The Davis Guggenheim/Waiting for Superman documentary media hype is everywhere. Here’s video of a town hall meeting about the movie, from MSNBC.

Part 1

Part 2

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 3

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 4

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Part 5

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Did you ever wonder why the internet is totally awesome?  There are a ton of reasons, but the most important reason that the internet is awesome is because it is a bastion of liberty.  At then end of the day, the internet–a free internet that is–gives us all a reason to believe that freedom will never retreat, it will only advance.

Sure, there are governments in places like China and Iran that are trying to fight it, but I think most people (including myself) believe that the genie is out of the bottle, and there’s no putting it back.

Or at least that’s what I thought.  Now some losers in Washington (who probably don’t even know how to send an email) are trying to clamp down on the internet.  They want the power to tell Internet Service Providers WHICH INTERNET SITES UNITED STATES CITIZENS ARE ALLOWED TO ACCESS.

Look, I know as well as anyone that there are internet sites out there that engage in questionable activity, but creating a heaping mess of government bureaucracy to monitor and fight them is one slippery-slope that simply isn’t worth trying to descend.  The bad would far outweigh the good.  And besides, does anyone in their right mind actually think that government lawmakers and bureaucrats can keep up with the internet?  Please.

As reported by demandprogress.org, here’s a quick synopsis of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) co-sponsored by Patrick Leahy (VT, age 70) and Orrin Hatch (UT, age 76).

What exactly does it do?

The bill creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. The first can be added to by a court, the second by the Attorney General. Internet service providers (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the government’s gratitude) for blocking domains on the second list.

What kind of domains can go on the list?

The list is for domains “dedicated to infringing activity,” which is defined very broadly — any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are “central to the activity of the Internet site” would be blocked.

What’s so bad about that?

Well, it means sites like YouTube could get censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom argue that copyrighted material is central to activity of YouTube. But under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they’re informed about it — which is why Viacom lost their case in court. If this bill passes, Viacom doesn’t even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal — as long as they can persuade a court that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, that’s enough to get the whole site censored.

And even without a court order, sites can get blacklisted just by order of the Attorney General — and the bill encourages ISPs to block those sites as well. ISPs have plenty of reason to obey a government blacklist even when they’re not legally required.

Isn’t the word censored a little overheated?

Not at all. In the US, the way things work is that if you’re using the Internet to do something illegal, you’re brought to court and the courts can shut you down. This bill would bypass that whole system by forcing Internet service providers to block access to sites that are otherwise up. People in other countries could still get to them, but Internet users in the US would be blocked. This kind of Internet censorship is exactly the sort of thing the US government has been criticizing China and Iran for — just the other day, Obama told the UN that “We will support a free and open Internet.” Now it turns out we’re going to start censoring the Internet ourselves.

But it’s just limited to copyright!

How long do you think that will last? Once the Attorney General has a system set up for censoring the Internet, everyone who has a problem with a website will want to get in on it. How long before it’s expanded to block Wikileaks, pornography, gambling, anarchists, supposed terrorists, and anybody else the Attorney General doesn’t like that day? If people are doing something illegal, the government should take them to court and shut them down — not try to bypass due process by blocking their domain name.

Won’t Internet users just work around the blacklist?

Yes — at the cost of a major blow to the United States. Currently the United States is the global hub of Internet traffic, but if this law passes Internet traffic will be reconfigured to route around it. Companies will move their US servers and domain names overseas, Internet users will route their traffic through other countries (just like Chinese citizens have to do now!), and software will have to be reconfigured to no longer trust answers from American servers.

What can I do to stop this?

The first step is signing our petition then we’ll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your senator.

In an earlier post I mentioned that Davis Guggenheim, the Oscar-winning filmmaker who made An Inconvenient Truth and It Might Get Loud, is coming out with a new movie about the state of education in the U.S.  Waiting for Superman will be released in select theaters tomorrow, with more theaters to follow in the coming weeks.  So far I don’t know of any theaters that will carry the movie in Arkansas, but if the film does well it should come here eventually.

Early indications suggest that the movie is very well done.  And Guggenheim has been everywhere promoting the movie this week.  Here is an interview he did yesterday on NPR’s All Things Considered.

Guggenheim was also on Oprah Monday, and Oprah is dedicating her Friday show to the film as well.  And she is also promising a “major announcement.”  Here, as long as Harpo doesn’t remove them, are youtube vids of the entire Oprah episode.

It looks like the school millage has passed in Fayetteville but failed in Springdale. For full election results head over to Ozarks Unbound.

From Ozarks Unbound:

*Unofficial results from Tuesday’s Millage Elections

Fayetteville School District Millage
FOR tax .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  4,875   55.48%
AGAINST tax.  .  .  .  .  . 3,912   44.52%

Springdale School District Millage
FOR tax .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 3,173   43.77%
AGAINST tax.  .  .  .  . 4,077   56.23%

It is school election day here in Northwest Arkansas.  Fayetteville and Springdale have millage increases on the ballot and several school board seats are up for grabs across the area.  For a rundown of what will be on the ballot in your area check out the Washington County Courthouse site here see sample ballots here, and find out where to vote in Fayetteville here. If you live in Benton County, you can check out sample ballots here.

I live in Fayetteville and will be voting for the millage increase to renovate the high school. I encourage all of you who live in the ‘ville to do the same and here is why. First, while Fayetteville High School is not falling down, it is a crowded and outdated facility that lacks several of the amenities we desire. Second, after last year’s failed millage vote, the administration and school board responded to the voters concerns about cost by both scaling back the project and cutting their budget to fund a portion of the renovation. Third, at some point in the not too far off future we will need to renovate our high school facilities. This year we have the opportunity to finance that renovation with interest free (or close to) bonds, thereby saving the taxpayers a substantial sum.

Still not convinced a yes vote is the way to go, then check out this guest post by Jay Greene supporting the millage.

(Guest Post by Aaron Stahl)

The City of Fayetteville narrowly passed the proposed business license last Tuesday. It was not a good day for Fayetteville businesses I can assure you. Fayetteville non profits, businesses, and home based businesses are now forced to pay a yearly fee, fill out a form, and answer intimate questions about their businesses or risk a $250/day fine and their City utilities being shut off. No mind to the businesses that are struggling, can’t afford it, or are otherwise exasperated. No mind to the fact that businesses don’t need the proposed “help”. No mind to the fact that voluntary alternatives were proposed. Forcing people is easier.

Many months ago I decided to take a stand on this issue based on these principles, not because I couldn’t afford the nominal fee or somehow find the time for the extra red tape the proposal would force on me. I knew the principles of the issue did not add up. We did not need this. It did not solve the “problems” it said it would. And in fact it would make things worse for many businesses and take away a shining kernel of business freedom in Fayetteville.

Unfortunately for Fayetteville businesses and their employees, principle did not win out. In fact, during the City Council meeting last Tuesday, I witnessed principle get tossed by the wayside as some of the authors of this proposal fudged, misled, and spouted half-truths on their way to its approval. I also witnessed an organization, The Chamber of Commerce, which I used to be a part of (until Tuesday) grossly misrepresent me and the vast majority of its membership.

Over 30 years ago Fayetteville voters rid itself of the business license (or occupation tax as it was called back then) in exchange for a City/County sales tax. The government got its tax and the businesses were removed of the occupation tax burden. But sure enough, 30 years later with the support of the Chamber of Commerce and without the input of the voters we find ourselves sitting with both. It took a while but the bait and switch is complete.

Why would the Chamber of Commerce support such a piece of legislation? Don’t fees, fines, and red tape sound anti-business? Their reason for supporting this proposal was because they needed “information” to help them recruit businesses to Fayetteville. The funny part is Chung Tan of the Chamber of Commerce spoke up on Tuesday night and said they could get the information they need already, but that it’s hard and this would make it easier.

Well guess what? It’s called a job. It’s not supposed to be easy. I certainly don’t pay my Chamber dues to have them spend their time passing blanket legislation forcing every business to pay money and waste their time filling out forms to make their jobs easier!

In my opinion the real reason for the Chamber’s support lies with their newfound contract with the City. Last Fall the City awarded the Chamber of Commerce a $250,000 contract for “economic development”. One would think that “economic development” would not include more red tape and fees on businesses.

The proponents act like this is no big deal. However, now when a business owner cuts a check for the business license they just might not go out and eat that night as planned. Or they might not go to the movies. Or they might not make that purchase.

The logic from City officials is that the fee is so small it won’t affect anyone. Really? When was the last time you paid $10 for a hamburger and fries? It’s only a few dollars more than a good deal but we’d all likely balk at that price. Any extra fee or cost will affect people’s decisions. And that, in this case, will negatively affect our local economy. But, the absence of such logic is government intelligence at its finest.

Perhaps more revealing as to why this got passed is that one of the Chamber’s “performance items” in the City contract was the implementation of a business registry. Given this, the Chamber’s support should come as no surprise. I would presume the Chamber would probably like that contract renewed next year. With the bone they threw the City last week I’d say they’ve got a good shot at just that.

