HAL is ready for the world: Japan’s ‘Cyberdyne’ robot suit

HAL is ready for the world: Japan’s ‘Cyberdyne’ robot suit


AFP: Japan’s ‘Cyberdyne’ robot suit ready for hospital: “A Japanese professor announced Tuesday he was introducing robot suits for paralysed people, helping them to walk again by detecting their next move and lifting their muscles.
‘The time has come to introduce this technology to the world,’ Yoshiyuki Sankai, a professor at Tsukuba University near Tokyo, announced at a news conference.
Sankai’s company producing the robot suits is named Cyberdyne Inc., the same as the sci-fi office in the ‘Terminator’ films. But there is no risk of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character coming to blow it up.
‘I believe technology becomes useful only when it works for people,’ he said at Cyberdyne’s new office. ‘I refuse any possible military use of my robot suits.’
Cyberdyne will start leasing this week 500 units of the battery-powered robot suit to assist paralysed patients at hospitals and rehabilitation centres.
Sankai showed video footage of a man paralysed to the waist down standing and walking as he wore the robotic limbs.
The robot suits — dubbed HAL, or ‘Hybrid Assistive Limb’ — detect natural electrical currents that pass over the surface of the skin anticipating muscle movement.”

Mexico Sues the Sovereign State Of Arizona—Feds Flee?

Mexico Sues the Sovereign State Of Arizona—Feds Flee?

By Donald A. Collins

The Associated Press just reported:

Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state’s new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country’s own interests and its citizens’ rights are at stake.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect June 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.”

[Mexico asks court to reject AZ immigration law, June 22, 2010]

We know how strict Mexico’s immigration laws are with respect to illegal aliens. So for that country to be suing a sovereign state in the USA really makes one wonder.

What does Mexico says about so doing? According to AP:

“Citing ‘’grave concerns,’’ Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn’t be frustrated by one U.S. state.

“Mexico also said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens’ rights and that the law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries’ work on combating drug trafficking and related violence.”

Whoa! Wonder how Mexico would react to a similar suit from us gringos?

Of course the further quote from Mexico’s filed brief [PDF] really is hilarious.

”Mexican citizens will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure out of concern that they will be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention”.

I can’t wait for a U.S. District Court judge to decide whether to accept the brief along with similar ones submitted by various U.S. organizations. Surely there still is question of standing in such a lawsuit. I suspect Governor Brewer’s office will have something cogent to say.

Folks, if this suit is given standing, Mexico may as well start proceedings to annex Arizona—probably with the further help of the Obama Administration which has already ceded large acreage on the border to the smugglers and the drug dealers.

As 1996 Reform Party vice Presidential candidate Pat Choate noted after reading this AP story: “How did we get to this point when a foreign government believes it has the legal right to challenge the constitutionality of a democratically enacted U.S. law?”

I really want to see what reaction Obama and Congress have to this latest outrage. The Obama Administration lawsuit which is purportedly coming soon against the Arizona law makes me angry enough. But I want to hear the statement on the Mexican suit from Obama’s Press Secretary. It will likely be further double talk about how important it is to have “comprehensive immigration reform” a.k.a. amnesty like 1986, which far too many Americans think would fix the problem when history shows it will just exacerbate it. How long, O Lord, how long, must ignorance, arrogance and greed fashion our immigration policies?

As noted in my earlier columns, this Arizona flap is the perfect opportunity to show Americans of all political persuasions just how bad this lack of Federal enforcement has become.

It seems that trampling over the rights of our states, as provided for in the US Constitution‘s Bill of Rights, has became hard policy in this White House and Congress.

In so doing, our Federal government bids fair to break the social contract that binds us into a cohesive nation.

When giving authority to others to protect and preserve both freedom and safety is utterly abrogated, there is no value in such a contract.

There is currently renewed interest in “nullification” the idea that the several states have the right to decline to enforce federal law.

But what happens when the federal government, under Obama as under Bush, chooses to nullify its own laws?

A good question—which should be answered, not by the Mexican government or by federal judges, but by the American people.

Donald A. Collins [email him] is a freelance writer living in Washington DC, and is Co-Chair of the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s (FAIR) National Advisory Board. His view are his own.

“Redneckophobia”? Why Obama Is Attacking Arizona

“Redneckophobia”? Why Obama Is Attacking Arizona

By Peter Brimelow

The news that the Obama Administration has decided to challenge Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration SB1070 is one of those moments when you see that, inside the Beltway and for our entire bipartisan political class, it’s an upside-down, through-the-looking-glass, funny old world.

Quite regardless of the very debatable legal merits of the Administration’s attack on federalism (which admittedly will not matter once there are enough Commissar Kagans legislating from the bench), why would the Obama Administration want to challenge a law that all polls show is overwhelmingly popular with Americans in general—and Arizonans in particular—right before November’s elections? Couldn’t it at least have waited until after the elections?

Even the liberals at Atlantic Magazine are worried:

“After the initial round of polling showed majority support for the bill both in Arizona and in the rest of the U.S., the latest polling still corroborates. Today, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that Americans support Arizona’s law 58% to 41%. Quinnipiac found 51%-31% support for the new law among national respondents in late May. Also in May, CBS found that 52% of national respondents think Arizona’s law is “about right,” while 28% said it goes ‘too far’ and 17% said it doesn’t go far enough. Democrats, even, supported it on the whole: 46% answered ‘about right,’ while 40% said ‘too far’ and 10% said ‘not far enough.’ … [Emphasis in original—pb]

“While opinions on immigration are complex, it’s reasonable to wonder if the administration’s decision to sue Arizona will turn out to be an unpopular move. People support SB1070 by wide margins; it stands to reason that, even amid political pressure to do something in response to the new law, the Obama administration will end up taking heat for their attempt to counter it in court.”

Department of Justice Will Sue Arizona: An Unpopular Move?, by Chris Good, June 18, 2010

It’s possible, of course, that the Democrats are as innumerate and stupid as the GOP leadership and actually believe there’s a vast slumbering Hispanic vote out there. But it’s precisely because our Joe Guzzardi doesn’t think the Democrats are that stupid that he has been predicting since Obama’s election that they will not, in the end, try to push through an amnesty. And so far he’s been right.

Still, I’ve always felt uneasy about Joe’s confidence about amnesty. Maybe this attack on Arizona is a straw in the wind. Maybe Obama really is going to try to amnesty all those illegals a.k.a. undocumented Democrats, perhaps in the lame duck session.

Maybe he really believes Treason Lobby propaganda. After all, the GOP leadership does.

It’s all good, of course. The Obama Administration’s lawsuit will make hard for even the most craven Republican to avoid the immigration issue this November. And a grassroots backlash against amnesty like those that stopped the Bush betrayals would certainly mean a warm and wonderful winter for patriotic immigration reformers. To coin a phrase, bring it on.

Just recently, I’ve come across three other examples of the fantasy world in which our political class lives.

  • John Derbyshire on the “well-known conservative politician and commentator—one of the smarter ones, with a shelf full of books and countless TV appearances to his name”.

Derbyshire has described on Takimag.com his conversation with this creature in an off-the-record meeting held with several other journalists. Derbyshire was amazed to discover that the creature had apparently never even heard of any of the arguments against current legal immigration policy—Derbyshire specifically cited Harvard’s George Borjas, who is after all pretty well known.

Some years ago, I spoke at a conference put on by this creature’s PAC. I could see him glad-handing donors at the back of the room as we spoke. I guess he just wasn’t listening. In fact, I think he’s incapable of listening.

  • Jessica Weisberg, John Tanton, and me.

I blogged earlier this year after my phone interview with Weisberg (email her), saying that she seems to be working on another version of the John-Tanton-is-the root-of all-evil meme” and that “long experience has taught me to have no particular hope of accuracy or even elementary fairness in articles resulting from this sort of interview”.

Well, Weisberg’s American Prospect article is now out. (Guilt by Association The most influential anti-immigration network in America tries to convert liberals to its cause, June 1, 2010) and of course I was right. It is all too obvious that she has simply never heard of the link between environmental degradation and immigrant-driven population growth, although it is elementary and axiomatic, and much of her article is devoted to silly Talmudic logic-chopping in an effort to evade this unthinkable idea.

Needless to say, I think Weisberg’s treatment of VDARE.COM is particularly telling. Her emphasis on Tanton is the usual smear-by-association aimed at discrediting Leah V. Durant, the black attorney who heads the DC-based Progressive For Immigration Reform group. And, similarly, when I told Weisberg that I have asked Leah to write for VDARE.COM (as I keep saying, we are a forum open to all critics of America’s immigration disaster regardless of their politics), it emerged from her ideological processor like this:

“When I asked Brimelow if he was surprised that Durant would be willing to write for him, he responded, ‘You mean why she’s comfortable writing for a group associated with the KKK?’”

Weisberg suppressed the rest of my reply: it’s because Leah Durant knows perfectly well that VDARE.COM is NOT associated with what has long been (if it exists at all) a welfare project for FBI undercover agents.

Of course, Weisberg knows this perfectly well too—if she had evidence of any association, she would have been trumpeting it. And she must also know that, thanks to the internet, I can easily rebut her coy, quote-doctoring effort to insinuate the contrary.

But she goes ahead and insinuates it anyway. She can’t help herself. She comes from a political culture that largely consists of paranoid fantasy and creating counter-fantasies is its reflexive response.

Not coincidentally, we’ve detected her namesake Jacob Weisberg, now editor of Slate, in several similar spasms, beginning with his 1995 attack on Alien Nation.

It mattered, in the days before the internet.

  • John Derbyshire (again), me (again) and Kejda Gjermani

Gjermani (contact her), who describes herself as “an Albanian expatriate of Jewish descent living in Manhattan”, recently posted a very conventional blog in Commentary Magazine, full of the usual paranoid nonsense about Arizona’s SB1070, incidentally revealing that she too (see Derbyshire, above) is completely ignorant of the now very extensive technical critique of the economics of current immigration policy. (Re: What Would Reagan Have Thought, June 15, 2010).

What was unusual about Gjermani’s blog was this ludicrous passage:

“Ironically, the nativists who complain thus about immigrants are often the very same ones (think John Derbyshire, think Peter Brimelow) who, in so many words, lament the impending collapse of Western Civilization due to the white man’s failure to breed as diligently as they think he should.”

This is a total fabrication. Neither Derbyshire nor I have ever complained, “in so many words” or otherwise, about “the white man’s failure to breed”. Indeed, Derbyshire’s most recent book, We Are Doomed, explicitly advocates national power through robotics, not reproduction, and his own children, as even a casual glance at the internet will show, are half-Chinese.

Why would Gjermani make such a stupid, easily-exposed mistake? Again, I believe it goes back to the fantasy world inhabited by our political class (of which Gjermani, as an editor of Commentary, neocon Central, is a candidate member).  They believe there are nativists, dybbuks and golems out there, and that they know, probably by projection, what nativists etc. think. They don’t need evidence.

Gjermani objects to John McCain’s recent hilarious conscience-rupturing campaign ad featuring an Arizona sheriff who says McCain is “one of us”—“whatever that means”, she bristles.

It means “patriotic American”, of course. But this is a problem for Gjermani. Her website reveals that she hated her time as an exchange student in Nebraska because of what she herself admits is her “rampant redneckophobia”. She is much happier in Manhattan, and naturally wants to remake the U.S. in its image.

Our political class may live in a fantasy world, but the motive for its immigration enthusiasm is all too real: a relentless hatred of the historic American nation.

Peter Brimelow (email him) is editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, (Random House – 1995) and The Worm in the Apple (HarperCollins – 2003)

Few Jobs for College Graduates; 80 Percent Move Back Home

Few Jobs for College Graduates; 80 Percent Move Back Home

by Jeff Davis

Most young Whites in college are hoping to graduate, find a job, earn a good salary and get on with their lives. Well, most will graduate, but the part about getting a job is where most will run into a brick wall.

The Baltimore Sun reports: “A survey of last year’s college graduation class showed that 80 percent moved back home after getting their diplomas, up significantly from the 63 percent in 2006. The CollegeGrad.com survey of 2,000 young people showed that seven in 10 said they would live at home until they found a job. Now, as another class of graduates — the 2010s — move into the job market, the economy is still rough. A good number are still searching from the class of 2009, said Guy Davis, director of the career center at Towson University. He said only about 20 percent had jobs lined up at graduation, with a fair number looking at graduate school. The 14.7 percent [official, cooked figure] unemployment rate for those ages 20 to 24 remains double what it was in 2007, recent Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show, and is 50 percent higher than that of the overall population.”

California and Florida recently reported record high official unemployment at almost 13 percent each. We all know this number only counts people who are applying for unemployment, and not the people who have used up their unemployment paychecks, many of whom have also lost their homes by now. The real unemployment is most likely around 20 percent if not higher. The percentage of unemployed college graduates is not 14.7 percent. That’s the percentage of people in that age group who qualify for unemployment benefits. Students who go straight from high school to college are completely off the official unemployment radar. If you want to base unemployment for college graduates on whether or not these people are getting jobs in their field of study, the unemployment would be 80 percent. About 10 percent of students have jobs that they’re using to pay their way through college, and these students with jobs as waiters or the sales guy at Best Buy are probably considered “lucky” compared to their classmates. At least they don’t have to suffer a prolonged stay back home, often with step-parents and half-siblings. Businesses simply do not hire new people when the economy is hopelessly stagnant.

Thanks to competition from millions of illegal aliens, these college graduates have little chance of even getting the traditional fast food jobs. If they live in Los Angeles, they can forget about getting a McJob. The illegal aliens will be firmly squatting on those.

The Sun article continues “During recessions, there is a less likelihood of household formation, said Gary Dean Painter, a professor of real estate economics and planning at the University of Southern California. Research shows many people chose to stay at home or double-up with roommates, he said.”

Millions of people have their lives literally on hold for months if not years as Obama bungles the economy. Many college graduates have a $100k in student loans hanging over their heads. If some jobs do finally start materializing for college grads, remember that White people will have to wait for the Latino and Black quota-hires to get the first choice of jobs, and then several years of graduating classes will be competing against each other for whatever few jobs may turn up.

The damage which has been done to the entire American way of life by Barack Obama and the Democrats is immeasurable. From the apparently endless racial quota and Affirmative Action programs (which do nothing less than discriminate against us Whites based on our race) to the cancellation of the manned space program, which ends the dreams of many Whites that they might work on the first manned mission to mars or even to be the first astronaut to go to mars. Those days are gone. We are entering a period in which widespread poverty will be the norm. Going to college will seem increasingly pointless. Tent cities and shantytowns will increasingly surround the big cities of America, much like South Africa or Kenya. Perhaps it’s appropriate that we have a Kenyan president since we’re rapidly acquiring a Kenyan economy.

Diversity means getting rid of white people

Diversity means getting rid of white people

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/

That’s why the NBA, which is 80% black in a country where 13% of the population is black, is constantly being cited as a model of Diversity. Here’s yet another story about it:

NBA gets top grade for diversity among men’s pro sports leagues

ORLANDO, Fla. — The NBA still leads the way in sports diversity.

he NBA was again the only men’s professional sports league to receive a combined “A” for race and gender in the annual report released Wednesday by the University of Central Florida’s Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport.

The league had slight decreases for blacks in front-office positions from last year but is still the best among men’s pro sports, according to the study.

“I think that our teams go for the best talent and it’s a fact that if you don’t have the widest possible pool, including women and minorities, then you’re not going to have the best talent. And so for us it’s quite natural and we’re very proud of our teams and their talent search,” NBA commissioner David Stern said.

The study shows 77 percent of the NBA players were black, 18 percent white, 3 percent Latino, 1 percent Asian and 1 percent “other.” International players, after a steady rise in recent years, stayed steady at 18 percent.

Just like “racism” doesn’t mean what most white people think it means when liberals use it, neither does “diversity.” It clearly means getting rid of white people, as this story makes blindingly obvious.

I wrote about the NBA being a “model of diversity”, and a whole bunch of other stuff in my new boook, Racism Schmacism. If you want to understand what’s up with all this garbage about “diversity” and “racism”, you really need to read it. It’s a real eye opener.

White swans keep black swans out of their territory

Multi-culturalists haven’t got the sense God gave a goose! Check out this story:

White swans imposing naval blockade on black-feathered cousins in Ramat Gan

Safari workers note that the move began a few weeks ago when the swans’ caretakers noticed that a pair of white swans was not allowing a pair of black swans to take a dip in the pond.

In recent weeks, a pair of white European swans at Ramat Gan’s Safari Park have been refusing to let the black Australian swans enter the safari’s pond and swim there.

The “blockade” launched by the white swans has been particularly hard on the black swans as the mercury climbed over the past few days.

———-

At first, the workers thought this was a temporary measure that would end in a day or two. The caretakers thought it was aggressiveness related to the courting season of the white swans. But the white swans have not shown any signs of courtship. They have not started building nests and have not acted like swans in the midst of mating season. Still the blockade has continued.

Since then, Safari workers note, each morning the male and female white swans can be seen patrolling back and forth near the entrance to the pond and each time a black swan tries to find relief from the heat in the cool pond waters, they are immediately chased away.

Brace yourself, says The Economist, Scientists might discover that race is more than skin deep after all.

The Economist Magazine warns of geneticists’ “Dangerous Discoveries.”

Brace yourself, says The Economist, Scientists might discover that race is more than skin deep after all.

From The Economist…

Genomics may reveal that humans really are brothers and sisters under the skin. The species is young, so there has been little time for differences to evolve. Politically, that would be good news. It may turn out, however, that some differences both between and within groups are quite marked. If those differences are in sensitive traits like personality or intelligence, real trouble could ensue.

People must be prepared for this possibility, and ready to resist the excesses of racialism, nationalism and eugenics that some are bound to propose in response. That will not be easy. The liberal answer is to respect people as individuals, regardless of the genetic hand that they have been dealt. Genetic knowledge, however awkward, does not change that.