RSS
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri abuse of power. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri abuse of power. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan

Yulia Tymoshenko, former PM of Ukraine, is Now in Prison for Political Differences

For some reason, my blog has been getting very popular in Ukraine recently- after the US, the second largest source of readers of my blog is coming from Ukraine over the past month, and all-time, Ukraine is the 5th biggest nation of readers of my blog. Why Ukraine?

Perhaps it stems from a post I wrote in January 15, 2010 supporting Yulia Tymoshenko for President of Ukraine. You see, I keep my eyes on a lot of different subjects (just in the last several weeks alone I have written In Praise of NASA's Curiosity Mission, About Black Friday and why Obama, Robert Frank, and Other Liberals are Wrong for Hating It, and about Teaching and Brain-Dead Liberal Students), and one of the nations that I've always been fascinated with is Ukraine. So during the 2010 Presidential Elections in Ukraine, I read about all the candidates (it was a three-way race- between then-current President Viktor Yushchenko, then-former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, and then-current Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko), and came out in support of Tymoshenko.

Tymoshenko ended up losing the race to Yankukovych. Via wikipedia, you can read what happened next:

...In the first round of the presidential election on 17 January 2010, Tymoshenko took second place with 25% of the vote and Yanukovych took first place with 35%. The two proceeded to the runoff round held on 7 February 2010 in which Yanukovych was elected President of Ukraine with 48.95% of the votes, Tymoshenko received 45.4% of the votes. Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc members immediately claimed that there was systematic and large-scale vote rigging in this run-off. However Tymoshenko herself did not issue a statement about the election until a live televised broadcast on 13 February 2010 in which she said that she would challenge the election result in court. Tymoshenko alleged widespread fraud (according to Tymoshenko, a million votes were invalid) and said Yanukovych was not legitimately elected.

...On 3 March 2010 the Ukrainian Parliament passed a motion of no confidence in the second Tymoshenko Government in which the cabinet was dismissed with 243 lawmakers voting in favour out of the 450 (207 against).... Tymoshenko resigned from the Prime Minister post on 4 March 2010....

...Ukraine's prosecutor's office re-opened on 12 May 2010 a 2004 criminal case against Tymoshenko on accusations she had tried to bribe Supreme Court judges.... Tymoshenko also claimed that she was told by "all the offices of the Prosecutor General's Office" that President Yanukovych had personally instructed the Prosecutor General's Office to find any grounds to prosecute her....

...On 15 December 2010 the General Prosecutor's Office instituted a criminal case against Tymoshenko, alleging that she misused funds received by Ukraine within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. She was officially charged on 20 December 2010. Tymoshenko denied the money had been spent on pensions and insisted it was still at the disposal of the environment ministry and called the investigation against her a witch-hunt....

...A third criminal case against Tymoshenko in connection with alleged abuse of power during the 2009 Russia–Ukraine gas dispute was opened on 10 April 2011.[215][216] This case was labelled "absurd" by Tymoshenko. On 24 May 2011 prosecutors charged her in connection with this (third criminal) case. She was not arrested....

...Tymoshenko's trial (she was charged in May 2011) over abuse of office over a natural gas imports contract signed with Russia in January 2009 started on 24 June 2011.... On 5 August 2011 Tymoshenko was arrested for 'ridiculing the court proceedings'... On 11 October 2011, the court found Tymoshenko guilty of abuse of power, sentenced her to seven years in jail, and ordered to pay the state $188 million. She was convicted for exceeding her powers as Prime Minister, by ordering Naftogaz to sign the gas deal with Russia in 2009.] The judge also banned her from seeking elected office for her period of imprisonment (disqualifying her from participation in the 2012 parliamentary and 2015 presidential elections)....

...A 2001 criminal case on state funds embezzlement and tax evasion charges against Tymoshenko was reopened in Ukraine on 24 October 2011. Since late October 2011 Ukrainian prosecutors are investigating whether Tymoshenko was involved in the murder of Yevhen Shcherban. With that Tymoshenko was under criminal investigation for ten criminal acts; prosecutors have claimed she had committed more criminal acts. On 4 November 2011 the Ukrainian tax police resumed four criminal cases against Tymoshenko. She was charged for these cases on 10 November 2011...
You can see for yourself exactly what is going on- Tymoshenko is a pro-democracy former businesswomen who rejects the communist approach of keeping the masses poor while the elites proposer, and the elites manipulated the voting processes and the masses to win, and then turned around and have imprisoned her and likely will kill her while she is in prison. She's one of the good guys and deserves our support. Under Yankukovych, the President of Ukraine has assumed more and more powers and has acted in an ever more autocratic manner, demonstrating that he intends to centralize more power, freedom, and property under his control and his allies control so that they can live good live while the people of Ukraine are poor and taken advantage of. Equally before the law, rule of law, and civil-rights protections have been trampled on, investment in Ukraine has dropped off considerably, economic growth has staggered to a halt, and relations have fallen apart with most nations of the world.

Yulia Tymoshenko is a political prisoner, and deserves the support of every decent nation and the support of the Ukrainian people.


For more information, check out this story from the Telegraph, or a recent letter that Yulia Tymoshenko was able to get out from prison and publish in the Wall Street Journal.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Evidence is Mounting that Obamacare is All Sorts of Corrupt?

In several earlier posts I have been critical of Obamacare because it attacks life, liberty, and property and because it represents the growing tyranny of the federal government. But somehow I missed an important reason why we should oppose giving the national government more control over our healthcare system- power should not be concentrated in the hands of government and government officials because when this happens it increases by considerable amounts the chances that this power will be used in a corrupt manner. And we're seeing that under President Barack Obama (Democrat) and a Congress that was run by Nancy Pelosi (Democrat), legislation like Obamacare was passed into law that is now leading to considerable amounts of corruption in our system.

Corruption takes makes many forms, but in this case, we have to consider whether or not Democrats, led by President Obama and Democrats in Congress, passed legislation that allows and encourages more corruption in our nation and also whether or not these same Democrats continue to be encouraging and supporting of corruption. Corruption is seen usually in several ways- trading in influence, patronage, cronyism, electoral fraud, and kickbacks.

It was my suspicion several months ago that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a corrupt piece of legislation designed to transfer property and choice from those who have it to those who want it. There would be those who would not want to be part of this process who would then ask for waivers, and it was my suspicion that these waivers would be given out based on political considerations- in other words, they would be given to groups that support the Democratic Party, Obama in particular, or to companies who had access and connections to those Democratic party officials who were making the decisions on the waivers, likely because of their campaign donations. So I started to do some research on the issue- as I stated, the research was by no means an exhaustive list of evidence but did end up being some pretty fair anecdotal evidence that those who are receiving waivers from Obamacare are those who donated large amounts of money to Barack Obama. Check out the post for my little bit of research on this issue. Usually where there is lots of smoke there is a fire, and it turns out the smoke I saw is now being seen by others.

