Thinking Right

By Bill Shipp

December 17, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

Gov. Sonny Perdue deserves a round of applause for seeing the light.

Just weeks after warning that Georgians can’t borrow their way out of debt, the governor announced in general terms that he now favors increasing the state debt. Perdue wants state government to borrow an unspecified sum to stimulate the economy and wipe out a looming $1.6 billion state deficit.

The governor reasons that Georgia government enjoys excellent credit and interest rates are low. If we plan to borrow big bucks, now is the time to do it, according to the current thinking in the Gold Dome.

Perdue also met with President-elect Barack Obama to discuss federal bailout help for states like Georgia. Now that’s what you call chutzpah. Georgia opposed Obama’s election, but immediately after the election, Gov. Perdue stands at the front of the line with his palm turned up.

Whether one agrees with the governor’s new red-ink strategy or not, one has to be pleased that the governor is showing signs of life at last, this time to stem an economic crisis of major proportions.

We only can hope that some of Perdue’s newfound get-up-and-go will rub off on the Georgia legislature. Although the General Assembly granted every item on big business’ wish list in its 2008 session, the legislature achieved next to nothing as far as aiding the commonweal. In fact, the ‘08 session may have been one of the worst in recent memory, even as every sign pointed to a major recession headed our way.

Perdue, along with Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, engaged in a running war of words with Speaker Glenn “Romeo” Richardson. Richardson’s No. 1 agenda item - abolishing all property taxes in favor of a state-run sales tax - fell flat on its face. Local governments breathed a collective sigh of relief. If Romeo’s bill had passed, Atlanta would have been in full control of the entire state.

On the dark side of the ledger, the General Assembly refused to fund an expansion of trauma centers even as it moved to make it OK to carry concealed firearms in more public places. The next legislative session may consider an already perfected bill to allow adults to pack loaded pistols in college classrooms. How have we survived so long without guns in the lecture hall? It’s hard to figure.

Coming back to Perdue’s apparent conversion to a Keynesian rescue scheme, the governor seems to have recognized that the recession is a worse problem than the recent drought or the gasoline shortage. So it is unlikely he will hop another plane for Beijing just as his borrowing bill comes up in the legislature.

Our state needs to issue bonds to launch a series of public works projects ranging from building new schools and libraries to moving a big part of state government to central Georgia to occupy an abandoned private college. It also needs to balance its budget and address some of the following issues:

► Unemployment in our state has zoomed past the national figure and is headed toward 8 percent.

► The Peach State is among the top five states in home foreclosures.

► We lead the nation in per-capita personal bankruptcies.

► Dozens of our community banks are in trouble, with bad loans left over from the real estate boom that went bust.

► Several large cities, including Atlanta, are in serious financial trouble and are having difficulty meeting their obligations. Atlanta officials have received a cool reception to a bond issue to complete the big international terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

► Georgia continues to face significant water-supply and pollution problems. Rival Florida’s water troubles seem to get most of the attention.

The late Speaker Tom Murphy warned against excessive borrowing, and indeed the state maintains a mandated ceiling for bonded indebtedness. That ceiling may have to be adjusted if the Perdue plan receives serious consideration.

Therein lies still another problem. The legislature often is a year or so behind the curve on addressing Georgia’s real needs, to the extent it addresses them at all these days.

Some of our lawmakers still rail against illegal immigrants. Don’t they know the jobs-killing recession has sent immigrants scurrying back home? Jobs, once filled by migrants to the United States, have dried up.

These are the same lawmakers who waged an expensive campaign to ban gay marriages in Georgia, when such unions already were against the law.

While Perdue is waiting in line at the bailout window, our governor might use his cell phone to check on another budding program: the one in which certain officials can buy and sell legislative seats. We need a plan like that in Georgia, which might raise the quality of General Assembly members. A pilot program already is under way in Illinois.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 17, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. The conflict between absolute standards and case-by-case adjudication is as old as politics itself. When one thinks of the facial absurdity of “absolutism” - normally associated with the conservatism I favor - the Tweety-Pie key ring would be exhibit one – everlasting testimony to the folly of the government schools’s “zero tolerance” movement (indeed, the “zero tolerance” movement itself produces a disproportionate share of the examples of “stupid conservative policies.”) One thinks back to Justice Holmes’s (normally regarded as a conservative) pithy endorsement of government eugenics programs (otherwise normally associated with leftists such as Margaret Sanger) “three generations of idiots are enough! (OK, I set it up, write your own joke – just don’t bother sharing it.)

On the other hand, leftist abuse of decency norms arises with practically every instance of leftist judgment – Kelo v New Haven, Kennedy v Louisiana, and Roe v Wade are striking examples of incompetent legal writing. The corrupt 2000 Al Gore contest of the competence of vote-counting only in leftist controlled jurisdictions, coupled with his lawsuit to disallow military votes, is perhaps the “low-water” mark of leftist case-by-case adjudication.

One’s bias in this controversy would define one’s ideology – wishy-washy moderates, of course, will simply say, “it depends,” consistent with their intellectual deficiency.

By Curious Observer

December 17, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

There’ll still be controversy — there’s always a remedy. If you don’t like the law as written, change it.

I fail to see what a tyrannical judge’s practice has to do with any law. So an observant Jew must remove a yarmulke in the court, and a Roman Catholic priest must remove his zucchetto?

