NYC Sends Hundreds More Police to the Subways

Kefir‚ kimchi‚ and sauerkraut: not the best combination together‚ but as a part of a balanced diet‚ these fermented products are superfoods. Fermentation can make a piece of cabbage last months‚ even years‚ but what is the pickling power that makes it possible?What are fermented foods?Food fermentation is an example of biotechnology‚ which is the exploitation of biological processes to manipulate living and organic things. It’s one of the oldest examples of how humans have harnessed naturally occurring products to our benefit‚ as well as one of the most delicious.Why does fermentation make food last longer?Fermented foods are produced by blending them with ingredients that can tease out a sour flavor in foods without the addition of acidic brine. The resulting environment is one that harmful microbes can’t thrive in‚ hence why fermented foods last for so long.Sauerkraut and yogurt are great sources of live cultures‚ but not all pickles are fermented foods.Image credit: Marekuliasz / Shutterstock.com“The fermentation process involves the oxidation of carbohydrates to generate a range of products‚ which are principally organic acids‚ alcohol‚ and carbon dioxide‚” wrote E. Medina et al. in 2016. “Such products have a preservative effect by limiting the growth of spoilage or pathogenic microbiota in the food. These include many organic acids such as lactic and acetic acids produced as end products‚ which provide an acidic environment unfavorable for the growth of many pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms.”Fermented vs pickled – what’s the difference?While the fermentation process produces lactic and acetic acid (that delicious sour tang) as end products‚ pickling kicks off the process by introducing such acidic ingredients. The processes are very similar‚ but typically your average pickle packs fewer health benefits compared to fermented food. Pickling is‚ however‚ a great way of preserving food that also makes it last longer‚ but when it comes to keeping your gut microbiome happy‚ it doesn’t quite match up to fermented superfoods.Why are fermented foods good for us?Probiotics are a great way to keep your microbiome happy as they top up the good kind of bacteria that we need for our guts – and just about everything else – to function properly. Once upon a time‚ we were consuming these good bacteria regularly‚ but with the rise of processed foods and antibacterial cleaning habits‚ we stopped coming into contact with as many good bacteria as our guts might like.If you want to avoid leaky gut syndrome‚ fermented foods are the way to go.Image credit: Wollertz / Shutterstock.comAdding fermented foods to your diet is a great and tasty way to work towards having a happier gut microbiome‚ but you need to choose your fighter carefully. The key ingredient is live cultures‚ something you’ll find in kefir‚ kimchi‚ sauerkraut‚ and some – but not all – pickles‚ as well as yogurt.What happens if our gut microbiome is unhappy?A solid gut microbiome strengthens the function of our digestive system‚ preventing something known as “leaky gut syndrome” that involves exactly what it says on the tin. As Professor of Nutrition at Harvard Dr David Ludwig told Harvard Health Publishing‚ chronic exposure to these leaking substances has been linked to everything from asthma‚ allergies‚ and eczema to schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease‚ so it pays to keep topping up on your probiotics.And the best bit? Sauerkraut tastes great with everything.

