In one of the more disgusting displays of political opportunity, Senator Charles Schumer desecrated the dead body of Rosa Parks for political purposes as she lay in state in the US Capitol today.

This morning I went and visited Rosa Parks in the Capitol Rotunda to pay my respects.

Being in the presence of Ms. Parks was awe-inspiring. This was a woman who changed history with one thin dime. She paid her fare and took her rightful seat on the bus and America was never the same again.

Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place.

Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important.

A preliminary review of his record raises real questions about Judge Alito's judicial philosophy and his commitment to civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights, the rights of average Americans which the courts have always looked out for.

All right, Senator -- let's have the specifics. What rights is he out to roll back? What is your evidence for this accusation? And if he is, as you seem to indicate, acting in a manner contrary to his oath to follow the Constitution, why have you not introduced articles of impeachemnt due to his failure to exercise "good behavior" on the circuit court?

Could it be that you know that Judge Alito is not ruling contrary to the Constitution, merely contary to the Democrat platform which has been rejected by the American people in the last two elections?

And why, Senator, when you talked about the need for uniting Americans instead of dividing them, did you pimp the corpse of a great American like Rosa Parks to cast doubts upon the character of a highly respected judge and sow division between Americans based upon race sex, class, and ideology?

Fifteen years ago, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg called Samuel Alito “impartial, thoughtful and fair” and offered whole-hearted support for his confirmation.

Today, though, Flip-Flop Frank is singing a different song.

“Fifteen years ago, I supported Samuel Alito to be a judge based on his record as the United States Attorney for New Jersey, but his tenure on the appeals court has been marked by troubling decisions. Judge Alito has demonstrated a hostility to fundamental civil rights, and his record on the bench must be closely scrutinized by the Senate. “New Jersey has a proud tradition of producing great judges, most notably former Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. Justice Brennan was chosen for the Supreme Court based on his legal knowledge and wisdom, unlike what we see today, in which nominees are chosen based on litmus tests that cater to narrow ideological groups.”

OK, Senator -- which "fundamental civil rights" has Judge Alito demonstrated a hostility towards? Given your statement, it should not be hard for you to produce a detailed list with copious documentation.

Or could it be that the litmus test in question comes from "narrow ideological groups" on the Left, those that want abortion on demand and perpetual racial preferences -- in other words, the Democrat base?

I guess I am taken aback by attempts to limit contact between students and the United States Armed Forces.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. A civil-liberties activist says school officials should better inform parents of their right to keep their children's information from military recruiters.

Beth Wilson says some schools are putting notices in handbooks or newsletters rather than providing separate forms to students. Wilson is director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. She recently sent a letter to 176 school superintendents.

The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to provide names, addresses and phone numbers to recruiters or risk losing federal funding -- unless parents "opt out." The law didn't specify how schools should notify parents of that right, and procedures vary among schools.

Kentucky education officials let districts decide how to notify parents.

This fall, about 24 percent of Louisville public high school students opted to keep their information private, up from about 20 percent last year.

Military recruiters say information from schools helps them to make home visits and calls and to send promotional material.

Now i see a real problem here. Assuming these kids are American citizens, do they not have the right to receive communication from their own government? Is it not a violation of the rights of the child to permit a parent to interfere with their right to communicate freely with agents of their government?

And what I find particularly amusing is that folks who don't believe parents have the right to be notified of, much less consent to, their child undergoing an invasive surgical procedure (abortion) now want to let parents control their child's access to career and educational opportunities. Groups that object strenuously to parents being permitted to pull their child from programs discussing what they view as immoral lifestyles are willing to permit them to opt their child out of contact with a government agency. Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here?

UPDATE: The Washington Post has a longer article on the issue.

Now many parents -- aided by such anti-recruiting groups as the San Francisco-based Leave My Child Alone -- are demanding that school boards make it easier for families to prevent military recruiters from contacting their sons and daughters. They are mounting e-mail and letter-writing campaigns telling families they can block school systems from releasing student information to military recruiters. Even such national educational groups as the PTA are getting involved in the effort to get the word out.

But the military is spreading its own word -- about the benefits of a career in the armed services. This month, the Pentagon launched a $10 million marketing campaign aimed at encouraging parents to be more open to allowing their children to enlist. Although officials say the effort is not tied to growing antiwar sentiment, the commercials feature kids broaching the topic of enlistment with apprehensive parents and urge mothers and fathers to make it a "two-way conversation."

Many states have long allowed military recruiters access to student phone numbers and addresses, but the practice received a boost from the federal No Child Left Behind act. School systems that decline to release the information now risk losing federal dollars.

The advocacy is putting school officials in a quandary, particularly principals who say they want to be responsive to parents but also want to be fair to military recruiters, who by law are allowed the same access to student information as college recruiters. And, principals point out, although some parents wish to prevent military recruiters from reaching their children, others view military service as a good option.

"I'm just trying to follow the rules -- and the rules are the same for everyone,'' said James Fernandez, principal at Albert Einstein High School in Kensington, where recruiters have visited four or five times this year. Last year, five students from the school enlisted in the armed forces.

As i said, I'm a bit taken aback by those on the Left who don't care about the views of parents on any other isue DEMANDING that parents be able to prevent the federal government from talking to their children.

And, of course, they seem to have no problem with that same government funding the school those children attend. In fact, they usually want more.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear the proto-Sheehans tell the truth? "We loath the military and would prefer to leave the US vulnerable to attack."

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Syria and the Hariri Conspiracy by Right Wing Nut House, and Race and the Unconscious by ShrinkWrapped.

The full results of the vote may be found at the Watcher's site.

CBS White House Correspondent set a new low in journalism today – he even outdid his Dan Rather, one of his predecessors.

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”

The all-knowing, all-seeing Matt Drudge provides this tidbit of information for us.

”Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’”

Talk about an inappropriate no-class comment.

UPDATE: As pointed out in the comments on this thread, Roberts has apologized.

“At the morning White House gaggle, I used an unfortunate choice of words in a question to Scott McClellan. Please be assured that there was no perjorative intent to my question. I was merely attempting to reconcile past statements about Harriet Miers with the President's new nominee for the Supreme Court.

The early morning White House gaggle is an informal, free-wheeling and often irreverent forum, which is not broadcast and generally not publicly available.

Obviously, my tone this morning was a little too casual.

As we all experience from time to time, it was one of those 'oops' moments which we wish we could rewind and re-record.

I apologize to anyone who took offense to my poor choice of words. I can assure you I meant none."

Not only did he do so in the statement released by CBS, but heoffered his apologies to Scott McCllena at a press briefing as well.

"Scott, on the subject of rude, my apologies for my unfortunate choice of words this morning to you."

Not only that, but he has even posted a response to some of the comments that appeared on the CBS PublicEye blog.

After reading some of the posted comments in response to my apology, I remain deeply troubled and wanted to take a moment to try to clear this situation up.

I can assure you that in no way did I intend to use the phrase 'sloppy seconds' in either a sexual connotation or a perjorative way. Rather, I was thinking 'second choice' - or 'second best'. If Harriet Miers was the "best person for the job" - then - where did that leave Alito? It was a poor choice of words, for which I am deeply sorry.

Many posters seem to think that it is indicative of an 'agenda' or 'reveals my true thinking' about the White House. That is simply not the case. I goofed. And I freely admit it. The words had barely escaped my lips when I cringed and thought 'oops - that was a stupid thing to say'.

Again, the forum was informal and is never broadcast, so I my linguistic guard was down. I uttered a phrase that is used colloquially these days to describe a number of situations. At no time did the sexual connotation ever enter my mind, but I agree, it has no place at the White House.

I have offered my apologies to Scott McClellan, and he has graciously accepted. Scott and I have a good working relationship and he is confident that I meant nothing untoward.

And I offer a humble apology to anyone who took offense upon reading the text of my question. Journalists must be held to high standards, and in this case, I fell short.

You can be confident that it will not happen again.

With highest regards,

John Roberts
Chief White House Correspondent
CBS News

Fine, he sounds contrite and the explanation is plausible. We've all put our foot in our mouths from time to time. We'll have to give him a break on this one.

Following the Miers debacle, the President has nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the US Supreme Court. While not my preferred candidate, he certainly fell on what I would call my “top five” list of possible successors.

Samuel A. Alito Jr., 55, is a jurist in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Nicknamed "Scalito," or "little Scalia," by some lawyers, the federal appeals court judge is a frequent dissenter with a reputation for having one of the sharpest conservative minds in the country.

Educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in 1990. He had worked for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration and served as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

The linked Washington Post piece offers further links to some of Alito’s more significant opinions while on the bench – including his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He writes well, logically, and bases his opinions on solid constitutional and statutory grounds. I therefore concur with my brother and sisters on the right in supporting this selection.

I think Mark Levin puts it best.

I have known Judge Alito for two decades. We served together in the Meese Justice Department, where he worked in the Solicitor General's Office and was considered the sharpest of Charles Fried's assistants. He is every bit as smart and personable as Chief Justice John Roberts. He is an expert on constitutional law. And he obviously has a longer judicial record, so his judicial philosophy is well-known. Judge Alito is soft-spoken. He is his own man (efforts in the media this morning to paint him as "Scalia-lite" or "Scalito" are intended to fire-up the leftwing base). If he is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, then no conservative is qualified.

So let’s get the hearings scheduled and the votes taken. Sandy wants to get back to the ranch and her ill husband, and an ideal candidate is ready to take her place.

Well, they finally did it. The Houston Texans eked out a win over the Cleveland Browns.

The Houston Texans are winless no more.

They didn't find the end zone after their first possession today, but managed to eke out an ugly 19-16 win over the struggling Cleveland Browns and break a seven-game losing streak.

Kris Brown kicked a 40-yard field goal, his fourth of the day, with 2:45 remaining, to give Houston (1-6) the come-from-behind win. The winning kick was set up by a 63-yard kickoff return by rookie Jerome Mathis.

Houston's losing streak spanned back to a 22-14 loss to Cleveland in last season's finale. The loss is the third straight for Cleveland (2-5).

I'll telly you what -- the "Back Row Crew" in section 541 was pleased -- even if it was not the prettiest ballgame we have ever seen. While the hopes of a perfect 0-16 seqason were dashed, we have to console ourselves with the knowledge that a 10-6 season is still a methematical possibility.

Oh, and the consensus in our car was that Jerome Mathis is on his way to becoming the fan favorite. He is the "little engine that could" sort of player who made a couple of big plays that set up the success the rest of the team had.

By the way -- about those jerseys. Since you missed us today, we'll look for them on November 20 when you play the Chiefs.

Will someone remind me again why Islam is entitled to the smallest amount of respect by civilized people? How do we respect those who do stuff like this?

Three Christian teenage girls were beheaded on Saturday in the latest attack against non-Muslims in the troubled Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi, police said.

The three high school students were found with their heads severed early on Saturday in the sectarian-divided town of Poso, said provincial police spokesperson Rais Adam.

The girls were believed to have been murdered while they were walking to school, Adam said.

He said two of the victims' heads were found near a police post while the third was discovered outside a local Christian church in Poso.

"We are still waiting for results from investigation in the field. We are still trying to determine whether this case is religiously-motivated or not," he told AFP.

A policewoman on duty in Poso confirmed to AFP that the triple murder had taken place and that the killings were being investigated.

A fourth girl was seriously wounded in the attack.

Still investigating? Fine -- but it seems clear that the murder of girls headed to school using the method common among Islamist terrorists tells us who is responsible -- especially given that Indonesia is a hotbed of Islamist terror. And that one of the heads was placed outside a church -- a warning to Christians who dare to step out of dhimmitude and demand to be treated as full citizens and human beings -- would serve as further confirmation that the "Religion of Peace" is behind the murder of these young martyrs for Christ.

I got an interesting phone message at home today.

It was from Dunta Robinson of the Houston Texans.

He was just calling to remind my wife and I how important we are to the team and that we really need to make it to the game against the Cleveland Browns on Sunday. Dunta tells us it helps give the winless Texans a "home field advantage".

Our seats in the back of section 541 have been filled every game this year. We've cheered, even as we have watched some pretty weak football. We plan on making it to Reliant Stadium for the rest of the games -- even if the ultimate outcome is an 0-16 season. We will probably even renew our season tickets for next year, finances permitting.

A couple of wins would be nice at this point -- or at least a couple of games in which the Texans at least appear to be an NFL franchise. An offensive line to protect our quarterback would be a good move. If you want to really wow me personally, you could have Toro deliver a couple of jerseys to my wife and I -- sizes 3XL and 4XL, please, since we both like to wear them a bit big. But the key thing for me is that you improve the quality of the product on the field over the long term, starting in the short term.

But please understand one thing. I am a fan, and i will support this team. I may not be one of the maniacs in the Bullpen, and I may not be one of the folks with the dough for a luxury box, but I am there because I love the game and am willing to be loyal to a team that has gone the extra mile to make the experience of an NFL game a positive one. I have yet to deal with a member of your organization that has not done that -- and I can only point to positive experiences with stadium staff since some of the first-season glitches were resolved.

Still, the best thing you can do for me is improve.

Oh, yeah -- and those jerseys.

Few men or women become an icon during their own lives.

Rosa Parks did.

It is therefore fitting that she lie in state in the Rotunda of the US Capitol .

Rosa Parks, the African American seamstress who refused to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Ala., 50 years ago and lent a spark to the beginnings of the modern civil rights movement, will make history again as the first woman ever to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, after the House today passed a resolution permitting the tribute.

The Senate approved a resolution last night. U.S. Capitol Police and the staff in the office of the Architect of the Capitol already had begun working on logistics for the event, which the resolution said would take place Sunday and Monday. Details are still being worked out and will be released later today.

Her former boss, Congressman John Conyers, strongly supported the idea.

After looking at the list of tributes he envisioned since her death -- " a statue, a stamp, a resolution, a memorial service" -- Conyers said it occurred to him that only the vigil reserved for statesmen or warriors would be right. He authored the resolution to permit Parks to lie in honor inside the Capitol.

"We think having her body lie in honor in the Rotunda is probably the most expressive way that we in government can let everyone know that the legacy of Rosa Parks is embraced by the federal legislature," Conyers said yesterday. "I must say that the bipartisan support has been excellent."

I cannot help but agree with Conyers -- the historical significance of Rosa Parksis such that she merits this rare honor. I can imagine no person, of either party, finding this objectionable.

It is approrpaite that Rosa Parks will break another barrier in death.

It would be the first time a woman has been so honored and one of the few occasions for a citizen who did not hold an elected office. Americans have quietly shuffled past the coffins of presidents Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, among others. They have mourned the unknown soldiers of both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. In 1998, a Rotunda vigil was held for U.S. Capitol Police Officer Jacob Chestnut and Detective Mike Gibson, who were shot to death in an ambush inside the Capitol. Chestnut was the first African American to be honored; Parks would be the second.

Rosa Parks served her nation well in life. Now we will honor her in death with a special tribute.

Well, Patrick Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby today.

Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted today by a federal grand jury after a nearly two-year investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

Capping a week of political turmoil in Washington, Libby promptly resigned and left the White House. He expressed confidence that eventually he would be "totally exonerated," and both Cheney and President Bush praised his talent and dedication. "Obviously, today is a sad day for me and my family," Libby said in a statement.

***

Libby, 55, was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. The five-count indictment charges that he lied to FBI agents and to the federal grand jury about how and when he learned classified information about the employment of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, and disclosed that information to three journalists. If convicted on all counts, Libby faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine.

What today's indictment of Scooter Libby seems to establish is the following.

1) The so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame broke no law -- most likely because the individuals involved did not know that she was operating under cover.

2) The problem with special prosecutors is that they are like a knight-errant roaming to countryside looking for a worng to right. The result is that they find it necessary to bring some sort of charge to justify their investigation. There has to be a better way.

3) Laws on perjury and false statements need to be made much more clear, so that a mere error does not become the basis of criminal charges.

4) When summoned to testify before a grand jury, take the Fifth. When invited to talk to investigators, refuse. The exercise of one's constitutional right to avoid making incriminating statements is perfectly legitimate when your words are going to be combed over looking for the slightest inconsistency, no matter how unintended.

But let me state this for the record -- if it can be shown that Libby or anyone else intentionally lied to or misled investigators, the full sanction of the law should fall on them. Too bad that the Democrats don't support this principle when the liar is one of their own.

I found this piece from back in July, talking about a candidate for the Supreme Court who I could support – and who would be hard for the Democrats to oppose. She is Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan.

Corrigan, a justice on one of the country's most conservative state courts, may have just what some Republicans are looking for: practical experience away from the bench and a firm commitment to judicial restraint.

As First Lady Laura Bush and other court watchers urge the president to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman, Corrigan could be an attractive choice—perhaps without the nasty confirmation battle that is almost certain with some of the more outspoken candidates on the list.

"On the Michigan scene, as far as I can see, I've never heard or read that people think that she's an extremist," said Robert Griffin, a former U.S. senator from Michigan who also served with Corrigan on the Michigan Court of Appeals. "She's very competent, does a very good job."

A mainstream conservative. A woman. Oh, yeah – she’s Hispanic, too.

Her pre-judicial resume is impressive, though not elitist. Her career as a judge has included repeated reelection by the people of Michigan, which should make it clear difficult for Democrats to tar her as an extremist.

Corrigan graduated from Marygrove College, a Catholic liberal arts college in Detroit, and received her law degree from the University of Detroit in 1973. She served as a law clerk at the Michigan Court of Appeals for one year before becoming an assistant prosecuting attorney for the state. In 1979, she became the chief of appeals in the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit, where she worked for a decade, eventually becoming the chief assistant U.S. attorney. In 1989, Corrigan moved to a private law firm in Detroit, Plunkett & Cooney, where she specialized in defending local governments in criminal and civil rights cases, said Mary Massaron Ross, a lawyer at the firm.

Ross said few lawyers in the firm were surprised when Michigan Gov. John Engler appointed Corrigan to the state Court of Appeals in 1992. Corrigan was twice elected by Michigan voters to that court and then was nominated by the Republican Party in 1998 for an open seat on the Michigan Supreme Court—a seat that she won. From 2001 to 2004, she served as the court's Chief Justice and has presided over what some describe as one of the most conservative state courts in the country.

Corrigan has been at the center of a court that is clearly grounded in the textualist approach favored by Justice Scalia.

Since 1999, four of the seven justices on the court, including Corrigan, have strongly emphasized their commitment to following legislative intent through "textual analysis," a philosophy of judicial restraint championed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. In a 2004 article, Corrigan criticized activist judges for relying on an "antidemocratic premise that judges just know better . . . . The constant temptation in judging is to be expedient, to reach out and fix what appears to be wrong. I know that I was not elected as chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court to be a philosopher-king."

The court's four conservative justices make up the core of the court's 5-2 Republican majority that almost always prevails. The split on the court has led to many heated dissents from the court's two liberal justices. Some criminal-defense lawyers say the court's philosophy has made it difficult for them to win appellate cases, yet other observers say the court's rulings have become much more predictable and consistent since 1999.

"The court is a court that sees its role as having a more limited perspective than the courts in the 1970s and 1980s because it gives great deference to legislative intent," said Patricia Boyle, a former justice on the Michigan Supreme Court.

That takes care of the judicial philosophy issue. Sounds like exactly what was promise during the 2004 election. In Justice Corrigan we would get a justice who recognizes the limitations of the judiciary envisioned by the Founders.

There is one additional bonus. Maura Corrigan is a state judge, not a federal judge. She will bring with her a different perspective from the current crop of justices, all of whom have been federal judges at the time of their appointment to the High Court. In that she will bring on a perspective that will disappear with the retirement of Justice O’Connor. That is a benefit, as I see it.

So, my conservative brothers and sisters – what do you think?

Consider this post.

Ms. Miers Withdraws

I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.

She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies.

No, Hugh, Miers was not ill-treated by most of us who criticized her. She was weighed in the balance and found wanting as a nominee for the Supreme Court by many people, and they exercised their right as Americans to speak out.. If anyone treated her unfairly, it was President Bush. Miers was the wrong person at the wrong time for the wrong job. I would have supported her nomination to the District Court or the Circuit Court – but I do not believe she was ripe for the Supreme Court.

I will agree with one point – Miers does deserve our thanks for her service to the country. She has made significant contributions to the success of the Bush aadministration – but accepting the nomination is not one of them. Her decision to withdraw is.

Today’s editorial on the Miers withdrawal strikes exactly the right note.

No conservative should be in a celebratory mood now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. For one thing, reasonable conservatives who considered her unqualified for the Supreme Court conceded that she has had an accomplished career and that she has served the president loyally and, for the most part, well. Gloating would be unseemly. For another thing, the object of conservative agitation against Miers was to get a solid justice confirmed. So the conservative opponents of her nomination have not yet won a victory.

I am pleased that the nomination has been withdrawn. I hope to see a good nomination made – but will be content to see the confirmation of a justice whose writings and career show him or her to be a competent, thoughtful expert in the law who has demonstrated a devotion to constitutional principles. That is the sort of nomination I expect of the George W. Bush – and I expect it to be one that conservatives on both sides of the tracks can support.

At Duquesne University, an allegedly Catholic institution of higher learning, you can openly oppose and violate Catholic teaching without fear of sanction. On the other hand, speaking in a manner consistent with the Catholic faith – even in a non-university forum – can get you punished, and even potentially expelled.

A Duquesne University sophomore will risk being kicked out of school rather than write an essay as punishment for expressing his view that homosexuality is "subhuman."

Ryan Miner, 19, of Hagerstown, Md., was sanctioned by Duquesne after posting his view in The Facebook, an online directory that is not related to the university.

Miner opposed an effort by other students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance group, an issue that is still being debated by the university.

"I believe as a student that my First Amendment rights in the Constitution were subverted and attacked," said Miner.

After Miner's comments appeared online, some students complained to the school.

After a hearing, the Office of Judicial Affairs found Miner guilty of violating the University Code, which prohibits harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other groups.

A 10-page paper was assigned as punishment. Miner said he refuses to write it and will file an appeal.

On what basis, I wonder, is this punishment being dished out? The Facebook is not a university publication. The university does not own or control the internet. Where is the nexus between this speech and the university that would subject Miner to university disciplinary action? I don’t see one.

Mark Bibi is familiar of the tactics of those Leftists who will brook no opposition to their anti-human agenda.

Animal-rights fanatics have figured out that you beat medical research that uses animals not by going after the researchers, but by going after those who do business with the researchers. They cow Wall Street, not by flying into buildings, but by trashing members' clubs.

Bibi knows what it is like to be a target. Anonymous thugs vandalized his house, smashed his car's windshield and made nasty phone calls to his home in the middle of the night.

Skip Boruchin, the only trader who refused to be scared out of business with Life Sciences Research, testified about the relentless intimidation he and his family endured. Activists painted his yard red with slogans such as "Skip is a murderer." On line, they called him a "child pornographer." One Web site instructed people to send sex toys to his ninetysomething mother at an assisted-living home. Another Web site listed the names, phone and Social Security numbers of 19 neighbors, and threatened to publicize information about their credit cards or medical history.

Violence? Well, there were the two bombs set at Chiron's Emeryville offices in 2003. Agents believe the second bomb was timed to go off as first-responders arrived. The FBI also believes the violence is escalating.

And their actions are violent – not limited to harassment or property crimes. And what’s more, they are willing to publicly state – under oath before a Congressional committee – that they endorse homicidal violence as justified against their opponents.

Jerry Vlasak, a Southern California physician who is spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, also testified Wednesday. Vlasak dismissed the intimidation of Boruchin and others as "getting a little spray paint on the wall."

Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., questioned Vlasak about a statement Vlasak had made defending the assassination of medical researchers. Once again, Vlasak justified violence. For "people who are hurting animals and who will not stop when told to stop," he answered, one option would be murder, a "morally justifiable solution."

Imagine, if you can, the outrage that would exist if mainstream pro-life groups took such a position (they condemn violence) – or if opponents of homosexuality endorsed the killing of homosexuals “who will not stop when told to stop.” There would be loud outrage from the Left – but there is not a word of condemnation when it is their ideological allies engaged in such threats of violence against those involved in legal activities – medical and scientific research designed to improve human lives.

And it isn’t just medical researchers and their associates who get it. Consider this incident from Chicago.

A day after speaking out against the city's proposed ban on foie gras, chef Didier Durand arrived at his River North bistro Wednesday to an unwelcome sight: a shattered window splattered with a liquid resembling blood and busted-up flower boxes strewn on the sidewalk.

Police say Cyrano's Bistrot and Wine Bar at 546 N. Wells was vandalized between 11 p.m. Tuesday and 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.

Durand, who had spoken at a City Council committee meeting Tuesday about the proposed ban, suspects animal rights activists are behind the damage. The Health Committee voted in favor of the ban.

That’s right – not only do they want control of your diet, but they will do their best to punish those who dare to speak against their radical agenda.

The time has come to shut down the “animal rights” terrorists. The freedom of Americans -- and our lives and health – demand it.

Why is it that a liberal blogger and a liberal newspaper both published altered photos of prominent black Republicans designed to play upon the lowest of racist stereotypes? Could it be a bit of racist intolerance for those who dared to stray off the plantation?

I found out about the first while making my daily pass through GOPBloggers.

Liberal Racists...

If you haven't seen it already, click here to see what kind of disgusting tactics liberal will go to when they are running scared...

The link will take you to a post full of racial slurs directed at Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland -- and a photo doctored by the racist who owns the site, Steve Gilliard, to make Lt. Gov. Steele appear to be a character from a minstrel show or an episode of Amos 'n' Andy. Gilliard offers the old "I'm black -- you can't criticize me for my racism" defense. Sorry, Steve, but I will follow the teachings of Dr. King and judge you not by the color of your skin but by the content of your character. -- and I find that character to be lacking indeed. That you find it necessary to engage in race-based insults against a man for daring to disagree with your ideology shows just how low you will go to fellate the folks who run the Slavocrat Party that has kept you and your people down for a couple of centuries.

Captain Ed also offers analysis.

And then there is the USA Today incident. Michelle Malkin goes into great detail in a couple of posts, as does Lone Star Times. Suffice it to say that the altered photo gave Dr. Rice glowing eyes that could be described as those of a wild animal or a demon. Malkin posts these analyses of the doctored photo.

The doctored photo of Condi Rice has been removed from USA Today's website with this editor's note:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

More photog feedback from Brad:

I am a professional photographer and have used Photoshop on a daily basis for many years. This malicious retouch of Condi's image is not only intentional, but must have cleared the photo director as well. In other words as a collaborative effort or a wink and a nod.

I don't believe the eye treatment could be the result of over-sharpening alone, but probably involved some heavy handed levels or curve adjustment as well, and the eyes had been isolated from the rest of the image by selection or masking.

And Jason R...

USA Today's explanation is bull. I've been working with Photoshop professionally for years and I don't buy it. If I was editing the image and simply sharpened and lightened her face a bit as they explain, I would hit Command-Z just as fast as I could if my result looked anything like theirs. Trust me, it's both amateurish and deliberate.

And reader KC...

Very interesting explanation from USA Today - what's also semi-comical is that they're in a tight spot as I would most of us would think brightening and sharpening a picture of Condi's ethnic background could also be construed as being racist.

Frankly, the newspaper's explanation just does not make any sense. It would take specific intent to make the eyes appear that way -- and if, by some outlandish chance, the result was unintentional, the decision to run the doctored photo was not. After all, it isn't like the effect is subtle or only in the eye of the beholder. Editor and Publisher has an interesting article that hews to the USA Today party line.

Interestingly enough, the professional Negros are silent. I've not been able to locate a word of outrage from Jesse, Al, or Louis, nor from any of the other swarm of folks who appear any time they can imagine a racial slight or slur. I wonder what the possible reason could be.

May she rot forever in a dank dungeon cell for her facilitation of terrorist actions.

The First Amendment provides no refuge for a civil rights lawyer who said she was unfairly convicted of providing material support to terrorists for publicly releasing the message of a notorious jailed terrorist, a federal judge said yesterday.

In a 54-page ruling that recounted key trial evidence, U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl rejected all of attorney Lynne Stewart's arguments that the Feb. 10 verdict should be tossed out.

Stewart, 65, had argued that her client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was engaging in protected speech when he expressed his opinion about a cease fire by Islamic militants in Egypt that Stewart passed along in a 2000 press release.

Koeltl said the fact that the sheik participated in a conspiracy to kill people in a foreign country by communicating words from the prison where he is serving a life sentence did not make his participation constitutionally protected.

"The First Amendment lends no protection to participation in a conspiracy, even if such participation is through speech," he said.

Koeltl cited an earlier ruling Chief Judge Michael Mukasey made on the same issue in 1994 when Mukasey wrote that speech "is not protected by the First Amendment when it is the very vehicle of the crime itself."

In short, you cannot be the messenger for terrorists and then wrap yourself in the First Amendment.

Lt. Governor Michael Steele struck just the right note as he announced his bid for the GOP nomination for US Senator from Maryland.

"Too many in Washington today are not working toward that common goal of growth and freedom and an equal opportunity for every individual," Steele noted. "Instead, too many on the left have their feet set in the concrete of old fears, old divisions and the old ways of government.

"And no people can prosper when its leaders believe the route to empowerment lies not in the advancement of the individual, but in the promotion of an opportunistic government," he added. "We can do better."

Imagine that – focusing on individual ability and merit rather than tribalistic groupings based upon group membership. Why, that could tear down the traditional ties that bind minorities to the Democrat Party.

Who is Michael Steele? What sort of man is he? I’d argue he is in the mold of Condoleeza Rice. The Washington Post includes this bit of biographical information.

The grandson of sharecroppers whose father died an alcoholic and whose stepfather drove a taxi, Steele directed the first portion of his speech to his mother, Maebell Turner, who watched from the front row.

"My mom worked 45 years in a laundromat making minimum wage and still managed to put her kids through parochial school," he said. "She never took a penny of public assistance because, as she put it, she didn't want government raising her kids."

Steele graduated from Archbishop Carroll High School, a D.C. Catholic school, determined to enter the priesthood. After college, he wore the white robe of an Augustinian monk for about a year.

During that time, "I discerned and I believe God revealed to me" that the priesthood was not his calling, Steele said in a 2002 interview. He earned a law degree at Georgetown University in 1991.

In short, Michael Steele started at the bottom and worked his way to the top, relying on faith and his own ability. That is a message that is needed in our country today – one which I hope resonates with Marylanders of all races, ethnicities, and religions.

Just a reminder by those who think emote that 2000 lives lost in Iraq are too many.

U.S. military deaths, from combat and other causes during World War II, numbered 407,316. But even World War II did not produce the heaviest death toll.

That distinction belongs to the U.S. Civil War -- 558,052 dead.

Given that Cindy Sheehan is a raving anti-Semite, we know that she would have been horrified at the loss of 400,000 Americans in a war that would help save Jewish lived. But I’m curious – how many dead Americans were too many in a war that had the aim of freeing black slaves and preserving the Union?

Oh, that’s right – Sheehan doesn’t think America has ever been worth dying for.

Joe Wilson does not understand his own actions and the White House response to them.

As more of an observer than an actor in the Beltway drama, Wilson said, he has no sense of the case's lingering effect on the Bush presidency or its historical significance. But, he said, the people he has met around the country understand why it's important — that it's not right for the White House to go after individuals who disagree with the government.

Uh, that is not quite what happened here, Mr. Ambassador. You did not merely disagree with the government – you called the President of the United States and his closest associates liars. You made specific representations regarding how you came to have this knowledge. What happened then is what is called a “response” – and included both evidence that your representations wee incorrect and questions as to the accuracy of your statements and your reliability as a source. That is a pretty standard part of the political process – heck, it is a pretty standard part of life.

One of the issues broached was how you came to be sent to Africa in the first place. The evidence shows that you were selected because of your family ties to one of those involved in making the selection – namely your wife. That goes to your qualifications – especially since you claimed to have gotten the mission in another fashion. You made factual claims that have been demonstrated to be false. Is it your contention, sir, that no government official had the right to “go after” you on these matters? Are you so arrogant as to claim a right to have the last word on the issue of the Nigerian uranium?

Now you are calling this matter a “civil rights issue”. I’d like to point out, sir, that no one prevented you from speaking or writing on your alleged findings. But you have no civil right to remain uncontradicted by those you attacked, and any claim to the contrary is indicative of your desire to see the rights of others to speak – whether they are government officials or journalists -- sharply curtailed.

I'm told this did not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed this woman’s career and personal life over the last several years.

Calling life in the closet "miserable," three-time Olympic gold medalist and reigning WNBA MVP Sheryl Swoopes announced she is gay in an exclusive interview in the current issue of ESPN The Magazine.

"My reason for coming out isn't to be some sort of hero," Swoopes, a forward with the Houston Comets, says in the article. "I'm just at a point in my life where I'm tired of having to pretend to be somebody I'm not. I'm tired of having to hide my feelings about the person I care about. About the person I love.

And, of course, about the big endorsement deal you just signed.

Houston Comets forward Sheryl Swoopes, the WNBA's 2005 most valuable player, will announce today that she will become a spokeswoman for Olivia, a cruise line dedicated to lesbian travelers, and that she is a lesbian, according to a person close to the three-time Olympian.

"The talk about the WNBA being full of lesbians is not true," Swoopes says. "There are as many straight women in the league as there are gay.”

Uh – if there are, then there is a serious overrepresentation in the league, and the concerns the WNBA has had to deal with about being a league for lesbians are very real. After all, don’t the studies show that lesbians account for no more than 5% of the American population, not 50%? Is there perhaps a need for an affirmative action program for straight women in the WNBA?

Personally, I’m not interested in Swoopes’ personal life. I’m really not even a fan of her sport (in the male or female leagues), though I hear about her from my colleagues who coach and watch basketball. But I do hope that her career is not harmed – or helped – by her sexual orientation.

UPDATE: What do you make of this?

"Do I think I was born this way? No," Swoopes said. "And that's probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are."

Does that mean that she made a choice to be a lesbian -- exactly the opposite of what the professional homosexuals tell us is the case?

(Hat Tip -- Safety for Dummies and Brothers Judd)

Yes, this is an overindulgence of a child – but I’m not nearly as offended by that as I am by the neighbor’s complaints and the government’s intervention. After all, it’s only a treehouse.

When Les Firestein, a television producer, and his wife, Gwyn Lurie, a screenwriter, wanted to do something really special for their daughter, Sydney, they enlisted their friend Roderick Wolgamott Romero.

Romero is a renowned builder of elaborate treehouses for such celebrities as Sting and Donna Karan. His work can be found in the "fantasy gift" section of this year's Neiman Marcus holiday catalog. Beginning price: $50,000.

In the backyard of the Firestein-Lurie home, which sits on a tree-studded half-acre north of Sunset Boulevard, Romero and his buddies built a roughly 10-foot-by-10-foot structure of reclaimed wood, salvaged windows and vintage stained glass from Buenos Aires that would quicken the heart of any fun-loving child or parent. The treehouse includes a viewing deck bordered by a railing crafted from tree branches from the backyard.

In return, Romero asked for a week's worth of lodging and all the Baja Fresh meals he could eat. With his tattooed arms and braided, knee-length hair swept up under a tweed cap, Romero and his pals worked for days, even in the rain.

Richard Fleming, the couple's next-door neighbor and a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, was not amused.

He feared that children could perch in this aerie and look in on him and his wife in their backyard pool and hot tub. He suspected, also, that city codes had been violated.

Enter the city of Los Angeles. As the treehouse neared completion last Thursday, city inspector Thomas Sze arrived on the Firestein-Lurie doorstep, responding, he told them, to an anonymous complaint.

"Oh, that's big," Lurie said he told them after looking at the treehouse and the much larger platform on which it rested. Sze also expressed concern about the structure's safety. On Friday, he delivered a written order that all work be halted.

"We're requiring plans and permits if [they] want to continue," Dave Keim, the city's chief of code enforcement, said in an interview Tuesday. "We'll work with them to try to legalize this…. It's not going to be easy."

The morals in this story?

1) There is too much government when even treehouses are regulated structures.

2) Some folks need to learn that their property rights end at their property line.

3) Kids are not allowed to be kids today – we either coddle them so much that they never experience the simple joys of childhood, or we overindulge them so much that they never experience them as simple pleasures.

What are GOP Senators saying about the Miers nomination? It does not sound supportive to me.

"I am uneasy about where we are," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican on the Judiciary Committee who had so far expressed only support for the president's choice. "Some conservative people are concerned. That is pretty obvious."

Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, called Republican sentiment toward Ms. Miers's nomination "a question mark."

"There is an awful lot of Republican senators who are saying we are going to wait and see," he said.

Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican in the political middle of his party, said he needed "to get a better feel for her intellectual capacity and judicial philosophy, core competence issues."

"I certainly go into this with concerns," Mr. Coleman said.

And these are the ones who are commenting publicly.

Every little girl has a stuffed teddy bear – but eight-year-old Sierra Stiles will have one that is a little bit different than most. She just shot and killed hers – a 211-pound black bear – with a .234 rifle in this year’s Maryland bear hunt, becoming the first hunter to score a kill in the state.

After winning one of 200 bear-hunting permits granted by lottery this year -- and acing the required safety test with a score of 98 -- Sierra recalled being rousted out of bed by her mother at 4:58 a.m., wolfing down a bowl of cereal and heading outside, to a field on her granduncle's farm. They waited two hours in the bush under a steady, cold rain.

"I was dragging," Sierra said.

It got a bit brighter as the sun glowed sullenly through a thick blanket of clouds, she said. Sierra's granduncle, Robert Harvey, saw a dark shadow in the distance, but he didn't know what it was. Her father thought it was a bear.

"I froze up," she recalled. Regaining her composure, Sierra stood behind a tree, waiting until the bear was about 50 yards away, she said. Then she took careful aim and squeezed the trigger. The bullet struck the bear behind the shoulder.

Unfazed by the rifle's light recoil, she said, she ejected the casing, reloaded and fired another round.

It hit. The bear ran about 150 feet before collapsing.

"I was really, really, really happy," Sierra exclaimed. "They won't eat now. They won't eat a thing."

Well done, little girl! That will be a heck of a story to tell your kids and grandkids – and one heck of a family heirloom, too, when you bring it back from the taxidermist!

Of all the incredibly dumb ideas!

The city of Rome has banned goldfish bowls, which animal rights activists say are cruel, and has made regular dog-walks mandatory in the Italian capital, the town's council said on Tuesday.

The classic spherical fish bowls are banned under a new by-law which also stops fish or other animals being given away as fairground prizes. It comes after a national law was passed to allow jail sentences for people who abandon cats or dogs.

"It's good to do whatever we can for our animals who in exchange for a little love fill our existence with their attention," said Monica Cirinna, the councilor behind the by-law.

Good grief! we're talking about goldfish.

The newspaper reported that round bowls caused fish to go blind. No one at Rome council was available to confirm this was why they were banned. Many fish experts say round bowls provide insufficient oxygen for fish.

And we know this because...?

Clearly some folks have too much time on their hands -- and Italian lawmakers are among them.

As a supporter of Proposition 2 here in Texas, I have to say that I am NOT happy to have these clowns holding a rally to support my side of the issue.

The city has given permission of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a rally on Saturday, November 5. The group says they want to have a pro-family values rally in front of City Hall that afternoon to get voters to vote against gay marriage.

The city has reserved the Austin City Hall's south plaza on Lavaca and Cesar Chavez from 1-3 pm on Saturday, November 5.

Well, this just goes to show that even the most evil and immoral of groups can get things right from time to time. And as much as I would prefer that they not rally, I will defend their right to do so under the First Amendment.

I guess my biggest concern comes from this communique from the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

In an e-mail to the city for permission, a representative for the American White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan wrote: "Our speech will not be inflammatory, but we all know the reputation of the name of the KKK, so we expect anti-Klan demonstrators to be there who may become violent. We certainly don't want any of our people hurt nor any city officials. We just want to come and encourage people to vote for Christian Family Values and against legalized homosexual marriage in the state of Texas."

Given recent events in Toledo, and given the nature of some of the folks on the other side of the issue, I fear violence.

And to the members of the Klan, let me say that I do not believe you know a thing about Christ or Christian values -- if you did, you would not be cross-burning degenerates.

I saw the news as i returned home from teaching my night class. Interestingly enough, I had talked about Rosa parks a couple of classes back, using her story as an example of how interest groups (such as the NAACP) can influence public policy.

The Washington post pulled its long-written obituary out of the files and ran it. It is every bit the hagiographic piece that one would expect. I was particularly struck by this analysis.

Parks said that she didn't fully realize what she was starting when she decided not to move on that Dec. 1, 1955, evening in Montgomery, Ala. It was a simple refusal, but her arrest and the resulting protests began the complex cultural struggle to legally guarantee equal rights to Americans of all races.

Within days, her arrest sparked a 380-day bus boycott, which led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that desegregated her city's public transportation. Her arrest also triggered mass demonstrations, made the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famous, and transformed schools, workplaces and housing.

Hers was "an individual expression of a timeless longing for human dignity and freedom," King said in his book "Stride Toward Freedom."

"She was planted there by her personal sense of dignity and self-respect. She was anchored to that seat by the accumulated indignities of days gone and the boundless aspirations of generations yet unborn."

She was the perfect test-case plaintiff, a fact that activists realized only after she had been arrested. Hardworking, polite and morally upright, Parks had long seethed over the everyday indignities of segregation, from the menial rules of bus seating and store entrances to the mortal societal endorsement of lynching and imprisonment.

She was an activist already, secretary of the local chapter of the NAACP. A member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church all her life, Parks admired the self-help philosophy of Booker T. Washington -- to a point. But even as a child, she thought accommodating segregation was the wrong philosophy. She knew that in the previous year, two other women had been arrested for the same offense, but neither was deemed right to handle the role that was sure to become one of the most controversial of the century.

I wish that the article got more at the truth -- Rosa Parks wasn't some tire woman caught up in events -- given her history of activism, she was intended to be a test case. Her arrest was not a random event, but rather a calculated one. That does not make her any less heroic, and I would argue that it actually makes her more heroic. She intentionally put herself on the line, and was not simply a pawn who let events swirl out of control around her..

Farewell, dear Rosa, rest well, and may choirs of angels sing you to your heavenly reward.

If you find pictures of me from the early 1980s, odds are you will dee me wearing a White Sox cap. I had a sentimental attachment to the team ever since I had the opportunity to meet that wonderful old man and baseball legend, Bill Veeck, when I was in high school.

While time and distance have weaned me from that loyalty, I have never been ashamed of the team or its fans . Until now.

Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen issued a public apology on behalf of his organization to Astros second baseman Craig Biggio, whose wife was slapped by a fan in the stands at U.S. Cellular Field.

"I feel like it's our fault, and I talked to (Biggio) about it, and he knows we're sorry," Guillen said. "He knows it was something we couldn't control. It wasn't like a fight. (The fan) hit the lady and left."

The incident occurred on Sunday night during Game 2 of the 101st World Series at Chicago's ballpark, where several members of the Astros' traveling party were harassed.

"He slapped her and ran," Biggio said of the fan who struck his wife, Patty. "She ran after him. My brother-in-law ended up putting him against the wall. That's pretty sorry."

Asked if Patty had been hurt, Biggio said his New Jersey-raised wife held her own.

"You don't slap a New Jersey girl and get away with it," he said. "That happens sometimes. It's terrible. It's over."

Added Guillen: "I wish she would have grabbed something and broken his head. If that happened to my family, it would have been a big problem. ... People should just go to the game and not bother people next to you, or you're not a White Sox fan or a baseball fan. Just enjoy the game. Drink if you want to drink; just respect the people next to you."

No criminal complaint was made against the fan, according to Chicago police.

I hope that charges are, eventually pressed. There is no need for stuff like this. I'm pleased that the White Sox are responding as they have -- and particularly respect Ozzie Guillen's comments.

Hopefully this will stirr up the Astros and their fans as the World Sseries moves to Houston

This little puke from the University of Cincinnatti opposes the Academic Bill of Rights -- a measure designed to ensure that students are graded on their knowledge and competence rather than their politics, religion, and ideology. He thinks that his words are a refutation of the ABOR, ">but he is instead an illustration of why it is necessary.

Rather than tell him (and his sponsor in the Ohio House) to go take a hike, the IUC passed a resolution on Oct. 11 confirming the following truisms: "Ohio's four-year public universities are committed to valuing and respecting diversity of ideas, including respect for diverse political viewpoints. Neither students nor faculty should be evaluated on the basis of their political opinions."

Except that not all "political opinions" are made equal, especially since modern conservatism has become synonymous with intolerance: it is anti-intellectual, counter-scientific, socially inept, recklessly interventionist and fiscally extravagant - even as it still defends discrimination against blacks, women and homosexuals.

College helps folks un-learn these toxic beliefs. It doesn't teach that they're of equal value to tolerance itself.

The liberal viewpoint is something to be defended, not compromised, which is probably why today's conservatives feel so out of place on America's college campuses.

How tolerant! The purpose of college -- and a state-funded one, no less, which exists on tax dollars extorted at the point of a gun -- is to instill the values of one side of the political spectrum and eliminate those of the other.

Is it any wonder that we far-right-wing extremists (read that "Republicans") feel there is a need for protection from those who would turn institutions of learning into centers of extreme-left-wing anti-American propaganda?

(Hat Tip -- FIRE's "The Torch")

As most of you realize, Paula and I had to trave 400 miles to Oklahoma when we were threatened by Hurricane Rita. Why so far? It was the closest place that we could get a hotel room that welcomed our four-legged family member, Carmie.

I wish that this place had been on our way -- our canine companion was much better behaved than the screaming, stomping kids who lived above us and who ran up-and-down the halls at irregular but frequent intervals. The Winnipeg Star's columnist, Lydia Lovric, talks about the place.

An Austrian hotel owner fed up with rowdy young patrons has made headlines for deciding to ban kids. Dogs, on the other hand, are still welcome.

This may sound odd coming from someone who currently has the proverbial "bun in the oven," but I think kid-free hotels are a fabulous idea. Hopefully, an enterprising Canadian chain will soon follow suit.

Roland Ballner, 38, says he is tired of dealing with badly behaved children and will no longer allow kids under the age of 12 to stay at his hotel.

"My guests have a right to quiet and relaxation without the noise of children," insists Ballner.

Dogs will still be permitted because Ballner claims the four-legged guests are far better trained than most children. The furry guests also don't vandalize the hotel rooms, unlike certain pint-sized patrons.

He blames bad parenting, explaining that many moms and dads turn a blind eye to their child's transgressions. The parents "seem to feel they are here to relax and wash their hands of their children's bad behaviour."

Carmie is all we have in the way of family down here. We can't have kids and love them, but really could have used a quiet spot to bug-out during the evacuation. This would have been nice.

Oh, and by the way, I love the observation at the end of the column on why a hotel that bans kids could never open in Canada.

This is, after all, Canada -- where the only things we're allowed to ban are common sense, conservative professors and politically incorrect jokes.

Zing!

Looks like more Brits have been terrorized into "sensitivity" to Muslims. The latest move to dhimmitude involves the announced plans of several banks to discontinue giving away piggy banks

Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here.

Muslims do not eat pork, as Islamic culture deems the pig to be an impure animal.

Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, backed the bank move.