Call this judge’s contempt citation what it is—sheer prejudice against the Muslim faith and Islamic culture. And stop claiming that any law creates his practice.

By Disgusted

December 17, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Kelo v New Haven, Kennedy v Louisiana, and Roe v Wade are striking examples of incompetent legal writing.

I’m delighted to know that we have such a universally recognized legal expert on our blog. Why, I can’t imagine why he hasn’t yet been appointed to the Supreme Court by national acclamation. A slimy insurance lawyer’s casting judgment on the legal competence of a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices is the height of small-minded arrogance.

By Tom Freedman

December 17, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

The stranger, a Western businessman, slipped into the chair next to me at an Asia Society lunch here in Hong Kong and asked me a question that I can honestly say I’ve never been asked before: “So, just how corrupt is America?”

His question was occasioned by the arrest of the Wall Street money manager Bernard Madoff on charges of running a Ponzi scheme that bilked investors out of billions of dollars, but it wasn’t only that. It’s the whole bloody mess coming out of Wall Street — the financial center that Hong Kong moneymen had always looked up to. How could it be, they wonder, that such brand names as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and A.I.G. could turn out to have such feet of clay? Where, they wonder, was our Securities and Exchange Commission and the high standards that we had preached to them all these years?

One of Hong Kong’s most-respected bankers, who asked not to be identified, told me that the U.S.-owned investment company where he works made a mint in the last decade cleaning up sick Asian banks. They did so by importing the best U.S. practices, particularly the principles of “know thy customers” and strict risk controls. But now, he asked, who is there to look to for exemplary leadership?

“Previously, there was America,” he said. “American investors were supposed to know better, and now America itself is in trouble. Whom do they sell their banks to? It is hard for America to take its own medicine that it prescribed successfully for others. There is no doctor anymore. The doctor himself is sick.”

I have no sympathy for Madoff. But the fact is, his alleged Ponzi scheme was only slightly more outrageous than the “legal” scheme that Wall Street was running, fueled by cheap credit, low standards and high greed. What do you call giving a worker who makes only $14,000 a year a nothing-down and nothing-to-pay-for-two-years mortgage to buy a $750,000 home, and then bundling that mortgage with 100 others into bonds — which Moody’s or Standard & Poors rate AAA — and then selling them to banks and pension funds the world over? That is what our financial industry was doing. If that isn’t a pyramid scheme, what is?

Far from being built on best practices, this legal Ponzi scheme was built on the mortgage brokers, bond bundlers, rating agencies, bond sellers and homeowners all working on the I.B.G. principle: “I’ll be gone” when the payments come due or the mortgage has to be renegotiated.

It is both eye-opening and depressing to look at our banking crisis from China. It is eye-opening because it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. and China are becoming two countries, one system.

How so? Easy, in the wake of our massive bank bailout, one can now look at China and America and say: “Well, China has a big-state-owned banking sector, next to a private one, and America now has a big state-owned banking sector next to a private one. China has big state-owned industries, alongside private ones, and once Washington bails out Detroit, America will have a big state-owned industry next to private ones.”

Yes, an exaggeration to be sure, but the truth is the differences are starting to blur. For two decades, a parade of U.S. officials came to China and lectured Beijing on the necessity of privatizing its banks, said Qu Hongbin, the chief economist for China at HSBC. “So, slowly we did that, and now, all of a sudden, we see everybody else nationalizing their banks.”

It’s depressing because China in many ways feels more stable than America today, with a clearer strategy for working through this crisis. And while the two countries are looking more alike, they appear to be on very different historical trajectories. China went crazy in the 1970s, with its Cultural Revolution, and only after the death of Mao and the rise of Deng Xiaoping has it managed to right itself, gradually moving to a market economy.

But while capitalism has saved China, the end of communism seems to have slightly unhinged America. We lost our two biggest ideological competitors — Beijing and Moscow. Everyone needs a competitor. It keeps you disciplined. But once American capitalism no longer had to worry about communism, it seems to have gone crazy. Investment banks and hedge funds were leveraging themselves at crazy levels, paying themselves crazy salaries and, most of all, inventing financial instruments that completely disconnected the ultimate lenders from the original borrowers, and left no one accountable. “The collapse of communism pushed China to the center and [America] to the extreme,” said Ben Simpfendorfer, chief China economist at Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Madoff affair is the cherry on top of a national breakdown in financial propriety, regulations and common sense. Which is why we don’t just need a financial bailout; we need an ethical bailout. We need to re-establish the core balance between our markets, ethics and regulations. I don’t want to kill the animal spirits that necessarily drive capitalism — but I don’t want to be eaten by them either.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 17, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

Dear Disgusted @ 9:09 – delighted to help those cultists who, like you, are incapable of reading the opinions. Anytime you need such help, such as determining whether the sun is shining, just ask.

Dear Tom @ 9:10, the good side of the Madoff affair is that only leftists lost money with the guy.

By Jason

December 17, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

So one form of arbitrary symbolism was declared contemptuous of another form of arbitrary symbolism. How stupid.

Why the big fuss over wearing hats indoors, anyway? If it’s a matter of decorum, I’m personally more offended by people who wear ill-fitting suits and rubber-soled Oxfords.

By mm

December 17, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Perdue wants state government to borrow an unspecified sum to stimulate the economy and wipe out a looming $1.6 billion state deficit.

Amazing how the wingnut mind works. I guess the results of this idea at the federal level hasn’t sunk in yet?

By Get Real

December 17, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

So her ‘RELIGIOUS’ head covering is at odds with court policy? What an ignorant comment. The ‘policy’ was more than likely written for men to remove their hats upon entering a building. From Wooten’s observation it doesn’t matter because she’s not a evangelical, so it needs to come off. This is exactly why Republicans and this country are going down the tubes; no respect or sympathy for others who aren’t like us. It’s a complete insult to ask a Muslim woman to remove her headscarf. But hey, if a judge says do it then it has to come off. What about the jewish community and catholics. Would they have to abide by this same ditzy policy? No wonder Georgia is in the bottom 5 in everything.

By deegee

December 17, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Zero tolerance policies are established by people that are too stupid and lazy to think.

By Davo

December 17, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Seriously JW; pull your head out of your behind and look around. How a headscarf could threaten decorum in the court is beyond me…it’s pretty obvious that the judge is a bigot.

Would it be OK with you if someone was held in contempt if he was wearing a flag lapel pin? Like you say…we need to enforce zero tolerance against any type of political expression, real or imagined.

By ron

December 17, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Good morning,It is apparent to this unlawyerly like individual that the judge that banned the Muslim woman’s hijab is about to get his fingers slapped.I’ve read a lot of these cases and most are decided for the plaintiff.Not just hijab,but taxi drivers not taking persons carrying alcohol,not allowing seeing eye dogs in their cab,etc.The list goes on.Grocery store clerks not having to ring through pork products is another winner for the Muslim faith.In fact,if they can dream it up,it’s usually decided in their favor.Special hours at community swimming pools just for them has already been decided for the plaintiff.

The Minnesota election is on going.It will be interesting to see it through to it’s ultimate end.I make no predictions on this one folks.It’s still open to debate.

How corrupt is America?I think we’re all learning the answer to that question.It appears to be beyond description.I can tell you one thing for sure though:as long as firms are able to write their own report cards,nothing is going to change.It is now time for a separate entity to write the financial statements for all corporations.They cannot be trusted to write their own.

By Ralph Blessing

December 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Why is it all of a sudden everything is discrimination? It has always been that head covers are removed in a court of law. That is the respect paid to those that protect our legal system. Even the Al Capone had to take his hat off.

Having lived in Saudi Arabia for five years I do not believe even once I was afforded any special favors whether I wanted them or not. That is the law. Learn to live with it. Before you know it if you don’t cry discrimination about anything then you have failed the system.

By Dusty

December 17, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

There are a couple of things on today’s blog that make me wonder.

First, once again, why is Bill Shipp. a local well known Democratic editor, now publishing in local newspapers, posting long “editorials” on a subject NOT being discussed here on a conservative blog? Of course, anybody can blog. But the question remains: Why is Bill Shipp here? Trying to take Wooten’s place so AJC will have THREE libs for Opinions?

Second question: Do Muslims have a law about removing heads from prisoners? Our head covering law seems mild compared to some of their actions. Daniel Pearl might have something to say about that if he could.

Third question from Bill Shipp’s LONG piece: Why does Gov. Perdue think going into debt to get OUT of debt is a good move?

PS: the Georgia Trust for Historic Preservaion has a super book for exceptional Christmas giving. It is the interesting history of the Georgia Capitol (with its gold dome). All ye who are well preserved will enjoy this one and the proceeds go to the Georgia Trust and to the Capitol Restoration fund. Call 404-885-7802 to order your copy. It’s a WINNER!!

By southfulton

December 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

Saudia Arabia is not a democracy so you don’t expect freedomn. This has probably never really came up because our Muslim population is just getting to a big size in this state.

By Glenn

December 17, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

Jim, how is it possible to be your age, yet so Republican stupidly naive and shallow. Dumb in many regards, vicious in others. Pitiful. Typical.

By getalife

December 17, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Obama had a press conference and no reporters threw their shoes.

Change.

By Dusty

December 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

Glenn@11:53

Glenn, how is it possible to be your age and still be so Democratic-like RUDE, CRUDE & UNATTRACTIVE? Uncouth! Incoherent! Foolish! Typical!

By Dusty

December 17, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

getalife,12:06

Most of the reporters at Obama’s press conference were liberals and barefooted.

Worship!!

By Jim Jr.

December 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

Thanks – W – The President

Mission accomplished – Bush Recession. Soon to be Bush Depression.

You did a “Heck of a Job”

By david wayne osedach, san diego/ U.S.A.

December 17, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

There are so many different forms of head coverings, hats, and head gear.The rules need to be clear and apply to all. Not just Muslim women.

By Copyleft

December 17, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

Jim reminds us of the adage: “For every complex problem there’s a solution that’s simple, obvious,—and wrong.”

One might add “and conservative,” but I think wrong already implies that. Typical of the reason-challenged fascist mind that Wooten can’t understand why bumper stickers aren’t a good substitute for sensible policy.

By Leon

December 17, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

Ragnar Spiro T. Agnew once called the “liberal press” “nattering naybobs” I think that describes you perfectly. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing…….

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

December 17, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Dear Jim Jr @ 12:51, if you check the stats, the last time the republicans controlled Congress, the unemployment rate was 4.5% (Oct. 2006). Even one year later the rate was only 4.7%. But it began the slow rise shortly after the time Nancy Pelosi declared her intention to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and around the time the democrats passed the higher minimum wage. Current rate is 6.7% Wonder how high it will get before the American voters wise up?

You fit the usual leftist “cultist” template, citing the role of “people” rather than citing any particular “policy.” Contrary to leftist theology, people make little difference in politics, it is the policies that attempt to implement (or not.) Think of all the good Obama could do for the country simply by renewing the Bush cuts of 2002. Instead, look for corporate welfare.

Everything Congress does that increases the costs of doing business, is multiplied far beyond the cognitive capacity of a leftist. For example, multiple choice quiz: if a rational businessman comes to believe Congress plans to make it easier to unionize the workforce, the rational businessman will: (a) lay off all of the marginal workers, (b) consider outsourcing to other countries, (c) hire more workers at higher wages, (d) pehaps shut down the business or sell out if possible, (e) beg Congress for handouts, or (f) all of the above except (c). Answer: you already know.

Quick tutorial: if, hypothetically, you were a leftist who wished to persuade businessmen to hire people and expand the company, you should avoid a few simple errors:

(1) don’t make it easier to compel union membership as a requirement of retaining a job;

(2) don’t raise corporate taxes;

(3) don’t raise taxes on higher income individuals;

(4) don’t renegotiate international trade agreements, to make them less free and more “fair”;

(5) don’t implement a “cap and trade” system for energy, primarily to enrich those who control the system;

(6) don’t restrict production of traditional energy sources, such as coal, oil, and nuclear;

(7) don’t raid the taxpayers for corporate welfare, to be paid to preferred “alternative” energy producers, mostly leftists;

(8) don’t nationalize health care, financing all costs through business taxes.

All of those policies increase costs, and would reduce quality of life for all living under the yoke of nanny government. The flight of capital, seen in the decline of the Dow Jones Industrial average, is fully rational, and, as we regularly note here, voters deserve the governments they elect. The real question is whether the elected democrats are foolhardy enough to implement the programs they promised. Voters will have an opportunity to change course soon enough.

By Noelle

December 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

the simple fact is that her head covering is at odds with court policy

Is that seriously your position? I’ve often been at odds with your opinions, Jim, but this is the first time I’ve seen you express something so clearly bigoted. I seriously doubt you would be responding similarly if a Jewish person had been denied the right to wear a yarmulke to court, or a nun the right to wear a wimple.

The “simple fact” is that the woman was denied entrance — and you are supporting the court’s decision — specifically because she was wearing Muslim headgear.

By ND

December 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

If the court policy violates the First Amendment, as this one does, then it is wrong.

Period.

There should be no debate about this. If you are OK with a government body enforcing standards that violate the Constitution, you are un-American.

By I usually agree with Jim

December 17, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

… but for the reasons listed above, you are way off base on the hijab.

By Tom

December 17, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

Here’s a simple bright-line rule that should please Jim Wooten: ban public expressions of religious sentiment of any sort. It’s easy to understand and completely even-handed. As Wootie says, we “need to have absolute across-the-board standards that apply to all.” For those of you still clinging to the little fairy tales told to you in Sunday School, just keep your foolishness to yourselves and everything will be fine.

By Jason

December 17, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

“Even one year later the rate was only 4.7%. But it began the slow rise shortly after the time Nancy Pelosi declared her intention to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and around the time the democrats passed the higher minimum wage. Current rate is 6.7%.”

Yes, and it’s not like we’ve experienced any cataclysmic events in the last year that would singularly exacerbate the unemployment rate. Oh wait…

By REPULICANS EVIL TIME IS UP

December 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

WHY IS IT OUT OF ALL THE FAITHS PRACTICED HERE IN AMERICA IT IS THE SOUTHERN DIXIE REDNECK WHO DONT PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH,THE JEWS,HINDUS,SO-CALLED WHITE CHRISTIANS,AND BUDDIST CAN KEEP ON THEIR ATTIRE ON BUT MUSLIM WOMEN CANT.

P.S.IT WAS THE WHITE DIXIE REDNECK CHRISTIAN WHO KILLED JEWS AND BLACKS DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE,NOTICE HOW THE GEORGIA REDNECK GOES TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY,BUT IS DOING EVIL MONDAY-FRIDAY. REMEMEBER IN DOUGLASVILLE ITS CALLED CONFAGDERATE COUNTRY,GOD WILL FINALLY PUNISH YOU EVIL UNGODLY SATANIC REDNECKS WHO GO AGAINST GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF,YOU RACIST NAZI FAKE CHRISTIANS JUST LIKE HITLERS GERMANY YOU DONT PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.

By Rockerbabe

December 17, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

We live in a civil society; sometimes due to the violent and disrespectful actions of others, we all pay a price. If headgear removal is demanded, what harm does it do? Maybe the Muslims need to reconsider their desire to be hear; they seem to think the laws of this country and every other country do not apply to them.
The judge was right to demand she comply with his enforcement of court policy; if she indeed did utter explectives, then a comptent citation is in order [it would be for anyone else who did that].
It amazes me sometimes; when women go to Muslim dominated societies, we are expected to comply with the local customs, so why when Muslims come to the USA, they don’t want to comply with our laws and customs? What is good for one, is good for another. Go Judge, stand your ground!

