It's completely believable if you know Coburn and Inhofe, but the voters of the state will be surprised - if the Oklahoma news media ever tells them.

All 19 "nay" votes were Republicans, including McCain, Sessions, Stevens, Graham, Hagel, Allard, Burns, and Cornyn.

…but apparently were not, since the Ninth US Circuit Court had to spell it out:

Ninth Circuit: Speaking Spanish and Looking Hispanic Do Not Create Probable Cause to Suspect An Individual is An Illegal Alien

The fact that individuals speak Spanish, appear Hispanic and are near a border -- without more -- does not create probable cause to stop them, the Ninth Circuit held today in U.S. v. Manzo-Jurado, No. 05-30186.

Indeed. Investigating someone because he looks Hispanic and speaks Spanish, even if he is close to a U.S. border, is not called "probable cause." It's called "racial profiling."

(And before anyone goes on about the "dam librul" Ninth Circuit, keep in mind that it's not the most overruled circuit court - three circuits had 100% overturn rates at SCOTUS in the last complete term, including the 10th Circuit that encompasses so much of Red America.)

That's the good news - barely above average. The bad news? The letter grade is "D".

Then again, if CSPI graded on the curve, we might have a solid "B." Only one state (Kentucky) got an "A," and an "A-" at that. Five states got "B+," three got "B," four got "B-," two got "C+," three got "C," two got "C-," and two got "D+." For those always concerned about competition, Texas was one of the "C+" states (Hawaii was the other). 23 states got "F" grades.

The odd thing is that most of the report is about extra foods - snack foods, vending machines, food sold from school stores - and not school meals. Why is that?

Federally-subsidized school meals are required to meet detailed nutrition standards set by Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, USDA's policy regarding foods sold outside of meals is weak and out of date. Also, USDA does not have authority to regulate foods sold outside the cafeteria or outside of meal times. USDA's policy does not allow "foods of minimal nutritional value" (FMNV) to be sold in the food service area during meal times. USDA defines FMNV as foods that provide less than 5% of the Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for each of eight specified nutrients per serving.

Why did Kentucky get an A?

The only state to earn an A in our Report Card was Kentucky, which got an A-. Kentucky only allows vending machines and school stores to sell food (other than meals) on campus in the afternoon, a half- hour after the last lunch period. During that afternoon period, the state has strong nutrition standards for the foods and drinks sold in all schools. Drinks allowed include 1 percent or fat-free milk, waters, 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice, or other drinks with fewer than 10 grams of sugars per serving. For foods, Kentucky set reasonable standards for portion sizes, saturated fat, sugars, and sodium.

Kentucky got an A- rather than an A because of its weak beverage portion size standards, lack of limits on trans fat, and a loophole for a la carte foods. (It allows any item that is a part of a reimbursable meal to be sold through a la carte. Since school meal nutrition standards are averaged over the course of a week, some individual items sold through school meals can be high in saturated or trans fat, sodium, and added sugars, even if the overall meal pattern meets reasonable nutrition standards.)

Apparently, though, Oklahoma is making progress. Remembering the weird acronym for "Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value," the report cites Oklahoma's policy:

Each district board of education shall ensure by July 1, 2007 that:

• FMNV are not accessible to students in elementary schools except on special occasions.

• FMNV (other than diet soda) are not accessible to students in middle and junior high school except after school, at events which take place in the evening, and on special occasions.

  • In middle and junior high schools, diet soda with less than 10 calories per bottle or can is allowed during the school day.

• Each district shall provide incentives, such as lower prices or other incentives, to encourage healthy food choices for high school students and ensure that healthy options are available at school.

This all seems very weird to me, because throughout my school days, having a soda in school was a disciplinary offense. Normal remedy: you're told to throw it away now. Repeat offenders could get trips to the office or write-ups, though. I believe both my sister and I were past 6th grade before we were allowed to have more than one (12 oz.) can of pop per day.

The very idea that school kids, much less elementary and junior-high kids, are buying sodas in school seems very foreign to me. There was just never any question that sugary, caffeinated sodas are not part of a kid's balanced diet, but rather treats like candy bars. Sure, there were candy bars and sodas, but not at meals, and definitely not at school.

The "special occasions" language is meant to cover birthday party cupcakes and the like, but some states are even banning those, because larger class sizes and fairness in bringing treats sometimes mean a "birthday party" every week, sometimes twice a week. The parents who don't have time to make treats buy them, and those are always the ones with Crisco instead of butter for frosting, making up the difference with extra sugar, etc. And man oh man, does the food industry bitch and moan when anyone anywhere suggests that people should eat less, especially when they can portray it as "food police" or "taking the fun out of being a kid." That's not the way to annual growth, for their profits or for our waistlines.