So there's this kid. He bought himself an inflatable sword and an eyepatch, and went to school. His teachers are okay with this, but the assistant principal tells him to take off the eyepatch or be suspended. Kid refuses. Gets suspended.

Just a little background for people new to the blogosphere. The kid here was expressing his devotion to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a sect that arose in response to the fuss about teaching evolution in Kansas.

Pastfarians believe that people evolved from pirates, hence the kid's decision to express his FSM devotion. Bryan Killian is his name, and he makes the following point:

“I feel like my First Amendment was violated,” Killian, 16, said. “Freedom of religion and freedom of expression. That’s what I tried to do, and I got shot down.” (Citizen-Times)

PJ Myers points out that when school officials say things like this:

"It has nothing to do with religious beliefs," school district spokesman Stan Alleyne rushed to say when asked about the suspension. "We respect students' religious beliefs."

they are picking and choosing which religious expressions are permitted.

Now, of course, you can object that this kid doesn't really believe that the FSM exists, and he's being satirical, making fun of other religions. But, first, it's hard to come up with a symbol that expresses belief in nothing, and second, satirical speech doesn't get excluded in the Bill of Rights.

Moreover, if the kid sticks with it, as does the FSM website, and does it completely deadpan, who is to say that he's lying? Are we gonna cross-examine all the cross-wearers to confirm the sincerity of their belief?

Atrios has been writing about this recently--about how some beliefs are legitimate, and receive support from the state and the political apparatus. This is another illustration that there are permissible and impermissible beliefs, and that atheist expression is to be suppressed at all times.

In his second update, to this post Glenn Greenwald includes a clip of the Chris Matthews show that reduces the USA case as just an attempt by the democrats to get Karl Rove. All five of them say that voters aren't interested in this, that the democrats are overreaching and they better be careful. My last two posts here involved five other national media sources who dismiss this as trivial, not worthy of attention.

That's ten Beltway journalists, all unanimously saying "Move along people. Nothing to see here."

What is going on here? They're all right on republican message, talking point by talking point.

Not a single one of these ten people expressed any concern about the impact on the justice system caused by these actions, even though there is not shortage of commentary from people within the justice system decrying.

Why? What motivates these people? Is it really just Sally Quinn's circle? And, if so, how did Karl Rove get in there?

Overreach?

Check:

The biggest question is how far can Democrats go in opposing this president? The biggest risk is going so far that they feel the sting of a backlash — of being transformed from the fresh new face of change to the latest cast of Washington players enmeshed in partisan wrangling.

Need civility?

Check:

There is a recent history of aggressive Congressional majorities paying a price for being overly confrontational. The Republican Congress that impeached President Bill Clinton went on to lose five seats in the midterm elections; generally, the opposition party can expect to gain seats in midterms during a president’s second term.

“Voters were looking for more civility and more cooperation between Republicans and Democrats,” Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader, said of last fall’s election. “There have been moments when this has happened, but we still have a long way to go on this.”

How'd that all work out for you Tom?

Gotta pass bills, and not get bogged down in investigations?

Check:

Democrats will have room to maneuver as the tough hall monitors of this administration — think hearings on Katrina and Walter Reed Hospital, more push-back on Iraq and, yes, more subpoenas. But not unless they can also compile a record of legislation by the time the next election comes around.

“If Democrats want to do well in 2008 on the House side and the Senate side, they have to show they can govern,” said James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. “They have to show they can do more than investigate and push back on the president.”

Note the democrats aren't tough cops outing criminals. They're wussy hall monitors keeping the children in line.

Gotta work with Republicans?

Check:

The party holds a slim advantage in the Senate. For all intents and purposes, it will be impossible to pass big legislation without a few Republican defections.

Oh, and of course, weak on terror?

Check:

On Iraq, the party could be perceived as so broadly antiwar that it could undermine its efforts to reassure voters that it can keep them safe in an age of global terror (a theme that even a weakened White House and Republican Party continue to push hard).

Now when the Democrats were a slim minority, then they had to cooperate and be civil in order not to be seen as obstructionist.

The security reference is laid out just the way the white house would want, with "age of global terror" (which you really, at this point, have say has not turned out to be so). It ignores recent polls that show Democrats are now more trusted than republicans on national security. Nags also fails to point out that it might well be a good thing to be clearly identified as the party opposed to a war that is opposed by Americans in 60 percent and above range.

Why don't they just hire Ken Mellman or somebody, and stop pretending.