Rhymes With Right
Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

July 31, 2007

Incredible College Ignorance

Proof that too many students at the University of Vermont are terribly ignorant.

Most of the women interviewed at the University of Vermont, as seen in this YouTube video, think women's suffrage is "women's suffering" and want to end it.

Hmmm. So much for the outdated notion that an educated young person should know a bit about the history of the struggle for civil liberties.

I suspect you would get similar responses at too many institutions of higher learning.

H/T Phi Beta Cons




|| Greg, 12:16 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (25) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Hitchens Nails One

I disagree with Christopher Hitchens when it comes to his assertions about religion generally, but the conclusion to his column pointing out that fear dominates our society's treatment of Islam, and the special sensitivity that too many advocate towards that faith.

There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of "hate crime," I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons. In default of impartial prosecution, we have to insist that Muslims take their chance of being upset, just as we who do not subscribe to their arrogant certainties are revolted every day by the hideous behavior of the parties of God.

It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it. For all I know, this commonplace observation could be true. But, if so, it must cut both ways. How about reminding the Islamists that, by their mad policy in Kashmir and elsewhere, they have made deadly enemies of a billion Indian Hindus? Is there no danger that the massacre of Iraqi and Lebanese Christians, or the threatened murder of all Jews, will cause an equal and opposite response? Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars? The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.

To answer Hitchens, though, the answer seems to be that there is not a possibility of a violent response to Islam when atrocities are regularly and gruesomely carried out in its name. We know that because we have seen, time and time again, that the rest of us stand by as Islamic barbarism is perpetrated against us and out co-religionists (or, in Hitchens' case, co-irreligionists). When there is a response, the meekest voices among us demand that we turn the other cheek, forgetting that the same Christ said that the day would come when his followers would need to buy a sword to defend themselves.

Of course, I do not suggest that we need to duplicate the methods of the jihadi swine who engage in riots, bombings hostage-taking and murder to advance their malignant faith. I do not advocate that we behead innocent Muslims or otherwise murder random Islamic hostages. But I do insist that it is right and proper that people of good will speak out against the teachings and actions of the Islamists -- and that we not hold back for fear of radicalizing those who object to such condemnations as treading upon what they hold sacred.

And to the Muslim who demands that we not blaspheme against the Koran or Muhammad, let me remind you of an inconvenient truth -- Islam's teachings that the Bible is corrupt and that Jesus is a human prophet and not the eternally preexistent Son of God constitutes blasphemy to the ears of Christians. Shall we impose upon you the penalties that you and your faith demand upon those who tread upon your religious sensitivities and sacred tenets?

H/T Blogs for Bush




|| Greg, 10:14 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Will We Get

Riots?

Beheadings?

Media condemnation?

Hate crime prosecutions?

I doubt it -- they are only ridiculing Jesus and demonstrating hatred for Christians.

While college students are thrown in jail on multiple felony charges for pranks involving Korans, Hollywood merrily continues a campaign of ridicule against Christianity, which does not enjoy the favor Islam does in our politically correct establishment. The latest assault is The Ten, a comedy spoof of the Ten Commandments, which features a lecherous Jesus who corrupts a virgin librarian.

How daringly provocative, in a vulgar sixth-grade bully sort of way.

I'm curious -- where is the film mocking the false prophet Muhammad and the heresy of Islam?

H/T Moonbattery




|| Greg, 09:31 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (117) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Common Sense On NCLB

Here is a change I can support on No Child Left Behind -- but one that probably won't make it into law.

The House education committee chairman called yesterday for "serious changes" to the No Child Left Behind law, including new ways to measure school progress, in a proposal some Republicans fear could jeopardize efforts to renew the law this year.

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the chairman, said the five-year-old law, a cornerstone of President Bush's domestic policy, has put too much emphasis on standardized testing.

* * *

Miller said he expects that the House will vote in September on legislation to renew the law, which requires students to be tested in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress on those tests face possible sanctions.

But Miller said yesterday that schools should be able to include measures besides the reading and math tests in determining progress, such as graduation rates or the number of students passing Advanced Placement exams. "Many Americans do not believe that the success of our students or of our schools can be measured by one test administered on one day, and I agree with them," he said.

