This is the third edition of my “News Deluge” meaning it is fast approaching becoming a consistent feature.  The format is borne from my lack of time to write extensive posts in the last couple of weeks, but it does allow me to throw out more news and opinion nuggets than with dedicated posts.  Any thoughts on the format?  Should I just stick to single posts?

And now for the main event…

—

Newt Gingrich wants to create a “different set of rules” for free speech.  Constitution shmonstitution.  I’ve always admired Newt as a good “big idea” guy, but this is nauseating.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a “different set of rules” may be needed to reduce terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

“We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,” said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP’s takeover of Congress in 1994.

We have nothing to fear but … whatever.  I wonder just what different rules Newt thinks we need.

—

The American Legion has called on Rep. Charles Rangel, who admires our military servicemen and women about as much as he does the people of Mississippi, to apologize for his recent comments.

“If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq. If there’s anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of some educational benefits,” Rangel said.

He’s a regular John Kerry.  James Taranto has some e-mails that are worth a read from the dummies without decent careers who served in our military.

—

Taranto also links to this story about some teenagers being expelled for making a film about an “evil teddy bear” attacking a teacher.  Good thing we have zero tolerance policies.  We can’t have kids out there making pretend videos about mean stuffed animals.

—

The Democrats have no plans on reducing pork spending.  What a shocker.

Democratic Senator, Patty Murray of Washington – who will be chairwoman of the transportation subcommittee – said: “I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next.”

Last year, Murray defended the allocation of more than $200 million for the so-called “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, warning those who might vote against the outlay that her subcommittee would take “a long, serious look at their projects.”

 

Over the past 12 years, the number of earmarks tripled to 16,000 accounting for $64 billion a year in spending, figures cited by the Times reveal.

Democratic Congressional leaders have vowed to require the sponsors of earmarks to identify themselves. But critics say that may not do much to rein in earmarks. Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, said both Democrats and Republicans have shown that “there is no longer any embarrassment” in sponsoring an obvious piece of pork barrel legislation.

While it wasn’t one of the major factors in their demise of the GOP, I think pork barrel spending did contribute.  The Dems were given a mandate for change and they should not waste their opportunity by maintaining the status quo.

—

Speaking of the Dems, Pelosi may have learned her lesson after the Hoyer-Murtha battle.  She has decided to rescind her support of Alcee Hastings as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

—

Thomas Sowell discusses a book by Arthur C. Brooks that looks at the differences between liberals and conservatives.  On the subject of charitable giving it turns out that conservatives are more giving, despite earning 6% less than liberals.  The bottom line is that conservatives are more willing to give away their own money, while liberals are more willing to give away other people’s money through government welfare programs.

—

Neal Boortz has kept in front of the story in Atlanta about the 88 (or 92) year old woman who was gunned down in her home by police.  Quick synopsis: police exercised a no-knock warrant and barged into the elderly woman’s home in one of the most crime ridden parts of Georgia.  She was armed and fired on the officers, hitting three.  They shot her to death in response.  A small amount of marijuana was found in her house.  The moral of the story: our nation’s war on drugs inflicts far too much collateral damage.

Here is a great resource published by the Cato Institute.  It is a map showing botched paramilitary style raids all across the country.  At the top of the page is this ominous quote:

“If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern.”

 —Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.

—

Slate has the particulars on the left’s Googlebombing exploits in the lead up to the recent midterm election.  This goes to show that the left, which tends to enamor many youths, has the technological edge in unsavory political strategies.  The right still uses Paleolithic techniques like the robocalls.

—

A cashier at Auburn University’s large animal clinic has been accused of stealing over $80,000.

—

Update: I almost forgot one story…

A U.S. judge has ruled that our paper money is illegal because it is all the same size, making it impossible for the visually impaired to distinguish different bills.

Judge James Robertson, in a ruling on a suit by the American Council of the Blind, ordered the Treasury to devise a method to tell bills apart. 

The judge wrote that the current configuration of paper money violates the Rehabilitation Act’s guarantee of “meaningful access.”

“It can no longer be successfully argued that a blind person has ‘meaningful access’ to currency if she cannot accurately identify paper money without assistance,” Robertson wrote in his ruling.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Tuesday, November 28th, 2006 at 11:14 pm and is filed under News & Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.