I've written before about how some schools are denying
education to students who are disabled/challenged and how they are able
to keep this off the books. Erica L. Green (NEW YORK TIMES) reports today:
Jessica LaVigne was nervous but hopeful on a recent afternoon that the team managing her son’s education plan at Roseburg High School would tell her something she had dreamed of for more than a decade: He would be able to attend a full day of school for the first time since second grade.
During her son’s elementary years, LaVigne was called almost daily to pick him up hours early because he was having “a bad day.” By middle school, he was only attending an hour a day. By high school, he was told he had to “earn” back two class periods taken off his schedule by proving he was academically and socially ready.
As she and her son, Dakotah, 15, entered the school for the meeting, LaVigne, 37, a banquet server at a local casino, felt she had run out of time. “I used to want him to go to college, but now I just want him to live a normal life in society,” she had said earlier. “If he doesn’t go to school, I don’t know how that can happen.”
Dakotah’s tumultuous educational journey has been marked by a series of tactics, known as informal removals, that schools secretly and sometimes illegally use to remove challenging students with disabilities from class. The removals — which can include repeated dismissals in the middle of the day or shortening students’ education to a few hours a week — are often in violation of federal civil rights protections for those with disabilities.
In a report last year, the National Disability Rights Network, a national nonprofit established by Congress more than four decades ago, found informal removals occurring hundreds and perhaps thousands of times per year as “off-the-book suspensions.” The report said the removals also included “transfers to nowhere,” when students are involuntarily sent to programs that do not exist.
The removals largely escape scrutiny because schools are not required to report them in the same manner as formal suspensions and expulsions, making them difficult to track and their effect hard to measure.
But interviews with families, educators and experts — as well as a New York Times review of school emails, special education records and other documents — suggest that informal removals are pernicious practices that harm some of the nation’s most vulnerable children. Students are left academically stifled and socially marginalized. Their families often end up demoralized and desperate.
That is so outrageous.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Thursday:
Thursday, February 9, 2023. Today we look at truth, partisanship, lies and more.
I'm not a fan of the Twitter dumps. I don't see them as
reporting. They're Tweets. They're not reporting. I've also noted
that if a deal is made with Elon Musk to have access to the Tweets in
the first place, that deal can't be private. Basic journalism has
always made that clear.
With
that in mind, let me now call out the embarrassing AOC at yesterday's
House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing entitled Protecting
Speech from Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1:
Twitter's Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Sotry. Republicans are
now in control of the House so the chair of the Committee is James Comer
-- a man who needs to buy a comb. (Although, scary, I was told
yesterday that he's actually going for that look. You're a
fifty-year-old man in Congress, you're not playing Amanda Woodward on
MELROSE PLACE, lose you're very bad attempt at 'bed hair.') Jamie Raskin
is the Ranking Member. As the Republicans on the Committee noted in a
press release, "Under the leadership of former Twitter employees Vijaya
Gadde, James
Baker, and Yoel Roth, Twitter coordinated extensively with the FBI to
disproportionately target Republican leaders, conservative activists,
and certain media outlets. In October 2020, Twitter censored the NEW
YORK POST's story
about the Biden family’s business schemes based on the contents of
Hunter Biden’s laptop, despite the article not violating any Twitter
policies." That sentence is probably the least controversial -- and
truest -- of any remarks made about or during the hearing.
But
we can't deal with reality. I'm about to call out a number of
Democrats and before someone whines that the Republicans also obscure
and spin, yes, they do. They do it very often and if I was a fan of
that, I would be a Republican.
I'm not a fan of it and I do not like organized attempts to lie. I don't like organized attempts to trick people.
Something
truly disgusting happened when THE NEW YORK POST was censored. But
instead of working for We The People, Democrats on the Committee and the
White House tried to turn it into a football match. I'm so sorry to
break it to you but democracy is much more important than any Superbowl
ring. The only 'side' that anyone should aspire to is truth. But
instead, Democrats worked from a playbook to attack the hearing itself
and to avoid the reality of what was done.
For example, AOC idiotically huffed, "A whole hearing about a
24 hiccup in a right-wing political operation! We could be talking
about health care, bringing down the cost of prescription drugs,
abortion rights, voting rights, civil rights, but instead we're talking
about Hunter Biden's half-baked laptop story."
Cool your jets, Entitlement Barbie.
First
off, all you do -- all you have ever done -- is talk. You're all
talk. You take no stands. You not only wouldn't take part in Force The
Vote, you then claimed that calling you out for that was a physical attack, a
threat. When you wonder why more young people aren't in Congress, look
no further than AOC whose vast immaturity does no one a favor.
The hearing is not a waste of time. The oldest daily paper in the United States was censored. That's worth looking into.
I'm
not a fan of THE NEW YORK POST. It's slightly above garbage. But it
was only slightly above garbage when Dorothy Schiff owned and mis-ran it
all those years, serving those stupid roast beef sandwiches to various
leaders -- the ones who were Democrats would get raves in her paper.
Rupert Murdoch did not destroy the paper, he just had it do more of the
same.
THE
NEW YORK POST, ahead of the 2020 election, broke the story on the
laptop. And it was censored for that. And it was attacked for that.
THE NEW YORK TIMES, for example, invested no money, no resources, no
reporters into investigating the laptop. They did put resources and
money into the hit job they did on THE POST where multiple anonymice
were given space to attack THE POST and we were told that the newsroom
was in an uproar over the publication of the story.
Lies.
It was never true.
The
article was suppressed. Some are insisting that another report is
being suppressed and that we are part of a group suppressing it.
COLUMBIA
JOURNALISM REVIEW has an article about how Russia-gate was lies and how
THE NEW YORK TIMES and THE WASHINGTON POST. Why, oh, why, are we
ignoring it, e-mails ask.
First off, we never spread the lies, we called them out in real time. So we don't need to do a corrective.
Secondly, those hailing the article are idiots with no knowledge at all.
I don't scapegoat Asian-Americans.
If that doesn't explain why we're not highlighting the article, how about this: Jeff Gerth wrote it.
The
liar Jeff who destroyed Wen Ho Lee's life. I'm sorry that you don't
know history. I'm sorry you are so stupid that you glorify a
presstitute like Gerth who not only nearly got Wen Ho Lee tossed into
prison with his lies and bad reporting but it could have led to Wen Ho
Lee being executed.
No,
this is not a site that's ever going to praise Jeff Gerth. And, no, I'm
never going to offer an apology for not highlighting the writing of a
man who trafficked in lies and stereotypes to convict an innocent person
in the press. Were Wen Ho Lee not Taiwanese-American, he wouldn't have
been the target.
So, no, not interested in promoting The Garbage That Is Gerth.
We
didn't spread lies about Russia, so there is no reason for us to offer
Gerth's article. And it's not being banned on FACEBOOK and Twitter.
People are sharing it -- people who want to. It is not the same thing
as the government working to suppress a newspaper article. And the
government did work to suppress it.
It
should be remembered that the article didn't just emerge out of nowhere. Already
questions were being raised about Hunter's dealings. Sarah Chayes had
rightly called out the unethical nature of Hunter's business dealings.
Joe was going around saying A) His son did nothing wrong and B) His son
did nothing illegal. His son clearly did something wrong. Legality is a
matter for the courts. Into this world, THE POST broke their story.
And it was a valid story. But instead of exploring the facts, it became
attack and silence THE NEW YORK POST.
In September of 2020, at THE ATLANTIC, Sarah Chayes wrote:
Let’s start with Hunter Biden. In April 2014, he became a director of Burisma,
the largest natural-gas producer in Ukraine. He had no prior experience
in the gas industry, nor with Ukrainian regulatory affairs, his
ostensible purview at Burisma. He did have one priceless qualification:
his unique position as the son of the vice president of the United
States, newborn Ukraine’s most crucial ally. Weeks before Biden came on,
Ukraine’s government had collapsed amid a popular revolution, giving
its gas a newly strategic importance as an alternative to Russia’s,
housed in a potentially democratic country. Hunter’s father was
comfortably into his second term as vice president—and was a prospective
future president himself.
There was already a template, in those days, for how insiders in a
gas-rich kleptocracy could exploit such a crisis using Western
“advisers” to facilitate and legitimize their plunder—and how those
Westerners could profit handsomely from it. A dozen-plus years earlier,
amid the collapse of the U.S.S.R. of which Ukraine was a part, a clutch
of oligarchs rifled the crown jewels of a vast nation. We know some of
their names, in some cases because of the work of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller’s office: Oleg Deripaska, Viktor Vekselberg, Dmitry Rybolovlev,
Leonard Blavatnik. That heist also was assisted by U.S. consultants, many of whom had posts at Harvard and at least one of whom was a protégé of future Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
Burisma’s story is of that stripe. The company had been founded by
Mykola Zlochevsky, who, as Yanukovych’s minister of ecology and natural
resources, had overseen Ukraine’s fossil-fuel deposits. When Hunter
Biden joined Burisma’s board, $23 million of Zlochevsky’s riches were
being frozen by the British government in a corruption probe. Zlochevsky fled Ukraine. The younger Biden enlisted his law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, to provide what The New Yorker describes
as “advice on how to improve the company’s corporate governance.”
Eventually, the asset freeze on Zlochevsky was lifted. Deripaska defeated U.S. sanctions with similar help from other high-profile Americans.
Recently, Hunter Biden told The New Yorker
that “the decisions that I made were the right decisions for my family
and for me” and suggested Trump was merely using him as the “tip of the
spear” to undermine Joe Biden politically. There are no indications that
Hunter’s activities swayed any decision his father made as vice
president. Joe Biden did pressure Ukraine’s fledgling post-Yanukovych
president to remove a public prosecutor—as
part of concerted U.S. policy. So did every other Western government
and dozens of Ukrainian and international pro-democracy activists. The
problem was not that the prosecutor was too aggressive with corrupt
businessman-politicians like Hunter Biden’s boss; it was that he was too
lenient.
Attention
had been on how Hunter had used his father's influence -- without Joe's
knowledge or participation, Joe insisted back then -- and here was
Hunter's abandoned laptop with various details on it.
The response was to attack.
Why?
They
didn't want Donald Trump re-elected. I didn't want that to happen
either but we covered the laptop here because it was news. And because I
trust people to be mature enough to vote for who they want to vote.
The only wasted vote is a vote you don't believe in. I don't mean years
later, I don't think we're a nation of psychics. That's the only wasted
vote. And not voting is also a vote. Sorry, poli sci major as an
undergrad (double majored as an under grad, triple majored in grad
school). We are not the USSR so I'd never be proud of a 100% voter
turnout or even a 90%. We're a democracy where we have the right to
vote. And if someone earns your vote, you'll vote for them -- provided
you can jump through all the hurdles which include registration,
changing locations, understaffed locations, etc, etc. I'm all for a
voting holiday -- a national holiday. Even then, I wouldn't expect 100%
voter turnout or see that as a good thing. 100% of the people aren't
following the issues and shouldn't be voting. Again, the USSR had huge
voter turnout. I never thought that was a good thing or actually
reflective of the people's belief in that system.
'Oh, no, you critiqued the USSR!' I critique all governments.
A
major story emerges immediately before an election and the corporate
press -- and the trashy beggar media like THE NATION, et al -- work to
silence the story.
If that doesn't bother AOC then she is even more stupid than I thought she was.
This
was an attack on the freedom of the press. It was also the press
picking who they wanted to spin for. And Donald Trump supporters aren't
the only ones bothered by it. But, yes, Donald's supporters are
bothered by it -- as is Donald himself -- and he and his supporters have
every reason to be upset. AOC wants the press to treat her like a
national celebrity but she doesn't want to be a national politician. If
she did, she'd stop offering lies and grasp that whole groups of people
will never listen to her or trust her because of garbage like ""
"A
whole hearing about a 24 hiccup in a right-wing political operation! We
could be talking about health care, bringing down the cost of
prescription drugs, abortion rights, voting rights, civil rights, but
instead we're talking about Hunter Biden's half-baked laptop story" --
she declared. It's not an either/or. You can talk about those things
and pursue what took place with regards to the laptop. Is she afraid it
might make her late to The Met. Does she have another trashy outfit to
put on? Exactly what is the hearing keeping her from that's so
important?
Nothing.
She's
lying and dismissing because she doesn't like the reality of the
laptop. By attacking and dismissing, she can distract others and
possibly avoid dealing with it.
Corruption
needs to be called out. And if she doesn't get that Congress is
obligated to provide oversight with regards to potential corruption,
that bad hair dye she's been using must be leaking through her scalp
onto her brain. I'm always amazed by someone who will spend a fortune
on an outfit but, when it comes to her hair, goes for something out of
the box that she can do at home. Not knocking anyone who has no choice
in the matter due to economics but AOC doesn't have budget issues.
I'm tired of it. I'm tired of the dishonesty.
I don't like members of
Congress who mistake our lives as their partisan fight. I'm tired of
all the spinning. Again, if Liked spinning and lying and partisan fights, I'd be a Republican.
Hunter
Biden used his father -- his father's name and, yes, access to his
father -- to make money. That's unethical. It's a real issue. And
since we now know Joe knew about it, it also goes to corruption above
Hunter.
US House Rep
Barbara Lee is a constant embarrassment and this continued today as she
insisted -- offering no proof -- that this hearing was going to allow
people to get a pass on using speech that incites. I'm not sure that 76
year old Barbara understands, first off, the internet and, second off,
how Twitter works. Everything on there is basically inciting
something. That is how Twitter works -- or doesn't work. We've always
had laws on the books -- laws that still exist today -- to address any
truly inciting speech. And I'm not sure that Americans want to turn
over the censoring tools to the likes of Barbie Lee.
She's bothered, she insisted, by the treatment of the poor Twitter employees.
Why
doesn't she deal with their actions. I don't give a damn about Yoel
Roth's 'hard times.' He did actions at Twitter that he shouldn't have.
Does that mean he should have been smeared as a pedophile? No and we
called that out here in real time. But don't confuse two responses:
Harsh critique and response from the people over his role in the
censorship and then a response from people who always run crazy on every
topic.
Eleanor Holmes Norton. Is there a
reason that stupid and elderly woman (85) is still in Congress. I know
she's got no real power, she's the DC delegte, but she's an idiot and
she's a liar. In late 2009, I lost all use for her. She'd been lying
to the press for months about something that on the face of it was
obviously a lie. And then a Barack appointee comes before the Committee
and Eleanor goes into the lie and thee man stops her and correct her.
Later that day, she's back before reporters repeating the lie as though
the expert witness from Barack's administration hadn't just corrected
her on the claim she's been falsely making. (It was a lie that Matthew
Rothschild pimped at THE PROGRESSIVE as well. They were heavily
invested in the lie.)
Eleanor decried that the hearing was about partisanship while . . . making the hearing about partisanship.
It was "a match to a powder keg," she insited looking like the senile, old fool she's always been.
The
playbook the Democrats were working from was to distract from reality
and to try to get a 'win' for the new gipper Joe Biden.
They weren't working for the people -- despite the House long being seen as the people's House.
And it's disgusting.
THE
NEW YORK POST was censored. The laptop has been 'vetted' by THE NEW
YORK TIMES, POLITICO and THE WASHINGTON POST. Yes, they and other
outlets waited years to do so but we all know -- unless we're liars like
AOC -- that the laptop is for real.
Who did AOC, Eleanor and others think they were reaching?
They sat there raving about Joe Biden's snazzy wardrobe while most of the country already knew the emperor had no clothes on.
They
just lied. And the lie had already been exposed as a lie long before
the hearing. So they worked from a playbook that made a large part of
the country yesterday see them as liars -- see them as they really were,
I guess.
I don't see how that is good for the Democratic Party but I know it's not good for democracy.
Donald Trump, while president, asked Twitter to censor. That emerged in the hearing.
Good, call that out. It needs to be called out. It needs to be expanded on.
We need to know all the censorship that has taken place.
Which is why more hearings are necessary.
But
grasp that when you sit through a hearing attacking a known fact
repeatedly and then your ears perk up over Donald also doing something
wrong -- no one sees you as trustworthy or fair. And, thing is, you're
not a star in a reality show, you're a member of Congress and, as such,
you need to have some integrity. When you demonstrate -- when you sport
-- your whorish side in front of the people, don't expect anyone to
show you any respect. Whores get money, whores get gifts, but they
don't get respect.
"There's a peace action coming up and you're not promoting it!"
No,
I'm not promoting that 'peace' action. THE VANGUARD did a great job in
the video below covering the problems with that action.
At the end of last month, we wrote "David Swanson finds his Maddie Albright moment" at THIRD:
With 935 words, you'd think David Swanson could make a point. You'd think.
"How
Dare I Oppose War with Libertarians" is how you find the column but,
grasp, even if you find the column, you'll never find the point.
He's getting complaints, he writes, for announcing he'll be speaking at an anti-war rally with Libertarians.
Which Libertarians is the obvious question.
This isn't just about the government's war, a fact that escapes David.
A
lot changed on June 24, 2022. Prior to that, we could easily speak
with non-leftists against the war. There were rights and legal
protections.
Then DOBBS was
handed down and ROE V WADE was struck down while Justico Clarry Thomas
made clear in his concurring opinion that he now wanted to take on birth
control rights (do away with them), to take on marriage equality (do
away with it) and to take on what two adults do in the privacy of their
own bedroom. Justico Thomas -- a huge consumer of porn -- suddenly sees
himself monitoring every bed room.
No, we're not going to stand next to anti-abortion crazies, homophobes or people who want to terrorize trans persons.
Is
that who David is going to be standing with? We have no idea because,
despite using 935 words, he never names any speaker he'll be appearing
with on stage.
That does
make us wonder: Is he doing that intentionally? Does he grasp that he
has to cover these people up or he won't get support?
We
have no idea but without knowing who he is standing with, in the
climate we now live in, he's on his own and he made it that way.
We
found out who he is standing with and it's homophobes and it's
registered sex offender Scott Ritter and so many other disasters.
Aaron
Mate, did you read the comments to THE VANGUARD segment? One of your
fan bois is hoping you would never stand with Scott Ritter. They missed
the part where you already had stood with him, had brought the
convicted sex offender on your program THE GREY ZONE and promoted him
(and never noted his conviction).
THE
VANGUARD didn't really go into that. I think they were being kind. But
a lot of people on the left who were participating and have now dropped
out because of the backlash? They've been embracing Scott Ritter for
the last year. We've been calling them out for that right here.
THE
VANGUARD wrongly praised BLACK AGENDA REPORT for calling the faux-test
out. One article that didn't mention names called the faux-test out . .
. for being White. The reality is that BAR's Danny had Scott Ritter as
a guest on the LEFT LENS over five times in the last six months of 2022
and that BAR published Scott Ritter as 2022 was winding down. Margaret
Kimberley reTweeted him.
Too many people
have decided to get into bed with a pedophile. That's on them. But
don't make the mistake that THE VANGUARD did of thinking people have
called Ritter out when they haven't, when instead they've promoted him.
The following sites updated:
-
-
Rebecca Black leaves the meme in the rear view3 hours ago
-
How the Media Ignores Yemen8 hours ago
-
Upcoming CBS sitcom I'll be watching.9 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Chicken Enchilada Soup in the Kitchen10 hours ago
-
-
Lea Michele -- the original Karen10 hours ago
-
