musing minds

Via DhimmiWatch comes a story from the Times Online edition:

Christmas lights fail to shine in equality zone

A COUNCIL is planning to scrap grants for festive lights because Christmas does not fit in with its “core values of equality and diversity”.

A report drawn up by the council in Suffolk concedes that the move could lead to officials being accused of “not supporting the spirit of Christmas”.

The move is the latest in a string of decisions by organisations to downplay the celebration of the birth of Christ — ostensibly to prevent offence being caused to non-Christian religions. Last week it emerged that Lambeth council in south London had insisted on renaming its Christmas lighting displays as “winter” or “celebrity” lights.

The latest is Conservative-controlled Waveney council in Lowestoft which provides grants totalling £10,000 for festive lights. Its report states that because Christmas focuses only on the Christian faith, continuing the funding would “not fit well with the council’s core values of equality and diversity”.

Officials are proposing to cut the lights grants to £5,000 next year and to stop them altogether by 2007. The report is due to go before councillors on Thursday.

Now, they say that it is an economic decision. The money usually granted for “festive” lights could be better used elsewhere. The chairman of the lights committee, Sue Allen, said: “It will just mean that we will have to work harder to raise funds for the Christmas lights in the future.”

I still would like to know how the celebration of the birth of Christ, by Christians, causes offense to those of non Christian religions. Eid, Channukah, and Diwali do not offend me.

Here’s another story I just found at BBC:

Row as Christmas lights renamed

A decision to call Christmas lights “Winter Lights” in south London has been condemned as showing a “total lack of respect” for Christians.

Advertisements for the switch-on of the lights in multi-cultural Lambeth have renamed them, apparently for fear of offending other faiths.

Tory councillor Bernard Gentry told the BBC: “Christmas appears to have been cancelled in our borough”.

A spokesman said it was an error by a junior official and not council policy.

In three of Lambeth’s main town centres, the lights were referred to as “Winter Lights”, while in a fourth they were called “Celebrity Lights”.

The council spokeswoman said an official was concerned about people from other religions.

She said: “It was a junior-level decision and it happened to go into print which was an error basically.

“I think it was certainly not a council policy that we should call the lights winter lights.”

But it has led to a series of headlines such as “Christmas is banned” and “The PC [politically correct] lights show” and led some members of other faiths to call it “ridiculous”.

And Mr Gentry, a Conservative member of the joint Lib Dem-Tory controlled borough, told the BBC it went against efforts to promote respect for all faiths.

“It just seems totally against everything that we as members of the council have said, when officers try to airbrush out one of the main festivals of what is still the biggest religion in Lambeth.”

“The idea that, in some way, the religious festival of Christmas is offensive to others is just daft – I have never heard a single person who’s said that.”

The advert appeared in Lambeth Life – a newspaper distributed by the council – and on posters.

I started to put my Christmas lights up last Friday, but they were broken so I had to buy new ones. I put them up yesterday. I’ll plug them in on Thanksgiving.

For me, Christmas lights make a silent Joyful Noise unto the Lord.

Some people Shout: (see UglyChristmasLights.com for more)

Others are more subtle:

Previous stories:
Free Piglet
Now It’s Piggy Banks
And Now The Three Little Pigs Too
Peppermint Pigs for Christmas!
“Holiday Tree” Too Inclusive

Welcome A Lady’s Ruminations and Anchoress readers!

The media’s coverage of the French riots. Also have a look at this dissection of a CBC article by Angry.

Agenda journalism? What agenda journalism.

Today was a beautiful day. Sunny. 68 degrees.

I took down the lighted ghost and spider web that had been up since early October.

Since I already had the ladder out, I thought I’d get out the Christmas lights and put them up (not to light yet, just to get them up).

After I had one string up, I decided to test it by plugging it in. Oh no! Half the string didn’t work! (Lesson learned: Check the lights before you climb the ladder!)

Check the other strings: One doesn’t work at all, the other was another half.

Well. These lights were used for the past few years, they’re old. Back down to the crawlspace to get the three strings that were only used one year, several years ago.

Two strings don’t work at all. One string works, but there is a broken bulb in the middle and I can’t get the broken bulb out.

So, it’s time to buy new Christmas lights!

JEFF ADDS: Thanks for the reminder. Every year, as I try to balance a ladder in two feet of snow with my hands freezing because I can’t wear my mitts while trying to adjust the bulbs, I promise myself that the next year I would have a little foresight to put the lights up earlier when the weather was better.

Per Senators Specter and Leahy:

3,700 opinions need to be digested.

Hearings to begin January 2, 2006 with expected floor vote January 13th.

The AP says the 9th with a committee vote on the 17th and floor vote on the 20th. I heard what I published above when I was listening to the presser, but perhaps I misheard.

UPDATE: OK. I was right and wrong. I heard what I heard about the 2nd and 13th, but Specter went on to add that after consultation with Leahy, the week would start at the beginning so hearings would be from the 9th to the 13th, with executive on the 17th, floor debate the 18th to the 20th and a vote on the 20th.

Political Teen has the video.

According to the 9th Circuit :

…we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right.

also:

We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select.

This is from Flopping Aces who also has a link to the .pdf of the opinion.

Parents brought suit against the Palmdale school district over a survey that was taken of elementary students asking questions about the frequency of the childrens’ “thinking about sex” and “thinking about touching other people’s private parts”.

The court has said that what a parent thinks about sex education for their children doesn’t matter in the least and that the schools can provide information on that subject in any forum or manner that they select.

These are elementary school students. Elementary students are first grade through eighth grade. Elementary students are six to thirteen years old. Most are prepubescent.

Why is there a need for public school sex education for children in this age group?

Curt notes:

The only bright spot is that it’s from the 9th Circuit. The bench whose opinions get overturned regularly by the Supreme Court.

According to the ACLU and many on the bench it’s ok to take God out of the pledge, erase Christmas and Easter from the calenders, but it’s ok to teach a child about sex without the Parents consent. What a world we live in.

More at Confirm Them The children involved were between the ages of seven and ten. Definitely prepubescent. Schools should not be asking these types of questions, or discussing this subject, with children of that age. The parents were asked to sign a permission slip for a survey to be given to children in first, third and fifth grades.

While parents were informed that the survey would cover “baseline . . . exposure to early trauma (for example, violence),” it specifically did not mention sex. In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to “rate the following activities” among which were these:

8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

Parents found out about the questions when the children came home and told them.

Cross-posted at Oh How I Love Jesus

Welcome Anchoress and A Lady’s Ruminations readers!

On O’Reilly’s “Most Ridiculous Item” tonight, the text of a sign at NYCLU headquarters reads:

Please have photo ID ready for inspection. All packages are subject to inspection upon entering and leaving the premises.

The New York Sun wrote an editorial about it.

Either the NYCLU believes its headquarters are at greater risk of a terrorist threat than the city’s subway system, or it believes ordinary New Yorkers don’t deserve the same safety precautions that they do.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Michelle Malkin was on Dayside today with Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair as her “opponent”. I think Michelle won hands down. Here follows the transcript of the session.

Mike Jerrick: We are back with the CIA leak investigation, the Supreme Court confirmation process and the ongoing war in Iraq. Criticism from the left has reached a fever pitch. Michelle Malkin, the author of the new book Unhinged Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. Michael Wolff is here too. He’s a columnist for Vanity Fair magazine. He wrote a pretty good article, in fact it was a very good article, in this month’s issue, Inside the White House Meltdown. Before we get into this topic here, I was looking at the back of the book Michelle. It’s always great to have you on the program. But my goodness. Some reaction to this book. She “ought to be shot between those Viet Cong eyes!.” Number two there, “this is what happens when you send a yellow woman to do a white man’s job”. And they get worse and worse. She’s “dishonest”, she’s a “shill”, “race-baiter”, “war profiteer” and a “fascist”. Welcome to the program. What in the world? Now these reactions to your book came from where? Off the internet? Bloggers, etcetera?

