New White House college rating system already under heavy scrutiny

WASHINGTON –  A controversial Obama administration rating system for colleges and universities already is being scrutinized ahead of its late-December rollout by educators who claim the government's goal of more transparency could come at the expense of schools that don't happen to fit the ivory tower model. 
The federal government, with its long-awaited rating system, is trying to hold the country's 7,000 colleges and universities accountable not only to taxpayers, but also to prospective students trying to weigh the pros and cons of different institutions. 
But it has many in the education community on edge. Several colleges and education associations have launched a preemptive PR strike against the plan, though the details haven't yet been released. 
"I don't know how they can complain about something that isn't even out," a source at the Department of Education told FoxNews.com on condition of anonymity. 
The ratings system, rumored to be released on Dec. 19, is likely to re-ignite the debate on the federal government's role in higher education. The Obama administration has had to balance its position as a cheerleader for innovation with its demands for colleges and universities to rein in tuition costs, while also pressing the institutions to produce more employable graduates. 
The idea of a national rating system was pitched as a way to create more transparency in the government. Colleges and universities receive nearly $150 billion each year in federal loans and grants. Rating schools, the administration argues, is a way for American taxpayers to see whether the money is worth it. 
But critics say the government should butt out and worry a broad system could lead to unintended consequences -- like creating perverse incentives for schools in pursuit of higher ratings. They worry it could hurt institutions that serve low-income and underprivileged students, as well as junior colleges and those that feature liberal arts programs. 
"What we are opposed to is the federal government taking the factors IT thinks is important from a policy perspective and putting a federal letter grade INSTEAD of leaving that judgment up to students and families depending on their individual needs," Pete Boyle, vice president of public affairs for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, told FoxNews.com in an email.  
The Obama administration has pointed to spikes in tuition, dives in graduation rates and the growing weight of debts as driving factors for the national rating system. 
But many in the higher education field say it shouldn't be up to the federal government to police colleges and universities. 
"Most college and university presidents think the likelihood of producing a meaningful, useful and accurate rating system is very low but the risk for their institutions of being harmed by an inaccurate rating is pretty high," Terry W. Hartle, the American Council on Education's senior vice president for government and public affairs, recently told The Los Angeles Times. 
Boyle said his group also is opposed "to a narrow metric or metrics that seek to grade an institution," echoing warnings from other higher education administration associations who believe the Department of Education needs to be mindful of making college more accessible for low-income, minority and at-risk students. 
If the department fails, "there are likely to be unintended consequences on institutions with student bodies that consist of a majority of students that fit these profiles, receive Pell Grants, etc.," Boyle said. 
Since the idea of a national rating system was first introduced in August 2013, several U.S. colleges and universities have expressed their concern. Some have dispatched lobbyists to Washington to persuade politicians to withhold funding -- arguing that a national rating system would lead to too much government intrusion and add another layer of unneeded bureaucracy. 
Still, after 15 months of debates and discussion, many details of the new program remain a mystery. Federal officials have disclosed very little and say only a general conceptual framework of the system will be released the week before Christmas. The full plan is expected to be in place by next September. 
"We invited not just speculation, but caused some anxiety [about the rating system]," Jamienne Studley, the DOE deputy undersecretary in charge of the plan, admitted during a speech to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers in California. 
Unlike the Barron's, Princeton Review and U.S. News & World Report's annual "best" list -- which rank colleges -- the new system is expected to rate schools using tuition, financial aid, alumni earnings, debt and other graduation statistics. 
Critics say the government's plan still misses the mark and fails to factor in other important data like graduation rates of transfer students. They worry the new system could also work against schools that serve large numbers of minorities as well as those that cater to professions like teaching and law enforcement versus schools that produce doctors and lawyers. 
And while both the government and private educators have the same goal, Boyle believes the new rating system could result in a too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen situation and pile on more problems for private and public colleges and universities. 
The DOE is more optimistic and says the president's message of accountability not only to taxpayers but students has paid off. 
"The president's call for a ratings system is already driving a necessary conversation about exactly the right kind of questions: What colleges are taking on the vitally important role of educating low-income students, and assuring that they graduate with good results? What educational practices might help schools lower the cost to students while improving or sustaining quality learning?" Studley wrote in a recent blog.

