With no help at all. The post How Mac DeMarco wrote and recorded an entire album in 17 days first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The news about Gov. Gavin Newsom’s veto of a far-reaching artificial intelligence bill was overheated and somewhat entertaining. “How California politics killed a nationally important AI bill,” blared the headline in a story this week in Politico. The subhead was even more overwrought: “The demise of California’s big swing at artificial intelligence safety underscored the powerful forces arrayed against regulation that’s seen as going too far.” Actually, the governor detailed a rationale in a long veto message. For starters, he sensibly considered the impact on one of his state’s emergent industries: California is home to 32 of the world’s 50 leading Al companies, pioneers in one of the most significant technological advances in modern history. We lead in this space because of our research and education institutions, our diverse and motivated workforce, and our free-spirited cultivation of intellectual freedom. I’m not sure that our regulation-crazy state fosters free-spirited pursuits of innovation, but I’ll grant him some creative license. Nevertheless, Senate Bill 1047 would have become the de facto national standard. Instead of trying to protect the public from the misuse or ill side effects of AI technology, it would have inserted the state government into dictating the specifics of model development. It also would have created another bureaucracy. The legislation suffered from the conceit of all California “landmark” legislating, as it empowered lawmakers to dictate how a company developed a model, even though it’s unlikely any of the regulators would have sufficient expertise to do so. In my newspaper column, I quoted Assemblymember Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg: “I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about AI … very little as a matter of fact … I like the way I may be doing this wrong, better than nobody else is doing anything at all.” I don’t mean to pick on Wood, who at least copped to his limited understanding, but arguing that the Legislature should do something — even if it does it wrong — because no one else is doing anything seems like a misguided approach to rule-making. That’s especially true given that if California gets it wrong, it would derail a burgeoning technology that offers many potentially upsides in addition to posing some obvious and reasonable concerns. The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act would “require that a developer, before beginning to initially train a covered model, as defined, comply with various requirements, including implementing the capability to promptly enact a full shutdown.” Lawmakers’ effort to stop a catastrophic event seem rather far-fetched, and they downplayed the many upsides of AI technology. “SB 1047 is designed to limit the potential for ‘critical harm’ which includes ‘the creation or use of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon in a manner that results in mass casualties.’ These harms are theoretical,” according to a letter from prominent tech groups urging a veto. “In contrast, the damage to California’s innovation economy is all too real. SB 1047 would introduce burdensome compliance costs and broad regulatory uncertainty as to which models are in scope.” The specific problem relates to the Legislature’s fundamental approach. “At root, SB 1047 violated a core tenet of smart technology policy: Regulation should not bottle up underlying system capabilities; instead, it should address real-world outputs and system performance,” argues my R Street Institute colleague Adam Thierer, an expert in AI technology.  In other words, regulations should focus on demonstrable harmful effects rather than preemptive design rules. They should, as U.S. Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., explained, focus on likely problems rather than neurotic fears from science fiction: “Rather than an army of robots with red laser eyes rising up to take over the world, the real risks of AI include hazards such as deep fakes, unlimited government surveillance and manipulation of public opinion by malign foreign actors.” The rules also need to prioritize freedom and innovation. The governor seemed to recognize these points, although he vowed to continue searching for other forms of AI regulation. So we’ll have to wait and see what comes up next year. He also signed some dubious AI-related bills this session, but at least, as a Southern California News Group editorial explained, those laws focus on actual problems rather than imaginary ones.  Other media outlets were aghast at Newsom’s veto, but many of those outlets have an almost magical faith in government intervention. Similar to Politico, the Washington Post portrayed the veto as “a major win for tech companies and venture capitalists who had lobbied fiercely against the legislation.” It was a win for them, but this isn’t so much a political story about lobbying and special interests as it is about the way a free society ought to approach promising new innovations.  Do we follow the lead of the European Union and stifle new technologies in their infancy or do we let them grow and prosper and try to limit the occasional ill effects that might result? Do we allow the nation’s most progressive Legislature to create a standard for everyone, or do we let the market work, more or less? Whatever Newsom’s reasoning, we should all be relieved by his veto. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE: A Troubling Preview of Harris’ Housing Policies Time for a Teachable Moment on Tariffs Watch Out for Rent-Control Madness The post Newsom Intelligently Wields Veto Pen appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

At the time of this writing, the outcome of the presidential race is pretty close to being a coin flip. So what I write is not in any way influenced by who will win in November, since that is unknowable. What is a virtual certainty is that on Nov. 6 roughly half the country will be full of joy, and the other half will be in a deep depression likely to last throughout the next four years. Don’t be surprised if the anger and despair of the losing party spills over into prolonged violent protests — especially in the streets of the major cities. Politics in America is now — regrettably — a contact sport. Whoever wins, America will be further ripped down its seams. Red- and blue-state America will even be more polarized. Don’t be surprised if half the country is near rebellion against the policies of either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. Patronizing speeches by the victor about being president of “all the people” and promises to “unite” will only pour salt in the wounds of the losing side. The Left will detest the Trump agenda. The Right will fight against every element of the Harris agenda. It will feel like an occupation for the 49 percent on the losing side. We need to accept the unhappy reality that we are today the Disunited States of America. The U.S. is ideologically, culturally, economically more polarized than perhaps any time since the Civil War. The conservative half of the country is on Venus and the liberal half is on Mars. Yes, there is a moderate/middle section — but the tails have grown more populated and influential. We see in polls that more and more Americans don’t even want to associate with those with different political views. We are also becoming more geographically segregated — not on the basis of race or ethnicity or income but on ideology. Red states are getting redder. Blue states are getting bluer. In recent years, an estimated two million Republicans have moved out of states like New York for states like Florida, Texas and the Carolinas. Given these realities, is there a way for us to “all get along”? Fortunately, yes. There is a logical way to keep America “united” as one nation and to avert chaos and mayhem. Fortunately, this solution is entirely consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For those who have forgotten, the 10th Amendment decrees that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to “the states and the people.” We need a radical return to federalism. We need to devolve powers back to the states. We as citizens of all states are, of course, united by a common national defense, the commerce clause, which made America the largest and most prosperous free-trade zone in world history, and most importantly our inalienable rights as citizens as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A state, for example, does not have the right to pass laws that would violate a citizen’s right to free speech or peaceful assembly, or to discriminate against citizens on the basis of skin color or gender. But given the schisms in society, most everything else is better decided at the state — not the federal — level. Issues related to transportation, taxation, education, environment, energy, and business regulation belong to the states. Americans are then able to escape from policies they view as oppressive by moving to a state that conforms with their values and lifestyle decisions. People in Mississippi or Utah have no problem with Californians charging a 13.3 percent income tax rate, enacting forced union policies, providing free health care to illegal immigrants, shutting down their power plants, abolishing gas stoves or plastic bags, or providing reparation payments to aggrieved groups. New Yorkers shouldn’t mind if Texans impose no income tax, allow people to drive 75 miles an hour down the highways, or regulate how cattle are bred. What residents in red states like Montana and South Carolina object to is New Yorkers telling them how to live their lives. We can under this framework have Harris policies prevail in blue states and Trump policies prevail in red states, and everyone goes away happy. No harm, no foul. Again, the federal government is still responsible for protecting the civil liberties and “inalienable rights” of ALL residents of the United States. There would be no bringing back Jim Crow laws. Alas, this framework is exactly the opposite of what Democrats seek. If you examine the Biden and Harris agendas, the Dems are determined to FEDERALIZE nearly all policies, which forces all Americans in every state to live under the same sets of laws and policies. They want to nationalize union policies, environmental policies, energy policies, welfare policies, taxation, and so on. They want to de facto toss out the ninth and 10th amendments altogether. This inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority, which now and after November will be a razor-thin majority dictating policies on all Americans. This tyranny will be even greater felt if either a victorious GOP or the Democrats overturn the filibuster rule of 60 votes to muscle sweeping legislation out of the Senate. Amazing that some 250 years ago our Founding Fathers had exactly the right vision for keeping America united in 2024 and beyond. Stephen Moore is a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He is also an economic advisor to the Trump campaign. His new book, coauthored with Arthur Laffer, is The Trump Economic Miracle. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Can We All Get Along? Yes, By Letting the States Decide. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hurricane Helene has devastated the southeastern states, leaving cities destroyed and millions without power, communication lines, or proper aid. In this episode of The Spectacle Podcast, hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay discuss the federal government’s poor disaster response to Helene. They sympathize with those affected by the hurricane and discuss how the government has turned its back on Americans in their time of need. Tune in to hear their discussion! Listen to The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Spotify. Watch The Spectacle with Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay on Rumble.  The post <i>The Spectacle</i> Ep. 151: The Federal Government Neglects Americans Impacted by Hurricane Helene appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

