The Carson Scholars Program recently held its 2018 North Carolina Awards Banquet at the Sheraton Four Seasons in Greensboro. Members of the Coalition for American Principles (CAP) were on hand to congratulate the Chatham students who were awarded scholarships.
Founded in 1994 by world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson and his wife, Candy, the Carson Scholars Program recognizes and rewards academic excellence in young students (grades 4-11) who also have strong humanitarian qualities. New scholars receive a $1,000 scholarship towards college, a medal and certificate, and their school receives a trophy. Each year, scholars may reapply and renew their status as a Carson Scholar provided that they maintain their academic status and a high level of volunteerism.
Of the eighteen North Carolina students who received scholarships for the first time, seven were from Chatham County. They include: Caroline Bowman, fifth grader from Perry Harrison School, Pittsboro; Vickie Loan, fourth grader from Virginia Cross Elementary School, Siler City; Annika Lowe, eighth grader from Silk Hope, Siler City; Bella Ocampo, tenth grader from Chatham School of Science & Engineering, Siler City; McKinley Rogers, eleventh grader from Jordan-Matthews High School, Siler City; Daniel Willett, eighth grader from Bonlee School, Bear Creek; and, Mary Worley, eleventh grader from Chatham Central High School, Bear Creek.
Rodney Alsup, the Carson Scholars Fund Chatham County Chapter President, gave opening remarks at the banquet. Praising the students for their accomplishments he said, “What each of you has done is impressive, and if you continue to build on the foundation you have established you will be successful. Equally important to those of us from my generation, we can rest assured that our country and our state and local communities will be in good hands with you as their future leaders.”
Working with the Carson Scholars Fund provides the opportunity for CAP to support its own legacy of improving education, promoting literacy, and rewarding high academic achievers. CAP’s initial goal was to raise $3,000 for the Carson Scholars Fund so that scholarships could be awarded to students in grades 4-11. Thanks to the generosity of CAP members and other Chatham County residents, enough money was raised to award seven scholarships to the Chatham students.
Candy Carson, Co-Founder of the Scholars Fund, was on hand to award personally the North Carolina students. She shared, “My passion lies first and foremost in fostering a better future for America’s children. We seek to prepare the next generation for leadership and success in life through reading and education.” The organization has a presence in all 50 states and has recognized more than 8,000 scholars, and nearly 3,000 scholars have been recognized multiple times. Over $5,800,000 has been paid out to colleges and universities on behalf of the Carson Scholars. More information about CAP and the Carson Scholars Fund, can be accessed at www.capnc.us.Read more
The Coalition for American Principles (CAP) recently gathered at The Governors Club for a relaxed evening of good food and drink, comradery, and celebration. We had large turnout and if you weren’t able to join us, you missed a great event.
Here are a few pictures from the event. Enjoy! Click on the play button to view.
On June 29th, members and friends of two organizations, CAP and ICON, came together at the Governors Club in Chapel Hill, NC to honor the founding members of ICON. During the event, Carson Scholars Fund (CSF) supporter Dr. Rodney Alsup delivered an informative and impactful presentation on the Carson Scholars Program. The presentation involved a slideshow that included photos from the most recent 2017 Greensboro, NC Carson Scholars Awards Banquet. Following the slideshow, Dr. Alsup asked guests to describe what words came to mind as they viewed photos of the promising young scholars. Guests exclaimed “pride,” “future,” “confidence,” “achievement,” with Dr. Alsup adding the final two words: “future leaders.”
Guests were in luck. Not only were they able to see a slideshow of future leaders and view a video about the Carson Scholars Program, they were also able to witness firsthand the impact that the CSF has on students. Carson Scholar alumnus and NC State student, Jacob Covington, joined guests for the evening (despite being behind UNC enemy lines) and delivered a powerful reflection on his experience throughout the Carson Scholars Program. During his speech, Jacob described his confidence in the program and how imperative it is to recognize students for their academic achievements early in life. He shared how CSF has helped to shape him into the person he is today, a successful chemical engineering major who is giving back to his community. Jacob is now looking forward to graduating college and one day becoming a leader in the manufacturing industry where he will be able to use his skills to create products that help people live better lives.
Dr. Alsup concluded the CSF presentation with an overview of the scholarship process and a call to action for Triangle Area residents to join the Carson Scholars Fund’s mission and to help grow the scholarship program in North Carolina. Thank you to all who attended to support the newly established Raleigh Durham chapter.
Reprinted from the Carson Scholars Blog post of 10 July 2017. Click on the following link to view the post on the Carson Scholars Blog. http://carsonscholars.org/blog/expanding-triangle-area/
Frank Buckley Author, The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that “the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.” Today the story of American politics is the story of class struggles. It wasn’t supposed to be that way. We didn’t think we were divided into different classes. Neither did Marx.
America was an exception to Marx’s theory of social progress. By that theory, societies were supposed to move from feudalism to capitalism to communism. But the America of the 1850s, the most capitalist society around, was not turning communist. Marx had an explanation for that. “True enough, the classes already exist,” he wrote of the United States, but they “are in constant flux and reflux, constantly changing their elements and yielding them up to one another.” In other words, when you have economic and social mobility, you don’t go communist.
That is the country in which some imagine we still live, Horatio Alger’s America—a country defined by the promise that whoever you are, you have the same chance as anyone else to rise, with pluck, industry, and talent. But they imagine wrong.
The U.S. today lags behind many of its First World rivals in terms of mobility. A class society has inserted itself within the folds of what was once a classless country, and a dominant New Class—as social critic Christopher Lasch called it—has pulled up the ladder of social advance ment behind it.
One can measure these things empirically by comparing the correlation between the earnings of fathers and sons. Pew’s Economic Mobility Project ranks Britain at 0.5, which means that if a father earns £100,000 more than the median, his son will earn £50,000 more than the average member of his cohort. That’s pretty aristocratic. On the other end of the scale, the most economically mobile society is Denmark, with a correlation of 0.15. The U.S. is at 0.47, almost as immobile as Britain.
A complacent Republican establishment denies this change has occurred. If they don’t get it, however, American voters do. For the first time, Americans don’t believe their children will be as well off as they have been. They see an economy that’s stalled, one in which jobs are moving offshore. In the first decade of this century, U.S. multinationals shed 2.9 million U.S. jobs while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. General Electric provides a striking example. Jeffrey Immelt became the company’s CEO in 2001, with a mission to advance stock price. He did this in part by reducing GE’s U.S. workforce by 34,000 jobs. During the same period, the company added 25,000 jobs overseas. Ironically, President Obama chose Immelt to head his Jobs Council.
A new study finds that higher salaries for legislators in the U.S. are associated with more time fundraising for themselves.
It is a basic principle of economics that people respond to incentives—but they don’t always respond in the way that you would think.
A new study on the salaries of state legislators is a case in point. Previous research found that higher pay for public officials was associated with more qualified candidates, more closely contested elections and better performance in office.
But those studies were mostly done abroad. The new study found something very different in the U.S.: Higher legislator salaries are associated with more time spent trolling for campaign contributions, “particularly on fundraising for themselves (as opposed to for their party).” Higher pay was also associated with lawmakers spending less time on legislative business. The study was conducted by an American business professor at the University of Toronto and a Canadian business professor at the University of California, San Diego.
Recent public opinion surveys have revealed that the vast majority of Americans believe that use of racial profiling by the police is widespread.1 This is deeply disturbing for two reasons. First, it is disturbing because it undermines police legitimacy among the vast majority of our citizens. Second, it is disturbing because the vast majority of law enforcement officers I have known do not engage in bias-based policing. While racial profiling likely occurs among a small number of individual officers acting outside the bounds of their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is unlikely that racial profiling is systemic to law enforcement in the United States.
This begs the question, then, why do so many people perceive that racial profiling is widespread? We could blame individual members of the news media that seek to raise their ratings by stoking the flames of controversy, or certain protest organizations that seek to capitalize on distrust of the police. To be sure, these sources have contributed to the problem. Another factor that has also contributed to the problem, however, is the fundamentally flawed information that many law enforcement agencies have given the public through their biased-based policing data that was gathered and reported incorrectly.
Many law enforcement agencies gather data on the race and gender of the individuals their officers stop, search, and arrest. They report these data to the public in a biased-based policing report. Agencies produce these reports for a variety of reasons, such as statutory requirements, as part of their compliance with CALEA Standard 1.2.9.d, or simply out of a sincere desire to embrace transparency. While most law enforceme nt agencies, and individ ua l officers, claim they do not racially profile, the vast majority of these reports show members of minority groups, especially African-American men, are disproportionately stopped, searched, and arrested. Why? One factor at work is the use of incorrect research methodologies and measures that are biased (often unintentionally) against officers from the start. One of the most damaging of these incorrect methodologies is the use of U.S. Census data as a benchmark comparison.
In order for any racial profiling data collection activity to be meaningful, the racial composition of police stops, searches, and arrests need to be compared to something. A benchmark is generally defined as a point of reference from which measurements may be made; something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged; or a standardized problem or test that servesasabasisforevaluation orcomparison. Inthecontextofbiased-basedpolicing evaluations, a benchmark is the percentage of a racial or gender group that one would expect to be encountered if officers were not biased.
For example, imagine that 20% of the people speeding down a particular stretch of roadway were male and Hispanic. This makes 20% our benchmark for speeding stops of male Hispanics. We would expect that unbiased stops by police for speeding in this area would show that only about 20% of those stopped for speeding were male Hispanic drivers. However, where do we get these benchmarks? Unfortunately, most of the benchmarks used are fatally flawed. These flawed benchmarks consistently suggest officer bias, regardless of what officers are actually doing. The most common flawed benchmark is U.S. Census data.
Over the last three years there has been growing concern in the public discourse about the use of force, especially lethal force, by the police in the United States. This concern spawned the creation of the Black Lives Matter organization and motivated President Obama to organize a commission on policing in the 21st century. Concerns over several highly publicized and politicized deaths of African-American men by police use of force have produced numerous public protests in almost every city, town, and university in the nation. Most of these protests have been peaceful, but many have not, especially the protest in Dallas on July 7 that resulted in eleven officers being shot, five of them fatally. This was followed on July 17 by the ambush of officers in Baton Rouge, with 6 officers shot, 3 of them fatally.
In the public discussion around the topic of police use of force, many disturbing claims have been made by civil rights groups, the news media, and even government leaders. However, as President Obama stated in his October 27, 2015 address to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, “too often law enforcement gets scapegoated for broader failures of our society.”1 The purpose of this report, therefore, is to fact check these various claims and, with the aid of scientific research and other credible sources, try to determine if these claims are indeed true. The reader is encouraged to access and explore the many references cited in this report so that the reader can assess the facts and make up his or her own mind.
Fifteen credits were all he needed. That’s what the school district in California where Adam Sambrano works as a career-guidance specialist required for a bump in pay. But when he saw the syllabus for a graduate course he’d enrolled in last year at Arizona State University, he knew he was in trouble.
Among the assignments was a 19-page paper, longer than anything he’d ever written. The idea of that much research worried Mr. Sambrano, who also spends time serving in the Army National Guard.
Before the class started, he went on Craigslist and enlisted the service of a professional cheater. For $1,000 — less than the monthly housing allowance he was receiving through the GI Bill, he says — Mr. Sambrano hired a stranger to take his entire course.
He transferred $500 upfront, "From Adam for ASU," according to a receipt obtained by The Chronicle.Then he just waited for the cheater to do his work.
On any given day, thousands of students go online seeking academic relief. They are first-years and transfers overwhelmed by the curriculum, international students with poor English skills, lazy undergrads with easy access to a credit card. They are nurses, teachers, and government workers too busy to pursue the advanced degrees they’ve decided they need.
The Chronicle spoke with people who run cheating companies and those who do the cheating. The demand has been around for decades. But the industry is in rapid transition.
Just as higher education is changing, embracing a revolution in online learning, the cheating business is transforming as well, finding new and more insidious ways to undermine academic integrity.
A decade ago, cheating consisted largely of students’ buying papers off the internet. That’s still where much of the money is. But in recent years, a new underground economy has emerged, offering any academic service a student could want. Now it’s not just a paper or one-off assignment. It’s the quiz next week, the assignment after that, the answers served up on the final. Increasingly, it’s the whole class. And if students are paying someone to take one course, what’s stopping them from buying their entire degree?
Read more via: http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-New-Cheating-Economy/237587?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en&elqTrackId=5ca1f0940eaa4979824f575e8da2ade3&elq=7ca251223842445cb1b6d0c7f1fd9de4&elqaid=10476&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=3933
Over the past half century, groups bent on ideological domination have intentionally murdered unarmed civilians, including pregnant woman and children, using among other things suicide bombers. Those are true acts of terrorism.
I find it distasteful and dishonest when environmental extremists attack energy technologies by referring to them as “terrorism.” Such is the case with hydraulic fracturing or fracking. What I find truly repugnant are the politicians whose periodic security and economic briefings inform them of the benefits of fracking yet who remain silent or encourage the branding of an energy technology, equating it with the slaughter of innocents.
Fracking is helping to defeat terrorism. Our politicians have been told that fracking is reducing the price of oil. By making global oil prices lower, fracking is hurting ISIS and other terrorist groups that are known to sell the oil they have captured on the black market to fund their activities, or receive funding from oil exporting nations.
Congress and the president know when the supply of oil is high, outstripping demand, the price falls. Such is the case today. In the past few months, the U.S. benchmark price of crude oil has fallen from above $50 a barrel to below $40. When oil prices were high at $100 a barrel or more and supply was lower, governments desperate for oil were incentivized to purchase it from terrorists.
How do you manage to win a medal at six straight Olympics and remain more or less unknown? The answer: win by shooting a gun. American skeet-shooter Kim Rhode last week became the first athlete, male or female, to win a medal at six summer games and the first on five continents, but don’t look for her on a box of Wheaties.
Mrs. Rhode, who won a bronze medal in Rio, has received little media attention despite her historic feat. The 37-year-old also lacks a single major corporate sponsor, though her ammunition and training costs are offset with sponsorship and donations from such firearms companies as Beretta and Otis Technology.
Her agent told Bloomberg he had pitched the sharp-shooter to more than 20 companies, with no luck. Our guess is they don’t want to risk a backlash from the progressive antigun culture. It probably doesn’t help that Mrs. Rhode is an outspoken critic of gun-control laws and a Donald Trump supporter.
Even when the press has reported on her achievement, the tone has often been dismissive. An NBC story noted that her medal record is arguably “far less impressive than, say, a gymnast or a swimmer” because shooting “requires fewer physical attributes.” Sure, all it takes is remarkable hand-eye coordination, quick reflexes, steady nerves and dedication over 20 years.