Go To Newshoggers

This Newshoggers story is an important read because it reminds us that McCain is dangerous, and Obama must win. Visit Newshoggers.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

By Ron Beasley

I was late to endorse Obama - late January. I was afraid that he was not up to fighting the Republican slime machine and that he was an empty suit - lots of talk and little substance. I haven't seen anything at this point that would lead me to believe I was wrong. This is very disturbing because the though of John McCain as president truly scares the hell out of me. At he first sign of trouble he looks for somebody to hit.

Response to 9/11 Offers Outline of McCain Doctrine

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

Now if that doesn't scare you it should. Digby as usual says it very well:

I remember writing a long time ago that John McCain is the man George W. Bush was pretending to be, right down to the flight suit. The Real Thing is actually far more dangerous than the cheap imitation. If he wins this thing, we could find ourselves in a very, very serious crisis, of both economic stability and national security ---- and very likely of our government itself. This man is unstable.

But she also gives us a branch of hope. The corporate types know this and they also must know that Armageddon would be bad for business.

The funny thing is that I don't think the Big Money Boyz expect the Republicans to win this election so they didn't think there was much danger in putting Buck Turgidson on the ballot. You can't help but wonder if they are having some second thoughts about allowing for even that slim possibility.

All those tax cuts and deregulation won't be worth much if the hot headed John McCain brings on a nuclear winter. That said race still a lot closer than it should be because Obama is not connecting with the average voter and he needs to go after John McCain. Obama already has a handicap. We don't like to talk about it but he is a black man running for president in the US of A. John McCain has some handicaps as well.

• His age - there is nothing wrong with making that an issue.
• He's a Republican.
• He didn't have the "right stuff' to be an admiral.
• He admits that we are worse off than we were 4 years ago but plans to continue Bush policies.
• He's a hot head.

And that's just a few. Use them all. I'm sorry, but nice guys usually finish last in US politics and this is too important.

McCain: Rich, Stupid Bastard!

My house, which cost about 350K is now worth about 250K. I hope it goes up before my kid starts college!

Here is a video that shows John McCain and his very rich wife are ignorant, unfeeling bastards (or cunts, depending on who's talking). Oh, and he owns a bunch (10) of houses!

Principals: God's Gift To Teachers?

Over at LeaderTalk there is a post by Chris Hitch (not Hitchens) on how to handle the prima donna teacher. Basically, if a principal has a teacher who's students consistently do well, but rubs the principal the wrong way, the principal should fire the teacher. Hmmm. I think principals, for the good teacher, are a hindrance, not a help. Read this ridiculous screed with the 4 comments here, and the article only below the fold.

Handling Prima Dons (and Donnas)

I had a colleague in a school ask me about how to handle a prima don on his staff. He feels he is being held hostage by this individual. The individual is loved by parents, does great things with his students, is creative in the classroom, and get his students (all of their students) to perform at their best. He's also also cranky, arrogant, and think the rules apply to everybody else but him. This summer, the prima don may implicitly (or explicitly) say that if things don’t go his way, he will leave the school.

I suggested two filters to use at the outset-I had my suggestions, which you'll see below but I am quite curious about what readers of this blog suggest instead of or in addition to what I've suggested.

1. Ethics and Policy: If the person is violating any ethical canons or school board policy, you have no choice but to confront and quickly use whatever disciplinary measures you have to in accordance with your local and state policies and procedures. It’s one thing for a teacher to care about the children under her supervision or for a technology teacher to show how streaming video websites work, it is an entirely different matter for her to dispense pain medications or temporarily disable your system’s website filtering system without following your district policies. Whether the person is teacher of the year or a family member of the school board chair, you have to handle this person in the exact same manner as any other employee.

2. Consistent High Performance: All three of these words matter. If the person is not giving you consistent high performance, then you have a much easier decision-cut them no slack and look for removal, dismissal or nonrenewal. If you have a person who is rude to everybody and doesn’t do a good job, you are under no obligation to keep them around. We’d suggest that each time you work with a prima donna, you think through whether the person is still exhibiting consistent high performance.

A. Find the combination: While many prima donnas exhibit the same annoying and destructive behavior, they generally have different sets of needs. Some may need additional “air time” to demonstrate their superior knowledge and intellect. Others may want public recognition for the work they have done. Still others may want to be perceived as a “power player” by being asked to serve on a district level committee. By looking for what you see that they want, you have a tool that you can use to help leverage better behavior from them.

B Build a wall: Prima donnas know they are good and some may simply want to be left alone. If your prima donna simply wants to be left alone, put their expertise to use on a lone ranger project that aligns with your strategic goals and they don’t have to spend time in what they consider wasted time in endless meetings.

OR

Build a fence: If your prima donna loves the limelight, and wants to be perceived as a leader, have them lead a committee, but with conditions. Your conversation may go like this. “I’m glad you’ve agreed to lead this committee. Remember that one of the key aspects of this committee is to get a set of recommendations that that everybody will buy in to. You’ve got a lot of skill and talent and your perspective is valuable. One of the areas that will be important for you to focus upon is building upon the ideas of everybody in the group. What ideas do you have to make sure that everybody is listened to and heard?” When the prima donna pushes back, you have an opening to discuss how their skills in this committee can help increase their credibility with the others on the team not only for her specific skills but also being perceived as someone who listens to others.

3. Ensure accountability: You can certainly include high performance in the interpersonal realm as well. If one of your key values is client service and you have individuals who are rude and inconsiderate to others (internally and externally), you have to have this conversation with the prima donna. Point out that he runs the risk of alienating and distancing himself from others with his actions. Serving as a mirror to his behaviors serves as a start to demonstrate the linkage between his behavior and the actions and behaviors you want from him.

4. Check the “will”: You have to make the determination whether the prima donna is acting the way he is because of his interest in improving your school or if he is simply castigating you because he doesn’t like anybody telling him what to do or actively undercutting what you are trying to achieve. If, in your conversations, you find out that the individual thinks there is a better way to do this, you should certainly listen. On the other hand, if he is doing end runs, generating rumors, and generally trying to undermine you and what you are doing, you have an entirely different (and we hope, quick) resolution to the issue.

What other suggestions do you have in place of or in addition to what I have noted?
Chris

What a tool! This moron's first mistake is thinking that principals help teachers teach. They don't. They don't have time, and many, mine included, have no teaching experience in the grade level they are principal for (my principal was a middle school English teacher, now she is principal of an elementary school, and has to be taught what younger children need).

The second mistake Chris the principal makes is thinking that teachers want principal input. We don't (unless the principal is a great teacher, which we wouldn't know)! And that does not mean we don't want our students, school, colleagues, or district to succeed. We just want to be the professionals that we are, and do our job without hindrance, unnecessary committee responsibilities, and fear of reprisal from power-hungry, career-minded principals.

This screed by principal Hitch should be looked at as part of the problem in education; professional teachers being reviewed, retained, or fired by folks whose mission it is to foster conformity to a norm not yet affirmed, in a desire to wrest control of education away from those who provide it--teachers! Reminds me of HMO's power over doctors, which is waning. When will principal overwroughtness wane?

Four More Years

Here's a rather sobering anti McBush ad. Pass it around.

Bring Back The Draft!

Andrew J. Bacevich is a retired colonel who makes a lot of sense. Here he is on Moyers. Give this guy a position in government!


I say bring back the draft because this guy is basically saying that unless we the people take back our country, and have a vested interest in it (like sacrificing for it)we will continue to imperialize the presidency, and demean our own citizenship. The draft seems an exceptionally good way to get folks vested!
From Open Left

Update: Sullivan gets an email from a former soldier serving under Bacevich. Impressive.

A. James Bacevich was my Colonel while I was in the 11th ACR stationed in Fulda, Germany. Not sure if you know much about his background, but he was, I believe, passed over for general and retired. His being passed over was at the time attributed to his having been the CO of the unit during the largest accident ever, which happened on July 11th, 1991, at Camp Doha in Kuwait, when our motor pool blew up injuring a few people and rendering the base inoperable. I was there, and it was a terrifying mess. You can read about it here.

Long story short, some folks in them motor pool were doing some maintenance, and put the halon fire extinguishers in an ammo carriers for m109's (artillery vehicles) on mechanical safe, a heater caught on fire, ammo cooked off, and it caused a chain reaction.

My squadron was the one on rotation to be guarding (the other two were in the field doing maneuvers and border stuff), and I was asleep in one of the big airplane hangers when a 100 pound 50 caliber machine gun came flying through the roof and landed about 10 feet from my bunk, part of one of the vehicles blown up in the initial series of explosions

If rumors are true, because of that accident, a few weeks later, Schwarzkopf himself came to the base and and visited Bacevich, and a few months later, he was replaced. Col. Bacevich allegedly took full responsibility for the mess, even though it was not his fault (it was the idiot mechanics who had the halon on mechanical safe), but he believed in accountability. As such, he is the only man to ever be CO of the 11th ACR to be passed over for Brigadier General. Before that, command of the Blackhorse was a sure stepping stone for General. Another soldier who was also there discusses it here.

At any rate, when you talk about Bacevich, not only has he lost his son to this stupid war we both supported, but he is just a decent, honest, honorable, good man. At a time when no one ever takes responsibility, he is a man who believes in it, and walked the walk.

The Democratic Platform: We Sort Of Like NCLB

We have an education angle in the new Democratic Platform. Unfortunately it bends towards the kind of reform I think is dangerous to public education. You can read about it here. Here is a key snippet:

We will promote innovation within our public schools–because research shows that resources alone will not create the schools that we need to help our children succeed. We need to adapt curricula and the school calendar to the needs of the 21st century; reform the schools of education that produce most of our teachers; promote public charter schools that are accountable; and streamline the certification process for those with valuable skills who want to shift careers and teach.

They are embracing the research meme, charter schools, and have removed opposition to vouchers. Michell Rhee surely will be advising Obama soon. Ugh!

Update: I realize that research is crucial to knowledge. I love and revere science, the scientific method, evolution, and chocolate. Education research has issues of validity many other research endeavors don't have. The whole "research-based" pedagogy thing is problematic because when you look at teaching, it appears more art than science; or maybe art based in science. It's more like jazz. It's hard to teach jazz, you can either do it, or not.

Update II: I wrote this in June, and it relates.

They're Underage!!!!

Like we didn't know already, the Chinese Woman's Gymnastics team is in violation of the rules. They are supposed to be 16 in the Olympic year, and these kids are like 6 or something. Here is the proof!
So. What do we do now? Cause a stink? If you watched the opening ceremonies, you should be scared to death that the Chinese, if they so desired, could crush us like so few ants. I say let them have the gold, and we step back, slowly.

Happy Birthday Social Security!

73 years ago today FDR gave us Social Security. Now let's see if I ever get to collect!

Thank God!

This is a fantastic development! A judge just ruled that the University of California can deny course credit to bible-thumpers!!!! Praise Jesus! Here is the article.

Judge says UC can deny religious course credit

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

(08-12) 17:25 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes. Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, a group of Christian schools has appealed Otero's rulings to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations." What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."

The suit, filed in 2005, challenged UC's review of high school courses taken by would-be applicants to the 10-campus system. Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.

Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.

UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.

For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.

He also said the Christian schools presented no evidence that the university's decisions were motivated by hostility to religion.

UC attorney Christopher Patti said Tuesday that the judge assessed the review process accurately.

"We evaluate the courses to see whether they prepare these kids to come to college at UC," he said. "There was no evidence that these students were in fact denied the ability to come to the university."

But Monk, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said Otero had used the wrong legal standard and had given the university too much deference.

"Science courses from a religious perspective are not approved," she said. "If it comes from certain publishers or from a religious perspective, UC simply denies them."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/13/BAQT129NMG.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Hillary's Campaign Did What?

They were planning on portraying Obama as unAmerican? No way!

I'm Back!

But after a 10 hour drive, I am not ready to blog in earnest. Must shower, then sleep, then find out what happened while I was in the woods.

NCLB: One Parent's View

Inspired, in part, by Jay P. Greene

I'm no NCLB expert. I'm not a professor of education, an education policy wonk or a teacher. I'm just a parent with a kid in a public elementary school that is in Program Improvement status. But I've seen the harm caused by NCLB, and I disagree with Greene's dismissiveness.

In his response to the Ohio principal's letter, Greene says, basically, "What are you worried about? Your school is doing great." Well, my kid's school is not, by NCLB standards. In the 2007 AYP report, my child's school made adequate yearly progress in every category except for the percentage of African-Americans scoring proficient or above in both English and math. (Students with disabilities also scored below the cut-off in English, but not math.) That's bad enough: Let the NCLB sanctions rain down.

Don't get me wrong: I am shocked and appalled by the discrepancies in the performance on these tests between white and African-American students. How can it be that 90+% of white students at my child's school scored proficient or higher in English and 85+% of white students scored proficient or higher in math, while the percentage for African-American students in both subjects hovered around 22%? Even given all the caveats about statistics, testing and scoring, with that large a gap, there must be something going on. And the gap does seem to be at least partially a racial, rather than socio-economic, one: a significantly greater percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged students than African-Americans were scored proficient or above in both tests.

I give credit to NCLB for raising awareness (at least mine) of what seems to be an extreme racial disparity in, at least, test performance. But NCLB, with its extremely and increasingly stringent requirements and its package of sanctions, is not the answer.

On his blog, Mr. Greene says that NCLB sanctions are non-existent, and there are no real consequences for "failing" schools. That's bullshit. Or if it's not, NCLB is not being implemented the way it was intended to be: sanctions and "corrective action" are an integral part of the thing.

My kid's school, and school district, have not yet had the more serious sanctions kick in . . . yet. But I see the detrimental effects of NCLB nonetheless. It's had what we in the law might call a "chilling effect."

I've seen an explicit decision to focus educational efforts on the students who have scored just below proficient in hopes of bringing these students across the line. This strategy makes some sense, if your driving goal is to avoid further condemnation under NCLB. And given the structure and demands of NCLB, I'd have to say that this would not be an irrational choice -- sacrifice those at the bottom and the top for the greater good of getting out of Program Improvement status. If you want to educate all the kids in your school and district, however -- including those way below proficient and those well above it -- it's a very cold-blooded (at best) approach that runs counter to the public-school mission of educating all children.

I've seen heavy-handed pressure from the district on the school to use certain programs and enforce teachers' use of certain programs. I've seen a sort of administrative floundering about to find the magic bullet. A waste of time, energy and money in a district and school that don't have enough to spare of any of those.

I've seen parents who might have been interested in sending their kids to public school instead choose private school because they fear "teaching to the test." This is not what goes on at my school, as far as I have seen. But the perception is there, and I believe it has had a real effect. Maybe driving people away from public schools is what the NCLB supporters really want; I don't know. But parents who care about whether teachers at a school are or are not "teaching to the test" tend to be the kind of parents who care about and get involved in their children's education, the kind of parents that public schools really need. If just the specter of NCLB is driving them away from public school, it's done plenty of harm, in my view.

If not NCLB, then what? Tft's already done this routine: fix poverty, fix parents, fix society, pay teachers a lot more money. A few tests, a new curriculum or two and an annual shaming of the "failing" schools ain't gonna cut it.

And with that, I'm on vacation, too.

Frustrated at Hertzberg

Hertzberg mouths off about gender- vs. race-discrimination

I like what I've read from Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker, and I like what I've seen of his blog, on the magazine's website, as well. But his comment about gender discrimination in the June 23 issue (yes, I'm behind on my reading...) really pissed me off.

Hertzberg was writing about the end of Clinton's primary campaign (ancient history, I know). In the last half of the article, however, after noting that "[c]ompetitions among grievances do not ennoble," he nonetheless engages in just such a competition. He argues that, compared to "the oppressions of gender," "the oppressions of race have cut deeper." His examples:

1. "[T]here is no gender equivalent of the nightmare of disenfranchisement, lynching, apartheid, and peonage that followed Reconstruction," or the 250 years of slavery that preceded it. Slavery as such, no. But women certainly (as Hertzberg acknowledges) were disenfranchised; they also were denied the right to own property, they have been and continue to be paid wages substantially below those paid to men and they all too routinely are subject to brutal violence (domestic violence, rape) at the hands of men. Remember Tailhook, anyone? Have we passed the Equal Rights Amendment yet? States -- and a presidential candidate? -- are pushing laws that would force a woman to keep in her body a fetus that was the result of rape or incest or that threatened her health. Health insurance pays for men's Viagra but not women's birth control. Pretty nightmarish to me.

2. "Nor has any feminist leader shared the fate of Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X." Have there been any feminist leaders of this caliber in the last 50 or 75 years? Who? Gloria Steinem? Oprah? My city has official holidays celebrating two of these guys (Dr. King and Malcolm X); how many holidays are there celebrating women? (Hint: zero.)

3. Hertzberg then suggests that African-Americans are underrepresented in government, compared to women, by noting the number of women and African-Americans who currently are serving as governor or United States senator (16 women senators vs. one African-American senator; 8 women governors vs. 2 African-American governors). These numbers look less dramatic, however, when you compare them to the percentage of women vs. African-Americans in the United States population (50.8% women, 12.4% African-American according to 2006 census data). [Hertzberg addresses this point, raised by someone who commented on his original article, on his New Yorker blog.] Nor is there any acknowledgment of the potential distortion/dilution of African-American votes through racial redistricting/gerrymandering -- a trick that obviously doesn't work against women. I just can't be thrilled, or find some kind of political equality, in 50+% of the population being represented by 16% of the senators or governors. And how about the comparative representations on the Supreme Court?

As with so many (all?) of the other topics discussed on this blog, this is not just a one-dimensional (in this case, political) problem. Gender inequality lives in the workplace, in sports, in advertising and in the way we raise our kids. It lives in our language, which too often embodies our assumptions about the roles we should play. One example that struck me (and not just me): Supreme Court decisions in the past year or two, instead of using a gender-neutral term to refer to a generic lower-court judge, now invariably use "he." Just a little thing, in isolation, but it gets to me.

Hertzberg agrees with Clinton that "from now on it will be 'unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United States.'" I wish I could agree.

Yes, things have improved, and I hope -- maybe even trust -- that they will continue to improve. I'm thrilled that my daughters got to see a woman running, seriously, for president. I hope that no one will tell them, as I was told when I was a kid, that a woman will never be president. But I won't believe that a woman can, in fact, be elected president of this country unless and until I see her swearing the oath of office. And even then, it will seem remarkable.

All right, tft; I've had my say. You can boot me off to Shakesville now....

Gone Camping

Yes, the boy and I are off for our annual camping trip. I doubt if there will be many posts between August 1 and August 10. Don't worry though, I will be back (and maybe The Frustrated Lawyer will chime in).

Have a great couple weeks!

NCLB Smackdown! Ouch!

I don't know how I got there, but I ended up at cleveland.com reading some reactions to a pseudo-letter published in the Clevelnad Plain Dealer. It is an apology from a principal to his constituents (yeah, the parents, students and teachers) for having to shortchange everyone in favor of testing. I guess it's a little over-the-top, but it makes the point rather well.

Anyway, at the site I ended up at, cleveland.com, the general feeling among the commenters was that the principal is a wimp, shamed the district, and should just shut the fuck up. Commenters go on and on about how schools and teachers are paid for with tax dollars, so the public should get more for their money, blah, blah, blah. This is the "Government School" crowd who can't wait to privatize education. I guess they don't realize privatizing it won't help, but whatever.

Now to the point of this post. One commenter decided to put into words something I have tried to say many times. I have seen versions of this in the past, but this comment is solid.

To all who have commented:

It seems evident from the majority who have responded that accountability of taxpayers' dollars is of paramount importance. I too don't want my taxes wasted, so let's improvise a bit. Education deals with the human condition as opposed to industries based on the production or servicing of inanimate objects. Perhaps we could curtail tax waste by uplifting the "No Child Left Behind" education law as a model for tax dollar accountability in other societal based endeavors receiving federal money of any sort. (Please remember, NCLB call for 100% student proficiency by 2014)

Given a 10 year deadline, police will eliminate 100 percent of all crime in local communities. Officers and administrators will face termination if significant progress isn't made over three-year intervals during the decade.

Given a 10 year deadline, established organizations whose purpose is to counter drug abuse will eliminate substance abuse with 100 percent efficiency within their jurisdiciton. Agents of such organizations (counselors, DEA personnel, law enforcement officials) will be terminated if significant reduction in drug abuse is registered over three year intervals during the decade.

Given a 10 year deadline, all medical practitioners and hospitals who accept Medicare payments will achieve a 100 percent recovery rate of their patients or be denied all future Medicare patients. (Practitioners deemed ineffective by the 100 percent criterion in publicly funded hospitals will be terminated.)

Given a 10 year deadline, all universities receiving federal funding (or accepting students with outstanding federal education loans) will achieve a 100 percent graduation rate. If the graduation rate does not make significant improvement over three-year intervals, identified professors from ineffective departments will be terminated.

In each of the preceding examples progress rates will be published on a regular basis in local newspapers keeping the public abreast on whose doing the best job with the public's (federal) money.

I am sure we can agree that "data-driven" proficiency/efficiency plans are the way to go to get maximum mileage from our tax dollars. They provide simple answers for very complex issues.

Yeah! If we are going to hold teachers accountable, after all, they are paid with public money, we should hold all the public employees accountable! So let's pay that rude DMV representative more money if she can plow through more vehicle registrations than her coworkers! Who cares about fairness when we can have accountability!!!!

Let's not forget Jay P Greene! He has a line by line takedown of the letter by the principal. He is just so horrible!