Millions of Southern Californians will see the paper, and naturally --- like any thoughtful, caring person --- they'll be filled with revulsion at the sight of the environmental damage and loss of life. Exactly what the Times' editors hoped to solicit.
Then on top of that, the neo-communist left is working the Gulf spill for all it's worth, rekindling hardline efforts to destroy the domestic petroleum industry and empower the radical green-government takeover of America. Of course, President Obama's been getting hammered by the radical hordes, who're steadily working him back into his radical ACORN community organizing roots:
First and foremost, what led to this disaster was a breakdown of responsibility on the part of BP and perhaps others, including Transocean and Halliburton. And we will continue to hold the relevant companies accountable not only for being forthcoming and transparent about the facts surrounding the leak, but for shutting it down, repairing the damage it does, and repaying Americans who’ve suffered a financial loss.This is how free markets --- to say nothing of democracies --- perish. Yep, behold the Democratic-left's modus operandi. And watch the upcoming feedback loop: The administration proposes more regulation, that's insufficient for the leftists, and after a couple more iterations of the policy cycle, the administration tops off the previous commission recommendations with a new beefier set of regulations.
But even as we continue to hold BP accountable, we also need to hold Washington accountable. Now, this catastrophe is unprecedented in its nature, and it presents a host of new challenges we are working to address. But the question is what lessons we can learn from this disaster to make sure it never happens again.
In an outrageous statement that may be a not-too-subtle message to the state of Arizona, John Morton, the assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reportedly stated that his agency would not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
Morton also told the Chicago Tribune that “I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution.”
President Obama and DHS officials have ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law in response to Morton’s comments.
Although the administration may or may not back down from Morton’s bold words, in the early going it appears that his beliefs are more of a reflection of the administration’s own ideas concerning Arizona’s new law.
If ICE, Morton and the Obama White House continue on their current path, various pundits who refer to our government as a “regime” may be closer to the truth than we wish to believe.
Given the wishes of the American public (which don’t seem to mean much anymore), President Obama and the Democrats continue to sail dangerous political waters. Some may now stop referring to the administration as a regime and may be so bold as to call it a rogue government if it continues to not enforce its own laws and condemns states that do try to enforce them.
... the real provocateurs are the perpetually aggrieved and ever more aggressive Islamic bullies — emboldened by the silence of "moderate Muslims" and the preemptive capitulation of western media.It always amazes me that when anti-jihad conservatives are attacked as xenophobic racists it's not like those "moderate Muslims" are storming the gates in their defense. Mindboggling. (And it's telling when not even bikini-clad Muslim hotties are considered moderate nowadays --- go figure.)
And considering the Firedoglake laugher of the "peaceful" Muhammed, here comes the People's Cube with some art imitating life. Really, this is the best: "Everybody Draw a POSITIVE Mohammed Day":
I'm not sure how Dr. Paul prevails here. I do know that it takes either a tremendous amount of courage or a tremendous amount of stupidity to take such a firm yet thoughtful stand on the left's signature bludgeon of political demonology.
And check the interesting roundup from Max Fischer, by the way, "Rand Paul Inspires Debate on Barry Goldwater's Legacy." As many have noted, this is a deeply intellectually --- honestly intellectual --- political debate. Indeed, that's why David Weigel has stood firm in his defense of Rand Paul (with links). I'm a big fan of Goldwater too, much more so than Rand Paul, because Goldwater was a firm advocate for a robust national defense. Frankly, I doubt I'd ever vote for Paul given his disastrous libertarian isolationism.
I believe most people, even my open-borders libertarian friends, would not say that everyone on the planet had a right to live in the U.S. That being the case suggests there will be conditions that a person must meet to live in the U.S. Then the question emerges: Who gets to set those conditions? Should it be the United Nations, the European Union, the Japanese Diet or the Moscow City Duma? I can't be absolutely sure, but I believe that most Americans would recoil at the suggestion that somebody other than Americans should be allowed to set the conditions for people to live in the U.S.Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez.
