Jennings pleased with progress of wideouts – The Exponent Telegram (press release) (registration)

Posted on by

MORGANTOWN Gary Jennings sees West Virginias wide receiving corps as one with a ton of potential but one that also must prove itself.

Jennings listed several possible breakout players for the coming season, including Dominique Maiden, Reggie Roberson and Marcus Simms. The three add multiple skill set complements to the likes of Jennings, a sure-handed wideout and punt returner who tallied 10 receptions for 165 yards and two scores a season ago.

Factor in KaRaun White and his 48 catches for 583 yards and five touchdowns in 2016 and that the Mountaineers again secured the services of David Sills after a stint trying his hand at quarterback at El Camino College in Calif, and WVU has the breadth of ability to provide plenty of targets for new quarterback Will Grier.

The question, then, isnt one of if as much as whom. Can Jennings better his stats, and can White, coming off a season-ending leg injury suffered in November, at least duplicate his?

Will Jovon Durante bounce back as a big play threat to replace Shelton Gibson after a mild sophomore slump which saw his yardage production fall from 378 yards to 331 despite 11 more catches? Thats a difference of more than six yards per grab, which translated in Durante being far more of a true mid-range threat than the vertical one he was in his first year at WVU.

And what of Maiden and his 6-foot-5, 203-pound frame? Simms burst and increased playing time as his freshman season wore on last year, including a career-best 80 plays in the regular season finale versus Baylor, should be viewed as a positive. The coaching staff raves about Roberson, who is the most likely to see significant action as a true freshman.

Even William Crest, a former quarterback like Sills, is back at receiver after flirting with a transfer option during the spring.

Dominique Maiden, and Reggie Roberson, those guys are definitely stepping up, but as a group as a whole were all starting to gel and mesh together which I feel is very good, Jennings said. Marcus Simms, hes a different player as well with what he can bring to the table. He does the right things.

Jennings noted that the wideouts routinely run patterns and work on timing and other aspects with Grier, who showed flashes of his excellence as a freshman at Florida during the Gold-Blue spring game. Grier completed nine of his first 10 throws while also finding Ricky Rogers for a 60-yard catch-and-run in a 202-yard performance.

Hes great, Jennings said. Cant wait for this upcoming season. (The passes are) on point, a good ball. You have to be ready for certain passes. Thats a part of us just meshing together and making sure were all on the same page all the time. Thats what we have worked on. Every single chance we get, were working with the quarterbacks and trying to get timing down.

Thats a key, especially as the Mountaineers, under new offensive coordinator Jake Spavital, attempt to play at a faster pace. WVU ran 983 snaps a season ago actually a dozen fewer than its opponents for an average of 75.6 plays per game.

California, under Spavital, ran 1,035, and that was over just 12 games as opposed to West Virginias 13, translating to an average of more than 86 snaps per contest.

We can go pretty fast, Jennings said. Theres a lot of short game stuff and he uses the passing game as a run game as well. Theres a few things as far as tempo wise, but I guess well see.

View post:

Jennings pleased with progress of wideouts - The Exponent Telegram (press release) (registration)

Accreditation ratings could change, rewarding progress and growth – Daily Press

Posted on by

Changes could be coming to the state's accreditation system that would benefit schools where progress is being made on Standards of Learning tests and other benchmarks.

The state Board of Education is considering changes to the current accreditation ratings system that gives schools a status of "fully accredited," "partially accredited" with some conditions or "denied accreditation."

The changes would add several benchmarks to the accreditation matrix. Progress, instead of just pass rates for SOL tests, would be measured.

Under the new system, benchmarks would be given three different levels. Meeting or exceeding the standard, such as a 75 percent pass rate on the English SOL, would be Level One. A range considered "near" the standard would be Level Two; in the English SOL's case, a range above 65 percent pass rate. Level Two could also include improving a certain percentage amount over the previous year, a sign that growth is still happening.

Level Three would indicate that the current year, or in some benchmarks' cases, a three-year average, was below the benchmark or not showing improvement.

"Never before have we looked at student progress in terms of accreditation," Brian Nichols, chief academic officer for Newport News Public Schools, told the School Board recently. "A kid may not actually pass an SOL test with that magic 400, but they've moved from a 317 to a 367. That's worth something. That's worth recognition for the student, with that growth mindset piece. It's worth something to the school that you've moved that kid further along in the journey."

Growth and progress of other factors would be included in the accreditation rating, too. Performance of subgroups such as special education and minority students, long a factor in federal accountability, also will be a barometer of student achievement.

Chronic absenteeism as in, how many days a student misses, excused or not also will be a factor. The current proposal would be based on how many students miss 10 percent, or in most local cases, 18 days, per year. This factor would apply to elementary and middle schools.

NNPS and Hampton City Schools are working to keep students learning in their classrooms, both Nichols and John Caggiano, deputy superintendent for curriculum, instruction and assessment, said.

"I think that we recognize in Hampton City Schools it's difficult to learn if you're not present. For quite some time we have focused on attendance and absenteeism," he said, which means working with community agencies and other groups to find ways to help students get to school. "We don't anticipate many Level Twos or any Level Threes when you look at that rate. We anticipate an overwhelming majority of our schools falling into Level One."

For the first time, dropout rates would be added to the graduation component for high schools' accreditation. The proposed Level One range is between 3 and 5.9 percent, with Level Two being between 6 and 8.9 percent.

Based on data from the 2016 school year 2017's is not yet available every Peninsula area high school would fall into Level One.

The final, and most still undetermined, factor is the College-, Career- and Civic-Ready Indicator. The state still is working to determine how best to judge that metric, which would not be applied to schools until the 2021-22 school year.

Factors being considered include the number of students receiving credit for advanced coursework; the number of students receiving a career and technical education credential; and the number of students successfully completing a work-based or service learning experience. Under the proposal, the unduplicated count of those students would be divided by the number of students in that year's graduating class.

The tiers that would consist of Levels One, Two and Three is still to be determined.

All of the tiered levels for the accreditation factors would then determine how a school is rated for the year. Schools for which all indicators fell into Level One or Two would be "accredited," and the term "fully accredited" would be done away with.

Schools with any indicator that fell into Level Three would be "accredited with conditions," and accreditation would be denied if a school failed to implement a corrective action plan in coordination with the state.

Recognizing gains

Officials in Hampton and Newport News anticipate that the system would allow schools that may not currently be fully accredited to be recognized for gains they've made.

Lindsay Middle School in Hampton is currently partially accredited as a reconstituted school, meaning it was slated to be denied accreditation as it was in its fourth year of not meeting the benchmarks for full accreditation.

The school division appealed to instead be partially accredited. The application, in part, highlighted Principal Chevese Thomas' work in bringing up other struggling schools in its rationale for partial accreditation.

Based on spring results, Thomas, in her first year at Lindsay, said that scores which last year were at 63 percent pass rate in English, 74 percent in math, 70 percent in history and 57 percent in science have increased. But if they don't meet the 75 percent pass rate in English and 70 percent in science required by the state for full accreditation, they could find themselves again slated for denial.

The new system would enable the school to get credit for work done toward those standards, even if the final numbers fall a few percentage points shy.

"When I look at Lindsay, we've done nothing but trended up," Thomas said. "But the public will look at Lindsay and say 'They're not accredited, they're not making benchmarks.' We can go to this model, then people can say, 'Look at all of the gains they're making and they're a progressing school.'

"When we go to this new guideline, it tells a better story about how hard we're working and the gains we're making. They're seeing we might be almost there. It's almost like you're a track star and trying to beat a certain time. I might not get to this particular time, but look at how much I've increased."

The current plan for the implementation of the proposal would have schools operating under whichever system benefited them more during the 2017-18 school year. All schools would use it in 2018-19, with the exception of the College-, Career- and Civic-Ready Indicator.

The state Board of Education will vote on the proposal in October or November, Nichols said.

Read the rest here:

Accreditation ratings could change, rewarding progress and growth - Daily Press

Human Exceptionalism: We Understand Significance – National Review

Posted on by

Materialists believe that, in the end, we are only so many carbon molecules, signifying nothing. Hence, mostdeny human exceptionalism, arguing essentiallty that we are just another species in the forest when they arent castigating us as the enemy of the earth.

Comes now materialist Nick Hughes a self-declared disenchanted free-thinking atheist to declare while it is true from the Universesperspective that humanity is utterlyinsignificant never mind that a materialistic Universehas no perspective that doesnt mean we should despair. From, Do We Matter in the Cosmos? published in Aeon.

For the disenchanted, it is hard to deny that our causal powers are insignificant from the point of view of the entire Universe. But should we be troubled by this? Should it lead us to nihilism and despair? I dont think so. To see why, we need to go back to the issue of value and draw another distinction.

Some of the things that we care about happiness and human flourishing, for example areintrinsicallyvaluable to us.

I think Hughes misses a big point. Even if we are merely thinking carbon, our existence itself is inherently valuable.Indeed, only we have the capacity in the known universe to understand much less contemplate the concept and importance of significance. That is one of the things that makes life worth living.

To put it another way, we are the only true moral beings (again, in the known universe). That which also implicates our unique rationality is one of the distinctly human attributes that make our existenceitselfexceptional.

But Hughes cant see that. He just gives readers an empatheticpat on the back, telling us not to despair because, well, well always have art:

Whether or not they are objectively valuable, the ends that matter to us, the things that we care about most our relationships, our projects and goals, our shared experiences, social justice, the pursuit of knowledge, the creation and appreciation of art, music and literature, and the future and fate of ours and other species do not depend to any considerable extent on our having control over a vast but largely irrelevant Universe.

We might be distinctly lacking in power from the cosmic perspective, and so, in a sense, insignificant. But having such power and such significance wouldnt make much of a difference anyway.

To lament its lack and respond with despair and nihilism is merely a form of narcissism. Most of what matters to us is right here on Earth.

No. Its not about power. Its not about cosmic perspectives. Only we understand there is such a thing as the cosmos.

Its also notwhat we can do, the art we can create creativity is another uniquely human attribute but about who we are inherently. We think, therefore we are. We contemplate meaning, therefore the universe itself comes to have meaning because a species exists that can find it.

Hughes bemoans the authoritarianism that sometimes befouls our thriving. But authoritarianism can only exist whenhuman exceptionalism our unique and equal individual value, coupled with our duties to each other (among others) is denied. Thats when those with power feel free to exploit and oppressthose they falsely denigrate as being without it.

In his proud disenchantment, Hughes tells us not to despair because there are aspects of life to enjoy until we are snuffedinto non-thinking carbon.

Thats a dangerously nihilistic viewno matter how much Hughes strives to whistle past the graveyard.

Read the original:

Human Exceptionalism: We Understand Significance - National Review

Rep. Gary Hebl: Republican ‘free speech’ bill will squash it on campus – Madison.com

Posted on by

Along partisan lines, the state Assembly last month passed a bill with the stated intention of protecting free expression on campus.

Protecting free expression is something everyone can get behind. Unfortunately, this bill will not accomplish that goal, and it very well may have other far-reaching negative consequences.

The goal of Assembly Bill 299 is to stop students from shouting down invited speakers and preventing them from giving their speeches. While I agree that invited individuals should have the opportunity to give their speeches, I do not believe the Legislature should be suppressing Wisconsin students First Amendment right to protest.

That is what this bill does. It effectively prioritizes the rights of a paid speaker over the rights of our university students to protest. More alarmingly, the bill sets mandatory punishments for students who are found to have interfered with anothers free expression, forcing state schools to suspend them for one semester if a student has violated this ban twice and calls for an automatic expulsion on a third infraction.

Punishing students for exercising their First Amendment right to protest is clearly unconstitutional.

The bill also mandates that Wisconsins universities remain neutral on the public policy controversies of the day. This could have a chilling effect on both the institutions abilities to advocate for themselves as well as the everyday lives of students and faculty.

Experts should be able to take positions on public policies that affect them. For years, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has refused to take stances on issues and has testified in committees for information only. As legislators, this practice gives us nothing. We are generalists we cannot be experts in every subject, and we rely on those who are experts to tell us if policy will have a positive or negative effect on their areas of expertise.

We should not allow that to happen to our universities. Their contributions to our state are invaluable and should not be diminished.

I have deep concerns about how this bill will negatively affect the functioning of our great university system. The bills author gave his assurance that this bill would have no effect on professors teaching in classrooms. But one Republican member explicitly stated in committee he was going to vote for this bill because of stories he heard of how conservative students in his district were treated poorly by liberal professors.

It is telling that, though we were told it wouldnt affect professors daily lives, some Republicans seem to be confident that it will, and they voted for it for that reason. The fact that one of Wisconsins elected representatives is ready and willing to pass legislation he believes will regulate academic thought and instruction is disturbing.

I find many issues troubling in this bill. It would allow any two individuals to report to the university that a student interfered with anothers right to free expression. As this bill is written, it doesnt even have to be two students reporting. It could be someone completely unaffiliated with the university.

Assembly Bill 299 could act as a legal magnet for frivolous litigation because it allows those allegedly prevented from exercising free speech to sue the university. Wisconsin taxpayers could be left paying the bill for lawsuits brought by agitators looking to stir up trouble.

This bill, which now heads to the Senate for approval, has good intentions. But the provisions of the bill do not meet the goal of protecting free expression. In fact, they do the opposite.

This bill will crush the free expression of students and professors in and out of classrooms. Silencing First Amendment rights is troubling, unconstitutional, and un-American.

Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, represents the 46th Assembly District, which includes Sun Prairie, Stoughton and Cottage Grove: Rep.Hebl@legis.wisconsin.gov

Read more:

Rep. Gary Hebl: Republican 'free speech' bill will squash it on campus - Madison.com

There is a campus war on free speech but it’s not being waged by snowflake students – Salon

Posted on by

The right-wing campaign of concern over suppression of speech on college campuses is an elaborate exhibition of theater, using the stagecraft of liberal genuflection, to advance an anti-intellectual agenda and express resentment and hostility toward students, scholars and one of the last remaining bastions of free inquiry in the United States.

If any proof, beyond elementary logic, was necessary to demonstrate the transparently phony outrage of conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham who have announced plans for a massive free speech tour of supposedly liberal universities while advocating for significant budget cuts to the institutions they claim to protect, Yale University and Essex County College have given observers an illuminative gift.

Right-wing commentators were quick to criticize Yale when a small group of students demanded punishment for a lecturer who defended Halloween costumes against charges of cultural appropriation, and for her husband, a professor and mentor, for coming to her intellectual aid. The couple voluntarily resigned from their respective positions in residential life, but they remain on the faculty.

Former Yale dean June Chu is not nearly as fortunate. After the discovery of Yelp reviews in which the academic derided a restaurant as fit only for white trash and ridiculed movie theater employees as barely educated morons, her Ivy League employer placed her on leave.

Shortly after Chus dismissal, Essex County College announced that it waspermanently suspending Lisa Durden, a professor of communications. Durdens employment-ending crime was her defense of Black Lives Matter campus events that did not allow the attendance of white students during an appearance on Tucker Carlsons nightly Fox News program an exercise of performed indignation with outrageous left-wing guests.

For several years conservatives, along with some liberalcommentators, have offered melodramatic warnings to America that colleges are transforming into veritable gulags, where those who refuse to adhere to an increasingly rigid and severe standard of political correctness will face swift and harsh punishment.

