The Double-Edged Sword: Navigating the Uncharted Realms of AI Technology

The juxtaposition of technological progress and potential risks associated with AI.

In the labyrinth of technological progress, Artificial Intelligence (AI) emerges as both a marvel and a conundrum. The ongoing advancements in AI technology promise a future where machines emulate human intelligence, but this journey into the unknown is not without its shadows. As we stand on the precipice of unprecedented possibilities, it is crucial to engage in a thought-provoking exploration of AI, contemplating the delicate balance between innovation and potential harm.

Current Advancements in AI: A Technological Odyssey

The canvas of AI is painted with remarkable breakthroughs. Machine learning algorithms, neural networks, and deep learning models have ushered in an era where computers not only process data but comprehend, learn, and make decisions. AI applications span from predictive analytics to natural language processing, enhancing efficiency and expanding the boundaries of what technology can achieve.

Potential Risks and Ethical Concerns: Navigating the Shadows

The ascent of AI brings with it a Pandora's box of concerns. One prominent issue is the inherent bias present in algorithms. As AI systems learn from historical data, they may perpetuate societal biases, raising questions about fairness and justice in an AI-driven world.

Privacy, a cornerstone of personal freedom, faces unprecedented challenges. AI-driven surveillance, data mining, and the ubiquity of smart devices prompt reflections on the erosion of privacy boundaries. The ethical implications of this new era of surveillance demand careful consideration.

Ethical considerations extend to the impact on the job market. The automation of routine tasks and the integration of AI into industries may reshape employment landscapes, leading to questions about job displacement, reskilling, and societal adaptations to these transformations.

Impact on Privacy, Security, and the Job Market: Navigating the Crossroads

1. Privacy: AI's insatiable appetite for data raises concerns about how personal information is handled. From voice-activated assistants to targeted advertisements, every interaction contributes to a digital footprint. The challenge lies in safeguarding privacy without stifling innovation.

Source: Pew Research Center - AI, Data Privacy, and Public Opinion

2. Security: As AI evolves, so does its potential for both constructive and malicious applications. The ability of AI to decipher complex patterns makes it a powerful tool for identifying vulnerabilities, necessitating ethical considerations in its deployment.

Source: World Economic Forum - The Global Risks Report 2022

3. Job Market: The transformative impact of AI on employment requires careful navigation. While automation streamlines processes, it also raises questions about job displacement and the need for reskilling. Ethical considerations involve ensuring a just transition for the workforce.

Source: McKinsey & Company - The Future of Work after COVID-19

Contemplating the Future: A Call to Thoughtful Action

As we stand at this crossroads, the future implications of widespread AI use demand collective contemplation. What kind of society do we want to build in this era of technological prowess? How can we harness the benefits of AI without compromising our ethical foundations?

The responsibility transcends developers and policymakers; it rests with society as a whole. It necessitates ongoing dialogue, ethical guidelines, and a commitment to ensuring that AI evolves as a force for good.

In conclusion, the journey into the realms of AI is a nuanced odyssey. By exploring its advancements, acknowledging potential risks, and contemplating future implications, we pave the way for an AI landscape that aligns with our values and aspirations. As we move forward, let us tread thoughtfully, realizing the profound impact our decisions today will have on the world shaped by AI tomorrow.

Juvenile Court Fees Punish Children for Their Families’ Poverty ⚖️

Low-income children across the US are being imprisoned when they or their families cannot afford to pay court fees.  Aside from court costs, low-income children also face fees for probation, health tests, care, and other services in juvenile facilities. This amounts to “punishing children for their families’ poverty which many believe may be unconstitutional.

This article drew on a 2016 report by the Juvenile Law Center, a legal aid advocacy group, which reviewed statutes in all fifty states and the District of Columbia to assess “the legal framework for financial obligations placed on youth in the juvenile justice system and their families.” 

The article identified “myriad ways” that juvenile court systems levy fines on children’s families “and then imprison those children when their families are too poor to pay the mounting costs.” These include, for example, monthly fees on families whose children are sentenced to probation, the costs of “diversion” programs intended to keep children out of detention, and charges for court-ordered evaluations and tests (such as mental health evaluations, tests for sexually-transmitted diseases, and drug and alcohol assessments). When families cannot afford to pay these fees and fines, children may be incarcerated instead.

The Juvenile Law Center report described the fines imposed by juvenile court as “highly burdensome.” For example, in Alameda County, California, the average cost of juvenile system involvement is $2,000 per case. Cost can be “significantly higher,” according to the report, in cases in which young people are incarcerated for extended periods of time.

Furthermore, the article states, in some states parents themselves may also face imprisonment if they fail to pay fees and fines levied against their children. Incarcerating parents puts children further at risk and adds to the stresses on families already struggling with the consequences of poverty. According to the report’s authors, “When parents face incarceration or mounting debt for failure to pay, they have even fewer resources to devote to educating, helping, and supporting their children.”

While noting that a detailed analysis of these policies’ constitutional implications went beyond its scope, the Juvenile Law Center report noted prior legal decisions in which the Supreme Court has held that courts must consider “alternative measures of punishment other than imprisonment” for poor defendants. The Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that constitutional protections must be calibrated to the unique developmental needs of adolescents.

In August 2016, the New York Times published a substantial article on the Juvenile Law Center’s study, describing low-income juveniles—and especially racial minorities—as overburdened by fees. However, the Times article did not mention that parents in some states were also being jailed, and the report overlooked the precedent of Supreme Court decisions upholding additional protections for adolescents.

Nika Knight, “Debtors’ Prison for Kids: Poor Children Incarcerated When Families Can’t Pay Juvenile Court Fees,” Common Dreams, August 31, 2016, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/31/debtors-prison-kids-poor-children-incarcerated-when-families-cant-pay-juvenile-court.

Student Researcher: Raquel Guerrero (Sonoma State University)

Faculty Evaluator: Diana Grant (Sonoma State University)

Over Six Trillion Dollars in Unaccountable Army Spending⁉️

According to a July 2016 report by the Department of Defense’s Office, over the past two decades the US Army has accumulated $6.5 trillion in expenditures that cannot be accounted for, because two government offices—the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army and the Department of Defense’s Finance and Accounting Service—“did not prioritize correcting the system deficiencies that caused errors . . . and did not provide sufficient guidance for supporting system-generated adjustments.” In the complex language of the report, the expenditures themselves are referred to as “unsupported adjustments” and the lack of complete and accurate records of them are described as “material weakness.” In other words, as Dave Lindorff reported, the DoD “has not been tracking or recording or auditing all of the taxpayer money allocated by Congress—what it was spent on, how well it was spent, or where the money actually ended up.”

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation that required all government agencies—including not only the Department of Defense but also the federal government’s departments of education, veterans affairs, and housing and urban development to undergo annual audits. As Thomas Hedges reported for the Guardian in March 2017, “the Pentagon has exempted itself without consequence for 20 years now, telling the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that collecting and organizing the required information for a full audit is too costly and time-consuming.” 

As Lindorff wrote, in fiscal year 2015 total federal  spending—which includes everything from education, to housing and community development, to Medicare and other health programs—amounted to just over $1.1 trillion, and the $6.5 trillion in unaccountable Army expenditures represents approximately fifteen years’ worth of military spending.

In Lindorff’s words, “politicians of both major political parties are demanding accountability for every penny spent on welfare,” and they have also been engaged in pervasive efforts “to make teachers accountable for student ‘performance.’” Yet, he observed, “the military doesn’t have to account for any of its trillions of dollars of spending . . . even though Congress fully a generation ago passed a law requiring such accountability.”

Corporate media have not covered the $6.5 trillion in unaccountable Army expenditures, as documented in the July 2016 Department of Defens  study, and reported by Dave Lindorff. In December 2016, the Washington Post published an article about a “buried” January 2015 DoD report, which had found “$125 billion in administrative waste” in Pentagon business operations. As the Post reported, “After the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results.” The Huffington Post and TomDispatch cross-posted William Hartung’s May 2016 piece, “The Pentagon’s War on Accountability,” which made many of the same points raised by Lindorff, but did not address the $6.5 trillion in unaccountable Army expenditures. CounterPunch and OpEdNews reposted Lindorff’s original report.

Dave Lindorff, “Ignoring the Pentagon’s Multi-Trillion-Dollar Accounting Error,” FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), September 2, 2016, http://fair.org/home/ignoring-the-pentagons-multi-trillion-dollar-accounting-error/.

Dave Lindorff, “The Pentagon Money Pit: $6.5 Trillion in Unaccountable Army Spending, and No DOD Audit for the Past Two Decades,” This Can’t Be Happening!, August 17, 2016, http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/3262.

Thomas Hedges, “The Pentagon Has Never been Audited. That’s Astonishing,” Guardian, March 20, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/20/pentagon-never-audited-astonishing-military-spending.

THE FUKASHIMA RADIATION DISASTER STILL EFFECTING US TODAY☢️☣️ 👀

HTGT’S(Here Today Gone Tomorrow) are subjects that make national headlines for about a week to a month and then the MSM(Main Stream Media) stops carring so in which the public does as-well. We Fix That!  🙌🏼 🙌🏼

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was one of the 15 largest nuclear power stations in the world, until it sustained massive damage when Japan was hit first by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, and then a massive tsunami, on March 11, 2011. Almost 16,000 people died in the disaster, and another 160,000 lost their homes and employment. Japan has been involved in an extensive clean-up campaign ever since. Now, the Telegraph is reporting that the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which operates the nuclear plant and has been responsible for cleaning up the mess, has announced the release of radioactive tritium straight into the Pacific Ocean. 

The announcement has been met with outrage by environmental groups and locals alike. Among those most affected by the disaster were the fishermen of Fukushima. Even two years into the cleanup operations, The Guardian reported that over 300 tons of radioactive groundwater was still seeping into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, not only killing marine life, but obliterating the local fishing industry. After all, nobody wants to risk eating radioactive fish “I haven’t been able to fish since the tsunami,” Kazuo Niitsuma, a 63-year-old local fisherman, told The Guardian at the time. “People want to be reassured that they are buying fish that is safe to eat, and we can’t give them that guarantee at the moment. … At times like this, it feels like the nuclear problem will never be resolved, and for that Tepco and the government must take responsibility.” [Related: London grocery stores have been selling Fukushima rice, despite fears of radioactive contamination.] TEPCO has done anything but accept that responsibility. After they initially failed to deal with the contaminated water and then did all they could to hide the extent of the problem, very few people have much faith in anything they say. They are now adamantly insisting that the radioactive tritium they are going to release into the ocean will not be a problem because it will be diluted in the vast body of water. The company has been struggling to find a way to deal with the 770,000 tons of contaminated radioactive water being stored in 580 tanks at the site. While most of the radioactive materials have been filtered from the water, they have not been able to get rid of the tritium. 

Environmental groups refuse to accept that explanation, insisting that the company has had plenty of time to find a solution that will not further harm the local fishing industry and destroy more marine life. [Related: If you’re concerned about the health of our oceans, visit Enviro.news] “This accident happened more than six years ago and the authorities should have been able to devise a way to remove the tritium instead of simply announcing that they are going to dump it into the ocean,” Aileen Mioko-Smith, a campaigner with Green Action Japan, angrily told The Telegraph. Who can trust the word of a company that conspired with the government in the weeks and months after the disaster to cover up its severity? An insider report, which included the testimony of dozens of TEPCO employees, confirmed that they were instructed to remain silent about the meltdown. This lie of omission needlessly exposed hundreds of thousands of people to radiation and future health consequences, including cancer. TEPCO’s president, Naomi Hirose, admitted at the time, “I would say it was a cover-up. It’s extremely regrettable.” It is indeed regrettable that the company responsible for this disaster has not shouldered the responsibility of honorably cleaning it up and protecting the livelihoods of those in the area, like the now desperate fishermen of Fukushima. 

Title: Unveiling Shadows: The Complex Interplay of Cancer Cures and Profit Motives

The Suppression of Cancer Cures for Profit

In the realm of healthcare, the search for effective cancer treatments stands as one of the most pressing challenges. Alongside this noble quest, allegations have surfaced over the years regarding the suppression of potential cancer cures for profit motives. While these claims remain controversial and multifaceted, they raise thought-provoking questions about the nature of cancer research and treatment.

Investigating Instances of Suppression

Numerous instances have been cited where promising cancer cures or treatments were allegedly suppressed. For example, the case of laetrile, a derivative of apricot pits, gained attention in the 1970s. Some alternative medicine advocates claimed it possessed anti-cancer properties, but mainstream medical authorities dismissed it due to the lack of scientific evidence. This highlights the complex interplay between alternative therapies and conventional medicine in the realm of cancer treatment.

Influence of Profit Motives in the Pharmaceutical Industry

The influence of profit motives in the pharmaceutical industry cannot be overlooked when discussing the suppression of potential cancer cures. Pharmaceutical companies operate within a capitalist framework, where financial gains often steer research and development priorities. This business model has sparked debates about whether profit motivations hinder the exploration of unconventional or less profitable treatment options.

Alternative Treatments and Therapies

Amidst the dominance of conventional cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy, alternative treatments and therapies exist on the fringes of mainstream attention. Practices such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, and dietary changes have drawn interest from individuals seeking complementary or alternative approaches to cancer care. While some of these therapies lack robust scientific validation, their popularity underscores the diverse landscape of cancer treatment options available.

Need for a Balanced Approach

Recognizing the complexities surrounding cancer research and treatment, it is crucial to advocate for a balanced approach. Embracing diversity in cancer care entails exploring a spectrum of treatment modalities, from traditional to alternative practices. By fostering open dialogue and critical evaluation of different approaches, we can strive towards a more holistic understanding of cancer treatment that prioritizes patient well-being above all else.

In conclusion, the topic of the suppression of cancer cures for profit prompts reflection on the intricate dynamics at play in the healthcare landscape. While controversy surrounds allegations of withheld treatments and profit-driven decisions, it is essential to approach this discourse with an open mind and a commitment to advancing cancer care for all. By encouraging awareness and fostering inclusivity in cancer research and treatment, we can work towards a future where patients have access to a diverse array of well-informed treatment options.

Sources: National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, Mayo Clinic

As an experienced writer at The CAST network., this blog post strives to present a neutral perspective on the complex issue of the suppression of cancer cures for profit. The information provided is intended to be accessible to individuals in high school and college, offering a balanced exploration of the topic without taking a definitive stance.

Navigating Diversity: Jewish Representation in the Mosaic of US Governing Branches

The Influence of Jewish Representation in US Governing Branches

When examining the landscape of the United States government, understanding the representation of various demographics is crucial to grasp the dynamics that shape policy decisions and discussions. Today, we delve into the intriguing realm of Jewish representation in the US governing branches, exploring historical and current perspectives without taking a stance for or against the subject. The fabric of the United States government is woven with diverse threads, and one notable strand comprises individuals of Jewish descent.

Representation in Government

A stroll through the corridors of US political history reveals a mosaic of Jewish representation. Historically, Jewish individuals have made notable strides in US politics, with figures like Henry Kissinger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaving indelible marks in their respective fields. In Congress, Jewish representation stands at around 6%, a notable figure considering Jews constitute only about 2% of the American population^[1]. From Supreme Court justices to members of Congress, Jewish individuals have played instrumental roles.

Current Statistics

Controversies and Debates

While the presence of Jewish individuals in government is a testament to the inclusivity of American democracy, it has not been without controversies. Debates surrounding loyalty, influence, and the intersection of personal beliefs with policy decisions have occasionally surfaced. Debates often arise concerning the influence of lobbyists tied to Jewish organizations and the perceived impact on US foreign policy decisions. It is crucial to approach such discussions with nuance and an understanding of the diversity of perspectives within the Jewish community itself.

Impact on Policy Decisions

One illustrative example is the debate over foreign aid packages, particularly those directed towards Israel. Questions regarding potential biases and the impact of personal backgrounds on foreign policy decisions have fueled discussions. It is crucial to approach these debates with nuance, recognizing that diverse perspectives enrich the policymaking process. The diverse perspectives brought forth by Jewish individuals in government play a significant role in shaping foreign aid packages and policy decisions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the influence of Jewish representation in US governing branches is a multifaceted topic that requires careful consideration and examination. By exploring historical and current trends, understanding controversies, and analyzing the impact on policy decisions, we gain valuable insights into the complexities of governance and representation in a diverse society.

Remember, the goal is not to form a definitive opinion but to cultivate a deeper understanding of the intricate tapestry that makes up the American political landscape.

References:

1. Pew Research Center - Religion & Public Life, 2020.

2. Jewish Virtual Library - American Jews in US Government, 2021.

For high school and college individuals seeking to explore the intersection of demographics and governance, this topic offers a compelling avenue for reflection and inquiry.

Balancing Priorities: Foreign Aid to Israel vs. Reparations for Slavery

Understanding Foreign Aid to Israel and Reparations for Slavery

As we navigate through the complexities of foreign aid allocations and discussions on reparations, it is crucial to dive into the historical context and the ongoing debates surrounding these two contentious topics. Let's unpack the comparisons between foreign aid to Israel and the reparations for slavery, urging us to reflect on the priorities and ethical considerations in government spending.

Foreign Aid to Israel: Historical Context and Geopolitical Significance

Israel has been the recipient of significant foreign aid from the United States since the late 1940s, totaling billions of dollars annually. This aid was initially provided to support Israel's security and stability in the Middle East, a region fraught with conflicts and political tensions. The United States views Israel as a crucial ally in the region, and the foreign aid serves as a strategic investment to maintain influence and promote stability.

The historical context of foreign aid to Israel is deeply intertwined with geopolitical considerations, as the region's dynamics shape the allocation of resources and military support. Understanding the intricacies of this aid package requires a nuanced analysis of US foreign policy objectives, regional alliances, and global power dynamics.

Reparations for Slavery: Ongoing Debates and Ethical Considerations

Conversely, the discussions on reparations for the descendants of slaves in the United States have been a topic of intense debate for decades. Advocates argue that reparations are a necessary step towards acknowledging and addressing the historical injustices inflicted upon African Americans through centuries of slavery and systemic discrimination. They highlight the economic, social, and psychological impacts of slavery that continue to reverberate through generations.

On the other hand, opponents raise valid concerns about the feasibility, implementation, and potential unintended consequences of reparations. Questions about who should be eligible for reparations, how they should be distributed, and what form reparations should take underscore the complexities of this issue. The debates surrounding reparations encompass moral, legal, and socio-economic considerations that demand comprehensive deliberation.

Reflecting on Priorities and Ethical Considerations

As we navigate the discourse on foreign aid to Israel and reparations for slavery, it is essential to encourage critical reflection on the priorities and ethical considerations in government spending. Balancing international obligations with domestic reparative justice underscores the intricate web of moral and political considerations that policymakers face.

By engaging in informed discussions, we can deepen our understanding of the historical legacies and contemporary implications of foreign aid and reparations. Recognizing the complexities and nuances of these topics equips us to critically assess government policies and advocate for equitable and just allocation of resources.

Sources:

• The New York Times

• Congressional Research Service

• Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics

Let this exploration spark conversations, inspire further research, and foster a more nuanced understanding of the intricacies surrounding foreign aid to Israel and discussions on reparations for slavery.

California Passes Bill That Makes UNDERAGE Prostitution Legal👧🏼 👧🏽 👀

This Bill Has Not Had National Attention. Some Say That it Provides a Legal Loophole for Underage Prostitution Without Suffering Incarceration. What Do You Think? Here Are The Facts:

As Stated In The California Legislative Information

 SB 1322, Mitchell. Commercial sex acts: minors.

"Existing" law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution. Existing law makes it a crime to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution.

This bill makes the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill authorizes the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances.

--

A California Republican claims Democratic-backed legislation aimed at protecting underage sex trafficking victims actually pushes minors into prostitution.

"Beginning on Jan. 1, 2017 prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right," Assemblyman Travis Allen, whose district covers parts of Orange County, wrote Thursday in the conservative D.C. publication the Washington Examiner.

Allen's attack on the "terribly destructive legislation" has lit up social media — but the intention of the law is not as alarming as he suggests, its supporters say.

Senate Bill 1322 was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown 

"So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution," Allen wrote.

SB 1322, he added, "bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution.

And that's true — the law does state that minors won't be treated as criminals if they are caught under such circumstances. But state Democrats say that distinction was necessary so that the children aren't being blamed or punished for their situation.

They are instead to be treated as victims who can be placed into a safe environment by the Department of Social Services, keeping them out of the criminal justice system and potentially off the streets again forced into prostitution, said state Sen. Holly Mitchell, who introduced SB 1322.

Mitchelle said in a statement to NBC News that it is a "factually incorrect assertion that my bill ... ties the hands of the police."

Minors will be exempt from criminal charges under the new law, anyone caught engaging in acts with them will still be subject to prosecution since sex with a minor is considered statutory rape.

Various district attorneys' offices in the state have expressed a similar apprehension toward the law —but some say it's because the state just isn't ready to provide adequate services.

“Right now, service groups are struggling with what they have in place — there [are] just not enough resources,” Jane Creighton, coordinator of the human trafficking unit at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, told the Los Angeles Times in August. “I am not saying these bills should never pass. But we are not ready for them right now.”

----

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1322

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-california-law-does-not-legalize-child-prostitution-n701471

THEORIES & FACTS ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11 👀 🏢 🇺🇸

Many have different ideas and beliefs about what really happened on 9/11. Here are a few notable ones as we approach the anniversary for one of Americas most tragic events in American history. You be the judge.

1. Top Theory -
This theory proposes that the destruction of the towers required explosive demolition. Ownership of the building had changed, for the first time, shortly before the 9/11 attacks, and new owner Larry Silverstein made a $500m insurance profit. Theorists note that John O'Neill, a senior counter-intelligence officer (who had resigned from the FBI in August 2001) took over security at the WTC on the day of the attacks.

The question on everyone’s mind is: Why is Silverstein claiming that airliners destroyed his buildings, when he has already confessed to demolishing at least one of them himself? In the 2002 PBS documentary “America Rebuilds,” Silverstein admitted to complicity in the controlled demolition of WTC-7, a 47-story skyscraper that dropped into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds.

The mysterious destruction of Building 7 has become the Rosetta Stone of 9/11. Virtually all independent experts who have studied the case, including thousands of architects and engineers, agree that this was obviously taken down in a controlled demolition, as Silverstein himself admitted. Despite his confession to demolishing his own building, Silverstein has already received $861 million from insurers for Building 7 alone. That $861 million for WTC-7 was paid on the basis of Silverstein’s claim that airplanes were somehow responsible for making Building 7, which was not hit by any plane, disappear at free-fall acceleration. 

On September 14, 2002, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a documentary on reconstrucion of the former World Trader Center site. The show's title was "America Rebuilds." During this documentary, the developer of World Trade Center (WTC) Building 7, Larry Silverstein  said that he and "the commander" of the New York City Fire Department had decided to "pull" WTC Building 7 late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

Silverstein States:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing is to pull it". And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

To "pull" a building, in the lexicon of realtors and Fire Departments, is to demolish it. Thus, in its context, Larry Silverstein's repeated use of the phrase "to pull" means "to demolish." At another point, earlier in this "America Rebuilds" documentary, there is a sequence of quotes about WTC Building 6, a building also brought to ground on the morning of 9-11, which makes clear that "to pull" means to demolish:

The conclusion? Larry Silverstein's nationally aired statement means, simply, that he and others must have prepared WTC Building 7 for demolition. Could this preparation for demolition have taken place on a single afternoon? It was a 47-story skyscraper containing 2 million square feet of office space. This preparation must have taken at least several weeks before Sept. 11, 2001.

OTHER WELL- KNOWN THEORIES-

2. Friends in oil-
Seventy-five top professors and scientists comprising '9/11 Scholars For Truth' believe people in the oil industry, along with President Bush, puppetered the events to secure oil reserves. It is claimed they arranged a 'stand-down' of the air-force for the event. Some see a cover-up to protect the Saudi royal family and Enron's interests in Afghanistan. Others see an Al-Qaeda chain of command which ran through pro-Western Saudis and Pakistani intelligence to forces in the US (and MI6). (Research Saudi Royal Ties With Bush Family and America)

3. The military-industrial complex
Forces at the Pentagon, keen on a coup d'etat by the military-industrial complex, are said to have covered up that a drone plane or missile that hit the Pentagon. Furthermore they shot down Flight 93 into a field when it became surplus to requirements. Some, including former MI5 whistleblower David Shaylor, believe no planes were involved in the attack, but missiles shrouded in holograms. (Click Here For More About This Theory)

4. Robbery - 
Comex was believed to have had $950m worth of gold under the WTC prior to the attack, and only $230m is said to have been recovered, leading some to believe 9/11 was the cover for a massive robbery or fraud; the biggest 'safe cracking' ever.

--

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/29/attacks.insurance/index.html

http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/conspiracy-theories/28177/top-ten-911-conspiracy-theories

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/15/larry-trial/

https://www.infowars.com/911-could-be-insurance-fraud-as-trial-of-conspiring-duo-begins-in-ny-today/

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Don_Paul.cfm

US “Vaccine Court” Has Paid over 3 Billion Dollars to Vaccine-Injured Families 🚑👶🏽👶🏻🤫

Since 1988, the US government program VICP (Vaccine Injury Compensation Program) has paid $3.9 billion to around 6,000 individuals and families for injuries and deaths attributed to shots for flu, diphtheria, whooping cough, and other conditions. Over that 29-year time period, 17,281 petitions have been adjudicated, with 6,085 of those determined to be compensable, while 11,196 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $3.9 billion. 

Though vaccines “remain one of the greatest success stories in public health,” Tracy Seipel reported, “for some Americans, rare side effects of inoculations have led to hardship, serious injury, and even death.”

On NPR’s All Things Considered, high-profile lawsuits against drug companies in the 1980s successfully charged that children immunized with the (DTP) vaccine experienced adverse reactions, including seizures and brain damage, leading to at least two court settlements worth millions of dollars. In response, drug companies threatened to stop producing vaccines for the US market because litigation risks were too great unless the government provided them with “no-fault” protection. NPR quoted Anna Kirkland, a professor of women’s studies and political science at the University of Michigan: “There was a real fear that some of our childhood vaccines would no longer be available.”

In 1986, that fear led Congress to establish the little-known Office of The "Vaccine Court". Also known as (Special Masters of the US Court of Federal Claims and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program). NPR reported that the court administers a “no-fault compensation program that serves as an alternative to the traditional U.S. court system.” The vaccine court served to “shield the vaccine makers from liability.” It also created a fund to compensate injured vaccine recipients, through a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine dose, stated by Anna Kirkland from NPR news.

As the NPR report also explained, “Petitioners don’t have to prove that the immunization caused their condition—the court operates under a presumption of causation if the injury develops within a certain period of time.” To win a claim, petitioners must provide proof of developing a condition listed on a vaccine injury table. Settlements for conditions not included in the table require a higher burden of proof. But, as Seipel reported, the other restriction that petitioners face is filing within strict time limits. A petition must be filed within three years of the first symptoms, within two years of death, or within four years after the first symptom of a vaccine-related injury that resulted in death.

The problem of the time limit is two-fold. First, and most fundamentally, most people simply do not know about the government’s vaccine-injury compensation program, and they may not learn about it in time to petition. Second, in cases where parents allege that a vaccine has injured a child of theirs, the full extent of the injury may not be known until the child is older. As Anna Kirkland, the Michigan professor who has studied the vaccine court, told NPR, publicizing the vaccine court and injury compensation program creates a dilemma: Once critics see compensation settlements, they conclude that “vaccines are dangerous and you shouldn’t vaccinate.” If the court were to achieve greater visibility, especially regarding payouts to injured patients, the public might conclude that vaccines are more generally dangerous than significant research and evidence indicates.

Jessica Boehm of Cronkite News reported that vaccine information statements, which include information about both possible side effects and the vaccine compensation program, are provided to patients before each shot. However, few people read the fine print. According to Drew Downing, a lawyer who specializes in vaccine injury cases, “That’s really the only place that the vaccine program is really ever talked about.” As Seipel reported, other critics have noted that, when patients seek medical attention for an adverse reaction, they should be informed about the court system and compensation program.

Since 2002, the Washington Post has published a handful of editorials, opinion pieces, and letters to the editor that have addressed the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. In 2009 it ran a front-page article on the vaccine court’s finding of no link between vaccines and autism in children. Coverage of the vaccine court and its injury program in the New York Times appears to have been limited to a single story from 1994, sourced from the Associated Press, on a new vaccine for whooping cough, which mentioned the program and compensation fund in passing.

-----

Vaccine Injury Compensation Data

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html

Anders Kelto, “Vaccine Court Aims to Protect Patients and Vaccines,” All Things Considered (NPR), broadcast June 2, 2015, edited transcript, http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/02/411243242/vaccine-court-aims-to-protect-patients-and-vaccines.

Tracy Seipel, “Vaccine Battles Call New Attention to Obscure Compensation Court,” Marin Independent Journal, August 2, 2015, http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20150802/NEWS/150809969.

Jessica Boehm, “Vaccine Injury Fund Tops $3.5 Billion, as Patients Fight for Payment,” Cronkite News (Arizona PBS), May 8, 2015, http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2015/05/vaccine-injury-fund-tops-3-5-billion-as-patients-fight-for-payment/.

Student Researchers: Brittany Oldham, Dorsa Abyaneh, and Emiko Osaka (San Francisco State University)

Faculty Evaluator: Kenn Burrows (San Francisco State University)

1st Self-Driving Car Death debate. 🚖👀

On March 19th, 2018, a woman was struck and killed in Tempe, Arizona, by a self-driving vehicle owned and operated by Uber. For a brief period of time, the safety of autonomous vehicles was brought into the spotlight. However, with a settlement in the ensuing lawsuit, the story effectively ended.

In terms of self-driving cars, a car would theoretically have to be programmed to either protect the driver or protect the pedestrians. In a similar situation to a trolley problem, if a self-driving car is headed down the road and its brakes give out, would the car swerve into a wall to avoid a group of pedestrians, saving their lives but killing the passengers? This moral dilemma has created a serious problem for autonomous vehicle programmers.

Wired reports that Iyad Rahwan of the MIT Media Lab is conducting studies to determine how consumers understand self-driving cars and their potential to be programed to kill passengers instead of injure pedestrians. So far, he has reported, “most people would not buy a self-driving car that could make the decision to kill them as the passenger.”

This conundrum raises issues that extend beyond the ethics of robotics. Will humans ever be able to accept that technology is not perfect, and that scenarios like the trolley problem, though rare, do occur in real life?

There has been little-to-no corporate news coverage of the ethics of self-driving cars, their relation to the trolley problem, or the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) as a whole. Establishment media reported about Uber settling in court, but the details of the incident itself were marginalized.

Throughout the emergence and growth of AI, many concerns have been voiced about the danger of playing with the unknown, as have been expressed most notably by the late, world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, as well as Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Hawking told the BBC, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end for the human race.” Nevertheless, most corporate news outlets have focused on the benefits of new AI technologies.

Sources: 

Timothy B. Lee, “Uber Self-driving Car Hits and Kills Pedestrian,” Ars Technica, March 19, 2018,://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/uber-self-driving-car-hits-and-kills-pedestrian/.

Ian Bogost, “Enough With the Trolley Problem,” The Atlantic, March 30, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/got-99-problems-but-a-trolley-aint-one/556805/.

Henry Grabar, “Arizona’s Lax Approach to Regulating Self-Driving Cars Is Dangerous-and Paying Off,” Slate, March 27, 2018, https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/arizonas-lax-approach-to-regulating-self-driving-cars.html.

Matt, Simon, “To Make Us All Safer, Robocars Will Sometimes Have to Kill,” Wired, May 25, 2017, https://www.wired.com/2017/03/make-us-safer-robocars-will-sometimes-kill/.

Student Researcher: Carly Tashman (University of Vermont)

Faculty Researcher: Robert Williams Jr. (University of Vermont)

Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth. 🌍 ㊏

Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx) or $33,000,000,000,000.

This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres

Largest five personal landowners on Earh

• Queen Elizabeth - II6,600 million acres
• King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - 553 million acres
• King Bhumibol of Thailand - 126 million acres
• King Mohammed IV of Morocco - 113 million acres
• Sultan Quaboos of Oman - 76 million acres