The company seeking to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline asked the Obama administration on Monday to suspend its yearslong review of the project, potentially bringing an abrupt halt to a politically charged debate that had become part of a broader struggle over President Obama’s environmental policies. It was not immediately clear whether the administration would grant the request, which was swiftly denounced by environmental activists as a bid to dodge a near-certain rejection of the pipeline. Allowing the delay would push off a decision until after the 2016 presidential election. The company’s request introduced a new element of uncertainty into the administration’s decision-making process, offering the potential to free Mr. Obama from a politically difficult choice that has hung over much of his presidency. But if anything, it appeared to intensify pressure on him from crucial Democratic constituencies to reject the pipeline or risk being blamed for punting to another president. A delay would keep the issue alive in the presidential campaign. TransCanada, the Alberta company seeking to build the 1,179-mile pipeline, made its request in a letter to the State Department, which must approve cross-border projects and had been reviewing its application for a presidential permit.
This is not a victory for the people, like me, who oppose the pipeline.
This is a tactical move to push any decision to the next administration, which the ratf%$#s at TransCanada is hoping that this will be a Republican, whose party has made approval of the transit of bitumen through the Ogallala Aquiferan article of faith.
Tony Blair has denied reports that ministers were instructed to ‘burn’ a report questioning the legality of the Iraq war less than three weeks before British forces invaded the country.
The Mail on Sunday quotes an unnamed senior No 10 figure saying that the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, presented a 13-page legal opinion on 7 March 2003 that suggested the war could be challenged under international law because of the lack of UN backing.
The paper’s source says: “There was pandemonium. The date when war was expected to start was already in the diary, and here was Goldsmith saying it could be challenged under international law. They said ‘burn it, destroy it’ and got to work on the [attorney general].”
………
On Thursday, Sir John Chilcot announced he would publish his long-awaited report into the Iraq war in June or July next year, giving government officials up to three months to carry out national security checks on its findings. In a letter to the prime minister, Chilcot said the text of his report – which is expected to be around 2 million words long – would be finalised in the week of 18 April 2016.
Blair’s office denied that he was the cause of the delay, saying he had replied to documents he received as part of the Maxwellisation process – in which witnesses who are to be criticised are given a right to reply – in August this year after receiving them in January.
Someone within the Chilcot commission has concerns that this report is going to get buried, and so stuff is leaking out.
Assuming that this report is accurate, and it certainly smells true, it creates a real possibility of some sort of repercussions to Tony “The Smiler”, even if it is just making him toxic enough that foreign governments who have been paying him big bucks (Pounds) as a “consultant” might terminate their deals.
I’d like to see him in the Hague, along with Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and the rest of their Evil Minions™, but that is not going to happen.
From the time Folake Ogundiran’s daughter started kindergarten at a Success Academy charter school in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, the girl struggled to adjust to its strict rules. She racked up demerits for not following directions or not keeping her hands folded in her lap. Sometimes, after being chastised, she threw tantrums. She was repeatedly suspended for screaming, throwing pencils, running away from school staff members or refusing to go to another classroom for a timeout. One day last December, the school’s principal, Candido Brown, called Ms. Ogundiran and said her daughter, then 6, was having a bad day. Mr. Brown warned that if she continued to do things that were defiant and unsafe — including, he said, pushing or kicking, moving chairs or tables, or refusing to go to another classroom — he would have to call 911, Ms. Ogundiran recalled. Already feeling that her daughter was treated unfairly, she went to the school and withdrew her on the spot. Success Academy, the high-performing charter school network in New York City, has long been dogged by accusations that its remarkable accomplishments are due, in part, to a practice of weeding out weak or difficult students. The network has always denied it. But documents obtained by The New York Times and interviews with 10 current and former Success employees at five schools suggest that some administrators in the network have singled out children they would like to see leave. Nine of the students on the list later withdrew from the school. Some of their parents said in interviews that while their children attended Success, their lives were upended by repeated suspensions and frequent demands that they pick up their children early or meet with school or network staff members. Four of the parents said that school or network employees told them explicitly that the school, whose oldest students are now in the third grade, was not right for their children and that they should go elsewhere. The current and former employees said they had observed similar practices at other Success schools. According to those employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs or their relationships with people still at the network, school leaders and network staff members explicitly talked about suspending students or calling parents into frequent meetings as ways to force parents to fall in line or prompt them to withdraw their children. ……… Suspensions at Success, which typically last one or two days, are frequent compared with traditional public schools. In the 2012-13 school year, the most recent one for which state data is available, Success schools suspended between 4 percent and 23 percent of their students at least once, with most suspending more than 10 percent. According to the most recent statistics from the city’s Education Department, from 2013-14, traditional public schools suspended 3 percent of students that academic year. ……… At Success Academy Fort Greene, the same day that Ms. Ogundiran heard from the principal, her daughter’s name was one of 16 placed on a list drawn up at his direction and shared by school leaders. The heading on the list was “Got to Go.” ……… The notes also appear to allude to the possibility of getting one child on the “Got to Go” list classified as a 12:1:1 special education student. Those students are entitled to classrooms limited to 12 students, with one teacher and one aide, so Success Academy, which offers only five such classes in a network serving 11,000 students, might not be able to meet the needs of every 12:1:1 student. Ms. Fleischman, the education manager, warned her colleagues in a follow-up email that the goal should not have been put in an email and that, in any case, a 12:1:1 classification “does not guarantee a withdrawal.” Asked this month about that remark, she said that she was saying only that the parent of a 12:1:1 student would not be required to take the student out, and was not alluding to any effort to ensure the child would leave.
