The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Education]
2014-09-27 11:03 by Karl Denninger
in Education , 217 references
 

You have to wonder what sort of idiotic nonsense is in a prosecutor's head when he spouts off this sort of garbage:

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- The former Sparkman Middle student who has sued school officials alleging she was raped in  2010 during a botched "sting" attempt to catch another student, at a key moment told investigators she was not forced into sex.

The Madison County District Attorney's Office said Thursday charges were not filed in the case because when investigators interviewed the girl on Monday following the Friday incident, she said the boy did not force her or make any threats.

Maybe so.

But is not putting forward a minor for a sexual act pimping, and is not doing that some sort of felony in Alabama?

And yeah, I'm talking about charging the school officials because the girl was of insufficient age to be able to give consent to be used as "bait", as she was not a legal adult.

Secondarily, it appears there was physical evidence of forced penetration when the girl was examined.

Maybe the DA thinks he couldn't file charges against the boy, but I'd like to know on what planet the actions of the school officials involved didn't constitute multiple felonies and under exactly what reasoning he used to reach that conclusion, given that the use of a person as "bait" in a sexual sting when they cannot consent sure appears to me to violate a whole host of laws.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Yet another sacrifice on the altar of political correctness.

A college professor who lost his job over anti-Semitic tweets is angry about losing the gig, but not sorry about his Twitter missives.

Steven Salaita, who was set to begin teaching at the University of Illinois this fall, says he was simply speaking his mind when he tweeted out messages during Israel’s military conflict in Gaza earlier this year. But the school deemed the tweets offensive and pulled its offer of a tenured position in its American Indian studies program.

“We believe that our classrooms ought to be a place where opinions, regardless of their origin or their perspective, ought to be able to be offered freely and students not feel intimidated or unable to express their opinion and that’s what led us to the decision,” said University of Illinois President Robert Easter.

This of course only applies to opinions don't offend someone.

Those that do are "intimidating" and thus barred.

Let me point something out for Mr. Easter: The entire reason we have academic freedom in a University setting, and The First Amendment generally, is that nobody ever tries to bar (or censor) opinions that aren't offensive.

Does this guy strongly dislike Israel?  Yes.  So what?

He's not teaching a class on Israeli-Arab relations or something similar, you know.  He's an instructor on American Indian studies -- which has exactly zero to do with Israel.

So here's the real question: If he can't speak his mind, on his own time and with his own resources, what other opinions won't you hear at this fine so-called place of "learning"?

Now that's a question I bet that President won't answer.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

So what you do behind closed doors between consenting adults is your business, right? 

Not if you go to Clemson, it appears.

Clemson University is requiring students to reveal how many times they’ve had sex in the past month and with how many partners.

In screenshots obtained exclusively byCampus Reform, the South Carolina university is asking students invasive and personal questions about their drinking habits and sex life as part of what they’ve billed as an online Title IX training course.

“How many times have you had sex (including oral) in the last 3 months?” asks one question.

Really?

Further, completion of the "online class" is required and persons taking it are required to sign in with their student ID numbers.

And as if that's not enough an outside organization -- a third party -- is running it.

And if that's not enough refusal to complete it is considered a violation of the student code of conduct: Failure to comply with Official Request.

Well here's my answer to anyone who thinks this sort of crap should pass unanswered with any less retaliation than a firing of everyone involved and forfeiture of all privileges attached, including retirement benefits.

smiley

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

When are you folks in the black community going to do something about this ******* in the Oval Orifice that keeps using your orifices as playthings for his policies?

The Obama administration is moving to ease access to student loans for parents with damaged credit, a policy reversal that could saddle poor families with piles of debt but also boost college enrollment.

Under a plan likely to take effect next year, the Education Department would check the past two years of a borrower's credit, instead of the current standard of five, for blemishes such as delinquencies or debts in collection. Also, any delinquent debts below $2,085 would be overlooked; currently, delinquencies of any amount are grounds for rejected applications.

These are what are known as "Plus" loans.

They carry a higher interest rate than Stafford loans and they have another terrifying feature -- they're not taken out by the students, but by the parents.

Stafford caps loans at $57,000, roughly.  That's far too much, but at least there's a cap.  There is no cap on PLUS loans.

Virtually all of the young adults out there with $100,000+ in college debt have these destructive lending scams loaded upon them.  It can't be otherwise, due to the Stafford limits, for the most part.  For one of those people who finds themselves unable to get a job in their chosen field, or for whom the salaries in that field (e.g. social work, journalism, etc) are simply insufficient to pay the debts off their parents can be impoverished.

Since Reagan, then Clinton and then Bush all destroyed (incrementally) the ability of borrowers for student loans to discharge them in bankruptcy this leads to an intractable problem.

The real issue is that college shouldn't cost more than a few thousand dollars a year. There is utterly no reason for it to cost more than $20,000 or so for the entire four year course of study, which on an inflation-adjusted basis would mean that you could work full-time in the summer and part-time during the year (e.g. weekends) and put yourself through with no assistance from anyone else.  

That, by the way, was entirely possible right up until the mid 1980s when the loan scam system took off.

The fix is to force downward the cost of college, and the means to do that is to withdraw the "easy loan" game and start prosecuting under the RICO laws along with the Sherman and Clayton acts any and all educational institutions that try to use their credentialing system as a means of forcing you to go through their schools.

Education is a good thing -- but not if it comes at the expense of living in a refrigerator box.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

From the you gotta be ****ing kidding me file...

In her first year as principal of the all-girls Fontbonne Hall Academy, Mary Ann Spicijaric was leading a grand experiment that couldn't be discussed outside the halls of her Catholic high school in Brooklyn. The 38 teachers, along with school administrators and attendees, were under strict rules to keep quiet about the new Web-based software they were testing that helped educators manage assignments, grade papers and communicate with students.

As Spicijaric enters her second school year at Fontbonne, the secret is out and it has a name: Google Classroom.

Right.

So now we're gonna give every kid from kindergarten on a Google login ID, and that's going to track everything they do in school.  Oh, and I'm sure it won't be just in school either.  Google will own all of that data, your child will not, it will form a part of their indelible record in the hands of commercial interests that have no responsibility to guard that information or remove it on request.

In fact, Google appears not to be charging for this, which means they're getting value from somewhere -- and you can bet it's not as simple as CNBull**** wants you believe, which is simply the proposition that everyone so-exposed will then "use" Google later in life.

Like Hell.

That data, from school performance to where else that kid goes online has value.  Lots of it, and there is utterly nothing to prevent Google from using it.

They will.

You're flat-balls nuts to allow this to happen.

The simple test is this: Will Google still offer it for "free" if, as a condition of being able to do so, all of the data generated by your kid's use is irrevocably assigned to them and delivered upon their 18th birthday, with the originals being destroyed, and should Google violate that premise they will be held account for felony privacy invasion and a statutory penalty of $100,000 per kid that is so-violated.

The answer to that question, if someone dares ask it, will be "No."

And there you have it.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.