You're calling on the wrong one.

State Representative Maureen Walsh of Washington is one of the majority who recently voted to legalize gay marriage in that state. Her daughter is gay. Ms. Walsh said, " . . . some day, by God, I want to throw a wedding for that kid."

Ms. Walsh may throw a legal wedding, but it won't be "by God."

"Legislators pass law legalizing gay marriage." The Dallas Morning News; February 9, 2012; p. 10A.

I agree.

Did you know that the Republicans in Congress have put forth a proposal that would deny child tax credits to illegal immigrants? These tax credits amount to an average $1,800 refund check per family. The proposal would require families receiving such tax credits to have social security numbers. It would cut federal spending by an estimated $10 billion over a decade. Let's see -- isn't there a bleeding heart argument that illegals aren't a drain on the taxpayer? This kind of shoots that one out of the water, doesn't it?

I agree with the Republicans who say it's crazy to even be having a debate over the issue of giving money to people who sneak into the country illegally.

"GOP plan seeks to deny child tax credit, refund to illegal immigrants." The Dallas Morning News; February 9, 2012; p. 6A.

And what if . . .?

What if a film crew asked permission to film on county property? And what if they were told permission would be granted only if they employed white people? "Why, that's illegal," people would shout.

John Wiley Price has demanded that Electric Sky Productions, a British film company, provide records on how many black people they employ before he will grant permission for them to film a documentary inside the county jails. Evidently, that's not illegal. What was that MLK said again? Something about not judging by the color of a man's skin?

"Price wants race info from film crews." The Dallas Morning News; February 8, 2012; p. 2B.

What if . . .?

What if Marcus Phillips, a white convicted felon, went into a convenience store owned by a black man and grabbed the cash register? And what if the black clerk at the convenience store grabbed a shotgun and chased him out of the store? And what if Marcus fought with the clerk and the clerk ended up shooting him in the chest and killing him?

And what if white people started protesting six days a week in front of the convenience store? And what if they claimed in their protests that the black businessman charged unreasonable prices and was disrespectful to white people? And what if the white protestors actually stopped customers at the driveway and told them, "You cannot cross this picket line. This is an official protest. This man does price-gouging. He killed a man. We need you to move on"?

And what if the protestors said, in effect, that white people were too stupid to realize that the black business owner was taking advantage of them? And what if the leader of the protest was a member of the KKK and said the black business had to go, and in fact, all black businesses in white neighborhoods had to go? And what if one of the white City Council members targeted the business, ordering numerous inspections and scrutiny from city boards?

Do you think the news media and liberals would be outraged? Do you think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would show up to denounce such reprehensible behavior?

Now let's switch the races and see what actually is going on. Marcus is a black man. The store owner and his clerk are Korean-American. The protestors are black, and they have actually said that Koreans are not welcome in their neighborhood. They are actually blocking this man's business and intimidating his customers. Yet we haven't heard even one outcry of "Discrimination" or "Racism" against the protestors. The newspaper article doesn't include one word in condemnation of the protestors. Where are the liberals? Where is the MLK philosophy of not judging a man by the color of his skin? I guess that only applies if the man is black.

"Race issues spark gas station protest." The Dallas Morning News; February 6, 2012; p. 1A.

What do we call you now?

Remember when "colored" was the polite term for a Negro? Then they decided that was offensive, and we changed to "black." Then Jesse Jackson decided that was offensive and we changed to "African-American." Now we must tread those eggshells again -- "African-American" is no longer pc. What is? They don't know. "Today, 24 years after Jackson popularized African-American, it's unclear what term is preferred by the community." 

Clarence Page, the black (OOPS!) columnist, says, "That's the most fundamental right any human being has, over what other people call you." Personally, I don't care what other people call me, as long as they call me for supper.

"Younger generation embraces the term 'black.'" The Dallas Morning News: February 5, 2012; p. 8A.

I'm Number 2!

Shelby Spaniel is unhappy. She is a senior at Ennis High School. She's known since she was a freshman that she was ranked second in her class academically. She says that spot is hers.


Alas, she is no longer ranked number two. In January 2011, Ennis got a new coach, and he brought his teenage son with him. The son's GPA is higher than Shelby's. According to Ennis ISD policy, a student must be in attendance three consecutive semesters to qualify for the honor of valedictorian or salutatorian. The new student qualifies -- spring semester 2011, fall semester 2011, spring semester 2012.


