TRANSCRIPT: Freedom Partners Forum

Posted on by

World News Videos | ABC World NewsCopy

The first 2016 presidential forum of the year took place on Sunday Jan. 25 featuring a conversation between Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, and Marco Rubio, R-Florida, moderated by ABC News Chief White Correspondent Jonathan Karl.

The panel, which took place in Palm Springs, California, was sponsored by the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a not-for-profit connected to conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch.

The following is a complete transcript of the 75-minute forum:

ABC News' JONATHAN KARL: So good evening, as you heard I'm Jonathan Karl with ABC News. It is great to be here in Palm Springs with three United States senators that are not only actively considering running for president but as far as I can tell actively preparing for possible runs for president. So it is great to be here.

This is the first time this year that we have seen multiple postnatal or even likely candidates for president sharing a stage. And I can assure you it will not be the last time. But this was the first time. My goal is simple. I wanna have a free-flowing discussion. There are no timers, there are no bells.I don't want any talking points No campaign speechs. Just what I hope'll be a lively and very informative conversation.

So with that let's get right to it. I wanna start with the big picture on the economy. We've heard a lot of this from the present. Seven million jobs-- created since he took office. Unemployment rate is down to its lowest level in about eight years. Gas prices down. Even the deficit is down from where it was a few years ago.

So as we remember the last time we had a Republican in the White House spending was rising, deficits were rising and we had the greatest recession since the Great Depression. So, Senator Cruz, why should voters trust the Republicans with the economy again?

SENATOR TED CRUZ: Well, look, for one thing what we're doin' now, it isn't workin'. And--

JONATHAN KARL: Wait, seven million jobs.

Read this article:

TRANSCRIPT: Freedom Partners Forum

Unruly freedom campers find new spot

Posted on by

Freedom campers have relocated from a car park in New Brighton to another one in Waimairi Beach, Christchurch.

Freedom campers forced out of a Christchurch car park after complaints of loud, violent behaviour have found a new home.

Short-stayers living in a New Brighton car park were kicked out by the Christchurch City Council on Saturday.

Residents in the area had complained about noise, rubbish, and threats of violence from campers, who were using freedom-camping laws to live in the council-owned spot.

On Friday, police spoke to a German camper after he brandished a knife during an argument with a Fairfaxphotographer.

Up to 20 campers left the car park when the council put up 'no camping' signs on Saturday.

READ MORE

- Freedom campers' unruly antics rile residents

- Freedom camper 'rebellion' in Christchurch

- Freedom campers pack up and leave

View original post here:

Unruly freedom campers find new spot

New home for freedom campers

Posted on by

Kirk Hargreaves

NEW HOME: Freedom campers kicked out of a New Brighton car park have moved to Waimairi Beach, five minutes away.

Freedom campers forced out of a Christchurch car park after complaints of loud, violent behaviour have found a new home.

Up to 20 short-stayers living at the New Brighton car park left on Saturday when the Christchurch City Council put up "no camping" signs.

Despite moving on, the campers did not go far. They set up camp in a car park at Waimairi Beach, five minutes away.

Residents had complained about noise, rubbish and threats of violence from campers, who were using freedom camping laws to live at the council-owned site.

On Friday, police spoke to a German camper after he brandished a knife during an argument with a photographer from The Press.

About half a dozen campers - most of whom were seen at the New Brighton car park last week - were at the new spot yesterday morning. They had set up camping chairs and tables. Several campers had also set up a tent in nearby Thomson Park.

The car park is part of the North Beach Regional Park, which is managed by the council.

It was identified as a potential hotspot for freedom campers during the council's monitoring programme, council inspections and enforcement unit manager Anne Columbus said.

Here is the original post:

New home for freedom campers

Escaped Lowell Goat Finally Captured After Month of Freedom

Posted on by

By Eric Levenson @ejleven

Boston.com Staff | 01.26.15 | 11:59 AM

The famed Lowell goats month of freedom is finally over.

The large goat that escaped from a Tewksbury farm (and slaughterhouse) in late Decemberwho showed an almost-mythical ability to elude capturehas finally been caught along a Westford highway.

Danielle Genter, the Animal Rescue League of Bostons senior rescue technician, said the male goat was caught in a box trap sometime between last night and 8 a.m. Monday morning.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The Lowell Suns Kyle Clauss snapped a photo of the goat in the makeshift trap.

The goats dramatic escape just after Christmas took on comedic-like proportions as police and residents failed to corral the horned animal. Much of the humorous escape was captured in amusing police scanner talk. A team of police tracked the goat, which had a rope around its neck, but it evaded capture by running between cars and jumping off a bridge to escape.

Police advised residents not to approach the goat, which was estimated to weigh 200 pounds.

He was one crazy goat, Frank Peabody, a Lowell resident who first called police about the runaway goat, told The Lowell Sun .

See the article here:

Escaped Lowell Goat Finally Captured After Month of Freedom

Why it matters that Donald Trump is attacking Mitt Romney (+video)

Posted on by

With all due respect, the Republican Party could probably do with a lot less of what was heard at the Iowa Freedom Summit Saturday.

On one hand, that might seem strange, considering that the Iowa Freedom Summit was all about getting America back to its "core principles of pro-growth economics, social conservatism, and a strong national defense," according to the event website.

What could be more Republican than that?

Combine that with the fact that a number of potential Republican presidential candidates appeared to see the event as the unofficial kickoff for the 2016 campaign, and it seemed a snapshot of the immediate future of American conservatism.

But then Donald Trump spoke.

He called Mitt Romney a "choker" for losing the 2012 presidential race to President Obama, and then said that Jeb Bush's brother former President George W. Bush was the man who gave America Mr. Obama in the first place.

Wow.

Democrats would call that a two-fer. In one fell swoop, Mr. Trump brutally exposed the potentially fatal weaknesses of the two Republicans who might well have broader appeal than any others on the presumptive Republican ticket (New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie possibly excluded).

Of course, this is what Trump does. The chances of him running for president are roughly equal to the chances that Earth will be overrun by Ewoks by Memorial Day. (In other words, not very likely.) He was there for microphone and the money shots of his legendary hair.

But his comments were just an inkling of the 18 months ahead.

Visit link:

Why it matters that Donald Trump is attacking Mitt Romney (+video)

STERN: Skin in the game, and eugenics

Posted on by

Photo by Thao Do/Illustrations Editor.

Yalies receiving financial aid are the recipients of something extraordinary, something unavailable to nearly anyone even a generation ago: a nearly free education. Yet that last word nearly is the operative one. Upperclassmen, even those on full financial aid, still have to pay this University $6,400 a year in student effort, factoring in both the term-time self-help and summer contribution (freshmen, meanwhile, pay $4,475). This means that anyone on financial aid will have to pay Yale $23,675 over their four years here the equivalent of a brand new Chevy Camaro.

Does Yale need this money? According to the admissions office, roughly 50 percent of undergraduates are on financial aid. Thus, Yale raises approximately $16 million from the student effort. To put this in perspective, that number accounts for less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the amount the endowment increased last year alone.

In other words, the student effort is virtually meaningless to Yale, from a financial standpoint. For students, though, it presents a considerable hardship. Students who need to work have less opportunity to join more demanding, supposedly prestigious extracurriculars that can help land internships or jobs. In a YCC survey, more than half of respondents on financial aid reported that the student effort requirement limited their potential summer opportunities. Fifty-six percent of students reported having to tap into family income and/or family savings to cover part of the student income contribution this, in spite of the fact that Yale eliminated the family contribution a decade ago. The YCC sent this report to the administration; they know these facts.

So, why keep student effort? The phrase used over and over again in justifying the existence of the student contribution is that students on financial aid should have skin in the game. As in, they should have a financial stake even a small one in their education.

There is a word for this argument: eugenic. This argument is predicated on the unstated assumption that rich kids deserve their easier lives, that they deserve to be at Yale more. This argument demands that poorer kids work because that is what poorer kids are supposed to do, while richer kids get a free pass. Even the vocabulary of self-help and student effort is stunningly paternalistic.

But lets slow down for a moment. Some may argue that Yale is already so generous reducing an education that can cost upwards of $60,000 to just a little over $6,000. Such an argument is beside the point. Just because Yale is generous does not mean that students should not push Yale to address flaws in the system. This is not ingratitude; it is common sense.

The News recently asked several senior administrators: If money werent an issue, would you eliminate the student income contribution? Not one gave a straightforward answer. They know theyre on the wrong side of this.

Personally, I accept the argument that work is rewarding. I currently hold one campus job; for the last two years, I held three. So I think Yale should make everyone work. Kids who dont need aid, many of whom have never had to work, could actually benefit more from real work experience (and not some cushy internship).

Either Yale should force all undergraduates to work, or it should force none of them to do so. What it cannot do is force only the less wealthy kids to work. This creates a social dynamic whereby poorer kids indirectly serve the wealthier ones doing clerical work like filing papers or swiping IDs just because they had the misfortune of being born into a family with less money.

Go here to read the rest:

STERN: Skin in the game, and eugenics

Why we need to address population growth's effects on global warming

Posted on by

Earlier this month, Pope Francis made news when he said that not only was climate change real, but it was mostly man-made. Then, last week, he said that couples do not need to breed like rabbits but rather should plan their families responsibly albeit without the use of modern contraception.

Though the pope did not directly link the two issues, climate scientists and population experts sat up and took notice. That's because for years, they have quietly discussed the links between population growth and global warming, all too aware of the sensitive nature of the topic. Few of them can forget the backlash after then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in 2009 that it was strange to talk about climate change without mentioning population and family planning. Critics immediately suggested that she was calling for eugenics, thus shutting down the conversation and pushing the issue back into the shadows. The pope's support of smaller families might help that discussion come back into the light, where it belongs.

Sensitive subject or not, the reality is that unsustainable human population growth is a potential disaster for efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. These days, the biggest population growth is occurring in developing nations, which is why any discussion must be sensitive to the perception that well-off, industrialized nations the biggest climate polluters, often with majority-white populations might be telling impoverished people of color to reduce their numbers. In fact, person for person, reducing birth rates in industrialized nations has a bigger impact on greenhouse gas emissions because affluent people use more of the Earth's resources and depend more heavily on fossil fuels.

In other words, population is not just a Third World issue. More than a third of the births in the United States are the result of unintended pregnancies, and this month the United Nations raised its prediction of population growth by the year 2050 because of unforeseen, rising birth rates in industrialized nations. So even though the highest rates of population growth are in the poorest and least educated countries Africa's population is expected to triple by the end of the century any attempt to address the issue will have to target the industrialized world as well.

By 2050, world population is expected to increase from its current level of about 7 billion to somewhere between 8 and 11 billion. According to a 2010 analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, keeping that growth to the lower number instead of even the mid-range 9.6 billion could play a significant role in keeping emissions low enough to avoid dangerous levels of climate change by 2050. A more recent report, though, casts doubt on whether it would be possible to bring about dramatic enough changes in population quickly enough to hold the total to 8 billion.

Another 2010 report, by the nonprofit Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C, predicted that fast-growing developing countries will become the dominant emitters of greenhouse gases within a generation. That's partly because of their rising populations but also because of their poverty; they are less able to afford solar energy projects or other investments in non-fossil energy.

The report also notes that these countries and their people are far more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. A disproportionate number of impoverished countries are in low-lying areas where rising sea levels are expected to cause disastrous flooding. Agricultural productivity is expected to fall 40% in India and sub-Saharan Africa by the second half of this century.

The population issue is just beginning to get some of the public attention it deserves. The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations' board of climate experts, included concerns about population size, saying, Globally, economic and population growth continued to be the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. For the first time in its five years of producing such reports, the panel acknowledged that family-planning programs could make a real difference, both in slowing the rate of warming and in helping vulnerable nations adapt to its effects.

And progress can be made without draconian or involuntary measures. According to Karen Hardee, director of the Evidence Project for the nonprofit Population Council, developing nations are already beginning to recognize the usefulness of family planning in preventing hunger and crowding and in combating climate change. She cites Rwanda, Ethiopia and Malawi as countries that are taking the first steps on their own.

But they and other nations need assistance on two fronts: education for girls and access to free or affordable family-planning services. The benefit of even minimal education is startling: Women in developing countries who have had a year or more of schooling give birth to an average of three children; with no schooling, the number is 4.5. Add more years of schooling and the number of births drops further. Women who have attended school also give birth later in life to healthier children.

Link:

Why we need to address population growth's effects on global warming

Jianfang Jin Presents 5 Novel Eco-Social Theories in New Book

Posted on by

Aracadia, Calif. (PRWEB) January 26, 2015

Within The General Theory of Eco-Social Science: The Theory and Road Map for Comprehensive Reform (published by AuthorHouse), the new book from author Jianfang Jin, social science is reconstructed from an ecological perspective. Jin introduces five completely new theories in the fields of sociology, philosophy, economics, political science and monetary policy. This book not only illustrates future human society but also guides people in current social transition.

