A student/employee of William Paterson University has received a letter of reprimand from the University President.

"On March 7, Arlene Holpp Scala (search), chair of the Women's Studies Department, sent Daniel an unsolicited e-mail announcement of an upcoming film event: "'Ruthie and Connie: Every Room in the House,' a lesbian relationship story." Scala advised those who wished to respond, "Please do not hit reply, click here," thus directing messages to her university e-mail address.

On March 8, Daniel clicked to privately reply, "Do not send me any mail about 'Connie and Sally' and 'Adam and Steve.' These are perversions. The absence of God in higher education brings on confusion. That is why in these classes the Creator of the heavens and the earth is never mentioned." [His message is quoted in full. No other communication with Scala ensued.]"

Read the full article here.

An article in the New York Observer claims that journalists are not eager to defend Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter protecting her sources in the whole Valerie Wilson case. The reason being:

"Her coverage of Iraq and those still-missing weapons of mass destruction was marked by arrogance, incompetence and eagerness to advance the agenda of the Bush White House. Those seem to be the hallmarks of her current misadventure as well. Having written very bad stories that helped drive the country into war against a nonexistent threat, she is now creating very bad law for press freedom."

In other words, if a reporter protects drug dealers and murderers, she is a martyr, but if she protects or supports someone from the Bush administration, she should be thrown in jail. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Deb emailed a response regarding my blog post. She wanted me to let everyone know that the proper credit for my quoted text should go to Human Events. However, she did include some words of her own:

Of course any business has the right to free speech to make its position known. It's no coincidence that things like the September 11 attacks, the capture and beheading of American civilians by terrorists, and the threat of terrorism generally are blocked out by CBS, while pieces on the benefits of socialized medicine and gun control or the assumed evils of our current president are long and full of emotional appeals.

There is a clear political slant that no rational examination can deny. Some news outlets, like CBS or the New York Times, lean liberal; others, like Fox News or the Washington Times, lean conservative. Claiming either to be completely "fair and balanced" is ludicrous. Yet, I can't help but believe that the news business, because it claims to report facts, has a responsibility to do so -- otherwise, it violates every law ever created to prevent false advertising.

I don't particularly agree with the assertion that truth is a subjective matter, though as a journalist myself I recognize the difficulty that sometimes exists in giving a full picture of an issue in a few hundred words or a minute and a half. Even so, facts are facts, only subjective in how they are analyzed and used.

When CBS chooses to report certain facts -- that a majority of members of a third-grade class polled in Massachusetts believe that the war in iraq is bad (editorializing that we should oppose the war and the president) -- and ignore other facts -- namely a long list of horrendous acts of terrorism committed against our people and others (with no editorial becuase it is being ignored) -- the packagers of news are intentionally, through their choices, setting up a skewed picture of reality for mass-consumption, under the guise of a full and factual news report. It is the most basic form of deception: claiming one thing while doing another.

As an independent-minded person who assesses things for myself (for example, I like some of the president's policies and detest others), I am quite disturbed by such gigantic attempts by the "news" networks to change public opinion not through rational argument, but through omission of the news. I will gladly stand to face any challenge of logic, of reason, of principle -- but instead of presenting such a challenge, the cowards at CBS and other news outlets instead try to win their cause by circumventing logic, by presenting things that you cannot argue with becuase they are not mentioned or becuase they contain not a single grain of disputable fact.

The trouble with CBS is not what it is saying, but what it's not saying; it's not that the network owners have an opinion, but that they are using their great power to restrict and prevent the transmission of facts in order to benefit what they see as the appropriate political ends. In so doing, they are not stating an opinion, not using their free speech but, by blocking certain parts of the news from public view, preventing people from the formation of well-informed opinions, even as they claim to inform. The issue here is not free speech, but rather large-scale deception.

Deb, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have a somewhat unpopular stance on the issue, but first, here is the email that you sent to all of us loyal CR'ers so that our readers can get up to speed:

A non-partisan group scheduled air-time to promote a terrorism related conference, only to have the ad rejected by CBS because "Too many people might be emotionally affected by the subject matter -- it's too controversial to be aired at this time."

We are at war and people around the world (over 100 in Iraq this last weekend) are dying because of the barbaric acts of terrorists, but incredibly, the liberal media is afraid a radio ad would be too emotional!?

As a news corporation that is privately owned, they have a business to run first, and a social conscious to maintain second. If they feel that certain advertisements will hurt their brand name or disenfranchise viewers, then by all means it is also their right to accept/decline those advertisements as they see fit. It looks and smells of censorship on the surface, but it isn't because CBS is not set up in the public interest. If you think that they are, then they have done a most excellent job of providing you with an illusory vision to attach yourself to.

The smoke and mirrors of our supposed "freedoms" and "liberties" are revealed by situations like this. Yes, we're the freest people in the world, but no we're not nearly as free as we think we are because things like this happen all the time without our noticing. Personally, I think CBS should have let the advertisement run, but that's because the War on Terror is something I fully support.

If the advertisment had been for Viagra or a baby-fetus fetish support network, then I would obviously support CBS if they censored those things because I would agree with them. So then maybe, this IS an example of us being as free as we think we are. CBS, as a legal entity independent of the people and things that comprise it, made a decision that I, as a legal entity independent of the people and things I interact with, disagreed with. That, however, is the very definition of freedom. It's friction, it's discontent, it's hard; but we live with it, because the alternatives are even more haunting and altogether dispicable.

I was able to go to the Capitol today to hear a debate on social security reform. The head of Women for Social Security Choice and a representative of the Heritage Foundation were on the side of personal accounts while the President of NOW and some other feminazi group were against. Besides being bad debaters, making political attacks, and going off on tangents, the feminazis said one thing that irritated me.

They, like so many liberals, claim that repealing the 2003 tax break for the top 1% of wage earners would solve this or that budget problem. This is absolutely ridiculous. Not only are the revenue projections from such a repeal no where near the amount of revenue needed to "strengthen" social security, but such a repeal would actually lower government revenue.

The numbers came in this week and the government revenues this year are about $100 billion dollars more than expected. A new WebMemo put out by the Heritage Foundation shows us that cuts on the marginal tax rates have actually increased revenue. Who would have thought, Supply Side Economics works.

Read the Memo here.

Some pictures from a recent pro-abortion rally were brought to my attention at Catholic World News. See the full list of them here.

Although there were several pictures...many of them over the top, I noticed this one in particular.



Now I thought the shirts that said "I love pro-choice boys" were pretty sad. I mean basically, these girls were saying, "I love boys who only want me for sex." But claiming that God is pro-choice is not only sad but sick. God is for population control. I bet he was sitting there the day after he said "be fruitful and multiply" and thought to himself, "oops, my bad. Should have thought that one through. Well we got too many babies now, just kill em before they're born."

That's not quite the picture I have of God.

Interesting article in this week's New York Observer. Read it here.

It claims that

"An online survey eliciting the opinions of 1,854 adults across the country found that Mr. Blair's' approval rating had flipped from negative to positive for the first time in five years, up from a mediocre 32 percent at the beginning of this year to a creditable 49 percent last Friday. The proportion wanting British troops brought home quickly had fallen, and the proportion wanting Britain to retain its close ties with the U.S. had risen."

Maybe they're not the spanish.

One of my columns made it into the new issue of Carolina Journal. You can view the July issue here.However, it's easier to view the specific article from the Pope Center website here.

John Derbyshire on NRO:

"Is the United States willing to fight this war the way it needs fighting, with grim ferocity and cold unconcern for legalistic niceties? To lay waste great territories and their peoples, innocent and guilty alike, to level cities, to burn forests and divert rivers, to smite our enemies hip and thigh, to carry out summary execution of captured leaders? Of course not — how barbaric! And yet (whispers the ancestral, tribal voice in our heads, and in British heads too) if not, then what’s the point? War is a tribal affair, one tribe exterminating another, or reducing it to utter impotence and ignominious surrender. That’s what war is, and it isn’t anything else. We know this in our bones, from a million years of tribal living and fighting. If we are not willing to fight a war like that — which apparently we are not, being much too civilized — then we should not be too surprised if our allies turn and cut deals with our enemies. At least they’ll have a quiet life, for a while."

Very discouraging, to say the least.

Yes it still exists. One of its forms is a UK think tank. Check it out here.

Great column by John Miller (who I met at the CN conference two years ago) on NRO about the importance of children's literature. Read it here.

His quote by C.S. Lewis pretty much sums up the article:

"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval," he said, "instead of merely a descriptive term, cannot be adults themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence."

This is exactly why I can admit to be a huge fan of A.A. Milne. The stories are timeless, the writing is incredible, and who doesn't like fluffy Teddy Bears.

I am currently reading Right Nation. It is a great book about the rise of modern American conservatism. Read more here.

Here is one scary excerpt for you.

"The Fabians, a society of intellectuals, founded their organization in 1884. Their ranks included Sidney and Beatrice Webb, HG Wells, and George Bernard Shaw. Their aim was to replace the 'scramble for private gain' with 'collective welfare,' and their chosen technique was 'permeation'. They did not believe in overthrowing society, like the Marxists. They did not particularly care about winning elections, like the Labor Party they also helped found. Indeed, they tried not to tie themselves to one particular party. They hoped that socialism would come about gradually but relentlessly-by clothing collectivism in the garb of common sense and by extending government controls over one institution after another."

Sounds to me like they were pretty successful.

By the way, we never announced the release of the summer issue. Here it is. And an amazing piece of publishing, I might add. I especially like the P&P on wind energy.

First you had 9/11 in NY. Then 3/11 in Madrid. Now London has 7/7.

Let's pray for those who have been hurt and those who are in danger right now. Also, we should pray that the British have more resolve than the Spanish. Appeasement does not work. Especially against this enemy.

Anybody got any predictions as to British resolve?

Sorry, couldn't refuse the Dixie Chick / Darrell Scott reference in the title. It fit too perfectly. But it has been too long since I tickled the keyboard over in this here part of the web. Thanks for the email, Brian, reminding me to blog it up Carolina Review style. I was actually just making the comment to Liz the other day that for a bunch of Poli Sci / Journalism majors, we don't write politicky or newsish stuff in the CR blog very often. So let's see what we can whip out, shall we?

I agree on all points that Bush, as a conservative, furthermore a conservative whom I voted for, should have the right to nominate a conservative Justice to the Supreme Court. A Justice who will, in theory, uphold the values that I as an American citizen endorsed when I voted conservatively. However, the Democrats, sore losers that they are, will not likely take this sitting down. They like to be heard too, and in some ways I guess it's their right. All I'm saying is, folks, dig in. This has the potential to become all kinds of nasty. Filibusters in the Senate? Please. Baby you ain't seen nothing yet. Before it's all said and done that Constitution we love so dearly might wind up in bottom of a wastebasket, having been shredded to tiny bits and pieces. Bipartisanship, cooperation, acquiescence--these are all words to which politicians no longer know the meanings. I say let Judge Judy take the bench. It'll do wonders for her ratings, and who knows, maybe the US Gov will make a little coin too.

In other news, those wiley Brits won the bid for the Summer Games in 2012. Fear not my adopted New York brethren. All other European cities will be, for all intents and purposes, out of the running in 2016 because the IOC doesn't want to appear biased by selecting two cities from the same geographical region to hold the Olympics in subsequent terms. But maybe next time we try a little harder and make sure the Mayor doesn't block the plans to build a new spectacular Olympic-sized stadium in the prime real estate of Manhattan? I'm pretty sure the IOC passing on NYC had a lot to due with the jeopardized state of the plans for downtown renovation. Who wants to take the subway from the village to the stadium? Not me. It smells down there.

Keeping with the sports theme, Lance Armstrong, American bicyclist extraordinare, is in the lead of the Tour de France. David Zabriskie crashed yesterday, relinquishing his lead to Armstrong. As an act of sportsmanship, Lance decided not to wear the yellow jersey that riders don to signify their status as leader because it "didn't feel right to start in that jersey on somebody else's misfortune." However, the French officials refused to allow it and forced Armstrong to dress like a banana. Apparently, sportsmanship is not high up on the list of values taught over in France. Unfounded criticism, on the other hand, is. I keep waiting for the accusations to begin again that Lance is on chemicals. To borrow a joke from Robin Williams, it's called chemotherapy you imbeciles. Something else to note: This is the earliest stage that Lance has ever taken the lead and this would also be his seventh consecutive victory, breaking his own record of six (four others are tied for second with five a piece).

I would comment about the journalist from The Times being thrown into jail after refusing to reveal their confidential source, but I think all journalists, amateur and professional alike, stand solidly behind the position that you can't have free press if Big Brother watches over our shoulders all the time.

I know we beat this issue over the head a while back, but as with any important issue, the debate never ends.

First off, I was right. Case in point Kelo v. New London and McCreary Count, Kentucky v. ACLU.

If you haven't been reading the paper, the decision in the first case was that a local government is allowed to take your house and give it to a private company if it wishes. In the second case, the court ruled that the ten commandments can not be displayed in a public setting when the display has a religious significance (as opposed to historical significance). So in two weeks, the 9 tyrants in robes struck a horrible blow to both property rights and religion. This is why it is imperative that Bush appoints strict constructionist judges to replace O'Connor and Rehnquist when he retires.

And how did it get this bad...I'll tell you. First, when Reagan tried to appoint Robert Bork, the Dems went on the war path and subsequently the verb "to Bork" was born. So, although he did get Scalia on the bench, he eventually settled on Kennedy who ended up siding on the anti-private property side of the Kelo case.

Then you have H.W. Bush's nominee--Souter. Souter was th one who read the ridiculous majority opinion in the Kentucky case (I was in the chambers when he read it). He claimed that this guy was a secularist



PREPOSTEROUS!!!

We can not allow the Left to convince Bush to appoint a "moderate." There is no moderation when it comes to believing in the constitution. "Moderate" means adhering to the constitution sometimes and your whim the rest of the time.

The Republicans need to do whatever is necessary within the bounds of the law to pass strict constructionist nominees. Let's see what happens.

Here is a guy who believed in sticking to his guns, no matter what. Thank goodness he wasn't worried about polling numbers.

Hey y'all,

I am sorry that I have been absent for so long. I have been getting myself aclamated up here in DC. But I am back and I hope we can get some action going here. So for starters I will show you a friend I made in Washington the other day.



This guy has as much patriotism in one of his left feathers as all the leadership on the Left combined. I met him at the WWII memorial July 4th weekend.