Eric Blair tips us off in a comment on that “other” site to an fine example of the freedoms one can enjoy in Canada.

Or not enjoy, as the case may be.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees in Ontario, the largest labor union representing staff members at the province’s universities, plans to introduce a resolution at its conference next month to ban Israeli academics from teaching, speaking, or doing research at Ontario universities if they do not first condemn Israeli actions in Gaza.

Wow.  Really, Canada?

As Mark Steyn could tell you, freedom of speech is at best a dubious concept in - as a former instructor of mine called it - North Montana.  However, this is really is worse.

Universities - the place where one most wants and needs a diverse cross section of viewpoints - are becoming a place where a man (or woman) may well have to denounce their home in order to retain employment.  This is the very essence of “Compelled Speech”, and is the most vulgar of displays of self-righteous ass-hattery I’ve seen lately…

And I live in Illinois, and was awake during the last two-year presidential campaign.

The crowning jewel that proves that these people have utterly lost their shit?

The union’s president, Sid Ryan, accused Israel of deliberately making the university a target, and he compared the attack to actions of the Nazis.

Note: I should point out that the title of this post is funnier if you sing it to the tune of Canada’s national anthem. 

According to Senator Lieberman, speaking on the floor of the Senate this morning, Congress has the Constitutional authority to grant voting rights in Congress to representatives from the District of Columbia.

The source of that authority?

Article 1, Section 8, clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

It’s not clear to me how the power to exercise exclusive legislation over the District gives Congress the authority to override Article 1 Section 2 (”The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” or Article 3 Section 1 (”The Senators of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State).

I agree with the policy decision that people living in the District should have representation in Congress, and I think the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people living within the United States who have no such representation is a violation of the nation’s fundamental political values. But the remedy lies in changing the Constitution, as was done with the 23d Amendment, rather than twisting the Congress’ power to legislate for the District in ways which were clearly not intended by.

Alan Dershowitz reports:

In one recent incident, Israeli intelligence learned that a particular house was being used to manufacture and store rockets.  It was a clear military target since their rockets were being fired at Israeli civilians.  But the house was also being lived in by a family.  So the Israeli military phoned the house, informed the owner that it was a military target, and gave him thirty minutes to leave with his family.  The owner called Hamas, which immediately sent dozens of mothers carrying babies to stand on the roof of the house.  Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a house with civilians in it.  They also knew that if, by some fluke, the Israeli authorities did not learn that there were civilians in the house, and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead civilians to the media.  In this case, Israel did learn of the civilians and withheld its fire.  The rockets that were spared destruction by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.

Drudge informs us that NBC has seen fit to ban Ms. Coulter from all it’s affiliated channels because of the content of her new book.

And what might it be that would so anger them?

But one network insider claims it was the book’s theme — a brutal examination of liberal bias in the new era — that got executives to dis-invite the controversialist.

“We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now,” a TODAY insider reveals. “It’s such a downer. It’s just not the time, and it’s not what our audience wants, either.”

Who did they replace her with?  Perez Hilton, the jack-hole who offered up $1,000 to anyone that would hit Ann with a pie.

Such tolerance of other ideas…  Such love of peace…

Excuse me while I spit.

I was thinking…  Since it seems likely that Burris would win his court case should he be barred from being seated (and hey, let’s not forget that Cheney could always go to him, and once sworn in could not be barred), why not just let him in?

And then Reid can start a vote to expel him.

Either way, this will look bad for the Dems.  Very, very bad.

When people ask me what state I’m from, I think I’m going to start lying…

The story so far: Since departing my legal alma mater ^FN1 as the editor of the law review, I have submitted the below article and received 18 rejections from law review committees. ^FN2

Footnote 1: Bob’s Waffle House and Law College (Free breakfast with tuition!)

Footnote 2: This is especially unusual, since I have only submitted it to seven law reviews.

(Note on Footnotes: They’re interspersed. This shows erudition. They’re not actually at the foot of the paper, but rather more in the midsection.)

Despite the rejections, this is clearly a masterpiece; I anticipate Congressional testimony by the world’s foremost expert on the subject (me). I’m frankly shocked that a Google search has shown this to have been overlooked by almost everyone else. I am not shocked that I am smarter than everyone else – that’s already clearly established by my repeatedly pointing it out. I am only surprised at the degree, and the fact that the only person who has otherwise observed this is a folk-rock singer of political and documentary songs.

So, here it is, the actual paper. How do I send it to SSRN?

A Proposed Extension of the Americans with Disabilities Act

“We’re not unreasonable.” – Jonathan Coulton.

Summary: The Americans with Disabilities Act described the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities as a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. Those with either physical or mental problems or both must have reasonable accommodations made for their disabilities. One particular group has been isolated, discriminated against, and relentlessly mocked in media, documentaries, and elsewhere, and the government has permitted and even encouraged this discrimination.

When a group is asking for reasonable accommodations, they must be accommodated. The failure to do so for zombies continues to be one of America’s many shames.

(more…)

Or anywhere in France, apparently.

*ahem*

Car burnings are regular occurrences in France but the registering the New Year’s Eve total has become something of a tradition since they achieved symbolic status in the violent rioting that shook many of the country’s poor suburbs in 2005.

Indeed.  And just how many cars went up ub flames as the New Year was rung in?

The French press reported that the Interior Ministry released a final “verified” count of 1,147 vehicles burned in France over New Year’s Eve. The number is up 30.64% from last year’s total, 878.

Awesome.  Apparently over 35,000 police were online ready to deal with any rioting (though actual clashes with the cops were few, apparently), and yet over a thousand cars got torched.

“There were few ‘contacts’ with police, gendarmes and fire services but an increase in the number of burnings for which we don’t have an explanation at the moment,” the official said.

I suppose “they are worthless piles of crap who apparently have it too easy living on the dole” was never mentioned at the round-table?  And I don’t suppose it is too much to hope that these malcontents started with their own cars, eh?

No, I didn’t think so.

For the record, while IL law doesn’t allow for it the way Texas law does, if you try and torch my car, I’m shooting you if you should be so unlucky as to have me catch you in the act.

You’re doing it wrong.

You can’t make this stuff up…

A Jew-hater at an anti-Israel rally (almost redundant) on Sunday in Manhattan held up this telling sign: “Death to All Juice“. (via LGF)

Meanwhile a British newspaper featured this headline above a cool photo of an F-16: “What Israel is doing is nothing to do with peace but its own selfish security concerns”. (via Meryl Yourish)

More as I have time.  Just wanted to call dibs. 

Update (aka the actual post):

Ok, it seems that Soon-to-be convict Blago has decided to name former Illinois AG Roland Burris to P.E. Obama’s vacant Senate Seat. The picture of Blago they use, btw, is priceless.

Roland Burris is, in case you didn’t know (and I had to google him), a guy that has tried for MANY different Illinois jobs, losing all but two (Comptroller and AG).  He’s lost bids for the Dem part slate for Senator (lost to Paul Simon), Governor a couple of times, and even tried to run against Mayor Daley for that man’s job (which Daley has basicly until he decides he doesn’t want it any more, or dies - and even then I’m not sure Daley would lose).

I really have no idea what to make of it.

My dad can’t recall anything bad about the guy, but he was only AG from ‘91 thru ‘95 (under Republican Gov. Jim Edger), so I guess he’s a good enough pic.  I mean, it isn’t like a republican or libertarian was going to have a chance in hell at the seat.

Via my inbox, I am tipped off to the following regarding a court case we might remember:

Matt Dummermuth, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, argued that [former Agriprocessors Chief Executive Officer Sholom] Rubashkin poses a flight risk, in part because of the Law of Return — Israeli legislation enacted in 1950 that gives Jews and those of Jewish ancestry, as well as their spouses, the right to migrate to and settle in Israel and gain citizenship. As far as anyone can remember, the Law of Return never has been cited as a reason to deny bail. Many Jews fear the ruling could set a precedent.

My problem is, I can see both sides here.

Certainly from a Civil Liberties standpoint, this is disgusting.  I’m German enough in ancestry to get German citizenship - does that mean I should be denied bail, because I might run off to Germany?

Though I generally try to avoid doing things that require any kind of bail hearing…  You know, like hiring scads of illegal immigrants in violation of State and Federal Law.

On the other hand, this is a guy that could easily afford to hop a plane and leave.  Her was a CEO, so it’s likely he’s got what the kids today call “serious bank”.  Also, the thing about Israel’s law is - as far as I understand it - you can walk into an Israeli embassy, and they basically hand you an Israeli passport.  This would make merely surrendering his US passport a pointless act.

“Sure, take my US passport…  <mutters> I’ll just go get a new one from the nearest Israeli embassy…”

Though I suppose it is unlikely that Israel would fail to extradite the guy.  After all, it isn’t like they are France or Mexico, refusing to send us back out depraved killers so we can rightly execute them.  This is a country that very much cares about it’s relationship with the US, and about the rule of law.

<Insert tasteless Jewish lawyer joke here>

Personally (and remember IANAL), I can’t see this decision not being overturned on appeal, but I have to say it’s a good try on the part of Mr. Dummermuth.

But what say you lot?  This sort of thing a good idea?  Bad idea?

(H/T PCD)

Michael Cohn and Heather Farley are two people with far too much time on their hands.

Cohn went to a Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim baseball game on Mother’s Day in 2005 and demanded one of the free tote bags the Angels were giving to women fans.  After he was denied, Cohn left the game and contacted his lawyer, who wrote a letter to the Angels.  The team responded by sending tote bags to Cohn, his lawyer, and two friends who also complained.  Nevertheless, Cohn filed a lawsuit against the Angels, claiming that the promotion was illegal sex discrimination.  Cohn argued that the giveaway was a violation of the Unruh act, which prohibits California businesses from discriminating on the basis of sex and other protected categories.

The state appeals court ruled in favor of the Angels, stating that the team intended to honor all mothers.  Since it would be impractical for the team to verify that each woman who received a tote bag was a mother, the Angels were entitled to provide tote bags to all adult women.  The gift of a tote bag is distinguished from a discounted admission price (such as ladies day), which would violate Unruh.  According to the court ruling, Cohn deliberately went to the game with the intent to sue, and he and his friends had been involved in a number of previous “shakedown” lawsuits.

Farley, meanwhile, complained in October when Facebook removed photos showing her breastfeeding her baby from her personal page.  Facebook’s policy prohibits photos that show the areola around the nipple.  When she posted another breastfeeding photo, Facebook sent Farley a letter threatening to delete her account. Whereupon the Provo, Utah mother sent out an email that generated support from other breastfeeding moms and lactation advocates.  A Facebook group site has already garnered over 70,000 members, who have posted nearly 3,000 photos of breastfeeding.  According to the San Jose Mercury News, however, a rally called for Saturday at Facebook’s headquarters in Palo Alto drew only a few protestors, who bore signs reading “Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding is not Obscene.”  Company executives did not appear to be at work.

There’s nothing I could add to the court ruling on the Mother’s Day promotion except that, with fans like Cohn, teams may be less likely to offer such promotions.  As for the breastfeeding protest, while I support the rights of mothers to breastfeed in public when done discreetly, Facebook has every right to determine its own standards and terms of service.  If the protesters disagree, they are free to join a different social network website.  They are free to develop their own social network website.  They are free to exchange photos the old-fashioned way — by email.  Or they are free to get a life.