mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

June 19, 2006

'Like a Bag of Rocks'

Joseph Godfrey, Jr. had only been home from his tour in Iraq for three months when he was stabbed to death on the banks of the Oswego River. His killer bragged to friends that Godfrey "...went down like a bag of rocks."

The only mercy shown to Godfrey's family is that his murderer plead guilty. They will not have to endure a trial. Paul Leary was sentenced today to 17 years to life in Oswego County Court. Here's hoping that his prison guards, who will know about his crime, provide this scumbag with an appropriately enthusiastic cellmate. And privacy.

From Newsday:

Leary killed Joseph Godfrey Jr., a 24-year-old former Army specialist from Mexico, N.Y., by severing his spinal cord with a knife during a late-night fight in an Oswego park in January 2005. Leary, who netted $60, a pack of cigarettes and a lighter in the deadly confrontation, told police he had been drinking with Godfrey at a bar earlier.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

June 15, 2006

YearlyKos Tinfoil Party : A Rovian Conspiracy?

I know we all got a big kick out of the Kossacks and their tinfoil hats this last weekend.

For those who missed it, this pic pretty much sums it up:

It raises the question: with the news media buzzing around all over the place, and the Kossacks straining for credibility in the real world, who could possibly have thought it was a good idea to slip the Kossacks several rolls of tinfoil?

Thanks to our deep cover operatives embedded around the globe, working at great personal risk in the cause of truth, we may be a little bit closer to finding an answer to that burning question:

more...

Posted by: Kos_Irhabi at 12:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

June 14, 2006

Quitting in Japan

Working in Japan ain't for me. Due to staff shortages and difficulty in finding replacement workers, companies are demanding compensation from resigning employees before allowing them to leave:

Short-staffed companies are requesting that employees who quit pay damages as the resurgence of Japan's economy is placing a strain on labor levels, Tokyo's Labor Consultation Center said...
One of them, a 29-year-old man who works for a computer system development company offered to resign in March. But an official of the firm told him, "We won't allow you to quit until the system development job finishes in September. If you quit now, you have to pay several million yen in compensation."...
A top official of the Rodo Kumiai Network Union Tokyo said since sometime around 2002 the problem of overwork had become serious in some companies. "Those who managed to survive those tough times now want to quit or change jobs. But their employers don't want them to leave," he said.

Now, who in their right mind would accept a job offer from a company that demands compensation from resigning employees? I'm not sure that the HR departments have thought this issue through completely. It smacks of indentured servitude or slavery.

Update: Don't get any ideas, Vinnie.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 06:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

June 01, 2006

ACLU Demands Perverts Get Sporting Chance at Kids

Stop the ACLU reports on the latest ACLU pro-pedophile lawsuit, this one aimed at an Indianapolis city ordinance that requires convicted sex offenders to stay at least 1,000 feet from facilities like playgrounds and swimming pools when children are present.

The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church or going to work, but kiddy molesters are allowed to approach closer if accompanied by a non-molesting adult.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 05:36 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>>The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church roflmao! yeah, like the ACLU cares if somebody can't go to church.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 06:04 PM (8e/V4)

2 If you're out of prison, you should be a free man. This kind of ordinance is patently against the spirit of a rational justice system. Just shoot the bastards, if they can't fix themselves. This half-free/half-not kind of arrangement is not only against any sort of reasonable response to a crime, but letting such people back out only gives them another opportunity to molest kids. Put it this way: If you have a mental disorder where getting near little old ladies gives you the irresistable urge to mug them, what is the point in letting you out of prison, and then saying you have to stay 1,000 feet from any nursing homes?

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 06:19 PM (RwDCC)

3 Also, technically, if they're so mentally ill that they have to be watched over by the gummit, don't they at least belong in a mental facility? Not, you know, 1,001 feet from a playground?

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 06:20 PM (RwDCC)

4 Weird - I agree with MiB. Bluto - you should know that laws like this are virtually identical to ones reference firearms. Believe the NRA is involved in an oddly similar case reference the 1000 ft crap. Either way - both are a dumb approach to often serious problems.

Posted by: hondo at June 01, 2006 06:45 PM (el7nZ)

5 I too think that MkB has a point, but restrictions on sex offenders aren't the only lifelong penalties that criminals face. For instance, felons can't vote or legally own firearms. Society never completely forgives some crimes.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 01, 2006 07:37 PM (RHG+K)

6 Bluto as usual your blanket covering statements are not entirely correct. Felons are able to vote, in most states after they have finished their supervised release (parole). In some states they are never able to recover their right to vote, The total in jail or on parole is now just under 4% of the population. I wasn't able to find a figure on the total disenfranchised but it is probably some multiple of that like 2x or4x. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm Oh and Bluto I noticed that AFTER I got banned from posting comments on your site a total of only one comment was posted. Was I the only one who bothered to comment ?

Posted by: john ryan at June 01, 2006 08:44 PM (TcoRJ)

7 I disagree with that stuff, too. Punish them appropriately - and so they don't forget, instead of this namby-pamby prison stuff, where you pay them to loaf, exercise and fraternize with other criminals - and then turn them loose. Once you're done being punished, you should be done being punished.

Posted by: MiB at June 01, 2006 08:45 PM (RwDCC)

8 The ACLU is the best defense that any radical terrorist or pervert could affford and its HQ are in HANOI ON THE BAY right here in california SAN FRANCISCO

Posted by: sandpiper at June 01, 2006 09:50 PM (QagY6)

9 John Ryan is factually correct about felons and voting. In fact, only six backwards states deny felons the right to vote for life. Imagine--you break the law at 18, you get out of prison at 19, you live 60 years without ever breaking the law again, become a minister, serve in the military...whatever--and can never vote again. When I explain this to Europeans, they look at me like I come from an incredibly backwards country. Also--on the sex offender issue: I'd favor the law over the ACLU, depending on how they define sex offender. If it is very tightly defined to apply to true pedophiles, I'd favor it. But so many of these laws cover people who were caught having sex in the back seat of a car (public indecency, public nudity, sodomy, etc) or streaking (I knew kids who had offical sex offender status from streaking--should they not be able to walk within 1000 feet of a school? Even though their records were expunged within a year, for year they had to report in...crazy) Urinating in public? If anyone on this blog comments section is innocent of outdoor sex, urinating outdoors, streaking, skinnydipping, then fine. I doubt it. Also--sometimes people get SO status for something that we might think is a mistake, but they are no threat. There was a famous case of a man of 19 who had consensual sex with a 16 year old, then married her two years later. But in the interim, her mom started criminal proceedings for statutory rape. He was clearly guilty. He was convicted. So he has to report as an SO, for what he did with the wife who lives with him. These laws are far too broad in most states. Narrowly targeted at true pedophiles, I don't think they do any harm, and might do some marginal good.

Posted by: jd at June 01, 2006 09:56 PM (JJJx/)

10 The ACLU claims that the new law could prevent convicted sex offenders from attending church or going to work Or maybe he'd want to go to a mosque. After all was not Mohammed also a pedophile?

Posted by: dcb at June 01, 2006 10:14 PM (8e/V4)

11 I'm no expert but I don't think these freaks are every "cured" of this stuff. Just because they've done their time doesn't mean they're not still a danger to kids. They need to be kept as far away from kids as possible. If that inconveniences them in any way, well that too fckin bad.

Posted by: Richard at June 01, 2006 10:31 PM (7KF8r)

12 I can go back to many posts on this blog where adult women took sexual advantage of male children. The response from most of the regulars here was something like Â“ wish that had happened to meÂ” The reason these predators feel free to molest OUR kid is that we donÂ’t punish them. Lock these freaks (male or female) up for life for molesting a child (under 1

. I realize I am in a dream world and this will never happen. Even conservatives get a hard on over a 40 year old woman on a 12 year old kid. Sick bastards. We get what we deserve, we let these pervs off with a few months and they go out an ruin another kidÂ’s life. Society really challenges me here. I am a Catholic who does not believe in abortion or the death penalty. But what is a good man to do when a child molester gets off again and again? If my kid male or female were molested by one of these people I think it might be my duty to TCB. DonÂ’t I have an obligation to protect my neighbors and friends from the sub human who molested my kids? The libs and conservatives (which is shocking to me) in this country seem to insist on the right to prey on kids. Makes me sick.

Posted by: B rad at June 01, 2006 11:36 PM (BJYNn)

13 only six backwards states deny felons the right to vote for life. Imagine--you break the law at 18, you get out of prison at 19, you live 60 years without ever breaking the law again, become a minister, serve in the military Did the Military issue them a waiver for that Felony Jd? because the Military doesn't allow Felons to join without one either. Normally the only people I hear whining about not being able to vote because of a felony, is liberals with their felony possession of Marijuana charge... You are correct in respect to the SO status that sets restrictions that pertain to proximity to children, should only apply to convicted child molesters.

Posted by: davec at June 01, 2006 11:55 PM (CcXvt)

14 "If you're out of prison, you should be a free man. This kind of ordinance is patently against the spirit of a rational justice system." The best thing I can do here is to quote Theodore Dalrymple: "When prisoners are released from prison, they often say that they have paid their debt to society. This is absurd, of course: crime is not a matter of double-entry bookkeeping. You cannot pay a debt by having caused even greater expense, nor can you pay in advance for a bank robbery by offering to serve a prison sentence before you commit it. Perhaps, metaphorically speaking, the slate is wiped clean once a prisoner is released from prison, but the debt is not paid off." In a way though I agree with some here. Sexual predators and child molesters are never reformed. They just grow to be old offenders and the system is too easy to scam and skip out on. Letting them out never works. And while we're insisting on not using "blanket statements", states which rescind a felon's right to vote or bear arms also have a process by which they can have their rights restored. I have a friend much like jd described. A guy I hired to work anyway because he was honest about it and his probation officer confirmed that he told the truth. At 19 he had consentual sex with a 16 year old girl. The girl's parents pressed charges and he spent a year in prison and had to register as a sex offender afterwards. I think that's wrong too. But ... after a few years of a clean life he was able to have that status removed by a judge who used common sense and rationality after reviewing his case. There is always recourse so our system is not totally un-forgiving. It's unfortunate that he had to go through that, but he was able to get it fixed.

Posted by: Oyster at June 02, 2006 05:05 AM (YudAC)

15 dave, good point. It's only a hypothetical not referring to any specific case. and Oyster, yes, states have processes so people get their voting rights back. But the problem is, some of them are really arcane/difficult. Some require legislation in the state house. Some require governor's action. A lifetime ban on voting seems absurd.

Posted by: jd at June 02, 2006 07:45 AM (aqTJB)

16 Regarding the 19 year old who had "consensual sex" with the 16 year old. Legally, it's not possible to have "consensual sex" with a minor under the age of consent. jd, is the guy really reformed, or is he compounding his original crime by continuing a relationship with a girl who was too immature to make the original decision to start a relationship with him?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 02, 2006 09:09 AM (RHG+K)

17 Sorry guys - this is about the 1000 ft. schools/etc approach to to solving a "problem". Its not a solution and serves no purpose except BS for the public. The reason this upsets me is that this type of approach/solution is being applied and advocated in other areas too - notably municipal gun control laws with some serious potential ramifications.

Posted by: hondo at June 02, 2006 11:02 AM (el7nZ)

18 I stand corrected, DPB, your definition of consensual is correct. I don't know the case personally, so I don't know the answer. I will say that, as per the other thread here on this, that such marriages were not at all uncommon in our national past. Many a 14 year old girl was married on the American frontier, and in other parts of our country well into the 20th century. Feminists (who got the age raised in a coordinated campaign) argued that this was abusive. I tend to agree, but it's important to acknowledge this is a moving target. I also don't think a 19 year old who has sex with a 16 year old is a "sex offender" in the same way that a 45 year old who has sex with a ten year old (actually, ANYONE who has sex with a ten year old). When I was 19, I certainly would have dated some 16 year olds. Unfortunately, I was too busy getting turned down by women my own age...

Posted by: jd at June 02, 2006 12:05 PM (aqTJB)

19 jd, I'm of the mind that if a felon wants his/her rights back he/she should have to work for it and prove they are a benefit to society rather than the detriment they've been in the past. Serving a prison sentence does not mean they are reformed and prepared to make sound decisions which affect the lives of others. Especially repeat offenders. If the system by which they can regain certain rights is "arcane/difficult" it should be addressed by state legislators and reformed. The answer is not to just say "Well, it's too hard, so let's abolish it." And again, federal entities are trying to wrest states' rights from them with this issue. And incidentally, what of those felons who were convicted of voter fraud? Should they be allowed to vote again?

Posted by: Oyster at June 03, 2006 06:58 AM (YudAC)

20 Actually, that's a good idea--I think people who break election laws should never be allowed to vote again. I'd vote for that law. It troubles me, though, that most of the remaining ban on felon voting states are Southern states with a history of both racist judicial systems AND clever ways to deny voting rights to blacks. Let me give you one example of how that works against black rights even today. Studies show that black and white youth smoke marijuana at about the same rate. But blacks are about 5 times more likely to be criminally penalized for teenage marijuana use. There are MANY complex reasons for this (greater police surveillance, income inequality, etc.). But the result frequently is a higher rate of felony convictions among blacks than whites for this. Moreover, it helps create a climate of fear, which many unscrupulous republicans (and a few Dems) have exploited in elections going back several decades. They hand out fliers the week of the election "Don't forget to vote on Nov 7th!!! Remember to clear all your parking tickets before voting if you don't want to get arrested!" I don't think former felon voting is the most important problem in our electoral system (it's partisan gerrymandering in my opinion). But I'd support a federal amendment to take away the right of states to ban felon voting (actually, you wouldn't need that, you could do it by statute for federal elections). I'm a pretty strong federalist (for example, I oppose the gay marriage ban on federalist grounds) but when it comes to federal elections, the feds should make the rules if the states can't handle it. And those six have shown they can't.

Posted by: jd at June 05, 2006 07:12 AM (l5lV5)

21 JD: Because the black teenagers are also selling it.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2006 07:05 AM (PV2nq)

22 The study I saw controlled for users and dealers, but even assuming it didn't, I would be surprised if such a stark difference arose from a single cause. Like most examples of racial disparity, it is probably multi-causal.

Posted by: jd at June 06, 2006 09:46 AM (7QCpZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 04, 2006

Mexico Backs Away from Drug Legalization

In a turnaround from what was previously reported, Mexican President Vicente Fox has balked on the drug legalization law.

From WashingtonPost.com:

Mexican President Vicente Fox backed off signing a drug decriminalization bill that the United States warned could result in "drug tourism" and increased availability of narcotics in American border communities.
Fox reversed course Wednesday and said he was sending the bill back to Congress for changes, just one day after his office had said he would sign it into law. The measure would have dropped criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs.
Fox's statement said he will ask for corrections "to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense."

Really? I'm confused. Fox wants the law which drops criminal penalties for possession to clearly state that drug possession is a criminal offense.

It doesn't make sense to me. Of course, I'm a guy who thinks "law-abiding illegal alien" is a contradiction.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 2 kb.

May 02, 2006

Euthanasia Delayed For Now

On April 25, I wrote about a woman who was about to be euthanized by a Houston hospital's ethics committee, over the objections of the woman herself and her family. Good news, at least temporarily.

From the Washington Times:

A Texas hospital has agreed to delay taking a severely ill woman off life support, following a failed plan to transfer her to an Illinois nursing home.
St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital had invoked the state's futile-care law, which allows hospitals to take some patients off life support with 10 days notice to the families, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:49 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

April 30, 2006

Mexican Lawmakers Pass Bill to Legalize Drugs

The federal legislature of Mexico has passed a bill to legalize "small amounts of cocaine, heroin, even ecstasy" for personal use. President Vicente Fox's signature is expected to be forthcoming since his office has voiced support for the measure.

From KFMB.com:

Currently, Mexican law leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they can prove they are drug addicts and if an expert certifies they were caught with "the quantity necessary for personal use."
The new bill drops the "addict" requirement, allows "consumers" to have drugs, and sets out specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.

Specifically, the new law would allow a person to carry the following:

- Marijuana (5 gms),
- Heroin (25 mgms),
- Cocaine (0.5 gm),
- Peyote (2.2 lbs), and
- An array of other drugs, including:
- Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA),
- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Ecstasy (MDMA),
- Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), and
- Amphetamines.

I am stunned! A person could be a legal walking pharmacy. More surprising is the fact that the measure is being pushed while drug addiction among Mexicans is increasing.

To be fair, though, the bill reportedly stiffens some penalties for trafficking and possession by government employees and near schools. In support of the bill, backers say it will free up police to go after major drug traffickers and avoid crowding jails with small-time offenders. Of course, using their logic, Mexico should legalize convenience store robberies to allow police to focus on bank heists. more...

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:16 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 4 kb.

1 A couple of notes: May 1 is "Labor Day" in the rest of the world. It's primarily in the U.S. that the date was changed, so as to obscure its socialist origin. And I have to wonder if the illegal border traffic won't start flowing two ways, with certain Americans going down to Mexico to get high.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 30, 2006 06:00 AM (FVbj6)

2 I think the US should legalize some drugs, particularly marijuana. The war on drugs drains enormous amounts of money from the government and has not improved the overall situation. People can still get drugs at a reasonable price. The only thing the war on drugs is doing is filling our prisons with pot heads.

Posted by: Scott at April 30, 2006 07:11 AM (a7tCL)

3 the government admits that it is able to stop only about 10% of the drugs at the border. Take all that money and use it where it will do the most good, on prevention and treatment..

Posted by: john Ryan at April 30, 2006 07:39 AM (TcoRJ)

4 DOPE IS FOR DOPES and mexco is run by dopes

Posted by: sandpiper at April 30, 2006 08:08 AM (b1Fi6)

5 I think that Michael has it right. If a government is willing to unashamedly encourage its citizens to cross into a neighbouring country illegally, just for the revenue it brings, it's highly likely that decriminalising an array of drugs is a strategy to get young Americans to visit in larger numbers and spend more money. Particularly when rampant corruption and strong links to the drug trade are present at all levels of the government.

Posted by: Graeme at April 30, 2006 08:46 AM (IX6/9)

6 Great strategy on the part of Mexico! A country going nowhere plagued by crime, corruption and total lack of hope ... export significant segments of their population and keep much of the poor reminder stoned! Mexico will never change - build a wall 20' high - with a sufficent number of doors for the best, brightest, ambitious, and decent.

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 11:25 AM (SeBrl)

7 Great opportunity for the tourist trade! A drug haven for affluent Americans and westerners - add an explosion in the sex trade (drugs help) and the Mexican government is gonna make some nice change! Local Mexican police aren't stupid! This will be a great opportunity for selective drug enforcement with tourists! Think of the blackmail and extortion opportunities! an affluent American will pay 10-20 thou easy to keep their pothead children out of a Mexican prision!

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 11:33 AM (SeBrl)

8 Suppose another country had almost no drug problem. Suppose that country had less than a small fraction of one percent of our drug arrests. And suppose that country had almost no "drug-related crime" and that their robbery rate was a tiny fraction of our robbery rate. Do you think is might be wise and prudent to carefully observe that other country's drug policy and that we should model that other country's drug policy? Well, there is such a country: The Czech Republic. The Czech Republic is the only country in the world where adult citizens can legally use, possess and grow small quantities of marijuana. (In the Netherlands, marijuana is quasi-legal - not officially legal.) The Czech overall drug arrest rate is 1 per 100,000 population. The United States' overall drug arrest rate is 585 per 100,000 population. The Czech robbery rate is 2 per 100,000 population. The United States' robbery rate is 145.9 per 100,000 population, according to our FBI. According to our drug war cheerleaders, tolerant marijuana laws cause people to use other, much more dangerous drugs, like methamphetamine and heroin. Obviously, this doesn't happen in the Czech Republic. Why not? Could it be that when people can legally obtain marijuana at an affordable price, they tend not to use or desire any other recreational drugs? Could it be that marijuana legalization actually creates a roadblock to hard drug use - not a gateway? Could it be that the vast majority our so-called "drug-related crime" is caused by our marijuana prohibition policies? Could it be that if we keep doing what we have been doing, we will probably get the same results? Should we throw another trillion dollars down the drug war rat hole? Or should we do something different--dramatically different? Kirk Muse 1741 S. Clearview Ave. Mesa, 85209 (480) 396-3399 Thank you for considering this letter for publication. Source for the 145.9 robberies per 100,000 population statistic is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2002 final statistics. Source for the Czech Republic's marijuana legalization policy: "A Czech Toke on Freedom," by Jeffrey Fleishman in the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 24 2006. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-weed24jan24,0,7449540.story Source for Czech crime rate statistics: http://www.notebooktravel.co.uk/travellersguide/travellersguidepages/czechrepublic.htm (Scroll to bottom of the page).

Posted by: Kirk Muse at April 30, 2006 12:49 PM (/ZDpr)

9 http://profiles.emcdda.eu.int/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.Content&nNodeID=2348&sLanguageISO=EN If anyone's interested in the detailed realities of Czech/drugs .... which of course ... is totally lacking from the above.

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 01:22 PM (SeBrl)

10 Wow! So cool! Two sources on Czech drug laws!!! One is an article for the LA Times (???) and the other is from a British Travel guide (???). What! No Czech sources???? Crime stats courtesy the FBI (????). Kirk's been toting the weed too long! Wanna compare/talk about Czech drug laws etc. ...... well ... duh! ... some Czech input would, like, be helpful ... or is that too much to absorb thru the haze?

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 01:33 PM (SeBrl)

11 I was just in Acapulco yesterday, and ten days ago a drug gang decapitated two cops who had participated in a lethal drug raid, and left their bodies on the front steps of a police station, with a sign saying "so that you will learn respect". I don't know about decriminalizing small amounts as a way of getting bigger fish, but it seems worth a try. Hondo, the danger of cops going after tourists with phony charges exists much more under the current law--many tourists say the cops plant a small amount of drugs, then ask for a bribe in return for not arresting them. It is amazing how instructive travel is. I spoke to a lot of people down there about the upcoming elections, and the working assumption of many is that the PAN will steal the election, just as the PRI did in 88. By comparison, our own electoral system, for all its flaws, seems okay. Of course, they have several things we could learn from--like national voter registration and uniform election laws and a holiday for the election.

Posted by: jd at April 30, 2006 03:25 PM (uT71O)

12 JD: If decapitated people makes you want to offer criminals amnesty, when do we offer it to the Taliban / Al-Qaeda? I'm sure there is a lot of things we could learn from Mexico, like how to make a hut out of a sheet of plastic, and three sheets of corrugated steel or how to export poverty.

Posted by: davec at April 30, 2006 04:39 PM (CcXvt)

13 So wait, rather than try to help people overcome a drug addiction, it seems like a good idea to just legalize it so we don't have to chase after the drug dealers and addicts all the time. This will really boost moral in a country. Hey-maybe this will make people stay in Mexico, rather than come over to America...all our immigration problems are solved!

Posted by: crazy cat lady at April 30, 2006 04:45 PM (rjg51)

14 jd You miss the point friend ... you speak of planting drugs and phony charges ... new senario ... no need for planting and the charges are real ... tailor made for an increase in corruption reference tourists.

Posted by: hondo at April 30, 2006 05:07 PM (SeBrl)

15 When the police ARE the criminals, they're bound to get decapitated every so often.

Posted by: Michael Hampton at April 30, 2006 06:16 PM (FVbj6)

16 I don't think I was understood. I'm not suggesting the decapitaters should get amnesty. The stated purpose of the law is so the police can focus on the traffickers, the ones who did the decapitating. The decapitations show that the drug problems they are facing in Mexico are simply much larger than the ones we face. And yes, the Mexican police are badly corrupt. Some of the people I met down there said the attitude of most Mexicans is if your house gets robbed, don't call the police--they'll just case it for another robbery. Hondo, you may be right that as opposed to planting drugs in small amounts, the police can now arrest someone and exaggerate the amount he had. We'll see, I guess. One thing we ARE learning from Mexico, Dave, is to tolerate increasing gaps between the richest and the poorest. If current trends of exacerbating the share of national income held by the top 1% and top .1% continue, we may have to learn many things that Mexico has known for years about money and class and social rigidity. Hopefully, it won't come to learning about hut creation.

Posted by: jd at April 30, 2006 09:04 PM (uT71O)

17 " Dave's not here man! " " No, no, no! This is Dave! " " Dave's not here man! "

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at April 30, 2006 11:32 PM (h4PzP)

18 Ted Carpenter at Cato's new blog thinks criminalization only increases the profit potential of illegal drugs and gives them a more lucrative, coveted place on the market. Unfortunately, Mexican leaders show no willingness to legalize the manufacture or sale of marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs. Indeed, they have argued that the new law will enable law enforcement agencies to devote more resources to supressing trafficking. That means the huge potential profit in the drug trade will persistÂ—and so will the corruption and violence that is tearing MexicoÂ’s society apart.

Posted by: Anastasia at May 01, 2006 09:55 AM (lcebH)

19 At least one country has figured out the drug war is a COMPLETE waste of time, money, and resources.

Posted by: craig at May 01, 2006 08:13 PM (CMKoe)

20 As for Mikes "a person can be a legal walking pharmacy" comment, alot of people are walking pharmacys. Ever heard of the ghetto and drug dealers?

Posted by: craig at May 01, 2006 08:17 PM (CMKoe)

21 Thats awesome they should legalize marijuana its all for money

Posted by: josh at May 04, 2006 10:24 AM (2N1xj)

22 Thats awesome they should legalize marijuana a lot of people do it anyway and it would make it easier for everyone... drinking is worse for you so why not?

Posted by: josh at May 04, 2006 10:25 AM (2N1xj)

23 Not a good idea afterall, oh the mood swings ... pass that pipe ...

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at May 04, 2006 11:41 AM (FCC6c)

24 The drug war has failed. Consumers want drugs. Making drugs illegal only makes them more expensive and inconvienient to obtain. If you want to get drunk, you have to drive 5-10 minutes to the grocery store and spend about $10. If you want to get stoned, you have to drive 15-20 minutes to your buddy's house and spend about $40. The best solution is to legalize and educate. Policing, jailing, and court costs are large. Not only would legalization reduce the necessary sizes of our police forces, jails, and court systems; it would also make a very large market available for taxation. Young people should be educated that drugs are often harmful. Education has been the main influence in the sharp decline in teen tobacco consumption. Should a person find themselves with a problem, the facilities should exist to help them recover.

Posted by: Yummy at May 14, 2006 04:06 PM (r99Fg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 23, 2006

Yale Looking For Face-Saving Way to Oust Talibani Student

Evidently Yale doesn't like the negative publicity it's received since welcoming Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the unreconstructed Taliban knuckle-dragger admitted under their non-traditional student program. Writing in the WSJ Opinion Journal, John Fund reports that Yale plans to toughen up admission standards for non-traditional degree students, which currently accept three quarters of applicants (compared to the 10% of applying high school students).

This will allow Yale to reject Hashemi's application to a degree program without admitting that they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt for admitting him in the first place. Or maybe they're just afraid they'll be beheaded.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:53 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

1 >>>they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt They are morally bankrupt. They're only concerned about the bad publicity. That's what relativism does to people. Take the exact same guy, but with white skin, and suddenly Libs see him as evil. But if he's brown, his deeds are irrelevant. Brown people are like monkeys to Libs. Pets. Monkeys can do no wrong because they don't know any better. That's why a fascist like Rahmatullah Hashemi can be invited to their institutions of higher indoctrination with no moral qualms whatsoever. That's why Arabs are good and Israelis are bad. Monkeys. That's how Libs see their Arab pets.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 23, 2006 11:03 PM (8e/V4)

2 Yep. And I think it also has to do with politcal corretness. People want to be sure to be seen as "tolerant" and "open-minded" above all else. Somehow it's seen as a virtue to be able to say, "Who are we to judge?" It's almost as if the more heinous the act that one is able to tolerate, the more enlightened that person is seen as being. It's absolutely crazy.

Posted by: Richard at April 23, 2006 11:24 PM (7KF8r)

3 I think that the more important question is "How did he get a visa to enter the country ?" I would have thought that he would have been laughed ot of the embassy for even applying for one. It is not Yale that issues student visas.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 23, 2006 11:36 PM (TcoRJ)

4 I hate to be uncharitable, and this probably won't say much about me as a christian, but this problem could be solved with 158 grains of jacketed hollowpoint....

Posted by: Lonevoice at April 24, 2006 12:44 AM (QnxoD)

5 john ryan, you make a very valid point. Isn't it the job of the State Department and their consuls to issue such visas? State is infested with these Libs.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 24, 2006 01:03 AM (8e/V4)

6 I want to know which Yale alumni or board member pulled what strings at the State Department to get this cretin admitted into our country to even breathe our air let alone take up a space that a more deserving student was refused. This is more than just liberalism. This is a profound debasement. I found a link in the comments section to this story about Yale at Clint Taylors blog at Townhall.com a while back. Yale is riddled with backstabbing, self-aggrandizing ego-maniacs as well as intellectually bankrupt elitists and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find they have their own dupes in the State Department.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 04:45 AM (YudAC)

7 John Ryan Yes, State does issue the visas ... but Oyster zeros in on the point. Someone(s) pulled strings and used powerful influence on State to pull this off - and no one's talking on the details. This has become an embarrassment for Yale - and someone(s) else. I am curious who.

Posted by: hondo at April 24, 2006 05:47 AM (gdxQ2)

8 One Yale dumps Hashemi his student visa would no longer be valid and he'll have to leave the country. Hopefully some agency is gearing up to ensure that he does so and that he ends up in Gitmo after all. Or can we expect to see him at the next illegal immigrant rights march? How Yale ever expected this to go unchallenged is beyond me.

Posted by: Graeme at April 24, 2006 07:00 AM (nCrWY)

9 If it was a mistake by the State Department than his visa should be withdrawn and he should be deported. How this man could not be considered a security risk is incredible, to me. As for the Stae Department being infested with libs I think it is more properly discribed as being infested with idiots. Condoleeza Rice is the Secretary of State she should simply revoke his visa. My sister has been teaching law in Cambodia for 10 years. The only student visas she can get for her students are for 20 or so Fulbright scholars that she has each year.

Posted by: john Ryan at April 24, 2006 07:23 AM (TcoRJ)

10 The State Department is a side issue. I'm more concerned about the culture of contempt for America indicated by Yale's eagerness to accept Hashemi.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 24, 2006 07:59 AM (RHG+K)

11 Greetings, hondo, and it looks like you're going to get your Egg McMuffins after all, but I still have Moon's boy in the runoff. A very small chance, indeed. Now, back to the topic at hand. Oyster, I am very much interested in the same questions as you, and one would think an enterprising newspaper might seek the truth behind these shenanigans. But most of them are too busy leaking classified information to be concerned about this very much more important story. What happened here when an enemy of the US and civilization period gained entry to not only the US, but one of the most prestigious institutions of learning in America is symbolic of the problem we have. Who let this guy in? Why? How? If we do not put a stop to this, in twenty years or less we will be exactly where France is right now. There is a mentality in the State Department that is anti-American, and they are doing everything they can in their little way to Balkinize the US. They see this as being cosmopolitan. Liberalism sees the US as the enemy of the world, and it is doing everything possible to destroy the US, hence its support of illegal immigration.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 24, 2006 08:18 AM (rUyw4)

12 I am more concerned over the security issuses involved in allowing one of our (ex?)sworn enemies entry into the country. I do not financially suport Yale. I have higher expectations for my government than I do forn some private institution. His visa should be withdrawn immediately by the State Departmentr. Wait maybe that is too harsh lol we should perhaps keep him out AT LEAST UNTIL THE WAR AGAINST THE TALIBAN IS OVER l

Posted by: john Ryan at April 24, 2006 08:35 AM (TcoRJ)

13 If you pay taxes, John Ryan, you support Yale, whether you know it or not. It would be interesting to know how much government aid Yale receives in a year, and I include government student loans and grants as being supportive of an institution, whether public or private. The money still goes to the institution and helps support it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 24, 2006 09:48 AM (rUyw4)

14 john ryan: They're not idiots. It's too easy to just write them off as idiots or say, "What were they thinking?" It was not idiocy. They knew what they were doing. And I want to know who it was. Bluot: You're right, but this "culture of contempt" has bled over into our government by elite college graduates who adopt government careers and those who get in cahoots with government employees through professional connections. We know that some turd out west (I don't have time to look him up) took on this idea of getting Hashemi in on a student visa. So he uses his connections to ask around for help and someone tells him, "Hey, I have a connection at the State Department," and bingo! favors are done and everyone's on the hush-hush. We've been asleep at the wheel for far too long and now we're seeing the bitter fruits of it.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 10:16 AM (f70+e)

15 Bluot? er... Bluto.

Posted by: Oyster at April 24, 2006 10:31 AM (f70+e)

16 Not sure if anyone caught this but it seems perfectly inline that the Chinese pres wrapped up his trip with a tour of Yale as well. Yale spreading the love around to terrorist and commies!

Posted by: tomb at April 24, 2006 09:00 PM (FqhsP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 21, 2006

Danish Supermodel Arrested

Danish supermodel May Andersen has been arrested for assaulting a flight attendant. Fox News:

Danish supermodel May Andersen has been arrested for hitting a flight attendant on a flight from Amsterdam to Miami, police said.
Airport police arrested the woman when the flight landed. She continued her unruly behavior with officers, police said.

Obviously, Andersen can be dangerous, but the mug shot below isn't a particularly good likeness. Therefore, as a public service, The Jawa Report has uncovered some other pictures of Andersen to aid concerned citizens in identifying her and taking appropriate precautions.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 04:30 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

April 15, 2006

This One is Truly Unhinged

The Washington Post profiles one of the folks who bring us those shrieking lefty emo blogs:

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

Unfortunately for America, the Democratic party is pandering to loons just like Maryscott O'Connor, who writes for DailyKos (of course) and her own blog, My Left Wing.

Also unfortunately, writer David Finkel can't resist shading the truth (this is, after all, the Washington Post):

Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack.

Translation: now that the liberal mainstream media deathgrip on "the truth" has been loosened by talk radio, Fox News, and the right lobe of the blogosphere, liberals find that they can't handle the truth.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:01 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Isn't it sweet when 2 moonbats are in the same room. The electricity is in the air I tells ya. David Finkel & Maryscott O'Conner are just the cutest things. If she feels that way about Catholics, how does she feel about Evangelicals? Now that would be a fun read. I love the "IT'S ALL THE CONSERVATIVES FAULT WERE A BUNCH OF HATE FILLED LOONS" tag the WashCompost wrote in there.

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at April 15, 2006 01:39 AM (blNMI)

2 I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton. But hey, the end of his term were my college days so maybe I just missed all of the right-wing protests on university grounds over Conservative pundits giving speeches, military recruiters over a law signed into effect by President Clinton, calling Clinton a liar over intelligence related to one of many military campaigns he waged (Trivia: Clinton sent the U.S. military to more nations than any president since WW II), any program he pushed or any of that other garbage. I thought the quote of that entire article was when she said she's almost insane. Lady, you've passed that marker long ago. And don't you love how the picture shows here in, what else, her pajamas?

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 02:02 AM (vKISv)

3 "Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite." Ahem. When the Democrats held the majority there was no where near the anger and petty bickering from their political counterparts. Conservatives didn't crucify their judicial candidates, they didn't go on marches carrying signs saying "Clinton=Hitler", they didn't oppose every piece of legislation that came down the pipe without having an alternative plan, etc. And the left was comparatively polite? hahaha. Polite in the way an animal is if you keep feeding it meat. 40 years of owning the government and then losing it sent them in a tailspin I wonder if they'll ever recover from. Not that the Republicans aren't heading down the same path of complacency, but let's be honest; these two people wouldn't know the truth if you slapped them with it.

Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 04:19 AM (YudAC)

4 How can anyone be so stupid as to find equivalence between the spirited grumbling from certain quarters during dhimmicrap administrations, and the unhinged lunacy of the leftards at all times?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:53 AM (0yYS2)

5 >>>Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. Even back in my Lib days in the early 80s I can recall how we used to call conservatives "fascists". I suppose that is "comparatively polite" compared to some of the things Lefties are saying nowadays.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 07:52 AM (8e/V4)

6 was she smoking that cigarette INSIDE!!!!!

Posted by: Cindy at April 15, 2006 07:53 AM (N22Ci)

7 I hope she keeps smoking...the sooner her brain will be fried completely and then become sooo nonrelevant. Curious though what kind of cigerette? Regular tobacco or some other variety....

Posted by: Debby at April 15, 2006 08:48 AM (j3bQ5)

8 M.A.: "The fact that the Washington Post could look at the incredible variety and diversity of the left blogsophere, and focus only on the "angry left," just shows how clueless and right-wing the Post has become . . . " Oh, so you're an idiot too. I get it now. All joking aside, and that was a joke, you make a valid point in that the article is not exactly a puff piece. But to conclude Michelle Malking is as comparatively unhinged in anger as even the bloggers highlighted by the WaPo is right out of left field. Further more, to conclude the WaPo is right-wing . . . I am just speechless really.

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 15, 2006 09:11 AM (vKISv)

9 M.A. Nice try. The article tried to justify Maryscott's anger. It was not a fluff piece for the Right. It actually "Softened" the truth which is that Maryscott isn't angry but that she is an obsessive hate-filled blogger who wakes up hating GWB - she is pathetic. As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate?

Posted by: chez diva at April 15, 2006 09:57 AM (zmJNe)

10 As for the anger toward President Clinton - you're kidding right? President Bush wakes up every day to being called a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country and the list goes on and on. Can you actually tell me that Clinton was subjected to this level of hate? The answer is yes, all the time -- and not by obscure online people but by people in government and the conservative media. They called him "a liar, a traitor, an idiot who is destroying this country" and more, every single day. Do a usenet search, or start with this Glenn Greenwald post, or read Byron York's article on the decline of the American Spectator during the Clinton years. Hatred of Bush does not begin to compare to the foam-flecked hatred of Clinton.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:25 AM (Gv+sz)

11 Drinking non-alcohol beer in the morning? That's her real problem.

Posted by: Fred Fry at April 15, 2006 10:39 AM (HJnrm)

12 As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war; it recently ran an editorial defending Bush's leaks against Joe Wilson (an editorial which contradicted the facts in the court filings and in its own news reporting). The Washington Post is a conservative paper now, not surprising considering that its editor is conservative and its publisher is growing more conservative.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 10:40 AM (Gv+sz)

13 So now we know that when Leftwingers accuse conservatives of being "angry" and filled with "hate", they are just projecting. Same thing when they constantly accuse Bush of "lying." They're looking at themselves in the mirror, for how many times have we busted these Leftwingers in outright lies and distortions, not to mention sheer ignorance of the plain facts.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 10:41 AM (8e/V4)

14 M.A. I read the article you directed me to and I can't find anything that can be compared to the screams of "Bush Lied, People Died". I don't doubt that Clinton did have his "haters" but they pale in comparison to the Bush "haters" such as the WaPo and NY Times journalist and editors who have declared open season on Bush. Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous. If anything can be learned about the Media with regards to Clinton is that they loved him and protected him. If it wasn't for Drudge breaking the Monica story then "we the people" would never ever have learned about it. The NY Times and other news outlets where mum. They didn't come forward with the story until it was already out and they were embarrassed to have been scooped by some internet guy/journalist.

Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:00 AM (zmJNe)

15 M.A. You wrote: "As for the Post being right-wing: the Post supported the Iraq war and the Alito nomination; it still supports the principles of the "Bush Doctrine" of unprovoked war;" So are you saying that if you support one or more of the items above it is an indication that one leans toward the political "right wing"? If so then: President Clinton is "right-wing" he led not one but two "unprovoked wars" in Bosnia and Kosovo - no one attacked us and neither one was sanctioned by the UN. However the Left and the Media didn't question Clinton's motives for an unprovoked war but they are all over Bush for what is a legitimate, legal and provoked war. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other Democrats supported the Iraq War that Bush prosecuted with UN approval - the Iraq War resulted from Hussein thumbing his nose at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and others dating back to the early 1990's. So does that make Sen. Clinton and other Democrats who voted for the Iraq War - "right wingers"?

Posted by: chez Diva at April 15, 2006 11:14 AM (zmJNe)

16 Please point me to articles that question Clinton's capacity to lead during war time, or instances where his actions were called traitorous. - Statements made by Republicans during the Kosovo action. Also, as Jonathan Chait wrote: " The Clinton haters, on the other hand, drew from the highest ranks of the Republican Party and the conservative intelligentsia. Bush's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, was involved with The American Spectator's "Arkansas Project," which used every conceivable method--including paying sources--to dig up dirt from Clinton's past. Mainstream conservative pundits, such as William Safire and Rush Limbaugh, asserted that Vince Foster had been murdered, and GOP Government Reform Committee Chairman Dan Burton attempted to demonstrate this theory forensically by firing a shot into a dummy head in his backyard." There is simply nothing among mainstream Democrats to compare with the insane, unhinged Clinton hatred of the Republicans in Congress. As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues, yet the unhinged right attacked him as if he were some sort of left-winger, and the mainstream media followed suit. Because the mainstream media has a conservative bias, and has had one ever since the '80s at least.

Posted by: M.A. at April 15, 2006 11:41 AM (Gv+sz)

17 MA, you seem like an intelligent sort, but you're coming off as mentally ill, or simply a dishonest propagandist. The WaPo rightwing? Please, this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess, and as someone who, evidently unlike you, is old enough to remember what went on during the Clinton years, comparing the criticism (mostly self-inflicted) that Clinton heard with a BLOGGER BEING MENTIONED IN THE WAPO FOR WISHING CANCER ON BUSH - well, you need therapy, dude. Soon.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 15, 2006 12:45 PM (RHG+K)

18 >>>this article is AN APOLOGY for leftwing excess, It shows how deranged the Left has become when even an apology for their excesses comes off as an indictment.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 15, 2006 12:58 PM (8e/V4)

19 It shows the Left to be mentally ill, which is where this particular commenter posting under the name M.A. is. The next thing you know, he will accuse dKos of being a flaming neocon. Good grief, M.A., you strained at a gnat, and swollowed a camel.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 01:15 PM (rUyw4)

20 MA is actually correct on many points. There most definitely was an intense Clinton hatred among some on the Right in the 90's but I don't recall it ever being as widespread or as loud. Perhaps if as many folks had access to the internet and blogs, etc. back then... Today, BDS manifests itself in everything from popular films to television to music. One cannot escape the constant reminders that our President is an unelected warmongering stupid chimp, blah, blah, blah. It really is tiresome. Clinton hatred, on the other hand, was (with the exception of some talk radio) nowhere near as ubiquitous. Yes, there were the "Arkancide" theorists (Foster, Brown, etc) and copied VHS cassettes passed around that purported to show President Clinton had a private airstrip to smuggle cocaine, etc. But that anti-Clinton stuff was like really hardcore "prOn"--you had to know where to look and then you had to go get it. Maybe like "prOn", the widespread use of the 'Net today makes it seem like there's more President bashing but I think it's real and it's even worse than the Reagan years when I lived in Ithaca, NY, and Madison, WI, where he was not well liked, to put it mildly. Our profs had us convinced he would blow up the planet. MA is also right that the piece on the 'blogger is sensationalistic and unfair to the thoughtful Lefties out there. But that's the nature on the MSM. But MA, there is no way that WaPo is a 'right wing' paper. It maybe more button down preppie than it's bohemian sister, the NYT, but it is still 'center left' on it's most conservative day.

Posted by: JDB at April 15, 2006 01:19 PM (gHLyo)

21 M.A., just pray that I don't find you when the time of retribution comes, because you and your kind, along with the muslims and other anti-American scum, won't last long then.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 02:49 PM (0yYS2)

22 I don't know whether to laugh or cry at M.A. insuating more than once that A) WaPo is "right-wing" and B) the media is conservative. And then: "As for whether Clinton is "right wing" for what he did -- sure! Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president in decades, particularly on national-security issues" Now I'm laughing. Dude! Did you just wake up from a 15 year coma?

Posted by: Oyster at April 15, 2006 05:23 PM (YudAC)

23 Did he wake from a coma? No, he just ate a mushroom that he found growing in his laundry hamper.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 15, 2006 06:52 PM (0yYS2)

24 IM, I think M.A. ate some of those mushrooms that grow in cow manure. How else can you explain all the BS coming from he/she/it?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 15, 2006 09:23 PM (rUyw4)

25 This is a test - I've tried to post here three times tonight - but can't seem to - just don't want to waste my time writing my thoughts again if it won't post - this seems to be an ongoin g problem with righty sites - must be the VRWC!

Posted by: Zeus at April 16, 2006 01:49 AM (vlreT)

26 Hey Zeus, you should write in Notepad or something, then transfer it, or you could just hit the back button on your browser if you get an error message. I don't know what it is, but this site has lots of comment problems.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 16, 2006 07:27 AM (0yYS2)

27 I don't recall there being a vocal Right that was calling for the public lynching of President Clinton. So did you have your head fully up your ass during the 1990s, or were you just in a persistent vegetative state back then?

Posted by: ned fucking flanders at April 16, 2006 04:16 PM (XEZ3U)

28 I was calling for the lynching of Billary, along with every other leftard moron, and I still am.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 17, 2006 05:48 AM (0yYS2)

29 I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $11685. Isn't that crazy!

Posted by: Betsy Markum at May 23, 2006 08:03 AM (F1CfC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 03, 2006

Scientist Wants to Kill 90% of People on Earth

(Beaumont, Texas) At the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a University of Texas ecology and lizard expert, was named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist. Pianka then gave a speech saying people are ruining the planet and advocating the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. A fellow scientist attended and reported. Here's an excerpt.

AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."

I'm thinking that a person named Eric Pianka should not be teaching young impressionable minds about science or anything else. Follow the link. More here.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 10:03 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

1 geez-where's the love and humanity. If he's such a great scientist why can't he think of a more humane way of limiting the population. Don't have to have a science degree to know germs and chemicals kill. How about limiting the birth rate-in undeveloped countries. They don't want so many kids anyway-they're just bored and pass the time getting their rocks off.

Posted by: splashtc at April 03, 2006 10:14 AM (zlay8)

2 That makes sense. Just about the percentage of slaves killed by communists. Politbureau in USSR was about 7%.

Posted by: Chief RZ at April 03, 2006 10:19 AM (iNTGz)

3 If you're "young and impressionable" past 16, you're going to be a gullible idiot as an adult. Don't give the younger generation a pass by saying they're just "young and impressionable." That passed years before college started, and before high school ended. You know, all those years you were sending them to our exemplary public schools. So no, they aren't "young and impressionable," they're just at the tail end of a manufacturing process to make fools. And an unprecidentedly successful process, too. Too bad the vast majority of them are also too stupid to care about voting.

Posted by: MiB at April 03, 2006 10:19 AM (2hPsb)

4 That this man is teaching at a public university in the state of Texas after advocating such a thing as the murder of 5 billion people shows how corrupt our educational system is. Fire the bastard and anyone who supports that kind of genocide. They have no inherent right to work for the public while advocating the murder of over 10 million Texans and 250,000,000 Americans. And if you see him in person, beat the shit out of his sorry ass.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 03, 2006 10:37 AM (rUyw4)

5 Yup. Human beings as exalted among God's creation is a Biblical and judeo-christian concept. While to Lefties, humans are no higher than cats and dogs-- and worse, a virus on the surface of this planet (see Agent Smith's monologue). Expect the "man as virus" view to become more and more predominant as society becomes more secularized and sheds its judeo-christian roots.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 10:54 AM (8e/V4)

6 >>>>geez-where's the love and humanity. It's ironic that the biblical view that places God on a pedestal also serves to raise men's stature in the universe, while the humanist view that raises Man onto a pedestal reduces men's stature in the universe.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 10:58 AM (8e/V4)

7 WOW !! 90% !! Is that more than is called for in the Book of Revelations ? Is this a foretelling of the end times ? He sounds more to me like a Christian doomsdayer than a scientist. Repent Repent the end is near. Check World Net Daily for future warnings http://worldnetdaily.com/

Posted by: john Ryan at April 03, 2006 11:36 AM (TcoRJ)

8 The book of Revelations doesn't "call" for mass extermination-- it merely predicts it. A qualitative difference, no?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 11:45 AM (8e/V4)

9 WOW !! 90% !! Is that more than is called for in the Book of Revelations ? That kind of distortion--whether willful, or out of pure ignorance--is almost obscene. That's why discussing anything having to do with religion with Leftwingers is such an exercise in futility. In virtually all cases, they simply are too ignorant, or too dishonest (or both).

Posted by: dcb at April 03, 2006 12:01 PM (8e/V4)

10 I know Pianka from U.T. and also because I ran Cattle and he runs Bison on neighboring ranches. He is an odd one. He struck a friend of mine who had been his graduate student over a minor dispute. I always heard that the U.N also desires a massive reduction in population. Can anyone confirm this about the U.N.?

Posted by: Greg at April 03, 2006 12:13 PM (q5wwn)

11 Apparently this idiot doesn't realize Ebola burns out way to quick to be an efficient killer of people on his scale, even with mutations. I think maybe he believes in the Gaia Hypothesis, and hopes his goddess will purge humanity.

Posted by: Thunder Pig at April 03, 2006 12:18 PM (PW/DE)

12 Christianity "raises man up"? Like in the Dark Ages, right? I think you're trying to steal credit there.

Posted by: MiB at April 03, 2006 12:19 PM (2hPsb)

13 Thunder Pig, like most ignorant people, this guy probably got his information from the movie 'Outbreak'.

Posted by: slug at April 03, 2006 12:21 PM (wYW63)

14 >>>Like in the Dark Ages, right? Wrong. The fall of the Roman Empire caused the Dark Ages, not christianity. In fact, Christian monasteries were the sole repositories of knowledge during the Dark Ages. But even with your Dark Ages comment you demonstrate some of that ignorance dcb was referring to. You attempt to adress my statement about christian theology with a lamebrained response about Western history. But your response actually shows how weak your grasp of history is-- not to mention how nonexistent your knowledge of christian theology is. You Lefties simply aren't equipped for an intelligent dialogue on the subject.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 03, 2006 12:30 PM (8e/V4)

15 mib, your Dark Ages comment was a non-sequitor response if I've ever heard one (and evidence of either your ignorance or your intellectual dishonesty). The sins of the church (whether real or just imagined) have no little or no relation to christian theology or the judeo christian worldview.

Posted by: dcb at April 03, 2006 12:44 PM (8e/V4)

16 MiB what is your stinking problem? Do you hate your mother? Scientist that want to kill 90% of the humans on earth would be given a medal by the United Nations.

Posted by: Leatherneck at April 03, 2006 03:39 PM (D2g/j)

17 Pianka was just on an Austin local news channel. He is going to be on MSNBC tomorrow morning. He is claiming that an intellectual rival has misquoted him in a smear campaign.

Posted by: Greg at April 03, 2006 05:12 PM (q5wwn)

18 Of the 400 scientist that gave Mr Pianka a standing ovation, do they realise that under his plan only 40 would live? Or were they thinking that they would be in the 10%? Would Mr Pianka be so kind as to lead the way and be the first to contract the "cure"?

Posted by: Reid at April 03, 2006 05:56 PM (Zwsx5)

19 He's probably right. Insane too but correct.

Posted by: Howie at April 03, 2006 07:52 PM (D3+20)

20 MiB, I am 16 and , trust me, you do not want most of the people in my generation voting. Many idiots at my school think that drilling for oil kills animals and global warming will kill us all and that type of BS. It is actually a blessing in disguise that most of the 18-20 year olds do not vote. Many of them believe everything the MSM tells them, they are, for the most part, brainwashed.

Posted by: Craig at April 03, 2006 08:50 PM (b3fZv)

21 Another radical lizard loving eco-freak he and PETER SINGER and PAUL ERLITCH are the same type of zero populationists freaks that are extremists

Posted by: sandpiper at April 03, 2006 09:46 PM (uTBPj)

22 Damn I live in Beaumont and would have went to this if I'd known about it. Could have really had some fun with this ol boy ... at his expense! He is as bad as the Islamophuqenuts ... just from the other side of the planet. But when I really think about he's worse since he is an American citizen and teaching our children. God save us all ... or at least more than 10% of us!

Posted by: jack at April 03, 2006 10:30 PM (aitZQ)

23 Have you read the TOM CLANCY book RAINBOW SIX? its about radical enviromentalists along with a wealthy eco-freak who want to create a deadly virus to wipe out the entire human race and then watch the rewilding of the earth from their specialy encloser this extremists would fit right in

Posted by: sandpiper at April 04, 2006 08:14 AM (A09bm)

24 sandpiper, that isn't the stuff of fiction. Humanism has indeed reduced us to the status of vermin on this planet. Without a religious worldview to give us inherent worth, these nihilists are free to reduce men to the status of meat puppets just taking up space. That's humanism for you. Â“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.Â” ~~Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 04, 2006 08:48 AM (WCwrR)

25 Greg, Yes, the U.N. has a statute (or charter orplan or whatever it's called at the U.N.) that says once the world hits a certain population level it would that they should cut off all support to countries under a certain level of economic and industrial development, reallocating food to the chosen few nations, letting the others starve. Can't remember what it's called, but a buddy found it one time while searching the U.N.'s site for something else a few years back. We haven't been able to find it since. I'll search for it again.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at April 04, 2006 02:16 PM (GyNTD)

26 MiB, I'm an atheist, and even I'll admit that it was the Church that saved civilization and brought Europe back from the brink of barbarism, despite what many corrupt clerics did. Just because you don't like history doesn't mean that it didn't happen as it did.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 04, 2006 04:42 PM (0yYS2)

27 If by some miracle the Arab/Muslim world is victorious against this secular/atheistic influence of the NWO agenda is reduced to such a level as to allow the Christian West to regain its foothold where it once stood, it will be necessary to credit the religion of Islam and the Arab world for not buckling under in the face of attempted extermination. And it will be we, the Christian West and Western Civilization, who will be the beneficiaries of Â“Islamic Extremism.Â”

Posted by: TO improbulus maximus at April 06, 2006 10:17 AM (zqsRN)

28 That's the worst, most stupid attempt at apologetics I've ever heard. I'm going have to stop admitting to being an atheist because almost every other atheist I meet is a complete, raving idiot, and I don't want to be stigmatized by association.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 07, 2006 06:25 AM (0yYS2)

29 LOL, I.M.!

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at April 07, 2006 02:32 PM (tdhAh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 01, 2006

ACLU Sues in Support of 'Creative' 'Non-Threatening' Student Poet

From First Coast News in Brunswick, Georgia:

ROME, GA (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia filed a federal lawsuit Monday against Murray County schools for expelling an eighth-grader for writing a poem on school violence.
The student, whose name was not released, was suspended and expelled last year after he showed a notebook full of poems to his English teacher, according to an ACLU statement.
"Kids are being raised in a society where there are violent images around them, not just in movies but in the news," said ACLU attorney Beth Littrell. "Their writing may reflect that and the school should not be punishing them for their creative expression unless it's truly threatening."