The Daily Caller is reporting that:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers. Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments.
This is not shocking news to me- Nancy Pelosi was the Speaker of the House and Barack Obama is still our President, and both are Democrats, and of course the kick-backs will be going primarily to areas that supported them, whether they be in Pelosi's district or union allies or local government units that vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

I think Mona Charen from RealClearPolitics really understands the nature of Obamacare- it is designed to move us away from a nation built on equality and laws to a nation built on power and men:
....There are rumblings of suspicion that HHS has shown favoritism -- labor unions have received some 26 percent of waivers while comprising only 12 percent of workers. As Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee remarked, "What does it say about the feasibility of the health care law when the administration needs to exempt over 1,000 health plans from its own law?"

A few wags have suggested that the HHS grant the rest of the country a waiver and be done with it. But the implications of what Professor Richard Epstein has called "government by waiver" aren't funny. As Congress has ceded more and more power to regulatory agencies, the opportunities for abuse of power multiply. Writing in National Affairs, Epstein notes that among the companies and entities that successfully sought waivers from Obamacare's provisions were PepsiCo, Foot Locker, the Pew Charitable Trusts, many local chapters of the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, and numerous public-employee unions.

But, asks Epstein, "(W)hat about employers who do not have the resources to navigate the waiver process? What about those lacking the political connections to make their concerns heard in Washington? And what happens when the one-year waivers run out? Will they be renewed? Under what conditions? And what rights will insurers have to waive then in order to avoid going out of business?"

The world of Obamacare is no place for the little guy.

The danger of waiver power is that it will be used differentially, giving one private entity a competitive advantage over another. The company denied a waiver can bring suit -- but litigation is expensive and slow....

....Because there are so few avenues of recourse when we live under a government by waiver, we are forced, as Epstein warns, to trust in the good judgment of bureaucrats and elected officials: "The fate of our rights and liberties is left to the wisdom and discretion of individuals; we are therefore governed by men, not by laws."

In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." It will also cease to deserve that "high appellation" if we submit to the unreviewable discretion of agencies.
There really are two visions of the future of America being pushed for by the two parties in our nation- one vision pushes for a nation built on laws (although you might disagree with some of those laws) and another vision pushes for a nation built on the rule of powerful men (although you might agree with some of the rules these men establish). It's a tough choice for many- side with the strongman who promises a better future, or side with the lawman who promises a nation built on law. Many will be seduced, and our nation will be less because of it.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Fear and Doubt are the Enemies of Success and Advancement: A Defense of Capitalism and Free Markets

A a recent article that Charles Moore wrote, I think he put his finger on exactly what is going on today- the success and advance of the twin threats of fear and doubt. Moore, who is a British journalist and former editor of The Daily Telegraph, in an article about Margaret Thatcher, wrote that after the long boom and success of capitalism and free market economics that "the worm of doubt entered the system":

You borrowed all the money needed for the price of a house. This made you, in your mind, though not in full fact, an owner. Because the value of the house was rising, it also made you, again in your mind, richer. The bank, which actually owned the house, found clever ways of mixing and selling on the loans it had granted so that it, too, felt richer. Governments, happy at rising revenues, thought it was their business to make sure that when the symptoms of high risk began to present themselves, they were suppressed.... (then) the roof fell in... (and now) when people now hear words like globalization or capitalism... they feel slightly sick.
Free market economics and capitalism did not lead our nation to failure- rather, during its wild success at making millions around the world more prosperous over the past centuries, communism and socialism and fascism latched on to it, sucking from its prosperity to feed its sick aims like parasites, and over time, many smart people began to become confused and unable to see the parasites from the concepts that they latched on.

Where free markets and capitalism created wealth and encouraged personal responsibility, governments and elites put in place rules and regulations which weakened the foundations of the system, subsidized risky behavior such as sub-prime mortgages and leveraging investments, and gave out handouts to favored industries and distorted the market by doing so. When banks, businesses, and corporations operated in a free market of capitalism, they could succeed or fail based on their own efforts and innovation; but in the new markets, which were no longer capitalistic or free, government subsidies and spending and lobbying and regulation and rules determined whether or not a business, corporation, or bank was successful or failed. And although this was no longer capitalism or free markets, but rather markets once free now twisted to the aims of elites and socialists and communists and fascists, many smart people became critical of the markets or capitalism because of the failures of the government bureaucrats who were twisting and corrupting the system.

And then the parasites of leftism began to weaken and kill the free market and capitalism, and the people cried out 'capitalism and free markets are failing us'- when it wasn't the free markets and capitalism that failed, but rather the people who failed the system.

They were led to this failure by fear and doubt- they did not believe in the hand of the God and the freedom of individuals and life, liberty, and the protection of private property.

The people (or The People, as leftists call them) feared that although they were becoming prosperous and their lives were rapidly improving, they were somehow falling behind others who were advancing more rapidly. Rather than looking at why they were successful in the free market capitalism- because of their hard work, innovation, and yes, luck- they instead demanded government policies to hold back others and help out themselves, corrupting the very system that had brought them so far. They doubted that if people were free and made free decisions, they would make 'the right decisions'- that is, the decisions that they would make if they controlled the other people and had power over them (their definition of 'right decisions').

Rather than just letting go and trusting that the unseen hand of God, trusting to the thousands and millions of individual decisions, and working to ensure that private property rights are strengthened and respected, they doubted that this giant experiment of capitalism and a free market would work, and feared that they would somehow fall behind others in material wealth if they didn't vote for and support people who promised to corrupt the system and abuse the system and circumvent the system. Many people trusted and believed in the power of men to control other men and redistribute property to other men, and in so doing rejected free markets and capitalism.

Fear and doubt came to the people's mind every time there was a recession, or even during periods when great wealth was created but wasn't immediately distributed evenly. The people reacted to the Great Depression by doubting that the free market would correct (as it had done in the 1920's and dozens of times before in the 1800's) and feared that he return to prosperity wouldn't come fast enough- and so they worked to destroy the system, corrupt the system, and make the market less free- and the results were a slight recession during into a decade long destruction of wealth.

And today, government policies and regulations and taxes and laws which corrupted the free market and corroded private property rights have let the worm of doubt creep once more into the people's minds, and in their fear that maybe they won't get to loot the dying Republic of its wealth they vote for Democrats who promise to manage the downfall and distribute the ever-decreasing wealth in the system to their supporters and voters and friends.

To return to success and advance again as a nation in wealth and happiness, we must reject doubt of the free market system and capitalism and trust the people- we need to trust and believe again that the thousands of decisions of free people will create more wealth and make more people happy, and reject those who suggest that having a smaller number of elites make those decisions for us is better. We need to let go of our fear that if we don't control the market and the system that you'll lose out, and instead work hard, innovate, save your money, and invest wisely.

UPDATE 12/7/11: President Obama delivered a major speech today on the economy, in which he expressed his doubt that the capitalist system could continue to provide wealth and prosperity for many and work to make society more equal, and from this place of fear he instead wants to trust himself and his fellow men to run a better system that will somehow do a better job of creating wealth and distributing it than having free people make free decisions.

Via memeorandum, in his Remarks by the President on the Economy in Osawatomie, Kansas, we read the following fear and doubt from US President Barack Obama, one-term Democrat. These are selections from the speech- (you can read the whole thing yourself here if you want):
My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried -- no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success -- from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor.
In this passage, Obama communicates to us that his parents believed in capitalism and free markets and personal responsibility and liberty and protection of property. And furthermore, Obama knows that this system worked. But yet, he has this nagging doubt and fear...
But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.
He doesn't BELIEVE in capitalism. He has no faith in people, freedom, liberty, and rights. It's clear he doesn't have any hope that people will make the 'right decisions' (the decisions he would make) and he wants to therefore control other people. He continues:
But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country.
And it is around here that we get to the heart of the matter- in the last quarter of his speech, after ripping on capitalism and freedom for 3/4's of the speech, that we finally here what he wants to do...
So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want.

We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools. Of course, those productive investments cost money. They’re not free. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.
So, in summary, here is Obama's alternative to free markets and capitalism- give him more power. Give him the power and authority to tell employers what to pay their employees, give him the power and authority to combine big government with big business and big labor (ie, fascism), give him and his cronies the power to give money to favored constituent groups to fund pet projects of vanity (palaces, statues, etc), and the power to demand that all of these decisions are paid for by someone else who does not want to pay for it- to use the power of guns to the head to make people give up cash to Obama and his people to feed their wrong ideas about the power of men to control others for their benefit.

Obama is wrong. He needs to be defeated- not just politically, but his ideas and beliefs need to be rejected by all good people and good citizens and patriots and he and his policies need to be forever rejected in decent society. We must instead look to capitalism and freedom and liberty and property protection to our future, and not look backward to the sort of tyranny that Obama is proposing.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Pay Czar Is Unconstitutional

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Michael McConnell asserts that President Obama's pay czar is unconstitutional and that all of his acts and activities are in the violation of the rule of law in our nation. McConnell is a smart guy- professor at Stanford University Law School, director of its Constitutional Law Center, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a former federal judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals- so he kind of knows his stuff.

Obama's "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg recently called up top executives at private companies that work in the United States and told them that he had decided to slash their pay in half. Where does he get the just and legitimate power to do this?

As part of the hastily enacted and seldom-read legislation establishing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to "require each TARP recipient to meet appropriate standards for executive compensation." To carry out this task, last June the Treasury promulgated an emergency "Interim Final Rule," waiving ordinary requirements for a public comment period.

As part of this emergency rule, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner created the office of "Special Master" for compensation, delegated his TARP authority to set compensation standards to this officer, and appointed Mr. Feinberg (a lawyer and mediator) to this position, without obtaining Senate confirmation.
This is the government that will soon be deciding what is 'appropriate' energy use, 'appropriate' spending on healthcare, and 'appropriate' content for radio. Read the language of the kind of bills that Democrats are working to pass as laws in our nation- they are putting in unelected, unconfirmed bureaucrats who will run our lives for us. This is not protecting our freedom and property better- this is tyranny.
Therein lies the problem. The Appointments clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 2, provides that all "Officers of the United States" must be appointed by the president "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." This means subject to confirmation, except that "the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment" of "inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

There is no doubt that Mr. Feinberg is an "officer" of the United States. The Supreme Court has defined this term (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) as "any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States." Mr. Feinberg signed last week's orders setting pay levels for executives at Bank of America, AIG, Chrysler Financial, Citigroup, GMAC, General Motors and Chrysler. They have the force of law and are surely an exercise of "significant authority" pursuant to an Act of Congress. He is not a mere "employee," acting at the direction of a superior. That means his office is subject to the requirements of the Appointments Clause.

While somewhat more disputable, Mr. Feinberg's is probably an "inferior" officer, defined as one subject to supervision and removal by a member of the cabinet. Although he has substantial discretion and independence, Mr. Feinberg reports to the secretary of the Treasury, who can fire him any time for any reason. This means that Congress could, if it wished, vest the appointment of the pay czar in the secretary, without any need for Senate confirmation.

But Congress has not done so. On the contrary, it vested the authority to implement TARP's compensation provision in the secretary of the Treasury. The secretary may sub-delegate that power to someone else—but that someone must be an "officer" properly appointed "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
In other words, the pay czar in unconstitutional.
The power to set compensation at large American businesses is especially subject to potential abuse, favoritism, arbitrariness, or political manipulation. It is no reflection on Kenneth Feinberg, who has a sterling reputation and who appears to have approached these sensitive duties with a spirit of commendable integrity, to say that the checks and balances of the Constitution should be scrupulously observed. They were not. Because he is not a properly appointed officer of the United States, Mr. Feinberg's executive compensation decisions were unconstitutional.
You vote Democrat, you get a government that supports the violation of our constitution and a government that takes away liberty, property, and life. You get a tyrannical government, the kind that our founding fathers faught against.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Daily Education & Technology News for Schools 04/12/2011

  • Winners for imagine cup:

    Thanks so much!

    This afternoon in Redmond, WA, the nation's best and brightest tech students gathered for the ninth annual Imagine Cup 2011 U.S. Finals. Starting with a field of more than 74,000 students, the final 12 teams presented their life-changing projects to a panel of elite judges, tackling diverse issues from eliminating malaria to promoting alternative energy. After an intense weekend of presentations and eliminations, the winners were named:


    * 1st Place, Software Design: Team Note-Taker, Arizona State University. Project: "Note-Taker" - A portable, assistive technology to help vision-impaired students take notes in class.

    * 1st Place, Game Design - Windows/Xbox: Team Bloom, Tribeca Flashpoint Media Arts Academy. Project: "Spero" - A game focused on alternative energy solutions and educating people on how to live healthier lives.

    * 1st Place, Game Design - Mobile: Team Big Impact Bear, University of Houston. Project: "Forest Gun" - A game that aims to prevent and reverse deforestation in the world.

    * 1st Place, People's Choice Award - Software Design: Team BearPaw, Brigham Young University. Project: A mobile and cloud solution for ultrasound images that is cost-effective, widely available and easy to implement.

    * 1st Place, People's Choice Award - Game Design: Team Bloom, Tribeca Flashpoint Media Arts Academy. Project: "Spero" - A game focused on alternative energy solutions and educating people on how to live healthier lives.

    tags: education learning programming

  • A website about helping teens with medicine abuse. A good specific website from the national association of school nurses.

