ABCNEWS landed this exclusive interview with the Chief Justice of the United States. In it he talks about his new role as the highest judge in the land as well as how he conducts business at the Court. It's a good interview for those looking for a little more insight into a man we still hardly know.
My favorite part: He didn't join the hippy protesters during his student years at Harvard. That says a little about what we should expect from a judge whom many still see as moderate.
Interview With the Chief
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Pay-Per-Review
Disclaimer: The following is a paid review for a promising new site called ReviewMe.
While perusing the internet for political stories to discuss I came across a friend's site who talked about ReviewMe, a new site that allows advertisers to pay well-established bloggers to honestly review their sites for maximum exposure.
Becoming a member is extremely easy and takes virtually seconds to establish an account. Bloggers who wish to solicit reviews for money must submit their blog for evaluation. Once the details are entered such as title, description (plus keywords), RSS feed and URL, your site is immediately evaluated and accepted or declined based on your overall popularity on the web. ReviewMe looks at your Alexa and Technorati ranking, as well as the number of RSS subscribers you enjoy. Reviewers may have up to six blogs to review on. The more popular your blog the more money you can earn.
While reviewers may be inclined to write favorably because they're getting paid, ReviewMe's policy explicitly states that reviews must be honest and not unfairly influenced. This is a good requirement and advertisers should be aware that they can't pay for a positive review unless it's earned.
The only problem I foresee is the ratio of paying advertisers to paid bloggers. For this new concept to work there must be a generous number of advertisers willing to pay bloggers (mostly amateurs) to review them.
To advertise you simply go to the website and chose which blogger you would like to review you. Each site's popularity is listed for you to consider.
Who's Being Hateful Now, Sir Elton?
Sunday, November 12, 2006
To many people, any opposition to sex-same marriage constitutes hatred. To this class of radicals, anyone who believes the institution should be limited to one man and one woman is a bigot. As a result we will never make any progress because we refuse to see where these people are coming from. We refuse to be, well, "tolerant" of conservatives who value marriage to a certain degree that does not allow for exception to the rule.
It's a two-way street, this tolerance concept is, and rather than contribute meaningfully we are witnessing the hypocrisy of a gay man who craves tolerance so much that he has turned his back just like the supposed enemy of tolerance: religion.
But religion is not the culprit. Ignorance is. A person who would be violent toward a gay man just because of his sexuality is suffering from something other than being religious. Homophobes who are uncomfortable around gays aren’t so because Jesus told them to fear queers, but because they don’t know how to act any other way.
Saying we should ban religion is taking the low road, disgraceful, and borderline fascism. The rules may be a little different in Europe, but here in America the right to be religious is essential to calling our nation a free one. I have no more respect for the person who is hostile toward religion or spirituality than the person who abhors alternative lifestyles.
There's no doubt I appreciate his timeless musical contributions to the world, but I must say there are fewer political opinions I value less than those of singer/songwriter Elton John. As a homosexual who feels religion spurs hatred toward gays, Sir Elton has taken the hypocritical path to the issue and proclaims we must not tolerate religion, because - like him - it lacks tolerance.
From AFP:
LONDON (AFP) - Religion should be outlawed because it lacks compassion and promotes hatred of homosexuals, gay pop star Elton John said in an interview.Every rational person understands that religion in no way advocates "hatred" towards gays. But then again, it might not be as clear as it should be until we define "hatred" and how it applies to this debate.
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. From my point of view, I would ban religion completely," he was quoted as saying.
To many people, any opposition to sex-same marriage constitutes hatred. To this class of radicals, anyone who believes the institution should be limited to one man and one woman is a bigot. As a result we will never make any progress because we refuse to see where these people are coming from. We refuse to be, well, "tolerant" of conservatives who value marriage to a certain degree that does not allow for exception to the rule.
It's a two-way street, this tolerance concept is, and rather than contribute meaningfully we are witnessing the hypocrisy of a gay man who craves tolerance so much that he has turned his back just like the supposed enemy of tolerance: religion.
But religion is not the culprit. Ignorance is. A person who would be violent toward a gay man just because of his sexuality is suffering from something other than being religious. Homophobes who are uncomfortable around gays aren’t so because Jesus told them to fear queers, but because they don’t know how to act any other way.
Saying we should ban religion is taking the low road, disgraceful, and borderline fascism. The rules may be a little different in Europe, but here in America the right to be religious is essential to calling our nation a free one. I have no more respect for the person who is hostile toward religion or spirituality than the person who abhors alternative lifestyles.
