Ask anyone their opinion of the media and you will get responses, lots of them, and all different! Most of the responses will more than likely be based on the political ideology of the person being polled.
Not surprisingly, most who claim they are conservative say the press is biased toward the left, and those who claim to be Democrat, or at least have a liberal leaning, say the press is either fair or leaning toward the right.
A new Rasmussen poll shows that in reality, a mere 17% of all people, (across all demographic lines,) believe the media is fair and unbiased. According to the poll, "The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers."
Rather than going into the old argument about the fairness of a news reporter, journalist, editor or publisher endorsing one candidate or another, or whether it is right or wrong for any media outlet, print or otherwise, to lean one way or another, I would simply like to accept that this is true and actually say it is OK!
I was a publisher and editor of a small paper. I am still a freelance journalist and researcher, and once in a while a pollster, political consultant and analyst. I am a registered Republican and very much a conservative. Most of my commentaries are from this view. I offer no apologies for this.
But, if I own the paper, and it is alright for me to write from my perspective, then I also have to accept that it is alright for someone who owns a media outlet to publish stories from their own perspective. My problem is when the stories are either intellectually or factually dishonest. If I know that the story is biased from one angle or another, but I am being given the facts, I can still discover what is really going on with the story.
What appears to be missing these days is objectivity. It is fine to have a political opinion, and even to report from the view of those opinions. But, if you have to change or ignore the facts to support your opinion, you are doing your readers or viewers a disservice. There have been many times the facts have contradicted my opinion. When this happens, I have no choice but to change my opinion to suit the facts rather than change the facts to fit my opinion.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Mexico At War?
It is true, or at least I believe it to be. So do many others.
But just who would they be at war with, you might ask. For news junkies such as myself, the answer is rather obvious. The drug cartels! True, they have been at each other for a while now. Violence has escalated. But look deeper into the stories and you will come to the same conclusions as I have if you are honest with yourself. War does not have to be declared to exist.
One by one the cartels take a town. Now and again the government sends in troops to retake control, but everywhere they go there is still uneasiness and fear. In response, the drug lords taunt the government, sometimes by hanging banners with statements mocking the government. Eventualy though, the cartels reign once again.
How did it get to this point? The government has long been in the pockets of the cartels. It has probably been the worse kept secret that the drug lords have been paying off officials to look the other way while they continue their nefarious deeds. But lately, the price has been getting too high, and the government is under a lot of pressure to reign in the cartels so they attempted to put on a show the cartels did not like.
To keep the drug and human smuggling rings working and all the lanes of traffic open, the cartels started getting more and more violent, bringing more pressure on the government from places such as the United States to get control of the violence that has been spilling across the border. It has finally come to the point that the cartels have decided to simply take over the entire country.
The cartels have not officially declared a war on Mexico. It would not be a wise move. For one, an open and declared war would not only force the government to send out the entire military at once to stop the cartels, it would force the United States to step in, and possibly even the UN. (They can peacekeep the drug lords to death! The smugglers would end up laughing themselves to death!) All of this would distract the smugglers from their business and cut too deep into their profits which amount to billions each year.
So, they continue as they are, openly recruiting the police and military as they go, one town at a time. As the cartels are much better armed, trained and financed, the government is almost helpless to stop them. Without intervention from outside, which the government is not all that willing to ask for since they would have to admit to having some real problems that are actually very painfully obvious to everyone outside, they do not stand much of a chance of winning.
But, can the United States tolerate a country on their southern border that is run by these criminal gangs?
But just who would they be at war with, you might ask. For news junkies such as myself, the answer is rather obvious. The drug cartels! True, they have been at each other for a while now. Violence has escalated. But look deeper into the stories and you will come to the same conclusions as I have if you are honest with yourself. War does not have to be declared to exist.
One by one the cartels take a town. Now and again the government sends in troops to retake control, but everywhere they go there is still uneasiness and fear. In response, the drug lords taunt the government, sometimes by hanging banners with statements mocking the government. Eventualy though, the cartels reign once again.
How did it get to this point? The government has long been in the pockets of the cartels. It has probably been the worse kept secret that the drug lords have been paying off officials to look the other way while they continue their nefarious deeds. But lately, the price has been getting too high, and the government is under a lot of pressure to reign in the cartels so they attempted to put on a show the cartels did not like.
To keep the drug and human smuggling rings working and all the lanes of traffic open, the cartels started getting more and more violent, bringing more pressure on the government from places such as the United States to get control of the violence that has been spilling across the border. It has finally come to the point that the cartels have decided to simply take over the entire country.
The cartels have not officially declared a war on Mexico. It would not be a wise move. For one, an open and declared war would not only force the government to send out the entire military at once to stop the cartels, it would force the United States to step in, and possibly even the UN. (They can peacekeep the drug lords to death! The smugglers would end up laughing themselves to death!) All of this would distract the smugglers from their business and cut too deep into their profits which amount to billions each year.
So, they continue as they are, openly recruiting the police and military as they go, one town at a time. As the cartels are much better armed, trained and financed, the government is almost helpless to stop them. Without intervention from outside, which the government is not all that willing to ask for since they would have to admit to having some real problems that are actually very painfully obvious to everyone outside, they do not stand much of a chance of winning.
But, can the United States tolerate a country on their southern border that is run by these criminal gangs?
Monday, May 26, 2008
Why I Love Newspapers
I love newspapers. Always have. While I have read literally thousands of books, my love and passion for reading was actually nurtured by newspapers.
My first real job was selling newspaper subscriptions for the now defunct Boston Traveler. Back in 1972 the paper merged with the Boston Record American and at the ripe old age of 14, I was laid off.
I then took on my first paper route in Springfield, MA, growing the route until I could no longer deliver all the papers myself. I took on a couple to assist in deliveries, then started selling sections of the routes while continuing to sell subscriptions.
In high school I started writing for the school paper and quickly became the editor. I worked on my college newspaper. I have since been a stringer for the Boston Globe, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a freelance journalist with work being published all over the world, and even owned my own paper for a while.
My appetite for news has never been quenched. Nor has my love for newspapers.
But, despite this love for the printed word, I could never sell out my principles or the truth, and I never really made it to the mainstream, even with many guest appearances on radio and television. The problem has never been those who have heard, seen or read me, but those in charge of the organizations. I have been told I am too far to the right, that no one would share my "extremist" views, and even that the world does not need, "Another white conservative commentator!"
Thanks to the Internet though, as well as some limited circulation trade periodicals, there but for the Grace of God go I!
As much as I would love to get my own regular column, be able to have the resources to investigate several important stories I have been documenting and more, I still have an outlet to do what I love, even if I cannot make a living doing so.
My first real job was selling newspaper subscriptions for the now defunct Boston Traveler. Back in 1972 the paper merged with the Boston Record American and at the ripe old age of 14, I was laid off.
I then took on my first paper route in Springfield, MA, growing the route until I could no longer deliver all the papers myself. I took on a couple to assist in deliveries, then started selling sections of the routes while continuing to sell subscriptions.
In high school I started writing for the school paper and quickly became the editor. I worked on my college newspaper. I have since been a stringer for the Boston Globe, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a freelance journalist with work being published all over the world, and even owned my own paper for a while.
My appetite for news has never been quenched. Nor has my love for newspapers.
But, despite this love for the printed word, I could never sell out my principles or the truth, and I never really made it to the mainstream, even with many guest appearances on radio and television. The problem has never been those who have heard, seen or read me, but those in charge of the organizations. I have been told I am too far to the right, that no one would share my "extremist" views, and even that the world does not need, "Another white conservative commentator!"
Thanks to the Internet though, as well as some limited circulation trade periodicals, there but for the Grace of God go I!
As much as I would love to get my own regular column, be able to have the resources to investigate several important stories I have been documenting and more, I still have an outlet to do what I love, even if I cannot make a living doing so.
Why School Vouchers?
When the public schools in our country were first proposed, it was said that this should be done so no American child would be without an education. The new country needed educated people to insure its success and growth. At the time, the only real education was for those who could afford it, and most were sent overseas because what few schools we had were insufficient.
People like Jefferson argued for American schools because he felt that the American children educated abroad were indoctrinated against the idea of democracy and they would return only to undermine what we were building here in the form of what is now the greatest nation on the planet.
Educators were hard to find though and many of the best came from religious institutions. As this country was formed with religious principles, (never intending to separate Church and State, but instead prevent government from establishing a national religion,) and most state constitutions required a representative to be of good moral character, (meaning a member of a church in good standing,) many of the schools were run by the various denominations, and supported with monies collected from the citizens for such purposes.
Today in many states, taxpayer monies are given in the form of vouchers for religious based private schooling. This includes Michigan where taxpayers are actually paying for a charter school run by Muslims, and specifically for Muslim students. The school even includes a Mosque where the students are required to worship several times each day.
In San Diego, taxpayers pay for Muslim students to worship and be taught by Islamic teachers right in the public schools while at the same time Christian observances are prohibited. Taxpayers are even paying for prayer rugs and Korans, yet Bibles are against the law!
(I believe an argument can be made that this constitutes an establishment of a government sponsored religion and thereby unconstitutional.)
Our taxes are taken from us and we have no choice but to pay them even if we have no children in the public school system. We are not even given much say in how our monies are spent. This is about as close to taxation without representation as we can get without actually crossing the lines. I would actually like to see a case brought before the Supreme Courts.
As a free American, I have no problem requiring our children to obtain a good education. This is for the benefit of the children and the country as a whole.
But as to how this is done should be my choice as a parent. I should be able to direct the monies taken from me for this purpose so my children can be educated the way I want them educated. If this means private school or even home schooling, it should be my choice and my money should be used toward this end.
People like Jefferson argued for American schools because he felt that the American children educated abroad were indoctrinated against the idea of democracy and they would return only to undermine what we were building here in the form of what is now the greatest nation on the planet.
Educators were hard to find though and many of the best came from religious institutions. As this country was formed with religious principles, (never intending to separate Church and State, but instead prevent government from establishing a national religion,) and most state constitutions required a representative to be of good moral character, (meaning a member of a church in good standing,) many of the schools were run by the various denominations, and supported with monies collected from the citizens for such purposes.
Today in many states, taxpayer monies are given in the form of vouchers for religious based private schooling. This includes Michigan where taxpayers are actually paying for a charter school run by Muslims, and specifically for Muslim students. The school even includes a Mosque where the students are required to worship several times each day.
In San Diego, taxpayers pay for Muslim students to worship and be taught by Islamic teachers right in the public schools while at the same time Christian observances are prohibited. Taxpayers are even paying for prayer rugs and Korans, yet Bibles are against the law!
(I believe an argument can be made that this constitutes an establishment of a government sponsored religion and thereby unconstitutional.)
Our taxes are taken from us and we have no choice but to pay them even if we have no children in the public school system. We are not even given much say in how our monies are spent. This is about as close to taxation without representation as we can get without actually crossing the lines. I would actually like to see a case brought before the Supreme Courts.
As a free American, I have no problem requiring our children to obtain a good education. This is for the benefit of the children and the country as a whole.
But as to how this is done should be my choice as a parent. I should be able to direct the monies taken from me for this purpose so my children can be educated the way I want them educated. If this means private school or even home schooling, it should be my choice and my money should be used toward this end.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Who Is Better For The Economy?
This is a question we are now hearing, and will be hearing much more of once the Democrats finally decide who is going to be their nominee. Like Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos, I could care less who it is. The Republican nominee has already been chosen by the Democrats, so one might suspect, and they would at least be partially correct, that there is some amount delight stemming from revenge as we watch the democratic party self destruct.
Be that as it may, many at this point have crowned Obama as the nominee, so the question of who would be better for the economy is aimed at Obama and McCain. For the point of this commentary, it would not matter much if Clinton was the nominee.
For some time now people have been recirculating a quote from McCain stating that he knows nothing about economics. By the time this circulated down to the average person on the streets, this now means that McCain is an idiot who cannot even add two plus two.
As for Obama, he claims to care about people and wants to provide for them. This translated to the streets as Obama will give you money! This, of course, makes him some sort of economic guru!
Of course both of these conclusions are wrong. McCain is not a genius when it comes to economics, but then, neither is Obama. Obama in fact, has little to no experience in economic matters, except maybe when it comes to use people for personal gain. This does not translate into national economic gain.
