, we could certainly execute both the serial-killer/abortionist and the woman who he/she had actively victimized.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 15:25:17 2007 (e74fy)

9 RWR - You're not answering the question. Is it unanswerable for you?

If a woman has other options, but chooses to have an abortion, why should she not be punished?

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 15:33:16 2007 (IU21y)

10 Ideally -- yes.

As a practical matter, however, preventing the injustice of punishing women like I mention above necessitates allowing such a woman to escape punishment.

But if you would like, we can just execute them all, just to avoid offending your sensibilities.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 20 21:34:27 2007 (Y4tHr)

11 RWR -

I suspect that many on the right would, in fact, be eager to execute them all - I don't doubt your own sincerity, but I do doubt the sincerity of many of your cohorts.

It seems strange that the anti-choice crowd would have such an easy-going attitude toward murderesses - my unscientific impression is that this is the same crowd which hoots in dismay whenever an accused asserts his or her rights.

On the other hand, it does fit into a certain paternalism I've seen on the side of state-enforced decision-making - those silly little women are too stupid to decide what to do with their bodies. I, too, have known women who have undergone abortions, and they have not all been the downtrodden victims this plank would seek to protect. It's not really logical to excuse an entire class of murderers because a few of them might have been in a jam. That's kind of like allowing all women to murder their husbands because a few of them might be battered spouses.

It also seems a little suspicious that this unexpected burst of illogical compassion for criminals happens to coincide with the avoidance of taking a position which would doom the movement at the polls. It looks more like a calculated decision to criminalize in increments.

Twice you've offered to execute them (ironic for a "pro-lifer"). Your quickness to flip-flop on this issue suggests that Republicans may be less than determined to protect women from murder prosecutions.

Posted by: Dan at Sun May 20 23:13:09 2007 (IU21y)

12 Actually, Dan, you seem to once again have missed the sarcastic nature of my response. You are the fellow with the blood-thirsty streak -- but then again, your support for abortion already showed that, didn't it.

And Dan, we pro-lifers are more than willing to allow women to do whatever they want with their bodies. The problem is, of course, that they are doing something to the bodies of their children. And while I'll agree that they may be morally culpable, compassion dictates that we as a society show the sort of mercy they are unwilling to show their children.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 21 14:03:52 2007 (3f8E9)

13 Compassionate enough to let them off for murder, but not compassionate enough to let them choose whether or not to have a child. Interesting.

But, less rhetorically, I appreciate your honesty. There is nothing other than the right wing's "compassion" to prevent murder prosecutions. If anyone feels secure in relying on the right wing's "compassion", I admire their faith. Personally, I'm seeing a huge maternity ward being added on to Gitmo.

Posted by: Dan at Tue May 22 00:44:53 2007 (IU21y)

14 Fine Dan -- if you insist, we can implement capital punishment for the women, too. Anything to keep you anti-lifers happy and content, with plenty of blood flowing (like the 45 million plus killed since Roe).

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 22 11:14:43 2007 (39aMb)

15 Is that a joke or not, RWR? You've got no assurance beyond your never-seen-before right-wing "compassion" that we won't see prosecutions. Most of the nation knows that republicans are liars and extremists.

You're trying to have it both ways. Ban abortion because it's murder, but treat the ladies kindly because they're a kinder and gentler brand of murderer. It doesn't make sense.

Except from a PR perspective.

Posted by: Dan at Tue May 22 12:44:18 2007 (IU21y)

16 Like I said, Dan -- we'll execute them if you anti-lifers insist upon it. After all, you folks must have the blood you rejoice in, one way or another.

By the way -- Moloch would be proud of you people.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 22 13:14:55 2007 (F7csV)

17 Was the Liberty University Napalm Terrorist pro-life?

Posted by: Dan at Tue May 22 14:09:55 2007 (IU21y)

18 You really had to scrounge to find a sick puppy like that -- whose actions would have been condemned by Falwell himself -- to try to discredit the pro-life movement, especially since there is no apparent connection between the two. Sort of like connecting the Unabomber and Al Gore, since they both spout the same sort of radical environmental kookery.

Of course, you and I might both agree that if this moron had managed to successfully use these devices on the Fred Phelps Klan (loyal Democrats all), America would be a better place.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue May 22 14:26:52 2007 (qAmhO)

19 You know, I'll go ahead and admit that using the Rightwinger Napalm Terrorist in this discussion was a bad misdirection. It doesn't really fit into the discussion, and I think we've said about all we have to say here. We agree, I think, that it is not logical to refuse to punish women who have abortions, if abortion is deemed to be murder, and we agree that the only prevention for such criminal prosecutions is rightwing "compassion". I have no faith that such a thing exists, and you do. We'll have to agree to disagree.

(Unless I toss in another red herring . . .)

Posted by: Dan at Tue May 22 14:36:33 2007 (IU21y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I guess I don't see the crime here -- much less how it rises to the level of a "hate crime".

Two 16-year-old Crystal Lake girls were expected in juvenile court Tuesday on hate-crime charges for allegedly printing and distributing fliers with pictures of two boys kissing and inflammatory statements about homosexuality.

The girls, both of whom are students at Crystal Lake South High School and whose names were not released because of their ages, were arrested Friday, Crystal Lake Police Chief Dave Linder said. One of the boys on the flier is a student at the school.

