Friday, June 24, 2016


By Luis Ramirez, VOA

LONDON—Britain has voted to leave the European Union, forecasts show, with nearly all of the votes counted.

British broadcasters BBC, ITV and Sky News all called the vote in favor of the leave camp, with nearly 52 percent voting to exit the EU.

The turnout was high in a vote that touches on immigration, sovereignty, security and Britain’s economic future, Britain's electoral commission said.

"Counting Officers have verified that a total of 33,568,184 ballot papers will be included in the count for the referendum. Based on a confirmed electorate of 46,500,001, turnout at the referendum was 72.2 percent," the commission said in a statement.

The leader of the Leave campaign, Nigel Farage said June 23 will go down as "Independence Day" in Britain’s history and called on Prime Minister David Cameron to resign following the leave vote.

The uncertainty that will follow Britain's exit sent the pound tumbling, and it was down more than five percent overnight in London.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Interpol Asks Public to Help Catch Migrant Smugglers

By VOA News

Interpol has called on the public to help them search for 11 migrant smugglers on Thursday.
The international police organization, based in France, has already arrested 26 people across several countries who have been accused of being involved in migrant smuggling.

“The criminal networks involved have no regard for the safety or well being of the people using their illegal services, they are just another commodity for them to trade, as we have seen with tragic results around the world," said Michael O'Connell, director of interpol's operational support unit.

“Operation Hydra is aimed at dismantling these networks, to stop them from profiting from the desperation of people and bringing those responsible to justice, and we would encourage anyone with information to come forward,” he concluded.

Interpol posted pictures of the 11 suspects on their website Thursday, calling on anyone with information to step forward; however, they stressed the difficulties of catching migrant smugglers, as victims are most often unwilling or unable to share details.

Individuals suspected of migrant smuggling make thousands of dollars for each person they offer to bring to Europe, with one Albanian smuggling group charging as much as $16,000 per person to be smuggled by boat from France to England, according to the Interpol.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Russia, NATO, and the Hubris of the US Political Establishment

By Ron Forthofer

There are dangerous provocations along Russia's western border that have received little or incredibly one-sided coverage by the U.S. media. Thus the U.S. public is not aware of the possibility of a major conflict between two nuclear-armed powers occurring due to an accident or misinterpretation. The genesis of this current situation goes back in ancient history to 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

After the fall, the U.S. along with the West German leader Helmut Kohl, pushed for the reunification of West and East Germany. The Soviet Union allowed reunification based on the promise made by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker (under President H.W. Bush). Baker said if the Soviets would allow reunification, that NATO would not expand "one inch" further east.

This promise was key for the Soviets who remembered previous devastating invasions by Western European nations. For example, during WWII estimates are that the Soviet Union lost over 26 million people, about 13% of its 1939 population. The Soviet Union was thus understandably concerned about a possibly hostile military group coming closer to its border.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the U.S. had unchallenged military power. Given this situation, the Washington establishment increased the risk of a new cold war and the possibility of an eventual war with Russia. President Bill Clinton started this process when, in violation of the promise made to the Soviets, he supported the eastward expansion of NATO.

In 1996, George Kennan, architect of the U.S. containment policy towards the Soviet Union after WWII, warned that NATO's expansion into former Soviet territories would be a "strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions." In 1998, Thomas Friedman solicited Kennan's reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO's eastward expansion. Kennan said: ''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else."

Unfortunately, Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama failed to heed Kennan's wisdom and continued NATO's eastward expansion. Given Russia's weakened state in the 1990s, the political establishment thought there was little risk. However, while the U.S. was destroying Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia rebuilt its military. Blinded by its hubris, the U.S. political establishment was slow to grasp the impact of the rebirth of a strong rival.

In April 2008 at a NATO summit in Bucharest, NATO temporarily postponed discussion of membership for Georgia and Ukraine. At the summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin strongly opposed NATO membership for both of these nations on Russia's border, viewing their membership as a security threat.

Reinforcing this point, later in 2008 Russia used military force to protect two breakaway provinces of Georgia with the goal of preventing Georgia from joining NATO. Despite Putin's strong warning and military action, after the 2010 election of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the U.S. increased its support of Ukrainians who favored connections with the West.

Removing Yanukovych, who opposed NATO membership, was the first step. In February 2014 after months of nonviolent protests, Yanukovych reached an agreement, mediated by EU foreign ministers, with the nonviolent political opposition for early elections. However, immediately following this compromise, members of the far right used violence and intimidation to oust Yanukovych. George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, a U.S. firm known as the 'Shadow CIA', said: "It really was the most blatant coup in history."

In response, in late February and early March 2014, Russia deployed some of its forces already in Crimea under a treaty and took control, conducted a vote that showed overwhelming support for rejoining Russia, and then annexed Crimea. The results of a vote in this situation may be suspect. However, it is likely that a vote conducted without the presence of the Russian troops would have yielded similar results. The U.S. also alleges that Russia provided militarily support to the Ukrainians in breakaway areas who opposed the far-right coup. There was initially intense fighting in these breakaway areas. Even though there have been ceasefire agreements, attacks by the Kiev government continue today with neo-Nazis playing an important role in the violence against the coup opponents.

Since these events, the U.S. and NATO have raised the ante by placing additional weapons systems and planning on rotating thousands of additional troops in Eastern Europe. The U.S. and NATO claimed their actions were prompted by Russia's actions in Crimea and the breakaway areas. In response to these moves, Russia announced plans to create three new divisions.

Posturing continues by both sides. During U.S. military exercises with Poland in the Baltic Sea in April 2016, two unarmed Russian jets came dangerously close to the USS Donald Cook, a guided missile destroyer. Adding to the tension, NATO recently concluded military exercises in the Baltic Sea area and also a massive military exercise with approximately 30,000 troops in Poland. The U.S. also has temporarily deployed a guided missile destroyer, the USS Porter, to the Black Sea for a brief tour there.

A mistake or misinterpretation could spark a conflict that no one wants. Given this possibility, why does the U.S. continue along this path when further expansion of NATO is not vital to U.S. security? Of particular importance and relevance, remember that this expansion is in violation of a U.S. promise not to expand NATO to the east. Since Russia views the expansion as a major threat to its security, Putin and Russia cannot back down. Amazingly, when we need statesmen, the geniuses in our political establishment think provoking another nuclear-armed power is a sane policy. If this establishment doesn't face reality soon, Kennan's worst fears could be realized.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Ron Forthofer is a retired professor of biostatistics from the University of Texas School of Public Health in Houston and was a Green Party candidate for Congress and also for governor of Colorado.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Remembering Chiune Sugihara, the Japanese Diplomat Who Risked His Own Life to Save Thousands of Jews During the Holocaust 

In a time of unfathomable horrors a courageous diplomat chose kindness.

Click here to read about Chiune Sugihara, below to view the documentary trailer.

SUGIHARA Conspiracy of Kindness Trailer from diane estelle Vicari on Vimeo.

Friday, February 26, 2016

Guest Column: Is New York City's CUNY a Camel or a Racehorse?

By Professor Andrzej Krakowski, Ph.D.
The City College of New York

As a member of the faculty at the City College of New York, I closely follow the trials and tribulations of the City University of New York (CUNY) with regard to its inextricably intertwined fate and financial future. Funding CUNY has become a political struggle between New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. The dispute has, among other things, exposed the total ineffectiveness of a faculty union leadership that has inexplicably—and inexcusably--allowed its rank and file to labor a staggering seven years without a contract.

All that is well known to CUNY stakeholders and seasoned observers and, increasingly, to better informed consumers of New York State and City news. What isn’t well known—in fact, it seems to have been totally overlooked by all interested parties—is the fact that nobody seems to have a clear sense of the purpose or mission of CUNY, or, for that matter, of America’s public colleges and universities as a whole. Absent agreement on this, it will be practically impossible to adequately fund (or finance, as businesspeople prefer to say) CUNY or other taxpayer-supported institutions of higher education; and a steady diet of starvation-sized budgets and savage spending cuts will be permanent features of American educational life. People, put simply, are naturally reluctant to invest in or support funding of projects, programs and organizations led by individuals who can’t seem to express or even agree among themselves on fundamental aims and purposes.

Europe is Different

As someone who was born and educated abroad and frequently travels to other countries in connection with creative and educational endeavors, I’m struck by the differences between our public universities and colleges and their overseas counterparts. In other countries, since they’re not profit oriented, the aim of government-funded universities and colleges is to provide the highest-level education to the most deserving students, while the goal of for-profit schools is to produce as many graduates as possible (oftentimes greatly contributing to the phenomenon of degree inflation). Whether we like it or not, this system is more democratic as it is based purely on merit. In Europe and Asia, if a student studies hard and shows promise (there are entry exams for all candidates to determine this) the state will subsidize the student’s education, regardless of the student’s class origins. A student looking for an easy way forward, academically, can usually secure a spot in a private college—and pay through the nose for the privilege of getting a degree.

Rankings of overseas private and public institutions of higher learning take their respective missions into account. In the United States, however, the same standards of ranking and classification are applied to public and private colleges and universities—the method used in the U.S. News and World Report survey combined with what is known as the Carnegie Classification.

Let’s take a quick look at the criteria considered in the recent U.S. News Ranking of the Best Colleges and their Ranking Model Indicators. These are:

1. Undergraduate Academic Reputation (22.5% of the total score)
2. Retention (22.5%)---this measure is a combination of two ingredients: six-year graduation rate (80% of just the retention or 18% of the total score) and first-year retention rate (20% or 4.5% respectively)
3. Faculty resources (20% of the total score)---which consists of six components: A) class size, with its two elements: a) the proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students (30% of only the faculty resources score) and b) the proportion with 50 or more students (10%), B) faculty salary (35%) adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living, C) the proportion of instructors with the highest degree in their fields (15%), D) the student-faculty ratio (5%) and E) proportion of the full-time to adjunct faculty (5% of the faculty resources score)
4. Student selectivity (12.5% of the total score)--with its three sections:  a) the SAT and the composite ACT score (65% of the Student selectivity score), b) class ranking in their high school classes (25%), and c) ratio of students admitted to applicants (10%)
5. Financial resources (10% of the total score)
6. Graduate rate performance (7.5%)
7. Alumni giving rate (5%).

A closer analysis will show that each of these seven standards puts public colleges at a strong disadvantage.

Let’s start from the first one. Below are the elements the U.S. News uses in ranking Undergraduate Academic Reputation (which account for almost one quarter of the score): “The U.S. News ranking formula gives significant weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The academic peer assessment survey allows top academics – presidents, provosts and deans of admissions – to account for intangibles at peer institutions, such as faculty dedication to teaching.”

The Reputation Concept

First of all, the concept of reputation is based totally on abstract thinking, which is not very conducive to statistical standardization or prioritization. It simply doesn’t withstand the scientific method. Show me a president, provost or a dean of admissions, who wouldn’t be biased while talking about his or her school. It would be counterintuitive and foolish for us to think that there are such people.

 As to the next part of the quote:  “To get another set of important opinions on National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges, we [The U.S. News – AK] also surveyed 2,200 counselors at public high schools, each of which was a gold, silver or bronze medal winner in a recent edition of the U.S. News Best High Schools rankings, as well as 400 college counselors at the largest independent schools.” - opinions of the high school counselors are easily influenced by such factors as marketing and public relations, and those in turn wholly depend on the wealth of the institution. It’s hard not to notice the ads for University of Phoenix on primetime television. With plenty of the advertising dollars and satellite campuses around the country and abroad, private universities will always attract many more foreign and out-of-state students (in the state and city colleges those are the highest profit generators) than the perpetually underfunded public institutions. Clearly, academic reputation is a factor of money poured in--- the more you put in, the more you get out.

Retention, with its two elements, without a doubt favors private institutions, even with the seemingly liberal six-year graduation approach. For those unfamiliar with the term, retention means completing a four-year degree in six. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that a student paying $50,000 or more in tuition has financially more to lose by not completing the coursework on time than a student paying $9,000 per year, no matter how rich his or her parents might be. Many private colleges (even in major cities) require on-campus residency, at least during the freshman year, and provide space in their dormitories---a nice additional income stream, since they’re also the landlords. The city-located, public schools rarely have sufficient available housing and depend mostly on the commuter traffic. The dormitories housed students are by nature more focused on studying---even the ones who must work in order to afford the tuition, as those usually look for employment within a walking distance from the campus, as opposed to the public school students who could be working in one end of town, live in another and take classes in the third. From my own observation, the most absences and lateness for classes are caused by commuting and transportation problems within the city.

Similar factors apply to first-year retention. Ironically, a student from a more affluent family—typically not the first in his or family to attend college—with the financial resources to pay for an Ivy League, or, say, a NYU education, will most likely have fewer problems with financing his or her second year of education than a poorer student—typically the first in his or her family to attend college—who must rely on both student loans and a paycheck to pay the CUNY tuition.

Explaining its ranking of Princeton as the nation’s #1 university, U.S. News & World Report states: “Princeton was the first university to offer a “no loan” policy to financially needy students, giving grants instead of loans to accepted students who need help paying tuition.” Very noble of Princeton to do so, but how many underfunded public universities or colleges can afford giving grants to individual financially strapped students? I also wonder how many grants were actually given by Princeton, compared to the total number of “students in need” flocking to the public institutions. I suspect by comparison probably not that many. On the other hand, I don’t remember ever seeing any comprehensive studies undertaken by CCNY that would try to define, identify and remedy the high rate of the first-year dropouts. The reasons for the low retention could be varied: from the loss or change of employment, the inadequate schedules of classes or decaying infrastructure, through seemingly problematic location of the campus, poor selection of courses, dissatisfaction with the quality of instruction, the price of tuition itself, finally to the poaching of the most talented students frequently practiced by the richer private schools (in this case the college becomes a victim of its own success). Whereas each reason should be separately addressed and dealt with, from the statistical point of view it doesn’t matter--a dropout is a dropout.

The Faculty Resources category, with its six underlined factors, is devastatingly skewed towards for-profit, private institutions of higher learning. Class sizes, faculty remuneration, the ratio of student-faculty and full-time to adjunct instructors, as well as the number of teaching staff with terminal degrees in their respective fields are clearly functions of available resources. As a point of reference, an average professorial salary at CUNY is almost 50% lower than its NYU or Columbia counterparts, not to mention that during a fiscal crisis, the natural tendency at any school would be to cut the number of unprofitable classes and increase size of the profitable ones. Not a good idea from the accreditation standpoint, however.

One may argue that the entire category is responsible for only a fifth of the entire score, so we shouldn’t be overly concerned abut each of its many components, but in the ranking each fraction of a point counts. It’s so evident that the public colleges are at the disadvantage that all we have to do is to check the current placement of the top ranked public university. UC Berkley is ranked #20 in the U.S. and none of the CUNY colleges made the top 200 on the U.S. News survey. Even CCNY--which produced 10 Nobel Prize winners—didn’t make the list.

The Student Selectivity category with its three factors, which account for an eighth of the total score, takes under consideration such elements as: SAT and the composite ACT scores, class ranking in high school classes, and ratio of students admitted to number of applicants. The SAT score, which is the only standardized test available, works better as a filter to sift away the less desirable candidates in a stand-alone private university than in a city-run system, such as CUNY. With the recently introduced Pathways, the graduates from local community colleges are guaranteed smooth transfer to one of the senior colleges. Whereby the senior colleges are considered a research level, the two-year community schools are more trade and craft oriented.

Distinctly Different Missions

Again, unless we consider the distinctively different missions of those schools, we will be comparing apples and oranges, doing disservice to both. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the disproportionally large number of the third-year dropouts in CUNY is made of young peoples who after graduating, transferred from community colleges and quickly found out that they are not cut out to be full time senior level students. The class ranking in a high school means nothing, unless ones assumes that all schools are level-wise equal and have the same number of students, but we all know that that’s not the case.

As to the points given for a high ratio of students admitted in relation the number of applicants--- how can a public college system, which is obliged to take any student graduating from the city’s high school, compete with a top-tier private institution?

If all this is confusing, the category called Financial Resources is even more confusing. What financial resources? Those derived from tuitions, generous philanthropy, government research grants and smart capital investments or the skimpy allocations in the state and city budgets during occasional ceasefires in political wars--even when the state and the city enjoy budgetary surpluses, as is the case right now?

Is the situation so hopeless? Unless we reconsider our priorities, I’m afraid that if it’s not now hopeless, it will be soon.

American public universities and colleges in their structure remind me that old definition of a camel: a horse designed by a committee. Camels are amazing animals; but a camel will never outrun a race horse. Nor should it be expected to—nature didn’t design the camel for this purpose. Similarly, even the finest, best engineered luxury sports car will never, all things being equal, win a Formula One race. Still, the racehorse can’t do what the camel can do; and the Formula One racecar can’t compete against, say, a Jeep or Land Rover when it comes to traversing rough terrain—or, simply, driving in snow.

In other words, we have to refocus our thinking regarding the entire system of higher education, and make sure that the missions of public colleges and private universities are both clearly defined and adhered to before we start fixing our immediate problems.

Friday, June 05, 2015

Can an 'Unknown' Polish Director Save Hollywood?

By André Pachter

America's Memorial Day weekend is behind us and the official summer of blockbusters is again underway. Seasonal observations seem in order....

Perusing the front pages of The Hollywood Reporter in the last few years one could get the impression that one is reading an endless list of obituaries. No matter how the media spin doctors try to dress it, even a child can understands that “a soft opening”, “below expectations”, “gets buried”, “underperforms” mean only one thing––– A FINANCIAL FLOP! The question, then,  is why so many major studio high budgeted concept film fail at the box office.

One train of thought would suggest that perhaps the ticket prices had lately became too steep for the pockets of (what remains of) the middle class. But if the answer was so simple the studio brass would’ve quickly lowered the prices to make everyone happy. What they would’ve lost on price they would’ve made up in volume. So ticket price isn't the answer.

Another school of thought would say that perhaps with shorter attention spans mass audiences got tired of so many franchises and can no longer distinguish one film from another.

Be that as it may, this much is clear: With a break even point of five to one or higher (a film has to gross five times or more to return its initial investment) and budgets approaching a staggering $200 million, in order to attract huge audiences a film needs to create a clearly recognizable identity for itself. But with so many sequels, prequels and remakes accomplishing this is at best a likely lost cause.

Perhaps the financial woes of major releases can be attributed to the ever changing technology of entertainment delivery. Who wants wants to drag a family to a cinema on the other side of town if  he or she can see the same thing for less money from Netflix or Hulu--delivered directly to the living room? Delivery must be the answer! The Internet is killing The Business!

Another industry disrupted by the endlessly disruptive medium--if only The Real Answer could be this simple. But I suspect it actually lies elsewhere--in the storytelling itself. The expansion of technology has made access to content much easier. But the narration of storytelling has not kept in step. Visual special effects that require huge screens and sophisticated sound systems for the audience in order to get the full value of what is being presented is just another expense--and no substitute for great cinematic storytellers.

Where are the new Billy Wilders, Preston Sturgeses, or Alfred Hitchcocks? One Quentin Tarantino is not enough. Signature directors with idiosyncratic humor or visual style seems the way of the past…

Recall the revolution that Jacques Tati created in Europe in the mid-1950s. After years of doldrums, an eccentric Monsieur Hulot suddenly became a huge hit… What was so unique about him?

Since the technology and story itself were traditional, Mr. Hulot was himself unique. Hus movements were farcically exaggerated; his walk, hesitant and Max Linderesque; his pipe, hat and cane, instantly recognizable… In his day, for his time, Mr. Hulot was The Answer.

Which brings me back to my search for The Answer, which I think that perhaps I have found--in Poland--in the person of a Mr. Krzysztof Pulkowski, a director not known in the United States. He has actually tried something really new, combining a traditional story with a grotesque (very much like Tati) acting technique and a totally new approach to production design and visual storytelling.

Starting with an empty space, the screen fills up in front of our eyes with minimalistic items barely identifying the purpose of it all--in this case a bank. With a stroke on an electronic pen, judging from the behavior of the characters, it could have been a ... brothel. Really!  What a surprise! I will not divulge any more of the story; the readers can see it for themselves at:

PS Perhaps the movie business has come full circle: the industry--Hollywood!--created by Polish immigrants can be saved by a new talent from Poland.