What’s the difference?

In Katie's last two columns (Spot can't wait to see if she goes for the hat trick tomorrow), she rails and wails against what she regards as public institutional support of Islamic religious practice. She has also shrieked about Muslim taxi drivers and the flying imams.

Spot is pleased that Katie is foursquare against dragging religion into the public square. Spot just wonders when Katie will pen a column criticizing the putative Christian pharmacists who won't fill a prescription for emergency contraception.

You can’t prevent something like this

That's the ironic title of Professor Stephen Griffin's post about the Virginia Tech shooting yesterday. Professor Griffin notes bitterly:

I've heard something like [you can't prevent something like this] after every mass slaying or, rather, every mass slaying committed by someone with a gun. After mass slayings committed by terrorists, presidential assassinations, or killings in areas supposedly secure like courts, we commit ourselves to the actions necessary to prevent such killings in the future, whether through better security, use of intelligence, confiscation of weapons, and the like. But with mass killings committed in country with a gun, we are encouraged to believe, by people who should know better, that they are akin to natural disasters or freak occurrences like an asteroid strike in your backyard.

Griffin's post drew the usual howls of protest from the gun nuts. Spotty has been thinking lately about all the Catch-22s in life: Want to be the president? You're clearly too much of a megalomaniac for the job. Want to carry a gun around all the time? Then you're probably such a paranoid psychopath that you're too damn dangerous to be trusted with one.

Where was Spotty? Oh yes. Virginia does very little to control guns. There is no background check, nor any waiting period before purchasing a handgun. According to reports, the shooter at Virginia Tech had just recently acquired the handguns used in the killings. Might a waiting period have stopped him? Maybe, or maybe not. But one thing is certain now: thirty-three more people are dead from gun violence in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Tag: Cho Seung-Hui, gun control

Reassuring news

Spot heard a couple of commentators refer to the shootings at Virginia Tech yesterday as the "largest mass murder in American history." You'll be relieved to know, boys and girls, that it's not true. We've been much better than that at slaughtering Indians. Spot's favorite historian, Howard Zinn, describes a blood fest that perhaps established the tradition:

In reality, we have never been just a city on a hill [describing Winthrop and later Ronald Reagan's use of the term]. A few years after Governor Winthrop uttered his famous words, the people in the city on a hill moved out to massacre the Pequot Indians. Here's a description by William Bradford, an early settler, of Captain John Mason's attack on a Pequot village.

Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword, some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived that they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy.

Ah, the smell of roasted Indians! But this was hardly the last time:

The kind of massacre described by Bradford occurs again and again as Americans march west to the Pacific and south to the Gulf of Mexico. (In fact our celebrated war of liberation, the American Revolution, was disastrous for the Indians. Colonists had been restrained from encroaching on the Indian territory by the British and the boundary set up in their Proclamation of 1763. American independence wiped out that boundary.)

Spotty, I think maybe the commentators meant it was the worst mass murder in U.S. history when most or all of the victims were white and where guns were used. Captain Mason's guys used fire and swords.

Do you think so, grasshopper? Well then, never mind.

Tags: Virginia Tech shootings, city on a hill, slaughtering Indians

Monica calls Rachel

Ring. Ring.

Hello, this is Rachel Paulose, your United States Attorney.

Omigod, they want to talk to you, too!

I'm sorry. Who is this?

Monica.

Monica? Monica who?

You know very well who this is. Monica Goodling.

Oh, of course. Monica. What can I do for you?

That's a little abrupt, Rachel.

Whatever do you mean? It's nice to talk to you. What do you want?

Gee, I thought we could have a friendly conversation like we used to. Visit about the Christian life. Stuff like that.

I'd love to Monica, but I'm a little busy right now. I know you have some time on your hands, but some of us are still employed and would like to stay that way.

That was catty, Rachel.

Sorry. I am just stressed out, I guess.

I know. That's partly why I called. Maybe we can pray about it. What do you think?

Maybe another time. Right now I need to summon more temporal powers.

That's the other reason I called. Do you need a referral to a good lawyer? Mine's just the best! He stopped Conyers and the rest of those yahoos on the House Judiciary Committee cold!

Actually, Monica, I think he just slowed "Conyers and the rest of those yahoos" down a little.

Whatever do you mean? He told the Committee that I wouldn't testify.

Sigh. He told the Committee that you were invoking your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. You remember that from law school, don't you Monica?

There you go again! Of course I do! Just because you went to Yale and I went to that crackpot Pat Robertson's law school.

I hear that Conyers is talking about granting you immunity for your testimony before the Committee. If he does that, you'll have to testify.

Really? I mean yeah, I suppose. But that'll be great, because then I can just go up to the Hill and just say some things, yada yada yada, and protect like, everybody!

Did you ever use the DOJ email system Monica?

You know I did.

As the DOJ liaison with the White House, you either sent, received, or were copied on lots of emails, weren't you?

Well, sure.

You know who has those emails now, don't you Monica?

John Conyers?

Right.

Ooh, that's bad. But I'll be immunized, right?

You'll have immunity for any deeds you participated in, but not for any perjury you commit before the Committee. And if they have all your emails, you'll be on a pretty short leash. Not a good time to get creative, Monica.

But Paul and Kyle and even Alberto, I mean Mr. Gonzales, will be counting on me! Maybe even you!