Some civil rights groups have expressed concern that such changes could weaken the law. "In our experience, institutions that are held accountable for too many things are, in the end, accountable for nothing," several groups that back the law, such as the Citizens' Commission for Civil Rights and the Education Trust, wrote in a recent letter to Miller.

Please understand -- I am a supporter of the notion that we need testing in order to hold schools and teachers -- and , most importantly, students -- accountable for learning, but I do not always believe that the current testing regimes in place do that. We here in Texas will be making a change in a few years because ours really does not do that -- and something NCLB needs to ensure that other states do so as well.




|| Greg, 09:19 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (112) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Raid At Home Of Senator Ted Stevens

Accusations over close ties to lobbyists have led to the search of the home of Senator Ted Stevens.

Agents from the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service raided the Alaska home of Sen. Ted Stevens (R) yesterday as part of a broad federal investigation of political corruption in the state that has also swept up his son and one of his closest financial backers, officials said.

Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, is under scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska energy services company, Veco, whose chief executive pleaded guilty in early May to a bribery scheme involving state lawmakers.

Contractors have told a federal grand jury that in 2000, Veco executives oversaw a lavish remodeling of Stevens's house in Girdwood, an exclusive ski resort area 40 miles from Anchorage, according to statements by the contractors.

Stevens said in a statement that his attorneys were advised of the impending search yesterday morning. He said he would not comment on details of the inquiry to avoid "any appearance that I have attempted to influence its outcome."

If he broke the law, I urge vigorous prosecution. I don't embrace criminals holding office under the my party's banner -- that is the custom of the Democrats.

So far there are no reports of cash hidden in the freezer.




|| Greg, 08:28 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (124) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Thompson Fundraising

Some folks are ready to write off Fred Thompson due to early fundraising numbers.

Fred Thompson plans to announce Tuesday that his committee to test the waters for a Republican presidential campaign raised slightly more than $3 million in June, substantially less than some backers had hoped, according to Republican sources.

Thompson plans to make the disclosure in a filing with the Internal Revenue Service, as he continues to operate his prospective campaign as a political organization that does not require disclosure to the Federal Election Commission.

Many Republicans had seen the “Law & Order” actor and former U.S. senator from Tennessee as a potential savior in a tough election cycle.

He attracted support from such top-shelf party figures as Mary Matalin, Liz Cheney, George P. Bush and other GOP stalwarts who saw him as a potential Hillary Clinton slayer.

But many Republicans have turned queasy as Thompson has ousted part of his original brain trust and repeatedly delayed his official announcement, which is now planned for shortly after Labor Day, in the first two weeks of September.

Some are already saying a prospective Thompson run is a flop. “I just don’t see it anymore,” said a key Republican who had been extremely enthusiastic about a Thompson candidacy.

"That number is really underwhelming. There were indications it could be double that. They've been saying that people were waiting for Fred, and the money was going to pour in. He looks like he's already losing momentum."

Some thoughts on this.

1) This represents only a one month's worth of fundraising. All things considered, not bad.

2) Exploratory committees are only supposed to raise "what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities”. As Captain Ed has pointed out, Politico (which now is questioning the "low" numbers) raised that issue weeks ago -- and there have already been accusations by the KOS-sacks are, in fact, accusing Thompson of raising TOO MUCH money under that provision.

3) There are many Republicans, especially among the grass roots, who don't give to exploratory committees -- we wait for a candidate to formally announce before writing our checks.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.




|| Greg, 08:21 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Some More Thoughts On Chief Justice Roberts' Health

According to reports, Chief Justice John Roberts is resting comfortably following yesterday's seizure. At this point, there is no additional information as to the cause of the "benign idiopathic seizure" which led to his hospitalization yesterday.

I did encounter some interesting information as I perused various articles.

Take this from the New York Times' excellent Supreme Court reporter, Linda Greenhouse.

In an interview on Monday evening, Dr. David J. Langer, the director of cerebrovascular neurosurgery at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt, Beth Israel and Long Island College Hospital, said that medical care after such a seizure should include “a good M.R.I., CAT scan and EEG.” All these tests are available at the Penobscot Bay Medical Center, according to the hospital’s Web site.

“But the chances they’ll find anything and be able to do anything about it are pretty low,” said Dr. Langer, who is also an assistant professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University.

“In the majority of seizures you see no anatomical cause,” he said. Such a cause could be a tumor, bleeding in the brain, a clogged blood vessel or an injury.

