Chicago school to march in Pride Parade

Chicago school to march in Pride Parade - Chicago Tribune
It's tragic that the school children are being indoctrinated to think that engaging in immoral homosexual acts is normal and good, something to be celebrated.

Most people experience temptations to immoral and destructive behavior of one type or another. But a person who repeatedly gives in to destructive desires ends up hurting himself and those around him, and increasingly loses the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. He gradually becomes enslaved to his desires, and loses the ability to rationally choose his actions freely.

Homosexual feelings or desires are just that: feelings. Feelings are personal, but they don't determine your identity as a person any more than your taste in music. Like any feelings, they urge you to make a decision: to recognize what is good, and pursue it... or to recognize what is harmful, and to avoid it.

What children need to see is, yes, tolerance and respect toward all kinds of people. But they also need to be taught that not all actions are good, and not all desires are for healthy and good things. Some desires, such as homosexual inclinations, should be rejected as harmful and unworthy of mature consent.

True human freedom isn't the ability to do everything you desire. It's the ability and struggle to do what is good and avoid what is bad.

Slain Kansas abortion provider's clinic to close

Slain Kansas abortion provider's clinic to close

The Christian Taliban gets its way.

They hate our laws. They hate our freedoms. And just like their Islamic brethren, they are willing to commit acts of terror if their bleating is ignored.

-Comment by simkatu

"Christian Taliban"? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Christians strongly oppose killing the innocent, and most oppose killing the guilty, except in extreme situations such as those demanding lethal military action. Many are opposed to capital punishment even for the most heinous crimes. And they overwhelmingly condemn premeditated murder as a means of accomplishing their goals.

It is rather the pro-abort forces which might better be labeled as a sort of Taliban. For them, no amount of killing is enough -it's their right!- and they want the "freedom" to kill the innocent and defenseless for any reason or no reason at all. Although neither right reason nor any just law could ever justify such carnage, they have conjured from the "penumbra" of the Constitution a dark right to murder their own offspring.

And it's not enough to kill within in their own national borders: the Pro-Abort Taliban demand public money to export death around the world, funding coercive abortion "services" overseas through governments and private agencies.

Their sense of self-righteousness seems limitless, their contempt and religious indignation boundless, toward those who object to the killing. But they can not tolerate to have their acts discussed openly or brought into the light. All who insist upon speaking the obvious truth are labeled "hateful", "oppressive", "fundamentalist", "anti-choice".

In their wake lies a bloody path strewn with 50 million corpses.

To each according to his need -Karl Marx gets religion

To Each According to Need - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." (Acts 4:32-35)

The Acts of the Apostles describe the Christ-like spirit of the first days of the Church. Acts 4:32-35 accounts for how the community provided for the material shortcomings of its members. How marvelous this scripture is to set side-by-side with the resentment of the tea partiers...

It's notable that the title, "To Each According to Need", while taken from Scripture, has also been used by others to justify coercive government programs which confiscate private property supposedly for the "common good".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx

These programs view citizens not as virtuous and generous individuals ready to voluntarily assist others, but as greedy "haves" from whom revenue must be squeezed to support the "have-nots".


The author acknowledges,

"It would be mistaken to read the text's argument for possessions "in common" as in some way equivalent to our contemporary notions of political ideas such as socialism."

Very true. Yet the author does not seem to let this fact enter his thinking when he directs his contempt toward "a pathetic and mean-spirited outpouring of resentment" by thousands of citizens at the recent "Tea Parties". Their offense? Many attended to demonstrate their opposition to super-sized government programs that perpetuate poverty and dependence, depleting the resources of the many while failing to effectively meet the needs of the few they claim to benefit. How dare they oppose ever-increasing deficit spending for social programs that are based on the false and unchristian premise that private property should be managed not by its owners, but by the state, and must be forcibly redistributed by politicians! How mean-spirited to insist on one's right to act as responsible stewards of the fruits of one's own labor!

As government spending increases and our taxes increase, this right of private ownership of property is increasingly denied. And as government takes a larger and larger portion of our income, we gradually lose the ability to support families, and provide help to those causes and individuals that conscience and discretion show to be most in need of our help. Can government do this better than the individual? Should government be permitted to usurp this responsibility?

The early Christians willingly donated money to the Church, which used it to assist the poor according to prudent Christian principles. Why do some Catholics now argue that this responsibility to care for the poor should be fulfilled primarily by the state? Why should the biblical model of voluntary alms for the poor, administered by the Church according to right moral criteria, be overturned in favor of morally flawed, wasteful government programs that depend on coercive taxation instead of willing generosity?

U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens

US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News

The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.

In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com

How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.

Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?

The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.

But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.

Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.

What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.

If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.

U.S. government carjacks automotive industry

GM Files for Bankruptcy Protection - WSJ.com

Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama defended government intervention in GM as the auto maker enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, saying the actions are part of a 'viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic company a chance to rise again.'

Which article of the Constitution authorizes the government to use public funds to "rescue" a private company?

This administration -to some extent like its predecessor- has an insatiable and rapidly growing appetite for expansion of its powers without regard for constitutional limits.

The American dream of liberty, self-reliance, and freedom from undue government intrusion, is being transformed systematically to a bleak, marxist nightmare in which the entire economy -and every aspect of life- is subsumed under government control.

When will the American public wake up and begin to exert pressure on Congress to stop this headlong race to a totalitarian future?

American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper

Mat Rodina: American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper

This article, published on the Mat Rodina blog and reprinted by Pravda (4/27/2009), is worth quoting in its entirety:

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite tv dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blindth the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barrack Obama/ His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barrack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Notorious abortionist murdered in church

Kan. abortion doc killed in church; suspect held - Yahoo! News

May God have mercy on George Tiller, the serial killer who personally murdered thousands of children for profit through gruesome late term abortions. Yesterday he himself was murdered, in an unjust and evil act that violated his own right to life.

His murder, an illegal and despicable act, did nothing to advance either the peaceful pro-life movement or the Culture of Life generally. Such lawless violence deserves the unreserved condemnation of all persons. The inalienable right to life can not be upheld or defended by vigilante killing, not even by the killing of one of the abortion industry's most committed practitioners.

The murder of this abortionist will be used by some to try to demonize those committed to non-violently ending the evil of legalized abortion. Yet this murder serves to show the tragic consequences of denying another's inalienable rights in order to achieve a personal or political gain... which is exactly what happens when a mother kills her child to be rid of a problem.

A Russian view of American life?

Mat Rodina: usa

"...The Baby Boomers aborted 40 million babies and thus are now larger than the combined next two generations. In their Christless greed to spend on themselves, they have not only damned their souls through the murder of children but their old age as well, to poverty."

Just today I came across this blog apparently by a Russian man. Judging from the pointed excerpt above, this blog might be worth a closer look.

I wonder if the blog anywhere comments on the number of abortions that have taken place in Russia over the past few decades.

University of Illinois -where clout greases the skids

Clout goes to college -Chicago Tribune
U. of I. chief says clout list had little impact -Chicago Tribune

It's an outrage that college admissions should depend on political connections -especially at a public school. This should be stopped.

But it's also outrageous for schools to consider ethnicity or gender in their admissions criteria. College admission should not be based on who you know. Nor should it depend on your religion, sex, race, or ethnicity.

Trying to right historic wrongs through "affirmative action", by giving special consideration to individuals because of their sex or color, only exchanges one form of discrimination for another. You can't promote justice or fight racism by using race as an admission criterion. Besides, who wants to graduate college under a cloud of suspicion that you "made it" only because less was expected due to your racial background?

Fairness demands equal requirements and equal opportunity. This is the way to combat discrimination and protect the dignity of every person.

Do Sotomayor's prejudices make her unfit for the Supreme Court?

Sotomayor's Controversial 2001 Remarks -- and Their Context -Political Punch

In 2001, Judge Sonia Sotomayor delivered the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Further excerpts from her speech indicate that her "wise Latina woman" comment was not a careless and embarrassing gaffe. It rather was a conclusion reached through thoughtful consideration. All the more reason for concern that Sotomayor does not embrace a judicial philosophy blind to race and gender.

On what basis can we hope she will impartially uphold the rule of law, providing equal justice regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, and gender?

Does prohibition of gay marriage deny the fundamental rights of gays?

Prop. 8 stands; more ballot battles ahead

California's voters, not its courts, are the final judges of same-sex couples' right to marry. And even if they're barred from marrying, gays and lesbians are not the victims of unconstitutional discrimination...

The main legal argument by Prop. 8's opponents - two groups of same-sex couples, local governments led by the city of San Francisco, and a collection of civil-rights, gay-rights and feminist organizations - was that the state Constitution contains a 'core guarantee' of equality that limits voters' amendment powers. A minority group's fundamental rights, they argued, should not be subject to repeal by majority vote.

The opponents of Proposition 8 have a point: that a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. Yet for the public to take measures to preserve the ancient, heterosexual institution of marriage does not do anything of the sort.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting heterosexual civil marriage, and among these protections are regulations about who may enter into it with whom. A man may not marry his four year-old son. A woman may not marry her father or brother, or a chimpanzee. A man may not marry a dead woman, or three other women simultaneously. These restrictions do not deny my rights, but promote the good of society by respecting and favoring traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Yes, a minority group's fundamental rights should not be subject to repeal by majority vote. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether a majority of the people should be forced to tolerate a redefinition of traditional civil marriage to accommodate the demands by a vocal minority, demands which undermine both marriage and weaken society.

And most people in most states oppose redefinition of marriage in this way.

Sonia Sotomayor’s View of Judging

Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record - NYTimes.com

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -2001

Taken out of context, this quote really is offensive. I wonder whether, heard in the context of the speech from which it came, it sounds any less offensive.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." -2001, speech at Berkeley

Does this mean that Judge Sotomayor believes judges must do their best to exercise objectivity in interpreting the law, overcoming their personal background? Or does she mean that judges should permit their "gender and national origins" to bear on their judgment?

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a "court of appeals is where policy is made." She then immediately adds: "And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m - you know." -2005

Do we know? Does she really believe, four years after this speech, that the Constitution establishes courts to be "where policy is made"? Judge Sotomayor seems embarrassed to be caught on tape making this statement, and quickly claims she's not "promoting" or "advocating" this view. But she doesn't reject or denounce the view. She's just, -you know...

House Democrat worker bees swarm to defend their addled queen

CIA documents say Speaker Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques - PolitiFact

"We were not, I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." -Nancy Pelosi, 23 April 2009

"They [CIA] mislead us all the time... they misrepresented every step of the way." -Nancy Pelosi at press conference, 14 May 2009

"Under fire from Republicans for what she knew about harsh questioning of terror detainees, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged that she had learned in 2003 that the C.I.A. had subjected suspects to waterboarding, but she asserted that the agency had misled Congress about its techniques." -The Caucus, 14 May 2009

"HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi has claimed that the CIA lied to her about the use of waterboarding on alleged terrorists held in secret prisons. Ms Pelosi said that the CIA told her in September 2002 that although waterboarding - a form of controlled suffocation by water - was approved by the Bush administration, it had not been used." -Irish Times, 15 May 2009

"This is partisan politics and an attempt by the Republicans to distract from the real issue of creating jobs and making progress on health care, energy and education," -Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi spokesman, 21 May 2009

"House Democrats on Thursday defeated a Republican push to investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that the CIA misled her in 2002 about whether waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects." -Breitbart, 21 May 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she won't talk any more about her charge that the CIA lied in 2002 about using waterboarding on terrorism suspects. "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment." -Breitbart, 22 May 2009

Nancy Pelosi made some very harsh accusations against the CIA and its employees, and used them to politically attack the Bush administration. She has not only failed to produce evidence to substantiate her claims, but changed her story repeatedly as inconvenient facts emerged. After initially calling for a "truth commission" to investigate her claims, both she and the entire Democratic Party now just want the fracas to go away ...now that the political fallout is becoming increasingly unfavorable to them.

