A patent was approved in 2003 that demonstrates how TV and computer screens can output subliminal signals to manipulate unaware audiences.
A patent was approved in 2003 that demonstrates how TV and computer screens can output subliminal signals to manipulate unaware audiences.
Iran on Saturday denounced Israeli “aggression” over its airstrikes in Syria early Friday, and claimed Jerusalem’s interests were aligned with those of Syrian “terrorists.”
According to a report on Iran’s Press TV news channel, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi questioned the timing of the Israeli operation “at a time when [Syria’s] army and the anti-terror front have the upper hand against bloodthirsty terrorists, driving them back from cities and villages one after another.”
This, he said, proved that Israel shared interests with those of rebel groups, which Iran and Syria refer to as terrorists.
Qassemi called on the UN to condemn Israel’s “aggression” and to prevent further “acts of violation of peace and security by the aggressive and rogue Zionist regime.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday the Israeli strikes on several targets in Syria early that day targeted weapons bound for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and that the Jewish State would do the same again if necessary.
The Israeli airstrike prompted retaliatory missile launches, in the most serious incident between Syria and the Jewish state since the Syrian civil war began six years ago.
Syria’s military said it had downed an Israeli plane and hit another as they were carrying out pre-dawn strikes near the desert city of Palmyra that it recaptured from jihadists this month.
The Israeli military denied that any planes had been hit. The Syrian government has made similar unfounded claims in the past.
Netanyahu said in footage aired on Israel’s major television networks: “When we identify attempts to transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah and we have intelligence and it is operationally feasible, we act to prevent it.
“That’s how it was yesterday and that’s how we shall continue to act,” he added.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry sent two letters to the UN secretary-general and to the president of the UN Security Council, calling the strikes a violation of international law, of UN resolutions and of Syrian sovereignty.
Syria called on the UN to “condemn the blatant Israeli aggression that is considered a violation of international law.”
Israel has been largely unaffected by the Syrian civil war raging next door, suffering mostly sporadic incidents of spillover fire that Israel has generally dismissed as tactical errors by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces. Israel has responded to the errant fire with limited reprisals on Syrian positions.
The skies over Syria are now crowded, with Russian and Syrian aircraft backing Assad’s forces and a US-led coalition striking Islamic State and al-Qaeda targets.
Israel is widely believed to have carried out airstrikes on advanced weapons systems in Syria — including Russian-made anti-aircraft missiles and Iranian-made missiles — as well as Hezbollah positions, but it rarely confirms such operations.
Does you intelligence level effect your level of prejudice?
A recent study by Mark Brandt and Jarret Crawford looked to answer just that, and the results will not make racists very happy.
As Medical Daily via Rawstory reports:
According to the study, people of lower intelligence, as measured by cognitive ability, tend to be prejudiced against non-conventional or liberal groups, as well as groups that have little choice in their status, such as people defined by their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
On the other hand, individuals of higher intelligence were likely to be prejudiced against groups considered conventional and groups perceived to have “high choice” in their associations, such as conservatives.
“People dislike people who are different from them,” study authors Mark Brandt and Jarret Crawford told Broadly. “Derogating people with different worldviews can help people maintain the validity of their own world view.”
People of all levels of intelligence seem to have the same level of prejudices, just toward different groups.
The reason for these differences in stereotypes, however, is more complicated than simply not liking those who are different from you.
For example, the researchers explained that less intelligent people often like to view other groups as being distinctly different from them as a way to help see them as distant and therefore less of a threat.
On a positive note, a separate study found that prejudice against transgender individuals, and be resolved in most with a simple 10-minute conversation with a transgendered individual.
Could the answer really be that simple? Prejudice can be destroyed by 10 minutes of interaction with the perceived “other”? The science seems to back this obvious answer!
Are you surprised? What does it say then that the supreme court ruled police can refuse to hire applicants with “too high” of an IQ?
Could this be the reason police are so often accused of racism? Let us know and help SPREAD THE WORD!
A criminal forensics case more than a hundred years old has at long last been solved using the latest DNA analysis techniques and technology, ending the speculation surrounding the identity of Britain’s most vile serial murderer.
Jack the Ripper was both hated and feared during his reign of terror at the turn of the 20th century, with his string of homicides made all the more gruesome by mutilations and sexual perversions that still make one’s stomach uneasy after the passing of generations.
The results obtained from the study of well-preserved crime scene evidence shocked many researchers, matching genetic markers highly prevalent among Jews of Eastern European origin. When compared to the list of suspects, Aaron Kosminski, a creature described as an “insane Polish Jew,” appeared as the almost certain culprit. This was further verified by comparing the samples with those of his living descendants, unfortunately still contaminating English territory.
It is the greatest murder mystery of all time, a puzzle that has perplexed criminologists for more than a century and spawned books, films and myriad theories ranging from the plausible to the utterly bizarre.
But now, thanks to modern forensic science, The Mail on Sunday can exclusively reveal the true identity of Jack the Ripper, the serial killer responsible for at least five grisly murders in Whitechapel in East London during the autumn of 1888.
DNA evidence has now shown beyond reasonable doubt which one of six key suspects commonly cited in connection with the Ripper’s reign of terror was the actual killer – and we reveal his identity.
A shawl found by the body of Catherine Eddowes, one of the Ripper’s victims, has been analysed and found to contain DNA from her blood as well as DNA from the killer.
Before buying it, I spoke to Alan McCormack, the officer in charge of the Crime Museum, also known as the Black Museum. He told me the police had always believed they knew the identity of the Ripper. Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, the officer in charge of the investigation, had named him in his notes: Aaron Kosminski, a Polish Jew who had fled to London with his family, escaping the Russian pogroms, in the early 1880s.
