Lagniappe: WoT Bush Watch - From President Bush's remarks on health access. In usual fashion, Bush starts off like he always seems to -- telling us what the speech is going to be about:

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome. What you're about to hear is a discussion about how to make sure America's economy continues to grow, and practical ways to help employers and employees to grow the economy, make the right decisions. That's what we're here to discuss. It's an economic lesson. But we're not using Ph.D.'s. Well, we're using Ph.D.'s in the sense that we're talking to entrepreneurs who are on the front lines of making capital decisions every day, and decisions of -- big decisions for each person they hire. That's what we're here to discuss.

So there we have it. What follows? Well, of course, some three paragraphs later, there's this:

And we've got a lot of small business owners here today and I want to thank you for following your dreams. I want to thank the local community leaders who are here. I hope you're as optimistic as I am about the future of this country. The reason I am is because I know what we've overcome. We've overcome a lot. We've overcome a recession. We've overcome an attack on our country, an attack which, by the way, not only affected our spirit, it affected our economy. They estimate over a million jobs were lost after the attacks of September the 11th. We overcame that, those attacks, because of the resolve of the American people. The American people refused to be intimidated by cold-blooded killers. We refused then to be intimidated; we refuse now to ever be intimidated by cold-blooded killers. ...

And then, as you know, I made a tough decision about keeping our word and about making this country secure and the world more peaceful. And we went to war. And I committed, along with other nations, brave sons and daughters of our respective countries to deal with the tyrant that refused to yield to the demands of the world. And now he sits in a jail cell, and Iraq is free.

We marched to war, which affected the economy. It's hard to be confident about the future when you look on your TV screens, and you see the banner, "March to War". As decision-makers and entrepreneurs, it had to be an unsettling time to plan for the future, when you've got a country marching to war. And now we're marching to peace. We're marching to peace. A free Iraq is going to help change the world. A free Afghanistan is changing the world. The world is becoming more peaceful. In other words, we've overcome a lot.

And then, some eleven paragraphs later:

And finally, to the point we're here to discuss. In order to make sure America remains a competitive place, in order to make sure that we can expand the job base, where people can find work, in order to make sure the entrepreneurial spirit remains strong, we need to address the issue of the cost of health care.

George Bush? Discussing the 9/11, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror in a speech about "health access"? No, it can't be. Can it? Not straight-shootin' Georgie, who NEVER mentions such things out of their proper context.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Another Bush Lie Revealed - In a bit of ironic honesty, Andres Oppenheimer catches the Bush Administration in its lie about the importance of Latin America to U.S. foreign policy. Oppenheimer writes:

You may remember that, during the 2000 presidential campaign, President Bush said, ''Should I become president, I will look south, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment of my presidency.'' And as recently as Sept. 9, Powell stated, ``There is no region on Earth that is more important to the American people than the Western hemisphere.''

But the fact is that Latin America is the only region in the world that will suffer foreign aid cuts in Bush's proposed 2005 fiscal year budget. While planned U.S. aid for Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia will be either increased or maintained at current levels, economic aid to Latin America will drop from $757 million in 2004 to $721 million in 2005.

'So much for being a `buen amigo,' '' Rep. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., the ranking democrat on the House Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, said in a telephone interview Friday. ``It is shocking that these cuts have been made at a time when Latin American democracies are threatened, and extreme poverty is growing.''

Latin America never was as important to the Bush Administration as Bush led on; but what's new about that? I guess Bush should get a pass on this lie, because it seems to have been the same story under all U.S. Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike. What a shame.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Jorge G. Castaneda Enters Mexico's 2006 Presidential Race as an Outsider - Andres Oppenheimer has a good piece on the likely success of Castaneda's quest for the Mexican Presidency as an independent candidate without any formal ties to Mexico's three main political parties. My thinking is that Castaneda can win. He is articulate, smart, and experienced. He will also be entering the race at a time when popular disillusionment with traditional parties is at an all-time high. Regardless, I agree with Oppenheimer that Castaneda's candidacy will bring another breath of good, clean, fresh air to Mexico's ever-more-consolidating democracy.

Lagniappe: WoT Bush Watch - Let's see what GW had to say in his Conversation on Homeownership. [For an exact copy of this speech from the White House website, click here.] ...

First, GW starts by telling his audience what he's going to be talking about. He says:

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for coming today. You're probably wondering what we're doing here. I'll tell you what we're going to do, we're going to talk about one of the most exciting things that can happen to a person, and that is the purchase of a home. That's what we're here to discuss: homeownership and how best to help people buy a home; and what is it like to be someone who wonders about homeownership and the struggles of trying to figure out all the fine print and how to get something done. That's what we're really here to talk about.

But, before Bush ever gets to the questions of Homeownership, what do you think he feels the need to mention? Well, let's see, after recognizing a few dignitaries, fellow politicians, and personal friends in attendance, Bush says (and remember, this is supposedly about Homeownership) ...

I hope you can tell that I'm an optimistic fellow, because-and one reason why is because I've seen what this country has been through. We went through a recession and a stock market decline, we went through an attack. We got attacked by a bunch of cold-blooded killers. And the attack hurt. It hurt our psyche because we thought oceans could protect us. It hurt the fact-we lost a million jobs after September the 11th. ...

And then, as you know, I made a very difficult decision, but the right decision, to secure our country by holding Saddam Hussein to account. But nevertheless, we had the-if you remember, we had on our TV screens the phrase, "March to war." Any time a nation is marching to war, it's not conducive for confident thinking. Nobody wants to march to war. It's a negative thought. Now we're marching to peace, by the way. We're on our way to --(applause.) ...

One thing we're not going to do is get ourselves isolated from the world. I will fight off economic isolationism, which would be bad for job creation here in the state of Pennsylvania. But we've overcome a lot. And that's why I'm optimistic. We've overcome a lot because we've got people who refuse to be intimidated by terrorists. We've overcome a lot because of a tax policy that left money, more money in the hands of the people that earned it.

Hmmm ... now can anyone tell me what in the world any of these references to 9/11, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror have anything at all to do with "Homeownership?"

Lagniappe: The George WoT Bush Watch - Lots of folks on the right who are critical of Kerry, like to think that John Kerry cannot speak about any subject without mentioning his Vietnam service. Take, for instance, Conservative Blogger Bryan Preston of JunkYardBlog. In one of his posts entitled PSSSSSST, Preston writes:

Did you know that he served in Vietnam?

No lie--he's a decorated veteran. Oh, he's too modest to tell you about it himself. Unless you ask. And then he'll sit you right down and talk your ear off about it. He's got a million stories from his 120 days in country. He'll even show you home movies he shot during his arduous four months preliving Apocalypse Now on his swift boat.

In fact, he'll tell you all about it even if you don't ask. Ask him about health care--he'll tell you about Vietnam. Ask him about taxes--he'll tell you about Vietnam. Ask him the air speed velocity of a laden swallow--he'll tell you about Vietnam. Modest chap, that John Kerry, so reluctant to tell you what a hero he is. Unless you ask him any conceivable question about any topic.

So the secret is--John Kerry has done nothing with his time in the Senate that qualifies him for the presidency. So ask him any question about anything under the sun--and he'll tell you about Vietnam. Because that's all he's got.

Of course, this is all nonsense. I tried to call Bryan on this silliness by making a similar kind of exaggerated claim in the very same spirit about Bush's constant references in his speeches and interviews to the war on terrorism/war in Iraq. For instance, in the comment board to this post at the JYB, I wrote:

Here’s another little secret. Ask Bush about education, and he’ll tell you about terrorism. Ask him about jobs, and he’ll talk your ear off about Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Ask him about trade, and he’ll tell you about the atrocities of Udai and Qusai. Ask him about pretzels and he’ll tell you about Al Qaeda’s continuing threat to world peace and the everlasting war on terror. What differentiates Bush from Kerry, though, is that Bush doesn’t have to wait for the obligatory question — he will talk your ear off about this even when you just want, for once since 9/11, to eat your dinner in peace.

What was Bryan's response? Well, he called me a liar about Bush. Now, I admit to a bit of exaggeration about Bush, but the gist of the subsequent exchanges we had on his blog posting comment board is that Bryan really believes all Kerry talks about is his Vietnam service, and that Bush never talks about the war on terror out of context.

So, I've decided to take Bryan's whine as a challenge. Let's see how frequently Bush talks about the war on terror in his speeces and interviews, and let's see specifically how often Bush does so out of context. I'll start tracking all of Bush's speeches and interviews (or as many as I can) as part of my George WoT Bush Watch. I think you'll find that Bush is more of a single issue campaigner with the War on Terror than Kerry ever could possibly be on his Vietnam service record. First up, George Bush's recent Conversation on Homeownership. I'll be back soon with a detailed breakdown of this speech; but first I've got to feed the kids. Stay tuned!

Lagniappe: Georgie's Resolve - GW, as part of a speech supposedly on the retraining of laid-off workers, couldn't stay away from his favorite subject ... drum roll ... the war on terror. In this speech, GW huffed and puffed and blustered the following: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." Of course, Georgie ... Who in his right mind wouldn't have done likewise? The issue is not whether you knew about the attacks beforehand, Georgie, but rather WHY you didn't know about them.

Lagniappe: The TRUE Christian Values and Liberty-Loving Patriotism of the Religious Right - My wife received this choice little email from her ultra-conservative, Christian Coalition, Southern Baptist father and step-mother. It speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the so-called tolerance and charity of "devout" Christians and "patriotic, freedom-loving" Americans:

I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't.Forward if U agree, if not, delete

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a
very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having
"In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of
Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!

If you agree, pass this on, if not delete. . . I AGREE !!!
[NOTE: If the graphic doesn't show, you can check it out here.]


How Christian! How American! This is typical, mainstream right-wing behavior. It's abhorrent and sickening for its pure maliciousness and hypocrisy at so many levels. And right-wingers have the gall to complain about radical lefty protesters and their "anti-American" signs and slogans at relatively infrequent protest marches. All one needs to do to see right-wing anti-American signs and slogans is to check his email inbox.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Analysis of El Salvador's Presidential Election - Just having come back from a weeklong trip to El Salvador, I have been very interested in the results of that country's electoral process and its Presidential election, which just took place yesterday, Sunday, March 21. The results are in, and it seems as if the conservative ARENA party has handily won the race in what seems to have been a pretty fair election by procedural standards (i.e. minimal voting fraud or complaints of a tainted electoral process). The ARENA party has pretty much ruled the country since the 1980s and has been linked to right-wing death squads that were responsible for some of the worst human rights violations and war crimes during El Salvador's bloody civil war of the 70s and 80s. I must admit to some shock and disappointment at the showing of the leftist FMLN party. I really expected the race to be closer (and I think even internal Salvadoran polls showed as much until recently).

I have been wondering about how this election could have turned out so lopsided, and I think it is because of two reasons. First, Salvadorans are generally reluctant to turn to an unknown and untested party in the midst of economic uncertainty. As one voter put it (and I'm paraphrasing from memory): it's better to trust the devil you know, than the devil you don't know. So, the fear of change propels moderates to stay with ARENA. Understandable at one level. But the other reason is more bothersome and it is linked to the Damocles Sword hung over the heads of Salvadorans by the Bush Administration of the United States. There is no question that the conservative Bush Administration is partial to the ARENA. That is also understandable; but the degree to which the U.S. government exercised what I think is decisive influence over the elections does not bode well for the consolidation of a democratic political culture. The U.S. should have been as neutral as possible in this contest; but it wasn't. On any number of occasions, high-ranking members of the Bush State Department basically informed the Salvadoran electorate that an FMLN victory could translate into trouble for the Central American nation in its relations with the United States. There was even the question raised of how an FMLN government, openly critical of U.S. foreign policy, might influence the U.S. government to somehow put a clamp on Salvadoran migrant remittances from the U.S. back their families in El Salvador. Whether or not this is true, the ARENA party used the clear and public signals from the U.S. to instill a sense of fear in the Salvadoran populace of punitive U.S. action in case of an FMLN victory. There is no doubt in my mind that this international dimension of U.S. policy towards El Salvador and its preference for the ARENA played a role in convincing on-the-fence voters to swing into ARENA's corner. For a good summary of this election, Tim Weiner of the New York Times has a nice report on the initial returns and a fairly good, short analysis of the backdrop of this election.

Lagniappe: Back in the Saddle - Well, folks, I've been pulling a GW Bush and have not shown my face around this blog for a while. But people can vouch for me! I've still got opinions and haven't been shy about them! In any case, I'm back and plan to be a bit more regular since I've gotten my head above the water since I left for El Salvador. Lots to say about El Salvador, but I'll save it for another day.

First things first ... this past week, it appears that Al Qaeda terrorists struck a devastating and tragic blow in Spain. I don't think the timing was coincidental. It was election time in Spain, it was exactly 1000 days from 9/11, and it occurred on 3/11 instead of 9/11. It cost the pro-US, pro-Iraq war Conservative Regime in Spain its control over the country's machinery of state and thrust the Socialists back into power. Spain's new Socialist leader has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. He also sounds like a man leading his country out of "coalition of the willing." It seems as if the terrorists have scored a victory here. But it is also clear, to me at least, that the heavy hand of warmongering led by the U.S. is also partly responsible for this occurrence. GW's war in Iraq is coming home to roost. And my big fear is that Al Qaeda will do to the U.S. what it did to Spain. Remember, we too are in an election year; and though I want Bush out of office, I don't want to see his ouster come at the expense of American citizen lives. We've got to be on our guard this election year and people will be all jittery. It only promises to polarize this election even more.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Happy Mardi Gras! - As the Big Easy winds its way down to another festive Fat Tuesday, I wish all of you a safe and happy Mardi Gras. Have fun, but be smart. As for me, I'll be doing my own little Social Justice trip down to El Salvador to expose a group of my students to the realities and consequences of the injustices that the majority of the people of El Salvador face as a result of the brutal civil war that gripped that country throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Que les vaya bien y que tengan buen carnaval!

Lagniappe: Outsourcing!! - Best comment I've read yet on the whole subject of outsourcing. Reprinted in full from the "Letters to the Editor" Section of the New Orleans Times-Picayune for your convenient review. [Original can be accessed at the following link.]

"Let's outsource the politicos"

Tuesday February 17, 2004

I was stunned by the comments of Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, on the "offshoring" of U.S. service jobs.

"Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," he told reporters. "More things are tradable than were tradable, in the past and that's a good thing."

After considering this for awhile and allowing myself to calm down, I realized that there were many places where we could save money. Take, for instance, the government.

Chirac of France makes about $117,000 a year, Blair from England makes about $122,000 a year. The U.S. president pulls in $200,000. Salaries for representatives are proportionally cheaper in other countries as well. We could save significant bucks by hiring an overseas president, perhaps one from India or China.

Our sons and daughters need decent jobs and a chance at being a stakeholder in this great country. The gentleman who made that calloused comment should have earned a trip to the proverbial woodshed.

John Sarradet

Gretna

I love it! Unrestricted and unmitigated Free Trade at work!! Viva el Mercado Libre! Viva! Viva!

The 'Weak' in (National) Review: John Derbyshire's Trillion Dollar Deficit Blame Game - So, here's what apparently passes as an equal opportunity critique of federal government spending. That is, when looking at the Congressional Budget Office's adjusted forecast of a trillion dollar deficit over the 2003-2014 decade, Derbyshire seems to be implying that his criticism is of GOP and Democratic big-spenders in Washington. But I just want to point out an interesting little observation. In the entire piece, the only Republican legislator that Derbyshire mentions is Newt Gingrich. On the flip side, Derbyshire peppers his rant with references to a multitude of Democrats. What one gets out of this is that Derbyshire's frustration with the CURRENT GOP administration and GOP-controlled Congress's fiscal recklessness is taken out on the powerless Democrats. He can't bring himself to name GOP names as part of this irresponsibility, though ostensibly that is what one thinks he is also implying. Derbyshire needs to grow some balls. If he's going to bring MINORITY Sen. Kerry, MINORITY Rep. Kucinich, MINORITY Sen. Edwards, MINORITY Sen. Kennedy, and WASHED-UP Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark in the fray by name, where are the likes of PRESIDENT Bush, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Frist, VICE-PRESIDENT AND FORMER SENATOR Cheney, and SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Hastert? Why can't he bring himself to call out these folks on the carpet by name - you know, the ones ACTUALLY with the POWER to curb spending and support a balanced budget? Well, I think it is so for two reasons: (1) Derbyshire's simply blinded by his partisan loyalty and cowed by his political cowardice to take similar direct shots at his own; and (2) he can't fathom a world where the democrats may really be better deficit hawks than republicans. I just can't help but think this guy is nutty and imbalanced. I feel sorry for the guy's children, who will have to live with their dad's embarrassing and wierd eccentricities.

Liberal Lighthouse: MoDo's MoJo - Maureen Dowd's latest column is another testament to her absolute genius as a writer. She can be acerbic and she is certainly unabashedly partisan and anti-Bush; but one has to admit that she is as clever, sharpwitted, and funny as they come. I just loved this short little introduction of her piece:

I think President Bush has cleared up everything now.

The U.S. invaded Iraq, which turned out not to have what our pals in Pakistan did have and were giving out willy-nilly to all the bad guys except Iraq, which wouldn't take it.

And the rest of the piece follows suit. It's classic MoDo ... brilliant and a pure pleasure to read.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Here We Go Again ... Bush and the Anti-Democracy Agenda in Latin America - Well, there are some signals that the U.S. government is positioning itself to support another anti-democracy coup in that troubled Republic of Haiti. First, it was the ill-advised U.S. support for the undemocratic ouster of democratically-elected demagogue and populist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Now, the U.S. appears to be heading in the same direction in Haiti ... only this time, appearing ready and willing to support the ouster of the man we almost invaded Haiti to restore to office after another military coup kicked him out of the country.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: Mexican Maritocracy? - Andres Oppenheimer has an interesting take on Mexico's trading of the authoritarian process of the current President hand-picking his successor. Apparently there's talk about Mexican President Vicente Fox's wife running for President. Is maritocracy what we'd call a successful Hillary Clinton run for the Presidency in 2008?

Lagniappe: One Soul with Two Heads? Or Two Souls Sharing One Body? - This story about a little baby girl born with two heads is sad and tragic. Although the story of this person has reached its sad conclusion with the baby's post-surgery death, I just can't get the picture of the abnormality out of my mind and I wonder if this is a case not of one baby with two heads, but rather two babies, two souls, sharing one body. The implications that such a determination would have on the ethics of performing surgery to remove the not-fully-developed "twin" are baffling. What would pro-lifers think about this situation? I'm not predisposed to make a judgment in any particular direction, but I am curious to hear what people think of the ethical/moral dimensions of this situation.

Lagniappe: Bush's BIGGEST Deception -- and it ain't WMD claims! - Well, I'm working on my tax return right now and I must say that the supposed "child tax credit" refund that we received over last summer was more a farce than an actual return of my hard-earned income to my own bank account. I consider myself to be a pretty bright fellow and fairly well-attuned to debates in Washington about tax relief plans, so if I was caught by surprise by the way this tax refund actually works, I can only imagine how those who just normally go with the flow will react. And I know for a fact that all of my siblings with kids were caught by surprise, too. Bush will have a heavy price to pay for this misleading tax refund plan. What am I talking about? Well, let me try to explain ...

Last summer, after the big budget battle in Washington in which President Bush seemed to have won his tax cut/tax relief plan, all we kept hearing was that if we had earned over a certain amount of income and if we had children/dependents in our household, then we were likely to get a refund in the amount of $400 per child/dependent. And sure enough, we received a letter stating as much which was followed shortly thereafter by a check from the US Treasury in the amount of $800 ($400 for each of my two children). It was also my understanding that this was a retroactive refund of what we had already previously paid in higher taxes before the tax relief plan went into effect. But how misleading this was. Apparently, this was merely an advance on our upcoming tax return to be filed for 2003. This advance effectively negated the supposed refund that we received.

By my calculations, there was indeed some tax relief, but not as much as was sold to us. If I've done the math right, this is what I come up with. The child tax credit for 2002 was $600 per child. This was increased to $1000 per child over the course of 2003, and the $400 difference between what we claimed in 2002, and what the 2003 plan called for, as I understood it, was to be remitted over the summer of 2003. So, what we were seeing when we received our $800 check in the summer was, so we thought, an augmented refund of $800 on our 2002 tax return. And our thinking was that when we filed for 2003, we would be able to take the full $1000 per child tax credit against our 2003 earnings. But, not in the deceptive world of George W. Bush. No way. That $800 which we received in the summer of 2003 was simply an advance on our 2003 tax return. So, when I sit down now, in February of 2004, to calculate my tax return, I am surprised with the need to count the $800 against 2003's tax return. So, in essence, my effective per child tax credit for 2003 is still only $600 per child after the $400 per child refund is deducted from the new higher $1000 per child tax credit. Next year, presumably, I'll be able to take the full $1000 per child tax credit without having to deduct any previous refund amount. So, I understand that the tax credit is real and will have an positive impact on the amount of money I'll end up keeping in my own pocket; but that doesn't remove the feeling that I was somehow duped into thinking that the refund was for 2002 instead of 2003. Many people spent their refund over the summer under the false assumption that they would still be able to take the higher per child tax credit when filing their 2003 taxes. And the fact that this isn't the case will, I think, make a lot of people upset just becuase they will feel misled and caught unawares after having prepared for a bigger refund check or a smaller tax liability that just isn't going to materialize. Now, in fairness, both democrats and republicans alike in Washington, DC, bear some responsibility for not adequately clearing up this misunderstanding that many people had in their minds about the nature of this summer child tax refund; but George Bush is the most visible target and he will bear the brunt of whatever misgruntled ill-will that is generated. And, I must say, it comes at a very, very bad time for Bush, given that this year is an election year and we won't have the opportunity to knowlingly feel the benefits of the larger child tax credit until next February, by which time the Presidential election would be long behind us.

It's sneaky and deceptive and will hit people hard and shockingly; and in this economic/electoral environment, Bush can't be having his tax-cut-loving, middle-class, suburban families feel misled and somehow bamboozled without paying, I think, a high price.

I can't say that I'm all that disappointed because I want to see Bush go down to defeat in November; and I really can't see how we can end the out-of-control deficit-spending without rolling back some major parts of his tax cut program; but, man, this was a stupid move on Bush's part. If I were a democrat who can't be tarred with supporting this last tax plan, I'd make this a central issue of my campaign, and I'd start hammering this point home right now.

This is the real scandal of the election year, and the most potent weapon against Bush that the democrats can mount. I hope it doesn't escape notice.

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: The Times-Picayune on Wes Mix's Racism - Good for the Times-Picayune's Editorial Crew. They end their criticism of the unconscionable treatment of a female Iraqi high school student by her world cultures (world cultures, of all things!) teacher with:

Students of all backgrounds deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Someone who can't at least treat a member of another faith -- or anyone else who is different -- decently shouldn't be teaching children.

Amen!

Kingfishery and Kingcakery: Unabashed Racism in Jefferson Parish - An astounding article in the Times-Picayune about a teacher's abuse of a female Iraqi muslim high school student. You've got to read it to believe it. Here's part of it:

Sitting in Wes Mix's 10th-grade world history class at West Jefferson High School in Harvey, Maryam Motar said she had become used to the "jokes."

First, there were the times when she said her teacher thought she was of Indian descent and called her "Little Curry One."

Then came jabs about how Motar, an Iraqi, hailed from a Third World country, she said. Thursday's tease, the 17-year-old sophomore said, was about how she would "bomb us" if she ever went back to her country.

Motar said the final straw came Friday as Mix was passing out tests. After pulling back her religiously mandated head scarf, or hijab, Motar said Mix told her, "I hope God punishes you. No, I'm sorry, I hope Allah punishes you."

Motar said the teacher later told her, "I didn't know you had hair under there."

Read the whole thing. What to make of this? I don't know. But, I DO know that Jefferson Parish is a Republican bastion - home of David Vitter and Bob Livingston - with sympaties for the likes of David Duke. You make up your own mind.

Lagniappe: Democratic Primaries - Post-Tuesday Predictions - Kerry looks strong and likely to win the nomination. Dean is toast. Edwards has some surprising life. I'm pleased on the whole. My thinking is that we'll have a Kerry/Edwards ticket.

If this comes to pass, conservatives should be worried. Gore lost the last election partially because he couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee. Edwards has proven his mettle in the South. If he's on the ticket, he'll carry the two Carolinas plus a couple of other Southern states that have a strange tendency to tilt democratic under the right conditions (maybe Arkansas and Louisiana). We folks in the South like the young, folksy, good-looking, and populist-leaning-but-moderate types of politicians like Edwards. This profile worked well for Bush in the South during the last election to a degree. Gore, in spite of his Tennessee roots, didn't fit the mold. But Edwards most certainly does.

Kerry is a lock on the liberal Northeast. And I would venture that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would suffice in the traditionally liberal west coast enclaves - which I would imagine find more connection with Dean. And the working-class and protectionist tendencies of Edwards will sit well in the midwest motor states.

I've been a pessimist about democratic chances this fall; but I can feel the liberal base energizing while the conservative base is lethargic (at least in Louisiana), if not disillusioned with Bush's performance on the domestic front. It strikes me as very bad timing for Bush that the Conservative Blogosphere is going negative on Bush and his recent domestic agenda. Even the most die-hard of Bush fans on the right are more prone to speak critically of Bush these days than supportive of him. And this observation leads me to think that Bush is more vulnerable than I thought.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket will resonate among the wide variation of liberals in this country -- Moderate/Conservative Southern Democrats, ethnic minorities, union workers, social and enviro liberals, and even military moderates because of Kerry's experience, etc. Conservatives better look out for this combination.