It seems I pissed someone off. And not even the person I was intending to.

But wait, there's more....I even got threats of physical violence, too!

wOOt!

I'VE HIT THE BIG TIME, BABY!

You see, I've been waiting almost two years for this to happen. I've toiled in obscurity for so damn long, just begging for someone to declare the desire to whack me on the shins with a seven iron! I prayed to God. I wondered when my time in the spotlight would come. I worked hard, hoping that it could, but gosh, I will admit, I was beginning to lose faith. I didn't think it could ever happen to me! I really didn't! Geez, I'm so surprised. It's like winning an Oscar or even a Golden Globe!

I feel like I should have a speech prepared. First, I'd like to thank the Academy...

Hot damn! I am so frickin' excited I can't hardly believe it!

And all this on a post that a. wasn't directed at Learned Foot and b. he didn't bother to read. Does it get better than that? Oh, it just might!

The phrase "ad hominem attacks" was used! Tee frickin' hee!

I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, does it get any better than that? I don't think so.

Oh man! It's like Christmas came on my birthday or something! It's just too much to ask for!

Shit. I think I need to break out the whisky to celebrate this one.

UPDATE: Someone over at Kool Aid Report deleted my trackback! And after I went to all that trouble to manually ping them, too.

Classy stuff, that.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:45 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Why am I not surprised at this outcome?

It'll be interesting to see what he's sentenced to.

Anyone want to wager that hard labor in Siberia's an option?

Posted by: Kathy at 09:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

I have to say that I enjoyed this article immensely.

The other 364 days out of the year, politicians in Washington act like they've never heard the word "constituency," let alone have realized that they are, indeed, in hock to the voters of their respective districts for their jobs.

This one day, however, when their jobs are on the line because they didn't have enugh clout to keep their local bases off the base closing list, well, they're scrambling around like a half dozen eggs thrown into a pan of hot bacon grease.

I just love it. It's so enjoyable watching them squirm for a change.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

I have to say it anyway.

You can't drive with a Blood Alcohol Content of more than .08 in Minnesota.

But if you're a cop, apparently you can be out there policing---with a loaded sidearm---with a BAC of .20---more than twice the legal limit.

Which of course doesn't count the fact that Sgt. Vick got into his car and was in the process of driving home when he was murdered.

According to this paper:

Two thirds of drivers in alcohol related fatal accidents have a BAC of .14 or higher. The average BAC involved in fatal accidents is .17

Think about that one for a minute, eh?

I'm sure Sgt. Vick was a good guy and a good cop, and he most certainly didn't deserve what happned to him. I'm not trying to smear the guy. Really, I'm not. He was out doing his job, which meant he was working undercover. In bars. Where you have to drink to fit in. I think he probably had one too many and that's that.

While I am concerned about the fact that I'm pretty damn sure the St.Paul police, had he lived, would have done nothing more than slapped him on the wrist for this behavior---that he would have in no way, shape or form, ever been prosecuted for this behavior, unlike the general population---this isn't really what interests me. What I find curious are Sgt. Vick's defenders.

His defenders say "he made a mistake" and his life and death shouldn't be judged by that one mistake. The Mayor of St. Paul said it was important that no one should "revictimize the family." If Sgt. Vick simply "made a mistake" and no one should be "revictimizing" his family for said mistake, why are people jumping to his defense left and right, instead of saying, "yeah, it happens" and moving along? Doesn't that action say something rather spectacular about how we treat those who have had too much to drink in this day and age? Doesn't that action say something rather spectacular about how we look at alcohol in this country nowadays?

Being drunk every once and a while never used to be anything to be ashamed about. Maybe you forgot to eat before you went out. Maybe you just had one too many. It never used to signal that you were a problem person because you tied one on and never was the reputation you worked hard over a lifetime to establish on the line because of a night of drinking. Not so anymore, it seems. As far as society is concerned, if you have a BAC as high as Sgt. Vick's, you're a bad person. Unless, of course, you happen to be Sgt. Vick. Then you're not a bad person. You just made a mistake. That by releasing this information, and then commenting on it, we're all speaking ill of the dead.