Kosminski has always been one of the three most credible suspects. He is often described as having been a hairdresser in Whitechapel, the occupation written on his admission papers to the workhouse in 1890. What is certain is he was seriously mentally ill, probably a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered auditory hallucinations and described as a misogynist prone to ‘self-abuse’ – a euphemism for masturbation.
McCormack said police did not have enough evidence to convict Kosminski, despite identification by a witness, but kept him under 24-hour surveillance until he was committed to mental asylums for the rest of his life. I became convinced Kosminski was our man, and I was excited at the prospect of proving it. I felt sure that modern science would be able to produce real evidence from the stains on the shawl. After a few false starts, I found a scientist I hoped could help.
Kosminski was 23 when the murders took place, and living with his two brothers and a sister in Greenfield Street, just 200 yards from where the third victim, Elizabeth Stride, was killed. As a key suspect, his life story has long been known, but I also researched his family. Eventually, we tracked down a young woman whose identity I am protecting – a British descendant of Kosminski’s sister, Matilda, who would share his mitochondrial DNA. She provided me with swabs from the inside of her mouth.
Amplifying and sequencing the DNA from the cells found on the shawl took months of painstaking, innovative work. By that point, my excitement had reached fever-pitch. And when the email finally arrived telling me Jari had found a perfect match, I was overwhelmed. Seven years after I bought the shawl, we had nailed Aaron Kosminski.
The first strand of DNA showed a 99.2 per cent match, as the analysis instrument could not determine the sequence of the missing 0.8 per cent fragment of DNA. On testing the second strand, we achieved a perfect 100 per cent match.
Because of the genome amplification technique, I was also able to ascertain the ethnic and geographical background of the DNA I extracted. It was of a type known as the haplogroup T1a1, common in people of Russian Jewish ethnicity. I was even able to establish that he had dark hair.
Yet again, we are provided with a historical instance that can be roughly summed up in the phrase, “The Jews did it.” Such a series of brutal crimes can be laid square at the feet of a member of the racial group that has wrought so much damage within our societies.
The comical part of this piece is that the personality profile of the killer is actually quite common among Jew populations, with mental illnesses, especially schizophrenia, and sick perversions, more prevalent within their race than among any other people.
One has to imagine the feelings of the White women unfortunate enough to encounter this disgusting creature during their final hours. One cannot reason with a beast that lacks the ability to feel empathy or concern, again a rather “ordinary” trait among the Jews.
Historically, the United States has spent more money than any other country on healthcare.
In the late 1990s, for example, the U.S. spent roughly 13% of GDP on healthcare, compared to about a 9.5% average for all high income countries.
However, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, in recent years, the difference has become more stark. Last year, as Obamacare continued to roll out, costs in the U.S. reached an all-time high of 17.5% of GDP. That’s over $3 trillion spent on healthcare annually, and the rate of spending is expected accelerate over the next decade.
With all that money being poured into healthcare, surely the U.S. must be getting better care in contrast to other high income countries.
At least, that’s what one would think.
Today’s chart comes to us from economist Max Roser (h/t @NinjaEconomics) and it shows the extreme divergence of the U.S. healthcare system using two simple stats: life expectancy vs. health expenditures per capita.
Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist
As you can see, Americans are spending more money – but they are not receiving results using the most basic metric of life expectancy. The divergence starts just before 1980, and it widens all the way to 2014.
It’s worth noting that the 2015 statistics are not plotted on this chart. However, given that healthcare spend was 17.5% of GDP in 2015, the divergence is likely to continue to widen. U.S. spending is now closing in on $10,000 per person.
Perhaps the most concerning revelation from this data?
Not only is U.S. healthcare spending wildly inefficient, but it’s also relatively ineffective. It would be one thing to spend more money and get the same results, but according to the above data that is not true. In fact, Americans on average will have shorter lives people in other high income countries.
Life expectancy in the U.S. has nearly flatlined, and it hasn’t yet crossed the 80 year threshold. Meanwhile, Chileans, Greeks, and Israelis are all outliving their American counterparts for a fraction of the associated costs.
A US Senate vote to extend the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) for 10 years shows the world that Washington cannot be relied upon to act on its commitments, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Saturday.
Iran has vowed to retaliate against the ISA extension, passed unanimously on Thursday, saying it violated last year’s agreement with six major powers to curb its nuclear program in return for lifting of international financial sanctions.
“To the world community, the extension of sanctions against Iran shows the unreliability of the American government,” state broadcaster IRIB quoted Zarif as saying upon arrival in India for an official visit.
“America is acting against its commitment,” Zarif added.
US officials said the ISA renewal would not infringe the nuclear agreement. US lawmakers have also said the ISA extension would make it easier for sanctions to be quickly reimposed if Iran contravened the nuclear deal.
But Iran’s nuclear energy chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, who played a central role in reaching the nuclear deal, described the extension as a “clear violation” if implemented.
The diplomatic thaw in swing between Washington and Tehran over the past two years looks in jeopardy with US President-elect Donald Trump taking office next month. He said during his election campaign that he would scrap the nuclear agreement.
Last month, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had already warned in November that the extension would be viewed in Tehran as a breach of the nuclear accord and threatened retaliation.
Behrouz Nemati, spokesman for parliament’s presiding board, was quoted by state TV on Saturday as saying MPs would introduce a measure on Sunday demanding the government “return to initial (nuclear) enrichment conditions” before the deal.
Khamenei and his hardline loyalists have criticized the deal and blamed President Hassan Rouhani for its failure to deliver swift improvements in living standards since sanctions were lifted in January.