A liberal professor, eager to get in on the act for Vox, wrote under a pseudonym to declare his own weakness and fragility: My students sometimes scare me particularly the liberal ones.

I have taught at four universities, over a period of seven years, and Ive never once felt frightened annoyed, yes, even angry but never afraid. I wonder how someone terrified of his students manages in life, and why he even continues to teach. He might want to apply for a position in a less threatening career, like corrections officer at the nearest prison.

After the ongoing faucet of tears and through all the shrieks of horror over the demolition of free speech in higher education, two women of color have lost their jobs over speech speech made outside the confines and duties of university employment and life to little protest or outrage. Fox News is not keeping a nightly watch on the free speech wars demanding that Durden and Chu receive immediate reinstatement. The Atlantic has not yet published a maudlin think piece about the chilling effect these firings will have on other professors who broadcast speech, offensive or not, on social media or television. No liberal professor has announced that he is sometimes scared of his administrators.

Perhaps, because of their race and gender, or because the violation of Durden and Chus free speech rights and academic freedom does not offer the excitement of casting unaware 19-year-olds as comic book villains, few seem to care when actual people are actually punished for using the wrong words.

Stephen Davis, an administrator at Yale, called Chus Yelp posts reprehensible. Whether or not Chus reviews qualify for that description, shouldnt conservatives who decry political correctness condemn Yale with the same zeal they used to insult obnoxious students?

Tucker Carlson truthfully reminded his audience that he did not advocate for the firing of Durden, but rather than claim her dismissal as a casualty in the campus speech wars, he simply added that it was nuts that she once taught students. It seems rather unlikely that Carlson, who is not a psychiatrist, ever audited one of Durdens classes.

The penalization of Durden and Chu for inflammatory speech falls into a troubling pattern of university hostility toward controversial communication. While cable newsdrama queens and serious columnistsalike play masquerade with phantoms of Stalinist students, real people are losing their jobs in academia, not because they are victims of left-wing political correctness, but because they violate conservative codes against free expression.

In 2005, the University of Colorado fired Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor, for academic misconduct after Fox News spotlighted an essay he wrote disparaging some of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Churchill filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, and a jury decided that he had indeed faced undue penalty for his controversial article. They awarded Churchill $1 million, but a District Court judge later vacated the award during an appeals case.

The University of Illinois offered a faculty position to an English professor, Steven Salaita, but soon withdrew it after discovering that he tweeted several harshly critical remarks against Israel. Salaita also sued and won but, unlike Churchill, has not faced appeal.

Larycia Hawkins, the first black woman to earn tenure at the evangelical Christian university Wheaton College, lost her position after wearing a hijab into the classroom.

Commentators treated Mount Holyokes cancellation of The Vagina Monologues, amid student protest over its lack of inclusion of trans stories, as the apocalypse, but never bothered to learn or mention that administrators at Catholic universities, citing their own theology, have prohibited the same play from being staged 22 times.

Meanwhile, the state of Wisconsin is on the verge of passing a bill that would permit the University of Wisconsin to suspend students who disrupt campus speakers.

After the surreal election of Donald Trump, the right-wing organization Turning Point launched itsloathsome project Professor Watch List. According to Turning Point, its mission is to expose and document professors who advance leftist propaganda. The group claims that it has no intention of suppressing free speech, but no identifiable purpose for its McCarthyite ambition exists outside the intimidation of left-leaning college instructors.

Whenever a reductive debate about free speech on college campuses begins, a predictable and boring analyst will make an attempt at profundity by pointing out, as if everyone hadntheard it ahundred times already, that in the 1960s it was liberals at Berkeley, and elsewhere, who defended free speech. Now, they are the ones against it, the pundit will proclaim with an emphatic and self-satisfied tone of voice.

The pattern of punishment for controversial professors, along with the right-wing campaigns of censorship, suppression and intimidation, prove that, no, the story has not changed in a gleefully ironic way. The enemies of free speech and dissent on college campuses are still apolitical and cowardly administrators, and conservative ideologues hoping to control campus culture.

To paraphrase a J.J. Cale song, Its the same old story, same old blues again.

Link:

There is a campus war on free speech but it's not being waged by snowflake students - Salon

Freedom of speech includes undesired and offensive – The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Posted on by

The right to freedom of speech set forth in the First Amendment to the Constitution is being abridged by those who favor restricted speech, which allows one to say only that which they agree with.

We are experiencing a profound shift in our political culture, resulting in more and more persons with this view of the freedom of speech.

Since the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, which restored free speech rights to millions of Americans by allowing non-profits and corporations to speak freely in the public arena, those who believe in restrictions now find it harder and harder to win policy arguments. Instead, they are beginning to operate under a new strategy, to threaten, harass and intimidate opponents to silence them, and to see that those who exercise their constitutional right to free speech will pay politically and personally.

Some examples are: The IRS targeting conservative non-profits; prosecutors abusing their powers to silence political opponents; activist groups using blackmail in the form of running campaigns against donors, corporations and businesses; and higher learning schools prohibiting conservative speakers.

This new strategy is not only generating a belief that those with a retrograde view have no rights, but is also turning those who exercise it from opponents into oppressors, who are more and more resorting to violence.

Undesired and offensive speech should be confronted with logic and better reasoning, without fear of retaliation or the need for societal sanction.

The liberty of freedom of speech can be better protected by more voices, not fewer.

See original here:

Freedom of speech includes undesired and offensive - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Rep. Dave Murphy: Free speech includes right to be heard – Madison.com

Posted on by

GREENVILLE After a lengthy debate, the state Assembly recently adopted the Campus Free Speech Act. The bill, which I co-authored with Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, and Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, will defend free speech on University of Wisconsin System campuses, and I hope the state Senate adopts it soon.

Defending free speech requires more of us than letting folks see who can shout the loudest. No freedom exists without responsibility. The freedom of speech is tied to the responsibility of letting others speak freely. Without the ability to be heard, without the ability to communicate, free speech is meaningless. Free speech includes the right to not be silenced not by the state, not by the state university, not by a mob, and not by an individual.

Nowhere is it more important to uphold the right to free speech than at our public universities. Nationally, we are witnessing disruptions in response to disagreeable speech. Some may say free speech isnt threatened here in Wisconsin. I say its never too early to preserve such an important right.

This is Wisconsin after all, and here in Wisconsin we dont wait until after a disaster to act. Wisconsin must continue to be on the forefront of protecting the right to speak, and the right to be heard.

Our public universities were established to discover and disseminate knowledge. This is only possible when controversial ideas can be freely expressed. College is not an extension of high school. A university is where truth is discovered and where decisions have real consequences.

A lot of people refer to college students as kids. But theyre not kids. Theyre adults. They used to be kids, and during that time they werent held responsible the way adults are. But college students are adults, and universities shouldnt coddle them. Its time that universities hold these adults responsible for their actions.

If someone is silenced on one of our campuses, Assembly Bill 299 provides them with clear legal recourse and clarity about how they can uphold their constitutional right to free speech. Everything in the bill is constitutional. In fact, it upholds the values of the First Amendment: allowing individuals to speak in a time, place, and manner where their voices can be heard.

Not only does a speaker have a right to be speak, but an audience has a right to hear the speech they came to see. This is especially true for students and their families who are paying so much for their time at a university.

Disrupting free speech is unconstitutional. Disruption is not speech. Disruption isnt protest. Disruption is theft. Its theft of another persons right to speak and be heard.

Im sure youll hear claims this bill protects so-called provocateurs. Well, this bill does protect them. Who decides who a provocateur is anyway? This bill protects provocateurs, professors, protesters and every other member of the public from being shut down by mob rule.

This bill sends the unmistakable message that Wisconsin values speech. Its a signal to people of all political leanings that they are welcome at our universities. The bill makes clear to students, faculty and visitors alike that silencing others is never an appropriate response to speech you dont like. Shouting down a person isnt the answer to speech you disagree with.

The free exchange of ideas must be at the core of a democratic society and a university education. Sunshine is the only disinfectant of bad ideas not silence, and not disruption. The process for enforcing speech policies on our college campuses will be dragged out into this light, ensuring fair and consistent application of the rules.

At orientation, students will learn about the importance of freedom of expression, which includes the right to speak and the responsibility to not silence others speech. New employees will receive information about freedom of expression. Instructors will receive an annual refresher on how to uphold free speech.

The bill protects the university from the type of mob thinking that has endangered so many other places. I dont know any elected officials who oppose free speech. How could we? Our jobs require us every day to enable speech, exercise speech, and honor free speech.

The UW Board of Regents has shown great leadership in adopting policies to protect freedom of expression. This bill backs up their initiative with the power of the law. It sends an important message that when university administrators take action to protect the free exercise of speech, those administrators will have the law squarely in their corner.

The enactment of this bill will ensure that Wisconsin citizens will never decline to speak up for fear of being shouted down on one of our college campuses.

Murphy, R-Greenville, represents the 56th Assembly District, including parts of Winneconne and Appleton: Rep.Murphy@legis.wisconsin.gov. This column was part of his Assembly floor speech on the Campus Free Speech Act he supports.

More here:

Rep. Dave Murphy: Free speech includes right to be heard - Madison.com

Atheist group stops coach-led prayer at Kansas schools – Wichita Eagle

Posted on by

Wichita Eagle
Atheist group stops coach-led prayer at Kansas schools
Wichita Eagle
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which describes itself as a voice for atheism, agnosticism and skepticism, sent a letter in mid-June to Cheylin USD 103 and Weskan Schools USD 242 saying it is illegal for public school coaches to lead their teams ...

More here:

Atheist group stops coach-led prayer at Kansas schools - Wichita Eagle

Child Slaves on Mars? NASA Debunks InfoWars Conspiracy Theory – Patheos (blog)

Posted on by

You read that right. A spokesperson for NASA recently went on the record to deny a conspiracy theory that Mars is populated by children who were kidnapped and now serve as slaves.

Guy Webster, a spokesperson for Mars exploration at NASA, responded with the facts about Mars.

There are no humans on Mars. There are active rovers on Mars. There was a rumor going around last week that there werent. There are But there are no humans.

Where did this ridiculous notion come from? It might not surprise many of you to find out it was popularized by an episode of The Alex Jones Show. A guest on the show, Robert David Steele, recently said he believes NASA operates colonies filled with kidnapped child slaves.

We actually believe that there is a colony on Mars that is populated by children who were kidnapped and sent into space on a 20-year ride So that once they get to Mars they have no alternative but to be slaves on the Mars colony.

Jones, who is known for spreading conspiracy theories without any supporting evidence (Pizzagate, anyone?), weighed in with his own thoughts on NASA.

90 percent of the NASA missions are secret and Ive been told by high level NASA engineers that you have no idea Clearly they dont want us looking into what is happening Every time probes go over they turn them off I dont about Mars bases But I know theyve created massive thousands of different types of chimeras that are alien life forms on this earth now.

This isnt the first Mars colonization conspiracy theory Ive seen (although the child slavery part might be new), but I think its the first time a NASA representative has given one enough credence to respond. I wonder if the believers will accept the official story, or continue undeterred in their irrationality?

The most important part of all this is that neither Jones nor Steele ever provided a shred of evidence for the ludicrous and offensive allegations. This urban legend made it all the way to the mainstream, and into the mouth of a NASA spokesman, without any supporting data.

People spread ideas when they are interested in them, without regard to whether or not there is a good reason to believe, and thats the real problem. We can help stop this spread of harmful disinformation by consistently asking for evidence and sharing legitimate research.

Read more:

Child Slaves on Mars? NASA Debunks InfoWars Conspiracy Theory - Patheos (blog)

US Cyber Warrior Begins NATO Job as Trump Pressures Alliance – Bloomberg

Posted on by

By

July 1, 2017, 7:00 PM EDT

U.S. President Donald Trump will have less scope to bash the North Atlantic Treaty Organization now that an American is at the helm of the alliances technology and cyber security arm.

Source: NCI Agency

Kevin Scheid, a veteran of the U.S. Department of Defense, became head on July 1 of the NATO Communications and Information Agency, which runs the electronic networks of the 29-nation alliance. NCI Agency spends about 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) a year to ensure NATOs technological backbone is up to the tasks of fighting terrorism, protecting European airspace, conducting maritime operations and withstanding cyber attacks.

Not only do we think about the future and trying to develop the capabilities that the command needs and the nations need, and develop those capabilities, but at the same time we have to make sure that the existing networks are up and running and secure, Scheid, who is serving a three-year term as general manager of NCI Agency, said in an interview in Brussels. This gets NCI Agency deeply involved in the area of cyber security.

Trump has shaken seven decades of American foreign policy by questioning the relevance of U.S.-led NATO, which he called obsolete during his presidential campaign. Since entering the White House in January, Trump has dropped that label while pressing allies in Europe to foot more of the common defense bill and NATO as a whole to play a bigger role in fighting terrorism.

NCI Agency, with a staff of more than 2,000, was formed in 2012 from the merger of five NATO units. The group contracts out to industries to bolster the alliances land, sea, air and cyber capabilities and will be seeking bids for 3.2 billion euros in orders for satellite communications, air and missile defenses, cyber security and advanced software.

Cyber security has also moved to the top of NATOs agenda, with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg saying attacks on the alliances electronic infrastructure spiked 60 percent last year to an average of 500 a month. Most of the incidents were state-sponsored, according to NATO.

The worldwide cyber threat was highlighted last week when an attack that started in Ukraine hit businesses, port operators and government systems in the U.S., South America, Asia and elsewhere in Europe.

To read more about Trump and NATO funding, click here

Among Scheids most immediate tasks is to ensure that NATOs new headquarters in the Belgian capital has properly protected information-technology systems. Construction of the 1.1 billion-euro glass-and-steel structure, which Scheid called one of the worlds most complex and largest security systems, is virtually completed while IT work continues.

What has been challenging about the new NATO headquarters is the complexity of a smart building, he said. Its a network surrounded by glass, steel and some cement.

NATO intends to start moving 4,500 staff members to the site, located across the street from the current headquarters, later this year. Scheid said the new building is more complex than what was estimated early on.

At a May 25 meeting where the alliances leaders inaugurated the complex, Trump, after hectoring fellow leaders to increase military spending, said: I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost. I refused to do that. But it is beautiful.

Go here to read the rest:

US Cyber Warrior Begins NATO Job as Trump Pressures Alliance - Bloomberg

NATO 2.0 – Europe and America’s first line of defense against …

Posted on by

With the seeming unraveling of the European Union the worry across the continent is whether NATO can survive and whether this post World War II organization linked to the EU is prepared to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. There is little doubt the NATO alliance faces security challenges more complex and demanding than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Russia has flexed its military muscle in Crimea, the eastern Ukraine and Syria. It has tried to intimidate the Baltic states with the aggressive use of cyber-attacks and disinformation and has modernized its military hardware consistent with its hostile nature.

NATO has added to its defense portfolio with a clear anti-terror program against ISIS, al Qaeda and Boko Haram modifying its traditional mission.

And in a gesture to President Trump, it vowed to live up to the Defense Investment Pledge of spending 2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

NATO 2.0 is a combination of the old and the new, missions that have recently converged. Since 2014 NATO has conducted the most elaborate reinforcement of its collective defense since the end of the Cold War. This includes: forward presence in the eastern part of the alliances; rapid reinforcement capability; the strengthening of nuclear deterrence and cyber defenses and creating a Joint Intelligence and Security Division.

Are these steps sufficient to deter possible Russian aggression and terrorist threats? The only way to tell is by enemy inaction. For example, cyber-attacks are becoming more frequent and sophisticated than in the past. They have reached a threshold where they can become as harmful as a conventional attack. Recent cyber incidents, including the WannaCry and Petya attacks, indicate the increasing threat posed by malicious state and nonstate actors. According to the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) there are more than 30 sovereign states that have offensive cyber operation programs. Furthermore, these capabilities are increasingly in the hands of criminal and other nonstate actors.

Ensuring the security of Allies is not only about deterrence and defense in Europe. It is also about what happens beyond European borders. NATO has had extensive experience in projecting force through operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan. It is also involved in dealing with the continental migrant crisis. In fact, the steep decline in illegal migration between 2015 and 2016 is due to NATOs presence in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas in a program called Operation Sea Guardian. NATO claims to have formal partnership with over 40 countries and a range of international organizations.

Despite cavalier statements made during the campaign season, NATO is as important today as when it was created in 1948. However, any organization with a seven-decade history requires reexamination. NATOs mission should be carefully assessed along with troop deployments. The financial commitment of members should be reasserted.

Since the U.S. doesnt have resources or the inclination to be the worlds policeman to cite an unfortunate clich it can enhance its influence through multilateral organizations like NATO. In fact, NATO could serve as a model for fledging organizations in other parts of the world. In President Trumps Riyadh speech he made reference to an Arab NATO in the Middle East. Clearly this would probably not include Article 5, the proposition that an attack on one is an attack on all, but in most other respects the NATO architecture would be duplicated.

As I see it, NATO as the bulwark of defense for democratic institutions is critical. Europeans may believe they are capable of an independent force, but this view is misguided. Europe needs NATO as its first line of defense and the U.S. needs NATO to hold back the tide of terrorism.

Dr. Herb London is president of the London Center for Policy Research and is co-author with Jed Babbin of "The BDS War Against Israel."

Read more:

NATO 2.0 - Europe and America's first line of defense against ...

Russia and NATO War Games in Europe See New Player: China – Newsweek

Posted on by

Russia and China have begunnavalexercises in the Baltic Sea, the most significant sign of military cooperation between the two major powers in a region seen as a flashpoint for Moscow's rivalry with Western military alliance NATO.

Russia's ambassador to ChinaAndrei Denisov acknowledgedFriday that the joint drills conducted by Russian and Chinese armed forces were unique, especially in the increasingly militarized Baltic region, but denied that the nations were "scaring off" rival powers. The Baltics have become a major point of contention between Russia and U.S.-led NATO, which have bothdevoted extensive military resources toward fortifying the region's borders.The twofactions accuse one another of instigating a European arms race, but Denisov dismissed Western concerns Friday.

Related:Americas new problem? Russia wants to solve the North Korea crisis

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

"There is a point of novelty, but I havent heard anyone expressing much concern over this so-called threat. The Baltic States repeat their usual incantations, but at the same time, they take for granted the fact that NATO is deploying large forces on their territory," Denisov told reporters, according to the state-run TASS Russian News Agency.

"Those who are scared off are inclined to being scared," he added.

A Chinese soldier waves farewell to Russian fleets as the Chinese-Russian joint naval drill concludes in Zhanjiang, Guangdong Province, China, September 19, 2016. Russia and China, which trail behind only the U.S. in military power, have sought greater cooperation in recent years and have begun joint naval drills in the highly contested Baltic Sea, where NATO has raised its defenses. Stringer/Reuters

The Joint Sea-2017 drills began last week as China deployed a fleet consisting of guided missiledestroyer Changsha, mulitpurposefrigate Yuncheng, one comprehensive supply ship, ship-borne helicoptersand a number ofmarines to St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad, a Baltic exclave of Russia located between Lithuania and Poland,Xinhua News Agencyand Reutersreported. Days later, a U.S. spy plan and Russian jet reportedly came within five feet of one other over the Baltic Sea during an incident in which both nations said the other was at fault.

LithuanianForeign Minister Linas Linkevicius told journalistslast week that China's cooperation with Russia, who he referred as a country that is "not setting an example in the field in real life and by way of actions," could threaten regional stability,The Baltic Timesreported.In response, the Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement maintaing that the exercises were routine and intended to"strengthen and bolster Russian-Chinese relations regarding overall strategic cooperation," according to TASS Russian News Agency. Additionaldrills are scheduled for mid-July.

Chinese and Russian marines take part in the 400-meter sea-crossing and landing training as a par of the China-Russia naval drill 'Joint Sea-2016' on September 13, 2016 in Zhanjiang, Guangdong Province of China. The two countries have recently signed a roadmap for greater military cooperation and may also seek to form a united front to counter U.S. pressure on North Korea and its nuclear weapons program. Li Jin/VCG via Getty Images

Denisov's remarks Friday came one day after Russia and China signed a roadmap for military cooperation and just ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping's scheduled visit Monday at the invitation of his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Puint. Throughout the two-day visit the pair were expected to "examinethefull spectrum ofrelations within thecomprehensive partnership andstrategic cooperation between Russia andChina, aswell ascurrent international andregional matters," according to the Kremlin's official website, which also anticipated that the leaders would sign bilateral agreements.

Observers often rank Russia and China as the world's second and third strongest military powers, respectively, behind the U.S. The two have frequently teamed up against initiatives led by the West in the U.N. and Russia has recently entered a political spat involving the U.S. and China over nuclear-armed North Korea in the Asia-Pacific.

Excerpt from:

Russia and NATO War Games in Europe See New Player: China - Newsweek

Snowden Leak Reveals NSA Traffic Shaping Tech That Diverts US Internet Routing For Spying – Hot Hardware

Posted on by

Geopolitical borders have softened in various ways thanks to the prevalence of the Internet. An email sent by an American could cross multiple international borders before being received by another American. A recent study by the Century Foundation revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) reportedly utilizes various traffic shaping techniques to survey and store American communications.

Internet traffic does not travel along the shortest route, but instead favors the fastest, least congested, or least expensive course. Data from various countries is backed up in data centers around the world. Sharon Goldberg of the Century Foundation noted, An email sent from San Jose to New York may be routed through Internet devices located in Frankfurt, or be backed up on computers located in Ireland. The NSA could potentially reroute Internet communications to gather information.

The NSA is responsible for monitoring and processing data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes. American citizens are generally protected by the 4th Amendment and the rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court. Executive Order 12333, however, allows the collection, retention, and dissemination of information, obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation or incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws.

It is important to note that this study was largely speculation. An NSA spokesperson remarked, We do not comment on speculation about foreign intelligence activities; however, as we have said before, the National Security Agency does not undertake any foreign intelligence activity that would circumvent US laws or privacy protections.

Read this article:

Snowden Leak Reveals NSA Traffic Shaping Tech That Diverts US Internet Routing For Spying - Hot Hardware

Posted in NSA

Justice Thomas Chides Colleagues for Ignoring Second … – Townhall – Townhall

Posted on by

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided against hearing a case involving the right to carry a firearm outside of one's home. California resident Edward Peruta had challenged a state lawlimiting gun-carrying permits to those showing "good cause." Simply mentioning self-defense is not enough - San Diego policy requires residents to list specific threats they believe they're facing.

Although the right to carry has been a hot topic across the country, Peruta v. California did not interest at least four of the justices, so it will not be added to their docket at this time.

That really peeved off Justices Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the bench.

The Second Amendments core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry, Thomas wrote. Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

Thomas went on to say that he and his colleagues are too removed from everyday American life to understand why this case is so important.

