Showing posts with label Avery Doninger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avery Doninger. Show all posts

Thursday, May 28, 2009

re Sonia Sotomayor ruling that teen's blog post created a created "foreseeable risk of substantial disruption"

May 28th, 2009
4:30 p.m.

You may've already heard about this particular case involving Sonia Sotomayor already, but just in case... Matt Drudge had a link to this great story this afternoon. 
I should admit up front, too, that I'm a big proponent of having battle of the bandsso my sympathy is with this high school student, Avery Doninger.


Sotomayor Ruled in "D-Bag Case"- Ruled teen's blog post created a created "foreseeable risk of substantial disruption"

by Yvonne Nava and Leanne GendreauMay 28, 2009

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html

To better illustrate how this article above gives us more insight into Sonia Sotomayorper a previous blog post here and email to many people in the community about two months ago, about how much local School Boards might spend in San Diego for their national convention while decrying all the cuts they're being forced to make, i.e. actually spend within their economic means for a change, just consider what would've happened if this HS student, Avery Doninger, this contemporary Nancy Drew, this possible future Medill grad, had lived in Miami-Dade or Broward County, and decided she had the perfect idea for a blog post.

To highlight the phony crocodile tears aspect of these folks who run the school system she's a lab rat in, she decided to highlight the curious spending patterns and policies of the School Board and their administrators and minions when using taxpayer funds during the current economic situation, to the dire Sky-is-falling threats they were issuing, no more new erasers and chalk and textbooks and... she files public records requests to document how much Superintendent Jim Notter's or Roberto Carvalho's School Board Crowd was spending in San Diego on on of their annual education conference junkets, and also sees how that compares with how much had been spent in the past on previous such jaunts, and seeks to determine if there was any difference in the number of personnel attending.

Weeks later, after subjecting these grown men and women, these government employees, to a degree of accountability, oversight and resulting ridicule in her blog by drowning them in indisputable facts, what do you think would happen?

Do you honestly have any doubt that as actually happened, local Educrats would get their revenge by having her labeled a troublemaker, and prevent her from participating in student govt. as some sort of crude punishment?
If you don't think that would happen here, you live in some other part of South Florida that I'm not familiar with, so could you tell me where that magical place is?

These are the very same people whose brilliance is responsible for a wink-wink policy of putting up barriers to news reporters from finding out the facts after a kid has been arrested at a school for bringing a weapon, as happened to Channel 10's Glenna Milberg while she was doing a story at Hallandale Adult/Community last Fall.

Her cameraman showed some spunk and shot video of some school official with a walkie talkie running excitedly towards them while they were on public property -parking lot?- and when they said they wanted to talk to the school's principal, he got all angry and yelled "No!"
Like he was at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin or something.


It was both preposterous and yet typical of many local South Florida government types, especially people connected to the School systems.

In her piece, Glenna had a great voice-over on this footage that was shot, commenting -I'm paraphrasing- that the school seemed more concerned with stopping her and her cameraman from getting some actual facts and inteviewing a responsible party at the school than they were in actually stopping weapons from coming onto campus!

Touché!
Milberg shoots and she scores!


It seems clear from the record that in the hypothetical example I've described here, just as the article says, Sotomayor would imply that the facts didn't really mattereven if Doninger 
was actually doing the public some good by getting that info out.

Which is no surprise, since Sotomayor proved in the New Haven case that she supports the role and power of government, not the rights of individuals, and she'd rule against the student the same way.




Washington Post
The Wreck of a Spoils System
By George F. Will 
April 26, 2009

So tell me again how her nomination is great for those with opposing or minority point-of-views to the powerful or status quo?

And when do we actually hear who her corporate clients were after she did her time with DA Robert Morgenthau in NY? 
Why is that still such a secret all these days later?

Also, for more on Sotomayor please see these great PolitickerNY articles that I was tipped-off to by my daily New York Observer email:

1.) The Many Rabbis of Sonia Sotomayor by Jason Horowitz
and,

2) The Sotomayor Attacks: 2012 Republicans Throw Red Meat to a Shrinking Base by Steve Kornacki