Archive for the ‘Unicorntx’ Category

Who Else Noticed

September 6, 2008

I thought for a while no one else noticed the absence of minorities at the Republican Convention, but found this article in the LATimes.

Why isn’t this getting more press?

PS –  If any of you techies want to get this reference in the proper form, I’d appreciate it.

Advertisements

Score one for the Constitution

September 6, 2007

I’m experiementing with posting without quite knowing how to do this. Hope it works.

Here’s an article about the Patriot Act.

It is refreshing to see that one judge has the courage and the insight to see that this administration needs to be curbed.

Bibles on the Lawn

July 31, 2007

Well, what think you of this?

Personally, I know a lot of needy folks who could use part of that $438,000 to pay for food, prescriptions and utility bills.

Group to Deliver Bibles With Newspapers
Published: 7/31/07, 3:46 PM EDTBy MATT CURRY
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) – Everything from detergent to computer discs is packaged with the Sunday newspaper. So why not Bibles?
A Christian ministry wants to deliver custom-designed New Testaments to newspaper subscribers around the country as part of an effort to find innovative ways to spread a Christian message. But even in the Bible Belt, not everyone thinks that’s a good idea.
International Bible Society-Send the Light is planning on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute Bibles with 11 newspapers during 2007 and 2008. New Testaments would be packaged in pouches on the outside of newspapers, much like soap or other sample products.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram announced in May it would deliver more than 200,000 New Testaments the last Sunday of the year. David House, the newspaper’s reader advocate, said he received about 70 e-mails split between backers and those opposed to packaging the scriptures with newspapers.
“Do you have any idea how blatantly offensive this boneheaded move is to the thinking public?” a Fort Worth reader wrote in one of several letters to the editor on the topic.
Some of the outcry has come from one of the least likely sources – Christians. Bob Ray Sanders, the Star-Telegram’s vice president and associate editor, said some worried that the Bibles tossed on the lawn with the newspaper would be thrown away because most people already own a Bible.
“I expected that we’d get some criticism, but I thought it would be coming from people who were not Christian or not religious at all. Many of the complaints we got were from people who were Christian and didn’t like the idea,” said Sanders.
After an initial outcry in May, the paper told subscribers they could opt out of the delivered Bibles, which include the New Testament and local Christian testimony.
One reader wondered if he could halt other newspaper ads he doesn’t like.
“Please note on my account that I want to receive the New Testament and ‘opt out’ of all other forms of unwanted solicitation and advertising. I want no toxic hair cream, no aspartame-filled gum or any other form of unwanted advertising and solicitation,” he wrote.
The Colorado-based International Bible Society published the New International Version of the Bible in 1978, and is one of the world’s largest translators and distributors of scriptures. The group merged with Carlisle, England-based Send the Light, one of the largest distributors of Christian literature, earlier this year.
The Bible ministry’s “City Reachers” project aims to reach newspaper subscribers in eight regions, according to its Web site.
But fundraising for the projects has been slow. None has raised even half the money needed to finance the initiative yet. In Fort Worth, the group faces an Oct. 31 deadline to raise $438,000; so far, only a little more than $13,000 has been collected through church offerings and other efforts.
If the money can’t be raised, the project may be delayed.
The society’s Paul Tolleson said major fundraising in Fort Worth and other cities has only just begun. Some campaigns already have been delayed, but none have been canceled.
Tolleson expressed frustration with the complaints.
“It’s disappointing that anyone would object to getting a Bible, which is the best read book in the whole world and has been for hundreds of years. They have the right to do with it what they want to,” he said. “Do they object to getting a bag of Quaker oatmeal or Tide detergent or an AOL disc?”

A Gag on Free Speech

December 18, 2006

This could be called “crying wolf”, but I think not. It is a pattern of abuse practiced by this administration. What think you?

N Y TIMES Editorial
A Gag on Free Speech
Published: December 15, 2006
The Bush administration is trampling on the First Amendment and well-established criminal law by trying to use a subpoena to force the American Civil Liberties Union to hand over a classified document in its possession. The dispute is shrouded in secrecy, and very little has been made public about the document, but we do not need to know what’s in it to know what’s at stake: if the government prevails, it will have engaged in prior restraint — almost always a serious infringement on free speech — and it could start using subpoenas to block reporting on matters of vital public concern.
Justice Department lawyers have issued a grand jury subpoena to the A.C.L.U. demanding that it hand over “any and all copies” of the three-and-a-half-page government document, which was recently leaked to the group. The A.C.L.U. is asking a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan to quash the subpoena.
There are at least two serious problems with the government’s action. It goes far beyond what the law recognizes as the legitimate purpose of a subpoena. Subpoenas are supposed to assist an investigation, but the government does not need access to the A.C.L.U.’s document for an investigation since it already has its own copy. It is instead trying to confiscate every available copy of the document to keep its contents secret. The A.C.L.U. says it knows of no other case in which a grand jury subpoena has been used this way.
The subpoena is also a prior restraint because the government is trying to stop the A.C.L.U. in advance from speaking about the document’s contents. The Supreme Court has held that prior restraints are almost always unconstitutional. The danger is too great that the government will overreach and use them to ban protected speech or interfere with free expression by forcing the media, and other speakers, to wait for their words to be cleared in advance. The correct way to deal with speech is to evaluate its legality after it has occurred.
The Supreme Court affirmed these vital principles in the Pentagon Papers case, when it rejected the Nixon administration’s attempts to stop The Times and The Washington Post from publishing government documents that reflected badly on its prosecution of the Vietnam War. If the Nixon administration had been able to use the technique that the Bush administration is trying now, it could have blocked publication simply by ordering the newspapers to hand over every copy they had of the papers.
If the A.C.L.U.’s description of its secret document is correct, there is no legitimate national defense issue. The document does not contain anything like intelligence sources or troop movements, the group says. It is merely a general statement of policy whose release “might perhaps be mildly embarrassing to the government.” Given this administration’s abysmal record on these issues, this case could set a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If the subpoena is enforced, the administration will have gained a powerful new tool for rolling back free-speech rights — one that could be used to deprive Americans of information they need to make informed judgments about their elected leaders’ policies and actions.