I'm sure we can all agree that freedom of speech isn't free

It seems that a group of Muslim students in Univ. of Calif. Irving disrupted a speech given by Israel's ambassador to the U.S. They were suspended for semester as a result. Pretty harsh in and of itself, but now the Orange County District Attorney wants to prosecute the students for conspiracy to disturb a public meeting.

Over-zealous prosecutor? Singling out Muslims for exercising their right to assemble and speech? Oh, I don't know, maybe yes and yes?

But then there's this gem.

Since the charges against the students were filed on Friday, the district attorney has come under fire from several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The chancellor’s office has not taken any position on the prosecution, but on Wednesday, 100 faculty members urged Mr. Rackauckas to drop the charges.

But Mr. Rackauckas is showing no signs of backing down.

A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, Susan Schroeder, said in an interview: “It seems that the basic question is what if we substituted different groups — what if this were the Klu Klux Klan who conspired to silence a speech by Martin Luther King.”

An excellent argument to be sure. As we all know, the ACLU has been highly selective in who the organization will represent.

Nu huh!

A new study is making the rounds which claims to prove that liberals are smarter than conservatives via a study of evolutionary psychology. PZ Meyers writes that it's bo-o-gus.

And then look at the source: Satoshi Kanazawa, the Fenimore Cooper of Sociobiology, the professional fantasist of Psychology Today. He's like the poster boy for the stupidity and groundlessnessof freakishly fact-free evolutionary psychology. Just ignore anything with Kanazawa's name on it.

Roy writes that that's good enough for him, but also knows this to be bo-o-gus based on, ya know, actual interaction with people.

David Broder typed this in the garage with the car running

Shorter Dean of Washington: Voters will punish them if Democrats in Congress don't give Senate Republicans what they want.

Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.

One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.

Yes, he wrote that.

Broder, seems blissfully unaware that Democrats "control" the Senate 50-49-1 and Republicans have, basically, filibustered every bill until it met their requirements, whether it meant unfettered power for the president, non-regulation of pretty much everything, torture, etc. He seems even less sentient when he writes, "leave it up to him to make any compromises." Bush has never compromised and he's got 50 loyal boot lickers in the Senate, including Joe Lieberman.

But that's the Democrats' fault.

Previewing Republican talking points

Stupid.

I mean, Shaheen's probably correct in saying that the GOP hit squads will target Obama for pretty much everything he's written in his two books, but that doesn't mean it's valuable to raise this now. And, besides, smoking pot? Who fucking cares? Hell, this might even help Obama among the farmers of Iowa. Just makes Clinton look increasingly desperate.

"Ha, ha, Ted"

Jesus Christ, Goldberg is a fucking idiot.

Let's see. Ted Kennedy said the tapes were destroyed in response to the Democratic victory in 2006 in order to cover administration tracks in a Watergate-like cover-up. The tapes were actually destroyed in 2005, on the decision of career CIA officials (You know: the Valerie Plame crowd) and the lawyers gave them a greenlight. Nice try Ted, thanks for playing and please take this home version of the Bloviator is Wrong as a consolation prize.

The key takeaway from the destruction of these tapes is 1.) It can't be a "Watergate-like cover up," because it took place in 2005, and 2.) it's a perfect opportunity to discredit....Valerie Plame...a nuclear proliferation expert.

Glad we cleared that up.

And this is from an op-ed writer for the LATimes. We live in a modern Athens.

Grammar -- mere leftwing framing?

Teh stupid just won't go away.

Clearly we are reaching the end times when the right-wing is asserting that punctuation and hyperlinks have a left-wing bias.