John Stuart Mill Reaches 500 RPM

"Turning over in his grave" somehow didn't seem strong enough: Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology.

The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.

Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

A date has not yet been set for him to appear in court.

The decision to issue the summons has angered human rights activists and support groups for the victims of cults.

The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: "I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.'

"'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector."

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.

So when exactly was the flame of human liberty extinguished in Britain? It seems ludicrous that I feel the need to quote John Stuart Mill in this day and age, but it seems we as a civilization have forgotten the important truths he categorized and catalogued:

This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.

No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

That today in Great Britain peaceful political protest is being criminalized speaks to how far society can creep away from human rights. It's as if they believe what Britain really needs is a kinder and gentler KGB, Gestapo or Stasi, enforcing "proper" political belief because allowing people to think for themselves is "dangerous to the state."

When Mill says, "No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified," he actually means it. Mill could only look at Great Britain today and declare is not a free country.

Is the country that gave the world Locke, Sidney, Bentham, Adam Smith, Wollstonecraft, Burke and Mill really alright with that?

Gleaned from DBKP.

I’m Sorry, But This Is Stupid

Talk about the "Blind leading the blind": Court rules paper money unfair to blind

The U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish the bills' value, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The ruling upholds a decision by a lower court in 2006. It could force the Treasury Department to redesign its money. Suggested changes have ranged from making bills different sizes to printing them with raised markings.

If this is "discrimination" than the word no longer has a meaning.  It has simply become a term the courts can use to usurp the power the Constitution reserves for legislatures. 

An Actual Victim Of The “Global Warming” Hysteria

Just call it theme night here at the Crabitat!

From the Houston Chronicale: Hurricane forecaster's dispute with school focuses on global warming debate

By pioneering the science of seasonal hurricane forecasting and teaching 70 graduate students who now populate the National Hurricane Center and other research outposts, William Gray turned a city far from the stormy seas into a hurricane research mecca.

But now the institution in Fort Collins, Colo., where he has worked for nearly half a century, has told Gray it may end its support of his seasonal forecasting.

As he enters his 25th year of predicting hurricane season activity, Colorado State University officials say handling media inquiries related to Gray's forecasting requires too much time and detracts from efforts to promote other professors' work.

But Gray, a highly visible and sometimes acerbic skeptic of climate change, says that's a "flimsy excuse" for the real motivation — a desire to push him aside because of his global warming criticism.

Among other comments, Gray has said global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children."

Now an emeritus professor, Gray declined to comment on the university's possible termination of promotional support.

But a memo he wrote last year, after CSU officials informed him that media relations would no longer promote his forecasts after 2008, reveals his views:

"This is obviously a flimsy excuse and seems to me to be a cover for the Department's capitulation to the desires of some (in their own interest) who want to reign (sic) in my global warming and global warming-hurricane criticisms," Gray wrote to Dick Johnson, head of CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, and others.

Gray should know that deviation from the party line is strictly verboten.

And do you want the winner for the single most disengenuous statement of 2008?  Getaloadofthis:

The dean of the College of Engineering, which oversees atmospheric sciences, said she spoke with Gray about terminating media support for his forecasts solely because of the strain it placed on the college's sole media staffer.

Yeah, that's right.  Universities hate it when they get publicity.  In a related note CSU has announced they are dropping men's football and basketball because they also attract too much darn attention to the school.

(H/T to Roger Pielke.)

Double Standard

Officials at Colorado College have busily been applying a double standard to free speech. They have "tried" two male students in what amounts to a kangaroo court for daring to publish a satire of a flier put out by the feminist and gender studies group on campus.

A satirical response to a feminist publication at Colorado College has landed the college and two of its students in the middle of a fierce debate over freedom of speech.

Chris Robinson and another student at the Colorado Springs institution decided to print "The Monthly Bag" after seeing copies of a feminist and gender studies newsletter, "The Monthly Rag," in restrooms around campus.

The edition of "The Monthly Rag" that prompted action included an announcement for a talk on feminist pornography, information on gender-bending practices, and a tidbit about a myth involving male castration. According to Robinson, it was representative of what appears every month.

In response, Robinson and a friend created their flier, which provided tips on chainsaw etiquette, detailed a sexual position from Men's Health magazine and provided trivia about a sniper rifle — what Robinson called information for the stereotypical macho man.Staff members removed The Bag within hours of receiving complaints that the publication was threatening.

"It was a serious concern that this thing was posted anonymously and included in bold print the performance characteristics of a sniper rifle," president Richard Celeste said. "I had to take that as a threat."

The authors appeared before a conduct committee in March and were found guilty of violating the campus conduct code. In lieu of punishment, they were ordered to host a public forum on the issues raised in the incident.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education or FIRE has been aggressive in defending the two young men. You can see the actual double standard courtesy of FIRE. Here's the Monthly Rag and here is the satirical Monthly Bag. Frankly, the Monthly Bag is considerably less offensive than the Denver Post's story makes it sound - and that wasn't all that offensive. The "threat" Celeste said he perceived is a bald statement of fact commonly available on the interwebby. Celeste must quake with terror when he reads Wikipedia.

The claim that the satire is somehow different than the original is ludicrous. Both of the pieces should enjoy equal protection under the colleges published student handbook, which states:

Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the quest for truth, the development of students, and the general well-being of society. In the pursuit of these ends, all members of the college community have such basic rights as freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of personal beliefs, and freedom from personal force and violence, threats of violence and personal abuse.

Of course, the college then continues with a statement that says they can override those rights if they feel like it. There's always fine print.

Little “Perverts”

Mark Steyn goes off on the latest craze in education: labeling pre-schoolers and very young children as "perverts" and sex offenders by "school officials". As always, it is worth reading the entire piece as Steyn dismantles the so-called adults making these decisions.

Is American public education a form of child abuse? The Washington Post's Brigid Schulte reported this month on a student named Randy Castro, who attends school in Woodbridge, Va. Last November at recess he slapped a classmate on her bottom. The teacher took him to the principal. School officials wrote up an incident report and then called the police.

Randy Castro is in the first grade. But, at the ripe old age of 6, he's been declared a sex offender by Potomac View Elementary School. He's guilty of sexual harassment, and the incident report will remain on his record for the rest of his school days – and maybe beyond.

Maybe it'll be one of those things that just keeps turning up on background checks forever and ever: Perhaps 34-year-old Randy Castro will apply for a job, and at his prospective employer's computer up will pop his sexual-harasser status yet again. Or maybe he'll be able to keep it hushed up until he's 57 and runs for governor of Virginia, and suddenly his political career self-detonates when the sordid details of his Spitzeresque sexual pathologies are revealed.

But that's what he is now: Randy Castro, sex offender. The title of the incident report spells out his crime: "Sexual Touching Against Student, Offensive." The curiously placed comma might also be offensive were it not that school officials are having to spend so much of their energies grappling with the first-grade sexual-harassment epidemic they can no longer afford to waste time acquiring peripheral skills such as punctuation.

So, should we start calling these junior offenders "preverts"? (I'm surprised Steyn didn't use that one.) Seriously, Steyn heaps scorn on the officials who are pulling this in various districts around the country. Increasingly ham-handed bureaucratic overreaction to what is actually quite normal behavior by small children. Behavior that can be corrected easily without stomping them with the full might and power of a jackboot emblazoned with the school's colors.

Freedom Of Speech: It’s Good For Canadians Too

It is call to action time for anyone interested in liberal democratic values.  From Five Feet of Fury:   Richard Warman suing conservative bloggers — including me

Richard "The Boy Named Sue" Warman has finally filed his statement of claim.

Canada's busiest litigant, serial "human rights" complainant and — the guy Mark Steyn has called "Canada’s most sensitive man" — Richard Warman is now suing his most vocal critics — including me.

The suit names:

•    Ezra Levant (famous for his stirring YouTube video of his confrontation with the Canadian Human Rights tribunal after he published the “Mohammed Cartoons”)
•    FreeDominion.ca (Canada’s answer to FreeRepublic.com)
•    Kate McMillan of SmallDeadAnimals.com
•    Jonathan Kay of the National Post daily newspaper and its in-house blog
•    and me, Kathy Shaidle of FiveFeetOfFury.com

Richard Warman used to work for the notorious Human Rights Commission, which runs the "kangaroo courts" who’ve charged Mark Steyn with "flagrant Islamophobia."

Richard Warman has brought almost half these cases single-handledly, getting websites he doesn’t like shut down, and making tens of thousands of tax free dollars in "compensation" out of web site owners who can’t afford to fight back or don’t even realize they can.

The province of British Columbia had to pass a special law to stop Richard Warman from suing libraries because they carried books he didn't approve of.

Richard Warman also wants to ban international websites he doesn’t like from being seen by Canadians.

The folks named in his new law suit are the very bloggers who have been most outspoken in their criticism of Warman’s methods.

WE NEED YOUR HELP!

*   Please read our posts about the lawsuit to learn more about it.   Ezra Levant's brand new post on the lawsuit has all the details

*    Consider posting about our plight on your own websites

*    Donate to our respective Defence Funds

We can only fight this man’s attempt to silence conservative opinion if we have international support: both moral and financial.

This lawsuit will cost me at least $30,000 to fight.

And fight it I will.

And I, for one, will try to help as I can.  Although I have to believe in the basic common decency of a people that would make the game of hockey their national obsession.  After all it is a game built upon the basic fact that a knockdown drag out fight is PART of the game, exactly the same way political speech that hurts someone's little feelings is part of the game.  You get banged up a little in hockey you get right back out there because, hey, you're a hockey player.  Its the same in the political arena.  It's time to remind the Warman's of the world of this.

The Pending Prospect Of A Positively Putrid P.C. Presidency

To my mind, there is much to dislike about the idea of an Obama presidency.  On the one hand there is the purely political objection to a lightly vetted candidate whose political track record suggests a strident left-wing agenda, which most Americans would reject outright if they had any idea what Obama stood for in the first place.

The objections on the other end of the spectrum concern social matters and the disturbing trend towards hypersensitivity and censorship among people who ought to know better, but who don't.  Case in point:  Skit featured student playing Obama in blackface 

 North Dakota State University is investigating complaints about a campus skit in which a white student in blackface portrayed Barack Obama receiving a lap dance.

The same skit, part of a charity fundraiser held at a campus theater, also featured a depiction of cowboys having sex with each other, witnesses told The Forum newspaper, which first reported the backlash Friday.

"We're trying to find out the right approaches for accountability, but at the same time try to heal wounds that have occurred and allow the campus to move ahead," Janna Stoskopf, NDSU's dean of students, told The Associated Press on Friday.

The March 18 skit involving the NDSU Saddle and Sirloin Club was performed at the Mr. NDSU Pageant, which raises money for diabetes research. People who attended it said a pageant contestant from Saddle and Sirloin dressed as a woman from the Internet video "I Got a Crush on Obama" and performed a strip tease for another student who was wearing dark makeup and an afro wig.

In the background, two male students dressed as cowboys simulated anal sex while holding an Obama sign that one student ripped at the conclusion of the 30-second performance, the Forum reported.

Get that?  Agents of the state (and be under no illusion here, the administrators of a public university are indeed agents of the state), are taking it upon themselves to "investigate" students very clearly engaged in artistic speech.  It simply doesn't matter if the speech could be found offensive or not, the state has no role to investigate whatever speech adults engage in during their own free time.  Period.

What is particularly galling is the caviler manner in which a fundamental right guaranteed to us in the Constitution is so lightly tossed aside:

"One of the issues here is how do we balance what our policies and expectations about behavior are with the issue of freedom of speech," Stoskopf said. "Where does all of that get us?"

Notice anything unusual?  Here I was laboring under the impression that freedom of speech was a right, enjoyed to the fullest of its meaning by every adult in the nation.  Little did I know it was merely an "issue"; an inconvenience the state needs to brush aside as they attempt to punish people for their political speech.  And even if the "investigation" doesn't lead to actual sanctions the chilling message will have already be sent: "Say something we don't like and we will be watching you."

And that will be the rub of an Obama presidency, as sensitivity police of various stripes scour the social and political landscape looking for "inappropriate" speech to demonize and intimidate, as if Obma himself were some sort of child being picked upon by "bullies" such as these South Dakota State students.  (Do Ivy League degrees really leave one in such an intellectually fragile state of mind?  If so the elite of this country might be better served heading for the Great Plains for their higher education.) 

As obnoxious and socially poisonous as such tactics are for the bulk of the country's citizens, the real danger occurs when such intimidation is used to quell genuine political opposition.  Given the glib manner the Obama campaign has charged their fellow Democrats with the crime of racism, I do not think any such fear can be discounted out of hand.  If the conduct of the Obama campaign is indicative of the way they would rule we can look forward not to a President who will infrequently use the "race card", but a fully fledged race President.

Final Broadside

George MacDonald Fraser, the author of the Flashman books as well as many other works died this week at age 82. In one last piece, published posthumously in the Daily Mail, he blasts political correctness. In the Nineties, a change began to take place. Reviewers and interviewers started describing Flashman (and me) as politically incorrect, which we are, though by no means in the same way.

In the Nineties, a change began to take place. Reviewers and interviewers started describing Flashman (and me) as politically incorrect, which we are, though by no means in the same way.

This is fine by me. Flashman is my bread and butter, and if he wasn't an elitist, racist, sexist swine, I'd be selling bootlaces at street corners instead of being a successful popular writer.

But what I notice with amusement is that many commentators now draw attention to Flashy's (and my) political incorrectness in order to make a point of distancing themselves from it.

It's not that they dislike the books. But where once the non-PC thing could pass unremarked, they now feel they must warn readers that some may find Flashman offensive, and that his views are certainly not those of the interviewer or reviewer, God forbid.

I find the disclaimers alarming. They are almost a knee-jerk reaction and often rather a nervous one, as if the writer were saying: "Look, I'm not a racist or sexist. I hold the right views and I'm in line with modern enlightened thought, honestly."

They won't risk saying anything to which the PC lobby could take exception. And it is this that alarms me - the fear evident in so many sincere and honest folk of being thought out of step.

I first came across this in the United States, where the cancer has gone much deeper. As a screenwriter [at which Fraser was almost as successful as he was with the 12 Flashman novels; his best-known work was scripting the Three Musketeers films] I once put forward a script for a film called The Lone Ranger, in which I used a piece of Western history which had never been shown on screen and was as spectacular as it was shocking - and true.

The whisky traders of the American plains used to build little stockades, from which they passed out their ghastly rot-gut liquor through a small hatch to the Indians, who paid by shoving furs back though the hatch.

The result was that frenzied, drunken Indians who had run out of furs were besieging the stockade, while the traders sat snug inside and did not emerge until the Indians had either gone away or passed out.

Political correctness stormed onto the scene, red in tooth and claw. The word came down from on high that the scene would offend "Native Americans".

Their ancestors may have got pieeyed on moonshine but they didn't want to know it, and it must not be shown on screen. Damn history. Let's pretend it didn't happen because we don't like the look of it.

I think little of people who will deny their history because it doesn't present the picture they would like.

I read the original Flashman book but none of the rest of the series. Flashman could be characterized as one of the least politically correct fictional figures ever. Fraser was a hugely talented writer who also co-wrote the screenplays of a number of movies, including the fabulous The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers. His final broadside is worth reading in its entirety. His scathing attack on the PC brigades is a true work of art.

Still More Fun With Racist “Diversity Training”

A while back, when the University of Delaware mind-control experiment - called “treatment” for students’ "incorrect attitudes and beliefs" by the University was - revealed, part of the noxiousness exposed was the blatantly racist teaching materials used. Turning over the rock at Delaware caused the University to back off from their totalitarian brainwashing. Now OpenMarket.org exposes still more racism - and incredibly stupid legal advice by "Diversity Experts" that are costing companies and governments millions of dollars in lawsuit losses. The problem is with the self-appointed experts in diversity and their advice.

Diversity training often imparts bad legal advice to managers and employers that can come back to haunt them in court. 

Gail Heriot, a law professor and member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, reports on the sexual harassment training she received at the University of San Diego, in a state (California) where such training is mandatory under state law.  She points out that the training by the New Media Learning firm sent the message that criticisms of affirmative action by white male employees are something that the employer should “nip in the bud” through investigations.

This is exceedingly dumb legal advice, since criticism of affirmative action is protected against retaliation by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1981, and other laws, even when the affirmative action program criticized turns out to have been perfectly legal.  Even the very court rulings that have upheld private-sector affirmative action programs, such as Sisco v. J.S. Alberici Const. Co. (8th Cir. 1981), have allowed employees to sue employers who retaliate against them for criticizing affirmative action.

In the public sector, the employer also faces a First Amendment lawsuit.  The California Department of Corrections attempted to fire John Wallace after he angrily denounced its affirmative action plan to the Hispanic female employee he perceived as benefiting from it.  The California Court of Appeal, however, found that his criticisms of the plan were protected by the First Amendment, and barred Wallace’s firing, in California Department of Corrections v. State Personnel Board, 59 Cal.App.4th 131 (1997).  

Employers are often quite gullible about the claims made by “diversity” trainers.  For example, they permit minority trainers to promote racial stereotypes that would provoke outrage if they were subsequently repeated by white managers or employees.  For example, Glenn Singleton, a wealthy “diversity” trainer, teaches that “white talk” is “impersonal, intellectual, verbal” and “task-oriented,” while “color commentary” is “emotional.” 

If a white person said this, it would rightly be regarded as a ridiculous, racist stereotype that relegates black people to inferior status.  But because Singleton himself is African-American, and he sugarcoats his racist stereotypes about black people by coupling them with ideologically trendy attacks on white people (whom he depicts as “impersonal” and “racist”), liberal school superintendents eat it up. 

If whites repeat what this "expert" teaches them, they are open for a lawsuit - and it has been happening more and more frequently. The lawsuits are a direct result of the material being presented by self-appointed experts. Now, since "Diversity Training" has been mandated as a result of lawsuits filed over the years and since new lawsuits are being generated by virtue of the mandated "Diversity Training," there are some obvious questions here: who is driving for more training? And who is getting rich off it?

Or is the answer really the same?

I’ll Be *Bleeped* For Christmas

The Daily Mail reports that BBC Radio has decided to bleep a word out of a 20-year old Christmas song by The Pogues and the late Kirsty MacColl titled Fairytale of New York. Apparently, this song is a perennial hit around this time every year and is climbing toward number one again this year. The BBC says that the word 'faggot' may upset gays, therefore their belated decision to bleep it after 19 years of no problems.

Politically correct BBC Radio station chiefs have censored the word 'faggot' from a hit Christmas song in fear of upsetting homosexuals.

Fairytale of New York by the Pogues has fallen victim to 'the bleep' after being re-released for the festive period.

Censors have also decided the word 'slut' - but have deemed the word 'arse' okay to air.

The hit song, which is challenging for the Christmas number one spot, is famous for it's outrageous lyrics and was recently voted the best Xmas song ever in a VH1 pole.

The Pogues' legendary ballad tells the story of a junkie couple reminiscing on Christmas Eve about youthful ambitions which never materialised.

During the foul-mouthed pop hit, lead singer Shane MacGowan and English singer Kirsty MacColl hurl insults at each other in a supposedly drunken manner.

The song is, at best, depressing, but it is supposed to be two characters telling a story. (For some reason the Brits in particular seem to be fond of depressing Christmas songs, don't they?) You can decide for yourself if the BBC should bleep the word, the song can be listened to over at YouTube. I don't much care for it myself, but it seems a bit of an overreaction on the part of the BBC.

UPDATE: The Telegraph has some furious comments about the BBC'c nannyish behavior from readers. It ain't pretty.

First, Give No Offense

The phrase "First, do no harm," is not actually in the Hippocratic oath. Rather, it is a maxim widely taught to doctors that is actually a Hippocratic aphorism. But the title of this post could best be described as the Hypocritical Oath. Mark Steyn is in rare form today, pointing out that new supreme human right - that to be free from being offended - is destroying real rights that we hold dear.

The holiday season is here, and that means it's time to engage in the time-honored Christmas tradition of objecting to every time-honored Christmas tradition. Australia is a gazillion time zones ahead of the United States – it may even be Boxing Day there already – so they got in first this year with a truly fantastic headline:

"Santas Warned 'Ho Ho Ho' Offensive To Women."

Really. As the story continued: "Sydney's Santa Clauses have instead been instructed to say 'ha ha ha' instead, the Daily Telegraph reported. One disgruntled Santa told the newspaper a recruitment firm warned him not to use 'ho ho ho' because it could frighten children and was too close to 'ho', a U.S. slang term for prostitute."……

……But the point is that the right not to be offended is now the most sacred right in the world. The right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, all are as nothing compared with the universal right to freedom from offense. It's surely only a matter of time before "sensitivity training" is matched by equally rigorous "inoffensiveness training" courses. A musician friend of mine once took a gig at an elevator-music session, and, after an hour or two of playing insipid orchestral arrangements of "Moon River" and "Windmills of Your Mind," some of the lads' attention would start to wander, and they'd toot their horns a little too boisterously. The conductor would stop and admonish them to bland things down a bit. In a world in which everyone is ready to take offense, it's hard to keep the mood Muzak evenly modulated.

Steyn has a lot more - and even more egregious - examples of the out-of-control right to be free from being offended. It is a political weapon being used against all of the real basic rights. Those who would manipulate the system have the tools handed to them by the very people who push this political correctness run mad. If the very means to discuss issues is taken away by some screaming that they are offended, necessary dialog is completely throttled. That is a recipe for disaster in the long run.

Perhaps somewhere in Sydney there's a woman who's genuinely offended by hearing Santa say "ho ho ho" just as those New Hampshire atheists claim to be genuinely offended by the Pledge of Allegiance. But their complaints are frivolous and decadent, and more determined groups are using the patterns they've established to shut down debate on things we should be talking about. The ability to give and take offense is what separates free societies from Sudan.

Amen to that.

More Of What’s Under The Rock

Bryan at Hot Air managed to secure an interview with Dr. Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware who, along with her colleague Dr. Jan Blits, were instrumental in getting FIRE all fired up about the Orwellian indoctrination program that the university had imposed on students. (My previous posts on that abomination here and here.) Bryan has the audio of the interview and part of a transcript of it. It is pretty shocking just how bad the program really was and how the U of D administration has misrepresented it while trying to distance themselves from it. Go over and listen or read.

When “Zero Tolerance” = Zero Sense

Jay over at STACLU noticed this bit of politically correct total insanity. A second grader from New Jersey was suspended from school for drawing a crude stick-figure drawing of a gun. No, really, he was.

When did the First Amendment stop applying to 7 year olds?

A second-grader’s drawing of a stick figure shooting a gun earned him a one-day school suspension.

Kyle Walker, 7, was suspended last week for violating Dennis Township Primary School’s zero-tolerance policy on guns, the boy’s mother, Shirley McDevitt, told The Press of Atlantic City.

Kyle gave the picture to another child on the school bus, and that child’s parents complained about it to school officials, McDevitt said. Her son told her the drawing was of a water gun, she said.

A photocopy of the picture provided by McDevitt showed two stick figures with one pointing a crude-looking gun at the other, the newspaper said. What appeared to be the word “me” was written above the shooter, with another name scribbled above the other figure.

What has happened to this Country! They’d thrown me in jail for some of the things I drew as a kid if this is worthy of suspension. Our schools have lost their minds! Zero tolerance on guns equals suspension over a piece of notebook paper? More like zero common sense. I wonder if they would charge him with possession of a deadly weapon if he folded it up into a paper airplane? Meanwhile they want to hand out BIRTH CONTROL to eleven year olds!

A seven-year old boy now stigmatized in the school district he is unfortunate enough to live in over a crude sketch. The world has gone insane. I suppose I had better warn my son not to tell anyone at school that I handed him one of these just today to take a look at. (That is a true story, incidentally, I was looking at one of these today, handed it to him and asked him what he thought of it.)

Not Exactly Cleared Up Yet

And just like that, the ban on the American flag at a North Carolina school has been lifted. Well, sort of.

SAMPSON COUNTY, N.C – A North Carolina High School that came under national attention over their rule that prohibited students from wearing items with the American flag, or any flag from other countries, has lifted the ban.

Superintendent Dr. L. Stewart Hobbs, Jr said they have lifted the ban on flags and “from this point on, all dress code changes will be made at the school board level.”

Here's the problem, though.  From Jay at Stop the ACLU:

I just received a return call from Dr. Hobbs, the Superintendent of
Schools. He told me this :

Last year, the school system had a problem with the Mexican flag protests,
and with gang members using that to hide gang symbols. As a result, one
principal banned all flags.

He has today, when he became aware of the problem, he lifted the flag
ban. That decision will no longer be made at the individual school level.

He has also had a phone call already today from the ACLU !!!! Telling him
that if he makes a decison to allow only the US flag, THEY WILL
SUE. Didn’t take long, huh ?

My imipression, upon speaking with him, is that Dr. Hobbs is very
pro-American, and this issue was a snafu compounded by a prinicpal at one
school, plus the ACLU.

Dr. Hobbs has informed me that he is currently consulting with the school’s
attorneys as to how to respond to the ACLU’s threat.

Many thanks to Jay at STACLU for sending that info along.

Discouraging

Frankly, the overzealous advocates of political correctness are becoming more than a little discouraging. When a school superintendent in North Carolina cannot figure out what flag is appropriate to display in the United States of America, we have a real problem.

Under a new school rule, students at Hobbton High School are not allowed to wear items with flags, from any country, including the United States.

The new rule stems from a controversy over students wearing shirts bearing flags of other countries.

Gayle Langston said her daughter, Jessica, was told to remove her stars and stripes t-shirt.

“Today she wanted to wear her shirt, and I had to tell her no,” said Langston. “She didn't like it at all because I knew it would get her in trouble. Of all days, 9/11, she could not wear her American Flag shirt.”

The superintendent of schools in Sampson County calls the situation unfortunate, but says educators didn’t want to be forced to pick and choose which flags should be permissible.

This is utterly shameful. What country do you live in, sir? Banning the flags of other countries may or may not be a good idea, depending on what triggered that decision. But placing the American flag into that same group is wrong. Period.

The superintendent is Dr. L. Stewart Hobbs, Jr., according to the website for the district. (And if you feel that you have to contact him or the school board, keep it civil, please.)