End of Issue #90 |

Any Questions?
Editorial and Rants
Welcome to Eric Corley's New York. Now leave your freedoms at the border...
New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can Be Revoked
October 7, 2011 - From: dailytech.com
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
However, that hasn't stopped state and federal officials to creatively redefine what "freedom of speech" means. Of late there have been multiple attempts to legislate digital censorship, with government officials looking to decide what forms of online speech they feel aren't okay and make them illegal.
The latest effort on this front comes from four Democratic New York state senators, who have published a report entiteld "Cyberbullying: A Report on Bullying in a Digital Age." In that report, Sen. Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci, and David Valesky argue that the First Amendment has been long misinterpreted by politicians and courts and really means that free speech is a privilege (not a right), which can be taken away.
They write:
Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege -- a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.
The argument that free speech was not intended as a protected right seems rather baffling given that the First Amendment is part of the "Bill of Rights."
Of course they argue that state politicians should be tasked with creating laws of what they feel constitutes "abuse" of free speech and grounds for censorship. According to their full report, possible "abusive" speech that they feel should be banned includes:
Such legislation are perceived by some as an overreaction of extreme recent incidents of cyberbullying. However, it's hard to avoid the possibility that such censorship couldn't be abused by politicians to silence political rivals.
After all, if you can put someone in speech for "trolling" and "leaving hurtful messages on online message boards," does that mean ruling politicians can imprison those who criticize them online? Clearly that's how officials in other countries like China have used similar laws. Is the U.S. headed down a similar road?
The Senators have used their report to draft a proposed law.
Under the proposed law, "offensive" speech would become constitute Third-Degree Stalking, a Class A Misdemeanor. And if someone commits suicide due to online harassment -- or "bullycide" as the report calls it -- the harassers can be charged with Second-Degree Manslaughter, a Class C Felony.

Note how they dance around the fact that non-Whites are dragging down the SAT scores. Change!
SAT Reading Scores Fall to Lowest Level on Record
September 14, 2011 - From: mercurynews.com
By Justin Pope
Scores on the critical reading portion of the SAT college entrance exam fell three points to their lowest level on record last year, and combined reading and math scores reached their lowest point since 1995.
The College Board, which released the scores Wednesday, said the results reflect the record number of students from the high school class of 2011 who took the exam and the growing diversity of the test-taking pool -- particularly Hispanics. As more students aim for college and take the exam, it tends to drag down average scores.
Still, while the three-point decline to 497 may look small in the context of an 800-point test, it was only the second time in the last two decades reading scores have fallen as much in a single year. And reading scores are now notably lower than scores as recently as 2005, when the average was 508.
Average math scores for the class of 2011 fell one point to 514 and scores on the critical reading section fell two points to 489.
Other recent tests of reading skills, such as the National Assessment of Education Progress, have shown reading skills of high-school students holding fairly steady. And the pool of students who take the SAT is tilted toward college-goers and not necessarily representative of all high school students.
But the relatively poor performance on the SATs could raise questions whether reading and writing instruction need even more emphasis to accommodate the country's changing demographics.
Roughly 27 percent of the 1.65 million test-takers last year had a first language other than English, up from 19 percent just a decade ago.
Jim Montoya, vice president of relationship development at the College Board, said the expanding Latino population was a factor, as well as greater outreach to get minority students to take the test. But there are others, too.
"It's a lot of little things," he said. For example, he said, the number of black students taking a solid core curriculum -- a strong predictor of success on the test -- has fallen from 69 percent to 66 percent over a decade.
The College Board, a membership organization that owns the exam and promotes college access, also released its first "College and Career Benchmark" report, which it said would eventually be used to help show states and school districts how well prepared their students are. Based on research at 100 colleges, it calculated that scoring 1550 or above on the three sections of the test indicated a 65-percent likelihood of attaining a B-minus or above average in the freshman year of college.
Overall, 43 percent of test-takers reached that benchmark.
The SAT and rival ACT exam are taken by roughly the same number of students each year. Most colleges require scores from at least one of the exams but will consider either. In recent years, some colleges have adopted test-optional policies allowing applicants to decline to submit test scores at all.

Then

Now

It used to be that people helped each other, now it's only the government can help you... See the Jew...
Schakowsky: Americans Don't Deserve to Keep All of Their Money
September 14, 2011 - From: wlsam.com
CHICAGO (WLS) - A lot of reaction Wednesday morning to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky's interview with Don Wade and Roma.
Schakowsky said that Americans don't deserve to keep all of their money because we need taxes to support our society.
"I'll put it this way. You don't deserve to keep all of it and it's not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer," Schakowskysaid.
Schakowsky also says one reason the 2009 stimulus bill did not succeed was because it was not large enough.
Schakowsky also admitted there are questions about the Obama administration's connection to the now bankrupt Solyndra solar panel company.
The administration approved nearly $528 million in federal loans to the company, before Solyndra filed for bankruptcy.
Schakowsky sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee Investigations and Oversight Panel, which is holding hearings Wednesday into the matter. She said she and other Democrats want answers.
"You know, it certainly doesn't sound good. The Democrats are not going to shrink from actually, you know, from any kind of full investigation of that. If there is a problem we're certainly going to support the efforts to get to the bottom of this," Schakowsky said.
Schakowsky did say that even though public money was involved, the Solyndra controversy does not compare to the damage the Enron energy scandal inflicted on the U.S. economy.
Also in the interview, Schakowsky talked about the victory of Republican Bob Turner, in the Tuesday special election to replace ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner. Turner, who is Catholic, won in a district that is heavily Democratic and heavily Jewish, defeating an Orthodox Jewish Democrat.
Schakowsky, who is Jewish, denounced former New York Mayor Ed Koch, for getting involved in the race and criticizing President Obama's record on Israel.
"I thought it was really shameful in talking about Barack Obama as not good on Israel. He has provided more security for the state of Israel than any other president," Schakowsky said.

