Federal Involvement Is the Problem With Common Core, Education Experts Agree

The Common Core
education standards have become increasingly controversial since
their creation in 2009. Supporters have pointed to the need for

higher, more consistent standards
; much of the opposition has
focused on the
confusing new method of teaching math
. But both of these
arguments ignore the fundamental problem with Common Core: federal
involvement.

By using heavy-handed incentives to compel states to adopt the
standards, the federal government destroyed the notion that Common
Core was a legitimately state-led effort. Washington’s actions made
it nearly impossible for education leaders to adjust the standards
to meet the needs of states and school districts, and prevented
them from testing the standards against alternatives. In short,
they created a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to education
policy.

This problem has now been recognized by education experts across
the Common Core divide. Chris Minnich, chief executive of the
Council of Chief State School Officers and a prominent Common Core
supporter, acknowledged as much on Wednesday at a
panel discussion
 hosted by the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI), when he said:

“The federal involvement in this has just been not helpful, in
every scenario…I think it’s pretty clear that most of us, I can’t
say ‘all of us who support the standards,’ but most of us, believe
that declaring our independence [from federal involvement], making
sure it is and remains to be state-led, is critical.”

Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at AEI,
agreed with Minnich, pointing out that that federal involvement was
not only unhelpful but also unnecessary:

“If the federal government had never waded in to this, back in
2009, I think…about 15 states probably would have gone ahead and
done the Common Core on their own. I think they would have figured
out a way to do a common assessment…and I think what we would have
seen was a truly and genuinely state-led effort, which, if it was
working and if it was being implemented well, other states would
have wanted in [on].”

Had Common Core remained a voluntary, ground-up initiative, it
would be far less controversial. States would have the freedom to
tailor its implementation according to their needs, and comparing
outcomes would offer evidence on whether the new method of teaching
math is actually worth the hassle.

This would have meant that Common Core was not a set of national
standards, but that is not a bad thing. On the contrary, having
state rather than federal standards allows for experimentation and
competition. That’s a feature of competitive federalism, and it’s
why education policy was never meant to be the federal government’s
responsibility.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/12kqWjA
via IFTTT

Ebola Took the CDC by Surprise. But They Sure Do Have Lots to Say About Why You’re So Fat and Sleepy.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/23/ebola-took-the-cdc-by-surprise-fat
via IFTTT

“Real” Stock Volatility In October Highest Since Lehman

While VIX pumped-and-dumped (in a manner never seen before in its history), ‘real’ volatility of the day to day moves across the major stock indices remains extremely elevated. For the Nasdaq and Dow Transports, the average true range over the last few weeks is the highest since the post-Lehman collapse

 

 

 

The Dow, S&P, and Russell 2000 are back at the highest average true range since the US downgrade in Summaer 2011..

Charts: Bloomberg

*  *  *

Reminder: The Average True Range is a measure of volatility introduced by Welles Wilder in his book: New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems.

The true range indicator is the greatest of the following:

-current high less the current low.

-the absolute value of the current high less the previous close.

-the absolute value of the current low less the previous close.

Simply put, a stock experiencing a high level of volatility will have a higher ATR, and a low volatility stock will have a lower ATR.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1oyvSLJ Tyler Durden

What’s Avant-Garde Now? Social Innovation

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

What qualifies as true avant-garde? Degrowth qualifies–and very little else.

In the 20th century, avant-garde was a term primarily reserved for the arts: fine arts, music, performance and literature. Avant garde–literally fore-guard or vanguard— challenges the conventions of Status Quo measures of beauty and departs from traditional forms and conceptions of value.

In many cases, the departure is designed to shock traditionalists by flaunting accepted norms; by traditional standards, avant-garde art is ugly or disturbing, avant-garde music is atonal and unmelodic, avant-garde theatre flouts conventional narrative structure and avant-garde social movements upend traditional morals and values.

Virtually all design and art fields have been continually disrupted by avant-garde movements, to the point that the conventional consumerist economy now depends on avant-garde (or perhaps quasi-avant-garde) to create "the new" that can be sold at a profit to differentiate the in-crowd from those (sigh–how sad) left behind.

Many forms of avant-garde disrupt "high-brow" conventions of art, music, fashion, interior design, etc. by infusing the medium with low-brow influences. Roy Lichtenstein's appropriation of comic-book art is one example. In effect, "low-brow" becomes hip until it is adopted by the mainstream, at which point high-brow is re-introduced to offer a consumerist means to separate wealthy sophisticates from the lumpen-proletariat and petite-bourgeois masses.

I suspect that this century-long cycle of outraging the conventional has reached marginal returns, and this spells the end of avant-garde in the 20th century modernist sense. Now that every convention has been flouted, there is nothing left to disrupt or shock; "the new" is now simply re-hashed "old."

Since consumerism is based on the insecurity of bourgeois aspirations (i.e. the desire to be identified as belonging to the in-crowd), there must always be something "new" to separate elites from aspirants and aspirants from the masses.

This role is filled by simulacra of avant-garde (i.e. presenting the appearance of "the new" to sell more goods). Fake avant-garde is the ultimate co-option of true innovation, as this quasi-avant-garde serves an entirely conventional purpose: reaping profits from selling consumerist sizzle.

Experience has been commoditized by the tourism industry, and as a result travel only signifies membership in the in-crowd if it is self-directed and leisurely, i.e. a form of consumption that cannot be attained by conventional workers with two weeks vacation.

The only form of travel that separates the in-crowd from the low-brow aspirational masses desperate to put foreign travel on their resume and brag about it on Facebook is travel to exotic locales well off the already-commoditized tourist paths (Oh dahling, Kathmandu is so over-run and boring. Siberia is the place to be.)

These 20th century formulas–breaking the traditional modes to be avant-garde, and using the avant-garde to market new products and experiences–have run out of oxygen. As a result, the arts, music and literature are no longer the source of avant-garde–what is truly disruptive are social innovations that disrupt the consumerist model of constantly marketing faux avant-garde as "the new."

I think this excerpt from the article Information-Commodification offers a succinct summary of how social innovation is the true avant-garde:

"Avant-gardes, on the other hand, are always interesting, but they are not really about art, whatever some silly art school textbooks might say. Avant-gardes are about media, about social relations, about property-forms, but they are only ever incidentally or tactically concerned with art. The most interesting ones around at the moment might be about pharmacology or horticulture or even ‘business models’."

What qualifies as true avant-garde? Degrowth qualifies–the rejection of consumption as a measure of growth, prosperity and advancement. The model of access not ownership is avant-garde, as is the no-middleman movement I have described in the blog.

Degrowth, Anti-Consumerism and Peak Consumption (May 9, 2013)

When Conventional Success Is No Longer Possible, Degrowth and the Black Market Beckon (February 7, 2014)

Degrowth Solutions: Half-Farmer, Half-X (July 19, 2014)

And the Next Big Thing Is … Degrowth? (April 7, 2014)

Any movement that serves to market "the new" in conventional consumerism (and collecting fine art is the ultimate high-brow consumerism) is not avant-garde. The real avant-garde disrupts the consumption and ownership as identity model of aspirational capitalism.

Anything that doesn't disrupt the consumption and ownership as identity model of aspirational capitalism is just another marketing campaign exploiting faux avant-garde.

For more on the photos accompanying this essay, please read Global Bellwether: Japan's Social Depression (September 25, 2014).




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rnJbua Tyler Durden

The Market Says Markit Is Full Of It: Global PMIs Are Painting An Unrealistically Rosy Picture

Markit (not to be confused with the centrally-planned market) is best known for providing its monthly survey of national (seasonally-adjusted) manufacturing and service industry coincident businesses (whose results just may be released milliseconds early to select, highly paying HFT clients). Surveys which, such as today, are released after extensive adjustments and revisions, at key inflection points designed to achieve one simple thing: restore confidence in the Ponzi, usually when “hard data” indicates a collapse or recession is nigh. Such as last week:

Case in point: in today’s Chinese, European and US manufacturing, not one had underlying constituent data that could be called even remotely attractive. In fact, all the forward-looking indicators were decidedly negative and yet this led to solid headline beats in the two former regions after algos scanned the headline as quickly as they could and unleashed a spree of buying, enough to push equity futures well off the overnight lows and to set the bullish mood for today’s trading day.

But why would one even look at a self-reported survey as an indicator of coincident activity: after all isn’t it beyond obvious that every response will be full of confirmation bias and colored by the respondent’s inherent optimism about the present and the future? Apparently not, and neither is it obvious that for all business participants, hope dies last, something which always influences their responses. The problem is that in a world in which central banks have made a mockery of all other coincident signals, one has to dig very low, although as even Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid says, “we’ve used this measure less over the last couple of years as central banks have increasingly distorted the relationship between fundamentals and valuation.”

And as Jim Reid shows in the table below, the various regional PMIs have so consistently overshot in their expectations of where the manufacturing and service sector of a given country is throughout 2014, that not even the market believes, well, Markit. To wit:

Of our 8 sample countries plus the Eurozone, seven currently see manufacturing PMIs between 48.8 (France) and 51.7 (Japan). Depending on the country and based on these numbers, our regressions suggest that these  equity markets should generally be flat to slightly higher than 12 months ago. In actuality they’re slightly lower suggesting that the market expects PMIs to edge lower or that equities are cheap if they don’t. The biggest exception is in the US where the last PMI was 56.6 which corresponds to a 18% YoY gain rather than the 11% we actually have. So the US is ‘cheap’ if the PMIs don’t decline from current levels.

In other words, with central planners having lost control of the hard data, and only the soft-data remaining for influencing, bias and data manipulation purposes, it has gotten to the point that Markit’s PMI universe is about to lose credibility too.

Just how bad is the problem? The table below shows two things: either stocks are underpriced by about 10% across the US, Germany, Spain, UK and 20% for Japan (green rectangle), or the latest PMI releases are painting such an abnormally rosy picture of various economies, their signal content no longer exists (red rectangle).

There is, however, more to it: in all of the Markit economist comments today, the one recurring theme was simple – Markit, which recently went public, was begging central bankers to inject even more stimulus (6 years after the great stimulus experiment started) into stocks, pardon, the economy. And yet, Markit was unable to really take down its numbers at this key moment in the hand off from the Fed to the “self-sustaining economy” as a series of PMI misses overnight would have crashed the market. Instead, Markit is letting off air little by little, while doing all it can to preserve the illusion.

The question is will it succeed: will central bankers get the hint and inject a few more trillion in reserves into bank balance sheets, or will they stay largely to the side, forcing the market to fend for itself. If so, watch as the 10% expected pick up in stock performance through the end of the year surges as the QEvalary never comes. In that case, Markit will find itself in a very unpleasant place, when 2-3 months from now, risk selling off, it has to finally catch down to reality.

Will the dramatic tumble in PMI indices then serve as precisely the self-fulfilling prophecy catalyst that sends the world, of which both Japan and Europe are already in a triple-dip, but most importantly the US, in the long-overdue recession which as Albert Edwards opined earlier today, will be the one event that sends markets around the globe crashing.

We should know the answer within a few months.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wghtWX Tyler Durden

“War on Terror” Targets Unlicensed Underwear – Department of Homeland Security Raids Maker of World Series Panties

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 12.06.05 PM“They came in and there were two guys” Honig said. “I asked one of them what size he needed and he showed me a badge and took me outside. They told me they were from Homeland Security and we were violating copyright laws.”

They placed the underwear in an official Homeland Security bag and had Honig sign a statement saying she wouldn’t use the logo. 

– From the Kansas City Star article: Homeland Security Confiscates Royals Underwear in Kansas City 

I was just yesterday that I highlighted the dangers of granting government excessive powers under the guise of fighting terrorism in the piece: The BBC is Using Anti-Terror Surveillance to Find Tax Dodgers. Here’ an excerpt:

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1pF1s5y
via IFTTT

New study: the middle class is collapsing in the United States

Middle Class New study: the middle class is collapsing in the United States

October 23, 2014
Santiago, Chile

When I was growing up, my father was able to support his family of four on a single income. And when he was growing up, his father could do the same.

This sort of security simply doesn’t exist anymore.

These days, it typically takes two working parents just to be able to afford a comfortable standard of living. And even then, just barely.

Today people have to borrow on their credit cards just to get by. And young people are forced to indebt themselves decades into the future simply to pay for an increasingly worthless university degree.

In 1970, general tuition at the University of Pennsylvania was $2,550 per year, roughly 33% of the median household income at the time ($7,559).

Bear in mind this was at a time when most households were still supported by a single income.

By 2012, however, general tuition at the same school had risen to $42,734—over 86% of the median household income ($49,486) at a time when many households had become dual income.

This means that the price of a piece of paper from university went from 33% of a single income to 86% of two incomes combined.

This is unbelievable cost increase that illustrates a very clear divide that’s forming in the West.

Yes—inflation exists. It’s hidden. It’s long-term. But it exists. And over a period of years… even decades… it changes the very fundamentals of civilization.

There are two primary forms of inflation. On one hand, there’s asset price inflation. This is when the value of stocks, bonds, and real estate goes up.

But if you’re a typical family that has to spend 95% of your household income just to get by, asset price inflation doesn’t really give a huge boost to the measly 5% of your income that you manage to save.

No, instead, the typical family suffers from the other inflation—retail price inflation.

This is when the cost of goods and services outpaces their wages year after year.

People easily lose track of this. But enough time passes and they find that now two parents have to work just to afford a basic lifestyle, quality food, medical care, and education that one parent used to provide.

Asset price inflation is something that primarily benefits the ultra wealthy.

When you only have to spend 5% of your income on living expenses, and 95% on investments, you stand to gain substantially when your investments increase in value.

This phenomenon has created one of the greatest transfers of wealth in history: one class of citizens getting richer at the expense of everyone else.

A new report just released by two academics at the London School of Economics and UC Berkeley shows just how rapidly the middle class is collapsing in the Land of the Free.

The top 0.1% (160,00 families with total net assets of more than $20 million in 2012) owned 7% of all wealth in late 1970s. That jumped to 22% in 2012.

The bottom 90%, on the other hand, went from a 36% share to a 23% share in the same period.

Now, this letter isn’t intended to rail against wealth inequality, or to suggest that we should be more ‘equal’.

Equality is a dangerous and impossible ideal to strive for. Every human being alive is different, and to suggest that we should all be the same or live according to the same standards is absurd.

No matter what, there are always going to be poor people and rich people. There are always going to be folks who choose to work harder, and those who choose to work less.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. Wealth is a noble ideal; it’s nothing to apologize for.

The accumulation of wealth is supposed to mean that you have done something to create value in the world—that you have created a useful product that people desire, or that you have created wealth for others.

But that path to accumulate wealth is now all but dead.

The Land of the Free used to be a place where you could work hard and build wealth for yourself, either by starting a business, taking some investment risk, or working your way up the chain.

Yet today, authorities chase away children who have the audacity to operate a lemonade stand without a permit.

The nanny state legally bars most grown adults from investing their own savings in lucrative private enterprises, forcing the masses into overheated, central bank- manipulated stocks and bonds.

And today you’re lucky to work for the same company for more than a few years. As a colleague told me a few months ago, few people have careers anymore.

Instead, human beings are ‘rented’ by companies to perform tasks. There’s no longer a career track, growth, or significant advancement.

All of the old capitalist ideals have been replaced with compliance, obedience, and subservience to the state. They’ve managed to completely hollow out the middle class.

The ultra rich, meanwhile, continue to get rich.

Central bankers print money, and it pushes up the value of assets that the rich already own, making them even richer.

In other words, if you’re born rich, you stay rich. If you’re not, it’s becoming harder to attain wealth. Talent and hard work matter less and less with each passing year.

This is dreadfully, terribly wrong.

The people in charge of this system have completely broken what capitalism is supposed to be. And they’ve replaced it with a new form of feudalism.

This is something that can’t possibly last.

All the technology and tools already exist for individuals to take the power back and divorce themselves from this reality.

You no longer have to live, work, and play in the same country where you were born.

You no longer have to hold the heavily manipulated, degraded currency that they destroy, or use the banking system that they control.

You no longer have to educate your children in the state-controlled school system, or feed your family the genetically-modified crap that the corn lobby bribes onto the store shelves.

You can break free. It’s a matter of choice.

from SOVEREIGN MAN http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/new-study-the-middle-class-is-collapsing-in-the-united-states-15353/
via IFTTT

Street Art ‘Shouldn’t be Privatized,’ Say Protesters Who White-Out Famous Graffiti

Atlanta, Georgia woke up today
to find Krog Street Tunnel, perhaps the city’s most famous location
for graffiti, painted over with a dull gray. Was it censorship by
the man, a crack-down on people’s self-expression? Nope,
it was anti-profit protesters.

This weekend is a masquerade ball that’s open to the public, but
tickets cost $50-$100 dollars. Graffiti artists “staged the protest
because they said they were offended by how the party planners were
using their art as a backdrop,”
according
to a local news station.

“We’re not going to give away this art for free to somebody who
is trying it make money off of it. Street art, public art, should
be free for all. it shouldn’t be privatized,” an unnamed organizer

told
another local station.

An street artist who goes by “Catlanta” wrote a snarky
Facebook post:

The Krog Masquerade hopes to bring out the art loving
residents of Atlanta to the Krog Street Tunnel on Saturday. We had
a similar takeover of the tunnel last night with impassioned
Atlanta arts lovers, and all of the sudden, their whole crew is
throwing shade our way. What gives, brah? You love our art, but
don’t want to listen to our opinions?

To what extent Catlanta, who
sometimes uses
copyrighted characters
in his art, is opposed to private
enterprise is questionable. He gives away some art for free, but he
sells some, too. And he’s leveraged the public display of his art
for enough fame to work with the Ted Talk organization.

One of the only pieces of writing on the wall this morning was
“#KrogIsNotForSale.”

However, It’s not clear why this particular event irked
activists. The art-covered tunnel has been in movies, music videos,
and even inspired a
symphony
– all profit-driven ventures.

Also the organizers of the Krog Masquerade state on their website:

A portion of proceeds will be donated to the Georgia Lawyers for
the Arts – a nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance
and educational programming to artists, arts organizations and the
Georgia Foundation for Public Spaces. This enables us to
provide financial scholarships, awards, educational programs, tools
for artists as well as maintain sponsorships for our various
events.

Residents and fans of the iconic tunnel have taken to social
media to
express
their thoughts. Some think the act was empowering to
the artist-protesters, others think they cut off their noses to
spite their faces.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/23/street-art-shouldnt-be-privatized-say-pr
via IFTTT

Virginia Millennials Say They Love Libertarian Rob Sarvis, But Will They Show Up on Election Day?

i voted stickerAs
Virginia prepares to elect its next U.S. senator, how will the
state’s millennials cast their ballots? A statewide poll released
today finds young people prefer “anyone but Republican Ed
Gillespie.” Bloomberg Politics
reports
:

Democratic Senator Mark Warner captured 47 percent in a survey
of voters between the ages of 18 and 35, which was released
Thursday by the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher
Newport University in Newport News, Va. The first runner-up
was Libertarian Robert Sarvis with 24 percent.
Eighteen
percent said they were undecided, and 11 percent said they will
choose Gillespie. [emphasis added]

In other words, the libertarian candidate appears to
enjoy six times as much support from the millennial
generation as from the electorate at large. (Real Clear Politics’

polling average
currently puts Sarvis at just 4 percent.)
However, there are some very good reasons to think that level of
support for Sarvis from young voters might not actually
materialize.

In a
previous post
here at Hit & Run, I discussed the phenomenon
of polls tending to overstate third party candidates’ preformance
on election day. But there’s another problem with taking this
finding at face value, which the Bloomberg article itself
points out: It assumes young voters will show up at the polls.

It’s unclear how many millennials will actually go to the
polls. 

“A majority say they are certain to vote, but only 44% say they
are paying close or somewhat close attention, so it’s easy to
imagine many who might intend to vote not actually making it to the
polls on Election Day,” said Wason Center Director Quentin Kidd in
a news release.

Historically, young people cast ballots at far lower rates than
older voters. According to a study from
the U.S. Census Bureau, released in April:

In every presidential election since 1964, young voters between
the ages of 18 through 24 have consistently voted at lower rates
than all other age groups…Overall, America’s youngest voters have
moved towards less engagement over time, as 18- through
24-year-olds’ voting rates dropped from 50.9 percent in 1964 to
38.0 percent in 2012.

But that’s not all—even older voters have a track record of
being, shall we say, overly ambitious when reporting their
likelihood of voting. Consider the Scottish independence referendum
as one high-profile example from this year. An Ipsos MORI poll
taken just before the election found some
95 percent
saying they were certain to turn out—a 10
on a 10-point scale. In fact, just under 85 percent of registered
voters actually cast ballots—a “record number,” and no wonder
considering the historic nature of the election. But it still
wasn’t 95 percent.

And the number of people who misrepresent their vote likelihood
is often much larger than that. A 2013
Harvard Kennedy School study
 looked at a series of races
and found that in all of them, “a sizable fraction of those who
self-predicted that they would vote mispredicted and did not
actually vote.” In one case, more than half of
self-predicted voters failed to turn out.

So while a majority of Virginia millennials might believe
themselves to be certain to vote—and nearly a quarter say they’d
vote for Sarvis—chances are, quite a few of them are mistaken.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/23/poll-finds-double-digit-support-for-rob
via IFTTT

No, Abortion Drugs Aren’t Banned in Oklahoma

An Oklahoma judge said Wednesday that
he won’t block a state law
concerning the use of
abortion-inducing drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Several news
outlets, including Reuters, reported
that abortion pills would now be banned
in the state,
but this is not correct. Under the
new law
, mifepristone and misoprostol—together known as the
“Mifeprex regimen”—are still permitted as long as doctors prescribe
them according to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
protocol. 

This is, in itself, no win from a reproductive
freedom standpoint: the FDA-approved
regimen
includes more restrictions on who can take the drugs
and how they do so than is currently accepted medical practice. The
Guttmacher Institute calls it
“an outdated regimen”
that “prohibits alternative,
evidence-based protocols in wide use for at least the past
decade.” 

Under FDA protocol, which hasn’t been updated since its approval
in 2000, these medications can only be taken within seven weeks of
the start of a woman’s last period. Doctors and medical groups now
say the drugs are safe and effective through the ninth week of
pregnancy. 

The FDA-approved Mifeprex regimen also stipulates that all drugs
be taken in the presence of a physician. Since the regimen requires
taking the pills three days apart, that means a woman will have to
make a repeat (and unnecessary) visit back to a clinic merely to
swallow a pill. In most places it’s permissible to take the first
pill at the clinic and the follow-up pill at home.

The third major difference between now-typical protocol and the
FDA regimen is dosage: the FDA requires a 600 milligram dose of
mifepristone, while 200 milligrams is sufficient and standard. So
under Oklahoma’s new law, women seeking non-surgical abortions will
be required to take more of a drug than is necessary for its
effectiveness. 

Republicans in the Oklahoma legislature say all of this is to
ensure women’s safety. 

In 2011, the legislature passed a somewhat similar law, only
this one banned all off-label use of abortion-inducing
drugs. Because misoprostol was initially approved and introduced as
an ulcer medication, this would have prohibited its use in inducing
abortion. Aside from mifepristone, there are no other
abortion-inducing drugs currently approved in America, and
mifepristone only works properly in conjunction with misoprostol.
So the 2011 law would have essentially banned non-surgical
abortion. It was found
unconstituional
 by a district court and
eventually the Oklahoma Supreme Court
.

The new law—passed in April and scheduled to take effect
November 1—”fixed the issues that the court had,” said its author,
Rep. Randy Graud (R-Oklahoma City).

District Court Judge Robert Stuart hasn’t yet ruled on the
merits of the law, but he indicated in court on Wednesday that he
would deny a motion for temporary injunction brought by the
Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice and Reproductive
Services of Tulsa. However, he said he will temporarily suspend
portions of the law that subject physicians to legal liability. As
written, the law allows not only women but also maternal
grandparents and “the father of the unborn child who was the
subject of the abortion” (if they’re married) to bring an action
against physicians who perform an abortion “in knowing or reckless
violation” of the law.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1pEVFwM
via IFTTT