'Northern Command has conducted'

Would be 'fruitless for me to continue in this role'

The post Artificial Intelligence Takes on Feline Cancer: How New Technology Is Helping Treat Common Cat Cancers by Dr. Karyn Kanowski BVSc MRCVS (Veterinarian) appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com. If there is one diagnosis that is universally feared, it’s cancer. The great equalizer, cancer doesn’t care if you’re old, young, rich, poor, black, white, or beige. It also doesn’t spare our cats. Although a universal cure for cancer may be something of a fairytale, the treatment of cancer is a field that is constantly evolving. This week, we caught up with Dr Ilona Holcombe, the Director of Biosciences at ImpriMed, whose team is changing the way we treat cancer with the help of AI. Whether we like it or not – sometimes, whether we know it or not – artificial intelligence is working its way into almost every aspect of our lives. Although we may not always welcome its presence in arts and literature, the virtually infinite problem-solving capacity of AI has the potential to find solutions that would otherwise take decades. ImpriMed is leading the charge against cancer by using this technology to create customized chemotherapy treatment protocols for humans and pets. Wait, Chemotherapy for Pets? When you think about the debilitating effects that chemotherapy often has on human patients, you would be forgiven for being horrified at the thought of exposing our pets to this form of treatment. The difference with veterinary chemotherapy is that the doses are significantly lower than those used to treat humans, making the side effects minimal. The compromise is that remission is usually the best we can hope for; the doses needed to achieve a cure would be too cruel to inflict on our pets. However, as many pet parents will attest, being able to extend the length of quality time they have with their pets is worth it. Of the dozen or so drugs used for chemotherapy, there are only a handful that commonly form part of a treatment protocol, with the rest reserved for unresponsive or relapsing cases. Treatment protocols are typically based on which drug combinations tend to be most effective against the specific form of cancer we are treating, but this can involve a certain amount of trial and error, tweaking drugs and doses depending on how the patient – and their cancer – responds. ImpriMed is removing this uncertainty by analyzing your pet’s cancer cells and using an AI program that has been created using years of statistics, case studies, and patient outcomes to determine not just how it might respond to certain chemotherapy treatments, but how it DOES respond to them. Cancer Culture and Sensitivity When treating an infection, an important step is culture & sensitivity testing, where a sample of the bacteria is grown in a lab in order to identify it and test which antibiotics will eliminate it. The process used at ImpriMed can be thought of in the same way. Cancer cells are isolated, identified, and put through multiple treatment combinations to determine which drugs are going to be the most effective, taking the guesswork out of treatment. Within a week, your vet will receive a personalized prediction profile for your pet. Most of the side effects of chemotherapy occur because the chemicals used do not discriminate between cancerous and non-cancerous cells. They are most effective against rapidly dividing cells, which is why cancer cells are the ones most affected, but healthy cells can also be damaged and destroyed. By using drugs that we already know are going to be effective against the cancer cells in this individual, those risks are reduced. Does It Work on All Cancer? At this stage, this AI service is only available for feline lymphoma, as well as canine leukemia and lymphoma, but there are plans underway to extend this into other common cancers seen in cats and dogs, as well as explore its use in treating feline inflammatory bowel disease. There is also hope that treatments could be found for forms of cancer that are currently unresponsive to chemotherapy, as well as look for different drug formulations and combinations. Image Credit: Pixel-Shot, Shutterstock It Must Be Expensive We sadly live in a world where many medical and veterinary treatments are inaccessible to all but the super-rich. However, Dr. Holcomb, a self-confessed soft-hearted pet lover, seems determined to keep this technology within the reach of every pet owner, and the base price for a comprehensive personalized chemotherapy prediction profile will usually be around $1,000 from your vet*. This may seem like a lot of money, but when you consider the complexity of this technology, as well as how much time it saves getting your cat’s treatment right the first time, it’s actually very reasonable. *As of February 2025. Indicative prices only. Excludes veterinarian costs (eg. consultations, sampling fees, etc). Contact your vet for further information. It’s refreshing to come across a company that seems to care about pets and their parents, and we can only hope that it stays that way. ImpriMed’s services are available throughout the country, as well as overseas, so if your pet has been diagnosed with cancer, you might want to talk to a vet about exploring this option. Sources https://www.imprimedicine.com/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/vco.12656 https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/8/12/301 https://www.mdpi.com/2306-7381/11/8/331 https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2023.283606 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44313-024-00032-8 Featured image credit: Maria Sbytova, Shutterstock The post Artificial Intelligence Takes on Feline Cancer: How New Technology Is Helping Treat Common Cat Cancers by Dr. Karyn Kanowski BVSc MRCVS (Veterinarian) appeared first on Catster. Copying over entire articles infringes on copyright laws. You may not be aware of it, but all of these articles were assigned, contracted and paid for, so they aren't considered public domain. However, we appreciate that you like the article and would love it if you continued sharing just the first paragraph of an article, then linking out to the rest of the piece on Catster.com.

