The NY Times just can’t help themselves. Here is the title of their obituary for Strom Thurmond:
Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100
This obituary dismisses Strom’s assertion that he wasn’t racist but opposed Federal intervention, even though the notion of States’ rights versus Federal rights is a well-known battle. Apparently, the NY Times can’t make the distinction. The obituary even goes on to highlight that Strom aboloshied the poll tax as Governor and was the first to hire a black legislative employee.
Liberal East coast news organizations have never understood, or even attempted to understand, the South.Posted by Owen at 0838 hrs
More to come…
UPDATE: Here’s the story.
Teacher, lawyer, Senator, Governor, Normandy Invader, Major General, Democrat, Dixiecrat, Republican, presidential candidate, record holder for the longest filibuster, father, husband, son. Love him or hate him, Strom Thurmond embodies the America of the 20th century.
May he rest in peace.Posted by Owen at 2153 hrs
Uh oh, Osama has got the Jackal on his side now.
Carlos the Jackal, whose real name is Illich Ramirez Sanchez, praises Osama Bin Laden’s “shining” example in a selection of writings from his prison cell in France which went on sale on Thursday.
A convert to Islam since his imprisonment for three murders, Sanchez preaches “revolutionary Islam” - which is the title of his book - as the new, post-Communist answer to what he calls US “totalitarianism”.
From one terrorist to another, with love.Posted by Owen at 2151 hrs
I just love this quote from a CENTCOM spokeswoman regarding Comical Ali.
“He is an interesting story teller and we look forward to hearing what he has got to say,”
Who says CENTCOM folks don’t have a sense of humor?Posted by Owen at 2145 hrs
Richard III usurps the English throne in 1483.
JFK gave his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963.Posted by Owen at 2142 hrs
Here is an article about the sodomy ruling titled:
Gays overjoyed, conservatives despair over sodomy ruling
I just want to bicker with their characterization of the two groups here. Do you notice how the headline has 2 false assumptions? The first is that all gays are non-conservative. I think that Andrew Sullivan would disagree as well as the Log Cabin Republicans. Second is that it assumes that all Conservatives oppose the ruling. The article is littered with quotes from a few select Conservative organizations. Personally, I have found a much more diverse range of opinions and a much broader scope of argument among the Conservative community than among the leftys. If fact, this article proves it:
“82 percent of Americans have already expressed the view that these kinds of laws are inappropriate. State after state have repealed them,”
You don’t get to 82% without a great many Conservatives agreeing with you.Posted by Owen at 2126 hrs
Today I stumbled across a favorite quote of mine which I hadn’t seen in years.
“It is my right to be uncommon if I can…
I seek opportunity, not security.
I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.
I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and build, to fail and to succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole.
I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence, the thrill of fulfillment to the tranquility of utopia.
I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout.
I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.
It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid; to think and act for myself; enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, ‘This I have done,’ and this is what it means to be an American.”
- Dean Alfrange
In a bizarre story that’s not getting any pub outside of Texas, our former Attorney General Dan Morales is in jail awaiting trial on several charges. These charges include illegal diversion of campaign funds acquired during his run for governor in 2000, and an attempt to get a couple hundred million in attorneys fees for an attorney friend who didn’t contribute materially to the state’s tobacco lawsuit.
What really makes the story bizarre is Morales requested a public defender on grounds that he couldn’t afford counsel. He then bought two cars, stating on the loan applications that he was a self employed lawyer (even though his law license had lapsed) with over $20K of annual income. The judge promptly there his butt back in jail as a risk to either flee from prosecution or commit financial fraud to cover his debts.
At least this shows that dishonest politicians aren’t always above the law.Posted by Jed at 1933 hrs
This, however, is almost guarenteed not to work:
Employees must keep the weapon concealed and employees who legally use a concealed weapon on school grounds do so in their individual capacities, not their scope of employment.
The trial lawyers will eat this disclaimer alive.Posted by Jed at 1857 hrs
What is this, Texas legislature day on the blog?
Gov Perry is considering calling the legislature into another 30-day special session later this year to address changes to Texas’ system of funding public education. Texas currently has the “Robin Hood” system, which is where richer school districts give a portion of their funds to the poorer districts in the state.
This may seem to be a noble effort, but as with most noble efforts, it carries with it a cost. The system is funded through property taxes on residents of the school districts. The legislature has set a maximum school property tax rate of $1.50 per $100 of valuation.