But in the end, you'll save you own skin.

I suppose. Goodness! Can Conyers ask about whether I ever talked to you, like now?

Yes.

I'm starting to see why you don't want to talk. Should I hang up now?

Yes, Monica. Please. Goodbye. [click]

Rachel, I would still like to end with a little prayer, just for old time's sake. Rachel? Rachel? Darn, I wanted to ask her if she was still sore that I missed her coronation.

Tags: Monica Goodling, Rachel Paulose, United States Attorneys

Listen to the Mockingbird!

Remember boys and girls, when Katie took another shot at Muslim religious observance last week? Spot urges you read his post, but in summary, Katie was upset that Minneapolis Community and Technical College was considering adding some kind of facility for Muslim students who want to ritually bathe their feet before prayer to do so more easily. Spot said that Katie was upset because the religion that was being "established" was Islam, not Christianity.

Today, Katie expands on the theme with Ritual-washing area for Muslims at MCTC may be only the beginning. (The Muslims have been a godsend to Katie; they have permitted a conflation of racial and religious bigotry, a two-fer so to speak.)

Katie has learned about a stealthy and subversive organization called the Muslim Accommodation Task Force, an instrument of the Muslim Student Association, has plans to turn U.S. colleges into mosques! Foot baths! Food lines! Housing! Ed al Fitr! Where will it end?

How did Katie find out about this stealthy and subversive organization and it nefarious plans, Spotty?

Well, she read about it on the 'net. And the nerve of these people! They offer advice to Muslim student activists like this:

Activists should also frame their objectives in language that Americans embrace. "Most Americans identify with concepts such as 'justice,' 'self-determination,' 'human rights' and 'democracy,' "the guide explains. "These terms will be constructive when delivering your message, regardless of the issue."

For example, if you want to bring a speaker to campus to discuss the importance of hijab (Muslim women's headwear or covering), you will be "more effective" if you broaden the topic to "women's rights."

It seems quite ironic to Spot that Katie would complain about somebody else adopting the same flag-waving rhetoric that Katie's crew does.

The funny thing is, Spot agrees with much of what Katie says in her last two columns, but from an entirely different perspective. As is especially evident in Katie's last column, she isn't so much worried about the establishment of religion as she is in a grudge match between Christianity and Islam. Public support of religion is fine, so long as it's my religion.

Be careful what you wish for, Katie. Conservatives have been trying to break down the wall of separation of church and state by casting Establishment Clause situations in Free Exercise terms. The Muslim Accommodation Task Force is what you get when you do that. These two clauses of the First Amendment exist in a tension, a healthy tension, Spot says. When you try to say that failure to support religion in public institutions is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, however, you are destroying the Establishment Clause.

One of Katie's fellow travelers, Captain Fishsticks, attended a meeting of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State back in February of 2006. Here's a little of what Sticks said about his participation in the meeting:

That strange historical scenario [19^th century constitutional amendments that rose in several states to prevent the funding of sectarian schools] came up in response to a question about school vouchers, which Didier [a presenter at the meeting] opposed as government support for religion comparable to colonial taxation for support of ministers of state-sponsored religions. "That's my opinion," he said. "I don't know if anyone thinks differently."

There was about ten seconds or so of silence. It being clear that no one in the room did think differently, valor taking the better part of discretion, I said "Okay, I'll take that one."

Well, I can only say I am glad no one dropped dead from shock. Nonetheless, I made the argument that under voucher and tax credit systems, education funds (the state guaranteeing free education to all children) go to parents that decide whether to use them at private religious or secular schools and if a religious school, what type of religious school. Vouchers violate neither the establishment clause of the first amendment, nor the free exercise clause. They do not violate Blaine Amendments, in that those apply to direct state aid to specific "sectarian" schools. There is no breach of separation of church and state.

Didier's response was as puzzling to me as was the look on his face brought on by my argument. He asked me if my explanation meant that vouchers would be distributed universally. I replied that under the Hann/Buesgens bill in Minnesota [which did not make it out of committee last year], vouchers targeted only low-income students.

"Well," replied Didier, "Then it's a fairness issue. Unless vouchers are universal they are not fair."

Now that's a puzzling answer because it's not relevant to his main objection that state money would be funneled to religious schools. I didn't (and don't) see how sending more state money to more religious schools is philosophically different than sending some state money to some religious schools, but heck, I'd be all for it. I explained that universal vouchers would be great, but public schools objected to even a small implementation of vouchers, let alone universal vouchers, out of fear of too many students leaving failing public schools.

This is a good example of trying to turn an Establishment issue into a Free Exercise one. Here, Sticks argues that the state's obligation to provide K-12 education means that it should support all schools, including sectarian ones. If we support sectarian schools with tax money, what's a foot bath among friends?

Here's more from Sticks about the meeting:

Having already felt like I pissed on the carpet a little, I didn't question some of the later comments during the Q&A, but the "confirmation bias" was rampant. One woman asked if the influx of Muslims, "who don't believe in the separation of church and state," would contribute to breaking down the wall of separation. "It could" was the essence of a long answer, without considering that her premise is false. At one point, Southern Baptists were mentioned and a knowing "Hmmmmmm" went through the crowd indicating a general agreement as to what those people were like. [italics are Spot's]

The premise of her question, Spot presumes, is that there is a wall of separation between church and state in the U.S. Sticks is obviously a doubter on the subject. In fact, Sticks says that vouchers used to support sectarian schools do not violate the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, or the Blaine amendment (the 19^th century state constitutional initiatives Sticks mentioned).

