Russian military secrets could be laid bare after Ukraine captures electronic warfare systems
The Krasukha-4 unit, which was recovered from the battlefield near Kyiv, will be flown to the US for examination

Western spy agencies are getting ready to examine one of Russia’s most potent electronic warfare systems after a unit was captured in Ukraine....

Selectively cherry-picking ‘The Science’ to suit a political narrative is not ‘Following the Science.’ It is malpractice and fraud.

According to a recent headline from The New York Times, “the CDC isn’t publishing large portions of the COVID data it collects.” That headline downplays what the article in fact reveals:

Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said. //

The article says when the Centers for Disease Control “published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65…it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds, the group least likely to benefit from extra shots.”

“The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public,” according to the Times, “because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.” //

Every time these federal employees uttered the phrase “follow the science,” they actually meant, “Do what we say and don’t question it, or we’ll punish you.” True scientists don’t release partial data or hide their data. Yet after severe damage is done to government credibility and the country’s social fabric, now even The New York Times can’t deny that the CDC hid the truth about booster efficacy from Americans because it would contradict this administration’s political goals.

In the years before Moscow invaded Ukraine, Democrats enriched themselves politically and personally from oligarchs and businesses in the region while empowering Vladimir Putin with energy and technology deals. //

Our best-selling book "Fallout: Nuclear Bribes, Russian Spies and the Washington Lies that Enriched the Clinton and Biden Dynasties" chronicled how a failed "reset" in U.S.-Russia relations led by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton relied on an appeasement strategy that ultimately backfired with Russia.

Putin's spoils were measured in billions of dollars in uranium contracts with U.S. utilities, expanded oil imports and transfers of sensitive technologies.

The American dynasties counted their victories in millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation, speech fees to Bill Clinton, and lucrative board seats and consulting deals for Hunter Biden. //

By 2013, Putin had taken Americans to the cleaners. He got massive energy supplies that he now uses as a strategic weapon; he got toothless disarmament treaties that history suggests he will not abide by; he compromised American utility companies, getting them hooked on his cheap nuclear fuel supplies; he got his spies freed and sent home to a hero's welcome in Moscow; he got advanced cyber and military technology; and, not least, he compromised key figures in America's political class.

What did Americans get in return? Not much. Here's a simple test: Has your utility bill gotten cheaper since 2009? //

But Obama, Clinton, and Biden got a lot. As just one example, before Obama even left office in 2017, he set up the Obama Foundation. One of his very first donors was Exelon Corporation, which had received billions in cheap Russian nuclear fuel sales thanks to the 123 Agreement. Exelon, which was known as "the President's Utility" pledged a staggering $10 million to Obama's foundation before he was even out of office.

Biden's family and its partners got hooked up with the former mayor of Moscow's family, who sent at least $3.5 million to a company cofounded by Hunter Biden. Thanks to the Hunter Biden laptop, we know that the Russian oligarch behind that $3.5 million may have invested upwards of $200 million in other Biden-linked entities and that Joe Biden personally benefited from his son's business dealings. And this is all before Biden was named Obama's point man in Ukraine.

I think it’s vital for the US and NATO to make the message very clear that the liberal democracies of the West do not wish the Russian Federation or the Russian culture to perish. It’s important to get the message to ordinary Russians that the West knows that even if Mr. Putin’s reign ends, Russia will go on.

We want Russia to get back on the path to flourishing as a member of the international community. We need to make it clear that the West does not believe in the isolated spheres of influence that Mr. Putin wants to carve the world into, not because we are the agents of an evil hegemony, but because we do not want Russia to become a hermit kingdom with its people returning to the levels of poverty that happened when the Soviet Union catastrophically collapsed.

I think it’s also important to get the message to Russians that, given the damage Mr. Putin has inflicted on his own nation militarily and economically, realistically, his country will only get back to where it should be if Mr. Putin passes the baton to someone new.

What Vladimir Putin has proven to the world is that he is an irresponsible caretaker of a nuclear arsenal.

He abused his possession of nuclear weapons threatening NATO and the United States, who are also nuclear powers, to bluff the West into meekly standing by while he invaded Ukraine. This is not the mark of a thoughtful leader. //

We should be making it clear that we want the sanctions to end and the world to mend this terrible rift. But we should also make it clear that the longer Mr. Putin continues his course of destruction, the more difficult it will be for the world to undo the adaptations it is now making to bypass his country. //

But Mr. Putin’s problems won’t end when he tells his troops to cease fire in Ukraine. He will then have to negotiate with what he calls the “Empire of Lies” to lift sanctions.

And I think the price the West should demand is that he needs to dismantle his tactical nuclear arsenal. The west should demand three things.

First, Russia must pledge to abandon the ridiculous doctrine of “escalate to de-escalate” that contemplates the first use of a tactical nuclear weapon as an instrument of terror. //

Second, Russia should unilaterally adopt a parity of warheads policy for its tactical nuclear arsenal in order to get sanctions lifted. They should reduce the number of tactical nuclear weapons in the European theater to levels that are at parity with the tactical warheads the US and NATO have in the same region. //

Third, Russia should agree to let the West develop and deploy a shield system that can both intercept and attack ballistic, cruise, hypersonic missile threats as well as aircraft and artillery delivered tactical nuclear weapons.

The US and NATO should proceed to work on this system while economic sanctions are in place. Russia has already proven it abuses the nuclear card. As Mr. Putin put it, “That line has been crossed.” //

We should also announce that the US and NATO intend to share this defense shield technology with countries around the world. Our objective is to make it too risky for any aggressor to believe that their attack could succeed unchallenged.

One last note: The US has neglected its tactical nuclear arsenal for too long. To put it bluntly, the hole we created in our arsenal created a window of power projection vulnerability someone like Mr. Putin would be tempted to exploit.

tobybrut Giab
2 months ago edited
The situation there is a lot more complicated than just an invasion by Russia. There are eastern Ukraine provinces that WANT to be a part of Russia. Europe helped to negotiate the Minsk Protocols between Ukraine and Russia, which essentially gives those provinces autonomy. The Minsk Protocols did not stop the civil war going on in that area, unfortunately. It is not just a case of Russian aggression here. They see it as a defensive move to protect Russians in eastern Ukraine and as defense against yet another NATO front. War is not desired, of course, but the West lead by Brandon has been rather feckless in finding a solution that doesn't involve a Russian invasion.

NATO is another piece of that Ukraine puzzle, and this is where all of our presidents have failed going directly back to Bill Clinton, who treated the newly liberated Russia as a conquered foe rather than trying to get Russia to become a friend or ally. Russia has far more in common with the West than it does with Communist China, yet persistently, Russia has been pushed into the arms of the Chicoms. Yes, Russia has a large nuclear force, but not so much anything else. It has a tiny economy and a far weaker military (except nuclear) that poses no real threat. Russia watched as its former Soviet republics turned into NATO members and feels like it is under siege. They do not want Ukraine brought into NATO creating yet another front that could threaten it. What Clinton and his successors should have done was to concentrate on Russia itself to bring it into NATO or at least to become a friendly nation. Ukraine and its eastern provinces would be a regional problem now instead of a global problem. Is it too late? I don't know, but there's enough bad blood between Putin and Western leaders that there may be no resolution, but this was a failure that goes back three decades. Brandon just makes it worse because he is essentially an empty suit.

NATO is outdated and needs to be repurposed to defending against the real enemy, the Chicoms, and to de-emphasize Russia as its primary opponent.

Corey Robin is a professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York Graduate Center and he’s not happy. You see, Robin thinks democracy in America is being stifled and held back and he’s none too pleased about it.

“Driving the initiatives of the Republicans and the inertia of the Democrats are two forces. The first is the right’s project, decades in the making, to legally limit the scope and reach of democracy. The second is the Constitution, which makes it difficult for the national majority to act and easy for local minorities to rule,” Robin wrote in a guest spot in Politico.

He continues by referring to the Republican Party as a threat to the nation with the Constitution as his accomplice. //

My response?

Good.

I feel like in this day and age the word “democracy” gets thrown around quite a bit. So much so, in fact, that few people actually know what it means. More accurately, they know what it means but they don’t know what it entails.

Let me give you a solid example of what happens in a “democracy.”

In the year 1692, mass hysteria had gripped a Massachusetts village where people had begun accusing one another of something they couldn’t necessarily disprove; being a witch. Men, women, and even children were accused of witchcraft and subsequently locked up, tortured, and even killed as a result of the village’s zealous wish to eliminate anyone who practiced the dark art. //

Many people look at the Salem Witch Trials as religious zealotry run amok, but it’s hardly that. What this really is is a perfect example of Democracy.

Democracy is, purely and simply, majority rule. If a mass of people wants something then that thing is what happens. This may sound like a great way to conduct a society, but as you can see from the Salem Witch Trials, it’s not. The simple fact is that people can be led to believe many ridiculous things and if enough people believe something ridiculous they can craft society by it. //

Standing in the way of this kind of mob-driven terror is the document that Robin seems to dislike so much. The constitution is the document that keeps things fairer to the people than any other in the history of the world.

It’s important to remember that America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. We have a system of laws that protects the little guy from the tyranny of the majority. It allows for anyone of any stripe to speak freely, to not have their home raided because people think it should be, and it also allows them to defend themselves with the best means necessary. There will be no Salem Witch Trials under the American constitution, though many have tried throughout America’s existence.

Our constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority, and whether people like Robin understand it or not, it staying in place is the best thing for each individual in our nation. If it goes, you can expect accusations of whatever they call “witchcraft” to come with some very heavy consequences, and consequences that the vast majority of those accused won’t deserve.

The output of a jet engine declines, broadly speaking, in proportion to the density of the air in which it operates. You can’t turbocharge a jet engine because the engine itself is fundamentally a self-propelled turbocharger. On the other hand, at high speeds, a jet profits from ram effect, which its compressor compounds, while lower ambient density reduces resistance to the outflow from the exhaust nozzle. Jets therefore operate more efficiently—that is, require less fuel per unit of thrust—at high speed and altitude than they do when flying low and slow. //

The situation of the propeller is different. The engine driving the propeller can be turbocharged and may maintain sea-level power up to a high altitude. But as the density of the air diminishes, the propeller blades have less to work with. Once they are at their optimal angle of attack, the only way to maintain thrust against increasingly rarefied air is to increase the area, number or speed of the propeller blades.

At the same time, as the airplane takes advantage of thinner air by increasing its true airspeed—which is the main reason for wanting to fly high in the first place—the pitch angle of the propeller blades, governed by both their own rotational velocity and the forward speed of the airplane, must increase. As blade pitch increases, the lift vector of each blade points farther and farther away from the thrust axis. This difficulty might be alleviated if it were actually possible to spin the propeller faster, but in fact, the faster the airplane goes, the slower the propeller must turn to keep its tip speeds away from the transonic drag rise. The efficiency of a given propeller therefore decreases as speed and altitude increase.

Joseph Moore
5.0 out of 5 starsVerified Purchase
A kick in the pants to those of us who are still drifting along sedated by nostalgia
Reviewed in the United States on June 25, 2020
Brian Niemeier‘s 90-page book Don’t Give Money to People Who Hate You, is a kick in the pants to those of us who are still drifting along sedated by nostalgia, still paying for the privilege of a front-row seat to the mutilation and ultimate destruction of our own culture, willfully oblivious to the contempt and hatred of those who have appointed themselves our betters. I needed that kick – while I have long since revoked access to my wallet to Hollywood movies, and have never been much for games and comics, I still sometimes click on mainstream news articles and shop with major corporations. As explained below, these are now as much of the problem as the direct culture war waged in films and print. Many major corporations do all in their power to prove their hatred for me and mine and everything we believe and love. Don’t give them your money. Don’t give them your clicks.

So if you still are paying to consume blockbusters, comic book movies, video games, mainstream books and comics, or patronizing sports teams, retail outlets and ‘news’ media that have gone way, way out of their way to let you and the entire world know they hate you and everything you love – read this book. Now.

DGMTPWHY provides a quick tour through the who, when, where, what, and why of our current state of all but unwatchable, unreadable and unplayable ‘entertainment. The creators of mainstream entertainment have gotten converged, and, despite the hit to their corporate wallets, are now purveyors of nihilist propaganda masquerading as movies, comics, books, and games.

They must subvert and destroy what we, the sheep they despise, love. Manly men trying to be honorable, heroic and manly, and feminine women trying to be honorable, heroic and feminine, are right out – they are tools of the patriarchy, the cultural hegemony of oppression under which we sheep labor, and from which our purple-haired, nose ringed genderfluid betters are going to save us – or make sure we die from their trying. A character as complex as Rick in Casa Blanca, or even Luke in Star Wars, is to be simplified for the purposes of the cause. If you are so unwoke as to like such complex characters, well, our betters plan to fix that – by stories with no heroes and no villains, which leaves them with no plots or even logic. So things blow up.

And, of course, this all boils down to hatred of God. I’ve long held that all heresies are denials of the Incarnation. The basic ingredients of the dogma are a transcendent yet merciful God, creator of the Universe, Who, in an unfathomable act of humility and love, becomes one of us, suffers for us, and saves us. He defeats evil, and gives us hope. The purveyors of modern culture reject and mock each of these ingredients one by one, specifically. There is no God, nor any evil to defeat, nor good to defend. There can be no heroes, and no villains. Nothing is created from love, which is a lie. Humility is stupid; suffering is pointless. Only power matters, if anything matters.

There is no hope.

Modernism, of which this whole cultural war is the current manifestation, battles to defeat the good, the true, and the beautiful, even in such seemingly trivial forms as comic books and movies. But popular entertainment, from Homer to Shakespeare to Star Wars, is the way a culture is defined, nourished, and passed along. Just because it’s Batman and Thor getting the Social Justice treatment instead of (for the moment) Bach and Dante, doesn’t make it less dangerous Indeed, a lot more people have their morality formed by Superman and Harry Potter than by Milton and Flannery O’Conner. In a sane, healthy society, the popular culture and the highest high culture are formed by, share and communicate the same moral messages. For a century or more, that has not been the case in the West: our high culture is a cesspool of nihilism, while, up until the last 50 years, popular culture was still dominated by the theme of good versus evil – and the now novel idea that it’s better if good wins.

Brian published this work in April, before the rioting and the Antifa/Black Lives Matters psyops took over the ‘news’, and wrote it, I imagine, before the COVID hysteria and lockup. These are of a piece: the same people who show their hatred of you in movies and books have broadened their channels, and now show their murderous intent through the flexes and humiliation rituals of the lockup and masks and ‘social distancing’ (a phrase no one had heard of 4 months ago that is now treated like the Wisdom of the Ages), and by their apologetics, encouragement, and approval of those who would literally burn our country down. They destroy statues as phase one of an effort to memory hole anything that doesn’t conform to their contempt. I exaggerate not one iota when I say: Antifa and BLM dream of getting to kill you and your family. They are driven by the Marxist fantasy that bad people on the Wrong Side of History are all that stand in the way of paradise on earth. That paradise is the glorious End that justifies any means, including the slaughter of all who, in the minds of the Marxists, oppose it. Stalin and Mao, with their purges and Great Leap Forward, are not seen as history’s greatest criminals, but as role models. You and I are those bad people. They want us dead.

Don’t believe me? Read what they have to say for themselves.

The companies that even today are bending the knee and falling all over themselves in their rush to issue statements, not in condemnation of wanton property destruction and threatened and real physical harm up to and including murder, but rather in support of the rioters and vandals. The very idea that there are significant numbers of ‘peaceful protesters’ was always ludicrous: useful idiots and bored, antsy teenager of all ages, sure. Large numbers of people who take to the streets for weeks on end because a fellous thug who once robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint while she pleaded for her life got himself killed by an out of control cop who is in jail awaiting trial?

That’s not what’s happening.

Back to the book. I know what Brian is talking about. Star Wars came out the summer after my freshman year in college. My girlfriend at the time kept raving about this movie we had to go see, even though she’d seen it several times already. I, a callous sophisticate as only a 19 year old can be, remained cool.

Then we hit the theater – with a line around the block. From the first scene, I was hooked. Awesome, and so much fun! So, of course, went back several times, and saw the sequels also several times each in the theaters, and got the videos as soon as they came out, and did my best to wear them out. So, yea – I get it.

Even after the road kill that was the prequels, with dread in my heart, I went to see the Force Awakens – and was mildly entertained. BUT – never felt the slightest urge to see it again, or get the DVD. Upon reflection, the movie got worse and worse: the pageantry and special effects – and the still-not-bone-dry well of good will earned by the original trilogy – distracted me from the cardboard characters, the utter lack of character development, the stupid, derivative plot, the relentlessly nonsensical motivations (or lack thereof) driving what little story they had. Rather than Luke’s textbook hero’s journey, we get a total Mary Sue; rather than family, honor, and friendship invigorating the characters, we had – what, exactly?

I’ve seen none of the subsequent movies. Since Brian first mentioned his rule – never give money to people who hate you – a few years ago, my inchoate disgust got a name and a focus, and rather than just avoiding movies because I didn’t want to feel used, I began avoiding them on principle – the principle of this book.

Now, we need to expand the field in which this dictum operates to include all corporations and businesses that have kowtowed to BLM and Antifa: No, Corporate America, you do not need to prove you aren’t racist by anything beside treating all your customers with respect, providing good value for the dollar, and hiring and promoting people based solely on how well they do those first two things. Pandering to bullies earns my contempt, not my dollars; actively supporting people who want me and mine dead gets me fired up to look for and promote alternatives to anything you might offer

Unlike the United States, which has a policy of no use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, Russia has no such policy. In fact, Russia has a strategic theory called escalate-to-deescalate.

This does not mean that Russia will use such weapons, and deterrence at the strategic level appears to be robust. At the tactical level, however, the situation is different. The 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review ascribed to Russia the view that “the threat of nuclear escalation or even first use of nuclear weapons would serve to de-escalate a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.” Russian military theorists have certainly discussed this idea of “escalating to de-escalate,” though whether it is a part of Russian doctrine is disputed among students of Russian strategy. “Escalating to de-escalate” in a war with NATO would run the serious risk of escalation rather than de-escalation. In a local war with a non-nuclear adversary, however, the small-scale tactical use of nuclear weapons might be a serious temptation, especially if the war were not going according to plan. In short, the impulse to escalate in a tight corner could be strong.

In other words, if the war in Ukraine goes pear-shaped, and I think it is safe to say we are getting close to that point, it would not be outside Russian strategic thinking to pop a smallish nuke somewhere in Ukraine and say to NATO, “stop supplying Ukraine right now or I’ll do the same to you.”

I think we are in the middle of that strategy right now. //

Russia is a nuclear power. Even though the odds of a nuclear weapon surviving 30 years of Russian-quality maintenance, we have to assume some of them still work. That fact is not going to change. That said, the fact that Russia has nukes and is becoming increasingly casual about threatening to use them is no reason for us to engage in submissive urination when he does. Under no circumstances can we allow ourselves to be intimidated into submission because Putin is making public noises about what he might do. If we go that route, we will find ourselves abandoning all the NATO states bordering Russia and more. Because once he finds he can get his way using this tactic, he will not stop.

What we do know is that there is no reason to believe that any moral or humanitarian case will persuade Putin not to pop a nuke on Kiev or some other Ukrainian city. What we have an obligation to do is spell out very clearly, in private, that if he does use a nuclear weapon, we reserve the right to retaliate with a similar weapon on a similar target inside Russia. And we will hunt to the ends of the earth anyone who had any role in its use, from Putin down to the guy who changed the flat tire on the vehicle used to transport the warhead and kill them.

My personal suspicion is that Putin and his nuclear threats are a lot like Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles. They only work if we buy into the framework Putin is constructing.

Ownership of Remotely has been transferred.
Hello, all.

For those who aren't already aware, I wanted to officially let you know that ownership of Remotely has been transferred to Immense Networks. They are now maintaining the GitHub repo and the public server.

You can find more info on Immense here: https://github.com/immense

In case you're wondering why this happened, it was due to the two issues I've always had with this project: time and money. As the project grew in size and popularity, the requests for features, fixes, and support grew with it. But the amount of money coming in from sponsorships did not.

Ultimately, without a revenue stream that would allow me to work on Remotely full-time, the project was unsustainable. Once it gained some popularity, it became a second job, one that paid mere cents an hour. I simply don't have time or energy to keep up with it anymore. That energy needs to be redirected into my family and the job that pays the bills.

Thank you to everyone who helped, encouraged, and contributed. Your support was what kept me going this far.

Take care, and best wishes!

• Jared

The Crew That Found Shackleton’s ‘Endurance’ Wasn’t Just Looking for a Sunken Ship
The team behind the shipwreck’s discovery sought more than just a shipwreck

Abigail Barronian
Mar 18, 2022

In January 1915, polar explorer Ernest Shackleton’s ship, Endurance, became icebound in the Antarctic. What happened next would become legend: Shackleton and his crew watched their ship slowly sink, survived a year and a half stranded on the ice, and eventually secured their own rescue with an 800-mile journey in an open lifeboat. Every member of the 28-man team survived.

Now, 106 years later, the wreck has been found, in remarkable condition, at a depth of nearly 10,000 feet in the Weddell Sea. An expedition team from the Falklands Maritime Heritage Trust led by polar geographer John Shears located the wreck using an underwater autonomous vehicle on March 5, after a month at sea. They announced the discovery to the world four days later.

The mission to locate Endurance had other goals—ones that focused on environmental dynamics and scientific research that Shackleton and his men likely could have never envisioned a century ago. The crew spent nearly six weeks off the coast of Antarctica aboard the South African icebreaking polar research vessel Agulhas II, during which time scientists and researchers conducted studies on a wide range of topics, including maritime navigation and how the changing climate has affected ice levels around Antarctica.

“A lot of these snow and ice properties we measure here are needed to learn about the structure of the ice and snow in the Weddell Sea,” says Lasse Rabenstein, the expedition’s chief scientist. “It’s a complicated and special one, more complicated than other parts of the Antarctic or Arctic.”

If you lack a shortwave radio and a dig around all your family’s junk hasn’t turned up a relic from decades past, then the simplest way to get one is of course to buy one. AliExpress is full of “world band” radios starting from somewhere under $20, and if you don’t mind waiting for shipping from China then it’s the path of least resistance.

But there’s the problem, international events are moving fast and there might not be the luxury of waiting three weeks, or even for that matter of being able to order one at all in a warzone. How can you make one? //

geocrasher says:
March 17, 2022 at 8:56 am
If anybody would like to build a Direct Conversion receiver from scratch, I have documented a design and build on my site. It covers the theory of operation as well as construction techniques, and uses the si5351a as an oscillator with an Arduino for control. Has to be heard to be appreciated :)

https://miscdotgeek.com/building-direct-conversion-receiver-part-1/

http://websdr.org/

Belarus’ army is 20,000 men and not trained to the exacting standards of the Russian Army. It would be mauled by Ukraine Territorial Defense Forces and have a minimal impact on the war.

The real effect of Belarus joining the fight would be an expansion of the conflict that would be unlikely to remain limited to Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

Under the current limits, set by NASA in 1989, the effective dose limit for an astronaut's career is based on a maximum 3% lifetime excess risk of cancer mortality. That risk is evaluated with a sliding scale based on age and sex, ranging from a lower career limit of 180 millisieverts (mSv) of radiation for a 30-year-old woman to an upper career limit of 700 mSv for a 60-year-old man.

So why is there a lower career limit for radiation exposure for female astronauts than for male astronauts?

According to R. Julian Preston, a special government employee with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Radiation Protection division, NASA's lower radiation threshold for female astronauts was based on the following finding: When women and men were exposed to high levels of radiation for similar periods of time, women had more than twice the risk that men did of developing lung cancer. //

"It has been generally considered — based largely on the survivors from the atomic bombs in Japan — that, particularly for lung cancer, that women were more sensitive" to ionizing radiation than men were, Preston, who serves on committees for the National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements, told Live Science. //

However, NASA's radiation thresholds are expected to change in the near future. In 2021, NASA asked a panel of experts convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to assess the space agency's plan to change its career radiation limit to 600 mSv for all astronauts of all ages. NASA determined that limit by applying the agency's cancer risk model to the most susceptible individuals: early-career women. NASA calculated the average risk of exposure-induced death for this group and converted that risk, which allows for a much larger margin of error than previously, to a dose. That 600-mSv dose translates to the exposure an astronaut would receive during four six-month expeditions on the ISS. For comparison, the average annual dose of radiation received by a person on Earth is about 3.6 mSv, according to NASA, versus 300 mSv per year on the ISS.

Scientists analyzed paint samples from Corot's Gypsy Woman with Mandolin (circa 1870).

our ministry succumbed to the temptation to explain away inappropriate conduct as misunderstandings—misunderstandings between men and women, or misunderstandings between members of different generations who have different expectations for appropriate workplace behavior. In other words, as Guidepost expressed so well, we overemphasized the intent of the perpetrator and underemphasized the impact on the recipient.

Divining intent is always a dubious enterprise, but sexual harassment is sexual harassment whether or not it is sexually motivated. It makes the person on the receiving end feel objectified, manipulated, and mistreated because of his or her sex. Rather than saying, “He doesn’t really mean anything by it,” we should have heard, “But it means pain and humiliation for her.” We should have responded more forcefully earlier to protect our colleagues and to communicate that such behavior will lead swiftly to termination. //

We have seen too many cases where Christian organizations cover up their failures because they believe the mission they serve is too important to be derailed by a few hurting people. This argument is tempting but wrongheaded. We cannot love the many by being cruel to the few. We cannot serve the truth by covering it up. It is because we are more committed to the kingdom of God than to our own institutional interests that we must be honest about our failures and share what we learn from them. We remain committed to rigorous journalism about ourselves and about others. //

In closing, we again encourage you to read the Guidepost assessment and to read Daniel Silliman’s independent report when it publishes. We hope the church can benefit as often as possible from things we do well. If the church can also benefit through us sharing honestly what we have done poorly, then to God be the glory. It is, after all, God’s glory and not our own that is the point of all we do.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/assets/22830.pdf

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/march/sexual-harassment-ct-guidepost-assessment-galli-olawoye.html

Missouri lawmakers want to stop their residents from having abortions — even if they take place in another state.

The first-of-its-kind proposal would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion — from the out-of-state physician who performs the procedure to whoever helps transport a person across state lines to a clinic, a major escalation in the national conservative push to restrict access to the procedure. //

I have no problem with laws forbidding taking minors across state lines for an abortion without parental consent (this, to me, means both parents). I favor states cracking down on the virtual consultations and mail order delivery of abortion pills. I’m 100% in favor of long prison terms for anyone participating in an abortion if the state has outlawed it. But, at some point, we need to realize that a lot of the country does not think abortion is wrong, and the way to move them is by education, not by the coercive power of the state. The last thing we need is ill-conceived laws that will have the effect of making heroes and martyrs of women who travel out of state for an abortion. The idea that any state government can compel you to follow its laws once you cross state lines should be abhorrent both in principle and where it is obviously going to lead us in the way of individual rights. //

Here is the problem as I see it. Can a state make it illegal for you to take part in an activity that is legal in another state? For instance, if New York passed a law making it a felony to enter a restaurant without having your proof of COVID vaccination, could you be prosecuted for dining out in Florida without such proof? Can you be arrested for possessing pot in a state where “medicinal” marijuana is legal if your home state still outlaws it? As you can see, if this idea is adopted to try to prevent women from traveling to an abortion-friendly state, the potential for mischief is meaningless. Already California is trying to use the enforcement mechanism in the Texas heartbeat law to attack gun sales.

The main concern US politicians have raised about TikTok is that because it’s owned by China's ByteDance, the Chinese government could conceivably access any American data held by the company. The other big concern has been security risk. This deal would address both. Under the agreement, Oracle would store TikTok data for US users, ensure that data is not transferred to ByteDance, and be responsible for protecting user data from cybersecurity threats. Because this sensitive task will be performed by a US company with close ties to the government, TikTok should finally be able to put to rest the concern that its operations in the United States constitute a grave threat to American security. //

However, the agreement is almost certain to provide momentum to foreign governments who want to do exactly what the United States is doing: require companies to store data within their borders. Numerous countries have pushed these types of data localization requirements over the last decade, including Russia, India, and France. In response, the tech sector has made the case that this approach to data storage creates privacy risks, degrades performance, and imposes compliance costs that make it harder for small companies to compete.

If the US government succeeds in forcing TikTok to enter this local data-storing arrangement with Oracle, other governments will be more likely to impose comparable requirements on US companies operating within their borders. A principle that might be appealing to TikTok’s critics in the United States could seem much less desirable if it were applied to Apple, Meta, or Snap in countries like China or Russia. The war in Ukraine has highlighted why countries like Russia want to use localization to exert more control over global tech companies, and also why it’s so important that local data storage requirements remain the exception rather than the norm. //

In a written opinion halting President Trump’s ban, a federal judge found that while the government had successfully demonstrated that China posed a national security threat to the United States, its evidence linking TikTok to that threat was “less substantial.” TikTok currently has a data storage agreement with Google Cloud, and the government has not indicated why a hosting deal with Oracle provides better protection for US user data than the current agreement with Google.

How’s the old idiom go? When in Rome, do as the Romans?

The Democrat Party has been “symbolism over substance” for decades. While I’m not suggesting the Republican National Committee’s launch of a voter registration initiative at gas stations across the country amid a continuing sharp rise in gas prices comes anywhere close to a trick from the Democrat playbook, it is perfectly symbolic given the reality of untold millions of angry Americans.

What better place to launch a voter registration drive?

As reported by The Hill, a source said “the RNC will be holding several voter registration events across the country in the coming weeks.” They added that “[t]he first event took place in Arizona Saturday, where volunteers and staff registered Americans to vote from 1 p.m. – 3 p.m. local time.”

Ben Petersen, the communications director for Arizona’s RNC, told The Hill that gas stations are the best place to have conversations with Americans angry about the price at the pump.

The CDC said the number was revised March 15 due to a “coding logic error,” according to a footnote on the agency’s COVID Data Tracker. Pediatric death counts were not the only ones to be lowered — total deaths were reduced by roughly 70,000.

“An adjustment was made to COVID Data Tracker’s mortality data on March 14 involving the removal of 72,277 — including 416 pediatric deaths — deaths previously reported across 26 states because CDC’s algorithm was accidentally counting deaths that were not COVID-19-related,” Jasmine Reed, a spokesperson for the CDC, told the Washington Examiner. “Working with near real-time data in an emergency is critical to guide decision-making, but may also mean we often have incomplete information when data are first reported.”

According to the CDC’s weekly provisional data, only 921 children have died for reasons “involving COVID-19,” an even lower number than the official data tracker now presents. The provisional data reported by the CDC typically lags by some period of time. //

The CDC has encountered other issues with data reporting before. The agency was criticized in February after The New York Times reported that a large portion of the data being collected by the agency regarding COVID-19 was not being made available to the public. Earlier this year, Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that hospitalization data for kids could also be misleading, as many of the children hospitalized with COVID-19 were there for reasons other than the virus.