Found this ad in today’s paper.
Now let me get this clear, to become an airport screener, you don’t even need to finish high school. You just need to speak English, take a medical exam and pass a background check. We’ll pay them $16 an hour and hope that they will defend our borders against the evil enemy.
OK den.
I feel much safer now.
The original article was in yesterday’s newspaper, but I couldn’t find it anywhere. So it’s here retyped.
People have a lot of faith in the power of the market. So how come this graph seems to show that there is no relationship between supply and pricing. And how can the price dive so rapidly.
Some more food for thought.
which would give him the kind of magisterial clout unknown to any other human being .
So let’s think. Bush used to be an oil man. He works with Cheney whose involved with oil companies. Their secretary of state is Condoleeza Rice who used to be a board member of Chevron (and got a tanker named after her). Bush has a really cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia. I wonder if there is any chance that this administration has “magisterial clout.”
Another quote, from an analyst (aka “a smart person”)
What company in their right mind would step forward to kill their profit?
Hmmm, hypothetical question. Say the democrats take power in November, then the oil companies may lose money for years (say because we might push energy efficiency). So they decide to lose money for one month, to help the republicans win, so … do you have a head on your shoulders to think this through?
if we’re dropping gas prices now, why on earth did we raise them to $3.50 before?
Because you could. If you have oilmen running the country then they will profit from higher energy costs. This is about maximizing profits, so you can raise the cost as much as the market will bear, then drop it in time to undo the damage.
People’s memories are short. This morning there were already articles in the paper how consumer confidence is going up because the oil prices are being lowered.
And as far as seasonality is concerned, you can tell for yourself.
Americans Suspicious About Drop in Gas Prices Before Elections
BY BRAD FOSS
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - There is no mystery or manipulation behind the recent fall in gasoline prices, analysts say. Try telling that to many U.S. motorists.Almost half of all Americans believe the November elections have more influence than market forces. For them, the plunge at the pump is about politics, not economics.
Retired farmer Jim Mohr of Lexington, Ill., rattled of a tankful of reasons why pump prices may be falling, including
the end of the summer travel season and the fact that no major hurricanes have disrupted Gulf of Mexico output.“But I think the big important reason is Republicans want to get elected,” Mohr, 66, said while filling up for $2.17 a gallon. “They think getting the prices down is going to help get some more incumbents re-elected.”
According to a new Gallup poll, 42. percent of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration “deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall’s elections ” Fifty-three percent of those surveyed did not believe in this conspiracy theory, while 5 percent said they had no opinion.
Almost two-thirds of those who suspect President Bush intervened to bring down energy prices before Election Day
are registered Democrats, according to Gallup.White House spokesman Tony Snow addressed the issue Monday, telling reporters that “the one thing I have been
amused by is the attempt by some people to say that the president has been rigging gas prices, which would give him the kind of magisterial clout unknown to any other human being.”“It also raises the question, if we’re dropping gas prices now, why on earth did we raise them to $3.50 before?” Snow said.
The excitement - and suspicion - among U.S. motorists follows a post-summer decline in gasoline prices that
even veteran analysts and gas station owners concede was steeper than usual.
The retail price of gasoline has plunged by 50 cents, or 17 percent, over the past month to average $2.38 a gallon nationwide, according to Energy Department statistics. That is 42.5 cents lower than a year ago, when the energy industry was still reeling from the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which damaged petroleum platforms, pipelines and refineries across the Gulf Coast.Industry officials said the competition among gas station owners to sell the cheapest fuel on the block is fierce.
“They want to gain market share ” said John Eichberger, director of motor fuels at the National Association of
Convenience Stores.Jay Ricker, president of Ricker Oil Co. in Anderson, Ind., which owns about 30 gas stations and supplies fuel to 30 more, said he’s thrilled to see pump prices sinking as fast as they are.
With prices falling, more customers are buying mid-grade and premium gasoline, Ricker said, and they’re spending more cash inside his convenience stores, where profit margins are higher.
“I’d much rather sell them a donut or a fountain drink” said Ricker, whose stations are selling regular unleaded for a few pennies above $2.Fimat USA oil analyst Antoine Halff said there is no doubt that the downturn in prices is welcome news from an electoral standpoint for the ruling party.” But he scoffed at the notion that the U.S. president had the power
to muscle around a global market.The plunge in prices, Halff said, is the result of growing domestic inventories of fuel, slowing economic growth and
toned-down rhetoric between Iran and the United States, which has been critical of Tehran’s uranium enrichment program.The sellof has been magnified, Half said, by the recent retreat from the market by many speculative investors who
got burned by the late-summer volatility.
Just last week, a prominent hedge fund told investors that it lost some $6 billion due to bad bets on natural gas prices.That said, “the sky is not falling ” said Halif, who believes oil prices will likely head higher again this winter and average more than $65 a barrel throughout 2007.
At the start of summer, oil analysts were worried about rising demand, the threat of hurricanes and the nuclear standoff between the West and Iran, OPEC’s second-largest producer. As a result, crude-oil futures soared to more than $78 a barrel in mid-July.
But by summer’s end, these fears had largely dissipated. On Monday, November crude futures settled at $61.45 a barrel.