Think of all the famous psychopaths you know‚ both real and fictional. Chances are‚ for every Bonnie you’ve got about 10 Clydes. That’s because we tend to think of psychos as being criminally insane men - an image that has been continually reinforced by on-screen maniacs like Norman Bates (Psycho)‚ Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs)‚ Patrick Bateman (American Psycho) et al. Yet if Hollywood is guilty of overly-attributing cold-bloodedness to the male gender then so too is science. From the early days of research on psychopathy in the first half of the 20th century‚ the trait has been approached as though it were synonymous with violent criminality‚ which in our society is a heavily male-dominated pastime. It’s only in recent years that our understanding of the psychopath has become more nuanced‚ highlighting how the label might apply to greater numbers of unexpected individuals‚ including women.How Many Female Psychopaths Are There?No one knows for sure how many people are psychopaths‚ largely because the term is hard to define and even harder to diagnose. In general terms‚ psychopaths are thought to have a diminished capacity to feel empathy or guilt‚ which makes them more likely to commit moral transgressions. These offenses may involve violence or deceit‚ but can also include more subtle misdeeds like using others for personal gain or generally acting selfishly.Popular estimates suggest that about 1 percent of men display psychopathic traits‚ while the figure for women is said to be between four and 10 times lower. However‚ with a lack of large-scale‚ population-level studies to back these statistics up‚ they remain mere speculation.The unreliability of these estimates has recently caught the attention of Dr Clive Boddy from Anglia Ruskin University‚ an expert on psychopathy in the corporate world. “My research so far doesn’t really focus on female psychopaths but I did notice that the measures I use in quantitative research kept picking up more female psychopaths than theoretically expected‚ so I investigated the literature and found there’s little reason to expect lower numbers of females than males‚” he told IFLScience.“In my six quantitative studies‚ I have consistently found more female primary psychopaths than expected.” For clarity‚ primary psychopaths are the kind that tend to appear in movies and are characterized by callousness‚ superficial charm‚ and manipulative tendencies. Secondary psychopaths‚ on the other hand‚ display impulsivity and an inability to make long-term plans.Based on his own surveys of white-collar workers and their experiences with psychopathic bosses or employees‚ Boddy says that incidence rates of female to male psychopaths are “about 1.14:1 rather than the 5:1 or 4:1 or even 10:1 quoted in the literature. This means the incidence of female (at least primary) psychopaths could be around 1 percent – the same figure that is often quoted for male psychopathy.” If we take the 5:1 oft-quoted in the literature that means that instead of around 17 percent of psychopaths being women‚ it could be more like 47 percent. Why Have Female Psychopaths Flown Under The Radar?“All the initial studies of psychopaths were of men in prison who were psychopathic‚ so there’s always been this idea that psychopaths are male criminals‚” says Boddy. “And I think that psychologists and the general public haven't really got over that view of what a psychopath is yet.”These early studies – many of which were conducted in the 1940s – continued to influence researchers for half a century‚ and provided much of the framework for the Levenson self-report psychopathy scale (LSRP)‚ which was developed in 1995 as a means of diagnosing primary and secondary psychopathy. According to Boddy‚ such tools “are not necessarily suitable for identifying non-criminal or non-male psychopaths‚” as they “capture the essential characteristics of psychopathy without the confounding variables related to criminality and masculinity.” Other similar scales‚ such as the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R)‚ have also been created‚ yet the suitability of these devices for analyzing female psychopathy has consistently been challenged.For example‚ a study conducted in 2002 found that the PCL-R is less capable of identifying psychopathy in women than in men‚ possibly because of differences in anxiety and negative emotions between male and female psychopaths. Another study from 2017 concluded that psychopaths of both sexes can’t be grouped together since “females with a psychopathic personality were more frequently exposed to sexual abuse‚ expressed more emotional difficulties‚ and engaged in higher levels of relational aggression.”Largely as a result of these male-skewed notions of psychopathy‚ Boddy says that men who show traits associated with the condition “are more likely to be identified as psychopaths because of gender expectations.” In contrast‚ people simply aren’t primed to see women in this way‚ so females who act psychopathically are often placed in a different category.“Many of the characteristics of psychopathy are seen as male characteristics so when women display the same characteristics they are seen as out of place and are attributed to other personality types‚” he says.How Do Male And Female Psychopaths Differ?“There is‚ as yet‚ no reason to believe that female psychopaths have different drivers and motivations than their male peers do‚” says Boddy‚ whose new book‚ A Climate Of Fear: Stone Cold Psychopaths At Work‚ examines the impact of psychopaths within business organizations. “They both like to hurt people‚ but they do it in different ways.”To date‚ there have been no significant studies looking at how psychopathy is expressed in men versus women‚ but based on his own research and observations‚ Boddy suggests that there may be some natural differences in the way the two behave. “For example‚ as women‚ on average‚ have lower upper body strength than males then the option of physical violence to achieve desired ends may be less available to them and they may rely instead on relational aggression‚ flirtation‚ manipulation‚ coercion‚ and seduction‚” he says.Returning to his field of psychopathy in the business world‚ he goes on to explain that many female psychopaths actually have to modify their behavior in ways that men don’t because of gender expectations in the workplace. For instance‚ there is evidence to show that “if a female psychopath behaves like a male psychopath – in other words‚ she's overly aggressive at work – then that works to her disadvantage because it goes against role expectations‚” says Boddy. “And so to get ahead‚ they will have to suppress that aggressiveness and be more calculating‚ subtle‚ maneuvering‚ and cunning.” Despite these claims‚ it’s currently impossible to provide any solid scientific data to support a fundamental difference between male and female psychopaths. The closest we’ve got is a 2014 brain imaging study that found that the neural activity patterns of psychopathic women are largely similar but not entirely identical to those of men with the same traits.For instance‚ the study revealed that when processing emotional stimuli‚ female psychopaths display reduced activation in the brain’s key emotional centers like the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex‚ thus replicating previous findings in male psychopaths. However‚ unlike their male counterparts‚ the women in the study also showed abnormal activity in a brain region called the temporoparietal junction. Exactly how this translates into behavior is yet to be determined‚ and the full neurological correlates of psychopathy in women are still unclear. What is apparent‚ however‚ is that while male and female psychopaths share the same underlying traits‚ how this manifests can differ between genders.Perhaps that’s something Hollywood can run with.

Keeping wild animals as pets is a strange one. On the one hand‚ properly reared exotic animals can thrive as domesticated pets‚ and they can be looked after with all due care and attention. However‚ there comes a time when some people can no longer look after their pets‚ and it becomes difficult or even dangerous to continue to have that alligator in your swimming pool. Far from dumping your goldfish in the nearest stream‚ what should you do with exotics you can no longer look after?Exotic pet ownership in the US is regulated differently at state‚ county‚ or city levels. According to Born Free USA‚ more than 1‚000 websites offer opportunities to buy and haggle over the prices of these exotic animals‚ which include lions and monkeys as well as reptiles. There are many concerns with the keeping of exotic pets‚ including welfare for the animals and the owners‚ the spread of disease‚ and the risk to public health.One of the big problems comes from those who wish to keep alligators as pets. This is only legal in certain states in the US‚ while other places require the owner to have a license‚ and in New York private ownership of an American alligator is banned. National Geographic writes that there are no official numbers for how many people are keeping alligators as pets‚ but around 5‚000 might be in Michigan. World Population Review has a map of where it is legal to own an alligator in the States in 2024. These alligators come from legal breeders in the Southeast‚ mostly Florida‚ and while there are strict alligator farming laws‚ there are always those who seek to work around them.In the UK‚ you can keep an alligator as a pet legally but you need to declare the animal and have a license for it. Alligators are covered by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act (1976) and getting a license is a long and lengthy process. Where most people trip up is not realizing the cost of keeping an animal and the size these reptiles can grow to. Female American alligators can grow to 2.6 meters long (8.2 feet) and males can reach 3.4 meters (11.2 feet)‚ explains the Smithsonian's National Zoo And Conservation Biology Institute. Sometimes news stories turn up about pets being taken from homes by the authorities. In the UK there's been a rise in abandoned pet reptiles owing to increased energy costs. So what should you do if you no longer want to keep an alligator in your swimming pool?The most important thing to consider is not releasing these animals into the countryside or nearest park and responsibly handing over their care to someone with the appropriate experience and facilities to look after them. The Florida Fish And Wildlife Conservation Commission has an exotic pet amnesty program for those no longer able to keep their animals. Similar rescues are also set up in the UK for those who find themselves unable to care for their exotic pet any longer.  All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current. 

One of the biggest moments in human history took place 60‚000 to 70‚000 years ago when a portion of Homo sapiens left Africa. Despite this epoch’s huge significance‚ we know surprisingly little about people's whereabouts from 70‚000 to 45‚000 years ago when they first set foot into the wider world.Thanks to a combination of genetic‚ palaeoecological‚ and archaeological evidence‚ scientists have now uncovered that the Persian Plateau served as a vital hub for Homo sapiens during the early stages of their migration out of Africa. The region likely provided a “home away from home” for around 20‚000 years‚ allowing a significant population of Homo sapiens to build up and thrive before they dispersed across Eurasia and beyond. This means that the ancestors of all present-day non-Africans lived in the Persian Plateau for around 20‚000 years after the migration out of Africa. In other words‚ if you have any genetic heritage from Europe‚ Asia‚ the Americas‚ or Oceania‚ some of your ancestors likely spent a significant portion of time in this area.The Persian Plateau is a vast elevated region located in southwest Asia‚ found eastwards of the Zagros Mountains across modern-day Iran‚ as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Surrounded by the Caspian Sea‚ the Persian Gulf‚ and the Mediterranean‚ the area provided the ideal habitat to start fostering larger populations. Simultaneously‚ its location was perfect for serving as a  “launch pad” for the numerous waves of people settling across Eurasia. The Persian Plateau (aka the Iranian Plateau) is located to east of the Zagros Mountains (shown in purpley pink).Image credit: Terpsichores via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)“The discovery elucidates a 20‚000-year long portion of the history of Homo sapiens outside of Africa‚ a timeframe during which we interacted with Neanderthal populations‚ and sheds light on the relationships between various Eurasian populations‚ providing crucial clues for understanding the demographic history of our species across Europe‚ East Asia‚ and Oceania‚” first study author Leonardo Vallini‚ of the University of Padova in Italy‚ said in a statement.To reach these findings‚ the team looked at genetic evidence from prehistoric and modern human populations and found that people around the Persian Plateau have close ancestral ties to the population that first settled outside Africa.The researchers also ran a palaeoecological model that showed the region was much more hospitable than other potential hubs following the Out of Africa expansion.While recent archeological finds have started to hint that the Persian Plateau was once a crucial hub for gallivanting Homo sapiens in their early forays outside of Africa‚ this latest research suggests that many more fossils and artifacts are likely to be hidden here‚ ripe for discovery. “Our multidisciplinary study provides a more coherent view of the ancient past‚ offering insights into the critical period between the Out of Africa expansion and the differentiation of Eurasian populations‚” said study co-author Professor Michael Petraglia. "The Persian plateau emerges as a key region‚ underlining the need for further archaeological explorations.”The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.

Alarming new research has revealed that consuming reused deep-fried cooking oil may lead to higher levels of neurodegeneration in rats and their offspring. Given that the practice of re-heating the same batch of oil for multiple meals is common in homes and restaurants worldwide‚ the study’s findings could have major implications for human health.Deep-frying involves completely submerging food in hot oil and is an extremely popular cooking technique that can be used to prepare everything from doughnuts to falafel. Unfortunately‚ however‚ the delicious treats that emerge from deep fryers have been linked to a range of illnesses including cancer and diabetes.It’s thought that these dangers are enhanced when oils are reused‚ as the repeated heating destroys the antioxidants and other healthy components contained within the grease‚ while also adding dangerous compounds like trans fats and peroxides. However‚ until now‚ the consequences of consuming reused oil had not been properly investigated.“Deep-frying at high temperatures has been linked with several metabolic disorders‚ but there have been no long-term investigations on the influence of deep-fried oil consumption and its detrimental effects on health‚” explained study author Kathiresan Shanmugam in a statement. “To our knowledge we are first to report long-term deep-fried oil supplementation increases neurodegeneration in the first-generation offspring.”Over the course of 30 days‚ the researchers fed female rats either standard chow or food that was enriched with regular or reheated oils. At the end of the month‚ they found that the animals raised on reused oil displayed elevated liver enzyme levels‚ indicating high levels of inflammation and oxidative stress within this key organ.“As a result‚ liver lipid metabolism was significantly altered‚ and the transport of the important brain omega-3 fatty acid DHA was decreased‚” said Shanmugam. “This‚ in turn‚ resulted in neurodegeneration‚ which was seen in the brain histology of the rats consuming the reheated oil as well as their offspring.”Such findings illustrate the importance of the liver-gut-brain axis and demonstrate how its disruption can lead to neurological damage. In addition‚ rats fed on reheated oil displayed increased cholesterol and higher levels of inflammation markers like high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)‚ which is linked to heart attacks and strokes.Cellular damage within the colon of these rats was also noted by the researchers‚ as was the degeneration of neuronal support cells known as glia. In a series of follow-up experiments‚ the study authors exposed the rats to monosodium glutamate (MSG) and found that this common food additive induced further neurological damage in the rats that had been reared on reused oil.The results of the study were presented at Discover BMB‚ the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology‚ which was held from March 23 to 26 in San Antonio.

Ancient deserts were treacherous terrain for dinosaurs‚ as the environment had a nasty habit of burying its inhabitants. Their loss would be palaeontologists gain a few tens of millions of years down the line‚ as the unique fossils reveal animal behavior in a way that more scattered remains just can’t‚ helping us to tackle a big question about Oviraptor: were they egg thieves‚ or just great parents?The best Oviraptor fossilsThe moment of death can have a big impact on our capacity to learn about extinct animals‚ particularly when it comes to their behavior‚ which is rarely captured in fossils. Exceptions to this have been found in Mongolia’s Gobi Desert where ancient animals sometimes died from sudden dune collapse.“Say there was a rainstorm‚ and the dunes collapsed on top of dinosaurs‚ you often get them [preserved] in these life positions‚ which is really neat‚” Dr Darla Zelenitsky of the University of Calgary told IFLScience. “So you'll [find] Oviraptors sitting on a clutch of their eggs actually brooding them. The famous specimen that's known from Mongolia was a dune collapse‚ and it's the Velociraptor and Protoceratops that are actually physically interlocked and fighting one another.”Oviraptor: egg thief?The oviraptor “egg thief” idea also began in the Gobi Desert‚ where the fossil of an as-of-yet unnamed theropod was discovered in incriminating proximity to a clutch of eggs. The eggs were believed to belong to Protoceratops‚ meanwhile‚ the theropod with jaws perfect for egg crushing was thought to be the invader‚ and so it was named Oviraptor by palaeontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn back in 1924.Oviraptor nesting behavior appears to share similarities with modern birds.Image credit: Danny Ye/Shutterstock.comOviraptor is‚ however‚ a misnomer‚ as subsequent research has concluded they weren’t thieving eggs‚ but trying to protect them. That realization came with the discovery of more eggs in the mid-1990s that contained the precious preserved remains of dinosaur embryos. Oviraptor embryo "Baby Louie"Looking at the most famous embryo specimen nicknamed "Baby Louie" proved they weren’t Protoceratops as the palaeontologists of Osborn’s time had believed‚ but instead‚ an Oviraptor. That “thief” that earned them their name was‚ in all likelihood‚ the creator of the eggs it was accused of stealing.We’ve since discovered several fossils that show Oviraptor sitting atop their eggs like birds‚ including one world-first specimen that included embryo-bearing eggs and was also the first nesting oviraptorid to be discovered outside of the Gobi Desert. Oviraptors: actually great parentsSo in the case of Oviraptor: egg thief or parent of the year? It seems these dinosaurs fall into the latter category. As scientists‚ we must resist the urge to anthropomorphize animals‚ but as a fan of fluffy dinosaurs‚ it’s hard not to like these guys. Oviraptor were also behind arguably the first evidence that dinosaurs liked snuggling‚ as three 70-million-year-old Oviraptor fossils were discovered preserved as if sleeping in a group. It seems they were just doing what they could do to survive‚ which as the first discovery of fossilized theropod stomach contents demonstrated‚ wasn’t a guarantee for these dinosaurs and their chicken-drumstick-like gams.Stupid delicious Citipes legs.

CBS’s Stephen Colbert has used The Late Show to routinely condemn Supreme Court rulings after it rejected his legal theories from way out in left field. On Monday‚ Colbert welcomed former liberal Justice Stephen Breyer to the show to promote the latter's new book and seek affirmation that his views of the Court are correct. Unfortunately for him‚ Breyer refused to play along. In the first segment with Breyer‚ Colbert asked‚ “Do you‚ former Justice Breyer‚ believe that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office? Do you think‚ does that seem like a natural yes from you?” Breyer may be retired‚ but he has not shaken the idea that a judge should not comment on a case before the court‚ “That seems like a general idea.”     Colbert tried again‚ “It‚ that is a general idea. Do former presidents have absolute immunity? It's not specific about one person. Would any president have that? I'm just curious‚ what you‚ snap judgment‚ don't think about it. Go.” Holding firm‚ Breyer repeated himself “I agree that you have a general idea. I can't go farther. I can't because of the—” Switching tactics‚ Colbert tried a case that the Court has already heard‚ “You're no fun‚ but I'll ask you something that I think you can answer. What do you think the purpose of the Insurrection Clause was…Why does it need an actuating law or action by Congress to impose the sanction for insurrection? Do you have any thoughts on them?” Again‚ Breyer offered no opinion on the case that went 9-0 against Colbert‚ ultimately declaring‚ “I am tempted to say something like ‘But I wasn't there when it was written.’ My grandchildren think I was. But in fact‚ I wasn't and really what I'm doing is avoiding the question.  After a commercial break‚ Colbert observed that “Politico says only 24 percent of people trust SCOTUS to issue a fair and nonpartisan ruling.” He then wondered‚ “Is the fear that the public has of political influence on the Court valid? And is the Court's fear that the public will no longer believe they are impartial about?” Breyer answered “That's why I wrote this book… I've been for 40 years with other judges and 28 on the Supreme Court‚ I think the people who try to get them appointed may have a lot to do with politics‚ but they want a judge who will think that the law really requires those things that then they then politically like‚ but the judge's point of view is he or she is deciding according to law and that's why I write this.” Instead of politics‚ “it is a question of what approach you use. You say‚ do you just read text? Or do you look back to the values and purposes and consequences of the Constitution or what we're about in this country? Which of those do you choose and I think that's important and does make a difference and that's what people should focus on.” Colbert then tried one more time‚ “But to believe that there is no partisan backing a judgment into the result you want. If they were always consistent on their judicial philosophy and always consistently textualists. Do you find that to be the case that your fellow justices are consistent in the lens that used to judge the constitutionality of a case?” Breyer answered that “You aim at it and you never know if you get there.” Surely‚ those weren’t the answers Colbert was hoping for. Here is a transcript for the March 25 show: CBS The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 3/26/2024 12:07 AM ET STEPHEN COLBERT: Do you‚ former Justice Breyer‚ believe that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while in office? Do you think‚ does that seem like a natural yes from you?  BREYER: That seems like a general idea.  COLBERT: It‚ that is a general idea. Do former presidents have absolute immunity? It's not specific about one person. Would any president have that? I'm just curious‚ what you‚ snap judgment‚ don't think about it. Go.  BREYER: I agree that you have a general idea. I can't go farther. I can't because of the-- COLBERT: You're no fun‚ but I'll ask you something that I think you can answer. What do you think the purpose of the Insurrection Clause was?  BREYER: I haven't looked at-- well.  COLBERT: It's in the Constitution. It's an excellent little read.  BREYER: Yes‚ it is. COLBERT: It's only the 14th Amendment. Tell me you read that far. Okay‚ there it is. Okay‚ all right. Someone's got a Constitution all the time. All right. All right‚ but so‚ anyway‚ you know this document. I'm just curious why does it include no definition of what insurrection is? Do you have any idea? Because it does say how someone could be reinstated and it says that someone who committed insurrection can't run for office. Why does it need an actuating law or action by Congress to impose the sanction for insurrection? Do you have any thoughts on them?  BREYER: I am tempted to say something like "But I wasn't there when it was written." My grandchildren think I was. But in fact‚ I wasn't and really what I'm doing is avoiding the question.  … COLBERT: Politico says only 24 percent of people trust SCOTUS to issue a fair and nonpartisan ruling. Okay. Is the fear that the public has of political influence on the Court valid? And is the Court's fear that the public will no longer believe they are impartial about?  BREYER: I think of that is a very good question for a particular reason. That's why I wrote this book. It is. Because I wanted to show people that what most think‚ that this is all politics‚ that is not my experience. You never say zero about anything‚ but when I've been for 40 years with other judges and 28 on the Supreme Court‚ I think the people who try to get them appointed may have a lot to do with politics‚ but they want a judge who will think that the law really requires those things that then they then politically like‚ but the judge's point of view is he or she is deciding according to law and that's why I write this.  Because I want to say it isn't a question of what the judge just likes or doesn't like. It isn’t a question of just politics‚ it is a question of what approach you use. You say‚ do you just read text? Or do you look back to the values and purposes and consequences of the Constitution or what we're about in this country? Which of those do you choose and I think that's important and does make a difference and that's what people should focus on and that's why I try to explain here what that consists of‚ how they might focus on it‚ and why it might make a difference to your life and my life and a life of every American and I hope for the better.  COLBERT: I would hope for the better too. And my follow-up‚ your honor‚ is that I agree that I'm sure that justices have a judicial philosophy through which they read the Constitution. But to believe that there is no partisan backing a judgment into the result you want. If they were always consistent on their judicial philosophy and always consistently textualists. Do you find that to be the case that your fellow justices are consistent in the lens that used to judge the constitutionality of a case?  BREYER: You aim at it and you never know if you get there. Of course people are influenced by their backgrounds‚ of course they’re influenced by the lives they've had‚ by the philosophy they have. But suppose that you‚ and not you‚ it wouldn't be you personally‚ but that you were an unpopular person. Impossible‚ but suppose you were.  COLBERT: Can't be done but go ahead‚ yes. BREYER: But an unpopular person is in front of a judge for trial— COLBERT: Yes. BREYER: -- you don't want that judge to be influenced by how the public feels about that person. You don't want a judge to be influenced by popular opinion when he's judging the case‚ but what Professor Freund said‚ great professor said at Harvard Law School‚ a great professor‚ and he said the way that politics works in the Court is this: no judge‚ not you or me or anyone else‚ should ever be influenced by the political temperature of the day. Every judge will and probably should be influenced by the climate of the era. A little profound‚ a little obscure‚ but the more you think about that phrase‚ the more it sort of rings a bell in my mind. 

On Sunday night‚ the hatchet-job specialists at 60 Minutes were back on the attack against conservatives. It was a 13-minute segment provocatively titled “The Right to Be Wrong.” On one side of this cockeyed chronicle were the allegedly non-ideological‚ nonpartisan “misinformation researchers” – Kate Starbird‚ Darrell West‚ Katie Harbath – who are presented as people in favor of “fact checking” and opposed to “hate speech.” They line up neatly with the CBS narrative. On the other side was Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)‚ the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee‚ who was presented as someone who doesn’t favor facts‚ but does support freedom for “hate speech.”  Stahl refers to “conservatives” or “the right wing” eight times‚ but never finds a label for her favored “misinformation experts.” It started out funny‚ as she told viewers "Conservatives claim that the companies have engaged in a conspiracy to suppress their speech." The rest of the segment is Stahl unfurling a "conspiracy theory" that conservatives are engaged in an effort to "chill" the "misinformation researchers‚" those nonpartisan truth-tellers.  Reminder! Stahl had 13 minutes to report‚ but was never going to revisit her comical interview with Donald Trump before the 2020 election (sections of which she wouldn't put on the air). Trump talked of the Biden family taking millions from China and other countries‚ and Stahl shot back "All these things have been investigated and discredited." Biden scandal? "It can't be verified." Hunter's laptop? Again‚ "It can't be verified."  The joy of being CBS News is being able to only choose the facts you want to choose‚ and to refuse to verify what you do not want to be verified. When someone suggests there are other facts and other stories‚ you turn to "misinformation researchers" to pluck out how the conservatives are the ones who are sloppy with information. Stahl avoided any mention of Big Tech giants suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election in 2020. She questions Jim Jordan about questioning the 2020 election‚ but not about the pro-Biden suppression. Stahl also wasn't going to tell you that her expert Kate Starbird worked from a National Science Foundation grant from the Biden administration and donated to many Democrats.  WATCH: 60 Minutes profiled a misinformation academic researcher named Kate Starbird a "leader of a misinformation research group" that tried to get Big Tech companies to silence conservatives during the 2020 election. 60 Minutes failed to point out that Starbird is a serious… pic.twitter.com/ygogCh9ybr — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 25‚ 2024 Stahl asked her alleged nonpartisan expert "Did your research find that there was more misinformation spread by conservatives?" Starbird said "Absolutely‚" that in the 2020 election "there was more information spread by people that were supported by Donald Trump or conservatives. And the events of January 6 underscore this." The tweets from the CBS show weren't subtle:  After Elon Musk took over X‚ most fact-checkers were fired. The site is now rife with trash talk and lies. "The toothpaste is out of the tube‚" says Darrell West of the Brookings Institution. https://t.co/ShSbzksR7L pic.twitter.com/2y9pvdgcJT — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) March 24‚ 2024 Jordan insisted to Stahl that the American people are smart enough to figure out what's misinformation‚ but of course‚ liberals think the American people are idiots when they don't vote for liberals. The best part of the segment was Jordan marveling at how he's supposedly the chilling effect! His probe is "intimidating" The poor "nonpartisan" researchers!  Lesley Stahl asks Rep. Jim Jordan: Is his goal to chill misinformation researchers? https://t.co/rlNyIsbg8R pic.twitter.com/Ls8Hu8yQbk — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) March 24‚ 2024

In case you haven’t heard yet‚ spring has sprung. Rather than realize that because of the calendar‚ I was made aware of it when our resident woodpecker arrived and started pecking on the metal cap to our chimney. The post Spring Cleaning and prepping appeared first on Survivopedia.