Shelby's parents have hired attorneys and spent hundreds of dollars to contest the rival's ranking. They say the student must attend three complete semesters . . . which the policy does not state. Carol Spaniel, Shelby's mother, says, "The policy is clear. It's right there in black and white." Yes, it is, Carol. It says "in attendance three consecutive semesters" . . . not "three complete consecutive semesters."  According to the policy, if he attended even one day in that first semester, he qualifies, because he was "in attendance" in that semester.


The Shelby's have exerted a lot of effort into preserving what they consider they are entitled to. There was another way to handle this. What if Shelby had said, "Wow, I have somebody nipping at my heels for that number two spot. I better start studying really hard and get better grades than he does for the next three semesters." Or better yet, what if Shelby had said, "You know what? Number two is not good enough for me. I'm going to buckle down and move up to number one." And what about the boy? Should he be deprived of what he has earned because Shelby considers a top spot her due?


No, Shelby, you are not "entitled" to a ranking just because you once held it. You better learn that before you join the workforce.

Let's be tolerant of gays -- but not of those with Christian morals.

Carolyn Hax writes a syndicated advice column. I was curious as to what qualifies her to give "expert" advice to other people, so I looked her up. I didn't find anything that would particularly make her more of an expert than anyone else, but I did find this little tidbit on Wikipedia: "In 2003, Hax received scrutiny as an advice columnist when – over a two year period – she divorced her first husband, cartoonist Nick Galifianakis, and married childhood friend Ken Ackerman – while pregnant with twins."

But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she is much better at dispensing advice than taking care of her own business. What got me started on her in the first place was a recent column in which a teenager sought her counsel for a complicated family situation.

The teenager's brother is gay. The mother has essentially disowned him and asked him not to come to family gatherings. The brother refuses to honor his mother's request and shows up anyway. Not only does he show up, but he brings his "partner" with him. When his mother asks him to leave, "he just smiles, tells Mom he loves her and then ignores her." 

The teenager wants to defend her brother, but she is afraid her mother will disown her as well if she does. Her friends call her a coward for not defending him.

My take on this is that the brother is intentionally antagonizing his mother. Bringing his "partner" to family gatherings is a slap in the face to her. Ignoring her belies his smarmy "I love you." If he really loved her, he wouldn't place her in such uncomfortable circumstances. If he wants to gather his family around him, he can invite them over to his place.

But the wise Ms. Hax finds the brother to be "an impressive human being . . . true to himself, firm but loving . . . all without being punitive toward the mother who rejects him for who he is." The brother, according to Ms. Hax, is a "person of obvious courage." The mom, she seems to think, is a fool . . . "your mom hasn't succeeded in kicking anyone out of anything, though maybe she just hasn't figured out how yet." Her advice is to pretty much just keep ignoring her.

I'm no expert advice columnist, but I do have a bit of wisdom for Ms. Hax, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" And that comes from a much wiser source than I.

"When a mother rejects gay son." The Dallas Morning News; January 13, 2012; p. 1E.

"Do as I say, not as I do." Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has had it with universities "jacking up tuition" every year. He has announced that schools that are doing that will have their federal aid taken away and instead given to schools showing "restraint and value." This comes from the President who has "restrained" himself to "jacking up" our national debt by approximately $6 trillion since he took office 3 years ago.

What does that really mean? At the end of George Bush's term, the share of the national debt apportioned to each person in America was about $34,000. Now, it is about $48,000. That's roughly a 43% increase. At the same time, average tuition and fees at public colleges rose roughly 8% per year or around 25%. I don't think we can afford 4 more years of Obama's "restraint and value."

"Obama tells schools to rein in costs or risk loss of aid." The Dallas Morning News; January 28, 2012; p. 13A.

I take it back.

I wrote some time ago commending the Texas legislature for making it easier for home bakers to get started in the business. The new rules stated that home bakeries would not be subject to regulation if they took in less than $50,000 per year. The only stipulations were that their wares had to be advertised by word of mouth, and they had to be clearly labeled with the name and address of the baker and the warning that the baker was not subject to state health inspections.

But then the bureaucrats got hold of it, and they added to the legislation, making it unfeasible for home bakers to comply. The bakers must disclose each item's possible allergens (my guess is that everything is a possible allergen to somebody), and they must disclose every ingredient in a list of contents by descending order of weight. Kelly Masters, a home baker, hit the nail on the head when she asked, "What good does that do for public health? Why would it benefit anyone to weigh a wedding cake?" Further adding to the home baker's burden is the stipulation that the labels must be done in permanent ink, thereby precluding the use of inkjet printers.

The real kicker to this is that retail bakeries don't have to jump through these hoops. Makes you wonder if someone at the Department of Health owns a retail bakery and is afraid of a little old-fashioned competition.

"Home bakers steamed over rules." The Dallas Morning News; January 28, 2012; p. 1B.

More Pots and Kettles

One of the provisions of Obamacare is that insurance companies must provide "consumer-friendly summaries" of what your insurance plan covers. This bit of regulation is buried somewhere in the 2700+ pages of Obamacare legislation -- legislation so convoluted and complicated that Nancy Pelosi said we'd just have to pass it to see what was in it. Another case of the pot calling the kettle black?

"Consumer groups lobby for promised insurance summaries." The Dallas Morning News; January 27, 2012; p. 1A.

Is this a complaint?

I just read this letter in an advice column, and I find it to be of the pots and kettles variety. But maybe I'm missing something.

The writer has just moved to an assisted living center. She likes her apartment, the food, and the fact that she doesn't have to do yard work anymore. But she has a gripe. She doesn't like the residents because they're always complaining. I just bet that she'll fit right in with them.

I think I smell a truckload of fish.

I may be way off base here, but this story has a definite fishy smell to me. What do you think?

The campaign manager for a Democratic congressional candidate in Arkansas says that he is the victim of a vicious attack. He claims that his family pet, a Siamese cat, was killed and the word "liberal" painted on the corpse left on his front porch.

Sounds a bit like Tawana Brawley to me. If you don't remember that name, she's the black girl who claimed a bunch of white men raped and beat her and did other unspeakable things. As it turned out, the only injuries and degradation she had suffered were self-inflicted. There never was a bunch of white men.

Just remember, you heard it here first.

"'Liberal' painted on pet's corpse." The Dallas Morning News; January 25, 2012; p. 3A.

I feel so safe!

Dallas County has a homeland security advisory comittee. It recommends improvements to the county's emergency management plan. Its members are appointed by the Commissioners Court. Commissioner John Wiley Price appointed Aaron McCarthy, aka Aaron Michaels to the committee.

I know there are some legitimate reasons for using an alias, but my antennae immediately go on the alert when I come across someone who feels it necessary to use more than one name. And my antennae really started twitching when I found out that Mr. McCarthy/Michaels is the founder of the New Black Panther Party, and in the 1990's he led the group in threatening and intimidating Dallas School Board members. He was arrested for disrupting a public meeting when he grabbed the microphone and declared he didn't mind dying "for the cause."

Now, don't you feel safer?

Thankfully, McCarthy's term expired at the end of January, and it looks as if, rather than re-appoint him, they're just going to disband the committee.

"Vote off on New Black Panther founder." The Dallas Morning News; January 24, 2012; p. 1B.

I'm surprised the suit was dismissed.

Jesse Dimmick of Denver Colorado sued Jared and Lindsay Rowley for breach of contract. Jesse was a fugitive wanted for murder when he invaded their home and took the Rowleys as hostages at knifepoint. He fell asleep and the Rowleys escaped and contacted the police. Jesse claims he had a legally binding contract with them to not turn him in to the police.

Surprisingly in this age of idiocracy, the judge dismissed his silly suit. What I'd like to know is why the lawyer who represented him hasn't been disbarred.

"Judge tosses fugitive's suit against hostages." The Dallas Morning News; January 17, 2012; p. 6A.

Follow the logic.

I'm sure you remember last year the immigrant (I don't remember what nationality he was -- somewhere from the Middle East), who shot and killed his estranged wife, his children, and some of his wife's family at Christmas.  It is theorized that he was angry because his wife and daughter were becoming too westernized. One of the surviving relatives says that the U.S. should have tighter gun-control laws to prevent such tragedies.

So, this man who didn't mind breaking the law to commit mass murder, wouldn't have done it if it had been illegal for him to have the gun? Yeah, that makes sense -- "I planned to kill you. Unfortunately, it's illegal for me to have a gun, so I guess you get to live until I can decide whether to use a legal knife, or legal rat poison, or a legal rope and stick to use as a garrotte, or a legal match to set fire to you, or just run you down with my legal car. But I can't break the law by using an illegal gun."

"Brother recalls Christmas call." The Dallas Morning News; December 30, 2011; p. 1B.

Another test we no longer need.

First it was mammograms and pap smears and then PSA tests. Now our government has decided that middle-aged women no longer need bone density scans. A spokesman for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the government panel that issues testing guidelines, says, " . . . there's no reason to expose yourself to any risks [radiation] if there's going to be no benefit."

I think I have it figured out now. Obamacare is not more affordable health care; it's more affordable no health care.

"Bone test guidelines revisited." The Dallas Morning News; January 19, 2012; p. 4A.

Well, isn't that nice?

In speaking of the Obama Administration's order to stop deportations of illegals who they say pose no security risk, Corina Almeida, the chief counsel for ICE in Denver, said, "If the only thing they did is enter illegally . . . it makes prosecutors feel good when you know you can do something. . . They don't have to worry about someone knocking on their door."

Well, isn't that nice? Instead of enforcing the law as they swore to do when they took their jobs, their priority now is to make sure illegals don't have to worry about being deported. What a crazy world we live in!

Even illegals like Kesler Dufrene enjoy protection from deportation. By order of the Obama Administration, Kesler's deportation to Haiti was halted. His story is quite long, and I'm short on time, so I encourage you to check out the link I provided. Suffice it to say that Dufrene is not the only one in this case with blood on his hands.


"Pilot program halts 1,000 deportations." The Dallas Morning News; January 20, 2012; p. 8A.
by law could not detain Dufrene indefinitely after the Obama administration ordered a temporary halt of deportations to the island nation


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/22/v-fullstory/2602909/immigration-authorities-released.html#storylink=cpy

Hooray for Mayor Rawlings!

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings did not give in to politically correct pressure during the U. S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. Dozens of his fellow mayors signed a petition asking Congress to legalize gay marriage. Rawlings did not.

Rawlings didn't go so far as to say that he doesn't believe gay marriage is right, in fact, he's waffled since then on "protecting the rights of all citizens," but he is to be commended for refusing to affix his signature to such a ridiculous document. The newspaper says that Rawlings's stance has disappointed advocates for the gay and lesbian community. "It is his role," said Roger Poindexter of Lambda Legal. ". . . He's here to serve all the citizens of Dallas . . ." I can agree with the last portion of his statement, and that's exactly what Mayor Rawlings has done. It is in the best interest of all the citizens that we take the moral high ground and refuse to kowtow to political correctness by endorsing an abomination against God.

My prayer is that God will cleanse our land of homosexuality and raise up more men and women who have the fortitude to stand up for what's right no matter what it might cost them personally. Mayor Rawlings is a good start.

"Mayor won't sign pledge." The Dallas Morning News; January 20, 2012; p. 1B.

GET $49.99 WORTH OF MERCHANDISE FREE!

You are now entitled to visit any merchant in the City of Dallas and walk out of his store with up to $49.99 in merchandise. Effective January 5, the Dallas police will no longer respond to shoplifting calls for shoplifters who take less than $50 in merchandise.



There are exceptions:


1) . . .if the suspected shoplifter has outstanding warrants -- I'm sure when the merchant asks, the shoplifter will answer that one truthfully.


2) . . . if the suspect cannot be identified -- I guess as long as he shows you his ID, he's free to go. Of course, some of these people who are pitching fits about showing ID at the ballot box will probably claim that's discriminatory -- that poor shoplifters can't afford a picture ID.


3) . . . if the retailer wants to file a criminal trespass notice -- does that mean the thief gets to keep what he shoplifted this time, but he just can't come back?


Methinks the whole world hath gone crazy!


"Shoplifting policy is changed." The Dallas Morning News; December 31, 2011; p. 1A.

It's not always wisdom that proceeds out of the mouths of babes.

Mac McCann is a senior at Lake Highlands High School in Dallas. He is filled with wisdom . . . or so he thinks. He is anti-death penalty. Or he is until someone close to him is brutally murdered.

He says the death penalty just isn't logical. "When a child lies, do you lie to the child as punishment and hope it will deter others from lying?" No, you spank him to teach him that there is a consequence for lying. You don't necessarily intend to use him as a "teaching moment" for others. You are interested in the child who lied.