What those conditions should be is one thing and whether a person has a right to ignore them is another. People become illegal immigrants in one of three ways: entering without authorization or inspection; staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry; or by violating the terms of legal entry. Most of those who risk prosecution under Arizona's new law fit the first category — entering without authorization or inspection.
Probably, the overwhelming majority of Mexican illegal immigrants are hardworking, honest and otherwise law-abiding members of the communities in which they reside. It would surely be a heart-wrenching scenario for such a person to be stopped for a driving infraction, have his illegal immigrant status discovered and face deportation proceedings. Regardless of the hardship suffered, being in the U.S. without authorization is a crime.
Now let's see if Stogie has some matching commentary to go with that. No doubt Bob Belvedere might be able to come up with something (not to mention Irish Cicero).
From May 6 to June 12, the San Isidro and Aniversario bullfighting events will be held in MadridHat Tip: iOWNTHEWORLD.
May is Madrid's month for bulls. The Feria San Isidro, the most important bullfighting event in the world, will take place at Plaza de Toros de las Ventas in May, and then the Feria del Aniversario takes over the celebrations.
Since Livinio Stuyck included all of the May events in the Madrid patron saint festivities in 1947, Madrid has become one of the most significant bullfighting benchmark events in the world. In the beginning, the event had five bullfights and one of the main innovations was the inclusion of a season ticket so audiences could attend all the festivities. The event has only continued to grow and the once modest festivities have expanded to 25 afternoons.
One potential division was averted when a Republican board member, David Bradley of Beaumont, withdrew an amendment to list President Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, in the standard calling on high school history students to examine the historical significance of the 2008 presidential election – the election of the country's first black president.Fox News has a report as well, quoting Mary Helen Berlanga's claim that including the president's full name was "derogatory":
Fellow Republican Bob Craig of Lubbock questioned the motion. "The intent of what you're doing is pretty obvious, but I don't think it is necessarily correct," Craig said, noting that other presidents like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan don't have their middle names listed in the standards.
Board member Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, was more blunt, telling Bradley, "I'm getting pretty fed up with this conduct and the way you're trying to be derogatory. You're braying in trying to make fun here, but we're talking about a serious subject, the election of the first black president – and you're making it sound derogatory.
"These are very bad manners."
Well it turns out the Ms. Berlanga, the hardline leader of the leftist faction on the Texas Board of Education, is a radical open borders attorney with the Corpus Christi law firm of Bonilla and Chapa, P.C., Inc.
The firm is headed by Ruben and Tony Bonilla, who are both past national presidents of the open-borders Latino advocacy group, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), see here and here. According to the organization's entry at Discover the Networks:
In 2005 LULAC created an online petition calling for comprehensive immigration reform that would convert all illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, into legalized citizens. Referencing only the needs and rights of “immigrants” generically, the petition makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. For example, it calls for legislation that “treats immigrants with respect” and “provides a reasonable, realistic and legal path to earned permanent residence and citizenship for those already within the United States”; it asserts that “the vast majority of immigrants … work hard and they pay taxes”; and it rejects immigration-control proposals "that criminalize immigrants and their families, and the people and organizations that come in contact with them." According to LULAC, “Since the 9/11 terrorists, efforts have been focused on terrorizing good people simply because they are foreigners.”
LULAC has joined in a broad coalition of radical LA RAZA groups to organize the economic boycott against Arizona's SB 1070 (see the neo-communist Firedoglake, "Boycotting Arizona: A Conversation With Brent Wilkes, National Executive Director of LULAC"). More from KTRK-TV Houston, "LULAC denounces immigration law in Arizona":
BONUS VIDEO: Additional clips of Mary Helen Berlanga advocating the radical revisionist open-borders school agenda:
The Washington Times has managed to give credibility to this delusional racist who claims to be the founder of the Tea Party. As Tommy Christopher points out, they’ve consistently quoted him as a Tea Party leader, and now they’re showing no qualms about him signing up to write on their Tea Party Report blog. I shouldn’t even have to say this out loud, but for the sake of argument I will: Dale Robertson is not the founder of the Tea Party movement. He happened to register TeaParty.org. It probably cost him $9 on GoDaddy. That does NOT a Tea Party leader make. In fact, many Tea Party players have shunned him and uninvited him from any related events. However, none of this seems to matter to Dale.
Plus, from David Weigel, "From the 'N-word' to the Washington Times."
Added: "Epic FAIL: TeaParty.org fraudster-in-chief Dale Robertson." More at Memeorandum.
PHOTO CREDIT: Houston Tea Party.
Plus, Juanell Garrett, "My nominee for 'Hypocrite of the Week' - President Calderon":
RELATED: "Unions to spend $100M in 2010 campaign to save Dem majorities." Figures. The open-borders lobby opens the union-thug checkbook.
In a brazen display of stealth, cunning and cool nerves, a thief using a sharp cutting tool opened a gated window and sneaked into the Paris Museum of Modern Art.Smart theives with good taste --- now that's a thought!
Three security guards were on duty at the time, but the thief -- or perhaps thieves -- detached five major cubist and post-impressionist paintings from their frames without being detected and slid back into the night with a rolled-up treasure worth well over $100 million.
The embarrassing heist -- of paintings by Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque, Henri Matisse, Amedeo Modigliani and Fernand Léger -- was discovered just before 7 a.m. Thursday, Paris officials said, probably long after the celebrated canvases had disappeared.
The operation was "a serious loss for the national patrimony" and one of the most damaging art thefts in recent years, said Christophe Girard, a city hall cultural attache.
"I am saddened and shocked by this theft, which is an intolerable attack on the universal cultural heritage of Paris," Mayor Bertrand Delanoe said in a statement. The museum was closed temporarily, he said, to allow police to investigate unhindered by art lovers.
Officers descended on the museum, in the tony 16th Arrondissement, just across the Seine from the Eiffel Tower, seeking to determine how anyone could have entered the museum without setting off an elaborate security system. Wearing rubber gloves and surgical masks, the officers powdered the gilded frames in an effort to gather fingerprints, and they examined the pried-open gate and the fractured glass window to see how it was isolated from the alarm system.
But the mystery remained, particularly concerning what the security guards were doing while the paintings were being stripped from their frames and hauled away. Responding to news reports, Delanoe said the alarm system had been malfunctioning since late March.
Previously: "Rand Paul Sets the Record Straight," and "Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow: 'IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM = RACISM'."
“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.As noted, my reading of Rand Paul is an intellectual one --- and no doubt, racial equality wasn't going to happen without the force of federal power:
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws ....
“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.
“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”
We are 46 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it certainly seems difficult --- given the crises of that era --- to envision progress in eradicating that kind of Jim Crow racism in the absence of federal intervention. But to even discuss that possibility today is emotionally polarizing. So what ends up happening is leftists win on emotion.Interestingly, James Taranto adopts a position close to mine:
Paul seems to us to be overly ideological and insufficiently mindful of the contingencies of history. Although we are in accord with his general view that government involvement in private business should be kept to a minimum, in our view the Civil Rights Act's restrictions on private discrimination were necessary in order to break down a culture of inequality that was only partly a matter of oppressive state laws.According to Taranto, that's Rand Paul's "rookie mistake." Or part of it. Paul should know as well that intellectualism on race will summons the left's victimology lynch mobs, for example, Representative James Clyburn on MSNBC today:
And let's not forget Amanda Marcotte, who rejects any attempt --- on the left or the right --- to clear Dr. Paul of the racism charge:
... I’m bothered ... by the way that some liberal pundits approach libertarian arguments as if we’re all in some debate club or in a court of law at worst, and this is a matter of everyone presenting arguments to be judged on their supposed rigor and the implications of which don’t fall on the person making the arguments. Conservatives particularly benefit from this mindset, which is why all of them come fully equipped with a willingness to scream “ad hominem” the second you suggest that making asshole arguments is evidence that the person making them is an asshole.And compare Marcotte to Digby:
Paul isn’t arguing for a debate team or even in the court of law. He’s a politician who is seeking national office that would allow him to write and vote on legislature. The standards by which we evaluate his arguments must be very different indeed. That he supports racist policies is something that we the opposition should highlight without caveats about ideological rigor that is frankly lacking. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s a principled man is counterproductive and missing the point. From the perspective of a voter, Paul’s associations with racists and the anti-social, racist results of arguments matter way more when assessing whether he’s a racist than his claims of ideological rigor. And we should address our arguments to that.
