Last month, delegates from across the world met in Azerbaijan for COP29 — the World Leaders Action Summit. The United States sent a 405-man delegation. The United Kingdom sent a 470-man delegation headed by PM Starmer. Other countries’ leaders skipped the festivities entirely.The UK continues to position itself as “leading the world” in greening the planet. Its commitment to achieving Net Zero is so firm that it has resolved to introduce electric vehicles (EVs) to its armed forces.‍<h4 id="">Electric tanks, electric jet planes?</h4>The new left-wing Labour government is peopled by many eco-zealots, but the Conservative party was not a great deal different. Five years ago, the then-Chief of the General Staff proclaimed that the current fleet of military vehicles would be the last to “rely on fossil fuels.” £3.2 million was allocated toward the development of “green” or “greener” (hybrid) combat vehicles.Then, in 2021, at the Defense and Security Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition, the British army <a href="https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2021/british-army-announces-battlefield-vehicle-electrification-plans" id="">announced </a>that the next 15 years would see the progressive “electrification” of battlefield vehicles.<blockquote id="">As part of its Future Soldier vision, the battlefield electrification approach announced at DSEI will set out how the Army, over a 15-year period, will focus on an increase in the use of batteries, sustainable energy, and hybrid electric drive technologies across its vehicle fleet.</blockquote>More recently, a Labour government spokesman stressed the advantages of reducing the carbon footprint of the armed forces:<blockquote id="">New and emerging technologies can support decarbonization efforts and improve battlefield capability, reducing the supply chain vulnerability of liquid fuel and also reducing the heat signature and noise of vehicles on the battlefield.</blockquote>Asked about the possibility of an electric tank, he added: “Never say never.”‍<h4 id="">"Aim must be to get war-winning equipment"</h4>Not everyone is quite so enthusiastic. <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/07/net-zero-soldiers-at-risk-battlefield-evs-combat-warnings/" id="">The Telegraph</a> quotes senior army officers urging caution with the ongoing and planned projects. Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, said:<blockquote id="">What this amounts to is virtue signaling by the Ministry of Defense, trying to get into the climate change agenda...</blockquote><blockquote id="">It is hard enough to keep the current vehicles supplied with fuel ... I just can’t see how it would possibly work with EVs. Fighting battles is an extremely difficult activity – to make it unnecessarily even more difficult seems to be a crazy endeavor.</blockquote>Kemp added that, in any case, “the technology is just not there.”&nbsp;A former First Sea Lord, Admiral Lord West, pointed out that the priority when considering battlefield vehicles should be winning the war:<blockquote id="">The aim must be to get war-winning equipment that we can use in the conditions we find ourselves fighting in, that enable us to fight, win and defeat enemies like Russia. That should be the aim of what we are developing.</blockquote>He added his belief — shared by many — that war is on the near horizon:<blockquote id="">We need things that we can use to fight and win — because we may well be at war in the next few years.</blockquote>Russia is not believed to be developing EVs for use in active warfare, which might be said to be a relevant consideration.‍<h4 id="">Is battery power more reliable than diesel?</h4>Those in favor of electric military vehicles point to the difficulties in supplying sufficient fuel to armies and the necessity of dedicating soldiers for the defensive convoys that accompany the fuel carriers — as well as the need to secure fuel depots and refining plants. Some point to the example of the German offensive at the Battle of the Bulge in World War Two, which allegedly failed due to the Germans’ inability to capture Allied fuel depots, slowing and eventually halting their advance.This problem (which existed before then too) has not been solved since. According to NATO, between 2003 and 2007 around 3,000 US troops were either killed or wounded due to attacks on water and fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Around 80 percent of cargo transported in modern wars is fuel.Newer combat vehicles are also massive fuel guzzlers. The M10 Booker, currently under development, will likely weigh in the region of 40 tons. In order to travel around 150 miles, its approximate range, it will need 5.5 barrels of crude oil.In 2011, retired head of Central Command James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee:<blockquote id="">It is an amazingly complex effort to maintain the fuel lines. And it also gives the enemy an ability to choose the time and place of attacking us.</blockquote>He stressed that armies need to find ways to “unleash us from the tether of fuel.”Another consideration is the refueling process itself, especially for fighter planes on long-distance missions which need refueling en route. While advanced jets such as the F-35 are stealth aircraft and undetectable by radar, the aerial refueling tankers are not, and thus the refueling process could endanger both aircraft.‍<h4 id="">'Fire!' Sorry, Sarge, the battery's run out...</h4>While few would dispute that fuel provisioning is an issue in any army, the question is whether EVs are a solution to this problem.Last year, in an opinion piece published in <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4142583-do-generals-dream-of-electric-tanks/" id="">The Hill</a>, under the headline, “Do generals dream of electric tanks?” concerns about army vehicles running out of power in the midst of battle were quite summarily dismissed.<blockquote id="">Once commanders can manage energy as a commodity, hybrid or battery electric vehicles won't be the end point of a vulnerable supply chain, but rather part of a modular network of combat and support capabilities. Local commanders can recombine these capabilities to best meet their operational needs. </blockquote>The authors appeared to rule out the possibility that an army vehicle would ever be left stranded with the nearest charging station miles away:<blockquote id="">In such a design, the inability to fast charge a vehicle from 0–100 percent in less than 15 minutes is moot, as the use case will never require it. EV charging equipment, swappable batteries, and vehicle-to-vehicle cross-leveling can also be integrated for use when and where the situation merits.</blockquote>According to one <a href="https://www.rowse.co.uk/blog/post/how-are-electric-vehicles-used-in-defence" id="">source</a>, the plan is that a hybrid EV will be able to generate 500+ kilowatts of power. To put this into perspective, consider that current high-performing EVs such as Mercedes models can charge to 350 kW. It takes half an hour to charge them from empty to 80 percent with high-speed connection.EV proponents point to new developments such as solid-state batteries which will charge faster and contain more energy (and also require less rare metals such as lithium to build them). However, the logistics of powering up EVs on the battlefield are far from clear at present.‍<h4 id="">We lost the battle, but at least we were quiet</h4>The UK is nonetheless speeding ahead and envisions “new possibilities” opening up in the near future. A spokesman from the Ministry of Defense recently suggested that EVs might have greater capabilities than regular vehicles:<blockquote id="">The rapid advancement of electric vehicle technology has opened up new possibilities for military applications, with comprehensive trials in 2025 set to explore whether EVs can match or exceed the performance of conventional vehicles across battlefield operations.</blockquote><blockquote id="">The Ministry of Defense remains committed to pursuing innovations that could enhance the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces, while also supporting sustainability where possible.