Archive for June, 2007

30
Jun

Free speech update

This week’s Supreme Court ruling on student speech started to set some boundaries on what teens can and can’t say on campus. For the record:

Can’t: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

(According to the Supreme Court today) Can:

A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glass—but also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the “chicken-hawk-in-chief” who was engaged in a “world domination tour.”

It will be very curious to see what happens when Harper v. Poway Unified School District comes before the Supreme Court.

29
Jun

How they spend your money

CNN has been putting their summer interns to good use. This week, the interns’ assignment was to contact all 100 U.S. Senators and ask for a list of their earmark requests. It should come as no surprise that all those politicians promising a more open government are full of sh hot air.

Only six senators gave us their requests and five said they made no earmark requests. Nineteen said they would not give us their requests and 70 did not return calls.

CNN has a list of how the senators responded here. [PDF format]

Broken down by party:
7 Republicans explicitly refused to release their requests.
12 Democrats explicitly refused to release their requests.
4 Republicans complied.
2 Democrats complied.
2 Democrats and 2 Republicans had no earmark requests.

You can do the math, but the remaining senators didn’t even bother to respond.

This follows on last week’s similar request made to House members.

Last week, of 435 members of the House of Representatives, 312 did not respond to our requests. Of the remainder, 47 gave us their requests, 68 said they would not and six said they had not made earmark requests.

Control of the Congress changed hands this year — but arrogant attitude remains the same.

On a related note: Republican Mike Crapo of Idaho is looking for a new press secretary — or he should be after this bit of idiocy.

And then there was the press secretary of Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho. She said the senator couldn’t release his list because it would violate a 1970s federal privacy law.

Privacy law? Whose privacy? Crapo’s? That’s got to be the stupidest statement I’ve heard all week — and the Democrats had a debate the other night!

29
Jun

Solution still needed

The Senate’s second attempt at comprehensive immigration reform died a particularly devastating death Thursday as Senators, seeing that the measure wouldn’t reach the 60-vote threshold, abandoned the ship like illegal aliens running out of a Swift meat-packing plant.

Something needs to be done about the millions of illegal immigrants in the United States — but something isn’t anything and that’s what the Senate bill appeared to be. The bill promised tougher enforcement mechanisms — a fence along the southern border and real, comprehensive checks on employee eligibility and employer compliance — in return for legalization/regularization of those illegal immigrants already here. There was something for both sides.

The major flaw was the order. All of those enforcement provisions are meaningless until the border fence and workplace checks are in place — both of those take time to create. The regularization measures, however would’ve taken effect the second the ink was dry on the president’s signature. Millions more illegal immigrants would’ve flooded across the border before a single additional mile of fence was built or before the first programmer was tasked with programming the workplace database.

Of course, that’s if you trust the goodwill and competence of the federal government. After all, we were promised a secure border and workplace enforcement the last time around — and look what we got.

The opponents of this bill have been caricatured and slandered as “nativists,” “bigots,” and quite a few other slurs — by members of both parties. How’s that for bipartisanship?

There were really two things underlying popular opposition to this bill — the first was the way it was handled. There was nothing more arrogant than Sen. John McCain’s desire to ram the bill through in less than a week. The egotism and self-importance that created McCain-Feingold was on display for all to see when the senior senator from Arizona proclaimed that the perfect bill had sprung fully formed from his forehead. Then the bill was resurrected — the 300+ page so-called “clay pigeon” amendment that supposedly was going to fix all of the problems was being written and re-written behind closed doors so that few of the Senators, let alone any interested members of the public, could read it. This was the openness and transparency politicos of both parties are always promising?

The second issue wasn’t “anti-Latino bigotry” or “nativism.” It was simply the desire that this time be the last time we need to do “comprehensive” immigration reform. The American public wants this done right; not quickly or conveniently or so President Bush or the Democrats in Congress have a feather to put in their caps, but right.

I’m not sure what the political ramifications of this will be. I’m not sure if this benefits Democrats or Republicans in the long run. I’m not yet sure what sort or resonance this issue will have in the 2008 presidential campaign.

What I do know is that yesterday the Congress did the right thing.

29
Jun

Does Michael Gerson read Hoystory?

Or do great minds think alike?

29
Jun

Inconvenient truths

In the name of understanding other religions, a Muslim visited the church of a blogger named Anwyn. Anwyn didn’t let all the obfuscations, platitudes and assurances of goodwill toward others go unchallenged.

So let me get this straight: Riots of thousands are the natural consequence of offensive newspaper cartoons, but a brutal murder is an aberration, and danger to the murderer’s stated next target, who has been driven out of her home because all her neighbors believe the danger to her was dangerous to them, is contrived? Hirsi Ali has gained traction in part because of the riots that are threatened because of her presence and the riots that actually took place around the cartoons and the death of Theo Van Gogh. But instead of disassociating himself or Islam itself from those acts, our speaker denied their existence, wrote them off as an anomaly or preached that we must accept them as a matter of routine when Mohammed is insulted. Which is it: anomaly or routine?

Read the whole thing.

28
Jun

One more needed

The Supreme Court ended its term today with a decision in a couple of closely watched cases involving public primary schools’ efforts to achieve diversity. The Court ruled, 5-4, that having a goal of a “diverse student body” isn’t sufficient reason to discriminate based on race.

