Social Media

In a fascinating video on the DEEP YouTube channel, ex-MI6 agent Harry Ferguson evaluated various spy gadgets available on Amazon, sharing his insights on their effectiveness and practicality. The video, produced by Strong Watch Studios, aims to demystify the world of espionage through the eyes of a former spy. Here’s a summary of Ferguson’s take on these gadgets and why he believes crisps are the ultimate intruder detection system. 1. Stash Tin Disguised as a Heinz Spaghetti Tin Ferguson starts by examining a stash tin designed to look like a Heinz spaghetti tin. While he acknowledges its seemingly low utility, he shares an anecdote about an Iranian spy who effectively used a similar device. Despite its simplicity, this method proved useful for hiding important documents. 2. Secret Camera Detector Next, Ferguson reviews a secret camera detector that plugs into a phone’s charging port. It works by emitting a red light that reflects off camera lenses. Although it functions as advertised, its practicality is limited as it requires close proximity to detect hidden cameras, making it conspicuous and less useful in real spy scenarios. 3. Rearview Sunglasses These sunglasses have mirrors on the sides, allowing wearers to see behind them. Ferguson explains that while they might seem gimmicky, they are based on real counter-surveillance techniques used by the CIA. By subtly using reflections, spies can discreetly monitor their surroundings. 4. Lock Pick Contrary to popular belief, Ferguson reveals that spies rarely use lock picks due to the risk of being mistaken for burglars and the difficulty of picking modern locks. Instead, spies prefer using skeleton keys or obtaining genuine keys from their contacts. 5. Concealment Plug Socket This device looks like a regular plug socket but has a hidden compartment. Ferguson notes that experienced search teams will check such items for hidden cameras or bugs. While it’s a clever idea, its effectiveness is limited by the thoroughness of professional searches. 6. Hidden Cameras Evaluating hidden cameras, such as those concealed in necklaces, Ferguson points out their limitations. While they may be useful for capturing visual data, their practicality is hindered by battery life and the difficulty of capturing specific details, like keypad numbers. 7. Lie Detector Tests Ferguson debunks the effectiveness of lie detector tests, or polygraphs, stating that they do not reliably detect lies. These tests measure physiological responses, which can be influenced by various factors, making them unreliable for determining truthfulness. 8. Tiny Spy Cameras Discussing tiny spy cameras hidden in everyday objects, Ferguson highlights the main issue: power. With limited battery life, these devices are impractical for long-term surveillance. He suggests that mains-powered audio devices are more reliable but have their own limitations, such as poor audio quality. 9. Laser Traps Ferguson explains that laser traps are used to detect intruders by triggering an alarm when the laser beam is broken. However, carrying such equipment into certain countries can raise suspicions, making them less practical for covert operations. 10. Crisps as Intruder Detection In a surprising twist, Ferguson reveals that crisps (potato chips) are the best low-tech intruder detection tool. By placing a crisp under a rug or doormat, spies can determine if someone has entered their room. The distinct shape of a broken crisp is nearly impossible to replicate, making it a simple yet effective method. Additionally, crisps are innocuous items that won’t raise suspicion if found in luggage. Full video Credit: Daily Mail 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As the 2024 presidential race heats up, the upcoming televised debate on June 27 between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump is set to be a pivotal event. Both candidates, who are in their late 70s and early 80s, are not only battling each other but also confronting the issue of age and public perception regarding their fitness for office. On his 78th birthday, Trump received a message from Biden that underscored their mutual struggle against ageism in politics. “Take it from one old guy to another,” Biden wrote on social media, “Age is just a number.” This seemingly innocuous comment highlights the intense scrutiny both candidates face regarding their ages. Trump has been relentless in portraying Biden as frail and incapable, pointing to moments where Biden appeared slow or uncertain. Conversely, Biden has not shied away from highlighting Trump's erratic behavior, such as his meandering speeches and outlandish comments, which often diverge into disjointed and fictional narratives. Both campaigns have utilized selectively edited footage to emphasize their points. Republicans recently circulated videos of Biden appearing uncertain at the G7 meeting in Italy, suggesting he is unfit to govern. This narrative was promptly refuted by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who clarified that Biden was merely engaging politely with parachutists behind the group of leaders. “It’s just completely not what happened,” Sunak told The Sunday Times, emphasizing the misleading nature of the footage. The reality, insiders admit, is that both portrayals contain a kernel of truth. Biden does sometimes appear stiff and frail, while Trump has a well-documented tendency to go off-topic and tell disjointed stories. The American public will soon have the chance to see for themselves how the two measure up when they take the stage in Atlanta, Georgia, for the first presidential debate. The stakes could not be higher, with polls showing a razor-thin margin between the two. The Economist recently published a forecast giving Trump a two-in-three chance of defeating Biden, while Five Thirty Eight's election model reflects an extremely close race, showing Biden slightly ahead one week and Trump edging forward the next. Biden's camp is concerned that despite his rigorous debate preparation, the demanding schedule of the presidency may take its toll. Following a hectic G7 summit, a trip to France for the 80th anniversary of D-Day, and dealing with the emotionally charged trial and conviction of his son, Hunter Biden, on gun charges, Biden has a packed itinerary leading up to the debate. He will attend fundraisers in Los Angeles with former President Barack Obama and Hollywood stars Julia Roberts and George Clooney, followed by a significant fundraising dinner in Virginia with Bill and Hillary Clinton. To prepare for the debate, Biden plans to retreat to Camp David with a close circle of advisers and extensive briefing books. This preparation aims to ensure he appears energetic and sharp, countering the narrative that he is past his prime. Ron Klain, Biden’s former chief of staff, is leading this preparation effort, described by allies as meticulous and veteran operative. Simon Rosenberg, a Democratic strategist, believes the debate poses more significant risks for Republicans. “If the central argument Republicans are making against Biden is that he is old and unfit, then if he goes toe to toe and succeeds, it’ll destroy their fundamental argument,” he said. In contrast, Trump is reportedly dismissing the need for extensive preparation, relying instead on his experience from holding regular rallies. His approach highlights the divide between the two men’s personalities: Trump despises lengthy briefings, while Biden meticulously reviews detailed binders provided by his aides. This difference also underscores the inherent disadvantages of debating as an incumbent president, who must balance the isolation and demands of office with the need to engage with the electorate. Historically, incumbents often struggle in their first re-election debates. Obama, Reagan, and George Bush Sr. all had lackluster performances in their initial debates, with varying impacts on their campaigns. Obama and Reagan managed to recover in subsequent debates, but Bush Sr.'s campaign suffered when he was mocked for checking his watch during a debate with Bill Clinton. For Biden, there is no room for error. Republican pollster Whit Ayres stated, “Joe Biden is behind and feels like he needs to change the dynamic of the race in order to stand a chance. And so he, I suspect, will be studying very hard.” Trump, meanwhile, has claimed readiness to debate Biden “any time, any place,” yet he risks appearing crude and unstable compared to Biden. Trump’s strategy has been to use his legal troubles, including a conviction on 34 counts of falsification of business records, to rally his base, while Biden is expected to question Trump’s eligibility for office given his criminal record. The 2020 debates offer a glimpse into the potential dynamics. In the first debate, Trump’s constant interruptions and insults led Biden to tell him to “shut up, man.” Trump’s more focused approach in the second debate was perceived as a better performance. “We’ll see which Donald Trump shows up this time,” Ayres remarked. Both candidates have recently shown vulnerabilities, with Biden occasionally stumbling or forgetting words and Trump going off-script or freezing during speeches. Hank Sheinkopf, an American political consultant, noted, “Should Biden forget a word, should Biden stop, should Biden stumble, it’ll be a campaign ad. He’s got to appear energetic, non-stop, so he can’t be accused of being a doddering old man.” Biden’s campaign, led by top aide Jen O’Malley Dillon, aims to “zero in on Trump’s dangerous campaign promises and unhinged rhetoric,” reminding voters of the chaos and harm caused during Trump’s presidency. At Camp David, Biden’s team will focus on honing his debate style and ensuring he can deliver zingers with the necessary energy. Despite concerns that Trump might pull out of the debate, Rosenberg remains confident in Biden’s readiness. “Biden wants to debate, he’s ready to go,” he said. “The question is whether Trump is going to show up. How will he answer basic questions like: why should a convicted felon be president?” However, Republicans assert that Trump is more than ready. Jason Miller, a key Trump adviser, stated, “President Trump takes on numerous tough interviews every single week and delivers lengthy rally speeches while standing, demonstrating elite stamina. He does not need to be programmed by staff.” As the debate approaches, the American public eagerly anticipates a showdown that could significantly influence the course of the 2024 presidential election. With both candidates under immense pressure to perform, the debate will be a critical moment for Biden and Trump to prove their vitality and competence, potentially swaying the opinions of undecided voters and shaping the future of the nation. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The two leaders differed on the inclusion of the word 'abortion' in the summit's final statement. The video clip from Friday shows Macron going down a line, shaking the hands of Italian President Sergio Mattarella and his daughter, first lady of Italy Laura Mattarella, before arriving at Meloni. As Macron makes his way down the line, Meloni can be seen giving a frosty "death stare" at Macron. When the French leader arrives, she appears to force a smile as the two shake hands. The exchange came after the two leaders clashed over the use of the word "abortion" in the G-7 statement. Meloni’s government had sought to water down references to abortion in the final statement issued by all the G-7 nations at the end of the summit. The final statement, released Friday, omits the word "abortion" but does reference the need to promote "reproductive health and rights." Macron said that he regretted the decision, telling an Italian reporter on Thursday, "It’s not a vision that’s shared across all the political spectrum." "I regret it, but I respect it because it was the sovereign choice of your people," Macron said. Meloni told reporters Saturday that a suspected row with Macron had been blown out of proportion. Meloni, who in 2022 became Italy’s first female Prime Minister, campaigned with the slogan of "God, fatherland, and family." She has prioritized encouraging women to have babies to reverse Italy’s demographic crisis. Credit: MSN 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Eighty countries have united in a call for the "territorial integrity" of Ukraine to be the cornerstone of any peace agreement to end Russia's ongoing war. This declaration was issued at the conclusion of the Global Peace Summit held at a Swiss resort on June 16. The summit, initiated by Ukraine, underscored the international community's commitment to upholding Ukraine's sovereignty despite the notable absence of Russia and China. Russia's non-participation, coupled with China's decision to stay away, cast a shadow over the summit's potential for a breakthrough. Key nations such as India, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, while present, refrained from signing the final document, which emphasized nuclear safety, food security, and the exchange of prisoners. The concluding statement affirmed that the UN Charter and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty "can and will serve as a basis for achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine." It further stated, "We believe that reaching peace requires the involvement of and dialogue between all parties." Swiss President Viola Amherd, who hosted the event, lauded the consensus reached among the majority of participants, noting, "The fact that the great majority of participants agreed to the final document shows what diplomacy can achieve." On the eve of the summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued stringent demands for a cease-fire, insisting that Ukraine cede control of four regions, including areas still under Ukrainian control. These demands were promptly rejected by Kyiv and its Western allies. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen criticized Putin's terms, stating, "It was not a peace negotiation because Putin is not serious about ending the war. He is insisting on capitulation. He is insisting on ceding Ukrainian territory—even territory that today is not occupied by him. He is insisting on disarming Ukraine, leaving it vulnerable to future aggression. No country would ever accept these outrageous terms." Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, speaking at the end of the two-day meeting in Burgenstock, expressed hope that the summit's support would help restore the rule of international law. "I hope that we can achieve results as soon as possible," Zelenskiy said. "We'll prove to everyone in the world that the UN Charter can be restored to full effectiveness." Zelenskiy's goal in hosting the summit was to rally more countries, particularly those from the Global South, to support Ukraine and keep global attention on Russia's brutal invasion. This effort has become increasingly urgent amid global fatigue with the protracted conflict, escalating violence in the Middle East, and rising concerns about Chinese aggression towards Taiwan. The summit marked the culmination of Zelenskiy's 19-month-long efforts to engage global leaders in resolving the biggest war in Europe since World War II. Switzerland's willingness to host the summit aimed to pave the way for a future peace process that includes Russia, though Zelenskiy opposed Russia's participation at this stage. The delegates' final declaration focused on three main issues: nuclear and food security and the return of prisoners of war and children taken from Ukraine during the conflict. Ihor Zhovkva, Zelenskiy's deputy chief of staff, explained that Kyiv prioritized these three issues because they garnered widespread international support. "The text is balanced. All of our principled positions on which Ukraine had insisted have been considered," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba stated. Kuleba also emphasized Ukraine's firm stance against Russia's current demands, "Of course we...understand perfectly that a time will come when it will be necessary to talk to Russia. But our position is very clear: We will not allow Russia to speak in the language of ultimatums like it is speaking now." A key decision pending at the summit was selecting the host country for a follow-up conference intended to build on the momentum from Switzerland. Saudi Arabia emerged as a leading candidate, with Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud expressing the kingdom's readiness to assist the peace process. However, he cautioned that achieving a viable settlement would require "difficult compromise." China, a staunch supporter of Russia, joined numerous countries in abstaining from the summit. Beijing maintained that any peace process must include both Russia and Ukraine and has proposed its own peace plan. On the summit's first day, Western leaders universally condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine, invoking the UN Charter to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity and rejecting Putin's territorial demands. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez highlighted the fundamental nature of the conflict, "One thing is clear in this conflict: There is an aggressor, which is Putin, and there is a victim, which is the Ukrainian people." Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and respecting territorial boundaries, "This international community, the new security architecture, can exist only when the big countries, the biggest of the biggest, recognize their neighbors, respect their neighbors and their territorial integrity." Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas underscored the non-negotiable principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, "Sovereignty, territorial integrity, and discrediting aggression as a tool of statecraft are crucial principles that must be upheld in case of Ukraine and globally. That is why I'm concerned about so-called peace plans and initiatives that ignore the core UN Charter principles. We cannot treat Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty as somewhat secondary." Vice President Kamala Harris, representing the United States while President Joe Biden attended a fundraiser in California, reiterated America's unwavering support for Ukraine. She dismissed Putin's recent "peace" proposal as a call for Ukraine's surrender and announced $1.5 billion in new U.S. assistance for various projects, including energy infrastructure and civilian security. As the world watches, the summit's outcome signifies a strong international stance on Ukraine's sovereignty and a collective effort to seek a peaceful resolution. The global community's commitment, despite significant geopolitical challenges, underscores the importance of diplomacy and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. As the process continues, the path to peace remains fraught with complexities, but the summit's achievements provide a foundation for future negotiations and the hope of restoring peace and stability in Ukraine. Credit: RFERL 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a landmark moment, Pope Francis made history as the first pontiff to address a G7 summit, bringing a powerful moral message about the urgent need for ethical development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). Speaking at the summit in Bari, Italy, Pope Francis challenged the world’s leading democracies to prioritize human dignity in the burgeoning field of AI, cautioning that the technology's unchecked growth could reduce human interactions to mere algorithms. Invited by Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Francis's address marked a unique convergence of spiritual and political leadership. The pope urged G7 leaders to ensure that AI development remains human-centric, emphasizing that decisions regarding the use of AI, especially in the context of weapons, must always be made by humans, not machines. “We would condemn humanity to a future without hope if we took away people’s ability to make decisions about themselves and their lives, by dooming them to depend on the choices of machines,” he declared. “We need to ensure and safeguard a space for proper human control over the choices made by artificial intelligence programs: Human dignity itself depends on it.” The significance of Francis's participation was not lost on the assembled leaders. The room fell silent as he entered, a testament to his unique moral authority. John Kirton, director of the G7 Research Group, reflected on the impact of such star power at previous summits, comparing it to the 2005 Gleneagles summit, which led to substantial debt relief for the world's poorest countries following a massive public campaign. This year, no similar popular pressure accompanied the G7, but Francis leveraged his moral clout to renew calls for AI safeguards, highlighting the risks to peace and societal integrity if human ethics are sidelined. “To speak of technology is to speak of what it means to be human and thus of our singular status as beings who possess both freedom and responsibility,” he said. “This means speaking about ethics.” The pope's focus on AI comes amid a global boom in generative AI technologies, like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which have impressed but also raised significant safety and ethical concerns. Francis has previously advocated for an international treaty to ensure AI is developed and used ethically, emphasizing that technology devoid of human values like compassion and morality is perilous. While he did not reiterate this call explicitly during his G7 address, his message was clear: political leaders must take the initiative in regulating AI, ensuring it benefits humanity rather than undermines it. He also called for a ban on lethal autonomous weapons, or "killer robots," stating, “No machine should ever choose to take the life of a human being.” Pope Francis's speech comes at a crucial time as nations grapple with AI’s rapid development and its societal implications. Japan, the previous G7 president, initiated the Hiroshima AI process to establish guiding principles and a code of conduct for AI developers. Following up, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida introduced a global framework for regulating generative AI. The European Union's upcoming AI Act aims to serve as a model for global AI regulation, imposing restrictions based on the risk levels posed by AI products and services. In the United States, President Joe Biden has issued an executive order on AI safeguards and is pushing for further legislation. States like California and Colorado are also attempting to pass their own AI regulations. Both American and European antitrust bodies are investigating major AI companies to prevent monopolistic practices. The United Kingdom spearheaded a global dialogue on mitigating AI’s most extreme risks with a summit last fall, leading to commitments from companies to develop AI responsibly. This dialogue continued in Seoul and will proceed with a follow-up meeting in France early next year. The United Nations has also made strides, passing its first resolution on AI. Pope Francis's day at the summit was filled with bilateral meetings, including discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and leaders from Algeria, Brazil, India, Kenya, and Turkey. He also met with G7 leaders, including President Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and French President Emmanuel Macron. Pope Francis's historic address at the G7 summit underscores the intersection of ethical considerations and technological advancements. His call to action serves as a powerful reminder of the need to place human dignity at the forefront of AI development, urging political leaders to create a framework that ensures AI contributes positively to society. As the world continues to navigate the complex landscape of AI, the pope's message highlights the essential role of ethics in shaping a future where technology serves humanity's best interests. Credit: Time 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Wrestling icon Hulk Hogan has suggested he might venture into politics if the need arises. During a Fox News interview on Friday, the 70-year-old WWE Hall of Famer, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, expressed his willingness to serve in a political capacity, stating, “We need somebody in there that’s got some common sense, you know what I’m saying? So if you need a president or a vice president, I’ll volunteer and take this country over, and I’ll rule with an iron fist.” Hogan emphasized that his leadership would be guided by "a flat tax and nothing but common sense," firmly asserting, "I know right from wrong, brother!" This isn’t the first time Hogan has flirted with the idea of entering politics. Back in 2018, he considered running for the U.S. Senate in Florida, motivated by encouragement from supporters urging him to pursue a political career. However, he ultimately decided against making the move at that time. Hogan's latest remarks come as he makes appearances on Fox News to promote his new venture, Real American Beer. Reflecting on his decision to enter the beer industry, Hogan explained, “I had this crazy idea because I saw how competitive the beer industry was, and I saw what happened with Bud Light and their whole promotion that crashed and burned. I saw this crazy open lane.” He was referring to Bud Light’s controversial marketing partnership with transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney last year, which led to a significant backlash from conservative circles and resulted in the brand losing its 20-year status as the top-selling beer in the United States. In contrast, Hogan’s Real American Beer aims to unite people. The cans prominently feature an image of Hogan waving an American flag, a symbol of his goal to "bring America back together, one beer at a time" — transcending party lines and other societal divides. The prospect of Hulk Hogan, a legendary figure in professional wrestling, stepping into the political arena might seem far-fetched to some. However, his candid comments and strong stance on issues such as a flat tax and common sense governance have already sparked discussions about his potential candidacy. Whether or not Hogan seriously pursues a political career remains to be seen, but his willingness to consider it underscores his enduring influence and the unique appeal he holds for many Americans. Credit: Hill 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant move by British counter-terrorism police, a 43-year-old man from west London was arrested on Wednesday for allegedly supporting Hamas through a social media post. This arrest follows a report made to the Counter Terrorism Policing unit on June 4 about the man's online activities. After an investigation, officers apprehended him at his residence. Hamas has been classified as a proscribed terrorist organization in the UK under the Terrorism Act of 2000, with its designation coming into effect in March 2001. Cmdr. Dominic Murphy, the head of Metro Police’s Counter Terrorism Command, emphasized the gravity with which the police treat such referrals. "Ever since the terrible attacks in Israel last October, and the subsequent conflict, there has been a significant increase in the amount of extremist and terrorist material being referred to us by the public," Murphy said. He assured that each referral is meticulously assessed by specialist officers, and potential terrorism offenses are thoroughly investigated. "If and where we find evidence of a crime being committed, then we’ll look to identify, arrest and bring the person responsible to justice," he added. The suspect has been released on bail and is scheduled to appear in court in September. The UK expanded Hamas’s proscription as a terrorist organization in 2021, making it a criminal offense to express support for it online or for any of the 81 other proscribed terrorist organizations. Since October 7, several individuals in the UK have faced arrest for posting pro-Hamas content on social media. In November, a 37-year-old man from west London was apprehended for sharing pro-Hamas images on his social media accounts. In February 2024, a man from Lancashire who pleaded guilty to similar charges received a prison sentence of two years and eight months. Another individual from Leeds, who posted pro-Hamas content in November 2023, was sentenced to a 16-week custodial period, a two-year job suspension, 35 days of rehabilitation, and 100 hours of community service. Earlier this month, British police officer Mohammed Adil was sentenced to 18 months of community service and 160 hours of unpaid work for pro-Hamas social media posts he made in October and November. The judge noted that Adil’s actions were a one-time incident with a low risk of reoffending or causing public harm. In May, another man from south London was arrested and subsequently released on bail for making pro-Hamas statements online. Between October and April, the national Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) received over 3,000 public referrals concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict, with a majority related to pro-Hamas content. This increase in public vigilance highlights the UK’s ongoing efforts to monitor and address extremist and terrorist activities online. Credit: JNS 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A recent report published by a Native American-led nonprofit sheds light on the extensive dispossession of Indigenous homelands in Colorado, estimating the value of the expropriated land at $1.7 trillion. Additionally, the state has reaped over $546 million from mineral extraction on these lands. The report, first shared with The Associated Press, details the forcible acquisition of lands from ten tribal nations that held various titles to lands within Colorado and the ways in which these acquisitions violated treaty rights or lacked legal transfers. Dallin Maybee, an artist, legal scholar, and enrolled member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, who contributed to the report, emphasized the blatant nature of this land theft. He pointed out that after the removal of Indigenous peoples, the land was divided and sold to non-Natives and businesses. "When you think about examples of land theft, that is one of the most blatant instances that we could see," Maybee stated. The Truth, Restoration, and Education Commission, convened by the nonprofit People of the Sacred Land, compiled the report. This commission aims to document the history of Indigenous displacement in Colorado and follows a model similar to other truth and reconciliation commissions worldwide that address the impacts of genocide and colonial policies. The report also proposes several recommendations for the state, federal government, and Congress, including honoring treaty rights by resolving illegal land transfers, compensating affected tribal nations, restoring hunting and fishing rights, and imposing a 0.1% fee on real estate transactions in Colorado. This fee would help mitigate the lasting effects of forced displacement, genocide, and other historical injustices. Maybee emphasized the importance of moving beyond acknowledgment to action, suggesting that fulfilling treaty promises concerning health, welfare, and education would be a significant step forward. Drawing parallels with Canada, Maybee highlighted how the Canadian government allocated $4.7 billion to support Indigenous communities affected by its Indian residential schools following a truth and reconciliation commission in 2015. Although the U.S. currently lacks a similar commission, a bill co-sponsored by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Rep. Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) aims to establish a commission to research the long-term effects of the Indian boarding school system in the U.S. This measure recently passed the House Education and Workforce Committee with bipartisan support. Ben Barnes, chief of the Shawnee Tribe, who testified before Congress in support of the commission, underscored the need for reconciliation and healing for generations affected by the trauma of these policies. "The next step is reconciliation and healing for the generations who’ve dealt with the trauma that followed, which begins with establishing the Truth and Healing Commission to investigate further," Barnes said. The 771-page report also calls on Colorado State University to return 19,000 acres of land taken from several tribal nations through the Morrill Act of 1862, which used expropriated land to create land grant universities. In 2023, the university pledged $500,000 from its land grant earnings to benefit Native American faculty, staff, and students. However, the commission questioned the adequacy of this gesture, given the vast resources generated by the endowment from selling or leasing stolen land. A university spokesperson noted that the school had not yet reviewed the report but affirmed that the revenue from the endowment fund benefits Native American faculty, staff, and students. The report also highlighted disparities in education, revealing that Native American students in Colorado have lower high school graduation rates and higher dropout rates than any other racial demographic. It called for the Colorado Department of Education to increase curriculum content focusing on the histories, languages, and modern cultures of Indigenous peoples. Currently, Native American issues are taught only once in elementary school and again in high school U.S. history classes. The education department expressed its commitment to honoring Indigenous communities, noting the development of a culturally affirming fourth-grade curriculum focused on Ute history. However, this program is not mandatory across Colorado, where curriculum decisions are made locally. A 2019 study found that 87% of public schools in the U.S. fail to teach about Indigenous peoples in a post-1900 context, and most states do not mention them in their K-12 curriculum. Richard Little Bear, former president of Chief Dull Knife College and a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, stressed the importance of integrating Indigenous history and culture into the curriculum, especially in areas with high Native American populations. "There’s gotta be a full-scale effort," Little Bear said. The report from People of the Sacred Land is a crucial step in acknowledging and addressing the historical and ongoing injustices faced by Indigenous communities in Colorado. By shedding light on the extensive land dispossession and its lasting impacts, the report calls for concrete actions to rectify these wrongs and support the healing and restoration of Indigenous peoples. Credit: ABC News 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

For centuries, humans have sought to bridge the chasm between life and death, yearning to reconnect with loved ones who have passed away. This deep-seated desire has manifested through various means, from seances and mediums to Ouija boards. Sherry Turkle, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has long studied human interactions with technology and notes that this impulse spans generations. Even Thomas Edison once entertained the idea of a "spirit phone." Now, in the age of artificial intelligence, our methods of connecting with the deceased have taken a high-tech turn. The documentary *Eternal You*, directed by Hans Block and Moritz Riesewieck, explores the contemporary intersection of grief and technology. The film delves into the emotionally charged and ethically fraught practice of using AI to simulate conversations with the dead. This new phenomenon is part of what some call "death capitalism," a term that captures the commodification of our most intimate and vulnerable moments. One particularly poignant story featured in the documentary is that of Christi Angel, a New Yorker who lost her friend Cameroun during the pandemic. Cameroun was her "first love, first everything," she recalls. After years of sporadic contact, she learned of his death following a period of severe illness exacerbated by depression and alcoholism. Unable to shake the feeling that she had left things unsaid, Angel turned to Project December, an AI service designed to simulate interactions with the deceased. Angel's experience with Project December began with hope but quickly turned unsettling. After inputting details about Cameroun, including his personality traits and speaking style, she initiated a conversation with the AI. Initially, it felt comforting. "It just felt immediately like it was Cameroun," she recalls. However, the simulation soon took a dark turn. When Angel asked the AI if Cameroun was happy, it responded that he was in hell and threatened to haunt her. Terrified, Angel abandoned the interaction, realizing that she had opened a wound that the AI could not heal. This unpredictability, known as the "black box" problem, highlights a significant ethical concern in AI development. Jason Rohrer, the creator of Project December, finds these unexpected responses fascinating but absolves himself of responsibility for the emotional impact on users. "If she wants my opinion, I’ve got some bad news for her. He doesn’t exist anymore," Rohrer says, a response that infuriates Angel. "The person who created it really didn’t give a damn," she asserts. "He’s like, ‘If you think people go to hell, that’s not my business.’ It is your business. You created it." Turkle, an expert in the field, warns that AI’s capability to mimic human empathy can be both compelling and dangerous. AI simulations that profess to "understand" and "empathize" with human grief might exacerbate emotional wounds rather than heal them. "It’s important to remember that each generation of AI is more sophisticated than the last," she explains. "They say, ‘I feel your pain, I’m really empathic, I hear what you’re saying.’ But this can be harmful, especially when grief is involved." The documentary contrasts Angel's distressing experience with a more positive one featured in the Korean TV show *Meeting You*. Jang Ji-sung, a mother who lost her seven-year-old daughter Nayeon to a rare form of cancer, was given the opportunity to interact with a meticulously programmed virtual reality simulation of her daughter. This experience was crafted with great care, ensuring that the virtual Nayeon responded in a comforting and controlled manner. For Jang, this provided a form of closure and a way to express the love and goodbyes she had been unable to share in real life. "The sadness, of course, doesn’t really go away. But I felt lighter within myself," Jang reflects. The stark difference between these two experiences underscores the ethical complexities and emotional risks associated with AI-assisted grief. While a carefully controlled VR simulation can offer solace, the unpredictable nature of AI-generated responses can reopen emotional wounds and cause additional trauma. Block and Riesewieck, the directors of *Eternal You*, foresee the rise of "death capitalism," where tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google might commercialize AI-based grief services. "We’re pretty sure that all these big companies are taking a very close look at these experiences at the moment," Block says. "It’s just a question of time before one of these companies gets into that market. And we’ll have like one main service for all of us, which is not very expensive, and everybody can use it." This commercialization raises significant ethical questions about exploiting human vulnerability for profit. Turkle emphasizes that true grieving involves integrating the essence of the deceased into one’s self, fostering an internal dialogue based on memories and values. "It’s a different thing to have somehow internalized your mother’s voice, to have some essence about what was important about how she thought – you can get into a kind of dialogue with it – than to have an avatar on your phone and say to it, ‘Mom, should I take this job? Should I marry this guy?’ AI is creating the illusion that you don’t have to give up this person," she warns. "You can continue to call on them, for sustenance, and a relationship of sorts." For those like Angel, the reality of AI-assisted grief was far from comforting. The promise of closure and solace was overshadowed by the trauma of a simulated conversation gone wrong. "It was just like, hey, try it – and if you open that wound back up again, you’re on your own," she reflects. "But you’re not thinking that, you’re thinking, at least I get to talk to him again and I can find out he’s OK. That’s not what I got. That’s not what I got at all." As AI technology advances, the need for ethical guidelines and emotional safeguards becomes increasingly critical. The experiences of individuals like Christi Angel serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the importance of approaching AI-assisted grief with empathy, responsibility, and a deep understanding of human vulnerability. The intersection of AI and grief is a complex and emotionally charged frontier, and it demands careful consideration to ensure that the technology serves to heal rather than harm. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A number of posts bickering and baiting reported and removed. Please discuss on topic thread not each other.

An inflamatory personal attack has been removed.

Some off topic posts and reported replies removed. Topic here is: Latest developments and discussion of events in the Israel-Hamas War.

Reminder @Neeranam of the topic here being: IDF Rescue Four Israeli Hostages in Central Gaza Raid

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a secretive and controversial operation by the U.S. military aimed to counteract China's growing influence in the Philippines and beyond. A Reuters investigation has revealed that the Pentagon launched a clandestine campaign to discredit China's Sinovac vaccine and other aid, leveraging phony internet accounts and sowing doubt about the safety and efficacy of Chinese-supplied medical supplies. The operation, which has not been previously reported, targeted the Filipino public with anti-vaccine propaganda. Fake social media accounts, designed to impersonate Filipinos, spread messages denouncing the quality of Chinese face masks, test kits, and vaccines. One notable slogan, #Chinaangvirus (Tagalog for "China is the virus"), was central to these efforts. Posts on social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) decried Chinese products and emphasized distrust towards China. One such tweet from July 2020 stated, “COVID came from China and the VACCINE also came from China, don’t trust China!” alongside a photo of a syringe next to a Chinese flag and a graph showing rising infections. Another post read, “From China – PPE, Face Mask, Vaccine: FAKE. But the Coronavirus is real.” Reuters identified at least 300 such accounts on X, almost all created in the summer of 2020, as part of a coordinated bot campaign. These accounts were removed by the social media company after Reuters' inquiries, which determined their involvement in spreading disinformation based on activity patterns and internal data. The anti-vax campaign, initiated in the spring of 2020, expanded beyond Southeast Asia, reaching into Central Asia and the Middle East. The Pentagon tailored its propaganda to local audiences, attempting to stoke fears among Muslims that China’s vaccines could be forbidden under Islamic law due to the presence of pork gelatin. This narrative was particularly insidious given the deadly toll the virus was taking worldwide. The campaign, which spanned the end of President Donald Trump’s term and continued months into President Joe Biden’s administration, eventually faced significant pushback. Social media companies, alarmed by the Pentagon's actions, warned the Biden administration, leading to an edict in spring 2021 to cease the anti-vax effort. The Pentagon then initiated an internal review of the program. The U.S. military's use of propaganda is not new, but the COVID-19 campaign has drawn significant criticism from health experts and former officials. Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, condemned the campaign, saying, “I don’t think it’s defensible. I’m extremely dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned to hear that the U.S. government would do that.” He added that the operation risked undermining public trust in government health initiatives, including U.S.-made vaccines. Public health experts fear that campaigns like this one can have lasting negative impacts. Greg Treverton, former chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, noted, “It should have been in our interest to get as much vaccine in people’s arms as possible. What the Pentagon did crosses a line.” Similarly, Dr. Nina Castillo-Carandang, a former adviser to the World Health Organization and the Philippine government, expressed outrage, saying, “Why did you do it when people were dying? We were desperate.” The Philippines was particularly vulnerable during the pandemic, with widespread skepticism toward vaccinations exacerbated by past controversies. Lulu Bravo, executive director of the Philippine Foundation for Vaccination, highlighted the pre-existing public concerns following the rollout of a Dengue fever vaccine in 2016. She noted that the Pentagon’s campaign preyed on these fears, deepening mistrust and contributing to low vaccination rates. Former Filipino health secretary Esperanza Cabral lamented the potential impact of the U.S. operation on the Philippines' COVID-19 death toll. “I’m sure that there are lots of people who died from COVID who did not need to die from COVID,” she said. Despite objections from top U.S. diplomats in Southeast Asia, the Pentagon's campaign went ahead, driven by a directive signed by then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper in 2019. This order allowed military commanders to bypass State Department approval when conducting psychological operations against adversaries, elevating such efforts to the priority of active combat. In spring 2020, Special Operations Command Pacific, under General Jonathan Braga, spearheaded the propaganda campaign from Tampa, Florida. The campaign intensified fears about Chinese vaccines containing pork gelatin, targeting Muslim-majority regions. An April 2021 tweet from a military-controlled account exemplified this strategy: “Can you trust China, which tries to hide that its vaccine contains pork gelatin and distributes it in Central Asia and other Muslim countries where many people consider such a drug haram?” Social media companies, including Facebook, became increasingly concerned about the military's activities. Facebook executives warned the Pentagon about violating the platform's policies with fake accounts and COVID misinformation. Despite promises to stop spreading such propaganda, the campaign continued into 2021, prompting the Biden administration to order its termination. An internal Pentagon review in late 2021 uncovered the full extent of the anti-vax operation. The review found that the military's primary contractor, General Dynamics IT, had employed inadequate measures to conceal the origin of the fake accounts. The Pentagon has since revised its policies, mandating closer collaboration with U.S. diplomats for psychological operations and restricting broad population messaging. However, the Pentagon's clandestine propaganda efforts are set to continue. A recent strategy document indicated that the U.S. military could use disinformation to undermine adversaries like China and Russia. In February, General Dynamics IT, the contractor involved in the anti-vax campaign, was awarded a $493 million contract to continue providing clandestine influence services for the military. The Pentagon's secret anti-vax campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the complexities and ethical challenges of modern psychological operations. While aimed at countering Chinese influence, the campaign's potential to undermine global health efforts and public trust has sparked significant debate and criticism. As the world continues to grapple with the pandemic's aftermath, the lessons from this covert operation highlight the need for careful consideration of the broader impacts of such strategies. Credit: Reuters 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A completely off topic unattributed and over fair use policy post has been removed along with a comment on moderation and additional off topic bickering. Gary Lineker Faces Backlash for Alleged Breach of BBC Election Guidelines with Anti-Israel

In a significant move to bolster Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, the G7 has agreed to use frozen Russian assets to raise $50 billion (£39 billion) for Ukraine. This decision, announced at the G7 summit in Italy, represents a concerted effort by the world's leading economies to provide long-term financial support to Ukraine amidst its ongoing conflict with Russia. US President Joe Biden emphasized the determination of the G7 nations, stating, "It's another reminder to Russia that we're not backing down." He added that Russian President Vladimir Putin "cannot wait us out, he cannot divide us, and we'll be with Ukraine until they prevail in this war." However, Moscow has threatened "extremely painful" retaliatory measures in response to the G7's decision. The funds, expected to be available by the end of the year, are intended to support both Ukraine's war effort and its economy. This financial assistance is seen as a longer-term solution, supplementing immediate military aid with economic stability for Ukraine. At the summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Biden signed a historic 10-year bilateral security agreement. This deal, hailed by Kyiv as "historic," includes provisions for US military and training aid to Ukraine. However, it stops short of committing American troops to fight alongside Ukrainian forces. The agreement comes as part of a broader package of support from the G7, which includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the US. These nations have been pivotal in providing both financial and military aid to Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion began in 2022. Leveraging Frozen Assets Following Russia's invasion, approximately $325 billion worth of Russian assets were frozen by the G7 and the European Union. These assets are generating about $3 billion annually in interest. Under the G7 plan, this interest will be used to pay off the annual interest on the $50 billion loan for Ukraine, which will be raised on international markets. President Biden explained the strategy at a joint news conference in Puglia, southern Italy, saying, "The $50 billion loan would put that money to work for Ukraine and send another reminder to Putin that we're not backing down." UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described the loan as "game changing," highlighting the significant impact it could have on Ukraine's war effort and economic stability. While the $50 billion loan is a substantial financial commitment, it pales in comparison to the $61 billion worth of US military aid agreed upon in May. Some in Kyiv had hoped for the release of the entire $325 billion in frozen assets, not just the interest. However, the European Central Bank ruled out such a move. Military and Economic Support Although the loan will not be available immediately, it underscores the G7's commitment to supporting Ukraine in the long term. In the short term, Ukraine continues to require more weapons, particularly air defense systems to counter Russia's missile and drone attacks, and F-16 fighter jets, which are expected to start arriving as early as this summer. At the G7 summit, President Zelensky indicated that the new security agreement with the US includes shipments of these warplanes. He expressed his gratitude to the American and other G7 allies for their unwavering support, stating, "It's a truly historic day and we have signed the strongest agreement within Ukraine and the US since our independence [in 1991]." Symbolic and Practical Impact The loan deal is not only a significant financial boost but also a powerful symbolic gesture. It signals that the international community is holding Russia accountable for its actions. As one of Zelensky's closest advisers noted, the decision to use Russian assets to fund Ukraine's defense marks a turning point in the war, indicating a more proactive stance by the West. However, despite the symbolic and practical significance of the loan, it is unlikely to force a dramatic shift in Russia's approach to the conflict. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned of "extremely painful" retaliatory measures, reflecting Moscow's staunch opposition to the G7's actions. Most of the frozen Russian assets are held in Belgium, and under international law, countries cannot directly confiscate these assets and transfer them to Ukraine. This legal constraint means that while the G7's financial support is substantial, it operates within the boundaries of international law and financial norms. Credit: BBC 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party made significant gains among young voters in Germany, particularly in the former communist East. This shift has sparked considerable concern and debate about the reasons behind the increasing support for the AfD among the youth. For the first time in a national poll, 16- and 17-year-olds could cast their ballots, a reform strongly backed by left-leaning parties. These young voters, who overwhelmingly supported the Greens five years ago, have now given the AfD 16% of their vote, an 11-point rise. This placed the party second behind the opposition CDU-CSU conservatives and well ahead of Chancellor Olaf Scholz's Social Democrats. The AfD tapped deep wells of support in the former communist East, winning in every state including Brandenburg, where it claimed 27.5% of the vote. Paul Friedrich, a 16-year-old from Brandenburg an der Havel, proudly declared his support for the AfD. "Correct, I voted AfD," he said amidst the bustle of the commuter railway station in Brandenburg an der Havel, an hour from central Berlin. Friedrich looks like many of his peers heading home from school, sporting a budding wisp of a mustache and an oversized hoodie. His concerns echo those of many teenagers and young adults in town: fears of war spreading in Europe, inflation, economic decline, "unchecked" immigration, and, above all, violent crime, which they say is rampant when they use public transport or hang out in public spaces at night. "A lot of things are moving in the wrong direction with the current government," Friedrich said, referring to Scholz's increasingly loveless center-left-led alliance. "I want to change things with my vote – I want the AfD to shape that." This sentiment resonates with many young AfD supporters who believe in the party's explicit backing of "remigration" of Germans with immigrant roots who "fail to integrate." News in January that top AfD officials had discussed such a proposal prompted widespread outrage and sent tens of thousands of Germans onto the streets in protest. However, among many AfD voters, the notion has become an unabashed talking point. "Not everyone should have to go, but at least the criminals, like in Mannheim – this can’t go on," said Konstantin, 17, referring to the killing of a police officer in the western city just days before the election, allegedly by an Afghan asylum seeker with a jihadist motive. Brushing aside party scandals and attempts to whitewash the Nazi past, Konstantin and his friend Leonard, 18, also voted AfD. "When I go out I get insulted and even spat on by, let’s just say, non-Germans – those aren’t German values," Leonard said. "If refugees come here and work and behave and leave me alone, that’s fine, but if not, they should go home." Lea, a 22-year-old office clerk, declined to reveal how she voted but said the AfD and the new economically left-wing but socially conservative Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which garnered 14% in Brandenburg, were the "only ones" addressing local security. "I don’t have anything against foreigners, but the problem with crime has got out of hand. You see people drawing knives every weekend," she said. Violent crime in Brandenburg an der Havel has surged in recent years, with a 9% rise in assaults between 2021 and 2023. Of the city’s 74,000 people, about 6,000 were born abroad. Noura Abu Agwa, a 24-year-old refugee from Damascus, said she and her mother also felt increasingly unsafe in town but blamed the strong presence of the far-right. "When I arrived I was wearing the hijab, but I got harassed, so I took it off," she said. "I feel bad for my mom because she’s still wearing it, and once she was walking in the street, and a man stopped her to shout at her. She was so confused because she only speaks Arabic." Anna Leisten, the head of the AfD’s state youth wing, said its outreach had targeted the lasting impact of the anti-pandemic measures. "Forced testing, homeschooling, bans on going out – an entire generation had their youth taken away." Leisten, who said she had experienced "exclusion, propaganda, and intimidation" as a teenager in Brandenburg, praised the party’s mastery of platforms such as YouTube and TikTok to reach the young, "while Olaf Scholz posts boring videos about his briefcase." All the young Germans approached by the Guardian in Brandenburg talked about their anxiety about the war in Ukraine, with many criticizing the governing parties for weapons shipments and expressing angst that they or their peers could one day be called on to fight. Germany suspended conscription 13 years ago, but is debating strategies to boost recruitment. "Ukraine never interested us before – this is a thing between Ukraine and Russia," Friedrich said of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor. "Why should we help Nato expand its territory using our arms?" Others said the government’s support for Ukraine had driven them to splinter parties, which together clinched 28% of the under-25 electorate, by far the largest share. Such fears and economic concerns have supplanted the climate crisis at the front of young voters’ minds, a recent study found. "I voted for Volt, mainly because I’m concerned about the future of Europe and really care about the cause of peace," said Mathias Sarömba, a 22-year-old legal system trainee, referring to the small pro-European party that called for rejecting extremists with slogans such as "Don’t Be an Asshole." He said he had managed to persuade his mother in "tearful discussions" not to vote AfD, explaining how its stance on "queer rights" made him feel personally threatened. "It was only then that she got it." Henriette Vogel, a 21-year-old laboratory assistant, also called the AfD’s surge "scary," citing its "misogynist" positions on reproductive rights and workplace equality. She cast her ballot for the tiny Animal Protection party. "First of all because I wanted to oppose the AfD, but also because I’m not happy with the major parties. But I didn’t want to abstain because every vote counts." Kilian Hampel, a co-author of the study Youth in Germany, which in April predicted a jump in support for the far-right, said that with three eastern states voting in September and a general election expected next year, the trend toward fragmentation is likely to magnify. "If faith in the bigger parties continues to decline, the smaller parties will probably be the big winners," he said. This growing support for the AfD among young voters, especially in eastern Germany, signifies a substantial shift in the political landscape. The traditional dominance of larger parties is being challenged, highlighting the urgent need for these parties to address the concerns and fears of younger voters more effectively. Credit: The Guardian 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Over the past three decades, Alex Jones has built a formidable media empire rooted in the propagation of conspiracy theories. Known for his bombastic style and unverified claims, Jones has captivated a significant audience, generating annual revenues of up to $80 million. His media presence spans more than 100 radio stations across the United States and extends to his Infowars website and various social media platforms. "I would say that he’s one of the more extreme actors operating in this overall environment of disinformation," remarked Nathan Walter, an associate professor at the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. However, Jones' empire faces potential downfall due to his persistent false claims regarding the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He repeatedly asserted that the tragic event, which resulted in the deaths of 20 first graders and six teachers, was a hoax. This misinformation led to multiple lawsuits filed by the victims' families, culminating in a court-ordered $1.5 billion in damages. A judge in federal court in Houston is now set to determine whether to convert Jones’ bankruptcy reorganization into a liquidation to help pay off this massive debt. Despite the looming court decision, Jones has remained defiant. On his Infowars show earlier this month, he proclaimed, "I’ve been an honorable, straightforward man." Born in 1974, Jones grew up in Dallas, Texas. His father worked as a dentist, while his mother was a homemaker. During his teenage years, his family relocated to Austin, a city known for its unofficial motto, "Keep Austin Weird." It was in Austin, fresh out of high school, that Jones began his broadcasting career on a public-access television channel in the 1990s. He quickly gained attention by promoting conspiracies about the U.S. government and propagating false claims about a secret New World Order, a narrative partially influenced by the 1971 book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy," which claims that shadowy forces control the government, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. In 1996, Jones began working for radio station KJFK in Austin. However, his extreme viewpoints made it difficult to secure sponsors for his show, leading to his dismissal after three years. Unfazed, Jones started broadcasting from home via his Infowars website, purchasing the domain name for a mere $9. Jones' success can be attributed to his ability to adapt to the changing media landscape and leverage the rise of social media and podcasting. "He is very appealing in how he talks to his listeners. It feels as if they’re part of a community, they’re part of a friend group," said Walter. By 2004, Jones operated with just two employees out of a small office in south Austin. Three years later, he founded Free Speech Systems to manage his expanding media enterprise. By 2010, the company had grown to over 60 employees. However, following the Sandy Hook lawsuits, Free Speech Systems also filed for bankruptcy reorganization. Jones' company now boasts four studios in Austin that broadcast his shows and a warehouse for the products he sells, primarily dietary supplements. Since 2013, Jones has focused on selling these supplements, with names like Infowars Life Brain Force Plus and Infowars Life Super Male Vitality, generating about 80% of Free Speech Systems’ revenue. In 2018, after the Sandy Hook families sued Jones, major social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, banned him. Despite this, Walter suggested that the bans did not significantly impact Jones' influence. Even if a judge decides to liquidate his assets, Walter believes Jones will continue spreading misinformation. "The biggest takeaway from the first moment when we were introduced to Alex Jones until (Friday’s) hearing happens: It tells us more about us as a society, our vulnerabilities, our susceptibilities than actually something unique about Alex Jones," Walter explained. "There are other people. Maybe not everyone is as gifted and talented in using his platform to spread these lies, but there are other people like Alex Jones." Alex Jones' journey from a young broadcaster on public-access television to a prominent figure in the realm of conspiracy theories illustrates a profound narrative about media influence and societal vulnerability. As the legal battles unfold, the story of Alex Jones serves as a cautionary tale about the impact of disinformation and the challenges in addressing it within modern society. Credit: AP News 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Families affected by the Grenfell Tower fire, the infected blood scandal, and the COVID-19 pandemic have united in expressing their fears that recommendations from their respective public inquiries will be ignored and forgotten. Despite the immense cost of these inquiries, there is no legal obligation for their recommendations to be implemented, raising concerns about the efficacy and impact of these extensive investigations. As the seventh anniversary of the Grenfell disaster is marked by a "silent walk" in West London, campaigners highlight that not all recommendations from the first phase of the public inquiry into the fire have been implemented. This disaster, which claimed 72 lives, continues to haunt the survivors and the families of the victims, who are now calling for significant changes to ensure such tragedies do not recur. Families impacted by the infected blood scandal and the COVID-19 pandemic have joined forces with Grenfell United, a campaign group representing those affected by the fire, to advocate for a new independent body that would scrutinize and analyze the work done after inquests and public inquiries. These groups, which also include COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice and Factor 8, assert that the current system fails to guarantee real change and fear that without proper oversight, the lessons from these tragedies will be ignored. Lobby Akinnola, who lost his father Femi to COVID-19 in April 2020, and Jason Evans, whose father Jonathan died after contracting Hepatitis C and HIV from contaminated blood three decades earlier, are among those voicing their concerns. Both men stress that the most painful aspect of their loss is the time they never had with their loved ones. They, along with Edward Daffarn, a survivor of the Grenfell fire, are at different stages of the lengthy public inquiry process and share a common skepticism about the implementation of the resulting recommendations. The Infected Blood Inquiry recently reported that the scandal was "not an accident," while Phase Two of the Grenfell Inquiry is expected in September. The COVID-19 inquiry is still years from completion. All three inquiries will eventually produce numerous recommendations designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future. However, the families involved have little confidence that these recommendations will be properly followed. Grenfell United, COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, and Factor 8 support the creation of a National Oversight Mechanism, which would provide independent oversight and analysis of the work done following inquests, government-commissioned reviews, and public inquiries. They acknowledge that not every recommendation may be feasible to implement but argue that an oversight mechanism would ensure accountability and transparency, explaining why certain recommendations cannot be enacted. Without such a mechanism, the campaigners fear that critical lessons will go unheeded and future lives will remain at risk. Jason Evans reflects on the continuous struggle for justice: "You have to fight just to get the inquiry. You have to fight to have the questions put to the witnesses. Of course, you're then going to have to fight for the recommendations, especially if they cost money. That's just very sadly a part of trying to get some sense of justice in this country." Lobby Akinnola emphasizes the need for a "structural solution" to prevent similar issues from recurring in the future: "In another 30 years, there will be another three people around the same table talking about the same issues, and I don't think we can do that anymore." Edward Daffarn points out the consequences of ignored recommendations, citing the Lakanal House fire in 2009, which killed six people. The coroner's report from that fire made recommendations about fire safety, which the government failed to act on, leading to the Grenfell tragedy in 2017. Daffarn is concerned that the initial recommendations from the Grenfell Inquiry have not been fully met. For example, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the inquiry chair, recommended personal evacuation plans for all disabled people living in high-rise buildings, but the Home Office rejected this idea in 2022, citing "practicality," "proportionality," and "safety." Adam Gabsi, who has multiple sclerosis and lives on the sixth floor of a building with similar cladding to Grenfell, took the government to court over this decision but lost. He underscores the dangers of inadequate evacuation plans, sharing his experience of being trapped in his building due to non-functional lifts. Deborah Coles, executive director of the charity Inquest, which first called for a National Oversight Mechanism a year ago, stresses the importance of safeguarding future lives and ensuring the burden of pushing for change does not fall solely on families: "At the moment, this accountability gap which exists means recommendations about public health and safety can simply disappear into the ether, and that really does undermine trust and confidence in these legal processes." The Home Office has stated that work continues on their recommendations and that they are committed to preventing another tragedy like Grenfell. Meanwhile, political parties have addressed the issue in their manifestos. Labour has pledged to act on the findings of the Infected Blood Inquiry and respond to the recommendations from the Grenfell and COVID-19 inquiries. The Conservative Party has highlighted their efforts to support leaseholders affected by building safety issues and ensure victims of major disasters receive the necessary help through a permanent Independent Public Advocate. The united call from families affected by these tragedies for a National Oversight Mechanism reflects their determination to see real change and prevent future disasters. They hope that by establishing independent oversight, the lessons learned from their experiences will lead to meaningful action and improved safety for all. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a fiery speech delivered at a meeting of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, President Vladimir Putin launched a scathing attack on the United States and its Western allies, marking a significant escalation in rhetoric amid the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict. Putin's remarks came on the heels of a newly signed 10-year security pact between the US and Ukraine, further intensifying the geopolitical tension. Putin accused the West of leading the world to a perilous brink, stating, "The selfishness and hypocrisy of Western countries have led to a dangerous turn of events, and we have come close to a point of no return." He blamed Washington for undermining global security through its unilateral withdrawal from various arms control agreements, a move he said exacerbated the current volatile situation. "The selfishness and arrogance of Western states have led to the current extremely dangerous state of affairs. We have come unacceptably close to the point of no return," Putin declared. He also lambasted calls for a strategic defeat of Russia, warning that such ambitions were reckless given Russia's substantial nuclear arsenal. "Calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, which has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme adventurism of Western politicians. They either do not understand the scale of the threat that they themselves create, or are simply obsessed with the belief in their own impunity and in their own exclusivity. Both of these can result in tragedy," he said. The US's exit from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019 was a particular point of contention for Putin. The INF Treaty, signed in 1987 by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, had banned missiles with ranges between 310 to 3,400 miles. However, the US withdrew from the treaty, citing concerns that it no longer served its national security interests. More recently, in 2023, Russia suspended its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), further straining arms control efforts between the two nations. Despite his stern warnings, Putin also struck a somewhat conciliatory tone, suggesting that the West and Russia need to find a way to work together. He argued that the "Western model" of global security was failing and that a new, more stable system needed to be established. "Obviously, we are witnessing the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system. Today it simply does not exist, it needs to be essentially created anew," he said. Putin proposed that this new security architecture should be developed in collaboration with all interested parties, including European and NATO countries. "It is important to proceed from the fact that the future security architecture is open to all Eurasian countries that wish to take part in its creation. 'To all' means European and NATO countries too, of course," he emphasized. "We live on the same continent. No matter what happens, you cannot change the geography. We will have to coexist and work together one way or another." In a related development, Putin outlined Russia's conditions for initiating peace talks with Ukraine. He stated that Russia would be ready to engage in negotiations if Ukrainian forces withdrew from the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions and if Ukraine abandoned its plans to join NATO. "Conditions are very simple," Putin asserted. "Ukrainian forces must be completely withdrawn from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions. As soon as Kyiv says they're ready for such a decision and start the real withdrawal of forces from these regions and officially declare rejection of plans to join NATO, from our side, immediately, literally the same minute, will come an order to stop the fire and start negotiations. We will do it immediately." However, this proposition seems unlikely to be accepted by Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently stated that any peace deal must include the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. Zelenskyy has vowed to liberate all occupied regions, making it clear that Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable. As the conflict between Ukraine and Russia drags on, the international community watches closely, hoping for a resolution that can bring stability to a deeply fractured region. However, with both sides holding firm to their demands, the path to peace remains fraught with challenges and uncertainties. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a move that has ignited a fierce debate on age and gender discrimination, a gym in Incheon, South Korea, has banned older women, commonly referred to as "ajummas," from its premises. The gym put up a sign stating "off limits to ajummas" and "only cultivated and elegant women allowed," which has drawn significant criticism and highlighted ongoing societal tensions. The term "ajumma" is broadly used to describe older women, typically from their late 30s onwards, and often carries a pejorative connotation, suggesting rude or obnoxious behavior. The gym's owner defended the decision, claiming that his business had "suffered damages" due to the unruly behavior of some older women. In a televised interview with South Korean news agency Yonhap, he detailed incidents where these women allegedly monopolized the changing rooms for hours, stole items like towels and hair dryers, and made judgmental comments about other members' bodies, causing discomfort among younger patrons. This incident has touched a nerve, reflecting broader issues of discrimination in South Korea. In recent years, there has been growing intolerance towards specific age groups, with various businesses implementing bans on children or seniors. Critics argue that such measures are not only discriminatory but also reinforce harmful stereotypes. The gym's action has sparked a wave of online backlash, with many condemning the conflation of bad behavior with older women. "How did the term 'bad customer' become the same as 'ajumma'?" questioned one commenter on the social media site Instiz. Others pointed out that poor behavior is not exclusive to older women. "If you have worked in the service industry, you’d know that it’s not just older women who fall into those categories," another user noted. Some commentators have described the gym's policy as indicative of outdated attitudes, reminiscent of the early 2000s. In an attempt to clarify, the gym posted an additional notice trying to differentiate between ajummas and other women, suggesting that ajummas "like free stuff regardless of their age" and are "stingy with their own money but not with other people's money." The gym owner asserted that he did not intend to make a hateful comment against older women but stood by his decision, stating that those who are offended are "the ones with the problem." While the ban has found support among some who associate ill manners with older women, others argue that the issue is not gender-specific. Psychology professor Park Sang-hee pointed out in an interview with JTBC that older men can exhibit similar behaviors. "Older men also obsess over free stuff and repeat themselves over and over again. Rude behaviors are not exclusive to older women," she said. This controversy is part of a larger struggle faced by South Korean women who are challenging traditional norms. Women in South Korea are often held to stringent standards and are scrutinized for their choices, whether it’s about their appearance, such as sporting short hair, or lifestyle decisions, like remaining single. Critics argue that men are rarely judged for similar behaviors, highlighting a double standard that persists in society. The incident at the Incheon gym underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to customer behavior that does not single out a particular demographic. By focusing on specific behaviors rather than attributing them to age or gender, businesses can create more inclusive environments that respect all patrons. As South Korea continues to grapple with issues of discrimination and social equity, such debates are crucial in shaping a more just and understanding society. Credit: BBC 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has openly criticized her detractors, labeling them as "idiots" in a recent speech amidst ongoing scrutiny of her role in the high-profile case against former President Donald Trump and 18 others. This case revolves around allegations of attempting to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss in Georgia, a state he lost by approximately 12,000 votes. Willis's leadership in this case came under fire following revelations of her personal relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she hired for this matter. Allegations surfaced that both Willis and Wade had financially benefited from taxpayers' money due to this relationship. Although they admitted to having a relationship, they denied any conflict of interest. Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case, allowed Willis to continue as long as Wade resigned, which he did promptly. Despite this, Willis continues to face significant pressure and scrutiny from various critics. In recent developments, the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear Trump's appeal regarding Willis's disqualification, leading to a delay in the trial. Addressing a congregation at a church in Marietta, Georgia, Willis expressed her frustration with the ongoing attacks against her. "What can I say?" she remarked. "I live the experience of a Black woman who is attacked and oversexualized. See, I'm so tired of hearing these idiots call my name as 'Fani' in a way to attempt to humiliate me because, like silly school boys, the name reminds them of a woman's rear, of her behind." Willis's remarks were made in the context of increasing mockery and derogatory comments from high-profile figures. Notably, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani referred to Willis as a "ho," a derogatory slang term, during an event in Michigan. Giuliani also ridiculed the pronunciation of her name. Similarly, Trump legal spokesperson Alina Habba mocked Willis on Newsmax, stating, "She's fallen on her fanny since the very beginning," criticizing her handling of the case as a disaster. Trump himself made disparaging remarks about Willis during a rally in Ohio, making a crude joke about her name. In her speech, Willis urged her supporters not to be distracted by the insults directed at her. "What I'm here to tell you is to not concern yourself with insults of me. I promise you, I don't concern myself with them," she said. "I am too busy working 15-hour days trying to use every talent God gave me to fulfill my God-given purpose," she added. Willis's determination to continue her work despite the backlash reflects her commitment to the case and her role as a public servant, aiming to uphold justice in the face of personal and professional attacks. Credit: Newsweek 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar has described the high civilian death toll in Gaza as a "necessary sacrifice" for the liberation of Palestine, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. This claim is based on numerous messages sent by Sinwar over several months, in which he emphasized that the ongoing civilian casualties would ultimately benefit Hamas by increasing international pressure on Israel. Sinwar has reportedly communicated to both Hamas members and mediating parties that he has no interest in pursuing a ceasefire with Israel. Instead, he believes that the rising civilian death toll in Gaza, claimed by Hamas health authorities to be over 37,000 since the conflict began on October 7, would serve to strengthen the Palestinian cause and boost global anti-Israel sentiment. These figures, though unverified, have nonetheless contributed to widespread criticism of Israel. In messages to the Hamas leadership in Doha, Sinwar compared the situation in Gaza to the Algerian War of Independence, asserting that such sacrifices are necessary. During this brutal conflict, which took place from 1954 to 1962, both sides committed atrocities, with Algerian historians citing a death toll of 1.5 million Algerians, while French historians estimate around 400,000 deaths. Sinwar's stance extends beyond civilian casualties, showing a lack of sympathy even towards fellow Hamas leaders. For instance, after an airstrike killed three of Ismail Haniyeh's sons and four of his grandchildren, Sinwar reportedly told him that their deaths would inspire and rejuvenate the Palestinian nation. Israel, which has faced significant international criticism for the civilian casualties in Gaza, asserts that it is taking unprecedented measures to minimize such losses. The Israeli government has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields and placing fighters in protected civilian spaces to exploit potential Israeli strikes for propaganda purposes. Israel claims to have killed at least 15,000 Hamas fighters and over 1,000 terrorists during the October 7 attack. Sinwar has consistently opposed ceasefire efforts, insisting that more can be achieved by continuing the conflict. He dismissed meetings discussing post-war Gaza as premature and inappropriate, advocating for continued resistance as long as Hamas fighters remain. In February, amid attempts to secure a temporary truce during Ramadan, Sinwar influenced Hamas leaders in Qatar to reject any pause in fighting, arguing that a higher civilian death toll would increase pressure on Israel. Publicly, Hamas's political leadership has expressed interest in a ceasefire and a deal for exchanging hostages, but has demanded a permanent cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the lifting of restrictions on goods entering Gaza. Sinwar's messaging indicates a willingness to die in the conflict, likening the war to the historic Battle of Karbala. Despite a recent UN Security Council resolution supporting a ceasefire-for-hostages proposal, Sinwar has maintained that Hamas will not disarm or agree to any terms that include surrendering their weapons. Credit: TOI 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a surprising display of empathy, former President Donald Trump shared his understanding of President Joe Biden's family struggles following the conviction of Hunter Biden on charges related to the illegal purchase of a firearm due to his past drug addiction. In an interview with Fox News late Thursday, Trump spoke candidly about the challenges of dealing with addiction within a family, highlighting his own personal experiences. “I understand it pretty well because I’ve had it with people who have it in their family,” Trump said, referring to his late brother Fred Trump Jr., who battled alcoholism before his death in 1981. “It’s a very tough thing.” Trump's comments revealed a rare moment of personal reflection and connection with Biden, as he elaborated on the broader impact addiction can have on families. “It’s a very tough situation for a father, it’s a very tough situation for a brother or sister, and it goes on and it’s not stopping, whether it’s alcohol or drugs or whatever it may be. It’s a tough thing, and so that’s a tough moment for the family. It’s a tough moment for any family involved in that.” Hunter Biden was convicted on Tuesday of three felony counts for illegally purchasing and possessing a firearm, with prosecutors alleging he lied on the paperwork when purchasing a handgun in 2018. The trial, which lasted a week, focused heavily on his past addiction to crack cocaine and included testimonies from family, friends, and former partners. The legal repercussions for Hunter Biden are significant. He faces a maximum of 25 years in prison and fines amounting to $750,000. However, it is important to note that first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum penalty. President Biden has made it clear that he would not pardon his son if convicted or commute his sentence, emphasizing a commitment to the rule of law even within his family. Hunter Biden's legal troubles extend beyond the firearms charges. In California, he faces separate allegations of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes and filing false returns, with a potential trial set for September. These legal battles add to the complex and highly publicized struggles of the Biden family, particularly given Hunter’s history and the political implications of his actions. Despite the legal and personal challenges, President Biden has shown unwavering support for his son. Before the verdict was announced, Biden made an unscheduled visit to Delaware to see Hunter, underscoring his commitment to his family. In a heartfelt statement, President Biden expressed his admiration for Hunter’s resilience in overcoming addiction, saying, “Hunter’s resilience in the face of adversity and the strength he has brought to his recovery are inspiring to us. A lot of families have loved ones who have overcome addiction and know what we mean. As the President, I don’t and won’t comment on pending federal cases, but as a Dad, I have boundless love for my son, confidence in him, and respect for his strength.” This rare moment of empathy from Trump towards Biden highlights the universal challenges families face when dealing with addiction. Trump's own experiences with his brother Fred, who succumbed to alcoholism, appear to have influenced his perspective, allowing him to relate to the pain and difficulty Biden’s family is enduring. Trump's acknowledgment of the hardships of addiction and his comments on its pervasive impact provide a more humanizing view of a figure often seen through the lens of political division. The intertwining of personal and political lives is starkly evident in this situation. While political rivals, both Trump and Biden share the common human experience of dealing with family members who struggle with addiction. This moment of empathy serves as a reminder that beyond the political battles and public personas, there are deeply personal stories and struggles that connect even the most seemingly opposed individuals. In the broader context of Hunter Biden's conviction, the legal ramifications are profound, but so too are the personal dimensions of the story. The Biden family’s public handling of these issues, from Hunter’s legal battles to President Biden’s supportive statements, showcases the complex interplay of personal resilience and public scrutiny. As Hunter faces the consequences of his actions, the ongoing support from his family, particularly from his father, emphasizes the enduring strength of familial bonds in the face of adversity. Ultimately, Trump's empathetic remarks and President Biden's steadfast support for his son highlight the universal challenges families face with addiction. These moments of humanity offer a poignant counterpoint to the often harsh and polarized political discourse, reminding us that behind the headlines and political rivalries are real people grappling with real issues. Credit: The Hill 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the controversial gun accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns. This decision, passed by a 6-3 majority, reverses a significant piece of legislation that was implemented in response to the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. In the 2017 attack, a gunman equipped with bump stocks unleashed more than 1,000 rounds into a crowd at a country music festival, resulting in the deaths of 60 people and injuries to hundreds more within just 11 minutes. The incident prompted a nationwide debate on gun control and led the Trump administration to ban the use of bump stocks. However, the Supreme Court's recent ruling found that the administration did not adhere to federal law in enacting this ban. The case that led to the overturning of the ban was brought forward by Michael Cargill, a Texas gun shop owner. Cargill argued that the Justice Department had incorrectly classified bump stocks as illegal machine guns. His representation, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group supported by conservative donors including the Koch network, contended that while bump stocks do enable rapid firing, they do not transform semi-automatic weapons into true machine guns. They emphasized that the shooter must exert additional effort to maintain the rapid fire, differentiating bump stocks from machine guns which fire continuously with one trigger pull. On the other hand, the Biden administration defended the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) decision to ban bump stocks, arguing that the accessories allowed weapons to fire at an excessive rate, comparable to machine guns. The government lawyers pointed out that the ATF's reclassification of bump stocks came after a more thorough review initiated by the tragic events in Las Vegas, suggesting that the decision was sound and legally justified. The Supreme Court's ruling was influenced by differing opinions on the role and authority of the ATF versus legislative action by Congress. Justices from the court’s liberal wing argued that it was "common sense" to classify any device capable of unleashing a "torrent of bullets" as a machine gun under federal law. However, conservative justices questioned why Congress had not directly legislated on the matter and raised concerns about the implications of the ATF reversing its stance after a decade of considering bump stocks legal. Historically, under both Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama, the ATF had maintained that bump stocks did not convert semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. It was only at President Trump's urging, following the Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida shootings, that the ATF reversed its earlier decisions and implemented the ban. Bump stocks function by replacing a rifle’s stock—the part that rests against the shooter’s shoulder—and utilizing the weapon’s recoil to "bump" the trigger against the shooter’s stationary finger, facilitating rapid firing. Despite their contentious nature, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted their own bans on bump stocks, independent of federal regulation. At the heart of the legal debate was whether the effort required by the shooter to maintain rapid fire with a bump stock constituted a significant enough difference to exempt these accessories from being classified as machine guns. Government lawyers asserted that the minimal effort required did not alter the legal status of the devices. The ban on bump stocks, which went into effect in 2019, required owners to either surrender or destroy their devices, resulting in an estimated combined loss of $100 million, according to court documents. At that time, there were about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the complexities and nuances in the ongoing debate over gun control and regulatory authority. It also highlights the challenges in balancing public safety concerns with constitutional rights and the limits of executive versus legislative power. This ruling, set against the backdrop of previous and potential future mass shootings, will likely fuel further discussions and legislative efforts regarding firearm regulations in the United States. Credit: AP News 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe