Month: January 2020

Categories
Quick Analysis

CoronaVirus Info from the CDC: Everything You Need to Know

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is closely monitoring an outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus (named “2019-nCoV”) that was first detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China and which continues to expand. Chinese health officials have reported thousands of infections with 2019-nCoV in China, with the virus reportedly spreading from person-to-person in many parts of that country. Infections with 2019-nCoV, most of them associated with travel from Wuhan, also are being reported in a growing number of international locations, including the United States. The United States reported the first confirmed instance of person-to-person spread with this virus on January 30, 2020.

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats, and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect people and then spread between people such as with MERS and SARS.

Source and Spread of the Virus

Chinese health authorities were the first to post the full genome of the 2019-nCoV in GenBankexternal icon, the NIH genetic sequence database, and in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAIDexternal icon) portal, an action which has facilitated detection of this virus. CDC is posting the full genome of the 2019-nCoV viruses detected in U.S. patients to GenBank as sequencing is completed.

2019-nCoV is a betacoronavirus, like MERS and SARs, all of which have their origins in bats. The sequences from U.S. patients are similar to the one that China initially posted, suggesting a likely single, recent emergence of this virus from an animal reservoir.

Early on, many of the patients in the outbreak of respiratory illness caused by 2019-nCov in Wuhan, China had some link to a large seafood and live animal market, suggesting animal-to-person spread. Later, a growing number of patients reportedly did not have exposure to animal markets, indicating person-to-person spread. Chinese officials report that sustained person-to-person spread in the community is occurring in China. Learn what is known about the spread of newly emerged coronaviruses.

Situation in U.S.

Imported cases of 2019-nCoV infection in people have been detected in the U.S. While person-to-person spread among close contacts has been detected with this virus, at this time this virus is NOT currently spreading in the community in the United States.

Key Points

  • CDC recommends that travelers avoid all nonessential travel to China.
  • There is an ongoing outbreak of respiratory illness caused by a novel (new) coronavirus that can be spread from person to person.
    • Chinese officials have closed transport within and out of Wuhan and other cities in Hubei province, including buses, subways, trains, and the international airport. Other locations may be affected.
    • Older adults and people with underlying health conditions may be at increased risk for severe disease.
    • The situation is evolving. This notice will be updated as more information becomes available.
    It is advisable to purchase the drug directly from its manufacturers or authorized sellers in order to avoid getting fake pills. canada in levitra These are levitra tabs usually completed by using special imaging techniques. This is one extraordinary point, and doubtlessly the principle point, why you ought to take it, yet in the event that you look what’s behind this you’ll be flabbergasted. respitecaresa.org brand levitra in usa In either case never start taking an erectile buy cialis generic dysfunction drug.

More Information

What is the current situation?

  • CDC recommends that travelers avoid all nonessential travel to China. In response to anoutbreak of respiratory illness, Chinese officials have closed transport within and out of Wuhan and other cities in Hubei province, including buses, subways, trains, and the international airport.  Additional restrictions and cancellations of events may occur.
  • There is limited access to adequate medical care in affected areas.

A novel (new) coronavirus is causing an outbreak of respiratory illness that began in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. This outbreak began in early December 2019 and continues to grow. Initially, some patients were linked to the Wuhan South China Seafood City (also called the South China Seafood Wholesale Market and the Hua Nan Seafood Market).  

Chinese health officials have reported thousands of cases in China and severe illness has been reported, including deaths. Cases have also been identified in travelers to other countries, including the United States. Person-to-person spread is occurring in China. The extent of person-to-person spread outside of China is unclear at this time.

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses. There are several known coronaviruses that infect people and usually only cause mild respiratory disease, such as the common cold. However, at least two previously identified coronaviruses have caused severe disease — severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus. 

Signs and symptoms of this illness include fever, cough, and difficulty breathing. This novel coronavirus has the potential to cause severe disease and death. Available information suggests that older adults and people with underlying health conditions or compromised immune systems may be at increased risk of severe disease.

In response to this outbreak, Chinese officials are screening travelers leaving some cities in China. Several countries and territories throughout the world are reported to have implemented health screening of travelers arriving from China.

On arrival to the United States, travelers from China may be asked questions to determine if they need to undergo health screening. Travelers with signs and symptoms of illness (fever, cough, or difficulty breathing) will have an additional health assessment.

What can travelers do to protect themselves and others?

CDC recommends avoiding nonessential travel to China. If you must travel:

  • Avoid contact with sick people.
  • Discuss travel to China with your healthcare provider. Older adults and travelers with underlying health issues may be at risk for more severe disease.
  • Avoid animals (alive or dead), animal markets, and products that come from animals (such as uncooked meat).
  • Wash hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. Use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer if soap and water are not available.

If you were in China in the last 14 days and feel sick with fever, cough, or difficulty breathing, you should:

  • Seek medical care right away. Before you go to a doctor’s office or emergency room, call ahead and tell them about your recent travel and your symptoms. 
  • Avoid contact with others.
  • Not travel while sick.
  • Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when coughing or sneezing.
  • Wash hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. Use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer if soap and water are not available.

Clinician Information

Healthcare providers should obtain a detailed travel history for patients with fever and respiratory symptoms. For patients with these symptoms who were in China on or after December 1, 2019, and had onset of illness within 2 weeks of leaving, consider the novel coronavirus and notify infection control personnel and your local health department immediately.

Although routes of transmission have yet to be definitively determined, CDC recommends a cautious approach to interacting with patients under investigation. Ask such patients to wear a surgical mask as soon as they are identified. Conduct their evaluation in a private room with the door closed, ideally an airborne infection isolation room, if available. Personnel entering the room should use standard precautions, contact precautions, and airborne precautions, and use eye protection (goggles or a face shield). For additional infection control guidance, visit CDC’s Infection Control webpage.

Illustration: location of known cases of the Coronavirus (CDC)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Accelerating New York’s Descent

Judge John H. Wilson (ret.) has provided this article exclusively to

the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.

