Education; Education; Education!

Folks, another huge "cut and paste" effort here. Do not start this post if you only have 5 minutes.

I start with an Associated Press piece published in the Boston Globe today that speaks of the economic gap between blacks and whites during this time of economic prosperity. The second is a grown-up discussion on local Massachusetts education reform, also from today's Boston Globe. I end with an exchange between President Bush and the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, during the third presidential debate held on October 13, 2004. I honestly think I was the only person that fell off his chair when I originally heard the exchange as I never read any professional commentary on Sen. Kerry's completely out-of-touch statement. Do not jump ahead. I accept all of the facts of the National Urban League in the first story; I lament the League is short on solutions to the problem, however. That's OK, read on. Mature, thoughtful, leaders do provide solutions.

Blacks left behind as economy improves, Urban League says; Report indicates gap with whites in well-being

By Erin Texeira, Associated Press March 29, 2006

NEW YORK -- Even though the economy has picked up, stubborn gaps between blacks and whites remain -- a reality highlighted by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, the National Urban League reports in a new study.

''Two years ago, we saw that things were tough, but there was a recession," Urban League president Marc H. Morial said. ''Now that things are better, we're still suffering. The jobless recovery is a real thing for black Americans."

The Urban League's annual State of Black America report, released yesterday, pulls together government data and academic analysis to measure black progress and problems. The nearly 300-page report includes charts, essays, and suggested policy changes.

For three years, blacks' overall well-being compared with whites has stagnated, the report says. Although some African-Americans are prospering, in economics, health, education, social justice, and civic engagement, blacks generally fare about three-quarters as well as whites, the report noted, citing figures from Global Insight Inc., an economic analysis company.

Government data indicate that black Americans have more than double the rates of infant mortality, unemployment, and poverty as whites, the report also notes.

Owning a home is the way most Americans accumulate wealth, writes Lance Freeman, a Columbia University urban planning professor. In 2004, 49.1 percent of blacks owned homes, the highest rate ever. Still, that was 25 percentage points lower than for whites, and blacks' homes were worth less, Freeman writes. Census data in 2000 indicated that blacks had barely one-10th the net worth of whites.

Another essay analyzes causes and effects of the nation's ballooning prison rolls. George Curry, an editor at the National Newspaper Publishers Association, writes that harsher laws for drug offenders led to a doubling of prison and jail populations in the 1990s. Curry cites a Justice Policy study which found that, by 2000, there were more African-American men in prison and jail (791,600) than in higher education (603,000).

''When we send [students] to college instead of prison," Curry writes, ''we strengthen them, their families, and our country in the process." (Blogger's Note: Amen!)

Morial, former mayor of New Orleans, writes that the nation's attention was turned to the plight of poor Americans during Hurricane Katrina. He called the storm and flood that hit the Gulf Coast last August ''this generation's Bloody Sunday," referring to the March 1965 civil rights march in Alabama that focused the nation's attention on racial segregation in the South.

''Unfortunately," he writes, ''the initial flurry of concern and attention to poverty and injustice has given way to the status quo." (End of first article.)

Taking on the teachers unions

By Frederick M. Hess and Martin R. West March 29, 2006

IT IS RARE -- and risky -- for a governor and national political aspirant to put the interests of children above those of a constituency that has as much electoral clout as the teachers unions. Yet Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has done just that with the education reform package he proposed last September and is touting nationwide.

The governor's bill seeks to upend the status quo in teacher pay and evaluation that has been written into collective bargaining agreements across the Commonwealth. Specifically, it would offer annual bonuses for teachers with a math or science degree who pass the teacher test in their subject, forgo tenure, and receive a satisfactory year-end evaluation. It would also make teachers in all subjects eligible for a bonus upon receiving an exemplary evaluation and empower superintendents to reward teachers who work in low-performing schools. Crucially, the bill would remove teacher evaluation from the collective bargaining process and establish statewide criteria for assessing each teacher's ''contribution to student learning."
While several states and districts nationwide are experimenting with differential pay for teachers, Romney's proposals are noteworthy for their breadth and the size of the proposed bonuses. All told, an effective math or science teacher could receive up to $15,000 a year in three bonuses.

Catherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, predictably criticized Romney's proposals as ''inequitable, divisive, and ineffective." The MTA denounced the proposal as ''uniquely designed to destroy collegiality in a school," ignoring the fact that performance pay is routine in such other professions as medicine, law, and engineering, not to mention in the Commonwealth's first-rate universities, including those that are unionized by the MTA.

The governor can expect a similarly abrupt reception nationwide -- a fact he should consider as he eyes a presidential run. Teachers unions control enormous political resources, including a network of readily mobilized voters. Moreover, the public likes to think that the interests of teachers and kids are always aligned, a line tirelessly advanced by the unions. The National Education Association's political action committee even bills itself as the ''Fund for Children and Public Education."

However, what the unions want may not always be good for students. Teacher pay is exhibit one. While unions have fought to boost salaries, they have resisted efforts to ensure that this money recruits, rewards, and retains the most essential or effective teachers. Current pay scales reward teachers only for experience and graduate credits, neither of which is a meaningful predictor of quality. The result is that districts reward long-serving veterans while failing to recognize those teachers who improve student achievement, possess high-demand skills, or take on more challenging assignments.