Federal, state health insurance sites brace for 2015 sign-up deadline

President Obama's healthcare reform push faces the biggest test of its second year in existence Monday, the deadline for customers to choose an insurance plan for 2015. 
Midnight Pacific time is also the deadline for current enrollees to make changes that could reduce premium increases ahead of the new year.
HealthCare.gov and state insurance websites are preparing for heavy online traffic before the deadline, which gives consumers in the East until 3 a.m. Tuesday to enroll.
Wait times at the federal call center started creeping up around the middle of last week, mainly due to a surge of current customers with questions about their coverage for next year. Many will face higher premiums, although they could ease the hit by shopping online for a better deal. Counselors reported hold times of 20 minutes or longer for the telephone help line.
About 6.7 million people now have coverage through Obama's signature law, which offers subsidized private insurance. The administration wants to increase that to 9.1 million in 2015. To do that, the program will have to keep most of its current enrollees while signing up more than 2 million new paying customers.
People no longer can be turned down because of health problems, but picking insurance still is daunting for many consumers. They also have to navigate the process of applying for or updating federal subsidies, which can be complex for certain people, including immigrants. Many returning customers are contending with premium increases generally in the mid-to-high single digits, but much more in some cases.
Consumers "understand it's complicated but they appreciate the ability to get health insurance," said Elizabeth Colvin of Foundation Communities, an Austin, Texas, nonprofit that is helping sign up low-income residents. "People who haven't gone through the process don't understand how complicated it is."
Last year's open enrollment season turned into a race to salvage the reputation of the White House by fixing numerous technical bugs that crippled HealthCare.gov from its first day. With the website now working fairly well, sign-up season this year is a test of whether the program itself is practical for the people it is intended to serve.
New wrinkles have kept popping up, even with seemingly simple features of the Affordable Care Act.
For example, most current customers who do nothing will be automatically renewed Jan. 1 in the plan they now are in. At this point, it looks like that is what a majority intends to do.
While that may sound straightforward, it's not.
By staying in their current plans, people can get locked into a premium increase and miss out on lower-priced plans for 2015.  Not only that, they also will keep their 2014 subsidies, which may be less than what they legally would be entitled to for next year.
Doing nothing appears to be a particularly bad idea for people who turned 21 this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that advocates for low-income people.
Researchers at the center estimate that 21-year-olds will see a 58 percent increase in the sticker price for their premiums just because they're a year older. An age-adjustment factor used to compute premiums jumps substantially when a person turns 21. A 20-year-old whose premium was $130 per month in 2014 will see the premium climb to $205 a month in 2015, solely because of that year's difference.
Tax-credit subsidies can cancel out much or even all of the impact. But if consumers default to automatic renewal, their tax credits will not be updated and they will get the same subsidy as this year.
"Even in the best possible scenario of how many people we can expect to come in, we will still see a substantial number of people defaulting," said Judy Solomon, a health care policy expert at the center. She worries that some young adults may get discouraged and drop out.
Reviews of HealthCare.gov and state health insurance exchanges are mixed.
An Associated Press-GfK poll this month found that 11 percent of Americans said they or someone else in their household tried to sign up since open enrollment began Nov. 15. Overall, 9 percent said the insurance markets are working extremely well or very well. Twenty-six percent said the exchanges are working somewhat well, and 39 percent said they were not working well. The remaining 24 percent said they didn't know enough to rate performance.
So far it has been a frustrating experience for Marie Bagot, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She and her husband are in their 60s, but not yet old enough for Medicare. The husband, who works as a chef, will turn 65 around the middle of next year and qualify for Medicare. Bagot said they were happy with their insurance this year under Obama's law.
"As you get older, you worry about your health," she said. "I was very pleased with the price we got."
But Bagot said she received a notice from her insurer that her current plan will not be available next year in her community. The closest alternative would involve a premium increase of more than $350 a month, even with their tax credit subsidy. After days of trying to find a comparable plan through the federal call center and after visiting a counselor, Bagot said she opted to keep their current coverage, while hoping costs go down after her husband joins Medicare.
"I cannot afford it, but I'm going to try to," she said.
Monday is not the last chance for consumers like Bagot. Open enrollment doesn't end until Feb. 15.

Sydney siege: Police in contact with gunman as five hostages escape

Five people have escaped from a cafe in central Sydney where a gunman had earlier taken several people hostage Monday and forced two people to hold up a black flag bearing an Islamic message written in Arabic in the store's window.
Television footage shot through the cafe's windows showed several people with their arms in the air and hands pressed against the glass, and two people holding up a black flag with the Shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith, written on it. Translated, the statement says, "There is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger." It is considered the first of Islam's five pillars of faith, and is similar to the Lord's Prayer in Christianity. It is pervasive throughout Islamic culture, including the green flag of Saudi Arabia. Jihadis have used the Shahada in their own black flag.
Australian broadcaster Network Ten reported that the unidentified gunman has forced hostages to call him "The Brother" and demanded a flag of the Islamic State terror group in return for the release of a hostage. He has also demanded to speak directly with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. 
The broadcaster reported that the gunman had relayed his demands to them through two hostages. The man also claimed that he had planted two bombs inside the cafe and two others elsewhere in Sydney's central business district. 
Late Monday, Abbott released a pre-recorded statement calling the attack "very disturbing" and "profoundly shocking." His office has not responded to the gunman's demands.
Three men were seen running from a fire exit of the Lindt Chocolat Cafe approximately six hours after the hostage situation began at 9:45 a.m. local time (5:45 p.m. ET Sunday). Shortly after the men escaped, two women, one after another, sprinted from the cafe and into the arms of heavily armed police. Both were wearing aprons with the Lindt chocolate logo, indicating they were cafe employees. One of the men who escaped also appeared to be an employee. It was not immediately clear how the hostages escaped.
Burn said that the first priority was the wellbeing of the people who escaped, after which police would question them to gain more information about the situation inside. She added that police believe that there is only one gunman and had no further information about a possible motive. 
New South Wales Deputy Police Commissioner for Specialist Operations Catherine Burn said that police negotiators had made contact with the unidentified gunman. Burn also said that fewer than 30 people were held inside the cafe, though she did not give an exact number. 
"We do not have any information that suggests that anybody is harmed at this stage," she said.
St. Vincent's hospital spokesman David Faktor said a male hostage was in a satisfactory condition in the hospital's emergency department. He was the only one of the freed hostages to be taken to a hospital.
"He's in a satisfactory condition, so he's sitting up and that's all we can give out. We can't talk about the reason for his presentation," Faktor said.
Later Monday, Channel Seven reporter Chris Reason was allowed into the station's newsroom, located on the fourth floor of a building across from the cafe, after being evacuated earlier. He reported seeing around 15 people being rotated into position at the cafe window at variable intervals. Reason described the captives' faces as "pained, strained, eyes red and raw" and took particular notice of one with "head in hands."  He noted that the hostages were "a mix of women, men, young, old -- but no children."
"One woman we've counted was there for at least two hours," Reason reported. "An extraordinary, agonizing time for her surely having to stand on her feet for that long."
Reason described the gunman as unshaven, wearing a white shirt and a black cap, and holding what appeared to be a pump-action shotgun. The gunman could be seen pacing back and forth past the cafe's four windows
"Just two hours ago when we saw that rush of escapees, we could see from up here in this vantage point the gunman got extremely agitated as he realized those five had got out. He started screaming orders at the people, the hostages who remain behind," Reason reported.
The standoff has closed off part of the central business district in Australia's largest city. The cafe is located in Martin Place, a plaza in the heart of the city's financial and shopping district that is packed with holiday shoppers this time of year.
Hundreds of police flooded into the area, streets were closed and offices evacuated. The public was told to stay away from the area, which is home to the state premier's office, the Reserve Bank of Australia, and the headquarters of two of the nation's largest banks. The state parliament house is a few blocks away. The nearby Sydney Opera House was also briefly evacuated after a report of a suspicious package, but has since re-opened. Scheduled performances were canceled Monday.
The U.S. Consulate, located just south of the cafe, was also evacuated and a warning issued urging Americans in Sydney to "maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to enhance your personal security." A White House official told Fox News that President Obama had been briefed on the situation. 
Sky News Australia reported that one of the hostages had contacted a radio broadcaster twice during the siege. Ray Hadley said he had spoken to a "remarkably calm" male hostage and that the hostage taker had demanded the hostage speak live on the radio, a demand Hadley refused. 
"I told the hostage it would not be in his best interest or my best interest to allow that to happen because I'm not a trained negotiator, I don't have any expertise in this, there are people who will talk to both the hostages and the person holding the hostages and they will be knowing what to do," Hadley told 2GB Radio.
Lindt Australia posted a message on its Facebook page thanking the public for its support.
"We are deeply concerned over this serious incident and our thoughts and prayers are with the staff and customers involved and all their friends and families," the company wrote.
The government raised Australia's terror warning level in September in response to the domestic threat posed by supporters of the Islamic State group. Counterterror law enforcement teams later conducted dozens of raids and made several arrests in Australia's three largest cities -- Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. One man arrested during a series of raids in Sydney was charged with conspiring with an Islamic State leader in Syria to behead a random person in downtown Sydney.
The Islamic State group, which now holds a third of Syria and Iraq, has threatened Australia in the past. In September, Islamic State group spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani issued an audio message urging so-called "lone wolf" attacks abroad, specifically mentioning Australia. Al-Adnani told Muslims to kill all "disbelievers," whether they be civilians or soldiers.

Same Old Politics Cartoon

A bully in Harvard Yard: What professor's $4 food fight tells us

If you think bullies are teenagers lurking on schoolyard playgrounds, think again.  At least one is a grown-up walking the hallowed halls of Harvard University.
His name is Ben Edelman.  He not only teaches there, but he earned several diplomas including a law degree at that storied institution of higher education.  But Edelman seems to have adopted the word “higher” as his personal calling card.  You see, he’s higher than you and me. Or at least he seems anxious to let you know it.    
A hardworking Chinese immigrant family found that out when the professor ordered a takeout meal of shredded chicken with spicy garlic sauce and three other dishes.   

The professor has now apologized for his treatment of Duan and his family, but his emails will leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone so supposedly “learned” could be so seemingly insufferable.  

Edelman thought he was overcharged by $ 4 bucks ($ 1 dollar more for each dish), so he launched a relentless war on Ran Duan, who works with his parents at their restaurant, Sichuan Garden in Brookline.  You can read the sordid details in a story at Boston.com where the website also published the unbelievable litany of Edelman’s intimidating and condescending emails to Duan.  The prof’s remarks ooze with arrogance and conceit.  
Edelman’s exchange with Duan has become a viral sensation, as it should.  A Harvard professor vowing legal action over the sum of $ 4 dollars.  Come on.  
The professor has now apologized for his treatment of Duan and his family, but his emails will leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone so supposedly “learned” could be so seemingly insufferable.  Maybe that’s what a Harvard education gets you these days –a degree in imperiousness.  
Arrogance aside, the professor’s persistent threats of legal action constitute a shameful campaign of bullying.  He uses his knowledge of the law --at least his tortured interpretation of it-- for a purpose that can only be described as abusive.  It turns out, he has done this before to a different restaurant.
Bullies tend to target the weak and vulnerable.  For Edelman to use his advantage as a lawyer to berate the Duan family who have come from nothing as immigrants and are trying their best to make a living running a restaurant is, in a word, unconscionable.  During one email exchange, Duan asked the professor, “you seem like a smart man…don’t you have better things to do?”  Bullies usually don’t.
For all I know, Edelman is a pretty good professor.  That does not make him a good person.  Clinical psychiatrists might find him to be an interesting case study in how living in the Harvard bubble can distort even the most agile of minds.  Sometimes intellectuals take themselves too seriously.  Sequestered from the experiences of the average man, they can lack common sense, kindness and decency.  Edelman seems bereft of them all.
There is a reason why places like Harvard are called “ivory towers”.  All too often, they envelop an artificial atmosphere where intellectuals are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life.  So, it should be no surprise when guys like Ben Edelman explode like a bomb on some poor immigrant family trying to make a buck with the sweat of their brow.  Fortunately, academic elitism is not contagious.  
Teaching at Harvard may be a lofty achievement in the egg-head world.  But professor Edelman seems to lack the one quality which elevates people above all other primates: compassion.  He might gain a measure of humility and understanding by getting a real job.  Might I suggest washing dishes in a Chinese restaurant?
The next time I visit the Boston area, I’ll skip Harvard Yard.  Instead, I plan to drop by the Sichuan Garden to try their sautéed prawns with roasted chili and peanut sauce.  
And I won’t check the bill. 

                                                                                                                     Ben Edelma

British soldiers told not to shout at, insult terror suspects, report claims

British soldiers have been told not to shout in terror suspects' ears, use "insulting words", or bang their fists on tables or walls during interrogations, according to a published report. 
Britain's Sunday Telegraph obtained court papers outlining regulations for military intelligence officers, and current and former commanders have warned that the guidelines are so strict as to make interrogation pointless. 
"The effect of the ambulance-chasing lawyers and the play-it-safe judges is that we have got to the point where we have lost our operational capability to do tactical questioning. That in itself brings risks to the lives of the people we deploy," Tim Collins, a retired British Army colonel who now runs a private security company, told the Telegraph. "These insurgents are not nice people. These are criminals. They behead people; they keep sex slaves. They are not normal people."
There is also concern, in the wake of this week's release of a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee documenting alleged torture of terror suspects by the CIA following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, that soldiers will risk exposure to disciplinary action and legal claims. 
"While these insurgents are chopping people’s heads off and raping women, the idea they can take us to court because somebody shouted at them is ridiculous," Sir Alan West, former Minister for Security and Counter-Terrorism told the paper. 
The Telegraph reported that the new interrogation rules, known as the "Challenge Direct" interrogation technique, were introduced in 2012, and were laid out in a ruling by Her Majesty's Court of Appeal over the summer. The court's ruling upheld the technique after a challenge by lawyers for Haidar Ali Hussein, an Iraqi civilian arrested in 2004 who alleged that he had been subjected "to substantial periods of shouting" while detained and claimed damages from the Ministry of Defence over alleged mistreatment. 
Despite the ruling in favor of "Challenge Direct", the Telegraph reported that the three Court of Appeal judges identified several breaches while viewing videotaped interrogations of prisoners in Afghanistan. Among them were a questioner who "held the hand of the captured person ... a breach of the prohibition on physical contact" and another interrogator who suddenly moved forward from a crouching position so that his face was right in front of the captured person's." The judges described this maneuver as "physically intimidating."
The Challenge Direct technique was implemented amid public outcry over the 2003 death of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi who was fatally beaten while in British military custody. A 2011 inquiry report found that Mousa had suffered lengthy and repeated beatings by British soldiers.

NYC police union wants de Blasio banned from funerals

Another Al Sharpton who keeps racism alive?

New York City's rank-and-file police union is urging cops to tell Mayor Bill de Blasio not to attend their funerals in the event that they are killed in the line of duty.
The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association posted a link on its website telling members not to let de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito "insult their sacrifice" should they be killed. The union posted a “Don’t Insult My Sacrifice” waiver officers can sign requesting the two politicians not attend their funerals due to their "consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve."
The waiver says that attendance of the two elected officials “at the funeral of a fallen New York City police officer is an insult to that officer’s memory and sacrifice.”
The New York Post reports the mayor and council speaker are calling the effort "deeply disappointing."
"Incendiary rhetoric like this serves only to divide the city, and New Yorkers reject these tactics," they said in a joint statement.
Sources told the Post the union is angry that the mayor did not show more support for the NYPD after a grand jury decided not to indict the officer involved in the death of Staten Islander Eric Garner.
In a press conference about the grand jury’s decision not to charge the officer, de Blasio announced that he had warned his 17-year-old, mixed-race son, Dante, to be careful around police officers, which caused PBA President Patrick Lynch to claim de Blasio had thrown NYPD officers “under the bus.”

Senate passes $1.1 trillion spending bill, averting partial gov't shutdown

The Senate passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill late Saturday that funds the government through next September, averting a partial government shutdown and sending the measure to President Obama's desk.
The Senate voted 56-40 for the long-term funding bill, the main item left on Congress' year-end agenda. The measure provides money for nearly the entire government through the end of the current budget year Sept. 30. The sole exception is the Department of Homeland Security, which is funded only until Feb. 27.
Hours earlier, the Senate had approved a short-term bill funding the federal government through Wednesday night, easing concerns of a potential partial government shutdown. The stopgap bill, which passed by a voice vote, bought lawmakers more time to comb through the separate $1.1 trillion long-term funding bill. 
The votes capped a day of intrigue in the upper chamber of Congress that included a failed, largely symbolic Republican challenge to the Obama administration's new immigration policy, while Democrats launched a drive to confirm two dozen of Obama's stalled nominees to the federal bench and administration posts before their majority expires at year's end.
Several Republicans blamed tea party-backed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for giving the outgoing majority party an opportunity to seek approval for presidential appointees, including some that are long-stalled.
"I've seen this movie before, and I wouldn't pay money to see it again," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., recalling Cruz' leading role a year ago in events precipitating a 16-day partial government shutdown that briefly sent GOP poll ratings plummeting.
Asked if Cruz had created an opening for the Democrats, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said, "I wish you hadn't pointed that out," adding "You should have an end goal in sight if you're going to do these types of things and I don't see an end goal other than irritating a lot of people."
It was Cruz who pushed the Senate to cast its first vote on the administration's policy of suspending the threat of deportation for an estimated four million immigrants living in the country illegally. He lost his attempt Saturday night, 74-22, with 23 of the 45 GOP senators voting down the Texan's point of order.
"If you believe President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, vote yes. If you believe President Obama's amnesty is consistent with the Constitution, vote no," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rebutted instantly, saying Cruz was "wrong, wrong, wrong on several counts," and even Republicans who oppose Obama's policy abandoned the Texan.
The spending bill, which cleared the House on Thursday, was the main item left on Congress' year-end agenda, and exposed fissures within both political parties in both houses. The controversial package was opposed by conservative Republicans such as Cruz for not challenging Obama's immigration measures, as well as by leading liberals such as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. who have criticized the bill for repealing banking regulation.
Despite the opposition from liberals, the package won a personal endorsement from Obama and was brought before the Senate. The legislation locks in spending levels negotiated in recent years between Republicans and Democrats, and includes a number of provisions that reflect the priorities of one party or the other, from the environment to abortion to the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia.
Despite protests from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, more than 70 House Democrats supported the measure, and Obama made clear that he didn't view the provision as a deal-killer.  Obama acknowledged that the measure has "a bunch of provisions in this bill that I really do not like," and said the bill flows from "the divided government that the American people voted for."
Obama has sided with old-school pragmatists in his party like Reid, but split from liberals such as Pelosi and Warren. Warren blasted the measure in a Senate speech for the third straight day, saying it was a payoff to Citigroup, whose lobbyists helped write a provision that significantly weakens new regulations on derivatives trading by Wall Street banks.
"Enough is enough. Washington already works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and the lawyers and the lobbyists," Warren said. "But what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citi bet big on derivatives and lost?"
Another provision loathed by many Democrats -- though backed by the Democratic National Committee -- raises the amount of money that wealthy donors may contribute to political parties for national conventions, election recounts and headquarters buildings.
Democrats will lose control of the Senate in January because of heavy losses in midterm elections last month and will go deeper into a House minority than at any time in nearly 70 years.