Spot says that the woman with the question about Muslims telegraphed the issue at the Minneapolis Community and Technical College that now has Katie in such a dither. Conservatives are so eager to feed at the public trough for their religion that they fail to see the implications for other religions, too.

Spot will conclude by saying, boys and girls, that you shouldn't rely on the First Amendment advice Sticks gives above!

Tags: Katherine Kersten, First Amendment

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Your friend Spotty really has a way with words, doesn't he, boys and girls?

Spotty, you know darn well that's a famous line from Shakespeare's Hamlet.

As you wish grasshopper, but the line certainly applies to our own Queen Gertrude, Rachel Paulose. Dan Brown from the Strib interviewed her recently and wrote about in today in an article that appeared page A-1, above the fold. Here's the lede paragraphs:

Rachel Paulose, the embattled 34-year-old U.S. attorney for Minnesota, cannot fathom how she came to be portrayed in some recent news reports and blogs as a mean-spirited, autocratic climber who may have gotten her job as part of a scheme in Washington to replace independent prosecutors with GOP foot soldiers.

"These wild conspiracy theories are just that -- totally off base," Paulose said in her first interview on the subject. "No one communicated to me -- in any form -- about any plan to remove any U.S. attorney."

Paulose was shocked to be appointed—out of the blue—as the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota:

Six weeks after starting her job in Washington, Minnesota U.S. Attorney Thomas Heffelfinger resigned, and Paulose was quickly appointed as his interim replacement. A lifelong Republican [she wrote impassioned op-eds in support of Ronald Reagan during study hall in middle school; okay, Spot made that up], she said she was as surprised by the appointment as anyone, noting that she had signed a year's lease for an apartment in Chevy Chase, Md.

According to Paulose, Paul McNulty, or somebody anyway, just walked into her office six weeks into her new job and said, "Pack your bags, kiddo, you're moving to Minneapolis!" This came as a complete surprise to Rachel! She was just ordered to go, and like a good soldier, she went! She still doesn't know how it happened.

Is that the Queen Gertrude moment, Spotty?

What do you think grasshopper?

There were, of course, rumblings when Paulose was appointed:

Paulose's appointment in March 2006 as interim U.S. attorney raised eyebrows among some former colleagues in that office and the cloistered world of Minnesota's federal bar.

Publicly, no one objected to the choice, but privately some wondered how a young woman with virtually no management experience had bested more seasoned candidates for one of the most coveted legal jobs in Minnesota.

Those questions grew in the aftermath of revelations on the replacement of eight U.S. attorneys since August, allegedly because at least some wouldn't bend to political pressures. U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is scheduled to testify Tuesday before a Senate committee investigating the matter.

Paulose got swept into the controversy April 5 when three top attorneys resigned their administrative posts because of her management style. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., cited the tumult as an example of Gonzales having planted unprepared "cronies" in U.S. attorney jobs.

The resignations stung, Paulose said. But she rejects any suggestion that they indicate she is unqualified.

"I'm a strong-willed person," she acknowledged Thursday. "I think that I'm also a generous and loyal and kind person."

You know, Rachel, it sounds to Spot that you're not so much strong willed as you are a stiff-necked crank who isn't old enough to have had some of the rough edges sanded off. Boys and girls, when Spot was much younger, he thought the value of experience was highly overrated. But experience, of all things, taught him he was wrong.

Even if it turns out that Paulose was not involved in the skullduggery at the Justice Department, her appointment does stand as ample evidence of the cronyism that Senator Schumer described. It's just another example of the de-professionalization of the federal bureaucracy by the Bush Administration.

Spot believes this is going to be a blot on her escutcheon that Rachel Paulose is going to have to wear her whole career.

Tags: Rachel Paulose, Purgegate, Queen Gertrude

Methodists up to no good again!

From last Thursday's Edina Sun Current:

Sami Rasouli, founder of Muslim Peacemaker Teams in Iraq, will host two Edina speaking engagements about his experiences in the war-torn country this week.

At 9:30 a.m. Saturday, April 14, Rasouli, who is an Iraqi-American, will speak in the second-floor meeting room at the Southdale Library, 7001 York Ave. S. He will give a presentation at 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 17, at Good Samaritan Methodist Church, 5730 Grove St.

Rasouli owned a Minneapolis eatery for more than two decades but left to create Muslim Peacekeepers in his native Iraq. He will speak on his experiences over the past eight months as a witness to the struggles in Iraq, and will also touch on other issues in the Middle East.

The Middle East Peace Now group sponsors Saturday's event, while Tuesday night's session is sponsored by Northwest Edina Democrats.

Actually, Spotty, it is a group called the "Northwest Edina Democrats" that is sponsoring the event at Good Samaritan.

Maybe, but Spotty bets there are Methodists in that crowd.

History lessons

Boys and girls, if Spotty and MNO's little offerings about the law ever leave you thirsting for more—well, it could happen—Spot has just the place for you. There is a blog authored by several law professors that —

[hysterical laughter] What are we gonna read about, Spotty? The rule against perpetuities? The modern exceptions to the hearsay rule? Or maybe learn how to plead a case in replevin, so that we can get the lawn mower back from the neighbor? Be serious.

You're so smart, aren't you grasshopper. Well, here's part of a post from Scott Horton at Balkinization, the blog that Spot was trying to tell you about:

So much of what has happened over the last six years seems a repetition of events drawn from English history, from the turbulent years from the Civil War to the Glorious Revolution - this could be said of the struggle over habeas corpus, which was right at the center of the conflict between Parliament and king, as seen in the Five Knights case of 1627 or the Shipmaster's tax case of 1637. But the notion of secret legal proceedings, closed courts and the use of secret evidence also characterize that period of history. Before the English Civil War, court proceedings were frequently closed, and one of the principles of fair process introduced in the Commonwealth - it seems to have been an initiative of the solicitor general, John Cooke - was the notion that no court should conduct its hearings behind closed doors, and neither should any evidence be taken which could not be shared with the public and presented to the defendant and the jury.

The key case for this notion involved a man commonly called "Freeborn John," or John Lilburne. He was a person of little formal education who became a firebrand pamphleteer among the Puritans in the years of the Civil War. He had republican sentiments, but more to the point he was a sharp critic of the king's justice - writing constantly of the aspects which were, well, unjust. He was particularly outraged by the use of the king's courts to persecute dissenters, as the Anglicans called them – though at the time this would be a changing blend of Puritans, Calvinists, Baptists and Quakers; not to mention the "terrorists" of the day, the Catholics. Lilburne had been convicted in the Star Chamber in 1638 on a charge of importation and dissemination of unregistered religious tracts. He wrote a compelling account of his treatment – he had been imprisoned for refusing to answer questions and then flogged, pilloried and gagged – but he also described the use of coercive interrogation techniques to extract a confession, the denial of rights of confrontation, the fact that his judges were all political figures placed there to do their king's bidding – the Star Chamber, you see, was to Lilburne's age what the Military Commission is to ours.

His account was an instant bestseller and provided much of the impetus for the abolition of the Star Chamber by the Long Parliament in 1641. As Uncle Tom's Cabin was to abolition, Liburne's book was to habeas corpus and the Star Chamber. Lilburne served with distinction as an officer during the Civil War, and afterwards his advocacy of Republican virtues caused Oliver Cromwell a bit of discomfort, and at length Cromwell decided to silence Lilburne by charging him with treason. The trial convened in October 1649, which is to say just months after the second Civil War had been successfully concluded for the Parliamentary forces.

Here's what Professor Horton says about that treason trial:

This was in effect the second significant trial for the Commonwealth after the trial of King Charles himself in January. Lilburne was a popular figure in London and was well aware of that fact. When the court proceedings commenced behind closed doors in the Painted Chamber of Westminster, Lilburne opened his answer to the charges read in court with these famous words: "The first fundamental liberty of an Englishman is that all courts of justice always ought to be free and open for all sorts of peaceable people to see, behold and hear, and have free access unto; and no man whatsoever ought to be tried in holes or corners, or in any place where the gates are shut and barred." Lilburne was raising a direct challenge to the reputation of the Commonwealth courts – asking whether one of the most abusive of the practices of justice under the Stuart monarchs would be continued. The court fully understood this and directed that the doors be opened, in order that "all the world may know with what candour and justice the court does proceed against you." [italics are Spot's]

In the balance of that remarkable case, Lilburne established a number of other principles. The prisoner in the dock was to be treated with dignity and respect, not dragged before the court in manacles and an orange jumpsuit. There were to be no ex parte communications between the counsel and the court. He was to have a right to confront all evidence against him (that is, there could be no secret evidence), and the public also was to be allowed to hear it, to form its own opinion of the quality of justice dispensed by the court. He was guaranteed the right of counsel, and for the first time, counsel were permitted to participate in the presentation of evidence for the defense as well.

Liburne was acquitted, in spite of some genuinely unhelpful instructions from the judge.

Professor Horton goes on to say that secrecy and torture go hand in hand. He then produces excerpts from transcripts of hearings involving Guantanamo detainees to illustrate his point. It's well worth your attention, boys and girls.

But not only does torture go with secrecy, boys and girls, so does more prosaic knavery, which brings us back to the installation of political operative Rachel Paulose as U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis. You all remember the trial and conviction of Dean Zimmerman, a former Minneapolis Councilman, for bribery, don't you? There were some videotapes shown at the trial, tapes that were critical in Zimmerman's conviction. Ken Avidor, who saw the tapes at the trial, wants them released, but the government doesn't want to give them up. Why? Ken will tell us:

I tried to get information about the release of the FBI tapes from the Gary Dean Zimmermann bribery trial, but my most recent phone call was not returned.

I saw the FBI tapes at the trial. I believe that the portions of those tapes shown at the trial should be released to the media. There are still quite a few people who believe the FBI "persecuted" Zimmermann and that Zimmermann was somehow "entrapped" by the FBI.

The tapes would also reveal a side of Zimmermann that few people could imagine.... Zimmermann's comfortable relationship with a Hummer-driving Republican who raised considerable cash for Senator Norm Coleman.

Zimmermann was caught on tape accepting and receiving bribes from Republican Gary Carlson who raised thousands of dollars for Senator Norm Coleman. At one point in the tapes, Zimmermann told Gary Carlson that he would have like to have been invited to Carlson's fundraiser for Norm Coleman:

In May 2005 Azzam invited Carlson to a Shriner's function for African-American businesses (Azzam had told him it was the Sierra Club on Park Avenue). Carlson had a private conversation with Zimmermann outside when Carlson took a cigarette break. Carlson mentioned he had recently had a fundraiser for Norm Coleman at his house; Zimmermann chided Carlson for not inviting him. Carlson replied by saying he didn't think Zimmermann [as a Green] would want to attend a Republican fundraiser.

Zimmermann responded by saying, "Liberals, Greens, Democrats, Republicans…it's all money." [italics are Spot's]

There have been questions raised for years about the extent to which Republicans were funneling money to Green Party candidates to siphon off votes from the DFL. Distribution of this evidence—produced in open court—on, say, YouTube might be expected to shine an unfavorable light not only on Zimmerman, but also the Coleman fundraiser. The videotapes are clearly subject to production under the FOIA, but don't you think that Rachel Paulose has a motive for sequestering them?

Tags: Military Commissions Act, torture, Star Chamber, Dean Zimmerman, Rachel Paulose

Couldn’t resist, could you Scott?

You know Scott Johnson, don't you boys and girls? A/K/A Big Trunk? The guy who recently described Atlas Rugs proprietor, the bigoted wretch who sounds to be from Longe Guyland as the beautiful heart-on-sleeve blogger Pamela Geller? The guy whose principal contribution to the art of letters is to demonstrate the over-use of the word "execrable?" Yep, that Scott Johnson.

Well Scotty couldn't let the death of Kurt Vonnegut pass without penning his own snarky little obit (no link):

The novelist Kurt Vonnegut died yesterday at age 84. Back in the day when I took my lessons in political thought from John Lennon, Kurt Vonnegut was one of my favorite writers. I read every one of the novels he had published through 1970, beginning with Player Piano, continuing with The Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, and Mother Night, and culminating in Slaughterhouse-Five. The man met the moment with Slauhghterhouse-[sic] Five in 1969 and Vonnegut became a countercultural celebrity without any discernible discomfort. Indeed, he encouraged acolytes like me in our fatuity, our grandiosity, our irresponsibility.

From an adult perspective, one can see that the novels are full of cheap irony, insufferable sentimentality, paper thin characters, and forgettable plots. If Vonnegut's novels have made it into the high school curriculum, as Dinitia Smith states in today's New York Times obituary, pity the poor high school student who thinks that this is what literature is all about.

Just before Vonnegut became a celebrity he collected his shorter fiction in Welcome to the Monkey House. Vonnegut included his early dystopian story "Harrison Bergeron" in the collection. In it he envisioned a nightmare future in which "everyone was finally equal." It's a story that runs against the grain of the kind of leftist political orthodoxy that Vonnegut came to embody. RIP. [italics are Spot's]

Scott no doubt prefers the prose of a Power Line favorite, Victor Davis Hanson, who tells us this is the beginning of a new book he is writing, titled No Man a Slave:

Melon woke. He was off the battlefield. Four Theban hoplites had carried the two wounded on biers up to Skopê, among the tamarisks and scrub oak of the lookout mountain, high above the battlefield. Yes, he was now high above the killing. On the crest, in a strong Etesian breeze, they put down Melon near his general, on thick fleece with felt covers. He was growing cold even in this Dog-star heat.

For just a moment he was clear again. The Thespian had enough strength to raise his head. Look, look down at the chaos far below, around the great walled city of the Mantineians. The Thebans were filing out the valley. The defeated Spartans did the same. So all were chanting "Antikrates," chanting as they marched behind their killer out through the other vale.

Then Melon thought he heard music. At least something like a Boiotian single piper, likewise far off in the distance, maybe even from the other side of the hill. He could hear from below still the music, and a goat song of Thisbe at that, its melody straining its way up the hill, just to him.

Boy, no fatuity or grandiosity there! Not a trace of insufferable sentimentality, either!

Vonnegut was the best gallows humorist this side of Mark Twain. You couldn't shine Kurt Vonnegut's shoes, Scotty, but don't feel too bad; Victor Davis Hanson can't either.

Tags: Kurt Vonnegut, Power Line

Fish and guests

First, it was the Focus on the Family rally, complete with the patriotic music, all-white audience, and “Libberuls are treasonous scum” message.

Then the announcement that the Republican National Convention was coming to town, and St. Paul’s Democrats have already been warned about daring to express any thoughts that might be considered disrespectful of Our Glorious Leader.

But now St. Paul has gone too far with the welcome mat. Not quite satisfied with these two obvious bows to the American Taliban, my fair city somehow feels the need to welcome the creepiest of right-wing causes to town. The Abstinence Clearinghouse – the people who brought you Purity Balls, purity rings (a steal at $189.95!), “condoms kill” campaigns, and public condemnation of masturbation are coming to St. Paul!

The condom bashing, contraceptive-loathing, pro-cervical cancer snake oil road show hits St. Paul’s Crowne Plaza Riverfront from July 9-11, 2007.

Let’s take a look at the people who will be visiting us.

The group's founder and leader, Leslee Unruh, needs almost no introduction. Having exercised her right to an abortion in her younger years, she now spends her life in the dual roles of fighting abortion on every front, while at the same time doing all she can to stop contraception, thereby assuring that there will be more unwanted pregnancies that result in - you guessed it! - more abortions. (Talk about your full employment act for zealots!)

Follow that first abortion with a multiple felony indictment and plea bargain for violations of law while running an “adoption” agency in South Dakota that mainly pressured pregnant teenagers to give up their babies in exchange for monetary help (known in some circles as “buying babies”).

These days, when she’s not drafting the draconian South Dakota abortion ban that voters overturned in November, Unruh is busy:

Railing against masturbation, the “first step toward sexual addiction.”

Discouraging the use of the cancer-preventing HPV vaccine and proclaiming to legislators her "personal objection" to the vaccine.

Playing coy about the Abstinence Clearinghouse’s ultimate goal of banning all contraception.

Calling homosexual practices “dangerous.”

Doing her best to stop fact-based sex education and using your tax dollars to do so.

Discouraging the use of condoms in AIDS stricken Africa.

Her actions in the battle last fall to overturn the no-exceptions South Dakota abortion ban has resulted in one of her colleagues facing criminal charges.

I mean, really – do you want this woman walking the streets of St. Paul, possibly meeting up with your daughters, providing them with brochures proclaiming that AIDS is spread by sweat, that condoms don't prevent disease, and that she doesn't need a 100% effective cancer vaccine?

Of course she does have her own parody site, but I still don't think that St. Paul shares very many of her values.

(Image courtesy of Abstinence Clearinghouse demonstrating the joy of waving a blood-stained sheet the morning after your wedding night.)


Tags: Leslee Unruh, Abstinence Clearing House

Chocolate who?

Spot is late to this party, but that is often true, isn't it boys and girls? Apparently, some days ago, a blogger by the name of Kathy Sierra received some death threats because of her writing:

And yet a group of people hate her so much that they would trip over the line into a vile, sexually depraved attacks and threats. And what brngs about this rage? Honestly? I would have to guess its a personality disorder of some kind. Because, again, Ms. Sierra writes about the software industry! How far down the rabbit hole do you have to be that disagreements about OO send you flying right off the edge of sanity into Hannibal Lector territory? It’s insane and I hope the cops catch the SOB responsible. No one should be afraid because they have an opinion — especially an opinion on how to write code.

So, Ms. Sierra writes about software, and some drooling beetle brows send her death threats? Sweet chocolate Jesus! But then Kos, yes that Kos, says to Kathy: get over it. It goes with the territory.

And then Wege says--which is how Spotty learned about the whole thing--wait just a damn minute. Having an opinion about something doesn't mean that you sign up for violent threats against you. And Wege is right, of course.

The wilds of blogistan and cyberia should be free wheeling, but there is no room for threats of physical violence. None. So to Kathy Sierra's tormenters, Spot says piss off, be gone, and spend some time considering the defects in your character. And to Kos, Spot says for God's sake, don't encourage them.


Technorati Tags: Kathy Sierra, Daily KOS

St. Katie the Martyr

St. Katie the Martyr, the patron saint of the over-privileged yet jealous, pictured below, delivered another jeremiad today.

St. Katie focuses her laser eye of affliction on the suffering of Christian students at Minneapolis Community and Technical College:

Where Christianity is concerned, the college goes to great lengths to
avoid any hint of what the courts call "entanglement" or support of the
church. Yet the college is planning to install facilities for Muslims
to use in preparing for daily prayers, an apparent first at a public
institution in Minnesota.

Oh, how so, St. Katie?

Last year, college authorities caught one rule-breaker [the rule of shunning Christmas] red-handed. A coffee cart that sells drinks and snacks played holiday music "tied to Christmas," and "complaints and concerns" were raised, according to a
faculty e-mail. College authorities quickly quashed the practice.

They appear to take a very different attitude toward Islam. Welcome and
accommodation are the order of the day for the college's more than 500
Muslim students. The college has worked with local Muslim leaders to
ensure that these students' prayer needs and concerns are adequately
addressed, Davis told me.

Do you feel St. Katie's pain, boys and girls? Neither does Spot. And 500 Muslim students? Shocking! Where do we live? Minneapolis, or Baghdad? Or maybe Mogadishu? Perhaps there are so many Muslims at the school because they can't afford to go to, say, St. Thomas or St. John's and go to chapel every day with the Christian kids!

St. Katie tells us that Muslim prayer is "increasing controversial":

Muslim prayer is an increasingly controversial issue. Many Muslim
students use restroom sinks to wash their feet before prayer. Other
students have complained, and one Muslim student fell and injured
herself while lifting her foot out of a sink.

This is clearly a subversive and dangerous religious practice! But rather than trying to stamp out Islam, the college apparently wants to provide some accommodation. Tut, tut, says St. Katie: this will never do!

Boys and girls, Spot actually shares St. Katie's concern about building religious facilities in a public school. But St. Katie's perspective is distorted, as usual. She isn't concerned about dragging religion into the public square; she's just miffed because the religion being dragged isn't Christianity! If the college had decided to install confessionals, three lines no waiting, do you think Katie would have a problem? Of course not.

The thinking behind today's lamentation is a thread in St. Katie's, er, writing. Whether it is affirmative action, Muslim cabbies, or gay marriage, there isn't a vulnerable minority that St. Katie won't pick on. The breadth of her white whine is breathtaking.

St. Katie is like the mother who, in order to prevent squabbling among her kids as to who got the biggest piece of cake, takes the demonstrably biggest piece for herself.

Technorati Tags: Katherine Kersten, separation of church and state, Islam

Kurt Vonnegut dead

Kurt Vonnegut has died. Spot doesn't have anything insightful to say about him. Spot just enjoyed his books. His last, Spot believes it was he last anyway, A Man Without a Country is a sad, bitter, and funny account of Vonnegut's relation to his country in recent years.

Spot is going to have to get Slaughterhouse Five out again.

He was a truly great American writer.

Another shameless ripoff

From Diane at Great Scat.

One Pill Makes You Larger, and One Pill Makes You Small,

Spot comments on congressional draftsmanship

Word has reached Spot, via Firedoglake, that the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Justice Department for documents that refer or relate to the US Attorney terminations (duces tecum being roughly translated as bring that stuff over here so we can look at it). The link is to the subpoena itself and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers' cover letter.

Regrettably, there is a potentially significant gap between what the Chairman described as the scope of the inquiry in the transmittal letter and the documents and things actually demanded.

First, from the cover letter:

The [Justice] Department is currently withholding significant information concerning U.S. Attorneys who were considered for termination but were ultimately retained, and individuals who were considered as replacement candidates. This information is clearly relevant to our inquiry into indications that U.S. Attorneys and candidates may have been evaluated based on improper considerations, including their willingness to make decisions as to prosecution of public corruption cases based on whether it helped, or hurt, partisan political objectives.

So far, so good. In other words, it's not just the eight terminated U.S. Attorneys that we're concerned about, but it is also USAs who may also have been "considered for termination" but ultimately retained (and why?)

The subpoena itself refers only to categories of documents that refer or relate to the "terminated U.S. Attorneys." That term is defined at the eight USAs who have been identified. No mention is made of the other category of U.S. Attorneys referred to in Conyers' letter of transmittal.

Any documents that refer to Wisconsin's Steve Biskupic or Minnesota's Tom Heffelfinger, for example, are not within the scope of the subpoena.

In Spot's opinion, the Judiciary Committee staff ought to take another swing at the ball and improve the scope of the subpoena.

Tags: U.S. Attorneys, John Conyers

Making bratwurst in Milwaukee

While the US Attorney pot simmers along in Minnesota, they are pretty well done making the bratwurst out of Steve Biskupic in Wisconsin:

Steve Biskupic, the U.S. attorney for Milwaukee, indicted and convicted a Wisconsin state purchasing supervisor named Georgia Thompson for improperly awarding a contract to a firm linked to Democratic Governor Jim Doyle's 2006 reelection campaign.

The only problem is that Biskupic never proved that Thompson ever knew about the relationship, which included completely legal donations. Thompson - appointed by Gov. Doyle's Republican predecessor - has never even met Doyle and is not alleged to have sought any personal gain since she was already at the highest civil service pay scale. The winning bid and the runner-up were statistically tied on the seven-member commission's rating scale, but the winner was legitimately chosen because it was $30,000 cheaper and came from in-state.

Couple this with a trial judge who is on the Advisory Board for the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society, as MNO pointed out a couple of posts ago here on the Stool and it has to make one wonder, especially when the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the conviction from the bench. In other words, boys and girls, the appeals court judges didn't even have to deliberate to conclude the case was a stinker. But this is what the Wisconsin Republicans did with the conviction:

But an election was coming up, and the allegations proved a great way to attack the Democratic incumbent. Doyle said Republican officials spent "millions of dollars" running ads that turned Thompson into a symbol of corruption in his administration. Caught in the middle was Georgia Thompson, who, her lawyer said, lost "her job, her life savings, her home and her liberty." She was ordered to prison for 18 months by conservative District Judge Rudolf Randa (a member of the Federalist Society) without letting her remain free pending appeal because he had "no real reason to expect her conviction to be reversed."

Fortunately, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had another idea. Two of the three judges hearing the case were appointed by Republicans, but they each blasted the government's arguments relentlessly, at one point calling them "beyond thin." Oral arguments lasted just 26 minutes, after which they immediately ordered Thompson's release from federal prison. Normally, such reversals take weeks or months and often result only in new hearings.

As the article states, it is highly unusual for a conviction to be vacated; usually the case is sent back to the trial court for a retrial in the case of a reversal. And as Spot said earlier, to do that immediately after an oral argument is unheard of.

Courageous US Attorney Steve Biskupic did not appear for the appellate court hearing of court:

It's really too bad that Biskupic wimped out from the Appeals Court hearing, sending one of his underlings in his place like a lamb to slaughter. You can hear the whole thing by clicking here; skip to the middle for the good stuff.

Tragedy strikes White House Easter Egg Roll!

Via Diane at Mia Culpa or Great Scat, or whatever she is calling her blog these days:

He meant to; he really did

Yes, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Spot made an Easter resolution (he never gets around to New Year's resolutions or giving anything up for Lent) to ignore Katie more. But as Katie herself might say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Spot has a great cartoon illustration of that bromide, boys and girls. Remind him to show it to you some time.

Anyway, where was Spot? Oh yes, he had no sooner made his Easter resolution than MNO sent him an email saying did you see this? This, of course, is Katie's column for today—the day after Easter, as though there was some cosmic force afoot determined to thwart, nay mock, Spot for his transparent intention.

In her column, Katie tells the story about a man from southern Minnesota who died recently from complications of Crohn's disease. Katie went to the funeral in the man's hometown church. Katie's family had developed a relationship with this fellow, Steve, a painter, and Katie's daughter was his student, apparently a private (of course) student. Katie describes the man's dedication to his art and the efforts he made to teach Katie's daughter, including "marathon" painting sessions at Katie's house. Here's a little of what Katie said about him:

He made this decision 20 years ago [to be an optimistic fellow and pursue his art], when -- at the age of 20 -- he was beset by a debilitating form of Crohn's disease, a chronic illness. His illness took a fatal turn two months ago when cancer set in. Instead of railing at the heavens, he decided to become the happiest man on Earth. He was an optimist not only by nature, but by choice.

Katie is blissfully unaware that the irrepressible prankster, Unintended Irony, is again at work. Spot was thinking back, and it was not that long ago that Katie published a column making fun of some of the legislative proposals (usually, maybe exclusively DFL proposals, naturally) presently being considered by the Minnesota Legislature. (Spot has mentioned this column earlier.) After describing some of the proposals, including one designed to keep glass containers away from beaches and water where broken glass could cut feet, she says:

I could go on. Actually, bloggers King Banaian, an economics professor at St. Cloud State University, Drew Emmer and Michael Brodkorb have done just that. They've slogged through reams of leaden legalese to compile lists of our legislators' most exotic conjurings and tallied votes for the most egregious at Banaian's blog, SCSU Scholars. [italics are Spot's]

One of the legislative initiatives that Michel Brodkorb and Co. made fun of was a bill to insure restroom access at retail establishments (including the employees' restrooms, if necessary) for people suffering from certain chronic conditions, including, gasp, Crohn's disease. Brodkorb called it the Freedom to Poop Act. There are conditions, including Crohn's that require access to a restroom—sometimes unexpectedly. And if you've ever tried to find a public restroom in say, downtown Minneapolis, you know this can be a problem.

But for Michael Brodkorb and his merry band of eighth graders, including Katie by referral, this was a source of great hilarity. Brodkorb even made up a Freedom to Poop card. Gotta love that Michael! MNO had her say about the Freedom to Poop Act here.

But let Spot ask you this, Katie. Don't you imagine that other sufferers from Crohn's disease also want to embrace life and get out a little, just like your friend Steve? And that it might be a little easier to do that if you didn't have to worry quite as much about finding a restroom in time?

Spot thinks that Steve was dying of cancer when Katie made fun of the legislative initiative to help people like Steve. 'Atta girl, Katie.

Oh by the way, Katie, when Steve came over to your house, did you let him use the can?

Tags: Katherine Kersten, Crohn's disease

Spot almost forgot!

Father Seamus wanted Spot to wish you all a Happy Easter!

Public school teacher wins Spotty!

Teacher Gregg Kotsonas from Apple Valley wins a Spotty for this op-ed piece in today's (Saturday) Star Tribune:

So here we go again, lambasting public schools in favor of private schools, charter schools and vouchers. Public schools are failing. Why? Because we are told so over and over and over again.

As a public school teacher, I am reminded repeatedly that I am failing my students because I do not meet their needs, and that alternative schools, in the form of competition, are the only way out. The latest lambasting is from Sean Kershaw, executive director of the Citizens League (letters, April 1) -- a person, I am sure, who has spent years honing his educational and academic skills.

He states, "Charter schools are public schools, and they disproportionately serve the students that traditional school districts are failing."

Yet, when I daily drive by Paideia Academy in Apple Valley, I don't see seas of traditionally failed students happily learning what their public school wouldn't or couldn't teach them. I see a sea of mostly white, upper-middle-class students whose parents want their children away from the traditionally failed that are ever increasing in my classroom.

I would be more than happy to compile a list of my students who are failing and let this school have a go at them, not the application-accepted K-6 students who currently make up its classrooms.

In other words, this charter school is not serving the disadvantaged, but the advantaged who don't want their kids mingling with the great unwashed. It's white flight for the new millennium.

Kershaw goes on to say, "The current anti-charter proposal has nothing to do with improving charter schools," and he's right. But the charter schools themselves don't care whether they improve upon public education or not. National studies have shown that neither private schools, charter schools nor vouchers, by themselves, improve education. They don't.

But that doesn't matter. It's not about improving education, it's about destroying public education. Why should my dollars go to some other kid, right? And if that makes you queasy, just look long and hard at every Republican proposal over the last quarter-century aimed at "improving" public education. It's all about dismantling.

Give me 15 students who want to be in class, whose parents are supportive and involved (and who are still married), who don't have any labels attached to them. Better yet, give me the power -- as do private schools, charter schools and vouchers -- to eliminate those students who don't meet my standards. Give me that and I bet you I can produce results better than any private school, charter school or voucher program.

And if you're not willing to do that, then don't complain about what you do get.

Take that, Sticks! Hasn't Spotty been saying the same thing, boys and girls? Yes, he has!

Remember, boys and girls, a Spotty is awarded to the author of a letter to the editor, an op-ed piece, or a blog post or comment that Spot wishes that he has written.

Update: Revised title as suggested in a comment by Charlie.

Tags: charter schools, Minnesota Citizens' League, public school education