'Anti-gay' students must keep quiet
Mood:  don't ask
Now Playing: BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Lawsuit filed against district's 'diversity training'

In its mandatory "diversity training" classes, a school district has instructed students who believe homosexual behavior is wrong to keep their opinions to themselves, prompting a federal lawsuit.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund filed a motion for preliminary injunction [PDF file] yesterday to immediately prohibit the Boyd County, Kentucky, Board of Education from restricting the free-speech rights of its students.

"We are filing this motion because students are being forbidden from expressing their own viewpoint on this matter," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Kevin Theriot. "That's unconstitutional, and it must stop."

The motion was filed in a Feb. 15 lawsuit brought by Timothy Allen Morrison and other students and their parents against the education board.

The training itself began as a result of the settlement of another lawsuit filed against the board by the Boyd County High School Gay-Straight Alliance, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The school district is attempting to change the beliefs of students without their parents' consent," Theriot said. "The provisions of any settlement arrangement must respect the constitutional rights of students."

All middle and high school students in Boyd County schools are required to attend the special training.

School policies and practice do not permit parents to opt their children out of the training, even if it violates their personal beliefs and morality, ADF said.

WorldNetDaily ** 'Anti-gay' students must keep quiet

Ted Kennedy's son wants to be RI Senator
Mood:  silly
Now Playing: R.I. race: Chafee vs. Kennedy?
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

The nation's smallest state is bracing for a major showdown between two of the nation's political dynasties.

Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy is weighing a run against Sen. Lincoln Chafee in a bid to unseat Rhode Island's only major Republican elected official.

"It would be a great race. The two are very evenly matched," said Brown University Prof. Darrell West, author of a biography of Kennedy, 37, a six-term congressman.

"Chafee is a sitting senator and people like him, but he has an 'R' next to his name in a 'D' state."

The dynastic matchup between Kennedy, son of Democratic icon Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Chafee, son of the late John Chafee, a revered Rhode Island senator and governor, would thrust the super-blue state into the national political spotlight as the beleaguered Democrats try to win back a seat in the Senate.

The younger Kennedy will say only that he has "been asked by people I respect and admire," including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), "to consider running for the United States Senate."

Kennedy is taking a look at the race now that his House colleague, Rep. Jim Langevin, has opted out of the race.

Chafee, 52, who was appointed to the seat in 2000 after the death of his father vacated the seat, is considered vulnerable and has little support from his party since he is a liberal Republican, an all but extinct species.

But if Kennedy enters the race, Chafee may find himself flooded with help.

"If Kennedy runs, every group that hates the Kennedys will try to influence the Senate race," West said.

NY Daily News ** R.I. race: Chafee vs. Kennedy?

Selective Restraint; Liberals cheered when Janet Reno defied the courts to seize Elian Gonzalez
Mood:  smelly
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

The sad case of Terri Schiavo has raised passions not seen since five years ago. Then another bitterly divided family argued in Florida courts over someone who couldn't speak on his own behalf: Elian Gonzalez.

In both cases, those who were unhappy with the courts' decisions strained to assert the federal government's power to produce a different outcome. The difference is that in Mrs. Schiavo's case, Congress backed off after passing a bill that merely asked a federal court to hear the case from scratch, something that U.S. District Judge James Whittemore declined to do. By contrast, those who wanted the federal government to intervene in Elian Gonzalez's case went all the way, supporting a predawn armed federal raid on the morning before Easter to seize the 6-year-old boy despite a federal appeals court's refusal to order his surrender.

Both cases were marked with hypocrisy and political posturing galore. Both times some conservative Republicans talked about issuing subpoenas to compel the person at the center of the case to appear before Congress; they swiftly backed down when public opinion failed to support their stunt. Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, argued that by opposing Elian's return to his father in communist Cuba, conservatives were abandoning the principle that "the state should not supersede the parents' wishes." In the case of Terri Schiavo, many conservatives who normally support spousal rights decided that Michael Schiavo's decision to abandon his marital vows while at the same time refusing to divorce his wife rendered him unfit to override the wishes of his wife's parents to have her cared for.

But liberals have gotten off easy for some of the somersaulting arguments they have made on behalf of judicial independence and states' rights to justify their position that Terri Schiavo should not be saved. Many made the opposite arguments in the Elian Gonzalez case.

Elian was plucked from the ocean off the coast of Florida on Thanksgiving Day 1999. after his mother died in an ill-fated attempt to bring him to freedom. Before he became a political football and Fidel Castro demanded his return, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted him immigration "parole," which gave him the right to live in the U.S. for one year until his status was determined. Because Elian was underage, his fate would therefore be decided by local family courts. On Dec. 1, the INS issued a statement saying, "Although the INS has no role in the family custody decision process, we have discussed the case with the State of Florida officials who have confirmed that the issue of legal custody must be decided by its state court."

Then the Clinton administration reversed course after protests from the Castro regime reached a fever pitch. On Dec. 9, the INS declared its previous position "a mistake" and said that state courts would not have jurisdiction in Elian's case. They claimed that because Elain was taken directly to a hospital he was therefore never formally paroled into the U.S.--even though he was then turned over to his Miami relatives rather than the INS. "Technically, he was not paroled in the usual sense," said a Justice Department spokesman. But she could come up with no previous case in which a Cuban refugee had had his parole revoked and then had the INS move to return him to Cuba.

But it quickly became clear that was the INS's intent. Over the Christmas holidays the agency dispatched agents to Cuba to interview Elian's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez. After the interview, Mr. Gonzalez told reporters the agents and an accompanying U.S. diplomat had assured him Elian would be returned. The Clinton administration disputed those statements, although one of the government officials later privately acknowledged they had been made. Nonetheless, INS bureaucrats in Washington quickly determined that a man who had abandoned Elian and his mom for another woman was a "fit parent" who could "properly care for the child in Cuba." No public consideration was given to the fact that his father, a member of the Communist Party, might have been coerced.

If a state court had been allowed to hear the custody case, INS officials would not have been able to testify as to what Mr. Gonzalez told them to support his claim because it would have been hearsay. He would have had to come to the U.S. to testify on his own, subject to cross-examination. Even if the state court had granted him custody, it would have had to decide whether it was in the child's best interest to be returned to Cuba.

That's what Judge Rosa Rodriguez of Florida Family Court, complying with the original INS ruling, tried to do when she ruled in early January 2000 that her court had jurisdiction over the boy and gave Elian's great-uncle legal authority to represent him. Her order contravened an INS ruling that only Elian's father could speak for the boy and that he should be immediately returned to Cuba. Attorney General Janet Reno than promptly declared that Judge Rodriguez's ruling had "no force or effect." At the same time, INS officials assured reporters that under no circumstances did they intend to seize Elian by force.

The stalemate continued for another three months. On Thursday, April 20, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--the same court that rejected the pleas of Terri Schiavo's parents last week--turned down the Justice Department's request to order Elian removed from the home of his Miami relatives. Moreover, the court expressed serious doubts about the Justice Department's reading of both the law and its own regulations, adding that Elian had made a "substantial case on the merits" of his claim. It further established a record that Elain, "although a young child, has expressed a wish that he not be returned to Cuba."

The Reno Justice Department acted the next day to short-circuit a legal process that was clearly going against it. On Good Friday evening, after all courts had closed for the day, the department obtained a "search" warrant from a night-duty magistrate who was not familiar with the case, submitting a supporting affidavit that seriously distorted the facts. Armed with that dubious warrant, the INS's helmeted officers, assault rifles at the ready, burst into the home of Elian's relatives and snatched the screaming boy from a bedroom closet.

Many local bystanders were tear-gassed even though they did nothing to block the raid. Elian was quickly returned to Cuba; because he was never able to meet with his lawyers a scheduled May 11 asylum hearing on his case in Atlanta became moot.

Of course, there are differences between the Gonzalez and Schiavo cases. But clearly many of the people who approved of dramatic federal intervention to return Elian to Cuba took a completely different tack when it came to the argument over saving Terri Schiavo. Rep. Frank makes a compelling argument that Congress took an extraordinary step when it met in special session to create a procedure whereby the federal courts could decide whether Ms. Schiavo's rights were being violated. He may have a point when he accuses Republicans of "trying to command judicial activism and dictate outcomes when they don't like" rulings.

But where were Mr. Frank and other liberals when the Clinton administration decided to sidestep a federal appeals court and order an armed raid against Elian Gonzalez? While Mr. Frank allowed that the use of assault rifles in the Elian raid was "excessive" and "frightening," he also defended the Justice Department's view that "of course [agents] had to use force."

According to some reports, Gov. Jeb Bush considered seizing Mrs. Schiavo, a la Elian, and taking her to a hospital so she could be fed. But he did not do so. "I've consistently said that I can't go beyond what my powers are, and I'm not going to do it," the governor says. Janet Reno and the Clinton administration showed no such restraint when it came to Elian Gonzalez.

Opinion Journal ~ John Fund ** Selective Restraint

How a Lone Diplomat Compromised the Hunt for Bin Laden
Mood:  irritated
Topic: News

WASHINGTON - A lone U.S. ambassador compromised America's hunt for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan for more than two years, The New York Sun has learned.

Ambassador Nancy Powell, America's representative in Pakistan, refused to allow the distribution in Pakistan of wanted posters, matchbooks, and other items advertising America's $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Mr. bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.

Instead, thousands of matchbooks, posters, and other material - printed at taxpayer expense and translated into Urdu, Pashto, and other local languages - remained "impounded" on American Embassy grounds from 2002 to 2004, according to Rep. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois.

While the American government was engaged in a number of "black" or covert intelligence activities to locate Al Qaeda leaders, Mr. Kirk said, the "white" or public efforts - which have succeeded in the past in leading to the capture of wanted terrorists - were effectively shut down in the months following the September 11 attacks.

Mr. Kirk discovered Ms. Powell's unusual order in January 2004 and, over the past year, launched a series of behind-the-scenes moves that culminated in a blunt conversation with President Bush aboard Air Force One, the removal of the ambassador, and congressional approval for reinvigorating the hunt for Mr. bin Laden.

The full effect of Ms. Powell's impoundment order is difficult to measure. Pakistan is a key theater in the war on terror. Virtually every Al Qaeda leader captured to date has been apprehended in Pakistan, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of the September 11 attacks. More than 600 Al Qaeda fighters have been killed or captured in Pakistan since 2001.

Mr. Kirk accidentally learned of Ms. Powell's impoundment policy as part of an official congressional delegation visiting Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, in January 2004.

During the course of his visit, Mr. Kirk met with several intelligence officers to discuss the hunt for Mr. bin Laden. Mr. Kirk, a moderate Republican from the North Shore of Chicago, also serves as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserves.

Citing his experience in intelligence matters, Mr. Kirk asked embassy intelligence officials about the distribution of matchbooks in local languages. A single matchbook helped lead to the capture of Mir Amal Kansi, who gunned down several CIA employees at the front gates of the agency's Langley, Va., headquarters in 1993. Kansi was arrested in Pakistan in 1995 when a local fingered him for the $5 million reward. Mr. Kirk pointed out the similarities between the Kansi and bin Laden cases. "Both are cases gone cold in Pakistan," he said.

Embassy intelligence officials agreed with his assessment, Mr. Kirk said, but surprised the lawmaker by saying that the ambassador had ended the distribution of printed materials advertising the $25 million price on Mr. bin Laden's head.

Security personal were unhappy with the decision, according to the congressman. "There was a lot of discord among the staff," he said.

Mr. Kirk said that he raised the issue directly with the ambassador. According to the congressman, she replied that she had "six top priorities" and finding Mr. bin Laden was only one of them. She listed other priorities: securing supply lines for American and allied forces in Afghanistan, shutting down the network of nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan, preventing a nuclear war between Pakistan and India, and forestalling a radical Islamic takeover of the government of Pakistan, a key American ally.

Ms. Powell, now serving at the State Department's Foggy Bottom headquarters in Washington D.C., declined to comment directly.

A senior State Department official confirmed that the meeting between Mr. Kirk and Ms. Powell did occur and that the ambassador did review the embassy's top six priorities, but the official said that "counterterrorism was the no. 1 priority."

The senior State Department official denied that Ms. Powell had restricted the distribution of materials touting the reward for Mr. bin Laden and other "high value targets." That program - known as Rewards for Justice - was discontinued in Pakistan prior to Ms. Powell's 2002 arrival because it was "ineffective," the senior official said. At the time, the Rewards for Justice program was widely used by other American embassies farther from the center of America's operations to kill or capture key Al Qaeda leaders.

A career State Department functionary, Ms. Powell was sworn in as American ambassador to Pakistan on August 9, 2002. A fluent Urdu speaker, she had previously served in posts on the subcontinent and across sub-Saharan Africa. She joined the State Department in 1977, following a six-year stint teaching high-school social studies in Dayton, Iowa.

Returning to Washington, D.C., Mr. Kirk began working to overturn Ms. Powell's order. As member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department, he was a force with which to be reckoned. He worked methodically, far from the public eye. He met with key congressional chairmen and then, gathering support, met with the speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. In February 2004, he met with then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Then, he began raising the issue with a growing array of White House officials.

When Mr. Bush asked the congressman to join him aboard Air Force One for a campaign stop in Mr. Kirk's suburban Chicago district in July 2004, the lawmaker saw his chance. He told the president about his ambassador impounding materials that could lead to the capture of Mr. bin Laden. "Bush was very cautious," Mr. Kirk recalled. The president did not betray an immediate response. "When one of his people is concerned, he likes to take his time and investigate."

Ms. Powell left her post as American ambassador in November 2004.

State Department spokesman Noel Clay declined to comment on the timing of ambassadorial rotations.

A senior State Department official disputed the notion that Ms. Powell was removed by the White House, adding, "if the president really wants an ambassador gone, the department can move a lot faster than three months."

The former schoolteacher was replaced by veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker in November 2004. The mood at the American Embassy lifted almost immediately. "He is a take-charge guy," said one official who knows the embassy's intelligence staff, "far more aggressive in pursuing the bin Laden account."

The American Embassy in Islamabad now boasts a 24-hour call center to receive tips. The center is manned by two locals, both of whom speak the three major languages of Pakistan, and supervised by a Diplomatic Security officer. Embassy staff recently launched a 12-week radio and television campaign alerting residents that, in the words of one 30-second Urdu-language radio spot, they "may be eligible for a reward of up to $25 million for information leading to the arrest of known international terrorists." About 25 calls were received in February 2005, the center's first full month of operation.

Congress recently passed legislation raising the reward for information on Mr. bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members to $50 million and revamping the Rewards for Justice Program. More than $57 million has been paid to 43 people who provided credible information about the whereabouts of known terrorists since the program's founding in 1984. But little has been paid since the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Under legislation co-sponsored by Mr. Kirk and signed by Mr. Bush in December 2004, the top reward for information leading to the capture of Mr. bin Laden has been raised to $50 million from $25 million. The Rewards for Justice program has also been extensively retuned. Embassies are now required to conduct focus groups of locals to discover precisely which radio stations they tune in to and which newspapers they read. Based on those reports, the American Embassy in Pakistan is now broadcasting advertisements on the radio programs most closely followed by the residents of Waziristan, a mountainous region of Pakistan that is believed to be a haven for Al Qaeda.

The American Embassy in Islamabad's Rewards for Justice program is now in high gear. Yet, if Mr. Kirk and some intelligence officials are correct, valuable time was lost.

NY Sun ** How a Lone Diplomat Compromised the Hunt for Bin Laden

U.N. Admits to Phone Fraud in Eritrea
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: UN staff stole and distributed pin codes to make 'free' calls
Topic: News

United Nations peacekeeping staff in Eritrea have rung up more than $500,000 of unpaid international calls. The fraud was discovered last year when auditors noticed huge billing discrepancies in 2003, the UN said.

Schemes such as stealing pin codes and abusing a one-minute grace period before being charged for a connection accounted for the "irregularities".

The countries of those caught swindling their phone bills have been charged, but so far only $14,000 has been paid.

The UN Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (Unmee) said the process of unravelling the fraud was "painstaking and complex, involving the manual verification of 1.4m lines of computer billing data".

UN staff are affiliated to peacekeeping missions from their country's team at the UN headquarters in New York.

To avoid absorbing the cost itself, Unmee has forwarded $364,000 of confirmed bills to New York.

Since 2000, a 3,000-strong Unmee peacekeeping force has patrolled Eritrea's tense border with Ethiopia.

The two Horn of Africa countries fought a war between 1998 and 2000 that is thought to have killed more than 70,000 people.

BBC News ** UN admits phone fraud in Eritrea

(D) Mayor of Orlando arrested, ousted; new election in the works
Mood:  d'oh
Now Playing: Orlando approves special election
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

The decision to hold a vote May 3 to replace suspended Mayor Dyer draws dissent.

Facing an almost certain legal challenge, a fractured Orlando City Council decided Monday to call a special election six weeks from now to pick a replacement for ousted Mayor Buddy Dyer.

The council split 4-2 over the politically charged question of whether it had to hold a special election or could leave city commissioner and interim Mayor Ernest Page at the helm until the criminal charges that prompted Dyer's suspension are resolved.

The whirlwind election will be May 3, at a cost of about $100,000. If no candidate wins a majority in the nonpartisan race, a runoff would be May 24.

But at least one attorney said there would be an immediate court challenge of the election's validity -- as soon as today.

"We'll ask the court to fast-track it," attorney Steven Mason, who represents the Orange County Democratic Party, said Monday. "What bigger issue has been before the city in recent years?"

The council's decision is the latest of many twists in Orlando politics since Dyer, a Democrat, was suspended by Gov. Jeb Bush 11 days ago.

Dyer was arrested March 11 after a grand jury indicted him on charges stemming from his successful 2004 re-election campaign. He is charged with violating a state election law that bars paying someone to collect absentee ballots. Also charged were absentee ballot consultant Ezzie Thomas; Dyer's campaign manager, Patti Sharp; and Circuit Judge Alan Apte, who also had hired Thomas for his 2002 judicial campaign.

Page, chairing his first meeting as interim mayor, recognized the upheaval, but tried to assure Orlando residents that the city's business will go on.

"The city of Orlando is in good hands with this council and the staff we have now," Page said. "All our projects are still ongoing and doing just fine."

As the City Council -- minus Dyer -- debated the city's political future Monday, the audience was packed with a slew of attorneys, two court reporters transcribing the discussions for use in later legal challenges, six TV news cameras, political consultants and more than one would-be mayor.

City Attorney Dykes Everett told the council that the Florida Constitution, state law and the City Charter together require the council to hold the election. If Dyer is acquitted, he will get the mayor's office back, but if he is convicted, the city would hold a second special election to find a permanent replacement.

"We find ourselves in extraordinary times here in the city of Orlando," Everett said, whose interpretation was backed up by a former city attorney and a former county attorney.

Four of the council's six remaining members backed a special election, including Page and Commissioners Daisy Lynum, Betty Wyman and Vicki Vargo.

"Yes, Mayor Buddy Dyer is innocent until proven guilty. And our legal system is fair and just," Vargo said. "However, until his criminal case is resolved - which could easily take up to one year - the citizens of Orlando deserve the right to exercise their right to vote."

At least a dozen attorneys and citizens showed up to offer differing legal interpretations but were not allowed to speak.

Commissioners Phil Diamond and Patty Sheehan voted against the special election, arguing that the city should allow public comment on the matter and seek a definitive legal opinion from the court or the state attorney general.

"I am very concerned about this matter moving forward so quickly without hearing any public opinion," Sheehan said. "It is not a public process if they don't get a chance to speak."

Mason, the attorney for the local Democratic Party, didn't get a chance to argue his position that the law allows Page - a Republican - to remain in charge until Dyer's future is known.

Ken Mulvaney, the runner-up in the 2004 election, said he also may challenge the validity of the special election. Mulvaney filed a lawsuit soon after last year's election accusing Dyer's campaign of absentee-ballot fraud, and a judge is expected to rule on his request for a runoff in the coming days.

Mulvaney, a Republican, said he has not decided whether to run in the special election.

Bill Frederick, the city's mayor from 1980 to 1992, wasted no time in following through on his promise to seek the office once again. Not long after the council adjourned, the Republican became the first candidate to file his election papers.

Others who have said they will definitely run include retired Orlando police Capt. Sam Ings, a Democrat who finished third in 2004, and perennial candidate Alex Lamour, an independent who finished fifth.

Bill Sublette, a former state representative who lost to Dyer in 2003, said Monday that he will run for mayor in the future but plans to support Frederick in the special election.

"I think he is the best person for the city right now," Sublette, a Republican, said.

Republican attorney Tico Perez, who also mounted an unsuccessful campaign in 2003, said he won't decide whether to put his name on the ballot until the Democrats' expected legal challenge is decided.

"I've got to sit down and think about what makes sense for me and what makes sense for the city," Perez said.

Orlando Sun-Sentinel ** Orlando approves special election

Iraq's insurgents ?seek exit strategy'
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: News

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.

Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.

"Firstly, they want to ensure their own security," says Sharif Ali, who last week hosted a pan-Sunni conference attended by tribal sheikhs and other local leaders speaking on behalf of the insurgents.

Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.

Sharif Ali distinguishes many Sunni insurgents, whom he says took up arms in reaction to the invasive raids in search of Ba'athist leaders and other "humiliations" soon after the 2003 war, from the radical jihadist branch associated with Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Unlike Mr Zarqawi's followers, who are thought to be responsible for the big suicide bomb attacks on Iraqi civilian targets, the other Sunni insurgents are more likely to plant bombs and carry out ambushes against security forces and US troops active near their homes.

Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.

Financial Times ** Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy'

'Fox Blocker' Aims to Block Channel
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

It's not that Sam Kimery objects to the views expressed on Fox News. The creator of the "Fox Blocker" contends the channel is not news at all.

Kimery figures he's sold about 100 of the little silver bits of metal that screw into the back of most televisions, allowing people to filter Fox News from their sets, since its August debut.

The Tulsa, Okla., resident also has received thousands of e-mails, both angry and complimentary ? as well as a few death threats.

"Apparently the making of terroristic threats against those who don't share your views is a high art form among a certain core audience," said Kimery, 45.

Formerly a registered Republican, even a precinct captain, Kimery became an independent in the 1990s when he said the state party stopped taking input from its everyday members.

Kimery now contends Fox News' top-level management dictates a conservative journalistic bias, that inaccuracies are never retracted, and what winds up on the air is more opinion than news. "I might as well be reading tabloids out of the grocery store," he says. "Anything to get a rise out of the viewer and to reinforce certain retrograde notions."

A Fox spokeswoman at the station's New York headquarters said the channel's ratings speak for themselves. For the first three months of this year, Fox has been averaging 1.62 million viewers in prime-time, compared with CNN's 805,000, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Kimery's motives go deeper than preventing people from watching the channel, which he acknowledges can be done without the Blocker. But he likens his device to burning a draft card, a tangible example of disagreement.

And he's taking this message to the network's advertisers. After buying the $8.95 device online, would-be blockers are shown a letter that they can send to advertisers via the Fox Blocker site.

"The point is not to block the channel or block free speech but to raise awareness," said Kimery, who works in the tech industry.

Kimery doesn't use the device himself; his remote is programmed to only a half-dozen channels. Plus he occasionally feels the need to tune into Fox News for something "especially heinous."

Business could pick up since the blocker was alluded to in a recent episode of the ABC drama "Boston Legal." The show's original script mentioned Fox News, but ABC had the references removed.

The boisterous conversations on Fox News may be why the station is so popular, said Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media watchdog group. And despite a perception that Fox leans to the right, Felling said, that doesn't mean people who lean left should tune out.

"It's tough to engage in an argument when you're not participating in it," Felling said. "It's just one more layer in the wall that the right and the left are building in between each other."

On the Net: Fox Blocker / Fox News

Seattle Times ~ Associated Press ** Device lets you out-Fox your TV

Yahoo News ~ Associated Press ** 'Fox Blocker' Aims to Block Channel

Starbucks puts lib loser opinionated bullshit quotes on its cups
Mood:  caffeinated
Now Playing: Coffee with steam
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Some conservatives are angered by opinionated quotes that Starbucks puts on its cups.

Moments after picking up a venti vanilla latte from a St. Petersburg Starbucks, Sam Maston removed his cup's cardboard sleeve to inspect a message printed beneath.

"America's national debt is now $7.5-trillion, and it's skyrocketing, even as America's population ages," the cup read. "There will never be a better time to start paying off this crippling debt than today."

The quote, from environmentalist Denis Hayes, didn't faze the 29-year-old Maston.

"I'm a pretty hardcore Democrat," said Maston, who wore a black rubber wristband bearing the words I DID NOT VOTE 4 BUSH. "I think they should put that stuff on there."

Not everyone agrees.

The Seattle coffee chain has raised some eyebrows over its "The Way I See It" campaign, which prints quotes from thinkers, authors, athletes and entertainers on the side of your morning machiatto. The goal, according to the company, is to foster philosophical debate in its 9,000-plus coffeehouses.

The quotes aren't all that inflammatory, though several mirror Starbucks' hallmark tall-grande-venti pretentiousness. Take this one from film critic Roger Ebert: "A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it."

The problem, critics say, is the company's list of overwhelmingly liberal contributors, including Al Franken, Melissa Etheridge, Quincy Jones, Chuck D. Of the 31 contributors listed on Starbucks' Web site, only one, National Review editor Jonah Goldberg, offers a conservative viewpoint.

Considering Starbucks sells millions of cups of coffee each day - at $4 and up, no less - it's no surprise some customers have complained to Starbucks' Web site, labeling the campaign "offensive" and the company a proponent of "the destruction of family values and virtues."

"I want to enjoy your product without having Earth Day Network propaganda thrust at me," wrote Malachi Salcido of East Wenatchee, Wash.

Yvette Nunez, a 27-year-old Republican from Tampa, said she hadn't noticed the quotes on her weekly caramel machiattos. On "tall" cups, the text is obscured by a cardboard sleeve.

"There are a lot of great conservative quotes, but oh well," she said. "I'm not surprised. I'm used to being under-represented."

Starbucks' founder and chairman, Howard Schultz, is a major Democratic campaign donor who last year gave $1,000 in Florida to Peter Deutsch's failed U.S. Senate campaign.

Seth Hoffman, president of the Tampa Bay Young Republicans and an occasional Starbucks drinker, said he tries to avoid buying some "liberal" products, like Ben & Jerry's ice cream. He said Starbucks should consider using more conservative voices, but if they don't, he's unlikely to stay away.

"I know about what the company does; I know what my money's going to," said Hoffman, 32. "For me, with Starbucks, it's not what's on the cup, but what's in the cup."

Company spokeswoman Valerie Hwang said the goal is not to stir up controversy. She said the company has lined up 60 contributors with "varying points of view, experiences and priorities" in an effort to promote "open, respectful conversation among a wide variety of individuals."

Each cup also bears a caveat letting customers know that the quote is "the author's opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks."

"The program is such that we're not requiring our customers to read," Hwang said, "but rather the quotes are there for our customers to discover and enjoy."

The cups also refer customers to the campaign's Web site, www.starbucks.com/wayiseeit where ordinary Joes can submit opinions for publication on a future cup. The site, as well as fliers available in each Starbucks store, encourage angry customers to lash out if they're upset.

Plenty of conservatives may do so. But liberals? Maston, for one, shrugs off the cup-quote controversy, and suggests most Starbucks addicts will do the same.

"If I was that upset about what they put on there," he said, "I wouldn't come here."

St. Petersburg Times ** Coffee with steam

Dems teach donors how to skirt campaign finance laws
Mood:  d'oh
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

TRENTON, N.J. -- New Jersey Republicans on Thursday blasted a Democratic Party memo that reportedly tells contractors hoping to win business from the state how to bypass a new law intended to choke off their campaign contributions.

The law, trumpeted by Democrats as a win for ethics in government, restricts campaign donors from receiving state contracts worth $17,500 or more if they contributed more than $300 to a gubernatorial campaign, the governor's state party account or county committees controlled by the governor's political party.

The Star-Ledger of Newark on Thursday said the memo suggests contractors can still make sizable contributions, informing them they may donate up to $10,000 a year to the Democratic State Committee's federal campaign account. Money from that account can be used in state races with few restrictions, including ones that pertain to maximum contributions and disclosure obligations, according to state and federal election officials.

The memo was distributed among top Democratic fund-raisers before the party's annual fund-raising gala Tuesday evening, just hours after acting Gov. Richard J. Codey signed the Democrat-sponsored pay-to-play law, the newspaper reported.

The pay-to-play law was an outgrowth of an executive order imposed last fall by Codey's predecessor, former Gov. James E. McGreevey, who resigned in November.

The Feb. 1 memo was written by Angelo Genova, the Democrats' top campaign finance lawyer, who also helped draft the measure Codey signed, according to the newspaper.

Genova said the subject matter of the memo was the executive order and called it "ludicrous" to say it was aimed at contractors. Both political parties and all candidates regularly inform contributors of obligations and restrictions concerning campaign donations.

Genova stressed that contributions to a party's federal campaign account would not enable donors to bypass the pay-to-play law. Money used from those accounts on state races must be reported to the state Election Law Enforcement Commission and would then trigger provisions of the pay-to-play law.

On Thursday, state Democratic Committee chairwoman Bonnie Watson Coleman issued a statement saying the memo advises contributors with respect to campaign finance law.

"In response to the many questions from our broad base of supporters, we provided the necessary information to keep them within compliance of the law. With changes in rules and regulations, it's important that our donors understand what contributions are permissible under the law and what contributions are not," Coleman said.

She added: "The party is diligent in adhering to the letter of the law and all regulatory requirements."

When he signed the pay-to-play law Tuesday, Codey, a Democrat, said it was the nation's strongest check on the practice of rewarding contributors with contracts, a relationship critics have characterized as legal bribery.

Codey said Thursday he was unaware of the memo but maintained it does nothing to change the reform initiative.

"I still think what we did changes state elections to a great extent and takes away the influence of vendor money," he said.

State GOP chief Tom Wilson said Democrats were interested only in guarding their election prospects in the fall.

"This is further proof they don't have an interest in doing the right thing. If anything should tell the voters who the real reformers are and who the posers are, it is this," Wilson said.

Democrats hold majorities in the Senate and General Assembly.

State Sen. Thomas Kean Jr., a sponsor of a Republican crackdown on pay-to-play that remains stalled in the Legislature, said Democrats aren't living up to their word.

"They have been talking reform for 3 years, but in practice they have been raising money any way they can. It's frustrating the majority party has figured out a way to circumvent the law even before it was signed," Kean said.

Newsday ~ Associated Press ** GOP lashes out at Democrat memo higlighting pay-to-play loophole