The problem arises when a rich school district is not able to meet its expenses because once it “donates” its share to the system, there is not enough left to run the schools in the district. These districts have raised their rates to the maximum allowed, and have nowhere to go. As of now, nearly 40 percent of the state’s school districts have hit the cap. The fact that these districts have no choice but to maintain the maximum property tax has raised questions as to whether the distibution of funds under the Robin Hood system constitutes, in effect, a state property tax (which is prohibited by the Texas constitution).
Because the “rich” designation is determined based on the entirety of the school district, it leads to stiff taxes for a lot of those who don’t necessarily have “rich” property. For example, a district can be relatively poor, but have a large industry which drives up property values in a tiny portion of the district, therefore driving the entire district up into the “rich” bracket (though not necessarily having a correlative effect on the surrounding property values). Though the poor in the district are still only paying based on a valuation of their property, the tax rate is higher.
This is the situation with my parents’ homestead, which lies in a small school district composed of a lot of dirt poor people, but which also contains a coal strip-mining operation with a high property value. The end result is a lot of folks who really can’t afford it paying a buttload in property taxes which go straight to another part of the state.Posted by Jed at 1738 hrs
Gov Rick Perry has called the Texas Legislature into a 30-day special session to address congressional redistricting. You may or may not recall that this is the issue which sent Texas’ Democratic legislators running to Oklahoma earlier this year.
The Republicans are breaking with the traditional timing for redistricting, and the Democrats are whining that it’s unfair. I find this funny because you know the Democrats would try the exact same thing if the positions were reversed. It’s politics, man, politics…
This is the first time the Republicans have controlled the Texas legislature since Reconstruction, and the Democrats are about to get a little taste of what they’ve been dishing out for 150 years.Posted by Jed at 1716 hrs
Speaking of government being where they don’t belong:
June 26 ? More than 18 months since New York banned hand-held cell phone use while driving, there is no data indicating that the ban has reduced accidents there, according to state and federal safety experts. While no state study has focused specifically on the cell phone issue since the ban took effect in December 2001, an array of independent studies show cell phone conversations using ?hands-free? devices are just as likely to cause dangerous distractions as those conducted on hand held phones. In spite of this evidence, 42 states are considering New York-style bans in their current sessions.
Of course, here’s the liberals’ solution:
?It?s not the device itself ? it?s the intellectual distraction of the conversation. We strongly believe that people should not drive and talk on the cell phone. Period.?
The question is, if we are to ban all intellectual distractions from drivers, then where do we draw the line? Radio? Drive-throughs? Screaming kids? Pens and paper? Radar detectors? Passengers?
People should be punished if they cause an accident, but not for doing something that might carry a higher risk of an accident.Posted by Owen at 1344 hrs
The SCotUS has ruled Texas’ sodomay law unconstitutional.
I won’t attempt to analyze (pardon the pun) this in any great detail, except to say that I think it is a good ruling. Although it will be spun as a victory for gays, it is more a victory for the principle of limited government. There are places where government doesn’t need to be and the bedroom is one of those.
Now that we have established that government doesn’t belong in the bedroom, we can work on pushing it all the way out the front door and past the property line.
I’m watching the Simpsons again. They unveil a statue of Jimmy Carter with the plaque reading “Malaise Forever” because they couldn’t afford a statue of Lincoln. A member of the crowd shouts “He was history’s greatest monster!” and the mob tears down the statue.
Priceless.Posted by Owen at 2225 hrs
A gal from this organization came to my door this evening asking me to sign a petition supporting a Wisconsin bill regarding prescription drugs. Her argument consisted of:
“Aren’t prescription drug prices high? Sign this petition so that Wisconsin can negotiate lower drug prices for the uninsured.”
Naturally, I asked to see the bill so that I could evaluate its merits. She flashed a single page “summary” of the bill. The only thing I could glean from the bold print was stuff like “old people choosing between life-saving drugs and heat.” She didn’t have a copy of the bill, nor did she have an argument. I asked what the bill was about and she just repeated her intro. So I told her that I wasn’t signing anything without reading up on it and she promptly left.
It just bothers me that they are asking people to sign a petition without arming their go-fers with a valid argument. Did they not think that someone might actually ask what the details are? Or did they just assume that “Aren’t prescription drug prices high?” would be enough? What does that say about their opinion of the masses? What worries me more is how many other folks just said “yes” and signed away.
On the bright side, the petition she was asking me to sign didn?t have any other signatures (I live in a county that votes 74% Republican and next to a county that votes 70%+ Democrat), but then again, it could have just been a new sheet.Posted by Owen at 2222 hrs