Some of Hillary's most avid supporters are under the impression that she has been offered the Veep slot on Obama's ticket. So they have created a site, that allows comments without moderation, with the following inspirational message:

Hillary, don’t take a VP slot. Stay in the Senate (or retire or go worldwide).

We won’t let you sacrifice your own future to prop up Obama.

No Remington Steele presidency!

Go worldwide? Is it time for the Emperor of the World election already?

Click here to sign the petition, and don't forget to leave a comment! Certainly we can all agree that we do not, under any circumstances, want Hillary anywhere near a ticket led by Obama...

Since so many of us actually want Obama to win.

There is also another site, insisting that it is not a cult, that also accepts comments, but they are moderated, so it looks like only racism, anti-semitism, wild marxist conspiracy theories and full-throated support for McCain gets through. This site wants people to write in Hillary instead of voting for Obama, so if anyone is able to act like enough of a McCain supporter to get through the administrator's moderation, the twit suggests a simple message, perhaps that A VOTE FOR HILLARY IS A VOTE FOR MCCAIN. It might work...

Highlights from the comments on that site include:

for all the ranting and biased commentating by the media and all the thievery by the DNC/RBC to stage a coup to over throw the Clintons to force them out of the party for all the wanting of a “NEW” party

one thing remains true…… the democratic party is STILL OWNED BY THE CLINTONS

then there's the fear of the jews:

I live in Texas Sugar and it will go for McCain, it would have gone to Hillary but now its McCain. We all do know that McCain is a war hero and a true american, we do not know this about Obama, there are many unanswered questions with this man, and I am not willing to put my country in jeopardy just to elect the first black man. Electing a black man would be something I would have wanted to do, but not like this, not him being shoved down our throats and bullied into voting for him.
The jew thing scares the hell out of me. I don’t like the fact that he is supported by the most devisive sectors in our society. Where and why did the DNC let him run and to support him like they did is reprehensible!

some racism:

Does anyone know where the DNC wants to take this party? I am asking as I see one of the black leaders in Congress talking about Nationalizing the Oil/Gas industry! I can understand healthcare, but gimme a break the oil industry. To me, that is all out socialism. I’m also not fond of giving Africa all this money! We have people here in our country that need help, why on earth do we have to help Africa to the extent that Obama wants us to?
Our schools need help, if Oprah wants to build schools in Africa, let her do it. I think she could have built a few new one in New ORleans, what to you all think?

bold-faced insanity:

Call me crazy (lurkers and trolls surely will!), but I see ALOT of similarities between Obama and Hitler.

I can live with McCain. 4 years? Yeah, it’s doable.

and a McCain supporter:

The Obama money machine will not be as easy to beat as the Republicans think. A point of fact is that McCain can’t even campaign against a man who is all but invisible, and will hide in shadows until his appointment is secured. Forget the debates etc. at which McCain will trounce the imbecile. Obama doesn’t work that way; he operates like a stealth submarine loaded with hidden explosives. We need to make sure that unless the miracle happens (that Obama self implodes and Clinton steps forward) that McCain wins.

I hope my line of reasoning influences other women to choose the tougher more difficult action. We must destroy the rogue DNC and form a new party that is true to democratic values. You cannot negotiate with people who are evil and have stolen the flag for which generations of Americans have died. You cannot send messages to the deaf and symbolic gestures cannot prevail upon thieves.

McCain 08

With thanks to the Wall Street Journal for the tip. This was so much funnier until the twit actually read the comments...

Convention organizers hired the first-ever Director of Greening, longtime environmental activist Andrea Robinson. This was because Denver's Democratic mayor, John Hickenlooper, challenged his party and his city to "make this the greenest convention in the history of the planet."

Ms. Robinson hired an Official Carbon Adviser, who will measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed. The Democrats hope to pay penance for those emissions by investing in renewable energy projects.

There will be a 900 volunteer trash brigade who will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin.

Also No fried food and "at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white." At least 70% of ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel burned during transportation.

All this comes at a cost and Sunday's New York Times writes, Delays and Rising Costs for Convention Raise Worries for Democrats.

The renovations at the Pepsi Center are already 6 million dollars over budget. Their problems range from the serious — upwardly spiraling costs on key contracts still being negotiated — to the mundane, like the reluctance of local caterers to participate because of stringent rules on what delegates will be eating, down to the color of the food.

The Democratic National Convention Committee decided not to take cheap office space and instead rented top-quality offices in downtown Denver at $100,000 a month, only to need less than half the space, which it then filled with rental furniture at $50,000 a month.

The DNC is concerned that all these missteps will not only cost them lots of money, but will reflect badly on the party and raise questions about Democratic management skills. You think?

Just look at how well they've run Congress.

What is immediately apparent to me is the Democratic Convention is a microcosm of how the Democrats will try to run the country:

• Overbudget
• Over regulated
• Failed unrealizable plans

And you want them to run the country?

I think not.

Posted: 0130PT 07/07/08
autone.wordpress.com

These are conservatives who have publicly endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee, dissidents from the brain trust of think tanks, ex-officials and policy magazines that have fueled the Republican Party since the 1960s. Scratch the surface of this elite, and one finds a profound dismay that is far more damaging to the GOP than the usual 10 percent of registered Republicans expected to switch sides during a presidential election.

Such sentiments reflect a collapse of the "big tent" conservative coalition that Republican President Ronald Reagan forged in 1980, uniting free-market, small-government types, Christian evangelicals, cultural traditionalists and anti-communists, now called neoconservatives. The neoconservatives, whose intellectual leaders include New York Times columnist David Brooks and Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol, remain firmly inside the GOP and strongly back McCain, who appeals to their model of "national greatness." So do mainstream conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, which issues regular attacks against Obama's economic plans, and the traditionalist magazine National Review.

Could these Conservative traitors be the answer for Obama to sprint past McCain?

"John McCain . . . has proven that he has been wrong about every judgment he's made about the war. Wrong about the Iraqis paying for the reconstruction, wrong about whether or not the oil would pay for it, wrong about Sunni and Shi'ite violence through the years, wrong about the willingness of the Iraqis to stand up for themselves," Kerry said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Interesting considering that McCain was considered as a running mate for Kerry in 2004.  I guess it is a good thing that Kerry did not choose McCain as his Veep or he would not have done so well in the electrion with a man that has little to no good judgement.

WAIT!  Kerry lost that election!  I guess his judgment was not so good either.

Then there is candidate number 2, Morgan Tsvangirai who 'represents' Zimbabwe's future. But I do not trust him! Here is the man who went to Western leaders and begged them to put sanctions on his own people in order to put the pressure on the Zimbabwean government, inadvertently leading to tougher times for ordinary Zimbabweans. He claims any murder person as being a MDC supporter who was murdered by Mugabe's people. It is a great time to commit murder in Zimbabwe, we will just blame it on 'Mugabe's hooligans'. Sure some are true stories but I believe Tsvangirai is a sociopath and knows how to play with peoples emotions because he knows they will believe anything that he says. Then he goes and runs to the Dutch embassy and makes a scene while leaving about how the reason why he seeked refuge there was because he feared for his safety. Im pretty sure if Mugabe or his supporters didn't kill him for treason after a tape was recovered that showed Tsvangirai discussing getting rid of Mugabe, if you know what I mean, I am pretty sure he is as safe as anyone in Zimbabwe.

Then comes the stunt where he pulls out of the run-off elections because he feared the safety of his supporters. I almost fell for that one until he refused to be involved in talks with Thabo Mbeki and Mugabe to form a unified government with Tsvangirai but he refused. Mbeki then had talks discussing the next solution which was to allow Mugabe to stay as the head of nation and allow Tsvangirai to be the Prime Minister and have more power than Mugabe until a new constitution was formed and new elections were held... but guess who wasn't there again, Tsvangirai but someone else was there, someone who hasnt been in the public eye for quite some time, Arthur Mutambara. And no, I am not related to him!

Arthur Mutambara, the leader of a faction of the MDC seems like a good option at the moment despite him not progressing in the election process. He is simple, reader to embrace national unity, something we trully need right now, not scared to compliment and criticize the other candidates. He was a student leader in the 1980's and he seems like the only person who is not playing games with Zimbabwean people. There is still much to be seen from him because he is not a very high profile person and seems to always be behind the scenes and maybe that is what Zimbabwe needs at the moment, someone who is too busy working hard for his people to be infront of the camera's playing games and making false promises and hopes.

Having said all this, would I vote? No, Zimbabwe is in a temperamental state and people like me who are outside should get off their high horses and let the people who are actually in Zimbabwe to have the last say.

Then again, neither is Obama.

If casting my ballot for him hurt my soul in February, it's going to feel like there's a damn gun to my head come November.  Why are we always forced to choose between Asshole and Bigger Asshole during presidential elections?

There's been a whole buttload of things Obama's done lately to piss me off (FISA, supporting the death penalty for child rapists, following Bush's lead on faith-based initiatives, backpedaling on NAFTA, to name a few).  But this is beyond infuriating.  From an interview he recently gave to Relevant Magazine:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate's stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don't believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

What. the. FUCK?

First off, I'm furious that he perpetuated that stereotype of the silly woman who just up and decides in her 8th month that no, she doesn't want this thing after all, so she should get an abortion.  In reality?  Only 0.5% of all abortions are third-term procedures.  It is damned near impossible to get one, unless there are serious problems related to the pregnancy.  For someone who hates bullshit rumors so much, he sure has no trouble perpetuating them himself to get ahead.

But I think what infuriates me the most is his dismissal of a woman's mental health as a factor in terminating a pregnancy.  As Jill from Feministe points out:

That’s a talking point that you hear a lot from anti-choicers: That mental health is a “loophole” through which any undeserving baby-carrier could legitimately terminate her pregnancy.

But mental health underlies many of actual reasons women have late-term abortions. Take severe fetal abnormalities — where a wanted pregnancy goes wrong, and the problem isn’t discovered until relatively late. In many situations — anencephaly, for example — carrying the pregnancy to term might not be any more dangerous than carrying a healthy fetus to term. Pregnancy and childbirth always come with serious risks, and it’s often impossible to know which risks will arise, but many fetal abnormalities don’t pose the kind of physical harm to the pregnant woman that would seem to pass anti-choice (and now, Obama) muster. (To be clear, many fetal abnormalities do pose significant health risks — it’s just not the rule. Which is precisely why this issue should be evaluated case-by-case between a woman and her doctor, and politicians should butt out). So even though many fetal abnormalities don’t threaten the pregnant woman’s health or life, most people seem to agree that it’s cruel to force a woman to give birth to a baby that cannot possibly survive (if it’s even born alive, which many anencephalic fetuses aren’t). But if a doomed pregnancy doesn’t threaten a pregnant woman’s physical health, why would we allow her to terminate it?

Because, obviously, it threatens her mental health in no small way. Being forced to carry a wanted but doomed pregnancy, and being forced to go through childbirth to produce a dead or dying baby, is understandably deeply emotionally traumatic. We want to give women the option to avoid that kind of mental trauma because we recognize that physical harm is not the only harm that matters.

He then follows up this little gem with his support of abstinence only education and a focus on adoptions so that women won't have to get abortions.  In other words, he gives the typical Republican/anti-choice response.

There are those who will dismiss his pandering as "a politician doing his job," or saying that "he's saying that now in order to get into office, and then he'll be amazing and do what needs to be done." 

Sorry, not buying it.

If you're going to present yourself as a modern day progressive leader, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the guy who wrote JFK's speeches and trying to channel MLK while appropriating Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta/getting celebs to propagate your "si se puede" bullshit (no, I'm not going to ever let that go), then you'd better put your money where your mouth is. 

And really, I don't know what he thinks he stands to gain by all this.  People who are opposed to abortion are never going to vote for him; McCain, with his anti-woman policies, has those votes in the bag.  No amount of fudging things to the Right is going to change that.

He's walking around acting like he has the liberal vote guaranteed, and he doesn't.  He has everything to lose by continuing all this about-face bullshit.  There are people who won't vote, or who will vote third-party, if he keeps this up.  (I'd threaten to be one of those people, but the mere thought of President McCain makes me want to pass out and die.)  And so I will vote for him come November, but I won't be happy about it. 

Can't say others will be inclined to do the same.

Posting under the name zeprummer612, Max P. Sanders wrote "Good luck!  You’re [sic] country depends on You!"

The Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office received a criminal complaint, and reported the issue to prosecutors, who in turn subpoenaed eBay for the information that lead to Sanders.  Sanders is being charged under a law from 1893 which makes it illegal to offer to buy and/or sell a vote.

John Aiken, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office told reporters, "We take it very seriously.  Fundamentally, we believe it is wrong to sell your vote.  There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote, and to take something that lightly, to say, 'I can be bought.'  It’s a real shame.  I can imagine the conversations being held in American Legion Clubs and VFWs about whether this is a joke or not.  There are two things going on here in terms of why it’s a crime.  One is the notion that elections should be a contest of ideas and not of pocketbooks — at least not in the sense of straight-out 'I can buy your vote.'  The second notion is that everybody gets one vote and you don’t get to buy another one."

Sanders has claimed that it was merely a joke, but I doubt this.  It goes into too much detail about proving that he voted the way the bidder would want for it to be a joke.

Sanders faces a maximum of 5 years in prison plus $10,000; however, the prosecutor's office has said that they will not push for jail time.  This is actually one case where I do not advocate for the maximum penalty.  I think he should be fined, and possibly jailed, but for no more than a few months.  I would support a ban on him voting however, but Minnesota law does not ban ex-felons from voting.

At first, I had to debate with my libertarian side if this should be legal.  Then I came to the conclusion that if we allowed for this, it would corrupt the election process.  Of course, that is the reason that we have the Electoral College, and cases like this are prime examples of why we still need it.

The listing got no bids, and Sanders has since removed the listing.

For reference, here's a map of states and their policies on felons voting (I wanted to do a post on this months ago, but it got caught up in the qeue and I just scrapped the idea for the time being):

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Posted previously on my old blog.

89 min - Aug 10, 2007
Guerilla News Network - www.americanblackout.com/

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5965670944815984616&q=american+blackout+mckinney&ei=4YEgSOabAYTErwKWtr3EAg]

***

Cynthia McKinney at Media Summer

people2peopletv

Cynthia McKinney addresses Santa Cruz Media Summit earlier this year
http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

"Cynthia McKinney at Media Summer", posted with vodpod

h/t: CYNTHIA MCKINNEY for PRESIDENT 2008! IMPEACH!

see

Corruption And The Unspeakable by Bruce Gagnon

Clone politics or Cynthia McKinney?

COPA conference on RFK assassination in LA 06.08.08 + RFK, 40 years later

Robert Kennedy, Greg Palast: The Final Investigation?

Despite those dubious credentials--Hey, Rudy, let's just wait till Florida!--this is a good hire for team McCain, as Duhaime has shown the ability to spur massive get-out-the-vote efforts and to inspire a great deal of grassroots activism, which is something that is sorely needed as McCain plays the role of underdog.

Yet the month of June saw Barack Obama abandoning positions at a clip so brisk it should give even his most stalwart supporters pause. (read more)

Also be sure to check out these two pieces I cooked up for Latina.com: one on Ingrid Betancourt, and one on an attorney using "Latino machismo" as an excuse for statutory rape.

