That statement by Defoe’s attorney Wednesday was the one thing on which he and his courtroom opponent agree in the legal battle over the Anderson County school system’s quarter-century-old ban on the display of the Confederate flag.
It was 18-year-old Defoe who was suspended from Anderson County High School in 2006 after repeatedly refusing, albeit politely, to take off or cover a T-shirt and belt buckle bearing the Rebel battle flag. It was Defoe who has been sitting at the table in U.S. District Court this week as the plaintiff in a lawsuit that labels the ban an unconstitutional violation of the teenager’s right to free speech.
If you are inclined to believe he should be able to wear his t-shirt and belt buckle would you then also say he should be free to show up in hot pink knee-length boots?
The boy’s parents, Dawn and Gregory King, along with his younger brother, Rocky King, are seeking unspecified damages related to the fatal shooting of the 15-year-old boy as he sat in English class at E.O. Green School on Feb. 12. …
In the claims, the Kings say school and county staff members failed to enforce the middle school’s dress code.
That put the feminine-dressing King at particular risk at a time when staff members knew he had “unique vulnerabilities” and was “susceptible to abuse” because of his perceived sexual orientation, the claim says. …
King had told friends he was gay, and he wore makeup, jewelry and high-heeled boots with his school uniform — something Dannenberg said the teen had the freedom to do under his First Amendment rights.
The school’s dress code prevents students from wearing articles of clothing considered distracting. Much broader — and thus more likely to survive a court challenge? — than the specific Confederate flag ban in Tennessee.
My own thought is that dress codes for kids are fine. I see us demanding that schools do more and more of our parenting, so we shouldn’t take away their tools.
For those following the case of Brandon McInerney (the teen who shot King), he entered a not guilty plea last week. The judge has ruled that his lawyers may view records documenting King’s behavior.
A debate coach for Fort Hays State University, in Kansas, is under review by the institution after he swore at officials and mooned judges at a tournament earlier this year, in an incident that was recorded and uploaded to YouTube.
The coach, William Shanahan III, a professor of communication, got into a shouting match with a judge—and at one point briefly dropped his pants—during the national tournament of the Cross Examination Debate Association, which was held in Kansas this spring. A video recording of the incident was posted to YouTube last week, drawing thousands of views, attention from the national news media, and calls to the university from alumni and others demanding that it fire the professor for his behavior.
WARNING: the video is so full of profanity I would not dare post it here!!! I work in academia and love the academy. Usually.
“Fort Hays State University does not condone such behavior or the language Bill uses in that video,” said Larry Gould, the university’s provost, in an interview on Wednesday. “His appointment is under consideration here. We’re investigating at this point, and we want to make sure everybody’s rights are protected.”
This guy is the debate coach!!! The least they can do is prima facia suspend him from that position until the matter is resolved! Without the video, what would the consequences be?
Mr. Shanahan may not have faced an investigation at the university had the video not become public. No one complained to officials there until after the video hit YouTube. “You wouldn’t have seen this five or six years ago,” Mr. Gould said.
But officials for the debate association said they began an investigation before the video went public because someone filed a complaint against Mr. Shanahan’s behavior soon after the tournament.
What with all of the excitement swirling around the Olympics and the ongoing drama in Georgia, I’m sure that the prospect of another heavily wonkish discussion of domestic policy issues might have you checking to see if you couldn’t schedule a quick root canal. But that won’t stop me urging you to check out a recent piece at BlogHer written by Nancy Pfotenhauer on the subject of education. I’ve interviewed Nancy before and she’s a seriously hard hitting wonk from McCain’s team on domestic issues, particularly education.
She sums up the main thrust of McCain’s education policy in three bullet points. First, accountability and individual achievement should be the cornerstone of any metrics when measuring success in our schools and student performance. Second, parents need more options rather than less, and an increasing measure of control over their own children’s education. And last, government should be providing real incentives and training opportunities to get skilled, qualified teachers into some of our most-challenged schools.
I’ll leave it to you to follow the jump and read the full analysis, but there is some good, common sense material here, well worth your consideration. If you have any additional suggestions for government tinkering in the educational process, feel free to toss them out here. Cheers!
Georgia Republican Congressman Paul Broun will win reelection in November. In April he introduced a bill to prohibit the sale of pornography on military bases. He followed that up in May with a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Then last month he fought off his primary challenger by questioning his religious convictions. (His opponent was an active Christian who, among other church duties, served as chairman of the board of deacons.)
