Our Moon continues to surprise us with amazing features. Scientists recently shared new information about two canyons that branch out from a major lunar impact. The site is the Schrödinger basin near the Moon’s South Pole. It formed when an asteroid or possibly even a leftover planetesimal slammed into the surface. It took only minutes to dig out that huge crater and split the landscape to make two huge rifts that extend from the site. According to David Kring of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, TX, the impact is of very ancient origin. “Nearly four billion years ago,” he said, “an asteroid or comet flew over the lunar south pole, brushed by the mountain summits of Malapert and Mouton, and hit the lunar surface. The impact ejected high-energy streams of rock that carved two canyons that rival the size of Earth’s Grand Canyon. While the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form, the two grand canyons on the Moon were carved in less than 10 minutes.” Those two canyons—named Vallis Schrödinger and Vallis Planck—are significant clues to that turbulent time in the Moon’s past. And, they’re impressive. Vallis Schrödinger is just under 300 kilometers long, 20 km wide, and 2.7 kilometers deep. Vallis Planck has two units. One is a deep canyon within the ejecta blanket of debris thrown out by the impact. The rest comprises a row of craters made as falling rocks were thrown out from the impact. They fell back to the Moon to create so-called “secondary craters.” The canyon part is about 280 kilometers deep, 27 km wide, and 3.5 km deep. The depth of both of these canyons surpasses the deep gorges of Earth’s Grand Canyon in Arizona. Anatomy of an Impact and its Aftermath The impactor probably slammed into the surface at nearly 55,000 kilometers per hour. The crash is what produced the enormous 320-kilometer-diameter Schrödinger impact basin. In the aftermath, the rocky debris scoured the deep canyons. Schrödinger formed in the outer margin of the South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin. At a diameter of about 2,400 km, it’s the largest and oldest impact basin on the Moon. The basin’s rim is about 300 km from the South Pole and within 125 km of the proposed exploration site for the Artemis mission. The Schrödinger crater has a ~150-km diameter peak ring and the whole area is surrounded by a blanket of impact ejecta that splashed out in an irregular pattern up to 500 km away. The outermost crater ring resembles a circular mountain range and rises 1 to 2.5 km above the basin floor. It was produced by the collapse of a central uplift after the impact. After the impact, basaltic lava flows flooded the area. A large pyroclastic vent erupted more material onto the basin floor. That volcanic activity ended around 3.7 billion years ago. Impact Anomalies A careful analysis of the impact basin the canyons, and the ejecta surrounding the site by Kring and a team of scientists at the Lunar Planetary Laboratory, gives an idea of impact details. In a paper released about the site, the scientists discuss its features, plus some unusual finds. For example, the canyon rays don’t converge at the basin’s center as you might expect from typical impacts. They seem to come together in a different spot. That implies a point explosion impact. Schrödinger peak-ring impact basin and two radiating canyons carved by impact ejecta. NASA\SVS\Ernest T. Wright. b Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the Moon LRO LROC WAC Global Morphology Mosaic 100 centered on the Schrödinger basin, with the continuous ejecta blanket outlined and radial secondary crater rays (red). Vallis Schrödinger and Vallis Planck intersect near the southern rim of the basin (white point). The size of the point indicates the uncertainty. The projected bearing of the primary impactor (yellow) runs through the point of intersection and the basin center. A third unnamed feature extends in an uprange direction. The location of the converging rays suggests that the incoming asteroid’s trajectory was about 33.5 west of north. The evidence also points to a distributed impact. That could mean the impactor came in at a low angle. Or, it’s also possible that secondary ejecta from the impact also came in at low angles. There are many secondary craters in the area which help explain the possibilities. Continued analysis will help explain the huge amounts of energy released in the event. Gareth Collins, one of Kring’s team members, said, “The Schrödinger crater is similar in many regards to the dino-killing Chicxulub crater on Earth. By showing how Schrödinger’s km-deep canyons formed, this work has helped to illuminate how energetic the ejecta from these impacts can be.” Future Exploration Of course, these rays and the impact basin will end up as great exploration points for NASA’s upcoming Artemis missions. Right now, the evidence from the ejecta blanket points to the fact that there’s an