|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 19 2017 11:17 PhoenixVoid wrote:
I feel like this repeating cycle of "No, you're the one arguing poorly/in bad faith/with no evidence or reason!" is going nowhere and is a futile discussion overall.
It's painfully obvious to any thread reader with a brain who's validly making the claim and who's grasping at straws though.
|
|
|
Trump was never self aware enough to realize when it is out of his league, which is why he will always get played by people like Putin.
Edit: that NBC story is damning. They were warned and then had 7 different contexts they didn't tell anyone about.
|
|
|
|
|
Ten thousand rape kits tested. One hundred twenty-seven convictions won, 1,947 cases investigated, 817 serial rapists identified.
It's been a long eight years for Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.
In 2009, 11,341 untested sexual assault kits — the results of an hours-long process that collects evidence from the body of a rape victim — were found during a routine tour of a Detroit police storage warehouse, some dating back to 1984. Worthy and her team started the long and laborious process of testing those kits, investigating the crimes, and prosecuting the perpetrators — and launching Enough SAID, an effort to raise the money to complete the work. It's a reversal of a decades-long miscarriage of justice. This month, Worthy spoke to the Free Press about the work done thus far — and the long road ahead.
Q: One of the most astounding findings here is that you've identified 817 serial rapists. That's 817 people who attacked more than one person — and crimes that could possibly have been prevented if those people had been caught.
A: This is how I try to put it in context for people: There are estimated to be 400,000 untested rape kits in the country. In one city, in one county, in one state, we had 11,341. That means a couple of things: Number one, this problem is a lot more pervasive than people could ever have imagined. Number two, (that's) on top of the very low rate that people report in the first place. That means there is much more sexual assault going on, that it's much more pervasive than people think. I think nationally the number is about 20% of rapes that are reported, and when you get to the prosecution stage it's very, very little ... that's very sobering, very sad and very pathetic.
Q: In terms of the 817 identified serial rapists who strike between 10 and 15 times —
A: A rapist rapes on average seven to 11 times before they're caught. ... Of our set of 817 ... over 50 of them have 10 to 15 hits apiece.
[...]
www.freep.com
I knew serial rape was a problem, had no idea it was this bad though. (Wayne county has detroit, I don't think it's particularly special to detroit)
|
On December 19 2017 11:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 11:12 Aquanim wrote:On December 19 2017 10:55 xDaunt wrote:Unlike you, I make arguments. Unlike many of the liberal posters, I'm also willing to support my arguments. Alright then. I have some questions. How does the Israel/Palestine conflict affect the United States' material interests in your view? What would change if, for instance, the United States strongly indicated moral disapproval of inhumane acts performed by Israel and Palestine alike, while continuing material support of Israel? To what degree do you think the United States' actions with respect to Israel are the result of the influence of Jewish and Christian entities within the US, as opposed to the material interests of the US? Why exactly should I ever bother responding to you if you're going to post nonsense like this: Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 10:35 Aquanim wrote:On December 19 2017 10:29 xDaunt wrote:
As usual with your posting, you have no argument. What everyone in this thread finds so hilarious about your posting is the utter lack of self-awareness with which you post. It truly is pathological. Speak for yourself, xDaunt. If what's implied in that post is truly what you think, then you really aren't worth my time. So what's it going to be?
My opinion of zlefin has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. You can choose to answer my questions or not, I suppose.
|
White House lawyers are expected to meet with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s office late this week seeking good news: that his sprawling investigation’s focus on President Trump will soon end and their client will be cleared.
But people familiar with the probe say that such assurances are unlikely and that the meeting could trigger a new, more contentious phase between the special counsel and a frustrated president, according to administration officials and advisers close to Trump.
People with knowledge of the investigation said it could last at least another year — pointing to ongoing cooperation from witnesses such as former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, as well as a possible trial of two former Trump campaign officials. The special counsel’s office has continued to request new documents related to the campaign, and members of Mueller’s team have told others they expect to be working through much of 2018, at a minimum.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
|
|
To follow up on the discussion regarding Mueller's email seizures:
According to published reports, Special Counsel Robert Mueller engaged in a mass seizure of all emails of the Trump transition team without even a warrant or a subpoena. In my opinion, a mass seizure – as is alleged here against Mueller – cannot conform to either Fourth Amendment standards or attorney-client privilege protections. The questions boils down to this: was there a reason for the individuals communicating by email, including with their lawyers, to believe their communications were private or privileged? Or, did the individuals forever waive or “implicitly consent” to any future search or seizure of their emails?