That’s how you win in Georgia’s 10th Congressional District, among the most conservative in the state. That and this:
Rep. Paul Broun, R-Athens, has proposed legislation to withhold federal funds from any school that lets students sing The Star-Spangled Banner or say the Pledge of Allegiance in a language other than English.
He introduced the PLEDGE - Pledge Language is English Declaration and Government Endorsement - Act of 2008 on Friday. Requiring immigrant students to say the pledge and sing the national anthem in English will help them assimilate, Broun said. […]
Schools in New Mexico, Arizona and Wisconsin allow and sometimes require students to recite the pledge in Spanish or another language, according to ProEnglish, a Virginia-based nonprofit that pushes English as the official language of the U.S.
RELATED: All of the seven Republicans representing Georgia in Congress voted against the education bill passed last week by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate.
Last week, in an unprecedented action, the House of Representatives voted to pass a non-binding resolution to apologize for slavery and Jim Crow laws that were used to keep African-Americans from using their political rights for almost a century after the Civil War. As an African-American, I am pleased and perplexed by this vote and wonder who stands to gain from this warm and fuzzy moment.
The sponsor of the bill, Representative Steve Cohen, represents a majority African-American district and is running in his first re-election campaign. While I do not think that his bill (H. Resolution 194) is a total political maneuver, it does not hurt his chances of winning a second term.
A more interesting question is why forward an apology at this time? Perhaps it may have something to do with a possible occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It would be in bad form to elect a person of color to the Presidency if our government never formally addressed the historic legacy of slavery in this country. But what does this apology really mean? Is it going to address the inadequate schools in our cities or help in rebuilding a sense of economic viability in the African-American community? Probably not, so what is the next step in the process of racial reconciliation?
There are two examples of steps taken by States and the Congress to provide financial reparations to ethnic groups that were mistreated by our government. Native Americans were offered tax breaks and the ability to own casino gaming licenses which they have used to their advantage. In 1988, the Congress apologized to American citizens of Japanese descent and offered $20,000 per person to each of the 60,000 detainees held against their will during the Second World War.
So how much is the apology for slavery and Jim Crow laws actually worth in 2008? In 1865, freed slaves were promised 40 acres and a mule through Special Field Orders No. 15 by General William T. Sherman. Of course, by the end of 1866, President Johnson had repealed Sherman’s order that was authorized by President Lincoln. How much is 40 acres and a mule worth today? The reality is that if it took 140 years to get a written apology do not look for the African-American stimulus package to hit your mailbox anytime soon.
In the meantime, how about just getting forty textbooks for forty students AND a competent teacher in each classroom…I’ll just have to wait for my condo and my hybrid.
I was reading the full text of John McCain’s speech to the Urban League today, but when I went to look for the media coverage of it, what I found was, shall we say, disappointing. The primary buzz in both newspapers and television was about the “cool” reception he received for some remarks concerning the policy proposals of his opponent, Senator Barack Obama. (Though the majority of reports were generous enough to note that Senator McCain received a respectful standing ovation from the attendees at both the beginning and end of his remarks.)
I will grant you that the specific audience was not tailored to McCain from a political perspective. The Urban League is largely an African-American organization and nobody - including McCain’s team - is under the impression that one speech is suddenly going to swing 50% of the nation’s black voters to his banner. We could also reasonably expect that Obama would receive a rousing welcome for his remarks. (Which he did, and his speech was both well crafted and skillfully delivered.)
What was most disappointing to me, though, was the lack of coverage of a large portion of McCain’s speech on a very pressing domestic issue - education. The audience was a good fit, given their motivation to assist lower income persons to move into the economic mainstream. And McCain’s remarks were very much on point. He talked about the need for options by parents with students in troubled or failing public school districts. He spoke persuasively about programs in place, both in Washington, DC and New Orleans, which provide such choices and opportunities and the benefits they are providing to parents and children. Current education policies have clearly been failing families, and the proof is in front of you all around the country. (Though never more obvious than in so many of our inner city school districts.)
I would ask you to take a moment and read the full portion of the speech which the media was not covering and judge for yourself.
Observing the McCain campaign this week is becoming uncomfortably akin to watching a New York Jets game. Even if you really, really want them to win, you get a sick feeling in your gut as you see them drop passes, fumble and throw the ball to people wearing the wrong jersey. Opportunities are there, but flailing, wild swings are taken in the wrong direction. And now we see McCain comparing Obama to a pop star such as Paris Hilton or Britney Speares?