After launching 200 missiles against Israel, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on X that his country does not want a war. If the launching of hundreds of missiles against the Israeli civilian population is, as Pezeshkian insinuates, almost a gesture of friendship, I wonder what they will do the day they want to start a war.  The Iranian president also asks Israel not to respond to the attack. Or to the defense, as the Iranians term it. Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the last word, insinuated that Iran had merely defended itself from an alleged Israeli attack, supposedly alluding to the Hezbollah leaders that Israel has managed to wipe off the map. There are a lot of things you can learn about the conflict just by reading the Iranians’ comments to both leaders’ messages. Pezeshkian came to power as a reformist, but without much desire to reform, and his low profile seems to anger everyone. Those who are more radical accuse him of being soft on Israel, while a surprising number of Iranian supporters answer him by calling on Israel to hasten the fall of the Islamic republic, in order to return to the regime they had before the Islamist revolution.  The climate surrounding Khamenei is not very different. The response to his message ranges from complaints from the most anti-Zionist, who even accuse him of having agreed to the attack with Netanyahu (I thought it was forbidden to drink whiskey in Iran), to Iranian nationalists quite dubious of the Islamist republic, who ask him, in reference to the two Lebanese terrorist leaders, why the hell Iran is defending itself from the murder of two guys who are not even Iranian.  In the meantime, the United States has once again shown its full support for Israel’s defense, while the EU has once again done what it normally does: support Israel’s right to defend itself and then immediately call for a cessation of the war. EU Foreign Affairs chief Josep Borrell’s statements on the Middle East would be wonderful if he were the pope, but perhaps someone should tell him that he is not.  At this moment in the conflict, and I am aware that a thousand more things can happen before this article is published, the main problem in the escalation is the nonexistence of a president of the United States. Biden is an outgoing president. Harris is an incoming disgrace. And the power vacuum seriously hurts Israel and the West, and fascinates Iran and all the Islamic terror groupies inundating the scene.  The most important reaction from the White House was offered by Jake Sullivan, and, as he is more than likely accustomed to Biden’s dithering and Harris’ hysterical smirk, the national security leader was blunt in his support for Israel, offering relevant details on how the United States and Tel Aviv are working on a response that will bring “severe consequences” to Iran for the attack. Cooperation between the two countries in intercepting Iranian missiles has proven crucial in lessening the damage from Iran’s savage and stupid attack.  However, it was not so long ago that it was Biden who was to blame for Netanyahu’s cooling his military response against Iran, almost to the point of scrapping it altogether, after the Iranian attacks last spring. This double-dealing from contemporary Democrats is seriously damaging Israel’s military image and consequently encouraging its enemies, who, by the way, are also our enemies. We owe allegiance to the Israelis for many reasons, but in any case, if anyone believes that the foundational madness of the Islamic republic, which is to destroy Israel, and its whole orgy of nuclear proliferation will end at Israel, he is either a complete fool, or just plain crazy.  Let’s hope that Biden will just accept Israel’s defense plans and obstruct them as little as possible, although in his case, it is difficult. However horrible the war may be, the best thing that could happen is a swift and forceful joint military response, encouraging the counterrevolution in Iran and opening the door to the fall of the Islamic Republic of ’79, and deflating the Iranian attempt to threaten, day in and day out, with its nuclear arsenal.  Everything else has already been tried and gone wrong.  Finally, as a successful military geostrategic policy, my suggestion is that you always do the opposite of what António Guterres, the UN secretary general, says, who when he is not sobbing and screaming against climate change, is sobbing and screaming against Israel, like with his pacifist, disloyal, absurd, and inappropriate statement on Tuesday afternoon, almost as bombs exploded over Israel. I have it on good authority that the man is about to start speaking Arabic.  READ MORE: The Vatican–China Pact Has Proved to Be a Catastrophe Reagan Conservatism Is Alive and Well The post Conflict in Middle East Is Result of Power Vacuum appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from Liberty Sentinel: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

from SGT Report: Dr. Daniel Nagase has been on the front lines fighting big pharma’s Covid vax lies since day one. Dr. Nagase joins me with an emergency red alert about the new Covid REPLICON “vaccine” which is self-spreading, deadly and which has been approved for distribution in Japan. Replicon could result in the long […]

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: California Governor Gavin Newsom is intent on allowing migrants to vote. Newsom has signed legislation that completely prohibits local governments in California from requesting to see voter ID. Unfortunately, California is one of 14 states that will allow absolutely anyone to for the next President of the United States. TRUTH […]