Americans’ acceptance of Trump’s behavior will be his vilest legacy

Robert Reich
Sat, December 26, 2020

Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Most of the 74,222,957 Americans who voted to re-elect Donald Trump – 46.8%of the votes cast in the 2020 presidential election – don’t hold Trump accountable for what he’s done to America.

Their acceptance of Trump’s behavior will be his vilest legacy.

Nearly forty years ago, political scientist James Q Wilson and criminologist George Kelling observed that a broken window left unattended in a community signals that no one cares if windows are broken there. The broken window is thereby an invitation to throw more stones and break more windows.


The message: do whatever you want here because others have done it and got away with it.

The broken window theory has led to picayune and arbitrary law enforcement in poor communities. But America’s most privileged and powerful have been breaking big windows with impunity.

In 2008, Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy. The Street got bailed out while millions of Americans lost their jobs, savings, and homes. Yet not no major Wall Street executive ever went to jail.

In more recent years, top executives of Purdue Pharmaceuticals, along with the Sackler family, knew the dangers of OxyContin but did nothing. Executives at Wells Fargo Bank pushed bank employees to defraud customers. Executives at Boeing hid the results of tests showing its 737 Max Jetliner was unsafe. Police chiefs across America looked the other way as police under their command repeatedly killed innocent Black Americans.

Here, too, they’ve got away with it. These windows remain broken.

Trump has brought impunity to the highest office in the land, wielding a wrecking ball to the most precious windowpane of all – American democracy.

Trump has brought impunity to the highest office in the land, wielding a wrecking ball to the most precious windowpane of all – American democracy.

The message? A president can obstruct special counsels’ investigations of his wrongdoing, push foreign officials to dig up dirt on political rivals, fire inspectors general who find corruption, order the entire executive branch to refuse congressional subpoenas, flood the Internet with fake information about his opponents, refuse to release his tax returns, accuse the press of being “fake media” and “enemies of the people”, and make money off his presidency.

And he can get away with it. Almost half of the electorate will even vote for his reelection.

A president can also lie about the results of an election without a shred of evidence – and yet, according to polls, be believed by the vast majority of those who voted for him.

Trump’s recent pardons have broken double-pane windows.

Not only has he shattered the norm for presidential pardons – usually granted because of a petitioner’s good conduct after conviction and service of sentence – but he’s pardoned people who themselves shattered windows. By pardoning them, he has rendered them unaccountable for their acts.

They include aides convicted of lying to the FBI and threatening potential witnesses in order to protect him; his son-in-law’s father, who pleaded guilty to tax evasion, witness tampering, illegal campaign contributions, and lying to the Federal Election Commission; Blackwater security guards convicted of murdering Iraqi civilians, including women and children; Border Patrol agents convicted of assaulting or shooting unarmed suspects; and Republican lawmakers and their aides found guilty of fraud, obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations.

It’s not simply the size of the broken window that undermines standards, according to Wilson and Kelling. It’s the willingness of society to look the other way. If no one is held accountable, norms collapse.

Trump may face a barrage of lawsuits when he leaves office, possibly including criminal charges. But it’s unlikely he’ll go to jail. Presidential immunity or a self-pardon will protect him. Prosecutorial discretion would almost certainly argue against indictment, in any event. No former president has ever been convicted of a crime. The mere possibility of a criminal trial for Trump would ignite a partisan brawl across the nation.

Congress may try to limit the power of future presidents – strengthening congressional oversight, fortifying the independence of inspectors general, demanding more financial disclosure, increasing penalties on presidential aides who break laws, restricting the pardon process, and so on.

But Congress – a co-equal branch of government under the Constitution – cannot rein in rogue presidents. And the courts don’t want to weigh in on political questions.

The appalling reality is that Trump may get away with it. And in getting away with it he will have changed and degraded the norms governing American presidents. The giant windows he’s broken are invitations to a future president to break even more.

Nothing will correct this unless or until an overwhelming majority of Americans recognize and condemn what has occurred.

RESEARCH
Is Lockheed Stock A Buy After Largest Takeover Since 2015

GILLIAN RICH
12/25/2020



Lockheed Martin stock is forming a base as the defense giant acquires a top developer of space and missile technology. Is LMT stock a good buy right now? Take a look at Lockheed Martin (LMT) earnings and the stock chart.

The $4.4 billion deal for Aerojet Rocketdyne (AJRD) is Lockheed's largest since it acquired helicopter maker Sikorsky in 2015 for $9 billion.

LMT Stock Fundamental Analysis

Lockheed reported strong third-quarter results in October. Lockheed earnings from continuing operations rose 8.7% to $6.25 per share, beating analyst estimates by 18 cents. Revenue rose 10.2% to $16.4 billion, beating estimates for $16.34 billion.

Lockheed now sees full-year EPS of $24.45, up from a prior view of $23.75-$24.25, on revenue of $65.25 billion, up from a prior view of $63.5 billion- $65 billion. Currently, analysts see full-year EPS of $24.13 on revenue of $64.76 billion.

