Five Americans who were held hostage after a militant takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran say that Iran's newly elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of their captors and interrogators.

"This is the guy. There's no question about it," said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Georgia.

"You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."

[ . . . ]

"I can absolutely guarantee you he was not only one of the hostage-takers, he was present at my personal interrogation," [David] Roeder said in an interview from his home in Pinehurst, North Carolina.

[ . . . ]

[William J.] Daugherty, who worked for the CIA in Iran and now lives in Savannah, said a man he's convinced was Ahmadinejad was among a group of ringleaders escorting a Vatican representative during a visit in the early days of the hostage crisis.

[ . . . ]

"He was extremely cruel," said [Don A.] Sharer, of Bedford, Indiana. "He's one of the hard-liners. So that tells you where their government's going to stand for the next four to five years."

After seeing recent newspaper photos, Sharer said, "I don't have any doubts" that Ahmadinejad was a hostage-taker.

Four of his fellow former hostages agreed, but others aren't so convinced.

Former hostage and retired Air Force Col. Thomas E. Schaefer said he doesn't recognize Ahmadinejad, by face or name, as one of his captors.

[ . . . ]

Another former hostage, Paul Lewis, said he thought Ahmadinejad looked vaguely familiar when he saw a picture of him on the news last week, but the former Marine embassy guard said he could not be certain.

[ . . . ]

A memory expert cautioned that people who discuss their recollections can influence one another in reinforcing false memories. Also, it's harder to identify from memory someone of a different race or ethnicity, said psychologist Elizabeth Loftus of the University of California, Irvine.

"Twenty-five years is an awfully long time," Loftus said. "Of course we can't say this is false, but these things can lead people down the path of having a false memory."

The Iranians, of course, are denying the allegation, which could be either because it's false or because they don't want to further antagonize the United States. The White House's official position on Iran is that they are a state sponsor of terrorism, an allegation that would certainly be strengthened by the presence of an erstwhile terrorist at the helm of Iran's hardline government after an election that appears to have been fixed.

I can't wait to see how Iranian reformists respond to all this.

The left wing of the political spectrum fancies themselves the protectors of the average person against abuses of power, especially the power held by large companies. From topics ranging from health care and pharmaceuticals to tobacco and oil, the phrase "corporate greed" is bandied about to illustrate how big business routinely and without remorse screws hard-working people for the sake of higher profits. They see the right wing, currently in the form of the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress, as co-conspirators in the mass redistribution of wealth from the have-nots to the haves as a way of rewarding their corporate friends and political donors.

Now the clash of socioeconomic strata has come to the Supreme Court, shrouded in the issue of eminent domain. The principle of eminent domain is what allows a city or town to take property to build, say, a school or a road for the benefit of the entire community. But in New London, Connecticut, and elsewhere around the county, municipalities are beginning to pursue eminent domain to take lesser valued properties whose owners don't pay much in taxes and turning them over to developers so the property will ultimately pull in greater tax revenue. In New London, several working-class homeowners and small business owners were fighting the taking of their property so it could be turned over to builders of a hotel, conference center, and newer homes.

A few months ago, members of one liberal message board decried what they were sure was going to be Bush administration (and by implication, Republican) opposition to the displaced property owners:

Susette Kelo?s' [sic] story is becoming tragically familiar. She and her neighbors are at risk of losing their homes and businesses because the local government has conspired with a corporation to condemn their land under the power of eminent domain. This is happening in New London, Connecticut, the latest place where legal plunder in America is on display for the whole world to see.

The twist is that the Bush administration--self-proclaimed champion of the ownership society--will apparently give its blessing to the land heist. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain. Several property-rights advocacy organizations have publicly asked the administration to side with the landowners, but--ominously--there's been no response."

Repubs support the rights of individuals unless they get in the way of corporations.

It turns out they were wrong. In today's ruling in the case of Kelo v. New London, five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city's right to take the property. It was the right-wing judges—William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—together with moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted in the minority to support the rights of the property owners.

At issue, as I understand it, was the question of whether the purposes for which New London wants to take the land constitutes a "public use," the constitutional justification for eminent domain takings. Apparently, a series of relatively recent cases has expanded the concept of "public use." Taking that inch and running a mile with it, Justice John Paul Stevens writes for the majority, which also includes Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer:

Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized. In our cases upholding takings that facilitated agriculture and mining, for example, we emphasized the importance of these industries to the welfare of the States in question, ... we endorsed the purpose of transforming a blighted area into a "well-balanced" community through redevelopment, ... we upheld the interest in breaking up land oligopoly that "created artificial deterrents to the normal functioning of the State's residential land market" ... and ... we accepted Congress' purpose of eliminating a "significant barrier to entry in the pesticide market ..."

