well, if you ask me …

I do like catalogs but I don’t want to receive them all! Check this place out. Catalog Choice - WelcomeCatalog Choice is the free service that lets you opt-out of unwanted catalogs.

After a year and a half of doing other things and ignoring this place I am finally back. I thought I was done with this but I decided I missed it.So, I’m back! 

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration.A.C.L.U. May Block Criticism by Its Board - New York Times

WHAT?!?!I know many people think that the ACLU is “off it’s rocker” on some issues, but I am a big supporter of what they stand for, or what I thought they stood for.I even understand that some corporate entities need to control PR, but it just seem ridiculous that the ACLU would do anything to stifle speech of any kind.I am very surprised to say the least.Thanks to Stop the ACLU

As a TiVO lover and a web developer, I had to laugh at this

let me just say that this recorder obeys orders about as reliably as Internet Explorer renders CSS. That is to say, sporadically, sloppily, and at times, without reason.Mike Davidson: I Steal Television Shows Because I Have To

Unlike Mike, I stuck with DirecTV so I don’t have this problem.:)

“Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office.”All in favour?: 129. All opposed?: 21. Meeting adjourned.Bid to give Bush the boot

Wow!Thanks to Fountainhead: Bid to give Bush the boot

Should churches discipline members because of their politics?Actually, I am inclined to agree with Albert Mohler on this. Churches probably should draw the lines in extreme cases like with Hitler.Of course, we all know Hitler was more like a republican than a democrat.Interesting.

Laurie Taylor, a mother of two young teenage girls, complained to the board of education inFayetteville, Arkansas about three library books that contained explicit descriptions and depictions of sexual activity. The controversy that erupted shortly after is a great example of why I do not support public schools. Before you judge me as the kind of parent that chooses private school as a ’shelter’ for my children, please read on.Albert Mohler chimes in on the debate on his blog and echoes what I think is a common sentiment among Christian parents:

Predictably, national library associations and anti-censorship groups quickly jumped into the fray, charging Mrs. Taylor with launching a crusade to take the Arkansas public schools back to the dark ages.source

I am offended at the tone of this post. I certainly do not want my children exposed to the content in question (without the proper parental involvement), but I am glad that someone speaks out in defense of freedom. That is what this controversy is about - freedom.This reminds me of another recent story involving Internet access at public libraries and another controversy some years ago about pledging the flag. Public schools are public insttitutions run by the government. Every year, the government takes more and more control of schools. As public institutions, schools have one drawback - freedom. My dad and I used to have this discussion. When he was in school, public schools were fine. By the time I was in school, students and parents were beginning to figure out that the government had no right to infringe on our freedoms.If my children attended the public school, would I really want the school to decide what my children should be reading (and not reading)? I know many of you are screaming “Yes!” You should think again. If you think someone (other than your child) should decide, I would agree with you, but do you want that someone to be the school (government)? Okay, maybe some of you do, and that is okay. You’ve made that decision. Many of us would prefer to reserve that role ourselves or enroll our children in private schools run by people we trust.In order to educate children, certain freedoms need to be curbed. Public schools, as an extension of the government have no right to curb freedoms. As a matter of fact, our government exists solely to protect our freedoms. It is a parent’s responsibility to direct, guide and discipline children so that learning can take place. Parent’s have the freedom to choose the correct course of action. Some parent’s choose private schools for this, some choose home-schooling, others choose public schools.Although it may be hard for some of us to believe, some parents do not mind the content involved in this controversy being available to their children. If my children were in the same school and some of the parents were in support of the content, how would this decision be solved in a public institution. The only solution is for one of us to choose another school.Please remember, this is not about sheltering my children. Anyone who knows me would tell you I don’t believe in sheltering children. I have reviewed the content involved in this dispute. Some of it is offensive, but some of it might be helpful to children given the proper involvement of parents. It is not about hiding this content from my children. This is about placing children in an evironment where learning can take place. I want my children in a school where students must do as they are told. I happen to believe that children will only learn in an environment of discipline. I want my children to learn respect for adults and obedience.It really boils down to this - I would fight to defend a student’s right to not salute the flag in a public school, but I want my children in a school that expels children for not saluting the flag!Does this make sense to anyone?

Charlotte, N.C.-based Scientigo owns two patents (No. 5,842,213 and No. 6,393,426) covering the transfer of “data in neutral forms.” These patents, one of which was applied for in 1997, are infringed upon by the data-formatting standard XML, Scientigo executives assert.link

This reminded me of something I read about a year ago:

If I were a patent terrorist like some, I could probably even patent these ideas. Isn’t it a shame that in this country today, you can have nothing more than an idea, do nothing with it, but still have a chance to make money?Mark Cuban on blogmaverick.

One whiner left a comment on Mark’s blog complaining that big companies with ‘rich friends’ shouldn’t be the only ones who make money. He says “Should I not profit from my ideas just because someone else had richer friends?”Well, philosophers have debated this for centuries. I am going to say “Yes, you should not profit!” I don’t think an ‘idea’ is good enough.He also complains that the founders of Google were able to raise $25,000 from friends and family for their idea, something he claims he could not have done. Just a thought - If you cannot raise $25,000 for an idea that you think should eventually make you rich, then you shouldn’t expect to get rich.Better keep playin’ the lottery.

A lot of people have a lot to say about the nomination of Harriet Miers.George Will doesn’t like her because she is a woman. We can dismiss his opinion as what one would expect from someone with his view of women.Many have raised issue with her involvement in her evangelical church, including a few writers at The Washington Post and The New York Times. David Kuo, a former White House staffer, likes her and points out that her involvement with her church is a good thing. Her church membership indicates character and “character matters,” according to Kuo.Reading all of this just makes it more and more clear to me that her qualifications, experience and mastery of the law will make her a good justice (or a bad one). Her involvement in her church may make her a bad justice, but maybe it makes her a good justice. We simply do not know. We do know, however, that qualified lawyers with experience and good mastery of the law usually make good judges. Seems very simple to me.Of course, we all know the question is really about abortion. Many people feel that her involvement with a church that is vocally pro-life will influence her interpretation of the law. The fact that she will not answer questions about how she would rule in a case seems to concern many. The fact that many people feel as though she should ‘tip her hand’ indicates that they do not understand how decisions are supposed to be made in court, which incidentally points out how poorly they would do as judges. Making a decision on a case without the benefits of the facts is bad judgement, plain and simple. I don’t want a justice who knows how she would rule on a case ahead of time. Do You?In the midst of all this confusion many fail to realize that being a Christian, evangelical, or even a pro-lifer does not mean you would overturn Roe. Justice Nathan Hecht, a member of the Texas Supreme Court and a close friend of Miers (’on-again, off-again boyfriend’ according to the Washington Post) who describes Miers as ‘pro-life’, said this:

You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe to be upheld

Absolutely.

Under law, the property owners and their tenants must vacate the land within three months unless a judge declares the seizure unconstitutional.D.C. Seizes Property For Stadium Project

Eminent domain is unconstitutional in every case . . .if you ask me

I know the ACLU does some things that seem anti-American, but cases like this one, remind me why we need someone who is willing to defend our freedoms.If it were not for the ACLU, many abuses of power like this would go un-checked.

Citing confidentiality, Transportation Secretary Nathan Hayward III couldn’t say whether motorists, already paying $3 at the Newark tolls, would pay more if a partnership deal is finalized.delawareonline ¦ The News Journal ¦ Privatized I-95 deals kept secret

So, I am not allowed to know if my tolls will be increased. Why? Because it’s confidential.Oh, okay. Thanks.

This is actually the one quality I really like about Bush - his “stubborn confidence in his own judgement.”

“I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believes,” said the president last week, after he nominated Miers to the United States Supreme Court. “I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today.”In other words: trust me. For a president under attack recently for staffing his government with hacks and cronies, the appointment of his personal lawyer—who has never judged a day in her life—to the nation’s highest court showed a certain stubborn confidence in his own judgment.Mild About Harriet - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

Now the right doesn’t like her because she wanted to be “inclusive of women and minorities.”Miers Backed Race, Sex Set-Asides

I may not like what these teens did, but I certainly don’t think the punishment shoud have been 17 years in prison!

The Kansas Supreme Court yesterday struck down a state law that penalized same-sex statutory rapes by 18-year-olds much more harshly than heterosexual cases, ruling that the law unconstitutionally discriminated against gays.In a 6 to 0 opinion, the court said its decision was required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas , a landmark victory for gay rights that abolished all state laws criminalizing sodomy between consenting adults.

Bias Ruled in Law On Same-Sex Rape