Zerohedge

A study by Gallup and Meta, “The Global State of Social Connections,” highlights just how prevalent loneliness is today. 

The survey, which interviewed people aged 15+ in 142 countries from June 2022 to February 2023, provides insight on the prevalence of loneliness in different age groups.

As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, globally, 25 percent of respondents between 15 and 18 years old feel “very lonely” or “fairly lonely.” 

This is even higher among those aged 19 to 29, with 27 percent of participants experiencing significant levels of loneliness. 

Respondents aged over 65 show a lower rate of loneliness, with only 17 percent reporting significant levels of isolation.

 

You will find more infographics at Statista

While the coronavirus pandemic increased the feeling of isolation for many people, this data suggests that loneliness continues to afflict a high number of people, even now lockdowns have passed. 

Loneliness can have serious health implications, with social isolation having been linked to an increased risk of several chronic diseases, such as diabetes and dementia, as well as mental health disorders including anxiety and depression.

Regarding the reasons why people may feel alone, the study clarifies that the data collected “contributes to explaining how people feel, but it is necessary to continue researching to find out why.”

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Reality is absolutely downstream from fiction. Did the creators of South Park predict the future in their 1999 comedy film? I think we’re all suddenly realizing that prognostication is easy – Simply imagine the most absurd scenario possible and eventually it’s going to come true because we’re living in clown world.

A war between Canada and the US opening up a portal to hell might be a bit of a stretch, but recent events lead me to believe that there are very real ingredients coming together that could trigger an active conflict with our neighbors to the north. Furthermore, these factors do NOT necessarily revolve around the trade war; the trade war is secondary.

There is something explosive going on under the surface of US/Canada relations and it could very well end with a US invasion to the north.

Most conservatives have viewed Trump’s rhetoric on Canada becoming the 51st state as a joke or a troll. At least, initially. Trump himself said it was a joke in the beginning, but now he thinks it might be a good idea. For today, lets imagine that this is a real agenda for the Trump Administration and consider the pros and cons.

The Cons

1) Trump looks like an “empire builder” which is widely considered poor form in the 21st Century. Most conservatives prefer that America stick to the American sphere and deal with American problems first before trying to change the geopolitical landscape.

2) An annexation of Canada would mean welcoming millions of Canadian leftists into the US as voting citizens. Who knows how this would affect the election demographics. It’s better to leave Canada as a steam valve so that leftist LEAVE the US and live there instead. America has been suffering under the weight of increasing progressive control, and now that we are finally turning the tide we don’t want to screw it up by importing a bunch of socialists from across the border.

3) On the global stage, the leftist establishment will claim that any US expansion is proof of a rising “fascist regime”. Not that most Americans really care what the rest of the world thinks, but we do still have to engage in diplomacy and alliances and trade to a point. The more the fascism narrative grows the harder it will be to engage with other countries on civil terms, fair or not fair.

The Pros

1) The US already pays for Canada’s defense anyway. Their proximity to us keeps them safe from invasion. Their defense budget is a tiny $27 billion, compared to America’s $997 billion. Their military is minuscule, with 63,000 active members and 22,000 reserve compared to America’s 2.86 million active duty troops and nearly 800,000 in reserve.

Canada has never needed an army because the US is their daddy. If Canada was annexed, the billions expended to keep the country safe would make more sense in our modern post-cold war era.

2) Though there is a risk of bringing millions of leftists into US citizenship if Canada became the 51st state, there is also a good chance most of those people would leave the country and move overseas. Frankly, the less leftists reside in North America, the better off we all will be, and taking Canada might run them all off to another part of the world.

3) Bringing Canada into the fold would make tariffs unnecessary, allow for more efficient resource development and help dig Canada out of the desperate economic slump they are currently trapped in. But an even more important factor is keeping Canada out of the hands of the globalists within the European Union, who have been courting the nation for years and seeking far closer political ties. In military strategy this is called “area denial”.

The War Scenario

This brings us to what I believe is a potential build-up to war between the US and our neighbor. The election of Mark Carney basically seals the deal.

The former central banker is a notorious high ranking member of the World Economic Forum and a devout globalist. He has called for a global digital currency system and supports the cashless society concept. He will no doubt increase tensions with the US on every front from trade to border controls and he WILL get friendly with governments that are hostile to America.

Upon his election win his first act was to attack the US and Trump, hinting at closer connections with the EU, not to mention refusing to negotiate on trade.

The EU issue, I believe, is a hot spark in a hay bale. As I’ve noted in recent articles, the EU is without any doubt going full blown authoritarian because they know they can. The vast majority of Europeans are disarmed making any rebellion much more difficult.

They are locking up political opponents and citizens that speak out. They are instituting a vast online censorship apparatus. They are importing millions of third world migrants that can be used as enforcers to keep the native population in line. They are openly talking about forced military conscription and are courting the idea of war with Russia.

European governments are the enemy of all free people. This can only lead to bloody conflict in the future.

By extension, Mark Carney, head of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020, has deep connections to the European elites and is loyal to the WEF. I would not be surprised if he immediately organizes a campaign for Canada to join the EU, or, creates policies which give the EU a geopolitical foothold in North America. The union’s treaty currently requires that a country be a geographical part of Europe before it can join. There are also a number of obstacles for inclusion, but as we have seen with Ukraine, the EU is happy to bend or change the rules if it suits them.

