Darren Rowse has the scoop, and he is now sitting on the front page of Topix.net!

Topix.net has started crawling blogs. They announced yesterday on their Weblog that they’ve added 15,000 blogs to be crawled. This is significant news on two fronts.

It seems they want to beat Memeorandum and Digg.

But our mission is to discover the news within the sea of blog posts, and report them by location and subject. What we’re releasing today is our first step in connecting our readers to 15,000 more voices talking about the topics they care about.

While Memeorandum and Digg are approaching the same problem, we needed a solution that would scale to our 300,000 newsfeeds.

It doesn’t look like they’re crawling Myopic Zeal, but I have submitted a source suggestion.

UPDATE: I just heard back from Rich Skrenta at Topix, and they are adding Myopic Zeal to the Topix feed. Thanks for the great service Topix! And on a whim, I google Rich’s name, and came up with this fascinating bit of trivia at Wikipedia.

Richard “Rich” Skrenta is a computer programmer. He is currently CEO of Topix.net.

In 1982 he wrote the Elk Cloner virus for the Apple II, possibly the first computer virus.

Happy blogiversary LaShawn!

Spunky has a great suggestion, regarding the outrageous usurpation of parental rights by the 9th circuit, which we reported extensively on over the weekend.

I propose that all parents be informed of their rights before they enroll their child in school. Similar to when an arrest is made and they are read their “Miranda” rights. It could go something like this,

Parents or legal guardian; As you enroll your child in our government system of state indoctrination we are required to inform you of your rights…

You have the right to remain silent. Do you understand?

Everything you say and do will be ignored anyway. So don’t waste your breath. Do you understand?

You have the right to an attorney. But don’t waste your money either. Most judges are on our side. They know who re-elects them. Long live the NEA! Do you understand?

You have no right to due process or privacy. Just bake cookies (no nuts please!) and attend the PTO meetings and we’ll get along just fine. Do you understand?

You have no right to object to any material we present to your child. Everything we teach is pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state. Do you understand?

Read the rest…

The AP reports:

The discovery of the church in the northern Israeli town of Megiddo, near the biblical Armageddon, was hailed by experts as an important discovery that could reveal details about the development of the early church in the region. Archaeologists said the church dated from the third century, decades before Constantine legalized Christianity across the Byzantine Empire.

“What’s clear today is that it’s the oldest archaeological remains of a church in Israel, maybe even in the entire region. Whether in the entire world, it’s still too early to say,” said Yotam Tepper, the excavation’s head archaeologist.

…

Two mosaics inside the church — one covered with fish, an ancient Christian symbol that predates the cross — tell the story of a Roman officer and a woman named Aketous who donated money to build the church in the memory “of the god, Jesus Christ.”

AOM notes that this evidenciary find is in direct contradiction to some of the assertions made by Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code.

I don’t know about you, but I sorta have to chuckle a bit that Dan Brown is making millions off lying [MZ notes: this is a work of fiction, “lying” is a bit of a stretch.] about Constantine making up the deity of Christ right as the earth gives up an example of the ancient nature of belief in the deity of Christ, just as we see in Ignatius or Melito of Sardis. Must be a conspiracy or something.

On the 11th day of rioting in France by “mainly Muslim rioters,” the media is finally beginning to be willing to report that there may be a religious element to this madness.

Newsweek’s November 14th issue will say:

Soon, dozens of angry young men came from the soulless high-rises looking for cops to fight and cars to burn on streets named, as it happens, after heroes of French culture: boulevard Emile Zola, allee Albert Camus, rue Picasso. Dead white men. “It’s Baghdad here,” the rioters shouted. Night after night last week, rage spread through the ghettos that ring Paris, then beyond to every corner of France. When a tear-gas canister exploded near a mosque in Clichy-sous-Bois on the fourth violent evening, a new cry went up. “Now this is war,” said one of the vandals. Others cried “jihad.”

Reuters reports:

Reacting to official suggestions that Islamist militants might be orchestrating some of the protests, one of France’s largest Muslim organizations issued a fatwa against the unrest.

WaPo:

The incident incensed youths in the neighborhoods, where unemployment is high, particularly among the French-born descendants of Muslim Africans and Arabs who say they feel the government has abandoned them.

The New York Times, laughably according to Ed, reports that it’s definitely not religious.

Though a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin, the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones.

…

In an effort to stop the attacks and distance them from Islam, France’s most influential Islamic group issued a religious edict, or fatwa, condemning the violence. “It is formally forbidden for any Muslim seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public property or could constitute an attack on someone’s life,” the fatwa said, citing the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad.

And Captain Ed summarizes what is at stake here.

This kind of multi-culti blindness will cause France and the West to lose the war on terror. The Islamists are playing for keeps, and the media organs of the West want to pretend that all religions are equal and that only “youths” cause unrest. Until the Islamists have the French government under the knife, we can expect the global media to continue its apologism for terrorists who use legitimate social concerns to start armed insurrections in the heart of the West. Even with guns and bombs aimed against the French, the media will not recognize a war when they see it.

Below the Beltway adds:

Meanwhile, the American media continues to largely ignore the events in France and to refer to the rioters as “youths” while ignoring the fact that they are predominantly, if not exclusively Muslim. As I said several days ago, France is reaping the whirlwind for its lax immigration policies of the past 40 years or so and for the fact that it has largely ignored its immigrant population. They are, it seems, dealing with an angry, most likely radicalized population in their midst. And, as events in Denmark and elsewhere demonstrate, it is a problem that all of Europe will eventually have to deal with.

The Washington Times is reporting that “French authorities have hinted that Islamic militants may be manipulating angry teenagers to defy the government, using the Internet to organize the unrest. ”

Raphael Satter makes the opposite argument.

In other words: poverty, while undoubtedly a factor in the unrest, has only marginal explanatory power. Spectacularly uninformed commentary aside, the same holds true for radical Islam. In fact the argument can be made that the disturbances in France stem just as much from social problems rooted in traditional French politics as from the economic, racial or religious complications of Muslim immigration.

Austin Bay counters:

Poverty exacerbates all problems, but poverty in and of itself does not produce violence. Migrants from France’s former Muslim colonies initially came for jobs, not to assimilate or “become French.” But the migrants stayed. Now France’s “Muslim neighborhoods” are permanent “cultural islands.” The French government’s own duplicitous policy towards Salafist/Islamist terror has backfired. France has fought Islamist terrorism. For 15 years the French government has been supporting the Algerian government’s battle against the Armed Islamic Group (GIA, the French acronym). In the mid-1990s GIA set off several bombs in and around Paris. However, the French government’s rhetoric has been appeasenik and enabling. Ah yes, the source of Muslim outrage is…America! France was following its Cold War strategy of snaking between Washington and Moscow. Remember, Reagan frightened the USSR. In 1983 Reagan was going to cause a nuclear war in Europe. Etcetera.

Appeasement and duplicity have once again failed as policy. Didn’t work for France in the Rhineland and at Munich, either

Rob at Say Anything brings it a bit closer to home.

This same sort of insurrection is exactly what we risk every day we allow the current state of illegal immigration to exist, and Bush’s “guest worker” program is no solution to the issue. It does not encourage assimilation or integration but would rather legitimize the creation of an underclass of second-class, pseudo-citizens who have a personal stake in our country but no true loyalty to it’s society.

Roger L. Simon reports receiving an email from Paris.

I am absolutely astounded at the failure of this government to attack the problem of the riots. I don’t see it as being primarily an issue of religion, but a turf war by drug criminals, who happen to be of muslim extraction. But the failure of the government to nip this in the bud has now opened the door for players who do have a religious agenda. Mid-week I was cautiously optimistic about the situation. Now I’m very pessimistic.

Mark Steyn:

‘’French youths,'’ huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the “youths” are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn’t take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ‘’French'’: They’re young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you’re likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ‘’Arab street,'’ but it’s in Clichy-sous-Bois.

…

Theodore Dalrymple concludes a piece on British suicide bombers with this grim summation of the new Europe: ‘’The sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.'’ Which sounds an awful lot like a new Dark Ages.

And PeakTalk observes some irony.

The term “Paris Riots” has become a complete misnomer. There’s war going on in France and that is coming from someone who is not given to hyperbole, but the facts have made that conclusion inescapable. It is almost unbelievable that the Chirac administration truly believed that it could somehow escape the jihadist wrath by staying out of Iraq and distance itself from America’s War on Terror. The bitter irony is that rather than having his troops deployed in the Middle East, the French president may now need them at home.

Over at No Parasan, we have this:

the Union of Islamic Organisations of France issued a fatwa ordering young Muslims to calm themselves and to meditate. The Union also included a statement which squarely places the responsibility of the riots on failed French policies regarding immigration and minorities.

Then this…

Suburban residents abandoned by their government and left at the mercy of gangs. … Yes, but thanks to the fatwa those gangs will be busy meditating from now on.

UPDATE: Captain Ed points out a pre-riot warning, and wonders about the collective amnesia of the reporting. (Via Tinkerty Tonk)

Within six weeks of the GSPC announcement, we see a massive and coordinated uprising originating from the ghettoes in which Algerian and other Muslim refugees and their families live. The “riots’ have sophisticated coordination between cell leaders, using the Internet and instant messaging as well as cell phones — an odd tool for a spontaneous demonstration where one neighborhood would hardly have those phone numbers at the ready.

The Islamist connection might get ignored by the media now, but when it involved Iraq as a training base (as the Post article did), they had no hesitation in writing about it. One wonders why they have suddenly developed amnesia about it now.

But Law Hawk points to Clive Davis, who thinks that the Muslim aspect may be being over emphasized, and he quotes from John Lichfield’s Independent article:

Talk of an intifada is absurdly misleading. Firstly, the rioters are far from being all Muslim (although more than half are from Islamic backgrounds). Second, they have no sense of political or religious identity and no political demands. Their allegiance is to their quartier and their gang.

UPDATE: 11/8/2005 - Lost Budgie reports that Fox News is now using the term Muslim Riots.

The Children’s Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132) has been hijacked by a one sentence ammendment (H.AMDT.528) introduced by Mr. Conyers. Here is the modified text of the bill with the additional sections.

H.AMDT.528 to H.R.3132 Amendment provides for inclusion of gender and crimes committed by and directed against juveniles for coverage under the Hate Crime Statistics Act.

Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 9/14/2005) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 9/14/2005 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Conyers amendment (A009) Agreed to by voice vote.

Stephen Lilienthal, in his article “A Cure for Hate Crimes” says:

Many House Members appear to have let their good intentions override the common sense principle that is the underpinning of our criminal case law. Creating new categories of “hate crimes” would be a significant departure from “equal justice under law.” The phrase is more than an appealing platitude engraved over the entrance to the Supreme Court; it is the ideal to which our nation aspires in its system of justice.

The act, not the motive, has long been of supreme importance in determining whether a law has been broken. Adding penalties for infractions due to the criminal’s ill-favored perception of his victim drastically would require that “equal justice” be determined by influential special-interest groups.

Representative Jeff Miller (R-FL) argued that hate-crimes laws are not in accord with a society that aspires to “equal justice under law.” He told the House on September 14, 2005:

“Federalizing hate crime law will not increase tolerance in our society or reduce intergroup conflict. I believe hate crime laws may well have the opposite effect. The men and women who will be administering the hate crime laws (e.g. police, prosecutors) will likely encounter a never-ending series of complaints with respect to their official decisions. When a U.S. Attorney declines to prosecute a certain offense as a hate crime, some will complain that he is favoring the groups to which the accused belongs (e.g. Hispanic males) And when a U.S. Attorney does prosecute an offense as a hate crime, some will complain that the decision was based upon politics and that the government is favoring the groups to which the victim belongs (e.g. Asian Americans.”

…

All lawful Americans oppose crimes, particularly premeditated acts, whether they have occurred because of greed, passion, hate or thrill-seeking. We have State laws to deal with murder and assault. There is no need for federal “hate crimes” legislation, which is “thought crimes” legislation, given its destructive impact upon one of our cherished ideals.

Section 249 of the bill reads:

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person–

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

From the Chalcedon Foundation:

If enacted into law, Knight said, the bill would do more than just increase penalties for crimes committed against homosexuals. It would also pave the way for “hate speech” laws — and greatly expand the federal government’s power to intervene in local law enforcement.

“This federalizes criminal law,” he said. “By invoking the catchall ‘Commerce Clause’ of the Constitution, it allows federal prosecutors to get involved whenever they think there’s been a hate crime. That’s whenever they think local law enforcement hasn’t done enough.”

The bill is the Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (LEEA), a pet project of homosexual-friendly legislators since 1999. Last year it passed the Senate after being attached as a rider to a defense appropriations bill, but failed in the House. This time it’s attached as a rider to the Children’s Safety Act (HR-3132), approved in the House by a narrow margin.

“Our lobbyist has been sitting down with people in the Senate who should be opposing this,” Kastensmidt said. “We’re told it’ll most likely be stripped off the Child Safety Act by a conference committee before the bill goes to the president. That’s what happened last year.”

Concerned Women for America has more.

A grandmother walking down the street should have at least as much protection under the law as someone who is leaving a “gay” bar. But under “hate crimes” laws that include “sexual orientation,” the same assault would be punished with greater penalties if the victim were perceived as homosexual.

…

We deplore any act of violence against innocent victims (including homosexuals), but we strongly oppose as unjust and dangerous the entire concept of “hate crimes” legislation.

Such laws:

- violate the concept of equal protection under the law by designating special classes of victims, who get a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes.
- politicize criminal law, leading to pressure on police and prosecutors to devote more of their limited resources to some cases, at the expense of other crime victims’ cases.
- vastly expand the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to intervene in local law enforcement matters, once a crime is called a “hate crime.
- have a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings. More than half of the so-called “hate crimes” in the last U.S. Justice Department report were categorized as “intimidation” or “simple assault,” which do not necessarily involve anything more than words.2 In terms of the proposed national hate crimes bill, this makes name-calling literally a federal case.
- confuse law enforcers, because the definition of what constitutes a “hate crime” is clear in some instances but unclear in others. This burdens prosecutors and opens up endless opportunities for defense attorneys to invoke technicalities.
- are not necessary. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that “hate crime” victims are receiving less justice than other crime victims.

The Senate version of this bill has been referred out of the Senate Judiciary committee to the full Senate as of 10/20/2005.

5/19/2005:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
10/20/2005:
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
10/20/2005:
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
10/20/2005:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 251.

I’m a little lost in the thomas.loc.gov website, so I haven’t been able to figure out exactly whether the ammendment that was included in the House is actually a part of S.1086. In reading the text of the bill, it doesn’t appear that it is, however it is imperative that it not be. Hate Crime legislation is a blatant violation of the “equal protection” clause and should not be in any way a part of our legal system, and we must remain vigilant lest the thought police have their way in this country where we are already in a Herculean struggle to preserve our freedom of speech.

UPDATE: Joining the Beltway Traffic Jam

If you want to experience it for yourself, reserve a week at Woods’ Edge condominium in the heart of Brown County, right on the golf course!