No Agenda Episode 1140 - "Imperious"

  Feed
  Donate
  News Network
  Store
  Adam Curry
  John C Dvorak
[Collaboration node - do not delete.]
.highlight{background-color:#FF0}
No Agenda Episode 1140 - "Imperious"
  No Agenda Episode 1140 - "Imperious"
    "Imperious"
    Direct [link] to the mp3 file
    ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 1140.noagendanotes.com
    Sign Up for the newsletter
    Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com
    The No Agenda News Network- noagendanewsnetwork.com
    RSS Podcast Feed
    Experimental IPFS RSS Feed
    Get the No Agenda News App for your iPhone and iPad
    Get the NoAgendDroid app for your Android Phone
    Torrents of each episode via BitLove

    document.write("Last Modified " + document.lastModified)
    This page created with the FreedomController

  Credits
    "Imperious"
    Where The C Stands For
    Executive Producers:
      Sir Onymous of Dogpatch and Lower Slobbovia
      Benjamin Parker
      Benjamin Doolin The Poor Knight of the Wood
      Anonymous
      Sir Dave, Baron of KC
      Kelly from Kenai
      Sir Stolkson
      Justin Reagor
      David Chaney Sir Chaotic Mass
      Baron Walk-Man of Buckeye
      John Sponheimer
    Associate Executive Producers:
      Sir Jonathan Jobin of the Visual Effects
      Jeffrey Breyer
      Sir Tim of the Tunnels
    Become a member of the 1141 Club, support the show here
    Title Changes
      Sir Arthur Gobets Hugger of Kitties -> Viscount, Sir Arthur Gobets Hugger of Kitties, Protector of Groningen
    Knights & Dames
      Jonathan Jobin -> Sir Jobin of the Visual Effects
      Hocus Locus -> Sir Hocus Locus Trix Rabbit of Thorium Energy
      David Cheney -> Sir Chaotic Mass
      Benjamin Doolin -> The Poor Knight of the Wood
      Kevyn Silverman -> Sir Silver Dude of the Silver Dolphins
    Art By: Data
    Engineering, Stream Management & Wizardry
      Mark van Dijk - Systems Master
      Ryan Bemrose - Program Director
    End of Show Mixes: - UKPMX - Gx2 -Oh My Bosh - Danny Loos-Secret Agent Paul-Stepford Wives-PlaceBoing- Dave Courbanou - Able Kirby - Jungle Jones - Chris Wilson - Tom Starkweather - Conan Salada - Future Trash - Phantomville Billy Bon3s - Sir Seat Sitter
    Sign Up for the newsletter
    No Agenda Peerage
    ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 1140.noagendanotes.com
    New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com
    --No Agenda Player--
    RSS Podcast Feed
    Full Summaries in PDF
    Get the No Agenda News App for your iPhone and iPad
    Get the NoAgendDroid app for your Android Phone
    No Agenda Lite in opus format
    NoAgendaTorrents.com has an RSS feed or show torrents

    document.write("Last Modified " + document.lastModified)
    This page created with the FreedomController

  Cover Art
    Art By: Data
  Shownotes
    Search
    Wedding
      Keeper now part of the enterprise - London meetup
      House uber map problem
      Christina is verified and thus cool
    China
      Executive Order on Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain | The White House
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 16 May 2019 20:38
        By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
        I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services, which store and communicate vast amounts of sensitive information, facilitate the digital economy, and support critical infrastructure and vital emergency services, in order to commit malicious cyber-enabled actions, including economic and industrial espionage against the United States and its people. I further find that the unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries augments the ability of foreign adversaries to create and exploit vulnerabilities in information and communications technology or services, with potentially catastrophic effects, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. This threat exists both in the case of individual acquisitions or uses of such technology or services, and when acquisitions or uses of such technologies are considered as a class. Although maintaining an open investment climate in information and communications technology, and in the United States economy more generally, is important for the overall growth and prosperity of the United States, such openness must be balanced by the need to protect our country against critical national security threats. To deal with this threat, additional steps are required to protect the security, integrity, and reliability of information and communications technology and services provided and used in the United States. In light of these findings, I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.
        Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:
        Section 1. Implementation. (a) The following actions are prohibited: any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology or service (transaction) by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, where the transaction involves any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest (including through an interest in a contract for the provision of the technology or service), where the transaction was initiated, is pending, or will be completed after the date of this order, and where the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, the Administrator of General Services, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and, as appropriate, the heads of other executive departments and agencies (agencies), has determined that:
        (i) the transaction involves information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary; and
        (ii) the transaction:
        (A) poses an undue risk of sabotage to or subversion of the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of information and communications technology or services in the United States;
        (B) poses an undue risk of catastrophic effects on the security or resiliency of United States critical infrastructure or the digital economy of the United States; or
        (C) otherwise poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.
        (b) The Secretary, in consultation with the heads of other agencies as appropriate, may at the Secretary's discretion design or negotiate measures to mitigate concerns identified under section 1(a) of this order. Such measures may serve as a precondition to the approval of a transaction or of a class of transactions that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this order.
        (c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.
        Sec. 2. Authorities. (a) The Secretary, in consultation with, or upon referral of a particular transaction from, the heads of other agencies as appropriate, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including directing the timing and manner of the cessation of transactions prohibited pursuant to section 1 of this order, adopting appropriate rules and regulations, and employing all other powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to implement this order. All agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
        (b) Rules and regulations issued pursuant to this order may, among other things, determine that particular countries or persons are foreign adversaries for the purposes of this order; identify persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries for the purposes of this order; identify particular technologies or countries with respect to which transactions involving information and communications technology or services warrant particular scrutiny under the provisions of this order; establish procedures to license transactions otherwise prohibited pursuant to this order; establish criteria, consistent with section 1 of this order, by which particular technologies or particular participants in the market for information and communications technology or services may be recognized as categorically included in or as categorically excluded from the prohibitions established by this order; and identify a mechanism and relevant factors for the negotiation of agreements to mitigate concerns raised in connection with subsection 1(a) of this order. Within 150 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, the Administrator of General Services, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and, as appropriate, the heads of other agencies, shall publish rules or regulations implementing the authorities delegated to the Secretary by this order.
        (c) The Secretary may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of the authorities conferred on the Secretary pursuant to this section within the Department of Commerce.
        Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
        (a)the term ''entity'' means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
        (b)the term ''foreign adversary'' means any foreign government or foreign non-government person engaged in a long'‘term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons;
        (c)the term ''information and communications technology or services'' means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display;
        (d)the term ''person'' means an individual or entity; and
        (e)the term ''United States person'' means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
        Sec. 4. Recurring and Final Reports to the Congress. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
        Sec. 5. Assessments and Reports. (a) The Director of National Intelligence shall continue to assess threats to the United States and its people from information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary. The Director of National Intelligence shall produce periodic written assessments of these threats in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies, and shall provide these assessments to the President, the Secretary for the Secretary's use in connection with his responsibilities pursuant to this order, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. An initial assessment shall be completed within 40 days of the date of this order, and further assessments shall be completed at least annually, and shall include analysis of:
        (i) threats enabled by information and communications technologies or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary; and
        (ii) threats to the United States Government, United States critical infrastructure, and United States entities from information and communications technologies or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the influence of a foreign adversary.
        (b)The Secretary of Homeland Security shall continue to assess and identify entities, hardware, software, and services that present vulnerabilities in the United States and that pose the greatest potential consequences to the national security of the United States.The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with sector-specific agencies and coordinating councils as appropriate, shall produce a written assessment within 80 days of the date of this order, and annually thereafter.This assessment shall include an evaluation of hardware, software, or services that are relied upon by multiple information and communications technology or service providers, including the communication services relied upon by critical infrastructure entities identified pursuant to section 9 of Executive Order 13636 of February 12, 2013 (Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity).
        (c) Within 1 year of the date of this order, and annually thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation as appropriate with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, shall assess and report to the President whether the actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to this order are sufficient and continue to be necessary to mitigate the risks identified in, and pursuant to, this order.
        Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
        (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
        (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
        (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
        (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
        DONALD J. TRUMP
        THE WHITE HOUSE,May 15, 2019.
    Vaccines
      New measles case reported in Berkeley '' East Bay Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 12:04
        The city of Berkeley announced Friday that a resident has contracted measles.
        While the person is no longer contagious, city officials have advised anyone who visited Berkeley Bowl, located at 2020 Oregon St., from 3 to 5 p.m. May 7 and is not immune to look for the first stage of symptoms: runny nose, red eyes, cough and fever.
        The next stage involves a rash that typically appears on the face before spreading down the body.
        Measles symptoms start to show seven to 21 days after exposure and infected people do not show symptoms during the first four days of their most contagious period, city officials said.
        According to the city, the virus is easily transmitted, usually through a cough or sneeze that can linger in the air for up to an hour-at which time the risk of infection dissipates.
        Inhalation of the airborne virus reportedly infects up to 90 percent of those not immune.
        City officials are urging certain groups to be particularly aware of potential symptoms, including unvaccinated children, unvaccinated adults born in 1957 or later, and those with weakened immune systems.
      Former Merck Scientists Sue Merck Alleging MMR Vaccine Efficacy Fraud - AHRPAHRP
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 14:10
        Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski, former Merck virologists blew the whistle by filing a qui tam action lawsuit '-- U.S. v Merck & Co. '-- in August 2010. The scientists allege that the efficacy tests for the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR) were faked. The document was unsealed in June, 2012.
        This is a major federal case alleging fraud in vaccine testing; it encapsulates how medical research can be manipulated to achieve desired results, and why it may be wise to question the integrity and the validity of ''science-based medicine.''
        The suit charges that Merck knew its measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was less effective than the purported 95% level, and it alleges that senior management was aware and also oversaw testing that concealed the actual effectiveness. According to the lawsuit, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990's to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to ''report efficacy of 95% or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy.''
        According to Krahling and Wlochowski's complaint, they were threatened with jail were they to alert the FDA to the fraud being committed.
        In January 31, 2016, the court ordered that discovery, the process of gathering evidence, must be completed by 1 March 2017, over a year from now. The court also ordered that expert discovery needs to be completed by 31 October 2017.
        Other motions must be filed by 20 December 2017. A motion for class action certification must be filed by 1 March 2018; and Merck must file its opposition to class certification by 5 April 2018.
        The plaintiffs charge that Merck defrauded the U.S. for more than a decade by faking a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% even though the real rate was significantly lower.
        ''As the single largest purchaser of childhood vaccines (accounting for more than 50 percent of all vaccine purchasers), the United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck's fraud. But the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with an adequate level of protection against mumps. And while this is a disease the CDC targeted ts the single largest purchaser of childhood vaccines (accounting for more than 50 percent of all vaccine purchasers), the United States is byo eradicate by now, the failure in Merck's vaccine has allowed this disease to linger with significant outbreaks continuing to occur,'' the suit alleges. (Forbes June 6, 2012)
        According to the suit, the objective of the fraudulent trials was to ''report efficacy of 95% or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy.''
        ''For the new testing method, the children's blood was tested for its ability to neutralize the virus using the vaccine strain virus, instead of the wild type strain that is much more infective, and the one that your children would most likely catch'... But still it was not 95% effective. In order to make the blood pass the test, antibodies from rabbits was added. The addition of rabbit antibody increased the efficacy to 100%. But that was not the end, because the test has to be done on pre-vaccine blood and post-vaccine blood.
        Just the addition of rabbit antibody made the pre-vaccine blood go from 10% positive to 80% positive and that was such an obvious sign of foul play that yet another manipulation had to be made.
        The desired end result is to have very low pre-vaccine antibody and 95% or more post-vaccine efficacy as measured by antibody neutralization. So, yet one more change in procedure was made: The pre-vaccine tests were all redone'...by fabricating the ''plaque'' counts on the pre-vaccine blood samples, counting plaques that were not there. What this allowed was a mathematical dilution of the pre-vaccine positive blood counts.'' (Court House News Service, June 27, 2012)
        Dr. Susan Humphries
        Suzanne Humphries, MD, an internist / nephrologist who practiced medicine in the conventional system for 19 years, witnessed first-hand how that approach fails patients and creates a new disease time and again' summary explains in layman's terms how the tests were manipulated. Dr. Humphries is on the board of directors of the International Medical Council on Vaccination.
        ''In the complaint, the scientists outline in great detail exactly how Merck manipulated the efficacy results in order to be able to say they had a 95% effective vaccine so that they could meet the fairytale goal of vaccine-induced ''herd immunity by 2010.''
        Well, it turns out that the vaccine could not meet the goal that CDC projected to eradicate mumps by 2010, BECAUSE the vaccine, in its current state cannot reliably confer immunity, and is in fact a dilute version of what it once was when Maurice Hilleman invented it using the virus of his five year old daughter. The same viral mumps strain has been in use in every mumps or MMR vaccine Merck has made since 1967.''
        If what these scientists claim is true, the net result of Merck's questionable activity was epidemics and outbreaks. It is known that the mumps component of all MMR vaccines from the mid 1990's has had a very low efficacy, estimated at 69% (Harling 05). The outbreaks started in UK and Europe in 1998. USA's outbreaks began in 2006.
        These mumps outbreaks have already been proven NOT to be the result of failure to vaccinate, but vaccination failure'... and now it looks to all be a result of Merck's cooked books, used in order to maintain a commercial monopoly to generate increased revenue from increasing numbers of boosters.(Humphries Scientists Sue Merck: Allege Fraud for MMR Vaccine, GreenMedInfo.com)
        Read more of Dr. Suzanne Humphries' thoughts about vaccine safety and why ''They Don't Want Your to Hear the Other Side''
        The former Merck virologists '' Krahling and Wlochowski '' claim that over the years the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine declined because of its repeated passage through eggs. In order to continue the FDA license, Merck had to convince the FDA that the effectiveness stayed at a similar 95% effectiveness rate over the years.
        They claim that by faking effectiveness tests ''i.e, committing fraud ''Merck misled the government about the effectiveness of the mumps component of its MMR II vaccine. The vaccine contained the same strain of mumps vaccine which had been shown to cause meningitis and was removed from the Canadian market. In 1978 Merck introduced the MMR II, using a different strain of the rubella vaccine, but the same strain of mumps vaccine.
        These Merck whistleblowers claim they were threatened; that if they called the FDA they would be jailed. But they were reminded of the very large bonuses would come their way after the vaccines were certified.
        Two other class action lawsuits against Merck were filed in 2012. One was filed by a clinic, the other by two physicians claiming Merck violated the Sherman Act '' with monopolistic, anti-competitive practices '' and various violations of state laws. The two suits are being handled together. (U.S. v. Merck and U.S. v Merck and Chatom v. Merck). Courthouse News Service, July 2012:
        ''Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is ''far less effective'' than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of ''questionable efficacy,'' flooding and monopolizing the market'... Chatom says in its antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective. That claim ''deterred and excluded competing manufacturers,'' who would enter the risky and expensive vaccine market only if they believed they could craft a better product'...
        Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked losing its lucrative monopoly'...
        That's why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states. And, Chatom claims, that's why Merck went to great lengths, including ''manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the test results,'' to prop up the bogus figure, though it knew that the attenuated virus from which it created the vaccine had been altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that the quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result.'' (cited by Dr. Mercola here )
        On September 5, 2014, Judge Jones II of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rejected Merck's motion to dismiss. The Court rejected Merck's claim that FDA preempts state law. The purpose of the False Claim Act, a federal statute, was to allow whistleblowers to bring such claims in the name of the government.
        June 2015: Whistleblower attorney accuses Merck of stonewalling by withholding information and files a motion to compel Merck to comply. In his letter to the court overseeing the case, wrote:
        ''Rather than answer questions, Merck has taken an ''evasive approach in its blanket refusal'' to provide information effectiveness'... Instead, the drug maker cited data from nearly 50 years ago, when the vaccine was introduced, and that it is not possible to conduct new trials.
        Either Merck knows the current efficacy of its mumps vaccine, or it does not,'' the attorney writes. ''Whichever the case, Merck should not be permitted to raise as one of its principal defenses that its vaccine has a high efficacy, which is accurately represented on the product's label, but then refuse to answer what it claims that efficacy actually is.''
        Ed Silverman noted in The Wall Street Journal:
        ''The lawsuit has gained attention because it comes at a time of ongoing controversy over vaccine safety, in general, and resistance by some parents to having their children vaccinated. The issue was highlighted again last year after a measles outbreak at Disneyland in California, where 147 people were infected, prompting push back against religious exemptions for vaccination.
        The mumps vaccine is a sizeable product for Merck, which reported that sales reached $721 million last year, when including both the MMR II vaccine '' which is mumps, measles and rubella '' and the ProQuad vaccine, a combination product that is also used to thwart chickenpox, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
        The federal government, by the way, declined to intervene '' or join '' the whistleblower lawsuit. We should note that several physicians later filed a lawsuit seeking class action status and charged the vaccine was mislabeled and was not the product for which the government or other purchasers paid, which meant that Merck violated the False Claims Act, according to court documents.
        Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that mumps is no longer common in the U.S., although the number of cases has been rising. Last year, 1,151; two years ago, the number of reported cases reached 438 people.'' (Merck is Accused of Stonewalling Over Effectiveness of Mumps Vaccine Jun 8, 2015)
        See also related articles at:
        FierceVaccines Whistleblowers accuse Merck of withholding info on mumps vaccine;Lawsuits claiming Merck lied about mumps vaccine efficacy headed to trialWhistleblowers: Merck hid declining efficacy of MMR shotMeasles-jab maker Merck says it can only do so much to encourage vaccinationDisneyland measles outbreak adds fuel to heated anti-vaccination debateMeasles vaccination more likely when child's, not society's, benefits are stressedSurvey: 1 in 5 Americans think doctors know vaccines cause autismMike Adams of Natural News has posted the original complaint filed for the False Claim Act here.
        Read more at Health Impact News
    Green New Deal
      Leo Hickman on Twitter: "+BREAKING+ The Guardian's editor has just issued this new guidance to all staff on language to use when writing about climate change and the environment...'... https://t.co/JMGlFl5JTO"
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 11:57
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      Climate change could revive the plague in LA by helping rat populations thrive, experts warn | Daily Mail Online
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 14:04
        As if the specter of droughts, floods, and dwindling resources wasn't scary enough, a new book details how the a rapidly changing climate is putting Los Angeles, the second biggest city in the U.S., at unique risk of a deadly outbreak of bubonic plague.
        In a report published in the LA Times, journalist and author David K. Randall's breaks down how climate change creates a perfect storm for some of the key factors behind outbreaks of the plague.
        Randall recently released a book titled 'Black Death at the Golden Gate: The Race to Save America from the Bubonic Plague.'
        Among the ripple effects of a rapidly changing climate, says Randall, are warmer temperatures which for some species will spell disaster.
        For others, however, like rats, fairer climates mean longer active breeding periods.
        Rats act as vehicles for fleas which carry the plague. Once those fleas come in contact with humans it can spread quickly to devastating results
        'Longer, hotter weather patterns are extending the breeding season of rats and rodents, leading to a steep increase in their numbers in places like Los Angeles, New York and Houston,' wrote Randall in the op-ed for the LA Times.
        Citing one of the world's leading authorities on rats, Robert Corrigan, who holds a doctorate in urban rodentology from Purdue University and has been profiled by the New Yorker, Randall says urban rat populations have increased 15 to 20 percent globally.
        In addition to more conducive weather, a higher preference towards urban living has increased food supplies -- namely trash -- for city-dwelling rodents.
        According to the UN, an overwhelming 68 percent of humans worldwide are expected to live in urban environments by 2050.
        Those rats, explains Randall, could be the linchpin in a potential dangerous situation, as they tend to harbor fleas containing bubonic plague bacterium.
        'Any climate change conditions that increase the number of fleas [also increase] the distribution of plague,' said Dr. Janet Foley, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at UC Davis in Randall's report.
        The situation Randall outlines in the report would apply to almost every metropolis across the globe, but according to him, Los Angeles is in a particularly harrowing position due to one key factor: homeless populations.
        Homeless populations would be among the most at-risk people since they are often forced to live in proximity to rodents and other pests. File photo
        According to a previous report from the LA Times, homeless populations have boomed in the last several years, rising by about 39 percent since 2014 to 53,000 people in 2019.
        Those people, who often live in close proximity to fleas and rats, could be the first to be affected says Randall, and from there the disease could spread.
        While it may seem outlandish that the world is still at risk of another outbreak of Bubonic plague, the impact of climate change has been noted by other modern studies.
        Last year, researchers published a report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that links a change in climate and rat populations to the incidence and spread of the plague in Europe.
        The Black Death is one of the worst known pandemics in human history and could potentially be aided by a changing climate says one author and journalist
        The world's most dangerous occurrence of bubonic plague, the Black Death, and one of the most devastating pandemics ever recorded occurred in the mid 1300's and was responsible for killing as many as 200 million people across Europe, Asia, and Africa.
        To help mitigate the problem, experts interviewed by Randall say that cities can begin to pointedly reduce rat populations, especially since humans have also worked to stifle the amount of predators like snakes and coyotes who keep rodent numbers in check.
        'It goes against our modern sensibilities, but there is nothing else to keep their populations bound,' said
        WHAT CAUSED EUROPE'S BUBONIC PLAGUES?The plague, caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, was the cause of some of the world's deadliest pandemics, including the Justinian Plague, the Black Death, and the major epidemics that swept through China in the late 1800s.
        The disease continues to affect populations around the world today.
        The Black Death of 1348 famously killed half of the people in London within 18 months, with bodies piled five-deep in mass graves.
        When the Great Plague of 1665 hit, a fifth of people in London died, with victims shut in their homes and a red cross painted on the door with the words 'Lord have mercy upon us'.
        The pandemic spread from Europe through the 14th and 19th centuries - thought to come from fleas which fed on infected rats before biting humans and passing the bacteria to them.
        But modern experts challenge the dominant view that rats caused the incurable disease.
        Experts point out that rats were not that common in northern Europe, which was hit equally hard by plague as the rest of Europe, and that the plague spread faster than humans might have been exposed to their fleas.
        Most people would have had their own fleas and lice, when the plague arrived in Europe in 1346, because they bathed much less often.
      Does the term "climate change" need a makeover? Some think so '-- here's why. - CBS News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 12:06
        Greta Thunberg , a 16-year-old who leads a global climate movement, asked in a recent tweet, "Can we all now please stop saying 'climate change' and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?"
        She's not alone in her sentiment. Many of those engaged in environmental advocacy feel the term "climate change" fails to convey the specificity or urgency needed to address the gravity of the climate challenge.
        A new recent study shows they may be right.
        New York City-based SPARK Neuro, a neuroanalytics company that measures emotion and attention, studied how participants responded to six terms -- "climate crisis," "environmental destruction," "environmental collapse," "weather destabilization," "global warming" and "climate change."
        A total of 120 people -- 40 Republicans, 40 Democrats and 40 independents -- participated in the study, which measured the "emotional intensity" of responses to audio recordings of various controversial phrases, with each term inserted, like this example below:
        "Sea levels will rise dramatically, to the point that many coastal cities will be submerged, as a result of [INSERT TERM]."
        The electrical activity of the participants' brains and skin was rated on a scale of zero to five -- five being the strongest. Those results were then compared to a traditional survey for reference.
        Two terms stood out from the pack: climate crisis and environmental destruction.
        Among Democrats, the study found a 60% greater emotional response to the term "climate crisis" than to "climate change," and a tripling in emotional response among Republicans.
        Spencer Gerrol, CEO of SPARK Neuro, said evoking emotion is vital to getting people to act. Because terms like climate change and global warming do not imply good or bad, they don't spark passion, he said.
        "People tend to underestimate how much emotions factor in," he said. "Ultimately it is emotions that change hearts and minds and lead to actions."
        Among the Republicans in the study, the term "environmental destruction" evoked what was considered an extreme reaction, registering an emotional response almost four times greater than that of their responses to the term "climate change."
        However, Gerrol said that kind of visceral intensity can backfire.
        "The term 'environmental destruction' seems to have crossed a line with Republicans. It is likely seen as alarmist, perhaps even implying blame, which can lead to counterarguing and pushback," he said.
        SPARK Neuro The term "climate crisis" appeared to fall in a sweet spot. It performed well in terms of responses across the political spectrum and elicited the greatest emotional response among independents.
        "Independents are thinking less about what camp they fall into because they are not driven by partisan beliefs and visceral reactions. It implies they are thinking more critically about the term," Gerrol said.
        One online petition from The Action Network, a progressive advocacy organization, shows some are pushing for this change. It calls on major TV networks to "call the climate crisis transforming the Earth exactly what it is: a climate crisis."
        This week, people in the climate-engaged community have fielded a flurry of emails from organizations like The Climate Reality Project and 350.org. The climate advocacy non-profits have asked them to sign the petition, which garnered more than 35,000 signatures by Thursday morning.
        Sarah Finnie Robinson, a senior fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Energy at Boston University, said she signed "because we have not addressed climate change properly, despite scientists' dire warnings."
        "It's now a crisis, an emergency, and we need to engage people to demand smart policy and innovation," she said. "Time is not on our side."
        But not everyone is convinced a name change is needed or even possible.
        "I think it is too late to attempt to change the terms global warming and climate change," said David Fenton, founder and chairman of Fenton Communications, a social change agency. "They are now fully implanted in people's consciousness and would be very hard to change."
        More important, Fenton said, is "to simply explain how we are heating the planet and how that is hurting people, communities and the economy. Too few people really understand this in simple terms or images."
        Whether it's rebranding or reframing, one thing everyone in the climate conscious community agrees on is: "climate change needs a kick in the butt." Those are the words of an Ohio woman involved in a focus group conducted by John Marshall, a senior client advisor at Lippincott, a brand strategy consultancy.
        In Marshall's words, this is the most "wicked" branding and communications challenge because of vast political divisions and feelings of detachment from climate change, such as people believing, "It's not important to me and I'm not important to it." Marshall said the term seriously lacks energy and relevance, and "badly" needs rebranding.
        To help formulate a messaging strategy, he united 16 prominent firms in the creative industry that are forming a non-profit coalition called the Potential Energy Coalition. It will soon launch a series of creative climate campaigns that will appear in print and digital media, as well as on TV and radio. The campaigns are designed for awareness and persuasion.
        "We hope to find very new and effective ways to engage people in the climate crisis, and scale what works to help dramatically accelerate action," Marshall said. "Our goal is to help people realize how massively important this issue is."
    EuroVision
      Eurovision 2019: Belarus TV host's homophobic remarks condemned - BBC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 14:52
        Image copyright Belarus Television Image caption Some social media users said they felt embarrassed by Yavhen Perlin's remarks Homophobic remarks by a Belarusian state TV presenter during the Eurovision song contest in Israel have stirred indignation on social media in Belarus.
        Yavhen Perlin was providing live commentary during the semi-finals on 14 May, when a "kiss-cam" zoomed into affectionate couples during the performance by Israel's transgender pop diva Dana International.
        "They are sending the kiss-cam across the hall! Let's see what we get!" Mr Perlin said.
        But after the first couple caught by the camera appeared to be two men kissing, the presenter reacted: "Oh, my goodness! Maybe we'd better not watch!"
        When the camera moved on to a man and a woman having a smooch, he added, with a sense of relief: "Ok, so far so good!" But a few seconds later, another male couple were shown kissing, at which point the presenter exclaimed: "Oh, come on!"
        You might also be interested in:
        He went on to say that he hoped the cameramen will "finally find some cool couples" in the audience.
        Image copyright EPA Image caption "We all deserve to be loved," Dana International told the audience in Tel Aviv As Dana International was performing Bruno Mars's song Just The Way You Are, the Belarusian presenter remarked: "Dana is singing that love has no religion, no boundaries, no racial or any other limits. But you know, I want values to preserve their value, so that love remains love."
        'Rock bottom'Mr Perlin's views provoked strong reaction on social media.
        "I felt so embarrassed!" wrote Radio Liberty journalist Ales Piletski on Facebook. "The good thing is that these boorish jokes are not heard in other countries."
        Another journalist, BelaPAN news agency director Andrei Aliaksandrau didn't hold back: "It feels like the Belarusian Television presenter really hit rock bottom this time, though BT is a champion in hitting rock bottom."
        The sentiment was echoed by others on social media. One user tweeted: "A homophobic commentator is an embarrassment to the country."
        "They show men kissing and Perlin freezes. Oh, my god, this is gay propaganda on BT! A historic moment indeed," remarked another.
        Reporting by Dmytro Zotsenko and Gennadiy Kot
        Next story: Russian deserter dodged arrest for 14 years
        Use #NewsfromElsewhere to stay up-to-date with our reports via Twitter.
      Winning Song Video - Duncan Laurence - Arcade
    5G
      When we say we'll do something, we mean it! | T-Mobile Newsroom
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 09:50
        Over the last few months, I've been writing a lot about the New T-Mobile and the various ways a supercharged Un-carrier will benefit American consumers and businesses. I've also been doing a lot of listening. After all, we built this Un-carrier revolution by listening to others and then acting decisively. So why would we approach this merger any differently? As we've made our case for the New T-Mobile, we've been listening to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and many others. Today, we took some action on those discussions, and we submitted a set of commitments to the FCC around the New T-Mobile to address what we've heard. We listen and we take action. It's who we are.
        Let me be clear. These aren't just words'... they're verifiable, enforceable and specific commitments that bring to life how the New T-Mobile will deliver a world-leading nationwide 5G network '' truly 5G for all, create more competition in broadband, and continue to give customers more choices, better value and better service.
        I particularly want to thank Chairman Pai for his statement of support for these commitments and our merger '' as well as his ongoing leadership to help ensure our country is a leader, not a follower, in the 5G era. We look forward to continuing to meet and work with a variety of important stakeholders to demonstrate the powerful benefits the New T-Mobile will bring '' but today's filing is at the center of our plans to bring 5G to American consumers. Ultimately, today's commitments are about our shared goal to put the U.S. at the forefront of 5G innovation, driving massive economic growth, helping bridge the Digital Divide, creating more competition, and of course, giving consumers and businesses more for less. The commitments we're making today help advance all of these goals! It is that simple.
        Specific Enforceable Commitments to Deliver 5G for All First, we've committed to key milestones we'll hit as we build out 5G for ALL '' both on a nationwide scale and specifically for rural America. We've laid out aggressive targets for this supercharged 5G network. In three years, we've committed that the New T-Mobile will cover 97% of the U.S. population with 5G on low-band spectrum and 75% of the population with 5G on mid-band spectrum. That will grow to 99% of the U.S. population covered with low-band 5G in six years and 88% with mid-band 5G.
        This is critically important because it ensures that this country will have broad AND deep nationwide 5G utilizing both mid and low band spectrum, which will deliver a radically better, more expansive experience than the status quo. This should also force Verizon and AT&T to re-evaluate their 5G strategies and accelerate their investment and 5G deployment.
        We also established milestones to cover 85% of rural America with 5G on low-band spectrum in three years and 90% in six years. We set targets for the number of people with access to equal or greater than 100 Mbps and 50 Mbps average download speeds (hint: it's a lot'... 90% and 99% of the country's population respectively in six years, and we even outlined how we'll verify those speeds with drive tests!).
        We've also made clear commitments around in-home broadband. I've said before that we are going to ''Un-carrier'' broadband, and that's what we're going to do. Because this is one of the most un-competitive industries in the country '' and the least customer-friendly! Almost half the country's households'--45% '' have no high-speed service or only one option to choose from. The numbers are worse for rural households, 76% of which have no high-speed service or only one choice available.
        With our nationwide 5G network, we can change this dynamic! So, we made real commitments to offer in-home broadband to a specific number of households across the U.S., including in rural areas, in very specific timeframes.
        I believe we will nail all of these goals '' nationwide 5G, rural 5G and in-home broadband! We are so confident in our ability to follow through that we are willing to put our money where our mouth is by committing to specific measures that will hold us accountable'... You see, if we don't meet these milestones, we'll pay until we do. These are tangible commitments that we are happy to be held to. Why? Because when we say we'll do something, we mean it.
        And we believe in transparency on all of this, so we'll give an annual report card to the FCC to show our progress.
        This clear set of specific, enforceable commitments reinforces our plans and bring them to life '' and show what I've been saying all along: this 5G network will make a huge difference for millions of Americans across the entire country.
        An Independent Path for Boost Another area of FCC feedback we heard is around the prepaid business. In response, we have committed to divest Sprint's Boost pre-paid business to a third party following the closing of the merger. We'll work to find a serious, credible, financially capable and independent buyer for all the assets needed to run '' and grow '' the business, and we'll make sure that buyer has attractive wholesale arrangements. This is an exciting opportunity for Boost employees and customers with a buyer bringing the ability to invest in the brand and the opportunity to run on the supercharged New T-Mobile network!
        We have always chosen to serve pre-paid customers. To give hardworking people everywhere the wireless they deserve. Wireless they can be proud of. It's part of who we are to offer underserved communities more choice and value in wireless. That's a big part of why we've been able to more than double the size of Metro since 2013. We aren't backing down from that commitment '' at all '' and we plan to compete aggressively in pre-paid with Metro and Virgin in the years ahead.
        Same or Better Prices! Now this one, I've said before , and we've already put our commitment in writing to the FCC. The commitment still stands. The New T-Mobile will deliver the same or better rate plans at the same or better prices for three years. And that includes 5G. Period.
        But I'm not quite done yet'... when we combine the Sprint and T-Mobile networks, we're going to create a 5G network with 8x more capacity by 2024 than Sprint or T-Mobile standalone today. We're going to want MVNO partners to help put all that capacity to use, and today's commitments also address that. We want to work with a whole community of partners to utilize all the capacity this deal will unlock!
        We are going to bring 5G to every corner of this country and challenge the failing status quo that has left millions of Americans with too few options and too little value, tolerating terrible treatment and believing it can't change. It can change, and the New T-Mobile can provide the competition to change it. The New T-Mobile will be a disruptive rival with the resources to go toe-to-toe with established behemoths to drive competition and innovation that benefits everyone, everywhere.
        That's what today's news is about, and that's why I'm more excited than ever about the difference the New T-Mobile will make in millions of peoples' lives. I look forward to continuing to make the case for the New T-Mobile in the days and weeks ahead with all of the key stakeholders!
        John
        Important Additional Information U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the ''SEC'') on October 29, 2018, and which contains a joint consent solicitation statement of T-Mobile and Sprint Corporation (''Sprint''), that also constitutes a prospectus of T-Mobile (the ''joint consent solicitation statement/prospectus''), and each party will file other documents regarding the proposed transaction with the SEC. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE JOINT CONSENT SOLICITATION STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The documents filed by T-Mobile may be obtained free of charge at T-Mobile's website, at www.t-mobile.com, or at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov, or from T-Mobile by requesting them by mail at T-Mobile US, Inc., Investor Relations, 1 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10016, or by telephone at 212-358-3210. The documents filed by Sprint may be obtained free of charge at Sprint's website, at www.sprint.com, or at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov, or from Sprint by requesting them by mail at Sprint Corporation, Shareholder Relations, 6200 Sprint Parkway, Mailstop KSOPHF0302-3B679, Overland Park, Kansas 66251, or by telephone at 913-794-1091. No Offer or Solicitation
        This communication shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. No offering of securities shall be made except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This communication contains certain forward-looking statements concerning T-Mobile, Sprint and the proposed transaction between T-Mobile and Sprint. All statements other than statements of fact, including information concerning future results, are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are generally identified by the words ''anticipate,'' ''believe,'' ''estimate,'' ''expect,'' ''intend,'' ''may,'' ''could'' or similar expressions. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about the benefits of the proposed transaction, including anticipated future financial and operating results, synergies, accretion and growth rates, T-Mobile's, Sprint's and the combined company's plans, objectives, expectations and intentions, and the expected timing of completion of the proposed transaction. There are several factors which could cause actual plans and results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to, the failure to obtain, or delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the proposed transaction, or the failure to satisfy any of the other conditions to the proposed transaction on a timely basis or at all; the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of the parties to terminate the business combination agreement; adverse effects on the market price of T-Mobile's or Sprint's common stock and on T-Mobile's or Sprint's operating results because of a failure to complete the proposed transaction in the anticipated timeframe or at all; inability to obtain the financing contemplated to be obtained in connection with the proposed transaction on the expected terms or timing or at all; the ability of T-Mobile, Sprint and the combined company to make payments on debt or to repay existing or future indebtedness when due or to comply with the covenants contained therein; adverse changes in the ratings of T-Mobile's or Sprint's debt securities or adverse conditions in the credit markets; negative effects of the announcement, pendency or consummation of the transaction on the market price of T-Mobile's or Sprint's common stock and on T-Mobile's or Sprint's operating results, including as a result of changes in key customer, supplier, employee or other business relationships; significant transaction costs, including financing costs, and unknown liabilities; failure to realize the expected benefits and synergies of the proposed transaction in the expected timeframes or at all; costs or difficulties related to the integration of Sprint's network and operations into T-Mobile; the risk of litigation or regulatory actions; the inability of T-Mobile, Sprint or the combined company to retain and hire key personnel; the risk that certain contractual restrictions contained in the business combination agreement during the pendency of the proposed transaction could adversely affect T-Mobile's or Sprint's ability to pursue business opportunities or strategic transactions; effects of changes in the regulatory environment in which T-Mobile and Sprint operate; changes in global, political, economic, business, competitive and market conditions; changes in tax and other laws and regulations; and other risks and uncertainties detailed in the Form S-4, as well as in T-Mobile's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 and in its subsequent reports on Form 10-Q, including in the sections thereof captioned ''Risk Factors'' and ''Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements,'' as well as in its subsequent reports on Form 8-K, all of which are filed with the SEC and available at www.sec.gov and www.t-mobile.com. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions, which are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, persons reading this communication are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. T-Mobile assumes no obligation to update or revise the information contained in this communication (whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise), except as required by applicable law.
      T-Mobile commitment redacted
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:01
        May 20, 2019 VIA ECFS Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION Re: Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations; WT Docket No. 18-197 Dear Ms. Dortch: T-…ž‘›-- ŒŠ¨ ''ª ...¬‹-…ž‘›--­§ '' ŠŸ'£ >>žŸž£ž' ...¬ŠŸ'£­¨ '' 'ž››--'£¥--›¨ ...£— ‹-…ž‘›--¨ ¬¸ŸŸ›''£­§ —----‘¨ •›-- £— ...££--' ex parte presentation in the above-referenced 'ž'š--£ Ÿ¤¤'£ £ž Š--'£ž' ­ª­®¬²...‘§ ž• £—-- >>ž''ž'® ‰¤›--¨ °" >>ª¾ª‰ª ª ­ª­®¬²...‘§ª Based on the record in this proceeding and subject to the commitments set forth herein, the Applicants request grant of their applications for transfer of control to permit the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint. ' £—-- ¤‘›' '£----£ Š££--'--'£ ...¬Š­§ '' ¤‘-- ¤--'£ ‘¤'--¨ --'–'----'– '' --'ž'ž'' showings, Applicants have demonstrated that their merger will produce enormous consu mer ‘--'--•£ '' '£--'•¨ 'ž'Ÿ--££ž'ª ‹—-- '--–--' 'ž'Ÿ'¨ ...¬†--... ‹-…ž‘›--­§ ...›› ‘-- ‘›-- £ž leverage a unique combination of complementary spectrum and cell sites to unlock massive synergies. This will allow New T-Mobile to invest nearly $40 billion within three years of closing to deliver a more robust nationwide 5G network and next -generation services than either company can achieve on its own. New T-…ž‘›--® ± '--£...žš ...›› —¥-- ŠŸ'£® ''-band spectrum to create massive capacity, T-…ž‘›--® ›ž...-band spectrum to provide broad coverage, and lower costs so that American consumers will pay less and get more. The nationwide 5G network will deliver transformative fiber-like speeds for mobile services; bring broadband wireless service to millions of unserved and underserved rural Americans; unleash a competitive alternative to in-home, fixed broadband providers; benefit MVNOs; and accelerate 5G deployment in the United States, thereby ensuring American leadership in the next -generation of wireless technology. The Applicants recently have ''¤--' £—-- '--–--® ‘--'--•£ with the Commission and listened to concerns about certain aspects of the transact ion. In order to respond to these concerns and
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 20, 2019 Page 2 address them definitively, the Applicants submit herewith proposed commit ments to ensure that: (1) New T-Mobile builds a world-leading 5G network; (2) rural Americans receive robust 5G broadband service; (3) in-home broadband competition is enhanced and choice becomes a reality for American consumers; and (4) Boost Mobile is divested to a serious and credible buyer who can compete aggressively in prepaid services on a long-term basis. These commitments will be enforced by strong verification measures, substantial voluntary contributions for missed deadlines, and continuation of the voluntary contributions until unmet obligations are fulfilled. In addition, the Applicants reconfirm their prior commitment to make available the same or better rate plans as those offered by T-Mobile or Sprint as of February 4, 2019 for three years following the merger. Finally, the Applicants make commitments concerning the Altice post -merger MVNO relationship with New T-Mobile. Each of these commitments is summarized below and set forth in detail in the attachments. Commitment to Build a World-Leading Nationwide 5G Network New T-…ž‘›--® ‘›£¨ £ž '--£-- ' ¤'Ÿ--'--'--'£--'¨ ...ž›'-leading, nationwide 5G network is the ¤''ž'£--£--' š--¨£ž'-- ž• £— '--–--ª ¹¨ 'ž'‘''– ŠŸ'£® ''-band spectrum and T-…ž‘›--® low band spectrum, the merger will posit ion the United States to lead the 5G era by not only accelerating the deployment of a nationwide 5G network, but also increasing competitive pressure on other mobile wireless carriers to accelerate and expand their planned 5G deployments. New T-…ž‘›--® ± '--£...žš ...›› ‘-- £—-- 'ž'Ÿ--££¥-- Ÿš £—£ ...›› --'¤-- ¸'--' --'' £—-- ...ž›'® ›--''– £--'—'ž›ž–'› ''¤‘£ž •ž '--§£-generation services and applications bringing untold benefits to the American people. The record conclusivel y demonstrates that New T-…ž‘›--® ± '--£...žš ...›› ‘-- 'Ÿ‘›-- ž• ¤'– £—-- 'ž'‘'--' ›ž...-band and mid-band spectrum of T-Mobile and Sprint to provide virtually ubiquitous and deep 5G coverage across the country, including in rural areas. Within three years ž• £—-- '--–--® '›ž--¨ this unique combination of complementary spectrum will enable New T -Mobile to provide fiber-like speeds to hundreds of millions of Americans1 and deliver average speeds of over 150 Mbps and peak speeds of 1.6 Gbps.2 Within six year ž• £—-- '--–--® '›ž--¨ ¥--–-- '' Ÿ--š Ÿ----' will have surged to 450 Mbps and 4.2 Gbps, respectively.3 Applicants are confident in their 5G network plan. Accordingly, they are willing to back it up with firm commitments, set forth in Attachment 1 at Section I, that include a detailed network build schedule with hard deadlines for providing coverage of the country based on population covered and deploying 5G spectrum and sites. The firm commitments also include speed 1 Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 18-197, Joint Opposition of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint >>žŸž£ž' ...¬‚ž'£ ‡ŸŸž£ž'­§¨ ¸ŸŸ§ª ¹¨ ¼--'›£ž' ž• †--¥››-- ‰¨¨ ½§--'¤£¥-- '-- --'--'£ '' Chief Technology Officer, T-Mobile US, Inc. at 15 (Sept. 17, 2018). 2 Joint Opposition at 42. 3 Id. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 20, 2019 Page 3 commitments verified by nationwide drive tests. The Applicants commit that within three years ž• £—-- '--–--® '›ž'–¨ †--... ‹-Mobile will blanket three-•ž¤£— ž• £—-- 'ž¤'£¨® ŸžŸ¤›£ž' with mid-‘'' Ÿ--'£¤' '' 'ž¥-- µ" Ÿ--'--'£ ž• £—-- 'ž¤'£¨® ŸžŸ¤›£ž' ...£— ›ž...-band spectrum. This broad and deep spectrum deployment will result in almost two-thirds of Americans receiving speeds in excess of 100 Mbps within three years of closing. Within six ¨-- ž• £—-- '--–--® '›ž--¨ £—-- ¸ŸŸ›''£ 'ž''£ £ž '--Ÿ›ž¨ ± '--£...žš ...£—¶ ›ž...-band coverage of at least 99 percent of the population; mid-band coverage of at least 88 percent of the population; 5G sites nationwide; an average of megahertz of low-band and mid-band 5G spectrum deployed across the 5G sites; 99 percent of the population experiencing download speeds equal to, or greater than, 50 Mbps; and 90 percent of the population experiencing download speeds equal to, or greater than, 100 Mbps. New T-…ž‘›--® ± '--£...žš ...›› ‘-- ‘›-- to achieve these exceptional performance targets through the combined capabilities of T-…ž‘›--® ›ž...-‘'' '' ŠŸ'£® ''-band spectrum, and, in doing so, help lead the U.S. to victory in the global race to 5G. Commitment to Provide High-Speed 5G Services for Rural America ¸ŸŸ›''£® Ÿ›' ž• --'žrd for rural 5G deployment recognizes that consumers in many rural areas have limited choices for wireless service and that entrenched rural incumbents have failed £ž '--›¥-- £—-- ¤›£¨ ž• --¥'-- £—£ 'ž'¤'-- ' ¤› ¸'--' '----¥--ª ¸ŸŸ›''£® •›ngs detailed how rural America represents an untapped business opportunity for New T-Mobile to create much-needed competition, seize customers from unchallenged incumbents, and deliver a new and higher standard of service for rural customers by expanding o utdoor 5G coverage to 59.4 million rural residents, and indoor 5G coverage to 31 million rural residents.4 The Applicants detailed their plan for New T-Mobile to become an aggressive new competitor in rural America by taking advantage of merger synergies and leveraging its low-band (600 MHz) rural deployment to simultaneously deploy mid-band (2.5 GHz and/or PCS/AWS)) radios in rural areas at a very low incremental cost.5 The deployment of mid-band spectrum in rural America means that New T-…ž‘›--® ‘ž' and deep 5G coverage will not be reserved for urban areas only, but will create tremendous benefits in rural areas as well. Building on this aggressive planned rural deployment, the Applicants now propose to expand and accelerate their rural deployment plans and back it up with a strong commitment, ensuring that even more rural Americans receive the same world-class speed and service from New T-…ž‘›--® ''-band coverage as the rest of the country. 4 See Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation for Consent to Transfer Control of the Licenses and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 18-197, Description of Transaction, Public Interest Statement, and Related Demonstrations at 65-66 (filed June 18, 20­´§ ...¬¤‘›' '£----£ Š££--'--'£­§· see also Joint Opposition at 94. 5 Joint Opposition at 96-97. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 20, 2019 Page 4 ¸ŸŸ›''£® ¤› --¥'-- 'ž''£'--'£ --£ •ž£— ' ¸££'hment 1 at Section II, accelerates and ''---- £—-- ¸ŸŸ›''£® Ÿ--¥ž¤›¨ ¤‘'££--' ± ‘ž'‘'' 'ž¥--–-- Ÿ›' •ž ¤› ¸'--'' by going further than any company has before to help bridge the rural Digital Divide. Specifically, New T-Mobile will accelerate the deployment of approximately mid-band sites in rural America, deploying them within three years of closing years sooner than previously planned. New T-Mobile will also add 5G mid-band to approximately additional low-band sites within six years of closing to further accelerate rural 5G deployment. This rural mid-band acceleration will mean that the advantages of high-capacity mid-band spectrum will be extended to 6.5 million more rural Americans in the first three years of deployment faster than originally planned. Further, by year six, New T-Mobile will increase its mid-band coverage of rural America by an additional 6.1 million rural Americans who would not have been covered with 5G mid-band spectrum in the original plan. As a result, within three years of closing, New T-Mobile will deliver 50 Mbps or higher to two-thirds of the rural population and 100 Mbps or higher to over half the rural population. Ž£—' § ¨-- ž• £—-- '--–--® '›ž--¨ †--... ‹-Mobile will deploy a 5G network with low-band coverage of at least 90 percent of the rural population; mid-band coverage of at least 66.7 percent of the rural population; 5G sites in rural areas; an average of megahertz of low-band and mid-band 5G spectrum deployed per 5G site; 90 percent of the rural population experiencing download speeds equal to, or greater, than 50 Mbps; and 66.7 percent of the rural population experiencing download speeds equal to, or greater than, 100 Mbps. No other company has rural 5G deployment plans even remotely as aggressive as New T-Mobile, and New T-Mobile is the only company that will bring the benefits of 5G mid-band spectrum to millions of rural Americans. Again, New T-Mobile will lead the way for the U.S. to be the global champion for 5G. Commitment for In-Home Broadband Applicants have detailed thoroughly their plan to leverage the unprecedented coverage, capacity, and speed of New T-…ž‘›--® ± '--£...žš £ž ž••-- –ž¤''‘--š'– '-home broadband service, ...¬†--... ‹-…ž‘›-- ž'-- '£--'--£­§ 'ž¥--'– ž¥-- —›• £—-- 'ž¤'£¨® —ž¤--—ž›' £ ›ž... Ÿ'-- £ž consumers and a low incremental cost to New T-Mobile.6 Applicants have demonstrated how this new service will create direct benefits for all in-home broadband consumers, regardless of whether they subscribe to New T-Mobile, by forcing incumbent broadband providers to lower prices and improve services to respond to an aggressive new broadband competitor. ¸ŸŸ›''£® Ÿ›' •ž †--... ‹-Mobile Home Internet will break the mold for in-home broadband. ¸ '--'‘--' ' ¸ŸŸ›''£® •›'–¨ †--... ‹-Mobile Home Internet will: provide minimum 6 See generally Letter from Nancy J. Victory, Counsel to T-Mobile US, Inc., to Marlene T. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 18-­µ" ...…ª ²¨ ®¬­µ§ ...¬'-home ¹ž'‘'' ½§ £--­§ª --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 20, 2019 Page 5 speeds of 25 Mbps downlink and 3 Mbps uplink (more than fast enough for streaming 4K Ultra HD video); provide average speeds above 100 Mbps downlink; be priced significantly ( per month) below incumbent provider prices for service with comparable speeds; have no extra charge for the router; have no installation charge; have no contract; and provide customer care from T-…ž‘›--® ...'-winning Magenta Glove Team.7 Indeed, New T-Mobile Home Internet is poised to fundamentally shift the competitive landscape of one of the least-competitive industry segments in America. Rural Americans who want and need access or choice for in-home broadband will benefit from the newly accelerated and increased rural deployment of the 5G network described above. Indeed, the in-home broadband service deployment in rural areas also will be accelerated and increased. The number of supported rural households will be approximately 300,000 more within three years and approximately 400,000 more within six years from the closing than originally planned. Here again, rural Americans will be big beneficiaries of the commit ments. Applicants stand behind their representations in the record about their incentive and ability to deliver in-home broadband to millions, including in rural areas. As set forth in Attachment 1 at Section III, Applicants commit that, within three years of closing, New T-Mobile will market the in-home service to 9.6 million eligible households, of which at least 2.6 million are rural households and will have at least million supported households, of which at least million are rural households. In addition, within six years of closing, New T-Mobile will market its in-home broadband service to at least 28 million eligible households, of which 5.6 million are rural, and will have at least million supported households, of which at least million are rural households. Commitment for Divestiture of Boost Mobile ¸ŸŸ›''£® ž–'› ‘¤'-- Ÿ›' '¥ž›¥--' ''žŸž£'– £—-- ŠŸ'£ Ÿ--Ÿ' ‘''¨ ''›¤''– ¹žž£ …ž‘›-- ...¬¹žž£­§¨ '£ž '¥---- Ÿžrtfolio of prepaid options that could leverage the powerful New T-Mobile 5G network to provide a high-quality, 5G prepaid service at a low price. While Applicants had planned that Boost would continue to be an effective and meaningful competitor as part of the New T-Mobile portfolio of brands, Applicants now commit to divest and sell the Boost business to remove any remaining doubts regarding the impact of the merger on prepaid wireless customers and competition. Therefore, as described in Attachment 2, Applicants will divest Boost through a market -based process to a serious and credible buyer. New T-Mobile will offer the Boost buyer terms for a six-year wholesale MVNO agreement that will include wholesale rates that will meaningfully improve upon the commercial terms reflected in the most favorable of T-…ž‘›--® '' ŠŸ'£® three largest MVNO agreements. The wholesale network arrangement will also ensure that New T-Mobile and New Boost retain strong incentives to compete against each other for customers. 7 See id. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 20, 2019 Page 6 The Applicants further commit that the MVNO arrangement will prevent New T-Mobile from treating New Boost in a discriminatory or anticompetitive manner relative to Metro, such as through unwanted discriminatory throttling, de-prioritization, or limitations on access to new network technologies. New T-Mobile will also offer other standard commercial support arrangements to the buyer, including a transition services agreement that is customary for a transaction of this nature. This will ensure that New Boost will be an aggressive competitor to New T-Mobile and other facilities-based, and non-facilities-based operators going forward. New T-Mobile commits to identify the buyer of Boost and submit the negotiated MVNO agreement to the FCC within 120 days of closing the merger (subject to two 30-day extensions). The divestiture process implemented by New T-Mobile will result in the orderly transfer of Boost customers to the Boost buyer. It will also ensure the continued and seamless operation of Boost during the pendency of the divestiture. New T-Mobile commits to make significant voluntary contributions to the U.S. Treasury should it fail to timely negotiate and submit to the Commission an MVNO agreement that adheres to the principles in its commitment or maintain the competitiveness of Boost during the divestiture process. Pricing Commitment Applicants demonstrated through business and economic evidence that wireless consumers will pay less for 5G service and get far better service and more data as a result of the merger. However, on February 4, 2019, to enhance the public interest benefits of the merger and simplify £—-- >>ž''ž'® --§Ÿ--'£ž¤ --¥--...¨ £—-- ¸ŸŸ›''£ ¤‘'££--' •' 'ž''£'--'£ £—£ ¬†--... T-Mobile will make available the same or bett er rate plans as those offered by T-Mobile or ŠŸ'£ ž• £ž'¨® '£-- •ž £—---- ¨-- •ž››ž...'– £—-- '--–--ª­8 The Applicants once again take this opportunity to unequivocally reaffirm the February 4, 2019, pricing commitment and include it for convenience as Attachment 3. As previously stated, this commitment not only ensures that prices cannot go up, but that 5G comes at no extra cost in contrast to surcharges imposed by Verizon and planned by AT&T. In light of the proposed Boost divestiture, the commitment will cover the Boost plans only until Boost is divested. Commitments Regarding Altice As Applicants have demonstrated in the record, t he same economic principles that will drive lower prices for retail consumers will also apply to wholesale prices and MVNOs, creating a unique value proposition for New T-…ž‘›--® …†‡ª9 New T-…ž‘›--® ''£ž'› '--£...žš 8 See Letter from Nancy J. Victory, Counsel for T-Mobile US, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 18-­µ" ...¾--‘ª °¨ ®¬­µ§ ...¬''– >>ž''£'--'£ --££--­§ª 9 Joint Opposition at 88-91. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 20, 2019 Page 7 capacity and lower per unit costs will create an incentive for the combined company to lower wholesale prices to MVNOs in order to ensure that the new network capacity is not wasted by sitting idle.10 MVNOs will benefit not only from the capabilities of the New T-Mobile network, but also the unprecedented capacity and lower cost per GB, which will translate into lower wholesale costs, and, ultimately, lower prices for MVNO subscribers.11 In addition to these competitive incentives, T-Mobile has publicly represented that New T-Mobile will honor the terms of existing Sprint and T-Mobile MVNO agreements¨ ''›¤''– ŠŸ'£® –----'--'£ ...£— Altice.12 As described in Attachment 4, Applicants now commit that New T-Mobile will not exercise any £--''£ž' –—£ ¤''-- ¸›£'--® …†‡ –----'--'£ ...£— ŠŸ'£ £—£ '–—£ ‘-- £––----' ‘¨ £—-- merger. In addit ion, New T-Mobile commits to engage in good faith negotiations to expand the existing Sprint/Altice agreement to the New T-Mobile 5G network. Verification and Enforcement Applicants take these commitments seriously, expect to be held to their word, and they are prepared for financial consequences if they fail to do so. Accordingly, Applicants commit to a verification and enforcement regime of unprecedented rigor. Failure to meet New T-…ž‘›--® obligations will trigger severe, increasing, and continuing voluntary contributions that will make failure prohibitively expensive and incentivize New T-Mobile to meet its commitments. At the same time, New T-…ž‘›--® 'ž''£'--'£ will set a new standard for regulatory transparency, providing regular and robust information in annual reports regarding its progress in meeting its nationwide 5G, rural 5G, and in-home commitments. For New T-…ž‘›--® £—-----year and six-year commitment dates, the company will provide a comprehensive report that includes data from drive tests, polygon coverage shapefiles, population and household coverage figures, site lists, marketing figures, and executive certifications. ¸ŸŸ›''£® –žž¤ ¥--•'£on processes will be accompanied by an even more exacting enforcement structure. Voluntary contributions will be calculated separately for each missed commitment. Furthermore, each of New T-…ž‘›--® §-year commitments will continue until satisfied and, accordingly, their respective voluntary contributions will continue to accrue and increase during their pendency. This enforcement standard is unprecedented in its strength. The Applicants are prepared to submit to the substantial financial consequences of missed deadlines or obligations because all of the deadlines and obligations are consistent with the New T-Mobile plan. They simply ensure that New T-Mobile does post-merger what the Applicants 10 Id. at 88. 11 Id. 12 Id. at 89. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 20, 2019 Page 8 have described will happen in their Public Interest Statement and subsequent filings, as well as the accelerated and expanded deployment of the 5G network to rural America included in the merger commitments the Applicants make today. Commission Grant of the Transfer of Control Applications In view of the record in this merger proceeding and the commitments submitted herewith, the Applicants request prompt grant of their applications for transfer of control as serving the public interest. Please direct any questions regarding the foregoing to the undersigned counsel for the Applicants. Respectfully submitted, SPRINT CORPORATION By:_/s/ Regina M. Keeney______________ Regina M. Keeney A. Richard Metzger, Jr. Lawler, Metzger, Keeney & Logan, LLC 1717 K Street, NW, Suite 1075 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 777-7700 T-MOBILE US, Inc. By: _/s/ Nancy J. Victory______________ R. Michael Senkowski Nancy J. Victory DLA Piper LLP (US) 500 Eighth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 (202) 799-4000 cc: Chairman Ajit Pai Commissioner Michael O®Rielly Commissioner Brendan Carr Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Commissioner Geoffrey Starks David Lawrence Kathy Harris Linda Ray Kate Matraves Jim Bird David Krech Joel Rabinovitz --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        £££££££ATTACHMENT 1 --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        NETWORK AND IN-HOME COMMITMENTS I. Nationwide 5G Network Deployment. T-Mobile and Sprint commit that: (A) within three (3) years of the closing date of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile will deploy a 5G network with: 1. a Low-band 5G Coverage Area covering at least 97% of the U.S. Population; 2. a Mid-band 5G Coverage Area covering at least 75% of the U.S. Population; 3. 5G Sites nationwide; 4. MHz of low-band and mid-band 5G Spectrum averaged over all 5G Sites deployed nationwide (the sites described in Section I.A.3 above); 5. 75% of the U.S. Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 50 Mbps, as verified by a drive test; 1 and 6. 63% of the U.S. Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps,2 as verified by a drive test. (B) within six (6) years of the closing date of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile will deploy a 5G network with: 1. a Low-band 5G Coverage Area covering at least 99% of the U.S. Population; 2. a Mid-band 5G Coverage Area covering at least 88% of the U.S. Population; 3. 5G Sites nationwide; 4. MHz of low-band and mid-band 5G Spectrum averaged over all 5G Sites deployed nationwide (the sites described in Section I.B.3 above); 5. 99% of the U.S. Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 50 Mbps, as verified by a drive test; and 6. 90% of the U.S. Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps,3 as verified by a drive test. II. Rural 5G Network Deployment. With regard to the nationwide 5G network deployment described above, T-Mobile and Sprint further commit that: £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££1 New T-Mobile will fund the drive tests to take place at the end of years 3 and 6. The drive tests will utilize a methodology mutually agreed to by New T-Mobile and the Wireless Telecommunications ½¨¥--¨ ...®½¨¥--¨¯§ within 60 days of the closing of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger. The goal of the drive testing is to reflect actual user experience under ordinary utilization and compare them to the speed and coverage commitments stated in Sections I and II. The drive testing will involve oversight by an independent third party, but may be conducted by T-Mobile personnel. The drive testing will commence at the three (3) and six (6) year anniversary of the close of the transaction and be completed within nine (9) months thereafter in each case. The drive test would make use of T-Mobile-Certified 5G Devices. 2 While not a part of the formal commitment, the 63% of the U.S. Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps are expected to experience average upload speeds of 15-20 Mbps. 3 The 90% of the U.S. Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps are expected to experience average upload speeds of 15-20 Mbps. See n.2. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        ...££(A) within three (3) years of the closing date of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile will deploy a 5G network with: 1. a Low-band 5G Coverage Area covering at least 85% of the Rural Population; 2. a Mid-band 5G Coverage Area covering at least 55% of the Rural Population; 3. 5G Sites Deployed in Rural Areas; 4. MHz of low-band and mid-band 5G Spectrum averaged over 5G Sites deployed in Rural Areas (the sites described in Section II.A.3 above); 5. 66.7% of the Rural Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 50 Mbps, as verified by a drive test; and 6. 55% of the Rural Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps,4 as verified by a drive test. (B) within six (6) years of the closing date of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile will deploy a 5G network with: 1. a Low-band 5G Coverage Area covering at least 90% of the Rural Population; 2. a Mid-band 5G Coverage Area covering at least 66.7% of the Rural Population; 3. 5G Sites Deployed in Rural Areas; 4. MHz of low-band and mid-band 5G Spectrum averaged over 5G Sites deployed in Rural Areas (the sites described in Section II.B.3 above); 5. 90% of the Rural Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 50 Mbps, as verified by a drive test; and 6. 66.7% of the Rural Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps,5 as verified by a drive test. III. In-Home Broadband. T-Mobile and Sprint commit that: (A) within three (3) years of the closing date of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile will: 1. Market its In-home Broadband Service product to at least 9.6 million Eligible Households, of which at least 2.6 million are Rural Households; and 2. have at least million Supported Households, of which at least million are Rural Households. (B) within six (6) years of the closing date of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile will: 1. Market its In-home Broadband Service product to at least 28.0 million Eligible Households, of which 5.6 million are Rural Households; and 2. have at least million Supported Households, of which at least million are £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££4 The 55% of the Rural Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps are expected to experience upload speeds of 15-20 Mbps. See n.2. 5 The 66.7% of the Rural Population having access to download speeds equal to or greater than 100 Mbps are expected to experience upload speeds of 15-20 Mbps. See n.2. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        §££Rural Households. Provided, however, that the requirements of Sections III.A.1 and III.B.1 will terminate once New T-Mobile has 9.5 million simultaneous In-home Broadband Service subscribers. IV. Verification. T-Mobile and Sprint commit that: (A) Within 60 days following each of the first, second, fourth and fifth annual anniversaries of the closing date of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile will submit to the Bureau a report that details the progress the company is making toward meeting the site and spectrum deployment and other commitments described in Sections I-II and the In-home Broadband commitments described in Section III (including the number of subscribers) as of the corresponding anniversary date. (B) Within 9 months following each of the third and sixth annual anniversaries of the closing date of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile will submit to the Bureau a report that will include: 1. drive test results; 2. polygon shapefiles showing New T-Mobile°... ‡ª-band 5G Coverage Area and Mid-band 5G Coverage Area as of the 3-year or 6-year date (whichever is applicable); 3. a statement quantifying the U.S. Population and Rural Population covered by each of the Low-band 5G Coverage Area and Mid-band 5G Coverage Area as of the 3-year or 6-year date (whichever is applicable); 4. a list of 5G Sites (including information identifying individual sites, e.g., latitude and longitude) and spectrum deployed, broken into rural and non-rural categories; 5. a certification from New T-•'Ÿ°... ¾›' –›Ÿš¬ Š'–¥ §›--§ §› representations in the shapefiles, population coverage numbers, site and spectrum deployment numbers, and speeds are true and correct; 6. a statement describing the means by which New T-Mobile has Marketed its In-home Broadband Service product to date; 7. the number of households, with reasonable precision, that received or were covered by each form of In-home Broadband Service Marketing as of the 3-year or 6-year date (whichever is applicable); 8. the number of Supported Households, and of those the number of Rural Households; 9. the number of subscribers of New T-•'Ÿ°... In-home Broadband Service as of the 3-year or 6-year date (whichever is applicable); and 10. a certification from New T-Mobile°... –¨§'(C) ' –›--¥š §› -home Broadband Service business that the representations in the report regarding In-home Broadband Service Marketing, Supported Households and number of subscribers are true and correct. V. Enforcement. T-Mobile and Sprint agree that, in the event that the Bureau determines that New T-Mobile has failed to meet any of the commitments described in Sections I-III --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        ¨££above, New T-Mobile will make a voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury in the manner directed by the Bureau within 60 days of such determination. This voluntary contribution will be in lieu of the Commission taking any action under its forfeiture authority for failure to meet the commitments described in Sections I-III above. The amount of the voluntary contribution will be calculated in accordance with this section: (A) In the event that the Bureau determines that New T-Mobile has failed to meet any of the 3-year commitments, the applicable voluntary contribution shall be calculated as follows: 1. The amount of the voluntary contribution shall be cumulative, calculated separately for each missed commitment (Sections I(A), II(A), and III(A) each constituting an individual commitment) commensurate with the percentage by which New T-Mobile missed the commitment. The total amount of the voluntary contribution shall be the sum of the amounts assessed for each missed commitment; 2. Where a commitment has multiple elements (as in Sections I(A), II(A), and III(A)), the Bureau shall determine the percentage by which New T-Mobile has fallen short under each element6 and calculate the voluntary contribution for the particular missed commitment based on the highest calculated percentage missed of any element; 3. Each 1% of shortfall with respect to the commitment in Sections I.A.5 and II.A.5 shall constitute 0.5% for purposes of the calculation in 2; and 4. The following contribution scale will apply: Missed Percentage Voluntary Contribution >0%-5% $10,000,000 >5%-10% $25,000,000 >10%-25% $50,000,000 >25%-50% $100,000,000 >50% $250,000,000 £(B) In the event that the Bureau determines that New T-Mobile has failed to meet any of the 6-year commitments, the applicable voluntary contribution shall be calculated as £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££6 For example, if there is a commitment to serve 55% of the population (180.1M people out of a total population of 327.48M) and New T-Mobile is able to serve only 160.3M by the deadline, the company would fall short by 19.8M people, which would be a percentage missed of 11% (19.8M · 180.1M X 100 = 11%). --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        (C)££follows (with a maximum contribution for such a determination of $2.4 billion repeatable as described in Section V.C.): 1. The amount of the voluntary contribution shall be cumulative, calculated separately for each missed commitment (Sections I(B), II(B), and III(B) each constituting an individual commitment) commensurate with the percentage by which New T-Mobile missed the commitment. The total amount of the voluntary contribution shall be the sum of the amounts assessed for each missed commitment; 2. Where a commitment has multiple elements (as in Sections I(B), II(B), and III(B)), the Bureau shall determine the percentage by which New T-Mobile has fallen short under each element and calculate the voluntary contribution based on the highest calculated percentage missed of any element; 3. Each 1% of shortfall with respect to the commitment in Sections I.B.5 and II.B.5 shall constitute 0.5% for purposes of the calculation in 2; 4. The voluntary contribution for each 1% (rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent) up to 20% that a commitment is missed shall be $10,000,000, and $5,000,000 for each 1% thereafter; however, the minimum contribution amount shall be $25,000,000; and 5. The voluntary contribution calculated for failure to meet the commitment described in Section II shall be doubled.7 (C) New T-•'Ÿ°... •Ÿ'š--§' § ¨Ÿ'ŸŸ §› – '§ §... ' Ž–§'... ...½§(C) ...½§(C) --— III(B) remains until satisfied. Within one year after a Bureau determination that New T-Mobile was deficient with respect to any element of these commitments, New T-Mobile shall submit to the Bureau a report demonstrating whether it has satisfied any remaining deficient element(s). A determination by the Bureau that New T-Mobile has failed to meet any of the remaining deficient elements shall be subject to the same voluntary contribution amounts described in Section V(B) and the process described in this section V(C) until satisfied. (D) In making a determination regarding New T-•'Ÿ°... – £Ÿ'--– ¨—¥ Ž–§'... IV(A)-(C) above, the Bureau shall take into account and, in its reasonable discretion, appropriately reduce the metric, extend the deadline or reduce the contribution amount associated with commitments missed due to unanticipated circumstances •¬— §› – £--¬°... –§¥Ÿ ...e.g., acts of God, such as fire, flood, earthquake, or other natural disasters; terrorist events, riots, insurrections, war, strikes or national emergencies; law or order of any government body; or significant interruptions in the supply chain). VI. Definitions. The following terms are used in this document: (A) ®²‚¯ '... —'— --... §› ²‚ ‰ª --—' --'¥ '§¥--– ...§--—--¥— --... —...–¥'•— ' °‚‹‹ Release 15. Available at https://www.3gpp.org/release-15. £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££7 For example, a 20% shortfall on each of the commitments in Sections I(B), II(B) and III(B) would translate into a combined $800M voluntary contribution ($200M + (2 X $200M) + $200M = $800M). --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        ª££(B) ®5G Sites¯ '... —'— --... --–¥ ...'§... ª›'–› ²‚ ¥--—'... --¥ —£Ÿ¬— (C) ®5G Sites Deployed in Rural Areas¯ --... ²‚ Sites that are physically located within a Rural Area. (D) ®²‚ Spectrum¯ '... —'— --... ——'–--§— Ÿ'–...— ...£–§¥¨ ¨...— ¥ —ªŸ'ž ¥ ¨£Ÿ'ž with 5G radios and does not include spectrum shared dynamically with LTE. (E) ®¼––......¯ § ...£–''— ...£—... --... §›--§ ¨...¥... -Mobile-Certified 5G Devices will experience the specified download speeds on average (mean) across actual utilization. (F) ®Ÿ'š'•Ÿ ƒ¨...›Ÿ—¯ '... —'— --... -- ›¨...›Ÿ— Ÿ–--§— ' -- šš¥--£›¬· ...¼§ (C)¥ which New T-•'Ÿ°... §ª¥ž ª'ŸŸ £¥(C)'— ...'š--Ÿ ¤¨--Ÿ'§¬ ...¨'§--•Ÿ § ...¨££¥§ §› In-home Broadband Service; and (B) in which New T-•'Ÿ°... §ª¥ž ›--... ...¨'–'§ capacity to serve one or more households with In-home Broadband Service, as shown in the polygon shapefile submitted to the Bureau. (G) ®-home Broadband Service¯ '... —'— --s a residential broadband service with minimum speeds of 25 Mbps downlink and 3 Mbps uplink. (H) ®‡ª-•--— ²‚ ¾(C)¥--š ¼¥--¯ '... —'— --... §›--§ --¥-- '–Ÿ¨—— ª'§›' §› •¨—... the polygon shapefile submitted to the Bureau representing geographic coverage for 5G service using Low-band Frequencies with coverage based on T-•'Ÿ°... ¥—'--¥¬ course coverage analysis. The coverage shapefiles used to calculate covered pops will be verified by a drive test at the 3 and 6 year intervals. See n.1. (I) ®‡ª-•--— ¥¤¨–'...¯ '... defined as those radiowave frequencies below 1 GHz including, but not limited to, frequencies in the 600 MHz, 700 MHz, and 800 MHz bands. (J) ®--¥ž§¯ '... —'— --... § --—(C)¥§'... --— ¥ -- £¥—¨–§ ¥ ...rvice for sale including, but not limited to, through TV, radio, Internet, digital, electronic, voice, print, mail, or in-person channels. (K) ®'—-•--— ²‚ ¾(C)¥--š ¼¥--¯ '... —'— --... §›--§ --¥-- '–Ÿ¨—— ª'§›' §› •¨—... the polygon shapefile submitted to the Bureau representing geographic coverage for 5G service using Mid-band Frequencies with coverage based on T-•'Ÿ°... ¥—'--¥¬ course coverage analysis. The coverage shapefiles used to calculate covered pops will be verified by a drive test at the 3 and 6 year intervals. See n.1. (L) ®Mid-•--— ¥¤¨–'...¯ '... —'— --... §›... ¥--—'ª--(C) ¥¤¨–'... --•(C) ® ‚ƒ­ --— below 6 GHz including, but not limited to, the AWS, PCS, and 2.5 GHz bands. (M)®¨¥--Ÿ ¼¥--¯ '... --... —'— •¬ §› ¯­®­ Ž ¾...¨... (N) ®¨¥--Ÿ ƒ¨...›Ÿ—...¯ '... —'— --... ›¨...›Ÿ—... Ÿ–--§— ª'§›' -- ¨¥--Ÿ ¼¥-- (O) ®¨¥--Ÿ ‹£¨Ÿ--§'¯ '... —'— --... §› ££¨Ÿ--§' ª'§›' Rural Areas derived from the population data licensed through the 2016 Pitney Bowles study, which provides population at the census block level. The 2016 Pitney Bowles study is based on the --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        ££2010 U.S. Census, but then updated based on more recent information. According to the 2016 Pitney Bowles study, the Rural Population is 61.98M. That population number is fixed for purposes of calculating compliance with these commitments as is the population per census block through which covered pops will be determined. (P) ®Ž¨££¥§— ƒ¨...›Ÿ—...¯ '... —'— --... §›... Ÿ'š'•Ÿ ƒ¨...›Ÿ—... §›--§ ‰ª -Mobile will have the capacity to serve with its In-home Broadband Service at any given time (based upon an average usage across the sector of GB per month per household as of 3 years following the close of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger and an average usage across the sector of GB per month per household as of 6 years following the merger closing). Supported Households will be calculated according to the methodology set out in T-•'Ÿ°... ex parte filing detailing its In-Home Broadband plans. See Letter from Nancy Victory, Counsel for T-Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 18-197 (Mar. 6, 2019). Within 60 days of the closing of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, New T-Mobile and the Bureau will work in good faith to refine this methodology to utilize actual deployment numbers. (Q) ®-Mobile-¾¥§''— ²‚ (C)'–¯ --... -- —(C)'– §›--§ -Mobile or New T-Mobile has certified as compatible with its 5G network (it is expected that all 5G devices available through New T-Mobile retail will be T-Mobile-Certified 5G Devices). (R) ®Ž ‹£¨Ÿ--§'¯ '... —'— --... §› ££¨Ÿ--§' §› '§— Ž§--§... ...'–Ÿ¨—'š §› ²­ states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories) as derived from population data licensed through the 2016 Pitney Bowles study, which provides population at the census block level. The 2016 Pitney Bowles study is based on the 2010 U.S. Census, but then updated based on more recent information. According to the 2016 Pitney Bowles study, the U.S. Population is 327.48M. That population number is fixed for purposes of calculating compliance with these commitments as is the population per census block through which covered pops will be determined. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        £££££££ATTACHMENT 2 --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        BOOST MOBILE DIVESTITURE T-Mobile and Sprint commit to divest the Boost Mobile business. The market-based process implemented by the Applicants will ensure that New T-Mobile will divest Boost Mobile to a serious and credible buyer ¥¥·Ÿy'...... and receive fair value for the assets. As part of the process contemplated in this commitment, the Applicants and Buyer will be free to agree to commercial terms of their choosing, subject only to the limitations set out below: I. Overview of Divested Business. The Boost Mobile assets and operations to be divested (the ¥¹' 'žŽ ·Ÿ''''... ' ¥ ·'ž...) include: A. Boost Mobile-branded customers 'ž' ‹ ¥‹ž' ... ·'ž Mobile account;1 and B. ¥Dedicated... Boost Mobile assets, properties, systems, management team and employees that are necessary to operate the Boost Mobile business as it is conducted as of the merger closing date.2 The Divested Business will include all ownership interests in, and rights to use, the Boost Mobile brand and its associated brands and trademarks.3 II. Obligation to Maintain Divested Business Prior to Divestiture. New T-Mobile must undertake commercially reasonable efforts to maintain Boosž§' competitiveness prior to completion of the divestiture. III. Commercial Arrangements with Buyer. To allow for the continued operation and growth of New Boost, New T-Mobile will offer two principal support arrangements to the Buyer: A. Wholesale MVNO Agreement. The terms of the wholesale MVNO agreement will be consistent with the following principles: 1. Wholesale Network Pricing a. ·'ž§' '–'‹– ž'• š'''‘ '–– '‹ž ‹ 'ž'‘ 'ž' ‹Ž ability for New T-Mobile to compete against New Boost for customers, and vice versa, similar to their respective competitive incentives and capabilities £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££1 For purposes of this submission§ ‹ ¥‹ž' ... ·'ž Œ'– ‹Ÿž '–ŸŽ' any account that (i) has had a positive account balance at any time during the 120 days immediately prior to the Boost Mobile divestiture closing date, and (ii) has not been suspended, cancelled or otherwise terminated during such 120 -day period. Divested customers do not include Boost Mobile customers of third parties who are not controlled by Sprint and offer wireless service under the Boost brand. 2 ¼' šŸ'š'' ž''' 'ŸŒ—''''§ ¥ŽŽ'‹žŽ... —‹' ‹£ ‹''ž§ š'š'ž£§ '£'ž— ' —š–£ ž'‹ž '' 'lely and exclusively allocated for use by Boost Mobile. 3 The divestiture of the Boost Mobile business will ensure all third parties who have rights to utilize the Boost brand and marks shall retain such rights.£--‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        ...£today. For clarity, the pricing will not prevent New T-Mobile from recouping its full network costs associated with serving New Boost customers. b. ·'ž§' '–'‹– ž'• š'''‘ '–– ‹–– 'ž ž Œ'ž '— ž' –‘-run network cost efficiencies of New T-Œ'–§' °½ ž'• Žš–oyment. c. ·'ž§' '–'‹– ž'• š'''‘ '–– —‹'‘Ÿ––£ '—š' Ÿš ž' commercial terms reflected in T-Œ'–§' ‹Ž †š''ž§' ® –‹'‘'ž ‰‚ agreements based on 1Q 2019 wholesale revenues. For clarity, the commercial terms will meaningfully improve on those reflected in each of the 6 agreements, taking each as an entire agreement. 2. Discrimination and Competitive Constraints a. ·'ž§' ‹‘'—ž' '–– š' ž ‡-Mobile from treating New Boost in a discriminatory or anticompetitive manner as compared to Metro or any successor to Metro as New T-Œ'–§' –‹Ž'‘ – 'ž Œ'‹Ž§ 'Ÿ' ‹' through unwanted discriminatory throttling, de-prioritization, or limitations on access to new network technologies. For the avoidance of doubt, reducing ž'§' '‹žes to win subscribers from New Boost would not constitute anticompetitive treatment. b. ·'ž§' ‹‘'—ž' '–– ž 'ž'‹' ' 'ž š''' ' š‹•‹‘' 'ž' 'ž‹'– services. 3. Long-Term Competition and Facilities Deployment a. ·'ž§' ‹‘'—ž' '–– š'—'ž it to deploy and utilize its own spectrum, systems, network infrastructure, and other facilities if it chooses, and enjoy reasonable cost benefits of doing so. b. ·'ž§' ‹‘'—ž' '–– š'—'ž 'ž ž —šž ž' –£ ‹ –‘-term basis, with a minimum wholesale agreement term of six years, and New T-Mobile will not unreasonably withhold consent to changes in New Boost ownership (for example, it would not be unreasonable for New T-Mobile to withhold consent to a change of control to a facilities-based provider who refuses to provide New T-Œ'– 'ž' ''š'‹– ‹'' ž ž' š' 'Ž'§' facilities on reasonable terms; it would be unreasonable to withhold consent to a sale with the objective of keeping New Boost in the hands of an unsuccessful owner). 4. Sž‹Œ– ‡'‹''ž' ·'ž§' ‚š'‹ž'' a. New T-Œ'– '–– —‹'ž‹' ·'ž§' —šž'ž' '' ž''Ÿ‘' 'ž' ž'‹''ž' ž independent ownership. b. ·'ž§' ‹‘'—ž' '–– š' 'Ž ·'ž 'ž' ‹'' ž ž' ‡-Mobile network on the same timeline as Sprint, the ability to activate on the --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        §£New T-Mobile network on a nondiscriminatory basis, and reasonable advance notice of network transition plans that could affect New Boost customers. B. Transition Services Agreement. The Transition Services Agreement offered to the Buyer will include up to a two-year term (as required by Buyer) with customary transition services offered at cost to the Buyer. The terms of the Transition Services Agreement (or any other related agreement) shall be consistent with, and not undercut, the principles in Section III.A., to the extent they are applicable. IV. Commission Review of Buyer and New Boost Wholesale MVNO Agreement. New T-Mobile must submit the wholesale MVNO agreement negotiated with the Buyer to the Wireless ‡–——Ÿ'‹ž'' ·Ÿ'‹Ÿ ¥¥·Ÿ'‹Ÿ...... for review prior to consummating the divestiture. A. ‡' ·Ÿ£' —Ÿ'ž Œ ‹ ¥'''Ÿ' ‹Ž 'Ž'Œ– ž'''Ž-š‹'ž£ ŒŸ£'§... ''' will be an entity that: 1. has, or has access to, the financial resources to acquire, maintain and expand the Divested Business, and 2. is unrelated to either of the Applicants. B. A New Boost wholesale MVNO agreement, consistent with the principles in Section III.A., must be submitted to the Bureau for review within 120 days after closing of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger. 1. No later than seven (7) days prior to the deadline, New T-Mobile may request from the Bureau a thirty-day extension of the deadline. To obtain an extension from the Bureau, New T-Mobile would have to provide a status report and certify that it is both undertaking commercially reasonable efforts to reach a final agreement as quickly as practicable and to meet its obligation in Section II. Under this process, New T-Mobile may request, and the Bureau may grant, up to two thirty-day extensions. 2. Once the New Boost wholesale MVNO agreement is submitted, the Bureau will have 30 days to make a decision as to whether the agreement is consistent with the principles set forth in Section III.A. and whether New T-Mobile has fulfilled its obligation in Section II. This 30-day review timeline can be extended only with the consent of New T-Mobile. V. Enforcement. In the event that the Bureau determines that New T-Mobile has failed to meet the requirements in Sections II and/or IV, New T-Mobile shall make a voluntary contribution to the U.S. Treasury in the manner directed by the Bureau within 60 days of such determination. This voluntary contribution will be in lieu of the Commission taking any --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        ¨£action under its forfeiture authority for failure to meet the commitments in Sections II and IV. The voluntary contribution shall be assessed and calculated in accordance with this section: A. If New T-Mobile fails to submit to the Bureau a wholesale MVNO agreement with the Buyer of the Divested Business (or in the case of a submitted agreement that has been rejected, a revised agreement) by the deadline set forth in Section IV.B., New T-Mobile shall owe a voluntary contribution of $3.5 million per day until a new agreement is submitted. B. If the Bureau decides that the submitted wholesale MVNO agreement is not consistent with the principles set forth in Section III.A., then the clock (if not yet expired) will continue without pause or, if the clock (and any extensions) has expired, a $3.5 million per day voluntary contribution will begin to accummulate immediately and continue until a revised wholesale MVNO agreement is submitted to the Bureau. C. If the Bureau finds that New T-Mobile did not have a good faith and reasonable belief that the wholesale MVNO agreement was consistent with the principles set forth in Section III.A., New T-Mobile shall owe a voluntary contribution of $3.5 million per day for the period during which the Bureau was reviewing the agreement. D. If the Bureau decides that the wholesale MVNO agreement is consistent with the principles set forth in Section III.A., but that New T-Mobile has not met the obligation in Section II, then New T-Mobile must take appropriate steš' ž ''ž' ·'ž§' competitiveness to the Bureau§' '‹ž''‹ž' ‹Ž shall make a voluntary contribution of $3.5 million per day starting from the date that the wholesale MVNO agreement was submitted until those steps are complete. E. If the Bureau decides both that the agreement was not consistent with the principles set forth in Section III.A. and that New T-Mobile has not met the obligation in Section II, then New T-Mobile shall make a voluntary contribution of $3.5 million per day from the date that the wholesale MVNO agreement was submitted until both of these problems have been remedied and the divestiture is complete. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        £££££££ATTACHMENT 3 --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        DLA Piper LLP (US) 500 Eighth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 www.dlapiper.com Nancy Victory nancy.victory@dlapiper.com T 202.799.4216 F 202.799.5616 February 4, 2019 VIA ECFS Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554 Re: Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations; WT Docket No. 18-197 Dear Ms. Dortch: ‡¤¤'£ £ž ‰--'£ž' ¬(C)¬­±¥‘... ž• £—-- ¹ž''ž'® ¤›--§ ¯² ¹(C)½(C)(C) ª ¬(C)¬­±¥‘...§ 'ž£'-- hereby provided of a written ex parte presentation in the above-referenced docket. T-Mobile US, ''(C) ¥¬Š-ž‘›--­... '' ‰Ÿ'£ ¹žŸž£ž' ¥¬‰Ÿ'£­§ '' 'ž››--'£¥--›¨ ...£— Š-Mobile, ¬·ŸŸ›''£­... —¥-- ££--' ' £—-- ‡¤‘›' '£----£ ‰££--'--'£§ '' --£--£--' --Ÿ--£--'›¨ ''--§ £—£ the merger will --'¤-- £—£ ¬·'--'' 'ž'¤'-- ...›› Ÿ¨ ›-- '' –--£ 'ž--­(C)1 Our merger will enable the deployment of a world-class nationwide 5G network with massive capacity and lower marginal costs per customer, with the result that customers get better service and more data at the same or lower prices.2 Š—-- ·ŸŸ›''£® --Ÿ----'££ž' £—£ 'ž'¤'-- ...›› Ÿ¨ ›-- --¤›£ ž• the merger is supported by the New T-Mobile business plan,3 declarations from T-Mobile 1 See, e.g., Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation for Consent to Transfer Control of the Licenses and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 18-197, Description of Transaction, Public Interest Statement, and Related Demonstrations at i (June 18, 2018) ¥¬‡¤‘›' '£----£ ‰££--'--'£­...¶ Applications of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation for Consent to Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 18-197, Joint Opposition of T-Mobile US, Inc. and Sprint Corporation at i (Sept. 17, 2018) ¥¬ž'£ †ŸŸž£ž'­...(C) 2 Public Interest Statement at 51. 3 Id. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch February 4, 2019 Page 2 executives,4 merger simulations focused on New T-Mobile prices,5 and economic work showing all wireless consumers will benefit from a decrease in price per GB due to competitive responses from AT&T and Verizon.6 The Public Interest Statement also provided further assurances to existing customers of T-Mobile and Sprint that prices will not go up following the close of the merger. Specifically, the Applicants stated that ¬New T-Mobile will guarantee each [Sprint] customer a rate plan that is equal or better than the plans they currently enjoy with Sprint.­7 The Applicants also noted the T-Mobile Un-contract rate promise to their customers and that it would be extended to Sprint customers post-closing.8 These assurances were intended to address any concerns about post-closing price increases and they are fully consistent with the New T-Mobile business plan. Despite all this, merger opponents tried to raise questions about New T-ž‘›--® Ÿ''– incentives during the three-year period from merger closing until completion of the network combination and customer migration. The Applicants believe that the myriad showings on the record fully answer those questions. However, to remove all doubt and simplify the ¹ž''ž'® --¥--... ž• £—-- '--–--, the Applicants are providing the following statement to remove any doubts, concerns or ambiguity: New T-Mobile will make available the same or better rate plans as those offered by T-Mobile or Sprint as of ‡ƒ¸µŒŽ† date for three years following the merger. T-Mobile and Sprint legacy rate plans will continue as New T-Mobile plans for three years after the merger or until better plans that offer a lower price or more data are made available, 4 Public Interest Statement, Appx C, Declaration of G. Michael Sievert, President and Chief Operating Officer, T-Mobile US, Inc. at ¶21; Public Interest Statement, Appx. D, Declaration of Peter Ewens, Executive Vice President, Corporate Strategy, T-ž‘›-- ‹‰§ ''(C) £ " ¥¬¼...--' >>--'›(C)­...(C) 5 Joint Opposition, Appx. F, Declaration of Compass Lexecon, Mark Israel, Michael Katz, and Bryan Keating at ¶6; John Asker, Timothy F. Bresnahan, and Kostis Hatzitaskos, Economic Analysis of the Proposed T-Mobile/Sprint Merger, Cornerstone Research at 1-6 (Nov. 6, 2018). 6 Public Interest Statement, Appx. G, Declaration of David S. Evans, Market Platform Dynamics, ¬¼'ž'ž'' ·'›¨ ž• £—-- 'Ÿ'£ ž• £—-- ‡žŸž--' --–-- ž• Š-Mobile and Sprint on the Deployment of °¾ ¹--››¤› Š--'—'ž›ž–--§ £—-- °¾ ·ŸŸ ¼'ž¨£--'§ '' ¹ž'¤'--§ ¼'£--Ÿ--§ '' £—-- ¼'ž'ž'¨§­ £ ¶¶220-44. 7 Ewens Decl. at ¶8. 8 Id. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch February 4, 2019 Page 3 whichever occurs first.9 The retained legacy rate plans may be adjusted to pass through cost increases in taxes, fees and surcharges as well as services from third party partners that are included in the rate plans, as these increased costs are not within the control of New T-Mobile. The legacy plans may also be adjusted to modify or discontinue third party partner benefits based on changes in the terms of the offering initiated by the third party partner, as this is also not within the control of New T-Mobile.10 As New T-Mobile CEO John Legere has said, we would be pleased to discuss the details of this commitment with the Chairman, Commissioners and Transaction Team. As noted, this representation is fully consistent with the New T-Mobile business plan and responsive to merger-specific questions that have been raised. For those reasons, the Applicants have no objection to this representation being included as a formal merger condition in the order approving the transaction. Please direct any questions regarding the foregoing to the undersigned counsel for Deutsche Telekom and T-Mobile. Respectfully submitted, DLA Piper LLP (US) /s/ Nancy Victory Nancy Victory Partner cc: Chairman Ajit Pai ¹ž''ž'-- '—--› †®--››¨ Commissioner Brendan Carr Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Commissioner Geoffrey Starks David Lawrence Kathy Harris Linda Ray Kate Matraves 9 When a better post-merger plan is offered, New T-Mobile may discontinue a less appealing legacy plan. 10 Device/handset offerings are not included in this pricing commitment. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        Ms. Marlene H. Dortch February 4, 2019 Page 4 Jim Bird David Krech --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        £££££££ATTACHMENT 4 --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
        £ £ £ £ALTICE MVNO COMMITMENT£££T-Mobile and Sprint commit that: (A) >>ŽŒ‘ >>Ž‚‘'‹ µ¨¹¨ ¤—>>ŽŒ‘¥ --ŠŠ Œ‘ •‚ Œ– ‘‹Œ‘Œ †‡‘ set forth in the Master Wireless Wholesale Agreement by and between Sprint and Altice USA, Inc. ¤—°Š‘‚¥ ƒ‘ƒ ·'‹ ¬... (C)ª­ ¤‘‡ —°Š‘‚ ¶¾·¸ °†‹Œ‘¥, or in any other existing agreement between Sprint and Altice, that arises from consummation of the merger between T-Mobile and Sprint Corporation; and (B) New T-Mobile will negotiate in good faith an amendment of the Altice MVNO Agreement to include the networks, including 5G network, operated by New T-Mobile. --‡†ƒ…–‡†‚‘--'—Ž‹…‹•'‡…–‹‘
      AT&T 5G Efforts Focuses on mmWave and Faster Broadband
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:14
        AT&T is conducting 5G trials and using the data collected to contribute to the 3GPP wireless standards body's work on 5G. The telecom giant is deploying equipment, investing in a specific mix of spectrum and technology, and laying the foundation for its evolution to 5G. AT&T intends to deliver state-of-the-art 5G speeds as soon as late 2018.
        Following are some tests and trials that the company has been performing recently, resulting in new intelligence about millimeter-wave (mmWave) spectrum.
        Source: AT&T
        AT&T 5G: mmWave PerformanceIn 2017, AT&T launched a series of fixed wireless 5G trials to business and residential customers, gaining insight into mmWave performance and propagation. The company is learning interference-related lessons involving device placement, surrounding environment (foliage, building materials), and weather '-- specifically, how those things impact the signal and system in real-world environments.
        ''Taking our fixed wireless 5G trials out of the lab and into the real world helps us learn important factors about mmWave and 5G,'' said Marachel Knight, SVP, wireless network architecture and design at AT&T. ''And in doing so, we're learning how to better design our network for the future.''
        AT&T plans to continue testing fixed and mobile wireless solutions operating in the mmWave spectrum. What the company learns from these AT&T 5G trials should help speed up standards-based deployment as early as late 2018.
        AT&T 5G: Faster BroadbandConcurrently, AT&T is testing faster broadband service in which a connection's last leg is delivered by mmWave to a home or business. The company delivered an ultra-fast Internet connection to residential, small business, and enterprise locations. Trial participants were able to enjoy faster broadband services and stream live TV via DirectTV Now over a fixed wireless 5G signal.
        ''The technology behind 5G is about advancing social trends like mobile video streaming,'' said Knight. ''The network of the future will help redefine what connectivity means to both consumers and businesses. This trial helps show that the new reality is coming fast.''
        AT&T expects 5G to introduce new experiences and use cases to consumers and businesses'--largely thanks to the advantages of enhanced mobile broadband, critical Internet of Things (IoT) solutions, and low-latency applications. Participants in this trial were able to experience the real-life benefits that fixed wireless 5G offers.
        The AT&T 5G FutureBy conducting its tests and trials with a variety of audiences, AT&T is gaining new insights into mmWave performance characteristics that are necessary for industry standards development. The company is working with other top players to make 5G a reality.
      5G Technology Promises Faster Connections, Lower Latency
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:11
        5G technology is the next generation of wireless communications. It is expected to provide Internet connections that are least 40 times faster than 4G LTE. 5G technology may use a variety of spectrum bands, including millimeter wave (mmWave) radio spectrum, which can carry very large amounts of data a short distance. The drawback of the higher frequencies is that they are more easily obstructed by the walls of buildings, trees and other foliage, and even inclement weather.
        The forthcoming 5G technology will come from various vendors and will be composed of solutions designed to provide very fast download speeds and low latency. Today'--in advance of 5G's expected debut around 2020'--companies such as Verizon, AT&T, Samsung, and Ericsson are testing new advances in signal processing, chips, and antenna technologies that will enable the next generation of mobile connectivity.
        But when you dig deeper into the 5G evolution, you'll find an array of 5G technology that will underpin future wireless communications.
        Source: IEEE Spectrum
        The 5G Technology That Will Make Everything HappenAs the 5G technology market comes into focus, we're seeing a number of technologies emerge as vital to the 5G experience. These include the aforementioned mmWave technology; small cells; massive multiple input, multiple output (MIMO); full duplex; software-defined networking (SDN); and beamforming.
        Millimeter wave: Millimeter waves are broadcast at frequencies between 30 GHz and 300 GHz, compared with the bands below 6 GHz used for 4G LTE. The new 5G networks will be able to transmit very large amounts of data'--but only a few blocks at a time. Although the 5G standard will offer the greatest benefits over these higher frequencies, it will also work in low frequencies as well as unlicensed frequencies that WiFi currently uses, without creating conflicts with existing WiFi networks. For this reason, 5G networks will use small cells to complement traditional cellular towers.Small cells: Small cells are low-powered portable base stations that can be placed throughout cities. Carriers can install many small cells to form a dense, multifaceted infrastructure. Small cells' low-profile antennas make them unobtrusive, but their sheer numbers make them difficult to set up in rural areas. As 5G technology matures, consumers should expect to see ubiquitous 5G antennas, even in their own homes.Massive MIMO: 5G technology enables base stations to support many more antennas than 4G base stations. With MIMO, both the source (transmitter) and the destination (receiver) have multiple antennas, thus maximizing efficiency and speed. MIMO also introduces interference potential, leading to the necessity of beamforming.Beamforming: Beamforming is a 5G technology that finds the most efficient data-delivery route to individual users. Higher-frequency antennas enable the steering of narrower transmission beams. This user-specific beamforming allows transmissions both vertically and horizontally. Beam direction can change several times per millisecond. Beamforming can help massive MIMO arrays make more efficient use of the spectrum around them.Full duplex: Full duplex communication is a way to potentially double the speed of wireless communication. By employing a 5G full duplex scheme on a single channel, only one channel is needed to transmit data to and from the base station, rather than two. A potential drawback of full duplex is that it can create signal interference.SDN: SDN and network functions virtualization (NFV) are considered the foundation for how 5G will be deployed.5G Technology Is RampantThis assemblage of 5G technology'--along with much more that's still evolving through vendor cooperation'--will power the wireless networks of the future, enabling such use cases as interactive television, high-definition and 3-D video, social gaming, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), robotics, automated vehicles, advanced manufacturing, healthcare imaging and diagnostics, and more.
        Additional 5G Technology ResourcesWhat is 5G? Everything You Need to Know '-- A Definition
        AT&T's 5G Efforts Focus on mmWave, Faster Broadband
        Will 5G Replace WiFi?
        5G Trials in the United States'--Steps Toward Standardization
      5G Standards - What You Need to Know - SDxCentral
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:09
        The previous page is sending you to
        https://www.sdxcentral.com/5g/definitions/5g-standards/.
        If you do not want to visit that page, you can return to the previous page.
      Release 15 5G PROTOCOL
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:04
        Update of April 26, 2019
        After initial delivery in late 2017 of 'Non-Stand-Alone' (NSA) NR new radio specifications for 5G, much effort focused in 2018 on timely completion of 3GPP Release 15 '' the first full set of 5G standards '' and on work to pass the first milestones for the 3GPP submission towards IMT-2020.While initial specifications enabled non-standalone 5G radio systems integrated in previous-generation LTE networks, the scope of Release 15 expands to cover 'standalone' 5G, with a new radio system complemented by a next-generation core network. It also embraces enhancements to LTE and, implicitly, the Evolved Packet Core (EPC). This crucial way-point enables vendors to progress rapidly with chip design and initial network implementation during 2019.
        As the Release 15 work has matured and drawn close to completion, the group's focus is now shifting on to the first stage of Release 16, often referred to informally as '5G Phase 2'. By the end of the year, 83 studies relating to Release 16 plus a further thirteen relating to Rel-17 were in progress, covering topics as diverse as Multimedia Priority Service, Vehicle-to- everything (V2X) application layer services, 5G satellite access, Local Area Network support in 5G, wireless and wireline convergence for 5G, terminal positioning and location, communications in vertical domains and network automation and novel radio techniques. Further studies were launched or progressed on security, codecs and streaming services, LAN interworking, network slicing and the IoT.
        Other activities focused on broadening the applicability of 3GPP technology to non-terrestrial radio access systems '' from satellites and airborne base stations to maritime applications including ship-to-shore and ship-to-ship communications. Work also progressed on new Professional Mobile Radio (PMR) functionality for LTE, enhancing railway-oriented services originally developed using GSM radio technology which is now nearing its end of life.
        (Source: ETSI Annual report 2018)
        Further reading: Some Early Background on Release 15, in the context of the 5G story:
        5G-NR workplan for eMBB5G Phase 1 underway in CT Groups3GPP on track to 5GSA1 completes its study into 5G requirements
    Iran
      US speaks of peace talks, while 'holding a gun' at Tehran '' top Iranian official '-- RT World News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 12:18
        Iran has pulled no punches with regards to Washington, saying that while the US is urging talks, it simultaneously holds a gun at Tehran. The latest war of words comes as tensions between two states continue to grow.
        ''The actions of American leaders in exerting pressure and launching sanctions ['...] while speaking of talks, is like holding a gun at someone and asking for friendship and negotiations,'' Rasoul Sanai-Rad, a political deputy of the armed forces command said as quoted news agency Mehr quoted.
        US President Donald Trump has been recently insisting his country was not on a path of war with Iran and that the latter ''will want to talk soon.'' That said, two US Navy destroyers entered waters of the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
        Also on rt.com 2 US destroyers enter Persian Gulf amid tensions with Iran Hawks in Trump's administration have long been calling for tougher stance on Tehran. Last year, Washington unilaterally pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and renewed sanctions on the country.
        In recent days, the situation in the Middle East has dramatically worsened with the White House rushing the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to the region ahead of schedule in response to ''a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings''. The deployment was meant to be ''a warning'' to Iran.
        Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei earlier this week assured that neither Iran nor the US actually seeks war. Meanwhile, as tensions between Washington and Tehran gain ground, European leaders have urged both countries to measure their statements. That said, the bloc again expressed its regret on US sanctions targeting Iran as well as ditching the landmark nuclear accord (known as JCPOA), which Trump has been boasting as one of his major achievements.
        Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
      Panic Over War With Iran Is An Info Operation To Preserve The Iran Deal
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 12:42
        Is the United States on the brink of war with Iran? That's the message the American people have been getting from much of the mainstream media as well as from prominent Democrats.
        They are arguing that Trump is blundering the country into war with Iran and the only sane alternative is to stick with President Barack Obama's nuclear deal. Yet while tensions with Iran are rising, this critique is essentially the same argument we were hearing a few years ago when Obama's pact was being debated. At that time, the country was told its only choices about Iran were war or appeasement.
        But as the United States has sought to regain the leverage over Iran that Obama discarded during the course of the negotiations'--the ones that led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)'--we must realize that this is a false choice. President Donald Trump's success in re-imposing sanctions has essentially returned the West to the point it was at in 2013. That was when Iran returned to the negotiating table only to find that the Obama administration was so desperate for a deal that it was prepared to abandon almost all of its key demands on the nuclear issue, as well as drop its concerns about other issues like missile production and terrorism.
        The question now is whether Democrats and their media allies can help promote and exploit the country's legitimate concerns about the possibility of war to the point where it could cause the administration to alter its policy.
        How Much Influence Does Media Have on Trump?Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 and his subsequent re-imposition of economic sanctions on Tehran were supposed to be a total flop. Or at least that was the assumption of Obama alumni and the rest of the foreign policy establishment as well as the journalists that former Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes aptly described as the former president's media ''echo chamber.''
        But they were wrong about Trump's ability to fundamentally alter the debate about Iran. But by the end of 2018, the administration had gone beyond threats of renewed sanctions. By implementing restrictions on commerce with Iran and warning its trading partners that they would have to choose between economic ties with the United States and those with Iran, it quickly became apparent that Tehran's confidence that it could wait out the Trump administration'--as former secretary of state John Kerry said he had advised his former negotiation partners to do'--and rely on support from Western Europe, Russia, and China to fend off American pressure was unfounded.
        European efforts to help Iran evade unilateral Western sanctions were a failure. Neither the Germans nor the French were really prepared to choose commerce with Iran over doing business in the United States. Plans to try to evade the U.S. sanctions by establishing a barter system with the Iranians never had a chance of success.
        While the JCPOA had enriched and empowered Iran, Trump's decision dealt its economy and ability to fund foreign adventures a body blow. By this spring the regime's terrorist auxiliaries were also feeling the pinch. As The New York Times reported, Hezbollah fighters were quoted as complaining that Iran no longer had the resources to support their efforts.
        Their troubles are now being compounded by administration plans to shut down Iran's remaining foreign oil sales, which provide its main source of export income, a measure that Obama stopped short of imposing even at the height of economic sanctions. Faced with an economic crisis that was undermining its bid for regional hegemony, Iran has been left with a stark choice.
        As for Iran's ChoiceIran can return, as it did in 2013 when international sanctions were starting to bite, to the table. That would mean a much-needed revision to the nuclear agreement that would close the loopholes Obama left wide open, such as the fact that the deal will expire within a decade. Equally important would be to condition the lifting of sanctions requiring Tehran to end its funding for international terror and its illegal ballistic missile program.
        While Obama said that the JCPOA gave Iran a chance to ''get right with the world,'' his willingness to sign a deal at any price ensured they would have no incentive to do so. Trump's efforts are the only way for Obama's hope to be realized.
        There are two alternatives to negotiations for Iran: They can try to wait out Trump hoping that he will be defeated for re-election in 2020. Or they can threaten to resume efforts toward building a nuclear weapon and ratchet up tensions in the region in an attempt to convince Trump that the price of continuing pressure will be increased terrorism and war.
        For the moment, Tehran has chosen the latter option. Sources in Washington have spoken of reports about heightened warnings of possible Iranian terror in Iraq and throughout the region as well as efforts to squeeze the West by threatening the flow of oil from the region through the Persian Gulf. The reported attempts at sabotage of oil tankers in the last few days are widely believed to be the work of Iranian agents.
        Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also announced last week that the regime is initiating small steps toward producing nuclear fuel and to resume the production of nuclear centrifuges. But Tehran did not take any action to withdraw from the nuclear pact, yet another sign that it needs the deal more than the West does.
        Much of the media attention on the current tension has focused on the terror warnings (which resulted in a partial evacuation of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad) and reports about Pentagon contingency plans for responding to Iranian military threats.
        Does Iran Want War? Probably NotBut while no one should underestimate Iran's capacity for terrorism'--a tactic the Islamic Republic has regularly employed since its establishment in 1979'--or the possibility of a miscalculation, it's also clear that Tehran is no more interested in an open military conflict than Washington is.
        Iran knows its forces cannot hope to prevail against the United States and such a conflict would likely end the theocratic regime. And no matter how much the Europeans despise Trump, any Iranian attack on Western targets would force them to side with the United States. That is also true of an Iranian decision to attempt a nuclear ''breakout'' that would allow them to produce a nuclear weapon in the next year or two.
        But Iran still hopes their threats will convince Americans that the only possible choices available to them are war or a return to Obama's policy of appeasement. That's been the kneejerk reaction from liberal editorial boards and the chorus line of ex-Obama administration officials on CNN and MSNBC. They are sure that Trump is bungling his way to a war that the United States shouldn't fight and can't win.
        Trump Should Trust His InstinctsBut as with the original decision to abandon the nuclear pact despite the warnings from the foreign policy establishment, Trump's instincts seem far keener than those of the so-called ''experts.'' While there are no guarantees of success, Iran's war talk is a bluff it can't back up. The regime can use its auxiliaries to strike soft targets or even seek to heat up the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But in its current economic straights, it cannot sustain a prolonged conflict without endangering its survival.
        The president's use of sanctions has brought the West back to the inflection point abandoned by Obama in 2013. Trump's signals of his willingness to negotiate also give Iran an exit strategy that, sooner or later, it will be forced to take. Or at least it will be if the president doesn't lose his nerve because of the misleading war panic his opponents are attempting to gin up.
        Tough sanctions ruthlessly enforced have always been the formula to end Iran's nuclear program and terrorism. The mistaken belief that war is the only alternative to surrender is what brought the ayatollahs their diplomatic triumph over Obama.
        Trump needs to ignore the revived efforts of his predecessor's media echo chamber to scare the country into abandoning sanctions. If he sticks to his willingness to make Iran pay a price they cannot afford, the result is far more likely to be an American diplomatic victory than a conflict that Washington has no intention of being drawn into.
        Copyright (C) 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.
    The Purge
      Facebook Suspends Candace Owens For Saying Liberal Policies Incentivize Fatherless Homes '' Summit News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 17:13
        Politics Says white America will not concede power ''until its death rattle.''
        New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow lauded the ''inevitable'' demographic decline of white people in order to bring down the ''white male racist patriarchy''.
        Blow, who is notorious for his schizophrenic obsession with identity politics, doesn't waste any time labeling all Trump supporters as racist in the very first sentence of his article, writing, ''The white male racist patriarchy will not be denied. It is having a moment. It has its own president.''
        He then goes on to express thinly veiled glee at the ''demographic displacement'' of white people.
        ''We are living through a flagrant display of a white male exertion of power, authority and privilege, a demonstration meant to underscore that they will forcefully fight any momentum toward demographic displacement, no matter how inevitable the math,'' writes Blow.
        Blow ends his piece by lamenting that white America will not concede power ''until its death rattle.''
        This once against illustrates the media's outright double standard when it comes to discussing demographic changes.
        Anyone on the right who raises the issue is accused of discussing ''white genocide'' and is conflated with white supremacists and extremists.
        It seems it's only possible to highlight the demographic decline of white people without a backlash if you agree that it's a good thing.
        '--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--
        There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.
        Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
        Support my sponsor '' Turbo Force '' a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
        '--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--
        Politics Maurice Levy happy that socials will clamp down on ''hateful content''.
        Davos elitist Maurice Levy is happy that new ''hateful content'' rules for the Internet will see ''discussions'' being ''quickly erased from social networks''.
        Levy is Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Publicis Groupe, the world's third largest advertising and communications group and a regular attendee of the World Economic Forum.
        He has joined with global leaders like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron to promote the ''Christchurch Call,'' which demands countries and social media giants ''clamp down on hate content'' in response to the New Zealand mosque shooting.
        During an interview with CNBC, Levy praised New Zealand's effort to combat ''hate'' following the attack.
        ''Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern '... (made) a very moving speech regarding how the hatred and speech of hate are contaminating the social network(s), and I believe that this is a landmark in how people will now operate and how some discussions will be quickly erased from the social networks,'' he said.
        As we previously reported, part of combating this ''hate'' in New Zealand includes police making home visits to citizens to grill them on their political beliefs.
        And as ever, ''hateful content'' coincidentally looks almost identical to 'expressing opinions which go against the status quo'.
        What could possibly go wrong?
        As we document in the video below, social media censorship is just the beginning. We are moving quickly towards a Communist Chinese-style social credit system where people are denied banking and the ability to buy and sell because of their political opinions.
        '--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--
        There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.
        Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
        Support my sponsor '' Turbo Force '' a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
        '--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--
        Politics Entire case file sealed by judge.
        The case of two anti-Trump leftists, one of whom is transgender, who shot up a school in Denver last week has been placed under seal by a judge, banning the public from seeing it.
        Devon Erickson, 18, and Alec McKinney, 16, opened fire on two classrooms at the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) charter school in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, on May 7, killing one student and injuring eight others.
        16-year-old Alec McKinney identifies as male but is biologically female, having been born Maya Elizabeth McKinney.
        Following the shooting, it emerged that his accomplice Erickson had posted anti-Christian and anti-Trump messages on social media while praising former President Barack Obama.
        It is now being reported that details of the case will remain secret to the public after it was sealed by a judge.
        ''Douglas County District Judge Theresa Slade has put the charges along with the entire case file under seal, banning the public from seeing it,'' reports Reuters.
        The student who was shot dead, 18-year-old Kendrick Castillo, bravely rushed towards the two shooters in an attempt to prevent further loss of life. He was remembered as a ''compassionate, bright young man'' during a memorial service on Wednesday.
        The shooting appeared to disappear from headlines quickly when it turned out that the individuals responsible were anti-Trump leftists and that one of them was transgender.
        One wonders if the media's reaction would have been different if it was two Trump supporters who had shot up a school.
        Others highlighted the double standard of a smirking boy being villified by the media while an actual school shooter was largely ignored.
        Both of these students are minors.
        One smiled calmly at an Indian while his personal space was invaded.
        The other is a murderer.
        Which one was smeared by the media for an entire week, sent death threats by celebrities, and had his name released despite being underage? pic.twitter.com/yUhC3k3Ive
        '-- Aphrodite ''¤¸ (@venusreborn_) May 15, 2019
        '--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--
        There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.
        Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
        Support my sponsor '' Turbo Force '' a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
        '--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--
      Masterton woman to be charged over Facebook post about Christchurch mosque shootings | Stuff.co.nz
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 12:19
        GEORGE HEARD/STUFF
        50 people were killed in the March 15 attacks on two Christchurch mosques.
        A Masterton woman who posted a message on Facebook about the Christchurch shootings will be charged with inciting racial disharmony.
        Senior Sergeant Jennifer Hansen said the 28-year-old was reported to police after she published the "upsetting" message, saying it was related to "the events in Christchurch and this person's views on what had occurred".
        "We were made aware that this post had been put up on Facebook which had upset a number of people to the point that they felt uncomfortable taking kids to school because of the comments that had been made."
        PIERS FULLER/STUFF
        Senior Sergeant Jennifer Hansen says people should be careful with what they post on social media.
        She would not provide details of what was in the post.
        READ MORE: * Live: Survivor's sleepless nights after Christchurch mosque shootings * Hate speech '' we need to understand the damage it does * Security expert warns of 'copycat' risk as national security threat level remains 'High' following mosque shootings * Christchurch mosque attacks a chance to unite and stamp out racism, says MÄori leader
        "I wouldn't want to say what had been said but there was reference to the Muslim community in amongst those comments."
        The post was taken down shortly afterwards due to the backlash from other users, Hansen said.
        "But not before police were made aware of it and she was subsequently brought in and spoken to."
        To be charged with inciting racial disharmony under Human Rights Act legislation, police must have reason to believe that the comments published were either threatening, abusive, or insulting.
        They must be likely to create hostility or ill-will against any group of people in New Zealand due to their colour, race, ethnicity or nationality.
        The woman's message was shared among members of a local school community.
        Masterton Primary School principal Sue Walters said she was aware of an offensive post but would not comment on its details.
        "Otherwise I'm guilty of promulgating the same stuff."
        Hansen said the case could potentially be dealt with by the Iwi Justice Panel.
        She said Facebook posts were not considered private because they could be widely disseminated.
        "People have this perception that if they put something on their Facebook page that it's their private views.
        "The reality is that with Facebook it just goes so much further than that. Anyone has the ability to share that message and it can be seen by quite a wide audience."
    SJWBLMLGBBTQQIAAPK
      Report: SAT will assign a new score that factors in where you live and how much your parents make | myfox8.com
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 16 May 2019 22:48
        The nonprofit group that administers the SAT will assign an adversity score to each student who takes the test to reflect social and economic backgrounds, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
        The move comes amid heightened scrutiny that colleges are facing over the admissions process and the diversity of their student bodies.
        ''There are a number of amazing students who may have scored less (on the SAT) but have accomplished more,'' David Coleman, chief executive officer of the College Board, told the Journal. ''We can't sit on our hands and ignore the disparities of wealth reflected in the SAT.''
        The number will be calculated using 15 factors, the Journal reported, including the crime rate and poverty levels of a student's high school and neighborhood. Colleges will be able to see the number when considering applicants, but students themselves won't be told their scores.
        According to the Journal, 50 colleges used the adversity score in a beta test last year, and the College Board plans to expand the program to 150 institutions this fall.
        CNN is reaching out to the College Board for confirmation of The Wall Street Journal's report.
        According to the Journal, the score does not account for a student's race. Students are rated on a scale of 1 to 100 based on publicly available data from records such as the US census, Coleman told the paper.
        A score of 50 would be considered average, the Journal reported, while a number above 50 indicates hardship, and a number below 50 privilege.
        The news comes against the backdrop of a bombshell college admissions scandal, which saw a slew of indictments against wealthy and powerful parents who allegedly paid their kids' ways into elite universities. The scandal reignited the debate surrounding race and economic backgrounds and what role they play in college admissions.
        Some parents were found to have paid bribes to have the SAT taken by others for their children. Not all the students were aware of the cheating arranged by their parents, according to the criminal affidavit in the case. No students currently face charges in the scandal.
        A lawsuit against Harvard University also has accused the school of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by giving them low ''personal'' ratings that take into account traits such as leadership and likability '-- which lessen their chance of admission '-- while giving higher ratings to African-American and Hispanic students.
        Harvard has denied there is any evidence of stereotyping. A judge has yet to make a ruling in the case.
        The College Board has been concerned about income inequality influencing SAT results for a long time. White students scored higher on average than black students and Hispanic students in 2018, while Asian students scored higher on average than white students. And students whose parents are wealthy and college-educated typically did better than their peers.
        Yale University was one of the schools that tried using the adversity scores as it worked to increase socioeconomic diversity on its campus.
        Jeremiah Quinlan, the school's dean of undergraduate admissions, told the Journal that Yale has nearly doubled the number of low-income students and those who are first in their families to attend college to about 20% of new students.
        ''This (adversity score) is literally affecting every application we look at,'' Quinlan told the Journal. ''It has been a part of the success story to help diversify our freshman class.''
      SAT to Give Students 'Adversity Score' to Capture Social and Economic Background - WSJ
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 16 May 2019 22:48
        The College Board plans to assign an adversity score to every student who takes the SAT to try to capture their social and economic background, jumping into the debate raging over race and class in college admissions.
        This new number, called an adversity score by college admissions officers, is calculated using 15 factors including the crime rate and poverty levels from the student's high school and neighborhood. Students won't be told the scores, but colleges will see the numbers when reviewing their applications.
        Fifty colleges used the score last year as part of a beta test. The College Board plans to expand it to 150 institutions this fall, and then use it broadly the following year.
        How colleges consider a student's race and class in making admissions decisions is hotly contested. Many colleges, including Harvard University, say a diverse student body is part of the educational mission of a school. A lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants by holding them to a higher standard is awaiting a judge's ruling. Lawsuits charging unfair admission practices have also been filed against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California system.
        The College Board, the New York based nonprofit that oversees the SAT, said it has worried about income inequality influencing test results for years. White students scored an average of 177 points higher than black students and 133 points higher than Hispanic students in 2018 results. Asian students scored 100 points higher than white students. The children of wealthy and college-educated parents outperformed their classmates.
        ''There are a number of amazing students who may have scored less [on the SAT] but have accomplished more,'' said David Coleman, chief executive of the College Board. ''We can't sit on our hands and ignore the disparities of wealth reflected in the SAT.''
        The SAT, which includes math and verbal sections and is still taken with No. 2 pencils, is facing challenges. Federal prosecutors revealed this spring that students cheated on both the SAT and ACT for years as part of a far-reaching college admissions cheating scheme. In Asia and the Middle East, both the ACT and SAT exams have experienced security breaches.
        Yale University is one of the schools that has tried using applicants' adversity scores. Yale has pushed to increase socioeconomic diversity and, over several years, has nearly doubled the number of low-income and first-generation-to-attend-college students to about 20% of newly admitted students, said Jeremiah Quinlan, the dean of undergraduate admissions at Yale.
        ''This [adversity score] is literally affecting every application we look at,'' he said. ''It has been a part of the success story to help diversify our freshman class.''
        Colleges could glean some of the information that the adversity score reflects from other parts of a student's application. But having the score makes comparisons more consistent, Mr. Quinlan said.
        James Conroy, director of college counseling at New Trier High School, which serves several affluent and mostly white communities north of Chicago, said the focus on diversity by elite colleges is already high and the adversity score would magnify that.
        ''My emails are inundated with admissions officers who want to talk to our diversity kids,'' Mr. Conroy said. ''Do I feel minority students have been discriminated against? Yes, I do. But I see the reversal of it happening right now.''
        The College Board tried a similar effort two decades ago but quickly dropped it amid pushback from colleges. In 1999, after California and Washington voted to ban affirmative-action preferences in public education, the College Board created a program it called Strivers.
        The program aimed to measure the challenges students faced. It created an expected SAT score based on socioeconomic factors including, if schools chose to add it, race. Students who scored at least 200 points more on the SAT than predicted were called Strivers. Because minorities often had lower predicted scores, they were more likely to be Strivers.
        The adversity score, by contrast, doesn't take into account race and is superior because it is steeped in more research, said Connie Betterton, vice president for higher education access and strategy at the College Board.
        ''Since it is identifying strengths in students, it's showing this resourcefulness that the test alone cannot measure,'' Mr. Coleman, the College Board CEO, said. ''These students do well, they succeed in college.''
        The new score'--which falls on a scale of one through 100'--will pop up on something called the Environmental Context Dashboard, which shows several indicators of relative poverty, wealth and opportunity as well as a student's SAT score compared with those of their classmates. On the dashboard, the score is called ''Overall Disadvantage Level.''
        An adversity score of 50 is average. Anything above it designates hardship, below it privilege.
        The College Board declined to say how it calculates the adversity score or weighs the factors that go into it. The data that informs the score comes from public records such as the U.S. Census as well as some sources proprietary to the College Board, Mr. Coleman said.
        The College Board began developing the tool in 2015 because colleges were asking for more objective data on students' backgrounds, said Ms. Betterton. Several college admissions officers said they worry the Supreme Court may disallow race-based affirmative action. If that happens, the value of the tool would rise, they said.
        ''The purpose is to get to race without using race,'' said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce. Mr. Carnevale formerly worked for the College Board and oversaw the Strivers program.
        The dashboard may also be an advantage in a tight competition for market share with the ACT, another college-admissions exam. A spokesman for the ACT said it is ''investing significant resources'' in a comparable tool that is expected to be announced later this year.
        At Florida State University, the adversity scores helped the school boost nonwhite enrollment to 42% from 37% in the incoming freshman class, said John Barnhill, assistant vice president for academic affairs at Florida State University. He said he expects pushback from parents whose children go to well-to-do high schools as well as guidance counselors there.
        ''If I am going to make room for more of the [poor and minority] students we want to admit and I have a finite number of spaces, then someone has to suffer and that will be privileged kids on the bubble,'' he said.
        Write to Douglas Belkin at doug.belkin@wsj.com
      Tony Robbins Berated Abuse Victims, Leaked Records Show, And Former Followers Accuse Him Of Sexual Advances
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 16:57
        When Tony Robbins leaps onstage in arenas around the world, under strobe lights and pulsing speakers, he's greeted by thousands of screaming fans. They clap with him, jump with him, and when he puffs his chest and lets out a primal roar, they roar with him too.
        The world's most famous self-help guru whips crowds into fits of euphoria few pop stars could dream of, but many of his fans are grappling with life's most serious problems. Victims of sexual and physical abuse, along with people who struggle with addiction and have mental illnesses, pay thousands of dollars to see him on the promise he has the power to ''transform your life'' and ''rewire your brain.''
        At the core of Robbins' teachings is the message that his followers should not see themselves as victims, and should instead view their pain as something they have the power to ''destroy.'' He claims to have revolutionized millions of lives with this philosophy, while building a multibillion-dollar business and working with celebrities from Donald Trump and Bill Clinton to Oprah and the Kardashians. Access to his most exclusive membership program has cost as much as $85,000 a year.
        But behind that dazzling veneer, Robbins guards his empire with intense secrecy. Employees are bound by strict confidentiality agreements, and audiences who attend his multiday coaching camps must sign contracts forbidding them from recording what goes on inside.
        A yearlong investigation by BuzzFeed News, based on leaked recordings, internal documents, and dozens of interviews with fans and insiders, reveals how Robbins has berated abuse victims and subjected his followers to unorthodox and potentially dangerous techniques. And former female fans and staffers have accused him of inappropriate sexual advances.
        Two former followers who went on to work for Robbins provided BuzzFeed News with signed statements swearing under oath that they felt he had sexually harassed them by repeatedly pursuing them after they made clear they weren't interested. Two more women who worked as his assistants said Robbins expected them to work alone with him when he was naked in his hotel room or in the shower. And another former employee said she was fired after having a consensual sexual relationship with Robbins. The events described by all five women took place in the 1990s and early 2000s, when Robbins' fame was skyrocketing and before he married his second wife.
        BuzzFeed News; Photo: Carlo Allegri for The Washington Post / Getty ImagesSecret recordings and transcripts from inside his events reveal Robbins has unleashed expletive-laden tirades on survivors of rape and domestic violence after inviting them to share their stories in front of a vast audience. ''She's fucking using all this stuff to try and control men,'' he said after one woman said she had been raped. When, in 2018, another woman said her husband was physically violent and emotionally abusive, Robbins accused her of ''lying'' and asked: ''Does he put up with you when you've been a crazy bitch?''
        Interviews and records reveal how Robbins has created a highly sexualized environment in which both men and women have been told to touch themselves intimately and simulate orgasms '-- but he has repeatedly singled women out of the crowd for more personal attention. One secret recording from 2018 captured him laughing as he told a woman in the audience that he wanted her to ''come up onstage and make love to me.'' And two former bodyguards told BuzzFeed News they were sent out to trawl audiences for attractive women on Robbins' behalf. Two women told BuzzFeed News they had witnessed it or experienced it themselves.
        ''She's fucking using all this stuff to try to control men.''
        Robbins vehemently denied ''engaging in any alleged 'inappropriate sexual behavior,''' sending security personnel into the crowd to solicit women on his behalf, or making such approaches personally. He was ''never intentionally naked'' in front of staff, his lawyers said in a letter. ''To the extent that he may have been unclothed at various times in his home or in hotels when working while either dressing or showering, and whether a personal assistant may have been present for some reason at that time, Mr. Robbins has no recollection.''
        The letter said Robbins ''admits he has made mistakes in relationships and other aspects of his life but he never behaved in the manner intimated by these salacious and false accusations,'' and he has been ''faithful and committed'' to his second wife, Sage, since they married in 2001. No one has ''ever filed a verbal or written sexual harassment or abuse complaint against Mr. Robbins in the last four decades,'' the letter said.
        The firm denied that Robbins' comments to abuse victims were harmful, or that he exposed his fans to potentially dangerous techniques. On the contrary, it said, Robbins went to ''great lengths to ensure the safety, comfort and enjoyment of all attendees.''
        The #MeToo movement has triggered reckonings inside a wide range of professions where men hold sway. Scandal after scandal has engulfed Hollywood giants, politicians, and CEOs, forcing a major change in the politics of sex and power. But the self-help industry, which generates billions of dollars every year, has faced little scrutiny.
        Licensed professionals who treat mental health issues must undergo extensive training and follow strict ethical guidelines governing their relations with their clients. Self-help coaching requires no such qualifications or standards. But it creates a potent recipe for the abuse of power, setting its leading lights up as godlike figures with answers to life's most painful questions, and placing the supplicants who seek their wisdom in their thrall.
        Robbins claims that his methods have helped fans overcome severe trauma, averted suicides, and transformed the lives of ''phobics, the clinically depressed, people with multiple personalities.'' Many credit him with extraordinary breakthroughs. They report summoning the strength to quit dead-end jobs, launch new companies, reunite with estranged family members, end toxic relationships, and find their soulmates as a result of his teachings. Some of the women who spoke to BuzzFeed News still view Robbins with awe and reverence '-- one said she sees him as someone who ''saves lives.'' And the fan whom Robbins accused of ''lying'' after she said her husband was abusive told BuzzFeed News it was a positive experience and that she was grateful for the advice not to be a victim, which had helped her leave that relationship.
        But some long-term staffers, including Robbins' former director of security Gary King, who spoke exclusively to BuzzFeed News, said they were deeply troubled by the psychological impact of his methods on vulnerable audience members.
        ''We used to joke about it. People started 'popping like popcorn.'''
        Robbins' intensive multiday events are often held in rooms kept deliberately cold and run from early in the morning to well past midnight, with few breaks for food and water. Followers are encouraged to run across hot coals. Internal company emails reveal concerns about fans suffering mental breakdowns after days of emotional exhaustion as well as ''sleep deprivation and dehydration.'' In this intense atmosphere, some audience members became disoriented as the days went by, said Todd Spendley, a former logistics contractor for the organization. ''We used to joke about it,'' he said. ''People started 'popping like popcorn.'''
        Robbins' lawyers said there have been ''very few reported instances of anyone suffering any form of significant physical injury or adverse medical condition'' at his ''thousands of events over the past 40 years.''
        Several leading national experts on domestic and sexual violence who reviewed transcripts of Robbins' private events said berating traumatized women and blaming them for their reactions to abuse is a dangerous strategy.
        ''It's not only secondary trauma, but a secondary assault,'' said Ruth Glenn, president of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. ''This behavior from a self-touted self-help expert is just beyond egregious.''
        ''We are alarmed that he's using his platform to ridicule victims privately and publicly,'' said Jodi Omear, an executive at RAINN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.
        ''It's not only secondary trauma, but a secondary assault. This behavior from a self-touted self-help expert is just beyond egregious.''
        Like many famous men caught up in the #MeToo movement, Robbins has engaged powerful lawyers to try to shut down accusations: Lavely & Singer, a Hollywood megafirm with a client list including Bill Cosby, Charlie Sheen, and Scarlett Johansson.
        The firm has been shielding Robbins from scrutiny since at least 2007, after a website published anonymous criticism of Robbins, including allegations that he had sexually harassed and manipulated women insiders. The site quickly disappeared, and website registration records show the domain was taken over by Lavely & Singer. The firm said the site was ''not a source of reliable information,'' and was taken down because it ''was illegally using Mr. Robbins' tradename.''
        Robbins did face some rare public criticism last spring, after leaked video emerged of him calling the #MeToo movement an excuse for some women to ''try and get significance'' by ''attacking and destroying someone else.'' He apologized after widespread backlash, professing ''profound admiration'' for #MeToo and promising to examine his own behavior to ensure he was ''staying true to those ideals.''
        But behind the scenes, Lavely & Singer had tried to shut the story down, sending a letter to a woman who posted the video online, warning that the footage was a ''clear violation'' of the legal agreement she had signed before being let into the event, and demanding she remove it.
        And secretly recorded audio from another private event in December 2018, obtained by BuzzFeed News, shows Robbins soon doubled down on his attack. ''Victimhood is now rewarded in our culture,'' he railed. People can now ''make claims about anybody, and everyone jumps to support them.''
        Lavely & Singer defended that stance in its letter to BuzzFeed News. ''While BuzzFeed attempts to portray Mr. Robbins' remarks in a negative fashion, it is important to remember that when Mr. Robbins says something like 'victimhood is rewarded in our culture' that's because, in some cases, it is,'' they wrote.
        Have you had experiences with Tony Robbins that you would like to share? To learn how to reach us securely, go to tips.buzzfeed.com. You can also email us at tips@buzzfeed.com.During the reporting of this story, Lavely & Singer launched what it called an ''extensive'' counter-investigation to make legal threats against two people accused of speaking with BuzzFeed News. One received a letter warning that if he did not retract what he had told reporters, his life would ''be forever changed.'' The other was told that he had 48 hours to recant his story or face damages which could ''easily be tens of millions of dollars.''
        When BuzzFeed News sent Robbins a letter seeking his comment eight days before publication, Lavely & Singer said it had not been given enough time to respond fully, but accused the reporters of pursuing a ''predetermined'' narrative against Robbins ''as part of their 'Me Too' Agenda.'' The firm threatened legal action that would have a ''devastating impact on the financial condition of BuzzFeed and its investors.''
        Three of the women who said Robbins had mistreated them initially agreed to speak publicly but later withdrew permission for their names to be published, saying they, like many others interviewed for this story, feared reprisals from Robbins and his lawyers. BuzzFeed News has corroborated key aspects of their stories, interviewed dozens of insiders, and obtained sworn witness statements from six former followers and staffers who raised serious concerns about the inner workings of Robbins' world.
        This is the story Tony Robbins never wanted told.
        Kypros / Getty ImagesTony Robbins, circa 1990.
        Like so many of his fans, Tony Robbins found self-help at a moment of need. In interviews and writings, he has described how an ''incredibly violent'' childhood and a mother with alcoholism left him ''floundering and fat,'' grindingly poor, and lonely to the point of ''emotional death.'' But at 17 he scraped together enough cash from a gig as a janitor to see the motivational speaker Jim Rohn, and was ''mesmerized'' by the message that change starts from within.
        It was the 1970s, and Robbins delved deep into the era's proliferating personal-improvement literature. Once he had learned how to stop thinking of himself as a victim and overcome his pain, he became determined to show others how to do it too.
        Robbins had natural charisma and dominated the stage at 6-foot-7, with a gravelly baritone voice. He started drawing sizable crowds to seminars promising to ''unleash the power within.'' As business boomed, it became a pillar of his own self-help story, which he told and retold to eager audiences. He had lost ''thirty-eight pounds of fat,'' married ''the woman of my dreams,'' and ditched his tiny apartment for a Spanish-style castle in Southern California.
        But Robbins told Charlie Rose in a 2000 interview that what really ''made my career'' was calling the bluff of a psychiatrist who had phoned into a radio show to attack him as a ''charlatan.''
        ''Give me your patient, I'll be at the Holiday Inn tomorrow night.''
        Robbins said he had thrown down a challenge: ''Give me your patient, I'll be at the Holiday Inn tomorrow night.'' He claimed he quickly cured a patient the psychiatrist had been treating for seven years for snake phobia. He had even wrapped a snake around her. ''It was like this shootout,'' he told Rose. ''It was like a movie.''
        A flair for the dramatic accelerated his rise. He persuaded audience members that they could walk over hot coals, psyching them up with drums and chants of ''YES, YES, YES!'' It was proof of what positive thinking could accomplish, he explained in his 1986 debut book, Unlimited Power: The New Science of Personal Achievement.
        Robbins started touring around the country, amassing an army of volunteers who often worked 12- to 18-hour shifts to keep his shows running. ''You don't have any food, you're literally in the room until Tony gives you permission to go for a break, you hardly get any sleep,'' said Jon Richelieu-Booth, a former Robbins volunteer. They were not rewarded with a wage or travel expenses '-- but they did get to hear him speak for free.
        In 2018, Robbins' company confidentially resolved a class action lawsuit over these unpaid hours, arguing that the volunteers are ''providing services for their own pleasure, education and enjoyment,'' according to a settlement notice obtained by BuzzFeed News. Robbins' lawyers told BuzzFeed News the company ''vehemently denies'' violating labor laws and settled the case ''in order to avoid the time and disruption.''
        Robbins pledged that his methods could help just about anyone. He knew from his own experience that abuse and depression didn't have to weigh you down. It was a choice: ''In one stroke,'' he wrote, ''I had purged my vocabulary of disempowering language and thus a feeling that can devastate even the stoutest of hearts.''
        Courtesy of Gary KingGary King with Robbins, his current wife Sage, and their security team.
        In 1991, Gary King was holed up inside his Florida home in a deep depression. A former powerboat racer with a love of floral shirts, King had built a career in event management, but the recent breakup of his relationship had left him unable to work and suicidal. ''I was a broken person,'' he told BuzzFeed News.
        A friend told him he should try out a Robbins event nearby, and right away, King said he found the event's ''high energy'' and ''euphoria'' addictive. He felt his depression lifting, and handed over around $600 to sign up for the next event, going on to volunteer for a few years before a contract opened up as Robbins' director of security in 1994. King jumped at the chance.
        King was soon spending many of his waking hours with Robbins, traveling the world with him, carrying his luggage, and even sometimes accompanying him to the bathroom. At first he revered Robbins as ''some kind of savior,'' King said '-- but two decades in the guru's inner world would leave him with troubling questions about much of what he witnessed. Robbins' lawyers said King was ''disgruntled'' and ''unreliable.''
        Robbins demanded relentless energy and a willingness to confront your darkest fears. He spoke openly about his use of ''taboo language,'' humor, and other shock tactics to try to shake fans out of emotional stagnation '-- often swearing, berating audience members, and talking graphically about sex '-- and he didn't censor himself even when addressing his most troubled fans. For some, this led to ecstasy. Others found his events mentally and physically shattering.
        King said he soon found that a key part of his job involved responding to calls about participants who had threatened or attempted suicide or needed to be hospitalized after suffering mental breakdowns. At one 1995 Life Mastery event in Hawaii, he said he had to intervene after one participant started biting members of the hotel's security staff and guests. ''I was dealing with crisis and emotional meltdowns from the start,'' he told BuzzFeed News.
        ''Date With Destiny'' events could be especially difficult. The six-day program, which currently costs as much as $7,995 per person, left little time for sleep or rest and was packed with soul-searching activities and deeply personal ''interventions'' in which Robbins selected audience members to publicly unpack their despair.
        After a March 2003 Date With Destiny in Australia, Robbins held court in a ''debriefing'' session with his staff. A transcript of that session was made so that Robbins could pull out material for his next book. BuzzFeed News obtained a copy.
        One woman had told him through tears that she had been raped. Robbins recounted how he had ''cut her off'' in a ''warm'' and ''elegant'' way and informed her that she was ''fucking using all this stuff to try and control men.''
        ''I don't support anybody fucking raping her or taking advantage of her,'' he said, according to the transcript, ''but I don't support her fucking manipulating herself, men, and other people by trying to use that tool when it's really not the primary experience of her life now.''
        ''Women's torment is that men fucking look, and men's torment is that women are fucking insane.''
        By now, Robbins had set himself up as an authority on relationships, dispensing a theory about ''two opposing energies '-- masculine and feminine.''
        ''Women's torment is that men fucking look, and men's torment is that women are fucking insane,'' he said at the same 2003 event.
        Robbins also described using ''orgasm or masturbation'' as ''humor'' to break a suicidal woman's ''pattern'' at another event, the transcript shows. He also told a woman struggling with relationship issues to grab her breasts.
        ''I said 'which breast is more sensitive,' she said 'my right breast' and I said 'I know,''' Robbins said, according to the transcript. ''I just watched her face. It just freaked her out that I knew which one of her breasts was more sensitive.''
        Have you had experiences with Tony Robbins that you would like to share? To learn how to reach us securely, go to tips.buzzfeed.com. You can also email us at tips@buzzfeed.com.Robbins' lawyers said ''none of the participants at those events ever raised any concern or made any complaint that Mr. Robbins' statements or conduct were inappropriate or harmful in any manner.''
        Gary King said this was the sort of line he had often heard Robbins use to distract nervous women during fire-walks: ''Which one of your breasts is bigger?'' And by now, he had reason to believe that Robbins' intimate interest in his female fans was more than just professional.
        King said that Robbins often dispatched him to get the phone numbers of attractive women in the audience, an allegation which Robbins' lawyers fiercely denied. Though he felt deep down that what he saw wasn't right, King said his entire world revolved around Robbins, so he tried to bury his discomfort. But as time went on, he said, his concerns grew. ''Ultimate power corrupts,'' King said. ''I watched it like a movie unfolding.''
        Mark Peterson / ReduxRobbins in the early 1990s.
        Marie, a young woman living in California, was in such a dark place that she was making plans to drive her car off a cliff near her home '-- until she saw Tony Robbins on a television infomercial. The more she learned about his teachings, the more she began to believe she could save herself.
        At her first seminar, in Newport Beach in 1999, Robbins walked up to her in the crowd and tapped her on the shoulder. ''I remember everyone gasping like it was this great honor,'' Marie said. He invited her onstage with several other audience members, where he hugged her tightly and whispered in her ear to find him after the event was over, Marie said. She declined, but he continued to ask for her number, she said. ''I considered him my mentor and I didn't want to blur any lines,'' Marie said. Like others, Marie spoke with BuzzFeed News on the condition that her full name not be used.
        Robbins denied Marie's allegations, and his lawyers said he had never engaged in any ''inappropriate sexual behavior.'' They said his microphone would have made it impossible for him to whisper anything while he was on stage without it being broadcasted to the whole crowd.
        Despite her discomfort, Marie came away from the seminar feeling more upbeat than she had in a while. So she went back to other events, including a Date With Destiny seminar in Miami. There, one of Robbins' bodyguards stopped her in the bustling hallway. ''Tony sent me to take you to his room,'' she remembered him saying. The bodyguard kept his eyes on the ground, she recalled, and told her she was ''too good for this'': ''If it's not you that goes to his room, it's going to be somebody else,'' she remembered him saying. Again, she declined.
        BuzzFeed News tracked down that former bodyguard, who spent more than a decade working for Robbins. He said on condition of anonymity that, while he could not recall this specific occasion, his former boss did give him notes to pass to ''young, attractive women'' and he witnessed Robbins make direct advances to women in the crowd.
        Robbins' vehemently denied that he had ''authorized or participated in any systematic selection of event audience members for personal intimate sexual encounters backstage.'' His lawyers said he ''openly admits that he had consensual relationships with women, many of whom aggressively sought him out.''
        Robbins has indeed spoken publicly about the attention he has received from female fans. ''They'd send me their panties and show up at events in limousines to get through security, or turn up at my house to convince me they had an offer I couldn't refuse,'' he told Playboy in 2013. ''I was beyond tempted at times. There was no drought, for sure. I was like a kid in a candy store.''
        The bodyguard confirmed that many women sought Robbins' attention. It was a different time, when people had ''completely different beliefs, values, and rules.'' But some women had clearly not welcomed Robbins' advances, he said. ''It's who he is to take advantage of women.''
        Both Heather Porter, a former event manager, and Miki Knowles, who worked as Robbins' personal chef, recalled hearing colleagues describe how the security team would pluck women from the audience on Robbins' behalf. ''The security guys would tell stories about women they'd had to take up to his room,'' Knowles said. Lavely & Singer said that both women referenced their work with Robbins in a positive light in their online profiles.
        Robbins went on to approach Marie directly at that Florida event, she said. As the seminar came to a euphoric close around 2 a.m., she heard him shout, ''Come here!'' across the crowd. Robbins clamped his hand over Marie's arm, she told BuzzFeed News, and pulled her toward the greenroom. She twisted free and melted into the crowd, she said, hoping he would lose sight of her.
        Still, Marie could not tear herself away from Robbins' world '-- a common theme among people who said they had experienced behavior that crossed a line but continued to work with him for years.
        Marie still believed Robbins' message was invaluable. ''I knew that had saved my life,'' she said, and she wanted to help save others. So she became more deeply involved, first as an unpaid volunteer '-- and then as an employee.
        Astrid Stawiarz / Getty Images for DuJourRobbins' at a birthday celebration and launch for one of his books, Unshakeable.
        By the early 2000s, Robbins' business empire was flourishing: He had sold millions of self-help tapes and books, become a TV infomercial star, and was attracting audiences of thousands all over the world. Many women who worked at Robbins Research International '-- his San Diego''based company '-- said they loved the experience. One former employee, Marie Kozak, said there was ''never a stray hand or a wrong look.'' Traci Porterfield, who worked as an HR executive from 2004 until 2009, said the job ''literally changed the trajectory of my life.'' In around five years, she said she never received any sexual harassment complaints.
        But other former employees and volunteers told a different story.
        One former personal assistant, who said she worked for Robbins for around 18 months in the 1990s, said he made her take notes while he showered. ''He would call you into the bathroom with him. 'Hey come here, I need you to make a note of something,''' she said. ''He just didn't care, he was too powerful.''
        The assistant, who was then in her twenties and asked to be identified only as ''B.,'' said on one occasion, Robbins came out of the shower when she was working in his hotel room and dropped his towel. She shouted at him to cover up, she said, then left in tears. ''I called my parents,'' she said, ''and I was like, 'What in the world makes him think I would want any part of that?'''
        B.'s mother confirmed that her daughter complained about Robbins' sexual advances at the time.
        B. first told BuzzFeed News she wanted to tell her story using her full name, but later changed her mind, citing her fear of Robbins.
        ''To the extent that he may have been unclothed at various times in his home or in hotels when working while either dressing or showering, and whether a personal assistant may have been present for some reason at that time, Mr. Robbins has no recollection.''
        Kate Rittase, who worked for Robbins from the late 1990s to early 2000s, also told BuzzFeed News that she had to work with him while he was nude. ''My job would be to get him out of bed in the morning so I'd wake up and pull his naked butt out of bed,'' she said. ''I had to get his naked butt into the shower and into his suit.'' Robbins would also call her into the bathroom while he showered, she said. ''I guess some people would think it was weird,'' she said, but she just saw it as part of the job. ''Yes I could be a victim, I could go down the victim road but I just chose not to.''
        She said she was careful never to be in the room with him when he was naked unless he needed something, and ''never put myself in a position of being vulnerable or exploited.'' Robbins seminars were ''life transforming'' for her and her family, she added.
        A fourth woman, Kay, joined Robbins' crew in the late '90s. She told BuzzFeed News that he singled her out immediately, frequently telling her she was beautiful. Over the next few years, she said he encouraged her to end two separate relationships, offered to fly her out to visit him, and gave her a secret phone number. The more she refused him, she said, the more he ''relentlessly'' pursued her.
        ''It's part of what he teaches: Go after what you want,'' she said. ''And he wants to acquire you as a woman.''
        Kay recalled one seminar where Robbins told the crowd to imagine they were having an orgasm. He then stepped down and whispered in her ear, ''I wanna see you have an orgasm,'' she told BuzzFeed News. Again, Kay refused. ''I'm not showing you anything,'' she recalled thinking, ''that feeds that monster.''
        Robbins' lawyers said Kay's accusations were ''false and preposterous.'' They said Robbins wore a microphone at all times while he was on stage and his events are typically recorded from start to finish using multiple cameras.
        Kay stayed in Robbins' universe until 2001. A friend of Kay's told BuzzFeed News that about a decade ago, Kay disclosed to her that Robbins had repeatedly hit on her.
        Kay first told BuzzFeed News she wanted to speak publicly about what happened, then changed her mind, and spoke on condition that her full name not be used. ''He's very connected, he's very powerful, and he's very wealthy and able to squash bugs,'' Kay told BuzzFeed News. ''And we're the bugs.''
        ''He's very connected, he's very powerful, and he's able to squash bugs...and we're the bugs.''
        One former staffer who did consent to a sexual relationship with Robbins said she came to regret it. The woman, who asked to be identified only as J., worked as Robbins' personal assistant in the 1990s, when she was in her twenties and he was more than a decade older. They began an affair soon after they started working together, J. said, but she was fired after his then-wife became suspicious.
        Distraught, J. turned to a friend, attorney Ron Blumberg, who told her she had a strong legal case for sexual harassment and unfair dismissal, in part because of the ''difference in power'' between the two parties.
        ''He was on a pedestal as few celebrities in any field were at the time,'' Blumberg told BuzzFeed News. ''Everything about him '-- his looks, his demeanor, his money '-- was crafted to define himself as having extreme power.''
        Both J. and Blumberg said they met with Robbins' lawyer. Afterward, J. told BuzzFeed News, she was ''scared to death.'' So she never brought a case.
        Robbins' lawyers said he denied J.'s claims ''generally and specifically.''
        J. said it took her time to make sense of the experience. She remained in touch with him for several years after she was fired.
        J. was not the only former Robbins employee who claimed she was unfairly dismissed after his sexual attentions turned sour. Marie said that Robbins stopped making direct advances after she started working for him, but still made her feel ''totally violated'' at times by staring at her breasts and stomach. Still, she stayed at his company for years. When people asked why she stood by him, she said she would tell them, ''Listen to the message, not the messenger.''
        Then one day in the mid-2000s, a senior manager called her to a meeting at an empty hotel restaurant in the middle of a Robbins event and fired her on the spot. Marie said she received no explanation for her firing.
        But speaking to BuzzFeed News on condition of anonymity, one employee with knowledge of the incident explained the decision to fire Marie: An order came from above that she had to go because she was ''obsessed'' with Robbins. This was not the first time a woman had been fired for similar reasons, that employee said.
        ''I felt like I was being disfellowshipped from a religion.''
        Robbins' lawyers denied Marie's allegations, and said that he ''is not involved in the day-to-day operations'' of his company, ''including the hiring and firing of employees.''
        Marie said she was ostracized by many of the people she was close with in Robbins' orbit. ''I felt like I was being disfellowshipped from a religion,'' she said.
        The day she was fired, she was ordered to head back to her hotel room, pack her belongings, and get in a taxi straight to the airport. Gary King escorted her away.
        Courtesy of Gary KingRobbins and King.
        King still believed that Robbins was a force for good. And he enjoyed sharing the perks of superstardom '-- golf outings, global travel, and standing next to Oprah as she did a firewalk with Robbins on TV.
        But when his son, who had depression, killed himself, King's concerns about the mental health of Robbins' more vulnerable followers grew more acute.
        In 2014, a man wrote to the Robbins organization to complain that his wife had collapsed and begun hallucinating after a Date With Destiny event '-- believing a clock was moving backward and a lightbulb was the moon. A staffer had advised him that this was not uncommon and she would be ''back to normal'' the following day, yet his wife had continued to hallucinate after being admitted to the hospital, and remained in a ''poor'' mental state months after the event, the man wrote. The couple did not respond to repeated requests from BuzzFeed News for comment.
        An employee forwarded the email to King. ''The reality is, there is collateral emotional and physical damage at DWD [Date With Destiny], there always has been,'' King replied. ''In a room full of every personality disorder and personal emotional need and financial need, it goes without saying.'' He said he had flagged the problem repeatedly, but ''it falls short of being taken seriously enough.''
        ''The reality is, there is collateral emotional and physical damage ... It falls short of being taken seriously enough.''
        Glen Lechtanski, who was a registered emergency nurse during more than a decade spent volunteering for Robbins, including as director of medical operations for his live events, told BuzzFeed News that he too had witnessed participants becoming ''mentally unstable'' due to a lack of sleep, water, and food.
        Lechtanski also recalled treating dozens of participants with second-degree burns from a 2012 San Jose firewalk. ''He's been taking risks with everyone's health and safety,'' he said.
        Robbins' lawyers said Lechtanski was terminated from his volunteer position ''based on certain inappropriate conduct,'' and that as a result he, like King, had become ''disgruntled'' towards Robbins' company. Lechtanski said he had been let go for taking fan merchandise such as CDs and vitamins from Robbins' product tables to hand out to the team of volunteers he oversaw in lieu of pay.
        Todd Spendley spent a decade working for Robbins as a logistics contractor but left in 2014 after growing increasingly disturbed by the way the company was run. At one Palm Springs, California, event, Spendley said he witnessed a fan experience ''what I would describe as a seizure, or a sort of mental and physical breakdown.'' Robbins staffers attempted to help him themselves instead of calling an ambulance, Spendley said. ''I realized that many of these trainers had no qualifications besides being trained by Tony,'' Spendley said. ''I felt like there was no regulation, and very little protection if someone was vulnerable.''
        Robbins' lawyer said his events are ''fully staffed with a team of security personnel, medical personnel, coaches and trainers who are available at all times.''
        In 2014, Robbins let a documentary filmmaker inside a Date With Destiny event to produce a film called I Am Not Your Guru. As always, the access to his private world was tightly controlled. Robbins struck a deal with the director allowing him to cancel filming at any time during the six-day seminar and retain ownership of the footage if he chose.
        In the documentary, Robbins said staff kept a keen eye on people in the audience with serious mental health issues.
        In one scene, a young woman told Robbins she was sexually abused while growing up in a Christian cult. Robbins' response was to instruct her to pick three men, all strangers, out of the crowd to serve as ''uncles'' to watch over her for the next ''10 years.'' Later, he acknowledged that he had never ''dealt with this issue or anything like this before, obviously.'' Citing her book about the experience, Robbins' lawyers said that the woman's ''breakthrough and transformation speaks for itself.''
        When it debuted on Netflix in 2016, critics panned the film as ''almost fawning'' and ''self-help snake oil.'' The New York Times dismissed it as a ''missed opportunity'' to analyze how Robbins' ''peacocking dominance'' inspired a ''near-religious devotion'' from his audience. ''There are no in-depth interviews with employees or family members and no negative experiences,'' the reviewer noted.
        King and another person at the event said film crews shot footage of a woman on the foyer floor screaming while Robbins staff tried to help her. Another employee later told King that this woman then tried to jump out of a hotel window, King said.
        The scene didn't make it into the documentary. The film's director said it was because she refused to sign a release form. ''I was not asked to nor did I make a 'fawning' film,'' he said, adding viewers could draw their own conclusions about Robbins.
        By now, King was at the end of his rope. After working a seminar in London in March 2015, King sent a one-sentence email: ''Effective Immediately, I resign from responsibilities and communication with RRI.''
        Over the next few years, King would reinvent himself as an ''international happiness expert.'' Lavely & Singer said King had a ''self-interest'' in attacking Robbins because he viewed him as a competitor.
        King said he did his best to move on with his life. But in 2018, a woman reached out to King in a state of distress about Robbins. ''Please get in touch with me,'' she wrote. The woman declined to be interviewed for this story, but BuzzFeed News reviewed her correspondence with King.
        By then, the #MeToo movement was in full effect, and King started hearing from others who used to be in Robbins' orbit. He began to wonder about how those women he had approached on Robbins' behalf might have felt.
        At the encouragement of a friend, he reached out to a reporter at BuzzFeed News. ''It's a classic case of nobody will come forward,'' he wrote in one email, ''because they fear his money and power.'' It was time to change that, he said.
        David Paul Morris / Bloomberg / Getty ImagesRobbins during a live event in 2016.
        A couple of months later, Robbins faced his first real backlash, after he was filmed criticizing the #MeToo movement.
        Robbins also praised the casino magnate Steve Wynn, who had recently been accused of sexual harassment. He said he knew a ''dozen'' men who were afraid of hiring attractive women because it posed too big a risk.
        This was a rare moment: footage from inside Robbins' world released outside of his tight control.
        Robbins apologized, but less than two weeks later, secret footage obtained by BuzzFeed News captured him pointing out a fan at a London show whom he called ''attractive as hell'' before declaring he wanted her to ''come up onstage and make love to me.''
        And in December 2018, Robbins was in Palm Beach, Florida, for another Date With Destiny event. A woman stepped up to the microphone. Speaking softly, she told Robbins that her husband had emotionally abused her.
        That set Robbins off. In a 50-minute secret recording obtained by BuzzFeed News, he launched into a tirade, punctuated with expletive-laden questions. ''What the fuck is emotional abuse?'' he asked the woman. ''Are we that fucking weak that someone can't tell you with passion what they fucking feel without them abusing you?''
        ''Are we that fucking weak that someone can't tell you with passion what they fucking feel without them abusing you?''
        ''She's focused on her needs,'' he went on. ''We've not heard one thing in the last 12 minutes about his needs. And we're already characterizing it as emotional violence. There's no fucking thing.''
        ''There has been physical violence,'' the woman clarified soon after.
        ''What led to that?'' Robbins shot back. ''What role did you play? I'm not suggesting there's any excuse for hitting a woman, so hear me, but I also want you to know that people don't just act a certain fucking way.''
        When the woman tentatively began to describe the violence '-- details she asked BuzzFeed News not to publish '-- Robbins interrupted her and said her husband ''sounds like somebody that actually wants to engage with you because he loves you.''
        ''What I find when I usually dig in,'' he later said, ''is what they call abuse is a relabeling of 'they didn't like what the person said or did.''' He later turned back to the crowd. ''She's lying to herself,'' he said. ''She's done it so often she doesn't even know the difference between a truth and a lie anymore."
        ''Has he loved you?'' Robbins went on. ''Has he looked out for you, does he put up with you when you've been a crazy bitch? Have you ever been a crazy bitch? Ever?''
        ''Probably, yes,'' the woman answered, her voice shaky. The crowd laughed. The song ''Why Does My Heart Feel So Bad?'' by Moby began to play on the speakers.
        In an interview with BuzzFeed News, the woman said she understood why people would find Robbins' comments upsetting. But she was able to take ''whatever served'' her from the intervention even if she didn't feel everything Robbins said applied to her situation. ''I didn't take it personally,'' she said.
        ''Does he put up with you when you've been a crazy bitch?''
        Robbins' team attended to her afterward, and with their help, the woman realized she ''had a self-love issue,'' she said. (Both the woman and Robbins' lawyers said there was a follow-up portion but declined to provide the recording to BuzzFeed News.) The experience helped her discover her own agency and sever ties with her husband for good. She later published an account thanking Robbins for his teachings.
        ''In no way, shape, or form I would like to give the wrong impression that I found the interaction with Tony to be damaging to me or that I found it not useful,'' she said. She also repeatedly asked to make clear she was not the person who had leaked the audio, and therefore had not violated the rules of the event.
        Experts in domestic violence who reviewed the 50-minute transcript voiced serious concerns about the encounter.
        ''In some ways, the dynamics of Robbins' relationships with the women in these workshops is essentially the same as the dynamics of the abuse that may have brought them to him in the first place,'' said Leigh Goodmark, a professor and director of the Gender Violence Clinic at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law.
        ''I'm glad that experience was empowering for her, but another survivor sitting in that room might have felt like she was being ridiculed and her experiences were being dismissed,'' she said.
        ''There is no context that would make this okay,'' said Latifa Lyles, an executive at the National Network to End Domestic Violence.
        One morning in late November 2018, Gary King received a threatening letter from Lavely & Singer, the famously aggressive Hollywood law firm whose founder once told the New York Times its ''goal is to try to kill the story.''
        ''We have been informed by several individuals that you are the source of false and malicious information and rumors that have been provided to on-line publication BuzzFeed,'' the letter read.
        The firm warned King that his conduct could cost him a fortune if he didn't take back everything he had already said within 48 hours and promise not to make any more ''defamatory'' accusations against Robbins.
        King's lawyer responded that the threats were triggering the post-traumatic stress disorder he had developed after his son's suicide. Lavely & Singer replied that King had ''no one to blame other than himself.''
        King received a third letter from Lavely & Singer in February. ''We are informed that Mr King met with BuzzFeed reporter, Jane Bradley, last week in Florida.''
        In April, in-house attorneys at Robbins Research International sent out a new nondisclosure agreement to staff. It demanded not just silence but also a promise to take action to stop their colleagues from disclosing ''Confidential Information.'' If they breached the NDA they would have to pay Robbins up to $100,000 in damages.
        Lavely & Singer also sent threats to another staffer accused of speaking with BuzzFeed News. Unlike others in Robbins' orbit, the man said he had never signed an NDA. Yet one letter, reviewed by BuzzFeed News, warned that if he did not retract his story, ''Your life will be forever changed.''
        He also received text messages from a former colleague asking him to pass on information about BuzzFeed News to Robbins' team. He said that the colleague told him he could receive an unspecified ''reward'' if he did so. That same woman had previously spoken with BuzzFeed News herself claiming to have been a victim of sexual harassment by an event leader who worked for Robbins' company '-- but failed to produce any evidence. In May, an attorney for Robbins wrote to the staffer to say that a goodwill payment of $3,485 could be available to him on the condition that he sign a legal document agreeing not to cooperate with the BuzzFeed News investigation. He refused.
        Employee NDAs are ''common and standard in the industry,'' Lavely & Singer said. The idea that Robbins' company conducts its business with ''intense secrecy'' is ''misplaced and sophomoric.'' Lavely & Singer denied that it is an ''aggressive firm'' saying, ''we merely apply existing law to counter and preclude illegal conduct by others, including individuals who would publish false and defamatory statements regarding our clients.''
        The firm's threats serve as ''an example of using the law to silence people and keep conduct in the dark,'' said Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women's Law Center and cofounder of the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund. ''In the era of #MeToo, more and more people feel emboldened to speak out,'' she said. Threats such as the ones Lavely & Singer directed to people in Tony Robbins' orbit ''are sending a reminder: 'You are not as powerful as you think.'''
        Jerod Harris / WireImageRobbins motivates a crowd.
        Gary King said he decided to speak out as a gesture of solidarity with the women who felt too scared to come forward. ''Nothing is more important than your character in life,'' King said. ''Knowing I knew all that stuff that went on and I didn't do anything about it? I couldn't function like that.''
        Though each of the women who backed away from speaking on the record about Robbins said they were afraid, some also gave more complex reasons.
        To this day, Marie believes Robbins' work ''saves and changes lives.'' In fact she said it helped her not to see herself as a victim when she grapples with the way he treated her. ''It's easy to blame someone else for our problems however we don't grow or change by doing so,'' she told BuzzFeed News in one email. ''While I may not agree with everything Tony does as a person, I am forever grateful for the gift Tony's been in my life.''
        After years of therapy, she is still struggling to recover from her experiences in Robbins' inner sanctum. ''I had so much confidence and was so strong and powerful in how I saw myself,'' she said. ''I haven't gotten that back.'' '—
        Opening art: Benjamin Lowy / Getty Images; illustrations by Akiko Stehrenberger for BuzzFeed News.
        [Editor's note: The maker of I Am Not Your Guru also directed a documentary based on reporting by Katie J.M. Baker, one of the reporters of this piece.]
        Tony Robbins is the world's most famous self-help guru. This is the story he doesn't want you to read. A BuzzFeed News Investigation
      An Open Letter to BuzzFeed Editors and Board of Directors from Tony Robbins
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 19:20
        This letter is one that I would have preferred not to write.
        I have been the target of a year-long investigation by BuzzFeed. Unfortunately, your organization has made it clear to my team that you intend to move forward with publishing an inaccurate, agenda-driven version of the past, pierced with falsehoods. It is intended to disparage me personally, my family, my life's work, and the efforts of the millions of individuals around the globe who have taken this journey with me over the last 40-plus years.
        Please see this video with one person's account of how your reporters so eagerly tossed her truth aside: https://youtu.be/xJ3kWMBJE5Y
        To put it in the words of your own reporters, you are preparing to publish an article with the malicious intent to ''take Tony Robbins down.''
        You have denied my team's requests to meet with you in-person to present key evidence that contradicts your false allegations. You do not seek the truth; you seek to further your own agenda.
        After more than a year-long investigation by your online entertainment company, you allege that approximately 20''30 years ago'Š'--'Šwhen I was in my 20's and early 30's'Š'--'ŠI was negligent with both my employees and individuals who chose to attend my seminars. You also allege (through anonymous sources) that I pursued conflicting intimate relationships. Your claims range from indistinct to ridiculous.
        We have evidence to prove that your reporters rejected and otherwise ignored factual accounts from several individuals you contacted. In some cases, those individuals were even harassed and lied to when their accounts did not align with Buzzfeed's predetermined thesis.
        What stands out'Š'--'Ševen in today's sea of mis-representation and journalistic corner-cutting'Š'--'Šis the 2014 report by the industry-standard, non-partisan, Pew Research Center which cites Buzzfeed as ''the least trusted news source'' of them all. So, it stands to reason that you are presently facing financial, organizational, and management troubles. BuzzFeed is unapologetically fueling the current cultural divide by targeting well-known individuals with false allegations to boost its readership and serve its shareholders.
        Let me be clear, while my open-classroom therapeutic methods are not for everyone, and while I am on my best day still only an imperfect human being, I have never behaved in the reckless, irresponsible, or malicious manner intimated by false, unfounded, and incendiary allegations suggested by BuzzFeed story-tellers.
        Several individuals have contacted us to let us know that you attempted to manipulate their testimony and, in some cases, even ignored their legal counsel when they pointed out inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of their client's personal accounts at the hands of your reporters.
        Why didn't you listen to what these individuals had to say and instead choose to proceed with inverted truths as your central narrative?
        Your organization cannot claim objectivity or journalistic integrity when your written ethics and standards policy claims that in ''activism'' issues ''there are not two sides.'' As we all know, in the context of a just democracy, there are always two sides.
        In my six decades on this earth, I've had the privilege to work with leaders like Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Princess Diana, presidents of countries, and international companies, not to mention millions of dedicated human beings from over 100 countries around the world. Never in my life have I witnessed a cultural climate quite like the one we're living in today. This is an era marked by deeply-divided environments where click-bait headline news is designed to instigate a polarized public, grab their attention, and incite minds on constant-alert, waiting for the next notification to react to and believe the worst.
        The foundation of what we teach in my seminars and audio programs hinges on understanding the power and impact of human belief systems, the importance of clarifying one's values, and the constant effect that language has in shaping our emotions and our lives.
        To understand how our country's discourse has deteriorated into constant conflict, consider the world's foremost dictionaries recent Word of the Year selections:
        In 2016 Oxford Dictionary chose: ''post-truth''In 2017 Collins Dictionary chose: ''fake news''In 2018 Dictionary.com chose: ''mis-information''The very heart of my life's work is empowering others to find the TRUTH that sets them free'Š'--'Šthe honesty and authenticity to breakthrough and expand. For more than 40 years I've encouraged people to seek the tools of transformation to grow into the men and women they dream to be in order to live the fulfilling lives they envision for their highest self. Through the course of my career, more than 50 million people have utilized my teachings'Š'--'Šthis includes more than 4 million people who have attended live events in-person.
        My record is nearly a half-century long. I stand on that.
        We need to start having a different nature of conversations in a very different way. Real change is nothing but finding new patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving that meets our collective needs on a deeper level than the previous pattern. This current pattern is no longer serving our highest good. We demonize human beings for simply being human. If we learn from our mistakes we will evolve into better human beings.
        Amidst all the divisiveness in the world today, I truly believe there is a yearning and a calling within all of us for a kinder way'Š'--'Ša life of compassion, forgiveness, and a desire to live as brothers and sisters. I pray that, out of all of this, we can choose to unite rather than separate; to drop our judgments and criticisms, and look for the goodness in each other. We are all human beings doing the best we can. It's time we come together.
        Millions of people have experienced life-changing breakthroughs and transformations on our journey of growth and I invite them to join me now to stop BuzzFeed and others from tearing our society down by denying and mischaracterizing the truth. Enough is enough.
        -Tony Robbins
        Below is a link to just one example of an individual who is frustrated by the way your reporters tried to take two minutes of seminar footage out of context in order to frame my two hours of work with her as ''abusive'' rather than acknowledging her direct experience and testimony to you of how it positively and profoundly changed her life.
        https://youtu.be/xJ3kWMBJE5Y
      When is the 'OK' gesture not OK? - BBC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 14:49
        Image copyright Ruuben Kaalep Image caption Marine Le Pen said she had no idea this sign was not OK France's Marine Le Pen, of the far-right National Rally, is the latest politician to find themselves in hot water for signalling that everything is OK.
        While visiting Estonia's far-right EKRE party, which has just entered government, she made the ancient hand gesture in a selfie with the party's youth leader, Ruuben Kaalep.
        There is just one problem - the symbol has been widely used by white nationalists in recent years, and for many people has taken on a darker meaning.
        "I'd never heard of the second meaning of this trivial gesture," Marine Le Pen said.
        But she has still come in for criticism, with some asking how the political leader could be ignorant of a major trend among the far-right scene she operates in.
        From the ultra-right to American conservatives and even the suspect in a mass murder, the symbol is being used to "troll the media" and ruffle feathers.
        So when is the gesture not OK?
        Internet trolls turned trendsettersThe entire saga started out as an online joke - taking an innocent and widely-used gesture and pretending there was a sinister hidden meaning behind it, hoping to trick the media and left-leaning people into outrage.
        But the joke was so successful, and the gesture so widespread among the far-right and white nationalists, that many believe the OK sign is changing meaning.
        It was even used in court by the suspect in the Christchurch killings, after he killed 51 people after opening fire on two mosques - bringing it to international attention as a genuine white power symbol.
        Image copyright EPA Image caption The accused in the Christchurch killings during his brief public moment It all began in 2017 on the infamous internet message boards 4Chan. Through its long and controversial lifespan, the site has been the source of many internet memes and jokes but also has a strong right-leaning political audience.
        The hoax planned on 4Chan was simple - to ridicule media by convincing reporters of a fake white power symbol. The preposterous reasoning to be given was that in a hand making the OK sign, the three straight fingers make a "W" shape, while the closed thumb and forefinger symbolise the letter "P".
        It was wildly successful, and the popularity of the gesture used to mock left-leaning people or "troll" viewers exploded.
        In the two years since, however, its constant use by right-wing or extremist individuals has turned the hidden meaning into a genuine connotation.
        As the US Anti-Defamation League (ADL) puts it: "By 2019, at least some white supremacists seem to have abandoned the ironic or satiric intent behind the original trolling campaign and used the symbol as a sincere expression of white supremacy."
        Many now consider the sign to be a white nationalist "dog whistle" - a sign only intended to be understood by those in the know.
        Which makes its use in the current political climate a bit complicated.
        False accusationsAround most of the world, the OK sign still means what it always has - that everything is fine.
        In some countries, however, the gesture is considered vulgar. It can also have other meanings - among young men, it is frequently used in the "circle game", where making the sign below the waist and getting a friend to look at it entitles the prankster to thump said friend on the arm.
        Before the hoax tried to invent an alternative meaning, supporters of US President Donald Trump had frequently been photographed using the OK sign - a gesture in selfies which spread among the group.
        "In the end, it can mean almost anything," as the US-based Southern Poverty Law Centre says in its explanation of the topic.
        The ADL, too, warns against jumping to conclusions about the meaning, saying the "overwhelming usage" is still the traditional sense.
        "Someone who uses the symbol cannot be assumed to be using the symbol in either a trolling or, especially, white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence exists to support the contention," the organisation says in its educational material.
        "Since 2017, many people have been falsely accused of being racist or white supremacist for using the "okay" gesture in its traditional and innocuous sense."
        Image copyright Reuters Image caption Martin (L) and Mart Helme make the OK sign during their swearing-in Context, then, is key: which is why Estonia's EKRE, who Marine Le Pen was visiting in May, have come under fire.
        The group's two most prominent leaders, father and son Mart and Martin Helme, both made the symbol while being sworn into office as they entered government.
        Mr Helme the senior has suggested that indigenous, white Estonians are being "replaced" by immigrants, while his son has previously said "I want Estonia to be a white country".
        But it has also spread far outside politics. A Chicago baseball team banned one fan from the stadium for making the sign on a television broadcast, while a US Coast Guard employee was pulled from duty for the same offence.
        What began as an online joke has transformed into a loaded gesture with very real consequences.
    OTG
      Genius chat app links you with other users whose phone battery is about to die '' BGR
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 03:28
        We're so addicted to our phones that we simply can't fathom the idea of not being able to use it because it's out of battery juice. That's why we're constantly charging our devices, making sure they have enough battery to get us through the day.
        But who said that having your battery die can't be a fun experience, especially if you don't have a charger or external battery on hand. That's where the brilliant $1 Die With Me iPhone and Android app will come in handy.
        Die With Me only works if your phone's battery dips below 5%. That's actually everything you need to know about it:
        The chat app you can only use when you have less than 5% battery. Die together in a chatroom on your way to offline peace.
        That means the app connects you with people in the same situation, who may be looking to kill time while their batteries run out. It also means that you can't use the app unless the battery indicator shows 5% of charge or less, which makes this chat concept so unique. Each chat experience should be totally random and unique.
        Reading the comments of some Android users on a Reddit thread Reddit thread made me realize you can use the app to test out the health of your battery.
        Completely discharging your phone's battery just for the sole purpose of trying out Die With Me seems silly. But you might consider doing it just to see if your phone's battery can get all the way down to 0%. It's not a scientific test to measure the health of your phone's battery. But if you can't get below 5%, then there might be something wrong with the battery.
        Some Reddit users complained that their devices '-- other than iPhones '-- shut down unexpectedly even when the indicator shows there should be plenty of battery life left. Those devices likely need to have their batteries replaced with a new one.
        Download the appropriate version of Die With Me at this link.
      Nest, the company, died at Google I/O 2019 | Ars Technica
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 11:05
        The dumb home '-- The Nest ecosystem is dead. Nest accounts are dead. Nest's privacy firewall is dead. Ron Amadeo - May 10, 2019 11:09 am UTC
        Ron Amadeo / Nest
        MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.'--Don't be distracted by the shiny new "Nest" smart display that was just announced: Nest died at Google I/O 2019. "Google Nest" is the new reality now, where Nest is no longer a standalone company but instead is a sub-brand (not even a division) of Google. The shutdown of Nest as an independent company was announced in 2018, but the pile of announcements at and around I/O 2019 marks the first time we're seeing what the future of Nest looks like inside of Google.
        Nest laid out its future in an ominously titled "What's Happening" page on Nest.com and a notice on the Works with Nest page. It sounds like a brutal outcome for users, who are looking at a dead-end ecosystem, potentially broken smart homes, and the shattering of the Google/Nest privacy firewall.
        Meet the ''Google Nest Learning Thermostat''First up is Google's salvaging of the Nest brand as a general purpose smart home sub-brand. Just as Google has the "Pixel" brand for smartphones and laptops, it will now use the "Nest" brand similarly, so get used to saying and reading "Google Nest," which now means "a Google smart home product."
        The first item announced under this new branding was the
        Google Nest Hub Max, a bigger version of the
        Google Home Hub smart display. The original Home Hub is getting renamed as well and is now the Google Nest Hub.
        The new branding hasn't hit the Google Store yet, but dig through Google's help pages and you'll see that every Nest product has been renamed to "Google Nest." Now we have the "Google Nest Learning Thermostat," the "Google Nest Protect," "Google Nest Secure Alarm System," "Google Nest Hello" (this one is a doorbell), and the "Google Nest Cam IQ Outdoor." These are all a bit awkward and wordy, but they have nothing on the "Nest x Yale Lock with Google Nest connect," which is the actual name of a Nest door lock now.
        The takeaway here is that since Nest is not a standalone company anymore, "Nest" doesn't get to be a standalone product brand anymore. Officially, it will always be "Google Nest."
        So far, the Google Home speakers have not been renamed, but if Google is really serious about this, we might end up with "Google Nest Speakers" or something similar. Google Wi-Fi is also not yet called "Google Nest Wi-Fi." The Chromecast has not gotten a name change yet, either'--though as a streaming stick named after a Web browser, it still has the strangest branding of any Google product.
        Nest's smart home platform is deadEnlarge / "Works with Nest" will no longer work with Nest.
        Nest
        The second big thing to come out of the show is that Google is killing the "Works with Nest" platform. This was a smart home platform that would let the Nest thermostat act as a hub and coordinator for a lot of your other smart home products. A notice on the "Works with Nest" webpage reads, "Works with Nest is winding down." Google's smart home strategy will now revolve around only the "Works with Google Assistant" program, and Nest's ecosystem will shut down in a bit over three months, on August 31, 2019.
        I'm sure there are "Works with Nest" ecosystem users out there that bought products specifically because they "Worked with Nest." When the service shuts down in August, it sounds like all of those (probably expensive) third-party smart home products will stop working with any Nest-based automation workflows. This mandatory feature removal situation is pretty much a smart home owner's worst nightmare.
        Nest-branded products will continue to work with each other, but since "Works with Nest" was a program that let other services talk to Nest, a lot of third-party integrations will be going away. The Verge has a good rundown of just how many services are going to break, and it's a brutal who's who of smart home products. Amazon Alexa, Philips Hue, IFTTT, Logitech Harmony, Lutron lights, August Home, and Wemo switches will all be affected.
        Alexa, it seems, will be getting special treatment and will continue to work. Google has a special page for Alexa, which reads, "We are working with Amazon to migrate the Nest skill on Amazon Alexa to ensure a smooth transition for Nest customers prior to winding down the Works With Nest program in August." Google and Amazon have had trouble working together in the past, but they seem to have called a truce lately. Other services have not been so lucky, and there are already emails out from IFTTT, Lutron, and others declaring the death of their Nest integration.
        "Works with Nest" users will be facing a broken smart home and will have to pick up the scraps of their smart home ecosystem and MacGyver together another solution out of the pieces. The somewhat good news is that most smart home products are compatible with multiple smart home ecosystems, so it should be rare for something to turn into a complete brick. You'll just have to switch to a new ecosystem, go through a ton of setup, and be ready to deal with all the things that won't work the same way they worked before. Theoretically ,some of these services could continue to talk to Nest by supporting the Google Assistant system instead.
        "Works with Nest" was always a bit of a strange solution for smart home management. It made the thermostat the center of your smart home not because that made any sense from a smart home architecture perspective but because a thermostat was Nest's most popular product. "Works with Nest" didn't offer any kind of control interface for this ecosystem of smart devices, either. If you, for example, managed to find a "Works with Nest" smart lighting system, Nest didn't give you a way to actually control the lights'--just location detection through the Nest app.
        "Works with Google Assistant" is a voice and touch-centric smart home solution, which makes a lot more sense. The system revolves around Google Home speakers and Google Nest smart displays, which are both excellent control interfaces. You can turn on lights and lock doors with voice or touch commands; you can raise the temperature on a thermostat; and you can run routines that do a lot of these things at once.
        Nest accounts and data separation is deadAs part of the Googification of Nest, Nest accounts are being phased out of Google's smart home strategy. Existing users won't have their Nest accounts taken away, but the FAQ on Nest.com "strongly recommends" Nest users migrate to a Google account. Nest's FAQ warns that "As Nest offers new connected home devices and services in the future, many of those will only be available to our users with Google Accounts." New Nest users will be required to use a Google account.
        Migrating to a Google Account means turning all your Nest data over to Google'--data that previously had been kept separate. Google says it will use your Nest data in accordance with the Google Privacy Policy. Nest data includes a lot of scary feeds from motion sensors, cameras, and microphones and Google has a whole extra page up on "Google Nest Privacy" in the home, where it outlines three major principles:
        We will be transparent about the data we collect and whyWe will never sell your personal information to anyoneWe will empower you to review, move, or delete your data
        There are even special pages outlining principles and data retention for cameras, microphones, home sensors, and Wi-Fi data.
        Keeping the Nest data separate from Google was a big concession made when Google bought the company, designed to allay privacy fears. Now that that is going away, I would imagine some Nest users are not happy.
        Other Nest things that will probably die in the futureSo far it seems like the plan is to remove as many Nest-proprietary things as possible and get Nest people on Google versions of those products and services. Nest's website promises that "over the coming months, you'll begin seeing changes across our products, accounts, services, and policies as we bring everything together under Nest." It would not surprise me to hear that all of these "changes" involve shutting down a Nest product or service in favor of a Google version.
        We just had a clash between "Works with Nest" and "Works with Google Assistant," and the Nest product was shut down, so let's whip out our crystal ball and extend this to a few other points of crossover.
        The Google Home app versus the Nest AppEnlarge / The Nest app.
        Nest
        The app situation is a mess right now, with both a "Google Home" app and a "Nest" app. The Nest app is for thermostats, cameras, the security system, smoke detectors, and any other old Nest products, while the smart speakers, Chromecast, and "Google Nest" smart displays use the Google Home app.
        The Google Nest hardware rebranding muddies the app situation. People buying a newly branded Google Nest Hub or Google Nest Hub Max might be tempted to install the Nest app, but that would be
        wrong'--these products need to be set up in the Google Home app. The Nest Hub Max smart display has a camera on top, and while this is a "Nest cam" that can record video to Nest's security camera cloud system, the video feed is also viewable in the Google Home app.
        Having two smart home apps for inconsistently named products seems like a really clunky solution, and with the Google Home app already picking up some basic Nest camera compatibility, it would not surprise me to hear that the Nest app will shut down. As a Nest thermostat user, I would love for the Nest app to die because it's awful. It is unable to get basic functionality right, like reliable background location, which is kind of important for a "smart" thermostat designed to sync the house temperature with your comings and goings. Nest app crashes frequently and even when it does work, it doesn't follow any of Google's design language.
        The Nest transition FAQ page asks, "What will happen to the Nest app?" and gives a curt response of "At this time, the Nest app will continue to be available." Google could have answered this question with lots of flowery language about how great the Nest app is and how it empowers users to do more with their smart home ecosystem experience, but this answer instead makes it sound like the Nest app will be jettisoned as soon as Google Home re-implements all of its features.
        Nest Aware versus Google OneAnother overlap is in the area of cloud storage subscriptions, where Nest has Nest Aware and Google has Google One. Nest Aware gives you online storage of Nest Cam video footage for $5-$30 a month, depending on how far back you want your video history to go. Google One is an upsell for more storage on your Google Account. A basic Google account gets 15GB of storage for Gmail, Drive, documents, and photos, and Google One offers upgrades starting at 100GB for $2 a month and going to stratospherically high prices, like 30 terabytes for $300 a month.
        Double dipping on storage subscriptions would be pretty lame, but given that Nest products will start to use a Google account and Google One is for more storage on your Google account, it would make sense for Google One to give you storage for Nest camera footage. Google has other subscription products, but those are always for content, like ad-free YouTube, YouTube TV, or Google Music streaming. In these cases, Google is paying a third-party for content, and that money needs to come from somewhere.
        RIP Nest the company, hello Google NestNest
        While Google wanted to spin the Google Nest Hub Max unveiling at Google I/O as some kind of positive thing, it feels like we are witnessing the end of Nest as it used to be. The new "Google Nest" will be all Google, all the time, and anything that isn't a built-by-Google device, application, or service now seems like a legacy item. At some point in the future, it seems like only the brand will be left.
        I've gone to Nest product launches several times, and every time, the company would talk about how Nest was the most recognized brand in smart homes. Clearly Google still values the Nest mark and wants to keep the brand around inside Google, but first it has to go through a clumsy and awkward shutdown process, which will almost certainly be damaging to the brand's reputation with existing users (and anyone else paying attention).
        Google has been on a bit of a product shutdown rampage in 2019, and you can add "Works with Nest" to the list of things Google has murdered lately, along with Google Inbox, Google+ Google Hangouts, Google Music, and Chromecast Audio.
      With more options, the future of TV only gets more complicated - News - Austin American-Statesman - Austin, TX
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 19:44
        Omar L. Gallaga @omargFriday May 17, 2019 at 1:26 PM May 17, 2019 at 1:26 PM
        For the Hayden family, TV has gotten to be too much of a good thing.
        After years as loyal customers of Grande Communications for their internet, TV and digital phone service, the Austin family is going to keep the internet service, but cut the digital phone and TV programming. They're opting to wade into the booming TV streaming market that includes Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video and many others in order to shave their $220-a-month bill to less than $150, including internet service.
        But it wasn't only cost that was the deciding factor, said Tim Hayden, president of Austin's Brain+Trust Partners consultancy.
        ''We have way more TV than we need,'' he said. ''The reason we wanted to cut the cord is we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 channels and we only watch 10 of them with frequency.''
        Hayden, his wife and their 7-year-old son already subscribe to Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, CBS All Access and Nat Geo TV as well as MLB TV for Texas Rangers games. As part of their transition, they'll be spending about $300 to $400 for equipment to replace their cable DVR in order to record over-the-air broadcasts.
        But even with all those services, Hayden says he knows they won't be able to watch everything out there '-- and that's part of the point.
        ''When you look at the fantastic programming that is coming from HBO and Netflix and Amazon and Hulu, you make some sacrifices,'' he said. ''You start to understand that hey, maybe we're not going to watch 'Game of Thrones.' Maybe we're not going to pay that $10 a month for HBO Go. I'm not saying we're not going to, but in the near term, maybe we don't need all these things.''
        The Haydens are going through what a lot of peak TV-era viewers are right now: Evaluating where they want to spend their entertainment dollars and whether subscribing to a batch of online TV services is better and cheaper than what they can get with a cable or satellite TV subscription.
        A research survey released in March from consulting firm Deloitte found that for the first time, more Americans are paying for internet video services than are paying for cable and satellite.
        Guy Bisson, research director with Ampere Analysis, said consumers are, on average, taking on two or three streaming services at a time. With new TV services arriving this year from Apple and Disney, in addition to some that could emerge from movie studios, Bisson says the number of streaming subscriptions customers are willing to pay for might grow.
        ''The real question is at what point does it stop or cap out,'' Bisson said. ''In the medium or long term, that ceiling will be breached; people will take much more than two or three services.''
        So what's a cord-cutter or someone who just wants to get the best mix of TV programming supposed to do?
        Not everyone will have the patience or strategic sense to reexamine their options every six months, as the Haydens plan to do. But a sense of the streaming-TV landscape over the next few months might help, and some mythbusting couldn't hurt.
        In the interest of helping you make your own plan of attack for TV watching, let's take a look at some claims you might read on the very unreliable internet, and see if they hold weight:
        Claim: It's getting easier to cut the cord and you should do it.
        On the surface, this is true. Pretty much any new HDTV you buy today has streaming TV channels built in. If you have an internet connection, you can access them easily that way or with an inexpensive Roku or Amazon Fire TV add-on device.
        But if you're comparing ease of use of services such as Hulu and HBO Now to turning on a cable box and flipping channels, you start to realize that it's not that simple for everyone. Those with poor internet connections, or who don't want to deal with remembering logins and passwords, or hunting for programming across multiple services, could end up missing their old cable package.
        Claim: Streaming TV is cheaper than cable
        Again, this seems true now for people who are subscribing to two or three services at a time, but if you factor in TV/internet bundles that offer discounts, the rising prices of services such as Netflix (which had a recent price hike and can cost up to $15.99 a month) and the sheer number of services we'll eventually have, some might end up paying more to get all the programming they don't want to miss.
        Bisson predicts that movie studios such as Warner Bros. will follow Disney's lead and start their own streaming services, further fragmenting the market.
        ''The key there is they own all the content or the majority of the powerful content brands,'' he said. ''When they start to remove content from other services, that will impact their competition; that will impact and change the market.''
        Claim: Cable TV and satellite operators will be left behind by internet streaming
        This might have been true before industry consolidation created tech/content behemoths that not only control the internet pipes, but who also own entertainment brands of their own. Your (AT&T-owned) DirecTVs and (Charter-owned, Time Warner-adjacent) Spectrums are going to be doing their own TV streaming and partnering and try to steer you to their own original shows and movies.
        Bisson says some viewers could choose to re-attach the cord if these companies consolidate TV packages in an attractive way with so-called ''skinny bundles,'' or full-blown subscriptions that integrate Netflix and other streaming TV into their own offerings, something Apple plans to do as well.
        ''Right now, it's very distinct when you go in and out of interfaces and applications,'' he said. ''Once that can be integrated, it might be through Apple TV or a TV operator, the distinctions start to disappear.''
        Claim: Netflix's growth is slowing and the company is vulnerable
        Netflix has been so dominant in the streaming TV market that it's fashionable to predict that the service will eventually take a fall or be overtaken by something better.
        But even as the company's growth has slowed in the U.S., it still has a staggering 139 million subscribers worldwide and is continuing to expand rapidly overseas.
        Bisson said that when viewers take on multiple streaming services, Netflix is usually the first one they choose.
        ''It's the gateway drug for streaming,'' he said. The company's offerings, with about 300 originals currently in production, are ''second to none,'' Bisson said.
        A recent price hike caused a lot of grumbling, but the $2-on-average Netflix price increase is going to help the company become cash-flow positive, he said.
        ''Their finances are going to look very different,'' Bisson said. ''They'll be able to spend at least at the rate they are now, if not at a greater rate.''
        How much does Netflix spend on original programming? It's expected to shell out $15 billion in 2019 alone.
        Claim: Apple and Disney are going to disrupt the streaming-TV market
        Apple TV Plus is scheduled to launch in the fall with original programming from Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams and others. But it hasn't announced a subscription price and its few dozen planned movies and shows are likely to be dwarfed by the number of offerings on competing services, at least at first.
        Apple has mountains of money to spend on content, but its original video programming to date has consisted of ''Carpool Karaoke'' and ... some other shows and concerts that have been less than memorable.
        Its big advantage is reach; as with Apple Music, it can push the service to its many, many iPhone, iPad and Apple TV customers and play the long game.
        Disney, on the other hand, is bursting with popular content, from its deep library of animated films, to ''Avengers: Endgame,'' which will debut on Disney Plus on Dec. 11. Movies such as ''Black Panther,'' ''Incredibles 2'' and ''Star Wars: The Last Jedi'' will disappear from Netflix and move over to Disney Plus.
        Disney also owns ESPN and has a big stake in Hulu, which means it will likely offer bundle of those services with its $6.99 Disney Plus.
        It's too early to say which service will make the bigger splash, but the smart money might be on Disney, at least at the outset.
        Claim: You'll have to pay a bundle no matter what you do
        A lot of what we've talked about so far mostly applies to people who are consuming a lot of television, the kind of viewer who wants to be up to date on ''Stranger Things,'' ''The Handmaid's Tale'' and ''The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel'' in addition to what's on broadcast TV and cable channels such as Comedy Central and HBO.
        But if you're not so hooked on television, you might save a bundle of money by simply opting out of bundles (skinny or otherwise), limiting yourself to a single streaming TV subscription at a time, or just getting a decent HDTV antenna and enjoying live television for free, something Tim Hayden encourages.
        ''With an HD antenna, you can pick up about 55 to 65 different signals in the Austin area,'' he said. ''What we've found is you can get about 30 of them very clean, with 1080 resolution coming in.''
        Almost every streaming service, from Netflix to HBO Now to Hulu, has a free trial period where you can stream and binge to your heart's content to decide if you really want to subscribe. That's more than enough time to catch up on a few seasons of ''Game of Thrones'' or ''The Crown'' without paying a dime.
        Examining what you're willing to pay for streaming TV, cable, satellite or additional hardware could bring you to the realization that you should be downsizing anyway.
        Hayden said that while most cord cutters are trying to do a 1-to-1 replacement of their programming with streaming services, he's not as interested in the all-you-can-watch approach.
        ''We're trying" he said, "to whittle this down to what we need to watch.''
    BTC
      Baltimore Resists Bitcoin Ransom to Enter Second Week of Lockdown
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Source: BitcoinNews.com
        Fri, 17 May 2019 13:03
        Baltimore City continues to resist the demands of hackers who have managed to infiltrate and lock its government systems, ensuring that the city has essentially remained in lockdown mode since 7 May 2019.
        The ransomware attack has shut down systems essential for completing home sales, halting property deals in Baltimore during one of the busiest times of the year. https://t.co/znfzgXyJvJ
        '-- The Baltimore Sun (@baltimoresun) May 14, 2019
        The ''Robbinhood'' ransomware attack has placed the local government under siege for two weeks now, forcing it to return to an analog age for most aspects of daily life. Real estate purchases, for example, cannot be carried out because records are simply inaccessible and new ones cannot be filed.
        Its incoming mayor, Bernard Young, who will be replacing ousted ex-mayor Catherine Pugh, has remained steadfast and refused to pay the BTC 13 (now worth USD 104,000) that was demanded by the hackers. So far, law enforcement and its online tax portal for property are affected, but city departments are seeking workarounds.
        Critics are saying that the refusal to pay could incur even more costs later on, but Baltimore, whose population is at 600,000 people, has already lost money, including some USD 2 million spent this year for upgrading storage. Those new systems have now been irreparably damaged.
        The ransomware hackers apparently released some names and passwords from the hack on Twitter, teasing the FBI with a message: ''We've watching [sic] you for days and we've worked on your systems to gain full access to your company and bypass all of your protections.''
        Follow BitcoinNews.com on Twitter: @bitcoinnewscom
        Telegram Alerts from BitcoinNews.com: https://t.me/bconews
        Want to advertise or get published on BitcoinNews.com? '' View our Media Kit PDF here.
        Image Courtesy: Pixabay
    Algo's
      This AI-generated Joe Rogan fake has to be heard to be believed - The Verge
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 19:58
        Artificial intelligence isn't creating fake photos and videos '-- it can do fake voices, too.
        Up until now, these voices have been noticeably stilted and robotic, but researchers from AI startup Dessa have created what is by far the most convincing voice clone we've ever heard '-- perfectly mimicking the sound of MMA-commentator-turned-podcaster Joe Rogan.
        Listen to clips of Dessa's AI Rogan below, or take a quiz on the company's site to see if you can spot the difference between real Rogan and faux Rogan. (It's surprisingly hard!)
        In terms of making a convincing fake, Dessa chose its target well. Rogan is probably the world's most popular podcaster, and has recorded nearly 1,300 episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience to date. That provides ample training data for any AI system.
        It doesn't hurt that the company's engineers are obviously familiar with Rogan's favorite talking points. Speculating about whether or not we're living in a computer simulation, or admiring the upper body strength of chimps '-- that's all prime Rogan material.
        But of course, being able to convincingly fake someone's voice has disturbing implications, too. As Dessa's engineers note in a blog post, malicious uses cases for fake voices include spam calls that impersonate your loved ones; using fake voices to bully or harass people; and creating misinformation through faked recordings of politicians.
        ''Clearly, the societal implications for technologies like speech synthesis are massive,'' Dessa writes. ''And the implications will affect everyone. Poor consumers and rich consumers. Enterprises and governments.''
        Fake AI voices could be used for misinformation, but they could also improve technology
        The company notes there are benefits as well. These include the creation of more realistic AI assistants; quicker and more accurate dubbing for TV and film; and designing realistic, personalized synthetic voices for individuals with speech impairments.
        We've reached out to Dessa for more information about their work, but the company says because of the possibility of malicious uses it won't be releasing its research in full or making its AI models publicly accessible. (A stance we've seen from larger AI labs like OpenAI, which controversially withheld the final version of its text-generating AI system.)
        Although there's a good argument to be made that fears about deepfakes are overblown (the technology has been available for years but a fake has yet to impact mainstream politics), it's also clear that the technology is only going to improve and become more accessible in the future.
        ''Right now, technical expertise, ingenuity, computing power and data are required to make models like RealTalk perform well,'' says the company. ''But in the next few years (or even sooner), we'll see the technology advance to the point where only a few seconds of audio are needed to create a life-like replica of anyone's voice on the planet.''
        Listening to AI Joe Rogan talk about chimps ripping your balls off is, strangely, only the beginning.
        Update 2.40PM ET: In an Instagram post, Rogan responded to the Dessa voice clone, saying: ''At this point I've long ago left enough content out there that they could basically have me saying anything they want, so my position is to shrug my shoulders and shake my head in awe, and just accept it. The future is gonna be really fucking weird, kids.''
    Clips
      VIDEO - Hertz has a pattern of mistakenly reporting cars stolen leaving customers arrested, attorney says
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 13:17
        Consumers around the country are sharing the tales of renting a car to then be accused of stealing it by Florida-based rental car giant, Hertz.
        "Seven hours I was detained," said Dina Johnson of Cleveland, Ohio. Johnson was on her way back from visiting family in Canada last year when border patrol agents told her to pull off to the side and turn off the engine of the rental car she was driving.
        "I'm terrified. Reliving it is unbearable," Johnson said of the moment she learned the car she was driving was stolen.
        "They gave me a stolen car!"
        Turns out, the car belonged to another rental car company that had reported it stolen a few days earlier. Yet, a Hertz agent processed the rental and put her in the car.
        Johnson has hired an attorney.
        So has Magalie Sterlin who says her 2017 rental from a Hertz in South Florida left this mother of one facing the barrel of multiple guns after she was stopped during a checkpoint.
        "They had me a gunpoint. I'm like what's going on?" Sterlin says. The officer then told her the car was reported stolen. "I'm like what? I said that's impossible because I rented this car," she says. Sterlin ended up getting arrested and was jailed for a half-a-day. In her police report Sterlin told officers "she did not return the vehicle despite the employee asking her." But Sterlin claims Hertz called her a few days earlier and told her to return the car because the registration was about to expire. She says, Hertz agreed she could return the car Monday instead of Thursday. She was arrested on Sunday.
        "When I got out of jail I was told there was a glitch in the system," she said.
        Her Philadelphia-based attorney, Francis Alexander, says Hertz's "glitch" has a created a company-wide pattern of wrongly reporting cars stolen and customers, he says, are paying the price.
        "Now we're talking about 10-20-30 cases all over the country," Alexander said. One client of his in Pennsylvania was arrested and charged before a judge threw her case out. Another client in Indiana settled her case with Hertz after she too, was wrongly arrested and wrongly accused of stealing the vehicle she rented from Hertz.
        "The problem is Hertz has broken computer systems. They have broken policies around standard operating procedures and, as a result of that, good people are being thrown in jail. It's shocking, it's bad and it needs to stop," he said.
        But Estero, FL based Hertz, which manages a fleet of 800,00 vehicles and processes tens of millions of rentals each year, is driving home another point.
        "False reports of stolen vehicles are extremely rare," said Hertz spokesperson Tressie Rose, told us in a statement. "When it has occurred, it has been the result of unique and extenuating circumstances. In the rare instance an error within our controls has occurred we take responsibility," she said.
        The bizarre incidents have consumer protection experts who love to give advice at a standstill.
        "What can you do if you find yourself in a position like this" asked Bill Newton of Florida's Consumer Action Network. "It sounds like the plot of a movie," Newton said.
        If that's the case, the end of Magalie Sterln's movie is still in the works.
        "I've been fighting this case for about 2 years," she said. Sterlin has pled not guilty to a third degree felony for failing to return a rental car. Hertz, in response, told us ''filing a report is a last resort and maintains it followed its overdue rental process in her case including extensive communication with the renter over the course of several weeks.'' Sterlin stands by her story.
        Dina Johnson's movie is also still playing out in lawyer talks. This month marks one year since Hertz put this grandmother in someone else's stolen car.
        "Seven longest hours of my life. The humiliation, I'm just in shock," she said.
        Statements from Hertz More from the Florida Investigative Team Florida Teachers: Failing and Frustrated Florida is key player in medical device fraud scheme described as one of largest in U.S. history Fla. lawmakers want schools to do more to protect kids from lead exposure, but who will pay for it? Copyright 2019 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
      VIDEO - Goldman: Apple's earnings would drop by nearly 30% if China bans its products
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 11:32
        CEO of Apple Tim Cook attends China Development Forum 2019 at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse on March 23, 2019 in Beijing, China.
        VCG | Getty Images
        The U.S.-China trade war could take a big chunk out of Apple's bottom line if China retaliates by banning its products, according to an analyst at Goldman Sachs.
        Analyst Rod Hall said in a note to clients that Apple's earnings could drop by 29% if the company's products were banned in mainland China. The analyst cut his price target on Apple to $178 per share from $184, representing a 4.6% downside from Tuesday's close of $186.60.
        Apple's China business accounted for more than 17% of its sales in its fiscal second quarter, coming in at $10.22 billion. The company also sells billions of dollar worth in iPhones every year in China.
        "Should China restrict iPhone production in any way we do not believe the company would be able to shift much iPhone volume outside of China on short notice," Hall said. "We believe that Apple is near its annual rapid ramp of new iPhone production to prepare for new device launches in the Fall so even a short term action affecting production could have longer term consequences for the company."
        Hall also noted that China's "tech ecosystem" and local employment could take a hit if Apple products are banned. Most of Apple's supply chain rests in mainland China, including the iPhone's final assembly, which is executed at Foxconn.
        Apple shares are down 7% for the month through Tuesday's close as China and the U.S. ratchet up trade fears. The U.S. hiked tariffs on $200 billions worth of Chinese goods earlier in May. China retaliated by raising levies on $60 billion worth of U.S. imports.
        Hall is not the only analyst raising concern over Apple's exposure to China. On Monday, HSBC analyst Erwan Rambourg cut his price target on the tech giant to $174 per share from $180. Meanwhile, Credit Suisse analyst Matthew Cabral said Tuesday that Apple's earnings per share would fall by about 15 cents a share for every 5% drop in Greater China sales.
        WATCH: Chinese 'nationalism' hurting iPhone sales in China
        Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.
      VIDEO - Tom Elliott on Twitter: "Actor Jeff Daniels: It's "the end of democracy" if voters elect Trump president again in 2020.'... "
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 11:27
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. BREAKS HIS SILENCE - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 11:24
      VIDEO - Feds bring new charges against lawyer Michael Avenatti for misappropriating nearly $300,000 from former client Stormy Daniels - ABC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 11:14
        Federal prosecutors in New York charged Michael Avenatti with additional financial crimes Wednesday, including allegedly forging the signature of his former client Stormy Daniels and diverting nearly $300,000 owed to her for a book advance into his own account, according to court records filed on Wednesday.
        Interested in Michael Avenatti? Add Michael Avenatti as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Michael Avenatti news, video, and analysis from ABC News.Prosecutors said that he then used money he took from Daniels to make monthly payments on his Ferrari, as well as to cover airfare, dry cleaning, hotels and restaurant bills, as well as payroll and insurance costs for his law firm's employees.
        The new charges accuse Avenatti of misappropriating money that was supposed to be paid to Daniels when Avenatti was representing the adult film actress in her public battle against President Trump and his former attorney Michael Cohen.
        "Avenatti used misrepresentations and a fraudulent document purporting to bear his client's name and signature to convince his client's literary agent to divert money owed to Avenatti's client to an account controlled by Avenatti," Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said in a statement. "Avenatti then spent the money principally for his own personal and business purposes."
        Federal prosecutors in Manhattan -- who have already accused Avenatti of extortion in a case involving Nike -- also indicted him separately on extortion charges in the Nike case on Wednesday.
        On Wednesday, Avenatti denied the fraud and identity theft charges to ABC News, saying that ''No monies relating to Ms. Daniels were ever misappropriated or mishandled."
        "She received millions of dollars worth of legal services and we expended huge sums in expenses," he wrote in a statement to ABC News.
        "She directly paid only $100.00 (not a typo) for all that she received."
        Not so, said Berman in a statement.
        Federal prosecutors charge in court papers that Avenatti forged Daniels signature on a document for the purpose of diverting the funds she was owed into an account of his own, and leaving Daniels with the impression that the publishing house she was contracted with to write a book had not delivered the promised advances.
        "A month after diverting one payment of $148,750 into his own account, Avenatti allegedly used funds received from another source to pay" Daniels, prosecutors said in the statement.
        One week after that, according to prosecutors, Avenatti diverted a second payment of $148,750 to Daniels into his own account.
        "To conceal his scheme, and despite repeated requests to Avenatti as [Daniels'] lawyer, for assistance in obtaining the book payment that [Daniels] believed was missing, Avenatti led [her] to believe that [her] publisher was refusing to make the payment...," prosecutors claim.
        Avenatti "abused and violated the core duty of an attorney -- the duty to his client," Berman charged in the statement. "As alleged, he used his position of trust to steal an advance on the client's book deal. As alleged, he blatantly lied to and stole from his client to maintain his extravagant lifestyle, including to pay for, among other things, a monthly car payment on a Ferrari. Far from zealously representing his client, Avenatti, as alleged, instead engaged in outright deception and theft, victimizing rather than advocating for his client."
        In a subsequent statement to ABC News after the charges were filed, Avenatti again reiterated his innocence and said he was entitled to the money from the book advance.
        "I look forward to a jury hearing all of the evidence and passing judgment on my conduct," Avenatti wrote in the statement. "At no time was any money misappropriated or mishandled. I will be fully exonerated once the relevant emails, contracts, text messages, and documents are presented. I was entitled to any monies retained relating to a book per my agreement with the client. It was part of my agreement for representation and compensation.
        Daniels' current attorney, Clark Brewster, had a different take when contacted by ABC News.
        ''I doubt Michael Avenatti is looking forward to jury hearing evidence about his blatant dishonesty and embezzlement of Stormy's book advances," Brewster told ABC News. "If that sentiment is true he has a delusional disorder that merits attention.''
        News of prosecutors' inquiry into his business dealings with Daniels marks the latest legal blow for Avenatti, coming after federal prosecutors on both coasts unsealed charges against the controversial 48-year-old attorney.
        The Daniels investigation is not related to those charges. But it is being run by the same team of federal officials who slapped Avenatti with two counts of extortion for his alleged role in what prosecutors called ''an old-fashioned shakedown'' of Nike.
        He and another celebrity lawyer, Mark Geragos, allegedly threatened to release damaging information about the sportswear giant if it refused to pay the two attorneys millions of dollars. Geragos was not charged with a crime.
        In the Central District of California, prosecutors targeted Avenatti with wire- and bank-fraud charges in a scheme that included stealing funds from a client to pay off his own expenses.
        Avenatti gained prominence last year when he began representing Daniels in a defamation lawsuit against Trump. A federal judge in California later threw out the suit and ordered Daniels to reimburse Trump for legal fees.
      VIDEO - Kellyanne Conway, Nancy Pelosi clash after Trump meeting with Democrats was cut short | Fox News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 11:13
        White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, had a terse exchange after a meeting between President Trump and Democratic lawmakers was cut short on Wednesday.
        Trump scrapped the meeting, which was slated as an opportunity to discuss the country's infrastructure, after Pelosi told reporters that the president "engaged in a cover-up" following a meeting with her caucus.
        After Trump left the room, Conway asked the Speaker if she had a "direct response to the president," Fox News confirmed.
        TRUMP DEMANDS END TO 'PHONY INVESTIGATIONS' IN FIERY ROSE GARDEN STATEMENT, AFTER MEETING WITH DEMS CUT SHORT
        "I'm responding to the president, not staff," Pelosi shot back.
        Conway slammed Pelosi's dismissal of her.
        "Really great. That's really pro-woman of you,'' the White House counselor is said to have responded.
        PELOSI RATCHETS UP RHETORIC, SAYS TRUMP MAY HAVE COMMITTED 'IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE' IN 'PLAIN SIGHT'
        The tense moment came before Trump blasted Democratic lawmakers with his remarks from the Rose Garden, telling reporters, "I don't do cover-ups."
        ''You can't do it under these circumstances,'' Trump said about negotiating with Democrats. ''Get these phony investigations over with.''
        CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
        Pelosi doubled down on her accusation at the Center for American Progress 2019 Ideas Conference Wednesday afternoon.
        ''The fact is, in plain sight, in the public domain, this president is obstructing justice and he's engaged in a cover-up. And that could be an impeachable offense,'' Pelosi said.
      VIDEO - Theresa May set to go after Andrea Leadsom quits over Brexit fiasco and Cabinet try to force her from power
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 03:27
        ISOLATED Theresa May was last night holed up in No10 amid an extraordinary Cabinet bid to force her from power.
        Brexiteer Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom quit over the PM's bid to offer MPs the chance of a second EU referendum.
        London News Pictures
        A tearful Theresa May has been left isolated and holed up in No10 Andrea Leadsom arriving back at her London home following her resignationPA:Press Association
        Andrea Leadsom's letter of resignationAnd seven other Cabinet ministers also told No10 they will not back Mrs May '-- a clear signal for her to step down.
        But the PM refused to budge, with aides saying: ''She is going nowhere until she gets Brexit done.''
        Mrs May even refused a series of ministers' demands for face-to-face talks, scrapping an appointment with Scottish Secretary David Mundell with ten minutes' notice.
        Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith last night joked that Mrs May was virtually barricading herself in at Downing Street '-- saying: ''The sofa is up against the door, she's not leaving.''
        Cabinet rebels are furious at Mrs May for saying the Government will legislate for a second referendum, insisting they agreed only to offer the Commons a vote on it.
        One minister said: ''It's not just her intention of legis­lating for a second refer­endum. It's also become a clear reality the PM is no longer getting a hearing, so someone else now needs to do it.''
        Mrs May's bleary-eyed look was reminiscent of ex-PM Margaret Thatcher' tears after she quit in 1990.
        News Group Newspapers Ltd
        The Sun's coverage of Margaret Thatcher's departure from office as PMAfter her resignation, Leadsom delivered a withering personal attack on Theresa May '-- accusing her of blowing Brexit and calling on her to quit ''in the interests of the country''.
        The PM's ex-leadership rival reignited their long-running feud with a devastating letter to Mrs May while resigning as Leader of the Commons.
        In it she came close to hinting Mrs May had lied to the Cabinet by failing to consult ministers, which saw a second referendum plan passed without their say-so.
        It also emerged that 76 Tory MPs '-- a quarter of her party '-- are now vowing to vote down her deal.
        Tomorrow the PM faces a crunch showdown with Tory kingmaker Sir Graham Brady.
        He will tell her she must name her departure date by the end of the day '-- or face being forced out by his powerful 1922 executive committee within days.
        The 18-strong group, which governs party leadership rules, yesterday decided to give Mrs May 48 hours to leave No10 with ''dignity''.
        AP:Associated Press
        Mrs May unveiled her controversial 'new deal' on Brexit on Wednesday in a desperate bid to win round Labour MPs' support to help pass itLondon News Pictures
        Theresa May exits Downing Street's back gate last night as calls for her to go come from all sidesPA:Press Association
        In a devastating blow, Brexiteer Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom quit over the PM's bid to offer MPs the chance of a second EU referendumMembers had held a secret ballot on whether to change Tory rules to hold a fresh no confidence vote in her leadership, with their votes sealed in envelopes.
        If she does not stand down, the envelopes will be opened by Sir Graham. One 1922 executive said last night there was ''a clear majority'' in the room for a rule change.
        The senior MP added: ''Theresa will have to go on Friday, whatever happens now.''
        Former minister Tim Loughton was among Tory MPs who sent new letters to Sir Graham calling for her to go.
        He even tweeted a photo of the addressed envelope, with the words: ''Enough said.''
        On another day of high drama in Westminster;
        Tory kingmaker Sir Graham Brady will tell Theresa May she must name her departure date on Friday or face being forced out by his powerful committee within days.Labour chief Jeremy Corbyn refused to engage with the PM, telling her it would be pointless because ''she only has a few days left in the job''.Desperate Tory and Labour chiefs attacked Nigel Farage in a last-ditch bid to stop him trouncing them at the Euro elections, as the nation goes to the polls.Senior ministers demanded meetings with the Prime Minister to tell her NOT to offer MPs a chance to vote on a second Brexit referendum - but she refused to meet themDozens of Tories - including previously loyal backers of Mrs May - say she has now run out of road and must resign as soon as possible and leave Brexit to her successorThe Chief Whip told party bosses she was not planning to stand down last night and instead will hold a crunch showdown with the Tory backbench chief tomorrow - after today's Euro electionsTory grandees pulled back from changing party rules so the leader can be removed immediatelyThe PM's DUP allies warned she is leaving Britain at the mercy of the EUANDREA'S THREE-YEAR WAIT FOR REVENGE
        COMMONS Leader Andrea Leadsom was Theresa May's rival for the Tory leadership '-- and her stinging resignation letter was her revenge served three years later.
        Mrs Leadsom quit last night with a devastating attack on the Prime Minister's latest Brexit climbdown and her handling of Cabinet tensions.
        But it was just the boiling over of the simmering antagonism between the pair.
        Mrs Leadsom, a former banker and married mum of three, had been a prominent Leave supporter in the referendum campaign. She stood against Remain-backing Mrs May after David Cameron resigned as PM in 2016.
        The women made it to the final two but then Mrs Leadsom gave a disastrous interview in which she appeared to suggest she was a better choice for PM because she had children.
        She claimed this meant she had a ''stake in the future'' by contrast with Mrs May who cannot have children for health reasons.
        Mrs Leadsom, 56, told a newspaper back then that Mrs May only had ''nieces, nephews'', adding: ''But I have children who are going to have children who will directly be part of what happens next.''
        She withdrew from the contest soon after the controversy and so cleared the path for Mrs May to enter Downing Street.
        The new Prime Minister appointed Mrs Leadsom as her Environment Secretary only to demote her to Commons Leader in a reshuffle after the disastrous 2017 General Election.
        Then last summer it emerged Mrs Leadsom had attacked Mrs May's doomed Chequers plan '-- telling colleagues how she ''hated'' it for breaching Government red lines on Brexit.
        Afterwards Mrs Leadsom did not quit the Cabinet but is believed to have been unpopular in No'Š10 for her hardline stance. Last month she made more waves by claiming that No Deal would not be ''nearly as grim as many would advocate''.
        Mrs Leadsom has also repeatedly clashed with Commons Speaker John Bercow. Last year she confronted him over claims he called her a ''stupid woman''.
        But, as Commons Leader, Mrs Leadsom has also been central in tackling the ''Pestminster'' culture of sexual harassment and bullying.
        In 2017, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon was forced to quit after she accused him of making lewd comments to her.
        By Martin Beckford, Whitehall Editor '‹Theresa May delivers her ten point Brexit plan to the Commons'‹Seven other Cabinet ministers also told No10 they won't back Mrs May's high stakes final Brexit gamble '-- a clear signal for her to step down.
        Others in the top table revolt include Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Home Secretary Sajid Javid, Environment Secretary Michael Gove, Trade Secretary Liam Fox, Treasury Chief Secretary Liz Truss and Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay.
        In the event of a new Tory leadership contest, former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson would be a front-runner. But allies said Mrs Leadsom is considering whether to mount a new Tory leadership challenge to succeed Mrs May.
        It would be her second tilt at the top job following her controversial bid in 2016 when she was forced to withdraw after appearing to suggest she was a better choice for the PM because she had children.
        In her resignation letter, Mrs Leadsom said the PM's plans would fail to ''deliver on the referendum result''.
        She acknowledged that leaving on the eve of today's European elections was damaging but she insisted she had to quit as she was ''fundamentally opposed'' to the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which she was due to unveil to MPs today.
        STARMER BREAKS RANKS TO BACK PEOPLE'S VOTE
        SHADOW Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer broke ranks with Jeremy Corbyn yesterday to demand a People's Vote.
        He said Theresa May should put a firm proposal for a ''public vote'' in legislation.
        He spoke as Labour peer and former EastEnders actor Michael Cashman, 68, quit the party and said he would vote for the Lib Dems in today's European elections.
        PA:Press Association
        Theresa May's letter to Andrea Leadsom'URGE YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS'Hinting that the PM had lied to the Cabinet after her second referendum plan passed without their say-so, she wrote: ''There has been such a breakdown of Government processes that recent Brexit-related legislative proposals have not been properly scrutinised or approved by Cabinet.''
        And in a call for Mrs May to stand down in the national interest, Mrs Leadsom finished her letter by saying: ''I fully respect the integrity, resolution and determination that you have shown during your time as Prime Minister.
        ''No one has wanted you to succeed more than I have, but I do now urge you to make the right decisions in the interests of the country, this Government and our party.''
        Senior No10 staff were given no warning about Mrs Leadsom's departure, and she rang the PM to inform her of the decision only 30 minutes before making it public shortly before 8pm last night. Downing Street issued only a curt response, with a spokesman saying Mrs Leadsom had served ''with distinction and great ability''.
        Mrs May said she was ''sorry'' Mrs Leadsom was off, praising her ''passion, drive and sincerity''.
        THE SUN SAYS
        THOSE who predicted Theresa May would be a poor Prime Minister have regrettably been vindicated.
        In fairness, her task has been harder than any predecessor's since Winston Churchill. It became all but impossible after she blew her majority in 2017.
        Even so, Mrs May and her woeful Cabinet of mainly third-rate friends have failed on Brexit and the social justice mission she initially championed. Andrea Leadsom cannot bear to be a part of it any longer.
        All PMs want a ''legacy''. It can be the only reason Mrs May has clung on so long.
        And though she will leave office with none to speak of, she can at least retain her dignity in defeat.
        Even that is ebbing way.
        PA:Press Association
        Boris Johnson has continued to push for Mrs May to quitPA:Press Association
        Sajid Javid is part of the Cabinet revolt - and has requested a meeting with the PMPA:Press Association
        Cabinet plotter Jeremy Hunt leave the Houses of ParliamentPA:Press Association
        Sir Graham Brady - the chair of the 1922 Committee - has given Mrs May a 48-hour deadline to leave No10 with her 'dignity' intactShe said she was ''grateful for the support given over the last three years'' in working to deliver Brexit.
        But the PM said she believed Mrs Leadsom was wrong to argue that the deal negotiated with the EU meant the UK ''will not become a sovereign country''.
        In a further sign of the PM's support slipping away, eight junior ministers led by Nadhim Zahawi pleaded for a meeting with her after deciding they couldn't support the Withdrawal Agreement Bill due to the second referendum pledge.
        They were snubbed after putting their request to Chief Whip Julian Smith.
        Mr Zahawi told The Sun: ''We decided we had to act.
        ''It's a matter of credibility now. We've been arguing all along that a second referendum would lead to more uncertainty and division. We just cannot offer one.''
        MORE 'DIVISION AND DEADLOCK'In a statement after the 1922 Committee meeting, Sir Graham said he would meet the PM tomorrow and then consult with the 1922 executive. Tory MPs were told of tomorrow's meeting last night.
        It came amid a growing rebellion of Tory MPs to Mrs May's ''new'' Brexit deal, which she outlined on Tuesday.
        The number opposed to the deal has more than doubled since the speech, which promised MPs a vote on a second referendum and customs union.
        Crucially it means Mrs May must now win over more than 70 Labour MPs to have any chance of getting her deal through the Commons.
        The PM even lost several loyal Tory MPs who have voted for the deal on all three previous occasions '-- including Martin Vickers, Robert Halfon and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Despite scores of MPs coming out against the deal, Mrs May pushed ahead with a Commons statement pleading with them to support her faltering plans.
        She said that another rejection would plunge Britain back into yet more ''division and deadlock''.
        And unveiling her deal to the Commons, she insisted the Government would ''make provisions'' for a second referendum if MPs voted for one.
        Furious People's Vote backers said the commitment didn't go far enough for them to back her Brexit bill.
        ANGER AS PM SHUNS NO DEAL
        THERESA May incensed Brexit-backing Ministers by killing off a Cabinet No Deal debate despite calls for a ''step change'' in preparation, we can reveal.
        Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay implored the Government to increase contingency planning.
        He said a ''cliff-edge'' exit on October 31 would be ''far worse'' for business than March 29 and warned of pre-Christmas warehousing shortages.
        But the PM stunned Brexiteers in Tuesday's Cabinet by postponing a vote on No Deal work until after the half term break. Yesterday, she claimed a No Deal could threaten the Union's future and leave Britain more vulnerable to terrorists.
        The PM agreed with MP Richard Graham that Brexit Party chief Nigel Farage's ''superficially seductive'' line about leaving on WTO terms was dangerous.
        She said the UK's security relationships with the EU27 was ''fundamental'' to keeping the country safe, yet leaving with no deal would close them off.
        Exclusive by Steve HawkesAdditional reporting; Kate Ferguson and Martin Beckford
        GOT a story? RING The Sun on 0207 782 4104 or WHATSAPP on 07423720250 or EMAIL exclusive@the-sun.co.uk
      VIDEO - OPUS 153 Lessons for Prez Xi - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 02:34
      VIDEO - John C. Dvorak on Twitter: "one of these days it is pretty funny how douchebags attract each other'... "
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 01:32
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - Watch CNBC's full interview with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 16:40
        You May Like'¹
        05:47
        05:47 | 12:17 PM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        02:05
        02:05 | 12:37 PM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        06:00
        06:00 | 11:40 AM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        02:31
        02:31 | 10:59 AM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        04:49
        04:49 | 9:28 AM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        04:36
        04:36 | 9:14 AM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        01:52
        01:52 | 9:50 AM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        'º
        '¹
        06:49
        06:49 | 1:08 PM ET Thu, 18 April 2019
        05:25
        05:25 | 5:00 PM ET Tue, 30 April 2019
        03:09
        03:09 | 7:25 AM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        09:22
        09:22 | 5:08 PM ET Fri, 17 May 2019
        10:30
        10:30 | 8:17 AM ET Sun, 19 May 2019
        02:46
        02:46 | 4:19 PM ET Fri, 17 May 2019
        04:26
        04:26 | 11:02 AM ET Fri, 17 May 2019
        01:00
        01:00 | 2:35 PM ET Thu, 16 May 2019
        01:37
        01:37 | 1:00 PM ET Thu, 16 May 2019
        04:52
        04:52 | 11:50 AM ET Wed, 15 May 2019
        01:41
        01:41 | 10:18 AM ET Wed, 15 May 2019
        02:10
        02:10 | 9:42 AM ET Tue, 14 May 2019
        04:03
        04:03 | 11:59 AM ET Tue, 14 May 2019
        02:38
        02:38 | 7:00 AM ET Mon, 13 May 2019
        01:30
        01:30 | 11:50 AM ET Mon, 13 May 2019
        01:41
        01:41 | 2:01 PM ET Fri, 10 May 2019
        12:55
        12:55 | 6:49 PM ET Fri, 10 May 2019
        01:25
        01:25 | 1:01 PM ET Fri, 10 May 2019
        22:32
        22:32 | 8:50 AM ET Thu, 9 May 2019
        01:49
        01:49 | 9:50 AM ET Thu, 9 May 2019
        05:51
        05:51 | 1:31 PM ET Thu, 9 May 2019
        07:44
        07:44 | 12:22 PM ET Wed, 8 May 2019
        01:10
        01:10 | 1:18 PM ET Wed, 8 May 2019
        16:10
        16:10 | 1:32 PM ET Tue, 7 May 2019
        01:17
        01:17 | 12:46 PM ET Tue, 7 May 2019
        02:34
        02:34 | 12:46 PM ET Tue, 7 May 2019
        02:44
        02:44 | 3:18 PM ET Mon, 6 May 2019
        01:11
        01:11 | 12:59 PM ET Mon, 6 May 2019
        08:21
        08:21 | 1:17 PM ET Fri, 3 May 2019
        02:29
        02:29 | 3:38 PM ET Fri, 3 May 2019
        'º
        '¹
        04:02
        04:02 | 10:07 AM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        05:40
        05:40 | 11:05 AM ET Tue, 21 May 2019
        08:16
        08:16 | 11:59 AM ET Mon, 20 May 2019
        10:10
        10:10 | 8:19 AM ET Mon, 20 May 2019
        03:58
        03:58 | 12:24 PM ET Fri, 17 May 2019
        02:08
        02:08 | 9:50 AM ET Mon, 20 May 2019
        06:18
        06:18 | 8:05 AM ET Fri, 17 May 2019
        05:50
        05:50 | 10:59 AM ET Thu, 16 May 2019
        04:40
        04:40 | 8:11 AM ET Thu, 16 May 2019
        09:27
        09:27 | 3:51 PM ET Wed, 15 May 2019
        2:09 PM ET Wed, 15 May 2019
        04:29
        04:29 | 8:28 AM ET Wed, 15 May 2019
        05:24
        05:24 | 11:49 AM ET Wed, 15 May 2019
        06:40
        06:40 | 7:40 AM ET Wed, 15 May 2019
        11:01
        11:01 | 8:46 AM ET Fri, 10 May 2019
        04:49
        04:49 | 10:21 AM ET Fri, 10 May 2019
        04:51
        04:51 | 8:08 AM ET Fri, 10 May 2019
        07:34
        07:34 | 8:01 AM ET Fri, 10 May 2019
        04:28
        04:28 | 3:34 PM ET Thu, 9 May 2019
        04:24
        04:24 | 2:53 PM ET Thu, 9 May 2019
        03:46
        03:46 | 12:11 PM ET Thu, 9 May 2019
        04:55
        04:55 | 12:09 PM ET Wed, 8 May 2019
        04:50
        04:50 | 11:15 AM ET Wed, 8 May 2019
        07:03
        07:03 | 11:13 AM ET Wed, 8 May 2019
        08:46
        08:46 | 8:24 AM ET Tue, 7 May 2019
        05:53
        05:53 | 11:54 AM ET Mon, 6 May 2019
        20:20
        20:20 | 11:19 AM ET Mon, 6 May 2019
        15:59
        15:59 | 1:49 PM ET Mon, 6 May 2019
        'º
      How Democrats got to the brink of considering impeaching Trump - The Washington Post
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 16:37
        Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) meets with reporters in May. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) best efforts, House Democrats are seriously considering beginning impeachment proceedings against President Trump. On Wednesday morning, they met to talk about it. Right now, the consensus seems to be to retain the status quo, but that could change quickly.
        That's because the case for impeachment has been building over the past month. Here's a run-down of some key flash points that have brought an increasing number of Democrats (and one Republican) on board:
        The Mueller report is released: There were some Democrats who thought that the obstruction-y actions outlined by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in his report released April 18 were enough to impeach the president. But the majority stuck with Pelosi, who privately urged her caucus to take it slow.
        Elizabeth Warren takes the stage: She was one of the first 2020 Democrats to come out in favor of impeachment and gave an eloquent, forceful explanation why at a CNN town hall April 22 that drew headlines and became a bumper-sticker argument for the pro-impeachers: ''There is no 'political inconvenience' exception to the United States Constitution.''
        The Mueller letter comes out: On April 30, a letter is leaked that showed that Mueller was unhappy with how Attorney General William P. Barr characterized the special counsel's report. Mueller sent that letter to Barr in March, urging him to release more and warning of ''misunderstandings.'' This followed reports that Mueller's team thought Barr's summary had been too easy on Trump, and it gives the perception among some Democrats that there is a coverup in the Trump administration. Speaking of .'‰.'‰.
        Trump blocks a lot of congressional investigations: Impeachment talks were continuing in Democratic circles, but the lawmakers who mattered '-- Pelosi and Democratic leaders of key committees '-- had settled on another plan. They were investigating all aspects of Trump's life, including the Mueller report, without starting impeachment proceedings. ''Impeach or nothing. No, it's not that,'' Pelosi would later explain.
        But Trump had other ideas. ''We're fighting all the subpoenas,'' he said. ''These aren't, like, impartial people. The Democrats are trying to win 2020.''
        He sued his accounting firm and Congress to prevent them from getting his financial information. His treasury secretary said he won't release Trump's tax returns, despite an IRS interpretation of the law otherwise. His former top aides refused to comply with subpoenas to testify. If Trump was stonewalling traditional investigations, what other options did Congress have but to consider impeachment, some Democrats wondered.
        ''I think what he's trying to do and I think what they think he's trying to do is render us toothless and say we're not that important,'' said House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who was one of the first lawmakers to call for impeachment.
        [The case for and against impeachment]
        Attorney General Barr doesn't show up, so Congress holds him in contempt: A sitting Cabinet secretary refused to come to Congress to testify about the Mueller report. Barr said his problem was with the format, but it added to the perception that the White House was blocking Congress from its constitutionally mandated role of oversight.
        A statue of a chicken sits above the nameplate and near the empty seat of U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who was scheduled to appear at a House Judiciary Committee hearing May 2 but didn't show. (Clodagh Kilcoyne/Reuters)On May 8, the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress for not showing up. He is only the second sitting attorney general in U.S. history to be held in contempt. But if this was a big deal symbolically, practically speaking, it didn't change much. Barr still hasn't testified in front of Congress.
        Pelosi says Trump is ''becoming self-impeachable'': The morning of the contempt vote, Pelosi sat at a Washington Post Live event and said Trump is ''becoming self-impeachable.'' It wasn't immediately clear what she meant '-- that he was making his own case that he should be impeached, or that he was damaging his election chances by blockading Congress. But it did seem like a turning point in Pelosi's language, that she was more open than ever to considering impeaching Trump. At least, we wrote, she's laying the groundwork to consider impeaching Trump if it comes to that.
        Justin Amash is open to impeachment proceedings against Trump: A sitting Republican member of Congress, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), tweeted over the weekend that he had finished reading the Mueller report and he thought Trump ''engaged in impeachable conduct.'' Amash is one of the most conservative members of Congress, so his words carried weight. But he is also a maverick with libertarian leanings who often breaks with his party. Bottom line: This one Republican wasn't going to change Pelosi's calculations to avoid impeachment, but suddenly, Democrats' impeachment efforts were technically bipartisan.
        Here are my principal conclusions:1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller's report.2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.4. Few members of Congress have read the report.
        '-- Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 18, 2019Donald McGahn ignores a subpoena to talk to Congress: On Tuesday, another big name in Trump World refused to show up to Congress. McGahn was the White House's top lawyer, and he is a key witness in the Mueller report to Trump's attempts to fire the special counsel then lie about it. The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to force him to talk, but McGahn, under pressure from Trump, did not show up.
        "We will hold this president accountable,'' House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said at the hearing, with an empty seat where McGahn was supposed to be, ''one way or another.''
        A seat at the witness table sits empty prior to a House Judiciary Committee hearing in which former White House Counsel Don McGahn was subpoenaed to testify. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)To many Democrats on the fence about impeachment, this was the last straw. The night before, Nadler and top Democrats had urged Pelosi to consider impeachment proceedings, even if it doesn't lead to articles of impeachment against the president.
        What other choice does Congress have at this point, they argued? If potential crimes outlined in the Mueller report weren't deserving enough, the cover up has been, they argued.
        As Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), a Judiciary Committee member told The Post on Monday: ''If the answer is, 'No, you can't talk to anyone, you can't have anything, we're simply not going to cooperate,' then at that point the only avenue that we have left is the constitutional means to enforce the separation of powers, which is a serious discussion of impeachment.''
      NASA Artemis: The 2024 moon mission, explained - Vox
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 16:37
        President Donald Trump wants the United States to ''return to Space in a BIG WAY!'' And to do so, he's pushing NASA toward a hasty, yet-to-be funded goal: returning to the moon by the year 2024.
        Under my Administration, we are restoring @NASA to greatness and we are going back to the Moon, then Mars. I am updating my budget to include an additional $1.6 billion so that we can return to Space in a BIG WAY!
        '-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 13, 2019The mission is called ''Artemis,'' after the Greek goddess of hunting and twin sister of Apollo. It's a fitting name, as NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine has promised that the mission will deliver the first woman to the moon. (All the Apollo astronauts in the 1960s and '70s were white men.)
        Why is this suddenly a priority for the Trump administration? The mission is certainly Trumpian in its grandiosity; the landing would occur during a second term of the Trump administration. And there's a lot about it that seems impractical '-- the rockets and spacecraft that will be necessary to complete the mission are either over-deadline, unfinished, or nonexistent at the moment. Plus: bureaucratic details remain, like how will this all be paid for?
        But it's also important to know: The mission has scientific merit. And deadlines and political momentum can be useful.
        The George W. Bush administration pushed for a mission to the moon. Then, when the Obama administration came in, the directive shifted toward building up capabilities for a journey to Mars. And as we learned in the 1960s, political momentum is critical for space exploration. It makes some sense to complete a moonshot within one administration's reign. The deadline, in itself, isn't a horrible idea.
        Still, questions remain: Can NASA and its industry partners pull this off? After all, deadlines in human spaceflight have been routinely missed over the last decade by both NASA and the commercial spaceflight industry. And: Will it actually be funded?
        Let's break down what this mission would entail (if it's funded), and how NASA envisions getting humans to the moon in the next five years.
        The scientific case for going back to the moonLet's remember, the journey to the moon is, ostensibly, scientific.
        The moon can help us understand the development of our entire solar system. The surface of the moon is around 3.5 billion years old, and its many craters and scars tell the story of the environment of our solar system from that time onward. When the moon gets a crater, it remains there unchanged for the rest of time (unlike on Earth, where life and plate tectonics slowly erase this natural history).
        ''The moon has recorded impact processes that have gone on throughout the entire solar system,'' Georgiana Kramer, a planetary scientist who studies the moon, says.
        The moon rocks brought back from the Apollo missions helped scientists understand that the surface of the moon formed out of an ocean of magma, just like the Earth. And the data lent some evidence to the hypothesis that the moon formed when the Earth was stuck by a massive Mars-sized object.
        Going back, collecting more samples '-- and particularly samples from the far side of the moon, which have never been collected '-- will give scientists like Kramer a more detailed look into the history of the solar system. And we need human hands to do the collecting. ''Humans are much more efficient at gathering scientific information compared to rovers or robots,'' she says.
        Another reason to go to the moon: to prepare to venture elsewhere.
        If humans are going to become an interplanetary species, with outposts on the moon and Mars, we're going to have to learn to live in space. The moon, just a three-day's journey away, is a great place to do that. We could also use resources on the moon '-- like water, trapped in ice, which exists on the moon '-- to help supply those missions.
        A more permanent human presence on the moon could be the start of a new spacefaring age of mankind. It's a noble idea.
        And we can do it. But when?
        In December 2017, President Trump signed Space Policy Directive 1, which is basically an executive order outlining NASA's mission priorities. The directive tasked NASA with leading ''the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization.''
        However, it didn't set a timeline to do so '-- until a few months ago.
        In March, the Trump Administration sped up the timelineWith its 2017 directive from the Trump administration, NASA got to work, drafting plans to achieve a long-term human presence on the moon.
        The centerpiece of the plan was a space station called the Gateway, or lunar Gateway. It's a space station, but instead of orbiting the Earth, it will orbit the moon and serve as a launching ground for missions to the lunar surface. It would be reusable and nimble: NASA could change its orbit to pass over any location on the moon.
        And like the ISS, the Gateway could be '-- potentially '-- continuously occupied by astronauts, establishing a permanent human presence near the moon. The benefit of the Gateway is that is multipurpose. The Gateway could serve as a stepping stone to a permanent base on the surface of the moon, and it would be a decent launching point for missions to Mars or to asteroids.
        The plan, as of earlier this year, was to build the Gateway (like the space station, it would be assembled piece by piece in prefabricated modules), and put it in orbit around the moon (maybe by 2026). And like the ISS, NASA was hoping for international support and collaboration to build it.
        NASA drafted these plans with the impression they'd have a decade or so to fulfill them. On this timeline, NASA was eyeing a 2028 crewed mission to the surface of the moon. A few months ago, this all got shaken up.
        In March, Vice President Mike Pence gave NASA a new deadline: boots on the moon by 2024.
        Specifically, the vice president called out the lunar South Pole '-- a region with some very old and scientifically interesting moon rocks '-- as a place to land.
        Why did the White House speed up the timeline? ''Who knows?'' Casey Dreier, the senior space policy adviser at the Planetary Society, says.
        It's easy to dismiss the rush as a Trumpian move '-- to prioritize flashy nationalistic rhetoric over substance. And it very well might be. But when it comes to human space exploration, deadlines can be useful, Dreier explains. Recall President Kennedy's plea to go to the moon by the end of the 1960s. That deadline, and the political will to realize it, became a reality. Big missions to the moon and beyond need political momentum, which can wane from administration to administration.
        If NASA is going to land on the moon in 2024, it has to get through an enormous to-do list The new target of 2024 means the to-do list is very long. It will be very expensive to complete and will require the partnership of the commercial space industry.
        That's because currently:
        NASA's rocket to launch people to the moon '-- the Space Launch System, or SLS '-- isn't finished and won't be tested until at least next year, perhaps later.
        The Obama administration was a bit more focused on the long term '-- planning for a journey to Mars by the year 2030. And to get there, it was prioritizing the development of new multipurpose rockets and spaceships for human missions (to the moon, to Mars, to '-- potentially '-- asteroids).
        This hardware is still in the works and will be key to Artemis.
        The SLS has been under development since 2011, and the first of them were originally planned to be tested in 2017 (they weren't). When complete, the SLS will be the largest, most powerful rocket ever built.
        There are three versions of the SLS planned '-- called Block 1, Block 1B, and Block B '-- and they each carry a different payload and can be configured to transport either crew or cargo. Due to delays, Bridenstine has hinted it's possible that NASA could launch an uncrewed 2020 test mission to the moon on a commercial rocket. That's because ''SLS is struggling to meet its schedule,'' he said during a March Senate hearing. (The eventual crewed missions would still use the SLS, which is much more powerful than the commercially available rockets and can bring heavy cargo to the moon.)
        The Space Launch System isn't a single rocket, but a collection of them, each with a different payload capacity. NASA NASA's space capsule for the journey to the Earth to the moon '-- called Orion '-- also hasn't been tested.
        The Orion is a multipurpose vehicle to sit atop the SLS that will serve as the crew quarters for missions beyond low Earth orbit (i.e. beyond the International Space station). The Orion was also announced in 2011 and has yet to be flown. It's designed to accommodate four astronauts.
        NASA NASA is planning to test its launch abort system in July, and maybe fly it robotically to the moon in 2020 (though that test could be delayed, too).
        NASA still needs to build and launch a lunar Gateway space station.
        The basic outline for a 2024 moon landing is this: Astronauts would take off aboard the Orion, on the SLS, and fly to the Gateway. Then, they would board a lunar descent craft, go down to the moon, do some moon science, and return to the Gateway before the journey home.
        But the Gateway needs to be in place for this to happen.
        Also, NASA doesn't have a lunar lander (or even approved designs for one) to get astronauts down from the Gateway to the moon and back.
        This lunar lander does not exist. NASA is far along in its development of Orion and the SLS, and it has drafted some plans for the Gateway. But a lunar lander? They don't have one.
        So, in order to meet the 2024 goal, NASA is turning to industry, asking 11 companies to design prototype landers. Even with the help of industry, this will be no easy task.
        ''The biggest problem is the timeline of developing a new lunar lander for the first time in a half century,'' Dreier says.
        It just takes a very long time to design and build a spacecraft that's safe for humans to use. This is something spacecraft manufacturers struggle with in developing crafts to go to the ISS. Elon Musk's SpaceX has been developing a human-rated capsule '-- called the crew Dragon '-- to take astronauts to the ISS since 2010.
        It's still being tested, and in a recent test, the Dragon's parachutes failed. Another recent test resulted in an explosion. The Dragon was first scheduled to fly in 2017. Again, this isn't easy. And developing a lunar lander won't be easy, either.
        And, oh, it hasn't secured funding for the eventual total cost of this mission.
        Which brings us to:
        So how much is this all going to cost? The plans '-- and funding '-- to achieve the ambitious 2024 landing goal are not yet finalized. But it will likely involve downsizing the development of the lunar Gateway in order to prioritize the development of a lunar lander, Dreier says.
        To get started on these plans, NASA has requested an additional $1.6 billion supplemental to this year's budget. This has to be approved by Congress, and it's not certain it will be.
        Making matters thorny, the White House has requested the funds be pulled from Pell Grant reserves. That's the pool of money that helps financially stressed students go to college. It's true the fund currently has a surplus. But that extra money is a safeguard: It would need that cash if the country slips into a recession (as the need for Pell grants increases during hard financial times).
        Still, it's inevitable that shuffling the money from education makes the Artemis mission more politically charged: Do Democrats really want to take money away from education to fund a hurried attempt to give Trump a win during his last years in office?
        On the other hand, what's nice about the current budget proposal is that it doesn't redirect funding from other NASA missions '-- like its robotic explorations of the outer planets or its Earth science programs, for example. It's seeking additional money to pay for Artemis.
        ''I have no intent of redirecting funding from other NASA programs, including science, in support of the human lunar return effort,'' Bridenstine recently told The Verge's Loren Grush.
        So even if the 2024 moon shot isn't successful, it won't necessarily be at the cost of other programs.
        The total potential cost estimate of Artemis is unknown, but NASA's going to need a lot more than $1.6 billion. (Bridenstine has characterized the amount as a ''down payment.'')
        At ARS Technica, space reporter Eric Berger reports that the mission could cost an additional ''$6 billion to $8 billion per year on top of NASA's existing budget of about $20 billion.''
        Where's that money coming from? No one knows at the moment.
        ''At present we have a White House directive to land humans on the Moon in five years, but no plan, and no budget details on how to do so, and no integrated human space exploration roadmap laying out how we can best achieve the horizon goal, Mars,'' Rep. Kendra Horn, the Oklahoma Democrat who chairs the House's subcommittee on space and aeronautics, said during a recent committee hearing. ''In essence, we're flying blind.''
      GOP Vermont governor to allow sweeping abortion rights bill to become law | TheHill
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 16:34
        A sweeping abortions-rights bill is set to become law under Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R).
        The Vermont legislature recently passed a measure that would ban the state government from interfering in reproductive and abortion rights, NBC 5 News reported.
        The governor's spokeswoman, Rebecca Kelley, told the local NBC affiliate on Monday that Scott has ''ruled out'' vetoing the measure. She added that he has yet to decide whether to sign the bill it or allow it to become law without his action once it reaches his desk.
        ''I believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe government should stay out of it,'' Scott said last week, according to the outlet.
        He described the bill as ''very emotional for some,'' while noting that measure would not change current practices in the state.
        When the measure becomes law, it will be among the most comprehensive abortion-rights laws in the country, according to the news site Seven Days Vermont.
        The legislative language cites "the fundamental right of every individual who becomes pregnant to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion." The measure also refers to the right to "choose or refuse contraception or sterilization."
        The measure would bar state and local law enforcement from prosecuting people performing abortions.
        Scott has strayed from other GOP governors who have moved to restrict abortion access.
        Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) last week signed into law an abortion ban that puts strict prohibitions on the procedure in the state. While Ivey acknowledged that the ban "may" be unenforceable, the law is the nation's most restrictive when it comes to abortion access.
        Lawmakers in Missouri passed a bill last week to ban abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy. It now heads to the desk of Gov. Mike Parson (R), who is expected to sign it into law.
        Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) recently signed legislation that seeks to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which typically occurs around six weeks into pregnancy, before most women know they're pregnant.
      Nike ditches shoe design after being accused of appropriation by Panama's indigenous Guna '-- RT Sport News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 16:32
        Sports giant Nike has removed its newly-designed Air Force 1 shoes from shelves after Panama's indigenous Guna community accused the company of stealing the traditional design which is ''a spiritual part of the Guna people.''
        The special collection for Puerto Rico was expected to be released in June, before Nike withdrew sales after apologizing for copying the design related to the ethnic group.
        READ MORE: 'Blasphemous and offensive': Muslim customers lambast Nike for 'writing Allah' on shoe's sole
        ''We apologize for the inaccurate representation of the design origin for the Nike Air Force 1 'Puerto Rico' 2019. As a result, this product will no longer be available,'' the company said in a statement.
        The multicolored 'Mola' design has been traditionally used by Guna people who live mainly on the Caribbean coast of Panama.
        ''We are not against our 'Mola' being commercialized. What we oppose is it being done without consulting us first,'' said Belisario L"pez, the leader of the Guna community adding that the design represents ''Mother Earth, because the design is based on everything that is nature.''
        Guna lawyer Aresio Valiente said that along with the product's withdrawal the indigenous people also expect Nike to pay damages for illegally using the traditional ethnic design.
        Also on rt.com 'Kiss of death': Nike admit pregnant athletes penalized by performance-based sponsorship reductions
      VIDEO - Trump denounces Democratic investigations and Mueller probe in the Rose Garden
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 16:20
        Breaking News EmailsGet breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
        SUBSCRIBEMay 22, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC
        By Dartunorro Clark and Alex Moe
        President Donald Trump delivered an extensive denunciation of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation during a highly unusual appearance in the White House Rose Garden Wednesday.
        ''This whole thing was a take-down attempt of the president of the United States,'' Trump said, blasting Democrats for continuing to investigate him and slamming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comment earlier that he was ''engaged in a cover-up.''
        "I don't do cover-ups," the president said.
        Trump spoke at a lectern with a sign in front of it that read ''no collusion,'' ''no obstruction'' and cited a $35 million cost of the probe. The probe cost roughly $25 million, according to the Department of Justice.
        Trump said that he respects Congress, but said Democrats are abusing its power.
        "I respect the courts, I respect Congress, but what they've done is abuse. This is investigation number four on the same thing," he said.
        Trump said he had intended to sit down with Democratic leaders, including Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, about infrastructure, but cut the planned White House meeting short.
        ''I walked into the room and I told Senator Schumer and House Speaker Pelosi, 'I want to do infrastructure, I want to do more than you want to do it,''' Trump said. "'But, you know what? You can't do it under these conditions.'"
        Two Democratic sources with knowledge of the meeting told NBC News that Trump arrived late and expressed dismay at Pelosi's comments, calling the remarks inconsiderate. Trump then said, according to the sources, Democrats would need to complete their various investigations before a deal on infrastructure or any other topic would be considered.
        "I knew the president was not serious about infrastructure and would find a way out," Pelosi quipped as the president stormed out, according to a Democratic aide.
        This is a developing story, check back for updates.
        Dartunorro Clark Dartunorro Clark is a political reporter for NBC News.
        Alex Moe Alex Moe is a Capitol Hill producer for NBC News covering the House of Representatives.
      VIDEO - Harry Khachatrian on Twitter: "So Kamala Harris has either never listened to music in her entire life, or is so embarrassed by her own musical tastes that she instead claims her favorite Bob Marley song is... "Bob Marley" https://t.co/LGoxVrzXuS"
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 13:57
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - Yahoo News Special Report [Video]
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 13:26
        Yahoo News is streaming live coverage of this news event.
      VIDEO - Sky News Australia on Twitter: "KENNY: I would suggest that poverty, malaria, tuberculosis, war, discrimination against women, exploitation of children, over-population, water conservation, air pollution, and habitat destruction easily outrank cli
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 12:57
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - Hollywood Demands McDonald's 'End Agony for Billions of Animals': 'We Believe in Standing Up for Those Who Can't Stand Up for Themselves'
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 04:14
        Some 25 actors, models, and professional athletes joined forces for a PSA from Mercy For Animals, urging viewers to demand McDonald's ''eliminate the worst cruelty for their chickens.''Among an assortment of animal rights activists demanding that you ''take action,'' the video features the likes of actor James Cromwell, electronic music DJ Moby, former NBA star John Salley, and actors Ignacio Serricchio, Mark Hapka, James Kyson, Alexandra Paul, Kimberly Elise, Daisy Fuentes, Daniella Monet, Emily Deschanel, among many others.
        In the one-minute ad, titled, ''Dear McDonald's,'' the group of activist actors and entertainers scolded the fast food chain for forcing the chickens they use for their products to ''sit in waste,'' to ''live in constant pain,'' and a series of other charges.
        ''Chickens used by McDonald's are among the most abused animals on the planet,'' the group exclaims on its website. ''Bred to grow so large so fast, they often can't walk without pain. Hundreds of brands '-- including Burger King, Starbucks, Subway, Jack in the Box, and Denny's '-- have committed to banning the cruelest practices inflicted on chickens. McDonald's has not. Let McDonald's know that animal abuse is bad business.''
        This star-studded video comes as scores of Hollywood directors, producers, and actors are boycotting states like Georgia and Alabama over their new laws restricting most abortions.
        This same organization has attacked McDonald's chain in the past, as well. Just last year, the group was also seen going after the fast food chain over its treatment of chickens with another video ad that featured images of dying birds.
        Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.
      VIDEO - Trump Discusses the Military-Industrial Complex - LewRockwell
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 04:12
        Trump Rails Against The Military-Industrial Complex When Asked About IranBy Evie FordhamThe Daily Caller
        May 22, 2019
        President Donald Trump railed against what he called ''the military-industrial complex'' when asked about potential conflict with Iran during an interview with Steve Hilton of Fox News Channel Sunday.
        WATCH:
        >>
        Secret Empires: How th... Peter Schweizer Best Price: $9.00 Buy New $13.96 (as of 06:40 EDT - Details ) ''Well, I'm the one that talks about these wars that are 19 years, and people are just there, and don't kid yourself, you do have a military- industrial complex. They do like war. You know, in Syria, with the caliphate, so I wipe out 100 percent of the caliphate. '... I said I want to bring our troops back home. The place went crazy. You have people here in Washington, they never want to leave,'' Trump said.
        ''I said, you know what I'll do, I'll leave a couple hundred soldiers behind, but if it was up to them, they 'd bring thousands of soldiers in. Someday people will explain it, but you do have a group, and they call it the military-industrial complex. They never want to leave. They always want to fight,'' he continued.
        ''No. I don't want to fight, but you do have situations like Iran. You can't let them have n nuclear weapons. You just can't let that happen,'' Trump concluded.
        Trump's discussion of Iran during the interview marked a different tone from a tweet he had sent earlier on Sunday.
        Read the Whole Article
      VIDEO - Woman arrested after officers find pipe bombs in Grass Valley home
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 21:49
        Woman arrested after officers find pipe bombs in Grass Valley home
        Hide Transcript Show Transcript
        >> FIRE INVESTIGATORS ARE TRYING TO FIND THE CAUSE OF TWO FRES IN SACRAMENTO. STORIES. FIRE INVESTIGATORS ARE TRYING TO FIND THE CAUSE OF TWO APARTMENT FIRES IN SACRAMENTO. THE FIRST FIRE HAPPENED AT THE TANGLEWOOD CONDOS IN SOUTH SACRAMENTO. FIREFIGHTERS BRIEFLY UPGRADED THIS TO TWO ALARMS, BUT WERE ABLE TO EVACUATE EVERYONE SAFELY AND PUT THE FIRE OUT. TWO FAMILIES WERE DISPLACED. THE OTHER ONE HAPPENED LESS THAN AN HOUR LATER AT AN APARTMENTON AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE. NO ONE WAS HURT. AND FIREFIGHTERS WERE ABLE TO PUT THIS FIRE OUT QUICKLY. LINH: LIGHT RAIN MOVING THROUGH EARLY THIS MORNING. TEMPERATURES IN THE 50'S BY THE AFTERNOON HOURS. SCATTERED SHOWERS AND POSSIBLE THUNDERSTORMS. HIGH TEMPERATURE TODAY, 62 DEGREES. THE CHANCE OF SHOWERS TODAY AND THUNDERSTORMS WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE AFTERNOON HOURS. TEMPERATURES AND THE UPPER 50'S. SEVEN-DAY FORECAST, TOMORROW, A NICE, DRY DAY. BY TUESDAY, ANOTHER CHANCE OF SOME SHOWERS AND POSSIBLE THUNDERSTORMS BY THE AFTERNOON. LETICIA: PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ISSUED A DISASTER DECLARATION FOR CALIFORNIA. THAT DECLARATION MEANS 17 COUNTIES THAT HAD SEVERE WATER DAMAGE ARE NOW ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL AI IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH RAIN POUNDED AREAS OF NORTH
        Woman arrested after officers find pipe bombs in Grass Valley home
        An anonymous tip led to the discovery of pipe bombs at a Grass Valley home Saturday, authorities said. Mary Dalton, of Grass Valley, was arrested on suspicion of possession of a destructive device and booked into the Nevada County Jail, according to the Grass Valley Police Department. After getting the tip around 3:30 p.m. Saturday, officers went to a home in the 400 block of Lamarque Court, where they found the pipe bombs in a closet. The Placer County Sheriff's Office's Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit was called to render the items safe.
        GRASS VALLEY, Calif. (KCRA) '--An anonymous tip led to the discovery of pipe bombs at a Grass Valley home Saturday, authorities said.
        Mary Dalton, of Grass Valley, was arrested on suspicion of possession of a destructive device and booked into the Nevada County Jail, according to the Grass Valley Police Department.
        After getting the tip around 3:30 p.m. Saturday, officers went to a home in the 400 block of Lamarque Court, where they found the pipe bombs in a closet.
        Grass Valley Police Department
        An anonymous tip led police to several pipe bombs at a Grass Valley home on Saturday.The Placer County Sheriff's Office's Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit was called to render the items safe.
        Grass Valley Police Department
        AlertMe
      VIDEO - Elizabeth Warren on Twitter: "It's been over 24 hours. No more spoiler alerts. Here's why @AOC and I are officially on #TeamSansa now.'... "
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 17:13
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - Trump Gets Pennsylvania Rally Crowd to Boo Fox News: 'Something Strange Is Going On'
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:23
        It appears that President Trump is not going to let go of Mayor Pete Buttigieg's Fox News town hall anytime soon.
        After lashing out on Twitter that the right-leaning network is covering Democrats too much by hosting the Democratic presidential candidate (while also taking swipes at Fox News anchor Chris Wallace), the president took time out during his Monday night campaign rally in Pennsylvania to air more grievances.
        Claiming that he watched ''Alfred E. Neuman'' on Sunday night'--his Mad magazine nickname for the South Bend mayor'--Trump then asked the audience: ''What's going on with Fox, by the way?''
        ''They're putting more Democrats on than Republicans,'' he continued, prompting the MAGA crowd to boo Fox News. ''Something strange is going on at Fox, folks! Something very strange!''
        As audience members tossed out more jeers at Fox, the president talked about tuning in to the Buttigieg town hall, asserting that he needs to ''watch the competition'--if you call it that.''
        Trump, however, still seemed rather peeved that Fox News provided airtime to a Democrat.
        ''He was knocking the hell out of Fox,'' he said, referencing Buttigieg's criticism of Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson. ''Someone's going to have to explain the whole Fox deal to me.''
        In recent weeks, the president has been fairly critical of his longtime favorite cable news network, even while he continues to give them the vast majority of his television interviews and live-tweets their programming.
        Besides his recent critical comments related to the Buttigieg forum, Trump slammed Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano'--who has said the president obstructed justice'--while claiming he turned down Napolitano's request for a Supreme Court spot. He also whined when Fox brought on Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders for a town hall, criticizing moderator Bret Baier for being ''so smiley and nice'' and accusing the network of banning his supporters from the event.
      VIDEO - T-Mobile Merger Update: When we say we'll do something, we mean it. - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 09:50
      VIDEO - Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy tries to interview New Yorkers on the street, gets brutally ignored
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 09:22
        cold shoulderEdit Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy tries to interview New Yorkers on the street, gets brutally ignored
        May 20, 2019
        Late Night Tackles Fox NewsEdit Stephen Colbert recaps Mayor Pete Buttigieg's Fox News town hall, mocks Trump's evident jealousy
        4:49 a.m.
        last night on late nightEdit Late-night comedians, special guests bid their own unique farewells to Game of Thrones
        3:54 a.m.
        NBAEdit Golden State Warriors sweep Portland, head to 5th straight NBA Finals
        2:33 a.m.
        Trump TaxesEdit House Democrats seek to parlay their 1st win on Trump's financial records into a 2nd victory, with Deutsche Bank
        1:37 a.m.
        doo doo doo doo doo dooEdit Watch C(C)line Dion prove she can make any song '-- even 'Baby Shark' '-- dramatic
        1:37 a.m.
        It wasn't all badEdit Minnesota woman donates kidney to man who helped rescue her daughter
        12:53 a.m.
        Late Night Tackles Trump and impeachmentEdit Stephen Colbert welcomes GOP Rep. Justin Amash's Trump impeachment backing, laughs off 'bipartisan' spin
        12:41 a.m.
        See More Speed Reads
      VIDEO - winter compares got to tds
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 21:07
      VIDEO - Conservative Laura Loomer is Losing Her Mind Following Facebook Ban: "My life is ruined!" | 93.1 WIBC
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 17:53
        (Screen Capture: InfoWars)
        Just last week, social media giant, "der Facebook" banned several "controversial" political and media figures from its platform for posting "extremist" and "violent" and "not nice" content.
        The list of individuals who were banned included several persons who called for violence against Covington Catholic students, accounts that promote anti-Semitic language and views ("Paging Rep. Ilhan Omar"), and any and all persons who have called for violence against conservatives and Trump supporters.
        Just kidding. Here's who was actually banned:
        Conservatives Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Joseph Watson, who works for InfoWars; white supremacist Paul Nehlen, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2016 and 2018; and Alex Jones' media company, Infowars.
        Facebook also banned Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, because you gotta ban at least ONE nut on the left to even things out. Otherwise, people will think you're just out to shut down conservatives. Sorry Louis Farrakhan. Somebody had to take one for the team, buddy!
        Of all the conservatives on the 'banned' list, 25-year-old Laura Loomer is taking it the hardest. In fact, she's losing her mind.
        Loomer expressed her outrage during an appearance on Alex Jones radio show last week.
        WIBC hosts the Chicks on the Right - no strangers to Facebook's censorship - have the full audio and some legitimate words of encouragement and understanding for Ms. Loomer in the clip below.
      VIDEO - Radio Tulipa 45 jaar - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 12:20
      VIDEO - PAPADAP TTTH - Gowdy: FBI Has Papadopoulos Transcripts That Are Potential 'Game-Changer' | The Daily Caller
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 17:18
        '):""},t.getDefinedParams=function(n,e){return e.filter(function(e){return n[e]}).reduce(function(e,t){return l(e,function(e,t,n){t in e?Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):e[t]=n;return e}({},t,n[t]))},{})},t.isValidMediaTypes=function(e){var t=["banner","native","video"];if(!Object.keys(e).every(function(e){return s()(t,e)}))return!1;if(e.video&&e.video.context)return s()(["instream","outstream","adpod"],e.video.context);return!0},t.getBidderRequest=function(e,t,n){return c()(e,function(e){return 0t[n]?-1:0}};var r=n(3),i=n(91),o=n.n(i),a=n(11),c=n.n(a),u=n(8),s=n.n(u),d=n(10);function f(e){return function(e){if(Array.isArray(e)){for(var t=0,n=new Array(e.length);t\n ')):""}function se(e,t,n){return null==t?n:X(t)?t:Z(t)?t.toString():void C.logWarn("Unsuported type for param: "+e+" required type: String")}function de(e,t,n){return n.indexOf(e)===t}function fe(e,t){return e.concat(t)}function le(e){return Object.keys(e)}function pe(e,t){return e[t]}var ge=ye("timeToRespond",function(e,t){return ti;)a(r,n=t[i++])&&(~u(o,n)||o.push(n));return o}},142:function(e,t,n){var r=n(18).document;e.exports=r&&r.documentElement},143:function(e,t,n){var r=n(26),i=n(41),o=n(50)("IE_PROTO"),a=Object.prototype;e.exports=Object.getPrototypeOf||function(e){return e=i(e),r(e,o)?e[o]:"function"==typeof e.constructor&&e instanceof e.constructor?e.constructor.prototype:e instanceof Object?a:null}},144:function(e,t,n){n(145);for(var r=n(18),i=n(20),o=n(28),a=n(15)("toStringTag"),c="CSSRuleList,CSSStyleDeclaration,CSSValueList,ClientRectList,DOMRectList,DOMStringList,DOMTokenList,DataTransferItemList,FileList,HTMLAllCollection,HTMLCollection,HTMLFormElement,HTMLSelectElement,MediaList,MimeTypeArray,NamedNodeMap,NodeList,PaintRequestList,Plugin,PluginArray,SVGLengthList,SVGNumberList,SVGPathSegList,SVGPointList,SVGStringList,SVGTransformList,SourceBufferList,StyleSheetList,TextTrackCueList,TextTrackList,TouchList".split(","),u=0;u=e.length?(this._t=void 0,i(1)):i(0,"keys"==t?n:"values"==t?e[n]:[n,e[n]])},"values"),o.Arguments=o.Array,r("keys"),r("values"),r("entries")},146:function(e,t,n){"use strict";var r=n(147),i=n(78);e.exports=n(149)("Set",function(e){return function(){return e(this,0=c.syncsPerBidder?s.logWarn('Number of user syncs exceeded for "'.concat(t,'"')):r.canBidderRegisterSync(e,t)?(i[e].push([t,n]),void(o=function(e,t){return e[t]?e[t]+=1:e[t]=1,e}(o,t))):s.logWarn('Bidder "'.concat(t,'" not permitted to register their "').concat(e,'" userSync pixels.')):s.logWarn("Bidder is required for registering sync"):s.logWarn('User sync type "'.concat(e,'" not supported'))},r.syncUsers=function(){var e=0i&&(r=!1)),!r}),r&&e.run(),r}function c(e,t){void 0===e[t]?e[t]=1:e[t]++}},addWinningBid:function(e){S=S.concat(e),B.callBidWonBidder(e.bidder,e,c)},setBidTargeting:function(e){B.callSetTargetingBidder(e.bidder,e)},getWinningBids:function(){return S},getTimeout:function(){return m},getAuctionId:function(){return y},getAuctionStatus:function(){return u},getAdUnits:function(){return f},getAdUnitCodes:function(){return p},getBidRequests:function(){return g},getBidsReceived:function(){return b},getNoBids:function(){return v}}},n.d(t,"c",function(){return G}),t.f=d,t.d=v,n.d(t,"e",function(){return h}),t.g=S;var w=n(0),s=n(10),f=n(52),a=n(27),o=n(64),l=n(12),_=n(3),r=n(24),i=n(17),c=n(11),p=n.n(c),u=n(46);function g(e){return(g="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}function b(){return(b=Object.assign||function(e){for(var t=1;te.getTimeout()+_.config.getConfig("timeoutBuffer")&&e.executeCallback(!0)}function v(e,t){var n=e.getBidRequests(),r=p()(n,function(e){return e.bidderCode===t.bidderCode});!function(t,e){var n;if(t.bidderCode&&(0t.max?e:t},{max:0}),t=a()(e.buckets,function(e){if(n>o.max*r){var t=e.precision;void 0===t&&(t=s),i=(e.max*r).toFixed(t)}else if(n=e.min*r)return e});return t&&(i=function(e,t,n){var r=void 0!==t.precision?t.precision:s,i=t.increment*n,o=t.min*n,a=Math.pow(10,r+2),c=(e*a-o*a)/(i*a),u=Math.floor(c)*i+o;return(u=Number(u.toFixed(10))).toFixed(r)}(n,t,r)),i}function g(e){if(i.isEmpty(e)||!e.buckets||!Array.isArray(e.buckets))return!1;var t=!0;return e.buckets.forEach(function(e){void 0!==e.min&&e.max&&e.increment||(t=!1)}),t}},53:function(e,t){e.exports=function(e){if("function"!=typeof e)throw TypeError(e+" is not a function!");return e}},54:function(e,t,n){var r=n(16),i=n(18).document,o=r(i)&&r(i.createElement);e.exports=function(e){return o?i.createElement(e):{}}},55:function(e,t,n){var r=n(31);e.exports=Object("z").propertyIsEnumerable(0)?Object:function(e){return"String"==r(e)?e.split(""):Object(e)}},56:function(e,t,n){var r=n(31);e.exports=Array.isArray||function(e){return"Array"==r(e)}},57:function(e,t,n){var r=n(14),i=n(18),o="__core-js_shared__",a=i[o]||(i[o]={});(e.exports=function(e,t){return a[e]||(a[e]=void 0!==t?t:{})})("versions",[]).push({version:r.version,mode:n(58)?"pure":"global",copyright:"(C) 2019 Denis Pushkarev (zloirock.ru)"})},58:function(e,t){e.exports=!0},59:function(e,t,n){var u=n(44),s=n(33),d=n(89);e.exports=function(c){return function(e,t,n){var r,i=u(e),o=s(i.length),a=d(n,o);if(c&&t!=t){for(;at.cpm/t.video.durationBucket)return-1;return 0};var s=n(0),d=n(36),r=n(65),i=n(46),o=n(17),f=n(64),c=n(3),u=n(2),a=n(134),l=n.n(a),p=n(11),g=n.n(p);function b(e){return function(e){if(Array.isArray(e)){for(var t=0,n=new Array(e.length);t"):"";return'\n \n \n prebid.org wrapper\n \n ").concat(n,"\n \n \n \n ")}(e.vastUrl,e.vastImpUrl),ttlseconds:Number(e.ttl)};return"string"==typeof e.customCacheKey&&""!==e.customCacheKey&&(t.key=e.customCacheKey),t}},65:function(e,t,n){"use strict";Object.defineProperty(t,"__esModule",{value:!0}),n.d(t,"checkAdUnitSetup",function(){return G});var r=n(48),c=n(0),i=n(132),o=n(24),a=n(47),d=n(3),v=n(37),f=n(66),u=n(17),s=n(133),l=n(8),p=n.n(l),g=n(61),y=n(12),b=n(22);function h(e){return(h="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}function m(){return(m=Object.assign||function(e){for(var t=1;t (eg mediaTypes.banner.sizes)."),e.sizes=n);if(t&&t.video){var i=t.video;if(i.playerSize)if(Array.isArray(i.playerSize)&&1===i.playerSize.length&&i.playerSize.every(function(e){return Object(c.isArrayOfNums)(e,2)}))e.sizes=i.playerSize;else if(Object(c.isArrayOfNums)(i.playerSize,2)){var o=[];o.push(i.playerSize),A.logInfo("Transforming video.playerSize from [".concat(i.playerSize,"] to [[").concat(o,"]] so it's in the proper format.")),e.sizes=i.playerSize=o}else A.logError("Detected incorrect configuration of mediaTypes.video.playerSize. Please specify only one set of dimensions in a format like: [[640, 480]]. Removing invalid mediaTypes.video.playerSize property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize}if(t&&t.native){var a=t.native;a.image&&a.image.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.image.sizes)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.sizes property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.image.sizes),a.image&&a.image.aspect_ratios&&!Array.isArray(a.image.aspect_ratios)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.aspect_ratios field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios),a.icon&&a.icon.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.icon.sizes)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.icon.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes)}}),e},"checkAdUnitSetup");function W(e){var n=v.a[e]().filter(A.bind.call(c.adUnitsFilter,this,v.a.getAdUnitCodes())),r=v.a.getLastAuctionId();return n.map(function(e){return e.adUnitCode}).filter(c.uniques).map(function(t){return n.filter(function(e){return e.auctionId===r&&e.adUnitCode===t})}).filter(function(e){return e&&e[0]&&e[0].adUnitCode}).map(function(e){return function(e,t,n){return t in e?Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):e[t]=n,e}({},e[0].adUnitCode,{bids:e})}).reduce(function(e,t){return m(e,t)},{})}function L(e,t,n){var r={};r.reason=e,r.message=t,n&&(r.bid=n),A.logError(t),I.emit(U,r)}function z(e){e.forEach(function(e){if(void 0===e.called)try{e.call(),e.called=!0}catch(e){A.logError("Error processing command :","prebid.js",e)}})}S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr=function(e){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr",arguments),e){var t=S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode(e);return A.transformAdServerTargetingObj(t)}A.logMessage("Need to call getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr with adunitCode")},S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode=function(e){return S.getAdserverTargeting(e)[e]},S.getAdserverTargeting=function(e){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargeting",arguments),f.b.getAllTargeting(e)},S.getNoBids=function(){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getNoBids",arguments),W("getNoBids")},S.getBidResponses=function(){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getBidResponses",arguments),W("getBidsReceived")},S.getBidResponsesForAdUnitCode=function(t){return{bids:v.a.getBidsReceived().filter(function(e){return e.adUnitCode===t})}},S.setTargetingForGPTAsync=function(e,t){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForGPTAsync",arguments),Object(c.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var n=f.b.getAllTargeting(e);f.b.resetPresetTargeting(e),f.b.setTargetingForGPT(n,t),Object.keys(n).forEach(function(t){Object.keys(n[t]).forEach(function(e){"hb_adid"===e&&v.a.setStatusForBids(n[t][e],E.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET)})}),I.emit(B,n)}else A.logError("window.googletag is not defined on the page")},S.setTargetingForAst=function(e){A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForAn",arguments),f.b.isApntagDefined()?(f.b.setTargetingForAst(e),I.emit(B,f.b.getAllTargeting())):A.logError("window.apntag is not defined on the page")},S.renderAd=function(e,t){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.renderAd",arguments),A.logMessage("Calling renderAd with adId :"+t),e&&t)try{var n=v.a.findBidByAdId(t);if(n){n.status=E.BID_STATUS.RENDERED,n.ad=A.replaceAuctionPrice(n.ad,n.cpm),n.adUrl=A.replaceAuctionPrice(n.adUrl,n.cpm),v.a.addWinningBid(n),I.emit(C,n);var r=n.height,i=n.width,o=n.ad,a=n.mediaType,c=n.adUrl,u=n.renderer,s=document.createComment("Creative ".concat(n.creativeId," served by ").concat(n.bidder," Prebid.js Header Bidding"));if(A.insertElement(s,e,"body"),Object(y.c)(u))Object(y.b)(u,n);else if(e===document&&!A.inIframe()||"video"===a){var d="Error trying to write ad. Ad render call ad id ".concat(t," was prevented from writing to the main document.");L(R,d,n)}else if(o)e.open("text/html","replace"),e.write(o),e.close(),q(e,i,r),A.callBurl(n);else if(c){var f=A.createInvisibleIframe();f.height=r,f.width=i,f.style.display="inline",f.style.overflow="hidden",f.src=c,A.insertElement(f,e,"body"),q(e,i,r),A.callBurl(n)}else{var l="Error trying to write ad. No ad for bid response id: ".concat(t);L(N,l,n)}}else{var p="Error trying to write ad. Cannot find ad by given id : ".concat(t);L(x,p)}}catch(e){var g="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(t," to the page:").concat(e.message);L(k,g)}else{var b="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(t," to the page. Missing document or adId");L(P,b)}},S.removeAdUnit=function(e){(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.removeAdUnit",arguments),e)?(A.isArray(e)?e:[e]).forEach(function(e){for(var t=0;tObject(f.timestamp)()},O=function(e){return e&&(e.status&&!v()([E.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET,E.BID_STATUS.RENDERED],e.status)||!e.status)};function w(e,n){var r=[],i=Object(f.groupBy)(e,"adUnitCode");return Object.keys(i).forEach(function(e){var t=Object(f.groupBy)(i[e],"bidderCode");Object.keys(t).forEach(function(e){return r.push(t[e].reduce(n))})}),r}var o=function(n){var i={},r={};function o(e){return"string"==typeof e?[e]:S.isArray(e)?e:n.getAdUnitCodes()||[]}function a(){var e=n.getBidsReceived();return l.config.getConfig("useBidCache")||(e=e.filter(function(e){return r[e.adUnitCode]===e.auctionId})),w(e=e.filter(function(e){return Object(f.deepAccess)(e,"video.context")!==b.a}).filter(function(e){return"banner"!==e.mediaType||Object(g.c)([e.width,e.height])}).filter(O).filter(I),f.getOldestHighestCpmBid)}function c(){return n.getStandardBidderAdServerTargeting().map(function(e){return e.key}).concat(T).filter(f.uniques)}function u(t,n,e,r){return Object.keys(n.adserverTargeting).filter(s()).forEach(function(e){t.length&&t.filter(function(t){return function(e){return e.adUnitCode===n.adUnitCode&&e.adserverTargeting[t]}}(e)).forEach(function(t){return function(e){S.isArray(e.adserverTargeting[t])||(e.adserverTargeting[t]=[e.adserverTargeting[t]]),e.adserverTargeting[t]=e.adserverTargeting[t].concat(n.adserverTargeting[t]).filter(f.uniques),delete n.adserverTargeting[t]}}(e))}),t.push(n),t}function s(){var t=c();return function(e){return-1===t.indexOf(e)}}function d(t){return m({},t.adUnitCode,Object.keys(t.adserverTargeting).filter(s()).map(function(e){return m({},e.substring(0,20),[t.adserverTargeting[e]])}))}return i.setLatestAuctionForAdUnit=function(e,t){r[e]=t},i.resetPresetTargeting=function(e){if(Object(f.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var t=o(e),r=n.getAdUnits().filter(function(e){return v()(t,e.code)});window.googletag.pubads().getSlots().forEach(function(n){A.forEach(function(t){r.forEach(function(e){e.code!==n.getAdUnitPath()&&e.code!==n.getSlotElementId()||n.setTargeting(t,null)})})})}},i.resetPresetTargetingAST=function(e){o(e).forEach(function(e){var t=window.apntag.getTag(e);if(t&&t.keywords){var n=Object.keys(t.keywords),r={};n.forEach(function(e){v()(A,e.toLowerCase())||(r[e]=t.keywords[e])}),window.apntag.modifyTag(e,{keywords:r})}})},i.getAllTargeting=function(e){var t=1=t.length?{value:void 0,done:!0}:(e=r(t,n),this._i+=e.length,{value:e,done:!1})})},68:function(e,t,r){var i=r(25),o=r(139),a=r(69),c=r(50)("IE_PROTO"),u=function(){},s="prototype",d=function(){var e,t=r(54)("iframe"),n=a.length;for(t.style.display="none",r(142).appendChild(t),t.src="javascript:",(e=t.contentWindow.document).open(),e.write("
        ")}(r,a,e),u={requestId:f[n],cpm:o/100,width:c,height:s,ad:d,ttl:600,creativeId:r,netRevenue:!0,currency:"USD",hb_bidder:"fan",fb_bidid:e,fb_format:a,fb_placementid:r};if(S(a)){var l=T();u.mediaType="video",u.vastUrl="https://an.facebook.com/v1/instream/vast.xml?placementid=".concat(r,"&pageurl=").concat(l,"&playerwidth=").concat(c,"&playerheight=").concat(s,"&bidid=").concat(e),u.ttl=3600}return u})},transformBidParams:function(t,n){return Object(y.convertTypes)({placementId:"string"},t)}};Object(r.registerBidder)(s)}},[199]);pbjsChunk([0],{335:function(e,r,t){e.exports=t(336)},336:function(e,r,t){"use strict";Object.defineProperty(r,"__esModule",{value:!0}),t.d(r,"spec",function(){return b});var w=t(0),n=t(2),I=t(3),a=t(337),i=t.n(a),o=t(339),s=t.n(o),d=t(1);function P(e){return(P="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}var p=[n.b],f=100,c=35,m=!0,y={JPY:1};function u(e){return i()(e)&&2===e.length&&s()(e[0])&&s()(e[1])}var b={code:"ix",supportedMediaTypes:p,isBidRequestValid:function(e){if(!u(e.params.size))return!1;if(!function(e,r){if(u(e))return e[0]===r[0]&&e[1]===r[1];for(var t=0;tr(e)?t:e})}(t.strData.sizes)),[{requestId:t.data.bidId,width:s[0],height:s[1],cpm:n.cpm,creativeId:n.creative.creative_key,dealId:n.creative.deal_id,currency:"USD",netRevenue:!0,ttl:360,ad:function(e,t){var r="str_response_".concat(t.data.bidId),n='\n\n
        \n HomeVideoPoliticsUSWorldEntertainmentSportsBusinessOpinionOutdoorsComedyShopDaily Caller ShopDaily DealerWine ClubSend a Tip12:15 PM 05/19/2019 | USChuck Ross | Reporter
        Former Republican South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said he is aware of potentially game-changing evidence in the FBI's Russia probe regarding George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign adviser.
        During an interview on Fox News' ''Sunday Morning Futures,'' Gowdy indicated he has seen FBI transcripts related to Papadopoulos that contain potentially exculpatory information on the question of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.
        ''If the bureau's going to send in an informant in, the informant's going to be wired, and if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that,'' Gowdy told host Maria Bartiromo.
        Gowdy continued:
        ''Some of us have been fortunate enough to know whether or not those transcripts exist. But they haven't been made public, and I think one in particular is going '-- it has the potential to actually persuade people. Very little in this Russia probe I'm afraid is going to persuade people who hate Trump or love Trump. But there is some information in these transcripts that has the potential to be a game-changer if it's ever made public.''
        WATCH:
        The FBI officially opened its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign July 31, 2016, after receiving information from the Australian government regarding Papadopoulos. A top Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, claimed Papadopoulos told him during a conversation May 10, 2016, that he heard Russia might release information on Hillary Clinton close to the campaign.
        As part of its investigation, the FBI used a longtime informant, Stefan Halper, to make contact with Papadopoulos. He paid Papadopoulos $3,000 and flew him to London in mid-September 2016 under the guise of writing an academic paper on Mediterranean energy security issues. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: A London Meeting Before The Election Aroused George Papadopoulos's Suspicions)
        Halper, a former Cambridge professor, was accompanied by a woman he claimed was his assistant. But the woman, who used the alias Azra Turk, was actually a government investigator. Papadopoulos claims during meetings in London, Halper and Turk asked him if he knew of or was involved in Russian efforts to obtain Clinton emails. Papadopoulos said he denied having any knowledge of the matter.
        A month after Papadopoulos's trip, the FBI obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Carter Page, another Trump campaign aide. The surveillance warrant mentioned Papadopoulos as well. It is unclear if the application for the warrant includes any information gathered by Halper, who also established contact with Page.
        Gowdy, who served on the House Intelligence Committee, said he and Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe have seen the potentially exculpatory documents. He said he hopes the public will one day get to review it.
        ''If you have exculpatory information and you don't share it with the court, that ain't good. I've seen it, Johnny [Ratcliffe] has seen it. I'd love for your viewers to see it,'' he said.
        Gowdy, who is a Fox News contributor, dropped another potential bombshell in a Fox News interview earlier in May.
        He indicated that while he was in office, he saw an FBI spreadsheet that listed news articles and information from longtime Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal as corroborating information for the Steele dossier.
        Follow Chuck on Twitter
        Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
        Tags : george papadopoulos robert mueller trey gowdySearch
        Trending(C) Copyright 2010 - 2018 | The Daily Caller
      VIDEO - Jeanine Pirro Says the 'Deep State' is About to Be Exposed
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 17:01
        Fox News' Jeanine Pirro exclaimed that the 'Deep State' is about to be exposed, citing recent comments from Attorney General Bill Barr about investigating the origins of the investigation into Russian election interference.
        ''We are not going quietly into the night. Grab your popcorn, Junior Mints or whatever makes you happy,'' she said at the top of her open Saturday night. ''The real show is about to begin. This will be true reality TV. No scripts, no rehearsals, just a gang of criminals pointing fingers at each other to save their own hides. A version of true crime and reality show Survivor. The deep state exposed.''
        ''I told you more than a year ago, for the director James Comey was the head of his own crime family,'' Pirro continued on. ''He ran the upper echelon of the FBI like an organized criminal enterprise.''
        Pirro accused former FBI director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe of being ''leakers,'' and trying to pass the blame onto other people.
        Pirro also mentioned Barr's appointment of U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the Russia probe, praising the appointment saying ''indictments are his stock and trade.''
        ''The amazing part of all of this is that there is no more denying the existence of a Deep State,'' Pirro said.
        ''All [of these people] compromised by their political agenda to destroy Donald Trump,'' Pirro further opined while praising Barr for his comment hitting back at critics of his testimony to Congress.
        Watch above, via Fox News
        Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
      VIDEO - After six months of protests, France's yellow vests lose momentum | Euronews
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 16:59
        Yellow vest protesters took to the streets of Paris for the 27th Saturday in a row but turnout numbers are declining.
        By 2 pm on Saturday, there were around 2,800 protesters across France.
        Last week around 18,600 people took part, according to the Interior Ministry '-- the lowest turnout throughout the whole of the movement.
        Police in Paris have now banned protesters from the Champs Elysees and areas around the presidential palace, the national assembly, and Notre Dame.
        Protesters are also forbidden from wearing anything that disguises their face.
      VIDEO - Video: European Parliament elections '-- how does Spitzenkandidat process work? | Euronews
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 16:57
        When it comes to the European Union, the Commission President is the most powerful figure, tasked, among other things, with setting the bloc's policy agenda.
        The battle to replace Jean-Claude Juncker has started in earnest with Spitzenkandidaten '-- German for lead candidates '-- travelling around the 28-country bloc and taking part in televised debates ahead of the European parliamentary elections on May 23-26.
        But do you know how this powerful job is actually handed out?
        Watch Euronews' Alasdair Sandford break it all down in the video player above.
        In the past, the appointment process was seen as murky, taking place behind closed doors in negotiations between leaders of the different member states, each keen to further their own political agenda.
        The Spitzenkandidat system was created to make the process more transparent.
        Political groups in the EU Parliament each select a nominee ahead of the election. The job is then given to the candidate whose group has secured the most seats provided the EU Council '-- made up of EU leaders '-- and parliament both approve.
        If a majority cannot be obtained, then the Council has to propose an alternative, which parliament must once again vote on.
        Not totally convinced? You're not the only one. Some EU leaders have come out against this process and called for another system.
        READ MORE: 28 things you might not know about the European elections
      VIDEO - WATCH: Bill Maher Rips Attorney General Bill Barr For Being in the 'Cult of Catholicism'
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 15:30
        WATCH: Bill Maher Rips Attorney General Bill Barr For Being in the 'Cult of Catholicism' by Cassandra Fairbanks May 19, 2019 HBO host Bill Maher attacked Attorney General Bill Barr for being ''born into a strange cult and he's never been able to leave. It's called Catholicism.''Maher suggested that Catholics like Barr and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh seek power so that they can control other people's sex lives.
        The ''comedian'' and talk show host asserted that Barr is ''just the latest in a long lines of Republican, Catholic moralizers.'' This ''creepy sub-strain of Catholic conservatives,'' as Maher described them, included Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, former Sen. Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.
        ''Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rick Santorum'...who predicted gay marriage would lead to man-dog marriage; really? Pat Buchanan, Bill Bennett with his ''Book of Virtues,'' Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, geez. 'Law & Order: Special Virgins Unit,''' Maher said.
        ''[T]here are people who have a real problem with unsanctioned pleasure. And growing up Catholic myself, I know a lot of it stems from being taught not to masturbate as a teenager. You've got Jesus on the cross in your bedroom, staring at you all the time. When you touch yourself, there he is, disappointed, it's like you're crucifying him all over again.'' Maher said in conclusion. ''[T]here was a sexual revolution and you lost. Now, stop bitching about it. Because Bill Barr, he's that guy. 'Woodstock ruined America. Now put prayer back in school, or I'll never stop dreaming about this guy's dick.'''
      VIDEO - NoAgenda: The Movie on Vimeo
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 14:59
        Vimeo Pricing Upload Staff Picks On Demand Vimeo OTT Site map Features Video Player Privacy Collaboration Distribution & marketing Monetization Live streaming Analytics Hosting & management Resources Help Center Blog Video School OTT Resources Developers Students Guidelines Company About Jobs Partners Did you know?Vimeo is an amazing video service for original creative work, but it's also a company with real human employees. You could be one!
        TM + (C) 2019 Vimeo, Inc. All rights reserved.
        Terms Privacy Copyright Cookies Made with in NYC.
        Language: English Mature content filter: None
      VIDEO - Pediatric endocrinologist explains 'transgender therapy' a danger to kids, based on 'very poor science' - TheBlaze
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 14:44
        On Friday, the Democratically controlled House passed the so-called "Equality Act", along with eight Republicans in support, which among other things adds sexual orientation and "gender identity" under the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
        This addition now goes to the Senate, where it faces a less certain future, but it brought up again a discussion that has been in the news a great deal this year, in a variety of forms.
        Fox's Laura Ingraham on Friday spoke with Dr. Paul Hruz, a pediatric endocrinologist, specifically on gender identity and the incautious, largely experimental and, as he called them, "drastic" treatments being given to children, euphemistically referred to as transgender "therapy."
        The "therapy" is actually very serious, and in young children can leave lifelong harm.
        In the clip below, Ingraham starts with the most obvious and utterly reasonable question. "I have a question after reading a lot about this," she said. "Why is the medical community so afraid of considering the impact of hormone treatment, and surgeries and so forth, for the young?"
        "It's fairly important to recognize that what is being put forward with the goal of truly helping these individuals that are suffering is based on very, very poor science," Hruz told Ingraham. "Any effort to draw attention to the poor science and the potential very negative and serious consequences that these hormonal interventions really has not been given the attention that it deserves."
        He added that this therapy is uniquely unquestioned, and dangers unexplored, as compared with normal medical science and research.
        The social stigma attached to questioning liberal progressive social justice tropes is enormous, and that is as true in scientific inquiry as it is entertainment, business, or any other endeavor in American life. That mob rule is hurting those least capable of speaking for themselves, or understanding what is happening to them. Which is tragically ironic, considering the stated goal of social justice is giving voice to those who don't have one.
        Listen below as Dr. Hruz explains that the physical and emotional development of adolescence and puberty are being ignored, or whether the questioning of gender identity in youth is a normal and passing process of development, for which a permanent harmful treatment would be a dramatic overcorrection or irreparable error.
        It's very important to note that Dr. Hruz doesn't question the existence of gender dysphoria, or having a gender identity different from one's biological sex. He didn't speak ill of the legislation either. The reason that it's important is because the reaction his statements will get, and that Ingraham will get for simply having covered the topic, will not care about that distinction.
        The fact that he is even questioning the undertaking of serious intervention in the development of a child without thorough understanding of the consequences or even the necessity, won't matter, because the politics of social justice are too rigid for even contemplation of caution. You must embrace and celebrate surgically altering children, or you're the backward loon.
        In other words, even if you are challenging the science with scientific data, the reaction will be of a social and political nature, not a similarly scientific one.
        Gosh, that sounds familiar. Is there some other topic you can think of where leftists are advising humongous, future-altering change and disallowing even inquiring about the validity of their claims? One driven especially by celebrities, busy-bodies, and activists, and not principally by the science?
        Hmmmmm. I'm sure that's familiar for some reason.
      VIDEO - The View rips Elizabeth Warren for passing up Fox News: 'Very dismissive' - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 14:36
      VIDEO - Beto O'Rourke: Stacey Abrams is a 'real hero to me,' election was probably rigged against her - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 14:35
      VIDEO - Secretary Mike Pompeo to Russians: Interference in American Elections is Unacceptable - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 14:35
      VIDEO - O'Rourke: Vanity Fair cover reinforced notion of white privilege - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 14:34
      VIDEO - You Can't Watch This (2019) | Official Trailer - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 14:33
      VIDEO - Liberal author suggests Trump 'deserves' same gruesome fate as Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi - TheBlaze
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 14:29
        Liberal author Fran Lebowitz ignited controversy Friday when she suggested that President Donald Trump deserves to suffer the same gruesome fate as journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
        What did Lebowitz say?During a conversation about the president on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," Lebowitz said Trump deserves a fate much worse than impeachment.
        "Certainly, he deserves to be impeached. I mean, impeachment is just the beginning of what he deserves. Not even scratching the surface of what he deserves," Lebowitz said.
        "Whenever I think about this and what he really deserves, I think, 'We should turn him over to the Saudis, you know, his buddies. The same Saudis who got rid of that reporter, you know. Maybe they can do the same for him," she continued.
        Lebowitz's sinister suggestion received cheers and applause from the live studio audience.
        Later in the program, Lebowitz attempted to walk back her suggestion after producers informed her that she was receiving "blowback" on social media. However, she did not apologize.
        "I saw your face when I said it," Lebowitz told Maher. "I didn't even realize that I said it. I had twelve cups of coffee. I regret saying it."
        "I did not mean that and I regret saying it. I regret that everyone misinterpreted it," she went on to say.
        Who is Jamal Khashoggi?Khashoggi, whose disappearance and death generated intentional headlines last year, was killed by Saudi officials inside their Istanbul consulate last October. Turkish intelligence suggests Khashoggi was strangled before being dismembered and quietly removed from the Saudi consular building.
        It is believed that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was ultimately behind the plot to murder Khashoggi.
      VIDEO - NowThis on Twitter: ".@AOC made a great point about white supremacist violence and the label of terrorism'... "
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 14:11
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - Mike 'Thomas Paine' Moore on Twitter: "Resistance TV: Wallace, Panel Blast 'Cowardly' Dems Not Impeaching Trump, Bash Voters https://t.co/YTrgFNpioo"
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 12:52
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - Scripting News: Monday, May 6, 2019
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 12:33
        It's even worse than it appears.
        A browser JavaScript challenge. Here's a
        demo app. Use the up and down arrow keys to move from card to card. When you get to the bottom of the screen the cursor moves to an object that is not visible. I want to scroll the window vertically to make the cursor object fully visible. If you look at
        the code, you'll see a routine named
        scrollToMakeVisible. The goal is to fill in the body of that routine. I've opened a
        thread to discuss.
        #
        BTW, if the House doesn't impeach Trump we've
        established a precedent that will be hard to undo. It means an end to co-equal branches. It's a license for the executive to do whatever it wants. I wonder if people who think there's a good outcome possible from non-impeachment have thought this through. Trump may or may not be a bumbling fool with evil intent. But it's not hard to imagine a more competent fascist taking his place, and then what.
        #
        I find GORKA! fascinating because of his utter depravity and smarminess and the fact that some people obviously feel he is educated and sophisticated. I like GORKA! even better when he is being humiliated
        to his face.
        #
        I tried cross-posting but it doesn't work. I
        wrote it up. The problem is that the silos don't support cross-posting in any direction. They really want to be worlds unto themselves. The web, as far as they're concerned, isn't worth supporting, even though they couldn't exist without it.
        #
        Facebook is to the web what a text editor is to a spreadsheet.
        #
        The Netflix documentary,
        Knock Down the House, is very good. I'm only half way through it, but it's opened my eyes.
        #
      VIDEO - The Not-so-Angelic Initiative [PaymoneyWubby] - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 12:19
      VIDEO - What you need to know about LED lights - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 12:14
      VIDEO - Trudeau Government Launches DIGITAL CHARTER To Stop ''Hate Speech'' Online! - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 12:11
      VIDEO - This AI That Sounds Just Like Joe Rogan Should Terrify Us All
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 19:57
        Joe Rogan/Victor Tangermann
        Sound-AlikeOn Wednesday, Canada-based startup Dessa unveiled a new AI that replicates the voice of Joe Rogan, a podcaster known for his bold views '-- not to mention for getting high with Elon Musk.
        As explained in a blog post, the Dessa team managed this feat by developing a deep learning system called RealTalk that uses text inputs to produce life-like speech in the style of a real person.
        It's perhaps the best example of an audio deepfake yet. Even those well-acquainted with Rogan's voice will likely have a hard time telling apart the fake audio from things the comedian has actually said '-- and that ability to fool listeners could have terrifying implications for the future.
        Scary SpeechIn the demonstration shared by Dessa, faux Rogan keeps the conversation light, showing off its ability to recite tongue-twisters and contemplating whether chimpanzees could beat humans at hockey.
        However, the company is well aware of the potential dangers of such a system. They even provide a bullet-pointed list of all the ways it could go wrong, noting that someone could impersonate a government official to enter a high-security facility or a politician to manipulate an election.
        These potentially nefarious uses are why Dessa says it won't publicly release its research, model, or datasets for the project.
        ''[It's] one of the coolest, but scariest, things I've seen yet in artificial intelligence,'' Alex Krizhevsky, Dessa's principal machine learning architect, said in the post. ''Unlike The Singularity, which is this theoretical thing that could happen in 40, 100 years, speech synthesis is soon going to be a reality everywhere.''
        READ MORE: This AI-generated Joe Rogan fake has to be heard to be believed [The Verge]
        More on AI: China's Google Equivalent Can Clone Voices After Seconds of Listening
      VIDEO - Pardes Seleh on Twitter: "russia and putin and the oligarchs and kremlin and trumprussiapossiblecollusion https://t.co/xCYpZYuRPW'... "
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 19:42
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - David Letterman Slams Trump: He Does Not Represent Me
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 19:22
        Former Late Show host David Letterman told NBC's Today show that he does not approve of Donald Trump's presidency and hopes America will ''settle this'' in the next election.
        ''As an American, I don't like this man as a president of our country,'' Letterman told Willie Geist during an appearance on Sunday TODAY that will air this weekend. ''I love being an American, but I don't feel he represents me and I don't like that.''
        ''Even with other presidents that I've disagreed with, politically, I felt like, okay, I can live with their representation, but I'm sick and tired of everybody wringing their hands about this,'' he added. ''Let's just settle this at the next election. Let's just stop yacking about what a goon he is.''
        In Letterman's history as a talk show host, he invited Trump on his show over 30 times, where the two were very friendly with one another despite often discussing political issues. However, the president's most famous appearance on the Late Show comes from a 2012 segment during which Letterman mocked Trump's comments about China stealing U.S. manufacturing jobs by pulling out a Trump brand tie that was made in China.
        During the Today interview, Letterman also commented on the state of late-night comedy hosts in the Trump era, as they have largely used their shows to savagely critique the president '-- occasionally sounding more like pundits than comics.
        ''The people who are in charge [of late-night comedy] now do a really good job of it,'' Letterman said. ''As I've said before, it's like painting the Golden Gate Bridge '' as soon as you're done, you got to start all over and it would be the same night after night after night after night.''
        Watch above, via NBC.
        Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
      VIDEO - Truth about my Tony's Intervention not being heard for what it truly is - The Truth #truthispower - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 19:20
      VIDEO - US Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology Health Risks at Senate Hearing - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 18:39
      VIDEO - WATCH! CNN Freaks Out As Trump Approval Rating Hits 56% on Economy (VIDEO)
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 18:01
        Follow Matt on TwitterThis is worth the watch. CNN freaking out over their own poll's approval rating of President Trump's job on the economy.
        ''56% of Americans approve of how he's handing the economy, this is the highest number we've ever seen him at in CNN polling.''
        Why are they freaked out you might ask?
        Because people vote with their wallets my friends. They don't vote based on how poor they're doing, they vote on how well they are doing. Americans are doing amazing thanks to the President.
        CNN is literally in a tailspin now that the Mueller Report showed no collusion, the New York Times now says the FBI was spying on the Trump Administration, and the Obama Administration knew about it.
        Couple that the fact that thanks to President Trump the American economy is on fire, watching liberals right now is literally the epitome of deer in the headlights. It's great!
      VIDEO - Anti-abortion Rep. Tim Murphy resigns after report he asked lover to end pregnancy - ABC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 17:58
        Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy has resigned after a report surfaced earlier this week that he had asked an extramarital lover to end her pregnancy.
        Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
        The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office's Facebook account in January.
        Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images Rep. Tim Murphy attends the House Energy and Commerce Committee meeting to organize for the 115th Congress, Jan. 24, 2017 in Washington, D.C. "And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
        A response from Murphy's phone number allegedly read, "I get what you say about my March for life messages. I've never written them. Staff does them. I read them and winced. I told staff don't write any more. I will."
        According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the exchange was over "an unfounded pregnancy scare."
        Murphy's office and Edwards had no comment when reached by ABC News.
        On Thursday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., announced that Murphy was resigning from Congress.
        ''This afternoon I received a letter of resignation from Congressman Tim Murphy, effective October 21," Ryan said in a statement. "It was Dr. Murphy's decision to move on to the next chapter of his life, and I support it. We thank him for his many years of tireless work on mental health issues here in Congress and his service to the country as a naval reserve officer.''
        Murphy had previously announced his plans to retire at the end of his term in 2018.
        "After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."
        But Murphy's retirement announcement didn't go far enough for some members. The embattled congressman was under immense pressure from GOP leaders to resign Wednesday, according to a source close to Murphy -- and that pressure only increased after he announced plans to retire after finishing out his term.
        Murphy has a record of supporting legislation to cut federal funding for abortion and Planned Parenthood, and co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act on Jan. 24, one day before the text exchange.
        ABC News' Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
      VIDEO - Tim Young on Twitter: "Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi stated that Democrats NEVER SAID THERE WASN'T A CRISIS at the border... Sooo... here's a mashup of Democrats (including her) saying there wasn't a crisis at the border 4 months ago. https://t.co/pPajr
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 17:46
        Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi stated that Democrats NEVER SAID THERE WASN'T A CRISIS at the border...Sooo... here's a mashup of Democrats (including her) saying there wasn't a crisis at the border 4 months ago.
        pic.twitter.com/pPajr7056R
      VIDEO - "Flat Earth - The Ultimate Litmus Test" (2016) ðŸŒŽ - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 12:27
      VIDEO - NASA hopes to have first woman land on moon with Artemis program - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 11:17
      VIDEO - We Are Going - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 11:16
      VIDEO - Trump unveils plan to 'transform' America's immigration system, focus on high-skilled workers | Fox News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 10:52
        President Trump on Thursday unveiled a long-awaited immigration overhaul that would dramatically alter how the U.S. accepts people into the country, upending the system in order to favor admissions based on merit rather than family ties.
        "If adopted, our plan will transform America's immigration system into the pride of our nation and the envy of the modern world," Trump said from the Rose Garden.
        GRAHAM UNVEILS BILL TO CHANGE ASYLUM LAW, SEND MIGRANTS BACK HOME
        The proposal would judge immigrants with a points-based system that would favor high-skilled workers -- accounting for age, English proficiency, education and whether the applicant has a well-paying job offer.
        Currently, only about 12 percent of immigrants are admitted based on employment and skills, while 66 percent are admitted based on family connections inside the U.S. Administration officials estimate that those numbers would flip to 57 and 33 percent, respectively, under the Trump plan.
        "Currently 66 percent of legal immigrants come here based on random chance, they're admitted solely because they have a relative in the United States, and it doesn't really matter who that relative is," Trump said.
        He said the plan would help recruit "top talent."
        "We discriminate against genius," Trump said of current policies. "We discriminate against brilliance. We won't anymore once we get this passed."
        The average yearly wage of legal immigrants is approximately $43,000. Administration officials said Wednesday that immigrants admitted based on education and skills would have an average income of $126,000, and they would expect the average yearly wage of all immigrants to rise to roughly $96,000.
        Trump has long sought to end what he has called ''chain migration'' as part of his broader push to reform America's immigration laws and who is allowed into the country.
        He has also frequently called for the end to the visa lottery program, something his immigration plan seeks to do. It would be replaced by a new "Build America Visa" program that would recognize "extraordinary talent" and "people with professional and specialized vocations," including exceptional students.
        The plan does not deal with those already in the country illegally, including those who came to the country as children and were protected under an Obama-era executive order. However, Trump said it closes loopholes so that gang members and criminals are inadmissible, and would stop frivolous asylum claims.
        "For criminals already here, we will ensure their swift deportation," he said.
        NUNES TO DEMOCRATS: DON'T JUST CRITICIZE TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION OVERHAUL, INTRODUCE YOUR OWN PLAN
        Trump said the proposal would also require immigrants to be financially self-sufficient, learn English and pass a civics exam before admission.
        "Through these steps, we will deliver an immigration system that strengthens our traditions, our culture and our values," he said.
        The plan could face some opposition from some conservatives as it does not reduce overall rates of immigration. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower levels of immigration, called it a "positive effort" but flagged the failure to reduce legal immigration levels.
        "This plan represents a very positive effort on immigration, and includes important provisions such as limits to chain migration, closing the loopholes that are allowing the flow of drugs and migrants at the southern border and a crackdown on visa overstays," he said in a statement. "It is concerning there was no mention of E-Verify. However, it is not likely to become legislation, but is rather a statement of the president's goals. As such, the fact that it does not even call for a modest reduction in total immigration, but instead offsets decreases with increases in 'skills-based' immigration, is very concerning."But Trump said the plan will present a ''clear contrast'' with Democrats' immigration plans.
        ''Democrats are proposing open borders, lower wages and frankly, lawless chaos,'' he said. ''We are proposing an immigration plan that puts the jobs, wages and safety of American workers first.''
        ''Our plan is pro-American, pro-immigrant, and pro-worker,'' he said. ''It's just common sense.''
        Democrats dismissed Trump's plan before it was even announced, indicating an uphill climb in Congress. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said earlier Thursday that the plan ''isn't a serious attempt at immigration reform.''
        ''It repackages the same partisan, radical anti-immigrant policies that the administration has pushed for the two years '' all of which have struggled to earn even a simple majority in the Senate let alone 60 votes,'' he said.
        House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., described the Trump plan as "dead-on-arrival" and "not a remotely serious proposal."
        "The White House has repackaged the worst of its past failed immigration plans: greenlighting the Administration's barbaric family detention policies, reviving the President's ineffective and wasteful wall, completely abandoning our patriotic and determined Dreamers and gutting our asylum and refugee protections, which the evangelical community has called the 'crown jewel of American humanitarianism,'" Pelosi said in a statement. "To say that this plan's application criteria are 'merit-based' is the height of condescension."
        House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that Trump's proposal was "based on a set of falsehoods aimed at only allowing immigrants from certain favored nations or backgrounds.
        "This new proposal is a non-starter and another example of how this President continues to base his immigration policies on xenophobic and false stereotypes about immigrants from certain parts of the world," Hoyer added. "... If we close ourselves off from the world, shut ourselves in with walls and closed minds, we do so at our own peril and at the expense of the better future we forfeit."
        Trump seemed to acknowledge the challenge of getting Democratic support in his remarks from the Rose Garden: "If for some reason, possibly political, we can't get the Democrats to approve this merit-based high-security plan, then we will get it approved immediately after the election when we take back the House, keep the Senate and of course hold the presidency."
        Trump's immigration proposal comes as the administration is scrambling separately to deal with the more pressing challenge of illegal immigration on the southern border.
        CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
        Customs and Border Protection said it apprehended or turned away more than 109,000 migrants attempting to cross the border in April, the second month in a row the number has topped 100,000.
        A bill unveiled by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Wednesday would end asylum claims from Central America at the border, and return unaccompanied minors to their home countries.
        Fox News' Gregg Re, John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
      VIDEO - The Christchurch ''Call To Action'' Summit in Paris Exposed! They're Coming For Us ONLINE!! - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 10:21
      VIDEO - Homeless Population Looks To Floating Camps On Sacramento River - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 17 May 2019 10:15
      VIDEO - NowThis on Twitter: ".@AOC asked this pharma exec why a life-saving HIV drug costs nearly $2,000 in the U.S. and $8 in Australia https://t.co/A7wTv92CCF" / Twitter
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 16 May 2019 23:39
        Enter a topic, @name, or fullname
      VIDEO - (1) Jamie Bartlett on Twitter: "I can't believe what I'm seeing! While running a facial recognition pilot, one man (understandably imho) covered himself up. The police forced him to show his face (& then fined him for disorderly
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 16 May 2019 20:37
        Christian Wach @ interactivist
        May 15 Replying to
        @JamieJBartlett Although I agree that the story is shocking, it should perhaps be noted that it happened at the end of January
        independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/'... View conversation · Jamie Bartlett @ JamieJBartlett
        May 15 Replying to
        @interactivist Cheers
        View conversation · Jamie Bartlett @ JamieJBartlett
        May 15 Replying to
        @JamieJBartlett If this is rolled out, there will be hundreds - probably thousands - who will do exactly what this man has done: principled refusal to comply. What will the police do then?
        View conversation · Jamie Bartlett @ JamieJBartlett
        May 15 Replying to
        @JamieJBartlett And if you think this technology will be 'objective' or 'neutral' then I suggest you watch this:
        pic.twitter.com/lfIjJRTUeK View conversation · Jamie Bartlett @ JamieJBartlett
        May 15 Replying to
        @BBCClick This clip is taken from a brilliant episode of
        @BBCClick, dedicated to looking into facial recognition technology. Watch it here:
        bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod'... View conversation · Jamie Bartlett @ JamieJBartlett
        23h Replying to
        @geoffwhite247 (This report was done by
        @geoffwhite247 - top journalist, deep web specialist too, and someone you should all follow.)
        View conversation · Jamie Bartlett @ JamieJBartlett
        4h Replying to
        @JamieJBartlett The road to our techno-hell will almost certainly be paved with innocent sounding 'pilots' and soundbites about 'keeping the public safe'.
        View conversation ·
    STORIES
      Syrische Al-Nusra-commandant aangehouden in Zeeland - NRC
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 14:04
        In het Zeeuwse Kapelle is dinsdag een 47-jarige Syrir aangehouden op verdenking van betrokkenheid bij onder meer oorlogsmisdrijven in Syri. Hij zou als commandant van een bataljon van de terreurbeweging Jabhat al-Nusra deelgenomen hebben aan de gewapende strijd.
        De man, die sinds 2014 in Nederland verblijft en een tijdelijke verblijfsvergunning heeft, vocht onder de strijdersnaam Abu Khuder. Het OM heeft zijn strijdersnaam en de naam van het bataljon verspreid in de hoop informatie uit Syri te ontvangen. Ook is het bericht in het Arabisch en Engels vertaald. Bij de huiszoeking legde de politie beslag op documenten, een computer en een telefoon. De 47-jarige man wordt vrijdag voorgeleid aan de rechter-commissaris in Den Haag.
        Het strafrechtelijk onderzoek tegen de man begon met informatie van de Duitse politie, die over getuigenverklaringen beschikte. In Duitsland heeft de politie dinsdag ook zes woningen van vermoedelijke strijders van hetzelfde bataljon doorzocht. De woning van een man die contact had met de Syrir is dinsdag ook doorzocht.
        Jabhat al-Nusra riep vanaf de oprichting in 2012 op tot een gewapende strijd tegen het regime van Assad en was gelieerd aan Al Qaida. Door veel westerse landen en de Verenigde Naties wordt de beweging gezien als terroristische organisatie.
      Guardian's Style Guide Puts Harsher Words to Our Global Climate Crisis - Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 13:46
        May 17, 2019; Guardian
        Earlier this year, NPQ wrote about changes the Associated Press made to its style guide for journalists reporting on racism. Now, the Guardian is announcing a change to its style guide for reporting on the environment.
        The guidance from editor-in-chief Katherine Viner is being shared broadly. The changes she recommends are as follows:
        Use climate emergency, crisis, or breakdown instead of climate changeSay global heating rather than global warmingUse wildlife (where applicable) rather than biodiversitySay fish populations rather than fish stocksClimate science denier or climate denier should replace climate skepticViner says the goal is to ''accurately reflect the phenomena'' in a way that's both scientifically precise and clear to readers. The older terms aren't banned precisely, but Guardian writers who seek to use them'--say, for SEO purposes'--should think twice and then clear their choice with the audience team.
        This follows a more general strengthening of civil society's approach to the issue, as is reflected in the ''extinction rebellion'' movement in the UK. It also follows a strongly written article by Mark Hertsgaard and Kyle Pope, published on April 22nd in the Columbia Journalism Review and the Nation. It is aptly entitled, ''The media are complacent while the world burns,'' and reads in part:
        At a time when civilization is accelerating toward disaster, climate silence continues to reign across the bulk of the US news media. Especially on television, where most Americans still get their news, the brutal demands of ratings and money work against adequate coverage of the biggest story of our time. Many newspapers, too, are failing the climate test. Last October, the scientists of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a landmark report, warning that humanity had a mere 12 years to radically slash greenhouse-gas emissions or face a calamitous future in which hundreds of millions of people worldwide would go hungry or homeless or worse. Only 22 of the 50 biggest newspapers in the United States covered that report.
        Instead of sleepwalking us toward disaster, the US news media need to remember their Paul Revere responsibilities'--to awaken, inform, and rouse the people to action. To that end, The Nation and CJR are launching ''Covering Climate Change: A New Playbook for a 1.5-Degree World,'' a project aimed at dramatically improving US media coverage of the climate crisis. When the IPCC scientists issued their 12-year warning, they said that limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require radically transforming energy, agriculture, transportation, construction, and other core sectors of the global economy. Our project is grounded in the conviction that the news sector must be transformed just as radically.
        ''Newsroom managers have failed to see the climate crisis as fundamental, all-encompassing, and worthy of attention from every journalist on their payrolls,'' Hertsgaard and Pope write. The article laid a path of sorts toward an April 30th conference on reframing environmental coverage, with which the Guardian partnered with the Nation and CJR.'--Ruth McCambridge
      EU: valt er echt iets te kiezen? | De samenleving is van ons '...
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 13:36
        In de eerste alinea's de boodschap in het kort, tot aan het kopje 'einde samenvatting'. Erna volgt verdere uitleg.
        Zoals bekend gaat het hier over het Europees Parlement. Het enige Europese instituut dat we rechtstreeks kunnen kiezen.
        Wat ze daar wel en niet kunnen wordt leuk verbeeld in dit videootje over de Europese instituties. Daarnaast toont deze video van NRC op zeer originele wijze hoe de gang van zaken is rond stemmingen in de EU, breder dan alleen het parlement (relativeer hier wel de al te optimistische toon over het angel-saksische model).
        Ook nu zijn er weer kieshulpen, onder meer: Eu.kieskompas.nl en Eu.stemwijzer.nl De laatste is de betere. Daar kun je namelijk ook inzien wat de partijen van de stellingen vinden. En belangrijker: waarom ze dat vinden.
        Afgaand op deze kieshulpen,lijken onze politieke partijen verstoppertje te spelen:
        In de voor kiezers-in-sp(C) geselecteerde onderwerpen schemert namelijk geen besef door, dat het hoog tijd is dat de EU zich eens fundamenteel bezint. Alle stellingen hebben betrekking op trivialer onderwerpen dan dat.
        Nieuwe geluiden
        Als je alleen de kieshulpen raadpleegt, zal het je nauwelijks opvallen dat er toch wel frisse geluiden rond de EU zijn ontstaan. Dit betreft twee gloednieuwe, werkelijk Europese partijen. E(C)n daarvan is 'European Spring', helaas pas in enkele landen op de kieslijsten; nog niet in Nederland.
        De andere is 'Volt',. Deze werkt op basis van haar 'Amsterdam Declaration', met in een apart document een degelijke uitleg van hoe men de beschreven hervormingen wil bereiken. Volt staat in Nederland dus wel op de stemlijsten.
        Beide nieuwe partijen komen met stevige hervormingsagenda's. Die natuurlijk alleen een kans maken als het ze lukt voldoende kiezer te trekken.
        Bekende geluiden
        Ligt je hart meer bij bestaande partijen, dan is het aan te raden om niet alleen een kieswijzer in te vullen. Je bent tenslotte meer ge¯nteresseerd in daden, dan in woorden. In hoeverre je je in die daden uit de afgelopen periode herkent, kun je nu eindelijk eens toetsen. En wel op de Volkskrant Stemchecker.
        E(C)n bijzonderheid van dit moment: mocht je er belang aan hechten dat een Nederlander (onze goed zichtbare Frans Timmermans) een kans maakt om Juncker op te volgen als voorzitter van de Europese Commissie, dan zijn daarvoor in elk geval voldoende stemmen op zijn PvdA nodig. Maar let op: garanties bestaan niet, in deze processen.
        Einde samenvatting
        Gevangen in 'dingetjes'
        De vraag is waar de trivialiteit van de kieswijzer-onderwerpen aan ligt. E(C)n mogelijke verklaring is, dat men bij de keuze van deze onderwerpen (door de kieswijzers zelf dus) onvoldoende beseft heeft op welk kruispunt Europa zich bevindt. Een andere verklaring is, dat dit besef bij de politieke partijen ontbreekt. En dat onze media ze daar onvoldoende over op de huid zitten. Allicht is het een wisselwerking tussen deze drie factoren.
        Een enkel voorbeeld van die trivialiteit: er wordt gerept van de sancties tegen Rusland. Uiteraard vooral bezien in het licht van onze handelsbelangen.t
        Node gemist
        Maar niets in de kieswijzers gaat erover hoe Europa zich in de nieuwe wereld moet gaan verhouden tot de verschuivende economische machten van China, India en de US. Of tot opkomende economien die geen voedseldumping willen maar eerlijke handelskansen, zoals de Afrikaanse landen.
        De werkelijkgrote vragen komen niet aan bod:
        Welke fundamentele koerswijzingen moet de EU doorvoeren, na de lessen van de afgelopen periode? Welke transformatie gaat ertoe leiden dat de Europese burger het gevoel krijgt dat de EU er voor hem is? Dus, bijvoorbeeld:
        Hoe gaan we de steeds schevere machtsverhouding tussen lobbyisten en kiezers corrigeren? Zodat het Europa van de bedrijven een Europa van de inwoners wordt. Hoe vervangen we het getouwtrek en de mist rond bevoegdheden op Europees en nationaal niveau door een logische, begrijpelijke taakverdeling? Hoe creren we een Europa van gelijke kansen? Kansen voor landen, maar vooral ook voor individuele burgers. Hoe zorgen we ervoor dat de Europese waarden geloofwaardig worden? Gaan we ze eens borgen in de wijze waarop de EU opereert? Daarop zou je de programma's wel eens willen doorlichten. Vrijwel geen burger zal daarvoor de tijd en het geduld kunnen opbrengen. Vooral niet omdat het vermoeden gerechtvaardigd is dat men rond de EU ''als in alle politiek- vooral behendig om zulke lastige thema's heen praat.D
        De 'talking heads'
        In de Volkskrant van 16 mei is te lezen wat onze lijsttrekkers met de EU zeggen te willen.
        Hier wordt de indruk uit de kieswijzers bevestigd. Er zijn enkele fractieleiders met linke uitspraken over uittreden (overigens al wat terugkrabbelend, omdat ze zien dat te veel kiezers dat niet willen). Afgezien van hen, heeft men het vooral over 'dingetjes', dagkoersen of in het beste geval deelonderwerpen.
        Bijvoorbeeld ideen voor wijziging van de Europese begroting, het immigratiebeleid, e.d. Dat riekt naar symtpoombestrijding. Het geeft de indruk dat de bestaande partijen de noodzaak van drastische hervormingen psychologisch verdringen. Met uitzondering misschien van SP en GroenLinks, wier fractieleiders reppen over zekere verdergaande hervormingsplannen.
        De Nederlandse situatie is voor de meeste kiezers al lastig te doorgronden. Maar voor Europa komt daar nog iets bij: je kunt nauwelijks echt Europees stemmen. Dat kan alleen op partijen die hier op de kieslijst staan. En die wordt gedomineerd door de ons welbekende 'merken'.
        Maar pas op:
        Europees werkt anders
        Afgezien van de twee nieuwe partijen met een Europa-brede ambitie (waarvan hier dus alleen Volt op de kieslijst staat), doen de Nederlandse politieke partijen in de ons bekende hoedanigheid niet mee in de EU. Ze opereren slechts in het veel grotere, waziger verband van 'Europese partijen'.
        Dat zijn lastig te vatten clubs, waarin standpunten onvermijdelijk verwateren. Het zijn veelkleurige coalities van nationale partijen. Waar dit toe leidt wordt duidelijk uit een enkel voorbeeld: D66 en VVD zijn op Europees niveau verenigd in dezelfde Alliantie van Liberalen en Democraten.
        O f het nog niet onoverzichtelijk genoeg is: je moet ook nog het onderscheid kennen tussen Europese verbanden van partijen en EU parlementaire fracties.
        Kortom, best ingewikkeld allemaal.
        Wat te doen?
        Kom je er niet uit? Niet stemmen dan maar? Voor wie dat overweegt is het uitbrengen van een blanco stem een optie. Met zo'n neutrale vorm van proteststemmen maak je in elk geval nog een meetbare mening kenbaar, richting EU.
        Wel stemmen? Raadpleeg dan de in deze tekst genoemde bronnen. Aan onze media heb je niet al veel houvast. Ook ditmaal bakken de meeste media weinig van hun voor de democratie zo wezenlijke taak. Ze laten zich als gebruikelijk teveel meeslepen in de waan van de dag, respectievelijk creren ze zelf de mistdekens. Ze houden zich met 'dingetjes' bezig, in plaats met het grote verhaal dat nu aan de orde is. Blijkbaar zijn ze, nu het al zo lang 'goed gaat', het belang en de functie van persvrijheid vergeten.
        Als eerder opgemerkt heeft Eu.stemwijzer.nl het voordeel dat je er per stelling kunt inzien wat de partijen ervan vinden en waarom. Het is de moeite waard om dat onderdeel bij elke stelling ook even te raadplegen. Voordat je bijvoorbeeld 'ja' zegt tegen vliegtax, kun je zo zien dat er een partij is die 'nee' zegt omdat deze het probleem liever bij de bron wil aanpakken: namelijk door gewoon eens accijns op Kerosine te gaan heffen.
        Zo'n vliegtax idee valt misschien wel in de categorie 'seat of the pants management', waarvan overigens hier een schrijnend Nederlands voorbeeld is uitgelicht.
        In elk geval iets doen
        Deze verkiezingen zijn allicht belangrijker dan ooit eerder het geval was met Europa. Het ligt in de rede te veronderstellen dat we Europa in de wereld van morgen nog veel harder nodig hebben. Dan moet de EU wel veel beter gaan functioneren. Zoiets laat je als kiezer niet blind aan de gevestigde belangen over, toch?
      U.S. Warns Assad Regime Preparing New Chemical Weapons Attacks
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 13:35
        Syrian President Bashar al-Assad / Getty
        BY: Adam Kredo Follow@Kredo0May 21, 2019 6:15 pm
        The United States confirmed that it sees evidence that embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is gearing up to again use chemical weapons attacks against his citizens in a protracted and bitter war that has caused scores of casualties in the war torn country.
        "We continue to see signs that the Assad regime may be renewing its use of chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack in northwest Syria on the morning of May 19, 2019," the State Department said in a statement. "We are still gathering information on this incident, but we repeat our warning that if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons, the United States and our allies will respond quickly and appropriately."
        The Trump administration will not stand idly by while Assad uses these lethal weapons, the State Department said in its statement.
        The United States continues to closely monitor the situation.
        "The United States continues to closely watch the military operations by the Assad regime in northwest Syria, including indications of any new use of chemical weapons by the regime," the State Department said.
        Assad has repeatedly used deadly chemical weapons'--barred by conventional warfare'--against his own citizens as he continues to hold onto power in Syria. Both Iran and Russia has sided with Assad and are likely aware of the regime's efforts to use chemical weapons and other attacks.
        "The May 19 alleged attack in northwest Syria is part of a violent campaign by the Assad regime that violates a ceasefire that has protected several million civilians in the greater Idlib area," the State Department said. "This renewed Syrian regime offensive has targeted the communities of that area, which include a large number of Syrians who were already displaced from violence in others parts of Syria, and has destroyed known health facilities, schools, residences, and internally displaced person camps."
        "The regime's attacks against the communities of northwest Syria must end. The United States reiterates its warning, first issued by President Trump in September 2018, that an attack against the Idlib de-escalation zone would be a reckless escalation that threatens to destabilize the region," the statement says.
        The administration also criticized efforts by Assad's Russian backers to disseminate disinformation regarding recent attacks.
        "Russia's recent allegations against the White Helmets and others are part of a continuing disinformation campaign by the Assad regime and Russia to create the false narrative that others are to blame for chemical weapons attacks that the Assad regime itself is conducting," the statement reads.
        "Similarly, on November 24, 2018, the Assad regime and Russia attempted to fabricate a chemical weapons attack near Aleppo and blame it on opposition forces," it continued. "At times, Russia and the Assad regime have made these false allegations as a pretext in advance of the Assad regime's own barbaric chemical weapons attacks."
        "The facts, however, are clear: the Assad regime itself has conducted almost all verified chemical weapons attacks that have taken place in Syria'--a conclusion the United Nations has reached over and over again," according to the State Department. " The former Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)-UN Joint Investigation Mechanism repeatedly verified and reported the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons. The Assad regime's culpability in horrific chemical weapons attacks is undeniable."
      Al Gore's Generation looks to make an impact with $1B sustainable vehicle | PitchBook
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 13:13
        Generation Investment Management has raised just over $1 billion for its latest vehicle, Sustainable Solutions Fund III. Co-founded by former US Vice President Al Gore and former
        Goldman Sachs Asset Management CEO David Blood, the fund will use the capital pool to back later-stage startups that focus on environmental solutions, healthcare and financial inclusion.
        The fund will seek investments ranging between $50 million and $150 million, consistent with the typical size targeted by the London-based firm, which launched 15 years ago and has more than $22 billion of assets under management.
        Generation has already put its third fund to work by leading Andela's $100 million Series D. Also backed by Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan's company, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Andela connects engineering teams with software developers in Africa and reached a $700 million valuation following the round. The sustainable investor has also funded Sophia Genetics, a provider of data-driven medicine applications, leading the biotech company's $77 million round in January.Tapping into the zeitgeistGeneration's latest fund is a big step up, as its previous effort raised just $300 million. It comes at a time when the notion of environmental, social and governance (ESG) and sustainable investing is gaining traction, with industry heavyweights such as BlackRock CEO Larry Fink asserting that investors must make positive contributions to society.
        There also appears to have been a tidal shift against the previous belief that doing good with investments will almost always result in lower-than-market-rate returns. Ronald Cohen, who co-founded global investment giant Apax Partners and now heads the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment, believes that investing under impact guidelines can beat average returns and, importantly, if impact principles were applied across all asset classes, the market could be worth as much as $30 trillion by 2030.
        Featured image via Boonyachoat/iStock/Getty Images Plus Related reads: Check out our analyst note on impact investing
        EQT co-founder joins the impact investing bonanza
      Game of Thrones: How much do women speak in the show? - BBC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 13:12
        *Warning: this article contains some spoilers for the series - but none for the final episode* Image copyright HBO/Sky Atlantic Female characters in Game of Thrones speak about three times less than male characters in the show, according to new data given to BBC 100 Women.
        Although the hugely popular show ended this week after eight seasons, the debate on how it represented women will continue.
        The data by research group Ceretai suggests that across all eight seasons, male speech amounts to about 75% of all speaking time in the series.
        The share of female speaking time varied between seasons, starting at about a quarter in season one and rising slightly to a third by season seven.
        However, the final season, which saw many female characters at the forefront of the plot, was among the worst for female speaking time.
        The data was compiled by Ceretai, a Swedish start-up that uses machine learning to analyse diversity in popular culture.
        Their algorithm has learned to identify the difference between male and female voices in video and provides the speaking time lengths in seconds and percentages per gender.
        Like most automatic systems, it doesn't make the right decision every time. The accuracy of this algorithm is about 85%, so figures could be slightly higher or lower than reported - but the data suggests that speaking times for men and women in the programme are far from being equal.
        Lisa Hamberg, co-founder of Ceretai, told the BBC that by analysing Game of Thrones, they wanted to make viewers aware of the wider problem of how women are portrayed in the media.
        "We are not doing this to make people stop watching, but to make them aware of the fact that it's an unfair representation of the world", she says.
        Researchers were expecting to see about 30% of the speaking time to be the voices of female characters. This is the average given to women on screen, according to research by the USC Annenberg on inequality in 900 popular films.
        The highest proportion of female speech in Game of Thrones is found in the fifth episode of season 4, First of His Name.
        Storylines with leading female characters such as Cersei Lannister and Daenerys Targaryen make female speech almost equal to male speech, at nearly half of the total.
        One of the worst episodes for equality of speaking time across all seasons is the seventh of season one, You Win or You Die, with female characters saying just one sixth of the dialogue.
        The episode included a scene that led to the coining of the term "sexposition" by critic Myles McNutt, referring to the use of sex scenes in the series as a way to explain plot and character motivations.
        Image copyright HBO/Sky Atlantic Image caption Overall character count shows almost three men for every woman in seasons one to seven, according to US software firm Looker Diversity seemed to improve across the middle series, and by season seven the show saw one of the highest percentages of female speech - at about one third.
        But the final season of Game of Thrones has the lowest average for female speech - just one in five times the overall speaking time, according to the algorithm used for the analysis. Hamberg said: "Our hope was to see a positive trend, but this [data] tells us the opposite".
        The fourth episode, The Last of the Starks, gives less than 20% of speaking time to women.
        And the season finale, which aired on Sunday night in the US and on Monday in the UK, saw a gender split of about 80% for male characters and only 20% for their female counterparts - one of the lowest across the series.
        Image copyright HBO/Sky Atlantic Seen but not heardThese findings may surprise some fans, as the final season has been lauded for showcasing strong female characters. From Daenerys to Arya Stark, we have seen their battles and vendettas take centre stage.
        Dr Stephanie Genz, a media studies lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, said the visibility of these female characters doesn't tell the full story.
        "You've got this misperception that because women are very visible, their bodies are very visible, that somehow equates to a meaningful statement, which doesn't necessarily have to be the case."
        Women, especially in the earlier series, "speak with their bodies", according to Dr Genz, and "the audience will not necessarily notice how little they speak."
        "It's just confirming what we know in society anyway - that women's voices are underrepresented."
        Image copyright HBO/Sky Atlantic Image caption Daenerys Targaryen's character arc in the final series has been controversial for many fans Game of Thrones has been criticised for the over-sexualisation of female characters and its portrayal of violence against women.
        Some of show's actors have defended the show in the past, rejecting accusations of misogyny and highlighting that "the key players this season are all female".
        How does GoT compare with the wider film industry?There is a huge difference in the amount of words given to male versus female characters in films, according to previous research by software developer Hanah Anderson.
        Of the 2,000 screenplays analysed by Anderson, three quarters had more than 60% male dialogue.
        BBC 100 Women analysis also suggested that fewer than half of films named best picture at the Oscars have passed a common measure of on-screen female representation known as the Bechdel Test. A film passes the test if it has two named female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man.
        Fewer words, less screen time? An analysis by US software firm Looker on the number of lines assigned to male and female characters also shows an uneven gender split.
        To even the playing field between male and female characters, researchers isolated the top 15 speakers of each gender, to include those with the highest number of lines in the scripts in seasons 1 to 7.
        The line count for these top 30 speakers revealed that Game of Thrones' men have 29% more lines than women, their data suggests.
        So, who speaks the most?
        Tyrion Lannister is solidly in the lead with more than 1,300 lines - 32% more than the first top female speaker, Cersei Lannister, who appears in third place after her youngest brother and Jon Snow.
        Men make up nine of the top 15 characters with the most lines.
        And even dead male characters are given more dialogue than female characters who are still alive.
        For instance, by the end of series seven, Ned Stark - who did not make it past the first season - still had more lines attributed to him than to both Margaery Tyrell and Melisandre.
        "Even though we already knew men get more screen time than women, the results still surprised us," says Sooji Kim, Looker's web optimization manager. "No matter how we sliced the data, we still found that female characters consistently had less visibility".
        A previous analysis from Looker revealed that the total screen time for all male characters was some 15% more than that given to the female cast.
        While the gender gap in screen time is not as large as speaking time, it is still lower than many may have thought, researchers suggest.
        Sooji Kim adds: "The public perception is that female Game of Thrones characters are very strong and prominent, even when they are on screen less and have fewer speaking opportunities.
        "Are powerful women [on screen] so rare that they leave such an impression in our minds, so even when they're not present, they still stand out?"
        So, what do the women of Westeros say when they do speak?
        Looker's data shows that male characters tended to have more masculine-centred words in their lines, such as men, man, King, and Lord.
        Image copyright LOOKER But for female characters, the more frequent words were love, leave, please, husband and master.
        Image copyright LOOKER "That being said, popular female-spoken words did include specific words like daughter and Arya - and stupid and liar- which were used more often than among men", says Sooji Kim.
        "Overall, the actions and words women are participating in are still very attached to gender-related stereotypes".
        HBO did not respond to requests for comments regarding the data on female speech in the series.
        Image copyright HBO/Sky Atlantic Image caption One of the most popular female-spoken words is the name Arya Stark But while Game of Thrones is just one programme, it points to a larger problem in popular culture, according to Lisa Hamberg, whose team conducted the speech analysis of the series.
        "We are getting more aware of the kind of roles women get to play in movies, but if we have a strong female character and she still doesn't get to speak - we are failing."
        Produced by BBC 100 Women's Georgina Pearce and Valeria Perasso.
        Graphics by Elisabetta Tollardo and Debie Loizou, BBC Languages' Visual Journalism.
        What is 100 Women?BBC 100 Women names 100 influential and inspirational women around the world every year and shares their stories. Find us on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter and use #100Women
        Read more:
      Colluding drug firms 'cost the NHS millions of pounds' - BBC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 11:26
        Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Prochlorperazine is prescribed for nausea and dizziness Four pharmaceutical firms have been accused of illegally colluding to restrict the supply of an anti-nausea tablet, driving the price paid for it by the NHS up by 700%.
        The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said the cost of Prochlorperazine rose from £6.49 per pack to £51.68, after suppliers agreed not to compete.
        The drug is often prescribed to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
        One of the firms named, Alliance, denied the allegations.
        In a statement of objections, the CMA says that between 2013 and 2018, the annual cost of 3mg dissolvable Prochlorperazine tablets increased from approximately £2.7m to £7.5m, even though the NHS dispensed fewer packs during that period.
        It claimed that sharp increase was the result of four companies - Alliance, Focus, Lexon and Medreich - agreeing not to compete against each other for the supply of the prescription-only pills.
        Alliance supplied Prochlorperazine exclusively to Focus, which the CMA says then paid Lexon a share of its profits from the sales.
        Lexon, the competition regulator alleges, then shared these payments with Medreich.
        Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Chemotherapy patients are often prescribed Prochlorperazine to help with dizziness The CMA alleges that, before entering into this arrangement, Lexon and Medreich had been planning to launch their own jointly-developed Prochlorperazine.
        In a statement, Alliance said it had "no involvement in the pricing or distribution of Prochlorperazine since 2013, when it was out-licensed by the company to Focus Pharmaceuticals Limited on an exclusive basis as is normal market practice".
        The firm added: "Alliance has not had control of or influence on, and nor has it benefited from, any price increases."
        The BBC has contacted Focus, Lexon and Medreich for comment.
        The CMA's Ann Pope said: "Agreements where a company pays a rival not to enter the market can lead to higher prices and deprive the NHS of huge savings that often result from competition between drug suppliers.
        "The NHS should not be denied the opportunity of benefitting from an increased choice of suppliers, or lower prices, for important medicine."
        The companies concerned will now have the opportunity to respond to the CMA's provisional findings.
        If it eventually determines that competition law has been broken, the CMA can impose a financial penalty of up to 10% of each company's worldwide turnover.
      Defiant Nigel Farage blasts claims he hid from milkshake mob on campaign bus and says he was giving interviews instead
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 11:18
        NIGEL Farage reportedly refused to get off his Brexit Party campaign bus after people gathered round it carrying milkshakes.
        His bodyguards were keen to avoid another splattering days after he raged at them for letting a protester douse him with a caramel shake in Newcastle.
        London News Pictures
        Nigel Farage looked anxious as it was reported he refused to leave his bus when people were spotted with milkshakes nearbyLondon News Pictures
        He was in Kent on his Brexit Party bus to drum up support ahead of the European electionsBPM Media
        Men with their faces covered were feared to be armed with milkshakesLondon News Pictures
        Cops were seen speaking to a separate group of men carrying iced coffeesThree young men - reportedly with covered faces - are said to have been spotted carrying milkshakes at a campaign stop in Rochester, Kent, yesterday.
        After Farage and his security detail were alerted, the Brexit Party leader was reportedly advised not to risk getting off.
        Bus driver Michael Botton told Kent Live: "There were a couple of guys standing with milkshakes, they were going to throw them over him.
        ''But the police are there, we've spotted them and now Nigel isn't getting off the bus.''
        Another group of men were also seen carrying drinks near to the bus, believed to be iced coffees, and were spoken to by cops after reportedly shouting anti-Farage slogans.
        According to Kent Live, the ex-Ukip leader did eventually get off the bus, but stayed close to the vehicle as he spoke to supporters.
        Reuters
        Mr Farage was covered in milkshake in Newcastle earlier this weekA local reporter at the scene, Will Rider, said: "He was stuck on the bus for ages and wouldn't come off.
        "Eventually he did come off but he only stepped about a metre away and chatted to some supporters. He got back on the bus very quickly.
        "In all the other places he stopped off and walked down the high street."
        Later the Brexit Party leader's spokesman denied he was hiding on the top deck.
        He told the MailOnline: "Nigel did media interviews on top of the campaign open-top bus and then got off to mix with supporters afterwards, taking photographs and signing boards.
        "Suggestions that he hid on board the bus are simply not true."
        The Sun Online has approached Kent Police for comment.
        MILKSHAKE ATTACKSEarlier this week Farage had a £5.25 milkshake lobbed at him infront of a crowd of bystanders.
        Paul Crowther, 32, has been charged with common assault and criminal damage, cops confirmed.
        Crowther, who works as a customer service representative at Sky, will appear at North Tyneside Magistrates Court on June 18.
        After the shake was chucked, furious Mr Farage could be heard moaning of his bodyguards' "complete failure" as they whisked him away.
        He added: "You could have spotted that a mile away" and "How could this happen?".
        The leader told reporters the Five Guys banana and salted caramel shake was "yobbo flavoured" - and he reportedly gave a statement to Northumbria Police.
        Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson and Ukip candidate Carl Benjamin were both targeted in recent weeks.
        No action was taken against either of the men although both were questioned by police.
        The milkshake incident comes today despite McDonald's branches in Edinburgh posting signs saying that milkshakes and ice creams would not be for sale ahead of Brexit party rallies.
        The fast food chain claimed police had asked them not to sell shakes or ice cream to stop any embarrassing splatters.
        Why voters are flocking to Nigel Farage's Brexit Party 'KILLER' GRIN Chilling pic shows 'womb-raider' smile over baby 'she ripped from dead teen'
        CARE SICKOS Smirking care home staff attack autistic patient & use 'psychological torture'
        'LIKE A BAG OF TRASH' Girl, 13, dies after mystery man in a car dumps her outside hospital
        end game Defeated May will quit TOMORROW, insiders say as PM scraps doomed 4th Brexit vote
        Exclusive
        'child abuse' I was 'unteachable' & kicked out to improve exam results, like 49,000 others
        Farage's attack has been widely condemned by other politicians, with Brexit minister James Cleverly saying people should debate rather than "assault political opponents".
        Jo Cox's widower Brendan Cox also spoke out, saying that politicians should be able to "campaign without harassment, intimidation and abuse".
        Mr Farage - whose fledgling Brexit party is leading opinion polls - has been touring the UK ahead of European parliament elections today.
        London News Pictures
        Farage on the Brexit Party bus today while campaigning in KentLondon News Pictures
        Farage in Rochester on the eve of the European parliament electionsReuters
        Farage had been campaigning in Newcastle at the beginning of the week when a bystander pelted him with milkshakeReuters
        A security guard pushes Crowther out of the way after the milkshake was thrown, with the empty cup seen circled hereReuters
        Crowther was spoken to by police after the milkshake was thrown at Mr FaragePA:Press Association
        An empty milkshake cup lays on the ground - believed to be the one used in the attackLondon News Pictures
        The Brexit Party leader had been visiting the North East as part of a whistle-stop tour of the UK Nigel Farage hit with milkshake while out campaigning for Brexit We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at tips@the-sun.co.uk or call 0207 782 4368. You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.
      ABC's 'All in the Family' and 'The Jeffersons' Review '' Variety
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 04:07
        May 22, 2019 7:38PM PTWoody Harrelson, Marisa Tomei, Wanda Sykes, Jamie Foxx and more starred in this new special hosted by Jimmy Kimmel and Norman Lear.In retrospect, it was only a matter of time before reboot and revival fever manifested as verbatim repeats '-- but if TV's gonna go there, bringing back eerily timely shows like ''All in the Family'' and ''The Jeffersons'' is the way to do it.
        That Norman Lear's comedies are timely, or at least prescient, is an established TV industry truism decades in the making. The family sitcoms he produced '-- including ''All in the Family,'' ''Maude,'' ''The Jeffersons,'' ''One Day at a Time'' and more '-- refused to live by the dictum that everyone should just get along and avoid topics like religion, money, and politics. In fact, most of the characters on shows he produced barreled headlong into the most contentious issues of the day, grappling with their differences by airing them out in hilarious, sometimes excruciating detail. That model of family sitcom has endured ever since; today's TV shares its DNA, whether in literal reboots like Netflix's ''One Day at a Time'' or spiritual descendants like ABC's ''Blackish.''
        So while Jimmy Kimmel enlisting stars like Woody Harrelson, Marisa Tomei, Wanda Sykes, Kerry Washington, Jamie Foxx, and Will Ferrell to step into old roles for a (live!) one-off special could read as a blatant nostalgia grab, doing so for ''The Jeffersons'' and ''All in the Family'' is as much about reminding a wide new audience about relevant TV history as sheer entertainment. And as the now 96-year-old Lear made explicit in a pointed introduction, re-staging these shows was an experiment to test if they hold up as well in the present day as so many aficionados have said they would. ''We are still grappling with many of the same issues,'' Lear said. ''We hope tonight will make you laugh, provoke discussion, and encourage action. There is so much more work we must do in this country we love so much.''
        The experiment worked. With meticulous attention to set detail and wig shapes, ABC's live staging of ''Henry's Farewell'' (''All in the Family'') and ''A Friend in Need'' (''The Jeffersons'') managed to feel both like an artifact of a nostalgic past and the urgent present. Performing the episodes word for word meant that, for instance, Archie (Harrelson) retained his notoriously ugly streaks of sexism and racism. (It also meant that ABC, adhering to 2019 broadcast network standards, deployed startling, lengthy bleeps to blot out ''Jeffersons'' characters using the n-word.) On the surface, the episodes are linked by writer and ''Jeffersons'' co-creator Don Nicholl and the bombastic George Jefferson himself (played here by Foxx), who made his first appearance in ''Henry's Farewell'' before launching his own spinoff with ''A Friend in Need.'' Both chapters are also linked by frank discussions of class inequality, cultural gulfs, and willful ignorance. Some of the punchlines reveal their age, but as Lear warned us ahead of time, far more hit close to home. (Swap out every Nixon mention for Trump and tell me they don't read much the same!) That doesn't mean they became less funny, but the deja vu does tend to create an extra depressing level to the proceedings.
        As for the performances themselves, most hewed close to straight up impersonations to mixed effect. Harrelson's Archie '-- or more specifically, his attempt at Carroll O'Conner's thick Queens accent '-- didn't quite settle until after the first commercial break, while Foxx got so caught up in mimicking Sherman Hemsley's tics that he flubbed a punchline and blurted, ''It's live!'' Better off was Tomei, who stole just about every scene with her wide-eyed, full-throated commitment to Jean Stapleton's brand of quivering enthusiasm. Opposite these three in particular, Sykes immediately set herself apart by keeping her portrayal of Weezie Jefferson closer to her own instincts than Isabel Sanford's '-- a grounded choice that paid off opposite Foxx's broader impression.
        It helps that these core four were surrounded by able supporting players who, more often than not, have had ample experience on their own comedies borne of the Lear tradition. There's just no resisting the sight of skilled actors like Anderson (''Blackish''), Stephen Tobolowsky (''One Day at a Time''), and Amber Stevens-West (''The Carmichael Show'') get huge applause breaks while paying homage to their sitcom ancestors. In fact, two of them were even right there alongside them: original ''Jeffersons'' castmember Marla Gibbs reprised her role as clever maid Florence, and her ''227'' co-star Jack(C)e also tapped in to play (wonderfully) off Sykes as Weezie's friend Diana.
        So, sure, the acting wasn't flawless and the rhythms of the 1970s comedy occasionally felt jarring on a 2019 stage. But the special was so overwhelmingly dedicated to the fun of the conceit and the enduring accuracy of the punchlines that any technical nitpicks I had quickly faded from memory. By the time Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson was shimmying across the ''Jeffersons'' set belting ''Movin' On Up,'' it became frankly impossible to begrudge the spectacle of it all. TV could frankly do a whole lot worse than gathering talented performers to tackle smart, topical comedy with such visceral joy that they're practically vibrating off the screen. That the material remains so stubbornly timely is a bonus '-- and a warning. The fact that these sitcoms can be recited verbatim almost 50 years later only proves just how much of our world is, despite such intense and ongoing efforts otherwise, the same as it ever was. As Lear himself said: there is, as always, so much more work to do.
        ELSEWHERE ON VARIETY:
        TV Review: ABC's Live 'All in the Family' and 'The Jeffersons'
        In retrospect, it was only a matter of time before reboot and revival fever manifested as verbatim repeats '-- but if TV's gonna go there, bringing back eerily timely shows like ''All in the Family'' and ''The Jeffersons'' is the way to do it. That Norman Lear's comedies are timely, or at least prescient, is [...]
        Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elaine W. Mandel has replaced Craig D. Karlan to handle the Writers Guild of America's lawsuit against Hollywood's four major talent agencies. Mandel was appointed Wednesday. She is the third judge assigned to the case, which was filed April 17 by the WGA against CAA, WME, UTA and ICM Partners [...]
        In today's roundup, Bravo announces its first ever BravoCon and the trailer for the fourth season of ''Queen Sugar'' dropped. DATES The buddy comedy ''Partners in Wine,'' starring Lauren White and Jasmine Curry, will be available for streaming on Amazon Tuesday, May 28. It follows best friends Mia and Anne, who support, challenge, and judge [...]
        Hollywood's largest talent agencies have offered to restart negotiations with the WGA to end the standoff over the guild's effort to impose new rules on talent agents. In a letter to WGA West president David Goodman sent Wednesday, UTA co-president Jay Sures extended an olive branch and suggested resuming talks next week. UTA later sent [...]
        FX is in early development on a series based on Akwaeke Emezi's debut novel ''Freshwater,'' Variety has learned exclusively. The series focuses on Ada, a Nigerian student in her final year of college who finds out that she has three spirits living in her subconscious. They eventually take control of her, threatening to ruin her [...]
        The cast of the Amazon comedy pilot ''Good People'' continues to grow, with Martin Short becoming the latest big name star to sign on to the project. Short joins previously announced cast members Lisa Kudrow, Greg Kinnear, and Whitney Cummings. Cummings is also writing and executive producing the pilot with Lee Daniels. ''Good People'' centers [...]
        ''There's a quote that, 'You cannot be what you cannot see,' and we think there's a lot of truth in that,'' says Peter Ash Lee, the New York-based editor behind the Asian-American arts and culture magazine Burdock. ''Growing up, we didn't see many reflections of ourselves in media, and when we did, they were often [...]
      It Was Supposed to Be Australia's Climate Change Election. What Happened? - The New York Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 03:55
        News Analysis
        Image A farmer feeding his cattle with purchased cotton seeds in the face of a crippling drought in Narrabri, New South Wales, Australia. Credit Credit David Maurice Smith for The New York Times SYDNEY, Australia '-- The polls said this would be Australia's climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.
        And in some districts, it was true: Tony Abbott, the former prime minister who stymied climate policy for years, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. A few other new candidates prioritizing climate change also won.
        But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal.
        What it could mean is that the world's climate wars '-- already raging for years '-- are likely to intensify. Left-leaning candidates elsewhere, like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, may learn to avoid making climate a campaign issue, while here in Australia, conservatives face more enraged opponents and a more divided public.
        ''There has to be a reckoning within the coalition about where they stand,'' said Amanda McKenzie, chief executive of the Climate Council, an Australian nonprofit. ''I think it's increasingly difficult for them to maintain a position where they don't talk about climate change.''
        Even for skeptics, the effects of climate change are becoming harder to deny. Australia just experienced its hottest summer on record. The country's tropics are spreading south, bringing storms and mosquito-borne illnesses like dengue fever to places unprepared for such problems, while water shortages have led to major fish die-offs in drying rivers.
        Image Lucas Dow, the chief executive of Adani Australia, in front of conservative campaign signs in Clermont, Queensland, on Tuesday. The town was the site of a violent clash last month over a proposed Adani coal mine. Credit Anna Maria Antoinette D'Addario for The New York Times ''This is all playing out in real time, right now,'' said Jolle Gergis, an award-winning climate scientist and writer from the Australian National University. ''We are one of the most vulnerable nations in the developed world when it comes to climate change.''
        And yet the path to victory for Scott Morrison, the incumbent prime minister, will make agreeing on a response more difficult. He and his Liberal-National coalition won thanks not just to their base of older, suburban economic conservatives, but also to a surge of support in Queensland, the rural, coal-producing, sparsely populated state sometimes compared to the American South.
        The coalition successfully made cost the dominant issue in the climate change debate. One economic model estimated that the 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions proposed by the opposition Labor Party would cost the economy 167,000 jobs and 264 billion Australian dollars, or $181 billion. Though a Labor spokesman called the model ''dodgy,'' Mr. Morrison and his allies used it to argue against extending Australia's existing efforts to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy.
        The message resonated strongly in Queensland, where the proposed Carmichael coal mine would be among the largest in the world if it is approved.
        The Adani Group, the Indian conglomerate behind the mine project, says it will provide thousands of jobs in nearby towns marked by empty houses and rife unemployment. But in other parts of Australia, particularly among the urban educated left, it faces fierce opposition. ''Stop Adani'' is a mantra for many, promoted by organizations like Greenpeace and shared with pride on social media, signs and T-shirts.
        Even Mr. Abbott, the former prime minister, seemed to grasp this growing political divide.
        ''It's clear that in what might be described as 'working seats,' we are doing so much better,'' he said in his concession speech. ''It's also clear that in at least some of what might be described as 'wealthy seats,' we are doing it tough, and the Green left is doing better.''
        Neither side seems open to compromise. In some ways, the election was foreshadowed last month in the Queensland town of Clermont, where environmentalists protesting the Carmichael mine were met by pro-coal activists, including a man on a horse who rode into the crowd and knocked a woman unconscious.
        Image Over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. Credit Social Media/Reuters In some ways it was a clash of cultures as well as political views.
        ''I feel like there's quite a lot of scorn about the way Queenslanders feel about environmental issues, and that doesn't help,'' said Susan Harris-Rimmer, a law professor at Griffith University in Queensland. ''The predominant Queensland characteristic is pride and you can't pour scorn on them.''
        She said doing so was a strategic mistake for politicians comparable to Hillary Clinton's description of some Donald Trump supporters as ''deplorables'' during the 2016 United States presidential election.
        ''You can't trigger the pride response,'' Ms. Harris-Rimmer said.
        Scholars of Australian populism agree, arguing that the weakening of the major parties and the country's tilt to the right have been driven mainly by class envy and alienation, including the belief that the elite do not understand the needs and values of the working class.
        Despite his Sydney upbringing and former career in advertising, Mr. Morrison, 51, won in part by presenting himself as an Australian everyman '-- a rugby-crazed beer drinker who was the first prime minister to campaign in a baseball hat.
        Mr. Morrison's coalition also benefited from deals with two right-wing groups: One Nation, the anti-immigration party led by the Queensland senator Pauline Hanson, and the United Australia Party led by the mining billionaire Clive Palmer, who spent tens of millions of dollars on a populist campaign with the slogan ''Make Australia Great.''
        Under Australia's preferential voting system, votes for candidates from minor parties can be used to help allies reach a clear majority in the lower house of Parliament. Nationally, United Australia secured 3.4 percent of the vote, while One Nation picked up 3 percent.
        Neither One Nation nor United Australia did as well as similar parties recently in countries like Italy, Hungary and Brazil. But for Australia, where compulsory voting encourages moderate election outcomes, the results defied expectations and made clear that the country remains deeply conservative and open to the far right on a variety of issues.
        The question that now confronts the new government is how much sway to give the forces that led to victory. Climate change may be the first battle in the long war that is reshaping democracy all over the world.
        Correction:May 20, 2019An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misspelled the name of a town in New South Wales, Australia. It is Narrabri, not Narrabi.
        Isabella Kwai contributed reporting from Sydney, and Livia Albeck-Ripka from Melbourne.
        Want more Australia coverage and discussion? Sign up for the weekly Australia Letter, start your day with your local Morning Briefing and join us in our Facebook group.
        A version of this article appears in print on
        , on Page
        A
        6
        of the New York edition
        with the headline:
        In Australia, Voters Didn't Prioritize Green Issues
        . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
      Nancy Pelosi snaps at Keyllanne Conway: 'I don't talk to staff'
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 03:23
        U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks to members of the media after a House Democrats meeting at the Capitol May 22, 2019 in Washington, DC.
        Alex Wong | Getty Images
        House Speaker Nancy Pelosi snapped at White House counselor Kellyanne Conway after a tense, aborted meeting on infrastructure Wednesday, a senior administration official told CNBC.
        "I don't talk to staff. I talk directly to the president," Pelosi said after Conway asked the speaker a question, according to the official.
        The interaction followed President Donald Trump's abrupt exit from a meeting with Democratic congressional leaders.
        Pelosi earlier in the day accused the president of engaging in a "cover-up" by blocking White House aides from providing testimony and responding to document requests from congressional investigations.
        The president responded by saying he doesn't "do cover-ups" and that he could not work with Democrats on legislation until they stopped investigating him.
        In a last-minute press event at the Rose Garden, Trump said he "walked into the room and I told Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, 'I want to do infrastructure' ... but we can't do it under these circumstances."
        Democratic leaders said they were ready to make a deal on a $2 trillion plan to rebuild the country's infrastructure, including roads, bridges and airports.
        WATCH: President Trump delivers surprise press conference as impeachment calls grow
      Huawei: Our own operating system could be ready this year
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 03:22
        A view of Huawei phones, seen in the shopping street in the Old Town of Amman on Jan. 30, 2019.
        Artur Widak | NurPhoto | Getty Images
        Huawei could have its own operating system for smartphones and laptops ready for use in China by fall this year, the head of the company's consumer division told CNBC.
        Still, he stressed that would only happen if the company were completely stopped from using Google's and Microsoft's software.
        The Chinese technology giant was placed on a U.S. blacklist that required American firms to get permission from the government before selling anything to Huawei. That meant Huawei would no longer be able to license the version of Google's Android operating system that's complete with all of the U.S. firm's services.
        However, Washington granted a temporary 90-day reprieve for Huawei, which will allow it to continue using American technology '-- for now.
        Huawei has said in the past that it has its own operating system waiting in the wings if it were to be permanently blocked from Google and Microsoft software. Now, one of the company's top executives has told CNBC that the operating system could be ready by the fourth quarter of this year, with a version for its markets outside of China available in either the first or second quarter of 2020.
        "Today, Huawei, we are still committed to Microsoft Windows and Google Android. But if we cannot use that, Huawei will prepare the plan B to use our own OS," Richard Yu, CEO of Huawei's consumer business, told CNBC on Thursday.
        If Huawei isn't allowed to use Android, it could be damaging because the phones won't have the Google Play Store where consumers can download apps. Instead, users would need to find other ways to install their favorite applications.
        However, Yu said Huawei's own app store, known as the App Gallery, would be available on its own operating system. The App Gallery is installed on Huawei's devices currently, but Google's Play Store is often the default app store for consumers.
        The Huawei executive stressed that Huawei's own operating system would only be rolled out if the company were permanently blocked from using Google or Microsoft products.
        "We don't want to do this but we will forced to do that because of the U.S. government. I think the U.S., this kind of thing, will also not only be bad news for us, but also bad news for the U.S. companies because we support the U.S. business, so we will be forced to do this on our own," Yu said. "We don't want to do this but we have no other solution, no other choice."
      Norman Lear hints at 'surprises' for live 'All in the Family,' 'Jeffersons'
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 01:36
        May 21, 2019 | 7:43pm
        ABC will air live episodes of Norman Lear's classic '70s-era sitcoms ''All in the Family'' and ''The Jeffersons'' Wednesday (8-9:30 p.m.), with Woody Harrelson and Marisa Tomei as Archie and Edith Bunker and Jamie Foxx and Wanda Sykes as George and Louise Jefferson.
        The special will be hosted by Jimmy Kimmel and Lear, who was also responsible for ''Sanford and Son,'' ''Maude,'' ''Good Times'' and ''One Day at a Time'' (both the CBS and Netflix versions), among others.
        Lear, 96, answered a few questions about Wednesday night's special.
        Why did you choose to do live re-enactments of both shows as opposed to trying to revive them as ongoing series? I didn't choose to do a live re-enactment of those shows. It was Jimmy Kimmel's idea. He phoned my partner, Brent Miller, and collectively, with ABC and Sony, they came to me and said ''Can we?'' and I said, ''Yes, please.'' I had no intention of reviving the shows and Jimmy Kimmel wanted to do it. Also, it was his notion to do it live.
        Why these two Norman Lear shows as opposed to, let's say, ''Sanford and Son'' and ''Maude''? ''All in the Family'' is where it all started, and ''The Jeffersons'' is the longest-running of those shows.
        Were [''All in the Family''] stars Rob Reiner and Sally Struthers and [''The Jeffersons''] star Marla Gibbs approached to appear? Audiences will have to tune in to see if there are some surprises.
        Did you choose the two episodes? They were chosen by all of us. They are two episodes that complement each other nicely. I think they will resonate very topically.
      Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug - The New York Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 01:34
        Business | Deutsche Bank Says Software to Detect Money Laundering Had a Bug Image Deutsche Bank headquarters in Frankfurt. The bank acknowledged using faulty software to screen customer transactions for suspicious activity. Credit Credit Felix Schmitt for The New York Times Deutsche Bank acknowledged on Wednesday that it had used faulty software to screen customer transactions for suspicious activity, another blow to the lender's reputation as top executives prepare to face restive shareholders at its annual meeting.
        Already under fire for lax money-laundering controls, the bank confirmed the essence of a report in Germany's S¼ddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that revealed software problems in its efforts to curb such activity. The bank maintained that no suspicious transactions had slipped through as a result.
        ''Deutsche Bank is working on correcting the error as quickly as possible and is in close contact with the regulators,'' the bank said in a statement.
        Coming after Deutsche Bank's share price reached an all-time low this week, the newspaper report has helped fuel an extraordinary level of shareholder anger even by the standards of the perpetually troubled lender.
        There is a movement among investors to vote on a measure expressing a lack of confidence in bank management at the annual meeting on Thursday. Paul Achleitner, the chairman, is expected to survive with the help of several influential shareholders, but he is likely to face pressure to step down before his term's scheduled end in 2022.
        Deutsche Bank has faced repeated accusations that its lax scrutiny of customers made it a party to money laundering.
        This week The New York Times reported that anti-money-laundering specialists at the bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crime watchdog.
        But Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the entities controlled by Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner, never filed such reports.
        In November, prosecutors, federal agents, police officers and tax authorities searched Deutsche Bank headquarters in Frankfurt as part of an investigation into whether bank employees had helped customers use offshore tax havens to transfer money obtained illegally.
      Dissenter | The Comment Section of the Internet
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 23 May 2019 01:19
        Find your BrowserIf your browser isn't listed here, stay tuned! We will be adding more soon.
        Installation instructions for ChromeFollow the step by step instructions to successfully install and use the extension.
        1 Download and UnzipDownload the extension and unzip it. Find "dissenter_extension_chrome_v019" folder.
        3 Turn on "Developer Mode"In the top right corner of the extensions page, toggle "Developer Mode" on.
        4 Click "Load Unpacked"Click on the "Load Unpacked" button in the top left of the extensions page.
        5 Select the FolderAfter clicking "Load Unpacked", the file opener opens, select the extension's entire folder "dissenter_extension_chrome_v019" then click "Select".
        6 Turn off "Developer Mode"In the top right corner of the extensions page, toggle "Developer Mode" off.
        7 Find the extension in the Navigation BarThe Dissenter "D" logo should appear in the navigation bar.
        8 Use the extensionIf you have any questions, suggestions, ideas, or bugs to report, please reach out to [email protected] or view our GitHub issues page.
        1 Download Extension FileDownload the extension file. Find "dissenter_extension-0.1.8-chrome.crx" in your computer's file manager.
        2 Navigate to the Extensions PageFor Chrome-based browsers (Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Vivaldi), go to chrome://extensions in the URL bar.
        3 Turn on "Developer Mode"In the top right corner of the extensions page, toggle "Developer Mode" on.
        4 Drag in the ".crx" FileOpen your file manager to find the "dissenter_extension-0.1.8-chrome.crx" file.
        Drag and drop that file into the chrome://extensions page.
        Follow the browser specific instructions to complete the installation by accepting and installing the extension.
        5 Turn off "Developer Mode"In the top right corner of the extensions page, toggle "Developer Mode" off.
        6 Find the extension in the Navigation BarThe Dissenter "D" logo should appear in the navigation bar.
        7 Use the extensionIf you have any questions, suggestions, ideas, or bugs to report, please reach out to [email protected] or view our GitHub issues page.
        New Tab Experience Vivaldi:In order to activate the new tab experience on the Vivaldi browser, you need to navigate to the Settings page.
        On the settings page, find "Tabs" > "New Tab Page". Then, select the button under "Start Page" labeled "Controlled by Extension".
        Opera:
        There is no way to override the default Opera browser new tab page for the Dissenter New Tab Experience.
        1 Download Extension FileDownload the extension file. Find "dissenter_extension-0.1.9-fx.xpi" in your computer's file manager.
        2 Navigate to the Add-ons PageFor Firefox-based browsers (Firefox, Waterfox), go to about:addons in the URL bar.
        3 Drag in the ".xpi" FileOpen your file manager to find the "dissenter_extension-0.1.9-fx.xpi" file.
        Drag and drop that file into the about:addons page.
        Follow the browser specific instructions to complete the installation by accepting and installing the extension.
        4 Find the extension in the Navigation BarThe Dissenter "D" logo should appear in the navigation bar.
        5 Use the extensionIf you have any questions, suggestions, ideas, or bugs to report, please reach out to [email protected] or view our GitHub issues page.
        1 Download and UnzipDownload the extension and unzip it. Find "dissenter_extension_edge_v018" folder.
        1 Download and UnzipDownload the extension and unzip it. Find "dissenter_extension_safari_v017" folder.
        2 Turn on "Developer" ModeWhile in Safari, go to "Safari" > "Preferences" > "Advanced" in the top menu. Select "Show Develop menu in menu bar"
        3 Go to "Extension Builder"While in Safari, go to "Develop" in the top menu. Select "Show Extension Builder"
        4 Add ExtensionWith the "Extension Builder" open, press the "+" button in the bottom left. Choose "Add Extension".
        5 Select the dissenter.safariextension directoryAfter clicking "Add Extension", the file opener opens, select the "dissenter.safariextension" folder within the "dissenter_extension_safari_v017" folder, then click "Select".
        6 Find the extension in the Navigation BarThe Gab Dissenter "g" logo should appear in the Safari navigation bar.
        7 Use the extensionIf you have any questions, suggestions, ideas, or bugs to report, please reach out to [email protected] .
      Abortion: Groups Push GOP To Rethink Rape And Incest Exceptions : NPR
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:51
        Students and activists carry signs during the annual "March for Life" in Washington, D.C., earlier this year. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images hide caption
        toggle caption Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images Students and activists carry signs during the annual "March for Life" in Washington, D.C., earlier this year.
        Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images Opponents of abortion rights have a long history of supporting abortion bans with three major exceptions: rape, incest, or when a woman's life is at risk.
        But, fueled by momentum from the passage of a restrictive abortion law in Alabama, a coalition of anti-abortion rights groups will release a letter Wednesday asking Republican officials to "reconsider decades-old talking points" on exceptions to such laws.
        "We understand that issues like rape and incest are difficult topics to tackle; nevertheless, it is our view that the value of human life is not determined by the circumstances of one's conception or birth," said a draft of the letter provided to NPR by Students for Life of America, which led the effort.
        The letter, which is addressed to Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, goes on: "A child conceived in rape is still a child. We don't blame children for other matters outside their control. Why should we do so here?"
        The document praises Alabama's law, which prohibits abortion at all stages of pregnancy unless a woman's life is threatened, and which would send doctors convicted of violating the law to prison for up to 99 years. That law, like several other early bans passed this year, has not yet taken effect.
        In an interview, Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins said she hopes to see more Republican lawmakers support abortion bans that do not include exceptions for rape and incest.
        "I think it's time to start having the conversation," Hawkins said. "There is a fear in the Republican Party about talking about rape at all ... But I don't think it's something we should be afraid of."
        I think it's time to start having the conversation. There is a fear in the Republican Party about talking about rape at all ... But I don't think it's something we should be afraid of.
        Kristan Hawkins
        Hawkins noted that some Republicans are hesitant to wade into the subject because of the memory of former Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, who bungled the issue during his 2012 Senate campaign, when he falsely claimed that because of female biology, a pregnancy would be unlikely in cases of what he described as a "legitimate rape."
        "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said. He went on to lose the race.
        But Hawkins said she and others in the movement now see a new opportunity to push for near-total abortion bans.
        That position is at odds with statements in recent days by several leading Republicans, including RNC Chairwoman McDaniel, who've expressed opposition to Alabama's law because of its lack of exceptions.
        "Personally, I would have the exceptions," McDaniel told CNN. "That's my personal belief. But we are a party that is a broad tent."
        President Trump also appeared to distance himself from laws like Alabama's, tweeting, "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother '' the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."
        As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new.....
        '-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2019As the Washington Post has noted, former President Ronald Reagan's positions on abortion shifted throughout his political career, and as California's governor in the 1960s, he signed what was then seen as a liberal abortion law.
        The official GOP platform generally takes an anti-abortion-rights position, and does not spell out exceptions for rape or incest.
        House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy says he opposes the AL abortion law for not have exceptions for rape/incest/life of mother, but falsely claims "that's what our platform says." The official GOP platform explicitly does not include those exceptions either. (1/2)
        '-- Susan Davis (@DaviSusan) May 16, 2019But many leading Republicans who oppose abortion rights have historically allowed for those exceptions, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University who studies the history of reproductive rights.
        Abandoning that position "would mark a major shift in the public terms of debate," Ziegler said in an e-mail. "We are seeing a major bid for strategic power being made by absolutists."
        Travis Weber, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, who signed the letter, said he sees momentum for more restrictive abortion laws.
        "There is no time like now to continue to conversation about protecting all human life, no matter how defenseless and helpless," Weber wrote in a message.
        Other signers of the letter urging Republicans to rethink their messaging on rape and incest exceptions include leaders of groups including the March for Life, Operation Rescue, Priests for Life, and Abby Johnson '' a former Planned Parenthood director who now leads an organization that encourages clinic workers to leave their jobs.
        "Now is the time for those who value the sanctity of human life to be consistent in our beliefs and policies," Johnson said in a statement. "Either we believe that all life has infinite value and worth, or we don't."
        But other leading anti-abortion groups did not sign the letter, among them the Susan B. Anthony List, which has played an influential role in lobbying President Trump to appoint conservative judges. In an emailed statement, spokeswoman Mallory Quigley said the organization strongly supports Alabama's law and called it and other recently-passed abortion restrictions an "inspiration." She declined to comment specifically on why the group chose not to sign.
        Steve Aden of Americans United for Life said he had not seen the document, but expressed skepticism about removing rape and incest exceptions.
        "The pro-life movement, state by state, has made real progress in getting the Supreme Court and the state legislatures to see that Roe should be reconsidered, but I don't see the need or the wisdom of these absolutist positions," Aden said, referring to the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
        The letter to McDaniel comes as Charlotte Pence, the daughter of Vice President Mike Pence, penned an op-ed in the Washington Times expressing support for Alabama's law. "Personally, I would not encourage a friend to get an abortion if she suffered the horrendous evil of rape or incest because I care about her child '-- and her. I do not believe abortion provides healing," she writes.
        Republican pollster and strategist Glen Bolger said the current debates over abortion '' including efforts in states like New York to expand abortion rights '' mark the end of what he describes as "a long-time undeclared truce" on abortion. In an email, Bolger said advocates on both sides of the abortion debate are pushing harder, with many reproductive rights groups working to remove abortion restrictions, and many abortion rights opponents promoting bans with virtually no exceptions.
        "It is risky strategy," Bolger said, because Americans' views on abortion are more nuanced than many of the current proposals reflect. More than three-quarters, 77 percent, support legal abortion in the first trimester in cases of rape and incest, according to a Gallup survey.
        "Any time you try to lead the public where they are not willing to go, it can boomerang politically," Bolger said.
      Smart City Designed App Will Let Everyone Know If You Are Speeding
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:39
        By MassPrivateI
        A misleading article in WSAZ3 News titled, ''New app targets distracted drivers with traffic alerts'' would lead you to believe that the makers of the app are actually concerned with everyone's safety, but of course that is not the case.
        Have you ever wanted an app that lets Big Brother know when you are speeding and where you are going in real-time?
        If you have, then your wait is over.
        A new app called TravelSafely, sends warning signs to your smartphone for everything from your speed in a school zone to a light that's about to change.
        >>
        While we often look to the government to solve public safety issues, we decided that part of the solution lies with the transportation private sector working with the public to create real changes in how we manage travel safety. Marietta, Downtown Atlanta and Tuscaloosa are the first smart cities to deploy the TravelSafely App.
        TravelSafely, has decided to help Big Brother out by solving public safety issues, like letting everyone know where you are and how fast you are traveling in real-time.
        The app connects you with smart cities, other motorists, pedestrians and cyclists so that you can get where you're going quicker and stay safe.
        TravelSafety claims to be ''a community of likeminded citizens who are committed to making the roads safer.'' So how do they plan on doing this? By finding likeminded citizens (law enforcement) who want to know how fast you are going.
        The app ''will warn you if you're traveling too fast or speeding in an active work zone and it will also warn if you are traveling too fast around dangerous curves.''
        Who needs Waze, when this app will broadcast your speed and direction to other motorists and law enforcement?
        Unfortunately, Big Brother's reach does not end there because this app will ''warn you if there's a cyclist on the road ahead and warn you of pedestrians in the crosswalk ahead if it detects you aren't going to stop.''
        It even ''notifies motorists and cyclists if an emergency vehicle is approaching, and from what direction.'' How is that for creepy?
        How the app determines if you were not going to stop, is unclear but I am sure law enforcement could use that information to charge a motorist with failure to stop for a pedestrian or yield to an emergency vehicle as well as speeding.
        In the not-too-distant future, cars will come equipped with spying apps like TravelSafely and TSA biometric scanners installed in vehicle infotainment systems. Tomorrow's cars will also use V2X technology to talk to other cars and law enforcement in real-time. Toll booth facial recognition cameras and license plate readers will track our every movement all in the name of public safety.
        Just last month, the TSA and law enforcement wrongfully claimed that airline passengers will need to provide a REAL-ID card to travel across America and if we are not careful the same thing will happen to cars, trains, and buses.
        Being spied on everywhere we go is a dystopian nightmare that will soon rival China's oppressive social credit system.
        You can read more at the MassPrivateI blog, where this article first appeared.
        Be Free and Independent! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
        Activist Post Daily Newsletter Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
        Free Report:
        How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription
      Fabrics poised to become the new software | MIT News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:35
        In the summer of 2018, a team led by MIT researchers reported in the journal Nature that they had successfully embedded electronic devices into fibers that could be used in fabrics or composite products like clothing, airplane wings, or even wound dressings. The advance could allow fabrics or composites to sense their environment, communicate, store and convert energy, and more.
        Research breakthroughs typically take years to make it into final products '-- if they reach that point at all. This particular research, however, is following a dramatically different path.
        By the time the unique fiber advance was unveiled last summer, members of Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA), a not-for-profit near MIT, had already developed ways to increase the throughput and overall reliability of the process. And, staff at Inman Mills in South Carolina had established a method to weave the advanced fibers using a conventional, industrial manufacturing-scale loom to create fabrics that can use light to both broadcast and receive information.
        Today, less than a year after the technology was first introduced to the world, around a quarter of a million semiconducting devices have been embedded in fibers using the patented technology, and companies like New Balance, VF, Bose, and 3M are seeking ways to use the technology in their products.
        ''AFFOA is helping cutting-edge basic research to reach market-ready scale at unprecedented velocity,'' says Yoel Fink, CEO of AFFOA and a professor of materials science and electrical engineering at MIT. ''Chip-containing fibers, which were just recently a university research project, are now being produced at an annual rate of half a million meters. This scale allows AFFOA to engage dozens of companies and accelerate product and process development across multiple markets simultaneously.''
        Fink says that AFFOA's work is unleashing a ''Moore's Law for fibers,'' wherein the basic functions of fibers will grow exponentially in the coming years, allowing companies to develop value-added fabric and composite products and services. ''Chip-containing fibers present a real prospect for fabrics to be the next frontier in computation and AI,'' he says.
        Sowing the seeds of fabric innovation
        In 2015, MIT President L. Rafael Reif called for the formation of public-private partnerships he named ''innovation orchards,'' to reduce the time it takes new ideas to make an impact on society. Specifically, he wanted to make tangible innovations as easy to deploy and test as digital ones.
        Later that year, AFFOA was formed by MIT and other key partners to accept Reif's challenge and take advantage of recent breakthroughs in fiber materials and textile-manufacturing processes.
        ''The gap between where research ends and product begins is the so-called valley of death,'' Fink says. ''President Reif introduced the concept of orchards of innovation as a way for us, as a university, to organize these collaboration centers for technology to help bridge basic research to the market entry point.''
        In 2016, AFFOA was selected by the federal government to serve as the new Revolutionary Fibers and Textiles Manufacturing Innovation Institute, receiving more than $75 million in government funding and nearly $250 million in private investments to support U.S. based, high-volume production of these new technologies.
        Since then, speed has been paramount at AFFOA. As MIT and other research entities have advanced the field, AFFOA has helped facilitate pilot production of these sophisticated textiles and fabrics so companies can engage consumers with small batches of advanced fabric products, or prototypes, in a manner similar to how software companies roll out minimally viable products to quickly gather feedback from customers and consumers.
        Fabrics at the speed of software
        A key element in the success of software has been the ability to rapidly prototype and test products with the target customer. Tangible products, on the other hand, experience a much more difficult path to consumers, and fabrics are no exception. The reason for this is the absence of efficient prototyping mechansims at scale.
        To allow fabric products to move faster to market, AFFOA has created a national prototyping network with dozens of domestic manufacturers and universities, allowing it to rapidly test advanced fabric products directly with customers.
        The prototyping network is currently actively pursuing more than 30 projects, called MicroAwards, with industry and academia designed to incorporate the latest advances in fibers and textiles into mass manufacturing processes. Industry and academic participants are required to operate within short timeframes, typically 90 days or less and divided into two week sprints.
        For instance, Teufelberger, a manufacturer of ropes located in Fall River, Massachusetts, is working with AFFOA on integrating advanced fibers into their braided ropes. The ropes can help climbers or divers communicate or store information on how the rope was used.
        At the end of May, AFFOA will roll out at the Augmented Reality Expo a fabric augmented-reality experience that will allow conference attendees to connect with each other using AFFOA's fabric LOOks system.
        The fabric of entrepreneurship and education
        AFFOA has also partnered with schools such as the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York and the Greater Lawrence Technical School, where students are learning how to design and make an advanced chip-containing fibers, as well as other skills related to manufacturing advanced functional fabrics and the products that will emerge from them.
        Additionally, over 30 entrepreneurs have been working on establishing startups around advanced fabrics as part of the advanced fabric entrepreneurship program managed by AFFOA in collaboration with the Venture Mentoring Service at MIT.
        AFFOA is currently evaluating the prospects of raising an investment fund dedicated to funding startups in the advanced fabric sector.
        For Fink, AFFOA's work is about turning fabric, an ancient yet largely unchanged material, into a new platform for innovation.
        ''Fabrics occupy a very significant real estate, the surface of our bodies, and yet we're not doing much with that real estate '-- it's underdeveloped,'' Fink says. ''AFFOA is setting the stage for a fabric revolution by allowing these ancient forms to become high tech and deliver value-add services in the years ahead.''
      Geen indicatie voor bestaan van filterbubbels in Nederland
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Source: Spreekbuis.nl
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:25
        In Nederland is op dit moment geen indicatie dat Nederlanders die nieuws tot zich nemen in filterbubbels zitten. Dit blijkt uit onderzoek van het Instituut voor Informatierecht (IViR) van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, dat op verzoek van het Commissariaat voor de Media is gedaan.
        Het onderzoek laat zien dat bijna niemand in Nederland volledig in een filterbubbel zit. Nieuwsgebruikers maken in ruime mate gebruik van nieuws dat niet door algoritmes wordt aanbevolen. Ook binnen algoritmische aanbevelingssystemen hebben zij toegang hebben tot een divers aanbod aan nieuws en informatie. Mensen die ge¯nteresseerd zijn in nieuws gaan door het gebruik van sociale media juist meer nieuws gebruiken. Hierdoor verhoogt de diversiteit van hun nieuwsgebruik alleen maar.
        Meer risico's door digitale ontwikkelingenDat we ons op dit moment geen zorgen hoeven te maken over filterbubbels in Nederland, betekent echter niet dat er geen reden is voor bezorgdheid over de maatschappelijke effecten van de toenemende inzet van algoritmes en artificile intelligentie. De onderzoekers van IViR tonen met hun onderzoek ook andere risico's aan die met deze ontwikkeling samenhangen. Deze risico's zijn de toenemende opiniemacht van platforms en het gebruik van algoritmes bij traditionele media.
        Monitoring en bijdragen aan onafhankelijkheid en pluriformiteitHet Commissariaat voor de Media blijft de ontwikkeling van de informatie- en nieuwsvoorziening in Nederland monitoren via het Reuters Digital News Report, de Mediamonitor en in samenwerking met de wetenschap. Daarnaast wil het Commissariaat zich inzetten om in de toekomst pluriform aanbod voor het individu beter toegankelijk te maken. Dit wordt onder andere gedaan in samenwerking met andere Europese toezichthouders. Het Commissariaat wil zich ook sterk blijven maken voor de redactionele onafhankelijkheid van algoritmes en een bijdrage leveren aan het vergroten van mediawijsheid en digitale geletterdheid bij burgers.
        Download het rapport Filterbubbels in Nederland.
      MSNBC's Rachel Maddow's Ratings Plummet To Yearly Low
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:24
        Skip to contentYearly lows for the liberal television hostMSNBC primetime host Rachel Maddow brought in her worst weekly ratings of the year last week.
        Her show last week averaged 2,324,000 viewers, with an average audience of 337,000 in the 25-54 age demographic, both of which mark yearly lows for the liberal television host, according to Nielsen Media Research.
        Maddow first saw a dramatic drop in ratings following the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Her previous low for a week in 2019 was the last week in March, the first full week after Mueller submitted his conclusion to Attorney General William Barr, where she averaged 2,458,000 viewers with 392,000 in the demo.
        She spent two years dissecting every aspect of the special counsel's investigation into whether President Donald Trump conspired with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election. The night Mueller submitted his findings to Barr, Maddow appeared to hold back tears over the fact that neither the president nor any family members were indicted.
        Read more
        A new study has exposed Big Tech's bias this time revealing YouTube's trending tab in the US is rigged. Paul Joseph Watson explains how this type of censorship will actually be bad for all users.
      Google Gmail tracks purchase history '-- how to delete it
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:17
        Sundar Pichai, chief executive officer of Google, is sworn in during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018.
        Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images
        Google tracks a lot of what you buy, even if you purchased it elsewhere, like in a store or from Amazon.
        Last week, CEO Sundar Pichai wrote a New York Times op-ed that said "privacy cannot be a luxury good." But behind the scenes, Google is still collecting a lot of personal information from the services you use, such as Gmail, and some of it can't be easily deleted.
        A page called "Purchases " shows an accurate list of many '-- though not all '-- of the things I've bought dating back to at least 2012. I made these purchases using online services or apps such as Amazon, DoorDash or Seamless, or in stores such as Macy's, but never directly through Google.
        But because the digital receipts went to my Gmail account, Google has a list of info about my buying habits.
        Google even knows about things I long forgot I'd purchased, like dress shoes I bought inside a Macy's store on Sept. 14, 2015. It also knows:
        I ordered a Philly cheesesteak on a hoagie roll with Cheez Whiz and banana peppers on Jan. 14, 2016.I reloaded my Starbucks card in November 2014.I bought a new Kindle on Dec. 18, 2013, from Amazon.I bought "Solo: A Star Wars Story" from iTunes on Sept. 14, 2018.And so on.
        Take a look at this sample, which covers some things I bought within the last week:
        A list of my purchases Google pulled in from Gmail.
        Todd Haselton | CNBC
        Go here to see your own: http://myaccount.google.com/purchases.
        "To help you easily view and keep track of your purchases, bookings and subscriptions in one place, we've created a private destination that can only be seen by you," a Google spokesperson told CNBC. "You can delete this information at any time. We don't use any information from your Gmail messages to serve you ads, and that includes the email receipts and confirmations shown on the Purchase page."
        But there isn't an easy way to remove all of this. You can delete all the receipts in your Gmail inbox and archived messages. But, if you're like me, you might save receipts in Gmail in case you need them later for returns. There is no way to delete them from Purchases without also deleting them from Gmail -- when you click on the "Delete" option in Purchases, it simply guides you back to the Gmail message.
        You need to delete each purchase manually rom Gmail to get rid of it.
        Todd Haselton | CNBC
        Google's privacy page says that only you can view your purchases. But it says "Information about your orders may also be saved with your activity in other Google services " and that you can see and delete this information on a separate "My Activity" page.
        Except you can't. Google's activity controls page doesn't give you any ability to manage the data it stores on Purchases.
        Google told CNBC you can turn off the tracking entirely, but you have to go to another page for search setting preferences. However, when CNBC tried this, it didn't work -- there was no such option to fully turn off the tracking. It's weird this isn't front and center on Google's new privacy pages or even in Google's privacy checkup feature.
        Google says it doesn't use your Gmail to show you ads and promises it "does not sell your personal information, which includes your Gmail and Google Account information," and does "not share your personal information with advertisers, unless you have asked us to."
        But, for reasons that still aren't clear, it's pulling that information out of your Gmail and dumping it into a "Purchases" page most people don't seem to know exists. Even if it's not being used for ads, there's no clear reason why Google would need to track years of purchases and make it hard to delete that information. Google says it's looking into simplifying its settings to make them easier to control, however.
        Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.
      The weight of a kilogram changed overnight; the length of a second may be next
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Source: BlackListed News
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:10
        A new definition of kilogram went into effect today. No longer is the kilogram defined by Le Grand K, a 140-year-old weight under glass in a secret location near Paris. Now it's determined by the Planck constant, based on physicist Max Planck's theory that "electromagnetic energy at a given frequency could only be emitted in discrete amounts, or quanta, whose energy is proportional to h, now known as the Planck constant." Scientists at the 26th General Conference on Weights and Measures also redefined the kelvin, the ampere, and the mole. UP next, the second! The good news is that the changes are so small that they won't matter to most of us. From Science News:
        Currently, the second is defined by atomic clocks made of cesium atoms. Those atoms absorb a certain frequency of light. The wiggling of the light's electromagnetic waves functions like the pendulum on a grandfather clock, rhythmically keeping time. One second is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the light.
        But a new generation of atomic clocks, known as optical atomic clocks, outdo the cesium clocks (SN: 11/11/17, p. 8). ''Their performance is a lot better than what currently defines the second,'' says physicist Andrew Ludlow of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo. Because those optical atomic clocks operate at a higher frequency, their ''ticks'' are more closely spaced, making them about 100 times more precise than cesium clocks.
        Ideally, the length of a second should be defined using the most precise timepieces available. A switch might happen in the late 2020s, Ludlow says.
        Related Articles:Today, scientists voted to change the definition of the kilogram as well as three other units of measurement -- the ampere, the kelvin and the mole. The vote took place at the General Conference on Weights and Measures in Versailles, France and the new definitions will be based on "what we call the fundamental constants of nature," as Estefan­a de Mirand(C)s of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) told Science News, instead of the less precise definitions these measurements are currently tied to.
        Emigrate While You Still Can!PLEASE DISABLE AD BLOCKER TO VIEW DISQUS COMMENTSAd Blocking software disables some of the functionality of our website, including our comments section for some browsers.
      Texting While Walking May Soon Be Fineable in New York. Similar U.S. Legislation Passed Elsewhere Already. Will It Be Enough to Deter Screen Addicts?
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Source: Activist Post
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:08
        Home Liberty May 21, 2019
        By B.N. Frank
        Research from the Mayo Clinic determined that texting on smartphones triggers a new type of brain rhythm. ''Digital Addiction'' or ''Screen Addiction'' has been validated by many credible sources as a serious medical condition despite the fact that some are still actively promoting heavy screen use as normal, productive and sometimes even cool.
        Texting and walking is a safety concern and not just for those who are doing it. But will legislation and fines be enough to stop addicts? Or should there be more efforts to discourage heavy screen use in children and adults whether they are walking in public places or not?
        From USA Today:
        ALBANY, N.Y. '' You probably shouldn't walk across a street and look at your phone at the same time. Now New York might make it illegal.
        A bill sponsored by Democrats who control the state Legislature would allow police to issue a ticket between $25 to $50 for a first offense of getting caught texting while walking '-- unless you can prove it was an emergency.
        The law would be simple enough, the bill states: ''No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at any point while using any portable electronic device.''
        The bill was first introduced last year by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn, but it picked up majority support in the Senate earlier this month from Sen. John Liu, D-Queens.
        ''It has been proven that distraction from texting while walking can cause pedestrians to cross roads very unsafely,'' the bill said.
        ''Not only can trips and falls occur, but even getting hit is more than just a possibility.''
        The bill cited various statistics from safety studies, including the National Safety Council that point to the dangers of distracted walking when using a mobile phone.
        The group said that teenagers are now more likely to get hit by a car than younger people because they can be distracted by walking across the street and looking at a phone.
        ''The National Safety Council is focused on efforts to eliminate distracted walking '' specifically walking while using a mobile device,'' the group said on its website. ''Kids often don't recognize the dangers of distracted walking.''
        Honolulu made it illegal to walk across the street while looking at a phone, as did the city of Montclair, California. Neighboring states Connecticut and New Jersey have also introduced legislation to have statewide bans.
        >>
        Be Free and Independent! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
        Image credit: Pixabay
        Activist Post Daily Newsletter Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
        Free Report:
        How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription
      Fed Encourages Runaway Debt as ''Minsky Moment'' Approaches
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:08
        By Clint Siegner
        Federal Reserve officials like to pretend they can use interest rates like a motorcycle throttle on the U.S. economy. They can either rev things up by dropping interest rates or slow things down by moving rates higher.
        The public has been led to believe the central planners can do whatever is needed with rates to keep things purring along.
        The truth is the central planners at the Fed are meddling with forces beyond their control. They are encouraging consumers, companies, and government to take on debt. Soon, the nation will choke on it.
        The U.S. government is once again running trillion-dollar annual deficits. That's enough to terrify anyone who believes in balanced budgets and limited government.
        However, in just a few years, virtually all of what the federal government borrows will be needed just to make interest payments on existing debt. ZeroHedge refers to this as the ''Minsky moment.''
        If politicians want to continue spending money they don't have on other programs (and you can bet they will), a lot more will need to be borrowed on top of what is needed to pay interest on the debt.
        Fed officials will utterly fail at stopping the expansion of the debt bubble by moving interest rates higher. Their feeble attempt at hiking rates ended rather quickly when the equity markets began tanking late last year, and political pressure from President Donald Trump mounted.
        The central bank's control over the economy is an illusion. Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the other wizards there won't be fine tuning economic growth by adjusting the cost of money up and down.
        They can push short-term rates around directly and try to indirectly control long-term rates through bond purchases. Even that amount of control could be stripped from them when the market asserts itself.
        Declare Your Independence!
        Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!
        Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom
        The truth is that risk associated with lending money to the insolvent U.S. government has been way underpriced for years. This will eventually dawn on Treasury buyers.
        Giving a long-term loan at 2-3% interest to such an organization as insolvent as the federal government is a risky bet.
        Perhaps the realization will strike when deficits double or triple again in the not-too-distant future. Maybe it will be when foreign buyers, such as the Chinese, decide they have had enough.
        The latter could happen a lot sooner than the market expects.
        The Chinese have pointedly said they may dump Treasuries in retaliation for increased tariffs.
        When legitimate buyers of U.S. debt at artificially low rates vanish, the Fed is likely to step back in as the buyer of last resort. The central bank got away with that once before. The debt monetization program was called Quantitative Easing.
        Will officials be able to pull it off again '' on an even larger scale?
        The Fed needs confidence at very high levels to support interest rates at these historically low levels. It will be difficult to maintain confidence as the debt levels continue accelerating up the exponential curve.
        The day is coming when those with capital to lend will demand a much higher interest rate than Jerome Powell wants them to get. That is when interest rates will rise, and it won't matter too much what the central planners at the Fed think about it.
        Clint Siegner is a Director at Money Metals Exchange, a precious metals dealer recently named ''Best in the USA'' by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of Linfield College in Oregon, Siegner puts his experience in business management along with his passion for personal liberty, limited government, and honest money into the development of Money Metals' brand and reach. This includes writing extensively on the bullion markets and their intersection with policy and world affairs.
        Be Free and Independent! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
        Activist Post Daily Newsletter Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
        Free Report:
        How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription
      Utility Companies Warn That 5G for Unlicensed WiFi Applications Will Threaten Their Wireless ''Smart'' Meters Which Are Already Awful
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:07
        By B.N. Frank
        Utility companies won't admit it but their wireless ''Smart'' Meters have been nothing but trouble from the jump. Tens of millions have been installed in the U.S. and around the world and people everywhere (including elected officials) have been fighting to get them off their homes and out of their communities (see 1, 2, 3). These meters have been associated with so many problems (including fires and explosions) that there was even a documentary produced about them.
        Now utility companies are warning the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) that auctioning off more 5G spectrums for unlicensed and untested WiFi applications will make their horrible ''Smart'' Meters even worse. This is on top of the Telecom Industry saying that they have no scientific evidence that 5G is even safe and plenty of researchers saying it's not.
        From Multichannel News:
        Those utilities say they need the spectrum for their mission-critical communications and that the FCC's proposal to open it up for unlicensed Wi-Fi use is an untested and unproven approach that the FCC is pursuing despite the concerns of utilities as others about interference and/or congestion that threatens critical infrastructure.
        The utilities say that the band is already heavily employed by its licensed users, and that licensed use is more reliable and robust.
        Those communications nets are ''used for critical situational awareness, underpin safety functions, and enable crews to safely repair and restore services after storms,'' as well as ''the greater deployment of distributed energy resources such as solar or battery storage, smart meters, and other technologies to enable grid modernization.''
        ''While our collective members fully understand and appreciate the need to make more efficient use of spectrum,'' they said. ''We strongly encourage the Commission to weigh the advantages of expanding access to the 6 GHz band with the potential negative impact this could have on critical infrastructure networks.''
        The letter came a day after FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was talking up 6 GHz's potential for Wi-Fi in a speech to the Wi-Fi World Congress in Tysons Corner, Va., outside Washington. He also said incumbent utilities must be protected.
        >>
        >>
        >>
        Perhaps it's now time for American utility companies to also file lawsuits against the FCC regarding 5G. It is gaining popularity (see 1, 2, 3).
        See Activist Post archives for additional horror articles about Smart Meters and 5G.
        For more information, visit the following websites:
        Americans for Responsible Technology5GCrisis5GExposed5G InformationCenter For Safer WirelessCenter For Electrosmog PreventionCoalition to Stop Smart MetersEcological Options NetworkEMF Safety NetworkEnvironmental Health TrustIn Power MovementLast Tree LawsPhysicians for Safe TechnologySaferEMRScientists for Wired TechSmartMeterHarmSmart Grid AwarenessStopSmartMeters.orgTake Back Your PowerWireless Information NetworkWhatis5G.InfoZero5GBe Free and Independent! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
        Image credit: Pixabay
        Activist Post Daily Newsletter Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
        Free Report:
        How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription
      Utilities Warn FCC About Impact of 6 GHz Wi-Fi Effort - Multichannel
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 14:07
        The heads of electric and water trade associations have warned the FCC about moving too quickly to open up 6 GHz midband spectrum currently used by those utilities.
        That warning came in a letter Wednesday (May 15) to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai from Sue Kelly, CEO of the American Public Power Association; G. Tracy Meehan III, executive director, government affairs of the American Water Works Association; Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute; Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association; and Joy Ditto, president of the Utilities Technology Council.
        Together, they pointed out, they represent almost all of the nation's utilities and water and wastewater facilities.
        Those utilities say they need the spectrum for their mission-critical communications and that the FCC's proposal to open it up for unlicensed Wi-Fi use is an untested and unproven approach that the FCC is pursuing despite the concerns of utilities as others about interference and/or congestion that threatens critical infrastructure.
        The utilities say that the band is already heavily employed by its licensed users, and that licensed use is more reliable and robust.
        Those communications nets are "used for critical situational awareness, underpin safety functions, and enable crews to safely repair and restore services after storms," as well as "the greater deployment of distributed energy resources such as solar or battery storage, smart meters, and other technologies to enable grid modernization."
        "While our collective members fully understand and appreciate the need to make more efficient use of spectrum," they said. "We strongly encourage the Commission to weigh the advantages of expanding access to the 6 GHz band with the potential negative impact this could have on critical infrastructure networks."
        The letter came a day after FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was talking up 6 GHz's potential for Wi-Fi in a speech to the Wi-Fi World Congress in Tysons Corner, Va., outside Washington. He also said incumbent utilities must be protected.
        ''The truth is that this 6 GHz spectrum boost will launch the Wi-Fi industry into a new growth trajectory," Pai told his audience. "It will boost Wi-Fi's massive indoor dominance. And surely'--with the help of emboldened entrepreneurs everywhere'--it will bring low-cost Wi-Fi (and unlicensed) connectivity to places where it has never been.''
        Pai said he would need help to free up that spectrum.
        "The 6 GHz band is populated by microwave services that are used to support utilities, public safety, and wireless backhaul," he said. "Each of these serves an important function that we must protect. We're working through some complex technical issues both internally and with outside stakeholders, and that includes many in this room. I appreciate your input. But questions remain and the clock is always ticking, so I urge you to help us find creative solutions."
      Trump is considering deputizing the military as a civilian police force.
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 13:47
        '):""},e.getDefinedParams=function(t,e){return e.filter(function(e){return t[e]}).reduce(function(e,n){return i(e,function(t,e,n){return e in t?Object.defineProperty(t,e,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):t[e]=n,t}({},n,t[n]))},{})},e.isValidMediaTypes=function(t){var e=["banner","native","video"];return!!Object.keys(t).every(function(t){return X()(e,t)})&&(!t.video||!t.video.context||X()(["instream","outstream","adpod"],t.video.context))},e.getBidderRequest=function(t,e,n){return Z()(t,function(t){return 0n[t]?-1:0}};var H,K=n(3),$=n(90),Y=n.n($),J=n(10),Z=n.n(J),Q=n(8),X=n.n(Q),tt=n(11),et=n(4),nt=!1,rt="Array",it="String",ot="Function",at="Number",ut="Object",st="Boolean",ct=Object.prototype.toString,ft=Boolean(window.console),dt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.log),lt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.info),pt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.warn),ht=Boolean(ft&&window.console.error),gt={checkCookieSupport:V,createTrackPixelIframeHtml:B,getWindowSelf:p,getWindowTop:l,getAncestorOrigins:d,getTopFrameReferrer:f,getWindowLocation:h,getTopWindowLocation:c,insertUserSyncIframe:R,insertElement:C,isFn:w,triggerPixel:D,logError:y,logWarn:b,logMessage:g,logInfo:v},vt={},bt=function(t,e){return e}.bind(null,1,vt)()===vt?Function.prototype.bind:function(t){var e=this,n=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1);return function(){return e.apply(t,n.concat(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments)))}},yt=(H=0,function(){return++H}),mt=function(){if(Array.prototype.indexOf)return Array.prototype.indexOf}(),_t=function(t,e){return t.hasOwnProperty?t.hasOwnProperty(e):void 0!==t[e]&&t.constructor.prototype[e]!==t[e]},Et=z("timeToRespond",function(t,e){return es;)r(u,n=e[s++])&&(~o(c,n)||c.push(n));return c}},141:function(t,e,n){var r=n(18).document;t.exports=r&&r.documentElement},142:function(t,e,n){var r=n(25),i=n(41),o=n(49)("IE_PROTO"),a=Object.prototype;t.exports=Object.getPrototypeOf||function(t){return t=i(t),r(t,o)?t[o]:"function"==typeof t.constructor&&t instanceof t.constructor?t.constructor.prototype:t instanceof Object?a:null}},143:function(t,e,n){n(144);for(var r=n(18),i=n(20),o=n(28),a=n(15)("toStringTag"),u="CSSRuleList,CSSStyleDeclaration,CSSValueList,ClientRectList,DOMRectList,DOMStringList,DOMTokenList,DataTransferItemList,FileList,HTMLAllCollection,HTMLCollection,HTMLFormElement,HTMLSelectElement,MediaList,MimeTypeArray,NamedNodeMap,NodeList,PaintRequestList,Plugin,PluginArray,SVGLengthList,SVGNumberList,SVGPathSegList,SVGPointList,SVGStringList,SVGTransformList,SourceBufferList,StyleSheetList,TextTrackCueList,TextTrackList,TouchList".split(","),s=0;s=t.length?(this._t=void 0,i(1)):i(0,"keys"==e?n:"values"==e?t[n]:[n,t[n]])},"values"),o.Arguments=o.Array,r("keys"),r("values"),r("entries")},145:function(t,e,n){"use strict";var r=n(146),i=n(78);t.exports=n(148)("Set",function(t){return function(){return t(this,0=l.syncsPerBidder)return o.logWarn('Number of user syncs exceeded for "'.concat(e,'"'));if(l.filterSettings){if(function(t,e){var n=l.filterSettings;if(function(t,e){if(t.all&&t[e])return o.logWarn('Detected presence of the "filterSettings.all" and "filterSettings.'.concat(e,'" in userSync config. You cannot mix "all" with "iframe/image" configs; they are mutually exclusive.')),!1;var n=t.all?t.all:t[e],r=t.all?"all":e;if(!n)return!1;var i=n.filter,a=n.bidders;return i&&"include"!==i&&"exclude"!==i?(o.logWarn('UserSync "filterSettings.'.concat(r,".filter\" setting '").concat(i,"' is not a valid option; use either 'include' or 'exclude'.")),!1):!!("*"===a||Array.isArray(a)&&0t.getTimeout()+y.config.getConfig("timeoutBuffer")&&t.executeCallback(!0)}function u(t,e){var n=t.getBidRequests(),r=S()(n,function(t){return t.bidderCode===e.bidderCode});!function(t,e){var n;if(t.bidderCode&&(0n&&(e=!1)),!e}),e&&t.run(),e}function a(t,e){void 0===t[e]?t[e]=1:t[e]++}var c=this;u=D,i=Date.now();var f=O.makeBidRequests(v,i,w,z,b);I.logInfo("Bids Requested for Auction with id: ".concat(w),f),f.forEach(function(t){var e;e=t,_=_.concat(e)});var d={};if(f.lengthe.max?t:e},{max:0}),a=u()(e.buckets,function(e){if(t>i.max*n){var o=e.precision;void 0===o&&(o=c),r=(e.max*n).toFixed(o)}else if(t=e.min*n)return e});return a&&(r=function(t,e,n){var r=void 0!==e.precision?e.precision:c,i=e.increment*n,o=e.min*n,a=Math.pow(10,r+2),u=(t*a-o*a)/(i*a),s=Math.floor(u)*i+o;return(s=Number(s.toFixed(10))).toFixed(r)}(t,a,n)),r}function o(t){if(s.isEmpty(t)||!t.buckets||!Array.isArray(t.buckets))return!1;var e=!0;return t.buckets.forEach(function(t){void 0!==t.min&&t.max&&t.increment||(e=!1)}),e}n.d(e,"a",function(){return r}),n.d(e,"b",function(){return o});var a=n(10),u=n.n(a),s=n(0),c=2,f={buckets:[{min:0,max:5,increment:.5}]},d={buckets:[{min:0,max:20,increment:.1}]},l={buckets:[{min:0,max:20,increment:.01}]},p={buckets:[{min:0,max:3,increment:.01},{min:3,max:8,increment:.05},{min:8,max:20,increment:.5}]},h={buckets:[{min:0,max:5,increment:.05},{min:5,max:10,increment:.1},{min:10,max:20,increment:.5}]}},52:function(t,e){t.exports=function(t){if("function"!=typeof t)throw TypeError(t+" is not a function!");return t}},53:function(t,e,n){var r=n(16),i=n(18).document,o=r(i)&&r(i.createElement);t.exports=function(t){return o?i.createElement(t):{}}},54:function(t,e,n){var r=n(31);t.exports=Object("z").propertyIsEnumerable(0)?Object:function(t){return"String"==r(t)?t.split(""):Object(t)}},55:function(t,e,n){var r=n(31);t.exports=Array.isArray||function(t){return"Array"==r(t)}},56:function(t,e,n){var r=n(14),i=n(18),o="__core-js_shared__",a=i[o]||(i[o]={});(t.exports=function(t,e){return a[t]||(a[t]=void 0!==e?e:{})})("versions",[]).push({version:r.version,mode:n(57)?"pure":"global",copyright:"(C) 2019 Denis Pushkarev (zloirock.ru)"})},57:function(t,e){t.exports=!0},58:function(t,e,n){var r=n(44),i=n(33),o=n(88);t.exports=function(t){return function(e,n,a){var u,s=r(e),c=i(s.length),f=o(a,c);if(t&&n!=n){for(;fe.cpm/e.video.durationBucket?-1:0};var c=n(0),f=n(36),d=n(64),l=n(46),p=n(17),h=n(63),g=n(3),v=n(2),b=n(133),y=n.n(b),m=n(10),_=n.n(m),E=n(156),S="hb_pb_cat_dur",w="hb_cache_id",T=50,A=5,x=function(){function t(t){e[t]={},e[t].bidStorage=new y.a,e[t].queueDispatcher=function(t){var e,n=1;return function(r,i,o,a){var u=this,s=function(){(function(t,e,n){(function(t){for(var e=0;e"):"";return'\n \n \n prebid.org wrapper\n \n ").concat(n,"\n \n \n \n ")}(t.vastUrl,t.vastImpUrl),ttlseconds:Number(t.ttl)};return"string"==typeof t.customCacheKey&&""!==t.customCacheKey&&(e.key=t.customCacheKey),e}e.b=function(t,e){var n={puts:t.map(r)};Object(i.a)(o.config.getConfig("cache.url"),function(t){return{success:function(e){var n;try{n=JSON.parse(e).responses}catch(e){return void t(e,[])}n?t(null,n):t(new Error("The cache server didn't respond with a responses property."),[])},error:function(e,n){t(new Error("Error storing video ad in the cache: ".concat(e,": ").concat(JSON.stringify(n))),[])}}}(e),JSON.stringify(n),{contentType:"text/plain",withCredentials:!0})},e.a=function(t){return"".concat(o.config.getConfig("cache.url"),"?uuid=").concat(t)};var i=n(5),o=n(3)},64:function(t,e,n){"use strict";function r(t){return(r="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==_typeof(Symbol.iterator)?function(t){return void 0===t?"undefined":_typeof(t)}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":void 0===t?"undefined":_typeof(t)})(t)}function i(){return(i=Object.assign||function(t){for(var e=1;e (eg mediaTypes.banner.sizes)."),t.sizes=n);if(e&&e.video){var i=e.video;if(i.playerSize)if(Array.isArray(i.playerSize)&&1===i.playerSize.length&&i.playerSize.every(function(t){return Object(f.isArrayOfNums)(t,2)}))t.sizes=i.playerSize;else if(Object(f.isArrayOfNums)(i.playerSize,2)){var o=[];o.push(i.playerSize),x.logInfo("Transforming video.playerSize from [".concat(i.playerSize,"] to [[").concat(o,"]] so it's in the proper format.")),t.sizes=i.playerSize=o}else x.logError("Detected incorrect configuration of mediaTypes.video.playerSize. Please specify only one set of dimensions in a format like: [[640, 480]]. Removing invalid mediaTypes.video.playerSize property from request."),delete t.mediaTypes.video.playerSize}if(e&&e.native){var a=e.native;a.image&&a.image.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.image.sizes)&&(x.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.sizes property from request."),delete t.mediaTypes.native.image.sizes),a.image&&a.image.aspect_ratios&&!Array.isArray(a.image.aspect_ratios)&&(x.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.aspect_ratios field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios property from request."),delete t.mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios),a.icon&&a.icon.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.icon.sizes)&&(x.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.icon.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes property from request."),delete t.mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes)}}),t},"checkAdUnitSetup");T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr=function(t){if(x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr",arguments),t){var e=T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode(t);return x.transformAdServerTargetingObj(e)}x.logMessage("Need to call getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr with adunitCode")},T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode=function(t){return T.getAdserverTargeting(t)[t]},T.getAdserverTargeting=function(t){return x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargeting",arguments),v.b.getAllTargeting(t)},T.getNoBids=function(){return x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getNoBids",arguments),a("getNoBids")},T.getBidResponses=function(){return x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getBidResponses",arguments),a("getBidsReceived")},T.getBidResponsesForAdUnitCode=function(t){return{bids:g.a.getBidsReceived().filter(function(e){return e.adUnitCode===t}).map(f.removeRequestId)}},T.setTargetingForGPTAsync=function(t,e){if(x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForGPTAsync",arguments),Object(f.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var n=v.b.getAllTargeting(t);v.b.resetPresetTargeting(t),v.b.setTargetingForGPT(n,e),Object.keys(n).forEach(function(t){Object.keys(n[t]).forEach(function(e){"hb_adid"===e&&g.a.setStatusForBids(n[t][e],A.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET)})}),O.emit(P,n)}else x.logError("window.googletag is not defined on the page")},T.setTargetingForAst=function(){x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForAn",arguments),v.b.isApntagDefined()?(v.b.setTargetingForAst(),O.emit(P,v.b.getAllTargeting())):x.logError("window.apntag is not defined on the page")},T.renderAd=function(t,e){if(x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.renderAd",arguments),x.logMessage("Calling renderAd with adId :"+e),t&&e)try{var n=g.a.findBidByAdId(e);if(n){n.status=A.BID_STATUS.RENDERED,n.ad=x.replaceAuctionPrice(n.ad,n.cpm),n.adUrl=x.replaceAuctionPrice(n.adUrl,n.cpm),g.a.addWinningBid(n),O.emit(R,n);var r=n.height,i=n.width,a=n.ad,s=n.mediaType,c=n.adUrl,f=n.renderer,d=document.createComment("Creative ".concat(n.creativeId," served by ").concat(n.bidder," Prebid.js Header Bidding"));if(x.insertElement(d,t,"body"),Object(S.c)(f))Object(S.b)(f,n);else if(t===document&&!x.inIframe()||"video"===s){var l="Error trying to write ad. Ad render call ad id ".concat(e," was prevented from writing to the main document.");u(U,l,n)}else if(a)t.open("text/html","replace"),t.write(a),t.close(),o(t,i,r),x.callBurl(n);else if(c){var p=x.createInvisibleIframe();p.height=r,p.width=i,p.style.display="inline",p.style.overflow="hidden",p.src=c,x.insertElement(p,t,"body"),o(t,i,r),x.callBurl(n)}else{var h="Error trying to write ad. No ad for bid response id: ".concat(e);u(M,h,n)}}else{var v="Error trying to write ad. Cannot find ad by given id : ".concat(e);u(q,v)}}catch(t){var b="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(e," to the page:").concat(t.message);u(z,b)}else{var y="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(e," to the page. Missing document or adId");u(L,y)}},T.removeAdUnit=function(t){x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.removeAdUnit",arguments),t?(x.isArray(t)?t:[t]).forEach(function(t){for(var e=0;eObject(u.timestamp)()},_=function(t){return t&&(t.status&&!h()([v.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET,v.BID_STATUS.RENDERED],t.status)||!t.status)},E=function(t){function e(e){return"string"==typeof e?[e]:g.isArray(e)?e:t.getAdUnitCodes()||[]}function n(){var e=t.getBidsReceived();return s.config.getConfig("useBidCache")||(e=e.filter(function(t){return T[t.adUnitCode]===t.auctionId})),a(e=e.filter(function(t){return Object(u.deepAccess)(t,"video.context")!==l.a}).filter(function(t){return"banner"!==t.mediaType||Object(d.c)([t.width,t.height])}).filter(_).filter(m),u.getOldestHighestCpmBid)}function f(){return t.getStandardBidderAdServerTargeting().map(function(t){return t.key}).concat(y).filter(u.uniques)}function p(t,e,n,r){return Object.keys(e.adserverTargeting).filter(E()).forEach(function(n){t.length&&t.filter(function(t){return function(n){return n.adUnitCode===e.adUnitCode&&n.adserverTargeting[t]}}(n)).forEach(function(t){return function(n){g.isArray(n.adserverTargeting[t])||(n.adserverTargeting[t]=[n.adserverTargeting[t]]),n.adserverTargeting[t]=n.adserverTargeting[t].concat(e.adserverTargeting[t]).filter(u.uniques),delete e.adserverTargeting[t]}}(n))}),t.push(e),t}function E(){var t=f();return function(e){return-1===t.indexOf(e)}}function S(t){return o({},t.adUnitCode,Object.keys(t.adserverTargeting).filter(E()).map(function(e){return o({},e.substring(0,20),[t.adserverTargeting[e]])}))}var w={},T={};return w.setLatestAuctionForAdUnit=function(t,e){T[t]=e},w.resetPresetTargeting=function(n){if(Object(u.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var r=e(n),i=t.getAdUnits().filter(function(t){return h()(r,t.code)});window.googletag.pubads().getSlots().forEach(function(t){b.forEach(function(e){i.forEach(function(n){n.code!==t.getAdUnitPath()&&n.code!==t.getSlotElementId()||t.setTargeting(e,null)})})})}},w.resetPresetTargetingAST=function(t){e(t).forEach(function(t){var e=window.apntag.getTag(t);if(e&&e.keywords){var n=Object.keys(e.keywords),r={};n.forEach(function(t){h()(b,t.toLowerCase())||(r[t]=e.keywords[t])}),window.apntag.modifyTag(t,{keywords:r})}})},w.getAllTargeting=function(t){var d=1=e.length?{value:void 0,done:!0}:(t=r(e,n),this._i+=t.length,{value:t,done:!1})})},68:function(t,e,n){var r=n(24),i=n(138),o=n(69),a=n(49)("IE_PROTO"),u=function(){},s="prototype",c=function(){var t,e=n(53)("iframe"),r=o.length;for(e.style.display="none",n(141).appendChild(e),e.src="javascript:",(t=e.contentWindow.document).open(),t.write("
        ")}(r.script,r.impression_id);var c=i(w[r.size_id].split("x").map(function(t){return Number(t)}),2);s.width=c[0],s.height=c[1]}s.rubiconTargeting=(Array.isArray(r.targeting)?r.targeting:[]).reduce(function(t,e){return t[e.key]=e.values[0],t},{rpfl_elemid:u.adUnitCode}),e.push(s)}else v.logError("Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:".concat(a),n,t);return e},[]).sort(function(t,e){return(e.cpm||0)-(t.cpm||0)})},getUserSyncs:function(t,e,n){if(!A&&t.iframeEnabled){var r="";return n&&"string"==typeof n.consentString&&("boolean"==typeof n.gdprApplies?r+="?gdpr=".concat(Number(n.gdprApplies),"&gdpr_consent=").concat(n.consentString):r+="?gdpr_consent=".concat(n.consentString)),A=!0,{type:"iframe",url:S+r}}},transformBidParams:function(t,e){return v.convertTypes({accountId:"number",siteId:"number",zoneId:"number"},t)}},A=!1;Object(b.registerBidder)(T)}},[472]),pbjsChunk([49],{530:function(t,e,n){t.exports=n(531)},531:function(t,e,n){"use strict";function r(t){t.renderer.push(function(){window.ANOutstreamVideo.renderAd({targetId:t.adUnitCode,adResponse:t.adResponse})})}Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0}),n.d(e,"spec",function(){return s});var i=n(0),o=n(1),a=n(12),u=n(2),s={code:"trustx",supportedMediaTypes:[u.b,u.d],isBidRequestValid:function(t){return!!t.params.uid},buildRequests:function(t,e){var n,r=[],o={},a={},u={},s="net";(t||[]).forEach(function(t){"gross"===t.params.priceType&&(s="gross"),n=t.bidderRequestId;var e=t.params.uid,c=t.adUnitCode;r.push(e);var f=i.parseSizesInput(t.sizes);a[e]||(a[e]={});var d=a[e];d[c]?d[c].bids.push(t):d[c]={adUnitCode:c,bids:[t],parents:[]};var l=d[c];f.forEach(function(t){u[t]=!0,o[e]||(o[e]={}),o[e][t]?o[e][t].push(l):o[e][t]=[l],l.parents.push({parent:o[e],key:t,uid:e})})});var c={u:i.getTopWindowUrl(),pt:s,auids:r.join(","),sizes:i.getKeys(u).join(","),r:n};return e&&(e.timeout&&(c.wtimeout=e.timeout),e.gdprConsent&&(e.gdprConsent.consentString&&(c.gdpr_consent=e.gdprConsent.consentString),c.gdpr_applies="boolean"==typeof e.gdprConsent.gdprApplies?Number(e.gdprConsent.gdprApplies):1)),{method:"GET",url:"//sofia.trustx.org/hb",data:i.parseQueryStringParameters(c).replace(/\&$/,""),bidsMap:o}},interpretResponse:function(t,e){var n=2-1}});var instance=window.Layzr({threshold:100});instance.on("src:before",function(t){t.addEventListener("load",function(e){t.parentElement.classList.add("loaded")})}),document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(t){instance.update().check().handlers(!0)}),DS.service("teadsBackfill",["$window",function(t){t.teadsNoFill=function(t){var e,n=window.innerWidth>969,r=window.innerWidthe?t:e}function a(){E.forEach(c)}function u(t,e){var n=e.visiblePx,r=e.visiblePercent;n&&r>=t.shownThreshold&&!t.seen?(t.seen=!0,setTimeout(function(){t.trigger("shown",new _("shown",e))},15)):(!n||r=0&&r.left>=0&&r.bottom1&&(a+=g(o,Math.floor(e/r),n-1,r)),a}function v(t,e){return i(e,o(t.bottom,0))-i(o(t.top,0),e)}function b(t){for(var e=t.offsetLeft,n=t.offsetTop;t=t.offsetParent;)e+=t.offsetLeft,n+=t.offsetTop;return{left:e,top:n}}function y(e,r){var i,o;return e=e.split(","),o=n.filter(n.map(e,function(e){return(i=t.querySelector(e))&&new m(i).on("shown",function(){n.invokeMap(o,"destroy"),r()})}))}var m,_,E=[];m=function(t,e){e=e||{},this.el=t,this.seen=!1,this.preload=!1,this.preloadThreshhold=e&&e.preloadThreshhold||0,this.shownThreshold=e&&e.shownThreshold||0,this.hiddenThreshold=e&&i(e.shownThreshold,e.hiddenThreshold)||0,E.push(this),c(this)},m.prototype={destroy:function(){E.splice(E.indexOf(this),1)}},r.enable(m.prototype),_=function(t,e){this.type=t,n.assign(this,e)},t.addEventListener("scroll",n.throttle(a,200)),this.getPageOffset=b,this.getLinearSpacialHash=g,this.getVerticallyVisiblePixels=v,this.getViewportHeight=f,this.getViewportWidth=d,this.isElementNotHidden=l,this.isElementInViewport=p,this.watchForAny=y,this.Visible=m}]);"use strict";var _typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e};!function(){function e(t,n,o){function r(c,s){if(!n[c]){if(!t[c]){var a="function"==typeof require&&require;if(!s&&a)return a(c,!0);if(i)return i(c,!0);var u=new Error("Cannot find module '"+c+"'");throw u.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",u}var l=n[c]={exports:{}};t[c][0].call(l.exports,function(e){return r(t[c][1][e]||e)},l,l.exports,e,t,n,o)}return n[c].exports}for(var i="function"==typeof require&&require,c=0;c1){if(i=e({path:"/"},o.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var s=new Date;s.setMilliseconds(s.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=s}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=n.write?n.write(r,t):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=encodeURIComponent(String(t)),t=t.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=t.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var a="";for(var u in i)i[u]&&(a+="; "+u,!0!==i[u]&&(a+="="+i[u]));return document.cookie=t+"="+r+a}t||(c={});for(var l=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],d=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,f=0;f-1&&(console.log("removing serviceworker"),a.unregister())}}catch(r){t=!0,n=r}finally{try{!e&&o.return&&o.return()}finally{if(t)throw n}}});var e=r("../../services/client/analytics-js");window.addEventListener("load",function(){navigator.serviceWorker.register("/sw.js").then(function(r){},function(r){console.error("ServiceWorker registration failed: ",r)})}),window.addEventListener("beforeinstallprompt",function(r){r.userChoice.then(function(r){"dismissed"===r.outcome?e.track("PWA - dismissed install prompt"):e.track("PWA - Added to Home Screen")})})}}()},{"../../services/client/analytics-js":2}],2:[function(r,e,t){var n=function(r){r=r||document.querySelectorAll("script.js-analytics-js-data")[0];var e=r.textContent;return JSON.parse(e)},i=function(r,e,t,i){var o=n(),a={};Object.assign(a,o,e),analytics.track(r,a,t,i)};e.exports.getDomEventData=n,e.exports.track=i},{}]},{},[1]);"use strict";var _typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e};!function(){function e(t,o,n){function r(c,s){if(!o[c]){if(!t[c]){var u="function"==typeof require&&require;if(!s&&u)return u(c,!0);if(i)return i(c,!0);var a=new Error("Cannot find module '"+c+"'");throw a.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",a}var f=o[c]={exports:{}};t[c][0].call(f.exports,function(e){return r(t[c][1][e]||e)},f,f.exports,e,t,o,n)}return o[c].exports}for(var i="function"==typeof require&&require,c=0;ct&&o-t1){if(i=e({path:"/"},n.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var s=new Date;s.setMilliseconds(s.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=s}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=o.write?o.write(r,t):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=encodeURIComponent(String(t)),t=t.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=t.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var u="";for(var a in i)i[a]&&(u+="; "+a,!0!==i[a]&&(u+="="+i[a]));return document.cookie=t+"="+r+u}t||(c={});for(var f=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],p=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,l=0;l-1&&(e.gdprConsent="1"),analytics.page(null,"pageView",e,{integrations:{All:!1,comScore:!0}})}function d(){var t=e("../../services/universal/membership");if(t.isMember())return t.getMembershipType()}function f(){return!window.sessionStorage.getItem("visitstarted")&&(window.sessionStorage.setItem("visitstarted","1"),!0)}function p(e,n){I(function(){function o(e){var t=document.body.querySelector("."+e);if(t){var n=t.dataset.uri;if(n&&n.split("/")[2]===e)return t}}var a=window.amplitude.getInstance(),u=n||0,l=a.options&&a.options.deviceId;if(!l&&u0&&(m["Affiliate Link"]="''…"),o("product")&&(m["Product Component"]="''…");var g=o("newsletter-signup");m["Includes Newsletter Signup"]=r(g),g&&(m["Newsletter Signup Placement"]="In Content"),analytics.page(m,{integrations:{All:!0,"Google Analytics":!1,comScore:!1}}),t.removeFromLocation()})}function m(e){var t=d();t&&(e.plan=t)}function v(e){var t=window.Scroll&&Scroll.config.detected;t&&(e.scrollUser=t)}function g(e){try{return parseInt(e)E?void console.error("RETRY LIMIT EXCEEDED"):void setTimeout(function(){e(t,n+1)},k)},A=void 0;return S}])},{"../../services/client/adblock-detector":3,"../../services/client/analytics-js":4,"../../services/universal/membership":5}],2:[function(e,t,n){!function(e){var o=!1;if("function"==typeof define&&define.amd&&(define(e),o=!0),"object"===(void 0===n?"undefined":_typeof(n))&&(t.exports=e(),o=!0),!o){var r=window.Cookies,i=window.Cookies=e();i.noConflict=function(){return window.Cookies=r,i}}}(function(){function e(){for(var e=0,t={};e1){if(i=e({path:"/"},o.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var a=new Date;a.setMilliseconds(a.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=a}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=n.write?n.write(r,t):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=encodeURIComponent(String(t)),t=t.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=t.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var s="";for(var u in i)i[u]&&(s+="; "+u,!0!==i[u]&&(s+="="+i[u]));return document.cookie=t+"="+r+s}t||(c={});for(var l=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],d=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,f=0;f1){if(i=e({path:"/"},o.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var u=new Date;u.setMilliseconds(u.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=u}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=t.write?t.write(r,n):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),n=encodeURIComponent(String(n)),n=n.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),n=n.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var f="";for(var s in i)i[s]&&(f+="; "+s,!0!==i[s]&&(f+="="+i[s]));return document.cookie=n+"="+r+f}n||(c={});for(var p=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],a=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,l=0;l1){if(i=e({path:"/"},o.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var s=new Date;s.setMilliseconds(s.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=s}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=t.write?t.write(r,n):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),n=encodeURIComponent(String(n)),n=n.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),n=n.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var u="";for(var a in i)i[a]&&(u+="; "+a,!0!==i[a]&&(u+="="+i[a]));return document.cookie=n+"="+r+u}n||(c={});for(var d=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],l=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,f=0;f1){if(i=e({path:"/"},r.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var a=new Date;a.setMilliseconds(a.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=a}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(o),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(o=c)}catch(e){}o=n.write?n.write(o,t):encodeURIComponent(String(o)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=encodeURIComponent(String(t)),t=t.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=t.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var u="";for(var s in i)i[s]&&(u+="; "+s,!0!==i[s]&&(u+="="+i[s]));return document.cookie=t+"="+o+u}t||(c={});for(var f=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],p=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,d=0;d
      Asylum minister Mark Harbers resigns over refugee crime report - DutchNews.nl
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 13:38
        VVD MP Klaas Dijkhoff consoles Mark Harbers after his resignation. Photo: Peter Hilz / HH
        Asylum minister Mark Harbers has resigned during a debate with MPs about a report in which figures about the number of refugees suspected of violent crimes were 'hidden'.
        Harbers told MPs that he felt responsible for the report, in which figures about how many refugees were suspected of rape and murder were not explicitly stated. 'I am not only responsible in terms of the law, but I feel responsible,' Harbers said.
        The figures, which were published last week, included suspicions of rape (4) and murder (31) under the heading 'other'. Harbers was then accused of attempting to hide the figures.
        During Tuesday evening's debate Harbers said that the ministry had been warned not to come up with a top 10 crimes for which asylum seekers were suspects because that meant serious crime would be hidden. However, civil servants had not taken that advice, Harbers said.
        Asked why the ministry again had failed to report the true extent of the potential involvement of asylum seekers in crime, Harbers said civil servants were worried that the figures would lead to confusion.
        Fake refugees
        Last week's report showed 'fake' asylum seekers who come from so-called safe countries, namely Morocco and Algeria, were responsible for almost half the 4,600 incidents requiring police intervention.
        While most cases involved shoplifting or pickpocketing, police also registered cases of physical abuse, threatening behaviour and a further 1,000 incidents listed as 'other'.
        The Telegraaf reported on Thursday morning this total included 79 potential sex crimes, including 47 cases of sexual assault, five allegations of child abuse and four alleged rapes plus a string of other violent offences.
        DutchNews.nl has been free for 12 years, but now we are asking our readers to help. Your donation will enable us to keep providing you with fair and accurate news and features about all things Dutch. Donate via Ideal, credit card or Paypal.
      China's big three airlines seek 737 MAX payouts from Boeing: reports
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 13:21
        Two deadly crashes within months of each other forced a worldwide grounding of Boeing's 737 MAX airliners (AFP Photo/STEPHEN BRASHEAR)
        Shanghai (AFP) - China's three biggest airlines have filed claims seeking compensation from Boeing over the grounding and delayed delivery of 737 MAX 8 aircraft following two deadly crashes, Chinese state media reported on Wednesday.
        The reports in various state-run media that China Southern Airlines, China Eastern Airlines, and Air China would seek payouts from the American aerospace giant come against the backdrop of an escalating US-China trade war.
        China Southern is Asia's largest carrier by fleet size, China Eastern is the country's number two, while Air China is the state flag carrier.
        A spokesman for China Eastern confirmed to AFP that a dispatch by state-run Xinhua news agency saying the airline had presented Boeing with a compensation claim was correct.
        Neither the spokesman nor the report gave any financial or other details.
        Spokespersons for China Southern and Air China could not immediately be reached for comment.
        On March 11, China became the first country to order its airlines to ground the 737 MAX as a result of the two tragedies.
        The day before, an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX crashed minutes after takeoff from Addis Ababa, killing all 157 people on board, including eight from China.
        That followed the October crash of a Lion Air 737 MAX, which went down shortly after takeoff from Jakarta, killing all 189 people on board.
        Xinhua had reported that "grounding Boeing 737 MAX 8 planes had resulted in great losses for the company (China Eastern), and the losses are still expanding".
        Shanghai-based China Eastern has grounded its 14 MAX planes while the US aviation giant addresses the safety risks, Xinhua reported.
        It was not immediately clear how many planes the other two airlines had grounded.
        But Chinese media have previously reported that a combined 96 MAX aircraft were in service among all of China's carriers.
        There was no immediate indication that the move was related to the increasingly bitter trade conflict.
        Trump launched the trade war last year to extract profound economic reforms from Beijing, accusing China of seeking to forge global industrial dominance through massive state intervention in markets and the theft of US technology.
        The two sides have exchanged tariffs on more than $360 billion in two-way trade.
        The conflict has widened recently with the United States taking unprecedented steps to bar US technology sales to Chinese telecom giant Huawei.
        Washington suspects Huawei has deep links with China's military which could allow Beijing to potentially use Huawei-enabled networks for espionage or cyber-sabotage.
        Boeing acknowledged Saturday it had to correct flaws in its 737 MAX flight simulator software used to train pilots.
        The firm's statement about the simulator marked a first acknowledgement of a shortcoming since the two accidents led to the worldwide grounding of the top-selling airliner.
        The anti-stall system on the MAX models has been blamed in large part for the Ethiopian Airlines tragedy.
      Huawei's entire smartphone business is in jeopardy as ARM cuts ties with the company
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 13:20
        Huawei has been facing a lot of trouble due to the recent ban by the US Commerce Department. At first it wasn't a major impact to the company, but in the last few days many US companies have been forced to comply with the ban by stopping all sales and partnerships with Huawei. One of the biggest has been Google, who revoked Huawei's access to Google services and the Play Store on all future devices. This may very well hurt Google more than Huawei though as the company has its own backup OS and doesn't rely on Google in the Chinese market as it is.
        However, now the UK-based chip company ARM has announced that it too will be cutting all contracts with Huawei. Despite not being a US company, it believes its technology has US origin and is thus affected by the US ban. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but the consequences are massive. In fact, they're far worse than the lack of Google services.
        Most modern smartphone processors are based on the ARM architecture and thus pay licensing fees to the company. Huawei wasn't affected by the lack of Qualcomm support due to this ban because it has its own chipset under the Kirin name, meaning its smartphone business was previously safe. However with this move, their chip business may be dead in the water. Without the ARM instruction set, building chips that would be compatible with the Android ecosystem as we know it would be incredibly difficult. This just might effectively kill the companies smartphone business.
        Luckily, the company has a 90 day reprieve from the ban so there is time for Huawei to work things out with the government. With the potentially disastrous consequences this would have on US companies and consumers, it's likely that a deal will be worked out in the next three months. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait and see what happens.
        Source: BBC
      North Korea calls Biden 'imbecile,' 'laughing stock'
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 13:07
        May 21, 2019 | 9:48pm | Updated May 21, 2019 | 11:13pm
        North Korea criticized Joe Biden as a ''fool of low IQ'' after the presidential hopeful called the country's leader Kim Jong Un a ''dictator and tyrant.''
        The country's official state news agency released a statement that said Biden was ''an imbecile bereft of elementary quality as a human being.''
        ''The presidential candidate from the Democratic Party during his recent election campaigning reeled off rhetoric slandering the supreme leadership of [North Korea],'' the Korean Central News Agency said.
        ''What he uttered is just sophism of an imbecile bereft of elementary quality as a human being, let alone a politician.''
        During a campaign stop in Pennsylvania on Saturday, Biden blasted President Trump for dealing with unsavory world leaders.
        ''Are we a nation that embraces dictators and tyrants like [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and Kim Jong Un?'' Biden said.
        The North Korean news agency also brought an allegation that Biden plagiarized a paper in college and mocked his presidential candidacy.
        ''Even the American media derided him as a man with 'manic-obsessive running of the mouth,' saying that he likes giving a speech but he is not serious in his words,'' the statement read.
        ''This is enough to make a cat laugh.''
        With Wires
      Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution For the Web | WebKit
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 13:06
        A typical website is made of numerous components coming from a wide variety of sources. Many of the sources that make up a website are opaque to the user, and some third-party resources are designed to identify and track users as they browse the web, often in order to retarget ads and measure ad campaign effectiveness.
        The combination of third-party web tracking and ad campaign measurement has led many to conflate web privacy with a web free of advertisements. We think that's a misunderstanding. Online ads and measurement of their effectiveness do not require Site A, where you clicked an ad, to learn that you purchased something on Site B. The only data needed for measurement is that someone who clicked an ad on Site A made a purchase on Site B.
        Today we are presenting a new technology to allow attribution of ad clicks on the web while preserving user privacy. We used the following principles as we designed this technology:
        Users should not be uniquely identified across websites for the purposes of ad click attribution. This means the combined data of an ad click and a conversion should not be attributable to a single user at web scale. To achieve this, our design has the following properties:Up to 64 ad campaigns can be measured in parallel per website where ads are placed and advertiser. This low number means ad campaign IDs cannot be turned into user identifiers.Up to 64 conversion events can be distinguished on the advertiser's own website. This means conversion IDs are also restricted from being turned into user identifiers.Only websites that users visit should be involved in measuring ad clicks and conversions. This means that opaque third-parties should not receive ad click attribution reports and we enforce it by requiring that the ad link is part of a first-party webpage and by only reporting on which first-party website a conversion happened.The browser should act on behalf of the user and do its best to preserve privacy while reporting on ad click attribution. We achieve this by:Sending attribution reports in a dedicated Private Browsing Mode even though the user is in regular browsing mode.Disallowing data like cookies for reporting purposes.Delaying reports randomly between 24 and 48 hours.Not supporting Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution at all when the user is in Private Browsing Mode.The browser vendor should not learn about the user's ad clicks or conversions. For this reason, we designed the feature to do all of its work on-device. The browser vendor does not see any of the ad click attribution data.Critically, our solution avoids placing trust in any of the parties involved '-- the ad network, the merchant, or any other intermediaries '-- and dramatically limits the entropy of data passed between them to prevent communication of a tracking identifier.
        Ad Click Attribution in a NutshellHere's a simple example of ad click attribution:An online store runs an ad on a search engine website. If a user clicks the ad and eventually buys something, both the online store and the search engine website where the ad was placed want to know; they want the purchase to be attributed to the ad click so that the store knows where to focus their advertising budget. Such attribution is used for measurement of which ads are effective.
        Traditional, Privacy-Invasive Ad Click AttributionTraditionally, ad click attribution has been done through the use of cookies and so-called ''tracking pixels.'' Here's an illustration of how this works:
        The illustration above shows the user John:
        Searching for ''grill'' on search.example, Clicking an ad which takes him to shop.example, and Finally adding a $90 grill to a shopping cart.Following each action on shop.example, shop.example fires a tracking pixel (a request for an invisible image) to search.example to report progress toward a purchase.
        In browsers without appropriate privacy protections, search.example will identify John through his cookies every time shop.example fires such a tracking pixel to search.example. This pervasive technology allows search.example to learn everything John does on shop.example and all other websites that fire similar tracking pixels. Even worse, all these pixels fire regardless of whether John has clicked an ad or not.
        Needless to say, tracking pixels that carry cookies enable sites such as search.example to build up a huge profile of people's interests, purchasing power, habits, age, et cetera. We refer to this as cross-site tracking and Safari prevents it from happening through the WebKit feature Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP).
        As more and more browsers acknowledge the problems of cross-site tracking, we should expect privacy-invasive ad click attribution to become a thing of the past.
        Privacy Preserving Ad Click AttributionWe propose a modern way of doing ad click attribution that doesn't allow for cross-site tracking of users but does provide a means of measuring the effectiveness of online ads. It is built into the browser itself and runs on-device which means that the browser vendor does not get to see what ads are clicked or which purchases are made.
        Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution has three steps:
        Store ad clicks. This is done by the page hosting the ad at the time of an ad click.Match conversions against stored ad clicks. This is done on the website the ad navigated to as a result of the click. Conversions do not have to happen right after a click and do not have to happen on the specific landing page, just the same website.Send out ad click attribution data. This is done by the browser after a conversion matches an ad click.Let's go through these steps in detail and which steps we've taken to preserve the user's privacy.
        Step 1: Store Ad ClicksAnchor elements, often referred to as links, now support two new, optional attributes called adDestination and adCampaignID.
        As shown in the illustration below, adDestination is the domain the ad click is navigating the user to, and adCampaignID is the identifier of the ad campaign.
        If the user clicks the ad link on search.example, the browser will follow the navigation, through potential redirects, to make sure that the user actually lands on shop.example. If so, the browser stores the ad click, comprising the following data (presented here in plain English): The user clicked shop.example's ad campaign 55 on search.example.
        Here are the important privacy aspects of this step:
        The link needs to be an element on the first-party website (the main frame), not a link in an iframe. This is to meet user expectations and to be able to provide control to the user. Users can only be expected to understand which first-party website they clicked an ad on and which first-party website they made a purchase on. We also think it's important that the first-party website that serves the ad is the one attributed for the performance of the ad campaign.Neither search.example nor shop.example can read the stored ad click data or detect that it exists.The browser only stores ad clicks for a limited time. In WebKit's implementation that is seven days.The entropy of the ad campaign ID needs to be properly restricted to not become a cross-site tracking vector. WebKit's implementation allows a value between 0 and 63, i.e. a maximum of 64 shop.example ad campaigns running in parallel on search.example.Step 2: Match Conversions Against Stored Ad ClicksTo achieve ad click attribution, the browser needs to be able to match conversions with stored ad clicks. What are conversions?
        Adding an item to the shopping cart is a conversion.Signing up for a new service is a conversion.Entering shipping or payment information is a conversion.Pulling the trigger and actually buying something is a conversion.Matching conversions to ad clicks allows shop.example to understand that a specific ad campaign may be effective in getting customers to add items to their shopping carts but something in the checkout flow throws them off.
        How does Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution detect a conversion and match it with a stored ad click? It makes use of the legacy tracking pixels!
        In the illustration above, an existing request to the existing tracking pixel is redirected by search.example on its own server infrastructure to a well-known location in order to signal to the browser that this is in fact a conversion happening. Note that privacy protections such as ITP will typically make sure that no cookies are sent in this request.
        The path parameter ''20'' at the end of the well-known location is the conversion data. This gives shop.example an opportunity to say something about the conversion such as where in the sales funnel the customer is, what the value of the conversion is, what time of day it is, or whatever they decide is relevant for them.
        The redirect to the well-known location may also include an optional priority parameter which indicates the importance of this particular conversion in the case of multiple conversions matching the same stored ad click.
        Here are the important privacy aspects of this step:
        Neither search.example nor shop.example know whether there is any stored ad click data to be matched against.Neither search.example nor shop.example are told by the browser whether there was a match or not.The entropy of the ad conversion data needs to be properly restricted to not become a cross-site tracking vector. WebKit's implementation allows a value between 0 and 63, i.e. six bits to distinguish conversion events. As mentioned earlier, shop.example decides what goes into these bits. For instance, they may spend two bits on monetary value in four buckets: {less than $10, between $10 and $50, between $51 and $200, above $200}.We expect to also implement a JavaScript API to send this information to the .well-known location to remove the requirement for tracking pixels but we'd like to openly discuss what should go into that API since it is much more forward looking than retrofitting existing tracking pixels.
        Step 3: Send Out Ad Click Attribution DataNow we come to the third and final step '-- the browser reports that a conversion happened for a user that had previously clicked an ad.
        Once the browser has matched a conversion against a stored ad click, it sets a timer, randomized between 24 and 48 hours. When that timer fires, the browser makes an ephemeral, stateless POST request to the same well-known location. In our example, the request would go to https://search.example/.well-known/ad-click-attribution/20/55, with the referrer request header set to https://shop.example.
        In plain English this report would say: 24 to 48 hours ago, some user who previously clicked shop.example's ad campaign 55 on search.example, converted with data 20 on shop.example.
        Once the ephemeral, stateless POST request goes out, the stored ad click is consumed and cannot be converted further. This is in part why we have the minimum delay of 24 hours. During that delay, shop.example has the opportunity to signal further conversions, for instance down a sales funnel, and only the most important conversion will be sent in the POST request. The importance is controlled through the optional priority parameter in the conversion redirect, as mentioned above.
        Here are the important privacy aspects of this step:
        Neither search.example nor shop.example know that an attribution request has been scheduled.The 24''48 hour delay makes sure a conversion that happens shortly after an ad click will not allow for speculative profiling of the user by search.example. The randomness in the delay makes sure that the request does not in itself reveal when during the day the conversion happened. If shop.example wants time of day data, they will have to spend some of their six bits of conversion data on it.The ephemeral, stateless request makes sure the request is not associated with state built up through other browsing. Ephemeral in this sense is referred to as Private Browsing in Safari.The well-known location allows for a simple rule if Content Blockers wants to block such conversion reporting.Privacy ConsiderationsFor ad click attribution to happen, some bits of data about what happened across two websites need to be sent. Today's practice of ad click attribution has no practical limit on the bits of data, which allows for full cross-site tracking of users using cookies. This is privacy invasive and thus we are obliged to prevent such ad click attribution from happening in Safari and WebKit.
        But by keeping the entropy of attribution data low enough, we believe the reporting can be done in a privacy preserving way.
        Here is a summary of our privacy considerations for Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution:
        Only links served on first-party pages should be able to store ad click attribution data. This ensures that users have a chance of understanding how Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution works.Neither the website where the ad click happens nor the website where the conversion happens should be able to see whether ad click data has been stored, has been matched, or is scheduled for reporting.Ad clicks should only be stored for a limited time, such as a week. Users cannot be expected to understand that a purchase they make today is attributed to an ad click they made months ago.The entropy of both ad campaign ID and conversion data needs to be restricted to a point where this data cannot be repurposed for cross-site tracking of users. We propose six bits each for these two pieces of data, or values between 0 and 63.Ad click attribution requests should be delayed randomly between 24 to 48 hours. This makes sure that a conversion that happens shortly after an ad click will not allow for speculative cross-site profiling of the user. The randomness in the delay makes sure the request does not in itself reveal when during the day the conversion happened.The browser should not guarantee any specific order in which multiple ad click attribution requests are sent, since the order itself could be abused to increase the entropy and allow for cross-site tracking of users.The browser should use an ephemeral session (a.k.a. private or incognito mode) to make ad click attribution requests.The browser should not use or accept any credentials such as cookies, client certificates, or Basic Authentication in ad click attribution requests or responses.The browser should offer a way to turn ad click attribution on and off. We intend to have the default setting to be on to encourage websites to move to this technology and abandon general cross-site tracking.The browser should not enable ad click attribution in private/incognito mode.Try It Out In Safari Technology Preview!We're happy to offer Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution as an experimental feature in Safari Technology Preview 82+.
        First, enable the Develop menu, then go to the Experimental Features submenu.
        There you'll find ''Ad Click Attribution'' which enables the feature itself, and ''Ad Click Attribution Debug Mode'' which enables debug logging for developers and shortens the 24''48 hour delay to a static one minute delay, also for use by developers.
        Debugging the Link AttributesA cross-site anchor element that wants to push ad click attribution data into the browser looks like this:<a href="https://some.site.example" addestination="https://shop.example" adcampaignid="55">
        To debug such elements, you use the Web Inspector's console with the ''Preserve Log'' setting enabled. Here are a few examples of console warnings you may see if there's something wrong with your attribution attributes:
        Both adcampaignid and addestination need to be set for Ad Click Attribution to work.
        Ad Click Attribution is only supported in the main frame.
        This tells you the anchor element is not part of the main frame.
        addestination can not be the same site as the current website. This technology is meant for cross-site attribution of ad clicks. There is no need for it within the same website.
        Debugging Storage of Ad ClicksFor debugging anything beyond the anchor element, you need to use the system log (syslog). Here's how you achieve that:
        Enable Ad Click Attribution Debug Mode in the Develop''>Experimental Features submenu.In your macOS Terminal, run: log stream -info | grep AdClickAttribution.Now if you click a cross-site element with adDestination and adCampaignID attributes, you should expect to see the following in your syslog:Storing an ad click.
        Debugging ConversionsA conversion is signaled through a same-site HTTP redirect to /.well-known/ad-click-attribution/[a decimal value between 0 and 63 representing the conversion data]. Same-site here means search.example needs to be the server redirecting to https://search.example/.well-known/ad-click-attribution/. The reason for this is that search.example should be in control of when stored ad clicks on its site are consumed. Note that the conversion redirect is done as a subresource on shop.example so we don't mean same-site as the main frame.
        Once you do such a redirect, the syslog might feature one of the following error messages:
        Conversion was not accepted because the HTTP redirect was not same-site. This is the requirement mentioned above, i.e. it has to be search.example redirecting to search.example/.well-known/ad-click-attribution/.
        Conversion was not accepted because it was requested in an HTTP redirect that is same-site as the first-party. Again, this technology is meant for cross-site attribution of ad clicks. There is no need for it within the same website.
        Conversion was not accepted because the URL's protocol is not HTTPS or the URL contains one or more of username, password, query string, and fragment. The request to the well-known location has to be HTTPS and cannot contain a username, password, query string, or fragment.
        Conversion was not accepted because the URL path did not start with /.well-known/ad-click-attribution/.
        Conversion was not accepted because the conversion data could not be parsed or was higher than the allowed maximum of 63.
        Conversion was not accepted because the URL path contained unrecognized parts. This is a catch-all error message for when the URL has unrecognized path elements or is not of the correct length.
        Detecting Successful ConversionsIf you got everything right in the redirect to the well-known location, you should see the following message in the syslog:Got a conversion with conversion data: 20 and priority: 0.
        Here you see the priority parameter. It is a way for the server to signal how important a particular conversion is so that the browser can report the most important one. Take the sales funnel example. There, multiple conversions will happen in succession: add to shopping cart, enter shipping info, enter payment info, and finalize purchase. Most likely, the finalized purchase is the conversion that should be reported together with the ad campaign ID. Priority can be 0 to 63, higher means higher priority, and the priority value is only used for internal bookkeeping, i.e. not sent in any request.
        Henceforth, lets assume the redirect is done with conversion data 20 and priority 12, like so:https://search.example/.well-known/ad-click-attribution/20/12
        Now, if there's a stored ad click that matches this conversion, you'll see detailed conversion information in the syslog:
        Converted a stored ad click with conversion data: 20 and priority: 12. This is when a previously unconverted ad click is converted.
        Re-converted an ad click with a new one with conversion data: 20 and priority: 12 because it had higher priority. This is for when there's a conversion of higher priority that matches an already scheduled conversion request. The ad click is kept, re-converted with the high priority conversion, and scheduled for reporting.
        Replaced a previously converted ad click with a new one with conversion data: 20 and priority: 12 because it had higher priority. This is for when there is a different ad click (the user may have clicked more than one ad) with a scheduled conversion request but with lower priority. The newly converted ad click with higher priority replaces the old one.
        Finally, you'll see the scheduling of the report request in the syslog:Setting timer for firing conversion requests to the debug mode timeout of 60 seconds where the regular timeout would have been 111003 seconds. This is special-cased for Ad Click Attribution Debug Mode. Instead of the 24 to 48 hour delay, there's only a 60 second delay. The log message tells what the real delay would have been, in this case '‰31 hours.
        Receiving Conversion ReportsWhen the scheduled timer fires, an HTTP POST request is made to ./well-known/ad-click-attribution/[conversion data]/[ad campaign ID], effectively reporting that a conversion happened for a user that previously clicked an associated advertisement. In our example, this request would go to:https://search.example/.well-known/ad-click-attribution/20/55'... with the referrer request header set to:
        https://shop.example/
        When this request is about to go out, you'll see the following syslog entry:About to fire an attribution request for a conversion.
        If something went wrong with the request, you'll see it in the syslog:Received error: [error message] for ad click attribution request.
        Where To Send Feedback and Bug ReportsPrivacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution is in the early stage of being proposed as a standard through the W3C Web Platform Incubator Community Group (WICG). Please join us at https://github.com/WICG/ad-click-attribution to discuss how this technology fits with your use cases.
        If you find that the experimental feature in Safari Technology Preview doesn't work as explained, please file a WebKit bug at https://bugs.webkit.org and CC John Wilander.
        For technical inquiries on Privacy Preserving Ad Click Attribution, you'll find me on Twitter: @johnwilander
      Why Did a YouTube Bot Make an Unwatched Video of Our Blog Post? '' Hmm Daily
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 03:48
        Last night, I tried to use Google to pull up a recent post I'd written for Hmm Daily, the one about the terrible letter Jon Robin Baitz wrote to explain how screenwriting had made him personally too rich and successful to support the screenwriters' union in their current conflict with the Hollywood agencies. I typed in the headline'--the scab has a script'--and the very first result was my own piece, which was what I was looking for.
        But right there with it was another result: a video, also called ''The Scab Has a Script,'' with a thumbnail featuring the same inflatable-rat-at-a-typewriter image that had been on the post. I clicked it and was presented with'...the blog post, rendered line by line as meme-style text, overlaid on a rotating sequence of five images: the original illustration, some sort of cruddy photo of a painting (or tattoo?) of a sculpted bust, and a sequence of three pages of a script from Episode 410 of Outlander. Wordless vocals and a sort of jazzy guitar and beat played underneath it all.
        The first flash of old-fashioned outrage'--somebody is stealing our stuff!'--faded before it had even fully arrived, replaced by an ever-more-familiar sense of dread and loathing. Neither ''somebody'' nor ''stealing'' were the right concepts; the video was too incomprehensible for that, and until I'd clicked on it, it had zero views. It cut out after 3 minutes and 20 seconds, in the middle of the text.
        There was no motive behind it; there wasn't even a mind.There was no motive behind it; there wasn't even a mind. We were so far out beyond the realm of copyright infringement, the only logical thing to do was to rip back the whole video of our own copyrighted text and repost it ourselves. Here it is:
        The user account that had posted it, ''smokaj0000,'' has plenty more content or content-like objects where that came from. Its YouTube videos page is a solid wall of ''No Views'' videos, sprinkled here and there with videos that have gotten some tiny number of views. Since it posted the video based on our blog post a week ago, it has put up more than 600 new videos.
        Yesterday it posted, one after another, ''Saudi Arabia Beheads 37 for Terrorism Crimes; Most Shiites'' (5 minutes, 1 second); ''Saudi Arabia beheads 37 for terrorism crimes'' (7:21), and ''Saudi Arabia executes 37 people for terror-related crimes'' (3:21). Before that it posted ''NASA just detected the first 'marsquake' on the red planet'' (2:31) and ''NASA probe detects likely 'marsquake': an interplanetary first'' (3:11), and before that three straight videos about the former Brazilian president Lula's reduced prison sentence. None of them had any views.
        The videos all seem to follow the same format, using text lifted from articles elsewhere online. Some of them, but not all, have tacked the message ''Let's block ads! (Why?).'' onto the very end. Googling that brings up a tagline used by FiveFilters.org to promote an Chrome extension that's supposed to block ads, although those results also include sites that have apparently bot-harvested the text from other sites.
        (After we posted our copy of the smokaj0000 video to the Hmm Daily YouTube account, we received a copyright warning that it was being blocked because something called ''HEXACORP LTD'' had filed a copyright claim on the audio track ''cool-mbia.''
        So we replaced the audio and tried to figure out what HexaCorp was, which led to a completely impenetrable HexaCorp website which says its mission is to ''Deliver high end solutions & services, collaborate customer data & people by adapting latest technologies & tools establish customer friendly process and create effective solutions with focus towards 'Best Services Interest' and 'Maximum Value for Money'.'' More Googling found that HexaCorp appears as the owner of record in the end-user licensing agreement for a streaming service called Orfium. The initial video with the soundtrack remains unblocked. )
        Whatever smokaj0000 is doing, it is not producing content for human consumption. It is aggressively, chillingly ahuman, a machine signaling to machines for some algorithmic purpose whose human-centered antecedents are long lost. It is not even fake; it simply exists outside any realm where reality might matter.
      How the CIA made Google '' INSURGE intelligence '' Medium
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 00:36
        INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain 'information superiority.'
        The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet.
        THIS IS PART ONE. READ PART TWO HERE.
        This exclusive is being released for free in the public interest, and was enabled by crowdfunding. I'd like to thank my amazing community of patrons for their support, which gave me the opportunity to work on this in-depth investigation. Please support independent, investigative journalism for the global commons.
        In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, western governments are moving fast to legitimize expanded powers of mass surveillance and controls on the internet, all in the name of fighting terrorism.
        US and European politicians have called to protect NSA-style snooping, and to advance the capacity to intrude on internet privacy by outlawing encryption. One idea is to establish a telecoms partnership that would unilaterally delete content deemed to ''fuel hatred and violence'' in situations considered ''appropriate.'' Heated discussions are going on at government and parliamentary level to explore cracking down on lawyer-client confidentiality.
        What any of this would have done to prevent the Charlie Hebdo attacks remains a mystery, especially given that we already know the terrorists were on the radar of French intelligence for up to a decade.
        There is little new in this story. The 9/11 atrocity was the first of many terrorist attacks, each succeeded by the dramatic extension of draconian state powers at the expense of civil liberties, backed up with the projection of military force in regions identified as hotspots harbouring terrorists. Yet there is little indication that this tried and tested formula has done anything to reduce the danger. If anything, we appear to be locked into a deepening cycle of violence with no clear end in sight.
        As our governments push to increase their powers, INSURGE INTELLIGENCE can now reveal the vast extent to which the US intelligence community is implicated in nurturing the web platforms we know today, for the precise purpose of utilizing the technology as a mechanism to fight global 'information war''Š'--'Ša war to legitimize the power of the few over the rest of us. The lynchpin of this story is the corporation that in many ways defines the 21st century with its unobtrusive omnipresence: Google.
        Google styles itself as a friendly, funky, user-friendly tech firm that rose to prominence through a combination of skill, luck, and genuine innovation. This is true. But it is a mere fragment of the story. In reality, Google is a smokescreen behind which lurks the US military-industrial complex.
        The inside story of Google's rise, revealed here for the first time, opens a can of worms that goes far beyond Google, unexpectedly shining a light on the existence of a parasitical network driving the evolution of the US national security apparatus, and profiting obscenely from its operation.
        The shadow networkFor the last two decades, US foreign and intelligence strategies have resulted in a global 'war on terror' consisting of prolonged military invasions in the Muslim world and comprehensive surveillance of civilian populations. These strategies have been incubated, if not dictated, by a secret network inside and beyond the Pentagon.
        Established under the Clinton administration, consolidated under Bush, and firmly entrenched under Obama, this bipartisan network of mostly neoconservative ideologues sealed its dominion inside the US Department of Defense (DoD) by the dawn of 2015, through the operation of an obscure corporate entity outside the Pentagon, but run by the Pentagon.
        In 1999, the CIA created its own venture capital investment firm, In-Q-Tel, to fund promising start-ups that might create technologies useful for intelligence agencies. But the inspiration for In-Q-Tel came earlier, when the Pentagon set up its own private sector outfit.
        Known as the 'Highlands Forum,' this private network has operated as a bridge between the Pentagon and powerful American elites outside the military since the mid-1990s. Despite changes in civilian administrations, the network around the Highlands Forum has become increasingly successful in dominating US defense policy.
        Giant defense contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton and Science Applications International Corporation are sometimes referred to as the 'shadow intelligence community' due to the revolving doors between them and government, and their capacity to simultaneously influence and profit from defense policy. But while these contractors compete for power and money, they also collaborate where it counts. The Highlands Forum has for 20 years provided an off the record space for some of the most prominent members of the shadow intelligence community to convene with senior US government officials, alongside other leaders in relevant industries.
        I first stumbled upon the existence of this network in November 2014, when I reported for VICE's Motherboard that US defense secretary Chuck Hagel's newly announced 'Defense Innovation Initiative' was really about building Skynet'Š'--'Šor something like it, essentially to dominate an emerging era of automated robotic warfare.
        That story was based on a little-known Pentagon-funded 'white paper' published two months earlier by the National Defense University (NDU) in Washington DC, a leading US military-run institution that, among other things, generates research to develop US defense policy at the highest levels. The white paper clarified the thinking behind the new initiative, and the revolutionary scientific and technological developments it hoped to capitalize on.
        The Highlands ForumThe co-author of that NDU white paper is Linton Wells, a 51-year veteran US defense official who served in the Bush administration as the Pentagon's chief information officer, overseeing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other spy agencies. He still holds active top-secret security clearances, and according to a report by Government Executive magazine in 2006 he chaired the 'Highlands Forum', founded by the Pentagon in 1994.
        Linton Wells II (right) former Pentagon chief information officer and assistant secretary of defense for networks, at a recent Pentagon Highlands Forum session. Rosemary Wenchel, a senior official in the US Department of Homeland Security, is sitting next to himNew Scientist magazine (paywall) has compared the Highlands Forum to elite meetings like ''Davos, Ditchley and Aspen,'' describing it as ''far less well known, yet'... arguably just as influential a talking shop.'' Regular Forum meetings bring together ''innovative people to consider interactions between policy and technology. Its biggest successes have been in the development of high-tech network-based warfare.''
        Given Wells' role in such a Forum, perhaps it was not surprising that his defense transformation white paper was able to have such a profound impact on actual Pentagon policy. But if that was the case, why had no one noticed?
        Despite being sponsored by the Pentagon, I could find no official page on the DoD website about the Forum. Active and former US military and intelligence sources had never heard of it, and neither did national security journalists. I was baffled.
        The Pentagon's intellectual capital venture firmIn the prologue to his 2007 book, A Crowd of One: The Future of Individual Identity, John Clippinger, an MIT scientist of the Media Lab Human Dynamics Group, described how he participated in a ''Highlands Forum'' gathering, an ''invitation-only meeting funded by the Department of Defense and chaired by the assistant for networks and information integration.'' This was a senior DoD post overseeing operations and policies for the Pentagon's most powerful spy agencies including the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), among others. Starting from 2003, the position was transitioned into what is now the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. The Highlands Forum, Clippinger wrote, was founded by a retired US Navy captain named Dick O'Neill. Delegates include senior US military officials across numerous agencies and divisions'Š'--'Š''captains, rear admirals, generals, colonels, majors and commanders'' as well as ''members of the DoD leadership.''
        What at first appeared to be the Forum's main website describes Highlands as ''an informal cross-disciplinary network sponsored by Federal Government,'' focusing on ''information, science and technology.'' Explanation is sparse, beyond a single 'Department of Defense' logo.
        But Highlands also has another website describing itself as an ''intellectual capital venture firm'' with ''extensive experience assisting corporations, organizations, and government leaders.'' The firm provides a ''wide range of services, including: strategic planning, scenario creation and gaming for expanding global markets,'' as well as ''working with clients to build strategies for execution.'' 'The Highlands Group Inc.,' the website says, organizes a whole range of Forums on these issue.
        For instance, in addition to the Highlands Forum, since 9/11 the Group runs the 'Island Forum,' an international event held in association with Singapore's Ministry of Defense, which O'Neill oversees as ''lead consultant.'' The Singapore Ministry of Defense website describes the Island Forum as ''patterned after the Highlands Forum organized for the US Department of Defense.'' Documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden confirmed that Singapore played a key role in permitting the US and Australia to tap undersea cables to spy on Asian powers like Indonesia and Malaysia.
        The Highlands Group website also reveals that Highlands is partnered with one of the most powerful defense contractors in the United States. Highlands is ''supported by a network of companies and independent researchers,'' including ''our Highlands Forum partners for the past ten years at SAIC; and the vast Highlands network of participants in the Highlands Forum.''
        SAIC stands for the US defense firm, Science Applications International Corporation, which changed its name to Leidos in 2013, operating SAIC as a subsidiary. SAIC/Leidos is among the top 10 largest defense contractors in the US, and works closely with the US intelligence community, especially the NSA. According to investigative journalist Tim Shorrock, the first to disclose the vast extent of the privatization of US intelligence with his seminal book Spies for Hire, SAIC has a ''symbiotic relationship with the NSA: the agency is the company's largest single customer and SAIC is the NSA's largest contractor.''
        Richard 'Dick' Patrick O'Neill, founding president of the Pentagon's Highlands ForumThe full name of Captain ''Dick'' O'Neill, the founding president of the Highlands Forum, is Richard Patrick O'Neill, who after his work in the Navy joined the DoD. He served his last post as deputy for strategy and policy in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, before setting up Highlands.
        The Club of YodaBut Clippinger also referred to another mysterious individual revered by Forum attendees:
        ''He sat at the back of the room, expressionless behind thick, black-rimmed glasses. I never heard him utter a word'... Andrew (Andy) Marshall is an icon within DoD. Some call him Yoda, indicative of his mythical inscrutable status'... He had served many administrations and was widely regarded as above partisan politics. He was a supporter of the Highlands Forum and a regular fixture from its beginning.''Since 1973, Marshall has headed up one of the Pentagon's most powerful agencies, the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), the US defense secretary's internal 'think tank' which conducts highly classified research on future planning for defense policy across the US military and intelligence community. The ONA has played a key role in major Pentagon strategy initiatives, including Maritime Strategy, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Competitive Strategies Initiative, and the Revolution in Military Affairs.
        Andrew 'Yoda' Marshall, head of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA) and co-chair of the Highlands Forum, at an early Highlands event in 1996 at the Santa Fe Institute. Marshall is retiring as of January 2015In a rare 2002 profile in Wired, reporter Douglas McGray described Andrew Marshall, now 93 years old, as ''the DoD's most elusive'' but ''one of its most influential'' officials. McGray added that ''Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz'''Š'--'Šwidely considered the hawks of the neoconservative movement in American politics'Š'--'Šwere among Marshall's ''star prot(C)g(C)s.''
        Speaking at a low-key Harvard University seminar a few months after 9/11, Highlands Forum founding president Richard O'Neill said that Marshall was much more than a ''regular fixture'' at the Forum. ''Andy Marshall is our co-chair, so indirectly everything that we do goes back into Andy's system,'' he told the audience. ''Directly, people who are in the Forum meetings may be going back to give briefings to Andy on a variety of topics and to synthesize things.'' He also said that the Forum had a third co-chair: the director of the Defense Advanced Research and Projects Agency (DARPA), which at that time was a Rumsfeld appointee, Anthony J. Tether. Before joining DARPA, Tether was vice president of SAIC's Advanced Technology Sector.
        Anthony J. Tether, director of DARPA and co-chair of the Pentagon's Highlands Forum from June 2001 to February 2009The Highlands Forum's influence on US defense policy has thus operated through three main channels: its sponsorship by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (around the middle of last decade this was transitioned specifically to the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, which is in charge of the main surveillance agencies); its direct link to Andrew 'Yoda' Marshall's ONA; and its direct link to DARPA.
        A slide from Richard O'Neill's presentation at Harvard University in 2001According to Clippinger in A Crowd of One, ''what happens at informal gatherings such as the Highlands Forum could, over time and through unforeseen curious paths of influence, have enormous impact, not just within the DoD but throughout the world.'' He wrote that the Forum's ideas have ''moved from being heretical to mainstream. Ideas that were anathema in 1999 had been adopted as policy just three years later.''
        Although the Forum does not produce ''consensus recommendations,'' its impact is deeper than a traditional government advisory committee. ''The ideas that emerge from meetings are available for use by decision-makers as well as by people from the think tanks,'' according to O'Neill:
        ''We'll include people from Booz, SAIC, RAND, or others at our meetings'... We welcome that kind of cooperation, because, truthfully, they have the gravitas. They are there for the long haul and are able to influence government policies with real scholarly work'... We produce ideas and interaction and networks for these people to take and use as they need them.''My repeated requests to O'Neill for information on his work at the Highlands Forum were ignored. The Department of Defense also did not respond to multiple requests for information and comment on the Forum.
        Information warfareThe Highlands Forum has served as a two-way 'influence bridge': on the one hand, for the shadow network of private contractors to influence the formulation of information operations policy across US military intelligence; and on the other, for the Pentagon to influence what is going on in the private sector. There is no clearer evidence of this than the truly instrumental role of the Forum in incubating the idea of mass surveillance as a mechanism to dominate information on a global scale.
        In 1989, Richard O'Neill, then a US Navy cryptologist, wrote a paper for the US Naval War College, 'Toward a methodology for perception management.' In his book, Future Wars, Col. John Alexander, then a senior officer in the US Army's Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), records that O'Neill's paper for the first time outlined a strategy for ''perception management'' as part of information warfare (IW). O'Neill's proposed strategy identified three categories of targets for IW: adversaries, so they believe they are vulnerable; potential partners, ''so they perceive the cause [of war] as just''; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they ''perceive the cost as worth the effort.'' A secret briefing based on O'Neill's work ''made its way to the top leadership'' at DoD. ''They acknowledged that O'Neill was right and told him to bury it.
        Except the DoD didn't bury it. Around 1994, the Highlands Group was founded by O'Neill as an official Pentagon project at the appointment of Bill Clinton's then defense secretary William Perry'Š'--'Šwho went on to join SAIC's board of directors after retiring from government in 2003.
        In O'Neill's own words, the group would function as the Pentagon's 'ideas lab'. According to Government Executive, military and information technology experts gathered at the first Forum meeting ''to consider the impacts of IT and globalization on the United States and on warfare. How would the Internet and other emerging technologies change the world?'' The meeting helped plant the idea of ''network-centric warfare'' in the minds of ''the nation's top military thinkers.''
        Excluding the publicOfficial Pentagon records confirm that the Highlands Forum's primary goal was to support DoD policies on O'Neill's specialism: information warfare. According to the Pentagon's 1997 Annual Report to the President and the Congress under a section titled 'Information Operations,' (IO) the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) had authorized the ''establishment of the Highlands Group of key DoD, industry, and academic IO experts'' to coordinate IO across federal military intelligence agencies.
        The following year's DoD annual report reiterated the Forum's centrality to information operations: ''To examine IO issues, DoD sponsors the Highlands Forum, which brings together government, industry, and academic professionals from various fields.''
        Notice that in 1998, the Highlands 'Group' became a 'Forum.' According to O'Neill, this was to avoid subjecting Highlands Forums meetings to ''bureaucratic restrictions.'' What he was alluding to was the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which regulates the way the US government can formally solicit the advice of special interests.
        Known as the 'open government' law, FACA requires that US government officials cannot hold closed-door or secret consultations with people outside government to develop policy. All such consultations should take place via federal advisory committees that permit public scrutiny. FACA requires that meetings be held in public, announced via the Federal Register, that advisory groups are registered with an office at the General Services Administration, among other requirements intended to maintain accountability to the public interest.
        But Government Executive reported that ''O'Neill and others believed'' such regulatory issues ''would quell the free flow of ideas and no-holds-barred discussions they sought.'' Pentagon lawyers had warned that the word 'group' might necessitate certain obligations and advised running the whole thing privately: ''So O'Neill renamed it the Highlands Forum and moved into the private sector to manage it as a consultant to the Pentagon.'' The Pentagon Highlands Forum thus runs under the mantle of O'Neill's 'intellectual capital venture firm,' 'Highlands Group Inc.'
        In 1995, a year after William Perry appointed O'Neill to head up the Highlands Forum, SAIC'Š'--'Šthe Forum's ''partner'' organization'Š'--'Šlaunched a new Center for Information Strategy and Policy under the direction of ''Jeffrey Cooper, a member of the Highlands Group who advises senior Defense Department officials on information warfare issues.'' The Center had precisely the same objective as the Forum, to function as ''a clearinghouse to bring together the best and brightest minds in information warfare by sponsoring a continuing series of seminars, papers and symposia which explore the implications of information warfare in depth.'' The aim was to ''enable leaders and policymakers from government, industry, and academia to address key issues surrounding information warfare to ensure that the United States retains its edge over any and all potential enemies.''
        Despite FACA regulations, federal advisory committees are already heavily influenced, if not captured, by corporate power. So in bypassing FACA, the Pentagon overrode even the loose restrictions of FACA, by permanently excluding any possibility of public engagement.
        O'Neill's claim that there are no reports or recommendations is disingenuous. By his own admission, the secret Pentagon consultations with industry that have taken place through the Highlands Forum since 1994 have been accompanied by regular presentations of academic and policy papers, recordings and notes of meetings, and other forms of documentation that are locked behind a login only accessible by Forum delegates. This violates the spirit, if not the letter, of FACA'Š'--'Šin a way that is patently intended to circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law.
        The Highlands Forum doesn't need to produce consensus recommendations. Its purpose is to provide the Pentagon a shadow social networking mechanism to cement lasting relationships with corporate power, and to identify new talent, that can be used to fine-tune information warfare strategies in absolute secrecy.
        Total participants in the DoD's Highlands Forum number over a thousand, although sessions largely consist of small closed workshop style gatherings of maximum 25''30 people, bringing together experts and officials depending on the subject. Delegates have included senior personnel from SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton, RAND Corp., Cisco, Human Genome Sciences, eBay, PayPal, IBM, Google, Microsoft, AT&T, the BBC, Disney, General Electric, Enron, among innumerable others; Democrat and Republican members of Congress and the Senate; senior executives from the US energy industry such as Daniel Yergin of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates; and key people involved in both sides of presidential campaigns.
        Other participants have included senior media professionals: David Ignatius, associate editor of the Washington Post and at the time the executive editor of the International Herald Tribune; Thomas Friedman, long-time New York Times columnist; Arnaud de Borchgrave, an editor at Washington Times and United Press International; Steven Levy, a former Newsweek editor, senior writer for Wired and now chief tech editor at Medium; Lawrence Wright, staff writer at the New Yorker; Noah Shachtmann, executive editor at the Daily Beast; Rebecca McKinnon, co-founder of Global Voices Online; Nik Gowing of the BBC; and John Markoff of the New York Times.
        Due to its current sponsorship by the OSD's undersecretary of defense for intelligence, the Forum has inside access to the chiefs of the main US surveillance and reconnaissance agencies, as well as the directors and their assistants at DoD research agencies, from DARPA, to the ONA. This also means that the Forum is deeply plugged into the Pentagon's policy research task forces.
        Google: seeded by the PentagonIn 1994'Š'--'Šthe same year the Highlands Forum was founded under the stewardship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the ONA, and DARPA'Š'--'Štwo young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google's search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency programme of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.
        But that's just one side of the story.
        Throughout the development of the search engine, Sergey Brin reported regularly and directly to two people who were not Stanford faculty at all: Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham and Dr. Rick Steinheiser. Both were representatives of a sensitive US intelligence community research programme on information security and data-mining.
        Thuraisingham is currently the Louis A. Beecherl distinguished professor and executive director of the Cyber Security Research Institute at the University of Texas, Dallas, and a sought-after expert on data-mining, data management and information security issues. But in the 1990s, she worked for the MITRE Corp., a leading US defense contractor, where she managed the Massive Digital Data Systems initiative, a project sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence, to foster innovative research in information technology.
        ''We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,'' Prof. Thuraisingham told me. ''One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community's MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.''
        This sort of funding is certainly not unusual, and Sergey Brin's being able to receive it by being a graduate student at Stanford appears to have been incidental. The Pentagon was all over computer science research at this time. But it illustrates how deeply entrenched the culture of Silicon Valley is in the values of the US intelligence community.
        In an extraordinary document hosted by the website of the University of Texas, Thuraisingham recounts that from 1993 to 1999, ''the Intelligence Community [IC] started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation.'' The program funded 15 research efforts at various universities, including Stanford. Its goal was developing ''data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data,'' including for ''query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration.''
        At the time, Thuraisingham was chief scientist for data and information management at MITRE, where she led team research and development efforts for the NSA, CIA, US Air Force Research Laboratory, as well as the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and Communications and Electronic Command (CECOM). She went on to teach courses for US government officials and defense contractors on data-mining in counter-terrorism.
        In her University of Texas article, she attaches the copy of an abstract of the US intelligence community's MDDS program that had been presented to the ''Annual Intelligence Community Symposium'' in 1995. The abstract reveals that the primary sponsors of the MDDS programme were three agencies: the NSA, the CIA's Office of Research & Development, and the intelligence community's Community Management Staff (CMS) which operates under the Director of Central Intelligence. Administrators of the program, which provided funding of around 3''4 million dollars per year for 3''4 years, were identified as Hal Curran (NSA), Robert Kluttz (CMS), Dr. Claudia Pierce (NSA), Dr. Rick Steinheiser (ORD'Š'--'Šstanding for the CIA's Office of Research and Devepment), and Dr. Thuraisingham herself.
        Thuraisingham goes on in her article to reiterate that this joint CIA-NSA program partly funded Sergey Brin to develop the core of Google, through a grant to Stanford managed by Brin's supervisor Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman:
        ''In fact, the Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre's chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.''Brin and Page officially incorporated Google as a company in September 1998, the very month they last reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser. 'Query Flocks' was also part of Google's patented 'PageRank' search system, which Brin developed at Stanford under the CIA-NSA-MDDS programme, as well as with funding from the NSF, IBM and Hitachi. That year, MITRE's Dr. Chris Clifton, who worked under Thuraisingham to develop the 'Query Flocks' system, co-authored a paper with Brin's superviser, Prof. Ullman, and the CIA's Rick Steinheiser. Titled 'Knowledge Discovery in Text,' the paper was presented at an academic conference.
        ''The MDDS funding that supported Brin was significant as far as seed-funding goes, but it was probably outweighed by the other funding streams,'' said Thuraisingham. ''The duration of Brin's funding was around two years or so. In that period, I and my colleagues from the MDDS would visit Stanford to see Brin and monitor his progress every three months or so. We didn't supervise exactly, but we did want to check progress, point out potential problems and suggest ideas. In those briefings, Brin did present to us on the query flocks research, and also demonstrated to us versions of the Google search engine.''
        Brin thus reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser regularly about his work developing Google.
        ==
        UPDATE 2.05PM GMT [2nd Feb 2015]:
        Since publication of this article, Prof. Thuraisingham has amended her article referenced above. The amended version includes a new modified statement, followed by a copy of the original version of her account of the MDDS. In this amended version, Thuraisingham rejects the idea that CIA funded Google, and says instead:
        ''In fact Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (at Stanford) and my colleague at MITRE Dr. Chris Clifton together with some others developed the Query Flocks System, as part of MDDS, which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. Also, Mr. Sergey Brin, the cofounder of Google, was part of Prof. Ullman's research group at that time. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community periodically and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. During our last visit to Stanford in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which I believe became Google soon after'...There are also several inaccuracies in Dr. Ahmed's article (dated January 22, 2015). For example, the MDDS program was not a 'sensitive' program as stated by Dr. Ahmed; it was an Unclassified program that funded universities in the US. Furthermore, Sergey Brin never reported to me or to Dr. Rick Steinheiser; he only gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s. Also, MDDS never funded Google; it funded Stanford University.''Here, there is no substantive factual difference in Thuraisingham's accounts, other than to assert that her statement associating Sergey Brin with the development of 'query flocks' is mistaken. Notably, this acknowledgement is derived not from her own knowledge, but from this very article quoting a comment from a Google spokesperson.
        However, the bizarre attempt to disassociate Google from the MDDS program misses the mark. Firstly, the MDDS never funded Google, because during the development of the core components of the Google search engine, there was no company incorporated with that name. The grant was instead provided to Stanford University through Prof. Ullman, through whom some MDDS funding was used to support Brin who was co-developing Google at the time. Secondly, Thuraisingham then adds that Brin never ''reported'' to her or the CIA's Steinheiser, but admits he ''gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s.'' It is unclear, though, what the distinction is here between reporting, and delivering a detailed presentation'Š'--'Šeither way, Thuraisingham confirms that she and the CIA had taken a keen interest in Brin's development of Google. Thirdly, Thuraisingham describes the MDDS program as ''unclassified,'' but this does not contradict its ''sensitive'' nature. As someone who has worked for decades as an intelligence contractor and advisor, Thuraisingham is surely aware that there are many ways of categorizing intelligence, including 'sensitive but unclassified.' A number of former US intelligence officials I spoke to said that the almost total lack of public information on the CIA and NSA's MDDS initiative suggests that although the progam was not classified, it is likely instead that its contents was considered sensitive, which would explain efforts to minimise transparency about the program and the way it fed back into developing tools for the US intelligence community. Fourthly, and finally, it is important to point out that the MDDS abstract which Thuraisingham includes in her University of Texas document states clearly not only that the Director of Central Intelligence's CMS, CIA and NSA were the overseers of the MDDS initiative, but that the intended customers of the project were ''DoD, IC, and other government organizations'': the Pentagon, the US intelligence community, and other relevant US government agencies.
        In other words, the provision of MDDS funding to Brin through Ullman, under the oversight of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser, was fundamentally because they recognized the potential utility of Brin's work developing Google to the Pentagon, intelligence community, and the federal government at large.
        ==
        The MDDS programme is actually referenced in several papers co-authored by Brin and Page while at Stanford, specifically highlighting its role in financially sponsoring Brin in the development of Google. In their 1998 paper published in the Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committeee on Data Engineering, they describe the automation of methods to extract information from the web via ''Dual Iterative Pattern Relation Extraction,'' the development of ''a global ranking of Web pages called PageRank,'' and the use of PageRank ''to develop a novel search engine called Google.'' Through an opening footnote, Sergey Brin confirms he was ''Partially supported by the Community Management Staff's Massive Digital Data Systems Program, NSF grant IRI-96''31952'''Š'--'Šconfirming that Brin's work developing Google was indeed partly-funded by the CIA-NSA-MDDS program.
        This NSF grant identified alongside the MDDS, whose project report lists Brin among the students supported (without mentioning the MDDS), was different to the NSF grant to Larry Page that included funding from DARPA and NASA. The project report, authored by Brin's supervisor Prof. Ullman, goes on to say under the section 'Indications of Success' that ''there are some new stories of startups based on NSF-supported research.'' Under 'Project Impact,' the report remarks: ''Finally, the google project has also gone commercial as Google.com.''
        Thuraisingham's account, including her new amended version, therefore demonstrates that the CIA-NSA-MDDS program was not only partly funding Brin throughout his work with Larry Page developing Google, but that senior US intelligence representatives including a CIA official oversaw the evolution of Google in this pre-launch phase, all the way until the company was ready to be officially founded. Google, then, had been enabled with a ''significant'' amount of seed-funding and oversight from the Pentagon: namely, the CIA, NSA, and DARPA.
        The DoD could not be reached for comment.
        When I asked Prof. Ullman to confirm whether or not Brin was partly funded under the intelligence community's MDDS program, and whether Ullman was aware that Brin was regularly briefing the CIA's Rick Steinheiser on his progress in developing the Google search engine, Ullman's responses were evasive: ''May I know whom you represent and why you are interested in these issues? Who are your 'sources'?'' He also denied that Brin played a significant role in developing the 'query flocks' system, although it is clear from Brin's papers that he did draw on that work in co-developing the PageRank system with Page.
        When I asked Ullman whether he was denying the US intelligence community's role in supporting Brin during the development of Google, he said: ''I am not going to dignify this nonsense with a denial. If you won't explain what your theory is, and what point you are trying to make, I am not going to help you in the slightest.''
        The MDDS abstract published online at the University of Texas confirms that the rationale for the CIA-NSA project was to ''provide seed money to develop data management technologies which are of high-risk and high-pay-off,'' including techniques for ''querying, browsing, and filtering; transaction processing; accesses methods and indexing; metadata management and data modelling; and integrating heterogeneous databases; as well as developing appropriate architectures.'' The ultimate vision of the program was to ''provide for the seamless access and fusion of massive amounts of data, information and knowledge in a heterogeneous, real-time environment'' for use by the Pentagon, intelligence community and potentially across government.
        These revelations corroborate the claims of Robert Steele, former senior CIA officer and a founding civilian deputy director of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, whom I interviewed for The Guardian last year on open source intelligence. Citing sources at the CIA, Steele had said in 2006 that Steinheiser, an old colleague of his, was the CIA's main liaison at Google and had arranged early funding for the pioneering IT firm. At the time, Wired founder John Batelle managed to get this official denial from a Google spokesperson in response to Steele's assertions:
        ''The statements related to Google are completely untrue.''This time round, despite multiple requests and conversations, a Google spokesperson declined to comment.
        UPDATE: As of 5.41PM GMT [22nd Jan 2015], Google's director of corporate communication got in touch and asked me to include the following statement:
        ''Sergey Brin was not part of the Query Flocks Program at Stanford, nor were any of his projects funded by US Intelligence bodies.''This is what I wrote back:
        My response to that statement would be as follows: Brin himself in his own paper acknowledges funding from the Community Management Staff of the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) initiative, which was supplied through the NSF. The MDDS was an intelligence community program set up by the CIA and NSA. I also have it on record, as noted in the piece, from Prof. Thuraisingham of University of Texas that she managed the MDDS program on behalf of the US intelligence community, and that her and the CIA's Rick Steinheiser met Brin every three months or so for two years to be briefed on his progress developing Google and PageRank. Whether Brin worked on query flocks or not is neither here nor there.In that context, you might want to consider the following questions:1) Does Google deny that Brin's work was part-funded by the MDDS via an NSF grant?2) Does Google deny that Brin reported regularly to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser from around 1996 to 1998 until September that year when he presented the Google search engine to them?Total Information AwarenessA call for papers for the MDDS was sent out via email list on November 3rd 1993 from senior US intelligence official David Charvonia, director of the research and development coordination office of the intelligence community's CMS. The reaction from Tatu Ylonen (celebrated inventor of the widely used secure shell [SSH] data protection protocol) to his colleagues on the email list is telling: ''Crypto relevance? Makes you think whether you should protect your data.'' The email also confirms that defense contractor and Highlands Forum partner, SAIC, was managing the MDDS submission process, with abstracts to be sent to Jackie Booth of the CIA's Office of Research and Development via a SAIC email address.
        By 1997, Thuraisingham reveals, shortly before Google became incorporated and while she was still overseeing the development of its search engine software at Stanford, her thoughts turned to the national security applications of the MDDS program. In the acknowledgements to her book, Web Data Mining and Applications in Business Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism (2003), Thuraisingham writes that she and ''Dr. Rick Steinheiser of the CIA, began discussions with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on applying data-mining for counter-terrorism,'' an idea that resulted directly from the MDDS program which partly funded Google. ''These discussions eventually developed into the current EELD (Evidence Extraction and Link Detection) program at DARPA.''
        So the very same senior CIA official and CIA-NSA contractor involved in providing the seed-funding for Google were simultaneously contemplating the role of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, and were developing ideas for tools actually advanced by DARPA.
        Today, as illustrated by her recent oped in the New York Times, Thuraisingham remains a staunch advocate of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, but also insists that these methods must be developed by government in cooperation with civil liberties lawyers and privacy advocates to ensure that robust procedures are in place to prevent potential abuse. She points out, damningly, that with the quantity of information being collected, there is a high risk of false positives.
        In 1993, when the MDDS program was launched and managed by MITRE Corp. on behalf of the US intelligence community, University of Virginia computer scientist Dr. Anita K. Jones'Š'--'Ša MITRE trustee'Š'--'Šlanded the job of DARPA director and head of research and engineering across the Pentagon. She had been on the board of MITRE since 1988. From 1987 to 1993, Jones simultaneously served on SAIC's board of directors. As the new head of DARPA from 1993 to 1997, she also co-chaired the Pentagon's Highlands Forum during the period of Google's pre-launch development at Stanford under the MDSS.
        Thus, when Thuraisingham and Steinheiser were talking to DARPA about the counter-terrorism applications of MDDS research, Jones was DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair. That year, Jones left DARPA to return to her post at the University of Virgina. The following year, she joined the board of the National Science Foundation, which of course had also just funded Brin and Page, and also returned to the board of SAIC. When she left DoD, Senator Chuck Robb paid Jones the following tribute : ''She brought the technology and operational military communities together to design detailed plans to sustain US dominance on the battlefield into the next century.''
        Dr. Anita Jones, head of DARPA from 1993''1997, and co-chair of the Pentagon Highlands Forum from 1995''1997, during which officials in charge of the CIA-NSA-MDSS program were funding Google, and in communication with DARPA about data-mining for counterterrorismOn the board of the National Science Foundation from 1992 to 1998 (including a stint as chairman from 1996) was Richard N. Zare. This was the period in which the NSF sponsored Sergey Brin and Larry Page in association with DARPA. In June 1994, Prof. Zare, a chemist at Stanford, participated with Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (who supervised Sergey Brin's research), on a panel sponsored by Stanford and the National Research Council discussing the need for scientists to show how their work ''ties to national needs.'' The panel brought together scientists and policymakers, including ''Washington insiders.''
        DARPA's EELD program, inspired by the work of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser under Jones' watch, was rapidly adapted and integrated with a suite of tools to conduct comprehensive surveillance under the Bush administration.
        According to DARPA official Ted Senator, who led the EELD program for the agency's short-lived Information Awareness Office, EELD was among a range of ''promising techniques'' being prepared for integration ''into the prototype TIA system.'' TIA stood for Total Information Awareness, and was the main global electronic eavesdropping and data-mining program deployed by the Bush administration after 9/11. TIA had been set up by Iran-Contra conspirator Admiral John Poindexter, who was appointed in 2002 by Bush to lead DARPA's new Information Awareness Office.
        The Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) was another contractor among 26 companies (also including SAIC) that received million dollar contracts from DARPA (the specific quantities remained classified) under Poindexter, to push forward the TIA surveillance program in 2002 onwards. The research included ''behaviour-based profiling,'' ''automated detection, identification and tracking'' of terrorist activity, among other data-analyzing projects. At this time, PARC's director and chief scientist was John Seely Brown. Both Brown and Poindexter were Pentagon Highlands Forum participants'Š'--'ŠBrown on a regular basis until recently.
        TIA was purportedly shut down in 2003 due to public opposition after the program was exposed in the media, but the following year Poindexter participated in a Pentagon Highlands Group session in Singapore, alongside defense and security officials from around the world. Meanwhile, Ted Senator continued to manage the EELD program among other data-mining and analysis projects at DARPA until 2006, when he left to become a vice president at SAIC. He is now a SAIC/Leidos technical fellow.
        Google, DARPA and the money trailLong before the appearance of Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Stanford University's computer science department had a close working relationship with US military intelligence. A letter dated November 5th 1984 from the office of renowned artificial intelligence (AI) expert, Prof Edward Feigenbaum, addressed to Rick Steinheiser, gives the latter directions to Stanford's Heuristic Programming Project, addressing Steinheiser as a member of the ''AI Steering Committee.'' A list of attendees at a contractor conference around that time, sponsored by the Pentagon's Office of Naval Research (ONR), includes Steinheiser as a delegate under the designation ''OPNAV Op-115'''Š'--'Šwhich refers to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations' program on operational readiness, which played a major role in advancing digital systems for the military.
        From the 1970s, Prof. Feigenbaum and his colleagues had been running Stanford's Heuristic Programming Project under contract with DARPA, continuing through to the 1990s. Feigenbaum alone had received around over $7 million in this period for his work from DARPA, along with other funding from the NSF, NASA, and ONR.
        Brin's supervisor at Stanford, Prof. Jeffrey Ullman, was in 1996 part of a joint funding project of DARPA's Intelligent Integration of Information program. That year, Ullman co-chaired DARPA-sponsored meetings on data exchange between multiple systems.
        In September 1998, the same month that Sergey Brin briefed US intelligence representatives Steinheiser and Thuraisingham, tech entrepreneurs Andreas Bechtolsheim and David Cheriton invested $100,000 each in Google. Both investors were connected to DARPA.
        As a Stanford PhD student in electrical engineering in the 1980s, Bechtolsheim's pioneering SUN workstation project had been funded by DARPA and the Stanford computer science department'Š'--'Šthis research was the foundation of Bechtolsheim's establishment of Sun Microsystems, which he co-founded with William Joy.
        As for Bechtolsheim's co-investor in Google, David Cheriton, the latter is a long-time Stanford computer science professor who has an even more entrenched relationship with DARPA. His bio at the University of Alberta, which in November 2014 awarded him an honorary science doctorate, says that Cheriton's ''research has received the support of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for over 20 years.''
        In the meantime, Bechtolsheim left Sun Microsystems in 1995, co-founding Granite Systems with his fellow Google investor Cheriton as a partner. They sold Granite to Cisco Systems in 1996, retaining significant ownership of Granite, and becoming senior Cisco executives.
        An email obtained from the Enron Corpus (a database of 600,000 emails acquired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and later released to the public) from Richard O'Neill, inviting Enron executives to participate in the Highlands Forum, shows that Cisco and Granite executives are intimately connected to the Pentagon. The email reveals that in May 2000, Bechtolsheim's partner and Sun Microsystems co-founder, William Joy'Š'--'Šwho was then chief scientist and corporate executive officer there'Š'--'Šhad attended the Forum to discuss nanotechnology and molecular computing.
        In 1999, Joy had also co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, overseeing a report acknowledging that DARPA had:
        '''... revised its priorities in the 90's so that all information technology funding was judged in terms of its benefit to the warfighter.''Throughout the 1990s, then, DARPA's funding to Stanford, including Google, was explicitly about developing technologies that could augment the Pentagon's military intelligence operations in war theatres.
        The Joy report recommended more federal government funding from the Pentagon, NASA, and other agencies to the IT sector. Greg Papadopoulos, another of Bechtolsheim's colleagues as then Sun Microsystems chief technology officer, also attended a Pentagon Highlands' Forum meeting in September 2000.
        In November, the Pentagon Highlands Forum hosted Sue Bostrom, who was vice president for the internet at Cisco, sitting on the company's board alongside Google co-investors Bechtolsheim and Cheriton. The Forum also hosted Lawrence Zuriff, then a managing partner of Granite, which Bechtolsheim and Cheriton had sold to Cisco. Zuriff had previously been an SAIC contractor from 1993 to 1994, working with the Pentagon on national security issues, specifically for Marshall's Office of Net Assessment. In 1994, both the SAIC and the ONA were, of course, involved in co-establishing the Pentagon Highlands Forum. Among Zuriff's output during his SAIC tenure was a paper titled 'Understanding Information War', delivered at a SAIC-sponsored US Army Roundtable on the Revolution in Military Affairs.
        After Google's incorporation, the company received $25 million in equity funding in 1999 led by Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. According to Homeland Security Today, ''A number of Sequoia-bankrolled start-ups have contracted with the Department of Defense, especially after 9/11 when Sequoia's Mark Kvamme met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to discuss the application of emerging technologies to warfighting and intelligence collection.'' Similarly, Kleiner Perkins had developed ''a close relationship'' with In-Q-Tel, the CIA venture capitalist firm that funds start-ups ''to advance 'priority' technologies of value'' to the intelligence community.
        John Doerr, who led the Kleiner Perkins investment in Google obtaining a board position, was a major early investor in Becholshtein's Sun Microsystems at its launch. He and his wife Anne are the main funders behind Rice University's Center for Engineering Leadership (RCEL), which in 2009 received $16 million from DARPA for its platform-aware-compilation-environment (PACE) ubiquitous computing R&D program. Doerr also has a close relationship with the Obama administration, which he advised shortly after it took power to ramp up Pentagon funding to the tech industry. In 2013, at the Fortune Brainstorm TECH conference, Doerr applauded ''how the DoD's DARPA funded GPS, CAD, most of the major computer science departments, and of course, the Internet.''
        From inception, in other words, Google was incubated, nurtured and financed by interests that were directly affiliated or closely aligned with the US military intelligence community: many of whom were embedded in the Pentagon Highlands Forum.
        Google captures the PentagonIn 2003, Google began customizing its search engine under special contract with the CIA for its Intelink Management Office, ''overseeing top-secret, secret and sensitive but unclassified intranets for CIA and other IC agencies,'' according to Homeland Security Today. That year, CIA funding was also being ''quietly'' funneled through the National Science Foundation to projects that might help create ''new capabilities to combat terrorism through advanced technology.''
        The following year, Google bought the firm Keyhole, which had originally been funded by In-Q-Tel. Using Keyhole, Google began developing the advanced satellite mapping software behind Google Earth. Former DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair Anita Jones had been on the board of In-Q-Tel at this time, and remains so today.
        Then in November 2005, In-Q-Tel issued notices to sell $2.2 million of Google stocks. Google's relationship with US intelligence was further brought to light when an IT contractor told a closed Washington DC conference of intelligence professionals on a not-for-attribution basis that at least one US intelligence agency was working to ''leverage Google's [user] data monitoring'' capability as part of an effort to acquire data of ''national security intelligence interest.''
        A photo on Flickr dated March 2007 reveals that Google research director and AI expert Peter Norvig attended a Pentagon Highlands Forum meeting that year in Carmel, California. Norvig's intimate connection to the Forum as of that year is also corroborated by his role in guest editing the 2007 Forum reading list.
        The photo below shows Norvig in conversation with Lewis Shepherd, who at that time was senior technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible for investigating, approving, and architecting ''all new hardware/software systems and acquisitions for the Global Defense Intelligence IT Enterprise,'' including ''big data technologies.'' Shepherd now works at Microsoft. Norvig was a computer research scientist at Stanford University in 1991 before joining Bechtolsheim's Sun Microsystems as senior scientist until 1994, and going on to head up NASA's computer science division.
        Lewis Shepherd (left), then a senior technology officer at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, talking to Peter Norvig (right), renowned expert in artificial intelligence expert and director of research at Google. This photo is from a Highlands Forum meeting in 2007.Norvig shows up on O'Neill's Google Plus profile as one of his close connections. Scoping the rest of O'Neill's Google Plus connections illustrates that he is directly connected not just to a wide range of Google executives, but also to some of the biggest names in the US tech community.
        Those connections include Michele Weslander Quaid, an ex-CIA contractor and former senior Pentagon intelligence official who is now Google's chief technology officer where she is developing programs to ''best fit government agencies' needs''; Elizabeth Churchill, Google director of user experience; James Kuffner, a humanoid robotics expert who now heads up Google's robotics division and who introduced the term 'cloud robotics'; Mark Drapeau, director of innovation engagement for Microsoft's public sector business; Lili Cheng, general manager of Microsoft's Future Social Experiences (FUSE) Labs; Jon Udell, Microsoft 'evangelist'; Cory Ondrejka, vice president of engineering at Facebook; to name just a few.
        In 2010, Google signed a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract with the NSA's sister agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The contract was to use Google Earth for visualization services for the NGA. Google had developed the software behind Google Earth by purchasing Keyhole from the CIA venture firm In-Q-Tel.
        Then a year after, in 2011, another of O'Neill's Google Plus connections, Michele Quaid'Š'--'Šwho had served in executive positions at the NGA, National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence'Š'--'Šleft her government role to become Google 'innovation evangelist' and the point-person for seeking government contracts. Quaid's last role before her move to Google was as a senior representative of the Director of National Intelligence to the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force, and a senior advisor to the undersecretary of defense for intelligence's director of Joint and Coalition Warfighter Support (J&CWS). Both roles involved information operations at their core. Before her Google move, in other words, Quaid worked closely with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, to which the Pentagon's Highlands Forum is subordinate. Quaid has herself attended the Forum, though precisely when and how often I could not confirm.
        In March 2012, then DARPA director Regina Dugan'Š'--'Šwho in that capacity was also co-chair of the Pentagon Highlands Forum'Š'--'Šfollowed her colleague Quaid into Google to lead the company's new Advanced Technology and Projects Group. During her Pentagon tenure, Dugan led on strategic cyber security and social media, among other initiatives. She was responsible for focusing ''an increasing portion'' of DARPA's work ''on the investigation of offensive capabilities to address military-specific needs,'' securing $500 million of government funding for DARPA cyber research from 2012 to 2017.
        Regina Dugan, former head of DARPA and Highlands Forum co-chair, now a senior Google executive'Š'--'Štrying her best to look the partBy November 2014, Google's chief AI and robotics expert James Kuffner was a delegate alongside O'Neill at the Highlands Island Forum 2014 in Singapore, to explore 'Advancement in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Society, Security and Conflict.' The event included 26 delegates from Austria, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Britain and the US, from both industry and government. Kuffner's association with the Pentagon, however, began much earlier. In 1997, Kuffner was a researcher during his Stanford PhD for a Pentagon-funded project on networked autonomous mobile robots, sponsored by DARPA and the US Navy.
        Rumsfeld and persistent surveillanceIn sum, many of Google's most senior executives are affiliated with the Pentagon Highlands Forum, which throughout the period of Google's growth over the last decade, has surfaced repeatedly as a connecting and convening force. The US intelligence community's incubation of Google from inception occurred through a combination of direct sponsorship and informal networks of financial influence, themselves closely aligned with Pentagon interests.
        The Highlands Forum itself has used the informal relationship building of such private networks to bring together defense and industry sectors, enabling the fusion of corporate and military interests in expanding the covert surveillance apparatus in the name of national security. The power wielded by the shadow network represented in the Forum can, however, be gauged most clearly from its impact during the Bush administration, when it played a direct role in literally writing the strategies and doctrines behind US efforts to achieve 'information superiority.'
        In December 2001, O'Neill confirmed that strategic discussions at the Highlands Forum were feeding directly into Andrew Marshall's DoD-wide strategic review ordered by President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to upgrade the military, including the Quadrennial Defense Review'Š'--'Šand that some of the earliest Forum meetings ''resulted in the writing of a group of DoD policies, strategies, and doctrine for the services on information warfare.'' That process of ''writing'' the Pentagon's information warfare policies ''was done in conjunction with people who understood the environment differently'Š'--'Šnot only US citizens, but also foreign citizens, and people who were developing corporate IT.''
        The Pentagon's post-9/11 information warfare doctrines were, then, written not just by national security officials from the US and abroad: but also by powerful corporate entities in the defense and technology sectors.
        In April that year, Gen. James McCarthy had completed his defense transformation review ordered by Rumsfeld. His report repeatedly highlighted mass surveillance as integral to DoD transformation. As for Marshall, his follow-up report for Rumsfeld was going to develop a blueprint determining the Pentagon's future in the 'information age.'
        O'Neill also affirmed that to develop information warfare doctrine, the Forum had held extensive discussions on electronic surveillance and ''what constitutes an act of war in an information environment.'' Papers feeding into US defense policy written through the late 1990s by RAND consultants John Arquilla and David Rondfeldt, both longstanding Highlands Forum members, were produced ''as a result of those meetings,'' exploring policy dilemmas on how far to take the goal of 'Information Superiority.' ''One of the things that was shocking to the American public was that we weren't pilfering Milosevic's accounts electronically when we in fact could,'' commented O'Neill.
        Although the R&D process around the Pentagon transformation strategy remains classified, a hint at the DoD discussions going on in this period can be gleaned from a 2005 US Army School of Advanced Military Studies research monograph in the DoD journal, Military Review, authored by an active Army intelligence officer.
        ''The idea of Persistent Surveillance as a transformational capability has circulated within the national Intelligence Community (IC) and the Department of Defense (DoD) for at least three years,'' the paper said, referencing the Rumsfeld-commissioned transformation study.
        The Army paper went on to review a range of high-level official military documents, including one from the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, showing that ''Persistent Surveillance'' was a fundamental theme of the information-centric vision for defense policy across the Pentagon.
        We now know that just two months before O'Neill's address at Harvard in 2001, under the TIA program, President Bush had secretly authorized the NSA's domestic surveillance of Americans without court-approved warrants, in what appears to have been an illegal modification of the ThinThread data-mining project'Š'--'Šas later exposed by NSA whistleblowers William Binney and Thomas Drake.
        The surveillance-startup nexusFrom here on, Highlands Forum partner SAIC played a key role in the NSA roll out from inception. Shortly after 9/11, Brian Sharkey, chief technology officer of SAIC's ELS3 Sector (focusing on IT systems for emergency responders), teamed up with John Poindexter to propose the TIA surveillance program. SAIC's Sharkey had previously been deputy director of the Information Systems Office at DARPA through the 1990s.
        Meanwhile, around the same time, SAIC vice president for corporate development, Samuel Visner, became head of the NSA's signals-intelligence programs. SAIC was then among a consortium receiving a $280 million contract to develop one of the NSA's secret eavesdropping systems. By 2003, Visner returned to SAIC to become director of strategic planning and business development of the firm's intelligence group.
        That year, the NSA consolidated its TIA programme of warrantless electronic surveillance, to keep ''track of individuals'' and understand ''how they fit into models'' through risk profiles of American citizens and foreigners. TIA was doing this by integrating databases on finance, travel, medical, educational and other records into a ''virtual, centralized grand database.''
        This was also the year that the Bush administration drew up its notorious Information Operations Roadmap. Describing the internet as a ''vulnerable weapons system,'' Rumsfeld's IO roadmap had advocated that Pentagon strategy ''should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system.'' The US should seek ''maximum control'' of the ''full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems,'' advocated the document.
        The following year, John Poindexter, who had proposed and run the TIA surveillance program via his post at DARPA, was in Singapore participating in the Highlands 2004 Island Forum. Other delegates included then Highlands Forum co-chair and Pentagon CIO Linton Wells; president of notorious Pentagon information warfare contractor, John Rendon; Karl Lowe, director of the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) Joint Advanced Warfighting Division; Air Vice Marshall Stephen Dalton, capability manager for information superiority at the UK Ministry of Defense; Lt. Gen. Johan Kihl, Swedish army Supreme Commander HQ's chief of staff; among others.
        As of 2006, SAIC had been awarded a multi-million dollar NSA contract to develop a big data-mining project called ExecuteLocus, despite the colossal $1 billion failure of its preceding contract, known as 'Trailblazer.' Core components of TIA were being ''quietly continued'' under ''new code names,'' according to Foreign Policy's Shane Harris, but had been concealed ''behind the veil of the classified intelligence budget.'' The new surveillance program had by then been fully transitioned from DARPA's jurisdiction to the NSA.
        This was also the year of yet another Singapore Island Forum led by Richard O'Neill on behalf of the Pentagon, which included senior defense and industry officials from the US, UK, Australia, France, India and Israel. Participants also included senior technologists from Microsoft, IBM, as well as Gilman Louie, partner at technology investment firm Alsop Louie Partners.
        Gilman Louie is a former CEO of In-Q-Tel'Š'--'Šthe CIA firm investing especially in start-ups developing data mining technology. In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999 by the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology, under which the Office of Research and Development (ORD)'Š'--'Šwhich was part of the Google-funding MDSS program'Š'--'Šhad operated. The idea was to essentially replace the functions once performed by the ORD, by mobilizing the private sector to develop information technology solutions for the entire intelligence community.
        Louie had led In-Q-Tel from 1999 until January 2006'Š'--'Šincluding when Google bought Keyhole, the In-Q-Tel-funded satellite mapping software. Among his colleagues on In-Q-Tel's board in this period were former DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair Anita Jones (who is still there), as well as founding board member William Perry: the man who had appointed O'Neill to set-up the Highlands Forum in the first place. Joining Perry as a founding In-Q-Tel board member was John Seely Brown, then chief scientist at Xerox Corp and director of its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) from 1990 to 2002, who is also a long-time senior Highlands Forum member since inception.
        In addition to the CIA, In-Q-Tel has also been backed by the FBI, NGA, and Defense Intelligence Agency, among other agencies. More than 60 percent of In-Q-Tel's investments under Louie's watch were ''in companies that specialize in automatically collecting, sifting through and understanding oceans of information,'' according to Medill School of Journalism's News21, which also noted that Louie himself had acknowledged it was not clear ''whether privacy and civil liberties will be protected'' by government's use of these technologies ''for national security.''
        The transcript of Richard O'Neill's late 2001 seminar at Harvard shows that the Pentagon Highlands Forum had first engaged Gilman Louie long before the Island Forum, in fact, shortly after 9/11 to explore ''what's going on with In-Q-Tel.'' That Forum session focused on how to ''take advantage of the speed of the commercial market that wasn't present inside the science and technology community of Washington'' and to understand ''the implications for the DoD in terms of the strategic review, the QDR, Hill action, and the stakeholders.'' Participants of the meeting included ''senior military people,'' combatant commanders, ''several of the senior flag officers,'' some ''defense industry people'' and various US representatives including Republican Congressman William Mac Thornberry and Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman.
        Both Thornberry and Lieberman are staunch supporters of NSA surveillance, and have consistently acted to rally support for pro-war, pro-surveillance legislation. O'Neill's comments indicate that the Forum's role is not just to enable corporate contractors to write Pentagon policy, but to rally political support for government policies adopted through the Forum's informal brand of shadow networking.
        Repeatedly, O'Neill told his Harvard audience that his job as Forum president was to scope case studies from real companies across the private sector, like eBay and Human Genome Sciences, to figure out the basis of US 'Information Superiority''Š'--'Š''how to dominate'' the information market'Š'--'Šand leverage this for ''what the president and the secretary of defense wanted to do with regard to transformation of the DoD and the strategic review.''
        By 2007, a year after the Island Forum meeting that included Gilman Louie, Facebook received its second round of $12.7 million worth of funding from Accel Partners. Accel was headed up by James Breyer, former chair of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) where Louie also served on the board while still CEO of In-Q-Tel. Both Louie and Breyer had previously served together on the board of BBN Technologies'Š'--'Šwhich had recruited ex-DARPA chief and In-Q-Tel trustee Anita Jones.
        Facebook's 2008 round of funding was led by Greylock Venture Capital, which invested $27.5 million. The firm's senior partners include Howard Cox, another former NVCA chair who also sits on the board of In-Q-Tel. Apart from Breyer and Zuckerberg, Facebook's only other board member is Peter Thiel, co-founder of defense contractor Palantir which provides all sorts of data-mining and visualization technologies to US government, military and intelligence agencies, including the NSA and FBI, and which itself was nurtured to financial viability by Highlands Forum members.
        Palantir co-founders Thiel and Alex Karp met with John Poindexter in 2004, according to Wired, the same year Poindexter had attended the Highlands Island Forum in Singapore. They met at the home of Richard Perle, another Andrew Marshall acolyte. Poindexter helped Palantir open doors, and to assemble ''a legion of advocates from the most influential strata of government.'' Thiel had also met with Gilman Louie of In-Q-Tel, securing the backing of the CIA in this early phase.
        And so we come full circle. Data-mining programs like ExecuteLocus and projects linked to it, which were developed throughout this period, apparently laid the groundwork for the new NSA programmes eventually disclosed by Edward Snowden. By 2008, as Facebook received its next funding round from Greylock Venture Capital, documents and whistleblower testimony confirmed that the NSA was effectively resurrecting the TIA project with a focus on Internet data-mining via comprehensive monitoring of e-mail, text messages, and Web browsing.
        We also now know thanks to Snowden that the NSA's XKeyscore 'Digital Network Intelligence' exploitation system was designed to allow analysts to search not just Internet databases like emails, online chats and browsing history, but also telephone services, mobile phone audio, financial transactions and global air transport communications'Š'--'Šessentially the entire global telecommunications grid. Highlands Forum partner SAIC played a key role, among other contractors, in producing and administering the NSA's XKeyscore, and was recently implicated in NSA hacking of the privacy network Tor.
        The Pentagon Highlands Forum was therefore intimately involved in all this as a convening network'--but also quite directly. Confirming his pivotal role in the expansion of the US-led global surveillance apparatus, then Forum co-chair, Pentagon CIO Linton Wells, told FedTech magazine in 2009 that he had overseen the NSA's roll out of ''an impressive long-term architecture last summer that will provide increasingly sophisticated security until 2015 or so.''
        The Goldman Sachs connectionWhen I asked Wells about the Forum's role in influencing US mass surveillance, he responded only to say he would prefer not to comment and that he no longer leads the group.
        As Wells is no longer in government, this is to be expected'Š'--'Šbut he is still connected to Highlands. As of September 2014, after delivering his influential white paper on Pentagon transformation, he joined the Monterey Institute for International Studies (MIIS) Cyber Security Initiative (CySec) as a distinguished senior fellow.
        Sadly, this was not a form of trying to keep busy in retirement. Wells' move underscored that the Pentagon's conception of information warfare is not just about surveillance, but about the exploitation of surveillance to influence both government and public opinion.
        The MIIS CySec initiative is now formally partnered with the Pentagon Highlands Forum through a Memorandum of Understanding signed with MIIS provost Dr Amy Sands, who sits on the Secretary of State's International Security Advisory Board. The MIIS CySec website states that the MoU signed with Richard O'Neill:
        '''... paves the way for future joint MIIS CySec-Highlands Group sessions that will explore the impact of technology on security, peace and information engagement. For nearly 20 years the Highlands Group has engaged private sector and government leaders, including the Director of National Intelligence, DARPA, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Singaporean Minister of Defence, in creative conversations to frame policy and technology research areas.''Who is the financial benefactor of the new Pentagon Highlands-partnered MIIS CySec initiative? According to the MIIS CySec site, the initiative was launched ''through a generous donation of seed funding from George Lee.'' George C. Lee is a senior partner at Goldman Sachs, where he is chief information officer of the investment banking division, and chairman of the Global Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Group.
        But here's the kicker. In 2011, it was Lee who engineered Facebook's $50 billion valuation, and previously handled deals for other Highlands-connected tech giants like Google, Microsoft and eBay. Lee's then boss, Stephen Friedman, a former CEO and chairman of Goldman Sachs, and later senior partner on the firm's executive board, was a also founding board member of In-Q-Tel alongside Highlands Forum overlord William Perry and Forum member John Seely Brown.
        In 2001, Bush appointed Stephen Friedman to the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, and then to chair that board from 2005 to 2009. Friedman previously served alongside Paul Wolfowitz and others on the 1995''6 presidential commission of inquiry into US intelligence capabilities, and in 1996 on the Jeremiah Panel that produced a report to the Director of the National Reconnaisance Office (NRO)'Š'--'Šone of the surveillance agencies plugged into the Highlands Forum. Friedman was on the Jeremiah Panel with Martin Faga, then senior vice president and general manager of MITRE Corp's Center for Integrated Intelligence Systems'Š'--'Šwhere Thuraisingham, who managed the CIA-NSA-MDDS program that inspired DARPA counter-terrorist data-mining, was also a lead engineer.
        In the footnotes to a chapter for the book, Cyberspace and National Security (Georgetown University Press), SAIC/Leidos executive Jeff Cooper reveals that another Goldman Sachs senior partner Philip J. Venables'Š'--'Šwho as chief information risk officer leads the firm's programs on information security'Š'--'Šdelivered a Highlands Forum presentation in 2008 at what was called an 'Enrichment Session on Deterrence.' Cooper's chapter draws on Venables' presentation at Highlands ''with permission.'' In 2010, Venables participated with his then boss Friedman at an Aspen Institute meeting on the world economy. For the last few years, Venables has also sat on various NSA cybersecurity award review boards.
        In sum, the investment firm responsible for creating the billion dollar fortunes of the tech sensations of the 21st century, from Google to Facebook, is intimately linked to the US military intelligence community; with Venables, Lee and Friedman either directly connected to the Pentagon Highlands Forum, or to senior members of the Forum.
        Fighting terror with terrorThe convergence of these powerful financial and military interests around the Highlands Forum, through George Lee's sponsorship of the Forum's new partner, the MIIS Cysec initiative, is revealing in itself.
        MIIS Cysec's director, Dr, Itamara Lochard, has long been embedded in Highlands. She regularly ''presents current research on non-state groups, governance, technology and conflict to the US Office of the Secretary of Defense Highlands Forum,'' according to her Tufts University bio. She also, ''regularly advises US combatant commanders'' and specializes in studying the use of information technology by ''violent and non-violent sub-state groups.''
        Dr Itamara Lochard is a senior Highlands Forum member and Pentagon information operations expert. She directs the MIIS CyberSec initiative that now supports the Pentagon Highlands Forum with funding from Goldman Sachs partner George Lee, who led the valuations of Facebook and Google.Dr Lochard maintains a comprehensive database of 1,700 non-state groups including ''insurgents, militias, terrorists, complex criminal organizations, organized gangs, malicious cyber actors and strategic non-violent actors,'' to analyze their ''organizational patterns, areas of cooperation, strategies and tactics.'' Notice, here, the mention of ''strategic non-violent actors'''Š'--'Šwhich perhaps covers NGOs and other groups or organizations engaged in social political activity or campaigning, judging by the focus of other DoD research programs.
        As of 2008, Lochard has been an adjunct professor at the US Joint Special Operations University where she teaches a top secret advanced course in 'Irregular Warfare' that she designed for senior US special forces officers. She has previously taught courses on 'Internal War' for senior ''political-military officers'' of various Gulf regimes.
        Her views thus disclose much about what the Highlands Forum has been advocating all these years. In 2004, Lochard was co-author of a study for the US Air Force's Institute for National Security Studies on US strategy toward 'non-state armed groups.' The study on the one hand argued that non-state armed groups should be urgently recognized as a 'tier one security priority,' and on the other that the proliferation of armed groups ''provide strategic opportunities that can be exploited to help achieve policy goals. There have and will be instances where the United States may find collaborating with armed group is in its strategic interests.'' But ''sophisticated tools'' must be developed to differentiate between different groups and understand their dynamics, to determine which groups should be countered, and which could be exploited for US interests. ''Armed group profiles can likewise be employed to identify ways in which the United States may assist certain armed groups whose success will be advantageous to US foreign policy objectives.''
        In 2008, Wikileaks published a leaked restricted US Army Special Operations field manual, which demonstrated that the sort of thinking advocated by the likes of Highlands expert Lochard had been explicitly adopted by US special forces.
        Lochard's work thus demonstrates that the Highlands Forum sat at the intersection of advanced Pentagon strategy on surveillance, covert operations and irregular warfare: mobilizing mass surveillance to develop detailed information on violent and non-violent groups perceived as potentially threatening to US interests, or offering opportunities for exploitation, thus feeding directly into US covert operations.
        That, ultimately, is why the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon, spawned Google. So they could run their secret dirty wars with even greater efficiency than ever before.
        READ PART TWO
      GOOGLE: A DARPA ENTERPRISE RUN BY THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY '' The Millennium Report
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 00:19
        The Long Read: Google '' Seeded By The PentagonBy Dr Nafeez Ahmed '' Insurge Intelligence: As our governments push to increase their powers, INSURGE INTELLIGENCE can now reveal the vast extent to which the US intelligence community is implicated in nurturing the web platforms we know today, for the precise purpose of utilizing the technology as a mechanism to fight a global 'information war''Š'--'Ša war to legitimize the power of the few over the rest of us. The lynchpin of this story is the corporation that in many ways defines the 21st century with its unobtrusive omnipresence: Google.
        Google styles itself as a friendly, funky, user-friendly tech firm that rose to prominence through a combination of skill, luck, and genuine innovation. This is true. But it is a mere fragment of the story. In reality, Google is a smokescreen behind which lurks the US military-industrial complex.
        The inside story of Google's rise, revealed here for the first time, opens a can of worms that goes far beyond Google, unexpectedly shining a light on the existence of a parasitical network driving the evolution of the US national security apparatus, and profiting obscenely from its operation.
        In 1994'Š'--'Šthe same year the Highlands Forum (CIA venture capital investment firm) was founded under the stewardship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the ONA, and DARPA'Š'--'Štwo young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google's search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency programme of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.
        But that's just one side of the story.
        Throughout the development of the search engine, Sergey Brin reported regularly and directly to two people who were not Stanford faculty at all: Dr. Bhavani Thuraisingham and Dr. Rick Steinheiser. Both were representatives of a sensitive US intelligence community research programme on information security and data-mining.
        Thuraisingham is currently the Louis A. Beecherl distinguished professor and executive director of the Cyber Security Research Institute at the University of Texas, Dallas, and a sought-after expert on data-mining, data management and information security issues. But in the 1990s, she worked for the MITRE Corp., a leading US defense contractor, where she managed the Massive Digital Data Systems initiative, a project sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence, to foster innovative research in information technology.
        ''We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,'' Prof. Thuraisingham told me. ''One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community's MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.''This sort of funding is certainly not unusual, and Sergey Brin's being able to receive it by being a graduate student at Stanford appears to have been incidental. The Pentagon was all over computer science research at this time. But it illustrates how deeply entrenched the culture of Silicon Valley is in the values of the US intelligence community.
        In an extraordinary document hosted by the website of the University of Texas, Thuraisingham recounts that from 1993 to 1999, ''the Intelligence Community [IC] started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation.'' The program funded 15 research efforts at various universities, including Stanford. Its goal was developing ''data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data,'' including for ''query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration.''
        At the time, Thuraisingham was chief scientist for data and information management at MITRE, where she led team research and development efforts for the NSA, CIA, US Air Force Research Laboratory, as well as the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) and Communications and Electronic Command (CECOM). She went on to teach courses for US government officials and defense contractors on data-mining in counter-terrorism.
        In her University of Texas article, she attaches the copy of an abstract of the US intelligence community's MDDS program that had been presented to the ''Annual Intelligence Community Symposium'' in 1995. The abstract reveals that the primary sponsors of the MDDS programme were three agencies: the NSA, the CIA's Office of Research & Development, and the intelligence community's Community Management Staff (CMS) which operates under the Director of Central Intelligence. Administrators of the program, which provided funding of around 3''4 million dollars per year for 3''4 years, were identified as Hal Curran (NSA), Robert Kluttz (CMS), Dr. Claudia Pierce (NSA), Dr. Rick Steinheiser (ORD'Š'--'Šstanding for the CIA's Office of Research and Devepment), and Dr. Thuraisingham herself.
        Thuraisingham goes on in her article to reiterate that this joint CIA-NSA program partly funded Sergey Brin to develop the core of Google, through a grant to Stanford managed by Brin's supervisor Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman:
        ''In fact, the Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre's chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.''
        Brin and Page officially incorporated Google as a company in September 1998, the very month they last reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser. 'Query Flocks' was also part of Google's patented 'PageRank' search system, which Brin developed at Stanford under the CIA-NSA-MDDS programme, as well as with funding from the NSF, IBM and Hitachi.
        That year, MITRE's Dr. Chris Clifton, who worked under Thuraisingham to develop the 'Query Flocks' system, co-authored a paper with Brin's superviser, Prof. Ullman, and the CIA's Rick Steinheiser. Titled 'Knowledge Discovery in Text,' the paper was presented at an academic conference.
        ''The MDDS funding that supported Brin was significant as far as seed-funding goes, but it was probably outweighed by the other funding streams,'' said Thuraisingham. ''The duration of Brin's funding was around two years or so. In that period, I and my colleagues from the MDDS would visit Stanford to see Brin and monitor his progress every three months or so. We didn't supervise exactly, but we did want to check progress, point out potential problems and suggest ideas. In those briefings, Brin did present to us on the query flocks research, and also demonstrated to us versions of the Google search engine.''
        Brin thus reported to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser regularly about his work developing Google.
        (UPDATE : Since publication of this article, Prof. Thuraisingham has amended her article referenced above. The amended version includes a new modified statement, followed by a copy of the original version of her account of the MDDS. In this amended version, Thuraisingham rejects the idea that CIA funded Google, and says instead:
        ''In fact Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (at Stanford) and my colleague at MITRE Dr. Chris Clifton together with some others developed the Query Flocks System, as part of MDDS, which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. Also, Mr. Sergey Brin, the cofounder of Google, was part of Prof. Ullman's research group at that time. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community periodically and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. During our last visit to Stanford in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which I believe became Google soon after'...
        There are also several inaccuracies in Dr. Ahmed's article (dated January 22, 2015). For example, the MDDS program was not a 'sensitive' program as stated by Dr. Ahmed; it was an Unclassified program that funded universities in the US. Furthermore, Sergey Brin never reported to me or to Dr. Rick Steinheiser; he only gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s. Also, MDDS never funded Google; it funded Stanford University.'')
        Here, there is no substantive factual difference in Thuraisingham's accounts, other than to assert that her statement associating Sergey Brin with the development of 'query flocks' is mistaken. Notably, this acknowledgement is derived not from her own knowledge, but from this very article quoting a comment from a Google spokesperson.
        However, the bizarre attempt to disassociate Google from the MDDS program misses the mark. Firstly, the MDDS never funded Google, because during the development of the core components of the Google search engine, there was no company incorporated with that name. The grant was instead provided to Stanford University through Prof. Ullman, through whom some MDDS funding was used to support Brin who was co-developing Google at the time. Secondly, Thuraisingham then adds that Brin never ''reported'' to her or the CIA's Steinheiser, but admits he ''gave presentations to us during our visits to the Department of Computer Science at Stanford during the 1990s.'' It is unclear, though, what the distinction is here between reporting, and delivering a detailed presentation'Š'--'Šeither way, Thuraisingham confirms that she and the CIA had taken a keen interest in Brin's development of Google. Thirdly, Thuraisingham describes the MDDS program as ''unclassified,'' but this does not contradict its ''sensitive'' nature. As someone who has worked for decades as an intelligence contractor and advisor, Thuraisingham is surely aware that there are many ways of categorizing intelligence, including 'sensitive but unclassified.' A number of former US intelligence officials I spoke to said that the almost total lack of public information on the CIA and NSA's MDDS initiative suggests that although the progam was not classified, it is likely instead that its contents was considered sensitive, which would explain efforts to minimise transparency about the program and the way it fed back into developing tools for the US intelligence community. Fourthly, and finally, it is important to point out that the MDDS abstract which Thuraisingham includes in her University of Texas document states clearly not only that the Director of Central Intelligence's CMS, CIA and NSA were the overseers of the MDDS initiative, but that the intended customers of the project were ''DoD, IC, and other government organizations'': the Pentagon, the US intelligence community, and other relevant US government agencies.
        In other words, the provision of MDDS funding to Brin through Ullman, under the oversight of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser, was fundamentally because they recognized the potential utility of Brin's work developing Google to the Pentagon, intelligence community, and the federal government at large.The MDDS programme is actually referenced in several papers co-authored by Brin and Page while at Stanford, specifically highlighting its role in financially sponsoring Brin in the development of Google. In their 1998 paper published in the Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committeee on Data Engineering, they describe the automation of methods to extract information from the web via ''Dual Iterative Pattern Relation Extraction,'' the development of ''a global ranking of Web pages called PageRank,'' and the use of PageRank ''to develop a novel search engine called Google.'' Through an opening footnote, Sergey Brin confirms he was ''Partially supported by the Community Management Staff's Massive Digital Data Systems Program, NSF grant IRI-96''31952'''Š'--'Šconfirming that Brin's work developing Google was indeed partly-funded by the CIA-NSA-MDDS program.
        This NSF grant identified alongside the MDDS, whose project report lists Brin among the students supported (without mentioning the MDDS), was different to the NSF grant to Larry Page that included funding from DARPA and NASA. The project report, authored by Brin's supervisor Prof. Ullman, goes on to say under the section 'Indications of Success' that ''there are some new stories of startups based on NSF-supported research.'' Under 'Project Impact,' the report remarks: ''Finally, the google project has also gone commercial as Google.com.''
        Thuraisingham's account, including her new amended version, therefore demonstrates that the CIA-NSA-MDDS program was not only partly funding Brin throughout his work with Larry Page developing Google, but that senior US intelligence representatives including a CIA official oversaw the evolution of Google in this pre-launch phase, all the way until the company was ready to be officially founded. Google, then, had been enabled with a ''significant'' amount of seed-funding and oversight from the Pentagon: namely, the CIA, NSA, and DARPA.
        The DoD could not be reached for comment.
        When I asked Prof. Ullman to confirm whether or not Brin was partly funded under the intelligence community's MDDS program, and whether Ullman was aware that Brin was regularly briefing the CIA's Rick Steinheiser on his progress in developing the Google search engine, Ullman's responses were evasive: ''May I know whom you represent and why you are interested in these issues? Who are your 'sources'?'' He also denied that Brin played a significant role in developing the 'query flocks' system, although it is clear from Brin's papers that he did draw on that work in co-developing the PageRank system with Page.
        When I asked Ullman whether he was denying the US intelligence community's role in supporting Brin during the development of Google, he said: ''I am not going to dignify this nonsense with a denial. If you won't explain what your theory is, and what point you are trying to make, I am not going to help you in the slightest.''
        The MDDS abstract published online at the University of Texas confirms that the rationale for the CIA-NSA project was to ''provide seed money to develop data management technologies which are of high-risk and high-pay-off,'' including techniques for ''querying, browsing, and filtering; transaction processing; accesses methods and indexing; metadata management and data modelling; and integrating heterogeneous databases; as well as developing appropriate architectures.''
        The ultimate vision of the program was to ''provide for the seamless access and fusion of massive amounts of data, information and knowledge in a heterogeneous, real-time environment'' for use by the Pentagon, intelligence community and potentially across government.These revelations corroborate the claims of Robert Steele, former senior CIA officer and a founding civilian deputy director of the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, whom I interviewed for The Guardian last year on open source intelligence. Citing sources at the CIA, Steele had said in 2006 that Steinheiser, an old colleague of his, was the CIA's main liaison at Google and had arranged early funding for the pioneering IT firm. At the time, Wired founder John Batelle managed to get this official denial from a Google spokesperson in response to Steele's assertions:
        ''The statements related to Google are completely untrue.''
        This time round, despite multiple requests and conversations, a Google spokesperson declined to comment.
        UPDATE: Google's director of corporate communication got in touch and asked me to include the following statement:
        ''Sergey Brin was not part of the Query Flocks Program at Stanford, nor were any of his projects funded by US Intelligence bodies.''
        This is what I wrote back:
        My response to that statement would be as follows: Brin himself in his own paper acknowledges funding from the Community Management Staff of the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) initiative, which was supplied through the NSF. The MDDS was an intelligence community program set up by the CIA and NSA. I also have it on record, as noted in the piece, from Prof. Thuraisingham of University of Texas that she managed the MDDS program on behalf of the US intelligence community, and that her and the CIA's Rick Steinheiser met Brin every three months or so for two years to be briefed on his progress developing Google and PageRank. Whether Brin worked on query flocks or not is neither here nor there.
        In that context, you might want to consider the following questions:
        1) Does Google deny that Brin's work was part-funded by the MDDS via an NSF grant?
        2) Does Google deny that Brin reported regularly to Thuraisingham and Steinheiser from around 1996 to 1998 until September that year when he presented the Google search engine to them?
        Total Information AwarenessA call for papers for the MDDS was sent out via email list on November 3rd 1993 from senior US intelligence official David Charvonia, director of the research and development coordination office of the intelligence community's CMS. The reaction from Tatu Ylonen (celebrated inventor of the widely used secure shell [SSH] data protection protocol) to his colleagues on the email list is telling: ''Crypto relevance? Makes you think whether you should protect your data.'' The email also confirms that defense contractor and Highlands Forum partner, SAIC, was managing the MDDS submission process, with abstracts to be sent to Jackie Booth of the CIA's Office of Research and Development via a SAIC email address.
        By 1997, Thuraisingham reveals, shortly before Google became incorporated and while she was still overseeing the development of its search engine software at Stanford, her thoughts turned to the national security applications of the MDDS program. In the acknowledgements to her book, Web Data Mining and Applications in Business Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism (2003), Thuraisingham writes that she and ''Dr. Rick Steinheiser of the CIA, began discussions with Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on applying data-mining for counter-terrorism,'' an idea that resulted directly from the MDDS program which partly funded Google. ''These discussions eventually developed into the current EELD (Evidence Extraction and Link Detection) program at DARPA.''
        So the very same senior CIA official and CIA-NSA contractor involved in providing the seed-funding for Google were simultaneously contemplating the role of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, and were developing ideas for tools actually advanced by DARPA.Today, as illustrated by her recent oped in the New York Times, Thuraisingham remains a staunch advocate of data-mining for counter-terrorism purposes, but also insists that these methods must be developed by government in cooperation with civil liberties lawyers and privacy advocates to ensure that robust procedures are in place to prevent potential abuse. She points out, damningly, that with the quantity of information being collected, there is a high risk of false positives.
        In 1993, when the MDDS program was launched and managed by MITRE Corp. on behalf of the US intelligence community, University of Virginia computer scientist Dr. Anita K. Jones'Š'--'Ša MITRE trustee'Š'--'Šlanded the job of DARPA director and head of research and engineering across the Pentagon. She had been on the board of MITRE since 1988. From 1987 to 1993, Jonessimultaneously served on SAIC's board of directors. As the new head of DARPA from 1993 to 1997, she also co-chaired the Pentagon's Highlands Forum during the period of Google's pre-launch development at Stanford under the MDSS.
        Thus, when Thuraisingham and Steinheiser were talking to DARPA about the counter-terrorism applications of MDDS research, Jones was DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair. That year, Jones left DARPA to return to her post at the University of Virgina. The following year, she joined the board of the National Science Foundation, which of course had also just funded Brin and Page, and also returned to the board of SAIC. When she left DoD, Senator Chuck Robb paid Jones the following tribute : ''She brought the technology and operational military communities together to design detailed plans to sustain US dominance on the battlefield into the next century.''
        Dr. Anita Jones, head of DARPA from 1993''1997, and co-chair of the Pentagon Highlands Forum from 1995''1997, during which officials in charge of the CIA-NSA-MDSS program were funding Google, and in communication with DARPA about data-mining for counterterrorismOn the board of the National Science Foundation from 1992 to 1998 (including a stint as chairman from 1996) was Richard N. Zare. This was the period in which the NSF sponsored Sergey Brin and Larry Page in association with DARPA. In June 1994, Prof. Zare, a chemist at Stanford, participated with Prof. Jeffrey Ullman (who supervised Sergey Brin's research), on a panel sponsored by Stanford and the National Research Council discussing the need for scientists to show how their work ''ties to national needs.'' The panel brought together scientists and policymakers, including ''Washington insiders.''
        DARPA's EELD program, inspired by the work of Thuraisingham and Steinheiser under Jones' watch, was rapidly adapted and integrated with a suite of tools to conduct comprehensive surveillance under the Bush administration.
        According to DARPA official Ted Senator, who led the EELD program for the agency's short-lived Information Awareness Office, EELD was among a range of ''promising techniques'' being prepared for integration ''into the prototype TIA system.'' TIA stood for Total Information Awareness, and was the main global electronic eavesdropping and data-mining program deployed by the Bush administration after 9/11. TIA had been set up by Iran-Contra conspirator Admiral John Poindexter, who was appointed in 2002 by Bush to lead DARPA's new Information Awareness Office.
        The Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) was another contractor among 26 companies (also including SAIC) that received million dollar contracts from DARPA (the specific quantities remained classified) under Poindexter, to push forward the TIA surveillance program in 2002 onwards. The research included ''behaviour-based profiling,'' ''automated detection, identification and tracking'' of terrorist activity, among other data-analyzing projects. At this time, PARC's director and chief scientist was John Seely Brown. Both Brown and Poindexter were Pentagon Highlands Forum participants'Š'--'ŠBrown on a regular basis until recently.
        TIA was purportedly shut down in 2003 due to public opposition after the program was exposed in the media, but the following year Poindexter participated in a Pentagon Highlands Group session in Singapore, alongside defense and security officials from around the world. Meanwhile, Ted Senator continued to manage the EELD program among other data-mining and analysis projects at DARPA until 2006, when he left to become a vice president at SAIC. He is now a SAIC/Leidos technical fellow.
        Google, DARPA and the money trailLong before the appearance of Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Stanford University's computer science department had a close working relationship with US military intelligence. A letter dated November 5th 1984 from the office of renowned artificial intelligence (AI) expert, Prof Edward Feigenbaum, addressed to Rick Steinheiser, gives the latter directions to Stanford's Heuristic Programming Project, addressing Steinheiser as a member of the ''AI Steering Committee.'' A list of attendees at a contractor conference around that time, sponsored by the Pentagon's Office of Naval Research (ONR), includes Steinheiser as a delegate under the designation ''OPNAV Op-115'''Š'--'Šwhich refers to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations' program on operational readiness, which played a major role in advancing digital systems for the military.
        From the 1970s, Prof. Feigenbaum and his colleagues had been running Stanford's Heuristic Programming Project under contract with DARPA, continuing through to the 1990s. Feigenbaum alone had received around over $7 million in this period for his work from DARPA, along with other funding from the NSF, NASA, and ONR.
        Brin's supervisor at Stanford, Prof. Jeffrey Ullman, was in 1996 part of a joint funding project of DARPA's Intelligent Integration of Information program. That year, Ullman co-chaired DARPA-sponsored meetings on data exchange between multiple systems.
        In September 1998, the same month that Sergey Brin briefed US intelligence representatives Steinheiser and Thuraisingham, tech entrepreneurs Andreas Bechtolsheim and David Cheriton invested $100,000 each in Google. Both investors were connected to DARPA.
        As a Stanford PhD student in electrical engineering in the 1980s, Bechtolsheim's pioneering SUN workstation project had been funded by DARPA and the Stanford computer science department'Š'--'Šthis research was the foundation of Bechtolsheim's establishment of Sun Microsystems, which he co-founded with William Joy.
        As for Bechtolsheim's co-investor in Google, David Cheriton, the latter is a long-time Stanford computer science professor who has an even more entrenched relationship with DARPA. His bio at the University of Alberta, which in November 2014 awarded him an honorary science doctorate, says that Cheriton's ''research has received the support of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for over 20 years.''
        In the meantime, Bechtolsheim left Sun Microsystems in 1995, co-founding Granite Systems with his fellow Google investor Cheriton as a partner. They sold Granite to Cisco Systems in 1996, retaining significant ownership of Granite, and becoming senior Cisco executives.
        An email obtained from the Enron Corpus (a database of 600,000 emails acquired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and later released to the public) from Richard O'Neill, inviting Enron executives to participate in the Highlands Forum, shows that Cisco and Granite executives are intimately connected to the Pentagon. The email reveals that in May 2000, Bechtolsheim's partner and Sun Microsystems co-founder, William Joy'Š'--'Šwho was then chief scientist and corporate executive officer there'Š'--'Šhad attended the Forum to discuss nanotechnology and molecular computing.
        In 1999, Joy had also co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, overseeing a report acknowledging that DARPA had:
        '''... revised its priorities in the 90's so that all information technology funding was judged in terms of its benefit to the warfighter.''
        Throughout the 1990s, then, DARPA's funding to Stanford, including Google, was explicitly about developing technologies that could augment the Pentagon's military intelligence operations in war theatres.
        The Joy report recommended more federal government funding from the Pentagon, NASA, and other agencies to the IT sector. Greg Papadopoulos, another of Bechtolsheim's colleagues as then Sun Microsystems chief technology officer, also attended a Pentagon Highlands' Forum meeting in September 2000.
        In November, the Pentagon Highlands Forum hosted Sue Bostrom, who was vice president for the internet at Cisco, sitting on the company's board alongside Google co-investors Bechtolsheim and Cheriton. The Forum also hosted Lawrence Zuriff, then a managing partner of Granite, which Bechtolsheim and Cheriton had sold to Cisco. Zuriff had previously been an SAIC contractor from 1993 to 1994, working with the Pentagon on national security issues, specifically for Marshall's Office of Net Assessment. In 1994, both the SAIC and the ONA were, of course, involved in co-establishing the Pentagon Highlands Forum. Among Zuriff's output during his SAIC tenure was a paper titled 'Understanding Information War', delivered at a SAIC-sponsored US Army Roundtable on the Revolution in Military Affairs.
        After Google's incorporation, the company received $25 million in equity funding in 1999 led by Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. According to Homeland Security Today, ''A number of Sequoia-bankrolled start-ups have contracted with the Department of Defense, especially after 9/11 when Sequoia's Mark Kvamme met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to discuss the application of emerging technologies to warfighting and intelligence collection.'' Similarly, Kleiner Perkins had developed ''a close relationship'' with In-Q-Tel, the CIA venture capitalist firm that funds start-ups ''to advance 'priority' technologies of value'' to the intelligence community.John Doerr, who led the Kleiner Perkins investment in Google obtaining a board position, was a major early investor in Becholshtein's Sun Microsystems at its launch. He and his wife Anne are the main funders behind Rice University's Center for Engineering Leadership (RCEL), which in 2009 received $16 million from DARPA for its platform-aware-compilation-environment (PACE) ubiquitous computing R&D program. Doerr also has a close relationship with the Obama administration, which he advised shortly after it took power to ramp up Pentagon funding to the tech industry. In 2013, at the Fortune Brainstorm TECH conference, Doerr applauded ''how the DoD's DARPA funded GPS, CAD, most of the major computer science departments, and of course, the Internet.''
        From inception, in other words, Google was incubated, nurtured and financed by interests that were directly affiliated or closely aligned with the US military intelligence community: many of whom were embedded in the Pentagon Highlands Forum.
        Google captures the PentagonIn 2003, Google began customizing its search engine under special contract with the CIA for its Intelink Management Office, ''overseeing top-secret, secret and sensitive but unclassified intranets for CIA and other IC agencies,'' according to Homeland Security Today. That year, CIA funding was also being ''quietly'' funneled through the National Science Foundation to projects that might help create ''new capabilities to combat terrorism through advanced technology.''
        The following year, Google bought the firm Keyhole, which had originally been funded by In-Q-Tel. Using Keyhole, Google began developing the advanced satellite mapping software behind Google Earth. Former DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair Anita Jones had been on the board of In-Q-Tel at this time, and remains so today.
        Then in November 2005, In-Q-Tel issued notices to sell $2.2 million of Google stocks. Google's relationship with US intelligence was further brought to light when an IT contractor told a closed Washington DC conference of intelligence professionals on a not-for-attribution basis that at least one US intelligence agency was working to ''leverage Google's [user] data monitoring'' capability as part of an effort to acquire data of ''national security intelligence interest.''
        A photo on Flickr dated March 2007 reveals that Google research director and AI expert Peter Norvig attended a Pentagon Highlands Forum meeting that year in Carmel, California. Norvig's intimate connection to the Forum as of that year is also corroborated by his role in guest editing the 2007 Forum reading list.
        The photo below shows Norvig in conversation with Lewis Shepherd, who at that time was senior technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible for investigating, approving, and architecting ''all new hardware/software systems and acquisitions for the Global Defense Intelligence IT Enterprise,'' including ''big data technologies.'' Shepherd now works at Microsoft. Norvig was a computer research scientist at Stanford University in 1991 before joining Bechtolsheim's Sun Microsystems as senior scientist until 1994, and going on to head up NASA's computer science division.
        Lewis Shepherd (left), then a senior technology officer at the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, talking to Peter Norvig (right), renowned expert in artificial intelligence expert and director of research at Google. This photo is from a Highlands Forum meeting in 2007.Norvig shows up on O'Neill's Google Plus profile as one of his close connections. Scoping the rest of O'Neill's Google Plus connections illustrates that he is directly connected not just to a wide range of Google executives, but also to some of the biggest names in the US tech community.
        Those connections include Michele Weslander Quaid, an ex-CIA contractor and former senior Pentagon intelligence official who is now Google's chief technology officer where she is developing programs to ''best fit government agencies' needs''; Elizabeth Churchill, Google director of user experience; James Kuffner, a humanoid robotics expert who now heads up Google's robotics division and who introduced the term 'cloud robotics'; Mark Drapeau, director of innovation engagement for Microsoft's public sector business; Lili Cheng, general manager of Microsoft's Future Social Experiences (F'' USE) Labs; Jon Udell, Microsoft 'evangelist'; Cory Ondrejka, vice president of engineering at Facebook; to name just a few.
        In 2010, Google signed a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract with the NSA's sister agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The contract was to use Google Earth for visualization services for the NGA. Google had developed the software behind Google Earth by purchasing Keyhole from the CIA venture firm In-Q-Tel.Then a year after, in 2011, another of O'Neill's Google Plus connections, Michele Quaid'Š'--'Šwho had served in executive positions at the NGA, National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence'Š'--'Šleft her government role to become Google 'innovation evangelist' and the point-person for seeking government contracts. Quaid's last role before her move to Google was as a senior representative of the Director of National Intelligence to the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force, and a senior advisor to the undersecretary of defense for intelligence's director of Joint and Coalition Warfighter Support (J&CWS). Both roles involved information operations at their core. Before her Google move, in other words, Quaid worked closely with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, to which the Pentagon's Highlands Forum is subordinate. Quaid has herself attended the Forum, though precisely when and how often I could not confirm.
        In March 2012, then DARPA director Regina Dugan'Š'--'Šwho in that capacity was also co-chair of the Pentagon Highlands Forum'Š'--'Šfollowed her colleague Quaid into Google to lead the company's new Advanced Technology and Projects Group. During her Pentagon tenure, Dugan led on strategic cyber security and social media, among other initiatives. She was responsible for focusing ''an increasing portion'' of DARPA's work ''on the investigation of offensive capabilities to address military-specific needs,'' securing $500 million of government funding for DARPA cyber research from 2012 to 2017.
        Regina Dugan, former head of DARPA and Highlands Forum co-chair, now a senior Google executive'Š'--'Štrying her best to look the partBy November 2014, Google's chief AI and robotics expert James Kuffner was a delegate alongside O'Neill at the Highlands Island Forum 2014 in Singapore, to explore 'Advancement in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Society, Security and Conflict.' The event included 26 delegates from Austria, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Britain and the US, from both industry and government. Kuffner's association with the Pentagon, however, began much earlier. In 1997, Kuffner was a researcher during his Stanford PhD for a Pentagon-funded project on networked autonomous mobile robots, sponsored by DARPA and the US Navy.
        Rumsfeld and persistent surveillanceIn sum, many of Google's most senior executives are affiliated with the Pentagon Highlands Forum, which throughout the period of Google's growth over the last decade, has surfaced repeatedly as a connecting and convening force. The US intelligence community's incubation of Google from inception occurred through a combination of direct sponsorship and informal networks of financial influence, themselves closely aligned with Pentagon interests.
        The Highlands Forum itself has used the informal relationship building of such private networks to bring together defense and industry sectors, enabling the fusion of corporate and military interests in expanding the covert surveillance apparatus in the name of national security. The power wielded by the shadow network represented in the Forum can, however, be gauged most clearly from its impact during the Bush administration, when it played a direct role in literally writing the strategies and doctrines behind US efforts to achieve 'information superiority.'
        In December 2001, O'Neill confirmed that strategic discussions at the Highlands Forum were feeding directly into Andrew Marshall's DoD-wide strategic review ordered by President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to upgrade the military, including the Quadrennial Defense Review'Š'--'Šand that some of the earliest Forum meetings ''resulted in the writing of a group of DoD policies, strategies, and doctrine for the services on information warfare.'' That process of ''writing'' the Pentagon's information warfare policies ''was done in conjunction with people who understood the environment differently'Š'--'Šnot only US citizens, but also foreign citizens, and people who were developing corporate IT.''
        The Pentagon's post-9/11 information warfare doctrines were, then, written not just by national security officials from the US and abroad: but also by powerful corporate entities in the defense and technology sectors.
        In April that year, Gen. James McCarthy had completed his defense transformation review ordered by Rumsfeld. His report repeatedly highlighted mass surveillance as integral to DoD transformation. As for Marshall, his follow-up report for Rumsfeld was going to develop a blueprint determining the Pentagon's future in the 'information age.'
        O'Neill also affirmed that to develop information warfare doctrine, the Forum had held extensive discussions on electronic surveillance and ''what constitutes an act of war in an information environment.'' Papers feeding into US defense policy written through the late 1990s by RAND consultants John Arquilla and David Rondfeldt, both longstanding Highlands Forum members, were produced ''as a result of those meetings,'' exploring policy dilemmas on how far to take the goal of 'Information Superiority.' ''One of the things that was shocking to the American public was that we weren't pilfering Milosevic's accounts electronically when we in fact could,'' commented O'Neill.
        Although the R&D process around the Pentagon transformation strategy remains classified, a hint at the DoD discussions going on in this period can be gleaned from a 2005 US Army School of Advanced Military Studies research monograph in the DoD journal, Military Review, authored by an active Army intelligence officer.
        ''The idea of Persistent Surveillance as a transformational capability has circulated within the national Intelligence Community (IC) and the Department of Defense (DoD) for at least three years,'' the paper said, referencing the Rumsfeld-commissioned transformation study.
        The Army paper went on to review a range of high-level official military documents, including one from the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, showing that ''Persistent Surveillance'' was a fundamental theme of the information-centric vision for defense policy across the Pentagon.
        We now know that just two months before O'Neill's address at Harvard in 2001, under the TIA program, President Bush had secretly authorized the NSA's domestic surveillance of Americans without court-approved warrants, in what appears to have been an illegal modification of the ThinThread data-mining project'Š'--'Šas later exposed by NSA whistleblowers William Binney and Thomas Drake.
        The surveillance-startup nexusFrom here on, Highlands Forum partner SAIC played a key role in the NSA roll out from inception. Shortly after 9/11, Brian Sharkey, chief technology officer of SAIC's ELS3 Sector (focusing on IT systems for emergency responders), teamed up with John Poindexter to propose the TIA surveillance program. SAIC's Sharkey had previously been deputy director of the Information Systems Office at DARPA through the 1990s.
        Meanwhile, around the same time, SAIC vice president for corporate development, Samuel Visner, became head of the NSA's signals-intelligence programs. SAIC was then among a consortium receiving a $280 million contract to develop one of the NSA's secret eavesdropping systems. By 2003, Visner returned to SAIC to become director of strategic planning and business development of the firm's intelligence group.
        That year, the NSA consolidated its TIA programme of warrantless electronic surveillance, to keep ''track of individuals'' and understand ''how they fit into models'' through risk profiles of American citizens and foreigners. TIA was doing this by integrating databases on finance, travel, medical, educational and other records into a ''virtual, centralized grand database.''
        This was also the year that the Bush administration drew up its notorious Information Operations Roadmap. Describing the internet as a ''vulnerable weapons system,'' Rumsfeld's IO roadmap had advocated that Pentagon strategy ''should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system.'' The US should seek ''maximum control'' of the ''full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems,'' advocated the document.
        The following year, John Poindexter, who had proposed and run the TIA surveillance program via his post at DARPA, was in Singapore participating in the Highlands 2004 Island Forum. Other delegates included then Highlands Forum co-chair and Pentagon CIO Linton Wells; president of notorious Pentagon information warfare contractor, John Rendon; Karl Lowe, director of the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) Joint Advanced Warfighting Division; Air Vice Marshall Stephen Dalton, capability manager for information superiority at the UK Ministry of Defense; Lt. Gen. Johan Kihl, Swedish army Supreme Commander HQ's chief of staff; among others.
        As of 2006, SAIC had been awarded a multi-million dollar NSA contract to develop a big data-mining project called ExecuteLocus, despite the colossal $1 billion failure of its preceding contract, known as 'Trailblazer.' Core components of TIA were being ''quietly continued'' under ''new code names,'' according to Foreign Policy's Shane Harris, but had been concealed ''behind the veil of the classified intelligence budget.'' The new surveillance program had by then been fully transitioned from DARPA's jurisdiction to the NSA.
        This was also the year of yet another Singapore Island Forum led by Richard O'Neill on behalf of the Pentagon, which included senior defense and industry officials from the US, UK, Australia, France, India and Israel. Participants also included senior technologists from Microsoft, IBM, as well as Gilman Louie, partner at technology investment firm Alsop Louie Partners.
        Gilman Louie is a former CEO of In-Q-Tel'Š'--'Šthe CIA firm investing especially in start-ups developing data mining technology. In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999 by the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology, under which the Office of Research and Development (ORD)'Š'--'Šwhich was part of the Google-funding MDSS program'Š'--'Šhad operated. The idea was to essentially replace the functions once performed by the ORD, by mobilizing the private sector to develop information technology solutions for the entire intelligence community.
        Louie had led In-Q-Tel from 1999 until January 2006'Š'--'Šincluding when Google bought Keyhole, the In-Q-Tel-funded satellite mapping software. Among his colleagues on In-Q-Tel's board in this period were former DARPA director and Highlands Forum co-chair Anita Jones (who is still there), as well as founding board member William Perry: the man who had appointed O'Neill to set-up the Highlands Forum in the first place. Joining Perry as a founding In-Q-Tel board member was John Seely Brown, then chief scientist at Xerox Corp and director of its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) from 1990 to 2002, who is also a long-time senior Highlands Forum member since inception.
        In addition to the CIA, In-Q-Tel has also been backed by the FBI, NGA, and Defense Intelligence Agency, among other agencies. More than 60 percent of In-Q-Tel's investments under Louie's watch were ''in companies that specialize in automatically collecting, sifting through and understanding oceans of information,'' according to Medill School of Journalism's News21, which also noted that Louie himself had acknowledged it was not clear ''whether privacy and civil liberties will be protected'' by government's use of these technologies ''for national security.''The transcript of Richard O'Neill's late 2001 seminar at Harvard shows that the Pentagon Highlands Forum had first engaged Gilman Louie long before the Island Forum, in fact, shortly after 9/11 to explore ''what's going on with In-Q-Tel.'' That Forum session focused on how to ''take advantage of the speed of the commercial market that wasn't present inside the science and technology community of Washington'' and to understand ''the implications for the DoD in terms of the strategic review, the QDR, Hill action, and the stakeholders.'' Participants of the meeting included ''senior military people,'' combatant commanders, ''several of the senior flag officers,'' some ''defense industry people'' and various US representatives including Republican Congressman William Mac Thornberry and Democrat Senator Joseph Lieberman.
        Both Thornberry and Lieberman are staunch supporters of NSA surveillance, and have consistently acted to rally support for pro-war, pro-surveillance legislation. O'Neill's comments indicate that the Forum's role is not just to enable corporate contractors to write Pentagon policy, but to rally political support for government policies adopted through the Forum's informal brand of shadow networking.
        Repeatedly, O'Neill told his Harvard audience that his job as Forum president was to scope case studies from real companies across the private sector, like eBay and Human Genome Sciences, to figure out the basis of US 'Information Superiority''Š'--'Š''how to dominate'' the information market'Š'--'Šand leverage this for ''what the president and the secretary of defense wanted to do with regard to transformation of the DoD and the strategic review.''
        By 2007, a year after the Island Forum meeting that included Gilman Louie, Facebook received its second round of $12.7 million worth of funding from Accel Partners. Accel was headed up by James Breyer, former chair of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) where Louie also served on the board while still CEO of In-Q-Tel. Both Louie and Breyer had previously served together on the board of BBN Technologies'Š'--'Šwhich had recruited ex-DARPA chief and In-Q-Tel trustee Anita Jones.
        Facebook's 2008 round of funding was led by Greylock Venture Capital, which invested $27.5 million. The firm's senior partners include Howard Cox, another former NVCA chair who also sits on the board of In-Q-Tel. Apart from Breyer and Zuckerberg, Facebook's only other board member is Peter Thiel, co-founder of defense contractor Palantir which provides all sorts of data-mining and visualization technologies to US government, military and intelligence agencies, including the NSA and FBI, and which itself was nurtured to financial viability by Highlands Forum members.Palantir co-founders Thiel and Alex Karp met with John Poindexter in 2004, according to Wired, the same year Poindexter had attended the Highlands Island Forum in Singapore. They met at the home of Richard Perle, another Andrew Marshall acolyte. Poindexter helped Palantir open doors, and to assemble ''a legion of advocates from the most influential strata of government.'' Thiel had also met with Gilman Louie of In-Q-Tel, securing the backing of the CIA in this early phase.
        And so we come full circle. Data-mining programs like ExecuteLocus and projects linked to it, which were developed throughout this period, apparently laid the groundwork for the new NSA programmes eventually disclosed by Edward Snowden. By 2008, as Facebook received its next funding round from Greylock Venture Capital, documents and whistleblower testimony confirmed that the NSA was effectively resurrecting the TIA project with a focus on Internet data-mining via comprehensive monitoring of e-mail, text messages, and Web browsing.
        We also now know thanks to Snowden that the NSA's XKeyscore 'Digital Network Intelligence' exploitation system was designed to allow analysts to search not just Internet databases like emails, online chats and browsing history, but also telephone services, mobile phone audio, financial transactions and global air transport communications'Š'--'Šessentially the entire global telecommunications grid. Highlands Forum partner SAIC played a key role, among other contractors, in producing and administering the NSA's XKeyscore, and was recently implicated in NSA hacking of the privacy network Tor.
        The Pentagon Highlands Forum was therefore intimately involved in all this as a convening network'--but also quite directly. Confirming his pivotal role in the expansion of the US-led global surveillance apparatus, then Forum co-chair, Pentagon CIO Linton Wells, told FedTech magazine in 2009 that he had overseen the NSA's roll out of ''an impressive long-term architecture last summer that will provide increasingly sophisticated security until 2015 or so.''
        The Goldman Sachs connectionWhen I asked Wells about the Forum's role in influencing US mass surveillance, he responded only to say he would prefer not to comment and that he no longer leads the group.
        As Wells is no longer in government, this is to be expected'Š'--'Šbut he is still connected to Highlands. As of September 2014, after delivering his influential white paper on Pentagon transformation, he joined the Monterey Institute for International Studies (MIIS) Cyber Security Initiative (CySec) as a distinguished senior fellow.
        Sadly, this was not a form of trying to keep busy in retirement. Wells' move underscored that the Pentagon's conception of information warfare is not just about surveillance, but about the exploitation of surveillance to influence both government and public opinion.
        The MIIS CySec initiative is now formally partnered with the Pentagon Highlands Forum through a Memorandum of Understanding signed with MIIS provost Dr Amy Sands, who sits on the Secretary of State's International Security Advisory Board. The MIIS CySec website states that the MoU signed with Richard O'Neill:
        '''... paves the way for future joint MIIS CySec-Highlands Group sessions that will explore the impact of technology on security, peace and information engagement. For nearly 20 years the Highlands Group has engaged private sector and government leaders, including the Director of National Intelligence, DARPA, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Singaporean Minister of Defence, in creative conversations to frame policy and technology research areas.''
        Who is the financial benefactor of the new Pentagon Highlands-partnered MIIS CySec initiative? According to the MIIS CySec site, the initiative was launched ''through a generous donation of seed funding from George Lee.'' George C. Lee is a senior partner at Goldman Sachs, where he is chief information officer of the investment banking division, and chairman of the Global Technology, Media and Telecom (TMT) Group.
        But here's the kicker. In 2011, it was Lee who engineered Facebook's $50 billion valuation, and previously handled deals for other Highlands-connected tech giants like Google, Microsoft and eBay. Lee's then boss, Stephen Friedman, a former CEO and chairman of Goldman Sachs, and later senior partner on the firm's executive board, was a also founding board member of In-Q-Tel alongside Highlands Forum overlord William Perry and Forum member John Seely Brown.In 2001, Bush appointed Stephen Friedman to the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, and then to chair that board from 2005 to 2009. Friedman previously served alongside Paul Wolfowitz and others on the 1995''6 presidential commission of inquiry into US intelligence capabilities, and in 1996 on the Jeremiah Panel that produced a report to the Director of the National Reconnaisance Office (NRO)'Š'--'Šone of the surveillance agencies plugged into the Highlands Forum. Friedman was on the Jeremiah Panel with Martin Faga, then senior vice president and general manager of MITRE Corp's Center for Integrated Intelligence Systems'Š'--'Šwhere Thuraisingham, who managed the CIA-NSA-MDDS program that inspired DARPA counter-terrorist data-mining, was also a lead engineer.
        In the footnotes to a chapter for the book, Cyberspace and National Security (Georgetown University Press), SAIC/Leidos executive Jeff Cooper reveals that another Goldman Sachs senior partner Philip J. Venables'Š'--'Šwho as chief information risk officer leads the firm's programs on information security'Š'--'Šdelivered a Highlands Forum presentation in 2008 at what was called an 'Enrichment Session on Deterrence.' Cooper's chapter draws on Venables' presentation at Highlands ''with permission.'' In 2010, Venables participated with his then boss Friedman at an Aspen Institute meeting on the world economy. For the last few years, Venables has also sat on various NSA cybersecurity award review boards.
        In sum, the investment firm responsible for creating the billion dollar fortunes of the tech sensations of the 21st century, from Google to Facebook, is intimately linked to the US military intelligence community; with Venables, Lee and Friedman either directly connected to the Pentagon Highlands Forum, or to senior members of the Forum. Fighting terror with terrorThe convergence of these powerful financial and military interests around the Highlands Forum, through George Lee's sponsorship of the Forum's new partner, the MIIS Cysec initiative, is revealing in itself.
        MIIS Cysec's director, Dr, Itamara Lochard, has long been embedded in Highlands. She regularly ''presents current research on non-state groups, governance, technology and conflict to the US Office of the Secretary of Defense Highlands Forum,'' according to her Tufts University bio. She also, ''regularly advises US combatant commanders'' and specializes in studying the use of information technology by ''violent and non-violent sub-state groups.''
        Dr Itamara Lochard is a senior Highlands Forum member and Pentagon information operations expert. She directs the MIIS CyberSec initiative that now supports the Pentagon Highlands Forum with funding from Goldman Sachs partner George Lee, who led the valuations of Facebook and Google.Dr Lochard maintains a comprehensive database of 1,700 non-state groups including ''insurgents, militias, terrorists, complex criminal organizations, organized gangs, malicious cyber actors and strategic non-violent actors,'' to analyze their ''organizational patterns, areas of cooperation, strategies and tactics.'' Notice, here, the mention of ''strategic non-violent actors'''Š'--'Šwhich perhaps covers NGOs and other groups or organizations engaged in social political activity or campaigning, judging by the focus of other DoD research programs.
        As of 2008, Lochard has been an adjunct professor at the US Joint Special Operations University where she teaches a top secret advanced course in 'Irregular Warfare' that she designed for senior US special forces officers. She has previously taught courses on 'Internal War' for senior ''political-military officers'' of various Gulf regimes.
        Her views thus disclose much about what the Highlands Forum has been advocating all these years. In 2004, Lochard was co-author of a study for the US Air Force's Institute for National Security Studies on US strategy toward 'non-state armed groups.' The study on the one hand argued that non-state armed groups should be urgently recognized as a 'tier one security priority,' and on the other that the proliferation of armed groups ''provide strategic opportunities that can be exploited to help achieve policy goals. There have and will be instances where the United States may find collaborating with armed group is in its strategic interests.'' But ''sophisticated tools'' must be developed to differentiate between different groups and understand their dynamics, to determine which groups should be countered, and which could be exploited for US interests. ''Armed group profiles can likewise be employed to identify ways in which the United States may assist certain armed groups whose success will be advantageous to US foreign policy objectives.''
        In 2008, Wikileaks published a leaked restricted US Army Special Operations field manual, which demonstrated that the sort of thinking advocated by the likes of Highlands expert Lochard had been explicitly adopted by US special forces.
        Lochard's work thus demonstrates that the Highlands Forum sat at the intersection of advanced Pentagon strategy on surveillance, covert operations and irregular warfare: mobilizing mass surveillance to develop detailed information on violent and non-violent groups perceived as potentially threatening to US interests, or offering opportunities for exploitation, thus feeding directly into US covert operations.
        That, ultimately, is why the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon, spawned Google. So they could run their secret dirty wars with even greater efficiency than ever before.
        R ead the full article by Dr Nafeez Ahmed at Insurge Intelligence
        Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an award-winning 16-year investigative journalist and creator of INSURGE intelligence, a crowdfunded public interest investigative journalism project. He is 'System Shift' columnist at VICE's Motherboard.
        ___http://truepublica.org.uk/united-states/the-long-read-google-seeded-by-the-pentagon/
      Google openly admits to manipulating search results to conceal Jewish supremacy '' The Realist Report
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 00:19
        In a brazenly transparent move to conceal the reality of total Jewish ownership and control over Hollywood (not to mention mass media and the entire ''entertainment complex'' shaping American popular culture), Google is literally manipulating its search engine to remove ''Jews'' as the correct answer to the direct question: ''Who runs Hollywood?''
        The Times of Israel reports:
        Google on Friday removed a ''direct answers'' search result that replied ''Jews'' in response to the query: ''Who runs Hollywood?''
        The automatic first answer produced by the search also highlighted a link to a news story on the New Observer website headlined, ''Jews Boast of Owning Hollywood'--But Slam Gentiles Who Say the Same.'' The site, which features sensationalist stories heavy on conspiracy theories, describes itself as ''a free and independent news service designed to present current affairs without the spin of the controlled media.''
        The same ''Jews'' answer was also produced for Google mobile searches, and also appeared when Google auto-completed a ''Who Runs Hollywood?'' search request.
        News of the problematic result prompted a slew of headlines early Friday ridiculing Google. The Guardian, for instance, went with, ''Who runs Hollywood? Google has an answer, but it's not a good one .'' The New York Daily News was straighter: ''Who runs Hollywood? Google to fix search result that claims 'Jews' do.''
        Google quickly issued a statement promising to deal with the problem, and noting ''that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.'' By Friday afternoon, Israel-time, the search was no longer producing the offensive result .
        The problematic result did not appear to have been a function of deliberate outside skewing of Google's algorithm, or Google bombing, but rather was evidently a consequence of lots of readers posing variations on the ''Who Runs Hollywood?'' question, and trending in relatively large numbers to the New Observer article and other like it.
        Indeed, even after Google's evident Friday recalibration, ordinary Google searches for the same question, ''Who Runs Hollywood?'' produced prominent links to such articles as ''Travolta says Gay Jews run Hollywood'' and ''Is it true that Hollywood is run by Jewish people?'' The top search results as of this writing, understandably, however, were several articles highlighting the whole ''Who Runs Hollywood?'' direct answers search result affair.
        In the article, The Times of Israel staff note on two separate occasions that the correct answer provided by Google when asked ''Who runs Hollywood?'' '' Jews run Hollywood, of course, by their own admission! '' is a ''problematic result,'' and that the factually accurate answer provided by Google with numerous links demonstrating its veracity is ''offensive.''
        The Jews are openly admitting that the fact anyone, anywhere in the world with access to the Internet can type into Google (or other search engines for that matter) a simple question such as ''Who runs Hollywood?'' and be exposed to the reality of Jewish control, influence, and perversion of our society is both ''problematic'' and ''offensive.'' Indeed, the truth is both problematic and offensive to the Jews, because it undermines their nation-wrecking, anti-White, anti-Christian agenda. This explains why Jews try their hardest to prevent people from knowing the truth about them.
        Can they be more obvious here folks?
        The war being waged by organized Jewry against White Western Christian civilization rests entirely on us remaining either ignorant of Jewish power and influence and/or too intimidated to challenge, expose, or resist it. The Internet is eroding and undermining those factors on a daily basis.
        Unsurprisingly, mainstream news outlets are describing the accurate answer provided by Google when asked ''Who runs Hollywood?'' as ''anti-Semitic,'' i.e., correctly describing the reality of Jewish power and influence over Hollywood and the mass media.
        This once again demonstrates a central point I have been trying to communicate to the world: in the parlance of our times, the word ''anti-Semitic'' literally describes someone or something that accurately describes or articulates basics facts about Jews and their power, influence, and perversion of White Western Christian civilization. Stating basic, elementary facts about Jews, their agenda, their outrageous crimes and lies directed against their non-Jewish enemies, etc. is fundamentally ''anti-Semitic.''
        And people are starting to discover these essential facts for themselves, thanks largely to the Internet. The cat is out of the bag, and there is no getting it back in.
      What You Need To Know About Google | Real Jew News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Wed, 22 May 2019 00:18
        Jewish Agenda Articles, Jewification Of America Articles
        What You Need To Know About Google By Brother Nathanael Kapner May 21, 2019 (C) ___________________________________
        ALEPH~BET (ALPHABET) , Google's holding company, are HEBREW letters signaturing Mossad ownership.
        With unprecedented high praise for Israel's technology industry, then Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, met with Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015 with laudations galore but why they met and details of the meeting were not publicized.
        For when Google chairman Eric Schmidt told a Tel Aviv Conference in June 2015 that Google's Development Centers in Israel were among the company's ''most efficient offices in the world,'' there is little doubt that the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, was and is , deeply (as in deep state) involved.
        (No doubt, Mossad/CIA through their own incorporated tech funding and investment companies and also through a variety of shell companies route light and dark money to Alphabet/Google's investment arms.)
        Interesting enough, it was the very same year in 2015 when Schmidt and Netanyahu met that Google formed Alphabet as the parent multi-holding conglomerate company to itself in a tricksy two-step restructuring and incorporation process in which it wound up with the ''child'' (Alphabet) being parent to the ''mother'' (Google) now incorporated as a subsidiary.
        The two founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, assumed 'executive' roles in the new company yet have been effectively removed from any active operative functions.
        Both Page and Brin were replaced by an obvious puppet'--an ethnic Indian, easily controlled by the Mossad and the international Jewish Lobby, Sundar Pichai'--who was appointed the new CEO of Google at the end of 2015.
        All of Google's money projects were moved to Alphabet with Google retaining its core businesses: ''Search, Ads, Maps, Apps, Android, and it's propaganda arm, YouTube, complete with its official flaggers (and fellow Jewish tribalists) the Anti-Defamation League and the SPLC.
        AS STUDENTS AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY in 1994, Sergey Brin and Larry Page created a unique web crawling and page ranking application.
        What was distinctly notable was that their creation was funded by the Massive Digital Data Systems initiative, a project sponsored by the NSA, CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence, [READ: The Mossad], to foster innovative research in information technology.
        Evidently , it was a Mossad handler, Professor Jeffrey Ullman, acting in tandem with a CIA/Mossad agent, Rick Steinheiser, that arranged the funding of Brin's and Page's search engine.
        Stanford has been tied to secret military research projects for decades and was the steam propelling Silicon Valley's nexus with the Pentagon and the CIA.
        Creating the Massive Digital Data Systems Project (MDDS) to fund computer scientists at Stanford, the Pentagon and Intelligence Community (CIA/Mossad) tapped into a ready-made way to track individuals and groups online'...which led up to Google. View Entire Story Here .
        Strategic partner Mossad was eager to increasingly connect with monied Jews of the Silicon Valley''(fourth largest Jewish community in the US)''who dominate the high-tech world, and grab some technology of their own while expanding its global network via cyber-science.
        Attached to multiple projects sponsored by the Pentagon, Professor Jeffrey Ullman and CIA's Rick Steinheiser, recognized Brin and Page's pioneering search-engine technology and pursued a long term goal: Control of the information highway.
        THE GATEWAY TO KNOWLEDGE is now in the hands of Jews given the Mossad's hidden ownership of Google, the world's leading search engine.
        Google, along with its official Jewish censors, the Anti-Defamation League (administered by the Jew Eileen Hershenov) and the SPLC, decides what you're allowed to know and not know.
        Do you want to find out how Jews control Hollywood on Google? You will never know.
        How about learning how Jewry is conducting genocidal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in Israel? Forget it.
        But if you wish to see how abortion is promoted and advanced, Google provides leading search results for the murder of the unborn and newly born.
        And if you want to practice homosexuality, lesbianism, change your gender, and practice every form of sexual deviancy then Google is your place to go.
        This endeavor of global Jewry, as Joseph Sobran pointed out years ago, is the destruction of Christian civilization, of which, historically, is at enmity with Jewish ideology.
        And that Jewish racist ideology, via Google, is pounded into the brains of every single goy.
        ___________________________________ MORE:
        Mystery Babylon In Swift Key Here
        My Name Is Hymie Goldstein Here
        Deep State For Jews Here
        Trump's Row With Google Here
        Seeds Of America's Collapse Here
        Does The Media Run America? Here
        My Struggle Here
        Riders Of The Storm Here
        ___________________________________Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation! Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459
        Or Send Your Contribution To: The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856 E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]comScroll Down For Comments
        Brother Nathanael @ May 20, 2019
      SAT "Adversity Score" Will Be a Backdoor to Racial Quotas in College Admissions.
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 22:18
        For decades, the College Board defended the SAT, which it writes and administers, against charges that the test gives an unfair advantage to middle-class white students. No longer. Under relentless pressure from the racial-preferences lobby, the Board has now caved to the anti-meritocratic ideology of ''diversity.'' The Board will calculate for each SAT-taker an ''adversity score'' that purports to measure a student's socioeconomic position, according to the Wall Street Journal. Colleges can use this adversity index to boost the admissions ranking of allegedly disadvantaged students who otherwise would score too poorly to be considered for admission.
        Advocates of this change claim that it is not about race. That is a fiction. In fact, the SAT adversity score is simply the latest response on the part of mainstream institutions to the seeming intractability of the racial academic-achievement gap. If that gap did not exist, the entire discourse about ''diversity'' would evaporate overnight. The average white score on the SAT (1,123 out of a possible 1,600) is 177 points higher than the average black score (946), approximately a standard deviation of difference. This gap has persisted for decades. It is not explained by socioeconomic disparities. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reported in 1998 that white students from households with incomes of $10,000 or less score better on the SAT than black students from households with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000. In 2015, students with family incomes of $20,000 or less (a category that includes all racial groups) scored higher on average on the math SAT than the average math score of black students from all income levels. The University of California has calculated that race predicts SAT scores better than class.
        Those who rail against ''white privilege'' as a determinant of academic achievement have a nagging problem: Asians. Asian students outscore white students on the SAT by 100 points; they outscore blacks by 277 points. It is not Asian families' economic capital that vaults them to the top of the academic totem pole; it is their emphasis on scholarly effort and self-discipline. Every year in New York City, Asian elementary school students vastly outperform every other racial and ethnic group on the admissions test for the city's competitive public high schools, even though a disproportionate number of them come from poor immigrant families.
        Colleges pay lip service to socioeconomic diversity, but that concept is inevitably a surrogate for race. Colleges have repeatedly rejected admissions schemes that purport to substitute socioeconomic preferences for racial preferences, on the ground that those socioeconomic schemes do not yield enough ''underrepresented minorities.'' Harvard admits richer black students with a lower academic ranking over poorer but more qualified white and Asian applicants; it admits more than two times as many middle-class blacks as ''disadvantaged'' blacks and confers no admissions preference to disadvantaged blacks compared with their non-disadvantaged racial peers.
        The SAT's critics notwithstanding, no alternative measure of student capacity exists that better predicts student success. ''Leadership,'' ''character,'' ''persistence'''--all these earlier attempts to come up with a more politically palatable proxy for racial preferences are far less valid as a measure of academic capacity than the SAT. The College Board's ''adversity score'' will be no different. And it will subject its alleged beneficiaries to the same problem as overt racial preferences'--academic mismatch. Students admitted to a selective college with significantly weaker academic credentials than the school norm will, on average, struggle to keep up in their classes. Many will switch out of demanding majors like the STEM fields; a significant portion will drop out of college entirely. Had those artificially preferred students enrolled in a college for which they were academically prepared, like their non-preferred peers, they would have a much higher chance of graduating in their chosen field of study. There is no shame or handicap in graduating from a non-elite college. The proponents of racial preferences, like all ''woke'' advocates, claim to be against privilege. Yet those anti-privilege warriors adopt a blatantly elitist view of college, holding, in essence, that attending a name-brand college is the only route to life success.
        The College Board's adversity score will give students a boost for coming from a high-crime, high-poverty school and neighborhood, according to the Wall Street Journal. Being raised by a single parent will also be a plus factor. Such a scheme penalizes the bourgeois values that make for individual and community success.
        The solution to the academic achievement gap lies in cultural change, not in yet another attack on a meritocratic standard. Black parents need to focus as relentlessly as Asian parents on their children's school attendance and performance. They need to monitor homework completion and grades. Academic achievement must no longer be stigmatized as ''acting white.'' And a far greater percentage of black children must be raised by both their mother and their father, to ensure the socialization that prevents classrooms from turning into scenes of chaos and violence.
        At present, thanks to racial preferences, many black high school students know that they don't need to put in as much scholarly effort as non-''students of color'' to be admitted to highly competitive colleges. The adversity score will only reinforce that knowledge. That is not a reality conducive to life achievement. The only guaranteed beneficiaries of this new scheme are the campus diversity bureaucrats. They have been given another assurance of academically handicapped students who can be leveraged into grievance, more diversity sinecures, and lowered academic standards.
        Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of the bestselling books The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture and The War on Cops.
        Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
      SAT adversity score is about race - WND
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 22:17
        (City Journal) '-- For decades, the College Board defended the SAT, which it writes and administers, against charges that the test gives an unfair advantage to middle-class white students. No longer. Under relentless pressure from the racial-preferences lobby, the Board has now caved to the anti-meritocratic ideology of ''diversity.'' The Board will calculate for each SAT-taker an ''adversity score'' that purports to measure a student's socioeconomic position, according to the Wall Street Journal. Colleges can use this adversity index to boost the admissions ranking of allegedly disadvantaged students who otherwise would score too poorly to be considered for admission.
        Advocates of this change claim that it is not about race. That is a fiction. In fact, the SAT adversity score is simply the latest response on the part of mainstream institutions to the seeming intractability of the racial academic-achievement gap. If that gap did not exist, the entire discourse about ''diversity'' would evaporate overnight. The average white score on the SAT (1,123 out of a possible 1,600) is 177 points higher than the average black score (946), approximately a standard deviation of difference. This gap has persisted for decades. It is not explained by socioeconomic disparities. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reported in 1998 that white students from households with incomes of $10,000 or less score better on the SAT than black students from households with incomes of $80,000 to $100,000. In 2015, students with family incomes of $20,000 or less (a category that includes all racial groups) scored higher on average on the math SAT than the average math score of black students from all income levels. The University of California has calculated that race predicts SAT scores better than class.
      How Apple's deal with Amazon screwed over small recycling businesses - The Verge
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 18:14
        Six months after Apple moved in, small sellers have all but disappeared from Amazon Marketplace
        When John Bumstead looked at listings for his products on Amazon.com in early January, he was waiting for the guillotine to fall.
        A small online business owner from Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bumstead specializes in refurbishing and selling old MacBooks, models he typically buys from recyclers and fixes up himself. But on January 4th, Bumstead's entire business dwindled into nonexistence as his listings were removed from the platform due to a new policy limiting all but the largest companies and specially authorized providers from selling Apple products.
        ''You'd go to your current items, your inventory items, and just watch them disappear that morning,'' Bumstead says of the fateful day the policy went into effect, confirming fears he first expressed in an interview with Motherboard last November. ''I pretty much had all my inventory, but as the day went on, you could see them dwindle down to two or three [listings] as they took them away.''
        For small sellers like Bumstead, who's run his refurbishing business for years under the name RDKL, Inc., the deal means you can no longer sell new or refurbished Apple products on Amazon Marketplace, the fast-growing third-party seller network that now takes in more revenue than Amazon's entire online retail operation. Some financial analysts estimate that Amazon Marketplace is worth more than double the company's internal e-commerce business, or about $250 billion.
        Amazon Marketplace has become the preeminent place to sell products online in the US
        For US retailers big and small, Amazon has become the preeminent place to sell products, rivaled only by eBay and Walmart's competing marketplaces and smaller, more product-specific platforms like Etsy and Overstock.com. Yet none of Amazon's competitors offer the same robust logistics and shipping benefits the company offers its sellers, making it a top destination for online businesses.
        Companies that want to sell Apple products through Amazon now have to meet one of two requirements. The first is to purchase at least $2.5 million worth of refurbished inventory every 90 days from Apple itself or through a retailer with more than $5 billion in annual sales, like a wireless carrier or big-box retailers like Target or Walmart. The second is to reach out directly to Apple to become an authorized reseller. Apple has yet to make its reseller requirements known to the public, but to become an Apple-authorized provider of repairs requires a physical retail space for customers to enter.
        By cutting this deal, Apple and Amazon benefit while knocking out millions of dollars worth of business for small sellers. For Apple, the move to sell on Amazon and its aftermath highlight the company's long-standing adversarial relationship with repair providers and resellers. Even those within the confines of Apple's strictly controlled network have faced byzantine restrictions to acquiring proper equipment.
        Sellers both in-network and out operate entirely at the whims of a company that has fought right-to-repair legislation and builds devices that are notoriously difficult to rebuild. Now, small sellers have been forced off their biggest platform so Apple could move in.
        For someone like Bumstead who performs repair work from home, it's not practical to open a brick-and-mortar repair shop to become an authorized provider. He also says it's not feasible for him to start spending millions more dollars per quarter to acquire inventory he's not sure he'll ever be able to sell. Bumstead says he's tried to get Amazon to tell him more about Apple's supposed authorized reseller program, but he hasn't heard back.
        ''People going onto Amazon now are getting the impression that a low-end used MacBook costs $700 instead of $200,'' he says. ''Amazon is literally half of the online marketplace for all products. So if you take low-end, perfectly good laptops that are available in the millions off [the platform], you're really doing damage to those products in terms of visibility to the world. People won't know about them and buy them, and that just leads to machines like those being scrapped rather than sold.''
        ''People going onto Amazon now are getting the impression that a low-end used MacBook costs $700 instead of $200.''
        For Amazon, the motive was clear. Apple was not selling on its platform before, choosing instead to sell its products through retailers like Best Buy, and handling a bulk of online sales of new and refurbished products through its own retail website. But, like Nike and other big brands in the past, Apple cut a deal with Amazon on its own terms to get a splashy landing page full of listings with its own name under them that the company controls. That benefits Apple because it can tightly control the products and the pricing.
        ''Amazon needs brands. We know that consumers search on brands, and so Amazon will go to pretty drastic lengths to get access to those [products],'' says Sucharita Kodali, a Forrester analyst specializing in e-commerce and consumer trends. Since the early 2000s, Amazon's primary way to acquire well-known brands was to let third-party merchants resell them, Kodali notes. ''The brands have noticed, and the brands want to control more of their presence online. And because Amazon is such a big presence in e-commerce, if you want to control your brand presence online, you have to control what it looks like on Amazon.'' That inevitably means cutting deals and shutting out what, in Apple's eyes, are rogue merchants.
        Amazon not only gets to claim it has certified Apple sellers on its platform selling genuine products, but it also gains a rare insight into how Apple's business works online, Kodali points out. ''Amazon has always said it's agnostic between first- and third-party sellers, but it probably prefers first-party more because it can control the relationship and because they own margin information,'' she says. By selling directly on Amazon, Apple is illuminating parts of its business to one of its competitors.
        ''If you want to control your brand presence online, you have to control what it looks like on Amazon.''
        ''You're exposing sales data, margin data, units sold, reasons for returns'... you're exposing a lot of your trade secrets when you sell as a first-party on Amazon,'' Kodali says. ''Those are risks for any brand that chooses to sell [on another platform].'' For instance, that is likely why Apple chooses not to sell its Echo competitor, the HomePod, on Amazon.com.
        ''As part of a new agreement with Apple, we are working with a select group of authorized resellers to offer an expanded selection of Apple and Beats products, including new releases, in Amazon's stores,'' an Amazon spokesperson tells The Verge. The company would not comment on third-party sellers leaving the platform, but it did recommend that any individual or business looking to sell refurbished products try and qualify for Amazon Renewed. But as made clear when the deal with Apple was announced, there are special requirements to become an Apple reseller that make it restrictive for all but large operations.
        Apple did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
        ''Brands and marketplaces are on a collision course, and they need to figure out how to work together. And if not, you need to make sure your brand is represented on the internet,'' Kodali says. ''More brands are going to be really strict about their supply chains, and third-party sellers are going to be fewer and fewer.'' In this case, the sellers no longer have ''this Amazon gravy train,'' Kodali adds. ''You're selling somebody else's product, so you're always at risk of being disintermediated.''
        Photo by Michele Doying / The Verge Bumstead isn't alone in getting kicked off of Amazon. A number of sellers, both individuals and multiperson e-commerce operations, have found themselves forced to sell elsewhere since the Amazon-Apple deal took effect.
        As noted by CNN last fall, companies that specialize in outdated electronics, like AceBeach, have been pushed away from reselling Apple products entirely because doing so on platforms other than Amazon is prohibitively difficult. (eBay and Walmart don't impose restrictions on Apple sales, but Bumstead says discoverability is an issue on those platforms, and neither offers the same logistics support Amazon does.) Similarly, CNET spoke with an engineer from Colorado who said he sells hundreds of thousands of dollars in Apple products per year. Last November, he predicted he'd have to switch to selling other electronics because he didn't want to switch to another platform.
        In a Facebook group Bumstead participates in, dozens of other individual sellers have gathered in the past six months to discuss alternative marketplaces, potential legal remedies, and other strategies to maintain their businesses and continue working with used Apple products. One fellow seller Bumstead met through his network of Amazon resellers is Jim Ilardi, the founder of a private device repair and refurbisher he calls PiratePT Electronics. Unlike Bumstead, who specialized in mainly MacBook products, Ilardi was unique in that he refurbished old iPod Classics, a product category Apple no longer supports or sells.
        ''I'm selling something they've completely stopped manufacturing and don't support anymore.''
        Ilardi would give old iPods new shells and batteries, and he eventually started replacing their hard drives with faster SSD drives, making the products better than they'd ever been. For those perusing Amazon for an iPod Classic, especially one with a flash drive so it was much speedier than when it first came out, PiratePT Electronics was one of the very few sellers available. Ilardi still maintains a positive rating of 98 percent on the platform, despite Amazon no longer allowing him to list his products.
        ''It was extremely successful,'' Ilardi says of his business. Over the last decade or so, Ilardi estimates he's sold roughly $1.2 million in refurbished iPods, with ''95 percent'' of his business on Amazon, he estimates. Ilardi now splits his business between an Etsy storefront, an eBay account, and his personal website where he also offers screen repairs and other service work.
        But Ilardi says eBay is difficult because it doesn't group together sellers under a single product, but instead, it makes users scroll through individual listings, some of which are just run-of-the-mill used versions from everyday eBay users. On Esty, Ilardi said he was, at one point last year, doing only one-fourth the sales he was doing on Amazon. But Ilardi's Etsy store has since gained steam now that he is offering different paint job options and more flash storage.
        This is the main gripe of Apple resellers: why, for a company that handily makes more than $50 billion in revenue per quarter, are online resellers such a threat? ''I'm selling something they've completely stopped manufacturing and don't support anymore,'' Ilardi says. Apple does still sell MacBooks, making Bumstead's business, in a way, competitive with Apple's, but Bumstead deals in years-old products designed for people who never spend $800 to $1,200 on a new computer.
        iPods, on the other hand, no longer exist except in the form of the iPod Touch and refurbished or used models. ''My product was sunsetted,'' Ilardis says. ''They actually got rid of it. Why would that matter to Apple and Amazon? They've gone out of that business.''
        John Bumstead has for years refurbished and resold old Mac laptops, and as a result he's become a well-known advocate of the right-to-repair movement. Photo by Seth Lowe / iFixit That's where the Amazon-Apple deal bumps uncomfortably up against the right-to-repair movement. Apple has reportedly spent years fighting right-to-repair bills moving through nearly two dozen state legislatures. Just last month, an Apple lobbyist pressured California lawmakers to pull a right-to-repair bill by claiming consumers could hurt themselves trying to repair iPhones.
        Ostensibly, Apple is fighting rules that would require the company to spend and lose out on money because making its smartphones, tablets, and computers easier for owners to repair would mean more consumers may buy used instead of new, while letting individuals and businesses not part of its authorized network provide repair services would cut out the Apple Store and its network of providers. Apple, a company notorious for its high level of quality control and its obsessive approach to marketing, also likely prefers no other company resell its products, and it of course despises counterfeiters. Yet grouped in with repair services is the right to buy and sell refurbished products, making this just as much an environmental issue as it is an economic one.
        Apple has fought to make its products harder to repair, undermining its environmental efforts
        The US Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that consumers have the right to sell copyrighted products so long as they legally own the product. But that hasn't stopped companies like Apple, and now Amazon, from making the act of reselling prohibitively difficult. Apple is making a big shift toward software services to lessen its dependence on the iPhone, but it still became the most valuable company on the planet, largely thanks to selling massive volumes of new products each and every year.
        We've seen this play in a variety of fashions with Apple over the past few years, in addition to its efforts to fight right-to-repair laws. There was the notorious battery throttling controversy in late 2017 that forced the company to offer lithium-ion battery replacement for iPhones at a reduced cost, a concession CEO Tim Cook has openly attributed to negatively affected sales of new devices last year. Prior to that, industry trade group the Repair Association released a report saying Apple, alongside other big consumer electronics companies, had systematically undermined environmental standards that would cut down on e-waste.
        Last October, Apple confirmed that its T2 chip found in the newest line of MacBook Pros and other computers would lock down the device if certain parts, like the logic board, were repaired without running a special diagnostic tool distributed only by Apple to its own network of stores and authorized repair providers. For refurbishers like Bumstead, that could put an end to his ability to repair newer MacBook Pros in the future, if the machines won't run when he reassembles them without proprietary Apple software not made available to the public.
        Apple devices may only become harder to repair in the future
        Ultimately, Bumstead says the situation has been a wake-up call. ''I've had a number of friends go out of business. It's hard to say that it was Amazon as the cause, but it's sort of a 'death by a thousand cuts' situation,'' he says. Bumstead has returned mostly to the wholesale selling of old MacBooks, which is what he says he dealt in prior to Amazon Marketplace. Typically, he gets his hands on dozens of MacBooks from recyclers, fixes them up, and sells 10 or 20 of them to a single seller.
        ''They tend to be people who sell, too. They might have retail stores and laptops are one of the things they sell. They could be exporters. They might be selling locally or they might even be putting them eBay,'' he says. ''I do make it worth their while to buy them 10 or 20 at a time.''
        As a result, Bumstead has started moving a large portion of his business to his personal website, using eBay and other platforms as a supplement. ''Someone can buy a laptop on my website, and I think to myself, 'Wow, I don't have a deadline as far as this goes. No negative reviews to work out. No threatening infrastructure of the platform,''' he says. ''If I've learned anything from this experience, it's that you really want to own your own platform. Nobody can take that away from you.''
      The College Board's SAT adversity score is an algorithmic black box.
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 17:57
        '):""},e.getDefinedParams=function(t,e){return e.filter(function(e){return t[e]}).reduce(function(e,n){return i(e,function(t,e,n){return e in t?Object.defineProperty(t,e,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):t[e]=n,t}({},n,t[n]))},{})},e.isValidMediaTypes=function(t){var e=["banner","native","video"];return!!Object.keys(t).every(function(t){return X()(e,t)})&&(!t.video||!t.video.context||X()(["instream","outstream","adpod"],t.video.context))},e.getBidderRequest=function(t,e,n){return Z()(t,function(t){return 0n[t]?-1:0}};var H,K=n(3),$=n(90),Y=n.n($),J=n(10),Z=n.n(J),Q=n(8),X=n.n(Q),tt=n(11),et=n(4),nt=!1,rt="Array",it="String",ot="Function",at="Number",ut="Object",st="Boolean",ct=Object.prototype.toString,ft=Boolean(window.console),dt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.log),lt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.info),pt=Boolean(ft&&window.console.warn),ht=Boolean(ft&&window.console.error),gt={checkCookieSupport:V,createTrackPixelIframeHtml:B,getWindowSelf:p,getWindowTop:l,getAncestorOrigins:d,getTopFrameReferrer:f,getWindowLocation:h,getTopWindowLocation:c,insertUserSyncIframe:R,insertElement:C,isFn:w,triggerPixel:D,logError:y,logWarn:b,logMessage:g,logInfo:v},vt={},bt=function(t,e){return e}.bind(null,1,vt)()===vt?Function.prototype.bind:function(t){var e=this,n=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,1);return function(){return e.apply(t,n.concat(Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments)))}},yt=(H=0,function(){return++H}),mt=function(){if(Array.prototype.indexOf)return Array.prototype.indexOf}(),_t=function(t,e){return t.hasOwnProperty?t.hasOwnProperty(e):void 0!==t[e]&&t.constructor.prototype[e]!==t[e]},Et=z("timeToRespond",function(t,e){return es;)r(u,n=e[s++])&&(~o(c,n)||c.push(n));return c}},141:function(t,e,n){var r=n(18).document;t.exports=r&&r.documentElement},142:function(t,e,n){var r=n(25),i=n(41),o=n(49)("IE_PROTO"),a=Object.prototype;t.exports=Object.getPrototypeOf||function(t){return t=i(t),r(t,o)?t[o]:"function"==typeof t.constructor&&t instanceof t.constructor?t.constructor.prototype:t instanceof Object?a:null}},143:function(t,e,n){n(144);for(var r=n(18),i=n(20),o=n(28),a=n(15)("toStringTag"),u="CSSRuleList,CSSStyleDeclaration,CSSValueList,ClientRectList,DOMRectList,DOMStringList,DOMTokenList,DataTransferItemList,FileList,HTMLAllCollection,HTMLCollection,HTMLFormElement,HTMLSelectElement,MediaList,MimeTypeArray,NamedNodeMap,NodeList,PaintRequestList,Plugin,PluginArray,SVGLengthList,SVGNumberList,SVGPathSegList,SVGPointList,SVGStringList,SVGTransformList,SourceBufferList,StyleSheetList,TextTrackCueList,TextTrackList,TouchList".split(","),s=0;s=t.length?(this._t=void 0,i(1)):i(0,"keys"==e?n:"values"==e?t[n]:[n,t[n]])},"values"),o.Arguments=o.Array,r("keys"),r("values"),r("entries")},145:function(t,e,n){"use strict";var r=n(146),i=n(78);t.exports=n(148)("Set",function(t){return function(){return t(this,0=l.syncsPerBidder)return o.logWarn('Number of user syncs exceeded for "'.concat(e,'"'));if(l.filterSettings){if(function(t,e){var n=l.filterSettings;if(function(t,e){if(t.all&&t[e])return o.logWarn('Detected presence of the "filterSettings.all" and "filterSettings.'.concat(e,'" in userSync config. You cannot mix "all" with "iframe/image" configs; they are mutually exclusive.')),!1;var n=t.all?t.all:t[e],r=t.all?"all":e;if(!n)return!1;var i=n.filter,a=n.bidders;return i&&"include"!==i&&"exclude"!==i?(o.logWarn('UserSync "filterSettings.'.concat(r,".filter\" setting '").concat(i,"' is not a valid option; use either 'include' or 'exclude'.")),!1):!!("*"===a||Array.isArray(a)&&0t.getTimeout()+y.config.getConfig("timeoutBuffer")&&t.executeCallback(!0)}function u(t,e){var n=t.getBidRequests(),r=S()(n,function(t){return t.bidderCode===e.bidderCode});!function(t,e){var n;if(t.bidderCode&&(0n&&(e=!1)),!e}),e&&t.run(),e}function a(t,e){void 0===t[e]?t[e]=1:t[e]++}var c=this;u=D,i=Date.now();var f=O.makeBidRequests(v,i,w,z,b);I.logInfo("Bids Requested for Auction with id: ".concat(w),f),f.forEach(function(t){var e;e=t,_=_.concat(e)});var d={};if(f.lengthe.max?t:e},{max:0}),a=u()(e.buckets,function(e){if(t>i.max*n){var o=e.precision;void 0===o&&(o=c),r=(e.max*n).toFixed(o)}else if(t=e.min*n)return e});return a&&(r=function(t,e,n){var r=void 0!==e.precision?e.precision:c,i=e.increment*n,o=e.min*n,a=Math.pow(10,r+2),u=(t*a-o*a)/(i*a),s=Math.floor(u)*i+o;return(s=Number(s.toFixed(10))).toFixed(r)}(t,a,n)),r}function o(t){if(s.isEmpty(t)||!t.buckets||!Array.isArray(t.buckets))return!1;var e=!0;return t.buckets.forEach(function(t){void 0!==t.min&&t.max&&t.increment||(e=!1)}),e}n.d(e,"a",function(){return r}),n.d(e,"b",function(){return o});var a=n(10),u=n.n(a),s=n(0),c=2,f={buckets:[{min:0,max:5,increment:.5}]},d={buckets:[{min:0,max:20,increment:.1}]},l={buckets:[{min:0,max:20,increment:.01}]},p={buckets:[{min:0,max:3,increment:.01},{min:3,max:8,increment:.05},{min:8,max:20,increment:.5}]},h={buckets:[{min:0,max:5,increment:.05},{min:5,max:10,increment:.1},{min:10,max:20,increment:.5}]}},52:function(t,e){t.exports=function(t){if("function"!=typeof t)throw TypeError(t+" is not a function!");return t}},53:function(t,e,n){var r=n(16),i=n(18).document,o=r(i)&&r(i.createElement);t.exports=function(t){return o?i.createElement(t):{}}},54:function(t,e,n){var r=n(31);t.exports=Object("z").propertyIsEnumerable(0)?Object:function(t){return"String"==r(t)?t.split(""):Object(t)}},55:function(t,e,n){var r=n(31);t.exports=Array.isArray||function(t){return"Array"==r(t)}},56:function(t,e,n){var r=n(14),i=n(18),o="__core-js_shared__",a=i[o]||(i[o]={});(t.exports=function(t,e){return a[t]||(a[t]=void 0!==e?e:{})})("versions",[]).push({version:r.version,mode:n(57)?"pure":"global",copyright:"(C) 2019 Denis Pushkarev (zloirock.ru)"})},57:function(t,e){t.exports=!0},58:function(t,e,n){var r=n(44),i=n(33),o=n(88);t.exports=function(t){return function(e,n,a){var u,s=r(e),c=i(s.length),f=o(a,c);if(t&&n!=n){for(;fe.cpm/e.video.durationBucket?-1:0};var c=n(0),f=n(36),d=n(64),l=n(46),p=n(17),h=n(63),g=n(3),v=n(2),b=n(133),y=n.n(b),m=n(10),_=n.n(m),E=n(156),S="hb_pb_cat_dur",w="hb_cache_id",T=50,A=5,x=function(){function t(t){e[t]={},e[t].bidStorage=new y.a,e[t].queueDispatcher=function(t){var e,n=1;return function(r,i,o,a){var u=this,s=function(){(function(t,e,n){(function(t){for(var e=0;e"):"";return'\n \n \n prebid.org wrapper\n \n ").concat(n,"\n \n \n \n ")}(t.vastUrl,t.vastImpUrl),ttlseconds:Number(t.ttl)};return"string"==typeof t.customCacheKey&&""!==t.customCacheKey&&(e.key=t.customCacheKey),e}e.b=function(t,e){var n={puts:t.map(r)};Object(i.a)(o.config.getConfig("cache.url"),function(t){return{success:function(e){var n;try{n=JSON.parse(e).responses}catch(e){return void t(e,[])}n?t(null,n):t(new Error("The cache server didn't respond with a responses property."),[])},error:function(e,n){t(new Error("Error storing video ad in the cache: ".concat(e,": ").concat(JSON.stringify(n))),[])}}}(e),JSON.stringify(n),{contentType:"text/plain",withCredentials:!0})},e.a=function(t){return"".concat(o.config.getConfig("cache.url"),"?uuid=").concat(t)};var i=n(5),o=n(3)},64:function(t,e,n){"use strict";function r(t){return(r="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==_typeof(Symbol.iterator)?function(t){return void 0===t?"undefined":_typeof(t)}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":void 0===t?"undefined":_typeof(t)})(t)}function i(){return(i=Object.assign||function(t){for(var e=1;e (eg mediaTypes.banner.sizes)."),t.sizes=n);if(e&&e.video){var i=e.video;if(i.playerSize)if(Array.isArray(i.playerSize)&&1===i.playerSize.length&&i.playerSize.every(function(t){return Object(f.isArrayOfNums)(t,2)}))t.sizes=i.playerSize;else if(Object(f.isArrayOfNums)(i.playerSize,2)){var o=[];o.push(i.playerSize),x.logInfo("Transforming video.playerSize from [".concat(i.playerSize,"] to [[").concat(o,"]] so it's in the proper format.")),t.sizes=i.playerSize=o}else x.logError("Detected incorrect configuration of mediaTypes.video.playerSize. Please specify only one set of dimensions in a format like: [[640, 480]]. Removing invalid mediaTypes.video.playerSize property from request."),delete t.mediaTypes.video.playerSize}if(e&&e.native){var a=e.native;a.image&&a.image.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.image.sizes)&&(x.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.sizes property from request."),delete t.mediaTypes.native.image.sizes),a.image&&a.image.aspect_ratios&&!Array.isArray(a.image.aspect_ratios)&&(x.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.aspect_ratios field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios property from request."),delete t.mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios),a.icon&&a.icon.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.icon.sizes)&&(x.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.icon.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes property from request."),delete t.mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes)}}),t},"checkAdUnitSetup");T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr=function(t){if(x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr",arguments),t){var e=T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode(t);return x.transformAdServerTargetingObj(e)}x.logMessage("Need to call getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr with adunitCode")},T.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode=function(t){return T.getAdserverTargeting(t)[t]},T.getAdserverTargeting=function(t){return x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargeting",arguments),v.b.getAllTargeting(t)},T.getNoBids=function(){return x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getNoBids",arguments),a("getNoBids")},T.getBidResponses=function(){return x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getBidResponses",arguments),a("getBidsReceived")},T.getBidResponsesForAdUnitCode=function(t){return{bids:g.a.getBidsReceived().filter(function(e){return e.adUnitCode===t}).map(f.removeRequestId)}},T.setTargetingForGPTAsync=function(t,e){if(x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForGPTAsync",arguments),Object(f.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var n=v.b.getAllTargeting(t);v.b.resetPresetTargeting(t),v.b.setTargetingForGPT(n,e),Object.keys(n).forEach(function(t){Object.keys(n[t]).forEach(function(e){"hb_adid"===e&&g.a.setStatusForBids(n[t][e],A.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET)})}),O.emit(P,n)}else x.logError("window.googletag is not defined on the page")},T.setTargetingForAst=function(){x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForAn",arguments),v.b.isApntagDefined()?(v.b.setTargetingForAst(),O.emit(P,v.b.getAllTargeting())):x.logError("window.apntag is not defined on the page")},T.renderAd=function(t,e){if(x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.renderAd",arguments),x.logMessage("Calling renderAd with adId :"+e),t&&e)try{var n=g.a.findBidByAdId(e);if(n){n.status=A.BID_STATUS.RENDERED,n.ad=x.replaceAuctionPrice(n.ad,n.cpm),n.adUrl=x.replaceAuctionPrice(n.adUrl,n.cpm),g.a.addWinningBid(n),O.emit(R,n);var r=n.height,i=n.width,a=n.ad,s=n.mediaType,c=n.adUrl,f=n.renderer,d=document.createComment("Creative ".concat(n.creativeId," served by ").concat(n.bidder," Prebid.js Header Bidding"));if(x.insertElement(d,t,"body"),Object(S.c)(f))Object(S.b)(f,n);else if(t===document&&!x.inIframe()||"video"===s){var l="Error trying to write ad. Ad render call ad id ".concat(e," was prevented from writing to the main document.");u(U,l,n)}else if(a)t.open("text/html","replace"),t.write(a),t.close(),o(t,i,r),x.callBurl(n);else if(c){var p=x.createInvisibleIframe();p.height=r,p.width=i,p.style.display="inline",p.style.overflow="hidden",p.src=c,x.insertElement(p,t,"body"),o(t,i,r),x.callBurl(n)}else{var h="Error trying to write ad. No ad for bid response id: ".concat(e);u(M,h,n)}}else{var v="Error trying to write ad. Cannot find ad by given id : ".concat(e);u(q,v)}}catch(t){var b="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(e," to the page:").concat(t.message);u(z,b)}else{var y="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(e," to the page. Missing document or adId");u(L,y)}},T.removeAdUnit=function(t){x.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.removeAdUnit",arguments),t?(x.isArray(t)?t:[t]).forEach(function(t){for(var e=0;eObject(u.timestamp)()},_=function(t){return t&&(t.status&&!h()([v.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET,v.BID_STATUS.RENDERED],t.status)||!t.status)},E=function(t){function e(e){return"string"==typeof e?[e]:g.isArray(e)?e:t.getAdUnitCodes()||[]}function n(){var e=t.getBidsReceived();return s.config.getConfig("useBidCache")||(e=e.filter(function(t){return T[t.adUnitCode]===t.auctionId})),a(e=e.filter(function(t){return Object(u.deepAccess)(t,"video.context")!==l.a}).filter(function(t){return"banner"!==t.mediaType||Object(d.c)([t.width,t.height])}).filter(_).filter(m),u.getOldestHighestCpmBid)}function f(){return t.getStandardBidderAdServerTargeting().map(function(t){return t.key}).concat(y).filter(u.uniques)}function p(t,e,n,r){return Object.keys(e.adserverTargeting).filter(E()).forEach(function(n){t.length&&t.filter(function(t){return function(n){return n.adUnitCode===e.adUnitCode&&n.adserverTargeting[t]}}(n)).forEach(function(t){return function(n){g.isArray(n.adserverTargeting[t])||(n.adserverTargeting[t]=[n.adserverTargeting[t]]),n.adserverTargeting[t]=n.adserverTargeting[t].concat(e.adserverTargeting[t]).filter(u.uniques),delete e.adserverTargeting[t]}}(n))}),t.push(e),t}function E(){var t=f();return function(e){return-1===t.indexOf(e)}}function S(t){return o({},t.adUnitCode,Object.keys(t.adserverTargeting).filter(E()).map(function(e){return o({},e.substring(0,20),[t.adserverTargeting[e]])}))}var w={},T={};return w.setLatestAuctionForAdUnit=function(t,e){T[t]=e},w.resetPresetTargeting=function(n){if(Object(u.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var r=e(n),i=t.getAdUnits().filter(function(t){return h()(r,t.code)});window.googletag.pubads().getSlots().forEach(function(t){b.forEach(function(e){i.forEach(function(n){n.code!==t.getAdUnitPath()&&n.code!==t.getSlotElementId()||t.setTargeting(e,null)})})})}},w.resetPresetTargetingAST=function(t){e(t).forEach(function(t){var e=window.apntag.getTag(t);if(e&&e.keywords){var n=Object.keys(e.keywords),r={};n.forEach(function(t){h()(b,t.toLowerCase())||(r[t]=e.keywords[t])}),window.apntag.modifyTag(t,{keywords:r})}})},w.getAllTargeting=function(t){var d=1=e.length?{value:void 0,done:!0}:(t=r(e,n),this._i+=t.length,{value:t,done:!1})})},68:function(t,e,n){var r=n(24),i=n(138),o=n(69),a=n(49)("IE_PROTO"),u=function(){},s="prototype",c=function(){var t,e=n(53)("iframe"),r=o.length;for(e.style.display="none",n(141).appendChild(e),e.src="javascript:",(t=e.contentWindow.document).open(),t.write("
        ")}(r.script,r.impression_id);var c=i(w[r.size_id].split("x").map(function(t){return Number(t)}),2);s.width=c[0],s.height=c[1]}s.rubiconTargeting=(Array.isArray(r.targeting)?r.targeting:[]).reduce(function(t,e){return t[e.key]=e.values[0],t},{rpfl_elemid:u.adUnitCode}),e.push(s)}else v.logError("Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:".concat(a),n,t);return e},[]).sort(function(t,e){return(e.cpm||0)-(t.cpm||0)})},getUserSyncs:function(t,e,n){if(!A&&t.iframeEnabled){var r="";return n&&"string"==typeof n.consentString&&("boolean"==typeof n.gdprApplies?r+="?gdpr=".concat(Number(n.gdprApplies),"&gdpr_consent=").concat(n.consentString):r+="?gdpr_consent=".concat(n.consentString)),A=!0,{type:"iframe",url:S+r}}},transformBidParams:function(t,e){return v.convertTypes({accountId:"number",siteId:"number",zoneId:"number"},t)}},A=!1;Object(b.registerBidder)(T)}},[472]),pbjsChunk([49],{530:function(t,e,n){t.exports=n(531)},531:function(t,e,n){"use strict";function r(t){t.renderer.push(function(){window.ANOutstreamVideo.renderAd({targetId:t.adUnitCode,adResponse:t.adResponse})})}Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0}),n.d(e,"spec",function(){return s});var i=n(0),o=n(1),a=n(12),u=n(2),s={code:"trustx",supportedMediaTypes:[u.b,u.d],isBidRequestValid:function(t){return!!t.params.uid},buildRequests:function(t,e){var n,r=[],o={},a={},u={},s="net";(t||[]).forEach(function(t){"gross"===t.params.priceType&&(s="gross"),n=t.bidderRequestId;var e=t.params.uid,c=t.adUnitCode;r.push(e);var f=i.parseSizesInput(t.sizes);a[e]||(a[e]={});var d=a[e];d[c]?d[c].bids.push(t):d[c]={adUnitCode:c,bids:[t],parents:[]};var l=d[c];f.forEach(function(t){u[t]=!0,o[e]||(o[e]={}),o[e][t]?o[e][t].push(l):o[e][t]=[l],l.parents.push({parent:o[e],key:t,uid:e})})});var c={u:i.getTopWindowUrl(),pt:s,auids:r.join(","),sizes:i.getKeys(u).join(","),r:n};return e&&(e.timeout&&(c.wtimeout=e.timeout),e.gdprConsent&&(e.gdprConsent.consentString&&(c.gdpr_consent=e.gdprConsent.consentString),c.gdpr_applies="boolean"==typeof e.gdprConsent.gdprApplies?Number(e.gdprConsent.gdprApplies):1)),{method:"GET",url:"//sofia.trustx.org/hb",data:i.parseQueryStringParameters(c).replace(/\&$/,""),bidsMap:o}},interpretResponse:function(t,e){var n=2-1}});var instance=window.Layzr({threshold:100});instance.on("src:before",function(t){t.addEventListener("load",function(e){t.parentElement.classList.add("loaded")})}),document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(t){instance.update().check().handlers(!0)}),DS.service("teadsBackfill",["$window",function(t){t.teadsNoFill=function(t){var e,n=window.innerWidth>969,r=window.innerWidthe?t:e}function a(){E.forEach(c)}function u(t,e){var n=e.visiblePx,r=e.visiblePercent;n&&r>=t.shownThreshold&&!t.seen?(t.seen=!0,setTimeout(function(){t.trigger("shown",new _("shown",e))},15)):(!n||r=0&&r.left>=0&&r.bottom1&&(a+=g(o,Math.floor(e/r),n-1,r)),a}function v(t,e){return i(e,o(t.bottom,0))-i(o(t.top,0),e)}function b(t){for(var e=t.offsetLeft,n=t.offsetTop;t=t.offsetParent;)e+=t.offsetLeft,n+=t.offsetTop;return{left:e,top:n}}function y(e,r){var i,o;return e=e.split(","),o=n.filter(n.map(e,function(e){return(i=t.querySelector(e))&&new m(i).on("shown",function(){n.invokeMap(o,"destroy"),r()})}))}var m,_,E=[];m=function(t,e){e=e||{},this.el=t,this.seen=!1,this.preload=!1,this.preloadThreshhold=e&&e.preloadThreshhold||0,this.shownThreshold=e&&e.shownThreshold||0,this.hiddenThreshold=e&&i(e.shownThreshold,e.hiddenThreshold)||0,E.push(this),c(this)},m.prototype={destroy:function(){E.splice(E.indexOf(this),1)}},r.enable(m.prototype),_=function(t,e){this.type=t,n.assign(this,e)},t.addEventListener("scroll",n.throttle(a,200)),this.getPageOffset=b,this.getLinearSpacialHash=g,this.getVerticallyVisiblePixels=v,this.getViewportHeight=f,this.getViewportWidth=d,this.isElementNotHidden=l,this.isElementInViewport=p,this.watchForAny=y,this.Visible=m}]);"use strict";var _typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e};!function(){function e(t,n,o){function r(c,s){if(!n[c]){if(!t[c]){var a="function"==typeof require&&require;if(!s&&a)return a(c,!0);if(i)return i(c,!0);var u=new Error("Cannot find module '"+c+"'");throw u.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",u}var l=n[c]={exports:{}};t[c][0].call(l.exports,function(e){return r(t[c][1][e]||e)},l,l.exports,e,t,n,o)}return n[c].exports}for(var i="function"==typeof require&&require,c=0;c1){if(i=e({path:"/"},o.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var s=new Date;s.setMilliseconds(s.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=s}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=n.write?n.write(r,t):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=encodeURIComponent(String(t)),t=t.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=t.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var a="";for(var u in i)i[u]&&(a+="; "+u,!0!==i[u]&&(a+="="+i[u]));return document.cookie=t+"="+r+a}t||(c={});for(var l=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],d=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,f=0;f-1&&(console.log("removing serviceworker"),a.unregister())}}catch(r){t=!0,n=r}finally{try{!e&&o.return&&o.return()}finally{if(t)throw n}}});var e=r("../../services/client/analytics-js");window.addEventListener("load",function(){navigator.serviceWorker.register("/sw.js").then(function(r){},function(r){console.error("ServiceWorker registration failed: ",r)})}),window.addEventListener("beforeinstallprompt",function(r){r.userChoice.then(function(r){"dismissed"===r.outcome?e.track("PWA - dismissed install prompt"):e.track("PWA - Added to Home Screen")})})}}()},{"../../services/client/analytics-js":2}],2:[function(r,e,t){var n=function(r){r=r||document.querySelectorAll("script.js-analytics-js-data")[0];var e=r.textContent;return JSON.parse(e)},i=function(r,e,t,i){var o=n(),a={};Object.assign(a,o,e),analytics.track(r,a,t,i)};e.exports.getDomEventData=n,e.exports.track=i},{}]},{},[1]);"use strict";var _typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e};!function(){function e(t,o,n){function r(c,s){if(!o[c]){if(!t[c]){var u="function"==typeof require&&require;if(!s&&u)return u(c,!0);if(i)return i(c,!0);var a=new Error("Cannot find module '"+c+"'");throw a.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",a}var f=o[c]={exports:{}};t[c][0].call(f.exports,function(e){return r(t[c][1][e]||e)},f,f.exports,e,t,o,n)}return o[c].exports}for(var i="function"==typeof require&&require,c=0;ct&&o-t1){if(i=e({path:"/"},n.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var s=new Date;s.setMilliseconds(s.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=s}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=o.write?o.write(r,t):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=encodeURIComponent(String(t)),t=t.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=t.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var u="";for(var a in i)i[a]&&(u+="; "+a,!0!==i[a]&&(u+="="+i[a]));return document.cookie=t+"="+r+u}t||(c={});for(var f=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],p=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,l=0;l-1&&(e.gdprConsent="1"),analytics.page(null,"pageView",e,{integrations:{All:!1,comScore:!0}})}function d(){var t=e("../../services/universal/membership");if(t.isMember())return t.getMembershipType()}function f(){return!window.sessionStorage.getItem("visitstarted")&&(window.sessionStorage.setItem("visitstarted","1"),!0)}function p(e,n){I(function(){function o(e){var t=document.body.querySelector("."+e);if(t){var n=t.dataset.uri;if(n&&n.split("/")[2]===e)return t}}var a=window.amplitude.getInstance(),u=n||0,l=a.options&&a.options.deviceId;if(!l&&u0&&(m["Affiliate Link"]="''…"),o("product")&&(m["Product Component"]="''…");var g=o("newsletter-signup");m["Includes Newsletter Signup"]=r(g),g&&(m["Newsletter Signup Placement"]="In Content"),analytics.page(m,{integrations:{All:!0,"Google Analytics":!1,comScore:!1}}),t.removeFromLocation()})}function m(e){var t=d();t&&(e.plan=t)}function v(e){var t=window.Scroll&&Scroll.config.detected;t&&(e.scrollUser=t)}function g(e){try{return parseInt(e)E?void console.error("RETRY LIMIT EXCEEDED"):void setTimeout(function(){e(t,n+1)},k)},A=void 0;return S}])},{"../../services/client/adblock-detector":3,"../../services/client/analytics-js":4,"../../services/universal/membership":5}],2:[function(e,t,n){!function(e){var o=!1;if("function"==typeof define&&define.amd&&(define(e),o=!0),"object"===(void 0===n?"undefined":_typeof(n))&&(t.exports=e(),o=!0),!o){var r=window.Cookies,i=window.Cookies=e();i.noConflict=function(){return window.Cookies=r,i}}}(function(){function e(){for(var e=0,t={};e1){if(i=e({path:"/"},o.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var a=new Date;a.setMilliseconds(a.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=a}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=n.write?n.write(r,t):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=encodeURIComponent(String(t)),t=t.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=t.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var s="";for(var u in i)i[u]&&(s+="; "+u,!0!==i[u]&&(s+="="+i[u]));return document.cookie=t+"="+r+s}t||(c={});for(var l=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],d=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,f=0;f1){if(i=e({path:"/"},o.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var s=new Date;s.setMilliseconds(s.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=s}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(r),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(r=c)}catch(e){}r=t.write?t.write(r,n):encodeURIComponent(String(r)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),n=encodeURIComponent(String(n)),n=n.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),n=n.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var u="";for(var a in i)i[a]&&(u+="; "+a,!0!==i[a]&&(u+="="+i[a]));return document.cookie=n+"="+r+u}n||(c={});for(var d=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],l=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,f=0;f1){if(i=e({path:"/"},r.defaults,i),"number"==typeof i.expires){var a=new Date;a.setMilliseconds(a.getMilliseconds()+864e5*i.expires),i.expires=a}i.expires=i.expires?i.expires.toUTCString():"";try{c=JSON.stringify(o),/^[\{\[]/.test(c)&&(o=c)}catch(e){}o=n.write?n.write(o,t):encodeURIComponent(String(o)).replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|3A|3C|3E|3D|2F|3F|40|5B|5D|5E|60|7B|7D|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=encodeURIComponent(String(t)),t=t.replace(/%(23|24|26|2B|5E|60|7C)/g,decodeURIComponent),t=t.replace(/[\(\)]/g,escape);var u="";for(var s in i)i[s]&&(u+="; "+s,!0!==i[s]&&(u+="="+i[s]));return document.cookie=t+"="+o+u}t||(c={});for(var f=document.cookie?document.cookie.split("; "):[],p=/(%[0-9A-Z]{2})+/g,d=0;d
      Facebook's Work With Phone Carriers Alarms Legal Experts
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 17:46
        Among the mega-corporations that surveil you, your cellphone carrier has always been one of the keenest monitors, in constant contact with the one small device you keep on you at almost every moment. A confidential Facebook document reviewed by The Intercept shows that the social network courts carriers, along with phone makers '-- some 100 different companies in 50 countries '-- by offering the use of even more surveillance data, pulled straight from your smartphone by Facebook itself.
        Offered to select Facebook partners, the data includes not just technical information about Facebook members' devices and use of Wi-Fi and cellular networks, but also their past locations, interests, and even their social groups. This data is sourced not just from the company's main iOS and Android apps, but from Instagram and Messenger as well. The data has been used by Facebook partners to assess their standing against competitors, including customers lost to and won from them, but also for more controversial uses like racially targeted ads.
        Some experts are particularly alarmed that Facebook has marketed the use of the information '-- and appears to have helped directly facilitate its use, along with other Facebook data '-- for the purpose of screening customers on the basis of likely creditworthiness. Such use could potentially run afoul of federal law, which tightly governs credit assessments.
        Facebook said it does not provide creditworthiness services and that the data it provides to cellphone carriers and makers does not go beyond what it was already collecting for other uses.
        Facebook's cellphone partnerships are particularly worrisome because of the extensive surveillance powers already enjoyed by carriers like AT&T and T-Mobile: Just as your internet service provider is capable of watching the data that bounces between your home and the wider world, telecommunications companies have a privileged vantage point from which they can glean a great deal of information about how, when, and where you're using your phone. AT&T, for example, states plainly in its privacy policy that it collects and stores information ''about the websites you visit and the mobile applications you use on our networks.'' Paired with carriers' calling and texting oversight, that accounts for just about everything you'd do on your smartphone.
        An Inside Look at ''Actionable Insights''You'd think that degree of continuous monitoring would be more than sufficient for a communications mammoth to operate its business '-- and perhaps for a while it was. But Facebook's ''Actionable Insights,'' a corporate data-sharing program, suggests that even the incredible visibility telecoms have into your daily life isn't enough '-- and Zuckerberg et al. can do them one better. Actionable Insights was announced last year in an innocuous, easy-to-miss post on Facebook's engineering blog. The article, titled ''Announcing tools to help partners improve connectivity,'' strongly suggested that the program was primarily aimed at solving weak cellular data connections around the world. ''To address this problem,'' the post began, ''we are building a diverse set of technologies, products, and partnerships designed to expand the boundaries of existing connectivity quality and performance, catalyze new market segments, and bring better access to the unconnected.'' What sort of monster would stand against better access for the unconnected?
        The blog post makes only a brief mention of Actionable Insights' second, less altruistic purpose: ''enabling better business decisions'' through ''analytics tools.'' According to materials reviewed by The Intercept and a source directly familiar with the program, the real boon of Actionable Insights lies not in its ability to fix spotty connections, but to help chosen corporations use your personal data to buy more tightly targeted advertising.
        The source, who discussed Actionable Insights on the condition of anonymity because they were not permitted to speak to the press, explained that Facebook has offered the service to carriers and phone makers ostensibly of free charge, with access to Actionable Insights granted as a sweetener for advertising relationships. According to the source, the underlying value of granting such gratis access to Actionable Insights in these cases isn't simply to help better service cell customers with weak signals, but also to ensure that telecoms and phone makers keep buying more and more carefully targeted Facebook ads. It's exactly this sort of quasi-transactional data access that's become a hallmark of Facebook's business, allowing the company to plausibly deny that it ever sells your data while still leveraging it for revenue. Facebook may not be ''selling'' data through Actionable Insights in the most baldly literal sense of the word '-- there's no briefcase filled with hard drives being swapped for one containing cash '-- but the relationship based on spending and monetization certainly fits the spirit of a sale. A Facebook spokesperson declined to answer whether the company charges for Actionable Insights access.
        The confidential Facebook document provides an overview of Actionable Insights and espouses its benefits to potential corporate users. It shows how the program, ostensibly created to help improve underserved cellular customers, is pulling in far more data than how many bars you're getting. According to one portion of the presentation, the Facebook mobile app harvests and packages eight different categories of information for use by over 100 different telecom companies in over 50 different countries around the world, including usage data from the phones of children as young as 13. These categories include use of video, demographics, location, use of Wi-Fi and cellular networks, personal interests, device information, and friend homophily, an academic term of art. A 2017 article on social media friendship from the Journal of the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology defined ''homophily'' in this context as ''the tendency of nodes to form relations with those who are similar to themselves.'' In other words, Facebook is using your phone to not only provide behavioral data about you to cellphone carriers, but about your friends as well.
        From these eight categories alone, a third party could learn an extraordinary amount about patterns of users' daily life, and although the document claims that the data collected through the program is ''aggregated and anonymized,'' academic studies have found time and again that so-called anonymized user data can be easily de-anonymized. Today, such claims of anonymization and aggregation are essentially boilerplate from companies who wager you'll be comfortable with them possessing a mammoth trove of personal observations and behavioral predictions about your past and future if the underlying data is sufficiently neutered and grouped with your neighbor's.
        A Facebook spokesperson told The Intercept that Actionable Insights doesn't collect any data from user devices that wasn't already being collected anyway. Rather, this spokesperson said Actionable Insights repackages the data in novel ways useful to third-party advertisers in the telecom and smartphone industries.
        Material reviewed by The Intercept show demographic information presented in a dashboard-style view, with maps showing customer locations at the county and city level. A Facebook spokesperson said they ''didn't think it goes more specific than zip code.'' But armed with location data beamed straight from your phone, Facebook could technically provide customer location accurate to a range of several meters, indoors or out.
        Targeting By Race and Likely CreditworthinessDespite Facebook's repeated assurances that user information is completely anonymized and aggregated, the Actionable Insights materials undermine this claim. One Actionable Insights case study from the overview document promotes how an unnamed North American cellular carrier had previously used its Actionable Insights access to target a specific, unnamed racial group. Facebook's targeting of ''multicultural affinity groups,'' as the company formerly referred to race, was discontinued in 2017 after the targeting practice was widely criticized as potentially discriminatory.
        Another case study described how Actionable Insights can be used to single out individual customers on the basis of creditworthiness. In this example, Facebook explained how one of its advertising clients, based outside the U.S., wanted to exclude individuals from future promotional offers on the basis of their credit. Using data provided through Actionable Insights, a Data Science Strategist, a role for which Facebook continues to hire, was able to generate profiles of customers with desirable and undesirable credit standings. The advertising client then used these profiles to target or exclude Facebook users who resembled these profiles.
        ''What they're doing is filtering Facebook users on creditworthiness criteria and potentially escaping the application of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. '... It's no different from Equifax providing the data to Chase.''The use of so-called lookalike audiences is common in digital advertising, allowing marketers to take a list of existing customers and let Facebook match them to users that resemble the original list based on factors like demographics and stated interests. As Facebook puts it in an online guide for advertisers, ''a Lookalike Audience is a way to reach new people who are likely to be interested in your business because they're similar to your best existing customers.''
        But these lookalike audiences aren't just potential new customers '-- they can also be used to exclude unwanted customers in the future, creating a sort of ad targeting demographic blacklist.
        By promoting this technique in its confidential document Facebook markets to future corporate clients, and appears to have worked with the advertising client to enable, the targeting of credit-eligible individuals based at least in part on behavioral data pulled from their phones '-- in other words, to allow advertisers to decide who deserves to view an ad based only on some invisible and entirely inscrutable mechanism.
        There's no indication of how exactly Facebook's data could be used by a third party to determine who is creditworthy, nor has there ever been any indication from the company that how you use its products influences whether you'll be singled out and excluded from certain offers in the future. Perhaps it's as simple as Facebook enabling companies to say People with bad credit look and act like this on social networks, a case of correlational profiling quite different from our commonsense notions of good personal finance hygiene required to keep our credit scores polished. How consumers would be expected to navigate this invisible, unofficial credit-scoring process, given that they're never informed of its existence, remains an open question.
        This mechanism is also reminiscent of so-called redlining, the historical (and now illegal) practice of denying mortgages and other loans to marginalized groups on the basis of their demographics, according to Ashkan Sultani, a privacy researcher and former chief technologist of the Federal Trade Commission.
        The thought of seeing fewer ads from Facebook might strike some as an unalloyed good '-- it certainly seems to beat the alternative. But credit reporting, profoundly dull as it might sound, is an enormously sensitive practice with profound economic consequences, determining who can and can't, say, own or rent a home, or get easy financial access to a new cellphone. Facebook here seems to be allowing companies to reach you on the basis of a sort of unofficial credit score, a gray market determination of whether you're a good consumer based on how much you and your habits resemble a vast pool of strangers.
        Facebook here seems to be allowing companies to reach you on the basis of a sort of unofficial credit score, a gray market determination of whether you're a good consumer based on how much you and your habits resemble a vast pool of strangers.In an initial conversation with a Facebook spokesperson, they stated that the company does ''not provide creditworthiness services, nor is that a feature of Actionable Insights.'' When asked if Actionable Insights facilitates the targeting of ads on the basis of creditworthiness, the spokesperson replied, ''No, there isn't an instance where this is used.'' It's difficult to reconcile this claim with the fact that Facebook's own promotional materials tout how Actionable Insights can enable a company to do exactly this. Asked about this apparent inconsistency between what Facebook tells advertising partners and what it told The Intercept, the company declined to discuss the matter on the record, but provided the following statement: ''We do not, nor have we ever, rated people's credit worthiness for Actionable Insights or across ads, and Facebook does not use people's credit information in how we show ads.'' Crucially, this statement doesn't contradict the practice of Facebook enabling others to do this kind of credit-based targeting using the data it provides. The fact that Facebook promoted this use of its data as a marketing success story certainly undermines the idea that it does not serve ads targeted on the basis of credit information.
        A Facebook spokesperson declined to answer whether the company condones or endorses advertising partners using Facebook user data for this purpose, or whether it audits how Actionable Insights is used by third parties, but noted its partners are only permitted to use Actionable Insights for ''internal'' purposes and agree not to share the data further. The spokesperson did not answer whether the company believes that this application of Actionable Insights data is compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
        According to Joel Reidenberg, a professor and director of Fordham's Center on Law and Information Policy, Facebook's credit-screening business seems to inhabit a fuzzy nether zone with regards to the FCRA, neither matching the legal definition of a credit agency nor falling outside the activities the law was meant to regulate. ''It sure smells like the prescreening provisions of the FCRA,'' Reidenberg told The Intercept. ''From a functional point of view, what they're doing is filtering Facebook users on creditworthiness criteria and potentially escaping the application of the FCRA.'' Reidenberg questioned the potential for Facebook to invisibly incorporate data on race, gender, or marital status in its screening process, exactly the sort of practice that made legislation like the FCRA necessary in the first place. Reidenberg explained that there are ''all sorts of discrimination laws in terms of granting credit,'' and that Facebook ''may also be in a gray area with respect to those laws because they're not offering credit, they're offering an advertising space,'' a distinction he described as ''a very slippery slope.'' An academic study published in April found that Facebook's ad display algorithms were inherently biased with regards to gender and race.
        Reidenberg also doubted whether Facebook would be exempt from regulatory scrutiny if it's providing data to a third party that's later indirectly used to exclude people based on their credit, rather than doing the credit score crunching itself, la Equifax or Experian. ''If Facebook is providing a consumer's data to be used for the purposes of credit screening by the third party, Facebook would be a credit reporting agency,'' Reidenberg explained. ''The [FCRA] statute applies when the data 'is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for '... credit.''' If Facebook is providing data about you and your friends that eventually ends up in a corporate credit screening operation, ''It's no different from Equifax providing the data to Chase to determine whether or not to issue a credit card to the consumer,'' according to Reidenberg.
        An FTC spokesperson declined to comment.
        Chris Hoofnagle, a privacy scholar at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, told The Intercept that this sort of consumer rating scheme has worrying implications for matters far wider than whether T-Mobile et al. will sell you a discounted phone. For those concerned with their credit score, the path to virtue has always been a matter of commonsense personal finance savvy. The jump from conventional wisdom like ''pay your bills on time'' to completely inscrutable calculations based on Facebook's observation of your smartphone usage and ''friend homophily'' isn't exactly intuitive. ''We're going to move to a world where you won't know how to act,'' said Hoofnagle. ''If we think about the world as rational consumers engaged in utility maximalization in the world, what we're up against is this, this shadow system. How do you compete?''
      Trump has made America less racist | Spectator USA
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 16:14
        Donald Trump Politics US Politics
        Anti-black and anti-Hispanic prejudice has declined since 2016, new study shows Donald Trump boards Air Force One at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport
        The election of Donald Trump has, of course, unleashed the latent racist which lurks within millions of Americans. We know this because enlightened opinion keeps telling us so. The New Yorker, for example, ran a piece in November 2016 declaring 'Hate on rise since Trump's election', and quoting a list of incidents collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center '' including the experience of a girl in Colorado who was allegedly told by a white man: 'Now that Trump is president I am going to shoot you and all the blacks I can find'. TIME magazine, too, ran a story in the same month announcing 'Racist incidents are up since Donald Trump's election'. In March 2017 the Nation asserted 'Donald Trump's rise has coincided with an explosion in hate groups', claiming that 100 racist organizations had been founded since Trump began his presidential campaign.
        And so it goes on. Just as with Britain's vote for Brexit, Trump's strident language and his concentration on issues such as migration is supposed to have coarsened political discourse '' legitimizing racist and xenophobic opinions in people who might otherwise have been shamed into silence. By this narrative, even slightly immoderate speeches, posters and campaigns by politicians become magnified through the lens of public opinion into something much more sinister. A speech on migration, goes the theory, can all too easily erupt into bar room arguments and end with a Muslim or a black man having his head kicked in.
        It sounds vaguely plausible, but is it true? Not if a new paper by a pair of sociologists at the University of Pennsylvania is anything to go by. Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington set out to measure the effect of Trump's election on anti-black and anti-Hispanic prejudice, using a randomly-selected panel of 2,500 Americans whose changing opinions have been under study since 2008. The academics report that they had been expecting to measure a rise in racist opinions, writing: 'The normalization of prejudice or opinion leadership both lead us to expect that expressed prejudice may have increased in this period, especially among Republicans or Trump supporters'. They had been led to expect this, they say, through an extensive reading of recent literature in social sciences which, they say, supports the notion that racist attitudes lie dormant inside many people, waiting to be triggered by certain events '' of which the election of Donald Trump might be one. There could, after all, hardly be anything more calculated to awaken an incipient racist than the president calling Mexicans a bunch of rapists.
        Yet the study found exactly the opposite. Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected. But then after 2016 it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant. Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters.
        It is a similar story to that in Britain, where the attempt to link Brexit with rising xenophobia has been somewhat debunked. A murder of a Polish man in the town of Harlow in August 2016 was widely attributed to Brexit '' but eventually declared by police not to have been a hate crime at all. Similarly, a smashed window in a Spanish restaurant in South London on the night of the Brexit vote was initially widely reported to be an expression of euphoria on the part of xenophobes '' but was later revealed to be an attempted burglary.
        So has Trump actually been a good thing for race relations in the US, and if so, why? The University of Pennsylvania study is a little shy on this point, but raises the theory that people have found Trump's pronouncements on migrants, Mexicans and so on to be so reprehensible that it has inspired them to think about their own attitudes. It is possible, they write 'that Trump's rhetoric clari¬ed anti-racist norms'....given that the declines in prejudice appear concentrated in the period after Trump's election, it seems quite plausible that it was not simply Trump's rhetoric but also his accession to the presidency that pushed public opinion in the opposite direction'.
        Well, maybe. It might be added that the election of Barack Obama also caught liberal opinion unawares. That event, it might be recalled, was supposed to be the breakthrough which led to a kinder, gentler America. Instead it seemed to be followed by a more fractious period in race relations, culminating in race riots in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014. Maybe social science has got it the wrong way round: it was the sight of a mixed race man in the White House who brought out in the inner racist in Americans who are inclined towards those feelings, while the reassuring sight of white man back in the Oval Office has calmed them down.
        Show comments
      A China Food Crisis More Danger Than Trade War?
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 12:45
        A China Food Crisis More Danger Than Trade War? By F. William Engdahl20 May 2019 Image: License: US Govt Work Public Domain https://bit.ly/2LUC8z5
        China faces a threat to its agriculture that could do far more damage to her political stability and economy than the escalating USA tariff war. In recent months cases of deadly African Swine Fever (ASF) among the pig population of the world's largest pig producer have forced drastic killing off of the pig population since cases were first detected last August. On top of that, more recently, Chinese grain producers have been hit by what can only be called a plague of a dangerous pest called ''Fall Armyworms'', that devastates corn, rice and other grain crops. The combination hitting China as its leaders are in the midst of an escalating major trade war with the United States, could affect the world geopolitical map in ways few can imagine..
        Officially, the Chinese government appears to be responding with clear determination to take necessary measures to eradicate the deadly African Swine Fever (ASF) outbreak. Beijing authorities claim that more than 1 million pigs to date have been killed. However, that has not prevented the pig contamination from spreading to all provinces of China and even beyond.
        In the Chinese diet today pork is the main source of protein. China has the world's largest pig population, over half, or close to 700 million swine. The problem is that African Swine Fever is highly deadly, almost 100% lethal to pigs, (though not, according to evidence, to humans). The disease is highly infectious which is why entire herds must be immediately destroyed and there is no medical cure known for it. The virus can exist on surfaces or in meat for days, even weeks.
        In an April report the US Department of Agriculture predicted that China will have to kill 134 million pigs, equal to the entire US pig production. That would be the worst drop recorded since the USDA began monitoring in the mid-1970's.
        An April, 2019 research report by the Rabobank in Holland, a major world agriculture lender, estimates that actual ASF kills in China are significantly higher than the reported 1 million. They estimate that since initial outbreak in August 2018, deadly ASF has infected between 150 to 200 million of China's pig population, some 100 times worse than the official numbers and has spread to every province in mainland China. The report states, ''In 2019, we expect Chinese pork production losses of 25% to 35% in response to ASF. Reports of extreme losses (over 50%) are limited to confined areas.'' The report adds, ''These losses cannot easily be replaced by other proteins (chicken, duck, seafood, beef, and sheepmeat), nor will larger imports be able to fully offset the loss'...this will result in a net supply gap of almost 10 million metric tons in the total 2019 animal protein supply.''
        That is far more than official data suggest and, if true, will have drastic effect on not only animal prices, but could devastate millions of small China farmers unable to survive the losses. Accurate data are lacking as the Chinese pig production is dominated by small farmers where health security measures are more lax and contagion more likely.
        Unfortunately, in a clear effort to calm the situation, the China Ministry of Agriculture issued a statement this January that there was no ''ASF epidemic,'' and that the government was taking adequate measures to bring the situation under control, this, though the disease had then spread to 24 mainland provinces. The suspicious timing of the reassuring statement was two weeks before the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations, the time of the largest pig consumption of the year. Ironically this year is also the Year of the Pig in China.
        The deadly pig disease has also spread to neighboring Vietnam, a major pig producer where Rabobank expects at least 10% of the herd will be destroyed, and to Cambodia. As well it has spread to Hong Kong and to Taiwan and Mongolia. The problem is that the risk of reinfection is large and experts estimate that under best of conditions, it will take China years to rebuild its pig herds.
        Then Fall Armyworm Plague
        At the same time as China's pig production is in its worst crisis in decades, its grain crops are being hit by another devastating plague that is every bit as difficult to combat, spread of what is called the ''Fall Armyworm,'' the common name for the larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda species of moth.
        According to a recent report, prepared for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the devastating pest, first discovered in Yunnan Province January 29, entering from Myanmar, may have already spread to a range of southern Chinese provinces including Yunnan, Guangxi, Guangdong, Guizhou, Hunan and Hainan. The USDA estimates that the Fall Armyworm, which can travel an astonishing 100 kilometers in a single night, will spread across all of the country's grain-producing area in the coming few months. A typical Fall Armyworm moth will travel 500 kilometers in its lifespan, laying 1,000 to 1,500 eggs in total. The eggs hatch into larvae within a few days.
        Chinese agriculture exports report that the worm has spread much faster than they expected. The worm is extremely difficult to eradicate. The USDA notes that, ''The Fall Armyworm has no natural predators in China and its presence may result in lower production and crop quality of corn, rice, wheat, sorghum, sugarcane, cotton, soybeans and peanuts, among other cash crops.'' The report adds that, '''...most farmers in China do not have the financial resources and training needed to effectively manage Fall Armyworm. Even if a mitigation program is employed, costly control measures (mainly chemical sprays) will drag producer margins into negative territory for farmers of most crops that could be affected.''
        China is the world's second largest corn producer after the USA, forecast to produce 257 million tons of corn in 2018-19, according to the USDA. In the past three years, the Fall Armyworm, endemic to North America, has caused extensive economic damage across Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. In just two years the Fall Armyworm colonized three-quarters of Africa, according to British-based Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI).
        Meanwhile in response to US trade tariffs put in place by the Trump administration, Beijing has restricted purchase of American soybeans, making domestic soy and other grain crops increasingly important for Chinese agriculture. And poor weather conditions have impacted Chinese production of soybeans and corn due to droughts and unusually cold weather.
        The double blows from African Swine Fever and the Fall Armyworm, combined with the latest escalation of US tariffs on Chinese imports, amid signs that China's overall economy is slowing significantly, create a potentially dangerous situation whereby hundreds of thousands of Chinese small farmers are likely economically ruined and Chinese domestic food price inflation rises sharply. That is definitely what China does not need at this point.
        F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine''New Eastern Outlook''
        Back
      Universal credit is 'Orwellian', says former high court judge | Universal credit | The Guardian
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:54
        Sir Stephen Sedley says digital benefits system is also failing to meet legal obligations
        A report suggests one in five universal credit claimants risk falling into debt because of administrative errors.Photograph: AlamyA former high court judge has described universal credit as ''Orwellian'' because of its tendency to create and exacerbate misery for claimants even while it professes to be rescuing them from hardship.
        Sir Stephen Sedley's comments about the troubled digital benefits system accompanied a report that revealed hundreds of claimants risked falling into debt because the system had miscalculated their monthly benefit payments.
        Claimants who were underpaid, or overpaid, sums amounting in some cases to hundreds of pounds a month were routinely unable to work out the correct payment, or how they could challenge the decision, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) report said.
        The charity criticised the ''opaque'' way in which individuals' monthly benefits payments were calculated, and said the lack of information provided to claimants who wished to challenge the calculation was in some cases unlawful.
        It cited the case of a working mother who was left £400 a month worse off after universal credit neglected to include a child element for her daughter or a work allowance, an error only spotted when she went to a welfare rights adviser.
        Universal credit rolls six different working-age benefits into one and CPAG said this means it is difficult for claimants to unpick the different components of the payment or work out whether it is correct.
        One in five of 1,110 cases gathered by the charity as part of a universal credit monitoring project involved administrative errors by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which were likely to result in the claimant being paid the wrong amount.
        Sedley, a former lord justice of appeal and now a visiting professor at Oxford University, said universal credit was repeatedly failing to meet its legal obligations to make it clear why a particular decision had been made, or how claimants could appeal if they thought it was wrong.
        ''People in need are left to guess at and grope for things which should be clear and tangible. The consequences are not limited to over- or underpayment. They feed into the stress and worry that so many people managing on low incomes experience, which in turn can affect family life for children growing up in these environments,'' he said.
        ''There is something Orwellian about a system which is intended to alleviate hardship yet is administered in ways which generate and aggravate human misery. Whether this is happening by accident or by design is an argument for another time and place.''
        CPAG said spotting errors was difficult for claimants, while universal credit helpline staff were often unable to help because they did not have access to the calculations, which had been made automatically by the digital system. It called for payments to be made more transparent and easier to understand.
        The charity's chief executive, Alison Garnham, said: ''The DWP must improve the information it provides so that universal credit claimants are not floundering in the dark about their award. Clear and accessible information on how decisions are made and your right to appeal is the bare minimum we should expect from a modern benefit.''
        The report cited a self-employed father with accounting experience who was unable to work out from his online statement how his payment had been calculated. ''I can't possibly see how an average person with less than an accounting degree can deal with all this stuff, because it was complicated for me,'' he said.
        The report concluded: ''The combination of poor decision making and a system that is not transparent about how decisions have been made is causing significant hardship in people's lives.''
        A DWP spokesperson said: ''More than 1.8 million claimants receive a monthly statement advising them of their entitlement, how it has been calculated and what to do if they think the payment is incorrect.
        ''Help is also available from work coaches, the freephone Universal Credit helpline, gov.uk and through our 'Help to Claim' partnership with Citizens Advice.''
      What is universal credit - and what's the problem? - BBC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:52
        Image copyright Getty Images Universal credit has proved controversial almost from the beginning, with reports of IT issues, massive overspends and administrative problems.
        It's being rolled out across the UK. But now concerns are being raised that 3.2 million working families will lose £48 a week - about £2,500 a year- compared with the old system.
        The system has been made significantly less generous since it was announced.
        What is it?Universal credit is a benefit for working-age people, replacing six benefits and merging them into one payment:
        income supportincome-based jobseeker's allowanceincome-related employment and support allowancehousing benefitchild tax credit working tax creditIt was designed to make claiming benefits simpler.
        A single universal credit payment is paid directly into claimants' bank accounts to cover the benefits for which they are eligible.
        Claimants then have to pay costs such as rent out of their universal credit payment (though there is a provision for people who are in rent arrears or have difficulty managing their money to have their rent paid directly to their landlord).
        The latest available figures show that there were 1.1 million universal credit claimants in August.
        This makes up about half of all households claiming unemployment benefit, but only 10% of households claiming housing support and 2% of those claiming disability-related support.
        Labour has promised it would overhaul the system, with a spokesperson saying: "Universal credit in its current form simply isn't working, it is causing greater poverty and anxiety wherever it is rolled out, and we are committed to a root-and-branch review of the social security system."
        How does it work?The idea of universal credit is that it can be claimed by people whether they are in or out of work.
        There's no limit to the number of hours you can work per week if you receive it, but your payment reduces gradually as you earn more.
        It is designed to mean that no-one faces a situation where they would be better off claiming benefits than working.
        Under the old system many faced a "cliff edge", where people on a low income would lose a big chunk of their benefits in one go as soon as they started working more than 16 hours.
        In the new system, benefit payments are reduced at a consistent rate as income and earnings increase - for every extra £1 you earn after tax, you will lose 63p in benefits.
        Universal credit is designed to be paid in arrears once a person's monthly income has been assessed. So new claimants have to wait 35 days before receive their first payment (four weeks to assess the last month's earnings plus a further week to process the payment).
        Will some people lose money?As the benefit is rolled out, claimants will gradually be moved from the old style benefits on to universal credit.
        Downing Street says £3bn in total has been set aside to ease this process, ensuring that no-one moving from the old to the new system will lose out initially.
        New claimants won't benefit from the protection and if people's circumstances change or if they come off benefits and then go back on them, they will lose this transitional protection.
        The independent Office for Budget Responsibility says 400,000 claimants will receive the protection.
        Think tank the Resolution Foundation said: "The long list of conditions that are deemed to reflect a change in circumstance, bringing such support to an end, is likely to mean relatively short durations of protection," in a report last year.
        Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey told the BBC: "I have said we made tough decisions and some people will be worse off."
        But she said: "If those people can work, what they will be losing is benefits, but what they have got now is work. Work will be paying. Their wage will be increasing."
        What's gone wrong?Universal credit has been in the headlines again and again since it was first announced in 2010.
        The project cost many times more than originally predicted and has taken far longer than expected.
        The National Audit Office, which oversees government spending, said that the universal credit programme was "driven by an ambitious timescale" and that it had suffered from "weak management, ineffective control and poor governance".
      Universal credit savaged by public spending watchdog | Society | The Guardian
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:48
        The government's ambitious change to the benefits system, universal credit, fails to deliver promised financial savings or employment benefits and leaves thousands of vulnerable claimants in hardship, according to the public spending watchdog.
        The National Audit Office effectively demolishes ministerial claims for universal credit, concluding that the much-delayed flagship welfare programme may end up costing more than the benefit system it replaces, cannot prove it helps more claimants into work and is unlikely to ever deliver value for money.
        The NAO report paints a damning picture of a system that despite more than £1bn in investment, eight years in development and a much hyped digital-only approach to transforming welfare, is still in many respects unwieldy, inefficient and reliant on basic, manual processes.
        Amyas Morse, the head of the NAO, said: ''We think the larger claims for universal credit, such as boosted employment, are unlikely to be demonstrable at any point in future. Nor for that matter will value for money.''
        Opposition politicians and campaigners seized on the report to renew calls for universal credit to be delayed and its multiple design flaws fixed before the government continues its rollout to millions more claimants over the next four years.
        Margaret Greenwood, the shadow secretary for work and pensions, said: ''This report shows just how disastrously wrong the government has got the rollout of universal credit. It has shamelessly ignored warning after warning about the devastating impact its flagship welfare reform has had on people's lives.
        ''The government is accelerating the rollout in the face of all of the evidence, using human beings as guinea pigs. It must fix the fundamental flaws in universal credit and make sure that vulnerable people are not pushed into poverty because of its policies.''
        What is universal credit?
        Universal credit (UC) is the supposed flagship reform of the benefits system, rolling together six benefits (including unemployment and benefits, and tax credits) into one, online-only system. The theoretical aim, for which there was general support across the political spectrum, was to simplify the system and increase the incentives for people to move off benefits into work.
        What is the biggest problem?
        The original design set out a minimum 42-day wait for a first payment to claimants when they moved to UC (in practice this is often up to 60 days). After sustained pressure, the government announced in the autumn 2017 budget that the wait would be reduced to 35 days from February 2018. This will partially mitigate the impact on many claimants of having no income for six weeks. The wait has led to rent arrears and evictions, hunger (food banks in UC areas report notable increases in referrals), use of expensive credit and mental distress.
        Ministers have expanded the availability of hardship loans (now repayable over a year) to help new claimants while they wait for payment. Housing benefit will now continue for an extra two weeks after the start of a UC claim. However, critics say the five-week wait is still too long and want it reduced to two or three weeks.
        Are there other problems?
        Plenty. Multibillion-pound cuts to work allowances imposed by the former chancellor George Osborne mean UC is far less generous than originally envisaged. According to the Resolution Foundation thinktank, about 2.5m low-income working households will be more than £1,000 a year worse off when they move to UC, reducing work incentives.
        Landlords are worried that the level of rent arrears accrued by tenants on UC could lead to a rise in evictions. It's also not very user-friendly: claimants complain the system is complex, unreliable and difficult to manage, particularly if you have no internet access.
        And there is concern that UC cannot deliver key promises: a critical study found it does not deliver savings, cannot prove it gets more people into work, and has plunged vulnerable claimants into hardship.
        Frank Field, who chairs the Commons work and pensions select committee, said the report exploded constant assertions by ministers that all was well with universal credit. The Labour MP said a culture of ministerial denial about the project's problems over the years meant it was now ''mega-costly'' to either continue or halt it.
        ''The universal credit we have seen is a shambles, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. Sadly this report will make little difference if the senior officers running universal credit remain firmly entrenched in la-la land,'' he said.
        Although £2bn has been spent on creating and running universal credit, IT and contractor problems mean it is now running six years behind schedule. While an estimated 8 million people are expected to be on the benefit by the time it is fully rolled out in 2023, just 850,000 are presently claiming it.
        Despite evidence that universal credit is failing to deliver on its core promises, the NAO concludes that it is too complex and would cost too much to halt the programme at this stage. ''There is really no practical choice but to keep on keeping on with the rollout,'' said Morse.
        The Department for Work and Pensions launched a vigorous defence of its flagship welfare reform, insisting it was operating effectively, and represented an improvement on old-style benefits. It said the NAO was incorrect to conclude the benefits of the programme could never be demonstrated.
        A DWP spokesman said: ''Previous administrations poured billions into an outdated system with a complex myriad of benefits, which locked some people into cycles of welfare dependency. We are building a benefit system fit for the 21stcentury, providing flexible, person-centred support, with evidence showing universal credit claimants getting into work faster and staying in work longer.
        ''Universal credit is good value for money and is forecast to realise a return on investment of £34bn over 10 years against a cost of £2bn, with 200,000 more people in work. Furthermore 83% of claimants are satisfied with the service and the majority agree that it 'financially motivates' them to work.''
        However, the DWP came in for strong criticism from the NAO, which characterised the approach to managing the programme as defensive, insensitive to claimants and dismissive when alerted to practical problems in the system by delivery partners such as landlords and welfare advisers.
        ''This has led it too often dismiss evidence of claimants' difficulties and hardship instead of working with these bodies to establish and evidence base for what it actually happening,'' the report says. ''The result has been a dialogue of claim and counter claim and gives the unhelpful impression of a department that is unsympathetic to claimants.''
        Universal credit rolls six major working-age benefits into one monthly payment, including job seeker's allowance, tax credits and housing benefit. Its central aims are to simplify the benefits system, make it more efficient and to provide incentives for claimants to enter work, or work more hours.
        But the NAO says it has ''significant doubts'' that these aims can be achieved. Ministerial claims for universal credit are in some cases are theoretical and based on ''unproven assumptions''. It says that a central ministerial claim, that the system will lead to 200,000 more people in work, cannot be measured or proved.
        Ministers were forced to make changes to the benefit last year after a revolt by Tory backbenchers shocked by the hardship endured by many claimants. Its handling was even criticised by its political architect, the former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who called on ministers in March to reverse cuts to the benefit.
        Gillian Guy, the chief executive of Citizens Advice, said: ''The government must take action to fix these unacceptable problems with universal credit, ensuring people are paid on time and that adequate support is in place. This is especially important as the pace of the rollout increases.''
      Coming soon: the great universal credit deception | Aditya Chakrabortty | Opinion | The Guardian
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:43
        H ow to sell the unsellable? How to pretend utter chaos is a plan coming together? How to persuade the public, who just refuse to buy it, to at least keep on paying for it? I believe I have found the answer.
        It comes in the form of an internal memo from the Department for Work and Pensions that somehow floated past my desk. Published on the staff intranet just a few days ago, on 2 May, it is signed by three of the department's most senior officials, including the DWP's director of communications and Neil Couling, its head of universal credit. And it is that toxically controversial benefit which is its subject.
        Rather than halt UC, the DWP's managers say they will respond 'in a different way '... to anything we've done before'
        Addressed to the department's employees, the letter sympathises: ''We share your justified frustration when our hard work '' in particular our work on Universal Credit '' is portrayed incorrectly and/or negatively in the media.'' The circular condemns this ''negativity and scaremongering'', and blames it for putting people off even applying for the benefit.
        It was said that Steve Jobs could conjure up a ''reality distortion field'', bending facts into a parallel universe to spur on Apple designers to achieve the impossible. I can only assume that the DWP's overlords are creating their own distortion of reality, because I cannot think of a single bigger policy failure this decade than universal credit.
        After years of ministers pretending otherwise, Amber Rudd, the DWP secretary, now admits universal credit's introduction has left people so short of cash that they have resorted to food banks. What Iain Duncan Smith hailed in 2011 as a transformation of welfare has turned into something grotesque, with massive delays and huge flaws both of administration and design, repeatedly damned by MP select committees. The independent National Audit Office judges that universal credit has neither saved public money nor helped people into work. But it has left thousands of vulnerable claimants penniless, while others starve and even lose their homes. In a House of Commons debate last summer the London Labour MP Catherine West recounted how one of her constituents had ''fallen off benefits'' and ended up ''sleeping in a tent in a bin chamber'' on a housing estate.
        Such are the horrors whose very documentation by journalists the DWP letter dismisses as ''unfair''. Rather than halt universal credit, as demanded by so many groups, the department's managers now say they will respond ''in a different way '... very different to anything we've done before''.
        What follows is an elaborate media strategy to manufacture a Whitehall fantasy, one in which the benefits system is running like a dream while a Conservative government generously helps people on the escalator to prosperity. It begins at the end of this month with a giant advert wrapped around the cover of the Metro newspaper; inside will be a further four-page advertorial feature. This will ''myth-bust the common inaccuracies reported on UC''. What's more, ''the features won't look or feel like DWP or UC '' you won't see our branding '... We want to grab the readers' attention and make them wonder who has done this 'UC uncovered' investigation.''
        Not only is this a costly exercise, with a Metro wraparound going for a headline rate of £250,000 (of your money, let's not forget), but the Advertising Standards Authority will doubtless be interested in that description of the feature. Its guidelines stipulate that''marketers and publishers must make clear that advertorials are marketing communications''.
        Two and a half million adults pick up a daily copy of the Metro freesheet, and they will see these advertorials every week for nine weeks. Meanwhile the secretary of state, Amber Rudd, will invite ''a wide range of journalists at regional and national publications '... to come [to a jobcentre] and see the great work we do''. Doubtless, the Jobcentres will be carefully chosen and everything will be arranged so that when the dignitaries descend, all will be as precisely ordered as the innards of a Swiss watch. Perhaps it's not too indelicate to mention here that the Tory party is weeks into an unannounced leadership contest, during which plummy columns commending Rudd for turning round a failed service do no harm to her prospects.
        Then comes the letter's grand reveal: BBC2 has commissioned a documentary series, which is ''looking to intelligently explore UC'' by filming inside three jobcentres. ''This is a fantastic opportunity for us '' we've been involved in the process from the outset, and we continue working closely with the BBC to ensure a balanced and insightful piece of television.'' Wading through such adjectives, one remembers how the most important of the letter's signatories, Neil Couling, told Holyrood parliamentarians that the rise of food banks was down to ''poor people maximising their economic opportunities'' and that ''many benefit recipients welcome the jolt that '... sanctions can give them''.
        When the BBC's Panorama last November went to Flintshire in north Wales and found single, elderly men being made homeless as a result of universal credit, and the local council in meltdown, the DWP criticised the corporation for its ''lack of balance'', even complaining that the interview with a minister was ''unfairly cut''. A Tory backbencher was wheeled out to declare the investigation ''fake news''.
        No such danger with this three-part series, which is driven by access rather than led by a reporter. When the civil servants' trade union, the PCS, found out about the filming, it asked if staff could talk frankly to the crew, only to be told no: they would still be subject to the civil service code, which demands complete impartiality. Perhaps this explains an internal PCS note on the BBC series I have seen, which remarks that staff are unhappy about being identified on screen. At one of the nominated jobcentres, in Toxteth in Liverpool, ''It is our understanding that there have been no volunteers to take part in the filming.'' The risk is that any staff who do participate toe the management line, making the film an advert for universal credit.
        The PCS briefing also reports a senior universal credit manager telling union reps that ''the DWP would have access to the film before transmission''. The BBC confirms that is the case, although it says it has ''editorial control''. When I contacted the DWP it refused to answer even the most basic of questions, advising me to submit them via a freedom of information request.
        It's not uncommon for the Ministry of Defence to use newspapers to recruit soldiers, nor for government departments to grant TV crews access to their workings. What is very unusual is to see a car-crash policy damned even by the Archbishop of Canterbury airbrushed with vast public resources into a triumph.
        After reading the documents, I spoke to Jennifer Jones of Sheffield Stop and Scrap Universal Credit. Severely disabled, she is awaiting transfer to the benefit, a move that she believes might deprive her of nearly £400 a month. She showed me Facebook posts of others, who have already lost out under universal credit, and told me how after her autistic son goes off to school she neither heats the house nor cooks, in order to save money. What would she do with the £250,000 that the government may spend on a single newspaper advert?
        ''I'd make sure there was enough on the gas and electric, that we had food in the cupboards and new school uniforms,'' she said. ''Then I'd see about the neighbours.'' I weighed up the smallness of her wants, against the DWP's planned extravagance. So what did Jones make of the government's PR campaign?
        ''They're taking money off the public, to lie to us about how well universal credit is working. They could be spending that money on us, but they're spending it to con us,'' she said. ''It's scary our government doing that.''
        ' Aditya Chakrabortty is a Guardian columnist
      Britain's Universal Credit (UK): Government and the BBC Secretly Collude in Propaganda Campaign - Global Research
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 10:41
        There is an extraordinary story published in The Guardian that, in my opinion, was not prominently positioned '' with its opening explainer stating: ''A leaked memo shows that the Department for Work and Pensions is about to embark on a PR campaign to defend its worst ever policy.''
        The reality is that the government and the BBC are hooking up on a propaganda campaign to deceive the nation that their flagship policy '' Universal Credit '' widely described by just about everyone in the know as a total disaster, is indeed a miraculous success.
        This story is extraordinary because Universal Credit is turning out to be a crime scene all of its own and for the government to use taxpayers money to deceive the public of anything else using the tactics of a full-on propaganda campaign is nothing short of an abuse of its position and of public office. This government is shameless, immoral and without principle.
        The stories of the failure of UC are almost boundless.
        Just six months ago the consequences of austerity, of which UC is the mothership, led to an accusation of ''economic murder'' in a paper published in the journal BMJ Open. Among its co-authors are academics from University College London, Cambridge University and Oxford University, three of the top academic institutions not just in Britain but in the world. They stated that 120,000 people in Britain have now died as a result of this failed economic plan, but the numbers are getting worse.
        An Independent article on the subject last November highlighted just how bad the numbers were ''
        ''Every day there are 100 needless deaths in England, and they come as a result of government policy. Just think about that figure for a moment. It's positively chilling. Just writing about it leaves me feeling in need of a valium. I'd imagine that would be true of anyone to whom empathy is not an alien concept.''
        100 people a day is over 36,000 deaths a year. That is 21 times the fatality rate on Britain's roads every year.
        But Universal Credit has taken on a life (or death) all of its own and as a policy is nothing less than political savagery destined to kill yet more and the evidence is there right before our eyes. In 2015, it was known that 2,380 people died between 2011 and 2014 shortly after being declared able to work. These numbers were also forced out by Freedom of Information requests that had been continually refused. From there, the stories of UC and death escalate. From people overdosing and ending it all at the end of a rope to simply dying of the ailments that the government refused to accept and pulled their benefits on.
        And the reaction of ministers to all this failure? A propaganda campaign to tell us that the opposite is true and to look the other way.
        A memo from the DWP's director of communications got leaked which condemns the ''negativity and scaremongering'' of UC.
        As The Guardian reports ''
        ''What follows is an elaborate media strategy to manufacture a Whitehall fantasy, one in which the benefits system is running like a dream while a Conservative government generously helps people on the escalator to prosperity. It begins at the end of this month with a giant advert wrapped around the cover of the Metro newspaper; inside will be a further four-page advertorial feature. This will ''myth-bust the common inaccuracies reported on UC''. What's more, ''the features won't look or feel like DWP or UC '' you won't see our branding '... We want to grab the readers' attention and make them wonder who has done this 'UC uncovered' investigation.''
        That little exercise will burn £250,000 of taxpayers much-needed cash.
        Next up, the secretary of state, Amber Rudd, will invite ''a wide range of journalists at regional and national publications '... to come [to a jobcentre] and see the great work we do''.
        As the Guardian says, the Jobcentres will be carefully chosen and everything will be nicely stage-managed, all sparkly and running tickety-boo.
        Then, the BBC gets wheeled on as its main propagandist. They have commissioned a documentary series of three, which is ''looking to intelligently explore UC'' by filming inside these jobcentres.
        When the civil servants' trade union, the PCS, found out about the filming, it asked if staff could talk frankly to the crew, only to be told no.
        The reporter for the Guardian Aditya Chakrabortty who wrote the article said ''
        ''staff are unhappy about being identified on screen. At one of the nominated jobcentres, in Toxteth in Liverpool, ''It is our understanding that there have been no volunteers to take part in the filming. When I contacted the DWP it refused to answer even the most basic of questions, advising me to submit them via a freedom of information request.''
        All the editing will be through the BBC, no-one can question its accuracy.
        The article then cited Jennifer Jones, who is severely disabled and at the mercy of the government and UC. She quite rightly put it that:
        ''They're taking money off the public, to lie to us about how well universal credit is working. They could be spending that money on us, but they're spending it to con us,'' she said. ''It's scary our government doing that.''
        In summary, the government have rolled out a policy that is known to kill people, it then takes taxpayers cash to create a propaganda campaign to tell the rest of us to look the other way. In the meantime, if anyone is any doubt that the BBC is not a state mouthpiece, this article should at least put you right.
        *
        Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
        Featured image is from TP
      A CIA suicide sparks questions about the CIA Memorial Wall - The Washington Post
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 09:35
        The CIA Memorial Wall in the main lobby of the agency's headquarters in Langley, Va., pays tribute to operatives who ''gave their lives in the service of their country.'' (John McDonnell/The Washington Post) Ian ShapiraEnterprise reporter covering the Washington region and beyond
        May 19 at 6:30 PMShe had spent the year in Afghanistan targeting senior al-Qaeda and Taliban members from one of the CIA's most important bases.
        Ranya Abdelsayed was less than 48 hours away from returning to the United States in 2013 when a colleague found her body in her bed at the agency's Gecko Firebase in Kandahar. At 34, she had shot herself in the head.
        The next year, Abdelsayed was honored with a black star on the CIA's vaunted Memorial Wall, which pays tribute to members of the CIA who, its inscription reads, ''gave their lives in the service of their country.''
        On Tuesday, the CIA will hold its annual ceremony to recognize the fallen, unveiling new stars on the increasingly crowded wall. But not everyone agrees that Abdelsayed '-- one of at least 19 CIA deaths in Afghanistan during the longest war in U.S. history '-- deserved that honor. Of the 129 men and women given stars, she is the only one to have died by suicide.
        Nicholas Dujmovic, a longtime CIA historian who retired in 2016, said that Abdelsayed's inclusion violates the agency's own criteria '-- and that her star ''must absolutely come off the wall.''
        The famed memorial, he said, is reserved for deaths that are ''of an inspirational or heroic character'' or are the result of enemy actions or hazardous conditions. But, in addition to Abdelsayed's, some stars have been awarded to operatives who died in airplane or vehicle accidents that had no connection with the dangers of their assignments.
        ''There's been an erosion of understanding in CIA leadership for at least two decades about what the wall is for and who is it that we're commemorating,'' said Dujmovic, who has researched multiple agency deaths to see whether they meet the criteria for inclusion on the wall. ''Now we have a suicide star on the wall. That's not what the wall is for. Suicide is a great tragedy, of course. But the purpose of the wall is not to show compassion to the family. It's to show who in our community is worthy of this honor.''
        [Three brothers went to war in Afghanistan. Only one came back.]
        Dujmovic said he was so startled by Abdelsayed's star that he made his objection known to senior CIA officials, including those on the agency's Honor and Merit Awards Board. The board makes recommendations to the director, who has the final say on inclusion.
        ''They said, 'We understand people are plagued by demons and break in war under psychological pressure,' '' Dujmovic recalled. ''And another said, 'It's just so hard to say no.' My thinking was, 'Isn't that what leadership is for?' ''
        In an interview, John Brennan, who approved Abdelsayed's star when he was CIA director, defended his decision. He said that Abdelsayed had volunteered for one of the agency's most dangerous assignments and that ''under those circumstances, there are a lot of stresses as well as daily challenges associated with that work.''
        After her death in August 2013, Brennan and his wife flew with Abdelsayed's parents to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware for the arrival of her remains. Fathi and Nahed Abdelsayed '-- who declined to comment for this article '-- told the Brennans that their daughter loved to paint, draw, write and play the piano.
        ''There were a lot of tears and heartbreaking discussions,'' Brennan said of the trip. ''A big part of them was torn away. Ranya was someone who they not only loved but admired. They beamed with pride that their daughter worked for the Central Intelligence Agency.''
        An undated photo of CIA officer Ranya Abdelsayed, who died by suicide in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 2013. (Obtained by The Washington Post)Some people raised questions when Abdelsayed became a candidate for the wall, Brennan said. The reason for her suicide was unclear. But, ultimately, he felt that a message needed to be sent, he said.
        ''Ranya was tremendously committed to the agency's mission. Her death, I felt, was a direct result of her work and her dedication in a very difficult overseas environment,'' he said. ''It may not have been unanimous that Ranya was deserving [of a star], but I let it be known that .'‰.'‰. Ranya's death was something the agency needed to recognize as being one of those unfortunate consequences of the global challenges the CIA addresses.''
        After her suicide, Brennan said he made it a priority for the agency to provide more help to CIA employees who might be suffering from depression or other psychological pressures.
        And he lauded Abdelsayed and three other officers when their stars were unveiled on May 19, 2014.
        ''We share your pride in them and what they achieved,'' Brennan told their colleagues and family members. ''We too know the measure of their strong character and generous spirit, and feel deeply privileged and grateful to have served with such selfless patriots.''
        [The stone carver who shapes the CIA's Memorial Wall]
        But he made no mention of how Abdelsayed died. And when the CIA added her name to the Book of Honor that sits at the base of the wall a few years later, there was no customary news release or public acknowledgment.
        'A risky flight'
        When it was created in 1974 with 31 stars, the Memorial Wall, which dominates the agency's main lobby, was designed to inspire awe.
        Among the operatives now honored there: Barbara Robbins, a CIA secretary killed when a car bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy in Saigon in 1965; Richard Welch, the Athens station chief fatally shot by a terrorist in 1975; Robert ''Bob'' Ames, the agency's top Middle East expert, killed in a truck bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983; and Johnny Micheal Spann, who was killed in a prison uprising while deployed in Afghanistan two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
        Shannon Spann, wife of slain CIA officer Johnny Micheal Spann, holds their 6-month old son Jake during her husband's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery in December 2001. He was killed in a prison uprising in Afghanistan. (Doug Mills/AP)But Dujmovic, the retired historian, said that only about half the people awarded stars died because of hostile action or terrorism.
        Chiyoki ''Chick'' Ikeda, for example, was killed in a 1960 Northwest Airlines plane crash as he was escorting a Japanese security official on a trip.
        Ikeda was considered for inclusion in 1974, Dujmovic said, but was rejected because his death was not deemed heroic or inspirational, the wall's original criteria. When his name came up again in the late 1990s, the agency's Honor and Merit Awards Board told then-Director George Tenet that Ikeda should be excluded. One high-ranking CIA executive, Dujmovic said, even wrote a memo to Tenet saying the wall's integrity needed to be preserved.
        But Tenet disagreed, and a star was added for Ikeda in 1997. Tenet declined an interview request.
        Others who have been awarded stars: John Celli, an economic analyst who died in a traffic accident in Saudi Arabia in 1996; and Leslianne Shedd, an operations officer who was on leave from her duty post that same year when her Ethiopian Airlines flight was hijacked and crashed into the Indian Ocean.
        While Dujmovic questions their inclusion, he does not think their stars should be removed. And he has advocated on behalf of several other officers who died decades ago.
        [They were smoke jumpers when the CIA sent them to Laos. They came back in caskets.]
        This year, two of those, Daniel Dennett and John Creech, will be honored with stars. The men were flying in a twin-engine aircraft on an operation for the Central Intelligence Group '-- the immediate precursor to the CIA '-- when their plane crashed into a mountain in the Horn of Africa in 1947.
        When the wall went up in 1974, they were excluded because they were considered not technically part of the CIA. But, as Dujmovic wrote in an article on the CIA website, there was hardly any difference between the two groups, save for their initials.
        Another group that has repeatedly been rejected for the wall: five CIA security officers who were flying from California to a U-2 spy plane test site and crashed into a Nevada mountain in 1955. The crew had to fly at dangerously low altitudes through mountains to avoid detection and maintain radio silence.
        But the CIA has turned them down for stars at least four times, Dujmovic said. The agency, Dujmovic said, has long felt they were ''simply going to work,'' though he disagrees and thinks their case is far more persuasive than those of others already granted stars.
        ''It was a risky flight in hazardous conditions,'' he said. ''They were on the job, not just going to the job.''
        Steve Ririe, a Nevadan who spearheaded the effort to build a memorial at the site of the crash, wondered why those killed in the accident have been denied stars when someone who died by suicide received one.
        ''I am kind of shocked, but at the same time, I don't want to judge it,'' Ririe said when told about Abdelsayed's star. ''I don't know; what was the heroic element? It has to be there. Because I believe what these men on the flight did was incredible.''
        Then-CIA Director John Brennan speaks at a news conference at Langley in 2014. He added Ranya Abdelsayed's name to the Memorial Wall over the objections of others within the agency. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)'She was my sister'
        The daughter of Egyptian immigrants, Ranya Abdelsayed joined the CIA in 2006. Friends and colleagues called her ''Rani.'' In Afghanistan, she worked nonstop as a targeter, mapping and tracking figures including drug lords and senior Taliban members.
        ''She never felt like she could do enough,'' said one former colleague, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of Abdelsayed's death. ''We were playing whack-a-mole out there. The stress and intensity of her work ethic and other problems overwhelmed her in the end.'' He said Abdelsayed was widely respected but was often withdrawn and ''not really part of the cohesive team and social network.''
        An undated photo of Ranya Abdelsayed. (Obtained by The Washington Post)She was very private, said a linguist on contract with the agency who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. The two, she said, were close friends, working long hours together and riding bikes to relax. Abdelsayed used dark humor to describe the job's intensity. ''Oh, it's a clusterf--- today,'' she was fond of saying.
        But whenever her colleague asked Abdelsayed about her personal life '-- her family, how she got to the CIA, her ambitions '-- she always demurred.
        ''Still, she was my sister down there. She not only had the best interests of the U.S. in her heart, but she also had the interest of the people in Afghanistan in her heart,'' the linguist said.
        By August 2013, after a year in Kandahar, Abdelsayed was about to head home to McLean, Va. Her final week, though, was tense.
        According to the linguist, she grew angry at random moments. ''She would yell at me,'' the linguist recalled. ''A couple times, she cornered me in the chow hall and started yelling and screaming. I'd say, 'What's wrong? What's the matter?' She said, 'I am sorry. I didn't mean to do that.' I was like, 'Okay, you're having a bad day.' ''
        On the morning that Abdelsayed was to leave the base, she was supposed to meet her friend for a 7:30 breakfast. But she did not show up. Eventually, the linguist called her on the radio but got no reply. She got a key to her room from a support officer.
        But before entering, her colleague knocked. Maybe Abdelsayed was in the shower, she thought. But after a few more moments, she opened the door.
        ''I just saw her laying down on the bed,'' the linguist said. ''You could see no light in her. She was pale. I just sat on the ground of her room and called for support and then left. The image is still carved into my head. I still have nightmares about it.''
        Abdelsayed's official date of death, according to Fairfax County probate records, was Aug. 28, 2013.
        Her parents, Brennan said, had ''already made plans to see her. It was all taken away.''
        Tom Jackman contributed to this report.
      How Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression Paved the Way for Abortion Bans '' Mother Jones
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 09:27
        Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp poses with GOP state Sen. Renee Unterman after signing a restrictive anti-abortion law. Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP
        In recent days, Republican-dominated legislatures in Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, and Missouri have passed some of the harshest abortion restrictions in decades. But aside from their collective assault on reproductive freedoms, these states have something else in common: a systematic effort to distort the democratic process through voter suppression and gerrymandering. These tactics have greased the way for near-total bans on abortion and for other extreme right-wing policies.
        ''Bad policies like the forced pregnancy bill are a direct result of voter suppression.''Georgia is a perfect example. The state's 2018 governor's race became the epicenter of Republican voter suppression efforts. As secretary of state, Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp essentially oversaw his own election and instituted a series of policies that hurt his Democratic opponent, Stacey Abrams. On Kemp's watch, Georgia purged 1.4 million people from the voter rolls from 2012 to 2016; put the registrations of 53,000 people, 80 percent of whom were voters of color, on hold before the election; and closed 214 polling places in six years. On Election Day, there were four-hour lines in heavily black precincts. All this helped Kemp win the election, and last week he signed into to law a measure prohibiting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
        ''Bad policies like the forced pregnancy bill are a direct result of voter suppression,'' Abrams tweeted last week. ''If leaders can silence Georgians' voices at the ballot box, they can ignore Georgians' voices when in office.''
        Meanwhile, extreme partisan gerrymandering has helped Republicans establish strangleholds on state legislatures around the country. After winning control of the redistricting process following the 2010 election, Georgia Republicans concentrated black voters into as few districts as possible in order to maximize the number of heavily white Republican seats. In 2018, Kemp narrowly won with 50.2 percent of the vote, but Republicans held nearly 60 percent of state's legislative seats. There are few swing districts left in the state'--in 2018, an incumbent was elected with no opposition in 112 of 180 House districts in the state.
        This set-up helps insulate GOP lawmakers from any public backlash over their votes. Georgians oppose the new anti-abortion law 49 percent to 44 percent, according to a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll. Yet the bill easily cleared the GOP-dominated state legislature, with nearly all Republicans, and just one Democrat, voting yes.
        Alabama Republicans have pursued a similar gerrymandering strategy, segregating black voters to boost conservative white Republicans. In his successful campaign for the US Senate in 2017, Democrat Doug Jones won 50 percent of the vote but carried just one of Alabama's seven congressional districts'--a sign of just how lopsided the state's political map has become. That same year, a federal court ruled that 12 of Alabama's legislative districts were illegally racially gerrymandered. The Republican State Leadership Committee'--which funded the GOP's takeover of numerous state legislatures in 2010 and then coordinated the drawing of new, gerrymandered maps'--spent $1.5 million to flip Alabama red for the first time since Reconstruction.
        Gerrymandering has similarly boosted Republicans in Missouri and Ohio, two other states where lawmakers have moved forward with near-total abortion bans. Republicans barely surpassed 50 percent of the vote in Ohio's state legislative elections in 2018, but they won control of 63 percent of the seats in the Ohio House of Representatives. Republicans won 57 percent of the statewide vote for the Missouri House of Representatives, but they control 71 percent of the seats in the chamber'--giving them 13 more seats than they would have under a neutral map, according to an Associated Press analysis.
        Forty-five percent of Missourians support abortion rights in all or most cases, compared to 50 percent who oppose them in all or most cases, according to a 2014 Pew study. But that state's bill'--which outlaws abortion after eight weeks, even in cases of rape'--sailed through the Senate Thursday with the backing of more than 70 percent of its lawmakers, all of them Republicans.
        A 2016 analysis by Rewire News found that 22 states had passed new restrictions on both voting and abortion since the 2010 election, which pro-choice advocates don't believe is a coincidence. Many of the constituencies that strongly support abortion rights'--such as women, young people, and voters of color'--are among the most likely to be impacted by tactics such as gerrymandering and voter suppression.
        Rewire.News
      Fighting Ebola When Mourners Fight the Responders - The New York Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Tue, 21 May 2019 08:52
        BENI, Democratic Republic of Congo '-- When Ebola came to this city in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Janvier Muhindo Mandefu quit farming and got work burying the highly contagious bodies of Ebola victims.
        But Mr. Muhindo is less afraid of Ebola than of the mourners he encounters at funerals. He and his burial team have been attacked by relatives of the dead, one swinging a hoe. Mourners have shouted at team members, accusing them of stealing the organs of corpses, and have threatened to throw them into the open graves. Last month a mourner brandished a hand grenade, he said, sending everyone scattering and leaving a 3-year-old Ebola victim unburied.
        ''Someone like me can be buried alive,'' Mr. Muhindo said as his colleagues hosed down their trucks at the Red Cross compound after another day of burials.
        This Ebola outbreak in eastern Congo, the second-largest ever recorded, is now spiraling out of control. Despite some early success '-- helped by a new and effective vaccine '-- the disease has come roaring back in the past two months.
        Image A burial team carried the coffin of Angela Masika, who may have died from Ebola, in Biakato this month. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Image Congolese soldiers preparing to escort a convoy of Ebola response vehicles outside the city of Butembo. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Efforts to combat the epidemic have been hobbled by attacks on treatment centers and health workers; deep suspicion of the national government, which is managing the eradication efforts; and growing mistrust of the international medical experts who have struggled to steer patients into the treatment centers, according to interviews with dozens of family members, politicians, doctors and health workers in recent weeks.
        When a doctor was killed, and treatment centers attacked by gunmen or set on fire, front-line health workers suspended their work, giving the virus time to spread. Some medical and aid groups have decided to pull some of their personnel from the very areas where Ebola has hit hardest.
        So far nearly 1,150 people have died in the outbreak, according to the World Health Organization. But that is a significant undercount, aid groups said in interviews. Health workers have been turned away regularly from homes where someone has died, leaving them unable to test for Ebola.
        Earlier in the outbreak, the police would remove these bodies from homes, at gunpoint if necessary, said Philemon Kalondero, 39, who is often the first member of his Ebola response team to arrive at a grief-stricken home.
        ''The new protocol is that we just abandon the body,'' he said. ''They will learn their lesson when they get sick.''
        Initial OptimismWhen the outbreak was discovered last summer, health workers had reason to worry. This part of eastern Congo has long been beset by dozens of armed groups fighting over land, natural resources, ethnicity and religion '-- including one outfit with ties to the Islamic State.
        Yet optimism ran strong among the arriving wave of international health experts and humanitarian workers, many of whom had experience treating Ebola, an often fatal disease caused by a virus that is transmitted by body fluids.
        They came with lessons learned from the outbreak that tore across West Africa starting in 2013, killing more than 11,000 people. And they were buoyed by a recent success: the speedy containment of an outbreak in western Congo.
        They also brought medical advances: a strikingly effective vaccine, experimental treatments, and a transparent container known as the ''cube'' that Ebola patients live inside, reducing the transmission risk to doctors and visitors.
        Some of the responders hoped that big outbreaks were already a thing of the past.
        Image An Ebola survivor who is now immune to the virus held a child whose mother was being tested at an Ebola treatment center in Beni. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Image Safi, 8, receiving an Ebola vaccination in Katwa. Front-line health workers struggle against rising hostility, distrust and violence. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times The stakes were high. The outbreak was in one of Congo's most populous regions, and near the borders of three countries '-- Rwanda, Uganda and South Sudan '-- raising fears that it would spread beyond Congo.
        And while Congo has had nine earlier recorded Ebola outbreaks, the disease had never been detected in the region until it showed up last year in a town called Mangina, health workers said.
        By late summer it had traveled down a dirt road to Beni, a city of about 350,000 that was reeling from a series of massacres by machete that killed an estimated 800 people in recent years. The assailants' identity and motive were difficult to determine, but a research group concluded that in addition to rebels, the Congolese Army had a role '-- leaving many residents unsure whom to trust.
        They saw Ebola as the latest in a spate of unexplained but connected disasters.
        Image A crowded market in Butembo, a bustling regional trading hub of about one million people. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Image The region, one of Congo's most populous, borders Rwanda, Uganda, and South Sudan, raising the risk that Ebola would spread to other countries. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Some local politicians publicly suggested that the national government '-- or some other hidden hand '-- had imported the disease. Conspiracies took root. In this fiercely independent region, only 2 percent of those recently surveyed said they trusted the national government in Kinshasa, 1,000 miles away.
        ''Scientifically, I don't believe that it's possible to first have the killings of people in Beni, and now this disease without them being related,'' said Crispin Mbindule Mitondo, a member of the national assembly, in remarks broadcast on local radio and circulated on WhatsApp.
        The Politics of EbolaEbola landed right ahead of a tight national election that was shaping up to be the first transfer of power by ballot in Congo since independence in 1960. But Kinshasa suspended voting in Ebola-affected areas in December, citing the risk that polling places might spread the disease.
        This area was also an opposition stronghold. So for many, the announcement confirmed their suspicions that Ebola was part of a plot, managed by Kinshasa, to deny them their vote.
        A day after the announcement canceling the vote, protesters stormed an Ebola triage center in Beni and set it on fire.
        ''When they canceled the elections, it was a disaster for us,'' said Emmanuel Massart, an emergency coordinator for Doctors Without Borders, which has run several Ebola treatment centers in Congo.
        Adding to the suspicion, vaccination teams and other responders often traveled under armed police or military escort. This made it appear that the Ebola response, which relied heavily on international medical organizations and the United Nations, was an extension of an unpopular national government.
        Image Some Mai Mai militiamen have attacked Ebola treatment centers, but in Mabuku, they have granted access to health workers escorted by government soldiers. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Image Travelers on the road to Beni washed their hands in chlorinated water at a health roadblock. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Making matters worse, police officers and soldiers accompanying Ebola response teams have on occasion opened fire during confrontations with grieving family members and neighbors, according to interviews with health workers who described three such episodes '-- one that is being examined by the United Nations. The confrontations tend to occur when Ebola responders try to take bodies away from grieving family members and take charge of the burial.
        UGAN.
        Beni
        Butembo
        DEMOCRATIC
        REPUBLIC
        OF CONGO
        Kinshasa
        TANZAN.
        ANGOLA
        ZAMBIA
        250 MILES
        As the disease spread to Butembo, a larger, more prosperous city of about one million, many patients who had Ebola resisted going to designated treatment centers, seeing them as a place to die rather than be cured.
        Other patients who went to see their doctors with common symptoms, such as headaches and fevers, were often forced into Ebola quarantine centers for a few days pending tests.
        Many of the symptoms of Ebola resemble those of more common maladies, such as malaria. At one quarantine facility in Beni, fewer than 2 percent of patients tested positive for Ebola, according to interviews with health officials and an epidemiological report provided by a medical organization.
        Mistrust settled in, affecting even those who have seen Ebola up close.
        ''The way my wife died, it is not Ebola that killed her that day,'' said H(C)ritier Bedico Zawadi, an engineer, one sleepless month after the death of his wife, Suzanne Kahindo Kitseghe, a 29-year-old doctor.
        She had been exposed to the disease when a patient at her hospital wouldn't stop bleeding, a classic Ebola symptom, after an IV line had been inserted, according to Dr. Michel Kalongo, an official in the local doctors union who knew Dr. Kahindo.
        Dr. Kahindo had not been vaccinated, probably because she was pregnant and pregnant women were initially discouraged from receiving the vaccine. When she began to feel ill, she believed she had malaria and continued to see patients, even helping deliver a patient's baby.
        Image Ebola responders carrying the body of an 11-year-old girl who died after being admitted to an Ebola treatment center in Beni. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Image H(C)ritier Bedico Zawadi in his living room, surrounded by photos of his wife, Dr. Suzanne Kahindo Kitseghe, 29, who died from Ebola last month. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times An alarmingly high percentage of transmissions occur in hospitals and clinics '-- as high as 40 percent recently around Mandima, although in most places it is far lower, according to an analysis of cases that was shared among medical and aid groups.
        Dr. Kahindo was barely conscious on April 10 when colleagues sent her to an Ebola treatment center, where she died the next day. Her husband said that when other doctors expressed condolences, they often said, ''Your wife didn't die of Ebola.''
        Gazing up at the night sky, Mr. Zawadi said that even though his wife had tested positive for Ebola, he was having trouble making up his mind about what to believe. ''Emotionally, I'm broken.''
        In February, an Ebola treatment center '-- this time in Katwa, an outlying area of Butembo and run by Doctors Without Borders '-- was also set on fire. A printed warning was left at the site, according to Rachel Sweet, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard who studies eastern Congo. It said, ''After this, we will plan even bigger things in the near future.''
        Many of the patients fled into the night. Some of those too sick to flee were transferred to a nearby treatment center '-- which was in turn attacked.
        In the days that followed, the Ebola response ground to a standstill in the epicenter of the outbreak. Doctors Without Borders pulled out of the city. When work resumed, the numbers of those infected began to rise '-- a pattern that would repeat.
        In April, a Cameroonian doctor working on the Ebola response with the World Health Organization was shot to death by intruders while leading a meeting at a university hospital in Butembo.
        Who is behind these attacks? Many health workers and foreign medical organizations say they do not fully understand the forces aligned against them. But they are all aware that resentment has been stirred up by the sight of late-model S.U.V.s carrying foreigners and Kinshasa bureaucrats through town, offering high-paying jobs to some but not others.
        ''The Ebola response has a lot of money, and this amount of money is kind of shifting power around, challenging the equilibrium,'' said Mr. Massart of Doctors Without Borders. ''I think that is one motivation'' for the hostility to Ebola responders.
        The outbreak remains confined to a single region, largely thanks to an effective vaccine, doctors say. More than 110,000 people have been vaccinated, including front-line responders such as doctors and burial teams, which has slowed the spread.
        Image Ebola responders going through decontamination at a treatment center in Katwa. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Image Congolese soldiers and a police officer at a Katwa treatment center after an attack earlier in the day by militiamen. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times The treatment centers have saved people, such as Daniella, a baby who arrived at a treatment center with Ebola when she was 12 days old. A month later, she was deemed cured, according to the Congolese health department.
        ''Can we stop the epidemic? Certainly we can,'' said Mike Ryan, who runs the World Health Organization's emergencies program. But to do so, he said, a political solution that reduced the violence was first needed.
        For now, many of the front-line Ebola workers say they keep their work a secret from neighbors. Perhaps no job is riskier than that of the burial teams, who retrieve the bodies of people suspected of dying from Ebola from grieving families.
        Mr. Muhindo, the burial team leader in Beni, recounted the funeral last month of the 3-year-old boy who had died of Ebola. The boy's father, a soldier, stood in stunned grief. But other mourners crowded the coffin, demanding that the boy's body be inspected for signs of organ theft. Mr. Muhindo, who has received the Ebola vaccine, said he unzipped the bag to the boy's sternum.
        ''They said, 'Open it up all the way so we can see the entire body,''' Mr. Muhindo recalled.
        People shouted that he would be buried next. As he tried to slip away, someone '-- perhaps another soldier '-- brandished a grenade and threatened to blow up the team.
        Mr. Muhindo said that he and his team fled. As he looked back, he could see the boy's father rush over and take the grenade from the man.
        Image Girls playing music in a church yard in Beni. So far more than 1,100 people have died in the outbreak, according to the World Health Organization. Credit Finbarr O'Reilly for The New York Times Finbarr O'Reilly contributed reporting from Beni, Democratic Republic of Congo.
        Joseph Goldstein writes about policing and the criminal justice system. He has been a reporter at The Times since 2011, and is based in New York. He also worked for a year in the Kabul bureau, reporting on Afghanistan. @ JoeKGoldstein
        A version of this article appears in print on
        , on Page
        A
        1
        of the New York edition
        with the headline:
        Ebola Outbreak Worsens As Doctors Dodge Attacks
        . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
      92% of Berlin left-wing activists live with their parents | Daily Mail Online
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 21:23
        92% of left-wing activists live with their parents and one in three is unemployed, study of Berlin protesters finds Figures were compiled by the Federal Office for the Protection of the ConstitutionOf those arrested for politically-motivated offences, 84 per cent were menThe majority, 72 per cent, were aged between 18 and 29Of offences against a person, four out of five cases were against police officers By Dave Burke For Mailonline
        Published: 11:48 EDT, 7 February 2017 | Updated: 04:15 EDT, 8 February 2017
        The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents, a new report found.
        The figures, which were published in daily newspaper Bild revealed that 873 suspects were investigated by authorities between 2003 and 2013.
        Of these 84 per cent were men, and 72 per cent were aged between 18 and 29.
        The figures, which were published in daily newspaper Bild revealed that 873 suspects were investigated by authorities between 2003 and 2013
        More than half of the arrests were made in the Berlin districts of Friedrichshain, Kreuzberg and Mitte, mostly during demonstrations.
        A third of them were unemployed, and 92 per cent still live with their parents.
        The figures published in the Berlin newspaper said of the offences committed against a person, in four out of five cases the victims were police officers.
        In 15 per cent of these cases, the victims were right wing activists.
        The new figures were released by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV).
        Between 2009 and 2013, the Bild report claims, left-wing assassins attempted to commit 11 murders.
        Advertisement
      ''This is how science works:'' Error leads to recall of paper linking Jon Stewart and election results
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Source: Retraction Watch
        Mon, 20 May 2019 20:57
        Jon Stewart in 2010Jon Stewart is a powerful figure in American media. How powerful is he? So powerful that his departure in 2015 as host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central may have tipped the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.
        At least, that's the hypothesis behind a paper published in late April in the journal Electoral Studies. According to Ethan Porter, of George Washington University, and Thomas Wood, of Ohio State:
        By combining granular geographic ratings data with election results, we are able to isolate the shows' effects on the election. For The Daily Show, we find a strong positive effect on Jon Stewart's departure and Trump's vote share. By our estimate, the transition at The Daily Show spurred a 1.1% increase in Trump's county-level vote share. Further analysis suggests that the effect may be owed more to Stewart's effects on mobilization, not his effects on attitudes. We also find weaker evidence indicating that the end of The Colbert Report was associated with a decline in 2016 voter turnout. Our results make clear that late-night political comedy can have meaningful effects on presidential elections.
        But as Porter and Wood quickly realized, they were mistaken.
        As Wood revealed on Twitter over the weekend, he and Porter erred in their analysis, a fact they discovered after several readers pointed out an apparent flaw in the article:
        They notified the journal, which is withdrawing the paper, Wood told us by email:
        As I tweeted, the error was drawn to our attention by readers who noted a discrepancy between our depiction of ratings changes and the regression results. We made the figure from scratch quite late in the process of writing the paper''the syntactical error which biased the data we used in the regressions was not repeated when we made the figure.
        When a number of readers suggested the ratings shifts in the figure were too modest to affect vote choice in the way we described in the paper, we looked to the data underlying our regression estimates, and found a discrepancy between those ratings data and the data in the figure. We then checked why these estimates would be different, and found that the ratings used for the regression were artificially inflated by using the wrong operator when performing aggregations. We fixed the error in the code, re-estimated the models, and the relationship was now far more modest.
        We made that discovery late Wednesday night, and immediately wrote to the editors on Thursday morning to request the withdrawal. They confirmed the withdrawal Friday morning, which we publicly announced on Twitter.
        As the Twitter feed reflects, Porter and Wood received praise for their handling of the mistake. Here's a response from one follower, Michael Spagat:
        Seeing this is the best moment of my day so far. It seems that everyone involved in this has has done themselves proud. I wish this kind of thing were routine.
        '-- Michael Spagat (@Michael_Spagat) May 10, 2019Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there's a new post (look for the ''follow'' button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that's not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
      GATEWAY PUNDIT EXCLUSIVE: UK's Spy Confession is a Lie and We Caught Them - Kavalec Notes Prove UK Was Spying on Trump Earlier Than Reported
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 19:54
        GATEWAY PUNDIT EXCLUSIVE: UK's Spy Confession is a Lie and We Caught Them '' Kavalec Notes Prove UK Was Spying on Trump Earlier Than Reported by Jim Hoft May 20, 2019Guest post by Joe Hoft
        Today's piece in the British Telegraph newspaper revealing the Brits only knew of Christopher Steele's junk Trump-Russia dossier after the 2016 election is a lie. The Gateway Pundit has put together evidence that the Brits knew earlier than they are letting on. The article released today in the Daily Telegraph states that the Brits only found out about their former spy Christopher Steele's bogus dossier after the 2016 election. Their efforts were to ward off embarrassing news that might be released with the Carter Page FISA application. The problem is they lie in their report.
        The heads of MI5, MI6 + one of Theresa May's most trusted security advisers all knew of the Russian-Trump conspiracy bogus claims before Trump.
        **Exclusive**
        British spy chiefs were briefed on Christopher Steele's dossier before Donald Trump knew of its existence.
        Heads of MI5, MI6 + one of Theresa May's most trusted security advisers all knew of the Russian links claims before Trump.
        Summary thread below'... pic.twitter.com/a5T4aaKkGl
        '-- Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) May 19, 2019
        The Daily Telegraph piece states that the Brits only found out about Steele's sham dossier after the 2016 election and this is when they raised this with the British spy network:The man Steele approached was Sir Charles Farr.
        He was head of the Joint Intelligence Committee '' the body that assess intelligence. He had also been a top counter-terrorism adviser in May's Home Office.
        Plus Steele had known Farr for 20 years. He would know what to do. pic.twitter.com/EsfvxVjgq9
        '-- Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) May 19, 2019
        However this is a lie! Riley-Smith claims Steele and MI6 met a week after the election, November 2016, and that the reason why they met was because Trump won'....
        According to the notes uncovered and released a week or so ago produced by former US State Department Deputy Assistance Secretary Kathleen Kavalec, the Brits were in on it all along '' certainly before the 2016 election.
        But look who Steele met with (pay particular attention to the area in red )'.....
        Kavalec's notes indicate that the Brits were in on it the entire time. Per her notes with Steele taken a few weeks before the 2016 election, Steele indicates that the Brits were in on it before the election ''
        The Brits (London) were in on it before the 2016 election. Their attempted effort to cover this up is a lie.Trump knew the UK was in on it!In April President Donald Trump tweeted out a stunning report by former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on OANN. Johnson accused the United Kingdom of helping the Obama administration spy on the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.
        Trump tweeted this out:
        ''Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson accuses United Kingdom Intelligence of helping Obama Administration Spy on the 2016 Trump Presidential Campaign.'' @OANN WOW! It is now just a question of time before the truth comes out, and when it does, it will be a beauty!
        '-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 24, 2019
        Here is the video in question, via Jack Posobiec:
        OANN: Former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson, U.K. Spied On Trump Campaign, Passed Info To Obama Team pic.twitter.com/zEsiP8LRDM
        '-- Jack Posobiec ðŸ‡ºðŸ‡¸ (@JackPosobiec) April 24, 2019
        We knew this and reported on it The Gateway Pundit reported on it a year ago. There was solid evidence that proves a foreign government meddled in the 2016 US Election. But that government was the UK, not Russia!Hat tip D. Manny
      Beto O'Rourke Ignored Cable News '-- And It Ignored Him | FiveThirtyEight
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 19:53
        Beto O'Rourke is trying to reboot his campaign. After being in the race for two months, the former Texas representative is getting much less media attention than he did when he first announced his candidacy. The week he entered the race, O'Rourke was mentioned more than any other candidate '-- his name came up in 870 clips across the three cable news networks we monitor (MSNBC, CNN and Fox News), according to data from the TV News Archive that we accessed via the GDELT's Project Television API.1 Last week, he ranked seventh.
        O'Rourke is way behind top-tier candidatesHow often each Democratic candidate was mentioned each week in news programming on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, counted by the number of 15-second clips that include each person's full name
        Number of ClipsCandidateWeek of May 5Week of May 12Joe Biden1,411''
        1,715''
        Bernie Sanders503''
        530''
        Elizabeth Warren289''
        358''
        Kamala Harris266''
        343''
        Pete Buttigieg196''
        277''
        Bill de Blasio'--''
        263''
        Beto O'Rourke90''
        217''
        Steve Bullock'--''
        162''
        Cory Booker137''
        107''
        Kirsten Gillibrand33''
        82''
        Amy Klobuchar130''
        43''
        Seth Moulton3''
        29''
        Jay Inslee10''
        21''
        Eric Swalwell39''
        14''
        Julian Castro7''
        13''
        John Hickenlooper12''
        13''
        Tulsi Gabbard5''
        12''
        Tim Ryan5''
        11''
        Andrew Yang20''
        11''
        Michael Bennet27''
        11''
        Marianne Williamson9''
        7''
        John Delaney4''
        2''
        Total3,196''
        4,241''
        When O'Rourke first entered the race, his strategy was to stay off cable news. ''Seeing you eyeball-to-eyeball, to me, is so much more satisfying than being on cable TV,'' he told a supporter at a Virginia town hall when explaining why he chose to avoid the national spotlight TV appearances in favor of smaller gatherings. But his polls have sunk to the lowest they have been since his launch and now O'Rourke is trying to pivot back to major televised events like interviews and town halls.
        For a month now, Joe Biden has been the most-talked-about candidate on cable news each week, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders a distant second and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have been either third or fourth. These four candidates have accounted for about 70 to 85 percent of all mentions of 2020 candidates in each of the last four weeks on the cable networks in our data set.
        Even in the next tier of candidates, O'Rourke is now struggling to make a splash. Pete Buttigieg, who, unlike O'Rourke, has aggressively participated in all forms of media, rose from relative obscurity while O'Rourke seemed to sink back into it. In the past two weeks, Buttigieg has ranked fifth in cable news mentions, while O'Rourke has floundered at seventh or eighth. Buttigieg is also consistently getting more mentions in online news stories and more Google search traffic.
        Even O'Rourke's reboot appears to be snakebitten. It happened to coincide with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's entry into the race, as well as the launch of Montana Governor Steve Bullock's campaign, which took up some media oxygen last week. O'Rourke was mentioned fewer times than de Blasio.
        With so many 2020 candidates vying for the spotlight, getting the media's attention may be a lot more difficult for O'Rourke now than it would have been if he had agreed to more TV appearances two months ago when he launched his campaign.
      Jim Carrey's pro-abortion tweet backfires: 'You blessed the pro-life movement with this' | Fox News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 19:51
        Jim Carrey arrives at the 2018 BAFTA Los Angeles Britannia Awards at the Beverly Hilton on Friday, Oct. 26, 2018, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)
        Actor Jim Carrey's latest tweet took a shot at Alabama's new abortion law, but it seemed to backfire, drawing praise from pro-lifers instead.
        The "Dumb and Dumber" star tweeted an image Saturday of his artwork depicting Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, who signed one of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the nation, as a fully formed preborn baby being aborted from the womb.
        DEMOCRATS WHO ARE PURGING PRO-LIFE PROGRESSIVES PUTTING PARTY 'IN JEOPARDY,' LEADER WARNS
        "I think If (sic) you're going to terminate a pregnancy, it should be done sometime before the fetus becomes Governor of Alabama," Carrey wrote.
        The politically charged depiction garnered some unlikely responses from the right.
        LARRY TAUNTON: HERE'S WHY PRO-ABORTION SUPPORTERS ARE SO FIERCE (AND BULLYING). HINT: IT'S NOT WHY YOU THINK
        "Thank you for the truly accurate (and therefore horrifying) portrayal of abortion... sucking out the brains of a PERSON because that person is inconvenient to you. You blessed the pro-life movement with this," Liz Wheeler, OANN host, commented.
        "This is a pretty great depiction of an abortion: clinically accurate, and wiping out an individual human life," conservative commentator Ben Shapiro wrote.
        Obianuju Ekeocha, founder of The Culture of Life Africa, added: "At least you seem to know how grisly an abortion is. Your image is accurate down to the abortionist's cannula suctioning out the brain matter of the fetus, sort of like a serial killer at work...you do know what an abortion looks like. Bravo!"
        Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also slammed Carrey, calling the painting "vicious" and "angry."
        A representative from Twitter told Fox News the company is "not able to comment on individual user accounts."
        Twitter states in its rules under "hateful conduct" that the company will permanently suspend any account that includes a "violent threat...incites fears, or reduces someone to less than human," and under "glorification of violence," a user will be suspended for "specific threats of violence or wishing for serious physical harm, death, or disease to an individual or group of people."
        CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
      'Over The Rainbow' Composer's Estate Sues Big Tech And Labels For Alleged Piracy : NPR
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 19:49
        A promotional poster for the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz." Harold Arlen's song "Over the Rainbow" for this film won an Oscar for Best Original Song. Hulton Archive/Getty Images hide caption
        toggle caption Hulton Archive/Getty Images A promotional poster for the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz." Harold Arlen's song "Over the Rainbow" for this film won an Oscar for Best Original Song.
        Hulton Archive/Getty Images The estate of Harold Arlen '-- the composer famous for such American-songbook classics as "Over the Rainbow," "Get Happy" and "It's Only A Paper Moon" '-- has filed a lawsuit against some of the world's biggest technology companies, including Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft in what it is calling "massive piracy operations."
        Arlen's son, Sam Arlen, and the composer's estate say that they have found over 6,000 unauthorized recordings of his compositions for sale and available for streaming '-- a situation that they call "massive music piracy operations in the digital music stores and streaming services of some of the largest tech companies in the world." The 148-page complaint was filed on May 9 to California's Central District Court, in Los Angeles.
        The plaintiffs are seeking damages that could reach into the millions of dollars: "Anything less than maximum statutory damage awards would encourage infringement," they write, "amount to a slap on the wrist, and reward multi-billion and -trillion dollar companies that rule the digital music markets for their willful infringement on a grand scale."
        But there's always been a split between what reissues of musical recordings are legal and illegal at any given point in time, based purely on geography. That's due to the differences in copyright law between the United States, the U.K. and Europe. In the U.S., copyright for recordings made after 1923 and before 1972 is generally 95 years; copyright for published recordings lasts 70 years in both the U.K. and European Union. After that time, they enter the public domain.
        In the Arlen case, the plaintiffs are arguing that the estate still holds copyright on these materials in the U.S., that they did not give permission for these reissues to be made and distributed, and that they are not being paid so-called "mechanical" royalties '-- that is, the royalty paid to a songwriter whenever her or his work is copied and distributed on a sound recording, whether that recording is streamed, on a digital download, or distributed in physical form such as on CD or on a vinyl album.
        Back in the old days of physical record stores and physical product, it was easier to patrol the geographical copyright divide; buyers and customers alike knew if an album had been imported into the U.S. As such, it was also easier for creators and labels to seek enforcement on copyright infringements '-- in 2005, for example, EMI and Capitol Records successfully stopped Naxos, a label headquartered in Hong Kong, from selling its own versions of staple EMI classical recordings in the U.S., including those of artists like violinist Yehudi Menuhin and Pablo Casals. Naxos lost both the original suit and its appeal.
        In these days of streaming, however, creators and labels are staring down a fire hose. Along with naming big-timers like Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft, the Arlen estate is going after dozens of named labels (including the aforementioned Naxos, by way of its American subsidiary) as well as "John Doe Distributors and John Doe Pirate Labels." The majority of the labels named in the Arlen suit are based outside of the United States.
        Moreover, because so little metadata is generally accessible to consumers, it's nearly impossible for all but the most conscientious or knowledgeable music fan to discern what's an authorized issuing or not '-- not to mention that the apparently pirated versions seem to be cheaper.
        For example, as the plaintiffs point out, a consumer looking for singer Ethel Ennis' recording of Arlen's song "For Every Man, There is a Woman" can find the official recording, made for the RCA Victor label (which is now owned by Sony Music Entertainment), available on Apple's iTunes store for $1.29. However, a pirated version from an entity called "Stardust Records" '-- with the RCA Victor logo edited out of the cover image '-- was also available in the iTunes store, at the time of the lawsuit's filing, for just $0.89.
      Salesforce's Freaky Friday turns into Misery Monday: DB blunder outage enters day three ' The Register
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 19:48
        El Reg tunes into customer conference calls to hear SVP of engineering apologize Three days on, Salesforce.com has yet to fully recover from an outage that began on Friday.
        Fifteen hours and eight minutes after an errant database deployment script granted past and current users of the company's Pardot B2B marketing automation system full read and write access to all data, prompting the cloud CRM giant to disable all affected server instances, Salesforce on Saturday morning declared victory. And then immediately declared another emergency.
        "Service disruption ended, 0104 PDT, May 18," the San Francisco tech titan said on its status website, only to immediately restart the clock with another notification, "Service disruption began, 0104 PDT, May 18."
        Here's a summary of what happened: on Friday, the biz accidentally gave all users within current and former Pardot customers sysadmin-level access to all data, then pulled offline all instances running Pardot to prevent any data theft or tampering. Pulling the plug on these shared instances booted Pardot and non-Pardot customers off the Salesforce cloud: any customers sharing a Pardot-hosting instance lost access.
        Then Salesforce wiped all access permissions for all users, and restored sysadmin-level access to customers' administrator accounts. Instances were gradually brought back online so admins could log back in to manually repair user permissions by hand, allowing them to get back to work. Over the weekend, Salesforce staff ran a script that attempted to restore user permissions from backups, though this was not always successful.
        Come Monday morning, Salesforce functionality appears to have been restored for most customers; the tech goliath acknowledged its fix hasn't reached everyone. Over the weekend, Salesforce held a series of conference calls to update customers on the status of repairs on the 105 affected instances.
        On an audio call early Monday, at May 20, at 0030 PDT, Anmol Bhasin, SVP of engineering, said that Salesforce was still dealing with a few thousand trouble reports after a script fix failed to fully undo the permission snafu.
        "On the last customer update, I had communicated that the initial fix that we had put in place for restoring functionality for the pre-incident state '' restoring permission sets in particular '' which we believe should have restored functionality for all the affected organizations was not successful in doing so," he said.
        Bhasin apologized for the disruption, and offered his assurance that the Salesforce is focused on fixing things at the highest level of the company and has devoted all available engineering resources toward resolving the problems.
        Since then, there have been reports of instances going offline and then coming back online. The latest update from the cloud giant insists automated permissions repair has taken place on all production instances, but after that "a subset of users in affected orgs on the NA53, NA57, and NA59 instances had their permission levels reset again, which gave them broader data access than intended."
        Customers on those instances are still experiencing problems on Monday morning.
        In an email, Alex Brausewetter, CTO of Blue Canvas, told El Reg, "It's completely bonkers! From what we gather there are still hundreds if not thousands of customers affected. In one earlier call, they said they received thousands of complaints/support tickets after they ran they scripts that they thought would fix this issue. Salesforce has gone radio silent since yesterday night Pacific time and they just cancelled a bridge call that was scheduled for 0900 and moved it to 1030. Aside from that there's been no public communication."
        The Register asked Salesforce to provide an update on the outage. A company spokesperson merely pointed back to the published incident response webpage, which says that the issue is "ongoing."
        Brausewetter has collected details from the calls into a Google Docs file, and shared the results. "It's totally unacceptable from this kind of service to leave customers in the dark like this," he told us. "For the customers affected by this permission problem, none of their users can log into the org or use Salesforce right now. And now the weekend is over'..."
        At the time this story was written, the 1030 PDT briefing had been moved back to 1100. ®
      Bill Barr's probe has Brennan, Clapper and Comey ratting on each other
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 19:36
        According to the latest reports, the rats are scurrying about, as the ship of deep state appears to be scuttled. This will be a lot of fun to watch. The tables appear to be turning.
        Imperious Jim Comey is out smearing Rod Rosenstein as someone whose soul's been eaten or some such thing and Rosenstein's hitting back, calling Comey a partisan pundit who crossed the line.
        Now a crack in the Comey and Brennan and Clapper has turned up.
        A Little BackgroundThe FBI spied on the Trump campaign, but what was the origin of this probe and was there adequate justification?
        If those FISA warrants are bogus, so is the spying, I mean surveillance.
        Spygate appears to have begun in 2015, which lessens the probability that any of it was legitimate.
        Jim Comey ambushed the President early on with the Clinton garbage dossier and he admitted it was orchestrated and done is a very careful manner with an intelligence briefing in the Oval Office.
        Comey said he had to inform the President just enough to legitimize a leak to the media but not too much as to alert him to an investigation.
        Present at that briefing was Barack Obama, Joe Biden, James Clapper, John Brennan, and Susan Rice.
        THE SOURCE OF THE ARGUMENTComey and Brennan and Clapper appear to be arguing over which one of them pushed to include the Steele garbage dossier in the President's intelligence briefing.
        Fox News reports that Comey sent an email to FBI staff in December 2016 indicating that Brennan wanted to include the dossier.
        A former CIA official told Fox News it was the other way around and Brennan and Clapper objected.
        The Daily Mail reports that Clapper and Brennan insist they told Comey not to use the Golden Showers dossier.
        It always appeared that Brennan was the more likely culprit. The Guardian newspaper reported that Brennan set up the spying by foreign intelligence. Perhaps we will get our answer soon.
        Let's face it, if they are guilty, they are all guilty.
        We know the dossier is garbage and we know that there was spying that probably began in 2015.
        Comey weaponized the FBI and Brennan probably used the briefings to leak to the media. Did Brennan push Comey to get illicit FISA warrants? In any case, he's complicit.
        Was the FBI ignorant of where the leaks were coming from and did they believe the articles they read? They didn't verify the dossier because they knew it was garbage. Even if they were too stupid to realize it, they were told by the State Department official Kavalec before they submitted the FISA warrants, at least the last three. The exact date of the first FISA warrant is redacted. That warrant and Kavalec's meeting with Steele were in September 2016. The DOJ Inspector General is investigating that reports say.
        Comey knew by early 2017 at the latest that Steele and his sources were illegitimate when he went ahead with two more FISA renewals.
        We won't even go into all the times Comey lied about it in public '-- sanctimoniously.
        Brennan wants to minimize his role, so does Clapper.
        Then we have the spying on George Papadopoulos which included a possible spy who handed him $10,000 he didn't want. That appears to have been orchestrated by Mueller or his team.
        THE NYT SAYS NOTHING TO SEE HEREThe NY Times claimed today that Attorney General Bill Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are only reviewing the origins of the Trump-Russia probe in their story, ''Scrutiny of Russia Investigation Said to Be a Review, Not a Criminal Inquiry. That story does not sound feasible. Why would Barr, a serious man, enlist Durham, another serious man unless it was serious?
        Former deputy assistant attorney general under George W., John Yoo was on Fox News today. He believes that Barr appointing a U.S. attorney means indictments are coming.
        Cybercast News Service reported that John Yoo said:''If I were the Democrats I would be quite worried'...''
        ''And the reason why is, by appointing a U.S. attorney, Attorney General Barr is essentially signaling that he thinks it's possible that criminal violations occurred in the start of the whole investigation into any kind of Trump-Russian collusion. '... [Y]ou wouldn't go with a U.S. Attorney like Durham, someone of his stature, unless the attorney general thinks actually something criminal might have happened, that someone might have violated the law'...''
        Durham has been looking into James Baker and his leaking to the media for months. It's serious.
        It is so serious that the CIA, the FBI, and the DNI are working on it, having been enlisted by Bill Barr.
        This entire probe was a baseless hoax and instead of mea culpas, the media, the culprits, and the Democrats are doubling down, making fools of themselves or worse. It's downright evil.
        Watch Andy McCarthy:
      AT&T floats proposal for new category of CBRS devices | FierceWireless
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 19:20
        Members of AT&T's technical and regulatory staff met with officials in the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau on Thursday to discuss a possible new category of devices operating in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) 3.5 GHz band.
        According to an ex parte filing (PDF), the meeting primarily focused on AT&T's questions about whether the commission would entertain a proposal to increase the power levels for a new category of CBSDs, a term that generally refers to CBRS small cells.
        The FCC currently has two categories for CBSDs: Category A refers to a lower power base station and Category B refers to a CBSD that must be deployed outdoors and has higher maximum power limits compared with Category A devices.
        FREE DAILY NEWSLETTER Like this story? Subscribe to FierceWireless!
        The Wireless industry is an ever-changing world where big ideas come along daily. Our subscribers rely on FierceWireless as their must-read source for the latest news, analysis and data on this increasingly competitive marketplace. Sign up today to get wireless news and updates delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
        According to AT&T's presentation (PDF), it is advocating a proposal to allow a new Category C CBSD with even higher power, which would allow for ''operational, technical flexibility'' and enable additional 5G use cases for CBRS as a midband anchor for 5G New Radio (NR).
        Specifically, it proposes the addition of a third category with maximum allowable Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) up to 62 dBm/10 MHz. EIRP refers to the total RF power radiated by the antenna. For Cat A devices, it's 30 dBm/10 MHz and for Cat B CBRS devices, it's 47 dBm/10 MHz
        Under certain conditions, as determined by the Spectrum Access Controller (SAS), Cat C devices could take advantage of midband propagation characteristics, but AT&T said its proposal would continue to protect incumbents and not impact current SAS certifications.
        RELATED: Federated Wireless completes ESC network for CBRS
        The proposal comes as the CBRS industry prepares for initial commercial deployments in the General Authorized Access (GAA) portion of the band. The Priority Access License (PAL) portion of the band involves the auctioning of licenses and that's not expected to happen until next year.
      Stacey Abrams Says She's Considering Presidential Run
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Mon, 20 May 2019 12:44
        Follow Matt on TwitterGeorgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, a rising party star who narrowly fell short of becoming the first female African American governor last year, said on Thursday she is still considering running for president.
        In an interview on ''Pod Save America'' with Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to former Democratic U.S. President Barack Obama, Abrams was asked whether she is considering joining the huge field of Democratic presidential candidates. She replied: ''Yes.''
        If Abrams does join the 2020 race, she will add to a field that currently numbers 22 Democrats trying to become the nominee to take on Republican President Donald Trump in next November's election.
        Abrams, 45, the former Georgia House minority leader, narrowly lost the Georgia governor's race last year against Republican Brian Kemp. She demonstrated how an African American could compete in a Southern state that has voted reliably Republican at a state level in recent years. '' READ MORE
      How politics is the perennial elephant in the room at Eurovision | Euronews
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 16:55
        Politics is the perennial elephant in the room at Eurovision, stalking in the shadows and threatening to upset the idea of a unified Europe.
        In 2016, Ukraine's entry, 1944, was widely interpreted as referring to Joseph Stalin's deportation of Crimean Tatars '-- which happened in the same year '-- and Russia's more recent annexation of Crimea.
        ''When strangers are coming, they come to your house, they kill you all and say, we're not guilty, not guilty,'' sang Jamala, the first ever Crimean Tatar to perform at the annual music contest.
        The 34-year-old has denied her song was political but it sparked howls of indignation from senior figures in Russia.
        Ukraine is not the only country to have been accused of exploiting the competition for political means.
        Armenia used the centenary of the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire '-- an event recognised as genocide by many European countries but which is disputed by Turkey and Azerbaijan '-- to enter a controversial song.
        ''Don't deny, ever don't deny, baby don't deny,'' sang its chorus, sparking critics to suggest it was calling for recognition of what Armenia considers a genocide.
        Both entries were allowed even though Eurovision's rules explicitly say songs should not contain political lyrics.
        It's not as if there is an absence of vetting: the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which runs the song contest, has a special reference group which normally meets in mid-March of each year to consider entries.
        The group is made up of a handful of people and they have the responsibility on whether to censor a song.
        Its members include the executive supervisor of this year's show and the two previous years' producers; a chairman; and three members from European public service broadcasters: Italy, the Netherlands and Slovenia.
        While they have access to legal or external expertise if members need it, critics say what is considered political is too subjective.
        So should the group be reformed and better reflect how Eurovision has moved eastwards in recent decades to involve former Soviet states?
        ''I don't know if they'd go with another format,'' said Paul Jordan, an academic expert on the contest, nicknamed Dr Eurovision. ''I think the system at the moment is largely working and I don't think they see a need to change it unless something really important comes up.''
        One of the most high-profile songs to be removed from the competition was Georgia's entry in 2009.
        It came amid the backdrop of conflict in the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which is internationally recognised as being in Georgia.
        Georgia tried to recapture it in August 2008, prompting Russia to respond with a massive invasion.
        The conflict killed several hundred people.
        Georgia's song, called We Don't Wanna Put In, was thrown out because judges considered that the last two words of the song title spelt out the name of Russia's current president, Vladimir Putin.
        Georgia's lack of subtlety and the mentioning of individual politicians '-- in contrast to Armenia and Ukraine '-- has seemingly proved to be its undoing.
        Does Eurovision need to tighten its rules, then?
        ''I think it is strict enough,'' Jordan told Euronews. ''It's working and it would be a great shame if there were songs that were quite barbed and politically-charged.
        ''You certainly saw that in the 1970s when the likes of Greece and Cyprus would enter certain songs.
        ''It's good it's not becoming a hotbed of political controversy, there's a fine balance to strike between freedom and creativity.''
        But, while few would likely call for more politics in Eurovision, there is a whiff of hypocrisy in any censorship.
        That's because some argue the very mission of the contest has always been political in nature.
        Phil Jackson, an expert on Eurovision from Edge Hill University in Lancashire, England, said when the contest was established in the aftermath of World War II its aim was to unite Europe.
        More lately, the victory of bearded drag queen Conchita Wurst in 2014 has helped bring tolerance to the forefront, he added, even if the Austrian's win prompted accusations of homophobia in some countries.
        ''Eurovision is cosmopolitanism by stealth,'' he told Euronews. ''EBU's output has to satisfy the cosmopolitan, pacifist ideal.
        ''And it's set against a backdrop of countries where there isn't that cultural, social or political agreement it then becomes more problematic.
        ''It's not Disneyfication of the world but is it a staged Europe? Are we seeing Europe in denial?''
        An EBU spokesman said: "The core values of the Eurovision Song Contest are to celebrate broadcasters from different nations coming together through music, and supporting quality public service broadcasting. These have remained the same since the contest began in 1956.
        The rules of the contest require that no lyrics, speeches or gestures of a political or similar nature shall be permitted, and no messages promoting any organisation, institution or political cause shall be allowed.
        The reference group has measures in place that ensure these rules are upheld, and that the contest remains a non-political event, including a review of each of the delegations' songs before the contest.
        ''The EBU understands that there are many different ways elements of songs can be interpreted, however the reference group aims to review these decisions with an objective eye in order to make informed decisions.''
      Big Tech loves Europe's ideas for ending internet freedom
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 15:56
        Opinion
        By Betsy McCaughey
        May 14, 2019 | 8:24pm
        Mark Zuckerberg Getty Images
        This week, representatives from Facebook, Google and Twitter will join with French President Emmanuel Macron, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and other world leaders to launch a chilling proposal to curb free speech across the internet. Americans should be alarmed. European elites are fast extinguishing internet freedom on the Continent. How long will it survive in the US?
        Social media titans like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg have more influence over our freedom than any Supreme Court justice or even the president. Convinced that their tech prowess should also grant them a wide moral berth, these internet executives are selling out core American principles for the ­almighty dollar.
        They will do whatever a host country demands. In China, Russia and even capitalist Singapore, internet freedom is already dead, without a murmur of protest from Zuckerberg and others.
        Standing alongside Macron on Friday, Zuckerberg said: ''The question of what speech should be acceptable and what is harmful needs to be defined by regulation, by thoughtful governments.'' You read that correctly '-- Zuckerberg's endorsement of censorship. A total repudiation of America's commitment to freedom of expression, which tops our Bill of Rights.
        While Europe finalizes its censorship regulations, Facebook ­relies on leftist groups like Avaaz to finger accounts for being ''divisive.'' In Spain, France and Italy, Facebook is already removing accounts expressing populist views on NATO, immigration and other controversies.
        Ardern, the Kiwi premier, is calling for an internet ban on depictions of mass shootings, like her country's Christchurch massacre, that could incite copycats. That's reasonable. But Europe's censorship goes further, squelching competing ideas. Facebook is glad to oblige.
        Here in the US, where the Constitution prohibits government from censoring speech, Facebook is doing the dirty work, imposing its own brand of Silicon Valley PC. Recently, Facebook banned provocateurs like Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan and Milo Yiannopoulos from its platform. Facebook subsequently even removed a posting by columnist Michelle Malkin for criticizing this censorship.
        Zuckerberg is apparently ignorant of our proud tradition of protecting the speech rights of even odious groups like the neo-Nazis in Skokie, Ill.
        The American Civil Liberties Union has condemned Facebook's censorship, cautioning that ''every time Facebook makes the choice to remove content, a single company is exercising an ­unchecked power to silence.''
        The ACLU warns that conservatives are the targets now, but next time it could be different. James Esseks, ACLU director for the LGBT and HIV project, explains that censorship threatens ''the movements of the future that are still striving to be heard.''
        Fact is, internet platforms are more than just private companies. They've become like public utilities. We are just as dependent on Facebook and Google as on the local electric company. Con Edison can't deny us service because of our political views. Facebook shouldn't be allowed to either.
        Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once explained that, under our Constitution, the only acceptable remedy for evil speech is ''more speech, not enforced silence.'' Government must not limit who speaks in the public square.
        Google, Facebook, Twitter and others, though private-sector companies, are the new public square.
        Don't count on Congress to fix the problem while Democrats control the House. They are on the side of the censors. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler is railing that social media companies aren't doing enough to ''counter'' what he calls ''vitriolic hate messages.''
        Instead, expect the courts to step in. Last fall, a conservative nonprofit called Freedom Watch sued Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple for suppressing ''politically conservative content.'' It's plausible that judges will rule that allowing social media platforms to censor political speech destroys the freedom of the public square.
        Congressional Democrats are still whining about Russian meddling on the internet. Truth is, less than .00008 (eight one hundred thousandths) percent of the total political tweets during the 2016 contest originated with Russian intelligence.
        The biggest threat to a legitimate outcome in 2020 is not foreign interference. It's left-leaning social media giants tilting the election by silencing viewpoints they don't like. It's already happening.
        Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
      The Micromobility Revolution: How Bikes And Scooters Are Shaking Up Urban Transport Worldwide - CB Insights Research
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 15:40
        The micromobility revolution is in full swing, and startups are vying for a piece of the bike and scooter market. We dive into what micromobility looks like around the world, leaders across the space, and obstacles that these transportation solutions may face.
        Most city dwellers have by now seen the explosion of shared bikes and scooters popping up around their city '-- and if not, they will soon enough.
        As congestion in cities rises, existing transportation '-- from cars to buses to trains '-- can no longer keep up with the growing population. Americans have lost an average of 97 hours a year due to congestion, according to the 2018 INRIX National Traffic Scorecard. In 2018, it cost Americans roughly $87B, or an average of $1,348 per driver.
        With cities pressed to solve their transportation crisis amid rising concern around gas-powered emissions, micromobility startups '-- including Bird, Lime, Mobike, and Ofo '-- are emerging as a powerful alternative to the current transit mix.
        Micromobility refers to short-distance transport, usually less than 5 miles. Increasingly, it is shorthand for the growing crop of bike and scooter-sharing companies that are poised to remake the urban landscape.
        With urbanization on the rise, the majority of trips people take fall within the category of micromobility and thus are prime candidates for bike and scooter usage. In the US, for instance, roughly 60% of all trips are 5 miles or less.
        And as consumers take advantage of this growing trend, the market opportunity continues to expand. In the US alone, the micromobility market is predicted to be worth between $200B '' $300B by 2030. Worldwide, investors have already poured more than $5.7B into micromobility startups during the past 4 years.
        While there are certainly some challenges that come along with this exploding micromobility trend, including lack of regulation, citywide bans, and theft, this phenomenon has the potential to massively disrupt the mobility industry all over the world.
        In this analysis, we look at micromobility initiatives across the globe as well at the challenges faced in the adoption of these services.
        Table of ContentsWhy the shift to micromobility?Micromobility around the worldAsiaNorth AmericaSouth AmericaEuropeAfricaChallengesConclusionWhy the shift to micromobility? Cities around the world are quickly growing in size and population.
        In fact, projections show that by 2050, an additional 2.5B people will reside in urban areas globally. With most cities already dealing with dangerous levels of pollution and gridlocked streets, micromobility could solve a handful of problems.
        Among many uses cases, micromobility services increase access to public transportation, reduce the amount of cars on the road, lower our environmental footprint, and provide a convenient methods of transportation for short trips '-- all while being cost effective.
        Electric scooters, for example, can also be more efficient than other modes of transport. One kilowatt hour of energy can only get a gasoline-powered car to travel 0.8 miles, according to Wired. An electric car can travel 4.1 miles under the same conditions. However, an electric scooter can travel 82.8 miles using the same amount of energy.
        Source: Wired
        For city dwellers, renting a bike or scooter is often much cheaper than owning a car or taking a taxi to a destination. Moreover, they take up less space.
        Yet, there are still some rising challenges associated with bikes and scooters. From their general adoption to regulation & infrastructure issues, micromobility solutions are not well-suited to thrive in all regions. (We'll dive more into this below.)
        But the benefits could be dramatic, and this is exactly why we are seeing more enthusiasm for them.
        Asia leads the way in bike-sharing Asia has been the leading pioneer in the micromobility world, with China being the first country to implement a dockless bike-sharing platform in 2015.
        With less regulatory red tape in place compared to Europe and North America, micromobility startups have had the advantage of quick implementation across cities in Asia. This lack of regulation, however, has also brought along some big problems, as the market has become over saturated, and millions of bicycles have begun piling up around city streets.
        Yet, in a continent fraught with dangerously high urban pollution levels and ultra-congested streets, it makes sense that cities like Beijing and Shanghai are leading the way to reduce automotive transportation and make the switch to emission-free solutions.
        Today, shared bikes are now the third most popular mode of public transit in China. Other Asian countries, including Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea are also seeing much success within the micromobility market.
        China pioneers bike-sharing platforms As early as 2008, docked bike-sharing municipal programs were launched in major Chinese cities in an effort to alleviate mobility issues.
        The first and most successful public program in China is Hangzhou Public Bicycle, launched by the Hangzhou Public Transport Corporation in May 2008. Numerous other cities within China have set up public bike-sharing programs, including Beijing, Shanghai, Wenzhou, Kunming, and Guangzhou.
        As private dockless bike-sharing companies began to move in, however, the public programs have largely declined, though they still exist.
        Several Chinese micromobility startups have already achieved unicorn status ($1B+ valuations), the first being Ofo '-- China's largest bike-sharing operator.
        Founded in 2014, the Beijing-based company offers a dockless app-based bike-sharing system that charges by the hour.
        In 2016, Ofo already had a fleet of 85,000 share bicycles across China. The company then secured enough funding by investors like Alibaba and Xiaomi to expand internationally in 2017 to countries like Singapore, Australia, France, the US, the UK, and others.
        Ofo managed to deploy more than 10M bikes worldwide at its peak.
        But recently, the massive startup has been struggling to stay afloat with high operational costs and fiercely intense competition. Ofo has pulled out of numerous locations around the world to reduce costs, and has even considered filing for bankruptcy several times. Despite this current crisis, Ofo's 28-year-old CEO Dai Wei has said he has no intention of giving up or selling the company.
        Bike-sharing company Mobike was founded in early 2015 and also saw growth at breakneck speeds.
        Just two years after its inception, Mobike was valued at around $3B in 2017. By 2018, the company had expanded to over 200 cities in 19 countries worldwide, including China, Singapore, Japan, Australia, the US, Mexico, and Chile.
        Yet, like Ofo, Mobike has been largely unprofitable. In April 2018, Mobike was sold to Chinese web company Meituan Dianping for $2.7B. In order to cut costs, Meituan has announced it is shutting down most of its foreign markets as it undergoes restructuring of the company.
        China's third-largest bike-sharing platform is Hellobike, based in Shanghai.
        Hellobike also achieved unicorn status with the help from top investors like Ant Financial, a financial affiliate of Alibaba.
        Hellobike has been targeting smaller cities instead of focusing on China's major cities that have already become over saturated '-- 95% of Hellobike users reside in second- and third-tier cities. As of October 2018, Hellobike operates in 300 cities across China, with over 20M rides booked each day.
        Southeast Asia gains speed Southeast Asia's first ''decacorn'' '-- a startup with a valuation of over $10B '-- is the ride-hailing company Grab, headquartered in Singapore.
        Grab expanded to offer shared bikes and e-scooters in 2018. The program was first known as GrabCycle and then was rebranded to GrabWheels as the company moved to focus on e-scooters over bicycles, stating scooters are better suited for Singapore's hot and humid weather and limited land space.
        GrabWheels scooters are currently only available on the National University of Singapore's campus, though Grab hopes to roll out to more locations across the island in the near future.
        Singapore-based startup Neuron Mobility offers both dockless bicycles as well as docked electric scooters in Southeast Asia.
        Neuron has expanded to Bangkok and Chiang Mai in Thailand, and more recently to Cyberjaya, Malaysia in early 2019 . It currently operates the largest shared e-scooter fleet in Singapore and Thailand, according to the company. Investors include 500 Startups, SeedPlus, and Ace Capital, among others.
        As for foreign companies that have expanded to the Asian market, the top contenders are US-based Bird and Lime. Bird is also in the process of exploring expansion to Mumbai, Bangkok, Singapore, Seoul, and Hanoi, as well. Lime has been operating in Singapore since November 2018.
        A shift to scooters in North America The US was the first country to see dockless electric kick scooters appearing on city streets.
        In September 2017, Bird dispatched hundreds of its kick scooters onto the streets of Santa Monica, California. Much like the early days of ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft emerging, there was a backlash from the public and city officials alike.
        Yet, despite some regulatory hiccups along the way, the dockless scooter craze has taken off and witnessed aggressive growth. Several US-based scooter-sharing companies have already managed to reach unicorn status at lightning speeds as big investors pour millions of dollars into the space.
        Moreover, about 70% of Americans living in major urban areas view e-scooters positively, according to a 2018 survey .
        As for shared bicycle programs, this scheme has existed in many major cities across North America for the last 10 years or so, with the first large-scale system launched in May 2009 in Montreal.
        Yet, it wasn't until the past few years that the bike micromobility market has seen especially explosive growth and competition. Shared bike usage in the US shot up 25% between 2016 and 2017 alone, and the number of shared bikes in the US more than doubled in the same period to around 100,000 bikes with the majority of those new bikes being dockless.
        Bird and Lime: The top scooter unicorns California-based Bird was the first pure-play scooter-sharing startup to exist globally.
        The company achieved unicorn status in less than 9 months after being founded in September 2017, making it the fastest company in the world to reach a valuation of $1B. Only four months later, Bird doubled in valuation to $2B. Bird now operates in over 100 cities throughout North America, Europe, and more '-- though the vast majority of these cities are within the US.
        Bird's largest competitor is Lime, a transportation company that offers shared bicycles and scooters.
        Lime also quickly reached unicorn status and is currently valued at $2.4B. Uber is a notable investor and partner with Lime '-- the startup provides Uber with electric bicycles for the ''Uber Bikes'' service. Lime serves over 90 cities in the US alone, and has also rapidly expanded globally across Europe, South America, and Asia.
        American ride-hailing companies break into micromobility North America's largest ride-hailing companies have recently jumped onto the micromobility bandwagon in an effort to incorporate all forms of transportation into their portfolio of services.
        With the acquisition of bike-sharing company Motivate, Lyft became the largest bike-share service in North America at the end of 2018.
        As a result, Lyft now owns a majority of the US's most popular bike-share programs, including Citi Bike (New York), Ford GoBike (San Francisco), Divvy (Chicago), Bluebikes (Boston), and several others. Lyft has also launched fleets of its own electric scooters across American cities at the end of 2018, including in Denver, Austin, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Nashville.
        Ride-hailing giant Uber also has also been making moves in the micromobility space.
        The company acquired micromobility company Jump Bikes in 2018. Jump offers dockless pedal-assist electric bicycles and scooters in the US and Europe. Jump has bikes and scooters across 25 different cities.
        Uber's CEO has stated that he is very bullish on personal individual electric vehicles such as e-scooters, hoping less and less people will own cars as time goes on.
        ''During rush hour, it is very inefficient for a one-ton hulk of metal to take one person 10 blocks,'' said Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi in an interview.
        In fact, Khosrowshahi believes ride-hailing will make up less than 50 percent of Uber's business in 10 years time.
        Scooters see rapid adoption in South America Many of South America's large metropolitan areas are frequently congested with traffic jams and do not have sufficient public transportation systems in place, particularly during peak rush hours. As a result, micromobility solutions like shared bicycle and e-scooter programs are a very attractive solution that many cities are turning towards.
        While the micromobility trend hasn't exploded in South America, the region is working on developing its micromobility presence, most notably in Sao Paulo, Brazil '-- South America's largest city.
        Top micromobility startups join forces in Brazil The top micromobility startup within South America currently is Yellow, based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Founded in 2017, Yellow is a dockless bike and scooter sharing service that raised one of the largest Series A financings in South American history, at $63M.
        Yellow recently merged with Grin '-- an e-scooter startup based in Mexico City and backed by Y Combinator '-- and the two are rebranding as Grow Mobility . Today, Grow Mobility operates more than 100,000 e-scooters and 35,000 bicycles across South America, with plans in the works to more than double its fleet throughout 2019.
        Grow Mobility is eager to build upon Yellow and Grin's strong relationships throughout South America to continue improving transportation in cities throughout the region.
        ''The demand for these everyday services across Latin America is huge and, by combining strengths and resources, we will be able to move quickly to serve more users,'' Grin co-founder and Grow Mobility CEO Sergio Romo stated in a press release.
        Grow Mobility has a few competitors gaining traction.
        Cosmic Go is a new startup releasing dockless e-scooters across Colombian cities. For now, the company has fleets in Bogota and Medellin, and most recently expanded to Cartagena. Its goal is to eventually deploy 100,000 scooters across Colombia.
        Madrid-based micromobility startup Movo has expanded internationally to several South American countries, setting up fleets of e-scooters within Colombia, Peru, and Chile. The company has plans to expand to Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay by the end of 2019.
        Many of South America's public bike programs are free It is interesting to note that most public bike-sharing programs within South America are completely free to use, aside from Brazil's public programs.
        For example, Medellin, Colombia has had a public bike-sharing program since 2011 '-- the first to be created in South America. The EnCicla Bike Share System offers residents and tourists of Medellin with access to more than 1,000 free bicycles.
        Buenos Aires, Argentina has a public bike-sharing system known as EcoBici that has been expanding since 2010. EcoBici is completely free to all residents and tourists. The city is also constructing more bike lanes as they continue to roll out bikes and stations '-- once the expansion is complete, Buenos Aires will have 200 stations, 3,000 free bicycles, and 250km of bike lanes spanning the city.
        San Lorenzo, Argentina also launched a free bike-sharing program in 2016, called Biciudad, run by the San Lorenzo Government in an effort to reduce the number of motor vehicles in the city.
        Other free public bike systems within South America include BiciQuito in Quito, Ecuador and Movete in Montevideo, Uruguay.
        This abundance of public programs could be a hindrance to micromobility startups' profitability in South America, as the public may often choose the free alternative. Therefore, startups focusing on e-scooters could see more success within the region.
        Investors direct attention to opportunity in Europe Micromobility is not a new concept throughout Europe. In fact, European cities are some of the first to offer shared bicycles as a public service, in addition to already high ownership levels. In Denmark, for example, 90% of the population owns a bike while just 56% own a car.
        Across Europe broadly, the bicycle market was estimated at nearly $14.8B in 2016, and is expected to grow at an annual growth rate of 5.5% until 2022. Europe's car market, for comparison, is expected to grow by just 1.7% until 2024, according to the European Cyclists Federation.
        The French city of La Rochelle launched a bike-sharing program back in 1974, and is still in use today. The Velib in Paris, replaced in 2018 by the Velib Metropole, was one of the biggest public bike-share program outside of China. It has since become the model for a properly implemented bike-share system.
        JCDecaux, the largest outdoor advertising company in the world, was the foundation of self-service bike rental scheme that offers thousands of bicycles across many European nations today, including Paris, Brussels, Dublin, Luxembourg, Vienna, and Valencia.
        2019 will be the year of the scooter for Europe As many cities around Europe are preparing to ban production of gasoline and diesel vehicles in the near future, a big rise in the usage of electric vehicles is, in one word, inevitable.
        Since late 2018 there has been a steady rise in the launching of shared e-scooters in various major European cities, making 2019 the first time dockless e-scooters will be present in Europe during the summer season, when tourism is at its peak.
        MyTaxi, one of Europe's largest taxi apps, began an e-scooter program across Europe recently, launching first in Lisbon, Portugal with 600 dockless scooters. The kick scooters are currently run through a dedicated app called Hive.
        MyTaxi is owned by German automotive company Daimler, which is exploring the option of developing its own line of e-scooters featuring rugged hardware suitable for regions with harsher weather conditions like in Northern Europe.
        In addition, many US-based companies have been flocking to the European market this year, including Lime, Bird, and Uber.
        So far, Lime has deployed its fleets across more than 10 countries in Europe. It has already become the most popular travel app in France (as of October 2018).
        Source: Lime
        Bird started its Europe launch in Paris in late 2018 and quickly became popular, with over 50,000 rides after only two months. Bird scooters can now be found in various cities within Portugal, Belgium, the UK, France, Austria, Spain, and Switzerland.
        In early April 2019, Uber chose Madrid as the first European city to expand its shared e-scooter service Jump, rolling out 566 scooters across Spain's capital. Uber has plans to continue expanding across Europe after this pilot program.
        Money begins to pour in Investors have taken note of the huge opportunity e-scooters present in Europe, where cities have denser populations and far more bike lanes than most American cities. Money has been pouring into European-based companies in an effort to fight off the growing competition of US-based companies swooping into the market.
        Electric scooter company VOI Technology has raised more than $8 0M in its fundraising rounds to date since its August 2018 launch. The Swedish startup has secured investments from venture funds such as Balderton Capital, Vostok New Ventures, Project A, and Creandum.
        VOI currently offers its e-scooters in cities across Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Finland, and France. The company is using its newly raised funds to further expand to Italy, Germany, and Norway next.
        Berlin-based e-scooter startup Tier Mobility raised over $28 million in its round of Series A funding, led by Northzone Ventures, in late 2018. Other investors included Speedinvest and Point Nine. Tier's currently active in over 20 cities in Europe and the Middle East.
        Micromobility yet to take off in Africa With limited infrastructure in place to support bicycles and scooters, most of Africa's cities have yet to see any kind of micromobility programs. But with the help of organizations like the UN pushing programs forward, the continent could eventually see some change.
        Also, as cities across Africa continue to build up their infrastructure, bike and scooter-sharing could become a more viable option for its citizens. So far, Morocco and Egypt seem to be leading the way when it comes to micromobility programs.
        The UN gives a helping hand Marrakech, Morocco was the first city in Africa to launch a citywide bike-sharing program in 2016. Medinabike is supported by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and is run by the Environment Ministry of the Kingdom of Morocco. Medinabike has 300 bikes available for public use across Marrakech.
        In the spring of 2018, the United Nations Environment Program partnered with Mobike to launch a bike-sharing scheme for the UN's Nairobi, Kenya compound. Employees and visitors may use these bicycles for free and they don't require an app to be unlocked. This bike-sharing scheme was showcased during Africa Clean Mobility Week, in an effort to show how bike-sharing programs can be used across Africa as an environmentally friendly option for transportation.
        Source: UN Environment
        Cairo, Egypt has also launched a public bike share program in May 2018, called ''Sekketak Khadra,'' which roughly translates to ''your road is green.'' Cairo's government partnered with the UN Human Settlements Program (UNHABITAT) to set up several hundred bikes across Egypt's capital.
        Some African startups begin to emerge French bike company Smoove is the supplier behind the Medinabike program in Marrakech.
        The company has a five-year contract in place with the city's government. Smoove also won a bid to launch a fleet of shared bicycles in Lagos, Nigeria in 2018 . As of yet, however, it seems no progress has been made on this project, possibly due to poor road infrastructure within the city.
        Baddel is the first electric bike-sharing startup in North Africa, headquartered in Cairo, Egypt. The company has launched a fleet of 101 electric bikes and 15 stations in the resort town of El Gouna. Baddel has plans to eventually launch more fleets of its e-bikes across all of North Africa.
        Challenges the micromobility world faces While the micromobility trend continues to grow worldwide, there are still a number of challenges hindering complete adoption, including limited infrastructure, lack of regulation, citywide bans, and theft.
        City infrastructure If a city lacks the proper infrastructure such as sufficient bike lanes, adoption of shared bicycles and scooters becomes difficult and even dangerous to the public. This is one reason micromobility has yet to take off in countries within Africa, as well as in India.
        Many of Africa's cities are simply not bike-friendly, lacking the proper bike-specific infrastructure for people to safely cycle. At present, riding bikes and scooters across African cities is often too dangerous.
        In South Africa, for instance, cycling is either seen as an elitist sport for the wealthy or as a mode of transport reserved for the poor. As a result, most South Africans have very little interest in cycling around their cities. In Johannesburg, for example, cycling only accounts for a microscopic 0.2% of all trips taken within the city.
        Source: The Guardian
        Until countries can set up proper infrastructure, it is unlikely that the micromobility trend will spread across the continent the way it has been able to in other parts of the world.
        The same goes for India '-- the infrastructure is still largely unsuitable for individuals to safely operate bicycles and scooters on the roads. However, the government is currently working on initiatives to improve conditions for cyclists thanks to the Smart Cities Mission. (Read our explainer on smart cities for more.)
        Profitability Though many micromobility companies raked in millions of dollars through investors, many are still struggling to achieve sustainable profitability.
        Ofo has been struggling to stay afloat, dealing with cash flow problems as it still needs to pay supplies and keep operations running. The company is now on the brink of bankruptcy, and millions of users have applied for refunds of their $14 deposits. To cut costs, Ofo has retreated from most of its foreign markets to focus solely on China.
        It has been reported that Bird's gross profit margin is only around 19 percent , as of October 2018. In an effort to improve these margins, Bird has been changing its pricing structure, even doubling its per-minute fee in some cities.
        Nearly half of Bird's gross revenue generated per ride goes towards paying contractors to collect and charge its scooters each day.
        The company has already begun transitioning to salaried workers to repair its scooters in several cities across the US, and it is likely it will hire more employees to charge scooters as well.
        Scooter startup Spin has done exactly this in Los Angeles, hiring 45 people to become full-time employees that collect, charge, fix, and redeploy its fleet of scooters each day.
        Since the micromobility industry is still quite in its infantile stages, a lot of kinks are still being worked out as companies experiment with ways to improve their profit margins and become more sustainable.
        Regulation As dockless bikes and scooters are still a very novel concept, most cities do not have proper regulations in place for how these programs are allowed to run, leaving governments scrambling to figure out how to deal with the sudden appearance of fleets of bikes and scooters popping up around their cities.
        With this massive influx of companies rushing to establish their own ride-share systems within a city, various cities have begun discussing laws to regulate the establishment and usage of these bike and scooter systems.
        However, while some cities are celebrating their successful launches, others are banning these companies from operating, citing safety out of concern for the chaos they bring to the streets.
        The Chinese government has been creating new regulations to help control the emerging micromobility market, including punishing individuals that leave shared bikes outside of permitted areas or vandalize the bicycles.
        Chinese cities have also been rapidly impounding bikes by the thousands. In Shanghai, the Municipal Transportation Bureau ordered bike-sharing companies to refrain from releasing any more bikes within the already oversaturated city in 2017.
        With the speed and unpredictability of scooters zooming by on sidewalks or randomly placed in the streets, some European cities like Paris are banning them on sidewalks as cautionary steps to prevent scooter collisions with pedestrians. Barcelona has taken the extra step to ban the use of shared electronic scooters completely. Electric scooters are currently also banned on public streets and sidewalks in the UK.
        Luckily for e-scooter-sharing companies, these laws may change as companies work with cities to better integrate micromobility systems into city life. Transport for London has received applications from both Bird and Lime to launch their systems in London. Both companies have also been lobbying for a change of laws enforced since 1835 that has prevented their growth into the UK.
        North America has much stricter regulations in comparison to Asia, which means micromobility startups cannot grow quite as rapidly as they did in China. For example, companies must obtain permits and go through legislative processes before they can roll out their bikes and scooters across most cities in the US.
        If they don't, they can face high fines and wind up banned from cities, like Bird and Lime were banned from San Francisco after they placed hundreds of scooters on the streets without the city's permission. Overall, however, the regulations can be beneficial to cities and startups alike, as they prevent companies from growing unsustainably fast.
        Source: Curbed.com
        Hardware health Fierce competition between micromobility startups has led to the flood of millions of dockless bicycles across the streets of major cities like Beijing and Shanghai, which has resulted in many problems.
        As bikes break, companies often don't have the manpower in place to fix them in a timely manner, resulting in frustrated users having to test several bikes before finding one that works properly. Moreover, as companies that expanded too quickly go out of business, their bicycle supplies wind up going to waste in massive bicycle ''graveyards'' all over China.
        Source: The Atlantic
        The vandalism and theft of bikes and scooters has become a major barrier to many new micromobility companies. This may not be as damaging for larger companies (that can afford to redesign their hardware) as it is for smaller startups that could be driven out of business as a result.
        For example, Gobee.bike, a dockless bike-share service, had to abandon its efforts in France completely in February 2018 as it saw thousands of their bikes damaged or stolen. For the same reason, it had already ceased services in Brussels earlier in the year.
        In addition, 80% of bikes from Paris's Velib bike-share program have been reportedly stolen or damaged '-- some have been even found on black markets in Eastern Europe and northern Africa.
        Micromobility companies therefore must deal with the expenses associated with replacing stolen hardware as well as hire enough manpower to repair damaged ones. Both Bird and Lime have stated that their electric scooters tend to last one to two months before having to be replaced. In an effort to increase their lifespan, Bird upgraded to a new ''Bird Zero'' model in September 2018 that is more rugged and durable, featuring solid-core tires.
        Weather For cities with harsher climates, like those in northern Europe, adoption of shared bikes and scooters is not as viable. In the rain and snow, conditions become dangerous and accidents skyrocket. Plus, demand simply decreases when it is too cold to use unenclosed vehicles.
        Many scooter sharing companies are moving towards offering more durable fleets to make riding safer in inclement weather.
        Skip has even been giving away branded winter gloves and hats to its users in Washington, DC during the cold winter months.
        But, ultimately, when weather conditions are too severe, shared scooter and bike companies might be forced to take their fleets off the streets and potentially lose precious profits.
        Despite challenges, the future of micromobility looks bright As with any emerging industry, micromobility companies offering the relatively new service of shared bikes and scooters to the world have some bumpy roads ahead as they face numerous challenges across the space.
        While some companies may fail along the way, the companies that do survive will likely thrive in this multi-billion-dollar market, as they provide urbanites with a viable solution to their transportation woes and offer a greener alternative to cars.
        Of course, much of this is dependent on geography, and whether cities or urban settings can accommodate these methods of transportation successfully.
        But with an increasing number of investors pouring enormous amounts of capital into the micromobility industry, we can expect to see more bicycles and scooters on the streets of cities all over the globe moving forward
      Why Is It So Hard to Predict the Future? - The Atlantic
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 15:31
        Na Kim The bet was on, and it was over the fate of humanity. On one side was the Stanford biologist Paul R. Ehrlich. In his 1968 best seller, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich insisted that it was too late to prevent a doomsday apocalypse resulting from overpopulation. Resource shortages would cause hundreds of millions of starvation deaths within a decade. It was cold, hard math: The human population was growing exponentially; the food supply was not. Ehrlich was an accomplished butterfly specialist. He knew that nature did not regulate animal populations delicately. Populations exploded, blowing past the available resources, and then crashed.
        In his book, Ehrlich played out hypothetical scenarios that represented ''the kinds of disasters that will occur.'' In the worst-case scenario, famine rages across the planet. Russia, China, and the United States are dragged into nuclear war, and the resulting environmental degradation soon extinguishes the human race. In the ''cheerful'' scenario, population controls begin. Famine spreads, and countries teeter, but the major death wave ends in the mid-1980s. Only half a billion or so people die of starvation. ''I challenge you to create one more optimistic,'' Ehrlich wrote, adding that he would not count scenarios involving benevolent aliens bearing care packages.
        RiverheadThe economist Julian Simon took up Ehrlich's challenge. Technology'--water-control techniques, hybridized seeds, management strategies'--had revolutionized agriculture, and global crop yields were increasing. To Simon, more people meant more good ideas about how to achieve a sustainable future. So he proposed a wager. Ehrlich could choose five metals that he expected to become more expensive as resources were depleted and chaos ensued over the next decade. Both men agreed that commodity prices were a fine proxy for the effects of population growth, and they set the stakes at $1,000 worth of Ehrlich's five metals. If, 10 years hence, prices had gone down, Ehrlich would have to pay the difference in value to Simon. If prices went up, Simon would be on the hook for the difference. The bet was made official in 1980.
        In October 1990, Simon found a check for $576.07 in his mailbox. Ehrlich got smoked. The price of every one of the metals had declined. In the 1960s, 50 out of every 100,000 global citizens died annually from famine; by the 1990s, that number was 2.6.
        Ehrlich's starvation predictions were almost comically bad. And yet, the very same year he conceded the bet, Ehrlich doubled down in another book, with another prediction that would prove untrue: Sure, his timeline had been a little off, he wrote, but ''now the population bomb has detonated.'' Despite one erroneous prediction after another, Ehrlich amassed an enormous following and received prestigious awards. Simon, meanwhile, became a standard-bearer for scholars who felt that Ehrlich had ignored economic principles. The kind of excessive regulations Ehrlich advocated, the Simon camp argued, would quell the very innovation that had delivered humanity from catastrophe. Both men became luminaries in their respective domains. Both were mistaken.
        When economists later examined metal prices for every 10-year window from 1900 to 2008, during which time the world population quadrupled, they saw that Ehrlich would have won the bet 62 percent of the time. The catch: Commodity prices are a poor gauge of population effects, particularly over a single decade. The variable that both men were certain would vindicate their worldviews actually had little to do with those views. Prices waxed and waned with macroeconomic cycles.
        Yet both men dug in. Each declared his faith in science and the undisputed primacy of facts. And each continued to miss the value of the other's ideas. Ehrlich was wrong about the apocalypse, but right on aspects of environmental degradation. Simon was right about the influence of human ingenuity on food and energy supplies, but wrong in claiming that improvements in air and water quality validated his theories. Ironically, those improvements were bolstered through regulations pressed by Ehrlich and others.
        Ideally, intellectual sparring partners ''hone each other's arguments so that they are sharper and better,'' the Yale historian Paul Sabin wrote in The Bet. ''The opposite happened with Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon.'' As each man amassed more information for his own view, each became more dogmatic, and the inadequacies in his model of the world grew ever more stark.
        The pattern is by now familiar. In the 30 years since Ehrlich sent Simon a check, the track record of expert forecasters'--in science, in economics, in politics'--is as dismal as ever. In business, esteemed (and lavishly compensated) forecasters routinely are wildly wrong in their predictions of everything from the next stock-market correction to the next housing boom. Reliable insight into the future is possible, however. It just requires a style of thinking that's uncommon among experts who are certain that their deep knowledge has granted them a special grasp of what is to come.
        T he idea for the most important study ever conducted of expert predictions was sparked in 1984, at a meeting of a National Research Council committee on American-Soviet relations. The psychologist and political scientist Philip E. Tetlock was 30 years old, by far the most junior committee member. He listened intently as other members discussed Soviet intentions and American policies. Renowned experts delivered authoritative predictions, and Tetlock was struck by how many perfectly contradicted one another and were impervious to counterarguments.
        Tetlock decided to put expert political and economic predictions to the test. With the Cold War in full swing, he collected forecasts from 284 highly educated experts who averaged more than 12 years of experience in their specialties. To ensure that the predictions were concrete, experts had to give specific probabilities of future events. Tetlock had to collect enough predictions that he could separate lucky and unlucky streaks from true skill. The project lasted 20 years, and comprised 82,361 probability estimates about the future.
        The result: The experts were, by and large, horrific forecasters. Their areas of specialty, years of experience, and (for some) access to classified information made no difference. They were bad at short-term forecasting and bad at long-term forecasting. They were bad at forecasting in every domain. When experts declared that future events were impossible or nearly impossible, 15 percent of them occurred nonetheless. When they declared events to be a sure thing, more than one-quarter of them failed to transpire. As the Danish proverb warns, ''It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.''
        Read: What was the worst prediction of all time?
        Even faced with their results, many experts never admitted systematic flaws in their judgment. When they missed wildly, it was a near miss; if just one little thing had gone differently, they would have nailed it. ''There is often a curiously inverse relationship,'' Tetlock concluded, ''between how well forecasters thought they were doing and how well they did.''
        Early predictions in Tetlock's research pertained to the future of the Soviet Union. Some experts (usually liberals) saw Mikhail Gorbachev as an earnest reformer who would be able to change the Soviet Union and keep it intact for a while, and other experts (usually conservatives) felt that the Soviet Union was immune to reform and losing legitimacy. Both sides were partly right and partly wrong. Gorbachev did bring real reform, opening the Soviet Union to the world and empowering citizens. But those reforms unleashed pent-up forces in the republics outside Russia, where the system had lost legitimacy. The forces blew the Soviet Union apart. Both camps of experts were blindsided by the swift demise of the U.S.S.R.
        One subgroup of scholars, however, did manage to see more of what was coming. Unlike Ehrlich and Simon, they were not vested in a single discipline. They took from each argument and integrated apparently contradictory worldviews. They agreed that Gorbachev was a real reformer and that the Soviet Union had lost legitimacy outside Russia. A few of those integrators saw that the end of the Soviet Union was close at hand and that real reforms would be the catalyst.
        The integrators outperformed their colleagues in pretty much every way, but especially trounced them on long-term predictions. Eventually, Tetlock bestowed nicknames (borrowed from the philosopher Isaiah Berlin) on the experts he'd observed: The highly specialized hedgehogs knew ''one big thing,'' while the integrator foxes knew ''many little things.''
        Hedgehogs are deeply and tightly focused. Some have spent their career studying one problem. Like Ehrlich and Simon, they fashion tidy theories of how the world works based on observations through the single lens of their specialty. Foxes, meanwhile, ''draw from an eclectic array of traditions, and accept ambiguity and contradiction,'' Tetlock wrote. Where hedgehogs represent narrowness, foxes embody breadth.
        Incredibly, the hedgehogs performed especially poorly on long-term predictions within their specialty. They got worse as they accumulated experience and credentials in their field. The more information they had to work with, the more easily they could fit any story into their worldview.
        Unfortunately, the world's most prominent specialists are rarely held accountable for their predictions, so we continue to rely on them even when their track records make clear that we should not. One study compiled a decade of annual dollar-to-euro exchange-rate predictions made by 22 international banks: Barclays, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and others. Each year, every bank predicted the end-of-year exchange rate. The banks missed every single change of direction in the exchange rate. In six of the 10 years, the true exchange rate fell outside the entire range of all 22 bank forecasts.
        I n 2005, Tetlock published his results, and they caught the attention of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, or IARPA, a government organization that supports research on the U.S. intelligence community's most difficult challenges. In 2011, IARPA launched a four-year prediction tournament in which five researcher-led teams competed. Each team could recruit, train, and experiment however it saw fit. Predictions were due at 9 a.m. every day. The questions were hard: Will a European Union member withdraw by a target date? Will the Nikkei close above 9,500?
        Tetlock, along with his wife and collaborator, the psychologist Barbara Mellers, ran a team named the Good Judgment Project. Rather than recruit decorated experts, they issued an open call for volunteers. After a simple screening, they invited 3,200 people to start forecasting. Among those, they identified a small group of the foxiest forecasters'--bright people with extremely wide-ranging interests and unusually expansive reading habits, but no particular relevant background'--and weighted team forecasts toward their predictions. They destroyed the competition.
        Tetlock and Mellers found that not only were the best forecasters foxy as individuals, but they tended to have qualities that made them particularly effective collaborators. They were ''curious about, well, really everything,'' as one of the top forecasters told me. They crossed disciplines, and viewed their teammates as sources for learning, rather than peers to be convinced. When those foxes were later grouped into much smaller teams'--12 members each'--they became even more accurate. They outperformed'--by a lot'--a group of experienced intelligence analysts with access to classified data.
        One forecast discussion involved a team trying to predict the highest single-day close for the exchange rate between the Ukrainian hryvnia and the U.S. dollar during an extremely volatile stretch in 2014. Would the rate be less than 10 hryvnia to a dollar, between 10 and 13, or more than 13? The discussion started with a team member offering percentages for each possibility, and sharing an Economist article. Another team member chimed in with historical data he'd found online, a Bloomberg link, and a bet that the rate would land between 10 and 13. A third teammate was convinced by the second's argument. A fourth shared information about the dire state of Ukrainian finances, which he feared would devalue the hryvnia. A fifth noted that the United Nations Security Council was considering sending peacekeepers to the region, which he believed would buoy the currency.
        Two days later, a team member with experience in finance saw that the hryvnia was strengthening amid events he'd thought would surely weaken it. He informed his teammates that this was exactly the opposite of what he'd expected, and that they should take it as a sign of something wrong in his understanding. (Tetlock told me that, when making an argument, foxes often use the word however, while hedgehogs favor moreover.) The team members finally homed in on ''between 10 and 13'' as the heavy favorite, and they were correct.
        In Tetlock's 20-year study, both the broad foxes and the narrow hedgehogs were quick to let a successful prediction reinforce their beliefs. But when an outcome took them by surprise, foxes were much more likely to adjust their ideas. Hedgehogs barely budged. Some made authoritative predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong'--then updated their theories in the wrong direction. They became even more convinced of the original beliefs that had led them astray. The best forecasters, by contrast, view their own ideas as hypotheses in need of testing. If they make a bet and lose, they embrace the logic of a loss just as they would the reinforcement of a win. This is called, in a word, learning.
        This article is adapted from David Epstein's book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World. It appears in the June 2019 print edition with the headline ''The Peculiar Blindness of Experts.''
        We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
      Eurovision 2019: Five lessons learned - BBC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 14:47
        Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Duncan Laurence receives his trophy from last year's winner Netta "I'm so happy right now," said Duncan Laurence shortly after securing the Netherlands' first win at the Eurovision Song Contest since 1975.
        "This can't be described in words," the Dutch singer told reporters. "My dream came true."
        Asked to posit what life lessons he had gleaned from his Eurovision experience, the 24-year-old said it had taught him to "stick to what you love and dream big always."
        But they weren't the only lessons to be learned from the ceremony, held this year in Tel Aviv in Israel. Here are five things we took away from the event.
        1) You can't keep politics outThe organisers of the contest insist it is a non-political event. Yet events on Saturday proved they are deluding themselves.
        It was inevitable tensions in the region would be referenced in some fashion, and Icelandic band Hatari made sure they were by displaying Palestinian banners on live television.
        Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Hatari put the BDS into BDSM on Eurovision's big night Earlier Madonna made her own statement by having two of her dancers, one with an Israeli flag on his back and another with a Palestinian flag on hers, walk arm in arm.
        "I am grateful for the opportunity to spread the message of peace and unity with the world," she tweeted later.
        How can Eurovision continue to consider itself neutral when competitors and star guests alike refuse to play along?
        2) A good song beats great stagingThere were some spectacular set-pieces this year, with Australia's bendy pole routine being an obvious highlight.
        Yet Eurovision is primarily a song contest, and a good song doesn't need bells and whistles to make an impact.
        Laurence chose a pared-down presentation that suited the simplicity and sincerity of his song Arcade perfectly.
        Fireworks and flame plumes are all very well, but Laurence's victory - like Portugal's in 2017 - is a reminder that less can sometimes be more.
        At the winner's press conference, Laurence said pyrotechnics would have been "a bit much" for Arcade but declined to pooh-pooh their use out of hand.
        3) A big name can still disappointMadonna was Eurovision's ace in the hole - an incentive for people who would not normally tune in to make an appointment to view.
        Yet she struggled to hit the high notes of Like A Prayer, while her new track Future, performed with rapper Quavo, is not one of her best.
        Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Madonna performed with rapper Quavo Earlier this week, Eurovision supremo Jon Ola Sand claimed that Madonna had yet to sign a contract and could not perform without one.
        In the cold light of day, would it really have been so terrible if she hadn't?
        Laurence, by the way, gallantly insisted that Madonna had done "a great job" and that he had thoroughly enjoyed her performance.
        4) The big five are not so bigFive nations put more money into Eurovision than other countries so are allowed to leapfrog the semi-final stage.
        The downside is it can foster resentment among fans who believe they should earn their places in the final like everyone else.
        There was certainly no ill-will towards Italy, who came second with Mahmood's Soldi - the most streamed song in the competition.
        But three other members of the "big five" - Germany, Spain and the UK - ended up outside the Top 20, with the latter finishing dead last.
        The revelation that Germany received precisely nul points in the public vote was a particularly shaming moment.
        5) It's North Macedonia nowUnder the terms of an agreement reached last year with Greece, the country formerly known as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was allowed to give itself a new name.
        Thanks to Tamara Todevska's impressive showing at Eurovision, a lot more people around the world know that name is North Macedonia.
        Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Tamara Todevska topped the leader board at one stage Eurovision's artistic credentials are always up for debate, but there's no questioning its services to world geography knowledge.
        That said, most people still don't know how to find San Marino on a map.
        The Eurovision Song Contest final is now available on the BBC iPlayer.
        Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts, or on Instagram at bbcnewsents. If you have a story suggestion email entertainment.news@bbc.co.uk.
      Prescription For Violence: The Corresponding Rise of Antidepressants, SSRIs and Mass Shootings
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 13:57
        You're free to republish or share any of our articles (either in part or in full), which are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Our only requirement is that you give Ammo.com appropriate credit by linking to the original article. Spread the word; knowledge is power!
        According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a mass murder occurs when at least four people are murdered, not including the shooter, over a relatively short period of time during a single incident. Over the last 30 years, the United States has seen a significant increase in mass shootings, which are becoming more frequent and more deadly.
        Seemingly every time a mass shooting occurs, whether it's at a synagogue in Pittsburgh or a nightclub in Orlando, the anti-gun media and politicians have a knee-jerk response '' they blame the tragedy solely on the tool used, namely firearms, and focus all of their proposed ''solutions'' on more laws, ignoring that the murderer already broke numerous laws when they committed their atrocity.
        Facts matter when addressing such an emotionally charged topic, and more gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem. Consider the following: The more gun control laws that are passed, the more mass murders have occurred.
        Whether or not this is correlation or causation is debatable. What is not debatable is that this sick phenomenon of mass murderers targeting ''gun-free zones,'' where they know civilian carry isn't available to law-abiding Americans, is happening. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 97.8 percent of public shootings occur in ''gun-free zones'' '' and ''gun-free zones'' are the epitome of the core philosophical tenant of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence.
        Therefore, when the media and politicians focus their ire on guns, specifically what types of guns are used, such as AR-styles, carbines, semi-automatics, and ''high capacity'' handguns, in the wake of such tragedies the American public are being intentionally drawn into an emotionally charged debate about legal gun ownership (irrespective of whether the murderer's gun was legally or illegally obtained). This debate leads them away from the elephant in the room and one of the real issues behind mass shootings '' mental health and prescription drugs.
        Ignoring what's going on in the heads of these psychopaths not only allows mass shootings to continue, it leads to misguided gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and negate the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens. As Jeff Snyder put it in The Washington Times:
        ''But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.'' Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. When a multivariate analysis of these factors is conducted, it becomes apparent that it's not just mental health issues that are leading to such an increase. There may be an underlying substance which plays a role in a high percentage of these violent acts '' the use of prescription antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.
        At first glance, it makes sense that those involved in mass shootings may be taking antidepressants, as they're clearly suffering from some sort of mental health issue. But the issue with SSRIs runs much deeper than just a random mental health break. These drugs are a prescription for violent crimes, and that's a story the anti-gun media and politicians don't want to talk about.
        History of Antidepressant Use in the U.S.To understand the rise in antidepressant use, one must first understand depression. Everyone, no matter how great their life, has periods of sadness, times when they feel down or low. This is especially true when faced with hardships or going through things like a divorce, the loss of a job, or the death of a parent.
        This is not clinical depression. Clinical depression is a serious mental disorder that impacts how a person functions on a daily basis. Depression makes it hard to get out of bed. It makes it hard to go to work. It makes it hard to take a shower or answer the phone. It stops a person from functioning on the basic levels.
        Understanding DepressionAccording to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, commonly referred to as the DSM-5, to be considered clinically depressed, a patient must experience five of the following symptoms most of the day, every day, for at least two weeks. What's more, these symptoms must be so severe, they interfere with normal functioning:
        Sadness Anxiety Feeling hopeless Feeling worthless Feeling helpless Feeling ''empty'' Feeling guilty Irritable Fatigue Lack of energy Loss of interest in hobbies Slow talking and moving Restlessness Trouble concentrating Abnormal sleep patterns, whether sleeping too much or not enough Abnormal weight changes, either eating too much or having no appetite Thoughts of death or suicideDepression is a serious, and sometimes life-threatening, illness. But in the modern world, it's highly over-diagnosed. A study published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics looked at 5,639 patients in the U.S. who were diagnosed with depression by their clinician and compared their symptoms to the DSM criteria for clinical depression. Of these patients, only 38.4 percent met the criteria, even though the majority of the 5,639 patients were prescribed depression medication.
        Today, with the way antidepressants are prescribed, nearly one in four Americans will meet the criteria to be diagnosed with depression within their lifetime, and will be prescribed medications that interfere with how their brain functions.
        The Rise of AntidepressantsIn the 1950s, the first generation of antidepressants hit the market. The introductory class of antidepressants to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval were monoamine oxidase inhibitors, known as MAOIs. Although highly effective, MAOIs can cause extremely high blood pressure when paired with certain foods or medications, and therefore require diet restrictions. Because of these restrictions, they're rarely used today to treat depression except in cases where other treatments fail.
        By the late 1950s, a new class of antidepressants became available '' tricyclic antidepressants. Tricyclic antidepressants are also highly effective for treating depression, but are prone to side effects. Even so, this class of antidepressants remained the go-to depression treatment for years. Other drugs were tested for depression treatment, but they hadn't proved more effective than tricyclic and MAOI antidepressants, especially for severe depression.
        Fast forward to the 1980s. America's tranquilizer dependence was becoming problematic. Quaaludes were heavily over-prescribed for anxiety, resulting in overdose deaths, as well as an increase in deaths from vehicle accidents. The Feds stepped in and in 1984, classified Quaaludes as a Schedule 1 drug, making them illegal to sell, buy, and use.
        Valium, a benzodiazepine prescribed for anxiety, was also extremely popular, and was the most prescribed medication in the U.S. from 1969 through 1982. In 1978, the year the medication peaked, more than 2.3 billion pills were sold in the U.S. But Valium was highly addictive and it was believed that a serotonergic medication was a better option to fill the void that was left when Quaaludes were outlawed.
        In 1987, Prozac, the first SSRI, was released for depression. Along with it came the idea that depression could be the underlying cause of anxiety. The idea took off, as did the sales of Prozac, and within a few years, it overtook the antidepressant market. Soon, other SSRIs followed.
        Along with these SSRIs came direct-to-consumer advertising, which became legal in 1985. By the mid-1990s, the FDA regulations became looser and direct-to-consumer ads exploded into the market. Prozac and other medications showed Americans through glossy advertisements that unhappiness, stress, and anxiety could be treated with a pill.
        Instead of doctors recommending a specific medication, patients started coming in, requesting a medication they saw in a magazine or on television.
        SSRI sales skyrocketed.
        By 2010, 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 were prescribed an antidepressant, making it the third most prescribed medication, topped only by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen and naproxen. When looked at over time, there has been a 400-percent increase in antidepressant use from 1988 through 2008.
        SSRIs 101: What You Should KnowSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of drugs commonly referred to as SSRIs, are the most prescribed antidepressant in the United States. These second-generation antidepressants are marketed to doctors and patients as safe and effective, with relatively minimal side effects. SSRIs are designated to treat mild to moderate depression, as well as anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and bulimia nervosa.
        How do SSRIs work?SSRIs work to increase the amount of serotonin in the brain. A neurotransmitter that helps neurons communicate, serotonin is associated with many different body functions, but is best known for its influence on mood. Sometimes called ''the happy chemical,'' serotonin plays a role in a person's happiness and general feelings of wellbeing.
        Low levels of serotonin are linked to depression, although the relationship is not clear. Research has not determined if the low neurotransmitter level causes depression or if depression causes the level of serotonin to drop. It should also be noted that a large amount of serotonin, up to 90 percent, is produced in the gut and may be influenced by what a person eats and drinks.
        SSRI medication does exactly what its name says. When two neurons communicate, one releases neurotransmitters, which causes the other neuron to react in a certain way. Because this is constantly going on, these chemicals are always present in the brain. To keep the brain's chemical balance correct, neurons regulate the amount of neurotransmitters released by a process called reuptake, which involves the reabsorption of the chemical by a neuron.
        For instance, if there's a high level of serotonin, the neuron knows to release less through reuptake, keeping the level balanced. If levels of the neurotransmitter are low, reuptake tells the neurons to release more.
        SSRIs inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, causing neurons to release more of the neurotransmitter, therefore increasing the amount of the chemical found in the brain.
        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a variety of SSRIs, including:
        Citalopram (Celexa) Escitalopram (Lexapro) Fluoxetine (Prozac) Paroxetine (Paxil and Pexeva) Sertraline (Zoloft) Vilazodone (Viibryd)When it comes to effectiveness, SSRIs don't appear to have an influence on those with moderate to severe depression, with virtually no improvement seen when comparing SSRI use to placebos. Instead of a popular drug with a high efficiency, modern SSRIs have become popular based on an effective marketing campaign and little more.
        Too Much of a Good Thing: Serotonin SyndromeSometimes serotonin levels become too high, causing Serotonin Syndrome. A potentially life-threatening disease, it occurs when serotonin levels in the brain increase to a toxic level, often caused by too much medication or taking two serotonin-increasing medications that use different mechanisms to increase the neurotransmitter.
        Along with physical symptoms of excessive nerve activity, such as dilated pupils, elevated heart rate, and high blood pressure, those with the syndrome may also experience:
        Agitation Restlessness Confusion Anxiety Disorientation ExcitementThe Connection Between SSRIs and ViolenceRegardless if depression is overdiagnosed and America has a habit of over-prescribing mind-altering medications, there's little doubt that SSRIs have a risk of increasing violence in patients, even in patients who have no previous history of violence or aggression before taking the medication.
        This risk of violent behavior, both to the individual taking the medication and those around them, is so significant, it has led to the FDA mandating a black box warning on all SSRI medications. These black box warnings are designed to provide information and draw attention to the fact that the medication has serious and life-threatening risks.
        As of 2004, all antidepressants in the U.S. are labeled:
        ''Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.''
        SSRIs Can Increase the Risk of SuicideIn one study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, patients suffering from depression, but free of serious suicidal ideation, were given fluoxetine. Within two to seven weeks of starting the medication, six patients developed an intense, preoccupation with violent suicide. Although all were immediately taken off the medication, this preoccupation persisted from three days to three months, depending on the case. In all six cases, the patient had never experienced such a severe level of depression or troubled state of mind before or with other psychotropic prescriptions.
        According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surveillance for Violent Deaths, in 2013, 35.3 percent of those who committed suicide tested positive for antidepressants at the time of their death.
        The risk of SSRIs and suicide is most prevalent in patients under the age of 25. It's also more likely to occur shortly after starting the medication, after a dosage increase, or after a patient stops taking the medication.
        SSRIs Can Increase the Risk of Violence Against OthersSome of the side effects caused by SSRIs can increase the risk of violence against others. Perhaps the most risky, emotional blunting (or detachment) has been linked to SSRI use and many people who've taken the drugs report ''not feeling'' or ''not caring'' about anything. There's also been an established causal relationship between SSRI use and psychosis and hallucinations, both of which are known to increase the risk of violence in individuals.
        According to a review of the FDA's database, 484 drugs were identified as triggers to serious adverse events significant enough to warrant a case study during the five-year period from 2004 through 2009. Of these 484 medications, 31 were identified to have a ''disproportionate'' association with violence. These 31 drugs make up 78.8 percent of all cases of violence toward others in the FDA's database and included multiple psychotropic medications:
        11 antidepressants 6 hypnotic/sedatives 3 ADHD medications 1 smoking cessation drugResearchers concluded that violence against others was a ''genuine and serious adverse drug event'' and that of the 484 medications, the drugs that were most consistently and strongly associated with violence were the smoking cessation medication, varenicline (Chantix), and SSRIs.
        The list includes five SSRI antidepressants:
        Fluoxetine: Prozac increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times Paroxetine: Paxil increased violent behavior 10.3 times Fluvoxamine: Luvox increased violent behavior 8.4 times Venlafaxine: Effexor increased violent behavior 8.3 times Desvenlafaxine: Pristiq increased violent behavior 7.9 timesWhile a surprise to the American public, this shouldn't have been a surprise to the drug companies. During the clinical trials for paroxetine, hostility, which was the term to include homicidal idealization and aggression, presented in 60 of the 9,219 participants (.65 percent). Hostile acts were documented both while taking the medication and after tapering off. Children with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) taking the medication were the most at risk for becoming hostile, with a 17-times higher probability than the rest of those in the clinical study.
        In a Swedish study published in PLoS, researchers looked at information on over 850,000 patients prescribed SSRIs in the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, which is a national database of all dispensed medications. They then compared the violent crimes committed during a three-year period and compared it to violent crimes committed by the same individuals when not taking the medications. When age was taken into effect, a significant association was apparent between violent crime convictions and SSRI use in patients between the ages of 15 and 24.
        In one 2001 case, Cory Baadsgaard, a 16-year-old who attended Wahluke High School in Washington, was first prescribed Paxil, which caused hallucinations, and then was switched to Effexor. He started at a 40 mg dosage that, over the course of three weeks, increased to 300 mg. On the first day of that high dose, he woke with a headache and returned to bed. He then got up, took a rifle to his high school, and held 23 classmates hostage.
        Baadsgaard's testimony claims he has no recollection of the event, or of his principal convincing him to put the gun down and release the hostages.
        In 2002, the BBC aired the documentary Panorama, which focused on paroxetine. The producers received 1,374 emails from viewers, the majority of whom told stories of violence or self-harm while taking the medication, particularly when starting and when increasing the dosage.
        What's more, in 2009, after investigating the connection between SSRIs and violence, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare revised the label warnings on these drugs to read: ''There are cases where we cannot rule out a causal relationship [of hostility, anxiety, and sudden acts of violence] with the medication.''
        Connection Between SSRI and MurderIn most cases, the vast majority of people who suffer from mental illness are nonviolent. Even those who self-harm are highly unlikely to hurt others. In fact, these individuals are more likely to become victims of violent crimes than the general public.
        Yet after each mass shooting tragedy, the media fills with psychiatrists who say that the individual didn't seek the help they needed and that with the proper treatment, the tragedy may have been prevented. But research doesn't support that philosophy.
        In fact, depression in particular doesn't lead to violence, yet since the increase in SSRI antidepressants being widely prescribed, the rise in mass shootings has increased right along with it. And evidence shows that many mass shooters were either taking or had recently taken SSRIs.
        Here are just some examples:
        1989: Joseph T. Wesbecker walked into his former employer Standard Gravure Corp and shot 20 workers, killing nine. He had been taking Prozac for a month. This shooting led to a landmark case, where the survivors sued the makers of Prozac, Eli Lilly. Wesbecker used a semiautomatic Chinese AK-47-style firearm, a 9mm pistol, and a .38 Special snubnose revolver '' all of which he purchased legally, passing his background check. 1995: Jarred Viktor was 15 when he was prescribed Paxil. Ten days after starting it, Viktor stabbed his grandmother 61 times. 1996: At 18, Kurt Danysh murdered his father just 17 days after being prescribed Prozac by his family doctor, who failed to do even one psychological test. During his police confession, Danysh told police the medication made him feel odd, ''I just act differently. I don't have the energy or personality I used to. I spend half the time in a trance.'' 1997: Luke Woodham stabbed his mother, then traveled to Pearl High School, where he was enrolled, using a .30-30 to shoot two students and wound six others; he was stopped by his assistant principal (aka a good guy with a gun) who used his own .45 ACP handgun to force Woodham's surrender. 1998: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel shot both of his parents, then carried a 9mm handgun, .22 rifle, and a .22 pistol to his Thurston High School, where he murdered two classmates and injured 22 more, all while taking Prozac. 1999: Eric Harris, 17, with Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students, one teacher, himself, and wounded 23 others during the Columbine school shooting; he had been prescribed Zoloft and then Luvox before he used a 12 gauge shotgun received through a straw purchaser and a 9mm TEC-DC9. 2001: Christopher Pittman, a 12-year-old, was prescribed Zoloft, which caused him to become agitated, jittery, and experience tactile hallucinations; Pittman told psychiatrist Dr. Lanette Atkins that he heard voices telling him, ''Kill, kill, do it, do it.'' He took a .410 shotgun and shot his grandparents, then burned their house down. 2001: Andrea Yates drowned all five of her children. She was taking Effexor and was suffering from delusions about satanic possession. The murder of her children led Effexor to list homicidal thoughts in the medication's side effects. Although it's a rare side effect, manifesting in one in 1,000 patients, over 19 million prescriptions were written and filled in 2005. That's an estimated 19,000 people suffering from homicidal thoughts because of the medication. 2005: 16-year-old Jeff Weise was taking 60 mg/day of Prozac, the highest dosage for adults, when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend, murdered 10 students at Red Lake, Minnesota, and wounded 12 more, before shooting himself. He was armed with a .40 caliber pistol, .22 pistol, and a 12 gauge shotgun. 2008: Steven Kazmierczak was prescribed Prozac, Xanax, and Ambien, a sleeping medication, three weeks before walking into Northern Illinois University, killing six people and wounding 21, with three pistols (one chambered in 9mm and two in .380 ACP) and a shotgun. Kazmierczak had stopped taking the antidepressant ''because it made him feel like a zombie.'' 2009: Two weeks after starting Lexapro, Robert Stewart walked into his estranged wife's work at Pinelake Health and Rehab, and opened fire. He killed eight elderly patients and wounded three others. He doesn't remember the incident. 2012: James Holmes, also known as the Batman Movie killer, was taking sertraline when he walked into the showing of The Dark Knight with two .40 caliber pistols, an AR-style .223 rifle, and a 12 gauge shotgun, killing 12 people and injuring 70 others. In his personal notebook, which he sent to his psychiatrist the same day as the shooting, shows that as the medication decreased his anxiety, he lost his fear of consequences. As the dosage became higher, his thoughts became more obsessive and psychotic. 2013: At the time of the Washington Navy Yard shooting, Aaron Alexis was a civilian contractor working at the yard and was prescribed trazodone, a serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor (SARI) that works much like an SSRI to increase serotonin levels in the brain. He killed 12 people and injured eight others. 2014: Ivan Lopez was a 34-year-old U.S. soldier who shot 15 of his comrades, killing three of them, at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was undergoing mental health treatment through the Veterans' Administration, which is known for over-prescribing medication. The VA confirmed that Lopez was taking antidepressants (the VA only uses SSRI antidepressants) during the time of the shooting and his subsequent suicide. 2015: From the moment it occurred, the Charleston Church shooting has been deemed an act of white supremacy, a race crime against blacks. But two years after Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people and injured another, the court released documents that show it was more mental health than hatred that led to the murders. The documents confirmed he was taking antidepressants. 2016: Arcan Cetin, who was just 20 years old, walked into the Cascade Mall where he shot and killed four women, one just a teen, and shot one man, who later died at the hospital. Records show that Cetin was under the care of a psychiatrist and taking medication for depression and ADHD, including Prozac.The list goes on and on. And with the implication of patient privacy laws, getting information on the medication and mental health diagnoses of people has become harder and harder, even with mounting evidence that there's a connection between SSRI use and violence.
        In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act commonly referred to as HIPAA, was set in place. HIPAA represents the U.S.'s first attempt at national regulations for the use and disclosure of a person's personal health information, or PHI. HIPAA makes it more difficult for medical personnel to release information regarding a person's medical care, diagnosis, and prescription drugs, including those involved with mental health related crimes.
        For example, in the 2008 Virginia Tech shooting, perpetrator Seung Hui Cho had multiple interactions with the mental health department on campus, some for suicidal ideation, but yet his parents nor authorities were never notified. University officials stated privacy laws restricted them from sharing the information.
        Beyond the necessity for communication prior to these horrific shootings, after the incident, the person's records are often protected. Even in situations where the perpetrator dies during the shooting, HIPAA protects their records for 50 years.
        Because of this, the American public doesn't know what kind of medications these people were taking and if it may have had an affect on their actions. Just looking at public shootings over the last five years, there's a huge list of murderers who were likely on SSRIs. Here are a few:
        Zephen Xaver and the SunTrust Bank shooting Ian David Long and the Thousand Oaks Nightclub shooting Travis Reinking and the Waffle House shooting Nikolas Cruz and the Parkland, Florida school shooting Devin Patrick Kelley and the Texas church shootingThe Push for Stronger Mental Health LegislationWith the media's coverage of mass shootings, more and more legislation arises limiting the rights of those with mental health issues. While no one wants firearms in the hands of the mentally ill, the lack of clear language surrounding mental illness, and the limitations caused by government red tape, make knee-jerk mental health legislation dangerous and lay a path for more government control.
        In general, people with mental illness are rarely violent to other people. Many mental health experts and advocates agree that policies that focus on the violence of mental illness make scapegoats of the individuals, who are likely to never act violently against another person.
        What's more, according to the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study (MVRAS), substance abuse was significantly more responsible for violence committed by discharged psychiatric patients than their mental health. Those patients who didn't abuse drugs or alcohol showed no higher risk for violence than the others in their communities without mental health issues.
        Laws are being created that don't focus on the research, but on the fear of guns, thinking that stricter gun laws will keep people safer.
        Red flag laws are the newest gun legislation making their way through Congress. Considered a ''protective order,'' red flag laws will allow a family member or law officer to petition a temporary seize on someone's firearms if they're deemed a threat. What a ''threat'' consists of isn't clearly defined.
        There's also a push for universal background checks on all gun sales, even those sold between private individuals, and the FixNICS campaign. The philosophy behind FixNICS is that the background check system can only be as strong as the records it contains. And it's currently missing a lot, especially when it comes to mental health issues and domestic violence.
        For instance, documentation of an individual diagnosed as ''mental defective,'' having been involuntarily committed to a mental health setting, or having engaged in domestic abuse disqualifies that person from purchasing or owning a firearm. When this information is present in the NICS, it flags the background check and stops the sale of the firearm. But too many of these records are missing.
        That was the case with the 2017 Sutherlands Springs church shooting. The gunman Devin Patrick Kelley was prohibited from purchasing firearms due to a 2012 court martial for two counts of domestic abuse. The U.S. Air Force failed to provide this information to the NICS, allowing Kelley to erroneously pass his background check and to purchase an AR-style 5.56 rifle '' which he used to kill 26 people and injure 20 more. He was confronted and pursued by a neighbor, another good guy with a gun.
        Gun Control, Mental Health, and SSRIs: What's the Solution?When it comes to mass shootings, there's no easy solution. Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. While it may be impossible to fully stop mass murders, ignoring the fact that certain medications, including SSRIs, play a role in a high percentage of these violent acts, no justice is being served.
        Gun control is obviously not the solution, as the rate of mass shootings has increased over the last 30 years, at a time when multiple gun control laws have been implemented. Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens has not and will not stop the problem.
        Personal ResponsibilityInstead, doctors need to educate patients and make them aware of the risks, as well as take the time to explain warning signs to loved ones. If patients are taking medication for a mental health disorder, including depression, then they should see a mental health professional and be involved in mental health treatment. After all, medication '' even mental health medication '' does nothing to fix the problem, it only masks the symptoms.
        Patients need to take some responsibility for their lives, improving their health before reaching for a mind-altering pill to make them feel good about themselves. A healthy diet, physical activity, and time spent in nature are ways to boost the mood that can help relieve the symptoms of mild depression.
        The FDA-Big Pharma ConnectionLastly, the government and big pharmaceutical companies need to be held accountable for not sharing what they know about the medications they create. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) looked at drug company sponsored clinical trials on antidepressants.
        Of the 74 FDA-registered trials the study looked at, 38 had positive outcomes, 36 had negative outcomes. Thirty-seven of the positive outcome trials were published, but of the 36 negative outcomes trials, 22 were not published and 11 were written in a way that initially presented the data to convey a misleading positive outcome. Only three were published with unbiased and accurate information about the drug.
        With this type of misrepresentation of clinical trials on medications, particularly antidepressants, the medical community and the public can't trust medical literature for honest and reliable drug information, nor the government agency that's designed to monitor new pharmaceuticals for safety. When medical professionals can not rely on the FDA to provide unbiased and honest clinical trial information, a true risk-benefit ratio can't be determined and patients suffer the consequences.
        Political Influence of Big PharmaThe connection between the FDA and big pharma goes beyond clinical studies. Drug companies lure FDA employees to sit on their regulatory boards. They hire their spouses. These pharmaceutical giants utilize the field's leading experts, who happen to be the same experts who are invited by the FDA to sit on screening panels.
        Big pharma's influence over the FDA goes even deeper. Drug companies spend billions of dollars on political lobbying and campaign contributions. Direct payments support the FDA budget. And in response, the FDA conceals risks and looks the other way when necessary.
        The FDA also gives its own kickback to the drug companies. Only FDA-approved medications can be prescribed for government health insurance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and through the VA. And to ensure Big Pharma continues to sell its drugs, the federal program only allows treatment claims on FDA-approved drugs.
        The FDA Approval ProcessThe FDA approval process is a laborious and expensive endeavor, which typically takes more than a year and can cost up to a million dollars to complete. The process allows drug companies to patent their product. But when it comes to natural supplements, they can't be patented, and therefore don't go through the FDA approval process. Therefore supplements, which are often highly effective with little to no side effects, can not claim to ''treat'' a condition, even when there's research that supports that claim.
        On the surface, this may not seem like too big of a deal, but let's circle back to Prozac, which hit the market in 1988. In the fall of 1989, the FDA recalled the supplement L-tryptophan, an amino acid that's a precursor for serotonin and highly effective in treating depression. The recall occurred after one supplement company had an additive that caused a flu-like reaction. On March 22, 1990, the FDA issued a complete ban of L-tryptophan for public sale. Four days later, on March 26, 1990, Prozac was featured on the cover of Newsweek, along with a lead article about its benefits.
        In 2001, the ban on L-tryptophan was lifted and since, research has shown it has huge therapeutic potential in the treatment of pain, insomnia, depression, seasonal affective disorder (SAD), bulimia, premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), attention disorders, sleep disorders, and chronic fatigue.
        A quick note about PMDD. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome, otherwise known as PMS. It officially became a medical condition in 2013 with the newest addition of the DSM-V. Yet in July of 2000, the FDA approved a new medication from Eli Lilly, the same pharmaceutical company that created Prozac. The drug was Sarafem and it was marketed to treat PMDD, which technically wasn't even a fully recognized medical condition at the time.
        Sarafem is, quite literally, the exact same medication as Prozac, only in a different color capsule. Why would Eli Lilly issue the exact same drug under a different name? It just so happens that the patent for Prozac expired in August of 2001, which allowed generic versions to be made. Eli Lilly changed the medication's name, indicated it for this ''new'' disease, and the company had a new patent for Sarafem that would last until 2007.
        Situations like this demonstrate that the more aspects the government controls, the worse this corruption and mismanagement becomes. Federal agencies in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, and politicians using gun control to give a false hope to the American people, distracts them from the real cause of the current state of the nation and the frequency of mass shootings.
        It's time to personally explore the evidence surrounding the issues and come to your own conclusions.
        Ammo.com's Resistance Library: Domestic Analysis
      Vice Reporters and Film Crew Accused of Breaking Into Bedroom in Home of 8Chan Owner
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 19 May 2019 04:35
        by Cassandra Fairbanks May 18, 2019 Vice correspondents Lani Levine and Elle Reeve have been accused of breaking into a bedroom in the Philippines home of 8Chan owner Jim Watkins with a camera crew.The accusation was made by the verified 8Chan Twitter account, which said that the reporters and their crew entered Watkin's bedroom before being ordered out of the property.
        .@elspethreeve with a filmmaking crew just broke and entered into Jim's bedroom and were ordered out of the property. @elspethreeve and her producer @lani_levine have now protected their tweets.
        The Filipino authorities have already been notified. pic.twitter.com/mppgbhGOlT
        '-- 8chan (8ch.net) (@infinitechan) May 18, 2019
        The tweet said that Watkins has notified authorities.
        Both Levine and Reeve have now set their Twitter accounts to private.
        Reeve is best known for her work in the Charlottesville documentary for Vice News.
        Earlier this month Vice published an article about 8Chan referring to it as the place where ''racists get radicalized.''
        ''Sites like 8chan and others where racists can get radicalized online are key to counterterrorism efforts, experts say, but in a Wednesday hearing on domestic terrorism, U.S. intel officials from the FBI, DOJ and DHS seemed fairly unfamiliar with those platforms '-- or what to do about them,'' the article read.
        8Chan, much like 4Chan, is an anonymous imageboard that was the 3,857th most visited site in the world in 2018. It has gained more notoriety since the Christchurch shooting in March, as the shooter had posted a link to a livestream and his manifesto on the website. The Poway synagogue shooter had also posted a manifesto on one of the boards prior to his attack.
        Vice has not yet responded to the allegations.
      Eurovision 2019 host promises "unbelievable" Madonna performance
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 18:06
        Kevin Mazur for dcp Getty Images
        The Eurovision Song Contest confirmed its worst-kept secret earlier this week by officially announcing that the one and only Madonna would be performing during the show's 2019 Grand Final.
        According to the announcement, Madonna will be performing her classic hit 'Like A Prayer' as well as her new single 'Future', and now one of the hosts of tonight's (May 18) show has teased that the superstar has something brilliant planned.
        "I saw the rehearsal yesterday," Assi Azar told Graham Norton on his Radio 2 show this morning.
        "It's an amazing show, what she's doing on the stage. She's literally taking over our entire stage, changing it completely."
        Interscope/Live Nation
        Related: Eurovision '' 8 UK entries that were totally robbed of the trophy
        He continued: "I can say she's literally building a chapel inside our arena in 40 seconds. That's the time she has from the moment we get off the stage to the moment she goes on the stage. It's unbelievable."
        And according to Assi, who'll be hosting the show alongside Erez Tal, Bar Refaeli and Lucy Ayoub live from Expo Tel Aviv, there was never any doubt in his mind that Madonna would be performing, despite all the conflicting reports.
        "I think that we should be so honoured that Madonna came all the way here to perform for us," he said. "Of course. Both sides get a lot out of it '' Eurovision gets Madonna, no need to explain, Madonna gets the 200 million viewers that are watching her tonight.
        "Every time that something happened like she is performing, she's not performing, I thought, 'It's going to close at the end'. She's gonna perform at the end, so let's just move on from the ego issues of both sides."
        Representing the UK tonight will be All Together Now and Eurovision: You Decide winner Michael Rice, who'll be performing his winning song 'Bigger Than Us'.
        You can find out where we've placed in the running order of the final right here.
        You'll be able to watch the whole show live on BBC One, and if you haven't got access to that the evening will also be live streamed for free on YouTube.
        Graham Norton will host the BBC's coverage of the Eurovision Song Contest, which starts on BBC One at 8pm.
        Want up-to-the-minute entertainment news and features? Just hit 'Like' on our Digital Spy Facebook page and 'Follow' on our @digitalspy Instagram and Twitter account.
      China Recalls Giant Pandas From San Diego Zoo Amid Trump's Trade War | Observer
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 18 May 2019 17:55
        Bai Yun and one of her cubs at the San Diego Zoo. Sandy Huffaker/Corbis via Getty Images
        President Donald Trump's escalating trade war with China has just caused a new damage that can't be measured in dollar terms.
        Amid a new round of tariff battles between the U.S. and China on each other's exports, China has recalled two cute giant pandas from the San Diego Zoo in California, British tabloid Mirror first reported on Friday.
        Subscribe to Observer's Business Newsletter
        The two iconic animals for the zoo, 27-year-old Bai Yun (meaning ''white cloud'') and her six-year-old cub Xiao Liwu (''little present'') have been sent back to China after the country scrapped its conservation loan agreement with the U.S.
        They landed at China's Conservation and Research Center for Giant Pandas in Sichuan Province on Thursday morning, ChinaNews.com reported. ''They will be under quarantine for a month to help them adapt to the conditions in China,'' said Zou Wenyong, the research center's spokesman.
        Bai Yun was born in China in 1991 and moved to the San Diego Zoo in 1996 under the conservation loan agreement between the U.S. and China. During her 22 years at the Californian zoo, Bai Yun gave birth to six cubs, with Xiao Liwu being her youngest. All five of Xiao Liwu's siblings returned to China between 2007 and 2011.
        Giant pandas, a highly endangered species only found in central China, have been a crucial diplomatic symbol for the Middle Kingdom. Since the 1940s, China has gifted or loaned dozens of giant pandas to 14 countries.
        Three U.S. zoos'--the National Zoo in Washington, D.C.; Zoo Atlanta in Atlanta, Georgia; and the Memphis Zoo in Memphis, Tennessee'--still house giant pandas.
        The San Diego Zoo has expressed its intention to renew the conservation loan agreement with China. But for now, the zoo's live streaming ''panda cam'' shows nothing but the emptiness of the two adorable pandas' former home.
  Clips and Docs
    Art
    All Clips
      Sheryl Sandberg CNBC on LEan In movement making men afraid to meet with female colleagues.mp3
      Fran Lebowitz on Trump Impeachment-cut him up like khashoggi.mp3
      toddcast_electoral_college with Kimberly Atkins.mp3
      Chinese DJI Drone Security kerfuffle.m4a
      EuroNews on WU elections and Spitzenkandidaten.mp3
      AOC and Warren on Game of Thrones ending.mp3
      Dave Winer Game of Thrones is like TDS.mp3
      buttigieg on Jefferson.mp3
      CIA inside dope on the alias Jonna Mendez.mp3
      congress rips Carson.mp3
      digenova on huckerbee on Brennan.mp3
      DN finds old impeachment clip from Graham.mp3
      ebola from the one woman reporter.mp3
      hua wei with roselyn Layton.mp3
      john walker lynn released.mp3
      old chem weapons comes up again DN good clip.mp3
      pelosi on brezinski show.mp3
      pelosit vs trump walk out infrastructure.mp3
      tillerson blabbing DN.mp3
      WAPO gets bogus IRS oimmen about tax returnsa DN.mp3
      al green on democracy now impeach.mp3
      al green on democracy now TWO reasons to impeach.mp3
      avanatti new woes CBS.mp3
      Avenati compliation.mp3
      Avenatti 2 and ISO.mp3
      CBS this morning on returning to the moon in 2024 with a woman.mp3
      CNN report on Piggy Ebola in CHina.mp3
      AJ and Lomer the deplatformed-ruined life-lead in to GAB.mp3
      RJK Jr Vaccine Speech-2-273 vaxin pipeline-adam schiff concsoredsilicon valley-glaxo deal.mp3
      RJK Jr Vaccine Speech-3-Can't sue-more exemptions-CDC military history-biologics-No Placebo testing.mp3
      RJK Jr Vaccine Speech-4-MMR no test results public-very small test with horrible results.mp3
      RJK Jr Vaccine Speech-5-FDA and CDC are Pharma companies with royalties.mp3
      RJK Jr Vaccine Speech-6-Called an Anti-Vaxxer to shut you up-Media bought off-No Science-Only Authority-DNA Vax is nex.mp3
      RJK Jr Vaccine Speech-1-Increase in Vax 1989 FDA says vax is cause of injuries.mp3
  Transcript
    Full Summary of ALL Episodes in PDF
    No Agenda Player Annotated Episodes