Media Promoting Opinions of Teenagers in Emotional State

From Bill O’Reilly.com (Feb. 20):

Former Republican Congressman Jack Kingston suggested on CNN that some of the high schoolers in Florida are being used by leftist people in the gun control debate.  A number of teenagers have appeared on television bashing the White House over gun violence.

While this is most likely true, there have been a few young people that have taken a more conservative view. But the big question is: should the media be promoting opinions by teenagers who are in an emotional state and facing extreme peer pressure in some cases?

The answer is no, the media should not be doing that.

We are living in a media world where there are no longer any rules.  The national press believes it is their job to destroy the Trump administration by any means necessary.  So if the media has to use kids to do that, they’ll use kids.  [read more]

I agree completely with Bill O’Reilly. The lame-stream-media shouldn't be exploiting these students. And the democrat community organizers shouldn't be exploiting these teenagers either (where did that nice greyhound bus come from?) The students are in a vulnerable state of mind. They are grieving and scared. Then again the Left doesn't care about that. The students are pawns in the Left’s power plays.

4 Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court This Month

From The Daily Signal.com (Feb. 19):

The Supreme Court is scheduled to return to Washington next week after nearly a month off. The justices will hear a number of important oral arguments, including cases involving free speech, public employee unions, and digital privacy.

Here are four cases to watch.

Public Employee Unions and the First Amendment

On Feb. 26, the Supreme Court will hear the arguments in one of the most anticipated cases of the year, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31.

This case involves forcing public employees who opt out of union membership to pay a fee for the “fair share” of costs associated with collective bargaining. Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee, argues that forcing him to subsidize the union he has declined to join violates his free speech and free association rights.

The court will look at whether to overturn its 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that public employees could be forced to pay an agency fee.

…………………

Digital Privacy

On Feb. 27, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Microsoft Corp. This case deals with whether the Stored Communications Act applies to emails stored outside the United States.

This federal law enhances the privacy of emails stored by third parties and allows law enforcement to obtain emails from providers after securing a warrant.

There is generally a presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law without Congress expressly authorizing it. In this case, the U.S. government demanded Microsoft turn over email data stored on a server in Dublin, Ireland, pursuant to the Stored Communications Act.

…………………

Retaliatory Arrest

On Feb. 27, the Supreme Court will hear Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach. This is Fane Lozman’s second trip to the high court.

Back in 2013, the court ruled for Lozman in his lawsuit to save his home (which is a boat) from seizure by the city as part of its plan to redevelop the marina where he resides.

Lozman is an outspoken critic of this plan, and he was arrested at a City Council meeting where he attempted to speak out against corruption on the City Council. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, but the state’s attorney dismissed the charges shortly thereafter.

Lozman then filed a Section 1983 civil rights action against the city, arguing that his arrest was retaliation for opposing the development plan and engaging in protected speech. The issue before the court is whether his claim is barred because the arresting officer had probable cause to make the arrest.

Free Speech at the Polls

On Feb. 28, the Supreme Court will consider limits on passive political speech at the polls in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.

The state of Minnesota forbids people from wearing apparel with political messages at or near polling places on Election Day, and violations (which are subject to a $5,000 fine and possible criminal charges) include someone wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt and a “Please I.D. Me” button.

While states have a legitimate interest in preventing intimidation and violence at the polls, can they assert an interest in preventing confusion and distraction to broadly ban speech on clothing if it’s deemed “political”?

This could have implications for all kinds of messages that may or may not be considered “political”—”#MeToo,” “Love Wins,” “Choose Life,” “The Future is Female,” and many more.  [read more]

Dick Morris: Huma’s Influence? Hillary Let Islamic Scholar Now Charged with Rape into the US

From Western Journal.com (Feb. 16):

In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration and allowed Tariq Ramadan, a world-famous Islamic scholar who donated to a terrorist front group, into the United States.

CNS reported that two weeks ago, Ramadan was arrested in Paris and charged with the rape of two Muslim women, one of whom had been disabled in a car accident, forcing her to use a crutch to walk.

Ramadan, something of a celebrity in the Muslim world, was a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at St. Anthony’s College in Oxford, U.K. His grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The ban imposed by the Bush administration was a cause célèbre in the Islamic world.

Question: Did Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser, play a role in Clinton’s unjustifiable decision to lift the ban on Ramadan’s ability to travel to the U.S.? Was Hillary trying to please Huma?

Abedin had to have known all about Ramadan. Her connection with the Muslim Brotherhood runs deep.

Huma’s father founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League. Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy said the Muslim World League is “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world.”

Tariq Ramadan was barred as a security threat from entering the U.S. in 2006 by the State Department for “providing material support to a terrorist organization.” Specifically, he was found to have donated funds to a supposed charity that was really — and quite openly — a front for Hamas.

…………………….

That Hillary Clinton used her “discretion” to let him into the United States speaks volumes about her own lack of “discretion” and may give us a clue to Huma Abedin’s ability to get Hillary to do what she wanted.  [read more]

Yea, letting the rapist/terrorist in does sound suspicious. So, much for Hillary caring about the plight of the victims’ that got raped. 

He Was a President Who Understood Principle

From FEE.org:

In his veto of a congressional salary increase, our 30th president, Calvin Coolidge, told Congress that, “No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave.” This statement truly characterizes Coolidge for who he was as a man.

Not only was he deeply concerned with tax reduction and the federal budget, he was also highly dedicated to the serving of both his neighbor and nation. Coolidge had a special understanding of public service and never swayed from his foundational beliefs. These qualities made him the beloved man that he was. Calvin Coolidge — although soft-spoken — showed immense amounts of courage in serving his nation and staying true to his fundamental convictions.

Economic Responsibility

An important way in which Calvin Coolidge showed this courage was in his approach to public service. Prior to his term as Commander-in-Chief, the government had grown unchecked for years under the Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson administrations. Wealth redistribution, government regulation, and the strength of unions were on the rise in America during this era of progressivism. Soon after stepping into the Oval Office, Coolidge promptly went on a budget- and tax-cutting spree to abolish what he referred to as “Despotic Exactions.”

Although scoffed at by many, this decrease in taxation and government spending saved the average American over $200 per year (about $1,500 today). Coolidge wanted to help the poor, and he saw that this was the only way to enact true, long-term change toward raising the American standard of living. He and his Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, referred to this policy as “Scientific Taxation.” Coolidge once said, “Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.” This informed approach was his creative service to the least of these.

……………………

Strong Principles

Although seemingly reserved, Coolidge was a man of strong principles. He called his fellow citizens to return to the proven principles of the American political tradition and encouraged them to examine their own beliefs in light of these principles. He believed strongly in the limits of social engineering, the nature of wealth, individual responsibility, and society’s dependence on moral and religious values. His ability to stand by these fundamental convictions in the face of adversity is rare among men.

In her book entitled Coolidge, Amity Shlaes refers to President Coolidge as our “Great Refrainer.” She suggests that inaction can benefit a nation more than action, as demonstrated by his numerous vetoed bills. “This was the boy with his finger in the dike, stopping a great progressive tide,” she accurately states. Throughout his life, Calvin Coolidge rejected what Bastiat called “legal plunder” and worked toward the creation not only of wealth but of beauty. [read more]

President Calvin Coolidge was President Ronald Reagan’s favorite president.

7 Reasons Earmarks Are a Very Bad Idea

From The Daily Signal.com (Feb. 1):

Earmarks could be making a comeback.

Before a Republican-led Congress banned earmarks back in 2011, lawmakers used earmarks to send funds directly to specific projects and recipients in their districts. This was more widely known as “pork-barrel spending.”

While in theory there is nothing wrong with Congress being actively involved in specific funding decisions, lawmakers exploited this practice, leading to corruption and wasteful spending. Unfortunately, earmarks have become a tool that Congress can’t be trusted with.

President Donald Trump recently expressed his support for bringing back earmarks, and some members of Congress are considering getting back on board as well.

It’s been only six years since Congress enacted the ban, and many who are voicing support for an earmark comeback seem to have forgotten why banning it was so necessary in the first place.

Here are seven things to remember about earmarks:

1. Earmarks waste taxpayer funds.

The infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” is still the perfect example of earmark waste at its worst.

Back in 2005, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, succeeded at directing a whopping $223 million of taxpayer funds to the construction of a bridge between a small Alaskan town and an even smaller island that housed a local airport.

Alaskans themselves called for the removal of the earmark, recognizing that the hefty funding could be put to better use somewhere else.

……

2. Earmarks grow out of control.

The use of earmarks caused a snowball effect. Once legislators were given free rein to direct funds wherever they deemed fit, they took advantage.

For example, President Ronald Reagan decided to veto a transportation bill in 1987 because it included too many earmarks. The earmark count was 152 total. In 2005, President W. Bush signed a road bill that contained 6,371 earmarks.

As Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., so aptly stated, “Earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction.”

A study by the Congressional Research Service showed that from 1994 to 2011, there was a 282 percent jump in earmarks in appropriations bills. Earmarks increased from 4,155 in 1994 to an enormous 15,887 by 2011.

…………..

3. Earmarks encourage corruption.

Back in 2004, Marlowe & Co. owner Howard Marlowe boasted that he had received at least 172 government earmarks for his professional clients. As a for-profit company, Marlowe had no right to be receiving such specialized treatment from the government.

But this is hardly the only instance. Jack Abramoff, a former Washington lobbyist turned convict, was found guilty of bribing lawmakers and White House officials for specific earmarks and other favors for his clientele in the casino and gambling business. This occurred just one year after former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., was sentenced to over eight years in prison for accepting bribes and extravagant gifts from lobbyists in exchange for funding through appropriation earmarks and his vote on certain pieces of legislation.  [read more]

The other four reasons why earmarks are a very bad idea are:

1. Earmarks incentivize personal agendas.
2. Earmarks undermine the practice of funding projects based on merit.
3. Earmarks undermine state and local government decisions.
4. Earmarks hurt the already-damaged budget process.

And since the Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that the president can’t have line item veto like governors due earmarks will probably always be around. And that’s too bad.

New 'Hologram' Device Levitates Particles to Create 3D Objects in Thin Air

From Live Science.com (Jan. 29):

Close your eyes for a moment and picture a hologram. Hold it in your head for a moment, then open your eyes and keep reading.

Ready?

What did the image look like? Here's a guess: A blue, flickering image, projected on thin air, viewable from any angle — a bit like the holograms from the "Star Wars" films. ("Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi! You're my only hope!")

In the real world, though, looking at a hologram isn't so much like looking at a physical object. Lasers need to be used to project the image onto some medium, like a sheet of plastic and glass, which bends and reflects the light so the image appears three dimensional to a viewer. But they work only when the viewer's eye is in a pretty narrow plane of view, almost directly across from the projecting lasers. (HowStuffWorks has a pretty good explanation of this kind of system.)

Now, however, a team of researchers at Brigham Young University has developed a new device that creates truly sculpture-like, three-dimensional images that are sort of like holograms, but on steroids. Projections from their "Optical Trap Display" (OTD), described in a paper published Jan. 24 in the journal Nature, behave a lot more like that image of Princess Leia than any true holograms do.

The OTD takes advantage of a strange technology called the photophoretic optical trap, which allows researchers to levitate a small particle and pilot it through the air. The optical trap hits the particle with a beam of "near invisible" light, the researchers wrote. (The light has a wavelength of 405 nanometers, right at the low edge of what humans can perceive.) [read more]

Interesting. If the researchers can get the glitches out maybe holographic television (or even film) could be possible.

How Believing in Socialism Can Make You Miserable

Commentary from Brittany Hunter on FEE.org:

On my (Brittany's) college campus, the largest and most active club was the “Revolutionary Student Union,” also known as the school’s resident Marxists. Even then, I passionately disagreed with socialism. But one thing that struck me was how these students were not only wrong, but seemed deeply unhappy. They always walked into class scowling and were always grousing, not just about the evils of capitalism, but about intractable frustrations and perceived injustices in their personal and academic lives.

I often wondered if there was a connection between the dysfunction in their lives and their socialist ideology.

To these young revolutionaries, every frustration in their lives was someone else’s fault. If they weren’t getting the grades they felt they deserved, some bourgeois professor was to blame. If they didn’t have job prospects that matched their high regard for their own intellects, it must be the capitalist system holding them back. Their tendency was to scapegoat “class enemies,” not only for societal ills but for their own personal problems as well.

