It’s been eight months since the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but many parents are still being afraid for their children’s safety.
Gallup released a new poll on Thursday as millions of children across the country return to school, asking 508 parents of children between kindergarten and 12th grade whether they feel their oldest child is at risk of violence in his or her school. The survey found that 33 percent of those parents fear for their child’s safety, the same percentage as when this question was asked after 26 children and teachers were massacred at the Newtown, Conn., school in December 2012.
After the shooting, President Obama and many Democratic leaders attempted to pass several bills related to gun safety, including a ban on assault rifles, stricter background checks, harsher penalties for illegal gun trafficking, and new measures for school safety. All of them failed because of opposition from Republicans who feared the measures would infringe on the Second Amendment and privacy rights of law-abiding citizens.
The president, instead, vowed to attempt to revive this debate later and, for the time being, pursue executive actions that he said would help protect children. On Thursday, the Obama administration revealed two more executive actions: one that closes a loophole to restrict access to some of the more dangerous weapons, including machine guns and short-barreled shotguns; and one that will deny requests to bring military-grade firearms back to the United States to private entities, with a few exceptions such as museums (since 2005, the government has allowed 250,000 of these weapons to come back to the U.S.).
Following the Connecticut shootings, Obama announced that the administration would pursue 23 executive actions to reduce gun violence, including measures to improve mental health and improve school safety.
In the five years leading up to the Newtown massacre, parents of children between kindergarten and 12th grade were less worried about school safety. In 2008, just 15 percent of those parents felt their child was in danger, according to Gallup.
But this doesn’t mean the U.S. is at its peak in parental concern for school safety. The shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado shook parents to the core, it seems, more than the Newtown shooting. In the aftermath of those shootings in April 1999, 55 percent of parents said they were worried about school safety. That number remained high for two years.
And perhaps the sad truth about why parental fear is not as high as it was following Columbine, Gallup explains, is that “Americans may be a bit more accustomed to hearing about similar tragedies today than at the turn of the century.”
It’s also not surprising that fear for school safety varied by income levels, and that lower-income parents have greater fear than those with more means. Parents whose income is less than $50,000, which is near the national average, are twice as worried as parents with incomes over that level. The reason likely has to do with the areas in which lower-income Americans live, where violence is more likely.
But it might be some comfort that children are less likely to express worry or concern for their safety while in schools. Just 10 percent of parents say their children feel unsafe when they go back to school.
This Gallup survey was conducted by phone Aug. 7-11, and has a sampling error of 5 percentage points.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”