This week's top ten

Since Illinois is continuing its perfect season (and still the consensus number 1), the numbers in parentheses indicate the team's ranking from the previous week:

AP:
1. Illinois (1)
2. North Carolina (2)
3. Kentucky (5)
4. Wake Forest (6)
5. Boston College (3)
6. Duke (7)
7. Kansas (8)
8. Oklahoma State (4)
9. Louisville (10)
10. Washington (11)

Out: Arizona (9), Michigan State (10).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (21).

UPDATE: And the Coaches' poll:

1. Illinois (1)
2. North Carolina (2)
3. Kentucky (5)
4. Wake Forest (6)
5. Boston College (3)
6. Duke (10)
7. Kansas (7)
8. Oklahoma State (4)
9. Louisville (11)
10. Washington (13)

Out: Arizona (8), Michigan State (9).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (19).

SEC Champions

Kentucky won its 43rd SEC regular season men's basketball championship with a 78-71 victory over 14th-ranked Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Those 43 amount to more championships than all of the other SEC schools combined. If Kentucky wins its two remaining regular season games, it will become the first school in NCAA history to win 1,900 games. Go Cats!

John Chaney

Temple has suspended head basketball coach John Chaney for the remainder of the regular season for his actions in the game against St. Joseph's. He put a player in the game with specific instructions for rough play. The Temple player fouled out in four minutes, but not before breaking the arm of St. Joseph's forward John Bryant. Chaney had suspended himself for one game, but after learning of the results of the medical exam on the Bryant, Temple apparently felt that wasn't enough. To his credit, I suppose, Chaney eventually apologized, spoke with Bryant, and offered to pay all medical bills.

ESPN writer Pat Forde still feels Temple's punishment for Chaney is too light, and he may be right:

"Tell John Chaney we'll see him in October 2005. At the earliest.

"Bryant is missing more than just a handful of games. He won't suit up when the Hawks play at George Washington on March 1, which is a homecoming game for a kid from northern Virginia. He won't suit up on Senior Day March 5 against Fordham. He won't suit up for his final A-10 tournament, or for an expected St. Joe's bid to either the NCAAs or the NIT.

"Those are highlight moments in a collegian's career. And now they're gone, because a Hall of Fame coach couldn't handle the officials' failure to call moving screens. That's a travesty."

Has John Chaney become college basketball's Woody Hayes? He was already on an ESPN list of wild coaches, headed by Hayes, for this incident:

"Feb. 13, 1994. After Calipari's 13th-ranked UMass team beat No. 8 Temple 56-55 in Amherst, Temple coach Chaney broke into a postgame press conference being held by Calipari.

"'I'll kill your (expletive) ass. You remember that,' Chaney screamed at Calipari. 'I'll kick your ass. Kick your ass.'

"Then Chaney, saying that Calipari had intimidated the refs, started toward the UMass coach at the lectern across the room. Gerry Callahan of the Boston Herald described the scene: 'With at least one camera rolling and dozens of reporters looking on, Temple coach John Chaney charged Calipari and nearly assaulted him. (Mike) Williams got in the way and Chaney shoved the UMass junior toward Calipari, who was wisely backing up, stunned and amazed. Security guards sprinted into the interview room from all directions while Chaney continued to berate Calipari and thoroughly embarrass himself.'

"Chaney apologized after the incident, and was suspended for one game."

My hunch is that Chaney will probably move up from number eight on that list after this latest shameful incident. Bobby Knight will get jealous.

UPDATE: Pat Forde isn't the only writer who thinks Temple took it too easy on Chaney. CBS Sportsline's Gregg Doyel thinks Chaney should be fired. So do a large majority of the readers who have voted in the Sportsline online poll.

Thinking outside the box, or the Constitution?

Initial disclaimer: I am no expert in economics or the law of eminent domain, so I welcome any feedback from more knowledgeable individuals on the following comments. Two interesting, and in my mind, related stories ran side by side (unintentionally, I think) in the Lexington Herald-Leader on Wednesday. Both, I believe, demonstrate the danger of slipping too far away from the nation's first princples, and the authority granted in the founding charter.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a major case involving the government's power of eminent domain. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states, "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." According to this summary, "At issue is whether governments can forcibly seize homes and businesses, for private economic development. Under a practice known as eminent domain, a person's property may be condemned and the land converted for a greater 'public use.' It has traditionally been employed to eliminate slums, or to build highways, schools or other public works. The New London case tests the muscle of local and state governments to raise what they see as much-needed revenue, which they argue serves a greater 'public purpose.'"

More commentary is available at The Volokh Conspiracy and Professor Bainbridge, which I won't rehash. But some of the questions asked by the justices, and answers given by the attorneys, are disturbing. "If a city wanted to seize property in order to turn a 'Motel 6 into a Ritz-Carlton, that would be OK?' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked. 'Yes, your honor, it would be,' Horton [the city's attorney] replied." According to the New York Times, "When Justice Breyer asked him whether a taking should at least have to meet a test of 'reasonableness,' he said no, adding that the city was, after all, not simply appropriating the property but paying fair market value for it." Justice Scalia, however, commented that "You are paying for it, but you are taking it from somebody who doesn't want to sell."

The second story that caught my attention was the idea floated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to have the government give each child born in the United States $2000 in an investment savings account, with the government contributing an additional $2000 each year until the child turns 18. At that point, the money would remain in the account and allowed to grow at a compounded rate until the individual reached age 65, when an annuity of $82,000 per year would be paid for the next twenty years. In theory, if the accounts earn 6% interest, by the time the individual is 65 there would be just over $1 million in the account to provide the annuity. This has led many headlines to boast that the plan would make every American a millionaire at retirement, although if the money is considered in 2070 dollars, or even in today's dollars, I would not consider myself a millionaire if I was getting $82,000 per year. That's Al Gore math.

I heard a caller to a radio program comment about how O'Neill should be commended for thinking outside the box about how to address the looming Social Security problem. Thinking outside the box is one thing; thinking outside the Constitution's enumerated powers for the federal government is something else entirely. Nothing in the Constitution permits the federal government to give retirement accounts to citizens. The structure of the government is not a self-supporting entity; it is not an independent income producer, but is dependent primarily upon tax revenue to subsist. The last seventy years of welfare-state mentality, however, have probably blinded many Americans to the proposition that the government is not a parent, and does not owe a comfortable retirement to everyone. O'Neill's idea is reminiscent of Robert B. Reich's proposal to give $60,000 to every high school graduate, which always struck me as asinine.

I thought it interesting that the two stories ran side by side, however, because both illustrate the danger of the government overreaching its defined authority. Is a government taking of private property in order to give it to a private developer a "public use"? It's not as though the city intends to build a school or a road or a municipal building on the property; it's to be given to a pharmaceutical research facility, and the "public use" is actually properly defined as a "public benefit," as the intended use will generate more revenue for the locality. But common sense tells you that there is a difference between a public use and a public benefit, just as a common reading of the Constitution makes evident that the government isn't responsible for providing individuals with retirement accounts. Time will tell if common sense prevails, in the courts or the Congress.

UPDATE: Thanks to Lance at Ragged Edges for the link.

Another reminder of why we fight

William Bennett's book Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism, is a thoughtful piece explaining the reasons why it is necessary for the United States to continue to engage in the war on terror. Here is another reason:

"The [New York City] medical examiner's office has exhausted all of its attempts to identify the remains of those killed at Ground Zero - robbing more than 1,000 families of at least a small measure of comfort . . . .

"The medical examiner's office pushed the limits of forensic science after the attacks. Of the 2,749 who died, 1,588 have been identified. But 1,161 victims - almost half of those killed - remain unidentified. And now no more can be done.

"Only eight victims have been identified since September. If some still-incomplete lab tests prove successful, a few more victims could be identified later this year, [Dr. Robert] Shaler[, director of forensic biology at the medical examiner's office] said. The city has 9,720 unidentified bone and tissue fragments that cannot be matched to the long list of the dead. The remains are to be preserved at the memorial at Ground Zero.

"Terry Strada, whose husband, Thomas, 41, was killed in the attacks, said even the slim chance of his remains being identified in the future is comforting. 'It's pretty devastating to think that you didn't get him back and you might never get him back,' said the mother of three. 'It's hard to explain that to kids.'"

It's a tragic yet unavoidable circumstance related to the devastation of September 11, 2001. The federal government, charged with providing for the common defense of the nation, has a duty to make certain that justice is done for the victims. It is difficult to read this story without recalling the words on the Tomb of the Unknowns: "Here rests in Honored Glory an American Soldier Known but to God." Those veterans made the ultimate sacrifice defending the nation. These citizens also made a sacrifice, unwittingly, and are forevermore known but to God. Here are the president's words from his September 20, 2001, address to a joint session of Congress, which we are well-served to remember when hearing news like today's:

"Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

This week's top ten

There was a lot of movement within the top ten this week. Illinois was again the unanimous number one. The numbers in parentheses indicate the previous ranking for each team:

AP:
1. Illinois (1)
2. North Carolina (4)
3. Boston College (6)
4. Oklahoma State (8)
5. Kentucky (3)
6. Wake Forest (5)
7. Duke (7)
8. Kansas (2)
9. Arizona (10)
10. Michigan State (11)

Out: Syracuse (15).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (16).

UPDATE: Here is the ESPN/USA Today poll:

1. Illinois (1)
2. North Carolina (4)
3. Boston College (6)
4. Oklahoma State (7)
5. Kentucky (3)
6. Wake Forest (5)
7. Kansas (2)
8. Arizona (11)
9. Michigan State (10)
10. Duke (8)

Out: Syracuse (15).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (14).

A little late on Franken v. Hume

Since I am not a regular reader of Media Matters or Al Franken's blog, I only today discovered that Al has worked himself into something of a lather over a comment made by Fox News anchor Brit Hume on the February 4, 2005 broadcast. So that I do not step on anyone's toes, I first learned of this brouhaha at The Corner, then read more at Villainous Company and Tech Central Station. The following is, therefore, a summary, but please review these websites for more information.

On the "offending" broadcast, Hume said the following:

"Senate Democrats gathered at the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial today to invoke the image of FDR in calling on President Bush to remove private accounts from his Social Security proposal. But it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it.

"In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.'"

This was picked up by Media Matters, a liberal media "watchdog" designed to "correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Media Matters, in its story on Hume's comments, omitted the first paragraph of the remarks, and accused Hume of making false claims about FDR's plan.

Franken picked the ball up from there and began demanding Hume's resignation for, as Franken puts it, a "nasty form of dishonesty" for "manipulating Americans’ trust of FDR in order to build support for dismantling FDR’s legacy." Franken alleges that "Hume's claim was that FDR wanted to replace Social Security with private accounts," and goes on to claim that, in Hume's story, Brit "pulls two unrelated bits out of the FDR quote, and adds the wrods [sic] 'government funding' between them."

So what did FDR say in the speech? Here is the pertinent paragraph:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

I don't see Franken's beef. FDR said that the federal government would assume one-half of the old-age pension plan, which ultimately would be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans. Hume did not say, as Franken claims and as VC points out, that FDR intended the private accounts to replace the system; those words came from FDR's speech (re: supplant -- "take the place or move into the position of"). What Hume said (which MM and Franken both ignored) was that "FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it."

I don't want to be drawn into a debate over the merits of the current proposals. But that debate, by those who participate, should at least take place honestly and with full candor, especially so when one party accuses another of a "nasty form of dishonesty."

Irony is often hilarious

The United States Navy is commissioning an attack submarine after the 39th president of the United States -- Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter and attack hardly seem like words that belong in the same story, much less the same sentence.

His Carter Center claims as a mission to wage peace. In 1999, during the Kosovo campaign, Carter wrote this for the New York Times: "The approach the United States has taken recently has been to devise a solution that best suits its own purposes, recruit at least tacit support in whichever forum it can best influence, provide the dominant military force, present an ultimatum to recalcitrant parties and then take punitive action against the entire nation to force compliance. The often tragic result of this final decision is that already oppressed citizens suffer, while the oppressor may feel free of further consequences if he perpetrates even worse crimes."

London's leftist paper The Daily Mirror wrote this glowing tribute to Carter during the run-up to the war in Iraq: "The Nobel Peace Prize winner, and the only US president since 1945 never to order American soldiers into war, endorsed our stance on war with Iraq, saying: 'You're doing a good job. I am glad about that. War is evil.' Carter, who will be 79 this year, is a pariah among hawkish Republicans and a hero for doveish Democrats, frequently denouncing wars and conflict whenever they flare."

And of course, there was that strange attack on Carter, during his presidency, by the killer bunny rabbit, "hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared" while Carter was fishing.

One of the (unintentionally, I'm sure) hilarious lines in the Navy press release is the following: "Jimmy Carter will have built-in flexibility and an array of new warfighting features that will enable it to prevail in any scenario, against any threat – from beneath Arctic ice to shallow water." Which will be helpful, of course, if Jimmy Carter encounters any more rabbits in the water.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the picture of the vicious bunny attack.

This week's (belated) top ten

This week's top ten from both the AP and the ESPN/USA Today Coaches' polls, although with both Kansas and Kentucky already having lost this week, expect big movement for ACC schools in the polls next week:

AP:
1. Illinois (72)
2. Kansas
3. Kentucky
4. North Carolina
5. Wake Forest
6. Boston College
7. Duke
8. Oklahoma State
9. Syracuse
10. Arizona

Out: Louisville (12).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (16).

ESPN/USA Today Coaches' Poll:
1. Illinois (31)
2. Kansas
3. Kentucky
4. North Carolina
5. Wake Forest
6. Boston College
7. Oklahoma State
8. Duke
9. Syracuse
10. Michigan State

Out: Louisville (12).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (17), Florida (24).

Historical revision by Howard Dean

Not to pick on the Democrats too much, but the new chairman of the DNC makes it too easy. Powerline reports that during Dean's speech before the DNC today, he noted that Democrats need to find a new way to get their message out, without considering the possibility that it is the message itself that is failing to attract voters. In the course of the speech, Dean said that Democrats "are the party that has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people." Well, mostly. This is from the Senate's website on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"To cut off debate required a two-thirds vote, or sixty-seven senators, and since southern Democrats opposed the legislation, a substantial number of Republican votes would be needed to end the filibuster. Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic whip, who managed the bill on the Senate floor, enlisted the aid of the Republican minority leader, Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois. Dirksen, although a longtime supporter of civil rights, had opposed the bill because he objected to certain provisions. Humphrey therefore worked with him to redraft the controversial language and make the bill more acceptable to Republicans. Once the changes were made, Dirksen gained key votes for cloture from his party colleagues with a powerful speech calling racial integration 'an idea whose time has come.'"

Among the Democrats who filibustered the landmark civil rights legislation? Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Albert Gore, Sr. of Tennessee. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina also opposed the legislation, and launched the longest filibuster in Senate history. He was, at the time, a Democrat, and later changed his registration to Republican.

Bipartisanship, Washington style

Democratic leaders have sent a letter to the president asking him to stop what they allege are personal attacks aimed at the new Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, by the Republican National Committee. The letter states, "We urge you to keep your word about being a uniter and publicly halt these counterproductive attacks so that we are able to work together in a bipartisan manner and debate issues on the merits." The article mentions that Reid remarked that Bush had told him he was not behind the comments, but the article also notes that Reid commented that "Bush could not credibly claim he wasn't behind attacks circulated by a party apparatus under his control."

Meanwhile, incoming Democratic national Committee chairman Howard Dean stated in New York recently that "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." This Los Angeles Times story also states that "With the expected selection Saturday of firebrand Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Sen. John F. Kerry's rapid reemergence as a Bush critic, and the sharp congressional challenges to Cabinet nominees Alberto R. Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice, Democrats are consistently choosing confrontation over conciliation in their early responses to Bush in his second term."

Apparently, then, Democrats view working in a "bipartisan manner" as requiring Republicans to be conciliatory while Democrats are free to "choos[e] confrontation over conciliation."

For the record, I have been critical of Senator Reid's statements concerning Justice Thomas. I doubt that the RNC even knows my name, and I certainly have not received any "talking points" about the senator. I just thought his statements about Justice Thomas were ill-advised and wrong, and said so.

Ninth Circuit, Ten Commandments

In a case that drips with irony, a 26-year old attorney has filed a complaint in San Francisco alleging that the official seal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals violates the Constitution, as it contains two tablets with ten squiggly lines that the attorney maintains represent the Ten Commandments. The seal can be seen at the upper left corner of the court's website.

The Ninth Circuit is, of course,the circuit that held that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional in the public school setting. The Ninth Circuit has opinions reversed by the Supreme Court at a higher rate than any other court in the country. And the Ninth Circuit is, of course, the home of Michael Newdow, atheist-lawyer-doctor-professional litigant.

Newdow was asked his opinion of the current lawsuit, and apparently he doesn't approve. "I'm not impressed. It could be the Bill of Rights. I don't know what the heck that is."

And in a severe case of name-calling between the pot and the kettle, "Newdow said [plaintiff Ryan C.] Donlon appears to be hostile toward religion. 'You look at that seal and you don't get the sense that someone is pushing religion,' he said. 'It's not the same as putting up a giant monument out of nowhere.'"

Hat tip to Howard Bashman at How Appealing for this story. He also has some "creative defenses the Ninth Circuit could employ in the lawsuit" here. My two favorites: "That's not the Ten Commandments; rather, it's a list of ten surefire ways to avoid reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, only no one can read the fine print because it's too small," and "That's not the Ten Commandments; rather, it's a list of which Ninth Circuit cases the U.S. Supreme Court is most likely to reverse this Term."

NY Times doesn't try to hide its bias

The New York Times today runs a story on Peter Paul, the Clintons, and Mrs. Clinton's former campaign finance director, who has been indicted for underreporting the cost of a fundraiser thrown by Paul. Today's article is noteworthy for its references to the organization representing Paul and the manner in which the paper seems to be a lapdog for the Clintons.

It first states that the case "shows the continuing effort of a longtime nemesis of the Clintons, Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, to make legal trouble for the couple." Apparently, though, this single description of Judicial Watch was insufficient for the Times, as it later in the article states that "Judicial Watch [is] a conservative legal group that has dogged the Clintons for years and has been representing Mr. Paul."

The Times has not always attempted to "tar" Judicial Watch with the conservative label, however. Since JW is one of the organizations that sued Vice President Cheney over the Energy Task Force meetings, the Times has mentioned the group in its coverage of the case. Here, for instance, a Times story states that "[t]he judge set Dec. 12 as the next time for the administration to meet back in court with the two groups, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, that brought the case."

The Media Research Center noted the blatant bias of the mainstream media in its coverage of Judicial Watch in this comprehensive review two and a half years ago. Apparently, the Times doesn't care to continue the bias in its news stories.

This week's top ten

A day late, and only a couple of hours ahead of Kentucky's Fat Tuesday game with Florida, this week's AP poll:

1. Illinois (72)
2. North Carolina
3. Kansas
4. Boston College
5. Kentucky
6. Wake Forest
7. Duke
8. Syracuse
9. Louisville
10. Oklahoma State

SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (17).

The ESPN/USA Today Coaches' Poll:

1. Illinois (31)
2. North Carolina
3. Kansas
4. Boston College
5. Kentucky
6. Wake Forest
7. Syracuse
8. Duke
9. Louisville
10. Oklahoma State

Out: Michigan State (12).
SEC representatives in top 25: Kentucky, Alabama (19).

New blog alert!

I was reading Southern Appeal today, and learned of a new blog, Ragged Edges. It is a very interesting blog, and very promising, so I would encourage you to check it out. Ragged Edges will be added to the links at the left of the page. Thanks for the return, Lance.

Bush at the National Prayer Breakfast

Probably overlooked in the aftermath of the State of the Union are the president's remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. I will not quote them in full, but it is a good read. Here is a healthy excerpt:

"This morning reminds us that prayer has always been one of the great equalizers in American life. Here we thank God for his great blessings in one voice, regardless of our backgrounds. We recognize in one another the spark of the Divine that gives all human beings their inherent dignity and worth, regardless of religion.

"Through fellowship and prayer, we acknowledge that all power is temporary, and must ultimately answer to His purposes. And we know that affirming this truth is particularly appropriate in the heart of a capital built upon the promise of self-government. No one understood this better than Abraham Lincoln.

"In November 1864, after being reelected to his second term, Lincoln declared he would be the most 'shallow and self-conceited blockhead' on Earth if he ever thought he could do his job 'without the wisdom which comes from God and not from men.' Throughout a terrible Civil War, he issued many exhortations to prayer, calling upon the American people to humble themselves before their Maker and to serve all those in need.

"Our faith-based institutions display that same spirit of prayer and service in their work every day. Lincoln's call is still heard throughout the land. People of faith have no corner on compassion. But people of faith need compassion if they are to be true to their most cherished beliefs. For prayer means more than presenting God with our plans and desires; prayer also means opening ourselves to God's priorities, especially by hearing the cry of the poor and the less fortunate. "

More SotU

The entire speech was good, and it seems a bit unfair to single out portions as better than others. But doing so helps with a better understanding of the bigger principles enunciated by the president. This part of the speech -- about values and respect for life and the law -- warmed the heart and stiffened the spine for battles ahead:

"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

"Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities -- and I thank the Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical.

"Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well-qualified to serve on the bench -- and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote."

State of the Union

I did not have a chance to watch the speech last night (although I did tape it to watch later, and plan to read the whole transcript sometime today), but much of the news coverage today is about the emotional moment in the gallery near the end of the speech, when the mother of the fallen marine was embraced by the Iraqi woman, whose father had been killed by Saddam over a decade ago, and who was able to vote this past weekend in part due to the sacrifices of men and women like Sgt. Byron Norwood. It was one of the most emotional moments of the evening.

Unfortunately, the emotion, and the embrace, have overshadowed a truly poetic and masterful conclusion to the speech. In case it escaped you last night, here are the final three paragraphs of the president's address:

"In these four years, Americans have seen the unfolding of large events. We have known times of sorrow, and hours of uncertainty, and days of victory. In all this history, even when we have disagreed, we have seen threads of purpose that unite us. The attack on freedom in our world has reaffirmed our confidence in freedom's power to change the world. We are all part of a great venture: To extend the promise of freedom in our country, to renew the values that sustain our liberty, and to spread the peace that freedom brings.

"As Franklin Roosevelt once reminded Americans, "Each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth." And we live in the country where the biggest dreams are born. The abolition of slavery was only a dream -- until it was fulfilled. The liberation of Europe from fascism was only a dream -- until it was achieved. The fall of imperial communism was only a dream -- until, one day, it was accomplished. Our generation has dreams of its own, and we also go forward with confidence. The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable -- yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom.

"Thank you, and may God bless America."

Kids deserve better in schools

A school district in Rhode Island initially cancelled its annual spelling bee this year, and the assistant superintendent gave as grounds for the cancellation that a spelling bee "violates the main principle of the federal No Child Left Behind Act -- that all children should succeed." There are some fairly nutty quotes in the article from the assistant superintendent:

"'It's about one kid winning, several making it to the top and leaving all others behind,' Newman said of the competition, which culminates with the Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C. 'That's contrary to No Child Left Behind.' A spelling bee, she continued, is about 'some kids being winners, some kids being losers,' which 'sends a message that this isn't an all-kids movement. . . . 'You have to build positive self-esteem for all kids, so they believe they're all winners,' Newman told the Call. 'You want to build positive self-esteem so that all kids can get to where they want to go.'"

A local reporter stated that she thought that winning a spelling bee "just meant you were a good speller."

The officials have re-evaluated their decision, and the spelling bee will now go forward. The decision to cancel seems, to me at least, ridiculous. Although not intimately familiar with NCLB, I can't imagine that it requires no child losing. If that were the case, letter grades should be eliminated and replaced with pass/fail systems, in which all students pass. But that type of silly reform strikes at the heart of what schools are supposed to do -- educate. NCLB should merely require that students who are struggling to keep up are given extra attention to help them learn. It should not, and I believe does not, require that all children learn at the same pace or level.

Kids in public schools deserve better than the "self-esteem" mumbo-jumbo espoused by these educators in Rhode Island. The School Committee Chairman in the second article nails it: "The world is a competitive place, and children need to learn to compete, even at a young age."