Proposals to revamp collective bargaining by tackling teacher pay are only a start. Teacher collective bargaining agreements extend far beyond bread and butter matters, frequently privileging the interests of employees over those of students.

Across the nation, contracts include clauses that prohibit principals from factoring student achievement into teacher evaluation (Blogger's Note: Say what?!), that allow senior teachers to claim the most desirable school and classroom assignments, and that engage in a dazzling array of minutiae, such as when teachers are allowed to wear an NEA membership pin. As a result, schools are organized and managed more like mid-20th century factories than professional 21st century centers of learning. None of this serves students, valuable teachers, or communities.

Improving teacher collective bargaining is not only a question of knowing what to do, but of persuading school boards and the public to tackle the issue. State policymakers must change the environment in which negotiations take place by maintaining pressure on local officials to raise student achievement. Local newspapers must shine light on contract provisions that serve adults rather than children. School boards and superintendents need to push for fundamental changes in contract language and fully exploit ambiguous language where it exists. Civic leaders and citizens must support management measures that may entail, at least initially, disgruntled unions and increased labor unrest.

Since 1993, education reform in Massachusetts has been a bipartisan triumph, accomplishing both a dramatic leveling of the financial playing field between wealthy and poor school districts and the creation of a nationally recognized accountability system. Building on that start is no short journey, but overhauling teacher collective bargaining is the crucial next step. It would be something if Romney did not have to take it on alone. (End of second article.)

If you're still with me, congratulations, hang in there, we're almost done.

From the web site Debates.org, I finally found the transcript of the "jobs" question from October 13, 2004:

SCHIEFFER (moderator): Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. Two minutes. And let's continue on jobs.

You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual.

Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?

BUSH (Blogger's Note: A person that gets the correlation between education and good paying jobs and the impact good paying jobs have on owning a house and participating in a growing economy by being part of the ownership society): I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century.

And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.

We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.

You know, there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works (Blogger's Note: re-read the previous seven words).

I went to Washington to solve problems. And I saw a problem in the public education system in America. They were just shuffling too many kids through the system, year after year, grade after grade, without learning the basics.

And so we said: Let's raise the standards. We're spending more money, but let's raise the standards and measure early and solve problems now, before it's too late.

No, education is how to help the person who's lost a job. Education is how to make sure we've got a workforce that's productive and competitive.

Got four more years, I've got more to do to continue to raise standards, to continue to reward teachers and school districts that are working, to emphasize math and science in the classrooms, to continue to expand Pell Grants to make sure that people have an opportunity to start their career with a college diploma.

And so the person you talked to, I say, here's some help, here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. And that's what I would say to that person.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?

KERRY (Blogger's Note: A person that could not complete a connect-the-dots picture if the only two numbers on the picture were "1" and "2"): I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education principally. (End of debate excerpt.)

The economy, jobs, outsourcing, unemployment, home ownership, capital gains taxes, the prison population, teacher unions and beholden Democrats, school vouchers, school choice, dare I say the 2000 Presidential election, two-parent families, race-relations, and abortion, they are all connected to EDUCATION. Good education begins (continues?) a cycle of positive developments. Poor education begins (again, continues?) a cycle of negative developments. Education, to borrow an expression from a popular prime time television show, is the "silver bullet". When any of these topics is discussed, assess how it relates to education and education reform. Assess who is providing a solution (Cleveland and Philadelphia are participating in solutions; a big shout out to Democrat Mayor John Street in Philly, by the way) and who has nothing to offer but criticism (usually those that are asked to be accountable). Gov. Jeb Bush has shown tremendous initiative in Florida only to be thwarted by the same State Supreme Court that thought selective election recounts was a good idea. Assess the agenda of all the parties. And, then, of course, vote your conscience and intellect.

Congrats if you hung in there with me to the end.

On a lighter side, this was an education post, if anyone came across a grammar (subject/verb disagreement) or usage (when I type quickly I'm vulnerable to "their" when I mean "they're") or other error, let us all know. Teaching and learning should never stop.

When is a racial slur a racial slur?

Last week, talk show host Dave Lenihan of KTRS (St. Louis) was fired shortly after making the following on-air-comments about Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State for the United States of America, and the prospects of her becoming the next Commissioner of the National Football League:

"She's been chancellor of Stanford. She's got the patent resume of somebody that has serious skill. She loves football. She's African-American, which would kind of be a big coon (he meant "coup"). Oh my God. I am totally, totally, totally, totally, totally sorry for that. I didn't mean that. It was just a slip of the tongue. She's definitely got all the attributes to be commissioner. I'm really sorry about that."

Soon after the comments, the phone lines lit up and soon after that, the station announced Mr. Lenihan was fired.

There are reports that the local NAACP chapter president called the station and after learning of the firing, commended the station for its swift action.

Contrast the above with the following March, 2001 comments of one of my favorite whipping boys, the Dean of Democrats, the "conscience of the Senate", the only Senator to vote against the U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, a man that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for over 13 hours, ex-Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert Byrd:

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

The apology, if you can call it that, came in the form of a press statement and not at a microphone:

"I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race. In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people."

