# data[].attributes.body
This website cases over the statistical information of the common core, as well as exactly what the government has outlined for common core standards. It is "just the facts" of exactly what is asked of teachers and schools when switching over to the common core. This is interesting to compare to our previous research by seeing exactly what point of the standards arnt working in schools, and why they are trying to apply them.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about the downside effects of climate change warned by a government funded military search. Apparently with the drastic climate changes occurring due to global warming, many places (Middle East and Africa) struggle to get water and food supply to live off of, therefore increasing regional and ethnic tension. Eastern India for example, is the new home and outcome for people including their food due to the rising sea levels. The military is mainly on alert because this damage can get to their naval ports (Norfolk for example- world's largest naval base) and military bases, which is such a big influence on American foreign policy. Secretary of state, John Kerry, reports: "“Think of what happens if you have massive dislocation, or the drying up of the waters of the Nile, of the major rivers in China and India. The intelligence community takes it seriously, and it’s translated into action.” The change in climate leads to poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tensions, effects that eventually lead to deaths and terrorism ("catalyst for conflict"). Al Qaeda for example in the Islamic Maghreb has seized control of northern Mali and remains in conflict with the Malian government because crops are dead and has left the farmers starving. One solution that is mentioned in this article is that this June, Kerry will make a speech that supports Obama's and his stance on links between climate change and national security, which will include a new regulation to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - The accelerating rate of climate change poses a severe risk to national security and acts as a catalyst for global political conflict, a report published Tuesday by a leading government-funded military research organization concluded.

The CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board found that climate change-induced drought in the Middle East and Africa is leading to conflicts over food and water and escalating longstanding regional and ethnic tensions into violent clashes. The report also found that rising sea levels are putting people and food supplies in vulnerable coastal regions like eastern India, Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta in Vietnam at risk and could lead to a new wave of refugees.

In addition, the report predicted that an increase in catastrophic weather events around the world will create more demand for American troops, even as flooding and extreme weather events at home could damage naval ports and military bases.

In an interview, Secretary of State John Kerry signaled that the report's findings would influence American foreign policy.

"Tribes are killing each other over water today," Mr. Kerry said. "Think of what happens if you have massive dislocation, or the drying up of the waters of the Nile, of the major rivers in China and India. The intelligence community takes it seriously, and it's translated into action."

Mr. Kerry, who plans to deliver a major speech this summer on the links between climate change and national security, said his remarks would also be aimed at building political support for President Obama's climate change agenda, including a new regulation to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants that the administration will introduce in June.

"We're going to try to lay out to people legitimate options for action that are not bank-breaking or negative," Mr. Kerry said.

Pentagon officials said the report would affect military policy. "The department certainly agrees that climate change is having an impact on national security, whether by increasing global instability, by opening the Arctic or by increasing sea level and storm surge near our coastal installations," John Conger, the Pentagon's deputy under secretary of defense for installations and environment, said in a statement. "We are actively integrating climate considerations across the full spectrum of our activities to ensure a ready and resilient force."

The report on Tuesday follows a recent string of scientific studies that warn that the effects of climate change are already occurring and that flooding, droughts, extreme storms, food and water shortages and damage to infrastructure will occur in the near future.

In March, the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, the agency's main public document describing the current doctrine of the United States military, drew a direct link between the effects of global warming - like rising sea levels and extreme weather patterns - and terrorism.

"These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad, such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tensions - conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence," the review said.

Tuesday's report is an update of a report by the center's Military Advisory Board in 2007, the first major study to draw the link between climate change and national security. The report's authors said the biggest change in the seven years between the two studies was the increase in scientific certainty about global warming, and of the link between global warming and security disruptions.

The 2007 report also described climate change as a "threat multiplier" or a problem that could enhance or contribute to already existing causes of global disruption. The 2014 report updates that language, calling climate change a "catalyst for conflict" - a phrase intentionally chosen, the report's authors said, to signal that climate change is an active, driving force in starting conflict.

"In the past, the thinking was that climate change multiplied the significance of a situation," said Gen. Charles F. Wald, who contributed to both reports and is retired from the Air Force. "Now we're saying it's going to be a direct cause of instability."

The most recent scientific reports on climate change warn that increasing drought in Africa is now turning arable land to desert. The national security report's authors conclude that the slow but steady expansion of the Sahara through Mali, which is killing crops and leaving farmers starving, may have been a contributing force in the jihadist uprising in that African country in 2012. Since then, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has seized control of northern Mali and remains in conflict with the Malian government.

The report warns that rising sea levels in the United States imperil many of the Navy's coastal installations. Last week, the White House released a National Climate Assessment report citing Norfolk, Va., as one of the cities most vulnerable to damage by rising sea levels. Norfolk is home to the world's largest naval base as well as a nuclear submarine construction yard - all of which are vulnerable to destruction by rising sea levels, found in Tuesday's report.

"Norfolk is so big, it's so important to the Navy, it's important to Virginia for jobs, and it would go," General Wald said.

A scientific report released this week found that global warming has contributed to the melting of a large section of a West Antarctica ice sheet, which could lead to a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more.

Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a vocal skeptic of the established science that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, scoffed at the idea that climate change is linked to national security threats.

"There is no one in more pursuit of publicity than a retired military officer," he said of the report's authors. "I look back wistfully at the days of the Cold War. Now you have people who are mentally imbalanced, with the ability to deploy a nuclear weapon. For anyone to say that any type of global warming is anywhere close to the threat that we have with crazy people running around with nuclear weapons, it shows how desperate they are to get the public to buy this."

Rear Adm. David Titley, a co-author of the report and a meteorologist who is retired from the Navy, said political opposition would not extinguish what he called the indisputable data in the report.

"The ice doesn't care about politics or who's caucusing with whom, or Democrats or Republicans," said Admiral Titley, who now directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Pennsylvania State University.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Deemed Growing Security Threat by Military Researchers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - The accelerating rate of climate change poses a severe risk to national security and acts as a catalyst for global political conflict, a report published Tuesday by a leading government-funded military research organization concluded.

# data[].attributes.headline
Decline in Gun Violence in the U of A (Remy, Eylam, Marco)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decline in Gun Violence in the U of A (Remy, Eylam, Marco)

# data[].attributes.body
This week we looked over a collection of date collected by theguardian.com. This time what we found was that there is no overall increase in gun violence as the media tries to insinuate. While the United States may be the leading country in gun ownership with 89 guns for every 100 Americans; in 2011 there was 12,664 murders in the United States, 8,583 of those were gun related. While it can be noted that we as a whole due have a slight issue with who is issued a gun, the number of gun related murders declined 3% from 2010 to 2011 and it has continued to decline. While the amount of gun crimes has declined in many states it has gone up in small states including Indiana, North Carolina and Louisiana. What we should take away from this is that overall as a nation the rate of gun related crimes has declined and while the press and society may be trying to push gun ownership as a prevalent issue to the President, they should realize that the amount of gun crimes has declined and is declining.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How bad is gun crime in the US? The latest data from the FBI's uniform crime reports provides a fascinating picture of the use of firearms in crimes across America.

Barack Obama is under pressure to tighten gun laws after following the disclosure by police that the Newtown gunman used a semi-automatic assault rifle equipped with "numerous" high-capacity magazines holding hundreds of bullets to carry out his massacre of young children.

The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - there are 89 guns for every 100 Americans, compared to 6 in England and Wales.

And the murder figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 550 murders per year. In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

The FBI crime statistics are based on reports to FBI bureau and local law enforcement. The figures are not complete - there are no stats for Florida or Alabama on firearm murders. But even so it provides a detailed picture of attacks by state.

In fact, gun crime, like all crime across the US (and the UK, for that matter), is going down - you can see how much in the graph above. And the vast majority invlove firearms.

The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,790, which is 68% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.25 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 3% on the previous year. Other key findings include:

* While gun crime is down in the vast majority of states, it is up in Indiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana and several of the smaller states
* If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state. There were 77 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 22% on 2009
* DC is followed by Louisiana (10.16) and Mississippi (7.46)
* DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 242.56
* If you look at aggravated assaults involving a firearm, Tennessee (137.58) and South Carolina (127.88) come above Arkansas (100.56)

The full data is below. What can you do with it?

Data summary

Download the data

* DATA: download the full spreadsheet

More open data
SOURCE: FBI UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS
World government data
Data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian
* Search the world's government data with our gateway

Development and aid data

* Search the world's global development data with our gateway

Can you do something with this data?

* Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
* Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun crime statistics by US state: latest data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How bad is gun crime in the US? The latest data from the FBI's uniform crime reports provides a fascinating picture of the use of firearms in crimes across America.

# data[].attributes.headline
China and Japan Just the Facts - David, Ina, Jacob

# data[].attributes.subject
China and Japan Just the Facts - David, Ina, Jacob

# data[].attributes.body
This week we’re focusing on the island issue again, but this time we’ve found an article from BBC News that tells the detailed facts on why these islands matter, how the issue started, and what China and Japan each claim is the reason that the islands should belong to their own country.

The Senkaku/Diaoyo Islands are not only wanted because of the oil and gas reserves, but because of the fishing grounds that lie near it, they are close to important shipping lanes, and they are in a position surrounded by rising competition between the US and China for military primacy.

Japan owned these islands, as said in the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, then became under the US, and then brought back to Japan in 1971. Japan says that China never objected to the San Francisco deal and that China only started wanting the islands after their oil resources were becoming an issue. On the other hand, China claims that the islands have belonged to them ever since ancient times.

In conclusion, the issue of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is a problem because it can increase Japan and China’s military action, hurt their economy as we’ve explained in past weeks, and puts pressure on the politicians. With more detailed facts on this issue, we can better understand that it is actually a very big problem for the two countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ties between China and Japan have been strained by a territorial row over a group of islands, known as the Senkaku islands in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China.

What is the row about?

At the heart of the dispute are eight uninhabited islands and rocks in the East China Sea. They have a total area of about 7 sq km and lie north-east of Taiwan, east of the Chinese mainland and south-west of Japan's southern-most prefecture, Okinawa. The islands are controlled by Japan.

They matter because they are close to important shipping lanes, offer rich fishing grounds and lie near potential oil and gas reserves. They are also in a strategically significant position, amid rising competition between the US and China for military primacy in the Asia-Pacific region.

What is Japan's claim?

Japan says it surveyed the islands for 10 years in the 19th Century and determined that they were uninhabited. On 14 January 1895 Japan erected a sovereignty marker and formally incorporated the islands into Japanese territory.

After World War Two, Japan renounced claims to a number of territories and islands including Taiwan in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco. These islands, however, came under US trusteeship and were returned to Japan in 1971 under the Okinawa reversion deal.

Japan says China raised no objections to the San Francisco deal. And it says that it is only since the 1970s, when the issue of oil resources in the area emerged, that Chinese and Taiwanese authorities began pressing their claims.

What is China's claim?

China says that the islands have been part of its territory since ancient times, serving as important fishing grounds administered by the province of Taiwan.

Taiwan was ceded to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, after the Sino-Japanese war.

When Taiwan was returned in the Treaty of San Francisco, China says the islands should have been returned too. Beijing says Taiwan's Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek did not raise the issue, even when the islands were named in the later Okinawa reversion deal, because he depended on the US for support.

Separately, Taiwan also claims the islands.

Why is the row so prominent now?

The dispute has rumbled relatively quietly for decades. But in April 2012, a fresh row ensued after outspoken right-wing Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara said he would use public money to buy the islands from their private Japanese owner.

The Japanese government then reached a deal to buy three of the islands from the owner in a move to block Mr Ishihara's more provocative plan.

But this angered China, triggering public and diplomatic protests. Since then, Chinese government ships have regularly sailed in and out of what Japan says are its territorial waters around the islands.

In November 2013, China also announced the creation of a new air-defence identification zone, which would require any aircraft in the zone - which covers the islands - to comply with rules laid down by Beijing.

Japan labelled the move a "unilateral escalation" and said it would ignore it, as did the US.

What is the role of the US?

The US and Japan forged a security alliance in the wake of World War II and formalised it in 1960. Under the deal, the US is given military bases in Japan in return for its promise to defend Japan in the event of an attack.

This means if conflict were to erupt between China and Japan, Japan would expect US military back-up. US President Barack Obama has confirmed that the security pact applies to the islands - but has also warned that escalation of the current row would harm all sides.

What next?

The Senkaku/Diaoyu issue highlights the more robust attitude China has been taking to its territorial claims in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea. It poses worrying questions about regional security as China's military modernises amid the US "pivot" to Asia.

In both China and Japan, meanwhile, the dispute ignites nationalist passions on both sides, putting pressure on politicians to appear tough and ultimately making any possible resolution even harder to find.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How uninhabited islands soured China-Japan ties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ties between China and Japan have been strained by a territorial row over a group of islands, known as the Senkaku islands in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China. At the heart of the dispute are eight uninhabited islands and rocks in the East China Sea.

# data[].attributes.headline
Anna Poltrack, Michelle Aman, Kelsey Xu (North Korea)

# data[].attributes.subject
Anna Poltrack, Michelle Aman, Kelsey Xu (North Korea)

# data[].attributes.body
South Korean President Park Geun-hye stated in a press conference with President Obama that she was concerned about the consequences of North Korea launching a fourth nuclear test. She and South Korean foreign minister Yun Byung-se claim that such a test would launch a nuclear arms race, and would hinder efforts to resume negotiations with North Korea. It is likely that North Korea is prepared for a fourth nuclear test at any time. The Chinese are also concerned about this development, as they have served as ambassadors between North Korea and the United States.

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to cast nuclear expansion firmly within the national goals. So, the chances of North Korea consenting to the international community’s pleas to denuclearize is highly unlikely.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Share to email

Share to facebook

Share to twitter

Share to linkedin

Share to google

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

At her joint press conference with President Barack Obama last month in Seoul, South Korean president Park Geun-hye stated against the backdrop of apparent preparations by North Korea to conduct a fourth nuclear test that such a test could trigger a nuclear arms race and would spell the end of efforts to resume Six Party Talks. South Korean foreign minister Yun Byung-se subsequently said that a fourth North Korean nuclear test would be a " gamechanger." North Korea appears to have delayed plans for a test that many had expected might be timed to coincide with President Obama's visit to Asia, but all indications are that North Korea is poised to go ahead with a fourth test at any time.

Park's negative assessment of prospects for renewed Six Party Talks surely must have raised the eyebrows of Ambassador Wu Dawei and his colleagues in the Chinese foreign ministry who have shuttled back and forth between Pyongyang and Washington for months in an effort to close the gap between Washington and Pyongyang over conditions for a return to Six Party Talks. The momentum for China's diplomatic push resulted in part from an understanding between Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping at last June's Sunnylands summit that North Korean denuclearization would be a priority area of cooperation as part of establishing a "new type of great power relationship." Park herself was warmly welcomed in Bejing only weeks following the summit in a visit that sent a clear message regarding China's pique at Kim Jong-un's reckless endangerment of Chinese interests through North Korea's continued provocations.

But despite its efforts, Beijing has found itself unable to close the gap between a North Korea whose chief representative for nuclear matters stated his country's willingness to return to Six Party Talks " without preconditions" and an Obama administration that, in the wake of the failure of the February 2012 Leap Day Understanding, needs to see North Korea back up its verbal commitments to denuclearization with concrete actions. Ambassador Cui Tiankai described U.S. expectations for the commitments China should extract from North Korea as a " mission impossible," and there has been speculation that the administration may "lower the bar" for a return to Six Party Talks at the request of Beijing by resuming the talks before requiring North Korea to take any actions toward denuclearization.

Park's statements have consistently observed that North Korea must abandon its simultaneous pursuit of both nuclear and economic development, much to North Korea's dismay. But North Korea's byungjin policy, which casts nuclear development firmly within the national goals, means Pyongyang's pledge to international audiences that denuclearization is the "behest" of two deceased former leaders is not credible. However, rather than focusing on which concrete actions from North Korea are necessary to resume Six Party negotiations, the United States should be telling Beijing that its minimum necessary requirement is for Beijing to secure an authoritative commitment from North Korea's top leadership to denuclearization, preferably through an unambiguous public statement to that effect by Kim Jong-un.

Given North Korea's apparent objective of obtaining recognition as a nuclear weapons state, gaining an explicit commitment from North Korea's top leader to denuclearize truly may be a "mission impossible." But in the absence of such a statement, Park is right that it simply makes no sense to resume Six Party Talks unless there is a real chance that they can achieve their originally designated main purpose of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula. Park will have the opportunity to make precisely that case directly to Xi during his visit to Seoul in June this year. An even harder challenge will be the task of convincing Xi that China's long-term interests are best served by finally cutting its losses in Pyongyang.

Share to email

Share to facebook

Share to twitter

Share to linkedin

Share to google

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
North Korea's Fourth Nuclear Test and the Future of Six Party Talks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At her joint press conference with President Barack Obama last month in Seoul, South Korean president Park Geun-hye stated against the backdrop of apparent preparations by North Korea to conduct a fourth nuclear test that such a test could trigger a nuclear arms race and would spell the end of [...]

# data[].attributes.body
As of right now, only 17 states allow same sex marriage, with 6 by court decision, 8 by state legislature, and 3 by popular votes. This year, courts and federal judges found 6 state's ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional, which include: Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, and Idaho. However, no real changes have been made except for requested appeals, meaning same sex marriages are still illegal in these states.

December 20, 2013, Supreme court federal judge ruled Utah's ban on same sex marriages unconstitutional. Salt Lake county clerk soon issued marriage certificates. Questionably, the US supreme court will halt this in June 6, 2014 but the state will try to appeal it.

# data[].attributes.body
UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said that Presidential elections in Syria will be a "parody of democracy". Because of Syria’s three-year conflict that has killed around 150,000 people, Hague called “President Assad to stand down”. However, President Assad is working toward another (his third) seven-year term. The international community is disgusted by this action.

The Friends of Syria group - Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the UK and the US met in London to discuss the matter. Hague stated after the meeting: "We are of course united in our disgust and anger at what's happening in Syria and the ruthless utter disregard for human life." The worst part in the election is that it is being held “at a time when millions of people were displaced and the bloodshed was continuing”.
This election means that the fighting and conflict will continue for the next seven years, as he and his followers don’t care for human life. They do not accept feedback or advice from allies, which also sets in stone the fact that they will not have good relations with surrounding countries. Refugees will continue to flood into surrounding countries, and the government will most likely continue to disregard this invasion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Presidential elections in Syria will be a "parody of democracy", UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has said.

Mr Hague said Syria's government had an "utter disregard" for life, and President Bashar al-Assad decision to call an election for 3 June "disgusted" the international community.

The foreign secretary also announced the Syrian opposition would have its diplomatic status in the UK upgraded.

Syria's three-year conflict has left some 150,000 people dead.

The UK is continuing to push for President Assad to stand down, but he has sought a third seven-year term in the elections.

'Illegitimate'

Mr Hague hosted a meeting of the The Friends of Syria group - made up of Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the UK and the US - in London.

Afterwards, he said: "We are of course united in our disgust and anger at what's happening in Syria and the ruthless utter disregard for human life."

The group agreed a short communique criticising the decision to hold an election at a time when millions of people were displaced and the bloodshed was continuing.

Mr Hague called on the whole international community to "reject these illegitimate elections", saying: "We've also agreed unanimously to take further steps to... do everything we can to hold the Assad regime accountable for the terror it is perpetrating."

He promised the UK government would increase its humanitarian efforts, with £30m of extra funding.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said this money would be used for "a range of different things including helping the opposition and supporting regional sustainability".

In a separate media briefing, US Secretary of State John Kerry commented on France's claim that the Assad government has used chemical weapons at least 14 times since October.

He said he had seen "raw data that suggests that there may have been... a number of instances in which chlorine has been used in the conduct of war".

Mr Kerry added: "If it has, and it could be proven, then that would be against the agreements of the chemical weapons treaty and against the weapons convention that Syria has signed up to."

"Out of today's meeting, every facet of what can be done is going to be ramped up - every facet. That includes political effort. It includes aid to the opposition. It includes economic efforts, sanctions," he said.

Friends of Syria was set up in 2012 in response to moves by Russia and China to block UN resolutions against the Assad government.

The meeting comes days after UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi stepped down over lack of progress in ending the crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Presidential elections in Syria will be a "parody of democracy", UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has said. Mr Hague said Syria's government had an "utter disregard" for life, and President Bashar al-Assad decision to call an election for 3 June "disgusted" the international community.

# data[].attributes.body
Currently Edward Snowden has been granted asylum in Moscow, Russia. He has been living in Russia for the past year. Recently Edward Snowden asked president Valdimir Putin through a broadcaster online if Russia spies on its citizens the way that the U.S. does. Putin replied saying that they do try to combat terrorism by tapping into communications but at a smaller scale than the U.S. President Putin was not hesitant to reply to Snowden's question. Putin also mentioned that Russia does not have enough money to spend on spying agencies like the U.S does. When Putin was asked about how he feels about the revelation of Edward Snowden he replied "How do I feel about Obama after Snowden's revelations? I envy him, because he can get away with it,"

Putin argued that it was necessary to monitor large numbers of people to expose terrorist contacts, but said "on a political level, it's necessary to limit the appetite of special services with certain rules." Putin's responses may or may not be true but it has definitely sparked interest from people in the U.S who are against the NSA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MOSCOW -- National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden asked Russian President Vladimir Putin Thursday whether his nation's spy agencies sweep up data en-masse from Russian citizens, the way his former employer has done in the United States.

Russia granted Snowden asylum last year, and he still lives somewhere in the country. He was not in the Moscow television studio Thursday to ask the question in person, but recorded it earlier and sent it to the broadcaster online using "secured" technology, according to a Russian lawyer who has represented him.

Putin said that Russian special services do tap communications in their fight against terrorism, but don't do it on such a massive scale as the U.S.

"We can talk as professionals," Putin, a 16-year KGB veteran and the former chief of Russia's main espionage agency, told Snowden. "We have very strict rules about the use of special equipment and methods by the secret services listening into conversations, intercepting internet communications. It requires a court's permission for us to monitor individuals, so there is no mass monitoring and the law would not permit it."

The Russian leader claimed his nation's spy agencies "do not have the money to do so like the U.S. does."

It was not the first time Putin suggested he was envious of the U.S. spy machine's capabilities. He said in December 2013 that while the NSA program revealed by Snowden wasn't "a cause for joy, it's not a cause for repentance either" because it was necessary to fight terrorism.

He argued that it was necessary to monitor large numbers of people to expose terrorist contacts, but said "on a political level, it's necessary to limit the appetite of special services with certain rules."

Putin added that the efficiency of the effort -- and its damage to privacy -- was limited by the sheer inability to process such a huge amount of data.

In an off the cuff remark, Putin said he envied Mr. Obama for the U.S. spy program.

"How do I feel about Obama after Snowden's revelations? I envy him, because he can get away with it," said the Russian leader before going on to defend espionage in general as "one of the oldest professions in the world, just like some other well-known professions -- we won't mention them here."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NSA leaker Edward Snowden asks Putin how Russia spies on Russians

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MOSCOW -- National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden asked Russian President Vladimir Putin Thursday whether his nation's spy agencies sweep up data en-masse from Russian citizens, the way his former employer has done in the United States. Russia granted Snowden asylum last year, and he still lives somewhere in the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
US Economic Recovery-" Jasmine Pedroza & Phi Phan

# data[].attributes.subject
US Economic Recovery-" Jasmine Pedroza & Phi Phan

# data[].attributes.body
Article: The total of 50 million uninsured at the end of the 1990s, was reduced to 40 million—after having risen by ten million during Bill Clinton's last eight years in office. Still, they claim there are only 50 million without health insurance coverage, even though ten million more becoming unemployed since the Great Recession in 2007, then tens of millions of the population has increased in the US, and millions more are left to the labor force. Unemployment in particular was revised downward by various means to make it appear fewer were jobless in the wake of the 1981-82 recession under President Ronald Reagan. Income has been rising faster because investors, wealthy households (2%), and their corporations are increasing their income at an accelerating pace from financial securities investments—that don’t show up in GDP calculations which consider only the production of real goods and services that exclude financial securities income like stocks, bonds, and derivatives.

Us: So basically, the US Economic Recovery is trying different ways to recover by rising and lowering all the different sections of the economy such as the GDP, the GDI, the unemployment rate, the rate at which employers are paying their workers. The article talks about what happened before, during and after Clinton and Reagan's time as president, which in our opinions haven't changed much from then. So GDP is supposed to measure the value of goods and services produced in the US, while GDI is a measure of the income generated in the US. They are supposed to be about equal, with some adjustments for capital consumption and foreign net income flows. And from their research, the GDI is rising faster than the GDP output when the revisions are aiming to raise the GDP higher than the GDI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facing the prospect of a 2nd quarter GDP report showing economic growth less than 1% (some professional forecasting services predict as low as 0.5%), and a year to year growth of the US economy likely to come in at barely 1%-compared to a 2011-12 already tepid 1.7%-today the Obama administration will announce a major revision of how it calculates GDP which will bump up GDP numbers by as much as 3% according to some estimates. That's one way to make it appear the US economy is finally recovering again, when all other fiscal-monetary policies since 2009 have actually failed to produce a sustained recovery.

Today's GDP definition revisions is not the first time that politicians, failing in their policies, have simply rewritten the numbers to make the failure 'go away'. But this time, the GDP revisions will be made going all the way back to 1929. So watch for the slowing US economy GDP numbers from last October 2012 onward to be significantly revised upward.

Instead of an actual, paltry 0.4% GDP growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2012, a weak 1.6% in the first quarter 2013, and the projected 0.5%-1% for the 2nd quarter 2013-all the numbers will be revised higher in the coming GDP estimate for the 2nd quarter 2013. The true GDP growth rate of the most recent April-June 2013 period, projected as low as 0.5% by some professional macroeconmic forecasters, might not thus get reported.

President Bill Clinton played fast and loose with economic statistics as well at the end of his term, redefining who was uninsured in terms of health care coverage. The total of 50 million uninsured at the end of the 1990s, was reduced to 40 million-after having risen by ten million during his eight years in office. Today, they still claim there are only 50 million without health insurance coverage, despite the ten million more becoming unemployed since the Great Recession began in 2007, tens of millions of population increase in the US, and millions more having left the labor force.

Similarly, under President Reagan in the 1980s a raft of government statistics were 'revised'. Unemployment in particular was revised downward by various means to make it appear fewer were jobless in the wake of the 1981-82 recession. Changes were made to inflation data as well to make it appear lower than it was, and to how manufacturing was defined to make it appear that the mass exodus of manufacturing 'offshoring' of jobs was not as great as it was in fact.

This writer has been forewarning of this radical shift in GDP definition since earlier this year, in a series of analyses on US GDP numbers over the past year, July 2012-June 2013, in which the warning was raised the US economy was slowing significantly-from its already weak historical 2011-2012 annual growth rates of less than 2% to around half at 1% (see my blog e

ntries at jackrasmus.com). The point was raised the Obama administration appears may use the 5 year scheduled GDP revisions to boost the appearance of the slowing US economy.

The government agency, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, responsible for the GDP numbers will explain the GDP methodology changes this week, and this writer will provide a follow up analysis of the revisions. Some initial indications have appeared in the business press as to how and why the changes are being made in GDP.

One explanation is that Gross Domestic Income (GDI) has been running well ahead of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). GDP is supposed to measure the value of goods and services produced in the US, while GDI is a measure of the income generated in the US. They are supposed to be about equal, with some adjustments for capital consumption and foreign net income flows. The idea is whatever is produced in terms of goods and services generates a roughly equivalent income. However, it appears income (GDI) is rising faster than GDP output. The BEA revisions therefore appear aimed at raising GDP to the higher GDI levels.

But income is rising faster because investors, wealthy households (2%), and their corporations are increasing their income at an accelerating pace from financial securities investments-that don't show up in GDP calculations which consider only production of real goods and services and exclude financial securities income like stocks, bonds, and derivatives. So instead of adjusting GDI downward, the BEA will raise GDP. It appears from early press indications it will do this by reducing deductions from GDP due to research and development and by now counting some kinds of financial investments as GDP.

When GDP was developed back in the 1930s, economists purposely left out financial assets' price appreciation in the determination of GDP. Such assets did not reflect real production of goods and services, it was determined. But today in the 21st century, massive gains in capital incomes increasingly come from financial asset appreciation. Even many non-financial corporations now accumulate up to 25% of their total profits from what are called 'portfolio investments'-i.e. financial asset speculation. Like profits from real production, that gets distributed to shareholders in the form of capital gains, dividends, stock buybacks, etc. That income also ends up in reported 'Gross Domestic Income', or GDI. So capital incomes surging to record highs in recent years are showing up in a rising GDI in relation to GDP. The government's answer is to conveniently revise GDP upward to better track GDI. But that doesn't represent real economic growth and does represent a false recovery when measured in terms of new GDP revisions.

If GDP is revised upward, a host of other government data will have to revise up as well. That will likely include employment numbers as well. How reliable will be future jobs numbers, not just GDP numbers, is therefore a reasonable question.

Apart from making it appear the US economy is doing better than it in fact is, what are the motivations for the forthcoming redefinition of GDP, one should ask?

For one thing, it will make it appear that US federal spending as a share of GDP is less than it is and that US federal debt as a share of GDP is less than it is. That adds ammunition to the Obama administration as it heads into a major confrontation with the US House of Representatives, controlled by radical Republicans, over the coming 2014 budget and debt ceiling negotiations again in a couple of months. It also will assist the joint Obama-US House effort to cut corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars more, as legislation for the same now moves rapidly through Congress in time for the budget-debt ceiling negotiations.

Revising GDP also enables the Federal Reserve to justify its plans to slow its $85 billion a month liquidity injections (quantitative easing, QE) into the banks and private investors. This 'tapering' was raised as a possibility last June, and set off a firestorm of financial asset price declines in a matter of days, forcing the Fed to quickly retreat. But the Fed and global bankers know QE is starting to destabilize the global economy in serious ways and both, along with the Obama administration, are looking for ways to slow and 'taper' its magnitude-i.e. slow the $85 billion. Redefining GDP upward, along with upward revisions to jobs in coming months, will allow the Fed to revisit 'tapering' after September, when the budget-debt ceiling-corporate tax cut deals are concluded between Obama and the US House Republicans. (see my lengthy article, 'Austerity American Style' , on this).

The Fed has stated it will begin to reduce its QE when the economy shows more growth and unemployment numbers come down to 6.5%, from the current roughly 7.5% low-ball estimate. (Other government data show unemployment at more than 14%, but politicians and the press ignore that number). Revising GDP upward will thus provide the Fed with an argument to start 'tapering'. Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is quite aware of the usefulness of the projected revisions, moreover. In his recent testimony to Congress he specifically noted that the economy was growing better than (old) GDP numbers indicate if the higher Gross Domestic Income (GDI) is considered.

It is ironic somewhat that what we are about to witness with the GDP revisions is a recognition that the economic recovery since 2009 has been a recovery for corporate profits and capital incomes, stock and bond markets, derivatives and other forms of income from financial speculation-all now at record levels-while weekly earnings for the rest continue to decline for the past four years. What the GDP revisions reflect is an attempt to adjust upward GDP to reflect in various ways the gains on financial side of the economy, the gains in income for the few and their corporations.

When you can't get the economy going otherwise, just change the definitions and how you calculate it all. Manipulate the statistics-just as Clinton did before and Reagan even before that.
Dr. Jack Rasmus is Professor of Political Economy at St. Marys College and the author of the 2012 book, Obama's Economy: Recovery for the Few, Pluto books, and host of the weekly radio show, 'Alternative Visions', on the Progressive Radio Network. His blog is jackrasmus.com, website: www.kyklosproductions.com, and twitter handle, #drjackrasmus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Economic Recovery by Statistical Manipulation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facing the prospect of a 2nd quarter GDP report showing economic growth less than 1% (some professional forecasting services predict as low as 0.5%), and a year to year growth of the US economy likely to come in at barely 1%-compared to a 2011-12 already tepid 1.7%-today the Obama administration will announce a major revision of how it calculates GDP which will bump up GDP numbers by as much as 3% according to some estimates.

# data[].attributes.headline
China and Japan Left Wing Op-Ed (David, Ina, Jacob)

# data[].attributes.subject
China and Japan Left Wing Op-Ed (David, Ina, Jacob)

# data[].attributes.body
This article mostly talks about the island dispute between China and Japan. One fact that we have not heard about the dispute yet is that when the two countries were starting to normalize their relations after World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka asked Chinese Premier Zhao about the islands, and Zhao said that they shouldn’t worry about it now and leave it for later generations. Unfortunately, what they call the “Zhao-Tanaka” status quo was destroyed when Japan bought the islands in 2012. The article says that the best way to solve this dispute is to revive that Zhao-Tanaka wisdom by calling the island an ecological preserve where no one would be able to use it.

We can tell that this is a left wing op-ed because of how they think the best way to solve the dispute is through justice since no one would end up getting the islands. It is obvious that the authors of this op-ed are against war because they mention that Chinese and Japanese leaders do not want a war because they know that it would disrupt the stability of the economy. What’s interesting is that a lot of the articles we’ve read seem to suggest that China and Japan just hate each other, there’s a war that’s going to happen really soon, and the leaders don’t really care about it, especially Prime Minister Abe. But in this op-ed, mentioning that they actually don’t want war is like saying they care about the issue, but they just don’t know what to do about it, which is what a left wing source would say.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Joseph Nye is a professor at Harvard and former dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Kevin Rudd was prime minister of Australia from 2007 to 2010 and again in 2013.

While the world focuses on Ukraine, ships and planes from Japan and China challenge each other almost every day near a few square miles of barren islets in the East China Sea that Japan calls the Senkaku and China calls the Diaoyu islands. This dangerous rivalry dates to the late 19th century, but the flare-up that led to widespread anti-Japan demonstrations in China in September 2012 began when the Japanese government purchased three of the tiny islets from their private Japanese owner. The issue is bound to arise during President Obama's upcoming visit to Japan.

When the United States returned Okinawa to Japan in May 1972, the transfer included the disputed islets that the United States had administered after 1945. A few months later, when China and Japan normalized their relations in the aftermath of World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka asked Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai about the islands. Zhou replied that rather than let the dispute delay normalization, the issue should be left for later generations. Both countries maintained their claims to sovereignty over the islands.

For decades, this formula worked. Although Japan had administrative control, Chinese ships would occasionally enter Japanese waters to assert their legal position. When incidents occurred, Japan sometimes would detain the Chinese crew members but would soon release them. Exaggerated reports of undersea oil and gas reserves sometimes raised concerns, but as recently as 2008, the two countries agreed on a framework for joint development of disputed gas fields in the East China Sea.

In 2009, relations between China and Japan were improving, and a large delegation of Diet members from the Democratic Party of Japan visited Beijing. Then on Sept. 7, 2010, a Chinese trawler near the islands twice bashed Japanese patrol boats, and Japanese authorities took the trawler to Japan. After several days of Chinese protests, Japan released the crew but brought charges against the captain. China abruptly halted its exports of rare earths to Japan; Japan soon released the captain, but China did not restore these exports for almost two months. When asked why China had reacted that way, Chinese officials said that they had no choice because once Japan brought charges against the captain, it implied acceptance of Japanese law and sovereignty.

To Chinese eyes, Japan destroyed the Zhou-Tanaka status quo with the 2010 arrest and then the 2012 purchase. China also believes that Japan is entering a period of right-wing militarist nationalism and that the purchase of the islands was a deliberate effort by Japan to begin a process of eroding the settlement of World War II. Since 2012, Chinese ships have continued to operate regularly in what Japan claims as its territorial waters. Ironically, these Chinese operations are inflaming Japanese nationalism. And so the spiral of action and reaction continues, with no opportunity in sight for both sides to hit the reset button.

Fast-forward to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's December visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, which in part honors Class A Japanese war criminals. Fresh fuel was thrown onto a fire that needed little encouragement. Having watched Sino-Japanese relations closely over many decades, we think it is fair to say things have not been this bad for nearly half a century.

Japanese and Chinese leaders have said repeatedly that they do not want war. And there is no reason not to believe them. They recognize that disruption of the economic interdependence between the world's second- and third-largest economies would radically disrupt their development plans and internal stability. The real dangers are not in the intentions of the countries' leaders but in the potential for miscalculation at lower levels, limited experience in "incident management" and escalation in a climate of competitive nationalism.

In this situation, the best we can aim for is to revive the wisdom of the original Zhou-Tanaka formula. One way of doing this, as some have suggested, might be to declare the islands a maritime ecological preserve dedicated to the larger good of the region. There would be no habitation and no military use of the islands or the surrounding seas. Ideally, China and Japan would agree, but that may be unlikely in the current climate. Other mechanisms could be explored to produce the same end. Both sides might commit to revisit their 2008 agreement on joint gas exploitation. This proposal would not resolve the issue, but it could move it from the front of the stove, where it threatens to boil over, to a back burner, where it can quietly simmer for another half-century.

Read more on this topic:

Japanese Ambassador Kenichiro Sasae: China's propaganda campaign against Japan

Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai: Abe risks ties with China in his tribute to war criminals

Fred Hiatt: Rocky waters between China and Japan could buffet America

John Pomfret: The U.S. interest in an Asian island dispute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to navigate the East China Sea dispute between Japan and China

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Joseph Nye is a professor at Harvard and former dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Kevin Rudd was prime minister of Australia from 2007 to 2010 and again in 2013.

# data[].attributes.body
Education/Common Core (Elaine, Emily, Jenna)

In this clip from the Colbert Show, Stephen Colbert examines different aspects of the Common Core, and though he is more left wing, he appears to be against the Common Core test. In the beginning, he does poke fun at Republicans who argue that the test is too stressful for students, as this is true of most tests anyways. However, throughout the rest of the video, as he explains his “support” of Common Core, he jokes about the kinds of questions and answers the standard values. For instance, one question involves writing a letter detailing what was correct and what was incorrect about a mathematical procedure, and Colbert jokingly relates this to the important skill of “passive-aggressive note writing” in the workplace.

Thus, overall this video parodies both the criticisms and support of Common Core, and this perspective seems unique considering that the Colbert Show is a left-leaning, faux-right wing show. Left wing parties generally favor more government aid in reforming and improving education systems, and thus a large portion of Common Core support is from liberals. However, though the left wing may still encourage a nationalized set of education standards, perhaps members do not completely agree with the Common Core reforms, as the Colbert Show evidently does not approve of the confusing questions.

(link to video if does not play on Padlet:

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/nemi1a/common-core-confusion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As America's most fearless purveyor of "truthiness," Stephen Colbert shines a light on ego-driven punditry, moral hypocrisy and government incompetence, raising the bar for political satire.

# data[].attributes.body
Comedia, political commentator, and talk show host Bill Maher makes a hilarious left wing op ed about how people still do not get that climate change is a real threat to our world's ecosystem. His use of satire and comedic insights gives light-hearted jabs at the opposing party on their beliefs on the environment. He begins by saying that people from Britain believe that climate change is a hoax despite their so called advanced intelligence society. He makes relatable and comical comparisons so that the audience will listen with interest and understand the points that he makes. He lays down the basic points of the argument in clear language so that the audience could understand how ridiculous the opposing group seems to be.

"One major reason [why global warming is not real] is that we had a very cold snowy winter that's like saying the sun is not real because it was dark last night."

He points out how people believe in argumentum adnumerum that states that something is true just because a lot of people believe in it. Except, he points out that there is no debate here, it is scientists who have proof of global warming and it doesn't matter what people call it, wether they believe it exists or not, it's still a real problem.

His foul language and relaxed atmosphere with quirky and witty comments give his op ed an interesting edge that keeps his audience aware and information flowing. His ability to connect analogies with facts allows information to be easily processed by anyone."What's real is what's real and like it or not, no one can change the nature of reality, except of course with mushrooms.." Bill Maher.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Maher lays waste to Global Warming deniers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill Maher rips Global Warming deniers a new one. Please comment and subscribe!

# data[].attributes.body
In this article it talks bad about Obama on how badly he let the latin america population down. He had made promises wit h empty results as the article explain. He promised to let slow down big deportations and yet it has highly increased. He also has put many illegal immigrants in solitary confinement, treated them horrible.

This article is different than other articles because in previous article especially latino articles they draw obama like a hero, unlike this article it shows the broken promises the torture and the stalling for a reform. They make obama seem as if he was the problem to not passing a reform. We have researched an international news source from mexico an they also said thanks to obama the differed action was passed. Thats why many hispanics see him as a great president. An the article was written by a latino.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Evidence of increased mass-scale deportations since the beginning of Obama's Presidency -- often in violation of immigrants' human rights -- are significantly harming U.S. regional standing in organizations such as the OAS. While the U.S. is keen to act as the harbinger of change in human rights policies of Latin American states, it fails to fully abide by its own standards and criteria.
Broken promises
In the 2012 presidential debate, President Obama vouched to protect immigrants residing in the U.S., preserve the right to family unity and embark on comprehensive immigration policy reform. Despite his strong-worded promises, Obama has largely betrayed the very Latin American voters who make up his support base, with immigrant deportations surpassing the two million mark since 2008, by far the greatest number of any previous administration.

Stalled immigration reform and the continuation of a policy that largely violates the human rights of immigrants does not bode well for U.S. regional standing in organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and its human rights pillar, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). The IACHR is largely seen by many of its members as a tool of U.S. influence and over the past years there have been several calls for reforms from its members. While there are other far more severe U.S. human rights abuses that one can point to, such as Guantanamo Bay and drone strikes, recent outrage over the intensification of human rights violations under Obama's immigration policy is certainly cause for concern.
Disregard for family unity
After arriving in office promising large-scale immigration reform, Obama instead chose to narrow the scope of immigration enforcement to focus on the most dangerous criminals. However, statistics have shown that this is simply not the case -- two thirds of the two million deported individuals concerned were arrested for minor and non-violent offenses, such as traffic violations and possession of marijuana for personal use, and did not previously have criminal records.

The administration's policy, which includes immediate deportation of immigrants who are illegally re-entering the country, even if it is to reunite with family members, has successfully destroyed the livelihood of many immigrant families residing the U.S. Referred to as the "deporter in chief", Obama has been accused by a Hispanic civil rights organization, the National Council of La Raza, as well as Amnesty International, of denying immigrants the right to family unity. TRAC immigration agency found that, in 2013, a mere 12 percent of those deported had level one offenses, classified as sexual assault, kidnapping and homicide.

Human rights watch underlined the importance of family unity when condemning U.S. immigration policy. "In the world of human rights, family is seen as the natural and fundamental group that deserves protection" and despite promises for U.S. immigration reform, family unity is not viewed with much importance in the country. The organization argues that for future reform, judges should be able to take into account family unity in light of minor or old criminal convictions. As the system stands now, even those immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens and who have been perfectly law-abiding members of society and pay taxes can face deportation and separation from their family, often for life.
The case of solitary confinement
U.S. mass deportation has seen a sharp increase in the immigration detention population, up 85 percent in 2005 (approximately 34,000 are held in detention each day) out of which 300 individuals a day are held in the brutal circumstance of solitary confinement. Almost half this number are held for over 15 days, a duration that increases the risk for mental damage of an inmate. This Immigration and Customs Enforcement practice is shocking, given that most detainees are being kept on civil charges and therefore are not supposed to be punished.

Amnesty International has criticized solitary confinement as one of the worst forms of detention as detainees are deprived of any sunlight for 23 hours a day causing individuals to become depressed, paranoid and suicidal. It has largely argued for a reform of the U.S. immigration system to search for alternatives to this kind of cruel detention and ensure international human rights principles.

Inhume and degrading treatment of detainees, especially toward immigrants who often have no legal counsel, has attracted the attention of Juan Mendez, the UN rapporteur on torture. Mendez condemned U.S. use of solitary confinement, calling it "in breach of its obligations under the torture convention."
Declining U.S. regional power
While Obama vowed to protect immigrants from large scale deportations, it appears that these speeches were filled with empty words, when now more than ever nondocumented immigrants are facing mass deportation, solitary confinement and family suffering. This failure to reform immigration policy to make it more humane, has highlighted to the rest of the region that "Washington lacks the moral authority to establish itself as a model on migration and respect for human rights".

The US domination of the IACHR has been consistently judged by its smaller members as political intrusion in the Latin American region. Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua have argued that, while the U.S. jumps at the chance to comment on human rights, it has not ratified the American Convention of Human Rights itself, ensuring that the IACHR has no jurisdiction in American territory despite being located in Washington, D.C.

Latin American members are increasingly demanding changes to the status quo of the IACHR, which is failing to appropriately address the needs of Latin American democracies. According to President Correa, the system focuses too much on freedom of expression and protection of capital, rather than on the promotion of human rights in the region.

If the U.S. is to remain respectful within the organization, immigration reform should be a key priority, one that will favor the human rights of immigrants over mass deportation. Signs of withering influence has already begun to appear, as is evidenced by the removal of USAID from Ecuador, six months after the agency was already asked to leave from Bolivia.

