Sen. Van Hollen (D-MD) tells Chris Hayes that it’s a disgrace on the Senate that this is the first impeachment trial in history to not have documents or witnesses.
from msnbc.com Latest Headlines https://ift.tt/2OhzjqK
via IFTTT
Sen. Van Hollen (D-MD) tells Chris Hayes that it’s a disgrace on the Senate that this is the first impeachment trial in history to not have documents or witnesses.
The Senate voted to reject an amendment by Senator Chuck Schumer to subpoena John Bolton. The vote was 51-49.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the Senate vote to deny witnesses a "grand tragedy.”
John Bolton’s book alleges that Trump directed a pressure campaign against Ukraine as early as last May. Maya Wiley says, "The conspiracy goes to the top echelons of his administration."
On the Senate’s decision to block witnesses in the impeachment trial, Chris says "Hear no evil, that's what the Republicans decided."
In the lead-up to the Senate vote not to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, another John Bolton bombshell dropped, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska rendered the debate moot, and the Senate chaplain almost stole the show.
About 5:40 p.m. Friday, the Senate voted 51-49 against calling witnesses, meaning the inevitable vote to acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment will come soon. How soon is uncertain, but the final vote likely will be Wednesday.
Sens. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, joined all Democrats and two Independents in voting for new witnesses as Democrats sought to convict and remove Trump from office nine months before the presidential election.
The House impeached Trump on Dec. 18, alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and accusing Trump of tying military assistance to Ukraine to its agreement to investigate interference by the former Soviet republic in the 2016 U.S. election and the dealings there of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
After the vote against calling new witnesses, senators went on to confer about finishing the Senate trial by Wednesday, which would be after Trump delivers his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., noted the House had numerous witnesses and 28,000-plus pages of documents already in evidence, which he said is enough for a Senate trial.
“There is no need for the Senate to reopen the investigation, which the House Democratic majority chose to conclude and which the [House impeachment] managers themselves continue to describe as ‘overwhelming’ and ‘beyond any doubt,’” McConnell said in a formal statement.
“Never in Senate history has this body paused an impeachment trial to pursue additional witnesses with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation,” McConnell said. “We have no interest in establishing such a new precedent, particularly for individuals whom the House expressly chose not to pursue.”
Here are highlights from the day on which the Senate heard arguments over calling witnesses.
Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, was among four Republicans considering voting to call witnesses, particularly after The New York Times reported Sunday that a forthcoming book by Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, says Trump told Bolton that he sought to have the Ukraine government get information on Democrats.
To call new witnesses in addition to the 17 who testified in the House impeachment proceedings, it would have taken four Republicans to join the 47 senators in the Democrats’ caucus.
Romney announced that he would vote to hear new witnesses, after Collins already had done so.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., had announced late Thursday that he would vote against calling witnesses, saying: “The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.”
Alexander’s announcement signaled that Democrats would not be able to gain a majority for witnesses.
However, House Democrat managers argued that Chief Justice John Roberts could break a tie, based on precedent from the 1868 Senate trial of President Andrew Johnson.
Just before 2 p.m., ending speculation about a tie, Murkowski announced on Twitter and in a formal statement that she would not vote for witnesses. She explained her reasons in a thread of five tweets in which she concluded that “the Congress has failed.”
The Senate chaplain, Barry Black, who has opened each day of the trial with a prayer, made news with a prayer Friday that spurred media and social media speculation that Black was pushing senators for witnesses or a specific outcome.
“Remind our senators that they alone are accountable to you for their conduct,” Black said in the prayer. “Lord, help them to remember that they can’t ignore you and get away with it. For we always reap what we sow.”
Black, a retired Navy rear admiral, became the 62nd Senate chaplain in 2003.
The Baltimore native was commissioned as a Navy chaplain in 1976. His first duty station was the Fleet Religious Support Activity in Norfolk, Virginia.
Before the Senate debate on witnesses, The New York Times dropped another big story about Bolton, who Democrats wanted to call as a witness. Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador who resigned last year as Trump’s national security adviser, has a book coming out in March.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., leader of the seven House impeachment managers, read parts of the Times article on the Senate floor. Later, excerpts were shown on a large screen.
“Today,” Schiff said, “we were greeted to yet another development in the case when The New York Times reported with a headline that says, ‘Trump told Bolton to help his Ukraine pressure campaign, book says.’”
“According to The New York Times, more than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.,” Schiff said, reading from the Times.
The Times reported that the meeting included Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and White House counsel Pat Cipollone.
Cipollone leads the president’s defense team at the Senate trial.
“You will recall Mr. Cipollone suggesting that the House managers were concealing facts from this body. He said all the facts should come out,” Schiff said. “Well, there is a new fact, which indicates that Mr. Cipollone was among those in the loop. Yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses.”
House manager Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., warned senators about the judgment of history, since all the facts will come out sooner or later.
“The truth continues to come out, again in an article today, more information,” Crow said. “The truth will come out—and it’s continuing to. The question here, before this body, is what do you want your place in history to be? Do you want your place in history to be let’s hear the truth, or that we don’t want to hear it?”
Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, argued that if Trump really is innocent, he would want witnesses:
If the president is telling the truth, and he did nothing wrong, and the evidence would prove that, then we all know he would be an enthusiastic supporter for subpoenas. He would be here probably himself if he could, urging you to do subpoenas if he had information proving he was totally not in the wrong. If he is innocent, he should have nothing to hide.
Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow later countered that the House prosecution team seems to suggest the president must prove his innocence, which is not how the system works.
“You’re not going to have a witness wand here, where we say, OK, you’ve got a week to do this and get it done,” Sekulow said. “There is no way that would be proper under due process.”
Sekulow noted that the House had 17 witnesses, 13 of whom testified in public. Further, he said, 192 video clips were shown from that public witness testimony during the course of the Senate trial.
Only the House took testimony. Sekulow said that for a fair trial, the president’s legal team would have the right to cross-examine each witness:
Due process is supposed to be for the person accused and they are turning it on its head. They brought the articles [of impeachment] before you. They are the ones who rushed the case up and then held it before you could actually start the proceedings. They are the ones who passed the articles before Christmas.
Sekulow added that the House Intelligence Committee, which Schiff chairs, opted not to subpoena Bolton, fearing it would delay a House impeachment vote into the new year.
Sekulow appealed to the Senate, saying it wasn’t their job to clean up after the House’s lack of a thorough investigation.
“How many constitutional challenges will we have in this body because they placed a burden on you that they wouldn’t take themselves in putting their case forward?” Sekulow said.
“We look at our constitutional framework and our constitutional structure. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work,” he said.
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
***
Other coverage of the impeachment trial for The Daily Signal by White House correspondent Fred Lucas includes:
7 Questions and Answers From Day 9 of Trump Impeachment Trial
6 Scenes From Day 8 of Trump Impeachment Trial
‘Danger, Danger, Danger’: 4 Highlights From Final Day of Defense Arguments in Impeachment Trial
Under Bolton Shadow, 6 Big Moments From Day 6 of Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Big Points by Trump’s Lawyers as Defense Opens in Impeachment Trial
7 Big Moments in Democrats’ Final Arguments to Remove Trump
7 Highlights From Day 3 of the Trump Impeachment Trial
5 Flash Points From Impeachment Trial’s Opening Arguments
What to Know About Democrats’ 7 Impeachment Managers
The post 4 Big Moments Before the Senate’s Vote Against New Impeachment Witnesses appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Making jam is a great way to capture the natural sweetness and delicate flavor of mangoes. Chop the mangoes into small pieces and cook them with lots of sugar, lemon juice, and pectin. You can even customize your mango jam to come up with completely unique flavor combinations. Once the jam is as thick as you like, transfer it to sterilized jars and enjoy the jam on toast, waffles, or pancakes.
Makes 2 cups (650 g) of jam
On Republicans dismissing a John Bolton testimony, Sen. Amy Klobuchar says “We know it’s not going to take 5 years for the truth to come out, it’s not going to take 5 months, it’s going to take 5 weeks or 5 days.”
Senator Angus King says that the framers of the Constitution “were pre-occupied with the danger of foreign interference in our daily life and I think we’ve got to address it.”
It’s hard to part with some things, even if they’re broken and were worth next to nothing to begin with. But some things are just special, y’know? And we would say in this case, the thing was definitely worth saving.
[Taste the Code]’s daughter’s beloved night light had a terrible flickering problem, and then stopped working altogether. Eager to make her happy, he cracked it open and found that one of the wires had disconnected from the outlet pin it was soldered to. That’s a simple enough fix, but trying to solder in tight quarters where the walls are soft plastic can be quite challenging.
Once that was fixed, [Taste the Code] plugged it in to a test outlet. It’s back to working, but also back to flickering, because there is no capacitor to smooth out the signal going to the LEDs. [Taste the Code] measured the voltage drop across the output of the bridge rectifier and soldered in an electrolytic cap with more than double the necessary voltage rating, just to be safe. You can check out the video after the break.
This goes to show several things: one, you can learn from fixing and improving cheap electronics from the likes of your local dollar store. Two, you can also get some kinds of components there quite inexpensively from things like magnetic sensor-based window alarms and dirt cheap solar garden lights.
You can also do some fun stuff with those cheap IKEA lamps designed for children. Here’s an adorable cloud lamp with an RGB LED upgrade that shows the weather mood using an ESP8266.
An ancient habit of Western elites is a certain selectivity in condemnation.
Sometimes Westerners apply critical standards to the West that they would never apply to other nations.
My colleague at the Hoover Institution, historian Niall Ferguson, has pointed out that Swedish green-teen celebrity Greta Thunberg might be more effective in her advocacy for reducing carbon emissions by redirecting her animus. Instead of hectoring Europeans and Americans, who have recently achieved the planet’s most dramatic drops in the use of fossil fuels, Thunberg might instead turn her attention to China and India to offer her “how dare you” complaints to get their leaders to curb carbon emissions.
Whether the world continues to spew dangerous levels of carbons will depend largely on policies in China and India. After all, these two countries account for over a third of the global population and continue to grow their coal-based industries.
In the late 1950s, many elites in United States bought the Soviet Union line that the march of global communism would “bury” the West. Then, as Soviet power eroded in the 1980s, Japan Inc. and its ascendant model of state-sponsored industry became the preferred alternative to Western-style democratic capitalism.
Once Japan’s economy ossified, the new utopia of the 1990s was supposedly the emerging European Union. Americans were supposed to be awed that the euro gained ground on the dollar. Europe’s borderless democratic socialism and its “soft power” were declared preferable to the reactionary U.S.
By 2015, the EU was a mess, so China was preordained as the inevitable global superpower. American intellectuals pointed to its high-speed rail transportation, solar industries and gleaming airports, in contrast to the hollowed-out and grubby American heartland.
Now the curtain has been pulled back on the interior rot of the Chinese Communist Party, its gulag-like re-education camps, its systematic mercantile cheating, its Orwellian surveillance apparatus, its serial public health crises and its primitive hinterland infrastructure.
After the calcification of the Soviet Union, Japan Inc., the EU and the Chinese superpower, no one quite knows which alternative will next supposedly bury America.
The U.S. and Europe are often quite critical of violence against women, minorities and gays. The European Union, for example, has often singled out Israel for its supposed mistreatment of Palestinians on the West Bank.
Yet if the purpose of Western human rights activism is to curb global bias and hate, then it would be far more cost-effective to concentrate on the greatest offenders.
China is currently detaining about a million Muslim Uighurs in re-education camps. Yet activist groups aren’t calling for divestment, boycotts and sanctions against Beijing in the same way they target Israel.
Homosexuality is a capital crime in Iran. Scores of Iranian gays reportedly have been incarcerated and thousands executed under theocratic law since the fall of the Shah in 1979. Yet rarely do Western activist groups call for global ostracism of Iran.
Don’t look to the United Nations Human Rights Council for any meaningful condemnation of worldwide prejudice and hatred, although it is a frequent critic of both the U.S. and Israel.
Many of the 47 member nations of the Human Rights Council are habitual violators of human rights. In 2017, nine member nations persecuted citizens who were actively working to implement U.N. standards of human rights.
There are many reasons for Westerners’ selective outrage and pessimism toward their own culture. Cowardice explains some of the asymmetry. Blasting tiny democratic Israel will not result in any retaliation. Taking on a powerful China or a murderous Iran could earn retribution.
Guilt also explains some of the selectivity. European nations are still blamed for 19th century colonialism and imperialism. They will always seek absolution, as the citizens of former colonial and Third World nations act like perpetual victims — even well into the postmodern 21st century.
Virtual-signaling is increasingly common. Western elites often harangue about misdemeanors when they cannot address felonies — a strange sort of psychological penance that excuses their impotence.
It is much easier for the city of Berkeley to ban clean-burning, U.S.-produced natural gas in newly constructed buildings than it is to outlaw far dirtier crude oil from Saudi Arabia. Currently, the sexist, homophobic, autocratic Saudis are the largest source of imported oil in California, sending the state some 100 million barrels per year, without which thousands of Berkeley motorists could not get to work. Apparently, outlawing clean, domestic natural gas allows one to justify importing unclean Saudi oil.
Western elites are perpetually aggrieved. But the next time they direct their lectures at a particular target, consider the source and motivation of their outrage.
(C) 2020 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
The post The Cult of Western Shaming appeared first on The Daily Signal.
President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan on Tuesday at a White House ceremony attended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump declared that the plan “presents a ‘win-win’ opportunity for both sides, a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel’s security.”
Netanyahu enthusiastically embraced Trump’s vision, proclaiming, “It’s a great plan for Israel. It’s a great plan for peace.” He then lauded Trump as “the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.”
Indeed, Trump’s vision for peace is the most pro-Israeli peace initiative ever promoted by the United States. It accords a high priority to Israeli security needs, recognizes Israel’s vital interest in retaining control of the border with Jordan, and clears the way for U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over many settlements and Jewish holy sites in the disputed territory of the West Bank.
Trump’s vision also includes important benefits for Palestinians, who were offered the opportunity to build a state of their own, supported by a $50 billion regional development plan for the Palestinian territories and nearby Arab states.
More than half of the $50 billion would be invested in infrastructure and business projects in the Palestinian territories in the first 10 years, with the remainder invested in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.
This economic program, which has been compared to the Marshall Plan through which the U.S. helped stabilize western Europe after World War II, would boost prosperity among Palestinians, free them from dependence on foreign handouts, and give their children hope for a much brighter future.
Despite the economic benefits and the diplomatic pathway to a Palestinian state offered by the initiative, Palestinian leaders immediately rejected the plan.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas denounced Trump’s “deal of the century” as the “slap of the century.”
Trump’s vision fell far short of the Palestinian Authority’s maximal demands for a sovereign state controlling all the territory in the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem, and recognition of the “right of return” for millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel.
But those demands were always unrealistic and posed unacceptable risks to Israeli security.
The Trump peace initiative envisions a smaller Palestinian state composed of Gaza, approximately 70% of the West Bank, and specified land swaps of Israeli territory along its borders with Egypt and the northern West Bank.
To mitigate the security risks to Israel of such a state, the Palestinians would be required to renounce terrorism, disarm Hamas and other terrorist groups, recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and halt payments to the families of Palestinians imprisoned or killed due to their participation in terrorist attacks.
The “land for peace” paradigm enshrined in the 1993 Oslo Accords failed in large part because the Palestinian Authority failed to halt terrorism against Israel, particularly by Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas rejects peace negotiations with Israel and remains committed to Israel’s destruction.
After Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas staged a bloody coup against the Palestinian Authority, seized control of Gaza, and turned into a base for attacking Israel with rockets, tunnel infiltrations, and incendiary balloons.
Israelis have strong reasons to suspect that a total Israeli pullout from the West Bank also could result in a Hamas overthrow of the weak Palestinian Authority and the establishment of another terrorist front against Israel.
Palestinians made a bad situation worse by rejecting a series of peace plans proposed by the Carter administration in 1978, the Reagan administration in 1982, and the Clinton administration in 2000.
Since 2014, the Palestinians have rejected negotiations with Israel unless it froze its settlement program, a condition that was not included in the Oslo peace negotiations.
The Palestinian Authority broke off diplomatic contacts with Washington in December 2017 after the Trump administration recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv.
The Palestinians’ “all or nothing” negotiating stance has left them with nothing that gives hope for a better future. Now they are turning their backs on Trump’s vision, despite the potential economic benefits it offers.
Although the Palestinians swiftly rejected Trump’s peace initiative, other Arab states have supported the plan and told the Palestinians “not so fast.”
Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates sent their ambassadors to the White House rollout event and joined Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia in appealing to the Palestinians to consider the initiative as a framework for negotiations.
Getting the buy-in of these key Arab states is important for the Trump administration’s “outside-in” strategy, which seeks to enlist support from Arab states that already have made peace with Israel (Egypt and Jordan) as well as Arab Gulf oil states that fear Iran more than Israel (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait).
It is not clear how hard Arab leaders will pressure Palestinian leaders to accept the plan. Realistically, the plan is unlikely to advance peace talks unless the Palestinians engage on it, and that is not likely. It takes two to tango, but Palestinian leaders have refused multiple American invitations to attend the dance.
The Trump peace plan is therefore unlikely to jumpstart the long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
But even if it produces no immediate results, Trump’s initiative will serve as a marker that could encourage Palestinian leaders to take a more realistic approach to negotiations in the future and improve the long-term prospects for peace.
The post Palestinians Miss Opportunity by Rejecting Trump Peace Plan appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The Environment Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board is supposed to provide scientific advice to the EPA administrator.
The Science Advisory Board seems to have forgotten this simple requirement.
Based on the board’s actions regarding the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ efforts to define “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, the Science Advisory Board seems to think it’s the legal or policy advisory board.
The board developed a draft “commentary” critical of the proposed regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.” The problem is, the commentary (both the original and latest version) isn’t a science document, but a legal and policy document drafted by scientists who the media are using to put a negative spin on the proposed rule and the recently released final rule.
It isn’t the Science Advisory Board’s job to say nice things about regulations, but it is the board’s job to answer science questions. But that’s not what it did in its commentary.
Even drafting a “commentary” is a red flag that the document isn’t likely to be focused on science. After all, science answers objective questions, not subjective questions, such as those in law and policy.
The Science Advisory Board went off mission because it chose to use its commentary to answer a legal question. Specifically, it tried to answer what the legal definition of “waters of the United States” should be.
Even worse, the board went so far as to try to draw legal conclusions, arguing that the proposed definition isn’t consistent with the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
None of this is appropriate for the Science Advisory Board. The government didn’t create this science advisory board so it could get the legal opinions of scientists.
Not surprisingly, the board’s legal and policy analysis is lacking. Unfortunately, this analysis forms the basis for its criticism of the EPA and Army Corps’ definition of “waters of the United States.”
The Science Advisory Board’s commentary is, in effect, criticizing the EPA and the Corps for not looking solely at the science in forming its legal definition of “waters of the United States.” The fact that the EPA and the Corps have legal constraints and policy considerations in developing the definition was of no concern to the board.
In fact, the board expressly acknowledged it doesn’t care about the agencies’ interpretation of the law or any legal constraints imposed upon them. It points out that the board can’t consider these legal issue because it must only look at the science.
The board would absolutely be right if they were looking at the science to answer science questions. Once again, here’s the big problem: They are not answering a science question. They are trying inappropriately to answer a legal question.
The answer to any legal or policy question isn’t found by just looking at science. Science can inform answers to these questions, such as the legal definition of “waters of the United States,” but it alone can’t provide the answer because these are inherently subjective questions.
The Science Advisory Board might think that the EPA and the Corps shouldn’t consider the Constitution, the Clean Water Act, case law, property rights, regulatory clarity, and federalism, among other things, in developing their definition of “waters of the United States,” but the EPA and the Corps rightfully recognize that they are required to consider these issues.
They also recognize, unlike the Science Advisory Board, that the legal definition must actually follow the law.
If the board were open about the fact that it had developed a legal analysis, then its commentary would be of far less concern, because it would be easily dismissed. It becomes a concern, though, because the board is publishing a legal analysis under the cover of science.
The public might be led to incorrectly think that the EPA and the Corps are not just wrong with their regulatory definition, but they are objectively wrong because the Science Advisory Board and its “science” say so. (After all, science answers objective questions.)
The Science Advisory Board’s conflating of science and policy (and law) isn’t an isolated situation. This problem pervades the federal government and is a widely recognized problem that undermines the integrity of agency science.
The most basic solution is to ensure that when the federal government, including its science advisory boards, disseminate what is labeled as science, it is in fact science.
If this solution were in place, then the Science Advisory Board’s inappropriate legal and policy commentary on “waters of the United States” never would have been drafted in the first place.
The post On ‘Waters of US’ Rule, EPA’s Science Advisory Board Conflates Policy Preferences for Science appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Christy Cook hasn’t been singled out or harassed for the choices she makes for her son’s education. She’d like to keep it that way.
Yet in an astounding administrative error, Arizona’s Department of Education put Cook’s family and thousands of others at risk by disclosing their personally identifiable information to a special interest group opposed to parental choice in education.
The state attorney general’s office is reviewing the incident to determine whether the agency violated federal law.
The Arizona Department of Education released identifying information for children using education savings accounts, which are flexible spending accounts that allow K-12 students and their parents to decide how and where they will learn instead of attending an assigned school based on a child’s Zip code.
Some 7,000 Arizona children use the accounts today, and approximately half of them have special needs, as does Cook’s son, Trevor.
To make matters worse, the state Department of Education released the information to Save Our Schools (SOS) Arizona, a group backed by the state teachers union that has campaigned against the education savings accounts. In 2018, SOS Arizona led an effort to limit the number of children who could use the accounts statewide.
Ironically, news of the data dump comes during National School Choice Week, the annual celebration of parents’ right to choose the best learning options for their children.
“I’ve been involved with the ESA program since the beginning,” Cook said in an interview with me.
Like any parent, she said, she always has concerns about her son’s safety.
“Given that the SOS [Arizona] is a large group and very vocal and has your name and email address, it opens up anything. You feel like you are a little bit more exposed,” Cook said.
Other account holders expressed similar fears regarding SOS Arizona.
“Just knowing that it’s out there with the ESA data breach makes me sick to my stomach and feeling like I need to look over my shoulder at all times,” parent Tonya Reiner told me in an interview.
“Some parents fear being found by perpetrators and some parents fear retaliation from SOS now that they have contact information for recipients,” she said.
Arizona families with education savings account were the target of another attempt by special interest groups to block account use, in addition to SOS Arizona’s efforts.
Nearly a decade ago, the state teachers union filed a lawsuit to take the accounts away from children with special needs, but the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of families three years later.
Arizona lawmakers made their state the first to enact the education savings accounts for eligible families in 2011. The state deposits a portion of a child’s funds under the state education spending formula into a private account that parents use to buy education products and services for their children.
Research finds that parents use the accounts for multiple learning options simultaneously, the first scholarship-based K-12 learning option in U.S. history to provide such opportunities. Surveys find high levels of parent satisfaction among account holders.
The accounts changed the way families and policymakers around the country consider the future of education. Lawmakers in four other states–Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee–used Arizona’s design to create similar customized education savings accounts for families in their states.
Lawmakers in dozens of other states, including West Virginia, Oklahoma and South Carolina, have considered the accounts in recent years.
To the credit of the Arizona Department of Education, the agency recently outsourced some account management responsibilities to a private company that specializes in payment processing services such as those used by education savings account holders. Currently, private organizations operate the accounts in Florida and North Carolina.
After this latest mistake, Arizona education officials should expedite the process of turning over account management responsibilities to someone else.
In 2016 and 2017, the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona-based research and litigation organization, and The Heritage Foundation, respectively, produced reports explaining how education savings accounts can be managed by private companies that already handle similar accounts.
The Arizona Department of Education’s mistake jeopardizes students’ safety. If the agency violated federal law, other state officials should respond accordingly and hold the department accountable.
Meanwhile, Arizona education officials should act immediately to turn over responsibility for education savings accounts to someone else.
The post A Mistake Imperils the Privacy of Parents Who Back School Choice appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Shared by MrColo on Thingiverse:
Hello guys! This is my first design, a modern hexagonal penholder.
I designed it by Fusion 360 and I hope you like it.If you like it, leave a like and a comment!
Please refer to the images and instructions for additional information. And, please also post images of your Hexagonal Penholder in use for other members to see.
Note: If you like this check out the rest of my practical and fun designs.
Download the files and learn more
Every Thursday is #3dthursday here at Adafruit! The DIY 3D printing community has passion and dedication for making solid objects from digital models. Recently, we have noticed electronics projects integrated with 3D printed enclosures, brackets, and sculptures, so each Thursday we celebrate and highlight these bold pioneers!
Have you considered building a 3D project around an Arduino or other microcontroller? How about printing a bracket to mount your Raspberry Pi to the back of your HD monitor? And don’t forget the countless LED projects that are possible when you are modeling your projects in 3D!
Getting a job interview is an exciting and scary experience. You want to make a great impression on your interviewer and get the job, but you likely feel super nervous. To have a good interview, do your homework ahead of time by researching the employer, reviewing the job description, and planning how you’ll answer questions. Then, make a good impression by dressing professionally and arriving on time. When you’re talking to your interviewer, focus on how you fit the company and try to give memorable answers. Then, follow up with the interviewer to increase your chances of getting hired.