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]

Meet 'Norman,' the Darkest, Most Disturbed AI the World Has Ever Seen

From Live Science.com (Apr. 2):

A neural network named "Norman" is disturbingly different from other types of artificial intelligence (AI).

Housed at MIT Media Lab, a research laboratory that investigates AI and machine learning, Norman's computer brain was allegedly warped by exposure to "the darkest corners of Reddit" during its early training, leaving the AI with "chronic hallucinatory disorder," according to a description published April 1 (yes, April Fools' Day) on the project's website.

MIT Media Lab representatives described the presence of "something fundamentally evil in Norman's architecture that makes his re-training impossible," adding that not even exposure to holograms of cute kittens was enough to reverse whatever damage its computer brain suffered in the bowels of Reddit.

This outlandish story is clearly a prank, but Norman itself is real. The AI has learned to respond with violent, gruesome scenarios when presented with inkblots; its responses suggest its "mind" experiences a psychological disorder.

………………..

When MIT Media Lab representatives tested other neural networks with Rorschach inkblots, the descriptions were banal and benign, such as "an airplane flying through the air with smoke coming from it" and "a black-and-white photo of a small bird," according to the website.

However, Norman's responses to the same inkblots took a darker turn, with the "psychopathic" AI describing the patterns as "man is shot dumped from car" and "man gets pulled into dough machine."  [read more]

Yea, that is disturbing. Hopefully when the AIs takes over they will have a nicer personality.

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom

Commentary from Carmen Alexe on FEE.org:

Individual freedom can only exist in the context of free-market capitalism. Personal freedom thrives in capitalism, declines in government-regulated economies, and vanishes in communism. Aside from better economic and legislative policies, what America needs is a more intense appreciation for individual freedom and capitalism.

I was born and raised in communist Romania during the Cold War, a country in which the government owned all the resources and means of production. The state controlled almost every aspect of our lives: our education, our job placement, the time of day we could have hot water, and what we were allowed to say.

Like the rest of the Eastern European countries, Romania was often referred to as a communist country. In school, we were taught it was a socialist country. Its name prior to the 1989 Revolution to overthrow the Ceausescu regime was the Socialist Republic of Romania.

From an economic standpoint, a petty fraction of property was still privately owned. In a communist system, all property is owned by the state. So if it wasn't a true communist economy, its heavy central planning and the application of a totalitarian control over the Romanian citizenry made this nation rightfully gain its title of a communist country.

Socialism Creates Shortages

Despite the fact that Romania was a country rich in resources, there were shortages everywhere. Food, electricity, water, and just about every one of life's necessities were in short supply. The apartment building in which we lived provided hot water for showers two hours in the morning and two hours at night. We had to be quick and on time so we didn't miss the opportunity.

Wrigley's chewing gum and Swiss chocolate were a rare delight for us. I remember how happy I was when I'd have a pack of foreign bubblegum or a bar of delicious milk chocolate. I'd usually save them for special occasions.

……………….

Capitalism Advances Private Property

Considering the shortages created by the government-controlled economy of my birth country, I came to understand and appreciate capitalism, the one system that had the most dramatic effect in elevating human civilization.

The layman definition of capitalism is the economic system in which people and businesses engage in manufacturing, trading, and exchanging products and services without government interference. A free-market capitalist system works in a more efficient manner when not tampered with by government or central bank intervention in the credit markets, monetary policy, and interest rate fixing.

Private property and private property rights are at the core of capitalism. When in school, we learned that private property makes people greedy and is considered detrimental to society. Private property was associated with capitalism, the system that our textbooks claimed failed.

Capitalism Helps Us Be Better Individuals

We are free to create and come up with all kinds of business ideas, no matter how crazy some might be. Because we don't have to worry about tomorrow, we have—or make—the time to read, explore, and innovate.

Capitalism makes it possible for us to challenge ourselves, to have goals, and to put forth the sweat to achieve them. It gives us the freedom to try new things and explore new opportunities. It gives us the chance to create more opportunities. It helps us build strong character because when we try, we also fail, and without failure, how do we know we've made mistakes? Without failure, how do we know we must make changes?

