Dan Senor, a Republican strategist, mentioned today on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might actually be seeking to become McCain’s running mate for the upcoming election in the role of VP. Would this be a winning ticket for Republicans?

Personally, I would love to see a McCain/Rice ticket. It makes sense to me on multiple levels.

First, while Senator McCain is one of the most honorable men in Washington, DC, Secretary Rice is certainly one of the smartest. Secretary Rice has served in two different administrations, she speaks several languages, she was the Provost of Stanford University for several years, and in her youth she became a proficient pianist.

Secretary Rice served in the administration of George HW Bush from 1989 to 1991, and became first a Director, then a Senior Director of Soviet Affairs. Her knowledge of the Soviet Union was so highly regarded that President Bush once introduced her to Mikhail Gorbachev as “the one who tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union.” Secretary Rice then served as Stanford Provost from 1993 to 1999. During her time at Stanford, Secretary Rice was able to turn a $20 million dollar deficit carried by the school into a $14.5 million surplus in just two years, something which no one had originally believed could be accomplished.

Without going in to every detail of her life, I do think it becomes obvious in a short span of time that Secretary Rice is one of the most impressive people of this generation. Secretary Rice is a scholar, a musician, a statesman, and a leader. She has excelled in nearly everything she has tried, and knows first-hand exactly how horrible racism can be.

Secretary Rice is easily more impressive than either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. And she is a person who, in Washington, is both highly regarded and highly respected. Even those who don’t like her respect her, albeit grudgingly.

She would be a phenomenal choice for Vice President, a good balance in every way for Senator McCain. Secretary Rice is young, brilliant, as energetic as the Senator, and has an impressive reputation both nationally and internationally. And if something were ever to happen to Senator McCain — God forbid — Americans would know that McCain picked a woman who is easily capable of being president, while, at the same time, Republicans could be confident in her conservative values.

Let’s hope Senator McCain sees it the same way.

NOTE: I highly recommend that readers take the time to read more about Secretary Rice. You can find a great deal of information about her at Wikipedia.org. The more you learn about Secretary Rice, the more you will be impressed.

Randi Rhodes, the foul-mouthed, mean-spirited talk show host on the liberal Air America network was suspended Thursday for calling Senator Clinton a “whore,” using the F word as part of her description. You can see her performance on YouTube here.

So why is this such a scandal? After all, it was part of a comedy routine and Ms. Rhodes has been given a great deal of leniency when in comedic mode. For example, there was that comment a couple years back, when, during her radio show, Randi was comparing the Bush family to the Corleones from “The Godfather.”

Randi told the caller that, “the Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn’t his father or his brother … take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys – he loves God so much. … You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee – pow [gunshot sound] – works for me.”

Ms. Rhodes got into a bit of trouble for that statement when the secret service looked into the threat. Randi’s response was to apologize. She told listeners, “I feel bad that anybody would feel threatened by comedy. That’s one thing, but I also feel bad that it wasn’t funny.” Of course, a lot of liberal “comedy” is unfunny, so no big surprise there.

But what do you think is worse, threatening the President of the United States or calling someone a “f@!?ing Whore”? I would think wishing harm on the President as being far worse, yet Rhodes was not even suspended for that remark.

I guess it’s okay to wish death on someone as long as they are Republican, but dare to call a Democrat an inappropriate name and you are toast! An unfortunate but unsurprising double-standard.

I have to apologize and give credit where it’s due in regards to my last post. An article posted to Weeklystandard.com entitled Plagiarism went up late last week and while I had already been thinking along the same lines, the article really inspired me to blog more on this topic. So, if you want to read a very well-written article discussing “style vs. substance” differences in this upcoming presidential campaign, you’ll find it here.

While most people think that Senator Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee this year, Republicans already have their nominee, Senator John McCain. The fact is, I couldn’t be more delighted with McCain as our nominee. I began gravitating towards Senator McCain about six months ago, and I think this cycle Republicans made a wise choice.

Democrats have a big problem. Actually, they have several big problems, including the fact that they are tearing themselves apart in a long, drawn-out primary battle between Senators Obama and Clinton.

But their biggest problem is that, whoever becomes the Democratic nominee must face one of the most substantive opponents they’ve faced since Ronald Reagan ran in 1980. In some ways, McCain is even more substantive as a candidate.

Senator Clinton, of course, has her imagined experience while a First Lady plus seven years in Congress. And I take nothing away from Senator Clinton’s years in Congress; she’s shown herself to be both effective and influential in the Senate.

Senator Obama of course has three years in the Senate and about 8 years as an Illinois state senator. Again, not bad. Certainly, Senator Obama has been a rising star in the Democratic Party since he first began running for office a few years back. Senator Obama is nothing less than impressive for his political skills.

But there is a gap for both Democratic senators. I guess you could sum it up by asking, “where’s the beef?”

It is, as I have said, style vs. substance. So, how will the eventual Democratic candidate deal with such as substantive presidential rival? By attacking his substance of course.

And we’ve already seen some initial salvo’s with Clinton and Obama supporters promising an ominous and serious look at McCain’s “record.” Which means they are going to dig in and find whatever they can to smear him with.

The whole trumped-up charge of plagiarism against McCain by liberal website ThinkProgress.org is the perfect example of how Democrats are hoping to smear him, yet, if this kind of thing is the best they can do, they are in serious trouble come November. Of course, ThinkProgress.org was forced to apologize for their mistake, but even if they had not, why would it have been, as some liberals put it, “devastating” to McCain’s campaign that he echoed a fellow warrior in declaring his hatred for war?

All I can say is, there’s a truck coming down the road, it’s called the “McCain Campaign,” and, come November, I don’t think Democrats are going to know what hit them.

But that’s just my opinion.

I’m going to blog more on this later.  This is a key factor in the upcoming general campaign between Senator McCain and whomever Democrats decide will take him on this year.  As I watch Senator Obama in particular as he carefully dances around the issues, trying to be all things to all people, and compare that to Senator McCain’s style of “straight talk,” I feel increasingly confident that McCain will win in November.

More to come!

Politico.com is reporting that Democrats plan to hammer Senator McCain for his “100 years” comment. He said this during a Town Hall Q&A session when a participant asked the Senator about a recent statement made by President Bush regarding the fact that we might be in Iraq for the next 50 years. McCain was fairly straightforward as usual. He replied, “Make it 100.”

McCain went on to clarify by reminding people “we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

So Democrats are going to “hammer” McCain with this? I hope they’re not paying these so-called Democratic “strategists” for this kind of stuff. Really, the foolishness of this line of attack is summed up in three points.

First, this line of attack will only underscore Democrats’ weakness when it comes to foreign policy. Senator McCain was right on the need for a troop surge in Iraq, so why remind voters of that fact?

If you want to know how little foreign policy experience DNC candidates have, just take a look at the CBS video of Senator Clinton, where, during a recent press conference, the Senator discusses a 1996 trip to Bosnia. Senator Clinton remembers the trip as being rather dangerous, with sniper fire and soldiers telling her to duck and run to the vehicle. How exciting!

Well, CBS went back and found the video footage of that trip, showing then-First Lady Clinton walking calmly with daughter Chelsea, accompanied by American troops and attending a reception ceremony with Bosnian children bearing gifts for the First Lady. That is foreign policy experience? In her wildest imaginings, sure!

Secondly, Democrats seem to assume that Americans obsess over the Iraq War as they do. Not true. Americans have concerns, but as conditions have steadily improved in Iraq, the war has become a weaker issue overall, which is why the mainstream media gives so little coverage these days. But just as the bad news of Iraq becomes the good news of Iraq, Democrats want to try and use it against Senator McCain? This makes no sense.

Finally, attacking Senator McCain on the war, where he can turn right around and remind everyone that he criticized the administration for its handling of the war, distracts from other issues where they might have some hope of winning support. The economy, for instance, is an area where Democrats tend to poll better anyway, so why not go there?

This whole “100 years” strategy is going to wind up blowing up in Democrats’ faces. But if Dems want to go after McCain in a way that undermines their chances of winning in November, I guess I shouldn’t complain.

Have at it!

Listening to Obama’s speech on race in this country a few days back again reinforced to me the fact that Obama is a highly skilled politician. First, because the guy can deliver a speech so brilliantly. And this one was truly brilliant.

At the same time, it left no doubt in my mind that this guy is just another politician, not the savior he’s being billed as by his loyal supporters. And I’m surprised that no one has yet called out the fact that Obama was telling us things that his grandmother once said, likely thinking that it would never go past their intimate family circle.

Instead, Senator Obama aired his family’s dirty laundry out for the nation to see and history to record. The fact that his grandmother once said that she was afraid to walk past black men on the street — Jesse Jackson once said the same thing, btw — and that his grandmother has in the past uttered “racial epithets” that made him cringe. I’m assuming his grandmother must be dead and his mother still alive since he didn’t air her dirty laundry in the speech.

The fact is, once Pastor Wright’s statements emerged in public, Senator Obama tossed him aside.  When we began to hear Pastor Wright’s sermons saying that God should “damn” America and that HIV was manufactured by the government to kill Blacks, Senator Obama quickly move Pastor Wright off of his advisory council.

Then, when people began to seriously ask Senator Obama why he stayed in that church for 20 years, he tried to justify it by pulling his own grandmother into the fray and using her as a negative example.  “Well,” says the Senator in so many words, “my white grandmother said racist thing too!”  Of course, what he forgets to mention — but that which we all know anyway — is that you can pick your pastors and your church, but you cannot pick your family members.

You can, however, publicly humiliate them by pointing out their racist views to the entire country I guess.

If that’s not a skilled and typical politician for you, then I don’t know what is.

One has to wonder what is going through the minds of Democrats across the country right now. If we were one of them, we’d probably be sitting right now, head-in-hand, wondering how things could have become such a mess.

Two big states — Michigan and Florida — have been disenfranchised in these Democratic primaries and some campaign donors are threatening to pull support if those votes are not restored, the superdelegate system has become almost a ground war of losses and gains between the Clinton and Obama Campaigns, and the daily attacks between the Obama and Clinton campaigns has undermined their credibility on a range of issues.

For Obama in particular, the candidate who has based his entire campaign on the theme of “rising above” typical Washington politics, the reality-check that many supporters are getting while watching him give as good as he gets from the Clinton Campaign has to make them wonder if he’s not really just another politician. While most seem to think that Obama’s drop in poll numbers has more to do with the recent controversy over statements by his Pastor, it may also be that Senator Obama has been forced out of the “visionary new leader” template he had fashioned for himself and more into the “politics-as-usual” mode that comes from being under increasing attack by the Clinton Campaign on the left and Republicans on the right.

That said, one can see exactly how skilled Senator Obama truly is for one so new to national politics. The Senator built a campaign which rocked the vaunted Clinton political machine back on its heels, and has given him a clear — but not decisive — edge in the Democratic primaries.

It’s hard not to admire such skill, and Republicans rightly fear him as the candidate who would be toughest to beat come November. Some might counter these assertions by saying that, rather than the dawning disaster Republicans see for Democrats in 2008, they have instead an embarrassment of riches.

Three months ago, we would have grudgingly agreed. But that was then, and this is now.

Rather than an embarrassment of riches, we see a stale-mated, deadlocked Democratic Party. And we see two apt politicians who have crafted formidable campaigns and spent the past two years laboring to become their party’s presidential nominee. Both campaigns believe that whoever does win the nomination will likely go on to win the election in a cake-walk, and neither wants to simply walk away after working so hard and coming so close to victory.

Meanwhile, Republicans have selected for themselves an excellent candidate — Senator McCain — who has in reality the experience that both Senators Clinton and Obama are trying hard to manufacture out of thin air. And while Senators Obama and Clinton expend millions of dollars to hurl mud at one another, Senator McCain is visiting world leaders, talking to the troops in Iraq, and preparing to give a major foreign policy speech in just a couple of weeks.

While Senator Obama attemps to justify his pastor’s declarations that, rather than blessing America, God should damn America, Senator McCain will soon be explaining why our troops in Iraq are on the verge of a major victory in the war on terror. While both Senators Obama and Clinton rail against NAFTA, blaming it for the loss of jobs in this country, Senator McCain will be proposing a major cut in the corporate tax rate, something that will virtually guarantee the return of many of those lost jobs, as well as the creation of many new ones.

This is why Republicans in general are beginning to emerge from their previous attitude of gloom even while Democrats take their place. Republicans have a conservative-to-moderate presidential candidate who is eager for the coming campaign, while Democrats have two of the most liberal candidates in Washington slugging it out with no clear path to victory.

Perhaps Senators Clinton and Obama should heed the advice of liberal anti-war activists and simply run away. Let that insurgent known as John McCain declare victory and run his campaign unopposed.

What do you think? Sounds like the right strategy to us.

First the amazing.

Tonight I’m watching American Idol and here in Season 7 there is a pretty talented group of singers. One of the most interesting is Amanda Overmyer, who I realized tonight is a fascinating mix of Elvis, Janis Joplin, and Joan Jett. Both last week and this week she did a great job with her songs. But the breakout winner this week was from one of those who I thought of as one of the weaker performers, Chikezie. He did a version of “She’s a Woman” that was completely brilliant. As for Kristy Lee Cook, I think it’s her time to go home. Not impressive.

Simon Cowell was booed for his harsh critique, but he was right on the money.

Now for the stupid.

Geraldine Ferarro, the 1984 Vice Presidential running mate for Walter Mondale said today, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Now, if you remember, back in 1984, the Mondale/Ferarro ticket turned in a less than stellar performance. Reagan won in a landslide.

I guess the country was NOT caught up in that concept.

Eight years ago, as the 2000 presidential primaries were heating up and Bush was battling it out with McCain, we were wholeheartedly in the Bush camp and adamantly opposed to McCain. We didn’t like the way he attacked some conservative Christians and we didn’t trust a Washington insider to bring reform to Washington.

While we still support President Bush — and believe that history will look kindly on his efforts against terror and in dealing with the nation’s greatest crisis — we now wholeheartedly support John McCain for President. Why the shift?

Let us count the reasons:

1. In September of 2001, the United States was attacked, with the loss of 3000 lives in the blink of an eye. We are still at war and the enemy — radical jihadists — are just as determined as ever to make 9/11 look like a minor incident. We must continue, even strengthen, the current administrations policies against terror. We know that, if elected, McCain will likely close the Guantanamo detention facility for good and will insure that interrogation techniques for prisoners are closely managed and monitored, yet we also know that he will make life for terrorists even worse than under our current president. As George H.W. Bush (41) was the final nail in the coffin for the Soviet Union, so will John McCain be the final nail in the coffin for global terror.
2. When President Bush pushed through his tax cuts in his first term, John McCain was heavily critiqued for being one of the few Republicans to vote against the tax cuts. His vote was symbolic as he admitted at the time, but his point was that his party was pushing through tax cuts but was not demonstrating enough fiscal discipline to then cut spending. McCain argued vehemently that to do one and not the other was a mistake. We remember being highly annoyed with that “troublemaker” at the time. That said, we believe now that, had the GOP shown enough discipline to follow, McCain’s lead, they may not have lost both the House and the Senate to Democrats in 2006. McCain was right, and the rest of us were wrong.
3. When President Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam in 2003, his strategy, as proposed and backed by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was to go to war “with the army we have.” McCain was an early critic of the strategy, and a vocal critic of the way the war was run. Many conservatives argue that he sounded like a Democrat, but McCain wanted more troops in Iraq, not less. He visited Iraq more than nearly any other member of Congress, and he wanted a surge, not a retreat. So, when President Bush made the very risky decision to implement a troop surge, McCain backed him all the way, despite the fact that the failure of the surge would effectively end his presidential ambitions. Again, McCain was right, and all of his critics were wrong, as the evidence clearly shows. The surge has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, partly because it was accompanied by a change in strategy under General Petraeus.
4. In 1967, on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, McCain’s plane was shot down and he was taken prisoner. Overall, McCain endured five and a half years of imprisonment, with periods of torture during that time. It was made worse for McCain because he refused to cooperate in any way with the North Vietnamese. What many do not now is that, as the son of an admiral, he was offered release after two years, but refused to go without his fellow American servicemen. He stayed with them until they were all released in 1973 following the Paris Peace Accords. Now he has one son at the Naval Academy and another son serving even now in Iraq. They are following both long-standing family tradition and in the footsteps of someone who is truly an American hero.
5. In 2005, McCain was accused of working against Republican interests when he worked across the aisle to create a voting block of Republican and Democratic senators to end the judicial filibustering of President Bush’s federal and supreme court nominees. We remember again that we were highly annoyed with the senator because we saw his actions as a move to preserve a filibustering process that was standing in the way of the President getting his nominees an up or down vote on the Senate floor. But McCain understood that, should the balance of power ever change, Republicans would need that filibuster power to remain relevant in the legislative process. His agreement with the other Republican and Democratic senators allowed the President to successfully appoint strict constitutionalist judges such as Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, and others. In 2007, when the balance of power shifted to Democrats, McCain’s efforts at preserving the filibuster process in the senate proved to be invaluable and, dare we say, almost prophetic. Again, McCain was right, and those of us who criticized him were wrong.
6. On the issue of immigration reform, McCain, along with many Republicans and President Bush himself, backed a compromise plan with Democrats that would have finished the closing of our southern border, toughened restrictions on the employment of illegals here in the US, and provided a path to citizenship for those illegals who were already here in the US and were showing themselves to be productive members of our society. We do not support amnesty, however, conservatives who labeled the bill an “amnesty bill” were wrong. The question we must ask ourselves is, do we really want to see the same situation that we saw with Elian Gonzales — federal officers storming a home with automatic weapons and grabbing a terrified child to deport him — times 12 million? We do not, and we think that most Americans agree with us. This is a nation of immigrants and, while there are many here today who are here illegally, we believe the better solution is a path to naturalization which includes adopting English, paying a fine, and paying taxes. Senator McCain is exactly right to have supported Immigration reform and we believe that, had it passed, it would have been the “Welfare Reform” of this decade, in that such reform is long overdue and sorely needed.

For these reasons and others, John McCain has our wholehearted support in 2008. We believe he is the best candidate for the job, especially over a liberal Hillary Clinton and an inexperienced Barack Obama, both of whom want to increase government spending and weaken the country’s stance on terror. Obviously, there are many in the GOP who are attacking him, calling him a RINO — Republican in name-only — and a person who is too friendly with Democrats. But right wing in this country has sounded an increasingly partisan tone with which I find myself in disagreement. Attacks on McCain are based on bumper-sticker slogans and personal insults. This is neither helpful nor appropriate for a man like Senator McCain, who has been serving his country nearly his entire life.

Ironically, it shows you exactly why the senator is the right person for the job. The fact that he can attract both independent voters and even Democrats shows you why the DNC is concerned about this guy. They know that, of all the candidates out there now on the GOP side, McCain will be the most difficult to beat.

At the same time, Republican loyalists like myself can be certain that, while not a perfect candidate, McCain will continue the war on terror, continue to support the control of government spending, will continue to oppose the influence of special interests in Washington, will continue to appoint strict constitutionalist judges, will continue to support a culture of life, and so many other things that are the core principles of our party, and with which most Americans can agree.

If Romney emerges triumphant and becomes the GOP nominee, then we will enthusiastically support him, but we believe with no doubt whatsoever that McCain is the best candidate. We feel that McCain has lived his philosophy of straight talk, even when it meant a loss of popularity. Americans like that about McCain, and we believe they’ll look for that and for the ability to get things done in Washington in our next President.

Critics have used such titles as “John McPain,” and other even less flattering names. We hope in 2009 to call him “Mr. President.”

It amazes me that so many make so much of so little.  Can you say “obsess”?  Nice try!

I think the Time’s appropriately named Swampland blog taps into the intense obsession rather well.   Imagine worrying over whether or not the slats of a bookshelf behind a 30-second TV ad were meant to represent a secret “floating cross”.  Or wondering if flashing the 1.5 second title of “Christian leader” is a backhanded swipe at another candidate.

When did political ads become a form of Rorschach Test?  Perhaps it’s been that way for a long time, but, really, it’s getting rather silly.

In politics, people think that everything that is said has a hidden purpose.  As Freud once remarked to a student who had asked him if the cigars he always had in his mouth were phallic symbols, “son, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

If you haven’t already guessed, I’m a James Taranto (Best of The Web Today) junkie. I was reading his column today and noticed two interesting things. First, Mr. Taranto also mentioned the Linda Quiquivix incident and, second, he had an interesting second installment regarding a recent op-ed written by Anita Hill, the woman who long ago tried to derail the Supreme Court nomination process for Justice Clarence Thomas with some pretty outrageous accusations.

The long and short of both Mr. Taranto’s posts on the Anita Hill op-ed was the thought which occurred to me of a parallel between Ms. Quiquivix and Ms. Hill. They are both impressively intelligent women, and they both seem to be short on wisdom.

What good is intelligence without wisdom? Intelligence is the tool, wisdom is the application of the tool. Without the latter, you have something (and someone) truly dangerous. Perhaps a truck careening down a highway without a driver is a good analogy. In both cases, Linda and Anita have proven themselves to be a danger to anyone who happens to find themsleves in their path.

Fortunately, Justice Thomas has the wisdom to temper his intelligence. I think he is formidable in both those traits and I admire him tremendously. I’m going to get the audio version of Justice Thomas’ book. I look forward to benefiting from his wisdom.

Linda Quiquivix Update

I received an email just about an hour ago with the following message:

In February 2007 you wrote a blog story on Linda Quiquivix, I noticed in yesterday’s Daily Tar Heel that she was recently arrested for assault with a deadly weapon on a government official.

The message contained a link to the Daily Tar Heel’s Police Log page, which reported:

Graduate student Linda Elizabeth Quiquivix was arrested Thursday for assault with a deadly weapon on a government official, according to University police reports.

Many thanks to the person who wrote to let me know of this. I would be happy to credit the person, but he or she never left anything but an email address, and I have no intention of giving that out without this person’s express permission.

If anyone hears any additional information on what happened, please let me know.

Original Post - Published in February of 2007

James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com’s Best of The Web Today recently called attention to an article by a grad student at UNC, Chapel Hill and contributor to the campus newspaper, The Daily Tarheel. The article was penned by Linda Quiquivix (pronounced kee-kee-vicks), an obviously intelligent and driven young lady.

Ms. Quiquivix’s article is titled, “Know this, future ex-boyfriends of mine,” and it lends credence to my long-held belief that a person can be both highly intelligent and very unwise. Here are a few relevant excerpts from the article:

Friends who know me weren’t surprised to learn that my Zionist boyfriend and I broke up last summer shortly after Israel began dropping bombs on Lebanese children. But the friends who really knew me were surprised to learn that I had even dated a Zionist to begin with.

In my defense, I thought he was just Jewish when it all began - a progressive one who was white but had tendencies for black supremacy. Politically, we aligned well, so I figured that he’d automatically agree with my stance on Israel-Palestine.

Right from the first sentence, her prejudices are clear, and her assumptions regarding the world nothing less than legion. What does it mean to be a “Zionist” or even to be “just Jewish.” And, without going ad nauseam into this whole topic, why is it that Linda feels so strongly about the bombs dropped on Lebanese children but not the hundreds of missiles fired at Israeli children? Missiles which, by the way, continue to rain down on Israelis even to this day from Gaza.

I could probably go on for pages with Ms. Quiquivix’s article, but I think I should cut to the chase. There are two startling trends in this article that I believe reflect the current mental state of left-leaning liberals in the US today:

A massive number of assumptions which left-leaning liberals tend not to question.
The prevalence of double standards which liberals often decry in others but rarely question in themselves (which, if you think about it, is a double-standard in itself).

Let me list out just a few of the assumptions which Linda makes in just this one article:

• You’re a Zionist if you support Israel
• Nations which are more powerful are always in the wrong
• If you’re white, you already have one strike against you
• People who are aligned politically should agree on everything
• If you’re “brown” then you must have anarchistic tendencies
• If you don’t agree politically, you can’t date
• A boy’s primary value comes from his penis
• Boys must be “enlightened” by their girlfriend(s)
• The state represents only the interests of the powerful

A sizable list, wouldn’t you agree? Add to this list the double-standards which Linda seems to proudly display for her readers and what you seem to have is quite a mish-mash of racism, false assumptions, hatred, and just plain naivete. And let’s not forget the fact that liberals often look to the state to solve problems, whereas conservatives tend to look to society. But in her article, Ms. Quiquivix seems to think that the state is the major problem. Now you know why conservatives want limited government. A government that can solve all your problems can also create many many more problems.
For example, why is it alright for Ms. Quiquivix to state that the value she places on her boyfriend is in his penis when, for a male to make a similar comment about a woman’s value being in her sexual organs would likely end in his expulsion from that institution? I guess the saying which applies here is, “where’s the outrage?

In addition, why must the male be “enlightened” by the female? I thought relationships were all about the joys of mutual discovery. Of course, here Ms. Quiquivix displays a very typical egocentric view of the world for someone her age. “The world revolves around me,” is what she is saying. No shocking revelations regarding that worldview.

Finally, an interesting assumption that Linda makes regarding her ex-guy is this; she assumes he was hanging the Israelis flag over his bed to show his solidarity with Israel. Perhaps he hung it there simply to drive her away. You know, sort of like wearing a cross to keep vampires away.

Regardless of the ex-boyfriend’s flag-posting motivations, Ms. Quiquivix is clearly an intelligent, articulate, and motivated young lady. She has traveled already to more nations than I may ever see. Which is why I find it so ironic that she is so naive and unwise.

Again, this is not simply Linda’s problem, but a tendency of left-leaning liberals in general. They expect everyone to share their worldview. If you do not, then you are “bad,” or “evil,” or, a “zionist,” or even “just like hitler.”

We must share their values or be rejected. I prefer rejection.

An article published by Newstar.com offers some insight into the meaning of the word ignorance. An elementary school on the campus of Grambling State University, while teaching about racism and the civil rights movement, put a noose around an elementary school child’s neck:

According to an article in the newspaper written by Justin LaGrande, posted on the student newspaper Web site some time this week, and sent to The News-Star by Ruston Daily Leader publisher Rick Hohlt, “kindergarten and first-grade students at Alma J. Brown Elementary will always remember the day they marched for equality. The children marched in protest of the imprisonment of Mychal Bell, and the seemingly racial bias shown toward blacks in a small Louisiana town.”

LaGrande wrote that while the students “marched,” they actually only circled their playground with their teachers during the event.

“Before marching, the students were taught about racism,” LeGrande wrote. “They also learned about the events surrounding the ‘Jena Six’ and their arrest.”

According to the article, teachers “had a replica noose and explained why it is such a symbol of racism. They also allowed the children to carry chains and shackles.”

The Gramblinite’s Web site Friday included a comment from a woman who identified herself as Irene Booker. She said in her posted comment, “Yes, it was a rope around the little girl’s neck. It was a (safe) demonstration as to what the rope symbolized to blacks. This was my granddaughter and she along with so many of the other students did not understand the intimidation of the noose. I held her in my arms and she knows that I would not harm her or put her life in danger. In order to understand racism one must experience it to make the connection.”

Is it ignorant to teach children about racism and it’s consequences? Not at all.

The problem with this incident is that the teachers and Irene Booker, the child’s mother, were teaching fear and anger. Is this a good idea?

Showing young children a noose and explaining that it was used to hurt people and make them afraid — which is something that all elementary-age children can understand — is perfectly appropriate. Teaching them to fear the noose is in no way productive. Even with parental approval, to put a noose around a child’s next and hold it up as if they were going to be hanged is a horrible idea.

If you disagree, please free to tell why you think I’m wrong.

Pajamas Media member, Andrew Marcus caught some fascinating footage of what I consider to be less than respectful treatment of a member of the military who showed up at a panel discussion entitled, “The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?” The panel was moderated by Jon Soltz, a veteran and outspoken critic of the Iraq war.

Now, there has been much made of this incident by both right and left-leaning bloggers, and I’ll talk on this in a moment, but two other things struck me as I watched the video clip found here at PJM. First of all, there seemed to be VERY few people in the room. I’m wondering if part of Soltz’s angst, which was eventually vented on a fellow Iraq veteran, was partly due to the fact that it was quite obvious to Soltz and his fellow panel members — one of whom was retired General, Wesley Clark — that even those members of the military who oppose the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq are generally disrespected by liberals. Especially very left-leaning liberals like Kos.

Secondly, I have seen many comments on how Soltz closed the panel discussion immediately, and insisted on speaking to the soldier in private, but very few people have commented on the fact that the soldier, after meeting with Soltz in private, acknowledged that he had been threatened. When Marcus asked the soldier what Soltz said in private, the soldier responded that Soltz threatened he was going to try and get him in trouble and have him dishonorably discharged for asking what Soltz deemed to be a political question while in uniform.

Personally, I’m not sure if the soldier did ask a political question. What I can say is that Soltz definitely was acting in an intimidating manner and the soldier was having none of it. He was courteous, clear and concise; and he tried to cite the facts of a recent report showing that progress was being made in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Soltz acted in an angry and aggressive manner towards this serviceman from the beginning, telling him that, if he engaged in political dialogue while in uniform, there was going to be trouble. I don’t think Soltz walked away from this encounter looking very good.

What of Soltz’s contention that the soldier was out of line by questioning his panel while still in uniform? Well, Mike at Lampligher blog looked up the military codes of conduct which might relate to this situation and, after reading Mike’s post, I have to agree with him that Soltz’s accusation is not very convincing. Not unless there were more recent orders issued that might amplify the codes Mike cites. I did hear that the military is trying to crack down on the number of military members who are blogging from Iraq, but that has nothing to do with asking a military-related question during a panel discussion.

I feel quite certain that the conservative media is going to be highlighting this story. Hopefully we’ll hear from Michael Medved on Monday during his show and I would be “shocked, shocked” if James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com’s “Best of The Web Today” didn’t call attention to this in his Monday column.I first learned of this through the Drudge Report, so I think we can expect this to balloon into a major news story before too long. And kudos to Pajamas Media for capturing this incident and reporting on it. I’m very grateful they were there and so quickly published their video.

Finally, let me point out a fascinating tidbit from a debate that Soltz had with fellow veteran Stan Coerr on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, which was then published on PBS’s Online News Hour on September 16, 2004. The debate between Coerr and Soltz was fairly long and detailed; a good read actually.

Towards the end of the debate, moderator Margaret Warner asked of both men if candidate Kerry was making inroads with members of the military and military veterans with some of his campaign promises. Coerr was asked to respond first and here are a few excerpts from his reply:

Margaret, John Kerry’s not making inroads. And let me tell you why. I think most veterans, as I said before, along with the American people, honor what John Kerry did in Vietnam.

What they are unhappy about is what he did when he returned home, using Vietnam as sort of a springboard to political office. His testimony, which we’ve all seen on television before the Senate, about what he thought about the war, leading an anti- war effort…

I can tell you that I have a photograph of myself meeting Sen. Kerry, and the friends that I sent that photograph to think I’m a traitor.

They can’t believe that I would even shake hands with that man, and everyone I know, my peers and those I worked with, are all very strong Republicans and they’re Bush supporters in this specific campaign.

So, you can see that Coerr lays it out plainly. In his opinion, members of the military and veterans in particular are not supportive of Kerry. They are so against Kerry that they think Coerr a traitor for even shaking the man’s hand. What is fascinating, however, if Soltz’s response to what Coerr has just said:

If John Kerry is a traitor, then so am I. John Kerry fought for his right to come home and question his war in Vietnam; 12,000 Americans died after he testified in the senate. And I fought for my right to question this president’s policies in Iraq.

But Coerr never calls Kerry a traitor! He never even questions his patriotism, which is something people on the left love to accuse conservatives of doing. Actually, Coerr specifically said that Kerry’s fellow veterans honored his service but question his commitment to them based on what he did and said after returning from Vietnam.

It was Soltz who applied the word “traitor” to Kerry, by denying that he was any more a traitor than Soltz himself. I find this kind of thing fascinating, not because of all the name calling, but because liberals so often are the ones who apply these labels to themselves by complaining that conservatives are applying these labels. It’s like stepping out in front of a moving car to complain that you are being hit by a moving car.

Liberals consistently fail to understand their own fundamental disrespect for the men and women who serve in the military and conservative’s deep and abiding respect for those same men and women. We would never consider labelling Kerry or Soltz as traitors. They served this country. They risked life and limb to protect us. I’m personally grateful to both men for their service.

But liberals are not so loathe to apply disrespectful labels to America’s best and bravest. And it seems to me that the low turnout for Soltz’s panel on similarities between progressives and the military underscores my point perfectly. Those who lean far left likely hate the thought that they might have anything in common with the military.

On Sunday, July 29th, Julie and I took the girls down to Riordan’s Saloon and Restaurant for one last meal before it closed for good. You can read more of the details here, but this post is just my own personal tribute to a place that helped shape and define the character of Annapolis’ City Dock area.

Riordan’s was owned and managed by Mike Riordan who invested money he had earned during his 9 seasons in the NBA (1968-1977, with an NBA Championship win in 1970 as a member of the NY Knicks), and opened his first restaurant in the downtown city dock area of Annapolis in 1978. Riordan’s quickly became known for its great food and reasonable prices.

Over the three decades of it’s life, Riordan’s employed every member of my family — except for my Dad — at one point or another. Even my Mom worked for Mike briefly, baking cakes and pies for the restaurant. As for my brothers and I, we all worked there in various roles. My oldest brother, Jack tended bar and later managed for a while. My second-oldest brother, Chris, worked at the bar for several years and met his wife, Mary Beth, there. Mary Beth worked her way through nursing school while at Riordan’s and now has a very successful career with GE as a consultant helping to set up medical database systems for hospitals. My third brother — just a year older than I — whose name is also Mike, worked for several years behind the bar and was very popular both with his general customers as well as with nearly any attractive woman who walked into the place.

I began working for Mike Riordan around 1986 when my brother Mike let me know they were seeking help at the door. Very rarely did Riordan’s have issues with bad behavior, but Mike liked having a friendly face at the door on busy nights to make sure we were carding our younger customers and welcoming everyone as they came by for a drink or dinner.

Initially, I worked for Mike during the holidays while I was going to St. Mary’s College, then a bit during summer breaks. You might think that being a doorman would be boring, but I enjoyed the job. While dooring, I was the first person customers would see as they entered. I would smile, say hello, hold the door and, if necessary, ask for ID. If things got really busy, I would set up a line outside the restaurant and let people in as there was space available in the Saloon area. Simple but enjoyable work.

There were a few times when I had to turn some “characters” away, but it didn’t happen too often. Once, though, I was dooring with one other guy on a busy evening when suddenly we both spotted a bachelor party moving along the sidewalk towards us, having just exited another nearby pub. The bachelor was incredibly drunk, and his friends had somehow attached a chain to a bowling ball, then had secured the chain to the guy’s leg!

As the guy staggered down the sidewalk with all his friends walking behind, laughing at him of course, people coming the other way had to jump out of the way to avoid being tagged by the bowling ball, which was whooshing out to the side every time he took a step. We looked and saw that, yes, they were definitely coming our way.

As the party approached, we just kind of both moved in front of the door at the same time and stood shoulder-to-shoulder as the guy walked up to us. He looked up and asked if he could go in. We just looked at him and I said, “no, I’m very sorry, but you can’t come in tonight.” There was no need to be rude, but then again, no way were we going to let someone come in with a bowling ball attached to their leg. Think of the collateral damage he would cause!

“Aw, c’mon guys,” they said, “it’s his bachelor party.” “Sorry,” we replied politely, “wish we could, but you can’t come in with that thing on your leg.” We wished the guy luck in his marriage and watched as he swung off down the sidewalk to find another pub.

There are better stories, but many of them are not fit for publication. I will say, however, that I learned something very important during my time on the door at Riordan’s. Bachelorette parties are almost always more rowdy, raucous, and dangerous than bachelor parties. I still don’t know why, but I do know it’s true.

After college, while I was in grad school, I began to bus tables for Mike as well. I enjoyed this job as well. I found that I liked creating order out of chaos, which is a central part of the job as you assist the wait staff and keep the dining area looking spiffy.

By the way, Mike was almost always around. He worked at least 6 days a week at the restaurant, managing every part of the operation. It was Mike’s very firm hand at the helm which kept Riordan’s so consistently great over the three decades it was in operation. Without close management, restaurants often fail as profit margins tend to be pretty thin in this industry.

In all the years I worked for Mike, my only regret is that I was a lousy waiter. Mike gave me a chance to move up and begin waiting tables at one point, but truly, I stunk at the job. So I went back to busing and dooring and that was fine for me. That said, I’ve never forgotten how hard it is to be a good waiter at a restaurant. Mike had some really good people waiting tables for him; some of whom worked for him over decades, not just years.

After grad school, as I began my professional career, Riordan’s remained one of my very favorite places to go. I have so many great memories; such as going there for brunch when Julie first introduced me to her parents, meeting family there for meals on weekends (especially after Navy Football games) celebrating my 30th Birthday there, going there on St. Paddy’s Day, Christmas Eve, etc.

For Julie and I, Riordan’s remained our favorite place to go for brunch, and our two girls have been going there since they were tiny little babies. My oldest daughter Mikaela’s favorite thing was going for brunch and getting a basket of Blueberry Muffins for us all to share.
Overall, if we went to downtown Annapolis for a meal, 90% of the time it was to Riordan’s.

On this last Sunday of its existence, we had dinner there, all four of us, and the place was packed. It wasn’t even a dull roar that came from the bar area, it was a thunderous roar. We could barely hear each other at the table, and the menu was smaller due to the fact that they were preparing to close down for good that same evening.

But we had a great time. I said hello to Mike and wished him well. I also saw Mary Beth and Chris there, though I had just missed my Dad, who left a half-hour earlier. I even saw a few of the folks I had worked with in the late 80’s and early 90’s, one of whom still worked there. It was a lot of fun, but also very sad, especially as we walked out for what we knew would be the last time.

Something very good has come to an end in Annapolis. Riordan’s made Annapolis a better place to live and work, and I cannot see how there can ever be something as good to take its place.

I took Riordan’s for granted because it had been there for so long. I cannot remember a time without it.

I should have known better. As they say, all good things come to an end. I wish it were otherwise.

But I think people should understand this; Riordan’s was more than a restaurant; it was a gift to the community. For so many of us who worked and played there, it remains a landmark of our lives.

I know that I speak for the entire Flanagan family in wishing for Mike and his family all of God’s blessings. We’ll see you around town.

Ecclesiastes 3:9-13
What does the worker gain from his toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God.

Copies of the long-anticipated final book of the Harry Potter series, “Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows” have begun to arrive for some of those who ordered them online. Of course, online booksellers want to compete with brick-and-mortar bookshops, so they must get pre-ordered books to customers at least on the same day a person could walk into a local shop to buy the book, without paying too much in shipping.

Which means that online booksellers must time the delivery of the book through the mail system. I’m thinking this is a process somewhat akin to predicting the weather. For some, of course, books will arrive early.

For fans like myself, of course, this would be like winning the lottery. Imagine getting a copy of “Deathly Hallows” early?

Well, one author, columnist, and blogger, Will Collier, of Vodkapundit.com received a copy of the book four days early! What did he do with the book? Put it up for sale on eBay!

Did Will read the book in advance of selling it? He doesn’t say, but he did manage to sell the book for $250 and got it to the buyer a couple of days in advance of the official release. I won’t spoil the details of this interesting story, which you can read here.

What I will say is simply that I do not consider the resale of a book legally purchased, received, and resold to be a problem in any way. Especially considering the fact that Will did not read the book and then try to post spoilers for his readers. He merely sold the book to someone else.

It wasn’t quite that simple of course, but read the article yourself and let me know what you think. Inquiring minds want to know!

Last night I lined up with what must have been a couple of thousand others to see the midnight premiere of Harry Potter and The Order Of The Phoenix.  And you know what?  It was a lot of fun.

The movie, of course, is darker than the others, but then, so is the book.  Also, much of the richness of the characters expressed so well by Rowling in her books had to be left out as well.  But the elements that went into the movie worked well, and I enjoyed the movie as much as any I’ve enjoyed this year.

Let me tell you something you should know, Evanna Lynch, who plays Luna Lovegood in the movie was a delight!  She nearly steals the whole show.

As I said, I stood there in line with a couple thousand die-hard fans to see the movie.  Actually, I arrived an hour early and the line was already huge, so, being on my own, I kind of snuck myself into the line fairly close to the front.  That way, I was able to get a decent seat.  And only a decent seat, despite the fact that every one of the theatres (there were 11 total) was set up to show the film!

But I digress…

The audience was incredibly excited to see the movie, cheering when the Warner Bros logo came up on the screen with the original Harry Potter score playing in the background.  And every time Luna appeared in the movie, you could just feel the audience’s fascination with her.

I wonder if part of the fascination with Luna comes from the fact that Luna reflects some of the oddness — some might call it “geek-ness” in those of us who are fans of the books.  She is just so different, that even Harry doesn’t know what to make of her.

But throughout both “Order Of The Phoenix” and “Half-Blood Prince,” the character of Luna just adds a whole new element to the storyline.  She is a nut, but then again, so are many of us who are so into Harry Potter, so we have that in common.

Most of us, though, try to blend in, whereas Luna is just too true to herself to ever care what others think.  And Evanna did a phenomenal job of bringing all that to life in the movie.
Another phenomenal performance came from Imelda Staunton, who played the part of Delores Umbridge.  She too was perfect for the role.  Delores Umbridge is, in every way, a fascinating character brought beautifully to life by Staunton.

Not that you like Umbridge.  She’s a mean, sadistic, child-hating, power-mongering semi-sociopath who also just happens to love kittens and the color pink.  If she were your neighbor, you would think she was just the most wonderful person, until she gets herself elected President of your community association and bans pets, pools, laughing children, and Christmas decorations.

It is those kinds of performances, along with excellent performances from the normal cast, that makes this movie worth seeing.  I think this movie outshines “Goblet of Fire,” which seemed to me to be just too fast-paced, like a rock skipping frantically over the waters of a lake, missing most of the water below, then sinking suddenly to the bottom.

This movie does a bit of skipping, but it also dips in a bit, and I think the combination produces the right balance.  I’m not a movie critic (not a professional critic anyway) but I would give this movie three stars out of four.  But go see for yourself and let me know what you think.

Reuters is reporting today that a hacker “who goes by the name ‘Gabriel,’ claims to have taken a digital copy of author J.K. Rowling’s seventh book, ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,’ by breaking into a computer at Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.” As many Potter fans are aware, the details of the final book have been carefully guarded by author J.K. Rowling and her publishers.

With the release of “Deathly Hallows” less than a month away, anticipation and excitement continues to grow, with fans eagerly awaiting the opportunity to finally know what happens to Harry and other lead characters from the series. Rowling fueled fans’ excitement some months ago when she claimed that two of the main characters from the series would die in the final book.

In May, Rowling posted a message on her site stating she could see the “first distant rumblings of the weirdness that usually precedes a Harry Potter publication.” Rowling asked fans who might somehow learn the details of her final book not to publish them for others to read. J.K. stated that her desire is for readers “who have, in many instances, grown up with Harry, to embark on the last adventure they will share with him without knowing where they are going.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. And it’s quite likely the vast majority of Potter fans agree as well.

Why would anyone want the endings of both the book and this monumental series spoiled when the release of the final books is less than a month away? After years of anticipation, reading what happens in a series of posted spoilers on the Internet will almost certainly ruin the final book for you. And it could potentially ruin the series as well.

This blogger is a “hater” when it comes to spoilers, and I’ve spoken out against this horrible habit before. Two posts in particular, Just say NO to spoilers!, and Help! Star Trek has fallen and can’t get up!, make this clear to readers.

Think about this; if Gabriel truly did hack into a computer and steal the book, then he or she has committed a serious crime. Definitely, Gabriel should be thrown in jail and Rowling’s publishers should sue for damages.

The self-alleged criminal, Gabriel, is very pointed in his desire to damage Rowling and her publishers. Gabriel says unequivocally that “We make this spoiler to make reading of the upcoming book useless and boring.”

This person wants to ruin your experience, and they want to damage 10 years of very hard work on the part of J.K. Rowling. Does anyone truly think J.K. began writing expecting to become a billionaire? She began writing because she had a story and characters whom she desired to bring to life.

Now Gabriel is trying to get a tad bit of fame by damaging 10 years of hard work. This is a criminal act and, if they truly did steal a copy of Rowling’s final book, Gabriel needs to treated as the criminal he truly is.

If a copy was stolen, it is more likely Gabriel worked for the publisher rather than they were able to hack into their computers. In most cases where data in one form or another is stolen, leaks occur from the inside.
But this is a personal theory. Ultimately, we may find that the loser “Gabriel” was just telling a huge lie to get some attention, or to promote a pet theory.

Regardless, I think fans everywhere need to avoid spoilers of any kind. The best reaction to people such as Gabriel is pity and contempt. Pity that they should be so immature and reckless, and contempt for their thoughtless actions. It is not “cool,” or “admirable” in any way to do what loser Gabriel claims to have done.

What we can know with certainty is this; Gabriel is either a thief, a liar, or both. Any way you look at it, this person is, without a doubt, a loser. And if you read spoilers stolen illegally from Rowling, then you’re a loser too.

Senator Clinton’s campaign has launched a new site, HillaryHub.com with a Drudge Report-like format in that it does not produce original content but instead simply aggregates content. The key here is that Senator Clinton’s campaign can aggregate the material they choose to highlight, which is a particular advantage.

On the face of it, it is a very good idea. Media companies have, for years now, pointed out how influential DrudgeReport.com has become in breaking stories that otherwise might have received little or no attention. He breaks new stories and he adds momentum to stories that are just breaking in a way that few if any other sites can.

Matt Drudge, of course, is a news aggregator but he picks and chooses which stories to headline, and Drudge’s instincts for stories, in my opinion, seems somewhat akin to the instincts of a George Soros or a Warren Buffet in terms of their ability to both anticipate the market and move the market.

Those are the instincts that Drudge possesses when it comes to his ability to both anticipate the media and move it as well.

So, the question is, can Senator Clinton’s team do the same? Even if they cannot, HillaryHub may still prove both a great strength and a strategic campaign advantage. In terms of giving campaign supporters the best possible take on their candidate, this site is ideal. That said, most campaign sites do some of this already, so it will be interesting to keep an eye on this move to determine the overall strategic value of HillaryHub.com.
At the same time, if the Clinton Campaign seeks to truly aggregate everything, they should have a section or a column for direct campaign releases and information. An aggregator should gather everything, both internal and external to the Senator’s campaign. It should not try to carefully couch campaign information as “other” content.

So, for example, while it is okay to link up with an article written in response to a campaign news release, Clinton’s campaign should not try to show their own news releases on this site ONLY by linking to other media sources. I just think it would make the site look to contrived and less natural, which is something that Senator Clinton should avoid at all costs.

My two cents on that issue.

So, will this prove a winner for Senator Clinton? Will others follow her lead?

I think it will be helpful, though I’m not sure at this point how much. And, definitely, others will follow her lead. They’ll do it in one of two ways. Either they’ll tweak their current campaign sites to aggregate other information HillaryHub-style, or they’ll create a similar type of aggregator site.

The last question in my mind is whether or not this was the right time for Senator Clinton to launch this site so early. Will this give her rivals — Democrats and Republicans — time to copy her efforts and eliminate any strategic advantage?

I guess, on this issue, we’ll have to stay tuned.

There is a very interesting picture up on Drudge Report right now showing a crying Paris in the back of a patrol car. I’m not sure when that was taken, but let’s hope it was today.

What can I say? I have NO sympathy for Ms. Hilton and it doesn’t seem as if anyone else does either. You can hear people talking about her everywhere; in the office, on the street, and with friends. They talk about the beautiful spoiled brat who has never had to take responsibility. Well, right now, it seems she is in the process of being spanked by reality.

I’m very glad to see that the judge who presided over her case and the prosecutor who brought the charges against her are pushing back on the decision to send Paris home to serve detention there. Paris, who thought at first she was going to be allowed to phone into the court was, instead, picked up by the Sherriff’s office. Apparently the Sherriff’s office thought they could disregard the Judge’s order for her to appear in court. I guess the Judge was able to get them to change their minds after he threatened to charge Sheriff Lee Baca with contempt.

So Paris is headed back to jail, reportedly having been escorted out of the courthouse screaming for her Mom. Good for him.

A little time in jail, and a little does of true reality might be just what the Judge ordered. Who knows, maybe some family members are also hoping this experience will teach her a bit of self-control.

We’ll see.

Photo property of DrudgeReport.com.