By Dusty

December 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Good grief,

Did many of the posters here grow up in the wild? Have you never ever heard of rules? Were you the bad kid at school who thought he had the “right ” to talk back to the teacher? Were you the kid who got thrown out of the game because you couldn’t follow the rules? Did you get the speeding ticket for going 90 mph in a slow zone? Were you the guy who forged a nice resume but got caught? Were you the lady with four heavy suitcases and got mad with the airlines for charging you extra? Or mad at the security guard for checking your shoes?

Rules are made to keep order and sometimes safety. If you don’t like the rules in place, then don’t go there or get them changed as Jim suggested. But acting like an independent jackass onsite has never changed a thing.

By Mr Charlie

December 17, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

What does the Muslim religion say about using expletives?

By ron

December 17, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Muslims have their own rules which they intend to follow to the letter.They have no intentions of following the rules put forth by you,me ,or us.Their rules are inviolate and they will prove that to you time after time ,if necessary.They are not going to go away and they are not going to assimilate,so get beyond that point.

By Ted Striker

December 17, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing how a opinion-burper in Georgia knows just what is best for the citizens of Minnesota.

By lljfg

December 17, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

if things were reversed and she was in an islamic court and not following the rules, they would remove her head

By Richard

December 17, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

I don’t understand how a government body that claims to uphold freedom of religion can disallow muslim head coverings, jewish kepas etc. and still face themselves in the mirror. It’s complete hypocracy.

As for Minnessota, didn’t anyone learn from my home state’s month long election in 2000 (Florida for those of you with a short memory)? It shouldn’t be that hard a process.

By algonquin J. Calhoun

December 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

I feel compelled to point out that the Nazis did exactly as they “preached.” They expressed hatred for the Jews, called for their extermination and proceeded to exterminate millions of them.

As for hats, scarves, kufis, and whatever else people stick on their noggins, take ‘em off indoors. I am a college professor and I have kids showing up with caps and hats on and they don’t remove them. I never say anything about it but not one of those kids ever gets an A. They know it’s disrespectful and, hopefully, their parents have taught them better. If it’s a statement they are making then it’s alright with me. I make my statement at the end of the semester and, simply put, that statement is: Take your damn hat off indoors!

By RealCon

December 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

Clear across the board standards. So no yarmulkes in court, no bandages on the head in court, no wigs, no nun’s habits. And no prohibition against alcohol sales on Sundays and bars can stay open as long as gas stations and the Kroger. And you can marry anyone you want whether they are of the same race or not. And the same sex or not.

By Political Foreskin

December 17, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

The problem with the muslim in that courtroom was not the head covering. If you had bothered to read the news report, you would have known that the court rule that was violated was not the pretty hijab that the woman wore, au contraire mon frere, instead it was the no fatah chick rule that the judge was inforcing.

Islam may be strange, but it’s not crazy.

The sign was clearly displayed at the entrance to the courtroom: No Fatah Chicks.

I’ve got to go with Wooten on this one, good people of Atlanta.

BTW: FYI- The word “hijab” is a corruption of another very american word.

Today’s quiz and challenge for blog-fiends: What word did the arabs corrupt to get “hijab”?

Hint: It’s not considered sex by middle schoolers.

By Jason

December 17, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

“They know it’s disrespectful and, hopefully, their parents have taught them better.”

To whom is wearing a hat indoors disrespectful, and why?

By ron

December 17, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

PoFo—-I don’t know where you’re going with this but the root word for hijab is hajaba.It translates to covering.The word Islam translates to peace,if that’s any help.Doesn’t explain much,does it?

By Justan Observer

December 17, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

All,

Seems like a lot of comment and bias on the headscarf arrest, yet some facts missing in the various reader comments. Specifically, did the hajib cover her face, and that was the reason for the request? Then it becomes a question of security. (Similar to wearing a ski mask into a convenience store.) I can understand the Judge asking her to remove the face covering (and not the entire head covering.) In that case and it’s not a prejudicial/racial/bigoted issue.

However, the link on the main AJC page is broken as of 4:19, and I can’t check to see if all the facts are reported.

By Justan Observer

December 17, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

Doah! 4:20 and the link is working, along with a photo.

Looks like I side with this being a bad call on the part of the judge.

By chaps

December 17, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

If a Muslim woman can keep her hijab because it is “religious,” can a Sikh man bring his knife into court because it is also “religious?”

By Algonquin J. Calhoun

December 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

To whom is wearing a hat indoors disrespectful, and why?

It is disrespectful to everyone else in the environment that hatted individual occupies. Removing one’s hat indoors shows deference and respect for other people occupying that enclosed space. Failing to do so is a sign of contempt and disrespect. In addition to my mother teaching me this particular etiquette, I served in the USMC and if you did not want to remove your cover indoors the drill instructor would arrange for you to eat it. Literally!

By ron

December 17, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Ladies have not been required to remove their hats,even in church.

By Mr. KnowItAll

December 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this

This is an easy one:

If some sand boogie comes into court with something on her head—-just slap it off!

I mean, if I can’t wear my hat that says “I “did it” with your your mother”, or Budweiser, * “Ga. Tech Suckz”or *”God says I can wear this hat and there ain’t nothing you can about it”, then the sand boogie can’t wear her hat neither.

Don’t like the rules? Don’t go to court. Want to wear your hajib all the time—then go to some other country with stone age laws and live there.

Either way…I don’t give a damn what you think you deserve,

See? It’s simple!!

By Dusty

December 17, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

Dear Ron 5:13

I think all men should remove their toupees’ while in the courtroom. Freedom of bald heads is in the Constitution.

By AmVet

December 17, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this

Is it unlawful to yell “FIRE!” in a church if women are wearing their hats?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Mr. Calhoun, very funny. I was thinking the same thing regarding your observation about wearing cover indoors. Apparently the questioner never served…

By Glenn

December 18, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

This thing about the stealing of the election in Minnesota, I just couldn’t deal with it. They tried to drag me into that bullshot in FL involving a guy named Chad, and that’s where I drew the line. At some point whatever you do for your party, or for whatever reason, just vanishes into things more important. So all that crap in Minnesota, dragging Norm Coleman down albatrossian, that’s just the kind of crap that only a party can make.

Twain wrote: “The people will elect whatever forked thing the Party put up, even if it do not strictly resemble a man.”

By typical sanctimonious hypocrisy

December 18, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this

where are these absolutes when gun laws, civil unions, or environmental standards rear their heads?

get with the program, cro-mags.

By Glenn

December 18, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

you’re such the editor that sometimes your headings beat your ledes. And that’s just, wow. Hats off.

By ron

December 18, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

At dawn this morning a thought dawned on me about elected officials.If Caroline Kennedy wanted to become an employee on a garbage truck or should she vie to be a streetsweeper,she would have to pass a civil service examination and put up with a lot of red tape.By applying for the Senatorial position vacated by Hillary,she avoids all that.

By Jackson

December 18, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

Did Obama ever serve in the military? It really is a stupid question to ask anyone in this nation under any premise, isn’t it? Ever notice how it’s usually some bobble headed leftist always doing that asking?

Anywho, it appears Obama has plans for an $850 Billion economic stimulus plan next year. Keep that number handy for close encounters with libs, because they sure raised holy hell about Bush giving most of us $300 or $600 tax checks earlier this year. Even those who paid little to zero taxes got $300 back. Keep that in mind for this:

There would also be some form of tax relief, according to the Obama team, which is well aware of the political difficulty of pushing such a large package through Congress, even in a time of recession. Any tax cuts would be aimed at middle- and lower-income taxpayers, and aides have said there would be no tax increases for wealthy Americans.

Let’s see here…according to the IRS in 2006, those earning between $30,000 and $100,000, your typical tier between lower and upper middle, paid 27% of all federal income tax paid by individuals and households. Those earning below $30,000, also known as the bottom 50% tier of tax payers, paid 3% of all federal income tax paid by individuals and households.

Now what I’d like to ask is just how in the hell can you give tax relief aimed at just 30% of the overall taxpayer proportionists without raising taxes on the remaining 70th percentile payers? How come people and the media won’t ask Obama and fellow liberal Democrats questions like this?

By Glenn

December 18, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

“If Caroline Kennedy wanted to become an employee on a garbage truck or should she vie to be a streetsweeper,she would have to pass a civil service examination and put up with a lot of red tape…”

ron,

There was a really important ruling out of North Carolina about 25 years ago — you may know of it — involving the disgusting practice of shutting out black people from service in fire departments. The method used was the same one the schools hide behind to cover their incompetence: standardized testing. The court said (I remember this part) that one must “measure the man for the job, and not the man in the abstract”.

You gotta love jurisprudence. It’s disgusting business. But sometimes they come up with stuff that just sticks with you and lifts you, sometimes, whenever you need it, and for the rest of your life.

By Mike

December 18, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

It’s always interesting to read the comments here - it really shows you the intelligence and class level of liberals…

But I do disagree with Jim. Religious head coverings are frequently excepted from headgear policies. Showing respect for one’s faith is just as important as showing respect for the court.

By Biggdawg 96

December 18, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

All I can say is “wow”!.

Advocation of disregarding on the First Amendment (freedom of religion), due process clause of the 5th Amendment & equal protection clause of the fourteen Amendment. The U.S. Constitution gets no respect here huh unless it suits your needs.

There is an outcry when a limitation to “right to bear arms” aka second amendment is mentioned. But is okay to advocate changing the US Constitution for this mess.

This municipal judge, of all people, should know the US Constitution. His local rule can not trump the US Constitution.

By Maniac is accurate

December 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Since Jim is off today, why don’t we just comment on ballots and defective headgear? Thanks.

By Brock

December 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Am I the only one who read the article well enough to note that the woman sought to leave at the metal detector? Sure, she cursed. Big deal! It sounds like the deputy wanted to force the scarf off her rather than simply let her walk away, so he took her up to the judge. Just your typical power trip on the part of the deputy.

When I’m judge, all hot women will have to remove their shirts. More weapons can be hidden between breasts than on the top of one’s head. Rules are rule!

By ron

December 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

Jim has cast us adrift in a sea of nothingness and here we wander aimlessly around.Maybe tomorrow.