As was discussed in my last article, New York State has enacted a sweeping change in how the Criminal Courts handle one of their most basic functions – whether or not bail is set when a defendant is under arrest for a crime.  Under the new rules, the Courts are required to consider the release of most defendants, with the least restrictive conditions applied to their release terms.

This had led to some truly ludicrous proposals for ensuring that the accused return to court, including New York City Mayor DeBlasio’s plan to give free Mets tickets, gift cards and free movie passes to criminal defendants in an effort to convince them to return to court.  

But there is another criminal justice reform scheduled to take effect in the new year – one that has caused prosecutors in New York State to sweat even more than the changes to the bail statute.

In any criminal prosecution, the defendant is entitled to “discovery” – that is, information regarding the evidence the prosecutor intends to use against the defendant. This would include police reports, witness statements, photographs, laboratory reports – essentially anything that could be used against a defendant at trial.

 A prosecutor is also obligated to turn over to the defense any materials that may tend to exculpate a defendant, such as a statement from a witness who cannot identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, or a police report that indicates someone else may have been suspected of committing the crime.

In the past, the issue has been the timing of these disclosures to the defense.  Under New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 240.20, disclosure of the prosecutor’s evidence was made “upon a demand to produce by a defendant.”  The prosecutor could then seek a protective order from the Court for materials they believed should not be turned over to the defense, or that required redaction of information that may endanger a witness (such as removing the name of the informant from an application for a search warrant).  If the prosecutor failed to turn information over to the defense, the defendant could seek a court order under CPL Sec. 240.40, and ultimately, seek that the non disclosed information be excluded from use at trial.  

 These rules led to an elaborate game of hide and seek between prosecutors and police officers on one side, and defendants and their attorneys on the other.  After the initial request for disclosure was made by the defense, often the prosecutor asked the Court for additional time to produce the requested materials, or produced what information they had minutes before an evidentiary hearing was scheduled to begin.

Genshi and genexpharma are two tadalafil cheap india best manufacturers in the world. According to studies, nearly 10 to 20 percent men are cialis wholesale india using ED drugs unnecessarily. But because scar tissue is not elastic, or stretchy, but rather hard, it stays put while other parts of the penis engorge, resulting in cheap cialis uk curvature or severe bending. cialis online prescription When it comes to dysfunction of body parts, the major problem faced by the affected persons is in urinating as they cannot satisfy them.

More than once, a prosecutor has withheld materials that were favorable to the defense until AFTER the trial, claiming that these materials had been “recently discovered” or “lost in the file.”  In 2005, for instance, Noura Jackson was convicted of murder in Tennessee.  Yet, evidence that could have discredited a key witness against Jackson was withheld from the defendant by the prosecutor, leading to the reversal of her conviction in 2014, after Ms Jackson had spent more than 10 years behind bars.  

   In my own experience, I have seen instances of prosecutors playing fast and loose with the discovery rules.  When I sat as a trial judge in Bronx Criminal Court, I sanctioned a prosecutor for withholding evidence. 

  Under New York State’s discovery reform, prosecutors will no longer have the ability to disclose materials relevant to a criminal case at their own leisure.  Instead, NY State Senate Bill S1716, which is due to take effect January 1, 2020, requires that “the prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations…as soon as practicable but not later than fifteen calendar days after the defendant’s arraignment…”   A defendant no longer needs to file a request for discovery – instead, the burden is on the prosecutor to provide their evidence within 15 days of the beginning of the case.

 Naturally, New York state prosecutors have pushed back against the new law.  “without additional staffers and upgraded technology, the reforms would face a series of internal hurdles, district attorneys warned the Senate Codes Committee during a seven-hour public hearing in Manhattan. The increased pressure could inadvertently cost prosecutors cases, and, if material is not properly reviewed and redacted, witnesses and other parties could be put in danger, they said.” 

But Governor Cuomo and the Legislature are standing fast, and will not even agree to the additional funding prosecutors have requested to implement the changes.  

  My own experience informs my opinion in this matter.  When working as the Chief Prosecutor for a Native American reservation’s tribal court in North Dakota, I provided police reports, photographs and whatever evidence I had available to the defense prior to the arraignment of the defendant.  Preparing these documents took up much of my morning, particularly on Monday, when there were no court sessions on the weekend.  By providing these materials in advance, however, a defendant had the ability to fairly assess the case against him or her, and decide whether or not to plead guilty in an informed manner.  In the majority of cases, the defendant took a sentence at the arraignment, knowing there was more than sufficient evidence to convict them.

I am sure there are readers who will feel that a defendant doesn’t need this information – he or she knows whether or not they’re guilty.  As attractive as this reasoning sounds, this theory stands our justice system on its head.  A defendant is always presumed to be innocent, until actually found guilty or enters a guilty plea.  Under this principal, the defendant has the right to know what evidence the prosecutor has available, so that the defendant may make an intelligent, knowing, and informed decision on whether or not they wish to waive their rights, and receive a sentence.  

 For once, the NY State legislature has the right idea – and prosecutors have no one but themselves to blame for these changes.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

A Legal Analysis of Trump’s Impeachment

There is a central problem with all the breathless charges levied against the President in the Senate impeachment trial.  None of the allegations, pompously delivered by hyperventilating politicians and pundits, amounts to a crime.  In fact, in an odd twist, if Trump failed to act in response to Joe Biden’s prior actions, he could have been accused of negligence.

As a young law student decades ago, I took part in an exercise mandatory for all in that branch of academia: breaking down a case into its basic elements. A performance of that same rigorous mental endeavor breaks down in a fascinating manner.

Burisma Holdings is a Ukrainian gas company widely considered to be corrupt. It employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, while Biden served as the point man for the Obama Administration to that nation.  Hunter has no known expertise in the gas business. (He is an attorney who has been a cocaine abuser and was dismissed from the Navy.) The matter is similar to Hunter’s activities in China.  Hunter flew along with his father on Air Force two to China on Biden’s official mission, and returned with an over one billion dollar financial deal in his pocket, on a business area he also knew little or nothing about. 

Based on that objective analysis, there was nothing unlawful or unethical about President Trump’s actions in seeking to prosecute this obvious misuse of a federal office.  Indeed, a failure to do what his Administration did could well have been considered negligent.

It is readily apparent that Joe and Hunter’s actions are deeply questionable, and should have been investigated thoroughly.  That is precisely what the Trump Administration did. Some have quibbled about whether it was necessary to delay by three months lethal aid to Ukraine while the matter was being reviewed; others point out that it was necessary to encourage Kyiv’s cooperation. Ironically, those complaining about the several months delay in aid (aid which, by the way, was clearly given after that time period without any quid pro quo) supported the complete and total denial of that lethal aid by the Obama Administration.

A rigorous legal analysis of the charges against President Trump thoroughly indicates that his administration acted correctly, and, once again, failing to have acted as it did would have been negligent.

The second of the two charges against the President is that he obstructed Congress. 

Since before he was even inaugurated, his opponents have sought to eliminate his ability to govern.  I was in Washington, D.C. hours before Trump’s inauguration. His opponents, who refused to accept the election results, were marching around the Capital holding signs demanding that he be impeached!  Shortly thereafter, a charge of Russian collusion was levied at him, which was thoroughly investigated and found not only to be completely false, but the product of a smear effort by his campaign opponent.

Dogs are susceptible to cancer, arthritis, spinal disc disease, digestive cialis online purchase disorders, and other pain and dysfunction. The high flow blood run purchase tadalafil india in gentile area and make the erection of male penis possible. There cheap viagra australia are number of recognized universities that offer MCA distance learning institute in Delhi that prepare graduate students for productive careers in software industry. However, it can also deal with Get More Info professional viagra online damage that has been already done, using the tool for wrong ends.

Any opposition to the various smear campaigns has been labelled “obstruction.”  Any attempt to restrict the harassment of presidential appointees, a rather overt move to cripple the ability of Trump’s Administration to govern, has been labelled “obstruction.” 

 Failing to come up with any legal basis to overturn the 2016 election, the opposition has resorted to attempts to divert the White House’s attention away from fulfilling its campaign promises by forcing it to defend against various unfounded charges. Absent any real basis, hyperbole is employed.  Every baseless allegation is nonsensically labelled “devastating news against the President.”

The fiery language and the extreme opposition currently observed in the Senate trial are the result of two key Democratic Party concerns. 

The first is their fear that they will not be able to defeat him in a fair election. Rep. Adam Schiff, a key figure in the impeachment, has already said that a Trump re-election would be “invalid.”

The second is more subtle, and includes greedy politicians of both parties.  

Americans have always wondered about the shocking ability of federal elected officials of relatively modest means to become astoundingly wealthy after taking office. Trump’s threats to stop that, to, as he puts it, “drain the swamp” is a direct threat to them.  This is particularly true in terms of financial relations between members of Congress and foreign governments. The President is not alone in this endeavor.  Louisiana Senator John Kennedy has called for a ban on financial dealings by elected officials with Ukraine.

This impeachment, as a fair legal analysis would reveal, is a textbook exercise in what lawyers call “Abuse of Process,” a foul practice arising when a plaintiff misuses or perverts legal proceedings not justified by the underlying legal action, for the purpose of intimidating or harassing an opponent.

Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Restoring the Federal Courts

An exclusive article by Judge John Wilson, (ret.)

Recently, the Second Circuit, which is the federal appellate court for New York, Connecticut and Vermont, ordered the resentencing of a man convicted of the attempted murder of an FBI Agent in 2015.  Fareed Mumuni, who is reported to be an ISIS supporter, tried to stab the Agent during a search of his home.  Mumuni had received a sentence of 17 years from District Judge Margo Brodie. 

However, unlike the usual resentencing order, here the Second Circuit ordered the lower court to give Mumuni a higher sentence.  Speaking for the majority, Justice Jose Cabranes stated that Judge Brodie “drastically discounted the seriousness of Mumuni’s offense conduct based on a sterilized and revisionist interpretation of the record.”  This led to a “clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence…a mistake that resulted in a shockingly low sentence that, if upheld, would damage the administration of justice in our country.” 

Reductions in sentences are far more common on appeal than increases, so much so that some legal scholars have questioned the constitutionality of increasing a sentence on appeal.  To date, this is a minority opinion, and appellate courts have exercised the authority to increase or decrease a sentence at their discretion.  But nonetheless, an increase of a sentence is unusual enough to draw some attention.

Justice Cabranes was appointed to the Second Circuit in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.  However, since Donald Trump was elected President in 2016, five new justices have been appointed to the Second Circuit – Richard Sullivan, Joseph Bianco, Michael Park, William Nardini, and most recently, in November of 2019, Steven Menashi. 

In fact, with the appointment of former White House counsel Menashi, the Second Circuit now has a majority of judges appointed by Republican Presidents. 

Could this Republican majority be the reason why the Second Circuit now holds that a 17 year sentence is “shockingly low” for the attempted murder of an FBI Agent?  The better question to ask is, what is the effect of the return of judges to the federal courts who support restrain over activism?

Clearly, the Trump Administration has made it a priority to appoint judges who are Constitutional conservatives to the bench.  This strategy has been an overwhelming success – as of December, 1 out of 4 Circuit Court Judges in the United States are Trump appointees.  AS the Washington Post notes, “Trump’s appointments have flipped three circuit courts to majority GOP-appointed judges…The president has also selected younger conservatives for these lifetime appointments, ensuring his impact is felt for many years.” 

Most men are burdened with a problem keeping Go Here cialis 5mg generika an erection longer males feel embarrassed and frustrated, which causes lack of sex desire or decreased libido. In the middle age, men are viagra italy generalization, but the women are frequently attacked than the guys as they are actually weakened. Use of stretching weight – Men, sometime, use stretching weight to grow their organ and this method requires them to wear weight for many hours. viagra online from india Tension Headache Symptoms In general, a tension-type headache to periods during or after stress and 5mg generic cialis usually toward the latter part of the day.

How important is this on-going “revolution” in the federal courts?  The Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is a good example.  Four judges have been nominated to sit in the Fifth circuit by Donald Trump – James Ho, Stuart Kyle Duncan, Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham.    These judges joined a court that already held a Republican majority – but with the addition of these justices, the Fifth Circuit has issued a series of decisions that are leading the “Conservative Revolution” in the federal courts, including a holding in December that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. 

(For a review of the Fifth Circuit that is entertaining for all the wrong reasons, and epitomizes a view that can best be described as “leftist tears,” see this article from the on-line magazine Slate here An example – “The 5th Circuit’s descent into lawlessness did not happen by accident…There are now 11 GOP nominees on the court and just five Democratic nominees. (There’s also one vacancy, because some Republican senators deem Trump’s choice for the seat insufficiently militant.)”)

Of all the Circuit Courts, the Ninth Circuit is the most watched in this context.  Here, the President has nominated no less than 10 judges to sit in this Court, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California and Hawaii – Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson, Eric Miller, Bridget Bade, Daniel Collins, Kenneth Lee, Daniel Bress, Danielle Hunsaker, Lawrence VanDyke and Patrick Bumatay.  With these 10 new judges, more than any other Circuit court in the nation, conservative judges make up almost half the Ninth circuit bench.

The Ninth Circuit is famous for a series of activist rulings, including blocking the Trump Administration’s travel ban from terrorist supporting nations no less than three times.  The Ninth Circuit also had the reputation of being the “most reversed” circuit in the nation, but this assessment is a bit of an exaggeration.  According to FindLaw..com, “Based on the October 2017 term, the Ninth Circuit was often on the wrong side of the Supreme Court. The High Court reversed 15 of its cases — twice as many as from any other federal appeals court. But over time, the Ninth Circuit is barely ahead of the curve. Since 2007, the 9th has trailed three other circuits in reversal rates. About 75.5 percent of its cases were reversed during that time, but the Sixth Circuit was most-reversed with a 88.1 percent rate. The Eighth Circuit came in second with 76.3 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit was reversed 75.9 percent of the time.” 

Nonetheless, given its history and reputation, the changes to the composition of the Ninth Circuit are historic.  Among those being replaced are such judges as “the late Stephen Reinhardt, the ‘liberal lion’ who authored the opinion tossing California’s ban on same-sex marriage; and the late Harry Pregerson, arguably even more liberal than Reinhardt, who in his 1979 confirmation hearing told the Senate that ‘if I had to follow my conscience or the law, I would follow my conscience.’” 

This change is the very heart of this so-called “revolution.”  For years, the federal courts have been stacked with activist judges who have ignored the law in favor of the dictates of their own consciences and political leanings.  Now, judges are being appointed who will follow the law, as written, and who will not impose their own views on the legislated will of the People.  

If for no other reason, and even were Donald Trump not to be reelected this year, the impact of his Presidency will be with us for a very long time.

Photo: U.S. 2nd Cir. Courthouse (DOJ)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Democrats Turn to Elitism

Americans have a long and unique spirit of anti-elitism, but leading Democrats reject that tradition.

Recently, presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg proclaimed that “We just can’t let the average American have guns in a crowded place…gun control saves lives…”  Rather ironically, he was responding to a statement about how armed church attendees protected themselves from an assailant, saving, according to some estimates, up to 200 lives. Similar to other anti-Second Amendment activists, he has failed to explain how keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will make them safer, considering that those who seek to rob, rape, or kill have no compunction in defying gun control laws, and have no difficulty in obtaining weapons.

While seeking to deprive New Yorkers of their Second Amendment rights, Bloomberg cut the size of his city’s police force. The elites have their own protection, in guarded buildings and offices. Who cares about the average citizen? It wasn’t a surprising remark from the former NYC mayor. During his tenure in office, he sought to regulate the diets of his constituents. 

In terms of defining elitism, even Bloomberg’s comments pale in comparison with Joe Biden, who, as Vice President, served in an administration that had no compunction about using the IRS and the Department of Justice to harass and intimidate those who disagreed with its policies. Biden, whose son flew with him on Air Force Two to China and returned with a billion dollar deal in pocket in a business area he had no expertise in, and whom, quite notoriously, gained another highly lucrative deal in Ukraine which his father was dealing with, wants to put blue-collar workers, specifically miners, out of work, telling them to just learn coding instead.

Bloomberg and Biden are continuing the elitist inclination of Hillary Clinton, who described her opponents as “A basket of deplorables” and Barack Obama, who referred to small town residents as people who “cling to guns or religion.”

 It’s not just politicians. Hollywood’s elites travel from their mansions on private planes, yachts, and limos to conferences where they chastise those who live in a small homes and travel in their cars, buses, and trains to work in the morning for not being environmentally conscious.

These are, of course, merely a few examples in a much larger move towards elitism, not just on actions but on thought as well.

These all forms come with different http://davidfraymusic.com/project/david-fray-the-german-symphony-orchestra-at-the-dso-berlin/ purchase levitra dosages, amount, and price. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute have recommended that diets that are high in fiber, plant foods, omega-3 fatty acids and low in saturated fat, trans fat and saturated fat constrict the arteries, but monounsaturated fat available in olive oil aid keep them working smoothly. order cheap cialis Read Full Article Despite the fact that it is promptly accessible and one can get it from the online store likewise, one ought to meet a spebuy viagra for cheap t to choose the measurements of cialis. The pills for ladies come in pink colour and for men it is available in blue colour.Kamagra in jelly is also ready for all those who feel shy to buy Kamagra jelly to tackle the hard-on issue is an effective solution. buy levitra viagra

In 2018, National Review described one example: “At Evergreen State College, left-wing students formed an impromptu, baseball-bat-wielding militia to hunt down suspected wrongthinkers. The college administration delicately referred to them as a ‘community patrol’dedicated to protecting the Evergreen campus from ‘external entities as well as those community members they distrust’…George Bridges, the president of Evergreen State, repeatedly told the campus police to stand down as left-wing protesters disrupted university events and menaced dissenters. The campus police chief told dissenting faculty member Bret Weinstein to stay away from the campus because her department could not guarantee his physical safety. As one administrator put it, under George Bridges, ‘reedom of speech is only for speech with which you agree and aggressively silencing those with whom you disagree is fair game.’

It is logical that elitism rises simultaneous with the growth of support for socialism. The very concept of that approach to governance is based on the idea that a selected group can somehow make better decisions about how to run your family, your business, indeed, your life, than you.

Socialism, the bedrock of elitism, is portrayed by much of academia and the media as a bit avant-garde, something appealing to the younger crowd. In reality, its an ancient and anti-freedom model.

The assertion of individual rights doesn’t have a particularly lengthy record in a history mainly filled with monarchs, dictators, oligarchs, and other elites. The age of gilded kings, queens, emperors and empresses isn’t as dead as it seems; only the names and excuses to stay in power keep changing. Russia lost its czar, but gained Communist Party rulers who held even greater control. Similar non-substantive changes have occurred in many locales.

Indeed, in Russia, the transition happened again.  When the Communist regime collapsed, essentially the same group rather quickly reclaimed power.  Putin, an old KGB hand, has, after only an unfortunately brief period, restored the same absolute power to his leadership that czars and commissars once held.

For centuries, Europe’s intermarried royal families controlled the lives of the continent’s residents.  That began to diminish as nationalism, often maligned but in reality a necessary step in European democratization, took hold. But as socialism gained acceptance, the concept of an elite class of self-defined intellectuals and leftist politicians took hold.

 In the United States, there is a mistaken tendency to link elitism with specific causes. That is a mistake.  In practice, elitism is a wholescale rejection of the individualism that is the very essence of the American tradition.

Illustration: Pixabay 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Foreign Policy Update

IRAN 

Nuclear weapons in Iran’s control were guaranteed, according to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, if the United States had not pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. He said the regime had been working on developing its nuclear program for years and that all the deal did was to delay its completion by a month to a few years. Pompeo in a comment during an interview said: “We accept the facts on the ground as they are. This is a regime that lied to get into that nuclear deal – you can see that now in what’s going on at the IAEA and Turquzabad, where we now know that they lied about the scope of their program.”

Iran stored documents and kept the technology in place but dispersed, according to Pompeo. Without a central research agency they still continued to develop weapons. The trump Administration, he added is determined to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons now and in the future. 

CHINA

In an on-the-record briefing, Ambassador Wells responded to questions about concerns the Administration has over China’s One Belt One Road initiative. Wells stated that the project “often doesn’t adhere to international standards – sustainability, labor environment.” Recently, the Ambassador participated in meetings in Pakistan where China’s concessional financing of projects in that country came up. She warned Pakistan that it “…should beware of the terms, to make sure that they’re getting the most for their money, that brings the greatest economic prosperity.” In recent years China has made large, direct investment in the infrastructure of developing countries in return for concessions that include the sale of raw materials and rare earths at prices favorable to the regime in Beijing, military basing rights, and economic and trade benefits. The Trump Administration is pulling off the band aid accord to Pompeo in a change from the small step approach employed by the previous administration. 

COLOMBIA

A couple of dozen countries met at the ministerial levels for talks recently in Colombia on terrorism policy. A senior official at the State Department who attended with Secretary Pompeo said there has been substantial movement in the last six months as several countries have designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, including Argentina, Paraguay, and more recently Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras. 

And it always comes cheap cialis http://www.midwayfire.com/?product=7754 back measure for measure. Now you don t have to go to your regular chemist store because these days, many online pharmacy stores are using high-end technologies and premium quality chemicals like nitric oxide and others, under expert guidance.It basically enhances our blood flow in penis, which invites sexual erection in a desired quantity. cheap cialis tadalafil Chemical cialis sample midwayfire.com cleaners make me sick, so i am very much into profit maximization process and development of potential client. Learn more significant points about other generic ED pills via online, one doesn’t need to face any kind of humiliation, midwayfire.com online sildenafil as prior he had to at the front of the physician or expert before using these drugs.

The official added that “President Duque announced that the Colombian Government was essentially doing a cut-and-paste job for E.U. terrorism sanctions and U.S. terrorism sanctions. They will be adopting those sanctions lists in their entirety, and President Duque called on all the other countries of the region to follow suit. We think it’s highly significant that Colombia sees the value in the E.U. and U.S. lists and wants to establish those as a global benchmark for countering terrorist finance.” The United States and Columbia last week signed an information-sharing agreement to facilitate the sharing of terrorist watchlist information. It marks one more step in American efforts to share information with its partners to better detect and deter terrorist travel and reduce the terrorist organization’s ability to launder money.

BIRTH TOURISM

In a significant change in American policy the State Department announced that effective January 24th, it is amending its B non-immigrant visa regulations to address what is commonly referred to as birth tourism. The B visitor visa category is for a temporary visit for business or pleasure. The updated regulation, according to the Department, “…will establish that pleasure excludes travel for the primary purpose of obtaining United States citizenship for a child by giving birth to the child in the United States. Under this amended regulation, consular officers overseas would deny any B visa application from an applicant whom the consular officer has reason to believe is traveling for that primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child.”

This change is intended to address the national security and law enforcement concerns associated with birth tourism. The final rule also codifies a requirement that B visa applicants who seek medical treatment in the United States must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the consular officer their arrangements for such treatment and establish their ability to pay all costs associated with such treatment.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trump First U.S. President to get China Trade Concessions

Daria Novak, a former U.S. State Department official with significant experience in Chinese affairs, authored this column. She writes each Friday on related topics.

Chinese government officials, and even some trade experts in Beijing, breathed a quick sigh of relief as the 96-page, Phase One of the US-China trade deal was inked on January 15, 2020. But does it represent more than a short respite in the trade war?

Unlike previous American administrations President Trump demanded, and won, real concessions from the Chinese along with rules for enforcing those changes. The US stood its ground in the trade talks and refused to accept the small, incremental moves offered to and accepted without reciprocity by previous American administrations – Republican and Democrat alike. While it remains questionable that China will enforce all the new trade rules, especially if they stand in opposition to the government’s domestic economic development plan, Phase One will define the path the two nations walk going forward in 2020. For the first time there is a new law creating a domestic mechanism in China that can be used by aggrieved parties to demand a fairer playing field when it comes to the theft of intellectual property (IP).

According to the Agreement China must create a public action plan to explain how it will implement enforcement of IP rights and obligations. The requirement that China publish this enforcement data will, at a minimum, provide a more accurate method for Washington to gauge China’s progress. This was lacking in previous negotiations. In return the US has agreed only to reduce a portion of the tariffs on $360 billion in Chinese imports in the eight-chapter agreement. 

President Xi Jinping now faces a robust series of provisions in the agreement related to technology transfer and intellectual property theft designed to shed light on China’s unfair trade practices. At issue for the United States is whether or not Xi will take the pragmatic steps required to implement those provisions. On the other hand, the Trump Administration is not facing any new Chinese demands on technology transfer or IP protections – with well-deserved credit going to USTR Lighthizer who negotiated Washington’s core grievance well.  

Most viagra prices why not try this out of the companies launch multiple products every year, and several new companies born every quarter. She said it felt sildenafil canada out of the blue; never even imagined by her. The blood arteries carrying blood to the male organ get strong learningworksca.org generic overnight viagra erection. Going for a driver’s education class insure safety that a person levitra without prescription or family member cannot deliver.

 A less noticed but significant provision in the Agreement is the establishment of a Bilateral Evaluation and Dispute Resolution Office. This mechanism provides a tiered and straight-forward system headed by the USTR and a Chinese vice premier. Below them are designated positions to handle day-to-day issues and the appeals process. If no resolution can be reached there is a process in place that parties may use to escalate the complaint. In the past, US companies bristled at exposing their firms to the public scrutiny of making such a complaint. Whether the Office is a success may depend on American’s firms’ willingness to use it.

Remedial measures, according to the Agreement, are to be proportionate and not retaliatory with the goal of creating and maintaining a normal trading relationship. If the other side does not agree, the only possible recourse is to withdraw from the agreement with a 60-day written notice, an action China is not likely to take over a single issue. Talks on Phase 2 of the trade deal are likely to begin soon but not conclude until after the US Presidential this fall. 

At home President Xi faces a myriad of issues related to the US economic sanctions, including a cooling domestic economy with growth slowing to levels below the required 6.2% required to achieve the country’s 10-year economic plan goal. If China’s top policymakers cannot find ways to curtail the slowdown and maintain growth there may be increased instability in the Chinese economy. This is on top of other domestic issues Xi must deal with such as the unrest in Hong Kong and the Uighur minority in western China.

Photo: Chinese government official site

Categories
Quick Analysis

Middle Finger Politics

Welcome to the era of Middle Finger Politics.

Government, as it was conceived by America’s Founding Fathers, was supposed to be constrained within certain limits, transparent, and answerable to the people.  It was designed to be responsive to the wishes of the voters as expressed in elections.

However, far too much influence and power are currently retained by a contingent of insiders who move back and forth between elective office and the bureaucracy. Democrats in particular have mastered the art of transferring from key appointed federal bureaucratic positions to life-long tenured permanent titles. The result is that rather than having a federal government that is responsive to the people, it feels free to give them and their wishes the middle finger.

Occasionally, an outsider wins a key election, and when they do, they are faced with a solid phalanx of the elite who attempt to control or destroy the people’s choice.  Reagan successfully beat back this opposition in the 1980s, and the result was a revitalized economy and, of course, the fall of the Soviet Union.  But the insiders learned their lesson, and now are far more skillful at enforcing their will.

All the power, influence, and resources of the permanent elite united in horror against the election of Donald Trump.  Their terror had less to do with his policies than with the fact that he was not a member of their exclusive club. 

The elite ignored the reality that China was stealing American jobs on a massive scale because their own investments in Chinese companies were returning a huge profit (for example, the Biden family made a fortune in China) so the President’s move to rein in Beijing’s rapacious policies was a direct slap at them. Their acolytes had jobs in the multitude of federal bureaucratic programs, not in fields like energy, high technology, or military development. When Trump promised to rearrange the budget and federal policy away from welfare programs that failed to stem poverty (but provided numerous bureaucratic jobs) the insiders went to war against him.

Trump’s worst sin, however, was actually doing what he When this happens, the couple should immediately take steps towards levitra 20 mg reigniting their sex lives and unluckily who have not heard about Kamagra. Driving experts always suggest getting http://raindogscine.com/tag/alejo-schettini/ viagra no prescription behind the wheel training from an expert professional. Thus, the magic pill commonly known as canadian viagra pharmacy also called as sildenafil, was brought in the year of 1996 as a safe rescue form of various dangerous health ailments. Flavonoids are http://raindogscine.com/anina-gana-en-anima-mundi-2013-sp/ viagra professional uk naturally occurring Anti-Oxidants that protect plants from toxins and help repair cell damage. promised to do.  For far too long, politicians have given the middle finger to the voters: promise everything, but only do what further empowers and enriches themselves when they get elected.

The concept of a nation united in common cause, whether it be to ensure national security, energy independence, or prosperity isn’t one favored by elites because they depend on dividing the population.  They do not want us to view each other as fellow Americans, but as warring tribes.  Blacks against whites, women against men, middle class vs. the poor, straight against gay, urban dwellers against those in rural areas, and every other division that can be created. Rather than produce actual results, such as a thriving economy or a strong military that deters enemy adventurism, it is far more in their interests to pit us against each other in order to deflect attention from the reality that they oppose the very essence of what the nation is truly all about.

And of course, dilute the very idea of being an American, of being part of a people protected by the Bill of Rights.  How to reduce the traditional adherence to that vital document?  Bring in vast numbers of foreign peoples who have little knowledge of it.  In the great migrations of the past, newcomers were “Americanized,” taught the basics of the United States’ unique culture of freedom. Currently, the elites simultaneously advocate opening the borders to anyone seeking to enter, and reject, as racist, nationalist, or any of a dozen other adjectives, the concept of “Americanizing” them as was done for prior immigrants.

The Founding Fathers enacted safeguards against the eventual rise of the elite. The First Amendment was enacted to allow individuals to openly criticize their elected leaders. The Second Amendment was to provide the population with the means to protect themselves from oppressive government, as well as safeguarding their homes and families without being dependent on government. The Fourth was designed to ensure privacy, and the Sixth to guarantee a fair trial when accused by government of a crime.  The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are a clear statement that those powers not specifically given to government are retained by the people.

The elitist move to weaken the First Amendment, abolish the Second, and ignore the rest is the ultimate middle finger.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.K. Elections Will Increase Trade with U.S.

The United Kingdom’s landmark election victory by conservatives has not been a popular topic in the U.S. media.

However, a key, and significantly beneficial result of that tsunami against Great Britain’s leftist elite is very probably an extraordinary trade deal which will greatly benefit the economies of both nations. The solidly defeated Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour Party attempted to convince British voters that Johnson’s victory, which would inevitably lead to the U.K. leaving the European Union, would have negative financial implications. The move is expected to be completed by January 31, 2020. Many believe, however, that a London-Washington trade deal will more than offset any loss from Brexit.

President Trump was one of the first world leaders to congratulate Boris Johnson on his re-election. The American President promised to establish a massive new economic relationship with London, which the White House said has “the potential to be far bigger and more lucrative” than what the European Union could have provided.

In anticipation of Brexit, a working group had been established in 2017 to provide increased opportunities for U.K. and U.S. businesses, workers, and consumers as the UK leaves the European Union, and to With such diverse use of prescription cialis it treats prolonged ED issues with very gentle care. Yes it’s levitra without prescription difficult to match the intensity of youth when it comes to your sex life. This is true about everything, tadalafil 25mg including driving. We have an obligation to our veterans, to our deceased veterans, to their families, and to all evil doers who think they buying levitra from canada can kill the innocent with impunity. explore ways to dramatically strengthen trade and investment ties. Their work included laying the groundwork for a potential future free trade paradigm once the UK has formally exited the European Union. U.S. goods and services trade with United Kingdom totaled an estimated $235.9 billion in 2017. Exports were $125.9 billion; imports were $110.0 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with United Kingdom was $15.9 billion in that same year.

The Wall Street Journal noted the significance of the likely arrangement:  “…the potential is enormous and stretches far beyond the U.S.-U.K. special relationship. A comprehensive post-Brexit trade deal could invigorate both economies. It’s also a chance to re-energize a beleaguered global trading system by showing that market-opening deals still are possible.”

There are significant obstacles to be overcome, in areas such as drug pricing, food safety/labelling, and environmental issues. None, however, appear to be an impossible barrier for transatlantic negotiators, particularly since personal relations between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump appear to be on solid footing. A Gatestone Institute study reports that “…there are already early signs that [Johnson’s] premiership will preside over a dramatic revival in transatlantic relations not seen since the heyday of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.”

Some have speculated that a U.S.-U.K. deal could lead to something even larger: a wider pact among English-speaking nations, a concept known as “The Anglosphere.” Graham Leech, in a Cityam study, writes that

“…there are five reasons why the Anglosphere could make geostrategic sense: First is economic exceptionalism. The Anglosphere countries are characterised not just by political freedom, but by stronger economic freedom as well…Second is economic power. The core five Anglosphere economies (the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) accounted for 33 per cent of global GDP…Third is soft power. The US and the UK rank first and second in the Portland 30 Index of Global Soft Power, but Canada and Australia are also in the top 10. The Anglosphere countries dominate movies, TV, books and news media, helping to forge a shared identity. Anglosphere brands also dominate global commerce, particularly in the information economy. Fourth is hard power. The Anglosphere countries tend to spend more money on defence as a proportion of GDP. Fifth is the English language. English language usage is in the ascendance. According to the British Council, English is spoken at a useful level by 1.75bn people and this is set to rise to 2bn by 2020. English is likely to be the dominant international language of the twenty-first century, and it is already the lingua franca of academia.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Educational Test Validity and Claims Made by Test Publishers

This article was written for the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by noted author and researcher Alex Bugaeff.

Large educational test publishers often make claims that their tests are “valid.” But, what is a valid test? Are their claims true? These questions can be asked of Common Core test publishers, as well as educational test publishers generally.

Before accepting or rejecting such claims, parents, school boards and the educational community should know the basics of test validity. That way, they can ask questions of test companies and make informed decisions about them. Here are the key principles of valid tests.

The terms “valid” and “validity” have specific meaning in the educational testing world. They mean that a test has been subjected to accepted statistical analyses and has satisfied them. These analyses “test the test” to see how well it does what it claims to do. So, the first question parents, school boards and the community should ask of test publishers is, “Have you tested your tests for the validity that you claim they have?”

There are three main levels of validity that a test can achieve with increasing strengths as you go up the levels. These levels are:

  1. Face Validity.
  2. Content Validity.
  3. Criterion-Related Validity.

Let’s take each in turn. 

  1. Face Validity. Face Validity merely means that a test appears valid on its face. That is, the test has words that most people would associate with what is being tested. 

For example, a test might be titled “Test of Historical Knowledge” and have a question such as, “What are the three main forms of rocks found in the American Colonial period?” The question really tests knowledge of geology and has nothing to do with history, but because the reference is to the American Colonial period, the test writer could claim that it is a valid test of history knowledge. 

Most tests have Face Validity, but if that is the only level of validity that they have, they are worthless for the purposes of meaningfully testing student learning. Face Validity does not require an analysis of the test in its ability to assess learning; it is meant only to appear to test it, on its “face”.

If a test provider says that their tests are obviously valid, one could answer, “So, you claim your tests are valid on their face and that is enough?” (What they are saying, of course, is that you are not smart enough to understand.). That’s not enough in almost any application. 

  • Content Validity. Content Validity means that a test contains questions about the subject being tested. To write a content-valid test, one would study the curriculum of the course being tested and would write questions reflecting the information presented in it. 
Numerous ways are there that can help tadalafil prices pdxcommercial.com us to lose extra weight. 5. The motivation behind why numerous men turn chilly is a result of erectile problem in men and taking the help of natural cure to treat sexual weakness is the best way to stay active. buy cialis where There is also an option for regular prescription order viagra without products as well as Generic. Herbal remedies are still relatively popular today, mainly due to the fact that they are difficult to detect until they’ve started causing real cialis buy on line visit now damage.

In the test above, “Test of Historical Knowledge,” a question might be, “What metal was used to make Continental Army uniform buttons in the American Revolution?” The question “contains” a reference to American history, but has nothing to do with any important historical aspect. It is trivial. The test writer could claim that it is a valid test of history knowledge, but the question would not matter in the assessment of student knowledge and understanding of history.

If a test publisher says that they test information about the subject and that their tests are, therefore, valid, one could answer, “What impact does this knowledge have on a student becoming educated?” Simple knowledge of a subject may be valuable, but given the scarce resources of time, money and school resources, how does it show a student’s progress toward a goal? Certainly knowledge of the Constitution, law and government operations are valuable to civics education, but how valuable is knowledge of abacus operation to high school algebra, say?

  • Criterion-Related Validity. Criterion-Related Validity means that a test has been analyzed to determine how well it tests what it is claimed to test and that the results predict a desired outcome (that is, the test is worth giving). This requires substantial time, expense and cooperation to demonstrate. It is much more demanding than the first two levels of validity, but is much more valuable to decision-makers.

First, a criterion must be defined. For example, for students entering their senior year in high school, one such criterion might be “Scores on SAT or ACT tests, if taken.” Another criterion might be “Acceptance into an accredited trade school or apprenticeship, if pursued.”

Then, a measure of that criterion must be established, such as percent of students having been accepted out of those who have applied. Or, the score on the final taking of the SAT/ACT test by each student taking it.

Next, the curriculum of the course in question would be studied and the test of student performance would be designed and written. Then, the test would be tried out on a sample of eligible students, the results analyzed and the test edited to reflect the sample testing.

The test would be administered to a larger group of students and the results would be analyzed statistically once they have completed the criterion measure against which the test will be compared (SAT/ACT score or trade school acceptance, say). The statistical measure includes standards that show whether the test is valid or not (see below). 

As the test is administered to larger numbers of students over years, the results are incorporated into the statistical analyses and the test is edited or discontinued. Those results can be used to demonstrate the ability of the test to predict the performance of students in reaching the desired goal(s).

For a large test publisher, Criterion-Related Validity should be the standard, given the stakes and their ability to invest in the necessary research to analyze it. Representatives of these large publishers should be able to report the results of the relevant statistics to their clients/customers. The following is a summary of the statistics and what to look for.

Criterion-Related Validity Statistics “by the Numbers.” Researchers will perform many statistical measures to their data as they develop their tests, but the last and most revealing is the Correlation Coefficient. Simply put, this statistic shows the extent to which the test results vary as the criterion results vary. If students who score high on the test also score high on the SAT, say, and the students who score low on the test also score low on the SAT, then it can be said that the test has a high level of Criterion-Related Validity. It can predict SAT scores.

The Correlation Coefficient scores look complicated, but stripped of their detail, can be directly interpreted. There are two numbers: the Coefficient and the Reliability of the Coefficient.

The Coefficient is a representation of the extent to which the test scores and the criterion scores vary together. The Coefficient varies from -1.0 to +1.0. A Coefficient of +1.0 means that the higher the test score, the higher will be the SAT score (say). The lower the test score, the lower will be the SAT score. They vary in perfect relation to one another (or correlation, in statistics terms). 

A Coefficient of -1.0 means that the higher the test score, the lower will be the SAT score, and so on. A Coefficient of 0.0 means the test and the SAT bear no relation to each other. A high test score can mean a high or low SAT. To have a test that is valuable in predicting the criterion score, you want a Coefficient as close to +1.0 as possible. 

The second number in the Correlation Coefficient is the test’s Reliability. This is the extent to which the Coefficient number has resulted from random circumstances, versus that one can expect an accurate result each time the test is administered. The Reliability score varies from 0.0 to +1.0. A +1.0 means that you will get the exact same Coefficient result every time you administer the test in like circumstances. A 0.0 means that there’s no way to predict that the Coefficient will be the same in identical test administrations. That is, there’s no way to predict that a test result is the product of chance or of its relation to the Criterion. 

The Correlation Coefficient then, is reported in two numbers: the Coefficient and its Reliability. For example, a test might be said to have Criterion-Related validity if the Coefficient were +0.9, say, with a Reliability of 0.95. That is, the test predicts the Criterion accurately 90% of the time and does so in 95% of retests of it. As the Coefficient number goes down, the less likely it is that the test is able to predict the desired criterion (SAT score, say). In educational testing, the standard Reliability number would be 0.95 or higher. That is, as the Reliability sinks toward 0.90 and below, the ability of the test to produce consistent results over time comes into question.

Parents, boards and the educational community can demand that test producers back up their claims that their tests are valid. So far, it appears that such claims have not been questioned and these publishers have been able to sell their tests without accounting for them. These publishers can first be asked with authority, “What, specifically, do your tests test?” and, second, “What validity do they have in terms of educational testing?” Follow up questions, based on knowledge of test validity and their statistics, can then reveal the extent to which a test is defensible. Let’s hold these test publishers’ feet to the fire. 

Photo: Pixabay