If membership is formed or a defense pact signed, the EU’s ongoing plan to create a “European Army” would then extend to Canada and put the US and Canada/Europe in a framework for escalation. Canada is working on such a defense deal with the EU right now.

It’s important to understand that this war would start out as economic and quickly become ideological. The progressives believe that populist, nationalist and conservative movements are a “threat to democracy” (which means they are a threat to the globalist order). They view American conservatives as the last obstacle to their “Great Reset” (an agenda which Carney avidly supports) and they will do everything in their power to remove that obstacle.

Carney WILL invite the EU to take a more active role in Canadian affairs and seek out their “protection”, economically as well as strategically. This would only exacerbate the diplomatic situation with the US and invite an American invasion.

The tariffs will become perpetual under Carney because it’s unlikely he will seek honest negotiations. Rather, he will seek to provoke. Around 76% of Canada’s exports are sold to the US and there is no realistic replacement for this market. Canada does not have the means to ship their goods overseas without raising prices exponentially. They would lose their competitive trade advantage. Around 30% of Canada’s GDP relies on export sales. Canada’s economy will be destroyed by long term tariffs.

This will inevitably lead to extra-economic retaliation; meaning, Canada will seek a means to hurt the US beyond reciprocal tariffs because tariffs will not help them. They will try to cut off oil exports to the US even though they have no alternative buyers. They will cut off the hydropower that they sell to states like New York, Minnesota and Michigan. They will try to interfere with US shipping lanes that cross into Canadian controlled waters (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway).

Again, this would elicit a war response from the US and victory would be swift. The existing Canadian government would have zero chance of staying in power.

For those that think a conflict with Canada sounds ridiculous, I would remind them that times are changing rapidly. What you might think of as the status quo for geopolitics today is over. As globalism breaks apart we are entering the wild west, so saddle up and sack up. There’s no room for normalcy bias anymore.

I predict that within the next two years there will be serious talk of portions of Canada (like Alberta) seceding over to the US as Carney crushes citizens with carbon taxation, increased censorship, continued mass immigration and gun bans. The new Primer Minister will make every effort to make Canada as draconian as Europe.

More progressive parts of Canada will pursue EU membership. And, the idea of war will not sound so crazy anymore. In fact, I suspect it will be a common debate around the average American and Canadian dinner table.

Again, with a globalist ghoul like Mark Carney in control of Canada the chances for heightened tensions are immense and unfortunately a large enough percentage of Canadians are gullible enough to follow his lead thinking they can win. Make no mistake, a war with the globalists is brewing and Canada is currently leaning globalist. This might very well mean a conflagration between Americans and Canadians in the near future.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Thought leaders dubbed ChatGPT’s emergence – and subsequent generative AI proliferation – as the “fourth industrial age.”

Whether it will re-shape the economy entirely still remains to be seen. But there’s no denying that most people are familiar with, and are actively using AI.

What are they using it for?

This ranking tracks the most popular AI use cases as sourced from an analysis done by Marc Zao-Sanders for Harvard Business Review. He examined thousands of forum posts over the last year in a follow-up to his 2024 analysis.

The top 30 ranks from this report have been visualized in this graphic via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao. Labels have been edited lightly from the source for readability. 

This visualization is part of Visual Capitalist’s AI Week, sponsored by Terzo.

Here’s How Everyone is Using AI in 2025

People are using AI for support (both professional and personal) in 2025

In fact, the top three use cases (therapy, life organization, and finding purpose) all show that AI can assist humans in managing both emotions and their life.

2024	Use Case	Category	2025	Use Case	Category
1	Generate Ideas	Content Creation	1	Therapy & Companionship	Support
2	Therapy & Companionship	Support	2	Organize Life	Support
3	Specific Search	Research & Analysis	3	Find Purpose	Support
4	Edit text	Content Creation	4	Enhance Learning	Learning & Education
5	Explore Interests	Learning & Education	5	Generate Code	Technical Assistance
6	Fun & Nonsense	Creativity & Recreation	6	Generate Ideas	Content Creation
7	Troubleshoot	Technical Assistance	7	Fun & Nonsense	Creativity & Recreation
8	Enhance Learning	Learning & Education	8	Improve Code	Technical Assistance
9	Personalize Learning	Learning & Education	9	Creativity	Content Creation
10	General advice	Support	10	Healthy Living	Support
11	Draft emails	Content Creation	11	Interview Preparation	Learning & Education
12	Explainers	Learning & Education	12	Generate Images	Creativity & Recreation
13	Write & Edit Résumé	Support	13	Specific Search	Research & Analysis
14	Excel Formulas	Technical Assistance	14	Explainers	Learning & Education
15	Email Writing	Content Creation	15	Cooking Guidance	Creativity & Recreation
16	Evaluate Copy	Research & Analysis	16	Troubleshoot	Technical Assistance
17	Improve Decisions	Research & Analysis	17	Personalize Learning	Learning & Education
18	Translation	Technical Assistance	18	Boost Confidence	Support
19	Improve Code	Technical Assistance	19	Email Writing	Content Creation
20	Draft Document	Content Creation	20	Explain Legalese	Technical Assistance
21	Navigate Personal Disputes	Support	21	Child Entertainment	Creativity & Recreation
22	Summarize Content	Learning & Education	22	Corporate LLM	Support
23	Make a Complaint	Support	23	Student Essays	Learning & Education
24	Recommendations	Creativity & Recreation	24	Travel Itinerary	Support
25	Cooking Guidance	Creativity & Recreation	25	Childcare Help	Creativity & Recreation
26	Generate Appraisals	Content Creation	26	Medical Advice	Support
27	Creativity	Content Creation	27	Navigate Personal Disputes	Support
28	Medical Advice	Support	28	Generate Legal Document	Content Creation
29	Generate Legal Document	Content Creation	29	Conversations	Support
30	Fix Code	Technical Assistance	30	Anti-trolling	Content Creation

And aside from therapy, these were not the top uses in 2024: which revolved around idea generation and search.

