Mediaboss Marketing

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday he will recuse himself from any investigation into last years presidential campaign, following reports he met twice with Russias ambassador to the U.S. while serving as a campaign surrogate for Donald Trump. The revelation directly contradicts Sessions sworn testimony to Congress in January that he did not meet with any Russian officials in the run-up to Novembers election. In a hastily assembled news conference Thursday, Sessions called charges he lied under oath "totally false" and said he failed to mention the meetings with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak because the two did not discuss the campaign.

Jeff Sessions: I was taken aback a little bit about this brand new information, this allegation that surrogates and I have been, I had been called a surrogate for Donald Trump, had been meeting continuously with Russian officials. And thats what struck me very hard and thats what I focused my answer on. In retrospect, I should have slowed down and said, 'But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times, that would be the ambassador.' Thank you all, take care." Sessionss decision to recuse himself came just hours after President Trump said calls for Sessions to resign amounted to a total witch hunt." Trump was questioned by reporters while touring a naval warship Thursday.

Reporter: Mr. President, do you still have confidence in the Attorney General, sir?

President Donald Trump: Total."

Reporter: Should Sessions recuse himself from investigations into your campaign and Russia?"

President Donald Trump: "I dont think so at all. I dont think so" [crosstalk]

Reporter: When did you first learn Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador? Did you know during the campaign?"

President Donald Trump: "I dont think he should do that at all."

Reporter: When were you aware that he spoke to the Russian ambassador?"

President Donald Trump: "I wasnt aware at all."

Meanwhile, ABC News reported Thursday that Sessions used political funds from his senatorial re-election account to meet with Ambassador Kislyak on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention in July. There were growing calls Thursday for Sessions to resign and even to face prosecution. The ACLU demanded an investigation into whether Sessions committed perjury. And President George W. Bushs former ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, said, Misleading the Senate in sworn testimony about [ones] own contacts with the Russians is a good way to go to jail. On Capitol Hill, a chorus of Democratic lawmakers called for Sessions to step down, while demands grew for a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump.

Read the original post:
Leaked DHS Memo Shows Most Foreign-Born Terrorists Radicalized in US - Democracy Now!

Digital innovations may change the quality of participation and the nature of democracy. How? Espaol

Photo: LATTINO

The advancement of tools of information and communications technology (ICT) has the potential to impact democracy nearly as much as any other area, such as science or education. The effects of the digital world on politics and society are still difficult to measure, and the speed with which these new technological tools evolve is often faster than a scholars ability to assess them, or a policymakers capacity to make them fit into existing institutional designs.

Since their early inception, digital tools and widespread access to the internet have been changing the traditional means of participation in politics, making them more effective. Electoral processes have become more transparent and effective in several countries where the paper ballot has been substituted for electronic voting machines. Petition-signing became a widespread and powerful tool as individual citizens no longer needed to be bothered out in the streets to sign a sheet of paper, but could instead be simultaneously reached by the millions via e-mail and have their names added to virtual petition lists in seconds. Protests and demonstrations have also been immensely revitalized in the internet era. In the last few years, social networks like Facebook and WhatsApp have proved to be a driving-force behind democratic uprisings, by mobilizing the masses, invoking large gatherings, and raising awareness, as was the case of the Arab Spring.

While traditional means of political participation can become more effective by reducing the costs of participation with the use of ICT tools, one cannot yet assure that it would become less subject to distortion and manipulation. In the most recent United States elections, computer scientists claimed that electronic voting machines may have been hacked, altering the results in the counties that relied on them. E-petitions can also be easily manipulated, if safe identification procedures are not put in place. And in these times of post-facts and post-truths, protests and demonstrations can result from strategic partisan manipulation of social media, leading to democratic instability as has recently occurred in Brazil. Nevertheless, the distortion and manipulation of these traditional forms of participation were also present before the rise of ICT tools, and regardless, even if the latter do not solve these preceding problems, they may manage to make political processes more effective anyway.

The game-changer for democracy, however, is not the revitalization of the traditional means of political participation like elections, petition-signing and protests through digital tools. Rather, the real change on how democracy works, governments rule, and representation is delivered comes from entirely new means of e-participation, or the so-called digital democratic innovations. While the internet may boost traditional forms of political participation by increasing the quantity of citizens engaged, democratic innovations that rely on ICT tools may change the very quality of participation, thus in the long-run changing the nature of democracy and its institutions.

First, digital innovations may change how democracy works by making it more inclusive and more deliberative. Real democratic inclusion takes place when the latter is understood not in terms of the number of citizens and volume of participation, but in terms of the groups targeted and the policy issues addressed by the new means of e-participation. Several digital democratic innovations have been created that specifically address women, youth and other vulnerable groups that usually have not only a lower participation in electoral politics, but also have their interests left aside by elected politicians. Mechanisms for digital oversight have evolved to specifically allow women to raise their voices against the multiple forms of gender violence, and in many cases help law-enforcement officials to identify offenders and increase surveillance. Several new policies addressing the youth have been drafted in interactive policymaking platforms, making use of inputs directly provided by young citizens, who tend to prefer their computers keyboard to the ballot box. Such new spaces of participation have been teaching the new generations to not simply understand their political preferences as static manifestations of choice that are aggregated by voting mechanisms every two to four years, but instead to collectively express their demands and construct their political opinions through continuous deliberation. Historically excluded groups can now participate in new institutional spaces designed to address issues that specifically concern them, making their own (digital) voices count in the drafting and implementation of policies.

Second, digital democratic innovations may change how governments rule by making them more accountable and effective. In a short time, E-government and open data have become so widespread as tools for enhancing transparency that one can barely still call them innovations. The most innovative and democratic institutional designs are today found among those who rely on ICT tools to allow citizens to collaborate with their government by interacting with the public administration. Forms of interactive administration have evolved as both internet sites and mobile applications (apps), where citizens can identify problems in their cities and propose solutions to fix them. Mechanisms of collaborative mapping have quickly increased, allowing citizens to use geo-localization tools to do things as varied as crime reporting, spotting foci of diseases, singling out areas of deforestation or denouncing corruption. Both types of digital innovations have been designed to include citizens in the policy process, allowing them to play a role in the implementation and evaluation of policies while improving public service delivery, enforcing the rule of law, and rendering governments more accountable.

Third, digital innovations may change how representation is performed by turning it more responsive. Whereas sometimes millions of votes are not enough to ensure that elected politicians take the preferences of their constituencies into consideration; in certain cases the e-participation of a few thousand citizens have proved to be more effective to make those preferences heard. Processes of crowdsourcing legislation are perhaps the most innovative change that has taken place in parliaments over the last centuries, enabling citizens to collaboratively draft new legislation, and thus take part in lawmaking. In some cases, this form of online citizen participation is not only restricted to agenda-setting, but also to the formulation stage of the policy cycle by adding, changing or removing parts of new laws to be enacted by representatives. A growing number of political parties have also been using open sourced platforms to allow citizens to contribute suggestions to their political agendas, oppose their adopted polices, and vote online on the issues they must vote on in parliaments. The use of such tools enables parties and their incumbents to strengthen liaisons with their members and possibly win new supporters. Interestingly enough, digital innovations have been making representation less virtual by virtual means.

These new digital institutional designs mentioned above not only enhance participation, they also improve democracy by increasing political inclusion, generating accountability, enforcing the rule of law and augmenting responsiveness. They may also foster social equality, as they include traditionally disadvantaged groups and provide channels to voice their underrepresented demands. Just a few years ago one could argue that the digital divide rules out low-income citizens, but today the widespread use of smartphones is almost making computers as a device necessary to access the internet obsolete. It is not by chance that higher numbers of active smartphones per capita are found in some of the poorest countries, and that such mobile internet devices have proved an efficient tool to include citizens in highly unequal societies. By correcting some of the deficits of representative governments and providing new ways to deal with social inequality, new forms of e-participation may not change democracy as quickly as they evolve and spread, but they have certainly already made it more diverse and inclusive through institutional digital innovation.

More here:
Does digital democracy improve democracy? - Open Democracy

New York Times

Democracy, Disrupted New York Times Such a regime, in his view, would keep the trappings of democracy, including seemingly free elections, while leaders would control the election process, the media and the scope of permissible debate. What you get is a country that is de facto less free.. The Real Threat to Democracy Is When Americans Can't Be Open about Their Political BeliefsIndependent Journal Review all 7 news articles »

Read this article:
Democracy, Disrupted - New York Times

Francis Fukuyama is an American political scientist most known for his bookThe End of History and the Last Man. His most recent book is Political Order and Political Decay:From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. He spoke with Alexander Grlach for The WorldPost last week in Palo Alto, Calif. about U.S. President Donald Trump, the populist wave sweeping Europe and fake news.

Larry Downing / Reuters

How would you sum up the last year? What has happened to the world order?

The big surprise is that this wave of populist nationalism has happened in the home territory of classic, liberalist Anglo-Saxon areas. For the first time, at least in my time, there is a president who openly dismisses Americas role in a liberal world order. The other problem with Donald Trump is his utter lack of qualification for the job, be it preparation, character or temperament. Nothing since his inauguration has eased any of those concerns, either

So what would you tell the people that say that he just is a tip of the iceberg, representing a repressed, white rural demographic?

Well, the majority of Americans voted against him. He has emotional support from a small group of people, but nothing close to the majority of the country behind him. The interesting aspect to his presidency for me is the role of the Republicans in this. When do they stall and say: Enough is enough!? It hasnt happened yet, and wont change as long as things stay good in the economy. Since the inauguration, hes actually ridden a wave of good economic developments, so he may be able to use that to turn around his popularity ratings.

We know that when British Prime Minister Theresa May came to visit Trump, he congratulated her on the result of the Brexit referendum. Does his opinion influence the behavior of voters overseas, especially in the Netherlands and France, where elections will soon be happening?

Its complicated. On one hand, the leaders there, of course, enjoy the praise of the U.S. president. On the other, you have a good amount of anti-Americanism in Europe. People are saying, we dont want a Trump in our country. That, for example, has been a mitigating factor against Geert Wilders, the anti-immigrant politician in the Netherlands. So I think it is an influence, but it wont be decisive.

Is this wave of populism pushing European institutions into a crisis?

The institutions, admittedly, havent [been] working well, but theres also a problem with the narrative. But, in effect, it describes the feeling that the European electorate has lost faith in the institutions the Schengen Agreement,for example, that allows free movement of people across borders within that zone.

What is your solution that accommodates both people who have lost faith in their institutions as well as ultra-left people who want open borders?

Thats a tough question. If I was the German chancellor, I would focus a lot on Italy and Greece. In the next generation, Africa will literally pour into Europe. You must secure those outer water borders, and then look into internal borders. At the same time, migration is simply picking up in pace some 800,000 Poles moved to the United Kingdom in recent years. Thats a huge number.

But is inter-European migration different from intercontinental migration?

No, thats simply a fairy tale. The European Union has done very little in terms of identity creation. Nobody thinks hes a European first, then a German. Its the other way around!

In many cases, it has even been going in the other direction, where regionalism is prioritized. We have seen that in Scotland, for example, and Catalonia. The real question here though is sovereignty. Many of these separatist areas have their own institutions. The cultural picture of serenity is utopian though. Populism exists because institutions are elite-driven. The problem is inequality in economic integration.

OLIVIER MORIN via Getty Images

But shouldnt it be both ways? I dont care whether an Uber driver in London is from the U.K. or from Poland. Is one side more favored than the other?

Sure, thats one way to think. But thats not how political organization works. Poles that take jobs away from Britons create resentment. Economic globalization has exceeded the boundaries of political globalization. Were still not organized on a global basis, and I dont think we ever will be. The German-Greek debt debate is the best example of that, with Germans feeling angry about having to send taxpayer money to Greece.

So after 70 years of somewhat successful multilateralism and a European effort of institution-building, we are going backwards?

The focus and hope back then was on economic integration, and that through this economic globalization the cultures would integrate. The world doesnt work like that, though. Its not only economics that drives a people identity and culture matter, too! And thats where the EU really fell short, and thats what they have come to regret by now.

There is currently a minuscule elite that considers themselves as global citizens, where geography and culture dont seem to matter. If this elite thinks that the rest of the world thinks like them, theyre wrong. The benefits of globalization were not shared equally, which is why there is a pushback. The majority of people still, as we said earlier, are on a national, if not regional level. Changing that will be extremely difficult and lengthy.

There is no blueprint remedy for what the debate asks for as of now. Economically speaking, were on a wrong path when considering isolationism or protectionism. Education is certainly a factor, both generational and also retraining people in jobs that are faced by extinction, especially in jobs that are becoming more and more replaced by robots and AI.

But what does that mean in the bigger picture? Are we supposed to disentangle politics, economics and culture and break down every international concept into a national and regional level? Or should we try to get everybody onto the same page and unify intentions going forward?

In all honesty, I dont know how to answer a question to such a level of abstraction. So let me give you an example: In the U.S., we need to have comprehensive immigration reform. Under President George W. Bush, an attempt failed. Essentially, the left and right of the debate both have a point. The approximately 11 million illegal aliens that we have here right now cant be deported. There has to be a way to keep them in the country, assuming theyre working and law-abiding.

On the other side, the U.S. has not enforced its immigration laws, which is why there are these 11 million people in the first place. A national ID card would be a logical solution, but the left and right alike distrust the government too much to push such an idea through. The business community also does not want to be the enforcing arm of this policy either, so youre caught in limbo.

The American political system is deadlocked, neither side wants to give way.

WorldPost illustration

One last question about fake news. How do you, as an academic, perceive this?

It actually bothers me more as a citizen than as an academic. Polarization and distrust of existing institutions is destructive, and sadly its one result of the internet. It seems [that] anything people read on the internet they consider valid, although there is nobody standing in between the producer and consumer of information, as we are used to it from old-fashioned news.

Now, Russia and China, amongst others, are actively playing a role in undermining the credibility of information, which constitutes a new form of warfare that is being conducted. At the same time, people want to believe things and dont care as much about the factual accuracy. On the other hand, I can argue that institutions have always been controlled by the elites, and that through the presence of the internet they are losing their power. Maybe democracies dont work too well without a certain degree of control from elites. But that is all to be seen in the upcoming years.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

See more here:
Francis Fukuyama: Democracy Needs Elites - Huffington Post

There are a lot of reasons to oppose school district merger plans for Windham Northeast and the Windham Southeast supervisory unions: increased bureaucracy and standardization, no long-term savings, possible loss of school programs, less responsiveness to the needs of individual students and families, loss of school choice, potential forced moving of teachers and students, possible school closures, increased centralization of control in the district office and less flexible school practices, and a slew of potential unintended consequences, the most worrisome of which is the loss of participatory democracy and the character of our communities.

We live in an era when many are frustrated by national politics and what feels like our powerlessness to change policies we find disagreeable. Whether it is corporations or the top 1 percent or special interestsor unfettered presidential power, we citizens feel ever more removed from governance on issues that affect all our lives.

One of the few areas where we still have a voice in Vermont is looking out for the quality of our schools and the future of our children. We vote for our neighbors to serve on school boards. We determine how much we spend on education and the programs we support. We can scrutinize the local school budget and look for creative solutions that enlist the strengths of our community. We can attend school board meetings, and we can talk to our board members to have our voices heard. Our board members hire our teachers and administrators, and we can serve on hiring committees (and other committees) that can shape the tenor of the school. And maybe most significantly, we can join our neighbors at town meeting to speak face to face with each other about issues that matter, not only to our pocketbooks, but to the spirit of our community. Proponents of school district merger dismiss the importance of our participatory democracy. They note that not that many people come to school board meetings or town meeting. They remind us that we have already lost a lot of control regarding school policies to the powers at the state and national level. And they assume that this loss of democracy is simply the price we have to pay to comply with a state mandated, one-size-fits-all directive that has little evidence of its effectiveness.

I worry that the notion of local control gets misinterpreted as a question of governance rather than educational quality. The ultimate determinant of a students educational experience is the quality of teachers, the school principal and programs at the local level. Student learning is not an abstraction of educational policy or governance the most effective schools know students well and are responsive to the individual needs of kids and their families. The more bureaucratic and standardized our schools become, the less responsive they can be to the unique needs of the children they serve.

Local control really is about schoolbased responsiveness to the needs of kids, the initiative of teachers, the input of the community and the leadership of principals to shape an inspiring, dynamic, personalized learning environment that works for every child. Decisions made in the superintendents office or by a unified board cant be based on knowing the uniqueness of our children or the unique needs of individual schools. Our schools give us a venue to shape the character of our community and bring our voices together for a common purpose. Our children are unique our schools should be as well.

We stand at a precarious time for our democracy. There are many ways in which citizens feel further removed from decisions that affect our lives and our communities. Our local schools, school boards and town meeting are among the few institutions that continue to provide opportunities for direct citizen voice. These are the traditions that give communities the space to come together, to feel connected and to make decisions that make a difference for ourselves, for our children, and for the future of the society we wish to see.

Rick Gordon is a member of the Westminster School Board and director of the Compass School in Westminster.

Read the rest here:
Yes to democracy, no to mergers - Rutland Herald