Democrats Unleash Food Police

Delegates and others attending the Democratic convention may want to stock up on Twinkies before heading to Denver. According to the Rocky Mountain News, the DNC has politically-correct rules promoting “organic” foods and barring “fried” foods. What I don’t understand, though, is the rule requiring three different colors per plate. Is this the Democrats’ quota mentality run amok? But surely this can’t be the case. If anyone knows the reason for this rule, I’m genuinely curious (especially since it may just be a matter of time before we have a Federal Food Police imposing these rules on the rest of us):

The Democratic National Convention host committee guidelines for caterers suggest serving mostly organic fare or Colorado products, and avoiding fried foods. The guidelines even suggest color schemes on plates. “This is the food police,” groused Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown on Monday. “These people stood in line too long at the Aspen Food and Wine Festival.” …DNC host committee meal guidelines

* Half a meal made up of fruits and/or veggies

* At least three of the following five colors on a plate - red, green, yellow, blue/purple and white (garnishes don’t count)

* No fried foods

* At least 70 percent of ingredients (based on precooked weight) certified organic and/or grown or raised in
Colorado

* Use of reusable serviceware

* No bottled water, use pitchers instead

* Encourage staff to use alternative modes of transportation

Crocodile Dundee Battles the Tax Police

Paul Hogan is best known as Crocodile Dundee, but he is now getting publicity for his fight against the tax-hungry Australian Tax Office. The Australian reports on the case, and quotes Hogan’s justified complaints about the government’s rigged rules. Hopefully Hogan will prevail, much as he did the last time he was subject to a shakedown attempt:

A defiant Paul Hogan had a typically plain-spoken and blunt message for the Australian Taxation Office yesterday: “Come and get me, you miserable bastards.” As the ATO enlisted the help of the Internal Revenue Service in the US to pursue the actor for allegedly undisclosed tax liabilities, a bemused Hogan insisted he had paid more than enough tax - a figure he estimated to be in excess of $100million - in Australia. …”I’d like to make a deal with the tax office that I’ll give them every cent I made, both me and (partner John “Strop”) Cornell, if they give me every cent they made out of my movies. As a guy who brought millions into
Australia, they should build a statue at the tax office to me and send me a Christmas card. I lived in America and still paid tax in Australia for 4 1/2 years when I could have paid tax in America, and it would have been cheaper, because I thought we needed the money back home more than they needed it here.” …Hogan railed against Operation Wickenby, a taskforce headed by the Australian Taxation Office, working in conjunction with other agencies such as the Australian Crime Commission. “If you become a victim or a target for the ACC, the crime commission, you’re not allowed to say you are, you’re not allowed to say anything they said to you or that you’ve even been questioned, or you can go to jail,” Hogan said. “If the ACC interrogated me, then I couldn’t tell you what they asked me or I can’t even admit they did because I could go to jail, but the ACC has some dickhead who can leak information to the press and anyone else who’s interested.” Hogan said he was being targeted only because he was “high-profile and because I’ve got money”.

Will Prosecutors Now Go After Farmers, Welfare Recipients, Defense Contractors, and Senior Citizens?

Fox News reports on a student who is facing prosecution for offering to sell his vote for $10. But that’s a cheap price compared to how much it cost when members of special-interest groups demand handouts from politicians:

Max P. Sanders, 19, was charged with a felony Thursday in Hennepin County District Court after allegedly asking for a minimum of $10 in exchange for voting for the bidder’s preferred candidate. “Good luck!” …Sanders was charged with one count of bribery, treating and soliciting under an 1893 state law that makes it a crime to offer to buy or sell a vote. According to a criminal complaint, the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office learned about the offering on the Web site and told prosecutors. Investigators sent a subpoena to eBay and got information that led to Sanders. “We take it very seriously. Fundamentally, we believe it is wrong to sell your vote,” said John Aiken, a spokesman for the office. “There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote, and to take something that lightly, to say, ‘I can be bought.’

Obama’s “Audacity” with NEA Proves Nothing

Some in the edublogosphere are making a big deal out of Barack Obama addressing the National Education Association—the nation’s most powerful labor union—from Montana instead of their convention in D.C., and for garnering some boos for his support of “performance pay.”

Joe Williams, writing on the Democrats for Education Reform blog, declares that Obama’s address proved him to be a candidate “who won’t be forced to play by the old rules, and one who is refreshingly willing to point out the extent of the very big problems he is trying to solve.” Meanwhile, Mike Antonucci, who runs the Education Intelligence Agency and provides invaluable insights into the nation’s teachers unions—as well as insider video of Obama’s speech to the convention—argues that Obama’s tepidly endorsing a few things NEA activists don’t like is pretty big news.

As Colonel Potter would have said on M*A*S*H, “horse hockey!”

It’s not the least bit shocking that Senator Obama threw something into his speech about performance pay. He knew darn well the assembly would reject it, just as they did last year. It’s exactly what he wanted: Something that people would swoon over as truly audacious change but that ultimately has no downside. It’s not like the NEA was going to withdraw its endorsement over a quick taste of veggies. The NEA is as Democratic as they come, and if you watch the whole address you’ll see Obama shoveling in all the red meat the union loves: demonizing vouchers, decrying underfunding of No Child Left Behind, lamenting the supposed scapegoating of teachers—the works!

The sound of inflatable “thundersticks” rumbling approval throughout almost all of Obama’s speech doesn’t lie: the Senator didn’t really hurt himself with the NEA. On the flip side, he very well might have gained important points with members of the electorate prone to mistaking shrewd strategy for real change.

Remembering Esequiel Hernandez

Tonight PBS is airing a documentary about Esequiel Hernandez. Hernandez was a high school student who was shot and killed by U.S. Marines on the Mexican border in 1997. The soldiers were on an anti-drug mission. After the killing, all military personnel were removed from the border, but President Bush ordered troops back to the border shortly after 9/11. For a 3 minute clip/preview, go here.

For more about the role of the military in the homeland, go here. For more about the militarization of police tactics, go here.

The Most Valuable Reading First Lesson of All

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post exhorting Congress to save the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the voucher initiative for the nation’s capital that last year gave 1,900 children a chance to go to better schools. As far as the Fordham Foundation’s Mike Petrilli is concerned, it’s close to wasted ink. Instead of worrying about school choice, Spellings should be complaining that Congress is going to kill Reading First, a federal program that may or may not give an extra boost to reading ability, but that Congressional Democrats have had a field day demonizing as corrupt, one suspects not because they think Reading First doesn’t work, but because doing so plays to their NCLB- and phonics-despising teacher-union base.

As an optimist, I prefer not to think that Spellings wrote her piece because she forgot that somehow what’s of absolutely overriding importance is saving Reading First. I prefer to think that she might have actually learned from the Reading First saga and finally become convinced that politics tends to destroy programs she thinks are absolutely tremendous. I prefer to think that she is accepting clear reality: If we want real reform, we have to let kids out of a system in which political concerns always trump educational.

Of course, she probably hasn’t had any such epiphany, but at least there’s slim reason for hope. When it comes to Fordham, in contrast, the priorities they lay out for Spellings strongly suggest that there’s almost no hope at all.