The Seven Truths of Innovation and the LEGO Group’s Decline Part 1

Values Are Priceless. Today, every person who’s hired into the LEGO Group’s Billund operations gets a tour of the small brick building, with lions flanking the front steps, where Ole Kirk and his family once lived. There, they learn of another bedrock value that the company’s founder bequeathed to his company: the bar-raising principle that “only the best is good enough.”

…….

It’s this melding of these two guiding principles—serving the “builders of tomorrow” and creating “only the best”—that separates LEGO from its competitors and helps it stand out in the global marketplace.

Relentless Experimentation Begets Breakthrough Innovation

Not a Product but a System. The LEGO Group’s breakaway success grew out of its ability to see where the toy world was heading and get there first. The company’s first farsighted move came when it bet on plastic toys and the future of the brick. The second came when LEGO had the insight that it must evolve from producing stand-alone toys to creating an entire system of play, with the brick as the unifying element.

Long before the first computer software programs were patented, LEGO made the brick backward compatible, so that a newly manufactured brick could connect with an original 1958 brick. Thanks to backward compatibility, kids could integrate LEGO model buildings from one kit with LEGO model cars, light pylons, traffic signs, train tracks, and more from other kits. No matter what the toy, every brick clicked with every other brick, which meant every LEGO kit was expandable.

………

He [Godtfred Kirk, CEO of LEGO] eventually identified six features, which he called the company’s “Principles of Play” and issued to every LEGO employee:   

1. Limited in size without setting limitations for imagination   
2. Affordable   
3. Simple, durable, and offer rich variations   
4. For girls, for boys, fun for every age   
5. A classic among toys, without the need of renewal   
6. Easy to distribute.

Tighter Focus Leads to More Profitable Innovation. When Godtfred bet on the brick, he opted out of producing wooden toys. Dropping the toys that accounted for 90 percent of the company’s product assortment could not have been an easy decision. But Godtfred believed that too many options could overwhelm a nascent effort to create a new kind of play experience—that, in fact, less can be more. Channeling his company’s limited resources in just one area, the plastic brick, could lead to more and more profitable products getting to market.

…….

To protect the System’s integrity, he [Godtfred] limited the range of different shapes and colors of bricks that LEGO produced.

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

The same lab that cloned Dolly the sheep has used gene editing to create chickens resistant to avian flu

From El Pais.com (Oct. 10, 2023):

The University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute — the animal research center where Dolly the sheep was created — used gene editing to breed chickens that resist infection by the avian flu. A deadly virus for birds that causes great economic losses around the world and can, in some cases, infect and kill humans, the disease has proved difficult for vaccines because the proteins on its surface that are recognized by the immune system change rapidly. A group of British researchers has tested the potential of modifying small sections of chicken DNA to prevent influenza infection, albeit only partially. They published their results today in the journal Nature Communications.

Influenza A needs a protein in chicken cells, ANP32A, to replicate. The team of scientists, led by Mike McGrew, a University of Edinburgh researcher, used the CRISPR editing technique to modify the gene that produces the protein in the chickens’ germ cells, which would enable the birds to pass down the change to their offspring. In this way, animals were created that hardly became infected with influenza when exposed to other infected birds (“9 out of 10 remained uninfected,” according to the study), and they did not subsequently infect other chickens. In a later test, when inoculated with a dose a thousand times higher, five out of ten became infected.

The authors explain that the virus adapted to the change and switched to using two other proteins from the same family (ANP32B and ANP32E) to continue replicating, albeit less efficiently. This prompted the authors to try editing two more genes, thus stopping the progression of the virus in eggs. The researchers were not able to breed chickens with this triple editing, as the authors believe that it would have harmful side effects on the animals’ fertility and their ability to gain weight and their protection against other diseases, which would make its practical application impossible. Even so, the researchers consider it to be proof of concept that this technique can be used to protect against influenza A infection.

Lluis Montoliu, a geneticist at the Spanish National Research Council’s National Biotechnology Center, who was not involved in the study, believes that the result heralds a future in which “animals resistant to influenza infections can be generated, which will require not one but several genetic modifications. Generating more than one modification in the same animal would have been a challenge a few years ago. Now it is much easier with CRISPR gene-editing tools,” he explains. According to the researcher, these techniques make it possible to transfer “mutations that already exist in nature — there are flu-resistant chickens with two mutations in ANP32A — to the production of edited birds. We [can] take advantage of the existing genetic variability to create resistance.”

In addition to introducing protective mutations without creating less productive animals, the researchers also want to ensure that the changes do not push a virus as versatile as the influenza virus in dangerous directions. When they removed the ANP32A protein, the viruses adapted to use proteins from the same family found in humans. As Wendy Barclay, a researcher at Imperial College London and a co-author of the study, explains, “This doesn’t mean that it could infect humans, but we must be careful not to facilitate adaptations of the virus that make it more dangerous than it [already] is.”

Once the problems and risks of editing have been overcome, the practical application would have to resolve other difficulties, as McGrew acknowledges. “You produce about 70 billion chickens a year. To get to that number, you start with about 100,000 at the top of a reproductive pyramid that you expand over four years. You would start by editing the animals at the top so that they would then reproduce [and] pass down the resistance to their offspring,” he explains. “But chickens are not like other animals, where one male mates with 100 females. It’s more like 100 [males] with 100 [females] and introducing that many edits is going to be hard to do,” he acknowledges.

Víctor Briones, a researcher at the Center for Veterinary Health Surveillance of the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain), considers the research to be “an interesting proof of concept,” but believes that the application would only be possible “in industrial poultry farming.” In addition, he notes that “the major [sources of avian flu] are the anatidae [birds, usually migratory, from the duck family].” Although introducing such genetic changes in wild birds seems difficult to accomplish, McGrew points out that the three modified genes “are conserved in all bird species and such editing should work with any species.” Even among domestic chickens, the sheer number of varieties would require changes to be introduced separately in each. The authors are now working to solve these and other problems to turn interesting scientific research into a practical solution. [source]

BREAKING: Top-secret 2020 House Intel report on Brennan's ICA revealed

From Glenn Beck.com (July 23):

The following oversight report from the House Intelligence Committee examines the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) rushed out by the Obama administration before leaving office in January 2017.

This report has never been released to the public. Until now.

The House Intelligence Committee’s review began in 2017, shortly after the ICA’s release, and continued through 2020, paralleling a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, which concluded in fall 2020.

Before its declassification by President Trump and public release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, this report was among the U.S. government’s most highly classified documents. Its sensitive level of compartmentation prohibited storage on top-secret computer networks. Only five physical copies existed, all secured in safes under strict protocols. This extreme classification suggests the Obama administration sought to prevent the public from learning the extent of its alleged deception.

Download the PDF here. [source]

Sounds like election interference to me. Brennan should be indicted too.

More articles on the matter:

• Obama’s Disgraced CIA Director John Brennan Lashes Out — Accuses Tulsi Gabbard of “Intentionally Lying” After She Exposes His Fraudulent Intel Reports
• Obama Intel Chief James Clapper Told NSA Head To Get On Board With ‘Our Story’ On Russiagate Intel
• CIA Deep Staters Reportedly Tried To Stop Tulsi Gabbard From Revealing Truth About Russiagate
• Tulsi Gabbard strips 37 security clearances over Obama-ordered intel report that launched Russiagate

WINNING: Trump Secures Trade Deals In Philippines And Indonesia

From Daily Wire.com (July 22):

President Donald Trump announced two trade deals Tuesday, continuing his streak of securing open markets for exported American goods while imposing strapping tariffs on Philippine and Indonesian goods.

“It was a beautiful visit, and we concluded our Trade Deal, whereby The Philippines is going OPEN MARKET with the United States, and ZERO Tariffs,” Trump said in a TruthSocial post following his meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Trump quickly followed up with details about a massive trade deal with the republic of Indonesia made last week.

“It is agreed that Indonesia will be Open Market to American Industrial and Tech Products, and Agricultural goods, by eliminating 99% of their Tariff Barriers,” Trump said

These deals come after Trump threatened several countries to come to the table by August 1st or face increased tariff rates.

American producers will now have access to the Philippine market completely free from tariffs, Trump said. At the same time, all Philippine imports will carry a 19% tariff — a slight reduction from the threatened 20% tariff.

The Philippines — a country with about a third of the population of the United States — ran roughly a $5 billion trade imbalance in 2024, importing $9.3 billion in U.S. goods while exporting $14.2 billion worth of goods to the United States.

The United States imports a vast amount of electronic circuits and office machine parts from the Philippines, while exporting mostly foodstuffs and integrated circuits to the Southeast Asian country, according to a 2023 report by the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

Trump recently secured a similar trade deal with Vietnam, clinching an open market for American goods while all imported Vietnamese goods will carry a 20% tariff.

Trump also floated continued military collaboration with the Philippines. “In addition,” Trump wrote, “we will work together Militarily.”

The Philippines sits in a strategic location near China and has clashed with the Chinese in recent memory.

In a Monday meeting between Marcos and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the latter said “Our storied alliance has never been stronger or more essential than it is today. … Together, we remain committed to the mutual defense treaty. And this pact extends to armed attacks on our armed forces, aircraft or public vessels, including our Coast Guard, anywhere in the Pacific, including the South China Sea.”

Hegseth added that, “We do not seek confrontation, but we are and will be ready and resolute.”

Trump praised Marcos, saying that “It was a Great Honor to be with the President. He is Highly Respected in his Country, as he should be. He is also a very good, and tough, negotiator. We extend our warmest regards to the wonderful people of The Philippines!” [source]

Nice! More trade wins:

• Trump Announces $550 Billion Trade Deal With Japan
• Trump signs major critical minerals deal so US can break free from China
• Trump: Trade Deal With South Korea Reached
  

Free the Gas Stoves: Trump's Energy Department Axes Dozens of Biden Appliance, Energy Regulations

From Free Beacon.com (May 12):

Gone are rules banning a wide swath of gas stoves. Gone are the strict water standards governing dishwashers and shower heads. And gone is the government-wide effort to force electrification of the economy through appliance regulations. It is all part of a historic action the Trump administration announced Monday, reversing dozens of energy regulations, saving consumers more than $11 billion, and cutting more than 125,000 words from the United States Code of Regulations.

As part of the Department of Energy's sweeping action unveiled Monday, it will rescind dozens of energy efficiency regulations targeting common household appliances that the Biden administration issued as part of its climate agenda. That includes rules restricting sales of certain types of gas-powered stoves and ovens in addition to microwaves, clothes washers, dishwashers, faucets, shower heads, and dehumidifiers.

"It should not be the government's place to decide what kind of appliances you or your restaurants or your businesses can buy," Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the Washington Free Beacon earlier this month. "Everybody wants clean air and wants to lower their energy costs and run their factories good as they can. The big hand of government doesn't actually help that process at all."

"We will look for every way we can to protect freedom of the American worker and pursue President Trump's agenda, get rid of the nonsense, bring back common sense, make life more affordable, and opportunities greater," he added, noting that previous crackdowns on gas-powered appliances were elitist and illogical.

The action is the latest blow the Trump administration has delivered to former president Joe Biden's climate legacy. It is also the latest sign that the current administration will prioritize an approach to energy efficiency, which Congress mandates the Department of Energy to promote through periodic rulemakings, that prioritizes consumer choice and free markets over greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Led by then-energy secretary Jennifer Granholm, the Biden administration issued dozens of appliance regulations and pushed a broader electrification strategy, pushing consumers to shift away from reliance on natural gas. Granholm remarked during a White House electrification summit in 2022 that the United States must "electrify and create efficiencies both within our homes and across the industrial sector."

When crafting such rules, Granholm regularly consulted environmental activist organizations, which were largely funded by progressive grantmaking nonprofits, such as the Bloomberg Family Foundation, the TomKat Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Schmidt Family Foundation.

"This is very good news for consumer freedom," Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Free Beacon. "We learned from the gas stove episode of 2023 that the American people don't want federal regulators dictating their choices, whether that's the kitchen, the laundry room, or whatever room has your water heater or furnace. They want to be able to decide for themselves."

"And this takes some important steps in that regard," Lieberman continued. "I think this also undoes a lot of climate-related appliance regulations that further take the decisions away from consumers and that pursue an environmental agenda."

In one of its most controversial appliance regulations, in February 2023, the Biden Department of Energy unveiled regulations that would have banned a large swath of cheaper, but less-efficient gas stoves currently on the market. The move sparked an immediate uproar and forced Granholm to admit she owned a gas stove. Granholm, however, still finalized the regulations and a slate of others following the episode.

In addition to reversing Biden-era appliance rules, the Department of Energy on Monday will also streamline regulations related to natural gas imports and exports, approvals for electric energy exports, and procedures for purchasing Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil stocks. It will also rescind regulations surrounding minority business loans, end requirements allowing men to play in women's sports, and delay compliance dates for the "clean energy federal building rule."

"While it would normally take years for the Department of Energy to remove just a handful of regulations, the Trump Administration assembled a team working around the clock to reduce costs and deliver results for the American people in just over 110 days," Wright said in a statement.

"Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, we are bringing back common sense—slashing regulations meant to appease Green New Deal fantasies, restrict consumer choice and increase costs for the American people. Promises made, promises kept." [source]

Not tired of the winning! 

More EPA news:

• EPA's Zeldin Ending Cars' Start/Stop Tech: 'Everyone Hates It'
• Energy Dept. Axes 223 Biden-Era 'Green New Scam' Projects, Saves $7.5 Billion
• Serious people don’t sign manifestos with disappearing ink

Atheism’s obsession with God: Is it ‘cultural theism’?

From Marlon De Blasio on Christian Post.com (Aug. 4, 2023):

The amount of time that atheists dedicate to God is a bewildering paradox. They write massive books. They are constantly appearing on podcasts, video blogs, and platforms to discuss God. This obsession seems unjustifiable. How can so much time be spent denying a being that doesn’t exist? Couldn’t that precious time be utilized for solving humanitarian crises?

In 2006, an atheist published a lengthy book claiming that God is a delusion, with an arrogant comment that a religious believer who read it would become an atheist. Then in 2019, he wrote a copious guide on how to outgrow God. If God was already established as a delusion, why waste time instructing on how to outgrow Him? Perhaps G. K. Chesterton was right, “If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”

The atheist preoccupation with God doesn’t seem to be sensible. The term “atheist” should be replaced by a more befitting term. God remains compelling and so atheism prefers to deny Him at every opportunity because it desires a world without Him. It’s not strictly about science, reason, or evidence (I have argued this point elsewhere).

Thomas Nagel, whom I respect, desired a world without God. He expressed his honest sentiments:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

This longing might help to explain contemporary atheism’s inordinate fascination with God. In other words, it experiences God as a compulsion that necessitates a reaction. The conflict is more noteworthy than how it’s often caricatured.

Note Michael Shermer who is the editor-in-chief of the magazine, “Skeptic,” and a likeable person. As a teenager in the 70s, he once professed faith in Christ. In 2009, he wrote:

“I have spent my entire adult life thinking about God — 30 plus years cogitating on a being that may or may not even exist. Although I am no longer a believer, I still think about him more than I care to admit. Once I stopped believing in God in the late 1970’s, I thought that the whole issue of God’s existence or non-existence would simply fall by the way side ... And yet for a concatenation of reasons involving both my personal and professional lives, God just won’t go away.”

If a chief skeptic has spent his “entire adult life thinking about God,” I believe it’s likewise for many atheists. “God just won’t go away.” No, God is never going away. So the only way for atheism is to focus on ousting Him. With equal rigor, open-minded skepticism should apply its interrogating skills toward the tenets of atheism, but it prefers not to. God becomes the exclusive object of criticism, and bias restricts a path toward discovering Him.

Another atheist attempted some clever intellectual maneuvering to explain God as a natural phenomenon. In his voluminous book, Daniel Dennett identified “believe in belief in God” among atheists. He wrote:

“People who believe in God are sure that God exists ... because they hold God to be the most wonderful of all things. People who moreover believe in belief in God are sure that belief in God exists (and who could doubt that?) ... It is entirely possible to be an atheist and believe in belief in God. Such a person doesn’t believe in God but nevertheless thinks that believing in God would be a wonderful state of mind to be in, if only that could be arranged.”

For me, these mental gymnastics could even be described as “cultural theism.” That is, God is acknowledged practically by atheism and its pre-determined methodology establishes a culture of denial. Or it’s a “naturalized theism” whereby God must remain within specific atheistic parameters. Regardless, God is inescapably part of atheism’s experience and so the term atheist has evidently become a rigid misnomer.

Nevertheless, atheism often explains the belief in God as nature’s wiring of the mind, with a preposterous anecdote that humanity created Him. If so, how did nature wire some to deny that belief? It’s illogical to equivocate on nature’s wiring and have it both ways. Moreover, how did humankind ever come to a consensus on making up God? The truth is that people concocted these naturalistic ideas of God, and atheism prefers them. It’s convenient, but there remains a pesty existential conflict that seems to haunt atheism. A strictly atheistic worldview is failing in its suppression of God, and that is why “cultural theism” is emerging.

As a Christian, I speak for my faith and its unique Gospel message. Thus I encourage “cultural theism” to open up and consider the real connection to God through Christ, as multitudes have attested throughout the ages. Why not explore inner sentiments about God as emanating from Him? Some atheists reading this are probably thinking, nice try, but what about those who professed Christian faith and turned unbelievers? No person who truly comes to Christ can ever leave Him (John 10:1-18).

By the way, those books I mentioned in the intro were written by Richard Dawkins. He wrote another book in 2009 and dedicated it to Josh Timonen, his former right-hand man. Well, Timonen resigned and has professed faith in Christ. It seems that claiming God as a delusion and teaching how to outgrow Him are personal desires. [source]

It is funny how athesists write about books about not believing in God. Like Dinesh D’Souza wrote once, writing about how God doesn’t exist is like writing about how the Easter bunny doesn’t exist. What’s the point? Are they trying to prove God doesn’t exist more for themselves or for the reader?

Science Has a Major Fraud Problem. Here’s Why Government Funding Is the Likely Culprit

From FEE.org (Jan. 9, 2024):

President Biden’s 2024 budget includes over $210 billion directed toward federal research and development, an approximately $9 billion increase from 2023 funding. That might not sound particularly bad—after all, who doesn’t like science and innovation?

But, although seemingly noble, the billions pumped into the US government’s National Science Foundation don’t always translate into finding cures for debilitating diseases, or developing groundbreaking technologies.

In recent years, although technology and peer-review techniques have become more widespread, fraud has remained a consistent issue. The problem has gotten so out of hand that world-class researchers and medical ethics analysts believe the public should be aware of the widespread inaccuracies plaguing medicine.

Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor-in-chief of the BMJ and cofounder of the Committee on Medical Ethics (COPE), details,

Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t as surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported.

Independent analysis done by J. B. Carlisle confirms Dr. Smith’s suspicions. As Carlisle analyzed dozens of government-funded control trials, he found a staggering 44% contained false data. These findings are swept under the rug by most mainstream news outlets, which is a problem in itself. If government-funded research produces such sloppy results, the taxpayers funding it at least deserve to know the outcomes of the experiments they paid for.

Getting to the Root of the Problem

To understand why government-funded research tends to be so inaccurate, it’s crucial to look at history and remember how government involvement in research started.

It all ties back to the National Science Foundation (NSF), one of the first government agencies built for funding science. In the late 1940s, one of the most outspoken supporters of the NSF was Democratic Senator Harley Kilgore. His motivations were clear: the NSF was to provide the government with a pool of educated researchers that could be used for strategic purposes during the Cold War. Scientific inquisition was never the primary purpose of the NSF.

In addition to this, the system of “checks and balances” in scientific research is completely off-kilter. Private journals risk damage to their reputation if it is revealed that they have published fraudulent research. Privately funded journals compete to be the best among pools of hundreds of other publications. To maintain legitimacy in the eyes of future researchers and funders, publishing high quality research is in the private journal’s self-interest.

Academic institutions funded by governments, on the other hand, are motivated to shield their researchers, as researchers play a crucial role in securing substantial grant funding for the institution, often reaching into the millions of dollars. Government exists in a playing field outside the private sector—they aren’t competing against other specialized journals. Because they aren’t specialized and fund a wide array of projects, they can often afford to let “a few bad apples” through (unfortunately, at the expense of taxpayers).

The source of funding also undoubtedly (at the very least subconsciously) sways the research outcomes. There are several ways the government introduces bias into research. For one, the state often ignores certain scientific queries, forcing researchers to adopt different hypotheses or study different questions to gain any funding. Without any market forces guiding research and development, study objectives start aligning more with the interests of bureaucrats and less with the interests of patients.

Government agencies also don’t want to fund proposals that contradict the agency’s political ideas. If the research’s outcome even slightly threatens the government’s power, funding is likely to be cut off, often for extended periods. These outcomes are clearest when it comes to funding regarding the social sciences and economics, but also occur with life science research. 34% percent of scientists receiving federal funding have acknowledged engaging in research misconduct to align research with their funder’s political and economic agenda. Moreover, a mere 24% of these researchers have disclosed these ethically questionable research practices to their supervisors.

This incentive structure also explains why there is a limited amount of research into the accuracy of government-funded research. Many researchers are simply too afraid of the funding and reputational consequences that come with revealing problems with government funding. When there is research into federal funding bias, it is often concentrated on very specific and politically divisive topics (such as the use of stem cells). A team of researchers at the CATO Institute found just 44 Google Scholar articles from 2010-2014 that dealt with this type of government bias influencing research.

The Private-Sector Alternative

The government’s overpowering role in science simultaneously crowds out private sources of funding. Despite this, there is some good news: the private sector is getting more and more involved in scientific funding by the day.

Globally, 70% of science is financed privately. Charities like the American Cancer Foundation and Howard Hughes Medical Institute collectively contribute billions of dollars to spurring innovation in their respective fields.

For example, renowned neurologist Dr. Helen Mayberg’s research into deep brain stimulation as a depression treatment wasn’t supported by government grants. Instead, private sources funded her research. Yet, her discoveries led to additional trials and eventually breakthroughs in the way depression is treated.

Most Americans treat government-funded science as the holy grail of scientific research, but it truly isn’t. Without proper market signals guiding the direction of research, millions of tax dollars are lost, and thousands of hours of scientific research are wasted. As Milton Friedman explained regarding government funding of science, “The scientific ability of really able people is being diverted from the goals they would like to pursue themselves to the goals of government officials.” It’s up to the next generation to decide who they trust more: scientists, or the state? [source]

These gorgeous, intricate sea creatures are actually giant blobs of snot

From Live Science.com (June 5, 2020):

Hundreds of feet below the sea surface, teeny-tiny sea creatures secrete snotty blobs from cells on their heads to build their oversized mucus dwellings. With lasers, researchers are now peering inside these impressive structures to learn the delicate craft of these deep-sea architects.

These tadpole-looking sea animals are called giant larvaceans (Bathochordaeus); but despite their name, the animals are less than 4inches (10 centimeters) long, according to a statement from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Institute (MBARI). But their homes are another story: they each carry around a giant mucus bubble that can reach up to 3.3 feet (1 meter) long. Once the critters secrete these impressive structures — made up of an inner and outer filter — they use them as a feeding apparatus.

While inside its mucus mansion, the giant larvacean flaps its tail to push water through these filters; the outer filter catches the food too big for the animal to eat, while the inner filter pushes appropriately sized food into the animal's mouth. Eventually, their house gets clogged with food and the animal abandons it, to the joy of deeper-dwelling snackers like sea cucumbers, according to a 2017 video from MBARI.

This helps the ocean to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — the houses usually have a lot of carbon-rich food stuck in them — and the abandoned mucus houses carried microplastics from the water down to the seafloor.

"Among other things, we're hoping to understand how larvaceans build and inflate these structures," lead author Kakani Katija, the principal engineer at MBARI, said in the statement. The knowledge could help engineers design machines ranging from 3D printers to structures to explore underwater or outer space, she said.

But these impressive creatures are difficult to capture and study due to the delicate nature of their mucus house. Katija and her team figured out how to analyze the mucus bubbles of these gelatinous creatures for the first time out in the open ocean.

The researchers developed an instrument called DeepPIV (deep particle imaging velocimetry) that they mounted on a remotely operated vehicle. The instrument sends out a sheet of laser light that illuminates tiny particles floating around the creature's mucus structure and records how they move through the structure's filters. The laser light also recorded cross-sections of the giant larvaceans that the team used to assemble three-dimensional images of the creature's mucus houses.

The 3D reconstructions and observations of water flow through the mucus filters allowed the researchers to figure out details of the inner filters. "Mucus is ubiquitous in the ocean, and complex mucous structures are made by animals for feeding, health and protection," Katija said in the statement. "Now that we have a way to visualize these structures deep below the surface, we can finally understand how they function and what roles they play in the ocean."

The findings were published on June 3 in the journal Nature. [source]

Vermont Utility Plans to End Outages by Giving Customers Batteries

From NY Times.com (Oct. 9, 2023):

Green Mountain Power is asking state regulators to let it buy batteries it will install at customers' homes, saying doing so will be cheaper than putting up more power lines.

Many electric utilities are putting up lots of new power lines as they rely more on renewable energy and try to make grids more resilient in bad weather. But a Vermont utility is proposing a very different approach: It wants to install batteries at most homes to make sure its customers never go without electricity.

The company, Green Mountain Power, proposed buying batteries, burying power lines and strengthening overhead cables in a filing with state regulators on Monday. It said its plan would be cheaper than building a lot of new lines and power plants.

The plan is a big departure from how U.S. utilities normally do business. Most of them make money by building and operating power lines that deliver electricity from natural gas power plants or wind and solar farms to homes and businesses. Green Mountain — a relatively small utility serving 270,000 homes and businesses — would still use that infrastructure but build less of it by investing in television-size batteries that homeowners usually buy on their own.

"Call us the un-utility," Mari McClure, Green Mountain's chief executive, said in an interview before the company's filing. "We're completely flipping the model, decentralizing it."

Like many places, Vermont has been hit hard this year by extreme weather linked to climate change. Half a dozen severe storms, including major floods in July, have caused power outages and damaged homes and other buildings.

Those calamities and concerns about the rising cost of electricity helped shape Green Mountain's proposal, Ms. McClure said. As the company ran the numbers, it realized that paying recovery costs and building more power lines to improve its system would cost a lot more and take a lot longer than equipping homes with batteries. [read more]

This is what happens when a state completely relies on green energy. Although, decentralizing the power grid isn’t too bad an idea especially if someone hacks the grid or natural disaster or even just break downs.

Q2 GDP blowout [With Comment from New York Times]

From Powerline Blog.com (July 30):

We are so back. From the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA),

CNBC has the headline,

U.S. economy grew at a 3% rate in Q2, a better-than-expected pace even as Trump’s tariffs hit.

You will recall that in Q1, the economy appeared to shrink because of a surge of imports trying to beat the clock on new tariffs. Imports count as a negative in the GDP accounting.

The U.S. economy grew at a much stronger-than-expected pace in the second quarter, powered by a turnaround in the trade balance and renewed consumer strength, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.

And the mews just keeps getting better,

At the same time, GDP posted its strong rise without help from government spending. Federal outlays declined 3.7%, coming off a 4.6% drop in the first quarter.

July unemployment data will be released on Friday.

JOHN adds: Of course, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way: “U.S. Economy Slowed in First Half of 2025 as Tariffs Scrambled Data.”

Economic growth softened in the first half of the year, as tariffs and uncertainty upended business plans and scrambled consumers’ spending decisions.
***
Taken as a whole, the data from the first six months of the year tell a more consistent story of anemic, though positive, economic growth.

The Times is still hopeful for the future:

Many forecasters expect a further deterioration in the months ahead, as tariffs work their way through supply chains, federal job cuts filter through the economy and stricter immigration policies take a toll on industries that rely on foreign-born workers.

“We don’t think we’ve seen the full effects from tariffs yet,” said Michael Gapen, chief U.S. economist for Morgan Stanley. “I don’t see how we power through without a soft patch at least for a little while.”

Never give up! [source]

More winning!

Congress is quietly trying to put ‘DEI’ quotas back into college admissions and every aspect of American life. They hope you don’t notice…

From Revolver.news (May 17, 2024):

When the Supreme Court put the brakes on Harvard’s race-based admissions practices, the backlash from the left was loud. What else is new? However, the bulk of the American people agree with the Supreme Court, and while the left is very loud, they’re actually a vocal minority, convinced they have some moral authority to dictate the rules the rest of us live by. Despite how unpopular the DEI movement is, the left is pushing to reinstate this unfair practice in college and all over the US with a sneaky legislative move. A bill currently slithering its way through Congress will embed racial, gender, and religious quotas into nearly every part of American life—housing, employment, healthcare, insurance, and credit decisions are all on the chopping block—and is set to become battlegrounds for DEI if this new bill passes.

But here’s the kicker: this push is disguised as a bipartisan “victory” for privacy rights. It’s not at all. But it’s so cleverly disguised that once again, Republicans have been duped into believing they’re championing a long-overdue resolution to privacy disputes and have already thrown their support behind it.

Typical GOP move. Nobody actually reads these massive bills, do they? However, what the GOP—and much of the public—fail to realize is that the “American Privacy Act of 2024” is nothing but a Trojan horse, sneakily reintroducing massive DEI quotas under the radar. It’s a classic wolf in sheep’s clothing scenario, where what’s being promoted as privacy protection is actually drastically reshaping society under the banner of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The Volokh Conspiracy:

More than two-thirds of Americans think the Supreme Court was right to hold Harvard’s race-based admissions policy unlawful. But the minority who disagree have no doubt about their own moral authority, and there’s every reason to believe that they intend to undo the Court’s decision at the earliest opportunity.

Which could be as soon as this year. In fact, undoing the Harvard admissions decision is the least of it. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have embraced a precooked “privacy” bill that will impose race and gender quotas not just on academic admissions but on practically every private and public decision that matters to ordinary Americans. The provision could be adopted without scrutiny in a matter of weeks; that’s because it is packaged as part of a bipartisan bill setting federal privacy standards—something that has been out of reach in Washington for decades. And it looks as though the bill breaks the deadlock by giving Republicans some of the federal preemption their business allies want while it gives Democrats and left-wing advocacy groups a provision that will quietly overrule the Supreme Court’s Harvard decision and impose identity-based quotas on a wide swath of American life.

Isn’t it amazing, that the only time the two sides can agree and work together is when it’s against what the American people want? What does that tell you about our government? More from Volokh Conspiracy:

This tradeoff first showed up in a 2023 bill that Democratic and Republican members of the House commerce committee approved by an overwhelming 53-2 vote. That bill, however, never won the support of Sen. Cantwell (D-WA), who chairs the Senate commerce committee. This time around, a lightly revised version of the bill has been endorsed by both Sen. Cantwell and her House counterpart, Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). The bill has a new name, the American Privacy Rights Act of 2024 (APRA), but it retains the earlier bill’s core provision, which uses a “disparate impact” test to impose race, gender, and other quotas on practically every institutional decision of importance to Americans.

“Disparate impact” has a long and controversial history in employment law; it’s controversial because it condemns as discriminatory practices that disproportionately affect racial, ethnic, gender, and other protected groups. Savvy employers soon learn that the easiest way to avoid disparate impact liability is to eliminate the disparity – that is, to hire a work force that is balanced by race and ethnicity. As the Supreme Court pointed out long ago, this is a recipe for discrimination; disparate impact liability can “leave the employer little choice . . . but to engage in a subjective quota system of employment selection.”  Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 652-53 (1989), quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 448 (1975) (Blackmun, J., concurring).

[read more]

Sneaky bastards. This is why the republicans should vote "no" on any bill they don't get a chance to read in full. There might be some good in it, but I'll bet there is more bad than good in a massive bill.

Nick Vujicic unveils AI-powered solution to spread Gospel globally: 'We can use it for the Kingdom'

From Christian Post.com (July 29, 2023):

ORLANDO — Amid concerns surrounding the emergence of new technology, evangelist Nick Vujicic is making a case that artificial intelligence and digital media can play pivotal roles in spreading the Gospel to diverse audiences worldwide.

In a sit-down interview with The Christian Post, the 40-year-old motivational speaker and bestselling author unveiled his latest initiative, Multitood, which seeks to expand the Kingdom's impact through cutting-edge technology and digital content creation.

"When we have the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to all nations and make disciples, it's more than just translating the Bible in [a variety of] languages. It's also equipping, encouraging and building the churches out there to be the hands and feet with digital content as well that they understand in their own language," he said.

The Life Without Limbs founder revealed that 65% of his 16 million social media followers do not speak English, leading him to develop a custom video translation solution that seamlessly integrates AI technology with human expertise.

Incorporating AI voice dubbing and translation tools, Multitood enables churches and content creators to reach audiences globally without language barriers. The software translates videos into more than 36 languages, adds and edits subtitles and natural-sounding voiceovers and streams them over the internet.

"AI is getting better and better and better. And there are good things and bad things about AI. But we're so thankful we can use it for the Kingdom," he said.

Traditional dubbing can be expensive and time-consuming, with costs ranging upwards of $75 to $100 per minute. However, the evangelist's AI-based solution has revolutionized the process by offering the same quality at a fraction of the cost — $10 per minute per language.

According to Vujicic, the feedback from churches using Multitood has been positive because it provides a cost-effective solution for translating sermons and podcasts into multiple languages, helping to share the message of Christ with diverse communities around the world.

As the world becomes increasingly interconnected through digital platforms, Vujicic believes technology can be a powerful tool to advance the Gospel when harnessed for Kingdom purposes. He highlighted YouTube's move to support multilingual audio files for select channels, signaling a growing opportunity for content creators to reach global audiences with their messages.

"Since 2011, God's given me a vision to really focus in on the first 36 languages that reach 85% of the world. And so what we must understand is, we can use the tools we have for His purposes," he said.

"We have our own video player; JW Player canceled people like Daily Wire and Prager U. We obviously will be a noncancelable, ever-expanding ministry for people."

In addition to his digital endeavors, Vujicic opened up about his passion for documentary filmmaking, aiming to produce six documentaries over the next three years through his production company.

"I felt the Holy Spirit say, 'Make documentaries to wake up and equip and encourage the believers," he said. "And I really believe that the Church needs some encouragement. I don't see much of the Church right now strong enough to endure persecution. I think we've just started to taste in our mouths, what it means to be persecuted, marginalized, canceled or whatever. And I think this is when American churches need to stand up and really be the hands and feet like never before."

The first documentary, "The Cost of Truth," tells the story of Evangelical Pastor Joseph Bondarenko, who was kidnapped by the KGB and told to renounce his faith in Jesus Christ or face torture.

"He survived the torture, and now his mission is to wake up America and help Americans to stand up," Vujicic said.

Other documentaries will feature Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who the evangelist contends advocates for biblical truths in governance, and others who stand for truth in the face of persecution.

Through these projects, Vujicic hopes to wake up and encourage believers, equipping them to stand firm in their faith, especially during times of persecution and societal challenges.

To further amplify his vision, Vujicic is organizing a short film competition through NickV.Productions.com to discover talented individuals in the film industry who can contribute their creative storytelling abilities to inspire a global audience.

"I want to do less travel, more production behind the camera, and I'll be on some of these documentaries as we produce it," the father of four said.

Through the power of media and technology, Vujicic hopes to equip believers with the strength to endure persecution and boldly stand for their faith in Jesus Christ.

"I really believe with media, politics and business, it's Christians being the light in the dark place," he said. [source]

Nice.

How Valid Is Evolutionary Psychology?

From Steve Taylor Ph.D. on Psychology Today.com (Dec. 9, 2014):

Why do we find natural scenes like green fields, trees, and rivers beautiful? Why do people have an urge to gain wealth and power? Why do human beings fight wars? Why are human beings creative?

According to evolutionary psychology, the answers to these questions are linked to survival and reproduction. Evolutionary psychology explains present-day human traits and characteristics in terms of the survival value they possessed for our ancestors. These traits have survived because the genes they are linked to were ‘selected’ and have remained part of our genetic heritage. So in terms of the above examples, we find natural scenes attractive because for our ancestors they represented survival—lush vegetation, trees laden with fruits and nuts, rivers. People have an urge to gain wealth and power because, in prehistoric times, they enhanced their chances of survival and increased their reproductive possibilities. The instinct to wage war is so strong because prehistoric tribes of genetically similar people were in constant competition for resources with other groups. The creative instinct can also be seen as a way of increasing our reproductive possibilities—successful creativity increases our status and so makes us more attractive to potential mates.

It’s clear from these explanations (all of which have been put forward by evolutionary psychologists) that evolutionary psychology has a great deal of explanatory power—seldom has such a simple idea been used to explain such a wide variety of human behavior. This is probably the reason why the theory has become very popular, especially in the media and amongst non-scientists. As human beings, we have a strong need for explanation, to make sense of our behaviour and of the world around us. (This is part of the reason why religions are appealing to many people too.) However, the negative side of this is that, when theories do have explanatory power, we tend to become over-enthusiastic about them, and to over-estimate their validity. And I think this is the case with evolutionary psychology. Seldom has a theory gained such widespread support whilst being based on such shaky foundations.

Having said that, my problem with evolutionary psychology isn't so much with the theory itself, but with how it has been used to justify a particular view of human nature. After all, it makes sense to assume that we have inherited some behavioural tendencies from our ancestors, that some of the instincts we carry originated millions of years ago. As I suggest later, it might be possible to formulate an alternative interpretation of evolutionary psychology that doesn't make such grandiose claims, and is more in line with anthropological evidence. [read more]

Robotic ‘Super Monster Wolves’ are guarding Japanese towns against bears

From Pop Sci.com (Oct. 3, 2023):

Stories about solar-powered robotic wolves first surfaced back in 2017 after Japanese researchers began testing prototypes to combat wild boars’ devastating encroachment into farmlands. Since then, a company called Wolf Kamuy expanded sales of its sentry products featuring menacing fangs, fur, flashing red LED “eyes,” and a head capable of shaking side-to-side while emitting a 90 decibel howl. But boars aren’t the only problem plaguing rural Japanese communities. According to recent reports, Wolf Kamuy is now offering many of its faux-wolves as bear deterrence.

It turns out the “Super Monster Wolf” isn’t just effective at protecting farmers’ crops—it’s also pretty good at protecting the farmers themselves. As reported October 1 via the BBC, bears are an increasingly difficult, sometimes even deadly nuisance in many areas of Japan thanks to a combination of serious factors, including climate change, deforestation,and urban expansion. What’s more, bear populations in regions such as Hokkaido appear to be actually increasing as Japan faces an aging population and declining birth rates. According to the BBC, some researchers estimate a total of over 22,000 bears located around Hokkaido. Because of all this, the region recorded at least 150 bear attacks over the past six decades—with four fatalities in 2021 alone. Meanwhile, bears continue to wander into more crowded towns and cities bordering wildlife areas.

Enter: the Super Monster Wolf. By installing the guard bots in urban locales, experts hope to deter bears from wandering into populated areas to potentially harm both humans and themselves. Researchers previously estimated that a robo-wolf’s howls effectively deterred bears from encroaching within approximately 1-square-km (about 0.38 square mi) of its installation—arguably better than many electric fence perimeters. With strategic placement, Super Monster Wolves could help elderly communities, and protect the bears.

Of course, humanity cannot solely rely on an army of robot wolves to protect us from bear attacks. Bears (not to mention countless other species) face immense existential threats in the face of ongoing climate change calamities, and it’s not the bears’ fault they are increasingly desperate to find food sources. The best remedy, therefore, is to continue focusing on climate solutions like conservation, renewable energy, and sustainable urban planning, rather than stopgaps like the (admittedly rad) Super Monster Wolf. [source]

The robotic "super monster wolves" look demonic. But I guess if they do the job, they do the job.

Former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton Indicted, CNN Reports

From Newsmax.com (Oct. 16):

A federal grand jury in Maryland has returned an indictment against John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser.

The development was first reported Thursday by CNN, citing two sources familiar with the matter.

The indictment represents an escalation of tensions between Trump and one of his most prominent internal critics.

The indictment accuses Bolton of mishandling classified information, part of a broader Justice Department inquiry into whether he retained or transmitted secret or national defense information after leaving government.

The case is being handled by career prosecutors in Maryland, rather than prosecutors in politically sensitive districts.

While the full indictment has not yet been unsealed, multiple media outlets — including Reuters and The Associated Press — reported that the charges are tied to the federal investigation sparked by FBI searches of Bolton’s Maryland home and his Washington, D.C., office in August.

According to publicly available court filings and the inventory of seized material, investigators recovered documents marked “secret,” “confidential,” and “classified,” including items related to weapons of mass destruction, strategic communications, and U.S. interests at the United Nations.

The affidavit supporting the search warrants references alleged retention of national defense information and probable cause to believe Bolton may have been in unlawful possession of materials that should have been turned over to government archives.

One redacted portion of the affidavit suggests that Bolton’s personal AOL email account had been hacked by a foreign entity, and that the government recovered emails from that account that raised questions about whether he had transmitted classified materials through it.

Media outlets report that the allegedly illicit conduct spans multiple counts — potentially unauthorized retention of national defense information, improper transmission of classified records, and false statements to federal investigators.

Bolton is expected to plead not guilty.

If convicted, each count could carry substantial prison terms, possibly up to 10 years or more per violation, depending on the charges and statutes involved, said wire services and the New York Post.

Bolton is a veteran diplomat and national security figure who served under multiple Republican administrations.

Trump appointed him as national security adviser in April 2018, but their relationship quickly soured over foreign policy differences, particularly on Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan.

Trump dismissed him in September 2019.

Following his departure, Bolton emerged as one of the president’s fiercest critics.

His 2020 memoir, "The Room Where It Happened," portrayed Trump as erratic and self-interested in foreign affairs.

The book’s release sparked controversy after the White House claimed it contained classified material that had not been cleared through prepublication review — a dispute that foreshadowed the current indictment.

Bolton has continued to speak out publicly against Trump’s leadership and foreign policy, accusing him of undermining national security.

Trump, in turn, has frequently mocked Bolton and threatened legal action over what he has described as “betrayal” and “unauthorized disclosures.”

Bolton’s indictment comes amid a wave of investigations involving figures who have been publicly critical of Trump.

One such case involves special counsel Jack Smith, who previously led the federal investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol breach probe.

Trump has accused Smith of corruption and bias, and Smith himself has reportedly faced internal reviews ordered by Trump-appointed officials.

In another example, New York Attorney General Letitia James was indicted earlier this month in Virginia on bank fraud and false-statement charges linked to a 2020 property transaction.

James has denounced the case as political retaliation for her civil fraud prosecution against Trump’s business empire in New York.

Trump and his allies have defended the prosecutions as necessary to uphold the rule of law, asserting that prior administrations ignored misconduct by establishment figures.

Officials close to the White House note that Bolton’s case is being handled by career prosecutors, not political appointees, as evidence of independence in the process.

Bolton is expected to be arraigned later in October.

Legal proceedings will likely include motions to suppress evidence and challenges to the legality of the searches. Because the case involves classified material, much of the evidence and argument could take place under seal or in closed hearings under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

The indictment of a former national security adviser under a sitting president who once employed him is without precedent. The case underscores the deepening political and institutional tensions defining Trump’s second term — and may further test the limits of presidential power over the Justice Department. [source]

And Bolton makes three... Well, he shouldn't have classified materials in his resident and he definitely shouldn't put those documents in his book. I guess he just wanted to get back at Trump and was not thinking about the country's security.

More articles on the indictment:

• John Bolton Indicted On 18 Counts For Mishandling Classified Information
• John Bolton pleads not guilty to charges accusing him of storing and sharing classified information

8 steps to secure the next election

From Glenn Beck.com (May 2, 2024):

Americans agree our elections are no longer trustworthy.

Glenn revealed in a recent Glenn TV special how concerned Americans are about the security of elections and just how vulnerable our voting systems are. It's clear something has to be done to secure our elections. We will lose everything if we lose the ability to facilitate a peaceful transition of power.

Glenn is not the only one to recognize this. The Foundation for Government Accountability has seen the issue too, and has created an 8-step plan that shows the path to restoring faith in our elections. If every state implemented these eight steps, voting confidence would be fixed immediately. These are the 8 steps to securing the next election:

1.States must ban ballot harvesting to secure elections.

Ballot harvesting is when a third party collects and submits mail-in ballots from other individuals to be counted. It is unknown whether there is any oversight over these third parties, if there are any bad actors along the chain of custody, or if the third party influences the voters. The lack of information does not inspire confidence in the process.

In 2018, multiple Republicans in California saw their apparent election night wins eventually turn to losses. Republicans pointed at a recent change in California voting law that “lets voters allow anyone to drop off their absentee ballot, rather than a family member as previously required. That has opened the door to what they call ‘ballot harvesting.’” Keep in mind this was before the pandemic. The results speak for themselves. In Orange County alone, more than 250,000 ballots were a “direct result of ballot harvesting.”

2.Prohibit third-party ballot returns and narrow who can return ballots.

The ways this can be manipulated are absolutely nuts. A state-appointed investigator in Wisconsin found a 100 percent turnout in multiple nursing homes. The investigator called it “absurd." He found intercepted ballots, forged signatures, and completed ballots from residents who were deemed “incompetent.” 92,000 residents live in these facilities in Wisconsin. To put that into perspective, Joe Biden won the state by less than 21,000 votes.

There was a similar case in Michigan where a woman was forced to plead guilty to seven counts of election fraud. She was caught submitting applications for absentee ballots on behalf of people who were “legally incapacitated.” These are the cases that the Left wants to pretend don’t happen but are very real.

3.Ban third-party distribution of unsolicited absentee applications.

These so-called “non-partisan” actors are shooting out ballot applications like confetti to anyone and everyone.

Some of these mailing operations “sent voter registration forms to the deceased, to longtime voters who are already registered and even to pets with human-sounding names.” [read more]

All excellent steps but until then the republicans should do ballot harvesting and encourage early voting.

The other steps are:

1. Ban unsolicited absentee applications and ballots by government officials.
2. States should adopt strict guidelines for absentee ballot return.
3. Require identification to vote absentee.
4. Prohibit unsecured drop boxes.
5. Require absentee and mail-in ballots to be returned by election day.

Top 5 WILDEST moments from Tucker's interview with Putin

From Glenn Beck.com (Feb. 12, 2024):

On Thursday, February 8th, Tucker Carlson released a two-hour-long interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his first interview with a U.S. outlet since 2021 before Russia invaded Ukraine. Tucker's interview became a point of contention in the media from the second he announced that he was in Moscow. Many left-wing talking heads jumped at the opportunity to accuse Tucker of being soft on Putin, and European politicians were even calling for a travel ban — all before the interview was even released.

Glenn came to Tucker's defense, seeing the potential value of the interview and calling out the Left's blatant disregard for free press. Now that the interview has been released, it's clear that Glenn's hopes for the interview were fulfilled: Tucker did a great job. There were many memorable moments from the two-hour-long interview, but we compiled the top five for you here:

Putin suggests that Zelensky's government is illegitimate.

Putin, when asked why Russia had invaded Ukraine, gave a surprising answer. Putin claimed that the 2008 Ukrainian Presidential Election was illegitimate because it included a third round of voting, which was allegedly not permitted by the Ukrainian Constitution. It was in this third round that the first pro-western President was elected, and Putin suggested that U.S. backing was a major reason for his victory. Putin called this event a "coup" and implied that the Ukrainian government has been illegitimate ever since.

Putin speaks about Neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

When Tucker asked if Russia had achieved its aims in the War in Ukraine, Putin explained that Russia had not successfully "de-Nazified" Ukraine, which, Putin claims, is one of Russia's main objectives in the war. He elaborated that a large portion of the Ukrainian population venerates Nazis and Nazi collaborators, who fought against Russia during World War II. Putin cited the Canadian parliament's blunder in venerating a former SS officer from Ukraine. Tucker pushed back, asking Putin how he would squash an ideology in another sovereign nation. Putin's response was evasive and unsatisfactory.

Tucker calls out (and laughs at) Putin for not communicating with Biden.

Tucker asked Putin when he had last talked with President Biden, and when Putin admitted that he couldn't remember, Tucker laughed right in Putin's face. Tucker pointed out that, by Putin's admission, the U.S. is footing the Ukrainian military's bills. So why would he not be in contact with the President? Putin tried to brush off this apparent oversight by claiming that he had talked to Biden (before the war) and assured Tucker that there was communication between the U.S. and Russia.

Putin says the only way to end the war in Ukraine is through a total Russian victory.

Tucker continued to push Putin, asking him why he risks escalating the war into something potentially catastrophic and why he doesn't call up Biden and work out a deal. Putin explained that there would be no point and that the U.S. should simply pull the plug on Ukraine and the war would be over in a matter of weeks. The only way to end the war for Putin is victory. Putin also claimed that any talk about escalation is nothing but fear-mongering.

Tucker confronts Putin on the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline.

In one of his more startling moments, Tucker boldly asked Putin, "Who blew up Nord Stream?" Putin wasted no time in pointing fingers at the CIA, but when asked to provide evidence, he fell short. Putin pointed out that the list of agencies that are both interested and capable of such an attack is very short. However, Tucker asked why Putin, who assumedly would have strong evidence against the U.S. in this matter, would not show it. Putin simply claimed that there would be no point, as everyone already knows who is responsible. [source]

Not a bad interview. Putin talked most of the time, but Tucker, I thought, asked probing questions. Critics complained that Tucker didn't give a tough enough interview. What they don't understand is Putin is a  dictator and Tucker is on Putin's turf. To avoid angering Putin and potential consequences, Tucker had to tread carefully. It's always precarious to interview a tyrant in their own country.

Freedom without choice is no true freedom at all

From Richard D. Land on Christian Post.com (July 14, 2023):

It is not often I am surprised by comments that are generated by my columns in The Christian Post. Over the years I have read, as you would imagine, literally thousands of various opinions, agreements and disagreements with the ideas I have articulated and the arguments I have made on literally hundreds of issues.

So, imagine my surprise at being taken aback by some comments generated by my column, “The Extraordinary Meaning of July 4th for America and the World,” I frankly thought that praising the Declaration of Independence and its meaning would not have been terribly controversial.

However, several of our readers took exception to my praising the unique birth of human freedom published on July 4, 1776.

One reader declared:

“It was never the founders intent to promote irresponsible freedom. The freedom we enjoy in our Constitution and supporting Declaration of Independence was formulated within the context of reverence and submission to God on an individual basis. In those times it was the one true Christian God.”

Another critic goes even further, assuming that I am glorifying “this ‘FREEDOM’ even though it blasphemously proclaims that it is …a human right to worship ANY gods, that it proclaims … right for each to define good and evil in their own eyes. It is clear that you have placed the ‘light of the torch of FREEDOM’ above the LIGHT and 1 Truth of the 1 & only God.”

Imagine my surprise. My first response is that our forefathers bequeathed us a great and noble thing — an understanding that our freedom and our rights came from our Creator and that God created us with the right to govern ourselves according to His revelation of Himself and His character to us.

However, He also gave us, beginning with Adam and Eve, the freedom to choose right from wrong, understanding that wrong choices would bring disastrous consequences.

My question to my critics is this: “What would you have in place of our constitutionally guaranteed freedom? Would you have the Founding Fathers dictating to us which particular God (Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or Deist) we must worship and the manner in which we are to perform that worship?”

After all, nine of the original 13 states had tax-supported state churches and our forefathers did not follow their lead.

True freedom leaves a man or a woman free to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences without interference from the civil magistrate. Our second president, John Adams, said in 1798, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, “Letter from John Adams to Massachusetts Militia,” Oct. 11, 1798.)

Adams understood that our Constitution was based on Judeo-Christian values combined with Enlightenment ideas of self-government.    

If most people did not obey the law voluntarily because they were aware they were responsible to Divine authority, then the “light” hand of our government would allow liberty to turn to license requiring even more restrictive state power to ensure order.

You cannot force people to be pious or devout. And, you have no right to coercively interfere with another man’s relationship with God. As the great Baptist Roger Williams put it so eloquently in the early 17th century while facing the state church in Massachusetts Bay, for any man to coercively interfere with another man’s faith is “soul-rape.”

All attempts by government to dictate religion always ends in disaster, conscience abuse, and dictatorship. And after all, God never wants coerced worship. He gave Adam and Eve a choice. He gave His chosen people a choice. He could have forced them to obey. He did not. He wanted a voluntary compliance and loving worship.

As the Apostle Paul exhorted the Ephesian Christians to “walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.” (Eph. 5:2)

In the early 17th century the English Baptist Thomas Helwys wrote The Mystery of Iniquity in which he informed the King of England, James I, that he was just a man and should have no coercive control over another man’s relationship with his God, thus authoring the first published plea for religious freedom in the English language.

As John Adams predicted, as America has become less religious and less decent, liberty has turned to license which has led to more government and less freedom.

However, the answer is not for any one group to try to impose what they believe the correct religion is on the people. The last thing that anyone should want is government-sponsored or government-mandated religion. The experience is like being embraced by a python which squeezes all the life out of you. The empty cathedrals of the state churches in Europe bear stark testimony to that truth.

Our Declaration and our Constitution free our people to be God-honoring, Bible-believing followers of Christ, but also allows them to go their own way. That is the two-edged sword of freedom.

The confessional statement of my personal faith tradition, Southern Baptist, The Baptist Faith & Message, puts it quite eloquently and succinctly: “God alone is Lord of the conscience and He has left it free from the doctrines of man which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.”

This statement makes a critically important distinction. While we shall be free from the dictates of man, we are responsible to God. “Human beings are not really autonomous. We will one day answer to God for our beliefs, actions, thoughts and words.” (Charles S. Kelley Jr., Richard Land, R. Albert Mohler Jr., The Baptist Faith & Message, 2007), pp. 163-164.

Freedom is a God-given right. He gave us the ability to choose right over wrong, and even after the fall of man He redemptively acts to empower us to choose the right through the life-giving power of His Son.

Genuine and true Christianity has flourished under the freedoms set in place by the Declaration and the Constitution, like it has in no other milieu. Government should be an umpire, or referee, making sure everyone plays fair, with no cheating in attempts to intimidate or suppress minorities. The government should not be a judge, a sponsor, or a censor for one religion over another or no religion over religion. This leaves men free to pursue the truth according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Will this mean competition for hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas? Yes. What’s the problem? I did not see Elijah avoiding a confrontation with the prophets of Baal. He said, “You pray to your gods and I will pray to mine, and let’s see whose prayers get answered.”

Let us go forward with the confidence of Elijah. We serve the one true God, the one who answers prayers. [source]

Freewill is a gift from God that mankind can use for good or ill.

Niall Ferguson: The Treason of the Intellectuals

From The FP.com (Dec. 10, 2023):

In 1927 the French philosopher Julien Benda published La trahison des clercs—“The Treason of the Intellectuals”—which condemned the descent of European intellectuals into extreme nationalism and racism. By that point, although Benito Mussolini had been in power in Italy for five years, Adolf Hitler was still six years away from power in Germany and 13 years away from victory over France. But already Benda could see the pernicious role that many European academics were playing in politics.

Those who were meant to pursue the life of the mind, he wrote, had ushered in “the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds.” And those hatreds were already moving from the realm of the ideas into the realm of violence—with results that would be catastrophic for all of Europe.

A century later, American academia has gone in the opposite political direction—leftward instead of rightward—but has ended up in much the same place. The question is whether we—unlike the Germans—can do something about it.

For nearly ten years, rather like Benda, I have marveled at the treason of my fellow intellectuals. I have also witnessed the willingness of trustees, donors, and alumni to tolerate the politicization of American universities by an illiberal coalition of “woke” progressives, adherents of “critical race theory,” and apologists for Islamist extremism.

Throughout that period, friends assured me that I was exaggerating. Who could possibly object to more diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus? In any case, weren’t American universities always left-leaning? Were my concerns perhaps just another sign that I was the kind of conservative who had no real future in the academy?

Such arguments fell apart after October 7, as the response of “radical” students and professors to the Hamas atrocities against Israel revealed the realities of contemporary campus life. That hostility to Israeli policy in Gaza regularly slides into antisemitism is now impossible to deny.

I cannot stop thinking of the son of a Jewish friend of mine, who is a graduate student at one of the Ivy League colleges. Just this week, he went to the desk assigned to him to find, carefully placed under his computer keyboard, a note with the words “ZIONIST KIKE!!!” in red and green letters.

Just as disturbing as such incidents—and there are too many to recount—has been the dismally confused responses of university leaders.

Testifying before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce last week, Harvard President Claudine Gay, MIT President Sally Kornbluth, and University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill showed that they had been well-briefed by the lawyers their universities retain for such occasions.

They gave technically correct explanations of how First Amendment rules apply on their campuses—if they did apply. Yes, context matters. If all students did was chant “From the river to the sea,” that speech is protected, so long as there was no threat of violence or “discriminatory harassment.”

But the reason Claudine Gay’s carefully phrased answers on Tuesday infuriated her critics is not that they were technically incorrect, but that they were so clearly at odds with her record—specifically her record as dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the years 2018–2022, when Harvard was sliding to the very bottom of the rankings for free speech at colleges.

The killing of George Floyd happened when Gay was dean. Six days after Floyd’s death, she published a statement on the subject that suggests she felt personally threatened by events in distant Minneapolis. Floyd’s death, she wrote, illustrated “the brutality of racist violence in this country” and gave her an “acute sense of vulnerability.” She was “reminded, again, how even our [i.e., black Americans’] most mundane activities, like running. . . can carry inordinate risk. At a moment when all I want to do is gather my teenage son into my arms, I am painfully aware of how little shelter that provides.” In nothing that Gay said last Tuesday did she seem aware that Jewish students might have felt the same way after October 7.

In a memorandum to faculty on August 20, 2020, she wrote: “The calls for racial justice heard on our streets also echo on our campus, as we reckon with our individual and institutional shortcomings and with our Faculty’s shared responsibility to bring truth to bear on the pernicious effects of structural inequality.” Gay continued: “This moment offers a profound opportunity for institutional change that should not and cannot be squandered. . . . I write today to share my personal commitment to this transformational project and the first steps the FAS will take to advance this important agenda in the coming year.”

As the great German sociologist Max Weber rightly argued in his 1917 essay on “Science as a Vocation,” political activism should not be permissible in a lecture hall “because the prophet and the demagogue do not belong on the academic platform.” This was also the argument of the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report that universities must “maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures.”

This separation between scholarship and politics has been entirely disregarded at the major American universities in recent years. Instead, our most elite schools have embraced the kind of “institutional change” that Gay has championed. Look where it has led us. [read more]

Self-driving car mows down woman, leaving her trapped underneath vehicle: cops

From NY Post.com (Oct. 3, 2023):

A woman had to be rescued with the Jaws of Life after she was mowed down on a San Francisco roadway by two different cars, one of which was a self-driving vehicle.

The chaotic collision, which involved a Cruise autonomous vehicle, took place just after 9:30 p.m. in San Francisco and left the woman wedged underneath the left rear axle of the autonomous vehicle, San Francisco Fire Captain Justin Shore told FOX KTVU.

Since the car that struck the woman fled the scene, and there were no passengers inside the Cruise car, officials have been left to piece together what transpired.

“Rescuers did not have any drivers or any passengers to ask about the nature of the injuries or how the victim came to be beneath the vehicle,” Shore said.

Officials couldn’t say how long the unnamed woman was trapped underneath the Cruise vehicle.

According to Cruise, the human-driven vehicle was traveling in the lane immediately to the left of the self-driving vehicle when the human-driven car struck the woman, the company said in a statement Tuesday morning.

“The initial impact was severe and launched the pedestrian directly in front of the AV,” Cruise’s statement read.

Cruise said their vehicle braked “aggressively,” to try and minimize impact.

Video the company shared with KTVU — that has not been shared publicly — shows the victim was first struck by the hit-and-run driver before falling into the self-driving car’s path.

San Francisco Police Department said the autonomous vehicle remained at the scene following the crash. There was no occupant inside the AV at the time of the collision.

Heavy rescue tools, including the Jaws of Life, were used to retrieve the victim, Shore said.

First responders were at the scene within 60 seconds of the initial dispatch.

The woman was transported to an area hospital after responding officers and medics rendered aid.

San Francisco is the host city to the nation’s first experiment with robotaxis operated by Cruise, the General Motors-owned company, and Google’s Waymo startup.

The autonomous vehicles have drawn safety complaints, as they have been blamed for blocking ambulances responding to emergencies as well as a slew of other issues in the city. [source]

Weird and scary. It's like a scene from the Stephen King's movie Christine except that car was possessed.