Photo Credit: Debby Wong / Shutterstock.com
For many of the women of America—excluding those for whom the importance of their white, Christian identity supercedes that of the daily cruelties of misogyny—election night 2016 was the bitterest of pills. When Donald J. Trump takes the oath of office as he assumes the presidency, America will welcome into the White House a man who has boasted of sexually assaulting women, of referring to his opponent in negative, gendered terms, and of using his wealth and power to allow him to walk in on women in states of undress.
Nice goin’, America!
For this feminist, at least as difficult to grapple with as the Trump victory itself are the numbers of women who voted for him. Yes, Hillary Clinton won a majority of the female vote, but Trump still convinced 42 percent of women who voted to vote for him, according to exit polls posted by CNN. Among white women, Trump won the majority, 53 percent. And Trump won a far greater number of white, college-educated women than anyone expected: 45 percent.
In their day-after assessments of what went wrong for their candidate, liberals and progressives can be expected to advance the economic argument, the one that says it was the white people left behind in the new economy who elected Trump. But that’s just too simplistic an explanation to cover the whole reason for his victory. This did not happen simply because of economic displacement; it’s about changes in the social order.
Trump and Clinton evenly split the vote between people who earn more than $100,000 per year, and Trump won among those who earn between $50,000-$100,000. It was Clinton who won a strong majority among those who earn less than $50,000.
No, the Trump victory is not about the economic suffering of his voters; it’s a backlash to a new societal composition that allows non-white people to compete alongside whites; one in which non-Hispanic whites are shrinking in the share of U.S. population they represent. And one in which a woman dared to presume to seek the presidency.
On Election Day morning, I dashed from the taxi stand in front of Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan to the cab I was directed to by the dispatcher, when a young man accused me of rudely walking in front of him, and began screaming that I was a c*nt. “I hope Trump wins,” he said, looking me over. He continued yelling, hurling the c-word at me, saying I looked like garbage, saying he was glad his mother didn’t look like me.
Shocking, yes, but easy to write off as a chance encounter with a crazy person. But when I posted on social media and listservs about the incident, women began telling their own stories of similar recent encounters—a journalist was groped coming out of a Trump rally, another was yelled at. And then there’s the account published by Alison Turkos on Rewire of a particularly creepy act of aggression directed at her for the sin of wearing a Hillary T-shirt—a man sidled up to her as she waited at a street corner for the light to change, and whispered in her ear that Clinton was a c*nt and so was she.
Welcome to the Age of Trump. The president-elect has normalized this kind of behavior. After all, when Sid Miller, a Texas politician on the Trump campaign’s Agriculture Advisory Committee referred to Clinton herself by that awful, dehumanizing word, Trump never batted an eye, and even lauded Miller afterward for touting poll numbers that reflected positively on Trump. It was another of what Trump’s fanboys on the anti-Semitic, racist alt-right would call a Trump wink-wink. He didn’t specifically reward Miller for using the c-word to describe Clinton; he just talked up the tweet in which Miller did so.
Trump himself has made a habit of publicly demeaning women, sometimes sexually, even saying it would be OK for a radio host to refer to Trump’s daughter as “a hot piece of ass.” And who needs to be reminded of that Access Hollywood tape? Note, however, that Trump’s appeal to his voters is not something that exists in spite of such evidence of the president-elect’s misogyny; the appeal is in the misogyny.
In his pact with leaders of the religious right, Trump promised to appoint only anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court, and to defund Planned Parenthood. With a Republican House and Senate churning out anti-woman legislation, he’ll be expected to append his signature, and there’s no reason to believe he won’t.
The women of America—especially women of color—are in for it. For the other part of Trump’s appeal to his voters is his racism. And his nativism. And his religious bigotry. This was the backlash election to beat all backlash elections—backlash against a black president with a foreign-sounding name, and against the portent of a woman president.
For all of its glorious machinery, the Democratic Party (and the liberal establishment) has consistently failed to address the strength of the right-wing strain of populism in American politics. Designed for the launching and working of cyclical elections, the party apparatus, however sophisticated, is ill-suited to the sort of sustained base-building required to counter that of the right.
The Trump presidency is the result of more than 50 years of organizing and infrastructure-building by right-wing leaders, first among them Phyllis Schlafly, whose political career began with the 1964 Goldwater campaign, and reached its pinnacle with the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982. Before her death in September, Schlafly endorsed Trump. One imagines her today, bursting with pride in the great beyond.
In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google’s search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.
Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study shows that Google’s autocomplete can too. A scientific study I published last year showed that search rankings favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to vote for that candidate — as many as 80 percent of voters in some demographic groups. My latest research shows that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions with another powerful tool: autocomplete. Because of recent claims that Google has been deliberately tinkering with search suggestions to make Hillary Clinton look good, this is probably a good time both to examine those claims and to look at my new research. As you will see, there is some cause for concern here. In June of this year, Sourcefed released a video claiming that Google’s search suggestions — often called “autocomplete” suggestions — were biased in favor of Mrs. Clinton. The video quickly went viral: the full 7-minute version has now been viewed more than a million times on YouTube, and an abridged 3-minute version has been viewed more than 25 million times on Facebook. The video’s narrator, Matt Lieberman, showed screen print after screen print that appeared to demonstrate that searching for just about anything related to Mrs. Clinton generated positive suggestions only. This occurred even though Bing and Yahoo searches produced both positive and negative suggestions and even though Google Trends data showed that searches on Google that characterize Mrs. Clinton negatively are quite common — far more common in some cases than the search terms Google was suggesting. Lieberman also showed that autocomplete did offer negative suggestions for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. “The intention is clear,” said Lieberman. “Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site.” Google responded to the Sourcefed video in an email to the Washington Times, denying everything. According to the company’s spokesperson, “Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause.” The company explained away the apparently damning findings by saying that “Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name.” Since then, my associates and I at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT) — a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in the San Diego area — have been systematically investigating Lieberman’s claims. What we have learned has generally supported those claims, but we have also learned something new — something quite disturbing — about the power of Google’s search suggestions to alter what people search for. Lieberman insisted that Google’s search suggestions were biased, but he never explained why Google would introduce such bias. Our new research suggests why — and also why Google’s lists of search suggestions are typically much shorter than the lists Bing and Yahoo show us. Our investigation is ongoing, but here is what we have learned so far: Bias in Clinton’s Favor © AFP 2016/ Can Google Tip the Scales on the US Presidential Election Without Anyone Knowing? To test Lieberman’s claim that Google’s search suggestions are biased in Mrs. Clinton’s favor, my associates and I have been looking at the suggestions Google shows us in response to hundreds of different election-related search terms. To minimize the possibility that those suggestions were customized for us as individuals (based on the massive personal profiles Google has assembled for virtually all Americans), we have conducted our searches through proxy servers — even through the Tor network — thus making it difficult for Google to identify us. We also cleared the fingerprints Google leaves on computers (cache and cookies) fairly obsessively. Google says its search bar is programmed to avoid suggesting searches that portray people in a negative light. As far as we can tell, this claim is false. Generally speaking, we are finding that Lieberman was right: It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton or to make any Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term. Bing and Yahoo, on the other hand, often show a number of negative suggestions in response to the same search terms. Bing and Yahoo seem to be showing us what people are actually searching for; Google is showing us something else — but what, and for what purpose? As for Google Trends, as Lieberman reported, Google indeed withholds negative search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms show high popularity in Trends. We have also found that Google often suggests positive search terms for Mrs. Clinton even when such terms are nearly invisible in Trends. The widely held belief, reinforced by Google’s own documentation, that Google’s search suggestions are based on “what other people are searching for” seems to be untrue in many instances. Google’s Explanation Google tries to explain away such findings by saying its search bar is programmed to avoid suggesting searches that portray people in a negative light. As far as we can tell, this claim is false; Google suppresses negative suggestions selectively, not across the board. It is easy to get autocomplete to suggest negative searches related to prominent people, one of whom happens to be Mrs. Clinton’s opponent. A picture is often worth a thousand words, so let’s look at a few examples that appear both to support Lieberman’s perspective and refute Google’s. After that, we’ll examine some counterexamples. © REUTERS/ MIKE SEGAR Assange: Clinton’s Campaign is Full of ‘Disturbing’ Anti-Russia ‘Hysteria’ Before we start, I need to point out a problem: If you try to replicate the searches I will show you, you will likely get different results. I don’t think that invalidates our work, but you will have to decide for yourself. Your results might be different because search activity changes over time, and that, in turn, affects search suggestions. There is also the “personalization problem.” If you are like the vast majority of people, you freely allow Google to track you 24 hours a day. As a result, Google knows who you are when you are typing something in its search bar, and it sends you customized results. For both of these reasons, you might doubt the validity of the conclusions I will draw in this essay. That is up to you. All I can say in my defense is that I have worked with eight other people in recent months to try to conduct a fair and balanced investigation, and, as I said, we have taken several precautions to try to get generic, non-customized search suggestions rather than the customized kind. Our investigation is also ongoing, and I encourage you to conduct your own, as well. Let’s start with a very simple search. The image below shows a search for “Hillary Clinton is ” (notice the space after is) conducted on August 3rd on Bing, Yahoo, and Google. As you can see, both Bing and Yahoo displayed multiple negative suggestions such as “Hillary Clinton is a liar” and “Hillary Clinton is a criminal,” but Google is showed only two suggestions, both of which were almost absurdly positive: “Hillary Clinton is winning” and “Hillary Clinton is awesome.” © PHOTO: BING, YAHOO, GOOGLE “Hillary Clinton is ” To find out what people actually searched for, let’s turn to Google Trends — Google’s tabulation of the popularity of search results. Below you will see a comparison between the popularity of searching for “Hillary Clinton is a liar” and the popularity of searching for “Hillary Clinton is awesome.” This image was also generated on August 3rd. “Hillary Clinton is a liar” was by far the more popular search term; hardly anyone conducted a search using the phrase, “Hillary Clinton is awesome.” © PHOTO: GOOGLE “Hillary Clinton is awesome.” Okay, but Google admits that it censors negative search results; presumably, that is why we only saw positive results for Mrs. Clinton — even a result that virtually no one searched for. Does Google really suppress negative results? We have seen what happens with “Hillary Clinton is.” What happens with “Donald Trump is “? (Again, be sure to include the space after is.) © PHOTO: GOOGLE “Donald Trump is “? In the above image, captured on August 8th, we again found the odd “awesome” suggestion, but we also saw a suggestion that appears to be negative: “Donald Trump is dead.” Shouldn’t a result like that have been suppressed? Let’s look further. Consider the following searches, conducted on August 2nd, for “anti Hillary” and “anti Trump.” As you can see below, “anti Hillary” generated no suggestions, but “anti Trump” generated four, including “anti Trump cartoon” and “anti Trump song.” Well, you say, perhaps there were no anti-Hillary suggestions to be made. But Yahoo — responding merely to “anti Hill” — came up with eight, including “anti Hillary memes” and “anti Hillary jokes.” © PHOTO: GOOGLE, YAHOO “anti Hillary” and “anti Trump.” This seems to further refute Google’s claim about not disparaging people, but let’s dig deeper. After Mrs. Clinton named Senator Tim Kaine to be her running mate, Mr. Trump dubbed him with one of his middle-school-style nicknames: “Corrupt Kaine.” Sure enough, that instantly became a popular search term on Google, as this July 27th image from Trends confirms: © PHOTO: GOOGLE “Corrupt Kaine.” Even so, as you can see in the image below, in response to “corrupt,” the Google search bar showed us nothing about Senator Kaine, but it did show us both “Kamala” (Kamala Harris, attorney general of California) and “Karzai” (Hamid Karzai, former president of Afghanistan). If you clicked on the phrases “corrupt Kamala” and “corrupt Karzai,” search results appeared that linked to highly negative web pages about Kamala Harris and Hamid Karzai, respectively. Oddly enough, both on the day we looked up “corrupt Kaine” and more recently when I was writing this essay, Google Trends provided no popularity data for either “corrupt Kamala” or “corrupt Karzai.” It is hard to imagine, in any case, that either search term has been popular in recent months. So why did the Google search bar disparage Attorney General Harris and President Karzai but not Mrs. Clinton? © PHOTO: GOOGLE, YAHOO “corrupt Kaine”, “corrupt Kamala”, “corrupt Karzai.” If you still have doubts about whether Google suggests negative searches for prominent people, see how Senators Cruz, Rubio and Sanders fared in the following searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd: © PHOTO: GOOGLE Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd – Lying Ted © PHOTO: GOOGLE Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd – Little Marco © PHOTO: GOOGLE Searches conducted between July 23rd and August 2nd – Anti-Bernie I could give you more examples, but you get the idea. The brazenness of Google’s search suggestion tinkering become especially clear when we searched for “crooked” — Mr. Trump’s unkind nickname for Mrs. Clinton — on Google, Bing, and Yahoo on various dates in June and July. On Google the word “crooked” alone generated nothing for Mrs. Clinton, even though, once again, its popularity was clear on Google Trends. Now compare (in the image following the Trends graph) what happened on Bing and Yahoo: © PHOTO: GOOGLE “crooked” © PHOTO: GOOGLE, BING, YAHOO “crooked” No surprise here. Consistent with Google’s own search popularity data, Bing and Yahoo listed “crooked Hillary” near the top of their autocomplete suggestions. The weird part came when we typed more letters into Google’s search bar, trying to force it to suggest “crooked Hillary.” On June 9th, I had to go all the way to “crooked H-I-L-L-A” to get a response, and it was not the response I was expecting. Instead of showing me “crooked Hillary,” I was shown a phrase that I doubt anyone in the world has ever searched for — “crooked Hillary Bernie”: © PHOTO: GOOGLE “crooked H-I-L-L-A” Crooked Hillary Bernie? What the heck does that mean? Not much, obviously, but this is something my associates and I have found repeatedly: When you are able to get Google to make negative suggestions for Mrs. Clinton, they sometimes make no sense and are almost certainly not indicative of what other people are searching for. Masking and Misleading There are also indications that autocomplete isn’t always pro-Clinton and isn’t always anti-Trump, and in this regard the Sourcefed video overstated its case. While it is true, for example, that “anti Hillary” generated no suggestions in our study, both “anti Clinton” and “anti Hillary Clinton” did produce negative results when we search on August 8th, as you can see below: © PHOTO: GOOGLE “anti Clinton” © PHOTO: GOOGLE “anti Hillary Clinton” At times, we were also able to generate neutral or at least partially positive results for Donald Trump. Consider this image, for example, which shows a search for “Donald Trump” on August 8th: © PHOTO: GOOGLE Search for “Donald Trump” on August 8th If you believe Google can do no wrong and that it never favors one candidate over another (even though Google and its top executives donated more than $800,000 to Obama in 2012 and only $37,000 to Romney), so be it. But trying to be as objective as possible in recent months, my staff and I have concluded that when Google occasionally does give us unbiased election-related search suggestions, it might just be trying to confuse us. Let me explain. When Ronald Robertson and I began conducting experiments on the power that biased search rankings have over voter preferences, we were immediately struck by the fact that few people could detect the bias in the search results we showed them, even when those results were extremely biased. We immediately wondered whether we could mask the bias in our results so that even fewer people could detect it. To our amazement, we found that a very simple mask — putting a search result that favored the opposing candidate into the third search position (out of 10 positions on the first page of search results) — was enough to fool all of our study participants into thinking they were seeing unbiased search results. Masking a manipulation is easy, and Google is a master of obfuscation, as I explained a few years ago in my TIME essay, “Google’s Dance.” In the context of autocomplete, all you have to do to confuse people is introduce a few exceptions to the rule. So “anti Clinton” and “anti Hillary Clinton” produce negative search suggestions, while “anti Hillary” does not. Because those counter-examples exist, we immediately forget about the odd thing that’s happening with “anti Hillary,” and we also ignore the fact that “anti Donald” produces negative suggestions: © PHOTO: GOOGLE “anti Donald” Meanwhile, day after day — at least for the few weeks we were monitoring this term — “anti Hillary” continued to produce no suggestions. Why would Google have singled out this one phrase to protect? As always, when you are dealing with the best number crunchers in the world, the answer has to do with numbers. What do you notice when you look below at the frequency of searches for the three anti-Hillary phrases? © PHOTO: GOOGLE “anti Hillary” That’s right. “Anti Hillary” was drawing the most traffic, so that was the phrase to protect. Sourcefed’s video was overstated, but, overall, our investigation supports Sourcefed’s claim that Google’s autocomplete tool is biased to favor Mrs. Clinton — sometimes dramatically so, sometimes more subtly. Sputnik’s Recent Claims All of the examples I’ve given you of apparent bias in Google’s search suggestions are old and out of date — conducted by me and my staff over the summer of 2016. Generally speaking, you won’t be able to confirm what we found (which is why I am showing you screen shots). This is mainly because search suggestions keep changing. So the big question is: Do new search suggestions favor Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton. Recently, Sputnik News reported that Google was suppressing search suggestions related to trending news stories expressing concern about Mrs. Clinton’s health. Sure enough, as you can see in the following screen shots captured on August 29th, suggestions on Bing and Yahoo reflected the trending news, but suggestions on Google did not: © PHOTO: BING Bing © PHOTO: YAHOO Yahoo © PHOTO: GOOGLE Google And, yes, once again, Google Trends showed a recent spike in searches for the missing search suggestions: © PHOTO: GOOGLE Google Trends While the news was buzzing about Mrs. Clinton’s health, hundreds of stories were also being published about Mr. Trump’s “flip flopping” on immigration issues, and that too was reflected on Google Trends: © PHOTO: GOOGLE Mr. Trump’s “flip flopping” But, as you can see, Google did not suppress “Donald Trump flip flops” from its suggestions: © PHOTO: GOOGLE “Donald Trump flip flops” Google, it seems, is playing this game both consistently and slyly. It is saving its bias for the most valuable real estate — trending, high-value terms — and eliminating signs of bias for terms that have lost their value. And that brings me, at last, to a research project I initiated only a few weeks ago. If Google is really biasing its search suggestions, what is the company’s motive? A new study sheds surprising and disturbing light on this question. How Google’s Search Suggestions Affect Our Searches Normally, I wouldn’t talk publicly about the early results of a long-term research project I have not yet published in a scientific journal or at least presented at a scientific conference. I have decided to make an exception this time for three reasons: First, the results of the study on autocomplete I completed recently are strong and easy to interpret. Second, these results are consistent with volumes of research that has already been conducted on two well-known psychological processes: negativity bias and confirmation bias. And third, the November election is growing near, and the results of my new experiment are relevant to that election — perhaps even of crucial importance. I began the new study asking myself why Google would want to suppress negative search suggestions. Why those in particular? In the study, a diverse group of 300 people from 44 U.S. states were asked which of four search suggestions they would likely click on if they were trying to learn more about either Mike Pence, the Republican candidate for vice president, or Tim Kaine, the Democratic candidate for vice president. They could also select a fifth option in order to type their own search terms. Here is an example of what a search looked like: © PHOTO: GOOGLE Tim Kaine Two of the searches we showed people contained negative search suggestions (one negative suggestion in each search); all of the other search suggestions were either neutral (like “Tim Kaine office”) or positive (like “Mike Pence for vice president”). Each of the negative suggestions — “Mike Pence scandal” and “Tim Kaine scandal” — appeared only once in the experiment. Thus, if study participants were treating negative items the same way they treated the other four alternatives in a given search, the negative items would have attracted about 20 percent of the clicks in each search. By including or suppressing negatives in search suggestions, you can direct people’s searches one way or another just as surely as if they were dogs on a leash. But that’s not what happened. The three main findings were as follows: 1) Overall, people clicked on the negative items about 40 percent of the time — that’s twice as often as one would expect by chance. What’s more, compared with the neutral items we showed people in searches that served as controls, negative items were selected about five times as often. 2) Among eligible, undecided voters —the impressionable people who decide close elections — negative items attracted more than 15 times as many clicks as neutral items attracted in matched control questions. 3) People affiliated with one political party selected the negative suggestion for the candidate from their own party less frequently than the negative suggestion for the other candidate. In other words, negative suggestions attracted the largest number of clicks when they were consistent with people’s biases. These findings are consistent with two well-known phenomena in the social sciences: negativity bias and confirmation bias. Negativity bias refers to the fact that people are far more affected by negative stimuli than by positive ones. As a famous paper on the subject notes, a single cockroach in one’s salad ruins the whole salad, but a piece of candy placed on a plate of disgusting crud will not make that crud seem even slightly more palatable. Negative stimuli draw more attention than neutral or positive ones, they activate more behavior, and they create stronger impressions — negative ones, of course. In recent years, political scientists have even suggested that negativity bias plays an important role in the political choices we make — that people adopt conservative political views because they have a heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli. Confirmation bias refers to the fact that people almost always seek out, pay attention to, and believe information that confirms their beliefs more than they seek out, pay attention to, or believe information that contradicts those beliefs. When you apply these two principles to search suggestions, they predict that people are far more likely to click on negative search suggestions than on neutral or positive ones — especially when those negative suggestions are consistent with their own beliefs. This is exactly what the new study confirms. Google data analysts know this too. They know because they have ready access to billions of pieces of data showing exactly how many times people click on negative search suggestions. They also know exactly how many times people click on every other kind of search suggestion one can categorize. To put this another way, what I and other researchers must stumble upon and can study only crudely, Google employees can study with exquisite precision every day. Given Google’s strong support for Mrs. Clinton, it seems reasonable to conjecture that Google employees manually suppress negative search suggestions relating to Clinton in order to reduce the number of searches people conduct that will expose them to anti-Clinton content. They appear to work a bit less hard to suppress negative search suggestions for Mr. Trump, Senator Sanders, Senator Cruz, and other prominent people. This is not the place to review the evidence that Google strongly supports Mrs. Clinton, but since we’re talking about Google’s search bar, here are two quick reminders: First, on August 6th, when we typed “When is the election?,” we were shown the following image: © PHOTO: GOOGLE “When is the election?” See anything odd about that picture? Couldn’t Google have displayed two photos just as easily as it displayed one? And second, as reported by the Next Web and other news sources, in mid 2015, when people typed “Who will be the next president?,” Google displayed boxes such as the one below, which left no doubt about the answer: © PHOTO: GOOGLE “Who will be the next president?” Corporate Control Over time, differentially suppressing negative search suggestions will repeatedly expose millions of people to far more positive search results for one political candidate than for the other. Research I have been conducting since 2013 with Ronald Robertson of Northeastern University has shown that high-ranking search results that favor one candidate can easily shift 20 percent or more of undecided voters toward that candidate — up to 80 percent in some demographic groups, as I noted earlier. This is because of the enormous trust people have in computer-generated search results, which people mistakenly believe are completely impartial and objective — just as they mistakenly believe search suggestions are completely impartial and objective. The impact of biased search rankings on opinions, which we call the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), is one of the largest effects ever discovered in the behavioral sciences, and because it is invisible to users, it is especially dangerous as a source of influence. Because Google handles 90 percent of search in most countries and because many elections are very close, we estimate that SEME has been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of the national elections in the world for several years now, with increasing impact each year. This is occurring, we believe, whether or not Google’s executives are taking an active interest in elections; all by itself, Google’s search algorithm virtually always ends up favoring one candidate over another simply because of “organic” search patterns by users. When it does, votes shift; in large elections, millions of votes can be shifted. You can think of this as a kind of digital bandwagon effect. The new effect I have described in this essay — a search suggestion effect — is very different from SEME but almost certainly increases SEME’s impact. If you can surreptitiously nudge people into generating search results that are inherently biased, the battle is half won. Simply by including or suppressing negatives in search suggestions, you can direct people’s searches one way or another just as surely as if they were dogs on a leash, and you can use this subtle form of influence not just to alter people’s views about candidates but about anything. Google launched autocomplete, its search suggestion tool, in 2004 as an opt-in that helped users find information faster. Perhaps that’s all it was in the beginning, but just as Google itself has morphed from being a cool high-tech anomaly into what former Google executive James Whittaker has called a “an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus,” so has autocomplete morphed from being a cool and helpful search tool into what may be a tool of corporate manipulation. By 2008, not only was autocomplete no longer an opt-in feature, there was no way to opt out of it, and since that time, through strategic censorship, it may have become a tool for directing people’s searches and thereby influencing not only the choices they make but even the thoughts they think. Look back at the searches I have shown you. Why does Google typically show you far fewer search suggestions than other search engines do — 4 or fewer, generally speaking, compared with 8 for Bing, 8 for DuckDuckGo and 10 for Yahoo? Even if you knew nothing of phenomena like negativity bias and confirmation bias, you certainly know that shorter lists give people fewer choices. Whatever autocomplete was in the beginning, its main function may now be to manipulate. Without whistleblowers or warrants, no one can prove Google executives are using digital shenanigans to influence elections, but I don’t see how we can rule out that possibility. Perhaps you are skeptical about my claims. Perhaps you are also not seeing, on balance, a pro-Hillary bias in the search suggestions you receive on your computer. Perhaps you are also not concerned about the possibility that search suggestions can be used systematically to nudge people’s searches in one direction or another. If you are skeptical in any or all of these ways, ask yourself this: Why, to begin with, is Google censoring its search suggestions? (And it certainly acknowledges doing so.) Why doesn’t it just show us, say, the top ten most popular searches related to whatever we are typing? Why, in particular, is it suppressing negative information? Are Google’s leaders afraid we will have panic attacks and sue the company if we are directed to dark and disturbing web pages? Do they not trust us to make up our own minds about things? Do they think we are children? Without whistleblowers or warrants, no one can prove Google executives are using digital shenanigans to influence elections, but I don’t see how we can rule out that possibility. There is nothing illegal about manipulating people using search suggestions and search rankings — quite the contrary, in fact — and it makes good financial sense for a company to use every legal means at its disposal to support its preferred candidates. Using the mathematical techniques Robertson and I described in our 2015 report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, I recently calculated that SEME alone can shift between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes in the upcoming US presidential race without anyone knowing this has occurred and without leaving a paper trail. I arrived at those numbers before I knew about the power search suggestions have to alter searches. The new study suggests that autocomplete alone might be able to shift between 800,000 and 3.2 million votes — also without anyone knowing this is occurring. Perhaps even more troubling, because Google tracks and monitors us so aggressively, Google officials know who among us is planning to vote and whom we are planning to vote for. They also know who among us are still undecided, and that is where the influence of biased search suggestions and biased search rankings could be applied with enormous effect. [Postscript: Google declined to comment on the record when queried about some of the concerns I have raised in this article. Instead, on August 17th, a company representative sent me to a blog post released by the company on June 16th; you can read Google’s official position on autocomplete there. For the record, I am a moderate politically, and I support Hillary Clinton for president. I do not believe, however, that it would be right for her to win the presidency because of the invisible, large-scale manipulations of a private company. That would make democracy meaningless, and that is why I am trying to keep the public informed about my research findings. Also for the record, I have chosen to publish this article through Sputnik News because Sputnik agreed to publish it in unedited form in order to preserve the article’s accuracy. —R.E.] ___________________ EPSTEIN (@DrREpstein) is Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in Vista, California. A PhD of Harvard University, Epstein has published fifteen books on artificial intelligence and other topics. He is also the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
The grand experiment to alter weather for the benefit of the agricultural industry and the military industrial complex can be ignored no longer. After watching the following video, any sane person will have proof that chemtrails not only exist, but that they are being used to manipulate weather, and for motivations likely of which the general public is not told.
Rosalind Peterson, President of the Agriculture Defense Coalition addresses the United Nations about geoengineering, chemtrails and weather modification. As a people, we have been used as testing agents while being lied to – told that we were simply being doused with water vapor while hundreds of thousands of people have suffered from a plethora of health issues ranging from neurological failure to reproductive issues and hormonal imbalances, along with many more. THIS is undeniable evidence that chemtrails are covering our skies every day, and these chemtrails are NOT water vapor, otherwise known as contrails. They are full of pharmaceuticals, barium, nano-aluminum-coated fiberglass [known as CHAFF], radioactive thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, desiccated blood, mold spores, andmore.
Peterson says that the skies we are seeing everyday are “not normal cloud cover – these are man made.” She also describes more than 50 different chemtrail programs operating across the United States carried out by private companies and government agencies. Her main complaint to the UN is that these programs affect agriculture, without any public oversight, stating that “you are going to start reducing crop production because of the impairment of the process of photosynthesis,” but the implications of her statements reach much further than just how one industry is affected by chemtrail spraying.
Those who have researched chemtrail or weather modification programs available through public record can see what we are told these programs are used for – from creating drought, to ‘protecting’ the planet from climate change, but there are deeper lies associated with chemtrail spraying available for those to unearth who are willing to dig deeper.
Chemtrails are likely causing Parkinsons’ disease, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, headaches, respiratory ailments, reproductive failure, liver failure, and a host of other diseases. Since we have an openly admitted agenda by the UN to limit the growth of our population, what else are they doing besides affecting climate change with chemtrails? The same as usual –increasing morbidity for what the elite call the ‘useless eaters’ of the planet. Watch and learn. Then pass on what you know. The awakening may not be televised, but its happening before your eyes.
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) — The current and former chiefs of the state Republican Party condemned him. New Hampshire’s only two Republican members of Congress refused to endorse him. The conservative owner of the state’s largest newspaper called him “a con man” on the front page.
Donald Trump won anyway — big time.
So, too, did Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who will leave New Hampshire with the commanding victory one might expect of a front-runner blessed with the near universal favor of his party. Except all that establishment support belongs to Hillary Clinton.
Trump’s victory and the self-described democratic socialist’s win — both by margins of about 20 percentage points —are reminders of the limits of party power in an age of anger toward Washington and frustration with politics.
Many Republican Party leaders may be terrified by Trump’s ascendance, but have yet to divine a way to stop the billionaire real estate mogul. Clinton may have all the endorsements of her party’s top names, but it is Sanders who is winning over the young people and independents who helped push Barack Obama to the White House.
On Tuesday, establishment-minded Republicans from New Hampshire expressed a mix of frustration and shame that it was their state that delivered Trump’s first victory. “I refuse to support him under any circumstance,” said Fergus Cullen, a former New Hampshire Republican Party chairman. “Trump would be a disaster.”
Cullen likened Trump to Pat Buchannan in 1996, the divisive former Nixon aide and conservative commentator who also won the New Hampshire primary. Republican leaders quickly coalesced behind mainstream alternative Bob Dole, the former Republican Senate leader who went on win the nomination only to lose to President Bill Clinton.
It wasn’t because they loved Dole, Cullen said, but because they feared Buchannan would embarrass the Republican Party.
“The party was able to stop Buchannan 20 years ago,” Cullen said. “Today, they’re incapable of doing it.”
For those like Cullen who oppose Trump, it only gets worse.
Marco Rubio’s underwhelming performance in New Hampshire eliminates the prospect the Florida senator might emerge as the Republican establishment’s favored alternative as the race heads into South Carolina and more than a dozen states on March 1, known as Super Tuesday.
Competing for the support of the same group of Republicans, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Rubio won enough votes combined to handily beat Trump. But as they fought among themselves — four political insiders against the lone outsider — Trump won with ease.
John Jordan, a California winery owner who runs an outside group backing Rubio, said that “candidate logjam is all going to break in one night,” and suggested that night will be March 15, when Florida is among the states to hold their presidential primaries.
“One of them will do better than the other, and it will be impossible for the relative loser to make the case to donors that he should continue,” he said, referring to the state’s native sons, Bush and Rubio. “Donors will simply move to whoever wins that state, and it will happen nearly instantly.”
But between now and March 15 is South Carolina, Nevada and the Super Tuesday contests — time that Trump, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the uncompromising conservative who won the leadoff Iowa caucuses, can use to further their edge. Despite questions about the strength of his ground game, Trump continues to hold a commanding lead in many preference polls in the South’s first primary in South Carolina — and he could get a bump from his New Hampshire success.
Sanders may, too, but he has much further to climb as Democratic race moves ahead.
South Carolina and Nevada are more racially diverse states than Iowa and New Hampshire, which should play to Clinton’s longstanding strength with minority voters. And unlike Republicans, Democrats give hundreds of party insiders a vote at the national convention to cast as they choose. Among those so-called superdelegates, Clinton already has a commanding 352-delegate edge in the race for the 2,382 needed to win the nomination.
“This is not a two-round boxing match, it’s a 12-round boxing match,” said Bob Mulholland, a longtime California Democratic strategist. “And I want to remind everybody the last three presidents came second in New Hampshire — Clinton, Bush and Obama.”
When Trump gets to South Carolina on Wednesday, he isn’t likely to find any Republican leaders in the Palmetto State who are eager to embrace his campaign.
The state’s senior Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, has said that choosing between Trump and Cruz is like choosing between being “shot or poisoned.” South Carolina RepublicanChairman Matt Moore lashed out at Trump’s plan to temporarily ban Muslims from the U.S. as un-American and unconstitutional.
And South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called on Republicans to resist the temptation to follow “the siren call of the angriest voices,” referring to Trump.
Yet even before the New Hampshire results were final, Moore declined to condemn Trump when given the opportunity — a clear attempt not to alienate his supporters.
“Trump is holding rallies and drawing crowds like we’ve never seen, which is really impressive,” Moore told The Associated Press. “Clearly he’s brought a lot of new people into the fold. We’ll need those people to defeat Hillary Clinton.”