The five new theories presented within include eco-entity, eco-resources, ecological society, eco-economics and eco-currency. Eco-entity is described as a new system of ecological theory integrating social and natural sciences, while eco-resources advances the concept of ecological resources, expanding their application to the social relations of human beings. Jin delves further from here, bringing out the ideas of the social eco-entity, economic eco-entity and eco-currency. He thus portrays a complete picture of eco-society and demonstrates the strong appeal of future ecological civilization. Ecological society is described by Jin as the rule of organicism, eco-economics suggests a new economic growth cycle and eco-currency develops three new functions and attributes of currency, while introducing a new eco-monetary policy.

The General Theory of Eco-Social Science is a highly informative and in-depth study that is eye-opening and comprehensive, Jin says. It serves as a guiding tool that reveals how these five new theories play a pivotal role in improving the current situation society is facing.

The General Theory of Eco-Social Science By Jianfang Jin Hardcover | 6 x 9 in | 368 pages | ISBN 9781496948816 Softcover | 6 x 9 in | 368 pages | ISBN 9781496947635 E-Book | 368 pages | ISBN 9781496947642 Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble

About the Author Jianfang Jin received his Bachelor of Arts in economics at Nankai University in China. Upon graduation, he was assigned to an administration and policy department of the Chinese State Council, where he was able to observe the overall political and economic developments of China. In 1985, he went to the United States on his own and earned a masters degree from Purdue University. Thereafter, he engaged extensively in business in the U.S. and China, and was an eager student of the great social and economic changes occurring in the current world. Jin currently works as the CEO of a public company in Vancouver, British Columbia. He is also the director of the World Association of Eco-Social Science.

AuthorHouse, an Author Solutions, LLC self-publishing imprint, is a leading provider of book publishing, marketing, and bookselling services for authors around the globe and offers the industrys only suite of Hollywood book-to-film services. Committed to providing the highest level of customer service, AuthorHouse assigns each author personal publishing and marketing consultants who provide guidance throughout the process. For more information or to publish a book, visit authorhouse.com or call 1-888-519-5121. For the latest, follow @authorhouse on Twitter.

See more here:

Jianfang Jin Presents 5 Novel Eco-Social Theories in New Book

Eco-friendly retreats in Costa Rica

Posted on by

Tourists come to Costa Rica for three reasons: the great beaches, the magnificent rainforests and the nationss dedication to eco-tourism. Hotel Belmar opened in 1985, and was one of the first eco-friendly hotels in Costa Rica. Here you can enjoy luxury accommodation without harming the local environment.

On a clear day, you can see over the cloud forest all the way to the Pacific Ocean from this Swiss-chalet-style hotel, says Sarah Gilbert in The Guardian. The hotel has been committed to environmental and social responsibility for 30 years. It runs reforestation programmes, and has helped to create a biodigester that cleans waste water.

Its eco-friendly nature means it does not recommend four-wheel-drive tours, but nearby private reserve Curi Cancha is made for walking. You can take the trail behind the hotel up Cerro Amigos, the highest point of Monteverde, before a dip in the al fresco hot tub and a dinner of gourmet local produce.

The restaurant, Celajes, serves up Costa Rican dishes using produce grown at the hotel.

Doubles cost from 75, including breakfast.Visit hotelbelmar.net, or call 00 1 506 2645 5201.

Most accommodation in Costa Rica once consisted of either wooden lodges (like the Belmar, see left), or giant American tourist complexes but Kur has helped to change that. These six cleverly designed open-plan villas, with views of the ocean on the horizon, have brought a real touch of style to the countrys tourist accommodation.

Kur has admirable eco-credentials the pool is salt-water and chemical-free, energy comes from solar panels and rainwater is recycled, says Hazel Lubbock in Cond Nast Traveller. Each villa is glass-fronted and surrounded by greenery and equipped with an iPad, loaded with books and music. The communal areas have a Miami beach-bar vibe, with an open-air lounge, infinity pool (with underwater sound system), large sun loungers and a rooftop to chill out on. There is also a small spa.

The open-plan Sky Lounge has 360-degree views of Costa Rican jungle and ocean, and is the best place to spot passing humpback whales, says MrandMrsSmith.com.The fish-packed menu includes a daily carpaccio.

See the original post:

Eco-friendly retreats in Costa Rica