by Bob Barr | May 22, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comSince 1926, the SAT has served as the standard of scholastic assessment for college-bound students. Each year, some two million high school students pay at least $47.50 to take the exam, which is virtually mandatory for acceptance into any competitive college or university in the United States. Although never meant to be a perfect barometer of college success, the SAT has been a well-regarded instrument for helping to identify high achieving students for nearly a century. Until now.Some Brainiac, or a committee thereof, has decided that in order to remain “relevant” (or something), the test must broaden its platform to calculate more than a student’s ability to master scholastic problems involving math, language and other subject areas heretofore considered a relevant measure of academic performance. It will now be designed to measure the “adversity” in which the test-taker lives or has lived. If that sounds nonsensical; it is.The College Board, which is the private non-profit organization that developed the SAT and oversees its administration, announced it would be adding a special “bonus” score in addition to the standard scores for math and language; factors unrelated to the test taker’s raw test results. Resembling more an exercise in alchemy to divine a student’s true, intrinsic ability as distinct from their actual test results, the “adversity score” will be based on a concoction of circumstantial factors such as family income, neighborhood crime and poverty levels, and housing environments.As Inside Higher Ed notes, this data will come from the College Board’s own databases containing information on U.S. high schools and surrounding areas; though it is problematically unclear from where the more personal information about...
by Bob Barr | May 16, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerLate last month, President Trump signed an executive memorandum officially notifying the United Nations that the United States was withdrawing its support for a United Nations-backed treaty former Secretary of State John Kerry signed in 2013.With this action — “un-signing” a treaty document — Trump sent a clear, unambiguous, and long-overdue signal to the domestic and international gun control movement, that since 2001 had been pressing for a U.N. foothold to regulate firearms use and possession within our country: “Back off!”In signing this document, Trump drove a stake into the heart of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT); and our Second Amendment is the stronger for that action.Oh, the outcry from the left! New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wailed that in taking this “disturbing” action, Trump was “[jeopardizing] U.S. security.” Rachel Stohl, managing director for the Stimson Center in the nation’s capital, somehow concluded that the president’s action will “harm the American economy.” The common catchword by these and other globalists in describing the ATT that is now dead to the United States, was — as always for the gun control movement – “common sense.”In fact, there was nothing “common sense” about this document and the ongoing process to make it the operative mechanism for international gun control.Always seeking relevance and power since it was established in the immediate aftermath of WWII, the U.N. has worked for nearly two decades to shoehorn gun control into its “world peace” mission. In this, it has been strikingly successful, with some 130 countries signing the ATT and over 100 actually ratifying it and becoming thereby fully...
by Bob Barr | May 15, 2019 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.comIn recent weeks, the once wide, online dominion of Right-leaning pot stirrers like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer, has shrunk considerably, as Facebook/Instagram, Google/YouTube, and Twitter have shut down their accounts, despite the large followings enjoyed by such individuals. “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology,” Facebook piously declared earlier this month after booting a number of “far-right” individuals, including those above, from its platforms.Necessarily, of course, decisions about what is “civil” and “safe” for users of social media are based not on the “likes” or “dislikes” of the individual consumers themselves, but on algorithms devised by employees of the social media companies.What may be even more disturbing than the censorial actions by the social media platforms, is the sneaky role being played in all this by a new breed of liberal CEOs with billions in ad dollars as their weapon of choice – and when these “Mad Men” talk, social media listens.Social media CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey may fancy themselves as the “good guys” in making the “hard decisions” like banning people on their platforms in pursuit of civility online, but it is advertising dollars that actually are at the core of their motivations. Therefore, when Marc Pritchard, the chief marketing officer of Procter & Gamble, a $66 billion company, makes pointed comments such as “we prefer to work with those who don’t allow anonymity to be a weapon,” or “while today everyone can have a microphone, it doesn’t mean every voice needs to be amplified” – it is hardly a coincidence when Facebook responds...
