Category: Breitbart
Florida girl — just 11 years old — arrested after writing ‘kill list’ at her desk at school, cops say
An 11-year-old Florida girl was arrested Monday after writing a “kill list” at her school desk, the Volusia Sheriff’s Office said.
Staff at Riverview Learning Center in Ormond Beach notified a deputy about the “kill list,” which contained four names, officials said.
‘I was still playing with dolls at 11.’
The suspect said she was just playing, officials said.
Image source: Volusia County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Office
Still, the girl was charged with making a written threat to kill — a second-degree felony — as well as violating her probation.
The sheriff’s office posted video after the girl’s arrest showing deputies perp-walking her into a jail cell. A deputy is heard asking her if she had been there before, and she replied in the affirmative.
Image source: Volusia County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Office
Commenters on the sheriff’s office Facebook page were taken aback not only by the arrest but also by the suspect’s age — as well as the additional charge of a probation violation:
- “It’s the probation at 11 that has me reading the post twice,” one commenter wrote.
- “Glad I wasn’t the only one who had to re-read about the probation … at 11!” another user added.
- “Can we back up a minute,” another commenter interjected. “Did I just read that an 11-year-old is already on probation???”
- “I was still playing with dolls at 11,” another user reacted.
- “The parents have failed the child. Not the system,” another commenter offered. “It is the parents who are responsible for getting the child the help she needs. There are plenty of services available — many at no cost. The school/system can’t force therapy, stabilize home life, enforce curfew, and monitor friends. Stop blaming the system/community. Parents need to look in the mirror.”
Another user opined that “publicly shaming this child goes against what research shows us is more effective in preventing this behavior and ultimately protecting others. To not only release the name of a child, but to create a video of her arrest typically creates worse future outcomes.”
The aforementioned sentiment was a main issue in a Blaze News story published earlier this month about another Florida sheriff’s office that was under fire after posting a 9-year-old male’s mug shot on Facebook after his felony arrest.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Karine Jean-Pierre’s humiliating book tour is even worse than you think
Karine Jean-Pierre has been hawking a new book in a desperate attempt to cash in on her time as White House press secretary — and it’s not going well.
Whereas fellow lesbian and propagandist Rachel Maddow of MSNBC suggested that the book was a “truly new and valuable contribution to our understanding of the Biden presidency,” the Washington Post shredded “Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House Outside the Party Lines,” noting that it was a “fascinating book for all the wrong reasons.”
‘Sorry, I’m not trying to be dense. I’m a little unclear about what this has to do with Democratic leaders.’
The reviewer — confronted with 180 pages’ worth of Jean-Pierre’s thoughts “written in the outmoded register of one of those lawn signs proclaiming that ‘in this house, we believe kindness is everything'” — expressed amazement “that someone who writes in such feel-good, thought-repelling clichés was hired to communicate with the nation from its highest podium.”
The Post concluded on the basis of the book that Jean-Pierre is a “blinkered” establishmentarian whose recent departure from the Democratic Party and identification as an independent “seems to be less of a strategy than a style”; whose “thinking remains so decidedly in the box”; and who “appears to have little authentic understanding of why her erstwhile party’s approval rating has cratered.”
Journalist Matt Taibbi’s review of the book for the Free Press was similarly damning, dubbing it “history’s most incoherent memoir.”
“Jean-Pierre had over a year to think about what to say about all this, and instead of writing the book the whole world wanted, the true story (complete with photos of Biden’s used-bib collection and pictorial toilet guides) of her frustration at having to be the public face of one of the most obvious and legally perilous cons in American political history, she denied there was anything to cover up, much less that she had responsibility for it,” wrote Taibbi.
Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images
In the book, Jean-Pierre reportedly rejects the obvious justification for Biden’s ouster — the mental and physical decrepitude that had him tumbling, mumbling, and bumbling — and claims that she “saw Biden every day and saw no such decline.” As for Biden’s humiliating performance in his TV debate with President Donald Trump, Jean-Pierre blamed a cold and travel-related exhaustion.
Perhaps worse than the reviews for the book are Jean-Pierre’s efforts to sell it on tour.
For instance, Jean-Pierre befuddled a sympathetic journalist with a series of word salads in her recent interview with the New Yorker.
Isaac Chotiner repeatedly pressed Jean-Pierre on her explanation for how and why the Democratic Party supposedly undermined former President Joe Biden ahead of the 2024 election.
When asked the second time why the Democrats had it out for Biden, Jean-Pierre said — in an interview the New Yorker indicated was edited for length and clarity — that:
they believed that he needed to step aside. There’s more to this than just that period of time. This is very layered, right? There’s a period of time that I questioned what was happening and how do we treat our own, how do we treat people who are decent people. And then you also have to think about how I’m thinking about this as a black woman who is part of the LGBTQ community, and living in this time where I also don’t think Democrats right now, Democrats’ leadership, is protecting vulnerable people in the way that it should.
The interviewer responded, “Sorry, I’m not trying to be dense. I’m a little unclear about what this has to do with Democratic leaders and many Democrats in the country thinking that Joe Biden was going to lose to Donald Trump — which was what the polls all showed — and therefore thinking that he should be replaced.”
After Jean-Pierre launched into a rant about how “nobody knows” about what could have alternatively happened, Chotiner indicated that he had no idea what the former Biden spox was trying to say.
Toward the end of the viral interview, Jean-Pierre — who had made sure to mention her LGBTQ status and race numerous times and suggested the subtitle of her book, “Inside a Broken White House,” was referring to the Trump White House — accused Chotiner of pushing Democratic Party talking points.
David Weigel, a political writer for Semafor who was among the multitude of critics awestruck by how badly the interview went, said, “Turns out you can do a career-ending interview even after your career is over.”
Even Jean-Pierre’s interview with Stephen Colbert — a liberal propagandist who helped raise millions for Biden’s campaign last year — went off the rails when the CBS late-night host proved unwilling to buy what the former White House spox was selling.
Colbert, like Chotiner, asked Jean-Pierre to explain how the Democratic Party betrayed Biden. Even though that’s a core claim in the former press secretary’s book, she appeared unable to answer, launching into a speech about Biden’s perceived accomplishments and how he was still “engaging, understood policy, and was always putting the American people first.”
The late-night host pointed out that “it takes more than that to be the president of the United States, and in a moment of great pressure on stage, we saw someone shock us and worry us. And nothing could assuage that worry. So I don’t think it was necessarily a betrayal of Joe Biden as other people saying, ‘We don’t think we were shown the Joe Biden that you saw.'”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Cybernetics promised a merger of human and computer. Then why do we feel so out of the loop?
It began in the crucible of a world at war. The word cybernetics was coined in 1948 by the MIT mathematician Norbert Wiener, a man wrestling with the urgent problem of how to make a machine shoot down another machine. He reached back to the ancient Greek for kubernétes, the steersman, the one who guides and corrects. Plato had used it as a metaphor for governing a polis. Wiener used it to describe a new science of self-governing systems, of control and communication in the animal and the machine. The core idea was feedback, a circular flow of information that allows a system to sense its own performance and steer itself toward a goal.
The idea was not about mechanics but about behavior. The focus shifted from what things are to what they do. A thermostat maintaining the temperature of a room, a human body maintaining homeostasis, a pilot correcting the flight path of an airplane; all were, in this new light, functionally the same. They were all steersmen. The conciseness of the concept was seductive, its implications unsettling. It suggested a universal logic humming beneath the surface of both wired circuits and living tissue, blurring the line between the made and the born.
You shape the algorithm, and the algorithm shapes you.
The primordial cybernetic device was James Watt’s centrifugal governor, that elegant pirouette of spinning weights that tamed the steam engine in 1788. As the engine raced, the rotating balls swung wide, closing a valve to slow it; as the engine slowed, they fell, opening the valve again. It was a perfect, self-contained conversation.
But it was the Second World War that gave birth to the theory. Human reflexes were no longer fast enough for the new calculus of aerial combat. Wiener and his colleagues were tasked with solving the “air defense problem,” which was really a problem of prediction. They treated the enemy pilot, the gun, and the radar as a single, closed-loop system, each reacting to the other in a lethal dance. By the war’s end, as one analyst starkly put it, autonomous machines were shooting down other autonomous machines in the “first battle of the robots.”
In the Cold War that followed, cybernetics became a tool of ideological contest. In the West, it was the logic of the military-industrial complex, of corporate automation and the game theory of nuclear deterrence humming away in the computers at Project RAND. It promised optimization and control.
Yet the idea proved too fluid to be contained. While men in uniform were designing command-and-control networks, Stewart Brand was on the West Coast, publishing the Whole Earth Catalog. He filled its pages with cybernetic theory, reimagining it not as a tool for top-down control but for bottom-up, self-regulating communities. The catalog itself was a feedback loop, constantly updated by its readers. For a generation of commune-dwellers and future Silicon Valley pioneers, cybernetics was the grammar of personal liberation and ecological harmony. Computers, Brand wrote in Rolling Stone, were “coming to the people.”
RELATED: ‘They want to spy on you’: Military tech CEO explains why AI companies don’t want you going offline
Photo by Matt Cardy
The Soviets, meanwhile, followed a more jagged path. Initially denouncing cybernetics as a “bourgeois pseudoscience,” they performed a complete reversal after Stalin’s death. Here was a science, they realized, that could perfect the planned economy. Visionaries like Anatoly Kitov and Victor Glushkov dreamed of a vast, nationwide computer network called OGAS, an electronic nervous system that would link every factory to a central hub in Moscow. It was an ambitious plan for “electronic socialism,” a rational, data-driven alternative to the brute-force dictates of the past. The system, they hoped, would offer a technocratic antidote to personal tyranny. OGAS was never fully built, stalled by bureaucracy and technical limits, but the dream itself was telling. Both superpowers saw in the feedback loop a reflection of their own ambitions: one for market efficiency, the other for state perfection.
Perhaps the most popular incarnation of the cybernetic dream was Project Cybersyn in Salvador Allende’s Chile. From 1971 to 1973, the British cybernetician Stafford Beer designed a nerve center for the Chilean economy. In a futuristic operations room that looked like a set from “Star Trek,” managers sat in molded white chairs, surrounded by screens displaying real-time production data fed from factories across the country via a network of telex machines. It was an attempt to steer a national economy in real-time, to keep it in a “dynamic equilibrium” against the shocks of strikes and embargoes. Cybersyn was a short-lived project, ending with the 1973 coup, but it remains a powerful symbol of the cybernetic ideal: a society as a single, responsive, controllable system.
The feedback loop was not confined to the physical world. It began to shape our fictions, which in turn shaped our reality. William Gibson, who knew famously little about computers, coined the word “cyberspace” in his 1984 novel “Neuromancer.” The vision was so compelling it seemed to will itself into existence, providing the language and the imaginative blueprint for a generation of technologists building the early internet and virtual reality. Neal Stephenson’s 1992 novel “Snow Crash” gave us the “metaverse” and the “avatar,” terms that have since migrated from fiction to corporate strategy. Cyberpunk literature provided the prototypes for the world we now inhabit.
Today, the word “cybernetics” feels archaic, a relic of a retro-futurist past. Yet its principles are more deeply embedded in our lives than Wiener could have imagined. We are all entangled in cybernetic loops. The social media algorithms that monitor our clicks to refine their feeds, which in turn shape our behavior, are feedback systems of astonishing power and intimacy. You shape the algorithm, and the algorithm shapes you. A self-driving car navigating city traffic is a cybernetic organism, constantly sensing, processing, and acting. Our smart homes and wearable devices are nodes in a network of perpetual, low-grade feedback.
We have built a world of steersmen, of systems that regulate themselves. The question that lingers is the one Wiener implicitly asked from the beginning. In a world of automated, self-correcting systems, who, or what, is charting the course?
Liberals, heavy porn users more open to having an AI friend, new study shows
A small but significant percentage of Americans say they are open to having a friendship with artificial intelligence, while some are even open to romance with AI.
The figures come from a new study by the Institute for Family Studies and YouGov, which surveyed American adults under 40 years old. Their data revealed that while very few young Americans are already friends with some sort of AI, about 10 times that amount are open to it.
‘It signals how loneliness and weakened human connection are driving some young adults.’
Just 1% of Americans under 40 who were surveyed said they were already friends with an AI. However, a staggering 10% said they are open to the idea. With 2,000 participants surveyed, that’s 200 people who said they might be friends with a computer program.
Liberals said they were more open to the idea of befriending AI (or are already in such a friendship) than conservatives were, to the tune of 14% of liberals vs. 9% of conservatives.
The idea of being in a “romantic” relationship with AI, not just a friendship, again produced some troubling — or scientifically relevant — responses.
When it comes to young adults who are not married or “cohabitating,” 7% said they are open to the idea of being in a romantic partnership with AI.
At the same time, a larger percentage of young adults think that AI has the potential to replace real-life romantic relationships; that number sits at a whopping 25%, or 500 respondents.
There exists a large crossover with frequent pornography users, as the more frequently one says they consume online porn, the more likely they are to be open to having an AI as a romantic partner, or are already in such a relationship.
Only 5% of those who said they never consume porn, or do so “a few times a year,” said they were open to an AI romantic partner.
That number goes up to 9% for those who watch porn between once or twice a month and several times per week. For those who watch online porn daily, the number was 11%.
Overall, young adults who are heavy porn users were the group most open to having an AI girlfriend or boyfriend, in addition to being the most open to an AI friendship.
RELATED: The laws freaked-out AI founders want won’t save us from tech slavery if we reject Christ’s message
Graphic courtesy Institute for Family Studies
“Roughly one in 10 young Americans say they’re open to an AI friendship — but that should concern us,” Dr. Wendy Wang of the Institute for Family Studies told Blaze News.
“It signals how loneliness and weakened human connection are driving some young adults to seek emotional comfort from machines rather than people,” she added.
Another interesting statistic to take home from the survey was the fact that young women were more likely than men to perceive AI as a threat in general, with 28% agreeing with the idea vs. 23% of men. Women are also less excited about AI’s effect on society; just 11% of women were excited vs. 20% of men.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
How the Classical Education Movement Is Rescuing a Lost Generation
Last September, professors at elite American colleges finally began to admit what has been apparent for the last dozen years:…
REPORT: Feds Tried To Nab Socialist Dictator Nicolas Maduro In Plot Straight Out Of Spy Film
‘The last thing we are is traitors.’
