Been using https://prx2.genmirror.com/ the last couple weeks. Don't know how sketchy they are. Works for Frontline documentaries, Comedy Central, so far

Fees are a big deal. This video helps explain why.

https://videosift.com/video/Frontline-Retirement-Gamble-Mutual-Fund-Fees

I disagree. Pinpointing the problem isn't very hard if you have some idea of where to look.

As someone who was 'coming of age' in my profession when No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and its successor the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), I can provide some insight into how these policies have been enacted and how both have been detrimental to the public education system as a whole. The former is a GWBush policy, and the latter is an Obama policy meant to mend the original law, so both liberals and conservatives are to blame to some degree, but both are based on the same philosophy of education and teacher-accountability.

There are some other mitigating factors and outside influences at work that should be noted: gun violence, the rise & ubiquity of the internet, and universal cell phone availability, all mostly concentrated in the past 10 years that play a large role. Cell phones, for example, are probably the worst thing to happen to education ever. They distract, they assist in cheating, they perpetuate arguments which can lead to physical altercations, and parents themselves advocate for their use "what if there's an emergency?!?!"

The idea of "teacher accountability" is the biggest culprit though.

Anecdotally, I've caught people cheating on papers. A girl in my honors English class basically plagiarised her entire final paper that we worked on for close to a month. The zero tanked her grade, which was already floundering, and the parent wanted to meet. I'd rather not go into detail to protect both the girl and my own anonymity, but suffice to say, all of the blame for this was aimed directly at me. How? Well I (apparently) "should have caught this sooner and intervened." Now, the final in that class is 8 pages long, I have ~125 students all working on it at the same time. but my ability to check something like that and my workload are beside the point. I'M NOT THE ONE WHO COPY PASTED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE AND DOCTORED IT UP SO IT COULD SQUEAK BY THE PLAGIARISM DETECTOR (shows she knew what she was doing, IMHO). Yet, I'm still the one being told that I was responsible for what happened.

Teacher-accountability SOUNDS like the right thing to do, but consider the following analogies

--Students are earning poor grades, therefore teachers should be demoted; put on probationary programs; lose some of their salaries; and if they do not improve their test scores, grades, and attendance; be terminated from their positions.

as to

--Impoverished people have poor oral hygiene/health, therefore their dentists should be forced to take pay cuts from insurance companies. If the patients continue to develop cavities and the like, the dentist should be forced to go for further training, and possibly lose his practice.

I have no control over attendance.
I have no control over their home life.
I have no control over children coming to school with holes in their shoes, having not eaten breakfast.

@Mordhaus the part about money grubbing could not be further from the truth.

I'll be brief b/c I know this is already too long for this forum, but Houton Mifflin, McGraw Hill, Etc. Book Company is facing a shortfall of sales in light of the digital age. It may be difficult to blame one entity, but that's a good place to start. They don't sell as many books, but guess who produces and distributes the standardized tests and practice materials? Those same companies who used to sell textbooks by the boatload.

When a student does poorly, they have to retest in order to recieve a diploma. $$$ if they fail again, they retest again and again there is a charge for taking the test and accompanying pretest materials. Each of which has its own fees that go straight to the former textbook companies. See: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/testing/companies.html

In short, there is an incentive for these companies to lobby for an environment where tests are taken and retaken as much as possible. Each time a student has to retest that's more $ in their pocket.

How can they create an enviorment that faccilitates more testing? Put all the blame on the educators rather than the students.

That sounds a little tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory-ish, but the lobbying they do is very real: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/30/report-big-education-firms-spend-millions-lobbying-for-pro-testing-policies/?utm_term=.
9af18f0d2064

That, combined with exceptions for charter/private schools where students have the option to opt-out of said testing is skewing the numbers in favor of all of these for-profit companies: http://sanchezcharter.org/state-testing-parent-opt-out/ << one example (you can't opt-out in a public school, at least in my state)

@bobknight33 idk if i'd call business-minded for-profit policies "liberal"

I can't name any organisation anymore that seems to hit it consistently. Frontline is still pretty consistently good. The few print papers like NYTimes are more likely to host real journalists in amongst everything else needed to keep sales going.

Largely it's individuals, and they are running short. Some of the best access to news is stuff like Charlie Rose, and the Daily Show in Stewart's day when they would have on knowledgeable or important guests on air. Neither Charlie Rose, Jon Stewart or their guests counting strictly as journalists, but they provided great access to individuals with good or unique perspectives. Neil McDonald on CBC seems good at staying balanced, one of the few names I can throw out as having a real journalistic credibility.

For the most part though, news paper journalism seems dead. The best sources of information on subjects seems to have become relegated to authors of old fashion books. There you can still find guys like Peter Galbraith writing good insightful and informed stuff.

And of course, the late Christopher Hitchens, now you've gone and made me sad...

http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/views-from-the-nhs-frontline/2016/jan/05/doctor-suicide-hospital-nhs?

With that in mind, remember that the Bank of England can start Overt Monetary Financing (aka print money) at the stroke of a pen and thereby allow the Department of Health to increase staff levels to whatever it takes to provide the desired quality of service. There are plenty of underutilised or even unused resources, human most of all -- meaning unemployed people.

The current situation is the result of political decisions, not an economic neccessity. No excuses. For the damage they inflict on the people and the environment, they should have to spent the next decade digging peat with a spade, 18 hours a day.

Who let the torch passed fall in the tall grass?
Fire alarm wire’s disarmed, what do you call that?
Call it predictable political cliche
So when the movie ends, the revolution’s dead. Replay
the sequence of events that led to these deep divisions;
I’ve realized that all the wrong people are in prison.
The children wanna know if I believe in the Reptilians!
I tell em ‘I don’t know’ but on the TV I see lizards.
When action was in fashion you were such an easy mimic!
Bumpersticker quote lifting, crib note statistics,
Grasp for the straw man, born again cynics
Fair-weather firebrand; spark my suspicion.
We knew you were the type to take the fight like a gimmick,
and rock the t-shirt when your sweat wasn’t in it.
The clock is still ticking for the victim of the future,
You’re waiting til’ they look like you to ever choose but–
Chorus:
Which Side Are You On?
Which Side Are You On?
(Damn)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask the Industry.)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask an Emcee.)
Verse 2:
Who wrote the greatest lines of our generation,
but couldn’t get from under their own small-minded hate trip?
The same rappers say they’re trooping the frontlines,
and casually use the word ‘Faggot’ as a punchline.
That’s not a man, that’s not a tough guy.
That is a sucker and a fraud to the culture!
Hip Hop is folk music grown from the struggle and
half these fools could put the mic down and run as a Republican.
Fuck ‘em then; they learn from their own wrong.
Homophobes don’t go to my shows, we too strong!
And if you’re in the front row, harassing girls during a song
I will reach and ask you exactly–
Chorus:
Which Side Are You On?
Which Side Are You On?
Verse 3:
I’m on the side of poor people getting organized;
I’m on the side of Choice where it is in short supply;
I’m on the side of those the system doesn’t authorize;
L-G-B-T We are on the side of Pride,
Justice and Equality;
Egypt to Wisconsin when they march against the Policy;
If you bringing down a King I’m on your side probably.
Kids’ll give me shit for this it really doesn’t bother me.
They were not around when we were wrestling with poverty.
So I follow none and ask no-one to follow me
Use your own mind, use your heart and your anger
Check yourself because Apathy is a cancer
And let your action be the answer.
Chorus
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask your government)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask your media)
Which Side Are You On?
(Ask yourself)
Which Side Are You On?
Sample:
Don’t scab for the bosses,
Don’t listen to their lies.
Us poor folks haven’t got a chance
Unless we organize.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'FRONTLINE, Jane Elliot, Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, psychology' to 'FRONTLINE, Jane Elliott, Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, psychology' - edited by eric3579

@VoodooV

I don't think you mean to be as callus as your statement seems. The world did follow your advice with Rwanda and let 'them' fight their own battles. It never actually settled anything, instead the main participants in the genocide just moved over to the jungles of the Congo. It's not coincidental that hundreds have been raped every day there ever since. Before advocating we not get involved watch the PBS documentary Ghosts of Rwanda, it's on the sift. It's as brutal as Schindler's List, but that it consists entirely of actual footage taken during the genocide. IMHO it should be required viewing in all public education systems.

@Yogi Way to miss the point. I wasn't comparing cars and guns, I was comparing laws regulating cars and guns. That's all I'm going to say to you. You've already told me in another discussion that you're going to refuse any evidence that doesn't agree with your narrow minded beliefs, so having a discussion with you is pointless.

@RedSky

1) I'm not implying that the US is more violent. I already pointed out that the US has lower violent crime rates than the US and UK despite the higher murder rate.


2) I'd say people in rural areas are most likely own guns for hunting and also self defense as there are no police patrols out in the country.

I also wouldn't blame the availability of guns to criminals on gun enthusiasts. Criminals generally don't legally buy their guns. One way to cut down on illegall gun sales is to charge the sellers as accomplices to the crimes committed with the weapons they sell illegally.


3) Maybe punishment was not the right word I should have chosen. My point is that to cut down on driving fatalities, the laws enacted didn't put any inconveniences on responsible drivers.

Your back of the envelope calculation isn't quite so clear cut. Sam Harris discusses this in his article.

It is also worth noting that relatively gun-free countries are not as peaceful as many think. Here are some recent crime data comparing the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden. Although the U.S. has a higher rate of homicide, the problem of assaults in these other countries is much worse...

So, while the U.S. has many more murders, the U.K., Australia, and Sweden have much higher levels of assault. One might think that having a few more murders per 100,000 persons each year is still much worse than having many hundreds more assaults. Perhaps it is. (One could also argue, as several readers have, that differences in proportion are all we should care about.) But there should be no doubt that the term “assault” often conceals some extraordinary instances of physical and psychological suffering.

It's possible that the reason the US has lower assault, robbery and rape is that armed citizens are able to defend themselves from such crimes.

I'm seeing a lot of people saying the US should look to the UK and Australia on how to handle gun control. Both UK and Australia already had low murder and violent crime rates at the time of their "bans." After Australia's National Firearms Act and forced gun buyback, homicide fell by 9%, but assault went up 40% and rape went up 20%. In the years before the NFA, homicides had been on a steady decline, and a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found the NFA's impact on homicide was "relatively small."

After the UK's "gun ban" in 1997, gun crime actually increased [1] [2]. Gun crimes in 1997-1998 were 2,648. The Office for National Statistics shows that 5,507 firearm offenses were reported 2011-2012.


4) Yes cars do provide a benefit to society. Their regulation and restrictions are reasonable, and I already said I'm not opposed to any reasonable gun laws. But cars are the leading cause of accidental death each year. There are lots of things that can be done to make cars and drivers safer. Cars could be limited to 70 MPH. The national speed limit on highways is 70 MPH, why do you need a car capable of going faster? Cars can be fitted with a GPS and a "black box" that records your driving activities. Each year when you renew your inspection, the black box data is downloaded and analyzed. If it's discovered you've broken any traffic laws, you will be fined, and if it's determined you aren't a safe driver, your license is revoked. Prohibit personal sales of vehicles between individuals, because you can't know if the person your selling to is a safe driver or if their license is valid (see below about the "gun show exemption"). Sounds crazy, but those aren't nearly as bad as some of the things being proposed for new gun laws.

I doubt any of those would be acceptable to the majority of drivers, but it would make driving safer and save lives.

As for your suggestions "not yet tried."

- We already have rigorous background checks for purchasing firearms. They're done by the FBI's NICS, I don't know how it can be more rigorous.
- There is no "gun show exemption" or "loophole," that is more media buzzword BS. Private sale and transfer of anything (not just firearms) can not regulated by congress. It's another constitutional issue dealing with the regulation of commerce. It is still illegal for a person to sell a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe may not be legally able to own one. This is another issue that I'm not opposed to fixing though. It could be as simple as requiring the transaction to be witnessed by a licensed gun dealer and perform a background check.
- Assault weapons are already restricted. Real assault weapons that is, not what the media and lawmakers keep calling assault weapons. Once again I ask, why such fuss over the weapon type least used in crime? These "assault weapons" are expensive to acquire, and most criminals go for cheap, small caliber, concealable pistols and revolvers. [source] For more on what an assault weapon is and their use in crime, just head on over to this Wikipedia page.
- Restricting ammunition would be something that would effect responsible gun owners and likely have little effect on crime. Responsible gun owners are the ones that buy more ammo, go to gun ranges and practice.


5) You mean the steadily high murder rate that has been steadily declining for over two decades, by 50% since 1992? [source]

I lost a lot of respect for Chomsky while watching this. He has completely bought into the myth of consensus in the climate science community and seems to actually believe it is only those with a vested interest who do not support the climate scare.

Here are two of my pieces on the 97% of scientists agree" myth:

http://www.fcpp.org/blog/pbs-frontline-climate-change-special-cites-bogus-consensus/

http://www.fcpp.org/blog/like-doren-and-zimmerman-the-pnas-denier-black-list-paper-also-falls-flat/

Here is ICSC's open letter to the UN Sec Gen - are all these people oil-funded deniers. Norm, your statements in this regard are not only wrong, they are not credible:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon
-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

Tom Harris
International Climate Science Coalition

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Frontline: Growing Up Online. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

http://videosift.com/video/Spying-On-The-Home-Front-PBS-Frontline

http://videosift.com/video/Fight-for-Internet-Privacy



http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/

The day is long past that individuals have a say in who, what, when, why, and where intelligence communities can peruse their personal business-Welcome to the New World Order of fries and drink your milkshake!

....choggie warned you...choggie warned you ALLL!

>> ^cracanata:

It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this, female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^cracanata:
War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."
You're a lunatic that has no morals.


hmm, i think a good start would be to acknowledge the victims of rape and prosecute the perps? As previously mentioned, the fact that rape exists in the military isn't especially shocking. What is shocking and surprising is this "boys will be boys" military attitude regarding the rapes. Lets be clear here. A strong military needs proficient female soldiers. If you want the best then you better not limit yourself to 50% of the population. Women shouldn't expect to be raped for serving their country anymore than they should expect to be raped when they wear something that doesn't reach their knees...The stress of war dies not excuse rape. Rapists have demonstrated that they are capable of committing this heinous crime against their comrades - the frontline of war is the last place such a person should be unless you like inviting warcrime tribunals upon yourself.


I think that maybe you advocating for the Devil...but I do wonder why.

Devon NHS children's services set for privatisation

Outcome of tendering process for core services for vulnerable families could provide foretaste of NHS break-up, critics fear Core children's health services in Devon may be about to be privatised in a move that critics have warned is a foretaste of the breaking up of the NHS that will take place when the government's health and social care bill becomes law.

The Guardian has learned that NHS Devon and Devon county council have shortlisted bids led by two private, profit-making companies – Serco and Virgin Care – to provide frontline services for children across the county, including some of the most sensitive care for highly vulnerable children and families, such as some child protection services, treatment for mentally ill children and adolescents, therapy and respite care for those with disabilities, health visiting, and palliative nursing for dying children.

Also on the shortlist for the £130m three-year NHS contract is Devon Partnership NHS trust, bidding along with Barnardo's and other local charities. But a source close to the process, which is now in its fourth and final stage, has told the Guardian that one of the two commercial companies' bids looks likely to win the tender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/15/devon-nhs-childrens-services-privatisation

To semi-quote Bill Hicks: "Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs (or, in Chris Hedges case, thanks to working on the frontlines as a war reporter and seeing humanity at it's worst and it's best) I see right through you"