The Supreme Court in 2010 “counsels caution” before too soon defining “the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices” until popular use of the technology used was better developed socially. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010). In other words, do most people expect privacy in that use of technology to communicate, or do they assume it is equivalent to talking in an open office where anyone from the public can walk by? The court made clear a government search was not reasonable if not “justified at its inception” or “excessively intrusive” or “not reasonably related to the objectives of the search.”
Put simply, the use of a government server, like the use of an employer’s server, does not control the privilege or privacy analysis. Instead, courts typically employ a four-factor test, that tends to be very fact-intensive, email-specific, and individual-specific. (In re Reserve Fund Securities and Derivative Litigation, 275 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). First, whether the government or company maintains a policy banning personal use. Second, whether the government or employer monitors the use of the email. Third, whether third parties have a right of access to the emails beyond technical audits and maintenance. Fourth, whether the government or employer notifies the individual of the limits on privacy in the emails, whether the individual was aware of those policies, the use of those policies, and the monitoring of those policies. It boils down to whether a person in the individual’s shoes would have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their email communications.
A fifth factor is relevant in the Fourth Amendment context: whether the government gave an individual notice and the individual had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent to the future search of their emails. Courts held individuals who agreed, as a condition of employment to “any future searches” did not waive their right against such searches because the waiver failed to give them the “right to refuse to give consent to the future search.” For the government to claim implied consent or waiver, “requires clear notice that one’s conduct may result in a search being conducted of areas which the person has been warned are subject to search,” and such notice must ensure an individual “had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent.” (Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F.Supp.2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Hence, a broad waiver was found inadequate to permit a search. (Anobile v. Pellegrino, 303 F.3d 107, 124-25 (2d. Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court made it clear the question usually “must be addressed on a case-by-case basis” and rarely subject to blanket waivers of Fourth Amendment liberties. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010).) As the court reiterated, “individuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights” merely because they use government-provided servers, offices, or equipment. (O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987).
Courts held that an employee has a reasonably expectation of privacy in the contents of his computer even when given specific notice the computers could not be used for personal purposes and the individual had authorized disclosure for technical and maintenance audits. Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64, 74 (2d. Cir. 2001). Attorney-client privilege is broader. As courts have held, emails between government employees remained privileged even though sent over government email servers. (In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007). Courts held an ex-employee could assert attorney-client privilege against use of such emails by his company even though emails were located on employer’s computer and employer gave employee notice any documents stored on computer not protected. (Curto v. Medical World Communications (E.D. N.Y. 2006).
The Mueller search runs afoul of many of these established court precedents and Fourth Amendment privacy and privilege principles. First, it appears Mueller searched and seized every email, without any kind of categorical or keyword search. This is exactly the kind of search the Supreme Court made clear was not allowed under the Fourth Amendment. This means Mueller can only prevail if he didn’t seize a single email of a single individual that the individual could have any expectation of either personal privacy or attorney client privilege in.
The primary excuses proffered so far for the broad seizure is the faulty assumption the use of a government server waived all privacy and all privilege of every email ever made over that server. As identified above, that has never been the law. The security and efficacy of government-owned servers for transition employees are not intended as a trap for the unwary to forever forfeit their privacy and privilege rights in their communications. Indeed, doing so would undermine use of such communications, and invite Hillary Clinton type bathroom closet email servers for everybody.
Mueller’s problem here is these were not even government employee emails; they were the emails of private individuals stored temporarily on a government server, and publicly declared to be “private materials” as a matter of custom, practice and the public policy of the National Archives. As Professor Jonathan Turley identifies, the National Archives recognize transition email records “are not federal or presidential records, but considered private materials.”
The only “notice” evidence otherwise given publicly is that an agreement between the GSA and the transition team identified the possibility of technical and maintenance audits, with some claiming this as a “waiver” of all privacy and privilege rights in the emails forever. Here again, the law does not support such a claim; even cases with much more specific notices and much less invasive searches, found privacy and privilege objections persisted. So far, a striking lack of arguments and evidence has been mounted for claiming every single email lacked any privacy or privilege.
It appears to me, Mueller deliberately skipped the court, the grand jury, and the government-imposed limits on investigative inquiries into worker conduct under Supreme Court precedent; he might have done so because he wanted a tactical edge, and was walling to ignore the Fourth Amendment restrictions on him to do so. Mueller may come to regret his choice.
Source.
The basic takeaway is that any notice or acknowledgement that the Trump team may have signed regarding its privacy rights is very far from being dispositive of the propriety of what Mueller did.
|
I haven't seen a single attorney worth talking about say that claim is creditable. And I don't know why Trumps camp keeps attacking the investigation if they want it to exonerate them.
But have no doubt, that will generate lots of Fox News headlines and fuel for some house republicans. Democrats did the same thing to Ken Starr. Republicans whined about water gate dragging on.
|
I just saw the footage of the US using its UN security counsel veto, and then the ambassador basically threatening the rest of the world in her speech.
Yikes. Talk about being internationally isolated, and then making the situation worse by basically threatening everyone, including two of your closest allies UK and Japan, that you won't forget this.
|
On December 19 2017 14:27 xDaunt wrote:To follow up on the discussion regarding Mueller's email seizures: Show nested quote +According to published reports, Special Counsel Robert Mueller engaged in a mass seizure of all emails of the Trump transition team without even a warrant or a subpoena. In my opinion, a mass seizure – as is alleged here against Mueller – cannot conform to either Fourth Amendment standards or attorney-client privilege protections. The questions boils down to this: was there a reason for the individuals communicating by email, including with their lawyers, to believe their communications were private or privileged? Or, did the individuals forever waive or “implicitly consent” to any future search or seizure of their emails?
The Supreme Court in 2010 “counsels caution” before too soon defining “the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices” until popular use of the technology used was better developed socially. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010). In other words, do most people expect privacy in that use of technology to communicate, or do they assume it is equivalent to talking in an open office where anyone from the public can walk by? The court made clear a government search was not reasonable if not “justified at its inception” or “excessively intrusive” or “not reasonably related to the objectives of the search.”
Put simply, the use of a government server, like the use of an employer’s server, does not control the privilege or privacy analysis. Instead, courts typically employ a four-factor test, that tends to be very fact-intensive, email-specific, and individual-specific. (In re Reserve Fund Securities and Derivative Litigation, 275 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). First, whether the government or company maintains a policy banning personal use. Second, whether the government or employer monitors the use of the email. Third, whether third parties have a right of access to the emails beyond technical audits and maintenance. Fourth, whether the government or employer notifies the individual of the limits on privacy in the emails, whether the individual was aware of those policies, the use of those policies, and the monitoring of those policies. It boils down to whether a person in the individual’s shoes would have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their email communications.
A fifth factor is relevant in the Fourth Amendment context: whether the government gave an individual notice and the individual had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent to the future search of their emails. Courts held individuals who agreed, as a condition of employment to “any future searches” did not waive their right against such searches because the waiver failed to give them the “right to refuse to give consent to the future search.” For the government to claim implied consent or waiver, “requires clear notice that one’s conduct may result in a search being conducted of areas which the person has been warned are subject to search,” and such notice must ensure an individual “had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent.” (Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F.Supp.2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Hence, a broad waiver was found inadequate to permit a search. (Anobile v. Pellegrino, 303 F.3d 107, 124-25 (2d. Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court made it clear the question usually “must be addressed on a case-by-case basis” and rarely subject to blanket waivers of Fourth Amendment liberties. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010).) As the court reiterated, “individuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights” merely because they use government-provided servers, offices, or equipment. (O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987).
Courts held that an employee has a reasonably expectation of privacy in the contents of his computer even when given specific notice the computers could not be used for personal purposes and the individual had authorized disclosure for technical and maintenance audits. Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64, 74 (2d. Cir. 2001). Attorney-client privilege is broader. As courts have held, emails between government employees remained privileged even though sent over government email servers. (In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007). Courts held an ex-employee could assert attorney-client privilege against use of such emails by his company even though emails were located on employer’s computer and employer gave employee notice any documents stored on computer not protected. (Curto v. Medical World Communications (E.D. N.Y. 2006).
The Mueller search runs afoul of many of these established court precedents and Fourth Amendment privacy and privilege principles. First, it appears Mueller searched and seized every email, without any kind of categorical or keyword search. This is exactly the kind of search the Supreme Court made clear was not allowed under the Fourth Amendment. This means Mueller can only prevail if he didn’t seize a single email of a single individual that the individual could have any expectation of either personal privacy or attorney client privilege in.
The primary excuses proffered so far for the broad seizure is the faulty assumption the use of a government server waived all privacy and all privilege of every email ever made over that server. As identified above, that has never been the law. The security and efficacy of government-owned servers for transition employees are not intended as a trap for the unwary to forever forfeit their privacy and privilege rights in their communications. Indeed, doing so would undermine use of such communications, and invite Hillary Clinton type bathroom closet email servers for everybody.
Mueller’s problem here is these were not even government employee emails; they were the emails of private individuals stored temporarily on a government server, and publicly declared to be “private materials” as a matter of custom, practice and the public policy of the National Archives. As Professor Jonathan Turley identifies, the National Archives recognize transition email records “are not federal or presidential records, but considered private materials.”
The only “notice” evidence otherwise given publicly is that an agreement between the GSA and the transition team identified the possibility of technical and maintenance audits, with some claiming this as a “waiver” of all privacy and privilege rights in the emails forever. Here again, the law does not support such a claim; even cases with much more specific notices and much less invasive searches, found privacy and privilege objections persisted. So far, a striking lack of arguments and evidence has been mounted for claiming every single email lacked any privacy or privilege.
It appears to me, Mueller deliberately skipped the court, the grand jury, and the government-imposed limits on investigative inquiries into worker conduct under Supreme Court precedent; he might have done so because he wanted a tactical edge, and was walling to ignore the Fourth Amendment restrictions on him to do so. Mueller may come to regret his choice. Source. The basic takeaway is that any notice or acknowledgement that the Trump team may have signed regarding its privacy rights is very far from being dispositive of the propriety of what Mueller did.
Like most people on the right pretty much ignore Trump personally profiting off his presidency I doubt anyone rooting for Mueller cares about minutia like this much.
Considering the massive number of 4th amendment violations taking place daily in this country it wouldn't surprise me if there was some sort of technicality breech by Mueller though.
|
And just remember that there might be a brace of republican house memener who might have accepted money from shady folks connected to Russian oligarchs.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 19 2017 14:32 levelping wrote:
I just saw the footage of the US using its UN security counsel veto, and then the ambassador basically threatening the rest of the world in her speech.
Yikes. Talk about being internationally isolated, and then making the situation worse by basically threatening everyone, including two of your closest allies UK and Japan, that you won't forget this.
Haley is a real foot-in-mouth UN ambassador. If the UN mattered I guess they could’ve sent a real diplomat, but hey sent a Republican governor who did it for the funsies instead.
|
On December 19 2017 14:27 xDaunt wrote:To follow up on the discussion regarding Mueller's email seizures: Show nested quote +According to published reports, Special Counsel Robert Mueller engaged in a mass seizure of all emails of the Trump transition team without even a warrant or a subpoena. In my opinion, a mass seizure – as is alleged here against Mueller – cannot conform to either Fourth Amendment standards or attorney-client privilege protections. The questions boils down to this: was there a reason for the individuals communicating by email, including with their lawyers, to believe their communications were private or privileged? Or, did the individuals forever waive or “implicitly consent” to any future search or seizure of their emails?
The Supreme Court in 2010 “counsels caution” before too soon defining “the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices” until popular use of the technology used was better developed socially. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010). In other words, do most people expect privacy in that use of technology to communicate, or do they assume it is equivalent to talking in an open office where anyone from the public can walk by? The court made clear a government search was not reasonable if not “justified at its inception” or “excessively intrusive” or “not reasonably related to the objectives of the search.”
Put simply, the use of a government server, like the use of an employer’s server, does not control the privilege or privacy analysis. Instead, courts typically employ a four-factor test, that tends to be very fact-intensive, email-specific, and individual-specific. (In re Reserve Fund Securities and Derivative Litigation, 275 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). First, whether the government or company maintains a policy banning personal use. Second, whether the government or employer monitors the use of the email. Third, whether third parties have a right of access to the emails beyond technical audits and maintenance. Fourth, whether the government or employer notifies the individual of the limits on privacy in the emails, whether the individual was aware of those policies, the use of those policies, and the monitoring of those policies. It boils down to whether a person in the individual’s shoes would have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their email communications.
A fifth factor is relevant in the Fourth Amendment context: whether the government gave an individual notice and the individual had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent to the future search of their emails. Courts held individuals who agreed, as a condition of employment to “any future searches” did not waive their right against such searches because the waiver failed to give them the “right to refuse to give consent to the future search.” For the government to claim implied consent or waiver, “requires clear notice that one’s conduct may result in a search being conducted of areas which the person has been warned are subject to search,” and such notice must ensure an individual “had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent.” (Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F.Supp.2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Hence, a broad waiver was found inadequate to permit a search. (Anobile v. Pellegrino, 303 F.3d 107, 124-25 (2d. Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court made it clear the question usually “must be addressed on a case-by-case basis” and rarely subject to blanket waivers of Fourth Amendment liberties. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010).) As the court reiterated, “individuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights” merely because they use government-provided servers, offices, or equipment. (O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987).
Courts held that an employee has a reasonably expectation of privacy in the contents of his computer even when given specific notice the computers could not be used for personal purposes and the individual had authorized disclosure for technical and maintenance audits. Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64, 74 (2d. Cir. 2001). Attorney-client privilege is broader. As courts have held, emails between government employees remained privileged even though sent over government email servers. (In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007). Courts held an ex-employee could assert attorney-client privilege against use of such emails by his company even though emails were located on employer’s computer and employer gave employee notice any documents stored on computer not protected. (Curto v. Medical World Communications (E.D. N.Y. 2006).
The Mueller search runs afoul of many of these established court precedents and Fourth Amendment privacy and privilege principles. First, it appears Mueller searched and seized every email, without any kind of categorical or keyword search. This is exactly the kind of search the Supreme Court made clear was not allowed under the Fourth Amendment. This means Mueller can only prevail if he didn’t seize a single email of a single individual that the individual could have any expectation of either personal privacy or attorney client privilege in.
The primary excuses proffered so far for the broad seizure is the faulty assumption the use of a government server waived all privacy and all privilege of every email ever made over that server. As identified above, that has never been the law. The security and efficacy of government-owned servers for transition employees are not intended as a trap for the unwary to forever forfeit their privacy and privilege rights in their communications. Indeed, doing so would undermine use of such communications, and invite Hillary Clinton type bathroom closet email servers for everybody.
Mueller’s problem here is these were not even government employee emails; they were the emails of private individuals stored temporarily on a government server, and publicly declared to be “private materials” as a matter of custom, practice and the public policy of the National Archives. As Professor Jonathan Turley identifies, the National Archives recognize transition email records “are not federal or presidential records, but considered private materials.”
The only “notice” evidence otherwise given publicly is that an agreement between the GSA and the transition team identified the possibility of technical and maintenance audits, with some claiming this as a “waiver” of all privacy and privilege rights in the emails forever. Here again, the law does not support such a claim; even cases with much more specific notices and much less invasive searches, found privacy and privilege objections persisted. So far, a striking lack of arguments and evidence has been mounted for claiming every single email lacked any privacy or privilege.
It appears to me, Mueller deliberately skipped the court, the grand jury, and the government-imposed limits on investigative inquiries into worker conduct under Supreme Court precedent; he might have done so because he wanted a tactical edge, and was walling to ignore the Fourth Amendment restrictions on him to do so. Mueller may come to regret his choice. Source. The basic takeaway is that any notice or acknowledgement that the Trump team may have signed regarding its privacy rights is very far from being dispositive of the propriety of what Mueller did.
Mueller should know better than to have done this. Tsk tsk.
|
The most amazing part of that article is the following acronym...
"IDRA’s calculation includes the graduation rates of all charter schools, including those that have asked the state to be rated under alternative standards."
No wonder! Public schools OP and charter school teachers should apologize for playing this game.
|
On December 19 2017 06:59 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 06:55 Sermokala wrote:
Yeah but how many times has anyone ever mentioned Indonesia as a world player despite being OG OPEC and top 5 population? If we're talking about US foreign policy Indonesia is literally the worst thing that America has ever done. They supported a genocide and then raped the country of all its resources and enslaved its population. But it was done in a kind of capitalistic way so the history books ignore it.
I looked this up out of curiosity and this looks to be grossly misleading from the mainstream sources I saw.
Indonesia in the early 1960s was a poor and unstable country that leaned communist. Like every other communist nation, it was an economic failure. People were starving en masse and inflation was approaching 4 digits. The ruling community leadership (elected democratically, it seems, to be fair) turned down food aid from the US.
In 1965, there was a coup and the the details of exactly what conspiracies were going on didn't survive history very well. Some say it was an internal military affair, some say it it was a conspiracy on the communist party's part, and one academic thinks the CIA played a role.
Regardless, a right-wing general came out as a military junta that ended up ruling for the next 35 years. The US provided more food aid in the coming famines. As often happens in coups, the winner purged the losers. This is all true. But nowhere did I read that the US "supported a genocide." The only "support" was that the US and Indonesia were both against communism and the US didn't make a priority of condemning the purges. While not an A+ grade, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about when you're claiming the US "supported" them as if they had an active hand. This all occurred during the height of the Cold War and the Vietnam War. The US wasn't really in a position to be actively antagonizing countries that were aligned with them against communism. I could understand if you were arguing the US could have done more, but you're making genocide claims here. What the hell?
On to the "enslavement and resource rape." The newly instated military junta alternated between two economic philosophies during his reign: one was a liberal Western philosophy championed by a group of US-educated (Berkeley) Indonesian economists, and one was a nationalist philosophy. The main point of contention was national resources: the liberal Indonesian economy wanted to privatize national resources and the nationalists didn't.
In short, Indonesia's economy grew rapidly under the liberal economists and stagnated under the nationalists. The Indonesian government, taking the advice of the US-educated Indonesian economists when they were in favor, voluntarily agreed to sell some natural resources US corporations. As far as I'm aware, there was no foul play involved.
I have no doubt that the working conditions, as they usually are in developing countries, were quite horrible by first world standards. That said, after Googling around for 10-15 min, I can't really find anything more than what I said above. There is some "workers.org" essay that makes a lot of conspiracy-like allegations that echo what you said, but I can't find anything done by anyone that seems credible supporting it. It's certainly not mentioned on the Wikipedia page.
Here's another angle we can look at though: How do the Indonesians view the US in light of the history between the two nations? In 2015, 62% of Indonesians viewed the US favorably, according to Pew. In 2014, 36% view US influence positively and 47% view US influence negatively according to BBC World Services. Not great, but hardly what I'd expect if the US were truly imperialist genociders/enslavers over there.
So the mainstream view hardly always matches your genocide, enslavement, and exploitation narrative.
|
On December 19 2017 14:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:The most amazing part of that article is the following acronym... "IDRA’s calculation includes the graduation rates of all charter schools, including those that have asked the state to be rated under alternative standards." No wonder! Public schools OP and charter school teachers should apologize for playing this game.
It's not the charter school teachers at fault here, really. The requirements at least in my state are just lower for being one than a public teacher, so they get paid less and have less training (my fiancee works at a for profit daycare center, which is younger than directly competes with public schooling but it is somewhat similar of a situation). If you only get 10-11$ an hour because the school is pocketing a massive amount for profits then it's just a shitty situation all around.
|
On December 19 2017 15:06 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2017 14:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:The most amazing part of that article is the following acronym... "IDRA’s calculation includes the graduation rates of all charter schools, including those that have asked the state to be rated under alternative standards." No wonder! Public schools OP and charter school teachers should apologize for playing this game. It's not the charter school teachers at fault here, really. The requirements at least in my state are just lower for being one than a public teacher, so they get paid less and have less training (my fiancee works at a for profit daycare center, which is younger than directly competes with public schooling but it is somewhat similar of a situation). If you only get 10-11$ an hour because the school is pocketing a massive amount for profits then it's just a shitty situation all around.
Oh my point was just satirical and referencing an IdrA quote, given that his name appeared in the article. I know that it's not entirely the fault of the charter school teachers; there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to charter schools. During my PhD program, I helped develop some curriculum for a charter school near me, and just two weeks ago I met with the leaders of another charter school and spoke with some of the administrators there. Based on my experiences in the education field and the research I've done, I'm not a fan of charter schools. Even in New Jersey, it's rare to see a successful charter school (compared to surrounding traditional public and private schools), and it's even rarer to see a good justification as to why public school funds, attention, and effort should be taken away from traditional public schools and put towards charter schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