Chomsky says the US can learn something from Bolivia's democracy [GALLO/GETTY]

Noam Chomsky, the renowned US academic, author and political activist, speaks to Avi Lewis on Al Jazeera's Inside USA.

They discuss whether the US election this year will bring real change, the ongoing conflict in Iraq and why Americans should look to their Southern American counterparts for political inspiration.

Avi Lewis: I'd like to start by talking about the US presidential campaign. In writing about the last election in 2004, you called America's system a "fake democracy" in which the public is hardly more than an irrelevant onlooker, and you've been arguing in your work in the last year or so that the candidates this time around are considerably to the right of public opinion on all major issues. So, the question is, do Americans have any legitimate hope of change this time around? And what is the difference in dynamic between America's presidential "cup" in 2008 compared to 2004 and 2000?

Noam Chomsky: There's some differences, and the differences are quite enlightening. I should say, however, that I'm expressing a very conventional thought – 80 per cent of the population thinks, if you read the words of the polls, that the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves not for the population [and] 95 per cent of the public thinks that the government ought to pay attention to public opinion but it doesn't.

As far as the elections are concerned, I forget the exact figure but by about three to one people wish that the elections were about issues, not about marginal character qualities and so on. So I'm right in the mainstream.

There's some interesting differences between 2004 and 2008 and they're very revealing, it's kind of striking that the commentators don't pick that up because it's so transparent.

The main domestic issue for years … is the health system - which is understandable as it's a total disaster.

~~~~~~~~~

... Kerry did not bring up any hint of government involvement in healthcare because it has so little political support, just [the support of] the large majority of the population. But what he meant was it was not supported by the pharmaceutical industry and wasn't supported by the financial institutions and so on.

In this election the Democratic candidates all have [health] programmes that are not what the public are asking for but are approaching it and could even turn into it, so what happened between 2004 and 2008?

It's not a shift in public opinion - that's the same as before, what happened is a big segment of US corporate power is being so harmed by the healthcare system that they want it changed, namely the manufacturing industry.

~~~~~~~~~~

For most people in the US the past 30 years have been pretty grim. Now, it's a rich country, so it's not like living in southern Africa, but for the majority of the population real wages have stagnated or declined for the past 30 years, there's been growth but it's going to the wealthy and into very few pockets, benefits which were never really great have declined, work hours have greatly increased and there isn't really much to show for it other than staying afloat.

Americans have a say by electing politicians with the best marketing staff, raise the most money and most clever ads. A country of individuals, that is shattered by an over-marketed lifestyle, is manipulated by charismatic mind controllers to elect corporate allies.

"My first day in office, I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war. Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." Here comes Obama, who is the most convincing. Promising to give America back, much like Edwards did, Obama is the clean slate, so far. His ties to corporations are hard to find ... but, no doubt someone will find something. Obama's agenda is noble. No one has been successful in taking Washington to the 'Washing Machine' to date. Every idealist has tried.

Obama may have what it takes to make more headway, cleaning Washington, than his predecessors ... There are enough disenfranchised Americans ready to give this idealist a try. Americans once thought they had a voice, but 8 years of demonstrating that they don't has taken a toll on attitude. Mistrust of the American government has become standard fare today. It will take a lot of honest work and political house cleaning to restore what has been destroyed. Americans may never return to the "glory days" that followed WWII, because we know too much.

Cross Posted on BlueBloggin

* Labour's would-be candidate for the Glasgow East by-election failed to attend the selection meeting and dropped out, leaving the party without a candidate. Word is that his past nationalistic tendencies would prove embarrassing: the SNP are the main challenger in this safe Labour seat.

* Shadow Chancellor Gideon George Osborne has denied breaking his party's rules by accepting ten grand for appearing at the conference of the Institute of Directors. He's refusing to give the money back...

* Back in the confusing world of Scottish Labour politics, Margaret Curran, a member of the Scottish parliament, is tipped to be Labour's candidate for the British parliament. This is particularly problematic - in the past, Labour made much of the SNP's Alex Salmond being a member of both parliaments...

* The Tories have adopted a modified verson of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists' proposals for tacking the soaring cost of fuel. The difference? Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalists want a fuel price regulator, the Tories want a fuel price stabiliser. It's a matter of branding...

Just before Pink fully bricks himself in behind his wall at the end of the first act of Pink Floyd's epic of isolation "The Wall," the band kicks into the hauntingly beautiful "Goodbye Blue Sky," which contains the following passage:

Did you see the frightened ones
Did you hear the falling bombs
The flames are all long gone
But the pain lingers on

It's a song about the mental scarring left over from Pink's father's death in the war and it is another mental brick that Pink uses to complete his Wall after he starts to go mad.

Unfortunately, it could also be used to describe the current situation in the Democratic Party as the psychological and financial wounds of the relatively bitter primary campaign continue to haunt the party in a year that should be a grand triumph and victory over the opposition, which has systematically run just about every aspect of our government into the ground, while shitting on our ideals and principles as a nation.

But instead of being able to capitalize fully on the obvious national desire for change, the Democrats are doing everything they can to shoot themselves in the foot again. The flames from the campaign battle may be long gone, but the pain certainly lingers on.

This past week, the New York Times ran an interesting story about the insurgency within Democratic congressional districts that voted for Obama but saw their representative back Clinton. It is especially problematic in New York, where members of Congress supported their fellow New Yorker:

Brooklyn’s 10th Congressional District, home to more African-Americans than any other in New York, gave Senator Barack Obama his highest margin of victory in the state. But the district’s longtime congressman, Edolphus Towns, did not share his constituency’s preference for Mr. Obama. Now some of those voters are pushing to oust him.

“His decision not to back Obama shows he is out of touch with his constituents,” said N. Chandler, a former city corrections officer who lives in Bedford-Stuyvesant and who had supported Mr. Towns in the past. “And I think the people of this district are ready for a change.”

They are not wrong, but this is not the type of shit the party needs. Obama is trying to woo Clinton supporters to their cause - to have his supporters trying to take out and punish elected Democrats who supported her is no way to gain their favor or trust.

Mr. Towns cannot afford to take the challenge lightly. Two years ago, he won with less than 50 percent of the vote in a three-way race. The man who is running against him now, Kevin Powell, is a community organizer who has the backing of celebrities like the comedian Dave Chappelle, who is scheduled to headline a fund-raiser for Mr. Powell. ...

In an interview, Mr. Towns said he was worried that the compressed primary calendar did not give him much time to make peace with Obama loyalists. “September is not that far away,” he said, referring to the Sept. 9 primary. “That’s problematic for me.”

It's not just New York, it's also happening in a district in Georgia that is considered vulnerable.

This needs to be handled cautiously or else the Dems will blow this chance like they have in the past. This is why the Dems lose - they argue too much among themselves and then Independent voters and others see them as unable to keep their own house in order. That does not instill confidence in their leadership for the country.

Say what you will about the inherent Orwellian evil of their policies, but the Republicans know how to stay on message and they know how to wedge the Independents to their side, a tactic the Clinton campaign tried, something that undeniably helped to create this rift.

But in order to achieve real unity, the Obama camp needs to be very tactful about which candidates they support come primary time.

It's not just hurt feelings. The Clinton campaign not only ran a polarizing, wedge-style kneecapping campaign, but also ran itself into the ground financially, finally closing down with about $22 million in debt. Recently, Obama tried to buy off the initially lackadaisical support of the Clintons by telling his fundraising people to support Hillary Clinton's get-out-of-debt effort, even going so far as to write the candidate a personal check for the maximum amount.

The problem, however, is now that the donors have to bail out a campaign that was dead in the water a good $40 million ago, the party convention is floundering, meaning the great showpiece of the Democratic Party - another example of their leadership, vision and ability to make things happen - is suffering greatly:

With the Denver convention less than two months away, problems range from the serious — upwardly spiraling costs on key contracts still being negotiated — to the more mundane, like the reluctance of local caterers to participate because of stringent rules on what delegates will be eating, down to the color of the food. At last count, plans to renovate the inside of the Pepsi Center for the Democrats are $6 million over budget, which may force convention planners to scale back on their original design or increase their fund-raising goals.

Normally the contender takes over the party machinery and molds it in their image, but in this case, the drawn out primary fight meant the Obama people could not get in until about a month ago and it is very, very late.

But in this case, the Obama campaign can't even ask its donors to contribute to the convention, because it is too busy asking them to pay off the Clinton debt, leaving the convention a good $11 million behind in fundraising efforts. It's unspoken in the Times article, but the Clinton debt is the real albatross here.

The other clusterfuck is that Democratic Party infighting is going to lead to a repudiation of not only their management style (the convention is also way overbudget), but potentially their message, as the grand plans and high hopes held for the Denver convention are also slipping away:

Overly ambitious environmental goals — to turn the event into a “green” convention — have backfired as only three states’ full delegations have so far agreed to participate in the program. Negotiations over where to locate demonstrators remain unsettled with members of the national news media concerned over proposals to locate the demonstrators — with their loud gatherings — next to the media tent.

And then there is the food: A 28-page contract requested by Denver organizers that caterers provide food in “at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple and white.” Garnishes could not be counted toward the colors. No fried foods would be allowed. Organic and locally grown foods were mandated, and each plate had to be 50 percent fruits and vegetables. As a result, caterers are shying away.

For the Democratic Party, the danger is that a poorly run convention, or one that misses the mark financially, will reflect badly on the party, and raise questions about Democratic management skills.

It's a great idea, but when it falls apart, you know the Republicans are going to say "See, I told you these stupid hippie ideas couldn't possibly work. Do you really want these idiots in charge?"

If history is any indication, the country doesn't.

With Democrats not only fighting each other in the primaries but unable to pull off their big party in Denver, the Dems have to be careful or the bright blue future ahead of them may not matter and once again they'll be left confused, tattered and looking at the oval office from the barricade on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Did you ever wonder
Why we had to run for shelter
When the promise of a brave new world
Unfurled beneath a clear blue sky?

Depuis l’accord de paix de 1991, le Cambodge s’est engagé dans la voie de la démocratie. L’ONU a grandement aidé le pays à se stabiliser. L’organisation internationale a participé à la tenue d’élections générales libres en 1993 et depuis, il semble que la stabilité politique est bien établie dans ce pays d’Asie du Sud-est. Les principaux partis de la scène politique cambodgienne sont : le Parti du peuple cambodgien (PPC), le Front uni national pour un Cambodge indépendant, neutre et coopératif (Funcinpec) qui est un parti monarchique et le Parti Sam Rainsy (PSR). Avec les années, le PSR a commencé à s’imposer et a grugé des votes aux autres partis, mais plus particulièrement au FUNCINPEC. De nouvelles élections législatives sont prévues au Cambodge cet été, le scrutin aura lieu fin juillet.

En 1993, les élections organisées par l’ONU ont donné gagnant le parti monarchique dirigé par Ranariddh avec 45,47 % des voix contre seulement 38,22 % pour le PPC de Hun Sen (Encyclopédie Universalis 2006). Les partis forment une coalition, car un article de la Constitution adoptée en 1993 oblige la formation du gouvernement à la majorité des deux tiers. L’Assemblée constituante a rétabli la monarchie parlementaire. Le roi Norodom Sihanouk est nommé chef de l’État. Alors, le Cambodge a deux Premiers ministres, le prince Ranariddh, fils de Sihanouk, et Hun Sen. Les ministères sont cogérés par les deux formations. Par la suite, le PPC entame des négociations qui permettront à d’anciens militaires Khmers rouges de se rallier à Hun Sen. Le réussite des négociations augmente le succès du PPC au détriment du FUNCINPEC qui ne rallie que des opposants aux Khmers rouges. Cela ne permet pas à Ranariddh de se lancer dans des politiques de réconciliation nationale si chères à son père Sihanouk.

En juillet 1997, un coup d’État secoue le pays. Selon Amnesty International, plusieurs personnes (surtout des militaires et des gens s’occupant de la sécurité qui appartenaient au FUNCINPEC) ont été exécutées. Le putsch a permis d’évincer Ranariddh (premier Premier ministre) du pouvoir . Selon Sorpong Peou, bien que le coup d’État a eu lieu la même année que la crise économique asiatique, elle n’en est pas la principale cause. Aussi la crise n’a pas déstabilisé le système politique du pays (Peou 2001).

En 1998, une nouvelle élection législative est déclenchée. Le PPC remporte les élections avec 41 % des voix ce qui équivaut à 64 sièges sur 122. Le FUNCINPEC obtient un maigre 32 % des suffrages et le PSR 14 %. Pour le parti monarchique c’est un résultat décevant, car il perd 15 sièges comparativement à son score de 1993 (Encyclopédie Universalis 2006). Les résultats sont contestés et des tensions apparaissent entre les partis politiques. Le PPC et le FUNCINPEC arrivent à un accord avec l’aide du Roi et les deux partis forment un gouvernement de coalition dirigé par Hun Sen. Ranariddh devient président de L’Assemblée.

En 2002, les premières élections municipales depuis la signature de l’accord de paix, sont organisées. Encore une fois, le PPC sort gagnant. Mais le PSR fait une percée importante, « … le PSR devient la deuxième force politique du pays » (Encyclopédie Universalis 2006). Le FUNCINPEC, qui était dirigé par Sirivudh, subit un important revers.

En 2003, le PPC remporte à nouveau les élections avec 73 sièges sur une possibilité de 129. Encore une fois, le parti monarchique perd des plumes avec seulement 26 sièges. Il est alors talonné par le Parti de Sam Rainsy qui obtient 24 sièges (Guilbert 2004). Les trois partis politiques arrivent à un accord pour former un gouvernement tripartite dirigé par Hun Sen. Le roi Sihanouk a dû faire pression sur le PSR et le FUNCINPEC qui refusaient de collaborer avec un gouvernement dirigé par Hun Sen.

Les résultats obtenus au cours des dernières élections par le FUNCINPEC démontrent que le parti est en perte de vitesse. À l'opposé, le PSR va probablement recueillir encore plus de voix. En fait, le PSR semble être une formation politique de plus en plus puissante sur l’échiquier politique cambodgien. Plusieurs observateurs s'attendent à ce que la formation de Sam Rainsy rafle pour la première fois plus de sièges que le FUNCINPEC à des élections législatives.

Le PPC reste, depuis les élections organisées par l’ONU, le parti recevant le plus de voix. Un renouveau se fera, si le Parti de Sam Rainsy devient majoritaire ou si un des deux autres partis des coalitions antérieures est remplacé par le PSR.

-- —

Références

Amnesty International. 1998. L’État de droit ignoré à la veille des élections. En ligne. (page consultée le 28 juin 2008)

Encyclopédie Universalis 2006

Guilbert, François. 2004. « Surenchères nationalistes ». Dans Serge Cordellier, Béatrice Didiot et Sarah Netter, dir. Encyclopédie l’état du monde. Montréal : Les Éditions du boréal

Peou, Sorpong. 2001. « Une analyse comparée de l’impact de la crise économique asiatique sur les politiques intérieures : le cas du Cambodge ». Revue internationale de politique comparée 8 (no 3).

When it comes to John Key, Clark stops short of Winston Churchill's famous quote on Britain's first Labour Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald: "He has more than any other man the gift of compressing the largest number of words into the smallest amount of thought."

Now that caused Adam to think that Mr Cook is perhaps less than objective. Apart from anything else, the writer accepts at face value supposedly warm comments by Clark about Brash, Shipley and Bolger. Bolger possibly, but Brash and Shipley - just not credible. Clark is rewriting history there. Perhaps she merely mis-spoke.

Clark said about Key:-

Key, on the other hand, was someone who didn't stand up well to pressure.

Well Adam does not buy that. Currency trading at which John Key was an expert is an extremely high pressure business, it requires the ability to think quickly, analyse a situation and make decisions. Good training Adam would have thought for the role Key aspires too, especially as currency trading requires the trader to have a good knowledge and understanding of economics, politics as they are key factors in influencing currency markets.

What the remark and others like it in the article tells Adam is that Clark knows that Key is a formidable opponent and she is pursuing the attack line, as do her colleagues of belittling Key. Strange how all the key Labour people adopt such markedly similar lines on Key. One might almost think they had taken advice from consultants. No, only the evil National Party does that.

Again in this article we see Clark attacking Key as a person, seeking to try and portray his business and financial success as somehow wrong and by implication dodgy. This again is a line parroted by others in Labour, almost as if they had been drilled in their lines by consultants. No this cannot be. Slap on the wrist for Adam for harbouring such thoughts.

Remarks such as these raise in Adam's mind the thought that if this is what Clark truly thinks, then we should all be very worried, because the real Helen Clark is thus someone who is anti success, anti business. This may explain why NZ has not progressed very far economically in recent years, with the toxic duo of Clark and Cullen in charge.

It was these next comments in the article which really got Adam cross:-

The fickle nature of polling meant that "one stumble" could determine an election.

"And you won't find too many stumbles by me on the campaign trail," Clark said.

Well what an arrogant remark. Who the hell does she think she is?

No wonder Labour is behind in the polls. Out of touch and arrogant is the least of it.

Adam would have thought that in the last few weeks there had been several severe stumbles, including:-

• not holding the referendum on s59 at the election
• virtually accusing Navretj Singh of putting himself in harms way by owning a liquor store
• the RUC fee increases - causing 4,500 truckers to rally across the country
• provoking 15,000 people to turn out and protest about crime
• attacking Key in the House
• Cullen accusing the rod freight industry of a political conspiracy
• Cunliffe being found to have known earlier than he had said about Mary Anne Thompson

The woman is beyond belief. Yet time and time again the media seem to accept what she says without challenging it.

This article being yet another example.

Adam notes the comments in the article attributed to John Key:-

THE NATIONAL leader decided on a more diplomatic approach yesterday, saying that he and Clark were obviously "very different people".

"I do not have decades of political experience, but I do bring to the table a wide range of international and domestic experience and an understanding of the real issues facing New Zealand.

"I am also not bound up by the issues that dominated New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s."

Quite.

CLUBS are all too often full of people prattling on about things they no longer know about. On July 7th the leaders of the group that allegedly runs the world—the G7 democracies plus Russia—gather in Japan to review the world economy. But what is the point of their discussing the oil price without Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest producer? Or waffling about the dollar without China, which holds so many American Treasury bills? Or slapping sanctions on Robert Mugabe, with no African present? Or talking about global warming, AIDS or inflation without anybody from the emerging world? Cigar smoke and ignorance are in the air.

The G8 is not the only global club that looks old and impotent (see article). The UN Security Council has told Iran to stop enriching uranium, without much effect. The nuclear non-proliferation regime is in tatters. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the fireman in previous financial crises, has been a bystander during the credit crunch. The World Trade Organisation’s Doha round is stuck. Of course, some bodies, such as the venerable Bank for International Settlements (see article), still do a fine job. But as global problems proliferate and information whips round the world ever faster, the organisational response looks ever shabbier, slower and feebler. The world’s governing bodies need to change.

There has always been an excuse for putting off reform. For a long time it was the cold war; more recently, “the unipolar moment” convinced neoconservatives that America could run things alone. But now calls for change are coming thick and fast. Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, and America’s treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, want to redesign global financial regulation. Others are looking at starting afresh: John McCain is promoting a League of Democracies, while Asian countries are setting up clubs of their own—there is even talk of an Asian Union to match the European one. And many critics, especially in America, want a cull. Surely economic progress in the emerging world argues for getting rid of the World Bank? Is a divided Security Council really any use?

Technorati Tags: International, ForeignAffairs, Election08

David Davis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
To: "Robert Henderson" <philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008

Note: That's what 40 years of "progressive" education achieves. RH

daily telegraph
Adults stumped by primary school tests
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 11:08PM BST 29/06/2008 | Comments 4 | Have Your Say

The majority of adults in Britain struggle to answer questions fit for a
seven-year-old, according to a report today.

Only one-in-20 were correctly able to answer 10 questions taken from
primary school syllabuses. The study revealed that most adults were
stumped by the correct spelling of a basic word - skilful - with only 23
per cent getting it right. More than six-in-10 people quizzed also
failed to identify the planet closest to the sun.
The questions - given to 2,180 adults this month - were adapted from the
curriculum for seven to 11-year-olds in England. It will raise fresh
concerns over the standards of basic skills among the workforce.
According to the study, three per cent of adults got just one question
correct, while the average person aged over 18 rightly answered just
six. Of those failing to spell the word "skilful", the most common
mistake was using too many 'Ls', researchers said. Only half were able
to identify the capital of Sweden, with many people wrongly answering
Oslo, Gothenburg or Helsinki. Some 12 per cent suggested that
Shakespeare's first name was Walter and seven per cent said that Henry
VIII was on the throne in 1900. Adults in the North West of England were
the worst performers - correctly answering an average of three questions
- while most people in the South East and South West scored seven. Andy
Salmon, founder of thinkalink.co.uk, the general knowledge website which
carried out the research, said: "Considering that these questions could
be answered by at least a seven-year-old, you might say the test was
easy and so an average score of six out of 10 is pretty weak. It's not
that any of the questions were particularly difficult, we have all been
taught this information, it is retaining the knowledge that is the hard
bit."
1. Which is the correct spelling? skillful, skilful, skilfull,
skillfull. (Answered incorrectly by 77%)
2. What is the playwright's Shakespeare's first name?
(Answered incorrectly by 12%)
3. What is the capital of Sweden?
(Answered incorrectly by 58%)
4. What is the longest river in Great Britain?
(Answered incorrectly by 48%)
5. How many sides does a heptagon have?
(Answered incorrectly by 35%)
6. What is the cube of 2?
(Answered incorrectly by 58%)
7. What are the dates of the second world war - what years did it start
and end?
(Answered incorrectly by 25%)
8. Which monarch was on the throne in 1900?
(Answered incorrectly by 39%)
9. What is the medical term for your skull?
(Answered incorrectly by 56%)
10. Which planet is nearest to the sun?
(Answered incorrectly by 63%)
1. Skilful
2. William
3. Stockholm
4. Severn
5. Seven
6. 8
7. 1939 - 1945
8. Queen Victoria

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4237491.ece
"Write ‘f*** off’ on a GCSE paper and you’ll get 7.5%. Add an
exclamation mark and it’ll go up to 11%"
...
"To gain minimum marks in English, students must demonstrate "some
simple sequencing of ideas" and "some words in appropriate order". The
phrase had achieved this, according to Mr Buckroyd.

The chief examiner, who is responsible for standards in exams taken by
780,000 candidates and for training for 3,000 examiners, told The
Times: "It would be wicked to give it zero, because it does show some
very basic skills we are looking for - like conveying some meaning and
some spelling."

E-mail leak of 'degree inflation'

BBC News education reporter

A leaked e-mail shows how university staff are being urged to increase
the number of top degree grades to keep pace with competing
universities.

The internal e-mail from Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) tells
staff to "bear this in mind" when they do their student assessments.

The university told the BBC this in no way related to university policy.

Last week, the higher education exams watchdog warned that the
university grading system was "rotten".

We do not award as many Firsts and 2.1s as other comparable
institutions so there is an understandable desire to increase the
proportion of such awards
E-mail to staff at Manchester Metropolitan University

The MMU e-mail, sent to computing and mathematics staff by that
department's academic standards manager, calls for an increase in the
number of first class and upper second degrees.

The e-mail, sent several months ago and now obtained by the BBC News
website, reveals how staff have to consider more than the quality of
students' work - and the tension between rigorous academic standards and
universities' external ambitions.

Student satisfaction

"As a university we do not award as many Firsts and 2.1s as other
comparable institutions so there is an understandable desire to increase
the proportion of such awards," it says.

"Please bear this in mind when setting your second and final year
assessments, especially the latter."

The e-mail goes on: "We have never received any external examiner
criticism that our 'standards' are too low so there should be quite a
lot of leeway available to us all when assessments are set."

The e-mail also includes a joke about boosting the student satisfaction
rating. Earlier this year, staff at Kingston University

It says: "Please do not complain when all the BSc (Hons) mathematics
students gain first class awards next summer. Now that really would
increase our student satisfaction!"

Higher grades

The leaking of the e-mail provides further evidence of the concern among
academics over the pressure to manipulate degree awards to improve the
public image of universities and to make them more attractive to
applicants.

The number of students achieving a first class degree at UK

Among last year's university leavers, 61% achieved a first class or
upper second class degree.

Such is the level of concern that Phil Willis, chair of the House of
Commons select committee on innovation, universities and skills, wants
to examine the threat to higher education standards.

Manchester Metropolitan University

A spokesman said: "This is an informal comment by a member of staff
below the level of head of department to immediate colleagues.

"It is merely the interpretation of a single member of staff which
reflects the increased awareness of comparable and publicly-available
statistics, and in no way relates to university policy.

"Decisions about degree classifications are made by boards of examiners
in accordance with the university's assessment regulations, which
specify how classifications are determined."

Financial pressures

This is the latest warning about university standards, following a
whistleblower's account of postgraduate degrees being awarded to
students who could barely speak English.

This prompted thousands of academics and students to get in touch with
the BBC with their own worries - including that financial pressures were
leading universities to recruit and pass overseas students who did not
reach the adequate academic standards.

The response from BBC News website readers also included e-mails showing
how an external examiner had been persuaded to change her mind over
criticisms of a degree course.

Many have described the conflict of interest between universities' self-
regulation on degree grades and their need to compete in league tables.

The chief executive of the Quality Assurance Agency, Peter Williams,
reflected some of these concerns about an over-dependence on overseas
students.

He was also explicit in his criticism of the current system: "The way
that degrees are classified is a rotten system. It just doesn't work any
more."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/education/7483330.stm

Published: 2008/07/01 12:32:32 GMT
Daily Telegraph

Twin boys sent to primary schools a mile apart
Last Updated: 8:24PM BST 29/06/2008

A mother said she is "horrified" that her twin sons will be separated
and sent to different primary schools, nearly a mile apart.

Education officials said the three-year-old boys Connor and Brad Terry
must attend separate schools due to a shortage of places. Their mother,
Samantha, 40, is battling to overturn the decision which she fears will
damage the strong emotional bond between the twins. "To read they would
go to different schools, I thought there was some mistake. I was
horrified when I was told it was not a mistake. I cannot consider the
consequences of separating the twins at such a tender age." Born 24
minutes apart, Connor and Brad are virtually inseparable said their
mother. But she said there was no space on the application form to say
that a child was one of a twin.
As a result the boys, who want to go to Wainscott primary school, in
Medway, Kent

daily telegraph
Universities will be forced to give poor pupils preferential treatment
By Joanna Corrigan
Last Updated: 8:28PM BST 29/06/2008

Universities will be told to give preferential treatment to pupils from
poorer backgrounds under new proposal.

The plans, in a report commissioned by Gordon Brown, are likely to lead
to applicants from state schools being asked for lower A-level results
than those from private schools. Experts are already saying that the
move would damage British universities' international standing, but the
Government is expected to publicly endorse the plans. Children from
poorer backgrounds account for only 29 per cent of all students. At
Oxford and Cambridge the level is even lower, at 9.8 and 11.9 per cent
respectively.

The report, by the National Council for Educational Excellence, will
claim that applicants from state schools are being let down by the
system and recommend for "contextual data" to be considered.
Professor Steve Smith, the vice-chancellor of Exeter University, who
drew up the report, said: "There is a massive gap in your chances of
going to higher education depending on what socio-economic group you
belong to and there has hardly been any improvement in that situation.
That is what we have to put right."
Alan Smithers, a professor of education at the University of Buckingham

,
said the Government would be "instituting unfairness". "It will get to a
perverse situation where students in state schools will not work as hard
and [the plan] will not do young people any favours at all," he added.
David Willets, the shadow education secretary, said the move was
unnecessary: "I trust university admissions tutors to spot people with
pot-ential who might have gone to a poorly performing school."

daily telegraph

New diplomas will mean long journeys between schools and colleges for
pupils
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 10:27PM BST 29/06/2008

Teenagers studying for new diploma qualifications will have to travel
miles between lessons at different schools and colleges, a government
report has disclosed.

Ministers plan to spend £23 million helping pupils in rural areas get
to classes. Some will receive subsidised travel while extra buses will
be laid on, and video conferencing technology is being introduced so
students can watch lessons from their computers. This comes amid fears
over the number of teenagers opting to take the qualifications, which
are being introduced as an alternative to A-levels and GCSEs. About
40,000 were expected to sign up for the first courses, but there will be
only 20,000 this September because many schools and colleges will not be
ready.
Experts have already warned that the qualification may run into
transport difficulties . The National Audit Office claimed in December
that limited bus routes in some areas and rush-hour traffic in towns and
cities could make travelling a major problem. It said there were
"substantial logistical and practical challenges" to overcome for the
diplomas to succeed. Most courses, which will combine classroom study
with work-based training, are being offered by groups of schools and
colleges because they are too complicated for one institution alone. So
14 to 19-year-olds will be expected to travel to complete different
modules. Research published by the Department for Children, Schools and
Families found that, while existing travel arrangements would be
adequate for the first year of the diplomas, more would need to be done
in rural areas to meet future demand. It said transport problems could
stop disadvantaged pupils studying for the courses, seen as a one of the
Government's most high-profile education reforms. Difficulties could
potentially "impact disproportionately on those groups who, through
either disability, income or motivation, will encounter travelling as a
barrier to learning", said York Consulting's study. Under the plans,
£20 million will be shared between the 20 most rural local authorities,
with £3 million funding transport co-ordinators in 40 areas. Jim
Knight, the schools minister, said: "Recent research on rural transport
issues vindicates our 'no big bang', gradual approach to introducing the
diploma. "But we must ensure that in the longer term local communities
have the right plans in place to make sure every young person can take
advantage of new courses which bring learning to life."

daily telegraph

GCSE students get rewarded for writing obscene insults in their English
exams
By Lucy Cockcroft
Last Updated: 12:16AM BST 30/06/2008

GCSE students are being rewarded for writing swear words in their
English examinations, even when they have no relevance to the question.

Peter Buckroyd, chief examiner of English for the Assessment and
Qualifications Alliance (AQA), an examination board, said swear words
should gain positive marks if the spelling and punctuation is correct.
In one case a pupil who wrote a two-word obscenity in answer to the
question "Describe the room you're sitting in", on a 2006 GCSE paper was
given two marks out a possible 27 for the expletive, 7.5 per cent, by Mr
Buckroyd. Had he punctuated it with an exclamation mark this would have
risen to 11 per cent.
To gain minimum marks in English, students must demonstrate "some simple
sequencing of ideas" and "some words in appropriate order". The
obscenity had achieved this, according to Mr Buckroyd. The chief
examiner, who is responsible for standards in exams taken by 780,000
candidates and for training for 3,000 examiners, said: "It would be
wicked to give it zero, because it does show some very basic skills we
are looking for – like conveying some meaning and some spelling. "It's
better than someone that doesn't write anything at all. It shows more
skills than somebody who leaves the page blank. "If it had had an
exclamation mark it would have got a little bit more because it would
have been showing a little bit of skill." Mr Buckroyd says that he uses
the example to teach examiners the finer points of marking. "It
elucidates some useful points – it shows some nominal skills but no
relevance to the task."
Ofqual, the Government's examinations regulator, agreed with Mr
Buckroyd's approach. A spokesman said: "We think it's important that
candidates are able to use appropriate language in a variety of
situations but it's for awarding bodies to develop their mark scheme and
for their markers to award marks in line with that scheme," it said.
However a spokesman for AQA, the largest of the three examination
boards, said markers should contact them if swear words were used in an
inappropriate manner. He said: "If a candidate's script contains, for
example, obscenities, examiners are instructed to contact AQA's offices,
which will advise them in accordance with Joint Council for
Qualification guidelines. Expletives in a script would either be
disregarded, or sanctioned."
Nick Gibb, the Shadow Schools Secretary, said Mr Buckroyd's strategy was
"taking the desire for uniformity and consistency to absurd lengths."

daily telegraph

Exams leave pupils 'bored and unchallenged'
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 10:28PM BST 29/06/2008

Pupils are being left "bored and unchallenged" at school because
examinations are too mechanical, according to leading academics.

The education system - based on targets, tests and league tables - has
become increasingly "narrow" in recent years, it was claimed. Tests fail
to stretch the brightest pupils and alienate the weakest, meaning they
are more likely to drop out at the age of 16.
And the "policy emphasis on examinations" is also likely to devalue the
new diploma qualification being launched in September. The conclusions
were made by the Nuffield Review, a major inquiry led by academics from
Oxford University and the Institute of Education, part of the University
of London. But the conclusions were attacked by Jim Knight, the schools
minister, who said: "The people who have written this report need to get
out of their ivory tower and wake up to the debate that is happening
now, not one that was happening three years ago. Over 100 universities
want to take on diploma students." The latest report called for GCSEs
and A-levels to be replaced by a single English baccalaureate that would
be taken by all pupils. It said A-levels and GCSEs alienated students
failing to achieve five A* to C grades. They also failed to provide
sufficient challenge for high-fliers. "Learners of all abilities, who do
remain in this route because of its status and progression
opportunities, are often unchallenged and bored. All of this amounts to
a systemic 'crisis' of general education," said the report.
Baccalaureates are broad-based advanced-level qualifications widely used
in Europe, the report said. Wales has its own version at three levels,
and a baccalaureate in languages and science will be available in
Scotland

daily telegraph

English GCSEs without reading a novel
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 1:27PM BST 27/06/2008

Pupils will be able to get a GCSE in English without reading a novel,
according to the qualifications regulator.

They will be expected to study travel brochures, magazines and
biographies under the new-style "functional" GCSE. The qualification - a
third English course option for students who shun traditional English
literature and English language - is designed to develop students'
"understanding of language use in the real world". It will allow pupils
to keep their options open and will be particularly appealing to
schoolchildren speaking English as a second language, it is claimed.
But teachers warned that it may create a two-tier system - with weak
students studying the new generic GCSE while the brightest take
established courses. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
published draft syllabuses for three new courses in English, mathematics
and information and communication technology (ICT). GCSEs in the
subjects will be introduced in 2010. A draft syllabus for English
describes the course as a "practical alternative" to taking two GCSEs in
English language and literature - appealing to students who "might not
wish to tackle the reading" in the traditional courses. The GCSE will
"promote real-life contexts for skills learnt in the classroom", said
the QCA. "Students will be expected to show, in speaking and listening,
their awareness and understanding of variety and adaptation in their own
and others' spoken language, and that they are able to make appropriate
choices in real-life situations," according to a consultation document.
Pupils will be assessed on their ability to speak and listen in standard
English, including reading non-fiction and analysing writers' linguistic
skills. But a reduction in the amount of fiction studied by GCSE
students is likely to alarm traditionalists. Tim Shortis, from the
National Association for the Teaching of England, said the two existing
English courses would be seen as an "elite" route. In the new ICT
course, pupils will be expected to learn about internet security and the
"legal, social and environmental" impact of modern technology.

daily telegraph

Nappy curriculum 'to be watered down'
By John Bingham
Last Updated: 10:28AM BST 30/06/2008

Parts of the Government's so-called "nappy curriculum", requiring
nursery-age children to write their names, are to be watered down, it
has been claimed.

Children's minister Beverley Hughes is expected to bow to concerns that
the targets could be too challenging for some children and
counterproductive. The Times reported that she would announce changes to
the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) to the House of Commons later.
The move comes after the Government's Early Education Advisory Group
said it had "grave concerns" about aspects of the EYFS.
In a letter written in February the panel said it feared the literacy
targets would leave some children, especially those from disadvantaged
backgrounds, "confused and demotivated". The letter called for some of
the targets to be removed or put back a year. The EYFS - dubbed the
"nappy curriculum" - sets 69 targets including holding a pencil and
attempting writing. One target calls for pre-school children to "write
their own names and other things such as labels and captions, and begin
to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation". The EYFS, which
is due to become law in September, will apply to 25,000 nurseries and
child care settings in England. Last month the Independent Schools'
Council - more than 900 of whose members have nursery or other
pre-school facilities - attacked the plans as an unjustified assault on
family life.
The Department for Children Schools

Education policy 'leaving children intellectually impoverished'
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 12:12AM BST 01/07/2008

Education policy in England is leading to the "cultural and intellectual
impoverishment" of a generation of school children, a leading
headmistress has warned.

The introduction of new-style courses - teaching children how to use
English and mathematics in the work place - has been at the expense of
academic rigour, said Bernice McCabe, head of the independent North
London Collegiate School

The comments were made at an annual summer school for teachers - staged
by a charity founded by the Prince of Wales. The Prince's Teaching
Institute was established in 2002 to encourage staff to rediscover their
passion for subjects, such as English, history, geography and science.
Mrs McCabe, the course director, said it was "not always easy" for
teachers to focus on academic subjects because of political
interference. It comes just days after it emerged that schoolchildren
will be able to study travel brochures, magazines and biographies under
a new-style "functional" GCSE. The course - an alternative to
traditional English literature and English language - is designed to
develop students' "understanding of language use in the real world". But
Mrs McCabe said: "By far the most serious consequence of this emphasis
on functionality in education policy is that it may lead to the cultural
and intellectual impoverishment of a generation of school children.
"Certainly one of the regular conclusions of our previous summer schools
has been that pupils are encouraged by being challenged, that it is
possible for them to enjoy 'difficult' and that problem-solving can be
popular. By having high expectations and ensuring that all pupils,
irrespective of their backgrounds, are taught the aspects of our
subjects that we most value rather than those that are immediately
accessible, we can raise standards. "I believe strongly that academic
standards are also improved by offering more ambitious and challenging
lessons, rather than those that are merely 'relevant' and accessible."
She highlighted the Government's Every Child Matters policy, which
attempts to bring health, education and social services policies under
one policy banner. Ministers say that, under the reforms, all children
should become "successful learners, confident individuals and
responsible citizens". Mrs McCabe said: "It is hard to quarrel with any
aspect of these aspirations except the most important one: their
woolliness." She insisted subjects had been "relegated to the bottom of
the pile" and labelled as "statutory expectations" in the Every Child
Matters policy. The Prince's summer school, staged at Cambridge
University

daily telegraph

Ofsted: Foreign languages pupils struggle to hold conversations
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 11:27PM BST 30/06/2008

Schoolchildren are struggling to hold conversations in foreign languages
as lessons have become little more than an exercise in memorising
sentences, according to Ofsted.

Many pupils are unable to speak in "unrehearsed situations" because they
are too reliant on textbooks, it warns. In the worst classes, students
pronounce French, Spanish and German in an English accent as poor
pronunciation goes "unchecked" by teachers. The lack of emphasis on good
speaking and independent writing has fuelled huge fall in the number of
pupils studying languages in English secondary schools.
Last year, just 48 per cent of 16-year-olds sat a GCSE in French, German
or Spanish - compared with eight in 10 when Labour came to power. The
slump followed a Government decision to allow 14-year-olds to drop
languages for the first time in 2004. In 2007, the proportion of pupils
doing French fell for the eighth year in a row, to just 28.7 per cent,
while German dropped to 11.5 per cent. Languages are now being made
compulsory at primary school to boost enthusiasm for the subject at a
younger age. But Ofsted, the education watchdog, said the reforms should
be accompanied by more challenging lessons at secondary school, saying
many pupils see them as either too hard or "uninteresting and lacking
relevance". Christine Gilbert, chief inspector of schools, said:
"Learning a foreign language equips pupils with invaluable skills and
can also be a very enjoyable experience. Yet many young people are not
reaching their full potential, or are deterred from continuing to study
languages, because of the way they are taught. One of the ways we can do
this is to strengthen pupils' speaking skills so that they have the
confidence to converse independently not only in the classroom but in
other situations too." The new report - based on inspections of schools
across England

daily telegraph

Physics teaching under threat in England's schools
By Murray Wardrop
Last Updated: 7:42PM BST 30/06/2008

The future of physics lessons in England's schools is under threat
because of a growing lack of people training to teach the subject, a
report has warned.

New research has found that almost one in four secondary schools in
England

The report, by experts at the University of Buckingham, revealed that
more physics teachers are currently retiring than are being replaced by
experts in the subject. It questioned whether schools would be able to
deliver the government's pledge on bright pupils' entitlement to study
physics as an individual subject. The report also cast doubt over
whether the government's target for a quarter of science teachers to be
physics specialists by 2014 would be met. Author Dr Pamela Robinson
said: "It is difficult to be sure whether the government is on course to
recruit enough physics teachers because it is working to a long-term
target which is hard to pin down and is relying on shaky data." Analysis
of the Graduate Teacher Training Registry suggests that while 30 per
cent of science teacher trainees in 1983 were physics specialists, by
2007, that figure was just 12 per cent. The study found that retiring
teachers of the subject now outnumber new recruits by 26 per cent. The
figures suggest that independent schools are most likely to attract the
cream of physics trainees. In 2005-06, 22 per cent of those recruited to
independent schools had firsts, compared with 13 per cent going to the
state sector. Inner city schools are the worst off, with around a half
now having general science teachers rather than subject specialists. The
University of Buckingham

daily telegraph

Science 'one grade harder' than arts at A-level
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 11:28PM BST 30/06/2008

Students are being encouraged to study "easy" A-levels such as media
studies at the expense of tough science-based subjects to get better
grades, according to academics.

In a new study researchers analysed nearly a million exam results and
found those taking drama, sociology or media studies were awarded one
grade higher than students of the same ability studying sciences.
Students taking English, religious studies or business studies gained at
least three-quarters of a grade compared to those taking tougher
subjects. Academics say the findings explain why many sixth-formers shun
physics, biology and chemistry - because they are less likely to get top
grades in these subjects.

The conclusions - in a study by Durham University - come just days after
250,000 teenagers completed A-level examinations in England. In recent
years, there have been fears that the economy may be under threat as
students shun subjects such as science or languages. Since the mid-90s,
the number of sixth-formers taking media, film and TV studies has
increased by almost 250 per cent, while PE and psychology entries more
than doubled. Dr Robert Coe, from Durham's curriculum, evaluation and
management centre, said there were fears schools and colleges pushed
students towards soft subjects to inflate their positions on national
league tables. He called for a different marking system for the "harder"
subjects - raising the possibility of a scaling system with some
subjects worth more than others. "I can't see how anyone could claim
that all A-levels are equally difficult," he said. "If universities and
employers treat all grades as equivalent they will select the wrong
applicants. A student with a grade C in biology will generally be more
able than one with a B in sociology, for example. "The current system
provides a disincentive to schools to promote take up of sciences while
league tables treat all subjects as equal. "It also puts pressure on
students to take particular subjects which may not be best
educationally. I know students and schools will try to make the right
choices, but we should have a system where the incentives support doing
the right thing, not act against it." The findings also fuel claims of
an emerging gulf between independent and state schools in England - as
fee-paying pupils take tougher science or language courses while those
in comprehensives increasingly opt for arts-based subjects. Some
universities - such as Cambridge and the London School of Economics -
have already drawn up lists of subjects they claim are not academically
rigorous enough. Candidates taking more than one A-level in areas such
as media studies, dance, sports studies and travel and tourism are
unlikely to be given a place. In the new report, commissioned by the
Institute of Physics

Jewish school is cleared of bias

A Jewish school has been cleared of an accusation that its entry
criteria racially discriminated against an 11-year-old boy it refused to
admit.

The JFS in north-west London

The boy - named in court only as M - has a Jewish father. His mother
converted to the Jewish faith before he was born but had been a Roman
Catholic.

Mr Justice Munby ruled that its entry policy was "entirely legitimate".

'Not Jewish enough'

The state-maintained JFS, formerly the Jews' Free School

It gives preference to applicants whose "Jewish status" is confirmed by
the United Synagogue.

In the eyes of the United Synagogue the 11-year-old was not Jewish
because his mother was not accepted as Jewish.

His family's lawyer Dinah Rose QC accused the school of applying an
application test "not based on faith but wholly or partly on ethnic
origins".

M's father told the court that he was "appalled" that his son had been
declared "not Jewish enough" to attend the school.

'Proportionate and lawful'

The judge said that the kind of admissions policy in question was "not
materially different from that which gives preference in admission to a
Muslim school to those who were born Muslim, or preference in admission
to a Catholic school to those who have been baptised".

"But no-one suggests that such policies, whatever their differential
impact on different applicants, are other than a proportionate and
lawful means of achieving a legitimate end," he added.

The judge said a decision against the school could have rendered
unlawful "the admission arrangements in a very large number of faith
schools of many different faiths and denominations".

The British Humanist Association supported M's application for judicial
review.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/london/7487776.stm

daily telegraph

Ed Balls attacks primary schools over tests
by James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 8:38PM BST 02/07/2008

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, has launched a public attack on primary
schools for distressing seven-year olds over SAT exams.

Mr Balls accused some teachers of "stressing" children by giving them
advance warning that they are to be tested. The minister's comments, in
a magazine interview, drew accusations of hypocrisy, since the
Government has repeatedly rejected calls to scrap mandatory national
testing for primary school children. Under the government's testing-led
regime, all pupils are forced to sit exams at seven, 11 and 14. The
results are used to rank schools' performance.
Mr Balls said that in the case of seven-year-olds, pupils should not be
told in advance that they will are about to sit the tests. But said that
many schools do let parents know about tests in advance, something he
said can unduly upset children.