The son of former Democrat United States Senator Jim Sasser has written a screed of fear, published proudly (one supposes) by the editorial board of The Tennessean

Today, the rising cost of prescription drugs, patient’s bills and the outrage over the way President Bush is playing politics with our kids’ health insurance is reason enough to make health-care coverage a moral issue, and it is certainly cause for outrage.

Some will use the tired scare tactics of “socialized medicine.” Some will rely on their professional background in the health industry to argue that the system is working. Others will echo President Bush and say that no one goes without health insurance here in America because you can just go to an emergency room.

Being a good Democrat, he brings in the kids, and causes a pseudo-moral ruckus. Gray Sasser is apparently reading a different Constitution than the one I have access to - the one lacking the amendment confirming lifelong health care as an absolute right. In addition to a most un-enlightened view of morality, we learn medical “professionals” are to be trusted less than Democrat politicians. His perverse morality demands an exponential growth in government, misrepresents history, and cares not for its effectiveness outside of the expediency of uninformed votes.

So let’s not stop with his murky sense of morality, or his complete lack of respect and knowledge for the United States Constitution (it’s a short, easy read - come on, please). Gray confirms he has no need to counsel history to make his point. For instance

Just as previous Democratic presidents ushered in Medicare to provide health care for the elderly, the Democratic contenders offer leadership on the same moral issue 73 years later.

They are stressing that just as we should expand the SCHIP program, which provides health insurance for more middle-income children across America, expands indigent care in Tennessee and continues to build upon the innovation of the private sector, so should we continue to offer states and employers the tools they need to offer universal health-care coverage so that every citizen gets a real chance to live the American dream.

Has our history curriculum in Tennessee been this awful? Medicare is a Great Society program, proposed by Lyndon Johnson, not Franklin Roosevelt, leaving decades of Sasser’s argument unaccounted for (does The Tennessean even edit these things?). Neither does Sasser note that TennCare is already more generous than any other state’s Medicaid-hybrid system. All minor details, to be sure, but just another example of a modern-day Democrat selling accuracy to the proverbial spiritual blender in favor of cheap political points. Further, if Mr. Sasser cared a lick for private sector innovations, he would wholesale denounce universal health care as a charlatan’s proposition. The free market innovates when separated from the government, not the other way around.

Sasser’s denouement is typical class warfare tripe

Health care is a moral issue for our leaders in Congress and in the White House.

Today, a union worker in Spring Hill, a mother in Clarksville and 47 million more Americans will worry about health insurance. Tomorrow, with a Democrat in the White House, they will not.

Using some rather rudimentary math, I came to note that 253 million people are not worried about health insurance. Or dare I further note that a Democrat in the White House is either unqualified and “stinky” (Barack Obama) or is advocating a Hugo Chavez-esque nationalization of nearly 20% of the economy (Hillary Clinton). There’s nothing like a lack of competition to keep costs down.

You people must be more serious.

Keep costs down by re-connecting the provider and the consumer. Higher co-pays and less coverage for less costly services are the answer, creating the right incentives and keeping serious matters covered. Preventive care is favored. Reprehensible politicians like Sasser will continue to sell the snake oil to buy the votes, until the system collapses, and those paying for it finally opt out.

The Democrats are intent on killing the golden goose. And at times, I fear there are too few of us to stop them from doing so.

WANTED: A presidential candidate who will not promote policies that run counter to the intentions of our Constitution. This person must recognize universal health care, social security and other bloated federal programs for the disaster that they are, not only financially but for the character of our country. Candidate must embrace ideals of federalism that were deemed essential to the founders of our country, with as many decisions as possible being left to the states. Applicant MUST be a good communicator who can persuade not only Americans but people around the world of the value to be found in the individual and the evil that comes with oppression and fanaticism. The importance of immigration reform should be addressed, but the candidate cannot endorse building a wall or focusing on one race of people as solutions.  This person has to place the safety and strength of the United States above all other issues. A candidate need not apply if he or she thinks that two dudes who want to commit to one another is the most important problem facing our country or that climate change is a bunch of hooey made up by treehugging wackos.

