Teen back in school after Romney T-shirt flap
Personally I don't think Romney is any worse or better then Emperor Obama. But I'm voting for the Libertarian guy.
Of course the problem here is the government schools. A teacher in a private school would never do this, and if the teacher did the parents would probably yank the kid out of the school and move her to a school that doesn't insult her.
Of course in the case of the government schools, or public schools as they like to call themselves is that if you yank the kid out because you don't like the teacher insulting her, you still have to pay the taxes to run the school.
Source
Teen back in school after Romney T-shirt flap
Oct. 9, 2012 08:17 AM
Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA -- A 16-year-old high school sophomore who says she was ridiculed by her geometry teacher for wearing a Mitt Romney T-shirt returned to school Tuesday following a rally by cheering supporters. The teacher has also written a letter of apology that was read aloud to students.
Samantha Pawlucy hadn't been back to Charles Carroll High School in the city's Port Richmond section since last week. That's when she and her family say she was mocked by her teacher for wearing the shirt supporting the Republican presidential candidate. She said the teacher questioned why she was wearing the shirt and called others in to the room to laugh at her.
Pawlucy, whose family had expressed concern for her safety, returned Tuesday after a rally that featured supporters singing the national anthem and reading the First Amendment -- as well as shouts of supporters calling "Go, Sam!" and "You're great, Sam!"
The school's principal read students the letter of apology from geometry teacher Lynette Gaymon on Tuesday.
"I'm very sorry for all the chaos and negative attention that has surrounded the school in the past couple of weeks," she wrote. "What I meant as a light and humorous remark during class has developed into a huge conflict between students, faculty, parents and neighbors. My words were never meant to belittle Ms. Pawlucy, or cause any harm, and I truly regret that we have come to this point."
Pawlucy wore the pink "Romney/Ryan" shirt to "dress-down" day on Sept. 28. She said that during class, Gaymon pointed out the shirt, questioned why she was wearing it and told her to leave the classroom. Gaymon, Pawlucy said, said it was a "Democratic" school and compared it to wearing a "KKK" shirt.
Her father, Richard Pawlucy, said the family met with Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter on Sunday night to discuss a resolution. The teacher has apologized and the district's superintendent William Hite Jr. has called the ordeal a "teachable moment."
Hite has said he would work with Nutter and the teacher's union to move "towards a conversation that brings together diverse beliefs, inspires understanding, and heals."
Prop 204 ignores bigger education issues
It’s not unreasonable to say that giving a half a billion dollars to bureaucrats with almost no requirements is probably not the way to improve education.
Source
Prop 204 ignores bigger education issues
By Carlos Alfaro
October 9, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Proposition 204 is just another tax hike that benefits the few.
In this election, like many in the past, bureaucrats are going in guns blazing with one of their most efficient rhetorical tools: “Do it for the children!”
In a recent Proposition 204 ad, Dawn Koberstein, president of the Chandler Education Association said, “I would be delighted if this passed, because it means that people care about our children, and they care about our schools, and they care about our future.” Following Koberstein’s logic, those who are against Proposition 204 are heartless monsters that could care less about children and their future.
Here are the facts:
Arizona’s Auditor General released a report that should cut through the feel-good rhetoric spewed from the mouths of those who support the tax hike. In 2011, spending per student in this state has increased almost 40 percent since 2001. Money allocated to classroom instruction, on the other hand, has decreased by 6.7 percent since 2001.
Right now, little over half, 56.9 percent to be precise, of all education spending goes to the classroom, including “salaries and benefits for teachers, aids and coaches” and “supplies such as pencils and paper, athletics and activities like band or choir,” according to an Arizona Daily Star story.
The additional money that would be taxed via Proposition 204 will be filtered into different funds run by bureaucrats — administrators outside the classroom. Half of it will go to “Quality Education and Performance Fund” which seeks to increase performance of K-12 education. Filled with arbitrary goals and vague language, there are no real strings attached to this money. It’s not unreasonable to say that giving a half a billion dollars to bureaucrats with almost no requirements is probably not the way to improve education.
Proposition 204 is no less a sham to centralize money — not to mention, power — within special interest groups outside of education. A vote for Proposition 204 isn’t a vote for the most local figures of education — the teachers.
Moreover, about 225 million of funds will be appropriated for special interests, among them well-connected contractors to build and rebuild roads. This has stopped being an argument about better education. This is just another spending bill, and with every spending bill comes the crony piglets, fighting to get their share.
By the way, if you are an ASU student, part of your fees went to support this political campaign. That’s right, the Arizona Student Association, which we all fund, voted to contribute $100,000 to the Proposition 204 campaign.