Of course, I think Mr. Lenihan's slip-of-the-tongue is offensive, but I also recognize he apologized immediately. Also, if you read the whole text of his comments, he was praising Dr. Rice before and after the comment. He was championing her for the NFL post.

And, naturally, I think ex-Klansman Byrd's comments are more offensive. Yet, practically no one in the liberal media gave a second look to his comments. Ironically, ex-Klanman Byrd opposed Dr. Rice as Secretary of State. The vote in the Senate in January, 2005 was 85 - 13. Sen. Byrd was a very loud "no". Hmmm. Racial slurs and a voting and legislative history that suggests a racist. The "Dean of Democrats"; the Democrats must be so proud.

Just as a footnote, my U.S. Senators, Edward Kennedy and the Great Equivocator, John F. Kerry, also voted against the first African-American woman to be U.S. Secretary of State.

The agenda-pushers and race-baiters are still in control. Those wanting an honest race-relations conversation are not.

Apparently, a racial slur is most definitely not a racial slur when a "prominent" Democrat says it; I refuse to accept that as the standard. I wish the president of the local chapter of the NAACP in St. Louis felt the same way; I wish any Democrat in the Senate felt the same: I wish that any liberal media outlet felt the same; what a shame none does.

Stop the Presses! Liberals recognize the PEOPLE!

The following Associated Press story appeared in the Boston Globe today:

Opponents want vote on state's abortion ban

SIOUX FALLS -- Opponents of South Dakota's new ban on nearly all abortions began a petition drive yesterday to let voters decide its fate. The law, among the strictest in the nation, is scheduled to take effect July 1, but will automatically be placed on hold if opponents collect the 16,728 signatures necessary for a voter referendum. In announcing the drive, State Representative Elaine Roberts (D) said she doesn't believe lawmakers have represented the will of the people. (End of AP story.)

Well, at least one Democrat acknowledges the people. It's a start, I guess.

Twister: Democrats' Iraq Policy Version

Six days from my last post and I'm struggling to find something to write about. There have been 206,943 articles about the President's falling poll numbers and an ever increasingly "unpopular war" in Iraq and the bright prospects for the Democrats to clean-up in November. Maybe I can pull something together. Oh, I know . . .

Please, can a Democrat write in and tell me the position of the Democratic Party on the war on terror and the war in Iraq? I'm so bloody confused by party leaders saying things like, "I actually voted for it before I voted against it," that I don't know where they stand.

Oh, and can anyone tell me what the heck a "popular" war is? I'm picturing Washingtonians taking carriages out to picnic and watch the first Battle of Bull Run. War is either "necessary" or "unnecessary"; let's discuss that. I truly don't know how to talk to people that think of war in terms of "popular" and "unpopular".

I believe the war in Iraq and the war on terror are necessary.

Anyway, a few things for Democrats contemplating a reply to keep in mind:

On September 20, 2001, the President of the United States, the global leader in the war on terror, George W. Bush said, "This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion . . . Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success . . . And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism . . . I ask for your patience . . . for your patience in what will be a long struggle (google 'president bush, address to the country, terrorist attacks' for full text)." What words do sunshine Democrats need help defining? Lengthy? Patience? Long?

On March 19, 2003, in announcing the beginning of the war in Iraq, the President said, "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict (google, 'president bush, iraq, March 2003, war)." Do Democrats and other Bush-haters not know what "longer" and "more difficult" mean?

On November 18, 2005, Rep. Jack Murtha voted with 402 other members of the House, 186 of them Democrats, in voting down a measure calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Sen. Hillary Clinton wrote the following to her constituents on November 29, 2005, "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."

On December 8, 2005, Sen. John F. Kerry called for 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq into 2007 (Boston Globe, December 9).

Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant wrote the following on December 15, 2005, "The President has also continued to be dishonest about what is about to happen in Iraq in terms of the American armed forces. The truth is that after a brief interval, the more than 20,000 extra troops brought in for the run-up to the elections will be withdrawn. Shortly after the first of the year, the force level will be reduced still further because people returning to this country as part of regularly, already scheduled rotations in the combat zone will not be replaced. That will have the effect of cutting the force level still more - probably to about 120,000. In other words, though Bush would insist that everything depends on how the war is going, the United States has plans to remove about one-third of its forces over the next three or four months. Just for the record, that is not any different from what supposedly antiwar Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania has said should happen over the same period." That's right, Tom, George and Jack agree, so why the Bush bashing?; the knife (logic) cuts both ways.

I believe that at least 2,500 Americans would be dead today if the U.S. did not remove Saddam Hussein from power. Obviously, we will never know. If my Sophie's Choice is 2,500 innocent American civilians or 2,500 military personnel, I choose the military personnel every time.

Again, if anyone can articulate what Gov. Dean, Sens. Clinton and Kerry, Reps. Pelosi and Murtha, and a host of others cannot, I'd love to hear from you.

Barry Bonds and Racism

This was a letter the Letters Editor thought was worthy of publishing in the Boston Globe today. I'm not going to print the authors name; anyone interested in knowing can simply go to boston.com/today's paper/opinion and get the information. Anyway, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say "race-baiters" and "agenda-pushers":

(Begin letter). Where does all this hatred for Barry Bonds come from anyway? I have never seen more hatred for a man who has nothing to do with people who live in New England. What is it that drives so many people so crazy about this one baseball player in San Francisco? I guess it's the new and old drug allegations against him and that he more than likely took steroids. There are just as many accusations against Lance Armstrong but everyone seems to believe in him, or at the very least there isn't this hatred for him. Perhaps it is Bonds's family history of relationships and failed marriages. But Larry Bird refuses to even speak to his illegitimate daughter and yet no one seems to care. Oh, I get it, it's the steroids. But isn't it just as obvious that Mark McGwire took steroids, and yet no one seems to care about him. I guess it's the way he hates the media, but again Bill Parcells picks on the media all the time and is forgiven. I hate to tell all you nonracist, progressive New Englanders, but it's because he's black. That's right, I pulled the race card, and I say the race card because that is what everyone will call it. It is the only thing that separates Bonds from the rest. People in this area can't stand an arrogant, successful black athlete who has contempt for the media. They can forgive him if he's white, but not black. (End of letter.)

Again, this is what the Boston Globe thinks adds to the public discourse on racism.

The letter I wrote in response:

Editor,

I'm white.

In the greatest movie of all time, Field of Dreams, actor James Earl Jones, an African-American, gives the most moving defense of baseball that I have ever heard. He says, near the very end of the movie, " . . . The one constant through all the years, Ray (the lead character played by Kevin Costner), has been baseball. America's been ruled by it like an army of steamrollers . . . Baseball has marked the time . . . It (baseball) reminds us of all that was once good . . . and could be again . . . . "

There are many things wrong with today's letter by Name Withheld (Fury over Bonds comes down to race, March 17), but, to just focus on one, the implication that the "people who live in New England" hate Mr. Barry Bonds because he is an "arrogant, successful black athlete who has contempt for the media" is harmful, outrageous and simply has no place in an honest, improving-race-relations, conversation.

I cheer against Mr. Bonds because I cheer for Mr. Hank Aaron, an African-American, one of the most humble and decent men to ever play baseball, and whose conduct during his pursuit of the career home run record was heroic. Mr. Aaron "reminds us of all that was once good . . . and could be again." I'm positive there are many "people who live in New England", white and black and Latino and Asian and Native American, as well as people that live in other corners of the Country, who share this view. (End of letter.)

Some quick additional thoughts:

I do feel sorry for the letter writer for he apparently has no appreciation for the wonderful game of baseball and how dearly so many Americans treasure the sport; the love of the sport certainly reaches from San Francisco to baseball-rabid Boston with no effort at all. The love of the sport reaches Tokyo, for goodness sakes. Japan is moving on in the World Baseball Classic; the USA is not.

If McGwire were pursuing the Aaron record, he most definitely would be treated roughly by "the people who live in New England". I don't think the "people (does the letter writer mean 'white people', by the way?) who live in New England" have any love for Rafeal Palmeiro, but he also is not in pursuit of Hank Aaron.

The French Nationals hate Lance Armstrong; how could Americans NOT love him? Obviously, the letter writer never saw Lance climb L'Alpe d'Huez, lungs on fire, with French citizens spitting in his face. LIVESTRONG, baby!

Admin. Note: My goodness, 8 comments to the March 15 post, a new record. I thank all that have contributed. To the "anonymouses", it's a handful more keystrokes, how about a clever name instead?

Another Live One!

First, if you haven't been here in a while, there have been five posts in the last six days; make sure you treat yourself to all of it; there's stuff on kooky Hollywood, politically tone-deaf Hillary Clinton, and much on abortion, racism and freedom of thought.

Second, please read the comments by "Conscience" at March 3 and March 6.

Conscience has offered up the following challenge to my freedom of thought post from March 3: "Should there not be a distinction between murder and manslaughter? The principal difference is intent. So, the behavior may be the same, but the thought behind is different, thereby justifying different punishment."

Yeah, I guess that would be a good question, if that was what I was talking about; I mean, if we were comparing apples to tomatoes, I guess that would be a good question. What I'm saying is that if a husband shoots his wife to death, he doesn't get extra punishment for saying, "die, witch (or similar)" when he pulls the trigger instead of just keeping his mouth shut. I think murder is murder; is not the hate implied? I'd love to hear from Conscience or anyone else that thinks the husband gets more punishment for adding the comment. Or, does anyone seriously think the husband should get extra punishment if he admits in court, "And, by the way, I hated her"? (Bailiff #1 to Bailiff #2, both standing in the back of the courtroom, "Uh, dude, we kinda figured that when you pumped 17 rounds from a Glock 9mm into her torso and head.")

I, of course, think exceptional penalties could exist for how a murder is committed. If a wife puts her very-much-alive husband into the woodchipper, feet first, instead of poisoning him to death first, then I'm OK if the State has a punishment clause for the behavior. A "heinous crimes clause" if you will. I need to add this clarification lest a commenter challenge my "murder is murder" phrase from above.