Speaking of AI search, its popularity has fallen 10 spots. People are still interested in learning and making AI explain concepts or add context for them. But they’re not actively looking up information as much.

(This may also be because of Gemini’s integration in Google Search).

AI For Mental Health: Good or Bad?

With mental health support severely underfunded and the Loneliness Epidemic only continuing, it’s no surprise AI has emerged as a viable outlet for people to get some support in their life.

Experts say they can see its usefulness for teaching mindfulness or cognitive behavioral therapy to users.

However, the problem occurs when AI is used as a replacement for actual human relationships, preventing deeper human connections, in turn exacerbating loneliness.

Need More AI Insights? From our AI Week coverage, brought to you by Terzo, check out the Countries Accumulating the Most AI Patents and much more on the AI content hub and discover where the future of AI is going to emerge.

Authored by Jonathan Lesser via RealClearEnergy,

A recent article published in Nature claims that climate liability lawsuits, such as the ones various U.S. states and municipalities continue to pursue, are on rock-solid legal grounds, thanks to the authors’ new research “proving” that the world would be $28 trillion richer today but for carbon emissions from fossil fuels over a 30-year period, 1991 -2020. Ignoring the emissions from developing countries, notably China, which today accounts for one-third of all energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the authors focus instead on oil companies, which they call the “carbon majors” – especially Saudi Aramco, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Gasprom.

For example, according to the authors Chevron has caused an estimated $2 trillion in damages, and perhaps as much as $3.6 trillion. Exxon Mobil is right behind at $1.9 trillion. Similarly, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom are each responsible for $2 trillion in damages. BP is the laggard, at just under $1.5 trillion in damages. Levying fines of those amounts, which greatly exceed these companies’ market values, would lead to their immediate bankruptcy. While the authors may consider such an outcome a “win,” bankrupting these companies would not change the physical and economic realities that the world depends on fossil fuels and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. (Moreover, it is not clear who would levy the fines and who would receive the monies received – other than trial lawyers.)

To derive their damage estimates, the authors combine bad science with bad economics. First, they use simplified climate models to predict what average world temperatures would have been had there been no GHG emissions from fossil fuels. Next, they use other models to determine how many fewer extreme heat events, which they define as the hottest five days of each year, there would have been absent GHG emissions from fossil fuels. Finally, they calculate the damages in terms of lost GDP based on a simplistic regression model that assumes lost GDP increases in proportion to the square of temperature increases, and which ignores the myriad other economic factors that affect economic growth. They justify this absurd specification, which has no economic basis, on “peer-reviewed research” – a previous article they published.

The approach used by these authors is a form of “attribution science,” which attempts to link specific weather-related events to GHG emissions. That approach, which was first developed about two decades ago to attribute a 2003 European heat wave to climate change, is statistical legerdemain that depends on counterfactual models, just as the authors use here.

Ironically, the authors acknowledge the benefits of fossil fuels, stating that “fossil fuels have also produced immense prosperity.” Yet, they purposefully ignore those benefits because, as they state, “these companies have already been handsomely paid.” This latter statement reveals further economic ignorance. Without fossil fuels, modern life would be impossible. The benefits of fossil fuels to modern society are probably incalculable, but they far exceed the profits these companies have made, and far exceed the damage estimates the authors calculate.

The authors claim that fossil fuel damages are what economists call an “externality” and that “Courts may need to consider how the benefits of energy use are balanced against its externalities and the potential duty of care these companies have to the public.” (They also raise the discredited claim that oil companies “knew” about climate change and hid the evidence from the public.)

Externalities are a real phenomenon of energy development and use. But in this case the externalities are unobservable and instead estimated based on theoretical models having little accuracy. Moreover, levying penalties to “internalize” an externality that would cause far greater economic losses is unjustified.

Ultimately, this article is simply an advocacy piece for specious lawsuits against oil companies with deep financial pockets. Nature should be ashamed of itself for publishing it.

Jonathan Lesser is a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics. His report, “The Social Cost of Carbon: A Flawed Measure for Energy Policy,” was released on April 23.

The mid-1990s feel like a different world. In the 30 years since, the global economy has shifted dramatically, across sectors and markets.

But headline stats like GDP, GDP per capita, or growth rates don’t always reflect what’s happening at the individual level.

So, has life actually improved over time?

To help answer that, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao visualizes figures from Our World in Data to show how daily median incomes have changed in 20 of the world’s largest economies from 1994 to 2024.

All figures are in PPP-adjusted International dollars per person. They are also adjusted for inflation, taxes, and benefits.

ℹ️ PPP-adjusted International dollars reflect purchasing power by accounting for local prices and cost of living.

Important note: #4 Japan, #11 South Korea, and #19 Saudi Arabia are excluded due to missing data. Poland, Taiwan, and Belgium are included in their place.

Countries by GDP, Daily Median Incomes, and Income Growth

There’s two different takeaways from this chart. One is which top 20 economies have the highest average incomes in 2024.

The other is where incomes have grown the most.

Note: *Australia’s change is between 1994–2023 due to data restraints.

For example, incomes in China have grown 6x between 1994–2024, after adjusting for inflation. However in 2024 this still only amounted to $12 (international dollars) per person on average.

ℹ️ Per capita income is attributed to all residents including children and retirees. The median income could theoretically be between 2–4x for a working individual.

In other developing countries (Indonesia, Poland, and Türkiye), daily incomes have tripled. Of these three Poland is the only one that’s moved from a low- to high-income country by 2024.

In the U.S., the daily average income has only gone up about 30% over the same period. But the country is second-richest in this dataset, after Switzerland.

How the U.S. Ranks in Income Growth vs. Peer Countries

Interestingly, the U.S. has the least median income growth versus peers like Germany, UK, and France.

In other social metrics, the U.S. is lagging its counterparts. Its life expectancy is a full four years below its high-income counterparts.

And this despite having the highest health expenditure in a similar group.

It also has one of the highest inequality scores amongst its peers.

While a lot of American media is focused on income and wealth inequality, U.S. incomes far outpace many other countries. Check out: Ranked: Daily Incomes of the Richest & Poorest in 25 Countries to see how much richer even the bottom 10% Americans are.

Authored by Ana Kasparian via RealClearInvestigations,

Smiley Martin should have been behind bars. 

A career criminal with a long rap sheet involving firearms, he was given a 10 year sentence in 2018 for punching, dragging and severely beating his girlfriend with a belt. In prison, Martin was found guilty of beating another inmate and engaging in other criminal activity. Nevertheless, he was freed just four years later, thanks to a plea deal that categorized him as a “nonviolent offender” and a California ballot measure that sharply reduced sentences for “good behavior.”

Just two months after his release, Martin and several accomplices, including his brother, were arrested for carrying out the worst mass shooting in Sacramento’s history – leaving six dead and 12 others injured on April 3, 2022. Martin was charged with three counts of murder and illegal possession of a firearm, including a machine gun. He will not stand trial on those charges, since the 29-year-old died in jail of a drug overdose last September.

Martin’s life and death have brought attention to the criminal justice reform that helped put him back on the streets: Proposition 57. The ballot measure was sold to the public in 2016 as a way to relieve the state’s chronically overcrowded prisons by rewarding “nonviolent” offenders for good behavior by shortening their sentences. It was supposed to be a humanitarian answer to what social justice activists described as an epidemic of “mass incarceration.” It has instead put tens of thousands of violent offenders such as Martin back on the streets.

Many of them have been rearrested. The latest Recidivism Report from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shows that nearly two thirds (64.2%) of the 34,215 inmates granted early release between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020 had been rearrested as of April 2, 2025.

Breaking down the recidivism rate for prisoners within three years of their release, it reported that “22.1% of the release cohort (7,567 individuals) were convicted of a felony offense, and 17.0% (5,828 individuals) were convicted of a misdemeanor offense.” The Department of Corrections also reports almost half the inmates granted early release had not earned any credits for good behavior.

Prop 57 critics are not surprised. In the run-up to the 2016 ballot measure – which was approved with the support of 65% of voters – the measure’s opponents warned that violent criminals like Martin would likely benefit from the initiative.

But they were denounced as scaremongers. When Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert warned that Prop 57 would free perpetrators of domestic violence, then-Gov. Jerry Brown, who was the top proponent for the ballot measure, shot back; “That’s a complete red herring, and it’s very disingenuous of these highly politicized prosecutors to make that claim.” Brown assured voters that each inmate’s crime and behavior in prison would be considered before release was granted. 

While supporters of Prop 57 described it as a humane response to a court order, critics say its proponents misrepresented the bill to secure its passage. At a time when President Trump is putting progressive criminal justice organizations in his crosshairs, the troubled history of Prop 57 highlights the challenges of rehabilitating inmates while also reducing prison overcrowding without building more prisons.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s Role 

The single most aggressive advocate for Prop 57 was former Democratic Gov. Brown, who had to contend with the consequences of a sentencing reform he had signed in 1976 during his first stretch as governor, when tough-on-crime measures were enacted. Now decades later, with Brown governor again, California’s prisons were housing nearly double the capacity of inmates they were built for. Facilities were so severely overcrowded that the U.S. Supreme Court found their conditions violated inmates’ Eighth Amendment Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. In May 2011, months following Brown’s inauguration, the court ruled in a split decision that the state must remedy the issue.

In writing for the five-member majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the state’s prison system was stretched so thin that it failed to provide basic medical care, which, as he wrote, was “incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in a civilized society.” Citing how one prisoner was dying every week due to deficient medical care, Kennedy declared that the courts “must not shrink from their constitutional obligation to enforce the rights of all persons, including prisoners.”

