Thursday, December 4, 2008
Students lie, cheat, steal, but say they're good
NEW YORK (AP) — In the past year, 30 percent of U.S. high school students have stolen from a store and 64 percent have cheated on a test, according to a new, large-scale survey suggesting that Americans are too apathetic about ethical standards.
Educators reacting to the findings questioned any suggestion that today's young people are less honest than previous generations, but several agreed that intensified pressures are prompting many students to cut corners.
"The competition is greater, the pressures on kids have increased dramatically," said Mel Riddle of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "They have opportunities their predecessors didn't have (to cheat). The temptation is greater."
The Josephson Institute, a Los Angeles-based ethics institute, surveyed 29,760 students at 100 randomly selected high schools nationwide, both public and private. All students in the selected schools were given the survey in class; their anonymity was assured.
Michael Josephson, the institute's founder and president, said he was most dismayed by the findings about theft. The survey found that 35 percent of boys and 26 percent of girls — 30 percent overall — acknowledged stealing from a store within the past year. One-fifth said they stole something from a friend; 23 percent said they stole something from a parent or other relative.
"What is the social cost of that — not to mention the implication for the next generation of mortgage brokers?" Josephson remarked in an interview. "In a society drenched with cynicism, young people can look at it and say 'Why shouldn't we? Everyone else does it.'"
Other findings from the survey:
_Cheating in school is rampant and getting worse. Sixty-four percent of students cheated on a test in the past year and 38 percent did so two or more times, up from 60 percent and 35 percent in a 2006 survey.
_Thirty-six percent said they used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, up from 33 percent in 2004.
_Forty-two percent said they sometimes lie to save money — 49 percent of the boys and 36 percent of the girls.
Despite such responses, 93 percent of the students said they were satisfied with their personal ethics and character, and 77 percent affirmed that "when it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know."
Nijmie Dzurinko, executive director of the Philadelphia Student Union, said the findings were not at all reflective of the inner-city students she works with as an advocate for better curriculum and school funding.
"A lot of people like to blame society's problems on young people, without recognizing that young people aren't making the decisions about what's happening in society," said Dzurinko, 32. "They're very easy to scapegoat."
Peter Anderson, principal of Andover High School in Andover, Mass., said he and his colleagues had detected very little cheating on tests or Internet-based plagiarism. He has, however, noticed an uptick in students sharing homework in unauthorized ways.
"This generation is leading incredibly busy lives — involved in athletics, clubs, so many with part-time jobs, and — for seniors — an incredibly demanding and anxiety-producing college search," he offered as an explanation.
Riddle, who for four decades was a high school teacher and principal in northern Virginia, agreed that more pressure could lead to more cheating, yet spoke in defense of today's students.
"I would take these students over other generations," he said. "I found them to be more responsive, more rewarding to work with, more appreciative of support that adults give them.
Educators reacting to the findings questioned any suggestion that today's young people are less honest than previous generations, but several agreed that intensified pressures are prompting many students to cut corners.
"The competition is greater, the pressures on kids have increased dramatically," said Mel Riddle of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "They have opportunities their predecessors didn't have (to cheat). The temptation is greater."
The Josephson Institute, a Los Angeles-based ethics institute, surveyed 29,760 students at 100 randomly selected high schools nationwide, both public and private. All students in the selected schools were given the survey in class; their anonymity was assured.
Michael Josephson, the institute's founder and president, said he was most dismayed by the findings about theft. The survey found that 35 percent of boys and 26 percent of girls — 30 percent overall — acknowledged stealing from a store within the past year. One-fifth said they stole something from a friend; 23 percent said they stole something from a parent or other relative.
"What is the social cost of that — not to mention the implication for the next generation of mortgage brokers?" Josephson remarked in an interview. "In a society drenched with cynicism, young people can look at it and say 'Why shouldn't we? Everyone else does it.'"
Other findings from the survey:
_Cheating in school is rampant and getting worse. Sixty-four percent of students cheated on a test in the past year and 38 percent did so two or more times, up from 60 percent and 35 percent in a 2006 survey.
_Thirty-six percent said they used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, up from 33 percent in 2004.
_Forty-two percent said they sometimes lie to save money — 49 percent of the boys and 36 percent of the girls.
Despite such responses, 93 percent of the students said they were satisfied with their personal ethics and character, and 77 percent affirmed that "when it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know."
Nijmie Dzurinko, executive director of the Philadelphia Student Union, said the findings were not at all reflective of the inner-city students she works with as an advocate for better curriculum and school funding.
"A lot of people like to blame society's problems on young people, without recognizing that young people aren't making the decisions about what's happening in society," said Dzurinko, 32. "They're very easy to scapegoat."
Peter Anderson, principal of Andover High School in Andover, Mass., said he and his colleagues had detected very little cheating on tests or Internet-based plagiarism. He has, however, noticed an uptick in students sharing homework in unauthorized ways.
"This generation is leading incredibly busy lives — involved in athletics, clubs, so many with part-time jobs, and — for seniors — an incredibly demanding and anxiety-producing college search," he offered as an explanation.
Riddle, who for four decades was a high school teacher and principal in northern Virginia, agreed that more pressure could lead to more cheating, yet spoke in defense of today's students.
"I would take these students over other generations," he said. "I found them to be more responsive, more rewarding to work with, more appreciative of support that adults give them.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Bushes Reject Impeachment Ornament... AS WELL THEY SHOULD
Tis not the season to post calls for impeachment on the White House Christmas tree.
A spokeswoman for first lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the White House tree will not include an ornament by a Seattle artist that supports President Bush's impeachment.
Artist Deborah Lawrence said she wanted to salute Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle, a longtime Bush foe who backs impeachment.
The nine-inch ball Lawrence created is covered with swirly red and white stripes and features a picture of McDermott. Tiny glued-on text hails the impeachment resolution.
Mrs. Bush had asked members of Congress to pick artists to decorate ornaments for the White House tree to showcase all 435 congressional districts.
Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, called the ornament inappropriate. "I think it really is a shame and, quite frankly, not very much in the holiday spirit," she said.
Instructions to the artists were very clear: to decorate the ornaments in a patriotic, red, white and blue theme, McDonough said. Lawrence's ornament was the only one of about 370 submitted for the White House tree that was rejected, McDonough said.
McDermott's office said the congressman had no role in the design of the ornament that was submitted.
"When the request came in, we contacted a local arts organization which selected an artist. We had no role whatever in the theme, design, etc.," said McDermott chief of staff Mike DeCesare.
Lawrence, a collage artist, frequently combines politics and satire in her work. She told The Washington Post she saw the ornament as a perfect way "to highlight Jim McDermott because he's a hero of mine."
"I was at first nauseated, then realized it was an opportunity," she said.
A spokeswoman for first lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the White House tree will not include an ornament by a Seattle artist that supports President Bush's impeachment.
Artist Deborah Lawrence said she wanted to salute Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle, a longtime Bush foe who backs impeachment.
The nine-inch ball Lawrence created is covered with swirly red and white stripes and features a picture of McDermott. Tiny glued-on text hails the impeachment resolution.
Mrs. Bush had asked members of Congress to pick artists to decorate ornaments for the White House tree to showcase all 435 congressional districts.
Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, called the ornament inappropriate. "I think it really is a shame and, quite frankly, not very much in the holiday spirit," she said.
Instructions to the artists were very clear: to decorate the ornaments in a patriotic, red, white and blue theme, McDonough said. Lawrence's ornament was the only one of about 370 submitted for the White House tree that was rejected, McDonough said.
McDermott's office said the congressman had no role in the design of the ornament that was submitted.
"When the request came in, we contacted a local arts organization which selected an artist. We had no role whatever in the theme, design, etc.," said McDermott chief of staff Mike DeCesare.
Lawrence, a collage artist, frequently combines politics and satire in her work. She told The Washington Post she saw the ornament as a perfect way "to highlight Jim McDermott because he's a hero of mine."
"I was at first nauseated, then realized it was an opportunity," she said.
SANCTIMONIUS??? YOU MAKE THE CALL
I was called sanctimonius. I used to think i was confident, said i was aiming for humble, but confessed to being (at least in the past) arrogant. Hmmmm. YOU make the call. I can handle it.
Main Entry:
sanc·ti·mo·nious
Pronunciation:
\ˌsaŋ(k)-tə-ˈmō-nē-əs, -nyəs\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1603
1: hypocritically pious or devout
Main Entry:
ar·ro·gant
Pronunciation:
\-gənt\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare
Date:
14th century
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner 2 : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance
Main Entry:
con·fi·dent
Pronunciation:
\ˈkän-fə-dənt, -ˌdent\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin confident-, confidens, from present participle of confidere
Date:
circa 1567
1: full of conviction : certain 2: having or showing assurance and self-reliance
3: obsolete : trustful , confiding
Main Entry:
1hum·ble
Pronunciation:
\ˈhəm-bəl also chiefly Southern ˈəm-\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
hum·bler \-b(ə-)lər\ ; hum·blest \-b(ə-)ləst\
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin humilis low, humble, from humus earth; akin to Greek chthōn earth, chamai on the ground
Date:
13th century
1: not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive2: reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission 3 a: ranking low in a hierarchy or scale : insignificant , unpretentious b: not costly or luxurious
Main Entry:
sanc·ti·mo·nious
Pronunciation:
\ˌsaŋ(k)-tə-ˈmō-nē-əs, -nyəs\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1603
1: hypocritically pious or devout
Main Entry:
ar·ro·gant
Pronunciation:
\-gənt\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin arrogant-, arrogans, present participle of arrogare
Date:
14th century
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner
Main Entry:
con·fi·dent
Pronunciation:
\ˈkän-fə-dənt, -ˌdent\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin confident-, confidens, from present participle of confidere
Date:
circa 1567
1: full of conviction : certain
3: obsolete : trustful , confiding
Main Entry:
1hum·ble
Pronunciation:
\ˈhəm-bəl also chiefly Southern ˈəm-\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
hum·bler \-b(ə-)lər\ ; hum·blest \-b(ə-)ləst\
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin humilis low, humble, from humus earth; akin to Greek chthōn earth, chamai on the ground
Date:
13th century
1: not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive2: reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission 3 a: ranking low in a hierarchy or scale : insignificant , unpretentious b: not costly or luxurious
Say it Ain’t So Plaxico! Under 2006 Law, Burress Looking at Prison Time
New York Giants’ Plaxico Burress, left, leaves Manhattan Supreme Court after his arraignment, accompanied by his lawyer Benjamin Brafman on Monday, Dec. 1, 2008.
A little less than a year ago, New York was cheering Plaxico Burress. The Giants’ wide-receiver had played an integral role in the team’s march to the Super Bowl, and had caught the winning touchdown pass in the crowning win against the Patriots.
Now it looks like Burress is about to get something else thrown at him: The Book. By now, even those who don’t know the gridiron from a waffle iron have heard that Burress got himself into a heap of trouble over the weekend by carting an unregistered and loaded handgun into a Manhattan nightclub and accidentally shooting himself in the thigh. And it looks like the penalty — aside from being suspended from the 10-1 Giants for the rest of the year — might be severe: possibly three-and-a-half years in prison.
The possible penalty is the result of a New York statute signed into law in November 2006 by then-Governor George Pataki. He and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg touted the law as a much-needed tough-on-crime measure. According to an NYT piece out Wednesday, defense lawyers at the time attacked the law as unduly harsh, largely because it eliminated exceptions and judicial discretion in imposing the sentence. One of the measure’s harsher critics at the time: Ben Brafman, a high-profile criminal defense lawyer (Mel Weiss was his client), who’s now been retained by Burress.
Brafman has continued to inveigh against the law’s fairness, telling the Times: criminal “laws. . . . that do not have exceptions for extraordinary circumstances are inappropriate . . . .” But Burress is still up against it. “Even if he pleads down . . . he would still face a minimum of two years in prison,” said another criminal-defense lawyer, Robert Gottlieb, to the Times.
Burress’s best shot is to avoid the “illegal possession of a loaded handgun” charge altogether. Though given the case’s high profile, says Gottlieb, that might be hard for Burress to avoid.
A little less than a year ago, New York was cheering Plaxico Burress. The Giants’ wide-receiver had played an integral role in the team’s march to the Super Bowl, and had caught the winning touchdown pass in the crowning win against the Patriots.
Now it looks like Burress is about to get something else thrown at him: The Book. By now, even those who don’t know the gridiron from a waffle iron have heard that Burress got himself into a heap of trouble over the weekend by carting an unregistered and loaded handgun into a Manhattan nightclub and accidentally shooting himself in the thigh. And it looks like the penalty — aside from being suspended from the 10-1 Giants for the rest of the year — might be severe: possibly three-and-a-half years in prison.
The possible penalty is the result of a New York statute signed into law in November 2006 by then-Governor George Pataki. He and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg touted the law as a much-needed tough-on-crime measure. According to an NYT piece out Wednesday, defense lawyers at the time attacked the law as unduly harsh, largely because it eliminated exceptions and judicial discretion in imposing the sentence. One of the measure’s harsher critics at the time: Ben Brafman, a high-profile criminal defense lawyer (Mel Weiss was his client), who’s now been retained by Burress.
Brafman has continued to inveigh against the law’s fairness, telling the Times: criminal “laws. . . . that do not have exceptions for extraordinary circumstances are inappropriate . . . .” But Burress is still up against it. “Even if he pleads down . . . he would still face a minimum of two years in prison,” said another criminal-defense lawyer, Robert Gottlieb, to the Times.
Burress’s best shot is to avoid the “illegal possession of a loaded handgun” charge altogether. Though given the case’s high profile, says Gottlieb, that might be hard for Burress to avoid.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
THE FIRST VOICE YOU HEAR !!!
When you call the Richard Randall Show this will be the first voice you hear. Anne Boswell answers phones and screens calls for me. She DOES NOT screen out certain callers, or opinions. I'm a big kid, I can take em all. But she will ask for your name and what you are calling about. I just thought you might like to put a face to the "first voice you hear".
Monday, December 1, 2008
WOULD YOU FAVOR THE PREZ RESIGNING... IF THIS HAPPENED???
You know what would really tick OFF the Democrats... Bush should resign now. Then Dick Cheney becomes President (that would really tick OFF the libs)!!! Then he appoints Condoleezza Rice as VP. Then Cheney resigns two weeks later and Condoleezza Rice, A Republican, becomes the first BLACK - WOMAN President!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
