Saturday, September 25, 2004

New Blog!

For all you federal judicial nomination junkies. (via The Corner)
Dubya Got No Preferential Treatment

According to the man who swore him in to the Texas Air National Guard. Don't expect a little inconvenient fact like this to deter the draft dodger loving 'Rats and their Kool-Aid drinking enablers in the media to change their contrarian mantra, though. (link via Drudge)

On Thursday, Morrisey said the argument that Bush got off easy by being in the National Guard doesn't take into consideration the context of the 1960s.

"Bush and the others were flying several flights day or night over the Gulf of Mexico to identify the unknown,'' he said. "The Cold War was a nervous time. You never knew. There were other things going on equally important to the country, and the Air National Guard had a primary role in it.''

Morrisey said the commander he worked for at the unit in Texas was sent there to rebuild the image of the unit. There were only two to four pilot training slots given to them per year, he said. Individuals questioned by an evaluation board and then chosen by the commander had to be the best.

"Bush was selected and he turned out just fine,'' he said.

A white-male-Christian college student prevails in his discrimination claim against a University of North Carolina propagandist, errr, professor.

Professor Elyse Crystall violated student Timothy R. Mertes' civil rights, the agency said, by improperly accusing him of "hate speech" in an e-mail sent to students after a class discussion in which Mr. Mertes said he was a Christian and felt "disgusted, not threatened" by homosexual behavior.


In her e-mail, Ms. Crystall told students: "I will not tolerate any racist, sexist, and/or heterosexist comments in my class. What we heard Thursday at the end of class constitutes 'hate speech' and is completely unacceptable, it has created a hostile environment. I am deeply sorry and apologize to those of us who are now feeling that the classroom we share is an unsafe environment, for those of us who feel vulnerable or threatened. I will do my best to counter those feelings and protect that space from further violence."

Naming Mr. Mertes in the e-mail, Ms. Crystall wrote: "What we experienced, as unfortunate as it is, is, however, a perfect example of privilege, that a white, heterosexual, Christian male, one who vehemently denied his privilege last week insisting that he earned all he has, can feel entitled to make violent, heterosexist comments and not feel marked or threatened or vulnerable is what privilege makes possible."
Killer Kangaroo Courts

Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE) releases a statement on the recent death sentence imposed on Terri Schiavo by the Florida Supreme Court. (link via Times Against Humanity)

Thursday, September 23, 2004

See the Full Monty on Pier 39

San Francisco's "enlightened" city prosecutors drop all charges against the Naked Yoga Guy and say it isn't illegal to be naked in the middle of Fisherman's Wharf. Is this place an insane asylum, or what?

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Institutional Religious Liberty vs. Protection of Children

Such appears to be the fundamental conflict in a Bay Area lawsuit, where alleged abuse victims are arguing they ought to be able to sue the Church for negligent hiring, firing and supervision of abusive priests. (link via Amy Welborn)

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw issued a temporary ruling Thursday stating a 2002 state law temporarily lifting the statute of limitation on damage suits against institutions that protected known child molesters gave abuse victims the right to sue.

Arguing for the church, lawyer Paul Gaspari said the Constitution forbade punishing the church for the standards it sets for the ordination of priests.

"If a religious institution chooses to ordain a known child molester that it felt had truly repented, it has that constitutional right," Gaspari said. "The government may not second-guess that choice."

Marci Hamilton, a lawyer assisting the abuse victims' legal team, argued that repentance was not relevant to the issue of culpability.

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation

I had always been a little unclear on what Ronald Reagan's position on abortion was, so I did a Google search and discovered that he wrote the above titled essay on the 10th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 1983. Quite an amazing man was our 40th President.

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives—the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn—for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will's moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?