Ummm, I don't think so. I think this controversy points directly toward the fact that in this country we are moving toward a new age of prohibition. One where excessive regulation will act in place of a new Eighteenth Amendment. Outlawing alcohol outright didn't make the problems associated with those who drink---drunk driving, fighting, excessive screwing---disappear, so now the conventional wisdom is to not only make buying and consuming alcohol a nanny-state, regulatory nightmare, but it's to also shame people into line. The bar goes lower and lower every year in regards to what is acceptable behavior where alcohol is concerned. If something doesn't happen sometime soon, pretty soon you'll have a wine box in the fridge that will have a breathalyzer attached to it and it won't dispense any more wine if you blow above the legal limit.

I don't think Sergeant Vick was a bad guy because he had a BAC of .20, even if I don't think he should have been out policing with that much liquor in his system. But how many people do think Sgt. Vick was a bad guy simply because he had that much liquor in his system? That's the question that matters. How many have made assumptions precisely about what type of person he was strictly because of his BAC level? After all, if no one had made this assumption, he wouldn't need any defenders, would he? It would all be taken in stride.

Think about that for a minute and then try and tell me this country hasn't gotten out of line with its attitude toward alcohol.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:22 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 4 kb.

Oy vey. He's wondering if WWII was really worth it because the vile governmental system that was Communism wasn't destroyed at the same time Fascism was.

Some fascinating, out-of-this-frickin'-world money quotes would include:

{...}As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings. {...}

But wait. In true Ron Popeil fashion, there's more:

{...}Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war? {...}

{...}True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?{...}

This, to put it mildly, is one of the biggest chunks of bullshit that Bucky's ever produced and that's saying quite a bit, given how much bullshit Bucky produces on a daily basis just by opening his big fat mouth to order a coffee at the local deli.

I honestly don't know where to start. The blatant revisionist history? The overall wrongness of his conclusions? The fact his Lindbergh-esque isolationist bias is showing? Good God, my mind is a jumble.

Thankfully this is not a problem, because Martini Boy has done an excellent job of fisking this puppy. Go and read.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Interesting piece today in the Opinion Journal about Columbia University's refusal to bring ROTC back to campus.

{...}Yet Columbia remains a holdout, not least because of Mr. Bollinger's dismal leadership. It certainly didn't have to be this way. The 1994 Solomon Amendment forbids universities that exclude ROTC from their campuses from receiving Pentagon funding--reason enough, we would think, for a university president to bring his school into compliance with the law. In April 2003, Columbia held a student referendum on ROTC. Two-thirds voted to bring it back. This led the university senate to appoint a 10-member panel to examine the subject; it split down the middle on the question of readmitting ROTC "as soon as is practicable."{...}

See, this is where the Opinon Journal missed a big opportunity to take a big, fat whack at Columbia's politically correct, lefty ponfitications.

ROTC, along with being an armed forces training/recruitment device, is also a huge scholarship program. You see, if you join up with the Reserve Officer's Training Corps, you get money to pay for school, and while you are required to serve for a specified period of time after you graduate, it's no different than the Americorps program, which I don't believe Columbia has an issue with.

Columbia, with its hoity-toity attitude is depriving its students of the potential of financial aid. You know, getting the government to pay for education, which is something I believe is something the lefty professors and adminstrators would advocate. This policy, one could also suppose if one were so inclined, discriminates against those who perhaps don't qualify for a large financial aid package, who haven't received scholarships ad infinitum, and need yet another way to pay for school without taking out a small fortune in student loans.

How much is tuition at Columbia again?

Too bad the Opinion Journal missed that one.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Proof that some leaps of the imagination can be baffling.

DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.

The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.{...}

{empahsis mine}

Let's see if we can follow the logic the FRC is using here. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. They believe sex before marriage is bad. Hence if you're vaccinated against HPV, you are, from there on in, going to be ruled by your hormones, because, obviously any lessons you've received over the course of a lifetime about abstaining from sex before marriage will fly right out of your head the minute the vaccine hits your bloodstream. It's apparently tricky that way. It gives women "a license to engage in premarital sex."

But Kath, you say, how could this affect other women?

Well, I'm glad you asked. Let's follow that one down the line, shall we?

What about married women? What does that mean about them if they get vaccinated against HPV? Hmmm. Could that mean they're going to go right out and cheat on their husbands? Why would they need it if they're in a committed, monogamous relationship? Hmmmm? Furthermore, I suspect these wicked married women are just giving their husbands a free pass to go out and get laid in the back of their local Perkins if they get vaccinated, because why would they need to protect themselves with the vaccine if it were otherwise?

What about rape victims? Does this mean that if a woman was vaccinated against HPV that they were asking for it? That this, like a woman asking for her rapist to use a condom, means she consented? Well, then, she wasn't really raped, was she?

I could go on, but I think you get the gist.

For an organization that promotes issues of faith, well, it sure would be nice if the FRC had some in women.

{Hat Tip: Andy}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

One can only suppose that Dementee might feel a wee bit different about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for moral reasons when someone tries to deny him his hypertension medication one day with the excuse that hypertension is a gift from God, a reminder of how fragile we human beings really are, that perhaps he should cut back on the pork rinds instead of resorting to Mother Pharmaceutical to solve his problems. After all, he can just hightail it down the street and find another pharmacy, can't he? Well, that would suppose that Dementee lives in a large metropolitan area, instead of a rural one, where there's only one pharmacy within a few hundred square miles.

Methinks Dementee might also feel differently when another pharmacist decides to hold his prescription hostage because not only is said pharmacist not morally obliged to fill Dementee's prescription, he's in a position where he could shove his morals down Dementee's throat---who may or may not agree with them. And we all realize what a tempting option that is, don't we kids? Mmmhmmmm. Good stuff there, the opportunity to proselytize from the back of a Walgreens! There's no power to be had at the back of a Walgreens, is there? Nope. None at all. After all, there's no state license required to dish out drugs...anyone can do it!

Perhaps, until then, Dementee should realize that this is a slippery slope he's advocating and perhaps, just perhaps, it requires a more nuanced answer than simply assuming that the pharmacist has the right to do whatever they damn well please. The Establishment Clause isn't going to shield a pharmacist from a lawsuit when someone dies because of their refusal to dish out drugs they might have problems with.

I suppose if Dementee's got a problem with all of that, perhaps he can go and fuck himself, no?

Posted by: Kathy at 04:37 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

And that thing you should be concerned about is the Real ID Act of 2005.

{...}The Real ID Act, which was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday and likely will clear the Senate next week, would require most license applicants to show a photo ID, a birth certificate, proof of their Social Security number and a document showing their full name and address. All of the documents then would have to be checked against federal databases.{...}

I'm not concerned so much with added scrutiny in regards to granting driver's licenses. What concerns me---and many geeks---is the last sentence of that paragraph: "All of the documents then would have to be checked against federal databases." The problem here being that with this bit of language it will be much easier for a hacker to steal your identity should this be signed into law.

{...}The bill dictates that all states collect, at a minimum, personal information from citizens in order to obtain a driver's license, including name, date of birth, gender, driver's license or identification card number, digital photograph, address and signature.

Whereas collection of this particular information is not new, the linkage of states' databases is. The bill specifies that states link what are at present discrete databases, creating, in effect, one nationwide database with personal information pertaining to all citizens. {...}

Right now, a hacker would have to attack the databases of all the DMV's in all fifty states to get the information that, should this bill pass the senate and be signed into law, would be available in one place. This would create one big ass bullseye instead of fifty bullseyes.

Data convergence is all well and good until the Federal Government gets its grubby paws on the data. Given that Lexis-Nexis had the information on 310,000 of its customers stolen recently, and the same happened to Time Warner employees, do you really think the Federal Government will be able to keep your data safe from hackers?

I don't.

Call or email your senator today. They're trying to slip this one in under the wire to please those who watch the Lou Dobbs Xenophobe Hour of Power by attaching it to an Appropriations Bill, with no debate or hearings allowed. This is what the focus on illegal immigration has wrought. Pat yourselves on the back, big boys. You should be proud of what you've accomplished! Way to put everyone in jeopardy! THANKS!

{Hat Tip: Mike at Techdirt}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

Interesting.

The part, however, that had me flipping my head in manner reminiscent of Gary Coleman and saying, What you talkin' about Willis? was this bit:

May 8, 1945 - a day to remember for Germans and their WWII opponents. There is a remarkable uneasiness among German elites how to commemorate this day: defeat for Germany or liberation from Nazi suppression?