Pledge of Morons
Friday, November 10, 2006
Adherence to an organized religion is not at all what the Pledge is about. We say "one nation under God" to recognize our independence from a mortal leader with absolute authority over us. So if you have a problem with our government or President Bush in particular, reciting the Pledge is a great way to express it!
Kudos to Christine Zoldos, the 18-year-old political science major who didn't cower to the liberal ignorance in California and ignored the ban. It's good to know there are patriots in all parts of the country.
I'm getting tired of the endless assaults on the Pledge of Allegiance, and I hope the new Democrat-controlled Congress will take a stand against the ideological extremists on their side of the political aisle by publicly supporting the Pledge, especially in our schools where morality is most needed.
I hope we don't see more of this as a result of the Democrats winning Congress:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government.If only these idiots would realize that swearing loyalty to God is exactly how we go about not swearing an uncomfortable level of loyalty to the U.S. government. But they malign the Pledge as if it were a conservative conspiracy to force Christianity upon hoi polloi.
The move by Orange Coast College student trustees, the latest clash over patriotism and religion in American schools, has infuriated some of their classmates -- prompting one young woman to loudly recite the pledge in front of the board on Wednesday night in defiance of the rule.
Adherence to an organized religion is not at all what the Pledge is about. We say "one nation under God" to recognize our independence from a mortal leader with absolute authority over us. So if you have a problem with our government or President Bush in particular, reciting the Pledge is a great way to express it!
Kudos to Christine Zoldos, the 18-year-old political science major who didn't cower to the liberal ignorance in California and ignored the ban. It's good to know there are patriots in all parts of the country.
I'm getting tired of the endless assaults on the Pledge of Allegiance, and I hope the new Democrat-controlled Congress will take a stand against the ideological extremists on their side of the political aisle by publicly supporting the Pledge, especially in our schools where morality is most needed.
Webb of Salaciousness
Sunday, October 29, 2006
But then there's the book "Something to Die for" and this line:
Surely this is all small beer and has nothing to do with Webb's qualifications or suitability to serve in the Senate. After all, Ted Kennedy has made a fine career for himself in Washington...and he killed a woman.
You can read more of Webb's good stuff as well as his defense over at Drudge Report. It isn't anything to get all worked up over, but as a George Allen supporter I certainly don't mind watching Webb's downfall.
Embattled Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia may have caught a break with the revelation of a few "interesting" passages posted on the Drudge Report this week from the fiction novels of his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb.
With control of Congress at a boiling point and an election less than 10 days away, Democrats are optimistic about taking over the House and/or Senate with two years of the Bush administration left remaining.
One race that's absolutely critical is in Virginia, where current Senator George Allen is fighting off bogus charges of racism and cultural insensitivity. Lucky for him however when his campaign discovered this little gem among others written in various fiction novels by Jim Webb:
"A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy's penis in his mouth." (Lost Soldiers; Webb, Jim pg 333).Webb was quick to respond, saying "I actually saw this happen in a slum in Bangkok when I was there as a journalist." It does appear that this rather unusual behavior graphically depicted in "Lost Soldiers" is practiced in certain cultures. So who are we to judge?
But then there's the book "Something to Die for" and this line:
"Fogarty...watch[ed] a naked young stripper do the splits over a banana. She stood back up, her face smiling proudly and her round breasts glistening from a spotlight in the dim bar, and left the banana on the bar, cut in four equal sections by the muscles of her vagina."Did he witness that as a reporter too?
Surely this is all small beer and has nothing to do with Webb's qualifications or suitability to serve in the Senate. After all, Ted Kennedy has made a fine career for himself in Washington...and he killed a woman.
You can read more of Webb's good stuff as well as his defense over at Drudge Report. It isn't anything to get all worked up over, but as a George Allen supporter I certainly don't mind watching Webb's downfall.
Hating O'Reilly
Friday, October 27, 2006
Go figure.
After previewing the latest scuffle between Fox's Bill O'Reilly and the hot-headed talk-show host David Letterman, one must wonder why O'Reilly was ever invited in the first place.
According to the NY Post, it gets ugly, fast:
Am I right about one thing: You guys over there at Fox and guys like Rush Limbaugh, you guys know it's all just a goof, right? You're just horsing around. You're doing it 'cause you know it'll be entertaining?" Letterman adds he's never seen O'Reilly's show because, "I dial up Fox and it's always 'The Simpsons.' "So Letterman has never watched O'Reilly's show. He has never read his latest book, or any of them. But he has a rather unfavorable opinion of him. Classy. And he's not alone. The best-seller at Fox has spent the better part of last year using his massive influence to get weak-on-crime states to pass tougher laws against child predators - laws which used to be laughable, and yet he has become one of the most detestable figures in the media.
O'Reilly tries to lighten the mood by telling the audience he and Letterman are "on the same bowling league" and asks whether he'd appear on "Dancing With the Stars."
"Bonehead!" snaps Letterman, who then starts shaking his fist and waving his arms at O'Reilly as the subject turns to the war in Iraq. "Let me ask you a question - was there more heinous, more dangerous violence taking place [before America invaded] Iraq, or is there more heinous, dangerous violence taking place now in Iraq?"
"Oh, stop it," O'Reilly scolds the host. "Saddam Hussein slaughtered 300,000 to 400,000 people, all right, so knock it off…It isn't so black and white, Dave - it isn't, 'We're a bad country. Bush is an evil liar.' That's not true."
"I didn't say he was an evil liar," Letterman shoots back. "You're putting words in my mouth, just the way you put artificial facts in your head!"
Letterman admits he hasn't read O'Reilly's new book, "Culture War," because "I looked at it. I said, 'What is it, a book on sailing?' "
Go figure.
Arizona Voter-ID Law Stands
Saturday, October 21, 2006
The Supreme Court issued its first significant ruling of the term last Friday, deciding unanimously that Arizona could put its new voter-ID rules into effect for the Nov. 7 election. The law states that voters must present proof of citizenship when registering to vote and identification when they cast their ballots, despite claims that Proposition 200 -- approved by Arizonian voters in 2004 -- is unfair to minorities.
A similar law was struck down in Georgia by a lower court not too long ago, one that bought the claim that requiring proof of citizenship is burdensome to minorities.
Friday's ruling however is unlikely to affect nation-wide election law, as the decision was not based on the legality of such a law but instead on the time-restrictions Arizona faces before heading to the polls.
"Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without any injunction suspending the voter identification rules," the court said in its unsigned opinion.
If the Supreme Court ever does decide on the merits of such laws that restrict voters from casting a ballot without proof of identification, I am confident the Roberts-led group with Samuel Alito in his first full term will rightfully uphold them as constitutional.
Democrats argue that requiring a photo-ID is tantamount to racial discrimination because poor minorities supposedly have a hard time acquiring identification. Never mind that you can get one at no cost if you lack the financial means, and in some cases the district in which you reside will provide free transportation to get you that ID.
There may be some truth to the notion that these initiatives to restrict voting (almost exclusively by Republicans) is done to keep Democratic-voting minorities away from the polls, but to say it's unfair to require everyone to possess a photo-ID because black people don't have the resources to get one is insulting.
The real reason why these laws must be in place nationwide is simply to prevent voter fraud. As the nation awaits an upcoming election that can significantly alter the makeup of Congress, it is imperative that the results are as legitimate as possible lest we repeat the 2000 election hangover.
In Arizona's case, Proposition 200 was designed to prevent illegal aliens from voting. Considering that illegal aliens shouldn't even be in this country in the first place, keeping them away from the polls is the logical conclusion to this scenario.
Voting in a federal election is a privilege bestowed upon American citizens who wish to exercise the greatest freedom afforded to them. It should not be cheapened by political activists who are afraid people won't show up to vote because they don't have a measly ID card.
Axing a Despicable Film
Saturday, October 07, 2006
To be sure, my opposition to many of Bush's policies is almost limitless, but to appreciate a film that depicts his fictional death while he's a sitting president is contemptible.
It looks like the major movie theater chains won't be showing "Death of a President" to audiences anytime soon. The faux documentary, which depicts the death of President Bush using a mix of real news segments and dramatized fiction, garnered both praise and controversy after it’s premiere at the Toronto Film Festival.
At least two chains are passing on the flick, according to Reuters":
"We would not be inclined to program this film," Regal Entertainment Group CEO Mike Campbell said. "We feel it is inappropriate to portray the future assassination of a sitting president, regardless of political affiliation."I do question the mentality of anyone who would find enjoyment in such a film, let alone wanting to see it in the first place.
Texas-based Cinemark USA also has declined to play the indie film, corporate spokesman Terrell Falk said. "We're not playing it on any of our screens," Falk said. "It's a subject matter we don't wish to play. We decided to pass on the film."
To be sure, my opposition to many of Bush's policies is almost limitless, but to appreciate a film that depicts his fictional death while he's a sitting president is contemptible.
Suspended for Being Patriotic
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
At least the Galley-family story will have a happy ending when the kids are finally home schooled and not subjected to the mercy of schoolboard members and other bureaucratic officials.
Yes our public school system is a complete joke. Nothing new to report here, but this story is particularly disgusting because patriotic students were suspended from school for wearing t-shirts with writing on them:
Ben Lewandowski says he was only trying to be patriotic when he wore a homemade T-shirt featuring an American flag bumper sticker and the words "Remember 9/11" to Lincoln Park High School on Monday.
After all, it was Sept. 11 -- five years after the terrorist attacks.
The 17-year-old Lincoln Park resident put the shirt on Monday morning and headed to school -- where he was quickly sent to the office and suspended for three days for violating the school's dress code.
He was one of at least seven students sent home for wearing shirts featuring patriotic images and messages. It comes less than a week after three siblings were suspended for wearing shirts emblazoned with the First Amendment, despite warnings, and a week after more than 200 students were sent home on the first day of school for violating the district's dress code -- which bans apparel with writing or pictures.
For Lewandowski, who was sent home on the first day of school for wearing a shirt with writing on it, Monday's incident was his second offense.
"I was frustrated," said the junior, whose desire to become a firefighter was fueled after the Sept. 11 attacks. "It just made me so mad that I can't be patriotic."
Lincoln Park Schools Superintendent Randall Kite said the high school held a moment of silence Monday to give students an outlet to show their patriotism. He said some students had asked last week whether they could wear shirts to commemorate the day, and they were told no.
"We didn't think it would be appropriate, because of the dress code, to wear T-shirts with writing," he said Tuesday.
According to the dress code, students are allowed to wear school-sanctioned clothing, such as T-shirts bearing the school's mascot or clothing that supports school organizations.
Kite said the district had lawyers review the policy before it was enacted. Members of the district's school board have said the dress code is lenient compared with other districts such as Detroit and Pontiac, which have banned jeans and T-shirts completely.
Southfield's school district implemented a dress code last year similar to those enacted in Detroit and Pontiac this year. Southfield Schools Deputy Superintendent Ken Siver said Tuesday that the district didn't have any problems Monday with students violating the policy to wear patriotic garb.
Still, some Lincoln Park parents say they feel the district has gone too far.
Kaye Belcuore's granddaughter, 14-year-old Karly Belcuore, was sent home Monday from Lincoln Park High for wearing a T-shirt with patriotic messages on it.
"I think it's a little ridiculous under the circumstances," Kaye Belcuore said.
Kelly Galley agrees. Her three children -- 13-year-old twins Monique and Jaicen Massa and 11-year-old Jaymie Massa -- were suspended last week for protesting the dress code by wearing T-shirts with the First Amendment on them. Jaymie had stayed home from Lincoln Park Middle School on Tuesday, but Monique and Jaicen wore the shirts again -- their third offense -- and were suspended again, this time for five days. One more offense and they'll be expelled.
Galley said it's likely she'll end up homeschooling.
At least the Galley-family story will have a happy ending when the kids are finally home schooled and not subjected to the mercy of schoolboard members and other bureaucratic officials.
Remember 9/11
Monday, September 11, 2006
A lesson we may never learn:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling" is worse than the slaughter of innocent people...
Politicians Have Feelings Too
Friday, September 08, 2006
You see kids, congressional candidates are more than just vote-hungry politicians devoid of soul:
WASHINGTON - Voters weary of campaign advertising will get a reprieve Monday in the political equivalent of a moment of silence.Take that Casey. Not a single buy from the Santorum campaign. And not a single buy from me either - in regards to this stunt. It would be easier to believe Sept 11th isn't a day for "politicking" if it weren't true that both parties have been using it to attack the other ever since that horrible morg five years ago.
Several candidates say they are pulling their campaign ads for the day to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
In Pennsylvania, where Republican Sen. Rick Santorum and Democrat Bob Casey have filled the airwaves in one of the nation's most competitive races, both said Thursday they are pulling down their commercials fninor the day.
Casey "thinks it is a day for remembrance and not for politicking," said Larry Smar, a campaign spokesman.
Santorum's campaign press secretary expressed a similar sentiment.
"We had always planned to be dark that day," said Virginia Davis. "We knew it would be disrespectful to run ads that day. We had never even placed a buy."
More Than Just a Few Volts?
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Human Rights groups such as Amnesty International opposes such devices and claims that they have been responsible for more than 90 deaths in the United States and Canada alone. Surely they will be following this particular story and fuel the anti-taser movement.
If tasers alone are in fact brining out fatal results, its use by police needs to be seriously questioned. However all too often those killed after being tased were found with lethal amounts of drugs in their system. After all, it's only logical that someone who needs to be tased in order to be subdued was under a chemical influence.
Cocaine, a stimulant that can make users aggressive and uncharacteristically strong, puts an unhealthy amount of a stress on the heart that is only worsened when accompanied by 50,000 volts of electricity.
Supporters of the device would say consuming illegal drugs is something you do at your own risk and the threat such users face should not outweigh the positive effects of tasers. Agencies worldwide tout the success of the device, and one study found that the presence of a taser alone is enough to convince a criminal to surrender for fear of getting shocked.
I have yet to draw my own conclusion on the use of tasers. I've never been confronted by a belligerent thug set on causing my great harm - and well, if a taser can be used instead of a gun, I think they serve a vital purpose.
They say cocaine doesn't mix well with alcohol and other drugs. Now we can add tasers to the list:
A forensic pathologist says she couldn't tell whether police use of a Taser contributed to the death of 44-year-old Robert Bagnell in Vancouver more than two years ago.The debate concerning the use of tasers by police is continuing to intensify now that another suspect has died after receiving the nasty jolt. Advocates for the use of tasers maintain that they are non-lethal devices that help officers subdue unruly suspects who would otherwise be subjected to greater injury with a more punishing weapon.
Bagnell died after he was restrained and Tasered by police as they tried to remove him from a bathroom at a Granville Street hotel in June 2004.
Dr. Laurel Gray told a coroner's inquest on Tuesday that Bagnell had four times the lethal level of cocaine in his blood, and had also taken amphetamines.
She also told the inquest that she found a series of 13 red marks on Bagnell's body - most of them in pairs about two centimetres apart.
The pathologist said she could not tell whether the marks were caused by a police Taser.
A police account of the fatal incident states that officers applied a Taser twice, and that Bagnell continued to struggle after being hit by the Taser.
Gray said if the Taser caused the cardiac arrest, Bagnell's heart would have stopped immediately after the 50,000 volts of electricity were applied.
The Bagnell family has launched a lawsuit against the Vancouver Police Department, the officers involved and the maker and distributor of the Taser, with the hope of getting the device banned in British Columbia.
Human Rights groups such as Amnesty International opposes such devices and claims that they have been responsible for more than 90 deaths in the United States and Canada alone. Surely they will be following this particular story and fuel the anti-taser movement.
If tasers alone are in fact brining out fatal results, its use by police needs to be seriously questioned. However all too often those killed after being tased were found with lethal amounts of drugs in their system. After all, it's only logical that someone who needs to be tased in order to be subdued was under a chemical influence.
Cocaine, a stimulant that can make users aggressive and uncharacteristically strong, puts an unhealthy amount of a stress on the heart that is only worsened when accompanied by 50,000 volts of electricity.
Supporters of the device would say consuming illegal drugs is something you do at your own risk and the threat such users face should not outweigh the positive effects of tasers. Agencies worldwide tout the success of the device, and one study found that the presence of a taser alone is enough to convince a criminal to surrender for fear of getting shocked.
I have yet to draw my own conclusion on the use of tasers. I've never been confronted by a belligerent thug set on causing my great harm - and well, if a taser can be used instead of a gun, I think they serve a vital purpose.
Crime Control is the Best Gun Control
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The mayor of New York City wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and is calling for laws that will have nothing to do with criminals. His plan:
Mayor Bloomberg renewed his call for stronger gun control laws yesterday after the fatal shooting of a hero sanitation worker.Or we can make it harder for criminals to commit crimes in the first place, but for some reason it's "mean" to suggest keeping violent criminals where they belong - in jail.
"Our nation has to finally get serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and cracking down on the few reckless gun dealers who make their living catering to them," Bloomberg said.