As wildfires raged last month in California, tens of thousands of people were forced to flee their homes, often with just minutes of warning. To make matters worse, looters took advantage of the chaos and lack of police resources, showing up in droves to ransack evacuated areas—sometimes as helpless residents looked on in horror as their doorbell cameras captured the looting in real-time. Fortunately for residents of at least some evacuated areas, a handful of their armed neighbors stayed behind to protect their homes and livelihoods from would-be looters—in some cases, bravely patrolling their streets with firearms in what certainly seemed to be open defiance of the state’s public carry laws. But for countless others, the state’s restrictive gun laws undoubtedly complicated their ability to defend their homes, at the very least compounding their anxiety by raising questions about their legal rights in a state notorious for treating lawful gun owners as the enemy of public safety. Barriers like mandatory waiting periods, meanwhile, ensured that Californians who didn’t already own guns would be kept from exercising one of their most fundamental rights precisely when it mattered most. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms is centered on the underlying natural right of self-defense. And Americans are very effective at exercising that vital right—at least when the government gets out of the way. Almost every major study has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually, according to the most recent report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2021, the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue concluded that roughly 1.6 million defensive gun uses occur in the United States every year. For this reason, The Daily Signal publishes a monthly article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read accounts from past months and years here.) The examples below represent only a small portion of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in January. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundation’s interactive Defensive Gun Use Database.  Jan. 4, North Charleston, South Carolina: When a man saw his neighbor dragging a woman by her hair through the front yard of a nearby home, he called 911, then grabbed his handgun before successfully intervening to protect the woman without having to fire a shot. Police arrived and arrested the neighbor, who was “visibly intoxicated” and smelled of alcohol. He was charged with first-degree domestic violence. Jan. 6, Grovetown, Georgia: Police say that a woman—who was nine months pregnant—shot and wounded her ex-boyfriend after he smashed a living room window in an attempt to force his way inside the home. The ex-boyfriend (who was also the father of the woman’s 2-year-old son and unborn child) had previous domestic violence convictions. Police quickly arrested him on unrelated warrants for violating his probation, and he now faces an additional charge for domestic violence-related criminal trespass. Jan. 9, Clarion, Pennsylvania: After a woman and her husband discovered a serial stalker had come to their home and parked in their driveway, one of the woman’s employees responded to their call for help and detained the stalker at gunpoint until police arrived. Police arrested the stalker, who they described as engaging in “an escalating pattern of concerning behavior” over the last two years. He’d been released on bail just 17 days earlier after a different stalking incident involving the same victims. Jan. 11, Brooklyn, New York: A concealed carry permit holder fatally shot a man who tried to rob him at knifepoint in a park. The robber allegedly put the victim in a chokehold and held a knife to his neck while demanding all of his money, but the permit holder drew his gun and shot his assailant. Police said the permit holder is unlikely to face criminal charges. Jan. 12, Omaha, Nebraska: After a man was removed from a nightclub, he returned with a firearm, made threats, and began shooting. He injured several people before an armed bystander intervened, returning fire and fatally striking the gunman. The local county attorney told reporters that the armed bystander “was definitely justified in using his firearm [in] self-defense” and that the shooter was legally prohibited from owning firearms due to his criminal record. Jan. 15, San Antonio, Texas: When an apartment complex manager and two maintenance workers confronted a suspicious man who’d been peering into residents’ vehicles, the man “became hostile” and physically assaulted them. A resident then tried to intervene, but the man pulled out a knife and a taser. The resident responded by drawing a handgun, causing the man to flee. The resident chased him in a “brief pursuit” before the man turned around and “postur[ed] like he was about to stab or attack the resident,” at which point the resident shot and wounded him. Jan. 17, West Palm Beach, Florida: Police say that an armed supervisor at a welding company successfully intervened to end an active shooter situation that could have been much worse. The supervisor fatally shot an employee who’d opened fire on his co-workers and was reloading his firearm while standing over an injured victim. The gunman managed to kill one victim, but the wounded victim is expected to survive. The gunman—who was facing termination over poor work attendance—was prohibited from possessing firearms after a risk-protection order was issued against him under the state’s “red flag law.” Jan. 24, Boulder City, Nevada: An off-duty police officer intervened after hearing his neighbor “violently attacking a woman” in his backyard. He managed to separate the victim from her assailant while his wife called 911, but the man followed the officer to his front