Management also expects 2021 revenue to meet or exceed $67 billion, below consensus views for $68.1 billion. Lockheed sees growth slowing down for key business units, predicting low-single-digit growth in aeronautics and missiles, down from Q3's pace.

Meanwhile, cash from operations is seen at $8.1 billion in 2021, after pension contributions.

Lockheed added that its 2020 and 2021 forecasts assume no significant work stoppages and supply chain disruptions from Covid-19 as well as the ability to recover costs from the federal government and that funding priorities don't change.

Much of its revenue growth has come from sales of the F-35 fighter. The stealthy fighter jet is the most expensive weapons program in Pentagon history, with a procurement price tag of about $400 billion, and is Lockheed's biggest revenue generator.

 

(Lockheed Martin)

However, other segments are expanding faster. For example, Mideast tensions and the Pentagon's focus on countering Russia and China have boosted demand for missiles. The defense contractor plans to increase Hellfire missile production to 11,000 per year from 7,000. It also wants PAC-3 missile production to double to meet customer demand.

Lockheed had said missiles and fire control unit to be its fastest-growing business for the next four years. But during the Q3 call, management said it now sees its space division is its fastest-growing business area, with 2021 growth seen in the mid-single-digit range.

Lockheed still sees strong demand for its Hellfire missiles but that it would be flattish year over year.

Lockheed earnings per share growth has averaged 24% over the past three years, according to IBD Stock Checkup. On the revenue side, growth averaged 10% over the last three years.

Analysts see Q4 earnings growth accelerating to 21% with revenue up 7%. For 2020, Wall Street sees EPS up 11.5% and revenue up 9%. Next year, EPS is seen up 7% with revenue up 3.7%.

Technical Analysis For LMT Stock

LMT stock has CAN SLIM fundamental metrics that include a 52 out of a best-possible 99 IBD Composite Rating and an EPS Rating of 94 out of 99. Lockheed is ranked 21st in IBD's Aerospace/Defense group.

After selling off early this year, Lockheed stock is now forming a flat base with a 402.48 entry point, according to MarketSmith analysis. The stock tumbled below its 50-day and 200-day lines as the Covid-19 pandemic rattled the overall market. After finding resistance at those key levels in November, LMT stock has been falling away from them headed into the end of the year.

The relative strength line, another key indicator, is at a five-year low, meaning Lockheed stock has been badly underperforming the broader market.

The Accumulation/Distribution rating is now at D-, indicating that there is net selling of the stock on the part of institutional investors.

Still, the number of funds holding shares has inched up, climbing to 2,053 at the end of Q3, up from 2,042 in Q2 and 2,032 in Q1.

Lockheed Martin Stock News

The F-35 stealth fighter is seen as the "quarterback" in the Pentagon's emerging warfighting strategy to counter near-peer rivals like Russia and China. But its near-term prospects have turned a bit clouded.

In 2019, Lockheed said F-35 sales could follow the older F-16's trajectory of 4,600 jets, representing a jump of more than 40% over current estimates. The F-35 wasn't cleared for full-rate production by late 2019 as expected. But Pentagon acquisition chief Ellen Lord said in August that the DOD is sticking with an earlier March 2021 estimate.

Due to supply chain disruptions and workplace social distancing protocols during the coronavirus pandemic, Lockheed said in May that it would cut production by 18 to 24 F-35s over the next three months. It plans to deliver 140 F-35s in 2020 and 170 in 2021 and 2022.

In September, Lockheed said F-35 deliveries postponed by the pandemic won't fully recover until the end of 2021. While the company's Fort Worth, Texas, plant is back at full speed, its supply chain is taking longer to recover, Lockheed told Aerospace Daily.

Adding to supply issues, Turkey was kicked out of the F-35 program in 2019 over the delivery of a Russian air defense system.

(Lockheed Martin)

As tensions with Iran flare, Gulf allies have been boosting up their fighter arsenals. Following the normalization of diplomatic ties with Israel, the United Arab Emirates got U.S. approval to buy the F-35 as well as armed drones and missiles. In December, the U.S. Senate rejected a motion to block the sales of the F-35 and other weapons to the UAE, allowing the $23 billion deal to go forward.

Meanwhile, the F-16 continues to see more overseas sales potential and Lockheed expects the line producing more than 5,000 fighters, according to Air Force Magazine. In August, the Pentagon issued a contract for the sale of the fighter jet to Taiwan amid rising tensions with China.

Hypersonic Weapons, Space

Lockheed has emerged as a leading developer of hypersonic weapons for the Air Force and the Pentagon's secretive Darpa research arm. It is working on the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept and the Tactical Boost Glide weapon. Lockheed also won a $347 million contract in August to help the Army build new long-range hypersonic weapons.

But the Pentagon canceled Lockheed's Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon program in February due to "budget priorities."   

(Lockheed Martin/nasa.gov)

Lockheed sees total hypersonic weapons sales to be $1 billion this year, up from $600 million in 2019. So far, Lockheed has received hypersonic contracts with a total value of roughly $4 billion once finalized.

Lockheed and Raytheon variants of the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) have successfully flown captive carry tests and should be ready for powered flight tests soon.

And Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper said Dec. 14 that Lockheed's Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon will have its first booster test flight this month with production beginning next year.

Lockheed is also looking at next-generation missile defense, including how to expand current ballistic missile defenses to add capabilities to go after hypersonic weapons and other threats.

Lockheed is a subcontractor on Northrop Grumman's (NOC) $13.3 billion Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, which will replace Boeing's (BA) aging land-based Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. The total program is valued at $85 billion-$100 billion.

On the civilian side, the company's secretive Skunk Works unit is developing the X-59 for NASA to be a quieter supersonic jet. The technology could reopen the door to future supersonic flight over land on a commercial level, depending on community response to the X-59 missions, with the first flights poised for 2021.

According to NASA, the X-59 is shaped so that supersonic shock waves do not coalesce together to create sonic booms.

With space a top growth area for Lockheed in 2021, CFO Ken Possenriede said during the Q3 call that Elon Musk's SpaceX is "more than an emerging threat right now."

On Dec. 20, Lockheed announced it would buy Aerojet Rocketdyne in an estimated $4.4 billion deal to boost its hypersonic and space offerings. The integration with Aerojet could lower costs in an increasingly competitive space market and boost its hypersonic weapons offerings.

Aerojet is providing engines for NASA's massive Space Launch System and is a subcontractor on Northrop's Air Force deal to develop new intercontinental nuclear missiles worth $85 billion-$100 billion. The Air Force said its research lab and Aerojet recorded the highest thrust produced by an air-breathing scramjet hypersonic engine in a November test.

In August, SpaceX and United Launch Alliance, a Lockheed-Boeing joint venture, both received five-year Pentagon launch contracts and will split more than $5 billion 40%-60%, respectively.

Possenriede said that ULA "has a price point that is "compelling to customers" that will allow it "to get its fair share of awards over SpaceX."

Lockheed also is developing the deep-space Orion spacecraft for NASA as the Trump administration focuses on heading back to the moon by 2024. But NASA's ambitious plans rely on Boeing's SLS rocket, which is behind schedule and over budget.

Lockheed and other companies have partnered with Amazon (AMZN) CEO and founder Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin space company to develop a lunar lander.

Bottom Line On LMT Stock

Lockheed is part of the aerospace/defense group, and its earnings growth is solid, if not spectacular.

The massive Pentagon budget continues to enjoy bipartisan support in Congress, though the pandemic and oil price crash loom over prospects for foreign sales.

Bottom line: LMT stock is not a buy. Shares are forming a base but haven't yet reached a buy point. The stock is underperforming the broader market. Growth is expected to slow in the coming year as well, though the company is leading in key weapons development priorities.

U.S. and China failed to help the world during COVID. As president, Biden should make things right 

Opinion

Andres Oppenheimer

Fri, December 25, 2020

When I read a just-released report by China’s official Xinhua agency, saying that China has set a world “example” of solidarity with Latin America during the COVID-19 pandemic, I thought, “These people have no shame!.”

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories claiming China intentionally created or spread the coronavirus, but there’s little doubt that China’s delay in telling the world about its outbreak in Wuhan province was a major blunder. Many of the world’s 1.7 million COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented if China had alerted the world early on about the problem.

So when I read the Xinhua agency’s Dec. 23 report, I knew immediately that it was classic political hypocrisy.

Its headline claims that China and Latin America have set an “example of solidarity against common challenges” during the pandemic.

“Like a giant ship unperturbed by choppy waters, the relationship between China and Latin America and the Caribbean has been sailing steadily amid a turbulent 2020,” the report started out.

In a tacit slap at President Trump’s “vaccine nationalism,” the Xinhua report noted that when the virus hit Latin America, “China was the first country to lend a helping hand.”

As early as on March 23, China had its first virtual meeting on epidemic prevention and control with Latin American governments. The report said that, shortly thereafter, China “set up the first ever air bridge with both Argentina and Mexico to deliver much-needed medical supplies.”

Granted, China’s “medical diplomacy” is probably a damage-control strategy to make up for its failure to alert the world about the pandemic in early 2020. But a closer look at China’s recent actions shows that Beijing has been more engaged than Washington in helping Latin America get COVID-19 vaccines.

China’s foreign minister Wang Yi announced in July a $1 billion loan to Latin American and Caribbean countries to buy Chinese-made COVID-19 vaccines.

In addition, China has signed the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility, or COVAX, a World Health Organization effort to ensure every country has access to vaccine.. This global effort has been funded by Great Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy and Estonia, among others, and has already raised almost $2 billion of its initial $5 billion fundraising goal.

By comparison, Trump has boycotted the COVAX effort. He also signed a Dec. 8 executive order that bars the United States from sending vaccines to any other country, and then bragged about it publicly.

The U.S. government has delivered more than $220 million in COVID-19 assistance to Latin American and the Caribbean, according to the U.S. Southern Command, more than any other country. But many experts say that China has given more.

Benjamin Gedan, deputy director of the Latin American program at the Washington D.C.-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, told me that, “Since the start of the pandemic, the Chinese have been more responsible and more generous in Latin America than the United States.”

As of now, there is no prospect of the U.S. exporting one single vaccine to the region, Gedan told me.

Asked about Trump’s Dec. 8 executive order, Gedan said that, “Instead of using this as an opportunity to signal U.S. support for the developing world, Trump boasted about the fact that the U.S. would not export any vaccines. It’s the most counter-productive messaging that anyone could have imagined.”

Of course, Trump can’t be blamed for taking care of his country’s people first. It’s any president’s responsibility to do that. But Trump’s nationalist demagoguery, in addition to being bad public relations and a terrible way to counter China’s growing inroads in Latin America, suggests that Americans can be safe if the pandemic continues to expand globally. In fact, the opposite is true.

There are many ways in which the United States can help Latin America fight the pandemic other than shipping out vaccines, including contributing funds to the COVAX global vaccination effort. The United States’ failure to contribute to COVAX is an international embarrassment.

There are no heroes in this tragedy: Both China and the United States have failed the test of being responsible global citizens. It’s time for incoming president-elect Biden to announce America’s commitment to the COVAX effort and correct this shameful chapter of U.S. history.

CHINA TOLD THE WORLD IN DECEMBER 2019 IT HAD AN OUTBREAK OF AN UNKOWN VIRUS, IT GAVE OUT THE GENETIC CODE FOR THE VIRUS IN THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY 2020!!!! FOR CHINA THIS WAS VERY FORTHCOMING COULD THEY HAVE SAID SOMETHING EARLIER, APPARENTLY NOT SINCE THE OUTBREAK BEGAN IN NOVEMBER BUT WAS NOT DETECTED TILL DECEMBER IN WUHAN 

AS IT BECAME A SIGNIFICANT OUTBREAK.

PUTIN WANNABE
Turkey debates law that would increase oversight of NGOs

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan answers questions during 

a joint news conference with U.S. President Donald Trump

 at the White House in Washington

Fri, December 25, 2020

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey's parliament began debating a draft law on Friday that would increase oversight of non-governmental organisations and which, according to rights campaigners, risks limiting the freedoms of civil-society groups.

The bill would allow the interior minister to replace members of organisations who are being investigated for terrorism charges. The interior ministry could also apply to courts to halt the groups' activities under the draft bill.

The government says the measure, covering "foundations and associations", aims to prevent non-profit organisations from financing terrorism and to punish those who violate the law.

Civil-society groups, including Amnesty International and the Human Rights Association, said terrorism charges in Turkey were arbitrary, and that the draft law would violate the presumption of innocence and punish those whose trials were not finalised.

The bill was drafted by President Tayyip Erdogan's AK Party (AKP), which holds a majority in parliament with nationalist MHP allies, suggesting it is likely to pass.

Investigations based on terrorism charges have been launched against hundreds of thousands of people under a crackdown following a failed coup in 2016. Hundreds of foundations were also shut down with decrees following the coup attempt.

Critics say Erdogan and the AKP have used the failed coup as pretext to quash dissent. The government says the measures were necessary given the security threats facing Turkey.

Under the draft law, foundations would be inspected annually by civil servants who could request any documents from them.

Local governors or the interior minister could block online donation campaigns to prevent terrorism financing and money laundering, under the draft law.

Fines of up to 200,000 lira ($26,200) could be levied for any group found to be engaged in illegal online donation campaigns, compared with a current maximum of 700 lira.

($1 = 7.6335 liras)

(Reporting by Ali Kucukgocmen; Editing by Jonathan Spicer and Pravin Char)

Children understand far more about other minds than long believed


Henrike Moll, Associate Professor of Psychology, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Fri, December 25, 2020

Don't underestimate what I get about the world around me. 

Baby image via www.shutterstock.com.

Until a few decades ago, scholars believed that young children know very little, if anything, about what others are thinking. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, who is credited with founding the scientific study of children’s thinking, was convinced that preschool children cannot consider what goes on in the minds of others.

The interviews and experiments he conducted with kids in the middle of the 20th century suggested that they were trapped in their subjective viewpoints, incapable of imagining what others think, feel or believe. To him, young children seemed oblivious to the fact that different people might hold distinct viewpoints or perspectives on the world, or even that their own perspectives shift over time.

Much of the subsequent research on early childhood thinking was highly influenced by Piaget’s ideas. Scholars sought to refine his theory and empirically confirm his views. But it became increasingly clear that Piaget was missing something. He seemed to have gravely underestimated the intellectual powers of very young kids – before they can make themselves understood by speech or even intentional action. Researchers began to devise ever more ingenious ways of figuring out what goes on in the minds of babies, and the resulting picture of their abilities is becoming more and more nuanced.

Consequently, the old view of children’s egocentric nature and intellectual weaknesses has increasingly fallen out of favor and become replaced by a more generous position that sees a budding sense not only of the physical world but also of other minds, even in the “youngest young.”

Dark Ages of intellectual development?

Historically, children didn’t receive much respect for their mental powers. Piaget not only believed that children were “egocentric” in the sense that they were unable to differentiate between their own viewpoint and that of others; he was also convinced that their thinking was characterized by systematic errors and confusions.

For example, the children he interviewed seemed unable to disentangle causes from their effects (“Does the wind move the branches or do the moving branches cause the wind?”) and could not tell reality apart from superficial appearances (a stick submerged halfway into water looks, but is not, bent). They also fall prey to magical and mythical thinking: A child might believe that the sun was once a ball that someone tossed up into the sky, where it grew bigger and bigger. In fact, Piaget believed that children’s mental development progresses in the same way historians believe human thought progressed over historical time: from mythical to logical thinking.

Piaget firmly believed kids were focused entirely on their own actions and perceptions. When playing with others, they don’t cooperate because they do not realize there are different roles and perspectives. He was convinced that children literally cannot “get their act together”: instead of playing cooperatively and truly together, they play side by side, with little regard for the other. And when speaking with others, a young child supposedly cannot consider the listener’s viewpoint but “talks to himself without listening to the others.”

Piaget and his followers maintained that children go through something like a dark ages of intellectual development before slowly and gradually becoming enlightened by reason and rationality as they reach school age. Alongside this enlightenment develops an ever-growing understanding of other persons, including their attitudes and views of the world.

Changing mindset about minds

Today, a very different picture of children’s mental development emerges. Psychologists continually reveal new insights into the depth of young children’s knowledge of the world, including their understanding of other minds. Recent studies suggest that even infants are sensitive to others’ perspectives and beliefs.

Part of the motivation to revise some of Piaget’s conclusions stemmed from an ideological shift about the origin of human knowledge that occurred in the second half of the 20th century. It became increasingly unpopular to assume that a basic understanding of the world can be built entirely from experience.

This was in part instigated by theorist Noam Chomsky, who argued that something as complex as the rules of grammar cannot be picked up from exposure to speech, but is supplied by an innate “language faculty.” Others followed suit and defined further “core areas” in which knowledge allegedly cannot be pieced together from experience but must be innate. One such area is our knowledge of others’ minds. Some even argue that a basic knowledge of others’ minds is not only possessed by human infants, but must be evolutionarily old and hence shared by our nearest living relatives, the great apes.

Ingenious new investigation tools

To prove that infants know more in this realm than had been acknowledged, researchers needed to come up with innovative ways of showing it. A big part of why we now recognize so much more of kids’ intellectual capacities is the development of much more sensitive research tools than Piaget had at his disposal.

Instead of engaging toddlers in dialog or having them execute complex motor tasks, the newer methods capitalize on behaviors that have a firm place in infants’ natural behavior repertoire: looking, listening, sucking, making facial expressions, gestures and simple manual actions. The idea of focusing on these “small behaviors” is that they give kids the chance to demonstrate their knowledge implicitly and spontaneously – without having to respond to questions or instructions. For example, children might look longer at an event that they did not expect to happen, or they might show facial expressions indicating that they have empathy with another.

When researchers measure these less demanding, and often involuntary, behaviors, they can detect a sensitivity to others’ mental states at a much younger age than with the more taxing methods that Piaget and his disciples deployed.

What modern studies reveal

In the 1980s, these kinds of implicit measures became customary in developmental psychology. But it took a while longer before these tools were employed to measure children’s grasp of the mental lives of others. Recent studies have revealed that even infants and toddlers are sensitive to what goes in others’ minds.

In one series of experiments, a group of Hungarian scientists had six-month-old babies watch an animation of the following sequence of events: A Smurf observed how a ball rolled behind a screen. The Smurf then left. In its absence, the infants witnessed how the ball emerged from behind the screen and rolled away. The Smurf returned and the screen was lowered, showing that the ball was no longer there. The authors of the study recorded the infants’ looks and found that they fixated longer than usual on the final scene in which the Smurf gazed at the empty space behind the barrier – as if they understood that the Smurf’s expectation was violated.

In another set of experiments, my colleagues at the University of Southern California and I found evidence that toddlers can even anticipate how others will feel when their expectations are disappointed. We acted out several puppet shows in front of two-year-old children. In these puppet shows, a protagonist (Cookie Monster) left his precious belongings (cookies) on stage and later returned to fetch them. What the protagonist did not know was that an antagonist had come and messed with his possessions. The children had witnessed these acts and attentively watch the protagonist return.

We recorded children’s facial and bodily expressions. Children bit their lips, wrinkled their nose or wiggled in their chair when the protagonist came back, as if they anticipated the bewilderment and disappointment he was about to experience. Importantly, children showed no such reactions and remained calm when the protagonist had seen the events himself and thus knew what to expect. Our study reveals that by the tender age of two, kids not only track what others believe or expect; they can even foresee how others will feel when they discover reality.

Studies like these reveal that there is much more going on in toddlers’ and even infants’ minds than was previously believed. With the explicit measures used by Piaget and successors, these deeper layers of kids’ understanding cannot be accessed. The new investigative tools demonstrate that kids know more than they can say: when we scratch beneath the surface, we find a fledgling understanding of relations and perspectives that Piaget probably did not dream of.

Old ways have value, too

Despite these obvious advances in the study of young children’s thinking, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss the careful and systematic analyses compiled by Piaget and others before the new tests dominated the scene. Doing so would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, because the original methods revealed essential facts about how children think – facts that the new, “minimalist” methods cannot uncover.

There’s no consensus in today’s community about how much we can infer from a look, a grimace or a hand gesture. These behaviors clearly indicate a curiosity about what goes on in the mind of others, and probably a set of early intuitions coupled with a willingness to learn more. They pave the way to richer and more explicit forms of understanding of the minds of other. But they can in no way replace the child’s growing ability to articulate and refine her understanding of how people behave and why.

Piaget may have underestimated infants’ cognitive powers, perhaps for lack of modern tools. But his insights into how a child gradually comes to grasp the world around her and understand that she is a person among a community of other persons remain as inspiring as they were 50 years ago. Today’s challenge for us developmental scholars is to integrate the new with the old, and understand how infants’ sensitivity to other minds gradually develops into a full-blown understanding of other persons as distinct from, and yet similar to, oneself.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:

Can great apes read your mind?

Young children are terrible at hiding – psychologists have a new theory why

Why are so many of our pets overweight?

Henrike Moll receives funding from the Office of Naval Research.

We Spoke With an Eco-Activist About Why Environmentalism Matters for Everyone



Lola Mendez
Fri, December 25, 2020, 

Petrice Jones isn’t just the ultra-talented star of Netflix’s new hit show Locke & Key—he’s also an eco-warrior. The British actor is the brains behind The One Movement, a social enterprise aiming to educate, empower, and support people fighting to protect our planet. He joined forces with Lonely Whale, an organization dedicated to caring for our oceans, to host the 52 Hertz podcast series about climate optimism.

On 52 Hertz and his social media platforms, the self-declared climate optimist raises awareness about global environmental issues like plastic pollution. We spoke with Jones about the need to elevate BIPOC voices in the environmental movement, how the climate impacts BIPOC communities, and what keeps him hopeful amongst the chaos.

AD: What inspired you to host the Lonely Whale podcast series, 52 Hertz, about climate optimism?

Jones: Collaborating with Lonely Whale was a no-brainer for me. Our mission is the same: We want to mobilize an audience that creates daily habits that are better for the planet, and to help others understand that their voice and their actions, no matter how small, can make a difference.

The first season of 52 Hertz elevates the voices of those who are finding truly innovative approaches to the problem. By highlighting unique efforts within the ocean conservation space, we uncover the many ways that others—no matter their age, background, or industry—can challenge the status quo and create genuine impact.

Hearing people’s stories made me want to take things further, I started asking myself what else I could do. Understanding that we’re not separate from our environment but rather part of it is fundamental to calculate the “true cost” of any endeavor. If you think of yourself as separate from the environment, you may think that the true cost is one that’s personal or financial. The true cost is one that considers both the financial and environmental factors.

What is the intersection of the environmental movement and the BIPOC community?

Wanjiku “Wawa” Gatheru of Black Girl Environmentalist, a supportive community for Black girls, womxn, and nonbinary environmentalists, is definitely an inspiration to me. Her focus on the need to disrupt the status quo within the environmental movement, and calling for the movement to center the experience and expertise of frontline people of color, especially Black and brown people who have been historically left out, is truly admirable work.

You can’t have an environmental movement without the BIPOC community. Wawa talks about this in 52 Hertz, episode 3, but the environmental movement itself is historically racist. It’s well past time for the environmental movement to reckon with that history.

So, the environment is a civil justice issue?

Intersectional environmentalism is a movement that advocates for justice for both the Earth and communities of color. It’s about protecting people and the planet, recognizing that by harming the planet, we’re harming our most vulnerable communities.

Intersectional environmentalism isn’t just an idea or something we can talk about or debate as a concept. Studies have shown that communities of color are disproportionately exposed to poor water and air quality. Zanagee Artis, the cofounder of Zero Hour, and I talk a lot about the importance of prioritizing the environment when we vote in episode 11 of 52 Hertz. Because climate change is an intersectional issue, everything from health care and foreign policy to war relates back to the environment and impacts climate change in the future.

Protecting marine wildlife and natural habitats is a necessary part of the environmental movement, but it’s time to recognize that protecting our own neighbors is equally, if not more, important. Environmental racism can look like building hazardous waste facilities or ignoring contaminated groundwater in nonwhite neighborhoods. Intersectional environmentalism comes into play when we talk about environmental racism because it includes fighting for the policies and regulations that protect the planet and its people.

Why do we need to diversify the environmental movement?

When people think of an environmentalist or those involved in the environmental movement, there’s a very specific kind of person that comes to mind. But the fact is, anyone and everyone can get involved, regardless of age, experience, or background. Being an environmentalist is about so much more than just caring about conservation and our physical planet. It’s also about our love for humanity. We’re all being impacted by environmental crises and climate change. It’s all of our responsibility to step up as environmental leaders and take action. Diversifying the movement breaks down these barriers and allows us to join together through our efforts to save the future of our shared planet.

What keeps you optimistic about the future of our planet?

Despite everything going on right now, I’m hopeful for our environment because 2020 has been a year of action—for taking to the streets, for signing petitions, for demanding accountability, for voting in elections at every level, for educating those around you, for fighting for what’s right and never stopping because it’s what’s right. Public demand for the health of our planet is rising, and with this momentum growing, decision-makers can’t continue to ignore our voices. It’s also incredibly inspiring to see more and more young people get involved in the movement and become leaders themselves. It keeps me motivated in my fight for the next generation.

As a young Black man, I’ve spent much of my career searching for my face amid the environmental movement, and sometimes I couldn’t help but feel alone or frustrated. I’m thankful to the people who are mobilizing and putting in work to make this a space for everyone, whether it be through protesting, the decisions they make as consumers, or the pursuit of education.

Your power is with your vote, your wallet, and your voice. Support Black businesses and environmental-focused businesses. We have to keep pushing, and we have to go further because the environment deserves it.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Originally Appeared on Architectural Digest

Judge delays execution of only woman on US death row

FILE - This Aug. 28, 2020, file photo shows the federal prison complex in Terre Haute, Ind. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy, File)A federal judge said the Justice Department unlawfully rescheduled the execution of the only woman on federal death row, potentially setting up the Trump administration to schedule the execution after president-elect Joe Biden

MICHAEL BALSAMO
Fri, December 25, 2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said the Justice Department unlawfully rescheduled the execution of the only woman on federal death row, potentially setting up the Trump administration to schedule the execution after president-elect Joe Biden takes office.

U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss also vacated an order from the director of the Bureau of Prisons that had set Lisa Montgomery’s execution date for Jan. 12. Montgomery had previously been scheduled to be put to death at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana, this month, but Moss delayed the execution after her attorneys contracted coronavirus visiting their client and asked him to extend the amount of time to file a clemency petition.

Moss prohibited the Bureau of Prisons from carrying out Lisa Montgomery’s execution before the end of the year and officials rescheduled her execution date for Jan. 12. But Moss ruled on Wednesday that the agency was also prohibited from rescheduling the date while a stay was in place.


“The Court, accordingly, concludes that the Director’s order setting a new execution date while the Court’s stay was in effect was ‘not in accordance with law,’” Moss wrote.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Under the order, the Bureau of Prisons cannot reschedule Montgomery’s execution until at least Jan. 1. Generally, under Justice Department guidelines, a death-row inmate must be notified at least 20 days before the execution. Because of the judge’s order, if the Justice Department chooses to reschedule the date in January, it could mean that the execution would be scheduled after Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

A spokesperson for Biden has told The Associated Press the president-elect “opposes the death penalty now and in the future” and would work as president to end its use in office. But Biden’s representatives have not said whether executions would be paused immediately once Biden takes office.

Montgomery was convicted of killing 23-year-old Bobbie Jo Stinnett in the northwest Missouri town of Skidmore in December 2004. She used a rope to strangle Stinnett, who was eight months pregnant, and then a kitchen knife to cut the baby girl from the womb, authorities said.

Prosecutors said Montgomery removed the baby from Stinnett’s body, took the child with her, and attempted to pass the girl off as her own. Montgomery’s legal team has argued that their client suffers from serious mental illnesses.

“Given the severity of Mrs. Montgomery’s mental illness, the sexual and physical torture she endured throughout her life, and the connection between her trauma and the facts of her crime, we appeal to President Trump to grant her mercy, and commute her sentence to life imprisonment,” one of Montgomery’s lawyers, Sandra Babcock, said in a statement.

Two other federal inmates are scheduled to be executed in January but have tested positive for coronavirus and their attorneys are also seeking delays to their executions.

Iranian hackers target Israeli defence firm in bid for ransom


David Rose
Fri, December 25, 2020

Israeli cyber-security firm Checkpoint system said it had traced the hacks back to a Bitcoin exchanged based in Tehran - PA

A new Iranian computer-hacking group has been targeting defence companies in Israel in an attempt to expose weaknesses and obtain ransoms, it has emerged.

The group, known as "Pay2Key", boasted of carrying out dozens of cyber-attacks on high-profile targets since last month, including two in the last week.

The latest attack on Thursday targeted Portnox, an Israeli cyber-security firm, whose clients include electronics company Elbit Systems, which produces defence systems for military aircraft, vehicles and drones.

On Sunday, the same hackers said that they successfully compromised a range of Israeli defense industry companies, including Israel Aerospace Industries.

Analysts say that Pay2Key operates by using “ransomware” attacks to steal data, and threatening to leak it if the targets do not cooperate or pay up to £100,000 in Bitcoin, the electronic currency.

Checkpoint Systems, an Israeli cyber-security firm, said it had traced some of the transactions back to a Bitcoin exchange based in Iran, but it was not clear if the Iranian government was behind the attacks.

Iranian hackers have previously been blamed for "state-level" cyber-attacks against Israel, American banks and in 2017, on British Parliamentary email accounts, including those of cabinet ministers.

Among 3 Gigabytes of data released after the latest hack was a 15-page report that highlights security weaknesses in Elbit Systems. However, the report only goes as far as the year 2018, which may mean that most of the exposed weaknesses are no longer relevant.

"Over a terabyte of documents, projects, coding files and others were extracted from the company's servers," the group wrote on their website on the “dark web”, an unregulated part of the internet.

Portnox said that they were investigating after "reports indicated a hack into the company's internal servers by a hacking group that identifies itself as Pay2Key.

"The company has launched a comprehensive investigation in order to gain a full picture of the incident," it said in a statement.

Russian cat rescued from rubbish plant receives honorary ministerial role

Campbell MacDiarmid

Sat, December 26, 2020,


Russian waste plant worker Mikhail Tukash rescues a cat from a rubbish separator - GORKOMHOZ/ GORKOMHOZ

A Russian cat rescued from a rubbish separator at a waste processing plant has been adopted by the Ulyanovsk region’s environment ministry and given an honorary title.

The black and white cat has achieved local celebrity status in Ulyanovsk, a city 435 miles east of Moscow, after surveillance camera footage showed a worker at the sorting facility grabbing a bag from a conveyor belt and opening it to discover the feline inside.

“I felt something soft inside the bag,” plant worker Mikhail Tukash told the tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets, Reuters reported. “I cut the bag open slightly and I saw eyes looking back at me.”

The footage shows the conveyor belt come to a stop as Mr Tukash shows his colleagues the cat, which remains calm as he strokes it with gloved hands.

“I needed to cut the bag to screen it for metals. I was just doing my job,” Mr Tukash told local television in the city, which is known as the birthplace of Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin.

The local channel reported that workers at the plant had previously rescued an African hedgehog nicknamed Vezunka, which means lucky in Russian, and two red-eared slider turtles.

The region’s environment ministry lauded Mr Tukash for the rescue, writing that the male cat was “on the brink of death” and would have “ended up in the trash separator” had Mr Tukash not grabbed him.

The well-fed and friendly cat was likely an abandoned household pet, the ministry said.

“If you can’t keep an animal at home, you can always give it away to a shelter,” minister Gulnara Rakhmatulina said in a statement.

After adopting the cat and bestowing upon him the honorary title of honorary deputy in charge of wildlife protection, the ministry released photos of him catnapping in the minister’s chair.

The ministry has announced a contest to name the rescued cat.

Breakingviews - Data centres will become green activists’ target



By Robyn Mak



RJ45 cables are pictured inside the data centre operated by French telecoms operator Iliad in Paris, France, March 4, 2019.

HONG KONG (Reuters Breakingviews) - Technology firms are due a green shake-up. Data centres and networks each use around 1% of the world’s electricity, according to the International Energy Agency – more, for now, than electric vehicles. That could hit double-digits by 2030, making related emissions a problem.

The infrastructure behind video conferencing and binge-watching “The Crown” on Netflix comprises mainly two parts: buildings that house tens of thousands of servers and the networks that connect servers to smartphones, PCs and other devices. Both require huge amounts of electricity. Data centres use roughly 200 terawatt-hours a year, according to a 2018 study led by Eric Masanet, an engineer at Northwestern University in the United States. That’s in the same ballpark as Australia’s annual consumption.

The good news is that figure has barely increased over the past decade. Even as data volumes have multiplied, networks and server farms, particularly so-called hyperscale centres operated by Amazon.com, Microsoft, and Alphabet-owned Google, have become extremely energy efficient.

But that trajectory looks unsustainable. Even without the isolation of the pandemic, widespread adoption of next-generation 5G wireless technology, autonomous driving and the internet of things will dramatically boost internet traffic. Moreover, chips that power servers are reaching technological limits, making efficiency gains harder to come by.

Estimates for how much energy consumption will rise vary. But for some countries, data may suck up a double-digit percentage. Ireland’s power operator, for instance, in 2018 estimated the country’s data centres may account for nearly 30% of electricity demand by 2028. The Irish Academy of Engineering reckons that will add at least 1.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions, 13% of the electricity sector’s current total.

Giant technology companies are among the world’s largest buyers of renewable energy. But that won’t be enough to spare them the attention of environmental, social and governance-oriented investors. At the top of the agenda will be pushing for better disclosure about energy use and emissions, perhaps even attributing them to specific bulk customers like Netflix and Zoom Video Communications

In January 2020, Microsoft unveiled a tool to help enterprise clients analyse their cloud service-related emissions. That’s a step in the right direction, but ESG investors may demand much more in 2021.

This is a Breakingviews prediction for 2021. To see more of our predictions, click here.