Newsweek’s Daniel Gross explains the Consumer Price Index (here’s the official BLS site) in a very simple video. I could do without the goofy sound effects, but it’s a good, 2 minute explanation of how the government tracks inflation.
Per David Simon’s Berkeley talk, though, the video doesn’t go into why this matters. Perhaps they’ll cover that in the next installment of the Economics 101 series.
|
Blogroll
Friends
CT Politics Politics
Technology
West Hartford Blogs Hartford Blogs |
Active Posts
|
|
Track & Validate
|
So, admittedly, I’m not a constitutional, nor civil liberties scholar, but doesn’t banning gay and straight students from forming groups together at public high schools violate their freedom to associate? (Author’s note: I’m not trying to prove a point here, I’m really asking.)
June 9th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Unfortunately, under the current Supreme Court, students lose many constitutional rights when they walk in the school doors.
June 9th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Clearly I’m not smart enough to understand this. Last I checked, Freedom to Associate was one of those First Amendment type rights. am I wrong? And oh yeah, this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL, so why can’t they do this? (clearly, this is where I let my naivete show)
June 9th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
I recall when I was Diversity Awareness advisor at my last school — a public school — at least in MA, it was a law tat they could not discriminate against gay and lesbian (transexual, transgender) kids from having a group. BUT that did not stop my school from trying. i recall being told I had to take a stickewr off of my door sayig that my room was a “safe zone” fro LGBT kids, and my principal’s rationale (and the school’s lawyer) was that any group could then put flyer’s up — like this is an anti-blaack room, and so on, though honestrly, i believe hate crime laws and the whoe brown vs. the borad stuff got rid of legitmacy for setting up sanctions protecting the discriminatory….
June 9th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Looking at the article — it looks like it is a still an individual state type ting — why, I’ll never know - since I firmly believe all of our freedoms regarding associating are protected by the bill of rights. And as far as I’m concerned — what various lawyers have to say on this one is a matter of perspective. As we all know specialists in all sorts of areas can’t seem to agree on heated topics.
June 10th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Even though it is a public school, because the students are minors, the school acts in a manner we call “in loco parentis” (basically, in the shoes of the parents). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has held that students are not entitled to the full range of Constitutional rights that normal citizens enjoy. See Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier (principal of a school has the right to review and block controversial articles of a school paper funded by the school and published in the school’s name). One of the holdings - “First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.”
June 10th, 2005 at 10:46 am
And Heidi, unfortunately, it isn’t “a matter of perspective” - it’s Supreme Court law. Until we get Supreme Court justices on the bench that respect the Constitutional rights of students, we’re stuck with the rule.
June 10th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Its part of what I was asking. I knew about “in loco parentis” from a Law Review article I read last year, but I didn’t realize it applied here.
June 11th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
come on Kim, it’s not Supreme Court “law” …
opinion? precedent?
June 11th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
You would be hard pressed to find a court in the nation that will not accept a Supreme Court case as *binding* precedent, at least until it weighs in again and says something different.