Dr. Langer said it could be difficult for doctors to decide whether the chief justice, who at 52 is the youngest member of the court, should start taking medications, which Dr. Langer said “have significant side effects.” Chief Justice Roberts appears otherwise healthy and is not known to have any chronic medical problems.

In other words, given that the Chief Justice has had only two seizures and they are nearly 15 years apart, there is some disagreement as to whether or not the medications are really necessary. The "significant side effects" comment strikes me as a bit of over-kill, though, as I have worked with a number of colleagues with epilepsy over the year and have known only one to have exhibited major side effects from the medication. After all, most long-term medications (such as my diabetes and blood pressure medications) do have significant side effects, but not for all (or even a majority of) patients.

Indeed, the disagreement over how to classify and treat Roberts' seizures (if ongoing treatment is necessary) is highlighted later in the article.

Dr. John W. Miller, a professor of neurology and director of the University of Washington’s regional epilepsy center in Seattle, said that anyone who had more than one seizure, no matter how many years apart, should be classified as having epilepsy.

Based on news accounts, Dr. Miller said, Chief Justice Roberts’s epilepsy would be categorized as “cryptogenic,” meaning that there is presumably a cause but that doctors cannot identify it.

Statistically, he said, it is “extremely unlikely” that this seizure represents a brain tumor. Fewer than 5 percent of those with recurrent seizures have brain tumors as a cause, and a very slowly progressing brain tumor would be rare.

However, as pointed out in an email to me last night, even if one presumes (as Dr. Miller does) that the Chief Justice can legitimately be diagnosed as having epilepsy, that does not necessarily indicate mental illness or intellectual incapacity. After all, the following modern individuals are known to have suffered from epilepsy.

Despite the stigma, many famous people have suffered from the disorder and excelled in spite of it. They include:

* Bud Abbott, American comedian of Abbott and Costello fame
* Richard Burton, Welsh actor
* Truman Capote, American author
* Lewis Carroll, English author and mathematician
* Dante Alighieri, Italian author
* Charles Dickens, English author
* Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Russian author
* Danny Glover, American actor
* Vincent van Gogh, Dutch painter
* Margaux Hemingway, American actress, granddaughter of author Ernest Hemingway
* Elton John, English pop singer
* James Madison, fourth U.S. president
* Guy de Maupassant, French author
* Alfred Nobel, Swedish chemist, engineer and founder of the Nobel Prize awards
* Niccolo Paganini, Italian violinist
* Peter the Great, Russian czar
* Edgar Allen Poe, American author
* Neil Young, Canadian rock musician
* Jonathan Swift, English author
* Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky, Russian composer
* Alfred Lord Tennyson, English poet
* Lord Byron, English poet

There are some truly great and creative minds on that list -- including the man often described as the Father of the Constitution. Given Roberts' lifelong fidelity to that document, I think that he is in excellent company.

There are, of course, other figures who some historians speculate also had epilepsy, though time and the tenuousness of evidence makes classifying these individuals less certain.

Some historical researchers believe there is evidence to suggest that the following famous figures may have also suffered from seizure disorders:

* Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia
* Aristotle, Greek philosopher/scientist
* Napoleon Bonaparte, French general/emperor
* Buddha, founder of Buddhism
* Julius Caesar, Roman emperor
* Hannibal, Carthaginian general
* Michelangelo, Italian painter/sculptor
* Mohammed, prophet of Islam
* Sir Isaac Newton, British mathematician
* Pythagoras, Greek mathematician
* Saint Paul the Apostle, a father of the early Catholic Church
* Socrates, Greek philosopher
* Leonardo da Vinci, Italian painter, draftsman, sculptor, architect and engineer

All are known to have suffered from some sort of seizures at some time, as reported by historical documents. While I might not agree with every classification, it is again pretty clear that a history of seizures is not a bar to success in life. That should demonstrate that this incident is not necessarily a prelude to the Chief Justice's retirement from public life. As I said last night, there is nothing in this incident that should be seen as barring his remaining on the court for another three decades or so.

A second point that I feel needs to be brought up is the earlier seizure. Folks speculated that it was hidden from the administration and from senators at the time of his confirmation hearings. That issue can be definitively laid to rest.

Newsweek reported in November 2005 that Roberts suffered a seizure in January 1993 while golfing. "It was stunning and out of the blue and inexplicable," Larry Robbins, a Justice Department colleague, told the magazine. Robbins said Roberts was not allowed to drive for several months after the seizure and took the bus to work. The magazine quoted a senior White House aide as describing the episode as an "isolated, idiosyncratic seizure."

There is no record of any discussion of the 1993 seizure or of Roberts's health in general during his confirmation hearings. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who chaired the hearings, told CNN on Monday night that senators were told about the previous episode but did not find it serious enough to ask Roberts about. Roberts has no known history of major illness.

Senators knew about the 1993 seizure, but absent any other history of seizures found it to be unimportant. Those seeking to disqualify Roberts based upon the incident (or upon a presumptive diagnosis of epilepsy arising from this incident) find themselves in the position of arguing that the Senate should have considered (or should today consider) an issue that private employers are forbidden to consider -- a real or perceived disability on the part of a candidate for a job. And since there is nothing inherent in epilepsy that would preclude the Chief Justice fully and effectively doing his job, it strikes me that they are seeking to create an ideology exception to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

And again, as I noted yesterday, the level of hatred being spewed by liberal sites deemed "mainstream" among Democrats is pretty frightening. When Bill Clinton fell ill during the 2004 presidential election, we on the right offered prayers and best wishes, despite our previous opposition to the former President and our general dislike of his wife. Contrasted with the comments found on Democratic Underground, DailyKos, and other sites of that ilk. I won't drive them traffic, though, so no links from me.

UPDATE: Chief Justice Roberts has been released from the hospital and says he is doing well.

H/T Malkin, Ace, Bill's Bites, Volokh, Volunteer Opinion Journal, Texas Rainmaker

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Republican National Convention Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.




|| Greg, 07:58 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

July 30, 2007

Chief Justice John Roberts Hospitalized

This report is disturbing, but not necessarily a sign that the Chief Justice will need to leave the bench any time in the next three decades.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a seasonal resident of Hupper Island, located off Port Clyde, will be staying overnight at Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport following a seizure.

St. George Ambulance responded to a call at about 2 p.m. Monday of a man who had fallen 5 to 10 feet and landed on a dock, hitting the back of his head. The patient was ashen and was foaming at the mouth. National news report quotes a Supreme Court spokeswoman as saying that Roberts was conscious the entire time of the incident. That spokeswoman has not returned a telephone call to the newspaper.

PBMC issued a statement at about 7 p.m., saying that Roberts was being kept overnight as a precaution and was recovered. He suffered some minor scrapes from the fall, the hospital stated. A comprehensive neurological examination was administered to the chief justice and the seizure was determined to be a benign one, the hospital stated. The chief justice suffered a similar seizure in 1993.

According to a Supreme Court spokesperson, Roberts is fine.

Arberg said Roberts suffered "a benign, idiopathic seizure," medical terminology for an attack whose origin is unknown. She said Roberts suffered a similar episode in 1993.

Seizures are any "sudden, abnormal electrical activity" in the brain, according to background information posted online by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, part of the National Institutes of Health.

While some seizures are focused in one part of the brain, government researchers note, others can be generalized. Not all seizures involve convulsions.

"Most seizures last from 30 seconds to two minutes and do not cause lasting harm," the Institute said. "However, it is a medical emergency if seizures last longer than 5 minutes or if a person has many seizures and does not wake up between them."

While seizures can be the result of a brain disorder such as epilepsy, the Institute notes they can also be a consequence of fevers, head injuries or even medication side effects.

Let's consider the term used -- benign idiopathic seizure. It indicates that it is an incident that caused no significant harm to the Chief Justice and does not seem to be related to any underlying medical condition. It may yet turn out to be caused by any number of relatively trivial circumstances, including low electrolytes or a reaction to a flashing light source. Based upon the initial diagnosis, there is no reason to believe that the Chief Justice should not be able to return to his duties at full strength by the end of the summer recess -- or that he won't be able to resume his normal schedule by the weekend, for that matter.

The Leftard-sphere has reacted with its usual level of (no) class and (no) decency, and I've already seen posts and comments hoping that he is incapacitated, dies, and "damned to Hell". I won't drive any traffic their way.

Decent Americans (or all political stripes) send their prayers and/or best wishes for the Chief Justice and his family.

H/T Malkin, Ace, Bill's Bites,




|| Greg, 06:07 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (116) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||