Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Big League Economics

New England v. Philly: Whose home prices went up the most since their 2005 match up?

Published

on

The last time the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles faced each other in the NFL’s championship game was in 2005 and since then, home prices have gone up in both cities, but in which one did the home prices go up the most?

According to a study by the National Association of Realtors, the home price champion is Boston.

Philadelphia                             New England
2005: $193,800                        2005: $407,200
2018: $238,900                        2018: $464,100

% price increase: ↑23.2%          % price increase: ↑14.0%

Of course, there is a twist.

The New England Patriots do not play in Boston, their Gillette Stadium is in Foxborough, Massachusetts, a suburban town a 45-minute drive from downtown Boston. The data for “Boston” selected was for the metropolitan statistical area of BostonCambridgeNewton.

Trending: Meet The Restaurant Owners Who Kicked Out Sarah Sanders

The Philadelphia Eagles’ Lincoln Financial Field is in Philadelphia.

 

Neil W. McCabe is a Washington-based political journalist and editor. Before joining Big League Politics, he was the Capitol Hill correspondent for Breitbart News, where he also led Breitbart's political polling operation and wrote up the Breitbart-Gravis polls. McCabe's other positions include the One America News DC Bureau Chief, a senior reporter at Human Events and a staff reporter at The Pilot, Boston's Catholic paper. McCabe also was the editor of The Somerville News, The (North Cambridge, Mass.) Alewife and served as an Army combat historian in Iraq. His 2013 e-book The Unfriendly Skies examined how the American airline industry went from deregulation in the late 1970s to come full circle to the highly-regulated, highly-taxed industry it is today.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Big League Economics

VIDEO: C.J. Pearson Opens Up About His Suspension From Twitter, First Day Of Internship

Published

on

Conservative commentator C.J. Pearson opens up about his suspension from Twitter and the first day of his business internship. Big League Politics spoke with the rising Republican who is actually putting his time where his mouth is: and he learns the first rule of business.

Watch Today’s Episode of Howley Reports with C.J. Pearson

Continue Reading

Big League Economics

Why Is George Soros Buying Up The New York Times?

Published

on

According to recent filings to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), billionaire globalist George Soros, through his investment firm, Soros Fund Management LLC, has purchased over $3 million-worth of stock holdings in the New York Times.

This purchase is the first that the liberal financier has made since 2007, when Soros bought $470,000 worth of shares in the newspaper. This recent investment includes purchasing 126,400 shares valued at $3,046,000. Soros’s purchase was for Class A stock holdings which are publicly traded-as opposed to its Class B stock, which are privately held.

The May 15th filing can be viewed here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036118023894/xslForm13F_X01/form13fInfoTable.xml

Vice president of business and culture at the Media Research Center, Dan Gainor, found that in 2011, Soros pushed a minimum of $48 million into media ventures that included “journalism schools, investigative journalism and even industry organizations” over the course of just eight years. “Soros has long had influence or given direct funding to a wide range of journalism operations from NPR to ProPublica,” Gainor said. “This is still a big step to be buying a $3 million stake in the top liberal outlet in America.”

The controversial billionaire’s influence in mainstream media doesn’t stop there. The Hungarian-American self proclaimed “philanthropist” has ties to over 30 mainstream news outlets – including the Associated Press, Washington Post, NBC and ABC. Soros’s Open Society Institute is reported to have funded seven different investigative reporting projects including the Columbia University’s School of Journalism-receiving $600,000 from Soros, the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Center for Public Integrity and the New Orleans’ ‘The Lens’. Soros also funds the Committee to Protect Journalists, The National Federation of Community Broadcasters and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

His fascination with controlling the media is something that the billionaire has always shown interest in, but now as one of the world’s richest men, he’s able to fulfill his dreams all while using it to unapologetically, and openly attack the right.

In author and New York Times veteran, Michael T. Kaufman’s book entitled “Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire,” Soros has been intrigued by media since he was a young child with early interests into the field including “history or journalism or some form of writing.” He also had his own newspaper in his native Hungary, ‘The Lupa News’, which he served as “editor-in-chief and publisher”.

With all the billions of dollars that Soros has invested into trying to shape American politics and media, he is being forced to acknowledge his limits of influence.

Soros recently told The Washington Post that he was blindsided by President Donald Trump’s election. “Apparently, I was living in my own bubble.” He went on to explain why he thought Hillary Clinton lost the election, saying, “She was too much like a schoolmarm,” and that she was always “talking down to people…instead of listening to them.”

You can be sure of one thing, this is not the last we’ve heard from Soros who plans to reshape the public opinion through mainstream media publications and financially back a candidate in 2020 who shares his globalist agenda.

“The bigger the danger, the bigger the threat, the more I feel engaged to confront it,” added Soros. “So in that sense, yes, I redouble my efforts.”

Judicial Watch president, Tom Fitton said in a recent statement, Soros is a businessman and “shouldn’t be receiving taxpayer support to advance his radical left agenda to undermine freedom here at home and abroad.”

Continue Reading

Big League Economics

Amazon Feeds Facial Recognition To Law Enforcement, Congress Wants Answers

Published

on

Congress and civil rights groups demand answers from Jeff Bezos no later than June 20th regarding Amazon’s new facial recognition software, Rekognition, which allows consumers to search millions of images in a matter of seconds. With rates lower than the cost of a value meal at your local fast food joint, this service is fast, affordable, and available to anyone signed up with Amazon Web Services.

The multi billion dollar company’s facial recognition software, named Rekogniton, works by using Amazon’s cloud computing network AWS (Amazon Web Services). The software compares images provided by the customer to an already existing database of images also provided by the same customer. In addition to identifying humans, Rekognition can be used to search for inanimate objects like cars, text, and furniture.

Congress has raised concerns about Amazon Rekognition and some have written a letter to Jeff Bezos demanding to know how the software is being used by law enforcement agencies. In the letter dated May 25, 2018, Bezos is asked to provide information concerning bias and error rates and wants to make sure Rekognition is not being used to “facilitate systems that disproportionately impact people based on protected characteristics in potential violation of federal civil laws.” The letter asks Bezos to respond no later than June 20th, 2018.

Read the letter in its entirety:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4484636-Ellison-Cleaver-Letter-to-Jeff-Bezos.html#document/p1

The ever growing market for facial recognition software and other image-scanning technology emboldens many privacy concerns. The possibility of having your photo taken without your knowledge or consent by cameras at traffic stops, individuals taking photos with their smartphone in a public venue, security cameras at different businesses and the like, leaves individuals vulnerable-especially when these images are loaded into a database that can scan and recognize you without your knowledge.

According to a blog from 2017 on Amazon’s website, they claim the software can “accurately capture demographics and analyze sentiments for all faces in group photos, crowded events, and public places such as airports and department stores.”

The ACLU obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act that state Rekognition can identify up to 100 people in a crowd in databases of tens of millions of photos. In a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos sent May 22, 34 groups said people should be “free to walk down the street without being watched by the government. Facial recognition in American communities threatens this freedom.”

Full document: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/20180522_ARD.pdf#page=8

These civil rights groups are most concerned with Rekognition’s use amongst law enforcement agencies. Nicole Ozer, Technology and Civil Liberties Director for the ACLU in Northern California stated, “Once powerful surveillance systems like these are built and deployed, the harm can’t be undone. We’re talking about a technology that will supercharge surveillance in our communities.”

The Jeff Bezos owned behemoth of a business has all but given away these new facial recognition tools to law enforcement agencies including the Orlando Police Department in Florida and the Washington County Sheriff’s Office, outside of Portland Oregon.

Orlando police chief, John Mina initially claimed the software was only being used at their headquarters, but later admitted at a news conference that three of the city’s downtown IRIS cameras were equipped with the software, and insisted that Rekognition being ran on these public cameras was still only able to track the seven officers that volunteered to test the system.

Matt Cagle, ACLU attorney said in a statement: “After misleading the people of Orlando, the Orlando Police Department has finally confirmed that it is indeed using Amazon’s face surveillance technology on public cameras. Now, it’s up to Amazon. Will it stop selling dangerous technology to the government?”

Amazon is not the only business selling facial recognition software, with both Google and Facebook having their own facial recognition services. Revealed by Forbes in April, one of the largest surveillance providers in the world, Israel-based Verint runs a large database of Facebook photos for facial recognition.

How much is this service? Between $6 and $12 a month. Yes, you read that right. $6 to $12 a month-which has always been a part of Amazon’s normal business model: start dirt cheap and the customers will come flooding in. Basically, you only pay for the number of images or minutes of video that you analyze–there are no upfront commitments or minimum fees applicable.

According to the document obtained by the ACLU, the Orlando Police Department only paid $30.99 for processing of 30,989 images. If you sign up to be part of the AWS Free Tier, you’re able to analyze 1,000 minutes of video for free each month for the first year.

Businesses and police agencies aren’t the only ones who have access to Amazon Rekognition, the average consumer can set up an account and use the software for just pennies on the dollar. Under the FAQs page on Amazon’s AWS website it gives a detailed description of how to sign up and get started using the software right away.

One last important note that should raise major concerns, as stated on Amazon’s AWS FAQ page: as long as you’re compliant with Amazon’s Rekognition Service Terms and have provided them with required verifiable parental consent under COPPA (Children’s Privacy Protection Act), you may use Amazon Rekognition in connection with websites, programs, or other applications that are directed or targeted, in whole or in part, to children age 13. Not only are adults vulnerable to the software, but images of children under 13 can also be scanned into the database.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Send this to a friend