When an officer tried to stop the girls from distributing the fliers in a school parking lot, they climbed a fence and ran, Linder said.

Both girls face charges of committing a hate crime, disorderly conduct, and obstructing justice. One girl also was charged with resisting arrest.

Under Illinois law, a person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a crime against another person based on that personÂ’s race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities or national origin.

So tell me -- where is the crime against another person necessary to qualify as a hate crime? It appears here that what we have is a case of speech being criminalized. Yes, there is the issue of whether their venue was appropriate, but even that does not qualify as a crime against a person. And I'm not alone in asking the question -- at least one gay site has the same concern.

Seems to me that this case may be the "poster child" against hate crime laws.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | Comments (240) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 4 kb.

I think this could reasonably be called a proposal for a police state – courtesy of the Democrats who run Baltimore.

Large swaths of Baltimore could be declared emergency areas subject to heightened police enforcement - including a lockdown of streets - under a city councilman's proposal that aims to slow the city's climbing homicide count.

The legislation - which met with a lukewarm response from Mayor Sheila Dixon's administration yesterday, and which others likened to martial law - would allow police to close liquor stores and bars, limit the number of people on city sidewalks and halt traffic in areas declared "public safety act zones." It comes as the number of homicides in Baltimore reached 108, up from 98 at the same time last year.

"Desperate measures are needed when we're in desperate situations," said City Council Vice President Robert W. Curran, the bill's author. "What I'm trying to do is give the mayor additional tools."

As I read through the article, I cannot help but note that the provisions allow for the suspension of much of the First Amendment (right to peaceably assemble), Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms), Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure), as well as the freedom to freely operate a legal business. Could you imagine the outrage if this were tried in an attempt to get at illegal aliens or terrorists?

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ll give you a hint – not the oil companies.

While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California's various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation's third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi's San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent -- higher than the state's average for local sales taxes.

And the solution, proposed by Pelosi and other Democrats – is to increase the profit the government makes through taxation, thereby raising the price of gas.

As George Will points out, adjusted for inflation the price of gas is below what it was at the start of the Reagan Administration.

And as I noted in February, oil companies are not making that big of a profit.

As a percentage of total earnings, ExxonÂ’s profit was 10.45 %. Is that really an unconscionably high profit?

And taken per share, the profit was $6.62. With shares trading at $74 dollars as of this morning, that means that each share had a profit of 8.9%. Again, does the level of profit really shock the conscience?

So who is gouging the consumer – Big Oil or Big Government?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Right Celebrity, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 4 kb.

Imagine the uproar if a hotel set aside a special floor for men, with special amenities not available to female guests. There would, of course, be an uproar. Under civil rights law, the hotel would be forced to end the discriminatory practice.

The same thing should happen here.

Among the amenities planned for this city's new JW Marriott hotel, one might be a first in America.

The Alticor-owned riverfront hotel is reserving its 19th floor and a lounge exclusively for female clientele when it opens Sept. 19.

Andrea Groom, a spokeswoman for the 24-story, 340-room hotel, said the idea recognizes more than half of all business travelers are women.

"A lot of women are saying they're not feeling like they're safe when they're traveling to a strange city," she said. "They don't necessarily want to go down to a lounge and feel like they are getting hit on by guys."

The women-only rooms also will have amenities not found in other rooms, such as chenille throw blankets, ionic hair dryers, jewelry holders and special bath products.

Access to those rooms will come at a $25 to $30 per night premium over standard rates of about $229.

If this is allowed to stand, every sex discrimination law in the country needs to be repealed, for it will be clear that they fall short of the requirement that they provide equal protection of the law.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 1 kb.

1 comment2, 1000 loan payday
, %-(, Nice guaranteed online personal loans
, 19318, Personal Loan For Poor Credit Yeah
, txwde, Need 5000 Loan Overnight Online
, 8-[, Good elf bowling to play online
, 544205,

Posted by: gunzone at Wed Apr 29 10:33:24 2009 (FZxps)

2 comment6, Greatest aricept
, =-DD, Darvocet Photos
, 7535, short mini skirt galleries
, 466094, bactrim
, 774688, Pictures of buy zovirax
, 2138,

Posted by: Michael at Tue May 5 06:44:14 2009 (VpWq4)

3 Zdarova!, adobe creative for mac, 6303, buy adobe acrobat, > , buy microsoft office 2007, > ,

Posted by: Pisinka at Wed May 20 05:24:34 2009 (LpxCG)

4 Hi!, buy autocad, 813651, adobe creative for mac, gqfo, buy microsoft office 2007, jlvxs,

Posted by: SosniIUH at Wed May 20 09:30:30 2009 (mUE89)

5 Zdarova!, buy adobe acrobat, nnxggy, adobe creative for mac, 894, buy microsoft office 2007, 972760,

Posted by: Pisinka at Wed May 20 14:04:24 2009 (FDjtv)

6 Zdarova!, buy adobe acrobat, nnxggy, adobe creative for mac, 894, buy microsoft office 2007, 972760,

Posted by: Pisinka at Wed May 20 14:04:25 2009 (iae3s)

7 Zdarova!, buy autocad, =[[[, adobe creative for mac, %[[, buy microsoft office 2007, ipamk,

Posted by: Pisinka at Wed May 20 14:22:24 2009 (lreUk)