    "Multiple national surveys point to the disturbing abuse of prescription (Rx) and over-the-counter (OTC) medicines, like OTC cough medicine, among today's teens. Five percent of high school teens admit to having abused cough medicine containing dextromethorphan, or DXM, to get high in the past year."

    tags: education drug-abuse health_teacher health

  • From this organization:

    "We’re launching a new “60 Second Lecture” campaign in conjunction with the Ford Focus Global Test Drive, and many interesting individuals from the PresidentAmy Gutmann of the University of Pennsylvania to Dean Thomas Robertson of the Wharton School have already agreed to share their insights."

    tags: education

  • Ann McDonald is building a very nice wiki with so many resources! She is an excellent Flat Classroom teacher.

    tags: education ipad apps

  • Excellent article about a struggle to ban cell phones in schools and why it is not working.

    tags: education cellphone

  • Nice Social Media Policy Best Practices discussion for nonprofits. The social media policy is related to your strategy. Most schools only have a strategy to prevent litigation and certainly, that is a factor as we look at schools and yet - we're not there yet on this discussion. I have to think at some point we're either going to have platforms that do a better job of protecting the privacy of minors or we're going to have to grow up in how we deal with these tools.

    tags: education

  • Helen Harvey's Flat Classroom participation received a write up in her local paper. An important part of each of our projects is to issue press releases to gain media attention for the schools that break down the walls.

    tags: education flatclassroom

  • So we, as teachers, are characterized like this from Seth Godin:

    "We train kids to deal with teachers in a certain way: Find out what they want, and do that, just barely, because there are other things to work on. Figure out how to say back exactly what they want to hear, with the least amount of effort, and you are a 'good student.'"

    Are we the kind of teachers who have to move past or someone that kids are moved with.

    Do we have a limiting mindset?

    tags: education teaching

  • April 20th from 2-3 pm EDT - a connected citizens webinar about their new report "Connected Citizens: The Power, Peril and Potential of Networks"

    sign up for this event here.

    tags: education

  • If you have no idea what network-centric grantmaking is and you write grants or work with fundraising - this blog post is an important read for you. (Buy Beth's book - the networked nonprofit - it is great.)

    Themes as per Beth:

    These themes include:

    1. Listening to and consulting the crowds: Actively listening to online conversations and openly asking for advice.

    2. Designing for serendipity: Creating environments, in person and online, where helpful connections can form.

    3. Bridging differences: Deliberately connecting people with different perspectives.

    4. Catalyzing mutual support: Helping people directly help each other.

    5. Providing handrails for collective action: Giving enough direction for individuals to take effective and coordinated action.

    tags: education edu_news

  • join the crowdsourced keynote at the BC educational technology users group. Here are instructions:

    We Want Your Videos
    April 7, 2011 By grantpotter Leave a Comment
    Share
    PrintFriendly

    In June 2011 the BC educational technology users’ group (etug) will be hosting a Spring Workshop in Nelson, BC. The theme? OPEN 4 LEARNING.

    In the spirit of openness we would like to invite YOU to participate in a crowd-sourced keynote. Our vision is to create a keynote video that highlights the collective voice on the value of openness.

    Here’s what we would LOVE for you to do:

    Create a short video/interview/montage answering one or two of the following questions:

    1. What is the value of openness?

    2. What examples of openness stand out to you as being valuable/worthwhile?

    3. WHY do you believe in the value of open education?

    If you are interested in participating we would love to have you be a part of this exciting opportunity, to collectively gather voices across the globe in answering the question “what is the value of openness”. Have fun with your video – the more creative the better.

    .
    Upload your video to:
    http://www.dropitto.me/etug
    password: open
    .
    Deadline: May 9, 2011

    tags: education opensource

  • A report on the state of elearning in Australia. Every collection must comprise 40% free content.


    Again, this article proves that if you're in education and not reading Stephen Downes' feature-rich blog, you're missing out.

    tags: education elearning

  • Colleges actually spend LESS educating students than students are paying. From Stephen Downes as cited from the Chronicle of Higher Education April 8, 2011.

    tags: education college edu_trends

  • Study Blue website to let you make flashcards to study and put on your ipod, ipad, cell phone, etc. Over 12,000 have recommended via facebook. Facebook is linking with learning as are mobiles.

    tags: education learning

  • Ted Talks for Language Lovers.

    tags: education language_teacher

  • Interesting discussion about "blue blood" and the quest for truth in an age where even Googling something may not change minds. By Bob Sprankle

    tags: education learning

  • Tara from the TLC (Tech + Library + Classroom) Blog posts her iPad apps she loves.

    I think the I write words app is very interesting for handwriting. I wonder if the fact that they are using their finger is a drawback but think that it will help the kids take the strokes the same way.

    tags: education

  • Important study surveying students about empowered education with emerging technologies.

    tags: education learning

  • Assessing the impact of iPads on education one year later by Sam Gliksman on the Ipad educators ning (hat tip to Julie Lindsay for this information.)

    tags: education ipad

  • Final Teams in US Imagine Cup:

    Software Design

    TTHV - Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, Central Connecticut State University
    Uca Ursus - University of Central Arkansas
    Lifelens - Anderson School of Management, Harvard School of Business, University of California San Diego, University of California Davis, University of Central Florida
    Note-Taker - Arizona State University

    Game Design –Windows/XBOX (XNA):

    Bloom - Tribeca Flashpoint Academy
    Plump Pixel - California State University Chico
    Righteous Noodle - University of Houston
    XozGaming - Lick-Wilmerding High School

    Game Design Mobile (Zune/Phone)

    Big Impact Bear - University of Houston
    EDO - Arizona State University
    Team AAMP - University of Houston
    Team Mintrus - Columbia College in Chicago, University of Louisville


    Read Alfred's blog for more.

    tags: education computerscience

  • Alfred Thompson's ongoing coverage of the Imagine Cup. I love this interview with the kids who invented a program about fighting a global pandemic.

    tags: education gaming computerscience

  • Yes, nonprofits are seeing success on Facebook. Beth Kanter, nonprofit social media guru, has a guest post from Kyle Andrei of Idealware on their findings about Facebook and nonprofits. Fundraisers, schools, and facebook fans read up.

    tags: education fundraising nonprofit

  • I love this! Gmail motion was Google's april fools day prank and many people fell for it. Heck, if I'd had time, I might have played with it but after thinking I realized what day it was! Tee hee.

    But a lot of people WANTED this -even though the gestures were designed to be silly (who is going to do a jumping jack for making a star on an email.) so ICT used a kinect camera and actually made Gmail actions work! Watch the video and enjoy.