By Filster

December 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

Lots ofhot air blowing around in this blog, with all sorts of comparisons to this, that, and the other. My turn. Let’s start with a Supreme Court case, US v. OBrien (I think that’s it, been a while). Man wore a t-shirt with “F**K the Draft” on it. Man gets in trouble, sues, end result - 1st Amendment Freedom of Expression. Here, setting aside all the unsubstantiated race/religion baiting, there is all inclusive policy of no head gear in court. As such, a hassidic jew would have to remove his yarmulke, the muslim her hajib, the sikh his knife, the rasta his weed, and the list goes on and on. If everyone, and I repeat, everyone, has to remove hats, scarves, etc., what’s your problem? But wait, there’s more. did you know our US servicewomen over in Saudi Arabia/Middle East are supposed to cover themselves when they go out and about. Where is your outrage about their freedom of religiion being taken away WHILE SERVING OUR COUNTRY AND DEFENDING YOUR RIGHTS? Your silence is deafening. I for one and getting dern sick and tired of all the mush mouths spouting Constitutional this, civil rights that, prejudice, racism, etc. if you make a policy and apply it to everyone equally, there is no violatio of anything. Just becuase you don’t like the result? tough. grow up and stop being a whiney baby, but I guess some of y’all have a problem with that. Growing up that is.

By Dusty

December 18, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Well, at this moment I don’t care if Madame Muslim goes to court with a bag on her head. Don’t care if the everlasting defective ballots develop chaddyitis from a bad case of ignorance. NO sireee! I am mad at GEORGIA TECH.

With all the talk about students dying of intellectual famine because they can’t afford tuition, GA TECH is going to pay a COACH 17.7 million over seven years! To a FOOTBALL COACH! That’s right. *A COACH! *

Now, I like GA TECH. My daughter got a nice master’s degree there. But to pay a guy to teach fellows how to run up and down a field, catch a ball, bump into each other, and develop muscles without steroids (maybe), is pure play ground thinking in its finest form.

I had a cat who could do all those things without a speck of training. I’ve seen smart seeing-eye dogs, border collies who could herd sheep. Much wiser things than football.

I want a Rhodes Scholar, an Einstein, an astronaut, an inventor, a cathedral architect, an electronics wizard to come out of Tech. Not one of them needs to run around a football field.

Congrats to the coach for getting his own personal Ponzi scheme and goodies at Tech’s expense.

A slap with a wet noddle for Tech for reducing academia to a foot race of fools, goalposts and the ol’ rah rah.

Next headline: Tech player graduates summa cum laude with a degree in FOOTBALL!! He said “I dun did it!”

By Churchill's MOM

December 18, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

Since Jim is in hidding I’m doing today’s Palin.. Eat you heart Dusty..

Former John McCain pollster Bill McInturff said Thursday that in a potential 2012 GOP primary, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would have a leg up on her rivals because she is “well-suited” to campaign in Iowa.

McInturff pointed to the fact that despite a bruising presidential campaign, Palin’s favorability ratings among Republican voters is still extremely high. While Palin comes with some baggage among the general electorate, for Iowa, where former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee successfully drew a large number of social conservatives to his winning bid, she has strong prospects.

“She’s a candidate that would be well-suited to doing well in Iowa,” McInturff told reporters at a breakfast in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. He conceded that Palin creates “a sharply different reaction with swing voters and core primary voters” but said the latter “are not anywhere close to the center.”

If Palin is weighing a potential run, McInturff said that difference and the advantage it gives here is something she is keenly aware of. “She has a very strong political instinct,” he said. “She has a sharp and calculated instinct.”

Reflecting back on the presidential campaign, the pollster said that the McCain campaign had a brief window where they believed victory over President-elect Barack Obama was possible. But that hope was dashed when the campaign’s back was broken by the financial crisis.

“If we had to collapse America’s economy, I wish it had been on Dec. 15 instead of Sept. 15,” he said. Leading up to the financial crisis, he said, the campaign was prepared to launch an offensive to exploit the lingering uncertainties voters had about Obama, but that when the markets crashed, “You didn’t have a presidential campaign anymore, you just had the two campaigns reacting to this.”

“People had substantial and serious concerns about this guy,” McInturff said of Obama. “But if you give people a choice between a proven failure and an uncertain future, they will always choose the uncertain future,” he added, referring to the contrast between Obama and the damaged GOP brand.

The pollster also said the crisis changed McCain’s normal instincts as he tried to demonstrate a presidential level of leadership. For instance, he said, “If John McCain was just a U.S. senator, I cannot imagine him supporting the bailout… But you’re not going to be a senator, you are going to be president of the United States.”

Even after the financial crisis, McInturff said the Arizona senator was still within striking distance of Obama until former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed the Democrat. “We had three days where after the Powell endorsement the bottom just fell out,” he said.

Early into the afternoon on Election Day, McInturff said the McCain campaign knew that Obama’s victory was imminent as it read exit poll data. He said, though, that nobody was mourning the loss like they were “sappy volunteers.”

“Your job is to fight like hell, even if you’re getting beat with a baseball bat on the way out,” McInturff said.

By Dusty

December 18, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

Churchill’s Mom3:42

Why don’t YOU try football? Right now you are scoring ZERO trying to run down Palin.

The election is over. Do us a favor. Quit posting lengthy lib loser lines.

By MamaS

December 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

Does court policy require Orthodox Jews to remove their yarmulkahs and nuns to remove their wimples? If the answer is “no” then it is not policy, it is discrimination. If the answer is “yes” it is religious bigotry.