yard, choked him, and “slammed his head into a car.” The officer freed himself, and then he and his wife each drew their guns while the officer ordered the man to get on the ground. The man, however, “advanced toward the [couple],” prompting both the officer and his wife to open fire, killing him. The original victim was treated for lacerations, bruises, and strangulation injuries incurred during the assault. She told police that she believed the man would have tried to kill her if no one had intervened. Jan. 26, Kansas City, Missouri: A knife-wielding man entered a convenience store, jumped over the counter, and tried to stab the manager. The manager, however, drew a gun and shot the attacker, wounding him. A bystander in the store was also armed and “stood guard” over several customers (including an 8-year-old) who barricaded themselves in a back room during the assault. The injured suspect was charged with first-degree assault and armed criminal action. The 8-year-old’s father, meanwhile, told reporters that he believed the armed intervention saved their lives. Jan. 29, Albuquerque, New Mexico: Police say that several teens tried to rob a man and his wife at gunpoint as they sat in their car in an apartment complex parking lot. When one of the teens shot the woman, her husband returned fire, killing one suspect and sending the others fleeing. Police eventually arrested seven suspects in connection with the botched robbery—all of them between the ages of 12 and 17, and some of whom already had significant criminal histories. The injured woman is expected to recover. Jan. 31, Chicago, Illinois: Two armed men approached a garbage truck driver and tried to rob him. Fortunately, the driver had a valid concealed carry permit and exchanged gunfire with his two assailants, fatally striking one and critically injuring the other. The driver wasn’t injured during the shootout but was evaluated for chest pain at a hospital, where he was listed in good condition. As these stories demonstrate, the right to keep and bear arms is often most critically important at the times when we least expect to need it. Few people wake up in the morning anticipating that their day will involve a life-threatening encounter during which the government won’t be there to protect them. But criminal violence rarely comes with advanced warnings. We never know when civil society’s protections will fail, either for us as individuals or for our broader communities. And for all of the moments in which the government can’t or won’t be there to protect us, the Second Amendment ensures that we can protect ourselves (unless, of course, the government regulates that assurance away in the name of “common sense” gun restrictions). The post Defensive Gun Uses Show Faulty Premise of California Gun Laws appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has declared war on the judicial branch. Among his many complaints, he has insinuated without proof that judicial opinions he disagrees with are influenced by amicus—“friend of court”—briefs entangled in webs of dark money. To combat this supposed problem, he has pushed for onerous disclosure requirements that would essentially reveal everyone (and every dollar) an amicus associates with. It’s all part of his broader efforts to hurt his perceived political enemies and undermine public confidence in the courts now that they no longer reliably deliver politically palatable results for him and his left-leaning constituents.  At first, he and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., introduced the AMICUS Act, a partisan bill that would impose onerous donor disclosure requirements on anyone who dares to file a friend-of-court brief. Given the blatant politics at play, Congress rightfully declined to move the bill forward. When Whitehouse and Johnson couldn’t get the AMICUS Act passed through Congress, they instead pressured the Supreme Court and the Judicial Conference of the United States to do their dirty work for them and adopt via a rule change many of the bill’s most problematic provisions. Sadly, the Judicial Conference—the federal judiciary’s chief policy-making body—has largely acquiesced to their political ploy. Beginning in late 2020, the Conference’s Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules began designing amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure using the AMICUS Act as a starting point for discussion and a template for the proposed rule revisions. As we explained in a Legal Memorandum and in testimony last week before the Judicial Conference itself, the onerous donor disclosure rules being proposed are a politically motivated solution in search of problem. To begin with, the Advisory Committee struggled for three years to articulate why it was even considering changes to the existing rules. In the end, all anyone could agree on was that the endeavor began with Whitehouse and Johnson. Not only that, but the proposed changes would also inject partisan identity politics into the judiciary. The existing rules governing amicus briefs seek to prevent parties in a case from circumventing limits on the lengths of their own briefs. But the new proposed rules aim at something entirely different: disclosing who an amicus is associated with and who might therefore be influencing an amicus brief. That’s odd. Judges are not supposed to treat amicus briefs like lobbyists, barometers of public opinion, or indicia of where their friends stand on a given issue. They are supposed to decide cases based on what the law and facts require. But the Advisory Committee rejected that idea. It now claims that “the identity of the amicus does matter, at least in some cases, to some judges.” Let that sink in. The proposed rules greenlight judges caring more about who is making an argument than the merits of the argument itself.   And more troublingly, the proposed rules likely flout the First Amendment. As Justice Clarence Thomas has explained, the “text and history of the [First Amendment’s] Assembly Clause suggest that the right to assemble includes the right to associate anonymously.” And Supreme Court precedent has long disfavored compelled donor disclosure regimes recognizing the chilling effect that such disclosures can have. As one group of Republican senators warned, it “will be a sorry sight to see the judiciary haled into its own courts for violating one of our most fundamental rights, but it will be necessary.” So, what to do? Thankfully, groups and individuals from across the political spectrum have rallied to defeat the proposed rules, filing comments that collectively reject the entire scheme. The Judicial Conference should listen to these varied voices, reject Whitehouse’s and Johnson’s effort, and extricate itself from this political quagmire as quickly as possible. That may be easier said than done, though. As we noted in our memorandum: At the end of the day, Whitehouse and Johnson have placed themselves in a win-win position politically while placing the Judicial Conference in a lose-lose situation. If the proposed disclosure rule changes are adopted, Whitehouse and Johnson can declare political victory. If not, Whitehouse and Johnson can yet again rail against what they portray as a corrupt cabal of federal judges. Similarly, if the proposed rule changes are adopted, the Judicial Conference will have signed off on a constitutionally problematic solution to a nonexistent problem and needlessly injected the federal judiciary into partisan politics. Sadly, this is not the first time that the Judicial Conference has waded into partisan, constitutionally questionable territory. It has previously promoted problematic diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that are hard to square with the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down racial preference plans and reaffirming what should be the non-controversial idea that everyone should be treated the same regardless of race. If the Judicial Conference proceeds with these problematic rule changes, Congress should exercise its authority to reject them. And Congress should also take a hard look at structure, functions, and policy output of the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. After all, what does it say about the state of the federal judiciary if its chief policy-making body and the administrative body responsible for training judges and their staff put out policies that defy the Supreme Court’s own precedents—and, more importantly, the Constitution itself? The post Key Judicial Body Does Sheldon Whitehouse’s Dirty Work With Proposed Changes to Amicus Disclosure Rules appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE CENTER SQUARE—Though there has been talk of President Donald Trump abolishing the U.S. Department of Education through an executive order, for now, he’s chosen to act through existing means to refashion the department. On Tuesday, the department notified schools that they have 14 days to end all admissions, scholarship, discipline, and employment practices that factor in race “preferences and stereotypes.” Schools that do not comply risk federal investigation and the loss of federal funding. “For decades, schools have been operating on the pretext that selecting students for ‘diversity’ or similar euphemisms is not selecting them based on race,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. “No longer. Students should be assessed according to merit, accomplishment, and character—not prejudged by the color of their skin.” The administration cited the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard as precedent for its action, saying the case ended racial preferences in school admissions and clarified that schools cannot legally factor race into the treatment of students or faculty. “By allowing this principle to guide vigorous enforcement efforts, the Trump Education Department will ensure that America’s educational institutions will again embrace merit, equality of opportunity, and academic and professional excellence,” according to a news release from the department. The department has been busy at work trying to undo many of the cultural education initiatives the Biden administration put into place. Since Jan. 20, the department’s Office for Civil Rights rescinded the Biden-era book ban guidance and announced it’s terminating its “book ban coordinator” position. The department has cancelled close to $1 billion in contracts and grants to Equity Assistance Centers, Regional Educational Laboratories and teacher preparation programs including training on critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion. It has awarded new grant funding to charter schools. It has launched investigations into antisemitism on several college campuses; some schools with all-gender or gender-neutral bathrooms; several schools for “Title IX violations”; as well as applied pressure to national college and high school athletic associations to “restore to female athletes the records, titles, awards and recognitions misappropriated by biological males competing in female categories.” Tuesday’s action comes through a Dear Colleague Letter, a document the department uses to issue policy guidance. Dear Colleague Letters have been instrumental in shaping the department and were among the many recommended reforms in a recent report from the National Association of Scholars. Originally published by The Center Square (opens in a new tab) The post New Guidance Seeks to End Use of ‘Race Preferences, Stereotypes’ in School Admissions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Acosta: We Should All Boycott Trump!

Early on Dec. 21, 1978, an Argosy freight plane departed from Wellington, New Zealand, on a routine trip to Christchurch. It was carrying Captain Bill Startup, co-pilot Bob Guard and a cargo hold full of newspapers headed for the South Island. But what began as a routine cargo mission soon morphed into one of the strangest UFO cases of the modern era. As the plane passed Kaikōura, a string of strange lights flashed in the sky, following the course of the aircraft. Some were described as glowing red or orange orbs; others pulsed like brilliant white beacons. Even more remarkable, the lights weren’t just visually observed, they were radar confirmed, too, by Wellington air traffic controllers who reported the objects as solid targets traveling with the craft. “We got a bright red glowing light out to our 10 o’clock position,” one of the pilots said over the radio. For the crew, what should have been a routine flight had become surreal. And that was just the beginning. Lights, Camera… UFO? News of the Kaikōura sightings traveled quickly. Only ten days later, on December 30, 1978, an Australian television crew from Channel 0 (now Network 10), Melbourne, boarded a different Argosy flight to investigate. Reporter Quentin Fogarty, cameraman David Crockett and his wife and sound recordist Ngaire Crockett were the crew. That night, as the aircraft neared the Clarence River, something remarkable happened once more. Air traffic controllers in Wellington radioed in, warning the crew that an unidentified object was trailing them. Moments later, the lights multiplied. Fogarty, a little shaken as he described what he saw, recalled that it was really starting to get scary when a whole formation of unidentified flying objects started appearing outside the plane. Then one of the objects came into clear view, a large glowing shape with a brightly lit bottom half and a clear, round top. It resembled a flying saucer, to the astonished crew. In their scramble to cover the scene, David Crockett was able to shoot nearly 30 seconds of footage, an incredible piece of film that would eventually circulate internationally, fascinating the world. Government Scrutiny and Skeptical Explanations When the Kaikōura Lights sent shockwaves through the international news media, both New Zealand’s government and military launched investigations. The New Zealand Air Force (RNZAFZ) even dispatched a P-3 Orion surveillance plane to conduct area reconnaissance, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) examined video and radar information. The explanation provided by the authorities was unsatisfactory to those who witnessed it unfold with their own eyes. Government reports indicated the lights were most likely naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena, such as reflections of squid boat lights reflecting off of clouds or an optical illusion of Venus or Jupiter refracting through the atmosphere. A few radar “anomalies” were shrugged off as faulty readings due to atmospheric conditions. For the people in this story, though, these explanations unraveled under scrutiny. The Wellington radar operator who tracked the objects, John Cordy, flatly denied that they could have been optical refractions or misidentified celestial objects. There was no misunderstanding, he added. These were solid objects; they had been solid objects for over forty miles that had tracked the plane. The cameraman David Crockett was similarly dubious. When skeptics told him that his footage was most likely the planet Venus, he set out to prove this theory to himself and his viewers by shooting footage of Venus himself in similar conditions. The results were starkly different. As Crockett pointed out, Venus was just a tiny dot on the lens, nowhere near the size of what they’d seen that night over Kaikōura. Personal Cost and Unanswered Questions Though the Kaikōura Lights put those involved in the international spotlight, it wasn’t without its downsides. The journalist who had first reported the story, Quentin Fogarty, was now branded the “UFO reporter” by the press. The stress of the situation impacted his health, resulting in nervous exhaustion and hospitalization. That’s when David and Ngaire Crockett’s marriage fell apart, the obsessive quest for answers overtaking their lives. Pilot Bill Startup, while never one to jump to wild conclusions, always insisted that what they had seen was real. But a few years later, he had a stroke and had to retire from flying. Co-pilot Bob Guard, despite being a skeptic of UFOs, later admitted he had never seen anything like it before or since. The Kaikōura Lights, however, slowly slipped out of the public consciousness, dismissed by officials and skeptics. But for the people who were there, the questions were left unanswered. Are Modern UFO Sightings a Pattern? Decades after the Kaikōura Lights, such sightings have not ceased, and similar accounts have emerged, most recently from U.S. Navy pilots who described eerily similar aerial phenomena. The New York Times in 2017 revealed that the Pentagon was conducting research on UFOs and what it called “anomalous aerial vehicles,” including incidents in which U.S. military pilots saw objects that could travel and change direction at hypersonic speeds and otherwise had capabilities that defy known laws of physics. That the same characteristics, unexplained motion, radar returns, confusion among experienced observers, almost perfectly match those of the Kaikōura Lights. “I reviewed this footage,” said the optical physicist Bruce Maccabee, who studied the Kaikōura footage, “and went back and studied the case and concluded the case deserved a lot more investigation than it ever got.” He was astounded that more than one unidentified object had drifted through New Zealand’s airspace and that the matter was later dismissed and forgotten. Conclusion: The Mystery That Will Not Die So, four decades later, what can we say about the Kaikōura Lights? And is the truth still out there, despite various explanations, everything from atmospheric reflections to squid boats. The official reports do not explain how something that appeared to be an optical illusion was visible on radar, nor do they explain how trained pilots and air traffic controllers all misperceived the same phenomenon in real-time. Was this simply misidentified celestial objects? Some sort of secret military experiment? Or was it something much weirder, something that defied our understanding? At present, the Kaikōura Lights are among the most well-documented UFO cases of all time. And perhaps, as the world continues to reevaluate the phenomenon of unidentified aerial objects, we will finally get closer to the truth. Until then, we are left with one final, chilling quote from Quentin Fogarty, spoken into the camera as the unknown lights hovered outside the aircraft that night: “Let’s hope they’re friendly.” Sources and References Coulthart, R. (2021). In Plain Sight: An Investigation into UFOs and Impossible Science. HarperCollins. Davidson, P. (2009). The Kaikōura UFOs [Documentary]. Fogarty, Q. (1982). Let’s Hope They’re Friendly: The Remarkable Story of the Kaikōura UFOs. Nexus Publishing. Maccabee, B. (1979). Analysis of the 1978 Kaikōura UFO Footage. Applied Optics. New Zealand Ministry of Defence. (1979). Official Report on the Kaikōura Lights Incident. Declassified under the Official Information Act (2010). NZ Herald. (2018, December 15). Crew remember the day UFO was spotted over Kaikōura 40 years on. Radio New Zealand. (2021, July 31). Govt officials couldn’t explain Kaikōura lights UFO sightings, documents show. Williamson, L. (2024). It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a squid boat: Revisiting the Kaikōura UFO incident. AA Directions Magazine. Wikipedia. (2023). Kaikōura Lights. The post Kaikōura Lights Revisited: New Zealand’s Most Compelling UFO Encounter appeared first on Anomalien.com.

There was a potent and toxic combination of righteous indignation and ignorance oozing from ABC News moderator Whoopi Goldberg, during Tuesday’s edition of The View. In addition to blaming the crash of a Delta Airlines flight on the runway of an airport in Toronto, Canada on Elon Musk, she demanded to know: when did she give permission to NASA to sign contracts with Musk’s SpaceX? At the top of the segment, Goldberg blamed Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for all the plane crashes. “I have been panicking over all this insanity with these planes!” she shouted as she proceeded to stumble over the pronunciation of DOGE. “And there's all kinds of stuff going on. Like, so let's start with the string of mass firings by Elon Musk's dodge – Doege? Dogge? Doggy. Dogey. Has sparked a lot of chaos, confusion, and fear…” Adding: “Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is defending the firing of 400 FAA workers.” Nearing the end of the segment, Goldberg called on Musk to be what gets “cut” next, despite being incapable of remembering what a government contract was: GOLDBERG: Elon has very many, what do you call it -- SUNNY HOSTIN: Government contracts. GOLDBERG: Government contracts. She then demanded to know when she personally gave permission for the government to buy Telsa Cybertrucks and go into contract with SpaceX. “I don't remember looking for an armored car,” she shouted like a lunatic. “I don't remember asking for it, I don't know why I'm paying for it. I want to know when did I say, ‘hey, we need another agency next to NASA, so let's just’ – So, when did we start paying for his stuff?!”     Sorry to be the one to break it two you Whoopi, but an unelected, washed-up Hollywood has been doesn’t get an individual say in military and government procurement. Goldberg’s later comment that SpaceX was NASA’s “competition” also betrayed her ignorance of just how long SpaceX had been around and the company’s relationship with the space agency. Here’s a little history lesson that Goldberg could benefit from. After being founded my Musk in 2002, SpaceX’s Falcon series of rockets revolutionized space craft manufacturing in the way they brought down the cost of construction and maintenance. And whereas NASA-developed booster rockets were one-time-use and were dumped in the ocean, SpaceX’s were reusable. More recently, they developed the technology to catch the rockets out of the air when they returned. Goldberg was likely also ignorant of how the U.S. Space Shuttle program shut down in 2011 under her favorite president: Barack Obama. After which, the United States government was paying Russia to fly American astronauts into space (how embarrassing). The following year (2012; still Obama), NASA and SpaceX inked a contract to develop a crew capsule: Dragon. And in May of 2020, SpaceX took its first crew to the International Space Station. Actually knowing the history of how SpaceX revitalized American space exploration, brought manned launches back to American soil, and was the literal engines of NASA these days, would really help Goldberg from looking like a complete fool with profoundly ignorant arguments like these: If we want to cut some money let's cut some of these. I'm okay with that. Cause I have to – we have to pay for it. You are paying for everything he sends up that comes back down that falls back down and breaks up. That's out of our pockets. But ABC doesn’t care about the truth. They just want rage The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 18, 2025 11:17:28 a.m. Eastern (…) WHOOPI GOLDBERG: I have been panicking over all this insanity with these planes! You know? And there's all kinds of stuff going on. Like, so let's start with the string of mass firings by Elon Musk's dodge – Doege? Dogge? JOY: Doge, they say, yeah. GOLDBERG: Doggy. Dogey. Has sparked a lot of chaos, confusion, and fear because Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is defending the firing of 400 FAA workers. But former Secretary Pete Buttigieg slammed the firings of employees who control communications, radio, commuter systems all given – given all the confusion, so is this really the time to be laying off folks, and who is exactly getting laid off? (…) 11:21:18 a.m. Eastern GOLDBERG: Let me say someplace that could really use a lot of cutting, you know – [Turns to address someone in the audience] Yeah. [ Laughter ] Elon. JOY BEHAR: Elon. GOLDBERG: Elon has very many, what do you call it -- SUNNY HOSTIN: Government contracts. GOLDBERG: Government contracts. BEHAR: Yeah. HOSTIN: Yeah. GOLDBERG: I think, because I don't remember -- maybe y'all heard it, but I don't remember looking for an armored car. HOSTIN: An ugly one too. GOLDBERG: I don't remember -- I don't -- I don't care what it looks like, I don't remember asking for it, I don't know why I'm paying for it. I want to know when did I say, ‘hey, we need another agency next to NASA, so let's just’ – So, when did we start paying for his stuff? SARA HAINES: You’re talking about SpaceX overseeing FAA. GOLDBERG: No. No. You know that he's going to be cutting NASA. HOSTIN: Yeah. GOLDBERG: That's the competition. So, what is the real deal here? If we want to cut some money let's cut some of these. I'm okay with that. [Applause] BEHAR: Follow the money. GOLDBERG: Cause I have to – we have to pay for it. HAINES: Yeah. GOLDBERG: You are paying for everything he sends up that comes back down that falls back down and breaks up. That's out of our pockets. We'll be right back.

The Trump administration dealt a massive blow to the censorship “nerve center” of the federal government.  The New York Post announced in a Feb. 14 article that “The Department of Homeland Security is moving to fire 12 employees of a federal cybersecurity agency that policed ‘misinformation’ while pausing ‘all elections security activities’ pending further review of free-speech implications.” The agency implicated, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), has already reportedly been shrunk down to size, with the Trump administration cutting 130 total employees so far.  [Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America]