Self-healing material mimics the resilience of soft biological tissue

From Kurzweil AI.net (May 21):

Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) researchers have created a self-healing material that spontaneously repairs itself under extreme mechanical damage, similar to many natural organisms. Applications include bio-inspired first-responder robots that instantly heal themselves when damaged and wearable computing devices that recover from being dropped.

The new material is composed of liquid metal droplets suspended in a soft elastomer (a material with elastic properties, such as rubber). When damaged, the droplets rupture to form new connections with neighboring droplets, instantly rerouting electrical signals. Circuits produced with conductive traces of this material remain fully and continuously operational when severed, punctured, or have material removed.

“Other research in soft electronics has resulted in materials that are elastic, but are still vulnerable to mechanical damage that causes immediate electrical failure,” said Carmel Majidi, PhD, a CMU associate professor of mechanical engineering, who also directs the Integrated Soft Materials Laboratory. “The unprecedented level of functionality of our self-healing material can enable soft-matter electronics and machines to exhibit the extraordinary resilience of soft biological tissue and organisms.”

The self-healing material also exhibits high ability to conduct electricity, which is not affected when stretched. That makes it ideal for uses in power and data transmission, as a health-monitoring device on an athlete during rigorous training, or an inflatable structure that can withstand environmental extremes on Mars, for example. [source]

Kind of sounds like the liquid shape-shifting terminator villain (T-1000) in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Hmmm.

One computer forecasting system predicted Trump’s victory—the one with the least human input.

From Next Gov.com (Nov. 10, 2016):

Donald Trump’s win surprised many around the world, but none more than the modelers and big league prognosticators who were calling for a likely Clinton victory. That outcome doesn’t mean data-driven forecasting died on Tuesday. In fact, the best performance went to an artificial intelligence able to crunch more data than its human rivals.

The takeaway? Forecasters need new ways to talk about the uncertainty of their models and need to expand beyond “polling data.” The Defense Department and the intelligence community, who have also grown fond of machine-aided prediction, would do well to heed that lesson.

There’s an important and overlooked distinction between a prediction (which suggests certainty) and a forecast, which acknowledges more than one possible outcome and then weighs multiple outcomes in terms of their relative probability. But humans, and particularly media types who report on polling information, like certainty. So forecasts are cast as predictions.

………………….

It’s thus not surprising the big winner in the polling contest last night was not a human at all but an artificial intelligence named MogIA. Developed by Indian entrepreneur Sanjiv Rai, it takes in 20 million data points from a variety of open public websites such as YouTube, Google, Twitter and Facebook to uncover trends in “user engagement.”

Rai said his exclusive arrangement with CNBC prevents him from talking about how the system works or crunches the data points.

“While most algorithms suffer from programmers/developer’s biases, MoglA aims at learning from her environment, developing her own rules at the policy layer and develop expert systems without discarding any data,” Rai told CNBC reporter Arjun Kharpal. [read more]

If that AI program can predict the next presidential election it’s a darn good program.

Happy Birthday, America!

Below is part of a transcript from Fox News show Life, Liberty & Levin March 18. Mark Levin interviews Dr. Larry Arnn about the Declaration of Independence:

LEVIN: Renowned president of Hillsdale College, expert on matters related to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Churchill and today's show we're going to dive deeply into these issues.

Let's start with the Declaration of Independence. Everybody knows we celebrate July 4th as Independence Day, but let's read part of the Declaration of Independence and maybe can you help explain some of these words to us, because we read it, goes really in our mouths, out our ears but these words have meaning.

First of all, before I read, they were very, very meticulous, weren't they, about what they put in the Declaration?

ARNN: Yes, well they -- mostly on the motion of John Adams, they picked Thomas Jefferson who had proved to be a beautiful writer of pamphlets leading up to the American Revolution, and they wanted somebody who could write in an elevated way and a moving way.

LEVIN: And they had various iterations of the Declaration until they finalized it, isn't that right?

ARNN: That's right, that's right. He sat and wrote it in a room by himself, July 1st and 2nd and then they debated it and then they voted and they altered it in some ways.

LEVIN: Let's start at beginning. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Now, here are the words I want to focus on with you, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Are those important? What does that mean?

ARNN: Well, the document is unprecedented, and it is unprecedented for two reasons. One is, it's a law. It's a political act of a people, a people formed by this act. And yet it starts out in the way you said, right, so the opening sentence is, "When in the course." that means any time, "One people," that means any people. So, it is eternal and universal.

Now the legal act that they undertake is to separate themselves from the strongest man on earth -- the King of England. And that's an act of war or treason, depending on who wins the war, and they need some standard to do that by.

And so, for the first time in human history, in this particular political act, they appeal to laws that are eternal and divine. That is to say, above what any -- no one can ever change them, right?

These are things that are set in nature. And so they go up that high in part because they simply have to, as you see in the very last sentence, it probably talked about that, it becomes -- it starts with this grand, sweeping universal and it ends with a particular pledge unto death of the people in the room, and they feel like they need some justification for this, and so they don't say "we want to," they say, "This is an act done in light of the great laws that always prevail. [read more]

An article about American Exceptionalism: “America Is More Than Political Differences — We Must Preserve American Exceptionalism, Not Throw It Away.”

A video by Glenn Beck:  Glenn on Understanding the Declaration of Independence

When a nation goes down, or a society perishes, one condition may always be found; they forgot where they came from. They lost sight of what had brought them along.  -- Carl Sandburg

The United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate.  -- Edward Grey (1862-1933), British statesman

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.  -- Samuel Adams

The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. -- Patrick Henry

Zero Emission Vehicles Can Increase Air Pollution: Study

From FEE.org (May 17):

A new report by economist Jonathan Lesser of the Manhattan Institute challenges the conventional wisdom that zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) are superior to new internal combustion vehicles (ICVs) on environmental grounds. Lesser also has an op-ed in Politico today based on the study.

Lesser’s analysis is detailed and quantitative, but the basic idea is simple: Zero-emission vehicles are only as clean as the electric power sources they plug into. Given the electricity fuel mix reasonably projected by the Energy Information Administration between now and 2050, both nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from the power plants supplying zero-emission vehicles will exceed the emissions from new internal combustion vehicles.

The study also finds that the carbon dioxide emission reductions achieved by zero-emission vehicles, even if all are powered by renewable sources, would be too small to detectably affect global temperatures and thus have no measurable economic value. (See "Air Pollution Regulation Isn’t the Answer" for more.) [read more]

Make sense to me. As for the last paragraph, it doesn’t matter to the Left because global warming is a religion to them.

Dick Morris: The Hard-Left Takeover in Mexico

From Breitbart.com (June 26):

Mexico’s presidency is going communist, following in the footsteps of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Hugo Chávez. But Mexico is not a thousand miles away like Venezuela or tiny like Cuba and Nicaragua. It’s huge — one-third the size of the U.S. — and shares a long border with us.

In the Mexican elections, scheduled for July 1, voters are apparently going to choose an authoritarian socialist — Andrés Manuel López Obrador (nicknamed AMLO) — as their new president.

AMLO leads the field with 51 percent of the vote, trailed by the PAN candidate Ricardo Anaya at 25 percent and the PRI nominee Jose Antonio Meade at 22 percent.

(I [Dick Morris] have worked for the PAN candidates in the past three elections including successful nominees Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderon. In the Calderon campaign, I worked hard to defeat AMLO. But I am not involved in this campaign).

AMLO is as radical as they come. He is a true Fidelista or, in more modern vernacular a Chavista (after Hugo Chávez of Venezuela) or a Sandinista (after Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua). National Review called AMLO a “Chávez wannabe.” He described Fidel Castro as “a giant,” who “knew how to steer his people and achieve authentic, true independence.” He is a dedicated socialist who we can count on being inveterately hostile to the United States in general and Donald Trump in particular.

Already the blame game in the U.S. has started. The Atlantic headlined its story about AMLO’s likely victory “Mexico’s Revenge” saying that “by antagonizing the U.S.’s neighbor to the south, Donald Trump has made the classic bully’s error: He has underestimated his victim.” [read more]

It looks like Mexico is going to get poorer than it already is. Drug cartels won’t be dealt with. This guy’s motto: Love and peace. Sort of like Obama’s “Hope and Change.” Meaningless. I strongly suggest any foreign companies in Mexico leave before this joker gets elected or they will be nationalized. It’s too bad for the Mexican people but I guess they didn’t have much choice in the elections. Definitely not good news for America.

Dick Morris: Ghost Voters Keep Democrats in Office

From Western Journal.com (May 18):

Voters who have moved away and those who are deceased may provide a solid core of Democrat votes in many key states.

Because most states do not have efficient or effective ways of purging their voter rolls when people leave the area or pass away, the names stay on the rolls and afford a great opportunity — in the absence of photo IDs — for fraudulent ballots to be cast in their name.

States are limited in what they can do to ascertain who still lives at a voter’s address and who has moved because courts have ruled that doing so could intimidate minority voters. [read more]

It’s good that the Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s “use it or lose it” policy for voters. Maybe other states will follow Ohio’s lead and purge their voter roles of dead and apathetic voters. Actually, if you are 110 years or older you should probably be automatically removed from the voter roles. 

What’s the Dems say? Give us your dead and illegal voters. (Okay, I made that up.)

Trump Puts an End to Taxpayer Subsidies for Unions

From The Daily Signal.com (May 29):

Government employee unions have enjoyed an absolute boondoggle in recent years, receiving hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds. But the boon could soon be over thanks to a new executive order from President Donald Trump.

Last Friday, the president signed an executive order requiring that federal government employees who work full-time for the public employee unions at taxpayer expense spend at least 75 percent of their paid time on the government’s business. The administration estimates this will save taxpayers $100 million.

This measure is one of three executive orders the president signed on Friday. Those orders do not eliminate taxpayer subsidies for public employee unions altogether—that is Congress’ job—but they do end the taxpayer subsidy of travel for union business; mandate that unions be charged fair market value for rents of government office space; streamline the public employee appeals process so that bad apples can be fired more rapidly; and force taxpayer-funded union workers to spend at least three-quarters of their time doing the people’s business.

Most people are shocked to learn that taxpayers have been footing the bill for public employee union salaries, but they become incensed when they learn that in 2016, union employees were paid $177 million by the federal government, not counting office space and travel expenses. [read more]

It’s about time. Now, Congress needs to get its act together and end subsidies for unions once and for all. The Dems would drop a load if that ever happened. To be fair, corporations don’t need subsidies either for that matter.

The Reason Liberals View Melania Trump as a Threat

From The Daily Signal.com (May 16):

Need more evidence that there are two Americas? Here: Left-wing hatred of Melania Trump is inversely proportional to flyover admiration for the first lady.

In just the last month, late-night clown Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump’s Slovenian accent, CNN contributor April Ryan attacked her as “not culturally American,” former Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines derided her genteel presence at former [first lady Barbara Bush’s] funeral, and horror writer Stephen King snickered at her hospitalization this week for kidney surgery.

Yet, while partisans in the political press and entertainment media work hard to stoke division against and resentment of the Trump administration, “Melania” is now among the fastest-growing baby names in the nation, according to recently released Social Security data. And a new poll by anti-Trump CNN released on Monday reported a 10 percent jump in the first lady’s favorability ratings—from 47 percent in January to 57 percent last week.

That’s nearly 6 in 10 Americans with a positive view of FLOTUS. Uh-oh!

………………

Despite Trump’s successful career as an internationally photographed model featured in Harper’s Bazaar, GQ, Vanity Fair, and Vogue, lib-dominated fashion and celebrity magazines have shunned her. Pop culture editors and producers—who turned Barack and Michelle Obama into the Beltway Brangelina, promoting their election campaign, re-election campaign, books, and every last pet project—have ghosted her.

Why? Fear.

The first lady is not just strikingly beautiful. She is worldly, well-traveled, and well-read. She speaks English, French, German, Italian, and Serbian, in addition to her native Slovenian—more languages than any other woman who has served as America’s first lady. Her devotion to son Barron is exemplary. Her aversion to limelight and lack of political ambition are refreshing. So is her ability to refrain from public grievance-mongering over “sacrifices” and trade-offs made between work and home life (looking at you, Hill and ‘Chelle O).

The hostile White House press corps blames Trump’s own reticence for the publicity vacuum around her. But I believe there’s something deeper at work:

More exposure to this interesting and remarkable woman would mean more familiarity with her. More familiarity with her might mean more popularity. And God forbid there be more Republican women in the public eye who can compete with—and win against—the usual parade of militant kvetchers and moaners who pass themselves off as feminist role models. [read more]

The Left doesn’t like the First Lady because she is married to President Donald Trump. Period. (Another reason why the Left doesn’t like her is because she doesn’t fit into the “box” that the Left puts women into.)

Justice Department Funded ‘Parent’ of Group Whose App Helps Illegal Immigrants

From Daily Signal.com (May 1):

An organization whose parent group received taxpayer funds developed and offers an app that allows illegal immigrants to notify family and lawyers when they encounter law enforcement.

The app, a computer program designed to run on a cell phone or other mobile device, also allows the user to warn other illegal immigrants when authorities are in the neighborhood.

A division of the Justice Department awarded at least $206,453 to the National Immigration Law Center, which advises illegal immigrants on their rights, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch.

The Office of Justice Programs awarded the grants between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, the records cited by the conservative government watchdog group show. That would overlap the administrations of both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. [read more]

All the open border people (like the Soros’ Open Society Foundation) love this app. Some much for justice.

Reporters Without Borders

From Bill OReilly.com (Apr. 25):

The group Reporters Without Borders has issued a study that says freedom of the press is dropping in America.  The reason according to the organization is the growing animus towards the U.S. media by we the people.

Of course, RWB places the blame for that on Donald Trump, who openly disparages the media because it is generally hostile to him.  But while President Trump’s posture does bring scrutiny on the press, he is not the primary reason for the distrust.  The truth is the media is harming itself.

Recently, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta said on camera that many Trump supporters are not capable of seeing reality.  Mr. Acosta’s shallow insult clearly demonstrates his bias.  The man is supposed to be an objective reporter, not a sociologist.  Having a guy like that covering a President he clearly loathes is not honest journalism.  And the folks know it. [read more]

Freedom of the press dropping in America? Really? Has this group been to Russia, Iran or China for instance? Any American citizen has the right to criticize the press including the president. Freedom of the press isn’t more important than freedom of speech. The press should be more responsible reporting the news

A Zero-Tariff G7 Area? Yes, Please!

From FEE.org (June 13):

In yet another stunning turn of events at the current G7 meeting in Canada, Donald Trump has argued for a tariff-free G7 area. This would mean zero tariffs and no subsidies. Regardless of whether Trump's suggestion is to be taken seriously, the reactions speak for themselves.

This Is Not the First Time Trump Has Suggested This

Larry Kudlow, national economic adviser to the President, had indicated to the press that he had a “lengthy discussion” about the idea of creating a tariff-free G7.

Reduce those barriers. In fact go to zero, zero tariffs, zero no-tariff barriers, zero subsidies, and along the way we are going to have to clean up the international trading system about which there was virtual consensus of agreement.

"Ultimately that's what you want, you want tariff free, no barriers, and you want no subsidies because you have some countries subsidizing industries and that's not fair," Trump said. "So you go tariff free, you go barrier free, you go subsidy free, that's the way you learned at the Wharton School of Finance."

After Trump's introduction of new tariffs on both steel and aluminum, the idea that the President would suddenly favor dropping tariffs altogether seems odd. However, it appears that the tariffs aren't really a means of getting the American steel and aluminum industry back on its feet, as mercantilists would lead you to believe, but a means of retaliation. For Trump, America's trading partners have been treating it unfairly, which is why he is obligated to respond to the trade-threat. He is, quite frankly, not entirely wrong about that.

……………………

The (Absence of) Reactions

Sir Simon Fraser, former permanent secretary at Britain’s Foreign Office, called Trump's trade suggestion "false" and "bizarre": "It amounts to a total G7 free trade bloc for goods,” he said. “This would create massive distortions of world trade. I doubt US officials or US industry and agriculture lobbies support it.”

Sir Simon Fraser is certainly right that some agricultural lobbies would not support it, but Donald Trump was also arguably elected to oppose the swamp of lobbyists and special interests that continue to swarm Washington, D.C.

As for the G7 leaders present, most seemed to have been taken aback by the suggestion, and even after a handful of hours, the responses were still timid. The self-proclaimed voices for free trade have suddenly become mute after someone suggested genuine free trade. Could it be that they are afraid of their own agricultural lobbies at home?

Free Trade Is More than Ideology

The European Union and other G7 partners need to improve their capacity for making a consistent case for free trade. The argument for free trade is all too often made in an ideological fashion, requiring us to stand for “openness” to the world. Instead, we should focus on the economically self-evident benefits of global trade. [read more]

I like the no-tariff idea for the G7. It’s a win-win. It’s too bad the G7 doesn’t. Then again they are playing politics.

Social Justice: When Good Becomes Evil?

From FEE.org:

Traditionally in the West, Justice was defined as, “To give to each his due.” Western men were expected to judge the individual and his actions against what were then considered objective truths. For anyone watching the culture these days, especially on college campuses, it should be clear that that’s no longer the accepted understanding of Justice.

Informed by the simplistic belief of Cultural Marxism that history and life is nothing more than a nearly perpetual battle between the oppressed and the oppressors, our cultural leaders have replaced Justice with Social Justice.

What's the Difference?

Well, if one distills the main thrust of Social Justice, one comes to understand that it is the belief that a just society cannot exist until all identity groups have parity with the others. In such a system, we do not judge the individual based upon his actions, but rather we judge him based upon the identity group with which he is most associated. Social Justice Warriors then work to determine which identity groups are oppressors and which ones are oppressed. Upon doing so, they use collective action to lift up the oppressed and bring low the oppressors.

In a way, Social Justice has a rather romantic feel to it, one in which you feel good using any means necessary to lift up the oppressed. You are helping the underdog while humbling the mighty. You are fighting racism, bigotry, ageism, homophobia, and so much more; you are the good guy. Hence, a lot of young Americans are being drawn to the effort.

With its current popularity, though, it’s worth considering the movement’s cloaked demand for Equality and the grave dangers inherent in the application of Social Justice as presented so far.

Individuals vs. Groups

Again, the traditional view of Justice asks of us to judge a man based on his actions. For instance, how do we determine if a man is a racist? We examine his actions towards individuals of a different race.

Is the man acting justly to those of a different race by measuring the sum of each individual? Or does he simply judge the others and act in a certain way based on assumptions about the identity group to which they belong? If the latter, then the man is being a racist. But if it is the former, then he is traditionally not guilty of racism.

…………………

But in the effort to right these wrongs, the Social Justice warriors often commit the very evil they are attempting to erase. Indeed, they have even gone so far as to change the definition of racism from something an individual commits, to something that identity groups establish, seemingly in an effort to mask the hypocrisy.

For instance, Social Justice Warriors might determine that one identity group created a government and that it is, therefore, guilty of establishing a system that gives the group power over other identity groups. Thus, the identity group that created the system is guilty of instituting racist, bigoted, homophobic, or ageist policies through the power structure of the system. The powerful identity group is therefore evil because Social Justice Warriors believe it can and likely does oppress other identity groups. Put simply, an identity group is evil if it has created inequality that benefits itself.

As a result, what we see happening with colleges, government bureaucracies, and even human resources departments is that individuals are treated either well or poorly depending upon the identity group with which the individual is most associated.

For instance, the White, heterosexual male is no longer judged based on his individual actions, but rather by what is assumed to be his identity group’s institution of systemic racism and homophobia when White, heterosexual males established both the federal and local governments in America several centuries ago. Because the individual is a white male, it is assumed that he is still benefiting from privilege created by his identity group many centuries ago, whether he realizes it or not. Therefore, because his identity group is racist, he is racist.

In doing so, the Social Justice Warriors who are seeking a good mission, such as ending racism, lost their way and actually commit evil themselves. Virtue often becomes vice, good often becomes evil. [read more]

The Left is just group obsessed. Everyone is in a tribe. No individuality at all.

Why Big Data Won’t Save Central Planners from the Knowledge Problem

From FEE.org (Apr. 11):

Among statisticians, economists, and business executives, “Big Data” is all the rage. Large and detailed data sets that, until recently, couldn’t even be stored on a computer are now managed and analyzed using innovative statistical techniques. Hopes are high that these advances will improve scientists’ ability to predict human behavior. Some enthusiasts even speculate that Big Data will render markets obsolete, enabling central planning of the economy. Big Data is more than a buzzword, but its potential is often wildly overstated.

How Are We Using Big Data?

To make sense of enormous databases, statisticians have developed innovative analytical tools, including machine learning, A/B testing, and natural-language processing. Storage and computation speeds have also improved in recent years.

……………….

Of course, Big Data raises important ethical concerns. Data are often drawn from oblivious populations. Although Internet users typically sign a Terms of Service contract granting social media companies permission to record behavior, the legalistic jargon in these agreements usually leave users unaware of the scope and scale of surveillance. The Cambridge Analytica debacle clearly demonstrates these problems (though it does not imply government would be a better steward of information).

Governments, on the other hand, make no such pretensions about obtaining permission. Officials in the Xinjiang region of China use Big Data analytics to track the movements of the Uighur ethnic minority. The Associated Press reported thousands of Uighurs have been sent to political indoctrination camps and prevented from communicating with relatives abroad. The risk of a data-fueled dystopia is not trivial.

Big Data Does Not Equal Big Knowledge

Some Big Data enthusiasts are somewhat reminiscent of 20th century “market socialists.” For example, a 2017 article by economists Binbin Wang and Xiaoyan Li of Sichuan University for the World Review of Political Economy contends that Big Data solves many of the problems faced by 20th-century socialism. Tech journalists and even entrepreneurs like Alibaba's Jack Ma have expressed similar sentiments. Since today’s governments have far finer-grained knowledge of citizens, the argument goes, central planning could be more viable.

Big Data represents an important scientific advance, but it is fundamentally inadequate to achieve these more ambitious goals. The problem is not merely a time-lag of data collection or the inability to predict future innovations and sudden changes in preferences (though these limitations are also important).

The reason that Big Data can’t enable central planning is that any data on economic activity is inextricably predicated on the existence of markets.The algorithms which private firms use to better predict demand and supply rely on an incoming flow of market data. Without a market, that data ceases to exist.

It is only from market transactions that prices emerge. Consumer behavior is only conceivable when consumers have the freedom to choose between products. Profits and losses reflect the performance of actual firms and market participants engaged in rivalrous competition. [read more]

Doomsday AI machines could lead to nuclear war, think tank paper warns

From Fox News. com (Apr. 24):

Could the future of artificial intelligence bring about a robot doomsday?

In a scenario straight out of apocalyptic science fiction, a leading security think tank is warning that as soon as 2040, AI machines could encourage nations to take apocalyptic risks with their nuclear stashes.

A paper commissioned by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit in Santa Monica, Calif., that offers research and analysis to the armed forces on global policy issues, says it's conceivable that AI —  as well as the proliferation of drones, satellites, and other sensors —  could lead to nuclear war with overwhelmingly grave consequences for humanity.

“Autonomous systems don’t need to kill people to undermine stability and make catastrophic war more likely,” said Edward Geist, an associate policy researcher at RAND, a specialist in nuclear security and co-author of the paper. “New AI capabilities might make people think they’re going to lose if they hesitate. That could give them itchier trigger fingers. At that point, AI will be making war more likely, even though the humans are still, quote-unquote, in control.”

The study was based on data collected from experts in nuclear issues, government branches, AI research and policy, and national security.  [read more]

AI could also control the elections (fix the elections for candidates who are more friendly to AI for instance) and even take over the Federal Reserve to screw around with the stock market and interest rates. Think about that! Or don’t. I wouldn’t want any of my readers to lose sleep.

And more articles on AI:

• AI Experts List the Real Dangers of Artificial Intelligence
• The Military Just Created An AI That Learned How To Program Software

What Trump Can Learn From the Master of the Greatest Deal in American History

From Daily Signal.com (Apr. 29):

Our current president prides himself on being the master of the deal. The upcoming summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un will certainly put his bargaining skills to the test.

The stakes couldn’t be higher, since they involve the security of one of the most populous and economically vital regions in the world, and North Korea has shown little regard for agreements in the past.

If President Donald Trump successfully forges a deal that denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula, it will go down as one of the greatest deals in American history. With that said, it’s fair to ask whether history provides any lessons in the art of presidential negotiation.

Of course, historical situations differ vastly, but it’s still fair to ask whether historical examples can provide any guidance for the general principles of high-stakes negotiation.

Perhaps there is no better place to look than what has been described as the greatest bargain in American history—the Louisiana Purchase. The deal was struck exactly 215 years ago this Monday.

………………….

The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States, and that doubling was a precursor to its eventual domination of the North American continent and its rise to world power. It reduced the hold that European powers had on the continent, thereby mitigating the threat they posed to the young republic.

It was the greatest deal in American history, but how did Jefferson pull it off?

Part of the answer lies in Thomas Jefferson’s own complexities.

Our third president, whose 275th birthday was on April 13, is known for the eloquence of his pen and his renaissance-man lifestyle, but this image belied his cutthroat political instincts. Jefferson was a shrewd politician, through and through. As secretary of state under George Washington, he had secretly funded an opposition party right under the first president’s nose.

Just weeks into Jefferson’s presidency, he learned that France was reacquiring the Louisiana Territory from Spain. The prospect of an aggressive Napoleon ruling territory right next to the United States alarmed the new president, so he made a number of moves that any shrewd head of state would.

First, Jefferson drew a red line with France. Jefferson was a renowned Francophile—he loved France, and some even accused him of having “a womanish attachment” to the country. At the same time, he was a staunch critic of Great Britain. But he knew the threat that Napoleonic France would pose to the young nation.

………………….

Second, Jefferson played the age-old diplomatic game of back-channel diplomacy. Despite establishing a red line, he knew that his infant country could ill-afford a war with a European superpower. So he engaged in multiple lines of communication with France. This included making use of his minister to France, Robert Livingston, but it also involved sending a more personal envoy, James Monroe, to join Livingston in his negotiations with the French.

But Jefferson didn’t stop there. He also communicated through Pierre Samuel du Pont, a wealthy Frenchman in America with connections to the French regime. Indeed, it was du Pont who is often credited with suggesting a purchase of territory as a solution.

Further, Jefferson made use of a French diplomat in the United States, Louis-Andre Pichon. Through Pichon, the Jefferson administration fed information to the French, raising the specter of American cooperation with the British against the French.

Third, Jefferson had the wisdom to listen to advice contrary to his own inclinations—and that advice often came from his brilliant secretary of state, James Madison. Madison’s genius and political skills rivaled and arguably exceeded that of Jefferson’s.

This brings up the fourth lesson: Know how far you are willing to go, even if it means going past your ideological limits.

As I said earlier, Jefferson was known as a pro-French, anti-British strict constructionist. And yet, during this episode, he threatened to side with the British against the French and then disposed with his strict constructionist tendencies, forgoing an amendment for the sake of his country’s interest. [read more]

Former Admiral: Can North Korea Launch an Electromagnetic Storm?

From News Max.com (Apr. 25):

The diplomatic circuit is awash in optimism as the proposed summit between North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump draws near. Indeed, Trump is right to go to the table with the North Koreans and negotiate for full denuclearization.

Still, given the long history of North Korea’s double-dealing, outright lying and surreptitious construction of weapons of mass destruction, the likelihood of Kim actually surrendering his nuclear weapons is extremely low, no matter what he says publicly.

And what makes it so worrisome is not only the handful of nuclear weapons in the hands of a dictator who may be able to lob a few to Honolulu or even to Seattle.  We also need to consider North Korea’s ability to deploy one or two nuclear weapons at altitude over the continental U.S. in order to create a devastating burst of energy called an electromagnetic pulse. [read more]

Scary scenario! Mark Levin on his Fox News show Life, Liberty & Levin talks to Dr. Peter Pry about EMPs and their effect on the electrical grid in America. Interesting interview.

The Connection Between Russia and 2 Green Groups Fighting Fracking in US

From The Daily Signal.com (Apr. 22):

Two environmental advocacy groups that successfully lobbied against fracking in New York each received more than $10 million in grants from a foundation in California that got financial support from a Bermuda company congressional investigators linked to the Russians, public documents show.

The environmental groups Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club Foundation received millions of dollars in grants from the San Francisco-based Sea Change Foundation.

“Follow the money trail, and this [New York] ban on fracking could be viewed as an example of successful Russian espionage,” Ken Stiles, a CIA veteran of 29 years who now teaches at Virginia Tech, told The Daily Signal.

To Stiles and other knowledgeable observers, this looks like an actual case of knowing or unknowing collusion with Russia.

Both Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club Foundation also accepted tens of millions from the Energy Foundation, the top recipient of grants from Sea Change, according to foundation and tax records.  [read more]

You Can't Argue against Socialism's 100 Percent Record of Failure

From FEE.org:

Socialism is extremely in vogue. Opinion pieces which tell us to stop obsessing over socialism’s past failures, and start to get excited about its future potential, have almost become a genre in its own right.

For example, Bhaskhar Sunkara, the founder of Jacobin magazine, recently wrote a New York Times article, in which he claimed that the next attempt to build a socialist society will be completely different:

This time, people get to vote. Well, debate and deliberate and then vote—and have faith that people can organize together to chart new destinations for humanity. Stripped down to its essence, and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy. […] [I]t seeks to empower civil society to allow participation in the decisions that affect our lives.

……………….

Flawed Arguments

First, as much as the authors insist that previous examples of socialism were not “really” socialist, none of them can tell us what exactly they would do differently. Rather than providing at least a rough outline of how “their” version of socialism would work in practice, the authors escape into abstraction, and talk about lofty aspirations rather than tangible institutional characteristics.

“Charting new destinations for humanity” and “democratizing the economy” are nice buzzphrases, but what does this mean, in practice? How would “the people” manage “their” economy jointly? Would we all gather in Hyde Park, and debate how many toothbrushes and how many screwdrivers we should produce? How would we decide who gets what? How would we decide who does what? What if it turns out that we don’t actually agree on very much?

……………………..

Secondly, the authors do not seem to realize that there is nothing remotely new about the lofty aspirations they talk about, and the buzzphrases they use. Giving “the people” democratic control over economic life has always been the aspiration, and the promise, of socialism. It is not that this has never occurred to the people who were involved in earlier socialist projects. On the contrary: that was always the idea. There was never a time when socialists started out with the express intention of creating stratified societies led by a technocratic elite. Socialism always turned out that way, but not because it was intended to be that way.

…………….

They are wrong. The Austro-British economist Friedrich Hayek already showed in 1944 why socialism must always lead to an extreme concentration of power in the hands of the state, and why the idea that this concentrated power could be democratically controlled was an illusion. Were Hayek to come back from the dead today, he would probably struggle a bit with the iPhone, Deliveroo and social media—but he would instantly grasp the situation in Venezuela.

Thirdly, contemporary socialists completely fail to address the deficiencies of socialism in the economic sphere. They talk a lot about how their version of socialism would be democratic, participatory, non-authoritarian, and nice and cuddly. Suppose they could prove Hayek wrong and magically make that work. What then?

Economics Matters

They would then be able to avoid the Gulags, the show trials and the secret police next time, which would obviously be an immeasurable improvement over the versions of socialism that existed in the past. But we would still be left with a dysfunctional economy.

Contemporary socialists seem to assume that a democratized version of socialism would not just be more humane, but also economically more productive and efficient: reform the political system, and the rest will somehow follow. There is no reason why it should. Democracy, civil liberties, and human rights are all desirable in their own right, but they do not, in and of themselves, make countries any richer.

……………….

Ultimately, the contemporary argument for socialism boils down to: “next time will be different because we say so.”

After more than two dozen failed attempts, that is just not good enough.  [read more]

Another article and videos about socialism:

• “France Shows What You Actually Get with Democratic Socialism.”
• One Venezuelan Student’s Heartbreaking Experience with Socialism [video]
• How's Socialism Doing in Venezuela? [video]
• How Socialism Ruined My Country  [video]
• Democratic Socialism is Still Socialism [video]
• Socialism Makes People Selfish [video]
• America's Socialist Origins [video]

WSJ: N. Korea Becoming 'World's Most Dangerous Hacking Machine'

From News Max.com (Apr. 19):

North Korea's cyber army has become a sophisticated and dangerous hacking machine — and "the whole world needs to take notice," The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

According to the Journal, the rogue nation's fingerprints have shown up in an increasing number of cyberattacks, the skill level of its hackers has vastly improved and their targets are more worrisome.

"The whole world needs to take notice," John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at cybersecurity firm FireEye Inc., told the Journal.

The firm now ranks North Korea among the world's mature hacking operations, the Journal reported — noting that as recently as March, suspected North Korean hackers appear to have infiltrated Turkish banks and invaded computer systems in the run-up to the Winter Olympics.

Experts tell the Journal that North Korea has been showing surprising levels of originality in its coding and techniques — and a willingness to go after targets such as central banks and point-of-sale systems. [read more]

Hopefully when the Korean summit happens this behavior will stop.

A future ultraminiature computer the size of a pinhead?

From Kurzweilai.net (Apr. 16):

University of New Hampshire researchers have discovered a combination of materials that they say would allow for smaller, safer magnetic random access memory (MRAM) storage — ultimately leading to ultraminiature computers.

Unlike conventional RAM (read-only memory) SRAM and DRAM chip technologies, with MRAM, data is stored by magnetic storage elements, instead of energy-expending electric charge or current flows. MRAM is also nonvolatile memory (the data is preserved when the power if turned off). The elements are formed from two ferromagnetic plates, each of which can hold a magnetization, separated by a thin insulating layer.

In their study, published March 30, 2018 in the open-access journal Science Advances, the researchers describe a new design* comprising ultrathin films, known as Fe (iron) monolayers, grown on a substrate made up of non-magnetic substances —  boron, gallium, aluminum, or indium nitride.

Ultrahigh storage density

The new design has an estimated 10-year data retention at room temperature. It can “ultimately lead to nanomagnetism and promote revolutionary ultrahigh storage density in the future,” said Jiadong Zang, an assistant professor of physics and senior author. “It opens the door to possibilities for much smaller computers for everything from basic data storage to traveling on space missions. Imagine launching a rocket with a computer the size of a pin head — it not only saves space but also a lot of fuel.”

MRAM is already challenging flash memory in a number of applications where persistent or nonvolatile memory (such as flash) is currently being used, and it’s also taking on RAM chips “in applications such as AI, IoT, 5G, and data centers,” according to a recent article in Electronic Design.**

Source: “A future ultraminiature computer the size of a pinhead?”

How Would We Know If Intelligent Life Existed on Earth Before Humans?

From Live Science.com (Apr. 18):

Reptilian menaces called Silurians evolved on Earth before humankind — at least in the "Doctor Who" rendition of the universe. But science fiction aside, how would we know if some advanced civilization existed on our home planet millions of years before brainy humans showed up?

This is a serious question, and serious scientists are speculating about what traces these potential predecessors might have left behind. And they're calling this possibility the Silurian hypothesis.

When it comes to the hunt for advanced extraterrestrial civilizations that might exist across the cosmos, one must reckon with the knowledge that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. In contrast, complex life has existed on Earth's surface for only about 400 million years, and humans have only developed industrial civilizations in the last 300 years. This raises the possibility that industrial civilizations might have been around long before human ones ever existed — not just around other stars, but even on Earth itself.

"Now, I don't believe an industrial civilization existed on Earth before our own — I don't think there was a dinosaur civilization or a giant tree sloth civilization," said study co-author Adam Frank, an astrophysicist at the University of Rochester in New York. "But the question of what one would look like if it did [exist] is important. How do you know there hasn't been one? The whole point of science is to ask a question and see where it leads. That's the essence of what makes science so exciting." [read more]

Physicists Just Broke a Quantum Record, Taking Entanglement to a Spooky New Level

From Science Alert.com (Apr. 16):

If we want quantum computers, we're going to need a complex system of quantum entangled particles - particles that are intrinsically linked so that whatever happens to one instantaneously affects another.

That's a whole lot easier said than done, of course - but a team of physicists has just breached an exciting milestone by creating a 20-bit quantum register.

Quantum bits, or qubits, are the basic building blocks of quantum computing, just like bits are the building blocks of traditional computing.

But what's challenging about them is that they rely on subatomic particles' spooky ability to exist in more than one state at the same time.

Regular bits can exist in two states - 1 or 0. Qubits would also be based on the binary system, but thanks to entanglement they can exist in a superposition of both states, rather than one or the other, as bits must do.

This would allow for a computer that is vastly faster and more powerful than the computers we currently use.

But that's only if the qubits can be combined to create a register of well-characterised, entangled qubits.

………………….

Now, Blatt and a team of physicists and theorists have built a system of 20 qubits whose quantum states can be individually controlled.

In this experiment, 20 charged calcium atoms, or ions, arranged in a line served as the qubits, and they were entangled using a series of lasers. [read more]

This Week in Ridiculous Regulations

From FEE.org (Apr. 10):

It may not feel like spring yet, but regulatory agencies have turned their fancies to rulemaking, with 45 proposed and 70 final regulations ranging from the size of oranges to yellow lances.

On to the data:

• Last week, 70 new final regulations were published in the Federal Register, after 63 the previous week.
• That’s the equivalent of a new regulation every two hours and 24 minutes.
• Federal agencies have issued 825 final regulations in 2017. At that pace, there will be 3,079 new final regulations. Last year’s total was 3,281 regulations.
• Last week, 1,202 new pages were added to the Federal Register, after 964 pages the previous week.
• The 2018 Federal Register totals 15,374 pages. It is on pace for 57,366 pages. The all-time record adjusted page count (which subtracts skips, jumps, and blank pages) is 96,994, set in 2016.
• Rules are called “economically significant” if they have costs of $100 million or more in a given year. One such rule has been published this year, none in the last week.
• The running compliance cost tally for 2016’s economically significant regulations is $115 million.
• Agencies have published 24 final rules meeting the broader definition of “significant” so far this year.
• In 2018, 130 new rules affected small businesses; 7 of them are classified as significant.

[read more]

Way too many regulations.

4 Areas Where Democrats Once Backed Trump Immigration Agenda

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

A politician stood on the U.S.-Mexican border in San Ysidro, California, declaring, “The day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone.”

“Whether the space is a job, the space is a home, a place in a classroom, it’s becomes a competition for space. This is a country that’s based on immigration, and we all know that,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., continued during an August 1993 speech, adding, “We’ve got to, for the time being, enforce our borders.”

President Donald Trump in late January offered to grant amnesty to 1.8 million young illegal immigrants brought to the country as minors—more than twice the number protected under President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action—in exchange for tougher immigration enforcement that included a border wall, adopting a merit-based immigration system, and cracking down on sanctuary cities—issues many Democrats had either voted for or voiced support for previously.

However, the Senate rejected four compromise bills in February, including one backed by the president, which got just 39 votes. A bill co-sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, garnered 54 votes, but was short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

Now, a deal on codifying Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the 2012 Obama policy, into law appears dead.

………………….

Here are four examples of prominent Democrats previously taking a harder line, more in keeping with Trump’s position now.

1. Comprehensive Reform Bills

In 2013, 52 Democrats voted for the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. The bipartisan “Gang of Eight” bill backed by Obama included provisions to stop immigration based on family reunification immigration, also known as chain migration; to create merit-based visas; and to expand the border fence.

…………………

During debate over 2007 legislation, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., raised concerns about the economic impact of importing more immigrants.

“I think this Senate should be spending much more of its time making it easier to create decent-paying jobs for American workers, instead of allowing corporate America to drive down wages by importing more and more workers from overseas,” Sanders said.

2. Chain Migration

Chain migration is the existing system, which focuses on family reunification. It provides preference for legal entry to relatives, often distant relatives, of people already in the country legally.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.M., has called merit-based immigration a “poison pill,” while Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., rejected the term “chain migration,” insisting on calling it “family reunification.”

However, when advocating a 2007 version of the DREAM Act, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., expressed problems with chain migration, saying, “The DREAM Act would not lead to ‘chain migration.’ DREAM Act beneficiaries would have very limited ability to sponsor family members.”  [read more]

The Dems would say they are just “evolving” their opinions. I think the whole party is de-evolving, possibly going insane too.

The other two areas where the Dems agreed are: ‘Illegal’ vs. ‘undocumented” and sanctuary cities.

The Student Data-Mining Scandal Under Our Noses

From The Daily Signal.com (Apr. 11):

While congresscritters expressed outrage at Facebook’s intrusive data grabs during Capitol Hill hearings with Mark Zuckerberg this week, not a peep was heard about the Silicon Valley-Beltway theft ring purloining the personal information and browsing habits of millions of American schoolchildren.

It doesn’t take undercover investigative journalists to unmask the massive privacy invasion enabled by educational technology and federal mandates. The kiddie data heist is happening out in the open—with Washington politicians and bureaucrats as brazen co-conspirators.

Facebook is just one of the tech giants partnering with the Department of Education and schools nationwide in pursuit of student data for meddling and profit. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Pearson, Knewton, and many more are cashing in on the Big Data boondoggle.

State and federal educational databases provide countless opportunities for private companies exploiting public schoolchildren subjected to annual assessments, which exploded after adoption of the tech industry-supported Common Core “standards,” tests, and aligned texts and curricula.

The recently passed Every Student Succeeds Act further enshrined government collection of personally identifiable information—including data collected on attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions—and allows release of the data to third-party contractors thanks to Obama-era loopholes carved into the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

And the so-called school-to-work pipeline creates endless avenues into taxpayer coffers for firms pitching data-gathering initiatives to “align” student learning with “skill sets” and “competencies” desired by corporations. [read more]

Communist China’s Take on Cosmology

   The words a proletarian dictatorship uses when it denounces a field of pure science:

Modern cosmology is "bourgeois cosmology.” It is “counterfeit cosmology” and “shows only the degree of depravity that is reached when the natural sciences fall into the hands of the rotten and depraved bourgeois class.”

The model of an expanding universe “seeks to establish that the capitalist system not only cannot be overcome but will continue indefinitely to expand.” 

The cosmos "has no mathematical or physical explanations, but it has a philosophical explanation"; "the proletariat has its own cosmic explanation"; "the proletariat will write its own new ‘On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies’ in new ‘Idea of a Universal History on a Cosmopolitical Plan.’'"

The author makes this observation about Mao-era socialism:

Mao-era state socialism rested on a "Holy Trinity" of despotism politics, a one-party dictatorship; in economics, a dictatorship of state planning: and in ideology, a dictatorship that resembled that of medieval church in Europe. Each of the three powers needed the other two. Marxist texts had the status of sacred religious texts. No challenge, however slight, of whatever kind, from whatever person, could be tolerated.

The author talks about how the medieval church in Europe adopted the geocentric version of cosmology even though this version was never in the Bible—it originated in ancient Greece. Once it was part of medieval Christian doctrine it became sacred and never to be questioned.

The author goes on:

So the ideological dictatorships of modern socialism and the medieval church had several things in common. They both saw themselves as authorities on cosmology; both adopted an outmoded cosmology as their unchallengeable model; and both used the tools of tyranny to block scientific progress. This helped me to understand that the problem with Communist rule over science was not just those tools of tyranny themselves but an ideology that in its very nature is opposed to the conditions science requires: free inquiry, a spirit of skepticism, and reliance on evidence.

Source: The Most Wanted Man in China. My Journey from Scientist to Enemy of the State (2016) by Fang Lizhi.

EPA’s Lack of Transparency Is a Breeding Ground for Junk Science

From FEE.org (Apr. 3):

In a recent New York Times op-ed, two former EPA officials criticize a Trump administration plan that would require the EPA to reveal the details of studies used to craft environmental regulations. In this piece, Obama’s EPA director Gina McCarthy and assistant director Janet McCabe, claim that:

• current EPA director Scott Pruitt and “some conservative members of Congress are setting up a nonexistent problem in order to prevent the EPA from using the best available science.”
• EPA’s studies “adhere to all professional standards and meet every expectation of the scientific community in terms of peer review and scientific integrity.”
• the process of “peer review ensures that the analytic methodologies underlying studies funded by the agency are sound.”

A broad array of scientific facts and literature proves all of those claims to be false. This has important ramifications, for as explained in book Molecular Biology and Biotechnology: A Guide for Teachers, “there are risks in misperceiving” environmental risks, because “the experiences or products you avoid because of faulty assumptions and misinformation affect the quality of your life and the lives of those around you.”

Transparency Is Essential to Science

Since at least 1994, various scientists, including those on the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, have asked the EPA to “make available the primary data” used in studies for “regulatory decisions” that “have multibillion dollar impacts on society” so that “others can validate the analyses.” The EPA has often resisted and refused these requests using the same arguments as McCarthy and McCabe.

Such arguments, however, are contradicted by numerous scholarly works about scientific integrity. In opposition to McCarthy and McCabe’s claim that EPA studies based on undisclosed data “adhere to all professional standards” for “scientific integrity”:

• The Handbook of Social Research Ethics states that:
  • “any hindrance to the collection, analysis, or publication of data, such as inaccessible findings from refusal to share data or not publishing a study, should also be corrected for science to fully function.”
  • “scientific theories must be testable and precise enough to be capable of falsification,” and “to be so, science, including social science, must be essentially a public endeavor, in which all findings should be published and exposed to scrutiny by the entire scientific community.”

• the Handbook of Data Analysis states that “the techniques of analysis should be sufficiently transparent that other researchers familiar with the area can recognize how the data are being collected and tested, and can replicate the outcomes of the analysis procedure. (Journals are now requesting that authors provide copies of their data files when a paper is published so that other researchers can easily reproduce the analysis and then build on or dispute the conclusions of the paper.)”
• the book Quantifying Research Integrity states that:

• “when data are not available, researchers must either trust past published results, or they must recreate the data as best they can based on descriptions in the published works, which often turn out to be too cryptic.”
• “descriptions are no substitute for the data itself.”

Transparency is especially important when it comes to matters that broadly impact the public and are a matter of dispute.

………………

Peer Review Doesn’t Ensure Sound Science

Perhaps the most hollow of McCarthy and McCabe’s claims is that “peer review ensures” EPA studies “are sound.” This naïve notion is belied by reams of facts about peer-reviewed publications and candid statements from people involved with them. In merely the past seven years:

• the journal Nature published a study that attempted to confirm the findings of 53 prominent peer-reviewed papers that present results of lab experiments related to cancer drugs. The scientists were unable to reproduce 94 percent of these results, despite the fact that “when findings could not be reproduced, an attempt was made to contact the original authors, discuss the discrepant findings, exchange reagents and repeat experiments under the authors’ direction, occasionally even in the laboratory of the original investigator.”

[read more]

I agree. Transparency is important in science.

Another article on the subject: EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Moves to End Reliance on ‘Secret Science’

Whatever the Left Touches, It Ruins

Commentary from Dennis Prager on The Daily Signal.com (Apr. 10):

The only way to save Western civilization is to convince more people that leftism—not liberalism—is a nihilistic force. Quite literally, whatever the left touches it ruins.

So, here is a partial listing of the damage done by the left and the Democratic Party:

The most obvious—and, therefore, the one more and Americans can resonate with—is the near destruction of most American universities as places of learning. In the words of Harvard professor Steven Pinker—an atheist and a liberal—outside of the natural sciences and a few other disciplines (such as mathematics and business), “universities are becoming laughing stocks of intolerance.”

If you send your children to a university, you are endangering both their mind and their character. There is a real chance they will be more intolerant and more foolish after college than they were when they entered college.

When you attend an American university, you are taught to have contempt for America and its founders, to prefer socialism to capitalism, to divide human beings by race and ethnicity. You are taught to shut down those who differ with you, to not debate them. And you are taught to place feelings over reason—which is a guaranteed route to eventual evil.

The left has ruined most of the arts. The following three examples are chosen because they are scatological, a favorite form of left-wing artistic expression. Before the left poisoned the arts, art was intended to elevate the viewer (or listener). But to the left, “elevate” is a meaningless term; it is far more at home depicting urine, fecal matter, and menstrual blood.

In 2011, a lifelike German sculpture depicting a policewoman squatting and urinating—even the puddle is sculpted—received an award from a prestigious German foundation, the Leinemann Foundation for Fine Art.

……………….

The left has poisoned mainstream religion. Mainstream Protestantism, non-Orthodox Judaism, and much of the Catholic Church—including and especially Pope Francis—are essentially left-wing advocacy groups with religious symbols.

The left is destroying the unique American commitment to free speech. Almost half of incoming college freshmen do not believe in free speech for what they deem “hate speech” (merely taking issue with a left-wing position is, in the left’s view, “hate speech”). They do not understand that the whole point of free speech is allowing the expression of opposing ideas, including what we consider “hate speech.”  [read more]

Other articles and videos about the Left:

• TIMELINE: Surprising historical facts the Democratic Party wouldn’t want you to know
• The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party [video]
• High school history text: Trump deranged, all whites racist
• Hollywood Wants Your Money...and Your Mind [video]
• Why I Left the Left [video]

A New State of Quantum Matter Has Been Found in a Material Scientists Thought Was All Chaos

From Science Alert.com (Apr. 5):

Experiments carried out on a complex arrangement of magnetic particles have identified a completely new state of matter, and it can only be explained if scientists turn to quantum physics.

The messy structures behind the research show strange properties that could allow us to study the chaos of exotic particles - if researchers can find order in there, it could help us understand these particles in greater detail, opening up a whole new landscape for quantum technology.

Physicists from the US carried out their research on the geometrical arrangements of particles in a weird material known as spin ice.

Like common old water ice, the particles making up spin ice sort themselves into geometric patterns as the temperature drops.

There are a number of compounds that can be used to build this kind of material, but they all share the same kind of quantum property – their individual magnetic 'spin' sets up a bias in how the particles point to one another, creating complex structures.

So, unlike the predictable crystalline patterns in water ice, the nanoscale magnetic particles making up spin ice can look disordered and chaotic under certain conditions, flipping back and forth wildly.  [read more]

The Demands of Antifa and the Original Fascists Have a Lot in Common

From FEE.org (Mar. 29):

A ghastly phantom has descended upon America: the specter of anti-capitalism. Young people march behind the socialist bandwagon and some activists block free speech as members of a group called “Antifa”.

This “anti-fascist” movement engages in militant protests and does not shrink from using violence. As a part of the extreme left, the members of the “antifa-movement” are self-proclaimed “anti-capitalists” and declared “enemies of the right”. They call themselves “anti-fascist”, when, in fact, more than any other ideology, fascism characterizes their own movement.

Yet what is fascism and what is the content of this ideology?

The "Fascist Manifesto"

The Fascist Manifesto was proclaimed in 1919 by Alceste De Ambris and Filippo Tommaso Marienetti. In their pamphlet, the authors called for an eight-hour workday and a minimum wage; it demanded worker representation in industrial management and equal standing of trade unions, industrial executives, and public servants.

The authors of the Fascist Manifesto demanded progressive taxation, invalidity insurance, and other types of social benefits, along with reducing the retirement age. The Manifesto demanded the confiscation of the property of all religious institutions and to nationalize the armament industry.

The authors of the Fascist Manifesto called for establishing a corporatist system of ‘National Councils’ formed by experts to be elected by their professional organizations who should hold legislative power in their respective areas.

De Ambris and Marienetti demanded a strong progressive tax on capital to expropriate a portion of all wealth and the seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations together with the nationalization of the arms industry.  

In 1922, the socialist Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy under the banner of fascism and put most of the fascist program into practice as it was proclaimed in the Manifesto some years earlier.

Compared with the Communist Manifesto

A comparison with the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Marx and Engels and published in 1848, reveals the kinship of fascism and Communism.

The Communist Manifesto of 170 years ago demanded:

• Strongly progressive taxes
• Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly
• Centralization of the transport system in the hands of the state
• Unification of the farmlands of agriculture and industry with the aim of gradually eliminating the contrast between town and country
• Public free education of all children, elimination of factory work of children in its present form, union of education with material production.

Nazi Party Demands

Adolf Hitler himself was present when the 25 points of the program of the Nazi Party were announced on February 24, 1920. The name Nazism itself says it all: it is the abbreviation of NSDAP which stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party).

In 1925, The General Assembly of the NSDAP declared the program of 1920 as "immutable", and in 1941 Adolf Hitler determined that all future leaders of the Reich must be sworn in on the 25 points.

The Program of the Nazi Party includes demands such as:

• Socialization of monopoly companies
• Municipalization of large department stores
• Expropriation of land for charitable purposes
• Prevention of real estate speculation
• Expansion of the entire education system
• A comprehensive system of free public schools and generous study stipends and grants
• A clean environment along with promoting the health and the fitness of the people.

…………………

After the left has pocketed the concept of liberalism and turned the word into the opposite of its original meaning, the Antifa-movement uses a false terminology to hide its true agenda. While calling themselves “antifascist” and declaring fascism as the enemy, the Antifa itself is a foremost fascist movement.

The members of Antifa are not opponents to fascism but themselves its genuine representatives. Communism, Socialism, Fascism are united by the common band of anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism.

The Antifa movement is a fascist movement. The enemy of this movement is not fascism but liberty, peace, and prosperity. [read more]

An interesting and informative video to watch: Is Fascism Right or Left?

6 Reasons Gun Control Will Not Solve Mass Killings

From The Daily Signal.com (Mar. 16):

In the wake of the tragic murder of 17 innocent students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students, educators, politicians, and activists are searching for solutions to prevent future school shootings.

As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.

Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion common-sense solutions.

Definitions

• “Mass shooting” typically refers to mass killings where the assailant used a firearm or firearms. In 2013, Congress defined “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”

• A prominent 2017 study defined “mass public shootings” as incidents that occur in the absence of other criminal activity (such as robberies, drug deals, and gang-related turf wars) in which a gun is used to kill four or more victims at a public location.

1. Mass killings are rare, and mass public shootings are even rarer.

• Mass killings are very rare, accounting for only 0.2 percent of homicides every year and approximately 1 percent of homicide victims.
• Only 12 percent of mass killings are mass public shootings. Most mass killings are familicides (murders of family members or intimate partners) and felony-related killings (such as robberies gone awry or gang-related “turf battles”).

……………

2. Many gun control measures are not likely to be helpful.

• Over 90 percent of public mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones” where civilians are not permitted to carry firearms.
• A complete ban on “assault weapons” will save very few lives: Six out of every 10 mass public shootings are carried out by handguns alone, while only one in 10 is committed with a rifle alone.
• The average age of mass public shooters is 34, which means that increasing the minimum age for purchasing firearms would not target the main perpetrators of mass public shootings.

……………..

3. Public mass shooters typically have histories of mental health issues.

• According to one study, 60 percent of mass public shooters had been diagnosed with a mental disorder or had demonstrated signs of serious mental illness prior to the attack.
• A large body of research shows a statistical link between mass public killings and serious untreated psychiatric illness. The most commonly diagnosed illnesses among mass public shooters are paranoid schizophrenia and severe depression.
• It is important to remember that the vast majority of people with mental disorders do not engage in violent behaviors, and there is no empirical means of effectively identifying potential mass murderers.  [read more]

I never understood why people think “gun free zones” will stop a mass shooter. That 90% makes perfect sense.

The other three reasons are:

1. The United States does not have an extraordinary problem with mass public shootings compared to other developed countries.
2. Mass killers often find ways to kill even without firearms.
3. Australia did not “eliminate mass public shootings” by banning assault weapons.

Number two above just proves that if someone wants you dead they are going to figure out a way to do it. Guns don’t kill people—evil or sometimes deranged people do. America doesn’t need gun control—it needs self-control. Guns were never the problem.

Other articles and videos on the topic:

• The Real Reason We Have Mass Shootings
• 4 Steps to Better School Security
• How Gun Control Made England The 'Most Violent Country In Europe’
• King George III Would Have Loved Today's Gun Control Movement
• YouTube Shooting Matters, but Not for the Reasons the Media Thinks
• Is Gun Ownership a Right? [video]
• Gun Rights Are Women's Rights [video]
• What Should We Do About Guns? [video]