First they came for the 9 year old school children and then for the morons on blogsÂ…

“As we said to (the boy) when he was in here, in your heart you may have that feeling, and that is OK if that is your personal belief,” Abraham Lincoln Traditional School Principal Virginia Voinovich said in a tape-recorded parent-teacher conference.

The boy was suspended for three days this month for allegedly committing a “hate crime” by using the expression “brown people.”

IÂ’d blame Tushar D. but I donÂ’t want to get arrested.

On a more troubling note, it appears that the enforcement of the schoolÂ’s thought code has been farmed out to former KGB Agents.

But the tape recording indicates this only came out after another parent was allowed to question the boy and elicited from him the statement that he “doesn't cooperate with brown people.”

After that was reported to the boy's teacher, he was made to stand in front of his class and publicly confess what he'd said.

The boy maintains that he never said it; that the words were put in his mouth by the parent who questioned him. That parent happens to be the mother of the student with whom he is having a conflict—and she happens to work for Abraham Lincoln as a detention-room officer.

The tape indicates that rather than just spouting off with racial invective, the boy was asked first why he didn't want to cooperate with brown people by the parent/school official.

In court, this might be called entrapment. Not to mention a conflict of interest.

Hi, could I point out one thing that seems to be lost here? The kid is NINE years old. HeÂ’s having problems with another student, a not exactly unheard of occurrence and they turn it into a Star Chamber?

I guess the school is so fantastic theyÂ’ve licked that whole reading, writing and arithmetic thing and moved onto college level political indoctrination.

Posted by: DrewM at 02:50 PM | Comments (31)
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

Hee, hee.

On the plus side, the story is now buried on Page A10, which is better than its usual good-news-from-Iraq dumping ground of Page A14. Progress.

Posted by: Ace at 02:45 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Earlier today, I asked y'all for a little advice and I am overwhelmed by the suggestions y'all have provided me. In fact, I've spent the better part of my work day (that's between me and you, by the way) combing through the list and contacting realtors.

I may be able to pull this surprise off after all. And I may not even have to send Mom off to the Falklands (my favorite suggestion, by the way). Keep your fingers crossed.

I didn't want my "Thank You" to be lost in an update, so with Ace's and the other co-bloggers indulgence, I'll put it here. Thank you all for your thoughtful input.

Jack

Posted by: Jack M. at 02:40 PM | Comments (15)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

11 members of an anti-Iraq "journalist" were killed in cold blood!

Except they weren't, you know, actually killed. Or harmed. Or... anything, really.

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 02:25 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Hugo Chavez says "CNN may be investigating my death."

he U.S. TV network showed a photograph of him with a label underneath that read "Who killed him?"

The caption appeared to be a production mistake -- confusing a Chavez news item with one on the death of a football star. The anchor said "take the image down" when he realized.

But Chavez called for a probe in an interview on state television, where he repeatedly reviewed a tape of the broadcast, questioning why the unconnected photograph and wording were left on screen for several seconds.

"I want the state prosecutor to look into bringing a suit against CNN for instigating murder in Venezuela," he said. "... undoubtedly it is part of the psychological warfare."

This is convenient timing to distract everyone from this weekend's referendum on whether he can seek re-election.

Of course: Hot Air had this earlier. ::grumble::Folks need to get a life::grumble::

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:07 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to spongeworthy.

Posted by: Ace at 01:44 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

The Florida Highway Patrol says anyone missing two big bags of pot can call their Tampa area office.

Posted by: LauraW. at 12:12 PM | Comments (39)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

According to the story posted at Hot Air, and linked earlier by Ace, Mike Huckabee is getting 48% of the evangelical vote in Iowa. As an evangelical, I find that somewhat disheartening, given Huckabee's dismal record on fiscal issues.

Now, I know Huckabee has dismissed The Club for Growth's analysis, calling them "The club for greed." And his supporters will defend him by pointing to his conservative views on abortion and gay rights, which have seemingly become the predominant issues by which evangelical voters choose their candidates. I wouldn't normally do this, but I know I'm going to get accused of elitism against evangelical voters, so here are my evangelical bona fides:

I've been a Christian since I was 15 years old. That's 20 years. I attend a church that is fundamental in doctrine, but not in culture. I've been on two missions trips - one stateside and one in Russia, and I tithe. I don't say any of this to brag or puff myself up, but when I've blogged on this or commented on Huckabee in other venues, I have been accused of being somehow biased against evangelicals or of not understanding evangelical beliefs. Trust me, I do. I'm not a perfect person, but I am committed to my faith.

I do not believe Mike Huckabee is a good candidate for president. This is not a statement against his faith - on theological matters, I'm sure we'd agree on quite a bit. However, I would have a very hard time voting for him in the general election.

There are three major areas in which I disagree with Huckabee. I do not like his fiscal record, do not agree with his view of government power and disagree with his political temperament. This could be long, so more below: more...

Posted by: Slublog at 11:48 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 1263 words, total size 8 kb.

Dick Morris has been promoting his former client Huckabee for months; my email box o'erflows with Morris love for the Huckster.

Still, in the interests of fairness, here's Dick Morris defending Huckabee's tax record:

As his political consultant in the early '90s and one who has been following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.

A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a "47 percent increase in state tax burden." But during Huckabee's years in office, total state tax burden -- all 50 states combined -- rose by twice as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47 trillion in 2005.

In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim, he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate, expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts for medical care and college tuition.

Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three years later when he didn't need it any longer.

He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)

I await the debunking of the debunking, if one should come. I don't know what Morris is talking about regarding the raising the state sales tax, but I do know Huckabee has claimed he was compelled by courts to raise taxes generally and was found to have been dishonest on that point.

Specifically, with his request for whatever new taxes the legistlature might want, as seen here:

But it might be true the courts specifically compelled the sales tax rise. I don't know.

Posted by: Ace at 11:44 AM | Comments (19)
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.

Goldfarb teases a bit more out of the poll.

Perhaps most telling of all is a question Pew doesn't mention in its summary. When given an open-ended question--'What one word best describes your impression of the situation in Iraq these days'--the number one answer is 'improved/improving.' Just two months ago, the top answer was 'mess.' It's clear something big is happening.

Looking further, Jules Crittenden relies on the summary, and points out that there has been an 18 point swing in favor of the Iraq war since February. But a look at the poll data from November 2006 shows a swing of 32 points. That's because in that poll, just 32 percent said things in Iraq were going well, against 64 percent who said things were not. Today the figure is 48 to 48.

Similarly, support for a timetable for withdrawal has fallen dramatically--from 19 percent support in January to just 11 percent today. Remember that the next time a Democrat claims that the American people support their approach.

I find that finding hard to square with the finding Pew is pushing -- that 54% of Americans want us out of Iraq, with the unstated implication that we want out now, before achieving victory.

Across numerous questions -- are we preventing terrorists from basing in Iraq, etc. -- the poll shows large swings in public sentiment. One major finding is that the public just doesn't care about Iraq as much as it used to, so that what anti-war feeling there is is no longer as passionately felt -- save by the nutroots and their servants in Congress.

Clarification/Semi-Correction: The question as regards withdrawal, which I did not read myself, reads thus:

Q.32 Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?

That doesn't say "now" and it can be argued that "as soon as possible" can be interpreted as meaning "as soon as prudent, given the military stakes in Iraq." However, that reading is undermined by the fact that "as soon as possible" is contrasted directly with "until the situation is stabilized," and 54% opt for the choice that doesn't include the requirement of "stabilization."

So the poll does seem to suggest that a bare majority of Americans want us out prior to stabilizing Iraq/winning, despite the fact they also seem to think we're winning the war.

That is an odd finding, at least to me. But that seems to be what Americans are saying, based on this poll.

How that squares with the scant 11% support for a timetable for withdrawal I cannot see.

Thanks to Hubris for correcting me.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.