The mayor has been pushing for stricter gun control across the country and has lobbied Congress to change laws so it's easier to track guns used in crimes.
Who's #11?
Monday, September 04, 2006
Not Florida State. Say hello to the Top 10 and better things in the weeks to come. The FSU/Miami rivalry is always ugly. We knew going into tonight's contest would be a game of defense, and tonight Florida State proved it has a nasty one.
Congrats FSU.
A Good Plan for Abortion Opponents
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Adult women will have to be trusted to use Plan B responsibly, and at its price range I don't see many girls substituting it every time they have sex for traditional forms of birth control. It's to be used when traditional birth control fails.
Critics are right to say Plan B should be restricted to adults or minors with permission. At no time should it be easier for underage girls to buy contraception than cigarettes or lottery tickets.
And because underage girls must have permission, the argument that rapists will force Plan B upon them is moot. What is a problem however is the ability for rapists to drive underage girls across state lines to get abortions unbeknownst to their parents (recently addressed by the Senate).
In a perfect world unwanted pregnancies would not exist. Needless to say we don't live in one, and something like Plan B can help reduce the number of pregnancies that end up in the trashcan.
While my pro-life (or "anti-choice.....to have an abortion") friends are frowning upon the decision to allow over-the-counter sales of Plan B birth control, I see this as an opportunity to make a stronger case against the abortion option as a "necessity." There's good news in this:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Women may buy the morning-after pill without a prescription - but only with proof they're 18 or older, federal health officials ruled Thursday, capping a contentious three-year effort to ease access to the emergency contraceptive.The purpose of Plan B is simple: to stop unwanted pregnancies - the kind that results in abortions. Conservatives fear the availability of this drug will promote promiscuity and give women a false sense of security, but I don't think that's for us to determine. Condoms have the same consequences but we're at a point where we know they're necessary.
Girls 17 and younger still will need a doctor's note to buy the pills, called Plan B, the Food and Drug Administration told manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The compromise decision is a partial victory for women's advocacy and medical groups that say eliminating sales restrictions could cut in half the nation's 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies. Opponents have argued that wider access could increase promiscuity.
The pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills. When a woman takes the pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex, she can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.
The earlier it's taken, the more effective Plan B is. But it can be hard to find a doctor to write a prescription in time, especially on weekends and holidays. Hence the push to allow nonprescription sales.
The two-pill pack of Plan B costs from $25 to $40. A Barr spokeswoman estimated that pharmacists dispense about 1.5 million packs a year.
Plan B's maker was disappointed that FDA imposed the age restriction and pledged to continue working the agency to try to eliminate it.
But higher-ranking officials rejected that decision, citing concern about young teens' use of the pills without a doctor's oversight. Barr reapplied, asking that women 16 and older be allowed to buy Plan B without a prescription. Then, last August, the FDA postponed a final decision indefinitely, saying the agency needed to determine how to enforce those age restrictions.
But opponent Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Plan B's wider availability could give women a false sense of security, since it isn't as effective as regular birth control. Wright also worries that adult men who have sex with minor girls could force the pills upon them.
"Statutory rape is a very serious problem. This decision is going to allow statutory rapists to rely on this drug to cover up their abuse," Wright said.
Adult women will have to be trusted to use Plan B responsibly, and at its price range I don't see many girls substituting it every time they have sex for traditional forms of birth control. It's to be used when traditional birth control fails.
Critics are right to say Plan B should be restricted to adults or minors with permission. At no time should it be easier for underage girls to buy contraception than cigarettes or lottery tickets.
And because underage girls must have permission, the argument that rapists will force Plan B upon them is moot. What is a problem however is the ability for rapists to drive underage girls across state lines to get abortions unbeknownst to their parents (recently addressed by the Senate).
In a perfect world unwanted pregnancies would not exist. Needless to say we don't live in one, and something like Plan B can help reduce the number of pregnancies that end up in the trashcan.
This Monument Still Stands
Friday, August 18, 2006
The Supreme Court looked at two similar cases a few years ago and came to opposite conclusions on the constitutionality of religious displays. Because each case must now get individual attention, we don't know whether a display is constitutional or not until the highest judge who hears the case makes a decision.
With Alito now on the Supreme Court we may get a more definitive answer in the near future. In both 2005 cases, Justice O'Connor - whom Alito replaced -joined the side that found the displays unconstitutional.
The clean-slated judge who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2003 probably just raised a few eyebrows with this decision:
OKLAHOMA CITY - A federal judge on Friday said a Ten Commandments monument outside a courthouse can stay, rejecting arguments that it promotes Christianity at the expense of other religions.That's right, according to this ACLU attorney, the ruling "represents a loss for religious freedom." Apparently religion is only free when every last remnant of it is shielded from public view.
U.S. District Judge Ronald A. White in Muskogee ruled that Haskell County did not violate the Constitution by erecting the monument. The county did not "overstep the constitutional line demarcating government neutrality toward religion," he wrote.
The county argued that the monument outside the Stigler courthouse was part of a historical display that included other monuments recognizing war veterans, the Choctaw Tribe and others. The Ten Commandments monument has the Mayflower Compact etched on the other side.
"A significant factor is that someone comes and looks at all the monuments on the lawn, they can't just single out the Ten Commandments monument and say, `Ah ha!' and that means government is impermissibly endorsing religion," said Kevin Theriot, an attorney for the Haskell County commissioners.
Micheal Salem, an attorney representing the American Civil Liberties Union and Stigler resident James W. Green, said he thought "the court's decision really represents a loss for religious freedom." He said he would have to thoroughly review White's decision before deciding whether to appeal.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that religious displays on government property are not inherently unconstitutional and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The Supreme Court looked at two similar cases a few years ago and came to opposite conclusions on the constitutionality of religious displays. Because each case must now get individual attention, we don't know whether a display is constitutional or not until the highest judge who hears the case makes a decision.
With Alito now on the Supreme Court we may get a more definitive answer in the near future. In both 2005 cases, Justice O'Connor - whom Alito replaced -joined the side that found the displays unconstitutional.
Yahoo! Changes Again
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
If you're like me you get used to your homepage and don't want it messed with. I had enough of a problem when Yahoo! moved its e-mail button from the left to the right side of the screen last update, but now they've completely redone their homepage and I don't like it one bit. I'm currently using the old page but it will expire the first of September.
So now I have to get used to a new new page, only to see it change probably some time early next year. Bastards!
Cancer Will Be Gone...But So Will Earth
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
And while we're on the subject of predictions, the Democratic Party never said exactly when they'll catch Osama bin Laden if they take back Congress. But they'll catch him, they say. And Benjamin Cardin will cure cancer.
A Democratic candidate from Maryland promises to cure cancer by 2015 if elected:
With a month to go before primary voters head to the polls to choose Senate nominees, Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin kicked off yesterday a weeklong effort to highlight his congressional record and vision on health care by making the mother of all campaign promises - to cure cancer.But wait, he's not the only Democrat making ten-year predictions. Even if Cardin is right, we must contend with the more ominous prediction from Al Gore, who says that by 2015 our precious planet will have imploded from the consequences of Global Warming.
And while we're on the subject of predictions, the Democratic Party never said exactly when they'll catch Osama bin Laden if they take back Congress. But they'll catch him, they say. And Benjamin Cardin will cure cancer.
Hardly a Case of Moral Equivalency
Monday, August 14, 2006
Remember when a whole lot of people had to die because a Swedish newspaper printed those cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed? Now Iran wants to turn the tables and is inviting cartoonists to do their best by depicting the Holocaust. Amazingly, these idiots think a cartoon of Mohammed is comparable to what we can expect in this new fun contest:
TEHRAN (AFP) - An international contest of cartoons on the Holocaust opened in Tehran in response to the publication in Western papers last September of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.This cute little stunt is only going to prove just how fanatic the extremist Muslims are. When they saw a cartoon of their prophet, people had to die. When their precious cartoons are released I highly doubt it will look like the end of the world.
"We staged this fair to explore the limits of freedom Westerners believe in," Masoud Shojai, head of the country's "Iran Cartoon" association and the fair organizer, said.
"They can freely write anything they like about our prophet, but if one raises doubts about the Holocaust he is either fined or sent to prison," he added.
"Though we do not deny that fact that Jews were killed in the (second world) war, why should the Palestinians pay for it?" Shojai told the opening ceremony of the month-long fair in Tehran's Palestine Contemporary Art Museum.
He added that around 1,100 cartoons were submitted by participants from more than 60 countries and that more than 200 are on show.
He said the top three cartoons will be announced on September 2, with the winners being awarded prizes of 12,000, 8,000 and 5,000 dollars respectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)