Vacuum Cleaner For Space Needed

By Kanchan Sharma On Nov 20, 2021

This article is an on-site version of our #techFT newsletter. Sign up here to get the complete newsletter sent straight to your inbox every weekday

As we fire more and more wonderful tech into orbit around the Earth, the need grows for increased “space traffic control” and simple garbage collection tech to cope with decay and inevitable obsolescence.

The problem of space debris has been highlighted this week by Russia blowing apart one of its own satellites in a test of an anti-satellite missile. The US protested that it generated more than 1,500 pieces of “trackable orbital debris and will likely generate hundreds of thousands of pieces of smaller orbital debris”, threatening people working at the International Space Station and “other human space flight activities”.

There is no tech deployed to date that can “Hoover” up such potentially deadly fragments. Japan’s Astroscale is the closest we have to a space clean-up company. Its ELSA-d prototype successfully demonstrated in August how it could magnetically capture redundant satellites, with the aim of towing them away to disintegrate in the Earth’s atmosphere as they descend. UK satellite company OneWeb is already fitting its latest satellites with compatible magnetic docking plates.

Katrina Manson and Max Seddon report the debris cloud created by Russia in low earth orbit threatens to affect hundreds of commercial satellites, including from SpaceX and the US imaging company Planet, while refocusing rising tensions between Russia and the US on the escalating weaponisation of space.

“They basically set off a bomb in the middle of the new space race,” said Daniel Ceperley, chief executive and co-founder of Leo Labs, which uses radar to track objects in space to prevent collisions.

The Californian company recently received a follow-on investment from Seraphim Space Investment Trust, the world’s first listed SpaceTech fund, which reported September quarter results today after listing in London in July.

Seraphim said it had also invested in antenna, earth observation and navigation companies. “The SpaceTech investment market remains buoyant, with record levels of private investment,” said CEO Mark Boggett. Its research shows $6.4bn was invested in SpaceTech in the first half of this year and nearly 600 satellites were launched in the second quarter. Anyone with good ideas on how to enable a circular economy for the thousands of objects circling the earth ought to be getting some of that money as well.

When debris disaster strikes

by European Space Agency

The history of space debris creation. Credit: ESA / UNOOSA

In 2021 so far, some 2467 new objects large enough to be tracked have been added to world catalogs of orbital objects, out of which 1493 are new satellites and the rest are debris. While new objects are added, others are dragged down to Earth by the atmosphere where they safely burn up, resulting in a net increase of at least 1387 trackable objects between 2020 and 2021.

In addition, an estimated 1500 new objects—an increase of about 5% with respect to the total population—were added just this week, meaning the risk to missions must be reassessed.

Every now and then, an event occurs in Earth orbit that generates large quantities of new space debris. Accidental explosions caused by leftover fuel onboard satellites and rockets have created the greatest number of debris objects, but second in line are deliberate breakup events.

Some 36,000 objects larger than a tennis ball are orbiting Earth, and only 13% of these are actively controlled. The rest comprise space debris, the direct result of 'fragmentation events' of which roughly 630 are known to have occurred to date.

Based on observations of larger objects together with statistical models (for those objects too small to be observed with telescopes on Earth), ESA estimates there are in orbit today:

• 36,500 objects greater than 10 cm in size
• 1,000,000 objects from 1 cm to 10 cm
• 330 million objects from 1 mm to 1 cm

After each new fragmentation event, ESA's Space Debris Office begins its analysis. What happened? How will this shape the debris environment, now and in the future? What has been the change in collision risk to active satellites and spacecraft in orbit? Which altitudes and orbits are the most affected?

Evolution of space debris. Credit: European Space Agency

New objects tracked

In 2021 so far, some 2,467 new objects large enough to be tracked have been added to world catalogs of orbital objects, out of which 1,493 are new satellites and the rest are debris. While new objects are added, others are dragged down to Earth by the atmosphere where they safely burn up, resulting in a net increase of at least 1387 trackable objects between 2020 and 2021.

In addition, an estimated 1500 new objects—an increase of about 5% with respect to the total population—were added just this week.

Because debris objects travel at high velocities, a collision with a fragment as small as just 1 cm in diameter can generate the same amount of destructive energy as a small car crashing at 40 km/h.

While the smallest, sub-millimeter-sized debris particles may only degrade the functioning of a satellite upon impact, 'larger' pieces—in the centimeter range—can cause complete destruction.

Earth's atmosphere can cause orbital objects to re-enter over time and burn up. The higher the orbital altitude, the thinner the atmosphere, and so the longer objects will naturally stay in space. In altitudes above 600 km, the natural 'residence time' in space for such objects is typically more than 25 years.

ESA's Earth Observation missions, which orbit in this region, have each had to perform two 'collision avoidance maneuvers' on average per year, to dodge oncoming debris.

Falling to Earth takes a long time. Credit: ESA / UNOOSA

Reassessing risk

After fragmentation events, such as one that happened this week, the risk to missions must be reassessed.

"This major fragmentation event will not only more than double the long-term collision avoidance needs for missions in orbits with similar altitudes, but will furthermore significantly increase the probability of potentially mission-terminating collisions at lower altitudes," says Holger Krag, Head of ESA's Space Safety Programme.

International cooperation

Space debris are constantly monitored by the US space surveillance network, and ESA's space debris experts use this and other monitoring data to improve and update models to better understand the evolving debris environment.

By performing daily collision risk analyses and creating models that predict the future position and density of debris objects at various altitudes, the team can advise satellite operators on how best to keep their missions safe.

An impressive shot from ESA's latest space debris movie: Time to Act. The launch of Sputnik, humankind’s first satellite, in 1957 marked the dawn of a new era for the people of the 'Pale Blue Dot'. Decades later, our planet is now surrounded by spacecraft carrying out extraordinary work. But they are up against a huge problem, they share space with millions of fragments of fast-moving and dangerous space debris. Credit: ESA

Keeping space highways safe

The United Nations has set out guidelines to reduce the growing amount of space debris in orbit. Experts from ESA's Space Debris Office have contributed to these guidelines and routinely advise on how to implement them for ESA missions.

Furthermore, as part of the Agency's space safety and security activities, ESA is working to keep Earth's commercially and scientifically vital orbital environment as debris-free as possible and to pioneer an eco-friendly approach to space activities.

ESA is the first space agency to adopt the ambitious target of inverting Europe's contribution to space debris by 2030, directly tackling the issue of space debris by advancing the technology needed to maintain a clean space environment. ESA has initiated the first active debris-removal mission to be launched in 2025 to demonstrate the ability to remove debris from an orbit at 700 km.

But as the 'New Space' era beckons, and large constellations comprising thousands of satellites start to be launched, much more needs to be done to ensure Earth's space environment is used sustainably for future generations.

In 2025, the first active debris removal mission, ClearSpace-1, will rendezvous, capture and take down for reentry the upper part of a Vespa (Vega Secondary Payload Adapter) from Europe's Vega launcher. This was left in an approximately 800 km by 660 km altitude gradual disposal orbit, complying with space debris mitigation regulations, following the second Vega flight in 2013. ClearSpace-1 will use ESA-developed robotic arm technology to capture the Vespa, then perform a controlled atmospheric reentry. Credit: ClearSpace SA

ESA accelerates the protection of our space investment

The current situation calls for new technology that will allow regulators to consider a systematic implementation of zero-debris policies. A new European commercial capability needs to be forged to provide innovative in-orbit services, such as refueling, refurbishing and extending the life of existing missions. This will lead to a 'circular economy' in space.

To ensure safe access to space, high-precision position information on all orbital objects must become available, and automated coordination between spacecraft operators must be implemented. Novel technology will be required for these ambitious steps, which are proposed as part of the new 'Protect' Accelerator, one of three currently being defined to help shape Europe's future in space.

Space technology, and the multitude of applications that flow from it, is vital to Europe's economy. Ensuring the safety of our space infrastructure and investments, and therefore Europe's non-dependent use of space, is vital for safeguarding businesses, economies and ultimately our way of life.Video: How to clear Earth's orbit of space debris

Provided by European Space Agency 

DEAR PRO LIFE ANTI VAXXER

Covid significantly raises risk of stillbirth: US study


A pregnant woman receives a dose of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine in Asuncion, Paraguay (AFP/NORBERTO DUARTE)

Fri, November 19, 2021, 

The risk of stillbirth is about twice as high for women with Covid compared to those without, and grew to about quadruple during the period when the Delta variant became dominant, a large US government study said Friday.

The analysis, carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was based on more than 1.2 million deliveries between March 2020 and September 2021 from a large US hospital database.

Overall, stillbirths were highly rare, accounting for 0.65 percent or 8,154 deliveries.

But, after using statistical methods to account for the effect of other variables that might bias the result, stillbirths were 1.47 times more common among Covid-positive mothers pre-Delta, 4.04 times higher after, and 1.90 times higher overall.

The authors wrote that previous research had suggested a potential biological cause for the increased risk could be the result of inflammation or decreased blood flow to the placenta.

Among deliveries with Covid-19, conditions like chronic high blood pressure, having more than one baby, heart injury, separation of the placenta from the uterus, sepsis, poor blood flow resulting in shock, life-threatening lung injury, and having to go on a ventilator or being admitted to ICU were linked to higher rates of stillbirth.

"Additional studies are warranted to investigate the role of maternal complications from Covid-19 on the risk for stillbirth," they said.

The study is among the strongest to date linking Covid and stillbirth, the authors said.

Some previous research on the subject failed to adjust for "confounders" such as pre-existing conditions, and a previous analysis using the same dataset did not detect a significantly increased risk.

"The current analysis includes an additional year of data, adding to the growing evidence that Covid-19 is associated with an increased risk for stillbirth," the authors wrote, explaining why the link was more clear now.

ia/ec

World weighs laws to rein in mighty algorithms


US whistleblower and former Facebook engineer Frances Haugen says people deserve to know more about how the content they see is shaped by the jumble of data that gets fed into the social media machine -- or how algorithms work (AFP/JOEL SAGET)

Katy LEE
Fri, November 19, 2021

From the YouTube videos we're recommended to deciding who gets a job, algorithms wield an ever-growing influence over our lives -- and policy-makers worldwide want to rein them in.

While China is worried about delivery app algorithms that encourage their drivers to speed, US lawmakers are grappling with social media recommendation systems that have sent some users down dangerous rabbit-holes.

"Algorithms can be useful, of course, but many people simply aren't aware of just how much their experience on these platforms is being manipulated," John Thune, one of numerous US senators proposing new social media legislation, wrote in a CNN op-ed.

Facebook has faced fierce criticism after a whistleblower revealed that executives knew the site's algorithm systematically promoted inflammatory posts in people's newsfeeds, fuelling division and unrest from India to Ethiopia.

Frances Haugen, the ex-Facebook engineer behind the revelations, believes people deserve to know more about how the content they see is shaped by the jumble of data that gets fed into the social media machine.

"I think if we just say, 'we are going to regulate algorithms', that is so amorphous," Haugen told AFP in an interview last week.

"I think it's more powerful to say, 'Hey Facebook, you have a lot more transparency than we do'," and force the company to reveal more about how its systems work, she said.

- More boring social media? -

Campaigners and lawmakers may agree that tech giants' algorithms need more public oversight, but how to achieve that is a different matter.

"There are some really hard unanswered questions," said Daphne Keller, director of platform regulation at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center.

In the European Union, where lawmakers are debating two vast pieces of tech legislation, "some proposals say algorithms should prioritise authoritative sources of information, and others say they should prioritise diverse sources", Keller noted.

"How do you reconcile those two goals?"

The path forward is just as unclear in the US, where dozens of legal amendments have been proposed by lawmakers torn over what exactly it is about social media that needs fixing.

"On the left, people don't like all the harmful stuff like hate speech and misinformation; on the right, people think that their free speech is being taken away," summarised Noah Giansiracusa, author of "How Algorithms Create and Prevent Fake News".

Politicians and academics have suggested various means of limiting the harmful side-effects of social media algorithms -- none without their complications.

Some suggest platforms like Facebook and Twitter could be made legally liable for what they publish, which would discourage them from amplifying posts that spread hate or misinformation.

But in the US, where most social media giants are based, Giansiracusa said this would quickly face legal challenges from critics charging that it violates the right to freedom of speech.

Alternatively, governments could restrict social networks' ability to personalise what people see in their feeds.

YouTube and Facebook have been accused of unintentionally radicalising some people in this way, feeding them post after post of conspiracy theory-laden content.

Social media companies could be obliged to simply show people posts in chronological order -- but that risks making scrolling down a feed more boring.

The algorithms would no longer be able to calculate what a user will probably find interesting -- a photo of a close friend getting married, for instance -- while downgrading tedious posts about what an acquaintance had for lunch.

"There is no simple solution," Giansiracusa concluded.

- Garbage in, garbage out -

Beyond social media, the world's reliance on digital technology means algorithms increasingly affect real-world outcomes -- sometimes drastically.

China's cyberspace watchdog is mulling further regulation of tech firms' algorithms, not least after criticism of how food delivery apps like Meituan and Alibaba's Ele.me treat financially vulnerable gig workers.

Such apps have faced criticism for docking drivers' pay if they don't arrive fast enough, effectively encouraging reckless driving.

And studies have shown how artificial intelligence can prove racist or sexist, from resume-scanning tools that favour male candidates, to US risk assessment software that recommends white prisoners for parole more frequently than black counterparts.

Both are examples of a computing principle known as "garbage in, garbage out" -- the idea that algorithms can replicate human biases if they're fed data embedded with those biases.

Regulators are increasingly seeking ways of preventing these discriminatory outcomes, with the US Federal Trade Commission signalling it will penalise companies found to be selling biased algorithms.

"How algorithms shape our newsfeed is important," Keller said. "But when algorithms send people to jail or deny them employment -- that doesn't get enough attention."

kjl/cdw

On gun rights, Supreme Court ‘originalists’ don’t look at ‘original’ history of guns

Michael Coblenz
Fri, November 19, 2021, 7:06 AM·3 min read

Ah yes, Originalism. A majority of the current conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court claim to be “originalists” who assert that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the “original intent” of the Framers. According to self-described originalists, Justice Brent Kavanaugh, the Court can glean this intent by looking at the “text, history, and traditions” of the Constitutional provision in question.

We can see how these originalists apply their theory in the recent Supreme Court gun rights case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which deals with New York state’s restriction on carrying a concealed handgun in public. What does the text, history, and tradition have to say about this issue?

The text – the Second Amendment – states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is ambiguous and doesn’t really address whether a person can carry a concealed weapon in public. What do history and tradition teach?

How did governments deal with guns in the new nation? There were quite vigorous controls over weapons in the colonies during the Revolution, and most were adopted when the colonies became states. Some states mandated that every able-bodied man of legal age own a “militarily useful” weapon. Most required an accounting of these weapons – through registration and reporting to the government – or mandated a “muster” of all able-bodied men with their weapons. New Hampshire and Rhode Island conducted door-to-door surveys to ensure compliance. Ten of the original 13 states also had “impressment” laws allowing militias to confiscate private weapons, which obviously meant a citizen wouldn’t have a firearm for self-protection.

These laws were the historical consequence of the Revolution, where citizen-soldiers formed militias to fight the British. They also correspond with the idea that the Second Amendment was about the ownership of weapons as part of an organized militia.

There were plenty of other laws restricting gun ownership that didn’t deal with militia uses. Most states only allowed able-bodied white males to have weapons, and specifically forbade women, blacks (free or enslaved), natives, mixed race – and in a few states Catholics – from owning a firearm. Some states, and quite a few cities, had strict rules on the storage of gunpowder, which at the time was quite dangerous. Many states, particularly slave states, required the “safe storage” of weapons to ensure they didn’t fall into the wrong hands. Oh, and almost all states had strict rules on carrying weapons in public.

This was the history and tradition that the Supreme Court drew on when it considered gun rights cases. For 217 years the Court said the Second Amendment didn’t provide a general right of gun ownership, and therefore the states were free to broadly regulate weapons.

But in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court changed course, and held that the Second Amendment provided an individual right to keep and bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia ignored two centuries of clear history and said that the “central component” of the Second Amendment was “the inherent right of self-defense.”

At oral argument before the Court on Nov. 3, none of the so-called “Originalists” asked either party about this history of Founding Era gun control. But they had many questions about restricting a citizen’s ability to own a gun for self-defense. While this may be a rational concern, it has absolutely nothing to do with the text or the original understanding of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Based on the questioning at oral argument, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will strike down the gun control restrictions in the NY State Rifle case. This will expand individual gun rights. But it will also clearly show that the conservative justices’ assertions about “originalism,” and their claims to have a core set of beliefs, are nonsense.


Michael Coblenz is a patent attorney in Lexington. He can be reached at mike@coblenzlaw.com.

INFINITE SIEG FUCKING HEILS: Alas, Kyle Rittenhouse Is An American

ABBY ZIMET

November 20, 2021

So pudgy little blank-eyed sociopath Kyle Rittenhouse walked, an outcome both deeply disturbing and woefully unsurprising given the right-wing noise, the broken jury, the hack bigot of a judge, and don't forget the bedrock white supremacism that an American so-called justice system is designed to uphold. Thus, the unanimous verdict that a dumb-as-a-rock 17-year-old punk who took it upon himself to cross a state border toting an ill-begotten assault rifle to "protect" businesses was not guilty of anything in a country where you face harsher consequences for offering water to thirsty voters in line than murdering two BLM protesters; where a skateboard is deemed a deadly weapon and an AR-15 is a "first aid kit"; where, "Ha, let the boy be black and it would've been life." Swiftly and repulsively ncheering on the implausible finding of young Kyle's "innocence" were multiple sick, white, damaged, insecure yahoos and bullies masquerading as alleged GOP members of Congress. A gleeful Madison Cawthorn intoned, "Be armed, be dangerous and be moral" - no cognitive dissonance there - and neo-Nazi Paul Gosar funned (his specialty) that he'll arm-wrestle Matt Gaetz to hire Kyle for an intern if he somehow manages to graduate high school, and quizzed constituents whether Kyle should get a Congressional Medal of Honor - options "Yes" and "Yes again." Also former guy praised Kyle as "a law-abiding...CHILD." One patriot spoke for us all: "Fuck the Republican Party."

Also inevitably rejoicing, and scarily saying the quiet parts out loud, were the hate-mongering, bottom-feeding, proudly out anti-Semites and white supremacists who've crawled out of their fetid swamps and caves to embrace awful little Kyle as one of their own. It's ugly: "INFINITE SIEG FUCKING HEILS!....Open season on lib trash commies!...Antifags and BLMKKK gotta be shitting....Sieg Kyle!...DO YOU SEE, WHITE MAN? We still have power...Sorry kikes, better luck next time...As far as the media is concerned, (Kyle) should have let those anti-Whites murder him for being White...You were warned...Kyle is already suiting up to patrol Jews tonight...Do not use this as an excuse to relax - we are still being genocided, raped & erased daily." As though this was not a country bathed in blood and conquest where white men have long used guns with impunity to get what they want - against black kids buying Skittles, lefty protesters armed with skateboards, black men out jogging - many celebrated "a major turning point in the quest for justice" wherein, "We can protect our communities now!" "We have permission to defend ourselves," exulted one; when another challenged that with, "We don't need fucking permission and never did," a third chimed in, "But now it's a legal precedent." Cheered the neo-Nazi Occidental Templars, "Good American legal precedent and license to kill violent commies."

In fact, of course, the precedent and license is longstanding. We can thank the NRA, who "gave us Kyle Rittenhouse" and all the other "white men hopped up on cowboy fantasies (who) went out looking for trouble and waving guns at it" through a decades-long battle to re-define "self-defense." We can also thank our savage history. Patrick Blanchfield, a writer who teaches at Brooklyn Institute for Social Research, peers back to 1816, when Andrew Jackson unilterally invaded Spanish Florida to decimate a "Negro Fort" of Natives and runaway slaves in what was deemed an act of “national self-defense” - because it turns out the much-touted 2nd Amendment right to "self-defence" applies only to propertied white men to whom "the mere presence of non-white others (is) seen as an existential threat." Thus is Kyle Rittenhouse, writes Blanchfield, "but the latest iteration in a long line of American men who have decided to insert themselves and their guns into situations in which they somehow find themselves compelled to kill." They "vindicate an entire hierarchical social order by exercising their prerogative to assert ballistic control over space and dispose of the bodies of others"; their all-American - even killers' - "recourse to armed self-defense, he notes, likely entirely coincidentally "tends to favor those left standing when the the gunsmoke clears - and has since the very beginning." In such a grievous way, at least for now, "The system abides."

 

Update: So does Tucker Carlson, who it turns out had a Fox News crew embedded with Rittenhouse through the trial. WTF.




ABBY ZIMET

Abby has written CD's Further column since 2008. A longtime, award-winning journalist, she moved to the Maine woods in the early 70s, where she spent a dozen years building a house, hauling water and writing before moving to Portland. Having come of political age during the Vietnam War, she has long been involved in women's, labor, anti-war, social justice and refugee rights issues.

Rittenhouse verdict sets new legal precedent on White Privilege


Stephanie Willis
Fri, November 19, 2021, 

OPINION: The Rittenhouse Privilege has set a precedent that permits individuals to claim self-defense in the most outrageous of cases.

Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty on all counts after more than 24 hours of deliberations can be summed up with one simple phrase: White privilege. It’s an all too familiar theme we witness when White defendants are on trial for killing us.

The privilege that Rittenhouse displayed and benefited from, however, was clearly on another level. When privilege is raised in the legal arena, it is referring to communications between certain individuals that are protected – communication between husband and wife, doctor and patient, attorney and client.

I dare say Kyle Rittenhouse was cloaked with a privilege you cannot find in any legal precedent – The Rittenhouse Privilege. Throughout the trial there were instances in which it was quite apparent that the scales of justice tipped in favor of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Let’s start with the jury makeup. After the jury process, 18 individuals were selected to listen to the trial. Of these 18 individuals, 12 were selected at random by the defendant, Kyle Rittenhouse, to deliberate. These individuals consisted of seven women and five men – only one was a person of color.

The next thing to consider is the venue. The case was tried in Kenosha, which according to Census data is over 75% White. In the past, Kenosha country voted Democratic but went for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. It is also particularly important to consider the fact that Wisconsin is a gun friendly state. But we must also ask ourselves Gun Friendly toward whom?

Kyle Rittenhouse (Photo: Twitter)

We saw how law enforcement drove past Rittenhouse, a then 17-year-old not adhering to the curfew, who had just shot and killed Anthony Huber (26) and Joseph Rosenbaum (36) and injured Gaige Grosskreutz (36). They drove past him but didn’t think twice about firing their artillery at Jacob Blake.

One would have thought because the victims in this case were White, this case would be open and shut. But the victims who were in Kenosha to protest the shooting of Jacob Blake were villainized and treated in an all too familiar manner – but in this case the victims were not Black. By order of Judge Bruce Schroder, the victims in this case would not be referred to as victims by the prosecution throughout the trial.

According to reports, this is a long-standing rule Judge Schroeder has maintained in his court. But when Judge Schroeder’s ringtone is “God Bless the USA” — Trump’s 2016 and 2020 campaign song — you just can’t help but wince a little.

Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with seven counts. The State of Wisconsin had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed the seven counts, which included first degree intentional homicide with a dangerous weapon. However, before the jury even began deliberating, two of the seven counts (possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under eighteen and failure to comply with emergency order) were dismissed by the judge.

Kyle Rittenhouse and attorneys for both sides argue about a video in Kenosha Circuit Court on November 12, 2021 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Photo by Mark Hertzberg-Pool/Getty Images)

Trials can be a rollercoaster ride; one minute you’re up and then the next minute you’re fighting to keep it all together. Attorneys expect there to be setbacks because the courtroom is volatile. However, there were critical mistakes committed by the prosecution. You can’t pick your witnesses but there’s an unofficial rule when conducting your examination, direct or cross — don’t ask a question that you do not know the answer to.

During direct examination, Ryan Balch — who walked around with Rittenhouse patrolling the streets in Wisconsin — testified that Rosenbaum acted in a “hyperaggressive” manner; Richard McGinnis testified that Jason Rosenbaum went after Rittenhouse and attempted to reach for the gun when Rittenhouse shot him. Later during cross examination, Grosskreutz testified he thought Anthony Huber attempted to harm Rittenhouse. These statements alone were key in the claim of self-defense.

When claiming self-defense, the defendant cannot be the aggressor. It was necessary for the jury to find Rittenhouse believed there was an unlawful threat to him and that the amount of force he used was reasonable and necessary. This is why Rittenhouse testified incessantly that he used force necessary to remove the treat to him. But none of the victims who were killed were armed – Rittenhouse brought a gun to a fist fight. Rittenhouse cried his crocodile tears, used his privilege, and convinced the jury that he was walking around in Kenosha past curfew with an AR-15 because he was trying to deliver medical aid.

The Rittenhouse Privilege weaved its way into the cracks of the courtroom in Kenosha. We knew the tactics that would be played, he’s White, he’s male and, to use the words of Judge Schroeder Rittenhouse, he is brazen. He walked his way into the courtroom. Just as he audaciously walked past the brigade of police vehicles while carrying an AR-15 across his body, crossed state lines and went home while Rosenbaum and Huber lay dead on the streets of Kenosha.

The Rittenhouse Privilege has set a precedent. There is now legal precedent which permits individuals to claim self-defense in the most outrageous of cases. Be forewarned – this precedent will only extend to individuals who can claim the Rittenhouse privilege.

Stephanie Willis
Stephanie is an Attorney and Policy Strategist focusing on reforming the Criminal Legal System. Stephanie was an anchor on the Law and Crime Network and has provided legal analysis for Fox News.

‘Cruel, False And Bigoted’: Lauren Boebert Ripped On-Air By Local TV Anchor


Ed Mazza
Fri, November 19, 2021

A TV anchor in Colorado tore into extremist Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) for the “the cruel, false, and bigoted things she says for attention and fundraising.”

In a commentary for 9NEWS in Denver, Kyle Clark demanded that news outlets hold Boebert accountable.

“We hold Congresswoman Boebert to a far lower standard” than other lawmakers, Clark said after Boebert launched an Islamophobic attack on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) and falsely smeared her as being in something called a “jihad squad.”

Boebert’s home-state TV news anchor appeared to have reached his limit.

“If we held her to the same standard as every other elected Republican and Democrat in Colorado, we would be here near-nightly chronicling the cruel, false and bigoted things that Boebert says for attention and fundraising.”

He added: “This is not about politics ― assuming politics is still about things like taxes, national security, health care, jobs and public lands. This is about us, as journalists, recognizing that we’ll hold a politician accountable if they say something vile once, but we won’t do it if they do it every day.”

Clark called it an unfair double-standard that penalizes politicians of both parties who display human decency.

See his full commentary below:

Hamilton wears rainbow helmet in Qatar practice

Issued on: 19/11/2021 - 


Lewis Hamilton takes part in practice ahead of the Qatar Grand Prix 

ANDREJ ISAKOVIC AFP

Doha (AFP) – Seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton wore a rainbow-coloured helmet during Friday's practice sessions at the Qatar Grand Prix after saying Formula One was "duty bound" to raise awareness over human rights and equality in the country.

The tiny Gulf state is hosting its first F1 race this weekend and has signed a 10-year contract from 2023. Qatar's motorsport chief recently said drivers would be free to "speak their minds" on controversial issues such as human rights.

Hamilton's helmet sported pride rainbow colours designating support for LGBTQ+ rights and displayed the words "We Stand Together" on the back.

The Mercedes star spoke out Thursday about equal rights and increasing scrutiny on some of the countries the sport visited.

"I do feel that there are issues in these places that we are going to, as there are around the world, but of course (this) seems to be deemed as one of the worst in this part of the world," he said.

"I do think as these sports go to these places they are duty bound to raise awareness for these issues and these places need scrutiny and need the media to speak about these things. Equal rights is a serious issue.

"However I am aware that in this place they are trying to make steps and it can't change overnight."

USA
Study: Amid closure threats, rural ERs save lives at rates similar to urban hospitals


Despite limited resources, rural hospital emergency rooms provide care similar in quality to their urban counterparts, a new study has found. Photo by paulbr75/Pixabay

Nov. 19 (UPI) -- Patients treated at rural emergency rooms have health outcomes similar to people who receive care at urban facilities, a study published Friday by JAMA Network Open found.

This is despite many of these hospitals being underfunded and operating under the threat of closure, the researchers said.

Although rural hospitals see far fewer patients than their urban counterparts, those covered by Medicare and treated in ERs in either type of region had about a 4% risk for death after suffering an emergency health condition, such as a heart attack or stroke, the data showed.

However, about 6% of patients treated in rural ERs were transferred to other hospitals, compared to 2% of those who initially receive care in urban facilities, according to the researchers.

"Our results should be reassuring to rural communities, rural clinicians and rural health policymakers [because], as a whole, it appears rural emergency departments function well in the care of patients," study co-author Dr. Margaret Greenwood-Ericksen told UPI in an email.

"We initially expected to see a more significant difference in mortality, [but] the findings indicate that [emergency departments] are doing well for the patients they serve," said Greenwood-Ericksen, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

An analysis published in 2020 by the journal Health Affairs found that death rates are higher in rural regions of the United States than in more urban areas due at least partially to limited access to quality healthcare in less populated parts of the country.

RELATED  Most in rural areas 'comfortable' with telehealth during pandemic, study finds

With primary care and specialty clinics often a farther away, hospitals and emergency rooms "are ... critical points of access for care for rural communities," according to Greenwood-Ericksen.

However, rural facilities "are frequently not resourced like peer institutions in metropolitan areas," she said.

Since 2010, more than 100 rural hospitals in the United States have closed, and nearly 200 have been shuttered since 2005, a report from the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill found.

RELATED Study: Death rates from chronic conditions, 'deaths of despair' rising in rural U.S.

In 2020 alone, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 20 rural hospitals closed or stopped providing inpatient care, according to the Sheps center.

As a result, millions of people in the United States have or are at risk losing valuable healthcare access within their home communities -- care that can save lives, Greenwood-Ericksen said.

For this study, Greenwood-Ericksen and her colleagues analyzed more than 470,000 patient outcomes from Medicare beneficiaries treated at rural and urban emergency rooms between 2011 and 2015.

Although mortality rates were similar for patients with life-threatening illnesses, such as heart attack or stroke, treated at rural and urbans ERs, rates were higher at rural ERs for conditions more related to symptoms such as chest pain and vomiting.

Patients treated at rural ERs for chest pain, for example, were 54% more likely to die within 30 days than those cared for at urban facilities.

Similarly, those who arrived at a rural ER with nausea and vomiting or abdominal pain were about 70% more likely to die within 30 days than those treated at urban hospitals

In addition, about 25% of patients treated in rural ERs were eventually admitted to the hospital compared with nearly 40% of patients at urban ERs, the researchers said.

The similarities in patient outcomes between rural and urban ERs highlight the importance of access to critical care for treating life-threatening conditions, particularly as many of these facilities are at risk losing funding and resources, according to the researchers.

"As [these facilities] provide lifesaving services to their communities, their closure may result in a rise in rural patient mortality," Greenwood-Ericksen said.

Rolls-Royce claims 3 world records with electric plane that flew 387 mph

Nov. 19 (UPI) -- Rolls-Royce said on Friday that it's claiming three new world records, including one for fastest all-electric vehicle in the world -- an aircraft that it said flew close to 400 mph.

The company said its electric "Spirit of Innovation" plane reached the record speed during a recent run.

Rolls-Royce, which is a different entity from Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, said that three sets of record data were submitted to be recognized by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale.

Rolls-Royce said the "Spirit of Innovation" holds records for aircraft hitting a top speed of 345 mph over nearly two miles, reaching 330 mph over three miles and climbing 9,800 feet in 202 seconds.


The aircraft was created in conjunction with powertrain supplier YASA and Electroflight in the Accelerating the Electrification of Flight project.

Fifty-percent of the project was funded by the Aerospace Technology Institute along with the British government's Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Innovate U.K.

The aircraft took its inaugural flight in September.

HEXED 
Chemical in human body odor triggers aggression in women, but not men

MEN DON'T NEED MORE AGGRESSION TRIGGERS

A chemical in human body odor triggers aggression in women, but is calming for men, which researchers say may be a function of evolution. Photo by moritz320/Pixabay



Nov. 19 (UPI) -- Sniffing a chemical in human body odor blocks aggression in men but triggers it in women, an analysis published Friday by the journal Science Advances found.

The chemical in question, called hexadecanal, or HEX, is also emitted by infants when under stress, the researchers said.

This may be why the odor it produces leads to more aggressive behavior in women, as it taps into the maternal instinct to protect their offspring, according to the researchers.

At the same time, the HEX scent may also suppress male aggression by design, as it could put the child at risk.

The findings suggest that sex-specific differences in the human olfactory system result in divergent reactions to these "social odors," the researchers said.

"Impulsive aggression is a major factor in the human condition, yet how exactly aggression is triggered or blocked in the human brain remains unclear," wrote the researchers, from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel.

However, "we observed that sniffing a body volatile, namely, HEX, significantly decreased aggression in men yet significantly increased aggression in women," they said.

For this study, the researchers recruited 127 participants for a double-blind test in which half were exposed to HEX in unmarked specimen jars.

Study participants took part in a computer game used to measure aggressive behavior, in which each player competes against another "player" -- in reality, a game algorithm -- designed to provoke them.

In a later phase of the game, the participants get to unleash their aggravation by blasting their opponents with a loud noise, and the volume of the blast is recorded as a measure of aggression.

The noise blast data indicated that HEX significantly lowered aggression in men but significantly increased it in women, researchers said.

In addition, whole-brain analyses using magnetic resonance imaging and other scanning technologies revealed that HEX increased activity in the left angular gyrus of the brain, the region involved in perceiving social cues, in both men and women.

In men, however, smelling HEX increased connectivity between the angular gyrus and a brain network involved in social appraisal and aggression, but decreased this connectivity in women.

Although a study published in 2020 indicated that humans emit body odors related to aggression, it has not been known how human aggressive behavior may be affected by social chemical signals, the researchers said.

"HEX may exert its effects by modulating functional connectivity between the brain substrates of social appraisal and the brain substrates of aggressive execution," the researchers wrote.

"This places chemosignaling at the mechanistic heart of human aggression and poses but one added example to the rapidly growing body of evidence implicating social chemosignaling as a major, albeit mostly subconscious, power in human behavior," they said.