Showing posts with label means. Show all posts
Showing posts with label means. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

What the New Campaign Finance Ruling Means


(Newser) – The Supreme Court today struck down longstanding rules capping the total money individuals can donate to politicians, parties, and certain PACs. What does it mean and who does it benefit? Here’s a taste of the reaction pouring in from pundits, advocates, and leaders:


  • The court “pressed ahead with the majority’s constitutional view that more money flowing into politics is a good thing—even if much of it comes from rich donors,” writes Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog. While the ruling “was not as sweeping” as Citizens United, “the practical result of the new ruling is almost sure to be that wealthy individuals … will be able to spread their money around among more candidates and political groups.”

  • The ruling “appears like a winner for the Republican Party,” which has a “wider base of mega-donors,” observe Mark Murray and Carrie Dann at NBC. But they note that money doesn’t always buy victory—Barack Obama was outspent in 2012—and that parties typically adapt to these changes, negating any advantage before long.

  • John Boehner nonetheless celebrated the decision. “Freedom of speech is being upheld,” he told reporters, according to Politico. “You all have the freedom to write what you want to write, donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give.” Mitch McConnell agreed, stressing that the ruling “does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate.”

  • Democrat Patrick Leahy, meanwhile, said the court’s various moves “have eviscerated our campaign finance laws, while Chuck Schumer called the ruling “a small step, but another step on the road to ruination.”

  • Reform advocates are livid, the New York Daily News reports. “The Court has reversed nearly 40 years of its own precedents, laid out a welcome mat for corruption, and turned its back on the lessons learned from the Watergate scandal,” complained the president of Common Cause.

  • John Roberts’ opinion makes the interesting argument that this will be good for transparency, since more money that would have flowed to unlimited super PACs will now flow to parties and candidates, David Weigel at Slate points out. But he has trouble buying it. “The largest donors in politics have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around. Are the managers of super PACs truly worried about losing out if those donors can also max out to candidates and parties?”

  • Paul Campos at Salon sees this as a sign that all campaign finance restrictions are doomed. “If the Koch brothers want the First Amendment to mean that rich people have a constitutional right to buy unlimited political influence,” they can use their money to “guarantee that five people who sincerely agree with them on this point will be sitting on the Supreme Court.”




Politics from Newser



What the New Campaign Finance Ruling Means

Monday, March 24, 2014

This new contract means the U.S. is finally really getting high-speed rail

At The Daily News Source, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by The Daily News Source and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, The Daily News Source makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


The Daily News Source does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on The Daily News Source.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to The Daily News Source and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on The Daily News Source send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


The Daily News Source has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. The Daily News Source"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



This new contract means the U.S. is finally really getting high-speed rail

Thursday, March 20, 2014

US Lawmakers Fight Russia on Twitter: "I Guess This Means My Spring Break in Siberia Is Off"

US Lawmakers Fight Russia on Twitter: "I Guess This Means My Spring Break in Siberia Is Off"
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Motherjones/mojoblog/~4/4ixxP0kTLhk


On Thursday, shortly after President Obama expanded sanctions against Russia for its role in the Ukraine crisis, the Russian Foreign Ministry released its own list of nine US officials and lawmakers who will be targeted by sanctions. The list includes three White House aides—deputy national security advisors Ben Rhodes and Caroline Atkinson, and senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer—as well as six US lawmakers: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)​, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)​, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)​, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)​, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)​, and Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.)​.


Many of the Sanctioned 9, none of whom will be allowed to visit the Russian Federation or attend Valdimir Putin’s birthday party (assuming it is held in the Russian Federation), took to Twitter to win the morning show their strength and solidarity.


Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)​





Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)



Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)​



Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)





Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.)





Brendan Buck, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), to senior White House advisor Dan Pfeiffer



“What did you do during the war, daddy?”


“Twitter, mostly.”



