Jeff Geerling has some interesting observations about media headlines covering the March for Life earlier in the week.

I am Pro-Life.

I am not an enemy of life. I am an ardent supporter of all human life; from the moment it starts (conception, when sperm meets egg), to the moment it naturally ends.

And yet, I am a ‘foe’. I am an ‘enemy’, according to most media sources. Take a look at these headlines:

HT: Dawn Eden

Kevin McCullough updates on the University of Oregon yellow ribbon controversy.

[A university insider] also noted the inconsistency that the University disallowed the “Support The Troops” ribbons on state vehicles, but allowed Kerry campaign stickers on state bulleting boards, desks, windows, shelves, etc…

Looks like they stirred up a hornests nest in blog world.

REPORTER: “The University has received over 300 e-mails and phonecalls about the ribbon removal. Most of the calls originating from the East Coast, Florida, and Texas. And almost all of the callers found out about the story from conservative talkshows and on-line blogs.”

And Kevin thinks…

And rest assured - if they are copping to 300 e-mail - they got 3000. I know for a fact that after a certain point they shut down the e-mail servers to prevent the e-mail from getting through late on Monday afternoon.

Dawn Eden said it well:

The school claims such expression on a state-owned university’s property is “a violation of a statewide policy.”

What I’d like to know is, since when did supporting the members of the U.S. military become a violation of the policy of a U.S. state?

Previous posts here and here.

Taranto at WSJ points out this hilarious quote about National No Name-Calling Week, which we blogged about earlier in the week.

“People who would criticize this, regardless of who came out with it, are people with bad hearts,” said Jerald Newberry, who directs the NEA’s health information network.

So, if you criticize “No Name-Calling Week” they will call you a person with a bad heart. How sensitive of them!

Wizbang links to Michelle Malkin’s exclusive.

Mr. Kniazev has been out of touch with the Department of Homeland Security for a few years. He died on September 11th, 2001.

And he was approved for his green card on Jan 15th, 2005.

That sure makes you confident in the checks within the system.

UPDATE: A reader wrote the following to Michelle, which is certainly a good point:

So whenever an immigrant with an outstanding INS application dies, someone–e.g., a terrorist, criminal, or spy– with access to his passport could apparently assume his identity without furrher DHS scrutiny. All they have to do is show up at INS for one more meeting, and the card is mailed out six months later.

Following up on yesterday’s post about Gun crime in the U.K., here comes a related story, linked to from Instapundit:

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) — \When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby and Gloria Doster never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire.

The armed suspect and his partner were killed. The Dosters won’t be charged, according to local officials, because they were acting in self-defense.

“I just started shooting,” said Gloria Doster, 56. “I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do.” . . .

Police arrived about five minutes after receiving Gloria Doster’s call; the suspects died a short time later at a hospital.

The bloodshed, nevertheless, startled Gloria Doster, who has been around guns all her life, and has used them for target shooting. “But I never figured I’d have to use them on anybody,” she said.

It turns out the terror in Boston thing was a false alarm, so you Bostonians can go about your business as usual.

“It has been determined that the threat had no credibility,” the FBI said in a statement on its Web site.

Sure did sell newspapers though.

Wow. I am a pretty small time blogger, and my hits are nothing to blog home about. But yesterday, when I posted a link to Wizbang’s post from yesterday on the “backwards” whorish prom dress issue, the hit counter went through the proverbial roof (partially, I’m sure, because of his liberal trackback system).

The only thing I can figure is there are a lot of people out there who like looking at pictures of teenage girls in skimpy outfits … and it’s sickening. Clarifying Update: it’s not sickening that they come to my blog - which did NOT post the pictures - rather that the traffic on that topic was so much higher than other topics - it was not even close. (Thanks to Matt for asking the question).

I’m at a loss as to how to respond to this lasciviousness. Even having Michelle Malkin link to me didn’t even compare in traffic to what the sleazy prom dress did.

Here’s the chart:

Dawn Eden spotlights this Salon article, which is worth reading. Here’s an excerpt:

Terri’s cause has been adopted by religious conservatives with passionate advocacy. I am neither religious nor conservative, but as a compassionate progressive, I believe the Schiavo case spotlights a critical juncture in the preservation of a humanistic and humanitarian culture: Allowing Terri to die via starvation belies and mocks the ethics and principles of a civilized society.

See related post here.

The Times Dispatch of Richmond, VA, reports that a Norfolk legislator wants you to pull your pants up.

A Norfolk legislator wants you to pull up your low-riding pants …
…
“If you want to show your underwear in your private home, I don’t have any objections,” said Del. Algie T. Howell Jr., a Norfolk Democrat who has filed legislation that would levy a $50 fine on anyone who “exposes his below-waist undergarments in an offensive manner.”
…
Some teen-agers and young adults have adopted a style of wearing pants belted so low their underwear shows, usually boxer shorts for boys or thong underwear for girls.

While the low boxers thing is certainly sloppy, it seems a bit silly to try to legislate this type of thing. Maybe parents should just act like parents and tell their kids “pull your pants up.”

Oh, and there’s the racial element.

Even so, the legislation could disproportionately affect young black men, said Willis.

“Legislators must also be careful that the law does not have the effect of discriminating on the basis of race. The hip-hop culture has certainly crossed racial lines in recent years, but it is still largely identified with African-Americans. Banning low-riding pants with exposed underwear is likely to have a disproportionate effect on racial minorities.”

While I think the argument that you can’t make a law about something if one race is impacted more than another is silly, I have to admit, I am with the ACLU on this one. Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia said the bill is:

“simply bad law-making.”

See somewhat related post: Parenting for Promiscuity.

Michelle Malkin has an extensive post with links and commentary about the whole Maggie Gallagher thing.

The press is all over these pay for ink scandals. As Media Lies put it, “the blood is in the water.”

Gallagher responds here.

Of course the reason Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post is interested is the now notorious case of conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, who signed a very different sort of government contract: to promote the Bush No Child Left Behind Act on his television show.

Armstrong defended himself in two ways. First by saying “I’m a pundit, not a journalist” and second by saying that he supported the Bush act anyway so why shouldn’t he take money?

It cost him his newspaper column. Very properly, I might add. I have no interest in taking either of these lines of defense. So what’s my answer to Howard?

My first instinct is to say, no, Howard, I had no special obligation to disclose this information. I’m a marriage expert. I get paid to write, edit, research, and educate on marriage. If a scholar or expert gets paid to do some work for the government, should he or she disclose that if he writes a paper, essay, or op-ed on the same or similar subject? If this is the ethical standard, it is an entirely new standard. I was not paid to promote marriage. I was paid to produce particular research and writing products (articles, brochures, presentations) which I produced. My lifelong experience in marriage research, public education and advocacy is the reason HHS hired me.

But the real truth is that it never occurred to me. On reflection, I think Howard is right. I should have disclosed a government contract, when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers.

The blogosphere seems to be jumping all over her. I’m not sure it’s not a bit premature…

UPDATE: Captain Ed has some “it’s not as bad as it looks” commentary.

…unlike Armstrong Williams, Gallagher did not sell her column space to HHS, nor did she push others to cover the proposals or solicit positive commentary as a contractual duty. Gallagher wrote some of the brochures for the program, most of which went unused, and ghost-wrote an essay for program chief Wade Horn. She also spoke to program officials about marriage, which amounts to nothing much more than a stop on a lecture tour. She exercised some poor judgment and should apologize (which she already has), but it’s a much different situation than Williams.

UPDATE: LaShawn Barber weighs in; offers her services as a scandal free conservative writer, who, incidentally, is starting her own business.

Drew Curtis at Fark summed up this story as follows:

“Not the first time he’s tried to sink a woman.”