Evidently, all that wasn't enough. Now they have to let cities take private properties, not because they are a blight (earlier in the decision, Stevens acknowledged they are not), but because the city thinks someone else will make better use of the property. Stevens attempts to diffuse such worries, but if it is the duty of the court to weigh precedent and its right to expand that precedent, shouldn't it also be its obligation to try to foresee how a future court might seek to expand precedent even further, even as far as that inconceivable line that now seems uncrossable?

It seems not. As Justice O'Connor writes for the minority:

Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

I'm not a judge, but that makes perfect sense to me.

Read the whole thing. It's very enlightening. Don't let the length deter you; less than half the document is the actual majority opinion, much of that being footnotes and citations, and the rest consists of concurring and dissenting opinions.

(Interesting note: I posted a brief message on the above noted forum, stated that the liberal judges ended up screwing the property owners. It was quickly deleted by the moderators. That section of the forum is apparently for Democrats only. I didn't mention that I'm an independent; evidently the moderator didn't like the fact that the more liberal Supremes screwed up.)

No, this isn't satire, but it would make a heck of a news item on Weekend Update, wouldn't it?

Throughout his life Cory was an extraordinary artist. His artistic talent and imagination would bring awe to all who viewed his work. [...] Having never gained the recognition he deserved in his own lifetime his family hopes to publish a book of his works. [...] An avid atheist, he studied the bible and religion with more fervor than most Christians. He had strong political opinions and followed Amy Goodman's radio broadcast "Democracy Now." Alas the stolen election of 2000 and living with right-winged Americans finally brought him to his early demise. Stress from living in this unjust country brought about several heart attacks rendering him disabled.

Karl Rove did it, you can be sure of that. He not only arranged to give this man heart disease and then wipe away his own fingerprints, but he also hatched a demonic plot to censor this genius' art so he wouldn't get the recognition he so richly deserved. Halliburton is somehow involved, too. I just know it. And it ain't right.

But seriously, the growing presence of this sort of wing-nut in the Democratic party is one of the reasons I left for the wonderful world of independent voting. If a few more like Cory can manage to extricate themselves from our midst, maybe I'll consider returning.

(I saw this on Smash's site when I popped in to see his take on the flag amendment. I can't really attribute it to him, as it is evidently all over the blogosphere.)

The U.S. Constitution has been amended relatively few times. In those instances, the intention and the effect was either to protect people from unequal treatment by the government (federal, state, or local) or to codify the way our government works. The sole amendment that sought to restrict behavior that didn't deprive anyone of "life, liberty, or property" was soon repealed.

Now, a bunch of meddlers in Congress (including four from my own state) want an amendment to protect a piece of cloth. The amendment is purportedly to prohibit flag-burning, but if ratified, it will actually allow Congress to ban any number of undefined acts involving a U.S. flag. The wording doesn't even specify whether the acts must cause damage to be prohibited.

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Using the absurd justification of the September 11 terrorist attacks, California Republican Randy Cunningham invoked the memory of World Trade Center victims, who aren't around to say whether or not they agree:

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the [World] Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Of course, idiocy knows no partisan boundaries, so 77 Democrats joined 209 Republicans in voting for the proposed amendment. Unfortunately, those 77 Dems included four from my state. Stephen Lynch of South Boston rationalized his vote by saying, essentially, that flag-burning isn't a necessary form of protest:

"There are many other forms of nonviolent protest that remain available to protesters who seem to have no shortage of creativity," Lynch said. "This is one they can do without."

Holding a sign isn't a necessary form of protest either, nor would restricting it mean there aren't still many other ways for a protestor to express her or his opinion. That's a lousy reason for a constitutional amendment.

The Den Mother's mother is a big fan of PBS's popular Antiques Roadshow series, so when she was one of the lucky viewers selected to get a pair of free tickets to the Roadshow's stop in Providence this past weekend, I knew I'd be going along. Quite an experience it was, especially because Mom was taped for a future episode.

The event itself draws hundreds of people interested in finding out how much their treasures are worth. Each person is permitted two items or sets of items (a silver tea set, for example, would be one item though it has multiple pieces) for which s/he is given tickets directing her/him to the appropriate area. Categories include jewelry, arms and militaria, photographs, and musical instruments. Most of the time, what someone believes to be valuable isn't. As one woman we spoke with briefly discovered, "I have a bunch of worthless junk." Just because it's old doesn't make it valuable, and the Roadshow is loaded with folks who are similarly disappointed. Sometimes it's the second-thought item that is worth something, as in the case of the woman whose amber beads were actually plastic, while her cheap rhinestone bracelet with years of dirt turned out to be highly collectible. Occasionally—and this is what makes for a good television show—someone's collectible or family heirloom proves to be worth more than the owner ever imagined. Count Mom among that last group, which is of course what got her on television.

Without going into too much detail (Mom and Dad prefer that strangers not be alerted to the valuable item in their home), I'll share a bit of the interesting process by which we discovered that our item has some special value. When we got to the appropriate appraisal station, we placed the items on the table. The appraiser immediately picked up one particular item and began studying it closely. Our efforts to have him notice the related items were for naught; he had found something that grabbed him. We were fascinated by his attention and his obvious joy at having found something worthy of such attention. Over the next several minutes, we shared with him the story of the piece as we knew it and he consulted with his two colleagues there and possibly others by phone (he took the item behind a curtain for a few minutes). When he emerged, he asked, "Have you ever been on television?"

He gave us no hint as to the origin, rarity, or value of the piece, preserving the surprise factor for when the tape is rolling. At that time, he expounded on some historical background that helped explain why he was so captivated. He talked about the workmanship and uniqueness of the piece, and about why it would be a desirable piece for a collector. When he finally revealed his estimate of what the item would bring at auction, Mom looked as stunned as I felt.

Indeed, others we met in the "green room" while awaiting Mom's taping were similarly surprised by the appraisals they received. Among the items revealed to be exceptionally collectible were a set of hand-painted toy dollhouse furniture appraised at over $1,000, a $5,000 Civil War canteen, a large $10,000 painting, and a $75,000 clock.

As for our treasure, it has sentimental value so it won't be sold. Mom and Dad will continue to display it as they always have. Dad announced yesterday that whichever of his kids is nicest to him between now and his death will get it. (I'm not certain he was joking, so I made him a nice Father's Day brunch, just in case.)

We had lots of fun even without Mom's television debut and our gazillion dollar object. We enjoyed discussing our other items with the knowledgeable and friendly appraisers, but even more entertaining was seeing what others brought. Why, we wondered, would anyone think a severely damaged lamp from the 1950s would be valuable? What in the world is that carving that looks like a small ship's figurehead—with antlers coming out of her back? Where did that guy get a Nazi flag?

Then there was the spectacle of television production happening in our midst, something I've been involved with in the past. We got to watch the taping of several introductions and transitions by next season's new host, Mark L. Walberg (not to be confused with "Marky" Mark Wahlberg). He was a barrel of laughs and made enough mistakes for a 10-minute blooper reel. My personal favorite: "We're here in Providence, Rhode Island—and my feet hurt."

Be sure to watch for the Providence episodes next year. You'll see Mom, but you won't know it.

Hat tip to Jcecil3 for finding this interesting spiritual quiz. I found the process of answering the questions as enlightening as the result.

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern.

You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern		82%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan		79%
Roman Catholic		71%
Neo orthodox		61%
Charismatic/Pentecostal		50%
Classical Liberal		46%
Modern Liberal		46%
Reformed Evangelical		21%
Fundamentalist		4%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com.

4% fundamentalist? That seems a bit high for me <g>.

One week has passed since the sudden premature closure of Our Lady of the Presentation Catholic school in Boston's Brighton section. Archbishop Sean O'Malley had ordered the school closed at the end of last school year, but he stayed his decision for one year in response to parents' requests. Opposition to the closing remained through this past year, and a group was planning a protest rally at a nearby park last week. Supposedly the archbishop feared sit-ins or other similar activity that might endanger the children and faculty. So he closed the school early without notice and had the locks changed. Students' families were notified by telephone. It was several days before they were allowed back into the school building to retrieve the children's personal items.

Meanwhile, the new bishop in my diocese is playing musical parishes with some of the diocesan priests ($ubscription required). A total of 18 priests are being reassigned in one fell swoop. Excerpt:

Diocesan spokesman Raymond Delisle said the unusually high number of re-assignments resulted from a number of deaths, illnesses and retirements within the local priestly community.

After serving for six years in the same parish, priests, seeking a change of scenery, may also ask for re-assignment.

"If the priest is happy working in a particular parish and the bishop sees no problems, there usually is no re-assignment," explained Mr. Delisle.

He said, however, that he believed a couple of the priests getting new posts may have been close to serving two six-year stints in the same church, prompting changes in some parishes.

In the case of my parish, the truth contradicts the version presented by Mr. Delisle (whom, I should disclose, I know professionally). We (parish A for illustration purposes) are losing both our pastor, a canon lawyer who is leaving parish ministry to assist with sexual abuse hearings at the diocesan level, and our associate pastor, who has not only been here far less than "two six-year stints" but also asked the bishop to keep him here. Instead, our associate is being moved to pastor another Parish B, whose pastor is retiring. Our new pastor is the current pastor of a Parish C in an abutting town, who is being replaced by a pastor from Parish D in Worcester, who will be replaced by an associate from Parish E in a town a bit north of here. That makes four priests who are moving because one pastor is retiring, when the same vacancy could have been fulfilled simply by moving the associate from Parish E to become the pastor of Parish B, and leaving the other three priests where they are. But that would not have been as much of a power play for the bishop, who evidently felt the need to separate several thousand parishioners from the priests they already know, simply to show he could.

Local decisions like these aren't the only manifestation of a hierarchical culture that hurts the church more than helps it. At a national or even global level, the iron fist of the church fathers regular quash dissent, real or perceived. A vivid example from just last month was the forced resignation of Fr. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America. Why would the good Catholic editor of a magazine published by an established and sanctioned religious order be a threat to orthodoxy? Because the magazine covered both sides of issues involving church teaching and analyzed, sometimes critically, church documents. Critical and informed thinking by Catholics is apparently verboten.

I have a sudden urge to nail my protests to the cathedral door, and it makes me very sad.

The reigning Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots got their rings last weekend at the home of the boss, owner Bob Kraft.

The rings are ridiculous. Each one contains 50 diamonds and weighs a quarter pound. (Correction: It contains more than 50 diamonds. The number 50 includes only those stones around periphery of the football-shaped center motif, and those outlining the Patriots logo. There are also three large diamonds for the "trophies" depictd above the team logo, the diamonds covering the background, and the diamonds encrusting the words "World Champions" on the right and left of the center design.) That's for a ring, a piece of jewelry you're supposed to be able to wear on your finger.

Why anyone thinks this is necessary or even desirable is beyond me. The team ought to be ashamed.

A couple items linked to by Andrew Sullivan today illustrate the utter contempt by both far-left and far-right for the citizenry.

Looking at the left, Mick Hume illustrates how liberals, whose political efforts are increasingly failing in the U.S. and Europe, cast aspersions on the intellect of those who vote against them because, obviously, smart and sophisticated people would have the "correct" opinion. (Yeah, calling the voters stupid is an effective way to get them to vote for you. Who's stupid now?)

Meanwhile on the right, the conservative publication Human Events recently sent down from the mountain the definitive list of the ten most harmful books of the last two centuries. I've already read one of the top 10 and two on the "honorable mention" list—which means I have some reading to catch up on. Surely I will find it gratifying to read The Communist Manifesto for no other purpose than to tick someone off.

Have you heard the latest definition of desecration of the Muslim "holy book"? This would be the book that must not be touched by unclean hands, but which allows the mass slaughter of people who have never done anything to hurt another person. The book that must be revered, unless it is being defaced for the purpose of setting up a U.S. soldier and starting an international incident.

So what happened to the so-called Muslim holy book down at Gitmo? Was it submerged in a jar of urine, or smeared it in elephant crap, or burned?

No. According to a recent MSNBC report, in one case, one of the books was splashed with urine when a guard relieved himself outside a cell and some of his liquid waste blew in threw an open air vent. In other cases, a guard stepped on a book, another guard got one wet, yet another defaced the inside cover. Twenty incidents in all have taken place—three-quarters of which were by detainees themselves, who have curiously not been criticized by other Muslims insisting that a non-Muslim cannot touch the so-called holy book without being "purified" first.

Now keep in mind that these complaints—"He got my Koran wet!"—are being made by people who think there's nothing wrong with killing people who don't follow their religion, or even those who do but don't engage in terrorism.

I have decided that if the federal government can spend my federal taxes, even one cent of them, on an organization that sponsors as "art" a crucifix in a jar full of pee, then it's really not their place to tell any other federal employee how they can treat any other religious item. They certainly can't tell me. So this weekend, I am going to go to a book store, find a copy of the Koran, and touch it. Without gloves. Without engaging in any hocus-pocus purification ritual. I will take a picture of myself doing so, and publish it on this blog for all—especially evil Islamists who worship Satan and call him "Allah," who pretend that a false prophet named Muhammed compels them to beat their wives and kill Christians and Jews—to see.

I've officially had it. I believe that every person should be allowed to believe whatever he or she wants to believe, but these clowns have to toughen up. And if they can't, maybe we just ought to stop giving them their little books. That'll stop the "desecration" for good.