By shifting the blame to others, they relieved themselves of responsibility over their own problems. They wasted their time and energy complaining, wallowing in self-pity, and seeking redress, instead of taking ownership of their lives and fixing up their affairs. As a result, their frustrations only compounded.

This attitude also robbed them of one of the great pleasures in life: experiencing empathetic joy in the happiness of others. According to their zero-sum Marxist mindset, the prosperity of others came at the expense of their own prospects. So they resented anyone more successful than themselves. And they became so preoccupied with dragging other people down that they had little energy left over for lifting themselves up.

…………………

The Psychological Roots of Socialism

Yet, in spite of this, and in spite of all the economic logic and evidence that shows that classical liberalism and capitalism enriches and frees the whole of society, while socialism enslaves and impoverishes it, these young socialists would still cling rigidly to their ideology. Why?

According to Ludwig von Mises, it is not simply a matter of economic illiteracy and intellectual error in general. Rather, it is a psychological matter. He even went so far as to argue that the roots of socialism lie in neurosis.

The socialist frame of mind can be summed up in one word: resentment. As Mises wrote:

“Resentment is at work when one so hates somebody for his more favorable circumstances that one is prepared to bear heavy losses if only the hated one might also come to harm. Many of those who attack capitalism know very well that their situation under any other economic system will be less favorable. Nevertheless, with full knowledge of this fact, they advocate a reform, e.g., socialism, because they hope that the rich, whom they envy, will also suffer under it.”

Psychologist Jordan B. Peterson also characterizes socialism as both driven by resentment and fostering resentment. In a panel, he said of Marxism:

“There is the dark side of it, which means everyone who has more than you got it by stealing it from you. And that really appeals to the Cain-like element of the human spirit. Everyone who has more than me got it in a manner that was corrupt and that justifies not only my envy but my actions to level the field so to speak, and to look virtuous while doing it. There is a tremendous philosophy of resentment that I think is driven now by a very pathological anti-human ethos.”

Those who have lost themselves in a downward spiral of resentment would rather fail than succeed if it meant that their class enemies would suffer along with them. The phrase “misery loves company” is particularly applicable to the socialist mindset.

…………………

Only You Can Change Your Circumstances

Luckily, this kind of neurosis can be cured, but it requires effort on the part of the individual. As Mises wrote:

“One cannot send every person suffering from a Fourier complex to the doctor for psychoanalytic treatment; the number of those afflicted with it is far too great. No other remedy is possible in this case than the treatment of the illness by the patient himself.”

And the starting point for conducting such self-therapy is for each individual to come to grips with the fact that resentment, envy, and scapegoating only brings oneself frustration, stagnation, and needless suffering.

……………………

The antidote to both socialism and debilitating resentment is individual reflection and action. If one makes an effort to look within and better themselves, then they will find that that resentment will begin to disappear, self-efficacy will grow, and their lives will improve. And dropping socialism will be a wonderful side-effect.  [read more]

Yup, I completely agree. You never see a happy socialist. Bernie Sanders is one example of an unhappy socialist. Grumpy all the time.

Scientists Are Closer to Making Artificial Brains That Operate Like Ours Do

From Futurist.com (Jan. 28):

The Missing Piece

A new superconducting switch could soon enable computers to make decisions very similarly to the way we do, essentially turning them into artificial brains. One day, this new technology could underpin advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems that may become part of our everyday life, from transportation to medicine.

Researchers at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) explain that, much like a biological brain, the switch “learns” by processing the electrical signals it receives and producing appropriate output signals. The process mirrors the function of biological synapses in the brain, which allow neurons to communicate with each other.

The artificial synapse, which is described in a paper published in Science Advances on Friday, Jan. 26, has the shape of a metallic cylinder and is 10 micrometers (0.0004 inches) wide. It is designed so it can learn through experience — or even from just the surrounding environment.

As is increasingly common in the field of AI, this synthetic switch performs even better than its biological counterpart, using much less energy than our brains do and firing signals much faster than human neurons, 1 billion times per second. For comparison, our synapses fire about 50 times per second. This has a significant impact on processing because the greater the frequency of electric signals that are fired and received, the stronger the connection between the synapses become.

A Human-Like AI

The switch is meant to boost the ability of the so-called “neuromorphic computers” which can support AI that one day could be vital to improving the perception and decision-making abilities of smart devices such as self-driving cars and even cancers diagnostic tools.

………………..

The switch could also help us develop more accurate AI that can diagnose diseases such as heart conditions and lung cancer. For example, doctors from the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, U.K., have successfully tested an artificial brain that improves the ability of doctors to detect life-threatening heart conditions, and a startup suggested its AI system could catch as many as 4,000 lung cancers per year earlier than human doctors.  [read more]

AI is getting closer and closer to the Singularity point.

Neonatologist: Babies Do Feel Pain In The Womb. I’ve Seen It

Commentary from Robin Pierucci on The Federalist.com (Jan. 29):

As a neonatologist, I have an insider’s view on the science behind the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which Congress is set to vote on this week. This bill would prevent abortions of unborn children after 20 weeks—just shy in age of the babies I regularly care for. Putting aside a medical ethics discussion about abortion at this time, edge-of-viability unborn babies feel pain. Here’s how I know.

You Can Make a Preemie Mad

In the neonatal intensive care unit, I see premature babies at the edge of viability (23-24 weeks’ gestation) react to painful or uncomfortable procedures every day. For example, when you poke them for blood work, the babies wrinkle up their faces, kick their feet, clench their hands into tiny fists, curl their toes, arch their backs and try to wriggle away, or smack at the offending person. Just ask the nurses.

Measurable physiologic responses to noxious stimuli can include elevated heart and respiratory rates. Some babies just stop breathing and become bluer than any toddler in full-blown tantrum mode. I’ve watched both. Whether they are term or extremely immature, even though they can’t use words, babies in every neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) clearly do not react well to what the adults know are painful procedures.

Some argue that all of these reactions are just that, mere reactions. After the House bill was passed in October 2017, news outlets and abortion providers attempted to rebut the bill with information from a decade-old study on fetal pain. They concluded that a fetus cannot feel pain prior to 26 weeks because the central nervous system (CNS) is not sufficiently intact.

………………….

More Recent Science on Fetal Pain Perception

Yet a growing body of scientific research demonstrates that fetal CNS maturation is notrequired for pain perception. In 2016 the Journal of Pain Research published a summary of multiple different scientific studies all leading to the conclusion that “an early form of pain may appear from the 15th week of gestation onward.” This early physiologic response “is different than emotional pain felt by the more mature fetus,” but it is still a form of physical pain.

Importantly, just the physiologic stress alone can cause long-term developmental changes to an unborn child’s brain, “ultimately leading to adverse neurological outcomes” for that unborn child. Thus, fetal anesthesia is now standard of care for all surgeries performed on unborn children.

Although “whether a fetus is capable of experiencing pain as a conscious and emotional feeling remains unclear….we cannot deny that the fetal nervous system mounts protective responses to tissue injury.” In other words, we know that painful stimuli is causing (sometimes damaging) reactions from the baby, even if it is impossible for us to confirm its exact nature by having these infants “tell us” how they feel. [read more]

How Can You "Give Back" Something that Wasn't First Taken?

Commentary from Mark J. Perry on FEE.org:

At the University of Michigan-Flint, where I teach, there is a “Giving Back” campaign that encourages alumni to “give back to campus through volunteering” (see graphic above). Here’s a recent news article about that campaign titled “Giving Back: UM-Flint alumni discover the rewards of volunteering.”

Below is my response to the Alumni Relations Office about its “Giving Back” campaign, explaining why I think the concept of “giving back” is fundamentally flawed and objectionable, basically because it falsely implies that there was some kind of “taking first.”

Through UM-Flint’s “Giving Back” campaign, our alumni are being encouraged to “give back to our campus” through volunteering and philanthropy. But to me (and others who share my opinion on this), the whole premise of asking our alumni to “give back” is a fundamentally flawed concept. Reason? The underlying premise of encouraging anybody – successful business people or UM alumni – to “give back” is objectionable to some of us because it implies that those alumni have previously “taken something” from our campus or from society that now needs to be returned or given back – like stolen property!

An obvious question is what, exactly, have our alumni taken from our campus that they now need to “give back”? Yes, many of our alumni like Kim Knag have had successful careers for decades working at Michigan companies like DTE Energy. But that business success is the reward that alumni like Kim have rightfully earned for investing in their UM-Flint education and devoting their time and talent to create products and services that others in society value. Kim Knag and other UM alumni haven’t taken anything from our campus or from society or from their local communities, but rather they have enriched and already “given to” many others in Michigan through their UM-Flint education, and their subsequent work and careers.

Therefore, it’s a concern that the “Give Back to Campus” campaign serves to minimize the value of the services to society that our alumni provide or have provided during their careers. Thousands of our distinguished alumni have provided immeasurable amounts and hours of services to their local communities through the “dedication, expertise, and enthusiasm” that they brought to their successful careers. Through their jobs, they “gave” of themselves and gave their effort, time and expertise to society throughout the majority of their adult working lives.

If UM alumni are to be encouraged to engage in volunteerism and philanthropy, they should be encouraged to do so freely because those are noble and honorable activities that create value for society, themselves and our campus. But alumni shouldn’t feel pressured by their alma mater that there is any obligation being imposed on them to “give back to their campus” with the underlying implication that some payback is necessary because they must have taken something during years at UM-Flint that needs to now be returned! And the service that they have provided for many decades to their local communities through their jobs and careers, hopefully as a direct result of their UM-Flint education, should not be minimized or dismissed as somehow inferior to the value of the volunteerism or philanthropy they choose to provide later in life!

I’ll agree that it’s a somewhat subtle and easily overlooked point, but I think you would have to agree that the very term “giving back” automatically and necessarily assumes that something was taken by alumni, perhaps unfairly, that must be returned or given back at a later time in some act of payback or reparations!

Here are some suggestions for how the campaign could be modified slightly to remove the “giving back something that was unfairly taken” theme and implication:

1. “If you are a UM-Flint alumnus looking for a chance to give back and contribute to our campus through volunteering, visit our alumni volunteer page to learn more about upcoming volunteer opportunities.”

or

2. “If you are a UM-Flint alumnus looking for a chance to give back make a difference on our campus through volunteering, visit our alumni volunteer page to learn more about upcoming volunteer opportunities.”

3. “But there’s something that sets University of Michigan-Flint graduates apart from the rest: their commitment to giving back to making a difference / to contributing their time.”

4.  “Giving Back: Making a Difference: UM-Flint alumni discover the rewards of volunteering.”

Thanks for indulging me in my lifetime mission to combat the misguided concept (in my opinion) of “giving back something that was unfairly taken” whenever I get a chance!  

[read more]

Being pressured to give back is all about socialism or collectivism. Individual choice doesn’t matter anymore. It’s all about what the group wants or needs—whatever that means. This giving back fad would make Ayn Rand spin her grave.

Brain Connections Set Creative Thinkers Apart

From Live Science.com (Jan. 15):

Being creative is all about making connections — in your brain, that is.

In a new study, scientists found that the brains of highly creative people have more connections among three specific regions compared to the brains of less creative thinkers. Plus, the more-creative brains were better able to fire up these regions in coordinated way compared with other brains.

The three brain regions are ones that scientists understand well, said lead study author Roger Beaty, a postdoctoral fellow studying cognitive neuroscience at Harvard University. They include the default network, which is involved in spontaneous thinking and imagination; the salience network, which picks up on important information from the environment; and the executive control network, which is involved in cognitive control functions and evaluation.

And though the default network seems like it should be the key source of creativity, people need the salience and the executive control networks to act as a sort of inner critic that judges whether ideas are any good or useful for the given task, Beaty told Live Science. [read more]

Yup, basically describes me. Ha!

Here’s the History of the 25th Amendment

From The Daily Signal.com (Jan. 9):

After failing to gather any real momentum to impeach President Donald Trump, some Democrats are now floating the idea of using the 25th Amendment to oust him.

This little-known constitutional amendment serves as an escape-hatch measure for removing the president if he is incapacitated. It is quite different from impeachment.

Impeachment is the method that the Founders set up to prosecute cases of presidential criminality. It requires members of Congress to bring specific charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But absent these charges, some of Trump’s detractors are now embracing other methods to overthrow him.

…………………………

Pulling out the 25th Amendment is the logical next step for those who have been looking for a way to depose Trump since he entered office, though it’s a serious departure from the intent of those who passed the amendment.

Democrats have trotted out psychologists on Capitol Hill to prove that Trump is unstable and should be removed from office.

This alone seriously flirts with violating the “Goldwater Rule,” which prevents psychologists from offering a “professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

The American Psychiatric Association created this rule after Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater successfully sued a magazine that had published a survey of psychologists deeming him unfit for office.

The survey was misleading, clearly partisan, and damaged the reputation of psychologists as a profession. Moreover, the idea of removing a president based on the whims of an elite group of supposedly neutral neutral psychologists is an affront to democracy.

………………

‘We Stumbled Along’

Perhaps been the most obvious case where the 25th Amendment was needed occurred a generation before it was actually passed.

On Sept. 25, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a collapse and a massive stroke while campaigning in Colorado for the U.S. to enter the League of Nations.

The League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations, had been Wilson’s pet project, and despite warnings from doctors he had pushed himself to the limit on its behalf.

After the stroke, Wilson went blind in one eye, was paralyzed on the left side, and lay unconscious. While he eventually awoke from the coma, he was never the same. For the most part, he was a barely-functioning invalid.

Incredibly, Wilson’s wife practically ran the White House for the two remaining years of his term, only leaving the most serious acts of policy and politics to her husband, which by that point he was barely able to perform.

“This is the worst instance of presidential disability we’ve ever had,” said historian John Milton Cooper. “We stumbled along [for eighteen months] … without a fully functioning president.”

A Re-Evaluation

The 25th Amendment, enacted in 1967, set up a clear line of succession in case the president or vice president died, and included the section that some anti-Trumpers are now looking to: the method for removing, or putting a pause on, the official powers of a debilitated president.

The crucial Section 4 states:

Whenever the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.

Congress then has 21 days to determine if the president is able to continue performing his duties and can remove him from office with a two-thirds vote in both houses.

………………..

Dangerous Precedent

While some are now itching to use Section 4 of the 25th Amendment on Trump, many have urged caution or outright blasted the move as nothing but naked partisanship.

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway suggested that this overheated effort to boot the president with the 25th Amendment is akin to a “coup.”

“Talk of mental health and a 25th Amendment removal, ‘by force if necessary,’ is talk of a coup,” Hemingway wrote. “Responsible parties should consider how this is perceived by the part of the electorate they rarely speak to and cease.”

Harvard Law School professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat, Alan Dershowitz, also denounced the movement as “dangerous” and a “fool’s errand.” [read more]

Fact-Checking 6 of Trump’s Claims During State of the Union

From The Daily Signal.com (Jan. 30):

In his first State of the Union speech, President Donald Trump made quite a few claims and assertions, and we’ve examined six of them.

Statement  1: “Our massive tax cuts provide tremendous relief for the middle class and small businesses. … A typical family of four making $75,000 will see their tax bill reduced by $2,000—slashing their tax bill in half.”

The facts: A Heritage Foundation analysis estimate found that the tax bill for a married couple who are homeowners with three children earning $75,000 in annual income would “decline by $2,014, or 115 percent, to $0, plus a refundable credit of $261.”

Statement 2: “We built the Empire State Building in just one year—is it not a disgrace that it can now take 10 years just to get a permit approved for a simple road?”

The facts: Empire State Realty Trust states that “construction of the building took only one year and 45 days from the setting of the tower’s first steel columns on April 7, 1930, to the completed building by March 31, 1931—a full month before the official opening ceremonies.”

…………….

Statement 6: “I am proud to report that the coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated almost 100 percent of the territory once held by these killers in Iraq and Syria.”

The facts: The Pentagon said Islamic State fighters have been cleared from 98 percent of the territory they held in Iraq and Syria at their high point in 2014 and 2015, according to USA Today. The newspaper also reported that “Only about 3,000 militants are left in Iraq and Syria, down from a peak of more than 25,000 in 2014 and 2015, according to recent U.S. military estimates.”  [read more]

Overall the President told the truth. President Trump actually understated the effect of the tax cuts. Presidents usually overestimate the effects of Congressional legislation.

Good to hear that the Islamic State thugs are getting their butts kicked. Glad he mentioned that in the State of the Union. Then again he did change the rules of engagement and let our troops do what they do best.