'Ethical, campaign finance, and legal issues'

'Now, as she steps into the golden spotlight and begins her journey to seek love once more...'

'We always work hard'

Scotland has given the world a lot of great things. Whiskey, the Loch Ness Monster, bagpipes, haggis, deep-fried mars bars… the list goes on. In fairness, the greatness of some of those things is up for debate. What’s not in question is the talent of one of its most famous sons, Rod Stewart. Stewart, we should point out, has a Scottish mother but was born and raised in London and has never lived a day of his life in Scotland. He has, however, worn enough tartan and claimed to be Scottish enough times for us to overlook the fact. Anyway, The post Top 10 Rod Stewart Albums appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

While many in the media have attempted to downplay rising crime in America, noted author and economist John Lott Jr. says a majority of the public is alarmed about it and rightly so.  Lott wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal about America’s crime rate, contending that “[t]he decline in reported crimes is a function of less reporting, not less crime.” Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of “More Guns Less Crime” and “Dumbing Down the Courts,” among other books. He is also a former chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In an interview with The Daily Signal, Lott explains why the FBI reports a decline in crime, even as more Americans say they have been victims of violent crime and property crimes.  Listen to the interview on “The Daily Signal Podcast” with Lott: The post Crime Is Rising. Expert John Lott Explains Why. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once quipped that the “test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” The protests over the war between Israel and Hamas that have roiled university campuses across the nation are testing our collective intelligence when it comes to the First Amendment. Americans today enjoy a remarkable degree of freedom to communicate their ideas and beliefs. That freedom is a legacy of careful cultivation of social and legal norms that hold government has no business telling citizens what to say or believe, an ethos captured by Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s famous statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Running alongside this deep-seated commitment to freedom, however, is a complementary understanding that, to quote Russell Kirk, “Order is the first need of the commonwealth.” Without a “civil social order,” in Kirk’s telling, freedom cannot be “anything better than violence.” The First Amendment, which allows for regulation of unlawful conduct and even narrow categories of harmful speech, accounts for this need to harmonize freedom with order. As the campus protests have revealed, however, we struggle to hold these two concepts—freedom and order—in mind at the same time. Claiming the mantle of free speech, students protesting Israel’s military operation in Gaza have engaged in jarring exhibitions of antisemitism. Pro-Palestinian students have been heard chanting the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” A leader of the student protests at Columbia University was caught on video saying that Zionists “deserved to die” and that they should be “grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering” them. Many have gone beyond speaking to building tent encampments on campus grounds, occupying buildings, engaging in acts of vandalism, and even stoking violence. Protesting students at UCLA blocked others, including Jewish students, from entering parts of the campus, including the library. Clashes with police later took place after hours of violent encounters between the protesters and students supporting Israel. Protesters at Columbia smashed windows, overturned furniture, and built barricades as they occupied a campus building. Reactions from university officials have run the gamut. Several universities have summoned law enforcement to restore order, resulting in the arrest of hundreds of individuals. Others have chosen to “negotiate” with the protesters, whose demands include divestment of university funds from companies that work with Israel and granting amnesty to students whose actions have broken the law. These mixed reactions come after high-profile resignations by university leaders, including Liz Magill at the University of Pennsylvania and Claudine Gay at Harvard, after they failed to condemn antisemitism on their campuses in the wake of the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas militants on Israel. Congress, too, is reacting to these events. The House recently passed a bill called the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which requires the Department of Education to use a definition of antisemitism developed by an international organization when assessing Title VI violations. However, the definition covers several examples of vile, but legally protected, speech—a highly concerning precedent. The campus protests arrive at a time when basic respect for, and understanding of, freedom of speech is receding. Large percentages of students express a willingness to ban controversial speakers from campus, and equally large percentages of adults are willing to use the government to restrict what they deem misinformation.  This moment of confusion creates a generational opportunity to reinvigorate a robust national understanding of the First Amendment and respect for our rich heritage of freedom of speech within a context of ordered liberty. But for that to happen, we must clearly articulate and explain, in plain terms, how that heritage applies to our current challenges. First, the government should not prohibit speech unless it falls within narrowly defined, and well-accepted, categories of unprotected speech. That includes even speech that most civilized people would consider reprehensible, but that protection stops short at statements intended and likely to incite imminent violence or statements conveying a serious intent to physically harm a person or group. Most, but certainly not all, of the protesters’ speech is protected under that framework. Second, speech goes both ways. When vile and false ideas are expressed, we must respond with truth. And make no mistake, the antisemitism that has erupted on campuses across this nation deserves every ounce of condemnation that can be mustered. People of goodwill of every faith, race, and nationality should firmly and unequivocally reject this cancerous ideology that has led to some of the worst atrocities ever witnessed. Freedom of speech means we are free—indeed, morally obligated—to resist evil speech with truth. Third, trespassing, vandalism, and violence in the name of ideology are merely lawless conduct, not protected speech. Removing students who are violating speech-neutral rules against such activities doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Indeed, refusing to do so risks compromising the rights and freedoms of others. George Will once quipped that “the most important four words in politics are: ‘up to a point.’” That commonsense attitude would serve us well today. We will protect speech, but not when it incites violence or threatens others. We will vigorously contest false speech, but we will not call on the government to shut it down lest that power be turned on us. And we will tolerate protest, but not when it devolves into rank lawlessness and disorder. After all, common sense is what allows us to hold opposing concepts in mind while continuing to function. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. The post Common Sense vs. Antisemitism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Parents, children, and supporters of school choice have cause to celebrate this National Charter Schools Week. Charter schools earned the top two spots on a list of the best high schools in America, according to a recent report by U.S. News & World Report. And, of the top 100 public high schools, charter schools claimed 19 spots—10 in Arizona alone—despite accounting for only 8% of all public schools in the country. Yet with all their proven success, these tuition-free public schools open to all students are far too few nationwide. Charter schools are in high demand by parents, as evidenced by consistently long waitlists. Yet of the 46 states plus Washington, D.C., with laws allowing charter schools, many states either cap the total number of charters allowed or the number that may be opened each year, or restrict the creation of charter schools to failing districts. Legislation proposed in Mississippi this year would have expanded the state’s existing, restrictive law to increase the total number of charter schools from the current 10. As explained by Empower Mississippi, HB 1683 would have allowed applicants to apply to start charter schools in C-rated districts, not just D- and F-rated districts, as is the case currently, without needing the approval of the local school board—which is unlikely to be granted. The bill also would have allowed for the creation of charter schools in any district as long as they are aimed at serving students with autism or emotional or intellectual disabilities. Finally, the bill would have granted Mississippi’s colleges and universities the ability to authorize charter schools. Currently, only the Charter School Authorizer Board has that power. Washington state has only 18 charter schools, despite passage of a law allowing them 12 years ago. In 2021, a statewide ban on new charter schools occurred. Liv Finne, director of the Center for Education at Washington Policy Center, noted that the Washington State Board of Education “finds that children who attend a charter public school receive an education that is as good or better than the one provided at most traditional public schools.” The Washington State Board of Education made two key recommendations in conjunction with charter school authorizers: First, the board recommends that additional charter schools be granted the opportunity to open. Second, it recommends an “examination of the sufficiency of charter school funding and approaches used in other states in order to bring about equitable educational funding for Washington’s schools.” Time will tell if any ground is gained. Missouri took a step forward last week when Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, signed legislation allowing charter schools in Boone County—which as of July 2023 had an estimated population of just under 190,000. Previously, Missouri allowed charter schools only in Kansas City, St. Louis, and unaccredited school districts. In typical fashion, local school superintendents (seven of eight in Boone County) demanded a veto. Their self-serving focus is on maintaining a monopoly on student enrollment and the associated funding, not giving families educational options for their children. Missouri lawmakers would be wise to extend the state’s charter school law to all districts. It would be advantageous to the bottom line of all states to encourage more charter schools. A state funds only a portion of the per-pupil amount that it provides to a district’s public schools, and generally doesn’t cover facility costs—in part or in full—for charter schools. Often, families who send their children to charter schools aren’t able to afford private school tuition or don’t have a parent or grandparents available during the workday to make homeschooling a feasible option. On average, more than half of students who attend a charter school qualify for free or reduced-price lunch based on household income. As of the 2021-2022 school year, many minority students attend charter schools. In one example, in urban charter school enrollment, an average of 40.5% of students are Hispanic and an average of 32.6% are black. White students, on average, account for 17.6% and Asian students make up 4.4%. More than 57% of charter schools are located in urban areas, enrolling more than 1.9 million students. Nearly 29% are in suburban areas, accounting for almost an additional 1 million students. Parents know what is best for their children, and many desire an option other than a district public school assigned to them based on home address. Charter schools have proven to be a high-demand avenue that produces academic results for students. Lawmakers would be wise to encourage, not limit, the expansion of charter public schools. If these schools aren’t effectively educating students, families can leave because their children aren’t bound to the schools. Charter schools have incentives to serve families well and provide high-quality student learning, incentives that don’t exist in the near-monopoly held by district public schools. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. The post More Public Charter Schools Are Needed Nationwide appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The US Senate has passed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization act, which enjoyed bipartisan support, with an overwhelming majority (88-4). The legislation includes a push to introduce digital ID and digital or mobile driver’s licenses, and will be considered by the House this week – the final hurdle before, if approved, it gets signed by President Biden. The section dealing with acceptance of digital IDs and driver’s licenses is buried and we found it on page 1,015 of the document. We obtained a copy of the bill for you here. It reads that the FAA administrator “shall take such actions as may be necessary to accept, in any instance where an individual is required to submit government-issued identification to the Administrator, a digital or mobile driver’s license or identification card issued to such individual by a state.” While adopting the bill, the Senate left out an amendment drafted by Senator Jeff Merkley, meant to temporarily halt wider deployment of facial recognition tools at US airports. The Democrat’s idea was to impose a moratorium on biometric surveillance proliferation by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at least over the next three years. The reasoning behind the amendment was that the current usage of facial recognition technology lacks transparency and results in travelers being poorly, if at all, aware of their rights in this regard. The Senate chose to ignore the amendment, which wasn’t even put up for a vote, despite it making what appears to be a reasonable demand to ensure people can make informed decisions about participation in the schemes – namely, provide “simple and clear signage, spoken announcements, or other accessible notifications” about the ability to opt-out. Yet this is something US Travel Association CEO Geoff Freeman dismissed as “dangerous and costly.” And Freeman doesn’t measure cost here in terms of safety and privacy of personal data, but “traveler hours a year” that would allegedly be added to wait times if travelers’ rights were better protected. But Merkley noted in a post on X, responding to Freeman’s statement, that this is not true even according to the TSA, whose site states that people opting out of facial recognition does not add to wait times. Once signed into law, the reauthorized act would provide the FAA with some $105 billion and the National Transportation Safety Board with $738 million to carry out various “safety and technology upgrades.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Controversial FAA Bill Passes Senate, Promotes Digital IDs and Mobile Licenses, Facial Recognition Concerns Ignored appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Sign Up To Keep Reading This post is for Reclaim The Net supporters. Gain access to the entire archive of features and supporters-only content. Help protect free speech, freedom from surveillance, and digital civil liberties. Join Already a supporter? Login here If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Military Surveillance Tech Prowls US Neighborhoods appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. YouTube has (“voluntarily” or otherwise) assumed the role of a private business entity that “supports elections.” Google’s video platform detailed in a blog post how this is supposed to play out, in this instance, in the EU. With the European Parliament (EP) election just around the corner, YouTube set out to present “an overview of our efforts to help people across Europe and beyond find helpful and authoritative election news and information.” The overview is the usual hodgepodge of reasonable concepts, such as promoting information on how to vote or register for voting, learning about election results, etc., that quickly morph into yet another battle in the “war on disinformation.” And what better way to “support” an election (and by extension, democracy) – than to engage in another round of mass censorship? /s But YouTube was happy to share that in 2023 alone, it removed 35,000 videos uploaded in the EU, having decided that this content violated the platform’s policies, including around what the blog post calls “certain types of elections misinformation” (raising the logical question if some types of “election misinformation” might be allowed). As for who is doing this work, YouTube suggests it is a well-oiled machine hard at it around the clock, and “at scale” – made up of “global teams of reviewers” and machine learning algorithms. The blog post first states that one of the goals of YouTube’s efforts is to help users “learn about the issues shaping the debate.” But then in the part of the article that goes into how the platform is “dealing with harmful content,” it at one point starts to look like the giant might be trying to shape that debate itself. “Our Intelligence Desk has also been working for months to get ahead of emerging issues and trends that could affect the EU elections, both on and off YouTube,” reads the post. In case somebody missed the point, YouTube reiterates it: “This helps our enforcement teams to address these potential trends before they become larger issues.” And while machine learning (aka, AI) is mentioned as a positive when it comes to powering YouTube’s ability to censor at scale, later on in the post the obligatory mention is made of AI as a tool potentially dangerous to elections and democracy. YouTube also states that coordinated influence campaigns are banned on the platform – and promises that this is true “regardless of the political viewpoints they support.” And when Google’s Threat Analysis Group (TAG) decides it has spotted such a campaign, this information is shared with law enforcement, including EUROPOL. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post YouTube Removes 35,000 EU Videos for “Misinformation,” Enhances Content Censorship Ahead of 2024 Elections appeared first on Reclaim The Net.