Political Mojo | Mother Jones




Read more about US Lawmakers Fight Russia on Twitter: "I Guess This Means My Spring Break in Siberia Is Off" and other interesting subjects concerning The Edge at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Friday, March 7, 2014

The Real Story Behind the Detroit Pension Fight and What it Means to America"s Future

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


The Real Story Behind the Detroit Pension Fight and What it Means to America"s Future

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

More Guns Means More, Not Fewer, Calls To The Police


By Amanda Marcotte
Wednesday, February 19, 2014 13:57 EST


shutterstock_118327993


Roy Edroso discovers a new level of self-delusion emerging from gun nuts, who are convincing themselves that they’re somehow how less “dependent” on government because of their phallic death totems. They’re all in a frenzy having to double down after a gun nut in Florida named Michael Dunn murdered a teenage boy named Jordan Davis for playing loud music, and then citing “stand your ground” in order to get away with it. (He was nonetheless convicted of three attempted murder charges, because even a bunch of racists on a Florida jury can’t justify unloading into a car that’s driving away as “self-defense”.) That means worshipping and idolizing guns in increasingly comical ways. So David French painted this picture of gun nuts as these people who somehow live apart from the mechanisms of police and other emergency services, as independent operators.


The protected class has a different view. The protected class is a dependent class — not economically dependent of course, but dependent on the state in perhaps a more fundamental way (for their very lives) – and like members of other dependent classes, they are terrified of flaws in the state’s protective apparatus. Walled off from gun culture, they read the occasional, aberrant story of (legal) gun-owner stupidity or recklessness and cower in fear of a nonexistent threat. (While of course blithely sending their kids off to far more dangerous activities, like swimming in neighbors’ pools or riding in neighbors’ cars).



Of course, the major flaw in this fantasy is that gun nuts are actually more, not less, likely to have to deal with the police. If your attitude is shoot first, it’s not like the cops won’t be called when you fire that gun. Ask Michael Dunn or George Zimmerman. The major difference is that if you act like the “protected” class that French has so much disdain for, odds are much lower that you’re going to shoot an innocent person in a bout of paranoid racist idiocy. So there’s that. But the notion that we can somehow get past the need for policing if everyone just arms themselves is painfully stupid. Someone has to sort out all those gunshot deaths and woundings and what caused what, and that someone is the police. Since they’re getting called anyway, it seems wise to call them before someone ends up dead, not after, so point to the “protected” class on that one.


And that’s just when we’re talking confrontations between strangers. (And let’s be blunt, neither Zimmerman nor Dunn would have taken it upon themselves to confront random young men minding their own business if it wasn’t because they were itching for a reason to use that gun.) Having a gun in your house increases the likelihood of accident, suicide, and domestic murder, all of which, yep, get the cops called on you. Just having a gun go off accidentally without hitting anyone often results in having a police report filed.


Basically, between two people that are identical in every way but one has a gun and one doesn’t, the one with the gun is more, not less likely to have interactions with the police. So, if your goal is not to be a member of the police-calling class, getting rid of the gun is the first step.



Amanda Marcotte


Amanda Marcotte


Amanda Marcotte is a freelance journalist born and bred in Texas, but now living in the writer reserve of Brooklyn. She focuses on feminism, national politics, and pop culture, with the order shifting depending on her mood and the state of the nation.





The Raw Story



More Guns Means More, Not Fewer, Calls To The Police

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Judge Napolitano: Google Glass App Nametag & What It Means For Privacy

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Judge Napolitano: Google Glass App Nametag & What It Means For Privacy

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Android"s "weak gravity" means users drift away to iPhone, study finds

Android"s "weak gravity" means users drift away to iPhone, study finds
http://hits.theguardian.com/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.5/42191?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Aandroid-gravity-iphone%3A2028305&ch=Technology&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Smartphones%2CMobile+phones+%28Technology%29%2CApple+%28Technology%29%2CAndroid+%28technology%29%2CSamsung+%28Technology%29%2CTechnology&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CTechnology+Gadgets&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2014%2F01%2F17+04%3A38&c8=2028305&c9=Article&c10=News&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Android%27s+%27weak+gravity%27+means+users+drift+away+to+iPhone%2C+study+finds&c66=News&c67=nextgen-compatible&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FSmartphones


UK survey of first-, second- and third-time smartphone owners finds that iPhone share grows over time


“Weak gravity” might sound like something from the Oscar-nominated film – but instead it’s a paradox that a UK company says it has identified in Android smartphones.


Specifically, “weak gravity” means that although first-time smartphone buyers in the UK are far more likely to buy an Android phone than Apple’s iPhone, and more likely to stay with it than iPhone users are, Apple pulls more users into its orbit on successive purchases than it loses, increasing its share of total users.


The “pull” is so strong that although 65% of first-time smartphone owners buy an Android phone, compared to 19% for iPhones, by the time they are on their third phone the ownership ratios are 49% for Android and 37% for the iPhone.


The data emerges from a study carried out in September 2013 (PDF) of 450 British owners of smartphones carried out for Foolproof, a London-based user experience company. Though the number sampled might seem small, it was carried out by a professional survey panel company with respondents around the UK, and is large enough to be statistically representative of the UK population of smartphone owners, said Philip Morton, Foolproof’s principal consultant.


“We started out looking into what’s called the ‘Android engagement paradox’ – the fact that although Android phones are more widely used, they don’t show up as much in web usage statistics,” Morton told the Guardian.


But in surveying the panels of smartphone owners – with 150 each on their first, second and third smartphone – they discovered a different paradox: a tendency for Android users to gravitate towards an iPhone, despite higher average loyalty to Google’s platform.


Broad agreement


The findings broadly agree with surveys in the US carried out by Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP), which interviewed 500 buyers of smartphones between April and June 2013. That found that Android had the largest share of buyers – but that iPhones had the better retention, with 78% of those who activated a new phone staying with Apple’s offering, while only 67% of Android buyers remained with it. A study at the same time by the consultancy group Yankee Group said that Android was a “leaky bucket” in the US, and forecast that the total number of iPhone users will pass Android users during 2014.


The Foolproof survey found that among first-time smartphone owners with an Android device, 59% intended to get another Android phone. For second-time owners, it was 56%; for third-timers, 54%.


By contrast, with iPhone owners the “intention to renew” started lower – at 47% for first-time owners – and then rose to 50% on the second and 54% on the third, the same as for Android.


Overall, it found a general trend towards iPhone ownership, with loyalty growing on each successive purchase, against falling loyalty towards Android.


This meant Android lost share over time because its higher total number of users created a larger number of switchers to iPhone use. The smaller number of iPhone users, by contrast, meant smaller numbers of switchers. The iPhone was also better than Android at attracting former BlackBerry users.


Separate data from ComScore suggests that in November 2013 there were 35.3m smartphone users in the UK, and about 14.2m featurephone users. Of those about 18.3m were Android users, and 10.3m iPhone users. BlackBerry users made up 3.3m, Windows Phone owners 2.1m, and Nokia Symbian users 1m.


The rapid growth in smartphone adoption of the past two years has now begun to slow, with a growing number of people considering upgrades. Data from the research company Mediacells says that 9.7m UK owners will upgrade their smartphone in 2014, compared to 8m who will get their first one.


However the data offered some encouragement for BlackBerry, where its share remained steady among second- and third-time buyers.


Morton thinks that the shift from Android to iPhone could be due to evolving needs as people get used to smartphones. “The proportion of Android owners gets smaller as we looked at people who were on their second or third smartphone,” he said. “We think it’s because what you could call the ‘job to be done’ by the phones changes – the role that people have in their lives for these phones.


“If you’re a featurephone user who is coming to replace your phone, then you just want it to do calls and texts – so pricing is going to be important, and other things like the camera quality or apps won’t be a big concern. But as people use their first smartphone and get more experience with it, over time the role that the phone plays in their lives influences their next buying decision. The results that you see here is that people want to choose the best smartphone for their needs.”


He thinks that “there is a block of stuff that attracts people to the Android platform in the first place, but these get less strong over time. Price is the key thing, but this becomes less important as the phone has more value in their lives. We had a theory that this might come out, but we were shocked by how clear the trend was. We thought it would be messier.”


FIGURE TRENDS


But Ben Wood, principal analyst at the research firm CCS Insight, was initially sceptical about the survey findings. “In the US I would totally expect this, because that’s an iPhone fortress – for most consumers that’s the phone of choice there. And Android plays well to first-time buyers. But I wonder if this will be true into the future. From talking to retailers [in the UK] it feels like other smartphones [than the iPhone] are starting to get a little bit of traction. Yes, iPhone users are very engaged – but Android is becoming more attractive at the higher end. The ‘app gap’ [between offerings on the iPhone and Android] has closed dramatically. That has made people resist switching. If Apple wants to continue to take advantage of the trend in future, it will have to have something special with the iPhone 6, whenever it lands.”


Foolproof’s survey didn’t look into differences in loyalty between owners of cheaper and more expensive Android phones.


CIRP’s survey in the US found that Samsung had the highest retention rate among Android manufacturers, at 52%, compared to 27% for HTC, 18% for LG and 9% for Google subsidiary Motorola.


The Foolproof study asked a single group of people at the same time about their smartphone use, rather than tracking a single cohort through successive purchases.





theguardian.com © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds









Technology news, comment and analysis | theguardian.com


Read more about Android"s "weak gravity" means users drift away to iPhone, study finds and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Monday, December 23, 2013

Ends, Means … Whatever

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Ends, Means … Whatever

Monday, November 25, 2013

Common Core Obama"s Means to "Fundamentally Transform" America"s Education System


Proponents of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) often insist that the new standards are not a federal takeover of education. Actually, Common Core supporters could be right in one sense: Common Core is not so much about a nationalization of education as it is part of a world-wide initiative that may ultimately serve to make American values and practices secondary to global sharing.


Writing at Crisis Magazine, journalist Mary Jo Anderson asserts that Common Core is nothing less than the latest attempt by the U.N. to impose on the United States a globalist perspective with the utopian goals of worldwide peace, environmental sustainability, and economic fairness. In that context, Common Core is part of the Obama administration’s “transformational” education plan that places emphasis on global relationships rather than a unique American culture.


It is commonly known that Common Core is being financed with more than $ 150 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In addition, the Gates Foundation has collaborated with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).


In 2004, Gates’ Microsoft Corporation signed a Cooperation Agreement with UNESCO to develop a “master curriculum” which would include benchmarks and a testing program. According to the agreement, “UNESCO will explore how to facilitate content development.”


In the Agreement, UNESCO maps out its intention to establish “Knowledge Communities,” which it defines as “web-based communities of practice in UNESCO’s fields.” The goal is to create, through Information and Communication Technology (ICT) throughout the globe, communities without borders, in a sense, so that all students around the world are learning similar content and sharing knowledge. As many Americans are aware, Common Core relies heavily upon increased broadband width. In at least some states and local school districts, total reconstruction of Internet capabilities has been necessary.


According to Anderson, in this concept of globalism that UNESCO and Microsoft proposed, “a nation is permitted to keep its surface culture, such as language, music, and cuisine. But patriotism, religion, and individualism are anathema, as each competes with the globalist vision of world harmony.”


Anderson writes that the most efficient way to urge a nation to abandon its culture and natural resources is to “invest in education to ensure that the coming generation will embrace the principles of globalism as a natural consequence of their formation.”


Despite the continued, overt insistence of the Obama administration–and some prominent Republicans–that Common Core is a state and local endeavor, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has actively promoted the standards in the U.S. Recently, however, he may have dealt a serious blow to the endeavor, with a controversial comment made during a meeting of state schools superintendents. Feeling the heat of increased opposition to Common Core, Duncan said that those who oppose the new standards are “white suburban moms who – all of a sudden – their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought.”


In 2010, Duncan addressed UNESCO, and in his remarks said that education would be the “beacon” that would light the way to stem a “global economic crisis.” Offering “two overarching messages” about America’s efforts to “transform” education and achievement, Duncan said:


First, the Obama administration has an ambitious and unified theory of action that propels our agenda. The challenge of transforming education in America cannot be met by quick-fix solutions or isolated reforms. It can only be accomplished with a clear, coherent, and coordinated vision of reform.


Second, while America must improve its stagnant educational and economic performance, President Obama and I both reject the protectionist Cold War-era assumption that improving economic competitiveness is somehow a zero-sum game, with one nation’s gain being another country’s loss.



Duncan cited Obama in the latter’s speech “to the Muslim world in Cairo” in 2009: “Any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.”


“In the United States, we feel an economic and moral imperative to challenge the status quo,” Duncan said. “Closing the achievement gap and closing the opportunity gap is the civil rights issue of our generation.”


Lamenting the high number of high school dropouts in the United States, Duncan said that global “partnerships” will inspire students to take responsibility for the betterment of the global community.


“A just and socially responsible society must also be anchored in civic engagement for the public good,” he said. “Education, as Nelson Mandela says, ‘is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.’”


Ironically, Duncan also touted in his UNESCO address that President Obama “wants to expand school choice to encourage innovation – and spread the effective practices of high-performing schools to all schools.”


It is doubtful, however, that school choice is in President Obama’s “transformational” education plan, as most Americans define it.


Recently, the Department of Justice challenged the state of Louisiana in court for starting a scholarship program that frees low-income minority children from failing schools. Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to drop the initial lawsuit and instead announced he will seek to require Louisiana to submit to a bureaucratic review process that would mandate all voucher application information be sent to the federal government prior to awards being granted to students.


Similarly, the Obama administration has had a history of fighting the successful Washington, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP).


The message from the Obama administration, then, seems to be that school choice will be tolerated only if it is regulated by the federal government.


Duncan went on to tell UNESCO the Obama administration has set a goal that the United States “will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world,” a goal that “can only be achieved by creating a strong cradle-to-career continuum that starts with early childhood learning and extends all the way to college and careers.”


Finally, in his description of the plans to achieve this goal, Duncan went on to tell UNESCO how the Obama administration used its Race to the Top stimulus bill grants to entice states to participate in the Common Core standards.


Barack Obama said he would “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. He has failed at transforming America’s economy and America’s health care system. Are American parents willing to trust his plan to transform their children’s education?






    





Breitbart Feed



Common Core Obama"s Means to "Fundamentally Transform" America"s Education System

Saturday, September 7, 2013

War On Syria Means Victory For Al Qaeda


McCain Wacko Birds Roost SC War on Syria Means Victory for Al Qaeda


President Obama’s proposed military strike means, practically speaking, that the U.S. will intervene on behalf of al Qaeda in Syria. Why is this dangerous proposal being taken seriously by Congress?


If the proposal were somehow designed to save the Christians and other minorities in Syria, that would be one thing. But there has been no announced intention to do that. In fact, as we have argued, the proposed strike on the Syrian regime puts Christians at more risk of genocide. Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt demonstrates that he has no regard for the rights of Christians in the Middle East.


But the proposal goes forward in Congress because very few Republicans are willing to stand up to media-hungry politicians such as Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a war hero from Vietnam who assumes the high ground in any military crisis or conflict.


McCain, however, said something the other day on Fox News that, in the words of “Jihad Watch” director Robert Spencer, demonstrates his “appalling ignorance” on Middle East matters. This wasn’t just a gaffe but a deliberate comment. More than that, it demonstrates how the media shower McCain with praise and respect when none is deserved.


Spencer notes that Brian Kilmeade on Fox News had objected to Syrian rebels yelling “Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!” McCain shot back: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘Thank God, Thank God?’ That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.”


Spencer says that “Allahu akbar” does not mean “Thank God.” It is a war cry that means “Allah is greater” and “is essentially a proclamation of superiority.” Spencer notes it is the same cry that Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members were shouting as they destroyed a Christian church and tore off its cross.


The exchange between Kilmeade and McCain has received more than 240,000 views on YouTube.


What is intriguing is how the rest of the media covered this. Many different publications, including Politico, The Huffington Post, Business Insider, and Mediaite, ran stories about the exchange which claimed that McCain had somehow “shamed” Brian Kilmeade and Fox News, as if McCain knew what he was talking about and that Kilmeade had been exposed as an ignoramus.


This, then, is why McCain succeeds with his policy of going to war on behalf of the mysterious “moderates” in Syria. We have a media that are afraid of telling the truth about the senator when he makes bone-headed comments that have no relation to reality.


McCain’s preference for “moderates” in Syria would be laughable, were it not so serious and coming at a time when America is on the verge of going to war.


Spencer writes, “McCain’s appalling ignorance and Obama’s ongoing enthusiasm for all things Muslim Brotherhood, including the Syrian opposition, are leading the U.S. into disaster.”


This is not necessarily news to those who have been following our reports about McCain’s praise of the Al Jazeera terror television network and his appearances on that channel. This is the same channel that has just been closed down in Egypt for inspiring violence and terrorism. But the media persist in conveying the impression that McCain knows what he is talking about and has some mastery over Middle East events.


In a commentary for the London Center for Policy Research, Jed Babbin says Obama may get a war resolution from Congress because “the Republican ‘leadership’ of national security affairs—at least the only ones who get media attention—is comprised of Obama’s most dedicated allies in Congress, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.”


The key phrase is “the only ones who get media attention.” This is why Obama invited these two to the White House after he announced plans to go to Congress. It was a careful strategy designed to create the impression of Republican support for Obama. McCain and Graham (R-SC) are assigned the roles of providing Republican cover for Obama’s policy. They have performed the same function in regard to his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


In the case of Syria, however, Graham seems to have competition for the role of second fiddle, as Fox News Republican commentator William Kristol has been appearing all over the media (including NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CNN) to argue on Obama’s behalf. It was Kristol’s group, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), that released a letter arguing for a strike on Syria without congressional approval. Fox News commentator Karl Rove signed the letter, as did Randy Scheunemann, a former foreign policy adviser to McCain who lobbied for the Open Society Institute, founded by billionaire financier George Soros.


Kristol’s group has also been critical of Russia for passing legislation to protect children from homosexual propaganda. An FPI scholar, James Kirchick, went on Russia Today television, wearing rainbow suspenders, to argue for gay rights in Russia and complained when his audio was cut off. Perhaps war with Russia is next on the agenda. Obama might agree with that, if the war was based on protecting gay rights.


But remember that the push for intervention in Syria is based on the assumption that Syrian leader Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons. Kristol, who founded The Weekly Standard, has decided not to ask for proof and simply takes Obama’s word on this. This is not journalism, but advocacy and recklessness.


With House Republican leaders endorsing Obama’s policy, it was left to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to weigh in on Tuesday, citing a detailed report by terrorism analyst Yossef Bodansky that the August 21, 2013 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was actually “a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.”


Limbaugh, who clearly has no regard for McCain’s presumed stature in this debate, said the evidence shows that the rebels have access to chemical weapons and may have used them.


Limbaugh is not the best opponent of Obama’s policy that conservatives can offer. So it has to be noted that former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out that U.S. Government officials have always known that al Qaeda has been pursuing chemical weapons. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the rebels did indeed get access to and use them in Syria.


But whether Assad used the chemical weapons or not, McCarthy argued, “It diverts attention from the issue the interventionists do not want to discuss: the fact that al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood would be the chief beneficiaries of U.S. attacks against Assad’s regime, the fact that the toppling of Assad could very well be even worse for American national security than Assad himself has been.”


Limbaugh made the same point, emphasizing what will happen if Obama’s policy goes forward and the Syrian regime is toppled: “If they get rid of Bashar in Syria, it will be Al-Qaeda.”


To remind McCain and the media, al Qaeda is not a group of “moderates.”


This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 


Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.



Western Journalism



War On Syria Means Victory For Al Qaeda

War On Syria Means Victory For Al Qaeda


McCain Wacko Birds Roost SC War on Syria Means Victory for Al Qaeda


President Obama’s proposed military strike means, practically speaking, that the U.S. will intervene on behalf of al Qaeda in Syria. Why is this dangerous proposal being taken seriously by Congress?


If the proposal were somehow designed to save the Christians and other minorities in Syria, that would be one thing. But there has been no announced intention to do that. In fact, as we have argued, the proposed strike on the Syrian regime puts Christians at more risk of genocide. Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt demonstrates that he has no regard for the rights of Christians in the Middle East.


But the proposal goes forward in Congress because very few Republicans are willing to stand up to media-hungry politicians such as Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a war hero from Vietnam who assumes the high ground in any military crisis or conflict.


McCain, however, said something the other day on Fox News that, in the words of “Jihad Watch” director Robert Spencer, demonstrates his “appalling ignorance” on Middle East matters. This wasn’t just a gaffe but a deliberate comment. More than that, it demonstrates how the media shower McCain with praise and respect when none is deserved.


Spencer notes that Brian Kilmeade on Fox News had objected to Syrian rebels yelling “Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar!” McCain shot back: “Would you have a problem with an American or Christians saying ‘Thank God, Thank God?’ That’s what they’re saying. Come on! Of course they’re Muslims, but they’re moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.”


Spencer says that “Allahu akbar” does not mean “Thank God.” It is a war cry that means “Allah is greater” and “is essentially a proclamation of superiority.” Spencer notes it is the same cry that Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members were shouting as they destroyed a Christian church and tore off its cross.


The exchange between Kilmeade and McCain has received more than 240,000 views on YouTube.


What is intriguing is how the rest of the media covered this. Many different publications, including Politico, The Huffington Post, Business Insider, and Mediaite, ran stories about the exchange which claimed that McCain had somehow “shamed” Brian Kilmeade and Fox News, as if McCain knew what he was talking about and that Kilmeade had been exposed as an ignoramus.


This, then, is why McCain succeeds with his policy of going to war on behalf of the mysterious “moderates” in Syria. We have a media that are afraid of telling the truth about the senator when he makes bone-headed comments that have no relation to reality.


McCain’s preference for “moderates” in Syria would be laughable, were it not so serious and coming at a time when America is on the verge of going to war.


Spencer writes, “McCain’s appalling ignorance and Obama’s ongoing enthusiasm for all things Muslim Brotherhood, including the Syrian opposition, are leading the U.S. into disaster.”


This is not necessarily news to those who have been following our reports about McCain’s praise of the Al Jazeera terror television network and his appearances on that channel. This is the same channel that has just been closed down in Egypt for inspiring violence and terrorism. But the media persist in conveying the impression that McCain knows what he is talking about and has some mastery over Middle East events.


In a commentary for the London Center for Policy Research, Jed Babbin says Obama may get a war resolution from Congress because “the Republican ‘leadership’ of national security affairs—at least the only ones who get media attention—is comprised of Obama’s most dedicated allies in Congress, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.”


The key phrase is “the only ones who get media attention.” This is why Obama invited these two to the White House after he announced plans to go to Congress. It was a careful strategy designed to create the impression of Republican support for Obama. McCain and Graham (R-SC) are assigned the roles of providing Republican cover for Obama’s policy. They have performed the same function in regard to his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


In the case of Syria, however, Graham seems to have competition for the role of second fiddle, as Fox News Republican commentator William Kristol has been appearing all over the media (including NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CNN) to argue on Obama’s behalf. It was Kristol’s group, the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), that released a letter arguing for a strike on Syria without congressional approval. Fox News commentator Karl Rove signed the letter, as did Randy Scheunemann, a former foreign policy adviser to McCain who lobbied for the Open Society Institute, founded by billionaire financier George Soros.


Kristol’s group has also been critical of Russia for passing legislation to protect children from homosexual propaganda. An FPI scholar, James Kirchick, went on Russia Today television, wearing rainbow suspenders, to argue for gay rights in Russia and complained when his audio was cut off. Perhaps war with Russia is next on the agenda. Obama might agree with that, if the war was based on protecting gay rights.


But remember that the push for intervention in Syria is based on the assumption that Syrian leader Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons. Kristol, who founded The Weekly Standard, has decided not to ask for proof and simply takes Obama’s word on this. This is not journalism, but advocacy and recklessness.


With House Republican leaders endorsing Obama’s policy, it was left to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to weigh in on Tuesday, citing a detailed report by terrorism analyst Yossef Bodansky that the August 21, 2013 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was actually “a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.”


Limbaugh, who clearly has no regard for McCain’s presumed stature in this debate, said the evidence shows that the rebels have access to chemical weapons and may have used them.


Limbaugh is not the best opponent of Obama’s policy that conservatives can offer. So it has to be noted that former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out that U.S. Government officials have always known that al Qaeda has been pursuing chemical weapons. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the rebels did indeed get access to and use them in Syria.


But whether Assad used the chemical weapons or not, McCarthy argued, “It diverts attention from the issue the interventionists do not want to discuss: the fact that al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood would be the chief beneficiaries of U.S. attacks against Assad’s regime, the fact that the toppling of Assad could very well be even worse for American national security than Assad himself has been.”


Limbaugh made the same point, emphasizing what will happen if Obama’s policy goes forward and the Syrian regime is toppled: “If they get rid of Bashar in Syria, it will be Al-Qaeda.”


To remind McCain and the media, al Qaeda is not a group of “moderates.”


This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 


Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.



Western Journalism



War On Syria Means Victory For Al Qaeda

Sunday, July 28, 2013

A Mathematical Model Of Gun Control Means We Can Finally Argue Over Data


UC Irvine researchers have published a model to predict how gun control affects homicide rates.



Gun Control
Gun Control Francois Polito via Wikimedia Commons


As highly debated as the topic of gun control is in America, there’s almost no research into the causes of gun violence or how to prevent it. Until recently, there was a virtual gag on gun violence research because of a stipulation that federally funded research can’t promote gun control.


In January, President Obama changed the game by defining gun violence as a public health issue, and calling for more comprehensive research. In response, University of California, Irvine professors Dominik Wodarz and Natalia Komarova created the first mathematical model to measure how legal gun availability impacts firearm-related homicide rates, published today in PLOS ONE.


Mathematical models are more than just equations–they use statistics and data to describe the way a complex system works, and predict how different variables might effect outcomes. This one provides a model for the full range of possible gun-control scenarios–from the total ban of firearms to the arm everyone approach.


“We’re trying to bring epidemiological approaches to this field of gun violence and violence prevention, so we can predict what strategies are better for preventing death instead of just arguing about it,” says Wodarz, a biologist who studies disease and evolutionary dynamics through mathematical models.


“What is under debate is essentially an epidemiological problem,” he and his co-author and wife, mathematician Natalia Komarova, write in the paper. “How do different gun control strategies affect the rate at which people become killed by attackers, and how can this rate be minimized?”


Models Of One-Against-Many Attacks

Models Of One-Against-Many Attacks: The probability that a ban of firearms would be the optimal policy in shootings that involve one attacker and multiple victims. Above the dashed lines, the ban is the optimal policy for minimizing violence.  Wodarz et al.



They incorporated variables like the percent of the population that legally owns guns, the fraction of the criminal population that owns guns illegally, and whether you’re more or less likely to die in an attack if you own a gun.


“For instance, if there is no gun control–guns are allowed–what is the percentage of the population that will take up their legal right? How many will actually carry it?” Komarova explains. “This is something that can be estimated.”


Though with the previously published data available, their analysis suggested that a ban of private gun possession or a partial reduction in gun availability might lower the rate of gun-related homicides, this model can’t tell us definitively how gun deaths might be prevented yet. It’s just a preliminary model to how we might approach the debate scientifically, one that can be updated as more statistics become available. “There’s a lack of data in the field,” Komarova says, because of the effective ban on federal funding for this type of research. “One of the purposes of the study was to encourage people to go and study these things.” The researchers liken it to trying to diagnose a disease without having access to things like the patient’s temperature or blood pressure.


The researchers plan to continue their work with the model, possibly incorporating how the controversial Stand Your Ground law–the self-defense law that gives people the right to defend themselves against attackers without the obligation to try to retreat from the altercation–might affect homicide rates.


Any science related to gun violence is bound to be controversial, and though they didn’t need federal funding to carry out this study, the publication process was unusually rigorous here. The researchers had to satisfy the whims of 11 different peer-reviewers before publication (the typical paper only has a couple), something Komarova says has never happened to either of them over the course of publishing hundreds of journal papers.


“We complained to our colleagues and they said, ‘What do you want? It’s a paper about gun control,” she says.




Popular Science – New Technology, Science News, The Future Now



A Mathematical Model Of Gun Control Means We Can Finally Argue Over Data