At the prison population’s peak in 2006, more than 165,000 inmates were locked up in a system meant to handle 85,000. But budgetary pressures meant that the state legislature wasn’t willing to allocate the funding necessary to build more space to house inmates. So, the court ordered them to reduce the prison population by 30,000 inmates in order to limit overcrowding to 137% capacity. While there is no specific constitutional level for overcrowding, the majority opted to give California a little more wiggle room than the 130% capacity recommended by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Brown, eager to get federal oversight off his back, joined the state legislature and sprung into action with the passage of AB109, which transferred inmates from crowded state detention facilities into county jails. But some county jails were riddled with the same problems and lacked the capacity to house an influx of inmates. With resources stretched thin, counties began releasing criminals years before they served their sentences. 

By 2014, a Los Angeles Times investigation found more than 13,500 inmates were being released early from county jails each month across the state. Although the public was assured that only those who posed little danger were let go, data shows that some counties completely halted incarceration of those convicted of crimes like domestic violence and child abuse. 

The early release of convicted sex offender Sidney DeAvila was one particularly gruesome example of the unintended consequences of AB109. After DeAvila was let out early from San Joaquin County Jail in February 2013, he went on to rape, kill and dismember his 76-year-old grandmother.

Undeterred by the impact AB109 had on public safety, Brown later campaigned for Prop 47, a 2014 ballot measure that was advertised to Californians as simply lowering penalties for nonviolent crimes like petty theft and drug possession. But the public was left in the dark about how the measure would also lower penalties for car thieves, drug traffickers and open-air drug markets. 

Nevertheless, Brown began promoting additional reforms aimed at lowering California’s prison population.

Officially known as the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, Prop 57 would, according to Brown, address the state’s prison overcrowding problem while keeping communities safe. Brown pitched the measure as an enlightened step that “orients the prison toward rehabilitation” while appreciating the human capacity for change. “All of us learn. I’ve learned in 40 years,” Brown said at the time. “I think prisoners can learn.” 

But Brown also assured voters there were limits to his progressive vision. He repeatedly noted the ballot measure’s language that only people “convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.”  Brown told the Mercury News newspaper in 2016 that“we had planned to offer parole to violent offenders, but we took that out.”

Brown estimated that only about 1,100 prisoners per year would qualify for the program. Prosecutors who opposed the measure in the run-up to the vote also underestimated the number of beneficiaries when they pegged it at 16,000.   

Critics, including some law enforcement groups, district attorneys, and victims’ advocates, argue that Brown’s miscalculation was part of an effort to mislead voters about Prop 57’s reach. Despite repeated assurances that violent criminals would not qualify for early release under the measure, the legislature’s previous crime reclassification efforts meant that only 23 specific crimes – such as murder, rape, arson and carjacking – were considered offenses that would disqualify prisoners from the measure’s benefits. Many crimes the public would consider violent, including Smiley Martin severely beating his girlfriend, are not included on that list.

“Dozens of serious crimes would be considered non-violent for parole purposes,” warned CalMatters columnist Dan Walters, including “assault with a deadly weapon, soliciting murder, intimidating or harming a crime victim or witness, resisting arrest that injures a police officer, violent elder or child abuse, arson with injury, human trafficking and several forms of manslaughter.”

Plea bargains also make some violent criminals eligible for early release. Martin, for example, was originally charged with kidnapping, which is identified as a violent offense in the penal code. But that charge was withdrawn in his deal.

Brown also assured voters that felons who had been convicted of various sexual crimes would not be considered for early release. However, rape of an unconscious person, sex trafficking and even the trafficking of children for sex are not considered violent felonies according to California’s Penal Code. In confirming the deceptive criminal classifications in the state, Attorney General Rob Bonta told CalMatters that these crimes “should be discussed and potentially changed under whatever the appropriate means is for Prop 57.” 

The state legislature agreed with Bonta on the prosecution of child sex predators. Soliciting minors under the age of 16 for sex was considered a misdemeanor in California up until September 2024, when Gov. Gavin Newsom finally signed legislation reclassifying it as a felony with tougher penalties. Previously, soliciting a minor for sex, or paying for it, was simply a misdemeanor punishable by two days in jail and a $10,000 fine.

In 2021, California’s Supreme Court weighed in on Prop 57 and unanimously sided with those who had argued that Brown falsely portrayed the measure’s reach. In writing the unanimous decision, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye stated that “there are portions of [Prop 57’s] opponents’ argument that the [Corrections] Department must concede were correct, including the characterization that individuals convicted of and currently serving sentences for offenses … like assault with a deadly weapon would be eligible for nonviolent offender parole consideration, or that an individual with a prior violent felony conviction for murder would not be excluded from nonviolent offender parole consideration.”

The Chief Justice addressed how perpetrators of serious sex crimes were also qualifying for early release under the measure. She wrote that “the initiative’s language provides no indication that the voters intended to allow the [Corrections] Department to create a wholesale exclusion from parole consideration based on an inmate’s sex offense convictions when the inmate was convicted of a nonviolent felony.”

While the Court didn’t mention Gov. Brown by name, his promotion of the ballot measure was subtly cited by the Chief Justice. “Had the drafters of Proposition 57, and by extension the voters, intended to exclude inmates from nonviolent offender parole consideration based on prior or current sex offense convictions,” the Chief Justice wrote, “it would have been a simple matter to say so explicitly.”

The court’s ruling made little difference, because mere weeks before its decision, voters overwhelmingly rejected another poorly written ballot measure that was supposed to close the violent crime loophole in Prop 57. The measure, known as Proposition 20, sought to alter Prop 57 by denying early release to perpetrators of violent crimes that had not been listed in the California Penal Code. 

However, the measure was misleadingly described as limiting “access to parole programs established for nonviolent offenders.” In other words, there was a fundamental problem with using the word “nonviolent” to describe the gaps in Prop 57 that the measure sought to remedy. Most voters were unaware that the state penal code listed violent crimes like the rape of a unconscious person as nonviolent offenses. So, they were under the impression that Prop 20 sought to impose harsh punishments for petty crimes, which many in liberal California are against. 

Prop 20’s timing may have also led to its demise. Voters decided on the measure in the aftermath of George Floyd’s 2020 murder while in the custody of Minneapolis police and the country was amid what many referred to as a “racial reckoning.” The country, and especially liberal states like California, were less interested in public safety and more open to criminal justice reforms due to concerns over mass incarceration and what they saw as racist policing.

Credit Where Credit Wasn’t Due

Even if voters had been aware that those found guilty of trafficking children or strangling their wives would still be eligible for early release under Prop 57, no one was under the impression that felons would have their sentences cut short without enrolling in rehabilitation programs or earning good behavior credits. However, the latest CDCR report discloses that of the 34,215 inmates who were released early in fiscal year 2019, 13,833 did not earn any enhanced behavior credits to justify a reduction in their prison sentence. Some 44% of those who didn’t earn any credits would be convicted of a new crime following their release.

Even more damning is that the CDCR’s report concedes that the state released “high risk” inmates who are more likely to reoffend. Based on the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), a tool used to calculate the risk of a parolee committing a new crime, “high, moderate, and low-risk individuals recidivate at about 60 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent, respectively.” Yet in fiscal year 2019, “approximately 41.2 percent of individuals in the release cohort have a high-risk score according to the CSRA.”

Indeed, many of the inmates who were released under Prop 57 in 2019 went on to reoffend and get convicted of new crimes (44.0%). However, there were fewer convictions for those who did earn rehabilitative credits in prison (35.8%). 

Of the 39.1% of parolees in fiscal year 2019 who were convicted of other crimes within the first three years of their release, 22.1% were for felonies and 17% for misdemeanors. But only 17.4% of the convicted felons returned to prison. Even so, according to the report, “the percentage of individuals returned for crimes against persons increased by 2.9 percentage points, the largest increase of any return type.”

While overcrowding was the very issue that led to measures like Prop 57, state officials have shuttered several state prisons in recent years. Four were closed in 2021 alone, and it appears that state officials are intentionally avoiding prison time for convicts because their objective is to close more for fiscal and ideological reasons. 

A local Los Angeles publication reported last spring that “because of the declining inmate headcount, California can close up to five more of its 33 prisons and eight yards within operating prisons while still complying with a federal court order that caps the system’s capacity.”  According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state could save up to $1 billion a year by doing so. The cost to the public’s safety when there’s nowhere to detain perpetrators of violent crimes was not factored into its analysis. 

By November 2024, many Californians were fed up. More than 65% of Alameda County voters approved the recall of Oakland’s progressive District Attorney Pamela Price. Similarly, Los Angeles denied a second term to D.A. George Gascon, another criminal justice reformer. Gascon was replaced with his tough-on-crime challenger Nathan Hochman. Finally, nearly 70% of voters approved Proposition 36, which would reverse an earlier ballot measure that weakened punishments for certain offenses like shoplifting and drug crimes, including trafficking. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom was, and still is, vehemently against Prop 36, citing the financial burden of holding criminals accountable in one of the highest taxed states in the country. Nonetheless, Prop 36 is “an unfunded mandate” that will “set this state back,” according to Newsom. After all, if drug traffickers and repeat smash-and-grab thieves are met with harsher punishments like prison time, the spotlight would be on Newsom for preemptively closing the very facilities necessary to serve their sentences.

In a recent interview, Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell expressed frustration over serving the public safety demands of the community with less prison space available. “While the [District Attorney] will file cases that are now available to us through Prop 36, you still have a jail system that is decreasing in size continuously,” McDonnell stated. “When I was Sheriff, there were 18,000 beds available [in Los Angeles County]. It’s now down to 12,400,” he continued. Chief McDonnell argues that the lack of beds is the reason many offenders are back on the streets “without the resources or rehabilitation that we would have liked to have seen.”

While Gov. Newsom has claimed that he “absolutely will implement the will of the voters,” following the passage of Prop 36, the state legislature has refused to allocate the funding necessary to implement it. The truth is, even if the state’s lawmakers provided the money, Californians would still have a mountain to climb with all the various ways the state has chipped away at public safety, including Prop 57, crime reclassifications and prison closures.

Israel launched unprecedented airstrikes which targeted just outside the presidential palace in Damascus early on Friday, at a moment the Netanyahu government is using sectarian fighting as a pretext to intervene militarily in and further occupy Syrian land.

The complex served as the longtime center of the former Assad government, and Jolani (Sharaa) has since been using it as his base from which to rule the country, following Assad’s December ouster. Israel, which usually doesn’t confirm attacks on Syria, described that its military struck “adjacent” to Sharaa’s palace in Damascus.

While Israel had attacked Syria literally hundreds of times while Assad was still in power, it had never directly threatened Assad’s palace or presidential residence.

Syria’s ‘interim’ President al-Sharra also confirmed “bombardment on the presidential palace” and said it marked a “dangerous escalation.” Of course, Syria no longer has anti-air defenses or an air force to speak of.

Israel has suddenly presented itself as taking up the cause of Syria’s Druze minority, who are the latest to be persecuted at the hands of Jolani’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham Sunni militants. This also as Alawites and Christians come under attack.

Clashes in the Damascus suburb of Jaramana earlier this week saw HTS militants seek to root out Druze factions. After days of fighting, many reports indicate that over 100 have been killed in the anti-Druze clashes.

⚡️🚨 IOF spokesman: “Warplanes bombed the area adjacent to the Ahmed al-Sharaa Palace in #Damascus a short while ago.” pic.twitter.com/6dO7zUMAjm

— Middle East Observer (@ME_Observer_) May 2, 2025

HTS forces are said to be heading south to Druze-dominant communities Suwayda Governorate. Many observers fear clashes could grow and spread to other regions. 

While there are also many Arab Druze citizens of Israel, Tel Aviv have never shown this level of concern for Syria’s Druze before. Clearly the ‘protect the Druze’ mantra is largely a pretext for Israeli expansion and further meddling in Syria.

Israel’s military has since last December already occupied significant portions of southern Syria well beyond the Golan Heights.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a joint statement that Israeli military intervention has sent “a clear message to the Syrian regime: We will not allow (Syrian) forces to deploy south of Damascus or any threat to the Druze community.”

Syria’s presidential palace, which is perched overlooking Damascus…

Interestingly, in another unprecedented first, Damascus is signaling it’s ready to make peace with Israel and enter into full normalization – something the Assad family never so much as hinted at, given the state of war that persisted over the Golan since the very beginning of the modern Syrian state.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has advised new parents to research vaccines recommended for their children, as he also disclosed that health officials are looking into how some children start experiencing symptoms of autism shortly after vaccination.

During an April 28 town hall with Phil McGraw, also known as Dr. Phil, a mother asked Kennedy what his advice would be to new mothers with regard to vaccines.

“I would say that we live in a democracy, and part of the responsibility of being a parent is to do your own research,” Kennedy said. 

“You research the baby stroller, you research the foods that they’re getting, and you need to research the medicines that they’re taking as well.”

Kennedy, who heads the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said before becoming health secretary that no vaccines are safe. 

During his confirmation hearings, he described himself as “pro-safety” and not “anti-vaccine.” 

“I believe vaccines have saved millions of lives and play a critical role in health care,” he said at one point.

About one-third of respondents to a Gallup survey in 2021 said that they do their own research when their doctor gives them important medical advice.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is part of HHS, currently recommends that children receive 12 vaccine doses in their first four months of life, and dozens more before they become adults. Many of the vaccines are required to attend school.

The CDC’s last report on the four required vaccinations found that coverage declined between the 2019–2020 and 2022–2023 school years, while the exemption rate increased.

Additionally, just 13 percent of children have received the currently available COVID-19 vaccines, according to CDC data.

Kennedy confirmed during the town hall that he’s considering removing COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood vaccination schedule.

“We’re seeing a lot of adverse events from the vaccine—particularly in children—myocarditis, pericarditis, even strokes. … American people are trusting us to make a good risk-benefit judgment when we recommend these products, and we need to go back and look at that recommendation,” he said.

Kennedy also said that officials are examining whether there is a link between autism and vaccines.

A woman asked Kennedy to explain how the ingredients in the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause inflammation of the brain and autism.

“We’re in the process of researching all those questions. That’s something—because it’s so often reported by parents and physicians, that chain of events, where somebody … goes in for their 16-month or wellness visit, and they get the MMR and maybe a number of other vaccines at the same time,” Kennedy said.

“Many of them, many of the parents have reported that their kid, that their child developed autism immediately after the vaccine—so that’s something that we’re looking at right now.”

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has identified some cases of vaccine-induced brain injuries, and some vaccine experts have said there’s evidence that vaccines can cause autism. Others have said there is no link. The CDC states on its website that studies “show that vaccines are not associated with ASD,” or autism spectrum disorder.

The rate of autism, a disorder whose symptoms include difficulty learning, has been increasing in recent years. Officials said in April that the rate was up to one in 31 children, and Kennedy has vowed to identify the causes.

Kennedy on April 28 also reiterated his stance that health officials recommend receipt of the MMR vaccine to lower the risk of contracting measles, amid several outbreaks in the United States. However, he also said that the MMR vaccine has problems and that officials are studying it.

“The problem is really with the mumps portion of the vaccine and the combination, and it was never safety-tested—that combination was never safety-tested,” Kennedy said. 

“And people just assume that if three separate vaccines were safe, and when you combine them, they would also be safe. But we now know there’s some viral interference and the combination vaccine seemed to be linked to a lot of adverse events that they were not getting from the separate vaccines.”

The CDC’s website states that the MMR vaccine typically protects people against measles and rubella for life, “but immunity against mumps may decrease over time.”

Possible side effects include a mild rash and high fever that could cause a seizure.

Dr. Monica Gandhi, associate chief of the University of California, San Francisco’s Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine, told The Epoch Times in an email that the MMR vaccine does work for mumps.

“The vaccine is safe and efficacious,” she said, encouraging parents to take their children to receive the shot.

A Unitree Robotics H1 humanoid robot, developed and produced in Hangzhou, China, was seen exhibiting “erratic behavior” in a video circulating on X.

Footage circulating on X, shared by one user, alleged the incident was caused by “imperfect coding.”

“If you buy Chinese stuff, it might all end up like this… They might even deliberately make it this way to harm people...,” the X user said.

중국 Unitree H1 휴머노이드, 불완전한 코딩 → 돌발행동

중국꺼 사면 다 이리될지도….
일부로 이렇게 만들어서 사람 죽게 만들지도…. pic.twitter.com/iZVPGYxKWl

— 와썹🇰🇷🇺🇸🇯🇵 (@uimusog6125) May 2, 2025

Unitree’s H1 robot is listed for $90,000 on its website. A note underneath the price reads: “Not include customs duties. Please comply with local customs laws, pay customs duties, and clear the goods.” 

H1 humanoid robot…

While the authenticity of the footage remains unverified—and it could potentially be staged to create negative press around Unitree—it highlights the potential risks of deploying humanoid robots at scale.

As is the case anytime government is involved in a project funded with taxpayer cash, things are moving slowly and corruptly with Philadelphia’s renovation of its 30th St. Station. It’s a restoration that has been underway for the better part of a decade and is showing little to no signs of progress from the station’s exterior. 

In 2018, Amtrak proudly showcased progress on the $109 million restoration of Philadelphia’s historic station. “This is an iconic building in Philadelphia, and making it beautiful is going to increase the citizens’ pride,” project manager Ajith Bhaskaran told reporters. He called the work “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

What Bhaskaran didn’t say was that he had turned that opportunity into a personal payday — a bribery scheme involving luxury trips, gifts, and hundreds of thousands in illicit payments, according to a new article by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The project, originally budgeted at $58 million, ballooned after Bhaskaran signed off on expensive contract changes — including a $9 million amendment — while soliciting bribes from contractors. Just one day before the 2018 media tour, he emailed Mark 1 Restoration executives: “CEO approved.” That same day, a Mark 1 executive co-signed a New York apartment lease for Bhaskaran’s daughter. A month later, he bought Bhaskaran $2,000 Bruno Mars tickets.

Federal investigators say this was part of a three-year conspiracy in which Bhaskaran pocketed $323,686 in gifts from Mark 1, including meals at Del Frisco’s, trips to Atlantic City, a German shepherd puppy, vacations to India and Ecuador, and even a Tourneau watch — all paid for by inflated Amtrak invoices.

Where’s DOGE when you need them…

Meanwhile, Vega Solutions, a second contractor, paid Bhaskaran $150,000 in bribes, gave him credit cards for personal spending, hired his girlfriend and a relative, and provided two Ford Explorers. Vega, prosecutors say, defrauded Amtrak of over $786,000.

The Inquirer writes that Bhaskaran cultivated close ties with contractors early on. In one 2016 email, a Mark 1 executive wrote: “AJ shared this with me last night. Keep it tight… Steak dinner, cigars and whiskey…” Another Mark 1 VP reported Bhaskaran wanted “as much as possible” in a contract change order — and soon, Bhaskaran secured Amtrak’s approval for $13 million more.

Bhaskaran also helped Vega Solutions secure a $1.3 million oversight contract by slashing insurance requirements and then charging flights to the contractor’s credit card. The firm was led by siblings Sandeep Hardikar and Madhura Atitkar, with Atitkar listed as president so Vega could qualify as a woman-owned business.

In 2017, after receiving a luxury watch from Mark 1 executives, Bhaskaran approved millions more in project funds. That year, he vacationed in the Galápagos Islands — flights, lodging, and a cruise all covered by Mark 1. Later, they also bought him a $4,775 purebred German shepherd and covered its training.

All the while, he pressured contractors for more. “Deposited May payroll and extra 8000,” Atitkar texted her brother, who replied Bhaskaran had deposited the funds the next day.

In March 2018, an anonymous tipster alerted Amtrak’s inspector general: Bhaskaran was flouting ethics rules and had hired Vega — then started driving a new Ford Explorer. Investigators launched a sweeping inquiry, collecting emails, records, and even surveillance photos of Bhaskaran out with his dog or in a Hummer limo headed to Atlantic City, the Inquirer said. 

Emails revealed how openly the executives discussed the scheme. “He said we all know Mark 1 is significantly over billed,” one wrote. Yet publicly, they praised Bhaskaran. “I can completely trust them,” Bhaskaran said in a since-removed Amtrak video.

Of the 47 invoices Mark 1 submitted during Bhaskaran’s tenure, he approved every one. He rejected all extra funding requests from another architecture firm — the only one not accused of bribing him.

Bhaskaran was arrested in November 2019 for unrelated wire fraud but admitted to accepting bribes. He died of heart failure in 2020, leaving behind four luxury cars, fake IDs, and thousands in cash.

Prosecutors later added Social Security fraud charges, alleging Bhaskaran had illegally collected $252,000 in benefits meant for deceased in-laws.

Since then, five contractors — including three Mark 1 executives and both Vega siblings — have pleaded guilty. The sixth, Mark 1 owner Mark Snedden, is expected to do the same. Vega repaid the full $786,000.

Prosecutors say the scandal highlights how infrastructure projects can become “lucrative targets for fraud.” An Amtrak spokesperson said the company took “swift and definitive action” and has since overhauled its contract oversight.