Here is a scary story from the USA Today.

One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get “government approval” of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.

UPDATE: More on this from CNN.

… when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes “too far” in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

I read somewhere today, and I can’t remember where, a blogger suggesting that these kids get locked up for having spoken out freely on this issue, and see if that impacts their thinking.

Sent this picture in to GOP Bloggers in support of Shelby’s campaign, and democracy in Iraq.

UPDATE: I see that GOP Bloggers has now posted a “no digitally altered images allowed.” Guess that throws my picture out, since I didn’t actually dip his finger in ink. :-)

UPDATE 2: This blue finger thing is catching on around the web.

Ok this story is six months old, but the picture is too good not to post.

And the funniest thing is that the driver “jumped down from the vehicle and ran to catch a bus.”

Now this is some real tolerance.

“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization”

- Howard Dean

Dave at Garfield Ridge pointed out via a comment on Ace of Spades that you could replace “Republican” with “Hitler” here and the quote holds up.

UPDATE: Screamin’ Dean, who “hates Republicans [the people] and everything they stand for” is now “in a strong position to win the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.”

The party of inclusion and tolerance is nominating as its leader someone who is openly proclaiming to hate others of a different ideology. It seems that should be shocking to me, for some reason, it’s not.

UPDATE 2: Captain Ed weighs in with:

Dean and his followers demonstrate the illness that has infected the American Left since the 1960s. They don’t just oppose — they hate. They hate Republicans, they hate suburbia, they hate just about everything America has done. They also hate it when people point out this rather obvious fact, claiming that their critics engage in censorship and McCarthyism. However, it’s pretty damned difficult to maintain that facade when Dean gets up on a stump and says, “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.”

Will the Democrats elect Dean chair of the DNC? Are they prepared to endorse his platform of hate? If they do, they just confirm that the party has completely lost its mind, and the leadership has consigned themselves to a generation of diminishing minorities.

Ann Coulter’s latest column, Where’s That Religious Fanatic We Elected?, jumps all over Bush’s comment in his Roe v. Wade anniversary speech.

Maybe he is an idiot. On the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade this past Monday — I was going to say “birthday of Roe v. Wade,” but that would be too grimly ironic even for me — President Bush told a pro-life rally in Washington that a “culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts.”

HT: Ace

Interesting observation from The Command Post:

Immediately after polls closed, the New York Times grudgingly released their big story: “Amid Attacks, A Party Atmosphere on Baghdad’s Closed Streets.” You almost had to admire the Times’ pluck: they so wanted tragedy, but they were grudgingly admitting the truth.

But then, barely four hours after polls closed, they changed the headline on the exact same story to this: Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24

The 2004 Presidential elections in the US had a 60.7% turnout rate. The Iraqi elections has had an estimated 72% turnout rate.

This is what the World Socialist website had to say:

Initial reports on voter turnout were driven by the political imperative to put the best possible face on the election and influence public opinion in the United States, which is increasingly turning against the war. The turnout figure began at 90 percent plus—numbers reported, naturally enough, on Fox News. Then an Iraqi election official put the figure at 72 percent nationwide. This was subsequently lowered to 60 percent nationwide, then to 60 percent “in some areas.”

Can you imagine? Only 60% voter turnout in the first election in a country which has had an oppressive dictatorial regime for generations? What a miserable failure.

Oh, but it’s not just the World Socialist website, see what Peter Jennings had to say.

ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings insisted that for Iraq’s Sunni population, the vote was still “illegitimate.”

“I don’t want to seem unnecessarily skeptical,” Jennings told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on ABC’s “This Week.” “But in fact the Iraqis seemed to turn out in some places and not turn out in others.”

Though ecstatic Iraqi elections officials said Sunday that turnout nationwide was 72 percent - and may top 90 percent in Shiite areas - Jennings wasn’t satisfied.

“Just today one of the leading Sunni secular leaders said he was worried about the degree of the turnout,” he told Dr. Rice. “And it is similarly true that many Sunnis are not turning out because they think this is an illegitimate election in the presence of a U.S. occupation.”

And regarding the comparison of turnout rates, a commenter on this post points something of further interest out.

The 70% figure compared to US voter turnout understates the the true Iraqi commitment to Democracy. 70% of eligible Iraqi voters will vote. 61% of registered voters in the US voted and this is much more like 50% of eligible US voters as many don’t even register.

UPDATE: Poliblogger has the turnout at 57%. Some comments from Roger Simon:

let’s remind ourselves that turnout in recent US Presidential elections is barely over 50% of eligible voters and that in the nascent days of our democracy, 1824, it was 26.9%.

Cigars in the Sand writes in from Iraq:

I’ve been reading the coverage, and watching the pundits. This appears to be the new line of dissent:

“Yes, Iraqis voted today in massive numbers. But voting isn’t democracy.”

I agree. But that’s also like saying that the best college basketball team didn’t win the NCAA championship. It may be true, but they ARE wearing the rings. Wanna see my purple finger?

And there’s a funny picture in the “Sorry Everybody” theme from Wizbang.

UPDATE 2: Wizbang also has some commentary on the Daily Kos‘ link to the Vietnam voter turnout story, concluding with:

If history is really repeating itself as the loony left would have you believe, does that mean John Kerry will soon be offering to surrender to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi at secret meetings in France?

After posting about the new Illinois law which bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and does not exempt churches or religious organizations - I decided to a bit of research to figure out how one defines, legally, who “is gay” or who “is heterosexual.”

The law itself tells us how to to define sexual orientation: “actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person’s designated sex at birth.”

As a side note, a search for homosexual orientation protected class generates some interesting related reading.

Also, as another side note, I found this, which applies to the state of Maryland, and presumably would similarly apply to other states who have included anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.

Sexual Orientation- refers to which gender an individual is attracted to and has affection for. A person’s Sexual Orientation refers to his or her feelings, not their behavior.

[Of course, the same page also references the Kinsey report as if it were serious science, so the validity of the entire page is in question in my mind, since anyone who has researched it knows that most of Kinsey’s research was based on fraud.]

But assuming for a moment that the definition above is similar to the one referenced by most states barring discrimination against “gays,” how is it even possible to prosecute, defend, or even keep from violating?

Logically, it seems to me, that in order to discriminate, one has to know that the protected class status exists in the first place. So, if the subject never comes up, say, in a hiring interview process, it would be impossible to discriminate. What if the interviewee makes it fairly obvious, but the interviewer is clueless and doesn’t perceive it? The law says actual OR perceived. So maybe potential employers should add this to their interview questions?

“I don’t perceive you to ‘be’ homosexual, but in the interest of compliance with SB3186, I must ask: ‘Are you?’”

or

“You appear to me to participate in the gay lifestyle, but in order to ensure that my perception lines up with what is actual, do you consider yourself to ‘be’ heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual or transgender?”

But the even bigger question I have is how does one go about proving in a court of law that they are attracted to members of the same sex? Or proving that that is the reason they did not get a job? It seems simply unprosecutable to me. Bad lawmaking.

I came across this letter to the editor in the Illinois Times, which sums up the question fairly well.

The question needing an answer is, what “evidence” will employers and landlords need from homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals to back up who they are? It may seem bizarre to ask that, but given that such orientation is not always readily visible, shouldn’t some “proof” be provided in such instances?

Now, let’s bring it around to the issue as it relates to churches or mosques or other religious organizations (or even non-religious organizations, such as the Boy Scouts) that may have a religious or moral conviction that homosexual behaviour is wrong, because one of the things that makes the Illinois law big news is that it specifically and intentionally does NOT exempt churches.

If a church has a vacancy on its staff, it will look for someone who has religious beliefs aligning with its own. Let’s pick a hypothetical (fictitious) example. There is a church in downtown Chicago that believes it is a sin to drink Kool-Aid. Why? It doesn’t matter, it is their religious conviction (and right to believe, speak, assemble, and practice), and those that attend their church adhere to this belief. Their pastor has recently left for greener pastures, and they need to hire a new one. In the hiring and interview process, one of the questions that is (understandably) asked is whether or not this new candidate adheres to their beliefs, both in thought and action, that Kool-Aid drinking is morally wrong. If he does not, they would not hire him because he does not adhere to their religious convictions and would not be the best person to lead this group of people in their religious services and practices. If we take the same logic and apply it to a church that believes that homosexual acts are wrong, and the church has a candidate who not only is attracted to the opposite sex but also engages in homosexual sex, the church (as I understand it) would be in violation of SB3186 if they did not hire him for the job on that basis.

Why is there no uproar about this? Where is the defense of the first ammendment? Since when has a person’s self proclamation of their status of protected class (because that is really what defines the sexual orientation here) overridden the first ammendment’s religious freedom protections?

::::::

A note of personal disclosure: My personal conviction (religious belief) is that sexual activity outside of the constraints of marriage between a man and a woman is morally wrong. This means that to me, any sex before marriage, heterosexual sex with someone other than a marriage partner, and homosexual sex are all equally wrong. I also do not believe that God holds someone responsible for that which they are tempted by, rather how they respond to that temptation, so someone who has “feelings and attractions for the same sex” and therefore is defined as “homosexual” in the eyes of some states, is not in fact doing anything morally wrong until they dwell on or act on those feelings or attractions (one might say, temptations). The same goes for a ‘heterosexual person’ who has feelings and attractions for someone besides their spouse. When those thoughts come to their mind, they should replace them with other thoughts and not act upon them. Everyone is tempted. It is how we respond to temptation that is our responsibility. And, one final point: no matter how someone responds to their particular temptations, they should be loved and respected as a person.

From the UK Telegraph:

Under Germany’s welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit.

Wow. Things must be going well in Iraq today if even the Legacy Media is hyping it as a success.

From the AP:

But the mood for many was upbeat: Civilians and policemen danced with joy at one of the five polling stations where photographers were allowed, and some streets were packed with voters walking shoulder-to-shoulder to vote. The elderly made their way, hobbling on canes or riding wheelchairs; one elderly woman was pushed along on a wooden cart, another man carried a disabled 80-year-old on his back.

“This is democracy,” said Karfia Abbasi, holding up a thumb stained with purple ink to prove she had voted.

Officials said turnout among the 14 million eligible voters appeared higher than the 57 percent that had been predicted, although it would be some time before any turnout figure was confirmed. No preliminary results were expected before Monday at the earliest, and final results will not be known for seven to 10 days, the election commission said.

Except, of course, Reuters:

Voters, some ululating with joy, others hiding their faces in fear
…
But in parts of the Sunni Arab heartland, where the insurgency has been bloodiest and several parties called for a boycott, polling stations were empty
…
Despite draconian security measures imposed by the U.S.-backed interim government, militants launched a string of attacks
…
With foreign monitors mostly staying away for fear of kidnapping, it was impossible to assess the fairness of the election or accuracy of the turnout estimates

But even Reuters can’t help but declare:

Voters formed long queues, creating an almost festive atmosphere in Shi’ite areas and the Kurdish north, where officials said turnout was highest. Some had walked for miles, and many chanted and clapped.

The Kurds, who make up nearly a fifth of Iraqis, are determined to hang on to their autonomous rule in the north.

“This is a wedding for all Iraqis. I congratulate all Iraqis on their newfound freedom,” said Jaida Hamza, dressed in a black Islamic robe, in the Shi’ite shrine city of Najaf.

Even in Falluja, the battle-scarred Sunni city that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a slow stream of people turned out, confounding expectations.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin says The Left Goes Into Hybernation, and Protein Wisdom has some thoughts.

UPDATE 2: Just found this round up of stories of women voting in Iraq that Michelle posted.

UPDATE 3: Scott Ott of Scrappleface makes a similar point to “Taste of Liberty” who commented on this post.

The U.S. occupation force in Iraq is placing unconstitutional restrictions on the free speech rights of Al Qaeda and former members of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party, according to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, who today introduced a resolution expressing “solidarity with our repressed brethren in the Iraq insurgency.”

And Scrappleface also has a great post about the media coverage today called Iraqi Voting Disrupts News Reports of Bombings.

Powerline weighs in here with a peek into the left’s reaction.

UPDATE 4: Captain Ed does some looking into the pre-election coverage at LAT and NYT of the Iraq elections.

UPDATE 5: Chrenkoff has a super lengthy (super lengthy, and super and lengthy) post on the good news in Iraq (HT: Wizbang)

I’ve gotta admit, this is creative.

From eBay auction item.

Blog Commenting Service - Liberal / Conservative / Whatever

Because pundits and journalists have been raking in the dough recently by simply taking tax-payer money to endorse certain political agendas, I, a private citizen, am now offering my services for a fee to write and post comments on political blogs. I will write clear, on point comments no matter the agenda, no matter the Blog. Conservative, Liberal, Moderate, Commie-Pinko or Raging Right Wingnut. My ethics and words are completely for sale. AND, I will not disclose that I’m accepting money from you to support your point of view. I am also offering this service to any department of the government. HHS, SOS, DOD or even the EPA. If you have extra money to spend to further the administration’s agenda, what better way than to hire a private citizen to be your voice in the blogosphere. For $10 a post ($40 for 5 posts) I will sign on to any blog and post your message, no matter how unpopular, inane or controversial. I will, however, never use profanity or personally attack any other blogger (except for and [sic] extra $50). So, if you’re ethically challenged and have no problem paying to have your outlandish ideas endorsed on the web and not disclose who you are, I’m your hire.

