NCHS Principal: Stop the Presses

Since becoming adviser to Naperville Central's high school newspaper almost 20 years ago, Linda Kane has forged two distinct reputations. One brought national glory to what had been a moribund publication. The other got her fired.


Kane, who took over the Central Times in 1989, developed the monthly newspaper into one of the best in the U.S., earning nine National Scholastic Press Association Pacemakers. That award is given annually to the top 20 to 25 high school papers in the nation.


She also was known for being candid. But she became a little too outspoken for Naperville Unit School District 203 administrators early this month when she publicly criticized her principal after the newspaper published three controversial pieces Feb. 28. On Monday (March 17), after Kane declined administrators' request that she resign, they fired her as newspaper adviser.


"It started out as a 1st Amendment issue and then it exploded," Kane said Tuesday. "Basically, I'm standing up for what I believe is right. I would never sugarcoat things."


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-hs-newspaper-adviser_19mar19,1,2062973.story


The First Amendment case that deals with student newspaper rights is Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, in which the Supreme Court determined that a student newspaper could not be deemed a "public forum." In the early 1990s, lobbied by Kane and Naperville Central journalists, the Illinois General Assemby passed a bill that would have given student journalists the same access to cover news stories that their competing professional newspapers would. But Gov. Jim Edgar vetoed the legislation.


Bethel v. Fraser (1983) determined that a school could decide what type of student speech was a distraction to the educational process. The case of Frederick v. Morse, last year determined that the school could supress student expression if it was contrary to the student anti-drug mission ("Bong hits 4 Jesus").


Linked above is not only the story of Linda Kane, a journalism teacher that I shadowed when I thought my journalism career would continue as a high school advisor here, but the stories and columns that the Naperville Central principal found objectionable. Read them and blog your thoughts. Does this editorial content belong in a suburban high school? Or was the principal justified?

Couragous Conversation

Earlier in this longest presidential campaign ever, we had an address compared to John F. Kennedy's address to Protestant ministers in Houston in 1960 -- dispelling concerns among some voters about his core beliefs, analysts and historians said.

Not that we've forgotten Mormon candidate Mitt Romney, but Barack Obama tried to do for race what Kennedy did for religion. From some of the reaction, it may have worked. But race relations are complicated in this country.

Teachers at WVHS have faculty meetings designed at understanding the racial stories of ourselves and our students. It is a work in progress. We have a signifcant achievment gap between black and white students. When many of these sometimes contradictory points are made, educated educators of all races get emotional, frustrated, defensive -- seemingly anything but hopeful.

But Obama was hopeful. About the chance for change to finally bring "A More Perfect Union." Not just his campaign's hope to change the negative news cycle, I think.

What will the impact be? Who knows? Race relations are complicated,but the pundits all have had instant analysis. Over 1 milllion people hit on the full speech at YouTube.com -- the start of the firestorm that had Jeremiah Wright comments heard 'round the world. It was the most watched video on the site.

Linked here is the full speech. Watch the rest of the speech and blog your comments.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23702758/

Time.com had various reactions to the Obama speech, they are linked here:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1723442,00.html

And Bloomberg.com compares the Obama speech to the JFK address:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aVd4NwHD8Tvo&refer=home

Five Years, Three Trillion Dollars Later, Mission Not Accomplished

Today is the fifth anniversary of the U.S. (and coalition of the willing) invaision of Iraq. The human millitary cost is nearing 4,000 men and the length of the Mission is lasted longer than World War II.

The cost in treasure (dollars) is also extensive, as Democratic candidates for president have tried to make on the campaign trail. Republican Presidential candidate John McCain was in Iraq this week speaking on the need to continue the operation, though he missed spoke on a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639/

Nobel Prize winning economist Joesph Stiglitz (who many of us read this summer) says the cost of the Iraq War could surpass $3 trillion.

By the Pentagon's count, 527 billion dollars were allocated from September 2001 through December 2007 to finance the war against terrorism, including 406 billion dollars for Iraq.

The Congressional Budget Office reported in October 2007 that Iraq accounts for 421 billion, or 70 percent, of the 602 billion dollars that the Congress has authorized for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The CBO estimates that the total cost of the two wars could reach 2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 including interest on the debt, with Iraq accounting for 70 percent of the spending, or 1.68 trillion dollars.

But even that pales by comparison with estimates put forward by Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a Harvard professor, in a book called "The Three Trillion Dollar War: the True Cost of the Iraq Conflict."

According to the authors, the United States is spending 12 billion dollars a month in 2008 to prosecute the war in Iraq. When Afghanistan is included, US war spending bumps up to 16 billion dollars a month.

Looking out to 2017, they contend the conflict will cost more than three trillion dollars.
They argue that administration cost estimates omit several crucial factors: bonuses offered to attract and retain troops; health coverage for veterans, replacing military equipment; and the impact of the war on the price of oil, which in five years has soared from 25 to more than 100 dollars a barrel.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hbQ-N1pwNcepmkYfg_CBXzDV-Fdg

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/books.cfm

Celebrating the first “comeback kid”

St. Patrick may be the patron saint of Ireland, but he comes in as a close second as the patron saint of politics. Look around at the celebrations today and you will see the residue of our political arena.

The color green is everywhere today.

Green is the official color of politics in America, a lot of green. The money being raised and spent on this presidential campaign is incredible. Before it is all over, it is estimated that the candidates for president will spend over $1 billion dollars. Green issues have also become the rage in our politics. Both Barack and Hillary claim promoting green friendly jobs can repair our economy. Then again many are already green with envy for this whole process to end.

St. Patrick’s Day is also about parades, shamrocks and being Irish.

Politicians love parades. No better place to shake a lot of hands, look popular, secure votes and endorsements then at a good parade. Look for your elected officials to use this holiday for their own personal gain. The ever-popular shamrock, the three-leaf clover, reminds us of our three branches of government. The separation of powers flowers best when divided by threes. Today, everyone is Irish. 2008 could be the first election where both presidential candidates are Irish . . .. . .

McCain and O’bama.

St. Patrick himself was quite a politician in his own day. Born into a Roman family, he was kidnapped by Irish marauders and held captive for years. Upon his escape, he later returned to Ireland as a missionary of the Church. His public approval ratings have never been higher. We all love a great story.

St. Patrick was one of our first “comeback kids.”

Happy St. Patrick’s Day - a holiday in which people feel at liberty to do just about anything they want. Another reason why this is a day politicians love.

(From CitizenU.com)

____________

Two other Irish connections to the rough and tumble game of American politics:

Finley Peter Dunne was a Chicago-based writer and humorist. He published Mr. Dooley in Peace and War, a collection of his nationally syndicated Mr. Dooley sketches. The fictional Mr. Dooley expounded upon political and social issues of the day from his South Side Chicago Irish pub and he spoke with the thick verbiage and accent of an Irish immigrant.

From Dunne's Dooley works comes one of our endearing government and politics quotes:

"Politics ain't beanbag: 'tis a man's game, and women, children 'n' pro-hy-bitionists had best stay out of it."

In Chicago, Irish immigrants became ward-bosses and later aldermen. Meanwhile, Italian immigrats had to get jobs though the Irish gate-keepers. Many later found other ways to make money (illegal?) to get around the legal, but corrupt Chicago Irish politicans. A famous ward-boss, Johnny Powers (Irish) had his substantial house in the middle of what is now Little Italy. There was an old joke that if you wanted to clear out the Irish-ladden City Council chambers, you would go in and yell, "Your tavern is on fire!"

Spinning OUT of control?

Two political stories this week brough a few common themes to the front of the news cycle.

First, the New York Governor and the high-priced prostitute:

Eliot Spitzer was caught in the most embarrassing of predicaments. Having spent a lifetime prosecuting those living outside of the law, Governor Spitzer of New York seemed to forget about the stick in his own eye. No wonder his enemies find pleasure in the headlines.

But what exactly should we learn from this story?

What did we learn from Senator David Vitter (R-LA) last summer when it was confirmed that he visited the infamous D.C. Madam?

What did we learn from Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) last summer after he was arrested for lewd behavior in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport?

We certainly learn that there is no shortage of such "errors." To err is human.

More importantly, from these errors we learn our most basic civic lesson. "We are a nation of law, not men." Our government must be one of limits. Power cannot be centered in one place because such power will be abused. A system of checks and balances protects us from the expected vices of human behavior. Thankfully these lessons are embodied into our Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers would not be surprised by today's headlines. They built a government that anticipated such news.

And for those who want to debate the fate of Governor Spitzer?

Marcus Aurelius said it best, "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one."

(From CBS2school)

Spitzer announced his resignation on Wednesday. Did he have to? Or should he have? TIME.com, considered the options through a history of political scandal:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1721095,00.html

Then there is the case of Geraldine Ferraro, who as an economic advisor for the Hillary Clinton campaign and herself a former vice presidential candidate, told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

After Obama and his supporters objected, Ferraro told the New York Times, "Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist. I will not be discriminated against because I'm white. If they think they're going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don't know me."

Clinton called Ferraro's statements "regrettable."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88154039&ft=1&f=1001

In her resignation note to Clinton, Ferraro claimed she was being attacked by the Obama campaign. Obama called her comments, "rediculous."

The letter of her resignation was given to CNN:

Dear Hillary –
I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/12/ferraro-steps-down/

Which is it?

Which is it? Political change or more of the same?



Not in our election season, but rather proposals being raised at the opening of this year's session of the National People's Congress being measured against historical context and current events.

First comes the news from the Economist that:

"IT MAY seem an odd time for China's risk-averse officials to be talking about political change. Yet at the opening of the country's annual session of parliament on March 5th the prime minister, Wen Jiabao, echoed recent calls in the state-owned media to 'liberate our thinking', even as he gave warning of a difficult year ahead, with threats from inflation and from America's subprime mortgage mess...

"In his two-and-a-half-hour speech Mr Wen told nearly 3,000 delegates in the Great Hall of the People that China must 'break the shackles of outdated ideas' and 'boldly explore new ways'. As is the way of things in China, the words were vague; Mr Wen did not spell out what he meant by 'thought liberation' and he did not offer any strikingly bold initiatives. Yet the intention was clear and these vague exhortations will fuel debate in the months ahead. In the build-up to the Olympics, Chinese leaders are anxious to preserve stability (not to mention one-party rule). But they appear ready to think about making the party a bit more accountable. This, they hope, might reduce social tensions caused by rapid economic change...

"Few are expecting much change on the political front in the months ahead. But Mr Wen wants to see checks on government authority strengthened. 'Civic organisations' (to party officials the term NGO sounds too much like organised opposition) would be given a role in 'voicing the concerns of the people', he said."Officials are keen to stress the importance of bureaucratic changes that are expected to be endorsed by delegates in the coming days...

"Recent talk of 'thought liberation', however, has gone far beyond the need to shake up hidebound bureaucrats. Much discussion in the state media has centred on a book published late last year by a group of scholars including several from the heart of the citadel, the party's academy for senior officials, China's equivalent to France's ENA. The work, whose abbreviated title is Storming the Fortifications, tactfully supports the party's continued monopoly of power. But it outlines 'urgent' steps for political reform in unusual detail: turning the legislature and courts into “modern power balance mechanisms” by 2016 and creating a 'modern civil society' with flourishing NGOs and religious groups by 2020.

Freeing up the press, it says, would also help..."

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10808798

The subtitle of The Economist article is "China's prime minister lets a hundred flowers bloom. Well, ten."

We should be reminded, or review a previous Chinee, Maoist contradiction: The Hundred Flowers Campaign.

The Library of Congress Country Studies Glossary for China, describes the Hundred Flowers Campaign this way:

Also Double Hundred Campaign. Party-sponsored initiative to permit greater intellectual and artistic freedom. Introduced first into drama and other arts in the spring of 1956 under the official slogan "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend." With Mao's encouragement in January 1957, the campaign was extended to intellectual expression and, by early May 1957, was being interpreted as permission for intellectuals to criticize political institutions of the regime. The effect was the large-scale exposure and purge of intellectuals critical of party and government policies.

The Country Study itself is a bit more direct:

• As part of the effort to encourage the participation of intellectuals in the new regime, in mid-1956 there began an official effort to liberalize the political climate.

Cultural and intellectual figures were encouraged to speak their minds on the state of CCP rule and programs. Mao personally took the lead in the movement, which was launched under the classical slogan 'Let a hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend.'

At first the party's repeated invitation to air constructive views freely and openly was met with caution. By mid-1957, however, the movement unexpectedly mounted, bringing denunciation and criticism against the party in general and the excesses of its cadres in particular. Startled and embarrassed, leaders turned on the critics as "bourgeois rightists" and launched the Anti-Rightist Campaign."

The Anti-Rightist Campaign was also a prelude to The Great Leap Forward.
We should also note that Mao's call for the blooming of a hundred flowers and a hundred schools of thought, was a reference to the 6th century BCE period. The Library of Congress Country Study for China, describes that time this way:

• So many different philosophies developed during the late Spring and Autumn and early Warring States periods that the era is often known as that of the Hundred Schools of Thought. From the Hundred Schools of Thought came many of the great classical writings on which Chinese practices were to be based for the next two and one half millennia. Many of the thinkers were itinerant intellectuals who, besides teaching their disciples, were employed as advisers to one or another of the various state rulers on the methods of government, war, and diplomacy." [Kong Zi (Confucius) and Meng Zi (Mencius) were the most prominent of these thinkers.]

That too will be part of context within which educated Chinese will evaluate Wen Jiabao's call to "break the shackles of outdated ideas" and "boldly explore new ways."

___________________

Meanwhile, it was the same old centralized plan on government crack down last week, the BBC reports

"China is to impose stricter rules on foreign rock and pop stars after singer Bjork caused controversy by shouting "Tibet, Tibet" at a Shanghai concert.

"Her cry followed a powerful performance of her song Declare Independence...

"China's culture ministry said the outburst "broke Chinese law and hurt Chinese people's feelings" and pledged to "further tighten controls"...

"Her behaviour at Sunday's Shanghai concert has not been reported in the state-controlled Chinese media."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7283097.stm

America at Odds: Fiscal Federalism and Drinking Age

Fiscal Federalism is the power of the national government to influence state policies through grants. In 1984, when the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed, it essentially created a national drinking age of 21. States could still make it legal for those under 21 to drink alcohol, but it would forfeit federal highway funding.

In America at Odds By Edward Sidlow, Beth Henschen, the author's outline the "Bridging of the Tenth Amendment" by fiscal federalism. The education reform (ie: testing requirements) in the No Child Left Behind Act rely on fiscal federalism. States receive block grants and in return must meet federally imposed standards relating to testing and accountability. Many state officials express concern that the fiscal federalism used to put NCLB into practice is the beginning of a fundamental shift toward the national government's assumption of control over public schools. This might also be known as marble cake federalism.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0nqiWK6xC14C&pg=RA1-PA68&lpg=RA1-PA68&dq=Is+national+drinking+age+law+fiscal+federalism%3F&source=web&ots=RuslYwIs9R&sig=NwFUv79R6c-huLuAGciQcCBlcMM&hl=en

Why bring this up now? Well, there may be a growing movement to challenge the National Drinking Age Law. It may be layered in a constitutional question. There are those who believe that fiscal federalism and its marbe cake mandates, are basically against the 10th Amendment that gives the power to make all non-constituional policy to the states. They argue that federal highway funding should be allocated in a layer cake format ie: highway funding and drinking age laws should not be mixed.

There are many special interest groups (ie: MADD) that will influence state legislatures and the Congress on this issue. The Tribune reports that more than two decades after the U.S. set the national drinking age at 21, a movement is gaining traction to revisit the issue and consider allowing Americans as young as 18 to legally consume alcohol.

Serious discussions already are under way in several states.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-teen-drinking_bdmar09,0,2713904.story