Why would colleges be against ebooks? Aren't things like chrombooks, as an example, cheaper to install and maintain? If anything, ebooks should be forced upon schools to avoid heavy books.

Are you supporting harpy rodent clinton fully now?

‘Remarkable’ 10-Point Lead For Brexit In Shock New Poll







The Brexit campaign to lead Britain out of the European Union (EU) has opened up a 10-point lead over Remain campaigners, a “remarkable” new poll has revealed.



The ORB International poll – which has deviated from the criticised “random digit dial” methodology and used 2,000 online respondents instead – shows a 55-point turnout for Leave, with 45 per cent support for Remain.

Of all respondents, 53 per cent said they’d vote to Leave, with just 46 per cent opting to stay. But when eliminating those who have said they won’t, or are unlikely to vote, the margin changes to 55 against 45 points.

Older and working class voters are more likely to vote to leave, according to the ORB poll for the Independent. Stunningly, only Scotland would have a majority for Remain (62 against 38) with even London opting to Leave the EU (51 against 49). When adjusted for turnout in London, “only 44 per cent back staying in the EU and 56 per cent favour voting to leave”.

A majority of private sector employees would choose to Leave, with a majority of public sector workers aiming to stay.

Nearly half of Labour’s voters (42 per cent) say they’ll vote to Leave, with Brexit support from the Conservative Party at 61 per cent, suggesting the Prime Minister would not have support from his own party after the referendum.

    "It's coming home, it's coming home, it's coming!" #euref pic.twitter.com/6atGWus0SM

    — Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) June 10, 2016

While 55 per cent of people think leaving the European Union would pose “some risk”, many are still willing to take the chance. Just 26 per cent of voters say there would be “a great deal of risk”, perhaps a sign that the government and the Remain campaign’s “Project Fear” is not working.

In fact most UK voters believe the campaign has been “too negative”, with 69 per cent saying so.

The poll also reveals that women more than men are likely to vote to Leave, with 53 per cent stumping for Leave, a figure that goes down to 47 per cent amongst men.

Over one in three Black or Ethnic Minority voters say they’ll vote to Leave, with around one in three Muslims sharing the view, and 66 per cent of Jewish voters saying they’d vote to Leave too.

The polling suggests it is also the richest in society who would opt to stay, perhaps confirming the Leave campaign line that the European Union serves the richest best.



http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/10/remarkable-10-point-lead-brexit-shock-new-poll/

Obama Civil Rights Director: It’s Un-American To Keep Men Out Of Women Bathrooms…



    Legislation that keeps men out of women’s bathrooms is directly contrary to American values, according to assistant attorney general Vanita Gupta, who heads up the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division.

    Gupta made the claim at a forum held on Tuesday by the Washington Council of Lawyers.

    U.S. Attorney’s Office in Jackson, Miss.

    “Even after the Supreme Court’s landmark gay marriage decision last year in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed all people ‘equal dignity in the eyes of the law,’ we see new efforts to deny LGBTI individuals the respect they deserve and the protection our laws guarantee,” Gupta said.



http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/10/obama-civil-rights-director-against-american-values-to-keep-men-out-of-womens-bathroom/

How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board







 Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.


 Fernando’s lack of any known background in nuclear security caught the attention of several board members, and when ABC News first contacted the State Department in August 2011 seeking a copy of his resume, the emails show that confusion ensued among the career government officials who work with the advisory panel.

“I have spoken to [State Department official and ISAB Executive Director Richard Hartman] privately, and it appears there is much more to this story that we’re unaware of,” wrote Jamie Mannina, the press aide who fielded the ABC News request. “We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the Board. I think it’s important to get down to the bottom of this before there’s any response.

“As you can see from the attached, it’s natural to ask how he got onto the board when compared to the rest of the esteemed list of members,” Mannina wrote, referring to an attachment that was not included in the recent document release.

Fernando himself would not answer questions from ABC News in 2011 about what qualified him for a seat on the board or led to his appointment. When ABC News finally caught up with Fernando at the 2012 Democratic convention, he became upset and said he was "not at liberty" to speak about it. Security threatened to have the ABC News reporter arrested.

 Fernando's expertise appeared to be in the arena of high-frequency trading -- a form of computer-generated stock trading. At the time of his appointment, he headed a firm, Chopper Trading, that was a leader in that field.

Fernando's history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific -- and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.

The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show. Among those with whom Fernando served on the International Security Advisory Board was David A. Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and former Sen. Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel.

“It is certainly a serious, knowledgeable and experienced group of experts,” said Bruce Blair, a Princeton professor whose principal research covers the technical and policy steps on the path toward the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. “Much of the focus has been on questions of nuclear stability and the risks of nuclear weapons use by Russia and Pakistan.”

The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to “S”; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State.

“The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,” wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to Mannina, the press aide. “Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Hoo-wee, the New York Times will really have to extend itself to top the boner and mother-of-all-corrections at the American Journal of Political Science. This is the journal that published a finding much beloved of liberals a few years back that purported to find scientific evidence that conservatives are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness, and that the supposed “authoritarian” personality of conservatives might even have a genetic basis (and therefore be treatable someday?). Settle in with a cup or glass of your favorite beverage, and get ready to enjoy one of the most epic academic face plants ever.

The original article was called “Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies,” and was written by three academics at Virginia Commonwealth University. Here’s the relevant part of the abstract:

    Work in psychology, behavioral genetics, and recently political science, however, has demonstrated that political preferences also develop in childhood and are equally influenced by genetic factors. These findings cast doubt on the assumed causal relationship between personality and politics. Here we test the causal relationship between personality traits and political attitudes using a direction of causation structural model on a genetically informative sample. The results suggest that personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes; rather, the correlation between the two is a function of an innate common underlying genetic factor.

After the usual long winding path through the existing literature and exhausting discussion of their methodology, we get to some analysis and conclusions, and this is where the fun starts. There’s a lot of jargon and highly technical discussion as usual, but some comprehensible copy:

    In line with our expectations, P [for “Psychoticism”] (positively related to tough-mindedness and authoritarianism) is associated with social conservatism and conservative military attitudes. Intriguingly, the strength of the relationship between P and political ideology differs across sexes. P‘s link with social conservatism is stronger for females while its link with military attitudes is stronger for males. We also find individuals higher in Neuroticism are more likely to be economically liberal. Furthermore, Neuroticism is completely unrelated to social ideology, which has been the focus of many in the field. Finally, those higher in Social Desirability are also more likely to express socially liberal attitudes.

Here I must explain that “Social Desirability” is a social science term that essentially translates into common sense language as someone who self-consciously wants to get along. Keep this in mind as we get to the epic correction. Keep also in mind where the authors also express some surprise that “neurotic” people would turn out to be liberals and support the welfare state:

    People higher in Neuroticism tend to be more economically liberal. What is intriguing about this relationship is that it is in the opposite direction of what past theories would predict. . . That is, neurotic people are more likely to support public policies that provide aid to the economically disadvantaged (public housing, foreign aid, immigration, etc).

Now if you’re still with me, take in the opening of this very long correction:

    The authors regret that there is an error in the published version of “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1), 34–51. The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed.

I’m just going to let that sit there for a moment while you swallow your beverage and put your cup or glass down so as not to risk damage to your keyboard. To continue:

    Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response. Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.

If you go back to the excerpts above and swap out the ideological categories you will have to suppress a horselaugh. Liberals are more prone to “psychoticism” (which the authors hasten to explain doesn’t meant “psychotic,” but what the hell. . .), and hence authoritatianism, which would come as no surprise to any conservative who pays attention to authoritarian liberalism. And people higher in Social Desirability will turn out to be conservatives, which is also congruent with the many simpler survey findings that conservatives are happier than liberals.

If you continue with the explanation in the correction it would seem to suggest that someone simply transposed the data somewhere along the line during the coding steps. Or maybe the authors were hoping for a job with Dan Rather or Katie Couric if tenure didn’t come through? They are defending themselves by saying that the main point of the paper was to demonstrate the magnitude of correlations between personality traits and sociopolitical attitudes, and hence that the ideological direction of the correlation doesn’t matter. This doesn’t wash well with the great folks at the indispensible Retraction Watch, who interviewed one of the academics who spotted the mistake, Steven Ludeke of the University of Southern Denmark, who said:

    The erroneous results represented some of the larger correlations between personality and politics ever reported; they were reported and interpreted, repeatedly, in the wrong direction; and then cited at rates that are (for this field) extremely high. And the relationship between personality and politics is, as we note in the paper, quite a “hot” topic, with a large number of new papers appearing every year. So although the errors do not matter for the result that the authors (rightly) see as their most important, I obviously think the errors themselves matter quite a lot, especially for what it says about the scientific process both pre- and post-review.

In other words, if this study hadn’t come out conforming to the liberal narrative and sliming conservatives, it wouldn’t have attracted much notice. By the way, your tax dollars paid for this essential social science research. A note at the end says, “The data for this article were collected with the financial support of the National Institute of Health.” And people wonder why Republicans in Congress want to cut off federal funding for social science research. As an alternative, I suggest redirecting federal social science funds to Retraction Watch.

And cue Emily Litella whenever you’re ready.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/epic-correction-of-the-decade.php

And the fast food industry is looking to not depend on fast food workers anymore. Robots.

Which is exactly why this thread is about the opposite effect: $15/hr for giving people tasteless burgers fast, and a smile as extra...

Yes. They know.

Obama drains $500M From Zika response to U.N. Climate Fund












In February, President Obama said we should not “panic over Zika.”

At the same time, he asked Congress for $1.8 billion in funding for the resources to combat the Zika virus, the pathogen spreading rapidly through the Americas that can cause birth defects and neurological problems. In a rare display of fiscal restraint, Congress granted $622 million (mainly from unused Ebola response money).

However, as negotiations continue for even more Zika funding between these two branches of government, it seems that $500 million of those taxpayer dollars initially allotted now sits in the coffers of the United Nations.

The Obama administration siphoned $500 million that could have gone toward combating the Zika virus into a United Nations effort aimed at mitigating climate change.

Sen. James Lankford (R., Okla.) wrote in an op-ed published in the Daily Signal that the Senate last year granted Obama the authority to pay for a response to Zika, but his administration chose instead to allocate those funds toward the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund.


http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/obama-drains-500m-from-zika-response-to-u-n-climate-fund/

9th Circuit: Americans Have No Right To Concealed Carry A Gun Outside Home



The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is ruling in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement, saying the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed gun in public.

On February 13 2014 Breibart News reported that a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s “good cause” requirement. Thereafter–under pressure from State Attorney Kamala Harris–the court announced that it would rehear the case en banc. Today that en banc ruling resulted in the “good cause” requirement being upheld and Americans being told they have not right to carry a concealed gun in public.

The case–PERUTA V. CTY. OF SAN DIEGO–was filed by concealed permit applicants who think the “good cause” requirement infringed their Second Amendment rights in San Diego and Yolo Counties. On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit panel sided with the Plaintiffs, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense. Moreover, that it is a sufficient cause both inside and outside of one’s domicile.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted from Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s majority opinion, in which he emphasized that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

But the en banc ruling went in the opposite direction, upholding the “good cause” requirement and unequivocally stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed gun outside the home for self-defense. Writing in the majority opinion, Judge Williams Fletcher said, “We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”


http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/06/09/9th-circuit/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally! A soul brave enough to be an open, out of the closet Harpy Rodent Clinton supporter. Welcome to the TRUMP party and enjoy your stay!

 

Cool.

Do we know if that was the intent from the creative minds behind this project, as fact?

Is it devil worshiping, or based on legendary deities?