    People actually WANT this just not with the exaggerated motions and definitely not a shot that requires the camera to see your feet.

    tags: education google gmail gesture

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Washington Teacher Faces Reprisal From DC's Departing Principal & Instructional Superintendent

Being the author of The Washington Teacher blog has its advantages and disadvantages. For as many advantages as you can imagine, there are just as many disadvantages especially in the workplace. As I once testified before the DC City Council, DC Public Schools have historically been a punitive place in which to work. Even today, fear of retaliation is still rampant in our schools. Due to this it is understandable why many teachers and related school personnel often look the other way when illegal or inappropriate misconduct or ethical violations occur especially when it involves school administrators. Failure to adhere to this ‘honor amongst thieves mentality’, will likely leave you ostracized, intimidated, threatened, excessed, placed on a 90-day plan, and sometimes with the worst school assignment or even fired .

Blogging about DC’s departing principals landed me a special visit on Wednesday afternoon from DC’s Instructional superintendent- Barbara Adderley. A little after 3 p.m., an announcement was made on our school loud speaker that I should meet our departing principal at Garfield elementary school in her office. I quickly obliged this request to go to the principal’s second floor office to meet with her under what I thought was a work-related matter. To my surprise, there was a woman sitting in one of the chairs in the principal’s office who indicated in response to my inquiry that she did not know where the principal was. I thought to myself that it was odd that the principal had left this lady in her office unattended.

I followed up by going to the main level to locate the principal. When I did, I questioned if she wanted to meet with me and was told yes by her. She motioned me back to her office and promptly closed the door with the unknown woman still sitting in her office. I am clear this meeting was held due to my writing the "DC Principal Shuffle". Initially, the principal began what appeared to me to be a question and answer session about my blog. She queried whether my blog was somehow affiliated with The Washington Post and was unaware of the name of my blog. At one point, Adderley chimed in: Do you know who I am? I responded a resounding No because for me this was the first time meeting her this school year. Adderley took over the meeting seemingly with the non-verbal approval of the school administrator. Questions came in rapid succession from Dr. Adderley and she seemed particularly curious about how I had written a piece especially since as she stated I had not confirmed the accuracy of my story with either her or Garfield’s departing principal. When I would not name my sources for the story , Adderley suggested that the only other person who could have informed me was Chancellor Rhee. Rheely, I thought to myself, how interesting?

In my view, this meeting quickly deteriorated and seemed to be more of a
browbeating and intimidation session of which I was at first an unsuspecting participant. When I realized that I had become entangled in this kangaroo court somehow, I quickly announced to both administrators that I would not continue this discussion without a representative. After all I added that our principal had her own representative in Dr. Adderley. Adderley looked perplexed and made it clear that as the administrator she would have the final say whether the meeting ended or not. My response was emphatic that while I may not control whether the meeting ended, I would not be speaking any further on this issue and in essence- she would be talking to herself. Of course, she ended the meeting subsequent to this.

This meeting reminded me of a similar meeting called by Chancellor Rhee only last school year on March 6th in which I was summoned to the Chancellor’s office under what I was advised was a work related matter. Of course, I made the choice to take two representatives with me. I believe that this meeting was called due to my political activism, outspokenness in the media, participation at a city council hearing and at a rally to protest school closures. Later I captured this experience in an article titled: “ Political Activism Gets a Thumbs Down From Chancellor Rhee “ in the online publication of The Mail’s March 9, 2008 issue @ www.dcwatch.com

Both of these personal experiences within DC Schools got me to thinking that these acts by Adderley and Rhee constitute what is known as an abuse of power. As much as I hate to say it, this is the reality in our schools. This reality is the reason we have some employees who choose to please their bosses even at the expense of our students while others choose to do what is right at the risk of displeasure from their boss and the possibility of facing consequences and repercussions as a result. Someone like Adderley who makes the choice to abuse his or her power, makes me question, Is this the type of manager we want to lead us in this new era of reform? You tell me? (posted by The Washington Teacher).

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

My Editorial on Obama's Incompetence in Libya

Over the last two weeks in Libya, important events were occurring. There was an important revolt against a ruling power, a revolt that was inspired by events in nearby nations and that was driven by forces including a desire for more liberty, a desire for better protection of property from takings by the government, and a desire for more protections of life. Of course there are other forces swirling around too in Libya- the whole life, liberty, and property line also needs to have added to it tribal, religious, and other overtones- but the idea is that there is an important revolution occurring in Libya today.

Opposing the revolutionaries are those who like the status quo in Libya, those who are part of the tyrannical government system, those whose livelihoods are based on the looting of their fellow citizens, those who feel that elites and overlords and government agents should control what people do in their lives, and those who abuse human lives with cruel and unjust judicial systems. These people have important skin in the game too- if the tables are turned on them, they die and their way of life dies, and so they are going to fight tooth and nail and to the last bloody body to keep their unearned gains.

And then there is probably the most important group in Libya, that of the middle. Everyone always remembers the American revolutionaries and the British and Loyalist forces, but few ever think about the great percentage of people who sat out the opening rounds of the American Revolution and watched events before deciding which way to commit. There is a large number of people in Libya who are on the sidelines, watching- although they might agree with the revolutionaries, if the revolution is successful, they may not gain personally and they may have less wealth or power, or although they might agree with the established power, but they may live in an area where the revolution is doing well or may think that long term the revolution will be successful. There are a great number of people in Libya sitting on the sidelines- generals, political leaders, business leaders, and teachers- who are trying to figure out which way this whole thing is going to break so that they can be on the winning side.

The United States had the opportunity two weeks ago to put pressure on all three to achieve some sort of an outcome, and because of the incompetence of its primary political figure in charge of international events, the President, it has failed to do so and only now, several weeks later, is it finally making weak policy decisions on this important event.

This is an important event, you see- Libya is a significant oil producer, Libya has over 6 million people in it, Libya is in a strategic area of the world, and Libya has been a thorn in the side of the United States for years as an active supporter of worldwide terrorism. It is a nation that could be better- it could be a more reliable producer of cheaper oil for us, it could be a nation that has fewer human rights abuses and more political freedom and happiness for its own people, it is a nation that could serve as important source of stability and support in the region, or it could be simply removed from being a thorn in our side and stop supporting worldwide terrorism.

It isn't guaranteed, of course, that these positive events can and will happen- one must always weigh the possible positives of the future with the current situation- but as Libya was a 'bad' nation who wasn't our ally, it can't get much worse (this contrasts to my position on Egypt which was that it was a 'not totally bad nation who was our ally and could get worse').

When this revolution started up several weeks ago, there was every possibility for the United States to put pressure on all three factions working in Libya. Now, of course that pressure needed to be subtle and applied in the right manner by the right people, but I think my case has been laid out strongly that some action should have been taken in some way as soon as possible in this revolution in Libya.

All three factions- the revolutionaries, those in power, and the significant middle in between- could all have been acted on. The revolutionaries could have been provided with support- moral, international, actual arms and weapons, etc. Those in power could have been pressured through sanctions, embargoes, stern words, seizure of assets, or threats of more by moving military assets into the area, and this may have moderated its response and taken off of the table such actions as bombing civilians or hiring foreign mercenaries. And the moderates and those who hadn't decided which faction to support would have observed these reactions and made the call that the winning side and stronger horse to bet on in this revolution was the revolutionaries, thus swelling their ranks and leading them to quicker and less bloody victory.