May 8, 1945 as the day the Germans were liberated from Nazi suppression?

Ummm. No, I don't think so. You don't get to spin the defeat of Nazi Germany that way. You just don't get to do that. Nope.

While I do not doubt there were many Germans who did not belong to the National Socialist/Nazi Party and who weren't wild about what they stood for and what they ultimately did, there were plenty of Germans who were pretty darned happy they were in charge of the country. They were the majority, party membership notwithstanding. There were people who did disagree. I do not doubt this one iota. It was, however, this minority which most Germans claimed to be a part of when the war ended. These claims were taken with a knowing nod after the war, in an effort to get beyond it, but are we honestly to believe that the Germans of today have actually bought into that lie? So much so that these so-called German Elites of today were actually thinking of spinning the defeat of Germany in WWII into a liberation?

Again. No. I don't think so. They don't get to do that.

The average, ordinary German of today is no more responsible for the War and what occurred during it than I am responsible for my government's policy in regards to the Native American population. The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son, I believe is how the saying goes.

That does not, however, mean that the sons get to spin the actions of their fathers into something that is virtually unrecognizable from the truth of the matter in attempt to make it look better.

You just don't get to do that.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

As with all of my news flashes, this one is late.

My glaring faults with timeliness aside, Michelle Malkin's outraged, OUTRAGED, I tell 'ya, about Laura Bush's comedy success at the White House Correspondent's Dinner on Saturday night. She even got some time on O'Reilly last night, which I didn't bother watching because I had to see what happened to Locke on Lost.

From her blog:

{...}Most of Mrs. Bush's humor at the correspondents' dinner was just right: Edgy but not over the edge. But I think the stripper and horse jokes were totally beneath her.

Just put it to the other-shoe test: If it were Teresa Heinz Kerry standing up on the dais telling the same jokes, the conservative commentariat would be buzzing for the rest of the year about what a tasteless skank she is.

"Lighten up?" How about cleaning up? The First Lady resorting to cheap horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name. Unlike many Beltway and Manhattan commentators, I do not think the Wonkette-ization of the White House is a good thing. {...}

From her column:

{...}The First Lady resorting to horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name. It was wholly unnecessary.

Self-censorship is a conservative value. In a brilliant commencement speech at Hillsdale College last year Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner called on his audience to resist the coarsened rhetoric of our time: "If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity."

Lighten up, you say? No thanks. I'd rather be a G-rated conservative who can only make my kids giggle than a South Park/Desperate Housewives conservative whose goal is getting Richard Gere and Jane Fonda to snicker. Giving the Hollyweird Left the last laugh is not my idea of success.

Yeah, I'll say lighten up, but first off, I tell Ms. Malkin, to get a freakin' clue.

First off, it wasn't a horse masturbation joke: it was a joke that honed directly at the fact that W. didn't grow up on a farm, despite his "Ranch Owner" props, hence, didn't he know which animal to milk. Any horse masturbation that *might* have occurred was strictly accidental, hence the joke. Hahahahaha. That's funny, right? Not according to Ms. Malkin, who seems to think Mrs. Bush's comedy routine is now on par with the regular ass-f***ing commentary at Wonkette.

But, just in case this hyperbole didn't push you into the Downward Facing Dog position, Malkin decides to make some sort of wild leap into the "what this all means for Conservatives" realm. She claims that "self-censorship is a conservative value." To back up this point, she quotes from a speech the president of the Heritage Foundation gave at Hillsdale College. Yeah. That's right. Hillsdale. That bastion of Cutting-Edge Conservative Thought (TM) where the founder had a nineteen-year long adulterous affair with his daughter-in-law, who then committed suicide. You see, if I was Malkin, I could easily make the leap that because Feulner was speaking at Hillsdale his declaration that we must keep our tongues and pens in check was a way of saying that the scandale at Hillsdale never happened. Furthermore we can extrapolate from Feulner's commentary that this scandale means NOTHING about the state of Conservatism in America, let alone taint all the good work they've done at Hillsdale. That "self-censorship" and keeping it civil means to sweep the non-conservative actions of the president of a conservative college---actions some might be justified in lumping into the hypocrisy category---under the carpet and simply hoping the lump under said carpet doesn't become too noticeable.

