We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. ... What makes this particularly appalling and inexcusable is that Senate Democrats had long vehemently opposed the use of the "state secrets" privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope. Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court, on the ground that national security will be jeopardized if courts examine the Bush administration's rendition and torture programs -- even though (a) the rendition and torture programs have been written about extensively in the public record; (b) numerous other countries have investigated exactly these allegations; and (c) other countries have provided judicial forums in which these same victims could obtain relief. ... The entire claim of "state secrets" in this case is based on two sworn Declarations from CIA Director Michael Hayden -- one public and one filed secretly with the court. In them, Hayden argues that courts cannot adjudicate this case because to do so would be to disclose and thus degrade key CIA programs of rendition and interrogation -- the very policies which Obama, in his first week in office, ordered shall no longer exist. How, then, could continuation of this case possibly jeopardize national security when the rendition and interrogation practices which gave rise to these lawsuits are the very ones that the U.S. Government, under the new administration, claims to have banned?
Superintendents, parents and teachers in urban school districts lament systemic problems they cannot control: poverty, hunger, violence and negligent parents. They bicker over small improvements such as class size and curriculum, like diplomats touring a refugee camp and talking about the need for nicer curtains. To the extent they intervene at all, politicians respond by either throwing more money at the problem (if they're on the left) or making it easier for some parents to send their kids to private schools (if they're on the right).
Meanwhile, millions of students left behind in confused classrooms spend another day learning nothing.
...
Rhee is aware of the criticism, but she suggests that a certain ruthlessness is required. "Have I rubbed some people the wrong way? Definitely. If I changed my style, I might make people a little more comfortable," she says. "But I think there's real danger in acting in a way that makes adults feel better. Because where does that stop?"
...
In October, Rhee vowed to purge incompetent teachers through any means necessary. She has brought on extra staff to help principals navigate the byzantine termination process and says an unprecedented number of teachers have already been put on notice. But she cannot give teachers the huge raises she proposed unless the union agrees to a new contract.
As a college sophomore who works as an editor at a personal finance website, I'm well aware of the problems facing students. I've gotten emails from peers who were forced to leave their first-choice colleges mid-year because of financial constraints. I have friends who have taken on $80,000 of debt to finance four years at a private college. One friend of mine was told by his parents that he will have to take on a substantial debt load for his final two years of college because of a decline in the value of the stocks they hold.
But Obama's ideas do nothing to confront the heart of the problem. The issue isn't just that students can't come up with the cash for college, it’s that the cost of college is growing far too fast. From 2002 to 2006, tuition and fees at public universities rose 57%, according to The College Board. That's more than three times the rate of inflation and, more troubling, far faster than our real economic and wage growth over that period. ...
Increasing the federal Pell Grant program sounds noble, but it really isn't. Given the state of the federal budget, is it really fair for people like me to pay for college by borrowing from the next generation? That isn't just irresponsible. It's immoral. The Baby Boomers have already victimized my generation this way by elevating the national debt to nearly $35,000 for every man, woman and child in America. This was a myopic act of selfishness that my friends and I will spend a good portion of our lives paying for, but the last thing we should do is pass it onto our children with interest. ... Why should colleges worry about cutting costs when the federal government is lending students more money each year to cover tuition hikes, and families are all too willing to take it? The most reprehensible of these programs is the Federal PLUS loan program, which allows parents to take out loans to help their kids pay for college. In 2004, the parents of 15.3% of graduating seniors took out Federal PLUS loans, with an average loan amount of $17,709, according to The Project on Student Debt. ... In fact, a tightening in the student loan market could be just the tough love students need to get them to pay for college the right way: by working 80-hour weeks during the summer, and taking advantage of work-study opportunities. It could push students to take summer classes at a community college (I did this last summer) so they can graduate in less time. Or do their first two years at a community college while working full-time and living at home, then transferring to a more prestigious school to complete their junior and senior years. Or how about this wild idea: spend a little less money on weed.
Elections officials, party leaders and voters are wondering what happened this Tuesday in the Last Frontier, where turnout was surprisingly low and two lawmakers who have been the focus of FBI corruption investigations appear to have been reelected despite polling suggesting they would be ousted. ... Pollster Del Ali of the Maryland firm Research 2000, which tracked the House and Senate races in Alaska, said he was "not happy" how the races -- and dead wrong polling numbers -- turned out. Research 2000 had reported in the days before the election that Democratic challenger Mark Begich, an Anchorage attorney, was leading the 84-year-old Stevens by 22 percentage points (Daily Kos apparently paid for the polls).
The most common kinds of public opinion polls long have been conducted by calling a random sample of residential phones. This was OK when nearly every home had a phone, but in recent years a growing number of people, mostly young adults, have decided to use only a cell phone and do without a separate landline in their home.
It's possible to include cell phones in a poll sample, but it's expensive, difficult and seldom done. That means a growing number of cell-phone-only persons are generally not included, and their opinions are not reflected in the results we commonly see published.
...
Reasons to be Skeptical
We doubt that this study will be the last word on this subject, and we think the results of the Pew study include some good reasons to be somewhat skeptical of polling results in general. For one thing, the study illustrates that cell-only users tend to be very different from the landline sample. In the Pew study, the cell-only users tended to be:
* Young: 46 percent of the cell-only sample was in the 18 to 29 age group, compared with 12 percent for landline users.
* Male: Men made up 61 percent of the cell-only sample but only 48 percent of the landline sample.
* Less White: 19 percent of the cell-only sample was black, versus 11 percent for the landline sample. Asians made up 5 percent of the cell-only sample, versus 1 percent of the landline sample.
* More Hispanic: Hispanics (who can be of any race) were 13 percent of the cell-only sample compared with 6 percent of the landline sample.
Just watch starting at 14:27, unless you wanna watch the parody of the presidential debate, which isnt nearly as good as the previous stuff about Palin.
Today, the House Oversight Committee discovered that, just one week after the federal government bailed out insurance giant AIG, company executives went on a retreat to a luxury resort. The executives spent nearly $500,000 on manicures, facials, pedicures, and massages, among other things.
AIG spent $200,000 dollars for hotel rooms. Almost $150,000 for catered banquets. AIG spent $23,000 at the hotel spa and another $1,400 at the salon. They were getting manicures, facials, pedicures and massages while American people were footing the bill. And they spent another $10,000 dollars for I don’t know what this is, leisure dining. Bars?
Previous 
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
pissed off