But while McCain is not now, nor ever will be an economics major, he at least understands some of the basics. Lower taxes has always translated into economic growth and increased revenues in the government coffers. Allowing more people, including businesses, to keep more of their own money spurs investments that grows the economy. Individuals tend to spend more when they can keep more. This grows the retail and service sectors of the economy. Increases in both of these sectors increases the wholesale sector which in turn spurs growth in manufacturing, all of which grows the transportation sector. This all translates into jobs.
Obama on the other hand, wants to give more, but in order to do so, he has to take more. The only place to take more money is from those who pay taxes. This decreases the money supply, which usually tends to make people like Obama demand more money be put into the economy which always reduces the value of the dollar and creates inflation. Inflation in turn causes people to have to spend more on basic staples of life so they lose confidence in the economy and they stop spending on other goods that they do not really need.
When people stop buying, warehouses back up with goods and the warehouses stop ordering replacement stock. When this happens, manufacturers stop producing and they lay people off. This tends to domino and the economy starts into a downward spiral that is difficult to turn around.
But, Obama cares, and this seems to be all that matters.
So, while neither is really qualified to run an economy, McCain gets the fact that we need to get the government out of the way so people can produce and grow the economy, because after all, the government does a very poor job of this. Just ask Jimmy Carter! McCain also understands that one of the biggest problems we had over the last eight years is that while we had record revenues pouring into the government thanks to the Bush tax cuts, there was also a huge increase in government spending and he knows this must stop.
Now if we could get him to understand that his stance on immigration and global warming will harm the economy much more than all of the earmarks combined, and the economy will do just fine under him, even with a lack of specific economic knowledge!
Be that as it may, many at this point have crowned Obama as the nominee, so the question of who would be better for the economy is aimed at Obama and McCain. For the point of this commentary, it would not matter much if Clinton was the nominee.
For some time now people have been recirculating a quote from McCain stating that he knows nothing about economics. By the time this circulated down to the average person on the streets, this now means that McCain is an idiot who cannot even add two plus two.
As for Obama, he claims to care about people and wants to provide for them. This translated to the streets as Obama will give you money! This, of course, makes him some sort of economic guru!
Of course both of these conclusions are wrong. McCain is not a genius when it comes to economics, but then, neither is Obama. Obama in fact, has little to no experience in economic matters, except maybe when it comes to use people for personal gain. This does not translate into national economic gain.
But while McCain is not now, nor ever will be an economics major, he at least understands some of the basics. Lower taxes has always translated into economic growth and increased revenues in the government coffers. Allowing more people, including businesses, to keep more of their own money spurs investments that grows the economy. Individuals tend to spend more when they can keep more. This grows the retail and service sectors of the economy. Increases in both of these sectors increases the wholesale sector which in turn spurs growth in manufacturing, all of which grows the transportation sector. This all translates into jobs.
Obama on the other hand, wants to give more, but in order to do so, he has to take more. The only place to take more money is from those who pay taxes. This decreases the money supply, which usually tends to make people like Obama demand more money be put into the economy which always reduces the value of the dollar and creates inflation. Inflation in turn causes people to have to spend more on basic staples of life so they lose confidence in the economy and they stop spending on other goods that they do not really need.
When people stop buying, warehouses back up with goods and the warehouses stop ordering replacement stock. When this happens, manufacturers stop producing and they lay people off. This tends to domino and the economy starts into a downward spiral that is difficult to turn around.
But, Obama cares, and this seems to be all that matters.
So, while neither is really qualified to run an economy, McCain gets the fact that we need to get the government out of the way so people can produce and grow the economy, because after all, the government does a very poor job of this. Just ask Jimmy Carter! McCain also understands that one of the biggest problems we had over the last eight years is that while we had record revenues pouring into the government thanks to the Bush tax cuts, there was also a huge increase in government spending and he knows this must stop.
Now if we could get him to understand that his stance on immigration and global warming will harm the economy much more than all of the earmarks combined, and the economy will do just fine under him, even with a lack of specific economic knowledge!
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Boom Or Bust, Has Our Economy Been Destroyed By President Bush?
Our economy is much tougher and complex than can be summarized in a few comments in a local newspaper or blog, which is where all the discussion over this issue is being debated. That being said, it is far easier for a government to destroy such an economy than to fix it.
And our government has done plenty to influence the economy, all with good intentions I'm sure. But in the long run, their fixes have backfired. Most of the blame for this falls directly on the Congress as they are the one's who manufacture all of the legislation that meddled where private industry, left to their own devices, would have done a much better job.
The President does become responsible in two ways. One, for legislation and government action that requires the President's signature, such as the highly irresponsible and pork laden transportation bill, and the other simply because he is the President, even if he was unaware of some of the things Congress was doing such as loosening monies so people who should never have obtained mortgages could get them.
When you have such a boom as created by Congress with the housing situation, you see things such as rampant fraud and a market that becomes artificially robust, much more than would ordinarily have happened if the matter had been handled responsibly. Eventually, a correction in the market must be made. The larger the economic boom that has been created outside of natural circumstances, the larger the correction.
We are largely feeling the pain of this correction now, and it is a huge correction to be sure.
Add in the fact that the government is meddling once again where it should not in the form of ethanol and bio-diesel, and that they have acquiesced much power to minority environmental groups that have prevented exploration and drilling for new sources of domestic oil, the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, and the pain becomes more acute, especially to the poor and elderly, the groups the government always claims to help the most.
But our economy is strong, strong enough that these things and many more have not completely destroyed it. By all accounts, we should be deep into a depression right now, but we are not. As slight as it is, our economy is still growing, which tells us more about it's resiliency than anything else.
In addition, the growth numbers would have been much larger had our economy not grown as much as it did over the last few years. .04% of today's economy is actually more growth than .04% of the economy even six years ago as the economy is much larger than it was then.
And our government has done plenty to influence the economy, all with good intentions I'm sure. But in the long run, their fixes have backfired. Most of the blame for this falls directly on the Congress as they are the one's who manufacture all of the legislation that meddled where private industry, left to their own devices, would have done a much better job.
The President does become responsible in two ways. One, for legislation and government action that requires the President's signature, such as the highly irresponsible and pork laden transportation bill, and the other simply because he is the President, even if he was unaware of some of the things Congress was doing such as loosening monies so people who should never have obtained mortgages could get them.
When you have such a boom as created by Congress with the housing situation, you see things such as rampant fraud and a market that becomes artificially robust, much more than would ordinarily have happened if the matter had been handled responsibly. Eventually, a correction in the market must be made. The larger the economic boom that has been created outside of natural circumstances, the larger the correction.
We are largely feeling the pain of this correction now, and it is a huge correction to be sure.
Add in the fact that the government is meddling once again where it should not in the form of ethanol and bio-diesel, and that they have acquiesced much power to minority environmental groups that have prevented exploration and drilling for new sources of domestic oil, the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, and the pain becomes more acute, especially to the poor and elderly, the groups the government always claims to help the most.
But our economy is strong, strong enough that these things and many more have not completely destroyed it. By all accounts, we should be deep into a depression right now, but we are not. As slight as it is, our economy is still growing, which tells us more about it's resiliency than anything else.
In addition, the growth numbers would have been much larger had our economy not grown as much as it did over the last few years. .04% of today's economy is actually more growth than .04% of the economy even six years ago as the economy is much larger than it was then.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Should There Be A Law To Force Teaching Democracy In America?
Well, this is not actually the proposal. The bill the Arizona representatives are considering would ban the teaching of any form of government or ideal above democracy. If passed, this would mean that no teacher or professor in any Arizona public educational institution, including colleges, may not push socialist values over democratic values.
The bill, S.B. 1108, has been met with a large amount of both support, and criticism. Supporters say the bill will protect American from those who are attempting to use our children to undermine American values and replace democracy with socialism. Critics claim the right wing is creating "Thought Police" and blocking free speech. Both sides make claims about the bill that are not true, and apparently, most from both sides have not read the bill, but rather basing opinions on local press coverage, which is biased to be sure!
But, the fact is, the bill is flawed and will be interpreted in ways the bill was never intended to do. In my opinion, the bill will never hold up in court either. Here are a few of the examples from the bill:
The bill, S.B. 1108, has been met with a large amount of both support, and criticism. Supporters say the bill will protect American from those who are attempting to use our children to undermine American values and replace democracy with socialism. Critics claim the right wing is creating "Thought Police" and blocking free speech. Both sides make claims about the bill that are not true, and apparently, most from both sides have not read the bill, but rather basing opinions on local press coverage, which is biased to be sure!