“We have lots of gasoline supply” said Joanne Shore, an Energy Department analyst. Data maintaned by her agency show U.S. inventories of gasoline at 207.6 million barrels, 6 percent more than last year and
slightly above the five-year average for this time of year.Asked if it was possible that oil companies would reduce their prices in order to help Republicans, Shore responded: “What company in their right mind would step forward to kill their profit?”
At a suburban Miami Mobil station, where regular was selling for $2.66 a gallon, no one was buying in to the conspiracy theory.
“The decrease of gas prices is simply due to a seasonal adjustment of price” said Javier Gudayal, a 48-year-old civil attorney. “And that the Bush administration does not have the power to manipulate.”
But in Los Angeles, which has some of the highest gasoline prices in the country motorists wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a government eager to sway the electorate.
Twenty-eight-year-old attorney Amnon Siegel sensed more than serendipity at work.
“I’m sure there’s some sort of string-pulling going on ” Siegel said, referring to the government.
(Original here.)
I was actually pretty happy with this article, but it requires some close reading. The initial reading seems to suggest that a disgruntled teacher contacted the newspaper to shame the school’s principal into action. He did this by throwing out some rather heated terms, such as “racially motivated assaults.” The reporter was good enough to check the sources and to contact a lot of people for input, including one of the accused students. Everybody responded and gave their input into the situation.
Taking the whole thing together gives you an appreciation for the complexity and subtlety of the situation. How do you define assault (and how many “assaults” really happened)? If you try to break up a fight, have no relationship with the kids and get hit, can you should “assault”? Is this situation truly racial or do non-whites experience hostility? Is this a question of being a good teacher (regardless of race)? Are the administration’s hands tied? It’s interesting to see how in the last paragraph the main whole topic flips from protecting teachers to helping the students.
I’m not sure that the teacher who wanted to raise the issue got the forum to get his point across. Congratulations to the newspaper for trying to do this in a balanced way. Too bad though that they chose the inflammatory title.
Incidents involving teachers becoming too prevalent to be called isolated
by Lisa Huynh
West Hawaii Today
lhuynh@westhawaiitoday.com
Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:25 AM HSTAfter allegedly being attacked by a student while trying to break up a fight, a West Hawaii teacher said his experience is indicative of greater disciplinary problem in schools.
The Kealakehe High School teacher was injured in late August when he attempted to break up an altercation between two students.
While the student said he accidentally shoved the teacher, the teacher claimed he was the target of assault.
Is this incident one example of many persistent problems within broken disciplinary and justice systems? Or is it an isolated incident handled appropriately by effective response programs?
Disciplinary action, assault records
Kealakehe High teacher Larry Rice, through his own research, said he uncovered seven assaults on teachers — all Caucasian — in the past four years; though the exact figure is difficult to verify because not all assaults have been reported. Those that are fall into one category of offenses.“The consequences are not acceptable for teachers on campuses,” said Rice. “They are not deterring students from committing these assaults. It’s not the right message.”
Class A suspensions under the state Department of Education’s disciplinary code, Chapter 19, are the most serious offenses. They include burglary, robbery, assault and sale and possession of dangerous drugs. Administrators are given sole discretion to decide consequences.
However, umbrella-type federal polices require schools to respond uniformly when guns or drugs are brought to schools, according to West Hawaii Complex Area Superintendent Art Souza.
Suspension is the most common consequence of student misconduct, but many believe it does little to curb misconduct.
“It works for some and does not for others,” said Souza, a former principal at Waikoloa Elementary and Honokaa High School. “The suspension is probably as meaningful as the support we get from parents. If there is no cooperation from parents, it loses its effect.”
Though an option, transferring the misbehaving student to another school is seldom done, said Souza.
“Why would we do that? It doesn’t solve the problem,” he stated. “It’s the responsibility of school (in which the incident occurred) to work with the parents and the youngster.”
Kealakehe Principal Wilfred Murakami said four to six “technical” assaults against teachers have occurred at his school in nearly 10 years. In most cases, teachers were injured breaking up fights between students, he said.
“First and foremost we have a safe and secure campus. When students behave inappropriately we deal with them in a prudent and appropriate manner,” said Murakami. “A student actually seeking out a teacher to do bodily harm? That has never occurred to my knowledge.”
Former interim Kohala High School vice principal and teacher Alan Brown, who has been at the school 15 years, said it does not have a problem with teachers being assaulted. In the past three years, 11 to 13 class A offenses per year were reported occurring at Kohala High.
Konawaena High School Principal Shawn Suzuki said no teacher has been assaulted there in the last four years. The school did, though, have the highest number of class A offenses of West Hawaii schools in the last two years.
Administrators at Ka’u High School could not be reached for comment by press time.
According to the Hawaii Police Department, one assault on a teacher in April 2006 was reported for West Hawaii during the past two years. Police said information beyond that period is not in their computer system and was difficult to retrieve.
Disclosure of the teacher’s ethnicity and site of the assault is prohibited to protect the rights of the juvenile, said Kona Patrol Capt. Paul Kealoha. A report is not filed unless initiated by the victim.
Randy Shelor, Kealakehe High teacher, was assaulted five years ago by a student attempting to steal his wallet.
“This was a case about a kid on a bad day, with a bad life, in a bad room,” said Shelor, who said he suspected the student was under the influence of crystal methamphetamine, or ice.