“This is a typically superfluous response from Barack Obama. Like most celebrities, he reacts to fair criticism with a mix of fussiness and hysteria,” says McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds
Really? This is the new approach? The move is already being ripped to shreds. It is once again time to track down the person on McCain’s campaign staff who keeps feeding him these ideas. Previously I had felt that firing them would be enough. No longer! This individual must, I fear, be dragged into a steel cage on pay per view, drawn, quartered and hided, with their limbs sent to be displayed on bridges at the four corners of the country and a stern warning to future advisers stamped on their skin which should be hung on the wall of McCain’s war room.
This bewildering move immediately delivered benefits for Obama, as the press caught up with him boarding his bus. He smiles broadly, as if McCain were nothing more than a housefly buzzing around him and takes advantage of the opportunity to say, “He doesn’t seem to have much positive to say about himself, does he? He’s just talking about me. You need to ask John McCain what he’s for, not just what he’s against.”
The networks are already running that clip in an endless loop.
Meanwhile, the answer for McCain is right in front of him. He had a good week hitting the swing states and talking about the Three E’s - Energy, Education and the Economy. There is new ammunition coming into his arsenal every day. You want to run some new advertisements, Senator McCain? Talk about this. A majority of Americans now want more drilling for domestic oil production. Hell’s Bells, even in California more than half of the residents are willing to look into drilling off their own shores. (This helps to take some of the wind out of the sails of the “Not in my back yard” arguments brought up by some opponents of domestic production.)
This is one of the winning issues where you can pin your opponent’s considerably large ears back and you know he can’t back down on it. But instead, you’re spending time and resources on ads trying to link him to pop music divas? It’s not as if this election wasn’t going to be tough enough to start with. There’s no need to make it harder on yourself.
Last week a California judge ruled that trying a 14-year-old boy accused of murder in an adult court does not violate the constitution:
“I cannot say that this is unconstitutional,” said Ventura County Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily.
Teenage defendant Brandon McInerney of Oxnard is charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime in connection with the Feb. 12 killing of classmate Larry King, 15, who sometimes wore makeup and told friends he was gay.
Today a Ventura County Star editorial pleads with District Attorney Greg Totten to use his discretion to rethink that decision:
The Star Editorial Board respectfully asks Mr. Totten to step out of his office, ask for counsel outside his prosecutor peers to lessen the real influence of groupthink, look at the question anew and reflect again on the circumstances before making a final decision. (His initial decision was made within just two days of the shooting and his office had left open the possibility it could change as more facts were learned.)
We hope Mr. Totten also considers the information that has come forward recently in the national discussion of whether children should be tried as adults. A November 2007 report by the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law organization in Montgomery, Ala., stated that the United States is one of the few countries in the world that allows children to be prosecuted as adults and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
The majority world opinion of civilized nations is that juveniles should not be subject to dying in prison — certainly not 14-year-olds.
There is science on the competence of 14-year-olds that ought to inform our legal and ethical decision as to whether or not we should declare kids adults fit for trial. William Saletan, for example, has reported:
In a forthcoming review of studies, Laurence Steinberg of Temple University observes that at ages 12 to 13, only 11 percent of kids score at an average (50th percentile) adult level on tests of intellectual ability. By ages 14 to 15, the percentage has doubled to 21. By ages 16 to 17, it has doubled again to 42. After that, it levels off. […]
Steinberg reports that on tests of psychosocial maturity, kids are much slower to develop. From ages 10 to 21, only one of every four young people scores at an average adult level. By ages 22 to 25, one in three reaches that level. By ages 26 to 30, it’s up to two in three.
Emphasis mine. The case at hand presents a psychosocial challenge that was daunting for all involved. In fact, the evidence indicates it pretty much overwhelmed all of the adults involved.
Arguably, what we have here is the scapegoating of kids for the inability of adult individuals and institutions to cope with the complexities of psychosocial challenges of our own making. We built this society; we birthed those kids; we raise and educate them!
Some of the indicators become clear in last week’s Newsweek Cover Story — no matter what your political persuasion (or perspective on the objectivity or lack thereof of the reporters of the story). Extended illustrative excerpts follow. Read the rest of this entry »
Among the oddities that has emerged during the course of the present Presidential election, is that both candidates - John McCain and Barack Obama - are left-handed.
Previously, we translated an Arabic article from Iraq about the phenomenon, and today we have this from France’s Rue 89.
“The proportion of left-handed (per country) is directly proportional to the tolerance accorded left-handers. It was 3 percent in early 20th century France. It’s now around 15 percent and in the United States, it’s approaching 25 percent. It [the U.S.] is historically a more permissive country, more concerned with individual rights, which has lifted the stigma from left-handedness much earlier than in our Old Europe.”
When Barack Obama pointed out recently that Americans should - in their own interest - teach their children Spanish or some other second language, many were quick to pounce.
But, not surprisingly, people in South America wholeheartedly agree with him.
“The percentage of people in the United States who master a foreign-language is pathetic compared to other wealthy countries. … Obama is right, although it would’ve been nice if he himself spoke Spanish or some other language. … a recent survey taken in 27 countries of the European Union revealed that 56 percent of Europeans speak at least one language apart from their native tongue, which is an increase of 53 percent over five years ago.”
Today, John McCain addressed the NAACP, and given that a large portion of his speech centered on education issues, this is as good a time as any to visit the education proposals of the candidates. In preparation for this, I spoke today with Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior policy advisor on domestic issues for John McCain’s campaign, and I’ll include a portion of that interview here. We were unable to reach a DNC representative thus far. With all the attention currently centering on the economy, energy policy and the wars, information on education policy has gotten scant attention in the media.
A lot of the proposals from both sides will involve expanding Federal government spending on education. From the Obama web site, we see that he plans on pushing for a new tax credit for college tuition.
Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students.
Senator McCain’s proposals also include new spending for innovative programs. Both candidates would like to see financial incentives for recruiting new teachers and encouraging them to work in some of the more challenging schools, particularly in urban areas.
There are a few differences to highlight, however. Obama’s proposals seem more geared toward conventional K-12 public schools, while McCain’s plan includes significant funding for the expansion of distance learning. (Remote, computer based education.) During our interview today, Ms. Pfotenhauer told us:
There is at least a half billion dollars more in spending that will go to expand technical advancements, getting these students online, to build new resources and expand what is available on line.
The McCain plan also puts 250 million into “Virtual Passport Scholarships” for such distance education.
Another area of difference is that fact that Senator Obama has come out in opposition to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Senator McCain is supporting it and proposes to expand funding for the project. The key differentiator here seems to be over the matter of school vouchers. In short, the Democrats oppose them, feeling that they pull money and resources from already failing schools, and the Republicans favor them as an opportunity for parents to seek a better school for their children if the current one fails them. Back to our interview, this is Ms. Pfotenhaur summarizing why John McCain feels that vouchers are important.
Every child deserves the right to a high quality education, regardless of their socioeconomic background. The DC program is the one we can affect the most. All of our programs are designed to help the public education system through the reduction of bureaucratic barriers and offering choices to parents . We want all children to have access to a high quality education.
Both campaigns have an emphasis on recruiting and retaining large numbers of new teachers and getting them to work in schools where resources are scarce. Additionally, the Obama plan stresses streamlining and simplifying the application process for federal aid.
Personally, I’ve never had a serious problem with some of the proposed voucher systems, providing they don’t drain too many resources from our public schools. (Your mileage may vary.) Americans like having choices, and when making decisions about childrens’ education, it shouldn’t be any different. I’m also enthusiastic about remote education opportunities. (As an aside, my own wife completed one such degree program from home while changing careers.) Both of the candidates have some aggressive projects in mind to improve education, but with the two noted areas of difference, I will have to give my personal tip of the hat to McCain on education policy.
Saro, who first said he liked boys to a classmate in sixth grade, is like many of today’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths who openly discuss their sexual orientation and identity with friends, and sometimes family, before entering high school. In doing so, experts say, these youths are escaping the isolation of generations before them but also finding themselves vulnerable to harassment — or worse. A California eighth-grader who expressed interest in asking another boy to be his valentine was fatally shot in February in a case that drew national attention.
“Within any given school system, there may be a very accepting crowd and a very hateful crowd,” said Robert-Jay Green, executive director of the Rockway Institute in San Francisco, a national center for LGBT research and public policy. “You have to find a way to avoid the people who will hurt you and keep close to the group that will accept you.”
In recent years, 110 Gay Straight Alliance clubs, which are common in high schools nationwide, have sprouted in middle schools, including nine in Maryland and Virginia. Kevin Jennings, the founder of the first club, said he “never anticipated” they would also form in middle grades. His organization, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is creating age-appropriate pamphlets to respond to the trend.
This year, students in 1,046 middle schools took part in the Day of Silence, a protest against LGBT intolerance, organizers said, double the participation level of the previous year.