Both men and women are encouraged to apply. Race does not matter. Religious affiliation does not matter. The amount of times you can use 9/11 or Katrina in a speech does not matter. Belief in freedom, individualism and limited government is vital.

Is there anyone out there who qualifies to respond to my ad?? I’m beginning to think not.

My Terps travel to Jersey today to play Rutgers and I imagine many turtle fans will make the road trip up the turnpike to enjoy the game. (When I lived in Boston, my longest drive home to Maryland ever involved a three-hour standstill on the Jersey Turnpike due to burning tires covering the road. Gotta love it.) After all, it is likely that the turtle parents live nearby.  I had several friends who lived off Exit 7A.  It’s a fine exit.

When I attended University of Maryland, I sometimes wondered if College Park really served as a satellite campus for New Jersey’s state school. Walk through Lot 1 student parking and you would see the yellow and white license plates, or perhaps even some of the light blue plate model. Jersery certainly did represent.

So, who will win the battle of the Jersey schools today? My boys are big dogs in this game, but I really would love to quiet those nasty Rutgers fans. We shall see during nationwide TV coverage this afternoon. GO TERPS!

Hillary Clinton has proposed the concept of “baby bonds”, $5,000.00 given to every child at birth for later use in life

Clinton, her party’s front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home,” she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Well, with a middle school education, once can estimate the current cost (4 million x $5,000.00 = $20 billion annually). For purposes of a round number, and also likely being the highest interest rate possible, let’s assume a 5% return , which when compounded over 18 years roughly doubles the $5,000.00 bond. This doesn’t even cover today’s cost of tuition and fees. Last year, the average cost of attending a public four year school was $12,108.00. To attend a private four year school was significantly higher to the student, at an average of $27,317.00* per year.

In short, Hillary’s proposal will not even cover one year of educational expenses 18 years from now, would add to the deficit annually, and over eighteen years (not counting interest), $360 billion to the national debt. Further, in 18 years both public and private institutions will know there is a federal government windfall coming, which will be largely absorbed in increased fees and tuition over that period. ** As for a down payment on a home, this just sounds like an expanded HUD program to me.

So she is selling a bill of goods to the congressional black caucus, who will go back and tell their constituents they will be getting $5,000.00 for every kid born a Hillary-baby.

Such wretched pandering is not unusual. Seldom though is it combined with such bad economics. Now we have a new equation.

Bad Economics + Racial Pandering = Democrat 2008 Frontrunner

I would graph it, but I think I would get sick.

* the difference in cost is illusory. As of 2001, the last year statistics were readily available, the average institutional public school cost was actually $30,625 per year per student, which is lower than the average institutional cost of a private school education but more in line with current private school tuition, fees and board. In short, whether it’s public or private, someone is paying for it.

** for instance, say you run a fruit stand, and know that everyone has just been given an additional $10.00 to spend on fruit. You know they will have to spend it, but you also know you don’t have any more fruit than you had before. Naturally, prices will go up to capture the additional funds and keep the supply and demand curves in balance. More simply, increasing the money supply while keeping supply constant results in inflation. Education is no different than anything else.

Michelle Obama has been a rather consistent source of clarity in the Barack Obama campaign. From her we learn the senator is “stinky”, never really thinks himself right, and now prognosticates that if he does not win Iowa, “it is over”.

Some people seem to think such statements make Senator Obama more human. In effect, I think it makes him too human.

There is an intangible quality to the presidency, where the holder of the office becomes, through the tradition of the office but also through his inherent characteristics, larger than life. Bill Clinton was and remains that way. Ronald Reagan was that way as well. Neither Bush presidency has grasped that intangibility, nor did Jimmy Carter. It seems that the presidential administrations that have the most problems advancing an agenda are those where the occupant of the Oval Office is all too human.

I’d rather, for the sake of the office sought, that Michelle Obama leave the dirty laundry at home, where it belongs. And if I was the candidate, I would rather my spouse not predict a date-certain when my candidacy would explode.

I am sitting in my living room with a feeling of terror. No, it’s not Friday the 13th or Mike Meyers that is filling my television screen. I am watching the Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC and the idea of any of these people becoming our next president has gripped me with fear. Here are some of the scary highlights:

1. Governor Richardson wants to have universal pensions and keep social security the way it is. I love paying taxes at an enormously high rate and watching my country go bankrupt through bloated federal programs. Sounds like good times to me, Governor. Let’s go for it!

2. Most of the candidates favor a nationwide smoking ban. Bye, bye, federalism. It sure
was nice knowing you. Let’s just erase those silly borders between states and let D.C. control everything we do. Ahhh … just as the founders intended.

3. Universal health care

4. Senator Edwards wants to pass the buck and please everyone by saying that he’s not in favor of gay marriage but he believes his daughter’s generation will make it happen.

5. “I think my husband was a pretty good president.”

6. Senator Gravel is proud of the $85,000 of credit on which he defaulted when he declared personal bankruptcy. He thinks the credit card companies deserve it.

7. All of the candidates are lamenting the fact that young people don’t believe that Social Security will be available for them. That doubt is a good thing! Maybe my generation and those younger than me will take more personal responsibility for their own retirement instead of counting on the government.

8. “The Kucinich administration will ___________” (fill in the blank with anything)

9. Senator Edwards’ father worked in a mill? What? Why hasn’t he shared this before? It makes him just like you and me! (OK … this isn’t really scary, I’m just so danged tired of hearing the “my father was a mill worker” line)

10. I think I rolled my eyes almost as often when watching the last Republican debate. This is all scary.

I recently heard the new Billy Ray Cyrus song, “Ready, Set, Don’t Go”. (Please have it noted that this is the first time I have dedicated a single written word to the music of Mr. Cyrus.) The song is about his teenaged daughter’s desire to spread her wings and head off on her own. Some of the lyrics include:

She’s gotta do what she’s gotta do
And I’ve gotta like it or not

Looks like she’s all ready to leave
Nothing left to pack
There ain’t no room for me in that car

This is where I don’t say what I want so bad to say
This is where I want to but I won’t get in the way

I decided to do a little bit of research on young Miley Cyrus (full name is Destiny Hope “Miley” Cyrus, in case you are interested). She was born on November 23, 1992. I consider myself fairly decent at math, so I feel confident in my assertion that Miley’s birthdate puts her at a spry fourteen years old. With that information known, I don’t understand Billy Ray’s sentiments in this song. She certainly does not “gotta do what she’s gotta do”! I believe parents still get the veto at this stage in her life. What do you mean, Mr. Cyrus, when you sing that you “don’t say what [you] want so bad to say”? I certainly don’t plan to keep my mouth shut when Catherine is in the early stages of being a teenager.

You want to go out to a party until 2:00am and drive home with that boy who has empty bottles of gin rolling around in the bed of his pickup truck? Sure, dear. Who am I to stop you? What’s that you say? You want to move to California and share an apartment with four other girls instead of finishing high school? Well, you did start wearing a bra yesterday. Guess you get to make your own decisions now!

I understand a parent’s desires to support the dreams of their children. I want to help Catherine be anything she wants to be. But, the sentiment of this song seems a bit premature to me.

It was time for me to take a break in my exciting afternoon schedule of folding laundry and scrubbing the kitchen floor.  So, I settled down in front of the TV with a bean burrito.  I happened upon a show called Platinum Weddings on the “WE” network.  I quickly realized that brain matter was starting to seep out of my ear and that I had broken my personal vow to erase entertainment television from my viewing plans.  So, I changed the channel to C-Span.

Before averting my eyes from the ridiculous waste of disposable income, I did get to see the total cost for the flowers being used at the wedding and reception.  Total bill … just for flowers?  $56,000!!   This includes a $75 orchid to be placed on the dinner plate of each of the more than 300 guests!

This couple’s floral budget blows the entire cost of my wedding out of the water, and I think Nathan and I had a lovely wedding!  I’ve had many friends say they would have a simpler wedding, or even elope, if they had it to do all over again.  I’ve never had one tell me, “Gosh.  I wish I would have spent a lot more money on that one single day.”

I understand wanting to have a special day to celebrate the start of your marriage. Nathan and I had a sit-down dinner, jazz trio (students from the high school where I taught … teenagers come cheap!) and plenty of top-shelf alcohol (I think it was top shelf … I was satisfied drinking Iron City from the can … classy bride, I know) for around eighty of our family members and closest friends.  However, I cannot see how you can justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single event, even if money is no object.  Maybe it’s because I wasn’t the type of girl who grew up dreaming about her perfect wedding, or maybe I’m just a cheapskate.  But, $56,000 on a bunch of flowers that are going to get thrown away at the end of the evening or at least after a week in someone’s home?  You could probably feed an entire Third World country for a year with that money.

Far be it from me and my libertarian leanings to tell someone how to spend their money, but the entire concept of a “platinum wedding” seems crazy to me.

Just as we have begun digesting Columbia University President Lee Bollinger’s face-saving rebuke of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before his “discussion” two days ago, Jon Stewart gives the comedy equivalent stage to Bolivian president Evo Morales on The Daily Show. A sample of Morales’ philosophy

The worst enemy of humanity is U.S. capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn’t acknowledge this reality, that the national states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated.

I usually like Jon Stewart’s humor. He hits both parties well enough that it’s almost always funny. But the coddling, starstruck way in which Stewart interviewed Morales was embarrassing, as was the crowd’s loud applause at Morales’ touting of the “benefits” of illegally nationalizing Bolivia’s natural gas industry and his every subtle slam of American capitalism.

It is no secret that Morales is an avowed socialist and enemy of capitalism, as apparently is the case with Stewart’s in-studio audience. Morales’ claimed that he generated revenues of $2 billion dollars by nationalizing the gas industry. Let’s examine that bit of propaganda.

Morales’ seizure of natural gas assets is certainly a short term boon for the state apparatus. The Bolivian military is practically sitting on a pile of cash. However, Morales’ military occupations of gas assets and his threats to seize sectors across the economy is a long term albatross that will certainly chill any further foreign investment in all of Bolivia’s industries. Contrary to the rhetoric, it’s not even American interests that Morales is harming

The firms with the largest holdings in Bolivia’s energy industry are the Spanish-Argentine venture Repsol YPF and Brazil’s Petrólio Brasileiro (Petrobras). Britain’s British Petroleum (BP) and France’s Total also have large investments. Repsol YPF has invested some $1.2 billion in Bolivia’s energy industry, and Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner, whose country faces double-digit inflation rates, is concerned about rising gas prices jeopardizing Argentina’s economic recovery. But Brazil is under the greatest pressure if prices go up, as Bolivia provides it with about half of its gas. In the populous economic center of Sao Paolo that figure is closer to 75 percent. Petrobras has invested $1 billion in Bolivia’s natural-gas industry. Morales’ move has put Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a vulnerable position in the months leading up to his October reelection bid.

The Council on Foreign Relations report notes that Morales’ natural gas policies could add inflationary pressure to the entire region, especially (as can be seen above), in the two economic powerhouses of South America, Brazil and Argentina. Nationalization makes for a good clap line in front of an audience of anti-capitalist cymbal monkeys, but the real middle and longterm effects are more instability, less investment, less growth, and fewer jobs, which is nothing to cheer about.

Latin America had done well to avoid the dangers of leaders like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales for some time. Unfortunately, as is the case in America, politicians with pie-in-the-sky promises are eventually elected. The costs of fulfilling those promises only becomes clear years later.

I have been meaning to share a moment I saw during CNN’s coverage of the Jena protests. A reporter stood among the largely-minority crowd and, in a ridiculous attempt to compare the gathering to the crowds of people left stranded in another part of Louisiana two years ago, she shared the following with the viewers (please allow my paraphrase, as I did not have a tape recorder handy):

It is hot down here in Louisiana today. And, for hours, no one came to provide water or toilets. I kept wondering,”Where is the water?”  Finally, in the middle of the afternoon, some relief arrived in the form of a truck bringing bottled water. And, I hear that Porta-Pottys have been set up. Despite these challenging conditions, those here to speak their mind kept a positive attitude.

Hello, Ms. Reporter, this is not a repeat of Hurricane Katrina. Everyone assembled around you arrived in Jena by choice.  Many of them are college students, and undoubtedly understand the need for liquids when the weather is hot.  I checked the online Yellow Pages, and there are nine gas stations and twenty drug stores in Jena.  Betcha that most, if not all, have both bathrooms and water for sale.  While people certainly have a right to gather and protest, the government does not need to call up FEMA to have cold water and lavatories at the ready. As much as you are apparently trying to create some drama, there is no great controversy here surrounding lack of government-sponsored hydration.

My favorite saying the past few days has been, “For the love of Pete!”  I don’t know what prompted me to begin uttering this particular phrase, although I can tell you that it’s usually in response to Catherine sticking a marker in her mouth or my dog barking incessantly at a thoroughly apathetic neighbhorhood cat.  Last night, I paused for a moment and thought, “Who exactly is this Pete?”

Personally, I have loved two Petes in my life.  I remember both of their last names, but I’m afraid they might decide to Google themselves, find my writings and wonder why this pathetic woman still remembers such ridiculous details twenty years later.  So, I will stick to their shared “Pete” moniker.

The first Pete entered my life in 1982, when I was in the second grade.  He drew the best Twisted Sister symbols on his three-ring notebook and was even commissioned by others to perform his artistic talents on their belongings.  We used to sit on the roof of my house, eat peanut butter sandwiches and have long talks about He-Man.

My second Pete was a classmate in 9th grade Biology.  He had a skater floppy cut and spoke with a slight lisp.  And, he played lacrosse. I’ve always loved me a good lacrosse player.  You can only imagine how giddy I was when we got placed in the same group for the fetal pig dissection!
While I assume that the phrase “for the love of Pete” did not find its genesis in either of these two boys, I will now picture them every time Catherine stacks all of my canned goods on top of the toilet.

My French was never that good. I took French in high school because the teacher let us play chess all day, and the Spanish teacher was one bad relationship from a tight fitting suit and padded walls.

Unlike his predecessor, French President Nicolas Sarkozy seems to understand that a French statesman can be both nationalistic and responsible in the fight to secure freedom

In his maiden speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Sarkozy said: “There will be no peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of nuclear arms proliferation.”

Iran was entitled to nuclear power for civilian purposes, he said, “but if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world”.

In a broader warning against the dangers of appeasement, the new French leader said: “Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war.”

Speaking entirely tongue-in-cheek, it must be noted that his penchant for statesmanship is made largely possible by his Hungarian, not French, descent. Count me impressed anyway that Sarkozy was able to channel Churchill, Reagan, Kirkpatrick and Thatcher simultaneously in that den (and at times, “din”) of inequity we call the United Nations. You could almost see the washing away of Jacques Chirac’s political legacy, erasing two terms of unwarranted French presidential hubris and intransigence.

What we have now is a French president with Eastern European roots, born of a family that fled the Soviets not once, but twice, before settling outside Paris. Sarkozy probably has a world view more closely aligned with Vaclav Havel than with Chirac or Mitterand, which is a good thing for France, and a good thing for the world at large. At the very least, he has the rhetoric right, and to some degree in support of his harder stance, has extended France’s military capabilities by authorizing the expansion of the French aircraft carrier fleet. Only time will tell whether more action will follow.

Bob Herbert of The New York Times props up the walking-dead canard of District of Columbia representation and sends out this jolt

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A Senatorial vote to enable voting representatives from the District of Columbia in Congress is a blatant end-run around the Constitution. To legally change the nature of the District, an amendment must be proposed and passed by the states. The District of Columbia was designed by the Founders to expressly not be a state (for more reference, read what Publius had to say in Federalist 43). Sorry to break it to you racialist sensationalists, but opposition to de facto District of Columbia statehood has absolutely nothing to do with how many black people reside there - unless, of course, you are a Democrat, then it has everything to do with how many black people reside there.

The District of Columbia is 57% black. It voted 89% for John Kerry in 2004, and 85% for Al Gore in 2000. The vote over District representation is not a racist opposition by Republicans but is very much a cheap power play for another congressional seat by Democrats. Both parties have political motives. The difference here is that the Republicans have the Constitution on their side and the Democrats do not. Can proponents of District of Columbia statehood and congressional representation not at all see the historical reason for ensuring the District is not itself a state? Or is power just that important? That’s certainly something a fifth grader could answer.

Quite frankly, I tire of a rationally held opposition to an issue being tossed aside as racist because of the holder’s political affiliation. And further, it’s more tiresome that one cannot be a pure African-American unless you subscribe to the monolithic world that demands government dependence and a Democratic voter registration. Now that is insulting.

Herbert then goes on some mindless ramble about how Clarence Thomas isn’t a real black man (if you think Clarence Thomas is a bad, just try to make sense of Thurgood Marshall’s truly incomprehensible jurisprudence - just have the Costco sized bottle of aspirin ready), bemoaning that the major Republican candidates won’t hold vigil with Tavis Smiley, and how black voters were intimidated in Florida in 2004 (I guess he meant Ohio - Herbert may have forgotten that Florida was the Democrats’ race-baiting award winner of 2000, but was only a nominee in 2004).

So, if you’re a Republican, why bother? You can’t win. If you are black and Republican you are a fake black. If you believe the Constitution forbids a certain action, you are a racist. And if you don’t go to a debate where you are certain to be scorned and ridiculed, you are also a racist. It’s the perfect trap to keep the monolith intact, and to keep the power among the liberal elite and black “leaders”.

I guess I have to accept that as a Republican I’m going to eventually be called a racist, damned be my daily actions that speak kilodecibels louder than Bob Herbert’s words.

I acknowledge this is not a popular topic. I am writing this to tell you why you ought to care. I figure most liberals probably already do. It’s my conservative brethren I’m more concerned about.

In The Tennessean this morning there is an article discussing a slew of new suits against Correct Care Solutions, LLC, the new contractor employed by the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office to administer prisoner health care after a diabetic inmate died in 2005

In one of the lawsuits filed in July, inmate Candy Allen accuses the company of not providing medication for heart problems, for vertigo and for vomiting.

James Nicholson Jr. sued in April, alleging it took a month for medical staff to respond to requests for help when he was jailed with a broken arm.

Nicholson said he went to the hospital after he was released, and “he was informed that his arm had healed in a broken position and would need to be re-broken,” the lawsuit says.

The power of the state is at its peak when imprisoning a citizen - something which ought to give both conservatives and liberals pause. Despite both federal and state mandated presumptions of innocence, people are routinely held until their case is resolved because they cannot make a bond - the proper exercise of their presumption of innocence is compromised because they are poor. If you are a male in Davidson County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) custody, it is likely you are still awaiting resolution of your case (once guilt is determined and if further incarceration is required, you are either shipped to the Corrections Corporation of America facility on Harding Place or the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC)). Nowadays, women are always housed in DCSO or TDOC custody.

Despite explicit constitutional requirements to the contrary, individuals are wrongly held on bonds they cannot make everyday. Both Tennessee courts and the Supreme Court of the United States have extrapolated reasonably on the right to bail, confirming the financial state of a defendant should be taken into account when setting the bond amount. In Tennessee v. O’Steen, (559 S.W.2d 340 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977)), the Court of Criminal Appeals emphasizes the length of incarceration and the ability of the defendant to secure the money for bail

The petitioner has now been confined nearly three months due to his inability to secure bail set by the General Sessions Judge. This is tantamount to a denial of bail.

The Supreme Court of the United States notes in Stack v. Boyle (342 U.S. 1 (1951))

Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.

If you cannot make bail, you must wait, and wait, and wait, to resolve your case - or just plead guilty. It is the most prevalent example of everyday state coercion. The prospect of pleading guilty and accepting some sort of supervised release (even if you are not guilty) forces many to enter pleas in exchange for freedom. The average wait between a finding of probable cause in a Davidson County General Sessions court and the day of arraignment on that charge is between four and six months. An available jury trial date typically will not be for another four to six months after that. I have seen my own clients sit in jail on presumed probationary misdemeanors and nonviolent offenses because they could not make the smallest of bonds. Being held on misdemeanor charges, one lost a child because of practically non-existent prenatal care, and is still in suit against the Corrections Corporation of America over two years later (the facts of her case are here).

So, if the State is voluntarily setting up a system to hold prisoners without a determination of their guilt, they are both morally and constitutionally obligated to provide adequate health care to those in their charge. I am not advocating the best health care, just the bare minimum. Losing children, failing to provide heart medicine, and having to re-break arms because of prison health incompetence does not even remotely meet that standard. The principles of limited government and strict constructionism demand that the state provide adequate prison health care.

Here is a sampling of the opinions for which Columbia University is providing a forum this week

“[There is] no significant need for the United States.”

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

“Could [9/11] be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?” 

“Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 (2005 on the Western calendar) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. “ 

Sourced here and here.

There is just too much material to discuss today. Fortunately, this Monday is at least a partial day off for me, and there’s the time.

The student newspaper at Colorado State University has decided upon the most delirious of headlines for the new semester

The Rocky Mountain Collegian published an editorial on page 4 of the paper Friday which read “Taser this … F*** Bush.”

The expletive was spelled out.

The last two words were in bold type, larger than most headlines. A caption below said, “this column represents the views of the Collegian’s Editorial Board.”"I think they went over the line a little bit, but it’s free speech and they’re allowed to write what they want,” one student told 7NEWS.

The quoted student isn’t given much context, but I sense that Colorado State needs to work on how they teach the First Amendment. Free speech is an amoral animal. No one should be praised for simply exercising the right - that’s like telling a child “good job” for inhaling and exhaling - but all who exercise it should be judged on what they do with it.  In this case, the student editors of The Rocky Mountain Collegian confirm only one thing: bad judgment. Sadly, the story linked above notes that they “discussed the statement for several hours” before deciding on publishing it. It’s a lesson in consequences

McSwane told 7NEWS that ads from the CSU Bookstore were pulled from the paper in response to the editorial. Bookstore managers declined to comment.

The Associated Press Saturday reported the student newspaper has lost $30,000 in advertising and had to cut pay and other budgets by 10 percent because of fallout.

When in doubt about the future of America, we can rest easy that the free market still has a sense of decency.

Columbia University has now supplanted its competitors in the upper echelons of higher education as the bellwether of intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, the lead may be insurmountable, unless of course the ghost of Stalin starts to hold vigil on the streets of Cambridge to debate the importance of purges in efficient communistic administration.

By now everyone knows that Columbia has invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak on its campus, a Holocaust denier, religious Islamist fundamentalist, and proud advocate of Jewish destruction. Just last year the leadership of Columbia University viewed such positions as less offensive than the United States’ military’s recruitment policies.

In short, Jewish genocide is less offensive than “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

Really?

Apparently. Columbia University might as well start a symposium on the subject and invite Jeremiah Munsen to discuss his views on the inferiority of other races and the proper role of Africa in international relations. It’s just free speech, right?

Which is a trap door. Free speech is not the real issue. Institutions all the time decide that certain opinions are too far outside the acceptable realm of discussion, whether it is the forbidding of ROTC recruitment on campus, or the denial of a former Harvard president to speak to a state university governing board because he dared comment that women simply didn’t like science as much as men do. Do not be fooled that Columbia is acting as a neutral forum. If they found Ahmadinejad’s statements and policies distasteful, he would have already been disinvited. American academia has long snuffed out the torch of free speech on its campuses.

Add to that a Columbia University dean John Coatsworth’s sua sponte admission that Adolf Hitler would have been welcome prior to the beginning of World War II (pre or post the invasion of Sudetenland, we’re not sure), and we have quite the mess. The rationale there, I suppose, is that we wouldn’t have been at war with Germany yet, or more invidious, that anti-Semitism is simply okay (I suppose someone should tell the dean Mein Kampf was published sixteen years before American involvement in the war). The lynch pin according to the dean is that he would have to be subjected to a discussion, which seems more label than substance. There will be no substantive discussion - Ahmadinejad will stick to his genocidal, anti-American talking points like he has in every interview he has conducted.

Either way, we are de facto at war with Iran, and Columbia is playing the perfect patsy, giving Iran’s leader an American platform to crown his well-orchestrated media circus. It is not debatable that Iranian monies and weapons have been provided to the anti-government forces in Iraq. I know at this point it’s too late to demand that our academics reach a pro-American consensus. At the very least one of our top universities could muster enough willpower to stand up to an avowed religiously intolerant, genocidal racist.

My treadmill entertainment this afternoon was Hardball with the always-insightful Chris Matthews.  His headline story was the supposed loss of free speech that we are experiencing in this country.  Are Barbra Streisand, Rosie O’Donnell, Bill Maher, Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Jack Murtha and countless others in jail right now for speaking out against the government?  My goodness, that is big news!!

Matthews used three recent events in an attempt to convince us that we are no longer free to disagree with the policies of the current administration.

Quick Side Note:  My favorite comment EVER during the many anti-war rallies and marches I’ve watched on C-Span was,  “We don’t even have the right to protest anymore!”.  This was spoken by a man holding a “Bush is a Nazi” sign and marching with thousands of other angry people through the streets of D.C.  Amusing.  Back to my post … 

I would like to address each of the instances that Matthews featured in his slanted and unconvincing piece:

1.The college dude who got tasered at the University of Florida.  OK, the police probably did not need to send excessive amounts of voltage through this guy.  He wasn’t about to kill anyone.  I would have opted for pepper spray.  But, my sympathy for this punk is limited.  He ranted on and on about the 2004 elections even after being told his time had expired.  He threw a childish fit when finally escorted away.  And, he physically challenged the cops who were removing him.  He came across to me as a brat with a huge sense of entitlement.  Did he deserve to be tasered?  No.  But the force was not used as a means of stifling his speech.
2. Sally Field’s acceptance speech at the Emmys.  Upon winning an Emmy for her role in Brothers and Sisters, Ms. Field proclaimed that if mothers ruled the world, there would be “no g**d***ed wars”.  (Drudge made the excellent point that Senator Hillary Clinton … a mother … voted to authorize the war in Iraq.)  The network cut her off when she reached the word that I filled with asterisks.  When has this word ever been allowed on network TV?  This is not a decision by the Bush administration to censor anti-war advocates.  It’s a continuation of the boundaries that have existed for quite some time.

3. The removal of the Code Pink ladies from the Petraus hearings.  Come on.  Are members of Congress supposed to sit patiently while disheveled women (or well-composed women, for that matter) scream nonsensically about betrayal?  These hearings are serious events and a certain level of decorum is required.  Should college students be allowed to grab a bullhorn and invite their peers to a keg party during a professor’s lecture?  Should observers be permitted to sing and dance in circles while oral arguments are being made in front of the Supreme Court?  The women were perfectly free to stand on the steps of the Capitol and air their grievances.
We certainly should be vigilant and real instances in which free speech is threatened should be challenged.  But, these events shared on Hardball hardly have me worried that I can no longer speak my mind in this country.

Let me try something …

Bush sucks!  Cheney is a Nazi pig!  This war is a disaster designed by incompetent asses who are only looking to line their own pockets.

If Chris Matthews is right, I’ll have Nathan post my prison address so that you all can write to me.

I tuned into The Steve Gill Show this morning and had the pleasure of hearing his interview with the Vanderbilt student who is featured in Playboy’s new “Girls of the SEC” issue. (I will not even look for a link to these pictures to post here.) Mr. Gill had an eager and excited tone during his conversation with this assumedly hot coed. And, while he commented (after the interview) that he would not be a happy parent if his daughter made the decision to pose nude, he was friendly to her and mentioned how smart and articulate she seemed.

This Vandy student is a consenting adult so I applaud her right to find the experience liberating and exciting (it’s not for me, not that Hugh Hefner is banging down my door). I’m in favor of legalizing most things if all parties involved are of age. However, I do not understand how someone can complain about supposed societal decay but then provide a platform for a guest whose moral decisions given a pass because they are appealing to the male eye. How is someone who is participating in pornography OK but someone who happens to be gay not? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a worldview, I’m just looking for consistency and the attempt to treat all people fairly and with respect.