Espresso

Today's medical discoveries would seem miraculous to people in our past. Now there's some good news for coffee drinkers:

An Italian study finds evidence that espresso coffee may help protect you against Alzheimer's disease! They're cautious, it hasn't been proved yet, no specific prescription has been made . .  but so far it looks good.

photo

Researchers think certain proteins aggressively clump together in the brain to trigger the disease. And this study says that components in espresso coffee inhibit that clumping.

Quoting the study, "These results add insights into the neuroprotective potential of espresso coffee and suggest candidate molecular scaffolds for designing therapies targeting monomeric or fibrillized forms of the tau protein." I summarized it for you. You're welcome.

from Science Alert

Barbie

Last weekend was the big kick-off of the "Barbie" movie. Hundreds of brands partnered to promote it, so I know you're aware of it (unless you've been camping in the wilderness for a month without electronics). That promotion brought in huge box office.

Wall Street Journal's review summarizes the plot this way: the "iconic doll journeys out of her dreamhouse and into a male-dominated real world." Not surprising, since the director is herself a feminist. Left-winger Whoopi Goldberg liked it.

Elon Musk comments: "If you take a shot every time Barbie says the word "patriarchy", you will pass out before the movie ends." Another commenter recommends "sticking to outfit inspiration and skipping the theater."

Pink is a nice color, but I'm not going to see the "Barbie" movie. 

image

Nationalism?

Here is one of the PragerU videos hated by some (yesterday's post). Maybe they don't understand it, because the meaning of the word "nationalism" has changed over the years. That could be why there's confusion.

Not so long ago, the term "jingoism" referred to extreme and improper loyalty to your nation. You may have heard the phrase: "my country, right or wrong, but my country." It meant that you would defend anything your country did, even wrong things.

Today "nationalism" seems to mean what jingoism used to mean. A few decades ago, everyone knew that nationalism was good. It was just a proper and appropriate feeling of love for your own country - not a blind denial of your country's flaws or wrongdoing. 

All the peoples of the world want to preserve the beauty of their own culture. Why should they hand their sovereignty over to a worldwide authority far away? That's the goal of globalists. This author (video) says there is a case to be made for world government--but he admires people who love their nation and want it to go on existing.

In schools 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Thousands of educators have asked PragerU to provide educational material. They - and many parents - are not happy that current school curriculum often seeks to radicalize students to a woke, leftist political agenda.

Florida has officially approved of using PragerU-produced resources in schools. Other states may also be considering it. But there's opposition. Of course there is.

Florida left-wingers are not happy. Do they want kids being taught that their sex/gender can be reversed, that America is systemically and unredeemably racist, that our founding fathers were evil? Probably. Or, they're stuck in the political party that approves those views and they have never thought those things through.

The Week quotes one professor as calling Florida's policy "an invitation to disaster in the classroom." Another quote in the article describes PragerU as "bigoted conspiracy theorizing." On the other hand, they admit that it has "gargantuan" popularity, with over a billion views on Youtube.

In schools 1

How did schools get weaponized against virtue, morality, parents, against America? Some historical investigators are starting to write about how that happened (which may show up in the future in this blog). But the point is, many schools, teachers, administrators are now thoroughly committed to woke ideology. 

Backlash erupted. Parents demanded that school boards reflect their values. Teachers refused to knuckle under to radical activism. But it was already entrenched in personnel and curriculum.

So new curriculum was needed . . and PragerU was already there with 5-minute videos and much more to fill the gap with common sense. They've been providing educational and entertaining content for over a decade. More than a million households have downloaded the free PragerU app.

from PragerU

(cont'd tomorrow)

Trafficking 1

Our southern border is a problem.  For a long time we've known that non-citizens pour across it almost unimpeded, but now it's been exposed that the border is an enormous source of income for drug and crime cartels.  

Children cross the border alone, without families. It's hard to believe a mom or dad would send their child on that dangerous journey with no protection, but some do. And in some cases the child's been kidnapped or sold to traffickers (per Tim Ballard). 

Another criminal source of income was exposed and explained last week. Illegal immigrants may promise big sums to cartels to get them across the U.S. border, but end up in slavery for sex or labor after they get here. 

Witnessing before the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, retired border security agent Jaeson Jones calls it "America's new slave trade." He lifts up the wrist bands that identify the "alien smuggling organization" and its victim.

End is not near

Does good news sell? If you were in charge of social media for your company and you had to  get clicks on your website, would you feature good news, or fear and bad news?

Fear and bad news has been driving Paul Ehrlich for decades with a message of inevitable disaster. It started with his book Population Bomb about fifty years ago, when he said there were already way too many people for earth to support. But he was so wrong: the people of earth have more food and resources than ever -- and today global population is about double what it was then.

He's still treated like an expert for some reason. But the average material well-being of people on earth is so much better today. If you're not convinced yet, watch this.

TERF 4

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Peter Boghossian is no friend to Christian faith, but he believes in evidence-based truth and free speech. So we're on the same side when it comes to the biology-denying trans movement.

Here he interviews an articulate Irish author about it. She says that our society is under mass delusion on this point, because the biological sex of humans (mammals) cannot be changed.

At ~1:07 in the conversation, she says one segment of society will never change their minds about this delusion:

Parents who have transitioned their own child will defend their action 100% for the rest of their lives so they can keep their sanity. They cannot move on. Otherwise they would have to agree that they harmed their own child irrevocably. They will keep this "bloody movement going." It's a fight to the death, as far as they're concerned.

TERF 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

From Rowling's blog in 2020: "[W]oman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive." 

She tweets about the common sense of biological sex. For example, the Scottish police in 2021 apprehended a rapist who wanted to be called a woman, so they absurdly agreed to record the crime as being committed by a woman. Her Twitter response to that story was biting sarcasm:

"Freedom is Slavery. "Ignorance is Strength. "The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman."

For expressing opinions, her attackers make her pay a price with "relentless abuse and death threats." 

The actor who played Voldemort (in the Harry Potter movies) tried to defend her, saying "The verbal abuse directed at her is disgusting, it’s appalling."

image

(cont'd tomorrow)

TERF 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

This author (yesterday's post) is strongly left-wing and feminist, but she's furious about her political party's lurch even further left for the normalizing of transgender. So she calls herself a TERF and defends the concept.

If there is no such thing as a biological woman, if any man can be one if he wants to, then (she feels) all the progress that has been made for women's rights is threatened. Common sense would say, for instance, that "trans women" with male bodies should not compete against biological females in sports. 

She's obviously right about this. She stands against the "gender identity" movement that says sex doesn't exist or doesn't matter, calling it harmful and regressive.

A celebrity who shares these TERF convictions is J.K. Rowling, famous author of the Harry Potter series of books. She says, “If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased."

photo

from Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR)

(cont'd tomorrow)

TERF 1

"Radical feminists" doesn't like traditional gender roles, but rather aim to eliminate male supremacy in all social and economic contexts. They see the global class of men as oppressing the global class of women, the norm of every society all over the earth. It's a radical view that's been around since the 1960's.

But it's not radical enough for some, who go beyond that to claim that a person can change their sex/gender to the other one. They then denounce the radical feminists who refuse to go that far. A new term was invented for those people: TERF, "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist." 

photo

It could even mean anybody who understands that gender/sex is a material reality grounded in biological fact. That would certainly cover most of us, feminist or not. Count me in.

This writer calls herself an angry feminist with thoroughly leftist values. But apparently there's a limit in how far to the left she can go, so she identifies as a TERF.

from Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR)

(cont'd tomorrow)

Affirmative 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

One of the two African Americans on the Supreme Court voted with the majority, right before Independence Day, to say that race-based preference in college admissions violates the constitution. Though "affirmative action" admissions policies preferred his own race, Clarence Thomas does not defend it. 

As a child in the American South, he was subject to racism and bullying. But the work ethic and moral strength he learned from his grandfather pulled him through school successfully, and he graduated with top grades from a Catholic seminary and then college.

After also graduating from Yale Law School, he didn't get the job offers he expected. "Affirmative action," he believes, cast doubt on his qualifications. Why? Because the law firms couldn't know for sure whether he earned his degree by merit, by accomplishing the work, or . . because Yale admitted and graduated him just because of his race.

His own "lived experience" is strong in him still. He believes in the abilities of African Americans, and wants equal - not preferential - treatment for them. The court “must adhere to the promise of equality under the law declared by the Declaration of Independence and codified by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

from Britannica

Affirmative 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Subsequent to that 1954 Supreme Court decision, "affirmative action" began in the 1960's as a way to counter the discrimination of the past against African Americans, to bring their opportunities up to the normal level of other racial groups in America. 

That's sixty years of favor for one race over other races in college admissions: the same discriminating racial policy that gave rise to Jim Crow laws, but with the favor (on a smaller scale) going to the black race instead of the white race. 

Giving special favors to one race means that other races are excluded from those favors. What if your race is disfavored in the future? It was wrong in 1896, and it's still wrong. Racial favor/disfavor was pronounced unlawful in 1954. It took til last week, til 2023, for the Court to specify that, yes, Harvard University's admissions must fall under that decision.

photo

"Having prohibited the government from using racial references in any other sector, [the Court] closed the only exception remaining – higher education. Even Harvard is no longer above the law." 

One of the judges voiced strong agreement. You might be surprised at which one it is.

from AEI

(cont'd tomorrow)

Affirmative 1

It sounds good, the word "affirm." So the term "affirmative action" should be entirely good and uncontroversial, right? 

Unfortunately the term is used in the U.S. for racial discrimination practiced by many college-level schools. Harvard University has used it for decades to favor black applicants over Asian and white applicants. But a decision of the Supreme Court may mean that will have to stop.

Back in 1896, SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) made a decision (Plessy v. Ferguson) that started the Jim Crow era of racial laws that favored white Americans. By today's standards, it was a truly wrong decision.

photo

Only one justice dissented from the Court's majority opinion. He was a former slave-owner from Kentucky who saw the injustice, saying "Our Constitution is color-blind." On that basis, laws which restrict the rights of black citizens are wrong, unlawful, unconstitutional.

Finally that bad decision was overturned. In 1954, SCOTUS decided (Brown v. Board of Education) to forbid racial favoritism in schools. Since then we've been trying for decades to enforce a non-race-based policy everywhere . . because it's unfair to favor a certain race.

from AEI

(cont'd tomorrow)

Censor 4

Follow-up to this post series

A judge's decision to stop the government's censoring of dissenting views has upset some main-stream media talking heads. 

A lawsuit was placed a year ago by attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana against the current U.S. administration for its collusion with social media to censor viewpoints. 

The case in point concerned Covid vaccinations. The government wanted uniform compliance, but people had questions and concerns about the vaccine. Federal officials told social media to take down those worrisome posts, to allow only the government's view. So they did. 

But . . aren't we protected by the First Amendment to our Constitution? Can't the people of the U.S. ask questions or express opinions? Of course we can, and that accounts for the judge's decision.

If you like it that the current government can tell media what to say, imagine what it will be like when an administration you don't approve of does the same thing in the future. You won't like that.

As the judge said, “The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology." 

from AEI

Digital $

"Digital money" is our future, according to some. It's not in any way material, like a coin or paper currency, so you won't keep it in your wallet. It's "any means of payment that exists in a purely electronic form." Only online systems keep track of it. 

It's said that the move to digital currency is really going to happen, and it will be "disruptive." Eventually cash (material, tangible money) will not be accepted. "[T]he transformation of money will fundamentally rewrite how ordinary people live." 

In America, the Federal Reserve board is studying the question of why we should disrupt our financial system which works fine for us: "whether and how a CBDC [central banking digital currency] could improve on an already safe and efficient . . system."

But World Economic Forum (WEF) is working to make it a global reality. This author and professor wants it:

New deposit 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

About 50 million tonnes of phosphorus are used globally per year. At this point, Europe gets almost all they need from other countries with whom they have some tension. Consistent supply of critical raw materials can always be weaponized.

Now Norge Mining has discovered what they think is the biggest reserve in the world, at least 70  billion tonnes, in Norway. Worry over potentially unreliable foreign sources of these elements is in the past. They expect this find could meet demand for 50-100 years.

The massive deposit also contains vanadium and titanium. Altogether, it affects the steel, battery and chip industries, as well as agricultural fertilizer.

Environmental permits will take some time, but the government gives this project a high priority.

photo

from Economist

New deposit 1

Electric vehicles (EV) need it for their batteries. Solar panels need it, and so do computer chips. As the world develops new/green technologies, phosphorus is needed in greater amounts and for more applications.

It's important for man-made fertilizer, which enables high agricultural productivity, which is one reason why fewer people on earth today go hungry compared to the rest of human history. China is the biggest consumer of phosphate fertilizer in the world, followed by India in second place. China also is the biggest producer of phosphate fertilizer, making nearly 4x as much as is made in second-place U.S. (2018 statistics).

image

Europe has been nervous about its supply of phosphorus since it's almost entirely dependent on imports, and the countries exporting it are not great friends of the EU: Russia, China, Iraq, and Syria. Politics could easily threaten their supply chain.

So, a recently discovered huge new deposit of phosphorus rock may give the EU some peace of mind about supply . . because it's located right in Europe--in Norway.

from Independent

(cont'd tomorrow)

Blind to it 2

re-post

A young woman sits in a hipster coffee shop, puts her phone down, and looks around. She sees "people talking freely, working on their MacBooks, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become blind to it."

Even the American poor can hardly compare to the the poor of the rest of the world. "Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful."

photo

A young politician claimed recently that her generation has never seen American prosperity.

"Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth."

from "Thoughts from a Hipster Coffee Shop"

All Americans

On this Independence Day of 2023, enjoy President Reagan's holiday speech of 1986, exactly 37 years ago☺

"[W]e reaffirm that Jew and gentile, we are one nation under God; that black and white, we are one nation indivisible; that Republican and Democrat, we are all Americans."

"[T]he only permanent danger to the hope that is America, comes from within."

Dorchester 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Wildly optimistic, Knox thought he could be back in Boston with the artillery in a couple of weeks. But using horses and oxen to pull many tons of cannon through the mountains and  woods in the dead of winter was not easy. A cannon and sled broke through the ice at one point. They dragged it out of the frozen lake with the help of men from a nearby town.

All the cannons were delivered to General Washington in January, a truly amazing feat for the 25-year-old who organized and managed it. You could say it changed the course of history. 

Overnight on March 4, all the artillery was transported to the high ground overlooking Boston, to Dorchester Heights. Cannon ball rained down on the British. They evacuated the city on March 17.

Dorchester 1

Our stories of America should be remembered. Here is my favorite from the Revolutionary War.

Combat actually started before the famous Declaration of Independence was signed in July of 1776. George Washington was commissioned to head up the "army" of the colonials a whole year earlier. 

In June of 1775, he assumed command of the Continental Army at the Siege of Boston. The British were bottled up in Boston Bay and the standoff lasted many months. 

Washington's young officers were inexperienced but dedicated patriots. One of them, Henry Knox, was a 25-year-old bookseller whose credentials were only that he had read a few military books. But he was confident and bold.

image

British-held Fort Ticonderoga, about 300 miles north of Boston, had been captured.  The British had abandoned their artillery. Knox suggested that Washington send him north to bring it all down to Boston. Washington agreed.

So Knox took off as winter started in November, with animals and wooden sleds, over 300 miles of mountain trails, to bring back 59 cannons to his commander in Boston.

(cont'd tomorrow)