The Power Struggle

Unemployment--The Fix

2010-09-05T08:23:00.000-07:00

People today are almost totally dependent on others for their livelihood. Gone are the days of hunting, foraging, and even fishing for daily subsistence. Gone are the days of camping out in the forest. Because these options are no longer available to the ordinary man, others must come to their rescue. The problem is that our society has relied on market forces to correct the economy, and stimulus programs have been hit or miss and have taken too long to have an effect.

If there is any doubt about the immorality of the U.S. corporation, you need only consider that our economy is in trouble and companies are holding back from investing their cash reserves because they don't wish to jeopardize their bottom line.

Let us say that it is a simple business decision and that CEO's are not expected to be moral people because business must be objective to remain competitive. In that case, the solution is to make all businesses hire the unemployed regardless of whether or not they are needed. This they can do because they have expertise to start up any number of companies that will at the very least stay in the black. If they should go in the red, the U.S. can then make up the difference with unemployment funds. The number actually hired would be proportional to the company's profits.

The corporations doing business in the U.S. have profited handsomely by our sweat and our consumerism. It is time they came to the plate. Our government should legislate this immediately.

The Biggest Cancers on Society

2010-07-08T05:43:00.000-07:00

Unions, Professional Sports, the Media, Wall Street, and the Public Sector are the biggest cancers on our American society.

1. Unions. Through threats and intimidation they raise their members salaries, perks, and benefits while raising consumer prices because you can bet dollars to donuts that the CEO will not take it out of his salary. The answer is no unions or all unions--take your pick.

2. Professional Sports. Who really pays their enormous salaries? The people do, and not just the viewers (that would be fair) but every family that buys a box of Wheaties. The answer is to shift our mentality away from the super jock and towards local non-profit leagues. The top professional players can still form an exhibition team like the Harlem Globetrotters. You can pay to see their razzle dazzle but for the meat and potatoes, go to a local league and be wowed by local heroes. Your buck fifty entrance fee will go to support the community. (just be careful not to let municipal government get their grimy fingers on the take).

3. The Media. Advertising dollars are ultimately paid by the consumer, and, again, not just the viewer but all consumers. I have no answer here because the producers and media executives are in bed with each other (collectivist people that they are). One idea that has occurred to me is to have micro pay-per-view through the cable providers or through the Internet. If you paid $0.05 for each sitcom you watch, it may just be a win-win for all. The option to watch advertised broadcasts is always available but because there are fewer viewers, the advertisers do not pay nearly as much as they do now.

4. Wall Street. These douche bags--there is no better term--prey on the fallibilities of those not privileged or privy. Why should they have first crack at IPO's? Why should they get to transact before anyone else? The answer is to educate people in the simple fact that Wall Street as it now operates is a zero sum game of the most hideous and perverse kind. Go ahead, save long-term for your retirement. You'll probably get a good return but for every cent you make, someone else loses a cent, but see if you can get the price on the ticker (that only goes to the douche bag that has a seat on the exchange, you'll get less). If they are not willing to equalize the playing field, the government should step in and run its own stock exchange.

5. The Public Sector. If you want to hear stories of abuse of taxpayer money, check out this one of many examples at The Free Enterprise Nation. The answer is to enact legislation that will sever the ties between elected officials and the people they hire. In other words, do not let an elected official hire anyone--centralize it instead at the state level. If it's a state official, centralize it at the federal level. Of course, there will be the appropriate residency requirements.

Frankenstein Allowed Free Speech

2010-01-26T18:58:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court recently struck down laws that prevented corporations from campaigning for political candidates. That the Supreme Court can view corporations as citizens speaks of the blinders that too often guide these nine people down a road to ill-conceived or misguided justice. It is almost as if they were saying, "We are tired of your First Amendment lawsuits. We are going to take free speech and wrap you up in it so tightly that it will suffocate you."

Now that corporations have freedom of speech, what else can we bestow on them? Shall we give corporations the right to vote? Shall we banish them to a desert in Arizona when they are found guilty of a crime? If a corporation is an entity with unalienable rights, what about other entities? Do we welcome the Vatican and the rich Muslims into our political arena? I can see why the justices are confused for we bail out and subsidize the corporations like they were relatives. We baptize them into being and dissolve them at their end. We allow them to marry but insist on calling it a merger. We take pride when they multiply in number and we revere their very names as we nickname them into our psyche. We feel a sense of belonging when they hire us and a sense of betrayal when they let us go. The uncanny similarities could easily mislead the unwary.

Justice Scalia has been known to say that Congress should rewrite the constitution to make it do exactly what they want and not leave it to Supreme Court interpretation. However, an easier procedure is to have the Supreme Court interpret the constitution based on current mores and practices. Can they not feel the pulse of the nation? Can they not see that the American public has never liked a bully; that we elected a president who was saying no to lobbyists. Still, they persist in these lunacies and all we can is howl.

Look, Justices, we still have the checks in place--if it is seen that you're in need of a correction, the congress can convene to modify the Constitution for today's world. By the way, and just as an aside, do the justices have to recuse themselves if they own any stock or intend to? How many of us are just going to play the stock market now by picking only the wealthiest corporations? After all, with Uncle
Sam on your side, how can you lose?

Some say that this matter matters not. They say the rich will prevail whether as human or corporate beings, that money is the ultimate master of our fate, the captain of our souls. Hard to argue against this but I must point out to corporations who might try to disenfranchise the public, that we, the people, are so much bigger and, collectively, we also have money to influence an election and, when poor, we can still wield a nasty boycott against unruly entities. 1/26/2010, 9:57 PM

Unionized Disparity

2010-01-13T12:03:00.000-08:00

In grammar school, I thought unions were great. They were great when the injustices committed against Joe Schmo were atrocious (child labor, pittance pay, toxic environment). Today, I believe that those with unions are parasites on the those without unions.

Invariably, those with unions are at an advantage not enjoyed by the rest. They get better pay, job security, benefits, and perks. Not always, of course. The hotel industry has found ways to unionize with unions that are nothing more than fronts of respectability and responsibility--organizations that remind me of Popeye's chicken soup. For non-boomers, Popeye used to make soup by dipping a dead chicken once or twice in hot water and serving the water as chicken soup.

So what are the rest of us to do? We can start by considering the possibility of a government option for unionizing. I know, public options can get blown up by the likes of an industry puppet like Joe Lieberman. But we've got Pelosi on our side. She may not be as polished as Hillary but I like Pelosi's spunk better.

What would the unemployment rate be like if we were all unionized. Very little, almost minute, because unions would ask other unions to take a hit in member salaries for the sake of the whole population. The government would dispense this money to entrepreneurs and small business owners who had to employ the unemployed. The choices of who gets what would vary depending on need, and if the companies became profitable, their government subsidy would be diverted.

Hey, union members, you do that anyway when you and other employed people give us unemployment and food stamps and whatnot, and what do you get in return? So, get something back from your charity, America, and let's get everyone working.

Is this socialism? You can call it that but I'm tired of public employees (worst offenders of the unionized) getting early retirement, pensions, great health care, and job security that's as good as that of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Their recompense, BTW, is based on union strength--they don't work harder or sacrifice more than the rest of us--God knows, they don't sacrifice more.

Eliminate the 3rd party "spoiler effect"

2010-01-02T09:35:00.000-08:00

In last year's New Jersey gubernatorial election, Chris Christie was worried that Daggett would spoil his chances of being elected by taking away Christie votes. In a political novel, I fantasized that a rich person like Corzine just might be able to "plant" someone like Daggett in order to do just that. But fantasy or not, Chris Christie had valid concerns and, in looking at the problem, I saw that it was a simple matter to eliminate this problem--you merely let the voters vote twice.

If you let the voters vote for their top two candidates, no vote will go to waste. When all votes are tallied, If their first choice (let's say Daggett) falls into third place then, the voters who had a third place candidate as their second choice will have their "first choice" votes transferred to the top two candidates.

He's an example. If I voted for Daggett and Christie, and all the first choices tally as Corzine, Christie, and Daggett in third place, my second choice (Christie) gets assigned to Christie's tally. This allows voters to take a chance on an Independent and still be able to cast a vote for the top two parties.

This sounds difficult (it's certainly difficult to explain in just a few sentences) but, I assure you, it would be easy to implement and no one should feel miffed or slightly because every one has the opportunity to have their votes "count."

Sotomayor's a shoe-in

2009-07-13T15:06:00.000-07:00

It's hilarious to see the confirmation hearings. You see, the government wants someone like Sotomayor who, as Chuck Schumer has said, has voted with the government in over 90% of her decisions. That is what most in government want. Just like Roosevelt wanted the court to support his Japanese Internment activities and the incumbent Bush wanted to win the election, today's government couldn't give a rat's ass about the rights of the people. The only reason Soto voted against the white firefighters was that she was voting FOR the municipal government's decision. She really has no judicial philosophy other than the right of government to do as it pleases and the people be damned. Where government is not involved (baseball leagues), she might be useful.

Overall, however, she would be a sad addition to the court but what else can we expect in a goody two-shoes suck-up candidate. But then, she would not have gotten where she is today if she had not sucked up to those in power. After all, that's how Obama got in.

The big unknown is whether any minority candidate would have the balls to do the right thing and give power back to the people that elected them. Judging by the Doninger decision, fat chance!

Salon.com is no HuffingtonPost.com

2009-06-04T17:02:00.001-07:00

At Salon.com, a blogger can, at whim, delete any comment that he/she does not like. That's not a salon in my America but it might be one in Stalinist Russia, though.

This does not happen at Ariana Huffington's site. Sure, they can delete your comments if they are off topic, abusive, ad hominem, and a few other criteria. But those are site-specified rules not the whim of the blogger who is posting his opinion on a site that has full public access. I'm had stuff deleted on the HPost but I knew after it was deleted that I had gone BloggerPostal according to the rules of the site.

What's wrong with the salon.com methods? If we are told that we can comment on a posting/blog, we are tempted to read the whole thing knowing that we can disagree in public with the writer. We take the time to read it and to compose an opinion that was at variance with the blogger. We feel that, in some small way, we can temper the opinions in a balanced way. But instead, the blogger decides that it's a bit too negative for his puerile ego to bare and he zaps you into oblivion. Now, let's say a disinterested party goes and reads the blog and sees nothing but positive comments. Is there not an obvious danger that that party gets fed so much spin that, lacking any immediately available contrarian opinions, he/she gets a one-sided view that can't help but nest in the person's mind indefinitely--the reader has become the victim of an unfair influence by the blogger. Because there is a 50/50 chance of the blogger being wrong in the eyes of society at large, all views should be aired at the first publication if they meet the terms of use. If I don't like the terms, I can go elsewhere.

I like the US News & World Report site. It's not crowded, and you can post relatively civil comments to stories on the day's major issues. What else can you ask for in a blogging/enews site?

Of course, if Salon.com thinks this despotism is in keeping with its Mission Statement then I apologize for saying it's on a lower road to the Huffington post.

The ego of these bloggers is so nano that--I bet--they can only blog for sites that allow such absolute power. If they wanted, they could easily ask us to resubmit a modification because it violated the rule against X but that would involve respecting another person's opinion. Salon.com should study HuffingtonPost.com as the latter has one standard for the entire site.