"When a child hits one of his/her peers, do you hit the child as punishment and hope it will deter others from hitting? I hope not," he opines. I agree with Mac here. You should never hit a child indiscriminately, but you should smack him on the rear when he misbehaves. God says if you don't apply the rod when it's needed, you don't really love your child -- "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." Does Mac think he knows more than God does?

Mac says it's the same thing in Texas -- we kill those who kill others and hope it will deter others from killing. No, Mac, deterrence is just a side benefit. We lawfully execute those who kill because they deserve it. We lawfully execute those who kill so that they can't repeat their crimes. We lawfully execute those who kill, because we value life so highly that we, as a society, cannot allow those who don't value life to continue to take it. 

Mac imparts this bit of wisdom to those of us far less enlightened than he: "No matter what the intentions behind the death penalty are, it clearly does not work." Sure it does, Mac. If you don't believe that, you show me an executed man who killed again.

"Death penalty doesn't work." The Dallas Morning News; January 16, 2012; p. 12A.


.

Catholics Take a Stand

Catholic Charities in Illinois is closing most of their affiliates. Is it because donations are down? No. Is it because they're involved in some sort of scandal? No. Is it because they don't provide a needed service? No.

It's because the State of Illinois has said they cannot refuse to allow same-sex couples to adopt or foster children. Rather than comply with a law in direct conflict with their religious beliefs, they have chosen to shut up shop.

"In the name of tolerance, we're not being tolerated," said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki. Church critics say the Catholic Church doesn't have a constitutional right to a government contract. That's true, says Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., general counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. However, he said, " . . .it does have a First Amendment right not to be excluded from a contract based on its religious beliefs."

Other denominations need to take a cue from the Catholics. Let's stand up for what's right!

"Catholics won't accept decree on gays." The Dallas Morning News; December 29, 2011; p. 5A.

Free or Not?

Bill Dunphy is upset. He said that his insurance company told him his colonoscopy would be 100% covered. He had the procedure done.

He became very angry when he received an $1100 bill. He claims he was misled. I think he may be a few fries short of a Happy Meal, and he's having the wrong end tested. You see, the $1100 bill is for removing polyps they found in the course of the colonoscopy. Dunphy says it's bait and switch. I don't think so. In the first place, he probably signed a release that gave them permission to remove any polyps they found. In the second place, according to his theory, if I went for a mammogram that my insurance covers 100%, and they found a tumor, I could say, "I shouldn't have to pay to have that tumor removed or for radiation or chemotherapy or anything else related to that tumor, because my mammogram is covered. You're pulling the old bait and switch on me."

There is another alternative. They could have just left the polyps in there since the colonoscopy was free and then asked him, "Oh -- did you want us to take those out?"

"'Free' colonoscopy isn't always." The Dallas Morning News; December 29, 2011; p. 4A.

Did Daniel really care for this cat?

Most people who know me know that I love animals -- particularly dogs and cats. But there comes a time when mercy for the suffering of the animal must be considered alongside human practicality. It's called common sense, and it's in increasingly short supply.

Daniel Dockery had a 9-month-old cat named Scruffy. Daniel is a "recovering" heroin addict. In December, Scruffy suffered a severe wound caused by a barbed wire fence -- it was deep and ran from her abdomen to her knee. Daniel took her to the Arizona Humane Society. The Society determined treatment would be $400, but Daniel didn't have $400. He asked them to take his mother's credit card over the phone, but they were not set up to do that. Then he asked them to wait while his mother wired him the money.

The Society told him if he would sign the cat over to them, they would treat the cat and put it in foster care. That would have been the logical thing to do since it's obvious that Dockery doesn't have the means to properly care for an animal. But Dockery refused. The end of the story for Scruffy is that she was euthanized.

Now all the animal rights people are blaming the Humane Society. The Humane Society is just that -- humane. They use their money to place animals that would otherwise be left to wander the streets and suffer. They use their money to treat animals who have no owner to provide the funds needed to treat them. If they had treated Scruffy for Daniel for free, they would be inundated with pet owners bringing in their animals for free treatment. Then the money they've collected for the strays and abandoned animals would be dried up, and they would be forced to euthanize many more adoptable pets.

If Daniel had any common sense or any compassion, he would have given Scruffy a chance. Instead, he selfishly clung to his "rights." I suspect that if we checked, all of us taxpayers are providing Daniel's food and shelter and medical care. I guess he thought he was entitled to free veterinary care as well.

"Euthanized cat sparks an outcry." The Dallas Morning News; December 29, 2011; p. 3A.

More Obamacare

Did you know that starting in January of this year, the government charges a fee to your health insurance for research to find out which drugs, medical procedures, tests and treatments work best? Guess how your insurance plan pays for that fee? They increase your premium or reduce your benefit. And guess what else? The fee automatically increases with inflation, but I didn't see any provision for it being reduced if inflation decreases.

Not to mention that I don't want some bureaucrat deciding which drugs, medical procedures, tests and treatments work best for me. I prefer those decisions be made by my doctor and me.

So what does this boil down to? We are paying more for our insurance and being told what's good for us. Don't you just love Obamacare?

"New health plan fee to fund research gets mixed reaction." The Dallas Morning News; December 28, 2011; p. 6A.

Would you leave your children with a pedophile?

Poor little Aliahna Lemmon, age 9, had an idiot for a mother -- and Aliahna paid for it. Tarah Souders, Aliahna's mother, entrusted Michael Plumadore with the care of Aliahna and her two younger sisters even though she knew he was a convicted sex offender. Michael bludgeoned Aliahna to death with a brick, then dismembered her and hid her head, hands and feet at her grandfather's trailer before dumping the rest of her body elsewhere.

Tarah Souders should, at the least, be charged as an accessory to murder. There is no excuse for what she did.

"Man accused of killing 9-year-old." The Dallas Morning News; December 28, 2011; p. 5A.

Which part do you disagree with?

National Urban League president Marc Morial doesn't like what Rick Santorum had to say while he was on the campaign trail in Iowa. Santorum allegedly said, "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." I say allegedly, because if you view one of the youtube slow-motion clips of it, it's quite possible he just got his tang tungled up (as one of my high school teachers was fond of saying). It's quite possible he started to say ". . . make lives better," then decided what he wanted to say was, " . . . make people's lives better." If he did say "black people," he pronounced it "blike people."


But let's give the reporters and Morial the benefit of the doubt and say that Santorum did, in fact, say "black people's live." What part of that offends Morial? The part about living off other people's money? Or the part about earning your own money? Or the implication that by percentage, more blacks than whites are on welfare? That's easily checked out -- blacks make up approximately 12.4% of the population, but draw better than 33% of the welfare benefits.

I guess Morial just doesn't like the ring of truth.

"Santorum comments on blacks criticized." The Dallas Morning News; January 4, 2012; p. 14A.

Constitutional Law or Sharia Law?

A Denver Federal Appeals Court ruled that Muneer Awad has the right to sue to block an Oklahoma law that prohibits Islamic law from being considered in Oklahoma courts. Awad said, "This is an important reminder that the Constitution is the last line of defense against a rising tide of anti-Muslim bigotry . . ." I guess he means that same Constitution that he's trying to subjugate to his heretical religious law. . . the law that allows a father to kill his daughter if he feels she has dishonored the family or become too "westernized." If the Muslim can use Sharia law as a defense, then he can be exonerated for killing an infidel (that's you or me or any other Christian). He can be exonerated for beating his wife. He can be exonerated for any other of a number of things that are crimes in this country. What do you think would happen if a Christian judge used the Bible to excuse someone who beat a homosexual? He would be vilified and disbarred at the very least. And so also should those judges who sit on that Denver court.

"Oklahoma ban on Islamic law discriminates, court says." The Dallas Morning News; January 11, 2012; p. 7A.

Is she smart enough to be a SC Justice?

In Supreme Court arguments over the issue of nudity and cursing on broadcast TV, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "One cannot tell what's indecent and what isn't." I suppose that could be true if one is mentally retarded or amoral. Wonder which one she is?

"Justices weigh TV standards." The Dallas Morning News; January 11, 2012; p. 5A.

Where are the editorials?

The Dallas Morning News grows skinnier and skinnier. And all the while they're trying to convince the readers that this is all a new and exciting format with them in mind. Yeah, right.

Anyway, in a recent edition, they took two pages to tell us what's on the opinion page. They explained that it had a masthead, editorials, letters to the editor, featured columnists, a cartoon, and guest columnists. I guess they assume we're too ignorant to recognize those things when we see them. But the real irony of all this? They had none of those things in that edition, because they took up the entire editorial section to explain what goes on the page.

"Behind the opinions." The Dallas Morning News; January 3, 2012; p. 10A.