The school year is over, and the results should leave parents and educators with more anxiety than relief. Achievement scores are near historical lows and student absenteeism is high. There is some bipartisan agreement, though, on classroom management that could help students begin to rebound in the fall: Prohibit smartphones in classrooms. Earlier this year, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican, adopted a proposal that prohibits students from using phones in class. Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District school board voted to prohibit smartphones in classrooms. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has already signed a law that prompted policies such as the new provisions in LA and says he plans to do more on the issue while Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is also calling on lawmakers to ban phones in class. Florida enacted prohibitions last year. Smartphones are an easy distraction, inevitably pulling attention away from anything happening around us. And research continues to find that smartphone use is not without consequences. A longitudinal study (one that makes repeated observations over long periods of time) from the University of North Carolina found that when adolescents check their phones regularly for updates—text messages, social medial likes, or even just new posts to social media feeds—this behavior “changes how their brains respond to the world around them.” Specifically, the constant feedback they received made students hypersensitive to their peers’ responses, and while more research is needed, the sensitivity may contribute to compulsive social media activity in the future. The growing consensus against smartphones in class is not the first time such policies on electronic devices have been proposed. Dating as far back as 1988, New York City banned mobile devices such as pagers to prevent drug dealers from communicating, though educators found this difficult to enforce. Smartphones are easier to detect than beepers, as students’ eyes are glued to the devices. The U.S. Department of Education reports that in 2009-2010, 91% of public schools banned cellphones for nonacademic uses. This figure has fallen to 76% today. Still, smartphones have some defenders in classrooms, and the critics of phone prohibitions are worth answering so that parents and educators can defend the policies despite the howls of protest sure to come from teenagers. First, the phones are a distraction—and data demonstrate this fact: Children ages 8-12 spend some five hours per day on phones, and teenagers spend the equivalent of an entire workday on their phones. Research also finds that 42% of children have cellphones by age 10, 71% by age 12, and 91% by age 14. And with access comes significant usage. Second, some argue that if students cannot use phones during the day, they will not be prepared for the “real world.” Yet just because students cannot use phones in a classroom does not mean they cannot use the devices before school, at lunch, and after school. In the “real world,” if your boss finds you on your phone for eight hours per day, you should not expect to be employed by that boss for much longer. Third, educators say students may need phones to contact police or family in the event of an emergency, but state policies such as Indiana’s law accommodates for this. Teachers can easily pass around a basket to collect phones at the beginning of class, keeping the devices almost within arm’s reach if needed. Still others say that some students, such as alternative education students (students who struggle in traditional schools, such as students who drop out of school and return later to finish) or older teenagers, have to care for younger siblings or coordinate their work schedules. For these reasons, state lawmakers should be careful with blanket policies banning smartphones and give school boards, teachers, and parents discretion to design policies that fit their institutions. But the general accord around limiting smartphones is welcome. Educational games such as Kahoot! and resources such as online Spanish-to-English dictionaries are useful, but students will inevitably be tempted to check Snapchat in between assignments. Tools to quiz students and dictionaries existed well before the iPhone. Families and educators need students’ full attentions while in class. Social media creates enough anxiety—let’s help students remember there is more to life than how many clicks your post receives. That is the most effective preparation for the real world. The post Bans on Smartphones in the Classroom Gain Favor Across Political Spectrum appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Campaign slogans tend to focus on a single issue, such as an underperforming economy, crime, national security, or the likability of the candidate. But this election cycle is different. The current administration has opened our borders, shredded the value of a dollar, ballooned the debt, undermined America’s credibility abroad, turned a blind eye to crime, and abused the justice system—all at once—giving candidates running for office at any level a wealth of sloganeering opportunities. And there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. For instance, you can see a smorgasbord of options just by looking at winning presidential campaigns going back to World War II. Not all the lines below were official campaign slogans; some were turns of phrase that arose organically and happened to define their times. Unfortunately, pretty much any of them also define our times. The Buck Stops Here (Truman) This might make for a good inflation-related commercial outside a dollar store if they weren’t all going out of business. Originally, it was about accountability, however, which never goes out of style. Until you get elected, of course. I Like Ike (Eisenhower) If your name is Mike, go for it. If not, you can always promise what helped elect Dwight Eisenhower to a second term: “Peace and Prosperity.” Both are lacking these days. A Time for Greatness (Kennedy) The Greeks have a word, kakistocracy, which means government by the worst among us. If that doesn’t describe the current state of affairs in Washington, D.C., I don’t know what does. America Needs a Change (Goldwater) This line was not from the winning campaign, but the idea is evergreen. Besides, as with “I Like Ike,” Lyndon Johnson’s winning campaign slogan, “All the Way with LBJ,” doesn’t work unless your name is Ray (and these days, I wouldn’t recommend such a turn of phrase). Of course, you could go with Barry Goldwater’s more famous slogan, “In Your Heart, You Know He’s Right,” or frame your opponent with LBJ’s retort: “In Your Guts, You Know He’s Nuts.” Law and Order (Nixon) At the 1968 Republican convention, Richard Nixon used the promise of law and order to appeal to “the great majority of Americans, the forgotten Americans, the non-shouters, the non-demonstrators.” Yep, that was 1968, not 2024. Four years later, he went with “Now, More Than Ever.” Both shoes again fit. A Leader, for a Change (Carter) Jimmy Carter used the above slogan as well as “Why Not the Best?” and “Not Just Peanuts.” All three work in their own way; the last one referring to what average Americans wish they could still afford. Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago? (Reagan) This one speaks for itself. As does Ronald Reagan’s reelection slogan, “It’s Morning in America Again.” The night has gone on long enough. Kindler, Gentler Nation (Bush No. 41) A bit of a stretch these days, but we can always hope. Just don’t say anything beginning with, “Read my lips …” That didn’t work out so well. It’s the Economy, Stupid (Clinton) It is the economy, stupid. Again. Compassionate Conservatism (Bush No. 43) The only problem with this slogan was its presumption that conservatism needed an assist. There’s nothing more compassionate than preserving, protecting, and defending what makes for human flourishing. Change We Can Believe In (Obama) This year’s presidential race is a faceoff between two people who have already held the office, so their likelihood of success can be evaluated based on records, not rhetoric. I can’t see either one using this slogan, however, and you might want to stay away from it as well. The country is still smarting from the last time we heard it. Make America Great Again (Trump) The former president aims to “Make America Great Again” again. If you count Reagan’s original use of the slogan in 1980, this year’s campaign is the third iteration, so it’s “Make America Great Again. Again. Again.” But MAGAAA may be a little much (and doesn’t fit so well on a cap). As you can see, candidates running for office in these tumultuous times have a lot of options. Let’s hope they use them to good effect so we can turn things around soon. Otherwise, slogans going even further back will again become relevant: If the bug-eaters at the World Economic Forum have their way, any candidate that promises “A Chicken in Every Pot” will get my vote. The post Evening in America: Times Are So Bad, All the Old Campaign Slogans Still Fit appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The State of the Presidential Race on Debate Day

Newsom: Hey, We Take Crime Seriously Here in California

On Thursday, ABC’s The View decided to hoist the Biden campaign up one last time before the upcoming debate. The show included Whoopi Goldberg unsurprisingly angry towards Republicans who say "President Trump," and Joy Behar asking people to leave Joe Biden alone. Goldberg began the segment with a fiery rant aimed towards Republicans that refer to Donald Trump as president. “Can I say something that's been bothering me and its been bothering me and bothering me? I would like every Republican out there to stop referring to this man as the president. He is not the president” she professed. She can't even stand to say his name most days.     As the audience cheered, Goldberg stated that her reason for this demand was because Trump is the “former president” but what she seemed to forget was that her and her co-hosts have previously referred to past presidents as just presidents. Sunny Hostin has referred to former President Obama as “President Obama” although he was not in office anymore at that time. Goldberg wasn’t finished as she went on to say “you know, nobody can see the future. And the same with the donors. You know, you cannot buy the presidency. You can put as much money as you want to, but it's not for sale so stop calling him the president.” Goldberg finally concluded that Trump is a “former president with all the other things attached.” Later in the segment, Behar made sure she took her jab at Trump as she suggested the debate moderators introduce Trump and say “will the defendant please rise?" – her co-hosts and the audience laughed and cheered her on. But Behar then began to complain about the debate: “Now, this idea that there's sound -- that when Trump keeps talking, his mic is shut, that's not enough because Joe Biden can still hear him.” Afraid Biden may get annoyed with Trump, she came up with the brilliant idea to have the debate in “one of those quiz-show isolation booths.” Behar then encouraged Biden to “fact-check” Trump during the debate. She noted that “when he says something stupid and lying then it's up to Joe.” But Behar wanted to defend Biden’s “senior moments” as she claimed that “everybody has a senior moment.” Behar then urged everyone to give Biden a break and leave him alone. She concluded “It's not fair to the guy if he's thinking and he stutters. He's overcome a lot of disabilities, the poor guy, in his life, you know, and leave him alone.” ABC The View 6/27/2024 11:04:51 – 11:05:27 AM ET WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Can I say something that's been bothering me and its been bothering me and bothering me? I would like every Republican out there to stop referring to this man as the president. He is not the president. SUNNY HOSTIN: He's the former president. GOLDBERG: He is the former president. And, you know, nobody can see the future. And the same with the donors. You know, you cannot buy the presidency. You can put as much money as you want to, but it's not for sale so stop calling him the president. He is not the president, yet. He's the former president with all the other things attached. (...) 11:06:51 – 11:07:52 JOY BEHAR: I think that they should introduce Trump and say “will the defendant please rise?” SARA HAINES: Yes. Yes. GOLDBERG: That works. BEHAR: Now, this idea that there's sound -- that when Trump keeps talking, his mic is shut, that's not enough because Joe Biden can still hear him. HAINES: Yeah. Yeah. BEHAR: He's like -- where you are to me, if you keep yammering, I can still hear you. They need to be in like one of those quiz show isolation booths – HAINES: Yeah, that would help. It wouldn't be bad BEHAR: -- like on $64 Question. You know, but also Joe Biden should fact-check him. That's how it works and he has a minute to rebut, I believe. HOSTIN: Yeah. BEHAR: So when he says something stupid and lying then Joe, it's up to Joe, and this senior moment business, everybody has a senior moment. GOLDBERG: That's why -- ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: I agree. It's just how it will be perceived. BEHAR: It's not fair to the guy if he's thinking and he stutters. He's overcome a lot of disabilities, the poor guy, in his life, you know, and leave him alone. (...)

The House is set to send a strong message to the Pentagon regarding its collusion with leftist media ratings firms like NewsGuard: Enough is enough. House Republicans introduced H.R. 8774 on Thursday, a Defense appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2025, which contains language that bars the Pentagon from using taxpayer funds for contracts with so-called media ratings firms like Ad Fontes and NewsGuard. Led by House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-CA), this bill, which is aimed at stopping censorship, is a response to the baffling $750,000 contract between the Department of Defense and NewsGuard. Section 8159 specifies: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to NewsGuard Technologies Inc.” Moreover, Section 8147 prevents the Pentagon from labeling communications by American citizens as “mis-, dis- or mal-information.”  The same section also bans the military agency from partnering with or funding “nonprofit or other organizations that pressure or recommend private companies to censor lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons, including recommending the censoring or removal of content on social media platforms.” In remarks before the House floor, Chairman Calvert said, “The bill includes multiple general provisions from the House’s fiscal year 2024 bill that pivot the Pentagon away from divisive partisan policies, and towards military readiness.” MRC Free Speech America Vice President Schneider hailed the pro-free speech wording of the bill, saying: “Our defense dollars should be used to target our enemies not those who have different political views. The Biden administration has been using our taxpayer dollars really for campaign purposes. He doesn’t like conservative media outlets that have a different point of view.” Speaking of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-AL), Schneider added, “Fortunately, the House is trying to stop this abuse.” Shortly after the bill’s announcement, the White House came out in opposition to the bill, lamenting some of the appropriation text’s anti-woke measures. “If the President were presented with H.R. 8774, he would veto it,” wrote the White House’s Office of Management and Budget in a statement published on Monday. Chairman Calvert’s announcement of H.R. 8774 followed the House’s passage of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, a spending authorization bill that includes a provision that blocks the Pentagon from contracting with anti-free speech firms like NewsGuard. NewsGuard is a leftist media ratings firm exposed by MRC Free Speech America as a tool for the left to censor outlets critical of the Biden administration. As revealed in three annual MRC exposés, NewsGuard has anointed leftist media outlets with highly favorable ratings, while conveniently providing damning ratings to right-leaning media. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Have you heard about those 16 experts who have been working feverishly for a week in advance of Thursday night’s presidential debate, putting Joe Biden together in a Hollywood-style studio inside an airplane hangar like Sandra Bullock in “Miss Congeniality”? As a past member of the Screen Actors Guild, I can assure you it’s true that sometimes a boneheaded actor just can’t remember his lines. In the old days in Hollywood, the director would yell: “Somebody from the art department get in here with a magic marker and draw up some cue cards … right now!” Now, far be it from our side to engage in any “dirty tricks,” but IFBs operate on a radio frequency, and frequencies can be easily intercepted and jammed. A large swath of the online right has spent the lead-up to the debate speculating about what exotic cocktail of drugs Biden will need to ingest to look sharp and sound coherent in his CNN face-off with Donald Trump. They’re thinking of the catatonic Robert De Niro character in "Awakenings.” Wrong movie. Today, it’s much easier for the brain-cell-challenged actor who can’t remember anything. The answer is a wireless version of a pigtail earphone called an IFB — interruptible foldback — often used by newscasters. It’s an ear-prompter, a tiny device that sits invisibly in the ear canal. They’re readily available online. There’s one called Ovation, and the complete wireless package, which includes a recorder to hold prepared comments, costs around $1,000. Such a unit, properly modified, could provide direct radio access for instant communication. This is particularly valuable to a handsome bard who can’t act, either, in that his acting coach can reassure him and lead him from a distance. “Look up. Turn left. Look into her eyes.” Equipped with such devices, Biden’s 16 debate aides, divided into two teams speaking into left and right ear-prompters — one for dialogue and the other for direction — can become the greatest ventriloquists since Edgar Bergen manipulated Charlie McCarthy. Just imagine moderator Jake Tapper asks, “What is the greatest threat to democracy?” And an aide-ventriloquist responds, “Donald Trump is the greatest threat to democracy!” Another aide says, “Look to your left with anger, Joe.” With any luck, it will come out, “Trump is angry at the left, Joe.” A further question, from Dana Bash, might be, “Will you pardon your son, Hunter, now that he’s been convicted of a gun crime?” The first aide says, “I will never stoop to that level.” Another aide panics and yells, “No, Joe! He said stoop, not poop! Watch out for the stairs!” Of course, this isn’t the first time the idea of Biden using an earpiece has come up. In 2020, the Trump campaign complained that Biden’s camp first agreed to an inspection for illicit devices and then reneged at the last minute. A Biden spokesman denied the charge. Naturally, the unquestioning press accepted the spokesman’s statement and dismissed Trump’s claims as just another “conspiracy theory.” Maybe. Who knows? Now, far be it from those supporting the Bad Orange Man to engage in any “dirty tricks,” but IFBs transmit on radio frequencies, and those frequencies can be easily intercepted and jammed. A Trump campaign staffer would need a scanner. If Biden is using an IFB, the frequency wouldn’t be difficult to locate, unless he is using a more sophisticated device that hops frequencies. Once located, it could be jammed — or taken over. The British did this often during World War II, using men and later women who spoke fluent German to insert confusing instructions over Nazi night fighter control channels. It worked marvelously well. Not that the Trump campaign would ever consider such chicanery. Or that Biden would seriously consider cheating in the first place.

In October 2023, Egyptian archaeologists unveiled a trove of artifacts from a New Kingdom cemetery, including a sarcophagus lid with an image of the goddess Nut — which had an uncanny resemblance to Marge Simpson. The post Archaeologists Uncovered An Ancient Egyptian Sarcophagus With A Painting That Looks Eerily Like Marge Simpson appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Just months after the Bataan Death March, Joseph C. Murphy died in a horrific prisoner of war camp — and was buried among countless other deceased soldiers. The post A U.S. Prisoner Of War’s Remains Have Finally Been Identified From The 1942 Bataan Death March appeared first on All That's Interesting.

CNN’s Fact-Checker Notes That He’s Back After ‘Many Months of Not Tweeting’