Return of the Chocolate Jesus

It appears the chocolate Jesus is making a reappearance.

The life-sized sculpture will be included as part of the "Chocolate Saints…Sweet Jesus" show at the Proposition Gallery in Chelsea timed to coincide with All Saints Day on Nov. 1. The show also will feature eight chocolate sculptures of Catholic saints.

The art space is expected to mail invitations next week featuring a "scratch n' sniff" on the breasts of a likeness of the Virgin Mary.

Hmmm. Yeah, that sounds very reverential, right? I mean, if you are sending out invitations with scratch & sniff breasts on the Virgin Mary, it couldn't possibly be considered sacrilegious, right?

I wrote about the chocolate cross phenomenon--something that seemed very strange to me--here. Just after being told that someone could understand why a chocolate Jesus might be offensive, I wrote about this chocolate Jesus display and how the exhibit, coinciding with Holy Week, had been cancelled.

Over at Common Sense Political Thought, I wound up writing a series of posts on the chocolate Jesus controversy (see here, here, here and here), basically pointing out that free speech allows for disagreement and protest, even of art exhibits. Jesurgislac, in its typically disingenuous way, latched on to the fact that some people issued death threats and that, therefore, if you supported the right of some people to protest an art exhibit, you must be supporting death threats (you just can't make up the lunacy).

This time around, the chocolate Jesus is going into an exhibit at an art gallery and isn't expected to draw protests like putting it in a more public forum did. I'm not sure that I personally see the difference between a hotel lobby (the original setting) and an art gallery, but a spokesman from the Catholic League obviously does.

IMO, if the art offends you and you wish to protest, then protest. If you think it's a waste of taxpayer money, then protest. After all, that's what free speech is about, right?

Air America Host Wasn't Mugged...But That Doesn't Stop Liberals From Blaming Conservatives

Air America host Randi Rhodes wasn't mugged today, even though hysterical liberals at first proclaimed Rhodes' injuries to be the work of evil conservatives.

Michelle Malkin rounds up all the usual moonbattery.

You learn a lot about people by their reactions to adversity. And what do we learn about liberals?

That just as I said yesterday, liberals have to blame somebody else (preferably conservatives) for every bad thing that happens...and even those that don't.

It's sad that Rhodes had an accident that banged her up badly. Here's hoping she recovers quickly. But having said that, you have to wonder about the paranoia of people who immediately blame, not your average mugger for crime, but their political enemies.

These are the same people who were sorry Dick Cheney didn't die. They constantly wish for the death or imprisonment of one conservative or another. And if they can't win the war of ideas, they want to silence their opponents.

Liberals like to proclaim how open and optimistic they are, how much they love people and how mean-spirited conservatives are. But every chance they have to prove how "nice" they are, liberals instead prove their own mental and emotional smallness.

Captain Ed gives us the three-point lesson on what the Randi Rhodes incident teaches us about liberals.

Gore Derangement Syndrome?

It's never surprising when liberals try to equate unequal things. So, for example, liberals supporting the Frosts equate their having four children with pro-lifers who disagree with abortion. Of course, these things are completely unequal: supporting the right of children to be born doesn't mean pro-lifers should support people mooching off the system. Yet to liberals, the Frosts are a terrific argument this way.

Hence we see this Paul Krugman column comparing what he calls "Gore Derangement Syndrome" with Bush Derangement Syndrome. And yet again, the comparison falls flat.

Charles Krauthammer coined the term Bush Derangement Syndrome to describe the unhinged Left who blamed President Bush for every ill in the world, from natural disasters to any person killed in Iraq...whether killed by American soldiers or terrorists. You can find BDS on any moonbat site from Echidne to Pandagon to smaller blogs. It's not hard because virtually any thread on any subject will turn up some comment or other on how it's all Bush's fault your bread fell butter-side-down on the floor and he should be impeached for it.

Krugman tries to compare BDS, well-documented for several years, with conservatives questioning Al Gore getting the Nobel Peace Prize. It's amazing watching someone so delusional arguing that questioning what Gore did for world peace equates with accusing the President of causing tsunamis and global warming. Is he serious?

