Democracy Can Be Trusted Because Citizens Can Be Trusted

From The Public Discourse.com (Mar. 7, 2023):

In the wake of disappointment that the “red wave” never materialized after the 2022 midterm elections, some prominent conservatives expressed skepticism about democracy, citing historical failures to end slavery and abortion, suggesting that the culture war has been lost due to the electorate’s embrace of the tenets of the left, and even attacking universal suffrage.

Frustration at the midterm results is understandable, but critiques of democracy tend to be shortsighted. After all, the alternative to democracy is always some form of elitism—which hardly has an unblemished historical record. Furthermore, I doubt that the midterm results really mean that the average American now believes in the values of the hard left (abortion on demand, open borders, CRT, gender ideology, queer theory, anti-Americanism and all the rest). For example, Alexandra DeSanctis has persuasively argued in these pages that pro-life legislation fared poorly in the states not because voters are actually pro-choice, but because conservative leaders have failed to articulate a clear, coherent, commonsensical pro-life program that they could get behind. I suspect that a similar case can be made for the other issues mentioned above. So the problem isn’t that voters have pernicious views and can’t be trusted; rather, elected officials have offered them poor choices.

Therefore, it would be foolhardy to discard democracy for elitism. In fact, democracy is superior to elitism, however bad the results of any given election may seem. Democracy, construed properly, safeguards against tyranny, and it recognizes the fact that most voters’ moral sense can be trusted.

Wallace Mendelson, a late friend and mentor, was fond of saying that “no man is really fit to govern another.” Every human being is endowed with reason, and knows his circumstances and needs better than anyone else does—and most people tend to have sound moral judgment (more on that later). Mendelson’s simple statement contains the moral basis of democracy: people ought to have a say in the decisions that shape their lives. In a similar spirit, Abraham Kuyper declared: “No man has the right to rule over another man, otherwise such a right necessarily, and immediately, becomes the right of the strongest. … Authority over men cannot arise from men.” Democracy, when it’s working properly, allows men to rule themselves.

Our democracy in particular—which perhaps is more accurately called a constitutional republic—keeps total power from falling into any one person’s hands. And Lord Acton told us why when declaring that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Fallen human nature ensures that those who wield power will almost always succumb to pride. Democracy helps keep a check on the pride that elite rule fosters in people.

Elites have always argued that ordinary people are incapable of governing themselves. But this argument about capability misses the moral basis for democracy mentioned above: however much of a mess ordinary people may make of self-government, the fact remains that “entitlement to rule cannot be taken from one on the basis of the IQ, experience, knowledge or expertise of another.” Again, every person is rational by nature and should have a say in the laws and rules that govern his life.

Epistemic Democracy and Condorcet’s Jury Theorem

One political thinker, Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis of Condorcet, offers a compelling defense of democracy that can instruct those today who are becoming increasingly disillusioned with democracy. Condorcet was a distinguished mathematician, inspector general of the Paris Mint under Louis XVI, member of the Legislative Assembly and National Convention, and leading critic of the French Constitution of 1793—for which he was branded a traitor and lost his life. In 1785, he published his Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions. The Essay put forward the “Jury Theorem,” which examines how increasing electorate (“jury”) sizes affects democratic decision making.

Condorcet was an “epistemic democrat.” That is, he believed that democracy cannot be justified on purely procedural grounds. Epistemic democracy presupposes that there are truths in politics, and that social rules are justified based on the likelihood that their application can be trusted to produce good (“true”) policies or outcomes. Another way of putting it is to say that democratic rules are not (and cannot be) neutral with respect to competing conceptions of the good, as contemporary liberal ideology holds. For Condorcet, both moral relativism and proceduralism are unworkable.

In a nutshell, the Condorcet Jury Theorem states that the probability of a group of voters reaching a decision that is in accord with the truth (the “right” decision) is derived from the probability that each voter in that group reaches the right decision. So if the probability of each voter reaching the right decision is greater than 1/2, then increasing the size of the group will increase the probability that the group will choose rightly. The more the group grows, the larger this probability becomes. On the other hand, if the odds of each voter picking the right decision are smaller than 1/2,  then the larger the electorate becomes, the lower the chances the group will decide rightly.

Recently, Condorcet’s result has been generalized beyond majority rule to plurality voting and to situations in which most—not necessarily all—voters are likely to choose “true” policies. So it is not necessary that every voter’s individual probability of choosing rightly be greater than 1/2, only that the average voter’s is. The math still works. The probability of a correct choice increases dramatically as the size of the electorate increases. [read more]

Scientists accidentally create 'impossible' hybrid fish

From Live Science.com (July 20, 2020):

It shouldn't have been possible, but it was: The birth of long-nosed, spiky-finned hybrids of Russian sturgeons and American paddlefish.

Hungarian scientists announced in May in the journal Genes that they had accidentally created a hybrid of the two endangered species, which they have dubbed the "sturddlefish." There are about 100 of the hybrids in captivity now, but scientists have no plans to create more.

"We never wanted to play around with hybridization. It was absolutely unintentional," Attila Mozsár, a senior research fellow at the Research Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture in Hungary, told The New York Times.

Russian sturgeons (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) are critically endangered and also economically important: They're the source of much of the world's caviar. These fish can grow to more than 7 feet long (2.1 meters), living on a diet of molluscs and crustaceans. American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) filter-feed off of zooplankton in the waters of the Mississippi River drainage basin, where water from the Mississippi and its tributaries drain into. They, too, are large, growing up to 8.5 feet (2.5 m) long. Like the sturgeon, the have a slow rate of growth and development puts them at risk of overfishing. They've also lost habitat to dams in the Mississippi drainage, according to the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. The two species last shared a common ancestor 184 million years ago, according to the Times.

Nevertheless, they were able to breed —— much to the surprise of Mozsár and his colleagues. The researchers were trying to breed Russian sturgeon in captivity through a process called gynogenesis, a type of asexual reproduction. In gynogenesis, a sperm triggers an egg's development but fails to fuse to the egg's nucleus. That means its DNA is not part of the resulting offspring, which develop solely from maternal DNA. The researchers were using American paddlefish sperm for the process, but something unexpected happened. The sperm and egg fused, resulting in offspring with both sturgeon and paddlefish genes.

The resulting sturddlefish hatched by the hundreds, and about 100 survive now, according to the Times. Some are just about 50-50 mixtures of sturgeon and paddlefish genes, and some are far more sturgeon-like. All are carnivores, like the sturgeon, and share the sturgeon's blunter nose, compared with the paddlefish's pointy snout.

Most hybrid species, such as the liger (a mix of a lion and a tiger) and the mule (a mix of a horse and donkey), can't have offspring of their own, and the sturddlefish is probably no exception. Mozsár and his colleagues plan to care for the fish, but they won't create more, since the hybrid could outcompete native sturgeon in the wild and worsen the sturgeon's chances of survival.

However, the fact that fish separated by 184 million years of evolution could cross-breed indicates that they're not so different after all.

"These living fossil fishes have extremely slow evolutionary rates, so what might seem like a long time to us isn't quite as long of a time to them," Solomon David, an aquatic ecologist at Nicholls State University in Louisiana, told the Times. [source]

Accidently? Doesn’t sound good. Sounds like the scientists were careless. They lucked out though. Some accidents can be bad especially if you are manipulating genes.

DeepMind AI accurately forecasts weather — on a desktop computer

From Nature.com (Nov. 14, 2023):

Artificial-intelligence (AI)  firm Google DeepMind has turned its hand to the intensive science of weather forecasting--and developed a machine-learning model that outperforms the best conventional tools as well as other AI approaches at the task.

The model, called GraphCast, can run from a desktop computer and makes more  accurate predictions than conventional models in minutes rather than hours.

"GraphCast currently is leading the race amongst the AI models," says computer scientist  Aditya Grover at University of California, Los Angeles. The model is described in Science on 14 November.

Predicting the weather is a complex and energy-intensive task. The standard approach is  called numerical weather prediction (NWP), which uses mathematical models based on  physical principles. These tools, known as physical models, crunch weather data from  buoys, satellites and weather stations worldwide using supercomputers. The calculations  accurately map out how heat, air and water vapour move through the atmosphere, but  they are expensive and energy-intensive to run.

Forecast revolution

To reduce the  financial and energy cost of forecasting, several technology companies  have developed machine-learning models that rapidly predict the future state of global  weather from past and current weather data. Among them are DeepMind, computer  chip-maker Nvidia and Chinese tech company Huawei, alongside a slew of start-ups such  as Atmo based in Berkeley, California. Of these, Huawei's Pangu-weather model is the  strongest rival to the gold-standard NWP system at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in Reading, UK, which provides world-leading  weather predictions up to 15 days in advance.

Machine learning is spurring a revolution in weather forecasting, says Matthew Chantry  at the ECMWF. AI models run 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than conventional NWP  models, leaving more time for interpreting and communicating predictions, says data visualization researcher Jacob Radford, at the Cooperative Institute for Research in the  Atmosphere in Colorado.

GraphCast, developed by Google's AI company DeepMind in London, outperforms  conventional and AI-based approaches at most global weather-forecasting tasks.  Researchers  first trained the model using estimates of past global weather made from 1979 to 2017 by physical models. This allowed GraphCast to learn links between weather  variables such as air pressure, wind, temperature and humidity.

The trained model uses the 'current' state of global weather and weather estimates from  6 hours earlier to predict the weather 6 hours ahead. Earlier predictions are fed back into  the model, enabling it to make estimates further into the future. DeepMind researchers  found that GraphCast could use global weather estimates from 2018 to make forecasts  up to 10 days ahead in less than a minute, and the predictions were more accurate than  the ECMWF's High RESolution forecasting system (HRES)--one version of its NWP--which takes hours to forecast.

Severe weather

"In the troposphere, which is the part of the atmosphere closest to the surface that affects us all the most, GraphCast outperforms HRES on more than 99% of the 12,00  measurements that we've done," says computer scientist Remi Lam at DeepMind in  London. Across all levels of the atmosphere, the model outperformed HRES on 90% of  weather predictions.

GraphCast predicted the state of 5 weather variables close to the Earth's surface, such as the air temperature 2-metres above the ground, and 6 atmospheric variables, such as wind speed, further from the Earth's surface.

It also proved useful in predicting severe weather events, such as the paths taken by tropical cyclones, and extreme heat and cold episodes, says Chantry. 

When they compared the forecasting ability of GraphCast with Pangu-weather, the DeepMind researchers found that their model beat 99% of weather predictions that had been described in a previous Huawei study. 

Chantry notes that although GraphCast's performance was superior to other models in this study, based on its evaluation by certain metrics, future assessments of its performance using other metrics could lead to slightly different results.

Training data

Rather than entirely replacing conventional approaches, machine-learning models, which are still experimental, could boost particular types of weather prediction that standard approaches aren't good at, says Chantry--such as forecasting rainfall that will hit the ground within a few hours.

"And standard physical models are still needed to provide the estimates of global weather that are initially used to train machine-learning models," says Chantry. "I anticipate it will be another two to five years before people can use forecasting from machine learning approaches to make decisions in the real-world," he adds.

In the meantime, problems with machine-learning approaches must be ironed out. Unlike NWP models, researchers cannot fully understand how AIs such as GraphCast work because the decision-making processes happen in AI's 'black box', says Grover. "This calls into question their reliability," she says.

AI models also run the risk of amplifying biases in their training data and require a lot of energy for training, although they consume less energy than NWP models, says Grover. [source]

China Escalates Cyberattacks That Are Increasingly Hard To Detect

From The Federalist.com (Oct. 13):

A Chinese hacking group is reportedly behind a significant espionage campaign targeting U.S. technology firms and legal services, highlighting a worrisome escalation in China’s cyber “Cold War” with the United States.

Since March 2025, Google’s Threat Intelligence Group and its cybersecurity subsidiary, Mandiant, have tracked suspicious activities, delivered over a backdoor malware known as “BRICKSTORM.” This sophisticated campaign is targeting a variety of sectors, including law firms, software-as-a-service providers, and other technology companies. Following extensive monitoring and analysis, Google has linked these hacking efforts to UNC5221, a long-suspected Chinese Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) actor, alongside other “threat clusters” associated with China.

The BRICKSTORM campaign is especially disturbing for two primary reasons. Firstly, it was crafted to ensure “long-term stealthy access” by embedding backdoors into targeted systems, enabling hackers to dodge conventional detection and response methods. The stealth campaign has proven so adept that, on average, these intruders remain undetected in targeted systems for nearly 400 days, as revealed by a Google report.

Secondly, the motivations behind these cyberattacks transcend the theft of trade secrets and national security data. Google suspects that these hackers are also probing for “zero-day vulnerabilities targeting network appliances,” as well as “establishing pivot points for broader access” to additional victims. This indicates a strategy to gather intelligence that could be pivotal to the Chinese military should tensions escalate between the U.S. and China.

Xi Jinping, the leader of Communist China, has consistently expressed his ambition for the nation to become a “cyber superpower.” With this goal in mind, the Chinese government has invested significant resources in building a formidable cyber army.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) considers cyber warfare to be a crucial aspect of both its defensive and offensive strategies, alongside traditional military forces. Cyberattacks are viewed as a cost-effective means to undermine an opponent’s will to fight by targeting its economic, political, scientific, and technological systems.

Thus, the PLA reportedly employs as many as 60,000 cyber personnel, ten times larger than the U.S. Cyber Command’s Cyber Mission Force. Additionally, a higher proportion of the PLA’s cyber force is dedicated to offensive operations compared to the United States (18.2 percent versus 2.8 percent).

Alongside China’s official cyber force, the Ministry of State Security and the Ministry of Public Security have adopted a “pseudo-private” contractor model that allows them to hire civilian hackers to conduct cyber espionage abroad while obscuring the Chinese government’s involvement. [read more]

More Chi-Com cyberattacks:

• Chinese Hackers Hijack U.S. AI In First Autonomous Cyberattack
• Chinese SIM farms are radicalizing Americans and destabilizing society, intel experts say
• FBI: China Targeting Commercial Communications

FBI Makes Arrest in J6 Eve Pipe Bomb Case: Source

From Newsmax.com (Dec. 4):

The FBI has arrested a Virginia man in its nearly 5-year-old investigation into who placed pipe bombs in Washington, D.C., on the eve of the Jan. 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capitol, sources said Thursday.

The arrest marks the first time investigators have settled on a suspect in an act that had long vexed law enforcement, spawned a multitude of conspiracy theories, and remained an enduring mystery.

The arrest took place Thursday morning.

The suspect in custody has been identified as Brian Cole, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Two sources said he lived in Woodbridge, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C..

No other details were immediately available, including the charges Cole might face.

The people who described the arrest weren't authorized to publicly discuss a case that hasn't yet been made public and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

NBC News reported that the suspect’s step-grandfather, Earl Donnette, confirmed in a brief phone call that he spoke with the FBI about his step-grandson, but declined to comment further.

Cole’s father, Brian Cole Sr., declined to comment to NBC.

The people who described the arrest were not authorized to publicly discuss a case that has not yet been made public and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The pipe bombs were placed on the evening of Jan. 5, 2021, near the offices of the Democratic and Republican national committees in the District of Columbia. Nobody was hurt before the bombs were rendered harmless, but the FBI has said both devices could have been lethal.

In the years since, investigators have sought the public's help in identifying a shadowy subject seen on surveillance footage even as they struggled to determine answers to basic questions, including the person's gender and motive and whether the act had a clear connection to the incident at the Capitol a day later.

Seeking a breakthrough, the FBI last January publicized additional information about the investigation, including an estimate that the suspect was about 5-foot-7, as well as previously unreleased video of the suspect placing one of the bombs.

The bureau had for years struggled to pinpoint a suspect despite hundreds of tips, a review of tens of thousands of video files, and a significant number of interviews.

Dan Bongino, the current FBI deputy director, floated the possibility last year before being tapped for his job that the act was an "inside job" and involved a "massive cover-up."

But since arriving at the FBI in March, he has sought to deliver action to a restive base on the far right by promising that the pipe bombs investigation would be a top priority and defending the bureau's work.

"We brought in new personnel to take a look at the case, we flew in police officers and detectives working as TFOs (task force officers) to review FBI work, we conducted multiple internal reviews, held countless in person and SVTC meetings with investigative team members, we dramatically increased investigative resources, and we increased the public award for information in the case to utilize crowd-sourcing leads," he wrote in a long post on X last month. [source]

Good. Glad the FBI caught the suspect. Too bad it took a while. Then again that was the Briben's FBI that dropped the ball.

More on the case:

• Kash Patel to Newsmax: FBI Cracked Case With Proof Biden Ignored
• The J6 Pipe Bomber Story Is About to Get Memory-Holed. Here’s Why
• BREAKING: More Info on the J6 Pipe Bomb Suspect
• January 6 Pipe Bomb Suspect Brian Cole is NOT a Trump Supporter – Family Says He is an “Autistic Recluse” Who Lived in a Basement
• Family of Pipe Bomb Suspect Brian Cole Breaks Silence — Issues FIRST Statement After Explosive Arrest
• Mystery deepens as to why it took FBI nearly 5 years to finally bust the suspected J6 pipe bomber

Losing Our Religion: Blue Laws Decline While Deaths of Despair Do Not

From Breakpoint.org (Sept. 23, 2022):

A mortal affliction affects much of America’s heartland. Known as “deaths of despair,” both the Rust Belt and Appalachia have seen incredible spikes in rates of addiction, overdoses, violence, and suicide. In addition to the thousands who die each year by various forms of self-harm, thousands more live Gollum-like, trapped by their chemical chains and in loneliness.

It is a complex situation. While we must not diminish anyone’s moral agency, the downward paths we are on are paved, lined, and greased by a number of contributing factors. For example, Beth Macy, the author of the book Dope Sick, has documented the lethal partnership of doctors and drug companies, not to mention the co-option of government oversight agencies, which inflicted a plague of highly addictive opioids on some of America’s poorest areas of the country.

A new recent study, however, points to an additional complexity, an oft-ignored element of this cultural disease: the decline of religion. According to the study’s authors, there is some correlation between the end of so-called “Blue Laws” and the opioid epidemic. In certain parts of the country, Blue Laws have long limited the range of activities allowed on Sundays. Certain businesses were not allowed to be open, and certain things (especially alcohol) could not be sold. Though these laws continue in certain areas, particularly in Europe, they began to disappear in parts of the United States as the 20th century wore on, to the point that now they are few and far between.

Of course, a significant, culture-wide phenomenon like the opioid crisis cannot be reduced to something as simplistic as whether or not people can shop on Sunday. To do that would be to mistake causation for correlation, kind of like saying murders go up with ice cream sales. And this is something the study’s authors readily admit.

Rather than claiming that the end of Blue Laws created the opioid crisis, they use the end of Blue Laws as a marker to track the decline in American religiosity. The diminishing connections to faith in communities across the country, especially in those areas where they were once so strong, are among the factors that contributed to our nation’s chemical plague. In other words, Blue Laws are a kind of canary in the coal mine, marking when we’ve crossed a dangerous line.

In light of these diminishing religious commitments, reinstating Blue Laws likely will not lead to a reversal in rates of addictions or other deaths of despair. Even if they were an important part of our cultural life of faith at one time, too much has changed for such an easy fix. However, what these laws represented and what has been lost as they disappear points to the underlying causes, not only of the opioid crisis but many of our parallel pains as well.

What we need to ask is, in a mix of Friedrich Nietzsche and REM, what is the cost of losing our religion?

As much as we prize our individualism, particularly here in America, human beings aren’t just dust motes of consciousness, floating on the air currents of life. We’re connected, not just to one another, but to a host of other elements through relationships that give us meaning, identity, direction, and hope. To be healthy, as individuals and as communities, these relationships (upward, inward, outward, and downward) must be strong.

Human beings need a connection to something beyond ourselves, something higher and transcendent in order to find ourselves, to know who and what we are, to be sure of our identity. We need connections with one another, especially the links of family and friendship, in order to be accountable, supported, and complete. And, we need proper connection to the physical world around us, so to be tethered to reality through things like meaningful labor, a place to call home, and some part of the world to call “mine.”

Marx got it wrong. Religion isn’t the opiate of the masses, but instead a part of life most needed, irreplaceable by technological convenience or scientific mastery. The loss of religion has been a bad idea wherever it has been tried, and those suffering across Appalachia and the Rust Belt are some of its most obvious victims. By abandoning religion, specifically the Christianity which once provided meaning to these now missing relationships, the essential connection between individuals and communities and a higher purpose has been lost.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said all the way back in 1983, “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Blue Laws didn’t hold off the effects of substance abuse, but the religious impulse that such laws represented were part of a way of seeing life and the world, one in which we weren’t just reduced to being cogs or animals or sexual expressions. The Christianity that the world has rejected offers the hope that the world so desperately needs. [source]

Late-Term Abortion

From Bill O’Reilly on Bill O’Reilly.com (June 3, 2024):

It was interesting to see First Lady Jill Biden say the upcoming presidential vote is about good and evil and, of course, her husband represents good. Dr. Biden firmly believes that not because she has evidence on the subjective statement, but because she derives personal benefit from believing it.

So allow me to point out a great evil that both Bidens embrace: late-term abortion.

China, Russia, Canada, and Spain support no restrictions on destroying the fetus. In the United States, most places do provide protections after fetal viability. But President Biden opposes any constraints whatsoever.

Evil? I think so. In order to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks, the fetus must be dismembered in the womb using sharp instruments. The fetus feels pain.

The gruesome practice can be justified if the mother's life is in danger or there is catastrophic damage to the fetus itself.

Absent that, it should NOT be accepted in any moral society.

A few months ago, Sean Hannity asked California Governor Gavin Newsom if he supports any restrictions on abortion. Newsom danced but finally admitted he does not.  Eight states allow abortion at anytime for any reason.

It goes against Christian doctrine to individually judge the Bidens' and Kamala Harris for their aggressive promotion of all abortion procedures. No Bill Clinton pronouncement that abortion should be "rare" for them.

And on the evil front, I can say this: if there is a judgment day, I wouldn't want to be them. [source]

Late-term abortion is evil. It is equivalent to infanticide. Good article.

More articles on abortion:

• Making Abortion as Unthinkable as Slavery
• Sen. Graham Reveals 15-Week National Abortion Ban Bill

An Expert Answers Democrats' Most Burning Question: Why Does Anyone Need an AR-15?

From Red State.com (July 10, 2022):

It’s a cry we hear time and again: Why does anyone need a black, spookily-shaped, mysterious “weapon of war” — which has never been used by the U.S. military?

Contrary to frequently wild framing, the AR-15 is simply the modern iteration of a basic rifle. Take Daniel Boone’s “Old Tick Licker,” fast-forward 270 years, and you get something lighter, more capacious, more accurate, and more easily accessorized.

But why should you — or Daniel’s great (times six) grandchildren — own one? Via a recent video, gun guru Colion Noir fights that burning question with a well’s worth of water.

In case you’re unfamiliar, the Houston-based activist and attorney has hosted NRATV and spoken at the National Rifle Association’s convention; his pro-2A YouTube channel boasts over two million subscribers, and he’s appeared as featured guest on The Joe Rogan Experience as well as Real Time with Bill Maher.

As for why anyone needs an AR, Colion offers a handful of reasons — one for each finger.

But first, he makes clear, “The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs. … [T]here isn’t a ‘need’ requirement for which gun you can use under the Second Amendment.”

Now on to the list…

Reason #1:

You need an AR-15 to defend against break-ins with multiple suspects.

Colion asks the liars to please stand up:

“If you knew that four guys with guns were going to break into your home or business and try to brutally murder you and your family, which gun would you pick to defend yourself — a handgun or an AR-15? If you said the handgun, you’re a liar. If you said the AR-15, you just made my point. The AR-15 is the best gun to use against multiple armed intruders who are trying to kill you.”

“During a home invasion with multiple suspects,” he notes, “you’re already at a huge disadvantage. … You only get seconds to react to people trying to kill you. But these scumbags get days or even weeks to plan ahead of time.”

Life is full of compromises, but some aren’t requisite:

“Handguns are a compromise. Yes, they’re easy to carry, but they’re largely underpowered and much harder to shoot accurately compared to AR-15s. Shotguns have the stopping power but lack the capacity. This is fine if the people trying to kill you run away once you start shooting. But if they stay and fight, you’re screwed. That’s where the AR-15 comes in. AR-15s are easier to shoot accurately, they have a higher capacity and much less recoil. An AR-15 is exceedingly easier to suppress than a shotgun, so you have the added advantage of protecting your hearing. All of these factors immediately put you on an equal playing field with the scumbags who are trying to kill you. Long story short: All of the benefits that people like to say an AR-15 gives to criminals [it also gives] to law-abiding citizens.”

“Honestly,” he says, “I could end the video right there. But let’s keep going.”

Reason #2:

You need an AR-15 to defend yourself against civil unrest.

“[W]hen this happens, you can’t rely on the police because they’re too busy trying to deal with the chaos. … In mobs, people do things they normally wouldn’t do. … [T]rust me…at any point, you can be on the wrong side of the mob. And if that (violent) mob decides to come your direction, you’re going to need an AR-15… … Handguns don’t intimidate a mob, and shotguns [are] a lot harder to shoot consistently because of the recoil…”

Reason #3:

You need an AR-15 to protect yourself during a national disaster or a SHTF scenario.

“Natural disasters can happen at any moment and happen way more frequently than civil unrest and have a tendency to last longer. After a natural disaster…you’re on your own. If it’s a bad enough or long enough situation, you’ll likely be living in a lawless environment. And criminals love this because people become easy targets. .. Can you imagine how dangerous it’ll be at night, with no power in pitch-black darkness and no police to help you, and there are criminals rampaging through the city looking to take what little you have, but you have to go out and find a loved one or get emergency supplies? You want the best thing possible to protect yourself in that environment…because the police can’t help you.”

Reason #4:

You need an AR-15 because everyone else has them — including criminals.

“There are, at bare minimum, two million ARs in this country. You may not have an AR, but other people do. So ask yourself — do you really want to be the only person without an AR-15, when you’re surrounded by police and criminals [armed with them]?”

Colion states the obvious, which for some reason appears to elude gun control advocates:

“Criminals, by definition, don’t follow laws. And as a result, criminals have all the guns they’re not supposed to have — like the AR-15.”

He’s got a gift for breaking it down:

“Why would you want the fight for your life to be an uneven match? I want what the criminal is trying to use against me or better. So if criminals have AR-15s that they could possibly use against you, then you need an AR-15 [to] fight back against them. This is not rocket science.”

Reason #5:

You need an AR-15 because you don’t trust the government.

And you’re not alone:

“A study from the Pew Research Center found that only two in ten Americans said they trust the government in Washington to do what is right, ‘just about always’ two percent of the time, or ‘most of the time’ nineteen percent of the time. … The study also found that only 29 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they trust the government just about always or most of the time — which is odd considering that people who ask, ‘Why do you need an AR-15?’ are typically if not always Democrat or Democratic-leaning independents. If the vast majority of Americans don’t trust the government, why would you leave yourself defenseless to the same government you don’t trust?”

The man connects America’s beginnings with a contemporary right to bear arms:

“The founding fathers used their own rifles to win the Revolutionary War against a tyrannical government. They then wrote the Second Amendment to protect the…right to keep and bear arms so that…people of the future could use their own rifles — like they just did — to either be a deterrent…or to fight back against a tyrannical government — foreign or domestic. The most effective tool to do this right now…is the AR-15.”

He concludes with a quote from former Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alex Kosinski, about Americans’ access to ARs in the event of federal tyranny:

“However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

Colion makes potent points; will those across the aisle ever hear them? Either way, a large portion of the country will need to first learn what an AR-15 actually is. Might politicians and media members finally admit it’s not a machine gun? Call it less than likely[.] [source]

Good sound reasons.

'Tiny bug slayer' relative of dinosaurs and pterosaurs would have fit in the palm of your hand

From Live Science.com (July 14, 2020):

Massive dinosaurs and pterosaurs have a newfound cousin: a palm-size pipsqueak of a reptile, a new fossil reveals.

Even the name of the newly described reptile — Kongonaphon kely, or "tiny bug slayer" in Malagasy and Greek — is an homage to its diminutive size, as well as its likely diet of hard-shelled insects, the researchers said.

This tiny beast reveals that the dinosaurs and pterosaurs — which reached the sizes of school buses and airplanes, respectively — originated from teensy creatures, the researchers wrote in the study.

"There's a general perception of dinosaurs as being giants," study lead researcher Christian Kammerer, a research curator of paleontology at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, said in a statement. "But this new animal is very close to the divergence of dinosaurs and pterosaurs, and it's shockingly small."

K. kely, a resident of Madagascar about 237 million years ago during the Triassic period, measured just 4 inches (10 centimeters) tall. Its anatomy may help to explain how pterosaurs achieved flight and why both dinosaurs and pterosaurs had a feather-like fuzz covering their skin, the team noted. (As a reminder, pterosaurs are reptiles that lived at the same time as dinosaurs, but they are not actually dinosaurs.)

The pipsqueak's fossils were discovered in the Morondava Basin of southwestern Madagascar in 1998 by a group of researchers, led by study co-researcher John Flynn, the Frick Curator of Fossil Mammals at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City (at the time Flynn worked at the Field Museum in Chicago). An analysis of its anatomy revealed that K. kely belongs to the scientific clade called Ornithodira, whose members are the last common ancestors of the dinosaurs and pterosaurs and their descendants.

The early Ornithodira, however, are poorly known, because there are few known specimens like K. kely that date to the beginning of this lineage.

"It took some time before we could focus on these bones, but once we did, it was clear we had something unique and worth a closer look," Flynn said.

K. kely is one of the smallest non-avian ornithodirans on record. Other known early Ornithodira specimens are also small, but previously these critters were thought to be "isolated exceptions to the rule," Kammerer said. [read more]

Amazon made more than $1B using secret algorithm called ‘Project Nessie,’ FTC says

From The Hill.com (Nov. 3, 2023):

Amazon made more than $1 billion in excess profits by employing a secret algorithm codenamed “Project Nessie” that inflated prices, according to newly unredacted portions of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s antitrust lawsuit against the e-commerce giant.

Project Nessie, which Amazon used between 2015 and 2019, was able to raise prices on and off the platform by predicting whether other online stores would follow an Amazon price hike, the FTC said.

Using these predictions, the agency alleged, Amazon would raise prices when it was most likely to be followed and would maintain the higher price after other online stores adopted similar price hikes.

“The sole purpose of Project Nessie was to further hike consumer prices by manipulating other online stores into raising their prices,” the FTC said in the filing released Thursday.

“The additional profit Amazon attributed to Project Nessie is money that Amazon shoppers would have kept in their pockets if not for Amazon’s use of Project Nessie,” it added.

Amazon reportedly used the secret algorithm to set prices for more than 8 million items purchased by customers in one month in 2018. That year, the e-commerce giant estimated Project Nessie brought in an additional $334 million in profits.

The FTC alleged that between 2016 and 2018, the algorithm generated more than $1 billion in excess profits for Amazon. However, the agency suggested this figure does not account for the additional amount shoppers paid at other stores because of Project Nessie and is “likely far higher.”

While the algorithm typically ran continuously, Amazon would pause Project Nessie during the holiday shopping season and Prime Day due to “increased media focus and customer traffic,” according to the filing.

“After the public’s focus turned elsewhere, Amazon turned Project Nessie back on and ran it more widely to make up for the pause,” the FTC said.

Amazon halted its use of Project Nessie in 2019 in the face of regulatory scrutiny. However, it considered running experiments to improve the algorithm’s effectiveness in 2020 and 2021, and an executive reportedly suggested turning their “old friend Nessie” back on in early 2022 to boost profits, according to the filing.

“There are no technical barriers to Amazon resurrecting — or even expanding — its use of Project Nessie, just as it repeatedly has in the past,” the FTC warned. “Amazon could readily reverse the current pause and begin using Nessie again at any time to hike prices for consumers and undermine competition.” [source]

Putin, North Korea Sign Defense Pact Akin to Military Alliance

From Newsmax.com (June 19, 2024):

The leaders of North Korea and Russia signed an agreement Wednesday that deepens their military cooperation to include a mutual defense pledge to help each other if attacked, with the North's Kim Jong Un calling the new ties an "alliance."

Kim spoke at a rare press conference following his meeting with President Vladimir Putin in Pyongyang, announcing the signing of a "comprehensive strategic partnership" that the Russian leader said included defensive elements.

"The comprehensive partnership agreement signed today provides, among other things, for mutual assistance in the event of aggression against one of the parties to this agreement," said Putin, who was making his first visit to North Korea in 24 years.

Putin's visit, which is likely to reshape decades of Russia-North Korea relations at a time when both face international isolation, is being watched closely by Seoul and Washington, which have expressed concern about their growing military ties.

The reaction from China, the North's main political and economic benefactor and an increasingly important ally for Moscow, has been muted.

Kim said the pact would expand cooperation in the areas of politics, economy and defense, calling it "strictly peace-loving and defensive" in nature.

"Our two countries' relations have been elevated to the new higher level of an alliance," Kim said.

At the start of their summit, Kim expressed "unconditional support" for "all of Russia's policies," including "a full support and firm alliance" for Putin's war with Ukraine.

Putin said Moscow was fighting the hegemonic, imperialist policy of the United States and its allies, Russian media reported.

"We highly appreciate your consistent and unwavering support for Russian policy, including in the Ukrainian direction," Russian state news agency RIA quoted Putin as saying at the start of the talks.

Russia was hit with U.S.-led Western sanctions after Putin launched a full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine in February 2022 in what Moscow called a "special military operation."

'Unconditional Unwavering Support'

Putin, who had hosted Kim at a summit in September in the Russian Far East that accelerated the two countries' military cooperation, received a lavish welcome in Pyongyang.

An honor guard including mounted soldiers, and a large crowd of civilians gathered at the Kim Il Sung Square by the Taedong River running through the capital. The scene included children holding balloons and giant portraits of the two leaders with national flags adorning the square's main building.

Kim and Putin then rode to the Kumsusan Palace for summit talks.

Earlier, Kim said the increasingly complicated security environment around the world called for a stronger strategic dialog with Russia.

"And I want to reaffirm that we will unconditionally and unwaveringly support all of Russia's policies," Kim told Putin.

North Korea "expresses full support and solidarity to the Russian government, army and people in carrying out a special military operation in Ukraine to protect sovereignty, security interests, as well as territorial integrity," he said.

Putin arrived at Pyongyang's airport earlier in the day. After Kim welcomed him with an embrace, the two shared "pent-up inmost thoughts" on the ride to the state guest house, North Korean state media said.

The countries' partnership was an "engine for accelerating the building of a new multi-polar world" and Putin's visit demonstrated the invincibility and durability of their friendship and unity, North Korea's state news agency KCNA said.

Russia has used its warming ties with North Korea to needle Washington, while heavily sanctioned North Korea has won political backing and promises of economic support and trade from Moscow.

The United States and its allies say they fear Russia could provide aid for North Korea's missile and nuclear programs, which are banned by U.N. Security Council resolutions, and have accused Pyongyang of providing ballistic missiles and artillery shells that Russia has used in its war in Ukraine.

Moscow and Pyongyang have denied weapons transfers.

'Alternate Trade Mechanism'

After Putin's arrival in Pyongyang was delayed by hours, he emerged from his plane at a pre-dawn hour and was greeted by Kim on the red carpet alone, without the grand ceremony the North put on for Chinese President Xi Jinping on his 2019 visit.

The pair then rode in Putin's Russian-made Aurus limousine to the Kumsusan State Guest House.

State media photos showed streets of Pyongyang lined with portraits of Putin and the facade of the unfinished and vacant 101-story pyramid-shaped Ryugyong Hotel brightly lit with a giant message "Welcome Putin."

In a signal that Russia, a veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council, is reassessing its approach to North Korea, Putin praised Pyongyang ahead of his arrival for resisting what he said was U.S. economic pressure, blackmail and threats.

In an article for North Korea's official ruling party newspaper, he promised to "develop alternative trade and mutual settlement mechanisms not controlled by the West" and "build an equal and indivisible security architecture in Eurasia." [source]

Interesting. Not sure how Russia benefits from this alliance since N. Korea's arms aren't as good as Russia's. Since both countries aren't friends of America, this alliance sounds more like the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Another article on the alliance:

How rising anti-American axis sees US weakness, and is ready to pounce

Is AI Just Another Tool, or Something Else?

From Breakpoint.org (Jan. 8, 2024):

It’s not uncommon to hear artificial intelligence described as a new “tool” that extends and expands our technological capabilities. Already there are thousands of ways people are utilizing artificial intelligence. All tools help accomplish a task more easily or efficiently. Some tools, however, have the potential to change the task at a fundamental level. 

This is among the challenges presented by AI. If in the end it is not clear what AI is helping us to achieve more efficiently, this emerging technology will be easily abused. AI’s potential impact on education is a prime example.

Since the days of Socrates, the goal of education was not only for students to gain knowledge but also the wisdom and experience to use that knowledge well. Whether the class texts appeared on scrolls or screens mattered little. Learning remained the goal, regardless of the tools used.

In a recent article at The Hill, English professor Mark Massaro described a “wave” of chatbot cheating now making it nearly impossible to grade assignments or to know whether students even complete them. He has received essays written entirely by AI, complete with fake citations and statistics but meticulously formatted to appear legitimate. In addition to hurting the dishonest students who aren’t learning anything, attempts to flag AI-generated assignments, a process often powered by AI, have the potential to yield false positives that bring honest students under suspicion.

Some professors are attempting to make peace with the technology, encouraging students to use AI-generated “scaffolding” to construct their essays. However, this is kind of like legalizing drugs: There’s little evidence it will cut down on abuse. 

Consider also the recent flood of fake news produced by AI. In an article in The Washington Post, Pranshu Verma reported that “since May, websites hosting AI-created false articles have increased by more than 1,000 percent.” According to one AI researcher, “Some of these sites are generating hundreds if not thousands of articles a day. … This is why we call it the next great misinformation superspreader.”

Sometimes, this faux journalism appears among otherwise legitimate articles. Often, the technology is used by publications to cut corners and feed the content machine. However, it can have sinister consequences.

A recent AI-generated story alleged that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s psychiatrist had committed suicide. The fact that this psychiatrist never existed didn’t stop the story from circulating on TV, news sites, and social media in several languages. When confronted, the owners of the site said they republished a story that was “satire,” but the incident demonstrates that the volume of this kind of fake content would be nearly impossible to police.

Of course, there’s no sense in trying to put the AI genie back in a bottle. For better or worse, the technology is here to stay. We must develop an ability to evaluate its legitimate uses from its illegitimate uses. In other words, we must know what AI is for, before experimenting with what it can do.

That will require first knowing what human beings are for. For example, Genesis is clear (and research confirms) that human beings were made to work. After the fall, toil “by the sweat of your brow” is a part of work. The best human inventions throughout history are the tools that reduce needless toil, blunt the effects of the curse, and restore some dignity to those who work.

We should ask whether a given application of AI helps achieve worthy human goals—for instance, teaching students or accurately reporting news—or if it offers shady shortcuts and clickbait instead. Does it restore dignity to human work, or will it leave us like the squashy passengers of the ship in Pixar’s Wall-E—coddled, fed, entertained, and utterly useless?

Perhaps most importantly, we must govern what AI is doing to our relationships. Already, our most impressive human inventions—such as the printing press, the telephone, and the internet—facilitated more rapid and accurate human communication, but they also left us more isolated and disconnected from those closest to us. Obviously, artificial intelligence carries an even greater capacity to replace human communication and relationships (for example, chatbots and AI girlfriends).

In a sense, the most important questions as we enter the age of AI are not new. We must ask, what are humans for? And, how can we love one another well? These questions won’t easily untangle every ethical dilemma, but they can help distinguish between tools designed to fulfill the creation mandate and technologies designed to rewrite it. [source]

AI should be used a tool. Using it any other way, can lead you into precarious territory. So, be cautious. We are living in interesting times.

The Seven Truths of Innovation and the LEGO Group’s Decline Part 2

Fifth Principle: Make It Authentic

LEGO long ago figured out that kids’ fantasy lives grow out of their real lives. That in fact, the everyday world that children observe is the feedstock for their imaginations. Well before the advent of the modern brick, one of Ole Kirk’s top-selling toys was the plastic, lifelike 781 Ferguson Traktor, modeled on the Massey-Fergusons found on many a postwar European farm. The logic was inescapable: if Dad’s got a tractor, the child should have one, too—as well as miniature hoes, cultivators, and other implements that could be attached to the toy. Today, a quick trip through YouTube reveals more than a few clips, posted by grown-up LEGO devotees, of remote-controlled mini Massey-Fergusons custom-built out of bricks.

Sixth Principle: First the Stores, Then the Kids

Although the LEGO Group’s guiding mission is to develop children through play, it’s the stores, not the kids, who rank first among the company’s priorities.

……….

The Seven Truths of Innovation:

1. Hire diverse and creative people.    
2. Head for blue-ocean markets. For more than a decade, business thinkers such as W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, the authors of Blue Ocean Strategy, have exhorted companies to push beyond the tactic of making incremental improvements to existing products and instead swim for the open water of untapped market spaces.    
3. Be customer driven.
4. Practice disruptive innovation. In his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen introduced his theory of disruptive innovation, which he defined as a less pricey product or service, initially designed for less-demanding customers, which catches on and captures its market, displacing the incumbents.
5. Foster open innovation—heed the wisdom of the crowd.    
6. Explore the full spectrum of innovation.    
7. Build an innovation culture. [LEGO] put a premium on audacity and nonconformity, daring to scuttle a beloved but tiring brand such as DUPLO and replace it with something entirely new. Again and again, they upended the LEGO status quo.

   What’s more, the LEGO Group’s executive team built a culture within the company that valued and celebrated creativity above all else. Management encouraged people in every part of the organization to think outside the proverbial box and it rewarded those who did.

………

What should we take away from the LEGO Group’s bid to become a truly customer-first company? Let us suggest four essential lessons.

In a crisis, act first; then plan. Before it could get the new LEGO Development Process up and running, the company relied on deeply experienced and engaged executives such as Mads Nipper to point the way. Until they developed an approach to testing with kids, designers essentially tested their ideas on Nipper and other veteran managers. Their ready-fire-aim review sessions were far from ideal, but they were good enough.

Mix it up. LEGO didn’t attempt to find one “right” solution. It launched a wide array of ventures to reconnect with customers—from small, no-risk efforts such as the Ambassador program to experimental approaches such as tapping adult fans for LEGO Factory and big structural initiatives such as remaking the LDP [LEGO Development Process]. As time went by, managers culled what didn’t work, even as they sought new ways of engaging customers.

Let customers walk in your shoes. LEGO grew adept at finding creative ways to use the Web to connect with kids and adult fans. But the most far-reaching changes came out of its face-to-face interactions with customers at events such as BrickFest and at testing sessions with kids. LEGO found that it’s not enough to walk in customers’ shoes. Sometimes you have to let them walk in your shoes, by letting them create stories, characters, and building experiences out of ideas that you show them.

Set the course; then get out of the way. As the LDP took shape, the company’s leaders began to take less of a top-down approach to innovation. Managers still decided what customers they wanted to target. And they still allocated resources, enforced processes, and set priorities. But when the development teams started engaging with kids, the execs let the teams take on far more decision-making authority.

Source: Brick by Brick. How LEGO Rewrote the Rules of Innovation and Conquered the Global Toy Industry (2013) by David C. Robertson.

The Fathers of Communism Were Racist

From The Daily Signal.com (July 13, 2020):

There are plenty of good reasons to abandon the teachings of Karl Marx.

Chief among them is how Marx’s noxious communist ideology has led to suffering and death on a mass scale and has been the ideology at the heart of some of the most brutal and inhumane dictatorships of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Unfortunately, some still try to peddle communism as right in principle if troubled in implementation.

Following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and the outbreak of protests and then riots across the country, Black Lives Matter the organization rose quickly alongside black lives matter, the statement.

Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a founder of the Black Lives Matter organization, had no problem defining herself and at least one of the two other founders, Alicia Garza, as “Marxists.” (Opal Tometi is the third founder.)

“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame,” Khan-Cullors said in a 2015 interview with Real News Network. “Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers. We are trained Marxists.”

In addition, there is no question that the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has a radical and Marxist agenda, if one goes by its official 2015 platform, which calls for the end of the nuclear family, among other extremist suggestions.

It’s interesting to see this organization embrace Marx at a time when so many are calling for a historical reckoning for wide swaths of once-venerated heroes.

We’ve seen an explosion of calls to remove symbols of America’s past in the name of “anti-racism.”

Previous generations and historical figures have been subjected to a ruthless “presentist” standard by which almost all fall victim.

But if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt must fall, why not the fathers of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?

Though Marx and Engels are perhaps most known for their ideas about class conflict and revolution, they both dabbled in theories—increasingly popular at the time—about race and racial hierarchies.

Not only that, but their private correspondence demonstrated an even larger degree of hostility to black-skinned people, as their writings were littered with racial slurs.

In an 1887 letter, Engels wrote that blacks were closer to “the animal kingdom” than the rest of humanity, in a reference to his mixed race son-in-law. [read more]

Today’s Public Health Emergency: Restoring Trust With Seven Steps COMMENTARY

From Real Clear Politics.com (Oct. 30, 2023):

The public health emergency of the SARS2-CoV pandemic ended long ago, but America faces a new emergency. Faith in health agencies has plummeted more rapidly since 2019 than any other government institution, with almost two-thirds now rating the FDA and the CDC as “only fair or poor.” Half of America no longer has much confidence in science itself. 

The loss of trust is part of the disgraceful legacy of those who held power during the pandemic. Two presidents and dozens of governors hid behind public health bureaucrats Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx, Robert Redfield, and Rochelle Walensky. They ignored Henderson’s classic review 15 years earlier showing lockdowns were both ineffective and extremely harmful. They rejected the alternative, targeted protection, recommended as early as March 2020 by Ioannidis, Katz, and Atlas. Beyond a reckless disregard for foreseeable destruction from their policies, America’s leaders imposed sinful harms and long-lasting damage on our children, the totality of which may not be realized for decades. Mandatory school closings, forced isolation of teens and college students, and required injections of healthy children with experimental drugs attempting to shield adults will be a permanent black mark on America. And the truth cannot be denied – the Birx-Fauci lockdowns failed to stop the death and the spread of infection (see Bjornskov, Bendavid, Agrawal, Herby, and Kerpen) and inflicted tremendous harms, shifting the pandemic burden to low-income families to spare the affluent.

America’s next president needs to lead with strong reforms, because the Birx-Fauci stain on public health and science jeopardizes the credibility of all future health guidance. Here are some recommended initial executive orders:

• Clearly define by law “public health emergency” with strict time limits (e.g., two weeks), requiring legislation to extend. Human rights were violated in the United States. Guarantees of the most fundamental freedoms upon which this country was founded – speech, religion, assembly – were suddenly reversed, without limit, by lockdowners under the guise of “the science” and “safety.” The U.S., with freedoms explicitly defined as “endowed by their Creator,” must be managed in concert with its system of laws, even during health emergencies.
• Add term limits (e.g., six years) to all health agency positions, including top- and mid-level posts, after first cleaning house of all heads of CDC, NIH, and FDA. For instance, Anthony Fauci worked as a bureaucrat for 38 years. Such longevity accrues power and seems to inhibit dissenting voices, while setting up unhealthy relationships with outside parties, including the media.
• Forbid all drug royalty-sharing by employees of FDA, NIH, CDC, and forbid related private jobs for five years after government service. OpenTheBooks revealed that between 2009 and 2021, approximately 54,000 royalty payments totaling $325.8 million were paid by third party entities to NIH researchers, sources redacted. We know that Dr. Francis Collins, the NIH’s former director, received 21 payments and Dr. Anthony Fauci received 37 payments between 2010 and 2021. This shocking conflict of interest, with hundreds of agency employees garnering personal profit forcibly revealed by FOIA requests, is the most urgent among many reforms.
• Require full transparency of all FDA, CDC, and NIH discussions with immediate posting to public forums. Statements from all advisors in those meetings, such as the startling October 26, 2021, recommendation of Eric Rubin, M.D., FDA advisor for children’s COVID vaccines, that “we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is [in children] unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes,” must be widely visible to the public.
• Restatement with executive order that the CDC and other health agencies are strictly advisory and do not have power to set laws or mandates. Limiting health agency power is a way to begin holding elected officials accountable to the citizens, rather than allowing the pretense of hiding behind those agencies.
• Decentralize today’s cartel of NIH funding that controls all academic science careers and university medical centers. More than 15 U.S. medical centers receive over $500 million each – per year – from the NIH, the dominant funder of all scientific research, to the tune of $45 billion per year. Leverage on individual university scientists who owe their careers to NIH funding explains the February 2020 Lancet publication concocted behind closed doors calling the lab origin of the SARS2 virus a “conspiracy theory”– perhaps to conceal NIH malfeasance overseen by Drs. Collins and Fauci, who sent more than $2 million taxpayer dollars to fund China’s dangerous gain-of-function research to circumvent our country’s restrictions. Instead, disseminating control of NIH funding across regions with block grants to states would reduce this grip on independent voices.
• Immediately halt all binding agreements or pledges to the World Health Organization. The U.S. is the largest funding nation to WHO activities, but the WHO record is abysmal. In addition to supporting China’s stonewalling, Director Tedros backed China’s reckless human rights violations, stating “the Chinese government is to be congratulated for the extraordinary measures it has taken to contain the outbreak,” even as it used pseudoscience to essentially imprison its citizens. WHO disregarded evidence in its guidelines on mitigation, censored its own staff for acknowledging limits of asymptomatic spread, and flipped fundamental definitions like “herd immunity“ to influence behavior, rather than to dispassionately inform with data. We must hope Tedros was joking when he said, “China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.” Blind to the obvious need for reassessment, the Biden administration’s ambassador to the WHO Pamela Hamamoto already promised “The United States is committed to the [WHO’s] Pandemic Accord” even without seeing the final version. In that Accord, the WHO will define “public health emergency” for other countries – the fundamental basis to justify restrictions on the public. What is the rationale for any sovereign nation to allow a third party to legally define and impose such a critical state?

Finally, American voters need to wake up and hold elected officials accountable. Without substantial reforms, the promised freedoms of the United States will have lost legitimacy. [source]

Good advice. All gov't agencies should be transparent with their practices. America pays their salaries. They should be held accountable.

Anti-Israel Protesters Block LGBTQ Pride Parade in Philadelphia

From Breitbart.com (June 2, 2024):

The protesters were heard chanting a variety of anti-Israel slogans that have been said at protests around the country. They could be heard shouting, “Palestine will live forever! From the sea to the river!” and “No pride in genocide.”

According to the New York Post, the blockade happened “at the intersection of 11th Street and Locust Street after the Philly Pride March and Festival kicked off around 10:30 a.m. at Washington Square and headed to the city’s Gayborhood section.”

“Others wore Palestinian-style Kufiya scarves around their heads, and one protester could be seen holding a white sheet stuffed to look like a deceased child wrapped in a shroud,” the outlet added.

The protest highlights a growing tension between segments of the Democrat Party base who believe that anti-Israel protests should take precedent over other causes like LGBTQ activism. [source]

Evidently the anti-Israel protesters don't want to join the alphabet peoples parade. A bunch of party poopers. They're no fun at all. Maybe Antifa or BLM can broker a peace between the two.  Then again it's fun to watch the Left collide with itself.

Germany Says It Will Execute ICC Warrant on Netanyahu

From Newsmax.com (May 22, 2024):

Germany said Wednesday it will abide by an International Criminal Court arrest warrant and detain Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he step foot on German soil.

The ICC on Monday issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes in its military response to Iranian-backed Hamas' Oct. 7 terrorist attack. The ICC also issued arrest warrants Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, its military leader Muhammad Deif, and its Qatar-based political leader Ismail Haniyeh on charges of war crimes.

A dramatic appeal written in German and English and posted Tuesday on X by Ron Prosor, Israel's ambassador to Germany was rebuffed by the administration of Prime Minister Olaf Scholz, the Jerusalem Post reported.

"This is outrageous!" Prosor wrote. "The German 'Staatsräson' is now being put to the test – no ifs or buts. This contrasts with the weak statements we hear from some institutions and political actors. The public statement that Israel has the right to self-defense loses credibility if our hands are tied as soon as we defend ourselves."

Staatsräson is the German word that refers to Germany's pledge to ensure that Israel's security is part of its national security and interests, the Post reported. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared during her 2008 Knesset speech that Israel is part of Germany's state of being.

"The Chief Prosecutor [of the ICC] equates a democratic government with Hamas, thereby demonizing and delegitimizing Israel, and the Jewish people," Prosor wrote. "He has completely lost his moral compass. Germany has a responsibility to readjust this compass. This disgraceful political campaign could become a nail in the coffin for the West and its institutions. Do not let it come to that!"

But the Post reported that Scholz spokesman Steffen Hebestreit, when was asked Wednesday if the German government would execute an ICC arrest order against Netanyahu, he said, "Of course. Yes, we abide by the law."

Germany is among the 124 countries that are part of the ICC, which was adopted in 1998 through a United Nations treaty, the Rome Statute. Israel and the United States are not signatories to the treaty and do not recognize the ICC's authority.

Germany is a generous donor to the ICC, the Post reported, and news that its government would arrest and deport an Israeli prime minister and defense minister if they stepped foot on German soil in light of the country's history with Nazis exterminating Jews in World War II has triggered shocking reports in German media and on social media.

The Post reported it sought comment Wednesday from German's Foreign Ministry about Prosor's X post and Scholz's decision to arrest Netanyahu if the warrant is implemented. [source]

Disgusting! The ICC wants to arrest Netanyahu for defending his country? The ICC is a bunch of anti-Semites and every country should withdrawal from the court. Germany should be ashamed of itself

The Insanity of Denying Free Will

From Breakpoint.org (Nov. 20, 2023):

In his book Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton observed that even insane explanations for the world can have a perverse consistency. A madman who thinks he’s the king of England has a ready explanation for anyone who denies his claim: They’re conspirators trying to keep him from his throne. “His mind,” wrote Chesterton, “moves in a perfect but narrow circle.”

Chesterton’s asylum example also applies to a recent article published at Phys.org about a scientist who has written a book to convince everyone that humans don’t have free will. Neuroendocrinologist and MacArthur “genius grant” winner Robert Sapolsky has studied people and primates for over 40 years. In his book Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, Dr. Sapolsky argues that humans are molecular machines, wholly determined by our genes, our environments, and our past. Thus, our behavior, even when condemned as criminal or evil, is no more a choice than “the convulsions of a seizure, the division of cells or the beating of our hearts.”

Of course, the implications if this were true would be incredible. As a Los Angeles Times reporter memorably put it:

This means accepting that a man who shoots into a crowd has no more control over his fate than the victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane.

However, rather than justifying or enabling acts of violence, Sapolsky believes his deterministic view of human choices could actually make society better:

The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over. We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.

Sapolsky’s argument isn’t new. It is, in fact, the standard, reductive version of metaphysical naturalism, which teaches that all phenomena have material causes. Since these causes are themselves materially caused, nature is a closed system of dominoes. In this theory, an observer with perfect knowledge of the initial conditions of the universe could accurately predict every event that followed, right down to the choices individuals make about what to eat, where to live, who to love, what to believe, and even whether to kill.

The problem, which philosophers and writers over the years have pointed out, is that if everything is determined and humans do not have a free will, that would include the belief in metaphysical naturalism and every part of the thought process that led to it. Assuming this view, the reason Sapolsky believes what he does has nothing to do with what he has learned in his research or whether it’s true. Instead, it is the predetermined result of a long process of material causes stretching back to the Big Bang. His book, his arguments, and his belief that they’ll somehow make the world a better place are not meaningful. They’re just the latest dominoes to have fallen, and it could never have been otherwise.

In his book Miracles, C.S. Lewis critiqued this brand of reductive naturalism:

[N]o account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.

To his credit, Sapolsky seems aware of this absurdity but just accepts it: “It is logically indefensible, ludicrous, meaningless to believe that something ‘good’ can happen to a machine,” he admits. “Nonetheless, I am certain that it is good if people feel less pain and more happiness.”

But why is it good for people to be happier or have less pain if everything is determined? Why is it preferable to live in a society marked by peace and safety, instead of chaos and violence? And why appeal to people to make a meaningful choice between these options when their choice is already determined and meaningless? 

Chesterton’s answer to such small, reductive worldviews was to confront them with the immensity of the real world and human experience, and to notice how they do more explaining away than explaining.

We know our choices are not mere results of physical processes, and that they have a deep moral significance. We know it so deeply that even those trying to convince us we’re mere machines must contradict themselves by treating some choices, such as their choice to write books to convince readers, as if they mean something.

In the very act of denying our moral responsibility in a moral universe, we must, in some sense, act as if meaning exists. It’s a crazy effort to deny meaning, but that doesn’t stop even geniuses from trying it. All the more evidence of our profound freedom, and of our ability to abuse it. [source]

It is insane to deny freewill.

Main Points of Jonathan Alpert's Article "Is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Real?"

From Grok.com: 

Jonathan Alpert, a Manhattan-based psychotherapist, argues in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece (published around early November 2025) that "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS)—a term often used dismissively in political discourse—is a legitimate psychological phenomenon he observes in his clinical practice. Drawing from his experiences treating patients, Alpert frames TDS not as mere partisanship but as a form of obsessive preoccupation akin to anxiety disorders or OCD-like behaviors. Below are the article's key points, based on its core arguments and examples:

• TDS as a Real Psychological Pathology: Alpert asserts that TDS is not hyperbole but a "profound pathology" manifesting as hyperfixation on Donald Trump, leading to irrational emotional distress. He describes it as the "defining pathology of our time," where patients exhibit symptoms like restlessness, sleep disturbances, and trauma-like responses triggered solely by Trump's image, name, or news coverage.
• Prevalence in Clinical Practice: He claims that approximately 75% of his patients present with TDS symptoms, often within minutes of starting sessions. This widespread occurrence, particularly in a liberal-leaning area like Manhattan, underscores its impact on mental health, with patients seeking therapy explicitly for Trump-related distress.
• Specific Symptoms and Triggers: Common manifestations include inability to sleep, feeling "traumatized" by Trump, and compulsive checking of news for Trump-related content, which exacerbates anxiety. Alpert shares an anonymized example of a patient who couldn't enjoy a vacation because seeing Trump on her device caused immediate triggering, illustrating how TDS disrupts daily life and enjoyment.
• Beyond Ideology: A Mental Health Issue: Initially skeptical and viewing it as ideological bias, Alpert evolved to see TDS as unhealthy fixation on a single figure, regardless of political validity. He emphasizes that such obsession—where Trump dominates thoughts and emotions—is maladaptive and requires therapeutic intervention to restore balance, rather than being dismissed as "normal" political disagreement.
• Call for Awareness and Treatment: Alpert urges greater recognition of political obsessions in mental health discussions, suggesting therapy techniques like cognitive reframing to help patients detach from the fixation. He warns that ignoring TDS could worsen societal polarization, positioning it as a broader cultural symptom needing professional address.

The article blends clinical anecdotes with broader commentary, sparking debate (e.g., criticism for potentially breaching patient confidentiality or politicizing therapy). Alpert's Fox News appearance around the same time amplified these ideas, but the WSJ piece focuses more on professional insights than partisan rhetoric. 

Source: Is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' Real? 

Definitely it is a mental disorder. The people with the disorder seriously need help. See the link below for why.

Therapist says he received threats after calling ‘Trump derangement syndrome' real 'pathology'

You’ve probably never heard of terahertz waves, but they could change your life

 From PopSci.com (Mar. 22, 2022):

There’s a gap on the electromagnetic spectrum where engineers can not tread.

The spectrum covers everything from radio waves and microwaves, to the light that reaches our eyes, to X-rays and gamma rays. And humans have mastered the art of sending and receiving almost all of them.

There is an exception, however. Between the beams of visible light and the blips of radio static, there lies a dead zone where our technology isn’t effective. It’s called the terahertz gap. For decades now, no one’s succeeded in building a consumer device that can transmit terahertz waves.

“There’s a laundry list of potential applications,” says Qing Hu, an electrical engineer at MIT.

But some researchers are slowly making progress. If they stick the landing, they might open up a whole new suite of technologies, like the successor to Wi-Fi or a smarter detection system for skin cancer.

The mystery of the terahertz

Look at the terahertz gap as a borderland. On the left side, there are microwaves and longer radio waves. On the right side lies the infrared spectrum. (Some scientists even call the terahertz gap “far infrared.”) Our eyes can’t see infrared, but as far as our technologies are concerned, it’s just like light.

Radio waves are crucial for communication, especially between electronic devices, making them universal in today’s electronics. Light powers the optical fibers that underpin the internet. These realms of technology typically feed off different wavelengths, and uneasily coexist in the modern world.

But both realms struggle to go far into the terahertz neutral zone. Standard electronic components, like silicon chips, can’t go about their business quickly enough to make terahertz waves. Light-producing technologies like lasers, which are right at home in infrared, don’t work with terahertz waves either. Even worse, terahertz waves don’t last long in the Earth’s atmosphere: Water vapor in the air tends to absorb them after only a few dozen feet.

There are a few terahertz wavelengths that can squeeze through the water vapor. Astronomers have built telescopes that capture those bands, which are especially good for seeing interstellar dust. For best use, those telescopes need to be stationed in the planet’s highest and driest places, like Chile’s Atacama Desert, or outside the atmosphere altogether in space.

The rest of the terahertz gap is shrouded in mist. Researchers like Hu are trying to fix this, but it isn’t easy. [read more]