It is the unalterable mission of the academy to challenge age-old dogmas, except for the age-old dogmas of fundamentalist Islam, which are invioable.

The professor in question put the cartoons behind a curtain to prevent offense from those who might probably would were just itching to be offended. But that wasn't enough.

At the height of the international controversy surrounding the Mohammed cartoons, adjunct professor of geography Karen Murdock was concerned that most students at Century had not even seen the cartoons and would therefore be unable to evaluate them intelligently. On February 7, she posted the drawings, related newspaper articles, and blank comment sheets on a bulletin board near her office where various faculty members post items of interest. The cartoons were repeatedly and anonymously torn down, and she replaced them each time. Finally, she says, her academic division head, David Lyons, removed the cartoons himself, and Vice President of Student Services Mike Bruner asked that she not repost them. Vice President of Academic Affairs John OÂ’Brien then called a meeting with Murdock...

Murdock has expressed great frustration with the situation. “We are a college. We are supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas,” she said. “If we can’t talk about this controversy at a college, where are we supposed to talk about it?” She continued, “We are supposed to be able not merely to deal with controversy but actually to welcome it!”...

Academics revere Darwin, even though most of them don't really even understand evolution, simply because he was a brave free-thinker who didn't flinch from challenging the orthodoxies of Christian churches.

But offending Christian sensibilities is one thing. It's required that we throw off the shackles of this racist, repressive religion if we're ever to achieve full social justice and enlightened progressivism. But offending Muslim sensibilities... well, that's just not nice.

Thanks to Craig.

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

In an op-ed published by Pakistan's Daily Times. Nice.

Without a doubt, Israel's old settlement policy diminished the chances for peace, but I can think of one or two other obstacles to tranquility.

Thanks to Allah.

Posted by: Ace at 08:33 AM | Comments (70)
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

How do you get poll results you want?
Well, its in how you phrase the questions and what multiple-choice answers you limit your respondents to.

Real Clear Politics eviscerates the recent poll in which 72% of military in Iraq chose to cut and run:

For example, the widespread finding that three in four soldiers think the United States should withdraw from Iraq within a year has only one option for troops who think otherwise: stay indefinitely. This infamous question asks, "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?" But the first three answers are not phrased in terms of staying, they are phrased "withdraw...," "withdraw..." and "withdraw... ." Where are the options for troops who think the United States should stay for "one to two years" or "two to five years"? Zogby omits such nuance. It's stay or go. Now or never.

Please read the whole thing. Its not very long but it is packed with delicious chewy morsels.

Posted by: LauraW. at 08:08 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

Another day, another highly biased poll attacking President Bush and Republicans.

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low

OK, I'll bite. What was the breakdown on Republicans and Democrats that you interviewed?

Oh. 51% Democrat and 39% Republican. I guess that counts as fair for an Anti-American, Anti-Republican, Anti-Semite Frog company.

You're not going to get a 51-39 breakdown randomly. You have to massage it.

Posted by: Tanker at 05:58 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

A picture says a thousand words. more...

Posted by: LauraW. at 05:53 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

I've seen poorly translated Chinese menus before, but this is just damn comprehensible.

I can only say, Mr. Chinese Menu, what I've just read is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent list of menu-items was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Thanks to Craig.

Posted by: Ace at 06:35 PM | Comments (44)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey, he's superconservative, and he had the stones to try to pick Anna Kournikova up. So why not?

Raj Bhakta, the aspiring "Apprentice" turned aspiring politician, is running for Congress.

Bhakta, who was fired by Donald Trump during the second season of the NBC reality show "The Apprentice," is challenging Democratic U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz for the state's 13th District seat representing suburban Philadelphia.

Bhakta received the county GOP's endorsement days before making his announcement Monday.

"We offer voters legitimate change," Bhakta said. "I am not a politician. I am someone from a business background who wants to make a change."

If elected in November, Bhakta said he would serve a maximum of three terms and called on Schwartz to agree to the same term limits.

...

Bhakta, 30, is best remembered for his flashy bow ties, being turned away by tennis star Anna Kournikova for a coffee date, and flirting with Trump's secretary after being booted from the show. He manages a real estate development firm in Fort Washington.

Posted by: Ace at 04:59 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

The man needs his cowbell. Can you help him?

Posted by: Harry Callahan at 01:09 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Perhaps Mikey would like to live in a more civilized country like France.
After all, he wouldn't have to deal with crazed gunmen or ultra competitive parents. Right? Right?

MONT-DE-MARSAN, France - A father who drugged his children's tennis opponents, leading to one player's death, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted Thursday.

Fauviau was accused of spiking the water bottles of his children's opponents 27 times in tournaments across France from 2000 to 2003, using the anti-anxiety drug Temesta, which can cause drowsiness.

Well, at least that is 8 more years than the senior bloated Senator from Massachussetts got.

This guy will probably only get 8 months in the (C)looney bin.

SABLE-SUR-SARTHE, France - A former teacher armed with a handgun and reportedly suffering from depression held 23 hostages — most students — for several hours Thursday in a high school classroom before surrendering calmly, police said.

Frenchman surrenders? Go figure!

Posted by: Tanker at 12:41 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Personally, I'm not, but here it comes:

A showdown over abortion rights is heading to the states as some governors and legislators prepare for a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Earlier this week, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation banning most abortions, exempting only cases when the mother's life is in danger. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour says he will sign such a ban if it also excepts cases of rape and incest. Lawmakers in eight other states are considering similar steps.

Those state officials, like conservative activist groups, are emboldened by a rightward shift throughout the federal bench during the Bush administration. As a result, they show increasing willingness to test the staying power of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe decision, which placed abortion rights within the Constitution's privacy protections. Its reversal would clear the way for a state-by-state battle over whether, and under what circumstances, abortion could remain legal.

"You're going to see a growing number of states take on the courts," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a voice for religious conservatives. "We see this as an issue that should be decided by the states."

Some states have been preparing for years. At least four, including Louisiana, have so-called trigger laws on the books, which would immediately make abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Four other states are considering such laws.

I appreciate the honesty of the anti-abortion advocates -- they say what they mean and mean what they say -- but allow me for a moment to celebrate dishonesty.

There is an election coming up. The Republicans are on the ropes, and their one big trump card -- national security -- seems, at least at the moment, to be in the hands of Congressional Democrats.

I think there's something of a Pauline Kael effect going on among abortion foes. She famously quipped that she didn't understand how Nixon had won, as no one she knew had voted for him. I don't think abortion foes are at that level of disconnect, certainly, and further, I think they would say that doing the right thing is more important than doing the popular thing. But I'm not sure they realize how unopopular a full repeal of Roe would be in the country now.

For 75% of blue-state women, it's virtually the only issue. That may be overstated, but abortion rights are important to just about every woman who grew up north of the Mason-Dixon line, east of the Mississippi, or west of the Nevada deserts.

Putting abortion in play now will cost Republicans seats in Congress. Blue-state districts that would happily vote for Republicans because of taxes, crime, etc., will now swing towards the Democrats.

Furthermore, I don't see how this actually advances pro-life goals. There are only two confirmed votes against Roe on the Supreme Court-- Scalia and Thomas, who both consider the decision a very bad one (which it is, of course) and who are quite willing to overturn it. Kennedy may or may not agree with the original decision, but he believes the debate has been settled, at least as a legal matter, by the opinon, and he is unwilling to disturb Roe.

Which means that even if Roberts and Alito voted to overturn Roe, there would be only four votes to do so. And I'm betting that one or both of them adopts the Kennedy-O'Connor position -- it may have been a bad decision, and some additional restrictions are constitutionally permissible, but the core of the decision -- that a woman has a right to an abortion under most circumstances, by constitutional diktat -- is now protected by 30+ years of stare decisis.

So, ultimately, the best the pro-life forces can hope for is four anti-Roe votes-- which would actually be the worst they could hope for, as it would immediately show that yes, in fact the next justice appointed to the court will decide the issue, and of course all Democrats (and all moderate Republicans in the Gang of 14) would deem that an "extraodinary circumstance" permitting a filibuster. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that is the one "extraordinary circumstance" they envisioned when crafting the deal.

And if there are fewer votes to overturn Roe -- if Alito or Roberts join with the liberals -- then it depresses the pro-life part of the conservative base, which trusted Bush to appoint pro-life justices.

I just don't see any practical or political good coming out of this push. As Bush said, the nation is simply not at the point at which it is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade. There is always the lure of "doing the right thing" and "moral victories," but if the Senate or House or both fall to Democrats, that will be rather minor consolation.

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (199)
Post contains 815 words, total size 5 kb.