Updating this story from a few weeks ago, the two boys being held hostage by power-mad DA Bradley Berry have finally been liberated.

judge dismissed charges this morning against the two Patton Middle School teens accused of sexual harassment for swatting girls on the buttocks.

Judge John L. Collins said he acted “in the interests of justice” after both prosecutors and the boys’ defense lawyers said four alleged victims had signed a civil compromise in the case, which drew national attention. The victims said they want to drop the charges.

Dennis Prager has targeted Bradley Berry for removal from office:

Bradley, like Nifong, must be removed from office. Anyone who believes that seventh-graders who swat girls’ buttocks on “slap butt day” are sex criminals who should be charged with crimes that would permanently label them as sex offenders is a dangerous fool. A district attorney who believes that is a dangerous fool. Bradley Berry has acted like Mike Nifong. He needs to be punished like Mike Nifong.

Hear, hear.

The word ‘discrimination’ carries with it a very negative connotation in popular usage, especially in the political arena. This connotation is largely deserved as there are many once accepted types of discrimination which modern society has rightfully decided to eliminate. Many, particularly on the left, take this too far and attempt to bring indiscriminateness into everything. This is folly because discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, discrimination is the foundation of rational thought.

Government officials must be able to discriminate between good and bad policy. Individuals make choices every day by discriminating against likely outcomes and choosing the path that will lead to the most desirable ends. Employers must discriminate between prospective hires on the basis of their qualifications. This is why it is necessary to question people who routinely throw around words like “discrimination”. We must be sure to determine whether the type of discrimination they are trying to eliminate is actually the type of which we disapprove, or if they are simply abusing the negative connotation of the word. With that in mind, consider this bit of news brought to our attention via Judicial Watch:

State, federal and local governments should severely limit public access to court records because it has led to discrimination against criminals, according to the legal profession’s influential national organization which claims to promote justice and respect for the law.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has actually proposed that state and federal laws be changed to deny public access to certain arrest and court records, even those of people convicted of serious crimes.

The powerful 400,000-member organization, which provides law school accreditation and assists lawyers and judges, believes ready access to court records has led to employment and housing discrimination for those returning to society after serving their prison sentences.

Criminal behavior is obviously something which people can rightfully discriminate against. Such discrimination is necessary to discourage people from engaging in activities that society has deemed inappropriate, usually (we hope) by consideration of the harm it causes another individual. Criminal law could not exist without such discrimination. ABA understands this, and they are not arguing to disallow any social discrimination against criminals whatsoever. But they are trying to prevent free individuals from discriminating against the same behavior which society has collectively decided is worthy of discrimination. Surely they must feel there is a basis for that argument. Most likely they are operating under the assumption that the state sanctioned discrimination (most often manifested as prison time) is sufficient to serve society’s end of reducing criminal behavior, and that beyond this it somehow crosses into the realm of undesirable discrimination.

Is this a legitimate position? I believe not. To prevent people the information they need to make legitimate discriminatory decisions is, first and foremost, an attack on freedom. But it’s also based on a faulty assumption. Specifically, the assumption that the state sanctioned discriminations against anti-social behavior can be counted on to provide society with all the discrimination that is desirable or beneficial. This is akin to denying people rights to guns based on the presence of a police force. Yet the government has demonstrated time and again that it is incapable of sufficiently curbing such behavior. Absent a judicial system that adequately treats criminality with all the discrimination that society demands, individuals must be free to ensure that social consequences exist for criminal behavior, and that requires public access to judicial records.

Andrew Newman at American Spectator is worried by people who don’t make New Year’s resolutions.

People who don’t make New Year’s resolutions worry me. Are they perfect? Are they simply waiting for the great up escalator to descend from the sky? Are they biding their time until Barack Hussein Obama delivers us from this red-blue valley of tears and into that promised and purple land of prosperity and plenty? Or are they simply lazy?

His questions fly very wide of the mark. He fails to grasp the key point that many people do not make New Year’s resolutions because they make resolutions every day. Those of us who practice continual self improvement do not think we are perfect. Far from it, in fact. Rather, we are simply more serious about self correction than your typical News Year’s resolution practitioner, who is using a training-wheels approach to self improvement.

If I determine there is something in my life worth doing better, it behooves me to start doing it better immediately, rather than waiting for some special day to declare my intentions to fix identified problems. In fact, those who would put off such corrections are typically just using the idea of New Year’s Day as a time for resolutions as an excuse to continue their behavior, guilt free, until Jan. 1st rolls around again. The problem with this approach is that it erodes the will to improve altogether, resulting in your average resolution lasting about a month.

So, Mr. Newman, you need not worry about me. I suggest you worry about your fellow New Year’s resolvers, as their resolutions may be evidence of a personality incapable of correcting bad behavior, even when they know they should.

A wonderful tribute and inspiring look at the Gipper:

Hat tip: RedState

Thought this tidbit from Salon was worth sharing:

Gen. William Westmoreland, testifying before President Nixon’s Commission on an All-Volunteer [Military] Force, denounced the idea of phasing out the draft and putting only volunteers in uniform, saying that he did not want to command “an army of mercenaries.” Friedman, a member of the 15-person commission, interrupted him. “General,” Friedman asked, “would you rather command an army of slaves?” Westmoreland got angry: “I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.” And Friedman got rolling: “I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.” And he did not stop: ” If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general. We are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.” As George Shultz liked to say: “Everybody loves to argue with Milton, particularly when he isn’t there.”

BBC readers voted Karl Marx the greatest philosopher. Marx got 27% of the vote, more than double the second place David Hume. When readers were asked to write in and explain who they voted for and why, one reader offered this rare bit of insight:

Marie T.
Karl Marx, because of my dwindling intelligence & non-ability to think critically for myself.

Not quite the “twinkie defense”, but a New Jersey mayor’s defense for taking bribes is certainly easier for the average Joe to understand than Al Gore’s ice tea defense.

A New Jersey mayor who took a $3,000 bribe from the owner of a demolition company in exchange for a city contract claims he was impaired by alcohol when he accepted the cash and that authorities took advantage of his drinking problem.

The corrupt former mayor of Hazlet, Paul Coughlin, was charged with extortion, conspiracy and accepting corrupt payments. This week a judge sentenced him to 24 months in prison, two years of supervised probation and he must pay a $5,000 fine. His attorneys say the booze made him do it.

As Mr. Coughlin found out, being drunk is not cause to be granted the judicial equivalent of a mulligan.