Multiplanet system around sunlike star photographed for 1st time ever

From Live Science.com (July 24, 2020):

For the first time ever, astronomers have directly imaged multiple planets orbiting a sunlike star.

The European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile photographed two giant planets circling TYC 8998-760-1, a very young analogue of our own sun that lies about 300 light-years from Earth, a new study reports.

"This discovery is a snapshot of an environment that is very similar to our solar system, but at a much earlier stage of its evolution," study lead author Alexander Bohn, a doctoral student at Leiden University in the Netherlands, said in a statement.

Before this historic cosmic portrait, only two multiplanet systems had ever been directly imaged, and neither of them features a sunlike star, study team members said. And snapping a photo of even a single exoplanet remains a rare achievement.

"Even though astronomers have indirectly detected thousands of planets in our galaxy, only a tiny fraction of these exoplanets have been directly imaged," study co-author Matthew Kenworthy, an associate professor at Leiden University, said in the same statement.

Bohn, Kenworthy and their colleagues studied the 17-million-year-old star TYC 8998-760-1 with the VLT's Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet Research instrument, or SPHERE for short. SPHERE uses a device called a coronagraph to block a star's blinding light, allowing astronomers to see and study orbiting planets that would otherwise be lost in the glare.

The newly reported SPHERE imagery revealed two planets in the system, TYC 8998-760-1b and TYC 8998-760-1c. Astronomers already knew about TYC 8998-760-1b — a team led by Bohn announced its discovery late last year — but TYC 8998-760-1c is a newfound world.

The two planets are huge and farflung. TYC 8998-760-1b is about 14 times more massive than Jupiter and orbits at an average distance of 160 astronomical units (AU), and TYC 8998-760-1c is six times heftier than Jupiter and lies about 320 AU from the host star. (One AU is the average Earth-sun distance — about 93 million miles, or 150 million kilometers. For comparison: Jupiter and Saturn orbit our sun at just 5 AU and 10 AU, respectively.)

It's unclear whether the two worlds in TYC 8998-760-1 formed at their present locations or were pushed out there somehow. Further observations, including those made by huge future observatories such as the European Extremely Large Telescope (ELT), could help to solve that mystery, study team members said.

Other questions remain about the TYC 8998-760-1 system as well. For example, do the two gas giants have company? Might several rocky planets circle relatively close to the star, as they do in our solar system?

"The possibility that future instruments, such as those available on the ELT, will be able to detect even lower-mass planets around this star marks an important milestone in understanding multiplanet systems, with potential implications for the history of our own solar system," Bohn said.

The new study was published online July 22 in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. [source]

More planet articles:

• These 10 extreme exoplanets are out of this world
• A massive cotton candy-like exoplanet stumps astronomers
• This strange lava-rich alien planet is making itself a new atmosphere
• Astronomers detect first known ‘death wish’ planet
• Astronomers discover new moons orbiting Uranus and Neptune

‘Biocomputer’ combines lab-grown brain tissue with electronic hardware

From Nature.com (Dec. 11, 2023):

Researchers have built a hybrid biocomputer - combining a laboratory-grown human brain tissue with conventional electronic circuits - that can complete tasks such as voice recognition.

The technology, described on 11 December in Nature Electronics, could one day be integrated into artificial-intelligence (AI) systems, or form the basis of improved models of the brain in neuroscience research.

The researchers call the system Brainoware. It uses brain organoids - bundles of tissue-mimicking human cells that are used in research to model organs. Organoids are made from stem cells capable of specializing into different types of cells. In this case, they were morphed into neurons, akin to those found in our brains.

The research aims to build "a bridge between AI and organoids", says study co-author Feng Guo, a bioengineer at the University of Indiana Bloomington. Some AI systems rely on a web of interconnected nodes, known as a neural network, in a way similar to how the brain functions. "We wanted to ask the question of whether we can leverage the biological neural network within the brain organoid for computing," he says.

Harnessing brainpower

To make Brainoware, researchers placed a single organoid onto a plate containing thousands of electrodes, to connect the brain tissue to electric circuits. They then converted the input information into a pattern of electric pulses, and delivered it to the organoid. The tissue's response was picked up by a sensor and decoded using a machine-learning algorithm.

To test Brainoware's capabilities, the team used the technique to do voice recognition by training the system on 240 recordings of eight people speaking. The organoid generated a different pattern of neural activity in response to each voice. The AI learned to interpret these responses to identify the speaker, with an accuracy of 78%.

Although more research is needed, the study confirms some key theoretical ideas that could eventually make a biological computer possible, says Lena Smirnova, a developmental neuroscientist at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Previous experiments have shown only 2D cultures of neuron cells to be able to perform similar computational tasks, but this is the first time it has been shown in a 3D brain organoid.

Better brain model

Combining organoids and circuits could allow researchers to leverage the speed and energy efficiency of human brains for AI, says Guo.

The technology could also be used to study the brain, says Arti Ahluwalia, a biomedical engineer at the University of Pisa in Italy, because brain organoids can replicate the architecture and function of a working brain in ways that simple cell cultures cannot. There is potential to use Brainoware to model and study neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease. It could also be used to test the effects and toxicities of different treatments. "That's where the promise is; using these to one day hopefully replace animal models of the brain," says Ahluwalia.

But using living cells for computing is not without its problems. One big issue is how to keep the organoids alive. The cells must be grown and maintained in incubators, something that will be harder the bigger the organoids get. And more complex tasks will demand larger 'brains', says Smirnova.

To build upon Brainoware's capabilities, Guo says that the next steps include investigating whether and how brain organoids can be adapted to complete more complex tasks, and engineering them to be more stable and reliable than they are now. This will be crucial if they are to be incorporated into the silicon microchips currently used in AI computing, he says. [source]

Welcome to the brave new world.

Docs: Hamas Hatched Oct. 7 to Stop Saudi-Israel Deal

From Newsmax.com (May 18, 2025):

The Hamas terrorist group plotted the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel in part of keep Saudi Arabia from signing on to a peace deal with Israel and marginalizing the Palestinian cause, according to newly discovered intelligence.

The now-deceased Hamas terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar told his terrorists on Oct. 2, 2023, that they needed the "extraordinary act" to keep Saudi Arabia from normalizing relations with Israel, according to minutes documenting a Hamas meeting discovered in a cleared-out terrorist tunnel war-torn Gaza, The Wall Street Journal reported in an exclusive Sunday.

While the terrorist attack might have delayed Saudi Arabia's signing on to President Donald Trump's first administration's Abraham Accords with Israel, Trump said in his Middle East tour this week that peace in Gaza and normalized relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel are still expected to come.

"You'll do it in your own time," Trump told Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a speech this week.

The Israeli Defense Forces have not only killed Yahya Sinwar, but his replacement, his brother, Mohammed Sinwar was targeted in a strike Tuesday and might be dead now, too.

"There is no doubt that the Saudi-Zionist normalization agreement is progressing significantly," Yahya Sinwar told his terrorists, according to the minutes of a top-level meeting just five days before the terrorist attacks on southern Israel.

Ultimately, Saudi Arabia and Israel normalizing diplomatic relations would "open the door for the majority of Arab and Islamic countries to follow the same path," Yahya Sinwar feared, calling for the terrorists "to bring about a major move or a strategic shift in the paths and balances of the region with regard to the Palestinian cause."

The minutes also noted Hamas' then-leader expected support from Iranian terrorist proxies in the region after years and weeks of weapons and training support from Iran, according to the report.

Sources told the Journal that Iran met with Hamas and Hezbollah officials in Beirut on Oct. 2, 2023, and approved the attack.

Existing Hamas leadership declined to comment to the Journal on the authenticity of the document or its messaging, but Arab intelligence officials close to Hamas told the paper the minutes appear to be genuine.

Many of the Hamas terrorist leaders in place on Oct. 2, 2023, are now dead, the Journal reported.

Other documents found in the terrorist tunnels shed light on fears of Saudi Arabia's normalization with Israel would marginalize Hamas' hopes for a Palestinian state in Gaza.

"It has become the duty of the movement to reposition itself to," a document marked "secret" from August 2022 read, the Journal reported, "preserve the survival of the Palestinian cause in the face of the broad wave of normalization by Arab countries, which aims primarily to liquidate the Palestinian cause." [source]

Evil goat fornicators. 

More on Oct. 7:

• Israeli Gaza Airstrike Kills Architect of Oct. 7 Attacks
• US Families of Oct. 7 Victims File Lawsuit Against Iran
• Barbaric Norms: Hamas, Israel, and Just War    
  

NEW: Shocking and Disgusting Revelations Emerge About the USCP Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt

From Red State.com (Dec. 13, 2024):

New, shocking revelations have emerged regarding the USCP officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt on January 6th, 2021. According to a new report, then-Lt. Michael Byrd, who claims to have saved "countless lives" that day, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money after the shooting and even demanded cash from a memorial fund meant for the families of slain officers.

The report also reveals Byrd's long history of professional misconduct. Naturally, after a House Oversight subcommittee requested more information, the USCP claimed it could not find any records associated with the officer's disciplinary record. One Internal Affairs investigation involved him leaving his post to play cards.

The 2001 investigation of Michael L. Byrd, 56, was the first known disciplinary case brought against the lieutenant who crept from his blind near the doors to the Speaker’s Lobby on Jan. 6, 2021, and shot Babbitt to death. The 2001 incident is the fourth such disciplinary case disclosed since Nov. 20.

A source with detailed knowledge of the Internal Affairs Division case told Blaze News that Byrd was charged with abandoning his post, eating and drinking at his post, and lying to investigators — a terminable offense. It is one of three Byrd disciplinary cases for which records could not be found when a House oversight subcommittee requested them in early 2024, the source said.

According to sources, surveillance video proved that Byrd had committed the alleged breach of protocol. Instead of admitting to it, he ended up lying to investigators, leading to a recommendation that he be fired. USCP administrators never took action, though.

   The USCP disciplinary officer recommended that Byrd be fired.

   “So they charge him with eating, drinking on post, abandoning post,” the source said. “They charge him with untruthful statements with the recommendation to terminate.”

   Even with the evidence and firing recommendation, Capitol Police administration did not part ways with Byrd.

If that isn't a perfect illustration of the federal government, I'm not sure what is. Byrd had multiple disciplinary investigations take place against him, with at least one involving a recommendation of termination, and he was still on the job in 2021 to shoot Ashli Babbitt. That leads me to the most disgusting part of these revelations. While other officers were paid $3,000 in retention bonuses following January 6th, Byrd was given $36,000. He was also reimbursed for another $21,000 in "security upgrades" for his home in Maryland and housed at Joint Base Andrews at a cost of $35,000 from July 2021 until January 2022.

Byrd was given $36,000 in unrestricted funds as a “retention bonus” in 2021, while other Capitol Police officers received around $3,000 each. Byrd was reimbursed for more than $21,000 in security upgrades for his personal residence in Prince George’s County.

Capitol Police paid to house Byrd at the Joint Base Andrews military facility from July 2021 until late January 2022 at a cost of more than $35,000, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch Inc. When he left the base for any reason, Byrd was provided with a Capitol Police dignitary protection detail, which a source told Blaze News could easily cost $425 per hour.

This is where Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) comes into the picture. Sounding like a mob boss, the then-Speaker of the House ordered that Byrd be "taken care of." The first thought was to promote him to a position requiring a top-secret security clearance. USCP General Counsel Tad DiBiase, who will come into play again momentarily, concluded that he likely couldn't obtain one. Why? Because Byrd not only had serious financial issues, but he was on the USCP's "Lewis List," which is for officers with significant issues of integrity and credibility who can not be relied upon in criminal trials.

This story gets even worse, though. According to emails exchanged with DiBiase, despite being paid tens of thousands of dollars that other officers didn't get after January 6th, Byrd was still desperate for more. He went so far as to demand money from a Memorial Fund set up for the widows of slain officers.

There was an early plan to provide Byrd with a payment from the Capitol Police Officers Memorial Fund, which was founded to honor fallen officers and support their survivors. Byrd expressed frustration that the fund was being opened to officers who were injured on Jan. 6.

“What you proposed could take months,” Byrd wrote in an email to DiBiase at 8:47 p.m. Nov. 16, 2021. “Our expectation was that this would be done soon. Now you’re telling me we got to wait for the rest of the department to even file claims, get evaluated and go through the process we have endured for months.

“That is blatantly wrong to treat us like this,” Byrd wrote. “This was never proposed to us in this manner. Now we’re being grouped in with everyone else. Wow! This is really bad for you all to do this when you know we’re expecting to have funds soon. So disappointing!”

In a reply email one minute later, DiBiase was taken aback by Byrd’s attitude.

“I’m sorry you are disappointed,” DiBiase wrote. “I find that surprising since we have already provided you $36,000 in unrestricted retention funds. You know what the rest of the department is receiving? $3,000 each. Yes, you are being lumped in with the other 91 officers who suffered injuries that day. The Memorial Fund is for the entire department, not one officer.”

Byrd would go on to complain that his wife was "vividly upset" by the news, noting that he hadn't gotten permission yet to set up a "GoFundMe" to collect more money. For reference, Byrd was not injured on January 6th, yet he complained to DiBiase that the fund was being opened up to officers who were, describing himself as being "grouped in with everyone else."

Ultimately, he was promoted to Captain in 2023 despite his record and the questionable nature of his decision to shoot Babbitt. Byrd is clearly a very disturbed individual who should have been fired long before he raised his service pistol on January 6th. His troubled history is a testament to the sheer corruption of the United States federal government, and he serves as a microcosm of just how bad things are in the bureaucratic state. [source]

A travesty. If Byrd would have been fired, Ashley Babbitt would still be alive today.

Another article on Byrd: Capitol Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Promoted

Trump: Venezuela's Maduro 'Captured' After 'Large-Scale Strike'

From Newsmax.com (Jan. 3):

Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro has been captured after the U.S. conducted a "large-scale strike" on the country early Saturday morning, President Donald Trump announced.

"The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country," Trump wrote on Truth Social at 4:21 a.m. ET.

"This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement. Details to follow. There will be a News Conference today at 11 A.M., at Mar-a-Lago. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP."

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the indictment of Maduro and his wife on terrorism and weapons charges in the Southern District of New York.

"Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York," Bondi wrote Saturday morning on X.

"Nicholas Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States. They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts.

"On behalf of the entire U.S. DOJ, I would like to thank President Trump for having the courage to demand accountability on behalf of the American People, and a huge thank you to our brave military who conducted the incredible and highly successful mission to capture these two alleged international narco traffickers."

In an overnight phone interview with The New York Times, Trump called the covert operation "brilliant."

"A lot of good planning and lot of great, great troops and great people," Trump said. "It was a brilliant operation, actually."

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who is the next in line for the presidency, is demanding "proof of life."

"The cradle of the Liberator was attacked. In the face of this situation, we do not know the whereabouts of President Maduro," she said in a phone interview posted to X. "We demand from Donald Trump proof of life of President Maduro. People to the streets." [read more]

Hopefully, Venezuela will be prosperous and peaceful again. This operation has shades of capturing Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua except quicker and more efficient.

Other articles on the matter:

• AG Bondi: Maduro, Wife Indicted in SDNY for Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy
• Trump: 'We Are Going to Run' Venezuela Until 'Safe Transition'
• Trump: Maduro to Be Tried in US, 'Face Full Might of American Justice'
• Maduro Now in New York Jail as Trump Says US to Run Venezuela
• Maduro proclaims his innocence in first court appearance on American soil
  
• Trump: US Firms to Rebuild Venezuela Oil Fields
• Adios, Maduro
• Venezuela: A Warning to Avoid the Quicksand
  
• If America doesn't lead, who will? Venezuela EXPLAINED
  
• The Venezuela Raid Was A Win For America First Anti-Interventionism
  
• WSJ: The Biggest Loser in Maduro's Capture May Be ...
  
• Fetterman: If We Didn’t Want Maduro Removed, Why Did Biden Have a Bounty on Him?
  
• Awkward: Biden Forced To Pay Trump The $25 Million Bounty For Capturing Maduro
  
• Trump’s Maduro Capture Is A Warning For China: Stay Out Of Our Hemisphere
  
• History Supports Trump’s Operation To Take Down Maduro
  
• The Founders, Venezuela, and the Just War Question | George AI | 1/5/26 [audio]
  

Parents or the State: What Kuyper Can Teach Us About Managing Social Media

From Breakpoint.org (Sept. 7, 2022):

The Institute for Family Studies has published a list of legal and policy recommendations to protect teens from the dangers of social media. Among the recommendations are age-verification laws, parental consent requirements, and shutting down social media platforms at night for teens. Other nations have already attempted to restrict young people’s access to technology. For example, a couple of years ago, France banned cell phone use in schools up to age 15.

Monitoring teens’ engagement with social media should be a no-brainer. Anyone still not convinced that something needs to be done need only consider the teens on TikTok exhibiting Tourette-like tics, not to mention the rapid onset gender dysphoria crisis initiated within social media communities.

However, the fact that government may now be the last line of defense in providing some boundaries for social media means that the other lines have failed. Most notably, families have failed to protect children from that which threatens them the most.

This is a modern-day application of one of the most helpful ideas of Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper, who lived at the turn of the 20th century. Kuyper has jokingly been called the Colson Center’s “patron saint.” Near the end of his life, Chuck Colson described how influential Kuyper’s thought was to his own, specifically in understanding how Christians were called to interact with and influence the culture around them.

Christians could best influence society, according to Kuyper, through the sphere of our family, the basic building block of society. During his lifetime, Kuyper worked across various spheres of culture, not only writing as a theologian but founding a university, leading a newspaper, and eventually becoming prime minister. Throughout his various careers, Kuyper proposed and championed a concept called “sphere sovereignty.”

“Spheres,” as Kuyper understood them, are the social groupings, or domains, that keep society running. He saw them as interlocking “cogs” that work together. In his message at the inauguration of the Free University in the Netherlands, he explained that each sphere—such as science, art, business, government, and family—has “its own law of life” and “its own head” or leadership. Ultimately, Christ is sovereign over all of life. His most famous quote is, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human life of which Christ, Who is Sovereign of all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”  It is Christ who moves “the wheels to turn as they are destined to turn. Not to oppress life nor to bind freedom, but to make possible a free exercise of life for and in each of these spheres, is not this a beckoning ideal for every noble State Sovereign? [or leader].”

His idea, that the duty of the head of a state is to facilitate “free exercise of life,” reveals that, in many ways, Kuyper lived in a time period similar to ours—a time when people were calling for revolution. Kuyper was so uncomfortable with this lawless approach that he called his political party the “Anti-Revolutionary Party.” According to the author Michael Wagenman, Kuyper believed, “Human beings are called to responsible human agency in which ‘the course of our historic development may be altered only through gradual change in a lawful way.’ But this is accomplished through responsible reforms rather than outright revolution that seeks to usher in a manufactured utopia.”

If the language of ushering in a “manufactured utopia” doesn’t sound familiar, just search for “antiracist” and “revolution” on Twitter. The crisis in the state, Kuyper believed, revealed a crisis of family.

Kuyper saw family leadership as “responsible for the good order in the family,” rather than the “head of the state.” Government should only step in if parents did not do their job. He insisted that “the central government may only take on and carry out what is not (and for so long as it is not) properly taken care of in the smaller spheres of life.”

If government control of the good order of the family has to occur, it should be only temporary. Thus, the government can incentivize good family order, such as tax deductions for college saving plans, but a secular government controlling family life can get weird fast, such as removing a child seeking a transgender identity from a Christian family’s home. It’s one of the reasons Christians should recognize and champion parental rights.

Coming back to the topic of teens and social media, we can say that restricting their access to social media is a good idea. But this is the job of the family, not the government. When families fare well, society fares well. That’s those cogs of spheres working together well. A society is only as virtuous as its families. [source]

The family is a fundamental building block of society. Sociologists know this. Probably anthropologists understand this too. Socialists and communists perceive the family as a threat though—because they want to be your only family.

When Has War Even Been ‘Proportional?’

From AM Greatness.com (Nov. 16, 2023):

Proportionality in war is a synonym for lethal stalemate, if not defeat.

When two sides go at it with roughly equal forces, weapons, and strategies, the result is often a horrific deadlock—like the four years of toxic trench warfare on the Western Front of World War I that resulted in 12 million fatalities.

The purpose of war is to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible with the least number of causalities—and thereby achieve political ends.

So, every side aims to find superior strategies, tactics, weapons, and manpower to ensure as great a disproportionate advantage as possible.

Hamas is no exception.

Its savage precivilizational strategy to defeat Israel hinged on doing disproportionate things Israel either cannot or will not do.

First, Hamas spent a year planning a preemptive butchery spree inside Israel. Its ruthless murdering focused on “soft targets” like unarmed elderly, women, children, and infants, mostly asleep at a time of peace and holiday.

Second, it sought to collectively shock Israel into paralysis by the sheer horror of decapitating civilians, burning babies, mass raping, and mutilating bodies.

Another apparent aim of such premodern barbarity was to blame Israel’s “occupation” for turning Gazans into veritable monsters, with hopes of derailing the renewed Abraham Accords.

Third, the gunmen took more than 240 hostages back with them to Gaza.

Again, that was a disproportionate tactic designed to meter out the release of captives in exchange for “pauses” and “cease-fires” to save Hamas.

Additionally, Hamas made implicit threats of gruesome executions of captives unless Israel ceased their retaliation for October 7.

Fourth, all the while Hamas shot rockets into Israel, more than 7,000 in total, and all aimed at civilians.

Not one launch was preceded by dropping leaflets or sending text messages to Israeli civilians to vacate the intended target areas—a protocol often used by the Israel Defense Forces.

The unapologetic aim was to kill thousands of Israelis at random and disproportionately.

In fact, in just the last few four weeks, Hamas has launched more than twice as many rockets into Israel as Nazi Germany managed to launch V-2s into Britain in five months.

Fifth, Hamas sought to create a multibillion-dollar tunnel city beneath Gaza. The labyrinth’s sole purposes were to stockpile weapons and ensure safe havens for terrorists to shoot rockets and regroup after their terrorist missions.

Sixth, the subterranean headquarters of Hamas elites, along with weapons depots, were strategically placed under hospitals, mosques, and schools to “shield” them from Israeli attacks.

The expectation was that the IDF would be hesitant to target such “civilian” and “humanitarian” areas in a way Hamas never would.

Seventh, Hamas forced the civilians of Gaza to remain among the street fighting. They often shot those who resisted.

They also killed Gazans who fled the city. Hamas sought to increase civilian fodder as collateral damage from Israeli attacks. Such deaths were to be broadcast worldwide to win sympathy for Hamas terrorists and force a cease-fire.

Eighth, Hamas bragged that it could repeat strategies 1-7 endlessly on the supposition Israel would tire, the world would turn against it, and it at last could murder enough Jews to end Israel altogether.

Israel in turn seeks its own disproportionate response to defeat Hamas.

First, it seeks to single out and kill the actual Hamas terrorists, and especially the 2,000 or so killers of October 7.

Second, it tries to warn civilians to flee anywhere that Hamas masses. Just as Hamas wants its own civilians killed for propaganda purposes, so Israel seeks to avoid killing them.

Third, by targeting Hamas and warning civilians to keep their distance, Israel does not deny that there will be collateral damage.

But it hopes to convince the world that any civilian deaths are mostly the fault of Hamas and not the IDF.

And to the degree that Gaza City is left in rubble, Israel wishes to remind its enemies that the wages of murdering Jewish infants unfortunately will be a disproportionate response, whose full effects will deter any future attack.

Fourth, Israel understands that a country of 9-10 million is facing a virulently hostile 500 million-person Arab Middle East. The United Nations is on the side of Hamas. A now anti-Semitic Europe has been hijacked by immigrants from the Middle East. Israel’s sole patron the United States is buffeted by a hard-left new Democratic Party that is not a reliable partner.

The result is that Israel still cannot conduct a fully disproportionate war without endangering its source of military resupply in the United States, and a wider conflict with the Islamic world.

And so, the war continues.

Hamas strives for a more disproportionate terrorist agenda to prolong the war. And Israel strives for a more disproportionate retaliation to end it.

The anger arises at Israel mostly because it is Jewish, and thus far its conventional disproportionality is proving more effective than the terrorist disproportionality of Hamas. [source]

More great points from VDH that are hard to disagree with.

Critical Race Theory for the Rest of Us

From The Public Discourse.com (Nov. 8, 2023):

What is Critical Race Theory?

A movement that was virtually unknown for decades is now, thanks to prominent national activism, a household name. The United States continues to grapple with the legacy of slavery and the persistence of racism. For many, Critical Race Theory (CRT) seems to be the most plausible and coherent framework through which to view the history of racism and its lasting impact on modern life. But as Edward Feser argues in All One in Christ: A Catholic Critique of Racism and Critical Race Theory, CRT does more harm than good for racial harmony, an ideal that is better served by such Christian principles as those embodied in the Catholic Church’s social teaching. In Feser’s book, Catholics, other Christians, and even non-Christians will find much to help them confront CRT and the perennial challenges of living in a racially diverse society.

The Christian Response to Racism

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:

The Incarnation of the Son of God [Jesus Christ] shows the equality of all people with regard to dignity: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Since something of the glory of God shines on the face of every person, the dignity of every person before God is the basis of the dignity of man before other men. Moreover, this is the ultimate foundation of the radical equality and brotherhood among all people, regardless of their race, nation, sex, origin, culture, or class.

Only on such a principled basis, Feser says, could one overcome racism. Biology can refute many racist claims, but hardened racists can always find genetic differences between races to rationalize their prejudice. Defenders of universal human dignity, like the Church, therefore ultimately appeal to the transcendent human nature that we all share in our spiritual soul—which cannot be reduced to genetics.

From each man’s soul—“by which he is most especially in God’s image”—spring his distinctly human capacities to know and love God and other people. It creates a “bond between the human person and the Creator,” the Church says, that grounds his “fundamental inalienable rights, of which God is the guarantor.” God alone, and not one’s parents, creates the soul. It is immortal, and after separating from the body in death it will reunite with the body “at the final Resurrection.” And if he develops his spiritual capacity to love, even the humblest, least educated person—like St. André Bessette—will, after this life, surpass in eternal glory kings and popes who were reckoned among the mighty on earth.

Given the Church’s beliefs, it is not surprising that, when race-based slavery first appeared in the early modern era, Feser notes, “[t]he Church immediately condemned [it] in the harshest terms possible.” In 1537, Pope Paul III bluntly called the opinion that the native peoples of the New World were mere animals the invention of

[t]he enemy of the human race, who . . . in order that he might hinder the preaching of God’s Word of salvation to the people, . . . inspired his satellites . . . to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge, should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the catholic faith.

In other words, Feser says, “in this document from five centuries ago, the pope characterizes as nothing less than satanic” the racism that underlay slavery. The same natives, the pope said, “and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ.”

Although many Catholics ignored the pope, the Church’s teaching was clear and emphatic. Over centuries, the teaching was repeated and extended to condemn the enslavement of Filipinos and black Africans. Leo XIII applauded slavery’s abolition in Brazil in 1888. And when Nazism emerged, Pius XI condemned its racist nationalism. Throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, popes have continued to speak out against the mistreatment of minorities. [read more]

Another article on CRT: Critical Race Theory is the new segregation across schools nationwide

J6 Bombshell: Secret Service got intel on 'high potential' for violence but didn't tell agents

From Just the News.com (Aug. 1, 2024):

The Secret Service developed intelligence that there was a “high potential for violence” before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot but failed to share that information with its agents guarding Donald Trump, Mike Pence or Kamala Harris that fateful day, according to a bombshell report delivered to Congress on Thursday that exposed a fresh round of failures by the presidential protection agency.

Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari's report was forced into the public by pressure from House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., and it confirmed earlier Just the News reporting, including that the Secret Service whisked Harris, then the Vice President-elect, within 20 feet of an undetected pipe bomb at Democrat National Committee (DNC) headquarters in Washington because it failed to employ its normal explosive detection tools.

“The Secret Service had not employed all its explosive detection tactics and measures for the security sweep, instead providing only canine teams at the DNC building that day. Afterward, the Secret Service did not report the buildings evacuation as an unusual protective event, as required by its policies,” the inspector general concluded

The report, obtained by Just the News, not only adds dramatic new details about security and intelligence failures on Jan.6, 2021 but it also offered powerful new evidence to the growing inquiry into how the Secret Service failed to detect the gunman who wounded Trump at a July 13 rally in Butler, Pa.

Congressional aides briefed on the report said its findings and six recommendations for improved communication, training and other security tactics were delivered to Secret Service management in April, three months before the Trump assassination attempt. Cuffari, himself, made a point in the report to stress that the shortcomings exhibited during the Capitol riot 3 1/2 years ago should be a learning event for the Secret Service.

"The events of January 6 were unprecedented and the issues we identified during our review presented an opportunity for the Secret Service to be better prepared in the future," the report implored.

The report also revealed some friction between Cuffari's office, the chief watchdog for Homeland Security, and Secret Service managers, who disagreed with some of the report's findings and recommendations.

The report shows that the Jan. 6 events exposed some of the same failures now suspected to be at the center of the rally tragedy, including problems with communication with local police, faulty security sweeping and inadequate threat identification. [read more]

Is this general incompetence (which is bad in of itself) or something more? 

Another J6 article:

Vicious FBI Agents Accused of Terrorizing Innocent J6 Families and Harassing Children Sue to Keep Their Identities Hidden

Docs: FBI Believed It Lacked Probable Cause To Raid Mar-A-Lago But Did So Anyway

From The Federalist.com (Dec. 16, 2025):

The FBI did not believe it had probable cause to raid President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022, but did it anyway after pressure from then-President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice, according to newly uncovered emails.

Emails released by Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office show that officials at the FBI and DOJ communicated about FBI concerns about the warrant in the months leading up to the August raid.

In one June 1 email an unidentified FBI assistant special agent in charge wrote to FBI official Anthony Riedlinger, “Very little has been developed related to who might be culpable for mishandling the documents.”

“[FBI Washington Field Office] has been drafting a Search Warrant affidavit related to these potential boxes, but has some concerns that the information is single source, has not been corroborated, and may be dated. DOJ CES opines, however, that the SWs meet the probable cause standard.” The same agent described the “potential boxes” as “presumably of the same type as were sent back to NARA [National Archives and Records Administration] in January.”

Notably, the unnamed FBI official said that while they “continue[d] down the path towards a search warrant, WFO believes that a reasonable conversation with the former President’s attorney (stating that the FBI and DOJ are readying a search warrant, and have developed information that there are more documents at Mar a Lago), ought not to be discounted.”

A separate email (sent weeks after the aforementioned, on July 13) to Robert Stuart Sinton, Lisa R. Gentilcore, and Anthony Riedlinger from a redacted official states: “We haven’t generated any new facts, but keep being given draft after draft after draft. Absent a witness coming forward with recent information about classified on site, at what point is it fair to table this?”

Another email dated July 29 noted that the scope of the search was being “widened.”

Another redacted email sent on July 20 shows the FBI’s Washington Field Office did “not believe (and has articulated to DOJ CES) that we have established probable cause for the search warrant for classified records at Mar a Lago. DOJ has opined that they do have probable cause, requesting a wide scope including residence, office, storage space. … Continued investigation and additional interviews have not found any witness who has reported seeing classified records at Mar a Lago since the return of records via [Redacted] compliance on June 3, 2022.”

In fact, FBI officials were purportedly worried about the optics of executing such an uncertain search warrant.

According to an Aug. 4 email from an unidentified agent, then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General George Toscas said in a meeting that he “frankly doesn’t give a damn about the optics” of the search warrant despite concerns of FBI officials and their apparent desire to execute the warrant in “a professional, low key manner.”

“I understand that this request may not go well at DOJ, however, it is FBI serving and executing the search and it will be our personnel who will have to deal with the reaction to that first contact,” the email from the unidentified agent reads.

The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. Special Counsel Jack Smith then brought charges against Trump stemming from the raid as part of Democrats’ “get-Trump” lawfare. Smith alleged Trump mishandled classified documents. Smith’s prosecution against Trump was dismissed last July after Judge Aileen Cannon found his appointment unconstitutional, as then-Attorney General Merrick Garland lacked the authority to appoint Smith. [source]

Abuse of power. All because the Briben regime wanted to get President Trump.

US Retaliates on ISIS for Killing 3 Americans: Operation Hawkeye Strike

From Newsmax.com (Dec. 20, 2025):

The U.S. military launched large-scale strikes against dozens of Islamic State targets in Syria on Friday in retaliation for an attack on American personnel, U.S. officials said.

A U.S.-led coalition has been carrying out airstrikes and ground operations in Syria targeting Islamic State suspects in recent months, often with the involvement of Syria's ‍security forces.

President Donald Trump had vowed to retaliate after a suspected ISIS attack killed U.S. personnel last ‍weekend in Syria.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth said the strikes targeted "ISIS fighters, infrastructure, and weapons sites" and that the operation was "OPERATION HAWKEYE STRIKE."

"This is not the beginning of a war — it ⁠is a declaration of vengeance," Hegseth said. "Today, we hunted and we killed our enemies. Lots of them. And we will continue," he added.

Trump said on social media that the Syrian government ​fully supported the strikes and that the U.S. was inflicting "very serious retaliation."

At a speech in North Carolina on Friday night, Trump called it a "massive" blow against the ISIS members that the U.S. blames for the December 13 attack on coalition forces.

"We hit the ISIS thugs in Syria. … ‍It was very successful," Trump said at a rally in Rocky Mount, North Carolina.

U.S. Central Command said the strikes hit ⁠more than 70 targets across central Syria, adding that Jordanian fighter jets supported the operation.

One U.S. official said the strikes were carried out by U.S. F-15 and A-10 jets, along with Apache helicopters and HIMARS rocket systems.

Jordan's air force participated in the strikes, state-owned Jordan TV reported on Saturday, saying they had targeted sites affiliated to Islamic State in southern Syria, within the framework of Amman's ⁠cooperation with the U.S.-led coalition.

Syria reiterated its steadfast ​commitment to fighting Islamic State and ensuring ⁠that it has "no safe havens on Syrian territory," according to a statement by the foreign ministry.

Two U.S. Army soldiers and a civilian interpreter were killed on ‍Saturday in the central Syrian town of Palmyra by an attacker who targeted a convoy of American and Syrian forces before being shot dead, according to the ‌U.S. military. Three other U.S. soldiers were also wounded in the attack.

About 1,000 U.S. troops remain in Syria.

The Syrian Interior Ministry has described the attacker as a member of the Syrian security forces suspected of sympathizing with Islamic State.

Syria's government is ⁠led by ​former rebels who toppled leader Bashar al-Assad ‍last year after a 13-year civil war, and includes members of Syria's former al-Qaeda branch who broke with the group and clashed with Islamic State.

Syria has been cooperating with a U.S.-led coalition against Islamic ‍State, reaching an agreement last month when President Ahmed al-Sharaa visited the White House. [source]

Good.  An example of FAFO. The lesson is don't mess with America when she has a real competent leader.

Is Religion the Opium of the People, or the Ladder?

From Breakpoint.org (Sept. 8, 2022):

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature,” wrote Karl Marx, “…the opium of the people.” Decades of often painful historical experience has proven his observation both right and wrong. Believing in God does ease pain and suffering of faithful followers, but he was wrong in thinking that religion, especially Christianity, leaves them with nowhere else to go from there.

A recent article in The Economist put it this way: “Religious belief really does seem to draw the sting of poverty.” Although there is a correlation between poverty and decreased mental health, the article highlighted German sociologist Dr. Jana Berkessel’s recent findings that religion significantly mitigates this effect.

A variety of similar studies confirm this. Regular attendance at religious services consistently correlates with longer life spans, stronger immune systems, and lower blood pressure, as well as decreased anxiety, depression, and suicide. Kids raised in religious households have a lower incidence of drug addiction, delinquency, and incarceration. They’re more likely to graduate high school. In short, the nearly unanimous scientific consensus is that religious belief is good for you.

Of course, Marx’s point was that these benefits only serve to keep people content in their chains and to keep them distracted so much by the next world that they do nothing to change this one. Many critics today take the critique even further. Religion, especially Christianity, has not only been used to pacify people in their oppression but is the very source of it.

Of course, the charge that Christianity has been co-opted, corrupted, and weaponized to justify all kinds of abuse, conquest, and enslavement, is undeniable. At the same time, it’s also undeniable that Christianity has been a global force for the kinds of goods now so pervasive, it’s hard to even imagine the world without them. Many of the rights and principles we consider to be naturally occurring features of the world only came to be by the influence of Christianity.

In the ancient pagan world, violence, rape, infant exposure, and prostitution were rules, not exceptions. Almost immediately, Christianity began to revolutionize pagan ethics, particularly in its view of the poor and the outcast. Roman Emperor Julian famously wrote that when the “impious Galileans support not only their poor, but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us.”

To a world with no reason to believe in the equality of all people, Christianity taught that “there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” This belief was grounded in the Christian view of the human person, which had no parallel in the ancient world and which created an explosion of literacy, social mobility, and human rights that we now take for granted in the modern world.

Christianity’s unique contributions in humanizing the modern world are yet another reason to not simply lump all “religious beliefs” into the one blanket category. All religions are simply not the same, not in substance nor impact.

Economist Robin Grier, for example, conducted a cross-national survey of 63 formerly European colonies. She found that, across the board, Protestant Christianity, in particular, was “positively and significantly correlated with real GDP growth,” and that “the level of Protestantism is significantly related to real per capita income levels.” A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper found that only certain religious beliefs—notably beliefs about heaven, hell, and an afterlife—are linked with economic growth. In other words, it’s not just about having a “religion,” but about what your religion teaches.

Consider Africa. A recent paper from NBER analyzed educational outcomes among religious children. Though Africa is becoming increasingly religious across the board, the paper found that in many countries, “primary school completion for Christians was more than double that of Muslims or Africans adhering to local religions.” Christian communities far outpace others when it comes to intergenerational educational growth.

Writing in 1843, Karl Marx couldn’t have anticipated how thoroughly science would analyze his claims about religion. He’d likely have been among the modern theorists surprised that the world is becoming more religious, not less. As one writer with The Brookings Institution put it, “While weak state structures collapse and aid agencies switch priorities, one group of actors persists against all odds: religious institutions.”

Of course, this isn’t why anyone should believe the truth claims of Christianity. They should be believed if they are true. At the same time, the fact that Christian belief has been an educational, social, and economic ladder for millions suggests these beliefs ought to be taken seriously. [source]

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.

Builders of J6 gallows remain unidentified while FBI and DOJ continue to pursue other defendants

From Just the News.com (Nov. 15, 2023):

In the early morning of Jan. 6, 2021, a group of unnamed and unidentified individuals were seen unloading and transporting the materials to assemble the infamous gallows that became the subject of numerous photographs during the protests.

According to surveillance video obtained by the Patriot Freedom Project from the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, the unidentified individuals built the gallows in plain view on the National Mall in front of the U.S. Capitol building. Despite the full resources of law enforcement being deployed against thousands of individuals for participation in January 6—many charged with only misdemeanors—the builders of the gallows remain unidentified.

Photos of the gallows were included in the public hearings of the committee regarding the January 6 riot, and tied to right-wing movements by media like The New York Times.

Ed Martin, an attorney who represents Jan. 6 defendants, released the footage after obtaining it from the House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.

On Wednesday, Martin said on the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show that after reviewing the footage “we figured out that four guys set up the gallows at 6:30 in the morning on January 6, it was a very serious production, they moved it out of a truck, they moved it across on wheels, they came back and forth.”

“And more importantly than anything, as some of the images you have up show, they went to get coffee at about seven in the morning, they went to coffee at the only coffee shop open at that time, which happens to be well, it's right next to Georgetown Law School. But it's also right across from the FBI headquarters in D.C. Something about this doesn't doesn't smell right,” Martin said. [read more]

It looks like the Briben’s FBI doesn't care to find out who built the gallows. A possible coverup? The current FBI and DOJ should.

5 Arguments Against 'America Is a Racist Country'

From Dennis Prager on Townhall.com (July 14, 2020):

The left-wing charge that America is a racist country is the greatest national libel since the Blood Libel against the Jews. America is, in fact, the least racist, multiracial, multiethnic country in world history.

Neither the claim that America is a racist society nor the claim that it is the least racist country can be empirically proven. Both are assessments. But honest people do need to provide arguments for their position. I have found every argument that America is racist, let alone "systemically" racist, wanting. For example, the police almost never kill unarmed blacks, and on the rare occasions they do (about 15 times a year), there is almost always a valid reason (as in the infamous 2014 case in Ferguson, Missouri); police kill more unarmed whites than blacks; the reason there are proportionately so many more blacks in prison is that blacks disproportionately commit violent crimes; and so on.

There are very powerful arguments against the charge that America is a racist society.

I offered one in my column last week:

No. 1: If there is so much racism in America, why are there so many false claims of racism and outright race hoaxes?

I offered 15 recent examples. Moreover, there were probably no racist hoaxes when America really was racist, just as there were no anti-Semitic hoaxes in 1930s Germany, when there was rampant anti-Semitism. You need hoaxes when the real thing is hard to find.

No. 2: The constant references to slavery.

If there were a great deal of racism in America today, there would be no reason to constantly invoke slavery and the Confederacy. The very fact that The New York Times, the leader in racist dishonesty, felt it necessary to issue its "1619 Project," which seeks to replace 1776 as the founding of America with 1619, when the first African slaves arrived in America, is a perfect illustration of the point. The fact that "The 1619 Project" was labeled false by the leading American historians of that era (all of whom are liberals and at least one of whom led a campaign to impeach President Donald Trump) adds fuel to the argument. Even regarding the past, the promoters of the "America is racist" libel need to lie to paint America as bad as possible. [read more]

The other arguments:

1. The reliance on lies.
2. The large African immigration to the United States.
3. The preoccupation with "microaggressions."

Racism is all part of the divide-and-conquer strategy. Good arguments.

Gorka to Newsmax: Seized Tanker Part of 'Shadow Fleet'

From Newsmax.com (Dec. 10):

White House deputy assistant Sebastian Gorka told Newsmax on Wednesday that the tanker seized by U.S. forces off the coast of Venezuela is part of a growing "shadow fleet" of vessels used by hostile regimes to evade sanctions and skirt international law.

Speaking on "Rob Schmitt Tonight," Gorka said the ship fits a pattern of illicit maritime activity tied to nations such as Venezuela and Iran — activity the U.S. can no longer ignore.

"This is a member of a shadow fleet," Gorka said. "The attempts to evade sanctions, and also to just do an end run around international law with flags of convenience — we're not going to allow this anymore."

Gorka's comments came hours after President Donald Trump confirmed that the United States had taken control of an oil tanker operating off the coast of Venezuela, though he offered few specifics about the operation. Trump said only that the vessel was seized "for very good reason."

Gorka praised the seizure as a move that aligns with a stronger national security posture outlined in the president's newly released national security strategy.

"So whether it's Venezuela or whether it's other countries like Iran that are making money in ways that are illegal and counter the U.S. national interest, as elucidated so very, very eloquently in the president's national security strategy that we published on Friday, we are very serious," he said.

Gorka emphasized that U.S. interdictions will extend across the full spectrum of illegal maritime operations, from narcotics smuggling to oil tankers operating in violation of sanctions.

"Whether it's drug boats, whether it's illegal tankers, we're going to take action where we see fit and where it threatens our national security interests as the United States," he said. [source]

Shadow fleet? America will probably seize more tankers then. See below:

Officials: US Seizing Ship off Coast of Venezuela

Bondi Beach hero’s inspiring words before tackling terrorist revealed

From NY Post.com (Dec. 15):

Ahmed el Ahmed, a 43-year-old father of two from Syria, was seen in a heart-stopping video as he crept up and tackled one of the father-son terrorists who killed 15 people Sunday night at a Hanukkah celebration at the popular beach just outside of Sydney, Australia.

Just before rushing in, the hero predicted he would pay the ultimate price for his bravery, a cousin, Jozay Alkanj, told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“He said, ‘I’m going to die – please see my family [and tell them] that I went down to save people’s lives’,” the cousin said.

El Ahmed was hit at least five times, and could even lose an arm, according to Sam Issa, the immigration lawyer who helped get him citizenship in 2022, six years after he had moved Down Under.

“He’s not well at all. He’s riddled with bullets,” Issa told the Sydney outlet after visiting him in the hospital Monday. “Our hero is struggling at the moment.”

His heroism remains even as “the pain has started to take a toll on him,” the lawyer stressed.

“He doesn’t regret what he did. He said he’d do it again,” Issa said.

Still, “He’s a lot worse than expected,” the lawyer said of his “humble” client and friend. “He has lost a lot of blood.”

More than 25,000 people have raised the equivalent of just over $1 million for Ahmed on GoFundMe — with the biggest single donation from US billionaire Bill Ackman, who gave the equivalent of nearly $66,500.

“No one expects to be a hero, but when the moment came, he was,” the fundraiser’s organizers wrote.

The fruit stand owner was photographed with his entire left arm bandaged as he was visited by New South Wales Premier Chris Minns at St George Hospital in Sydney on Monday.

“Ahmed is a real-life hero,” Minn said. “His incredible bravery no doubt saved countless lives when he disarmed a terrorist at enormous personal risk.”

Ahmed’s father, Mohamed, also spoke of his pride at his son preventing more bloodshed. [read more]

Hero, indeed.  He just reacted without hesitation without thinking about his own safety. He instinctively knew the right course of action to save lives. God speed his recovery.

Other articles on the terrorist attack:

• ‘It was a matter of conscience’: Ahmed al-Ahmed’s family reveal why he risked his life to disarm alleged Bondi shooter
• Bondi Beach hero helped disarm terrorist before police mistakenly shot him: report
• Heroic detective killed Bondi Beach terror suspect with ‘once-in-a-lifetime shot’ from over 100 feet away
• Australia Police See Evidence of Islamic State–Inspired Terror in Bondi Massacre
• Australia Doesn’t Have A Gun Problem, It Has An Islamist Problem
• There’s No Evidence Australia’s Strict Gun Control Laws Are Effective
• Why the Australia beach shooting should terrify EVERYONE [video]
  

Science Never Just “Says”…

From Breakpoint.org (Sept. 15, 2022):

Science is supposed to be objective, an undeniable source for truth not subject to fads or fashion. The phrases “scientists say” or “the science is settled” is supposed to inspire hushed awe and open ears. Scientists are supposed to serve as arbiters of truth, at least on questions within their fields of expertise, able to settle disputes and sort fact from fiction.

Many progressives, especially, employ the phrase “the science says” to silence disagreement about everything from climate policy to gender ideology. “The science,” at least in certain circles, is an authority appealed to in order to end debate and dismiss critics of favored policies. Increasingly, the theory that science is a neutral arbiter or source of truth looks shaky, especially when scientific publications openly announce their commitment to ideology over evidence.

Bell Curve author Charles Murray recently tweeted an editorial published by the peer-reviewed journal, Nature Human Behaviour. Murray (who is no stranger to what happens to those who publish politically incorrect findings) highlighted a section in which the editors announced they will be censoring scientific results that do not conform to a favored political narrative. Specifically, the editors reserved the right to amend, refuse, or retract “[c]ontent that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, [or] (dis)ability…”

They also reserved the right to censor content that “undermines—or could be reasonably perceived to undermine—the rights and dignities of an individual or human group” on the basis of any of these categories, as well as to refuse submissions that are “exclusionary of a diversity of voices…”

It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how language this sweeping could be used. For instance, studies that find children do best in homes with their biological mother and father could be “reasonably perceived” by the editors of Nature Human Behaviour to suggest the “inherent inferiority” of same-sex parents. Research that finds female athletes are disadvantaged when competing against biological men could “undermine the rights and dignities” of transgender opponents. A study that finds little girls do better in societies that don’t practice female genital mutilation could be censored for its “assumption of inherent…cultural superiority.”

As Murray tweeted, “It is hard to exaggerate the scientific insanity this represents.” Even psychologist and science author Steven Pinker, no friend of Christians or religious conservatives, slammed the journal, tweeting: “Nature Human Behavior is no longer a peer-reviewed scientific journal but an enforcer of a political creed…how do we know articles have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness?”

It’s a good question, and one more people should be asking. Increasingly, the scientific enterprise itself is looking shaky, not only because of political correctness but because the practices on which science depends—peer review and replication—are breaking down.

Consider an analysis published in the journal Science last year in which behavioral economists at the University of California found that the least reliable studies are the ones other scientists cite the most. This team analyzed over 20,000 papers in some of the top psychology, economy, and science journals, and found that “studies that failed to replicate since their publication were on average 153 times more likely to be cited” than studies that did—mostly because their findings were more “interesting.” And this problem was found to be worst in leading journals Nature and Science.

The takeaway here is not that science is bad. On the contrary, science is a gift of God, made possible in how He made the world and His image bearers. Science has made the world immeasurably richer, and the world arguably owes a debt for these riches to Christian assumptions and pioneers. However, scientists and science editors are human and just as vulnerable to bad ideas and dangerous ideologies as other humans.

Reform can happen within a field of knowledge. Thus, science can regain its authority as a source of truth and public good, rather than propaganda. Christians in the sciences have an especially important role to play, as voices protesting ideologically loaded conclusions and as examples of integrity and objectivity. Until that reform happens, anything announced with “the science says,” especially on intensely politically charged issues, should be greeted with suspicion. As Pinker said, we have a right to know whether their claims have been vetted for truth rather than political correctness. [source]

Sadly, science will always be politicized by the ruling class as long as it can be used to increase their power.

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]