Demonstrating the ability to reform, as well as becoming a signatory of the American Convention of Human Rights, will signal to OAS members that the U.S. is committed to protection of human rights in the region and is capable of addressing the challenges that Latin American democracies face.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Immigration Policy Bad News for U.S. Regional Standing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Evidence of increased mass-scale deportations since the beginning of Obama's Presidency -- often in violation of immigrants' human rights -- are significantly harming U.S. regional standing in organizations such as the OAS. While the U.S. is keen to act as the harbinger of change in human rights policies of Latin American states, it fails to fully abide by its own standards and criteria.

# data[].attributes.headline
Potential Turkish Role in Syria Chemical Strike (Salim, Jenna, Aya)

# data[].attributes.subject
Potential Turkish Role in Syria Chemical Strike (Salim, Jenna, Aya)

# data[].attributes.body
In this video, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh is asked about his opinion on Syria’s possession of chemical weapons and Turkey’s involvement in supplying sarin gas to Syrian rebels. President Obama made the case for launching a strike on Syria without revealing Turkey’s involvement, causing controversy over how the international community should react.

Hersh believes that the sarin raises “a grave question about one of the basic elements of the president’s argument for planning to go to war.” He calls Obama’s actions “a long-running operation” in which the U.S. government basically guided the opposition to win the war. Seymour states: “I quote people as saying, once the president makes a decision, it’s almost impossible to change—to get it changed. The president decided that the Syrians did it, and we’re justified in thinking that and continuing to think that, no other option exists.“
Unlike other left-wing news sources, this interview does not say that we should intervene in the Syrian civil war and help them achieve democracy. Rather, this interview focuses on President Obama’s justification to enter the war, revealing that the current government intervention is not aimed against Turkey, the true suppliers of the chemical weapons. It aims to bring awareness of misinformation, and attempts to correct what they deem as political corruption. It differs from right-wing outlets in that it does not oppose the war or international involvement; it merely seeks for
the right justification to enter the war against chemical weapons in Syria.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to Hersh, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page "talking points" briefing on June 19th which stated the Syrian rebel group al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell. According to the , it was, quote, "the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida's pre-9/11 effort." The document went on to state, quote, "Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large scale production effort in Syria." A month before the DIA briefing was written, more than ten members of al-Nusra were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin.

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh now joins us from Washington, D.C. His latest piece is headlined "The Red Line and the Rat Line." It was just published in the London Review of Books.

Sy Hersh, welcome back to Democracy Now! Lay out what you have found.

Well, you just laid out part of it. I think the most important thing about the document is that-as you know, I was on this show, and the London Review did a piece that I wrote, months ago, questioning just the whole issue of "Whose Sarin?"-was the title. It wasn't clear. This doesn't mean we know exactly what happened in eastern Ghouta. What we do know-I'm talking about the military, the Pentagon and the analysts-is that the sarin that was recovered wasn't the kind of sarin that exists in the Syrian arsenal. It just raises a grave question about one of the basic elements of the president's argument for planning to go to war. The real point of the Shedd document, and the reason I wrote so much about it, is because when I did that piece months ago, the White House said they know of no such document, and there's no-they have no information about sarin being in the hands of al-Nusra or other radical groups or jihadist groups inside Syria.

Here's what's scary about it. What's scary about it is the military community-I know that the Southern Command, etc., were very worried about this possibility. The war is going badly for some of these jihadist groups. They obviously-more than al-Nusra, other groups obviously have the capacity now to manufacture sarin, with the help of Turkey, and the fear is that as the war goes bad, some of this sarin-you can call it a strategic weapon, perhaps; when used right, it can kill an awful lot of people very quickly-is going to be shipped to their various units outside of Syria. In other words, they're going to farm out the chemicals they have, who knows where-northern Africa, the Middle East, other places-and then you have a different situation that we are confronting in terms of the war on terror. That's the reality.

Meanwhile, the White House's position, again, with this article, once again, even though we-this document they claim no longer existed, we ran a big chunk of it. Clearly, I have access to it. They are still insisting, "We know of no such document." This head-in-the-sand approach really has to do with something I write about in the article. I quote people as saying, once the president makes a decision, it's almost impossible to change-to get it changed. The president decided that the Syrians did it, and we're justified in thinking that and continuing to think that, no other option exists. And so, he's predicated a foreign policy which is a head-in-the-sand policy, because, meanwhile, we have a serious problem with these kind of weapons, particularly as Syria gets rid of the weapons. The only people inside Syria with those weapons are the wackos. And so, there we are.

The rat line is an informal designation of a-the CIA is-there's a lot of very competent people in the CIA. I give it a hard time, but you've got to acknowledge a very-a lot of very bright people still work there, and they know what they're doing. During the Iranian war, when-during when Cheney and Bush were deeply involved in trying to find out whether there was a secret underground nuclear facility inside Iran-they absolutely believed it-we would send in Joint Special Operation Command teams undercover from Pakistan, from wherever, through routes that the CIA had known for smuggling and moving cash. They would use those rat lines to go in.

And the rat line in this case is, very early in 2012, when this-I don't know why, but maybe because of the hubris over what-the victory we thought we had in Libya ousting Gaddafi, which is a mess of its own, we set up a covert, a very secret operation inside Libya to funnel arms through Turkey into the Syrian opposition, including all sides-those who were secular, those who had legitimate grievances against the Assad government, and the other groups sponsored by the Saudis and Qataris, who are really trying to create a Wahhabi or Salafist government in Syria, take it over. And this was a very secret operation. It went for a long time. It only ended when the consulate in Benghazi was overrun. And it was done without-as I write, without telling Congress. And the reason we even know about it, there was a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi that was published a few months back raising questions about security, etc., the same issues Republicans constantly talk about, but there was a secret annex to the report that described this process of funneling stuff. And it was done with money, actually, from the Turks, from the Saudis and the Qataris. We sort of used their money, and we funneled-to use it to buy weapons and funnel it. The CIA was deeply involved in this.

In effect, you could almost say that, in his own way, Obama-you can call it shrewd or brilliant. He was almost channeling Saudi Arabia and Qatari and the Turks to get something done we wanted done, which was to have the opposition defeat Bashar al-Assad. And that's what it was. It was a long-running operation. It only ended-and, by the way, when it ended with the-when we shut it down after Benghazi was overrun, we suddenly saw all kinds of crazy weapons be showing up, including MANPADS, the shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles. We showed-they were suddenly showing up inside-inside Syria in the hands of various jihadist groups. So, clearly, the rat line we set up after we shut it down had a life of its own, which is often that happens in these kind of operations.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: No one has done more to make Syria a magnet for terrorists than Bashar al-Assad. He is the single greatest magnet for terrorism that there is in the region. And he has long since, because of his choice of weapons, because of what he has done, lost any legitimacy. ... I will just say to you that lots of different avenues will be pursued, including continued support to the opposition and augmented support to the opposition.

And so, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by its chairman, Martin Dempsey, an Army officer of many years of experience-he was commander of the Central Command, covered the Middle East-they did go to the president, and they raised questions. They let him know the problems. And they also talked about the fact that the military was, I can say, unhappy. Military people tend to be-when you give them an assignment, they'll do it, but often they see the risk more than civilian leaders. The first-the president wanted a wave of bombing, and the military came up with a list of a number of targets-I think 21, 31, something like that, targets-runways and other stuff. And they were told by the White House-I don't know who-that they wanted something that would create more pain for Bashar. So then, the next thing you know, they're coming back with a massive bombing attack, two air wings of B-52 bombers dropping 2,000-pound bombs, hitting power nodes, electricity nodes, etc., the kind of attack that would cause an awful lot of damage to civilian infrastructure. And that was an awful lot for the Joint Chiefs, and they really raised that question with the president.

And as I write, I don't think there's any other issue that would have forced him to stop as he did. The notion of we're going to suddenly go back and sign a chemical disarmament treaty with the Syrians, that the Russians had been talking about, that had been raised a year earlier, and we didn't bite them. He clearly jumped on it then. And he-look, you've got to give the president credit. As much as he wanted to and as much as he talked about it, when faced with reality, he backed down. He didn't say why. But, you know, we don't expect-we have learned not to expect very much credibility on foreign policy issues. Unfortunately, the fact that we don't get straight talk from the top means that the bureaucracy can't do straight talk. If you're inside the bureaucracy, you can't really tell the White House something they don't want to know.

PRIME MINISTER RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN: [translated] Today they posted a video on YouTube. There was a meeting at the Turkish Foreign Ministry on Syria, on the tomb of Suleyman Shah. And they even leaked this on YouTube. This is villainous. This is dishonesty.

Well, where we stand on it now is that there's not much we can do about it, because-well, let me just tell you what we know. What we do know, that Turkey is-that al-Nusra groups have been inside Turkey buying equipment. There's also reports that they've also received some training from the Turkish intelligence services, which is very-is headed by a man named Fidan, who is very known. There's reports, wonderful report in The Wall Street Journal recently about Fidan's closeness not only to Erdogan, the prime minister and the leader of Turkey, but also to the most radical units. And so is Erdogan. They're all supporting-if they have a choice, they're supporting the more fundamental groups inside Syria. And so, we know they supply training. We know also there's a-there's, I guess you could call it, another rat line. There's a flow-if you're going to send the chemicals that, when mixed together, meddled together, make sarin, they flow-that flow comes from inside Turkey. A sort of a paramilitary unit known as the gendarmy-Gendarmerie and the MIT [Milli Istihbarat Teskilati] both are responsible for funneling these things into radical groups. There's actually a flow of trucks that brings the stuff in. And so, Turkish involvement is intense.

And I can tell you, and as I wrote in this article, the conclusion of many in the intelligence community-I can't say it's a report, because they didn't write a report about it-the conclusion was, based on intercepts we have, particularly after the event, was that there were elements of the Turkish government that took credit for what happened in eastern Ghouta, with the point being that this sarin attack crossed Obama's famous red line. If you know, Obama had said in the summer of 2012, there's a red line that, if they cross in terms of using chemicals or doing too much, the opposition, he will bomb to stop Bashar. And so, Turkey was dying, trying, repeatedly in the spring-there's a lot of evidence there were some attacks in the spring. The U.N. knows this, although they don't say it. I write about that, too, in the article. And also, the American community knew. That's the reason why that secret report I wrote about, the talking paper, was written. We knew that the radicals were-had used-the jihadist groups had access to nerve agent and had used it against Syrian soldiers in March and April. Those incidents that were always described by our government as being the responsibility of the rebels, with high confidence, it's just not so. And the report makes it clear. We have had a huge problem before the August attack in-near Damascus. We knew about this potential for months before. We just-it's the kind of information, for some reason, it doesn't fit with what the administration wanted to hear, so it just never got out. And that-

Sy, on Sunday, the website EA WorldView published a piece headlined "There is No Chemical Weapons Conspiracy-Dissecting Hersh's 'Exclusive' on Insurgents Once More." The author, Scott Lucas, questioned the claim that rebels could have been responsible for the chemical weapons attack last August, given the range and scale of the operation. He wrote, quote, "Reports on the day and subsequently indicated that 7-12 sites were attacked with chemical agents at the same time. In other words, whoever was responsible for the attacks launched multiple surface-to-surface rockets with chemical payloads against opposition-held towns in East Ghouta and one town in West Ghouta, near Damascus. [The chemical] attacks were ... followed by ... heavy conventional attacks." The author, Scott Lucas, says that you fail to ask questions about whether anyone, apart from the regime, would have the ability to carry out such an extensive operation. Sy?

[inaudible] first article on-we're past that. We now know. Actually, The New York Times even ran a retraction, of sorts. You had a-it was like reading Pravda. But if you read the article carefully, The New York Times had run a series of articles after the event saying that the warheads in question that did the damage came from a Syrian army base, something like nine kilometers, six miles, away. And at that time, there were a number of analysts, a group from MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], led by Ted Postol, who used to be a science adviser to the CNO, the chief of naval operations, clearly somebody with a great deal of background and no bias. He did a series of studies with his team that concluded that the warheads probably didn't go more than one or two, at most, kilometers-two kilometers, 1.2 miles. And we now know from the U.N. report-a man named Ake Sellstrom, who ran the U.N. investigation, he's concluded the same thing: These missiles that were fired were fired no more than a mile.

They were-one looks-just from the footage one saw, they were homemade. They didn't fit any of the nomenclature of the known weapons. And don't think we don't have a very good picture of what the Syrians have in terms of warheads. They have a series of warheads that can deliver chemical weapons, and we know the dimensions of all of them. And none of these weapons fit that. And so, you have a U.N. report. You have this independent report saying they were-went no more than one or two kilometers. And so, I don't know why we're talking about multiple-launch rockets. These are homemade weapons. And it seems very clear to most observers-as I say, even to the U.N. team that did the final report-the U.N., because of whatever rules they have, wasn't able to say that-who fired what. They could just say-they just could describe the weapons and never make a judgment. But I can tell you, I quote somebody from inside that investigation unit who was very clear that the weapons fired were homemade and were not Syrian army. This is asked and answered; these are arguments that go on. This is-I assume it's a blog. I don't know the-I don't know the blog.

Seymour Hersh, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, Washington, [D.C.]. We will have a link to your latest piece in the London Review of Books, headlined "The Red Line and the Rat Line." This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, 20 years ago today, the genocide in Rwanda began. We'll go to Kigali. Stay with us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sy Hersh Reveals Potential Turkish Role in Syria Chemical Strike That Almost Sparked U.S. Bombing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Was Turkey behind last year's Syrian chemical weapons attack? That is the question raised in a new exposé by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh on the intelligence debate over the deaths of hundreds of Syrians in Ghouta last year. The United States, and much of the international community, blamed forces loyal to the Assad government, almost leading to a U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
This article argues that Wyoming should now change their marriage laws to allow same sex couples to marry. They argue this by stating that it would be the morally correct way. They say that a law passing in 1977 “The paradox means while Wyoming won't allow gay marriage within its borders, it has allowed a same-sex couple to divorce. That's ludicrous.” Star Tribune editorial board of wyoming believes that, “Changing state law is the right thing to do and fits Wyoming's values.”
This editorial talked about a lot of personal values that needs to be considered because there are values humans “inherit.” The editorial says, “It's inherently conservative to value the family, to encourage and support two people who want to commit themselves to each other and their children. It's inherently Republican to say that rights afforded to some should be extended to all, regardless of differences. It's inherently libertarian to say the government shouldn't define whether two consenting adults can be legally and exclusively bound to each other. It's inherently moral to say those who have committed themselves to each other shouldn't be excluded from the right, responsibilities or benefits of marriage.”

(The article's page has an advertisement, click "close" to be able to view the article)

# data[].attributes.headline
NSA Left wing report by Bill Maher (Sandra & Ofisa)

# data[].attributes.subject
NSA Left wing report by Bill Maher (Sandra & Ofisa)

# data[].attributes.body
Bill Maher Believes that the NSA program is unconstitutional but he also feels that in the real world it is helpful in order to help identify terrorist. Bill Maher is a very far left liberal and his view on the NSA is a bit different that the liberals that are leaning towards the left. Bill Maher differentiates himself from liberals in his opinion that all religions are not the same. Bill Maher's presentation for defending the NSA in the video is sarcastic. The sarcasm is expected from him since Bill Maher is a stand up comedian on political issues. Bill Maher's political perspective makes him more radical than the rest of the liberals because he has views such as viewing religion as highly critical and destructive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill Maher made it very clear he considers the NSA phone and internet snooping to be unconstitutional, but admitted he's conflicted how to feel about the program in the real world. He argued that sometimes terrorist concerns necessitate a fair amount of government surveillance, remarking that people wouldn't be so "absolutist" about their privacy if they thought terrorists were building nukes. All of this shocked Republican panelist Ana Navarro, who, in the middle of the discussion, asked, "Who are you and what have you done with Bill Maher?"
Maher first noted how these revelations aren't necessarily breaking news, with Kevin Williamson noting how such widespread government surveillance did not start after 9/11, it was going on for years earlier. Navarro remarked that the NSA is now acting as the DNC and the DOJ is the KGB. Comedian Dana Gould suggested that part of the blame goes to technological expansion for making it harder to maintain the "illusion of our privacy."

Williamson said much of what was in the PATRIOT Act was used before in specific investigations, but what the NSA is doing now is indiscriminately "going after the general population" and hoping they find something. Maher admitted, "This issue is not a no-brainer." He said terrorist plots have probably been thwarted, and declared that he's okay with it now, because it's Obama in office as opposed to a hardline Republican.

And on top of this, Maher said that nukes tip the scales for him, doubting that people would be so gung-ho about their privacy if they knew terrorists were out there somewhere developing nuclear weapons and waiting to strike the United States.

Maher also surprised the panel by expressing his support for the Supreme Court ruling this week declaring all people arrested, whether they're charged with crimes or not, should be DNA swabbed. A stunned Navarro asked, "Who are you and what have you done with Bill Maher?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video: Bill Maher Defends the NSA Surveillance Grid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill Maher made it very clear he considers the NSA phone and internet snooping to be unconstitutional, but admitted he's conflicted how to feel about the program in the real world. He argued that sometimes terrorist concerns necessitate a fair amount of government surveillance, remarking that people wouldn't be so "absolutist" about their privacy if they thought terrorists were building nukes.

# data[].attributes.headline
US Economic Recovery- (Jasmine Pedroza and Phi Phan)

# data[].attributes.subject
US Economic Recovery- (Jasmine Pedroza and Phi Phan)

# data[].attributes.body
Timothy Geithner: U.S. Economy 'Doing Significantly Better Than Anybody Had Reason To Expect'

Timothy Geithner recently said that the financial reforms and other actions in response to the global crisis are helping the U.S. economy to grow at a pace better than there was reason to expect. He also says that the U.S. has been relatively successful in managing to clean up the mess left by the 2008 financial crisis. The growth has averaged just over 2 percent a year since 2009, lower than the 3 percent to 4 percent that many had predicted. From Geithner's perspective, "U.S. economy is doing significantly better than anybody had reason to expect, not just because of the magnitude of the crisis, but because of the size of the force of the shocks that hit the U.S. economy". If Washington fails to deal effectively with the so-called "fiscal cliff", then the progress made in getting the economy back on track could be undone as warned by economists.

If this issue is not resolved by 2013, tax increases and deep spending cuts adding to up to 4 percent of GDP, overwhelming the U.S. economy. The IMF urges the U.S to raise the ceiling on the level of debt the government can issue, which is protected by law, when similar halt went unresolved until the U.S. almost defaulted on its debt, in the August of 2011.

Geithner said that, "It might feel like an easy path at the moment but it will still leave a set of big questions hanging over the country. I don't think that will help."

# data[].attributes.headline
Is the Pentagon Overreacting to North Korea? (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.subject
Is the Pentagon Overreacting to North Korea? (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.body
Because the United Nations has created new sanctions that prevent funding for North Korean missile programs, North Korea has amplified its threats towards the United States. In response, the Pentagon announced a nearly $1-billion project to "improve America's defenses against a potential nuclear attack launched by North Korea." Asawin Suebsaeng argues that this spending is unwarranted because "virtually no one in the US government actually believes that North Korea is close to having the ability to hit any part of the United States with nuclear missiles." He continues to assert that the US is only taking these measures to convey that we are a military superpower. South Korea and Japan, if anything, should be more worried than the US; but even they have not reacted as drastically as the Pentagon.

It sounds like he's using Republicans as a scapegoat for this spending as he does not refer to the House as a whole but instead directly references the "House Republicans." This article reflects left leanings as it conveys anti-violence sentiment. He doesn't want to spend so much on the defense unlike the right-wingers who prefer to take action even in the face of unlikely threat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week, US defense secretary Chuck Hagel announced something superficially alarming: Due to the recent tough talk coming out of Pyongyang, the Pentagon has announced a nearly $ 1 billion project to improve America's defenses against a potential nuclear attack launched by North Korea. The boost in mainland missile defense will increase the number of ground-based interceptors in California and Alaska to 44 from 30 over the next four years. Part of this plan will involve resurrecting a missile field at Fort Greely, Alaska. "We will be able to add protection against missiles from Iran sooner while also proving protection against the threat from North Korea," Hagel said during Friday's Pentagon briefing.

The move comes on the heels of the North Korean government amping up its threats against the US: Along with conducting a third ( suspected) nuclear test in seven years and declaring an end to the armistice with South Korea, the regime threatened to nuke American soil amid new UN sanctions. "The White House has been captured in the view of our long-range missile, and the capital of war is within the range of our atomic bomb," or so goes the narration in a propaganda video post to the North Korean government's YouTube page on Monday. The video includes a poorly produced animated sequence of the White House and Capitol dome exploding.

Here's what's crazy about all this: The Pentagon is spending $1 billion on a gesture. Virtually no one in the US government actually believes that North Korea (or Iran, for that matter) is close to having the ability to hit any part of the United States with nuclear missiles. It is also unclear how close North Korea is to being able to convert their tested nuclear devices to function as warheads. ( Click here to get an idea of the state of the supposed North Korean missile threat just last year.)

The beefed-up missile defense of the West Coast is essentially meant to show South Korea and Japan (countries that actually might have to worry about a missile launched by the North Koreans) that the US is ready to commit resources to deter the Hermit Kingdom, and to send a message to Beijing, North Korea's most important ally. ( Message = Restrain your smaller, belligerent friend.)

These kinds of extreme threats from North Korea and Iran aren't anything new, or even that rare. North Korean leadership has warned of " necessary retaliatory measures" almost too many times to count. Iranian military and government officials have said things about attacking the East Coast of the United States with their missiles and naval fleets. Officials in North Korea and Iran say a lot of things, often with the same attachment to reality you'd get from a Kardashian wedding.

But in the event that the Red Dawn remake or Olympus Has Fallen suddenly become America's dark reality, members of Congress have been pushing hard to expand our national missile defense systems. Last May, House Republicans pushed a provision in a defense authorization bill that would develop an East Coast missile shield, in case North Korea or Iran decided to somehow rain down rockets on Manhattan's Theater District. The plan was estimated to cost $2-4 billion.

There is close to zero evidence that national missile-shield technology works, and testing has at best yielded a 50 percent success rate of interception. "Every scientific study done says it doesn't work-so, even if there were a threat from Iran or North Korea, [a shield] wouldn't be able to stop it," Lawrence Korb, a former US assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told Mother Jones last year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pentagon Is Spending $1 Billion to Protect America From North Korea's Nonexistent Long-Range Nuclear Missiles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, US defense secretary Chuck Hagel announced something superficially alarming: Due to the recent tough talk coming out of Pyongyang, the Pentagon has announced a nearly $ 1 billion project to improve America's defenses against a potential nuclear attack launched by North Korea.

# data[].attributes.body
This article cuts to the core of what is up with China’s relationship with Japan. China’s anti-Japanese sentiment stems directly from a its nationalist ideology, using the communist party’s education and propaganda to predispose its citizens. China’s propaganda mainly focuses on particular historical events such as the Sino-Japanese war and the Rape of Nanking to use as excuses for these beliefs. Chinese negative sentiment is not solely aimed at Japan, but also at the United States, pointing toward American imperialism in Asia.

The article goes further and discusses how China has been used in politics by Republicans to depict wrongs in a Democratic leader. Bill Clinton accused George Bush of “coddling the ‘butchers of Beijing’ following the Tiananmen Square massacre.” The article explains that Mitt Romney, Republican candidate from presidency against Obama, had declared China a “current manipulator” and states that Romney’s foreign policies in this field could have lead to tariffs against Chinese imports and a trade war. “Anti-chinese sentiment these days comes mostly from the right” and economic conservatives associate China’s socialism with policies that are unfriendly to capitalism, such as redistribution of income and government regulations.
Even though the news source, New York Times, is center right wing, this article has been mainly critical of conservatives and the right wing, leading me to call it a left wing Op Ed. I still choose to keep it as it is a high quality Op Ed, as it offers very thoughtful perspectives and information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The statements of American politicians further stoke Chinese anger at the United States. Speaking in Ohio late last week, the presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee, Paul D. Ryan, accused China of stealing intellectual property, blocking access to its markets and manipulating the exchange rate. "President Obama promised he would stop these practices," Mr. Ryan declared. "He said he'd go to the mat with China. Instead, they're treating him like a doormat. We're not going to let that happen."

Mr. Ryan's views echo those of Mitt Romney, who has promised if elected to declare China a "currency manipulator." This could lead to punitive tariffs on Chinese imports and a possible trade war.

There is a long history of challengers using China to attack incumbents during presidential elections. Most famously, in 1992, Bill Clinton accused President George Bush of coddling the "butchers of Beijing" following the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989.

While there is some antipathy toward China in the Democratic Party, particularly among labor unions and human rights activists, anti-Chinese sentiment these days comes mostly from the right. Economic conservatives don't like the income redistribution and government regulation they associate with socialism; the Christian right fears the atheism of "Godless" Communism; and libertarians don't like any government at all, let alone the authoritarian government of China.

China-bashing will therefore be good election year politics for the Romney-Ryan ticket. But it will be bad for America's relations with China and could undermine our national security. Many Chinese are already suspicious of American intentions, and ideologically driven rhetoric from across the Pacific will only confirm their worst fears.

Worse, the Communist Party is currently undergoing its own leadership transition, and it is happening at a time when popular nationalism is bringing people into the streets. Because the party bases its legitimacy in large part on its nationalist credentials, no party leader is likely to quiet the nationalists until the new leadership is finalized.

Lacking a secure foundation of mutual trust, American-Chinese relations today remain susceptible to the random accidents of history that have plagued them in the past. In 1999, the mistaken NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, killed three and led to huge anti-American protests across China. And in 2001, the collision between a Chinese jet and an American surveillance plane led to a Chinese pilot's death and an American crew's being detained for two weeks.

If comparable accidents occur during this fall's leadership transitions in both countries, popular pressure for more confrontational policies in both China and the United States will be more difficult to contain - and will increase the likelihood of conflict in Asia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Why China Resents Japan, and Us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The statements of American politicians further stoke Chinese anger at the United States. Speaking in Ohio late last week, the presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee, Paul D. Ryan, accused China of stealing intellectual property, blocking access to its markets and manipulating the exchange rate. "President Obama promised he would stop these practices," Mr. Ryan declared.

# data[].attributes.headline
North Korea Conservative Op-Ed (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.subject
North Korea Conservative Op-Ed (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.body
This article from mid- 2013 was written when North Korea initially stated that the Korean Peninsula was on the brink of thermo-nuclear war, and had missiles primed for testing or attack. The article first states that if North Korea launches said missiles at the United States, we should not be worried because we have systems that should be able to calculate their trajectories and intercept them before they are a real threat. Not only that, the article suggests that we should use our own missiles to take out North Korean missile launch sites and places where we know North Koreans are holding other missiles.

Beyond giving this advice, the article attacks recent defense cuts which included "gutting missile defense" and de-commissioning places in charge of missile interceptor equipment, because that "only send[s] the wrong message and invite[s] trouble from dictators like Kim Jong Un". Predictably, the article praises recent attempts to re-open some of the shut down interception equipment, and also suggests that the government "continue to deploy both ship and land based missile interceptors and reverse earlier decisions made on missile defense". The author also suggests that, through radio broadcasts, Japan and other neighboring countries should start putting out anti-Kim Jong Un propaganda in hopes of getting to the North Korean people, but also that we should turn to China and essentially ask them to face up to what they've "created." The author sees China as having defended North Korea through all of this, therefore NK's trouble-making is partly China's fault. He calls for China to come to action and help reign in North Korea.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After successful recent ballistic and nuclear bomb tests, North Korea has threatened the United States with nuclear strikes. This week, the Pyongyang regime stated that the Korean Peninsula is headed for thermo-nuclear war, told foreign diplomats to leave North Korea and advised foreigners to leave South Korea. Today, it has two medium range Musudan-1 missiles prepared for immediate launch from its east coast.

It's decision time on North Korea.

What should the U.S. do if, as expected, North Korea goes ahead and launches the two Musudan-1 missiles?

[pullquote]

Fortunately, our Aegis Combat System has the ability to calculate their trajectory within seconds. If the Musudan-1 missiles are heading for open water, we should let them fly, but be sure to collect the debris for analysis. Remember, Kim Jong Un's game is to provoke the United States (and Japan and South Korea) into military action. We should not play into his hands if not necessary.

If, on the other hand, Aegis calculates the trajectory as headed for land (such as Guam, Japan, Okinawa, or South Korea), we need to be prepared to not only take out those missiles with missile interceptors, but also immediately take out their missile launchers with Tomahawks. At that point, we should also take out the eight Musudan missiles the North Koreans are holding in reserve in tunnels along their Eastern coastline.

Earlier this week, Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) detected that North Korea had begun to deploy additional Musudan-1 missiles into firing positions in other parts of North Korea.

North Korea is believed to have between 50-200 Musudan-1 missiles. Its range is a little over 2,500 miles, which is greater than reported by most media outlets. Improvements have been made to some of the Musudans, which include larger fuel tanks and updated navigational and targeting equipment from Russia. There is also concern that some of the Musudans may have been engineered to accommodate a small nuclear warhead.

And don't forget, the Musudan is just their medium range missile. They also have the Taepodong-2 missile with far greater range.

Even more concerning is their Unha-3 rocket, which successfully put the North Korean satellite in orbit in December. Its range is believed to be 6,200 miles.

On the ground now, in addition to the deployment of more Musudan-1 missiles, the North Koreans are moving large amounts of ammunition, both small caliber and artillery shells, towards both the DMZ and their coastal artillery bases.

Preparations are also underway for a dramatic patriotic military display in North Korea on April 15, the 101st birthday of founder Kim Il-Sung.

All of this occurring while the Chinese have massed the largest mobilization of forces, including missile batteries and tank units, along the North Korean border since the 1950s.

Yes, this is decision time on North Korea. Unfortunately, some of our decisions in recent years, such as gutting missile defense, cutting $1.2 trillion from our defense budget and announcing plans to decommission Missile Field-1(houses missile interceptors) at Fort Greely, Alaska only send the wrong message and invite trouble from dictators like Kim Jong Un.

Fortunately, though, the decisions the United States has made in recent weeks, and continues to make, have been right on the mark.

The Obama administration's decision to reverse itself and re-open Missile Field-1 at Fort Greely was a good one.

Recent decisions to deploy SBX, a powerful U.S. military sea based radar to detect missile launches and the first operational deployment of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System), the Army's newest missile defense system, have been the right ones.

We need to continue to deploy both ship and land based missile interceptors and reverse earlier decisions made on missile defense.

Earlier, in an op-ed for Fox News Opinion I called for the establishment of a "Radio Marti-Radio Free Europe" broadcast operation against North Korea from locations in South Korea and Japan. Since that time, there have been multiple reports of division and dissension within the North Korean military over Kim Jong Un. Such a broadcast operation would only help foster that division and dissension, as well as educate the North Korean people.

Lastly, it's time for America to lead the free world in turning all eyes on China with one unequivocal message: "Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth-you helped create this problem, now it's time for you to help fix it."
Van D. Hipp, Jr. is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Army. He is the author of the newly released book, "The New Terrorism: How to Fight It and Defeat It." All of the author's proceeds go to the National Guard Educational Foundation to fund scholarships for children of fallen Guardsmen. www.thenewterrorism.com Follow him on Twitter @VanHipp.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the US should do if North Korea launches 2 Musudan missiles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After successful recent ballistic and nuclear bomb tests, North Korea has threatened the United States with nuclear strikes. This week, the Pyongyang regime stated that the Korean Peninsula is headed for thermo-nuclear war, told foreign diplomats to leave North Korea and advised foreigners to leave South Korea.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article Romina Boccia argues that in order to have environmental progress, you need to have economic progress. Many people would say that it's good to have a lot of laws that protect the environment from being exploited by big corporations. However, she claims that a boost in the economy will result in a boost in the environment and the government should therefore cut back on the amount of regulations. Boccia states that the more knowledgable people are, the better they use their resources and this will in turn result in more conservation. Boccia criticizes current policymakers for following an "outdated regulatory approach" by enforcing laws that are meant to protect the environment. By following this system, Boccia claims that they are preventing entrepreneurship and innovation from occurring, which is bad because technological advances are actually beneficial to the environment. Boccia also states that hunting restrictions are hurting the environment. She explains that in areas that allow hunting, species that are endangered elsewhere are actually flourishing because people are given some kind of incentive to preserve the species. Boccia argues that the best way to help the environment is to protect private property rights and extend market innovation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans have witnessed tremendous environmental improvements over the past several decades. At the same time, they have enjoyed greater economic prosperity. These parallel developments counter popular perception, which suggests that increases in population size and economic growth are inherently at odds with environmental quality. In other words, U.K. broadcaster Sir David Attenborough's suggestion that "humans are a plague on earth" is wrong.

Highlighting the disconnect between big-government policies that restrict economic growth, and the reality that economic prosperity and environmental protection go hand-in-hand, is key to making further environmental improvements and respecting property rights and individual freedom.

Technological advancements and economic growth are catalysts for environmental progress. In the words of economics writer Warren Brookes, "the learning curve is green." The Heritage Foundation put forth Eight Principles of the American Conservation Ethic to guide policymakers in encouraging effective stewardship.

Among them is the insight that as people accumulate more knowledge, they make better use of productive resources. Gains in producing goods and services more efficiently mean that people are able to grow more food on less land, for example. This translates into less waste and greater conservation.

Nevertheless, policymakers continue to follow an outdated regulatory approach. Major federal environmental laws, starting in the 1970s, opened the door for rigid regulations and stifling mandates that hinder entrepreneurship. They leave little flexibility for technological and policy breakthroughs that could yield greater economic and environmental benefits.

This approach results in policies that empower large, ineffective bureaucracies to trample property rights and choke free markets. They remove the precise elements that are necessary to effectively accomplish conservation. Harmful consequences for individual liberty, economic freedom, and conservation are brushed aside as collateral damage.

Take the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The nation's predominant law to conserve species takes private property from law-abiding landowners with no compensation. ESA's stringent land-use restrictions turn the nesting of red-cockaded woodpeckers in a landowner's pine trees into a liability instead of an asset.

The landowner faces restrictions disallowing ordinary land-use activities such as farming or site development, which represents a taking of some of the value and use of private property. This encourages preemptive habitat destruction on private land and other adverse strategies to avoid the ESA's punishment. "Shoot, shovel, and shut-up" is well-known as another coping strategy in the face of regulatory takings for ineffective species protection.

This is in stark contrast with the economic and recreational benefits that arise from hunting, which provide the incentives to preserve and grow populations of endangered species in the U.S. (Notice, for example, an antelope, which is extinct in the wild in its African birthplace, flourishes on hunting ranches in Texas.)

It was because of these benefits, in fact, that activities associated with the captive breeding of the scimitar-horned oryx have been exempted from onerous ESA permitting requirements. Until now, that is: a recent court case reversed this successful rule which could lead to a significant decline in the population of the species over the next decade.

Today, the greatest opportunities for environmental progress lie in protecting and extending private property rights and enabling market innovations. Absent property rights, valuable natural resources may be degraded and depleted by individuals unconcerned about the resource's future condition. In the past, this communal resource challenge - also known as "the tragedy of the commons" - led policymakers to conclude prematurely that federal management of the resource was the solution.

Such a view neglects that the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington making and implementing government policies often have interests very different from local populations whose lives and livelihoods are directly connected to natural resources. Politicians are often ideologically motivated and prone to prioritize policies with visible benefits that make good politics but fail to effectively advance conservation.

Even if federal regulators act benignly, policies originating from the federal government usurp power from local populations. Local knowledge is critical to understanding site-specific challenges, as well as the risks and rewards of different policies. A one-size-fits-all federal strategy fails to recognize that state and local governments are better positioned to effectively manage resources through policies that account for local economic and environmental interests.

A major threat to private property rights and economic freedom today arises from policies that restrict CO2. A colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas and a byproduct of, or necessary nutrient for, all living organisms on Earth, CO2 has none of the characteristics of conventional pollutants. The list of enacted and proposed constraints on emissions of CO2 is long, and the costs are certain and enormous for the economy, individual liberty, and the environment. Yet the benefits are uncertain and the expected impact on climate negligible.

As environmental problems become ever more complex, the limitations and vast costs of political solutions centered in Washington will become ever more apparent. The most promising solutions to environmental challenges will arise from a greater reliance on local knowledge and property rights. These would encourage a more efficient use of resources, responsible and effective stewardship, and technological innovation.

The key to unlocking even greater environmental improvements lies in adopting an environmental agenda that spurs policies based in individual liberty and economic freedom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unlocking Greater Environmental Improvements Through Free Market Ideas, Not Constraints on Individual Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans have witnessed tremendous environmental improvements over the past several decades. At the same time, they have enjoyed greater economic prosperity. These parallel developments counter popular perception, which suggests that increases in population size and economic growth are inherently at odds with environmental quality. In other words, U.K.

# data[].attributes.body
Jenna, Elaine, Emily (Education/Common Core)

This article written by Frederick M. Hess for the National Review, discusses the things we need to consider when straying away from the Common Core. It details the possibility of leaving students and teachers struggling to adapt to the abrupt shift. Hess also says that “The dynamics [of common core] parallel those of the Obamacare debate, where critics have recognized that it’s important to offer solutions, not just complaints”. The author discusses that it’s more important for us to think of ways to change Common Core for the better, rather than simply argue to do away with it. His views are conservative when it comes to state’s rights. Hess believes that the power to enact Common Core should be totally up to the state; this means that the government should have no say when it comes to how the Common Core should be implemented.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
They must develop their own state-level versions of "repeal and replace."

At the end of March, Indiana became the first state to repeal the Common Core standards. The aftermath has not been pretty. Critics have raised valid concerns but failed to put forward a notion of what happens next. This is a problem. Common Core adoption meant that Indiana schools set in place not only new reading and math standards but also new tests, curricula, instructional materials, and teaching strategies. And the abrupt shift could be a train wreck for students and educators.

The dynamics parallel those of the Obamacare debate, where critics have recognized that it's important to offer solutions, not just complaints. Common Core critics in each state need to devise their own version of "repeal and replace."

#ad#In the early days of the Common Core, the standards received little attention or scrutiny. In a recent research paper, we documented just how little the media covered the new proposed standards. It's no wonder that, in 2013, Gallup reported that 62 percent of Americans had never heard of Common Core.

Indiana was no exception. Driven in large part by the pursuit of federal Race to the Top funds, Indiana adopted Common Core in 2010, and the decision went largely unremarked. Since that time, Hoosiers on both the left and the right have opted for a course change. So far, so good. After all, Common Core proponents deem it a voluntary, state-led enterprise, so no one ought begrudge a state's voluntarily opting out.

But here's where things get tricky. For one thing, in getting a waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind Act, Indiana (like other states) promised the Obama administration it would adopt standards that met federal criteria; align curricula and teaching; select, pilot, and administer new tests aligned to the standards; and integrate the standards into both school- and teacher-accountability systems.

To avoid losing its waiver, Indiana is rushing to adopt a new set of standards by April 28. Meanwhile, to avoid raising Washington's ire, Indiana's state board of education is debating whether to double or triple the amount of standardized testing next year - just to cover its bases. Schools would test once on the old standards, once on the new, and possibly a third time on an assessment to "bridge" the two. This would significantly increase both the amount of testing for kids and the costs of administering exams.

The tight timeline and absence of an alternative proposal mean that those who are crafting Indiana's new standards have defaulted to basing them on the Common Core standards. Prominent Common Core critic Sandra Stotsky was shocked when she received a draft copy of the new standards. "I almost fell off my chair," she said. "In grades six to twelve, it was almost identical to Common Core."

Meanwhile, teachers have been left at sea, with little guidance on what they're supposed to teach or how their students' performance will be gauged. If schools are going to implement new standards next year, teachers need time to plan and school systems need time to vet and then purchase new instructional materials.

Common Core critics must keep in mind that policy debates are won by proposing better solutions. The Core standards were adopted with a big federal boost and little public debate, but adopted they were. Teachers and school leaders have been implementing the standards since 2010, and opponents can't wish this away any more than Obamacare critics can wish away the new landscape produced by the Affordable Care Act. If opponents want "repeal" to be more than a Pyrrhic victory, they need to be prepared on three counts.

Process: Setting standards is a contentious process. The Common Core got around conflict by relying on an under-the-radar strategy; it also benefited from aggressive federal promotion. Neither tactic will be an option for those promoting a replacement. Critics should embrace a process that's unhurried, public, and able to produce a durable alternative.

Quality: The Common Core does not have a stranglehold on quality standards. According to the pro-Common Core Thomas B. Fordham Institute, states such as California, Indiana, and Massachusetts previously had standards as good as or better than the Common Core's. But critics need to offer their vision of excellent standards, or they'll wind up with garbage or with Common Core-lite.

Functionality: Standards undergird school- and teacher-accountability systems and most existing school-choice programs. It is not enough to have high-quality standards; what matters is how they affect teaching, curricula, testing, and accountability. Critics need feasible plans for phasing in new tests and ideas to make sure that school systems are not suddenly left adrift as they select new tests, curricula, and instructional materials.

The impulse to undo an ambitious reform that was adopted with little scrutiny or debate is a healthy and understandable one. But criticism unaccompanied by solutions is a self-defeating strategy. Common Core critics need to make sure they're saying more than just "no."

- Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Michael Q. McShane is a research fellow at AEI. They are editors of the recently published Common Core Meets Education Reform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common-Core Critics Can't Just Say No | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the end of March, Indiana became the first state to repeal the Common Core standards. The aftermath has not been pretty. Critics have raised valid concerns but failed to put forward a notion of what happens next. This is a problem. Common Core ...

# data[].attributes.body
The source believes we should not have any involvement in Syria at all because even mere logistical support for the rebels flows back as help for Al Qaeda; the reasons why are unclear. He suggests that the United States should not act as the world’s law enforcement officer, which indicates a more libertarian perspective that advocates for a smaller military. Consequently, the author uses euphemisms such as “neo-colonialism” to describe the United States’ intervention in Syria.

His central argument is that it’s against national security interests to become involved and that we are only involved because of Obama’s naive foreign policy. For some curious reason, the author cites an Islamist proverb “The Scorpion and the Frog” to justify a hands off approach for foreign policy. He claims, “the scorpion replies after the drowning frog protests, ‘it is better that we both should perish than that my enemy should live.’ This is the common sense reason why we should never ally ourselves with those who would just as soon kill us as look at us.” What amounts to a vilification of an entire religion of people justifies his belief that “Islamists in Syria [should be allowed to] attrition themselves into extinction.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Punish Syria for using chemical weapons, President Barack Hussein Obama cried. Any resolution in Syria must include the removal of Assad, he insisted. Supporting the opposition was his strategy.

If blathering were a sport, the president would be world champion. And if using thoughtful common sense were a prerequisite for being Commander in Chief of the only world super power, Obama has failed out of the gate.

Instead of punishment, Vladimir Putin came to Assad's aid with regard to Obama's threats of military action, and now 49 percent of raw materials for chemical weapons in Syria have been removed. Had Obama had his way and perpetrated a military strike, there would be blood and bone strewn about and all chemical weapons materials would still be in Syria.

If the U.S. had armed and then trained the Syrian opposition there would be a very good likelihood that our recent Al Qaeda enemies, some fresh from Club Gitmo, would have been the beneficiaries. Now they just get logistical support from us.

Insisting upon the removal of a sovereign head-of-state while he deals with a civil war smacks of neo-colonialism. At least in Iraq the U.S. enjoyed a unanimous United Nations Security Council Resolution and 39 countries signed on to go in with us. Syria could well have been President Obama's Bay of Pigs, with his "red line" nonsense, especially considering Syria is supported by Russia, Iran and China.

Remembering that in the First Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) Assad provided the Coalition with the Syrian 9th Armored Division and a Special Forces Regiment to oppose Saddam Hussein in the liberation of Kuwait is far from Obama's recollections, as well as from the memories of the mainstream media and most Americans. How soon we forget who our friends and allies were now that public opinion, shaped by the liberal media and an even more liberal Obama administration, has swung against the military and political actions of said Syrian former ally.

If we look at the slew of Arab teammates who helped perpetrate war against the rogue Hussein (Saddam, not Barack for those of you keeping score), we find Saudi Arabia (Islamist misogynists), Kuwait (same), Qatar (yup), United Arab Emirates (uh, huh), Oman (yes), and Egypt (not so much), all gave blood and treasure to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.

Where are they now when the fire is again in their back yard, or at least in their neighbor's back yard? Perhaps they are doing what we should be doing - letting the Islamists in Syria attrition themselves into extinction. And then, when there's nothing left, do business again with Assad, their brother.

There is an old Arab saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Not in the case of Syria if Assad is our enemy. And if Assad is our enemy, what (or who) changed that between 1991 and 2011?

Islamists engaged in the Syrian conflict against Assad are not much different than Al Qaeda in Iraq; opportunistic "foreigners" trying to score credibility points by taking out "bad boy" Assad. It's a bit cannibalistic, but leave no doubt that for us to get involved with any of the opposition factions is tantamount to playing the amphibian to the Islamist arachnida in the old proverb, "The Scorpion and the Frog:"

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out. But in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "It's my nature..."

It is the nature of Al Qaeda and other Islamists to sting the frog, killing them both if necessary, for, according to one version of the parable the scorpion replies after the drowning frog protests, " it is better that we both should perish than that my enemy should live. " This is the common sense reason why we should never ally ourselves with those who would just as soon kill us as look at us.

Why then cannot the scorpions fight the king scorpion, Assad? Why involve the frog at all? Because the frog is prey.

Obama is being devoured by his own naïveté, and now by the wolves (Russia and Iran) as well as the Syrian opposition scorpions. And heck, all he did was offer them a ride across the stream, right? Ever hear Leo Durocher say, " Nice guys finish last? " Obama apparently has not.

So, Putin has his way with Crimea and Egypt ( signed an arms deal with Egypt while the world - and Obama - were distracted by the Olympics), the Mullahs have their way with nukes in Iran, and Assad plays carrot with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In the mean time, Assad waits him out, watching as the opposition scorpions keep trying to convince Obama to take them across the stream. Assad is supported by the Russians, who have more reason than ever to thumb their nose at the U.S. (economic sanctions over the Crimea/Ukraine situation). Assad is supported by Hezbollah and the Iranians, and still apparently enjoys some gravitas from Arab neighbors due to Assad's ganging up on fellow Ba'athist Saddam Hussein in Desert Storm.

Assad played that card to prevent Israel from taking advantage of Iraq's instability and invading Syria during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Assad eventually gained approval from Syrians for that move, and bought himself twenty years of relative peace.

If he's not careful, in the end, which is neigh, Obama will be left drowning in the middle of a stream, asking "why?" as his muscles turn to stone and his lungs fill with water. My question is, if that happens, where does it leave the rest of us?
I am the author of "Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior," and three times mobilized U.S. Army Reserve Major (Retired). Twitter @mjgranger1 TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Punish Syria for using chemical weapons, President Barack Hussein Obama cried. Any resolution in Syria must include the removal of Assad, he insisted. Supporting the opposition was his strategy. If blathering were a sport, the president would be world champion.

# data[].attributes.headline
US Economic Recovery- Jasmine Pedroza & Phi Phan ~ Making an Energy Boom Work for the U.S.

# data[].attributes.subject
US Economic Recovery- Jasmine Pedroza & Phi Phan ~ Making an Energy Boom Work for the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
--> In order to make an economic recovery, natural gas and oil are the basis for transforming the country’s energy and economic landscape. Experts argue that an increase in North America's energy self-sufficiency will lead to equally drastic changes in geopolitics and domestically produced gas and oil, the argue that it will allow the United States to look inward and take less interest in international affairs. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen.

For example, in North Dakota, the oil share of total U.S. energy demand is expected to decrease only to 32 percent from 37 percent by 2035. Also, natural gas will increase its share to 26 percent from 25 percent and renewables will grow to 11 percent from 7 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The boom that will follow this will have many economic benefits. By reducing U.S. dependence on crude imports and reduced oil imports would not provide immunity from supply disruptions

# data[].attributes.body
The right wing news sources presents the issues involving the NSA by informaing but not calling to action. Their persepective is that the NSA might be unconstitutional. This presentation fits with their larger view because the right wing is usually more conservative. The article mostly talks about the way that the NSA might be unconctitutional. Fox News does a very god job of informing but they dont offer any soulutions unlike the left wing source who clearly have a call to action in their articles. This article was informative nd connects to a quote from James Madison that says "that loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” The author then begins to explain why the NSA might be unconstituional. Through out the entire article the author says that the NSA "might" be unconctitutional unlike the left wing source that clearly says it is uncont

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A federal district judge ruled on Monday that the National Security Agency program tracking all Americans' phone calls is "probably unconstitutional." In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that "such a program infringes on 'the degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment."

Appealing to the nation's founding ideals, he continues, "the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast."

While Judge Leon spends mere sentences on this history, it is a crucial point that directly impacts pending cases challenging NSA surveillance programs.

[pullquote]

"Perhaps it is a universal truth," James Madison wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1798, "that loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." With revelations about the NSA not only capturing American citizens' communications but also sharing them abroad, we should stop and ask ourselves whether we are proving Madison correct.

The manner in which our nation confronts the very real dangers we face will determine Americans' future liberties - or lack thereof. As the nation strives to balance our liberty versus our safety, we might consider our founding principles. And those principles, to which Judge Leon astutely alludes, suggest we demand greater oversight of the NSA's domestic activities.

The Founders applauded efforts to keep a close watch on foreign nationals using all tools at our disposal; nevertheless, they would take issue with the fact that untold millions of private American citizens are swept into the dragnet as well. The patriots fought the Revolution to rid the United States of unjust government intrusion, after all.

As commander in chief during the American Revolution, George Washington was not shy about collecting intelligence, explaining that "It is by comparing a variety of information, we are frequently enabled to investigate facts, which were so intricate or hidden, that no single clue could have led to the knowledge of them."

He ferociously hunted America's enemies, using varied and ingenious methods - but he did so while guarding citizens' rights.

In what was perhaps the 18 th Century version of today's NSA programs, the founders intercepted the private mail of Americans loyal to the crown. However, the patriots targeted specific individuals and guarded against abuses. Rather than secretive national government agencies, they sought to ensure transparent republican oversight over the process.

The Continental Congress ensured that local committees and their designees oversaw this mail surveillance while attempting to maintain secrecy of the intelligence gathered.

Such transparency and widespread oversight protected against abuses and stands in stark contrast to the largely unchecked Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and internal NSA audits.

While we may decide as a nation that the current NSA activities are less intrusive than the searches of yesteryear, these programs are worth our scrutiny due to the precedents they set.

The FISA Court has already found that the NSA violated the Fourth Amendment while collecting data on domestic fiber-optic cables.

How many more violations have there been of which we do not yet know?

At our nation's birth, the founding generation sought to guard against secret government surveillance lacking in oversight and accountability. Times and technology will continue to change, but our values should not.

We might look to our founders for guidance on how to respond to security challenges while remaining faithful to our nation's core constitutional principles.

As the James Madison warned in 1792, "Where an excess of power prevails . . . [n]o man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
Logan Beirne is an Olin Scholar at Yale Law School and author of "Blood of Tyrants: George Washington & the Forging of the Presidency" (Encounter Books 2013).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What James Madison teaches us about NSA surveillance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A federal district judge ruled on Monday that the National Security Agency program tracking all Americans' phone calls is "probably unconstitutional." In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that "such a program infringes on 'the degree of privacy' that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment."

# data[].attributes.body
The European Economic Crisis has driven the nations of the Eurozone apart in more than just financial ways, but the system seems to be working better overall than it was in the previous communist regime. The people of some of the suffering countries are voicing their concerns with the new economic policies that have been implemented. Hungary, according to a survey done in eastern Europe, has 72 percent of their population saying that the current economic regime is worse now than it was under communism, a statement that calls into question the plan in place.

Both Bulgaria and Ukraine have rates above 60 percent as well, with a little less than half of Lithuanians, Slovaks, and Russians sharing that opinion. However, the Polish people are 70 percent in favor of a free market economy. This may have had something to do with the steep increase in economic growth that the Poles have experienced, sending the favorable opinion rocketing 26 percent since 2002. Throughout the countries of the former Eastern Bloc, there is a distinct trend between the age of the person being surveyed and whether or not they favor a free market economy. For example, in Bulgaria, 64 percent of those aged 18-34 are prefer this system, as opposed to only 19 percent of those 55 and older.

A lot of the eurozones economic problems stem from the huge debt many of the countries are experiencing.  Even huge loans may not be able to be all that effective.  One thing the eurozone could do is share the debts of all the countries.  This would help the weaker countries like Greece.  All 17 countries that use euros could share a collective Eurobond to help pay off debt and interests rates on the bond would remain low because they'd be backed by the collective power of the eurozone.  There is also a banking crisis to be fixed as well.  A European wide banking union, centralized by a regulator may help to alleviate this problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Crisis of Confidence in Capitalism?

by Richard Wike, Associate Director, Pew Global Attitudes Project

Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany caused a stir at last weekend's European Union summit in Brussels, warning his fellow leaders that they should not allow the current economic crisis to create "a new Iron Curtain" dividing the continent. Gyurcsany is hardly alone in thinking that the financial meltdown poses a serious challenge to European solidarity, and in particular, many observers are worried about the social and political stability of Eastern European nations, several of which have been hit especially hard by the crisis.

For instance, Forbes columnist and NYU professor Nouriel Roubini - widely lauded as one of the few people who saw the worldwide financial collapse coming - warns that the economic downturn may "even call into question the economic and political model Eastern European countries have followed since the 1990s."

Survey research shows that in recent years support for the free-market system has been on the rise in Eastern Europe, especially in countries such as Poland that have enjoyed impressive economic growth. However, compared with other regions of the world - and in particular, compared with their Western European counterparts - Eastern Europeans embrace free markets somewhat tepidly.

A 47-nation 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey found that, among the seven major world regions included in the study, support for free markets was lowest in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Across the six Eastern European countries surveyed - Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine - a median of 56% agreed with the statement "Most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor."

In contrast, a median of 69% of Western Europeans agreed. Support for free-market economics was highest in the world's poorest region, Africa, where three-in-four said people are better off under capitalism, even if it does produce inequalities.

The poll revealed that support for the free market is especially strong among young people. Eastern Europeans who have spent most of their lives in a capitalist system are more likely to believe such a system is good for society, but support is markedly lower among older people in the region.

The survey also showed that beliefs about the free market are often tied to how people feel about their own lives - those whose lives were improving under capitalism were more likely to support it. This suggests the economic crisis could have some troubling implications for public opinion in the former Eastern Bloc: If the region's economic situation continues to deteriorate, it could dramatically affect people's sense of personal progress, and potentially weaken their enthusiasm for the capitalist system they have come to know over the last two decades.

Poles, Ukrainians More Supportive of Free Markets

While support for free-market economics tends to be lower in Eastern Europe than in other parts of the globe, it is not uniformly low in the region. For example, in the 2007 survey, 68% of Poles endorsed free markets, up from 44% in 2002.

In 2007, roughly two-thirds (66%) backed free markets in Ukraine, a nation that has enjoyed rapid economic growth over the last few years. However, the Ukrainian economy has suffered severely in recent months, forcing the country to seek emergency funds from the IMF.

In the other four Eastern European countries surveyed, fewer than six-in-ten said most people are better off under capitalism. In Bulgaria, less than half (42%) held this view, although even this was a significant increase from 2002, when only 31% took this position. Meanwhile, France (56%) was the only Western European country surveyed in which fewer than six-in-ten said most people benefit from a free market system.

Capitalism Embraced by Younger Eastern Europeans

In five of the six Eastern European countries surveyed, support for free markets was strongest among young people. Having lived their entire adult lives in a post-communist era, people under age 35 were consistently more likely to agree that free markets are good, even if they produce inequalities. On the other hand, those age 55 and older, who were well into adulthood when the Berlin Wall fell, were generally the least likely to agree.

This pattern is clearest in Bulgaria, where 63% of 18-34 year-olds said people are better off under free markets, compared with 47% of 35-54 year-olds and just 19% of those 55 and older. Similarly, 62% of younger Slovakians back a capitalist system, compared with 54% of 35-54 year-olds and 39% of people 55 and over. The Czech Republic is the only country in the region where younger people are not more likely than others to endorse free markets.

Those Who Have Benefited Are More Supportive of Free Markets

In the four Eastern European nations where enthusiasm for free markets is lowest - Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Russia and Slovakia - support is also tied to perceptions of personal progress. Respondents to the survey were asked to rate both their current lives and their lives five years earlier on a 0-10 scale. People who rated their current lives higher than their lives five years before - those who had essentially "made progress" - were more supportive of free markets than were those whose quality of life had stayed the same or lost ground.

Once again, Bulgaria is the clearest example of this pattern. Among Bulgarians whose lives had improved, 60% agreed that people are better off in a free-market system, while 35% disagreed. Bulgarians whose lives had stayed the same were divided - 42% agreed and 43% disagreed. Among those who had lost ground, only about one-third (32%) agreed, while a majority (55%) disagreed.

Similar, although less pronounced, patterns were found in the Czech Republic, Russia and Slovakia. In Poland and Ukraine, the two countries in the region with the most enthusiasm for free markets, this pattern did not appear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Crisis of Confidence in Capitalism? by Richard Wike, Associate Director, Pew Global Attitudes Project Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany caused a stir at last weekend's European Union summit in Brussels, warning his fellow leaders that they should not allow the current economic crisis to create "a new Iron Curtain" dividing the continent.

# data[].attributes.body
We believe that Common Core is a well developed program that could really help students learn to go more in depth about their subjects, and retain knowledge longer. With a stress on technology, the Common Core makes an effort to prepare students for the world with vital computer oriented skills that are needed to survive in an industry when looking for jobs later in life. However, the high cost and the riskiness of changing a curriculum that has already worked for years in school has many people fighting against the system in order to stay with the old ways of teaching. Articles, such as the graduation report from the NCES in 2004, report that although student enrollment has increased in schools over the years using Common Core, not all students have finished the program. However, the higher enrollment is still vital to the school system, convincing us further that although there are setbacks to the program, moving towards Common Core for all public schools, is the right thing to do.

One important factor that makes adopting Common Core difficult is price. Although Common Core will be funded through state governments, we must consider all the costs that will be necessary to implement Common Core. These include costs related to creating and scoring new tests, obtaining the proper technical equipment and support, and buying new books, computers, and resources to learn Common Core objectives. All these costs add up quickly, and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute estimates that the national cost for adopting this program will range from $1 billion to $8 billion, with just the development of tests being $2 million more than our nation’s existing assessment budget. Yes, the government should be responsible for the funding, but this ultimately means higher taxes on American citizens when everyone is constantly fighting for lower taxes.

In an article written by Patrick O’donnell for Cleveland.com, the new Common Core standards will force students to answer multiple questions which are all dependent on each other. In other words, if a student were to get the answer for number 1 incorrect, then questions number 2, 3, and 4 would also be incorrect. A statistic from the article also notes that “Nationwide, only 32 percent of fourth-graders answered the questions right and only 23 percent in the urban districts. In Cleveland, only 15 percent of students answered the questions correctly.” Although this shows that all students, regardless of their economic status, are performing poorly, . The new Common Core test also includes an essay, which only makes the test more difficult. Only 33 percent of fourth-graders were able to answer the questions in the essay correctly. Through research, we also learned that only 39 to 48 percent of students following the Common Core in Ohio were proficient.

So what should the government do? The Common Core is certainly a good idea -- with the emphasis on critical thinking skills rather than rote memorization, students will be more prepared for the academics of college as well as the challenges of adulthood. Our public schools should continue to advocate this emphasis, although perhaps it is not necessary to make all schools take the Common Core tests, as this is where most of the costs stem from. If the government simply approves or helps revise the Common Core standards and general curriculum, the schools can work out for themselves how to incorporate the standards while also keeping in mind other ways to help students, especially those who struggle with class. By simply adopting the standards, and having students learn to use critical thinking and problem solving skills, we can avoid the expensive costs of developing new sets of tests and purchasing the technology for testing, among other things. Additionally, if Common Core is not working for every single student, teachers can still have the authority to adjust their teaching styles to best help their students, rather than blindly follow the federally-endorsed curriculum. Therefore, the federal government should play a significant role in helping develop the standards so our nation has a set of goals for students and teachers to reach in education, but the government should not require that all schools must take the Common Core tests.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland.com%2Fmetro%2Findex.ssf%2F2014%2F04%2Fnew_common_core_tests_may_over.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH-KXstJjwMKex0QOOtriNNNyd2Ig

# data[].attributes.headline
Fall of Gun Violence (Marco, Remy, Eylam)

# data[].attributes.subject
Fall of Gun Violence (Marco, Remy, Eylam)

# data[].attributes.body
Due to the increase off mass shootings and tragedies including Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Newtown news outlets have been targeting guns and raising the issue of gun control in the United States; according to A Bureau of Justice Statistics review these shootings only account for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008. However, this national attention towards the issue of gun violence is misleading since the rate of gun crime in the United States is lower now than it was two decades ago. While the attention to these mass shootings are important to be aware of, it should not mislead us to believe that gun violence has increased and focus so heavily on regulating gun ownership.

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 56% of Americans believe that gun violence is higher than it was 20 years ago while only 12% believe that it is lower while 26% believe that it has not changed.

The gun homicide rate in the United States began rising in the 1960s, continued through the 70s and hit peaks in 1980 and early 90s. After 1993, which according the Pew Research Center was the peak of gun homicides, there was a plunge in homicides. There has been less deaths post 1993 but the public still believes that there has been more. There was 31,672 deaths from guns in the United States, 19,392 were suicides. While there has been a decrease in the number of gun homicides the gun suicide rate is higher than it was in 1981.

The decline in gun homicides can not be explained so easily. However a review by the National Academy of Sciences believes that a decline in the 80s was due to young boomers growing old, but a flare up in conjunction with a rising market for crack cocaine, the crack epidemic. There was recruitment of younger men by drug sellers who were willing to use guns and pop a cap in someone. By the 90s there was crack markets withered and thus young people found jobs instead of

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pace of Decline Slows in Past Decade

Note

Some trends shown in this report have been updated. Rates for overall gun deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides have been updated through 2013. The rate for non-fatal violent firearms victimizations has been updated through 2014. Updated charts and information can be found here.

Chapter 1: Overview

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation's population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm-assaults, robberies and sex crimes-was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007. The victimization rate for other gun crimes plunged in the 1990s, then declined more slowly from 2000 to 2008. The rate appears to be higher in 2011 compared with 2008, but the increase is not statistically significant. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall also dropped in the 1990s before declining more slowly from 2000 to 2010, then ticked up in 2011.

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

Looking back 50 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate began rising in the 1960s, surged in the 1970s, and hit peaks in 1980 and the early 1990s. (The number of homicides peaked in the early 1990s.) The plunge in homicides after that meant that firearm homicide rates in the late 2000s were equal to those not seen since the early 1960s. The sharp decline in the U.S. gun homicide rate, combined with a slower decrease in the gun suicide
rate, means that gun suicides now account for six-in-ten firearms deaths, the highest share since at least 1981.

Trends for robberies followed a similar long-term trajectory as homicides ( National Research Council, 2004), hitting a peak in the early 1990s before declining.

This report examines trends in firearm homicide, non-fatal violent gun crime victimization and non-fatal violent crime victimization overall since 1993. Its findings on firearm crime are based mainly on analysis of data from two federal agencies. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using information from death certificates, are the source of rates, counts and trends for all firearm deaths, homicide and suicide, unless otherwise specified. The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, a household survey conducted by the Census Bureau, supplies annual estimates of non-fatal crime victimization, including those where firearms are used, regardless of whether the crimes were reported to police. Where relevant, this report also quotes from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (see text box at the end of this chapter and the Methodology appendix for more discussion about data sources).

Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened.

There also is debate about the extent of gun ownership in the U.S., although no disagreement that the U.S. has more civilian firearms, both total and per capita, than other nations. Compared with other developed nations, the U.S. has a higher homicide rate and higher rates of gun ownership, but not higher rates for all other crimes. (See Chapter 5 for more details.)

In the months since the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December, the public is paying close attention to the topic of firearms; according to a recent Pew Research Center survey ( Pew Research Center, April 2013) no story received more public attention from mid-March to early April than the debate over gun control. Reducing crime has moved up as a priority for the public in polling this year.

Mass shootings are a matter of great public interest and concern. They also are a relatively small share of shootings overall. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics review, homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008. These homicides, most of which are shootings, increased as a share of all homicides from 0.5% in 1980 to 0.8% in 2008, according to the bureau's data. A Congressional Research Service report, using a definition of four deaths or more, counted 547 deaths from mass shootings in the U.S. from 1983 to 2012.

Looking at the larger topic of firearm deaths, there were 31,672 deaths from guns in the U.S. in 2010. Most (19,392) were suicides; the gun suicide rate has been higher than the gun homicide rate since at least 1981, and the gap is wider than it was in 1981.

Knowledge About Crime

Despite the attention to gun violence in recent months, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is markedly lower than it was two decades ago. A new Pew Research Center survey (March 14-17) found that 56% of Americans believe the number of crimes involving a gun is higher than it was 20 years ago; only 12% say it is lower and 26% say it stayed the same. (An additional 6% did not know or did not answer.)

Men (46%) are less likely than women (65%) to say long-term gun crime is up. Young adults, ages 18 to 29, are markedly less likely than other adults to say long-term crime is up-44% do, compared with more than half of other adults. Minority adults are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say that long-term gun crime is up, 62% compared with 53%.

Asked about trends in the number of gun crimes "in recent years," a plurality of 45% believe the number has gone up, 39% say it is about the same and 10% say it has gone down. (An additional 5% did not know or did not answer.) As with long-term crime, women (57%) are more likely than men (32%) to say that gun crime has increased in recent years. So are non-white adults (54%) compared with whites (41%). Adults ages 50 and older (51%) are more likely than those ages 18-49 (42%) to believe gun crime is up.

What is Behind the Crime Decline?

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime. There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends ( Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children's exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; "the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse."

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.

Internationally, a decline in crime, especially property crime, has been documented in many countries since the mid-1990s. According to the authors of a 30-country study on criminal victimization ( Van Dijk et al., 2007), there is no general agreement on all the reasons for this decline. They say there is a general consensus that demographic change-specifically, the shrinking proportion of adolescents across Europe-is a common factor causing decreases across Western countries. They also cite wider use of security measures in homes and businesses as a factor in reducing property crime.

But other potential explanations-such as better policing or increased imprisonment-do not apply in Europe, where policies vary widely, the report noted

Among the major findings of this Pew Research Center report:

U.S. Firearm Deaths

In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, compared with 7.0 in 1993, according to CDC data.

In 2010, CDC data counted 11,078 gun homicide deaths, compared with 18,253 in 1993.

Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).

By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims in 2010 were ages 18 to 40, an age range that was 31% of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 40.

A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55% in 2010, compared with the 13% black share of the population). Whites were 25% of victims but 65% of the population in 2010. Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population in 2010.

The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981.

U.S. Firearm Crime Victimization

In 2011, the NCVS estimated there were 181.5 gun crime victimizations for non-fatal violent crime (aggravated assault, robbery and sex crimes) per 100,000 Americans ages 12 and older, compared with 725.3 in 1993.

In terms of numbers, the NCVS estimated there were about 1.5 million non-fatal gun crime victimizations in 1993 among U.S. residents ages 12 and older, compared with 467,000 in 2011.

U.S. Other Non-fatal Crime

The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older-simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms-dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.

Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes-burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft-also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.

Context

The number of firearms available for sale to or possessed by U.S. civilians (about 310 million in 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service) has grown in recent years, and the 2009 per capita rate of one person per gun had roughly doubled since 1968. It is not clear, though, how many U.S. households own guns or whether that share has changed over time.

Crime stories accounted for 17% of the total time devoted to news on local television broadcasts in 2012, compared with 29% in 2005, according to Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Crime trails only traffic and weather as the most common type of story on these newscasts.

About the Data

Findings in this report are based on two main data sources:

Data on homicides and other deaths are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on information from death certificates filed in state vital statistics offices, which includes causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners and coroners. Data also include demographic information about decedents reported by funeral directors, who obtain that information from family members and other informants. Population data, used in constructing rates, come from the Census Bureau. Most statistics were obtained via the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), available from URL: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. Data are available beginning in 1981; suitable population data do not exist for prior years. For more details, see Appendix 4.

Estimates of crime victimization are from the National Crime Victimization Survey, a sample survey conducted for the Bureau of Justice Statistics by the Census Bureau. Although the survey began in 1973, this report uses data since 1993, the first year employing an intensive methodological redesign. The survey collects information about crimes against people and households, but not businesses. It provides estimates of victimization for the population ages 12 and older living in households and non-institutional group quarters; therefore it does not include populations such as homeless people, visiting foreign tourists and business travelers, or those living in institutions such as military barracks or mental hospitals. The survey collects information about the crimes of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. For more details, see Appendix 4.

Roadmap to the Report

The remainder of this report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 explores trends in firearm homicide and all firearm deaths, as well as patterns by gender, race and age. Chapter 3 analyzes trends in non-fatal violent gun crime victimizations, as well as patterns by gender, race and age. Chapter 4 looks at trends and subgroup patterns for non-fatal violent crime victimizations overall. Chapter 5 examines issues related to the topic of firearms: crime news, crime as a public priority, U.S. gun ownership data, and comparison of ownership and crime rates with those in other nations. Appendices 1-3 consist of detailed tables with annual data for firearm deaths, homicides and suicides, as well as non-fatal firearm and overall non-fatal violent crime victimization, for all groups and by subgroup. Appendix 4 explains the report's methodology.

Notes on Terminology

All references to whites, blacks and others are to the non-Hispanic components of those populations. Hispanics can be of any race.

"Aggravated assault," as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is an attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether an injury occurred, and an attack without a weapon when serious injury results.

The terms "firearm" and "gun" are used interchangeably.

"Homicides," which come from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, are fatal injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill. Deaths due to legal intervention or operations of war are excluded. Justifiable homicide is not identified.

"Robbery," as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is a completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury.

"Sex crime," as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, includes attempted rape, rape and sexual assault.

"Simple assault," as defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is an attack (or attempted assault) without a weapon resulting either in no injury, minor injury (for example, bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches or swelling) or in undetermined injury requiring less than two days of hospitalization.

"Victimization" is based on self-reporting in the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes Americans ages 12 and older. For personal crimes (which in this report include assault, robbery and sex crime), it is expressed as a rate based on the number of victimizations per 100,000 U.S. residents ages 12 and older. See the Methodology appendix for more details.

Acknowledgments

Many researchers and scholars contributed to this report. Senior writer D'Vera Cohn wrote the body of the report. Paul Taylor, senior vice president of the Pew Research Center, provided editorial guidance. Mark Hugo Lopez, senior researcher and associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center, managed the report's data analysis and wrote the report's methodology appendix. Catherine A. Gallagher, director of the Cochrane Collaboration of the College for Policy at George Mason University, provided guidance on the report's data analysis and comments on earlier drafts of the report. Lopez and Kim Parker, associate director of the Center's Social & Demographic Trends project, managed the report's development and production. Kevin T. Maass, research associate at the Cochrane Collaboration at George Mason University's College for Policy, provided analysis of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. Research Assistants Eileen Patten and Anna Brown number-checked the report and prepared charts and tables. Patten also conducted background research on trends in crime internationally. The report was copy-edited by Marcia Kramer of Kramer Editing Services.

The report also benefited from a review by Professor Richard Felson of Pennsylvania State University. The authors also thank Andrew Kohut and Scott Keeter for their comments on an earlier draft of the report. In addition, the authors thank Kohut, Michael Dimock, Keeter and Alec Tyson, our colleagues at the Pew Research Center, for guidance on the crime knowledge public opinion survey questionnaire. Jeffrey Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Research Center, provided computational assistance for the report's analysis of homicide rates by race and ethnicity.

Finally, Michael Planty and Jennifer Truman of the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice provided data, invaluable guidance and advice on the report's analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

# data[].attributes.body
The attitude of Japan towards China has deteriorated over the past 6 years according to a Pew Research article on global attitudes toward China. The favorability in 2007 of Japan towards China was 29% and in 2013 it dropped to 5%, making it a 24% change between the 6 years. Other countries such as some of the U.S., parts of Europe, and parts of the Middle East are also anti-China, however Japan has the least favorability out of all these countries. Reasons for this include China being a commercial competitor and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute. But mostly, we believe that the significant unfavorability represents their past history leading back to World War II. In fact, according to a Pew Research article on tensions in Asia, 78% of China agree that Japan hasn’t sufficiently apologized for its military actions during the 1930s and 1940s.

Unfortunately, these tensions are affecting the economies of the two countries. China’s military growth has been viewed negatively by 96% of Japanese surveyed and 91% of South Koreans surveyed. Globally, China is viewed as the world’s 2nd leading economic power behind the United States.

China’s GDP has been steadily increasing by about 1 trillion per year. Japan’s GDP has increased by about a trillion between 2009 and 2011. China’s increased issues between Japan and its quickly growing economy shows just how ambitious China is for money and power. Soon they will rival the United States in economy, and its increase in military presence is seen negatively by its other Asian neighbors.
The United States, and the global community at large, should pay special attention to China to ensure that it does not become too ambitious with its power in order to calm tensions with its neighbors and to make sure it does not become an imperialistic power and a threat to the global community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chapter 3. Attitudes toward China

China is viewed favorably in just half (19 of 38) of the nations surveyed excluding China itself. Beijing's strongest supporters are in Asia - in Malaysia (81%) and Pakistan (81%) - and in the African nations of Kenya (78%), Senegal (77%) and Nigeria (76%).

There is also a high positive opinion of China in Latin American nations that have become large commodity exporters to Beijing, such as Venezuela (71%), Brazil (65%) and Chile (62%). This favorable opinion toward the People's Republic is not shared everywhere, however. Only 28% of Germans and Italians and 37% of Americans hold a favorable view of China. But it is in Japan where, more than anywhere else, antipathy toward China is striking. Just 5% of Japanese have a favorable opinion of China.

There has not been much change in views of China in most nations for which comparable 2007 survey data exist. The greatest improvements in China's image have been in Argentina, up 22 percentage points, and Uganda, up 14 points. The most significant deterioration in attitudes toward China has occurred in Japan, down 24 points, and Egypt, down 20 points over the past six years.

But in much of Europe and the United States, as well as parts of the Middle East, this six-year trend line masks a significant reversal of opinion since the peak of pro-China sentiment in those countries in 2011. In just the past two years, favorability toward China has fallen 14 percentage points in the United States, 11 points in Britain and 9 points in France. This is likely the result of unease about China as a commercial competitor, European frustration with Chinese unilateralism in foreign affairs, and American concern about the U.S. trade deficit with China and Beijing's holding of American debt. Over that same period, favorability of China is down 15 points in the Palestinian territories, 12 points in Egypt and 11 points in Israel, where frustration with Chinese unilateralism in international affairs may have a particularly corrosive effect.

Nevertheless, outright anti-China sentiment is limited. In 2013, in just 11 of the 38 nations surveyed is China actually viewed unfavorably by at least half of those surveyed. The strongest anti-China sentiment is in Japan, where 93% see the People's Republic in a negative light, including 48% of Japanese who have a very unfavorable view of China. There are also large majorities in Germany (64%), Italy (62%) and Israel (60%) who hold negative views of China. The rise in anti-China sentiment in Germany is particularly striking. In 2006, only 33% of Germans had an unfavorable view of China. Since then, negative sentiments have risen 31 percentage points. And such unfavorable views exist despite Germany's success exporting to China.

Attitudes toward China also vary markedly by region of the world. A median of less than half of those surveyed in North America, Europe and the Middle East has a positive view of China. At the same time, a median of 72% in Africa and 58% in Asia and Latin America look favorably on China.

A Partner to Some, an Enemy to Few

Half or more of those surveyed in 16 of 38 nations see China as more of a partner for their country than as an enemy. This is particularly the case in Pakistan (where 82% view China as a partner). Islamabad has been the recipient of a great deal of Chinese financial assistance over the years. In addition, Malaysians (78%) view China as a partner.

Publics in a number of African nations - including Senegal (78%), Kenya (77%), Nigeria (71%) and Ghana (70%) - are strongly of the view that China is a national partner. China is the second leading trading partner with Ghana and Kenya, the fourth leading trade partner with Nigeria and the fifth with Senegal. A similar sense of partnership exists in Venezuela (74%), which sells a great deal of oil to China, and Chile (62%), which sells Beijing copper.

A majority or plurality in 15 nations - including a majority in the United States (58%) - see China as neither a partner nor an enemy. And only in four nations - Japan (40%), the Philippines (39%), Italy (39%) and Turkey (36%) - does a significant minority view China as an enemy of their country.

China's Soft Power: Limited

There is evidence that China's global influence, at least as measured by some aspects of Chinese soft power, is respected, especially in Africa and among the young. In some cases, though, significant portions of those people surveyed voiced no opinion.

Chinese scientific and technological advances are the most widely appreciated aspect of China's influence in both Africa (a median of 75% like such aspects of China) and Latin America (72%). On all other measures, Africans tend to have a more positive view toward Chinese soft power than Latin Americans. Africans (a median of 59%) are particularly appreciative of Chinese ways of doing business.

But the spread of Chinese ideas and customs and Chinese cultural products - such as music, movies and television - lack majority appeal in both Africa and Latin America.

Science and technology are China's most popular soft power. Majorities in all African and Latin American countries surveyed have a positive view of these attributes of Chinese influence. Fully 85% of Nigerians and 80% of Salvadorans and Venezuelans admire China's technological and scientific advances, as do 77% of Senegalese, and 75% of Ghanaians, Kenyans and Chileans.

There are several reasons why publics may admire Chinese scientific and technological success. It may be an appreciation of the great strides Chinese companies have made in branding products - such as Lenovo with computers and Huawei with mobile phones - or an understanding that many parts in laptops or tablets come from China or it may simply pick up a respect for more mundane made-in-China consumer products such as refrigerators and microwave ovens.

Perhaps in admiration of China's record of strong economic growth, perhaps because China has become a major trade and investment partner, or perhaps for other reasons, the Chinese way of doing business is particularly attractive to people in Africa. More than half of those surveyed in five of six countries admire China's business acumen. This includes 76% of Nigerians, 68% of Kenyans and 65% of Senegalese. Only South Africans are divided on Chinese business practices, with 43% liking them and 42% disliking them.

Perceptions are different in Latin America, however, where in a number of countries a high proportion of people voice no opinion about China's way of doing business. Only in Venezuela (53%) does more than half the population admire Chinese business practices. This may be because China is Venezuela's second-largest export market, exceeded only by the United States. And by two-to-one, Chileans (48% to 24%) like Chinese business operations, possibly reflecting the fact that China is now Chile's main trading partner, buying nearly a quarter of Chile's exports. But such close business ties can cut both ways. China is Brazil's largest trading partner. Nevertheless, roughly half of Brazilians (51%) dislike China's way of doing business.

Chinese pop culture is not well liked in much of either Africa or Latin America, in part because significant portions in seven of the 13 nations surveyed have no opinion. Of those who have a view, Chinese music, movies and television is disliked by majorities in six countries, including in Brazil (75%), Argentina (68%), El Salvador (61%) and South Africa (60%). Only in Nigeria (54%) do most people have an affinity for such Chinese exports.

In only three of the 13 countries surveyed in Africa and Latin America - in Senegal (62%), Nigeria (58%) and Kenya (54%) - do more than half think it is good that Chinese ideas and customs are spreading in their country. Half or more of those surveyed in eight nations - all countries surveyed in Latin America and one African country - think such Chinese influence is a bad thing, including in Ghana (60%), Brazil (58%) and Chile (57%).

China's Appeal to Young Adults

China's greatest global asset in the future may be its appeal among young adults around the world.

In 16 of the 38 nations surveyed, younger people are significantly more likely than older people to look favorably on China. This is true in North America, in six of the nine nations surveyed in Europe and five of the seven countries in Latin America.

More than three times as many young Turks as older Turks look favorably on China as do more than twice as many young Americans as older Americans. Fully 57% of those aged 18 to 29 in the United States have a positive opinion of China, compared with just 27% who hold such views among people aged 50 and older. In Poland the generational split is 59% to 35%, in Argentina 63% to 42%, in France 55% to 37%, and in Britain 58% to 42%. The pattern is reversed only in South Korea, where 58% of those aged 18 to 29 hold an unfavorable view of their neighbor, while 42% of people 50 years of age and older see China unfavorably.

Certain aspects of Chinese soft power seem to be particularly appealing to the young. In many African and Latin American nations, it is those aged 18 to 29 who most admire China's scientific and technological prowess. Eight-in-ten or more young adults in Nigeria, El Salvador, Venezuela, Senegal and Argentina see such advances as a positive attribute of Chinese soft power. The generation gap is particularly large in Bolivia (26 percentage points), but also in Argentina (19 points) and Brazil (16 points).

Chinese pop culture fares better with the younger generation, as well. They are much more likely than older people, at least in some nations, to appreciate such Chinese soft power. About half or more of those aged 18 to 29 in Nigeria (61%) and Ghana (51%) like Chinese music, movies and TV, as do large minorities of the young in Bolivia (44%) and Senegal (41%).

In addition, the spread of Chinese ideas and customs has majority strong only among the young in Senegal (64%), Kenya (63%) and Nigeria (62%).

Sources of Criticism

Despite China's general favorability around the world and its appeal to the young, half or more of those surveyed in 26 of 38 nations think that China acts unilaterally in international affairs. This concern about Beijing's failure to consider other countries' interests when making foreign policy decisions is particularly strong in the Asia-Pacific - in Japan (89%), South Korea (79%) and Australia (79%) - and in Europe - in Spain (85%), Italy (83%), France (83%) and Britain (82%). About half or more of those in the seven Middle Eastern nations surveyed also think China acts unilaterally. This includes 79% of Israelis, 71% of Jordanians and 68% of Turks. There is relatively less concern about this issue in the U.S. (60%). African nations - in particular strong majorities in Kenya (77%), Nigeria (70%), South Africa (67%) and Senegal (62%) - believe Beijing does consider their interests when making foreign policy decisions.

Another source of recent tension in relations between China and its immediate neighbors has been a series of territorial disputes in the Asia/Pacific region. The most prominent of these is between Japan and China, which are engaged in a confrontation over what Tokyo calls the Senkaku Islands and Beijing terms the Diaoyu Islands, small uninhabited rocks in the East China Sea. In addition, the Philippines and China are embroiled in a standoff over the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea.

Strong majorities in the Philippines (90%), Japan (82%), South Korea (77%) and Indonesia (62%) think that such territorial disputes with China are a big problem for their country. This is particularly the case in the Philippines, where 58% of Filipinos say such friction with China is a very big problem.

In a related issue, many of China's Asian-Pacific neighbors are quite troubled by Beijing's growing military power. Nearly all Japanese (96%) and South Koreans (91%) and strong majorities of Australians (71%) and Filipinos (68%) think China's expanding martial capabilities are bad for their country. There is far less concern in Pakistan (2%), Malaysia (20%) and Indonesia (39%). It is notable, however, that the proportion of Pakistanis, Malaysians and Indonesians who think China's growing military power is a positive thing for their country is actually down from previous surveys.

These sources of tension may help explain why the Chinese are worried about their image abroad. When asked if their country is as respected around the world as it should be or should China be more respected than it is, 56% of Chinese say their nation should be more respected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China is viewed favorably in just half (19 of 38) of the nations surveyed excluding China itself. Beijing's strongest supporters are in Asia - in Malaysia (81%) and Pakistan (81%) - and in the African nations of Kenya (78%), Senegal (77%) and Nigeria (76%).

# data[].attributes.body
(Table 1: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/06/SDT-2013-06-LGBT-0-14.png )

(Article 1: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/ )

Multiple researches has shown that support for the LGBT community has risened, yet there remains nearly equal support and opposition of the topic, where many groups of people have high majority of supporters and others have similar percentages for opposers. As of right now, only 17 states made same sex marriages legal- that is: 68% of states have the majority of people opposing the LGBT community. While there are neutral persons on this topic, the survey from the perspective of people within the LGBT community named, “Images of Parties, Institutions,” suggests that coservative groups such as the Republican Party and Profesional sports Leagues are morely unfriendly torwards them.It is possible that friendly and neutral does not mean supporting. Overall, the amount of unfriendliness is only about a third of answerers, homosexuality is still doubted and opposed in one group or the other.

(Table 2: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/06/SDT-2013-06-LGBT-0-14.png )

(Article 2:http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/in-gay-marriage-debate-both-supporters-and-opponents-see-legal-recognition-as-inevitable/ )

It is obvious that there are still oppositions and discriminations against LGBT members, but religion always is the first group people think of. While most religious groups are seen as unfriendly to LGBT members, not 90% of religious persons are; in addition, many of which have shown changes.

(Table 3: http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/06/6-6-13-4.png )

Within people who support and oppose, there is always a noticeable percentage of people admitting that same-sex marriage is inevitable; this means that these persons do have the understand of the concept in homosexuality, or are neutral- and so, not strongly opinionated against gay rights. Possibly, these persons are just uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality and same sex marriage because they are not open to the “new” concept. Because there are still doubts about the same-sex parents’ ability to raise children, I think it is time the public broadcast more about how this should not be a concern. There are famous same-sex couples who are married and adopt children. However, a large part of the public either frown upon them, or do not see them as the representations for the LGBT community- they are seen as exceptions. On Youtube, there are videos that shows the meaning of an LGBT family (here is one I like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG0yqhzVuYA ) and I think videos and documentaries like these should be shown on TV simply because some people will avoid clicking the video to watch and others won’t. These people can also skip the channel easily, but for some, it could be interesting, and could be a topic to talk about at work.

Being a neutral person about gay rights is only making the opposing side seem more powerful. So, I encourage all persons, even if you are not interested, to be more open to learn more about what is it like to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other different gender identities; because you will realize that “there is no difference” in love.

# data[].attributes.body
All people on this earth should be concerned on the status of planet earth since we as humans depend on the well being of the planet in order for us to survive. However, concerns of the environment have been changing through the last two decades in many different way according to the Pew Research center and the Gallup post.

A poll done by the Pew Research center in 1997 showed the awareness that the American person had on global warming and climate change. The data shows that only a mere 24% of people worry "a great deal" on the "green house effect or 'global warming'". It is understandable that at that point in time, Americans are blissfully unaware of the effects that factory air pollution and automobile emissions are causing.

Let's fast forward to the year 2006. In the Pew polls, we see that the percentage of Americans who believe that the green house effects and global warming are happening rose to a dramatic 65%. That's a very high spike in such a short time. Let's analyze why that sudden spike came to be, shall we? On May 14, 2006, an Academy Award winning documentary was released that shook everyone's beliefs on climate change. "The Inconvenient Truth" was a movie based off United States' ex-Vice President Al Gore's slideshow that was meant to educate Americans on the serious problems on global warming. The film raised public awareness of climate change and sparked the "green" movement that still occurs today. On a side note, republicans didn't receive the movie quite well (George Doubleyuh didn't believe it was a real thing).

However, moving on forward to the year 2014, we see a sharp drop on climate change concern based on Pew Research. On a poll that ranked Americans' national worries, 51% of Americans responded that they worry "Little if not at all" about climate change. 24% of Americans claimed that they worried a "great deal" over climate change. That's the same as it was 17 years before! The government should take steps again to raise awareness of the real problem that climate change is. Just because it isn't the main headline does not mean it's not important. Although some steps have been taken for the wellness of the earth, there are still a lot of ways it's still being polluted.

Another Pew Research poll asked how many people agree with the following statement: "There needs to be stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment". Graph Trends show that Democrats, females, 18-49 year old, blacks, high school graduates, low income, and atheists agree with that statement the most. On the other hand, Republicans, males, 65+ year old, white, some college educated, high income, and white evangelical protestant people disagree the most with that statement. We can see that those who disagree are the richer majority of the country. We can infer that they disagree maybe because they're the ones making boatloads of money while destroying our earth. Wealth shouldn't influence our stance in climate change. Alas, if they keep going with their ways, they will soon realize that no matter how much money they have, once every tree has been cut down, every fish has been fished, every river has been polluted, every bit of oxygen poisoned, money can't save them then. I am Ron Burgundy. Stay Classy, San Diego.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 2012 Pew Research Center Values Survey finds that Americans' values and basic beliefs are more polarized along partisan lines than at any point in the past 25 years. Party has now become the single largest fissure in American society, with the values gap between Republicans and Democrats greater than gender, age, race or class divides. The parties also have become smaller and more ideologically homogeneous over this period. Republicans are dominated by conservatives, while a smaller but growing number of Democrats are liberals.

Here you can explore the questions that make up the survey, and view responses by total population, party, sex, age, generation, education, income and religious preference.
More from the Values survey:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2012 Pew Research Center Values Survey finds that Americans' values and basic beliefs are more polarized along partisan lines than at any point in the past 25 years. Party has now become the single largest fissure in American society, with the values gap between Republicans and Democrats greater than gender, age, race or class divides.

# data[].attributes.body
Americans oppose military involvement in Syria. In late 2013, a thousand Americans were asked “[d]o you think it is in the national interest of the United States to be involved in the conflict in Syria, or not?“ Of the respondents, 29% said it is not in national interest while 69% said involvement is in national interest. However, in 2011, only 55% of respondents claimed it was not in national interest to get involved in Syria. This indicates a rising level of dissatisfaction with involvement in Syria. To be a functioning democracy, the US should not intervene in Syria.

Yet with the Syrian conflict heating up, surrounding countries are unsurprisingly nervous about the violence leaking over the borders. In fact, “along the Syrian-Lebanese frontier, more than nine-in-ten Lebanese (95%) worry that Syria’s violence may spill over into their nation, including 68% who are very concerned.” This concern is shared equally along other borders of Syria. As “roughly 400,000 Syrian refugees already seek shelter in Jordan, 80% of Jordanians express concern about the Syrian fighting spreading into Jordan.” The same can be said for the Turkish-Syrian border, and Turkey “already harbors nearly 300,000 Syrians who have fled the civil war. 62% [of the Turkish people] say they are apprehensive that the violence could infect their society.” Since surrounding countries are so panicked over the potential spread of the conflict, the violence in Syria must be contained, and the bordering countries should receive protection.

According to the Pew Research Center, an overwhelming majority of Middle Eastern nations oppose the current Assad regime. Majorities ranging from 53% to 89% hold “an unfavorable opinion of Assad in Jordan, Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey.” While 97% of Shia Muslims in Lebanon support the Syrian government, many other Middle Eastern groups want to see Assad out of office. Specifically in Lebanon, which was occupied by Syrian forces for three decades before they withdrew in 2006, about 59% express an unfavorable view of Assad.However, there is little consensus on what or how to overthrow Assad, with very little support of Arab military intervention. Unlike the US, these neighboring nations have been directly affected by Syria’s oppressive government and thus should take action against Syria to remove Assad from power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
But Lebanese Shia Backing Syrian Regime

Survey Report

With the uprising against him showing no signs of abating, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is widely unpopular in neighboring countries. And the vast majority of Jordanians, Egyptians, Tunisians and Turks would like to see him step down. In Lebanon, however, views differ sharply along sectarian lines, with Shia Muslims overwhelmingly expressing support for the Assad regime.

Even though many would like to see Assad out of office, there is no consensus on taking action to dislodge him from power. There is limited support for tougher international economic sanctions or Arab military intervention, and very little support for Western military action.

These are among the key findings from a survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, conducted from March 19 to April 20, prior to the May 25 massacre in Houla, Syria, as well as other recent acts of violence against civilians by pro-Assad forces.

Few Have Positive View of Assad

Large majorities hold an unfavorable opinion of Assad in Jordan, Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey. In Lebanon, which was occupied by Syrian forces for three decades before they withdrew in 2006, about six-in-ten (59%) express an unfavorable view of Assad, but opinions of him vary dramatically across the country's major religious communities.

About nine-in-ten Lebanese Sunni Muslims (92%) express a negative opinion of Assad, as do 66% of the country's Christians. However, almost all Shia Muslims (96%) have a favorable view of Assad, who is a member of the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shia Islam.

Assad Should Go, But No Consensus on Taking Action

Nearly nine-in-ten say Assad should step down in Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia, and two-thirds agree in Turkey. Again, views in Lebanon reflect sectarian divisions: 80% of Sunnis and 67% of Christians want Syria's autocratic ruler to leave office, compared with just 3% of Shia Muslims.

The widespread desire for Assad to step down does not translate, however, into support for economic sanctions or military action against Syria. Tunisia is the only country in which a majority approves of tougher sanctions on Syria.

Similarly, Tunisia is the only nation polled in which most would support military intervention by Arab states to remove Assad from power.

And there is no country in which a majority favors military intervention by Western countries. About four-in-ten Tunisians (38%) endorse this idea, while fewer than a quarter in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon support Western military action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Widespread Condemnation for Assad in Neighboring Countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is widely unpopular in neighboring countries and the vast majority of Jordanians, Egyptians, Tunisians and Turks would like to see him step down. Even though many would like to see Assad out of office, there is limited support for tougher international economic sanctions or Arab military intervention, and very little support for Western military action.

# data[].attributes.headline
immigration policy (lucinda, Geovanny, Abraham

# data[].attributes.subject
immigration policy (lucinda, Geovanny, Abraham

# data[].attributes.body
In the data table it shows the progression of illegal immigration to the US from 1990 to 2012. The increasing number of immigrants that have been deported in the recent 12 years. The timeline data shows that the highest peak of deprecation was from 2007-2009 which was late in the bush years and also very early in the Obama administration. During those years the highest was 13 million people had were deported and so this was seen as a major issue in past years and also in the Obama years. The state with the most was California make most of deportation and the least is Illinois with the peak of 550,00 and California with a peak of 3 million.

In another article that we found which talked about the when more people are being deported more and more people are likely to cause crimes and looking at data from how people are getting deported. From the years of 2008-2011 more people were deported from the untied states but recently people have been deported from the broader

We also found another statistic of how during Obama's term he deported more people than in previous years. Throughout his term he deported 1.95 million people all together. Previous years it was calculated that about 350,000 people were deported yearly. We believe that this should be stopped because there separating innocent families. They should deport people that are doing crimes not innocent families.

Well we believe that the Obama administration should stop deporting innocent people and focus more on those immigrant people that are out committing crimes. The people that are not helping our society as a whole.

Congress should limit the deportation and make laws that protect the innocent with small crimes. They should deport people with big crimes affect the community like drunk drivers, any thief, and robbers. Those are the people that should get deported the ones that bring down the economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Explore U.S. unauthorized immigrant population trends for states of residence, as well as for international regions and largest countries of birth, based on Pew Research Center estimates. In 2014, an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S., unchanged since 2009 and down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. For more, see our report and tables: Overall Number of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009. There is also more information in this related report: Size of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Workforce Stable After the Great Recession

Note: Shading surrounding lines indicates low and high points of the estimated 90% confidence interval. White data markers for 2014 indicate that change since 2009 is statistically significant. Trends are plotted from unrounded numbers; data labels are rounded independently and are not adjusted to sum to the total U.S. figure or other totals. See Methodology for details of rounding rules and definitions of regions and countries.
Source: Pew Research Center estimates for 2005-2014 based on augmented American Community Survey data from Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS); for 1995 and 2000 based on March supplements to Current Population Survey; for 1990 from Warren and Warren (2013) and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2003).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unauthorized immigrant population trends for states, birth countries and regions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore U.S. unauthorized immigrant population trends for states of residence, as well as for international regions and largest countries of birth, based on Pew Research Center estimates. In 2014, an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S., unchanged since 2009 and down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007.

# data[].attributes.body
Christian Beck/ Spencer Katchman) Crisis of Confidence in Capitalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Crisis of Confidence in Capitalism?

by Richard Wike, Associate Director, Pew Global Attitudes Project

Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany caused a stir at last weekend's European Union summit in Brussels, warning his fellow leaders that they should not allow the current economic crisis to create "a new Iron Curtain" dividing the continent. Gyurcsany is hardly alone in thinking that the financial meltdown poses a serious challenge to European solidarity, and in particular, many observers are worried about the social and political stability of Eastern European nations, several of which have been hit especially hard by the crisis.

For instance, Forbes columnist and NYU professor Nouriel Roubini - widely lauded as one of the few people who saw the worldwide financial collapse coming - warns that the economic downturn may "even call into question the economic and political model Eastern European countries have followed since the 1990s."

Survey research shows that in recent years support for the free-market system has been on the rise in Eastern Europe, especially in countries such as Poland that have enjoyed impressive economic growth. However, compared with other regions of the world - and in particular, compared with their Western European counterparts - Eastern Europeans embrace free markets somewhat tepidly.

A 47-nation 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey found that, among the seven major world regions included in the study, support for free markets was lowest in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Across the six Eastern European countries surveyed - Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine - a median of 56% agreed with the statement "Most people are better off in a free market economy, even though some people are rich and some are poor."

In contrast, a median of 69% of Western Europeans agreed. Support for free-market economics was highest in the world's poorest region, Africa, where three-in-four said people are better off under capitalism, even if it does produce inequalities.

The poll revealed that support for the free market is especially strong among young people. Eastern Europeans who have spent most of their lives in a capitalist system are more likely to believe such a system is good for society, but support is markedly lower among older people in the region.

The survey also showed that beliefs about the free market are often tied to how people feel about their own lives - those whose lives were improving under capitalism were more likely to support it. This suggests the economic crisis could have some troubling implications for public opinion in the former Eastern Bloc: If the region's economic situation continues to deteriorate, it could dramatically affect people's sense of personal progress, and potentially weaken their enthusiasm for the capitalist system they have come to know over the last two decades.

Poles, Ukrainians More Supportive of Free Markets

While support for free-market economics tends to be lower in Eastern Europe than in other parts of the globe, it is not uniformly low in the region. For example, in the 2007 survey, 68% of Poles endorsed free markets, up from 44% in 2002.

In 2007, roughly two-thirds (66%) backed free markets in Ukraine, a nation that has enjoyed rapid economic growth over the last few years. However, the Ukrainian economy has suffered severely in recent months, forcing the country to seek emergency funds from the IMF.

In the other four Eastern European countries surveyed, fewer than six-in-ten said most people are better off under capitalism. In Bulgaria, less than half (42%) held this view, although even this was a significant increase from 2002, when only 31% took this position. Meanwhile, France (56%) was the only Western European country surveyed in which fewer than six-in-ten said most people benefit from a free market system.

Capitalism Embraced by Younger Eastern Europeans

In five of the six Eastern European countries surveyed, support for free markets was strongest among young people. Having lived their entire adult lives in a post-communist era, people under age 35 were consistently more likely to agree that free markets are good, even if they produce inequalities. On the other hand, those age 55 and older, who were well into adulthood when the Berlin Wall fell, were generally the least likely to agree.

This pattern is clearest in Bulgaria, where 63% of 18-34 year-olds said people are better off under free markets, compared with 47% of 35-54 year-olds and just 19% of those 55 and older. Similarly, 62% of younger Slovakians back a capitalist system, compared with 54% of 35-54 year-olds and 39% of people 55 and over. The Czech Republic is the only country in the region where younger people are not more likely than others to endorse free markets.

Those Who Have Benefited Are More Supportive of Free Markets

In the four Eastern European nations where enthusiasm for free markets is lowest - Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Russia and Slovakia - support is also tied to perceptions of personal progress. Respondents to the survey were asked to rate both their current lives and their lives five years earlier on a 0-10 scale. People who rated their current lives higher than their lives five years before - those who had essentially "made progress" - were more supportive of free markets than were those whose quality of life had stayed the same or lost ground.

Once again, Bulgaria is the clearest example of this pattern. Among Bulgarians whose lives had improved, 60% agreed that people are better off in a free-market system, while 35% disagreed. Bulgarians whose lives had stayed the same were divided - 42% agreed and 43% disagreed. Among those who had lost ground, only about one-third (32%) agreed, while a majority (55%) disagreed.

Similar, although less pronounced, patterns were found in the Czech Republic, Russia and Slovakia. In Poland and Ukraine, the two countries in the region with the most enthusiasm for free markets, this pattern did not appear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Crisis of Confidence in Capitalism? by Richard Wike, Associate Director, Pew Global Attitudes Project Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany caused a stir at last weekend's European Union summit in Brussels, warning his fellow leaders that they should not allow the current economic crisis to create "a new Iron Curtain" dividing the continent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Public split on Snowden leaks (Sandra & Ofisa

# data[].attributes.subject
Public split on Snowden leaks (Sandra & Ofisa

# data[].attributes.body
Our research shows that that Americans are divided on what the Snowden leaks have revealed. One article polled Americans ages 18-29. Many 18-29 year (57%) olds agree that Snowden served public interest but at the same time he should be prosecuted. In another article poll many elders 65 and over (53%) said that Snowden harmed public interest rather than serving public interest. Although the 18-29 year olds say he served public interest, they believe Snowden should be prosecuted. Unlike the elders 65 and over who believe Snowden shouldn't be prosecuted, although they believe that Snowden harmed public interest. In our opinion we agree with the 18-29 year olds that although Snowden sparked public opinion he should be prosecuted because he deserves consequences. Snowden might have helped the public know what is happening behind the scenes but what he did is incorrect because it was not his position to let the whole world know the secrets of the NSA. Therefore Snowden should face his consequences by being prosecuted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the journalism world conferred its top honor yesterday to the newspapers that reported on Edward Snowden's National Security Agency leaks, the public remains divided over whether those classified leaks served the public interest.

Yesterday's top Pulitzer Prize, in the category of Public Service, was awarded to the teams at The Washington Post and The Guardian US. News coverage of the award compared it to the 1971 news coverage and Pulitzer Prize for exposing the Pentagon Papers. In response to yesterday's prize announcement, Snowden released a statement saying the award was a "vindication" of sorts.

But Snowden remains a polarizing figure to the American public, and the country is divided about whether the leaks have benefited the public interest more than they have harmed it. In a January survey by Pew Research and USA Today, 45% said his leaks served the public interest and 43% said they harmed the public interest. There was similar division when the story first broke last year: 49% said the leaks served the public interest and 44% said they harmed the public interest in June 2013.

In the recent survey, attitudes about the leaks varied by age. Adults ages 18-29 are more likely to say the leaks helped the public (57%) than hurt it (35%). Adults 30-49 are somewhat split, while those ages 50 and older are more likely to say the leaks harmed than helped the public.

Older adults are also the most likely to want the U.S. to pursue a criminal case against Snowden. Overall, 56% of Americans want there to be a criminal case against Snowden and 32% do not. While adults 50 and older say the government should prosecute Snowden by a margin of about two-to-one, those under 30 are divided, 42%-42%.

When The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers in June 1971, a Gallup survey found that those who had heard of the articles were largely supportive of their publication, which revealed a more extensive involvement in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos than the public had been aware. By a two-to-one margin, more said the Times and other newspapers did the right thing by publishing the articles (58%) than the wrong thing (29%). An age gap existed in 1971, too: 66% of adults younger than 30 said the newspapers did "the right thing," compared with 49% of those 50 and older. It's worth noting that the Pentagon Papers revealed government secrets that took place in the past, while the NSA revelations have put a spotlight on past and ongoing intelligence-gathering efforts.

Regarding the NSA surveillance program itself, the public's views have changed since the summer. Our January survey showed that a 53% majority of the public disapproved of the program and 40% approved of it; last July, by comparison, more Americans approved (50%) than disapproved (44%) of it.

Topics: Online Privacy and Safety, Surveillance, National Security

Seth Motel is a research analyst focusing on U.S. politics and policy at Pew Research Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NSA coverage wins Pulitzer, but Americans remain divided on Snowden leaks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the journalism world conferred its top honor yesterday to the newspapers that reported on Edward Snowden's National Security Agency leaks, the public remains divided over whether those classified leaks served the public interest. Yesterday's top Pulitzer Prize, in the category of Public Service, was awarded to the teams at The Washington Post and The Guardian US.

# data[].attributes.headline
US Economic Recovery - ( Jasmine Pedroza / Phi Pham )

# data[].attributes.subject
US Economic Recovery - ( Jasmine Pedroza / Phi Pham )

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/27/deficit-reduction-declines-as-policy-priority/ -Jasmine

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/06/two-years-of-economic-recovery-women-lose-jobs-men-find-them/ -Phi

According to the PewResearch on the Deficit Reduction Declines as Policy Priority Article, the rating for the top priority to the President and Congress for strengthening the nation's economy went from 86% in January of 2013 to 80% in January of 2014, which obviously means they aren't making it as important as it used to be, but it is still the top priority of the country. Along with that, in terms of the deficit reduction, 80% of Repulbicans and 66% of Independents agree that reducing the budge deficit should be the top priority for the President and Congress, when only 49% of Democrats agree, being the lowest percentage ever since Obama has taken office.

Studies form 2011 state that ever since the Great Recession, recovery has been far more better for men than it is for women. According the Pew Research Center analysis, men have gained 768,000 jobs and lowered their unemployment rate by 1.1 percentage points to 9.5% whereas women lost 218,00 jobs and their unemployment rate increased by 0.2 percentage points to 8.5%. Even though this is happening in the same time period, men are still have a job advantage over women. They say that America is the land of opportunity, but is that really true if there is no equality towards both gender roles? The reports state that men have been affected by the Great Recession more than women because they lost way more jobs. But even before the recession began, woman were still losing more jobs than men in employment. During the start of the recession, men held 3.4 million more jobs than women in December 2007. Due to these trends of economic recovery for men and women, I feel like there’s still a long way until woman get the same opportunities as men do in the workforce. Perhaps the government can help by setting up stronger laws against discrimination in the work place.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is North Korea a Legitimate Threat? (Anna & Kelsey)

# data[].attributes.subject
Is North Korea a Legitimate Threat? (Anna & Kelsey)

# data[].attributes.body
In our opinion, North Korea is a willing, but not yet capable, nuclear threat.

In a Pew Research Institute article from 2003, 77% of Americans saw the North Korean government as a great or moderate danger to Asia, which rose by twelve percentage points from 2002. However, in a more recent study from 2013 also done by Pew, 56% of Americans believed that the US government should take North Korea's nuclear missile threats "very seriously." Although the two questions were slightly different and therefore would elicit slightly different responses, it can be concluded that concern about North Korea has declined, although the majority of the US population still sees it as important.

In the 2013 study, Americans were divided over whether North Korea was willing and capable of carrying through their nuclear missile threats. There is a slight majority (47%) that believe North Korea is willing and capable, as opposed to the 41% who think they are not.

Another interesting difference between the studies done in both years is that 2003 focuses more on the international realm while 2013 focuses on America's concerns. This may show a decrease in America's concerns with how the international community views its response to North Korea, or may show how the international community is more concerned with the re-emergence of North Korea as a potential nuclear threat than they are with how the US responds. The 2003 article was very concerned with growing anti-American sentiments in other countries, possibly reflecting a concern that other countries were going to side with North Korea against America. This no longer seems to be a concern.

Basically, although North Korea does seem to have the intent to become a nuclear threat, they do not yet have the capabilities (weaponry, armed forces, funding, etc) to fulfill that. So while we may be worried, we must remember: perception and reality are not the same thing, and while something may seem dangerous, practically, they may not be.

http://www.people-press.org/2003/08/22/international-public-concern-about-north-korea/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most Say U.S. Government Should Take Threats Very Seriously

Overview

A majority of Americans say that the United States should take North Korea's nuclear threats very seriously. At the same time, the public is divided over whether North Korea's leadership is willing and capable of following through on its threats against the United States.

The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted April 4-7 among 1,003 adults, finds that 56% say the government should take North Korea's threats to use nuclear missiles against the U.S. very seriously. Another 27% say the government should take North Korea's threats somewhat seriously.

About half of Americans (47%) think that North Korea's leadership is really willing to follow through on its threats against the United States; 41% think North Korea is not really willing to follow through.

Opinion also is divided about North Korea's ability to make good on its threats: 47% say it is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the U.S. while 43% say it is not capable.

About a third of the public (36%) says they are paying very close attention to news about North Korea's military threats and plans to restart its nuclear reactor, making this the most closely followed foreign news story of the year. Those who are following news about North Korea's threats very closely are far more likely than those following it less closely to say that the government should take the threats very seriously (73% vs. 46%).

In addition, far more of those who are tracking North Korean news very closely say the country's leaders are really willing to follow through on its threats (59% vs. 40% those following less closely).

However, assessments of whether North Korea is capable of reaching the U.S. with a nuclear missile are identical among those who are tracking news about North Korea's threats very closely and those following the threats less closely (47% each).

Republicans and Democrats have comparable levels of interest in news from North Korea. But Republicans are more likely to say the government should take the threats very seriously (64% vs. 52% of Democrats). More Republicans than Democrats also think that North Korea is really willing to carry through on its nuclear threats (58% vs. 37%).

But partisans express similar views of North Korea's military capabilities. About half of Republicans (52%) and Democrats (47%) say that North Korea is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the United States.

Few See North Korea as Both 'Willing' and 'Capable'

About a quarter of Americans (28%) see the maximum potential danger from North Korea: They say that North Korea is really willing to follow through on its threat to use nuclear weapons and that North Korea is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the United States.

Roughly the same percentage (25%) expressed the opposite views. They say that North Korea is not really willing to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. and that its nuclear missiles would not be able to reach the United States.

Between those two viewpoints, comparable percentages say that North Korea is willing - but not capable - of attacking the U.S. with nuclear missiles (15%) or that while North Korea is unwilling to follow through on its military threats, it does have the capability to carry them out (13%).

Opinions about how seriously the United States government should take the threat from North Korea differ according to people's views of its intentions and capability. Fully 83% of those who say North Korea has the will and capability to attack the U.S. think the government should take the threat very seriously. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of those who view North Korea as willing but not capable of attacking the U.S. agree.

Only about half (45%) of those who say North Korea is not really willing to follow through on its nuclear threats - but is capable of launching a missile that could reach the U.S. - view the threats as very serious. And just 29% of those who think that North Korea neither has the will not the capability to attack the U.S. says the government should take North Korea's threats seriously.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Public Divided over North Korea's Intentions, Capability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most Say U.S. Government Should Take Threats Very Seriously A majority of Americans say that the United States should take North Korea's nuclear threats very seriously. At the same time, the public is divided over whether North Korea's leadership is willing and capable of following through on its threats against the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.fox23.com/news/world/story/North-Korea-fires-two-missiles-as-US-South-Korea/3QBFhTN_NEK8Ct3yRiCfDQ.cspx

North Korea recently tested 2 medium range missiles, a test condemned by the UN.

These may suggest North Korea’s willingness to “step up their game”; that they are not afraid of the laws set by the international community, and are acting according to their own laws and standards--in other words, they will do whatever they wish to do.

According to FOX News, this was a “defiant challenge” to its rivals, South Korea and the USA. They further described the range of weapons that North Korea had access to, an arsenal of “300 Rodong missiles”.

However, CNN focused more on the international reaction to the missile test, rather than focusing on Japan, USA’s ally, and the USA. For example, it included a section regarding Chinese reactions to the missile launches.

Overall, the FOX News article (a more conservative news source) was much harsher on NK's defiance, while CNN (a more liberal news source) was harsher on the actual effect that it had on the people and communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
North Korea is back to its old ways, it seems. South Korea's military has reported that its reclusive northern neighbor test-fired two medium-range ballistic missiles Wednesday morning from a site north of Pyongyang into the sea off its east coast.

The military posturing came while the South's leader, Park Gyuen-hye, met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague.

South Korean news agency Yonhap reported the three leaders urged tripartite cooperation in the face of North Korean antagonism.

"I think it's very important for our three nations to display this kind of unity and shared determination," President Obama said following the talks.

Japan has registered a "strong protest" with the North Korean embassy in Beijing, Minister for Foreign Affairs Fumio Kishida told a parliamentary session Wednesday. But he said the launch would not affect Japan-North Korea talks scheduled for March 30.

"It is a very important opportunity to make a strong approach to North Korea," he said. "Japan is not considering the change of the plan as of now."

It is believed that two medium-range Rodong missiles -- one at 2.35 AM (local time) and again a few minutes later -- were launched, eventually splashing down in the Sea of Japan, also known by the Koreas as the East Sea.

Several launches of short-range ballistics have been conducted in recent weeks, including one that came within minutes of potentially hitting a Chinese passenger jet. It does not appear that North Korea issued any warnings ahead of Wednesday's launches.

If confirmed, this latest launch marks the first time since 2009 that the DPRK has fired the Rodong class of missile.

"It is a clear violation of U.N. resolution and we demand an immediate stop to (the) provocation," South Korean Ministry of Defense spokesperson Kim Min Suk-fyi said.

Kim added that there are no signs to suggest further launch plans.

The Ministry of Defense in Seoul believes the launch was a reaction to ongoing U.S.-ROK military drills as well as a "message to the international community," given the timing with regards to the Dutch summit.

"These March 26 launches of medium-range No Dong (also known as Rodong) ballistic missiles represent a troubling and provocative escalation that the United States takes very (seriously)," U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf said.

"We are closely coordinating with our allies and partners, including in the U.N. Security Council, to take the appropriate measures in response to this latest provocation and to address the threat to global security posed by the DPRK's nuclear and ballistic missile programs."

There are a number of U.N. resolutions restricting ballistic missile launches, including several specifically requiring North Korea to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and to re-establish a moratorium on missile launches."

While there has been no official reaction from Beijing, North Korea's recent saber-rattling is not going to help relations with China, one of the Stalinist state's few international allies, said John Delury, Assistant Professor of East Asian Studies at Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies in Seoul.

"There hasn't been any fundamental policy shift but we've seen high ranking Chinese officials express their annoyance pretty consistently," he told CNN. "I think (President) Xi (Jinping) is getting an impression of Kim Jong Un as someone who keeps stirring the pot in ways that are detrimental and undercut the ways which Beijing wants to move. This is not going to improve relations between North Korea and China."

The bellicose move comes at a time when North Korea finds itself increasingly isolated, blaming the United States for the breakdown of the six-party talks, and, according to South Korea's conservative Chosun newspaper, even urging its military and officials "not to trust" China.

Indeed, tensions involving North Korea and its neighbors are rarely out of the headlines. The North Korean state news agency KNCA Wednesday accused South Korean authorities of "hurting the dignity" of North Korea's "supreme leadership" by dropping propaganda leaflets on five North Korean islands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
north korea ups stakes with latest rodong missile launch - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
North Korea ups stakes with latest missile launch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
North Korea is back to its old ways, it seems. South Korea's military has reported that its reclusive northern neighbor test-fired two medium-range ballistic missiles Wednesday morning from a site north of Pyongyang into the sea off its east coast. The military posturing came while the South's leader, Park Gyuen-hye, met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
(Article number 2)

# data[].attributes.body
Eylam, Remy, Marco (Gun Control/Violence)

These two articles both look at why guns are easily purchased and why they aren’t regulated in a stricter manner. The first article questions why a gun lobby, such as NRA, has bullied Congress into making it impossible for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Agency to create a national database of gun owners in order to track who owns what. The gun lobby has also tried its very hardest to eliminate waiting periods for firearms purchases. From this, the author concludes that regulation of sale and purchase can and would bring down the number of illegal firearms on the street. The second article reflects on previous incidents and suggests that not all deaths involving guns are the same, therefore trying to address each incident from the same viewpoint is useless. It also argues that gun control laws would mean nothing because those who buy and use guns in a negative way, don’t really care much about breaking the law. This supports the idea that the problem must be solved at the source; purchases. However, regulating purchases is nearly impossible, thus the debate over gun control has no end.

http://chimes.biola.edu/story/2013/feb/06/opposing-viewpoints-strict-gun-control-reform-must/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/

# data[].attributes.body
In our first article, the author analyzes how common core has failed the Los Angeles public school system throughout this year after it was implemented in the beginning of 2013. They say that the high prices and the students inability to be self driven to use the technology in appropriate ways is hindering the education system. In our second article, the author discusses results on the education survey of 2013 showing that the public is in favor of common core standards, even though they struggle to comprehend the money aspect of it. The greater population, even those without kids in school, are open to the common core and view it as a good idea and methodology for teaching even though they are unwilling to pay for the new technology with their tax money. Both articles address spending, and how it is proving to be more difficult than expected, however the first article examines the flaws in the system itself whereas the second article highlights the good things about the standards and shows support for the new system even though it is pricy. The government, before imposing mandatory switches to common core everywhere, has to find a way to fund the new technology that is causing the program to be so incredibly expensive. If able to figure out a way to subsidize this, maybe the reports from the LA school district would reflect a more positive outlook on the system. However because both articles provide opposing data on whether or not the standards are working in school currently for slightly different reasons, it may be that one has to wait until the end of the year to conclude an accurate amount of research on whether or not as aide from budget, the common core is working. It could be possible that there has not been enough data collected yet to assess the success of the common core because it has only been half of a school year this far.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/boxingmma/floyd-mayweather-jr/bill-passes-tennessee-would-sanction-bullying-protect

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0327/Poll-finds-broad-rapid-shift-among-Americans-toward-gay-marriage

The first link introduced us to a bill which currently passes in Tennessee that allows people to harass those who are gay due to it being believed as a part of a "religious belief". This allowance of discrimination and bullying on school grounds due to disagreements in certain beliefs is believed to be scaring other people and was predicted to create an unsafe environment for those who are of same-sex marriage or LGBT. Meanwhile the second link showed supports of the gay rights movement in America. A poll conducted for a gay rights organization received a 75% approval rate due to the supports of the young adults in this matter. The only age group that are opposed to this matter are those who are in an older generation around the age range of 55-65. I think it says a lot that the growth in our generation, encourages the more support for gay rights and introduce the United States as a more of an open country for social rights movements. These two articles each serves as both pro and con in the gay rights movement and provides us different point of views to the people who opposed it and those who supports it.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sports/boxingmma/floyd-mayweather-jr/bill-passes-tennessee-would-sanction-bullying-protect -March 27,2014

# data[].attributes.body
Reasons to Intervene or Not To Intervene in Syria (Aya, Jenna, Salim)

http://www.humanevents.com/2014/02/28/intervene-or-end-syrian-war/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/opinion/ghitis-syria-intervention/

These two articles present opposing viewpoints of whether the United States should intervene in the Syrian civil war. They address the controversy over the United States being the "international police," providing the consequences of intervention, or the lack thereof.

The first article lists several reasons why we should not intervene in the war. It claims thatPresident Obama has no right to intervene since the public almost unanimously opposed it in 2013. It also claims that the United States' "moral" obligation to Syria is based on loose grounds - why does the United States suddenly care about Syria when the Assad regime has been in power for 40 years? Why re we working with Russia to get rid of chemical weapons when they are Syria's number one ally? These questions showed the excuses the United States is making in an attempt to suppress someone else's civil war.

The second article talks about why the Unites States should intervene. If the United States is able to successfully end the war in Syria and help establish a democratic government, it will deter other dictators from harming the international community. By forcing Syria to remove their chemical weapons, the United States will send a message to the rest of the world that it has the power to fight against dictatorship.

Involving in a war is a difficult and complex decision to make. These two articles showed the complexity of the situation, as the Unites States have to take into account of the Syrian civilians, national and international security, and other impending dictators.

# data[].attributes.headline
Economies of China and Japan at Risk (David, Ina, and Jacob)

# data[].attributes.subject
Economies of China and Japan at Risk (David, Ina, and Jacob)

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101343467

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/anxiety-rising-over-relations-between-japan-and-china/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

These two articles focus on the economy at risk because of the tensions between China and Japan. Both of them say that the relationship between the countries is one of the most important when it comes to trade, but because of the countries not wanting to have anything to do with one another, their trading has decreased.

The two sources together help us understand that the economies of China and Japan are at risk more than with just one because of one being more detailed than the other in certain topics. For example, the NBC article says that China and Japan are important trading partners. The New York Times article also says this, but includes examples of big businesses that are in both countries, such as General Motors, Microsoft, Nike, and Coca Cola. With more detail from another viewpoint, we get a better understanding of how important the trading between China and Japan is.

Another benefit of having two sources is that we get more quotes from different people, meaning more evidence supporting the information. NBC has a couple by an economist who talks about the economy being at risk, and The New York Times has one by Prime Minister Abe saying that Japan made an oath not to go to war.

# data[].attributes.headline
Keystone Pipeline- (Amanda, Oscar, and Drianne)

# data[].attributes.subject
Keystone Pipeline- (Amanda, Oscar, and Drianne)

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/18/congress-should-ignore-obama-and-approve-keystone-pipeline/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/20/opinion/steyer-keystone-pipeline/index.html?iref=allsearch

These two articles both look at the Keystone Pipeline from two perspectives. Fox News is known for being a more conservative news source and this is reflected in the article written by Grover Norquist. The article was written in 2012 (so it's a little out dated) and it argues that congress should approve the Keystone Pipeline without the president's consent. Norquist argues that approving the pipeline will boost the economy, provide America with a lot more oil, and open up a lot of new jobs. Norquist then goes to criticize President Obama for continuously delaying making a decision on the project. He states that by refusing to approve the pipeline, Obama is actually just hurting this country. The other article is from a news source known to be more neutral-liberal: CNN. In the article, written by Tom Steyer, Steyer claims that the Keystone Pipeline should never be approved because of its environmental impact. Steyer explains that President Obama has stated he will only approve the project if it can be proved that the environmental impact won't be too severe. Steyer also explains that Obama has gone to other nations stating that we need to stop global warming and argues that if the President is to stay true to his words, then the Keystone Pipeline can't be approved. Steyer acknowledges that building the pipeline will benefit the oil industry, but claims that the resulting pollution is not worth it. Both these sources look at the same issue from very different perspectives and it's important to know what evidence each side is using to argue for/against an issue. Using two articles is beneficial because it can show you what people are saying about your issue and how you can combat those who oppose you. Knowing both sides of an argument increase your chances at making a valid point and potentially swaying your opponents.

# data[].attributes.headline
US Economic Recovery- (Phi Phan & Jasmine Pedroza)

# data[].attributes.subject
US Economic Recovery- (Phi Phan & Jasmine Pedroza)

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.newsday.com/business/3-u-s-economic-growth-for-2014-expected-by-many-analysts-1.7527490

http://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2014/01/09/u-s-economic-recovery-is-elixir-for-hong-kongs-billionaire-exporters/

Between these two sources, the theories on the US Economic Recovery varies. In the first article, they talk about how the economy will raise by 3% which would be the most robust expansion for any year since 2005. In addition to that, economists have suggested before that the recovery appeared on the verge of acceleration, only to have their expectations derailed by sub-par growth that left unemployment at painfully high levels. In the second article, it states that the Hong Kong manufacturers suffered badly when the American economy tanked after the global financial crisis in 2008. Its stock lost nearly 90% of its value between the end of 2005 and 2009 as orders shrank. And that the resilience of China’s export sector last year at a time when much of the global economy has been slack. Exports in November rose by 13% from a year earlier, fueling the country’s biggest monthly trade surplus since 2009. Two-way trade in China is expected to have expanded 8% in 2013, outpacing a roughly 5% global increase.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sandra Hernandez: Would NSA Survallence have stopped the 9/11 plot?  

# data[].attributes.subject
Sandra Hernandez: Would NSA Survallence have stopped the 9/11 plot?  

# data[].attributes.body
The article is an article written by Peter Bergen for CNN. The article focuses on trying to figure out if the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented by using the NSA information. Although the government has said that the NSA program is needed to prevent future 9/11's. Bergen argues that the 9/11 attacks wouldn't have been prevented with the NSA. He argues this because the intelligence community provided repeated strategic warning in the summer of 9/11 that Al Qaeda was planning a large-scale attacks on American interests. Even though the government was aware of this they did nothing and the error was a policy failure rather than an intelligence failure. Bergen's perspective is that the NSA surveillance is pointless and is not needed in order to prevent terrorism. Bergen's perspective is shown when he ends his article saying that the terrorist attacks in the past show us that we need to understand the information we already have collected by conventional law enforcement and intelligence methods instead of having a program like the NSA to keep collecting data on every citizen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
opinion: would nsa surveillance have stopped 9/11 plot? - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Would NSA surveillance have stopped 9/11 plot? - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Peter Bergen says the failure to stop 9/11 wasn't due to a lack of intelligence data but to a policy failure by the Bush administration

# data[].attributes.headline
Drianne, Amanda, & Oscar: Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation In the U.S.

# data[].attributes.subject
Drianne, Amanda, & Oscar: Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation In the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was chosen for its noncritical information it provides. Instead of being an article that discusses viewpoints and leans on one side in particular, it basically gives an overview of what deforestation and reforestation is, and informs the reader what the United States currently faces. This article is more factual in this case. The article defines these terms, then discusses old trends of forestation within the U.S., and current deforestation and restoration rates. The first main thing that was looked at to see if this article would be biased is if whether or not there were quotes that seemed to offend environmentalist groups, etc, and there were not. Throughout the entire article are categorized paragraphs that consist of nothing but facts and some open ideas to why the environment is at risk from the loss of our trees that take in more carbon than releasing. For example, the U.S. will continue to lose forests due to pests and diseases that are increasing in population thanks to climate change. With that said, more information on environmental issues were given than any opinions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by Andrea Becker

Deforestation is forest loss through urban sprawl, land clearing for agriculture, wildfire, disease or timber harvest. The United States went through a period of intense deforestation between 1600 and 1900, but the size of its forest areas has been relatively stable for the last hundred years. Deforestation is offset by reforestation through planting projects following timber harvest, natural regeneration or planting projects on reclaimed farmland or urban sites.

Current Forest Cover

As of 2010, the United States had 304,022,000 hectares (751,255,000 acres) of forested lands, a number that represents one-third of the country. Of this area, 25 percent is old growth forest, 67 percent is secondary forest, and 8 percent is tree farms or plantations. The United States is frequently divided into the Northeast, Southeast and the West because of forest eco-type and historical forestry practices. These regions have 41 percent, 40 percent and 28 percent forest cover, respectively, although the West has the most acres of forested lands.

Historical Forest Trends

It is estimated that prior to European settlement, the United States. was 46 percent forested. European settlers quickly harvested much of the available timber for housing, industry, the creation of railroads and to clear land for farming. By 1907, the U.S. forest cover was reduced to 33 percent. The eastern portion of the nation was disproportionately affected during this era because it was more heavily settled and had better agricultural soils and climate than the West. Since 1953, the trend in the northern region has been increasing forest cover while the South and West have trended level to slightly downward.

Deforestation Rates

The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land, albeit at a different successional stage. So the deforestation here refers to lands that are converted from forest to some other purpose. Deforestation could increase in the future because tree pests and diseases such as bark beetles are becoming more prevalent in the face of climate change.

Reforestation Rates

In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period. The trend in reforesting areas has been driven by organizations such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Arbor Day Foundation. Reforestation efforts were critical to maintain forest cover starting at the beginning of the 20th century, and they are the reason that there is a net positive trend in forest growth today.

About the Author

Based in Wenatchee, Wash., Andrea Becker specializes in biology, ecology and environmental sciences. She has written peer-reviewed articles in the "Journal of Wildlife Management," policy documents,and educational materials. She holds a Master of Science in wildlife management from Iowa State University. She was once charged by a grizzly bear while on the job.

Photo Credits

Ryan McVay/Digital Vision/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deforestation is forest loss through urban sprawl, land clearing for agriculture, wildfire, disease or timber harvest. The United States went through a period of intense deforestation between 1600 and 1900, but the size of its forest areas has been relatively stable for the last hundred years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gay Rights Movement (Anh, Monica, Parmis)

# data[].attributes.subject
Gay Rights Movement (Anh, Monica, Parmis)

# data[].attributes.body
The remains of discrimination towards questioned sexuality of the gay people still exists to this day. Leaning towards the Southern region where it Jim Crow law was significantly memorable, though, no longer exists. Though there are several people in which their sexuality or their sexual orientations are questioned, it is clear that in the South they are embraced, and the society actually have no questions asked or expressed hostility towards their fellow Southerners who are lesbians, gay, bisexual, or transgender

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Given recent history, these shifts are stunning. Just months after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down its ban on same-sex marriage, voters in many southern states reacted to this Yankee court action by overwhelmingly passing bans in their own states. In August 2004, Missouri was the first state after the Massachusetts ruling to vote on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. At the time, I was teaching at Missouri State University and remember vividly that, among my Springfield neighbors, community leaders, and even among my students at a large state university, few were willing to voice opposition to the ban. It passed with 71 percent of the vote. Three months later, the 2004 national elections saw a sweep of 11 states passing constitutional bans against same-sex marriage, and the following year the Texas constitutional ban passed with the approval of 76 percent of the voters.

What explains the rising swell of support for same-sex marriage in the South? There are at least three factors driving this rising tide across Dixieland.

First, it is difficult to overstate the effect of the generation gap. A decade ago, when most of these same-sex marriage bans were passed across the South, the vast majority of today's Millennials were neither counted in public-opinion surveys of adults nor eligible to vote. Their attitudes strongly diverge from their parents and grandparents. Nationwide, nearly seven in 10 (69 percent) Americans ages 18 to 33 favor same-sex marriage, compared to just 37 percent of Americans ages 68 and older. This generation gap is evident in virtually every subgroup in America, including among southerners. Today, nearly two thirds of southern Millennials (65 percent) support same-sex marriage, compared to just 28 percent of southerners in the Silent Generation.

Second, and perhaps not surprisingly given the value southerners place on hospitality, there is a growing "friends and family effect" at work in southerners' changing attitudes. Despite the generally conservative cultural climate, more gay and lesbian southerners are coming out to those who are close to them. Nearly two thirds of southerners (64 percent) today say they have a close friend or family member who is gay or lesbian, a factor that strongly influences support for same-sex marriage. Within that group, 56 percent favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally; among southerners with no gay or lesbian close friends or family members, only 32 percent favor same-sex marriage. These more intimate social connections have moved the debate from the abstract to the personal, to one about the rightness of denying legal recognition for the relationships and commitments of close LGBT friends and family members. For many, if this has not come to seem unjust, it has at least come to feel impolite, a judgment that retains considerable power in the South.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The South's Stunning Embrace of Gay Marriage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Given recent history, these shifts are stunning. Just months after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down its ban on same-sex marriage, voters in many southern states reacted to this Yankee court action by overwhelmingly passing bans in their own states.

# data[].attributes.body
Guns and Violence (Eylam, Remy, Marco)

One of the most famous prisons in the United States is Rikers prison in New York. Rikers has recently been under investigation as lawsuits are being filed against prison guards and reports of an increase in violence between inmates causes unrest in the prison. Reports have said that in 1 year alone 8 stabbings have occurred in the prison and violence is on the rise. Some of the most disturbing facts about Rikers comes from the prison guards who are also cited as turning a blind eye to mental instability in the prison. One inmate was said to have been "baked" inside of his prison cell causing him to die shortly after. Rikers is suffering from many problems including lawsuits against them for brutality from prison guards. As one of the most well known prisons in the U.S. Rikers is always under national spotlight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With dry bureaucratic precision, the daily incident reports from Rikers Island chronicle a surge of violence and disorder churning within the vast New York City jail complex.

Since New Year's Eve, according to the internal reports, at least 12 inmates have been slashed or stabbed, eight of them in the face or neck. Inmates and correction officers suffered lacerations, concussions, punctured eardrums, and fractures to noses, eye sockets, jaws and hips. In one recent brawl, a chunk of an inmate's ear was bitten off, according to the confidential reports, which were obtained by The New York Times.

Not since the gang riots of the 1980s and early 1990s has violence at Rikers Island so alarmed oversight officials, union leaders and inmate advocates. Over the past decade, the use of force by correction officers has jumped nearly 240 percent, even as the daily population has declined by almost 15 percent over the same period, according to data from the city's Correction Department obtained under the Freedom of Information Law.

The mayhem inside city jails is especially striking given the historic declines in rates of homicide and other violent crimes outside of them. At the heart of the rising violence is an inmate population that has changed significantly in recent years and has in many ways grown more volatile.

In particular, correction officers have struggled with an increasing concentration of mentally ill inmates who experts say often respond defiantly or erratically to the harsh, zero-tolerance disciplinary measures successfully employed in the past.

While conditions today are far from the near-anarchy of 20 years ago, the tools used to bring that era of violence under control may now be partly responsible for creating further disorder.
Reports of Abuse
In interviews, current and former inmates described arbitrary and wanton abuse by other inmates and correction officers.

Robert Hinton, who takes medication for aggression and paranoia, said he and another Rikers prisoner were set upon by correction officers. "I was cuffed, they kicked us, punched us, threw garbage on us, and Maced me all at the same time," Mr. Hinton said in an interview.

In another confrontation, Mr. Hinton said, he was beaten by at least 10 correction officers in April 2012 after he refused to leave his cell. He had a fractured nose and vertebra and said he was choked until he passed out.

He said one officer told him: "You're going to die today."

Mr. Hinton, 26, who is suing the city over the altercation, was brought back to Rikers last week on a parole violation.

A spokesman for the Correction Department said the agency would not comment on Mr. Hinton's lawsuit because it was active litigation.

Another inmate, Rodney Brye, 40, was acquitted after spending nearly four years at Rikers Island for a weapons charge. He left in 2012 with two fused vertebrae and a plate in his neck and now walks with a cane as a result of a what he says was a beating by correction officers. He is also suing the city.

"They will hit you with anything; they'll hit you with a radio," he said. "You can actually take somebody's life like that, and they do it on a regular basis."

Norman Seabrook, president of the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, said officers were overwhelmed by a difficult and often violent inmate population. Officers are routinely punched and kicked, and sometimes doused with urine and feces, Mr. Seabrook said. This month, an officer was stabbed in the face with a pen.

The violence has simmered behind the walls and barbed wire of Rikers Island, overshadowed by other priorities at City Hall.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who entered office in January vowing to curtail abuses in the Police Department and to enact education reform, has spoken little of the jails, though he has acknowledged the need for changes. Last week, he appointed Joseph Ponte, a longtime corrections official known for reforming violence-plagued prisons and jails around the country, to lead the Correction Department.

In introducing Mr. Ponte, the mayor said the department had "sadly lagged behind other corrections systems in terms of updating its practices and procedures."

The situation at Rikers Island mirrors an "epidemic of violence" in big-city jails across the country, said Dr. James Gilligan, a clinical professor of psychiatry and co-author of a 2013 report that found the treatment of mentally ill inmates at Rikers Island violated the city's mental health standards. He said an overreliance on solitary confinement and force at Rikers Island and elsewhere perpetuated violence among inmates, particularly the mentally ill, who have crowded the nation's correctional facilities as mental hospitals and other institutions have closed.

"A jail like Rikers Island has a subculture of violence," Dr. Gilligan said. On a recent tour of a juvenile solitary confinement unit at Rikers, he said, "We saw young kids who had been really beaten to a pulp."

One young inmate, Dr. Gilligan said, had been handcuffed by correction officers, who then banged his head against the floor. The inmate, he said, had a concussion and had lost a tooth, and he was vomiting and urinating blood. The inmate was taken to a medical unit for treatment, he said.
A Vulnerable Group
With 10 jails housing an average daily population of nearly 12,000 inmates, Rikers Island - on an East River island of the same name, near La Guardia Airport - is one of the largest jail complexes in the country. Though primarily a pretrial center, it houses some sentenced inmates.

Image

Rodney Brye says a beating from correction officers at Rikers Island caused him to require a cane. He is suing New York City. Credit Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Inside, the tension is acute. Rival gangs - the Crips, the Bloods, the Latin Kings and Trinitarios - wage bloody power struggles like a cellblock game of thrones. Vicious fights erupt over the telephone or the television channel, inmates and correction officers said. The officers, wearing body armor and armed with pepper spray and clubs, resort to force frequently and, critics say, overzealously.

In this environment, mentally ill inmates are particularly vulnerable, experts say. The proportion of inmates with a diagnosed mental illness has grown to 40 percent, from 20 percent, over the last eight years, according to the Correction Department. These inmates are responsible for about two-thirds of infractions at city jails, the department said.

The monotony, the isolation and the aggression of officers and inmates can worsen mental illness, causing inmates to lash out, said Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University who specializes in violence at prisons and jails.

"Right now, jails and prisons are grappling with a population they are not prepared to deal with," Dr. Lee said. "It is not so much a fault on the part of the correction system. They are simply not equipped and have not been able to adjust quickly enough."

Inmates who receive mental health treatment were five times as likely to require an "injury visit" to a jail clinic after a violent altercation with officers or inmates, according to a 2012 study by the city's health department. They also stay in jail much longer than those not treated for a mental illness and have higher rates of recidivism.

Shateek Bilal, 40, who has paranoid schizophrenia, has been in and out of Rikers Island since 1991, mostly for drug crimes and parole violations. Last year, he served three stints in custody, two at Rikers and one in the Manhattan Detention Complex, another city-run jail, for a total of seven months. He was released on Dec. 12 and now lives with his sister.

The jail time, he said, "exacerbated my mental illness, made me paranoid, made me more apt not to take the medication."

Changes to Punishment
The Correction Department has enacted reforms to cope with the changing population.

Since the 1990s, new correction officers have received a 35-hour course on mental health and suicide prevention, the department said. In recent years, officers assigned to mental health units at city jails have received additional training from the health department.

The addition of video surveillance in many sections of the jail has made officers and inmates think twice about resorting to force, officials said.

In January, the Correction Department announced that it would no longer punish mentally ill inmates with solitary confinement, which had expanded under the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. Instead, the department plans to send such inmates to therapeutic units that have been set up over the last few years and are staffed by mental health professionals.

Image

Robert Hinton said he and another inmate were beaten by correction officers. "I was cuffed, they kicked us, punched us, threw garbage on us, and Maced me all at the same time," Mr. Hinton said. Credit Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

But while the most seriously mentally ill inmates now receive some therapy, isolation remains a widespread punitive tool, oversight officials said.

Solitary confinement and some therapeutic units are rife with abuse and neglect, city officials and inmate advocates said. They described walls that are covered with feces and body fluids, and inmates who scream incessantly and throw themselves into walls and doors. Inmates are housed in the units 22 to 24 hours a day, while inmates in the jails can watch television, work out and interact with others.

At a January meeting of the Board of Correction, which oversees city jails, Bryanne Hamill, one of its members, said that on a recent visit to a specialized housing unit, she and other board members knocked on the door to a cell after noticing the window had been covered in feces. After failing to get a response, they asked correction officers to open the door.

Ms. Hamill said it took over an hour before a medical team arrived, opened the door and found the female inmate, naked, wrapped in a blanket with some kind of ligature around her neck.

"The medical, one in particular screamed, 'She's trying to kill herself; we need help,' " Ms. Hamill said.

Mr. Seabrook, the president of the correction officers' union, faulted the department's leaders for not adequately training officers to handle mentally ill inmates and then punishing his members when they use force to protect themselves. "The inmate can use and abuse and do whatever it is he wants, and when a correction officer attempts to restrain the inmate and use whatever force is necessary to defuse the incident, the officer goes to be charged with a crime," he said.

Speaking of mentally ill inmates, he said: "They need medication, treatment, psychological help. They don't need a corrections officer."

Some of the most severe abuse of inmates appears to stem not from a lack of training, but from what critics have described as a culture of indifference.

On Aug. 18, 2012, a 25-year-old inmate named Jason Echevarria, who had bipolar disorder, swallowed toxic soap that had been given to inmates in a mental health unit. The inmates were expected to use the soap balls - which, according to court papers, contained bleach, sodium carbonate and ammonium chloride - to clean their cells after the toilets overflowed with raw sewage.

Over the next several hours, correction officers ignored Mr. Echevarria's cries for help, even as he began vomiting blood, according to court documents. At one point, according to the documents, Capt. Terrence Pendergrass, who was in charge of the unit, told an officer who had come to seek help: "Don't call me if you have live, breathing bodies. Only call me if you need an extraction, or if you have a dead body."

Mr. Pendergrass has told city investigators that he did not know that Mr. Echevarria was sick, according to the union that represents Rikers captains.

Mr. Echevarria was found dead in his cell the next day.

The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide, citing "neglect and denial of medical care."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Rikers Island Struggles With a Rise in Violence. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rikers Island Struggles With a Surge in Violence and Mental Illness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With dry bureaucratic precision, the daily incident reports from Rikers Island chronicle a surge of violence and disorder churning within the vast New York City jail complex. Since New Year's Eve, according to the internal reports, at least 12 inmates have been slashed or stabbed, eight of them in the face or neck.

# data[].attributes.headline
China and Japan: Just the Facts About The Senkaku / Diaoyutai Islands (Ina, Jake, David)

# data[].attributes.subject
China and Japan: Just the Facts About The Senkaku / Diaoyutai Islands (Ina, Jake, David)

# data[].attributes.body
Global Securities is a website that tries to be as objective as possible, saying their mission is to “try to bring you the facts, to help you form your opinion. We try to stick to the facts, and let others debate opinion.” From their website we looked at the issue of the Senkaku / Diaoyutai Islands between China and Japan. Here are just the facts:

China claims sovereignty over the islands but it is also claimed by Taiwan and Japan. The United States is backing Japan’s claim up, saying they oppose any actions performed by a single third party that would undermine that claim. Under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, the United States would respond to any armed attack within any territory under the administration of Japan but urges peaceful solutions to be found.

Some say that if China abandons its claims, the American-Japanese control of Asia-Pacific would be reaffirmed, but if China wins its claims it would mean the era of American dominance over Asia-Pacific would end. Furthermore, some say that China’s intimidation will lead to a loss of respect from the international community.
Japan controlled the islands until after World War II, where they were then transferred to the United States in 1951, and again transferred back to Japan in 1972. In 1971 China first announced that such a transfer was illegal as the islands were a part of Chinese territory. In 2010 a Japanese fishing boat found its way into Japanese territory around the island and the crew found itself within the custody of the Japanese government. When Japan refused to release them China stopped its exportation of Rare Earth Elements to Japan, where Japan then released the prisoners. Since then there has been back-and-forth claims to which nation really owns the islands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands (what the Chinese refer to as the Diaoyu Islands) in the East China Sea, territory also claimed by Taiwan and Japan. While the United States does not take a position on the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands, the United States Government acknowledges that they are under the administration of Japan and opposes any unilateral actions that would seek to undermine such administration.

Ahead of his arrival in Japan for security and economic talks, on 23 April 2014 US President Barack Obama told a Japanese newspaper that Washington would come to Tokyo's defense if there is ever a conflict over the islands in the East China Sea, which China also claims as its own. The commander of the US Marines stationed in Japan said earlier in April 2014 that the US would help Japan re-take the Senkaku Islands if China ever landed its forces on them. Obama told the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper that islands fall under the U.S.- Japan Mutual Cooperation and Security Treaty and Washington opposes any "unilateral attempts to undermine Japan's administration of the islands."

Tomohiko Taniguchi, a professor at Keio University and special advisor to the Cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Obama's statement was historically significant. "It is the most reassuring statement that the nation has ever heard from the top leader of the biggest economy, the biggest military power in the world, so nothing could be more reassuring," he said.

The US affirms that the unilateral actions of a third party will not affect the United States acknowledgment of the administration of Japan over the Senkaku Islands, remains committed under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security to respond to any armed attack in the territories under the administration of Japan, and has urged all parties to take steps to prevent incidents and manage disagreements through peaceful means.

Some hard-line public intellectuals have trained their cross-hairs on Japan as a surrogate in the struggle for mastery in maritime Asia. Ye Hailin, a scholar at the prestigious Chinese academy of social sciences, contends: "If Japan ultimately forces China to abandon its claims to sovereignty over the diaoyu Islands with us support, then the american - led asia-Pacific order underpinned by the US-Japan alliance would undoubtedly be reaffirmed. At the same time, China's realization of its dream of transforming from a continental nation to a maritime nation would not be realized. On the other hand, if China successfully fulfills its sovereign claims over the Diaoyu Islands, then it would mean that the era of the United States dominating the Asia-Pacific maritime order according to its interests and even its preference will end on the spot. China will then become an important participant in the development and maintenance of the Pacific maritime order."

In January 2013, a Chinese naval ship allegedly fixed its weapons-targeting radar on Japanese vessels in the vicinity of the Senkaku islands, and, on April 23, 2013, eight Chinese marine surveillance ships entered the 12-nautical-mile territorial zone off the Senkaku Islands, further escalating regional tensions. The Government of the People's Republic of China has taken other unilateral steps, including declaring the Senkaku Islands a ''core interest'', ''improperly drawing'' baselines around the Senkaku Islands in September 2102, which the 2013 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China found to be ''inconsistent with international law'', and maintaining a continuous military and paramilitary presence around the Senkaku Islands.

In a February 2013 interview with The Washington Post, Prime Minister Abe said on the Senkaku Islands issue, China's coercion or intimidation will lead to, "losing the confidence of the international community, which will result in less investments in China. I believe it is fully possible to have China to change their policy once they gain that recognition."

Prime Minister Abe, campaighing on Okinawa's Ishigaki Island on 17 July 2013, said his government would never make concessions to China on the Senkaku Islands. "The Senkakus are an inherent part of Japan's territory in terms of history and international law and there is no territorial dispute" between the two countries, Abe said. It is rare for a prime minister to visit remote islands like Ishigaki ahead of a national election. Abe's remarks will likely harden Beijing's stance on the issue.

Japan controlled the Senkaku Islands until after World War II, when they came under temporary control of the United States. China does not recognize the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, under which Japan transferred control of the islands to Washington. In 1972, the United States transferred the islands back to Japan. China's Foreign Ministry announced on Dec. 30 of 1971 that such a move was "totally illegal" and reiterated that Diaoyu Islands and surrounding islets were "an integral part of the Chinese territory".

On the same day, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei expressed strong displeasure at the Japanese leader's remark on Diaoyu Islands, saying that it "sabotages China's territorial sovereignty." Hong stressed that the Diaoyu Islands and surrounding islets "have been the inherent territory of China since ancient times" because they "were first found, named and used by the Chinese." The earliest historical record of Diaoyu Islands can be dated back to China's Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) in a book titled "Departure Along the Wind" (published in 1403), in which the names of "Diaoyu Islet" and "Chiwei Islet" were used. The names refer to the nowadays Diaoyu Islands and Chiwei Islet, Hong said. He went on to say that Hu Zongxian, the Zhejiang governor of Ming Dynasty, marked Diaoyu Islands and surrounding islets in China's maritime defense. "It demonstrated that these islands were at least within China's maritime defense sphere since the Ming Dynasty," Hong said.

On 02 February 2009 media reported that Japan's Maritime Safety Agency stationed for the first time PLH (patrol vessels large with helicopter) in the waters of Diaoyu Islands, saying that the action was aimed to defend against "invasion" from Chinese marine survey ships. China's Foreign Ministry spokesman said "The Diaoyu Island and its adjacent islets have been China's inalienable territory since ancient times. China has undisputable sovereign rights over them. Any action by the Japanese side to strengthen actual control over the islands constitutes an infringement upon China's territorial sovereignty, which is illegal and invalid, and should be stopped immediately."

On September 7, 2010, a Chinese fishing boat was found to be within Japan's EEZ near the Senkaku Islands by two Japanese Coast Guard vessels. The fishing boat collided with the Coast Guard vessels. The Japanese arrested the captain and 14-member crew of the fishing boat. The fishing boat crew was released on September 13, 2010, but the fishing boat and the captain were held in custody by Japan. China was perturbed by this action, and requested that the ship and the captain be released. When Japan refused to release the captain and the boat, China embarked upon a trade embargo program in which Rare Earth Elements (REEs) were no longer exported to Japan.38 REEs are critical inputs to many products produced by Japan and, at the time, China produced about 95% of the worlds REEs. On September 23, 2012, Japan blinked and released the fishing boat captain.

On 23 August 2012 Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said "there is no doubt" that the islands, known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan, "are an integral part of Japan" and he denied that sovereignty over the island chain is being disputed. The Meiji government incorporated the Senkaku Islands into Okinawa Prefecture in 1895 after it had confirmed that the islands were not under the control of the Qing Dynasty, Noda said, adding that China had not asserted sovereignty over the Senkaku until the 1970s when it learned that the islands are possibly situated nearby large reserves of oil.

On 25 September 2012, China published a white paper entitled, "Diaoyu Dao, an 'Inherent Territory' of China." In addition, in September 2012, China began using improperly drawn straight baseline claims around the Senkaku Islands, adding to its network of maritime claims inconsistent with international law. In an attempt to bolster its claims to disputed islands in the East China Sea, China presented the United Nations what it says is geological evidence proving the islands belong to Beijing. Lianzeng Chen, the deputy head of China's State Oceanic Administration, submitted the claim 13 December 2012. He said Beijing has the right to claim the undersea continental shelf beyond the normal 200 nautical miles because it is a "natural prolongation" of China's land territory into the East China Sea. Chen said the geological characteristics of the continental shelf in the East China Sea differ greatly from those of the Okinawa Trough to the east, and accordingly, the trough should be seen as the end of China's continental shelf.

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida said the new Japanese government will carefully consider stationing officials on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in a interview on 28 December 2012, according to JiJi Press, a Japanese news agency. Kishida's Liberal Democratic Party, which was recently returned to power after being sidelined for three years, promised to consider placing officials on the disputed islands during the campaigning leading up to the December 16 elections.

On 25 December 2012, Japanese media reported that Tokyo had scrambled fighter jets over the East China Sea after reports of a Chinese marine surveillance plane in disputed airspace near the contested islands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China claims sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands (what the Chinese refer to as the Diaoyu Islands) in the East China Sea, territory also claimed by Taiwan and Japan. While the United States does not take a position on the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands, the United States Government acknowledges that they are under the administration of Japan and opposes any unilateral actions that would seek to undermine such administration.

# data[].attributes.headline
immigration strenghtening borders (Lucy, Geovanny, Abraham)

# data[].attributes.subject
immigration strenghtening borders (Lucy, Geovanny, Abraham)

# data[].attributes.body
Obama is continuing to strengthening the borders by enforcing the security and the infrastructure.  He is planning to combat organizations that traffic drugs, weapons, money and smuggled people by creating new criminal penalties. Also by planning to work together with the communities and the across the border countries saying  "community trust and cooperation are key to effective law enforcement. ". Obama is also enhancing investigative resources by increasing federal agents to southwest border. Obama is trying to make the borders safer by fighting transnational criminal organizations and working with Mexico and Canada.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Changes to the SAT (Elaine Zhao, Emily Small, Jenna Iwamura

# data[].attributes.subject
New Changes to the SAT (Elaine Zhao, Emily Small, Jenna Iwamura

# data[].attributes.body
This CNN article details the upcoming changes to the SAT test starting in 2016. The College Board President and CEO David Coleman explains that they currently don’t accurately represent what high schoolers learn and are “too stressful for students, too filled with mystery and ‘tricks’ to raise scores and aren't necessarily creating more college-ready students.” Changes to the test include a greater focus on reasoning, skills and concepts that are relevant for future careers, and no penalty for choosing incorrect answers. Additionally, College Board will partner with Khan Academy to provide free test preparation to decrease the seemingly income-dependent ability to prepare for the test. A member of the National Association for College Admission Counseling notes that we cannot be sure whether the changes will benefit students and colleges, and we must remain skeptical until the results come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The SAT college exam will undergo sweeping changes on what's tested, how it's scored and how students can prepare, College Board President and CEO David Coleman said Wednesday.

Standardized tests have become "far too disconnected from the work of our high schools," Coleman said at an event in Austin, Texas. They're too stressful for students, too filled with mystery and "tricks" to raise scores and aren't necessarily creating more college-ready students, he said.

The SAT to be released in spring 2016 is designed to change that, he said.

The test will include three sections -- evidence-based reading and writing, math and an optional essay -- each retooled to stop students from simply filling a bubble on the test sheet.

"No longer will it be good enough to focus on tricks and trying to eliminate answer choices," Coleman said. "We are not interested in students just picking an answer, but justifying their answers."

The test will shift from its current score scale of 2400 back to 1600, with a separate score for the essay. No longer will test takers be penalized for choosing incorrect answers.

To prepare students for the test, the College Board will partner for the first time with Khan Academy to provide free test preparation materials, starting in spring 2015. Afterward, income-eligible students will receive fee waivers to apply to four colleges for free.

The last major changes to the SAT came in 2005, when it altered some question formats, added a written essay and changed its score scale from 1600 to 2400.

For this change, Coleman cited the need to create more opportunities for students, rather than obstructing them with test questions that felt detached from their educations and the preparation colleges needed.

Coleman, who joined the College Board in 2012, has spoken critically of his organization's test and discussed how it could be improved.

"Admissions officers and counselors have said they find the data from admissions exams useful, but are concerned that these exams have become disconnected from the work of high school classrooms and surrounded by costly test preparation," Coleman said.

In recent years, another exam, the ACT, has gained popularity as several states adopted it as part of their standardized testing programs.

And while the majority of four-year colleges require an exam score for admission, hundreds of schools have shifted to test-optional policies that allow students to decide what to submit -- or whether to share a test score at all.

Indeed, students' grades and the academic rigor of their courses weighs more heavily in college admissions decision than standardized test scores, class rank or professed interest in a particular school, according to the National Association for College Admission Counseling's 2013 "State of College Admission" report released in January.

The report was based on surveys sent to public and private high schools, postsecondary institutions and data from the College Board, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau.

"I'd like to be optimistic and believe some of this is going to be good," said Steve Syverson, a member of the NACAC board and dean of admissions emeritus for Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin -- a test-optional school. "I just don't know how it will work out."

Syverson was part of NACAC's Commission on Standardized Testing that in 2008 urged standardized test makers to adhere more closely to school curricula, colleges to consider more about applicants than seductively simple test scores and society to stop rating schools based on standardized test scores.

Syverson was intrigued by the Khan Academy partnership, he said, and pleased with the direction Coleman seemed to be taking the test. He wonders whether fee waivers and others changes are meant to draw back students and schools that have turned away from the SAT or testing in general.

Until he sees the passages students will be reading, the questions they're answering and the way colleges react, he has to remain skeptical.

"Some of this is just words. They had a lot of great language around the last change," in 2005, Syverson said. "The angst about the exams has just continued to grow."

Sections of the redesigned SAT might sound similar to the current test, but the changes are significant, Coleman said.

The reading and writing sections will include questions that require students to cite evidence for their answer choices, and will include reading passages from a broader range of disciplines, including science, history, social studies and literature.

Test takers will no longer be asked to complete sentences with obscure words they might have memorized from flash cards.

Instead, students will have to consider the context of how words like "synthesis" and "empirical" are used. They're not "SAT words" as they've come to be known, Coleman said, but words students are likely to encounter again.

"We must do all we can to foster this daily work that prepares students," Coleman said.

The math section will no longer allow calculators to be used on every portion. It will focus on data analysis and real world problem-solving, algebra and some more advanced math concepts -- areas that most prepare students for college and career, Coleman said.

"It is not that helpful to tell students, 'To get ready, they should study all of math,'" Coleman said.

The essay, which the SAT added in 2005, will now be optional. SAT essays have faced criticism over the years from educators who said they focused too much on what test takers wrote, not whether their statements were true, or their arguments reasonable.

Coleman said the College Board would now take responsibility for "unintended consequences" of how the essay test was designed.

Essays will be scored separately from the rest of the test, and the prompt will remain basically the same in every test: It will ask students to consider a passage and write an essay that analyzes how the author made an argument, used evidence and styled ideas.

The redesigned test will take about three hours, with an additional 50 minutes for the essay, and will be administered by print and computer; the current test is available on paper only.

Last year, when Coleman announced plans to redesign the SAT, he said it would launch in 2015. Toward the end of 2013, he delayed the launch to 2016 in order to allow partners more time to prepare.

That means more time for students, educators and guidance and admissions counselors to understand the changes -- and more time for the College Board's Khan Academy test prep program to gear up.

Partnering with the free, online resource is intended to make the SAT more transparent, and cut back on perceptions of inequality around expensive test preparation services, Coleman explained Wednesday.

"If there are no more secrets," Coleman said, "it's very hard to pay for them."

Students' classrooms are meant to be the best preparation for the redesigned SAT. The College Board's Khan Academy tools will supplement that learning.

"It's going to meet students where they are," said Salman Khan, the Khan Academy creator. "We'll take you as far back as you need to go or as far forward as you need to go."

Khan emphasized that he is planning to challenge the existing test prep industry by offering high quality, easily accessible tools.

"This isn't just a 'Hey, since it's free, it's better than nothing," he said. "Our intention in this partnership is this will be the best thing out there, and it happens to be free."

On April 16, the College Board will release more detailed specifications about the test and sample test questions.

Some Khan Academy tools will be available to help students taking the SAT before the redesigned exam launches, Coleman said.

For students, Coleman said, "we hope you breathe a sigh of relief that this exam will be focused, useful, open, clear, and aligned with the work you will do throughout high school."

What do you think of changes to the SAT? Share in the comments, on Twitter @CNNschools or on CNN Living's Facebook page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
major changes coming to 2016 sat test - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Major changes coming to 2016 SAT test - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The SAT college exam will undergo sweeping changes on what's tested, how it's scored and how students can prepare, College Board President and CEO David Coleman said Wednesday. Standardized tests have become "far too disconnected from the work of our high schools," Coleman said at an event in Austin, Texas.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spencer Katchman, Abel Gorfu, Christian Beck

# data[].attributes.subject
Spencer Katchman, Abel Gorfu, Christian Beck

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Barack Obama on Thursday increased pressure on Russia over its annexation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, announcing additional economic sanctions against Moscow that will hit 20 Russian officials and a bank that provides them with support.

The sanctions are the latest in a wave of political and economic actions against Russia by the United States and the European Union after Russia moved to annex Crimea.

Obama also signed an executive order authorizing more severe sanctions that would affect "key sectors of the Russian economy" if necessary, though he noted the escalated sanctions could have a profound impact on the global economy.

The president said the penalties were the result of "choices the Russian government has made, choices that have been rejected by the international community."

The sanctions are the second wave of penalties the U.S. has levied on Russia this week, following economic sanctions ordered Monday on 11 people the U.S. said were involved in the dispute in Ukraine.

Moments after Obama's announcement Thursday, Russia issued its own wave of sanctions against U.S. officials, including deputy national security adviser Benjamin Rhodes; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Mary Landrieu, D-La.; and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Russia's sanctions restrict travel for the U.S. lawmakers and officials. The Russian Foreign Ministry also issued a statement indicating that it will retaliate to each round of U.S. sanctions.

"There will be no doubt: we will respond adequately to every hostile thrust," the ministry said in a statement.

The move comes as Russia faces further sanctions from the European Union on Thursday over the annexation.

In an address to the German parliament in Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel said the EU was readying further sanctions and that the G-8 forum of leading economies had been suspended indefinitely.

Russia holds the presidency of the G-8, and President Vladimir Putin was due to host his counterparts, including Obama, at a summit in Sochi in June.

"So long as there aren't the political circumstances, like now, for an important format like the G-8, then there is no G-8," Merkel said. "Neither the summit nor the format."

Moscow formally annexed Crimea earlier this week. The Black Sea peninsula had been part of Russia for centuries until 1954, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine.

On Thursday Russia's 450-member State Duma, the lower house of parliament, approved the treaty signed by Putin and leaders of Crimea that makes the territory a part of Russia.

The treaty must still be approved by the 166-member Federation Council, the upper house, before Crimea is officially a part of Russia.

Russian forces effectively took control of Crimea some two weeks ago after the ouster of Ukraine's pro-Russia president, Viktor Yanukovich, following months of protests and sporadic violence.

The crisis erupted late last year after Yanukovich backed out of an association deal with the EU in favor of a promised $15 billion bailout from Russia. That angered Ukrainians from pro-European central and western regions.

Merkel said EU leaders would increase those "level two" sanctions against Russia when they meet later Thursday in Brussels to widen the list of those whose assets are being frozen and who are banned from traveling.

She also reiterated that if things worsen, the EU is prepared to move to "level three" measures, which would include economic sanctions.

"The European Council will make it clear today and tomorrow that with a further deterioration of the situation we are always prepared to take level three measures, and those will without a doubt include economic sanctions," she said.

Merkel's tough approach came as the commander of Ukraine's navy was freed after being held by Russian forces and local Crimean militia members at the navy's headquarters.

Rear Adm. Sergei Haiduk and an unspecified number of civilians were held for hours after the navy's base in Sevastopol was stormed Wednesday. Early reports said the storming was conducted by a self-described local defense force, but Thursday's statement by acting President Oleksandr Turchynov, which confirmed the release, said Russian forces were involved.

Just how many retreating troops Ukraine will have to absorb in what amounts to a military surrender of Crimea was unclear. Many servicemen have already switched sides to Russia, but authorities said they were prepared to relocate as many as 25,000 soldiers and their families to the Ukrainian mainland.

With thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and sailors trapped on military bases, surrounded by heavily armed Russian forces and pro-Russia militias, the Kiev government said it was drawing up plans to evacuate its outnumbered troops from Crimea back to the mainland and would seek United Nations support to turn the peninsula into a demilitarized zone.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and other senior Kremlin officials on Thursday and expressed his concern over the continued escalations in the region.

"I am seriously concerned that developments in Ukraine and the increasing tensions between Ukraine and Russia pose grave risks to the countries themselves, the region and beyond," Ban said. "It is clear that that we are at a crossroad. We must employ every possible diplomatic tool at our disposal to solve this crisis, which has grave political and economic ramifications."

On Friday the secretary-general travels to Kiev, where he will hold talks with Turchynov, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others to discuss the ongoing crisis in the region.

"We are working out a plan of action so that we can transfer not just servicemen but, first of all, members of their family who are in Crimea quickly and effectively to mainland Ukraine," said Andriy Parubiy, secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council.

Since the Russian forces took charge in Crimea, Ukrainian-enlisted personnel and officers have been bottled up in barracks and other buildings at one end of the Belbek air force base, with the Russians in control of the airfield.

"We're waiting for what Kiev, our leadership, tells us," said one major, who declined to give his name. The major said he expected about half of the personnel still at the base to accept the Russian offer to stay and join the Russian armed forces, since they are Crimea natives.

Humbled but defiant, Ukraine lashed out symbolically at Russia by declaring its intent to leave the Moscow-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States, a loose alliance of 11 former Soviet nations.

The last nation to leave the group was Georgia, which fought a brief war with neighboring Russia in 2008 and ended up losing two separatist territories.
Al Jazeera and wire services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama calls for more sanctions on Russia over Crimea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Barack Obama on Thursday increased pressure on Russia over its annexation of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, announcing additional economic sanctions against Moscow that will hit 20 Russian officials and a bank that provides them with support.

# data[].attributes.headline
Drianne, Amanda, Oscar- Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation In the U.S.

# data[].attributes.subject
Drianne, Amanda, Oscar- Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation In the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by Andrea Becker

Deforestation is forest loss through urban sprawl, land clearing for agriculture, wildfire, disease or timber harvest. The United States went through a period of intense deforestation between 1600 and 1900, but the size of its forest areas has been relatively stable for the last hundred years. Deforestation is offset by reforestation through planting projects following timber harvest, natural regeneration or planting projects on reclaimed farmland or urban sites.

Current Forest Cover

As of 2010, the United States had 304,022,000 hectares (751,255,000 acres) of forested lands, a number that represents one-third of the country. Of this area, 25 percent is old growth forest, 67 percent is secondary forest, and 8 percent is tree farms or plantations. The United States is frequently divided into the Northeast, Southeast and the West because of forest eco-type and historical forestry practices. These regions have 41 percent, 40 percent and 28 percent forest cover, respectively, although the West has the most acres of forested lands.

Historical Forest Trends

It is estimated that prior to European settlement, the United States. was 46 percent forested. European settlers quickly harvested much of the available timber for housing, industry, the creation of railroads and to clear land for farming. By 1907, the U.S. forest cover was reduced to 33 percent. The eastern portion of the nation was disproportionately affected during this era because it was more heavily settled and had better agricultural soils and climate than the West. Since 1953, the trend in the northern region has been increasing forest cover while the South and West have trended level to slightly downward.

Deforestation Rates

The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land, albeit at a different successional stage. So the deforestation here refers to lands that are converted from forest to some other purpose. Deforestation could increase in the future because tree pests and diseases such as bark beetles are becoming more prevalent in the face of climate change.

Reforestation Rates

In the United States, deforestation has been more than offset by reforestation between 1990 and 2010. The nation added 7,687,000 hectares (18,995,000 acres) of forested land during that period. The trend in reforesting areas has been driven by organizations such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Arbor Day Foundation. Reforestation efforts were critical to maintain forest cover starting at the beginning of the 20th century, and they are the reason that there is a net positive trend in forest growth today.

About the Author

Based in Wenatchee, Wash., Andrea Becker specializes in biology, ecology and environmental sciences. She has written peer-reviewed articles in the "Journal of Wildlife Management," policy documents,and educational materials. She holds a Master of Science in wildlife management from Iowa State University. She was once charged by a grizzly bear while on the job.

Photo Credits

Ryan McVay/Digital Vision/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deforestation is forest loss through urban sprawl, land clearing for agriculture, wildfire, disease or timber harvest. The United States went through a period of intense deforestation between 1600 and 1900, but the size of its forest areas has been relatively stable for the last hundred years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Siege Warfare in Syria (Salim, Aya, Jenna)

# data[].attributes.subject
Siege Warfare in Syria (Salim, Aya, Jenna)

# data[].attributes.body
Both sides of the Syrian conflict are committing human rights violations. In particular, the UN recently reported 240,000 Syrians are now having their basic rights violated because they’re trapped in the cross-fire caused by the war. Both the pro-government and rebel forces have prevented the flow of goods and services to areas within Syria. They’ve bombarded the entire area without regard for the civilians that live nearby.

International humanitarian law requires the government to grant “safe passage for protected persons out of the besieged area,” to ensure the health of the wounded, and to “not destroy objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population through indiscriminate bombardments and attacks.”

The  UN report states that Syria has violated all of these planks of the law. Civilians in the besieged areas face frighteningly low levels of basic life necessities such as food, water, and electricity. Some religious leaders have succumbed to allowing residents to eat cats and dogs for survival. Other rural areas have reported that a significant number of deaths were due to inadequate healthcare and nutrition.

# data[].attributes.body
The Washington post reported on Tuesday that the NSA has created an interception program called MYSTIC. The program that began in 2009 allowed the NSA to replay voice calls from any intercepted phone. The program is recording all the phone calls in an undisclosed foreign country, allowing it to play back any conversation up to 30 days later. The Post said that no other disclosed NSA program captures a nation's telephone network in its entirety. The major people involved is the NSA and the country that is being targeted. The countries being targeted are unknown at this point. After the news, Germany is planning to send up an inquiry that is agreed on by other countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The National Security Agency has built a surveillance system capable of recording "100 percent" of a foreign country's telephone calls, enabling the agency to rewind and review conversations as long as a month after they take place, according to people with direct knowledge of the effort and documents supplied by former contractor Edward Snowden.

A senior manager for the program compares it to a time machine - one that can replay the voices from any call without requiring that a person be identified in advance for surveillance.

The voice interception program, called MYSTIC, began in 2009. Its RETRO tool, short for "retrospective retrieval," and related projects reached full capacity against the first target nation in 2011. Planning documents two years later anticipated similar operations elsewhere.

In the initial deployment, collection systems are recording "every single" conversation nationwide, storing billions of them in a 30-day rolling buffer that clears the oldest calls as new ones arrive, according to a classified summary.

The call buffer opens a door "into the past," the summary says, enabling users to "retrieve audio of interest that was not tasked at the time of the original call." Analysts listen to only a fraction of 1 percent of the calls, but the absolute numbers are high. Each month, they send millions of voice clippings, or "cuts," for processing and long-term storage.

Explore the documents
This cover slide comes from a weekly briefing deck by the NSA's Special Source Operations team, which is responsible for deploying and maintaining bulk collection methods.
This is an excerpt from a weekly briefing memo from the NSA's Special Source Operations team that describes collection efforts and defines many agency terms.
In this excerpt from the FY13 Congressional Budget Justification, the addition of a country to MYSTIC efforts is mentioned.
At the request of U.S. officials, The Washington Post is withholding details that could be used to identify the country where the system is being employed or other countries where its use was envisioned.

No other NSA program disclosed to date has swallowed a nation's telephone network whole. Outside experts have sometimes described that prospect as disquieting but remote, with notable implications for a growing debate over the NSA's practice of "bulk collection" abroad.

Bulk methods capture massive data flows "without the use of discriminants," as President Obama put it in January. By design, they vacuum up all the data they touch - meaning that most of the conversations collected by RETRO would be irrelevant to U.S. national security interests.

Obama and changes at NSA

On Jan. 17, President Obama called for significant changes to the way the NSA collects and uses telephone records of U.S. citizens. Read a transcript of his remarks.

Here is the report from the five-member Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which contains 40-plus recommendations on the NSA. Read it.

In the view of U.S. officials, however, the capability is highly valuable.

In a statement, Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the National Security Council, declined to comment on "specific alleged intelligence activities." Speaking generally, she said that "new or emerging threats" are "often hidden within the large and complex system of modern global communications, and the United States must consequently collect signals intelligence in bulk in certain circumstances in order to identify these threats."

NSA spokeswoman Vanee Vines, in an e-mailed statement, said that "continuous and selective reporting of specific techniques and tools used for legitimate U.S. foreign intelligence activities is highly detrimental to the national security of the United States and of our allies, and places at risk those we are sworn to protect."

Some of the documents provided by Snowden suggest that high-volume eavesdropping may soon be extended to other countries, if it has not been already. The RETRO tool was built three years ago as a "unique one-off capability," but last year's secret intelligence budget named five more countries for which the MYSTIC program provides "comprehensive metadata access and content," with a sixth expected to be in place by last October.

The budget did not say whether the NSA now records calls in quantity in those countries or expects to do so. A separate document placed a high priority on planning "for MYSTIC accesses against projected new mission requirements," including "voice."

Ubiquitous voice surveillance, even overseas, pulls in a great deal of content from Americans who telephone, visit and work in the target country. It may also be seen as inconsistent with Obama's Jan. 17 pledge "that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don't threaten our national security," regardless of nationality, "and that we take their privacy concerns into account."

In a presidential policy directive, Obama instructed the NSA and other agencies that bulk acquisition may be used only to gather intelligence related to one of six specified threats, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The directive, however, also noted that limits on bulk collection "do not apply to signals intelligence data that is temporarily acquired to facilitate targeted collection."

The emblem of the MYSTIC program depicts a cartoon wizard with a telephone-headed staff. Among the agency's bulk collection programs disclosed over the past year, its focus on the spoken word is unique. Most of the programs have involved the bulk collection of metadata - which does not include call content - or text, such as e-mail address books.

Telephone calls are often thought to be more ephemeral and less suited than text for processing, storage and search. And there are indications that the call-recording program has been hindered by the NSA's limited capacity to store and transmit bulky voice files.

In the first year of its deployment, a program officer wrote that the project "has long since reached the point where it was collecting and sending home far more than the bandwidth could handle."

Because of similar capacity limits across a range of collection programs, the NSA is leaping forward with cloud-based collection systems and a gargantuan new "mission data repository" in Utah. According to its overview briefing, the Utah facility is designed "to cope with the vast increases in digital data that have accompanied the rise of the global network."

Christopher Soghoian, the principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said history suggests that "over the next couple of years they will expand to more countries, retain data longer and expand the secondary uses."

Spokesmen for the NSA and the office of Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. declined to confirm or deny expansion plans or discuss the criteria for any change.

Based on RETRO's internal reviews, the NSA has a strong motive to deploy it elsewhere. In the documents and in interviews, U.S. officials said RETRO is uniquely valuable when an analyst uncovers a new name or telephone number of interest.

With up to 30 days of recorded conversations in hand, the NSA can pull an instant history of the subject's movements, associates and plans. Some other U.S. intelligence agencies also have access to RETRO.

Highly classified briefings cite examples in which the tool offered high-stakes intelligence that would not have existed under traditional surveillance programs in which subjects are identified for targeting in advance. In contrast with most of the government's public claims about the value of controversial programs, the briefings supply names, dates, locations and fragments of intercepted calls in convincing detail.

Present and former U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to provide context for a classified program, acknowledged that large numbers of conversations involving Americans would be gathered from the country where RETRO operates.

The NSA does not attempt to filter out their calls, defining them as communications "acquired incidentally as a result of collection directed against appropriate foreign intelligence targets."

Until about 20 years ago, such incidental collection was unusual unless an American was communicating directly with a foreign intelligence target. In bulk collection systems, which are exponentially more capable than the ones in use throughout the Cold War, calls and other data from U.S. citizens and permanent residents are regularly ingested by the millions.

Under the NSA's internal " minimization rules," those intercepted communications "may be retained and processed" and included in intelligence reports. The agency generally removes the names of U.S. callers, but there are several broadly worded exceptions.

An independent group tasked by the White House to review U.S. surveillance policies recommended that incidentally collected U.S. calls and e-mails - including those obtained overseas - should nearly always "be purged upon detection." Obama did not accept that recommendation.

Vines, in her statement, said the NSA's work is "strictly conducted under the rule of law."

RETRO and MYSTIC are carried out under Executive Order 12333, the traditional grant of presidential authority to intelligence agencies for operations outside the United States.

Since August, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and others on that panel have been working on plans to assert a greater oversight role for intelligence-gathering abroad. Some legislators are considering whether Congress should also draft new laws to govern those operations.

Experts say there is not much legislation that governs overseas intelligence work.

"Much of the U.S. government's intelligence collection is not regulated by any statute passed by Congress," said Timothy H. Edgar, the former director of privacy and civil liberties on Obama's national security staff. "There's a lot of focus on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is understandable, but that's only a slice of what the intelligence community does."

All surveillance must be properly authorized for a legitimate intelligence purpose, he said, but that "still leaves a gap for activities that otherwise basically aren't regulated by law, because they're not covered by FISA."

Beginning in 2007, Congress loosened 40-year-old restrictions on domestic surveillance because so much foreign data crossed U.S. territory. There were no comparable changes to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens and residents whose calls and e-mails now routinely cross international borders.

Vines noted that the NSA's job is to "identify threats within the large and complex system of modern global communications," in which ordinary people share fiber-optic cables with legitimate intelligence targets.

For Peter Swire, a member of the president's review group, the fact that Americans and foreigners use the same devices, software and networks calls for greater care to safeguard Americans' privacy.

"It's important to have institutional protections so that advanced capabilities used overseas don't get turned against our democracy at home," he said.

Soltani is an independent security researcher and consultant. Julie Tate contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NSA surveillance program reaches 'into the past' to retrieve, replay phone calls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Security Agency has built a surveillance system capable of recording "100 percent" of a foreign country's telephone calls, enabling the agency to rewind and review conversations as long as a month after they take place, according to people with direct knowledge of the effort and documents supplied by former contractor Edward Snowden.

# data[].attributes.headline
UN Investigation of North Korean Human Rights Violation—Followup (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.subject
UN Investigation of North Korean Human Rights Violation—Followup (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.body
The United Nation investigation that we were following a few weeks back has now wrapped up and the final report has been published. The report likens human rights violations in North Korea, such as forced starvation and abuse, to travesties committed under Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. China's representative at the human rights council said the charges were "divorced from reality," which suggest that China may block attempts to indict North Korea on human rights abuses. Additionally, the North Korean representative accused the UN of being influenced by "lies" and "hostile forces." The UN report included more than 320 witnesses and listened to countless testimonies of abuse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China and North Korea have slammed a U.N. report that found crimes against humanity committed in the reclusive Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

At the Monday session of the Human Rights Council, China's representative called a landmark report that was highly critical of North Korea's human rights record "divorced from reality." The diplomat's words indicate that China, a permanent member of the Security Council, may block attempts to refer North Korean issues to the International Criminal Court.

In February, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea published a 400-page report documenting the widespread torture and abuse, and called for urgent action including the referral of its findings to the ICC for possible prosecution.

Pyongyang's representative accused the entire commission of being spurred by "lies" and "hostile forces."

The North Korean official objected and left when the Japanese representative brought in the head of a Japanese association for families, whose loved ones have been reportedly abducted by North Korea, to make a statement.

The almost yearlong investigation by the commission involved more than 320 witnesses in public hearings and private interviews. It listed a litany of abuses including a new mother being forced to drown her newborn, corpses being eaten by dogs and rampant beatings.

"If this report does not give rise to action, it is difficult to imagine what will," said Michael Kirby, the Commission of Inquiry's chair.

Why North Korea probably won't change despite damning U.N. report

'Scourge of human rights violations'

He urged the international community to take action.

"Contending with the scourges of Nazism, apartheid, the Khmer Rouge and other affronts required great courage by great nations and ordinary human beings alike. It is now your solemn duty to address the scourge of human rights violations and crimes against humanity in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

North Korea is a state, the report concluded, "that does not content itself with ensuring the authoritarian rule of a small group of people, but seeks to dominate every aspect of its citizens' lives and terrorizes them from within."

North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations, So Se Pyong said the United States and "other hostile forces" had fabricated the report in an attempt to "defame the dignified image of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and eventually eliminate its social system."

He charged that the testimonies by defectors and witnesses were fabrications by criminals who fled North Korea.

Everyone in North Korea is guaranteed human rights and freedoms, So maintained. "We defend our social system. It's the cradle of life and happiness."

So said North Korea takes "sincere efforts" to make peace in the Korean peninsula and blamed joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises. On Sunday, North Korea launched 25 short-range rockets from its east coast into open water, according to South Korea.

So did not address any of the report's points regarding the right to food, prison camps, torture and inhuman treatment, arbitrary detention, discrimination, freedom of expression, the right to life, freedom of movement, and enforced disappearances, including abductions of other citizens.

He blamed the United States saying it should be investigated for "egregious human rights violations."

Kirby said the diplomat's statement was a "diversion" instead of addressing human rights concerns.

North Korea found support from its staunchest ally, China, which also disputed the report's findings. Its representative, Chen Chuandong said the report could not be fair and impartial because of "the inability of the Commission to get support and cooperation from the country concerned."

During the 11-month investigation, the commission's request for access into North Korea and information were denied or ignored. China said the inability to get cooperation from North Korea put the credibility of the report in question.

"The commission makes conclusions and recommendations -- many of them are divorced from reality and highly politicized," Chen said.

China also came under human rights criticism by the commission for its policy of repatriating North Koreans. Many of the repatriated North Koreans are sent to prison camps or even sentenced to death for escaping their country, according to human rights groups. Chen defended China's practice of returning North Koreans.

"The Koreans who enter illegally, they have breached China's laws and border administration," he said. "They enter illegally, they are not refugees."

China and North Korea enjoy a relatively close relationship, stemming from when China joined the Korean War on the northern side against U.N. troops in 1950. China remains North Korea's biggest trading partner and has helped sustain three generations of the Kim regime.

That relationship continues today as China's nuclear representative, Wu Dawei was in Pyongyang on Monday, according to North Korea's state-run media, KCNA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
china slam u.n. human rights report - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
North Korea, China slam U.N. human rights report - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China and North Korea have slammed a U.N. report that found crimes against humanity committed in the reclusive Democratic People's Republic of Korea. At the Monday session of the Human Rights Council, China's representative called a landmark report that was highly critical of North Korea's human rights record "divorced from reality."

# data[].attributes.headline
US Economic /Recovery-Followup (Phi Phan & Jasmine Pedroza)

# data[].attributes.subject
US Economic /Recovery-Followup (Phi Phan & Jasmine Pedroza)

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/25/not-so-rosy-real-truth-about-us-economy-in-2014/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/27/three-big-things-that-could-derail-us-economic-recovery-in-2014/

These two articles talk about how 2014 will be the year that the economy has a breakout, but there are a few factors that play against it. The major people involved with the recovery of the economy are, of course, the nation's people as well as the President and business owners. Breaking down each article, the similar situation at hand is money (who would have thought?). The first article explains the differences in how the economy is worse or better than they were before the recession. There have 30,000 jobs created each month since 2001, but it needs to be 4 times larger to keep up with the population growth in America. Although the President has optimistic ideas for the economic growth, the actual progress of the economic recovery won't match his hopes for America. In the second article, it explains the 3 main causes that could steer the economic recovery off course: ObamaCare, China's baking mess, and the Federal Reserve. Although ObamaCare was the idea Affordable Care Act, people say it's too expensive for their needs and that they are raising the charge rates in 2015.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.advocate.com/commentary/tyler-curry/2014/03/07/op-ed-second-look-bisexuality

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/01/31/op-ed-how-nfl-tackling-lgbt-issues

I was not able to find a new op ed  in opposition of the LGBT community, but I found two sources that talks about both perspectives by people within it. The first article talks about bisexuality in the point of view of a homosexual person. He admits that even for a gay person, bisexuality is questioned. In our society today, bisexual women are seen as “confused girls” and bisexuality in men is just a “layover” for being gay. In fact, bisexual men have difficulty coming out because they are labeled as gay once they are seen with another man. Author Tyler questioned but did not confront his bisexual friend. Tyle thought being bisexual was just a phase and people will eventually figure out if they are gay or straight through being bisexual. However, he’s known his bisexual friends for too long that he realize being attracted to both sexes is not going to go away.

The second article talks about the experience of being gay from the point of view of an NFL player, Wale Davis. There are conflicting issues about being gay while Davis is in the NFL team. He had to act very masculine and try his best at all time because he wants to prove that his sexuality will not affect his performance, especially to the homophobic community. On the other hand, Davis avoided talking about how homophobic the NFL is.

The two articles show how people in the LGBT community face criticism from all types of people, even people within their own community. Often enough, criticism is not spoken but are still hurtful to homosexuals and bisexual people because they are not recognized and they are let down.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Op-ed: How the NFL Is Tackling LGBT Issues

As a former NFL player, openly gay male and executive director of the You Can Play Project, I'm asked one question continually: "When is the first active NFL player going to come out?" And my response is always the same: "Announcing one's sexuality is an individual and personal decision, so I have no clue." That answer always creates a conversation around how homophobic the NFL is perceived to be and raises the question "What is the NFL doing to combat that?"

I often try to reframe the direction of those conversations and reiterate how players who aren't out while playing in the NFL shouldn't necessary reflect on the NFL and its culture. Players who aren't out in the NFL weren't out in college and weren't out in high school. And now there's a larger conversation to be had about how we socialize all kids around issues of sexuality, masculinity, and manhood and the ways young boys are taught to view femininity as a sign of weakness. While there's less resistance to those conversations, many still believe the NFL must do more.

Well, the NFL has been listening and understands the power it has to shift and shape culture. Over the past few years, the NFL has been in conversation with multiple LGBT organizations like the You Can Play Project, GLAAD, Athlete Ally, and the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network to discuss various ways it can enhance its existing policies around issues of diversity and inclusion to ensure that any gay athlete knows the NFL family will treat him with respect regardless of his sexual orientation.

From the first day I met Troy Vincent, former NFL player and senior executive, I knew the NFL wasn't just paying this issue lip service. We sat and talked for hours about what my experience in the NFL was like as a non-out gay player. We discussed how I policed my every move and tried to re-create the type of masculinity that I thought was acceptable in the world. I even disclosed how my fear of being rejected, on some level, impacted my ability to perform and how gratifying it was to have countless former teammates embrace me after I announced my sexuality publicly.

Troy listened. He listened because he was my brother and we were family. We discussed how all teams are families, and though friction can sometimes occur around certain issues, the strong bond created between players always lasts. And he and I were the perfect example of that. Though we had never met, the scars and stripes of an NFL brother are always visible and welcomed.

We discussed an idea of having the NFL collaborate in the launch of the You Can Play High Five Initiative where current and former professional athletes would visit LGBT organizations to mentor young people and to promote leadership. Troy leaned in and said yes, without hesitation. His only request was to be a part of the visit to accurately articulate the vision and outcomes of the initiative to other teams and players for future visits.

As we walked into the Hetrick-Martin Institute, an organization geared toward working with LGBTQ youth, with former NFL player and current director of transition and clinical services Dwight Hollier. I explained the impact working at Hetrick-Martin had in transforming the ways I understood LGBTQ young people. And how these young sheroes and heroes sit at the margins of our society and face homelessness, abject poverty, lack of quality education, and massive amounts of discrimination, and yet they exhibit the same type of fierce courage and passion to succeed as we did as NFL players. Troy and Dwight's commitment was only amplified.

Whether the players were talking to the executive director, walking on the youth-led tour, or learning the importance of using the correct pronouns, Troy, Dwight, and the young people opened their hearts to each other. One female who identified herself as a trans woman told a story about how even though she didn't play sports she idolized a basketball player for his passion and drive for excellence and how observing him inspired her to find something that she could be just as passionate about. The players and the youth shared stories of struggle and triumphs throughout their lives, which created an immediate connection. These weren't NFL players who sat idly listening to sad stories from LGBT kids. These were two men looking at these young people and seeing themselves. Seeing their humanity. And nothing else mattered. Because we were all family.

Beyond the NFL's outreach on community engagement projects like the High Five Initiative, the NFL has always been intentional about making football accessible to all youth interested in learning how to play the game the right way. So it was no surprise when the NFL agreed to collaborate with the YOU Belong Initiative for its second annual LGBT and Straight Allied Youth Sports and Leadership camp, March 7-9. The camp offers youth ages 14-21 the chance to learn from professional athletes about academic, athletic, and leadership excellence in various sports and this year's camp held in the New Jersey area is all about football. The NFL will ensure the youth learn the fundamentals of the game and will also facilitate a player led workshops on leadership. In addition to the football instruction, there are workshops on social justice, health and wellness, and combating bullying.

The controversy around why Brendon Ayanbadejo and Chris Kluwe are no longer playing in the NFL can understandably cloud one's perceptions about the relationship between the NFL and gay athletes, but work is being done. Training is happening. Conversations are happening. And new familial bonds between the LGBT and the NFL communities are being created as new levels of understanding continue to be fostered.

WADE DAVIS is a former professional football player and the executive director of the You Can Play Project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Op-ed: How the NFL Is Tackling LGBT Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Op-ed: How the NFL Is Tackling LGBT Issues As a former NFL player, openly gay male and executive director of the You Can Play Project, I'm asked one question continually: "When is the first active NFL player going to come out?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: For women, equal pay is a civil rights issue - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maya Harris says on MLK day remember that the inequality in income and jobs between women and men is a civil rights issue

# data[].attributes.body
According to the economist.com, the European recovery "still looks intact". Gross domestic product across the nearly thirty nation european union is up 1.5%, and 1.2% across the eurozone. The only nations that are in decline are Cyprus and Slovenia, with GDP falling by 4.8% and .1% respectively. Germany, as always, is a powerful force in keep the european economy strong. France, Italy, and Spain are all increasing their GDP's, however it will come in too late to make a "real dent" in the unemployment. Overall, this source seems to portray a good view of the future for the nations of Europe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THE recovery in the 19-strong euro area is continuing but it is nothing to write home about. Growth had picked up to 0.5% in the first quarter of 2015 (compared with the final quarter of 2014), the strongest performance since the upswing started in the spring of 2013. Since then, however, the pace of expansion has slackened, to 0.4% last spring and an average quarterly rate of 0.3% in the second half of last year. Indeed, euro-zone GDP in the final quarter of 2015 was still below its pre-crisis peak of early 2008 whereas America's was almost 10% above its peak of late 2007.

The sluggish pace of the recovery has been especially disappointing given the fact that the euro area has benefited from a double fillip. First, the fall in energy prices caused by the collapse in the oil price acted in much the same way as a tax cut, boosting consumer spending-the main engine of the recovery. Second, the European Central Bank has carried out quantitative easing-creating money to buy financial assets-since March 2015. Together with the introduction of negative interest rates in June 2014, this has brought the euro down and kept it weak, helping exporters and contributing to a big current-account surplus of 3.7% of GDP in 2015.

The outlook for growth in 2016 now looks feebler and more uncertain following the sharp falls in European equity markets, particularly of banking shares, since the start of the year. To the extent that this setback to stockmarkets undermines consumer and business confidence, it is likely to drag down growth. The slowdown in China and emerging economies, which account for a quarter of euro-zone exports, will also harm the recovery by hurting exporting companies. Germany will be particularly affected since the Chinese market has been a lucrative one for its exports of investment goods and luxury cars. Despite these brakes a recovery of sorts should remain intact, for three reasons. Renewed declines in oil prices will further boost household budgets. The European Central Bank is poised to loosen monetary policy still further when its governing council meets in March. And spending on refugees, especially in Germany, will provide a modest fiscal stimulus.
Our interactive graphic (updated February 18th 2016) enables readers to inspect the health of European economies (including the nine member states of the European Union that do not belong to the euro) in a variety of ways, including data on jobs and the public finances as well as GDP.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our interactive overview of European GDP, debt and jobs THE recovery in the 19-strong euro area is continuing but it is nothing to write home about. Growth had picked up to 0.5% in the first quarter of 2015 (compared with the final quarter of 2014), the strongest performance since the upswing started in the spring of 2013.

# data[].attributes.body
Gun Control In the US OpEd #2: Eylam, Marco

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Navy Yard rampage demonstrates the gun control debate's sterility, the author says.

The Navy Yard massacre won't revive the gun debate in Congress for a simple reason. There is no gun control agenda this side of a total ban and confiscation that would have stopped Aaron Alexis.

The Toomey-Manchin bill could have passed Congress unanimously. The assault weapons ban could still be in place. Gun-controllers could have achieved their long-ago goal of barring the private purchase of handguns. And every step of his mayhem at the Washington Navy Yard would have been unimpeded.

Story Continued Below

The media rushed, based on erroneous reports from law enforcement, to place in his hands an AR-15, the popular rifle that has been used in mass shootings before and that an assault weapons ban would prohibit.

( PHOTOS: Senate guns hearing)

The front page of the Daily News blared, "Same gun, different slay." The newspaper's columnist Mike Lupica worked himself into lathers of dudgeon over the offending gun. "They call semiautomatics like this sports rifles," he fumed. "You bet. Mostly for the sport of killing innocent people, and killing them fast."

Lupica's screed would have been absurd if an AR-15 had been the murder weapon - hundreds of thousands of them are bought annually, by people with no interest in killing innocent people - but it turns out that the best sentence he wrote about the gun was the disclaimer: "We still don't know how much Alexis used it Monday."

He used it, we now know, not at all. When the Newseum has a special exhibit and panel discussion on the journalistic history of going off half-cocked, Mike Lupica should be an honored guest. If the Pulitzer committee ever establishes a special category of opinion-writing, "Powerful, If True," Lupica's column should win going away.

( WATCH: Breaking News: Shooting at Navy Yard)

According to law enforcement, Alexis used a shotgun in his rampage. This didn't compute in some newsrooms. CNN referred to the weapon as an "AR-15 shotgun." Maybe the new protocol should be that any gun used in commission of a crime automatically gets an "AR-15" prefix.

Alexis chose a weapon, as it happens, that has been endorsed and promoted by the vice president of the United States, who makes it his business to tell us which guns should be banned and which are all-American tools of self-defense. The shotgun is firmly in the latter category. Joe Biden sounded like a pitchman for Remington at a Facebook town hall earlier in the year when he urged a mother concerned about safety: "Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun."

This may be fine advice, but there should be no mistake: Shotguns are dangerous. When it comes to "the sport of killing innocent people," almost any gun will do, especially if it is in a permissive environment where no one else is likely to be armed. This makes a hash of the conceit that the government can ban a few guns - based largely on cosmetic features - and make shooting rampages less likely.

( PHOTOS: D.C. gun-control march)

Other common panaceas would have had no effect, either. Alexis bought his shotgun from a duly licensed dealer, not at a gun show. He passed a federal background check with no problem. He didn't have a high-capacity magazine. He reportedly got the handgun or handguns he may also have used in the attack after shooting a security officer.

So the Navy Yard rampage demonstrates the essential sterility of the gun control debate, and all the ill-informed nattering that the likes of Piers Morgan can muster won't change that fact. It is true that James Holmes and Adam Lanza used AR-15s. But Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner used 9-mm semi-automatic pistols. And Aaron Alexis used a shotgun.

The common theme is that they were all deeply disturbed young men whose acts of murder had a sickening aspect of utter senselessness. The Daily News got it backwards. Its headline about the Navy Yard should have read, "Different gun, same slay."

( PHOTOS: Politicians with guns)

Maybe, just maybe, this time we can have a real debate about mental illness. To this point, we've had a simplistically instrumental focus. It's like seeing a mad man wearing a tinfoil hat to protect himself from radio waves and thinking, "That's a shame, if only we could ban tinfoil."

When Aaron Alexis called the Rhode Island police a month ago to tell them that enemies were harassing him with a microwave machine, it was clear that he was suffering paranoid delusions and needed help. But the authorities let him go his merry way, evidently to sink deeper into the madness he mistook for reality.

If we had the same callous disregard masquerading as compassionate nonjudgmentalism for people suffering from Alzheimer's, they would be sleeping in our streets, eating from our trash cans and rotting in our jails. It needs to be easier to compel treatment for the mentally ill. That may or may not reduce random shootings, but it would reduce the total amount of suffering from an illness that wellness-obsessed America is happy to ignore.

There will be another Aaron Alexis. If we can't predict what gun he'll use, we already know his mental state.

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.

This article tagged under:

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning - in your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Navy Yard massacre won't revive the gun debate in Congress for a simple reason. There is no gun control agenda this side of a total ban and confiscation that would have stopped Aaron Alexis. The Toomey-Manchin bill could have passed Congress unanimously. The assault weapons ban could still be in place.

# data[].attributes.body
Gun Control In the United States: Eylam F. Marco M.

Both these opinion based editorials discuss the topic of gun control and they discuss where they stand on the topic of gun control. The first editorial from CNN the author, LZ Granderson explains how gun control is not preventing anything from happening. "The city has bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And yet each week people continue to die in the streets from gunshot wounds." Even with gun control laws in effect people are still purchasing and killing others with illegal guns. The authors from both editorials disagree on when gun control should come into effect and how much good will actually come from it. Granderson argues that gun control is not the answer and that if we try to look at this issue from just one perspective than gun control in that sense will be futile. Rich Lowry from Politico argues that gun control is necessary however it is impossible to enforce as we should not focus on gun control but rather on the mental state of those purchasing the weapons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
opinion: gun control is not the answer - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Gun control is not the answer - CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LZ Granderson says calls for gun control in the wake of the Navy Yard shootings are beside the point; they're unrealistic and wouldn't solve the problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
US Economic Recovery: Gender Roles - Phi P, Jasmine P

# data[].attributes.subject
US Economic Recovery: Gender Roles - Phi P, Jasmine P

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "How Can We Help Men? By Helping Women", Stephanie Coontz begins to talk about how ever since the 1980, there has been a defeminization of poverty and men are expirencing significant lost in income and job security. Coontz describes that women will likely still be more poorer than men, but their income and labor force participation has been rising ever since the 1970s. By 1970 to 2010, the median earning for men has dropped by a steady 19 percent. She also state that although women have regained all the jobs they lost during the recession, men have regained just 75 percent. The second article, "For women, economic justice a civil rights issue", talks about how today, one in three Americans lives at or below the poverty line, and almost 70% are women and children. The article also states that women across the US are earning less than men no matter the education level, profession or position. The main difference the two articles is that the first one talks about more on how women are being to more successful than they were in the 1970, whereas the second one talks about how economic oppurtunity for women is far from reach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
THIS week Maria Shriver brings together a star-studded cast of celebrities, from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Beyoncé, to call attention to the economic plight of American women and demand that women's needs be put "at the center of policy making."

But is this really the time to focus on women? For nearly four decades, feminists have decried "the feminization of poverty." However, since the 1980s there has been a defeminization of poverty, as a growing proportion of men have fallen on hard times. In recent years men have experienced especially significant losses in income and job security.

Although women are still more likely to be poor than men, on average women's income and labor-force participation have been rising since the 1970s. By contrast, between 1970 and 2010 the median earnings of men fell by 19 percent, and those of men with just a high school diploma by a stunning 41 percent. And while women have regained all the jobs they lost during the recession, men have regained just 75 percent.

Since about 1980 the percentage of men and women in middle-skill jobs has declined. But for women, nearly all of that decline was because of increased representation in higher-skill jobs. Women's employment in low-skill jobs increased by just 1 percent. By contrast, for men, half the decline in middle-skill jobs was a result of increases in low-skill jobs.

The most urgent issue facing working Americans today is not the glass ceiling. It is the sinking floor. So wouldn't it make more sense to focus on gender-neutral economic policies?

Actually, it wouldn't, because "gender-neutral" work practices and social policies were traditionally based on a masculine model. Employers assumed that there was no need to accommodate caregiving obligations because the "normal" worker had a wife to do that. Policy makers assumed there was no need for universal programs such as family allowances and public child care because the "normal" woman had a husband to support her and her children. Accordingly, most social benefits, such as Social Security and unemployment insurance, were tied to prior participation in the labor market. Welfare was a stigmatized and stingy backup for misfits who were not in a male-breadwinner family.

Social and economic policies constructed around the male breadwinner model have always disadvantaged women. But today they are dragging down millions of men as well. Paradoxically, putting gender equity issues at the center of social planning would now be in the interests of most men.

This was not so evident 40 or 50 years ago, when the struggle for gender equity threatened many male entitlements. In those days, men of every skill and income level had preferential access to jobs that provided security, benefits and rising wages. As the sociologist Erin Hatton shows, when employers needed cheap temporary workers, they turned to companies like Kelly Girl, whose ads bragged that unlike the gimme-gimme male worker, the Kelly Girl was a "Never-Never" employee: "Never costs you a dime for slack time. (When the workload drops, you drop her.) Never has a cold, slipped disk or loose tooth. (Not on your time anyway!)"

Today, however, becoming a "never-never" employee is increasingly a gender-neutral fate. Millions of men face working conditions that traditionally characterized women's lives: low wages, minimal benefits, part-time or temporary jobs, and periods of joblessness. Poverty is becoming defeminized because the working conditions of many men are becoming more feminized.

Whether they realize it or not, men now have a direct stake in policies that advance gender equity. Most of the wage gap between women and men is no longer a result of blatant male favoritism in pay and promotion. Much of it stems from general wage inequality in society at large.

IN most countries, women tend to be concentrated in lower-wage jobs. The United States actually has a higher proportion of skilled and highly paid female workers than countries like Sweden and Norway. Yet as a whole, Swedish and Norwegian women earn a higher proportion of the average male wage than American women because the gap between high and low wages is much smaller in those countries.

Establishing a "livable wage" floor would immediately reduce the gap in average pay between American women and men. But it would also boost the wages of millions of low-income male workers, who earn a much lower percentage of the average male wage than their counterparts in other wealthy countries. In 2009, one in every four American workers earned less than two-thirds of the national median hourly wage, the highest proportion of low-wage work in 19 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, according to the economist John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Another source of the gender pay gap is the lack of reliable, affordable child care, which forces many mothers to stay home or work part time even when they need and want full-time work.

Prioritizing child care would not just be a boon for mothers but for millions of fathers as well. The highest proportion of stay-at-home moms is found among women married to men in the bottom 25 percent of the country's income distribution. Most of these women cannot afford to work because of the high cost of child care, even though their partners and children would benefit from the increased income.

Putting women first would mean strengthening America's social safety net, because a higher proportion of single-mother families live in poverty here than in any other wealthy country. But a stronger safety net would help single-father families and two-parent families, too, because these families also have higher poverty rates than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

Putting women first would also mean changing unemployment insurance rules that leave many part-time workers ineligible for benefits and disqualify people who leave a job due to a family member's medical emergency. Women are especially affected by such rules, but the expansion of part-time and temporary jobs since the 1970s has left a growing number of male workers vulnerable as well. And a recent Pew poll found that almost 30 percent of fathers had reduced their work hours and 10 percent quit a job to care for a family member.

Putting women's traditional needs at the center of social planning is not reverse sexism. It's the best way to reverse the increasing economic vulnerability of men and women alike.

Given the increasing insecurity of many American men, they have good reason to back feminist policies. And if those policies alienate some women in the upper echelons, then maybe feminism isn't for every woman, and doesn't need to be.

A faculty member at The Evergreen State College and co-chairwoman of the Council on Contemporary Families.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page SR6 of the New York edition with the headline: How Can We Help Men? By Helping Women. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | How Can We Help Men? By Helping Women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
THIS week Maria Shriver brings together a star-studded cast of celebrities, from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Beyoncé, to call attention to the economic plight of American women and demand that women's needs be put "at the center of policy making." But is this really the time to focus on women?

# data[].attributes.headline
The NSA Watchfullness Protects America- Ofisa Pati

# data[].attributes.subject
The NSA Watchfullness Protects America- Ofisa Pati

# data[].attributes.body
In this article by Dianne Fieinstein talks about how the NSA may be going against the amendments of America but it's okay because the NSA is breaking laws to protect to us. If it's protecting us then it shouldnt be a major problem unless you're hiding something. Dianne says "is necessary and must be preserved if we are to prevent terrorist attacks" and this is true. If I can save a life by letting the government invade my privacy then I will proudly let them. The main problem people have with the NSA is that after they found out the information that Edward Snowden released people started to go crazy about the governemt invading our privacy because it's ours and they have no right to but what these people don't understand is that by releasing our privacy we can help save lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education - Jenna, Emily, Elaine - Article 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Education - Jenna, Emily, Elaine - Article 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education reform has been one of Massachusetts' greatest success stories of recent decades. It has put the state's students at the very top in the nation by virtually all measures of achievement. It's played a major role in attracting high-paying jobs, because employers recognize that Massachusetts' commitment to educating students continues. There's no resting on laurels here. Much work remains to be done, especially in closing the achievement gap, and Massachusetts can't shrink from it. Too much depends on the state's maintaining its reputation for excellence by developing new mechanisms for improving its public schools.

That's why it's disturbing - but not entirely surprising - that the latest education-reform bill is languishing in the Legislature. Critics, led by some very well-funded teachers' unions, are trying to portray education reform as "teacher bashing," and to redefine what has been an unprecedented, straight-from-the-heart commitment to public education as an attempt to defund public schools. It's a deeply unfair charge, but sobering enough that some legislators are taking it seriously.

If so, they should look closely at what's happening in Lawrence. In 2011, concerned about the terminally poor performance of students in the very low-income district, state officials implemented "turnaround" provisions that had been authorized in the previous education-reform bill, in 2010. The results, in just two years, have been astounding: Sudden jumps of between 10 and 17 points in all grades in the percentage of students proficient in math; an 8-point jump in the four-year graduation rate; and a single-year plunge in the dropout rate from 8.6 percent in 2011 to 5.9 percent in 2012.

This was achieved with the same students, sitting in the same classrooms, in the same public schools. The only difference was that a new superintendent, Jeffrey Riley, hired many new principals and gave them the power to choose their teams of teachers and extend the school day.

The impressive success of the Lawrence schools gives the lie to the frequently heard complaint that education professionals are being scapegoated for intractable problems that low-income students carry to school from their troubled homes. Education reform has shown that better principals and better-supervised teachers working longer hours can make a difference for even the most disadvantaged students. Lawrence's experience also proves that teachers aren't being singled out unfairly; changes started with principals and administrators.

There would have been no mechanism for diagnosing the failures of Lawrence schools if not for the statewide testing regimen inaugurated in the first round of education reform almost two decades ago. And there would have been no adequate mechanisms for improvement if the 2010 law hadn't passed. Failing to approve the next round of education reform will consign thousands of students to unsuccessful schools without empowering either individual districts or the state to enact proven turnaround methods. Those children would see their opportunities in life foreshortened, simply because of legislative inaction.

Details of the current bill are still being hashed out, but it would give state officials the option of extending the turnaround tactics that proved successful in Lawrence to a larger number of troubled schools - those just above the current "level 4" designation of chronically underperforming schools, in districts that have shown little ability to improve schools on their own. It would also allow the state to approve more charter schools, which are the testing grounds for innovation.

Alas, charter schools are the biggest stumbling block in the legislation, the point around which opponents are rallying. By almost every measure, they have been a success. Taking children by lottery, charter schools have produced markedly better test scores than traditional public schools. This is usually ascribed to the highly motivated principals and teachers, longer school days, and intensive tutoring at the most successful charters. Parents clearly believe that charters can be a ticket to success: The waiting list numbers in the thousands.

Just as architects of charter schools intended, their innovations are now being applied to public schools, either through the turnaround process or collective bargaining. But as districts start to pressure unions to accept reforms pioneered at charters, some unions are fighting back by insisting that the schools' success is illusory , and that the good test scores are more the product of skimming the best students from traditional public schools.

In Boston, critics of charter schools like to point out that if students drop out or flunk out of charters, they return to traditional public schools - making it unfair to compare the test scores of students at charters with those in the regular system. Traditional public schools, the argument goes, take all comers; charters can quietly dump the unsuccessful kids. But this charge isn't borne out to any significant degree in Boston's own statistics. During the 2011-12 school year, a grand total of 73 students left charters and returned to Boston Public Schools. Not all had flunked out. But even if they had, they still represent only 73 kids in a system of 57,000 students - way too few to skew any test scores.

Moreover, between school years, there is only a slightly higher attrition rate at charters than at Boston Public Schools, 9.7 percent to 8.7 percent. So if unsuccessful students are returning to traditional schools with their tails between their legs, they aren't showing up in the statistics.

But what about special-ed students and children who don't speak English well? They may not show up in the test-score comparisons, but charter schools' failure to admit a proportionate number of kids with these needs points to their limitations.

Still, according to the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, charters have been quickly closing the gap in special education. In Boston, they've almost caught up in percentage of special-ed students, 16 percent versus 19 percent. The gap for English-language learners is larger, but charter schools are working to close it; 18 percent of students entering charter schools for the 2013-14 school year were classified as having inadequate English.

Boston Public Schools insist that their English-language learners and students with disabilities are more seriously impaired - which may be true. But it's also true that the highest-performing charter schools have higher percentages of low-income and minority students than their high-performing counterparts at the Boston Public Schools.

Advocates on both sides can argue these points all night. But the goal isn't to fuel a war between traditional public schools and charters; it's to develop the most effective education policies and then apply them broadly. The fact that charter schools are making a significant effort to enroll students with special needs, and to test-market innovative techniques to get them up to the level of other kids, is of enormous benefit to Massachusetts as a whole - not just the students who happen to win the charter-school lottery.

Charter schools aren't a replacement for traditional public schools. Currently, only 1 in 8 Boston public-school students is in a charter. Raising the cap would only change that ratio slightly. And school districts are given sufficient time to adjust to any loss of students. When kids leave for charters, the system gets a full reimbursement for one year, and a 25 percent reimbursement for five more years. When the Legislature funds the reimbursement formula at or near the target, as it generally has, there's more than enough money to cushion any blow.

Charter schools bring thousands of new, energetic, caring people into the education sphere and show the regular system how to turn around troubled schools. Some day, all public schools will have the flexibility of the best charters, under a fairly negotiated agreement with teachers' unions. Until then, though, the state is entirely right to encourage the very successful process of reform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education reform has worked for Mass. - time for next round - The Boston Globe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education reform has been Massachusetts' greatest success story of recent decades - greater than universal health care. Education reform has put the state's students at the very top in the nation by virtually all measures of achievement. It's played a major role in attracting high-paying jobs, because employers recognize that Massachusetts' commitment to educating students continues.

# data[].attributes.body
The first article discusses the benefits charter schools give. By offering longer days and higher salaries to teachers, charter schools have produced relatively higher test scores and more prepared students. While charter schools have become popular, the second article argues that there is no reason for the funding to go solely to state run charter schools, when failing public schools with low-income children need more help. Another concern is that charter schools simply get to choose which students they want to teach; opting for the wealthier students. This leaves the public schools to educate whatever students did not make the charter school cut. The author of article two argues that if the charter schools are doing something worth replicating, then why not fund that type of teaching towards public schools that are in need.  While one author views charter schools as the solution to solving the nation’s education reform, the other author believes that charter schools are helpful yet so selective in their processes that there is no way to tell what the outcome would actually be. The central disagreement between these two authors is whether charter schools are worth the billions that the government would pay to run them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gloria Urbina's daughter, Anya Torres, is in seventh grade at Holyoke Community Charter School, and Urbina wants her to stay through high school. Urbina likes the school's uniforms, the feeling of community, the leadership training, and the attitude of teachers.

"They tell kids every day you're expected to do your best, to dream big," Urbina said. "It's a positive environment. They work hard."

Today, the school only goes until eighth grade. School Director Sonia Correa-Pope said the school wants to expand, but is stymied by the state charter school cap, which limits the school to 702 students. It would need to add another 200 to 250 students to open a high school, Correa-Pope said.

Correa-Pope is part of a coalition of charter school advocates who are asking the legislature to lift the cap for underperforming school districts, like Holyoke. She points out that students at Holyoke Community Charter School, including subgroups of Latino students, low-income students, and English language learners, outperformed Holyoke public school students on statewide standardized tests in 2013.

"We want children to graduate from our school, and from there we want to track students at a college level and make sure they're graduating college," Correa-Pope said.

Charter schools are allowed to have more flexibility with curriculum, length of the school day, teacher pay and hiring than typical public schools. They are tuition-free and draw from the general population of a school district, with admission generally by a lottery system. The money the state would pay to the public school to educate that student is paid to the charter school, although the school district is still reimbursed for part of the cost of that student.

The charter school movement got a boost in 2010 when the legislature increased the number of charter schools in lower-performing districts. Overall, for the 2013-2014 school year, there were 35,300 students enrolled in 81 charter schools, with 53,500 on the waiting list, according to the state Department of Education.

Currently, a low-performing district cannot spend more than 18 percent of its school budget on charter schools. (Other districts cannot spend more than 10 percent.) The proposed bills, H. 425, sponsored by Rep. Russell Holmes, a Boston Democrat, and S. 235, sponsored by Sen. Barry Finegold, an Andover Democrat, would remove the existing cap on charter schools in school districts performing in the lowest 10 percent. The bill would also make it easier for charter schools to get approval in low-performing districts and would remove schools in those districts from counting toward a statewide cap, which limits the state to 72 charter schools.

In Western Massachusetts, Holyoke and Greenfield are classified as low-performing districts that cannot have any more charters under the cap, according to the Massachusetts Charter Public Schools Association. Holyoke currently has two charter schools - Holyoke Community Charter and Paulo Freire Social Justice Charter School. Greenfield has Four Rivers Charter Public.

Springfield and Chicopee are also in the lowest performing 10 percent of districts, and each has two charters still available under the cap, according to the Association. Springfield currently has four charter schools - Baystate Academy Charter Public School, Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School of Excellence, Sabis International Charter and Veritas Preparatory Charter School. Another one, Springfield Preparatory Charter School, plans to open in 2015. Chicopee has the Hampden Charter School of Science.

The bill would also affect regular district schools. Massachusetts schools are ranked from level one, the highest-performing, to level five, the lowest-performing. The bill would give additional flexibility to some level three schools to take actions such as lengthening the school day, dismissing poorly performing teachers or administrators and hiring without regard to seniority.

Proponents of the bill argue that if there is a desire for more charter schools, and the schools have good results, there is no reason not to expand them. "We shouldn't be putting a cap on success," said Paul Grogan, president of the Boston Foundation and a leader in the pro-charter school coalition. "How can we possibly justify putting arbitrary limits on educational strategies that are working well?"

The cap has a particularly big impact in Boston, where student demand far exceeds space in charter schools. Holmes, the bill's sponsor, said charter schools can help improve existing racial inequities by providing students with more choices. Holmes said in the area where he lives, in Mattapan, the neighborhood is 92 percent black or Latino, and there is a single level two school and no level one schools. "That begins to tell you why this legislation is so important," he said.

Critics of the bill, including teachers' unions, argue that charter schools take money from the state's public schools.

Paul Toner, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, said lifting the cap "would drain more resources away from regular public schools." Toner said many of the most motivated teachers and parents leave regular schools for charter schools. In addition, district money is taken from the public schools, but those schools still have to operate the same number of classrooms.

"If the charter schools are doing something that's a help for students, that's working and replicable, we should be doing it in our regular district schools rather than exporting education to charter schools," Toner said.

Superintendent of Springfield Schools Daniel Warwick said while charter schools offer parents greater educational choices, the cost is high for public schools.

"Lifting the cap would create a huge problem and exacerbate the difficult budget issues we already face," Warwick said. He said Springfield spends nearly $40 million annually to fund charter and school choice programs.

"Those are resources that we'd rather spend within our schools on the children whose parents have entrusted us with their education and care," Warwick said. "Unfortunately, the reverse is true and we're forced to make cuts in our schools to account for the millions of dollars we have to pay out for charter schools and School Choice."

Not all charter schools have had exemplary results. Since 1994, according to the Department of Education, four charter schools had their charters revoked; eight voluntarily surrendered their charters after opening; and two have not renewed their charters, which last for five years. In 2010, the state revoked the charter of the Robert M. Hughes Academy in Springfield after a cheating scandal on Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System tests. Springfield's New Leadership Charter School closed in 2013 after failing to improve its academic, financial and management performance and being told that a charter renewal was unlikely.

The legislation is currently pending in the Joint Committee on Education. The committee has until March 19 to refer the legislation to the full House and Senate. If the committee does not act by then, the bill is unlikely to pass this session.

Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat and committee co-chair, could not say Wednesday whether the bill would be released from the committee. "We are working hard to get to yes on giving more room for charter operators that are doing really well to expand," Chang-Diaz said. "We want to do so without taking tools out of the toolbox of district schools that are showing great promise."

Committee co-chair Rep. Alice Peisch, a Wellesley Democrat, said she is hopeful the bill will be reported out. "We just have a few relatively small details to work out," she said Wednesday.

Peisch said she is generally supportive of the bill. "I think the bill strikes a good balance," she said. "It provides some more flexibility for district schools while at the same time hopefully allowing some of the charter schools that have had some real success to be able to serve more students."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Holyoke, Springfield schools eyeing bill that would lift charter school cap in underperforming districts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gloria Urbina's daughter, Anya Torres, is in seventh grade at Holyoke Community Charter School, and Urbina wants her to stay through high school. Urbina likes the school's uniforms, the feeling of community, the leadership training, and the attitude of teachers. "They tell kids every day you're expected to do your best, to dream big," Urbina said.

# data[].attributes.body
The central disagreement is about the purpose of the Yasukuni war shrine. The first article is by Chinese ambassador Cui Tiankai, who talks about the shrine as Japan’s tribute to Japanese war criminals and a risk to ties with China. The other article however, which was written by Japanese ambassador Kenichiro Sasae, says that Tiankai’s op-ed is wrong, and that the shrine is meant for praying for those who sacrificed themselves for their country, not to honor the small number of war criminals.

Since these articles are written by ambassadors of China and Japan, they obviously go against each other as to what the issue is. The Chinese ambassador’s op-ed says that the issue is Japan’s increasing militarism as a threat and that they aren’t going to make peace with China. The Japanese ambassador’s op-ed says that the Japanese have increased their militarism but not as much as China has, and that the issue is actually that China “does not allow open debate and flow of information”. In other words, China always goes with what their own government says and does not consider other opinions.

Second article (written by Japanese ambassador): http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinas-propaganda-campaign-against-japan/2014/01/16/925ed924-7caa-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cui Tiankai is China's ambassador to the United States. He was China's ambassador to Japan from 2007 to 2009.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's recent homage at the Yasukuni war shrine deeply disturbed people in China and much of Asia. The dispute surrounding his actions is about more than symbolism; it goes to the heart of his intentions for Japan's future and his willingness to build an atmosphere of trust, respect and equality in East Asia.

Fourteen Class A war criminals who were tried by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East after World War II are honored at Yasukuni. These include former prime minister Hideki Tojo, who launched the attack on Pearl Harbor and started the war in the Pacific that cost millions of lives, and commanders of the Nanking massacre in China in which some 300,000 people were killed. But this is just part of the story.

The recent homage cannot be separated from the prime minister's denial of Japan's wartime atrocities, and it colors his initiative to revise Japan's constitution to transform its Self-Defense Forces into a military force capable of projecting power outside Japan. This aggressive posture imperils regional security and economic prosperity. By contrast, Japan's acceptance of and repentance for its war crimes would build a foundation for peace and security in the world's most economically dynamic region.

The Yasukuni war shrine is ground zero for the unrepentant view of Japan's wartime aggression. Established in the 19th century to honor Japan's war dead, the shrine imparted a spiritual dimension to Japanese militarism and colonial rule during World War II and became a revered living symbol of that militarism. The shrine includes a war museum, Yushukan, whose deliberately revisionist narrative of World War II lauds "Japan's salvage of Asian countries from the colonial rule of Western countries" and details "crimes committed by the United States."

The Japanese government's attitude toward this shrine is a test of its ability to understand and confront its legacy of militarism and war crimes. Because Abe is prime minister, his homage has implications inside and outside Japan. It is by no means the act of a private individual.

As China's ambassador to Japan from 2007 to 2009, I witnessed many of the ups and downs of Japan's relations with its neighbors. I also saw how the homage at Yasukuni by then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi created tensions with China. Abe was the chief cabinet secretary in the Koizumi administration, and at one time he appeared to understand the consequences of such visits. He refrained from visiting the shrine during his first term as prime minister, which opened the door to improving Japan's historically strained relations with its neighbors. Unfortunately, he now says he extremely regrets that decision, and his recent actions have closed the door to dialogue.

My country's government believes that Abe's actions since returning to power undermine his stated aim to increase Japan's engagement in safeguarding world peace. His government's efforts to accelerate Japan's military buildup and his initiative to rewrite Japan's largely U.S.-drafted pacifist constitution are disconcerting, particularly in the context of his assertions, when talking about World War II, that the term "aggression" has yet to be defined and that no evidence exists proving that "comfort women" were forced into sexual servitude during the war.

The prime minister has said that his changes to Japan's constitutional military posture would only make Japan a "normal country." Is he suggesting that the peaceful path Japan has followed is not normal? We see the homage at Yasukuni as nothing less than a challenge - not only to us but to the world. Japanese militarism brought great suffering to the Chinese people as well as the people of many other countries, including the United States, which was forced to fight a grueling island-by-island campaign against an intractable and fanatical enemy.

Of course, the Japanese people were also victims of Japanese militarism, and today's generation is not responsible for the crimes of the war criminals memorialized in Yasukuni. But the prime minister and his supporters implicitly embrace that responsibility for themselves and their fellow countrymen by paying homage at the shrine.

Japan can embrace a constructive and cooperative future for East Asia by discarding militarism. Ensuring the continued peace and prosperity of our part of the world is in the best interest of all people and countries in this region. Abe is threatening the hard work we have all done to make East Asia the growth engine of the global economy. By listening to their neighbors and abandoning confrontational rhetoric, Japanese leaders can join with China, the United States, the Republic of Korea and other countries to continue to build prosperity and stability for all of Asia. The alternative is simply untenable.

Read more on this topic:

The Post's View: Shinzo Abe's inability to face history

The Post's View: Political climates in Japan and China ratchet up island dispute

The Post's View: Japanese prime minister's visit to war memorial was provocative act

The Post's View: China must rescind its air zone over disputed islands

Anne Applebaum: China and Russia bring back Cold War tactics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
international military tribunal for the far east

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shinzo Abe risks ties with China in tribute to war criminals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cui Tiankai is China's ambassador to the United States. He was China's ambassador to Japan from 2007 to 2009. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's recent homage at the Yasukuni war shrine deeply disturbed people in China and much of Asia.

# data[].attributes.headline
International Intervention in Syria (Aya, Jenna, Salim)

# data[].attributes.subject
International Intervention in Syria (Aya, Jenna, Salim)

# data[].attributes.body
The first article, “Use Force to Save Starving Syrians,” believes that it is best to threaten the Syrian government to lift the siege with international intervention. While food is abundant just a few miles away from these besieged areas, hundreds and thousands of Syrians are starving. By threatening the government, this article says that the international community can provide humanitarian aid for the civilians.

On the other hand, the second article, “A Syrian’s Cry for Help,” believes that “what Syria needs is a legitimate government that is strong enough to delegitimize militias,” not a “half-hearted intervention” by the international community. While both articles see that the Syrian conflict is not a civil war but a barbaric campaign, they disagree over the degree to which the international intervention will be effective.

Second Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/opinion/a-syrians-cry-for-help.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
DENVER - THE Syrian people are starving. According to the United Nations, about 800,000 civilians are currently under siege. In areas around the cities of Homs, Aleppo and Deir Ezzor and in parts of the capital, Damascus, no food, medical supplies or humanitarian aid can get in, and people can't get out. Many have already died under these "starvation sieges" and hundreds of thousands teeter on the brink, subsisting on grass and weeds. In Damascus, a cleric has ruled that under these conditions, Muslims are permitted to eat normally forbidden animals like cats, dogs and donkeys.

This is not a famine. Food is abundant just a few miles away from these besieged areas. Military forces - mainly the army of President Bashar al-Assad, but in some cases extremist anti-Assad militias - are preventing food and medicine from reaching trapped civilians. In addition to starving, many people in besieged areas have been stricken by diseases, including polio, but can't get medical treatment because doctors can't get through.

This moral obscenity demands action by the international community. Any armed group that prevents humanitarian access - whether the Syrian regime's forces or rebel militias - should be subject to coercive measures.

France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, has denounced the international community's failure to prevent starvation as "absolutely scandalous" and is now calling for "much stronger action."

The news that France may propose a strong Security Council resolution is welcome, but Mr. Fabius hasn't made clear whether such a measure would invoke Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which allows the Security Council to enforce its directives through military action. If it doesn't, the resolution will be inadequate.

The recent attacks on the convoys attempting to deliver humanitarian aid into the besieged city of Homs are a case in point: The lifting of the sieges can't be left to the warring factions on the ground. An external, international force must be introduced to guarantee the safe passage of food and medicine to starving Syrian civilians.

The Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, remains a major obstacle. His government has vetoed three Security Council resolutions on Syria since October 2011 and Russia has said it would support measures on humanitarian issues only if Syria agrees to them. But Mr. Putin's geostrategic calculations and Mr. Assad's coldblooded recalcitrance cannot be allowed to stand in the way of thousands of Syrian civilians eating.

If Russia blocks meaningful international action, and if the Assad regime or any rebel group refuses to allow humanitarian aid into the besieged areas, the sieges must be broken by any means necessary.

We should invoke the Responsibility to Protect, the principle that if a state fails to protect its populations from mass atrocities - or is in fact the perpetrator of such crimes - the international community must step in to protect the victims, with the collective use of force authorized by the Security Council. And if a multinational force cannot be assembled, then at least some countries should step up and organize Syria's democratically oriented rebel groups to provide the necessary force on the ground, with air cover from participating nations.

There are precedents to follow. The American-led and United Nations-approved multinational effort in Somalia between December 1992 and May 1993 was authorized to use "all necessary measures" to guarantee the delivery of humanitarian aid. In retrospect, this all-but-forgotten operation was largely successful in humanitarian terms. While public attention has focused on the "Black Hawk Down" battle of October 1993, a military failure, the strictly humanitarian goal of getting food to starving Somalis was in fact a success.

Before any such operation begins, however, Mr. Assad and the rebel groups should be put on notice that they have 48 hours to lift the sieges. There are reasons to believe that the mere threat of coercive action would produce results.

As we saw in September, the threat of force pushed the Assad regime to comply. Faced with President Obama's threat of an imminent military strike last August, Mr. Assad, under Russian pressure, agreed to hand over his stockpile of chemical weapons (the same weapons he claimed he didn't have). A similar threat of force could once again compel both Mr. Assad's government and extremist rebels to make a choice: Allow humanitarian aid to flow or be subject to attack.

Invoking the responsibility to protect would also confront Russia with a choice: Convince Mr. Assad to lift the sieges or be left behind by an international community that is prepared to act.

Humanitarian interventions typically occur when moral principles overlap with political interests. As we approach the third anniversary of the Syrian conflict, this alignment is taking shape. Growing global outrage over the humanitarian nightmare in Syria - replete with refugee flows, sarin gas, barrel bombs, and "industrial-scale" killings and torture, as revealed last month in a collection of 55,000 gut-wrenching photographs - has horrified the world.

Using force to prevent starvation will not immediately resolve the crisis in Syria. It will, however, make a qualitative difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians. It will also send a clear message to the Syrian regime and the extremist militias: The international community, after three years of watching this moral and humanitarian catastrophe unfold from the sidelines, is finally prepared to act.

Danny Postel and Nader Hashemi, the associate director and director, respectively, of the Center for Middle East Studies at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, are co-editors of "The Syria Dilemma."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Use Force to Save Starving Syrians. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Use Force to Save Starving Syrians

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DENVER - THE Syrian people are starving. According to the United Nations, about 800,000 civilians are currently under siege. In areas around the cities of Homs, Aleppo and Deir Ezzor and in parts of the capital, Damascus, no food, medical supplies or humanitarian aid can get in, and people can't get out.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Should We Do About North Korea? (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.subject
What Should We Do About North Korea? (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.body
These two articles recommend two courses of action that the United States should take to deal with North Korea. The first one, written by Joseph Farah from World News Daily, says that we should extend our friendship to North Korea and “carpet bomb them” with love and supplies. He says we should appeal to the oppressed civilians of North Korea and wants America to stop defending only itself, and extend its aid to others. He emphasizes “let’s try extending our hands in love to the people of North Korea.” However, the other article, written by Jeremi Suri from the New York Times, says we should just bomb North Korea because he believes that the crisis in North Korea has evolved into a “strategic threat to America’s core national interests.” He is more general when referring to the country and not mentioning the people, and believes that the North Korean crisis will destabilize surrounding country’s economies. Farah obviously has a more humanitarian view, and seeks to take action by aiding the North Korean people, while Suri is worried about the international consequences and wants to get the issue off the map. These are two sources from the extreme opinions on dealing with North Korea.

washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/7/bipartisan-unity-n-korea-republicans-praise-obamas/?page=all

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I don't expect anyone in Washington to heed this advice - certainly not Barack Obama, who hates his tepid critics at Fox News more than he detests foreign dictators who starve their own people and threaten neighbors and the U.S. with nuclear annihilation.
It's a simple story I've been telling since 2007.
Washington is filled with people who believe we can negotiate ourselves to freedom and security. They seem to accept that America should be limited to defending itself and following the rules of engagement lesser powers have established for us. Too many in the U.S. State Department - and even the Defense Department - place a priority on stability over actions that can free millions of our brothers and sisters living in bondage.

Let me give you an example of how we could overthrow one tin-pot dictator - one of who is aiding our Islamo-fascist enemies with nuclear weaponry and technology and making almost daily threats to go to war with the U.S.

I refer to Kim Jong-un, the third-generation tyrant in North Korea.

Conventional wisdom in Washington suggests we need China's help in declawing this little beast. We're told we need more six-party talks. It is suggested we need better diplomacy. Maybe we need to bribe the little bugger like we did his father before him.

What no one in Washington talks about is a simple formula for total victory in North Korea - the ouster of Kim, the freeing of millions, the saving of countless starving lives, the reunification of Korea and a big setback for all of America's enemies around the globe.

I believe it can be accomplished without the U.S. firing a shot.

Here's my idea, developed in conjunction with my buddy Franklin Raff, my former radio talk-show producer (the best in the business, by the way).

North Koreans cannot be happy under the Stalinist control of Kim. Millions have already died of starvation. But the people are disarmed and face the wrath of a 1 million-man army if rebellion should ever be considered.

I say forget about talking to Kim.

I say forget about considering plans for invading North Korea.

I say there's an alternative to bombing the country's nuclear installations to prevent a future holocaust.

Let's try bombing the people with support.

Let's try carpet-bombing North Korea with food, with small arms and munitions and the instructions they need to overthrow the little despot who keeps them in chains.

Let's try extending our hands in love to the people of North Korea

Let's let them know where these gifts come from and why.

We might even want to drop in a few brave advisers to give the people the guidance they need to strike out effectively in taking back their country.

Would it work?

I don't know.

But I do believe such daring campaigns are worth a try.

Could anyone argue that the cause is not just? If it worked, would it not be a humanitarian triumph?

Would anyone justify or rationalize the continued mass starvation that has taken place in North Korea for years as a means of maintaining control over the population - anyone besides Dennis Rodman?

A worst-case scenario is the effort fails. Would we be worse off than we are now? We will still need to rid ourselves of this menace. And, believe me, he cannot be bought off. He cannot be reasoned with. He cannot be cured of his anti-American rage. It's been bred in him. He was inculcated to hate America since the day he was born.

And imagine if it worked.

Imagine how such a victory would encourage other oppressed people throughout the world - people in Iran and Sudan for starters.

Pulling off this inexpensive little miracle could give America a quantum boost in prestige and respect around the world. It could redefine the balance of power. It could restore the morale of the beleaguered West.

So why not take some chances? Why not roll the dice? Why not be aggressive? Why not get on offense against our enemies before they become strong and united against us - before one of them inevitably detonates a nuclear weapon in our backyard?

There's one more important element to this plan besides beefing up border control and strategic missile defense. America has a long-standing defense policy with regard to incoming missiles from nuclear powers: When they are detected, the U.S. launches nuclear missiles with the intent of utterly destroying those responsible.

It shouldn't be a surprise if the U.S. is forced to retaliate. It should be a matter of clearly articulated national policy.

That means the president needs to get on national television and explain what will happen to North Korea if there is ever an invasion of South Korea or an attack on the U.S. He needs to tell Kim and the world that it will spell the end of the Stalinist North Korean regime and, sadly, the lives of many North Koreans.

It wouldn't be a heartless and cruel announcement. In fact, it would be the most humane thing America could do.

We cannot accept a first strike against us. We've never been willing to accept it in the past - not from the Soviet Union, not from China or anyone else. And we should not be willing to accept it now from the tin-pot dictator of North Korea who holds his own starving population in captivity.

Kim needs to be put on notice that he is playing with his own miserable life if he embarks on such a course.

No one can tell whether an ICBM has a nuclear payload. It's not enough for us to say we will try to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. No anti-missile defense, surely not our own primitive one, is anywhere close to 100 percent effective against incoming missiles.

Kim is testing our national will, and Obama is, predictably, failing the test - failing us all.

Beyond the threat of nuclear retaliation against ICBMs fired at the U.S. and its allies, there is one more message North Korea needs to hear loud and clear: The very next time North Korea even moves ICBMs onto the launch pads those missile installations will be destroyed. End of story.

This kind of strength by America would not only serve to defend our own country, it could also hasten the end to the murderous regime of Kim - a real blessing for the Korean people.

It would also send the right message to all enemies abroad.

Let me tell you something: Everyone fears death - even the Islamic madmen who claim to welcome it. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never strapped bombs on themselves to attack their enemies. They strapped them on little children. They brainwashed others to do their dirty work. They don't welcome death themselves.

It's time to remember how we maintained the uneasy peace with a rogue power during the Cold War. It's time to remember how we won that Cold War - with the initiation of missile defense under Ronald Reagan's leadership. It's time to return to policies that have worked effectively for a generation.

It's time to abandon the policies of appeasement that invite nothing but disaster.

Again, is anyone listening? No. But it's time to start an intelligent dialogue about how to deal with existential threats to our country from tyrants without going to war, without attempts at nation-building, without costly occupations and with minimal risk to our brave military personnel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I don't expect anyone in Washington to heed this advice - certainly not Barack Obama, who hates his tepid critics at Fox News more than he detests foreign dictators who starve their own people and threaten neighbors and the U.S. with nuclear annihilation. It's a simple story I've been telling since 2007.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I don't expect anyone in Washington to heed this advice - certainly not Barack Obama, who hates his tepid critics at Fox News more than he detests foreign dictators who starve their own people and threaten neighbors and the U.S. with nuclear annihilation.
It's a simple story I've been telling since 2007.
Washington is filled with people who believe we can negotiate ourselves to freedom and security. They seem to accept that America should be limited to defending itself and following the rules of engagement lesser powers have established for us. Too many in the U.S. State Department - and even the Defense Department - place a priority on stability over actions that can free millions of our brothers and sisters living in bondage.

Let me give you an example of how we could overthrow one tin-pot dictator - one of who is aiding our Islamo-fascist enemies with nuclear weaponry and technology and making almost daily threats to go to war with the U.S.

I refer to Kim Jong-un, the third-generation tyrant in North Korea.

Conventional wisdom in Washington suggests we need China's help in declawing this little beast. We're told we need more six-party talks. It is suggested we need better diplomacy. Maybe we need to bribe the little bugger like we did his father before him.

What no one in Washington talks about is a simple formula for total victory in North Korea - the ouster of Kim, the freeing of millions, the saving of countless starving lives, the reunification of Korea and a big setback for all of America's enemies around the globe.

I believe it can be accomplished without the U.S. firing a shot.

Here's my idea, developed in conjunction with my buddy Franklin Raff, my former radio talk-show producer (the best in the business, by the way).

North Koreans cannot be happy under the Stalinist control of Kim. Millions have already died of starvation. But the people are disarmed and face the wrath of a 1 million-man army if rebellion should ever be considered.

I say forget about talking to Kim.

I say forget about considering plans for invading North Korea.

I say there's an alternative to bombing the country's nuclear installations to prevent a future holocaust.

Let's try bombing the people with support.

Let's try carpet-bombing North Korea with food, with small arms and munitions and the instructions they need to overthrow the little despot who keeps them in chains.

Let's try extending our hands in love to the people of North Korea

Let's let them know where these gifts come from and why.

We might even want to drop in a few brave advisers to give the people the guidance they need to strike out effectively in taking back their country.

Would it work?

I don't know.

But I do believe such daring campaigns are worth a try.

Could anyone argue that the cause is not just? If it worked, would it not be a humanitarian triumph?

Would anyone justify or rationalize the continued mass starvation that has taken place in North Korea for years as a means of maintaining control over the population - anyone besides Dennis Rodman?

A worst-case scenario is the effort fails. Would we be worse off than we are now? We will still need to rid ourselves of this menace. And, believe me, he cannot be bought off. He cannot be reasoned with. He cannot be cured of his anti-American rage. It's been bred in him. He was inculcated to hate America since the day he was born.

And imagine if it worked.

Imagine how such a victory would encourage other oppressed people throughout the world - people in Iran and Sudan for starters.

Pulling off this inexpensive little miracle could give America a quantum boost in prestige and respect around the world. It could redefine the balance of power. It could restore the morale of the beleaguered West.

So why not take some chances? Why not roll the dice? Why not be aggressive? Why not get on offense against our enemies before they become strong and united against us - before one of them inevitably detonates a nuclear weapon in our backyard?

There's one more important element to this plan besides beefing up border control and strategic missile defense. America has a long-standing defense policy with regard to incoming missiles from nuclear powers: When they are detected, the U.S. launches nuclear missiles with the intent of utterly destroying those responsible.

It shouldn't be a surprise if the U.S. is forced to retaliate. It should be a matter of clearly articulated national policy.

That means the president needs to get on national television and explain what will happen to North Korea if there is ever an invasion of South Korea or an attack on the U.S. He needs to tell Kim and the world that it will spell the end of the Stalinist North Korean regime and, sadly, the lives of many North Koreans.

It wouldn't be a heartless and cruel announcement. In fact, it would be the most humane thing America could do.

We cannot accept a first strike against us. We've never been willing to accept it in the past - not from the Soviet Union, not from China or anyone else. And we should not be willing to accept it now from the tin-pot dictator of North Korea who holds his own starving population in captivity.

Kim needs to be put on notice that he is playing with his own miserable life if he embarks on such a course.

No one can tell whether an ICBM has a nuclear payload. It's not enough for us to say we will try to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. No anti-missile defense, surely not our own primitive one, is anywhere close to 100 percent effective against incoming missiles.

Kim is testing our national will, and Obama is, predictably, failing the test - failing us all.

Beyond the threat of nuclear retaliation against ICBMs fired at the U.S. and its allies, there is one more message North Korea needs to hear loud and clear: The very next time North Korea even moves ICBMs onto the launch pads those missile installations will be destroyed. End of story.

This kind of strength by America would not only serve to defend our own country, it could also hasten the end to the murderous regime of Kim - a real blessing for the Korean people.

It would also send the right message to all enemies abroad.

Let me tell you something: Everyone fears death - even the Islamic madmen who claim to welcome it. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never strapped bombs on themselves to attack their enemies. They strapped them on little children. They brainwashed others to do their dirty work. They don't welcome death themselves.

It's time to remember how we maintained the uneasy peace with a rogue power during the Cold War. It's time to remember how we won that Cold War - with the initiation of missile defense under Ronald Reagan's leadership. It's time to return to policies that have worked effectively for a generation.

It's time to abandon the policies of appeasement that invite nothing but disaster.

Again, is anyone listening? No. But it's time to start an intelligent dialogue about how to deal with existential threats to our country from tyrants without going to war, without attempts at nation-building, without costly occupations and with minimal risk to our brave military personnel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I don't expect anyone in Washington to heed this advice - certainly not Barack Obama, who hates his tepid critics at Fox News more than he detests foreign dictators who starve their own people and threaten neighbors and the U.S. with nuclear annihilation. It's a simple story I've been telling since 2007.

# data[].attributes.body
The article from the Washington Post written by Michael R. Bloomberg and George P. Mitchell explains why tracking is beneficial and too valuable to give up. They talk about how tracking benefits the community by reducing energy costs, providing more jobs, reducing America's dependence on coal, and allowing more renewable energy to be extracted than through coal. The article from Live Science by Frances Beinecke explains how tracking is ruining the environment and he focuses on how it specifically affects North Dakota. The article supporting fracking uses economic examples to support their argument. Bloomberg and Mitchell never mention how fracking affects the environment, and instead decide to focus only on one side of the issue. Beineck explains how fracking is a terrible process that not only ruins the earth from all the wells that are drilled, but also consumes crazy amounts of water. Beineck also talks about how the process produces air pollution. The reason that these two articles disagree are because

http://www.livescience.com/39155-fracking-is-draining-local-communities.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Michael R. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York and founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies. George P. Mitchell pioneered hydraulic fracturing technologies as chief executive of what was then Mitchell Energy & Development Corp. He is chairman of the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation.

In Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and even Texas, there is a fundamental debate over "fracking" - the hydraulic fracturing of shale rock that, together with horizontal drilling, unleashes abundant natural gas. Mostly, it's the loud voices at the extremes who are dominating the debate: those who want either no fracking or no additional regulation of it. As usual, the voices in the sensible center are getting drowned out - with serious repercussions for our country's future.

The production of shale gas through fracking is the most significant development in the U.S. energy sector in generations, and it affords four major benefits that people on both sides of the debate should welcome.

First, it's good for consumers' pocketbooks by helping to reduce energy costs. In the Northeast alone, fracking has helped stimulate major infrastructure investments that will soon bring the first new interstate natural-gas pipeline to New York City in decades.

Second, fracking spurs economic growth by bringing industrial jobs back to the United States - jobs that left several years ago when domestic natural-gas supplies were considered scarce and expensive.

Third, fracking reduces U.S. dependence on coal, which is one of the best things we can do to improve air quality and fight climate change. Modern gas-fired power plants produce effectively no sulfur dioxide or fine particulates and no mercury or toxic ash pollution. They use less water and generate about half the carbon dioxide pollution of coal. The more natural gas we produce, the more quickly we will be able to close dirty-burning coal plants.

Finally, done right, today's more nimble natural gas plants even allow more renewable power to be integrated into the electricity grid than coal does.

Thanks to fracking, our national production of natural gas is up 25 percent from 2004-06 levels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That's a major reason domestic energy prices have stabilized - and why the United States' annual carbon dioxide emissions are at their lowest level in two decades.

Fracking for natural gas can be as good for our environment as it is for our economy and our wallets, but only if done responsibly. The rapid expansion of fracking has invited legitimate concerns about its impact on water, air and climate - concerns that industry has attempted to gloss over.

With so much at stake for the environment, jobs and energy security, it is critical that we make reasoned decisions about how to manage the use of hydraulic fracturing technology.

Several states, including Colorado, New York and Ohio, are taking the lead in this regard, recognizing the need to establish an appropriate framework for regulatory safeguards. It appears that Texas, as the pioneer of hydraulic fracturing in shale formations, is poised to step forward in developing promising state guidelines as well. More such leadership is needed.

To jump-start this effort, each of our foundations will support organizations that seek to work with states and industries to develop common-sense regulations that will protect the environment - and ensure that the industry can thrive.

We will encourage better state regulation of fracking around five key principles:

l Disclosing all chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process;

l Optimizing rules for well construction and operation;

l Minimizing water consumption, protecting groundwater and ensuring proper disposal of wastewater;

l Improving air pollution controls, including capturing leaking methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and

l Reducing the impact on roads, ecosystems and communities.

The latest research, including peer-reviewed studies out of Carnegie Mellon University and Argonne National Laboratory, suggests that if properly extracted and distributed, the impact of natural gas on the climate is significantly less than that of coal. Safely fracking natural gas can mean healthier communities, a cleaner environment and a reliable domestic energy supply right now.

Some in the industry accept additional safeguards to promote confidence that shale gas development can proceed in a manner that protects natural resources and powers our future. These early leaders should partner with government officials and environmental organizations to ensure that strong and reasonable state regulations are adopted.

We can frack safely if we frack sensibly. That may not make for a great bumper sticker. It does make for good environmental and economic policy.

More on this debate:

The Post's View: Cove Point means business

Elizabeth Johnson (letter): The danger of energy at any cost

The Post's View: Can natural gas stop global warming

Dale Adams (letter): The wastewater threat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Michael R. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York and founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies. George P. Mitchell pioneered hydraulic fracturing technologies as chief executive of what was then Mitchell Energy & Development Corp. He is chairman of the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation.

# data[].attributes.body
The New York Times op-ed article called End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now is a very opinionated article. The article talked about the fact that in the constitution it says that the government is not allowed to collect information on its citizens without evidence of wrongdoing. The article calls for an immediate stop to the collection of information of citizens. This article is different than the opinion of .. (ofisa's article)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - THE framers of the Constitution declared that government officials had no power to seize the records of individual Americans without evidence of wrongdoing, and they embedded this principle in the Fourth Amendment. The bulk collection of Americans' telephone records - so-called metadata - by the National Security Agency is, in our view, a clear case of a general warrant that violates the spirit of the framers' intentions. This intrusive program was authorized under a secret legal process by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, so for years American citizens did not have the knowledge needed to challenge the infringement of their privacy rights.

Our first priority is to keep Americans safe from the threat of terrorism. If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person's phone records. But this can be done without collecting the records of millions of law-abiding Americans. We recall Benjamin Franklin's famous admonition that those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of temporary safety will lose both and deserve neither.

The usefulness of the bulk collection program has been greatly exaggerated. We have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security. In spite of our repeated requests, the N.S.A. has not provided evidence of any instance when the agency used this program to review phone records that could not have been obtained using a regular court order or emergency authorization.

Despite this, the surveillance reform bill recently ratified by the Senate Intelligence Committee would explicitly permit the government to engage in dragnet collection as long as there were rules about when officials could look at these phone records. It would also give intelligence agencies wide latitude to conduct warrantless searches for Americans' phone calls and emails.

This is not the true reform that poll after poll has shown the American people want. It is preserving business as usual. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it established that Americans' papers and effects should be seized only when there was specific evidence of suspicious activity. It did not permit government agencies to issue general warrants as long as records seized were reviewed with the permission of senior officials.

Congress has a crucial opportunity to reassert constitutionally guaranteed liberties by reforming the N.S.A.'s overbroad collection of Americans' personal data. But the Intelligence Committee bill squanders this chance. It would enable some of the most constitutionally questionable surveillance activities now exposed to the public eye. The Senate should be reining in these programs, not giving them a stamp of approval.

As members of the Intelligence Committee, we strongly disagree with this approach. We had already proposed our own, bipartisan surveillance reform legislation, the Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act, which we have sponsored with a number of other senators. Our bill would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless "backdoor searches" of Americans' communications - including emails, text messages and Internet use - under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It would also create a "constitutional advocate" to present an opposing view when the F.I.S.C. is considering major questions of law or constitutional interpretation.

Rather than adopt our legislation, the Intelligence Committee chose to codify excessively broad domestic surveillance authorities. So we offered amendments: One would end the bulk collection of Americans' records, but still allow intelligence agencies to obtain information they legitimately needed for national security purposes by getting the approval of a judge, which could even be done after the fact in emergency situations. Another of our amendments sought to prevent the N.S.A. from collecting Americans' cellphone location information in bulk - a capability that potentially turns the cellphone of every man, woman and child in America into a tracking device.

Each of these proposals represents real and meaningful reform, which we believe would have fulfilled the purpose of protecting our security and liberty. Each was rejected by the committee, in some cases by a single vote.

But we will continue to engage with our colleagues and seek to advance the reforms that the American people want and deserve. As part of this effort, we will push to hold a comprehensive reform debate on the Senate floor.

There is no question that our nation's intelligence professionals are dedicated, patriotic men and women who make real sacrifices to help keep our country safe and free. We believe that they should be able to do their jobs secure in the knowledge that their agencies have the confidence of the American people.

But this trust has been undermined by the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance programs, as well as by senior officials' misleading statements about surveillance. Only by ending the dragnet collection of ordinary Americans' private information can this trust be rebuilt.

Congress needs to preserve the agencies' ability to collect information that is actually necessary to guard against threats to our security. But it also needs to preserve the right of citizens to be free from unwarranted interference in their lives, which the framers understood was vital to American liberties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - THE framers of the Constitution declared that government officials had no power to seize the records of individual Americans without evidence of wrongdoing, and they embedded this principle in the Fourth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is from an English (U.K.) news source speaking on the decision of the Crimean parliament to have a referendum deciding whether or not Crimea should join the Russian Federation. This perspective is similar to the American news outlets perspective which are not showing positive coverage of the Russian Occupation of Crimea. Rather, both American and this European news source are outlining all the issues with the referendum. The headline does this by outright saying that an annexation by Russia will not be recognized and in the article saying that European/American allies are going to take steps to isolate Russia. There are some gas fields in Crimea as well as a large ethnically Russian population and Russian large influence on Ukraine has a lot to do with its control of gas resources which Ukraine mostly relies on from Russia. This article has a clear bias toward E.U./American views.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ukraine's interim prime minister has warned the Crimean parliament "no-one in the civilised world" will recognise its referendum on joining Russia.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others in the Kiev government have called the vote "unconstitutional" and "illegitimate".

But the referendum has the support of the Russian parliament.

The speaker of the upper house said if the Crimean people vote on 16 March to join Russia then they would "unquestionably back this choice".

The decision by Crimean MPs to seek to join the Russian Federation comes amid international tensions over the presence of pro-Russian troops in the southern Ukrainian peninsula.

Analysis

A lot of Russians I have spoken to here in Crimea over the last week say they do not actually want to become part of Russia.

They say they want broader autonomy and protection of their rights, but they want to stay within Ukraine and do not want to change nationality.

There are those of course who say they would like to unite with Russia. But there is a lot of support for developing the notion of greater autonomy within Ukraine.

Certainly, the ethnic Ukrainians and the Tatars will reject it in the 16 March referendum or boycott the vote.

I think the Crimean government may have a big fight on its hands persuading citizens to endorse joining Russia.
Divided loyalties over Crimea switch Ukrainian and Russian views Press mulls Russia's Crimea move
Moscow has said it "will not accept the language of sanctions and threats" after the EU and US announced punitive measures against Russia on Thursday.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's Paralympic team has confirmed it will take part in the Sochi Winter Paralympics, which begins later.

The head of the team, Valeriy Sushkevych, said they would participate, but warned: "If something major happens, Ukraine will leave the Games immediately".

Russian energy giant Gazprom meanwhile warned the government in Kiev that it would cut off gas exports if it did not settle a $1.89bn (£1.13bn) debt. In 2009, Gazprom halted supplies to Ukraine in a move that caused shortages across Europe.

Crimea

Autonomous republic within Ukraine

Transferred from Russia in 1954

Ethnic Russians - 58.5%*

Ethnic Ukrainians - 24.4%*

Crimean Tatars - 12.1%*

Source: Ukraine census 2001

Why Crimea is so dangerous Crimean vote tests Western nerves
'Sovereign right'

Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said on Friday Ukraine was open to talks with Russia as long as it withdrew its troops and abided by international agreements.

In a warning to the "separatist and other traitors of the Ukrainian state", he said: "Any decision of yours is deliberately unlawful and unconstitutional and no-one in the civilised world will recognise the decision of the so-called referendum of the so-called Crimean authorities".

Kiev does not recognise Crimea's pro-Moscow leadership, which was sworn in at an emergency session as pro-Russian forces began to take over strategic sites last week.

Crimea's leadership for its part has branded as "illegitimate" the interim government in Kiev, which was sworn in at the end of February after the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Crimea's parliament on Thursday said it had already asked President Putin to allow the region to join Russia, and would seek an endorsement from the Crimean people in a referendum on 16 March.

Welcoming a delegation of Crimean MPs to Moscow on Friday, Russia's upper house speaker Valentina Matviyenko said: "Without a doubt, the Crimean parliament, as a legitimate authority, has that right... the sovereign right of the people to determine their future."

Although the majority of people in Crimea are ethnic Russians, the BBC's Mark Lowen in Simferopol says the outcome of a referendum is by no means certain - and may come down to a generational split.

One man said: "I am Russian, but I am not a citizen of the Russian Federation. When I was there several years ago, I understood that we are different people now. I want to feel Crimean."
Are you in the affected region? Email us at haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk adding 'Ukraine' in the subject heading and including your contact details.
But his mother-in-law - who remembers when Russia handed over Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 - has a different view.

"I would say yes to joining Russia," she told the BBC. "Crimea has always been Russian territory. We feel separate from Ukraine and I don't have any emotional attachment to this country. Perhaps if the government in Kiev was different then I might vote another way."

For a second consecutive day, 47 military observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) were prevented from crossing into Crimea by armed men guarding the Chungar checkpoint.

The BBC's Bethany Bell says there is "widespread" support at the OSCE's headquarters in Vienna for the need to agree a long-term monitoring mission in Ukraine, but that Russia's delegation insists it has no mandate to deploy.

Visa restrictions

Russia's foreign ministry accused the European Union of taking an "extremely unconstructive position" after leaders meeting in Brussels agreed to freeze talks on easing travel restrictions to Russians.

Washington also announced visa restrictions against a number of unnamed Ukrainian and Russian officials and individuals.

During an hour-long phone conservation, US President Barack Obama told President Putin that Russia's actions were a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, the White House said in a statement.

He said there was a solution available that suited all parties, involving talks between Kiev and Moscow, international monitors in Ukraine and Russian forces returning to their bases.

For his part, President Putin said the new authorities in Kiev had imposed "absolutely illegitimate decisions" on the pro-Russian parts of eastern Ukraine, and Moscow "cannot ignore calls for help".

But he also said US-Russian "relations should not be sacrificed due to disagreements over individual, albeit extremely significant, international problems", the Kremlin said.

On Friday, some 65,000 people attended a rally in Moscow expressing solidarity with the pro-Russian authorities in Crimea, police said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ukraine's interim prime minister has warned the Crimean parliament "no-one in the civilised world" will recognise its referendum on joining Russia. Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others in the Kiev government have called the vote "unconstitutional" and "illegitimate". But the referendum has the support of the Russian parliament.

# data[].attributes.headline
Immigration policy (Geovanny, Abraham, Lucinda)

# data[].attributes.subject
Immigration policy (Geovanny, Abraham, Lucinda)

# data[].attributes.body
This article is from a spanish news source. It basiclly talk about how the Repulicans from government are trying to force an immigration reform, and that we will most likely see one in 2014. There persoective of the news article is always positive they only say the good things that are happening in government over the immigration debate. They say that the republicans are going to force the reform in 2014. This fits the perspective because there are thousands of mexican illigals in the use looking forward to the immigration reform. Also the news article only says good things which gives hope to the mexican community. This source is very different because the U.S. Source talks abou the bad parts about the reform and how hard it will be to pass the reform. The international source speaks positively over the subject hiding the truth.

# data[].attributes.headline
China and Japan - International News Source (David K., Ina Q., Jacob K.)

# data[].attributes.subject
China and Japan - International News Source (David K., Ina Q., Jacob K.)

# data[].attributes.body
Now that Japan is more self-reliant on their military, they’ve been drafting new guidelines to loosen the restrictions on the exports of weapons. The Chinese are worried about this, especially because of Japan’s history in World War II.
Right and left wing mean different things in different countries. In Japan, right wing has to do with strong nationalism, strong militarism, and and strong traditional values. The deep right wing also includes anti-western sentiment and views of hostility towards other Asian countries. These were views that were very prevalent during and leading up to World War II.

This article is from a Korean media outlet. By looking at past history, especially the invasion of Korea during World War II by the Japanese, there is high likelihood this news source would be bias against Japan. While reading this article we have to take into account that this media outlet may try to exaggerate future outcomes and motives of Japanese actions that seem threatening to them. It is obvious that the Koreans are on China’s side because of things like quoting a Chinese spokeswoman on how people are worried about the loose restrictions on exporting weapons. They also mention the commemoration of the Chinese victory over Japan in WWII and the Nanjing Massacre.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China expressed concern on Tuesday about Japan's drafting of new guidelines that would reverse a decades-old ban on weapons exports, saying it was a worrying part of Japan's swing to the right.

A source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Sunday that Japan had drafted the new guidelines. The changes would likely further strain Japan's ties with China and South Korea.

Japan has been reviewing the self-imposed export ban under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's new security strategy, aimed at bolstering the self-reliance of the military.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Japan had to address its neighbors' concerns about allowing the export of weapons.

"Against the backdrop of an intensifying swing to the right for Japanese politics, the intention behind and effect of massively loosening restrictions on the export of weapons really worries people," she told a daily news briefing.

"We hope that Japan can really learn the lessons of history, respect and face up to the legitimate and reasonable security concerns of its Asian neighbors and ... take real steps to promote regional peace and stability."

China's ties with Japan have long been poisoned by what China sees as Japan's failure to atone for its occupation of parts of China before and during World War II.

China's state media said on Tuesday the government would this year likely approve the commemoration of two important dates -- China's victory over Japan in the war and the other to mark the 1937 Nanjing Massacre.

China says Japanese troops killed 300,000 people in a massacre in the country's then-capital. A post-war Allied tribunal put the death toll at 142,000, but some conservative Japanese politicians and scholars deny a massacre took place.

It was not immediately clear how the days would be marked or if they would be designated public holidays.

China's anger over the past is never far from the surface of relations that have deteriorated sharply over the past 18 months because of a dispute over a chain of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea.

Ships from both countries shadow each other around the islets and Japan has scrambled jets numerous times in response to Chinese aircraft, raising fears of a clash.

Serving as prime minister for a rare second time and enjoying solid public approval, Abe says Japan needs a stronger military to cope with what he calls an increasingly threatening security environment, with a more militarily assertive China and unpredictable North Korea.

Copyright © Chosunilbo & Chosun.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China Worried About Japan Arms Exports Ban Revision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China expressed concern on Tuesday about Japan's drafting of new guidelines that would reverse a decades-old ban on weapons exports, saying it was a worrying part of Japan's swing to the right. A source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Sunday that Japan had drafted the new guidelines.

# data[].attributes.headline
International News Source:Social Issues-Same Sex Marriage: Parmis T., Monica S., and Anh L.

# data[].attributes.subject
International News Source:Social Issues-Same Sex Marriage: Parmis T., Monica S., and Anh L.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is from a French news source. The article explains that after ten hours of discussion between the senate members, the article was decided on by vote of the majority to accept marriage of same sex couples. The vote was 179 to 157 which was an obvious majority. The president of the PS François Rebsamen group also said that this article will free many people from being discriminated against and is a big step toward fighting homophobia. France won the right to same sex marriage for all of its citizens. The US however only has a few states that have accepted and legalized it. There is a much greater majority of states in the US that have prohibited same sex marriage.

# data[].attributes.headline
Economic Recovery: Gender/Racial Disparities: International-(Phi Phan & Jasmine Pedroza) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Economic Recovery: Gender/Racial Disparities: International-(Phi Phan & Jasmine Pedroza) 

# data[].attributes.body
While Australia claims to be fair in gender balance, studies show that women are far from "fair" with the men when it comes to leadership. "We aim to increase the level and visibility of female commentary and opinion in the Australian media and subsequently ensure highly visible role models for other women,” said Schwartz of her organization’s innovative advocacy model. However, Australia is continuing to "nurture a new generation of young female leaders" and the "Male Champions of Change (MCC) a group of Australia’s most influential male CEOS and chairpersons, released a report listing the actions they have taken in their respective workplaces to help close the gender gap." In the future, Australia plans to break down the walls that separate the gender gap.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MELBOURNE - Australia's reputation as an equal opportunity leader came under question last month in a global gathering of thinkers at the Creative Innovation (ci2013) conference in Melbourne. Attracting a crowd of corporates, nonprofits, senior government executives, academics, small- to medium-sized business owners and entrepreneurs, the panel discussion on ethical leadership turned into a heated gender debate making it one of the most talked about topics on Twitter in Australia.

Although it was acknowledged that diversity went beyond gender issues, the panel speakers were clearly driving a women's agenda in the session. "We won't have ethical leadership in Australia until we have shared power," declared Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, addressing over 600 delegates.

Australia claims to be a proponent of gender balance, however recent statistics reveal a major shortfall of women in leadership. According to the Australian Government's Workplace Gender Equality Agency, only 3 percent of Australian CEOs are female, a statistic that seems counterproductive considering studies show that companies with more women in leadership positions are more profitable.

Carol Schwartz (Photo: Women For Media)

The Australian Institute of Company Directors corroborate this under-representation, revealing that as of last month, only 16 percent of board positions were held by women in the ASX 200 (Australian stock exchange companies).

A 2012 study by the University of Singapore, reveals a more positive snapshot. It reported Australia, along with New Zealand and the Philippines, ranked among the top three for women's economic opportunity in the Asia-Pacific Region. However, the Global Gender Gap Index shows Australia, once a leader worldwide, is falling behind. The country dropped eight places in the rankings between 2006 and 2011.

While the government debates the efficacy of quotas and targets, key groups in Australia are already taking an active role in reversing this trend.

Carol Schwartz, a speaker at the Ci2013 conference and a founding chair of nonprofits Our Community and the Women's Leadership Institute Australia (WLIA), is looking at industries with gross gender imbalance, and is responsible for the Women for Media (WFM) initiative which aims to increase female representation in the media.

Launched in March 2012, WFM represents a network of over 140 women who are leaders in business, finance, government and the not-for-profit sector, providing journalists with a direct channel to sources for expert comment on topics in their fields.

As part of the initiative, the WFM commissioned a study in 2012 analyzing 81 metropolitan daily newspapers across a week in Australia. It found that females accounted for only 10 percent of commentary in financial stories and only 14 percent in business stories. Overall, men represented 80 percent of all newspaper commentary.

This post was originally published on Smartplanet.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Australia's gender gap threatening economic progress? | ZDNet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MELBOURNE - Australia's reputation as an equal opportunity leader came under question last month in a global gathering of thinkers at the Creative Innovation (ci2013) conference in Melbourne. Attracting a crowd of corporates, nonprofits, senior government executives, academics, small- to medium-sized business owners and entrepreneurs, the panel discussion on ethical leadership turned into a heated gender debate making it one of the most talked about topics on Twitter in Australia.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amanda Shantz, Drianne Pantoja, Oscar Ramirez

# data[].attributes.subject
Amanda Shantz, Drianne Pantoja, Oscar Ramirez

# data[].attributes.body
"El Pais" is a Spanish News website that is based in Madrid, Spain. This article has the international perspective from Spain. In contrast to the article that came from a conservative, republican news source, this article focused on the positive and uplifting words that President Obama told the agriculturists in central valley California. While the Republican news source spoke about the projects that the republicans plan to do to help in the drought, completely ignoring the fact that Obama visited the valley (the only time he was mentioned in the previous article was when he was criticized for playing golf with the ruler of Jordan), this article celebrated the efforts of the American President quoting his inspirational words “Estamos tratando de enviar un mensaje de esperanza a los californianos, asegurando que el Gobierno federal hará todo lo que pueda para aliviar el stress que está ocasionando la sequía"- "We are trying to send a message of hope to the Californians by assuring that the Federal Government will do everything it can to alleviate the stress that has been caused by the drought". This shows the interest that international countries have in regards to the United States. The Spanish newspaper, an ally of the United States depicts the president as a very inspirational man showing him as a president full of hope and good intentions. Very different from the republican news source.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Un trabajador ajusta una tubería de riego en Fresno ROBERT GALBRAITH REUTERS

Fresno, en el corazón del Valle Central de California, una zona duramente afectada por la sequía, esperaba con los brazos abiertos la llegada del Presidente Obama que ha aterrizado en el aeropuerto de la ciudad pasadas las 14.30, hora local. Su visita, como era de esperar, se traduce en ayudas millonarias para la muy vapuleada agricultura y ganadería que está sufriendo unas pérdidas de 11.000 millones de dólares, según datos de la California Farm Water Coalition,

El presidente ha anunciado una ayuda por importe de 183 millones de dólares a todos los afectados por la sequía. El paquete incluye 100 millones de dólares para los granjeros, que podrán empezar a percibir a primeros de abril; 60 millones para crear bancos de alimentos que ayuden económicamente a las familias que lo necesiten; 10 millones para crear proyectos de conservación de agua y 3 millones destinados a las comunidades rurales con problemas de abastecimiento de agua, cuyo suministro peligra en los próximos meses si no llueve o se toman medidas urgentes. Hay también una ayuda adicional de 10 millones para los granjeros y rancheros de otros Estados perjudicados también por la sequía.

"Estamos tratando de enviar un mensaje de esperanza a los californianos, asegurando que el Gobierno federal hará todo lo que pueda para aliviar el stress que está ocasionando la sequía", ha dicho nada más aterrizar en Fresno el secretario de Agricultura, Tom Vilsack, que acompaña a Obama, junto a las senadoras, Dianne Feinstein y Barbara Boxer, y el Gobernador de California, Jerry Brown.

Obama, en unas breves declaraciones a la prensa, antes de reunirse a puerta cerrada con los agricultores y líderes locales, ha dicho que "el agua requiere una solución a largo plazo" y que "esta situación va a suponer un reto a largo plazo".

"El agua ha sido vista hasta ahora como un juego con un resultado nulo: agricultores contra urbanitas, el norte contra el sur; pero vamos a tener que pensar cómo podemos cambiar el juego. No podemos afrontar años de litigios sin una acción real", ha añadido el presidente.

California está sufriendo la peor sequía que se recuerda desde hace cien años y ya son más de 240.000 las hectáreas que hasta el momento se han quedado sin plantar. Unos datos que al presidente Obama no se le han escapado.

"Estamos aquí tratando de enviar un mensaje muy específico a los agricultores y ganaderos y vamos a ayudar en la medida en que podamos", ha señalado Vilsack, antes de comenzar la reunión a la que han sido invitadas 25 personas de todos los estamentos implicados en el tema del agua.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama anuncia en Fresno ayudas millonarias para paliar la sequía

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fresno, en el corazón del Valle Central de California, una zona duramente afectada por la sequía, esperaba con los brazos abiertos la llegada del Presidente Obama que ha aterrizado en el aeropuerto de la ciudad pasadas las 14.30, hora local.

# data[].attributes.headline
BBC on North Korea (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.subject
BBC on North Korea (Anna, Kelsey, Michelle)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
South Korea has criticised a North Korean missile test which it says took place as a Chinese passenger plane flew in the area.

Tuesday's launch was one of several missile tests conducted by Pyongyang in recent days.

"There were no accidents, but a very dangerous and serious situation could have occurred," a spokesman said.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman expressed concern and said Beijing would seek more information.

North Korea often conducts short-range missile tests, and has fired several missiles into the sea, off its east coast, in the past week.

The missile tests coincide with annual joint US-South Korea military drills, which Pyongyang condemns as provocative.

'Serious threat'

The Chinese plane, which carried more than 200 passengers, was heading from Tokyo in Japan to Shenyang in China on Tuesday, South Korean officials said.

The North Korean missile was launched at 16:17 local time (07:17 GMT). The plane passed through its trajectory seven minutes later, they added.

"An aircraft passed by as the ballistic missile fell. On a safety level, this is a serious issue of concern," said South Korea's Defence Ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok.

"The failure to protect the safety of civilians by issuing an advanced navigational warning according to international norms is a serious threat."

Qin Gang, a spokesman from China's foreign ministry, said on Thursday that Beijing attached "high importance to the security of national civil airlines".

He added that "necessary measures" should be taken when conducting military drills to "ensure the security and safety" of civilian ships and aircraft.

"Without any doubt, China will verify the relevant situation with the relevant party and express necessary concerns over that."

North Korea's state-run news agency, KCNA, cited an unnamed army spokesman who called the rocket launches "self-defensive actions of justice".

There were "meticulous advance safety measures over the flight path and the designated waters", the spokesman added.

Meanwhile, the US asked the UN Security Council to take "appropriate action" against North Korea's missile launches.

In a report to the Security Council, the US said that Pyongyang's launches on 27 February and 3 March "clearly used ballistic missile technology".

Under UN resolutions, North Korea is required to abandon its ballistic missiles programmes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
South Korea has criticised a North Korean missile test which it says took place as a Chinese passenger plane flew in the area. Tuesday's launch was one of several missile tests conducted by Pyongyang in recent days. "There were no accidents, but a very dangerous and serious situation could have occurred," a spokesman said.

# data[].attributes.body
Unlike other news sources such as Fox News and the Huffington Post, which are based in the US, International sources, such as the BBC, based in England, would be less biased towards any issue regarding North Korea. The US, on the other hand, has been strongly anti-communist since the 1950's, with the Red Scare, although that sentiment has been greatly lessened today, it still exists. Here, the BBC article reports on a incident during which a Chinese passenger plane, carrying some 200 Chinese civilians, was at danger of being hit by a North Korean missile, during a field test. The BBC uses less harsh language to describe this incident, with significantly less accusing verbatim. England has more neutral relations with North Korea, so they have no reason for any biases towards that country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
South Korea has criticised a North Korean missile test which it says took place as a Chinese passenger plane flew in the area.

Tuesday's launch was one of several missile tests conducted by Pyongyang in recent days.

"There were no accidents, but a very dangerous and serious situation could have occurred," a spokesman said.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman expressed concern and said Beijing would seek more information.

North Korea often conducts short-range missile tests, and has fired several missiles into the sea, off its east coast, in the past week.

The missile tests coincide with annual joint US-South Korea military drills, which Pyongyang condemns as provocative.

'Serious threat'

The Chinese plane, which carried more than 200 passengers, was heading from Tokyo in Japan to Shenyang in China on Tuesday, South Korean officials said.

The North Korean missile was launched at 16:17 local time (07:17 GMT). The plane passed through its trajectory seven minutes later, they added.

"An aircraft passed by as the ballistic missile fell. On a safety level, this is a serious issue of concern," said South Korea's Defence Ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok.

"The failure to protect the safety of civilians by issuing an advanced navigational warning according to international norms is a serious threat."

Qin Gang, a spokesman from China's foreign ministry, said on Thursday that Beijing attached "high importance to the security of national civil airlines".

He added that "necessary measures" should be taken when conducting military drills to "ensure the security and safety" of civilian ships and aircraft.

"Without any doubt, China will verify the relevant situation with the relevant party and express necessary concerns over that."

North Korea's state-run news agency, KCNA, cited an unnamed army spokesman who called the rocket launches "self-defensive actions of justice".

There were "meticulous advance safety measures over the flight path and the designated waters", the spokesman added.

Meanwhile, the US asked the UN Security Council to take "appropriate action" against North Korea's missile launches.

In a report to the Security Council, the US said that Pyongyang's launches on 27 February and 3 March "clearly used ballistic missile technology".

Under UN resolutions, North Korea is required to abandon its ballistic missiles programmes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
South Korea has criticised a North Korean missile test which it says took place as a Chinese passenger plane flew in the area. Tuesday's launch was one of several missile tests conducted by Pyongyang in recent days. "There were no accidents, but a very dangerous and serious situation could have occurred," a spokesman said.

# data[].attributes.headline
Emily Small, Elaine Zhao, & Jenna Iwamura

# data[].attributes.subject
Emily Small, Elaine Zhao, & Jenna Iwamura

# data[].attributes.body
This source from the BBC UK, introduces an idea that without government regulation of private universities, students are at risk for graduating from high education that could be discredited later for not meeting appropriate education standards. They are in favor of government regulation based on the idea that if curriculum or standards for education are being monitored, all students can get a standard education that can be applicable to all areas of study. With the British royalty having more rule over the government and past allowance of more government regulation than the democratic system of the US, this source amplifies the belief that government regulation is actually favorable for certain groups in Great Britain. Previously, we have examined sources that present democrats as for government regulation, and republicans against it, for different reasons. With government regulation each student gets a fair education and that can be transferable to other universities, jobs, etc. However with government regulation as we'll it puts pressure on schools to match what the government has requested such as a higher stress on learning with technology , which can be expensive and often is not within the schools' budget to allow. However, the main focus here is universities which do receive private funding from students unlike the public primary schools of the US, so it would be interesting to, in the future, investigate how the UK interprets government regulation on high school or grade school systems in order to compare that to US perspectives as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A lack of regulation of England's universities means students are at risk of attending failing institutions, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) says.

The HEC says current checks are not adequate for a sector that has a new funding system in the wake of higher tuition fees introduced last year.

It says the situation could threaten the UK's higher education reputation.

The government says a "robust but proportionate" regulatory system is needed.

The HEC - an independent body made up of leaders from the education sector, business and the three main political parties - conducted its research over an eight-month period and concludes that current regulation is too "piecemeal".

The commission says that the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce), which distributes the teaching grant to universities, was previously able to attach regulatory conditions to the grant.

An institution failing would damage both students and the highly-valued brand of UK higher education
Higher Education Commission

But now that the teaching grant has been reduced and is being replaced with increased student tuition fees since 2012, the ability to regulate universities through Hefce has been reduced in turn.

Its report - Regulating Higher Education - says all degree providers in England should be "captured" by proper regulation.

It says: "It [higher education] is a valuable part of our national infrastructure and we must therefore ensure that students investing thousands of pounds in their futures are receiving top quality provision, and that the institutions they are attending are financially viable."

The HEC study expresses particular concern about newly established higher education providers, saying "more providers are entering the market... and online providers gaining traction".

"Regulation as it sits is not adequately prepared for the diversity of these current and future developments.

"New market entrants are not facing the scrutiny they should, takeovers and complex corporate structures are being used to evade fundamental protections for students, and institutions are facing more pressure than ever to recruit students and crucially, therefore, bring in funding."

The report continues: "In this new, reformed higher education landscape, the chances of an institution failing are increased. An institution failing would damage both students and the highly-valued brand of UK higher education."

The HEC calls on the government for urgent legislation to tackle the problems.

It suggests an overarching regulatory body - the Council for Higher Education (CHE) - should be created, incorporating the current body Hefce, the Office for Fair Access (Offa), the Student Loans Company and a new body called the Office for Competition and Institutional Diversity.

The commission also calls for better information about the various degree providers now operating in the UK and says all of these should be subject to a new regulatory framework, with kitemarks for those meeting approved standards.

It also proposes an insurance scheme, paid into by every institution, to safeguard students should an institution or course fail.

Urgent rectification

Professor of government at Hull University and HEC inquiry co-chairman Lord Norton of Louth said: "Regulation is fundamental to the health and success of our HE sector and will make or break the effectiveness of the institutions that have made the UK a world leader in higher education.

"In the context of current reforms, the absence of legislation to provide a coherent regulatory architecture for the rapidly changing and increasingly dynamic sector is creating major headaches for its players.

"It is a situation crying out for urgent rectification by government, a refrain that was a constant throughout the course of the inquiry from those who gave evidence."

Fellow co-chairman and former vice chancellor of Lincoln University Prof Roger King said: "Our proposals seek to build upon the existing regulatory strengths displayed by the sector and to ensure that more external and formalised external regulatory arrangements work with these.

"Above all, however, we need to urgently address the outstanding requirement for a more systematic and less piecemeal approach to the external regulation of the sector. This can only be achieved by early legislation by government."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills said: "It is essential that there is a robust but proportionate regulatory system in place to protect students and the reputation of the wider sector.

"At the same time though a balance must be struck to protect institutional autonomy and academic freedom. These elements are key to the success of our university system.

"When the time comes for legislation we want to get it absolutely right."

Prof Les Ebdon, director of Offa, said: "I believe that fair access is too important to be rolled up within the wider concerns of a multi-focused regulatory body.

"An independent director, with a sole focus on access, can challenge institutions to set themselves stretching widening participation targets and ensure that fair access remains high on the agenda, both for institutions and policy-makers."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A lack of regulation of England's universities means students are at risk of attending failing institutions, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) says. The HEC says current checks are not adequate for a sector that has a new funding system in the wake of higher tuition fees introduced last year.

# data[].attributes.body
The international media outlets present the information regarding the NSA with more detail. The international source I looked at was from Central America and their perspective is that the NSA has too much power and control over spying on any country. The news source presents their perspective by saying that the NSA is a massive organization that has many unforeseen consequences. The article gives a lot more info about the spying and how the NSA is doing it unlike the U.S media outlets who only say that there is spying going on but they don't address how or specifically on who. One key detail the article points out is that the NSA hacked into the internet servers in north Africa.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Noticias de El Salvador - La Prensa Gráfica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Directivos de la Fundación Salvadoreña para el Desarrollo Económico y Social (FUSADES) denunciaron ayer ante la Fiscalía General de la República (FGR) el hallazgo de un micrófono escondido en una de sus salas de reuniones.

El presidente de FUSADES, Miguel Ángel Simán, explicó en una conferencia que durante actividades de mantenimiento preventivo, el pasado 7 de enero, fue localizado el dispositivo alojado en una de las regletas eléctricas y conectado a una línea telefónica. Los técnicos afirmaron que dicho aparato permitía recoger lo que se hablaba en la sala y en la línea telefónica delegada a dicho espacio.

Un equipo de Inspección Ocular de la Policía Nacional Civil (PNC) llegó ayer por la tarde a las oficinas de FUSADES.

"Este diminuto aparato transmisor mide 4 centímetros y 7 milímetros de grosor, es una aparato de alta tecnología y alcance, el cual se alimentaba de los cables eléctricos... y enviaba la voz que capturaba a través del cable telefónico que tenemos en la sala", afirmó Simán.

El presidente de FUSADES señaló que la evidencia de una práctica de espionaje tiene detrás una motivación política. "En el mundo del espionaje hay espionaje industrial y espionaje político. La naturaleza de nuestra institución no tiene nada que ver con temas industriales y comerciales... Lo que nos queda es asumir que, dado que somos un actor político de nuestro país, habrá un beneficio de aquellos interesados de espiar y acceder a información sobre los debates que nosotros tenemos internamente, pero que son debates abiertos que se traducen en posiciones institucionales", comentó el titular de la fundación.

El empresario añadió que la denuncia no obedece a que existan reuniones secretas o confabulaciones de algún tipo en el interior de la organización.

"Nuestra denuncia no responde al temor de lo que discutimos en FUSADES, porque acá todo tiene que ver con tema de nación, sino que se debe a una violación al derecho de la privacidad", dijo el presidente de FUSADES.

El abogado Javier Castro detalló que la persona que colocó ese dispositivo pudo incurrir en los delitos de allanamiento de lugar de trabajo, captación de comunicación e intervención de comunicación telefónica.

Aunque las autoridades admitieron que esta es la primera vez que encuentran evidencia clara de espionaje en el interior de las instalaciones de FUSADES, Simán explicó que el acoso político a la fundación no es algo nuevo.

"Hemos sido acosados, insultados, se nos ha querido desprestigiar. Nos han bloqueado el paso con huelgas... Esconderse tras micrófonos para luego manipular información, para tratar de acusarnos y desacreditarnos es irresponsable", aseguró la máxima autoridad de FUSADES.

El presidente de la fundación concluyó que luego de que los magistrados de la Sala de lo Constitucional de la Corte Suprema y el fiscal general hicieron denuncias sobre espionaje y acoso político, este nuevo hecho constata que estas prácticas son una realidad muy actual en El Salvador.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Directivos de la Fundación Salvadoreña para el Desarrollo Económico y Social (FUSADES) denunciaron ayer ante la Fiscalía General de la República (FGR) el hallazgo de un micrófono escondido en una de sus salas de reuniones.

# data[].attributes.body
We chose “The Daily News” to learn more about the Syrian conflict topic. They are Turkey’s main news outlet and Turkey is the main home for Syrian refugee, which means it offers a unique perspective on the conflict. For example, the article focus a lot on the actual people who suffer, discuss the future of these children, and focus on the “emotional scars” that the conflict inflicts on the Syrian people. In contrast, US media seems to focus a lot more on the battle between the rebels and the government. Second, they offered a different perspective than the US because they seem to look at the international community’s responsibility more under the assumption that it’ll be used for humanitarian aid than intervention, which certainly is a plan of action that a lot of Americans consider. They don’t even ask what the US should do to intervene and instead focus on the UN’s humanitarian aid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UNITED NATIONS - Reuters

Syrian-Kurdish refugees sit and look on at the Quru Gusik (Kawergosk) refugee camp, 20 kilometers east of Arbil, Feb 13. AFP photo

Syrians are about to replace Afghans as the world's largest refugee population, fleeing a conflict where barrel bombs leave bodies in pieces and a generation of children are physically and emotionally scarred, top U.N. officials said on Feb. 25.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the U.N. General Assembly that the world body would do everything to implement a U.N. Security Council resolution - adopted on Feb. 22 to boost humanitarian aid access - and get help to millions in need.

"Supplies are ready to go into areas that have been hard to reach, and into the towns and cities that have been under siege," Ban said. "What we need is guaranteed safe passage for humanitarian supplies along key routes."

"It is incumbent on the Syrian government and all parties to the conflict to reach these agreements," he said.

Some 9.3 million Syrians - almost half the population - need help, the United Nations said. Some 2.4 million of those people have fled the country during the three-year civil war.

"Five years ago Syria was the world's second-largest refugee hosting country. Syrians are now about to replace Afghans as the present biggest refugee population worldwide," U.N. High Commissioner for
efugees Antonio Guterres said.

"It breaks my heart to see this nation that for decades welcomed refugees from other countries, ripped apart and forced into exile itself," Guterres told the 193-member U.N. assembly.

The unanimously adopted Security Council resolution demands cross-border aid access in Syria, an end to the use of weapons such as barrel bombs in cities and towns and threatens "further steps" in cases of non-compliance.

U.N. diplomats say Syria's ally Russia is unlikely to agree to any action if the Damascus government was found to be in non-compliance. But Western envoys expressed a strong intent to push for Security Council action if the resolution is ignored.

4,3 children affected

Aid workers on Feb. 25 doubted that the U.N. Security Council resolution on aid access in Syria had enough punch to push the Damascus government to allow more humanitarian convoys carrying vital supplies into the country.

Deputy U.N. aid chief Kyung-Wha Kang told the General Assembly that some 4.3 million children in Syria are affected by the conflict, while another 1.2 million are refugees.

"Children have been killed, arrested, abducted, tortured, mutilated, sexually abused, and recruited by armed groups. They have been used as human shields. They are malnourished," she said. "Syria is in danger of losing a generation of children."

"We are in a race against time. More people are slipping out of our reach as the conflict intensifies and armed groups fragment and more battle lines are drawn," Kang said.

She said humanitarian groups needed to bring in more aid workers and expertise to deliver more help to more people.

Ban called on the Syrian government to authorize more aid workers to enter the country. "It is not credible to cite bureaucratic procedures as reasons for delay when it is the government itself that controls those procedures," he said.

Syrian U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari accused the governments of some states of not being interested in providing humanitarian assistance to Syria. He blamed Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey for pouring "oil on the fire of the Syrian crisis."

"Some states have agreed to lay out large sums of money in order to support arms deals to terrorists to let them get through the Syrian borders instead of spending this money on humanitarian assistance to those who need it," he said. He was dismissive of the General Assembly briefing on Feb. 25.

"These briefings, in spite of their great significance, didn't really offer anything new. They were confined to repeating what we have heard in similar meetings at the U.N.," he said. "Humanitarian questions, on which we have been briefed today, are the heart of concerns of the government of Syria."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Syrians set to replace Afghans as largest refugee population

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UNITED NATIONS - Reuters Syrian-Kurdish refugees sit and look on at the Quru Gusik (Kawergosk) refugee camp, 20 kilometers east of Arbil, Feb 13. AFP photo Syrians are about to replace Afghans as the world's largest refugee population, fleeing a conflict where barrel bombs leave bodies in pieces and a generation of children are physically and emotionally scarred, top U.N.

# data[].attributes.body
The new and fresh controversy of Facebook, a worldwide social media network, had currently provided 51 new gender options for people to choose from. It is simply available not to serve people to pick the gender options for fun, but to make people feel much more comfortable with their own current gender they believed in. This article told us that it was already hard enough to have people identify one another just by the way they look (in today’s world). It is due to the way people dress up, behave, sound like, and many others factors that might mistaken one’s actual gender to the opposite. This article seems to attack the new change from Facebook because it is questioning the necessity and usefulness of this update to the social website. This article is conservative, because though gay rights are accepted with an open mind to many others, things like these are considered to be under-appreciated, or rather, unappreciated. Facebook is trying to make a change and give others the opportunities to express themselves and more importantly, to make individuals be comfortable with themselves and with how the society will perceive them, but this right-winged article had opinionated as if the new gender option selection in Facebook is a very confusing piece of work and also served no purpose than to confuse others even more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As Patrick Brennan recently discussed on the Corner, it's getting harder to know how to refer to another person's gender(s). Now, Facebook is making it even harder.

The Associated Press recently broke the news that Facebook now offers users a customizable gender option with about 50 different gender-identifying terms people can use to describe themselves along with three separate pronoun choices: him, her, or them.

The grammatical debate over the application of the plural pronoun "them" to a singular subject aside, it's a sad sign of the times that Facebook excluded whatever the 51st gender descriptor is, thus committing a hate crime against the dozens of people who probably describe themselves with said descriptor.

How dejected - nay depressed - must flexual people feel knowing that Facebook now accepts cisgender females, Trans*Men, and Trans*Males (don't worry, the distinctions elude me, too) but not them and their girlfag peers.

Or what of all the trigender people who find out that Facebook will let one choose up to "bigender" but not beyond. They must be at least a third as offended as the flexuals.

(For a necessarily incomplete list of possible gender identities, please see the website genderqueerid.com. If you feel you identify with none of the terms on the list, the website is most likely phobic of whatever you may be.)

The changes Facebook introduced cover only users in the U.S., most likely because it's hard to translate "genderqueer" and "transsexual female" into Kiswahili.

"There's going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world," said Brielle Harrison, a Facebook engineer who is currently changing gender from male to female. Harrison says that Harrison is going to use the new options and change Harrison's Facebook identity from female to transwoman. (My apologies for the multiple "Harrisons". I was unsure of the correct pronoun for those who are born male and becoming female while also changing their gender identity from female to transwoman.)

For all the slighted genders, Facebook continues to offer the option to denote no gender or to choose "neither" or "other." However, some are worried that choosing "neither -" thereby saying you do not apply to either of two options - implicitly favors the traditional male-female binary so overwhelmingly insensitive to the infinitude of other genders.

For the time being, those "others" whose gender descriptors are still not formally recognized by Facebook will continue to exist as second-class users, segregated from mainstream Facebookdom.

Alec Torres - Alec Torres is a currentNational Review Institute William F. Buckley Journalism Fellow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Check Your Privilege, Facebook! Social Media Giant Slights Members of 51st Gender | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As Patrick Brennan recently discussed on the Corner, it's getting harder to know how to refer to another person's gender(s). Now, Facebook is making it even harder. The Associated Press recently broke the news that Facebook now offers users a ...

# data[].attributes.body
A Japanese Prime Minister visits a religious, World War II shrine. This article has analyzed it to mean that certain Japanese officials are acknowledging that a subtle cold war exists between Japan and China and Korea. It further dramatizes Japan's stance, saying it has taken on a "path of increasing diplomatic self-reliance". It continues to say Japan will not have the support of the United States on the path it has chosen.

The Shrine is said to be a controversial religious landmark, having been where many of the highest war criminals of World War II are enshrined. Emperor Hirohito refused to visit the shrine after 1978 and the inclusion of other war criminals. Thus the visiting of this shrine is portrayed as betray to trust and good relations between Japan, China, and Korea.

This represents a conservative point of view in the sense it dramatizes the negative actions taken by foreign countries, in this case Japan, and hints that the U.S. has good intentions, in this case that U.S. will not support Japan's self-reliant path.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe (pronounced "Ah-bay") has just visited Yasukuni Shrine, Ground Zero for political controversy with China and Seoul. In doing so, he has all but acknowledged that a cold war exists between Japan and its northeast-Asian neighbors China and South Korea. It's a shot across the bow of both countries, boldly, perhaps recklessly, announcing that Japan will no longer seek better relations on their terms. Nor does he have the support of the United States. Abe is putting Japan on a path of increasing diplomatic self-reliance, but doing so with the belief that it is the right response to continued tensions with Beijing and Seoul. That it will inflame those tensions, he is well aware.

Yasukuni Shrine is somewhat analogous to Arlington National Cemetery, being the religious site where the spirits of Japan's war dead since 1867 are commemorated. Founded in 1869 across from the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, there are nearly 2.5 million individuals enshrined there. Among them are 14 Class A war criminals from World War II, including wartime premier Hideki Tojo. These individuals were enshrined in 1978, nearly two decades after the first Class B and C war criminals were included in the shrine. Emperor Hirohito, who reigned during the war, refused to visit the shrine after 1978 and the inclusion of Tojo and others.

There was little international controversy about the shrine until 1985, when then-prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone paid an official visit to offer prayers for the dead. The outcry forced him to abandon plans for future visits, but annual visits by popular prime minister Junichiro Koizumi between 2001 and 2006 again fanned the flames of diplomatic protest. Both Beijing and South Korea have heatedly and vehemently condemned visits to the shrine by any serving Japanese cabinet official, and especially the prime minister. While no doubt feeling true outrage over what they see as attempts to whitewash the memory of the atrocities committed by the Class A war criminals, Chinese and Korean officials have also used the shrine visits as a means of pressuring Japan and keeping it diplomatically isolated in Asia. Contemporary politics have as much to do with the furor over Yasukuni as does the historical record.

Since 2006 no serving Japanese prime minister visited Yasukuni, in part to try and stabilize relations with China and South Korea. Yesterday, a year after taking office and refraining from going to the shrine, Prime Minister Abe made an official visit. The reaction from Beijing and Seoul was swift and expected. According to the BBC, "China called the visit 'absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese people', and Seoul expressed 'regret and anger'." More surprisingly, and worryingly, the BBC reports that "the US embassy in Tokyo said in a statement it was 'disappointed' and that Mr. Abe's actions would 'exacerbate tensions' with Japan's neighbors." It was a clear message that Washington doesn't trust Abe's judgment and may not see him as a responsible ally.

Both Beijing and Seoul will undoubtedly take comfort in the U.S. pronouncement, seeing it as a signal to pressure Tokyo and continue with their relentless attempts to isolate Japan. South Korean president Park Geun Hye has been particularly vociferous in her anti-Japanese statements, taking the opportunity during the visits of Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Hagel to publicly chastise, if not embarrass, Japan. For those concerned over Washington's repeated attempts to restrain Tokyo's response to China's provocations in the waters around the disputed Senkaku Islands, the embassy statement will seem yet another instance of the U.S. government undercutting its ally.

The real question is not what China and South Korea will do in response to Abe's visit. The question is, rather: Why now? Abe is regularly labeled a nationalist and right-winger, by political opponents at home and anti-Japanese voices abroad, in both Asia and America. His plans to increase Japan's defense budget and lift some of the remaining post-war restrictions on Tokyo's ability to engage in collective self-defense, as well as undertake some controversial constitutional reforms related to civil liberties, has alarmed critics at home and abroad.

From Abe's perspective, the trend line in northeast Asia is getting worse. He has been rebuffed for nearly a year by the South Korean president, who has met with the Chinese. Last month, China established a controversial air defense identification zone in the East China Sea that partly overlaps Japan's own zone over the Senkaku Islands. Instead of a firm American response, Tokyo saw Vice President Biden fail to demand a repeal of the zone during his visit to Beijing. China's military modernization and growth plan shows no sign of abating, and it is starting to develop sophisticated offensive weapons such as aircraft carriers and stealth fighters.

Thus, rather than start 2014 on the defensive, Abe seems to have decided to take the bit between his teeth. It shows he's willing to buck his only ally, the United States, and pursue a more independent path. His visit was a message that his administration will not continue to apologize for its history, having done so numerous times in the past. It is also a signal that he will not supplicate for better relations with China and Korea at the expense of what he thinks is in Japan's best interests. At the outer edge of interpretation, that may well mean a more muscular response to China's interloping around the Senkaku Islands or moving ahead on strike capabilities that could target North Korea. Combining this with a push for high-level diplomatic talks with Beijing and Seoul could possibly blunt the impact of his visit, but for the foreseeable future, Japan's relations with China and South Korea will be in a deep freeze.

Michael Auslin - Michael Auslin is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. @michaelauslin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Japan Officially Enters Cold War with China and Korea | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe (pronounced "Ah-bay") has just visited Yasukuni Shrine, Ground Zero for political controversy with China and Seoul. In doing so, he has all but acknowledged that a cold war exists between Japan and its northeast-Asian neighbors China and South Korea.

# data[].attributes.body
The current drought situation in California has been going on for quite a while now, destroying farmer's crops and leaving millions of people in California without water. After Jerry Brown declared a drought emergency on January 17, Obama turned his attention on the problem and proposed to give $160 million in financial aid to farmers to add on to the $100 million that is given in the farm bill. Obama Is said to meet Jordan's King Abdullah II to talk about peace in the middle east while golfing in SunnyLands in CA. Republicans' plan to aid in the California drought is to halt the funds of restoring a dried-up stretch of the San Joaquin River and sending those funds to help the people affected by the drought saying that "Fish shouldn't matter more than people", in reference to the endangered fish species that live within that river. However, the Democrats oppose that bill, seeing it will not bring significant change and destroying decades of work that has been done to the river. Instead they propose $300 Million of emergency aid dollars to help those affected. This article shows the interests of Republicans are widely different than the ones that are held by Democrats and Environmentalists. The Republicans are willing to destroy decades of work on environmental restoration instead of using other funds. They also randomly inserted a small paragraph regarding the gold game that Obama had with King Abdullah. This random speculation shows the interest in every thing the President does.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Obama will offer millions of dollars in federal aid for drought-stricken California during a visit with farmers and ranchers Friday and outline plans to seek $1 billion from Congress to help communities manage the effects of climate change.

California is in the midst of its worst drought in more than 100 years. Obama will meet with farmers in the Fresno area, where he'll announce more than $160 million in federal financial aid, including $100 million in the farm bill he signed into law last week for programs that cover the loss of livestock.

The overall package includes smaller amounts to aid in the most extreme drought areas and to help food banks that serve families affected by the water shortage. Obama also will call on federal facilities in California to immediately limit water consumption.

The president also was announcing that the budget he'll send to Congress next month will include $1 billion for a proposed "climate resilience fund" to invest in research and pay for new technologies to help communities deal with the impact of climate change. The proposal is likely to face stiff resistance from lawmakers wary of new spending and divided on the subject of global warming.

Later Friday, Obama was meeting Jordan's King Abdullah II at Sunnylands for talks covering the Mideast peace process, Syria and other issues. It's unusual for Obama to host world leaders outside of the White House, though he did hold a two-day summit at Sunnylands last year with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Obama's meetings with Abdullah will be much shorter -- just a brief meeting Friday night, followed by a working dinner.

The White House wouldn't say why the meeting was taking place in California, particularly given that Abdullah spent much of the past week in Washington and met with Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and others

"The king is also going out to California. The president and the king can meet there and will meet there as part of this trip," said White House press secretary Jay Carney.

Obama was expected to spend Presidents Day weekend on the golf course at Sunnylands. He's traveling without first lady Michelle Obama.

The White House has been closely watching the California drought, which follows a year of the lowest rainfall on record. The drought has also brought to a head political warfare over the state's water resources that feed major cities, the country's richest agricultural region and waterways that provide habitat for endangered species of fish.

Gov. Jerry Brown declared a drought emergency on Jan. 17. Obama telephoned him several days later for an update on the situation.

Farmers recently learned they will not be receiving irrigation water from the State Water Project, a system of rivers, canals and reservoirs. They anticipate a similar announcement later this month from federal authorities who operate a similar system called the Central Valley Project.

Federal officials, including Vilsack, earlier this month pledged $34 million to help farmers and ranchers conserve scarce water supplies, improve irrigation methods, head off erosion of unplanted fields and create better ways to water livestock.

The Republican-controlled House recently voted to address the drought by rolling back environmental protections and temporarily halting the restoration of a dried-up stretch of the San Joaquin River, work that is designed to restore historic salmon runs. Farmers would prefer to have the water diverted to their crops instead.

Boehner recently showed his support for the bill by visiting a dusty field in Bakersfield and saying fish shouldn't be favored over people.

Environmentalists and Democrats oppose the bill, and the White House has threatened a veto, arguing that the measure would not alleviate the drought but would undo decades of work to address California's longstanding water shortages.

In response, California's senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, joined fellow Democrats in proposing legislation that would pour $300 million into emergency aid and drought relief projects, upgrade city water systems and water conservation and speed up environmental reviews of water projects, among other steps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama turns attention to California drought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opening a weekend trip to California, President Obama on Friday will offer millions in federal aid for the drought-stricken state, then hold an unusual West Coast meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II, a key U.S. partner in the Middle East.

# data[].attributes.headline
Immigration Policies ( Lucinda, Geovanny, Abraham )

# data[].attributes.subject
Immigration Policies ( Lucinda, Geovanny, Abraham )

# data[].attributes.body
They feel like their is still issues to the immigration reform , a few standards have been made like enforcing the borders and finding other less harsher ways to punish the people who have illegally crossed. But people who once have set their minds on going three with it have gone back. Our previous link was from the democratic persepective and it talked about obama increasing deportation and equipment in the places they were being sent. This relates to our topic in the way that reforms are trying to get passed and made into immigration reforms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The past 10 days have been a roller coaster for evangelical Christians and other conservative Americans who are convinced that our nation's immigration laws are woefully in need of reform.

The time is now.

On Jan. 30, the House Republican leadership released a set of pragmatic standards for immigration reform rooted in conservative values. Evangelical leaders nationally and locally applauded: The House GOP Standards for Immigration Reform closely mirror the Evangelical Statement of Principles for Immigration Reform endorsed by hundreds of nationally prominent Christian leaders in the past two years.

The time is now.

The principles include a commitment to secure borders and an approach to those immigrants who have violated the law that reconciles a healthy respect for the rule of law and a compassionate approach to people made in God's image, avoiding the irrational extremes of either amnesty or mass deportation.

Just a week later, though, media reports have suggested that some of those who have in the past been strong proponents of reform consistent with these standards are now arguing-primarily for political, not principled reasons- that House Leadership should under no circumstance seek to tackle immigration reform in 2014.

We've both spent enough time in Washington, D.C., to know that doublespeak is part of political parlance. Many of the local pastors from all corners of the country who have come to the Capitol to advocate for immigration reform in the past year, though, have been disillusioned as they hear elected officials say one thing about the need for reform in a private meeting only to read something rather different quoted in the newspaper.

Some of our elected officials might do well to heed Jesus' words to "let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.'"

Getting to "Yes" on immigration reform this year is urgent for many reasons. We need a system that restores the rule of law, that secures our borders, that jumpstarts economic growth, and that keeps families-including many within our local churches-from being divided.

As social conservatives keenly aware of the importance that the president-and his or her appointees to the Supreme Court-can play in determining key questions for proponents of religious liberty, traditional marriage, and the pro-life cause, there's another critical reason that House Republicans must get to "Yes" this year. As many within the GOP have acknowledged, it is nearly impossible to win the Electoral College unless a Republican candidate significantly outperforms Governor Romney's 27 percent of the Latino vote.

While immigration is not the only concern of Latino voters, it is, as columnist Michael Gerson recently noted, the "threshold" to winning Latino votes. If we are to have another pro-life president, the socially conservative party must address immigration. As Senator John Cornyn, who hails from a red state where 30 percent of eligible voters are Latino, recently observed, "We can't win in 2016 without resolving it."

If tackling immigration reform is deferred to 2015, though, the presidential primary jockeying will begin, drawing out the shrillest anti-immigration voices from the fringes of the GOP and likely pushing the dialogue further and further from the reasonable reforms that most Republican voters and most Republican elected officials believe are ultimately the best for our country. Past 2014, the window of opportunity to finally pass reform begins to close.

If we are to have a Republican president elected in 2016, we need immigration reform-and we need it this year.

Ultimately, though, the reasons our leaders in the House of Representatives should get to "Yes" on immigration reform are not political, they are moral. "The time is always right," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "to do what is right." We take our cues from Scripture, which makes clear both that we are to welcome and extend hospitality to immigrants and that we ought to respect and honor the law. Our current immigration quagmire fails on both counts.

Evangelical Christians, who make up nearly half of Republican primary voters, are looking for candidates who share their biblical values, including biblically informed commitments to caring for immigrants and restoring the rule of law. Poll after poll finds that a majority of white evangelicals (and an even larger majority of Hispanic evangelicals) support immigration reforms consistent with the Standards that House Republican Leaders laid out last week.

Across the country, we are praying that Congress will have the courage to do what is right: to get to "Yes" on immigration this year. Right now, House Republicans have a window to develop immigration reform that honors and promotes conservative values: a more secure border, a stronger economy, respect for the rule of law, and an earned legalization program that emphasizes accountability.

But that opportunity will not last forever. The time is now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress must move forward on immigration reform

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The past 10 days have been a roller coaster for evangelical Christians and other conservative Americans who are convinced that our nation's immigration laws are woefully in need of reform. The time is now. On Jan. 30, the House Republican leadership released a set of pragmatic standards for immigration reform rooted in conservative values.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jackson crying at A Great Big World's "Say Something" feat. Christina Aguilera

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Don't own the rights to the song obviously, but this is pretty sweet. My four-year old heard the song come on, so I changed it. But he wanted it back on for some reason. Here is the first moment that he has been "moved."

# data[].attributes.body
The article focuses on the Christian opposition within Syria and puts them in a positive light. For example, “Among Syria’s Christians there is mutual respect and tolerance for diverse views, notions altogether foreign in places governed by al-Qaeda affiliates. It is against these terrorists that the Christians fight, alongside their Kurdish allies, though they are outnumbered, outgunned, and outspent by their Islamist foes.” Although the Christians receive very little support from the states, they continue to fight for their cause. While other more liberal articles support the end of any kind of violent opposition in Syria, this article supports Christian efforts, presenting a personal anecdote of a Christian man who continues to fight for his cause.

# data[].attributes.body
Christian Beck/ Abel Gorfu

This perspective is from one of the best known conservative news source, Fox. The right leaning article suggested how it agreed with the tactics used to resolve, at least partially, Portugal's massive debt. They called it an "economic crash diet", and expressed agreement with the policies taken. Pension cuts and tax increases are things normally conservatives would disagree with, but in the case of trying to absolve a country's debt they seem to have made an exception. However, it is clear that they favor absolving work entitlements. In accord with the right wing desire to spend responsibly, they indicate favor at Prime Minister Coehlo's responsibility, citing almost a 10% drop in monetary borrowing. As they near the end of this fiscal crisis (hopefully), the 3- year bailout program will end in may. The right wing supports financial independence, which hopefully Portugal will realize very soon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Portuguese are less than three months away from their big day - May 17 - when they expect to get financial sovereignty back after three years of being told what to do by foreign bailout creditors.

In return for the 78 billion-euro ($107 billion) rescue that has since 2011 prevented national bankruptcy, Portugal consented to an economic crash diet: deep cuts in pay and pensions and welfare rights, steep tax increases, and an end to long-standing labor entitlements.

Countries which share the euro currency are eager for Portugal to show it is financially fit again. Its recovery would help the bloc draw a line under its debt crisis and open the door to growth that could have a beneficial knock-on effect around the globe.

With the eurozone's financial storm clearing, few reckon Portugal will need more cash, like Greece did. But if there are doubts over its ability to go it alone, the bailout creditors could decide to grant it a protective line of credit that would come with strings attached - more oversight and austerity. Bailout inspectors were due to arrive Thursday for their next-to-last assessment on the issue.

THE PLUS COLUMN

Portugal this month reached a milestone: private investors trusted it enough to give it a long-term loan.

Three years earlier, international investors had started demanding exorbitant rates to lend to Portugal, fearing they might not get their money back. But on Feb. 11 the Portuguese debt agency raised 3 billion euros in a sale of 10-year bonds at an affordable, though still pricey, interest rate of 5.11 percent. When Portugal asked for its bailout, that rate was 17 percent. There was demand for three times the amount of bonds sold, and 83 percent of them were taken up by foreign investors.

Deputy Prime Minister Paulo Portas summed up the government's view in three words: "Portugal is back."

Meanwhile, officials say last year's budget deficit will be better than the targeted 5.5 percent of gross domestic product. In 2010, it was a whopping 10.1 percent.

Portugal last year also broke out of its worst recession in three decades. The economy grew at the second fastest rate in the 18-nation eurozone in the last quarter of 2013, expanding 0.5 percent on the previous three months. In 2012, it shrank 3.2 percent.

The jobless rate has been inching lower, from a record 17.7 percent at the start of last year to 15.4 percent at the end of December. Exports were up 4.6 percent last year after a 5.7 percent jump in 2012. Tourism had a record year, with hotels hosting 14.4 million tourists, up 4.2 percent on 2012.

The government has made the economy leaner and nimbler. It has, for example, made it easier and cheaper to hire and fire workers and alter their working hours and duties; begun restructuring the legal system and state-owned companies; and scrapped century-old rent controls.

Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho says the Portuguese have given up some of their bad habits, such as lavish spending financed by credit. Household borrowing for consumption fell 9.4 percent in 2012 after a 5.8 percent drop the previous year.

"We are today living much more within our means," Passos Coelho said this month.

THE MINUS COLUMN

Despite all Portugal's efforts, the main ratings agencies still classify the country's bonds as junk. Bulgaria and Romania are rated safer bets by Standard & Poor's.

The bailout creditors have twice had to ease Portugal's deficit targets as the economy nosedived. Public debt has grown to around 130 percent of GDP, more than double the eurozone ceiling of 60 percent.

The financial sector is still weak - the five biggest banks had their worst ever year in 2013.

And the standard of living is going backwards. GDP per capita in 2010 was 80.4 percent of the EU average. In 2013, it was down to 76 percent.

Street protests, though they have never reached the level of violence seen in bailed-out Greece, have compelled the government to tread carefully. It has struggled to reform the hard-lobbying energy sector and the civil service.

Some analysts fear the economic makeover has been skin-deep and that it could soon be "business as usual." Portugal has needed three bailouts in less than 40 years.

"Change has been very relevant, but there hasn't been a big bang," said Antonio Barroso, a London-based analyst with the Teneo Intelligence consulting firm. "If these big bangs have not happened during the crisis, they won't happen during normal times."

And the scars of austerity will take time to heal. In 2012, more than 121,000 people emigrated in the biggest mass departure since 1960. The 2012 birth rate was the lowest on record.

WHAT CAN STILL GO WRONG

The perils for Portugal come from three directions: political rivalries, the Constitutional Court, and the fortunes of the global economy.

Ahead of a scheduled 2015 general election, party leaders are already talking again about lowering taxes and spending more public money.

The leader of the main opposition Socialist Party, Antonio Jose Seguro, has struck a chord with disgruntled voters and taken a lead in polls by accusing the government of turning a blind eye to hardship. "Our country has to change course," Seguro said Tuesday.

The Constitutional Court has several times struck down proposed pay and pension cuts and may disallow other austerity measures.

Meanwhile, Portugal remains vulnerable to international market conditions.

Finance Minister Maria Luis Albuquerque warned that, even after May 17, Portugal can't relax its focus on spending cuts and reforms.

"I am sure that market pressure ... will continue," she said this week, adding that Portugal's financial circumstances "will continue to be challenging and somewhat fragile for quite a long time."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Portugal nears end of painful 3-year bailout program, but more austerity and reforms likely

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Portuguese are less than three months away from their big day - May 17 - when they expect to get financial sovereignty back after three years of being told what to do by foreign bailout creditors.

# data[].attributes.headline
High Costs of Adopting Common Core (Jenna Iwamura, Emily Small, Elaine Zhao)

# data[].attributes.subject
High Costs of Adopting Common Core (Jenna Iwamura, Emily Small, Elaine Zhao)

# data[].attributes.body
This right-leaning article from Fox News details the costs of adopting Common Core standards. They reveal the fact that schools will need to purchase computers for testing and new textbooks for the new curriculum. The right side seems to be leaning against Common Core whereas most left-leaning sources were supporting it. This fits in with the right wing's larger political perspective because they generally do not want more federal government involvement and thus would not support a new national education standard change. Also, they are unhappy with the fact that because Common Core involves many costs that many people may overlook, more of the tax money that citizens pay will have to go to adopting Common Core, and the right wing tend not to support measures that increase tax burdens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
States are learning the cost of Common Core is uncommonly high.

The federally-backed standards initiative, first proposed by the nation's governors and an educators' association, seeks to impose a national standard for achievement among K-12 students. So far, 45 states plus the District of Columbia have signed on, with some implementing curriculum designed for the Common Core Standards Initiative during the current school year and the rest set to take part in the next school year. But several states are reconsidering their participation, and one big reason is the cost.

States will spend up to an estimated $10 billion up front, then as much as $800 million per year for the first seven years that the controversial program is up and running. Much of the cost is on new, Common Core-aligned textbooks and curriculum, but the added expenses also include teacher training, technology upgrades, testing and assessment. The figures are taking states by surprise.

[pullquote]

"It's a fair amount of money given a lot of states signed up without any cost analysis," Theodor Rebarber, CEO and founder of the nonprofit Accountability Works, which sanctioned the study on the projected costs of Common Core, told FoxNews.com. "Just looking at the cost aspect, it was not focused at the time, so a lot of jurisdictions did not realize what would occur down the road."

A 2012 study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute called, "Putting a Price Tag on the Common Core: How Much Will Smart Implementation Cost?" found the costs for implementing Common Core will vary, depending on how much a state buys in. The study detailed three levels of implementation - a "Bare Bones" rollout plan, a "Business as Usual" traditional plan (the priciest) and a hybrid, or "Balanced Implementation," combining the most and least expensive elements.

Education officials in Maryland estimated in a report last month that it will require $100 million to upgrade computers statewide to support the testing that is the centerpiece of Common Core. Georgia and California are also finding that costs are too high to implement Common Core, with the latter estimated to spend approximately $35 million per year, or about $30 per student, in testing costs alone.

The study by Accountability Works, the Maryland-based nonprofit education advocacy group, estimated that schools nationwide will need $6.87 billion for technology, $5.26 billion for professional development, $2.47 billion for textbooks and $1.24 billion for assessment testing over the first seven years that Common Core is in effect.

But Common Core advocates point out that items like textbooks, study materials and technological upgrades must be funded whether under Common Core or any other program. A recent report found that schools already spend nearly $700 million per year testing and assessing students, which could mean even more of the new expenses are really just cost-shifting, according to Carissa Miller, deputy executive director of Council of Chief State School Officers.

"The costs of implementing these new assessments will vary state by state and school by school depending on the technology needed to build the infrastructure to give the assessments," Miller said. "That being said, the technology schools need to give the assessments is also a critical tool educators need to ensure all students are prepared for college and career."

Officials with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, one of the two groups charged with providing testing and learning materials, told FoxNews.com that schools will be given testing options to help defray the costs. Spokeswoman Jacqueline King said the consortium is committed to keeping the testing and assessment component of Common Core from breaking the states' banks.

"The assessment tests are built to run on the computer systems that schools have today," King said. "All they need are the basic requirements and we are keeping the bandwidth as small as possible."

King adds that schools will have sufficient leeway, up to 12 weeks for elementary students to administer the tests so every student will be able to use a computer.

"We are also providing a paper and pencil option for the first three years," she added.

In addition, the federal government is providing states with a total of $350 million in aid to make the transition to Common Core.

Still, no one is disputing that implementing the Common Core program will cost states, which could make it unpopular with taxpayers as well as parents who support local control of what kids are taught. Critics say the program, which now has the full backing of the federal government, amounts to Washington taking over curriculum and sticking locals with the bill.

"When first promoting Common Core State Standards, the Department of Education used a carrot-and-stick approach by awarding grant money and waivers from No Child Left Behind regulations in exchange for adoption of the standards," Rep.Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO.) said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "At a time of economic recession and shrinking state budgets, this federal money enticed the vast majority of states to adopt CCSS and their aligned assessments, often without states being able to fully analyze the future costs of annual testing. I'm afraid the bloom is off the rose as Missouri, and a number of other states, are realizing the new assessments will cost nearly twice as much as the previous state-based tests."

"Moreover, I am concerned that many of our rural districts will not even have the technological capability required for the new tests, adding even more costs," he added.

Glyn Wright, Executive Director of the Eagle Forum, also stressed how the budget constrains could be a real issue for many schools.

"At a time when many states and school districts are struggling to stay afloat financially, the costs in this massive, unfunded mandate to these states will undoubtedly fall on the backs of the taxpayers," Wright said to FoxNews.com. "Funding aside, none of these estimates take into account the greatest cost to children, parents, and teachers - the massive transfer of power from state and local school systems to faceless, unelected federal bureaucrats."

Louisiana State Rep. Cameron Henry last year urged his state's Gov. Bobby Jindal to stop the state from taking part in the federal standards program. In addition to claiming it eliminates parental involvement and local control, he said the testing, to be conducted in Louisiana and 17 other states by Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, would cost the state too much money.

"Like the costs of the Affordable Care Act, Louisiana cannot afford the longterm costs associated with implementing PARCC testing," Henry wrote.

Jindal has not stated a clear position on Common Core, telling the Baton Rouge Press Club last month that he supports tough standards, yet leaving open the door for a reversal of the state's decision to participate. "We cannot retreat from rigorous standards," said Jindal. "However, I am absolutely opposed to any kind of federal takeover of a curriculum or federal government involvement in dictating to us our curriculum."

None of the 45 states participating in Common Core have completely backed out of the program, but measures have been introduced in several Legislatures to do so. Georgia, Oklahoma and Alabama are among states that are now balking at participating in the testing process. Officials from Pennsylvania have said that they will consider other testing options.

This past December, Kansas opted out of using the assessments and opted to commission tests from the University of Kansas instead. Last month the state of Alaska opted to go with testing from the University of Kansas as well.

Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @perrych

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High cost of Common Core has states rethinking the national education standards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
States are learning the cost of Common Core is uncommonly high. The federally-backed standards initiative, first proposed by the nation's governors and an educators' association, seeks to impose a national standard for achievement among K-12 students.

# data[].attributes.body
With such an emphasis on gun control nowadays in the media and in political debates it comes as a surprise that ATF agents are losing their guns. These ATF agents reportedly have misplaced their firearms and in some cases these do not get recovered leaving them to the public to recover these. With an issue such as this coming out it will undoubtedly strengthen the argument that we need to emphasize stricter gun control laws as are agents of the law cannot even keep track of them. This also begs the question of the responsibility of our federal agents. This is much different than a civilian losing a gun because we entrust these individuals with our lives to uphold the law and if they lose their firearms this can lead to criminals or kids getting their hands on them which may lead to in severe cases homicide. So should we enforce stricter gun control laws because of cases like these ATF officials or do we need to enforce stricter policies on ATF policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ATF agents are losing track of their government-issued firearms, according to a new report, with records showing multiple instances where officers forgot their guns after leaving them on top of cars, in bathrooms and in automobile glove compartments.

The incidents were catalogued in a report Wednesday by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Internal records obtained by the newspaper reportedly show ATF agents had their guns lost or stolen at least 45 times between 2009 and 2013.

But the ATF sharply disputed the report, with a spokeswoman telling FoxNews.com that many of the lost weapons were later recovered.

Spokeswoman Ginger Colbrun said that of the 19 firearms lost -- as opposed to stolen -- between 2009 and 2013, 13 were "recovered shortly after they were reported lost." Further, she said the cases have "significantly declined," with only loss of a firearm reported last year. With nearly 2,400 agents on the force, she noted the percentage of lost or stolen firearms was less than 1 percent.

"ATF has a stringent firearms and weapons policy for properly securing and storing firearms for which its almost 2,400 agents must adhere," she said.

Though most of the lost weapons were handguns, the newspaper reported that at least two were assault rifles. The report detailed two incidents where agents left their guns on the roof of a car. One Illinois agent placed his Smith & Wesson on top of his car while dropping off his children at a soccer game, and drove away. The gun was later found on an off-ramp.

Another North Dakota agent left his gun on his car roof and forgot about it, until his daughter drove the car to a friend's house, according to the article. The gun was never found.

In yet another incident, two boys in Iowa reportedly found an ATF gun in a storm drain. Only then did the responsible agent tell investigators he had misplaced the gun.

According to the report, the ATF has a bigger problem with lost or stolen weapons than other federal law enforcement agencies. The newspaper previously reported on a questionable operation in Milwaukee during which an ATF machine gun was stolen from an agent's truck in 2012. All these incidents are separate from the discontinued Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed hundreds of guns to be sold and carried into Mexico as part of an anti-trafficking sting.

ATF guns are supposed to be stored in "secured, locked locations" when not being carried by the agents. The Journal Sentinel reported that ATF has reduced the minimum punishment for the first-time loss of weapons from three days of unpaid suspension to one day -- supposedly to encourage agents to quickly report such losses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast and Forgetful: Dozens of ATF guns reportedly lost, stolen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ATF agents are losing track of their government-issued firearms at an alarming rate, according to a new report, with records showing multiple instances where officers forgot their guns after leaving them on top of their cars, in bathrooms and in glove compartments.