"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it," Thomas added.

Newest Justice Neil Gorsuch joined on to Thomas's opinion.

Without the chance to be heard at the Supreme Court, the lower court rulings stands. In a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the San Diego restrictions were permissible.

Original post:

Justice Thomas Chides Colleagues for Ignoring Second ... - Townhall - Townhall

Vince Bzdek: Freedoms in First Amendment rise above Americans … – Colorado Springs Gazette

Posted on by

Gazette editor Vince Bzdek March 14, 2016. Photo by Mark Reis, The Gazette

In the span of one day last week, I heard how The Gazette has become a mouthpiece for the globalist neo-communist left and, a few hours later, how we are a hopeless fount of "fake news" for the neo-fascist right. There's an old saying in journalism: If you're pissing off everyone then you must be doing something right.

What animates most journalists I know is not ideology whatsoever, but facts. And it's not necessarily because journalists are noble, ethical, unbiased creatures (though they are, of course). It's more that the pursuit and defense of a point of view is not nearly as interesting as uncovering something no one knew before. It's much more fun to be a curious human being than a walking, talking point of view.

An old colleague of mine, Tom Ricks, a former military reporter, just published a whole book about how hard - and important - it is to see the facts when politicians and other people are trying to hide or distort them. "Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom" is a book about the two men who last century most clearly saw the "facts" of totalitarianism, on the left and right.

Ricks makes the point that, once a upon a time, it wasn't so clear that communism and Nazism were two sides of the same coin. He writes that George Orwell, author of "Animal Farm" and "1984," alienated his friends on the left when he began to write that communism and Russia had become very totalitarian and Nazi-like. Winston Churchill was also ostracized by many of his colleagues in Parliament because of his persistence that no peace could ever be had - ever - with fascism. Churchill and Orwell saw that both systems gave the state far too much authority over individuals, stealing their basic freedoms away.

Ricks thinks the stubborn clarity of Orwell and Churchill has a lesson for us right now.

"I think in this country, we have especially recently started putting ideology over facts," Ricks said in a radio interview about his book. "And on this I blame both the left and the right. The left and the right both have a responsibility to tell the truth. I don't expect it of politicians. I do expect it of the media, that even when it's uncomfortable, even when it's not supporting your account, your view, your narrative, that the responsibility of journalists and honest intellectuals is to present the facts, to first observe the facts and not to suppress facts that disagree with your own personal views."

Ricks said his favorite Orwell quote came in an interview during the Spanish Civil War, which Orwell fought in and came to see as a dress rehearsal for World War II.

"I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting and complete silence where hundreds of men have been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories. And I saw newspapers in London retailing those lies and eager intellectuals building superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written, not in terms of what happened, but of what ought to have happened according to various party lines."

That experience led directly to Orwell's chilling line in "1984:" "Whatever the party holds to be the truth, is truth."

Ricks concludes his book with a passage about the essential importance of finding facts when all odds are against you.

"The fundamental driver of Western civilization is the agreement that objective reality exists, that people of goodwill can perceive it and that other people will change their views when presented with the facts of the matter."

A Washington politician of all people - a Republican senator from Nebraska who was in town for a conference - underscored the importance of this idea for me last week. Ben Sasse made the point that, at this political moment, we need to make sure our freedoms are not compromised or warped or overshadowed by our politics.

"I think we have a whole bunch of people in Washington who think that politics are the center of the world. They think Washington is the center of the world. That's not what our founders intended. As D.C. becomes more and more prominent in our politics and our economics, people who are addicted to politics, they take up an inappropriately large space in the national mindshare. And there are very few people in Washington right now who want to pause our legislative fights, and while lots of those legislative fights are important, there is a civic issue that's prior to that, that is the American idea."

When you boil it down, what is the American idea?

Sasse believes the American idea, what makes us a truly exceptional country, is "the five freedoms of the First Amendment." Freedom of religion, speech, press, association, and the right to petition for the redress of grievances.

"I believe the First Amendment is the beating heart of the American experiment," he said.

And he's "very worried" that the basic Americanism the First Amendment represents is under assault.

It was great to hear a reminder, from a Washington insider himself, that we ought to keep our political battles in perspective, and not lose sight, or God forbid undermine, the very things that make us most American while fighting those fights.

In his recent book, "The Vanishing American Adult," Sasse writes that the "First amendment is a roadmap for how a nation of 320 million people, with an inevitably wide divergence of opinion on theological, existential and cultural matters, can nonetheless guard against the tyranny of the majority and can respect everyone's dignity, everyone's natural rights."

We are more, so much more, than our politics, in other words. We are our freedoms more than our politics.

"Politics is not the center of everything," he told the crowd at the conference. "Politics is a means to an end. Politics is definitely not interesting enough to be an end." Our freedoms, rather than our politics, are what give us the framework for pursuing our happiness, for the work that gives us meaning, and the opportunities to live out our lives with others in the best way we can.

It was incredibly refreshing to hear a politician (Sasse) tell a journalist (me) that freedom of the press is one of the essentials that bind us together and make us American. It's just the kind of stubborn, contrarian clarity that Orwell and Churchill would have embraced themselves.

Excerpt from:

Vince Bzdek: Freedoms in First Amendment rise above Americans ... - Colorado Springs Gazette

Yes, It’s Legal to Record Cops. It’s In the First Amendment – Newsweek

Posted on by

This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.

The New York Police Departments Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) reported that over a three-year period NYPD officers threatened, blocked, and otherwise tried to prevent individuals from recording them in public in the performance of their duties.

Almost 100 of the 346 allegations made between 2014 and 2016 were substantiated by the board, not counting the many cases that may not have been reported.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

To be fair, there are many thousands of contacts between police and individuals that happen in New York City. Although there is no way to know how many of those interactions are recorded, its fair to assume that many of them have been as cell-phone recording capabilities have become ubiquitous.

However, there is clearly a segment of officersperhaps very small, but nevertheless realwho feel that they may violate the First Amendment rights of people who record them.

To alleviate this, the CCRB suggested that a new entry should be included in the Patrol Manual to reassert the publics right to record police interactions. That insertion is fine, but more could and should be done because it is extremely unlikely that every officer who disrupted lawful, public recording was ignorant of the right to do so. Any officer who already knew the law was committing misconduct.

Police keep guard outside of Trump Tower on May 10, 2017 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty

Police officers should be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, New York State law prohibits the Department or the CCRB from releasing the names of officers who have complaints lodged against them, whether or not they are sustained, or what the outcomes of any disciplinary actions taken were short of termination.

As I testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2015:

According to an investigation of New York Citys Civilian Complaint Review Board records, about 40 percent of the 35,000 NYPD officers have never received a civilian complaint, but roughly 1,000 officers have more than 10 complaints on file. One officer has over 50 complaints but retains his position.

Institutionally, the NYPD knows these 1,000 officers are repeat offenders several times over. Multiple complaints against a single officer over a period of months or years implies the officer must, at times, operate too close to the line of impropriety.

Those 1,000 officers represent fewer than three percent of NYPD officers but can damage the reputation of the rest of the department. Clearly, some portion of these 1,000 officers are abusing their authority, and the NYPD is unwilling or unable to remove these officers from duty.

And because the public cant know their names and records, we cannot measure how effectively the NYPD addressed these incidents with any given officer. (internal citations omitted)

The lack of transparency is not limited to New York, by any means, but the NYPDs institutional dedication to data collection at least gives us a glimpse of what is going on.

Getting the right to record in the Patrol Manual is a good start, but the State of New York should repeal the anonymity granted to misbehaving officers. Such laws punish the best officers by making them indistinguishable from those who intentionallyand sometimes repeatedlyviolate the rights of the people they are supposed to serve.

Jonathan Blanks is a Research Associate in Catos Project on Criminal Justice and Managing Editor of PoliceMisconduct.net.

Blanks writes: For a robust First Amendment analysis of the right to record, read this opinion by 2014 B. Kenneth Simon Lecturer Judge Diane Sykes . You can read my 2015 USCCR testimony on police transparency and the use of force here . Finally, you can check out the 2014 panel we hosted on recording the police here.

Read more:

Yes, It's Legal to Record Cops. It's In the First Amendment - Newsweek

Save Free Speech From Trolls – New York Times

Posted on by

Since then, the anti-free-speech charge, applied broadly to cultural criticism and especially to feminist discourse, has proliferated. It is nurtured largely by men on the internet who used to nurse their grievances alone, in disparate, insular communities around the web mens rights forums, video game blogs. Gradually, these communities have drifted together into one great aggrieved, misogynist gyre and bonded over a common interest: pretending to care about freedom of speech so they can feel self-righteous while harassing marginalized people for having opinions.

At the online video conference VidCon a couple of weeks ago, the feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian took the stage for a panel on womens experiences online, only to find the first two rows of seats stacked with her online harassers, leering up at her, filming her on their phones.

Ms. Sarkeesian has been relentlessly stalked, abused and threatened since 2012, when she started a Kickstarter campaign to fund a series of YouTube videos critiquing the representation of women in video games.

In retaliation, men have threatened to rape and murder her, dug up and disseminated her personal contact information, called in mass shooting threats to her public events and turned their obsession with shutting her up into a competitive sport. All of this, they insist, is in defense of freedom of speech, to which Ms. Sarkeesian, with her precise, rigorously argued opinions about the relative loincloth sizes of male and female video game avatars, somehow poses a threat.

It is not an enviable position to be in.

There are women who have said to me, or to people in my circles, that they dont want to be me, Ms. Sarkeesian told me. They dont want what happened to me to happen to them, and so they keep their head down and they stay quiet. Absence is invisible. We dont even know who has been lost how many were scared away before they even started. What about their speech?

Refusing to quit, as Ms. Sarkeesian has, yields often invisible professional consequences as well. Our videos on YouTube dont get promoted and supported in their algorithms the same way that hate videos about us do, because we cant have comments open, she said. That punishes us.

You can find disingenuous rhetoric about protecting free speech in the engine room of pretty much every digital-age culture war. The refrain has become so ubiquitous that its earned its own sarcastic homophone in progressive circles: freeze peach! Nothing is more important than the First Amendment, the internet men say, provided you interpret the First Amendment exactly the same way they do: as a magic spell that means no one you dont like is allowed to criticize you.

The law does not share that interpretation. The First Amendment only regulates the government, explained Rebecca Tushnet, a professor of First Amendment law at Harvard. Does she think there is any merit in telling a person that her critique of your art is infringing on your free speech? No.

Its been a surprisingly effective rhetorical strategy nonetheless. Americans are fiercely proud of our culture of (nearly) unfettered expression, though often not so clear on the actual parameters of the First Amendment. To defend speech is to plant a flag on the right side of history; to defend unpopular speech is to be a real rogue, a sophisticate, the kind of guy who gets it.

Freedom of speech is such a buzzword that people can rally around, Ms. Sarkeesian said, and that works really well in their favor. Theyre weaponizing free speech to maintain their cultural dominance.

The goal of Ms. Sarkeesians detractors was never really to protect the First Amendment. If it were, more than 8,000 of them wouldnt have signed an online petition to have her and the GamerGate target Zoe Quinn arrested that is, detained by the state in retaliation for speech for addressing the United Nations about online harassment. But they did. (Ms. Sarkeesian and Ms. Quinns crime, according to someone who is definitely a lawyer: pushing for a U.N. intervention (Foreign Agents) with the intent to limit internet free speech which violates the First Amendment of the U.S.)

If their goal was really to protect the First Amendment, they would have at least blinked when the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, confirmed that President Trump is considering amending libel laws, presumably so he can prosecute journalists who hurt his feelings.

If the goal was really to destroy political correctness, as Mr. Trump promised was his top priority, they would have rallied behind Kathy Griffin and Stephen Colbert and Johnny Depp instead of by their own definition censoring them with at least as much fury as they generated on behalf of Milo Yiannopoulos and his suspended Twitter account (which was perfectly legal, as per the Twitter corporations speech rights).

If their goal was really to foster free public discourse, we would have seen deafening bipartisan support for Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, the Princeton African-American studies assistant professor and author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, who canceled two speaking engagements in late May after Fox News aired video of her calling President Trump a racist and sexist megalomaniac. Professor Taylor received more than 50 hate-filled and threatening emails, many racially charged, some containing specific threats of violence, including murder, she wrote in a statement.

Where were the brave knights of free speech when Professor Taylor was being intimidated into silence?

They were nowhere, of course (except, perhaps, on the other end of some of those emails), because their true goal has always been to ensure that if anyone is determining the ways that we collectively choose to restrict our own speech in the name of values, they are the ones setting the limits. They want to perform a factory reset to a time when people of color and women didnt tell white men what to do. And only one 2016 presidential candidate promised such a reset.

The election of Donald Trump and crying free speech to end any discussion of cultural sensitivity are not unrelated. Casting the dissent of marginalized groups as a First Amendment violation is the kind of pseudo-intellectual argument that seems reasonable to people who dont have enough skin in the game to bother paying attention. Discourse is good! Sunlight is the best disinfectant! The more airtime we give to irrational bigots on high-profile platforms the more assiduously we hear both sides, stay fair and balanced the sooner theyll be rejected by the public at large!

Unfortunately, as any scientist can tell you (for as long as we still have those), more often than not, sunlight makes things grow. Conflating criticism with censorship fosters a system in which all positions deserve equal consideration, no bad ideas can ever be put to rest, and lies are just as valid as the truth.

Its not hard to draw a straight line from internet culture warriors misappropriation of free speech to our current mass delusions over climate change, the Hyde Amendment, abstinence-only education, health care as a luxury and class as a meritocracy. Free speech rhetoric begot fake news, which begot alternative facts.

The right cannot lay claim to the First Amendment when its own president is actively hostile to it. Sometimes disinfectant is the best disinfectant.

Originally posted here:

Save Free Speech From Trolls - New York Times

Brazilian site teaches journalists how to protect sources and personal data from digital attacks – Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas (blog)

Posted on by

Metadata? Encryption? Backdoor? Tor Browser? VPN? PGP? When it comes to digital security for journalists, the amount of technical terms and acronyms can be scary. But tools to ensure online privacy can be crucial to protecting sources, which is why the site Privacidade para Jornalistas (Privacy for Journalists) has been launched in Brazil.

On the site, a threat analysis helps you understand the best ways to combat surveillance, hacking, and the collection and retention of data from various adversaries, from governments to casual gossipers, to corporations and criminals. The initiative is based on Australias Privacy for Journalists, a project from the non-profit organization CryptoAustralia.

Since Brazilian journalist Raphael Hernandes launched his platform on March 6, 2017, he has been sought by colleagues in the newsroom who need tips on how to protect themselves in their investigations. Hernandes is data journalist at Folha de S. Paulo, where he offered a small workshop on the subject. According to him, the issue of privacy has aroused interest among colleagues.

"You can see that whoever accesses [the site] is interested. They spend a lot of time on pages and sees multiple pages per visit (average of 6), which shows interest in content. There are a lot of things we do not look at everyday, at how exposed we are," Hernandes told the Knight Center.

The site that served as inspiration for Hernandes came from the personal initiative of information security specialist Gabor Szathmari, president of CryptoAustralia. He worked with the Walkley Foundation at CryptoParty Sydney, an event to teach digital safety rules to journalists.

I thought if I had to develop the training materials for the workshop, why I should not publish them for the benefit of the whole journalist community in Australia and beyond? I have looked around, and although I found heaps of valuable materials online, I did not find any privacy and security tutorials that were addressing the specifics in Australia, Szathmari told the Knight Center.

Raphael Hernandes explained to the Knight Center that it is important to understand what protection to use in each case.

The secrecy of our sources is one of the most important things we have. If its a person we talk to every day, theres no need to hide him or her, but maybe the source is sending something sensitive and its important to encrypt. We should not live in paranoia, but think about our sources and what they need. Its treating a cold with cold medicine, not with a cannonball, he said.

According to Hernandes, the discussion is especially relevant in Brazil. In the countrys Civil Framework for the Internet, providers are supposed to collect and retain navigation data for one year. A court order is required to access these metadata, but a bill in the Chamber of Deputies wants to remove this requirement.

For Hernandes, this scenario leaves a situation where journalists and individuals should leave as few traces as possible which he assures is not a difficult task.

In fact, there are things that are more advanced, such as setting up GlobaLeaks (a secure file and message exchange tool). But were here to help. And apart from that, most are tools we can use at home anytime. It may seem difficult at first, but more so because it has words that we do not use every day, such as back door (software that allows remote access to the computer), he said.

According to Szathmari, the most basic security measures include replacing messaging programs like Messenger and Skype for encrypted platforms, like Signal and Wire. In more sensitive cases, other measures are necessary. Finally, leave your smartphone home if you are meeting with the source, as it is a spying machine. I suggest avoiding a computer altogether and dusting off that good old reporters notebook for very sensitive notes, he said.

Concerns about digital security are not unique to Brazil or Australia. Several journalism organizations around the world, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), have sections dedicated to the topic. Other organizations dedicated to digital security, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, offer specific tips and guides for journalists and their sources.

Here are some basic protection tools, according to Raphael Hernandes:

Encryption of HD and flash drives - Encryption places a password on hard drives and USB devices, which protect sources and personal files in case the equipment is lost or stolen.

Two-Step Authentication - Used for online banking access, it can be configured in your email and social networks. Login is done with something you know (your password) and something you have (a code sent to your smartphone, for example). This avoids problems even if you have compromised passwords.

Signal - Application available for encrypted message smartphones. If the cell phone is intercepted, no one can understand what was written there.

Sync.com - Free cloud storage system. It uses the zero-knowledge protocol, meaning it stores information but does not know what is being stored. As a rule, the websites we use commonly scan the files and pass reports to the authorities. Sync is encrypted and more secure, very simple to use.

PGP - Pretty Good Privacy acronym. It's a way to encrypt emails. Like a kind of chest, but with two keys: one to lock and the other to unlock. You give the key that locks the chest so people can send you files and messages. But only you have the keys to unlock the content.

Excerpt from:

Brazilian site teaches journalists how to protect sources and personal data from digital attacks - Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas (blog)

BitAccess Wants to get Canadian Government Officials Excited About Cryptocurrency – newsBTC

Posted on by

Clients must submit their ID for verification. Rest assured most government of Canada employees will not be interested in doing that anytime soon.

It is always quite interesting to keep an eye on Bitcoin promotional events. Getting cryptocurrency into the hands of as many people as possible is not easy by any means. BitAccess is taking a different approach with their latest airdrop. Canadian government employees can receive CA$5 worth of Bitcoin or Ether free of charge. All they need to do is sign up for the service to get the money. An interesting tactic, but can it ever work?

BitAccess is doing an excellent job to promote cryptocurrency in Canada. It has become a lot harder to buy Bitcoin and other currencies in the country as of late. This has mainly to do with strict regulations. Additionally, several Canadian exchanges have halted operations or were acquired by competitors. It is evident there isnt nearly enough competition in the country right now. As a result, it appears cryptocurrency interest in Canada is slowly waning.

To counter this situation, BitAccess is hosting a promotional event. More specifically, they will give CA$5 worth of Bitcoin or Ether to all government of Canada employees. This is quite an interesting take on things, although it remains to be seen if it can be successful. Government employees will need to create an account with the Canada.ca email address. It is possible most organizations will prohibit employees from doing so, though.

More specifically, obtaining this free credit is not all that easy. Clients must submit their ID for verification. Rest assured most government of Canada employees will not be interested in doing that anytime soon. After all, if they arent interested in cryptocurrency, there is no reason to go through that much trouble. Furthermore, CA$5 worth of Bitcoin or Ether is next to nothing these days. It is a nice gesture by BitAccess, but not one that will see a lot of response.

Then again, it is hard to get government officials excited about Bitcoin or Ethereum. There is still a psychological hurdle that needs to be tackled. Governments will never fully see eye-to-eye with cryptocurrency, that much is evident. Promotional campaigns like these may help alleviate some of the concerns. It will be interesting to see whether or not BitAccess can make any impact whatsoever. Promoting cryptocurrency is the right way to go, that much is certain.

Header image courtesy of Shutterstock

Read this article:

BitAccess Wants to get Canadian Government Officials Excited About Cryptocurrency - newsBTC

Bitcoin Nears Bear Market Territory – Fortune

Posted on by

Photograph by Getty Images

Bitcoin is currently down about $500, or nearly 17%, from its June 12 th peak of $3,000 per coin. Essentially every other major cryptocurrency, including Ethereum and Litecoin, has seen similar declines. There have been fluctuations since the peak, but the overall trend has been steadily downhill for weeks.

While it can seem odd to apply old-school securities terms to newfangled digital money, that means the crypto market is nearing the conventional 20% decline that defines bear territory.

Few insiders or regular Fortune readers are likely surprised by this. "Bubble" was maybe the single word most consistently spoken by expert panelists at the Consensus conference in late May. Our Robert Hackett diagnosed a speculative bubble two weeks before the peak.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter.

Recent weeks losses werent the one-day implosion often associated with a bubble. But the more important feature of bubbles delirious optimism ungrounded in reality has been swirling for months. Investment Strategist Matt Prusak, writing at Coindesk, has rounded up some novel examples of "dumb money" (his term) rushing into cryptocurrency. Many of them are quite entertaining if you arent among those taking losses right now.

Prusak points out, for instance, this account of amateurs rushing into the market as it peaked:

The tweet is particularly notable, of course, because Dmitry Buterin is the father of Vitalik Buterin creator of #2 cryptocurrency Ethereum. Dmitry, like most insiders, has been watching for a correction for weeks.

Pusak also points out this doubly amusing post from BroBible, titled "What is The Etherum [sic] Cyrptocurrency [sic] and How Will It Make You Rich AF?" It was posted, misspellings and all, as the market was already heading down.

Pusak dives into several other dimensions of crypto-mania, but Ill cite just one more thats particularly illuminating. Through the entire course of the runup, the value of Ethereum (ETH) has been tracked closely by the value of Ethereum Classic (ETC). While Ethereum may be the cryptocurrency with the broadest real-world adoption, Ethereum Classic is a so-called fork, completely distinct from Ethereum and with barely a fraction of Ethereums adoption.

Pusak says it is "highly likely the price [of ETC] has been driven significantly higher by uninformed investors simply not understanding the difference between the two similar to how adding ".com" to a companys name in 1999 sent stock prices up on average 74%."

To be clear, calling the cryptocurrency market in a given month a hype-driven bubble is not the same thing as deriding the technology. This is revolutionary stuff with huge long-term potential, and for some, declining prices will mean a buying opportunity . But it's an extremely volatile, high-risk asset, and theres every chance that any particular coin even Bitcoin itself could end up being worth nothing at all.

Link:

Bitcoin Nears Bear Market Territory - Fortune