uneven distribution, particularly in the area where the first missions are planned. That will allow astronauts and robotic probes to reach underlying samples of the Moon’s primordial crust without having to dig through rocks of a younger age. Since the basin is the second-youngest basin on the Moon, the impact melted rocks will be a great way to test the actual age of the impact. The general understanding is that some 3.8 billion years ago, the Moon (and Earth) experienced a great many of these collisions. This epoch was the Late Heavy Bombardment, thought to have lasted up to 200 million years. The continual impacts during this time scarred the surfaces of the rocky planets and the Moon, as well as asteroids. Lunar rocks created as a result of lava flows at that time will open a window into their ages and mineralogy, especially compared to other, older rock formations. They should also improve our understanding of that period of solar system history. In particular, it can help scientists characterize the impacts on Earth that affected not just the surface, but its life forms. For More Information Grand Canyons on the Moon (journal article)Grand Canyons on the Moon The post The Moon has Two Grand Canyons, Carved in Minutes by an Asteroid Impact appeared first on Universe Today.

It didn’t take long for life in the Talking Heads to start being a slog for everyone not named David Byrne. Even for Chris Frantz... The post How ‘Born Under Punches’ became Talking Heads most complex piece of music: “A whole new thing” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

When news of the hostage release was announced, Palestinian Arab Hamas terrorists came out of their tunnels, celebrating their supposed great “victory” over the Israelis. In some quarters, chants of “Khaybar” were heard, which commemorated another supposed victory (over the Jews) that occurred in the time of Mohammed. In the real world, the Hamas terrorists won no such victory. Not even a pyrrhic one. Their boasting is just reflective that Hamas, and Arab society in general, is known for its fact-free “victory” braggadocio about warfare. Especially if you lose the conflict. (RELATED: The 3/5 Compromise Has Nothing on Hamas’ 1/30 Compromise) Here are the facts. As former U.S. Secretary of State Blinken has said, “Hamas’s military and governance capacity has been decimated, and the masterminds behind the attack have been killed.” Indeed, Hamas’s command-and-control capabilities have been severely impaired, and its factories for large-scale weapons production have been destroyed. Israel killed most of the Hamas brigade and battalion commanders, and the IDF destroyed the groups’ capability to carry out another Oct. 7 massacre. The number one Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, was blown up in Iran by the Israelis. His replacement, Yahya Sinwar, who planned the Oct. 7 massacre, is also dead, with a gaping hole in his skull, courtesy of the IDF. Mohammed Deif, the head of the military wing of Hamas, was also eliminated, as well as 6 other senior leaders. The remaining leaders of Hamas have decided not to replace Sinwar, so as not to endanger the life of the replacement leader, who would be immediately targeted and eliminated by the Israelis. The terror legions of Hamas have been totally decimated by relentless IDF operations. The IDF has killed almost 20,000 terror fighters in Gaza in total. Before the conflict, there were 20,000-25,000 Hamas fighters, and they were split into five regional brigades, 24 battalions, and some 140 companies. Only two of those brigades are still operational. Most of the Hamas terrorists are gone, although undoubtedly, some of the deaths are of non-Hamas fighters from Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Authority, and other smaller Palestinian Arab factions that participated in the conflict. Hamas sometimes claims a lower number of terrorists were killed, but no credible objective observer would believe the frequently dishonest terror group, also known for raping women and torturing and slaughtering innocent children, or the clearly antisemitic and biased U.N., which frequently echoes their claims, over a democratic nation and U.S. ally such as Israel. Over 100,000 Palestinian Arabs have been wounded in the conflict, according to the Hamas statistics, which are certainly inflated. While no distinction is made here between civilians and fighters, it is likely that large numbers of the still-living fighters in the Hamas militia have suffered injuries.  The idea floated by Blinken and others that Hamas is just as strong as ever because it has already replenished its forces, by enlisting new and untrained teenagers to replace battle-hardened terror veterans, is absurd on its face. Hamas had over 200 tunnels connecting Gaza to the Sinai. Through these tunnels, they smuggled people, weapons, and equipment to and from the area. These tunnels — alleged to be 60 percent of the total — have been destroyed. Prior to Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas had full control over the land and the people of Gaza. That is no longer the case. They have control over the territory only if Israel allows them to exercise it. Their popularity has gone down; even some Palestinian Arabs have lost their faith in the Islamist group that has brought ruin, death, and destruction to their area, despite the knowledge that Hamas may track them down and murder them for their statements. The Islamic regime in Iran, one of the main funders for Hamas, is overstretched and staggering after Hamas’s loss, as well as other setbacks in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. That means that this source of revenue for Hamas is no longer secure. And President Trump and his more pro-Israel administration have replaced President Biden and his administration, meaning no further arms slowdowns to Israel are likely. The new national security advisor to President Trump, Michael Waltz, has also emphatically stated in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “Hamas will never govern Gaza. That is completely unacceptable.” Hamas lost this war. That is a fact. And they may even lose some more if President Trump’s plan takes effect. (READ MORE: Let The Man Cook) Now, if Ismail Haniyeh or Yahya Sinwar were still alive to hold a press conference, they might indeed be able to, insincerely, echo the language of King Pyrrhus, after his (actual) pyrrhic victory, where he lamented, “Another such victory and we shall be utterly ruined.” But they aren’t alive, and there is no Hamas leader willing and/or able to say such a thing. And if there was such a leader, and if he did say such a thing, it would be a lie, anyway. READ MORE: Profile in Courage: Trump’s Gaza Proposal To Reconstruct Gaza, First Deconstruct Gaza Israeli Hostages Turn Humiliation into Victory Adam Turner is a national security professional with over two decades of experience and works for the Zionist Organization of America. The post Hamas Declares Victory for Their Defeat in the Oct. 7 War appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The nation’s academic, political, and media elites often give the impression that nearly everything important in America comes out of savvy thinking and actions from enlightened communities on the East and West Coasts, with little of consequence originating in the “flyover country” in between, although the Trump victory of 2024 showed some important shortcomings of that perspective. We are often led to believe that America’s leaders are largely developed in coastal enclaves, often largely hatched in elite universities near Boston (led by Harvard and M.I.T.) or the San Francisco Bay region (led by Stanford and University of California-Berkeley). This perception can be effectively attacked on several levels, but here I would argue that Chicago — the de facto capital of flyover country — is a third academic powerhouse city. While Harvard and M.I.T. are both at the top of the top dozen colleges ranked by U.S. News in their influential rankings, in the Bay region, Berkeley falls short (17th), but both Northwestern (tied for 6th) and Chicago (tied for 11th) make it. And within a few hours’ drive of either of those Windy City campuses are such highly respected schools as Notre Dame, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Michigan — all solidly within the top 25 in U.S. News’ assessment. There is a good deal of consequential wisdom emanating more than 50 miles from the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Located only about 20 miles apart geographically and both founded in the 19th century, the University of Chicago and Northwestern are decidedly different schools in other dimensions. Chicago has long been considered a school for brainy nerds with a historically distinctive classical curriculum — but, horrors of horrors, no football team! Northwestern, by contrast, is far more conventional, more typical of highly competitive private schools (full disclosure: I am a Northwestern graduate), perhaps with more social party animals than nerds, and a member of the powerful Big Ten Athletic Conference. The University of Chicago is located in the gritty relatively high-crime South Side of Chicago, whereas Northwestern is in relatively upscale suburban Evanston (nearby is the decidedly posh home featured in the movie Home Alone). The University of Chicago is located in an overwhelmingly liberal part of town, with Barack Obama being the most famous former professor. Yet Chicago has become a national leader in endorsing institutional neutrality, with the school itself steadfastly not taking positions on issues of the day even as individual Chicago students and faculty utter all sorts of provocative thoughts. As two University of Chicago scholars, Tony Banout and Tom Ginsburg put it recently: “The centrality of scholarly merit, institutional neutrality, and an insistence on uninhibited free inquiry and expression is in the University of Chicago’s founding DNA.” Known for its “Chicago Principles,” Chicago is ranked a respectable 43rd out of over 250 schools surveyed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in its college free speech rankings, “slightly above average,” but 5th among private schools, which are typically ranked well below public universities. Northwestern is located on the historically more conservative North Shore. Yet Northwestern has gone Full-Woke. President Michael Schill not only tolerated the tents of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on the school’s pristine Deering Meadow for an extended period, but he also promised the protesters scholarships and visiting professorships for Palestinians if they would desist in their campus desecration — he bribed them into being nice, for which Northwestern is now under investigation for “antisemitic harassment” by the U.S. Department of Education. Meanwhile, the Northwestern Law School, located in downtown Chicago, is facing a lawsuit for allegedly totally excluding from consideration white applicants for a professorship, including some very prestigious senior scholars from schools such as UCLA. Prediction: if the case goes to trial, Northwestern will lose. Moreover, Northwestern ranks extremely low on the FIRE free speech rankings, coming in 238th out of 251 schools (“poor”). I know one extremely prominent Northwestern alum, a major benefactor and longtime member of its Board of Trustees, Ben Slivka, who has apparently been declared persona non grata by the institution for the high crime of being too outspoken. Eight of the 10 lowest-ranked schools by FIRE are private schools from states bordering the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, three of them in the Ivy League (Harvard comes in last). By contrast, nine of the top 10 ranked schools are such distinctly non-upscale flyover country public schools as Michigan Technological, Eastern Kentucky, and Mississippi State. Flyover country, in short, is not without its virtues. Less than 110 million folks live in the nine Northeast states or the three major states bordering the Pacific Ocean that seemingly dominate our national university and media elites — twice as many live in the rest, mostly flyover, country. Virtually all of our national population growth between 2020 and 2024 occurred in flyover country — California and New York actually lost population, while Texas and Florida gained four million inhabitants. Chicago is the leading city in the more vibrant flyover country part of our nation, and its top universities are highly consequential, albeit seemingly quite different in their paths to learning and discovery. READ MORE from Richard Vedder: Progressives’ Aversion to Private Industry Does Not Extend to Private Universities Does Academic Research Advance Human Welfare? Not Always. Time to Put Our Fiscal House in Order Richard Vedder is a distinguished professor emeritus at Ohio University, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, and author of Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education, out April 15. The post A Tale of Two Universities in Flyover Country and the Potential Downfall of Coastal Elite Schools appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

While there is much uncertainty concerning Kennedy’s policies to encourage healthy eating, one very likely action will be to eliminate sugary sodas from being purchased with food stamps. This confronts one of the least discussed aspects of the liberal value system: In no circumstances should government anti-poverty policies impose behavioral requirements on recipients. This belief undoubtedly was the reason why Michelle Obama rejected calls for sugary drink exclusion during her husband’s administration. The Department of Agriculture, which administers the food-stamp program, found that almost 10 percent of household food-stamp expenditures were on sweetened beverages and another 10 percent on desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar. As a result, a number of states and cities proposed excluding sweetened beverages and junk food from the allowable food-stamp purchases. By contrast, Michelle Obama focused her efforts on promoting fresh fruits and vegetables, which led to increases in the value of food stamps spent on these items. Examining whether banning sugary drinks would affect obesity rates more than incentivizing fruits and vegetables, researchers found that the incentive program was less effective. Banning sugary drinks, they found, would “significantly reduce obesity prevalence and Type 2 diabetes incidence, particularly among ages 18 to 65 and some racial and ethnic minorities.” When heavy lobbying by beverage companies successfully convinced the Department of Agriculture to block the exclusion strategy, Michelle Obama was silent. Did she believe that food stamp restrictions would be too paternalistic or a blaming-the-victim strategy? We will never know the reason for her silence because a fawning liberal media had no interest in asking her this or any other tough question. Behavior modification strategies were the centerpiece of President Clinton’s “Make Work Pay” strategy. In 1993, 21.9 percent of black women, 15-19 years old, were pregnant, resulting in 11.0 percent giving birth, 7.6 percent having abortions, and 3.2 percent having miscarriages. While some like Kathryn Edin tried to put a positive spin on young motherhood, most analysts believed that behaviors and personal circumstances had to change for black women to move forward. Indeed, many of these young women were victimized by their male partners. The Center for Impact Research found that among teenage black mothers who were on welfare, 55 percent had experienced some form of domestic violence from their partner in the past year. They were trapped in relationships because welfare payments were insufficient to survive so they needed the additional income their partners provided. Clinton’s program substantially increased the welfare payments provided but it required the welfare recipient to enter work-related programs: from work-readiness initiatives for immediate employment to community college programs. Major corporations willingly provided employment opportunities with consistent success. Giant Food, Marriott, Sprint, United Airlines, UPS, and Xerox found that they retained a larger proportion of former recipients than other entry-level employees. United Airlines, for example, had retained 70 percent of the 760 recipients hired one year earlier; the retention rate for others hired at similar jobs was only 40 percent. As a result, the employment rate of black never-married women increased from 47 percent in 1995 to 66 percent by 2000. Despite these successes that provided a foundation for the subsequent increases in black female earnings and educational attainment, and a dramatic drop in teen birth rates, liberals continue to vilify Clinton’s initiative because of the behavioral requirements imposed. The liberal rejection of behavior modification strategies also includes other public policy approaches. With housing policies, liberals champion “housing first:” Housing vouchers should not require any behavioral requirements, like entering drug treatment or work-related programs. It currently reflects the reason why conservatives have balked at extending the child tax credit expansion enacted during the Biden administration; a policy that allowed families to receive the full credit with zero income rather than having modest wage income to receive the maximum credit. Liberals even reject having a work or training requirement for adult recipients of food stamps with no dependent children. When Maine instituted this requirement, there was a dramatic reduction in recipients from this group. Liberals are fearful that embracing any of these behavioral requirements will open them up for criticism and accusations of embracing the blaming-the-victim strategies. For blacks in particular, the claims of structural racism make it impossible for many to enforce behavioral requirements on the poor. Most liberals are forced to claim that harmful behaviors are solely a function of a lack of funds to purchase adequate food or housing. Once individuals no longer have these material deficiencies, they will act appropriately. It is likely that attempts to initiate a food-stamp exclusion of sugary sodas will come early in the Trump administration. Second, a child tax credit initiative that will reinstate earnings requirements to gain the full credit may be in the works. Let’s hope that these two initiatives are successful as they will better the lives of all children. READ MORE from Robert Cherry: Palestinian Narratives Diverge From Reality Progressives Don’t Want to Learn From Their Mistakes Robert Cherry is an American Enterprise Institute adjunct fellow who is completing a book, Arab Citizens of Israel: How Far Have They Come? (Wicked Sons, Fall 2025). The post Are Sugary Sodas Going to Disappear Under RFK Jr.’s Healthy Food Campaign? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by St. Funogas, Survival Blog: Sometimes the truth is ugly and nobody wants to hear it. Ignoring the truth is what got us into the current budget deficit mess and the insurmountable national debt we now face as a nation. Hope is a remarkable thing. Hope that our actions will pay off keeps us working […]

by Michael Snyder, End Of The American Dream: How much power would you have if you had a giant money machine that showered your political allies and political causes that you favor with tens of billions of dollars every year?  The corruption that is being uncovered at USAID is truly historic.  USAID has a budget […]

from And We Know: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/