The post Put your avocados in a beer koozie plus 39 other surprising food hacks appeared first on Shareably.

A House committee is set to release an investigative report on the Biden-Harris administration’s botched exit from Afghanistan, but a former committee staffer contends the probe should have been much tougher.  Jerry Dunleavy, a former Washington Examiner reporter and author of the book “Kabul: The Untold Story of Biden’s Fiasco,” was on the investigative staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which has probed why so many things went wrong in the chaotic exit in 2021.  Dunleavy announced his resignation Monday with a post on the social media platform X in which he sharply criticized the House committee’s chairman, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas. Dunleavy wrote in the post that the committee’s investigation has been a “sham” and wrote, the “committee has refused to fulfill its important obligation to thoroughly expose the Biden-Harris Admin’s duplicity & its atrocious decision-making during America’s retreat & defeat in Afghanistan.” NEW: I resigned in protest from Chairman McCaul’s House Foreign Affairs investigation into the Biden-Harris Admin’s disastrous & deadly Afghanistan withdrawal. Resignation letter below. Despite my repeated urging, McCaul failed to seek answers on & accountability for the debacle.… pic.twitter.com/lTBrKCXJkx— Jerry Dunleavy IV ?? (@JerryDunleavy) August 12, 2024 Abbey Gate refers to a section of the Kabul airport where a suicide bomber with the terrorist group ISIS-K set off a device that killed 13 American service members. McCaul sent a letter Tuesday to Secretary of State Antony Blinken inviting him to testify to the House committee, and warning if he did not, he would be subpoenaed.  “Unlike other senior U.S. Department of Defense, Department of State, and National Security Council officials, you have not yet answered questions as part of the Committee’s investigation,” McCaul wrote to Blinken. “The time is now ripe for you to appear, and as you describe, honor the sacrifice of the Gold Star families by providing answers to the American people.” Read the letter from CHM @RepMcCaul requesting @SecBlinken testify before the committee on the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan — or face a subpoena. “The time is now ripe for you to appear, and as you describe, honor the sacrifice of the…— House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority (@HouseForeignGOP) August 13, 2024 Dunleavy did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s inquiries by phone and text Tuesday, but did an interview Monday night on The First TV network.   “The committee is not doing the basic things it needs to do,” Dunleavy said. “The things that we have done oftentimes have been treating people with kid gloves, people who share a big piece of responsibility for what happened.” Dunleavy, a reporter at the Washington Examiner from 2019 to 2023, added: “I am worried that the U.S. government, the State Department, the Pentagon, the intelligence community, they have not learned their lessons because they have not had to—because no one has been held accountable.” McCaul spokesperson Emily Cassil said the committee chairman is committed to a thorough investigation and committed to the Gold Star families, the term for families that have lost members in active duty military service. “Having worked for Chairman McCaul for two years, I can tell you he pours his heart and soul into getting answers for our Gold Star families and Afghanistan veterans,” Cassil told The Daily Signal.  She noted that a committee report will be issued in September. “That will be evident in a few weeks when [McCaul] releases his expansive report, which is the result of thousands of hours of work on both the staff and member level,” Cassil said. “Its release will not be the end of our work, but a crucial next step toward ensuring the personal accountability that the Biden-Harris administration refused to provide.” The House Foreign Affairs Committee has noted that it lacks authority to compel testimony from White House or National Security Council officials. Defense Department officials come under the purview of the House Armed Services Committee, which has assisted in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s probe. The internal clash follows reports earlier this year that the probe was shaping up to be the most successful congressional oversight effort regarding the Biden-Harris administration and thus was most worrisome to administration officials. President Joe Biden wanted to be out of Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021—the 20-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America—despite the risk that the Taliban, an Islamist organization, would regain control of the country. Three weeks before that anniversary, on Aug. 21, 2021, a suicide bomber with the terrorist organization ISIS-K set off an explosion that killed 183 people—including 13 U.S. service members—outside the Kabul airport. The bomber had been released recently by the Taliban.  The hasty exit from Afghanistan led to the Taliban’s gaining control of about $7 billion worth of U.S. military weapons and equipment.  The Biden administration has said that as of March, officials aren’t sure how many Americans were left behind in Afghanistan. As of mid-2023, the State Department said it had rescued about 800 Americans and about 600 legal permanent U.S. residents from Afghanistan after initially leaving them behind in the evacuation. Afghan translators for the military and other sympathetic natives were among those left behind.    Afghanistan also has grown closer to China since the American exit.  Meanwhile, the White House has argued that bringing the troops home strengthened America. “We have rallied our allies and partners to support Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for its aggression—and to rise to compete with China,” said an April 2023 statement issued by the White House that was meant to explain decisions and challenges involved in the withdrawal.  “It is hard to imagine the United States would have been able to lead the response to these challenges as successfully—especially in the resource-intensive way that it has— if U.S. forces remained in Afghanistan today,” the White House said. House Republicans issued an earlier report while the GOP was still in the chamber’s minority in August 2022.  In the investigation that will produce the forthcoming report, committee members and staff investigators conducted transcribed interviews with about 20 senior Biden-Harris administration officials.  Those interviewed include Under Secretary of Defense for Political Affairs John Bass, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan; former White House press secretary Jen Psaki; Derek Chollet, chief of staff to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and former counselor to the State Department during the withdrawal; Suzy George, chief of staff to Blinken at the time; State Department Senior Adviser Ned Price, former Ambassador Ross Wilson, chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul; and former Ambassador Dan Smith, author of the State Department’s after-action review on the Afghanistan withdrawal.  The post House Probe of Exit From Afghanistan Lacks Answers and Accountability, Ex-Staffer Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Live Primary Results: Hat Trick For The Squad? MN, WI, CT, VT

MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider nuked leftist billionaire George Soros’ campaign to direct and control 126 soft-on-crime prosecutors he helped elect.  Schneider went after the “Soros machine” for “upending” the justice system on the Aug. 12 edition of The Vince Coglianese Show. During the interview he discussed MRC’s newly released study exposing that Soros spent $117 million on enacting his criminal justice vision, helping elect leftist prosecutors and funding groups to assist, control and direct them in office.  MRC Business uncovered 7,785 pages of internal communications between these Soros prosecutors demonstrating not only their radicalism but also the incredible control Soros-funded groups exercised over them.  During the interview, Schneider said that George and Alex Soros were “upending” the justice system because they have a “perverted sense of society.” He added, “They don’t like tradition, they don’t like logic and reason and how those things have helped form a peaceful cohesive society. They are upending everything.”  Schneider continued, “They have installed these prosecutors all over the country, and then they have forced these prosecutors to sign pledges vowing that they shall not enforce the law.” These pledges include promises not to enforce laws protecting children from genital mutilation and chemical castration. Schneider ripped the prosecutors for signing pledges circulated by Soros groups to not enforce the law. He said, “This is unlawful behavior of these prosecutors. And if they're conspiring to do this, that sounds like a RICO violation to me.” Schneider noted that Soros-backed prosecutors who failed to show due deference to these groups were punished and that Soros “targets them for elimination.” He mentioned former Harris County District Attorney Kimberly Ogg. When she failed to sign some extreme pledges from the Soros-funded group Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) the Soros machine ripped away her funding and backed a different candidate who defeated her in the 2024 primary.   Schneider said, “[Ogg] didn't want to sign some of these pledges. So [Soros] mounted a campaign to have her removed. So he really does control these prosecutors, their agenda. And if they don't bow down to him, if they don't follow his lead, he gets them kicked to the curb and he'll replace them with somebody else.” The MRC Free Speech Vice President emphasized just how much deference the Soros prosecutors show to Soros-funded groups. Schneider said that many of these prosecutors ran afoul of state ethics rules because they failed to report all-expenses-paid trips to attend Soros group meetings, including “mandatory” meetings, as gifts. “But because these lawyers thought that this was just part of their job to respond to him, they didn't report these things as gifts, this travel expenditure. So they got in trouble ethically,” he said. Schneider went on to say that Soros even funded the legal defense of his prosecutors in these cases. “George Soros then paid for their defense. He hired lawyers to defend the illegal prosecutors to try to get them off the hook. But it's just a sign of how these prosecutors really see George Soros as their boss. When he beckons them, they come running.”  Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report Soros’ connections to radical district attorneys throughout the country.

On Tuesday, ABC’s Good Morning America was somewhere between apoplectic and forlorn over former President Trump’s two-hour-long interview with X owner and entrepreneur Elon Musk on everything from artificial intelligence to the assassination attempt on Trump’s life to the economy to immigration to North Korea. Despite its depth, length, and the number of topics (none of which Kamala Harris seems willing to do with anyone anytime soon), ABC kvetched that it was little more than “a very familiar pattern of controversial statements, insults and attacks” from Trump that included “anti-Semitic” remarks and “brushing off dire warnings about the impact of climate change.” This segment from ABC's 'Good Morning America' is wild. Absurd framing, starting with Stephanopoulos boasting of Trump "struggling to counter the rise of Kamala Harris". It got worse with Kamala tool @RachelVScott huffing @realDonaldTrump and @ElonMusk's @X conversation was no… pic.twitter.com/yIKA8IyywD — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) August 13, 2024 Co-host and former NFL player Michael Strahan read what was probably penned for him in a tease: Trump bringing up false claims and controversial statements, laying out what he would do if reelected, including shutting down the Department of Education and ignoring concerns about the impact of climate change. Trump also attacking Vice President Harris and President Biden. How the Harris campaign is responding this morning. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos also understood the assignment. He bragged that Trump’s “struggl[ing] to counter the rise of Kamala Harris” (as though the election’s over) and hyped the real headline was the interview “was hampered by technical issues.” Senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott — who harangued Trump during that now-infamous National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) event — shilled for her friends in the Harris campaign from the get-go: This all got off to a rocky start. The conversation was delayed by more than 40 minutes because of tech issues. Elon Musk said he wanted to have this conversation so the former President could appeal to independent voters. But Trump fell into a very familiar pattern of controversial statements, insults and attacks. Scott made sure to emphasize January 6 as for why he was kicked off the site formerly known as Twitter crashed ahead of time, but almost suggested Musk lied because she declared there’s “no evidence” a cyberattack took place. She then (click “expand”): SCOTT: Overnight, Donald Trump’s vaunt return to the platform that once banished him for posting false claims about the election. The company saying at the time the account was permanently suspended “due to the further risk of incitement of violence.” It was reinstated by Elon Musk in November of 2022 when Musk bought the company. Trump returning to the conversation Monday for a conversation with Musk. Technical issues delaying it from the start for more than 40 minutes. Musk claiming a so-called denial of service attack, a kind of cyberattack that floods a server with traffic to force it offline, saying the “massive attack illustrates there’s a lot of opposition to people just hearing what President Trump has to say,” though he provided no evidence of such a cyberattack. MUSK: Alright, hello, everyone. So my apologies for the late start. SCOTT: Users getting messages like this saying “details not available”. Those able to get into the livestream, welcomed by hold music, then silence. X saying more than a million people eventually signed on. (....) SCOTT: Over two hours, the former President drifted into bringing up false claims, insults and controversial statements. Trump praising his relationships with authoritarian leaders, saying he got along well with North Korean leader Kim Jong un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. TRUMP: I get along with Kim Jong Un. We had dinner. We had everything and he — he really liked me and I got along with him. Instead of playing audio, Scott merely summarized a portion about Russia’s Vladimir Putin, saying “Trump also describ[ed] a conversation he had with Putin about invading Ukraine, claiming he told him not to invade” and kvetched that Trump would shut down the Department of Education. After running a statement on the interview from the Harris campaign as if she works there, Scott huffed about Trump “brushing off dire warnings about the impact of climate change,” “promised the largest deportation in history,” and “repeating claims that have been widely called anti-Semitic” by criticizing Jewish people who want to support Harris. And, to show how dense her hatred is, Scott seemed offended that President Biden’s name came up: “And, in a sign how much he’s struggled to pivot to a new rival, Trump also spent time attack President Biden even though he’s no longer in the race.” CBS Mornings and NBC’s Today were at least able to keep themselves from discombobulating. CBS’s Ed O’Keefe largely let soundbites from Trump and Musk speak for themselves, but co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King whined in the “Eye Opener” that Trump “attack[ed] his rivals, spread falsehoods, and discuss the attempt on his life.” Tossing to O’Keefe, King further complained: “It was delayed by technical difficulties and gave Trump an opportunity to focus on familiar falsehoods and personal attacks.” Over on NBC, correspondent Garrett Haake also took Scott’s approach to imply Musk lied about the cyberattack (“blamed without evidence on a hack”), whined that Trump “mispronounced Harris’s name”, and boasted Trump “prais[ed] Musk” for “mass firings and layoffs at his multiple companies”. To see the relevant ABC transcript from August 13, click here.