"This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers," he said.

However, the move brought accusations of political correctness gone mad from critics.

"The next thing we will be banning Christmas trees and cribs and the logical result of that process is a bland uniformity," the Dean of Blackburn, Reverend Christopher Armstrong, said.

"We should learn to celebrate our difference, not be fearful of them."

Khalid Mahmoud, the Labour MP for a Birmingham seat and one of four Muslim MPs in Britain, also criticised the piggy-bank ban.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

"We live in a multicultural society and the traditions and symbols of one community should not be obliterated just to accommodate another," Mr Mahmoud said.

"I doubt many Muslims would be seriously offended by piggy banks."

The only problem is that the extremists you folks have fostered and sheltered in your midst DO object to being confronted by the image of a pif -- and they have a tendency to repond explosively.

As a Texas Republican living in Tom Delay's district, I know that sounds funny. I am, however, tired of seeing district lines drawn to minimize competitive elections. Gerrymandering of districts to favor one party or another may be legal, but it is not right -- no matter which party is guilty.

Modern redistricting is a travesty. Politicians, using powerful computers, design districts that all but guarantee victory to one side or another. Sure, voters can go through the motions on Election Day, but few races are more than fictions. Sometimes the process is rigged to protect incumbents, sometimes to oust them, but maximizing competition and voter choice is never the goal when politicians get to draw the districts in which they or their friends will run. The result contributes to political polarization, since heavily Democratic districts tend to elect people far more liberal than average while heavily Republican districts tend to elect people far more conservative.

Really, I want to see elections in which the issues are being discussed and a choice is offered. I want to see an end to 96% reelection rates in Congress.I'm tired of one member of my household -- be it me or my wife, a partisan Democrat -- going into every election cycle knowing that there is no hope of electing a candidate to office becasue the lines were drawn to prevent it. Frankly, I want democracy to have a chance of working.

Both sides play the gerrymandering game -- and have since nearly the founding of our nation. But two centuries is enough. Slay the gerrymander.

I always love it when the Left plays games with numbers. Take this example regarding polling data on affirmative action found in today's Detroit News.

But a January poll suggests a slim majority of Michigan voters support a ban on affirmative action in admissions and state hiring. A Detroit News poll conducted Jan. 7-12 of 400 registered voters found 64 percent of respondents favored a ban on affirmative action; 23 percent were opposed.

Now let's see here -- nearly two out of every three Michigan voters want to end affirmative action, and fewer than one in four want to keep it. Where I come from, that is not a "slim majority". In any election, those numbers would be considered a landslide.

Could we be seeing an example of "agenda driven math"?

Many of us on the right side of the blogosphere have been speaking out against the Miers nomination. For a variety of reasons, we feel she does not merit elevation to the Suprem Court. Now N.Z. Bear of The Truth Laid Bear has made if possible for supporters and opponents to speak clearly on the issue, and to link together to be counted.

Why do I oppose this nomination? Let me offer you a series of links which explain.
The Miers Nomination
Miers And Gay Rights
Shouldn’t She Already Have This?
George W. Bush Is Clearly Delusional
EJ Dionne And Religious Tests
Is Miers Really The Best?
One More Voice Against Miers
I Am Unalterably Opposed
Mr. President -- Withdraw Miers Nomination
I Take Exception To Your taking Exception, Senator

If you read closely, you will see that my objections are not based upon her gender, her religion, or her failure to graduate from an Ivy league school. I do not question her skill as a lawyer. What I do have concerns about is Ms. Miers' lack of writings and speeches that indicate she is intimately familiar with the Constitutional issues of the day. She may be a first-rate intellect, but she does not have the right sort of experience for this particular position -- one that has a lifetime tenure. Given the lack of clarity as to what sort of judge she will be, I feel there is insufficient reason to support this nomination.

For that reason, I oppose the Miers nomination and hope for her withdrawal, or eventual rejection by the Senate.

(A great post from Confederate Yankee)

Howard Dean has supplied us with more proof that he is delusional -- he seems to be completely unaware of the Clinton-era cesspool of corruption.

The Bush White House is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history since President Warren G. Harding's, said Howard Dean during his first visit to Maine as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's comments Saturday came as top White House advisers are being investigated for their roles in the outing of a CIA operative and Tom DeLay, the former second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, faces conspiracy and money-laundering charges.

"The first thing we're going to do is we're going to have ethics come back to Washington again," said Dean, the keynote speaker at Saturday night's annual fundraising dinner for the Maine Democratic Party at the Lewiston Armory.

To deal with the "culture of corruption," Dean said, there needs to be an ethics code in Congress and stronger campaign finance laws.

Would that code of ethics include no leaking of classified information that got someone killed? If so, then goodbye Senator Leahy.

Would it include the elimination of those who leave innocent women to drown while they go to sleep off the evening of drinking and plot a cover-up? Hasta la vista, Teddy.

How about those who allow their home to be used to run a prostitution service? Tho-long, Barney.

Perjury? Buh-bye, Mrs. Clinton.

I could go on, but you see the point.

More at Blogs for Bush, robwestcott, and In The Bullpen.

For those on the Left -- especially those in the black community who discount her blackness because she dares to espuse conservative principles -- this should serve as a reminder that Condoleezza Rice knows well just how far the nation has come as part of the struggle for civil rights, and exactly which people were and are the real enemies of African-Americans.

Forty-two years after the church bombing that killed four little girls and inflamed the civil rights movement, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped honor them Saturday by recalling one of the victims as a friend with whom she played with dolls and sang in musicals.

On the second day of a trip to highlight the civil rights era as an example for countries struggling to achieve democracy, Ms. Rice and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain visited the 16th Street Baptist Church, where the bombings occurred, and watched as plaques honoring the girls were unveiled.

"As God would have it, they were at Sunday school when America experienced homegrown terrorists of the worst sort," Ms. Rice said in an emotional ceremony at a park across the street from the church, which was bombed in 1963. In her speech, she sought to connect her childhood in the segregated South to her work as the first African-American woman to be the nation's top diplomat.

"It was meant to shatter our spirit," she said of the bombing. "It was meant to say that we shouldn't rise up. Just a few weeks after Dr. Martin Luther King said, 'I have a dream,' it was meant to tell us that, no, we didn't have a dream, and that dream was going to be denied."

For listeners, particularly Mr. Straw and visiting Britons, the ceremony was a reminder of how much had changed since the city of Ms. Rice's birth was known as "Bombingham," when it was inconceivable that someone from her tight-knit, middle-class, churchgoing community could rise to such prominence.

Four little girls were murdered that day, by those who would stand in the way of the dream of freedom and equality that was and is at the heart of what it means to be an American. They were Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair.

"Denise was my friend," Ms. Rice said. "We played together, we sang together in little musicals. We were children together, and we played with dolls. And that picture of Denise with the dolls will always be near and dear to my heart."

And I would argue that contributions made to this country by Dr. Condoleezza Rice stands as one of the great memorials to her friend -- and to all who sacrificed and died so that she could rise to the place she is today. Those who dishonor her dishonor them and that cause.

And would someone please get the editors at the New York Times a copy of their own stylebook -- given that the Secretary of State has an earned doctorate, it is inappropriate to refer to her as "Ms. Rice".

(UPDATE: Gene Robinson of the Washington Post writes a different sort of view about Rice's visit to Alabama.)

Look what Quinnipac found in New Jersey. People think that the Democrats are corrupt.

Most of you think corruption in government is a serious problem in New Jersey. According to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University, 92 percent of you think it’s a serious problem in this state.

But more people think Democrats are the most corrupt according to the findings of the Quinnipiac poll. Half of the people responding to the poll said they associate government corruption to the Democratic Party. Is it no wonder?

Democrats like Bob Torricelli, Jim McGreevey, Charles Kushner, Gary Taffet, Paul Levinsohn, Roger Chugh, David D’Amiano, Golan Cipel, William Watley, Lesly Devereaux, Robert Janiszewski and Anthony Impreveduto head up the long list of recent Democrats caught in a long run of scandals tied to corruption in recent years.

Oh don’t think Republicans are immune, but only 22 percent of respondents in the polls said they associate corruption to the GOP.

That is interesting data, days away from a gubernatorial election.

Oh there’s no doubt about it. Corruption is a serious problem in the Garden State and its growing like a weed.

There is a very telling aspect to the Quinnipiac poll - Forrester wins in the eyes of voters as a person who is part of the solution in ridding the state of corruption.

Bad news for Corzine. More people - 43 percent - think Corzine is part of the problem when it comes to corruption, while 42 percent think he can solve the problem.

The old teeter totter is in play.

More people are convinced Forrester can solve the state’s problems. Forrester continues to win the confidence of voters in the poll as the man who can tackle out-of-control property taxes. Forrester continues to win the confidence of voters in the poll as the man who can tackle corruption.

The upshot of this? Expect a Forrester win on November 8.

The Donks are all up in arm over the leak in the Plame/Wilson Affair and want prosecution of anyone they fantasize was involved -- even invoke the word "treason" despite the fact that no actions defined as treason under Article III of the Constitution are alleged.

But what about the OTHER leak in that happened -- the one the anti-American Bush-hating Let revels in and does not want investigated. The one that FItzgeralsd seems to have ignored.

You know. This one.

But there was another big leak that no one seems to care about: the leak of the CIA's referral to the Justice Department concerning the Plame matter. That second disclosure, perhaps even more than the initial leak, set off the chain of events that resulted in the naming of a special prosecutor and finds us now anticipating indictments of senior White House officials.

Some additional relevant details: The CIA referral to the Justice Department was classified, an intelligence source tells The Weekly Standard. Anyone who disclosed the existence of the referral and described its contents broke the law. The agency, however, has thus far refused to send a referral to the Justice Department that could result in an investigation into the source and effects of that leak. Why? An intelligence source tells The Weekly Standard that there are limits--of time and manpower--to how many such referrals the CIA can make. Perhaps. But there's another possible explanation: The second leak came from the CIA itself, and lawyers there are reluctant to call for an investigation for fear of what such an investigation might reveal.

On Friday, September 26, 2003, NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC's Alex Johnson broke a big story on the MSNBC website. "The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman's husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush's since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned."

So if we are going to investigate leaks of classified material related to the CIA, let's investigate. Call Mitchell and Johnson before teh grand jury and jail them if they refuse to divulge their sources. Call every CIA employee who has ever been within 50 feet of the referral. Let's find out who the leakers are and prosecute them -- and anyone who withholds information or makes a false statement -- and (to use Joe Wilson's colorful phrase) "frog-march them " out of Langley before the waiting media.

Or, as I suspect, out of the Wilson residence.

And since the Left seems to think that leaks in this case constitute treason, let's make that the charge. After all, the Left really is out to help America's enemies.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are A Sketch History of U.S. Military Bases in the Middle East: The Overthrow of Mossadegh by The Glittering Eye, and Iraqis Preparing to Decide... by Iraq the Model. A The Watcher of Weasels has the full results of the vote.

Carol Alvarado was elected to Houston City Council in 2001. Since Houston elections are officially non-partisan, I won't tag her with a party label -- but I will note she is a former staffer for Congressman Gene Green (D-Houston).

She claimed to have a bachelor's degree in political science, awarded in 1992.

Guess what -- she didn't. In fact, the degree appears to have awarded much more recently. Like since her opponent exposed the fact that she had not graduated -- as of Thursday, October 20, 2005.

Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado on Friday received a college degree she has claimed for years, after clearing up what she called a "technical oversight" that had kept her a step from the sheepskin.

The councilwoman said she believed she had a degree until her November election opponent released University of Houston documents showing she did not graduate.

Late Friday afternoon, however, in response to a Houston Chronicle request under the Texas Open Records Act, the university released "directory information" showing that Carol Ann Alvarado was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science.

It did not give a date for the degree, and a university spokesman and one of its lawyers said the school was prohibited from providing additional information under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

"We are limited by FERPA as to what information we can provide the public, the media, anyone," said UH spokesman Eric Gerber.

Alvarado said she would provide the university a release allowing it to hand out additional information, but that was not possible by close of business Friday.

"I acknowledged earlier today that there had been a technical oversight, and after talking to them this afternoon, it's been resolved," Alvarado said.

In voter's guide information submitted to the Chronicle when she first ran for City Council in 2001, 2003 and this year, Alvarado says she attended UH from 1987 to 1992 and received her degree. Her City Council Web site and campaign literature also list the degree.

Alvarado's District I opponent, lawyer John Parras, said Friday he began looking into Alvarado's educational credentials after an anonymous tipster left a message on his campaign office phone that she had not graduated.

"As a lawyer, I decided to investigate and share the information with my campaign supporters. I personally went to UH to get written verification," said Parras. "I was shocked when I learned that it was true."

The UH verification documents, dated Thursday, say that Alvarado attended the college of social sciences from 1987 through 1992. "The student intends to pursue a degree, however has not yet formally declared a major and degree objective," the document states, adding it reflected Alvarado's academic record as of Thursday.

In other words, Alvarado has falsely claimed to be a college graduate for years.

But I have an additional question. How is it that Alvarado was awarded a degree at this late date? Most colleges and universities require that degrees be earned within a specific timeframe. Students are also required to meet the requirements of the program that existed when they started their academic work (or at some other point during their academic career). Course credits are generally held to be "stale" after a certain point, and no longer count towards graduation. Were rules bent or broken on behalf of a local political figure?

Let's look at the rules as they are written now at UH.

Some of the current rules at UH are as follows:

1. A catalog more than seven years old shall not be used.

So tell me -- was Alvarado's degree awarded under the old catalog or the new catalog? Does she have the appropriate credits to meet the current graduation requirements? Or was she allowed to graduate using the old degree requirements -- in violation of this published policy?

2. The programs of students who interrupt their enrollment at the University of Houston for more than 13 months shall be governed by the catalog in effect at the time of the students' reentrance to the university. For these purposes, enrollment is defined as registration for and successful completion of at least one three-semester-hour course during a semester or summer session. Students forced to withdraw for adequate cause before completion of a course may petition the dean of the college of their major for a waiver of this provision at the time of withdrawal.

It is clear that Alvarado could not have met this requirement in less than 24 hours, as it would have been impossible for her to enroll in and complete a 3-hour semester course in that time. Furthermore, there can be no waiver because she did not make the request when she ceased attending UH in 1992 -- and there would have been no adequate cause for granting one.

It would therefore appear that Alvarado's degree -- obviously awarded on October 21, 2005 -- was awarded fraudulently and in violation of University regulations published in the school's catalog and on its own website. Furthermore, it is likely that the awarding of the degree violates state law, given the fact that UH is a state university and the awarding of degrees by post-secondary institutions (both public and private) are highly regulated by the state of Texas.

It sounds to me like there is a need for an investigation of the falsification of records that underlies the irregular awarding of this fake degree by the University of Houston to Carol Alvarado.

And Houston voters, please take note -- she has been lying to you for years. Don't let her get away with it any longer.

UPDATE: At least two local Democrats have tried to spin this one in a way that minimizes the importance of this case of academic fraud and resume padding. Greg of Greg's Opinion (good name for a blogger and a blog, if I may say) tries to argue that following the rules and completing the degree requirements to graduate was not that important at the time he and Alvarado attended UH, so claiming a degree one did not earn is no big deal. Dos Centavos implies that bringing up the failure of Alvarado to complete all requirements for her degree and then deceiving the public for over a decade is really nothing more than a racist move to discredit the accomplisment of Latinos. I wonder if they would feel the way if this were Tom DeLay's degree that were in question?

UPDATE -- 10/25/05: Alvarado's opponent, John Parras, still wants her resignation, UH Regent Morgan Dunn O'Connor wants the political influence question investigated, but Mayor Bill White still backs her.)

(10/22/05 -- I'm linking this to several "Open Trackback" posts around the web. Welcome to visitors from Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, MacStansbury, Cafe Oregano, Basil's Blog, Adam's Blog, Mudville Gazette, Publius Rendevous, Obligatory Anecdotes, Indepundit, The Political Teen, TMH's Bacon Bits, Vince Aut Morire, Two Babes and a Brain, Point Five, and My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.)