Reducing my comments from March 3, to a comparison between just the precise moment the dying event takes place in a murder and a manslaughter is ridiculous. It sounds like Conscience is prepared to conceptually argue rape and consensual sexual intercourse are the same thing except for the thoughts of the participants.

As anyone that has read my December 14, 2005 post knows, I think all racism is vile. All racism should be reduced . . . just not by passing laws criminalizing racist thoughts. I'm simply not prepared to "punish" a female Native American that thinks she's going to win a math contest just because her opponent is a Caucasian. As disgusting as the female's thought is, how can a society possibly legislate and police such a vile thought? It can't. Are we all to wear thought monitors plugged into a National Thought Monitoring Agency? Will the NTMA be staffed by ACLU-types? Cato Institute-types? Are they political appointees? Maybe ex-Klansman, Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV) has some suggestions on who should work at the NTMA, my goodness, does an appointer owe the Senator any political favors? I think Society has to do the best it can to reduce (I'm not optimistic enough to think it can be eliminated) racism through education. Education starts with identifying real racism and calling-out the race-baiters when they race-bait; education starts with people that honestly want to reduce racism having honest conversations about racism. The agenda-pushers should check their agenda at the door.

Conscience did make some excellent points in a comment to my March 6 post on abortion. Though, I think she thought I was primarily arguing for the abolishment of abortion when, in fact and word (about 96% of the words I wrote), I was primarily arguing against what will surely be the pro-abortion argument against any abortion restrictions -- that the right to abortion is absolute. If Conscience wants to comment on the absolute right to abortion, I welcome the comments. If Conscience wants to introduce any one of a trillion topics that I didn't primarily address in my March 6 post, I guess she could, but I think it would be more relevant to comment on what I actually addressed.

I do, of course, agree with all of Conscience's arguments against abortion, however clumsily introduced they were. I incorporate her three arguments, in toto, into my March 6 post; I substitute them for my phrase "make an argument" found in the last paragraph. The brilliantly and succinctly worded arguments are certainly enough to convince a State Legislature and a Governor.

Honest debate on hate crimes?

In my February 15, 2005 post, I cut and pasted an excellent column on "hate crimes" by Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe. Below is what the Letters Editor of the Boston Globe thinks passes for an honest debate on the subject (the letter writer was mentioned in Mr. Jacoby's column; I said in my Feb. 15 post the letters against Mr. Jacoby would run greater than the letters in support; no, I never tire of being right):

(Beginning of letter.) New light shed on hate crime debate, March 14, 2006

On Feb. 15, Jeff Jacoby wrote about the church burnings in Alabama, criticizing me, among others, for saying that there was no evidence as yet that the arsons were hate crimes (''The flames of hate in Alabama," op-ed).

''If anything is a hate crime," the apparently omniscient Jacoby wrote, 'obviously this is." Well, now it turns out that Jacoby is utterly wrong (''3 college students arrested in Ala. church arsons," Page A3, March 9).

Just as I suggested in my remarks at the time, officials now say the attacks were carried out by thrill-seeking young people, not hate criminals.

Jacoby's obvious intent was to pillory people he imagined were anxious to discard any possibility of the attacks being anti-Christian hate crimes, and that group, apparently, included what he described as the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, where I am a director.

Such crimes, Jacoby suggested, were merely less interesting to the left. But, of course, that was not my motivation. My point was simply that there was no evidence yet supporting that idea, and that anti-Christian hate crimes were relatively rare in the South. Jacoby obviously doesn't like hate crime legislation, organizations like SPLC that seek to battle hate groups, or the need for actual evidence to support the opinions he is so very quick to spout.

Mark Potok, Montgomery, Ala. (End of letter.)

Now, go to my February 15 post and read Mr. Jacoby's entire column.

First, Mr. Jacoby doesn't believe in hate crimes, so Mr. Potok's out-of-context quote is disingenuous. Second, more than half of Mr. Jacoby's column is unimpeachable; if the buildings burned were those of the groups he cites, there definitely would have been howls of "hate crime!"; the facts in the Alabama church burnings do not change this charge, nor has Mr. Potok written anything to challenge this charge, nor can anyone seriously deny the charge. And, if the buildings burned in the hypothetical cases cited by Mr. Jacoby were also determined to have been burned as pranks, some agenda-pushers would have ignored these facts and held the victimized group still suffered a hate crime. Many in the hate crime crowd would still claim all of the victimization attributed with a hate crime; this cannot be denied.

As Mr. Potok believes in hate crimes, it is asinine for him to argue there was "no evidence" of such. The fact that these were not hate crimes (again, his words), does not mean there was "no evidence". If these were hate crimes (again, a phrase he recognizes, not me) would the 10 Baptist churches burned be evidence? Of course they would. The churches would be the primary evidence! I believe the 10 churches are not "no evidence"; they most assuredly are "evidence", though. My goodness, physical evidence is not only evidence when it supports your desired conclusion only to be dismissed if it doesn't.

And, yes, it is better to let all the evidence be gathered before conclusions are drawn. It is absolutely true that many people draw conclusions too quickly and too irresponsibly based on incomplete evidence; Tawana Brawley, Charles Stuart and Willie Bennett are names from cases that come immediately to mind.