Sotomayor's Doninger v. Niehoff decision

2009-05-28T14:13:00.000-07:00

This is the text of the decision made by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges that trounced a student's first amendment rights. My comments are in bold. Some sections were underlined. I am not a lawyer but I can see through the smoke and mirrors of Sotomayor's decision. She's smart--just as much as Douglas and Frankfurter were when they helped the government put 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry behind barbed wire. This is just one girl's quagmire but we all are at risk if Sotomayor doesn't start respecting our constitutional rights. I hope she gets asked about this decision because if she still believes in it, I don't believe she has any right on the Supreme Court.

Being chronically unemployed, I now have the time to address these matters. If I had been unemployed at the time of Alito or Scalia, some of their decisions would have received similar treatment. It's not hard to look at legal arguments and see the bull. I strongly recommend that public schools analyze one decision a year in history class.

*The Honorable Loretta A. Preska, United States District Judge for the Southern District
of New York, sitting by designation.
07-3885-cv
Doninger v. Niehoff
1
2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
4
5 August Term 2007
6
7
8 (Argued: March 4, 2008 Decided: May 29, 2008)
9
10 Docket No. 07-3885-cv
11
12 _____________________________________
13
14 LAUREN DONINGER, P.P.A as Guardian and Next Friend of AVERY DONINGER, a minor,
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 -v.-
18
19 KARISSA NIEHOFF, PAULA SCHWARTZ,
20 Defendants-Appellees.
21 ____________________________________
22
23 Before: SOTOMAYOR, LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges,
24 and PRESKA, District Judge.*
25
26 Parent of public high school student brought action against school principal and district
27 superintendent alleging a violation of her daughter’s free speech and other rights. The United States
28 District Court for the District of Connecticut (Kravitz, J.) denied a motion for a preliminary
29 injunction, and plaintiff appealed.
30 Affirmed.
31 JON L. SCHOENHORN, Jon L. Schoenhorn & Associates,
32 LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
33
34 THOMAS R. GERARDE (Katherine E. Rule, on the brief),
35 Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, for Defendants-
36 Appellees.
2
1 Martin Margulies, Quinnipiac University School of Law,
2 Hamden, Connecticut (Lauren Henault, Legal Intern,
3 Quinnipiac University School of Law, Hamden, Connecticut,
4 and Daniel J. Krisch, Horton, Shields & Knox, P.C., Hartford,
5 Connecticut, on the brief), for Amicus Curiae, The Center for
6 First Amendment Rights, Inc., in support of Plaintiff-
7 Appellant.
8
9 Robert M. O’Neil (J. Joshua Wheeler, on the brief),
10 Charlottesville, Virginia, for Amicus Curiae, The Thomas
11 Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, in
12 support of Plaintiff-Appellant.
13
14 LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge:
15 Plaintiff-Appellant Lauren Doninger (“Doninger”) appeals from the August 31, 2007 order
16 of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Kravitz, J.) denying her motion
17 for a preliminary injunction. Doninger v. Niehoff, 514 F. Supp. 2d 199 (D. Conn. 2007). Doninger
18 sued Defendants-Appellees Karissa Niehoff and Paula Schwartz, respectively the principal of Lewis
19 Mills High School (“LMHS”) and the superintendent of the district in which LMHS is located, when
20 her daughter, Avery Doninger (“Avery”), was disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary
21 after she posted a vulgar and misleading message about the supposed cancellation of an upcoming
22 school event on an independently operated, publicly accessible web log (or “blog”). Doninger,
23 alleging principally a violation of her daughter’s First Amendment rights, moved for a preliminary
24 injunction voiding the election for Senior Class Secretary and ordering the school either to hold a
25 new election in which Avery would be allowed to participate or to grant Avery the same title, honors,
26 and obligations as the student elected to the position, including the privilege of speaking as a class
27 officer at graduation. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Doninger had failed to
28 show a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. Because Avery’s blog post created a
3
1 foreseeable risk of substantial disruption at LMHS, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
2 its discretion. We therefore affirm the denial of Doninger’s preliminary injunction motion.
3 Background
4 LMHS is a public high school located in Burlington, Connecticut. At the time of the events
5 recounted here, Avery Doninger was a junior at LMHS. She served on the Student Council and was
6 also the Junior Class Secretary.
7 This case arises out of a dispute between the school administration and a group of Student
8 Council members at LMHS, including Avery, over the scheduling of an event called “Jamfest,” an
9 annual battle-of-the-bands concert that these Student Council members helped to plan. The 2007
10 Jamfest, which had been twice postponed because of delays in the opening of LMHS’s new
11 auditorium, was scheduled for Saturday, April 28, in this newly constructed venue. Shortly before
12 the event, however, Avery and her fellow students learned that David Miller, the teacher responsible
13 for operating the auditorium’s sound and lighting equipment, was unable to attend on that date. The
14 students proposed that LMHS hire a professional to run the equipment or that a parent supervise
15 student technicians, so that Jamfest could still take place on April 28 in the auditorium. At a Student
16 Council meeting on April 24, however, the students were advised that it would not be possible to
17 hold the event in the auditorium without Miller, so that either the date or the location of the event
18 would need to be changed. Note that the students were informed only 4 days earlier.
19 This announcement distressed the Student Council members responsible for coordinating
20 preparations, for they believed there were few dates remaining to reschedule Jamfest before the end
21 of the school year. The students were also concerned that changing the date of the event for a third
22 time might cause some of the bands to drop out. Holding the event in the proposed alternative venue,
4
1 the school cafeteria, was not an acceptable solution because the bands would have to play acoustic
2 instead of electric instruments. The students also feared there was not enough time for the bands to
3 make the necessary modifications to their sets that this change of instrumentation would require.
4 Four Student Council members, including Avery, decided to take action by alerting the
5 broader community to the Jamfest situation and enlisting help in persuading school officials to let
6 Jamfest take place in the auditorium as scheduled. The four students met at the school’s computer
7 lab that morning and accessed one of their fathers’ email account. They drafted a message to be sent
8 to a large number of email addresses in the account’s address book, as well as to additional names
9 that Avery provided. The message stated, in substance, that the administration had decided that the
10 Student Council could not hold Jamfest in the auditorium because Miller was unavailable. It
11 requested recipients to contact Paula Schwartz, the district superintendent, to urge that Jamfest be
12 held as scheduled, as well as to forward the email “to as many people as you can.” All four students
13 signed their names and sent the email. The message was sent out again later that morning to correct
14 an error in the telephone number for Schwartz’s office. So far, it seems fair play.
15 Both Schwartz and Niehoff received an influx of telephone calls and emails from people
16 expressing concern about Jamfest. Niehoff, who was away from her office for a planned in-service
17 training day, was called back by Schwartz as a result. Schwartz, it seems, cannot delegate authority to the vice principal and is unwilling to take the responsibility onto herself.
Later that day, Niehoff encountered Avery in
18 the hallway at LMHS. Avery claimed that Niehoff told her that Schwartz was very upset “and that[,]
19 as a result, Jamfest had been cancelled.” Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 205. The district court found
20 otherwise, however, crediting Niehoff’s testimony denying that she ever told Avery the event would
21 not be held. I believe Avery for I know how bitchy and vindictive administrators are.
22 According to Niehoff, she advised Avery that she was disappointed the Student Council
5
1 members had resorted to a mass email rather than coming to her or to Schwartz to resolve the issue.
2 She testified that class officers are expected to work cooperatively with their faculty advisor and with
3 the administration in carrying out Student Council objectives. Objectives created solely by the administration, that is.
They are charged, in addition, with
4 “demonstrat[ing] qualities of good citizenship at all times.” Id. at 214. What good citizen does not lobby for change? I even get emails from President Obama asking me to lobby on his behalf.
The district court found that
5 Niehoff discussed these responsibilities with Avery in their conversation on April 24. She told Avery
6 that the email contained inaccurate information because Niehoff was, in fact, amenable to
7 rescheduling Jamfest so it could be held in the new auditorium. Niehoff asked Avery to work with
8 her fellow students to send out a corrective email. According to Niehoff, Avery agreed to do so. What student would have had the clear headedness to keep confronting an administrator? After leaving the intimidating presence of the administrator, Avery probably did what we all do—we reconsider our situation.
9 That night, however, Avery posted a message on her publicly accessible blog, which was
10 hosted by livejournal.com, a website unaffiliated with LMHS. The blog post began as follows:
11 jamfest is cancelled due to douchebags in central office. (True, the activity was cancelled for the 24th)here is an
12 email that we sent to a ton of people and asked them to forward to
13 everyone in their address book to help get support for jamfest.
14 basically, because we sent it out, Paula Schwartz is getting a TON of
15 phone calls and emails and such. we have so much support and we
16 really appriciate it. however, she got pissed off and decided to just
17 cancel the whole thing all together. anddd so basically we aren’t
18 going to have it at all, but in the slightest chance we do it is going to
19 be after the talent show on may 18th. andd..here is the letter we sent
20 out to parents. Why would Avery add this part if, in fact, there was no truth to her statement that Schwartz was hell bent on canceling the whole thing? Schwartz must have led her to believe that things were looking dire for the jazzfest and she responded in the only way she and most disenfranchised would have responded—we blogged.
21
22 The post then reproduced the email that the Student Council members sent that morning. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the email (why did Sotomayor leave it out? We could have determined to what extent the email actually lied. As we have seen, the post did not lie.)The post
23 continued:
24 And here is a letter my mom sent to Paula [Schwartz] and cc’d
25 Karissa [Niehoff] to get an idea of what to write if you want to write
26 something or call her to piss her off more. im down.—
27
28 Avery then reproduced an email that her mother had sent to Schwartz earlier in the day concerning
29 the dispute.
30 Avery testified before the district court that “im down” meant that she approved of the idea
6
1 of others contacting Schwartz to “piss her off more.” She stated that the purpose of posting the blog
2 entry was “to encourage more people than the existing e-mail already encouraged to contact the
3 administration” about Jamfest. More lobbying, so what? The district court concluded that the content of the message itself
4 suggested that her purpose was “to encourage her fellow students to read and respond to the blog.”
5 Id. at 206. The district court also noted that “[s]everal LMHS students posted comments to the blog,
6 including one in which the author referred to Ms. Schwartz as a ‘dirty whore.’” Id. at 206-07.
7 The following morning, Schwartz and Niehoff received more phone calls and email messages
8 regarding Jamfest. The pair, along with Miller, Jennifer Hill, the students’ faculty advisor, and David
9 Fortin, LMHS’s building and grounds supervisor, met with the Student Council members who sent
10 the email the day before. They agreed during this meeting that Jamfest would be rescheduled for
11 June 8, 2007. Niehoff announced this resolution in the school newsletter Note this slow means of communication. I’ll show why it’s important later. For now, let me say that what a principal in the 60’s would have done was to circulate a notice to each classroom to be read by the teacher who would sign off on it and hand it back to the school lackey to pass along to the next classroom. and the students notified
12 the recipients of the April 24 email. They honestly tried to end any “disruption” in school admistration. In her testimony before the district court, Avery denied that
13 Schwartz and Niehoff also spoke to the students during this meeting about the impropriety of mass
14 emails in this context and the proper conduct of student officers in resolving disputes with the
15 administration. According to the district court, however, Schwartz and Niehoff “at the very least,
16 made clear to the students that appealing directly to the public was not an appropriate means of
17 resolving complaints the students had regarding school administrators’ decisions.” Id. at 207. “At the very least?” is this the best Sotomayor’s court could come up with to counter Avery’s claim that no one other than herself were ever told of the inadvisability of mass emails? The
18 district court also found that, as a result of the Jamfest controversy, both Schwartz and Niehoff were
19 forced to miss or arrived late to several school-related activities scheduled for April 24 and April 25.
20 Id. at 206. If they missed and didn’t reschedule, it wasn’t important that they be there. If they were late, so what? Aren’t they paid enough to deal with such matters professionally and efficiently? More on their inefficiency later.
21 The April 25 meeting resolved the dispute over Jamfest’s scheduling. Indeed, Jamfest was
22 successfully held on June 8, with all but one of the scheduled bands participating. Even after this
7
1 resolution, however, Schwartz and Niehoff, unaware of Avery’s blog post, continued to receive
2 phone calls and emails in the controversy’s immediate aftermath. According to Schwartz’s
3 testimony, she learned of Avery’s posting only some days after the meeting when her adult son found
4 it while using an Internet search engine. How did the son come to know to look for it? Schwartz alerted Niehoff to the blog post on May 7, 2007. This was 13 days after the mass emails and now Niehoff and Schwartz, still festering, were out for blood.
5 Niehoff concluded that Avery’s conduct had failed to display the civility and good citizenship
6 expected of class officers. But kept her on as a Junior officer. She noted that the posting contained vulgar language and inaccurate
7 information. In addition, Avery had disregarded her counsel regarding the proper means of
8 addressing issues of concern with school administrators. After researching Connecticut education
9 law and LMHS policies, Niehoff decided that Avery should be prohibited from running for Senior
10 Class Secretary. Because Avery had Advanced Placement exams at that time, however, Niehoff
11 chose not to confront her immediately. 10 days of advanced placement exams? Seems to me that things were brewing slowly at the bigwigs.
12 On May 17, Avery came to Niehoff’s office to accept her nomination for Senior Class
13 Secretary. Niehoff handed Avery a printed copy of the April 24 blog post and requested that Avery
14 apologize to Schwartz in writing, show a copy of the post to her mother, and withdraw her
15 candidacy. Avery complied with the first two requests, but refused to honor the third. In response,
16 Niehoff declined to provide an administrative endorsement of Avery’s nomination, which effectively
17 prohibited her from running for Senior Class Secretary, though Avery was permitted to retain her
18 positions as representative on the Student Council and as Junior Class Secretary. Why allow her to continue if you really feel she didn’t live up to the standards of student government?According to the
19 district court, Niehoff explained that her decision was based on: (1) Avery’s failure to accept her
20 counsel “regarding the proper means of expressing disagreement with administration policy and
21 seeking to resolve those disagreements”; Did counsel mention blog posts? I doubt it. (2) the vulgar language and inaccurate information included
22 in the post; Vulgar, perhaps, but not inaccurate for the Jazzfest WAS cancelled (on the 24th, that is) and (3) its encouragement of others to contact the central office “to piss [Schwartz] off
8
1 more,” which Niehoff did not consider appropriate behavior for a class officer. Id. at 208. The expression “piss off” is a youth expression apparently meant to convey influence or goading into action. I don’t think she was being vindictive because she knew that there was still a very good possibility that the Jazzfest would be held that year. Lesson to administrators: if you can’t speak the language, stay away from the blogs.
2 As a result of Niehoff’s decision, Avery was not allowed to have her name on the ballot or
3 to give a campaign speech at a May 25 school assembly regarding the elections. Apart from this
4 disqualification from running for Senior Class Secretary, she was not otherwise disciplined. Even
5 though she was not permitted to be on the ballot or to campaign, Avery received a plurality of the
6 votes for Senior Class Secretary as a write-in candidate. The school did not permit her to take office,
7 however, and the second-place candidate became class secretary for the Class of 2008.
8 Lauren Doninger filed a complaint in Connecticut Superior Court asserting claims under 42
9 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. She principally alleged violations of her daughter’s rights under the
10 First Amendment to the United States Constitution and analogous clauses of the Connecticut
11 Constitution. She also alleged violations of Avery’s due process and equal protection rights under
12 the Fourteenth Amendment, and asserted a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional
13 distress under state law. Doninger sought damages and an injunction requiring, among other things,
14 that school officials hold new class secretary elections in which Avery would be allowed to run, and
15 that Avery be permitted, as a duly elected class officer, to speak at the 2008 commencement
16 ceremony.
17 Schwartz and Niehoff removed the action to the District of Connecticut. Doninger filed a
18 motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court developed the facts outlined here from
19 exhibits, affidavits, deposition testimony, and the hearing testimony of ten live witnesses, including
20 students, faculty, administrators, and parents. The district court concluded that a preliminary
21 injunction was not warranted because Doninger did not show a sufficient likelihood of success on
22 the merits. This appeal followed.
9
1 Discussion
2 A party seeking a preliminary injunction ordinarily must show: (1) a likelihood of irreparable
3 harm in the absence of the injunction; and (2) either a likelihood of success on the merits or
4 sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, with a
5 balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant’s favor. Sunward Elecs., Inc. v. McDonald, 362
6 F.3d 17, 24 (2d Cir. 2004). When the movant seeks a “mandatory” injunction — that is, as in this
7 case, an injunction that will alter rather than maintain the status quo — she must meet the more
8 rigorous standard of demonstrating a “clear” or “substantial” likelihood of success on the merits. Id.
9 at 24-25. We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Id. at 24. Because
10 Doninger seeks the vindication of First Amendment rights, however, “subject to the provision of
11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) that ‘[f]indings of fact . . . shall not be set aside unless clearly
12 erroneous,’ we . . . make a fresh examination of crucial facts” and independently examine the record
13 to do so. Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 567-68
14 (1995) (alteration and first omission in original); accord Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 693
15 (2d Cir. 1996).
16 The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, normally
17 constitutes irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); Bronx Household of Faith
18 v. Bd. of Educ., 331 F.3d 342, 349 (2d Cir. 2003). Even when a complaint alleges First Amendment
19 injuries, however, our case law suggests that at least in circumstances in which a plaintiff does not
20 allege injury from a rule or regulation that directly limits speech, irreparable harm is not presumed
21 and must still be shown. See Bronx Household of Faith, 331 F.3d at 349-50. The district court
22 assumed that Doninger had adequately demonstrated that Niehoff’s actions had or were likely to
10
1 have a chilling effect on speech in light of Avery’s assertion that she has limited her email and blog
2 communications in an effort to avoid similar conflict with school administrators in the future.
3 Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 211. We, too, assume for the purposes of this appeal that Doninger met
4 her burden of showing irreparable harm and proceed to address whether she also demonstrated a
5 clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
6 I. The First Amendment Claim
7 We begin with some basic principles. It is axiomatic that students do not “shed their
8 constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des
9 Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). It is equally the case that the
10 constitutional rights of students in public school “are not automatically coextensive with the rights
11 of adults in other settings,” Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986), but must
12 instead be applied in a manner consistent with the “special characteristics of the school
13 environment,” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 506. Thus, school administrators may prohibit student expression
14 that will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” Id. at 513.
15 Vulgar or offensive speech — speech that an adult making a political point might have a
16 constitutional right to employ — may legitimately give rise to disciplinary action by a school, given
17 the school’s responsibility for “teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.”
18 Fraser, 478 U.S. at 681. Similarly, so long as their actions are “reasonably related to legitimate
19 pedagogical concerns,” educators are entitled to exercise editorial control over school-sponsored
20 expressive activities such as school publications or theatrical productions. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v.
21 Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 273 (1988). Such controls “assure that participants learn whatever lessons
22 the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be
The Wisniewski panel divided on the question 1 whether it was necessary in that case to
show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the expression at issue would reach school property.
Two panel members concluded that the undisputed fact that it did so “pretermit[ted] any inquiry
as to this aspect of reasonable foreseeability.” 494 F.3d at 39.
11
1 inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not
2 erroneously attributed to the school.” Id. at 271. Finally, given the special nature of the school
3 environment and the “serious and palpable” dangers posed by student drug abuse, public schools
4 may also “take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be
5 regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.” Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. —, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2622,
6 2629 (2007). These cases that Sotomayor cites pertain to students at school and the last case law cited shows that she is treading on thin ice when she brings up a case pertaining to free speech that condoned illegal drug use—hardly in line with calling a school official a “douchebag” which is really what this case is all about.
7 The Supreme Court has yet to speak on the scope of a school’s authority to regulate
8 expression that, like Avery’s, does not occur on school grounds or at a school-sponsored event. We
9 have determined, however, that a student may be disciplined for expressive conduct, even conduct
10 occurring off school grounds, when this conduct “would foreseeably create a risk of substantial
11 disruption within the school environment,” at least when it was similarly foreseeable that the off-
12 campus expression might also reach campus. Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ., 494 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir.
13 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. — (2008).1 The word, foreseeably, is telling here as we know that the only reason Schwartz read the post was that her adult son went looking for it, apparently under rumors of its existence. My main point is that there was nothing to “foresee” because the blog was discovered after everything had quieted down. Also important is the phrase “risk of substantial disruption.” The only disruption was that two administrators had their schedules adjusted. Don’t they get paid enough to handle the occasional disruption or do they feel that they are entitled to a prissy existence the likes of which none of us in the real world ever have. We are acutely attentive in this context to the need to draw
14 a clear line between student activity that “affects matter of legitimate concern to the school
15 community,” and activity that does not. Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., 607 F.2d 1043, 1058 n.13 (2d Cir.
16 1979) (Newman, J., concurring in the result). But as Judge Newman accurately observed some years
17 ago, “territoriality is not necessarily a useful concept in determining the limit of [school
18 administrators’] authority.” Id. True enough in 1979, this observation is even more apt today, when
19 students both on and off campus routinely participate in school affairs, as well as in other expressive
12
1 activity unrelated to the school community, via blog postings, instant messaging, and other forms
2 of electronic communication. It is against this background that we consider whether the district court
3 abused its discretion in concluding that Doninger failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success
4 on the merits of her First Amendment claim.But at no point in this discussion does Judge Sotomayor concede that Avery was acting as a true American citizen rallying for help and lobbying for action. Instead she consistently sides with AUTHORITY because she herself is an authority and don’t they all know best? Read how Justices Douglas and Frankfurter perverted the constitution to allow Roosevelt to lock up 120,000 people of Japanese descent during WWII. Judge Sotomayor is following in the same footsteps.
5 A.
6 If Avery had distributed her electronic posting as a handbill on school grounds, this case
7 would fall squarely within the Supreme Court’s precedents recognizing that the nature of a student’s
8 First Amendment rights must be understood in light of the special characteristics of the school
9 environment and that, in particular, offensive forms of expression may by prohibited. Here a Supreme court decision is cited repeatedly only to have Sotomayor state that her court is not clear that it applies to off-campus speech and she even says that it pertained to worse speech. So, why cite the case? Because her court is grappling at whatever they can find to defend the authority of government (public schools)See Fraser,
10 478 U.S. at 682-83. As the Supreme Court explained in Fraser, a school may regulate “plainly
11 offensive” speech — that is, speech that is “offensively lewd and indecent” — in furtherance of its
12 important mission to “inculcate the habits and manners of civility,” both as values in themselves and
13 because they are indispensable to democratic self-government. Id. at 681, 683, 685. As the Court
14 noted, “[t]he undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools must be
15 balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially
16 appropriate behavior.” Id. at 681. It is thus “a highly appropriate function of public school education
17 to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse.” Id. at 683.
18 To be clear, Fraser does not justify restricting a student’s speech merely because it is
19 inconsistent with an educator’s sensibilities; its reference to “plainly offensive speech” must be
20 understood in light of the vulgar, lewd, and sexually explicit language that was at issue in that case.
21 We need not conclusively determine Fraser’s scope, however, to be satisfied that Avery’s posting
22 — in which she called school administrators “douchebags” and encouraged others to contact
13
1 Schwartz “to piss her off more” — contained the sort of language that properly may be prohibited
2 in schools. See id. Fraser itself approvingly quoted Judge Newman’s memorable observation in
3 Thomas that “the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s
4 armband, but not Cohen’s jacket.” Fraser, 478 U.S. at 682-83 (quoting Thomas, 607 F.2d at 1057
5 (Newman, J., concurring in the result)); cf. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (holding that
6 adult could not be prosecuted for wearing jacket displaying expletive). Avery’s language, had it
7 occurred in the classroom, would have fallen within Fraser and its recognition that nothing in the
8 First Amendment prohibits school authorities from discouraging inappropriate language in the school
9 environment. It is all a bogus argument anyway because what right has the government to try and create perfect little angels when the real world is nothing like that. Sure, some language is offensive to many people but even those who wouldn’t think of using it in public, use it at home or when really “pissed off.”
10 B.
11 It is not clear, however, that Fraser applies to off-campus speech. Doninger’s principal
12 argument on appeal is that because Avery’s posting took place within the confines of her home, it
13 was beyond the school’s regulatory authority unless it was reasonably foreseeable that the posting
14 would create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment — the standard
15 enunciated in Tinker and Wisniewski, and a standard, Doninger argues, that the present record does
16 not satisfy. Appellees argue, in contrast, that the Tinker test is not the only standard for determining
17 whether school discipline may properly be imposed for off-campus expressive activity. They contend
18 that in Wisniewski, we implicitly affirmed that schools may regulate off-campus offensive speech
19 of the sort in which Avery engaged, so long as it is likely to come to the attention of school
20 authorities. We reject appellees’ broad reading of Wisniewski on the ground that we had no occasion
21 to decide in that case whether Fraser governs such off-campus student expression. We agree,
22 however, with appellees’ alternative argument that, as in Wisniewski, the Tinker standard has been

14 What follows next is a tortuous discussion of Tinker that brings to mind the lines from the pop song, “First there was a Tinker, then there was no Tinker, then there was.”
1 adequately established here.2 We therefore need not decide whether other standards may apply when
2 considering the extent to which a school may discipline off-campus speech.
3 Tinker provides that school administrators may prohibit student expression that will
4 “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513.
5 In Wisniewski, we applied this standard to an eighth grader’s off-campus creation and Internet
6 transmission to some fifteen friends of a crudely drawn icon that “depict[ed] and call[ed] for the
7 killing of his teacher.” 494 F.3d at 38. We recognized that off-campus conduct of this sort “can
8 create a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption within a school” and that, in such circumstances,
9 its off-campus character does not necessarily insulate the student from school discipline. Id. at 39.
10 We determined that school discipline was permissible because it was reasonably foreseeable that the
11 icon would come to the attention of school authorities and that it would create a risk of substantial
12 disruption. See id. at 39-40.
13 Applying the framework set forth in Wisniewski, the record amply supports the district
14 court’s conclusion that it was reasonably foreseeable that Avery’s posting would reach school
15 property. Was it reasonable to assume that a rumor would have clued Schwartz in on the blog that her adult son would then track down? Lacking the rumor and the adult son’s expertise, Schwartz would have remained in the dark but Sotomayor’s court did not see this. Indeed, the district court found that her posting, although created off-campus, “was
16 purposely designed by Avery to come onto the campus.” Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 216. The blog
17 posting directly pertained to events at LMHS, and Avery’s intent in writing it was specifically “to
18 encourage her fellow students to read and respond.” Id. at 206. As the district court found, “Avery
19 knew other LMHS community members were likely to read [her posting].” Id. at 217. Several
15
1 students did in fact post comments in response to Avery and, as in Wisniewski, the posting managed
2 to reach school administrators. Way after the fact. And, if we take this to its logical conclusion, what is to stop administrators from reading every post that comes up in an Internet search and punishing all entries that might disrupt a school? They are not doing this because few blog posts are calling them douchebags—that’s why.See Wisniewski, 494 F.3d at 39. The district court thus correctly
3 determined that in these circumstances, “it was reasonably foreseeable that other LMHS students
4 would view the blog and that school administrators would become aware of it.” Doninger, 515 F.
5 Supp. 2d at 217.
6 Contrary to Doninger’s protestations, moreover, the record also supports the conclusion that
7 Avery’s posting “foreseeably create[d] a risk of substantial disruption within the school
8 environment.” Wisniewski, 494 F.3d at 40. There are three factors in particular on which we rely to
9 reach this conclusion. First, the language with which Avery chose to encourage others to contact the
10 administration was not only plainly offensive, but also potentially disruptive of efforts to resolve the
11 ongoing controversy. Her chosen words — in essence, that others should call the “douchebags” in
12 the central office to “piss [them] off more” — were hardly conducive to cooperative conflict
13 resolution. . On the contrary, Schwartz moved her ass to resolve the situation. But more importantly to me, in this context, was why Sotomayor would paraphrase Avery in such a disingenuous way. Avery never used douchebag and piss in the same sentence. Here we see the judge’s subconscious bias at work. Indeed, at least one LMHS student (the one who referred to Schwartz as a “dirty whore”)
14 responded to the post’s vulgar and, in this circumstance, potentially incendiary language with similar
15 such language, thus evidencing that the nature of Avery’s efforts to recruit could create a risk of
16 disruption. Really? Was it not just immaturity and inexperience in the politics of school administration? My daughter, in a similar situation as Avery’s, went over the principals head but because she stayed within the confines of the “community,” (she went to the assistant superintendent) she got the change she wanted. The principal was pissed at her but there was nothing he could do.
17 Second, and perhaps more significantly, Avery’s post used the “at best misleading and at
18 wors[t] false” information that Jamfest had been cancelled in her effort to solicit more calls and
19 emails to Schwartz. Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 202. The district court found that Avery “strongly
20 suggested in her [post] that Jamfest had been cancelled, full stop, despite the fact that Ms. Niehoff,
21 even according to Avery’s own testimony, offered the possibility of rescheduling Jamfest later in the
22 school year.” Id. at 214. Here the court has blinders to Avery’s case for Avery stated that the truth—that the jazzfest had been cancelled (she merely left out that it only cancelled on the 24th). And when she said that it was cancelled “full stop,” she had added that there was a real possibility that it would be held a later date. I doubt it. Any intelligent reader would have seen that “full stop” wasn’t that much of an inevitability. But judge Sotomayor keeps calling it “misinformation” in order to further the appellee’s position.This misleading information was disseminated amidst circulating rumors

3This “reasonable forecast” test applies both to instances of prior restraint, where school
authorities prohibit or limit expression before publication, and to cases like this one, where
Avery’s disqualification from student office followed as a consequence of the post she had
already made available to other students. See Boucher v. Sch. Bd. Of Greenfield, 134 F.3d 821,
828 (7th Cir. 1998); see also Wisniewski, 494 F.3d at 40 (applying “foreseeable risk of
16
1 of Jamfest’s cancellation that had already begun to disrupt school activities. Avery herself testified
2 that by the morning of April 25, students were “all riled up” and that a sit-in was threatened because
3 students believed the event would not be held. It was not her fault that students misread the post. Schwartz and Niehoff had received a deluge of calls
4 and emails, causing both to miss or be late to school-related activities. So what. My first amendments rights are to be trampled upon so that school administrators can keep their schedules? Let’s remember that there was no real reason for Schwartz to recall Niehoff being that an assistant could have handled things. With someone else delegated, I doubt that even Schwartz would have been late to her important meetings.Id. at 206. Moreover, Avery
5 and the other students who participated in writing the mass email were called away either from class
6 or other activities on the morning of April 25 because of the need to manage the growing dispute,
7 as were Miller, Hill, and Fortin. Was there any real need to call the students in? It was foreseeable in this context that school operations might well
8 be disrupted further by the need to correct misinformation as a consequence of Avery’s post. Any so-called misinformation could have been cleared as I stated above, with a circulating notice.
9 Although Doninger argues that Tinker is not satisfied here because the burgeoning
10 controversy at LMHS may have stemmed not from Avery’s posting, but rather from the mass email
11 of April 24, this argument is misguided insofar as it implies that Tinker requires a showing of actual
12 disruption to justify a restraint on student speech. As the Sixth Circuit recently elaborated, “[s]chool
13 officials have an affirmative duty to not only ameliorate the harmful effects of disruptions, but to
14 prevent them from happening in the first place.” Lowery v. Euverard, 497 F.3d 584, 596 (6th Cir.
15 2007); and they could prevent the disruptions how? By stripping Avery of her election just like the Supreme court did with Gore? I see a trend here. see also LaVine v. Blaine Sch. Dist., 257 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Tinker does not
16 require school officials to wait until disruption actually occurs before they may act.”). The question
17 is not whether there has been actual disruption, but whether school officials “might reasonably
18 portend disruption” from the student expression at issue. But there was nothing to portend because the disruption had already occurred and was dying down. No, this is a case of defending the punishment of Avery. LaVine, 257 F.3d at 989; see also Nuxoll
19 v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. #204, — F.3d —, 2008 WL 1813137, at *5 (7th Cir. 2008).3 Here, given
substantial disruption” test where student was disciplined for expression that had already been
disseminated to other students and reached the school).
17
1 the circumstances surrounding the Jamfest dispute, Avery’s conduct posed a substantial risk that
2 LMHS administrators and teachers would be further diverted from their core educational
3 responsibilities by the need to dissipate misguided anger or confusion over Jamfest’s purported
4 cancellation.
5 Finally, the district court correctly determined that it is of no small significance that the
6 discipline here related to Avery’s extracurricular role as a student government leader. The district
7 court found this significant in part because participation in voluntary, extracurricular activities is a
8 “privilege” that can be rescinded when students fail to comply with the obligations inherent in the
9 activities themselves. Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 214. So, why didn’t they rescind Avery’s Junior student government positions? We consider the relevance of this factor
10 instead in the context of Tinker and its recognition that student expression may legitimately be
11 regulated when school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disrupt
12 the work and discipline of the school.” Please note the use of the future tense “will.”
The disruptions, if you can call them that, occurred way before the school decided to take action.Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513. More specifically, Avery’s conduct
13 risked not only disruption of efforts to settle the Jamfest dispute on the contrary, they helped resolve the dispute expeditiously, but also frustration of the proper
14 operation of LMHS’s student government (it should mimick real life government, no? I get emails from Obama on an almost daily basis asking me to lobby my congressmen but you don’t hear the congressmen complaining of disruptions) and undermining of the values that student government,
15 as an extracurricular activity, is designed to promote. Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 215; cf.
16 Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273 (holding that educators may exercise control over school-sponsored
17 expressive activities “so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
18 concerns”).
19 In this way, the instant case bears similarity to Lowery v. Euverard, which involved a group
20 of high school football players who were removed from the team after signing a petition expressing
18
1 their hatred of the coach and their desire not to play for him. The players lodged a First Amendment
2 claim and the Sixth Circuit determined that the relevant question under Tinker was whether it was
3 reasonable for school officials “to forecast that the petition would disrupt the team” — meaning that
4 the petition might foreseeably frustrate efforts to teach the values of sportsmanship and team
5 cohesiveness through participation in sport as an extracurricular activity. Lowery, 497 F.3d at 593,
6 596. But how could there be cohesiveness with such hatred of the coach? They had to put an end to it in any way they could. The court noted that the players had not been suspended from school or even prevented from
7 further criticizing the coach: “[T]hey are free to continue their campaign to have Euverard fired.
8 What they are not free to do is continue to play football for him while actively working to undermine
9 his authority.” Id. at 600 (emphases omitted). The court held that there had been no First Amendment
10 violation.
11 Similarly, Avery was disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary after school
12 administrators determined that her behavior was not “consistent with her desired role as a class
13 leader” — meaning in this context that it was inconsistent with LMHS school policy providing that
14 student government should teach good citizenship (lobbying, demonstrating, no?) and that any student who does not maintain a
15 record of such citizenship may not represent fellow students. Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 215. The
16 district court determined not only that Avery’s posting was offensive and misleading, but also that
17 it “clearly violate[d] the school policy of civility and cooperative conflict resolution.”How civil where the school officials when they could have easily asked around for an A/V expert from another district or asked the students to come up with the money for a licensed electrician or other expert. Id. at 214. The
18 court credited Niehoff’s testimony that class officers are expected to “work toward the objectives
19 of the Student Council, work cooperatively with their advisor and with the administration (I bet you dollars to donuts that it was always one-sided), and
20 promote good citizenship (like lobbying via emails?) both in school and out.” Id. The court explicitly found, moreover, that
21 Niehoff advised Avery of these responsibilities during their conversation on April 24, and that she
22 told Avery that the original Jamfest email and its approach to conflict resolution with the
19
1 administration were inappropriate. (who else was present ther?) Id. As the district court observed, “[u]nderstandably, then, Ms.
2 Niehoff testified that a factor of particular relevance in her disciplinary decision was the fact that
3 Avery posted her blog entry” — which reproduced the email Niehoff had criticized — “the very
4 evening of the day on which that conversation occurred.” Id.
5 Given the cumulative effect of these findings, clearly supported by the record, we conclude
6 that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Doninger failed to demonstrate
7 a sufficient likelihood of success on her First Amendment claim. We are mindful that, given the
8 posture of this case, we have no occasion to consider whether a different, more serious consequence
9 than disqualification from student office would raise constitutional concerns. How much more serious does it have to be? What do they have to do, cut off your blogging fingers? See Wisniewski, 494
10 F.3d at 40. We decide only that based on the existing record, Avery’s post created a foreseeable risk
11 of substantial disruption to the work and discipline of the school (how did it disrupt discipline? By the delay in figuring out what the administration could get away with? Also, Avery’s lawyers stated that it was probably the email campaign rather than the post that disrupted things but the email had no “douchebag” calling and so, it was civil and not punishable. But again, Sotomayor does everything in her power to ensure that authority reigns supreme, after all, she was a good little nena growing up in the South Bronx and why can’t everyone else?) and that Doninger has thus failed
12 to show clearly that Avery’s First Amendment rights were violated when she was disqualified from
13 running for Senior Class Secretary.
14 II. The Additional Claims
15 We similarly conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
16 Doninger failed to establish a clear likelihood of success on her equal protection claim. Doninger
17 proceeds on a “class-of-one” theory, arguing that Schwartz and Niehoff intentionally singled Avery
18 out for punitive treatment because she exercised her First Amendment rights. See Vill. of
19 Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). She argues that Avery was similarly situated to the
20 other Student Council officers who signed the mass email but who were not disqualified from
21 running for office. However, a class-of-one plaintiff must show, among other things, an “extremely
22 high degree of similarity between [herself] and the persons to whom [she] compare[s] [herself]” in
20
1 order to succeed on an equal protection claim. Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin, 468 F.3d 144, 159 (2d Cir.
2 2006). It is undisputed that Avery was disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary because
3 of her April 24 posting on livejournal.com. There is no evidence that any other of the Student
4 Council members who signed the email participated in composing the blog post or authored any
5 other message like it. But I quote the court, “The district court also noted that “[s]everal LMHS students posted comments to the blog.” Were they comments condemning the post? I don’t think so. The commentators were being just as inflammatory as Avery. Perhaps even more so because of the herd mentality. This is more evidence of Sotomayor bias. The record therefore supports the district court’s conclusion that Doninger
6 “failed to make a clear or substantial showing of likelihood of success regarding her Olech equal
7 protection claims.” Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 220.
8 Finally, Doninger argues that the Connecticut Constitution affords broader protections than
9 those of the First Amendment and that, as a result, Connecticut students may “retain the ability to
10 engage in ‘vibrant public speech’ that may exceed even that permitted under Tinker.” Brief of
11 Plaintiff-Appellant at 51. She concedes, however, that she can cite “no Connecticut cases that
12 expressly find broader speech rights for students than are available under the federal constitution.”
13 Id. The district court did not rule on the issue whether Doninger is entitled to interim relief under
14 Connecticut law, and for this reason we ordinarily would remand to permit the court to do so. See
15 Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 322 F.3d 130, 137 n.4 (2d Cir. 2003). But given Doninger’s failure
16 to bring relevant Connecticut case law to our attention and that a timely ruling is of the essence, we
17 conclude that at this juncture in the litigation, Doninger has not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood
18 of success on this claim to support the mandatory injunction that she seeks. See AIDS Action Comm.
19 of Mass., Inc. v. Mass. Bay Trans. Auth., 42 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting propriety of considering
20 First Amendment issue not addressed by district court where doing so would “further[] the interest
21 of judicial economy by avoiding the remand of a question over which we eventually will exercise
22 full review” and “serve[] the interest of expediency” on a question requiring a timely ruling); see
21
1 also Necchi S.p.A. v. Necchi Sewing Mach. Sales Corp., 348 F.2d 693, 697 (2d Cir. 1965) (reaching
2 issue not addressed by district court because “no useful purpose would be served by leaving the
3 question to be resolved by the District Court upon further proceedings, and in order to expedite this
4 litigation”).
5 Conclusion
6 Avery, by all reports, is a respected and accomplished student at LMHS. We are sympathetic
7 to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledge
8 her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.” Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 202
9 (internal quotation marks omitted). A whole lot of good this does Avery or anyone else who similarly believes in the Constitution of the United States of America.We are not called upon, however, to decide whether the school
10 officials in this case exercised their discretion wisely. Local school authorities have the difficult task
11 of teaching “the shared values of a civilized social order” — values that include our veneration of
12 free expression and civility, the importance we place on the right of dissent and on proper respect
13 for authority. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683. Educators will inevitably make mistakes in carrying out this
14 delicate responsibility. Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of
15 public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment
16 of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent
17 “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 326 (1975). This says nothing to me except, “fuck you if you are a student in Sotomayor’s court.” I am terrified of what she may do to the rights of the public at large.
18 The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
19
20

Sotomayor and all that's wrong in this country.

2009-05-27T09:29:00.000-07:00

I have often asked myself why I seem to be the only activist for miles around. I found my answer in the likes of Sonia Sotomayor and President Obama.

Judge Sotomayor, in her Doninger decision said that public school officials should be respected by the students (Avery Doninger had, on the Internet, called some official a douche bag). This is how the government and douche bags like Sotomayor stifle our freedom of speech at an early age. When students can't express themselves at peril of punishment, they learn that authority reigns supreme in this country and when authority does something wrong, they timidly look the other way until someone with guts--someone not afraid of Sotomayor types--takes action and blows the whistle.

President Obama has picked someone who is prepared to stifle our freedom of speech early on so that authority figures can get away with torture and war and encarceration and taxation without representation and every fucking evil shit they choose to do because the majority have been properly trained by the likes of Judge Sotomayor. Also remember that it was our President who opted to show that stimulus was working because x number of police were hired. Is our socialist friend a fascist in disguise? No, there's no need to torture, we just lock them up indefinitely via the bogus judgments of military commissions. Of the three forms of justice, military commissions come in third behind military tribunals and regular civil courts in terms of generally acknowledged defendants' rights.

Republicans will, so they say, try to squash the nomination, but we all know how conservative Republicans are. We all know how someone like Sotomayor tickles their fancy. We, the people, will be screwed once again as we were with Alito and scalia, two other Roman Catholics. Isn't it odd that RC's were founded by a peaceful man but went on to become such vicious people when it came to punishing people who disagreed?
She'll be confirmed because every politician must have those in the Supreme Court who will side with them and not with the people.

My God, when will a defender of the constitution's intent arise? When will we regain the power that we once had at the beginning before the powerful took office and made us their obedient slaves? Isn't it odd that, here I am in a secular society, but find myself reaching out to God just like the old testament prophets who also had no other recourse.

Sacco 3, me 0

2009-05-25T09:11:00.000-07:00

Commissioner Cooper and her sidekick, Maurer, sided with Sacco. It turned out that the town of North Bergen did not need to hire a law firm to keep me away from their books. Cooper and Maurer were hell bent on not giving an inch.

I asked that the state attorney general look into possible malfeasance on the part of Cooper but this is New Jersey and it's why someone like Christy will not get elected. It is said that people are more interested in the economy than they are in corruption in government but it is corruption in government that accounts for all our ills. When the economy is not going anywhere, why do you think we turn to government to fix it? Of course it's because they have the power but what we don't realize is that they always had the power to PREVENT the downward spiral but, federally, all they could do was pay Greenspan a whole bunch of money to play games with the interest rates.
He succeeded but it looks like it was just luck and stochastic processes that worked their magic during his stay as fed chairman. As for the state, all NJ has ever done is to tax and fine with a pharaoh's mentality.

If you want a real paradigm shift, try taxing only income. That way, the elected will soon be guaranteeing jobs for everyone who wants one. Everyone will pay less in rent because the landowner will not pay R.E. taxes, instead, the towns get paid by income taxes, and that means full standardized accounting--no more shenanigans by local politicians. Things like a 170,000 dollar yearly ambulance because North Bergen has a few hills that supposedly wear down a Ford F350 will be a thing of the past.

Christy did good work and necessary work but the cleanup job in New Jersey--especially Hudson County--requires constant vigilance. Hell, even our local newspapers are on the take, and our governor has all he can do to unscramble his brain after that accident he had.

What about Lonergan? Judging from his demeanor at a recent debate, I think he needs a little Preparation H to keep his mind off his itch. I'm sorry for the ad hominem but if I went to an interview looking like Lonergan, it could only be for a position as an undertaker. I wonder if his positions have any merit.

Big Shot State-licensed incompetent MD's

2009-04-26T09:42:00.000-07:00

I was recently prescribed Zegerid for acid-reflux. It annoyed me to no end that the MD prescribed a medication that was not on my insurance company's preferred list necessitating an expenditure 2-3 times greater. Serendipity would come to the rescue because that caused me to look it up and I found that A.) Nexium was better and B.) Nexium was cheaper and C.) the reason Zegerid was so much money was that some marketing genius at the company had said, "hey, why not combine some sodium bicarb with omezapoleto and charge an arm and a leg for it." They did it and the idiotic MD's fell for it. I still would like to see a major expose by the New York Times on why MD's fall for the spiel from the drug reps. Somewhere, somehow, a person who goes through that many years of training just doesn't give up common sense and start prescribing stuff just because someone with a vested interest comes knocking.

But all this would be water under the bridge if I could just approach my MD and ask him why he prescribes the way he does. I can't do this because I've discovered that MD's are the most vindictive sons of bitches that God ever created. I know it first hand because I, stupidly, made comment to a Urologist about how I understood that no Urologist would tell his patients about taking calcium when eating spinach or drinking beer (both sources of oxalate) and, in so doing, avoid one type of kidney stone; I had called this situation, their cash cow. Shortly thereafter I would undergo lithotripsy for a stone and end up with a badly bruised flank and pure blood coming out of my urinary tract. I know it was vindictive because I had undergone the procedure with bigger stones with no adverse effects whatsoever. The bastard didn't even come by to ask how I felt. The Stone Center in Newark was complicit in this and some day they'll pay with a litigious patient.

So, I fear that if I start telling this schmuck that he was wrong in prescribing this garbage Zegerid, I might not get the right medical treatment in the future (I'm due for a colonoscopy soon by the same guy).

It's a bad thing that outright murder has to be committed before an MD will lose his license from the state.

The State is a bunch of perhaps well-intentioned but definitely incompetent men; but why should they care? Do they not get the best that's available at no cost? Let's hope President Obama gives us the promised land in health care. But he should remember that cost containment is one thing and incompetence and greed something else that should be addressed.

This power struggle is why I wrote my other blog on "new directions for Obama."
In it, I recommend a paradigm shift whereby the first guy to look at you is only a diagnostician and doesn't prescribe anything, and the other guy is either a surgeon, MD, pharmacist, or other state-licensed prescriber. Eventually even the diagnostician will be replaced by a "Dr House" computer. This will be unavoidable because an analysis of your DNA will, along with an analysis of your environment, tell you 99% of what ails you (the other 1% being hypochondriacs who just like spending money at the doctor's).

Police Sloths in Ridgefield NJ

2009-03-08T10:01:00.000-07:00

I tried to log this entry at complaint sites that came up on a Google search but the good ones were in England and not available to me. One site had the unmitigated gall to offer a complaint form and then say, "Thanks, hope you feel better," end of story. Your complaint reached no one. Unless the webmaster was a masochist, I doubt that he gave a gnat's ass.

So, here I am, resorting to my blog and hoping someone enters Ridgefield, NJ cops into a search box.

In Ridgefield, NJ, you are guaranteed to get a summons from the cops for something or other if you pass through at least once a year.

One cop in particular thinks he is very smart at doing his job. He will wait for a car to pull up to a red light and then he enters the plate number into his computer. He then pulls you over if you should have any irregularities showing up. Is allowed to do this? Why ask? Unless the ACLU is moved to do something, the State of New Jersey's only mandate to investigate official misconduct comes from the rich in New Jersey, and the poor be damned!

Now, you might think this is good; that lawbreakers should be punished. But the truth is that there are situations where their discretionary powers are called for. For instance, your brother turned over his car to you but the DMV will not issue you a registration certificate because the title says that a bank is a lien holder and you require a bank release. Now, does the cop give a gnat's ass about this?

Cops in Ridgefield, NJ. must pray on the youth because the rich in Ridgefield vote for a mayor who has promised them to obtain funding--not from taxes but--from all those who fall victim to the trapdoor spiders that are the Ridgefield, NJ cops.

Of course, if you went to see a lawyer and asked him go up against a municipal government, there is not one shyster among them who will sue because they know that the prosecutor will never bargain with them again. Lawyers don't have balls and the only balls that cops have are locked up securely at their local union.

Why do I say that cops don't have balls? Because they flagrantly disregard weak NJ state law in order to suck up to the dictates of mafioso mayors. And the winner of the big sargeant's pension goes to the man in blue who made it easy for the rich in Ridgefield, NJ to stay just a little richer. Enjoy the big bucks, buster. You have a lot of poor schmucks to thank.

Obama continues the police state

2009-03-06T12:22:00.000-08:00

Today, President Obama went to a police academy and said it was proof that his stimulus package was working.

So, maybe the good President has seen a novel way of preventing the bankruptcy of towns--give them more police to write traffic tickets. He is also helping to keep the penal institutions of our country well-staffed. And, he'll also help to build more jails that will benefit the unemployed masons. But my poor misguided President fails to note that he's not wearing any clothes for, in the long run, an incarcerated man is a man on public welfare and when released, he is a smarter man that's going to require more police to catch.

Can I ask the good President why he would choose to increase the police force? Why he has turned against his own 1/2 race by incarcerating more Blacks and Latinos? Why has he chosen to perpetuate the drug wars.

But let's look at a more broader picture. When was the last time that the police stopped a crime? Can the President or anyone point the way to some statistics? In fact, I've heard noted legal experts say that the purpose of police is not to protect the public but only to enforce the laws. And, what laws are at the top of their agenda? Not rape, murder, or burglary, I assure you. Rather, it is drug users and pushers and traffic violators. How many more of the poor will be killed in New York and L.A. at the hands of newbies that just want to milk the system with the help of their powerful unions. They would rather shoot an unarmed man than take any risk.

Obama is no Liberal, I've discovered. He is out to oppress the people that voted him in. He is out to protect the rich. He has shown this by his largesses with the banks (the banks, btw, also benefit from the homeowners' bailout); his allowance of earmarks; and his health care plan will most certainly benefit the insurance companies and the rich-ass doctors who give you 5 minutes, mistake your dosage, and charge you sufficiently to maintain their extravagant lifestyle. The most promising of the stimulus funds doesn't do diddly squat for energy independence. He has chickened out with the Iraqi war (they don't want us there! What in God's good name are we going to do there for 18 more months?) And now, Afghanistan. He apparently has more of an ego issue than his predecessor and God help us, if that's true.

I voted for Barry--I'll call him that until he earns my respect--but he better show single digit unemployment before his first term is up or I'll give up on him and his "pseudochange."

To keep Obama in check please read The People's Lobbyist.

The IRS and the big cats.

2009-02-04T07:29:00.000-08:00

Does the IRS play politics? Well, apparently, yes. If you or I had not paid our taxes, how long do you think the IRS would let us get away with it? Yet, half the time someone gets nominated, congress or someone finds out that they haven't paid taxes. What is up with that? I think some big honcho at the IRS fears losing his job and lets the fat cats in Washington fall under their radar.

Do you want proof? The IRS has very sophisticated programs to determine if you are cheating on your taxes. There is no way that they didn't know about it. Also, why don't we hear that so-and-so has been penalized by the IRS? My personal suggestion to them is to start using Turbotax--this program will not let you make a mistake on your taxes.

I call upon congress to demand that the IRS put every government employee's tax return under a microscope. There is an obvious conflict of interest here that no one is reporting on. Congress funds the IRS and the IRS "funds" congress. Also consider that, if anyone knows where the loopholes are, who would know better than the people that create them? It is time to put an end to the free ride. We the public have always lived in dread of an audit. Apparently, if you are a fat cat, there is nothing to fear from the IRS.

Unsubscribe me, you. . .you. . .you. . .I dont' know what you are.

2008-12-01T06:29:00.000-08:00

It's been awhile since I'm gotten riled up with the people at the other end of the Internet. Originally, it was everyone's nemesis--the big M. Recently, though, I've been afflicted with unsubscribitis. I'm sure all have been so afflicted at one time or another but I am starting to notice a trend. You know, you get tired of receiving an email that doesn't do much for you anymore and the thought of just throwing it into the spam folder goes against your principles.

What I think is happening is that advertisers (Unsubscribitis is spread by sites that have advertisers) have a formula that includes how many active email addresses are on the site's mailing list. The more the better, of course. If a website makes it easy to unsubscribe, their revenues could see a hit.

Some of the techniques used are quite blatant and patently phony. They will ignore you altogether or tell you they will send you a link that you must click on to unsubscribe and that link--surprise surprise--does not open to any valid page. I have taken crude steps to counteract their tactics but I've since developed a more sophisticated approach which I'd like to share with you.

First, contact the company via email and tell them they must unsubscribe you immediately regardless of what the idiots in Washington or the state capitals think is reasonable time (I think they give them 10 days to accomplish what most self-respecting websites can do instantly but then we know about lobbyists, don't we?)

If that fails, send them this communication:

If you insist on not unsubscribing me, I will take the following action:

I will contact the CEO of your company telling him/her that your systems analysts/programmers suck or a manager is fixing the numbers.
I will contact advertisers on your site telling them that you maintain bogus mailing lists.
I will contact the FTC and my state attorney general.

If you are ignored, you'll want to start doing these one at a time. The second action about the advertisers is the one that will have heads rolling but that takes more time than contacting the CEO and maybe you'll be lucky enough to contact the one half of them that have some modicum of respectibility. The third option is effective but it depends on the state (Pennsylvanian's have decent laws and their officials will, I have heard, readily enforce them).

One last note to legislators. You were duped into thinking that some companies might require 10 days to get someone off their email lists. If they can put someone on the list instantly they can take someone off instantly. We're not talking here about an olive that falls back into an olive jar and you have to fish it out again--that's damn hard. Removing an email from a mailing list is made hard only by those with ulterior motives. I've was in IT for over 10 years, I know that when a datum needs to be added, changed, or deleted, it can be done at lightning speed. The programing may take a while but the actual process--no matter the complexity of the system--is measured in milliseconds.

For those companies who fear that a competitor may be unsubscribing people from it's mailing list, you merely have to implement one of those "type what you see in this box" feature that ensure that only humans can unsubscribe. That, alone or in combination with a user entering his/her username/password should allay their fears.

Sacco's cronyism 2, me 0.

2008-11-20T15:43:00.000-08:00

Well, I received a letter from one of Mr. Maurer's sidekicks who said that the position I had applied for had 7 applicants all ranked #1. How the hell is that possible? Anyway, I appealed again and asked him how Mayor Sacco was able to determine the best candidate without interviewing anyone. By implication, why wasn't the NJDOP able to do the same and saved us all a great deal of grief.

It's a sad day for democracy when a small town mayor can do whatever he pleases while the clowns in Trenton collect their salaries, await their pensions, and tell us to go do things to ourselves that they wouldn't do to themselves.

I wrote to the governor of New Jersey just as an exercise in futility because no governor of New Jersey has ever stood up to the Hudson County Democratic machinery. I'm glad that, during the primaries, they chose Clinton over Obama because I would have hated to see my candidate for presidency tainted by association with New Jersey's Hudson County Democrats (Billary already had plenty of tainting before coming to North Bergen, Hudson County malfeasance would have been water off a duck's back).

Sacco's cronyism 1, me 0.

2008-11-19T07:09:00.000-08:00

It's been over a year since I naively filled out a New Jersey Department of Personnel application with a ripoff $15 fee. I was applying for a job with North Bergen. At the time, I thought I would be working for the state gathering data on the municipality. I ranked #1 but never even received an interview from the "progressive" mayor Nicholas Sacco. He says his town is progessive yet his hiring practices date back to the middle ages.

I filed an appeal with the NJDOP and waited patiently for some word on whether justice is served at the NJDOP. Nothing happened after several months and I again contacted the department who asked me to resubmit the appeal saying, through an online intermediary, that they would expedite the appeal. That was over a month ago. I called them cowards and that's what they are. People in Trenton still behave as if Hudson County is filled with mafiosos who might kill their kids on their way to private schools. Schools that we help pay for with our $15 application fees.

Will New Jersey ever rid itself of cronyism? Fat chance. Cronies are how politicians get elected. Until we limit campaign spending and subsidize the opponent, we will always have cronyism and it's a damn shame for along with many politicians we get a host of parasites living off of what is essentially public largesse for we don't really ever get our money's worth.

Barack the boat

2008-11-09T08:11:00.000-08:00

Well, I did my part. I campaigned for the man in PA. It was a wonderful experience made possible by friendly people in the Slate Belt of PA and beautiful automnal colors. The weather was, thankfully, cool for it's hilly country and I'm dreadfully overweight these days. Luckily for tongue-tied me, Patricia, a veteran campaigner (her second trip to a battleground state) took me under her wing and gave the opening schpiel while I stood backup. On the bus, I was interviewed by Lizzie Widdicombe, a lovely journalist from the New Yorker Magazine. How I managed to say anything meaningful to her, I just don't know but she very graciously wrote me up in her online article. Damn! I had so much more to say to her. What's up with my verbal brain anyway.

On the way back home from the Port Authority, I was stopped by an African-American who wanted to know where I got the Obama sign I was carrying--he was disappointed to learn he would have to go to PA to get one. Obama ran a great fundraising effort but candidates should consider selling signs in non-battleground states. I think I was the only one in North Bergen with an Obama sign outside his home.

1984. G. Orwell only missed it by 24 years.

2008-08-01T17:41:00.000-07:00

It's mind-boggling how prescient sci-fi writers like Orwell, Huxley, and Bradbury could be. How the heck were they able to anticipate such government perversion as the following from this month's ACLU email newsletter:

"On July 21st, Bush’s Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, called on Congress to take dramatic steps to subvert the Constitution. Mukasey asked that Congress issue a new declaration of war that would make the entire globe -- including the United States itself -- a “battlefield” where the president decides who will be locked up forever."

That Bush the Texan would ask for this is understandable but that America hasn't stopped him cold preferring to wait for the next president to get it right, is as lamentable as the day Chamberlain appeased Hitler. That was one man. We are millions.

I consider it lamentable because we have always had terrorists and at no time did we think that such draconian measures were necessary for our safety. The Japanese-American internment and the Japanese nuclear Holocaust were misguided but they were perpetrated during a time of war. In such times, it is easy/convenient/acquiescent for the populous to "look the other way." The present administration knows this and is asking for something so ludicrous that Webster's would need to take out "war" from the dictionary or at least tag it as "archaic" because a) there will always be terrorists and b) the battlefield will always exist; therefor, the dichotomies of war and peace merge into a state of "Bush." (I want to be magnanimous and name it after him for everyone should have a trophy saying they succeeded at something)

While the terrorists of 911 raised the bar, can we not see that it was our incompetence that permitted it? These people were not Nobel Prize material. They just had conviction and we gave them the opportunity. Make no mistake about it. We have been safe from such attacks because we implemented safeguards that could have been and should have been in place prior to 911. The safeguards that I'm talking about have nothing to do with waterboarding or perpetual imprisonment or eavesdropping. Instead, it was simple procedures that would have had the FBI responding to red flags raised by foreigners wanting to learn how to take off without learning how to land.

I think things would have gone differently if terrorists had always been our first concern; not drug users or bigamists or gays. I think it's time to set the thermostat back a notch or two and rely on good old Yankee ingenuity to safeguard our shores without sacrificing our freedoms and liberties to the gut reactions of an insecure president.

Lottery Winnings v. State of NJ

2008-07-27T11:13:00.000-07:00

I figured out what I'm going to do once I win the lottery. I am going to sue the state of NJ on the the grounds that charging small business owners a minimum tax of $500 a year when the corporation owner has made zero profits is unconstitutional.

I sold my landscaping business a year and half ago. I have not engaged in any business pursuit whatsoever. But because the state of NJ is run by people with a mafioso (think loan sharks) mentality, I have to fork over to them a thousand dollars from my family savings all because I was stupid enough to incorporate.

Yes, State of New Jersey, you should do whatever you have in your power to stop me now before I win the lottery. You've been warned. You're going to have to return every bloody cent.

Speaking of the lottery, how many of you are aware that there are no absolute safeguards against bogus scratch-offs? Think about it, when you buy a scratch-off, what guarantee do you have that it is not bogus? If the vendor wanted, he could sell you a counterfeit scratch-off that is intentionally made a non-winner. How are you going to test it to ensure it is not bogus?

I recently asked the NJ lottery to tell me how they prevented fraud. In true form, they said that if a bogus ticket were submitted their software would know it. Duh, I replied, that protects you, not me. I'm talking about the bogus ticket that no one is going to submit because it's a non-winner.

I suggested to them that they allow players to look up the serial numbers online but that fell on deaf ears. I now buy scratch-offs only at the machines. It's not perfect but I do feel it minimizes the risk of bogus scratch-offs. I'm hoping the guy who loads up the machines can't reset the money counter.

Obama bashing by email

2008-06-11T11:50:00.000-07:00

This was an email sent to me by my sister-in-law. My comments are in italics.

This was written by someone who is deathly afraid of a half Black man running the country. It is full of specious arguments aimed at instilling fear in people who are easily swayed because they themselves hate Blacks. See notes with each comment:

The Obama Tidal Wave

We are witnessing a political phenomenon of rare magnitude with
Barack Obama. His speeches have inspired millions, and yet most of his
followers have no idea of what he stands for &n bsp;except platitudes of "Change"
or that he says he will be a "Uniter". The power of speech from a
charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing; Certainly, Billy Graham
had charisma, and both his manner of speech and particularly the content,
changed millions. On the extreme other ha nd, the charisma of Adolph Hitler
inspired millions and the results were catastrophic.
Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but, for
many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic
and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens
when it hits shore.
Many people have asked, "what has Barack Obama actually
accomplished to qualify himself as a candidate for President?"
Here is a list of Barack Hussein Obama's accomplishments:

* He voted against banning partial birth abortion. If this is the only thing he's against, I wouldn't vote for him but I got to say that, as a father, if I found out my child was a bastard, I'd like to fuck him over right in the womb.

* He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get
out-of-state abortions. Before or after getting the abortion? If after, what good does it do anyone?

* In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing. So do I. The f@cking government is too much into our lives. Besides, you don't need a drug dealer to turn your kid on to drugs--his own friends will do it.

* Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college. Only gutless goody two shoes haven't. How could he properly be informed about drugs otherwise? Waterboarding should be done to the justices so they can properly determine if it's truly torture.

* His religious convictions are very murky. So are mine. The murkier one's religious convictions are the less likely you would want to commandeer an airliner into a building.
* He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.< BR> It's high time we knew our enemies. Meeting Gorbachev was good enough for Regan and he did wonders as a result of his meetings.
* He said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have
a conference with all Muslim nations. We need to know our enemies.

* Opposed the Patriot Act. So do a great many other patriotic Americans.

* Supports universal health-care. Yea, we don't want everyone to afford the greedy bastard MD's; we want to make sure that only the rich can afford it, right?

* Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. What would you rather have, a nut behind the wheel or someone who is licensed to drive?

* Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants. Don't agree with this one.

* Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social < /SPAN> Security. Don't agree with this one.

* Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes. When the opposition party is Bush and Cheney, I'm glad he did

* He voted "No" on repealing the "Death" & nbsp;Tax. Sorry, but this doesn't affect 90 % of Americans. It only affects the children of the rich.

* He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. Sorry, but this doesn't affect 90 % of Americans. It only affects the rich.

* He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today . If you call yourself a conservative, then I am sure you want to stay away from Obama but don't insult our intelligence by using arguments that push the buttons of our primitive animal instincts.

If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's
and you think that his positions will bring America together or
make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy riding the
wave and not passing on this informat ion.

If you are like most Americans who, after examining what he
stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent
to get off the wave, or, better yet, never get on, before it comes on
shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. Like "most Americans?" If most Americans felt like the writer, there would be no need to worry about Obama. I take umbrage with the fact that the writer claims that Obama would "undermine the very foundations of this great Country." Isn't this what the Republicans did by torturing prisoners and spying on citizens?

We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it. Remember . .. inaction is action. Just a quick note, if Obama does nothing but offset those bastards Scalia and Alito who handed the election over to Bush and then had the gall to cover their judicial asses by saying that the decision they made could not be used to argue any other case in the future. Scalia, bastard that he is, made the specious argument that the death penalty was not cruel and unusual punishment because the founding father used it. Yea, asshole, and were they aware of how important genes were--not to mention the effect of society on behavior?

Obama and Clinton

2008-06-08T14:01:00.000-07:00

McCain should be easy to beat but he can better his situation by the right choice of VP. Obama should pick Clinton being that we know what votes she will pull in.

I can see where Obama might feel hurt what with all the dirty politics that Clinton used against him; but, politics makes for strange bedfellows and he's got to put the hurt behind him.

Get elected, put Hillary in charge of health care reform and you do the other stuff you promised--you can't do it all and Hillary is well informed about the obstacles. If she intrudes upon the oval office, you know you can give her the silent treatment like so many other presidents have done to their VP's.

Accept Hillary, Barack, for you need every help you can get!

A Doctor's Insecurity

2008-05-27T13:41:00.000-07:00

I just got back from my new cardiologist--not that I need a specialist but, heck, the insurance co-pay is no more for a specialist. I left my old one, an Indian, because he doubled my medication "malpractically." [relax, oh great one, I'm not presently suing). My new doctor is a Jew as I thought it was time to change to a doctor that would not automatically put you into a lesser caste (so long as you were all paid up, of course). Anyway, it turns out I was wrong about anticipating any kind of better treatment from my second doctor.

Here's what happened. Looking at my last lab results, he asked me if my cholesterol numbers were being treated with statins. I said I didn't have any faith in the purported benefits of statins. He then asked me smugly if I had gone to medical school because, "no matter how much I thought I knew, I could never know as much as he." That may be true but there's a little known caveat that medical specialists simply ignore and, that is, everyone they treat is a distinct individual who cannot possibly be treated within the customary 5 minute or less window that they allocate to each of their patients. That means that it is up to me to make sure that I keep up with the latest medical news. With regards to statins, there is some evidence that it helps patients but it's a very small group and the risks may not be worth it (recently, a drug called Baycol, a statin, is now in the courts because of terrible morbidity.)

Apart from all that, though, why is a doctor so damn better than a lawyer, plumber, electrician, auto mechanic, or public official. You can ask these people and almost any other profession any thing you want and they don't counter with, to use one example, "Did you go to plumbing school? They just address your concerns and go from there. A doctor just feels an affront when his judgment, integrity, or intelligence is called into question. Give us a break, docs, you make a ton of money thanks to our stupid legislators and you should grow some thicker skin.

So, what am I to do? Keep looking for another one? No, the truth is I only go to these creeps because our great government says I am incapable of writing my own prescription.

Talk about waste in medicine. People who take medications for the long-term or repeatedly such as patients who are hypertensive, diabetic, or have a sore throat, earache, or other well-documented and easily treatable illness--these patients--should be able to obtain their medication without having to grease the doctor's pockets. Before the AMA starts calling me names, efficacy and toxicity tests should be ordered by the doctor BEFORE he even writes out one script. The doctor gets to determine the frequency of future testing. To reiterate, you go to a doctor, he prescribes exercise and medications for your hypertension and tells you to quit the salt. The refill says: "until further notice." You take the medications and periodically have your blood pressure taken (how much can they charge for this? $5?) and get some blood work done. If a problem arises, you then make an appointment. Why should anyone have to see a doctor at--what, $125 a clip?--just to have someone take your blood pressure, write a script, and order a test.

But, I guess I'll stick with this guy until such time that his insecurity rears it's ugly and pitiable head trying to prove that he knows more than the individual about what works and what doesn't. I can only hope that he's not hell bent on prescribing statins because of some pharmaceutical company pressure/kickback; or, best case, that he was bamboozled by them into thinking the product is in the patients' interest.

The long slow activism grind.

2008-05-13T12:40:00.000-07:00

I sign up and read many activist sites/articles. The following site was sent to my email address.

bravenewfilms

We are told it shows "Tom Hayden, Dolores Huerta, Carl Pope, Bonnie Raitt, and Pete Seeger in one-on-one conversations with the next generation of progressive stars like Majora Carter, Van Jones, Naomi Klein, Ava Lowery, and Anthony Romero."

The email then asks that we vote for our personal at civic heros

I thought about this for a moment and felt really dejected. First, for the paucity of easily-recognized big heros and, secondly, for the slow and piecemeal progress that we have in this country. Of those old generation heros, I only know Pete Seeger (I think he is responsible for helping to clean up the Hudson River). Is global-warming Gore a hero? How about Richard Gere or how about the Pitts? Why do activists spend decades of their lives trying to accomplish good. Nader, Seeger.

It doesn't have to be this way. We can have a forum where ordinary joes like you and me can post an issue on the web, vote on it, and sent the results to those WE have empowered to effect change. Please see A lobbyist for you and me

My neighbor and the Mayor

2008-05-11T15:35:00.000-07:00

I asked my neighbor, who worked in our municipality as a building inspector, to ask the Mayor's office about a job I had applied for. It was not my intention to ask him to get me that job. Hell, he had only been ON the job less than a month. I had merely asked him to inquire about the job; basically, to ask the mayor the status of the hiring.

My neighbor never got back to me. I figured that the mayor, after hearing that I was involved, told my neighbor to stay away from me for I was anti-mayor. It is true, I had had several letters-to-the-editor published in the local paper but they weren't political-they involved my children and I felt the major had been depriving the kids of a bigger high school in order to keep taxes down.

I don't know about your state government but in New Jersey the state Dept of Personnel is not empowered to stop cronyism. Here, municipalities can hire whom they want and there are "ways around it."

Mayor Bloomberg the Pill

2008-05-09T08:01:00.000-07:00

I had heard that Mayor Bloomberg had admitted to pot smoking and to enjoying it. So it was that I breathed a sigh of relief for the pot users of New York that had put up with the likes of that "Roman" Giuliani and his draconian drug policies. Now, I hear that the hypocrite Bloomberg has jailed more marijuana users than the skull-headed Giuliani and he's got two more years to go! You never know a good thing till something worse comes along!

What's odd to me is that the Blacks and Latinos have the leadership to end their harassment by the police but their leadership is a no-show when it comes to the lowly pot smoker. They only get involved with the high profile media cases where the cops shoot first.

I can understand why they don't want to give the impression to White America that their people are--God forbid--users of a stigmatized recreational drug like pot which robs them of their "get up and go," their "rise to the American dream, thou sluggard" mentality but, honestly, until the race war is won, doesn't every repressed minority need a little pot to help them through the small crises in their life? Pot is an antidepressant that has a better toxicity index than things like salt or beta carotene and it's cost is cheaper than that of an MD's prescription and the attendant pharmaceutical greed.

Bloomberg knows where to get the legal stuff and he can afford all he wants--do you take any legal pills, your honor? Such a relief affording healthcare--Isn't it, your honor?

Can a free people afford hypocrites like Bloomberg? If you want to legalize pot or even if you don't, turn to [we all need a little lobby--right this very minute]

Typical Whiteness

2008-03-21T12:45:00.000-07:00

What morons they are to attack someone with far greater intelligence than most pundits. All it showed is how imprecise language could be and how you often have to search for context. Obama explained that his White Grandmother was a "typical White" only insofar as a White might view a Black stereotypically. He could have said "typical Black" and meant the same thing, however. I have encountered many Blacks who have given me the benefit of a doubt (that I am not bigoted) but just one iota of a transgression, unintentional or otherwise, and I'm lumped into their "typical White" category--all of a sudden, I'm out for their demise. This is not different, of course, from what a White would do if a Black acted "typically Black" just once and to any degree.

I greatly admire Obama for tackling the issues that come up in his campaign. He's one great lawyer to be able to deliver closing arguments to a jury of millions and to do it with coolness and with only presidential condescension. To hear him say favorite phrases like, "The notion that . . ." or "understand this . . ." is music to my jaded ears.

Now that I've defended my favorite candidate, let me say this, "Understand this, Mr. Obama, anything typical is stereotypical. I rest my case--for now.

2008-03-19T09:21:00.000-07:00

Have you see Obama's take on the race issue? The man understands the races as no individual I've ever heard or read.

He sees the White man festering economically and naturally resentful of any group that's not his own. He sees the Black man being civil to the White man but expressing his anger at home and at the pews.

He knows the solution lies in leveling the economic disparity at the root of all our problems. Look for major outpouring of contributions to the Clinton Campaign by the rich.

New Jersey's Department of Personnel

2008-03-05T11:08:00.000-08:00

I'm 57 years old. That alone makes it very hard to penetrate the job market. However, NJDOP has a website where you can browse available jobs and submit an application along with $15. I did that and I waited and waited for the process to reach the stage where the actual hiring agency would give out interviews for the position.

2 months into that last stage (the DOP said that the hiring agency had 90 days in which to interview candidates), I got anxious and decided to call the municipality. They were supposed to pick from the top 3 candidates but they told me in no uncertain terms that they were going to give it to "the person who was already doing the job." When I questioned the ethics and legality of their decision, I was told that they really hadn't finalized things. This person was hoping that I would go away but, sadly, NJ is a state where ageism and/or crony-ism is condoned.

Stay tuned, I'm waiting to see if I get an interview and if I don't get the job, I will challenge their decision first with the NJDOP and then with the courts. Did I mention that I had a #1 ranking with the state?

New Zealand Police Manual ala Wiki

2007-12-10T09:23:00.001-08:00

The New Zealand Police force, according to a write-up by the NY Times Magazine in its 7th Annual Year in Ideas article, is using a Wiki-style website to enlist the help of Kiwis (people from New Zealand) to rewrite its antiquated (1958) police practices manual.

This is great because who can complain about police tactics if their tactics are specified by the people? The article mentioned one item sure to make it to the final version: police recruits must be 25 years of age because only then is the brain fully mature. Of course, here in the U.S. we can add such things as, "if you don't see a gun, you do not fire your weapon." Or, if the suspect takes off, you jut down the license plate number, car description, etc. and you pass it along to neighboring municipalities who will then do some old-fashioned police work and "tail" the suspect to his/her home.

The Wiki "police manual" is not binding on legislators because, yes, they have this innate sense of what's best for the people who elected them, or so they think. Anyway, it's a step in the right direction.

Killer Cops

2007-11-27T14:29:00.000-08:00

I will not longer support the Fraternal Order of Police. I saw a very disturbing video the other day about a man who was involved in a high speed chase. It doesn't matter who or where because it's happening all over our country.

The police were acting like crazed animals on a hunt. Their itchy trigger fingers had to fire because they had their prey cornered between three cars (two parked cars and a police car) in a parking lot. They were protected from the perpetrator's retaliation and they fired at will for the poor slob had disrespected their request for him to pull over. That was the real reason these cowards fired--I saw the video. At no point were they in danger of losing their lives. Cowards!

The police chief said that the man should have stopped when he was first pulled over because "this is what drivers are instructed to do when they get their licenses." Bullshit, I say.

The Asian family, it turns out, was not able to sue the police. Probably because they were Asian. Blacks and Hispanics also have a hard time suing the police.

Why is it that I don't hear of police incidents where they shoot to kill unarmed whites?

I will no longer support any police/fireman organization that calls asking for money and, why is it that they can ignore my do-not-call request on file with the government. Because, dear reader, they can do whatever the hell they goddamn please, these cowards that we entrust with our safety.

Campus Police

2007-09-19T14:25:00.000-07:00

Well, tin soldiers and Nixon's coming/We're finally on our way/This summer I hear the drummng/Four dead in OHIO.

I know, no one got killed during the recent police activity at UCLA and Florida. But two students did get tasered and that smarts. We still don't all the details of the UCLA incident. It seems the student who got tasered may have planned it. However, it's still an abuse of power.

BTW, if you don't have a union representing you, you are really missing out on the sweet life. I personally think that government employees should not have unions because the bastards that we put in charge of spending our money (the politicians) spend it just like anyone spends money that is not their own. They'll bow down to the unions and give away our money to teachers, firemen, the police, and bureaucrats--all in the name of great education (hah!), safety (when was the last time a fireman saved someone's life? Where are the stories apart from the jaws of life that do not involve any risk on their part?), protection (When was the last time any police saved someone life outside of a sniper who could have been rubbed out with a State SWAT team instead of the myriad SWAT teams we now have), and government service (when was the last time a government employee treated you like you were the boss?)

Back to the campus cops. The student who got tasered at Florida was charged with inciting a riot but Utube clearly shows that everyone around him was still seated and showing no signs of unrest. Yet they felt compelled to taser him. Why, because it made there job easier. It meant that they would not get any bruises from the student. Perhaps more importantly for them, it meant that they could show all the other mamsy pamsy students who stood by how they would get tasered if they spoke up against the big and mighty Florida Campus police. Campus police are the lowest form of police.

As far as the students are concerned, if I don't see any protests from them then they deserve what they get. You know, maybe courage skips a generation. I remember being ready to lay my life on the line for the sake of ending the Vietnam War. I marched on Washington with every call. Let's see if college students have what it takes stand up against abuses of power. It's a must do. The terminator will not do it for you.

Police, I understand, are different animals when their hormones start flowing. But that is exactly why their supervisors must train them and come up with humane alternatives. What would I have done with the library transgressor? I would have used sticky stuff on him. You may have seen this substance that is shot from a gun and incapacitates a perpetrator by immobilizing him. But a taser is so much nicer for there is no clean-up to be done. So what if a student with a bad heart succumbs to police laziness.

The Florida fiasco should not have happened if John Kerry had been more of a leader. I would have answered the student's questions and, eventually, if the student had been unreasonable, I have no doubt that the student body would have ridiculed and booed him away. End of story.