But Democratic President Barack Obama did not act quickly, surely, or strongly. Other nations did- the British seized assets, the Chinese moved warships into the region, the French acted diplomatically- but not the world's greatest superpower and the one with the most capacity to act in a positive manner. Instead, Obama did nothing, he dithered, he went to basketball games and concerts, and he did not exercise the leadership that was so critical during this timer period.

His failures resulted in a longer, more drawn out, less sure conflict, one in which the moderates saw the President of the United States doing nothing and so decided to support the established powers, one in which the revolutionaries saw their morale drop due to lack of support, one in which the established powers in Libya believed that is was okay to use deadly force and hire international mercenaries to keep control.

The fact that Obama is acting now to issue weak international language condemning Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi does not improve my regard for him or his actions; it instead makes me regard him worse. If Obama was going to oppose Qaddafi, he should have opposed him- if Obama was going to support Qaddafi, he should have supported him- but instead it appears that the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the greatest military force ever was a confused, unprincipled, weak, inept, and incompetent moderate who is simply waiting on the sidelines trying to look good in the end rather than being a strong, principled, competent leader who takes action, even if that action is a strong no-action.

President Barack Obama must be removed from office sooner rather than later because he is not a good leader and is incompetent and his failures are leading to a world that is less free, less secure, and more dangerous to the living. He may be a fine father and a good person and a great community organizer, but it was and continues to be a mistake to have him as President of the United States.

UPDATE: Something about this subject must inspire deeper thoughts about the President and what sort of person should occupy that office, because Richard Fernandez over at Belmont Club has also penned a great editorial on this very subject titled The Root of All Evil- check it out!

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Due Diligence Has Been A Long Time Coming For Some In DC Schools

This is a reprint from an education blog titled conducting the inner light (below). Even though it was posted on November 21, I think it deserves a' look see' by my readers as it provides yet another perspective into the Michelle Rhee, Kevin Johnson and St Hope story. Many DC parents thank their lucky stars that KJ didn't get to take over DC's Eastern Senior High School here as Rhee might have liked due to their own due diligence .  Here's to DC parents who were pro-active in protecting their community.

As critical thinkers, it is imperative that we review the Inspector General's report and transcripts and not simply take the word of Rhee's spokesperson or others who want to sweep the details of this story under the rug. Conducting the inner light blogger has done an excellent analysis of what's wrong with this story as it more than just a sex scandal. I implore you to judge for yourselves by reviewing the Inspector General's report, transcripts and other links from the Sacramento Bee in detail by clicking on the respective names within the body of this story below. After all, isn't it time for all of us to exercise due diligence ? It's been a long time coming.

Definition of due diligence: 
1. An investigation or audit of a potential investment. Due diligence serves to confirm all material facts in regards to a sale. 
2. Generally, due diligence refers to the care a reasonable person should take before entering in an agreement or transaction with another party. 
Investopedia Commentary
Due diligence is essentially a way of preventing unnecessary harm to either party involved in a transaction. 
Reprinted from education blog conducting the inner light

"It is interesting to me how the Michelle Rhee/Kevin Johnson situation is playing out in the newspapers and blogs.  For those of you not keeping up suffice it to say that in a congressional investigation it has been revealed that Michelle Rhee acted as a fixer/damage controller for her fiance when he was accused by three girls of inappropriate touching.  I won’t go into the allegations but refer you to the articles via The Washington Teacher’s Blog. Candi Peterson has aggregated all the newsources beautifully and this allows you to read each and come to your own conclusion.

Personally, I think the sex part of this scandal is somewhat of a misdirection.  Not that I think the charges are groundless – read not only the Inspector General’s report but also the transcripts, as reported by The Sacramento News and Review , of Johnson’s phone conversation with another girl (not one of the accusers but a girl from 10 years before when Johnson was still a player on the Suns) and it will be hard to avert your eyes or find any excuse for him – but I think that there is much more damning evidence in the IG report than sex.

I cannot recommend enough reading the entire report right down to the interview of Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez, the former employee of St. Hope Academy Charter Schools.  Your jaw will drop, your eyes will pop out of your head.  No matter how you try to play this report it looks stinky.  Just a for instance: Michelle Rhee was listed as a board member of St. Hope. Simultaneously she was listed as: the consultant for the New Teacher Project, the consultant for the reconstruction bridge span, the consultant for the reconstruction of the HR department, while on another memo she was listed as the COO. In yet another letter she was listed as the President and Johnson as the CEO. So many hats for one person and absolutely no conflict of interest, is there, in being both a board member and a consultant for the very board of which you are a member. Sarcasm in that last sentence.

The discrepencies are legion in this report.  Just read the summary of charges.  According to these charges Johnson used Americorps money and Americorps volunteers in complete violation of the government contract and volunteer contract.  These volunteers are supposed to be used for the community and as tutors for students in schools. According to the report none of the volunteers did a single hour of tuturing for their time at St. Hope.  What they did do was wash KJ’s car, clean his place (Johnson told one employee that the Americorps volunteers were there for “grunt work”), worked as clerks in the St. Hope store, canvassed the neighborhoods for candidates for local political offices, used them to solicit funds for St. Hope – even traveling to NYC on the Americorps money to do so.  Johnson also misappropriated Americorps funds to pay SHA staff.

Here was one of the most incredible things I found in this report: the volunteers, who were on a stipend of around $4000 plus dollars, were charged rent for their housing.  The housing was owned by (wait for the drumroll please) The St. Hope Development Corporation – they were charged $300-$350 a month.  SHA never revealed to federal authorities their relationship to SHD (you would think, though, that they would change the name of their corporation just a tad so that no one would notice – you know, like Enron).

The sex allegations are here, as well.  I don’t see how anyone can dismiss them as groundless nor as the accusations of people who hold a political motive.  It is obvious throughout this report that there was a culture of abuse. The culture of power that Johnson practiced (one person describes him as micromanaging every thing right down to the position of all the office furniture) is one in which abuse is the predominate factor.

Here is what disturbs me after reading this report: Michelle Rhee tried to bring St. Hope Charter schools into our school system to take over some schools.  She tried to do this AFTER this report had been filed.  It was only due to the due diligence on the part of the parents of those schools that would have been overtaken (deliberate use of word here) and their objection to SHA coming in because of what they found out in their own investigations.