I would also argue that it s a violation of anti-retaliation laws, and I would further argue that the parent, or an enterprising prosecutor, might also consider racketeering as icing on the cake:
Anyone who has reported on campus sexual assault knows that school administrations rarely respond, even when they feel unfairly maligned, because they fear violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA. Passed in 1974, FERPA is a federal law that bans the release of students’ personal information without their consent. “Schools are not supposed to talk about their students, even when the media is saying, ‘Hey, I can’t believe you did this,’ ” says Derek W. Black, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law who specializes in education law. “And sometimes that means the media doesn’t get the story straight, but it does protect the student.” That’s why it was so surprising when Eva Moskowitz, the high-profile head of Success Academy, a network of New York City charter schools, responded to a negative PBS story by releasing the disciplinary record of an ex-student featured in it. Black says this was probably illegal, and it has left the student’s mother, Fatima Geidi, furious and frantic with worry over her 10-year-old son’s reputation. “For a grown woman, an adult, to attack a child is disgusting,” Geidi told me. “There’s no other way around it.” The skirmish began on Oct. 12, when PBS NewsHour ran a segment titled “Is Kindergarten Too Young to Suspend a Student?” It came as a national backlash has been building against overly strict discipline in public schools, particularly toward very young students. Last year, the Obama administration urged schools to abandon so called zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, warning administrators nationwide that it would investigate racial disparities in student punishment. Shortly before the PBS NewsHour piece ran, a report from the Center for American Progress documented that students are being suspended and expelled as early as preschool. “[I]t is clear that what were intended to be last resort and occasional disciplinary tools have become wildly overused and disproportionately applied to children of color, resulting in dramatically negative long-term effects,” the report said. ……… The NewsHour segment focused on the suspension of kindergarteners at Success Academy schools, which are known both for their high test scores and their highly structured environments, with a code of conduct running six pages. According to PBS reporter John Merrow, at one Success Academy charter with 203 kindergartners and first-graders, there were 44 out-of-school suspensions in a single year. Merrow spoke with nearly a dozen families, but only Fatima Geidi and her son, Jamir, agreed to go on camera. Jamir, who left Success Academy last year because he and his mother couldn’t tolerate the frequent suspensions, described some of the infractions that got him in trouble: “I would always have to keep my shirt tucked in. And let’s say I wasn’t wearing black shoes, and I was wearing red shoes. Then that would be an infraction.” Viewers didn’t get the impression that these were the only reasons the boy, now 10, was disciplined. Fatima Geidi, said that even at his new school, where Jamir hasn’t been suspended, he’s had “meltdowns” and “outbursts.” Still, the segment made it seem as though Success Academy throws kids out for petty misbehavior. Moskowitz herself said that a single incidence of using “sexually explicit language” would get a 5-year-old suspended. ……… But Moskowitz didn’t just object to the numbers. She wanted to combat the allegation that Success Academy suspends kids without good reason. And so she made Jamir Geidi’s record public, posting a letter to PBS on the Success Academies website that listed 19 specific incidents of misconduct, some of them violent, along with long excerpts of teacher reports on Jamir’s behavior. (Her letter referred to Jamir as “John Doe,” but since he was the only student named in the PBS segment, there was no question about who she was talking about.) Fatima Geidi disputes some of these examples as either false or exaggerated. Whether or not they happened the way Moskowitz claims, Black says that in revealing them, she likely broke the law. “A student’s records themselves are private, as well as the contents,” he says. “If those are going to be disclosed to outside third parties, they clearly have to have consent.” With the help of Leonie Haimson, co-founder of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, Fatima Geidi sent Moskowitz a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that her son’s information be taken down. “I’ve seen violations of FERPA, but not in such an obvious, egregious way,” Haimson told me. “Not in a press release sent to the media and posted online. I have not seen this level of violation.” Moskowitz is unapologetic. In a letter to Geidi, she wrote, “The First Amendment limits a person’s ability to use privacy rights to prevent others from speaking. When somebody chooses to make statements to the press, they waive their privacy rights on the topics they have discussed, particularly when, as here, those statements are inaccurate.” ……… Whatever you think about the dispute among Fatima Geidi, Merrow, and Moskowitz, however, Jamir Geidi is 10 years old. A document describing him as frighteningly violent now appears in the first page of his Google results. If that’s OK, it doesn’t just hurt him and his mother. It sends a message to any current or former Success Academy parent who might take public issue with Moskowitz’s methods. Fatima Geidi, “was the only parent whom PBS contacted who was brave enough to speak out” under her own name, says Haimson of the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy. “One reason why parents are very afraid—and teachers are afraid too—is they knew they risked the kind of tactics that Eva Moskowitz used against Fatima’s child.” FERPA is supposed to protect such children. We’ll see if it does.
Moskowitz’s argument is bullsh%$.
She is forbidden by law from releasing specific student records.
She can contest the News Hour report, and she can say that the school was justified in its disciplinary actions, but she cannot release student records without specific approval of the parents.
That is the law. (there is an exemption for military recruiters, but that’s another story)
It is this sense of impunity and lawlessness that permeates the charter school movement, and this should not be supported by taxpayer money.
Obama has decided to put boots on the ground in Syria, and as near as I can figure, it’s because we cannot admit that our policy has failed:
In a dramatic shift in policy, the United States is preparing to send about 50 special operations forces to Syria within days to begin training and assisting “moderate” rebels fighting the Islamic State. The U.S. military has sent elite forces into Syria before to conduct short in-and-out raids, but the move will for the first time keep American service members on the ground — and in harm’s way — in a four-plus year conflict that has killed over 200,000 people. It marks a significant departure in strategy for a White House that has repeatedly ruled out any U.S. “boots on the ground” in either Iraq or Syria and bristled at any suggestion that the American forces would take part in combat. The U.S special operations forces being deployed to Syria will not play a direct combat role, at least initially, a senior defense official said Friday. Instead, the small number of commandos will focus more on advising local Arab and Kurdish rebels who are fighting the Islamic State in northern Syria. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Defense Department is not ruling out direct action raids in the future, but for now, “they will remain singularly at the headquarters” of the rebel groups, to ”help with operational planning.” Still, the American forces could come under fire in their new mission, which could last weeks or months, officials said.
This is nucking futs.
The problem here is that we have mindlessly supported the policy goals of the House of Saud.
So, now the White House and the Pentagon are so afraid that someone, anyone, else might approach something resembling a resolution in Syria that we are now supporting al Qaeda affiliated groups that we are calling “Moderates”.
Leaders of almost every major political party in the United Kingdom have signed an appeal not to allow a transatlantic trade deal known as TTIP become the Trojan horse that allows American business interests to take over the NHS. The appeal, organised by the trade union Unite, has achieved the rare feat of bringing together all of Northern Ireland’s main political parties. TTIP, or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, would free up trade between the US and the EU, by allowing companies from either side of the Atlantic to operate under the same rules. One of its most controversial elements would be the creation of a new supranational court, the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) through which foreign investors could sue governments, or the EU, over any action or legislation that hurt their businesses. It is feared that an American private healthcare firm which was prevented from buying up part of the NHS would be able to go to the ISDS and claim millions of pounds in compensation from the British government for lost business. ……… The appeal has also been signed by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, the Ukip leader Nigel Farage, the Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, and Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood, and by Peter Robinson of the Democratic Unionist Party, and Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness. The organisers, from Unite, say that they approached the Conservatives asking for support but were refused, and are awaiting a reply from the Liberal Democrats.
The Tories have been wanting to privatize the NHS since it began operations in 1948, and the Liberal Democrats have specialized in being completely useless and ineffectual since before Lloyd George died, so their actions are not surprising.
Unfortunately, in the mad rush for a bad deal, it is very likely that privatized healthcare, with its associated excessive spending and poor health outcomes, will be in the UK’s future.
The South Carolina Sheriff’s deputy captured on video forcefully removing a student from class has been fired, the local sheriff said Wednesday, less than a week after the incident at Spring Valley High School first came to the public’s attention. Richland County Senior Deputy Ben Fields was already suspended after videos of him flipping and tossing a black female student across a classroom went viral online. Fields was told of his firing late Wednesday morning “What he should not have done is throw the student,” Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott said. “Police officers make mistakes too. They’re human and they need to be held accountable, and that’s what we’ve done with Deputy Ben Fields.” Lott said he wouldn’t describe Fields as remorseful, but rather sorry it all happened.
……… Fields said in during his deposition for a federal lawsuit filed against him that he is a competitive power lifter, saying it is a “sport,” where you “try to lift as much as you can at one time.” In his deposition, Fields says he does not take steroids, but has not been tested for steroids in the past. He said he has taken supplements, including Creatin, to help build muscles.
(emphasis mine)
Yeah. We believe him when he says that he’s not juicing. (not)
If his behavior had not been caught on video, this steroid addled loon would still be abusing school children.
As far as trade agreements are concerned, the recent focus here on Techdirt and elsewhere has been on TPP as it finally achieved some kind of agreement — what kind, we still don’t know, despite promises that the text would be released as soon as it was finished. But during this time, TPP’s sibling, TAFTA/TTIP, has been grinding away slowly in the background. It’s already well behind schedule — there were rather ridiculous initial plans to get it finished by the end of last year — and there’s now evidence of growing panic among the negotiators that they won’t even get it finished by the end of President Obama’s second term, which would pose huge problems in terms of ratification. One sign of that panic is that the original ambitions to include just about everything are being jettisoned, as it becomes clear that in some sectors — cosmetics, for example — the US and EU regulatory approaches are just too different to reconcile. Another indicator is an important leaked document obtained by the Guardian last week. It’s the latest (29 September) draft proposal for the chapter on sustainable development. What emerges from every page of the document, embedded below, is that the European Commission is now so desperate for a deal — any deal — that it has gone back on just about every promise it made (pdf) to protect the environment and ensure that TTIP promoted sustainable development. Three environmental groups — the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth Europe and PowerShift — have taken advantage of this leak to offer an analysis of the European Commission’s real intent in the environmental field. They see four key problems:
The leaked text fails to provide any adequate defense for environment-related policies likely to be undermined by TTIP. For example, nothing in the text would prevent foreign corporations from launching challenges against climate or other environmental policies adopted on either side of the Atlantic in unaccountable trade tribunals. The environmental provisions are vaguely worded, creating loopholes that would allow governments to continue environmentally harmful practices. The chapter lacks any obligation to ratify multilateral agreements that would bolster environmental protection and includes a set of vague goals with respect to biological diversity, illegal wildlife trade, and chemicals. The leaked text includes several provisions that the European Commission may claim as “safeguards,” such as a recognition of the “right of each Party determine its sustainable development policies and priorities” but none would effectively shield environmental policies from being challenged by rules in TTIP. There is no enforcement mechanism for any of the provisions mentioned in the text. Even if one were included, it would still be weaker than the enforcement mechanism provided for foreign investors either through the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism or the renamed investment court system.
This is how this is really supposed to work.
You make promises to protect the people, and then declare that an agreement is essential, so you cannot keep those promises.
The goals of these deals are, and have been for as long as I remember, has been to screw the ordinary citizen at the for the benefit of the already obscenely rich.
This is how it’s done. Oligarchs pillage and loot so they can push their own version of history on everyone.
In 2011, a shipment of somewhere between 200 to 300 small clay tablets on their way to Oklahoma City from Israel was seized by U.S. Customs agents in Memphis. The tablets were inscribed in cuneiform—the script of ancient Assyria and Babylonia, present-day Iraq—and were thousands of years old. Their destination was the compound of the Hobby Lobby corporation, which became famous last year for winning a landmark Supreme Court case on religious freedom and government mandates. A senior law enforcement source with extensive knowledge of antiquities smuggling confirmed that these ancient artifacts had been purchased and were being imported by the deeply-religious owners of the crafting giant, the Green family of Oklahoma City. For the last four years, law enforcement sources tell The Daily Beast, the Greens have been under federal investigation for the illicit importation of cultural heritage from Iraq. These tablets, like the other 40,000 or so ancient artifacts owned by the Green family, were destined for the Museum of the Bible, the giant new museum funded by the Greens, slated to open in Washington, D.C., in 2017. Both the seizure of the cuneiform tablets and the subsequent federal investigation were confirmed to us by Cary Summers, the president of the Museum of the Bible.
For their part, Hobby Lobby is claiming it’s just screwed-up paperwork. Nothing more than that. Just a customs mix-up that has taken well over 4 years to resolve. Not really.
Here’s hoping that there will be a criminal prosecution, and a very pious Muslim cellmate, in their future.
A US tank has forced its way into the shell of the Afghanistan hospital destroyed in an airstrike 11 days ago, prompting warnings that the US military may have destroyed evidence in a potential war crimes investigation. As calls grow for independent inquiry into Kunduz airstrikes, the president of Médecins Sans Frontières demands that those responsible are held to account The 3 October attack on the Médécins sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Kunduz killed 10 patients and 12 staff members of the group. In a statement on Thursday, the medical charity, also known as Doctors Without Borders, said they were informed after Thursday’s “intrusion” that the tank was carrying investigators from a US-Nato-Afghan team which is investigating the attack. “Their unannounced and forced entry damaged property, destroyed potential evidence and caused stress and fear,” MSF said. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reported intrusion, which came as new evidence emerged that US forces operating in the area at the time of the attack knew that the facility was a hospital.
Considering the US record on such things,* one has to wonder if perhaps our military establishment is sick of
Airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition targeting rebels in Yemen have destroyed a small hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in the northern province of Saada, although there were no deaths and only one injury, the aid group said Tuesday.
The first of several strikes came around 11 p.m. on Monday and hit a building housing the facility’s administration offices, according to Hassan Boucenine, the aid group’s head of mission in Yemen who spoke to The Associated Press by telephone from the southern port city of Aden.
No one was inside at the time, he said, adding that by the time a second strike targeted the main nearby building about 10 minutes later, its occupants — some 12 staff and patients — had been evacuated.
“This attack is another illustration of a complete disregard for civilians in Yemen, where bombings have become a daily routine,” Boucenine said later in a statement by the group, also known by its French acronym MSF.
It urged coalition forces to explain the circumstances around the attack, saying that the hospital’s GPS coordinates were regularly shared with the Saudi-led coalition and its roof was clearly identified with its logo. The bombing of civilians and hospitals is a violation of international humanitarian law, it added.
The group operates in eight Yemeni governorates at a time when many foreign aid groups and even United Nations personnel have been evacuated. In its statement, it said the destroyed hospital had treated roughly 3,400 patients were since MSF began supporting it in May.
The Saudi-led, U.S.-backed coalition has been launching airstrikes against Yemen’s Shiite rebels, also known as Houthis, and their allies since March. Saada, the Houthis stronghold, has faced a particularly intense bombardment.
The United Nations said the facility was the 39th health center hit since the violence escalated in March, adding that critical shortages of fuel, medication, electricity and water could mean many more will close. Amnesty International said the strike may amount to a war crime and called for an independent investigation.
MFS treats anyone regardless of politics, and I’m beginning to think the Pentagon, and the Saudi state security apparatus, don’t like this.
It does seem rather similar to the spate of bombing of well documented Al Jazeera facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
*Donald Rumsfeld justified the bombing of hospitals during the initial invasion of Afghanistan, because they were treating combatants, which was a remarkably blithe admission of war crimes, since treating the enemy does not remove a hospital’s protected status.
If you’re keeping score at home, in Syria, we’ll be fighting alongside the people against whom we’ll be fighting in Syria. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And the friend of my friend is the enemy of the enemy of my friend. And the friend of the devil is a friend of mine. This isn’t foreign policy. It’s a Lewis Carroll poem, and it’s getting to be a longer one.
—Charlie Pierce on how the misruling class in DC seems determined to put boots on the ground in Syria.
It appears that Obama’s statements in 2003 that he opposed “Stupid Wars” is now inoperative.
The EU appears to have broken a promise to reinforce environmental protections in a leaked draft negotiating text submitted in the latest round of TTIP talks in Miami.
In January, the bloc promised to safeguard green laws, defend international standards and protect the EU’s right to set high levels of environmental protection, in a haggle with the US over terms for a free trade deal.
But a confidential text seen by the Guardian and filed in the sustainable development chapter of negotiations earlier this week contains only vaguely phrased and non-binding commitments to environmental safeguards.
No obligations to ratify international environmental conventions are proposed, and ways of enforcing goals on biodiversity, chemicals and the illegal wildlife trade are similarly absent.
The document does recognise a “right of each party to determine its sustainable development policies and priorities”. But lawyers say this will have far weaker standing than provisions allowing investors to sue states that pass laws breaching legitimate expectations of profit.
“The safeguards provided to sustainable development are virtually non-existent compared to those provided to investors and the difference is rather stark,” said Tim Grabiel, a Paris-based environmental attorney. “The sustainable development chapter comprises a series of aspirational statements and loosely worded commitments with an unclear dispute settlement mechanism. It has little if any legal force.”
………
US officials maintain that few such cases are ever likely to be brought under the TTIP, which could wipe away tariffs in the world’s largest ever free trade deal.
However, environmental cases accounted for 60% of the 127 ISDS cases already brought against EU countries under bilateral trade agreements in the last two decades, according to Friends of the Earth Europe. Europe’s taxpayers paid out at least $3.5bn to private investors as a result.
Natacha Cingotti, a trade campaigner for the group, said that only a carve-out of environmental protections from the tribunal process could prevent such cases mushrooming after a TTIP deal.
“This new leak illustrates that the European commission is not serious about protecting essential safeguards for citizens and the environment in the context of the TTIP talks,” she told the Guardian. “Powerful corporate polluters are likely to get VIP treatment under it, while the only chapter that could bring strong language to protect essential regulations to build a sustainable future is weak and unenforceable.”
This is what always happens, because the goal of all of these deals has been to encourage a race to the bottom in terms of labor and environmental standards while making sure that the interests of parasitic financial interests are protected at all costs.
The price inmates pay to call their friends and family is set to decrease after the Federal Communications Commission voted Tuesday to cap the rates. The vote was part of a years-long push to decrease the cost of prison and jail calls, which have been described as predatory and are dramatically higher than general rates for the public. “The truth is that each of us is paying a heavy price for what is now a predatory, scaled market regime,” said Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, who has led the charge. “None of us here would ever consider paying $500 a month for a voice only service where calls are routinely dropped for no reason.” The FCC also implemented new rules it said would “discourage” advance payments [kickbacks to the jails] that the few dominate calling services give to prisons to win exclusive contracts, sometimes described as “kickbacks.” Advocates and even the phone companies themselves pushed the FCC to go further to end the payments altogether, which are technically called site commissions. But the FCC said its authority to do that is questionable. Clyburn encouraged states to reevaluate those payments and to cap rates at even lower levels at the local level, as a few states have already done. Most inmates’ calling rates will drop to 11 cents per minute, though rates will be capped at higher prices in smaller prisons and jails. Other transaction fees will be capped between $2 and $6. The cap is a more than 50 percent drop from previous limits, and those only applied to calls between states. The new cap will apply to all calls within a state and between states. Civil rights groups and others have pointed to the benefits of inmates being able to make calls affordably and how close contact with family can help reduce recidivism. Phone companies have been required to ensure that their rates for inmate calls are reasonable and fair. One way they have justified higher-than-normal prices in the past is by factoring in the upfront payments for contracts. The new order would allow these payments to go forward but would prevent phone companies from factoring them in when calculating phone rates.
I understand that a part of the corrections is punitive, but that is not an excuse to gouge prisoners and their families, particularly when the rest of us bear the cost of though increased recidivism and general misery.
The bad guys lose today, for a while at least.
I fully expect moves in congress to reverse this decision.
If there are two edicts I try to follow whenever I’m writing, they are, first, write what is true and, second, avoid cliche at all costs. I bring that up only as a preface before saying the following: the UK is walking down an Orwellian path. It’s nearly the cliche of cliches to say something like this, and yet it happens that the cliche is true. While there is most certainly a real thing known as a threat from Islamic terrorism, there is also such a thing as overreaction. What started as the British government’s attempt to ban extremist thought from social media and television (under the notion that some thoughts are too dangerous to enjoy the freedom that other thoughts deserve) then devolved into the conscripting of teachers that were to be on the lookout for children that might become radicalized. To assist them with this, the government helpfully provided spy-software to use against students. Spy-software which itself was found to be exploitable in the most laughably easy of ways. This employed two of the most horrifying aspects of Orwell’s Oceania: the concept of thought-crime and the employ of citizens to fearfully surveil one another.
And now it seems the UK is going even further, adopting Oceania’s reputation for the swallowing up of citizens should they be found suspect of thought-crime by those watchful citizens. Specifically, the Family Division of the Judiciary has put out a memo declaring exactly how it will remove children from the homes of anyone it suspects might radicalize those children. Here’s a snippet. Recent months have seen increasing numbers of children cases coming before the Family Division and the Family Court where there are allegations or suspicions: that children, with their parents or on their own, are planning or attempting or being groomed with a view to travel to parts of Syria controlled by the so-called Islamic State; that children have been or are at risk of being radicalised; or that children have been or at are at risk of being involved in terrorist activities either in this country or abroad.
Only a local authority can start care proceedings (see section 31(1) of the Children Act 1989 – the police powers are set out in section 46). However, any person with a proper interest in the welfare of a child can start proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction or apply to make a child a ward of court.2 Usually, in cases falling within the description in paragraph 1 above, it will be the local authority which starts proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction or applies to make a child a ward of court, and the court would not expect the police (who have other priorities and responsibilities) to do so. There is, however, no reason why in a case where it seems to the police to be necessary to do so, the police should not start such proceedings for the purposes, for example, of making a child a ward of court, obtaining an injunction to prevent the child travelling abroad, obtaining a passport order, or obtaining a Tipstaff location or collection order. Given the complexities of these cases, I have decided that, for the time being at least, all cases falling within the description in paragraph 1 above are to be heard by High Court Judges of the Family Division.
In other words, the High Court Judges within the Family Division are now tasked with determining whether children will be made wards of the state based solely on suspicions of possible radicalization. Children torn from mothers and fathers in Muslim homes will be subject to the whims and inherently flawed watch of the larger citizenry. A citizenry, mind you, that has had its vigilance unduly ramped up by the government’s past actions and requests. It’s hard to imagine a better recipe for the unfair targeting of Muslim families than this. Unfortunately for all concerned, this same memo imagined just such a recipe, making things even worse.
The UK is beginning to resemble the movie “V”, and a that the local media seems transfixed and appalled by the fact Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t hate poor people for being poor.
There are worse things than having Donald Trump leading the polls, and David Cameron and his evil minions™ is one of them.
Every time we get a new bit of information about Obama’s drone policies, it just gets worse:
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that U.S. drone policy is insane. But one story told by the main drone whistleblowing reporter – Jeremy Scahill – shows just how insane it really is. Specifically, Scahill explained today that Americans target TALL people in Afghanistan and other countries … assuming that tall men must be Arabs or “foreign fighters.” In one instance, the U.S. targeted for drone assassination a man who they thought was unusually tall. In reality, he was a normal-size man … who happened to be surrounded by children.
Notwithstanding some domestic accomplishments, such as his half assed healthcare reform, Obama’s true legacy will be his immoral and counterproductive drone war.
Obama’s embrace of the contemptible and disasterous historical legacy of the Dulles brothers is complete.
The law firm of Jainchill and Beckert released a statement on behalf of Jennifer Connell:
From the start, this was a case was about one thing: getting medical bills paid by homeowner’s insurance. Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family. It was about the insurance industry and being forced to sue to get medical bills paid. She suffered a horrific injury. She had two surgeries and is potentially facing a third. Prior to the trial, the insurance company offered her one dollar. Unfortunately, due to Connecticut law, the homeowner’s insurance company could not be identified as the defendant.
……… Connell, a 54-year-old human resources manager, said she loves her nephew, but told the court he should be held responsible for her injury. Connell claims Tarala, of Westport, was negligent and careless, and is suing him for $127,000. “Our client was very reluctant to pursue this case, but in the end she had no choice but to sue the minor defendant directly to get her bills paid. She didn’t want to do this anymore than anyone else would. But her hand was forced by the insurance company. We are disappointed in the outcome, but we understand the verdict. Our client is being attacked on social media. Our client has been through enough,” said her attorneys in a statement.
Just last month, Shkreli earned the disgust of a good portion of the Internet — as well as Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — when it was revealed his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, had raised the price of toxoplasmosis drug Daraprim from $13.50 a pill to $750 overnight. Sanders even wrote a letter to Shkreli, asking for an explanation. But though Shrkreli quickly vowed that “I think that it makes sense to lower the price in response to the anger that was felt by people,” no change has been forthcoming. He now says that “Until we figure out demand, we won’t lower the price. We have to find a safe price to lower it to.” Seems like something he’d want to get on, soon.
Shkreli has, however, meanwhile managed to find the time to troll journalists and retweet photos of cats rolling around in money. He also, according to the Boston Globe, “says he has donated to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders — who has been bashing Big Pharma on the campaign trail — to try to get a meeting so the two can talk it out.” It did not work out that way.
Shkreli claims he recently donated $2,700 — the maximum individual contribution — to Sanders’ campaign. He told the Boston Globe he had hoped for a private meeting with Sanders to explain the rationale of drug company pricing. But on Thursday, the Sanders campaign said they were giving the money to the Whitman-Walker health clinic in Washington, adding, “We are not keeping the money from this poster boy for drug company greed.”
And Shrkreli now says he’s “furious” over the snub. “I think it’s cheap to use one person’s action as a platform without kind of talking to that person,” he says. “He’ll take my money, but he won’t engage with me for five minutes to understand this issue better.” And he continues, “I’d ask him, what role does innovation play in health care? Is he willing to sort of accept that there is a tradeoff, that to take risks for innovation, companies have to invest lots of money and they need some kind of return for that, and what does he think that should look like?” I guess you can’t always get what you want. Meetings with senators, your toxoplasmosis drug returned to a reasonable cost, that sort of thing.
Seriously, Mr. Shrkreli, how about you make the world a better place, and just drop dead.
*From his testicles, not his neck. Death by rope is too quick,† †OK, in a perfect world, there would also be some pinata play as well.‡ ‡And fire ants, definitely fire ants
A jury late Tuesday found Badger Guns and its owner liable in the wounding of two Milwaukee police officers in a first-of-its-kind verdict that was being watched nationwide. Jurors found Badger Guns broke four laws when a clerk sold a gun that was used to shoot Officer Bryan Norberg and former Officer Graham Kunisch in the head in 2009. After nine hours of deliberation, the jury announced a verdict that included nearly $6 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the two officers. There will be an appeal. This high-profile case was only the second of its kind nationwide to make it to a jury since Congress passed a law a decade ago holding gun dealers and manufacturers immune from such lawsuits. In the first, a jury found in favor of a gun store in Alaska. The officers’ attorney, Patrick Dunphy, said Norberg was “overwhelmed with emotion” by the verdict, while Kunisch, who suffered from brain damage in the shooting, was stoic — as he was for all of the trial. Norberg and Kunisch left the courthouse without commenting. Dunphy said he knew the case would be tough because of the strong opinions around guns, but it was important to hold this business accountable for making a gun sale so riddled with red flags. “I didn’t want to send a message, I wanted to represent my clients, these two police officers,” Dunphy said. “Will it change the way things are done around the country? Time will tell.” Brett Heaton Juarez, the jury’s foreperson, said the jurors all agreed the business practices of Badger Guns were shoddy. He recounted testimony from the owners that they didn’t train workers, didn’t have policies and procedures they regularly followed, had not read federal regulations and didn’t even know everything that was required on federal gun-selling forms. ……… Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors were top sellers of crime guns recovered in Milwaukee for more than a decade. In 2005, Badger Outdoors was the top seller of crime guns in the nation with 537 such weapons recovered. Such gun trace data has not been released recently because of a secrecy measure passed by Congress. Badger Guns’ license was revoked by ATF in 2011 but the Jacob Collins transaction was not cited as a violation, so the jury did not hear that the store’s license was revoked. ……… Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors were top sellers of crime guns recovered in Milwaukee for more than a decade. In 2005, Badger Outdoors was the top seller of crime guns in the nation with 537 such weapons recovered. Such gun trace data has not been released recently because of a secrecy measure passed by Congress. Badger Guns’ license was revoked by ATF in 2011 but the Jacob Collins transaction was not cited as a violation, so the jury did not hear that the store’s license was revoked. Michael Allan, Walter’s other son, now runs a gun store in the same location. Much of the nearly three-week trial focused on the events on a Saturday in May 2009. Collins came to Badger Guns on that day to buy a gun for Julius Burton, who was too young to buy a handgun from a store. Dunphy laid out what he called telltale signs of a straw buy: Burton was in the store and pointed to the gun he wanted; Collins initially marked that he was not the buyer of the gun on the form, but was allowed to change that — and also change his address; Collins and Burton left the store to get more cash to pay for the gun; Collins didn’t present an ID when he picked up the gun. After the verdict, Dunphy said he thought the most telling testimony came from Badger Outdoors co-owner Beatovic, who said there were red flags in the sale of the gun to Collins.
Badger in its various incarnations and aliases has been one of the most irresponsible gun stores in the nation for decades.
It’s nice that they Finally have to pay for Some their misdeeds, but by the same token, it is revolting that it has taken so long.
In a just world, the whole Allen Family would have been bankrupted and/or in jail many years ago.
A group of Republican lawmakers are reiterating their call for the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery to remove a bust of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and 25 House members sent a letter to the museum’s director Kim Sajet Friday calling the display of the bust “an affront both to basic human decency and the very meaning of justice.” The letter pointed to Sanger’s support of eugenics, but also blasted her for founding Planned Parenthood, which has been in the crosshairs of congressional Republicans and nearly prompted them to shutdown the federal government rather the reauthorize its funding.
It appears that I cannot set my expectations low enough to meet the reality that is the Republican Party.
It now appears that Obama is replacing a man dedicated to a corporate for profit takeover of education with a man who actually ran schools on based on that all of the least savory aspects of blueprint.
In particular, it appears that he is a big fan of expulsions and suspensions to get low scoring children out of his charter schools.
If you read the news reports following the announcement of John King as our new Secretary of Education, you’d think he had run some of the most successful schools in the country. Here, for example, is Vox:
1) He’s the founder of a successful charter school chain Unlike Duncan, King has been a classroom teacher: He taught for three years, two of them in a charter school, after getting his master’s degree in teaching from Columbia University. In 1999, he became co-director of Roxbury Prep, a Boston charter school renowned for getting high test scores despite serving an exclusively low-income black and Latino student body. King, the New York Times wrote in 2011, was instrumental in designing the charter school’s curriculum and disciplinary structure — including required school uniforms and rules against talking in the hallways. [emphasis mine]
John King, hand-picked by President Obama to lead our nation’s schools, took the lead in designing Roxbury Prep’s discipline policies. How has that played out?
These are the latest out-of-school suspension rates for school districts in the Boston area, from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.* Roxbury Prep not only has the second highest suspension rate in greater Boston; it’s the second largest in the state. The only school with a higher suspension rate is City On Hill; guess who used to teach there (p.12)? This isn’t at all a surprise; as the Boston Globe reported in 2014, Roxbury Prep had previously held the top spot with a suspension rate in 2012-13 of nearly 60 percent. Later on, Roxbury moved under the umbrella of Uncommon Schools, a charter management organization with schools in New York and New Jersey as well as Massachusetts. John King, consequently, rose to become Managing Director for the entire Uncommon chain. Soon, the high suspension rates that were a hallmark of Roxbury Prep became common in all of Uncommon’s schools. In Brooklyn, for example, Uncommon runs several charters; here are their relative suspension rates, as reported by the NY State Education Department: ……… High suspension rates are not good for students. You know who says so? The very USDOE John King is now going to lead: ……… Recently, King defended the “no excuses” discipline found in Uncommon Schools to noted education scholar Pedro Noguera:
I’m not against charter schools, let me be clear, I’m in favor of any good school that’s good for kids. But some of the charter schools that are being held up as a model believe that their goal is to regiment, to completely control their students. To control how they sit, control their eye contact, control their movements in the hallway. Many of them have silence in the hallway and no talking in the lunch room. John King, the new commissioner of education of New York state, is held up as a real reformer because he founded a very successful charter school in Boston called Roxbury Prep and went on to found a network the called Uncommon Schools. And I would say that academically this school is far out-performing many public schools that are serving the same population of kids. So I would acknowledge that they are doing a much better job. I would also acknowledge that the model they use does not appeal to me. I’ve visited this school, and I noticed that children are not allowed to talk in the hall, and they get punished for the most minor infraction. And when I talked with John King afterwards, I said, “I’ve never seen a school that serves affluent children where they’re not allowed to talk in the hall.” And he said, “Well, that might be true, but this is the model that works for us, we’ve found that this is the model that our kids need.”
So I asked him, “Are you preparing these kids to be leaders or followers? Because leaders get to talk in the hall. They get to talk over lunch, they get to go to the bathroom, and people can trust them. They don’t need surveillance and police officers in the bathroom.” And he looked at me like I was talking Latin, because his mindset is that these children couldn’t do that. [emphasis mine]
Apparently, John King believes that schools can and should have high suspension rates — in contradiction to the stated policies of the department he will now lead. From what I read, King will not be officially nominated, serving as the “acting” secretary for the remainder of Obama’s term. That’s a damn shame. I would have dearly loved to have had a senator bring all this up. I would have loved to hear King explain whether he supports current USDOE policy on suspensions and, if so, how he can align that with his own career history as a school leader.
One of the commenters on this post explains the real dynamics here:
Of course the suspension rates are high: one reason the favored charter chains (KIPP, Success Academies, Uncommon schools, et.al.) receive the subsidies and media promotion they do is because they insist on their schools being a cross between prison, boot camp and a behavior-modification Skinner Box for Those Children.
You know Those Children, don’t you? They are ones who must be conditioned and trained, rather than educated (notwithstanding all the false, insipid talk about “scholars”), the ones society has seen as dangerous since they were toddlers, and which these schools are determined to neuter, emotionally and culturally, before trying to re-make them as passive, unquestioning vessels of future labor productivity.
Needless to say, Those Children are subjected to authoritarian, repressive school environments that King and his ilk would never in a million years subject their own children to, as seen when it was revealed that he sent his own young children to a Montessori school that doesn’t use Common Core (though, naturally, he lied about that).
On a more practical basis, high suspension rates are a way for the schools to grease the skids for removing Those Children who might undermine their precious test scores, thereby threatening the false “miracle school” narratives they peddle.