8 Good moning!, adobe creative for mac, 4292, buy adobe acrobat, 18901, buy microsoft office 2007, 29834,

Posted by: VBarakenOgama at Wed May 20 15:25:09 2009 (kmI7G)

9 Good moning!, buy autocad, 8[, adobe creative for mac, hgnnse, buy microsoft office 2007, =-DD,

Posted by: Maramoika at Wed May 20 15:45:57 2009 (/vojC)

10 Hello!, buy autocad, 213945, buy adobe acrobat, 1272, buy microsoft office 2007, >:],

Posted by: SosniIUH at Wed May 20 16:06:09 2009 (YI4Z5)

11 Gutentak!, autodesk autocad 2008, :-DD, solidworks 2009 x64, >:OO, Autodesk 3ds Max, 616212, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, srfe, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 7141,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Fri May 22 00:53:38 2009 (uCsD1)

12 Hello!, microsoft windows vista business, :O, adobe photoshop cs2, 8-P, solidworks 2009 x64, lmf, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, =DD, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 8-[[, Conceptdraw Office, 08269,

Posted by: Titinka at Fri May 22 02:25:39 2009 (nbclR)

13 Hi!, solidworks 2009 x64, rkbv, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, 9638, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 744933, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 8-PP, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, qbmi, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, ezxrq,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Fri May 22 04:58:41 2009 (t3eR6)

14 Privet!, SolidWorks 2009, =O, microsoft windows vista business, 873, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, qyll, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 43784, Conceptdraw Office, 008,

Posted by: Titinka at Fri May 22 05:43:39 2009 (wW9wa)

15 Gutentak!, Autodesk 3ds Max, =-DD, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, mrt, Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, 421, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, 8-(((, microsoft office xp profession, gvbm,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Fri May 22 13:46:44 2009 (mnqZG)

16 Hello!, microsoft windows vista business, 91447, adobe photoshop cs2, 346, microsoft windows vista sp2 x64, :-D, microsoft office xp profession, 5516, adobe creative suite 3 design, wvr,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Fri May 22 14:07:15 2009 (QLIVg)

17 Good moning!, SolidWorks 2009, nmwmta, Autodesk 3ds Max, cqtuxl, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, 8-PPP, microsoft office xp profession, %]]], adobe creative suite 3 design, zfig,

Posted by: Titinka at Fri May 22 14:49:03 2009 (Ae6mK)

18 Gutentak!, autodesk autocad 2008, xfepl, Adobe CS4 Master Collection, gmam, Zoner PhotoStudio Enterprise, =D, g data internet security 2008, mtba, autodesk navisworks simulate 2010, 403626,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Fri May 22 16:13:53 2009 (iae3s)

19 Hi!, microsoft windows vista business, 382, Autodesk 3ds Max, towuqy, parallels desktop 3 for Mac, =), microsoft office xp profession, rqkc, adobe creative suite 3 design, %P,

Posted by: Chtosmotrish at Fri May 22 16:56:46 2009 (mnqZG)

20 Zdarova!, adobe photoshop cs3 extended, kabyk, SolidWorks 2009, pvcch, adobe photoshop cs2, 2143, g data internet security 2008, %-OO, microsoft office xp profession, %]], adobe creative suite 3 design, >:-P,

Posted by: BmarakakOkama at Fri May 22 17:18:21 2009 (/CGhN)

21 Privet!, solidworks 2009 x64, %((, microsoft windows vista business, %-]], adobe photoshop cs2, 833687, adobe acrobat 8 professional, 84564, Conceptdraw Office, 8427,

Posted by: Trasvestitka at Fri May 22 18:02:04 2009 (kmI7G)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I’m not sure which is worse – the fact that Planned Parenthood officials helped victimize this girl by failing to carry out their legal (and moral) obligation to report her molestation by her father, or their attempt to dodge responsibility by accusing the victim’s supporters of victimizing her by supporting her efforts to hold Planned Parenthood accountable.

The suit in Ohio alleges that when the girl sought an abortion in November 2004 -- she was 16 years old at the time -- she told Planned Parenthood staff that her father was the baby's father and that he had been raping her since 2000.

It alleges that the employees did not comply with Ohio law, which requires them to report suspicion of rape and incest to authorities. The suit charges that failure to report the rape led to another year and a half of abuse.

The girl, whom Cybercast News Service will not name because the crime was committed when she was a minor, is seeking $25,000 in damages "to compensate her for the severe harm she has suffered as a direct result of [Planned Parenthood's] breach of their duties owed her." She also asks the court to levy punitive damages against Planned Parenthood.

Becki Brenner, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio, told Cybercast News Service Tuesday that she feels sorry for the girl who is suing her organization, calling her a victim of pro-life activists.

"I consider this woman a victim not only from her father and the abuse that occurred previously," Brenner said, "but I feel she's also being a victim from this court case and what's going on politically regarding this case."

Brenner has it exactly wrong here. The young woman is certainly the victim of her father, but is also the victim of Planned Parenthood. That the spokesperson of this criminal organization would blame those who are assisting the victim is incredibly low – but then again, given that the organization supports itself by murdering the unborn, why should we be surprised.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m not sure which is worse – the fact that Planned Parenthood officials helped victimize this girl by failing to carry out their legal (and moral) obligation to report her molestation by her father, or their attempt to dodge responsibility by accusing the victim’s supporters of victimizing her by supporting her efforts to hold Planned Parenthood accountable.

