• Right Place Photo Caption Contest Hall of Glory Top 25

    meister.jpeg About Me
    BlogmeisterUSA's Guidelines for Commenting
    My Blog at Newsbusters
    My Writings at Family Security Matters
    My Writings at The American Thinker
    I Also Blog at Lifelike Pundits
    National Summary Interviews Me
    Read "The Americans" by Gordon Sinclair
    PELOSI_DEMOCRAT_TREASON-1.jpg More About the Fighting 101st Keyboardists

February 20, 2006

What's A Little Humiliation Among Sex Offenders?

The ACLU is already on the warpath on this one:

The US state of Mississippi plans to put the names and faces of convicted sex offenders on roadside billboards.

About 100 posters showing offenders, particularly those who prey on minors, will be put up, a state official said.

Don Taylor, head of the state's Department of Human Services, told a local newspaper the aim was to make the public aware of their crimes.

But human rights campaigners say the measure is unnecessary as the public is already aware once convicts are jailed.


The American Civil Liberties Union in Mississippi said the billboards would be a waste of money.

"Why is it necessary to put them on billboards if they're already serving?" its head, Nsombi Lambright, asked.

"If they have criminal charges before them, the information is public, the victims are notified. The people already know in these communities who these folks are once they're arrested."

I don't know; this is an idea that might have some merit. Public humiliation can sometimes do wonders, and might serve as more of a deterrent than a few months in jail.

Question: Does the ACLU worry about the rights of the children that have been violated? Does it worry about the humiliation these children have to deal with for the rest of their lives?

Don't bet on it.

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 05:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | ACLU

January 25, 2006

The ACLU: Upholding Delusions

The ACLU, founded by Communists, has come to the aid of a high school student who wants to wear skirts to school in order to protest a ban on shorts.

The district's dress code bans shorts between Oct. 1 and April 15, but allows skirts, a policy 17-year-old Michael Coviello believes is discriminatory.

"I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention to the fact that the ban on shorts doesn't make sense," Coviello said in a statement.

One: does this kid have such a light study load that he has the time and energy to devote to a cause that is so lamebrained as to be laughable? Time to give him more homework.

Two: In taking cases like this, the ACLU is truly making a mockery of itself (if that's possible) and the student. So the kid can't wear shorts during the winter months and wants to wear skirts to protest the ban? It's not like he's been told he can no longer attend his school because of his skin color or religion. It's clothing, for heaven's sake.

When (and if) he ever enters the workforce, this little escapade won't prepare this spoiled little brat for the fact that most places have some sort of dress code--either uniforms, business, or business casual. Sorry Charlie, but most serious businesses don't allow shorts at all. Have fun when you grow up--if you grow up.

And thanks to the ACLU for contributing to this kid's delusion that "everything should be fair" in a world that is decidedly unfair, no matter how much we wish it were otherwise.

h/t: GD

Show Comments

Posted by Pam Meister at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | ACLU

    ENDORSEMENTS "Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
    "One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial