Select Page

Russian Hackers Targeted The Most Vulnerable Part Of U.S. Elections. Again


Anyone involved in, or running a political campaign, especially a non Republican/Conservative, from here on, probably forever more, who doesn’t, at very minimum, use two-factor authentication, plus demonstrate extreme vigilance over their operation and people, is almost guaranteed to suffer the consequences. Perhaps deservedly so.


When Russian hackers targeted the staff of Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., they took aim at maybe the most vulnerable sector of U.S. elections: campaigns.

McCaskill’s Senate staff received fake emails, as first reported by The Daily Beast, in an apparent attempt by Russia’s GRU intelligence agency to gain access to passwords. McCaskill released a statement confirming the attack but said there is no indication the attack was successful.

“Russia continues to engage in cyber warfare against our democracy. I will continue to speak out and press to hold them accountable,” McCaskill said. “I will not be intimidated. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, Putin is a thug and a bully.”

Read more.

How Trump Won Re-election in 2020

A sneak peek at the Times’s news analysis from Nov. 4, 2020.

President Trump at a Make America Great Again rally in Duluth, Minn., on June 20

Really good.
Are Democratic power brokers and lead pols smart enough to see this now? If not, check back here and see how accurate this forecast was. The idea of Trump getting re-elected is not far fetched. Without impeachment or clearly damning evidence, his base isn’t going to stray. Far more importantly, the stoic, apathetic, disengaged non voters in this country, won’t be swayed either. Their inaction is as much responsible, if not more, for the rise of Donald Trump than his misguided supporters. This non voting group is where I direct most of my contempt.


By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist
• July 26, 2018

In the end, a bitterly fought election came down to the old political aphorism, popularized during Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 run against George H.W. Bush: “It’s the economy, stupid.” This time, however, it was the Republican incumbent, not his Democratic challenger, who benefited from that truism.

Donald J. Trump has been decisively re-elected as president of the United States, winning every state he carried in 2016 and adding Nevada, even as he once again failed, albeit narrowly, to gain a majority of the popular vote. Extraordinary turnout in California, New York, Illinois and other Democratic bastions could not compensate for the president’s abiding popularity in the states that still decide who gets to live in the White House: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Yet, unlike 2016, last night’s outcome came neither as a political upset nor as a global shock. Mr. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have consistently polled ahead of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and her running mate, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, since July. The New York Times correctly predicted the outcome of the race in every state, another marked change from 2016.

Senators Warren and Brown never seemed to find a compelling answer to that question, despite an economy that continues to struggle with painfully slow wage growth, spiraling budget deficits and multiplying trade wars that have hurt businesses as diverse as Ohio soybean farmers and California chipmakers.

Yet both Democrats are also skeptics of trade agreements such as Nafta, which served to mute their differences with the president. And their signature proposals — Medicare for all and free college tuition for most American families — would have been expensive and would require tax increases on families making more than $200,000. Mr. Trump and other Republicans charged they would “bankrupt you and bankrupt the country.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the last quarter, the third consecutive quarter in which growth has exceeded 3 percent. Unemployment remains low at 4.1 percent.

With neither a recession nor a major war to run against, Democrats sought instead to cast the election in starkly moral terms. Yet by Election Day, the charge that Mr. Trump is morally or intellectually unfit for office had been made so often that it had lost most of its former edge among swing voters.

“I don’t care if he lies or exaggerates in his tweets or breaks his vows to his wife, so long as he keeps his promises to me,” Leah Rownan, a self-described social conservative from Henderson, Nev., told The Times, citing the economy and Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominations as decisive for her vote. “And he has.”

Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters also said they felt vindicated by the conclusions of Robert Mueller’s report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. While the former F.B.I. director painted a damning portrait of a campaign that was riddled with Kremlin sympathizers and a candidate whose real-estate ventures were beholden to Russian investors, no clear evidence of collusion between Mr. Trump and Moscow ever emerged and the president was never indicted.

“It was always a red herring, just like Trump said,” said Bernard Schwartz, a gun store owner from Houston, Tex. “Democrats wasted a lot of ammo on that one.”

Democrats also failed to capitalize on, and may have been damaged by, winning back control of the House of Representatives, but not the Senate, in the 2018 midterms. Mr. Trump proved effective, if characteristically vitriolic, in making a foil of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Efforts to impeach the president mainly served to energize his base. Polling surveys suggested that wavering voters saw a Democratic Party more invested in humiliating the president than in helping them.

As is often the case in losing presidential campaigns, it did not take long for campaign aides to Senator Warren to offer damning appraisals of her performance as a candidate. Historical references abounded: The Children’s Crusade; Pickett’s Charge; the McGovern campaign of 1972. The common thread was that the campaign’s moral fervor repeatedly got the better of its message focus.

“Trump succeeded,” lamented one moderate former Democratic lawmaker who asked to speak on background. “He got my party to lose its marbles.” The lawmaker cited calls by party activists to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency — calls the Warren campaign did not formally endorse but did little to refute — as emblematic of the party’s broader problems.

“What do Democrats stand for?” he asked. “Lawlessness or liberality? Policymaking or virtue signaling? Gender-neutral pronouns and bathrooms or good jobs and higher wages?”

As is his way, Mr. Trump wasted little time rubbing salt into Democratic wounds. “Democrats used to stand with the Working Man,” he tweeted Wednesday morning. “Now it’s the party of Abortion and Amnesty. All that’s missing is Acid. Sad!”

A Landmark Legal Shift Opens Pandora’s Box for DIY Guns


The law can address this situation properly given a wary enough Supreme Court, where this will end up, but it’s not likely to matter anymore than the laws already against illegal gun ownership. The real issue, and cause, for gun violence past, present, and still to come, through DIY means, is what it’s also been. The proclivity of certain human beings, mostly men, and mostly mentally damaged from childhood, violent influences, warped localized cultures, and preexisting derangement, is the root of violence and paranoia towards our fellow man. Cody Wilson, followed by his enabling lawyers and founders, is a poster child example of how disturbed a person can be to take his poisonous vision to an endpoint of such nihilistic proportions.


  • By Andy Greenberg, Via WIRED

Cody Wilson makes digital files that let anyone 3-D print untraceable guns. The government tried to stop him. He sued—and won.

Five years ago, 25-year-old radical libertarian Cody Wilson stood on a remote central Texas gun range and pulled the trigger on the world’s first fully 3-D-printed gun. When, to his relief, his plastic invention fired a .380-caliber bullet into a berm of dirt without jamming or exploding in his hands, he drove back to Austin and uploaded the blueprints for the pistol to his website, Defcad.com.

He’d launched the site months earlier along with an anarchist video manifesto, declaring that gun control would never be the same in an era when anyone can download and print their own firearm with a few clicks. In the days after that first test-firing, his gun was downloaded more than 100,000 times. Wilson made the decision to go all in on the project, dropping out of law school at the University of Texas, as if to confirm his belief that technology supersedes law.

Read the full story…

More Screen Time For Teens Linked To ADHD Symptoms


Definitive, preventative action from responsible parties, should not be postponed because there is not a direct connections proven.
Open eyes see the way teens, already behave – necks bent, preoccupied checking their phones, bizarrely concerned with every post on social media, or checking their scores from online gaming.

Common sense is losing ground.


July 17, 201812:25 PM ET

Heard on Morning Edition

Most teens today own a smartphone and go online every day, and about a quarter of them use the internet “almost constantly,” according to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center.

Now a study published Tuesday in JAMA suggests that such frequent use of digital media by adolescents might increase their odds of developing symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

“It’s one of the first studies to look at modern digital media and ADHD risk,” says psychologist Adam Leventhal, an associate professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California and an author of the study.

When considered with previous research showing that greater social media use is associated with depression in teens, the new study suggests that “excessive digital media use doesn’t seem to be great for [their] mental health,” he adds.

Previous research has shown that watching television or playing video games on a console put teenagers at a slightly higher risk of developing ADHD behaviors. But less is known about the impact of computers, tablets and smartphones.

Because these tools have evolved very rapidly, there’s been little research into the impact of these new technologies on us, says Jenny Radesky, a pediatrician at the University of Michigan, who wrote an editorial about the new study for JAMA.

Each new platform reaches millions of people worldwide in a matter of days or weeks, she says. “Angry Birds reached 50 million users within 35 days. Pokémon Go reached the same number in 19 days.”

Research into their effects hasn’t been able to keep pace with the technological evolution, she adds.

“So it’s nice to finally to have some evidence on longer term impact that [these technologies are] having on children,” says Radesky.”I think it shows that something is going on, that there is an association, even if small, between these type[s] of media use habits throughout the day with emerging inattention, trouble with focusing, resisting distraction, controlling your impulses.”

The study followed 2,587 10th graders in schools in Los Angeles county over two years. The teens showed no symptoms of ADHD at the beginning of the study. By the end, teens with more frequent digital media use were more likely to have symptoms of ADHD.

The researchers assessed the students using a standardized questionnaire for ADHD symptoms, including nine symptoms each for inattention and hyperactivity. Students with six or more symptoms in either category were counted as having symptoms of the disorder, based on criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders.

During the two years of the study, the researchers surveyed the teens every six months and asked them about the frequency of their participation in 14 different kinds of online activities such as texting, sharing on social media and streaming videos or music.

About half of the students said they check social media sites and text many times every day.

“These results show that teens are really attached to their [digital] technologies, throughout the day,” says Radesky, who wasn’t involved in the new study. “It really captured the pervasive design that so many of these mobile technologies have taken on.”

By and large, students who frequently used six or more activities had a higher likelihood of developing ADHD symptoms.

For instance, among the 51 students who frequently did all 14 online activities, 10.5 percent showed ADHD symptoms over the course of the study. And of the 114 teens who frequently did seven digital activities, 9.5 showed symptoms. In contrast, only 4.6 percent of the 495 kids who didn’t do any of the activities frequently had new ADHD symptoms over the two-year period.

In other words, teens who were high frequency users of seven or 14 digital media platforms were more than twice as likely to develop ADHD symptoms than teens who did not use any media platform at a high frequency rate, notes Leventhal.

He and his colleagues statistically controlled for other potential confounding factors like family income level, race/ethnicity and pre-existing mental health conditions.Leventhal is quick to caution that his study does not prove that being plugged into their devices caused ADHD among teens. “We don’t know that,” he says.

Showing ADHD symptoms is not the same as ADHD diagnosis,which is a multi-step process that involves a clinician in addition to the questionnaire. The study did not diagnose any of the kids with ADHD.

The study doesn’t prove causation — it finds an association. Still, because the study involved students who did not show symptoms in the beginning, the results give some cause for concern, Leventhal says. “To have 10-ish percent [of the high frequency media users] have the occurrence of new symptoms is fairly high,” he says.

Starting the study with kids who did not have ADHD at baseline was “a smart choice.” notes Radesky. “It helps reduce the chicken and egg situation.”

One of the strengths of the study is that it included a large number of teens from a diverse backgrounds, because “sociodemographic diversity has been a limitation of prior studies on digital media,” she writes in the JAMA editorial.

While the study doesn’t show that all children are at risk of developing problems with attention and hyperactivity, “there is probably a sub-sample of kids who are more vulnerable,” notes Radesky.
For example, the study found that children with mental health problems were more likely to develop these symptoms.

“That’s important because those are the kids who are doing their emotional expression online,” says Radesky. “They might be getting into more drama online, getting into more cyber bullying. And that can definitely be dysregulating and affect your ability to focus on things.”

However, the study did have some limitations, she notes.

“There are other things changing over time that might explain the results you’re seeing,” she says. “In this case, they did not collect data on teenagers’ sleep. They didn’t have information on what the family dynamics were like at home, you know how involved were the parents? … How much media is being used at home by the parents?”

Previous studies have shown that social media use is associated with disturbed sleep, which could itself affect children’s ability to focus in school and that might manifest in ADHD-like symptoms.
Similarly, “the more parents are on their phone, the more teens are likely to be as well,” adds Radesky.

Radesky, who co-wrote the American Academy of Pediatrics’ media use guidelines, says that she recommends parents and their children pause and reflect on how they use media, so children can understand the benefits and pitfalls of their online habits.

“I’d really like teenagers to develop a sense of tech savviness … so they don’t all feel this pressure to be online constantly in order to feel social relevance or acceptance,” she says.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/07/17/629517464/more-screen-time-for-teens-may-fuel-adhd-symptoms?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app