Clinton Prosecutor Now Targeting Free Speech 571
Virchull tells us about a case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, in which former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr will take the side of an Alaska school board against a student who displayed a rude banner off school property. The banner read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" and it got the student suspended. He and his parents sued the school board for violating his First Amendment rights. The case is nuanced: while the student did not display the banner on school property, he did do so during a school function. Starr is said to be arguing the case for free.
Some thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
American public education must be stopped. The high school I graduated from recently enforced school uniforms, suspending students who refuse to conform.[1]
For a country full of people shouting "freedom, democracy!" we sure let the next generations get systematically fucked out of their own freedoms.
[1] This same high school suspended me (one day, three days in-school suspension, after which I was banned from using school computers for the rest of the school year) for doing as a teacher had asked me, hooking up computers to the network to use a deparment purchased laser printer, after said printers were used to look at pr0n during school hours.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)
American public education must be stopped.
I could not have said it better myself. I had a good experience in high school, but as far as I can tell, that is by far the exception. Public schools are a mess. Parents have no leverage. Abolish public schools, quit taxing property to pay for schools and let the parents be responsible for their children's educations. When this country was founded private education was the norm. Heck is basically the only thing available.
Incidentally, literacy rates in this country peaked prior to the introduction of public education.
Give thanks to Starr (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)
People are "systematically getting fucked out of their freedoms," but that being true or not isn't really germain, and just saying it doesnt help anyone. Which isn't to say it is not a valid statement, but it still doesnt get at the why, which is vastly more important.
Looking at schools is a good jumping board, because they are disciplinary institutions in as much as they are educational, and often schools provide a good (if not slightly immature) microcosm of a region;s culture, ideals, ethics, etc. (this is especially true of public schools). In anycase, the real questions, it would seem, should be what is the motivation behind molding people to be more and more simmiliar, and what are the societal pressures that make conformity and lack of expression so attractive? These aren't issues just in the schools; it can be seen in the macrocosm quite clearly. I certainly dont have answers for these questions, but i think this case could be very interesting with regards to the answers it could potentially provide. Certainly the hype is a little untoward, and unfourtunately people will either be intrueged or disgusted not by the case, but by the media circus that is sure to be conjured, but with any luck a few people will follow the case objectively and maybe some real change can begin to take place, or at least some understanding as to why perhaps this conformity is becomming so prevalant.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
I could not have said it better myself. I had a good experience in high school, but as far as I can tell, that is by far the exception. Public schools are a mess. Parents have no leverage.
I can see the points being made but I can't give up on public education just yet The fact that you had a good experience, I had a good experience, and undoubtedly many more have good experiences show that the system can work. Now, granted, my views are tainted by the fact that I did come out of a good public school system and I admittedly have a narrow field of view based on that. But still, just because it's fucked up doesn't mean it's irreparable. Maybe it is, but at this point I can't get on the "let's destroy public schools and dump the kids into private schools" bandwagon.
I would really like to see public education continue as an option. Of course, it needs to be a viable option -- so let's work on getting to that point instead of just punting. The discourse in this country over the last several years makes it seem as if we are more intent on feeding money to private schools (vouchers, vouchers, vouchers...) than actually getting serious about fixing public education.
Abolish public schools, quit taxing property to pay for schools and let the parents be responsible for their children's educations.
Think about a lot of parents out there... Are you really sure you wanna give them this responsibility?
Settle down (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I would agree that that seems to be a bit fuzzy in this case. On the one hand, the kid was "on a public sidewalk" and away from the school. On the other hand, the students were released from class (presumably for the specific purpose of attending the torch relay, as the article says), and were accompanied by a teacher. IANAL, and this just doesn't seem particularly clear cut to me.
This seems to be exactly what the supreme court is supposed to do. If they rule in favour of the school, and people don't like that, then they can talk to their representative and have legislation created to clarify the situation in the future. The same goes for the reverse. But when a case like this comes up, it is useful to have it go to the courts, and perhaps later brought to the attention of the legislature, so that we can have some clearly defined boundaries for the future.
The disgusting thing is... (Score:4, Interesting)
What deeply incenses me is this asshole Starr, who has nothing better to do than poke his wiener into other peoples' dirty laundry and who clamors to stand first in line when it comes to demolishing freedom. Starr is a traitor to the American nation and should be hung - by the testicles.
Comments (Score:3, Interesting)
However, all this has to do with is the actual property itself. If the student wasn't actually on the school's property, I don't believe the school has one bit of authority to suspend him.
A restaurant can deny you service if you are a famous person they don't like because of your actions, correct? If so, consider this. The famous person, as in this example, hasn't paid for the service, nor is guaranteed a right to the service in the first place. (Supermarkets are a different matter entirely, but please don't get me started on this.) Education is a different matter, which is more guaranteed for someone to have, let alone the fact the payment of the service has been completed. We taxpayers are simply paying it for the student so the student doesn't have to pay for it himself.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)
"Looking back, abundant data exist from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered. According to the Connecticut census of 1840, only one citizen out of every 579 was illiterate and you probably don't want to know, not really, what people in those days considered literate; it's too embarrassing. Popular novels of the period give a clue: Last of the Mohicans, published in 1826, sold so well that a contemporary equivalent would have to move 10 million copies to match it. If you pick up an uncut version you find yourself in a dense thicket of philosophy, history, culture, manners, politics, geography, analysis of human motives and actions, all conveyed in data-rich periodic sentences so formidable only a determined and well-educated reader can handle it nowadays. Yet in 1818 we were a small-farm nation without colleges or universities to speak of. Could those simple folk have had more complex minds than our own?"
Re:Jesus wants a joint too. (Score:2, Interesting)
The anointing oil he used contained cannabis-extracts, and in the quantities it was used in (being doused in it) would be far more potent than your average joint. [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)
Abolish PRIVATE education and give parents the choice of what school their kids go to and you'll see a hell of a lot more money pour into the public education system AND less of this gestapo crap.
Poor people are used to being stepped on. I know, I used to be poor.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets see, I get $130,000 for your teacher (including benes and fractional admin costs), $90,000 for the raw space, and $10k to keep the lights on. If you borrow your upfit money, you can probably capitalize the renovations at $15k ($3/SF/yr). Hmmmmm....you're at $255,000 - $5000 per year over budget - and you haven't bought a single book, leased a copier, or accounted for any extracurricular activities (like coachs and equipment).
The school system is not a bastian of efficiency, but you will learn very quickly that it is hard to beat their prices using a "commercial" model. A near-top google link here [hwcsc.org] shows the private school rates for somewhere in Mass. The median private school charged 3x the median public per-pupil rate.
By the way - if you want to know why we borrow money for schools, talk to your local Home Builders Association. Most people don't realize that it costs about $20k-$35k per pupil to build a school, and each child will need three schools before he/she exits the education system. The HBAs spend a lot of money and effort to defeat assessments on new homes, claiming they will be unaffordable if they have to capitalize all of the costs for services which their housing adds to the community. That is probably true, but that money will be spent, and the costs past on to everyone in the community in the form of bond fees. That's why schools have to take out bonds to build new schools - becuase the people who are increasing the school age population (people moving into a town, not the builders), are relying on everyone else to foot the bill. If you want to pay for it up front, add that tax to the new homes built. Heck, you could even offer a credit back to people who tear an old home down (since it takes that "residence" out of the mix) - so rebuilding on an old lot would not be subject to the tax (and would also need no new roads, schools, sidewalks, etc.). If you manage to get them to pay, let us know how you did it - there will be communities knocking down your door to pay your $1000/hr consulting fees
*I am an architectural engineer, and I have designed schools, and these numbers come straight from local projects which are not "showpieces".
Re:Right of Speech x Right of Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Starr gets an unfair bad rap about Clinton (Score:4, Interesting)
The Independent Counsel was a position created in the wake of Watergate when the public did not believe the normal investigation and prosecution tools of the Executive branch were effective when high-level Executive branch officers were involved in (or suspected of) crime. The Independent Counsel, once appointed, and unlike a normal prosecutor, had only one target to investigate, an unlimited budget, and could not be fired by normal means.
When Ted Olson, a high-level Republican staffer, was accused of lying to Congress, an Independent Counsel was appointed to investigate. He challenged the Independent Counsel law as being an unconstitutional fragmentation of Executive power. He lost the case, but Justice Scalia, the boogeyman of liberals, dissented. His opinion contained an uncanny prediction of the Starr investigation of Clinton. He saw the dangers of the office of the Independent Counsel.
What if [the appointing judges] are politically partisan, as judges have been known to be, and select a prosecutor antagonistic to the administration, or even to the particular individual who has been selected for this special treatment? There is no remedy for that, not even a political one. Judges, after all, have life tenure, and appointing a surefire enthusiastic prosecutor could hardly be considered an impeachable offense. So if there is anything wrong with the selection, there is effectively no one to blame. The independent counsel thus selected proceeds to assemble a staff. As I observed earlier, in the nature of things this has to be done by finding lawyers who are willing to lay aside their current careers for an indeterminate amount of time, to take on a job that has no prospect of permanence and little prospect for promotion. One thing is certain, however: it involves investigating and perhaps prosecuting a particular individual. Can one imagine a less equitable manner of fulfilling the executive responsibility to investigate and prosecute? What would be the reaction if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person? Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as "picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him"? To be sure, the investigation must relate to the area of criminal offense specified by the life-tenured judges. But that has often been (and nothing prevents it from being) very broad - and should the independent counsel or his or her staff come up with something beyond that scope, nothing prevents him or her from asking the judges to expand his or her authority or, if that does not work, referring it to the Attorney General, whereupon the whole process would recommence and, if there was "reasonable basis to believe" that further investigation was warranted, that new offense would be referred to the Special Division, which would in all likelihood assign it to the same [487 U.S. 654, 731] independent counsel. It seems to me not conducive to fairness. But even if it were entirely evident that unfairness was in fact the result - the judges hostile to the administration, the independent counsel an old foe of the President, the staff refugees from the recently defeated administration - there would be no one accountable to the public to whom the blame could be assigned.
. . . .
The above described possibilities of irresponsible conduct must, as I say, be considered in judging the constitutional acceptability of this process. But they will rarely occur, and in the average case the threat to fairness is quite different. As described in the brief filed on behalf of three ex-Attorneys General from each of the last three administrations:
"The problem is less spectacul
Re:Some thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, no. The literacy rates in New England were roughly similar to what they are now, and the literacy rates out in the deep frontier were around 50-60%. In the populated parts of the US, literacy was almost universal even back then. It was not perfect, but it was surprisingly effective and was driven by the fact that in the early Americas there was a social obsession with making everyone literate for cultural and historical reasons that are mostly forgotten now. If you studied the history instead of assuming it, the reason we have public schools today has nothing to do with the quality or universality of private education at the time. The extreme literacy of the early US population was noted by de Tocqueville and others, and the USians were by far the most voracious consumers of written material in the world at the time.
Furthermore, in a couple States private and public education ran in parallel for a couple decades giving people a choice. When the government of Massachusetts finally forced public education in 1851, it was NOT because people wanted public education. In fact, at the time the public education system was broadly criticized for being deplorable such that even the poorest refused to use it, opting for private education (which for most poor people was free or almost free). It was some last minute clever legislative maneuvering that effectively created the modern public school system at a time when most people and politicians wanted to abolish it as a waste of money and being of embarrassingly low quality. During the couple decades when people had a choice, they overwhelmingly chose private schools, and the public school system "won" by legal maneuvering that effectively disbanded most private schools and thereby eliminating the competition.
As a more interesting point, there are people alive today that went to school before the advent of universal public education. The history of education in the US is very different than what many people assume it was. If you think the literacy rates at the founding were generally single digits, it means that you did not even do rudimentary research on the subject.
Re:Give thanks to Starr (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bring up a point (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Give thanks to Starr (Score:1, Interesting)
Here is what they had to say about Iraq.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the