The Washington Post has a pair of great letters today about the potential for FEC destruction of blogs like this one.

The first is from Jerry Berman, President of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

The Post is right to be concerned about a proposed campaign finance bill that exempts Internet communications from the spending limits and other rules that apply in the "offline" world ["Cyber Loophole," editorial, Oct. 11]. The scenario of a deep-pocketed donor making an end run around federal spending limits by funding a candidate's Internet advertising operation is certainly possible.

But the solution the editorial offered -- leaving it to the Federal Election Commission to apply campaign finance laws to the Internet -- is a blunderbuss that will squelch political speech by individuals spending little or no money. The FEC lacks the authority to adequately protect small online speakers while regulating big money

online.

The Internet is the most powerful tool for political discourse since the printing press. If the FEC is forced to apply existing law, ordinary individuals will be subjected to reporting requirements and other burdens suited to organized (and usually well-heeled) political operations. How many will abandon their valuable discourse to avoid running afoul of federal law?

Congress has no choice but to get involved. New federal rules should be crafted to address abuses by big money while protecting the rights of individuals to use the Internet to its fullest potential.

JERRY BERMAN
President
Center for Democracy and Technology
Washington

Now my only problem with Berman's letter is that it seems to accept the notion that political speech is exempt from First Amendment protection -- you know, that "Congress shall make no law" thing that comes right at the beginning of the Bill of Rights. Frankly, who cares if some wealthy individual uses his money to buy ads for the candidate of his choice. That is, after all, how it is supposed to work -- the unfettered marketplace of ideas.

The other comes from Adam C. Bonin, who is the attorney for Atrios and Kos -- two voices I believe to be wrong much of the time but which I would still prefer not to see squelched (heck -- the Daily Kos and its commenters are one of the most powerful arguments in favor of conservatism out htere).

It would be wonderful if the Federal Election Commission could, as The Post hopes, rewrite its regulations to protect the free-speech rights of bloggers and to subject Internet advertising to the rules that govern other media.

Unfortunately, since my clients (prominent liberal bloggers) testified before the FEC in June, the commission has dropped to five members and now seems incapable of forming a consensus on these issues. Moreover, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has recommended that the president replace as many as four commissioners whose terms are expiring with pro-regulation allies.

As the 2006 primaries approach, it is questionable whether a newly constituted FEC will have the time or expertise to enact the regulations The Post seeks.

A blanket exemption of the Internet from the definition of public communications, on the other hand, would preserve the flourishing status quo. In 2004 a vibrant blogosphere empowered millions of citizens to influence national politics, leveling the effect of wealth on the electoral process. The low costs of entry, ease of use and infinite bandwidth of the Internet stand as a counterweight to political action committees and other entrenched interests. This citizen participation, however, would be chilled by poorly drafted or complex regulations designed to thwart a threat that remains theoretical.

A temporary exemption would allow Congress and the FEC to determine what problems may require intervention as the medium grows. In the meantime, why rush to regulate for 2006 that which caused no problem in 2004?

ADAM C. BONIN
Philadelphia

I'm in much closer agreement here, though I am again disturbed by the fact that Bonin still accepts the notion that Congress can and should be regulating political speech at all.

Like I said -- I agree with the position taken by these guys tha thte FEC should keep its hands of the Internet as we approach the 2006 elections. However, what part of "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" do these men fail to understand?

I'll say it right now -- I'm blogging in 2006, and right on through 2008 and beyond. The First Amendment is my authority to do so. I'll stop only if jailed -- or if the federal government so thoroughly exceeds its delegated powers that it finds a way to keep me off the a government-censored Internet.

At which point the Second Amendment comes into play, as intended by the Founders.

Senator John Cornyn is upset about comments made by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter regarding Harriet Miers, her lack of qualifications for the Supreme Court, and her incomplete and inadequate response to the questions sent to her by the committee.

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee and a former judge, took exception on Friday to comments by Senator Arlen Specter, the committee chairman, that Harriet E. Miers, the Supreme Court nominee, needed a "crash course on constitutional law."

Mr. Cornyn, on Capitol Hill with a group of lawyers from Texas who support her confirmation, said, "I personally find that not only false but condescending and really inappropriate."

He did not name Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, but referred to "this myth that some have propagated about this nominee that somehow she needs to take time off to cram, to get prepared or to essentially take Constitutional Law 101."

In an interview, Mr. Specter said Mr. Cornyn was "entitled to his opinion."

If you had told me a year ago that I would side with Specter against my own senator on the issue of a Bush Supreme Court nominee, I would have busted a gut laughing. But now I find myself in precisely such a situation -- watching Specter defending the integrity of the SUpreme Court and the Constitution while my own senator -- a many who I respect and eagerly campaigned for in 2002 because of his judicial experience and support for proper constitutional principles -- is backing the president's appointment of an underqualified crony to the highest court in the land.

John -- this long-time GOP activist takes exception to your taking exception to the criticism of Harriet Miers. The time has long passed for you (and the president) to quit standing up for Ms. Miers simply because she is your friend. I had expected better of you.

I see the arguments for both sides of the "secret detention" policy that has been adopted with regard to captured terrorists. I understand the need for secrecy, but am troubled by the potential for abuse of the power.

But in the case of this Australian law, I see a government going a step too far.

Proposed legislation in Australia would make it a crime for one parent to tell the other that their child had been detained under anti-terror laws, a report says.

If a youth aged between 16 and 18 was detained, one parent would be informed and allowed to visit for two hours daily during the detention, which could last for two weeks without charge, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

But if the chosen parent was the father, for example, and he told the mother where the child was, he could be jailed for up to five years.

The opposition Labor Party's spokesman for homeland security, Arch Bevis, scorned the proposal.

"The idea that one parent could see their child and then somehow be fined or imprisoned for telling the other parent is absurd."

Yeah, I'd have to agree with that assessment. Not only that, it is fundamentally immoral to drive that sort of wedge between a husband and wife. And besides, i a parent is such a security risk, then he or she probably ought to be in jail on terrorism charges as well -- especially if they have permitted their kid to be a part of such a group.

I think that the absurdity of the policy was pointed out nicely by the spokesman for the opposition Labour Party.

Using Prime Minister John Howard and his wife Janette as an example, Bevis said: "I suspect Janette would be pretty demanding of John to find out where the kids were. And I'd hazard a guess that John might even buckle under the pressure."

I'd have to agree -- and I'm pretty sure that george would tell Laura.

Am I the only one disturbed by the opening paragraph of this story in the Washington Post?

A 10th-grade student in southern Prince George's County who allegedly attacked a biology teacher with a baseball bat during a class this week faces expulsion and possible criminal prosecution, a school system spokesman said yesterday.

Did you see that – “possible criminal prosecution”? What the hell is this “possible” crap? A teacher was physically assaulted with a deadly weapon in his classroom by a student. If this creep were to have done this to a random person on the street there would be no question of prosecution and he would already be some career criminal’s new girlfriend. Instead, we get this report.

According to [Prince George's schools spokesman John] White, the male student entered a biology classroom about 1 p.m. Wednesday and allegedly attacked the teacher in front of other students shortly before the class was to be dismissed. A witness said the assailant wore a ski mask, according to the Associated Press.

The suspect had been enrolled in a biology class with the teacher, but not during that period.

White said campus security officers caught the student as he was fleeing the classroom. He was questioned and released to his parents.

White said the teacher was treated at Southern Maryland Hospital Center in Clinton for bumps and bruises, including injuries to the face, head, shoulders and hands. The teacher was released late Wednesday and was recuperating at home, White said.

White declined to identify the student or the teacher. He said the teacher was a 28-year veteran of the school system who had been at Gwynn Park for more than a decade.

"It's unfortunate and unexpected," White said. "It's not a routine occurrence. That's why it's shocking."

WJLA television identified the teacher as Dario Valcarcel, who was listed on a school Web site as a science faculty member.

The school principal did not return a telephone call for comment. Messages left at a residential phone number for Valcarcel were not immediately returned.

Look at the stuff I put in bold there. “Injuries to the face, head, shoulders and hands” – in other words, an assault designed to incapacitate and/or kill Mr. Valcarcel and injuries sustained as he attempted to defend himself from what could reasonably be classified as ATTEMPTED MURDER. But all that happened to the perpetrator was being sent home with mommy and daddy! Why were the police not called in immediately so that an investigation could begin immediately and would-be killer arrested on the spot?

And you will notice the little bit at the end of the article about neither the principal nor the teacher responding o telephone calls seeking comment. My guess is that there will be none, at least if things operate as they do in my district. Only the district spokesperson and superintendent are permitted to speak to the media – we are even required to wear a little card along with our IDs that tell us that in the event of media contact we are required to report the matter to our supervisor, who will then contact our district spokesperson. The card also gives us the sum total of what we are allowed to say to the media under such circumstances – “You need to speak to the director of communications, Olga Obfuscation. Her cell phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX.” Any further comment is grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

How long will it be until teacher safety is taken seriously in this country? Why are reports to the police not automatic and immediate? Why the secrecy surrounding incidents in the schools – like the one several years ago in my district in which an assistant principal was knifed breaking up a fight (fortunately with no serious harm)? Will it be necessary for another teacher to be driven from the classroom from Post-Traumatic Stress, to be permanently disabled, or to be killed?

Do we as educators need to speak out to raise the issue more clearly? Or will it take a nationwide walkout for teacher safety – and I ask that as a teacher in a state where such actions are illegal and grounds for both termination and sanctions against our certification.

Or are we just expected to continue be low-paid functionaries whose safety is irrelevant to our employers?

(10/22/05 -- I'm linking this to several "Open Trackback" posts around the web. Welcome to visitors from Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, MacStansbury, Cafe Oregano, Basil's Blog, Adam's Blog, Mudville Gazette, Publius Rendevous, Obligatory Anecdotes, Indepundit, The Political Teen, TMH's Bacon Bits, Vince Aut Morire, Two Babes and a Brain, Point Five, and My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.)

They tried to kill John Leonard for preaching the Gospel in Brazil.

They failed.

And even though he is still paralyzed, he is still on fire for Christ.

Back in June, WHO-TV 13 told you about John Leonard. The local missionary was clinging to life at Methodist Medical Center after assassins tried to kill him in Brazil. Leonard is still virtually paralyzed from the neck down, but Wednesday night he was able to attend his church's missions conference.

"I was supposed to be in the hospital for six months. I got out in less than three," said Leonard. It was a shorter than expected hospital stay, which is just one of hundreds of miracles John Leonard has witnessed in the past few months. He wasn't supposed to be here with his family and his church family Wednesday night. If the assassins who shot him had accomplished what they set out to do, John wouldn't be alive.

"God closed one door. He opens another," said Leonard. Leonard built five churches in Brazil and carried the message of salvation to the masses. He took two bullets and is too humble to retire. "I didn't wanna just lay around the rest of my life. I wanted somethin' to do," Leonard says.

John inspires people and he has some advice for anyone who's ever risked their life for a career they felt called to do. "Put it on the scale and weigh it, but if your heart is into it, follow your heart," he says.

Remember -- men and women have died for the Gospel of 2000 years -- and are still facing martyrdom for the faith today. Pray for those sent by Christ into the Father's vinyard.

Hat Tip -- PersecutionBlog

Democrats and the Media have been waiting for the "perp walk" of Congressman Tom Delay.

And he scammed them all.

Instead of goint to be booked in Austin or in his hometown of Sugarland, DeLay went instead to the Harris County Jail and had himself booked at that facility -- which was perfedtly legal under the law.

That left the reporters with nothing to cover, since they were in Fort Bend County while the deed was done in the heart of Houston!

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's booking photograph on conspiracy and money-laundering charges Thursday looked more like a campaign glossy than the mug shot of someone accused of felonies preparing to make his first court appearance.

DeLay wears a suit and a winning smile. There are no height hash marks in the background, no numbers across the chest of the Sugar Land Republican.

It is a picture that looks as if it could have been taken in any driver's license or passport office in Texas, rather than the Harris County Sheriff's Office. For one thing, the sheriff's office no longer uses number slates. Fingerprints are inkless, too. And DeLay brought a politician's charm to a serious situation.

"We've had people smile even though it's a booking photo, but we certainly don't tell people to smile," said spokesman Lt. John Martin. "That's entirely up to them."

Maneuvering over DeLay's booking and the public images it would produce was the latest rumble in three weeks of hardball legal activity mixed with public relations.

DeLay's lawyers have tried to make Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle look like an inept and unethical partisan prosecutor while Earle demanded that DeLay be treated like a common criminal before coming to court today.

And Tom, that is a fantastic picture. I agree with political scientist larry Sabato, who says you could use this on campaign material. I've met you a number of times over the years, and have never seen you look so good or smile so wide. If the Democrats want to use that shot for political puroses, they will really have to doctor it up.

Coming back from teaching my night class this evening, my father and I had a discussion of the Harriet Miers nomination. We've not talked about this nominee up until now, but I was not at all surprised to find that neither of us is enthused about the pick.

During the course of the conversation, I realized that there are a lot more reasons for rejecting Miers that have come to light in just the last few days.

At one key juncture after another, Miers has faltered where Roberts glided. Her courtesy calls on the Judiciary Committee's top two senators prompted conflicting tales of curious comments that she may or may not have made. Her answers to the committee's questionnaire included a misinterpretation of constitutional law and were deemed so inadequate that the panel asked her to redo it. She revealed one day that her D.C. law license had been temporarily suspended -- and said the next day that the same thing had happened in Texas -- because of unpaid dues.

Now I'm told that ther edues issue is not a big deal -- especially since they are often handled by the lawyer's firm rathat than the lawyer, and that most government lawyers in DC are not members of the DC Bar. But it is the cummulative effect of these missteps that is troubling. Harriet Miers has, quite bluntly, failed to look competent.

Mr. President -- Harriet Miers is no doubt a wonderful human being and a great friend. She is also, in my estimation, a fine lawyer. But she has been a bad pick from Day One. Now she appears to be in a free-fall. Withdraw the nomination, please, and find another individual to fill this vacancy.

Not just for the sake of the country.

But also for the sake of your friend.

At last, the Houston Astros make the World Series.

And after a season that began 15-30, no less!

Finally. After 44 years of waiting.

The Astros reached the team's first World Series with a 4-2 NLCS series victory after dominating the St. Louis Cardinals 5-1 in Game 6 tonight.

Houston leads 5-1 tonight after Morgan Ensberg singled in Craig Biggio for a seventh inning score of 5-1. Adam Everett's suicide squeeze scored Chris Burke in the sixth inning for a 4-1 lead for the Astros.

St. Louis' only score came on pinch-hitter John Rodriguez's sacrifice fly to center, scoring Mark Grudzielanek in the fifth inning to cut Houston's lead to 3-1.

Earlier, Jason Lane's solo home run in the fourth inning gave Houston a 3-0.

Tonight's scoring opened when St. Louis starter Mark Mulder's wild pitch allowed Brad Ausmus a run in the top of the third. Next up was Craig Biggio who singled in Adam Everett for a 2-0 lead.

Houston sent Roy Oswalt to the mound against lefthander Mulder.

Houston fans have watched the Astros get close many times, moving within one victory of the World Series in 1980 and again last year. The 1986 Astros also came close, although that club didn't have the NLCS lead the 1980 and 2004 Astros lost.

In the franchise's 44th season, Oswalt and Co. provided the ending nobody could have expected in June. They gave the city of Houston the celebration it expected Monday night, last year and in 1980.

Hurrah, boys -- I wish you the best.

And on a sadder note, farewell to Busch Stadium from this former St. Louisan.

We keep hearing about how Christians are trying to impose "their view" on everyone else in the current discussion/controversey over including discussion of Intelligent Design in the classroom.

Interestingly enough, the Dalai Lama -- no right-wing Christian -- has some words on the subject that the open-minded might find enlightening.

In his new book, The Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama warns readers about the consequences of seeing people as “the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes.” This materialistic account is “an invitation to nihilism and spiritual poverty.” Correct.

He writes that “the view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is . . . as much a metaphysical position as the view that an organizing intelligence created and controls reality.” What’s more, he insists that both “are legitimate interpretations of science.”

So, my dear evolutionist friends, look whose words clearly support the presentation of Intelligent Design -- the most respected Buddhist leader and champion of human rights alive today.

If you have read my blog for any length of time, you know that I have no patience for illegal immigrants, especially those who demand the right to stay here.

But here is a group that has followed the rules, cooperated with the authorities, and has a reasonable expectation under the law for being granted visas.

But the delay is now somewhere around five years, because immigration authorities have not yet complete the Byzantine process of writing regulations and creating paperwork.

A group of illegal immigrants who were victims of violent crimes sued the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday, demanding that immigration authorities issue them visas for cooperating with law enforcement.

Under a law passed in 2000, illegal immigrants are eligible for visas if they help law enforcement agencies in the investigation or prosecution of some crimes, including rape, domestic violence, murder and human trafficking. The visas would enable them to work and live in the United States without fear of deportation — and to apply for permanent residency after three years.

"It is outrageous and unconscionable that five years after the Crime Victims Act was passed by Congress, the government has not even issued an application form for crime victims to apply for visas," Peter Schey, the lead attorney for the nine immigrants in the suit, said at a news conference. "As a result, thousands of violent crimes continue to go unreported because immigrants are reluctant to cooperate with police, fearing they will be deported."

The suit was filed in federal court in Los Angeles, and the plaintiffs are from California, Texas and Arizona. Their attorneys are from three Southern California organizations that provide services to immigrants.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services acknowledged Tuesday that none of the special "U visas" for crime victims have been issued anywhere in the country because the department was hammering out the procedures. Spokesman Bill Strassberger said he did not know when the agency would finish writing the regulations but stressed that it was "not on the back burner" and that they needed to be "thorough, concise and clear."

"It's unfortunate that it's been a long time," Strassberger said. The potential visa "is a good law enforcement tool. But before we get the regulations out, they need to be properly written."

No. You know what the intent of Congress. Act upon it. Now.

And in the mean time, normalize the status of those cooperating aliens who have documented their assistance to law enforcement and who have no crimes outside of their immigration related violations.

It’s the right thing to do.

Don't you love it when some member of the Left displays multiple hypocrisies in one piece of writing? Here's a new entry in the "how hypocritical can I be" sweepstakes. It also qualifies as one of the most hateful pieces I've read of late, outside of comments at DU, Kos or AmericaBlog.

Who are you to judge? Who are you to say that the more than slightly creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom vaginal pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more than a little unhinged and sad and lost?

And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling husband -- whose name is, of course, Jim Bob and he's hankerin' to be a Republican senator and try not to wince in sociopolitical pain when you say that -- isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more! Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to 17, worse than those nuked Smurfs in that UNICEF commercial and worse than all the horrific rubble in Pakistan and worse than the cluster-bomb nightmare that is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise having a child as they suck the skin from each other's Scientological faces and even worse than that huge 13-foot python which ate that six-foot alligator and then exploded.

It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or is it?

Is it wrong to notice how all the Duggar kids' names start with the letter J (Jeremiah and Josiah and Jedediah and Jesus, someone please stop them), and that if you study the above photo (or the even more disturbing family Web site) too closely you will become rashy and depressed and you will crave large quantities of alcohol and loud aggressive music to deflect the creeping feeling that this planet is devolving faster than you can suck the contents from a large bong? But I'm not judging.

I have a friend who used to co-babysit (yes, it required two sitters) for a family of 10 kids, and she reports that they were, almost without fail, manic and hyper and bewildered and attention deprived in the worst way, half of them addicted to prescription meds to calm their neglected nerves and the other half bound for years of therapy due to complete loss of having the slightest clue as to who they actually were, lost in the family crowd, just another blank, needy face at the table. Is this the guaranteed affliction for every child of very large families? Of course not. But I'm guessing it's more common than you imagine.

What's more, after the 10th kid popped out, the family doctor essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more offspring, considering the pummeling endured by her various matronly systems, and it's actually painful to imagine the logistics, the toll on Michelle Duggar's body, the ravages it has endured to give birth to roughly one child per year for nearly two decades, and you cannot help but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ... no, no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that.
Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to offset the damage?

Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who, along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers? Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy joyous thing?
You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are, after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the Lord, the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

Let us be clear: I don't care what sort of God you believe in, it's a safe bet that hysterical breeding does not top her list of desirables. God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests. We already have three billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in abject poverty. We are burning through the planet's resources faster than a Republican can eat an endangered caribou stew. Note to Michelle Duggar: If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it now.

Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell, gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.

No, no one says that. That would be mean.

So let's consider this.

We have a supposedly "pro-choice" individual daring to object to the reproductive choices made by a woman and praising a doctor in another case who "essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more offspring". Tell me, where are your pro-choice ethics, Mark -- especially since you are a man,, which makes you ineligible to even comment on a woman's reproductive choices according to the feminists?

We have religious bigotry shining through. After all, you repeatedly hit at the religious beliefs of the "homophobic neo-Christians" who have large families. What, you object to people living out their religious beliefs, and seek to enforce your own? Your intolerance is shining through, you hypocritical liberal! Especially when you have the audacity to inform them of what the God they believe in wants of them -- I thought that telling others what God wants was a no-no in the non-judgmental Leftist handbook.

And, of course, there are the gratuitous comments about the race of the family, as well as the politics, the insults about the parenting skills and even the gratuitous comments about the children having names that start with the letter J.

But I know you cannot help yourself -- because far from being open-minded and non-judgmental, liberals are usually among the most judgmental people in the world, judging those who dare to disagree with them as evil, selfish, hateful and mean-spirited. Unfortunately, such terms tend to be much more reflective of the liberal mindset, as you have demonstrated today.

And certainly the columnist who wrote the above is among the most judgmental SOBs in the Liberal fold.

Ghulam Nabi Lone, education minister of India's Jammu and Kashmir state, was murdered yesterday. I wonder who could be responsible for the killing What does the Washington Post have to say about the matter?

Islamic militants shot and killed a local government minister in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Tuesday, part of a surge of recent violence that has dampened hopes for a new era of peace and cooperation in the disputed province following the massive earthquake that devastated the area on Oct. 8.

Ghulam Nabi Lone, education minister of India's Jammu and Kashmir state, was shot inside his home in the highly protected Tulsi Bagh neighborhood in the state's summer capital of Srinagar. His killing came just days after 10 members of two Hindu families were slain by militants in another part of the state.

I guess there is no rest for the "Religion of Peace" in the earthquake-stricken region -- and that it does not matter if you are a governemtn official or a family in your home.

But the excerpt above does leave me asking a question -- why can't the Washington Post bring itself to label these so-called "militants" as the terrorists thye really are?

One ignorant Leftie commenter has accused me of racist stereotyping for daring to suggest that the riot in Toledo over the weekend was the work of black gangs.

Well guess what – the police in Toledo think so, too!

In the days leading up to the scheduled neo-Nazi rally in North Toledo, police gathered intelligence that gang members would be present and do something if they had the opportunity.

No specifics were mentioned, but police prepared for retaliation by gang members and their associates. They didn't plan for people to turn on the police.
"The intelligence indicated they were calling a peace among themselves and [would] show a unified front. They felt the Nazis were challenging them," police Deputy Chief Derrick Diggs said. "Why they looted, I can't answer that."
Police are still sorting through who was involved in the riot that followed a planned National Socialist Movement rally, which was canceled before it even started. Authorities have arrested 119 people since the riot, including some for violating the citywide curfew that was in effect until yesterday.

More arrests could follow as police view video taken by the department and from some businesses. They will review video from police vehicles and are asking the public and the media for any video footage they have.

While not everyone involved in the riot was a gang member, those who were gang members came from all over the city, authorities said. Various gang colors were seen on the streets.

So, does anyone want to speculate on the likelihood that said moonbat will offer me an apology? I’m willing to bet that the odds are about ZERO – and that he will accuse the police of racism for suggesting that these gangs, composed mostly of black males, even exist.

And notice, please, that the gangs cooperated for the specific purpose of violating the civil rights of a group that wanted to engage in constitutionally protected speech in a public place. Will any of the rioters face charges for these violations of the civil rights of the Nazis, as a gang of whites would if they tried to prevent a rally and march by black groups? Again, the odds are probably somewhere around ZERO.

And lest anyone complain that I am taking the side of the Nazis here, let me be very explicit. Nazis are scum – they are among the lowest of the low and I denounce them and their message. But in the end, they still have the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Those who conspired to violate those rights are even lower than the Nazis, and deserve harsh punishment for their un-American activities.

I have to disagree with the call by Jack Kemp, one of the heroes of my youth, to renew certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2007.

It is important that Congress renew all three provisions that are set to expire: Section 5, which requires federal approval for proposed changes in voting or election procedures in areas with a history of discrimination; Section 203, which requires some jurisdictions to provide assistance in other languages to voters who are not literate or fluent in English; and the portions of Sections 6-9 of the Act that authorize the federal government to send federal election examiners and observers to certain jurisdictions covered by Section 5, where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls.

Now some of you may ask how I could possibly object to these provisions. The answer is a simple and commonsense one. These provisions do not apply equally across the United States, but rather are applicable to only some parts of the country. In addition, some of the provisions interfere with state and local powers in a manner which is constitutionally suspect.

Take, for example, Section 5 of the Act, which requires federal approval for changes in voting and election procedures. This extra step takes away decisions on what voting machines to use or how to draw local election lines from those on the local level and ultimately vests those decisions with the Department of Justice. These are, however, ultimately state matters, not federal issues.

This even creates situations in which there is federal involvement in local annexation decisions. Some thirty years ago, the city of Houston was required to fundamentally alter its form of government because it annexed an area slated for increased commercial and residential development -- on the basis that this economic decision increased the white population and was therefore detrimental to black political participation. Less than a decade ago, another annexation required the creation of a 50-mile long district connected by bayous and drainage ditches so as to not overwhelm a contiguous minority district with white voters who might (only might) elect a white instead of a black or Hispanic city council member. Neither of the annexations was about race -- both were about increased property taxes. Had the same sort of annexation taken place in another part of the country -- say in Seattle -- the federal government would have had no role in directing what was fundamentally a local decision. Four decades after the passage of this temporary solution to a critical problem, it is time to let the remedy expire as the authors of the legislation intended -- or to expand the provision to subject the entire country to federal oversight. The latter would, of course, be one more nail in the coffin of federalism and states' rights, and so is not particularly appealing to those of us who still believe in the US Constitution.

Similarly, the provisions of Section 6-9 that authorize federal examiners and observers need to either be dropped or expanded to cover the entire nation. Significant acts of minority voter intimidation are rare -- and they are just as likely to exist in areas not covered by Sections 6-9. Either provide protection nationwide, or cease imposing the burden on areas where discrimination was common four decades ago but where it is no more likely today than in other parts of the country. And might I also suggest that federal authority be expanded to include intimidation of citizens by ideologically motivated liberals, as was frequently documented during the 2004 election campaign? After all, civil rights violations are just as severe if they are based upon ideology as they are when based upon race.

As far as the question of interpreters goes, I have no problem with the requirement as it is written -- but believe it should be modified to allow for mechanical/technological solutions to the problem of non-English speaking and illiterate voters. I'm the election judge in my precinct, and our voting machines include both written and spoken (via headphones) versions of the ballot in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Is a live interpreter really necessary in such a situation? I do not believe so -- but the VRA as currently written requires a warm body be present.

Besides, even if the entire Voting Rights Act were to be repealed, there are still powerful tools available to those who would seek to protect the voting rights of every citizen. They are the very provisions of the US Constitution that expand and guarantee the franchise, and they need no special legislation that discriminates against certain parts of the country.

So I am sorry, but I have to disagree with my college hero -- the man who I supported and campaigned for with all my heart in the 1988 race for the GOP nomination -- on the issue of rubber stamping the renewal of these few provisions of the Voting Rights Act that were designed as temporary measures that expired with the passage of time. Let them expire, or fix them to meet the realities of the present day.

Chuck Colson offers an interesting overview of the threat to national security in our nation’s prisons.

What makes prisons a “prime target” for al-Qaeda are two other things that, unfortunately, are in plentiful supply: a resentful population and people who will preach hate and violence to them.

After three decades of prison ministry, I can tell you that resentment and bitterness are the rule, not the exception, among prisoners. Radical Islam offers them a chance for vengeance against their perceived oppressors.

The incitement to hate and violence is provided by groups like the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Wahhabist group. Its literature, which urges war against Jews and Christians, was primarily sent to prisoners and Islamic prison chaplains.

The Koran they distributed in American prisons included an appendix by the former Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia entitled “The Call to Jihad (Holy Fighting in Allah’s Cause) in the Qur’an.” This appendix urged Jihad against all who refuse to convert to Islam.

While Al Haramain was shut down by federal authorities, there is, according to the Weekly Standard, “reason to believe that the literature [it] distributed . . . is only the tip of the iceberg of what has reached and may still be reaching U.S. prisons.”

I had to highlight that one part – one group has included material by a senior Saudi jurist justifying violent jihad against those of us who have the audacity to reject Islam.

Our prisons are a seedbed of potential Islamic extremism. What are authorities doing to put a stop to the problem?

Sounds like someone at the Department of Homeland Security is interested in seeing the nation’s immigration laws enforced. And even better, it is a guy with a bit of authority!

The head of the federal Homeland Security department says he wants to end the "catch and release" policy that has let tens of thousands of non-Mexican illegal immigrants stay in the U-S.

Michael Chertoff says every single illegal alien caught should be returned to their home country - no exceptions.

Chertoff made the statement this morning at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting called to discuss immigration reform measures now before Congress.

Chertoff said nearly 900-thousand Mexicans caught entering U-S every year are returned immediately to Mexico, but only 20-thousand of 160-thousand aliens from other countries were sent home last year. The rest were let go because there's no jail space.

If we take care of the “catch-and-release” policy, maybe we will start to get a handle on the immigration problems that exist. Who knows – maybe we will even stat to get rid of some of the illegal aliens already here.

A Catholic school has fired a teacher who refuses to comply with a new diocesan policy to display an American flag in all classrooms – arguing that doing so contradicts his Catholic faith!

A Bridgeport teacher says he was fired because he refused to display the American flag in his classroom.

Stephen Kobasa taught English at Kolbe-Cathedral High School. He didn't want a flag in his classroom. He says it conflicts with his Catholic faith and teaching beliefs.

Stephen Kobasa says,"In the room there was a crucifix, a depiction of the executed Christ, which cancels all flags. It would simply be a contradiction for me to maintain them both."

Kobasa says he offered a compromise in which he agreed to display the flag at the start of the school day so students could say the Pledge of Allegiance if they wanted, then he would remove the flag. He says the diocesan superintendent rejected that compromise.

Having the American flag in class is part of a new Bridgeport diocese policy.

School administrators wouldn't comment on Kobasa, except to say they will not discuss personnel matters.

First, this is a simple case of termination for insubordination. The diocese made a reasonable rule regarding the display of the flag. The teacher refused to comply, preferring to substitute his own preference for the policy of his employers. The decision to terminate him is appropriate.

And I’m curious – how can one work for a Catholic school that requires the display of a flag yet try to claim that such a practice contradicts the teachings of the Catholic faith? I know that in four years of Catholic seminary education, I never encountered any such prohibition, nor any such convoluted theological reasoning against the display of a flag.

What can I say – I live just a few miles from Johnson Space Center. How could I not be interested in space stuff like this?

Venus Express, the European Space Agency's first mission to explore Earth's closest neighbour, will be launched next Wednesday from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

The ESA gave the prospective launch time as 0443 GMT.

The 1.27-tonne unmanned spacecraft, which will be taken aloft by a Russian-made Soyuz-Fregat rocket, is expected to arrive at Venus on April 6.
Venus Express, equipped with seven instruments, is intended to map the Venusian surface and weather system, looking at temperature variation, cloud formations, wind speeds and gas composition.

Its main goal is to help understand why Venus fell prey to runaway global warming.

Venus is the second planet from the Sun. It is similar in size, mass and age to Earth, but the two planets are otherwise quite different.

The so-called Morning Star has clouds of suffocating gas driven by hurricane-force winds, as well as a surface pressure and temperature high enough to crush and melt steel.

Venus Express is a sister to Mars Express, an orbiter that is now circling the Red Planet

More info at www.esa.int

Asia, in the form that we know it, exists because of the efforts of Douglas MacArthur. Japan is a capitalist parliamentary democracy. The Phillipines are an independent country. And South Korea? It was freed from the clutches of Imperial Japan and saved from the aggression of Communist North Korea through his efforts -- and it is now one of the most prosperous nations in the world.

But what sort of respect does MacArthur get from today's South Koreans?

For the last six months, activists have gathered around MacArthur's statue above Inchon harbor for anti-American/anti-alliance hate-fests, including violent attempts to topple the monument. The latest rally was on Sept. 11, a date plainly chosen to sting Americans.

Just four days before the 55th anniversary of the Sept. 15, 1950 landing, 4,000 anti-U.S. activists, armed with bamboo poles and metal pipes, led assaults on the statue in Inchon's Freedom Park, calling MacArthur "a war criminal who massacred numerous [Korean] civilians."

Outrageous! Actually, he was a war hero whose exertions on behalf of your people ensured your liberty to support the northern neghbors who would take that liberty from you.

Fortunately, there are some who still remember the greatness of the man.

Pro-American Koreans have spoken up, too. Indeed, 10,000 of them, including South Korean Marine vets, headed to Inchon on the 15th to guard the statue on the anniversary — at which point the protestors wimped out, pulling a no-show.

I salute those who remember the wrks of Douglas MacArthur with gratitude.

I have to agree with Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation when he writes

[L]last month's assault on MacArthur's statue won't be the last. At some point, the radicals may actually be able to pull down the monument, offending Korean vets and millions of Americans who have selflessly served — or serve — in South Korea to protect freedom a long way from home and family.

Tha is, indeed, the truth. That grand coalition, perhaps the only time the United Nations ever stood for freedom in the face of Communism, was made up of many brave men and women. And we in the United Sates must prevent that insult. And so I join with Brookes in supporting the removal of the statue to the Korean War Veteran's Memorial in Washington, DC.

And while we are at it, let's bring home all the young soldiers at the same time that the Old Soldier finds a place of honor in our country. After all, it is time that South Korea shoulder the full burden of the freedom that MacArthur was so instrumental in winning for them.

Ronnie Earle's case was so weak that he tried to coerce a misdemeanor plea deal from Tom DeLay, according to DeLay's attorney in documents filed today in advance of DeLay's first court appearance.

"Before the first indictment you tried to coerce a guilty plea from Tom DeLay for a misdemeanor, stating the alternative was indictment for a felony which would require his stepping down as majority leader of the United States House of Representatives," DeGuerin wrote.

"He turned you down flat so you had him indicted, in spite of advice from others in your office that Tom DeLay had not committed any crime," the lawyer contended.

This sure makes it seem like Earle's filing was less about the evidence thanit was about his anger over being rebuffed by DeLay.

THe filings also include requests for the following:

- A speedy trial, because the indictments "have already had adverse collateral consequences including the temporary loss of Tom DeLay's leadership position in the United States Congress and an unknown effect on the upcoming (March 2006) primary election."

- Dismissal of the indictments because, he contended, they failed to allege any act or omission by DeLay and improperly joined two offenses.

- Separation of DeLay's case from that of two political associates, because DeLay wants a speedy trial while the associates are pursuing appeals that would delay their cases.

Good Luck, Tom -- we here in District 22 are backing you on this one.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Controversy, Christians, and Condemnation by Wallo World, and Legion by Waiter Rant. Here is the link to the full results of the vote.

Setting aside the fact that I theoretically can't get past the district's fire wall and filtering software (I suspect I know how, but choose not to make the effort because I like my job), there is a simple reason I don't blog from school. I don't want to have to justify or defend what I write to the powers that be in the district office if I ever give offense to a parent or district employee.

I don't write about students with any degree of specificity for the same reason -- posting my candid views about some of them would be difficult to defend. I love them all, but cannot say that I like every last one of them. And I won't get into my opinion of some parents I've had to deal with over the years.

That is why I think this former teacher was stupid to be accessing her blog from school -- ESPECIALLY considering the content.

A Mansfield elementary school teacher resigned after school officials found she used her class computer to access a personal Web log chronicling sexual exploits and containing disparaging remarks about her students.

Becky Pelfrey, 38, had worked for the Mansfield district for three years and had spent seven years working for Arlington schools.

Her log featured links to sexually-oriented Web sites and comments about her students, including a reference to them as "stinky kids."

School district spokesman Terry Morawski said the district has not sought to file criminal charges and he is not certain that Pelfrey committed a crime.

Pelfrey and her husband think his ex-wife (Becky Pelfrey's former best friend -- we won't get into the issues that raises) may have alerted the school to bolster her side of a child custody case. That really isn't relevant in my book. If you are a teacher, you should not have a sexually explicit blog that you are accessing from home (actually, I don't think you should have one at all). And if you do discuss your sex life on a blog, you really should not be talking about your students in that forum.

I've watched them blow it every which way the last several years -- now they lead the NLCS 3-1. Could it be that pitching beats hitting?

Willy Taveras wasn't in the game from the start, but he was the difference-maker in the end.

Houston and St. Louis were locked in a tight 1-1 battle in today's NLCS Game 4 until pinch-runner Taveras broke the deadlock, scoring in the seventh on Morgan Ensberg's sacrifice fly to give the Astros a 2-1 victory. Houston now leads the series, 3-1. Game 5 is here on Monday.

Good luck, Astros. You just need one more.

And as an ex-Chicagoan, I'd love to see the World Series played here and Chicago.

Now you all remember my post about the fact that PETA kills most of the animals brought to its shelter. One would have to assume that there are some truly sick and twisted souls working there to kill animals at the rate shown by the statistics -- which outstrip most American shelters.

You may also recall that some of the employees of PETA's Virginia shelter were arrested dumping dead animals in a dumpster at a shopping mall. Well guess what -- those disgusting human beings were just indicted on 25 fellony counts related to the incident!

The cats and dogs two PETA employees have been charged with euthanizing and dumping in an Ahoskie garbage bin were killed by injections of pentobarbital, a barbiturate commonly used to put down animals, according to new warrants issued and served on Friday.

Additionally, the two employees were charged with three felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. The charges allege that they euthanized three cats from an Ahoskie veterinarian after promising to find the animals new homes, according to the new warrants.

PETA employees Andrew B. Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach, and Adria J. Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk, were served with warrants on 22 felony charges of animal cruelty and the three felony charges of obtaining property by false pretense in court on Friday.

A grand jury is expected to consider formal indictments Oct. 31, Assistant District Attorney Donnie Taylor said.

The new animal cruelty charges replaced 31 previous animal cruelty charges, which were dismissed.

The new warrants now include more information, such as descriptions of animals investigators found, the causes of death and – in some warrants – photographs of the dead dogs.

The new information was added to clarify the charges, which previously did not have such information as the cause of death, Taylor said.

The two employees are still charged with eight misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals and one count of trespassing.

Both have been released on $35,000 bail, and PETA is paying their legal fees. PETA suspended Hinkle for 90 days and did not discipline Cook.

Yeah, you read that right -- PETA still employs these creeps, and is paying their legal bills. Yeah, one got a 90 day suspension (which is a slap on the wrist), but the other was not punished at all.

So the next time teh folks from PETA start going on about the "ethical treatment of animals", point out that their own organization fails to engage in ethical activity when confronted with animal cruelty in their own midst.

It started with a satirical letter to the local paper. It has ended with one of country music's most-loved classic songs censored by a band director who lacked the testicular fortitude to defend his music selection.

After the devil went down to Georgia, it seems, he got censored in Prince William County.

In preparation for a guest appearance at the Peach Bowl in Atlanta, the marching band at C.D. Hylton High School had a logical and seemingly innocuous idea: play a Georgia-themed song. They decided on "The Devil Went Down to Georgia," by the Charlie Daniels Band.

But early this month, a local newspaper, the Potomac News, published a letter by a Woodbridge resident who, after having seen the C.D. Hylton Bulldawg Marching Band perform the country-western hit at a football game, wondered how a song about the devil could be played at school events, because of the separation of church and state.

Fearing bad public reaction, Hylton's longtime band director, Dennis Brown, pulled the song from the playlist. "I was just being protective of my students. I didn't want any negative publicity for C.D. Hylton High School," he said.

The result has been a loud outcry in Prince William COunty and the surrounding area.

"God have mercy. How did we become a country full of weenies who give into the cranky nonsense of 1 voice?" one person tapped out on a computer. "I guess I need to go back to school. I thought the idea behind our country was that the majority ruled? You know, like the majority of people voted for the President's re-election and now the ruling party is knuckling under to every left wing nut out there? I give up!"

A person identified as Ticked Off Parent chimed in: "What's next? School Book Burnings because someone finds To Kill a Mockingbird offensive? Whoever started this should be banned from the school, NOT THE SONG!"

Another wrote in: "So what if the song does actually 'revolve' around Satan? Satan has its rightful place in history as does Women's suffrage, slavery, and every other subject bad or good!"

We know, of course, how we reached such a point. The ACLU and their fellow-travelers in the judicial branch have twisted the First Amendment into something other than what was envisioned by those who wrote it and thaose who ratified it. Constant lawsuits by militant atheists like Michael Newdow have rendered school boards and too many teachers afraid to permit even the most innocuous religious references stand (a friend in another state tells me that the faculty was told not to say "God bless you" in response to sneezes after one parent complained). So the religious and cultural practices of the majority are ruthlessly suppressed in many schools in the name of "sensitivity" to a relative handful of whiners.

Even Charlie Daniels himself has weighed in on the matter.

"I am a Christian, and I don't write pro-devil songs. Most people seem to get it. It's a fun little song," Daniels said Friday in a telephone interview from Mokena, Ill., where he was scheduled to perform a concert. "I think it's a shame that the [marching band director] would yield to one piece of mail. If people find out that he can be manipulated that easily, he's going to have a hard way to go."

And what of the author of the original letter that appeared in the local paper? What does he think?

As for that nettlesome letter writer, Robert McLean? The defense contractor, whose children are home-schooled, said he went to Hylton's football game just because he enjoys the sport. His letter, he said, was meant to start a philosophical debate, not to wreck any student's marching band experience. Besides, he said, he loves "Devil."

"It was one of the first 45s I had as a kid," he said.

So it appear that NO ONE had a real objection to the song. Someone just wanted to point to the absurdity of stripping Christian rligious references from the public square and public school. And one spineless band director, unable to comprehend the satire, backed down.

I have three suggestions.

First, restore the song to the band's repertoire.

Second, find a new band director, one who has the courage of his convictions.

Three, transfer the current band director, Dennis Brown, to someplace where he is likely to do no harm -- like the the district bus barn, where he can sweep and wash the buses twice a day.

There is a particularly fine post on this controversey at Bacon's Rebellion, which includes a comment with links to a number of relevant stories and letters from the community in the paper where this all started.

More at Sierra Faith, Ignorant Hussy, Sasha Undercover, ACSBlog, Life on the Wicked Stage, Patrick Cooper, and Daily Pundit.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has again said she is not interested in running for President of the United States.

Asked on NBC and on "Fox News Sunday" whether she would run for president in 2008, Rice said she is flattered but would decline.

"I'm not somebody who wants to run for office. I haven't ever run for anything," Rice told NBC. "I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy, American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time."

Pressed by host Tim Russert, Rice said, "I don't know how may ways to say no."

"So," asked Russert, "no ...?"

A few seconds of silence followed. "Tim," Rice said, "I don't know how many ways to tell people that I have no interest in being a candidate for anything. ... No."

She told Fox host Chris Wallace, "I'm quite certain that there are going to be really fine candidates for president from our party, and I'm looking forward to seeing them and perhaps supporting them."

Dr. Rice, what you fail to understand is that it is your reluctance that many of us find most attractive. You are not one of those folks who has spent decades creating a public persona and engaging in issue-triangulation to position yourself for a presidential run. You have instead become a cool, competent professional with the sort of expertise and experience that will make you a superb President. That is why we back you, not someone (like John McCain, for example) who long ago divested himself of his immortal soul in pursuit of higher office. That is why your support is strongest down here in the grassroots, not in the halls of power.

Frankly, Madam Secretary, I don't want you to come out and declare yourself a candidate. I want you to stay in your current office, doing what you do so well on behalf of this country. Because ultimately, I believe you when you say that you do not WANT to run for anything.

But what you must realize is that the movement we have here is a Draft Condi movement -- and we will settle for nothing less than a spot for you on the 2008 GOP ticket, preferrably at the top. And I have no doubt that, when you hear the call of your nation to high elected office, you will respond to that call and fulfill your duty to the American people.

It is a call to greatness, Dr. Rice -- and a call that I believe you must, in the end, heed for the sake of America.

When a group affiliated with the Minutemen tried to meet in a Chicago suburb yesterday, a protest against them was organized. I've got no problem with that, even though the organizers of the protest spew lies about the Minutemen and their goals.

The problem arose when one group of protesters tried to prevent American citizens from assembling to engage in political speech designed to encourage the government to act against the scourge of border-jumping immigration criminals.

About 500 people marched in Arlington Heights Saturday to protest a group fighting illegal immigration, in what led to five arrests and the shutdown of several streets for hours as 150 riot gear-clad police officers stood by to keep the peace.

Picketers said the Chicago Minuteman Project, a local branch of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps — a private group that patrols the United States-Mexico border — is anti-immigrant and racist because it specifically focuses on Mexican immigrants.

Five protesters were arrested on misdemeanor charges and later released on bond.

Those attending what was billed as the “America First Summit” Saturday at Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., said they’re not racist but that they’re worried about lax border security and the economic impact of illegal immigration.

“We need secure borders; we’re a country at war,” said Rosanna Pulido of Chicago, a co-founder of the Chicago Minuteman Project. “We have a big problem here in Chicago and in Illinois.”

I'm not going to dispute Ms. Pulido at all -- I teach at a school where about 1 in 5 students are either here illegally or the children of illegals. Hospital emergency rooms are overcrowded with illegals, and the cost is absorbed by those of us with insurance -- and by taxpayers who pick up the tab for the unpaid bills. And I will not get into the crime problems that come with the illegals.

But objecting to such problems makes one a hater, according to those who came out to protest.

Khem Nuth, organizing director for the immigrants coalition, which brought about 200 people to the protest, said she is concerned that her group’s message got lost in the scuffles.

“We were there to protest the racist Minutemen” and ask U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk whether he supports the Minutemen because of his votes in favor of the Patriot Act, Real ID Act, and a law requiring local police departments to fight illegal immigration, Nuth said.

“I don’t know how much of that was lost because of what happened today,” she said. “We wanted to let the community know that we protested the Minutemen being there, and I think that message was sent.”

Yeah, Khem, imagine that -- requiring that the police actually enforce the law. What are these horrible people thinking! I hope your message didn't get lost in the acts of violence that occurred -- I want peole to see how outrageously stupid your folks are and how absurd your position is.

And after all, it is your rhetoric that leads to violent action by some in your coalition -- calling folks racist for daring to hold the opinion that the US shoudl control its borders provokes the extremists on your side. After all, the Left believes that racists should be silenced. That is why you get this sort of activity.

Most of the protesters were peaceful, if loud, shouting slogans through bullhorns and banging on drums. But a small group of “anarchists” came looking for trouble, Arlington Heights Police Sgt. Richard Marcinkowski said.

That trouble began when protesters tried to block people from entering a school door on Walnut Avenue. As officers tried to move them out of the way, protesters linked arms and a scuffle ensued.

Officers retreated and called for reinforcements from the Northern Illinois Police Alarm System, which sent more than 100 officers from Deerfield, Des Plaines, Elk Grove Village, Glencoe, Lake Bluff, Lincolnshire, Palatine, Schaumburg, Skokie and Wheeling.

Police also closed several blocks of Euclid, Ridge and Walnut avenues to traffic and posted camouflage-clothed spotters on the academy’s roof.

Marcinkowski said police planned to arrest the people who were trying to block the school entrance. But when five busloads of people arrived at 11 a.m. for their own protest, “some people learned they were targeted for arrest and tried to leave the area” by blending in with more peaceful marchers, he said.

When police did move in at 11:45 a.m., while the crowd marched west along Euclid Avenue, a riot almost broke out as officers pulled two women out of the crowd while other marchers screamed, “Let them go!” and stepped into the street.

Now I do have one problem with the attitude of the police and their spokesman.

Marcinkowski said some of the Minutemen baited protesters by demanding to use the Walnut Avenue entrance even though several other doors were available. “In my opinion, we had two unreasonable factions here, and we were caught in the middle,” he said.

No, Sgt. Marcinkowski, it is not unreasonable for a peaceful group to demand to be allowed to use the main door to a facility they have rented. It is not unreasonable for them to expect the police to keep order and to arrest those who are attempting to suppress their civil rights. Tell me, sir, would you have told the NAACP they couldn't use the front door if teh Klan had shown up and engaged in the behavior the pro-criminal Left was engaged in yesterday? I didn't think so. You would have engaged in proper police procedure, thrown up a heavy security cordon around the area, arrested anyone who dared to try to block the door, and made sure that the the rights of the NAACP were respected -- as you clearly failed to do yesterday for the Minutemen until the situation got out of control.

I can't help but be struck by the contrast that exists between two events today. They show how some groups are a little more free, a little more equal, and endowed with a few more rights than others.

Our examination begins in Toledo, Ohio. It seems that black gangs have been terrorizing the community -- especially (according to some) the white residents of the community. An outside group decided to protest the seeming impotence of government in handling the problems of the perceived racist activity and went through all the legal hurdles to receive permission to engage in First Amendment protected speech. Unfortunately, the group was the "National Socialist Movement" (AKA the American Nazi Party), a disgusting group of racists and white supremacists who are rejected by all decent people, and which I condemn wholeheartedly.

So what happened when the march and rally were about to happen? Black gang members crawled out of the woodwork, engaged in acts of violence against the police and damage to the property of local business owners. The city's response was to trample the free speech rights of the Nazis, and cancel their event.

One member of the black community made this very frightening argument, one that I'm sure the Nazis will be able to use to make the argument that the rights of white people are in danger from lawless blacks.

Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for initially allowing the march.

"They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.

Mr. White (I won't get into the irony of that name) seems to believe that only the rights of those he agrees with are entitled to respect.

Let's move a bit east, to Washington, DC. Another group of racists rejected by anyone with a hint of moral values, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, sponsored a rally on the Mall to commemorate the not -nearly "Million Man March" held in 1995. The rhetoric heard from the platform of the Millions More Movement included the usual overblown crap about racism in America, and one speaker even referred to those with white skin as the enemy of his people. It was. in short, a racist rally designed to incite hatred and division -- every bit as much as the Nazi rally in Ohio.

Dozens of speakers -- academics, activists and media pundits -- took the microphone at the National Mall for a few minutes each. A speaker from a black gay group, added to the roster at the last minute, also spoke.

Organizers did not speculate on the size of the crowd, and police would not offer an estimate. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority said subway ridership by noon was 152,000. On the day of the march 10 years ago, ridership reached just over 804,000.

Participants said they were inspired by the gathering. Rapper Ryk-A-Shay, 24, joined relatives from North Carolina for the drive to Washington. "Any time we as a people can come together it's a beautiful thing," she said.

Yet there is one notable difference. No mob of whites stepped forward to engage in violence to stop the rally. No one that I am aware of suggests that this black supremacist rally should have been banned or that whites would have been justified in making sure it was shut down by any means necessary. It was, in fact, covered live by white-owned networks, so Farrakhan's message of racial hate would be heard from coast to coast.

Now tell me, friends and family of all races, ethnicities, and religions -- has free speech become a "black thing" reserved for them and denied to whites? Or will some responsible black leader step forward and condemn the suppression of the free speech rights of the Nazis in Toledo by a group of African-unAmerican criminals and the authorities who aided and abetted them?

One would assume that a prosecutor would need to actually have the document that proves his case before he gets an indictment. Not Ronnie Earle -- who is lacking a key document in his case against Tom DeLay and therefore plans on using a similar document that apparently is not connected to the activities for which DeLlay was indicted in an attempt to prove his guilt.

Travis County prosecutors admitted Friday they lack physical proof of a list of Republican candidates that is at the heart of money-laundering indictments against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two of his associates.

The list is key to prosecutors being able to prove that corporate money that could not be legally spent on Texas candidates was specifically exchanged at the national level for donations that legally could be spent on Republican candidates for the Texas House.

So the only thing that they are lacking in the case is -- proof.

But not to worry, there is this OTHER document that htey will substitute for the one that would actually prove that Delay and his associates committed a crime.

Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a "similar" list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.

A lawyer for Ellis said prosecutors' inability to produce the list mentioned in the indictments is on par with the tactics used by U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the communist witch hunts of the 1950s.

I would argue that what we have going on is less like the McCarthy hearings and closer to Stalin's show trials of the 1930s. After all, McCarthy's central premise about Communist infiltration of the government has since been proven essentially correct by records released after the fall of the Soviet Union. Stalin, on the other hand, simply wanted to bring down his political enemies and rivals.

Dick DeGuerin, who is defnding DeLay, makes this observation.

DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin of Houston, was not present in court Friday. But he later said the lack of a list "destroys" District Attorney Ronnie Earle's case against the three men.

"That's astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list," DeGuerin said.

Thes indictments need to be dismissed, and Ronnie Earle and any lawyer from the Travis County DA's office involved in the case or investigation need to be disbarred or face other serious sanctions. You cannot indict someone based upon evidence you do not have.

Before I was married, turning on the light in the kitchen of my seedy old apartment (in a 125-year-old building that had once served as a saloon and bordello) sent the roaches scurrying.

Well, an article in yesterday's Washington Post (which has the ethics of a saloon and bordello) sent the roaches scurrying over at the DC City Council (which some would argue is the moral equivalent of a saloon and bordello).

D.C. Council members, swamped with irate calls and threats to boycott D.C. bars and restaurants, introduced emergency legislation yesterday that would override the police department's controversial and little-known zero-tolerance policy for drinking and driving.

"We need to remedy this immediately," said council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D), who is running for mayor.

Council member Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4), another mayoral candidate, called the current situation "absurd."

D.C. police have said that District law gives them the authority to arrest drivers with blood alcohol levels above .01.

Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), a sponsor of the emergency legislation, said the measure no longer would allow that unless there was evidence of significant impairment.

"I just want to make sure that we clarify what our intent is. And our intent is certainly to get people who are intoxicated off our roads," she said. "But our intent is not to intimidate people who may have a glass of wine."

So what has been proposed in this legislation?

According to the D.C. Code, a driver with a blood alcohol level of .08 or above is presumed intoxicated and may be arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. Every state has in recent years set the same level -- acting quickly once Congress threatened to withhold highway dollars if they didn't.

In most states, including Maryland and Virginia, a driver with a blood alcohol level of less than .05 is generally presumed not intoxicated. The D.C. Code states, however, that drivers with "less than .03" percent blood alcohol are not presumed not intoxicated -- a provision that makes it easier to prove low blood alcohol cases in court.

The emergency legislation proposed by Schwartz, Cropp and council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) would strike that language from the code. Instead, they propose bringing the District in line with the states and adding language to make clear that drivers with less than .05 blood alcohol are presumed not intoxicated.

Between .05 and .08, is a "neutral zone," Schwartz said, where no presumption about intoxication is made. And blood alcohol content may be considered with other factors to prove a driver's impairment.

Sounds like common sense to me.

Congressman Melvin Watt wants the Voting Rights Act renewed and strengthened because, he claims, white voters are racist. The North Carolina Democrat bases his position on old data and the new racism espoused by the African-American establishment.

"Race has to be taken into account to factor out the people on the other side" who would refuse to vote for a minority candidate because of their race," Watt said. He added that he thinks much voting is based on race, not partisanship.

Watt told Cybercast News Service that his views are based on a 1980s blind poll of North Carolinians, which he said revealed that 30 percent of whites would not vote for a black candidate under any circumstances.

Watt told the commission that if another poll were conducted today, "there would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African American candidate." He later amended his comments, allowing that "some of them would."

So based upon one really old study that showed a minority would not vote for a black candidate, Watt concludes that today a majority would refuse to do so – and points to “the other side” as those who would refuse to vote for minority candidates. This flies in the face of what experience has shown, as the GOP has elected folks like JC Watts in a predominantly white district in Oklahoma and Michael Steele as Lt. Governor of Maryland. Steele is the preferred candidate of the Maryland GOP for Senate in 2006, and many Republicans are excited about the possibility of having Condoleezza Rice on the GOP ticket in 2008. I can only conclude that Watt is incorrect with regard to the Republican Party.

Is Watt perhaps thinking that it is white DEMOCRATS who will refuse to give their vote to an African-American? Does he believe that his own party is made up of unreconstructed white racists? And if he does, why won’t he come out and say it clearly? Has Watt sold out his own race, becoming an Uncle Tom who whores the votes of his people in return for a crumb of political power?

Or is Watt simply a liar?

John Kerry may be pro-choice on abortion and Catholic theology, but he certainly opposes giving public employees a choice on whether or not their union dues can be used for political purposes.

Kerry was the second leading national politician this week to weigh in on California's Prop. 75 ballot initiative, which would require unions to get approval from members before using dues for political causes. "This represents part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to create an unfair playing field, to change the balance of democracy in America," Kerry said. "They are willing to try to take away the democratic rights of working Americans," said the Massachusetts senator, who was speaking to reporters at a fire station with Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Kerry, however, lied in that statement. Proposition 75 would simply require that a worker give his permission before his dues were used for politicking rather than negotiation and representation. Unions would still be permitted to give make endorsements and devote resources to campaign for candidates – but the members would have the right to opt out of supporting the political activities of the union while still retaining the right to vote on their contracts. Currently, the only for a public employee to avoid forced contributions to candidates they oppose is for the employee to opt to pay the union an agency fee of about 80% of regular dues and forfeit their right to vote on the union-negotiated contract while still being bound by its terms.

(Move Coverage on the issue of Prop 75 and the California Teachers Assosiation over at Right on the Left Coast -- specific posts are here, here, here and here -- as well as all these others.)

That seems to be the Kennedy family motto – whether they are laws regarding vehicular homicide, security checkpoints at airports, sexual assault, or environmental regulations.

Professed environmentalist Max Kennedy is due in court on the Cape today to answer chargeshe violated town conservation rules by clear-cutting a coastal bank on his Hyannisport property.

Kennedy, son of Ethel and the late Bobby Kennedy, was found responsible for cutting the vegetation in violation of restrictions the town Conservation Commission had set. He was assessed a $150 fine, which he did not pay, and he has to appear today for an arraignment.

``He is supposed to show up,'' said town conservation agent Darcy Karle. ``As a courtesy I contacted his attorney and told him that Mr. Kennedy needed to show up and pay the fine or a warrant for his arrest would be issued.''

Do we need to tell you this is not Kennedy's first run-in with the town conservation types? Kennedy, an avowed tree-hugger who formerly ran the Watershed Institute at Boston College and briefly flirted with a congressional run in 2001, was fined twice in 1998 for clearing brush and trees on his Cape property.

To build a touch-football field. Of course.

Kennedy is also currently in violation of wetlands protection laws for a pier he built off the back of his Maywood Avenue home. Karle said Kennedy constructed the pier without first submitting the proper paperwork, and that lights on the end of the dock are in violation.

Kennedy had asked for a hearing on Sept. 27 to answer to all the charges, then didn't show up.

Kennedy is currently under orders to replant shrubs on the bank and to remove the too-bright lights at the end of his pier. His attorney did not return our call. But do stay tuned . . . .

I guess such rules are only for the common people – but America’s royal family can get away with murder – and raping the land.

Dr. Mike Adams offers this pointed comparison between his cousin, arch-racist politician Theodore Gilmore Bilbo, and liberals who support segregated programs and facilities for ethnic minorities.

My cousin Bilbo would be proud of your third email to me this morning, which defended separate campus facilities for blacks including, but not limited to, African American centers. In that email, you explained that you really aren’t a segregationist. That was before you said that black people just feel more comfortable when surrounded exclusively by blacks.

My cousin Bilbo felt more comfortable when surrounded by his kind, too. At least he was honest enough to call it segregation.

You and my cousin Bilbo have a lot in common. You both support segregation and you both have what you personally “feel” are good reasons for it. But I am against both you and Bilbo. I will fight segregation, despite the fact that your daughter is “black” and “upset” and that you think I have tongues growing out of the side of my face. I will fight segregation because I believe that it is wrong. And I will not capitulate to identity politics.

It is a strange day in America when segregationists are called “anti-racists” and anti-segregationists are called “racists.” It makes me very sad. But my cousin Bilbo would be proud.

As little as four decades ago, the end of segregation was seen as “progress” by liberals. Today, the resegregation of America is progress. I guess it is true – if you wait long enough, what’s old is new again.

Fresh off their series of sob stories about teens and young adults sentenced to life without parole for heinous murders, the New York Times laments the harshness of laws that disenfranchise convicted felons – including those still in jail.

The United States has the worst record in the democratic world when it comes to stripping convicted felons of the right to vote. Of the nearly five million people who were barred from participating in the last presidential election, for example, most, if not all, would have been free to vote if they had been citizens of any one of dozens of other nations. Many of those nations cherish the franchise so deeply that they let inmates vote from their prison cells.

The basis for the position taken by the Times? International standards and a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. American constitutional law and history simply are not good enough for them. No doubt the editors of the Times are longing for the day when, as in this last term’s Simmons case, a bare majority of Supreme Court justices remove another policy decision from the hands of the people on the basis of laws which are alien to our tradition but popular among the wwine-and-brie set in the tonier parts of NYC.

I don’t have much sympathy for those who drive while intoxicated. But at the same time, I do have a problem with a policy that throws common sense and statutory law out the window. Take the practice of the Washington, DC police and prosecutor regarding DUI cases

Elizabeth Wingo, chief of the criminal section in the D.C. Attorney General's Office, said her office prosecutes cases regardless of blood alcohol level, as long as there is sufficient evidence of impairment.

"We have zero tolerance for drunk driving. It doesn't matter what your blood alcohol level is," Wingo said. "If you blow .02 and officers can tell you're impaired, you'll be arrested for DUI."

The law says people can be found guilty if they drink enough alcohol "to appreciably disturb or interfere with their normal mental or physical faculties."

Now that sounds perfectly reasonable – .07 and .08 are mighty close, and the impairment level is insignificantly different. But DC police and prosecutors are bringing charges against folks with a BAC of .03, .01, and even .00, based upon breathalyzer results, on the basis that their alcohol consumption had impaired them. In one case, the basis for a determination of impairment was the driver’s failure to turn on her headlights soon enough in the twilight to suit the police officer. Another case involved a woman who answered her cell phone while driving.

Drunk and drugged driving is a serious offense. Let’s not trivialize it by making every driver who has had a single glass of wine guilty of a c