Real education reform won’t come until we realize that throwing money at problems isn’t a viable answer. There are real solutions that have been effective and are starting to be implemented for special-needs students, like the Education Saving Accounts. It gives parents more choices, decentralizes the educational system and creates competition that will reward schools that use the money they receive more efficiently. These are programs that create incentives to improve the quality of education.
Carlos Alfaro is an executive board member for Students For Liberty.
Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu or follow him at @AlfaroAmericano
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Were some issues missing from these debates?
Some choice for President - Obamney or Rombama - forget Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
In this
editorial
Vin points out that the Presidential debates are rigged to exclude
third parties like Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party and
Jill Stein from the Green Party.
Hey, we all know that either Obamney or Rombama is going to
win the election, so what hard could there be in letting the Libertarians
and Greens into the debate. It would give us some new interesting ideas.
Like legalizing drugs, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and repealing
the unconstitutional Patriot Act.
Minnesota High School Cracks Down on Leggings, Yoga Pants
I wonder if these government bureaucrats ever have time to educated the kids. They seem to be more concerned with shoving "their" version of religious morality down the kids throats.
Source
Minnesota High School Cracks Down on Leggings, Yoga Pants
By Lylah M. Alphonse, Senior Editor, Yahoo! Shine | Parenting – Wed, Nov 14, 2012 11:24 AM EST
Minnetonka High School Principal David Adney emailed parents on Monday, asking them to talk to their daughters about wearing sheer leggings and curve-hugging yoga pants to school. In an interview with Yahoo! Shine, he was quick to say that his email was a request, not an ultimatum.
"This is not a ban on anything," he told Yahoo! Shine. "We're just trying to guide them to make better decisions for themselves."
"We want them to strive for modesty," he added. "We can't define modesty for every family, but we can ask them to make good decisions that reflect well on their families."
Girls have been wearing yoga pants and leggings to school for years, Adney acknowledges, but in the past they'd pair the skin-tight legwear with tunics, jerseys, or long sweaters. "It's a fashion trend that has existed for a while, but has accelerated," he said. Now they've been coming into school wearing shorter shirts, exposing their legs, backsides, and more.
"Not all leggings are created equal," Adney pointed out, choosing his words carefully. "With Lyrca and Spandex, the definition can be severe, front and back."
One solution? Wear the leggings, but slip on a longer top. "Cover your butts up—I'm just going to say it straight up," Adney told the Star Tribune. "We're seeing too much."
Complaints about the overexposure came from female staffers, volunteers, and even other students, Adney says, prompting him send out the email request.
"On things that are going on in school, we try to address the kids directly, to be proactive," Adney said. "But with this, we didn't want to embarrass any girls, so we emailed the parents."
While some students are upset about the issue—"As long as they're not see-through, they should be allowed," freshman Carine Colwell told the Star Tribune—Adney says that plenty of people have thanked him for intervening.
"I've received about 100 messages in 24 hours, and only two of them were negative," he told Yahoo! Shine. "And those two said that it was highly sexist." (Boys at the school have also had their fashion choices scrutinized, he points out. Last spring, Adney put out an alert about revealing muscle shirts; this fall, he had to enforce a no-baseball-hat policy, and in years past baggy jeans have been a big issue—just as they were when he became the principal more than 10 years ago.)
This isn't Adney's first trend-related clash. In 2006, he gained national attention for cracking down on "grinding"—ultra-dirty dirty dancing—at Minnetonka High School, telling students that they should "dance like Grandma's watching" instead. Even then, rather than preaching to the kids or forcing them to sign pledges, he collaborated with them to create a series of hilarious videos about "the dangers of grinding."
When it comes to clothes, the Minnetonka High School handbook simply asks that clothing not be disruptive, offensive, or inappropriate. The goal is to instill in kids a set of high expectations, not to hound them with a set of fixed rules, Adney explained.
"It's about creating a culture," he said. If you build an environment where you outline expectations and encourage discussion, kids feel heard and respected. "It's not a freakish control thing."
The father of three grown daughters, Adney says he gets the girls' desire to be fashionable. "We don't want to be the clothes police, walking around with measuring devices," he said. "But it's not too much to ask you to keep your butts covered."
FBI investigation reveals bureau’s comprehensive access to electronic communications
The police that are spying on you probably read this email before you did!!!!
I suspect a number of FBI agents have read this email before you did.
Or if your reading it on the web page, a FBI agent probably read it just after I posted it.
Remember if you are doing something illegal you certainly should not be talking
about it in an email or posting it on the internet where federal, state, county,
and local city cops watch our every move.
You can encrypt your emails with something like PGP,
but I suspect if you piss the Feds off enough they are willing
to spend big bucks to get the folks at the NSA to decrypt your messages.
And last but not least your telephone isn't that safe either.
The police routinely illegally listen to our phone calls without the required "search warrants".
Remember any time you use a cell phone you are also using a radio transmitter and EVERYTHING you say is broadcast onto the airwaves for anybody to listen to.
Source
FBI investigation of Broadwell reveals bureau’s comprehensive access to electronic communications
By Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima, Published: November 17
The FBI started its case in June with a collection of five e-mails, a few hundred kilobytes of data at most.
By the time the probe exploded into public view earlier this month, the FBI was sitting on a mountain of data containing the private communications — and intimate secrets — of a CIA director and a U.S. war commander. What the bureau didn’t have — and apparently still doesn’t — is evidence of a crime.
How that happened and what it means for privacy and national security are questions that have induced shudders in Washington and a queasy new understanding of the FBI’s comprehensive access to the digital trails left by even top officials.
FBI and Justice Department officials have vigorously defended their handling of the case. “What we did was conduct the investigation the way we normally conduct a criminal investigation,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Thursday. “We follow the facts.”
But in this case, the trail cut across a seemingly vast territory with no clear indication of the boundaries, if any, that the FBI imposed on itself. The thrust of the investigation changed direction repeatedly and expanded dramatically in scope.
A criminal inquiry into e-mail harassment morphed into a national security probe of whether CIA Director David H. Petraeus and the secrets he guarded were at risk. After uncovering an extramarital affair, investigators shifted to the question of whether Petraeus was guilty of a security breach.
When none of those paths bore results, investigators settled on the single target they are scrutinizing now: Paula Broadwell, the retired general’s biographer and mistress, and what she was doing with a cache of classified but apparently inconsequential files.
On Capitol Hill, the case has drawn references to the era of J. Edgar Hoover, the founding director of the FBI, who was notorious for digging up dirt on Washington’s elite long before the invention of e-mail and the Internet.
“The expansive data that is available electronically now means that when you’re looking for one thing, the chances of finding a whole host of other things is exponentially greater,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House intelligence committee and a former federal prosecutor.
In this case, Schiff said, the probe may have caused more harm than it uncovered. “It’s very possible that the most significant damage done to national security was the loss of General Petraeus himself,” Schiff said.
Not the usual boundaries
The investigation’s profile has called attention to what legal and privacy experts say are the difficulties of applying constraints meant for gathering physical evidence to online detective work.
Law enforcement officers conducting a legal search have always been able to pursue evidence of other crimes sitting in “plain view.” Investigators with a warrant to search a house for drugs can seize evidence of another crime, such as bombmaking. But the warrant does not allow them to barge into the house next door.
But what are the comparable boundaries online? Does a warrant to search an e-mail account expose the communications of anyone who exchanged messages with the target?
Similarly, FBI agents monitoring wiretaps have always been obligated to put down their headphones when the conversation is clearly not about a criminal enterprise.
It’s known as minimization, a process followed by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to protect the privacy of innocent people.
“It’s harder to do with e-mails, because unlike a phone, you can’t just turn it off once you figure out the conversation didn’t relate to what you’re investigating,” said Michael DuBose, a former chief of the Justice Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section who now handles cyber-investigations for Kroll Advisory Solutions.
Some federal prosecutors have sought to establish a “wall” whereby one set of agents conducts a first review of material, disclosing to the investigating agents only what is relevant. But Michael Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor who consults on electronic surveillance issues, said he thinks “that’s the exception rather than the rule.”
It’s unclear whether the FBI made any attempt to minimize its intrusion into the e-mails exchanged by Broadwell and Petraeus, both of whom are married, that provided a gaping view into their adulterous relationship.
Many details surrounding the case remain unclear. The FBI declined to respond to a list of questions submitted by The Washington Post on its handling of personal information in the course of the Petraeus investigation. The bureau also declined to discuss even the broad guidelines for safeguarding the privacy of ordinary citizens whose e-mails might surface in similarly inadvertent fashion.
The scope of the issue is considerable, because the exploding use of e-mail has created a new and potent investigative resource for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement demands for e-mail and other electronic communications from providers such as Google, Comcast and Yahoo are so routine that the companies employ teams of analysts to sort through thousands of requests a month. Very few are turned down.
Wide access to accounts
Although the Petraeus-Broadwell investigation ensnared high-ranking officials and had potential national security implications, the way the FBI assembled evidence in the case was not extraordinary, according to several experts.
The probe was triggered when a Florida socialite with ties to Petraeus and Gen. John R. Allen, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, went to the FBI in June with menacing e-mails from an anonymous sender.
Schiff and others have questioned why the FBI even initiated the case. Law enforcement officials have explained that they were concerned because the earliest e-mails indicated that the sender had access to details of the personal schedules of Petraeus and Allen.
The FBI’s first pile of data came from Jill Kelley, who got to know Petraeus and Allen when she worked as an unofficial social liaison at the military base in Tampa where both men were assigned.
In early summer, Kelley received several anonymous e-mails warning her to stay away from Allen and Petraeus. Kelley was alarmed and turned over her computer to the FBI; she may also have allowed access to her e-mail accounts.
The e-mails were eventually traced to Broadwell, who thought that Kelley was a threat to her relationship with Petraeus, law enforcement officials said. But the trail to Broadwell was convoluted.
Broadwell reportedly tried to cover her tracks by using as many as four anonymous e-mail accounts and sending the messages from computers in business centers at hotels where she was staying while on a nationwide tour promoting her biography of Petraeus. According to some accounts, the FBI traced the e-mails to those hotels, then examined registries for names of guests who were checked in at the time.
The recent sex scandal that's rocked the armed forces and the CIA has highlighted an often-unseen problem in military families: Marital infidelity. Anthony Mason and Rebecca Jarvis speak with two Army wives to understand if infidelity is the military's dirty little secret.
Once Broadwell was identified, FBI agents would have gone to Internet service providers with warrants for access to her accounts. Experts said companies typically comply by sending discs that contain a sender’s entire collection of accounts, enabling the FBI to search the inbox, draft messages and even deleted correspondence not yet fully erased.
“You’re asking them for e-mails relevant to the investigation, but as a practical matter, they let you look at everything,” said a former federal prosecutor who, like many interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition on anonymity because the FBI inquiry is continuing.
FBI agents can then roam through every corner of the account as if it were their own.
The capability to scour e-mail accounts has expanded the bureau’s investigative power dramatically, even in crimes previously seen as difficult to prosecute. For example, officials said, the ability to reconstruct communications between reporters and their sources helps explain why the Obama administration has been able to bring more leak prosecutions than all of its predecessors combined.
E-mail searches vary in scope and technique, from scanning contents for key words “to literally going through and opening every file and looking at what it says,” a former Justice Department official said.
Law enforcement officials said the FBI never sought access to Allen’s computer or accounts. It’s unclear whether it did so with Petraeus. But through Kelley and Broadwell, the bureau had amassed an enormous amount of data on the two men — including sexually explicit e-mails between Petraeus and Broadwell and questionable communications between Allen and Kelley.
Petraeus and Broadwell had tried to conceal their communications by typing drafts of messages, hitting “save” but not “send,” and then sharing passwords that provided access to the drafts. But experts said that ruse would have posed no obstacle for the FBI, because agents had full access to the e-mail accounts.
As they pore over data, FBI agents are not supposed to search for key words unrelated to the warrant under which the data were obtained. But if they are simply reading through document after document, they can pursue new leads that surface.
“Most times, if you found evidence of a second crime, you would stop and go back and get a second warrant” to avoid a courtroom fight over admissibility of evidence, a former prosecutor said. But in practical terms, there is no limit on the number of investigations that access to an e-mail account may spawn.
‘Because of who it was’
There is nothing illegal about the Petraeus-Broadwell affair under federal law. Were it not for Petraeus’s prominent position, the probe might have ended with no consequence. But because of his job — and the concern that intelligence officers caught in compromising positions could be susceptible to blackmail — the probe wasn’t shut down.
“If this had all started involving someone who was not the director of the CIA . . . they would have ignored it,” said David Sobel, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group. “A bell went off because of who it was.”
That consideration triggered a cascade of additional quandaries for the Justice Department, including whether and when to notify Congress and the White House. The FBI finally did so on election night, Nov. 6, when Deputy Director Sean Joyce called Petraeus’s boss, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr.
After being confronted by Clapper, Petraeus agreed to resign.
President Obama said last week that there was “no evidence at this point, from what I’ve seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security.”
But the data assembled on Allen and Petraeus continue to reverberate. The FBI turned over its stockpile of material on Allen — said to contain as many as 30,000 pages of e-mail transcripts — to the Defense Department, prompting the Pentagon inspector general to start an investigation.
The CIA has also launched an inspector general investigation into Petraeus and his 14-month tenure at the agency, seeking to determine, among other things, whether he used the perks of the position to enable his affair with Broadwell.
If it follows its own protocols, the FBI will hold on to the data for decades. Former officials said the bureau retains records for 20 years for closed criminal investigations, and 30 years for closed national security probes.
Sari Horwitz and Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Data Doctors: Are my emails private from government agencies?
The answer is - No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no