Due diligence in regards to Ms. Rhee has been missing in DC from the very beginning.  From the vetting process on down she has been given a free ride by Adrian Fenty,  the Washington Post, many on the city council, and a host of other people who believe she is “doing what has to be done.”  Discrepencies in what she says and does have been ignored or explained away at almost every turn. She contradicts herself, denies, changes facts to suit her need and all of this is dismissed as quibbles on the part of those of us who have had worries about her methods and the true nature of her plans.  OK, fine, than read this report and explain to me how anyone could think to bring in this corrupt, unethicial organization to run any of our schools? She knew about the charges in that report. Given her status as one of the three main operators of St. Hope – again read the report and Ms. Wong-Hernandez’ interview to see the number of titles Rhee held – there is no way she can claim ignorance to these charges.

That is the real scandal that should be on the front page of every paper.  Diligence is now due."

Posted by The Washington Teacher featuring Candi Peterson, blogger in residence, story courtesy of conducting the inner light, definition/commentary courtesy of dictionary.com

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Is Chancellor Michelle Rhee Fit For Duty ?

As many of you may not know Mike Debonis, writer for the Washington City Paper tipped us off in his Thursday 'Loose Lips' column about Chancellor Michelle Rhee's quote on RIF'ed teachers which appeared in Fast Company magazine. I read Loose Lips weekly because Mike is a good source for local news here in Washington, DC. He often quotes The Washington Teacher education blog and gives updates on the happenings in education rhee-form. Thanks to Mike's heads-up- this story about the ongoing disrespect of DC teachers is making its rounds on nationwide blogs, channel 4 news, Fox 5 news (on Friday and Saturday), channel 7 and channel 9 news, and The Washington Post. This story aired again tonight at 6 pm and at 10 pm on channel 5 news.
The piece below is courtesy of The Frustrated Teacher an education blogger from California. This was posted yesterday with a recent update which includes my quote in today's Washington Post. If you haven't already, check out Bill Turque's Wash. Post article below which appeared in the metro section B1. I have to give a shout out for The Frustrated Teacher's coverage of our story and highly recommend you to check out this education blogger from California. We are now bi-coastal. Also, here's the link to the frustrated teacher blogger: http://www.thefrustratedteacher.com/ for your reading pleasure. Finally, here's to Bill Turque for covering this story and to Mike Debonis for linking Rhee's comments in his weekly column. We need more reporters like both of them.

JANUARY 22, 2010

Michelle Rhee: "[They] Hit Children...Had Sex With Children..." Updated


She looks mean
The Washington Teacher, who you should bookmark, is worried Michelle Rhee might be insane. She points us to Jeff Chu at Fast Company as evidence:
Eighteen months after we profiled Washington, D.C., schools chancellor Michelle Rhee ("The Iron Chancellor," September 2008), she still hasn't won union approval of a new contract. After the October layoffs of 266 teachers and staff, the union claimed Rhee used a budget crunch as a pretext for dismissing veteran teachers, since seniority rules don't cover cuts for fiscal reasons. "I got rid of teachers who had hit children, who had had sex with children, who had missed 78 days of school," Rhee says. "Why wouldn't we take those things into consideration?" The release of 2009 test scores was good news for Rhee: Only D.C. and four states showed gains in math for fourth and eighth graders. "We're not good yet," she says, "but I'm seeing the quality of instruction improving."
So, that's Rhee's claim. Hard to believe.

If you go to the article link you can read some comments. One, by someone who claims to be a psychologist, is very worried about Ms. Rhee's mental state. I think there are a few of us who are worried!

Update: Turque's Washington Post article

Rhee says laid-off teachers in D.C. abused kids
By Bill Turque
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 23, 2010

Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee told a national business magazine that some of the 266 teachers laid off in October's budget reductions had sex with children or had hit them, a claim immediately and angrily challenged Friday by leaders of the Washington Teachers Union.

Rhee's comments appear in the February issue of Fast Company, a magazine aimed at young entrepreneurs and change-minded corporate executives. In a brief item, Rhee addressed the union allegation that she contrived the budget crunch to circumvent seniority rules and rid the system of older teachers.

"I got rid of teachers who had hit children, who had had sex with children, who had missed 78 days of school. Why wouldn't we take those things into consideration?" she said.

Rhee declined to provide specific numbers Friday or details to substantiate her remarks about sexual misconduct and teachers striking students. Neither did she respond when asked by e-mail why such teachers were allowed to remain in the school system before the Oct. 2 job cuts. D.C. police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump said late Friday that she was researching the matter.

"I cannot comment at this time," she said.

George Parker, president of the teachers union, called Rhee's statements "reckless" and without basis in fact. The union usually receives notice from the District when a teacher faces disciplinary action, Parker said, and he has received no information that any of the 266 had been under investigation for sexual offenses against children. One of the 266 faced action for administering corporal punishment, he said.

"This paints all teachers as being a group of child molesters who assault children and don't come to work," Parker said. "It damages the reputation of a lot of innocent, hardworking, dedicated teachers."

Rhee said she had made similar statements in other venues, including her October 29 appearance before the D.C. Council. Rhee's sworn testimony then did not mention teachers having sex with students. When council member Michael A. Brown (I-At Large) asked whether she would fight any attempt to reinstate the 266 teachers, Rhee said she would.

"There were some promising or effective people who were [laid off], but there were also some people who, quite frankly, if you saw what was in their file and what their situations have been in this city, you would be shocked," Rhee said. "Just to give a little sampling of this, six of the [laid off] employees had served suspensions for corporal punishment. One was suspended four times, three times for being AWOL."

As Brown attempted to cut her off, she added: "For you to say, 'Would I fight all 266 people coming back into the system,' I would, because a number of these people are not people that you or I would want to put in their classroom."
Word of Rhee's comments to Fast Company rippled through the teaching ranks, with some expressing outrage.

The union's general vice president, Nathan Saunders, said Rhee owes the city's teacher corps an apology. "The statements are not only an affront to every single teacher that was [laid off] but every single teacher currently employed in D.C. public schools," Saunders said. "It's irresponsible, and she needs to be taken to task for it."

Other union activists said they were especially offended by Rhee's remarks, in light of the recent investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by her fiancé, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

Before Johnson's 2008 election, the inspector general for the federal Corporation for National and Community Service filed a criminal referral with the U.S. attorney in Sacramento about Johnson. It included allegations that Johnson had inappropriately touched a minor girl and climbed into bed with a teenager who worked for the charter school he founded. The school received funding from Americorps, which is part of the community service corporation.
Johnson was not charged.

"I'm ready to recommend that Chancellor Rhee submit for a fitness for duty examination because these are the rants of either a mad or very confused woman," Candi Peterson, a teacher and member of the union's board of trustees, said on the Washington Teacher blog.
"This seems to me to be among the most egregious abuses of power I have ever seen. Michelle Rhee is claiming, with NO support/proof that she fired teachers not for the reasons given at the time, but because, now, with no substantiation, she has decided to say that these teachers did horrible things to kids--with no proof (well, there is the one case of corporal punishment, but to paint the entire group with this broad brush is wrong, and maybe criminal)! And if it turns out there is proof of abuse of students by teachers, why were they not fired for it, or at minimum placed on paid administrative leave while it was investigated? Who has the responsibility to see that every student has a safe learning environment? Guess who...The Chancellor (they really need to change that to Superintendent)!

The little people, like you and me, need to speak up and expose these abuses by the powerful. We need to do it more, and with real, paper/envelope letters. Blogs are great (especially Candi's and this one) but we can't really do anything except preach to the choir. I am in California but what happens in DC is illustrative of what is happening nation wide."
Posted by The Washington Teacher blog, Candi Peterson - blogger in residence, story courtesy of The Frustrated Teacher and the Washington Post.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Where are Africa's intellectuals today?

In 1998 the then Deputy South African President,Thabo Mbeki articulated his hopes for an African Renaissance. "...The time has come that we call a halt to the seemingly socially approved deification of the acquisition of material wealth and the abuse of state power to impoverish the people and deny our Continent the possibility to achieve sustainable economic development.Africa cannot renew herself where its upper echelons are a mere parasite on the rest of society, enjoying a self-endowed mandate to use their political power and define the uses of such power such that its exercise ensures that our Continent reproduces itself as the periphery of the world economy, poor, underdeveloped and incapable of development.The African Renaissance demands that we purge ourselves of the parasites and maintain a permanent vigilance against the danger of the entrenchment in African society of this rapacious stratum with its social morality according to which everything in society must be organised materially to benefit the few As we recall with pride the African scholar and author of the Middle Ages, Sadi of Timbuktu, who had mastered such subjects as law, logic, dialectics, grammar and rhetoric, and other African intellectuals who taught at the University of Timbuktu, we must ask the question - where are Africa's intellectuals today?..."A question as pertinent now as it was then.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Five Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Term

Time magazine put together a report on the Five Supreme Court Cases to watch this term. There are some interesting ones in here:

Case #1: Salazar v. Buono
At issue: Whether the government can permit the display of a crucifix on public land as per the Establishment Clause.

An 8-ft.-tall crucifix has stood on an outcrop called Sunrise Rock on the Mojave National Preserve since 1934, but in one of the court's earliest arguments of the term, the Justices will be asked to consider whether it should be removed. The battle has been brewing for a while - the cross, erected without government approval, was slated for removal by the U.S. National Park Service after a request from Buddhists to create their own memorial near the site was denied. But in 2000, Congress hastily passed a law prohibiting the use of public funds to remove the cross, in essence tying the National Park Service's hands. Congress declared the cross a National Memorial in 2002, and in 2003 it gave the small parcel of land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) - the group that constructed the original cross.

My view of this case at first glance is that the 1st amendment does prohibit the government from favoring one group over the other, so I'm inclined to say that to be fair, the cross should be removed. But I'd want to know more about the decision making process- why was it left there so long- and whether there is any historical value of the cross now.

Case #2: Maryland v. Shatzer
At issue: The scope of the rights of police suspects, as given in the court's landmark 1966 decision, Miranda v. Arizona.

In Maryland v. Shatzer, Michael Shatzer was questioned by police about sexual abuse of his 3-year-old child, and after being told he had the right to counsel as part of his Miranda rights, declined to answer any questions without an attorney present. The officer never pursued Shatzer further, but nearly three years later, a different detective questioned Shatzer, at which point he admitted abuse. Shatzer now argues this confession is inadmissible because the second police officer, who was unaware of Shatzer's original Miranda request, questioned him without an attorney present.

My view of this case is that the Miranda rules were designed to protect those people who didn't know their rights. In this case, Shatzer knew his rights- they were told to him earlier- yet he still answered questions, and then later was told that he had forgotten his own rights and so the he wants the evidence inadmissible? No way- the cops read them off, that's all they need to do, and if you don't listen or forget, that's your fault.

Case #3: Graham v. Florida / Sullivan v. Florida
At issue: Whether life imprisonment for juveniles on nonhomicide charges constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment precludes cruel and unusual punishment, but it has long been left to the Supreme Court to define exactly what that term means. This court will be asked to consider it again in a pair of cases on the docket. In Sullivan, the petitioner was 13 years old when he was indicted as an adult and sentenced to life in prison without parole in Florida for sexual assault of an elderly woman. In Graham, a 19-year-old violated his parole by committing attempted armed robbery while on parole for two previous robbery attempts he had committed while he was a minor. He too was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
My view on this case is that cruel and unusual punishment most definitely does not mean life in prison. That is a humane and usual punishment. I can't understand how these cases are even controversial- this should be pretty easy to determine. If the Supreme Court interprets life in prison as cruel and unusual, soon it could interpret prison as cruel and unusual, and then a stern talking to as cruel and unusual, and then there are no more punishments in liberal utopia unreal world.

Case #4: National Rifle Association v. Chicago / McDonald v. Chicago
At issue: Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

A pair of cases challenge Chicago's 27-year-old ban on handgun sales within the city limits. Originally designed to curb violence in the city, the ban has long irked Second Amendment advocates, who take an expansive view of the amendment's wording that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the Supreme Court had long held that the Second Amendment pertained only to federal laws, until a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a ban on handguns and automatic weapons in Washington, D.C. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged an individual right to bear arms, and it opened the door for these challenges to the Chicago regulation.
My view is that in the Heller decision the Supreme Court recognized an individuals inherent right to keep and bear arms and that that right could not be infringed (ie, the 2nd amendment), and that therefore under the 14th amendment clause, the 2nd amendment is now incorporated to the states, and thus the Chicago anti-2nd amendment laws are unconstitutional. Another easy one.

Case #5: American Needle v. National Football League

At issue: Whether sporting leagues should be exempt from antitrust regulations.

Experts say American Needle may turn out to be the most important legal decision in sporting history. The sportswear manufacturer contracted with NFL teams to produce hats and headgear with official team logos. But the NFL decided to give an exclusive leaguewide license to Reebok in 2000, leading American Needle to sue, claiming the NFL's action violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting the market for who could produce team-branded merchandise.

The fundamental question for the court to decide is whether the NFL should be considered a single entity or a collection of 32 individual businesses. The answer to this question has repercussions beyond the production of licensed merchandise. If the NFL is considered a single entity, it would largely be exempt from antitrust laws, giving the league not only continued right to grant exclusive licenses for team apparel but also the ability to make decisions on a leaguewide basis. This opens the door to the NFL - rather than individual teams - determining things like ticket prices and player salaries. Indeed, the bargaining power of the NFL Players Union is based on antitrust legislation that the league would largely be immune to if it receives a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court. Other sporting leagues are watching the American Needle case closely; many have filed briefs in favor of the NFL's position.


My view on this one is that the NFL is a single entity and thus exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act. So is the NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS, MMA, and any other league. They have a single commissioner and play under unified rules, and thus are their own single entity.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS