Panda Article SEO Case Study – Entity Rank, Enthusiast Rank, Text Scraping
Panda Article SEO Case Study – Entity Rank, Enthusiast Rank, Text Scraping – firstname.lastname@example.org.
By: josh bachynski
Panda Article SEO Case Study – Entity Rank, Enthusiast Rank, Text Scraping
Panda Article SEO Case Study – Entity Rank, Enthusiast Rank, Text Scraping – email@example.com.
By: josh bachynski
As Eugene noted, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held that a child pornography conviction had to be reversed because the evidence was gathered in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Steve Vladeck has a post discussing the important and potentially certworthy issue in the case, which is whether a violation of that statute can trigger the exclusionary rule at all.
I confess that my initial reaction was skepticism. Consider Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon:
We have applied the exclusionary rule primarily to deter constitutional violations. [In t]he few cases in which we have suppressed evidence for statutory violations the excluded evidence arose directly out of statutory violations that implicated important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests.
Maybe the Posse Comitatus Act can be shown to implicate important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests, but the Ninth Circuit didnt really show that, and it isnt obvious to me.
More generally, it seems to me that current exclusionary rule doctrine can be read in a couple of different ways:
One is the deterrence theory: Exclusion is appropriate when it seems like theres intentional and/or widespread and/or generally problematic illegality by the government. This refrain appears in a bunch of the cases, and its how the Ninth Circuit framed the analysis. Its not clear, however, that the analysis automatically applies in statutory cases (see above).
A second is the slow destruction theory: Under this theory, the exclusionary rule is unfounded and deleterious, and the rule and its works should be slowly destroyed. Some people read the Courts exclusionary rule precedents to be implicitly working toward this theory. It is not really put forward by the Court as a first-order justification, although quite a few of the opinions do frame their analysis by questioning the rules basis or justification.
Until recently, I would have ended this list there. But I have recently begun to give some credence to a third account of exclusionary rule doctrine put forward by my friend Richard Re in an article called The Due Process Exclusionary Rule.
Richard argues that today many searches and seizures should be seen as part of the criminal process and that the exclusionary rule is thus justified by the Due Process Clause, which forbids a conviction obtained through illegal process. While I am not yet sure that I agree with this view, I think it deserves serious consideration, and is the best alternative to the slow destruction theory that is on offer.
Here is what the article says about statutory violations (footnotes omitted):
North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO),military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) of April 4, 1949, which sought to create a counterweight to Soviet armies stationed in central and eastern Europe after World War II. Its original members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joining the original signatories were Greece and Turkey (1952); West Germany (1955; from 1990 as Germany); Spain (1982); the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland (1999); Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia (2004); and Albania and Croatia (2009). France withdrew from the integrated military command of NATO in 1966 but remained a member of the organization; it resumed its position in NATOs military command in 2009.
The heart of NATO is expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, in which the signatory members agree that
an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in 2001, after terrorist attacks organized by exiled Saudi Arabian millionaire Osama bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and part of the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C., killing some 3,000 people.
Article 6 defines the geographic scope of the treaty as covering an armed attack on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America. Other articles commit the allies to strengthening their democratic institutions, to building their collective military capability, to consulting each other, and to remaining open to inviting other European states to join.
After World War II in 1945, western Europe was economically exhausted and militarily weak (the western Allies had rapidly and drastically reduced their armies at the end of the war), and newly powerful communist parties had arisen in France and Italy. By contrast, the Soviet Union had emerged from the war with its armies dominating all the states of central and eastern Europe, and by 1948 communists under Moscows sponsorship had consolidated their control of the governments of those countries and suppressed all noncommunist political activity. What became known as the Iron Curtain, a term popularized by Winston Churchill, had descended over central and eastern Europe. Further, wartime cooperation between the western Allies and the Soviets had completely broken down. Each side was organizing its own sector of occupied Germany, so that two German states would emerge, a democratic one in the west and a communist one in the east.
In 1948 the United States launched the Marshall Plan, which infused massive amounts of economic aid to the countries of western and southern Europe on the condition that they cooperate with each other and engage in joint planning to hasten their mutual recovery. As for military recovery, under the Brussels Treaty of 1948, the United Kingdom, France, and the Low CountriesBelgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgconcluded a collective-defense agreement called the Western European Union. It was soon recognized, however, that a more formidable alliance would be required to provide an adequate military counterweight to the Soviets.
By this time Britain, Canada, and the United States had already engaged in secret exploratory talks on security arrangements that would serve as an alternative to the United Nations (UN), which was becoming paralyzed by the rapidly emerging Cold War. In March 1948, following a virtual communist coup dtat in Czechoslovakia in February, the three governments began discussions on a multilateral collective-defense scheme that would enhance Western security and promote democratic values. These discussions were eventually joined by France, the Low Countries, and Norway and in April 1949 resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty.
Spurred by the North Korean invasion of South Korea in June 1950, the United States took steps to demonstrate that it would resist any Soviet military expansion or pressures in Europe. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the leader of the Allied forces in western Europe in World War II, was named Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) by the North Atlantic Council (NATOs governing body) in December 1950. He was followed as SACEUR by a succession of American generals.
The North Atlantic Council, which was established soon after the treaty came into effect, is composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year. At other times the council, chaired by the NATO secretary-general, remains in permanent session at the ambassadorial level. Just as the position of SACEUR has always been held by an American, the secretary-generalship has always been held by a European.
Read more here:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — Encyclopedia …
Hyderabad, Sept 11:
Noting that media freedom entails responsibility, Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar today said the Government would protect the freedom of the press.
Press freedom is very important. But freedom has not come for free. Therefore, freedom entails responsibility. So, it has to be a responsible freedom. So those who enjoy freedom must also behave responsibly. But, if they are responsible freedom, media, we are bound to protect them and we will do our duty, he told reporters here.
Asked about the comments of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao on media, he said, I have already given (my comment) yesterday.
Replying to a query about some Telugu channels being blacked out in Telangana, which was also discussed in Rajya Sabha, Javadekar said: The Government would do whatever is duly and legally possible. You will know what we are doing.
The Minister has received representations on the issue.
(This article was published on September 11, 2014)
Here is the original post:
Media freedom entails responsibility: Javdekar
Michael Brown: More Police Brutalities, and My Illuminati Status?
My Original Mike Brown Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grxh2B3Frkc feature=gp-n-y google_comment_id=z12xh1cjfxudvl2rq04cfjkouxf2yjujwds Song: Be Free by J. Cole Huffington Post Article…
Read the original here:
Michael Brown: More Police Brutalities, and My Illuminati Status? – Video
But the assurances of a military response tied to Article 5 are not easily converted to the digital world, Libicki said.
“In most categories of war, you have to defeat the other guy shooting back, but in the cyberworld you can do a lot just by building up your defenses,” he said. “When you put cyberwarfare into the template of conventional warfare, you end up drawing a lot of conclusions that don’t make sense.”
But Dave Merkel, CTO of cybersecurity firm FireEye, said he isn’t surprised by Friday’s announcement, given the severe damage that can be caused by a cyberattack. Still, he said, governments may find it difficult to attribute the origin of a digital offensive.
Read MoreNATO: Russia ‘attacking’ Ukraine as rift widens
While both Libicki and Merkel agreed that many NATO members could determine the origin of an attack, those governments may not be eager to reveal their intelligence and technological capabilities.
Yet even nongovernmental firms are sometimes able to positively identify cyberattacks: In 2013, Mandiant (since acquired by FireEye) released a report detailing a wide body of evidence that a Chinese government group had conducted a widespread cyber-espionage campaign. China denies engaging in cyber-espionage.
NATO’s biggest problem with enforcing a hard line against cyberattacks may simply be the wide proliferation of such warfare.
A single hacker can launch hundreds of varied attacks in a short period of time, meaning that governments may find it nearly impossible to identify, attribute and respond to cyberstrikes in a timely manner, Merkel said.
By CNBC’s Everett Rosenfeld
Performing SEO is hard, and quantifying SEO efforts can be even more difficult. Google Webmaster Tools (GWT) helps us regain the keyword level granularity lost with Googles switch to secure search. In the last article, we looked at what it takes to compare Google Analytics to Google Webmaster Tools, and found that when taking into consideration limitations and filters, its surprisingly accurate. Digging further (looking across almost 40 different implementations using the methodology described in the previously mentioned article), weve found it can also be used as a tool to ensure:
In this article, well first be walking through how to quickly find potential mis-attribution of organic search. Then well wrap up by quickly grabbing a list of GWT Top Pages to make sure traffic is getting logged in the proper analytics account.
Comparing the Top Pages in Google Analytics (GA) versus GWT seems to be a great way to identify traffic getting improperly bucketed as organic search. Keep an eye out for strange URLs that dont seem to fit the canonical profile; landing pages for paid campaigns have been common.
Follow this tutorialto match up GWT and GA reports for the same date range, then export the data into two tabs in the same spreadsheet. One for GA, and one for GWT.
Using the exported Google Analytics report, make sure the Sessionsare in descending order and pull in GWT Clicks from the tab over.
Note: By default Google Analytics reports have relative URL paths (a seen in column A), if using VLOOKUPyoull need to make sure the values match up exactly. To do this we just inserted a new column for absolute URLs and used this formula, =”https://www.example.com”&A8 .
When looking at Column D, notice that the values of #N/Arepresent URLs that dont actually receive any organic traffic. This was the case across multiple sites and was confirmed using the BrightEdge ranking database.
Note: BrightEdge is an enterprise ranking database, SEMrushmight be a good free/cheap alternative to check URLs.
Go here to read the rest:
Verify Analytics Accuracy With Google Webmaster Tools Top Pages
9/11 Investigation #6- NSA And More Warnings
ABC News Article- http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651 Edward Snowden Video- http://youtu.be/zUoNC3QIcQo Thomas Drake Article- http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1513494.
Go here to read the rest:
9/11 Investigation #6- NSA And More Warnings – Video
September 7, 2014
by Terence Gomez
When Azmi Sharom, Associate Professor of Law at the Universiti Malaya, was charged under Malaysias Sedition Act for providing a legal opinion on a constitutional matter, it shocked the academic community.
It was particularly alarming to academics as it is now well acknowledged that the Sedition Act is an obsolete relic of British colonial rule, introduced to curb dissent. Even Prime Minister Najib Razak had expressed the view, about two years ago, that this Act had to be repealed.
Najibs government is now preparing a National Harmony Bill to replace this Act. Azmi was, however, one of a number of people, many of them politicians in opposition parties, to be charged under this Act in the recent past.
The issue that Azmi had commented on was in response to the question as to how the next Selangor menteri besar should be selected. Azmis views were published in the online portal of The Malay Mail. He is quoted as saying two things in this article: You dont want a repeat of that, where a secret meeting took place and I think what happened in Perak was legally wrong. The best thing to do (in Selangor) is do it as legally and transparently as possible.
It was baffling that these opinions were viewed as being seditious. In fact, the Bar Council, in its statement on Azmis case, is quoted as saying that his comments cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute sedition. Azmi, in response to this charge, has argued that his statements were based on established case laws and democratic principles and that he views this charge against him as a blow to academic freedom and the freedom of expression.
Digital Marketing Depot presents Repositioning SEO Inside Your Company So Everyone Wins on Tuesday September 23 at 1 PM EDT. This webcast is about why and how your company can benefit from repositioning search engine optimization (SEO) inside your company to give your branding efforts a boost. Jessica Bowman, Founder and CEO or SEOinhouse and Matt Roberts, Chief Strategy Officer at Linkdex will discuss how a good SEO program can breathe new life into your business, bringing improved conversion rates, higher rankings in the search engine results pages, and an overall visibility to your business that will attract new prospects.
Registration is free at Digital Marketing Depot.
Some opinions expressed in this article may be those of a guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.
Continue reading here:
Repositioning SEO Inside Your Company So Everyone Wins September 23 Webcast
Capitalism Is About Love
Jeffrey Tucker reads his article from Liberty.me http://tucker.liberty.me/2014/08/30/capitalism-is-about-love/?refer=libertyme.
Read the original post:
Capitalism Is About Love – Video
Coordinates: 505234.16N 42519.24E / 50.8761556N 4.4220111E / 50.8761556; 4.4220111
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; pron.: /neto/ NAY-toh; French: Organisation du trait de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. NATO’s headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, one of the 28 member states across North America and Europe, the newest of which, Albania and Croatia, joined in April 2009. An additional 22countries participate in NATO’s “Partnership for Peace”, with 15other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world’s defence spending.
For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However, the Korean War galvanized the member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two US supreme commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, which formed in 1955. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization’s goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasiondoubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO’s military structure in 1966.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization became drawn into the breakup of Yugoslavia, and conducted their first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999. Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Cold War rivals, which culminated with several former Warsaw Pact states joining the alliance in 1999 and 2004. The September 2001 attacks signalled the only occasion in NATO’s history that Article5 of the North Atlantic treaty has been invoked as an attack on all NATO members. After the attack, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF, and the organization continues to operate in a range of roles, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations and most recently in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members has been invoked three times, and only by Turkey: once in 2003 over the Second Iraq War, and twice in 2012 over the Syrian civil war after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria.
The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union’s Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary both to counter the military power of the USSR and to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism, so talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately resulting in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Popular support for the Treaty was not unanimous, and some Icelanders participated in a pro-neutrality, anti-membership riot in March 1949.
The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so. This differs from ArticleIV of the Treaty of Brussels, which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. It is nonetheless assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member’s territory and their “vessels, forces or aircraft” above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France.
The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1300Standardization Agreements codified many of the common practices that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.6251 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale de Herstal’s FAL became the most popular 7.62 NATO rifle in Europe and served into the early 1990s. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.
The outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat of all Communist countries working together, and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans. SHAPE, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, was formed as a consolidated command structure, and began work under Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower in January 1951. The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO’s Long-Term Defence Plan, called for an expansion to ninety-six divisions. However this requirement was dropped the following year to roughly thirty-five divisions with heavier use to be made of nuclear weapons. At this time, NATO could call on about fifteen ready divisions in Central Europe, and another ten in Italy and Scandinavia. Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization’s chief civilian was created, and Lord Ismay was eventually appointed to the post.
In September 1952, the first major NATO maritime exercises began; Exercise Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defence of Denmark and Norway. Other major exercises that followed included Exercise Grand Slam and Exercise Longstep, naval and amphibious exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, Italic Weld, a combined air-naval-ground exercise in northern Italy, Grand Repulse, involving the British Army on the Rhine (BAOR), the Netherlands Corps and Allied Air Forces Central Europe (AAFCE), Monte Carlo, a simulated atomic air-ground exercise involving the Central Army Group, and Weldfast, a combined amphibious landing exercise in the Mediterranean Sea involving British, Greek, Italian, Turkish, and U.S. naval forces.
Greece and Turkey also joined the alliance in 1952, forcing a series of controversial negotiations, in which the United States and Britain were the primary disputants, over how to bring the two countries into the military command structure. While this overt military preparation was going on, covert stay-behind arrangements initially made by the Western European Union to continue resistance after a successful Soviet invasion, including Operation Gladio, were transferred to NATO control. Ultimately unofficial bonds began to grow between NATO’s armed forces, such as the NATO Tiger Association and competitions such as the Canadian Army Trophy for tank gunnery.
BEIJING – One of China’s top universities has urged students and teachers to “fight against” criticism of the ruling Communist Party, an influential party journal said, in the latest curbs on free expression.
The move by Peking University, which at one time was a bastion of free speech in China, underscores increasing anxiety of criticism among party leaders and is a sign of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s politically conservative agenda.
Curricula and speech at Chinese universities are tightly controlled by the government, though students at Peking University have at times pushed the limits, including during the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests that were brutally suppressed by the army.
“In recent years, some people with ulterior motives have added fuel to the flames on the Internet … ultimately targeting the Chinese Communist Party and the socialist system,” an article in the journal Qiushi, which means “seeking truth” in Chinese, said late on Sunday.
Those actions “created a very large negative impact on public opinion on the Internet and social consensus,” the article, written by the university’s party committee, said.
The committee called on teachers and students to “take a firm stand and be unequivocal, and fight against speech and actions that touch upon the party’s and country’s principles and bottom lines in a timely, efficient and resolute manner”.
The university has in the past few years established a 24-hour system to monitor public opinion on the Internet and take early measures to control and reduce the effects of negative speech, the article said.
Xi’s administration, which took control in March 2013, has stepped up a crackdown on dissent, detaining and jailing activists, muzzling Internet critics and strengthening restrictions on journalists in what some rights groups call the worst suppression of free expression in recent years.
China on Saturday ordered journalists of both traditional and online media to learn “Marxist news values” and uphold the principles of news as prescribed by the party.
In October, Peking University leaders voted to end the contract of then professor Xia Yeliang, 53, who had drawn the ire of school officials for his blog posts calling for democratic reforms and rule of law in China.
Here is the original post:
Peking University warns against criticising Communist Party: journal
A customer feeds cash into a Bitcoin ATM in a boutique in New York. Photo by Brendan McDermid, Reuters
NEW YORK – Bitcoin is catching on at U.S. online merchants including Overstock.com and Expedia, as customers use a digital currency that just a few years ago was virtually unknown but is now showing some staying power.
Though sales paid for in bitcoin so far at vendors interviewed for this article have been a fraction of one percent, they expect that as acceptance grows, the online currency will one day be as ubiquitous as the internet.
“Bitcoin isn’t going anywhere; it’s here to stay,” said Michael Gulmann, vice president of global products at Expedia Inc. in Seattle, the largest online travel agent. “We want to be there from the beginning.” Expedia started accepting bitcoin payments for hotel bookings on July 11.
Until recently a niche alternative currency touted by a fervent group of followers, bitcoin has evolved into a software-based payment online system. Bitcoins are stored in a wallet with a unique identification number and companies like Coinbase and Blockchain can hold the currency for the user.
When buying an item from a merchant’s website, a customer simply clicks on the bitcoin option and a pop-in window appears where he can type in his wallet ID number.
Still, broad-based adoption of bitcoin is at least five years away because most consumers still prefer to use credit cards, analysts said.
“Bitcoin is a new way of making payments, but it’s not solving a problem that’s broken,” said George Peabody, payments consultant at Glenbrook Partners in Menlo Park, California. “Retail payments aren’t broken.”
There are also worries about bitcoin’s volatility: its price in U.S. dollars changes every day. On Wednesday, bitcoin was up 0.4 percent at $514.09.
That risk is borne by the consumer and the bitcoin payment processor, such as Coinbase or Bitpay, not the retailer. The vendor doesn’t hold the bitcoin and is paid in U.S. dollars. As soon as a customer pays in bitcoin, the digital currency goes to the payment processor and the processor immediately pays the merchant, for a fee of less than 1 percent.
View original post here:
Bitcoin shows staying power
Bitcoin evangelist Charles Shrem will plead guilty Thursday to one criminal count stemming from what prosecutors had alleged was a drug scheme involving his virtual-currency exchange and an online black market, according to court documents.
Shrem, a well-known bitcoin advocate, will enter the plea in federal court in Manhattan next week, he confirmed in an interview. He said he would plead to one count of aiding and abetting an unlicensed money transmission.
Im happy that its coming to a close, said Shrem in a telephone interview.
Shrem and his alleged accomplice, Robert Faiella, had previously pleaded not guilty to running an alleged money-laundering scheme that funneled the digital currency to users of the online alleged black-market site Silk Road.
It was unclear if Faiella, who has previously plead not guilty, would also change his plea. His lawyer didnt respond to requests for comment.
Read an expanded version of this article at WSJ.com.
Article updated: 5/24/2014 8:50 PM
Winning regional titles is beginning to get habit-forming for Christian Liberty Academy.
For the second straight year, the Chargers are Class A regional champions after hanging on for a 3-2 victory over Kirkland Hiawatha at Hinckley-Big Rock on Saturday.
Christian Liberty scored 1 run in the first inning on doubles from seniors Aaron Cunningham and Aaron Karr.
The Chargers added to the lead with 2 more runs in the third on a triple by senior Dylan Antonides and a double by freshman Aiden Miller.
Winning pitcher Tom Keplar delivered a strong start, and Antonides closed out the game, which ended as Christian Liberty’s catcher, Miller, threw out a Hiawatha runner at second base.
Christian Liberty coach Jed Bennett said two keys for his team were its recent knack for solit hitting combined with good fielding.
Against both Hiawatha and Alden-Hebron (in a 7-4 regional semifinal win on Wednesday), the Chargers played error-free ball.
“I think this might even be a bigger win than last year,” said Christian Liberty coach Jed Bennett. “Last year we were the No. 1 seed in our regional, and this year we were the No. 3.”
Next up for Christian Liberty is an appearance in the Lena-Winslow sectional semifinals. They’ll meet Freeport Aquin at about 6:45 p.m. in the second of two semifinal games Wednesday, following the first semi featuring Shabbona Indian Creek and Lena Winslow (4 p.m. start).
Go here to see the original:
Christian Liberty repeats regional title feat
Published: Thursday, May 22, 2014, 8:55p.m. Updated 9 hours ago
From the Nazis to the Stalinists, tyrants have always started out supporting free speech, and why is easy to understand. Speech is vital for the realization of their goals of command, control and confiscation. Basic to their agenda are the tools of indoctrination, propagandizing, proselytization.
Once they gain power, as leftists have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed. This is increasingly the case on university campuses.
Back in 1964, it was Mario Savio, a campus leftist, who led the free speech movement at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, a movement that played a vital role in placing American universities center stage in the flow of political ideas, no matter how controversial, unpatriotic and vulgar.
The free speech movement gave birth to the hippie movement of the ’60s and ’70s. The longhair, unkempt hippies of that era have grown up and now often find themselves being college professors, deans, provosts and presidents. Their intolerance of free speech and other ideas has become policy and practice on many college campuses.
Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, updates us on the campus attack on free speech and different ideas in his article titled Obama Unleashes the Left: How the government created a federal hunting license for the far left ( tinyurl.com/mp5x428).
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of the nation’s most accomplished women, graciously withdrew as Rutgers University’s commencement speaker after two months of campus protests about her role in the Iraq War. Some students and professors said, War criminals shouldn’t be honored. One wonders whether these students would similarly protest Hillary Clinton, who, as senator, voted for the invasion of Iraq.
Brandeis University officials were intimidated into rescinding their invitation to Somali writer and American Enterprise Institute scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose criticisms of radical Islam were said to have violated the school’s core values. Brandeis decided that allowing her to speak would be hurtful to Muslim students. I take it that Brandeis students and officials would see criticism of deadly Islamist terrorist gang Boko Haram’s kidnapping of nearly 300 Nigerian girls, some of whom have been sold off as brides, as unacceptable and violative of the university’s core values.
Earlier this year, faculty and students held a meeting at Vassar College to discuss a particularly bitter internal battle over the school’s movement to boycott Israel. Before the meeting, an English professor announced the dialogue would not be guided by cardboard notions of civility. That professor might share the vision of Adolf Hitler’s brown-shirted thugs of the paramilitary wing of the Nazi party in their effort to crush dissent.
Western values of liberty are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality with entitlement. As such, they pose a far greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist organization or rogue nation.
CIO.com recently queried nearly 30 SEO experts and rounded up their advice into a list of the “Top 10 Technical SEO Issues (and How to Fix Them).” The following seven quick-hit SEO tips offer additional best practices that are well worth your attention.
1) Keep Your Sitemap Updated
“If you’re updating your website, make sure you keep your sitemap up to date so that it makes it easier for search engine robots to index your website correctly.” — Sameep Shah, founder of SimpleWebDesign
2) Don’t Worry Too Much About Keywords
Google’s recent “Hummingbird” algorithm shifted the general focus from keywords to topics. “No longer do you have to mention ‘blue widgets’ 20 times on the page to help drive top rankings for ‘blue widgets,’ as long as the entire content of your article closely talks about ‘blue widgets’.” — Johnny Ewton, Web analyst for Delegator.com
3) Don’t Overlook On-Page Optimization Opportunities
“It’s still important to ensure that each page has unique content with the right headings (such as H1, H2) and unique HTML title tags and meta descriptions. Also, make sure that on every page the visitor is able to engage in social sharing. You only have a few seconds before your visitor either leaves your site or you draw them further into it, so it’s important that every page is tweaked with that in mind.” — Mike Waller, owner of SEO Zones, Inc.
Keep title tags under 65 characters and meta descriptions under 150 characters to avoid truncation in Google search results. “The title tag is an ideal place for the keyword(s) you want a given page to rank for. Think of the meta description as a headline. Use it to try and convince search users to click on your site rather than a competing site.” — Delegator.com’s Johnny Ewton
4) Use “robots.txt” Correctly
The “robots.txt” file exists for the sole reason of telling search engines which pages on your site shouldn’t be crawled. “I’ve seen many small business sites and some mid-market sites redesign their sites only to shoot themselves in the foot at launch with the robots meta tag. During the development process, it’s a good idea to block search engines from indexing your site when it isn’t finished, or on a development server. But forgetting to remove the ‘robots.txt’ instructions to block your site to search engines once it’s finished can be catastrophic for a successful site launch.” — Scott Benson, founder and president, Benson SEO
People who cannot win arguments soon discover that a good tactic is to avoid debate by bullying potential opponents into silence. From imposing campus speech codes to protesting commencement speakers to passing laws that make it harder for others to speak out, this tactic has been deployed with great effectiveness in recent years.
Now, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with the backing of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, is taking it to its ultimate end point. He is pushing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would amend the First Amendment to allow the government to curtail citizens’ speech.
The amendment, proposed by Sen. Mark Udall and co-sponsored by Shaheen, is almost five times as long as the First Amendment, which it would cripple.
It would give both Congress and the states the “power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents” and “the amount of contributions to candidates” and “the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates” under the broad justification that such restrictions are to “advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes.”
Orwell could not have written it better himself. In the name of protecting the people, the government would assume for itself the power to control the people’s political participation.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” Udall’s amendment states: “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.” Notice the exclusion of the words “freedom of speech.” That was not by accident.
Shaheen has signed on to a constitutional amendment designed to give government the power to regulate political speech by regulating the amount of money that can be raised and spent on it. If you think Congress would judiciously use this power only in public-spirited and high-minded ways, and only against the super-wealthy, you have not paid much attention to Congress.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has documented 145 instances since 1987 of college commencement speakers who have been uninvited or protested or who have withdrawn their names from consideration under pressure, The Washington Post reported this week. Nearly 100 of those came in the last five years.
Last week the state Legislature passed a bill (SB 120) that would dramatically expand state power to regulate the activity of people who organize to participate in political campaigns. The impulse to silence other Americans is increasing.
This amendment is the ultimate realization of that impulse. It is the desired end result of everyone who would rather force an opponent to shut up than engage in an open debate.
See the article here:
'Shutup,' they explained Crippling the First Amendment
Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum