Displaying posts published in

May 2024

How Apple, Google, and Microsoft Can Help Parents Protect Children The case for device-based age verification Ravi Iyer

https://www.afterbabel.com/p/how-apple-google-and-microsoft-can

The current system for protecting children online does not work. It relies on parents understanding and managing their children’s online experience across a wide variety of applications. I live in the Bay Area and have many friends who work at large technology companies. I don’t know a single parent among them who feels completely comfortable with the options that currently exist. If the people who build technology products do not know how to protect their kids, we clearly need a better solution.

Parents are left on their own to figure out how to stop strangers from contacting their children and how to prevent anonymous cyberbullying. They need to figure out how to prevent their kids from seeing something they are not ready for in a world where 58% of teens report seeing sexually explicit content by accident and 19% of Instagram teens report seeing unwanted sexually explicit content every 7 days. And then there’s sleep: How do they ensure they don’t receive notifications at 1 am on a school night? Few parents feel confident in addressing these real and important concerns. 

The providers of operating systems, which is a market that Apple, Google, and Microsoft dominate, could help. It would not only be the right thing to do, but it would also be a huge relief to the many parents who want their children to have rich social lives that require the ability to interact with their friends (who are online) — but do not have the time and energy to manage the myriad settings that exist across services. Parents need a simple way to protect their children online that doesn’t require them to know the difference between Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube settings and how to manage each of them separately. There is even a business incentive here: Many parents might be *more* willing to buy a device that promises a simple solution.

Of course, the best solution might be for children to stop using these products altogether. The four norms suggested in The Anxious Generation—which include delaying entry into social media until age 16—would do a lot of good, but there will still be youth who need protection from technology-enabled harms, even if such usage is drastically reduced. Children mature continuously and at very different rates, and so a child is not necessarily more able to handle a smartphone when they start high school or able to interact productively on social media on their 16th birthday, as compared to the day before. Even if legislative changes occur such that children cannot sign up for social media accounts without their parent’s permission until their 16th birthday, most families will still want an option that reduces the risk of their newly eligible sixteen-year-old receiving unwanted advances from others, should they choose to use social media at that time.

Some children may develop slower and may need more time before fully engaging with these technologies. On the other hand, some children may benefit from access to technology sooner. Many researchers have pointed out the benefits of social media for kids who have specific support needs, such as some LGBT children—and parents of those children—may want to provide earlier access. Even as many may disagree with their decision, some parents may still want their children to have a smartphone in order to be able to access YouTube, which has a wealth of educational content, or to be able to FaceTime their grandparents – even at earlier ages. Those parents may want solutions that enable their children to use these devices more safely.

A border so wide open even the illegals are warning us By Monica Showalter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/05/a_border_so_wide_open_even_the_illegals_are_warning_us.html

How wide open is too wide a wide open border? Well, when you’ve got illegal immigrants themselves warning about it, it’s too wide.

That was what one illegal immigrant coming into the U.S. from Turkey at the Jacumba, California, non-port-of-entry border crossing told Fox News’s Bill Melugin:

He seemed like a nice enough fellow, someone who could assimilate and become a successful and grateful U.S. immigrant. Assuming he’s never lived in the U.S., his English was remarkably good, as Turkish is one of the most difficult languages for English speakers to learn, and the reverse is also true.

DEI Will Destroy Our Trust in Doctors By Jeffrey Blehar

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dei-will-destroy-our-trust-in-doctors/

In September of last year, I wrote about the University of California system’s truly radical embrace of DEI ideology in every aspect of its hiring, teaching, and administrative processes — an activist commitment so striking that even the New York Times wrote about it with genuine alarm. The issue back then was the barring of an academic from an expected position at UCLA because he had once evinced skepticism about the value of “diversity statements.” But what really worried me was what I saw coming over the horizon:

I am left wondering what our next generation of doctors and scientists will look like . . . where all present have been screened either for their desirable racial and sexual characteristics or their ability to demonstrate fulsome and abject fealty to this approach. Because that is the world these people are constructing.

I am not optimistic. I don’t take the occasionally alarmist gibes I hear about how “in a generation we’ll no longer even know how to build [X]” seriously, if for no other reason than projects involving engineering, mathematics, and the hard sciences tend to have pretty strict metrics for success. . . . But in other fields the decline will be disguised — reflected only indirectly over time in statistics like life expectancy, infant mortality, or suicide and addiction rates. There is no way that scientific (and particularly medical and psychological) fields permeated by these standards . . . will not be negatively and seriously affected in the long run.

My depressing vision of the future is arriving even faster than anticipated. Though I don’t often encourage people to go read someone else, I beg you to check out Aaron Sibarium’s nuclear-grade journalistic bombshell at the Washington Free Beacon about the scandalous state of the UCLA medical school. By the end of “A Failed Medical School,” you will agree with the title’s assessment, which the article copiously documents. Yet you might not even quite believe what you are reading.

What DEI Does to a Medical School Share By George Leef

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-dei-does-to-a-medical-school/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=third

The DEI advocates always say that their admission policies favoring students just because they have the right ancestry has only the upside of promoting “social justice” and never the downside of wasting space on weak students. They accept only capable students, so goes the claim.

That line will be harder to sell once people have read this Washington Free Beacon piece.

For the past several years, UCLA’s medical school has had a crazed admissions director who won’t tolerate any dissent over her favored students. The result is that some faculty members are now talking covertly to the press about the distressing results.

Here’s a slice: “One professor said that a student in the operating room could not identify a major artery when asked, then berated the professor for putting her on the spot. Another said that students at the end of their clinical rotations don’t know basic lab tests and, in some cases, are unable to present patients.”

Will the school’s governing body do anything?

But look on the bright side. Some of these UCLA Med grads will become lousy doctors, but at least the profession overall will have more “equity,” and that’s what really matters.

Bungling Biden’s Commencement Whoppers The networks didn’t put any ‘fact-checkers’ on it. by Tim Graham

https://www.frontpagemag.com/bungling-bidens-commencement-whoppers/

President Joe Biden made a well-publicized commencement address on May 19 at Morehouse College in Atlanta, a historically black college. The networks touted the speech but didn’t put any “fact-checkers” on it. It contained at least four fibs.

In an echo of his 1987 lies that crumbled in first presidential campaign, Biden claimed, “I was the first Biden to ever graduate from college.” A newspaper obituary for his maternal grandfather Ambrose Finnegan noted he graduated college.

He repeated his story that his son Beau died of a brain tumor after he spent “a year in Iraq as a major — he won the Bronze Star — living next to a burn pit.” In 2019, FactCheck.org noted the science on cancer from exposure to burn pits in Iraq was “insufficient,” but Biden tells that story often.

Then Biden uncorked his typical race-baiting: “Today in Georgia, they won’t allow water to be available to you while you wait in line to vote in an election.” Georgia’s legislature passed a bill in 2021 that said no person should “give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink” within 150 feet of a polling place. It doesn’t mean you can’t have water!

Anatomy of a Kangaroo Court A trial that has nothing to do with law.Kurt Schlichter

https://www.frontpagemag.com/anatomy-of-a-kangaroo-court/

The Donald Trump New York City farce is on the way to being over. The prosecution (at least) rested after what would’ve been a disastrous performance by Michael Cohen in any other trial, but the standard rules don’t apply here because this is not actually a trial. This trial has nothing to do with law. It is a scummy attempt to frame a political opponent of the Democrats to keep him from winning an election against the desiccated old pervert in the White House. Normally, a jury would laugh this case out of court, except that it would never have been in court had the defendant been named Tronald Dump. Everything about it is a lie and a scam, and as soon as you understand that you will understand this disgraceful case.

The Democrats behind this charade are wearing the law like a skinsuit, presenting an exterior that makes this look like a real jury trial when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. You see the forms and processes performed, but they mean nothing because the fix is already in. Let’s talk about what happens now in terms of procedure. In terms of legality, why bother? Again, this isn’t a legal matter. This is a joke.

The state must prove each of the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, in real trials, criminal charges have elements. For instance, fraud is typically a knowing misrepresentation intended to induce reliance that causes monetary damage to the victim. Each of those requirements is an element. Was there a misrepresentation? Was it knowingly false? Was it intended to induce reliance? Was someone who reasonably relied on it damaged in terms of losing money? Each of those elements must have substantial evidence in support of it. Remember, the state has to prove everything. The defendant can just sit there with his arms crossed like a late-80s rapper and say nothing, and if the state fails to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proving each element, he must be acquitted. Others have discussed how the state has failed to prove any of the elements against Trump here — suffice it to say that, as a legal matter, the state has failed on every one of the elements. But again, this case isn’t a legal matter. This is a kangaroo court. We’re just talking about how the scam will proceed.

Christopher F. Rufo Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Columbia For decades, the university cultivated the conditions that led to its campus Intifada.****

https://www.city-journal.org/article/boycott-divest-and-sanction-columbia

The images of the recent protests at Columbia University have grabbed the attention of the American public: students chanting for a Palestinian state, “from the river to the sea”; activists setting up a mass tent encampment on the campus lawn; masked occupiers seizing control of Hamilton Hall. For some, it was a sign that ancient anti-Semitism had established itself in the heart of the Ivy League. For others, it was déjà vu of 1968, when mass demonstrations last roiled campus.

After weeks of rising tensions, Columbia president Minouche Shafik resolved the immediate conflict by summoning the New York City Police Department, which swiftly disbanded anti-Israel student encampments, removed the occupiers of Hamilton Hall, and arrested more than 100 students, who were subsequently suspended.

President Shafik feigned surprise. In a statement to students, she expressed “deep sadness” about the campus chaos. But to anyone who has observed Columbia in recent decades, the upheaval should not come as a surprise. Behind the images of campus protests lies a deeper, more troubling story: the ideological capture of the university, which inexorably drove Columbia toward this moment. Columbia for decades has cultivated the precise conditions that allowed the pro-Hamas protests to flourish. The university built massive departments to advance “postcolonialism,” spent hundreds of millions of dollars on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” and glorified New Left–style student activism as the telos of university life.

Terms like these might sound benign as euphemisms, but the reality is sinister. As the protests revealed, postcolonial theory is often an academic cover for anti-Semitism, DEI is frequently a method for enflaming racial grievances, and student activism can become a rationalization for violence and destruction.

The university, founded by royal charter in 1754 and a great American institution for more than two centuries, has lost its way. There will need to be a reckoning before it can return to its former glory.

The first part of that process is understanding what went wrong. To do so, we will attempt to uncover the roots of Columbia’s Intifada.

The Israelis Have Nowhere Else to Go – Bret Stephens

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/opinion/israel-iran-raisi-death.html
The danger to Israel from moves at the ICC, or from campus protests, boycott and divestment efforts or various kinds of arms embargoes, are minimal.
    Contrary to some opinions, Israelis are not “settler-colonialists.” Jews believe they are originally from the Land of Israel because they are.
    And Zionism, far from being a colonialist project, is the oldest anticolonialism struggle in history, starting during the Roman era, if not the Babylonian Captivity before it.
    The idea that Israeli Jews should return, like the Algerian French, to the lands of their forebears misses the point. The Israelis have nowhere else to go, a fact underscored by the waves of hatred now engulfing Jewish diasporic communities.
    They will not return to the lands of Russian pogroms, or Arab massacres, or the Holocaust.
    The more pressure is exerted on Israel to relent in the face of its enemies, the more Zionism it will generate.
    Nothing so crystallizes Jewish identity as the daily reminders of bigotry.
    Jews have the right to rule themselves as a sovereign state in their original homeland.

The China Connection Is the Real Scandal Phyllis Schlafly in June 1988

https://eagleforum.org/psr/1998/june98/psrjune98.html

Now we know why the Democrats were so vicious in their attacks on Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). Theirs were the committees that were closing in on the China connection, the scandal that can bring down the Clinton presidency, the scandal that has made Congressmen start to utter the T word (treason). A series of front-page news stories in the New York Times (May 15, 16, 17) essentially vindicated Thompson’s charge that the Chinese Communist Government tried to influence the 1996 U.S. election with campaign contributions.

Bill Clinton’s friend and ubiquitous Democratic fundraiser Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that he funneled nearly $100,000 from the Communist Chinese military to the Democratic campaign in the summer of 1996. The money was handed to Chung by the daughter of the top commander of China’s People’s Liberation Army, General Liu Huaqing, who was also one of the top five members of the Chinese Communist Party’s ruling Politburo.

Chung’s liaisons with the Clinton Administration were so cozy that he was able to arrange for the daughter, who goes by the name of Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying, to get a speedy visa and come to America to be photographed with Clinton on July 22, 1996. She is what is called a “princeling,” one of the privileged offspring of China’s ruling elite. In addition to her title as Lieutenant Colonel in the People’s Liberation Army, she is a senior manager and vice president for China Aerospace International Holdings, which is the Hong Kong arm of China Aerospace Corporation, a state-owned jewel in China’s military-industrial complex, with interests in satellite technology, rocket launches, and missiles.

Johnny Chung told Federal investigators that Col. Liu actually gave him $300,000, which she said originated with China’s military’s intelligence arm, and told him to use the money for Democratic campaign contributions. He apparently kept $200,000 for his “businesses.” Soon after the picture-taking fundraiser, Col. Liu had Chung open a California branch of Marswell Investing, another of her Hong Kong enterprises, whose chief “business” was parking Chinese money in the United States. She also invested $300,000 in Chung’s facsimile business. Chung was quite a hustler; he visited Clinton’s White House 49 times.

What’s The Dems’ Plan B If Lawfare Doesn’t Stop Trump? We Have Some Ideas

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/05/24/whats-the-dems-plan-b-if-lawfare-doesnt-stop-trump-we-have-some-ideas/

Next Tuesday both sides will present their closing arguments in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, a case that exists for one reason only: to stop Trump from ever occupying the White House again.  

But what if this doesn’t work? What if there’s a hung jury or, worse yet, an acquittal? What if none of the 88 trumped-up felony charges results in a conviction and voters actually have a chance to elect Trump, should they prefer him over the decrepit failure known as Joe Biden?

What is the Democrats’ Plan B?

They must have one. Democrats are nothing if not always prepared. And they’ve already made it clear that they will do anything to stop Trump. Anything. That is, except run on the issues.

It looks increasingly likely that they will need a plan. Democrats bent and twisted the law into impossible shapes to rack up those felony charges against a political opponent. Now the seams are showing.

After Michael Cohen’s disastrous turn on the stand in the “hush money” trial undermined the bedrock of this case, even CNN is hedging its bets in the outcome.

The case has already failed to live up to its billing as political kryptonite. A Yahoo News/YouGov poll found that a mere 16% say they’re following the trial closely. Cable news ratings are down. New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg whined about how, “when people were asked how the trial made them feel, the most common response was ‘bored’.”

Of course, none of that will matter to the jury, which could very well render a guilty verdict. But even Goldberg admits that this won’t necessarily stop Trump, given that he’s unlikely to be sent to prison before his appeals are heard.