The suit in Ohio alleges that when the girl sought an abortion in November 2004 -- she was 16 years old at the time -- she told Planned Parenthood staff that her father was the baby's father and that he had been raping her since 2000.

It alleges that the employees did not comply with Ohio law, which requires them to report suspicion of rape and incest to authorities. The suit charges that failure to report the rape led to another year and a half of abuse.

The girl, whom Cybercast News Service will not name because the crime was committed when she was a minor, is seeking $25,000 in damages "to compensate her for the severe harm she has suffered as a direct result of [Planned Parenthood's] breach of their duties owed her." She also asks the court to levy punitive damages against Planned Parenthood.

Becki Brenner, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio, told Cybercast News Service Tuesday that she feels sorry for the girl who is suing her organization, calling her a victim of pro-life activists.

"I consider this woman a victim not only from her father and the abuse that occurred previously," Brenner said, "but I feel she's also being a victim from this court case and what's going on politically regarding this case."

Brenner has it exactly wrong here. The young woman is certainly the victim of her father, but is also the victim of Planned Parenthood. That the spokesperson of this criminal organization would blame those who are assisting the victim is incredibly low – but then again, given that the organization supports itself by murdering the unborn, why should we be surprised.

Posted by: Greg at 01:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

This is a shocking development -- she was so terribly young.

Yolanda Denise King, daughter and eldest child of civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., has died, said Steve Klein, a spokesman for the King Center.

King died late Tuesday in Santa Monica, Calif., at age 51.

Klein said the family did not know the cause of death but that relatives think it might have been a heart problem.

This is, of course, a terrible tragedy for the King family, and my prayers are with them at this time.

Posted by: Greg at 10:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

Love him or hate him – and I’ve done both over the years – one has to admit that Jerry Falwell made a major impact upon American politics and religion.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, who founded the Moral Majority and built the religious right into a political force, died Tuesday shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University, a school executive said. He was 73.

Ron Godwin, the university's executive vice president, said Falwell, 73, was found unresponsive around 10:45 a.m. and taken to Lynchburg General Hospital. "CPR efforts were unsuccessful," he said.

Godwin said he was not sure what caused the collapse, but he said Falwell "has a history of heart challenges."

"I had breakfast with him, and he was fine at breakfast," Godwin said. "He went to his office, I went to mine, and they found him unresponsive."

FalwellÂ’s death was clearly sudden and unexpected, and comes as a shock to those associate with him. May his family, friends, church members and students all be comforted in this time of loss.

And IÂ’d like to note that the classiest response IÂ’ve seen to FalwellÂ’s passing comes from Al Sharpton.

"I am deeply saddened by the passing of Reverend Jerry Falwell. Though he and I debated much and disagreed often, we shared a very cordial and warm friendship. I visited him in Lynchburg, dined with him, and even talked with him during personal crises. Though we were as politically opposite as two people could be, I truly respected his commitment to his beliefs and our mutual belief in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As I stated to my nationally syndicated radio show, I pray for the Falwell family and join the nation in mourning the passing of this religious leader."

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Come home – but not until the job is done. That is the position taken by the American people.

A majority (54%) of the 903 adults surveyed last week disagree with Reid's assessment that the war is lost, with 30% disagreeing "strongly." Meanwhile, 78% say Iraq should be stabilized before troops are withdrawn. Fully 48% believe this is "very important."

In short, the idea of stabilizing Iraq before withdrawing troops has universal appeal, and the idea could potentially unify support behind the president.
In fact, our poll shows this concept appeals not only to Republicans, 91% of whom agree with it, and Independents (80%), but to a solid majority of Democrats (66%). Even those who believe we have lost the war believe stabilization is important.

The leadership of the neo-Copperhead Democrats wants to cut-and-run-and surrender in Iraq. They donÂ’t care what the consequences will be. Americans view the matter differently. Perhaps that is why the approval rate for Congress is now at 29%, lower than that for the President.

Even though Democrats now control both houses of Congress, the poll shows that only 37% of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing right now. These marks are, however, significantly better than those given to Congress by independents (24%) and Republicans (25%). Democrats have been more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress this year, whereas Republicans expressed a higher level of approval prior to the change of power experienced after the midterm congressional elections in November 2006.

Seems to me that the Democrats have lost whatever mandate they may have had.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 AM | Comments (270) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Not only do they fail to follow state laws requiring the reporting of child abuse, but now Planned Parenthood of California is threatening to sue those who uncovered the criminal activity going on in their clinics.

On Monday, PPLA sent a cease-and-desist letter to Rose, warning her that "surreptitious" recordings of PPLA employees without consent violates California privacy laws.

California law prohibits recording "intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication." Violating the prohibition could mean a $2,500 fine, plus civil penalties of $5,000 or more.

In the letter, obtained by Cybercast News Service, PPLA president Mary Jane Wagle demands that Rose stop the undercover investigations, remove existing clips from online video sharing site YouTube, and turn the original tapes and all copies over to Planned Parenthood.

"If you do not agree to take these three steps, PPLA will seek all appropriate legal remedies," Wagle wrote.

Cybercast News Service obtained a copy of the video and audio before the cease-and-desist letter went into effect and has preserved it for our readers' benefit. Click here for the full video -- a large file that may take time to load. (As it was produced by Rose, the video features clips of a song by rapper Ludacris and singer Mary J. Blige called "Runaway.")

David French, an attorney with the Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fund, accused Planned Parenthood of "engaging in a campaign...to bully an 18-year old to distract attention from the fact that their employees were engaging in unlawful behavior."

French, who is serving as Rose's legal adviser, said, "Nothing changes the truth of what's contained in those videotapes. Planned Parenthood was advocating that a patient lie, advocating a way around mandatory reporting requirements for statutory rape, and nothing that Planned Parenthood does as far as trying to bully her regarding the tapes themselves can change those facts."

So let’s get this straight – California law protects criminals from being caught in the course of their crimes, under the theory put forward by lawyers for Planned Parenthood. What is even more frightening is the demand that investigations of Planned Parenthood by the media cease – indicating that Planned Parenthood believes that the fictitious right to an abortion is superior to the freedom of the press guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

I grew up in a military family. While every duty station has a place in my heart, one of those that is particularly special is Guam. I think that it is fair to say that those two years, from 1974 to 1976, may be among those closest to my heart. I loved Guam, and even thought about returning there to teach at one time. And it goes without saying that I loved the people there.

That is why it is really hard to oppose the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.

Recognizes the suffering and the loyalty of the people of Guam during the Japanese occupation of Guam in World War II.

Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to make specified payments to: (1) living Guam residents who were killed, injured, interned, or subjected to forced labor or marches resulting from, or incident to, such occupation and subsequent liberation; and (2) survivors of compensable residents who died in war or survivors of compensable injured residents (such payments to be made after payments have been made to surviving Guam residents).

Defines "compensable Guam decedent" and "compensable Guam victim."
Directs the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to specify injuries that would constitute a severe personal injury or a personal injury. Authorizes the Commission to adjudicate claims and determine payment eligibility.

Requires: (1) claims to be filed within one year after the Commission publishes public notice of the filing period in the Federal Register; and (2) the Commission to make filing period information available to the public through the media in Guam.

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a grant program for research, educational, and media activities that memorialize the events surrounding the occupation of Guam during World War II, honor the loyalty of the people of Guam during such occupation, or both.

There is some good stuff in there, but the reparations program is out of the question. The harm suffered came at the hands of the Empire of Japan over 60 years ago, and reparations, if any, should come (or should have come) from the Japanese, not the United States. Furthermore, the precedent of paying reparations to the descendants of those harmed opens up a whole new can of worms – one which makes it impossible for the United States to ever deny any claim for reparations by any group, no matter how remote the ancestral claim.

Memorializing the heroism of the people of Guam during the war, however, is quite important and appropriate. I heard those stories from some of those who survived the occupation. I actually found 30-year-old bullets under my school building, and knew a girl who found a 30 year old Japanese hand grenade in the woods. And I am still moved by the story of the torture and execution (dare I say martyrdom) of Father Jesus Baza Duenas. Let that be done – but the time for US-funded financial reparations for the crimes of Japan has long since passed, if it was ever appropriate.

Posted by: Greg at 11:44 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

1 In another sense however, it cheapens people's sacrifice, by putting a monetary reward on them. Do people really believe justice can be achieved or the dead brought back through money? Thought folks didn't like America's focus on materialism over spirituality and things of importance...

Posted by: Ymarsakar at Fri May 18 07:17:33 2007 (mqRNO)

2 coycpxdu 696wwifsigt DD

Posted by: Msjdpscj at Sat Feb 7 02:22:04 2009 (2z1D1)

3 , ytouxjks, 4784,

Posted by: Zidpyewe at Sun Feb 22 19:08:12 2009 (hDx1H)

4 Hello. Buy cheap viagra http://forums.hostrocket.com/member.php?u=42915 Bye.

Posted by: RobbertZZZc at Thu Mar 5 01:47:30 2009 (j3ghh)

5 , cjuvslie, hkemv, vxbqgkvr, kmo, amnczpmv, :-[[,

Posted by: Yfhcered at Mon May 18 08:53:44 2009 (Lj/Hr)

6 tigard, vyvqntfw, xjyja, ruofwrqr, :-))), ynfidsfy, 56610,

Posted by: Bxofmpwz at Wed Oct 7 13:01:40 2009 (uS/u9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The accusation has been around for years – Planned Parenthood abortion facilities fail to report cases of child abuse as required by state law. Now there is proof.

Planned Parenthood is under fire after one of its employees was recorded encouraging a student - who was posing as a pregnant minor - to lie about her age in order to obtain an abortion without the abortion provider having to report the "statutory rape" to the police.

Lila Rose, an 18-year-old sophomore at the University of California Los Angeles, visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in the city, posing as a 15-year-old impregnated by her 23-year-old boyfriend. The visit was part of an investigation for The Advocate, a new pro-life magazine distributed on the UCLA campus.

California law requires abortion clinics to report instances of statutory rape to police. The age of consent in California is 16.

In covertly-filmed video of the meeting between Rose and an unnamed Planned Parenthood employee, the staffer is heard to tell Rose: "If you're 15, we have to report it ... If you're not, if you're older than that, then we don't need to."

"Okay, but if I just say I'm not 15, then it's different?" Rose asks.

"You could say 16," the worker replies, later adding, "Just figure out a birth date that works. And I don't know anything."

Not only that, but Planned parenthood staff is seen pushing the abortion option over other possibilities – so much for being “pro-choice”.

But then again, are we surprised?

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the position adopted by Ralph Peters regarding the war in Iraq. And more to the point, he argues that what is necessary is that we do what is necessary to achieve victory.

Above all, we have to maintain a strength of will equal to that of our opponents. War demands consistency, and we're the most fickle great power in history. We must focus on defeating our enemies, brushing aside all other considerations.

At present, we let those other considerations rule our behavior: We overreact to media sensationalism (which our enemies exploit brilliantly); we torment ourselves over the least mistakes our troops make; we delude ourselves that mass murderers have rights; we take prisoners knowing they'll be freed to kill more Americans - and the politicians and Green Zone generals alike pretend that "it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

That's the biggest lie ever told by a human being who wasn't a member of Congress.

Winning is everything. Fighting ruthlessly may not please the safe-at-home moralists, but it's losing that's immoral.

And if that means that we quit fighting by the Queensbury rules against an opponent using street-brawl tactics, that is what has to happen – even if that means taking the gloves off and fighting by means we consider distasteful.

And in particular, that means abandoning the notion, put forward by those who reject the Shermanesque notion that war is (and, indeed, must be) hell, that war can be clean, sanitary, and always fought by the most humane of rules. This has, peters argues, brought us to the point that any misdeed by our troops is seen as proof that our cause is unjust, while the much greater misdeeds of the enemy are brushed aside.

There are countless other ways in which we elevate the little immoralities required in war above the supreme immorality of losing. Leftists loved My Lai - they just adored it - but they were never called to account for the communist atrocities after Saigon fell. Pol Pot's butchery was never laid at the feet of the self-righteous bastards who shrieked, "Give peace a chance."

And no one on the left will discuss what might happen if we fail in Iraq. The truth is that they don't care.

We face merciless, implacable enemies who joyously slaughter the innocent with the zeal of religious fanaticism. Yet we want to make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings.

We've tried many things in Iraq. They've all failed. It's a shame we never really tried to fight.

Peters has the matter exactly right – and I’d argue that our willingness to abide by his advice will be the telling point on whether or not America can ever successfully fight another war again. Our downfall is not based upon military weakness – rather, it is based upon a sense of moral superiority that leads us to fits of breast-beating scrupulosity while absolving the most ruthless acts of our enemies.

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 513 words, total size 3 kb.

Need evidence that the Democrats want to use the revival of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to censor one side of the political debate? Consider this -- and the frightening implications of this investigation.

According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular -- and highly rated -- conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.

"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."

Limbaugh will always be a target for the Left -- but that you have the congressional staff of a presidential candidate actively investigating the political participation of members of the media is rather frightening.

I can hear the questions from Kucinich now: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Republican Party or any Republican front organization?"

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Texas law has done this for decades -- and it has been wrong the whole time. Let's hope they fix this before the current legislative session ends.

Donald Coit Smith, his grief fresh and raw, believes that Texas insurance companies profited after his 22-year-old son was electrocuted in an industrial accident in Bryan — all because of state laws that regulate the payment of death benefits through workers' compensation.

For his loss, Smith got $6,000 to bury his son. But Smith was told that the workers' comp death benefit — $100,500 — would not be paid to grieving family members because his oldest child, Donald W. Smith, a student at Sam Houston State University, had no wife or children.

Instead, the money, paid by his employer's insurance company, went to a state workers' comp fund in a case that shows just what happens in Texas when mostly young, unmarried or childless workers die in workplace accidents.

More than $17 million in workers' compensation benefits bypassed the relatives of as many as 140 dead workers from 2003 to 2006. All of that money ended up in a workers' comp fund where $10 million was then funneled back to insurance companies, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of state data.

Coit Smith, who has 20 years of experience as an industrial safety specialist, calls the payments "blood money."

"I feel it's immoral, what they did with that money," Smith said.

About 450 people are killed in workplace accidents in Texas each year. Yet many families of dead workers collect nothing. That's because historically, workers' compensation benefits have been reserved only for those who depended on those wages to live.

Death benefits are typically paid only to spouses and children younger than 18. Spouses who remarry and children who come of age lose the benefits. Parents and older children also are denied unless they were financially dependent on the worker killed, according to state law.

When no family members qualify, the lump-sum death benefit, often more than $100,000 per worker, goes to the state Division of Workers' Compensation and into the so-called "Subsequent Injury Fund."

The fund was meant to provide a safety net for workers who needed extra help after suffering multiple injuries on the job. But because of changes in the law in 1991, most of that money now goes back to insurance companies who underwrite workers' compensation.

Words fail me. Families of workers killed in workplace injuries deserve to be compensated -- and that they are not is incredibly offensive on a basic moral level.

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

You know, shunning someone because of their misdeeds isn’t a bad thing – indeed, it is virtuous. And as a result, I have to praise Louisville restaurateur Jeff Ruby.

Ruby — who owns restaurants in Cincinnati, Louisville and Belterra, Ind. — said Simpson, who was in town for the Derby on Saturday, came in with a group of about 12 Friday night and was seated at a table in the back. A customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing Simpson, Ruby said.