Hmmm?

I find I must resort to the linguistic follies of the Wayan Brothers to respond to both---Malkin's and mine---leaps of the imagination.

Ahem.

Homey don't play that.

But then again, "In Living Color" wasn't G-Rated so she probably won't get that.

I digress, but it's obvious that Malkin just doesn't get is that "self-censorship" should, indeed, be a thing unto oneself. As in, if someone's language offends you, you should probably go elsewhere, not moan and caterwaul about what it means for Conservatism that a Conservative First Lady cracked a joke about going to Chippendales. When it comes to language and the topics it is employed to describe, you can be broad minded and skip over what you find offensive because someone else might find it funny. There is a choice involved, in other words. And that choice resides with the listener, not the speaker. It does not mean you should censor yourself to the point where you don't offend even the most purehearted of listeners. Furthermore, to blindly dictate that "self-censorship" is such an important part of Conservatism smacks of the politically correct movement of the left.

To quote protein wisdom himself:

{...}let me just note that the measure of one’s conservatism is NOT tied to one’s vocabulary so much as it is to one’s political philosophy. And in many ways social conservatism—with its desire to dictate “proper” or “decorous” speech—is simply dressing the PC-sensibilities of the left in the starched, high-collared clothing of neo-Victorian morality.{...}

To claim that "self-censorship is a Conservative value" offends me. Malkin, will, undoubtedly, blow my offense off because, of course, her offense is greater than mine and, of course, has more serious ramifications attached to it, or so I suspect she would argue. Where exactly is the fairness in that action, I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers? Is not my offense at her puritanical attitude worth the same in this marketplace of ideas? Am I not worth as much as Malkin is, intellectually speaking, because I drop the occasional f-bomb into my writings? Well, golly gosh! I'm mightily ticked off! I might just have to write a post about it...

Posted by: Kathy at 01:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 998 words, total size 7 kb.

Remember The Guardian's Operation Clark County from last autumn? You know, the project wherein they invaded the voter rolls from Clark County, Ohio and asked people from all over the world to write a letter to one voter, encouraging them to get out and vote? Because the American election really and truly affected everyone in the world, not just Americans! Hence they felt they had the right to butt into our electoral processes. Remember that?

Well, payback is, indeed, a bitch.

{Insert much mirth here}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Courtesy of Sully, we have this lovely little ditty.

Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.

"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."

Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker's novel "The Color Purple" has lesbian characters.

Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries.{...}

To put it mildly, I despise people who wound ban books because something about a particular book disagrees with their worldview. It is the most cowardly, chickenshitted thing someone could do, in my humble opinion. One suspects that I'm not the only person who feels this way. But am I? In this particular case one would think that there would be a few courageous souls in the Alabama legislature who would show up to decry this action, just on the principle of the thing, even if their worldview agreed with that of the would-be banner.

Apparently not.

Editor's Note: When the time for the vote in the legislature came there were not enough state legislators present for the vote, so the measure died automatically.

{emphasis mine}

They didn't have a quorum. That's why this bill died. Not because anyone had the guts to stand up and decry book banning, but rather because this was the solution that, I suspect, would ruffle the least amount of feathers.

Chickenshits.

I do not know why I feel compelled to state this time and again, but I'm going to do it again, so LISTEN THE FUCK UP because it gets very tiresome repeating oneself.

Ahem.

Book banning is wrong. It is not what America is about. If you disagree with an author, or the ideas they've presented in a book, DON'T READ THE DAMN THING! But do not under any circumstances think you have the right to tell other people what they should or should not read. That's not your job. You are not allowed to tell people that. People have their own brains. They are allowed to feed their gray matter what they would. If they choose to read something you would disagree with, it is not your job or your right to become their mother and to say they shouldn't have access to that particular book.

Think I'm flying off the handle here? That I'm overreacting to what is, in all reality, a very small thing? Well, I'm not.

Would you like to know what the most frequently challenged books were in 2004? Go here.

