Link: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb05/Bageant0218.htm

...then read this excellent article by Joe Bageant. It makes for intermittently uncomfortable reading if, like me, you're well-educated and relatively affluent. However, every would-be politico who fancies themselves as opposition to the current majoritarian, theocratically ga-ga bunch of would-be leaders needs to read this, absorb the message and think.

Link: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3201717

An interesting analysis of how Texas representatives voted on bills and issues recently in Washington...

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/27/bush.posters.ap/index.html

Well, it appears that all that is required for the 1st Amendment to be conveniently forgotten is for one person to be offended by a poster.
The school principal appears to be utterly clueless:

The principal asked the drama students to come up with new posters. The new designs all feature a silhouette of Bush and a burning cigar, along with inscriptions such as "Free Expression for All (unless you are in high school)" and "What First Amendment?"
"They're good," Lee said. "I like the follow-ups."

Does he not realize that he just made himself sound like a complete fool?

The last time I looked in my copy of the United States Constitution, the text of the 1st Amendment did not include the phrase "only until a single person takes offence" after the key phrases. You know, these phrases:

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/28/lawmakers.arrested.ap/index.html

Not much so say about this story except that John Ford looks to be yet another proof of the old saying that all power corrupts. Talk about rotten to the core...

Link: http://www.dumblaws.com

As readers may have noticed, I do not have a very high opninion of the ability of elected representatives to craft sensible, well-structured legislation on our behalf. I have seen some amazingly ridiculous crap being proposed here in Texas in the last few months.
Now you can find out about the really ludicrous stuff that actually made it into law here.

Link: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

...In which a judge, not acting on a request by any party, inserts a clause in a divorce settlement forbidding either parent of a child from teaching the child "non-mainstream" religious beliefs. The divorcing parents are adherents to Wicca.
All I can say is...imagine the firestorm from the theocratic right if a so-called "liberal", "activist" judge had attempted to restrict the right of divorcing Christian parents to teach their children about Christianity.
This ruling, if appealed, will almost certainly be struck down. It is pretty clear that this is unconstitutional.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7873141/#050518a

Remember the story about Texas House Bill 1476 (aka "One two three four you can't shake that any more")?
Well, the US House of Representatives is now doing the same thing, using the Newsweek "did anybody flush a Koran down the commode in that place at the end of Cuba" affair as an excuse to wade in with more sanctimonious-sounding cack...

Link: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050606&s=alterman

From Eric Alterman. Some highlights:

Making sense on foreign policy is not enough. It may actually be a net negative. As Bill Clinton famously explained, Americans prefer a President who appears "strong and wrong" to one who seems right but looks weak.

Talk tough and reach for your revolver often, and Americans might let you craft their healthcare, education and family-leave policies. Speak sensibly about foreign policy, and even if they agree with you, they'll go for the guy with the gun.

Link: http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/05/13/st_lawrence_univ_abuses_copyright_law_to_determine_identity_of_anonymous_bloggers.php

...in which St. Lawrence University, seemingly offended by a somewhat sophomoric student blog, is attempting to shut down the criticisms contained within it by filing...a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Now there's a stretch.
In addition to the lawsuit, the university has also blocked access to the blog's IP address from the campus network.

Memo to the university: Go read Law 101. If a website is publishing inaccurate or defamatory information, the proper legal response is to file a lawsuit for defamation or libel, not copyright infringement.

Sharp note to the university:

1. Stop abusing the legal system in the service of this crypto-totalitarian nonsense immediately.
2. Blocking the IP address of the blog is a pointless action. Any network-savvy blogger will circumvent that block in a matter of minutes.
3. Has it occurred to you that attempting to suppress free speech contradicts the ideals of academia, and merely draws attention to a phenomenon that was not worthy of being taken seriously anyway?

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7890791/

In which a beer delivery man is fired for drinking the "Wrong" beer (i.e. a beer not brewed by his employer) while off-duty, and not wearing any identification from his employer.
How many ways can you say "what a mean-spirited, irredeemably stupid action" to his (ex-) employers?