Of course, that’s not how much of the media coverage characterized it. I’ll use the New York Times report because the vast majority of the media tend to follow their lead.

With competing blocs of justices claiming the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education, a bitterly divided Supreme Court declared Thursday that public school systems cannot seek to achieve or maintain integration through measures that take explicit account of a student’s race.

Voting 5 to 4, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., invalidated programs in Seattle and metropolitan Louisville, Ky., that sought to maintain school-by-school diversity by limiting transfers on the basis of race or using race as a “tiebreaker” for admission to particular schools.

In plain English, what these schools were doing was refusing students admission to specific public schools because of their race. If the school was “too white” then white kids would be bused across the city (at least one kid in Louisville, Ky., endured a 90 minute bus ride each way) to a school with more blacks. You may think that’s OK, but remember, the converse was true too. If a school was “too black” then black kids would get bused across town. You might’ve bought a home with an elementary school just down the block, but there was no guarantee the public school system would let your kid go there.

Roberts summarized it best:

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he said.

The court’s liberals, however, believe that we need to focus more on race or we’ll never get over race.

In his written opinion, Justice Breyer said the decision was a “radical” step away from settled law and would strip local communities of the tools they need, and have used for many years, to prevent resegregation of their public schools. Predicting that the ruling would “substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation,” he said, “This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret.”

The liberals see no difference between de jure (legally enforced) segregation and the de facto “segregation” that can occur simply because communities nationwide are simply not uniform. One is surprised that the court hasn’t ordered black kids from Alabama flown into Idaho to prevent that state’s schools from becoming too white.

The unfortunate fact is that this case isn’t as cut and dried as it could, or should, be. Justice Anthony “whichever way the wind blows” Kennedy concurred with the decision, but left open the possibility that there just might be a way for school districts to use race — he just didn’t give them very good rules for doing so.

One more good justice needed.

28
Jun

I couldn't resist

Sorry, but I just had to read about what I missed and this jumped up an bit me.

During her 23 days in jail, [Paris Hilton] said she meditated, read letters from fans, talked to other inmates through the vents, wrote in her journal and read the Bible, though she couldn’t cite a favorite passage when asked.

This is suspiciously reminiscient of Howard Dean’s choice of Job as his favorite New Testament book. Here’s hoping that Paris is sincere, but I’m a pretty hard sell.

27
Jun

Which ones do we release?

You know about all those harmless, misunderstood, in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time, “alleged” jihadis that we’ve got down in Guantanamo Bay?

We’ve released some of the ones that we believed were mistakenly captured. Unfortunately, we’ve been wrong. As early as 2004, the United States military was discovering that former Gitmo illegal enemy combatants had suckered the smartest intelligence officers the military has and returned to the fight in Afghanistan.

Russia reports today that another released Gitmo detainee has been killed — waging jihad near Chechnya.

The United States — at least the administration currently in charge of prosecuting the war on terrorism — is not intentionally foolish. We’re releasing prisoners who, to the best of our ability to determine, pose no threat to the United States. Yet, we keep on getting it wrong. We’ve theoretically have more evidence, more suspicions, more reason to believe that the detainees we still hold are a danger to civilized people everywhere, yet the American left wants these people brought to American and put on public trial — with the same standards for evidence that got O.J. Simpson acquitted. These terrorists were captured on a battlefield, yet the loony left and the so-called human-rights lobby want them tried as though they merely committed a murder in Brentwood.

I was reading an op-ed by one of the leaders of these human rights groups and he was calling for Congress to “restore habeaus corpus rights” to the unlawful enemy combatants at Gitmo. Restore? In times of war enemy soldiers and spies — especially those captured on the battlefield — have never had habeaus corpus rights. For those of the dwindling few who still remember World War II, do you remember lawyers demanding hearings for all those captured German soldiers held on U.S. soil?

Some do believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact.

27
Jun

Did I miss Paris on Larry King?

What a relief.

27
Jun

Career opportunities

Democrats have been talking about it ever since they retook control of Congress earlier this year: Resurrecting the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”

The fairness doctrine is being dug up and propped against the marble columns of the Capitol because Democrats don’t like talk radio — mainly because conservatives are good at it and Democrats can’t turn a profit if you spot them tens of millions of dollars.

I’d love to say that even if this passed, the Supreme Court would strike down this obviously unconstitutional infringement on free speech, but, you’ve probably been reading this blog for the past few days and know that’s not a sure thing by a long shot. The real effect would probably be an exodus of talk radio to satellite and the demise of the AM radio band — maybe they can use it for government-sponsored propaganda ads 24/7.

As with all things, there’s a flip side to the fairness doctrine. All of the sudden a professional journalist with 13 years of experience who happens to be a conservative would be in big demand as the Big 3 networks and PBS compete for the few conservative journalists in America. I’m seeing big bucks ahead as CBS is forced to balance that old coot Andy Rooney with someone who isn’t suffering from Alzheimers. (How many times has Rooney started his little homilies with “I can’t remember the last time I …?”) Someone like yours truly.

Of course, this is only true if the people they hire to monitor the “fairness” recognize a left-wing bias when they see it.

Aww … forget I said anything.





Follow Hoystory on Twitter


June 2007
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Themes


  • Support the Cause




  • Hoystory's advertisers


Your Ad Here








Close
E-mail It