ruling Monday the history of racial intimidation attached to it outweighs the free speech protection of Ku Klux Klansmen or others who might use it. Washington Post. A good precedent, upholding the sometimes less than obvious principle that particularly odious speech crosses the line to become action (although therein, of course, lies a slippery slope, with discretion in the hands of the wrong people…) Interestingly, the Court voted 6-3 to uphold the ban but only thought that it did not violate constitutional free speech guarantees by a 5-4 margin. The outlier, with some tortured reasoning, was — you guessed it — Clarence Thomas. It is hard to say whether it is better or worse since he started presuming to think on his own in the past few years, rather than silently vote the conservative party line. Certainly more entertaining to watch his foot-in-mouth disease.

I continue to be sickened by the enthusiasm the evangelists are showing for the war and its perpetrators. Here’s one of the latest examples. ABC News

Jury finds parents guilty of assault, endangerment for baby’s strict diet: …Assistant District Attorney Eric Rosenbaum said the couple treated their daughter, Ice, like a gerbil, feeding her a diet of ground nuts, juice, herbal tea, beans, cod liver oil and flax seed oil and no breast milk or formula. SF Chronicle

Sean-Patrick Kelley of the noted Agonist site has been lifting items word-for-word without attribution from Stratfor, says Wired News. Kelley admits it.