“Unlike people of my generation, where there was very little visibility and a great sense of sadness, these kids know gay people are out there,” Jennings said. “They have a language now to understand their feelings.”
And there’s this:
The first time Saro said aloud what he had always felt — that he liked boys — came when he lived in Prince George’s County. The words tumbled out, Saro said, as he and another sixth-grader were walking home. The boy shrugged it off with a “So?”
Later that year, that boy called him an anti-gay slur. When Saro ran to tell the teacher, according to a letter his parents wrote to the school, he was told: “Well, you act like one, so you should be used to it by now.”
The issues are difficult and complex — for parents and for kids. The article is sensitive and complete. Please read it.
I’m watching the arguments unfurl around Barack Obama’s comments on foreign language study, and I’m amazed. (Memeorandum has several lead articles with commentary. Here and here should get you started.)
People are fixating on various aspects of the statement, and totally missing the point.
Foreign language study by Americans has nothing to do with illegal immigration. It’s unrelated to tourism. And while there’s an argument to be made about cultural knowledge gained from the study of other languages, that’s still not the main reason why studying a foreign language (or two or three) is a good idea for Americans.
It’s a good idea because we no longer live in a world where the customer base for goods and services is limited to our own backyard. As the folks in the Rustbelt have noticed, this global economy has radically impacted our employment prospects. The genie’s out of the bottle all the way, and there’s no chance he’s going to be stuffed back in.
[…] Obama is absolutely right — particularly for Americans competing for jobs in our own market, let alone against global competition.
Because it’s a relatively rare skill, an American who has full mastery of English, and brings a second (or third) language into the equation, is an obvious asset. Unfortunately, the mastery of English is also a relatively rare skill — and that’s an absolute must before one can add other languages with proficiency.
This is much bigger than “but English is the international business language”. That may be true, but it’s an astoundingly superficial analysis — in large part because the global economy does more than bring goods to (and from) faraway places. It provides job opportunities with the companies that do business there (and here).
For instance: Which job candidate do you think is more likely to be hired by a company who wants to expand its market base to…say… South America? Candidate A, who speaks English and Spanish? Or Candidate B, who speaks only English?
And what about corporations doing business in Europe? It’s true that most Europeans have multiple languages (including at least some English), so does that mean Americans needn’t bother with any European languages? Does anyone seriously think a monolingual American job applicant will be seen as an equally valuable potential asset as someone who speaks English and a couple other languages?
Or consider the largest potential consumer base on the planet. Do you think Mandarin (or Cantonese) might be a useful language in the foreseeable future? You’ll have trouble mastering it if you’ve never studied a foreign language before.
This isn’t about Spanish, or bilingualism, or multiculturalism, or illegal immigration, or elitism. It’s about flexibility and marketability. It’s about competition and jobs.
It’s about reality and the future, and it frankly amazes me that people are taking issue with Obama over this.
July 6th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
THE SELKIE
Starbucks chose the motif of the mermaid, a beautiful and ancient motif about which there are many stories. In one of my books I tell the story about how just such a mermaid sickens and dries out when lured to land by a man who says he loves her. But, she cannot abide his way of living, nor what he requires of her… she cannot become as the man wishes just because he wishes it so.
She is harmed by being forced to live endlessly according to land-locked rules. The mermaid– often in the oldest stories, called ‘the selkie,’– has to return to the water in order to live. During her time on land, she gradually loses the sparkle to her flesh, loses her moistness. Her body is dried, weakened and her eyes gone near blind, …but one night, she hears the call of the old grandfather selkie calling her home. Somehow, she finds her way to the water again, and diving under the waves, is restored.
But not without sadness, to leave the man. And not without the man’s sadness to have lost his dream.
Here in the west where I live, there once were mom and pop coffee shops everywhere. They had magazine bars and great live music, and small delis, and armchairs and outdoor seating under umbrellas, and many kinds of tea and coffee. Some had short order. Some had bakeries attached out back. Mom and pop and whoever worked there knew not only everyone by name, but by ailment, by achievement, by current challenge each customer was happily or sadly facing. You know, asked after every soul who walked in.
The mom and pop joints were more like Cheers than like American Idol. There were regulars; the core group that was friendly and funny. Strangers were included, invited into the conversations with a, Hey buddy what do you think? There was much, much laughter.
President Bush today signed the $162 billion war funding legislation that includes the $63 billion New G.I. Bill.
According to ABC News, “The GI Bill measure, authored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., had such extraordinary support from both Democrats and Republicans that White House objections were easily overridden.”
The New G.I. Bill, which will be officially known as the Post 9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2008, will increase the education benefits of service members, give a monthly living stipend, a yearly expense for books, and offer the benefits to be transferable to spouses and children of service members.
According to the Army Times, “…the lawmaker getting and appearing to deserve the greatest praise for the GI Bill initiative was Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a freshman senator and Vietnam veteran who said he was just trying to give combat veterans the benefits they deserve.”
“Eighteen months ago, we began with the simple concept that those who have been serving since 9/11 should have the same opportunity for a first-class educational future as those who served during World War II,” Webb said before Thursday’s vote. “Today, we have accomplished that goal. I would like to emphasize that this is not simply an expansion of veterans’ educational benefits. This is a new program, a deserved program.”
Bush praised Webb and John Warner, but he also praised other Republican Senators, including John McCain, who had fiercely opposed the original Webb Bill. McCain, wasn’t even present for the final Senate vote on the G.I. Bill.
Some of the information herein was obtained from the web site, Podcast Patriot,a site that contains some of the most up-to-date, comprehensive and accurate information on the New G.I. Bill, and other military and veterans issues.
Its editor and author, Joshua Hudson, “completed a noteworthy twenty-year career as a military photojournalist, public affairs specialist and videographer. His work promoting positive military awareness and supporting military and veterans issues has had a significant impact on the community.”
Pressured by countless telephone calls, tens of thousands petition signatures and letters to Capitol Hill, thousands of letters to the editor, and hundreds of columns and opinion pieces (hopefully one or two of mine included therein) a sufficient number of Republican Senators have joined their Democratic colleagues to overwhelmingly–I.e. “veto proof”–pass Senator Webb’s version of the 21st Century GI Bill.
In a strong show of true support for our troops, last night, 77 U.S. Senators voted in favor of the GI bill, including my home state Senator Cornyn, who finally saw the light and did the right thing. Twenty-one other Senators–all Republicans–voted “Nay,” including the “wide stance” Senator from Idaho.
There were only two Senators absent for this important vote. One was Ted Kennedy who is recovering from brain surgery. The other, Sen. John McCain, who has fought the Webb bill tooth and nail. McCain, President Bush and a few others at first claimed, in an unbelievably misplaced penny pinching mode, that the bill “would cost too much.“ When that didn’t fly, they postulated that the bill would hurt retention–a claim that was quickly countered by a Congressional Budget Office analysis that found any possible losses in retention caused by this bill would be balanced by the increases in recruitment it would generate.
As far as the president goes–the other opponent of the more fair and generous Webb bill–according to the Washington Post:
In a 92 to 6 vote, the Senate yesterday approved unrestricted funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that allows continuation of the current military course of action through the end of President Bush’s term and beyond. In exchange for that unencumbered freedom to operate in Iraq, Bush agreed to demands by congressional Democrats to create a new higher-education benefit for veterans and their families, and to extend unemployment benefits (Emphasis mine)
After initially fighting the education provisions of the GI Bill, because they would “cost too much,“ Bush (and McCain) demanded that the education benefit be transferable to spouses and children of veterans. Democrats complied and pushed the cost of the Webb bill to $62.8 billion over 11 years.
The improved Webb GI Bill now goes to the President, attached to the 2008 war supplemental. Let’s hope that, this time, the President will truly support our troops and promptly and unequivocally (no signing statements) will sign the bill.
The Iraqi refugee crisis–and it is a crisis–continues to draw my interest, and, the refugees, my compassion.
Perhaps it is because of my personal involvement in another refugee crisis in the seventies; perhaps it is because, in my opinion, the tragedy is a direct, albeit unintended result of our disastrous decision to invade Iraq and our equally disastrous mismanagement of the subsequent, nearly six-year-long occupation.
While, according to some sources, the situation in Iraq seems to be improving, there is no near-term end in sight to the sheer misery that over four million displaced Iraqis are experiencing–in squalid camps in their own country and in equally sordid conditions, mostly in Syria and Jordan.
Regardless of my passion for this issue, it is always great when I come across other voices that are equally or more passionate, and especially much more eloquent and authoritative.
A few days ago, I related the expert opinion on this issue by Morton Abramowitz, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a board member of the International Rescue Committee.
Today’s New York Times had an opinion piece on the Iraqi refugees issue by none other than two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, Nicholas D. Kristof.
I honestly can not think of another journalist–or for that matter, a politician or government official–who has focused more of the world’s attention on genocide, famine, global health, poverty and refugee issues in the developing world and elsewhere. Since 2004 Kristof has written dozens of columns about Darfur and visited the area eight times.
Thus, it should be no surprise that Mr. Kristof won his second Pulitzer in 2006, for commentary for what the judges called “his graphic, deeply reported columns that, at personal risk, focused attention on genocide in Darfur and that gave voice to the voiceless in other parts of the world.”
In his column, “Books not Bombs,” Kristof calls attention to what he calls the “dirty little secret” of the Iraq war:
The dirty little secret of the Iraq war isn’t in Baghdad or Basra. Rather, it’s found in the squalid brothels of Damascus and the poorest neighborhoods of East Amman.
Some two million Iraqis have fled their homeland and are now sheltering in run-down neighborhoods in surrounding countries. These are the new Palestinians, the 21st-century Arab diaspora that threatens the region’s stability.
Many youngsters are getting no education, and some girls are pushed into prostitution, particularly in Damascus. Impoverished, angry, disenfranchised, unwanted, these Iraqis are a combustible new Middle Eastern element that no one wants to address or even think about.
Kristof also writes:
We broke Iraq, and we have a moral responsibility to those whose lives have been shattered by our actions. Helping them is also in our national interest, for we’ll regret our myopia if we allow young Iraqi refugees to grow up uneducated and unemployable, festering in their societies.
In one of my pieces on this subject I quoted one of the members of our compassionate Conservative administration expressing just the opposite opinion: “…our obligation was to give [Iraqis] new institutions and provide security…” and , we don’t “have an obligation to compensate [Iraqis] for the hardships of war.” You guessed it, this was our former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton
Kristof also bemoans how little the U.S. has done towards accepting more Iraqi refugees into our country. But he also has a suggestion that would help the refugees and at the same time would address the region’s security challenges instead of “devoting billions of dollars to permanent American military bases,” as American hawks would prefer doing:
A simpler way to fight extremism would be to pay school fees for refugee children to ensure that they at least get an education and don’t become forever marginalized and underemployed.
[…]
We have already seen, in the case of Palestinians, how a refugee diaspora can destabilize a region for decades. If Jordan were to collapse in part from such pressures, that would be a catastrophe — and the best way to prevent that isn’t to give it Blackhawk helicopters, but help with school fees and school construction.
If we let the Iraqi refugee crisis drag on — and especially if we allow young refugees to miss an education so that they will never have a future — then we are sentencing ourselves to endure their wrath for decades to come. Educating Iraqis may not be as glamorous as bombing them, but it will do far more good.
Amen, Mr. Kristof, and thank you for continuing to give “voice to the voiceless in other parts of the world.”
The following Guest Voice post is by Charlie Gandelman, a student who studied in Egypt and is an Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Major at Brandeis. Editor’s Note: I never met Charlie but he found me and TMV on the Internet. When I saw his writing, I invited him to do a Guest Voice post. This is his first and is cross posted on his blog. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
Egypt, Israel And Academia
by Charlie Gandelman
From the first days I arrived at The American University In Cairo, I often heard talk of the university “normalizing” relations with Israel. The term does not have an exact definition, but what I came to understand was that a “normal” relationship is one in which there is no boycott, like the way AUC and any American university interact. From what I understand, right now the status between AUC and Israeli academia is in limbo, somewhere between a boycott and an established relationship.
In the last few weeks, however, the faculty senate, responding to the normalization rumors, passed a resolution condemning the idea of a normal relationship with Israeli academia–supporting a boycott of it.
I found it extremely dissapointing that the academic leaders of this institution supported this boycott, given the unique opportunity for dialogue and understanding were AUC and Israeli institutions to establish some sort of relationship. I wrote a letter to the editor expressing this sentiment and was published in this week’s issue.
Since I first wrote the letter as a much longer Op-Ed, I will post the link to the letter to the editor and post the Op-Ed itself here.
Last week, I read with great disappointment that The American University in Cairo’s faculty senate passed a resolution calling for the community to refrain from normalizing relations with Israeli academia. It is an unfortunate reality that the senate members’ personal biases and self-righteous indignation are serving to undermine a historic opportunity for the community and country they are supposedly striving to enlighten. While AUC could have led a breakthrough initiative of tolerance and understanding, the senate decided that their political grudges were more important than advancing the causes of academic integrity and bi-cultural understanding.
The main reason the senate passed the resolution is from political disapproval and anger towards Israel. The senate feared that that normalizing relations would somehow condone Israel’s actions—that the institution of Israeli academia is an extension of the government’s doctrines. As Professor Sherif El Musa points out, it is unfortunate and heartbreaking that he cannot return to Gaza and many of the students’ educations there are put on pause. El-Musa and the senate, seeing and even experiencing the suffering of the Palestinians under the Israelis, in no way want to excuse the government’s behavior by establishing ties with prominent Israeli institutions.
But establishing ties with Israeli academia and condoning the government’s actions are two very separate actions. Read the rest of this entry »
In the strongest rebuff yet of the national “pregnancy pact” story that has scandalized Gloucester, top city and school officials say there’s no evidence that nearly half of the 17 pregnant teens at Gloucester High conspired to have babies together.
“We have not been able to confirm the existence of a pact,” said Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk, trying to defuse the national story on the school’s teen baby mama drama. “The information from the principal has not been verified by any other source.”
Principal Joseph Sullivan, in an explosive story published last week in Time magazine, said about half the 17 pregnant teens at Gloucester High made a pact to get pregnant, even high-fiving each other when they had a positive test at a school clinic.
Developing… Update added minutes later… Anatomy of a media-made pact. From the horse’s mouth, GloucesterTimes.com:
Through stories and editorials, we have occasionally noted that at least some of the 18 girls who became pregnant this past school year did so intentionally, with the idea that it might be “cool” to “become moms” and raise the babies together. Could that be considered some sort of informal “pact”? Maybe. It depends on how formally one defines that word. But one thing has become certain over the past two days — that’s the fact that “pact” can certainly be a magic word. As soon as Time magazine reported the presence of a “pregnancy pact” — as its headline blared in its online edition Thursday — this story, which had already sparked local and some national talk about teen pregnancy and the distribution of contraceptives in schools, exploded worldwide.
How? Well, shortly after Time posted the story, national news network CNN — a corporate partner of Time Warner, and thus a close partner of Time — added the “pregnancy pact” story to its online and broadcast reports. It wasn’t long after that the other major news networks joined in, and the frenzy was on.
By Thursday night — before the print edition of Time was even on newsstands — Gloucester and its teen “pregnancy pact” were featured on the CBS Evening News, and Patrick Anderson, our reporter on the story, was called upon for a guest spot on MSNBC’s Dan Abrams show. By yesterday morning, I was getting calls and doing live radio interviews with WABC in New York, with BBC World News in London and with Ireland national radio in Dublin. All, of course, were looking for more information about a story that has literally thrust — or plunged — Gloucester into the global spotlight.
In the midst of all of this, our own coverage has maintained a different focus. Yesterday’s Times focused on the fact that none of the pregnant girls — not one — dropped out of school this year, a fact officials credit in large part to what has become something of a controversial day-care facility at the school. And while today’s story leads with local officials questioning the status of any “pact,” (Please see news story, Page 1) it also includes coverage of the media’s sudden, intense interest in our community on the heels of the explosive Time story. For Gloucester, we believed that had, indeed, become part of the story as well.
So, you may ask, why has your community’s newspaper covered this global story like that — with only peripheral mention of any “pact”? Because, frankly, no one had used that term in describing the girls’ intentions to us — as no one apparently had with local school and other officials, either.
Answer that Time Magazine!!! Parenthetically, more confirmation of my point last night, heedless adults taking thoughtless advantage of kids for our needs. In this case the need for a good story! Thereare doubtless real, complex, nuanced, important issues and problems that need to be addressed in this story. I’m not sure we’ve done anyone any service!(I’m still reading…) I hate it when I rant! It was the principal who gave the quote. Sounds like he got carried away.
The story would have benefited from more caution all around. None of the girls would be interviewed; a recent graduate of the school who “thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant” is quoted instead. You can get by with that I guess but it’s not the best journalistic practice in the book…
THE NEXT DAY ON TODAY: The Time reporter, Kathleen Kingsbury, on The Today Show, 8:12 a.m. EDT, “…repeatedly the story I heard out there was that there was a group of girlfriends who decided to get pregnant and raise their babies together…” Hey??? I didn’t hear the word pact! Did you??? BAD REPORTORIAL PRACTICES!!! Confirmed on Today!!!
Observing the McCain campaign this week is becoming uncomfortably akin to watching a New York Jets game. Even if you really, really want them to win, you get a sick feeling in your gut as you see them drop passes, fumble and throw the ball to people wearing the wrong jersey. Opportunities are there, but flailing, wild swings are taken in the wrong direction. And now we see McCain 