HT: Drew Curtis

UPDATE: Ok, maybe this joke isn’t as original as we thought. However, I still think it’s great. Wonkette points out a few others who are using this line.

How our heart skipped to read that Maureen Dowd was “herewith resigning as a member of the liberal media elite.”
…
Though, really, what bothers us about Maureen’s column isn’t that it’s unoriginal, it’s that it’s true. The NYT has been paying her price for years.

Powerline takes on the AP and its “sources.” His conclusion:

In short, what the Associated Press has done is to assemble a rogues’ gallery of anti-American, anti-Semitic Bush haters and, without identifying them to its readers, presented these far-out extremists as though they represented a sober consensus of world opinion to the effect that the elections in Iraq can do no good.

The AP may have sunk to a new low.

And that’s saying something.

HT: Michelle Malkin

Good Iraqi election round up and links from Steven Taylor at Poliblog.

Class Teaches Appalachian Kids How To Lose Accent. Apparently this is an “age-old debate.”

A theater group in eastern Kentucky is teaching middle and high school students how to lose their Appalachian accents.

The class has set off an age-old debate — should mountain natives drop their drawl or hold on to their twang.

We’ve got a new sponsor on our site, and as is [now] our practice, we are welcoming her with a post! April Wood, a Discovery Toys educational consultant, is advertising on Myopic Zeal! You will be seeing her banner ads on this site.

The products are great! All sorts of educational books, toys, games and puzzles. All are guaranteed for LIFE!

She also does Discovery Toys Fundraisers, Read-a-thons, and would love to talk to you about this for your Day Care, Pre-School, Library, Elementary School or other organization. For more information, visit her website at TeachWithToys.com or shop online at Shop.TeachWithToys.com.

From a blog called Life in Baghdad come some thoughts on the voting.

Personally, I very much do want to vote, but up to this moment I have not decided whether I actually will. I think I’ll wait till the elections day, see how things will go and decide then. My family is afraid of voting and are asking me not to go fearing for my safety, but as I said, I have not decided yet.

He elaborates on his quandry:

But what if everyone thinks like me, Which means no one will vote and the elections will fail. Then I should vote to prevent that. But will my decision really have to do with that of any other? The answer is no (I forgot what this case is called in the probability theory – I think it was that my decision and that of any other is mutually exclusive). If this is the case, then I can ‘not vote’ since this will not affect the decision of others, and being one person whose decision ‘not to vote’ will not affect the whole process, then it’s safer not to vote. Problem solved. Unfortunately, I am still not convinced :(

And winds down the internal debate:

One thing you don’t know about me, is that I can keep on with such an argument for ever, but luckily for you, I will not.

He also posts a mini Iraqi voting guide.

Interesting musings from inside of Baghdad.

UPDATE: For lots more on the elections from inside of Baghdad, check out Friends of Democracy, “Ground Level Election News from the People of Iraq.” (hat tip: BlackFive)

Wizbang has an update this morning on the Yellow Ribbon fiasco at the U of O.

He’s found some student newspapers.

Also, Captain Ed weighs in, commenting on Kevin’s WND article:

No one doubts that the university has the right to determine the materials affixed to their own vehicles, but to claim that Oregon was forced to remove “Support Our Troops” stickers in order to remain politically neutral, which was their first excuse, is as ridiculous as it is false. Kevin’s update (which links back here) demonstrates that Oregon not only has played with the facts more than once, but also had no preparation for the onslaught of publicity this generated.

(Incidentally, if you haven’t seen it, Ed has asked for prayers for the situation with his “First Mate’s” pancreas transplant).

From the dumb criminals file comes this one.

A guy phoned in a bomb threat to the Super Bowl and left his real name and number on the voicemail.

A man is in custody in Jacksonville, FL, police linked him to a Super Bowl-related bomb threat found on the voice mail of a city council member.

A man who said his name was Albert Strickland left a cell phone number police traced to 56-year-old Albert Ray Strickland at an address in Hyde Park. [emphasis mine]

Check out AP this story:

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, once seen as a costly impediment to development, is now viewed by the government as a critter that never really existed — and is no longer in need of federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The Interior Department said Friday that new DNA research shows the 9-inch mouse, which can launch itself a foot and a half into the air and switch direction in mid-flight, is probably identical to another variety of mouse common enough not to need protection.

So a mouse that needed federal protection, and was an impediment to evil human developers, turns out to be a common ordinary mouse that is “common enough not to need protection.”

“Oops… well, they looked cute.”