By cc

December 18, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this

moron of the day vent:

You can continue to blame George W. for the fiasco in Iraq, but you must also blame this economic mess on the Democratic Congress.

are you people serious? do you really want ot run the United States into the ground just based on your own political ideology? if you want to think that way, go live in a totalitarian governed country. there’s plenty of them, but this is America. a real man, a real adult accpets responsibility for their actions a little thing called accountability, it ain’t pretty, but that’s why it’s so good. so much of something that Jesus would admire, it’s tough, it’s admitting fault, it’s looking inward to make the right decisions in the future, another thing called learning and compassion. all Jesus type things. but to continuously blame your faults on others is evil, cowardly, dishonorable, wimpy, etc., by the way, this is exactly as those would characterize anyone that disagrees with them, opposes them, or stand up to them. the people of Jesus, the people in the right have always been the minority, always been the persecuted. only later to be admired. the democratic congress has been in a majority for only 2 short years. and they do not have a filibuster proof congress, and that is important, as has been proven by, that’s right, by republicans! as is the proof by how hard republicans fought for saxby chambliss’ seat. now with a republican presidential administration and a congress that is filibuster proof, and the fact that democrats have been in the majority for only 2 years, now these spineless wimps(the biggest wimps of all because they blame others for their own actions), want to blame this economic mess on someone else, the convenient liberals or democrats, for their changing of the laws that govern credit cards, for their changing of the laws for massive deregulation of banks and etc. how shameful, how wimpy, how cowardly and how un-American is that? remember too that republicans are the same people that wanting to get rid of overtime pay for the working American, you know, people like joe the plumber. this economy and keeping auto companies from changing with the times and supporting record profit making oil companies is a republican thing not anyone eles’s. but go ahead an demonize carter and hillary, and canonize people like reagan and bush, as long as you know that the big guy upstairs knows what you are doing. and realize that God and Jesus respect truth and honor and despise lying, invalidation and deflection of accountability. if you are a Christian, if you are a patriotic Ameircan now is the time when our country is hurting the most to try and do the right thing, even if you are afraid what others might think or say about you.

By Mort

December 18, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this

Where the heII have you been, Dusty? Paul Johnson is only getting a contract that’s market value. Where is your outrage at Les Miles and Nick Saban, two men who are, in my opinion, lesser teachers and molders of young men than Paul Johnson? Heck, he could have bolted to Auburn last week for more than Tech is paying him. I agree with you that coaching salaries are ridiculous. But, Paul Johnson is a good man and is only getting what the market has determined is fair. To insinuate he is doing anything wrong is grossly unfair to someone who doesn’t deserve the criticism.

By Mort

December 18, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

Here’s what Paul Johnson had to say about the new contract: “I was happy here before,” Johnson said. “I’m very appreciative to everybody involved. They came to me. I didn’t go to them. I’m very appreciative of it.”

By Jacket

December 18, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

hey Dusty, Georgia Tech beat you butt! you’re a wimp Dusty and are too afraid to live the life God gave you. so you hide in the herd and live the life you are told to live. you were probably one of the people that condemned Jan Kemp for doing the right thing. the same kind of thing that Jesus would have stood up for. before you make your next post make sure that the battery for the chip in head is fully charged, less the guy you call Jehovah but really is Beelzebub might get a little peeved. the guy who tells you he his God might not always be God but just an imposter out for personal gain. kind of like the ExxonMobil that you so wholeheartedly support without question.

By cc

December 18, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

where has dusty been? aw come on, you know that republicans have to share that one brain that they use, and thursday’s are her day, but if you want to talk to her, be quick, because she has to return it by 5:OO PM or else they’ll charge some middle class person or poor person a late fee, you know they would never charge themselves for the error. i think sean hannity gets it at 5 and then it goes to karl rove. here’s a trivial question, name a great person in history that Jesus would have truly admired. now ask yourself would that person been a republican? here’s just a few that would not have made the cut: martin luther ghandi galileo ben franklin spartacus harriet tubman frederic douglas susan b. anthony constantine

you fill in the rest of the blanks, if you can see that far

By cc

December 18, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this

you can tell i’m not a republican, because right now i am admitting to fault, it should have read people that made the cut with Jesus but not with republicans. oh my God, i’m human, i have fault, oh my God, i hope no one sees me, does this mean i can’t ever be a card carrying republican in the future?

By Dusty

December 18, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

Dear Mort@4:02

Paul Johnson is a pretty smart fellow to make the second highest salary in the ACC. That’s a very good play!! He must be doing a good job. But….

My objection is with Georgia Tech and their seeming pretense of higher education. Academe, my friend!! It has nothing to do with football but a great deal to do with the development of young minds and the progress of America.

Football may be fun for some. Many like to watch the battle. Alumni come in droves and THEY SUPPORT TECH WITH $$$$$$$. But to say that football has anything to do with traditional education is a flight of fancy.

Have you ever heard of football teams at MIT, Harvard, Yale, Brown? Ever wonder why? Because those top of the line schools are developing minds, not ball games.

Have you heard of any Tech professors earning 17.7K over seven years? I’m not sure but I doubt it. It does show where Tech is willing to pay out the most money. If you will excuse my slang, IT AINT ACADEMICS.