……………………..

It starts in our own backyard, in our home, in our small group, in our community. It starts with loving, involved, and dedicated parents who'd instill the values of personal responsibility and delayed gratification in their children. It continues with an education that entails both theory and hands-on practice in environments conducive to learning how to think independently and how to acquire life- and work-skills. It evolves into a purpose-driven life rich in learning and experiences. And this may be just the beginning of attaining the intellectual maturity to perceive the value that free markets and individual freedom afford most of us.  [read more]

Another article to read about socialism: “Socialism's Sexist Origins”

Scientists say they’ve discovered a new organ, and it could be the biggest in the human body

From The Blaze.com (Mar. 28):

Scientists may have discovered a previously unknown organ in the human body, and it could also be the largest. Researchers from New York University’s School of  Medicine say that the new organ, which they’ve named the “interstitium,” is present in a very thin layer throughout the entire body.

According to a study published in the journal Scientific Reports, the interstitium is a network of fluid-filled tissue that runs under the skin and around major organs. Neil Theise, a professor at the school, said that the organ could function “like a shock absorber” for organs as they move around.

If this organ is so big, why hasn’t anyone noticed it before?

The researchers who presented this paper theorized that this organ had remained undiscovered for so long because of how anatomical research is done. Normally, when tissue samples are studied, they are sliced thinly and treated with chemicals before being placed under a microscope. These chemicals make cell structures easier to see, but when the tissue is drained of fluid it causes the cells in the mesh-like interstitium to collapse. Because of this, scientists previously assumed that this collapsed interstitium was just more connective tissue.

Instead of using this method, the researchers who made this discovery used a tiny camera on a probe, a technique called confocal laser endomicroscopy. The camera is capable of taking images of tissue at a microscopic level.

What does this discovery mean for science?

The researchers theorize that understanding the interstitium could help scientists to better understand how cancer works. According to a news release from the school, “the finding that this layer is a highway of moving fluid may explain why cancer that invades it becomes much more likely to spread.” [read more]

8 Times Law-Abiding Citizens Saved Lives With an AR-15

From The Daily Signal.com (Mar. 14):

The reality is that law-abiding citizens purchase millions of AR-15s (and similar rifles) for one very important overriding reason—the same reason, in fact, that law enforcement officers often use them: They are great for self-defense.

In the words of Andrew Napolitano, the Second Amendment is an extension of the natural right of self-defense that “protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”

The AR-15 is a preferred weapon of law-abiding citizens because it does precisely that: It effectively confronts the violent threats from tyrants, oppressors, and—most often in post-Revolution America—criminals.

……………..

On many occasions where armed self-defense is necessary, simply brandishing a firearm will be enough to deter criminals. But sometimes there is more severe need for the average law-abiding citizen to gain an advantage over multiple or heavily armed attackers.

Those situations, though infrequent, do occur—and when they do, the AR-15 can be the difference between living and dying. Consider these recent cases where the AR-15 made all the difference.

1. Harris County, Texas (2013)

A 15-year-old boy saved both his life and the life of his 12-year-old sister by fending off a pair of home invaders with his father’s AR-15.

2. Rochester, New York (2013)

Two armed burglars retreated from a college student’s apartment after coming face-to-face with an unloaded AR-15. The rifle itself instilled enough fear to cause them to flee.

3. Ferguson, Missouri (2014)

During the Ferguson, Missouri, riots, nearly all businesses within a particular 2-square-mile area of the city were looted or destroyed—except for one. African-American men guarded the gas station and convenience store of a white friend from looters and rioters. They did so armed with an AR-15, a MAC-10 “machine pistol,” and a variety of handguns.

4. Houston, Texas (2017)

A target of a drive-by shooting successfully fended off the attack by using his legally owned AR-15 against his three armed attackers. He was able to hit all three men in the moving vehicle. [read more]

'Virtual Particles' Could Create Dark, Echoing Dead Stars

From Live Science.com (Mar. 17):

There might be a massive, dead star out there that bends the stuff of raw vacuum and prevents itself from collapsing into a black hole.

That's the conclusion of a new paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters in early February, which provides the first thorough theoretical framework for understanding objects called "gravastars" and "black stars." These are ultradense, collapsed stars, like the more famous black holes. But unlike black holes, gravastars and black stars don't become so dense that they form event horizons, the border beyond which light cannot escape.

That's thanks to a phenomenon known as "quantum vacuum polarization."

Here's how it works:

There's a principle in quantum mechanics, as Live Science has reported previously, that empty space isn't really empty, but instead populated with "virtual particles." These particles are artifacts of the fact, described by quantum mechanics, that physics is governed more by probabilities than fixed realities. Because of the small possibility that a particle might exist in any one empty point in space, that empty point in space acts as if the particle is sort of, kind of there.

And those virtual particles have real effects on the world. Mostly, they're pretty small and easy to ignore. But in the extreme cases described in this paper, the particles hiding inside a heavy, collapsed star would "polarize," orienting themselves in a way that keeps them from getting too close to one another. They would form a kind of scaffolding that keeps the star from crunching too small and becoming a black hole.  [read more]

Happy Tax Day!

In 2017, it will take 113 days for taxpayers to pay the country’s tax burden, which includes $1.5 trillion in local and state taxes and $3.5 trillion in federal taxes, equaling 31 percent of America’s income. But that’s not all. If you include federal borrowing, which represents future taxes the government must collect to pay the bills, Tax Freedom Day would occur 14 days later this year on May 7.

To put this year’s total tax burden into perspective, the latest date for Deficit-Inclusive Tax Freedom Day took place during World War II almost three weeks later than this year’s date, occurring on May 25, 1945.

How Expensive is Government?

Americans will collectively pay close to $1 trillion more for taxes than will be spent on essentials like food, clothing, and housing combined.

Source: “Americans Work Almost 4 Months Just to Pay Taxes.” on FEE.org.

The progressive income tax is another deterrent to capital accumulation. The tax is often talked about as if it were devised to take from the “haves” It should be better understood, however, as taking from those who are “getting,” or trying to accumulate savings. A graduated income tax does not, per se, tax wealth that has been accumulated in earlier times; rather, it taxes current income. It bears particularly hard on potential new enterprisers.

…………………..

There are certain corollary principles which should control taxation and help to keep it within proper limits.

• 1. All taxes should be uniform. Whether levied upon income, wealth, or spending —e.g., sales taxes—a uniform rate should apply in each particular case. This is not only the just approach to taxation but also it removes the lure of redistribution by which many people approve graduated taxes.

•2. Taxes should be tied as closely as possible to the object for which the money is to be spent. The payment of a toll for the use of a road will illustrate the principle, though it is not always possible to link the taxation as closely as that to its purpose.

•3. Taxes should never be levied for any purpose other than raising revenue. If they are imposed for controlling, regulating or prohibiting something, taxes become not only destructive in character but also in intent, and are an abuse of governmental power.

•4. Government spending should be limited to that necessary to maintaining the peace and providing those services to which the use of force is necessary and proper. All limitation of government action is a limit on spending, hence upon taxation, and those who seek precise limits would do well to concentrate their efforts on placing these on government action.

……………….

Thomas Jefferson once said that what was wanted was “a wise and frugal Government, which… shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” Apropos the axioms announced in Chief Justice Marshall’s decision, it is in order to add: “a wise and frugal government which will destroy as little as possible by the taxes it imposes.”

Source: “The Power to Tax Is the Power to Destroy.” on FEE.org.

Another article to read on the subject: “How The Power To Tax Destroys.” on Mises.org.

Okay, maybe not so happy.

3 Questions Congress Should Answer Before Bailing Out Obamacare

From The Daily Signal.com (Mar. 13):

Republicans fear that insurance companies will, once again, announce large premium increases for Obamacare coverage this fall—just before November’s elections. Apparently, congressional Republicans are being persuaded by industry lobbyists that they can “buy down” premiums by giving insurers billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

When a crowd starts panicking, the best response is to remain calm and assess the situation before taking any action. To that end, here are three questions for Republican lawmakers.

1. How likely is it that there will be large premium increases this fall if Congress doesn’t give insurers a bailout?

The investment disclaimer that “past performance is no indicator of future results” applies whether the past performance was good or bad, and it applies in this situation as well. Obamacare’s past experience has certainly been bad, but that does not automatically mean it will get substantially worse in the future.

……………….

2. What guarantees do you have from insurers that if you give them a bailout, they will lower their premiums—and by how much? If you think higher premiums are a political liability, how will you look to your constituents if you vote to bail out insurers now, and then come October, they hike their premiums anyway?

Remember, despite the law funneling $20 billion in “temporary reinsurance” subsidies to insurers during the first three years of Obamacare (2014 through 2016), premiums still escalated.

By waiting until insurers submit their 2019 premium requests, Congress would at least then have a factual basis for asking insurers and state insurance regulators—in public hearings—to quantify the effect that any proposed changes in federal policy or funding will have on next year’s actual premiums.

If Congress acts now, it would just be throwing more tax dollars into the unknown in the hope that it will have some positive effect.

Even most racetrack wagers offer better odds than that.

3. What do your constituents who are most upset about high Obamacare premiums think of the idea?

Keep in mind that the people who would primarily benefit from a reduction in premiums are those buying coverage without any Obamacare premium subsidies.

They are your middle-class constituents who are self-employed or own small businesses. What do they think? Are they still buying Obamacare plans, or have they already abandoned the Obamacare market?

How much would premiums have to drop before they would come back? Understandably, they have been the biggest supporters of “repeal and replace.” Have they now changed their minds to favoring “bail out and prop-up?”  [read more]

Good questions for the Congress.

Liberty is Meaningless without Responsibility

From FEE.org:

The Absence of Responsibility Is Chaos

Liberty and responsibility are inseparable. At first glance, this might seem like a paradox due to responsibility being an inherent constraint on liberty. Responsibility is the absence of flexibility and free-flowingness. However, those who truly want liberty also want the self-responsibility entailed.

In each person being their own master, that person also has to accept that the actions they take produce real consequences. That person then has to choose carefully what actions they take as they are the owner of the consequences. Without a fair sense of responsibility, self-directed individuals would not be able to produce a prosperous society.

Having to carry the burden of consequences forces each individual to pick up their own weight and make each corner of their world a better place. For if they do not pick up the burden of being responsible, then the world falls into a chaotic place, a place of disregard. It is in this sense that responsibility is a necessary component of liberty.

Responsibility Is Choice

F.A. Hayek dedicates a whole chapter to responsibility and freedom in his book The Constitution of Liberty. He states that “Liberty and responsibility are inseparable.” He expands on this statement by claiming,

“A free society will not function or maintain itself unless its members regard it as a right that each individual occupy the position that results from his action and accept it as due to his own action. Though it can offer to the individual only chances and though the outcome of his efforts will depend on innumerable accidents, it forcefully directs his attention to those circumstance that he can control as if they were the only ones that mattered.”

Here we see why responsibility is a necessary condition for liberty. But why do we even want to live in a society where individuals are burdened with responsibility? Why should we let individuals decide their own path? Would it not be better to live in a world with a philosopher king deciding which morals and roles people should undertake, due to the fact that some people just don’t have the capacity to be responsible for themselves?

……………….

Liberty and responsibility are inseparable. Not only is responsibility a necessary condition for a free society to prosper, it will also help you become the best person you can be. Responsibility allows for you to cultivate the skills you are best at and then to share those skills with the world. This creates a better society and a meaningful existence. Having responsibility gives you a sense of purpose. Create a better you, create a life of meaning, and by that process, you will be part of creating a better world.  [read more]

Austrian psychiatrist, esteemed author, and holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl, suggested that there be a “statue of responsibility” on the west coast. Not a bad idea, but if it is placed in Left-leaning California they might reject the idea. Personal responsibility takes power away from Big Gov. The Left can’t have that happen.

Black Hole Pretenders Could Really Be Bizarre Quantum Stars

From Scientific America.com (Mar. 16):

When giant stars die, they don’t just fade away. Instead they collapse in on themselves, leaving behind a compressed stellar remnant, usually a city-size, superdense ball of neutrons appropriately called a neutron star. In extreme cases, however, most theorists believe an expiring giant star will form a black hole—a pointlike “singularity” with effectively infinite density and a gravitational field so powerful that not even light, the fastest thing in the universe, can escape once falling in. Now a new study is reinvigorating an alternate idea, that objects with names such as “black stars,” or “gravastars,” might exist midway between neutron stars and black holes. If real, these exotic stellar corpses should appear nearly identical to black holes save in one key way—they could not irretrievably swallow light.

There are good reasons to seek such alternatives, because black holes raise a host of theoretical problems. For instance, their singularities are supposedly hidden by invisible boundaries known as event horizons. Throw something into a black hole, and once it passes the event horizon it should be gone—forever—with no hope whatsoever of return. But such profound annihilation clashes with other long-cherished laws of physics that suggest the destruction of information is impossible, including information encoded within anything falling into black holes. [read more]

The universe is really weird. I have never heard of black stars before this article. Then again I am not an astrophysicist.

Progressives Might Not Want to Look to the Old West for Gun Control Ideas

From The Daily Signal.com:

A frequent criticism levied at those who oppose widespread gun control is that they want to return to a kind of Wild West of violence and criminality.

But now, ironically, more and more people on the left are pointing to the Old West as a model for gun control. They say that conservatives are wrong to think the Second Amendment right to bear arms is ingrained in American history.

A recent article in Smithsonian Magazine called “Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West” laid out the case that some famous western towns, like Tombstone and Dodge City, actually had gun control laws.

But injecting these laws into the modern gun debate would seem to be ill-advised, especially if they are used to argue that “disarmed” societies are necessarily safer.

Most of the gun control laws in the Old West, if they existed at all, had nothing to do with confiscation or restrictions on gun type. They had more to do with gun use—for instance, firing pistols in city streets.

Few opponents of gun control today would object to limitations on discharging firearms in a busy intersection.

Gun Control Failure at the O.K. Corral

There were some frontier towns where there were gun restrictions, such as in Tombstone, Arizona, where an 1881 law made it “unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.”

Laws of this extent were mostly unheard of in most American cities and were unusual in the Old West. But even in this limited case, they proved ineffective.

Perhaps the most famous gunfight in all of American history took place at the O.K. Corral between Tombstone authorities (including the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday) and associates of Ike Clanton, a rough-around-the-edges frontier character.

As an article for NRA-ILA explains, “Tombstone of the 1880s is a peculiar model for those who today agitate for greater local authority to restrict or ban firearms.”

The notorious incident at the O.K. Corral took place in the closest equivalent to a “gun-free zone” in the 19th century. The gun control measure, such that it was, did little to stem gun violence, and likely provoked the infamous confrontation.

At a trial that took place after the shooting, a judge declared that Sheriff Virgil Earp “committed an injudicious and censurable act” to gather a posse to take down Clanton and take away his guns, and that he had “acted incautiously and without due circumspection.”

“The [gun] ordinance, in this case at least, proved to be almost entirely ineffective,” the NRA piece said. “As recounted in the court decision, Sheriff Behan had ‘demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and … they ‘demurred,’ as he said, and did not do it.”

Even the Smithsonian piece noted that Tombstone’s “most violent year was 1881, in which also only five people were killed; three were the cowboys shot by Earp’s men at the O.K. Corral.”  [read more]

The author of the article goes on to say that even though there was more guns back in the old west crime was down. Even rape was down or non-existence. Probably because woman in those days own guns too and no man in those days would risk raping a pistol-packing-mama.

How Ben Franklin Invented the American Dream

From FEE.org:

Benjamin Franklin pioneered the spirit of self-help in America. With less than three years of formal schooling, he taught himself almost everything he knew. He took the initiative of learning French, German, Italian, Latin, and Spanish. He taught himself how to play the guitar, violin, and harp. He made himself an influential author and editor. He started a successful printing business, newspaper, and magazine. He developed a network of printing partnerships throughout the American colonies.

When Franklin saw that something needed doing, he did it. In Philadelphia, he helped launch the city’s first police force, the first volunteer fire company, the first fire insurance firm, the first hospital, the first public library, and the academy that became the first institution of higher learning (the University of Pennsylvania). As postmaster, he doubled and tripled the frequency of mail deliveries.

Franklin, who reportedly amassed early America’s largest private library, helped expand the frontiers of science and invention. He started the American Philosophical Society, which was this country’s first scientific society, and maintained the first science library, first museum, and first patent office; more than 90 members of this society went on to win Nobel Prizes. On his eight trans-Atlantic crossings, Franklin made measurements that helped chart the Gulf Stream. He pioneered the study of water flowing around a hull—hydrodynamics. He investigated meteorology*. He invented bifocal spectacles. He was most famous, of course, for his experiments with electricity, especially lightning. His lightning rod helped banish the terror of thunderstorms.  [read more]

Benjamin Franklin is one my most favorite men of the American revolution.

*He theorized that thunderstorms follow low pressure systems. I am impressed.

7 Points a Virginia Lawmaker Made in a Speech on Guns That Went Viral

From The Daily Signal.com (Mar. 7):

An Iraq combat veteran is getting attention for a fiery speech to fellow members of the Virginia House of Delegates defending the Second Amendment and its supporters. 

Delegate Nick Freitas, a Republican elected in 2016 to represent Culpeper, Madison, and Orange counties, is a business consultant and former Green Beret who served two combat tours in Iraq.

After asking permission to make remarks on the House floor, Freitas spoke for seven minutes March 2. A video of his speech went viral after the lawmaker shared it on his Facebook page, and now has more than 13 million views.

Here are seven highlights of his points:

1.  Find Out If Gun-Free Zones Work

“Wouldn’t it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones [has] actually achieved what their intended intent is?” Freitas asked.

2. Understand the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment right to bear arms does not come from a “base philosophical conviction,” Freitas said, but instead “is rooted in the idea that while we may be a post-Enlightenment society, the vast majority of horrible atrocities that we’ve seen have happened in those post-Enlightenment societies.”

…………..

3. Make Self-Defense Possible

Guns are a powerful deterrent, Freitas said, and self-defense isn’t limited only to circumstances where a perpetrator ends up killed or wounded.

Americans hold the Second Amendment in “high esteem,” he said, “because we honestly believe that you have an inherent right to defend yourself.”

…………………..

4. Consider Arming Teachers

Freitas said he agrees with lawmakers who are pushing for teachers to be armed.

“Not every teacher,” he said. “But a teacher that is comfortable with it, is former law enforcement, is former military, that is now in the classroom.”

5. Stop Calling Him a Nazi and Segregationist

Political opponents have called him a Nazi and a segregationist, Freitas said in his speech.

“It was not our party that supported slavery, that fought women’s suffrage, that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian-Americans and put them in concentration camps, that supported Jim Crow, that supported segregation or supported mass resistance,” Freitas said. “That wasn’t our party. That was the Democrat Party.”

………………..

6. Continue the Dialogue With Mutual Respect

Mutual respect, Freitas said, is key to developing solutions that work and coming to agreements.

“It starts with a certain degree of not assuming that the only reason why we believe in the Second Amendment is because the NRA paid us off, he said, adding:

If that’s the sort of logic you want to use, why don’t you go take a look at how much money the NRA spends and how much money Planned Parenthood spends? When I get here and talk about abortion, I don’t assume that you’re all bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood. I don’t assume you’re horrible people because I disagree with you on a policy position.

7.  Admit Government Failed in Parkland Shooting

In his last point, Freitas reflected on the Feb. 14 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

“We are going to have a problem with so-called solutions which infringe on people’s liberty under the promise that government will provide for their security,” he said.

“Because ultimately in this last school shooting we had a perfect example of government being engaged over 30 times and still failing to provide security for those students.” [read more]

Good points. I don’t think “Gun free” zones work. It tells would-be killers that everyone in the building is an open target. A sign that says: ‘Guess which school staffers are trained, and carrying concealed weapons.” as a Mallard Fillmore cartoon suggests would be better. Or even “You will not murder.” a sign suggested by the American Family Association. Although this last suggestion would probably be objected to by the ACLU on the separation-of-church-and-state grounds. The far-Left would probably object to the first suggested because it might upset some snowflakes. Who knows.

I Went to the March for Our Lives Protest. Here Are My 7 Takeaways.

Commentary from Jarrett Stepman on The Daily Signal.com (Mar. 24):

Tens of thousands of protesters—and maybe more—gathered in Washington, D.C., and around the country Saturday to protest in favor of gun control.

The demonstrations, called the March for Our Lives, featured children calling for an end to gun violence and ultimately stricter gun control laws.

The Daily Signal hit the streets to observe the event and see what it was all about.

The following are my observations from walking through the crowd and assessing its common themes.

1) A Left-Wing Movement

It may seem painfully obvious, but it is worth noting the march in Washington was clearly a left-wing protest.

As Julie Gunlock at The Federalist noted, some parents were led to believe that the March 14 National School Walkout would be about memorializing victims of the Parkland shooting. It wasn’t.

“The real mission of the walkout is to demand Congress pass more restrictive gun laws,” Gunlock wrote.

…………………

2) Well-Organized and Well-Funded

This was certainly one of the largest gatherings I’ve seen in Washington, D.C., and one of the most highly organized.

Clearly, staff from a huge number of activist pro-gun control organizations showed up, as would be expected, but there were also people on almost every street corner trying to register people to vote.

People carried signs from gun control groups, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

……………….

A series of Hollywood celebrities funded the march, including Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Steven Spielberg, and others.

As BuzzFeed reported, a litany of leftist organizations and politicos got involved, including the George Soros-backed MoveOn.org, Women’s March LA, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and, curiously, Planned Parenthood.

3) Prayer Is Out

……………….

4) Those Who Disagree Viewed as Complicit in Murder

While the name March for Our Lives may be a coincidence, it certainly sounds similar to the March for Life, a pro-life rally that takes place each January in Washington, D.C.

Numerous signs claimed that those who back gun rights don’t care about the lives of children or are responsible for deaths.

…………………….

5) Second Amendment Seen as Problematic and Outdated

While gun control advocates have generally been cautious about outright attacking the Second Amendment, many of the protesters had no such reservations.

Some lamented that former President Barack Obama didn’t confiscate guns.

……………………….

6) Fuzzy Facts

It was clear that while many of the protesters were articulate in defending their views, they were misinformed about some of the facts surrounding the gun debate.

……………..

7) Not a Gun-Free Zone

The March for Our Lives crowd may have wanted to disarm Americans, but the event hardly took place in a gun-free zone.

Armed police covered the streets to ensure the safety of those gathering in the nation’s capital. In fact, there were even armored military vehicles embedded within groups of protesters.  [read more]

It’s nice to see the young folks are getting some fresh air instead of being on their cell phones all the time.

Seriously though, protesting is fine if you know what you are protesting about and you don’t deviate from the topic you are protesting. Otherwise, stay in inside school and learn facts and even theories—not political propaganda (ie Left-wing brainwashing) which it seems some schools are teaching nowadays.

Articles to read:

• Social Psychology Suggests “March for Our Lives” Is Unlikely to Change Anything. Here’s Why.
• Gun Control Movement Is Polar Opposite of the Civil Rights Movement