Michelle Malkin: A lot of email readers and liberal websites. People who fashion themselves serious political commentators.

Mike Jerrick: Why did you put them on the book?

Michelle Malkin: I thought that these quotes speak for themselves. I mean I’m exposing the myth of liberal tolerance and civility and really turning a caricature on its head. Because it’s conservatives who are always portrayed as the ones who are angry and racist and sexist and hatefilled. And I think it’s time that the other side confront their own ugly portrait.

Mike Jerrick: So we’re talking about meltdowns and people becoming unhinged. {to Kiran} Kiran, what’s going on? Are a you all right?

Kiran Chetry: I’m feeling great. {laughter} {to Michelle}Actually, I think it’s terrible when you see just how personal the attacks got. And Michael, let me ask about this, because even, we just saw it yesterday, within the Senate, the one that’s supposed to be the refined arm of Congress. They were going at each other and even Senator Bill Frist was making some personal statements about fellow democrats. What is going on in Washington?

Michael Wolff: Well, I think there’s a lot going on in Washington. But also, I mean there’s an interesting point about this, these kinds of, those kinds of comments because anybody who is in a public role of any kind, left, right, it doesn’t matter who you are, the stuff that comes in through your email box is um…

Michelle Malkin: Vicious sometimes.

Michael Wolff: Is breathtaking. And I don’t think it has anything to do with left or right. It has to do with some people are crazy and some people are not crazy.
Continue reading →

Alan Colmes interviewed Howard Dean on Hannity and Colmes last night.

My comments in maroon, all italics mine.

Political teen has the video

Alan Colmes: What’s your reaction to the nomination of Alito?

Howard Dean: Ah, a couple of reactions. First of all I think it shows the President’s weakness. The extreme right of the party seems to be driving the judicial nominations process and I think that’s unfortunate. Secondly, we still wonder when the President’s going to ask Karl Rove to resign since he’s now been identified by the special prosecutor as the person who leaked the name. So, this all comes, uh, as kind of a, at kind of a difficult time. Uh, I don’t. I think the President’s really using this as a distraction right now to get away from his ethical troubles.

{Mr. Dean, what does Karl Rove have to do with reaction to Alito’s nomination? You just cited one reaction to Alito and then went off on a total tangent. Also, when did Patrick Fitzgerald identify Karl Rove as the person who leaked the information? I checked the Special Prosecutor’s website again and there are no new press releases there. Just the links for the indictments and the press release of Friday, October 28, 2005. I did a search of both documents and Karl Rove’s name does not appear in either.}

Alan Colmes: I want to get to Rove and the indictment in a moment, but I want to ask you what, do you know the level of consultation this administration had, with democrats, before the nomination?

Howard Dean: None. Ah, I’ve talked to Senator Reid and apparently there was no consultation whatsoever with any democrat that we know of. So I think it’s, this nomination is going to be in trouble. Um, ah, Judge Alito is apparently a nice person, but he’s got some pretty extreme rulings. For example, he, uh, in a dissent said that he didn’t think congress had the right to regulate the sale of machine guns. Ah, he held that, ah, in a very specific search warrant, where the police went in, could search a house and a guy suspected of something, they also strip searched his ten-year-old daughter and his wife, which was not in the warrant and Judge Alito didn’t see much trouble in that. A lot of sexual harassment cases and disability cases where the judge raised a very, very high standard of proof, including some really gross discrimination, so I won’t read it on your show.

{Julian Sanchez of Reason has rebuttals to most of these talking points which are also being used by Think Progress and the Center for American Progress}

Alan Colmes: Do you expect there could be a filibuster in this case?

Howard Dean: I think it’s much too early to tell that. I think we need to know a lot more. But the preliminary findings are that Judge Alito is well outside the mainstream of what most Americans believe the courts should be doing. And I think we’ll have to see to learn more about that.

{As I said in a post below, the dems and media are defining mainstream to mean anything that agrees with their worldview}

Alan Colmes: What could he say during confirmation hearings to convince you and other democrats that he is worthy of the job?

Howard Dean: Well I think he, we should find out if he believes that, uh, the courts ought to be used for, to stop discrimination against people. I think we ought to find out to what extent he believes that the police have a right to do anything they want. I think we ought to find out to what extent he thinks firearms ought to be regulated by the federal government, if at all. And I think we ought to find out whether he believes that a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her healthcare, or whether the government should do that for her.

{a woman’s healthcare = abortion on demand, any time, for any reason, at any age}

Alan Colmes: Is it your belief that the President chose today to make this choice as a distraction from the indictment news?

Howard Dean: Oh sure. But the indictment is not going to go away. The President promised he would fire anyone who leaked. Karl Rove has now been shown to have leaked, even though he wasn’t charged with a crime. This is a big ethical problem for the President. The President gave us his word that he would fire anyone who leaked. So far he hasn’t done that. We’re waiting to see if the President will keep his word.

{Hey Howie, do you have the press release? It still isn’t on the Special Prosecutor’s website}

Alan Colmes: Well, there have been three different standards. First, McClellan said anybody involved in, then he said if anybody leaked, then if anybody committed a crime. Are you calling for the resignation of Karl Rove?

Howard Dean: Absolutely. Karl Rove has no business having a security clearance having now been established as a leaker by the special prosecutor. As I say, he wasn’t charged with a crime, what he did was, not, certainly unethical. And he ought not to have a security clearance and he ought not to be working and being paid for by the taxpayers’ money.

{Howie, it still isn’t on the Special Prosecutor’s website}

Alan Colmes: What do you think the democrats need to do? I mean, the argu, the criticism of democrats is usually well there’s no vision, no unified message. What do the democrats need to do at this point to convince the American people that their vision is a better vision?

Howard Dean: Oh I think we do have a vision and we do have a unified message. The first vision is we want honesty in government. We have seen a culture of corruption that’s been brought to Washington and by state capitols like California and Minnesota, uh, and, uh, uh others. Ohio being the worst, by republican governments. We need to change that, we will change that. We’ll put in tough ethics legislation that will have to be complied with by people in our party, not just the re, opposite party.

Secondly, we want a balanced budget. We want jobs in this country to stay in this country. We want somebody to balance the books. We haven’t seen a republican do that for forty years.

Third, we want a healthcare system that covers everybody.

Fourth, we want a strong public education system and we want, we want a strong defense. We want a real strong defense that depends on telling the truth to our allies and telling the truth to the parents of soldiers who are being sent abroad to fight for America.

{Firstly, see No Agenda and Gateway Pundit to see the culture of corruption that exists in the democrat party. I would be happy to see tough ethics legislation if I could be absolutely sure that it would also cover democrats. Let’s start with stopping the fight over requiring picture ID to vote.

Secondly, a balanced budget would be great, but you dems would have to give up a lot pork and entitlements.

Thirdly, healthcare for everyone. Well. As noted above women’s healthcare means abortion, so you want abortion for everyone? Does that include the aborted?

Fourthly, we want a strong public education system too. That means actually teaching our children and getting rid of teachers that can not do that.

Fourthly part two, a real strong defense equals telling the truth to allies and the parents of soldiers?

UPDATE: I have to add something here. Why is it that only the parents of soldiers are indicated here? Why not the spouses and children of soldiers? Oh yeah, it’s the Cindy Sheehan wing speaking. All soldiers are just little kids that have been misled into volunteering in the United States Armed Forces. All the soldiers are children first.}

Alan Colmes: Do you think there should be a broader investigation, we’ve had Gerald Nadler on our show for example, referring to criminal statutes that call, that basically state, that you are prohibited from making false and fraudulent claims to congress. Some democrats have said that there should be a larger investigation to the conspiracy to move us toward war. Do you believe that should be the case?

Howard Dean: Well, I’m not so sure about that although if there is such a thing, it’ll be in the Vice President’s office. And I do think there needs to be more investigation in the Vice President’s office. One of the things established by the special prosecutor in the indictment is that Vice President Cheney was the source of Scooter Libbity’s, Libby’s knowledge about who the CIA agent was. The question is, did the Vice President instruct Scooter Libby to reveal that name. If he did, the Vice President probably is criminally negligent and that he ought to be indicted as well. I think we’d better find that out because I suspect that, Fitzgerald has a reputation of being ruthless, relentless and totally non-political and I think that’s just the kind of person you want this position.

Alan Colmes: Are you calling for a broader investigation of the Vice President?

Howard Dean: Oh, I think there should be. I suspect strongly that, frankly that the prosecutor’s already doing that because he, himself identified the Vice President as a source of some of the information that got leaked.

{Mr. Dean, Vice President Cheney had every right to know that information and he had every right to discuss it with his chief of staff/national security advisor Scooter Libby. That is NOT a crime of any kind whatsoever.}

Alan Colmes: Chairman Dean, we thank you very much for being with us tonight. Good to see you.

Howard Dean: Alan. Thanks for having me on.

Alan Colmes: Thanks very much.

Welcome readers of A Lady’s Ruminations and Gateway Pundit (He’s found a old speech of Wilson’s)! Please look around.

Lettori Benvenuti Di Ideazione!

From DhimmiWatch via Lone Star Times comes this story about banks in England banning piggy banks given to customers as a promotional item (AAP):

British banks are banning piggy banks because they may offend some Muslims.

Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here….

Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, backed the bank move.

“This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers,” he said.

However, the move brought accusations of political correctness gone mad from critics.

“The next thing we will be banning Christmas trees and cribs and the logical result of that process is a bland uniformity,” the Dean of Blackburn, Reverend Christopher Armstrong, said.

“We should learn to celebrate our difference, not be fearful of them.”

Khalid Mahmoud, the Labour MP for a Birmingham seat and one of four Muslim MPs in Britain, also criticised the piggy-bank ban.

“We live in a multicultural society and the traditions and symbols of one community should not be obliterated just to accommodate another,” Mr Mahmoud said.

“I doubt many Muslims would be seriously offended by piggy banks.”

Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and consider pigs unclean, but these banks are porcelain or plastic pigs.

As with the situation in Dudley, West Midlands, UK a live pig in the office, or giving away a side of bacon or pork chops could, maybe, be construed as “insensitive”. Forcing actual, live pigs or pork on people, any people, would be unacceptable, but this just takes the cake.

Repeat after me:

There. Is. No. Right. To. Not. Be. Offended.

Many different groups have food prohibitions. With Hindus it’s beef. We should close all the McDonalds, Burger Kings, and Ruth’s Chris steakhouses. Jews can not eat pork or shellfish. Close all the Red Lobsters and Joe’s Crab Shacks.

Everything on this planet is bound to offend someone, somewhere.

Also covering this: Little Green Footballs, The Jawa Report, OpiniPundit, Say Anything, Gates of Vienna, Gut Rumbles, Momentary Lapses of Insanity, Daimnation, Hyscience, The American Princess, Civitatensis, Lost Budgie Blog,

Welcome Anchoress readers!
Welcome Junk Yard Blog readers!

More: And Now The Three Little Pigs Too

I had two calls today asking me to give money to one of those police organizations. I told them I am not currently working and can’t give anything right now.

The first one said, “Well, thank you anyway.” and politely ended the call.

The second (for a different organization) said, “Well, we’re not asking for a lot. $25 could make a big difference for our cause.”

I told him that $25 makes a big difference in my grocery budget too. Then I thanked him and hung up. Don’t know why I thanked him.

By the way, if you want to give a donation that you can guarantee will be 100% used by your local police or fire department, give it directly to your local police or fire department. Mail it or bring it in.