From CNN:

"A historically diverse field of Democratic presidential candidates -- a woman, a black, an Hispanic and five whites -- denounced an hours-old Supreme Court affirmative action ruling Thursday night and said the nation's slow march to racial unity is far from over."

Diversity baby, it's not about thought it's about how you look. It's not as Justice Roberts wrote:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

As CNN says and quotes, the decision and our problems are:

“The day when the network commentators and even the gentlemen of the New York Times enjoyed a form of diplomatic immunity from comment and criticism of what they said — that day is gone. . . . When their criticism becomes excessive or unjust, we shall invite them down from their ivory towers to enjoy the rough and tumble of public debate. . . . The time for blind acceptance of their opinions is past. And the time for naïve belief in their neutrality is gone.”

The NY Times editorial board continues apace with its “radical” ideas and misconstruing of reality for who knows what cause. This morning they’re babbling on, yet again about a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court; a Supreme Court with a “radical new majority” that “has grown more conservative by the year.”

The 5-4 ruling struck “down voluntary programs to integrate schools in Seattle and Louisville, Ky.” Which the board believes and screams that this is a complete and utter reversal of the now famous Brown vs. Board of Education and a return to the ugly days of segregation.

The editorial board in its efforts to misguide readers and control thought fails to track its own reporting on the decision within the pages of The toilet Paper that reflect a more neutral and matter of fact tone with:

“the decision makes clear that race cannot be the factor deciding whether a student will be allowed to attend a particular school, he said, the court left some room for districts to take race into account.”

According to the article, Gary L. Ikeda, the general counsel for Seattle Public Schools said:

‘“A majority of the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of diversity in public education.”’

Raj Manhas, the district superintendent of the decision and what they will do to abide by it with the room left “for districts to take race into account,” said:

“the district already was taking steps to encourage racial diversity through other means, including placing highly sought after International Baccalaureate and dual-language programs in locations where they are likely to draw a diverse student body.”

Prior to the decision school districts used a variety of tactics in the effort to maintain diversity such as:

“setting numeric ranges for racial representation in schools, strategically locating schools to attract specific racial groups, setting aside some seats in magnet programs for students of a particular race or forbidding transfers that would tilt a school further into dominance by one race.”

These very efforts are what brought the case up in the first place by:

“parents whose children were not allowed to go to the school of their choice because of plans that seek to keep racial balance within a particular range.”

The editorialists don’t feel parents or people in general can or should make decisions for themselves that the individual considers appropriate. Rather than apply a self-imposed fairness doctrine, they will paint the decision and an action of bad, racist, backward moving conservative activist judges. There is no need to allow for a dissenting voice in an effort at painting a broader picture as that does not toe their Liberal line of painting all things Conservative EVIL.

Rather than acknowledge the decision as it is, the board colors their opinion with this broad stroke close (italics mine):

“There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.”

Justice Stevens harks back to the good old days of being on what he obviously considers the right side of the decision, yet this is 2007 not 1975. Meanwhile, we the people of the nation should prepare for a return to full blown segregation, race riots and all the evil that the “radical new majority” of the court represents.

Some food for thought that the papers editors don’t want anyone eating would be that:

“Many of the nation’s largest urban districts now have so few white students that any large-scale effort at racial balance would be impractical.

New York City was largely unaffected by the decision, although officials in the Department of Education said they were considering using the ruling to seek legal action to overturn two court orders from the 1970s that placed racial quota systems at eight middle schools in Brooklyn and Queens.

Chancellor Joel I. Klein has said those quotas are antiquated and no longer reflect the makeup of the neighborhoods, which have seen white flight and the arrival of scores of new immigrants.”

To the board, like immigration it's a question of black and white and all others that realize there is more to it and race really isn't the underlying issue are just ignorant racist rubes. Count on the board members to continue to misrepresent, deceive and disorganize as it’s the only way for them to fight armed with nothing.

For opinion beyond this site and the Times; read Peter Kirsanow’s “Seattle Grace, A setback for racial bean counters” and The Editorial from NRO “Diversity without Decrees.”

"All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." Harrison Bergeron – Kurt Vonnegut Jr, 1961

Any news or daily information of worth loses the interest of the media by day two, hence the need to reach for documents from ancient history which reveal from the archive of The Heritage Foundation, October 29, 1993, “Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair.”

FAIR on the other hand Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting has an article, er opinion piece “The Fairness Doctrine, How we lost it and why we need it back,” from early 2005 arguing the opposite of The Heritage Foundation. In an official and very legal opening FAIR quotes from the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision:

“A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.”

Read the rest here if interested…

Heritage speaks to the decision as well:

“The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.”

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial."

Ultimately, it would be government regulating what we should hear, whether just for a couple of shows during the course of a day or not. One group of people would tune out as another would tune it. If Liberal talk radio fails it is not because of Conservative talk radio; yet because of its failure and because of Conservative talk radios success regulators from the federal government would decide how to even things up or dumb it down so to speak.

The American people, the majority of which can as of this morning breathe a sigh of relief with the vote against cloture on the one-stop-shop-fix-all-comprehensive immigration bill; albeit for different reason. What the American people can not rest easy upon is the new rise from both sides of the aisle, although mostly from the Left of political renewed interest in seeing the “doctrine” put back into play.

From reactions and statements by the Senators involved it truly appeared to gall them that the American people were really getting into their craw. We can expect to hear more of the same clap trap rhetoric that we heard during the “rush to pass” that which they hadn’t felt a rush to pass up until recently.

In addition to subpoenas issued to the White House, the VPs office and the Department of Justice:

“the panel is seeking materials on related issues, including the relationship between the Bush administration and several unidentified telecommunications companies that aided the N.S.A. eavesdropping program.”

So upon the question of illegalities in the NSA program, the usual games of rhetoric and politics can be played. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) called the response prior to the subpoenas issuance as ‘“stonewalling of the worst kind.”’

May saw the testimony of James Comey a former deputy AG during which he described a March 2004 “confrontation” between Justice officials and White House aides regarding the “legality of the wiretapping program.”

Of the testimony Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in fine politically tuned rhetoric said:

‘“The Comey testimony moved this front and center. Alarm bells went off. His testimony made it clear that there had been an effort to circumvent the law.”’

These types of comments, of which the Dems have become very adept with their use of effectively, continue the public and media belief of illegalities where illegalities may not be.

A “confrontation” does not a circumvention of the law make.

Schumer’s the guy whose conversation about seats was gleefully shared by the Majority Leader, Harry “Hang ‘em High” Reid that “we are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.”

These folks are the same that want an “end” to the action in Iraq regardless of outcome or reality; the same that see a war lost without actually knowing anything or listening; the same that want voices unheard and call it “fairness.”

These are the folks that I trust less.

Senator Dick Lure Lugar's announcement yesterday that:

'“In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved"'

"After the recent destruction of two minarets at the main Shiite mosque in Sunni-dominated Samarra (the destruction of which in February 2006 triggered the slide towards civil war) Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki immediately traveled to the town to reassure the Sunnis of his government’s support and protection. Iraqi security forces were surged to protect Sunni mosques from reprisals, while security operations continued to target the Shiite death squads. Meanwhile, the government has made progress on all the benchmark legislative initiatives, and the parliament is expected to take up and finalize several of the most crucial ones before its current session ends at the end of July. U.S. efforts have focused on capacity-building. In the field, provincial reconstruction teams (a concept born in Afghanistan, and which came late to Iraq) are now embedded in every brigade headquarters, giving commanders in every sector of Iraq the flexibility to target assistance where it is most crucially needed. And advisers from all over the U.S. government are now embedded all over the Iraqi government, helping prepare for “transition” — a term that basically means “get ready, because soon you’re on your own.”'

No links available, but two major Iranian newspapers regarding gas station torchings:

** E'TEMAD-E MELLI
- Gasoline rationed unexpectedly

** AFTAB-E YAZD
- Gasoline rationed eventually

" First Vice-Speaker Mohammad-Reza Bahonar, who chairs the Majlis session on Wednesday, made the announcement following introducing petrol rationing from Wednesday.

"We have invited the oil minister to attend the Majlis session and give explanations (on petrol rationing)," Bahonar said.

A number of Majlis deputies issued a notification on rationing of petrol.

Iran's Oil Ministry issued a statement Tuesday night saying petrol for all vehicles and motorcycles would be rationed as of Wednesday."

"There was no official confirmation Wednesday linking the two gas stations that could be seen burning in Tehran to the protests against the rationing, announced late Tuesday by the Oil Ministry. The measure sparked long lines at stations as Iranians tried to get one last fill-up before the limitations kicked in.

State radio reported early Wednesday that several stations were attacked ''by vandals,'' without giving further details. State-run television also said some of the vandals were detained. It did not give number of the detained people.

Reports that gas stations in several cities across the country were also in flames could not be independently confirmed."

One Iranian gentleman effected by the rationing questioned:

'''Is this good timing, to announce rationing only three hours before it starts?'''

Good question; I would think not. Good news though as IRNA reports that Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh said:

'"The government will not let people face problem in supplying petrol. With respect to the quota, people will face no problem in supplying petrol for the next three months."'

The rationing amounts according to IRNA:

private cars which cannot use compressed natural gas (CNG) would get 100 liters of petrol a month, and those with CNG would get 30 liters.

Government Cars? 10 liters per day

I wonder where the NY Times Editorial board is today, yesterday or any other time before its hit piece on the President in which the board opined:

"if Mr. Bush were, as he claims, truly concerned about rising income inequality and truly committed to improving the lives of America’s middle class, he would support the legislation and urge the Senate to approve it."

"What is card check and why is it so bad? The bill now before Congress would overturn a 72-year law that guarantees workers the right to cast private ballots in union organizing elections. Card check has always been an option, if employers voluntarily choose to recognize a union that way. But this bill mandates the recognition of a labor union as the exclusive employee representative if only 50 percent plus one of the workers signs a card expressing interest in a union. It’s automatic. No discussion, no hearing from both sides on the issue, no election."

North Korea has finally received the $25 million frozen in Macao’s Banco Delta Asia that it “demanded” prior to its following through on the February 13^th agreement to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear plant.

There should still remain concerns as it is unlikely North Korea will discontinue its illegal activities, such as counterfeiting money and cigarettes, drug traffic and illegal weapons sales, as it has proved so lucrative. It will likely (hopefully) continue to have banking difficulties based upon the U.S. Treasury working group Illicit Activities Initiative, which tracked the North’s illegal activities. It was this investigation that led to the U.S. Treasury finding Macao’s Banco Delta Asia a “primary money laundering concern.” No international banking member wants to be labeled as such, so Kim will have a tough time of things.

The U.N.s IAEA will now meet with North Korea to discuss “a timetable for shutting down the reactor and technical details of monitoring and verification.” The IAEA and the North “have bickered over how much access the agency should have to nuclear facilities and data in the isolated country” ever since the revelation of the North’s illicit nuclear weapons program. So, they will negotiate to discuss, talk, and agree about discussing, talking and agreeing so to speak…make sense? That’s U.N. diplo-speak at its finest.

Further “North Korea said it would use the released money ‘“for improving the standard of people’s living and humanitarian purposes,”’ as the United States demanded.”

Uhn huhn…ok.

The latest move in possibly allowing Iran further time to continue with its “peaceful” nuclear research has been made. According to the AP via The NY Times:

“Iran has invited an International Atomic Energy Agency team to Tehran to work on clearing up suspicions about its nuclear program, an IAEA spokeswoman said Monday.”

A U.S. spokesperson, Tom Casey indicated that it was unlikely Iran would actually comply as they haven’t in the past. Those within the diplomatic community may very well look upon this a good news and under normal circumstances it probably would be.

In the Islamic Republic News Agency news of the invitation was reported thusly:

“Iran has invited a team from the agency to Iran to resolve the outstanding issues over the national nuclear program.”

This olive branch will surely add to the minds of those in Iran and elsewhere that yet again Iran offers and as always is willing to talk; but what is the invited team going to be doing in Iran? Using the method of assumption, one would think it likely that they were going to “resolve the outstanding issues” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

IRNA reports that Ali Larijani spoke with el-Baradei on “an action plan to resolve,” unanswered questions. Yet the AP piece states of the “invitation,” Larijani (italics mine):

“‘Invited the IAEA to send a team to Tehran to develop an action plan for resolving outstanding issues related to Iran's past nuclear program.'”

Where one would think Larijani and el-Baradei are going to be developing “an action plan” one would actually sees that the team invited, is being invited to Iran to “develop an action plan.”

Is this just a case of sloppy reporting and if so on whose part?

All the action is of the diplomatic kind that we have all become accustomed to, which has gotten one side of diplomacy (the West) nothing and Iran nothing but more time.

It has recently been reported that the “Iran strategy was being debated at the White House,” which pitted Secretary Rice and her State Department team against the remaining “hawks,” in VP Cheney’s office. The main point of contention was reported as being the “hawks” “pressing for greater consideration of military strikes.” The Iranian “let’s resolve this once and for all olive branch,” is likely just the nudge State needs to further back diplomatic discussions. Being diplomats though, I’m sure they realize it will actually result in nothing but more time for Iran.

“Iranian Hostage Crisis; Where’s the outrage?” Indeed. Katherine Jean Lopez is somewhat pissed that the U.S. and media doesn’t appear to worked up about the five Iranian-Americans that are being held hostage by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As stated by Lopez it may be because we are presently in “diplomatic mode” with Iran. Said Katherine Jean Lopez this morning:

“A diplomatic mode that — with the names Parnaz Azima, Haleh Esfandiari, Ali Shakeri, Tajbakhsh, and Robert Levinson on our minds — should have all Americans angry, nervous, and praying that the Bush administration is working on something good they’re keeping close to the vest. Praying that they are as skeptical of Iran as they should be. Praying that they are willing to put in place a debilitating sanctions policy and send clear signals of support to the good men and women of Iran who want another kind of life there, free of the terrorists who run the country.”

We can only “hope and pray” that something good is up our sleeves, but of course no one can be sure. Initially, upon the hostages abduction reaching Reuters; Reuters pretty much reported it a no more than an issue of “dual citizenship,” (the page with this report is unfortunately “missing). This sites reaction that day couldn’t help but think of Navin Johnsons reaction to a the shooting of oil cans.

May 31^st found WebMemo #1479 by Kim R. Holmes and James Phillips at The Heritage Foundation reacting to the situation as “Iran’s latest round of hostage-taking,” which of course it is.

Interestingly WaPo published a report this past Friday June 21 regarding the U.S. refusal to release five Iranians detained in Iraq that Iran not surprisingly refers to as “diplomats.” In an odd reaction to this report, Scott Horton of Harpers posted on the “refusal” as part of a childish schoolyard game:

“What does the detention of the Arbil Five have to do with the detention of the Americans in Tehran? Everything. If you look at the Iranian statements, you’ll see that both the number and the accusations against the Americans have been carefully made to parallel what happened in Iraq. This is a simple case of one gross injustice being countered with another one. Of two nation-states behaving like schoolyard bullies. And who suffers? Well, my sympathies are with the Americans in captivity in Tehran, of course. Some of these folks are well-respected scholars, voices of moderation–voices that are badly needed just now. But I can’t deny being a bit angry about what has been done in America’s name with the Arbil Five. It’s an outrage, and it’s shameful. This elementary-school situation cries out for the principal to come and intervene.”

Beyond the fact that this is only so much moral equivocating, I’m struck by Horton’s reliance upon “Iranian statements,” as though the word of the Tehrrorists of Tehran can speak any truth. I don’t believe this is the type of reaction Katherin Lopez is speaking of in her post. Considering the five detained in Iraq, the Iranian so-called “diplomats,” are members of the Iranian Quds Force, which even msm paid member MSNBC see as nasty fellas. Wiki “whatever you want it to be” pedia; doesn’t appear to think to highly of them either. Hamad Karzai, the president of Aghanistan is outraged over Iranian “diplomats,” and their efforts at “diplomacy” in in his country as well.

Where does one suppose Horton gets the gall to compare the two detentions? Perhaps it’s from the same schoolyard he refers to in his reaction. At the least he feels for those in Tehran, which is I guess a start in the right direction.

How dare the U.S. play these childish games! For the sake of the planet and peace in the Mid-East region we should be sitting down with the Iranian leadership to resolve the Iraq war, which Iran has done much to foment; after all Iran’s intentions are entirely peaceful, and truly so if one takes them at their word. At least Iran offers good faith; and their assistance in sewing peace would go a long way.

To Mr. Horton and others that seek a peaceful solution to this latest Iranian crisis; this offering from Michelle Malkin on Sunday June 24, is a must see/read for those that want to bone up on who it is we will/would be negotiating with. This “schoolyard” playground is centuries behind any schoolyard in the U.S.; and the monitors enforce the dress code in a slightly aggressive manner.

On June 20^th this post, “Who Fires the First Shot?” was in reaction to two articles; one by Tony Blankley, the other by Michael Hirsh. In a sense, both painted a somewhat bleak picture of our options in our efforts at thwarting Islamo-fascists in our midst; the Hirsh piece however was more in line with not doing anything so as not to offend or apparently make matters worse.

Victor Davis Hanson hits the nail on the head this morning as he usually does in covering our continuous bleating, blaming and expectations that there is one option that we haven’t tried that would resolve all the problems; although no one ever offers it, only knocks what we’re doing. The difficulty here is that there is no “one” option is the answer. Hanson’s take and one should agree there are not good options but we have thus far taken a couple of better ones. In part from Victor Davis Hanson:

“Our present policy, however poorly managed in postbellum Iraq, arose as a reaction both to the do-nothingism of past administrations, which, by general consensus, had emboldened al Qaeda to up its ante on 9/11, and the decades of amoral realism that propped up thugs and dictators who ruined their societies but blamed the ensuing mess on Americans and Jews.

After 9/11, we did not, as alleged, invade countries serially, but removed only two fascistic governments, the worst in the Middle East — both with a record of supporting enemies of the United States, and both of whom we had bombed or sent missiles against in the very recent past.

We did not leave after such punitive measures because we felt that the last time we did that, whether in Afghanistan in the 1980s, or Iraq in 1991, or Lebanon, or Somalia, things only got worse — and after 9/11 they might well get much worse. And unlike the bombing of 1998 in the Balkans, both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were sanctioned by the U.S. Congress, discussed at the U.N., and widely supported by the American people.

Removing the Taliban and Saddam, and promoting constitutional governments in their places, were not the only options after 9/11, but they were good choices — if the desire was to address comprehensively a quarter-century of terrorism that was insidiously escalating both in frequency and vehemence.

If both governments can be stabilized even at this late date, the landscape in the Middle East from Lebanon to the West Bank will be much improved; if not, much worse. For those who wish to