Note that on that list is one of Maurice---Where the Wild Things Are---Sendak's books. The former poet laureate of the United States, Maya Angelou's I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings is on that list. Dav Pilkey's marvelously funny Captain Underpants series is on that list. Of Mice and Men, an American classic, by John Steinbeck is on that list. These are not books that are "out there." These are mainstream authors, whose works some idiot considers to be "dangerous" and "inappropriate."

If you want to be even more shocked, go and peruse the list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books, 1990-2000 . Take a peek at some of the books on that list. I'm sure you've read a few. Probably in high school, when it seems everyone is subjected to Flowers For Algernon and The Catcher in the Rye. Take a hard, extensive look at that list and know that some people are afraid and scared by some books that are considered to be classics of American literature. Know that some people are offended by To Kill a Mockingbird or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. These people don't like the ideas presented in these books. Then realize that since they didn't care for them, they don't think you should care for them either. Instead of being rational about it and agreeing to disagree, instead of saying "to each their own," their answer to the problem is to work toward outright banning of said books. In the process they would impose their thoughts and beliefs upon you.

It's cowardly in the extreme to not let someone make up their own mind about something. It signals that you have so little faith in the merits of your own argument that instead of encouraging debate, and bringing someone over to your side of the argument, you would repress opposing arguments altogether.

It is the equivalent of covering your ears and screaming, "LALALLAALALAICANT'HEARYOULALALALALAALALAICAN'THEARYOU!"

That, most assuredly, is not what America is about.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 5 kb.

Quite interesting indeed.

But most likely false and is someone's whim to get people to watch the press conference.

{Hat Tip: STEEEEEEVE-O}

Posted by: Kathy at 05:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Denny Hastert just hung DeLay out to dry.

Posted by: Kathy at 01:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Robbo has a thoughtful post about the Minutemen Project.

Just to throw in my two cents: I think this whole thing is an accident waiting to happen. Sure they're just watching the border. They're not doing anything illegal. They're just making sure that the government is doing what they've promised. I buy that argument and I have no hassles with it. But all it's going to take is for one person to cross the line from watching to acting and kablooie! There's some line about good intentions paving the road to hell, right? I'm not goofing that one, right? I've been nervy about this "project" since it started and I'll be glad when it's over. I'm glad to see that nothing untoward has happened, but it could. The situation just reeks of a search for trouble. more...

Posted by: Kathy at 02:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1513 words, total size 9 kb.

And I quote:

"What I want is the full filibuster treatment: the whole Mr. Smith Goes to Washington kit and caboodle treatment."

I would have to agree with her on this one. I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong to mess with procedural rules that were put in place for a reason. As someone who is a big fan of the more arcane portions of procedural rules and who adores Robert's Rules of Order I have to applaud Frist for being very clever in attempting to work his way around the procedural rules, and for actually doing something about getting these nominees confirmed. Yet, it's nonetheless a violation of democracy. The filibuster is there for a reason. Just because you don't have the votes to overcome it doesn't mean you should get rid of it because it's more expedient that having to, you know, actually convince people to come over to your side of the argument.

Besides, when was the last time anyone actually filibustered a bill? I honestly can't remember. But, to my mind, it's always the threat of the filibuster that stops legislation dead in its tracks. If you don't have the votes to break a threatened filibuster, well, that's the end of that, and no one actually has to stand out there on the senate floor and talk until they drop. Call their bluff: make the Democrats follow through. I, like Fausta, would love to see it. The bit about Teddy Kennedy being bloated---read hungover---on the senate floor at three a.m. sounds like something I'd want to watch.

But Frist doesn't want to do that. He wants to shoot past it entirely, and he's dragging the Vice President into the fray. It behooves me to mention that he shouldn't act surprised and outraged when this comes back to bite him on the behind. Because it will. If you don't think the next time the Democrats are in power and won't attempt the same sort of stunt, you're nuts. In fact, I'm sure more than a few of them are sitting in their offices saying to themselves, "Gee, I wish we would have thought of that."

I didn't vote Republican so that we could gain control of the senate and weasel past rules that have been in place for hundreds of years. Frist, ultimately, is trying to make a small majority worth more than it actually is. That I can understand why he's doing it and sympathize with his frustrations nonetheless doesn't make it right.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm assuming your local news station did a "I'm FREAKING OUT ABOUT THIS" story tonight like mine did. You know, the one where the five-year-old got arrested for throwing a temper tantrum.

Well, if you're interested, there's a whole lot more video than what they showed on the news.

To watch the respective videos first go here for the classroom video and here for the office video.

That's what people call a temper tantrum these days? That is not a temper tantrum. That is what is called willful behavior. There's a difference. The word "tantrum" implies that there is no way the kid is coming out of it; that the child is uncontrollable/inconsolable/dangerous to themselves and others. I've seen and dealt with many kids who were in a full-blown tantrum. This kid was not in a tantrum. A tantrum involves incessant screaming, crying, kicking, more screaming, biting, hitting, more kicking, more screaming, more hitting. They are in the throes of an epically proportioned meltdown.

This child was controllable. Every time it seemed like she was being ignored, the child acted up. She pulled things off the wall when she realized someone would be upset if she did. She deliberately climbed up on that table after being told not to. Why? Because she was told not to. She was simply being willful. She thought she could win, and she proved it by doing it even though she was rebuffed once. The Vice Principal and teacher just did not have the means to control her. Why? They couldn't touch her for fear of a lawsuit. You'll notice the only time the Vice Principal touched her was when the little girl was in danger of harming herself. As Robbo points out, seither did the Vice Principal inject a little force into the tone she employed. Apparently, they're not even allowed to threaten the little buggers with adverse consequences.

Given that the school's staff was completely hamstrung by regulations, I can't blame those teachers for calling the campus cops. While one wonders why they have cops at the campus of an Elementary School, they were nonetheless the proper people to call. Unfortunately, they're being sued right now because they placed the girl in cuffs, which is a measure police generally use to subdue criminals, but is also a protective measure meant to ensure the officers aren't harmed. I don't honestly think they had any other choice, given that the girl had been kicking and screaming. You'll note how quickly she sat down and started behaving herself when she learned policemen were on the way. You'll also note that the police officer asked her if she remembered him and did she remember that he'd told her mother that the next time he'd put her in cuffs?

Why would a five-year-old be chummy with a police officer? Why would that threat be the only one this little girl would listen to? Makes a person wonder about that child's home life, doesn't it?

It seems as if the policeman was the only person who was willing to put his money where his mouth was about actions and consequences. His department doesn't deserve to be sued because he was doing his job. One can only hope this makes her straighten up and fly right. I don't think it will, considering her mother is suing the cops, and she's bound to learn the wrong lesson from that action, but one can hope.

{Hat Tip: Robbo and Wizbang}

Posted by: Kathy at 12:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 586 words, total size 4 kb.

The EU Constitution is coming up for referendum in France and I'm just loving the news that's coming out of there: the opposition to the constitution is actually ahead in recent polls. This in France. Where the governement is a pack of proverbial EU-huggers.

{Insert snorts of glee here}

Scott over at The Daily Ablution has been wandering around the country this week and has some interesting insights. You can find them here and here.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

He wouldn't put up with this stuff. I can tell you that for nothing.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amtrak suspended its high-speed Acela Express trains between Washington and Boston on Friday because of cracks found in hundreds of brake discs and said it may not have full service restored for two months.

In a potentially serious setback for the passenger railroad that is fighting to survive threatened cuts in government aid, an inspection turned up 300 cracked brake rotors out of 1,440 installed on Amtrak's 20 Acela trains, the company said.

Amtrak Chief Operating Officer Bill Crosbie said it could take up to two months to get all the trains back on the rails. He said the process of phasing the trains back into service would not begin until Wednesday at the earliest. He had no timetable for when repairs would begin.

"Acela Express will return to service only when it is safe to operate," Crosbie told a news conference. {...}

Can we all admit one thing? Amtrak needs to be privatized and it needs to happen now. Because I, for one, am sick and tired of paying for it.

According to the article Amtrak received $1.2 billion for this year from the federal government. And they're having to shut their baby down because of shoddy brakes. How much more is this going to put them in the hole? How quickly are they going to go begging to Uncle Sam? Bleh. On today of all days, when most people have to hand over large chunks of their income to the government, it's about time to recognize the fact that government ownership and operation of Amtrak is just not working out and it needs to be sold off, part and parcel, to someone who wants to buy it and run it profitably.

Perhaps Richard Branson would be interested.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.