At this point the honorable thing would be to launch a bipartisan investigation or to recant her claims and offer an sincere apology for "mistakenly mischaracterizing" the performance of the intelligence community. But now it is clear that for the Democrats these honorable options must be avoided at all costs. Rather, they are united in their determination to provide cover for Pelosi's reckless, defamatory claims, and to stonewall any attempt to uncover the truth. They will move on, firmly committed to pretend it all never happened.

Rather than let Pelosi bear the consequences of her own compulsive attacks on the long defunct Bush administration (NEWS FLASH... DEMOCRATS CONTROL WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS!), House Democrat worker bees couldn't resist swarming to defend their addled queen.

I look forward to seeing how this dishonorable display of party loyalty to Her Majesty is rewarded.

Media supports administration's interference in auto industry

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet -My Way News

The U.S. auto industry hasn't yet been completely subjected to federal control, so in order to crush its chance to survive as a private sector industry, the federal government must impose more onerous restrictions. But the federal government doesn't have to do this on its own... it has the help of the fawning media, whose enthusiastic support and nearly constant refusal to investigate and criticize the administration's claims is obvious:

"Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel."

-Really? Where does the electricity come from? Electric power in today's cars is generated by an alternator, which is a device that converts mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy. But some of the energy it uses inevitably is wasted in the conversion process, which is one reason why somethings in a car, such as the power-hungry air condition compressor, have long been powered directly by the engine, and not electrically. So why does now powering these items electrically necessarily reduce fuel consumption? ...this question isn't mentioned much less explained in this article.

"Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards..."

"100 mpg" from an electric vehicle? 100 miles per gallon of what? Per gallon of electricity?? Who wrote this, a fifth grader?

And why, when hybrid and electric vehicles are praised in the press, do we never seem to hear anything about the long-term cost and environmental impact of manufacturing, recycling, and disposing of all the millions of tons of lithium, cadmium, and other toxic materials used in the batteries? Or the cost in increased injuries and loss of life associated with the widespread use of miniature clown cars sharing the road with trucks and larger, older vehicles?

ABCnews: where propaganda is called news

"Troubled Times for Republican Party -GOP Divide

We're going to take a closer look at an intense debate within the Republican Party: whether it can attract new voters by becoming more conservative or more moderate..."

-Charles Gibson, World News Report, 5/13/2009

ABC proposes a political spectrum whose endpoints are "conservative" and "moderate".

The adjective "moderate" can be defined as "kept within due bounds; observing reasonable limits; not excessive, extreme, violent, or rigorous..." -Dictionary.net

For ABC, the reasonable, not-extreme "moderates" are opposed by "conservatives", who, obviously, are not "observing reasonable limits", and by contrast are "excessive, extreme,..." perhaps even "violent".

What happened to the familiar "conservative / moderate / liberal" model, or "right / centrist / left"?

Many liberals -including those largely dominating the media- don't want to view themselves as living near the extreme of any political spectrum. They prefer to view themselves as inhabiting the reasonable, high ground above and in opposition to one extreme: conservatism, that radical fringe. Appropriating to themselves the term "moderate" redefines political discourse, obviously in their favor.

Liberals are the new "moderates". They can't be criticized for being "too liberal", because "liberal" no longer defines a political extreme. And of course, nobody can be "too moderate".

For them, today's "moderates" embrace all that was once considered "leftist", "liberal", or "progressive". Those who don't, can't be "moderate", and belong to an immoderate and even extreme fringe.

Clearly this is the premise of the entire ABCnews report: that the Republican Party is too conservative, and needs to become more moderate in order to attract voters.

Could the Republican Party be floundering because it has failed to be clearly and enthusiastically conservative? That it has become too liberal and too much like the Democratic Party? That it has compromised its conservative principles and become nearly indistinguishable from its opponents, and consequently has alienated large numbers of conservative voters? ABCnews may have considered this possibility, but didn't find it worth addressing in their report.

Mies van der Rohe's square hut: the ugly shall pass away

One Mies building on IIT campus can go; squat brick building isn't his best work, and preservationists need to fight other battles - Chicago Tribune

As an IIT graduate I recall many hours of classes in buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe. Without meaning to detract from the architectural significance of Mies' designs -which often struck me as somewhat cold, stark, severe, and institutional- it's funny to me that the faceless "Test Cell" hut, which barely registers in my memory, would arouse such passion among some preservationists.

I mean, look at the thing! It's an ugly brick box, perhaps suitable for storing landscaping equipment (if there's another, larger door). I've seen storage lockers that are more attractive and certainly more useful.

Whether it was designed by Mies van der Rohe or Leonardo da Vinci, it's still an ugly brick box. Mies' homely storage shed once may have served a useful purpose, but now stands in the way of a project which many hope will improve the campus and neighborhood. I realize that as a product of Herr van der Rohe, some people may view the Test Cell as a holy relic, but I don't agree.

After it's razed perhaps the liberated bricks could be auctioned off to Mies van der Rohe architecture aficionados, or recycled into another plain, institutional box for use by people who like their buildings minimalist and severe.

Conservative talk show host banned from U.K.

Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Sixteen people banned from entering the UK were "named and shamed" by the Home Office today.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to make public the names of 16 people banned since October so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate.

The list includes hate preachers, anti-gay protesters and a far- right US talk show host.

I have heard Michael Savage express many strong opinions, but I have never heard him advocate violence outside of legitimate warfare. For years his mantra has been the preservation of "borders, language, and culture", and has opposed those who desire the hostile overthrow of western culture.

It's ironic that the UK should single out such a talk show host and bar him from entry, in light of the fact that the UK has become increasingly a major producer of radical islamists who espouse violence... one of the very threats which Savage warns against.

Sad and worrisome. Freedom of non-violent speech is a cornerstone of democratic society. In the UK as well as in the USA, this cornerstone is being rapidly eroded by the forces of statism and those who determine that edgy political commentary at odds with state policy must be suppressed.

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case - Los Angeles Times

"The Supreme Court today took away one tool for prosecuting and deporting workers who are in this country illegally, ruling that the crime of identity theft is limited to those who knew they had stolen another person's Social Security number.

"The 9-0 decision overturns part of an Illinois man's conviction for using false documents.

"The court agreed he could be imprisoned for using an ID card he knew was false, but it also said he could not be charged with a felony of 'aggravated identity theft' because he did not know he was using someone's Social Security number."

If any of the Supreme Court justices had had their identities stolen or "borrowed", their accounts raided, and their credit histories damaged as a result, I wonder if they would have ruled differently.

So, if I break into someone's house, find a pile of cash, and take it, it's not necessarily stealing, as long as I didn't know with certainty that the cash actually belonged to somebody?

Anyone who buys false identification -with or without a Social Security number- reasonably can be expected to realize that since the identifying information does not belong to himself, it quite possibly belongs to another real individual. It's reasonable to expect that buying such false documents should fall within the scope of laws prohibiting "identity theft".

The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, so it seems there was little controversy over the meaning of the law. Rather than blaming the court for a poor decision, it's probably more appropriate to blame the law for being badly written.

Perhaps identity theft laws should be expanded to prohibit any deliberate use Social Security numbers, account numbers, names, etc., that do not belong to the individual presenting them.

Meet Jackie the Dog

Jackie's a Beagle - Fox Terrier mix: very affectionate, playful, and a bit impish. Not very big, but can she run! She moved in with us last Saturday.

2,000 join immigrant rights march

Only 2,000 join immigrant rights march - Chicago Tribune

Do You leave Your home unsecured so that any trespasser can simply barge into Your home and take up residence? Suppose a stranger not only breaks into Your home, but then begins to insist You pay for his education, medical care, and more? Suppose he demands the same status, rights, and benefits of the home life enjoyed by You and Your family members?

No, if strangers attempt to break into Your home and claim the property and rights of Your family members, You call upon the police to enforce existing law, and to help restore Your legitimate rights and security... unless You want Your home and property to disappear.

I welcome LEGAL immigrants to this country. They are human beings with dignity and deserve humane treatment. I wish them success. But those who break into our country illegally do not have a right to demand citizenship or the rights of citizens.

It's not fair to offer illegal aliens special treatment not afforded to those in foreign countries who have worked and waited their turn to obtain legal entry into this country.

The borders need to be secured, and our immigration policies should be humane, even generous, as well as just, practical, ...and enforced.