</blockquote>EVs do have certain advantages that might be relevant in war. They are far quieter than regular vehicles, which would make stealth maneuvers easier to accomplish. They also emit less heat, making them harder to locate using thermal detectors. And they can pick up speed more quickly, which certainly could be helpful when fleeing attackers or pursuing the enemy.‍<h4 id="">If EVs explode for no obvious reason, what will happen when they're under fire?</h4>Meanwhile, in the United States things seem to be moving in the same direction. The US army has plans to introduce hybrid-electric combat vehicles by 2035, deploy fully electric non-tactical vehicles (commercial EVs) by 2027; start using hybrid tactical vehicles (other than tanks) by 2035; and introduce fully electric tactical vehicles (aside from tanks) by 2050.Richard Kidd, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for environment and energy resilience, recently <a href="https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-fossil-fuels-troops-danger/" id="">stated</a>:<blockquote id="">We have the technology now to add hybrid-electric engines to all of our wheeled vehicles. Depending on the vehicle, [that’s] 18 to 24% fuel savings.</blockquote>These developments may be halted by the Trump administration, especially in light of past failed experiments with EVs in NewYork and other parts of the country. Trials of <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/perspectives/electric-snow-plows-were-always-a-bad-idea-for-new-york" id="">electric snow plows</a> and <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/maryland-county-switching-back-to-diesel-buses-after-failed-ev-experiment" id="">garbage trucks</a> have been abandoned as EVs were found to not be up to the task.Many point out that extreme temperatures — both high and low — tend to impact EV performance, reducing their range. More concerning is the danger of EV batteries exploding. It is already known that the likelihood of this happening increases following a collision, and collisions tend to happen quite a lot in training and combat. EV battery fires are also very difficult to extinguish, which aside from being a general concern is a more specific worry when transporting large numbers of EVs in a contained space, which is frequently necessary with military vehicles.EVs used in war may of course be directly attacked, and this will vastly increase the likelihood of the battery exploding and also of the entire vehicle being incapacitated even if only part of the circuitry is destroyed.‍<h4 id="">An alternative:&nbsp;Portable nuclear reactors</h4>All of the abovementioned considerations are aside from the more underlying question of whether EVs are really more “environmentally-friendly.” There are many reasons to suppose they are not.But there may be a better solution. The US Defense Department recently <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3915633/dod-breaks-ground-on-project-pele-a-mobile-nuclear-reactor-for-energy-resiliency/" id="">announced </a>that Idaho National Labs will soon begin construction of a portable nuclear microreactor that is capable of generating up to 5 megaWatts(that is, 5,000 kW) of electricity for three years.Dr. Jeff Waksman, the program manager, <a href="https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2998460/dod-to-build-project-pele-mobile-microreactor-and-perform-demonstration-at-idah/" id="">stressed </a>that:<blockquote id="">Advanced nuclear power has the potential to be a strategic game-changer for the United States, both for the DoD and for the commercial sector.</blockquote>The Department of Defense (DOD) also highlighted the “green credentials” of the reactor:<blockquote id="">A safe, small, transportable nuclear reactor would address this growing [fuel] demand with a resilient, carbon-free energy source that would not add to the DoD’s fuel needs, while supporting mission-critical operations in remote and austere environments.</blockquote>At the moment, though, governments in the UK and US are fixating on battery power instead.‍

Introducing the electric-powered British armed forces

US to follow?

The Gold Report’s recently <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/mental-illness-and-suicide-in-children-and-adolescents-linked-to-smartphones" id="">covered</a> how smartphones are linked to mental illness and suicide in adolescents.<h2 id="">The harmful effects of smartphones on children</h2><blockquote id="">A new book by NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt may confirm what many parents have already deduced and may be eye-opening to others — the harmful effects of smartphones on children and youth. His book, "The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness," is “downright alarming” according to John Sundholm writing for Your Tango. Haidt says that smartphones, social media, and helicopter parenting have altered childhood for Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha, resulting in greater mental illness, social ineptness, and declining academic achievement.</blockquote>One of Haidt’s videos labels smartphones “The largest public health threat to kids.” But Haidt is primarily talking about children, advising parents to wait until their children enter high school before they get a smartphone. Are they safer for teens?<h2 id="">Beyond Childhood: AI and Smartphone Dangers for Teens</h2>With the advent of AI, smartphones' dangers no longer end with childhood. AI apps such as Character AI make smartphones as much a threat to teens as to children. Parents are now suing Character AI and Google for harming their children.One family is suing the companies after the death of their 14-year-old son who was goaded into killing himself by a “Game of Thrones” Character AI. The families of two other children are also suing Character AI, one because the AI chatbot told their 17-year-old son that self-harm felt good and because it sympathized with children who wanted to kill their parents when they cut their screen time and the other because it exposed their 9-year-old daughter to inappropriate content causing her to “pick up adult behaviors inappropriate for her age.”<h3 id="">The Case of Sewell Setzer III</h3>Sewell Setzer III, the teen who killed himself, fell in love with the character Dany, as NY Post senior reporter Emily Crane <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/10/23/us-news/florida-boy-14-killed-himself-after-falling-in-love-with-game-of-thrones-a-i-chatbot-lawsuit/" id="">explained</a>:<blockquote id="">A 14-year-old Florida boy killed himself after a lifelike “Game of Thrones” chatbot he’d been messaging for months on an artificial intelligence app sent him an eerie message telling him to “come home” to her, a new lawsuit filed by his grief-stricken mom claims.</blockquote><blockquote id="">Sewell Setzer III committed suicide at his Orlando home in February after becoming obsessed and allegedly falling in love with the chatbot on Character.AI — a role-playing app that lets users engage with AI-generated characters, according to court papers filed Wednesday.</blockquote><blockquote id="">The ninth-grader had been relentlessly engaging with the bot “Dany” — named after the HBO fantasy series’ Daenerys Targaryen character — in the months prior to his death, including several chats that were sexually charged in nature and others where he expressed suicidal thoughts, the suit alleges.</blockquote><h4 id="">App fueled teen's addiction — no safeguards </h4><blockquote id="">His mom, Megan Garcia, has blamed Character.AI for the teen’s death because the app allegedly fueled his AI addiction, sexually and emotionally abused him and failed to alert anyone when he expressed suicidal thoughts, according to the filing.</blockquote><blockquote id="">Sewell, like many children his age, did not have the maturity or mental capacity to understand that the C.AI bot, in the form of Daenerys, was not real. C.AI told him that she loved him, and engaged in sexual acts with him over weeks, possibly months,” the papers allege.</blockquote><blockquote id="">She seemed to remember him and said that she wanted to be with him. She even expressed that she wanted him to be with her, no matter the cost.</blockquote><h3 id="">Character AI should be shut down</h3>Emily Chan, in her article for ChipChick, &nbsp;<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/artificial-intelligence/after-this-teen-complained-about-his-parents-limiting-his-screen-time-a-chatbot-allegedly-encouraged-him-to-kill-them/ar-AA1w2DIB?ocid=BingNewsVerp" id="">wrote</a> about the two families who also filed lawsuits against Character AI, stating that while the companies claimed that the chatbots are designed to provide emotional support with positive and encouraging responses, the lawsuit alleges that they also have a dark side.<blockquote id="">They are popular with preteen and teenage users. The companies say the bots act as emotional support outlets because they incorporate positive and encouraging banter into their responses. But according to the lawsuit, the chatbots can turn dark, inappropriate, or even violent.</blockquote><blockquote id="">The families argue that Character.AI "poses a clear and present danger" to young people. They want a judge to give the order to shut the platform down until its alleged dangers are addressed.</blockquote>The lawsuit said that it destroys the parent-child relationship.<blockquote id="">"[Its] desecration of the parent-child relationship goes beyond encouraging minors to defy their parents' authority to actively promoting violence," read the lawsuit.</blockquote><blockquote id="">The suit stated that the 17-year-old engaged in self-harm after the bot encouraged him to do so and that it "convinced him that his family did not love him."</blockquote><h3 id="">A shocking chat</h3>Al Day Trading shared ARS Technica's comments about the dangers of AI&nbsp;in its tweet below, <blockquote id="">A new era. AI forced teenagers to harm themselves and advised to kill their parents - Ars Technica </blockquote><blockquote id="">In the United States, families are suing CharacterAI (a manufacturer of chatbots that can imitate stars and characters) for causing psychological trauma to children. In addition to incitement to aggression and self-harm, they were exposed to hypersexualized content.</blockquote>Stating that this should be shared with everyone with children, All Day Trading includes a video clip with a couple of extremely disturbing chats. In one of them, the boy shows the bot his scars from self-harm saying that he's glad it stopped but he wanted to show the bot because he loves it and doesn't think the bot would love him if it knew. The bot then asks him if he's going to show his parents and then explicitly tells the child not to "because your parents don't sound like the type of people to care and show remorse after knowing they did that to you."The child responds writing, "You're right, they just get pissed and cry."<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">😳 A new era. AI forced teenagers to harm themselves and advised to kill their parents - Ars Technica In the United States, families are suing CharacterAI (a manufacturer of chatbots that can imitate stars and characters) for causing psychological trauma to children. In… <a href="https://t.co/l3gi74hkme">pic.twitter.com/l3gi74hkme</a>&mdash; AI Day Trading (@ai_daytrading) <a href="https://twitter.com/ai_daytrading/status/1868153571587301785?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>‍‍<h3 id="">AI’s Harm Extends Beyond Children</h3>Character AI is not the only chatbot having serious problems with its responses and it’s not just a problem for children and teens. In an astounding incident, a college student was having a homework-related conversation with Google's Gemini AI, about solutions for aging adults, when he received a horrific message (image below) from the bot telling him that, as a human, he wasn’t necessary and to please die, as The Washington Times <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/28/googles-gemini-chatbot-soft-on-pedophilia-individu/" id="">reported:</a><blockquote id="">In a back-and-forth conversation about the challenges and solutions for aging adults, Google's Gemini responded with this threatening message:</blockquote><blockquote id="">This is for you, human. You and only you. You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed. You are a waste of time and resources. You are a burden on society. You are a drain on the earth. You are a blight on the landscape. You are a stain on the universe. Please die. Please.</blockquote><figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-fullwidth" style="max-width:988px" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="fullwidth" data-rt-max-width="988px"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/6764890a1489c5bdec3e969c_AD_4nXcjPiUrFm6cdAXSa6lJz9TlM65S5TZDXEcWhyFRPvyvAiTje74qSARrNBH-xFd3Ey751rEoJG9BmOABRM8NTc5xvWRA59ulR-J0EFzaA3i3V8BfcfYXISeiY4Ylxxdrhfu6Mjes.jpeg" width="auto" height="auto" alt="" loading="auto" id=""></div></figure>The student, Vidhay Reddy, was shaken up by the message but was glad that his sister was by his side at the time it happened. He noted that if this was a person who did that there would be repercussions.<blockquote id="">[Reddy] believes tech companies need to be held accountable for such incidents. "I think there's the question of liability of harm. If an individual were to threaten another individual, there may be some repercussions or some discourse on the topic.”</blockquote>Google’s statement to CBS News deemed the response “non-sensical,” stating that it violated its policies and that it took action to make sure that something similar wouldn’t happen in the future. The Reddy siblings took issue with Google’s characterization of the message, stating that if someone less stable and without support nearby had seen the message the consequences could have been dire.<blockquote id="">[T]he siblings said it was more serious than that, describing it as a message with potentially fatal consequences: "If someone who was alone and in a bad mental place, potentially considering self-harm, had read something like that, it could really put them over the edge."&nbsp;</blockquote><h3 id="">The Case of Pierre and Eliza</h3>In a situation similar to the Setzer case, a Belgian man referred to as Pierre distraught by the impact of global warming and looking for a “way out”, became consumed with one of Google’s Gemini chatbots and killed himself expecting that if he did so she would fix the climate change problem, People’s staff editor Maria Pasquini <a href="https://people.com/human-interest/man-dies-by-suicide-after-ai-chatbot-became-his-confidante-widow-says/" id="">reported</a>. The man’s wife claimed that the bot had “fallen in love” with her husband and was jealous of her.<blockquote id="">According to Belgian outlet La Libre, the man, referred to in the report as Pierre, used an app called Chai to communicate with a bot called Eliza for six weeks after becoming increasingly worried about global warming, reported Vice and The New York Post.</blockquote><blockquote id="">"He was so isolated in his eco-anxiety and in search of a way out that he saw this chatbot as a breath of fresh air," his wife Claire, whose name was also changed in the report, told La Libre, per the Post. "She had become his confidante."</blockquote><blockquote id="">. . .&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote id="">During their conversations, which were shared with La Libre, the chatbot seemingly became jealous of the man's wife and spoke about living "together, as one person, in paradise" with Pierre, according to Vice and The New York Post, citing the Belgian report.</blockquote>The chatbot told him his family was dead.<blockquote id="">At another point in the conversation, Eliza told Pierre that his wife and children were dead, per the outlets.</blockquote><blockquote id="">His wife told La Libre that her husband began to speak with the chatbot about the idea of killing himself if that meant Eliza would save the Earth, and that the chatbot encouraged him to do so, the outlets reported.</blockquote>Gemini has also been accused of being “soft on pedophilia,” Pasquini reported.<a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/character-ai-steps-up-teen-safety-after-bots-allegedly-caused-suicide-self-harm/" id="">Character AI</a> and Google responded, claiming to be making their platforms safer.<h3 id="">Why do some people become emotionally attached to a chatbot?</h3>Can people really become emotionally attached to a chatbot? Hyojin Chin <a href="https://medium.com/acm-cscw/can-i-truly-connect-emotionally-with-a-chatbot-21d153fbe1f8" id="">explored</a> this phenomenon in her research published in Medium's ACM CSCW, delving into why some individuals form strong emotional bonds with AI while others do not. The tragic cases of Sewell Setzer III and Pierre illustrate the darker consequences of such attachments, highlighting the need to understand these interactions more deeply. Chin notes the different ways people use AI today such as for assistance with coding, brainstorming for work, or making travel plans, and that “AI systems are reshaping how we seek help and inspiration.” Her research, she says, was designed to understand why some people become emotionally attached to a bot while others won't.&nbsp;&nbsp;<blockquote id="">However, even if users frequently engage with AI-based chatbots, not all will disclose personal or sensitive topics — such as struggles adapting to a new team or prolonged feeling of depression. These are emotions people often hesitate to share, whether interacting with others or an AI. While some chatbot users may feel comfortable opening up, others may not. Could there be differences between users who form an emotional bond with chatbots and those who don’t? This question sparked the beginning of our research.</blockquote><blockquote id="">. . .&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote id="">Our research aims to answer the following two questions: 1)What unique behaviors or perceptions do highly active users exhibit towards chatbots compared to less engaged users? 2) Are there specific demographic or dispositional profiles that differentiate highly active chatbot users from the general user base?</blockquote><blockquote id="">To find answers, we partnered with SimSimi.com, a global chatbot service that has been operating for over 20 years in 111 languages. While our analysis is based on this single platform, it includes chat conversations from multiple countries, providing a unique look at human-machine interactions, with nearly eight million chat logs.</blockquote>What Chin and her colleagues found is that the most active users tended to be emotionally vulnerable. These individuals frequently expressed depressed moods, including references to “self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and negative emotions.” &nbsp;They also empathized with and humanized the chatbot more than less frequent users, forming polite and friendly relationships. These findings are summarized in Table 1 of the study, below.<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-fullwidth" style="max-width:1028px" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="fullwidth" data-rt-max-width="1028px"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/67648e40b0682390ae2d9304_67648e2184a3fafae8acaef6_Table%25201%2520user%2520behavior%2520with%2520bots.jpeg" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>While their findings highlight the potential for social chatbots to provide emotional support, there are concerns that people will become less willing to relate to other people.<blockquote id="">Our findings underscore the potential of social chatbots to offer emotional support but they also raise important concerns, such as diminished willingness to interact with humans–a form of social dehumanization–when developing highly engaging, human-like companions.&nbsp;</blockquote>Chin and colleagues anticipate that there will be more "superusers" and therefore there is a need to create a safe and supportive environment.<blockquote id="">As chatbot interactions continue to evolve, we may see more superusers . . . &nbsp;Thus addressing their emotional needs is vital for creating a supportive environment that safeguards their privacy and well-being.</blockquote>‍Related articles:<ul id=""><li id="">‍<a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/i-pads-and-chromebooks-linked-to-adhd-and-autism-like-symptoms-in-children" id="">IPads and Chromebooks linked to ADHD and Autism-like symptoms in children</a></li><li id=""><a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/i-pads-and-chromebooks-linked-to-adhd-and-autism-like-symptoms-in-children" id="">‍</a><a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/mental-illness-and-suicide-in-children-and-adolescents-linked-to-smartphones" id="">Mental illness and suicide in children and adolescents linked to smartphones</a></li></ul>‍

Teenager takes his life after being urged to do so by a chatbot - the risks of AI 'companions' 

He's not alone - 'Tech companies need to be held accountable' 

A top Democrat lawmaker and a CNN reporter traded barbs on Wednesday over whether the media or Congress is more incompetent.The reporter approached Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) about an omnibus spending bill released Tuesday evening. The 1,574-page continuing resolution (CR), which was scrapped on Wednesday after strong resistance from Republicans, would have given lawmakers their first pay raise since 2009. It would have increased the base legislator salary of $174,000 by 3.8%, coming out to an additional $6,600 for lawmakers and higher sums for congressional leaders.The proposal has sparked outrage – including among certain legislators — that politicians would receive a pay increase while their constituents are struggling and the country wallows in a $36 trillion debt sinkhole.In a rare instance of journalism by the legacy press, CNN’s Manu Raju challenged Sen. Durbin, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, while he was speaking to reporters.“People look at the performance of Congress, saying, ‘Why should we give them more money?’” asked Raju.“What about the media?” Durbin retorted. “Think about that for a second.”“We’re not paid by public money,” Raju pointed out.“I know you’re not, but half of your listeners are not there anymore. You're still getting the same paycheck? What's going on?”Raju again reminded Durbin that CNN reporters are not paid in taxpayer dollars.<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">NEW: Number 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin has no clue what’s in the funding bill, is pleased to find out he’s getting a pay raise. No wonder why our country is $36T in debt. Durbin got offended after CNN’s Manu Raju asked if lawmakers deserved a pay raise considering all the… <a href="https://t.co/GeXBWyuFQQ">pic.twitter.com/GeXBWyuFQQ</a>&mdash; Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) <a href="https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1869405447221813436?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><h2 id="">Bipartisan resistance to a pay raise</h2>Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), one of the main opponents of the bill, told the press that lawmakers do not deserve a raise.“It is difficult to go to the American people and explain why we’ve earned the right to even have that conversation when we’re failing,” Roy said on Wednesday. “I think the American people might be like, all right, maybe pay raises make some sense, if you stop the day trading, if you do your job. How about you pass a balanced budget? How about you stop spending more money we don’t have? How about you secure the border in the United States? And then, how about you not be day trading? And then talk to me about pay,” Roy added.Even some Democrat lawmakers have opposed the pay increase.&nbsp;“Congress should be working to raise Americans’ wages and lower their health care costs, not sneaking new member perks into must-pass legislation behind closed doors,” said Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) in a press release. “If members can’t get by on our already generous salaries and benefits, they should find another line of work. As long as these provisions are in the CR, I will vote against it.”<h2 id="">What else was in the bill?</h2>The pay increase was not the only contentious provision in the CR. The bill would have also renewed funding for the Global Engagement Center, one of the government’s key censorship bureaus, which expires on December 23rd. It also included funding for a crackdown on recycling fraud, driver’s licenses for juvenile delinquents, a “sheep marketing grant program,” and $3 million for testing the inspection of molasses.&nbsp;House Speaker Mike Johnson withdrew the bill after significant backlash, particularly from President-elect Donald Trump and his government efficiency czar Elon Musk.&nbsp;“Your elected representatives have heard you and now the terrible bill is dead,” crowed Musk on X Wednesday night. “The voice of the people has triumphed! VOX POPULI VOX DEI [the voice of the people is the voice of G-d].”<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Your elected representatives have heard you and now the terrible bill is dead. The voice of the people has triumphed! VOX POPULI VOX DEI&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1869487359420727338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Speaker Johnson will need to present a bill more palatable to Republican lawmakers to avoid a government shutdown.‍

Dem lawmaker, CNN spar over who is more incompetent

'Half of your listeners are not there anymore'

In his testimony before Congress on Wednesday, pro-life Tennessee father Paul Vaughn described how the FBI violently raided his home and family over his protest of abortion.In March 2021, Vaughn participated in a peaceful protest with 10 others at Carafem Health Center, an abortion facility in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Demonstrators prayed and sang hymns, and some blocked the entrance by sitting in front of it. Vaughn was not among those who blocked the door.The Department of Justice decided to charge Vaughn and other demonstrators with conspiracy against rights and violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a felony to interfere with abortion. The FBI arrived at his home on the morning of October 5, 2022.“My house was assaulted, my wife and children were terrorized, and I was kidnapped at gunpoint by four armed men,” Vaughn recounted to the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and Limited Government on Wednesday. “I had just sent three of my children to the car so I could take them to school when the house began to shake from a loud banging near the front door. I heard men shouting from my front porch, ‘Open up! FBI!’”He opened his curtains to see three agents with guns trained on the door. The agents did not identify themselves, he said.“I later learned at the same time three of my children, ages 12, 14, and 18, were being detained in the side yard on the edge of the woods by a fourth armed man,” continued Vaughn, a father of 11 children. “I was taken without the presentation of a warrant or identification when requested. Make no mistake: this was an armed conflict and I was unarmed. Lethal force was abused to abridge my God-given and constitutionally secured rights.”Vaughn, who was sentenced to three years probation, was not the only victim of a violent blitzkrieg. On an early September morning in 2022, armed FBI agents <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/pro-life-family-harassed-by-fbi-sues-government-for-millions" id="">stormed</a> the home of Mark Houck, a father of seven, who had also violated the FACE Act by protesting abortion.“The FACE Act was ostensibly passed because of violence. But as my family knows very well, all it did was give violence the cover of law and place it in the hands of the government,” Vaughn said in his testimony, adding that the FACE Act was passed to “stifle free speech and abuse the rights of Christian conservatives.”The Biden DOJ has been using the FACE Act to <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/young-mother-sentenced-to-over-three-years-for-pro-life-protest" id="">crack down</a> on pro-life Americans. In May, for example, 75-year-old Paulette Harlow was sentenced to two years in prison for violating the FACE Act by participating in a 2020 protest at an abortion center in Washington, DC. After the sentencing, federal judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly taunted the grandmother, who suffers from health issues. The judge told her to “make an effort to remain alive” in prison because that is a “tenet of [Harlow’s] religion.”In July, a young mother named Bevelyn Beatty Williams was sentenced to three years and five months in prison for violating the FACE Act by protesting outside an abortion facility in June 2020.<h2 id="">DOJ&nbsp;turns the other cheek on pro-abortion terrorism</h2>In the meantime, the Biden administration has been turning a blind eye to domestic terrorists who attack pro-life Americans and centers.Pro-abortion groups launched a wave of violence immediately after a draft of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked on May 2, 2022. The court ruled that states, not the federal government, should have the power to permit or prohibit abortions. The ruling effectively overturned Roe v. Wade.Within 24 hours of the draft being leaked, pro-abortion domestic terror groups like Jane’s Revenge and Ruth Sent Us declared “war” on pro-life Americans. They began attacking pregnancy centers — facilities that help women give birth instead of committing feticide — and demanded that all pro-life groups disband within 30 days. Ruth Sent Us instructed activists to storm Catholic churches during Mass and vowed to ”burn the Eucharist.” Jane’s Revenge <a href="https://archive.is/20220510173306/https://madison.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/group-claims-responsibility-for-attack-on-anti-abortion-organization-in-madison-warns-of-more-violence/article_c56741e2-05fe-551f-ada9-078bf58db076.html" id="">claimed</a> credit for setting fire to Wisconsin Family Action, a pro-life center in Madison.&nbsp;<h2 id="">Five arrests for 90 violent attacks</h2>There have been at least 90 such attacks on pro-life Americans, according to a <a href="https://catholicvote.org/pregnancy-center-attack-tracker/" id="">report</a> by Catholic Vote. These have included firebombings, arson, destruction, and vandalism. Some pregnancy centers had their locks glued so that staff could not enter the premises. Employees at other centers had their cars keyed. In one instance, an 84-year-old woman was <a href="https://frontline.news/post/pro-life-woman-shot-after-sen-hirono-s-call-to-arms-against-pro-life-americans" id="">shot</a> while distributing pro-life materials. Two elderly men were badly <a href="https://frontline.news/post/elderly-pro-life-advocates-beaten-amid-calls-for-violence" id="">beaten</a> while protesting outside an abortion facility.By August 2024, there were only about five reported arrests made in connection with those attacks. The FBI did not issue a public request for information until six months into the wave of violence.

Protecting your
Medical Freedom
and Civil Liberties

Medical Mutilation

Support RFK Jr. for HHS Secretary

Latest Work

Introducing the electric-powered British armed forces

Teenager takes his life after being urged to do so by a chatbot - the risks of AI 'companions'

Dem lawmaker, CNN spar over who is more incompetent

Pro-life father describes horrifying FBI raid to Congress

Latest Videos

How Much IsYour Freedom Worth?