It looks more and more like the Chamber is becoming an instrument of the City instead of being an advocate for business. If you doubt me, just check out the Proposal for Consulting Services that the Chamber provided the city. You’ll notice how in this proposal each working member of the Chamber has their time allocated between working for the Chamber and working on the new City contract.  The President of the Chamber himself offered up half his time to dedicate to the City contract. Hmmm, I don’t recall getting a 50% discount on my Chamber dues because they’re working half as much.

Furthermore the Chamber and proponents offered up their support last Tuesday by saying they supported it and businesses supported it. I own a business and am a member of the Chamber. I don’t support it. Every business owner that I’ve talked to doesn’t support it. Did the Chamber consult their membership before offering their blanket support? I never heard anything. Neither did other Chamber members I’ve talked to.

Aside from the Chamber’s involvement in this mess I witnessed Don Marr cough up some interesting half-truths (I’m being generous) and distortions last Tuesday. I heard, half in horror and half amused, as he countered my claim that businesses had not been consulted about this by saying that this was spawned from the Fayetteville Forward Business Incentive Group in which a large number of businesses were represented. A quick search of that summit shows that they did indeed support such a measure. A voluntary one! Voluntary. Not one that forces businesses to pay money, fill out forms, or be shut down.

There’s your first half truth.

Second he told the Council that there was “business involvement” in this ordinance because of a public forum held by Eva Madison. I was there, and there was zero business support. Zero.

The only business owner that was even remotely supporting of it would only offer that support if this was a voluntary measure. Again, voluntary.

Somehow Don Marr took the information from those two meetings and regurgitated it to the Council as business support for forcing fees on everyone in town.

Another doozy I heard from him last Tuesday night was that electricians, plumbers, and the like need a license in Fayetteville in order to get licensed by the State.  Hmm, so how have we had plumbers and electricians in Fayetteville for the last 30 years if that’s the case?

The truth is all a plumber or electrician needs to do is get a letter from the City stating that Fayetteville doesn’t require a business license and show that to the State.  It’s a piece of cake.  The proponents would have you believe that these tradesman would rather pay a YEARLY fee and fill out a YEARLY form instead of getting a free piece of paper ONE time.  I applaud him for his sales skills, but that is a tall tale if I ever heard one.

The truth about all this is simple. Fayetteville has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years without a business license. We’ve grown by more than any other City in Arkansas without one. Businesses in this town used to love the fact that Fayetteville didn’t require this. That even with all the red tape from the State and Federal governments you could still find a small kernel of freedom in the City of Fayetteville.

We didn’t need a license for the past 30 years and we don’t need one for the next 30 years.

My Chamber membership ended last Tuesday with their support for this measure. I encourage all of you who feel the same to rescind yours as well.

For more business license coverage check out our previous articles:

http://mid-riffs.com/2010/03/its-business-license-time/

http://mid-riffs.com/2010/04/more-business-license-nonsense/

http://mid-riffs.com/2010/03/convicted-felons-and-good-ole-boys/

There was news a couple days ago that students at the University of Central Arkansas are now being offered free wake-up calls. 

While this is not as bad as other recent financial mismanagement problems at UCA, it is still bothersome that every student there, and every taxpayer in the state, now has to foot the bill for students who can’t manage to wake themselves up and get to class on time.  The Dem-Gaz story is here.  Here’s an excerpt:

The calls, which started this semester, are part of the UCA student center’s expanded concierge offerings.

Other services offered include reminder calls on anything from a math test to a doctor’s appointment.

Parents also can go to the UCA website and find out how to order balloon bouquets or birthday cakes and have them delivered to their child’s dormitory room.

Hank Phelps, student center director, said the expanded offerings are “a little bit like a concierge at a hotel,” but with a couple caveats.

“I’m not doing laundry. I don’t polish shoes,” he said.

Students wanting the wakeup and reminder calls to their cell phones must sign up for them. UCA does not charge for the calls, which are provided by Snoozester, a Maryland-based company, under a one-year, $11,000 contract with the university, Phelps said.”

The real cost is definitely more than $11,000.  I’m imagining that a number of UCA employees devoted time to coming up with this “concierge” plan. They held some meetings, formed some committees, drafted some memos, etc.  These things cost money and resources as well.

I also imagine that most UCA students aren’t huge fans of this new service.  By and large, the majority of young adults who get themselves into college are responsible and hardworking, and I’m sure there are plenty of responsible students at UCA.  Is it fair to require those responsible UCA students to pay for a wake-up service for their less than responsible classmates?

State taxpayers should be annoyed as well.  Hard-working families pay taxes (or, ahem, buy lottery tickets) which subsidize the education provided at the State’s colleges.  And while everyone pays taxes,  not everyone can make it to college.  On average, college students are more advantaged than typical Arkansans.  Somehow it doesn’t seem quite right to increasingly coddle these relatively privileged college students at taxpayer expense.  Why don’t we fund wake-up calls for young cashiers?  Or hairstylists?  Or mechanics?  Or firefighters?  There are plenty of hard-working young people in Arkansas trying to gain a footing in the world, and most are more disadvantaged than college students.  Shouldn’t state funds be used to help the least advantaged residents of our state succeed?

I was also under the impression that cell phones had pretty much made wake-up calls obsolete.  I have a fairly basic cell phone, but I can easily program it to wake me up.  Sure,  I used to get wake-up calls every time I stayed in a hotel.  But that was a decade ago.

Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty is engaged at the tail end of a heated primary election in our nation’s capitol where the Democratic primary always decides the eventual mayor. This local election is important to education wonks across the country because of the aggressive school Rhee-form agenda pushed by Mayor Fenty and his Schools’ Chancellor, Michelle Rhee. To many, this election represents a referendum on the school Rhee-form strategies pushed by Rhee. (Fenty’s opponent is supported by the city’s teachers’ union.)

As of last week, polls showed Fenty trailing by anywhere from 7 to 17 percentage points. Unfortunately for the Mayor, while he could use the help of a friend and fellow school reformer in DC, President Obama has not stepped forward to come out strongly in support of Fenty.

In all likelihood, a Fenty loss would lead to a Rhee exodus from the nation’s most visible example of hard-nosed school Rhee-form, in which the needs of the students are now being placed ahead of the wants of the grown-ups in the system. If this were to occur, it would be quite a victory for defenders of ineffective educators and supporters of the status quo … for those who think the economically-disadvantaged kids in DC and other US big cities (with dropout rates hovering near 50%) are served well by our current system of schools.

On the flip side, a Fenty victory would be a win for hundreds of excellent teachers in the DC public schools and, more importantly, for the students attending these schools each and every day. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

Last week, we were fortunate in the UA College of Education to host a lecture from Glenn Loury, the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences in the Department of Economics at Brown University. While he gave an interesting talk on the Economics of Affirmative Action Policy, he also made a quick reference to education policy when he alluded to his former student, Roland Fryer.

Dr. Fryer is now a Harvard Professor who is creating quite a buzz by evaluating an innovative educational program that pays kids for good grades in cities across the US. He is one of the very rare academics who both understands the academic lingo and can also translate it to the regular person, as is made clear by this interview on the Colbert Report …. this (along with his complete candor) is why he is such a joy to watch.

For a longer speech by Professor Fryer from 2009 advocating R&D in education, click below:

All of the important policy conversations about how to best evaluate teachers are getting lost in the arguments over whom to blame. And this blame game is clearly the wrong way to frame this discussion. The result is that educators become instantly defensive and it becomes impossible to collectively devise a better teacher evaluation tool than we have today (almost non-existent in most places).

This culture of blame and defense is evident in the brouhaha in Los Angeles over teacher ratings being shared with the public. Many are spending their time highlighting the teachers who received bad ratings or complaining about the rating system. While these cynics blame and complain, others are choosing a better route: many teachers are hitting the LA Times website to check their own ratings and consider ways to get even better. Wise observers are asking why the district didn’t do more with these data to highlight the best teachers and help all teachers get even better.

This is not … and should not be … about blame (despite what the normally right-on but in this case way-off Bill Maher says below). Of course children are far more influenced by their parents than they are by their teachers. If my kids fail, I am going to look in the mirror and blame myself rather than any teacher. However, unless I am mistaken (and I am not mistaken, this is just a rhetorical device), our lawmakers use our collective taxpayer dollars to provide education for all kids who enter our schools. It is most certainly the job of our policymakers to carefully evaluate the effectiveness of all civil servants, including teachers.

And the data are clear that quality teachers can make a real difference in student learning. Indeed, much of what we learn from teacher evaluations is how wonderfully effective many of our teachers are. As a result, our policymakers, as thoughtful stewards of our public funds, have an obligation to evaluate the effectiveness of our teachers and to make use of these evaluations to improve the education provided to our children. This is not blame; this is accountability.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said as much in Little Rock last week. However, after he received a tepid response when calling for accountability from educators, he pandered to the audience by saying: “”If it was up to me and the law allowed it, I would put out student attendance data and hold parents accountable.” This, sadly, received great applause.

Of course parents should be responsible, but it is not the duty of the schools to hold us accountable. Who’s footing the bill here? Who’s paying whom? As long as we citizens are paying the salaries of our civil servants, we have a right and a duty to hold our civil servants accountable … not the other way around!

In this case, I am sad to say, my always-entertaining friend Bill gets it wrong .. but have a listen and judge for yourself ….