Just One Minute has a nice rebuttal explaining why he agreed with Krugman when Krugman, too, thought Al Gore was an intellectual lightweight.

Jules Crittenden answers Krugman's question.

UPDATE: Maybe Krugman would understand why conservatives think the Nobel Peace Prize has become a political tool if he read about this nominee.

When They Can't Win an Argument, They Just Start Making Stuff Up

Running from discussion yet again, Jeromy Brown is still clinging to discredited hack Jesurgislac as a character reference. You really have to be morally and intellectually bankrupt to write stuff like this. But let's be charitable. After all, the man did lose 3 of his 5 pints of blood.

Selective Coverage

When a soldier receives the Medal of Honor, it is a really big deal. I mean, a really big deal. Only two have been given during the war in Iraq, both posthumously, and there are only 109 living recipients.

You'd think such an award would be worthy of coverage by the "nation's newspaper", the New York Times, wouldn't you?

You'd be wrong.

The New York Times carried not a whisper of news yesterday about the bestowal of the Medal of Honor to Navy Lt. Michael Murphy of Patchogue - the first time the honor has been given for action in Afghanistan...

A Times spokeswoman said yesterday afternoon that the paper does plan to run something about the award - though she didn't say exactly what.

President Bush will present the medal to Murphy's parents at a White House ceremony Oct. 22.

This is the same newspaper which ran the General "Betray Us" ad and has no problem finding space for Frank Rich's ridiculous columns. But coverage of honors bestowed on our soldiers? I guess there's just no room for that.

It wasn't the first time the Times gave short shrift to such a story. The paper ran just one paragraph about the posthumous awarding of the Medal of Honor to Cpl. Jason Dunham, a U.S. Marine from upstate killed in Iraq in 2004. That paragraph ran in January in the middle of a story about congressional opposition to Bush's Iraq war plans.

But remember: don't question their patriotism. Well, I won't. I do question their priorities, though.

Coward Jeromy Brown Can't Discuss My Blog Posts Where I Will Defend Them

Instead, he blathers on as usual on his own site, complete with the lying chorus of Jesurgislac. Thanks to Dana for drawing my attention to this mendacity. Dana also has an excellent post eviscerating Brown's arguments for universal health care.

In response, let me say first that the Frosts (the parents) chose not to insure their children but then decided it was ok to expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab for their decision. This is a typically liberal position. After all, isn't this the same reason they believe in taxpayer-supported abortions, free condoms, needle exchanges, etc.? We can't expect people to be responsible for themselves or their own decisions! That, according to the sycophants at Iowa Liberal is just mean-spirited.

It's not like I'm not a critic of the scam known as health insurance. The fact is that it's a giant ponzi scheme designed to take in the most money possible without paying out any more than necessary. It's also heavily tilted to low-cost fixes like prenatal care and against new or innovative treatments. And let's not even get into the prescription drug racket where the best drugs for one's treatment are often uncovered or horribly overpriced.

No, what Brown and the dodo birds blathering at Iowa Liberal fail to grasp (aside from the ability to accurately quote people) is that, while the Frosts didn't choose to have a car accident which injured their children, they chose not to get health insurance before then in preparation for the possibility.

And the Frosts made a variety of life decisions based on dependence on taxpayer funded health care. They chose professions which didn't have (or require) health care. They work part-time. They own considerable property, which they could use to help pay their own expenses, but keep their income relatively low.

The problem with the Frosts as poster children for SCHIP is that once you start examining their lives, you realize that they aren't the best example for the program. They are neither poor nor uneducated nor unemployable. The parents simply made life choices that precluded taking care of their offspring. So, why should everyone else pay for them?

The Nobel Peace Prize Politicized

So, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for making a propaganda film filled with factual errors. Isn't that special?

I guess the Nobel Peace Prize isn't really about peace anymore. That's the only explanation I--and people more blunt can come up with. After all, it can't be based on performance. I mean, wouldn't those monks in Burma be better recipients?

But cheer up. We always have TBogg around to explain why the peace prize isn't about peace.

Shaddap You Face - Joe Dolce

My favorite bad song.

What Is Wrong With Them?

The nutroots are out in full force defending Democrats using a child to do a liberal's work. To listen to them, questioning the sob story of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who was shilling for the Dems latest project: ballooning the SCHIP program to include upper middle class families.

Why would conservatives be so skeptical of Dems' newest poster child? Gee, I dunno. Maybe it's because liberals love using their kids to promote their causes, even if the kid would be against the parent's political position.

What is bizarre to me about this whole brouhaha is the faux outrage of the left that their tactics are being attacked. Let's make this clear: it's not really whether or not Frost's family could afford insurance. It's that Democrats can't make the case for raising the costs to cover families making $83,000 per year. They know that, which is why they bring in Frost to tell why SCHIP helped his family.

For the record, President Bush wanted to extend SCHIP, but didn't want the $35 billion price tag Democrats have attached to it. Democrats want universal health care, and insuring children is a backdoor approach to it. Besides, who can oppose insuring children?

Amusingly, moonbats are defending the life choices of the Frosts by saying they're "doing what Republicans espouse." Well, excuse me, but as Dan Riehl points out, that's a load of hooey.

Yes, the Frost children are victims, but not of conservatives. They look more like victims of a couple of mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves when it came to the bottom line on that. There are poor people in America who need help, particularly as regards Health care. The point is, the family above shouldn't be and simply aren't among them. Call Dad next time you want some bucks FH. And kindly leave the rest of America's collective wallet the hell alone.

Or, hey, get a second job with benefits. I've done that more than once in my life when I needed the cash. And do it before you let Graeme tell the media how much you struggle to take care of him, because there are enough people in America who really do struggle with these issues. And when they take a look at your lot in life they are left far from impressed and unmoved to cough up one thin dime so you can enjoy afternoons playing with your lathe, or whatever the hell else it is you do in your factory.

I don't see someone who needs my help in F Halsey Frost. I see a simpleton and a loser who had more kids than he could afford and doesn't appear to have given up very much in life to deal with that situation. Who knows, maybe Dad figured it out, too and cut him off. What the hell, there's always welfare, right?

The problem with the liberal world view is that none of us should be required to live with the decisions we make. As Dan says, responsible parents figure out how to pay for their own children, and only after they've exhausted their own resources do they consider government assistance. Though my husband is uninsurable, my children and I do have insurance and it costs about $300 per month.

What's terrible is that the Frosts really do symbolize the Democrats' idea of the poor: people who volunteer to make less money than it takes to support their family, then expect the taxpayers to make up the difference. That's an insult to the families who really are poor. But I guess a really poor child wouldn't look as sympathetic to Dems as this family did.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a great post that gives more details about what is wrong with the "they're attacking children" harangue from the left.

To start with, the Maryland program does not assets-test, meaning that people who own property but don't necessarily make a great deal are eligible for the taxpayer-supported program. That's how the Frosts managed not to provide for their children. The plan the Democrats in Congress are proposing is designed to expand what should be a program to help those who cannot afford health insurance to include those who don't want to afford their own insurance.

And more on Frost.

The Frosts own a home in Baltimore purchased for $55,000 sixteen years ago–and now worth an estimated $300,000. That’s a lot of equity. In addition, the children’s father, Halsey Frost, owns commercial real estate and his own small business, but chose not to buy health insurance for himself and his wife, whom he hired as an employee. She now apparently works freelance at a medical publishing firm, which also reportedly doesn’t offer insurance. Gemma and Graeme both attend expensive private schools; the Frosts have two other school-age children. Reid’s staff says Gemma and Graeme receive tuition breaks. But it’s not clear when those scholarships were instituted and/or whether the other two receive tuition aid as well. Moreover, Frost’s family comes from considerable means. The children’s maternal grandfather was an engineering executive. Their paternal grandparents hail from affluent Bronxville, New York, where the grandfather is a prominent facilities management consultant and chairman of the municipal planning board.

In other words: The public trough is not Halsey Frost’s last and only resort.

Having your children hurt in an accident is a tragedy. Exploiting that tragedy for political gain is despicable.

It's 1984 for Liberals When It Comes to Free Speech

Apparently, Democrats want to continue proving my point about liberals' hatred of free speech. According to The American Spectator,

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."

Democrats don't have as big a megaphone? Running the legislative branch of government isn't a big enough megaphone? I can't decide if these guys are just stupid or really don't understand that Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives are equal time (as Rush says).

It would be laughable that Democrats, who control both the House and Senate, feel they aren't as powerful as talk radio if it weren't so sinister. But the fact is, these guys control the legislative branch of government and now want to stifle free speech by legislating it out of existence. We're not talking about protests or advertiser boycotts. If the government decides to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine that really is censorship.

Frank Rich's Comments about Clarence Thomas Are Clearly Out of Line

That's the gist of Orin Kerr's dissection of this nasty column by Frank Rich.

But it is Frank Rich, after all. Should one be surprised?

Rich has made a career out of spinning for the Democratic Party, so much so that I wouldn't be surprised if he's a paid consultant. But he does work for the New York Times, so I suppose it is the same thing.

In his memoir, My Grandfather's Son, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas relates one example of affirmative action's devastating unintended effects on minorities. After graduating in the middle of his class from Yale Law School, Thomas could not find a job and finally accepted one in the Missouri government because of the state's attorney general, John Danforth.

According to Rich, who knows nothing about law school or legal careers, assistant attorney general (the job Thomas accepted) for $10,000 a year was a "plum job." Further, Rich says Thomas got the job because he "worked the Yalie network," the informal way in which graduates of a university hire new grads from the same school. And, of course, we all know how an Ivy League degree is a guarantee of life on the fast track.

Unfortunately for Rich, but fortunately for Americans, Kerr smacks down this lie.

As I understand it, in Missouri the title "Assistant Attorney General" is the standard job title given to an entry-level attorney hired in the state Attorney General's Office. It's not exactly a common destination for those "work[ing] the Yalie network"; my googling around suggests that most Assistant Attorneys General in Missouri are hired straight from Missouri law schools.

Perhaps Rich was misled by the fact that in the federal government, the job of Assistant Attorney General is indeed quite a job. It's a Senate-confirmed position, often heading hundreds of attorneys.

But state governments are different. In many states, that lofty title is given to entry-level lawyers. My sense is that this is the case in Missouri. If you look at the listings of job openings in that office, they are all for the position of Assistant Attorney General.

I did a little googling around to see what kind of resumes and experience lawyers typically have before being appointed Assistant Attorney General in Missouri. Here are a few bios of attorneys who once held the job, with their law school attended and how long after graduation they were hired: Brundage (Missouri-Columbia, year after graduation), Rebman (Missouri - Kansas City, right after graduation), Ottenad (Wash. U., right after passing bar), Miller (Wash. U., after law school graduation), Glaser (Drake, after 2 years at small firm), Franke (Missouri-KC, right after graduation), Cosgrove (Notre Dame, apparently after short stint at KC firm), Richardson (Missouri, right after graduation), Zito (Missouri-KC, apparently right after law school), Siegel (Wash. U., right after graduation), Spinden (Missouri-KC, apparently right after law school).

As best I can tell, these individuals who were hired as Assistant AG in Missouri did not have "the opportunity to work the Yalie network to jump-start [their] career[s]." I can find no other Yale graduates who had this job, and for that matter I haven't been able to find anyone who attended an "elite" school either at the undergraduate or graduate level who had it.

None of this is to say that being an assistant attorney general is a bad job. They are respectable and good ways to gain experience needed for better positions. But the fact is that Yale Law graduates don't become assistant attorney generals in Flyover Country because the job was just too good to pass up. Indeed, Yale Law graduates go to law firms where they determine to make partner or become law professors with aspirations to become president.

In short, Frank Rich, as usual, has a distorted, myopic view of what affirmative action does for the people it purports to help. Indeed,the original goals--that minority candidates would be considered alongside white candidates--was admirable. But in practice, what happens is that candidates hired through affirmative action live with the stigma that they were hired "only" because they fit the right category. I've known numerous people who had this sort of humiliation foisted upon them by companies more interested in looking good rather than being good. But Frank Rich, like so many white male liberals, wouldn't know what it's like to have people "know" why you were hired and that it wasn't because of your qualifications. Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, had first-hand experience with the affirmative action stigma.

Adverse Effects from the HPV Vaccine

Back in February, I wrote this post on Texas governor Rick Perry ordering all girls to be vaccinated with the human papillomavirus vaccine. HPV causes, among other things, genital warts and cervical cancer.

At the time, I questioned whether the government should be mandating teenage girls to get this vaccine when (a) it hadn't been tested long enough on teenagers and (b) the assumption that all teenage girls were having sex and needed the protection was both paternalistic and hysterical. The vaccine hasn't been on the market long enough to know how long it works (current recommendations are for girls as young as nine to receive the vaccine). I was also concerned about the rights of parents to refuse injecting more bugs into their children for dubious purposes. If a girl turns 18 and wants the vaccine, that's her right. But I also think parents have the right to object to vaccines like this being mandated for their children.

Of course, Amanda Marcotte jumped to the perfectly logical conclusion that parents who objected to the vaccine just wanted their daughters to die of cervical cancer. I mean, it couldn't be that the vaccine might be unsafe, right?

Well, sorry to break the news to the Pandagonistas, but Judicial Watch has released new documents from the Food and Drug Administration which show Gardasil might not be as safe as claimed before.

Judicial Watch...today released new documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,824 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil, including as many as eight deaths related to the vaccine. Judicial Watch had previously obtained 1,637 reports relating to Gardasil on May 15, 2007, bringing the known total to 3,461 adverse reactions including eleven deaths since FDA approval...

From May 10 to September 7, 2007, the 1,824 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 347 serious reactions. Of the 77 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 33 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormalities. Other serious side effects continue to be reported including, paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.

It sounds to me like this vaccine needs more study before being mandated, even if protective parents are accused of wanting their kids to get cancer.

Stupid School Policies

Via ifeminists comes this great post on students protesting school policy stupidity.

According to the local chain paper, the school started out by banning all school bags. This decision, they said, was supposedly partly to protect students from the burden of carrying heavy bags (because, I guess, carrying stacks of books bound with twine is ergonomically better for them). And it was to prevent the possibility of students carrying concealed weapons. The paper doesn't mention what seem to be the obvious additional reasons for this decision: the school administrators aren't too bright, they can't be trusted with authority and they don't like students.

The principal's name, by the way, is "Worden." He seems to be mistaking this for his job description.

School officials quickly realized that banning backpacks and purses left female students with no way to carry pads or tampons, so Worden and his clown show amended the policy (or at least that's the rumor -- these folks aren't very good at communicating clearly). Female students would be allowed to carry bags, but only during their periods -- meaning that every female student carrying a bag would be subject to questioning about whether or not that was the case. And, of course, school officials would need to keep track of who was carrying a purse and when, just to make sure that no one was trying to exploit this "privilege."

Students protested by wearing feminine hygiene products on their clothes, a novel idea if ever I heard one. But the whole thing reminds me of another stupid school board policy I witnessed firsthand about four years ago.

I was having lunch at my oldest daughter's middle school when I noticed students picking up chicken fried steak patties with forks then gnawing around the edges like so many rodents.

"Why aren't they using knives to cut the steaks?" I asked my daughter.

"We aren't allowed to have knives," she replied. "The school thinks they're weapons."

I looked at the plastiware we were using for our lunches. "A plastic knife is a weapon?" I asked incredulously. "But a plastic fork could do more damage, it seems to me."

My daughter shrugged and continued gnawing around the edges of her lunch.

