Child Abuse vs Social Change

Posted on by
Reply

The lede laid it out.

Child sacrifice is wrong. I thought we’d sorted this out a long time ago. Evidently some are still struggling with the concept.

Then he expanded on it as carried out by Nikole Hannah-Jones, who sacrificed her own daughter on the altar of her own social justice ego.

Ms. Hannah-Jones writes that she and her husband “felt an obligation to make educational decisions based on the collective good and not just our individual advantage.”
… It’s child sacrifice. Ms Hannah-Jones had the means to provide her daughter with a good education and chose instead to use her as a political pawn.

Hannah-Jones wants social change? She shouldn’t have abused her daughter by actively denying her a quality education. Instead, she should have sent her to quality schools while instilling in her Hannah-Jones’ own values. Then she could have let her daughter use that quality education to work toward social change from a position of knowledge and capability.

Or not. The daughter grown to adulthood is not Hannah-Jones’ pawn or her Talos constructed to do her bidding. Forcing her daughter into that is precisely the slavery against which Hannah-Jones pretends to rail.

Progressive-Democratic Party Power Grab

Posted on by
Reply

Now they’re coming for our children. Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democratic governor Maura Healey has announced a new State government program that will send a government nurse into every newborn’s home.

Everybody in the state, when you have a baby, you’re going to have a home visit within days, weeks and that will be an opportunity for a healthcare provider to make an assessment to see if you need some additional support and resources[.]

A government nurse, and the government’s assessment of “need.” This is Party’s claim that our children belong to Government; they are not our families’ youngest members. Healey’s rationalization is nothing but political points harvesting in the aftermath of Lindsey Clancy’s trial for murdering her children.

Postpartum depression, anxiety, and other maternal mental health conditions are real medical conditions, and no mother should feel ashamed to ask for help or feel like she has to navigate this journey alone.

She’s pretending to solve a problem of miniscule proportion. The scale of the problem as it regards infant safety is this. According to the Deseret News, there were 2,282 babies killed through their mothers’ “maltreatment;” of these 912 were from deliberately inflicted injury (things like fentanyl poisoning were deemed accidental maltreatment in the DN‘s wisdom) between 2022 and 2026. In the same period, per Google’s AI, there were 15,394,000 babies born. Those 900 babies outright murdered represent 0.009% of the births. Those killed through neglect/maltreatment amount to just 0.0015% of the births. That’s certainly a tragedy for the babies involved, but it is in no way a justification for a Government intrusion of Healey’s scale.

Healey claims the program is “voluntary.” Sure. Think of all the tools Government has with which to harass a family that declines this government “favor.” Think of the liability Government will seek to apply should an accident befall the child whose family declined this government intrusion. Think of all the negative publicity and innuendo Government can let slip regarding any family who declines this government intrusion. Along those latter lines, recall the social opprobrium that was inflicted (and still is inflicted) on those ordinary Americans who declined to be vaccinated against the Wuhan Virus.

Nice kid youse got there. Be too bad if somethin’ was to happen to it.

This what we can look forward to if we let Party get control of our House of Representatives and our Senate this fall and of the White House in 2028.

Press Dishonesty

Posted on by
Reply

This one is exposed by Just the News as it describes a blatantly slanted Reuters “news” article.

Reuters on Thursday published a photo article bemoaning the injuries to a teenager who was wounded when his father’s pager exploded during Israel’s targeted attack on Hezbollah terrorists.
In the article, titled Two years after Israel’s pager attacks in Lebanon, teenage survivor rebuilds his life, Reuters never mentioned why Israel conducted the attack, nor did it mention Hezbollah or terrorism once in any of the 15 pictures it used to garner sympathy for 14-year-old Lebanese Ali Abbas. In one photo, Reuters explained how Abbas received his injuries, saying only that “his father’s pager” detonated when young Abbas went to pick it up after it began “vibrating intensely,” according to his mother.

This is lying by omission, the most typical mechanism the journalism guild uses for its dishonesty. The omissions are centered on “editorial decisions” regarding what news to present and what not to present or to spike outright.

The Reuters piece can be read here.

“Growing Risks”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the concern about AI and its use in hacking that was written about in a recent WSJ article.

Two weeks after a swarm of AI agents broke out of containment at OpenAI to hack the company Hugging Face, the ChatGPT maker learned about another AI-powered intrusion—and this time it was the target.
Independent security researchers had used Anthropic‘s Claude software to gain access to an OpenAI employee’s ChatGPT account, giving them a way to read and suggest changes to the company’s private cache of software.

And this:

The team, who participated in an OpenAI bug-hunting program that offers a safe harbor for researchers to attempt to break into corporate systems, quickly reported their findings to the company. …
The new hack joins a long list of recent disclosures by leading technology companies and researchers alike of cyber intrusions aided by fast-evolving artificial-intelligence tools. Despite months of warnings about the capabilities of AI systems, the new intrusion shows how the complexity of today’s computer systems makes them difficult to defend.

Umm, no.

That breakout and hack of Hugging Face wasn’t an example of the risks of AI; it was an example of the risks from human failure to properly airgap the sandbox in which they were building and testing that swarm of agents.

The “difficulty to defend” today’s increasingly complex computer systems isn’t a matter of AI tools’ or swarms of AI tools’ ability to hack into complex (or simple) computer systems. The difficulty is the failure to use frequently, broadly, and deeply those AI tools to do the White Hat hacking those independent security researchers had done to expose some OpenAI bugs and gaps.

That White Hat hacking needs to be done by lots of security researchers all across our economy and our governments at all jurisdictional levels, so enterprises and governments can find their own software and system failures and repair them before outside entities with nefarious intent—whether government, criminal, or just folks poking around because they can—find them, penetrate them, and inflict their damage or steal critical information or demand ransom or…. And then the White Hat hacking needs to be repeated at frequent, irregular intervals so as to keep systems buttoned up and ahead of Black Hat and other adversarial hacking efforts.

The risk, and it is growing, is that that White Hat hacking isn’t being done as widely or frequently as it should be to identify those system gaps and bugs so they can be quickly sealed off. And make those difficult to defend systems more easily defended.

Instead, people who should know better insist on locking up AI with excessive regulation.