"I didn't want that experience in my restaurant," Ruby said, later adding that seeing Simpson get so much attention "makes me sick to my stomach."
He said he went to Simpson's table and said, "I'm not serving you." Ruby said when Simpson didn't respond, he repeated himself and left the room.

Simpson, he reports, had the grace to leave quietly.

Unfortunately, SimpsonÂ’s lawyer is now attempting to turn the incident into something else.

Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant's liquor license.

"He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.

I doubt there is a jury in the world that would give Simpson a penny – after all, this is clearly a case of refusing to do business with a loathsome individual. I’d suggest that Galanter may need to consider offering a retraction, unless he has significant poof of racial discrimination.

Posted by: Greg at 01:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’m betting the answer will be NO!

Two national hurricane experts say they expect an especially active storm season in the Atlantic this year, with one predicting 17 tropical storms and hurricanes.

Philip Klotzbach, a research associate at Colorado State University, and Joe Bastardi, the chief hurricane forecaster for AccuWeather Inc., acknowledged Tuesday that similar predictions for the 2006 season were wrong but still think there will be a more active storm cycle this year.

Klotzbach and Bastardi spoke at the Second Annual AccuWeather Hurricane Summit, a gathering of more than 100 weather experts and academics to discuss the coming season with members of the energy industry, whose business can be severely affected by storms.

"We didn't predict very well last year," Klotzbach said, noting that 2006 turned out to be an average year.

What we have here is really very little more than guesswork – and the track record of the predicters, I don’t know that I have much to be worried about on the Texas Gulf Coast.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Dudes -- it was a freakin' flower!

An odd-looking Canadian quarter with a bright red flower was the culprit behind a false espionage warning from the Defense Department about mysterious coins with radio frequency transmitters, The Associated Press has learned.

The harmless "poppy quarter" was so unfamiliar to suspicious U.S. Army contractors traveling in Canada that they filed confidential espionage accounts about them. The worried contractors described the coins as "filled with something man-made that looked like nano-technology," according to once-classified U.S. government reports and e-mails obtained by the AP.

I had heard of, but never seen one of these coins, designed to memorialize the WWI Canadian war dead. I can understand that folks who reported them may have been suspicious. But surely someone in Washington might have actually looked at the damn things before sending out an espionage alert -- you know, check with a coin dealer or something.

Some days I fear for my country.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

After getting 40-50 bites on each foot and leg one afternoon last summer, IÂ’m counting on seeing an end to this scourge in my lifetime.

Imported red fire ants have plagued farmers, ranchers and others for decades. Now the reviled pests are facing a bug of their own.

Researchers have pinpointed a naturally occurring virus that kills the ants, which arrived in the U.S. in the 1930s and now cause $6 billion in damage annually nationwide, including about $1.2 billion in Texas.

The virus caught the attention of U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers in Florida in 2002. The agency is now seeking commercial partners to develop the virus into a pesticide to control fire ants.

The virus was found in about 20 percent of fire ant fields, where it appears to cause the slow death of infected colonies..

Kill them. Kill them all.

Posted by: Greg at 11:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess they donÂ’t follow up on court-ordered treatment in Virginia.

Seung Hui Cho never received the treatment ordered by a judge who declared him dangerously mentally ill less than two years before his rampage at Virginia Tech, law enforcement officials said, exposing flaws in Virginia's labyrinthine mental health system, including confusion about the law, spotty enforcement and inadequate funding.

Neither the court, the university nor community services officials followed up on the judge's order, according to dozens of interviews. Cho never got the treatment, according to authorities who have seen his medical files. And although state law says the community services board should have made sure Cho got help, a board official said that was "news to us."

Would more aggressive follow-up have prevented the shootings? We can’t know, but one cannot help but believe that Cho’s illness might have been mitigated if he had received the treatment – or he might have been committed to a secure facility as a danger to others. The courts and mental health authorities clearly dropped the ball here.

And sadly, such cases are all too common. A decade ago, when I worked on the mental health crisis team in a rural county in Illinois, and I saw how folks were often let go when they needed treatment. One young man attempted suicide with a shotgun, but was released less than 72 hours later with an appointment for the following week with a counselor. He didn’t make the appointment – he blew his brains out less than 24 hours after he returned home. I have often wondered over the past 10 years whether I could have done something more – though I know I did all I could in sending him to where he might have gotten treatment. Such systemic flaws, you see, are not limited to Virginia.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

I'll be the first to tell you that I don't believe in the man-made global warming hysteria that some keep trying to sell us. At the same time, that does not mean that I ma not eco-friendly in my outlook on things. For example, I am a believer in wind-generated electricity. That's why I find this WaPo article interesting.

Two hundred towering windmills, each so tall that its blades would loom over the U.S. Capitol Dome, could be built in the Atlantic Ocean near one of Washingtonians' favorite beach retreats, under a plan being considered in Delaware.

The plan, which could create the first wind "farm" in waters along the East Coast, envisions a thicket of turbines offshore of either Rehoboth Beach or Bethany Beach, Del. As the blades are spun by ocean winds, designers say, the wind farm could provide enough power every year for 130,000 homes.

The wind farm is one competitor in an unusual kind of power-plant bake-off: Delaware officials are also considering plants that would burn coal or natural gas as they seek ways to generate more electricity. A preliminary decision could be made tomorrow.

So far, the debate over the windmills has turned on global questions about climate change and very local concerns about the impact on the ocean view. But from the beach, the wind farm's backers say, the giant turbines would look smaller than a boardwalk french fry.

"Toothpicks, with maybe little pinwheels on the top," said Jim Lanard, a spokesman for the company proposing the windmills, describing how they would look on the horizon more than six miles offshore. "You probably wouldn't be able to tell what they are."

Wind farms have sprouted all over the United States in the past decade. There are about 150, from California to the West Virginia highlands. But, so far, they have sprouted only on land.

There was, of course, a plan for a water-based wind farm in Massachusetts -- but it was blocked by Teddy Kennedy and his rich and powerful friends who were concerned that it might mess up their view from Hyannis and Martha's Vineyard. But the reality is simple -- wind power is clean power. Situated away from from shore, they have teh advantage of being relatively inconspicuous -- something that cannot be said about coal burning plants on shore, or even natural gas plants. And if we are really searching for energy independence, where is the logic of leaving this natural form of power untapped?

Posted by: Greg at 10:06 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

I've stated in the past that I do not believe in hate crimes laws -- period. No, I'm not arguing that assaults and other crimes against individuals based upon membership in different classes are acceptable -- quite the contrary, I believe that the notion of distinguishing between citizens based upon those classes sets a bad precedent and constitutes an unequal protection of the law. I'm therefore supportive of President Bush's announced decision to veto the hate crimes law passed by Congress.

Andrew Sullivan, though, does offer an interesting critique of reasons why people support and oppose such laws -- and the inconsistencies among them.

There are, I think, two coherent positions on hate crime laws. The first is opposition to the entire concept, its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on. That's my position. I oppose all hate crimes laws, regardless of the categories of individuals they purport to protect. The other coherent position is the view that hate crimes somehow impact the community more than just regular crimes and that the victims of such crimes therefore deserve some sort of extra protection under the law. The criteria for inclusion in such laws is any common prejudice against a recognizable and despised minority. The minority need not be defined by an involuntary characteristic - religious minorities are so protected - and they choose their faith. Nor need the minority be accurately identified. If a gentile is bashed because the attacker thinks he's Jewish, the hate crime logic still applies. I disagree with this, but I can accept its coherence.

Sullivan then goes on to argue that if one accepts the notion of hate crimes laws for anyone, then one must accept inclusion of homosexuals unless one is a queer-bashing bigot who wants to relegate homosexuals to inferiority and give aid and comfort to those who commit crimes of violence against them. Such a notion is, of course, utter nonsense, but we've long come to expect precisely that sort of nonsense out of Andrew Sullivan when it comes to discussions of homosexuality. That one could oppose the granting of special protection to practitioners of behavior that one considers morally suspect is not the same thing as supporting violence against practitioners of such behavior.

I'm curious -- when Congress declined to include special protection for the elderly in the current bill, does Sullivan take that mean that they were implicitly approving crimes against senior citizens? Would he accept the notion that the House and Senate were giving a stamp of approval to senior abuse? Of course not -- but then again, Sullivan is consistently inconsistent on such things, and operating on the basis of muddled thinking or strawman logic.

And I'd argue, contrary to Sullivan, that there is something logical and consistent about supporting the limitation of such laws to race/ethnicity and religion. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments clearly gives a role to Congress in ensuring an end to racial discrimination. The First Amendment gives a special place to religious freedom in our society, and acting to ensure that citizens are not intimidated out of the free exercise of religion is equally legitimate. Under this analysis, one could argue that inclusion of any categories other than these two is not acceptable and be still logically consistent.

Of course, Sullivan's argument isn't at all one about consistency -- it is really an excuse for him to bash anyone who dares to disagree with him about the morality of homosexual conduct. You get to the heart of the matter late in the post.

Perhaps making these logical arguments is futile. The reason for this veto is quite simple. Christianists simply regard homosexuality as an evil and a sickness. Any law that implies that being gay is an identity and deserves equal respect and protection as other identities is anathema to them. Implicit in their worldview - and absolutely implicit in the position of the president - is that it's okay to attack gays in a way that it's not okay to attack, say, Jews or blacks. This is the core position of the Christianists - which is why I refuse to call them Christians. Bush, we now know, is a captive of this bigotry and an enabler of it. Whatever your general views of hate crime laws, this argument holds. And this president should be ashamed.

That's right -- anyone who views homosexuality as morally suspect (as 2000 years of Christian teaching on matter holds) is a bigot. Those who concede legitimacy to such moral views are enablers of bigotry. Holding such views is the equivalent of supporting acts of physical violence against homosexuals. The argument is so illogical that it needs no extensive refutation -- it refutes itself. And Sullivan again trots out his neat little catch phrase -- Christianist -- for anyone who dares to accept the moral teachings of the Bible on homosexuality, trying to equate those who hold to traditional Christianity with those Muslim extremists who wage murderous jihad against the infidels. As I've pointed out in the past, Sullivan's hateful rhetoric and extemism on such matters can legitimately lead one to label him as a Homosexualist.

Posted by: Greg at 09:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 876 words, total size 6 kb.