90 Miles From Tyranny

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1994 - Valentine's Day Edition..

You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?

It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,

from the beautiful to the repugnant,

from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,

you could be inspired, you could be appalled.

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.

You have been warned.

Welcome Adventurer, To The Mystery Box!

Miscellaneous

serenity

let her know how much she means to you.

Beauty

Need More Box?

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #531

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1

That's all for now folks!

Visage à trois #772

Three Videos For Your Viewing Pleasure:

Three Additional Bonus Videos:

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #952

'Free Speech for Whom?': Former Twitter Executive Makes Chilling Admission on the 'Nuanced' Standard Used For Censorship

Yesterday’s hearing of the House Oversight Committee featured three former Twitter executives who are at the center of the growing censorship scandal involving the company: Twitter’s former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde, former deputy general counsel James Baker and former head of trust and safety Yoel Roth. However, it was the testimony of the only witness called by the Democrats that proved the most enlightening and chilling. Former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on what she repeatedly called the “nuanced” standard used by her and her staff on censorship.

Toward the end of the hearing, she was asked about that standard by Rep. Melanie Ann Stansbury (D., NM). Her answer captured precisely why Twitter’s censorship system proved a nightmare for free expression. Stansbury’s agreement with her take on censorship only magnified the concerns over the protection of free speech on social media.

Even before Stansbury’s question, the hearing had troubling moments. Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md) opened up the hearing insisting that Twitter has not censored enough material and suggesting that it was still fueling violence by allowing disinformation to be posted on the platform.

Navaroli then testified how she felt that there should have been much more censorship and how she fought with the company to remove more material that she and her staff considered “dog whistles” and “coded” messaging.

Rep. Stansbury asked what Twitter has done and is doing to combat hate speech on its platform. Navaroli correctly declined to address current policies since she has not been at the company for some time. However, she then said that they balanced free speech against safety and explained that they sought a different approach:
Instead of asking just free speech versus safety to say free speech for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.Rep. Stansbury responded by saying “Exactly.”

The statement was reminiscent to the statement of the former CEO Parag Agrawal. After taking over as CEO, Agrawal pledged to regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”

Navaroli was saying that it is not enough to simply balance free speech against public safety (a standard that most free speech advocates would oppose as ill-defined and fluid). Instead, Navaroli and her staff would decide “free speech for whom and public safety for whom.”

The suggestion is that free speech protections would differ with the speakers or who was deemed at risk from the exercise of free speech. It takes a subjective balancing test and makes it even more ambiguous and...

"Another 20 Baltimore City Schools had just one or two students test proficient in math."

After another State of the Union address which promised more education spending, behold what you get for a $1.6 billion budget with $21,000 in per student spending.

Do the math.

The Maryland State Department of Education recently released the 2022 state test results known as MCAP, Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program.

Baltimore City’s math scores were the lowest in the state. Just 7% of third through eighth graders tested proficient in math, which means 93% could not do math at grade level.

But that’s not all. WBFF combed through the scores at all 150 City Schools where the state math test was given. In 23 Baltimore City schools, there were zero students who tested proficient in math.

Among the list of 23 schools, there are 10 high schools, eight elementary schools, three middle/high schools and two elementary/middle schools.

Exactly 2,000 students, in total, took the state math test at these schools. Not one could do math at grade level.

It’s also important to note that another 20 Baltimore City Schools had just one or two students test proficient in math.

I blame systemic racism.

Governor Wes Moore is black, Mayor Brandon Scott is black, as are 10 out of 14 city council members, as is “Dr.” Sonja Santelises who heads the school system, but if the black Memphis cops can be evidence of systemic racism, why not?

The answer is always to spend more money. Here’s what Baltimore is spending.

Baltimore City Schools will be spending about $21,000 per student this year, thanks to a massive education funding increase. Maryland lawmakers passed the bill, known as Kirwan, two years ago. Now that funding is kicking in, the question is whether more taxpayer money will result in better student outcomes.

For this coming school year, City Schools’ budget has ballooned to $1,620,788,542. That’s nearly $230 million more than the previous year’s budget of $1,393,777,695. It amounts to about a 16 percent increase. Enrollment in City Schools is going down and has been for years. So, that’s a lot more money for fewer students.

And worse results, but maybe if we spend $1.6 billion per student, he’ll finally be able to get a...