While he does not tolerate assaults for any reason, Shelor said his early approach did not help the situation.
“I was a brand-new teacher who didn’t know the culture … you could have called me rude,” said Shelor. “I wasn’t kid-friendly or relationship-oriented.”
The student who attacked Shelor was suspended for “just” 15 days. Shelor felt the DOE did what it could to address the issue, but the state’s justice system failed. A week after Shelor filed a report with police, he followed up on the incident only to learn no paperwork existed. Nearly two years later, he said the case was dropped without notice. It had become consolidated with other unrelated charges against the student.
An issue of race?
Although Rice contends race played a major role in these assaults, several male Caucasian teachers — all quick to emphasize that no assault should be tolerated — said attacks have more to do with lack of trust than race.“As a white male, I feel completely comfortable (on campus),” said Jim Young, Kealakehe High student services coordinator. “There is not an epidemic … Some people choose not to have relationships with the students. That’s what most of this is about.”
The perception of racism, to some degree, plays a key role in allegations of rights violations. Often at the center of claims of racism in Hawaii’s schools is the Hawaiian word “haole,” meaning foreigners or Caucasians. Some teachers take offense with the word, which can be derogative or simply descriptive.
Though Young admitted to being called a haole in the past, he said the catalyst isn’t usually a racist remark, but a student objecting to a grade he or she received.
Kealakehe High student Fetu Iongi, who was involved in one of the alleged assaults, denied any racial divide between Caucasian teachers and Asian or Pacific Islander students.
“Oh no, to me, it’s not like that at all,” he said.
Jeffrey Hartman, the school’s student services coordinator, said he’s been called an expletive term and “haole” during his first year as a teacher but said it was not racially motivated. Though, he does not see a difference between the word haole and other derogatory words used to described ethnicities.
“Any time you quantify anyone by the color of their skin, you treat them like an object,” said Hartman. “But the incident in question is not a racial issue.”
Hartman, a 17-year Hawaii teacher who taught at Konawaena High for 12 years and Kealakehe High for two, said he has never felt unsafe on either campus.
“I taught at Konawaena when the school could really be considered a school in crisis … there were three to four fights every day. Even in those times, as a Caucasian, I never felt like I was unsafe or at-risk … because my job was to hold every child in my heart.”
Hartman maintained he is not making excuses for student misbehavior.
“It doesn’t do any good to lie and deny,” he stated. “I’m not taking away someone’s pain but I don’t believe this community tolerates or looks away when there are racial attacks.”
Rice claimed other teachers may not report assaults more frequently because of fear of retribution.
Bill Hoshijo, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission executive director, said that in cases of racial harassment, if an employee is subjected to harassment by a manager/supervisor, co-worker or third party (in a school setting, a student is considered a third party), there is liability for harassment. Prompt and appropriate responses are those that curb future harassment, said Hoshijo.
When people file complaints, the commission explores the situation, as well as the corrective action taken by the employer to make a determination.
Hoshijo could not disclose whether teachers have filed violation claims citing racism.
Need for viable continuation schools
Murakami said disciplinary action in schools is dealt with sufficiently by the DOE’s Chapter 19. However, he said, the department does not give behaviorally and emotionally challenged students the attention they deserve.He said Kealakehe High and other schools make due, but there is a dire need for continuation and alternative schools.
“Some of the students are trying to manage themselves but do not have the skills. They do not have habits of mind to handle themselves. In some cases we do the best we can given the resources we have,” said Murakami. “My feeling is that as far as the consequences, the definitions are fine, but the system needs to be more responsive to the needs of the students.”
While improvement is needed, Suzuki said, “Today, there are support programs to deal with issues on and off campus. There are different levels of counseling …. Will it work in the long run? I hope so. I hope we’re having a positive impact.”
Souza confirmed that while there are alternative programs on school campuses and remediation programs at the community adult schools, Hawaii does not have any independent continuation schools.
“It’s something we should look into,” said Souza. “It’s proven very successful in California. I talked to some administrators in California and they have spoken of the value of the continuation school format.”
Souza said Chapter 19 serves its purpose as a consequential response but is not necessarily a preventative measure.
“At schools, we have to examine what we are doing in a proactive way to curb behavior,” Souza said.
Rice pointed out that while continuation schools may be helpful, students who qualify for such programs are “so outside of the bell curve,” — meaning their behavior must reach severe levels to enter the programs.
“My biggest issue is the education system is being compromised considerably,” said Rice. “The learning environment of the silent majority is compromised because of the undisciplined minority.”
West Hawaii Today reporter Brendan Shriane contributed to this article.
Number of class A offenses (assaults, burglary, robbery, sale or possession of a dangerous drug)2002-03
Kealakehe High School 42
Konawaena High School 26
Kohala High School 13
Ka’u High and Pahala El. 132003-04
Konawaena High School 83
Kealakehe High School 47
Ka’u High and Pahala El. 26
Kohala High School 112004-05
Konawaena High School 94
Kealakehe High School 21
Kohala High School 14
Ka’u High and Pahala El. 1
(Original here.)
There are certain times when you need to pipe down, listen, think, and then respond. The last paragraphs are exactly to the point. What’s needed here is a dialog, among people that can educate each other. That requires open minds, reserving of judgment, and a belief in the commonality of humanity.
The pope’s speech
Violent responses only prove pontiff’s point
September 20, 2006Muslim extremists thoroughly missed the point of Pope Benedict XVI’s speech at the University of Regensburg: a plea for “a genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today,” a dialogue he finds imperiled by the secularism of the West and the violence of radical Islam.
Instead, Muslim extremists zeroed in on the pope’s quoting a medieval emperor who in a philosophical discussion objected to some of the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings, specifically his command to spread Islam by the sword, as “evil and inhumane.” In so determinedly missing the pope’s point, the extremists proved it.
“You infidels and despots,” replied an extremist group in Iraq, “we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks…”
“If the stupid pig is prancing with his blasphemies in his house,” warned another group on the Web, “then let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome.”
What Muslim extremists see as their validation, other Muslims see as a false reading of the Koran. Not all Muslims are satisfied with the pope’s statement that he was “deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address … which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims … (and) which do not in any way express my personal thought.”
Were the pope still a professor at the German university where he gave his scholarly speech, it would provoke intellectual discourse running from Immanuel Kant to Muhammad. The outside world responds differently.
Many Americans have their differences with the pope, and most respect the constitutional protection of religious freedom and separation of church and state. This puts Americans at odds with the Vatican on numerous social issues. It also puts us at odds with a brand of Islam that hangs a teenager for adultery, teaches intolerance, blesses violent reactions to perceived offenses, and looks to suicide-bombing youths as the new sword against the infidels.
Americans differ over how best to respond, but acceding to threats to our freedoms is not an option. Our daily lives are built largely on persuasion above coercion and reason above dogma. We can’t underestimate the violence and the threat. Yet most of us find the violence as puzzling as it is dangerous.
If the pope has misinterpreted the Koran, as some Muslims say, we need to know how so. If Muslims radicals have misinterpreted the Koran, as other Muslims say, we need to know how so. If all of us are to understand competing strains of Islam, Muslim moderates can educate the rest of us in distinguishing between them.
Pope Benedict himself suggested a promising way to foster needed understanding: a genuine dialogue of cultures and religions among people who can see and share a common humanity, if not a common creed.
(Original here.)
This has been an ongoing story. The government now tied their university to a local developer (so no development, no university - smart). Current services provided are high payment jobs in food services, and nursing. There are no plans to change that. Strive high, they say. You should really look at the population here (highly educated) and the need for additional offerings.
With the growth patterns that will be occurring in West Hawaii, who knows what the center will evolve into.
We’ve been growing for decades now. We’re getting full. We could tell you (and have told you) what the center will (should) evolve into. You say “golf management.” We say “oh boy …”
There is a Hawaiian value called “Ku-lia i ka nu’u ” (strive to reach the summit). For some local people this is awefully flat country.
Gov. key to Kona UH campus
Plans for a University of Hawaii campus in West Hawaii now hinge on whether Gov. Linda Lingle releases funds, said a UH official.
UH Hawaii Community College Chancellor Rockne Freitas said the university is prepared to plan and design the project once $6.9 million in appropriated funds are released.
Another $11 million has been appropriated by the 2005 and ‘06 state Legislature for the campus’ infrastructure, but UH will not request release of those funds until planning and design are complete.
“We’re very anxious about this project because the costs go up every year,” said Freitas, adding this is the first time the campus has come close to fruition.
He said the university worked closely with Big Island legislators Dwight Takamine, D-Hilo-Hamakua and Cindy Evans, D-North Hawaii to obtain funding, which will lapse at the end of this fiscal year if Lingle does not release it.
Lingle’s chief of media relations, Russell Pang, confirmed the university’s request is under review by the state Department of Budget and Finance. The review could take a couple of weeks to be completed, said Pang.
The Department of Budget and Finance denied the university’s first request for a recommendation to release funds earlier this year.
Planning and design of the West Hawaii campus will occur in conjunction with development of the university’s Komohana campus in East Hawaii, said Freitas.
“We will be working on (the two campuses) simultaneously. Hopefully construction will happen simultaneously, but we won’t hold up one project because of the other,” he stated.
The West Hawaii project passed its first major hurdle in July after the County Council voted to approve rezoning for the Palamanui development, which required developers to commit to building a 20,000-square-foot university building on 500 acres of state land.
The council also required developers to build a two-lane connector road between its northern boundary to Kaiminani Drive through the university’s permanent campus and another road to connect Queen Kaahumanu and Mamalahoa highways.
Hiluhilu, a partnership between discount broker Charles Schwab and Keauhou-Kona Construction Co., will build Palamanui, an estimated $480 million master-planned community, located mauka of the Kona International Airport.
Developers may build 1,116 residential units, with 200 deemed affordable; commercial space for medical clinics, offices and stores; and a 120-unit University Inn and Conference Center, according to published reports.
Freitas said the West Hawaii campus will offer the same services currently available at the UH Center in West Hawaii in Kealakekua. He said the university does not now have plans to add any new programs or facilities.
“We will immediately conduct a study to see what additional educational needs and opportunities the people in West Hawaii need and are looking for,” said Freitas. “Then we will make a determination as to what to add to the curriculum. With the growth patterns that will be occurring in West Hawaii, who knows what the center will evolve into.”
(Original article here.)
Another proposal for national testing of all school kids. My big question - why? If you claim that a monopoly test works better than why not an “all America (i.e. Canada, Mexico included” or world-wide test, like for the IB Exams. Yes, it’ll help to compare. The question on tests is always whether those that do poorly, will try to strive better as a result. That’s no guarantee. This administration caused a lot of grief because they tried to do exactly that. States were left with their own implementations.
Here in Hawai’i, the State DOE monopoly tried to introduce realistic standards. The system couldn’t produce enough progress as per the Federal NCLB act, and so there was a lot of complaining that the standards were too tough and should be lowered. As the article mentions, various states found ways arounds the rules to lower standards to show progress. None of this is productive. How will a national test help. It may show you where the problem areas are, but I’m not sure that the Federal Government would then go ahead and siphon money from the wealthy and successful communities towards those that are far behind. Why would you do this? Isn’t this philosophically opposite to letting the market decide?
Locally it is known that mainland curriculums won’t do well with students far removed from the mainland, because the relevance is not there. How will a national test do?
By the way, what about the SAT, PSAT, ACT etc. Are they just a problem because they happen too late and are private?
Why We Need a National School Test
By William J. Bennett and Rod Paige
Thursday, September 21, 2006; Page A25We need to find better and more efficient ways to produce an educated population and close the achievement gaps in our education system. Americans do ultimately get themselves educated — at work, after school, online, in adulthood — but a lot of time and money are wasted in the process.
Ever since the Commission on Excellence in Education declared in 1983 that America is “at risk” because of the lagging performance of its schools, this country has been struggling to reform its K-12 system. The education “establishment” has wrongly insisted that more money (or more teachers, more computers, more everything) would yield better schools and smarter kids; that financial inputs would lead to cognitive outputs. This is not so.
Forty years ago the sociologist James S. Coleman made clear that there’s no reliable connection between the resources going into a school and the learning that comes out. Fifty years ago economist Milton Friedman made clear that in education, as in other spheres, monopolies don’t work as well as markets. That’s why most Republicans and some Democrats favor school choice in its myriad versions and why many, like us, have also embraced today’s other important education reform strategy: standards, testing and tough accountability for schools.
But there’s a problem. Out of respect for federalism and mistrust of Washington, much of the GOP has expected individual states to set their own academic standards and devise their own tests and accountability systems. That was the approach of the No Child Left Behind Act — which moved as boldly as it could while still achieving bipartisan support. It sounds good, but it is working badly. A new Fordham Foundation report shows that most states have deployed mediocre standards, and there’s increasing evidence that some are playing games with their tests and accountability systems.
Take Tennessee, for example. It reports to its residents that a whopping 87 percent of its fourth-graders are “proficient” in reading. Yet the National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that the number is more like 27 percent. That’s a big difference. Or consider Oklahoma. In one year the number of schools on its “needs improvement” list dropped by 85 percent — not because they improved or their students learned more but because a bureaucrat in the state education department changed the way Oklahoma calculates “adequate yearly progress” under the federal law.
So while the act is clearly starting to get results, it is also starting to suffer from the law of unintended consequences. We can now see that it gives states entirely too much discretion over standards and tests while giving federal bureaucrats too much control over how schools operate.
The remedy? As both of us have long argued, Washington should set sound national academic standards and administer a high-quality national test. Publicize everybody’s results, right down to the school level. Then Washington should butt out.
States that prefer to cling to their own standards and tests — and endure the rules and meddling of federal bureaucrats — would be free to do so. Some surely would. But many would welcome a new compact with the Education Department.
We’re aware that many Republicans are skeptical. After all, the Constitution says nothing about education, and for over two centuries states have been responsible for meeting the nation’s education needs. But in a world of fierce economic competition, we can’t afford to pretend that the current system is getting us where we need to go. Greater federal interference is not the answer — but neither is a naive commitment to “states’ rights.” A new model — standards set nationally, daily decisions made locally — strikes the best balance.
We’re also painfully aware that national standards and tests are hard to get right — and even harder to get through Congress. Another new report outlines four ways in which this might be done. Several scenarios would rely on a “bottom-up” approach, with states working together on a voluntary basis to forge common expectations, lessening the chances that Washington would mess them up.
This is a conversation that should start now and continue through the 2008 elections and reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. But right-thinking Republicans should think long and hard before opposing national standards and tests. Competently done, they would go a long way toward assuring America a more well-educated population and a bright future — and toward reining in Washington’s impulse to micromanage our nation’s schools.
William J. Bennett was education secretary under President Ronald Reagan. Rod Paige was education secretary under President George W. Bush.
This one is a weird story that reveals itself slowly. (Original here).
So this is a racial thing? Or this is about parents protecting their stupid child? Or about the government giving rights to the parents because they are obviously mature about it?
Still, this woman is an adult. She can make her own choices. And the freedom of choice means she can choose to go either way, pro or con. That should be the right. The responsibility is to live with that decision. Society can hold her responsible when that goes sour, but not for making the choice in the first place.
Keep ‘choice’ in the debate on abortion
By Ellen Goodman | September 22, 2006SOMETIMES YOU have to remember exactly what it means to be prochoice. Sometimes the word “choice” is more than a focus-group label to avoid saying the word “abortion.” Sometimes the slick bumper sticker — Who Decides? — actually defines the argument.
The reminder now comes from Maine, where a bizarre and sorry family narrative is unfolding. Nicholas and Lola Kampf are accused of something that sounds linguistically impossible, not to mention criminal: kidnapping their daughter.
According to the arrest warrant, the Kampfs grabbed a pregnant 19-year-old Katelyn, allegedly tying her feet and hands, and carried her to the car and headed south. The plan, said Katelyn, who escaped in New Hampshire and called police on a cellphone, was to force her to have an abortion.
The headlines — “Daughter Kidnapped to Force Abortion” — repeated this baldly across the news cycle. It was as if distraught parents could really deliver a captive wrapped in rope and duct tape to a doctor who would perform an abortion against the patient’s will.
The usual suspects chimed in. Cheryl Sullenger , spokeswoman at Operation Rescue, said that forced abortions are “epidemic in scope.” “I have seen sobbing women dragged into abortion clinics by the neck and hair,” she added. She did not, of course, say who or when or where, since drama is best unencumbered by facts.
But the fact is that the Supreme Court protects Katelyn. The same precedents that protect a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion protect her right to decide not to have an abortion. The state can’t decide, husbands can’t decide, and parents can’t decide. Either way.
Being prochoice means looking through a long historical lens and understanding that a forced abortion is as much an assault on liberty as a forced pregnancy.
Of course, there is another way that Katelyn Kampf becomes a prochoice case study. Katelyn was 19, no longer a minor. Nevertheless, her family seems an unhappy example of a reality that many prefer to ignore: When some pregnant teenagers say they can’t tell their parents, they’re right.
In July, the Senate passed a bill that would make it a crime for anyone — no grandparent, no aunt, no older sister, no clergy — to take a minor across state lines for an abortion in order to avoid laws that require parental notification. The White House praised the Child Custody Protection Act because it would “protect the rights of parents” and because parents are “best suited to provide her counsel, guidance, and support.”
These days, parental-involvement laws are the most popular hurdle put before pregnant teenagers. They exist in about 35 states. Both Oregon and California have propositions on the fall ballot. And this week, the Illinois Supreme Court cleared the way for another such law.
Most pregnant teens can and do involve their parents. But we keep forgetting. What if those parents provide “counsel, guidance, and support” with duct tape, rope, and a .22-caliber rifle in the car trunk?
Not long ago, a conservative from the group Concerned Women for America proclaimed, “It goes without saying parents should have direct and immediate say over their child seeking an abortion.” What about when the parents seek the abortion? Direct and immediate say?
At an arraignment in New Hampshire, the parents’ lawyer called this a family tragedy with “some unfortunate misunderstandings and some overreactions by all the parties.” Talk about understating the “overreactions.”
The back story, as assembled by police and reporters, has all the elements of soap opera even in its bare bones. Katelyn, a high school honors student who enrolled in Boston College, had been sent to George Washington University in an attempt by her parents to distance her from her boyfriend. The debacle unfolded after her parents discovered that she was back in Maine and pregnant. Katelyn has told authorities that her parents were outraged because her boyfriend is black. Their attitude may have been more shaped by the fact that he is in jail, again. But there is nothing that justifies duct tape or the destination.
“They told her she had no choice but to get an abortion,” said the officer in the arrest warrant. But, she did have a choice. In fact, she’s a perfect recruit for the ranks of the prochoice.
In politics, there’s much ado about finding common ground in the abortion debate. Senator John F. Kerry, grooming this turf for the 2008 race, said this week that “the language both sides use on this subject can be, unfortunately, misleading and unconstructive.”
Maybe so. But this chilling family story gives added meaning to “choice.” In the end, a woman’s right to decide is the common ground.
Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com.
(Original here).
I like the distinction here between “freedom of speech” and “freedom of thought”. You should be able to make a statement without having to say something. The other noteworthy thing is to never trust official assurances to not do what they said they were not going to do. Patriotism may be a value to teach (both pro and con), but should probably not be a value to insist on. It usually gets abused.
Japanese Court Gives Teachers Rare Win
By CHISAKI WATANABE,
Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 21, 11:05 AM ETTOKYO - A court ruled Thursday that an order forcing Tokyo teachers to stand before Japan’s flag and sing an anthem to the emperor violated the constitution, a rare victory for the country’s waning pacifist movement, plaintiffs’ lawyers said.
The decision bolstered opponents of Japan’s growing emphasis on patriotism.
The “Hinomaru” flag ” a red disc on a white field ” and the “Kimigayo” hymn to the emperor were made Japan’s official symbols in 1999.
Supporters of the symbols say Japanese children should be taught national pride, but opponents argue the flag and anthem are remnants of Japan’s militarist period in the early 20th century and should be replaced with newer symbols.
The decision came the day after Shinzo Abe was elected leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, positioning him to be chosen as Japan’s next prime minister by parliament next week. Abe favors changing the nation’s pacifist constitution and pushing through reforms to place a greater emphasis on patriotism in public school curricula.
The 401 plaintiffs sued the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, led by nationalist Gov. Shintaro Ishihara, and the Tokyo education board over a 2003 directive that threatened teachers with punishment for not honoring the anthem and flag.
Ishihara’s government ordered teachers to honor the symbols, which is normally done on special occasions, such as at graduations and ceremonies on the first day of school, but not on a daily basis.
There have been 345 cases of teachers penalized for not observing the directive, according to Tokyo school board official, Takaya Suzuki.
Judge Koichi Namba ruled that the order violated the constitutional guarantees of freedom of thought, according to Yosuke Minaguchi, a member of the group’s legal team. The judge added that the flag and anthem provided spiritual support for militarism until 1945, according to a court summary of the decision provided by the plaintiffs.
The court also ordered the Tokyo Metropolitan Government to pay the plaintiffs $255 each in damages. The lawsuit was filed in 2004. It was not clear if Tokyo would appeal.
“This is one of the best rulings in the history of education court cases,” said Hiroshi Oyama, the chief lawyer for the plaintiffs. “The significance of this ruling is that it gives us a great chance to stop Ishihara’s government, which is going out of control.”
The Tokyo Board of Education called the ruling “extremely regrettable.” The board said it planned to examine the decision closely and consider its response. Board official Hideshio Yasuma said Ishihara had no immediate comment.
When the flag and anthem were officially recognized in 1999, officials assured critics that they would not be imposed on citizens.
On a national level, Education Ministry guidelines say teachers should instruct students about the symbols and urge public schools nationwide to display the flag and play the anthem.
What is an “alternative” interrogation procedure? How can it be cruel if you don’t touch a person, and if no single person performs an action that by itself could be considered cruel? How do you maintain the moral highground? (Original here.)
This articles title is “Call Cruelty What It Is.” Our local paper titled it “It is cruelty.”
Call Cruelty What It Is
By Tom Malinowski
Monday, September 18, 2006; Page A17President Bush is urging Congress to let the CIA keep using “alternative” interrogation procedures — which include, according to published accounts, forcing prisoners to stand for 40 hours, depriving them of sleep and use of the “cold cell,” in which the prisoner is left naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees and doused with cold water.
Bush insists that these techniques are not torture — after all, they don’t involve pulling out fingernails or applying electric shocks. He even says that he “would hope” the standards he’s proposing are adopted by other countries. But before he again invites America’s enemies to use such “alternative” methods on captured Americans, he might benefit from knowing a bit of their historical origins and from hearing accounts of those who have experienced them. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for the president’s reading list.
He might begin with Robert Conquest’s classic work on Stalin, “The Great Terror.” Conquest wrote: “When there was time, the basic [Soviet Secret police] method for obtaining confessions and breaking the accused man was the ‘conveyor’ — continual interrogation by relays of police for hours and days on end. As with many phenomena of the Stalin period, it has the advantage that it could not easily be condemned by any simple principle. Clearly, it amounted to unfair pressure after a certain time and to actual physical torture later still, but when? . . . At any rate, after even twelve hours, it is extremely uncomfortable. After a day, it becomes very hard. And after two or three days, the victim is actually physically poisoned by fatigue. It was as painful as any torture.”
Conquest stated: “Interrogation usually took place at night and with the accused just roused — often only fifteen minutes after going to sleep. The glaring lights at the interrogation had a disorientating effect.” He quoted a Czech prisoner, Evzen Loebl, who described “having to be on his feet eighteen hours a day, sixteen of which were devoted to interrogation. During the six-hour sleep period, the warder pounded on the door every ten minutes. . . . If the banging did not wake him, a kick from the warder would. After two or three weeks, his feet were swollen and every inch of his body ached at the slightest touch; even washing became a torture.”
Conquest quoted a Polish prisoner, Z. Stypulkowski, from 1945: “Cold, hunger, the bright light and especially sleeplessness. The cold is not terrific. But when the victim is weakened by hunger and sleeplessness, then the six or seven degrees above the freezing point make him tremble all the time. . . . After fifty or sixty interrogations with cold and hunger and almost no sleep, a man becomes like an automaton — his eyes are bright, his legs swollen, his hands trembling. In this state, he is often convinced he is guilty.”
Next on the list: Aleksander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago.” Solzhenitsyn describes the experience of prisoner Anna Skripnikova in 1952: “Sivakov, Chief of the Investigative Department of the Ordzhonikidze State Security Administration, said to her: ‘The prison doctor reports you have a blood pressure of 240/120. That’s too low, you bitch! We’re going to drive it up to 340 so you’ll kick the bucket, you viper, and with no black and blue marks; no beatings; no broken bones. We’ll just not let you sleep.’ And if, back in her cell, after a night spent in interrogation, she closed her eyes during the day, the jailer broke in and shouted: ‘Open your eyes or I’ll haul you off that cot by the legs and tie you to the wall standing up.”
Elsewhere, Solzhenitsyn writes: “Sleeplessness . . . befogs the reason, undermines the will, and the human being ceases to be himself, to be his own ‘I.’ “
Finally, the president might review the memoirs of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, who describes experiencing sleep deprivation in a Soviet prison in the 1940s: “In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep, to sleep just a little, not to get up, to lie, to rest, to forget. . . . Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it. . . . I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them. He did not promise them their liberty. He promised them — if they signed — uninterrupted sleep!”
The Soviets understood that these methods were cruel. They were also honest with themselves about the purpose of such cruelty — to brutalize their enemies and to extract false confessions, rather than truthful intelligence. By denying this, President Bush is not just misleading us. He appears to be deceiving himself.
The writer is Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.
Original here
We refinanced our mortgage in the middle of this housing bubble. ARMs never seemed a good deal to us, and risky, given that you bought into them at the bottom interest rates. But since then, we’ve received five to ten phonecalls from our mortgage company (which is a big National company) urging us to refinance to lower rates by going with an ARMs. Can’t blame the companies for trying, but also have to say that people really aren’t thinking about this. This gets advertised as “ARMs are good if you are only going to live in your house for a few years” (which is the majority of people). I bet you few thought their rates would jump from $1,000 to $2,600 a month. Ah well. No education, no math, no thinking, you’ll get taken advantage of. Your choice.
Adjustable mortgage may bring nasty news
Eileen Ambrose — Personal FinanceSeptember 17, 2006
Homeowners who were lured to so-called option ARMs during the big housing run-up by promises of extra-low monthly payments or 1 percent interest could soon face an ugly reality: mortgage payments that could more than double.
This surprise could kick in early next year for those who took out these loans three years ago, mortgage experts predict.
And that’s not the worst of it: Borrowers who put little money down, took out option ARMs and who live in areas where housing prices have barely risen or even fallen can owe more on their house than it’s worth.
This week, two U.S. Senate subcommittees are holding a joint hearing on the risks of option ARMs and other nontraditional mortgages. And federal regulators are expected soon to issue guidelines to lenders that would improve option ARM disclosures to consumers and strengthen the underwriting standards.
“There is a lot of concern in the industry and among regulators that a high percentage of people taking out these [mortgages] will have difficulty continuing to make these payments,” said Allen Fishbein, director of housing and credit policy with Consumer Federation of America. “They will either figure out alternative ways to make payments or they will have to get rid of their homes.”
Option ARMs have been around since the 1980s. Consumers advocates and mortgage experts agree that the these mortgages can be a useful tool in the right hands. But they worry that too many cash-strapped borrowers ignored their risks and used them to buy bigger houses than they could afford as home prices soared in many areas.
This adjustable rate mortgage usually allows borrowers to choose among four payment options each month. They can pay only the interest or pay principal and interest based on a 15- or 30-year term.
Or, they can make a minimum payment that doesn’t cover the interest due. Unpaid interest is added to the principal, so each month the borrower ends up owing more. This is called negative amortization.
It’s this payment method that worries advocates and regulators.
An option ARM can be suitable for workers whose income swings widely from season to season, said Neil Sweren, president of Allymac Mortgage in Owings Mills. These workers can make minimum payments during lean months and bigger payments when money rolls in, he said.
But option ARMs are often touted for their low monthly payments. Among the tempting pitches on the Internet: “Lower your mortgage payment by over 50 percent.” Or, “Rates as low as 1 percent on $500K.”
“This [mortgage] is the most vulnerable to misunderstanding and the most seductive,” said Jack M. Guttentag, who runs the Mortgage Professor’s Web Site at www.mtgprofessor.com.
How it works
Here’s how the minimum payment works:Monthly payments are based on an artificially low interest rate of 1 percent to 3 percent. The actual rate being charged can be much higher and change monthly. Again, unpaid interest each month is tacked onto the principal, so the balance doesn’t go down.
Payments are fixed for the year. They adjust annually but usually can’t go up by more than 7.5 percent.
At some point, borrowers must begin repaying the principal. This usually happens at five years, but it can occur earlier if the growing balance reaches 110 percent or 115 percent of the original loan.
Borrowers who took out an option ARM in June 2003, for example, could hit this trigger in February or March based on today’s rates, said Keith Gumbinger, vice president with HSH Associates, a provider of mortgage information.
Once this happens, the mortgage will be recalculated based on the larger balance, the interest rate at the time and years left on the 30-year loan. This is how borrowers can end up with payments more than doubling.
Take the case of a borrower starting off with a $300,000 loan. The typical minimum payment would be $1,000 a month the first year, said Bob Walters, chief economist at Quicken Loans, an online mortgage lender.
By year four, the balance could reach the 115 percent loan limit, or $345,000. Based on interest rates now about 8 percent, Walters calculated that the borrower’s monthly payment would jump to $2,602. “We call them exploding ARMs,” said Consumer Federation’s Fishbein.
Borrowers concerned about looming larger payments should prepare by reading their loan documents, Fishbein said. Terms vary from lender to lender. Borrowers need to know what their mortgage payments can be under the worst-case scenario, he said.
Then they can weigh their alternatives.
Solution: refinancing
For many, the solution will be to refinance into another type of mortgage that better suits their finances. But beware: Option ARMs often carry prepayment penalties that can be thousands of dollars if borrowers refinance within the first three years, Sweren said.Borrowers refinancing with their same lender should ask that the penalty be waived, Gumbinger said. If that doesn’t work, borrowers still might be better off paying the penalty than sticking with the option ARM, he said.
Those only able to afford a house by making minimum payments may end up having to sell their home and buy a smaller place. “That’s not an easy choice to swallow,” Fishbein said.