But, the fact is, the bill is flawed and will be interpreted in ways the bill was never intended to do. In my opinion, the bill will never hold up in court either. Here are a few of the examples from the bill:
- PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO PROMOTE POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, IDEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL BELIEFS OR VALUES AS TRUTH WHEN SUCH VALUES ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE VALUES OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND THE TEACHINGS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
15-108. Denigration, disparagement or encouragement of dissent from values of American democracy and western civilization; prohibition; enforcement; prohibition of race-based organizations; definition
The intention of this should be quite clear, but it will be construed by the groups who will eventually bring the case to court, assuming it actually passes into law, as a means to brainwash our children to accept democracy as the only acceptable form of government, eliminating free thought by students and freedom of speech by teachers.
The intent though, is to keep teachers from indoctrinating students to the values of socialism and/or communism, a practice that has been going on for decades now, mostly in our colleges. While the critics do not want the kids to be "Brainwashed" by democratic values, they want the opposite to happen. There is a proper middle ground.
The middle ground lies in properly teaching our children and actually trusting them to think and reason for themselves based on factual history and government being taught to them. This means we teach our children about our form of government, based on the founding documents as well as factual history. We also teach them about other forms of government, based on facts rather than opinion based on the political beliefs of the teacher, the school system, and/or the unions. We then encourage the students to compare, contrast and debate the differences. Moderators to the debate should limit their correction to facts as opposed to their own beliefs in order to allow free thought and debate to take it's natural course.
If we teach our children properly, and if we give them the trust and encouragement they require, they will be able to accomplish this great task of learning to think and reason for themselves. This, and a good moral background led by the example of good parents, would be the greatest gift we could give our children besides life!
Below is the full context of the bill:
Forty-eighth Legislature APPROP
Second Regular Session S.B. 1108
PROPOSED
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1108
(Reference to Senate engrossed bill)
Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert:
"Section 1. Title 15, chapter 1, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 15-107 and 15-108, to read:
START_STATUTE15-107. Declaration of policy
The legislature finds and declares that:
1. A primary purpose of public education is to inculcate values of American citizenship.
2. Public tax dollars used in public schools should not be used to denigrate American values and the teachings of western civilization.
3. Public tax dollars should not be used to promote political, religious, ideological or cultural beliefs or values as truth when such values are in conflict with the values of American citizenship and the teachings of western CIVILIZATION.
START_STATUTE15-108. Denigration, disparagement or encouragement of dissent from values of American democracy and western civilization; prohibition; enforcement; prohibition of race-based organizations; definition
A. A public school in this state shall not include within the program of instruction any courses, classes or school sponsored activities that promote, assert as truth or feature as an exclusive focus any political, religious, ideological or cultural beliefs or values that denigrate, disparage or overtly ENCOURAGE dissent from the values of American democracy and western civilization, including democracy, capitalism, pluralism and religious toleration.
B. This section does not prohibit the inclusion of diverse political, religious, ideological or CULTURAL beliefs or values if the course, CLASS or school sponsored activity as a whole does not denigrate, disparage or overtly ENCOURAGE dissent from the values of American democracy and western civilization.
C. On request of the superintendent of public instruction or the superintendent's designee, a public school shall promptly provide copies of curricula, course materials and course syllabi to the superintendent of public INSTRUCTION. the superintendent of public instruction, after providing appropriate notice and conducting an appropriate hearing, may withhold a proportionate share of state monies from any public school that violates subsection A. The superintendent of public instruction may take reasonable and APPROPRIATE regulatory actions to enforce this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to enlarge the authority of the superintendent of public instruction to regulate the CONTENT of curriculum in public schools.
D. A public school in this state, a university under the JURISDICTION of the Arizona board of regents and a community college under the JURISDICTION of a community college DISTRICT in this state shall not allow organizations to operate on the CAMPUS of the school, UNIVERSITY or community college if the organization is based in whole or in part on race-based criteria.
E. For the purposes of this section, "public school" means any of the following:
1. A school district.
2. A school in a school district.
3. A charter school.
4. An accommodation school.
5. The Arizona state schools for the deaf and the blind." END_STATUTE
Amend title to conform
RUSSELL K. PEARCE
1108rp2.doc
04/14/2008
1:28 PM
C: tdb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