The poem is not included in the story, but Jay at Stop the ACLU received the poem in question in an email: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:11 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but this kind of poetry for a child denotes a psychological problem. He's what, 13 or 14? How will the ACLU plead the case? That he has a right to express himself and leave it at that? He needs help.

Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 07:23 AM (YudAC)

2 As long as he's contributing to the downfall of civilization in some small way, they'll back him. Liberals all need killing.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 01, 2006 08:01 AM (0yYS2)

3 And any person who would defend this little creep needs help, too. The ACLU, well, I think IM pointed out the motivation of that organization. Destroy society as we know it and remake it into what? It boggles the mind.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 08:57 AM (rUyw4)

4 in high school i've written some stuff in when I was in a funk or depressed mood.. (and who hasn't gotten depressed a time or two in high school) but NEVER turned it in as an assignment.. I would hope to think that most other students could use disern that too.. if they can't or if that is the tamest poem that kid turned in, then yes, he/she could use help or a 'safe' place to talk..

Posted by: The Other Dave at April 01, 2006 08:58 AM (W0Vif)

5 Since when is school instruction limited to the 3 R's? The teaching of acceptable societal behavior and limits (threats are not acceptable or tolerable)should be supported by legal standards not reproached by them.

Posted by: justa at April 01, 2006 09:41 AM (XU9K/)

6 Imagine what would happen if someone had tried to intervene months prior with that pair in Columbine. Same story I suppose. "Truly threatening"???? Truly??? How does one quantify that?

Posted by: hondo at April 01, 2006 10:51 AM (StM4D)

7 I taught Jr. High, and I can't imagine any of my students writing something like that. It's simply not age-appropriate "creative expression." I hope the teachers aren't so LLL that they won't oppose this kids' re-admission.

Posted by: amyc at April 01, 2006 02:10 PM (d4MD5)

8 ugh apostrophe fault

Posted by: amyc at April 01, 2006 02:11 PM (d4MD5)

9 Destroy society as we know it and remake it into what? A feudal, hegemonic, communist dystopia, ran by the party, of course. I've read Marx, Lenin, et al, and the unifying theme in all their works is that Western civilization must be destroyed and replaced with a "workers paradise", wherein the few live in parasitic splendor off of the labor of the many, with no way for one of the many to become one of the few. In short, communism is a twisted form of feudalism. Socialists and muslims are the blood enemies of civilization, and must be killed if we're going to save it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 02, 2006 07:43 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 31, 2006

McKinney Lawyer Plays Race Card

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON (AP) Â— A lawyer for Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer, says she was "just a victim of being in Congress while black."

I hate to burst McKinney's bubble, but white folk are not allowed to bypass security checkpoints without showing proper ID and assault police officers when questioned. I think she might be taking that old Eddie Murphy Saturday Night Live skit too seriously.

It seems apparent, however, that it should be legal for Americans to slap any Georgians who admit they voted for this imbecile.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:57 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I thank that great American Gomer Pyle said it best: Â“Surprise, Surprise, SurpriseÂ”

Posted by: Brad at March 31, 2006 05:19 PM (3OPZt)

2 Wow, no one saw that coming!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 31, 2006 06:06 PM (rUyw4)

3 When I was living in DC, I always thought it was amusing when blacks claimed racism. You know, the city IS black. Black Mayor, Black councilmen including drug addict former mayor Marion Barry, Black Chief of Police, Black policemen. Yet somehow racism is really imbedded into the system. So imbedded that even a black Government can't get rid of it. Well this was not an issue with the city but with the Capital police. So maybe they are not influnced by how black the city they work in is. If so, then how is it she is the ONLY one having problms? No, not with her hair, with the police. Next she will probably explain that the pin that she was suppossed to wear to identify her as a member of Congress is somehow racist too.

Posted by: Fred Fry at March 31, 2006 06:16 PM (HJnrm)

4 Exactly, all she had to do was wear the pin. But no, what she really wants is special treatment, not equal treatment. And this is what is at the crux of the problem. She should be censured by the full House, as she is a national disgrace.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 31, 2006 06:39 PM (rUyw4)

5 Don't worry, she'll hang with the liberals, muslims, and illegals when the time comes.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 31, 2006 07:07 PM (0yYS2)

6 I don't think the media mentioned the race of the security guard. They also didn't mention how long the guard has been on the job. If he was only on the job a day, and he's from Washington DC, how is he supposed to know the representative from Georgia? Also, if the security guard was white, there is the issue of cross-race identification. Blacks may not think it is an issue because caucasians have black, red, brown and blonde hair, and brown, green, hazel, and blue eyes, etc., and are easier to tell apart. Blacks, however, all have black hair and brown eyes and are harder to differentiate and recognize. To compound the situation, DC is 90-something percent black, with a mostly black government and education system, so that poor guard has to tell thousands of blacks apart.

Posted by: Mark James at March 31, 2006 07:07 PM (d9zjj)

7 Please don't blame all Georgians for McKinney, she only represents part of Atlanta, which really isn't Georgia at all.

Posted by: Rob at March 31, 2006 10:17 PM (nbWZD)

8 It is laughable to see a US Congressperson behave in such an uncouth, rude, and unprofessional manner!!! Apparently the job has "gone to her head," and McKinney thinks herself the veritable "Queen of Sheeba"....well, or at least Capitol Hill!!! Ha, ha! Of course, she already came out in a news conference today saying that "it was a black thing" (and I had thought her a rabid, feminist, white, Democrat, until I saw her picture! LOL!) And you just know that Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jessy Jackson, and all those other "Welfare Pimp" Irreverents(...Oops! I meant "Reverends") are going to vehemently agree with her, and make of this incedent (caused by her being a "snobbish, entitled, bitch," in any color) a "racial" issue!!! It would be pathetic if it wasn't so funny! LOL! Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 01, 2006 12:18 AM (Ffvoi)

9 I wonder what some idiot liberal thought they were going to accomplish by posting my e-mail address, as if it wasn't already on every post? Jesus H., liberals are stupid. I should post my address as that of the city dump, and listen for news reports of gargabe men being stalked and assaulted by people wearing tin-foil hats.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 01, 2006 06:40 AM (0yYS2)

10 What has she done for her constituents besides introducing controversial legislation for a criminal rapper and make a fuss at entries to governmental buildings? McKinney has a real chip on her shoulder and it didn't just get there recently.

Posted by: Oyster at April 01, 2006 07:20 AM (YudAC)

11 CORRECTION:........"just a victim of being a member of congress while being...........STUPID, MEAN-SPIRITED RACIST, and AMERICA HATING........"

Posted by: n.a. palm at April 01, 2006 07:41 AM (bRzBw)

12 McKinney has been known to be a crackpot for years, and why blacks and liberal whites in Atlanta would elect this idiot is beyond me. Suffice it to say they are getting the representation they deserve.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 09:28 AM (rUyw4)

13 McKinney is a joke - symptomatic of the community that sent her to Congress. She made a fool of herself in the past - lost her seat - then simply changed addresses to win another. Her constituents deserve her.

Posted by: hondo at April 01, 2006 10:58 AM (StM4D)

14 Decisions, decisions. On which side would she have guards error? Is it better to error on the side of caution injuring her fragile ego, or to allow a terrorist who looks vaguely familiar to bypass the checkpoint and give her the special treatment she has richly earned?

Posted by: Dave at April 01, 2006 12:02 PM (RgQmG)

15 That crazy bitch has been good comedy for years. But don't kid yourself. She has an agenda, just not much tact. And as assinine as she appears, she is smart. Me thinks the blacks in congress were looking for a way to take attention away from the mexican protests and bring the focus back to the "black thing". Remember, she was the jackass who was willing to take the money that Rudy G. turned down from the Arabian Sheik (sp)? And, she is a second generation nut case. Her dad is and old scholl racist with a particular distain for jews. He blamed jews for her previous loss in her re-election bid 4 + years ago. Publicly and with a straight face. But facts are, she did not have on her pin, and it is as much her responsability to make sure the gaurds know she is a non-threat, (personally I think she is more dangerous than UBL), She screwed up. Turn her over to the House for discplinary action.

Posted by: Kstumpf at April 01, 2006 01:34 PM (Fvuu/)

16 That crazy bitch has been good comedy for years. But don't kid yourself. She has an agenda, just not much tact. And as assinine as she appears, she is smart. Me thinks the blacks in congress were looking for a way to take attention away from the mexican protests and bring the focus back to the "black thing". Remember, she was the jackass who was willing to take the money that Rudy G. turned down from the Arabian Sheik (sp)? And, she is a second generation nut case. Her dad is and old school racist with a particular distain for jews. He blamed jews for her previous loss in her re-election bid 4 + years ago. Publicly and with a straight face. But facts are, she did not have on her pin, and it is as much her responsability to make sure the gaurds know she is a non-threat, (personally I think she is more dangerous than UBL), She screwed up. Turn her over to the House for discplinary action.

Posted by: Kstumpf at April 01, 2006 01:35 PM (Fvuu/)

17 DC is about 65% black, not 90%. McKinney is loopy, and her dad is an anti-semite. On the other hand, many white members do not wear their pins, and don't get hassled. The crossracial identification problem is real, as one poster pointed out. But let's put this in perspective--the Vice President SHOOTS SOMEONE IN THE FACE accidentally, and no one here thought of charging him with negligence, etc. Despite the admitted presence of alcohol, he kept quiet, avoided an investigation for 14 hours. For all anyone here knows, he was drunk when he shot his friend in broad daylight. McKinney hit/tapped a cop in the chest with a cellphone. No blood. No injury. No hospital. No ambulance. No delay in notifying police. McKinney is, as I said, loopy. But let's keep some perspective in calling for her arrest, expulsion, etc. JD

Posted by: jd at April 01, 2006 02:23 PM (uT71O)

18 Oh, and one more thing--Cheney was hunting illegally--ie, without a license. If you or I shot someone while hunting wihtout a license...well, we'd have a lot more problems than Cheney did. I'd say that is at least as bad as not wearing your pin...Cheney apologized, and paid the 10 bucks retroactively. Next time you shoot someone at close range while hunting, see if you can get that kind of treatment. If McKinney is asking for special treatment, she surely is not alone in that.

Posted by: jd at April 01, 2006 02:27 PM (uT71O)

19 QUOTE: CORRECTION:........"just a victim of being a member of congress while being a..........STUPID, MEAN-SPIRITED RACIST, and AMERICA HATING........" Posted by n.a. palm at April 1, 2006 07:41 AM Kudos n.a.palm!!! Coudn't have been said better! Of course, as she claims in her conflicting allegations, this is either "a black thing" and or about "police brutality"! Take your pick. I wonder if perhaps they should require IQ tests of all prospective candidates for Congress and the Senate! LOL However, I wouldn't be surprised if McKinney would be outraged at such a proposal, alleging it "discriminates blacks"!!! LOL! What a moron in any color....even "Technicolor"! Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 01, 2006 04:53 PM (Ffvoi)

20 QUOTE: I'd say that is at least as bad as not wearing your pin...Cheney apologized, and paid the 10 bucks retroactively. Next time you shoot someone at close range while hunting, see if you can get that kind of treatment. If McKinney is asking for special treatment, she surely is not alone in that. Posted by: jd at April 1, 2006 02:27 PM LMAO! Another "Bash Bush" McKinney apologist! Sure, she deserves special treatment too! Next time, let McKinney shoot the Officer in the face, then go register the gun, apologize, and pay the $10 fee on her "Honky Hunting License"... retroactively, like Cheney did. Fair enough?!?! Hah, hah, hah!!! It just keep getting more ridiculous! Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 01, 2006 05:06 PM (Ffvoi)

21 jd, I've never heard of anyone being charged with a crime for a clearly accidental shooting. And no delay in McKinney notifying police, are you a complete idiot? Hell, man, it was a policeman she hit. And negligence in itself is not a crime. If that were so, we would all be in jail, because we have all been negligent about something in our lives. Geez, man, what the hell?

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 07:17 PM (rUyw4)

22 You've never heard of someone being charged with a crime for an accidental shooting? You don't read all that much, do you? Accidental shootings keep a lot of courts really busy. Took me about 2 seconds to find one case online, dozens more were available. Before you say something, try and find out if it is even within a country mile of true. Also, duh, negligence is a crime in most states--in others, they use a different word, but the same concept applies. **** Madison man will spend 18 months in prison for the accidental shooting death of a 17-year-old girl. Tamis Bolden was sentenced Thursday morning in Dane County Court, WISC-TV reported. Bolden was showing his new gun to Sara Ouk in her west Madison home last July when it went off and she was killed. Bolden emotionally apologized to Ouk's family in court on Thursday. "I'm sorry; I'm so sorry," Bolden said. "I see your tears; it hurts my heart." Thursday the victim's sister, Sarrut Ouk, spoke about the loss. "The pain is too powerful to try to hold it in or set it to the side," she said. "Sara is gone, and she's not coming back." Bolden will also serve five years extended supervision

Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 12:09 AM (uT71O)

23 Here's what a law looks like:684.03 Reckless or Careless Use of Guns. No person shall use, employ or discharge any gun in a reckless or careless manner or so as to endanger the life or property of another. Let's be clear--I'm not saying that I think Cheney should have been charged. That's beyond my info and expertise. I'm saying that of the two allegations, McKinney's and Cheney's, Cheney's is by FAR the more serious. I'd put it on a continuum--Chappaquiddick way over here, McKinney way over on the other side, and Cheney in the middle.

Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 07:06 AM (uT71O)

24 Here's the criminal negligence law in CT--as I said, almost all states have one. Again, I'm not claiming that Cheney should be charged with criminal negligence--I'm saying it is a common crime, it is worth investigating, and the fact that he didn't report it for hours meant that we will never know if he was inebriated when he shot his friend in the face at close range. Just ask yourself--if this were Al Gore, and it were 1999...wouldn't you be suspicious of a coverup? If you were one of the Vince Foster conspiracy theory enthusiasts--well, I don't see how you could not want an investigation of Cheney with this fact pattern. ''A person acts with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.'' Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive the risk must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable man; thus, it requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence. The standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant is the doing of something that a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances or omitting to do what a reasonably prudent person would not do under the circumstances. A gross deviation is a great or substantial deviation, not just a slight or moderate deviation. There must be a great or substantial difference between, on the one hand, the defendant's conduct in failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and, on the other hand, what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. Whether the risk is substantial and unjustifiable is a question of fact for you to determine under the circumstances. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person.

Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 11:15 AM (uT71O)

25 Well, now, jd, if you use the Ct. statute you quoted, then the man shot by Cheney might be guilty of that. After all, he walked right up to a guy about to discharge a shotgun. But again, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. You are trying to equate something that is accidental to something that was clearly intentional and looks to be a criminal assualt. If you can't see the difference, please, you need some help.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 02, 2006 02:03 PM (rUyw4)

26 I agree intentionality separates the two situations. I never suggested otherwise. So does the gravity of the outcomes, and the level of knowledge we have about them. I'll accept that you now realize that accidental shootings ARE, in fact, treated as criminal some of the time? I'll also assume that you now realize that negligence, contra your earlier claim, is in fact a crime? They are, of course, different situations. And there are principled liberals who said, you know what? this shit is crazy, that McKinney is using the race card (there's an excellent one linked on Andrewsullivan.com). But pretending that tapping someone's chest with a cellphone is more serious than nearly killing someone? Or that one requires charges, and the other does not even require investigation? Who needs help here, again?

Posted by: jd at April 02, 2006 07:02 PM (uT71O)

27 QUOTE: But pretending that tapping someone's chest with a cellphone is more serious than nearly killing someone? Or that one requires charges, and the other does not even require an investigation? Who needs help here, again? Posted by jd at April 2, 2006 07:02 PM Who needs help here??? You do, moron!!! An "accident," is not an "act of aggression": "battery"!!! Cheney's hunting accident was investigated by the local authorities when it occurred. And even the victim, who all along said it had been his fault for coming up without announcing himself, was appalled by how this "accident" was being "spinned" by the Media and their Left-wing Democratic demagogue "Masters," and said so publicly!!! And "assaulting" a police officer, even with a "little" "weeny," "tiny," "bitty" "tap" on the chest, after being hailed to stop by the officer as she "tip-toed through the tulips" to avoid the Security Checkpoint, is "ASSAULT" and does merit not only an "investigation," but that charges should be filed! You should seek Psychiatric help for those with "Loosing the Election in 2000 Denial Anxiety Syndrome." Apparently you suffer from the malady. Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 02, 2006 11:57 PM (Ffvoi)

28 JD, as a liberal and an idiot, (but then, I'm being redundant), you can't be expected to understand the intricacies of bird hunting. You see, when you're out in a field after birds, everyone is supposed to stay in line so that nobody steps into someone else's fire, like what happened to Whittington, who said that he was out of position, and that it was his fault. Of course Cheney, being a man of honor and integrity, i.e. a gentleman, (look it up), said it was his own fault because he was the one who pulled the trigger. They're both right, but since they're both men of some years, they can be forgiven their mistakes, even if the consequences were more dire, in the same manner that nobody makes a big deal about people who are too old to be driving around, and who represent a much greater danger to society at large than a couple of men on a quail hunt. It's just too bad they didn't flush Cindy Sheehan out there.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 03, 2006 07:01 AM (0yYS2)

29 I don't think I suffer from the 2000 syndrome, as I didn't vote for Gore that year--I voted libertarian. I also don't know how IM gleaned that I was a liberal from my post, although idiot may be an easier diagnosis. The immediate association of idiot with liberal is one that troubles me, though. Many, many liberals have been brilliant by any definition of the word. Agree or disagree with them, you end up looking pretty dumb if you can't see the ratiocinative brilliance of, say, Felix Franfurter, John Rawls, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., etc etc. Now, being brilliant does not mean someone is right. After all, Paul Wolfowitz is really smart, but his ideas on Iraq and his predictions have been shown to be quite wrong. I don't think it is helpful to label him an idiot because of that. I'm not a conservative, but there are many brilliant conservatives, who I read with respect and interest. Are you really convinced that liberal equals idiot? On EVERY issue? Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time! I was aware that the local authorities "looked into" the shooting. My point was that there was a substantial delay between the shooting and the notification of the authorities. If the VP was drinking after lunch (he admitted to drinking at lunch) he had enough time to get it out of his system. That concerns me. And again, next time you are hunting without a license, and you have been drinking, and you almost kill someone...you see if you get that kind of treatment.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 07:27 AM (uT71O)

30 And has it reached the point where we wish that our political enemies get shot? I don't agree with Cindy Sheehan on a lot of things, but I wouldn't cheer if she were shot in the head. I think her family has suffered enough bloodshed, don't you?

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 08:10 AM (uT71O)

31 jd, You have been suffiently eviserated, I suppose, but your suggestion that a criminal assault is somehow lesser of an offense than an accident gets our brains to going. And to defend such a proven aggressive racist as McKinney sure makes you look like an idiot liberal. Sorry, that's how it appears out here in the trenches. At least you didn't defend Teddy Kennedy, so I guess you can be rehabilitated.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 03, 2006 09:06 AM (rUyw4)

32 Joe--if your abilities at biblical exegesis equal your abilities at blog exegesis, I'm concerned about your immortal soul. Where did you get the idea I'm defending McKinney? I think I said she was loopy and hiding behind the race card. If you missed it, I just said it again. If that's defense, I'd hate to see what attack is. All I'm doing is putting it in perspective. I think the right way way way overreacted to the death of Vince Foster, and made a personal tragedy into a family and political nightmare with incessant disproved conspiracy theories. What I don't understand is how some of the same people can call for Cheney's rapid exoneration, even though the delay in the investigation is highly unusual and gives him a way of avoiding the alcohol test that would be standard if you or I did this. Furthermore--when put into the context of Cheney's accidental shooting, the INTENTIONAL tapping/hitting upon the chest of a police officer becomes much more likely to be seen in the appropriate light. I think this misunderstanding will be resolved without charges...and probably should be. McKinney is loopy, and in the wrong here. But criminal charges? Please. Get a grip. Just because you hate her is no reason to politicize the law. Down that road lies tyranny.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 12:55 PM (aqTJB)

33 I didn't defend McKinney. I said she was loopy. I also said playing the race card here is wrong. But I argued for perspective. Many on the right took the Vince Foster tragedy and investigated it way beyond the point of sanity, causing extraordinary pain to his family and friends. Yet when Cheney nearly kills someone, after drinking, while hunting without a license, and avoids a breathalyzer that you or I would have faced...no story there! So, compared to your calls for blood with McKinney, your lack of attention to Cheney calls into question your objectivity. But no, I'm not defending her.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 02:03 PM (aqTJB)

34 Sorry for overlapping comments! I thought I was getting censored when I didn't see the first comment, turns out I was looking at an old copy of the page.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 02:05 PM (aqTJB)

35 jd, c'mon, tell the truth and shame the Devil - you didn't vote for Gore because you weren't old enough to vote in 2000.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 03, 2006 02:49 PM (RHG+K)

36 It is so utterly absurd for anyone to resurrect that "dead horse" of a story of Cheney's hunting accident in order to "spin," and "justify" the latest tantrum of that uncouth, mean-spirited, racist, America-hating moron, McKinney!!! It is pitiful that such a "compulsive obsession" to bash, defame, and obstruct the Administration and its policies, is the only driving force of most Liberals, and the only "idea" the Democrats and their Left-wing Loony Masters can bring to the table; their only "comprehensive" agenda, in these most difficult times facing the nation!!! Damn terrorist threats, National Security, being overrun by swarms of illegal immigrants, or the looming nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, "let's bash Bush and Cheney"!!! That's the Democrat's only position, their greatest priority, and their "Contract with America"!!! Perhaps Vice President Cheney should be "Magnanimous," and setting aside all hard feelings about the vicious and unfair treatment he has often received at the hands of David Gregory; that poor excuse of a "White House Press Corp Piranha" for a journalist, who often scours the sewers of Washington, bottle in hand, for the least whiff of Â“effluentÂ” coming from the White House, and who made such a stink about Â“not having been told more promptly,Â” about such a Â“monumentalÂ” incident of Â“International repercussion,Â” in his opinion, as was CheneyÂ’s unfortunate but meaningless accident, and was responsible for making of it in the Media Â“much ado about nothing;Â” have the kindness to invite him, McKinney, and Cindy Sheehan, to go "Quail Hunting" with him one of these days in Texas....sort of Â“killing three birds with one stoneÂ”...and just make sure to carry an elephant gun with him this time, with cartridges packed with much bigger caliber pellets, instead of his usual 12 caliber and birdshot.... To think that if Cheney did this, he could not only do humanity a favor, and our country a great service, but could actually become the Â“Poster BoyÂ” for a new Haliburton venture.... in the Â“pest controlÂ” business: Â“Exterminating rabid verminÂ”! LOL!!! LMAO!!! Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 03, 2006 03:44 PM (y6n8O)

37 Wow, Althor, you really are full of hate, aren't you? You just made a very funny joke (uh...right) about the VP shooting two of his political opponents and a member of the media. Seriously, calm down there, cowboy. Politics is a dirty enough business without hoping for the violent deaths of people we disagree with. That kind of rhetoric is far more appropriate to nations wracked by death squads, ethnic killings, kidnappings, and incipient civil war...you know, like the liberated paradise of Iraq...

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 07:08 PM (uT71O)

38 Uh, sorry to disappoint, DPB, but I voted libertarian in 2000. First Dem for prez I ever voted for was Kerry.

Posted by: jd at April 03, 2006 07:15 PM (uT71O)

39 You just don't have a sense of humor JD!!! LOL! Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 03, 2006 07:31 PM (BJYNn)

40 Besides....it would only be an accident. Ooops! LMAO!!! Althor

Posted by: Althor at April 03, 2006 07:36 PM (BJYNn)

41 Oooh that's right jd, the Left isn't really fussy about things like letting 15 year olds vote, are they?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 03, 2006 11:18 PM (RHG+K)

42 Actually, it was Robert A. Heinlein who advocated removing the voting age entirely, and replacing it with a quadratic problem--before you can vote, you have to do some math. As he put it, smart 12 year old girls could vote, but not 45 year old nimrods. (I don't endorse those views--seem pretty elitist to me--but that's what your question reminded me of-and Heinlein was not a man of the left, to put it mildly). No, I legally voted in 2000, for the libertarians.

Posted by: jd at April 04, 2006 05:40 AM (uT71O)

43 You didn't have any sense in 2000 either, jd.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 05, 2006 07:35 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 28, 2006

TypePad = Bad Gay

Below the fold is a link to my wife's OLD TYPEPAD BLOG, before she moved to mu.nu.

Let me repeat. Her OLD TYPEPAD BLOG

If you are a TypePad customer, take note. If you leave TypePad, this could happen to you.

TypePad refuses to remove the site, although it clearly violates their TOS.

UPDATE: Link removed, that's enough sending it traffic. Just remember, TypePad members, your old URL may be converted into a porn site.

more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:01 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Damn, take that link off there. You pull people into a trap to click and then they see what the site has been replaced with. You are evil.

Posted by: Chad Evans at March 28, 2006 09:43 PM (FrWEy)

2 need to stick a rel="nofollow" in that link tag

Posted by: MacStansbury at March 28, 2006 10:03 PM (bJexd)

3 Maybe it's just me, but those images are actually a little hot.

Posted by: Lifter at March 28, 2006 10:14 PM (G+aAM)

4 Geez! And Rusty yelled at me for the Goatse-Jihadi link! Guess TypePad sucks even more than Blogger.

Posted by: Abdullah al-Libi at March 28, 2006 10:43 PM (S3UBA)

5 "And stop letting use domains they way they do" What?

Posted by: Kent at March 28, 2006 10:56 PM (V7Dms)

6 As much as this sucks for Merri, this is the nature of capitalism. Merri made the URL have value, but then relinquished it back to Six Apart. Someone else saw the value of the URL and paid Six Apart for it (as it was now theirs to resell). So S.A. and the new owner are making money in true capitalistic style.

Posted by: Malcom Y at March 28, 2006 11:19 PM (4FgNX)

7 No, TypePad made the URL have value. Merri purchased it, and used it properly, and deleted it. TypePad re-sold it to someone who is violating their TOS, and refuses to do anything about it. S.A. and TypeMaxiPad have Terms of Service. They're letting the new owner violate them. Not only that, "Merri Musings" is copyrighted material. G'head, Malcolm Y, try setting up a URL with "Microsoft" in it.

Posted by: Malcom Z at March 28, 2006 11:34 PM (f289O)

8 1) The 2-word phrase "Merri Musings" is not copyrighted 2) You're confusing trademarks vs. copyrights with "Microsoft" 3) There are plenty of COMPANYX-sucks.com websites out there, where COMPANYX cannot do anything about it.

Posted by: Malcom Y at March 28, 2006 11:46 PM (oYQ15)

9 I'm just wondering what possessed Merri to relinquish the URL to begin with. Didn't she realize that she had all these links referring back to the typepad blog? Especially high-visibility ones like the Weblog Awards link. Wouldn't it have been worth it to just pay for another year and set up a static page redirecting people to her new blog?

Posted by: Malcom Y at March 28, 2006 11:52 PM (LIaFd)

10 Whoah!

Posted by: Oyster at March 29, 2006 07:28 AM (YudAC)

11 Malcom Y, Um, no it wouldn't be worth it for me to pay for TypePad for another year - I blog for fun, and I would prefer my hard-earned income go toward other things. PLUS, based on their TOS, I never expected TypePad to permit (and almost WELCOME) such filth to be housed on their platform, so it never entered my mind that this would have happened when I closed my account. I'm not a fool enough to think they would have kept my URL and not "sold" it for a long time, but I think a company should stand behind the TOS they put out for all of their customers to review and agree to. That makes Six Apart as scummy as the person running that site and in my book, I've made a GREAT decision to dump TypePad. Most people that have that old URL on their site have been very responsive, of course, by changing it to my new URL. Over time, this will be a non-issue anyway as I continue to build traction at the new URL. Andthatisall.

Posted by: Merri at March 29, 2006 08:41 AM (5j/8t)

12 Yep that's pretty nasty. I'd be less than thrilled as well.

Posted by: Howie at March 29, 2006 10:20 AM (D3+20)

13 Someone must be listening. They've doubled the number of pictures there in the last 12 hours (more comments too).

Posted by: Kent at March 29, 2006 11:38 AM (oYQ15)

14 The domain is not merrimusings.typepad.com but typepad.com. In the Internet domain scheme typepad.com is addressed by registering the domain with an internet authority or an agency so designated (for example I use an outfit called Namesecure to register domains). Then the Internet becomes aware of the domain and knows how to direct traffic destined for the particular domain. However, anything to the left of typepad in the domain typepad.com is under control of typepad.com. In the case we are talking about merrimusings is a subdomain of typepad.com and traffic first goes to typepad.com and then typepad.com directs the traffic to merrimusings. So in this case Merri has to rely on the good graces and TOS of typepad.com.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at March 29, 2006 02:04 PM (ffPYG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sean Penn Has Ann Coulter Voodoo Doll

From Contact Music, via the Drudge Report:

Hollywood activist SEAN PENN has a plastic doll of conservative US columnist ANN COULTER that he likes to abuse when angry. The Oscar-winner actor has hated Coulter ever since she blacklisted his director father LEO PENN in her book TREASON. And he takes out his frustrations with Coulter, who is a best-selling author, lawyer and television pundit, on the Barble-like doll. In an interview with The New Yorker magazine, Penn reveals, "We violate her. There are cigarette burns in some funny places. She's a pure snake-oil salesman. She doesn't believe a word she says."

Pinkie the Sensuous Sailor, special Hollywood correspondent to The Dread Pundit Bluto, has learned that the "torture doll" is actually a specially modified full-size Corinthian leather "Courtney Love 3-Input Receptacle" model, which Penn uses for other purposes besides the symbolic abuse...

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:54 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

1 With his voodoo doll, Sean Penn has just illustrated in a microcosm the level at which the Left "debates" the Right these days. Just one big flaming war by a bunch of high school and college dropouts in Hollywood. Can you blame the guy? He's an illiterate college dropout with a stunted ability to communicate, whose only real skill is memorizing lines and pretending to be other people.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 28, 2006 12:10 PM (8e/V4)

2 Big deal. I violate my full-size Ann Coulter blow-up doll fortnightly.

Posted by: Rusty at March 28, 2006 12:22 PM (JQjhA)

3 "...Coulter is a best-selling author...) Yeah! Her audience is the 36% of lunatics who support Bush. That's best-selling all right. "...a pundit...". See the 36% mentioned above. ? "... a lawyer...". She graduated from a third-rate law school.

Posted by: Devil's Advocate at March 28, 2006 12:42 PM (Kv9eJ)

4 Think he kicks his dog too? What a child.

Posted by: Oyster at March 28, 2006 12:51 PM (rGS2g)

5 University of Michigan Law School is "third rate"? lol! It's one of the top law schools in the country you big dope.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 28, 2006 01:29 PM (8e/V4)

6 -what a stupid looking freak. Is he one of these actors with no college under his belt but has become an expert on foreign affairs, domestic policy, etc etc ?

Posted by: goesh at March 28, 2006 01:31 PM (1w6Ud)

7 and ps., not to mention she was editor of the law review at Michigan. In other words, college dropout Sean Pean would be mowing her lawn if he hadn't found a gig in Hollywood.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 28, 2006 01:31 PM (8e/V4)

8 If he hates her that much, why not offer to debate her publicly on the issues, instead of being the traitorous little coward he is and abusing a doll (something that I think qualifies as requiring therapy).

Posted by: Graeme at March 28, 2006 01:35 PM (N89lv)

9 We should get ourselves a SEAN PENN voodoo doll and stick pins in its rear end and bop it on the head with a hammer to show we dont care for his rotten acting and his putrid movies

Posted by: sandpiper at March 28, 2006 02:39 PM (UwJcR)

10 Ann Coulter doll? I bet that doll never shuts up.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 28, 2006 02:45 PM (D2g/j)

11 I understand Sean turned to abusing the doll in frustration after failing to defeat it in debate.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 28, 2006 03:08 PM (RHG+K)

12 Thanks Bluto, I needed to spray down my monitor with iced tea anyway.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 28, 2006 03:31 PM (0yYS2)

13 That boy ain't right. "I bet that doll never shuts up." And, it has Man Hands.

Posted by: CUS at March 28, 2006 03:33 PM (bbXZq)

14 He probably rescued that doll from the floodwaters of New Orleans. You did say "voodoo doll", now didn't you?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 28, 2006 04:04 PM (rUyw4)

15 The fact that a grown man violates a doll in effigy is actually intensely disturbing if one thinks about it for a minute...

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 28, 2006 05:16 PM (0yYS2)

Ann Coulter doll? I bet that doll never shuts up.

I suspect it's one of these.

Posted by: Anachronda at March 28, 2006 05:46 PM (NmR1a)

17 Idiot looks like eraserhead

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 28, 2006 06:15 PM (WjdPM)

18 There's nothing wrong with hating Ann Coulter. I hate her too. She insulted a vietnam vet a few years ago. The poor guy is paralyzed.

Posted by: Derek Falkan at March 28, 2006 06:47 PM (CnDtU)

19 I do not hate Ann, I'm just saying...

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 28, 2006 07:26 PM (D2g/j)

20 Wow, just.... wow...

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at March 28, 2006 07:52 PM (3smJS)

21 I personally find Coulter to be annoying. However, this is some freaky stalker-type stuff here.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at March 28, 2006 10:40 PM (GyNTD)

22 i have a sean penn doll that i abuse when i get angry i twist off the head and play hacky sack with it.

Posted by: Billy Faeth at March 28, 2006 11:06 PM (mBI/D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 20, 2006

Arab Styling With a Swastika

He just forgot that Aryan does not include Egyptians.

Posted by: Howie at 09:51 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Actually, there were Arian Egyptians at one point. Arius himself was a presbyter in Alexandria, and he had a large following in Egypt, though he was himself of Libyan anscestry. The Arian movement was eventually supressed, though it has popped up now and again throughout Christian history. So there isn't much of a problem with an Egyptian Arian, though both the Muslims and Copts would likely be pretty upset. I guess there's a problem after all -- but nothing a couple strokes of a knife couldn't solve. I think you meant "Aryan," which is the source ethnicity for Indians, Iranians (Iran actually MEANS "Land of the Aryans"), and other eastern Indo-European descended nationalities. Ironically enough, Gypsies (who actually ARE Aryan) were being killed by Germans (who are and were not Aryan by any stretch) in the name of "Aryan" blood-purity. Just another way (among many) that Hitler was wrong. Of course, the issue Hitler had with the Jews was racially derived, and extended to the closest ethnicities to the Jews -- in other words the Arabs. So any Arab who praises Hitler is a complete moron.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 20, 2006 10:59 AM (Kz30m)

2 It's the same kind of stupidity that leads people in the west to believe that jihadis only hate the Jews, thus it's trendy to drape oneself in a Palestinian flag or that arab head dress that comes in a variety of picnic table styles (whatever the hell that thing's called).

Posted by: Graeme at March 20, 2006 11:09 AM (DTJmx)

3 ATBOLK: Oops can't spell my way out of a wet paper bag some days. Thanks.

Posted by: Howie at March 20, 2006 11:17 AM (D3+20)

4 It's a Keffiya, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who is stuck in a dusty-ass, dry, God-forsaken desert where the camels spend the day either trying to eat your hair or spit in your face. It's also good for intense yard-work in the summer, especially if you wrap the ends around your face splodydope-style to keep the dust and pollen out of your mouth. Outside of that, it ends up looking pretty stupid. Too bad the splodies don't understand they don't need help with the whole "looking stupid" thing. That, they've got down solid.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 20, 2006 11:24 AM (Kz30m)

5 Actually ABOLK, all Indo-Europeans are related to the Aryans, even the Germans.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 20, 2006 02:25 PM (0yYS2)

6 Well, yeah, all Aryans are Indo-Europeans, but not all Indo-Europeans are Aryans. It's like saying Californians are Floridians, simply because both are Americans. And as a Floridian I find that concept deeply insulting.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 20, 2006 10:34 PM (qMYED)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Federal Ban of Military Funeral Protests Proposed

Disgusted by the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church hate cult, US Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI) will introduce legislation that would prohibit protests an hour before or after a funeral and keep protesters at least five hundred feet away from family members of the deceased. more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:12 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 2 kb.

1 This seems like an acceptable and judicious limitation on protests. In my opinion, this wouldn't infringe on any first amendment rights, as I would not consider these demonstrations "peaceable" assembly.

Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at March 20, 2006 01:09 AM (USZUJ)

2 Rep. Mike Rogers would do well to write this legislation to include all the funerals the Phelps followers target with their hateful protests. They don't just protest at military funerals. They also go after the funerals of victims of AIDS and hate crimes.

Posted by: Oyster at March 20, 2006 05:22 AM (YudAC)

3 There is no decency left in America, and it's about time to start busting heads to teach people some manners.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 20, 2006 05:43 AM (0yYS2)

4 I agree with such legislation in principle, but it is probably unconstitutional.

Posted by: ProCynic at March 20, 2006 07:31 AM (bfkgE)

5 Time for local and federal law enforcement to declare these hatemongers as 'invisible' and 'non-existant', and let the brothers-in-arms of the deceased take care of the matter as they see fit.

Posted by: Charlie at March 20, 2006 07:44 AM (DwY9A)

6 Or, to treat them like barracks thieves. You know: "If the funeral of your loved one is marred by the presence of these morons, detain them and bring them to the Police. Under no circumstance are you to harm them in any way; but if they happen to fall down a couple of flights of stairs on the way in, it's not your fault that they are clumsy."

Posted by: Charlie at March 20, 2006 07:48 AM (DwY9A)

7 I don't know about it being unconstitutional. Free speech does have limits. This would not silence or censor them. They're just being told to move the platform. There is a level of irony here. They assert their freedom of speech, but protest against other freedoms like career choice and lifestyle.

Posted by: Oyster at March 20, 2006 07:54 AM (YudAC)

8 I agree with you, Oyster, on the irony here, and I think these protectors are bottom feeders who deserve to be shot. But their speech is constitutional. Their speech is political. Abhorrent, yes, but political. Political speech (as opposed to commercial speech) is given the highest protection under the US Constitution. A military funeral is speech, and arguably political speech. In the context of this war, it is therefore a political event, and, like any other political event, the protestors are free to come with counterspeech. I'm not saying I agre with the Christian Taliban protestors here, but I don't see how such a law can comply with the Constitution.

Posted by: ProCynic at March 20, 2006 08:57 AM (bfkgE)

9 ProCynic - I would argue that this speech, coming at a funeral, could be considered "fighting words" or "provoking speech". Therefore, limiting the time and place is permissable under the Constitution.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at March 20, 2006 09:14 AM (WOQ34)

10 You can argue that, Airdale, but I don't think it will win, given the current jurisprudence. The courts tend to give the greater weight to the political element of the speech.

Posted by: ProCynic at March 20, 2006 09:27 AM (bfkgE)

11 I could be wrong but, I think the young man on the right in the p-shop pic is a protest warrior from the NYC chapter.

Posted by: Babs at March 20, 2006 10:04 AM (iZZlp)

12 ProCynic: I would argue that these funerals are private events. The military is participating only at the request and with the permission of the grieving family members. Therefore, what you call political speech is actually harrassment. I'd like to see the church members charged, as often as possible, to keep them busy with other things. I'd also like the ban to cover ALL funerals, not just military ones.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 20, 2006 10:34 AM (RHG+K)

13 I'm not saying I agre with the Christian Taliban protestors I'll point this out, each time people say it. Read up Fred Phelps past, and who are the members of his "Church" His "Church" is his house, he is a disbarred Lawyer, most of his children are lawyers, and are attendees. Do you see the big picture: chant evil, vile things at funerals, get assaulted sue municipality. Calling them "Christian" and saying they're making a political statement is ignorant of the facts -- also look at the 7 million dollar lawsuit he has against a city in regards to his protests.

Posted by: davec at March 20, 2006 10:41 AM (CcXvt)

14 DPB: First of all, thanx for responding to my comment directly. I am honored honor, particularly since Jawa Report has become daily reading for me. I think characterizing military funerals as private events is possible but problematic at best. The first issue would be the definition of the cemetery. Is the cemetery a public forum? That would not necessarily depend on whether the cemetery is publicly or privately owned. If the cemetery is considered a traditional public forum, then you have a major problem trying to get a military funeral considered a private event in this public forum. And could the cemetery be considered a public forum? Very easily. Political statements are made at funerals all the time. Paul Wellstone and CSK come to mind. Counter protesting outside the church on a public street is legitimate and constitutional. Political statements are made at cemeteries all the time. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address arguably fits into this bill. That would be my first argument in any brief I was writing opposing such a law. What you're arguing for is a content-based restriction on political speech. A time, place and manner restriction this ain't, because it is the funeral itself that gives the protestors, they would argue, the opportunity to be heard by people who disagree with them, which is why you can protest a political convention or a presidential visit. Again, I think these protestors are the scum of the earth, and their abuse of the First Amendment may end up limiting it for all of us, but even I could put together an argument that would sway the court that their despicable actions are still constitutional. And if I could do it, the vile Laurence Tribes of the world certainly could.

Posted by: ProCynic at March 20, 2006 12:01 PM (bfkgE)

15 ProCynic, Just out of curiosity, since you've demonstrated how a basic argument could be formed to defend the protesters, how would you argue it for the other side?

Posted by: Oyster at March 20, 2006 12:39 PM (g9UJq)

16 Oyster, It would be difficult to do, but both DPB and I have outlined some possibilities here. 1. The funeral is a private event, so only private invitees are allowed into the premises. 2. While political speech is a fundamental right, the government has a compelling interest in protecting already grieving relatives from further trauma. 3. Beause of this compelling interest, the law would be a permissible time, place and manner restriction. The protestors can express their opinions, but not in a time, place or manner that would further exacerbate the grief of the survivors. 4. Finally, and don't underestimate the impact of this argument, what the protestors are doing is just wrong. It's hurtful, and it's intended to be hurtful, to people who are already hurt beyond imagination. It is such abuses of the First Amendment that cause people to lose respect for the First Amendment.

Posted by: ProCynic at March 20, 2006 01:07 PM (bfkgE)

17 I must have misread the constitution, did I miss the section about "Freedom to harrass" via "Freedom of Speech" ? How is protesting a funeral with a sign saying "Thank God for IED's" or "America turned itself over to Fags, now he's sending them home in bodybags" political speech? against whom? the dead body?, or the family of the victim? It's harrassment, pure and simple. There are laws to protect you from harrassment via the medium of communication: telephone, written word and internet. I guarantee if the KKK turned up at a black persons funeral with a sign with racial slurs on it, there would be an end to this tomorrow.

Posted by: davec at March 20, 2006 01:58 PM (CcXvt)

18 Unfortunately I know one of these men that are getting "rallied" against. Knowing the bible as I do, though I would have to say this it does not show a connection to soldiers and to homosexuality. Mind you I am all for the rights of every human being and how they are to live their own life, that is why we are in America. I thought though in the bible we are to love each other as we would ourselves. God's teachings are about love and respect for fellow man. Jesus lead an army through the desert, he fought against his enemies, was his army all "fags". I find theses people and their statements very hypocritical. They as many radical groups find one small section of the bible and focus on that aspect, while ignoring the rest of the ENTIRE book. At least I know that I will die with God's true words and the people who spread hate as these people do, know not GOD and surely will be damned for it. In the end to all this raving, I do have to agree that it is harassment, invasion of privacy, and in no way peaceful. It is a hate demonstration and agreeing with Dvec if KKK held up chantings and posters it would be just that a hate crime. This should not be for just the soldiers, but for all funerals gay, straight, black, white, male, female, young, old. Funerals are sacred in ALL religions, not just christianity. Some people celebrate it, some mourn. But none blasphemy it. It is revolting!

Posted by: Jennifer at March 20, 2006 02:14 PM (zhJYx)

19 Davec, Political speech and hate speech are not one and the same. Harrassment can only be acted upon in certain circumstances that are case specific and typically limited to an individual. "Thank God for IED's" is disgusting, but is political speech -- opposition to the war. It's also not directed at an individual, but at an event.

Posted by: ProCynic at March 20, 2006 02:19 PM (bfkgE)

20 Political speech? Identify the recipients of the message? Can you tell me the political message of the sign "Thank God for dead Miners" in regards to the Sago mining accident, how about "God hates fags" and "Matthew Shepard is in Hell" held up at his funeral? Political message please? You see, just because the recipient was a Military person does not mean it is political in nature, it is harrassment pure and simple. There is no church at Westbourogh, the church is held in Phelps basement, inside a military like compound, and consists mainly of his family [mostly lawyers] and himself [disbarred lawyer]. Irony is, if he just purchased weapons, Clinton would have burnt him down.

Posted by: davec at March 20, 2006 02:33 PM (CcXvt)

21 I.M. is correct. Bust their dam heads. G-D loves Fags, but G-D hates what Fags do.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 20, 2006 03:31 PM (D2g/j)

22 Actually, every protest they engage in is based on the tolerance of gays. They picket military funerals not because of war, but because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Their picketing of the funerals of gays and victims of AIDS is obvious. Any funeral they protest otherwise, ike the miners, they claim is because the deaths were retribution from God for tolerating gays. They're literally obsessed with homosexuality. And ProCynic, thanks for your reply.

Posted by: Oyster at March 20, 2006 03:57 PM (g9UJq)

23 davec, These guys are not the only group protesting military funerals. Anti-war protestors show up at funerals a lot as well. That was my primary frame of reference. But if gay activists can speak up in favor of rights, sometimes obnoxiously -- a cause with which I agree, BTW -- then I don't see why this group can't argue against it with equal obnoxiousness. At least from a constitutional standpoint. Reprehensible? Yes. Should these guys be aborted retroactively? Absolutely. But just because something is wrong does not make a prohibition thereof constitutional.

Posted by: ProCynic at March 20, 2006 04:53 PM (Ffvoi)

24 I find it irreprehensible how some people will fight for evil, if it's wrapped in the blanket of "freedom" I find it important to note that "Freedom of Speech" has been used to defend the possession of child porn, and sedition both, does this make either worthy of protection? It's very easy for people to let bad things happen to good people, when you're not a recipient of such actions, you might reconcider such behavior if those people attended the funeral of one of your family with signs like "Thank god for cancer" or "The wages of sin, are death" just because you have the freedom to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't excise good judgement and decorum. It is morally ambiguous to use "Freedom of speech" to defend people doing evil things, when it is against the spirit of the document, and the authors who penned it.

Posted by: davec at March 20, 2006 05:19 PM (CcXvt)

25 As a side note, the Constitution does not prohibit making fun of mentally challenge children, common decency however does. This is why this type of decision should be weighed like the "Fighting Words" doctrine

: The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [of which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem." The decision has to be weighed as such: Would banning protests at funerals create a totalitarian Government, or remove a valid means of protest against the Government? or should the rights of the family members, who are already suffering be paramount? Does being a Postman, and thus employed by the Government also mean people should be able to protest at their funeral, does the act of protesting a funeral injure or enlighten the attendants? Just because something is not prohibited in the Constitution does not mean that we should not pass laws against it, I don't believe for one minute the Founding Fathers would have allowed it to be used as a tool to extend the suffering, and inflict harm against grieving families, even if said deceased person was in the employ of the U.S Government. Unless you can think why that is not the case?

Posted by: davec at March 20, 2006 06:30 PM (CcXvt)

26 Just spray them with a mixture of skunk oil limburger cheese,rotten eggs,and other foul smelling stuff like cow manure

Posted by: sandpiper at March 20, 2006 08:59 PM (JtcRt)

27 What lovely political philosophies! However, screw all of that and just nuke the bastards! It'time to take back our country and have Waco family Bar-B-Q II! Case closed! You're welcome!

Posted by: JZ at March 20, 2006 09:19 PM (Nej3c)

28 "Your rights end where mine begin." The sad thing about this country is, if you're and asshole, but don't do anything illegal, you can spend your entire life being an asshole. There used to be a time where if you were an asshole, someone could smash your face in to teach you a lesson. When you CHOOSE to live in a particular society, you agree to follow it's rules, laws and customs. We enjoy free speech... but we're also bound by civil decency. If they want to protest, they can do it at a respectable distance... otherwise, let the pissed off family tear loose on them, and claim temp. insanity.

Posted by: Hardwyre at March 21, 2006 10:12 PM (Rxra/)

29 Ok...hmmm. I am currently in Iraq. I personally feel a lot of pain when I see this kind of thing going on. The real problem is that it is a media-stunt and an act constructed to create confrontation, thereby allowing for lawsuits, and the gain of monies from the winnings. These idiots relish in their media time and they further enjoy and encourage confrontations. I have many funerals to attend when I get back to the US. I think that this law should be passed. Quite simply, in order to protect the protestors from due harm. After spending a year in Ramadi I think I just might act a little aggressively to someone chanting and spitting on one of my young Marines bodies moving to his final resting place. The irony is that the Marine died protecting the very right to protest. If it were my son or brother, I would call his unit and have the entire Battalion or Company attend the funeral. If they were too far away then I would go to the local National Guard or a Reserve Center, find someone who wears a uniform. When these protestors show up simply march up to them, online, and stand nose to nose, with military discipline, and HOLD THE LINE. Let them know how truly insignificant and pathetic they are. When, if, I get back to California, this will be the solution for me and my Marines and their families. I think most of the commentary on this board is accurate though. This will be a constitutional debate. I think under the fighting words clause this could gain some traction, simply due to when I first read about these anti-Americans, I wanted to kill them. I wanted to go to their home and plant an IED in their living room and remove their infection from the earth. Then I could leave a letter on a sign saying this explosion was GODS RETRIBUTION. And today, as I stand over the body of a fellow Marine, 18 years old, with no lower torso due to an IED blast, I am reminded that he was a devout Christian with a wife and a new baby boy and that he doesnÂ’t and will never deserve this kind of disrespect. The first amendment is a honorable thing and should be upheld at the cost of human life. So should the freedom to practice religion, a Christian burial, also be protected. Something is always being infringed upon. It is up to us, the voting public, to decide when enough is enough. How far will we let things go? When is it TOO far? I am a simple man with simple ways, but I know this; these people have caused a lot of pain to good American people. Sooner or laterÂ…what goes around, comes around! The Gunny

Posted by: The Gunny at March 22, 2006 02:08 PM (UItaE)

30 or we just shoot CS Grenades at them until they run away, either way... The Gunny

Posted by: The Gunny at March 22, 2006 02:13 PM (UItaE)

31 Thank you for your service Gunny. My respects to any fallen fellow Marines. G-D's speed to you Gunny, and any active duty Marine.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 22, 2006 05:20 PM (D2g/j)

32 Thanks,Leatherneck and if I am reading your call-sign correctly, Semper Fidelis.

Posted by: The Gunny at March 23, 2006 03:05 AM (UItaE)

33 Amendment I Â“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Â” Do people actually know what the first amendment says? The Gunny said it right; the protestors in question are infringing on the first sentence of the First Amendment. The establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof. Every funeral I have been to, have been religious in nature and the protesting is affecting the "spiritual healing" that takes place. Is it condonable for a one constitutional freedom to affect another?

Posted by: Jacobite at March 23, 2006 03:24 AM (UItaE)

34 Regarding Jacobite's post above, I think that this argument won't work because *private citizens* (i.e. the protesters) are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, not the *government*. The post by davec on March 20th is probably the key to this. I don't think this "church" has any interest in actually making a point, but rather they want to be restricted, beaten up, arrested, etc. Then, they can sue. This is a money-making venture, not a political statement. What is the penalty for wrongful citizen's arrest? Suppose that well-meaning citizens detained the protesters and took them to jail. I think a strong case could be made by the citizens that they did this simply by their interpretation of hate crime laws. It might actually not even be illegal. I mean, how is it that the statements the protesters make are not assault? Aren't there laws on the books regarding this? JT

Posted by: Jonas Tesla at April 04, 2006 02:05 PM (G/OqP)

35 I'm no fan of Howard Stern, but why is it that offensive speech is protected for these bozos and not Stern? That's a minor aside. Okay... I think I've got it. I'm pretty sure that those "protesters" are in it for money. Perhaps the way to fight this is simply to pass a federal law that prohibits people from monetary compensation from lawsuits that allege restriction of free speech unless they can prove that there was a financial loss due to the restriction. Better yet, suppose that a law was passed that any monetary damages from awarded in restriction-of-freedom-of-speech lawsuits would have to be donated to fund AIDS research! That covers both bases... eh? Ha! JT

Posted by: Jonas Tesla at April 04, 2006 02:18 PM (G/OqP)

36 I attended one of the fallen soldiers funerals last month. I'm in no way religious and I'm against war, but the vicous nature of the Westboro Baptist Church & their protests tore me apart inside. The WBC never showed up, but the Patriot Guard Riders did. I held flags with men, women and children to honor the grieving families and their recent tragedy. As friends and family made their way from the funeral service to the cemetary on a flag-lined road, mostly all of them were crying. They waved at us, mouthing the words 'thank you' & 'god bless'. I know I did the right thing. I'm working on a paper about Fred Phelps & the WBC for a world religions class. I wanted to thank everyone involved with this discussion. You really helped me to understand the issue at hand.

Posted by: just a girl at April 25, 2006 08:18 PM (EIO3f)

37 Hey folks, I've never posted here before. I applaud the passing of this act. Having grown up a military dependant, I've been to lots of funerals, and I think people need space to heal. However, as a member of the LGBT community (and a Christian) I can't help but feel slighted by our legislature. Somehow, it has been perfectly okay for the Phelps cult to hate and hurt our community at funerals for years, but now that dominant culture folks have to deal with him, it's a horrible thing? My only grace in this is that there are LGBT folks who serve in our military, and should they die in service to our country, at least they won't have to put up with Phelps at their funeral. I'm glad this happened to the Phelps crew, but I wish the very awesome veterans group who protects the grieving families from this cult would come to protect all of us. Have a good day.

Posted by: Lincoln Rose at May 31, 2006 11:43 AM (J5EJp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 14, 2006

ACLU Rides to the Rescue of Veterans' Funeral Desecraters

Yesterday I wrote about the disgusting inbred gaggle of hicks who make up the Westboro Baptist Church, and get their sick kicks picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in the War on Terror.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:42 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I can't believe so much time and interest is spent on this wacky little CULT that apparently has lost Jim Jones special brew recipe.

Posted by: hondo at March 14, 2006 12:56 PM (9pQ6D)

2 Amazingly there are people who still believe the ACLU is a fine, upstanding pro-America legal association. I notice when they're suing the Government for percieved separation of Church and State cases they make the news, while their defense of Gitmo detainee's, NAMBLA and now GHF/Westborough doesn't get anywhere near the attention.

Posted by: davec at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM (CcXvt)

3 No big surprise. The ACLU attacks mainstream America and fights for vile repugnant scum like this.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 14, 2006 01:16 PM (8e/V4)

4 In 1998, Fred Phelps ran for governor as a DEMOCRAT! I shit you not. Perhaps thats why the ACLU likes this guy!

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at March 14, 2006 01:41 PM (+BgKd)

5 There is also photographs all over the Internet of Fred Phelps taken with Al Gore.

Posted by: davec at March 14, 2006 01:45 PM (CcXvt)

6 Gore and Phelps. Isn't that special?

Posted by: Oyster at March 14, 2006 02:12 PM (g9UJq)

7 Oyster Remember the photo of Jim Jones and the Carters late 70's.

Posted by: hondo at March 14, 2006 03:28 PM (9pQ6D)

8 Leave it to the lowlife sidewinders at the SAN FRANCISCO based ACLU Atheists.Communists,and Lunatics.Underground to came to the aid of these scum the ACLU is americas AL QUEDA who uses lawyers rather then bombs to get what they want

Posted by: sandpiper at March 14, 2006 03:29 PM (O2c+K)

9 Just like my grandmother used to say, "Birds of a feather flock together."

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 14, 2006 03:31 PM (rUyw4)

10 I hate to defend these scumbag protesters - not to mention the ACLU - but these people do have a First Amendment right to say stupid things in public. I'm not a big fan of time, place, and manner restrictions and that is what these law amount to - classic First Amendment case. As a wise man once said, the proper remedy is more speech not restricting speech. But then again, I'm a bit of a First Amendment absolutist.

Posted by: KG at March 14, 2006 03:50 PM (SZsz5)

11 KG, there is no such thing as an absolute 1st amendment right.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 14, 2006 04:16 PM (8e/V4)

12 And there is also no problem with local lawmakers passing ordinances placing buffer zones around cemetaries and such places. They don't have a problem passing laws that keep bars so many feet away from churches. And alcohol is not against the law. The problem is that local goverments are too lax in protecting their constituents from scum like the Phelps family and too busy trying to seize property for the tax benefit. What kills me is that the ACLU an others have no problem imagining a privacy clause in the Constitution for abortion, but not for families trying to bury their dead.

Posted by: Oyster at March 14, 2006 04:51 PM (YudAC)

13 So, the ACLU stands up for gay-haters who protest the funerals of soldiers, but not for gay-haters who protest at gay festivals? Typical.

Posted by: RepJ at March 14, 2006 06:15 PM (y6n8O)

14 I think I remember people who misused the word of God for their own purpose that was ungodly. What where they? Oh yes, know I remember, Pharisees!

Posted by: Catholicgauze at March 14, 2006 11:15 PM (UA1kS)

15 Why don't we get 421 lawyers and go help out ACLU. I'll be security.

Posted by: forest hunter at March 15, 2006 05:52 AM (Fq6zR)

16 I am sad to say that I attended the wake and funeral of a Marine LT. about 18 months ago. There were at least 100 men in uniform at the funeral, most of them Marines. I would think that for the safety of the protesters a buffer should be established. I have no problem imagining the Marines stomping the protesters into little piles of puke on the sidwalk... I would argue that their protest is nothing more than an attempt to incite a riot. Be careful of what you wish for because you just might get it.

Posted by: Babs at March 15, 2006 07:03 AM (iZZlp)

17 JC, I said I'm a bit of an absolutist, I didn't say there was an absolute right under the First Amendment (shouting fire in a crowded theather and the like). But this is political speech, dispicable political speech, but political speech nonetheless. Oyster, the buffer zones you talk about with bars and churches has to do with zoning laws, an entirely different issue from First Amendment rights. My problem is the notion of "free speech zones". We're seeing it more and more, you have something that might offend somebody, then you can say it, just not where anyone can hear it. And yes, I know there is no right to be heard, but what is the point of having the right to speak if there is no one to hear you? As I said before, what these people are doing is wrong - but that doesn't make it illegal. As far as the ACLU goes, well, I have to keep it PG-13, so nevermind. And again, I think the best thing people can do is find out where the pukes are protesting and line up on the other side of the street (or even better, in front of them) and let the families know that there are plenty of people out there that support them and thank them for their sacrafice.

Posted by: KG at March 15, 2006 11:09 AM (SZsz5)

18 KG I tend to agree - it is free speech - but like shouting fire in a theater there is another term for this speech - it's called fighting words. Maybe we should discuss the right to use "fighting words" and the right to fight. Seems this group and the ACLU is obsessed with the right to use "fighting words" in an attempt to prevoke that reaction - but then want to pussy out and want protection to prevent that reaction. Where's the freedom in that? Actions are a form of free speech! I know this because "Liberal courts" have told me so! That's the problem with the new left - they want to act, look, and be tough - but then go limp and start to whine on 'bout being "passive" "civil" etc. It's Freedom baby! Put'em up or shut up! Gotta love freedom and free speech!

Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 12:27 PM (9pQ6D)

19 That chick in the photo - yeah - I think I can pop her in the kisser - I'm givin' about 30 years n' she's probably in better shape than I. Wow! Spewin' disgusting fighting words about my fallen brothers AND HOMOSEXUALS! Hell! I'd smack her! - for both! Guess that makes me kinda liberal for a day.

Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 12:34 PM (9pQ6D)

20 KG, I understand. It was a bad analogy. But there still needs to be a solution. Simply citing the Constitution does little to solve a real problem. This isn't just cartoons in a newspaper hurting delicate sensibilities. We enjoy free speech, but we are not guaranteed a platform for it anywhere we want.

Posted by: Oyster at March 15, 2006 01:41 PM (g9UJq)

21 Oyster I have some reservations about hitting a woman - would you punch out that bitch for me - please?

Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 03:08 PM (9pQ6D)

22 Let me at her!

Posted by: Oyster at March 15, 2006 06:46 PM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 12, 2006

When Madness Masquerades As Religion

Not Islamists this time, but creatures who claim to be Christians.

From Agence France Presse:

Hecklers harass families of US soldiers killed in Iraq
Five women sang and danced as they held up signs saying "thank God for dead soldiers" at the funeral of an army sergeant who was killed by an Iraqi bomb.
For them, it was the perfect way to spread God's word: America was being punished for tolerating homosexuality.

This is nothing but a game to gain publicity for the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church", which is really a cult run by Fred Phelps and his family. Maybe they'll eventually take the route of the Jim Jones cult. One can only hope.

The good news...while the Westboro Baptist cult has about 100 members, the bikers of The Patriot Guard Riders are now 16,000 strong.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 01:03 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Whats the difference between a cult and a religion? I suppose its that a cult pisses you off. Anyway, gogo atheism etc. One question, though - isn't a funeral held on private property? Why wern't these people asked to leave and then arrested for trespassing?

Posted by: MiB at March 12, 2006 01:07 PM (VeYWn)

2 Even more insidious than a Cult, most of the WBC family are Lawyers (Fred is disbarred). Now I wonder, how could they get themselves assaulted in order to sue a municipality.

Posted by: davec at March 12, 2006 01:09 PM (CcXvt)

3 If you think that's a stretch: Fred Phelps sues City for seven million Dollars

Posted by: davec at March 12, 2006 01:17 PM (CcXvt)

4 >>>The good news...the Westboro Baptist cult [only] has about 100 members and for good reason.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 12, 2006 01:20 PM (8e/V4)

5 This exceeds the decent bounds of free speech by any measure; they all need their heads busted and left lying on the side of the road. And I hope they sue me over this comment, because then, I'll know where to find them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 12, 2006 01:26 PM (0yYS2)

6 For once I agree with you Max. That's scary. .

Posted by: Robert Savage at March 12, 2006 01:58 PM (CnDtU)

7 Cue Twilight Zone music.

Posted by: Max Power at March 12, 2006 01:59 PM (CnDtU)

8 >>>For once I agree with you Max. That's scary. Notice it takes the word "christian" to get a Leftwing moonbat to agree with Maxie wanting to bust heads. Replace that with "muslim" and the same moonbat goes all pacifist on us. My god you people are so easy to figure out.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 12, 2006 02:20 PM (8e/V4)

9 We don't appreciate sock puppets here - Bluto

Posted by: A Young Man of Exquisite Grace at March 12, 2006 02:23 PM (y+196)

10 Nice try "Warrior for Christ", "USA Patriot" you're easier to spot that a Cheetah.

Posted by: davec at March 12, 2006 02:27 PM (CcXvt)

11 Again shut the fuck up. I was telling Max that I agree that we shouldn't insult our soldiers that are dying out there. We should be honoring them My father was in them military for many years. He almost went to Vietnam. Stop calling me a liberal you stupid ass motherfucker.

Posted by: Robert Savage at March 12, 2006 02:45 PM (CnDtU)

12 There is no warrior for christ in this blog. Perhaps I should speak english. I'm a catholic. My Dad was a Marine for many years so I sympathise with you. All I've been saying was that not all muslims want to kill people. I knew several arabs personally when I was in school. My doctor is an Indian. I'm not looking for any trouble. I didn't call Bush Hitler like that teacher. I'm not like those stupid CPT hostages that want to hug the terrorists. Jesus Christ, I can't say anything on this blog without being called a far left moonbat.

Posted by: Robert Savage at March 12, 2006 02:51 PM (CnDtU)

13 Robert: My post was to "Marine Father" who's post is exactly on the same level as the posts made to this site by "Warrior for Christ" and "USA Patriot" (nicknames) I was not referencing your post.

Posted by: davec at March 12, 2006 02:55 PM (CcXvt)

14 Oh, well I wasn't cursing at you Davec. I was cursing at the asshole Jesusland carlos who keeps calling me a moonbat. I have to stop posting on political blogs. I end up being called a moonbat. I also get told to fuck off. Maximus might also want to rape my corpse like he told the last kid who posted here. My dear mom might be called a whore. What a life I live. At least Rusty is cool. That's why I visit this blog.

Posted by: Robert Savage at March 12, 2006 03:03 PM (CnDtU)

15 Robert: are you sure he wasn't calling Jill Carroll a moonbat? I did not get the feeling he addressed you as a moonbat. perhaps I am mistaken.

Posted by: davec at March 12, 2006 03:07 PM (CcXvt)

16 Robert, you should live up to your name and verbally "savage" him.

Posted by: Don Miguel at March 12, 2006 03:10 PM (UAn5X)

17 Yeah, you are. He called me a moonbat because I agreed with Maximus. In any case anyone who calls Jill Carroll a moonbat is a retard who should be shot on site. She's going through enough right now. Insulting her political views is not the right thing to do.

Posted by: Robert Savage at March 12, 2006 03:13 PM (CnDtU)

18 Also disagreeing with Maxie is a death sentence. I avoid him at all costs.

Posted by: Robert Savage at March 12, 2006 03:14 PM (CnDtU)

19 This isn't even my real name. I just thought it up.

Posted by: Robert Savage at March 12, 2006 03:17 PM (CnDtU)

20 Yeah if you go through many aliases. No one knows who you are.

Posted by: Max Power at March 12, 2006 03:19 PM (CnDtU)

21 Oh no, you can disagree with me all you like, but you'd better have a good argument armed and ready.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 12, 2006 03:58 PM (0yYS2)

22 Robert, don't worry about it. Continue to comment and say what you truly believe. I would rather know someone who is honest and who I might disagree with occasionally than know someone who is a fake and agrees with me all the time. And I think most people on this blog feel the same way.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 12, 2006 04:04 PM (rUyw4)

23 >>>Jesus Christ, I can't say anything on this blog without being called a far left moonbat. hahaha! That was too funny!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 12, 2006 04:07 PM (8e/V4)

24 I think WFC may have been one of them. We've done several posts on these giant walking rectums now. Speaking of Fred's bunch of course.

Posted by: Howie at March 12, 2006 04:28 PM (D3+20)

25 These jerks need to have someone spray them with skunk oil and limburger cheese and garlic and onion this would realy make them show up in a crown especialy the smell they would leave

Posted by: sandpiper at March 12, 2006 07:39 PM (D9h75)

26 As a Christian, I repudiate Westboro's actions. Like Wafa said, "You can worship stones as long as you don't throw them at me."

Posted by: RepJ at March 12, 2006 08:31 PM (oHw0S)

27 Yes, all Phelps' gang are lawyers who are itching for someone to assault them so they can sue... SO, (not that I'm advocating anything, you understand), If someone WERE to do something to these idiots, I'd suggest a quick-maximum-damage-hit-and-egress so they won't have anyone to litigate against. If cops ask for witnesses, just have some planted buddies in the crowd describe Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at March 13, 2006 05:06 AM (maXzk)

28 SOTG, that's a pretty good strategy. Why don't *I* ever get the good ideas?

Posted by: Oyster at March 13, 2006 06:34 AM (YudAC)

29 These people are repulsive

Posted by: sandpiper at March 13, 2006 09:28 AM (7/75z)

30 SonOf: They would just sue the city they're hosted in, for failing to protect them during the protest. They don't want to sue the individual that assaults them, they're chickenfeed -- they want to be assaulted to sue the deep pockets: cities, police forces, etc.

Posted by: davec at March 13, 2006 12:06 PM (CcXvt)

31 Do these idiots have those PRACTICE TOLERENCE stickers in the car windows? or those stupid ones which reads WAR IS NOT HEALTHY FOR CHILDREN AND OTHER LIVING THINGS with the sissy pink flower on it?

Posted by: sandpiper at March 14, 2006 09:21 AM (b1Fi6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 03, 2006

Cherry Creek School District Student Comments on Jay Bennish

Just when you thought Conservative Thinking couldn't build on the Jay Bennish story anymore here comes another doozie from the Cherry Creek School District. It's not an official of the district and it's probably not a teacher but more than likely a student of Cherry Creek Schools.

"Sam" left a comment today on one of our Jay Bennish articles. Apparently, Mr. Bennish doesn't inspire free thinking like he and his supporters believe:

I think people are over Exaugurating something little,let the guy have his freedom of speech, hes just teaching the kids to think for themselves and giving his own oppinions. All you damn people are to stupid to realize bush is like hitler

Emphasis mine. However, the reason I think it's a student that wrote this is due to the horrific grammar and spelling skills (apparently too much time spent on "geography" and not English).

This is quite disturbing for two reasons, 1) apparently the Jay Bennish indoctrination program is working and 2) my daughter will be in the Cherry Creek School District this fall.

The details on "Sam" as far as IP address go are as follows:
Translated Name: ccsd-26-214.ccsd.k12.co.us
IP Address: 166.113.26.214

I'm going to send this along to the Cherry Creek Schools to voice my concern on my daughter's behalf.

Originally Posted at

Posted by: Chris Short at 06:59 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

1 He's smart enough to know "bush is like hitler", but he isn't smart enough to put together a grammatically correct sentence. I weep for the future.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 07:22 PM (8e/V4)

2 Before you do that, I would encourage you to try and find out about the school's 'Acceptable Use' policy. As a former school district technology director, I can tell you that most schools place a very strict code of conduct when using the school district's computers by both the students and the staff. Since this obviously came from one of their machines, try to see if any of the comments were in violation of the policy. The policy is usually posted on the school district website. Depending on the severity, the results can be either expulsion for a student or termination for an employee. Either way, school districts really, really dislike things like this in the news. If that doesn't work out to your satisfaction, you can usually find a pretty good watchdog group that would love to hear from you. Those groups exist to cause school districts the most amount of grief possible. One last place to try is the local paper. This is especially helpful if it is a smaller town and not a large city. Those smalltown newspapers almost always appoint themselves as an informal watchdog group through their editorial pages. There are always lots of taxpayers who will jump all over things like this because they don't like administration to begin with and think too much money is being wasted so they are always looking for a good cause.

Posted by: slug at March 03, 2006 07:24 PM (vQoK9)

3 I sent an e-mail to the school district's "CARELINE". We'll see how that turns out but their AUP is something that they should be policing and not me. You're welcome to check for yourself though and if there is a violation please feel free to send them a note. The paper's here in Aurora, CO are hardcore liberal rags. Denver isn't too much better either.

Posted by: Chris Short at March 03, 2006 07:29 PM (0OCQY)

4 I just sent the school district an email too: Your students are smart enough to know "bush is like hitler", but they aren't smart enough to put together a grammatically correct sentence. I weep for the future. Do your friggin jobs.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 07:43 PM (8e/V4)

5 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loos Any true American who watches the above, free video will recognize the fact that Bush committed 9/11 the same as his grandfather's client, Adolf Hitler(Google "Prescott Thyssen Auschwitz"), committed the Reichstag Fire. Inarguably, Bush is Hitler-redux. Schoolteacher Jay Bennish is simply putting forward thoughts that any who claim spiritual descent from the Jeffersonian Whig Founders of the United States of America should have been realizing right after they heard GHW Bush's public statement confirming his "inability" to recall his whereabouts upon hearing of President Kennedy's assassination: W's only "qualification" for office. Death for Treason

Posted by: Will Jones at March 03, 2006 07:52 PM (wToeY)

6 >>>free video It's free??? Must be good!!!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 07:59 PM (8e/V4)

7 Only a Bush deranged Leftist could possibly find a way to put Thomas Jefferson and the Kennedy assassination and Bush and Jay Bennish in the same sentence. I swear you people are mentally deranged!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 08:12 PM (8e/V4)

8 JC.. the future indeed looks grim. Just from my own observations, the kids I see walking around these days have a "dumbed-down" look about them. Can't really put my finger on it... kind of a dead, just-got-outta-prison look. It's all part of the dismal mass culture we're living in. I see these guys walking to school, and I just can't imagine them mastering biology, math.. anything. In L.A. here, somewhere around 50% of students don't graduate from high school. Now, it really doesn't take much to graduate from high school these days, and still... they can't handle it. What are these people going to do as they get older???

Posted by: Richard at March 03, 2006 08:21 PM (7KF8r)

9 I love that Will Jones comedy routine. But his joke aside, it's sad to think that there are people who think like that. Sadder still that some of them are allowed to teach such Orwellian rot to innocent children unchallenged. It surely is a sad state of affairs when you consider what these kids are NOT being taught and what they ARE being taught. The comment you posted above is just another example of the increasingly poor state of public education, the primary purpose of which is to provide the foundation for responsible citizenship. Thank GOD student Sean Allen made that tape, othewise folks like your pal might be more convincing when he says this incident is "Exaugurat[ed]."

Posted by: Mike's America at March 03, 2006 08:32 PM (SHL+1)

10 >>>Will Jones said "Death for Treason" Yes Willy, that's a great phrase, but it's ours... You can keep that Dan Rather "Courage" one. By the look of your beliefs and political views, you're going to need it.

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at March 03, 2006 09:03 PM (t8BiH)

11 Any true American who watches the above, free video will recognize the fact that Bush committed 9/11 As an immigrant to this country, I encourage you to leave. There are a lot of people living in other countries who love America more than you do, who would kill for the chance to be here, not only that but they see less evil in this country than you evidently do. If you're think the Government killed 3,000 citizens for $$cash$$ why are you still here?

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 09:41 PM (CcXvt)

12 Most of our country has been brainwashed into passivity. That is the truth. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Continue to spread around lies and false information? Stand up and do what's right? Naw...just go back to watching Star Wars.

Posted by: Ficus at March 03, 2006 09:53 PM (HDTwe)

13 dave, he has no reason to leave. I'm sure he's sucking at the teat of the American taxpayer for his income. He's either collecting welfare or has a cushy government job. Before my job as a technology director, mentioned above, I worked in technology for the Justice Dept. I quit because they couldn't keep me busy and I was bored out of my skull. I was one of 5 developers who spent their day doing a lot of coffee-drinking and wondering if we would get something to work on. To a lot of those people, the only thing worse than being that bored is the thought of having their job cut because of all the dead weight. This certainly wasn't specific to the technology people at all. Chris, thanks for referring me to the AUP but I think I'll pass. I had to go thru about 50 committee meetings reading a hundred other district's AUP before going thru about 200 iterations of our own. I'm a technical guy who fell into management by being the person employed there the longest so you may be able to guess that this won't get a lot of attention from me. Thought it might give you useful insider information but I've never even read the one where I work now even though I've signed a piece of paper that says I did. It certainly isn't your job to do the policing but I had hoped it would you some ammunition if you wanted to raise a stink over it. This is why I have my kids in a private Christian school.

Posted by: slug at March 03, 2006 10:05 PM (vQoK9)

14 This type story will bring them out - but never lose sight how ineffective this teacher is in spreading his gospel. The new left judges its "successes" by our reaction - rather than whether they were actually successful. They are a pathetic lot once you get past the anger they sometimes bring out in some of us. Performance art on a classroom stage - that's all it is. So a few students seem "suduced" - forget'em and notice that the overwhelming majority just yawn and stroll away.

Posted by: hondo at March 03, 2006 10:20 PM (fyKFC)

15 >>>The new left judges its "successes" by our reaction Truly a mark of their patheticness. Just like PETA knows we think they're a total joke, but they don't care as long as they can get a rise out of people. PATHETIC. It's almost like they revolve around us for their existence, like the Earth revolving around the Sun or something like that. They define themselves by being opposed to us, not by having any real core. That's how they can march for "peace", but also support terrorists! They have no core.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 10:34 PM (8e/V4)

16 Slug, you and I work in the same field. I personally enjoy the challenges that arise in the tech field, and just like you would be bored if I had nothing to do

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 10:41 PM (CcXvt)

17 I sent off an email too and also told my friends at work how they should do this as well. Thanks for your posting about this.

Posted by: Wild Thing at March 03, 2006 10:49 PM (tj1zH)

18 If anyone can present a convincing argument as to why liberals should not all be rounded up and hanged, I would love to hear it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 03, 2006 11:12 PM (0yYS2)

19 It'd be a big mess.

Posted by: Chris Short at March 03, 2006 11:18 PM (0OCQY)

20 >>>If anyone can present a convincing argument as to why liberals should not all be rounded up and hanged, I would love to hear it. lmao! Love it. But I know some very nice Liberals who probably would agree that this Bennish fellow is a disgrace. It's really the Left that I hate. Libs just annoy me, like a fly or mosquito annoys me. Leftists, on the other hand are like roaches. Vile creatures. Those are the ones you chase around the kitchen floor trying to squash. No mercy.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 11:38 PM (8e/V4)

21 "However, the reason I think it's a student that wrote this is due to the horrific grammar and spelling skills" Nice work ace!

Posted by: foo at March 03, 2006 11:55 PM (/m4ss)

22 IM: You have fanmail @ http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/splorp.cgi?entry_id=161392

Posted by: dave at March 04, 2006 12:30 AM (CcXvt)

23 Carlos, difference or no, I hate them all for gross, negligent stupidity if nothing else; they should be removed from the gene pool for the sake of humanity.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 05:39 AM (0yYS2)

24 Thanks dave; I didn't get time yesterday evening, and don't this morning either now, but this evening is all mine, and so is the little bitch mason.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 05:42 AM (0yYS2)

25 I listened to the audio of TEACHER CAUGHT IN BUSH RANT, with great interest. Also, with sadness. My name is Michael Class. I live in the Seattle area with my wife and two children. I am a retired "dot-com" executive turned author, photographer, and publisher. I was appalled at how some teachers presented American history to my children. My son and daughter learned that Thomas Jefferson had slavesÂ—before they learned that he wrote the document articulating our rights and duties as free people. European settlers killed Native Americans with blankets infected with smallpox, they found out. That allegation upstaged the stories of courage, perseverance, and curiosity that defined the pioneers. My children knew that more than a hundred thousand people died when the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, but they were not made to understand the moral context and the enormous scale of the conflict called World War II in which the atomic bomb story fit. With a curriculum seemingly designed to instill guilt and shame, I wondered, how will my kids ever discover the lessons of history that inspire greatness and noble aspirations? Will they ever believe that they can make a difference? Will they have any heroes left at all? Then, I wondered: What would the heroes of AmericaÂ’s past say to the children of today? I wrote, photographed, and published a book designed to set the record straight, to properly prepare our children for the future. My book is called Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame. If anyone knows where I can reach 10th-grader Sean Allen, I will gladly send him a FREE copy of my book. He did the right thing. My book specifically rebuts the positions taken by teacher Jay Bennish - because I have heard his arguments so many times before. My book tells the truth about capitalism, the War on Terror, and places them in historical perspective. In the book, my real-life son, twelve-year-old Anthony, time-travels into the great events of the 20th century. Digital photographic Â“magicÂ” places Anthony in the cockpit of the Spirit of St. Louis with Charles Lindbergh, on the moon with Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, in the laboratories of Thomas Edison and Jonas Salk, and on Normandy beach on D-Day. It looks as though Anthony really did meet Thomas Edison, Jonas Salk, FDR, Lou Gehrig, Charles Lindbergh, and Audie Murphy. And itÂ’s all historically accurate: Even AnthonyÂ’s conversations with AmericaÂ’s heroes are based on things they really said. While writing and photographing the book, I spoke with relatives of famous scientists and inventors, Holocaust survivors, award-winning biographers, and others who could help me ensure that the facts of the book were both accurate and vivid. But the book goes beyond a simple recitation of historical facts: the book presents the moral lessons of American history. The chapter about LindberghÂ’s flight is really about choosing oneÂ’s destiny. The story of Lou Gehrig is one of a virtuous life. The chapter about Thomas Edison is really about business. The story of Apollo 11 is about wonder, taking risks, and courage. The story of Dr. Jonas Salk and the cure for polio is really about dedicating oneÂ’s life to a higher purpose. When Anthony Â“meetsÂ” his immigrant great-grandfather at Ellis Island in 1907, itÂ’s really a story about what it means to be an American. AnthonyÂ’s observation of D-Day and the liberation of the death camps during the Holocaust is a testament to the reality of evil and the need to fight it. The book is meant to challenge the young reader. Many adults will find the book challenging, too. Anthony COMPARES the people and events of the past with the people and events of his own time. Anthony discusses the nature of good and evil, right and wrong, war and peace, what it means to be an American, honor and discipline, success and achievement, courage and destiny, marriage and family, God and purpose. AnthonyÂ’s observations prompt serious discussion of timeless moral questions. Anthony challenges the reader to think critically - to see the modern world in the light of the lessons of the past. We can't afford to raise a generation of Americans who do not value their country, their heritage, and their place in the world. As Abraham Lincoln said: America is the "last best hope of earth." Thank you. Michael S. Class Author / Photographer / Publisher Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame: An American History Book for Right-Thinking Parents and Their Children ----------------------- E-Mail: class@MagicPictureFrame.com Web site: www.MagicPictureFrame.com

Posted by: Michael Class at March 04, 2006 10:15 AM (uQ06v)

26 Thanx Michael. I just ordered your book. I have two young grandkids who will certainly need to be armed and ready when they start school.

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 10:56 AM (YudAC)

27 Have you thought of private school? Even if you aren't say, Catholic, private schools offer a better education and most don't ram religion down anyone's throat.

Posted by: Pka at March 04, 2006 11:29 AM (UA1kS)

28 Real student opinions of Jay Bennish: http://www.ratemyteachers.com/schools/colorado/aurora/overland_high_school/jay__bennish

Posted by: MPH at March 05, 2006 05:09 PM (ES09B)

29 Why would you subject your daughter to government schools? We are a people who aspire to freedom and the ideal of a limited government. What incentive do government schools have to teach these principals? Home school your daughter or send her to private school. You have no higher earthly obligation than your children except to love their mother.

Posted by: Jericho at March 05, 2006 05:20 PM (5vEOE)

30 Jericho, who are you talking to? My daughter is 28. She has two small children not even in school yet.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 08:50 PM (YudAC)

31 Why are so many of you afraid of exposing high school students to the other side of the story? Why are you so afaid of them knowing about Jefferson's slaves? Do you fear that truth will make them less patriotic? Is patriotism based upon brain- washing and lies? For generations, kids "learned" from texts and teachers who presented only one, incomplete side of the story of our country. How many people over the age of 25 ever saw a photo of a black soldier in the Civil War, or in the World Wars? That's one example of something kids weren't taught in schools. At least we're making progress. Bennish might have crossed a line in his attempt to get his students to think, but only in the current political environment of stifling opposing ideas (and truth) in order to prevent people from knowing too much and perhaps questioning the current admin's action would it be a crime for a teacher to exhort his students to "think for themselves." Why aren't we hearing the same fuss over conservative teachers who are using the classroom to insist on THEIR agenda? What is it about conservatives that they go for blood in a situation like this?

Posted by: Brian at March 06, 2006 07:25 AM (MtlCh)

32 Brian, you're kidding, right? Did you listen to the rant? He wasn't encouraging students to think for themselves, but was doing just the opposite, trying to brainwash the kids with his own political dogma. How is this encouraging students to think for themselves?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 08:57 AM (rUyw4)

33 Brian fully supports the positions and statements of Mr Bennish. To him Mr Bennish's positions and statements are gospel - pure fact - undeniable - and must be desiminated to all till they accept their truth. The fact that it is all part of a political philospophy under contention is irrelevant - and questioning it is same. Problem is they can't seem to get enough people to listen and agree with them - so - they target the people's children in a controlled mandatory environment to preach their gospel without interference from those so annoying reactionary parents. Intellectual pedophilia - it fits.

Posted by: hondo at March 06, 2006 01:47 PM (fyKFC)

34 Here we go, conservatives posting their straw man lies and distortions to distract from the truth. Where did I say I completely support Mr. Bennish's actions? Without all the facts who can either fully support or fully condemn? You are leaping on the Limbaugh wagon, and thereby revealing your desire to find a liberal to burn at the stake. No one has addressed this from my earlier message: Why aren't we hearing the same fuss over conservative teachers who are using the classroom to insist on THEIR agenda? What is it about conservatives that they go for blood in a situation like this?

Posted by: Brian at March 06, 2006 03:33 PM (MtlCh)

35 Give me an example of a conservative trying to brainwash their students. I will condemn them.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 05:59 PM (rUyw4)

36 As a retired history and geography teacher, I am dismayed at the number of people who do not understand what the study of geography includes. A number of Americans seem to believe it is simply the study of landforms and maps. Bennish's overly passionate lesson was not outside the geography curriculum. Geography spans many fields including the physical world, including habitat, ecology, geology, and the environment. In addition, geography concerns technology, science, religion, literature, art, and, yes, even the political world. The National Geography Standards were published in 1994 to guide geographic education in the United States. The eighteen standards shed light on what the geographically informed person should know and understand. The hope is that every student in America would become a geographically informed person through implementation of these standards in the classroom. Here are the National Geographic Standards: The World in Spatial Terms 1. How to use maps and other geographic representations, tools, and technologies to acquire, process, and report information. 2. How to use mental maps to organize information about people, places, and environments. 3. How to analyze the spatial organization of people, places, and environments on Earth's surface. Places and Regions 4. The physical and human characteristics of places. 5. That people create regions to interpret Earth's complexity. 6. How culture and experience influence people's perception of places and regions. Physical Systems 7. The physical processes that shape the patterns of Earth's surface. 8. The characteristics and spatial distribution of ecosystems on Earth's surface. Human Systems 9. The characteristics, distribution, and migration of human populations on Earth's surface. 10. The characteristics, distributions, and complexity of Earth's cultural mosaics. 11. The patterns and networks of economic interdependence on Earth's surface. 12. The process, patterns, and functions of human settlement. 13. How forces of cooperation and conflict among people influence the division and control of Earth's surface. Environment and Society 14. How human actions modify the physical environment. 15. How physical systems affect human systems. 16. The changes that occur in the meaning, use, distribution, and importance of resources. The Uses of Geography 17. How to apply geography to interpret the past. 18. To apply geography to interpret the present and plan for the future. Source: National Council for Geographic Education

Posted by: Mae at March 06, 2006 06:01 PM (q88zm)

37 Mae Yes, I understand. I have an MA in the field. That aside, what does your "above" have to do with the particulars of the Mr Bennish story? If you wish to defend him - please do so - the above information is functionally irrelevant and serves no purpose unless you wish to sidestep the story. Oh, I too am appalled at the lack of general understanding of the field of Geography - but this argument goes back over 30 years. Good argument - pity this is the wrong place for it.

Posted by: hondo at March 07, 2006 12:04 AM (fyKFC)

38 Pleez to you send me you address so we, er I can send to you delicious hamburger meal and many more beautiful gifts. We love to helping the little children and we have giant silo ( for to store the milk ) which is nearly finished building. When silo is finished building then we will end suffering for all the little children, and all of the peoples suffering everywhere. So please send to me you address and address of 10 friends. We will make sure that they are remembered. Thanks to you and Shalom! Er, I mean Later Dud! Please to excuse me spellbinding. I hav been very busy helping the poor little children and have not time to go to school to learn spellbinding.

Posted by: Children'sMilkFund at March 09, 2006 02:11 PM (Y2ILH)

39 What is the most important information I should know about Clonazepam? Ã¢Â€Â¢ Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities. Ã¢Â€Â¢ Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure. Ã¢Â€Â¢ Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam. What is Clonazepam? Ã¢Â€Â¢ Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures. Ã¢Â€Â¢ Clonazepam is used to treat seizures. Ã¢Â€Â¢ Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

Posted by: CLONAZEPAM at April 08, 2006 10:09 AM (LUNaJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

272kb generated in CPU 0.0579, elapsed 0.1612 seconds.
134 queries taking 0.1206 seconds, 629 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 14166
Files: 144
Bytes: 274.8M
CPU Time: 11:51
Queries: 1381390

Content

Posts: 5690
Comments: 76633

Feeds

June 19, 2006

June 15, 2006

June 14, 2006

June 01, 2006

May 04, 2006

May 02, 2006

April 30, 2006

April 23, 2006

April 21, 2006

April 15, 2006

April 03, 2006

April 01, 2006

March 31, 2006

March 28, 2006

March 20, 2006

March 14, 2006

March 12, 2006

March 03, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds