The Most And Least Popular U.S. Senators

According to a new poll by Morning Consult, the most popular senator in the U.S. is independent and once presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

As Statista's Martin Armstrong points out, voters in his state of Vermont have given him a net approval rating of 54 percent – 75 percent saying they approve of the job he is doing, 21 percent saying they disapprove.

Infographic: The Most and Least Popular U.S. Senators | Statista

You will find more statistics at Statista

At the other end of the scale is Republican Jeff Flake, who with 37 percent approval and 45 percent disapproval is sitting on a minus 8 percent net rate in Arizona.

The Grand Canyon State is generally unhappy with its Senators – John McCain has a net rating of minus 4 percent.

via http://ift.tt/2tHahr3 Tyler Durden

Welcome To Donald Trump’s Very Own Big, Fat, Ugly Bubble

Authored by David Stockman via The Daily Reckoning,

The overwhelming source of what ails America economically is found in the Eccles Building. During the past three decades the Federal Reserve has fostered destructive financial mutations on Wall Street and Main Street.

Bubble Finance policies have fueled an egregious financial engineering by the C-suites of corporate America. This bubble has skyrocketed to the tune of $15 trillion of stock buybacks, debt-fueled mergers deals and buyouts of the last decade.

The Fed fostered a borrowing binge in the household sector after the 1980s. It eventually resulted in Peak Debt and $15 trillion in debilitating debts on the homes, cars, incomes and futures of what used to be middle class America.

It also led politicians down the path of free lunch fiscal policy. By monetizing $4.2 trillion of Treasury and GSE debt during the last three decades, the Fed numbed the US economy from effects of crowding out and rising interest rates that would have come from soaring government deficits. This left the public sector impaled on Peak Debt.

Ever since Alan Greenspan launched Bubble Finance in the fall of 1987, public debt outstanding has increased by nearly 9 times. Measured against national output, the Federal debt ratio has risen from 47% to 106% of GDP.

These actions have stripped-mined balance sheets and cash flow from main street businesses. The Fed has stifled economic growth while delivering multi-trillion windfalls into the hands of a few thousand speculators on Wall Street.

These rippling waves of financial mutation are why the US economy is visibly failing and why vast numbers of citizens in Flyover America voted for Donald Trump for president.

Ironically, even as he stumbled to his victory on November 8, Trump barely recognized that the force behind all the economic failure that he railed against was the nation’s rogue central bank.

Only when it occurred to him that Janet Yellen was doing everything possible to insure Clinton’s victory did he let loose an attack on the Fed. In his famous warning, he leveled that America was threatened by a big, fat, ugly bubble.

Unfortunately, there was never even a hint of policy content behind this campaign statement. It said nothing of a coherent plan to liberate the American economy from the nation’s central bank.

When Wall Street launched a phony Trump Reflation trade during the wee hours of election night, the Donald forgot all about the great bubble. In fact, he quickly embraced it as a sign that investors were enthusiastically embracing Trump-O-Nomics.

No new arrival in the Oval Office was ever more mistaken. The gambling halls of Wall Street were a clear and present danger to his presidency, but Trump had only a small window of time for a counter-strategy.

He needed to quickly puncture the bubble, not embrace it; and his first, second and third actions on the economic policy front should have been to clean house at the Fed. He should have named names and insured that the current Fed incumbents get the blame when the inflated stock and bond markets finally implode.

All the tools were there. The Fed had three vacancies out of seven seats on the Board, and he could have cleared more by demanding the resignation of Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer from day one.

Instead, the Donald got off-track from the get-go with aiming his efforts against immigrants and refugees; nonsense about the Mexican border; and the hideously bloated Pentagon budget.

While all of that was bad, the Donald’s fatal error was delegating economic policy to Wall Street errand boys. Trump handed economic power to Steve Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross and Goldman Sachs’ next-in-line gatekeeper to Washington, Gary Cohn.

These characters are a slap-in-the-face to the populations in the rust belts which elected him.

At the end of the day, the lines of demarcation are crystal clear. The Fed is Wall Street’s angel and Main Street’s enemy.

The Donald has ended up handing the keys to economic policy to a cabal of Wall Street operators, who have wasted six months doing nothing on the central banking file.

Mnuchin has even toyed publicly with the idea that Yellen might be reappointed because she has done a “good job”.

You cannot talk about reappointing Janet Yellen and making the American economy great again in the same sentence.

To do so is to voluntarily take ownership of the very big, fat ugly bubble that has brought so much hardship to Flyover America.

Yesterday’s announcement of an appointment to one of the Fed vacancies leaves nothing to the imagination.

After finally announcing a candidate for a job which will determine whether American capitalism can even survive, the Trump White House picked the absolute worst candidate available. Trump named Randall Quarles, a veritable creature of the Wall Street/Washington establishment, as his nominee for vice chairman for supervision at the Federal Reserve.Randy Quarles is the former Under Secretary of the Treasury in the George W. Bush Administration. Before founding Cynosure, Mr. Quarles was a longtime partner of The Carlyle Group, one of the world’s largest private equity firms.

In addition to his record as a successful investor, he has long experience at the highest levels of the international financial architecture, having represented the U.S. for many years in the G7, G20, and Financial Stability Forum, and having served the U.S. as Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund, Executive Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

 

Earlier in his career, Mr. Quarles spent many years working as a partner at the Wall Street law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell, where he was the co-head of the firm’s Financial Institutions Group and advised on transactions that included a number of the largest financial sector mergers ever completed.

 

Do not take comfort from the fact that Quarles mimics the Hoover Institution’s version of economics. The notion that it’s fine to intrude deeply into the mainspring of capitalism in the financial markets and distort all financial asset prices, but it should be done based on formulaic rules rather than “data-dependent” policy discretion.

Quarles has professed an affinity for the Taylor Rule, a Rube Goldberg policy contraption invented by one of Milton Friedman’s disciples, and named for himself.

It should be clear to anybody not drinking the Fed’s kool-aid, that it is impossible to accurately measure the Fed’s goals for unemployment and inflation on which the massive $4.4 trillion balance sheet is premised.

How else do you account for the rampant gains in the cost of living plaguing Flyover America that the BLS neglects to even measure? This measure has caused those members of the Fed working in the Eccles Building to pursue even higher levels of inflation.

During the first 14 years of this decade the Fed claimed price levels rose by only 31.7% when everything households in Flyover America were buying to survive had inflated by multiples – in some case 100-300%.

How can there be “full-employment” at 4.4% unemployment claimed by the BLS and the Fed’s monetary central planners, when there are 103 million adults without jobs?

What Randal Quarles brings to the table is a vision of anti-market monetary central planning that is far worse than what has already brought American capitalism to its knees.

The Donald now owns the Bubble and has left his Presidency and the American economy squarely in harms’ way.

There is no doubt that they are bubble blind and have no understanding of the rampant speculation and driven risk-taking their policies have unleashed in the casino. Even Barron’s last cover story made it clear that robo-machines, ETF’s and other forms of passive “investing,” have set the markets up for a thundering crash.

Needless to say, the Fed is only now beginning to apprehend the train-wreck that lies dead ahead. Thus, the June FOMC minutes were grasping for something dimly worrisome:

According to the minutes, some FOMC members acknowledged that “equity prices were high when judged against standard valuation measures.”  Some are even “concerned that subdued market volatility, coupled with a low equity premium, could lead to a buildup of risks to financial stability.”

Do ya think?

Does the Donald have a clue?

via http://ift.tt/2ugP7kO Tyler Durden

5 Charts That Explain Just How Screwed Your State Is

We’ve spent a lot of time of late discussing the precarious financial positions of states like Illinois, Connecticut and New Jersey which each suffer from their own myriad of financial threats including massive budget deficits, monstrous unfunded pension liabilities, pending debt downgrades, etc.  In case you’ve missed those notes, here is a recap for your amusement:

Of course, while Illinois gets all the bad press for being the undisputed champion of the “worst state in the union” honor, there are many other “up and comers” (yes, we’re looking at you California with your massive unfunded pension obligation) aggressively vying for the title.

In fact, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (GMU) has recently compiled a fairly comprehensive study, based on a number of objective financial metrics, ranking the 50 U.S. states according to their overall fiscal condition.  Among other things, GMU analyzed the following metrics:

  • Cash solvency.  Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?
  • Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues, or does it have a budget shortfall?
  • Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?
  • Service-level solvency. How much “fiscal slack” does a state have to increase spending if citizens demand more services?
  • Trust fund solvency. How large are each state’s unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities?

All of which resulted in the following ranking map. 

Ironically (which, in case it weren’t brutally obvious, we mean in the most sarcastic way possible), the resulting map looks eerily similar to the 2016 electoral college map with the Democrat-leaning states on the bottom end of the “fiscal condition” ranking and Republican-leaning states making out a bit better, on a relative basis.

 

Maybe it’s just coincidence…then again, maybe promising every entitlement under the sun to your residents without a clue as to how to finance those entitlements is a really bad idea over the long term…just a thought.

But it’s not just the overall ranking where the conservative states seemed to fare better. 

In terms of “cash solvency” (ability to meet short-term funding requirements), 8 of the 10 worst states were all blue states.

 

Of course, the lack of near-term solvency plaguing America’s liberal states isn’t for a lack of trying to aggressively over tax their residents…

 

Meanwhile, on net unfunded pension obligations (with liabilities discounted at the risk-free rate), the mix between red and blue states was more equal on the bottom end of the spectrum even though California’s massive $900 billion obligation is roughly 3x that of the next worst state of Illinois.  Even more staggering is the fact that the aggregate unfunded state pension liabilities total over $5 trillion…and that doesn’t count local and federal pension obligations.

 

And the coup de grâce, when it comes to the ability of the states to meet their long-term spending obligations, literally 12 of the 13 worst states in the union are controlled by Democrats and voted Democrat in the 2016 presidential election…which is even more amazing when you realize that only 19 states voted Democrat in the 2016 election in aggregate.

 

Perhaps it’s time to admit that liberal economic policies, which can be summarized as higher taxes and higher entitlement spending, may not be working all that well?

via http://ift.tt/2tcokRJ Tyler Durden

Baltimore Citizens Urge “Nobody Kill Anybody” Ceasefire At The Start Of August

Authored by Alastair Williamson via Squawker.org,

Breaking story out of Baltimore City, Maryland, where a citizen ceasefire is being issued by the community for August 04, 2017 through august 06, 2017.

The ‘no violence for 72-hours’ or ‘nobody kill anybody’ campaign comes at a time where the city is spiraling out of control. According to WJZ, “Baltimore struggles with a record high murder rate, and those in power are desperate for solutions”.

In April, Baltimore’s Mayor asked Federal Agencies including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Federal Bureau of Investigation for help before entering the rough summer months.

The Federalization of Baltimore is nothing new and perhaps it’s the new trend for America’s crumbling inner cities.

Alastair Williamson describes the ceasefire in Baltimore City, Maryland, along with taking us on a journey through two recent gun violence scenes in the highest homicide rate area in the United States. The mainstream media is not allowed to show you this, because it destroys their narrative.

via http://ift.tt/2u6ron8 Tyler Durden

National Security Chair Calls For Investigation Of Comey’s “Political Warfare”; “Purge” Of Obama Holdovers

Last night, just as the Russian-collusion hysteria was reaching a new fevered pitch on the back of reports that Donald Trump Jr. took a meeting with a Russian-born lawyer who promised juicy opposition research on Hillary Clinton, we took the opportunity to ask which was more disturbing: (i) that Jr. sought opposition research on his father’s political opponent (a rather common, if utterly detestable, practice among politicians) or (ii) that various members of the Obama administration may have very well exploited the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to unmask various members of the Trump campaign thereby effectively turning the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus into a political weapon of mass destruction?

Well, apparently we weren’t the only ones to have had that thought.  As the Washington Free Beacon points out today, Representative Ron DeSantis (R-FL), a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and chair of its National Security subcommittee, is urging Attorney General Jeff Sessions to launch a full scale investigation into Comey’s handling of a series of potentially classified memos that were leaked to the press recently as well as efforts of the Washington “bureaucracy to weaponize” intelligence information.

“This is not just standard Washington fair,” DeSantis said. “It’s happening on such a scale with this president that it’s much different.”

 

“Really, it has a whiff of people inside the bureaucracy who do not accept the election results, so they’re rebelling against the elected president by leaking and doing things to damage him politically,” the lawmaker explained. “It’s unprecedented, certainly in modern American history. The way you stop the leaks is if people are leaking info that is classified, and that’s a crime, DOJ has got to pursue that.”

 

“If the bureaucracy is going to weaponize this stuff, I think Congress is going to be much less willing to give them the authority to do this,” DeSantis said. “It is a big deal, and if no one is held accountable it’s going to continue to happen.”

And here are his thoughts on Comey…

“Congress needs to press Sessions and other people to make sure they are investigating this because the American people need the truth,” DeSantis told the Free Beacon in a wide-ranging interview. “If he did violate any laws, he needs to be held accountable. If you’re violating laws in service of doing political warfare, that is just absolutely unacceptable, particularly for someone who held such a high position in the government.”

 

“Not only is he leaking this stuff, not only were the memos done in the course of his employment and likely government property, he may have disclosed classified information in this quest to basically wage a vendetta against the president because the president fired him and to try and create a special counsel,” DeSantis said.

 

“This guy is really a creature of the swamp. He maneuvers around D.C. in ways that are very similar to how D.C. insiders operate,” DeSantis said of Comey. “He’s one of the best in those regards.”

 

“Comey has made a concerted effort to not disclose these memos,” DeSantis revealed. “I think Congress obviously has a right to get them.”

Comey Rice

 

DeSantis also expressed confusion at the Trump administration’s continued unwillingness to fire Obama administration holdovers and fill the government with officials who are more willing to implement the White House’s vision.

“Any Obama holdover at any of these agencies, you’ve got to get them out of there because clearly they’re not on the same team and particularly on the [White House] National Security Council,” DeSantis said.

 

Former senior Obama administration officials who have been tied to these leaks should be brought before Congress and questioned about their actions, DeSantis said.

 

“I think Congress and some members on the Intelligence Committee can call Ben Rhodes to testify,” DeSantis said. “He may be able to invoke executive privilege from when Obama was president, but he definitely can’t do that in any interactions he’s had since then.”

 

DeSantis identified Rhodes and other senior Obama administration officials as being “involved with feeding journalists some of these [leaks]. I believe he’s in touch with people on the National Security Council. It would be absolutely legitimate as part of leak investigation to bring him in and put him under oath, and I would absolutely support doing that.”

On a side note, it’s unclear if Mick Mulvaney incorporated the productivity gains into his budget that would undoubtedly arise for the country if the Trump administration were to fire all of the New York Times’ anonymous sources thereby freeing people up to actually be able to focus on working during the day.

via http://ift.tt/2ugqKnw Tyler Durden

The Center Cannot Hold – Decentralize Or Die (Part 1)

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

 

– “The Second Coming,” William Butler Yeats

Today’s release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails with Rob Goldstone could very well represent a crucial turning point in American history. Not because I think they will lead to Trump’s impeachment, or because they represent some sort of treasonous offense, but because I think from this point forward an increasing number of us will come to the conclusion that America may no longer work as the largely centralized, semi-cohesive unit it has been for our entire lives.

In order to understand the long-term implications of these emails on the future of the nation, you need a good understanding of the primary warring factions in American politics today. We have Donald Trump supporters/voters, Hillary Clinton supporters/voters, and a resurgent left inspired and energized by the principles and ideals espoused by Bernie Sanders. The first two have absolutely zero overlap and pretty much hate each other, while the third group can sometimes identify with either camp depending on the issue, but pretty much think they’re both crazy and dangerous. The key point I’m trying to make is that there is no “center” in American politics anymore, and any discussion of this is pure fantasy. Moreover, any remaining center that still exists, is unlikely to exist at all in a year or so as more and more people feel forced to choose sides. When you create an environment as charged as this one where everyone is accusing their political opponents of treason, this is what you get; and it’s only going to get worse. A lot worse.

The reason it’s going to get worse, is because the charged environment that’s been created in which everyone is suspicious of everyone else can only lead to awful outcomes. Let’s start with Hillary supporters/voters. They will honestly see the Don Jr. emails and expect impeachment proceedings to begin tomorrow. Since they were already convinced of treason, they will see treason here. Most importantly, because they believe so passionately that Trump is the root of all evil as opposed to a symptom of a rotten, oligarch-owned empire in decline, they will expect other people to see things the same way. They will genuinely believe that America will unite against Trump’s “treason” and boot him out of office. This is not going to happen.

In order to understand why this will not happen, you need to understand the mindset and motivations of most Trump voters/supporters. I’ve talked extensively to a few here in Colorado and the message is clear. They aren’t big Trump fans, but rather voted for him since he represented a symbol to them, a vehicle by which to express their contempt and dissatisfaction with status quo politics, as well as disgust with the bias and propaganda emanating from corporate media. In other words, there are fews things team Trump could do with Russia to make Trump supporters turn on Trump. From their seat, his win was the greatest political victory of their lives; he prevented another Clinton Presidency. So what if they went to the Russians for a little dirt?

Finally, there’s the resurgent left. While they pretty much find Trump an unprincipled boor and disagree with almost everything he stands for, they by and large share Trump supporters’ disdain for the Clintons and their neoliberal cult. So while there’s very little overlap on policies between Trump people and Sanders people, there’s a degree of overlap when it comes to the driving spirit motivating both movements — which is that the political system is a corrupt cesspool which needs to be dealt with immediately. Hillary supporters and Never Trumpers are unlikely to receive the support they might otherwise expect from these leftists with their treason calls and moves toward impeachment, irrespective of what is contained in the email chain.

If what I wrote above rings true to you on any level, it has dire implications for the future of these United States. The first two groups, Trump supporters and Hillary supporters have absolutely nothing in common and that’s not going to change. In fact, it’s probably going to get much, much worse. Trump supporters think the Democrats and the media have been gunning for a way to remove him from office since the day he was elected, while Hillary supporters think he’s a treasonous puppet of Vladimir Putin. How can these two warring factions come to any sort of agreement on anything? The answer is, they can’t and they won’t. Meanwhile, Bernie supporters are likely to largely stay on the sidelines hoping these two sides destroy each other in their madness.

What this means going forward, is that national politics will become even less about actual principles and polices than it was before (and it wasn’t really to begin with). Rather, it will become more and more like two rival gangs that absolutely despise each other battling in all out war for total power of the U.S. government. This is a terrifying thought.

As bad as that sounds, tremendous opportunities to build better communities and voluntary governing structures will present themselves in the chaotic political environment that exists, and is likely stick around for the foreseeable future. In a country in which there may truly be irreconcilable differences, I think the best option is to move to decentralize decision-making and political life as much as possible, while retaining certain key connections to one another while we still can. We must do this peacefully and amicably. All the other likely roads look horrible to me.

As I tweeted earlier today:

Today’s post is the first in what is likely to be a three part series. Tomorrow’s piece will focus on why I think the current environment presents the perfect opportunity for political decentralization, and why we should agree to go down this path before we start killing each other.

via http://ift.tt/2varwyE Tyler Durden

Seattle Passes Measure To “Tax The Rich”; There’s Just One Problem…

After passing a $15 minimum wage intended to help low-income workers in Seattle, economists at the University of Washington produced a rather extensive research report a few weeks ago highlighting how the legislation was actually doing the exact opposite as companies were simply choosing to automate menial tasks, move businesses out of Seattle in search of more attractive wages rates or simply cutting back on employees to offset increased labor costs (we covered the study here: Seattle Min Wage Hikes Crushing The Poor: 6,700 Jobs Lost, Annual Wages Down $1,500 – UofW Study).

Unhappy with their failed experiment, the Seattle City Council decided to pursue a more direct form of income redistribution: a massive income tax on the rich.

As The Seattle Times points out, a measure passed by the Seattle City Council applies a 2.25% tax on total income above $250,000 for individuals and above $500,000 for married couples filing their taxes together.  The city estimates the tax would raise about $140 million a year and cost $10 million to $13 million to set up, plus $5 million to $6 million per year to manage and enforce.

Under the legislation sponsored by Councilmembers Lisa Herbold and Kshama Sawant, money from the tax could be used by the city to lower property taxes and other regressive taxes; address homelessness; provide affordable housing, education and transit; replace federal funding lost through budget cuts; create green jobs and meet carbon-reduction goals; and administer the tax. 

According to U.S. Census Bureau data there are about 11,000 individuals in Seattle with earned annual incomes of at least $250,000 that would be impacted by the new tax.

In a statement, Mayor Ed Murray said Seattle is “challenging this state’s antiquated and unsustainable tax structure by passing a progressive income tax,” calling it a “new formula for fairness.”

Not surprisingly, Seattle’s progressive protesters came out in force to fight for the new tax on millionaires, billionaires, private jet owners. 

“When we fight, we win!” they chanted with Sawant, who said more public pressure may be needed.

 

“If we need to pack the courts, will you be there with me?” she asked.

 

Karen Taylor, 34, was in the crowd holding a sign with a Seattle Times headline dating to the early 1900s: “Why don’t you come through with a little bit of the wealth Seattle has given you, rich man?”

 

The Judkins Park resident said she’s struggling to stay housed.

 

“Whoever goes against this is openly causing suffering,” she said.

 

And when the measure passed those same progressive protesters erupted in applause at their ‘accomplishment.’

 

Of course, the Times also points out that there may be just a couple of ‘small problems’ with the new Seattle income tax…the largest being that it’s likely illegal.

There are three key legal barriers, according to Mercier: The state constitution says taxes must be uniform within a class of property; a 1984 state law bars cities from taxing net income; and cities must have state authority to enact taxes.

 

Seattle may assert that taxing total income is different from taxing net income, while also seeking a ruling that income isn’t property.

 

“We are greatly disappointed,” Washington Policy Center’s president, Dann Mead Smith, said in a statement after the vote.

 

“As a lifelong Seattle resident, it is frustrating to see the Seattle City Council choose to waste taxpayer dollars on lawsuits for an income tax that is not needed.”

 

The Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Olympia, announced in a statement that the organization was prepared to challenge the tax in court — “hopefully with a coalition of other freedom-minded organizations.”

 

“No matter who starts out paying it, everyone will eventually suffer,” foundation CEO Tom McCabe said in the statement, warning that the tax would creep down the income ladder.

But even if Seattle does manage to implement their new “rich tax”, we have a sneaking suspicion that they’ll soon learn that they can’t restrict people from simply moving themselves and/or their businesses to more favorable taxing jurisdictions...just ask California.

via http://ift.tt/2u6y58x Tyler Durden

Is The US Government On The Verge Of Reading Minds?

Authored by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University recently made a scientific breakthrough using machine algorithms to accurately guess what people are thinking. In other words, as the university referred to it, they have “harness[ed] ‘mind reading’ technology to decode complex thoughts.”

The researchers report that they cannow use brain activation patterns to identify complex thoughts, such as, ‘The witness shouted during the trial.’

Though the technology does not identify the actual words, lead researcher Marcel Just, D.O. Hebb University Professor of Psychology in the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, has made enough progress that “machine learning algorithms with brain imaging technology” can effectively ‘read minds.’

As the researchers’ press release explains:

The new study demonstrates that the brain’s coding of 240 complex events, sentences like the shouting during the trial scenario uses an alphabet of 42 meaning components, or neurally plausible semantic features, consisting of features, like person, setting, size, social interaction and physical action.

According to the study, published in Human Brain Mapping:

Regression models were trained to determine the mapping between 42 neurally plausible semantic features (NPSFs) and thematic roles of the concepts of a proposition and the fMRI activation patterns of various cortical regions that process different types of information. Given a semantic characterization of the content of a sentence that is new to the model, the model can reliably predict the resulting neural signature, or, given an observed neural signature of a new sentence, the model can predict its semantic content.”

Digital Trends explained for the less scientifically inclined:

Using the smart algorithm, the team could discern what was being thought about at any given time — and even the order of a particular sentence. After training the algorithm on 239 of the 240 sentences and their corresponding brain scans, the researchers were able to predict the final sentence based only on the brain data.

They were able to make predictions with 87% accuracy and, in a reverse exercise, accurately predicted brain activity based on sentence information.

The research has concerning implications for the future of the criminal justice system. In 2013, Marcel Just shared his earlier findings — which, at that time, were less advanced — with Alan Alda of PBS. He said he saw “brain research playing a role in courtrooms because the judicial process often includes not only what an accused person did, but also what he or she was thinking when they did it.”

This is cause for concern as the technology progresses, but even more unsettling is who is funding the research and, evidently, has a stake in it: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) via the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), an organization within ODNI.

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s own website, the government organization’s roots can be traced back to the early years of the CIA:

The idea of a Director of National Intelligence dates to 1955 when a blue-ribbon study commissioned by Congress recommended that the Director of Central Intelligence employ a deputy to run the CIA so that the director could focus on coordinating the overall intelligence effort.

They claim this idea persisted, and following the 2001 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush codified the agency. In 2005, the ODNI was officially launched:

In February 2005, the President nominated John D. Negroponte, ambassador to Iraq, as the first director of national intelligence and U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden as the first principal deputy DNI, promoting him to General. On April 21, 2005, in the Oval Office, Amb. Negroponte and Gen. Hayden were sworn in, and the ODNI began operations at 7 a.m. on April 22, 2005.”

John D. Negroponte is a British-born “diplomat” with questionable ties to authoritarian regimes. As Esquire reported after he endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election:

In the 1980s, he served as the U.S. ambassador to Honduras. In addition to (at best) covering for that country’s murderous autocrats, he also served the Reagan Administration by helping to turn Honduras into a staging area for American-trained death squads in places like El Salvador and Guatemala.

Michael Hayden, who has also served as head of both the NSA and CIA, is known largely for lying to Congress and the American people about the CIA’s use of brutal torture techniques against detainees. He also insisted the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping was legal long before whistleblower Edward Snowden ever exposed the extent of the agency’s surveillance.

These are the founding leaders of the agency currently financing research into reading people’s minds via its research wing, IARPA. They reported directly to President Bush, as the Director of ODNI is a chief adviser to the commander-in-chief.

The current Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana, has a record similar to Hayden when it comes to protecting Americans’ privacy. He was appointed by President Trump, and during his confirmation hearing, he “said there need to be continued conversations about legal authorities to undermine encryption and called reauthorizing an authority that the government uses to spy on Americans’ Internet activities without a warrant his ‘top legislative priority,’” the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported.

He enthusiastically supports Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has allowed for widespread mass spying on American citizens. “In answers to written questions prior to the hearing as well as during the hearing,” EFF noted, “Coats repeatedly praised the surveillance authority, calling it ‘a critical tool’ and agreed when Sen. John Cornyn quoted FBI Director James Comey’s description of the authority as the ‘crown jewels of the intelligence community.’”

In 2015, while he was a senator, he voted against the USA Freedom Act, which provided minor reforms while keeping bulk data collection intact. He refused to get behind the overwhelmingly popular, bipartisan legislation, which ultimately became law.

Further, while Coats was a senator, he voted in favor of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which is now infamous for codifying the U.S. military’s right to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without trial. Coats also voted for the 2013 version of the Act, which allowed the same violations.

He also dismissed the Senate’s 2014 CIA torture report, which revealed gruesome torture techniques against detainees, as “partisan.”

Coats’ current deputy director, Dawn Eilenberger, spent 22 years working for the CIA as an attorney, chief legal adviser on the agency’s operations, and finance official.

Though the Trump Administration has indicated its intention to abolish the ODNI, currently, it remains in power under Coats direction. Its research arm, IARPA, touts its pursuit of “high-risk” research and is directly responsible for funding Carnegie Mellon’s mind-reading research. According to a post on its public Medium page, IARPA, founded in 2007,  serves all 17 agencies of the intelligence community and has a singular goal —generating revolutionary capabilities for the U.S. Intelligence Community.”

Anti-Media has reached out to IARPA for comment on how they intend to apply the developing mind-reading technology and will update this article if they respond.

Though Coats is obviously not in charge of funding Just’s research directly, his positions on civil liberties and privacy inevitably color the attitude of the agency he controls. Should the American people trust this agency and its research wing with technology crafted to read their minds?

via http://ift.tt/2t2xdlX Tyler Durden

Trump Jr.: Never Told My Father, “There Was Nothing To Tell”

In his first public appearance since his tweeted emails earlier today, which seemed to confirm that the Trump campaign was aware that the Russian government was willing to help then-Mr.Trump, Donald Trump Jr. admits "in retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently," telling Fox News' Sean Hannity that he did not tell his father about the meting because "It was just a nothing. There was nothing to tell."

 

Key excerpts include (via Axios):

On whether in retrospect he would have done things differently:

"In retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently. Again this is before the Russia mania, this is before they were building this up in the press. For me this was opposition research, they had something you know maybe concrete evidence to all the stories I'd been hearing about, probably under reported for years not just during the campaign so I think I wanted to hear it out. But really it went nowhere and it was apparent that wasn't what the meeting was about."

Clip from the show

On why he decided to take the meeting with the Russian lawyer:

"Honestly, my take away when all of this was going on, is that someone has information on our opponent. Things are going a million miles per hour. You know what it's like to be on a campaign. We just won Indiana, but we're talking about a contested convention. Things are going a million miles per hour again and hey, wait a minute, I've hear about all these things, but maybe this is something, I should hear him out."

On whether he read the emails:

"I had been reading about scandals that people were probably underreporting for a long time so maybe it was something that had to do with one of those things. I mean this was her perhaps involvement with the Russian government…so, you know, again, I didn't know if there was any credibility, I didn't know if there was anything behind it, I can't vouch for the information…someone sent me an email! I can't help what someone sends me. I read it, I responded accordingly, and if there was something interesting there, I think that's pretty common."

On whether he told his father about the meeting:

"No. It was just a nothing. There was nothing to tell. I mean, I wouldn't have even remembered it until you started scouring through this stuff. It was literally just a wasted 20 minutes, which was a shame."

President Trump has finally reacted…

via http://ift.tt/2ubKQi6 Tyler Durden

‘Generation Z’ Are Nothing Like Millennials, Professor Warns Liberals

Authored by Dan Jackson via CampusReform.org,

A political science professor in Pennsylvania says Democrats need to worry, because the generation replacing their millennial allies on college campuses has a distinct libertarian streak.

Jeff Brauer, a professor at Keystone College, has been gathering data on “Generation Z,” and recently told The New York Post that he expects the rising generation of college students to differ markedly from those currently dominating campus culture.

“Politically, Generation Z is liberal-moderate with social issues, like support for marriage equality and civil rights, and moderate-conservative with fiscal and security issues,” Brauer said.

 

“While many are not connected to the two major parties and lean independent, Gen Z’s inclinations generally fit moderate Republicans.”

Notably, Brauer’s research has indicated that growing up in an age of constant terror threats, school shootings, and economic instability has led Gen Z to prize economic stability and security more highly than millennials.

“Pollsters need to pay attention to Gen Z. People and politicians need to recognize that they aren’t millennials and shouldn't be lumped in,” Brauer told Campus Reform, noting that “there was virtually no attention paid to this demographic” in 2016, even though it was the first presidential election in which Gen Z had the ability to vote.

 

“Democratic candidates lost five percent of the youth vote nationally (down from 60 percent to 55 percent),” Brauer pointed out. “In Florida, Democrats’ margin of victory among the young dropped 16 percentage points. In both Ohio and Pennsylvania, the drop was 19 points. In Wisconsin, 20 points.”

Brauer believes that this is indicative of more than a one-time phenomenon, saying “it is much more likely the precipitous drops were due to the more conservative Generation Z being able, for the first time, to express their political inclinations, especially in the economically hard-hit swing states.”

These findings could give Republicans hope for capturing a larger share of the youth vote in future elections, but Brauer cautions that while Generation Z will likely be more conservative than Millennials, they will not actively seek out the GOP unless the Party takes steps to conform to their more-moderate social views, and could be driven away by a significant rightward lurch.

“This generation is different, and they are about to have a profound impact on commerce, politics, and trends,” Brauer said.

 

“If politicians and business leaders aren’t paying attention yet, they better, because they are about to change the world.”

Brauer cautioned that his work remains unfinished, saying he hopes to continue collecting data over the course of the next few election cycles in order to come up with even more definitive conclusions regarding Generation Z.

via http://ift.tt/2uPkpg2 Tyler Durden