Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Detroit Schools Deteriorated, Questions On $500 Million Bond

Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 8/15/2016 | Tom Gantert 

During this past school year, the condition of the Detroit Public Schools’ buildings made national news.
For example, Detroit teacher Shalon Miller wrote about her poor working conditions in an article published by The Washington Post.
While the media coverage focused on the poor conditions of the schools, it did not mention that in November 2009, taxpayers approved a $500.5 million millage for DPS, specifically to improve the condition of the district's buildings.
Miller wrote in The Washington Post: “I wonder why my students are left in the worst conditions possible.” And she said Wednesday that taxpayers should have the same concerns.
But it’s unclear what that half a billion earmarked to improve DPS facilities was spent on. The district has yet to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request filed July 5 by Michigan Capitol Confidential asking for details of expenditures. School officials have confirmed the money has all been spent.
“Any concerned citizen would like to know where their tax dollars have gone,” Miller said. “Teachers want to know. We don’t know either. We haven’t had those answers either. Where is the money? We want to know also. Teachers have been screaming that from the rafters.”
Miller blamed the state of Michigan for the condition of the school buildings. “This is a state issue,” she said. “People want to put it in the lap of Detroit.”
Here’s an excerpt from Miller’s article: “Classrooms have old, drafty windows that are poorly insulated. In some rooms, we have to wear winter coats in class until lunch time. In other rooms, it can be ridiculously hot. Both temperature conditions are extremely distracting to the educational process. It’s hard for kids to concentrate when their hands are freezing or they’re sweating profusely. When it rains, water leaks into the classrooms from the roof. We have had to place buckets under the leaks and pray for dry weather. Unfixed structural damage causes water-soaked tiles to frequently fall from the ceiling of classrooms. The carpet has an ever-present moldy smell.”

(Reuters) Pollster warns Clinton's lead over Trump is soft

Washington Examiner ^ | 8/17/16 10:30 AM | Paul Bedard 

The polling company for Reuters is warning Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead over Republican Donald Trump appears soft.
In fact, Ipsos revealed that of the top three issues voters find most important, Clinton only leads one by a margin of 5 points.
"Simply put, the election still is far from over!" said Ipsos President Clifford Young. "While Clinton does lead Trump on the top quality 'stronger on economy/jobs' by five points, they are in a dead heat on 'terrorism' and 'fixing a broken system'–much closer than the 8-point average Clinton lead in the polls," he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Don’t be fooled by media — Trump is in it to win it

Washington Times ^ | Aug. 17, 2016 | Kelly Riddell 

This shouldn’t be news, but it is. The mainstream media is pushing an absurd narrative that Mr. Trump may surrender before the November election, that he’s so defeated by his sinking polls and negative coverage it wouldn’t be unreasonable to see him bow out of the race before the votes are cast in November.
But Wednesday, Mr. Trump showed renewed focus.
“I want to win,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “That’s why I’m bringing on fantastic people who know how to win and love to win.”
He announced an overhaul to his campaign team, hiring Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News, as his campaign executive chief and Kellyanne Conway, a veteran Republican pollster, as his campaign manager.
Mr. Trump broadened his message, pledging to fight for the American people — a winning cause.
“This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be your greatest champion. I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and honored equally,” Mr. Trump wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday night. “We will reject bigotry and hatred and oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on our common culture and values as one American people.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Feminist Magazine: Bill Clinton Isn’t Necessarily A Bad Guy If He Raped Juanita Broaddrick

Daily Caller ^ | 8/17/2016 | Amber Randall 

Feminist Magazine: Bill Clinton Isn’t Necessarily A Bad Guy If He Raped Juanita Broaddrick
12:33 PM 08/17/2016
Former President Bill Clinton addresses the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. July 26, 2016. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson
An online feminist magazine recently featured an article that excused former President Bill Clinton’s alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick.
A Wonkette article titled “Let’s Talk About Juanita Broaddrick” claimed that even if Clinton had raped Broaddrick in 1978 — he was running for Arkansas governor at the time — it does not necessarily mean he’s “an evil man.”
“To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that,” the article claimed.
The author also wrote that while she could see Clinton raping Broaddrick back then and viewing it as “alpha sex,” she could also see a lot of other men of the time doing the same thing.
“I can absolutely see Bill Clinton doing this (then, not now) and not even thinking of it as rape, but thinking of it as dominant, alpha sex. I can see a LOT of men doing that during that time period, before we started telling them in the ’80s, “hey, that is rape, do not do that,” the article stated.
She even said that she could see someone’s grandfather doing the same thing during that time.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

What's wrong with poling?

As I demonstrated in yesterday’s article, How Bloomberg Spun its Own Poll Data to Make Hillary Clinton Seem Inevitable, the media is intentionally spinning poll results at best, and completely fabricating them at worst.
While that’s bad enough, there are also some deep, fundamental problems which plague any attempts to conduct accurate polling in 2016. Cliff Zukin, professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University and a past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, wrote about many of these issues in a 2015 New York Times opinion piece titled, What’s the Matter With Polling?
Here are a few excerpts:
Over the past two years, election polling has had some spectacular disasters. Several organizations tracking the 2014 midterm elections did not catch the Republican wave that led to strong majorities in both houses; polls in Israel badly underestimated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strength, and pollsters in Britain predicted a close election only to see the Conservatives win easily. What’s going on here? How much can we trust the polls as we head toward the 2016 elections?

Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify “likely voters,” has become even thornier.

The second unsettling trend is the rapidly declining response rate. When I first started doing telephone surveys in New Jersey in the late 1970s, we considered an 80 percent response rate acceptable, and even then we worried if the 20 percent we missed were different in attitudes and behaviors than the 80 percent we got. Enter answering machines and other technologies. By 1997, Pew’s response rate was 36 percent, and the decline has accelerated. By 2014 the response rate had fallen to 8 percent. As Nate Silver of recently observed, “The problem is simple but daunting. The foundation of opinion research has historically been the ability to draw a random sample of the population. That’s become much harder to do.”
So what’s the solution for election polling? There isn’t one. Our old paradigm has broken down, and we haven’t figured out how to replace it. Political polling has gotten less accurate as a result, and it’s not going to be fixed in time for 2016. We’ll have to go through a period of experimentation to see what works, and how to better hit a moving target.

Those paying close attention to the 2016 election should exercise caution as they read the polls. Because of the high cost, the difficulty in locating the small number of voters who will actually turn out in primaries and the increasing reliance on non-probability Internet polls, you are likely to see a lot of conflicting numbers. To make matters still worse, the cellphone problem is more acute in states than it is at the national level, because area codes and exchanges often no longer respect state or congressional boundaries. Some polling organizations will move to sampling from voter lists, which will miss recently registered voters and campaigns’ efforts to mobilize them.

We are less sure how to conduct good survey research now than we were four years ago, and much less than eight years ago. And don’t look for too much help in what the polling aggregation sites may be offering. They, too, have been falling further off the track of late. It’s not their fault. They are only as good as the raw material they have to work with.

In short, polls and pollsters are going to be less reliable. We may not even know when we’re off base. What this means for 2016 is anybody’s guess.
Combine all of the above with blatant mainstream media bias and you end up with zero confidence in polling.

While Obama Vacations, Taylor Swift Donates $1 Million To Flood-Ravaged Louisiana ^ | August 17, 2016 | Christine Rousselle 

Louisiana has been hit by devastating flooding, and thousands of people have lost everything. Eleven people have died.
President Obama is currently vacationing on Martha's Vineyard, and aside from signing a disaster declaration five days ago, has otherwise not commented on the situation. (He did, however, have time to go to a Hillary Clinton fundraiser.)
Compare this to pop star Taylor Swift. Swift, who began The 1989 World Tour in Louisiana last year, said that she appreciated her fans in Louisiana and was heartbroken by the devastation in the state. She then pledged to donate $1 million in relief money and encouraged others to "help out and send [their] love and prayers."
Swift released a statement to the Associated Press:
"We began The 1989 World Tour in Louisiana, and the wonderful fans there made us feel completely at home. The fact that so many people in Louisiana have been forced out of their own homes this week is heartbreaking," the 26-year-old said in a statement.
"I encourage those who can to help out and send your love and prayers their way during this devastating time," Swift said.
What a weird world we live in where a pop star is doing more PR about a disaster than the president of the country.

I Knew THE OBAMA’S BOTH LOST THEIR LAW LICENSES, But I Didn’t Know WHY Until READ THIS… ^ | 8/16/2016 | unknown 

I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn’t know why until I read this.
This is 100% legit. I check it out at Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It’s the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Pulling Together




Pay to Play


Whistling by the grave yard!