One of the reasons courts at all levels get away with imposing judges' personal views as the law of the land is that so much of the public and the media view each decision in terms of whether they agree with the particular policy it represents. But the destruction of the separation of powers, which is central to the Constitution, is infinitely more important than whether policy A is better or worse than policy B.

Letting judges change the law by verbal sleight of hand is especially dangerous in a country where the people are supposed to have the power to control the laws they live under via their elected representatives.

Those who question whether the government ought to be in the business of promoting any religious concepts among school children can raise that as an issue that we can fight out among ourselves. It is denying us the right to fight it out among ourselves by judicial fiat that is the real danger.

This is a difficult spot to be in.

Clearly the founders held that "all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...", who "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence" pledged their lives to the United States against Great Britian.

How does the phrase "one nation under God" (notice, no comma, it is not its own phrase, it is part of the sentence) establish a religion? Is it because it refers to our Judeo-Christian background, and implictly endorses that? Would we not be able to teach the Declaration to students anymore, because the founders had a belief in God?

The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Now I ask, how is a SCHOOL BOARD'S (not Congress) requiring students to say the pledge unconstitutional? Because Congress codified the pledge to read "one nation under God," and so therefore Congress 'established' a religion?

This atheist dope who sued claimed his daughter was "injured" by having to hear kids recite the pledge. It was not that she did say the pledge herself, or was forced to. She didn't say it at all. Hearing other kids say it (led by "a state-run teacher in a state-run school") was injurious?

This case was ludicrous to start with. It should have been summarily dismissed long ago. If this guy didn't want his kid to hear other kids saying the pledge, he should have sent her to a private school, or home schooled her.

People don't have a right not to be offended. There is a lot of offensive stuff out there, just choose differently and one doesn't have to be exposed to it. You're offended by nudity? Don't go to a strip club. You're offended by rock music lyrics? Turn on talk radio. So on that note, I agree with Lindsey: get used to the fact that not everyone will agree with you. But there are enough out there who do, or more closely align with your thoughts than others. So choose to be with them, instead of those who offend you.

I will say this about atheists; I'm glad they are around. I'll need someone to park my cars and polish my boats once I get to Heaven.

The majority argues that the Cleveland program does not, as a technical matter, violate the First Amendment because it is parents, not the government, who are choosing where the money goes. But given the reality of education in Cleveland, parents do not have the wealth of options that would make their selection of religious schools meaningful. And in any case, the money ultimately comes from taxpayers, and therefore should not be directed--by whatever route--to finance religious training.

This ruling does as much damage to education as it does to the First Amendment. A common argument for vouchers is that they improve public schools by forcing them to compete for students. What is holding the public schools back, however, is not lack of competitive drive but the resources to succeed. Voucher programs like Cleveland's siphon off public dollars, leaving struggling urban systems with less money for skilled teachers, textbooks and computers. They also skim off some of the best-performing students, and the most informed and involved parents, from public schools that badly need their expertise and energy.

I've got a news flash for you, kiddies: It's a big world with lots of points of view, and sometimes people are going to think differently from the way you do. Get used to it.

I'm intolerant of Americans who don't want to live within the confines of our constitutional system. That's a good thing. Tolerance of unlawful behavior and the rule of men rather than the rule of law would be wrong.

If you hold on to your own protection, no matter how much smaller, and in fact even raise it as the United States did recently with steel tariffs and the farm bill, you are going to undermine seriously the efforts of those poor-country leaders who have turned to freer trade in recent decades. It is difficult for such countries to reduce protection if others, more prosperous and fiercer supporters of free trade, are breaking ranks.

1. He's a 7'5" giant that can't jump. At least that's what I saw from film of his pre-draft workout. He dribbled a little and shot a little but didn't show any moves. Sure, you don't need to jump much when your 7'5", but that can also be said of draft bust Shawn Bradley. Can you see Yao making any moves to get past Shaq? Instead, he'd get bowled over by the Lakers' center.
   
   
2. To get him on your team, you not only have to deal with Yao, but with the Chinese government. Remember, they're still communists who use their people as means to their ends. The Chi-Coms will do their best to squeeze the best deal they can out of the NBA and any team that drafts him. Right now, it's possible Yao may not get permission to play in the NBA. How much of a bribe will the Chinese basketball federation need to make sure the paperwork is completed? The Chinese Basketball Association wants, in writing, the right to yank Yao out of the NBA whenever they need him for the Chinese national team. After all the permisssions are done, a team still has to sign him. This ends up being way too complicated just to get a tall center that doesn't seem to have a lot of game.
   

A student movement is not just a student movement. It's a student movement. Students, whether they are progressive or not, have the responsibility of knowing things, of thinking and discerning, of studying. A student movement should maintain the highest of standards, not ape the formulas of its elders or outdo them in virulence.

My prediction is that in niches where the ratio of information value to entertainment value is high, blogs will prove to be superior mechanism for disseminating news. For example, local politics tends to have lower entertainment value than national politics. To me, that implies that at some point we will start to see elections for school board or city council influenced more by coverage in blogs than by coverage in newspapers.