Friday, June 22, 2012

Winston-Salem Journal LTE FR 06/22/12


Sum It Up
The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Do you think voter fraud is a threat in the 2012 elections?
* * * * *
Voter fraud is always going to be an issue, and this year will be no different. What concerns me more are the (predominantly Republican) attempts to limit voting by requiring voter identification. This is a blatant partisan attempt to dampen voter turnout among minorities. It's getting to be that it will be easier to buy a gun than to vote.

SUZANNE CARROLL
* * * * *
The short answer is "absolutely not." As a matter of fact, the threat to the 2012 elections comes from the GOP-sponsored voter ID laws in more than 30 states. Critics of the voter ID laws point out that the voter fraud is a GOP-manufactured crisis. They have cited statistics to show voter fraud is negligible in the country. It does not mount to 0.01 percent. It is somewhere between 0.0002 and 0.0005 percent.
Should this be a concern? We should be more concerned about the voter ID laws that would disfranchise millions of voters, particularly the elderly, the young and the minorities, who tend to vote for the Democrats.
The ulterior motive behind the voter ID laws is obvious; to suppress voters in certain segments of the population.

BOON T. LEE
* * * * *
Probably not, but you never know.

WILLIAM SAMS
* * * * *
While I am sure voter fraud exists, I have yet to see anything other than anecdotal evidence that it occurs in any significant way, and then only in particular areas. Chicago is known for voting early and often.
That said, I see no reason for anyone to have issues with photo ID in order to vote. You must produce some form of state-issued ID to get on a plane or sign up for food stamps.
Here is a solution: Since those people who have no IDs but are registered to vote still seem to be able to somehow make it to the polling places, why not have a state agency representative (maybe Social Services) at the polling place to take the photo right there and issue a photo ID on the spot? Since it would be digital, just like driver's licenses, if they forget or lose their ID, their picture is already in the system for the next time they vote.
Doing this, this issue would evaporate within one or two election cycles.

KEN HOGLUND
* * * * *
There is definitely a threat of fraud in the 2012 elections, but it is not fraud by the voters. People in power are trying to control the results of the elections by stopping people from voting who won't vote the way those in power want the elections to turn out. Elections results are now, thanks to the Supreme Court, available to the richest and most powerful.

CYNTHIA GOUGH NANCE
* * * * *
There is absolutely a potential for extensive voter fraud in the coming national elections.
Our poor excuse for a president is clawing and scrambling to add as many illegal voters to the lists, sympathetic to his bid for re-election, as possible. He has even begun ruling by edict as a practice, with his choosing the past week to bypass both the Constitution of the United States of America and the Congress thereof.

CLIFFORD RAY McCRARY
* * * * *
Voter fraud is statistically speaking a non-event. Election fraud is the real threat to democracy. Black boxes are now counting the votes with questionable audit trails. Districts compile the votes on desktop software or on out-of-state servers. We have seen exit polls drift widely from the final votes in Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, and most notably in the recent election in Wisconsin. Combine this with the serious efforts made to keep voters from the polls with voter purges, onerous registration obstacles and the elimination of early voting opportunities. I don't need to tell you what party wins when all of these factors are in play.

CARLOS MIR
* * * * *
Voter fraud is a construct devised to keep people (Democrats) from voting. It promises to fix something that ain't broken. It is a low-down, dirty effort to undermine democracy and steal another election.

ANNE PAISLEY
* * * * *
No I do not believe that voter fraud is a threat to the 2012 elections. I do, however, believe that voter ID laws are a threat to the 2012 elections.

THOMAS W. MURRAY
* * * * *
Only in Florida.

RICHARD SIMMONS
* * * * *
No. The real threat is the myth of voter fraud as advanced by the GOP to justify new voting restrictions in more than a dozen states. These restrictions will disenfranchise up to 5 million legal voters on Election Day, according to the Brennan Center for Justice in New York.

KAM BENFIELD
* * * * *
Voter fraud, no matter how small, invalidates an election and should be eliminated. Voter ID must be required, and the voter roles should be purged. IDs are easy to get, and anyone who wants an accurate vote count should have no problem with requiring IDs.

TONY GAGLIARDI
* * * * *
When is it not?

RICHARD CARTER
* * * * *
Yes, for if just one person votes who shouldn't, there is the potential to change the outcome of an election. For the life of me, I cannot understand why some are so against voter identification.

FRANK SCISM
* * * * *
Not a doubt in my mind, and this wouldn't be the first time.

CHRISTINE PULISELIC
* * * * *
No it is not a major concern for me at this time, but all it takes is just one fraudulent vote to taint the entire process, doesn't it?

STEVE HENDERSON

56 comments:

  1. Wow! Zero LTEs.

    There has been voting fraud in every national election from the first one on. Except in localized situations such as Madison County, NC in the early 1950s, it has never amounted to a hill of beans.

    As pointed out by several people, the biggest threat to voting integrity comes from the nationally organized ALEC/Republican effort to disenfranchise poor voters.

    Since he failed at voter ID, the governor of Florida decided to just remove such people from the rolls, but that is now over because his own election supervisors in all 67 counties refused to go along.

    My favorite foolishness in that episode was when a decorated WW II vet got a letter informing him that he was no longer a citizen. He was surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you think voter fraud is a threat in the 2012 elections? A threat to whom or what? We are promised free and fair elections....not perfect elections. If "fair" is ever widely doubted, then there will be big time trouble unlike we have ever known.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's getting to be that it will be easier to buy a gun than to vote.

    SUZANNE CARROLL
    _____________

    This is a perfect example of liberal stupidity. At any licensed gun dealer in the United States, you have to have a photo I.D. to buy a gun. You don't to vote. Thanks to Obama's, AG Holder's, and Gov. Bev. Perdue's (D) corruptive influences.

    You can kill people with your vote just as easily as you can with gun. Ask people in Afghanistan and Iraq if that isn't true. Obama is killing our economy too with the help of a lot of votes.

    So be careful with your stupid brain, and your vote Suzanne, you might kill something!

    ReplyDelete
  4. My eye sight used to be better than is now. It was 20/10 in one eye and 20/15 in the other. Now they've slipped to 20/30 in one eye and 20/20 in the other.

    However, somehow through all the foggy liberal BS, I saw a video re-enactment of the Zimmerman shooting yesterday. In the video, Zimmerman was telling the plain clothes policeman what happened at the apartment complex where it occurred. There, right in front of him there was a sidewalk, and there was another one running perpendicular to the one he was standing on. I couldn't do a chemical analysis of the sidewalk through the TV, but it sure looked like it was made of concrete.

    Didn't Rush tell us that there wasn't any concrete anywhere around the shooting area?

    Hee Hee...liberals ...all jabber, and no juice!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad Stab said he's going on a liberal recruitment drive. PacMan's hungry.

      By the way, where's Bobby? He seems to be the only one that can hang with me!

      Delete
  5. O. T. Rush June 21, 2012 4:55 PM

    If you look at the crime scene pictures, you will find that there is no concrete available for pounding heads into. Martin was shot 8-10 feet from the nearest sidewalk.

    Trayvon Martin's body under tarp

    I guess here's what happened: Martin was pounding Killer's head onto the sidewalk. Killer shot him. Martin sat up and said "You got me!" (I guess Killer has been watching too many bad movies). Then Martin leaped about 8 feet before falling face down on the nice soft grass.

    Buck boy, you are the joke of this forum. Your problem is that everybody except you gets the joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought you said there was no concrete in the shooting area? Do you want me to pull your post? Your statement is another one of your pathetic lies that you won't admit to.

      One thing I've noticed about liberals, they'll never admit when they're wrong. That action or inaction goes to a person's credibility, and you have none!

      Like I said all jabber, and no juice.

      Delete
    2. It'll be nice to get some liberals in here that have at least a little credibility. I don't know why Bobby has been laying low.

      Delete
    3. Also, Zimmerman said that Martin fell off of him at the shot. Your own photo even impeaches your credibility.

      You've got to be one of the stupidest liberals I've ever encountered.

      Delete
    4. You don't need to "pull my post". The words above were copied and pasted from what I posted yesterday.

      You should never use the phrase "I thought" because you don't think...you just babble, belch, vomit up your pitiful rants.

      As to quoting Killer, which one of his different stories are you quoting from? So Martin "fell off of him", huh. Pretty long fall for a dead man.

      Ever dance the tambù down in the ABCs?

      Delete
    5. "If you look at the crime scene pictures, you will find that there is no concrete available for pounding heads into."

      Rush
      __________

      See Rush's photo.

      Delete
    6. Another one of your disgusting little habits...quoting out of context...telling half truths...despicable.

      I'll just repeat all of what I said for a third time:

      If you look at the crime scene pictures, you will find that there is no concrete available for pounding heads into. Martin was shot 8-10 feet from the nearest sidewalk.

      Oh, and it's not my photo. It was taken by the Sanford police department for the specific purpose of showing where the body was in relation to the sidewalk.

      Ever dance the tambù down in the ABCs?

      Delete
    7. "If you look at the crime scene pictures, you will find that there is no concrete available for pounding heads into."

      Rush
      __________

      See Rush's photo.

      __________

      You're just digging yourself deeper into a hole full of lies.

      Delete
    8. I know that you have very weak "thinking" and writing skills, but here is a little tip from freshman comp class:

      "If you are going to quote what someone else said, you must quote all relevant parts of what they said. If you don't, you are guilty of 'quoting out of context', a tactic often used by writers who are trying to deceive the reader."

      I know this won't do any good...I doubt if you can even understand it. But it's always fun pointing out your pitiful little lies...or "trivial mistakes" as you prefer to state it.

      Believe me, in the courtroom, the position of Martin's body will not be considered trivial.

      Delete
    9. Comment from Nancy Pelosi about the voter I.D. law crack down.

      Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., called the claim "mind-numbingly stupid."

      _______

      I can relate Congressman Gowdy. See the above comments by O.T. Rush.

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. Bobby, I never thought I'd say it, but I miss you. At least you stick with the facts, and you don't go into a liberal, jibber jabber mode.

      Delete
    2. Bobby.....the above exchange is a good reason why a lot guilty people go free in this country. It could be an open and shut case, but all that has to happen is to get one or two Rushes on the jury, and you've got problems.

      They need to start giving psychiatric tests before they allow people on juries.

      Delete
    3. Maybe we ought to order psychiatric tests before allowing people to post here.

      Nah, then we might lose our favorite clown.

      Delete
    4. Rush, I'm about done with you. You're worthless. Your credibility is shot.

      Why don't you apply for a positon on the jibber-jabber network? You'd be perfect.

      Delete
    5. Okay Wordly...I'll try to switch. Bobby just seems so much better to me. I guess Bob is better than 'Buffcoach'. Who chose that name, I'll never know.

      Delete
    6. As Bob has explained on multiple occasions, 'Buffcoach' was the nickname given to him by the UNC athletes when he was the strength coach there. They have a nutritionist who is probably called "Foodcoach".

      Delete
  7. Good afternoon folks!
    Sum it up: As Mr. Lee points out, the incidences of voter fraud are so few that the effect is negligible. Wes posted the three most common types of voter fraud a few months ago, and the largest instance by far was that of felons attempting to vote. Since driver's licenses don't mention whether or not a person is a convicted felon, I don't see where a picture id would do any good for that instance. The place to prevent voter fraud is when a person registers to vote. A national database should be set up to automatically update a voter's address should the person move to prevent the 2nd most common instance of fraud voting in person and with an absentee ballot. Updating the database to remove the voter upon the voter's death would be a part of filing the death certificate.
    I'll be vacationing in Chicago next week, so I won't be around to help solve the world's problems. Perhaps I'll be back in time to critique the comments to the SCOTUS ruling on health care reform. If not, be sure to add plenty of snark ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope you have a great trip.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Wordly! I'm looking forward to getting the hour back I lost to Daylight Saving Time even if it is only for a couple of days. Also heard they have great food up here :d

      Delete
  8. Gallup reports:


    -- Americans are no more likely to support the law now than when it was passed.

    -- Americans see little impact on health care now.

    -- Americans see the individual mandate as a violation of constitutional liberties.

    -- Views of the health care law are polarized by party affiliation.

    -- Americans prefer a private health insurance system

    ____________

    But Democrats STILL want to force this law down the American people's throats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Americans prefer a private health care system, then we need to end Medicare NOW, and I can stop having these taxes taken out of my paycheck to support this government issued single payer system. Let the old folks buy insurance in the private market. See how long the private insurance system lasts.

      Delete
    2. I'm in a private insurance system, and my insurance was doing fine until Obamacare was passed. Then my premiums went up. Just another reason I'll not be voting for 'the great one'.

      Wordly, you'd be amazed at how much money you've paid into Social Security, Medicare, and Medcaid. Add it all up, plus interest, and it's a sizable amount of money.

      Glad you're back in the game. Rush imploded. I need some fresh...errr...liberal debaters.

      Delete
    3. Love it!

      I'm trying to imagine what it would cost those "old folks" to buy private insurance, but I can't count that high.

      It costs us about $15,000/year per employee to provide private benefits, and most of them are in the 25-35 age range.

      Of course, the info cited above is not from a poll, but an "analysis" of "recent" polls, some dating back to 2009. Other recent polls show different results.

      In all the polls, the percentage favoring private insurance lines up almost exactly with the percentage who receive benefits through their employers...surprise, surprise.

      But that percentage is falling rapidly, from 67% to 58% in just the last couple of years, so the percentage favoring private insurance is falling correspondingly.

      Delete
    4. Bucky, health insurance premiums go up unfortunately. They defy market driven forces because no one can predict when they will need health care. You can predict when you need tires if you know how many miles you drive annually and how miles your tires are rated.

      Delete
    5. When I moved to AZ 10 years ago (almost to the day) after my company was bought out, the new company initially paid for all of our health premiums. After ~18 months, we had a meeting with an HR rep who stated that due to the 10+% rise in HC costs, we would have to start paying for a portion of our premiums. 18 months after that meeting, we had another meeting with same HR rep who said because HC costs were still rising at 10+% annually with no end in sight, we would have to have even more taken out of our paychecks to pay for premiums. HC costs are on an unsustainable rise which is why doing nothing isn't an option. Having half or more of everyone's paycheck going towards HC premiums would put a serious damper on the economy.

      Delete
    6. We have seen the same 10+% increase also, for some years now. That is one of the reasons that the Affordable Care Act was passed.

      The increases have nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act. In fact, our premiums actually went down slightly this year.

      Bucky just makes this stuff up.

      Delete
    7. "Wordly, you'd be amazed at how much money you've paid into Social Security, Medicare, and Medcaid. Add it all up, plus interest, and it's a sizable amount of money."

      Indeed, true. The average person who retired in 2010 began working in 1963, when most US families were still single wage earner families. Over the years, they contributed about $345,000 to the system. By the time it is all over, they and their spouses and other dependents will have received $778,000 in benefits. Not a bad investment.

      The money paid into Medicare will bring an even better return. Information for those in the lowest common denominator category: Medicaid is operated by the states, not the federal government.

      Delete
  9. Missing a "many" above. Site will not let reply to my comment above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May have been me also replying. Apparently, it only allows one comment to a section at a time.

      Delete
  10. Hate filled gay activists flip off Ronald Reagan portrait.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/22/activists-photographed-flipping-bird-to-reagan-portrait-at-white-house/

    ___________

    It's clear gay hate is going to continue. Let's hope we get some more laws on the books to regulate these hate mongers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And this was at a 'Gay Pride' event. I guess they're proud to be a-holes too!

      Delete
  11. "It falls short of where we need to be -- a path to citizenship," Obama said. "It's not a permanent fix."

    Obama
    ________

    Boy, you can tell it's an election year. Gotta 'buy' those votes don't you Mr. Obama?

    ReplyDelete
  12. For allegedly being such a small segment of society, these gay pedophiles sure are busy.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/justice/pennsylvania-priest-abuse-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    ReplyDelete
  13. THE POLITICAL SCENE

    Unpopular Mandate
    Why do politicians reverse their positions?
    by Ezra Klein


    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein#ixzz1yZKsjWWD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link, Wordly. An excellent article on a very important subject.

      The key point is "But parties, though based on a set of principles, aren’t disinterested teachers in search of truth. They’re organized groups looking to increase their power. Or, as the psychologists would put it, their reasoning may be motivated by something other than accuracy."

      George Washington was adamantly opposed to the idea of political parties. He is the only person ever elected as POTUS who was not a member of a party. Of course, by his second term, the inexorable forces of party politics had forced him to abandon that position, a matter that he always regretted.

      Eisenhower was not a party man either. In the run-up to the 1952 election, he was avidly courted by both major parties. His warning about the military-industrial complex was a very un-Republican position. Of course, it was ignored as the GOP embraced the very same military-industrial complex, which now runs the nation.

      As long as there are parties, it will always be thus.

      Delete
    2. It was the article referenced in today's paper in the opinion piece entitled: Republicans have just one goal

      http://www2.journalnow.com/news/opinion/2012/jun/22/wsopin02-republicans-have-just-one-goal-ar-2376268/

      Delete
    3. I should mention that John Tyler was originally a Democrat, but ran for POTUS and won under the Whig banner. Shortly after he was elected, he was expelled from the Whig party, and after his term expired returned to the Democratic party.

      Millard Fillmore was elected POTUS as a Whig, then changed his affiliation to the American, or Know-Nothing party, thus failed to gain reelection. The Know-Nothings were well described by their nickname, and were quite similar to today's "Tea Party".

      John Quincy Adams tried to remain apart from party politics. Originally a Federalist like his father, he split with that party over Jefferson's Embargo of 1807 and was removed as US Congressman from Massachusetts by a recall election. He was not officially a member of any party when he was elected POTUS, but without the overwhelming support of the Democrat-Republicans he would never have been elected.

      If the GOP wants to remain a viable national party, they might want to follow the Whig example and expel all those howling fools that make up their extreme right wing.

      The US is not the only country where it is difficult, if not impossible, to be elected without major party affiliation. Some years ago, Arthur Uther Pendragon ran for parliament in the Salisbury District of GB on the basis that he was the living incarnation of King Arthur. Unfortunately, he was not elected.

      Delete
    4. Sounds like a fantastic goal to me-Defeat Obama! It's been a long miserable and illogical four years. Liberals had their fun with a minority/liberal president. Now it's time to get back to business and put the country back on track, especially the economic.

      Delete
    5. A perfect example of the basic difficulty of having a rational discussion on this forum.

      Just as things get going, there is an interruption by a classic Know-Nothing who contributes zero to the discussion...no facts, no ideas, no nothing, just random bull shit, or maybe, in this case, elephant shit.

      A friend of mine was able to photograph Bucky recently. You can see the image at the link below. Note that Bucky is at the left, while his favorite flavor of political party is at the right...one and the same.

      Bucky, left, and his party

      Delete
    6. Funny. Brings to mind the Republican candidate who while visiting a farm was invited to deliver an impromptu stump speech. He mounted a manure spreader so he could be seen and heard, then remarked that this was the first occasion he he had delivered a speech while standing on the Democratic Party platform.

      Delete
    7. Don't do that! You could cause me to die laughing.

      My best friend loves to talk about his grandfather's mule. As a child, one of his favorite things was plowing the back forty behind the mule.

      There were just four commands: Giddup, woah, gee and haw, the last two being left and right. So when you got to the end of the row, you told the mule gee or haw. To do it properly, you had to alternate the two commands at the end of each row.

      But sometimes he would be daydreaming and give the wrong command. Invariably, the mule would stop and look back over his shoulder: "Are you sure you want to plow the same row that we just plowed?" he seemed to be asking.

      Maybe we should elect a mule to run the country.

      Delete
  14. CAPITAL IDEAS
    Old vs. Young

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/the-generation-gap-is-back.html?hp

    "Over all, more than 50 percent of federal benefits flow to the 13 percent of the population over 65. Some of these benefits come from Social Security, which many people pay for over the course of their working lives. But a large chunk comes through Medicare, and contrary to widespread perception, most Americans do not come close to paying for their own Medicare benefits through payroll taxes. Medicare, in addition to being the largest source of the country’s projected budget deficits, is a transfer program from young to old."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and the US is only ranked 52nd in % of population over 65, well behind all other 1st world nations except Iceland, Russia, Ireland and South Korea. Some are already at 20%. So we are looking at a worldwide problem.

      And the situation will get much worse. For the next 20 years, 10,000 people per day will turn 65 in the US.

      By 2040, the number of over 65s will double, while the younger working age groups, 18-64, will only see modest gains, in the 4-6% range.

      Even that does not describe the enormity of the problem, because over 65s will live much longer, thus needing vastly more benefits. The over 85s will triple, the over 100s will quadruple. At least that might rid us of the dreadful centenarian articles in the media.

      The Republican solution is to replace Medicare with a voucher system that would allow old folks to purchase their own medical insurance. The first proposal set a fixed rate, ignoring inflation. The latest proposal would set a rate adjusted for overall inflation, which would not work either, because inflation of medical costs is not predictable, except that it always at least doubles the overall inflation rate.

      Will we see actual Medicare reform anytime soon? Given the polarized atmosphere, not likely. Meanwhile, the younger set better be prepared for some heavy lifting.

      Delete
    2. That's why we need to revamp our entitlement systems, Wordly. Republicans have been telling Democrats for years now, but the Democrats want none of it. They are in la la land...they think we can keep spending like there's no tomorrow.

      I like it when liberals help make my points for me.

      Delete
    3. This is why the Affordable Care Act was enacted. Every aspect of the act was originally created by Republicans, with the biggest contributor being Mitt Romney.

      When a cop pulls you over for speeding, trying to plead that you didn't know what the speed limit is fails as a defense. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

      Same goes for real life in any area. Ignorance is not a defense, except, of course, in the very special case of the sociopath Buck boy.

      Delete
  15. Here is yet another example of how bigots are trying to destroy the very basis of the USA:

    Sahar Sabet, Iranian-American Denied Permission To Buy iPad By Apple Store After She Spoke Farsi

    Huffington Post UK  |  By Sara C Nelson
    Posted: 22/06/2012 12:10 Updated: 22/06/2012 12:51

    An Apple store worker in Georgia refused to sell an iPad to a teenager after overhearing her speaking in the Iranian language Farsi.

    Sahar Sabet was informing her uncle how much the tablet cost when the Alpharetta store worker asked her what language she was speaking.

    When she replied, adding she was Iranian, he told her: “I just can’t sell this to you. Our countries have such bad relations.”

    The 19-year-old, whose first language is English, told WSBTV she was shocked by the refusal, adding it was: “Very hurtful, very embarrassing. I actually walked out in tears.”

    When Sabat, who is a US citizen, returned to the store with a WSBTV reporter, she was again refused the sale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect that the Apple store has already heard from Apple HQ and that the cracker-@ssed employee has been canned. I wonder how he likes them Apples.

      Delete
    2. Hi cuz,

      Believe it or not, the clerk was sort of in line with Apple, and all other US computer company, policies, as dictated by the US Gov. Sales of certain computing devices to citizens of certain countries are forbidden, Iran being one of them.

      That is actually pretty stupid, because a person in Iran with an Apple computer has a better chance than most of being able to access internet sites forbidden by the Iranian government, while the government has no problem acquiring all the Apple computers that it wants through illegal sources.

      But that is what passes for "thinking" in Washington.

      Of course, in this case, the buyer was a US citizen, but that is the point...she was from Iran, thus evil.

      I did a little investigating and found that once she contacted Apple headquarters, they apologized and sold her both the iPad and an iPhone direct.

      As I sometimes say, stupid is as stupid does. Just be glad that, like me, you are a white Anglo-Saxon protestant looking guy who doesn't speak anything except NC redneck!

      Delete
  16. On the other hand, here is how educated people are responding to the new world order:

    Harvard And MIT Create EdX To Offer Free University Courses To The World

    The Huffington Post UK  |  By Lucy Sherriff
    Posted: 20/06/2012 16:21 Updated: 21/06/2012 13:54

    One of the America’s most prestigious universities is offering free online courses to anyone in the world, providing they have an Internet connection.

    Harvard University has teamed up with Massachusetts Institution of Technology in an "historic" partnership to launch theonline education centre "edX". The project, which launches this autumn, aims to offer education on a mass scale.

    Anant Agarwal, president of edX, called the initiative a "revolution".

    "There is a revolution dawning in Boston and beyond. This revolution has to do with the pen and the mouse. It's unbelievable. We will have students around the world all collaborating and working together."

    Agarwal, who dubbed the partnership the "next big thing", says edX will be available to anyone with an Internet connection and is currently absolutely free.

    "Our goal is to educate 1bn people around the world," he added. "We're giving education on a mass scale and we're really excited."

    Harvard's president Drew Faust appeared equally enthusiastic about the project, telling the conference, which marked the launch, that edX would "shape the world".

    "Today's announcement brings the possibility of transformation through education to the world. edX gives Harvard and MIT an unprecedented opportunity to dramatically extend our collective reach by conducting groundbreaking research into effective education and by extending online access to quality higher education."

    The jointly-owned organisation is currently not-for-profit but the setup poses the question as to how the universities will justify charging their current students tuition fees when the world and his wife can get their education free of charge.

    Harvard and MIT have ploughed $60m (£38m) into launching the collaboration. A range of courses will be made available which will include video lessons, embedded quizzes and online labs. There will also be opportunities to engage with classmates and the course instructor.
    More than a million students will be taking part in the experiment - which certainly looks set to fill edX's ambitions and "revolutionise" the world of education.

    According to the BBC, Stanford academics have also set up an online platform named Coursera.
    Daphne Koller, co-founder of the project, says the development of online courses will raise difficult questions.

    "This is causing universities to rethink their value to students," she said. "The universities in the middle will really have to think about their proposition."

    ReplyDelete