The Harris campaign and the liberal establishment have worked feverishly in recent months to mischaracterize the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 as regressive, weird, and authoritarian. This attack campaign, which has involved falsely ascribing various unpopular proposals like suspending democracy and banning no-fault divorce to the conservative initiative, has proven largely effective at rendering the Project 2025 brand radioactive ahead of the election. 'They know that that the American people want a return to normal.' Even President Donald Trump — whose platform echoes many of the project's proposed policy recommendations — has disavowed it, stating, "Some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." Heritage recently had the polling outfit Echelon Insights ask thousands of Americans in swing states what they thought about some of the actual policy proposals contained in Project 2025's "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise." The resultant polling data provided to Blaze News is quite telling. It turns out that many of Project 2025's policy proposals are neither fringe nor unpopular, contrary to what many have been led to believe. Rather, the data suggests they find resonance with majorities across states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. "This is why we did the poll," a Heritage spokesman told Blaze News. "We knew that these policies were popular with the American people." What is Project 2025? Hundreds of conservative groups, policy wonks, and scholars got to work in 2022 drafting a plan on how the next president could effectively "take down the Deep State and return the government to the people." Through this collaborative effort, which came to be known as Project 2025, conservatives arrived at a host of policy recommendations that might aid in this pursuit, including: increasing oversight of the Department of Justice and FBI; eliminating the Department of Education; unfettering American energy production as a means to reduce prices and boost the economy; ousting those obstructionist partisans in the federal bureaucracy who may again attempt to prevent the duly elected president from realizing his mandate; securing the border and ousting illegal aliens; and banning men from participating in women's sports. These and numerous other policy recommendations were fleshed out in detail and published in the book, "Mandate for Leadership." A Heritage spokesman emphasized to Blaze News that the policy book "really is candidate-agnostic." "The book was published in April 2023, before the primary, and the project was started before that. The book had 400 authors, the group has over 110 organization, and it's really a full menu of the conservative movement," added the spokesman. "It's a menu of policies we hope that the next president takes," continued the spokesman. "We did this for Trump in 2016, and he took a lot of them. We did this for Bush — didn't take as many of them. And a lot of people don't know this, but we did this for Reagan in 1981." In his foreword to the book, Heritage president Kevin Roberts noted, "Conservatives should be confident that we can rescue our kids, reclaim our culture, revive our economy, and defeat the anti-American Left — at home and abroad. We did it before and will do it again." Roberts underscored that ultimately, the aim should be to: "Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children"; "dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people"; "defend our nation's sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats"; and "secure our God-given individual rights to live freely." Roberts recently told Jill Savage, co-host of "Blaze News Tonight," that the left is "terrified" of the assistance Project 2025 could provide a future commander in chief, "not just because of how cohesive it is, Jill, but for another very important reason: They know that that the American people want a return to normal." "They want a return to common sense policy, and when they look at Project 2025, ... most Americans go to that website and realize, 'Gosh, we agree with that,'" added Roberts. - An effective attack campaign Leftists have worked hard in recent months to denigrate, discredit, and ultimately neutralize the conservative initiative. Before President Joe Biden was pressured into abandoning his re-election bid, his campaign advanced the claims that Project 2025 "would strip away our freedoms"; turn the FBI and DOJ into "enforcement arms of the White House"; "force states to report women's miscarriages and abortions to Trump's Federal Government"; and "enable discrimination against LGBTQ+ Americans." According to the Heritage spokesman, the Biden campaign "took the unknown brand of 2025, lied about it, created their own policies, and then just shoved them out there — policies that are not popular with the American people but almost every single one of which are not actually in the project." In a similar bout of projection, GLAAD — the radical homosexual activist group that supports sex changes for kids — branded Project 2025 as an affront to so-called progress. "Project 2025 is an assault on every America," said GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis, who was recently busted for allegedly blowing organizational funds on her lavish lifestyle and possibly violating IRS rules in the process. "It would create an America where the freedoms that are hallmark to our Democracy are replaced with authoritarianism and the progress we have made for LGBTQ people, people of color, women, and other marginalized communities is stripped away." Leftists and establishmentarians in the American media have also done their best to smear the conservative initiative. The Washington Post advanced the suggestion that the initiative is tantamount to "an authoritarian 'revolution.'" The New Republic claimed Project 2025's policy book lays "out a Christian nationalist vision of the United States, one in which married heterosexuality is the only valid form of sexual expression and identity; all pregnancies would be carried to term, even if that requires coercion or death; and transgender and gender-nonconforming people do not exist." The New Republic further added: This playbook, the groups and donors behind it, the installation of ideologically motivated staff across government agencies, and the theory that the Constitution permits the executive to rule absolutely, is more than guidance for a new conservative presidential administration. It is also one of the right’s most open admissions that they aim to install an authoritarian ruler and roll out a twenty-first-century American fascism. The leftist blog Mother Jones asserted last year, "Project 2025 is an out-in-the-open scheme to steer the US toward far-right autocracy." It appears many Americans' first and only exposure to Project 2025 was through the media's attack campaign. A YouGov poll conducted last month indicated that a great many Americans had never heard of Project 2025. Those who had tended to be Democrats. The Economist conducted a survey earlier this month, finding that 15% of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of Project 2025, 46% signaled disfavor, and 39% said they didn't know. Whereas 50% of likely Harris voters said they had heard a lot about the project, only 16% of likely Trump supporters said the same. Popular policies and values Echelon Insights polled Americans in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, asking them what they thought about various Project 2025 policy recommendations. The pollsters discovered that respondents were largely on board with what has otherwise been presented as fringe and "authoritarian." Respondents were asked, for instance, whether they supported "eliminating the Department of Education, moving control and funding of education from DC bureaucrats to parents and state and local governments." 49% of respondents said they supported axing the department. 41% signaled opposition. 10% said they were unsure. The sample sizes across the eight states ranged from 301 to 377, altogether amounting to a sample of 2,638 likely voters in what Echelon Insights called the "Senate and swing states." Among the respondents, 38% said they considered themselves to be Republican; 35% answered, "Democrat"; and 22% answered, "Independent." Respondents were asked whether they supported increasing accountability and oversight of the FBI and DOJ in the interest of "deweaponizing the federal government." Overall, 62% said they strongly or somewhat favor this policy recommendation. Only 25% signaled opposition. Support for the initiative was especially strong in Pennsylvania, where 70% of respondents were on board. Majorities in each of the eight states supported building a wall to secure the U.S. border. Overall, 62% supported the endeavor. Super-majorities in every one of the eight states supported the proposition that businesses need to verify their employees are legal American residents. Opposition never exceeded 17%. When Heritage asked respondents whether they supported "fully enforcing immigration laws, including deporting individuals who have violated these laws," 79% of respondents said they strongly or somewhat favored the proposal. 16% signaled opposition. Other Project 2025 policy recommendations similarly were met with overwhelming support: 70% of respondents supported sending American troops and equipment to the southern border to confront the drug cartels and secure the border. Only 24% said they were strongly or somewhat opposed. 73% of respondents — including 81% in Montana — supported cutting illegal aliens off all government payments. 20% signaled opposition. 69% of respondents indicated they favored the proposed requirement that Congress approve any major federal regulations before they could take effect. 19% signaled opposition. 62% of respondents said they supported expanding "oil and gas drilling on federal lands to increase fossil fuel production and reduce energy prices." 81% supported cutting the growth of government spending annually to reduce inflation. 12% signaled opposition. Although responses to questions regarding reductions on business regulations and axing federal DEI programs were closer splits, the Project 2025 propositions still had the edge. When it came time to see whether the values advocated by Project 2025 resonated with Americans in swing states, Heritage again found itself tallying significant support. The poll revealed that 73% of respondents opposed men in women's sports; 67% believed teachers should have to tell parents if their child wants to change their "name, gender, or pronouns"; and 65% agreed federal agencies should be "held more accountable to the democratically elected President and Congress." Although respondents revealed themselves more often than not to be on board with Project 2025's raft of policy proposals, when asked whether they supported the initiative by name based on what they know, they initially offered an answer reflected in previous polls. Only 14% of respondents said they strongly or somewhat supported Project 2025. 47% said they opposed it. 39% said they were unsure. However, upon being provided with a short description of what Project 2025 is — a description the New Republic and CNN might be loathe to print — respondents changed their tune: Project 2025 is an initiative not affiliated with any candidate that makes a set of policy recommendations to the next presidential administration. These recommendations include action to secure the border, unleashing domestic energy production, reducing inflation, and defending America against global threat. Overall, 52% said they supported Project 2025. 36% signal opposition. Only 12% remained unsure. Whereas prior to respondents reading the definition, support for the conservative initiative was lowest in Arizona (11%), afterward, it saw spike to the second-highest (54%) amongst the eight states. These results may indicate that Project 2025's detractors trafficking in accusations of weirdness are themselves the extremists. Following this survey-based narrative corrective, a Heritage spokesman indicated that the conservative organization is now planning to spend $1 million highlighting the polices Kamala Harris has supported "that are very, very extreme." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Over the weekend, I took my daughter and her best friend on a day trip from Northern Virginia to Hico, West Virginia. In a matter of 120 minutes, you pass from one of the statistically wealthiest areas in the United States to some of the most destitute roadside neighborhoods you’ll see in the region. The friend asked why it's like this in West Virginia, and all I could think to say in response was, “All your friends back in Northern Virginia, what do their parents do for work?” It didn’t take her long. She responded, “Oh like mostly the Pentagon, Boeing, and I know a few kids whose parents go out to Quantico.” That’s not an answer to why West Virginia is more poor, but it does explain the wealth of Northern Virginia. Connection to the federal government is an economy of its own, and the tentacles of federal money cover 61 square miles and ten counties known as the DMV. Say what you will about Apple, but it’s a company that frustrates the U.S. federal government with its dogmatic approach to consumer privacy and walled garden systems. We need more of that, not less. Billions of dollars float through Virginia and Maryland in the form of federal grants for research and development related to technology, medicine, education, and much more. What that means is that there is seldom a microchip, vaccine, weapons system, satellite, or AI tool that hasn’t benefited directly or indirectly from taxpayer dollars somewhere in its development. Government funds have strings attached While this arrangement between the public and private sectors has historically been a boon to the United States in a global economy, there is a real risk to American innovation if certain norms are busted by lawmakers looking to score political points. The federal government could seize control of most patents in AI, microchip tech, and pharmaceuticals using a legal tool known as “march-in rights.” As recently as last week, the Biden administration is under pressure from Democratic lawmakers to use march-in rights to lower pharmaceutical drug prices. This authority, granted by the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, empowers the government to take over patents on products developed using federal funding if those products are not reasonably available to the public. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Angus King (I-Maine), along with Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, urging them to quickly finalize the guidance on federal "march-in rights." These Democrats think the use of march-in rights is a straightforward way to lower consumer drug prices and would have observers believe the political upside is a mere coincidence in an election year. The norms around “march-in rights” are essential. This power exists but has never been used before, despite several petitions for the government to do so in recent decades. Like most powers the federal government acquires, there are good reasons it came to pass. The Bayh-Dole Act was originally designed to encourage the commercialization of technological innovation by allowing universities and small businesses to retain patent rights on products developed with federal funding. This led to the development of many new technologies and medicines ranging from a chemotherapy drug for cancer patients called Taxol to the common allergy medication Allegra and even next-generation firefighting drones. A federal agency can theoretically leverage march-in rights and grant licenses for a product funded by taxpayer dollars if these four conditions are met: The current licensee has failed or is unlikely to achieve the “practical application” of the invention. Action is required to address “health or safety needs.” The product is needed to fulfill “public use requirements” as stipulated by federal regulations. The product is not being predominantly “manufactured” within the United States. It should come as no surprise that the Biden administration is not keen on letting the market determine drug prices. The Biden administration recently debuted a framework for how it might make use of the Bayh-Dole Act to start setting prices on a narrow subset of drugs. What could go wrong? (Everything.) Most consumer drugs on the market are the result of multiple patents held by developers rather than researchers funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. The latter scenario is one with the ever-present potential of government intervention and seizure of the patent. That potential is what spooks innovators across the most vital sectors in the American economy. In ventures where the risk is high, firms are less inclined to make major investments. A fine example of this is when the Federal Communications Commission introduced regulatory uncertainty into the broadband sector, which led to a 10% decline in private-sector investments toward broadband. Consumers nationwide saw reduced network coverage and reliability. This can happen in the artificial intelligence space, microchips, and cloud computing. Federal dollars are everywhere in these industries. Large companies like AMD, Intel, and Nvidia receive federal funding for AI or semiconductor research and could be subject to march-in rights once the dam breaks on its use. The government might justify seizing patents if it determines that the public interest or national security is at stake. Consider the situation if China were to finally invade or blockade Taiwan, a small neighbor that produces 90% of the global supply of advanced chip technology. This would be a real emergency for consumer products and sensitive government tech used for national security. The same goes for the global race to develop AI technology using federal funds for R&D. If AI is produced and isn’t being deployed in a way that benefits the United States during a potential foreign war, the government could step in using march-in rights on products created through the Bayh-Dole Act. In these scenarios, with all the norms restricting the government’s use of march-in rights to seize patents shattered, you could see a dramatic decline in the vitality of American tech innovation. Even worse, you could see the government attempt to actively control these patented technologies and award them to domestic partners who will be the most cooperative with the government when pushed. Say what you will about Apple, but it’s a company that frustrates the U.S. federal government with its dogmatic approach to consumer privacy and walled garden systems. We need more of that, not less. With so much next-generation technology being developed in the D.C. area with government dollars as a subsidy, we must strongly resist calls in Congress to wield march-in rights inappropriately. Drug prices should be lower, but in market economies, there are better paths to take such as streamlining the approval of generics, expanding the use of Health Savings Accounts, and importing prescription drugs from foreign competitors.

Big tech doesn’t want you to fix your property. It would seem to prefer a slow creep into expansive, endless control through an ongoing, multi-pronged program of planned obsolescence. And in many places, the law is on its side. But now, a movement aimed at building bulwarks against this slide into servitude has recently gained valuable ground and momentum in the tech-heavy Pacific Northwest. This overarching problem of centralized power creeping deeper into absolute ownership and control — we are merely renters, actually slaves to the production of yet more technology — needs to be addressed in the strongest, smartest possible terms.In Oregon, legislators have joined the so-called Right to Repair movement. The label refers to the straightforward and rather American notion that we can simply do with our property what we wish — repair, modify, augment, etc. Right to repair advocates seek to force manufacturers of everyday appliances and electronics to provide the tools and technical know-how to maintain, troubleshoot, and repair their products. Five states thus far have enacted legislation similar to the new Oregon law. As daily life shows us all too well, the creeping, inbuilt obsolescence of consumer products, forcing the buyer to comply in ways he or she is unlikely to ever foresee, is planned out well in advance. Who among us isn’t familiar with the experience of coming to realize that the printer cartridges — paid out over a few months of moderate use — quickly wind up costing more than the printer? Not coincidental, of course. Or, recall that first time hearing the sentence “your phone is due for an upgrade.” Or, we might ask, how many iterations of phone charger or power cord (which require the purchase of a suite of accessories) are necessary to achieve some acceptable level of functionality? With electronics, the forced need to upgrade is often triggered with minor changes to the software or through the installation of access-resistant components — obstacles that not even specialized repairmen can overcome. The trend isn’t restricted to digital technology, either. The scheme is further ensured by building repair-resistant features into those components such that replacement parts will only function if matched to that exact serialized phone, computer, vehicle, or tractor.The efforts by corporations to hold on to their products even after consumers have purchased them have already remodeled various segments of the economy. John Deere, to take one monstrous example, has held American farmers over the proverbial barrel for years insisting that when repairs on tractors are necessary — even in the middle of a critical harvest or planting seasons — they turn only to a few specialized repair outfits that are equipped with the necessary proprietary diagnostic and access tools. Litigation against John Deere by farmers in the heartland is ongoing. A few major tech firms have begun to waver in the face of mounting opposition. Tech giants Apple and Google have signaled support for laws in Oregon and California, states where pressures from environmental advocacy groups are, to some degree, taken seriously. In fact, the only notable kickback against the premises of the Right to Repair movement feels tepid. Those fighting against Right to Repair claim that allowing customers to repair their electronics subjects them to higher levels of data insecurity. Maybe. In Oregon, the legislation seems to have passed on consumer advocate sentiment and the promise that the refurbishment of electronics and appliances would inevitably lead to less manufacturing, transport, and related environmental impact. Oregon’s new law actually goes farther than similar laws passed in other states. It addresses an aspect of the obsolescence issue termed “parts pairing," which is the practice of using software to mandate the use of specified (read: controlled, metered, profitable) parts in repair or modification. Say an auto manufacturer wishes to increase its hold on a product. One way to achieve this with existing technology might be to tag a tire or a side mirror with an RF chip and write some software such that the vehicle's operation becomes impossible without the proper (read: payable to the manufacturer or manufacturer’s client) replacement component. Control concentrates ever more under such a scheme. What happens if the conglomerate is also financially or otherwise associated with social credit-type programs? It is feasible at this point, given enough desire or incentive, that a “social demerit” could not only restrict your bank account but even access to necessary components of various owned property. How do you plow the field or deliver that refrigerated produce then? This overarching problem of centralized power creeping deeper into absolute ownership and control — we are merely renters, actually slaves to the production of yet more technology — needs to be addressed in the strongest, smartest possible terms. The right to repair seems to be a piece. Long-term, the alternative is clear: a nightmarishly inescapable Internet of Things where compliance with corporate and government dictates is the condition of use for every appliance, meter, and thermostat — each connected to a central AI for management and functioning.

Of the four planes hijacked on September 11, 2001, Flight 93 was the only one that failed to hit its intended target — in part thanks to the heroism of Todd Beamer. The post ‘Let’s Roll’: The Story Of Todd Beamer’s Heroics On 9/11 appeared first on All That's Interesting.

Just three minutes before his plane crashed into the World Trade Center on 9/11, former Navy pilot and Desert Storm veteran Brian D. Sweeney called his wife Julie and left a haunting final voicemail to say goodbye. The post The Story Behind Brian Sweeney’s Heartbreaking Final Voicemail To His Wife On 9/11 appeared first on All That's Interesting.