Student shot at Morehouse, shooter still allowed to receive diploma? May 17, 2009

Graduation should be a happy time of year for those who have spent a joyous but grueling four years in institutions of higher education. However, Rashad Johnson isn’t happy at all.

Johnson received word that his shooter will received his diploma from Morehouse College as part of a plea deal to spare him 20 years in prison.

Johnson was shot three times by fellow student Joshua Brandon Norris at a 2007 Halloween Party at an Atlanta club where Morehouse  College students usually gather. Norris and Johnson exchanged words outside the club that Norris had been thrown out of for allegedly causing trouble.  Johnson began to walk to his car when Norris pulled up in his Hummer and shot him. Johnson still has a bullet in his leg.

According to CNN, “Norris faced one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and a second count for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. But in a court hearing in January, he was presented with what the judge described as ‘the break of your life’.”

Norris received six years of probation, a $1,0000 fine  and 240 hours of community service. He was also required to stay in college and complete his degree by the judge.

For more information about this, visit http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/14/morehouse.justice/index.html

The story present in the article is really sad. After reading it, you are forced to sit and think how could Morehouse officials allow him to obtain his degree or how could they not worry about the safety of its students?  However, what can the university really do about it? The shooting took place at a off-campus club.  I’m sure there are  Morehouse rules about students’ disorderly conduct on and off campus. Maybe the rules should be changed.

Here at IU, Part II Article b of the Student Code of Conduct book  states,  that a student must “obey all applicable university policies and procedures and all local, state and federal laws.” Time and time again, students have also had to go through IU’s judicial system for incidents taken place at off-campus local bars. Whether these students were expelled from IU, I am unaware.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Johnson and his family should challenge the bylaws of Morehouse’s Student Code of Conduct book.

 

 

 

 

Where was Pelosi’s PR person? May 15, 2009

Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, presented her account at a news conference of when she became aware that the Bush administration used harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding (a form of torture that requires the victim to lay on his or her back while pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.) 

Pelosi accused the C.I.A of lying as she said that she was mislead by the information provided to her and was not told about the use of such techniques during a 2002 C.I.A. briefing.

According to the New York Times, Pelosi was present at a September 2002 C.IA. briefing in which a C.I.A. account says included a discussion of interrogation techniques.

Supposedly, the briefing was the only one Pelosi attended in person. She asserted during the news conference that waterboarding was only mentioned and was not being used at the time of the briefing but later found out that it was taking place before the briefing even happened.

She went on to say that the first time she had been told about the techniques was five months later and had been provided the information by a staff member. She claim that she did not speak out because she knew that it would not change the administration’s tactics. She knew that the administration had to change and that was her duty (to change the administration in Congress).

This is probably the most backlash Pelosi has received in her tenure as some Republicans are calling her a hypocritic for heavily criticizing an operation she knew about while some Democrats are saying that she should have spoken out.

She also will be weighted down by the possiblity of dragging down President Barck Obama as many will want a “truth” investigation as to: Did members of Congress really know of the techniques? How long did they know? Who told them? etc.

Pelosi stumbled over her words as the press began to eat her alive at the news conference. Her body language suggested that she knew she was in trouble. I applaud the work of CNN’s Dana Bash as she launched question after question to understand Pelosi’s story which seem to contradict itself.

Where in the world was the public relations person who should’ve prepped her for the conference? She should’ve known the media would definitely be on it’s “P’s & Q’s” as usual. The “5W-H” (the who, what, when, why, where and how) should have been worked out in advance with a good clean statement and story. The aide that supposedly ended the conference, should have saved her earlier.

I feel sorry for the PR person or intern that probably got fired after last night’s conference.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Pelosi’s new conference was PR failure at it’s best.

“Slumdog Child” home demolished !$326 million? 8 Oscars?? May 15, 2009

Recently, media outlets around the world have report that the 10-year old child star of movie “Slumdog Millionaire”  was still living in the slums! Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail (the young Salim)’s shanty house was demolished by municipal workers who were ordered to cleanup a row of illegally built shanties. The workers had no idea the “celebrity child” lived there.

The movie “Slumdog Millionaire” grossed $326 million” and won a total of 8 Oscars.

According to the San Jose Mercury, “‘Slumdog’ filmmakers say they’ve done their best to help the kids and their families…They also donated $747,500 to a charity to help slum kids in Mumbai. Producer Christian Colson has described the trust [started for the child stars] as substantial but won’t tell anyone how much it contains–not even the children’s parents–for fear of making the youngsters vulnerable to exploitation.”

Azhar’s parents said that the filmmakers have budgeted $30,000 to get them a new apartment but deemed it an inadequate amount in Mumbai’s pricey real estate market.

Vulnerable to exploitation? Trust fund with an undisclosed amount? The movie grossed $326 million but you have two of its child stars (Rubina Ali, the young Latika) living in the slums, while I’m sure the producers and director of the film are living in lavish homes somewhere in the States!!! Have you really done all you can do to help?

I think it’s great that the producers have set the children up with private schools and have provided “a trust fund”. However, these children don’t have a place to live! According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, SHELTER, is a literal requirement for human survival. Out of $326 million you can only budget $30,000 to get them a new house? The average price of a house in the United States is about $200,000. That’s less than a 1/4th the price of an American home.

So you want to talk about exploitation? Your casting directors went to the slums of Mumbai, handpicked children to make millions for the movie. If their parents had to sign any contract, they probably understood very little and/or were  obviously blindsided by the phrases “the best free education a child can receive” or “trust fund”, etc.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The producers and filmmakers did nothing but what Maman did to the children in the film; make them a part of their income operation.