Arson is a crime. Do people really want to try and legislate that it makes a difference whether the arsonist hates white buildings, hates churches, thought it would be funny, loves large fires, loves the sound of fire engine sirens, thought firemen in oxygen masks risking their lives was exciting, loves the sound of water gushing out of a hose, or any other reason when she put the match to the accelerant? And, how, exactly, are we going to determine which thought was the last thought through the arsonist's head?

George Clooney and ZACKlyRight Agree!

Please read my posts of November 12 and 21, 2005 again.

Then, read Mr. George Clooney's recent comments on the incompetent and cowardly Democrats in Congress at www.huffingtonpost.com.

President Bush, a high-profile liberal and a high-profile conservative agree. Things are indeed improving.

In the past, I've cut and pasted entire posts and articles here. I'd appreciate knowing from the readers if you appreciate this effort or if you're OK going to the original post yourself. Please let me know.

The upside of referring you to the Clooney comments is that my blog maintains its PG - 13 rating; the comments do contain two pretty foul words.

Finally, don't miss the March 6 post on the PEOPLE placing restrictions on abortion and the March 3 post on freedom of thought.

Dubai Ports World

Rarely do I agree with the Boston Globe, but here is today's lead editorial and, except for the two or three gratuitous shots at President Bush, I agree with the Globe. On the political spectrum, in the United States, the Boston Globe and I are pretty far apart. Yet, we basically agree on this issue. If anyone does not agree with a right-leaning taxpayer and a left-wing newspaper that agree with each other, then the person that does not agree just might be outside the mainstream (yes, an extremist).

Earlier this week, I made my first and only comments on the ports deal and my primary comment was the political tone-deafness of Sen. Hillary Clinton. A commenter asked me about my Michigan reference. Let me explain: As the students of Presidential politics know, the liberal media desperately wanted the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, to defeat President Bush in 2004. One of the tactics of the propagandists was to agitate the Arab-Americans such that they would support the Great Equivocator en mass (the liberals and Democrats are doing the stereotyping here, as they do with all ethnicities, races and religions; I think most Arab-Americans vote their wallets just like all other Americans). Anyway, over and over and over the polls came out of Detroit, you know, home to a "large Arab-American population", that said Kerry was going to clean up with the Arab-American vote. And, yes, the county that Detroit resides in (I'm not researching the name; forgive me; you can find it by googling "2004 presidential election" and choose the CNN reference that pops up and click your way through to Michigan) voted for the Great Equivocator by 300,000 - 400,000 votes. Kerry carried Michigan, and its 17 electoral votes, by about 150,000 votes. Conclusion by liberal extremists that wanted to think Arabs hated Bush: Arabs hate Bush. Fine, that knife cuts both ways. How is Sen. Clinton going to convince this voting bloc she's not a bigot? I can't wait to see the equivocations. The liberal media will, of course, do everything it can to assist the Senator.

Anyway, the lead editorial for the Boston Globe today:

No Port in the Storm; March 11, 2006

XENOPHOBIA -- an ugly isolationism with overtones of ethnic bias -- was the only winner this week when a white-collar American mob forced an Arab-owned company out of a deal to manage several US ports.

The Dubai-owned firm DP World, in the United Arab Emirates, was gracious in bowing to the bullying of Congress and the pleading of the Bush administration to end their pain. But the cost was heavy.

President Bush was a big loser, despite having a sensible policy. There was no reason for the administration to reject the deal under which DP World bought the management contracts for facilities in New York, Miami, and other eastern US ports from a British company. It was a small transaction in the global economy. Yet Bush and his aides should have known that demagogues would pounce on the news.

The deal should have been given a 45-day review that was more thorough and public than the one it received. Bush should have made sure that congressional leaders of both parties understood that the deal was not a major departure and would not undermine port security. But Bush did none of this, and he was bewildered when opposition erupted.

It is astounding how often bad news comes out of this administration, and how often Bush is surprised by it. On his heels from the start, Bush defended his policy but failed to rescue it, looking bad in the effort. Now, DP World's withdrawal may have stanched the bleeding, but it has left Bush weaker than ever.

Congressional Democrats also were losers for joining so gleefully in the anti-Arab fearmongering. Obviously thrilled that they were making Bush look inept on national security, the Democrats forgot to consider the global impact, or to check basic facts. Senator Hillary Clinton said, ''Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments," ignoring the facts that most US ports are now managed by foreign companies and that, under the DP World deal, security would still come from the US Coast Guard and the US Customs Service.

Congressional Republicans were instant losers when they mindlessly abandoned their president and scrambled to join the attack. Several pointed out that two of the Sept. 11, 2001, attackers had come from Dubai, but few noted that Dubai is among the strongest US allies in the Middle East, cleared by the Pentagon to receive some of the most sophisticated weaponry available.

Most troubling is the damage from the whole shameful episode to America's position in the world. If Americans distrust all Arabs, they will have little reason to return that trust. Bush warned against isolationism earlier this year, but has shown himself incapable of fighting it. (End of editorial.)

On Sunday, March 5, I wrote, " . . . the UAE ports thing is a big snooze for me. I don't write a blog for today's headlines or even tomorrow's. I can see further than the next news cycle. The tone deafness on the UAE port issue will come home to roost in the spring of 2008 when Hillary Clinton, the xenaphobic bigot, gets trounced in the Michigan Democratic primary by someone less bigoted. Trust me, I will be cutting and pasting this call into a post two years from now . . . well, provided I'm not a syndicated columnist for the Wall Street Journal." I'm ZACKlyRight . . . and first . . . again.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment XIV - Section 1. - All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law (Sections 2 - 5 not applicable).

I'm not a First Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. The Amendment, as literally written, and modified for punctuation, says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Even strict constructionists recognize libel laws, slander laws, and prohibitions against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute.

I'm not a Second Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. I think States can deny its citizens howitzers if the PEOPLE pass such a law. A person that wants a howitzer cannot prevail against the State by proclaiming a Second Amendment protection. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not absolute.

I'm not a fourteenth Amendment absolutist; only extremists are. Somewhere in the language above, the U.S. Supreme Court created a right to abortion. Okay, maybe the extremely brilliant (or heavily intoxicated or high) can find the right to abortion in the language, but just for fun, let's say the Constitution explicitly mentioned the right to abortion. Does anyone think by the time the Framers got to Amendment XIV they would have arrived at a right that was "absolute"? Of course not. Only an idiot or an ideologue would think so. If the PEOPLE want to make a law restricting when a woman (or a little girl!) can "elect" an abortion, they can. They simply can. If the very first Amendment, the very first right the Framers wanted to guarantee to its citizenry, is not absolute, if the very next Amendment, the second right the Framers wanted to guarantee, is not absolute, then a manufactured right in the Fourteenth Amendment is most definitely not absolute.

If the PEOPLE want to prohibit partial-birth abortions, the law prohibiting is not unconstitutional; the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced it would hear the challenge to the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. If the PEOPLE want to require parental notification prior to an abortion for girls that cannot legally drive a car, buy a pack of cigarettes, or buy a beer, the law requiring is not unconstitutional. If the PEOPLE, suspecting statutory rape, want to require abortion providers to provide data on underage girls seeking abortions for the purpose of prosecuting a statutory rapist, the law requiring is not unconstitutional. If the PEOPLE require abortion providers to be formally trained, the law requiring is not constitutional.

Of course, my position is there is no constitutional right to abortion. But, if the PEOPLE want to permit it, they can. Make an argument and convince the State Legislature and the Governor. If the PEOPLE want to ban it, they can. And as we all know from reading this space, elections matter. If you're not happy with the direction of any law, try to elect representatives that agree with your position.

The USA PATRIOT Act; Maj. Tammy Duckworth

With modest changes, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was renewed by a whopping 89 - 10 vote in the United States Senate. My newspaper, the liberally extreme Boston Globe, buried the story in the middle of the A section. Since most of the print media is liberal, I suspect many of you might have missed the news as many of your papers undoubtedly buried the story as well. The liberal media hates the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.

Anyway, check this out, 9 more Senators voted against this legislation that apparently had more civil liberty protections (what they all claim the legislation needed more of) than the original Act. How are these dopes going to explain their votes in 2001 to their constituencies? Oh, the liberal media will never ask them the question; I guess they won't have to say they were wrong in 2001. I guess they won't have to admit to voting for "feel good" legislation over principle. Great courage that!

One of the chameleons is liberal extremist, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT). Senator Leahy was a co-sponsor of the original Act! (The others, just for the record: Akaka (HI), Bingaman (NM), Harkin (IA), Murray (WA), Wyden (OR), Byrd (also an ex-KKK member, WV), Levin (MI), and Jeffords (VT); Inouye (HI), a WWII war hero, did not vote.)

For the record, Sen. Hillary Clinton was also a co-sponsor of the original Act. Of course, she voted for the renewal.

When the liberals start complaining about the Act, I hope they save some criticism for my Sens. John F. Kerry and Ted Kennedy, who voted for the Act . . . again. I'm positive, the Great Equivocator will come out with some stupid statement in the future disavowing his vote. "I was duped." No, you're a dope.

The "uniter" in the White House with a 40% approval rating got 89 votes on controversial(?) legislation; remarkable! I wonder exactly how those stupid poll questions are being asked.

Don't miss my two immediate prior posts:

Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe did an outstanding column on freedom of thought; I cut and pasted it in its entirety so you wouldn't have to hunt around for it.

My post on Maj. Tammy Duckworth was extremely timely. The day after my post Sen. John F. Kerry circulated a fund-raising letter saying he was collecting money for military veterans that were running for congress as Democrats. You guessed it, he cites only three of the 55 (oops, there I go again, I keep forgetting Sen. Charles Schumer and the national Democrats jettisoned Iraq war veteran Maj. Paul Hackett), I mean, 54, such Democrats running and, yes, one of them is Maj. Duckworth. Sen. Kerry is not backing Maj. Duckworth because of her pro-abortion position (recall he believes life begins at conception yet still believes in abortion on demand; I know, he can't explain it either). It's possible he's supporting her because it sounds like they share the same "we support the troops but not with money and Saddam was a bad guy and he should have been removed but the President's doing it all wrong, I think the troops should leave immediately but I won't vote for that" position on Iraq. My bet, though, is Sen. Kerry is supporting her because she's a female that lost two legs in the war. When Republicans criticize her for anything, the national Democrats will demagogue, demagogue, demagogue; it is simply all they know how to do. The liberal media will accommodate all demagoguery.

In closing, the UAE ports thing is a big snooze for me. I don't write a blog for today's headlines or even tomorrow's. I can see further than the next news cycle. The tone deafness on the UAE port issue will come home to roost in the spring of 2008 when Hillary Clinton, the xenaphobic bigot, gets trounced in the Michigan Democratic primary by someone less bigoted. Trust me, I will be cutting and pasting this call into a post two years from now . . . well, provided I'm not a syndicated columnist for the Wall Street Journal.

Hate Crimes and Freedom of Thought

On February 16, I wrote, " . . . the idea of 'hate crimes' is ridiculous. My life is not worth less than a homosexuals just because I'm a heterosexual. If we are both beaten to death by some animals, the animals get the same penalty for beating me as they do the homosexual. My brother's life is not worth less than an African-American males life. If both are beaten to death by animals, the animals get the same penalty for beating my brother as they do the African-American. Substitute any two victims you like; one is not less than the other . . . plus, no one, and I mean, no one, knows, exactly, what goes on inside anyone else's head. To try to criminalize what goes on there is . . . well, ridiculous."

On March 1, 2006, Mr. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe wrote the following outstanding column on freedom of thought:

Funny people, the Austrians. If you're Kurt Waldheim - a former Nazi military officer linked to a genocidal massacre during World War II - they elect you president. But if you're David Irving - a British author who claimed that there never was a Nazi genocide during World War II - they throw you in the slammer.

On second thought, not funny at all. Austria disgraced itself when it elected Waldheim president in 1986, apparently unconcerned by the revelation that he had served in a German military unit responsible for mass murder in the Balkans and been listed after the war as a wanted criminal by the UN War Crimes Commission. In a very different way it disgraced itself again last week, when a Vienna court sentenced Irving, a racist and an anti-Semite, to three years in prison for denying that the Nazis annihilated 6 million European Jews.

Irving is a man of great intellectual gifts who devoted his life to a grotesque and evil project: rehabilitating the reputation of Hitler and the Third Reich. Necessarily, that meant denying the Holocaust and ridiculing those who suffered in it, and Irving has long done so with relish. ''I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend," he told a Canadian audience in September 1991. ''There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around - in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least - I'm going to form an association of Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars, or A-S-S-H-O-L-S."

Presumably Irving had in mind people like my father, whose arm bears to this day the number A-10502, tattooed there in blue ink on May 28, 1944, the day he and his family were transported to Auschwitz. My father's parents, David and Leah Jakubovic, and his youngest brother and sister, Alice, 8, and Yrvin, 10, were not tattooed; Jews deemed too old or too young to work were sent immediately to the gas chambers. His teenage siblings, Zoltan and Franceska, were tattooed and, like him, put to work as slave laborers. Zoltan was killed within days; Franceska lasted a few months longer. Of the seven members of the Jakubovic family sent to Auschwitz in the spring of 1944, only my father was alive in the spring of 1945.

So on a personal level, the prospect of David Irving spending his next three years in a prison cell is something over which I will lose no sleep. He is a repugnant, hate-filled liar, who even as a child was enamored of the Nazis and had a pronounced cruel streak.

But as a matter of law and public policy, Irving's sentence is deplorable. The opinions he expressed are vile, and his arguments about the Holocaust are ludicrous. But governments have no business criminalizing opinions and arguments, not even those that are vile or ludicrous. To be sure, freedom of speech is not absolute; laws against libel, death threats, and falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater are both reasonable and necessary. But free societies do not throw people in prison for giving offensive speeches or spouting historical lies.

Austria, the nation that produced Hitler and cheered the Anschluss, may well believe that its poisoned history requires a strong antidote. Punishing anyone who ''denies, grossly trivializes, approves, or seeks to justify" the Holocaust or other Nazi crimes may seem a small price to pay to keep would-be totalitarians and hatemongers at bay. But a government that can make the expression of Holocaust denial a crime today can make the expression of other offensive opinions a crime tomorrow.

Americans, for whom the First Amendment is a birthright, should understand this instinctively. ''If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought," wrote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1928. ''Not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."

It is popular in some circles to argue that the United States should do certain things - adopt single-payer health insurance, abolish capital punishment, etc. - to conform to the practice in other democracies. Those who find that a persuasive argument might consider that Irving is behind bars today because Austria doesn't have a First Amendment. Neither do Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, or Switzerland - all of which have made Holocaust denial a crime.

''Freedom for the thought we hate" is never an easy sell, but without it there can be no true liberty. David Irving is a scurrilous creep, but he doesn't belong in prison. Austria should let him go free - not for his sake, but for Austria's. (End of column.)

Behavior is criminal; thought is not.