Obviously, libertarians in general are not necessarily racists. But their ideology inexorably leads to a society in which racism is normal and tolerated and where those who have the social power and economic clout are able to rig the game in their favor. You know --- the America of 40 years ago before the Civil Rights Act. It's not like we never gave Rand's libertarianism a chance to work.Well who needs the disclaimer that "Obviously, libertarians are not necessarily racist ..." Logically, if libertarianism "inexorably" leads to an America "40 years ago before the Civil Rights Act," well, that's certainly not a welcomed position from the progressive mindset (i.e., "racist").
What is at work here is a sort of intellectual terrorism, not just an effort to portray Rand Paul as a bigot, but to wield the accusation of racism as a weapon to intimidate anyone who dares challenge the progressive worldview.
Here is where wise men must perceive the totalitarian implications of political correctness, the Orwellian “memory hole,” the demand for conformity of thought, Trotsky airbrushed from the old Bolshevik photos. This argument is not really about racism, and it is not merely about Rand Paul or a single Republican campaign in Kentucky. Rather, it is about defending intellectual freedom from the bullies of the Left who arrogate to themselves the authority to decide what people can or cannot say in public discourse.
Conservatives must resolve to stand united against this kind of bullying treatment — to denounce it as an intellectually dishonest enterprise — or they shall eventually find that there is no remainder of the American tradition worth conserving.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
... congressional elections aren't generally national referendums. The president almost always loses seats in the midterms. And this year will be no different ... we're talking individual House and Senate races around the country ... It's a tough political environment for both parties, which is something the tea parties frequently remind stupid RINOs.
Contrast my comment to Tim Burns' electoral message:
Doesn't sound quite so attuned to local constituency preferences, although to be fair, I wasn't doing shoe-level reporting on the ground either.
Still, Larison --- inveterate America-basher that he is --- is not to be trusted with any meaningful "big picture" takeaway from the Mark Critz victory.
Murtha's district had been carved up and served on a platter to ensure his continual re-election. The District's R+1 rating comes only because the district voted for McCain in 2008 while it voted for Kerry in 2004. Democrats would have us believe the District has trended Republican over those four years while the rest of the country had their fill of Bush and the GOP. The Democrats and the cheerleading media want us to forget they believed Obama lost this district because it was filled with racist rednecks.
My quick answer is that you can’t learn much from primary elections. They can be important in their effects—both directly on the composition of Congress and indirectly in how they can affect behavior of congressmembers who might be scared of being challenged in future primaries—but I don’t see them as very informative indicators of the general election vote. Primaries are inherently unpredictable and are generally decided by completely different factors, and from completely different electorates, than those that decide general elections.It's a given that the GOP can take some lessons from PA-12 (and I doubt the NRCC's $1 million spent on behalf of Burns was a wise investment). But on the whole, my sense is that the overall anti-incumbency backlash continues, the Dems are totally freaked, and they're looking for some comfort in Critz's victory. It's a thin reed, but it's about all they've got.
Former John Murtha staffer Mark Critz’s win in the PA-12 House election is just straight-up embarrassing for Republicans. The Democratic strategy was straight out of the 2006/2008 playbook. Find a moderately conservative House district and run a somewhat heterodox Democrat ... To see a Democrat win an open seat in a district that went for John McCain will be a welcome sign to a large number of House Democrat incumbents from red districts.In response, William Jacobson quips, "Dem Path to Victory in 2010 - Run As Conservative Republicans."
CD-12 John Murtha’s district. Houston, we’ve got a problem. Tim Burns is PA GOP Chairman Rob Gleason’s golden boy. Rob Gleason an integral part of the GOP party machine who was a close friend and business partner with John Murtha. Despite rallying calls of Burns being the next Scott Brown, the race is polling dead even. The district is gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats with a 2:1 Dem voter registration lead. If Burns wins, don’t cry to me when he turn RINO. RS McCain, love you but we will have to agree to disagree on Tim Burns.So, if you have a 2-1 Democratic voter registration advantage and run as a Republican you might be able to pull off a 53-45* percent victory in a district held by the Democrats for decades. (And that's not counting Democratic Party voting irregularities in Fayette County and who knows where else?) Yeah, that ought to bode well for the Dems in November.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The developing legal fight over Arizona's sweeping immigration law escalated Monday as major civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the measure's constitutionality.Blah, blah ...
The American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People were among groups that filed the latest challenge.
They filed the case in U.S. District Court on behalf of plaintiffs that include labor unions, a Tucson church, social-service organizations and numerous individuals.
The new suit, the fifth legal challenge filed since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation, asks a federal judge to declare the measure unconstitutional and block it from taking effect in late July. The cases could be consolidated, and no court hearings have been scheduled.
Key provisions of the law include requiring police enforcing other laws to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable suspicion" of illegal presence in the United States. It also makes being in the country illegally a state crime and prohibits seeking day-labor work at roadside.
The lawsuit alleges that the law is unconstitutional because the federal government has responsibility to regulate immigration, and because enforcement of the law will violate protections for due process and equal treatment under the law.
The suit argues that enforcing the law will subject U.S. citizens and others to racial profiling and other harassment, interfere with delivery of social services, and deter people from approaching law enforcement to report crimes.
"This law is shameful and un-American and will undermine public safety," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
Most every man in the known world has at least glimpsed a Playboy centerfold, and thereupon has vowed to go out and get himself something similar in a real live girl, or perused the luscious goods until the magazine has fallen into tatters, or run to confess his pollution to unsympathetic religious personnel, or cried “Death to America” and placed his hope in the eternal succor of 72 virgins, each of whom is the spitting image of the whorish temptress in the picture. Hugh Hefner, the inventor of Playboy, has sold his idea of what sex should be with the winning fervor of a true believer, and while not exactly everyone has bought into it, he has enticed multitudes into his fold with the promise of as much pleasure as a body can manage in a lifetime, all of it perfectly innocent, of course. And what sensible person, playboy or playgirl, could possibly want anything better?My dad kept Playboy at home, and that was some endorsement --- my old man was conservative! I guess that's why I'm a bit of a libertarian on these things, although like R.S. McCain, obviously, I tell my teenage boy to hold the horses until he's older.
He has written, “In this century, America liberated sex. The world will never be the same.” Hefner himself is the Great Emancipator and the most influential figure that American popular culture has produced; no actor or movie director or singer or athlete has moved the life of our time as potently as he. Indeed, one is hard pressed to name more than three or four figures from the more serious precincts of our modern public life who have had an effect of comparable magnitude. Only in America can a man whose declared ambitions were to bed innumerable beautiful women and get rich in the process make a mark deeper than those left by great writers or leading thinkers or most presidents. That this should be so might well appall writers and thinkers and most presidents, but they would have to acknowledge that Hefner got hold of the fundamental American longing as no one else had before. Americans have always pursued happiness, usually without any clear idea of what they were after; Hefner demonstrated that it could be not only pursued but also captured, and he posted photographs of the quarry for proof. The sexual revolution, the defining uprising of our time, is his brainchild; others stand at his shoulder in the leadership, but he is the founding father of the orgasmic republic.
Hefner was seducing his readership with a wholenovel way of life. To fulfill “modern man’s need for a new, more realistic, rational, human, and humane sexual morality” was his grand aim, as he would state in “The Playboy Philosophy,” a series of 25 turgid essays that ran from 1962 to 1965. The new practice would have a prolix if not exactly profound theoretical foundation. Hefner wanted to restore the primal innocence of the two things Americans had endowed with the glamour of wickedness: sex and money. Sex outside of marriage was to become the norm; the playboy was to be a materially successful man who knew how toenjoy his wealth, largely by spending it on delicious playgirls. Hef sought to save other men from the trap in which he had been caught. The nude centerfolds, called Playmates, served the project handsomely: the subjects were “the freshest, most all--American looking girls we can find,” “the photographic dream girls for a large part of our male population,” and their eagerness to expose themselves to public view proved that “nice girls like sex, too.”FOOTNOTE: At first I was going solo with the screencap, but checking Wikipedia turned up the picture of Hef with Holly Madison and Bridget Marquardt.
And here's Ward's 2008 essay from the Tucson Citizen, "Guest Opinion: Raza Studies Gives Rise to Racial Hostility." Also at Grizzly Groundswell, "Tucson Teacher Exposes "Raza" Studies In TUSD":
As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District's hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public's consideration.
During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.
Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a "teacher of record," meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.
I was assigned to be a "teacher of record" because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.
I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.
Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.
Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.
The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.
In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.
This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos."
It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.
It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.
It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.
As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty.
When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."
The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period.
The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives.
It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments.
Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.
The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get.
The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.
Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.
Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.
Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for crimes other than murder, in a significant 5-4 decision that says imposing such sentences violates the Constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishment.I can't imagine much public support for such a position, and it's going to get worse if Ruth Bader Ginsberg steps down next year, giving President Obama a chance to appoint a third radical leftist to the court during his first term. Frankly, here's a hint that the radical majority on the court won't stop the campaign of "evolving decency" with juvenile defendants:
The court's 5-4 decision — which says that an automatic life sentence for a young offender who has not committed murder violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment — wipes out laws in 37 states.
It means that the 129 juveniles now serving time under such laws will, at some point, have an opportunity to make a case for parole.
Most significantly, the decision — signed by the nine-member court's four more liberal justices and Anthony Kennedy, the conservative who votes with the liberals the most — emphasizes that young criminals are different from adults. And not just when it comes to the death penalty, which the court made off-limits for juveniles in 2005.
"A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity," Kennedy wrote for the majority in the decision that found life without parole disproportionally harsh.
The decision immediately generated debate over where the court would go in the future regarding juvenile rights, including the possibility that it could strike down life-without-parole for juvenile murderers.
In Kennedy's opinion for the majority, he highlighted the limited culpability of young offenders and said the usual justifications for harsh sentences, such as deterrence, do not hold up for those under age 18.RTWT at the link. (And Kennedy's appeal to international legal standards is especially appalling.)
Baylor University criminal law professor Mark Osler said Monday's decision arises against the backdrop of a broader national re-examination of harsh sentences, but it is most significant in how it views offenders who are under age 18.
If Mark Critz pulls out a win by a healthy margin, then it could be a good sign that a generalized anti-Democratic mood isn’t materializing. This doesn’t rule out the anti-liberal scenario described above by any means, since Critz is running as a fairly conservative Democrat, but it does indicate that voters in marginal districts are still willing to listen to Democratic candidates who promise to vote against health care reform and the like.But I'm with Charles Krauthammer, who says the current electoral environment is marked by an "anti-big government, anti-Obama, and anti-left-wing agenda." Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
But if Critz loses or barely wins, it would be an ominous sign. Democratic turnout on Tuesday will be driven by the Democratic Senate and gubernatorial primaries occurring that day, narrowing the enthusiasm gap with Republicans in a way that won’t be likely in November. If a conservative Democrat running in a conservative Democratic district with upticket races driving turnout can’t win this year, it bodes poorly for the sixty or so Democrats running in districts that vote even more Republican at the Presidential level (I’d guess there’s eighty or ninety districts represented by Democrats that vote more Republican when you look at the state and federal levels).
