People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Friday, September 07, 2007

If They Must ...

I don't like it but I support the right of service providers to do it:

Justice Dept. Opposes Network Neutrality
Associated Press

The Justice Department said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to charge extra for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to network neutrality, the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

Several phone and cable companies, including AT&T, Verizon Communications and Comcast, want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than other content. Supporters of neutrality laws, including Google and Yahoo, argue that network operators should treat all Web services equally. (link)

I can't imagine paying for the "premium" service. But these guys are capitalists and deserve to make a buck. Or billions.

Here's to the Justice Department's decision.

Herndon Is In For It

As I predicted, the heroic officials up in Herndon - those who are doing the work the feds and Tim Kaine should be doing - are catching all kinds of hell for trying to do something about the growing illegal immigration problem. This from the the usual suspects:
Coming: Havoc in Herndon
Washington Post editorial

The Herndon Town Council, having inherited an orderly situation regarding the management of day laborers, has opted to replace it with disorder. Now, there's a novel approach to municipal governance.

Forced into a corner, the council decided to blow everything up: No more day-laborer center. No more anti-solicitation ordinance. No more peace and quiet. Council members say they hope that zoning and trespassing laws will suffice to prevent impromptu job-seeking sites from forming, as such sites did two years ago, at curbsides and in convenience-store parking lots. But the truth is that the police have few tools to work with. So once again, the workers will be in the streets. (link)
Herndon, before the neanderthals on town council screwed things up, had "orderly" lawlessness.

Only in the Washington Post.

It Needs To Be Stated Again

The Washington Times on the Virginia Tech massacre, the panel recommendations, and gun control:

First and foremost, Virginia Tech officials erred by not quickly alerting students to the two dormitory shootings. That information should have been sent to students and faculty. Plans to quickly alert students, cancel classes and, when feasible, lockdown buildings should be drawn up.

On a more controversial topic — gun control — some of the recommendations are red herrings. The panel advocates banning guns "on campus grounds and in buildings unless mandated by law" and performing background checks for purchases at gun shows. But Virginia Tech, like most universities in Virginia, already has a policy prohibiting guns on campus, and Cho Seung-hui didn't purchase either weapon at a gun show.

The salient gun question is how someone with a history of mental illness — a history that includes frequent counseling and even hospitalization for being considered a threat to self and others — was able to easily purchase two handguns in violation of federal law. (link)
Missed completely was the fact that this madman shouldn't have been walking the streets. Repeat after me: Institutionalization.

But such thoughts aren't considered proper in this modern, progressive, more civilized era.

Opportunity missed. Lesson not yet learned. Expect more Virginia Techs in the future.


An 18% approval rating - right up there with Osama bin Ladin's - will have this effect:
Antiwar drive stalls on Hill
By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times

Rank-and-file Democrats in Congress are criticizing the party's leaders for allowing the White House to sap momentum from the antiwar movement during the August recess.

"The White House is taking great advantage of the Democrats not pushing back," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus. (link)
The White House has nothing to do with it. You do.

Keep these anti-American lowlifes on the run.

Political Insider Nabbed

And no. It's not Jack Abramoff.

Fugitive Political Fund-Raiser Arrested in Colorado

This one will never be portrayed as being a sinister character, plotting along with his bought-and-paid-for cadre of Washington politicians to destroy the USA. This one is a Democrat donor.

He's just a crook.

Pull The Troops Out Now!

The South Koreans obviously don't see a need for them to be there anymore:
Bush and S. Korean Spar Over War
By The Associated Press

Sydney, Australia (AP) -- In a testy public exchange Friday with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, President Bush said the United States would formally end the Korean War only when North Korea halts its nuclear weapons program.

The two leaders met on the sidelines of a 21-nation Pacific Rim summit here, spending much of their roughly one-hour session discussing the international standoff over the communist North's pursuit of atomic arms.

Roh pushed Bush to be ''clearer'' about his position on an official end to the 1950-53 Korean War. The two Koreas were divided by the conflict, which ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, meaning they still remain technically at war.

The leaders' tone remained light, but Bush responded firmly: ''I can't make it any more clear, Mr. President. We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will happen when Kim Jong Il verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons.'' (link)
The U.S. has some 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea.

One has to begin wondering why, since the South Koreans seem not to know.

It Can Happen Anywhere

So why did those who were responsible for the maintenance and growth of the Museum of the Confederacy decide to destroy it instead? Fear of Jihad, American Style. Also referred to as Political Correctness.

They feared confrontation with the kind of people who were involved in this shameful episode in American history:
The Massacre of Innocence
A stunning new book shows how elite culture made the Duke rape hoax possible.
By Abigail Thernstrom, writing in the Wall Street Journal

Privileged, rowdy white jocks at an elite, Southern college, a poor, young black stripper, and an alleged rape: It was a juicy, made-for-the-media story of race, class and sex, and it was told and retold for months with a ferocious, moralistic intensity. Reporters and pundits ripped into Duke University, the white race and the young lacrosse players at the center of the episode, and the local justice system quickly handed up indictments. But as Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson show in "Until Proven Innocent"--and as the facts themselves would show when they finally came to light--it was a false story, a toxic controversy built on lies and bad faith.

"Until Proven Innocent" is a stunning book. It recounts the Duke lacrosse case in fascinating detail and offers, along the way, a damning portrait of the institutions--legal, educational and journalistic--that do so much to shape contemporary American culture. Messrs. Taylor and Johnson make it clear that the Duke affair--the rabid prosecution, the skewed commentary, the distorted media storyline--was not some odd, outlier incident but the product of an elite culture's most treasured assumptions about American life, not least about America's supposed racial divide. (link)
Read the whole thing. And be justifiably fearful.

So what, you ask, does this have to do with The Museum of the Confederacy? Everything.

When a trial balloon went up recently that hinted a move of the museum to Lexington, the final resting place of both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, controversy immediately sprung up. "Perpetuation of a dark period in America's past" and all that. The Confederacy. Slavery. Subjugation. Chains. Beatings. Auction blocks. Human chattel. Modern-day guilt-by-association.

Museum officials had no interest in involving themselves in such a dispute. They instead decided to flee. They are destroying the museum rather than continue the mission they were assigned.

Are they cowards? Or realists?

I think if we asked the three Duke lacrosse players for their opinion, we might be surprised by their answers.

Then again, maybe not.