Later, I found out that seventh and eighth graders were trusted with plastic knives; I guess sixth graders weren't mature enough to be trusted with the plastiware.

Such overreaching school policies baffle me. When I was in school back in the Dark Ages, we had metal utensils and girls (all girls) carried purses from the time they were in about fourth grade. It wasn't that we needed them. It was that having a purse was a sign of our femaleness (Amanda would gag at that statement). We also used satchels or bookbags in elementary school, but by middle school we carried our books in our hands. No backpacks. No bags. And, amazingly, we managed not to strain our backs.

My guess is that these overprotective rules are made to stave off any possible litigation involved in plastiware knife fights or tampon stabbings, but it seems to me that, as we try to protect children more, we throw common sense out the window.

The Decline of the GOP

There are times when watching the GOP eat its young gets to be too much. Take this ridiculous "analysis" of why the GOP is seemingly in decline.

Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers.

Who does he think he is? Amanda Marcotte? That's what this drivel sounds like.

If John Cole was actually interested in why many Americans have rejected the Republicans, he might look at what Americans say about issues like torture. And, frankly, more people disgusted with Republicans are concerned that the GOP has become just like the Democrats: big government solutions and overspending rather than fiscal restraint. And executions on demand? Where does that take place? Sounds to me like Cole needs to stop getting all his information about Republicans from moonbat websites.

What the Armed Forces Radio Network Schedules

Certain moonbats are apoplectic that Rush Limbaugh is on the Armed Forces Radio Network. But it doesn't take a genius to Google for the schedule and discover--holy cow!--AFRN schedules liberals as well! Including Ed Schultz, who wouldn't have a show if he didn't hate Rush Limbaugh.

In point of fact, there are more liberals on AFRN than conservatives. AFRN plays Ed Schultz, Alan Colmes, and Jim Hightower (I thought he was dead). The only political conservative shows on AFRN are Rush and Sean Hannity. And if you add in news broadcasts (AFRN broadcasts NPR 24/7 it seems like), the left-leaning viewpoints get more than enough airplay.

Or maybe what the nutroots are saying is that 54 minutes of Rush equals 3 hours of liberal shows.

Don't Mistake the Liberal Agenda: Silencing Conservatives

If it wasn't obvious before, liberals hate free speech. Why do I say that? It's the only explanation for why liberals are hellbent on getting Rush Limbaugh off the Armed Forces Radio Network. One of the chief unhinged nuts explains the importance of silencing Rush Limbaugh:

It’s my belief that the conservative movement of the past decade or so was a three headed hydra: Newt, Delay and Rush. Sure, there are others, including Bush’s brain, and Grover Norquist (whom I have sometimes included as the fourth head of the hydra) but those three stood for different things that were hugely important to the success of the movement. Newt was the visionary. Delay was the congressional enforcer. And Rush was the voice, screaming out violent hatred for liberals and Democrats day after day, decade after decade. It took its toll, to the point where we can hardly even stand ourselves.

Newtie’s now irrelevant. Delay is gone. Only Rush remains and he is probably the biggest prize. On a purely practical, hardball political basis, the Democrats should have been working to take him out for years. Now is their chance to turn the Republicans’ patented hissy kabuki back on them and hoist an avowed political enemy with his own poisonous petard at the same time. There are many others who will happily take his place, no doubt about it. But his voice is uniquely associated with the radical wingnuts, and it is an important symbolic message to the country if they can finally make an example of him. (Emphasis mine)

What sort of example? Why, an example of what happens when you cross the liberal cabal. The nutroots accuse a four-star general of betraying our country and these jerks back up a full-page, discounted ad. And when that backfires, they have to raise a stink about a phony flap like the Rush Limbaugh quote to try to take the heat off themselves.

If I didn't know how those supposedly open-minded moonbats think, it might sound a bit hypocritical. But knowing how little respect liberals have for free speech, it's no surprise at all. That's why they constantly cry for banning people they disagree with. Instead of finding a formula that attracts viewers, they call for greater restrictions on speech.

And who can blame them? It's no mystery that conservatives thrive when free ideas are expressed. Liberals, on the other hand, constantly and persistently side with silencing speech they dislike.

Liberalism once had a reputation of supporting the free and open exchange of ideas. But for the last 40 years, liberals have constantly complained that all conflicting ideas must be suppressed, whether those ideas concern religion, speech, protest, education or virtually any other issue.

Rush Limbaugh's success and his huge audience is more than a thorn in the side of the liberal elites. They have to discredit Rush any way they can because their own ideas have been rejected by huge segments of America. It's the same reason the moonbatosphere is hysterical over Fox News when the network audience share dwarfs the only conservative network on the air. They can't win with their ideas, so they must try to silence all opponents.

Rush compares the Wesley Clarks, the nutroots, the Media Matters of the left to Stalinists, and the comparison is apt.

Did Anyone Notice the Dems Passed the Defense Spending Bill?

Under cover of faux outrage, the Democrats passed the defense spending bill overwhelmingly 92-3. As Captain Ed notes, presidential contenders Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden were conspicuously unable to vote today.

Democrats had threatened to hold up the Defense appropriation until George Bush bent to their will on Iraq. Harry Reid had petulantly taken the bill off the table in July, attempting to hold it to the last minute in order to pressure Republicans to change course in Iraq. Instead, as the success of the surge became more and more apparent, Reid found the ground falling out from beneath him.

It's no wonder the nutroots are wasting their time calling for silencing Rush Limbaugh. If they actually had to cover the cutting-and-running (not the kind they wanted) that Harry Reid's done, they might be really outraged.

Given the inability of the moonbats to get any of their agenda through Congress, I guess it's no wonder they focus on a phony flap about Rush Limbaugh. Why is it, I wonder, liberals always want to silence conservatives? Is it because their hypocrisy is so blatant? Surely, this isn't partisan politics at work, is it?

Fewer Women Seek Law Degrees

Broader opportunities and a strong economy are causing fewer women to seek law degrees.

From 1963 to 1990, the enrollment of women in law schools rose each consecutive year, according to the ABA. In 1963, just 3.7 percent of law school students were women, compared with 42.5 percent in 1990. In 1992, for the only time, women outnumbered men at 50.4 percent. And from 1994 to 2001, female enrollment again began to climb steadily.

One reason for the reversal now may be the media attention that law firms have received about the scant number of women partners and the problems firms have in retaining women, said Elizabeth Pederson, a graduate of Stanford Law School last May and president of Ms. JD, an online community for women attorneys.

Many legal trade and general print publications recently have reported that few women become partners in the nation's law firms. In 2006, just 17.9 percent of partners in law firms were women, according to NALP, a nonprofit organization that tracks legal careers. Meanwhile, 44.3 percent of associates were women.

Law firms are trying to become more friendly to women, providing flex-time schedules, on-site daycare, better maternity leave, and breastfeeding rooms. But you can't get around the grueling schedule young lawyers are expected to keep at a time that many women are wanting to get married, start families and have careers.

After I had my son at the end of my first year of law school, I knew the lawyer's life was not for me. I had no intention of paying someone else to raise my children for me while I worked massive hours. I finished my degree more so I could have the sense of accomplishment than because I intended to become an attorney. It sounds to me like more women are opting for other career paths because of the workload.

Boy Survives Plane Ride on Airplane Wing

Via Brothers Judd, a 15-year-old boy survived a two-hour flight from Perm to Moscow on the wing of an airplane.

After clinging on for the entire 1300-kilometer (808-mile) flight to Vnukovo Airport, the boy, named Andrei, collapsed onto the tarmac. His arms and legs were so severely frozen that rescuers were at first unable to remove his coat and shoes, the radio station said.

The airport did not confirm the report. "We have no information on this," the Vnukovo press service told RIA Novosti.

However, Moscow's air and water transport control department said the radio's claim was true. A department spokesman said the incident occurred on Friday, and that the boy's parents were immediately informed, and flew to the capital the same day.

Doctors said it was nothing short of a miracle that Andrei survived the flight, with temperatures hitting minus 50 degrees Celsius (-58 Fahrenheit), the radio station said. The Boeing-737 has a cruising speed of 900 kmh (560 mph).

The boy reportedly made the journey after a commonplace domestic dispute. Angry with his father, who reportedly has a drinking problem, and with his mother for siding with her husband in family rows, Andrei ran away to the neighboring village, where his grandmother lives. On reaching the village, he decided to go on, and hitched a 220-km (137-mile) ride to the regional center, Perm, where he was dropped off at the airport.

It remains unclear how Andrei was able to climb on a plane wing un-noticed, and the Perm Airport security service is being asked some serious questions, the radio station said.

One of the stories I plan never to tell my children (at least until they are 30) is about the time I hot-footed it to London after a big argument with my mother while on a family vacation in England. Left to my own devices and unwilling to go back to my family to face the silent treatment for the rest of the day, I decided instead to take the train to London and explore the city alone. I would have made it back without anyone the wiser had a tree not fallen across the tracks, delaying my return by nearly five hours. But at least I wasn't riding the wing of an airplane!

Why Planned Parenthood Has to Lie to Open Clinics

One of the arguments against free speech for abortion clinic protesters is that clinic protesters are violent. Of course, this is a lie, since the vast majority of abortion clinic protesters neither threaten violence nor actually participate in violence. But that's never stopped the pro-abortion crowd from repeating this canard.

Now comes new evidence that--gasp!--pro-abortion supporters have to lie. Via ifeminists comes a pair of articles (actually, an article and a column) on Planned Parenthood's lies regarding its new abortion facility near Chicago.

Planned Parenthood built a huge facility in the Chicago suburb using the name Gemini Office Development. The irregularity resulted in an investigation, and the clinic remains shuttered.

So, why lie about what Planned Parenthood wanted to build?

According to the group, which made $55.8 million during fiscal year 2005-2006--much of that from performing abortions--the reason they lied about what they were doing is because those awful pro-lifers are violent (via Jill Stanek's blog). In a letter to the Aurora aldermen, Planned Parenthood president Steve Trombley lied--er, said,

The activists of the Pro-Life Action League who have been opposing our new facility are headquartered in Aurora and have a well-documented history of advocating violence against both persons and property as well as other related criminal activity.
We think you will understand the urgency of our concerns when you consider the following facts about the Pro-Life Action League and its leader, Joe Scheidler.

Scheidler (along with a handful of other anti-abortion leaders) formed PLAN - the Pro Life Action Network. Scheidler called PLAN the "pro-life mafia" and proclaimed "a year of pain and fear" for anyone seeking or providing abortion.

After a six-week trial in 1998, a jury in Chicago unanimously found that the Pro-Life Action League Network orchestrated 121 crimes involving acts of threats of force or violence against women's health facilities that offered abortion. These crimes proven at trial included beating a post-operative ovarian surgery patient over the head with a sign, knocking her unconscious and causing her to bleed from the sutures in her abdomen; seizing a clinic administrator by the throat, choking and bruising her; and slamming a clinic staff member and volunteer against the stairs (sending them to a hospital and causing permanent injuries) and destroying medications and equipment. Joe Scheidler personally praised the individuals who carried out some of these misdeeds, even taking credit for them....

I guess Trombley was truthful to a point. Because, yes, a jury did rule the way he stated, only to see its ruling overturned not once but twice by the U.S. Supreme Court. That makes any finding by the jury to null and void.

Fortunately, the pro-lifers aren't taking the lies lying down, so to speak. According to World Net Daily, the Pro-Life Action League is suing Planned Parenthood for libel.

Planned Parenthood lied about what it was going to do with its new facility because it didn't want Americans to exercise their right to protest. Funny, if abortion is such a universal good and only a 20-minute procedure, you'd think they wouldn't mind being more open about it. But as Dennis Byrne says, Planned Parenthood has good reasons to lie about its facilities, as well as a history of doing so.