Well---I rang my last bell for them.Guess who's bucket I won't be putting coins in this season?
View attachment 7030
Along with coins this Christmas, Salvation Army wants white donors to offer a "sincere apology" for their racism
The Salvation Army wants its white donors to give it more than just money this Christmas season. Its leadership is also demanding they apologize for being racist.centralnovanews.com
Most of them are volunteers, my late father did it for the Rotary Club, but I won't drop any money this year and I'll be nice about it but I'll tell them why.
We're well on our way, Comrade.
I remember the good old days when your car wouldn't start due to bad/no fuel, dead battery, a bad coil, points, plugs, etc... Memories....BARR: Biden’s ‘Infrastructure’ Bill Contains Backdoor ‘Kill Switch’ For Cars
The infrastructure bill contains a "kill switch" provision for "impaired" drivers that could cause a privacy nightmare.dailycaller.com
BARR: Biden’s ‘Infrastructure’ Bill Contains Backdoor ‘Kill Switch’ For Cars
FORMER REP. BOB BARRCONTRIBUTOR
November 29, 20219:57 AM ET
Buried deep within the massive infrastructure legislation recently signed by President Joe Biden is a little-noticed “safety” measure that will take effect in five years. Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a “vehicle kill switch.”
As has become standard for legislative mandates passed by Congress, this measure is disturbingly short on details. What we do know is that the “safety” device must “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.”
Everything about this mandatory measure should set off red flares.
First, use of the word “passively” suggests the system will always be on and constantly monitoring the vehicle. Secondly, the system must connect to the vehicle’s operational controls, so as to disable the vehicle either before driving or during, when impairment is detected. Thirdly, it will be an “open” system, or at least one with a backdoor, meaning authorized (or unauthorized) third-parties can remotely access the system’s data at any time.
This is a privacy disaster in the making, and the fact that the provision made it through the Congress reveals — yet again — how little its members care about the privacy of their constituents.
The lack of ultimate control over one’s vehicle presents numerous and extremely serious safety issues; issues that should have been obvious to Members of Congress before they voted on the measure.
For example, what if a driver is not drunk, but sleepy, and the car forces itself to the side of the road before the driver can find a safe place to pull over and rest? Considering that there are no realistic mechanisms to immediately challenge or stop the car from being disabled, drivers will be forced into dangerous situations without their consent or control.
The choice as to whether a vehicle can or cannot be driven — for vehicles built after 2026 — will rest in the hands of an algorithm over which the car’s owner or driver have neither knowledge nor control.
If that is not reason enough for concern, there are serious legal issues with this mandate. Other vehicle-related enforcement methods used by the Nanny State, such as traffic cameras and license plate readers, have long presented constitutional problems; notably with the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser.
The same constitutional issues abound with this new technology, but with the added confusion surrounding what Congress even means by “impaired driving.” Does it mean legally drunk, or perhaps under the limit but still “impaired” to a degree? Would police be summoned automatically by the system in order to make that determination? These are questions that should have been addressed openly and thoroughly during the legislative process, not left to later, back-room negotiations between interested parties other than individual car buyers – manufacturers, regulators, insurance companies and law enforcement.
Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, there also is no detail in the legislation about who would have access to the data collected and stored by the system. Could it be used by police, and could they access this information without a warrant? What about insurance companies, eager to know with what frequency their customers drove after drinking alcohol, even if it was below the legal limit? Such a trove of data presents a lucrative prize to all manner of public and private entities (including hackers), none of which have our best interests at heart.
Adding what amounts to a mandatory, backdoor government “kill switch” to cars is not only a violation of our constitutional rights, but an affront to what is — or used to be — an essential element of our national character. Unless this regulatory mandate is not quickly removed or defanged by way of an appropriations rider preventing its implementation, the freedom of the open road that individual car ownership brought to the American Dream, will be but another vague memory of an era no longer to be enjoyed by future generations.
freebeacon.com
AZ has a law that requires an interlock system to be installed on vehicles of those convicted of drunk driving, requiring them to give a breath test before the vehicle starts. Basically it's a money grab for the state with monthly payments for up to a year or longer, based on the discretion of the state.BARR: Biden’s ‘Infrastructure’ Bill Contains Backdoor ‘Kill Switch’ For Cars
The infrastructure bill contains a "kill switch" provision for "impaired" drivers that could cause a privacy nightmare.
BARR: Biden’s ‘Infrastructure’ Bill Contains Backdoor ‘Kill Switch’ For Cars
FORMER REP. BOB BARRCONTRIBUTOR
November 29, 20219:57 AM ET
Buried deep within the massive infrastructure legislation recently signed by President Joe Biden is a little-noticed “safety” measure that will take effect in five years. Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a “vehicle kill switch.”
As has become standard for legislative mandates passed by Congress, this measure is disturbingly short on details. What we do know is that the “safety” device must “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.”
Everything about this mandatory measure should set off red flares.
First, use of the word “passively” suggests the system will always be on and constantly monitoring the vehicle. Secondly, the system must connect to the vehicle’s operational controls, so as to disable the vehicle either before driving or during, when impairment is detected. Thirdly, it will be an “open” system, or at least one with a backdoor, meaning authorized (or unauthorized) third-parties can remotely access the system’s data at any time.
This is a privacy disaster in the making, and the fact that the provision made it through the Congress reveals — yet again — how little its members care about the privacy of their constituents.
The lack of ultimate control over one’s vehicle presents numerous and extremely serious safety issues; issues that should have been obvious to Members of Congress before they voted on the measure.
For example, what if a driver is not drunk, but sleepy, and the car forces itself to the side of the road before the driver can find a safe place to pull over and rest? Considering that there are no realistic mechanisms to immediately challenge or stop the car from being disabled, drivers will be forced into dangerous situations without their consent or control.
The choice as to whether a vehicle can or cannot be driven — for vehicles built after 2026 — will rest in the hands of an algorithm over which the car’s owner or driver have neither knowledge nor control.
If that is not reason enough for concern, there are serious legal issues with this mandate. Other vehicle-related enforcement methods used by the Nanny State, such as traffic cameras and license plate readers, have long presented constitutional problems; notably with the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser.
The same constitutional issues abound with this new technology, but with the added confusion surrounding what Congress even means by “impaired driving.” Does it mean legally drunk, or perhaps under the limit but still “impaired” to a degree? Would police be summoned automatically by the system in order to make that determination? These are questions that should have been addressed openly and thoroughly during the legislative process, not left to later, back-room negotiations between interested parties other than individual car buyers – manufacturers, regulators, insurance companies and law enforcement.
Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, there also is no detail in the legislation about who would have access to the data collected and stored by the system. Could it be used by police, and could they access this information without a warrant? What about insurance companies, eager to know with what frequency their customers drove after drinking alcohol, even if it was below the legal limit? Such a trove of data presents a lucrative prize to all manner of public and private entities (including hackers), none of which have our best interests at heart.
Adding what amounts to a mandatory, backdoor government “kill switch” to cars is not only a violation of our constitutional rights, but an affront to what is — or used to be — an essential element of our national character. Unless this regulatory mandate is not quickly removed or defanged by way of an appropriations rider preventing its implementation, the freedom of the open road that individual car ownership brought to the American Dream, will be but another vague memory of an era no longer to be enjoyed by future generations.
The dumbing down of America because of wokeism is going to have deadly consequences. Too many conditions to list are genetically based.........SCIENCE!!First it was pilots. Now they want to destroy medicine based on race.
Doctors Warn New Medical School Guidance Would Lead to Unqualified Physicians and Unscientific Medicine - Washington Free Beacon
The two accrediting bodies for American medical schools say that meritocracy is "malignant" and that race has "no genetic or scientific basis," positions that many doctors worry will lower standards of care and endanger lives by discouraging vital genetic testing.
The two accrediting bodies for American medical schools now say that meritocracy is "malignant" and that race has "no genetic or scientific basis," positions that many doctors worry will lower standards of care and endanger lives by discouraging vital genetic testing.
The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits all medical schools in North America, is cosponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)—the same groups that on Oct. 30 released a controversial guide to "advancing health equity" through "language, narrative, and concepts."
Those concepts include the ideas that "individualism and meritocracy" are "malignant narratives" that "create harm," that using race as a proxy for genetics "leads directly to racial health inequities," and that medical vulnerability is the "result of socially created processes" rather than biology.
Integrating these ideas into medicine, five professors and practicing doctors told the Washington Free Beacon, would be a catastrophe, resulting in underqualified doctors, missed diagnoses, and unscientific medical school curricula.
The guidance won't just influence the way doctors talk, these practitioners said, but also what they know and how they treat patients. It could even make them unwilling to screen racial minorities for serious conditions—including many types of cancer—that they are more likely to inherit, on the mistaken belief that genes play no role in racial health disparities.
"Some vulnerability isn't about economic or social marginalization," said Jeff Singer, a general surgeon in Arizona. "A lot of conditions"—such as Tay-Sachs, which disproportionately impacts Ashkenazi Jews, and triple-negative breast cancer, which disproportionately affects black women—"vary based on genetics. We’re talking about matters of life and death here."
Singer's warning echoes the argument that five black professors in March made in the New England Journal of Medicine, where they described genetic denialism as "a form of naive ‘color blindness'" that would "perpetuate and potentially exacerbate disparities."
The guide is part of an ongoing and controversial effort to institutionalize progressivism as public health's lingua franca. It was "deeply informed" by the "Inclusive Communication" guide that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in September, as well as by the AMA's "Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity" published in May. A few members of the AMA this month spoke out against that plan, arguing that it amounted to racial discrimination, while others said the AMA's focus on language would alienate patients and inject ideology into medicine.
That ideological injection has been administered by an incestuous network of nonprofits that supply and legitimize the language of activist physicians. The guide's citations include Race Forward, which lobbied against the Trump administration's executive order on critical race theory, and the Narrative Initiative, which promotes "durable narrative change" to "make equity and social justice common sense."
These groups in turn receive support from some of the largest and best-financed foundations in the country. Race Forward is funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, while the Narrative Initiative, per the group's website, "was conceived and funded by The Atlantic Philanthropies and Ford Foundation."
Such nonprofits have played a pivotal role in turning medical accreditation against genetics. The guide cites a report from George Soros's Open Society Foundations that says the practice of DNA testing "weaves together dominant narratives of racism and individualism into a biological determinism." The chief medical officer of New York City, Michelle Morse, participated in the creation of that report, as did critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw and anti-Israel activist Linda Sarsour.
"They're trying to superimpose social science onto medical science," Singer said. "But as a consumer of health care, I'd just like to know that whoever is treating me is qualified. Because my life is on the line."
Several doctors also sounded the alarm about how the guide would impact admissions standards and curricular content at medical schools, which, in one professor's words, "are at the total mercy of" their accreditors.
The guidance potentially implicates every stage of a doctor's education: where they get in, what they're tested on, how they're graded, and who gives them residencies. In effect, it could change the way medicine measures merit—from objective criteria like grades and test scores to subjective criteria like diversity statements, which are increasingly common at medical schools.
One doctor predicted that the guide would result in a "disastrous" reluctance to flunk low-performing medical students and a "tripling down on affirmative action." Another was even blunter: "This can kill people."
The AMA and AAMC did not respond to requests for comment.
The guide is the latest move by medical school accreditors to sideline merit in favor of diversity. The AMA and AAMC in 2012 implemented diversity standards that effectively mandated racial preferences at all medical schools. And in March 2020—as the coronavirus began to strain hospital services in New York City—the "Step 1" medical licensing exam moved from numerical scoring to pass-fail, a change many doctors said would make it harder to objectively evaluate residency applications.
One reason for the shift, a report explaining the change said, was that numerical scoring "negatively impacts diversity based on known group differences in performance"—with whites and Asians significantly outscoring blacks and Hispanics. The AMA and AAMC both contributed to that report.
According to some doctors, these pressures have already lowered the quality of medical care. "I've certainly seen residents' intellectual capability dropping over time," said one professor who belongs to the AMA and who told the Free Beacon he would be fired if he went on the record. "Residents are just not as capable of caring for patients as they were 20 years ago."
A professor at one Ivy League medical school agreed, telling the Free Beacon that the curriculum has gotten easier over time because administrators want to avoid failing less qualified admittees. "In order to get them through, the standards for everyone have been lowered," the professor said.
Mistakes in medicine can be deadly: According to a 2018 study by Johns Hopkins medical school, medical error is the third leading cause of death in the United States.
In light of such grim statistics, some doctors see the guide as a distraction. "It strikes me as a waste of time," said Sally Satel, a psychiatrist who's written extensively about the opioid epidemic. "Yes, trainees need to appreciate the life context of their patients, but it's not clear how many of these social justice-based innovations will help medical students be better doctors."
Those are valid concerns, and ones that could be addressed by an actual human and not by the cars ECU, which it appears to be in this case.
The gov'ment be here to help you, they know better than you do.****. My car be shut down all the time for flying down the rod racing.
Well the price of cars prior to this will skyrocket. I’m in!
Interesting concept, I didn't realize that a request for freedom of information came with a price dictated by those holding the information. Naive, I suppose.One would think after the public humiliation, after being exposed to the world for their evil tactics, and after likely being one of the main reasons McAuliffe lost in VA...that Loudon Co Schools would try to reform.
Nope! Double-down on evil! Brilliant.
View attachment 7106
Loudoun County Schools Attempt To Charge Parents $36,000 For Records Related To ‘Sexual Assault’ And ‘Rape’
A parent in Loudoun County was asked to pay over $36,000 to retrieve the public records.dailycaller.com
www.outkick.com
