Artificial intelligence (AI) is so last year, according to some experts.

Scientists at MIT this week claimed a breakthrough in how human intuition can be added to algorithms. And in a separate, unrelated report, Deloitte Consulting is chastising the business community for not comprehending fully that new, cognitive computing technology should be exploited.

“Artificial intelligence is only the beginning,” researchers write in a Deloitte University Press article about Deloitte's February study.

“Advanced cognitive analytics” is just one of the “fast-evolving” technologies businesses need to get a handle on, they say. A kind of artificial intuition and cognition through algorithms is one part of that machine intelligence (MI). Notably, it’s not AI. MI is more cognitive and mimics humans, the firm explains, while AI is simply a subset of MI.

“To focus on AI is to miss the forest for the trees,” writes Blaise Zerega in a VentureBeat article about the Deloitte report.

(more)

Rep. Bill Pascrell (NJ-09) serves on the House Ways and Means Committee and he wants to use a 1924 tax law that allows Congress to examine tax returns for the purpose of determining whether conflicts of interest exist, even if those tax returns belong to the president. From NorthJersey.com:

After privately examining returns -- Pascrell is seeking 10 years' worth -- the committee could decide to share them with the full House, which would in effect make them public. The 1924 law gives congressional committees that set tax policy the power to examine tax returns. It was used in 1974 when Congress looked at President Richard Nixon's returns, and in 2014 when the Ways and Means Committee released confidential tax information as part of its investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's handling of applications for nonprofit status

If Sen. Mitch McConnell can invoke the rarely used “Rule 19”, Rep. Pascrell and Congress are well within their rights to evoke this 1924 tax code and do what the law requires to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. Pascrell said he’s not going to take “no” for answer:

Pascrell said foreign governments are paying rents, licensing fees, and issuing permits for Trump Organization projects, all of which could be used to influence the president.The letter asked Brady to reply by Wednesday.

“If I get a ‘no’ answer on this, I’ll be very honest with you: If these guys think I’m walking away from this, they’re absolutely nuts," Pascrell said. "The calls we’re getting, the calls other congressmen are getting, it’s unbelievable, we never expected this.”

Below is the full letter from Rep. Pacrell to Rep. Kevin Brady, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

[div style="background:#aabbdd;border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;" class="excerpt"] February 1, 2017

The Honorable Kevin Brady Chairman House Committee on Ways and Means 1102 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Brady:

The Founding Fathers were determined to prevent corruption among public officeholders under our Constitution. The emoluments clause prohibits federal officeholders from accepting foreign gifts or emoluments without congressional consent. Their intention was to forbid relationships that might lead to corruption. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe and lawyer Joshua Matz have written that the meaning of “emoluments” as the framers intended included profits received in a business relationship.[1]

President Trump has chosen to keep an ownership stake in his businesses, the scope of which we have no knowledge of as he has refused to disclose his tax returns. We believe that it is imperative for the public to know and understand his 564 financial positions in domestic and foreign companies,[2] and his self-reported net worth of more than $10 billion.[3] We know that state-owned enterprises in China[4] and the United Arab Emirates[5] are involved in his businesses, and that his business ties stretch to India, Turkey, the Philippines, and beyond. Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan may also have ties to his businesses.[6] These foreign entities are paying rents, licensing agreement payments,[7] and issuing permits[8] for developments -- effectively giving them a tool to influence our new President.

None of these potential conflicts can be verified until and unless we have disclosure from President Trump. Every major Presidential candidate since Richard Nixon, with the exception of President Gerald Ford who released a summary of tax data, has released his or her tax returns for public review – until now.[9]

If the President does not either release his returns or consent to examination of such returns by this Committee, I urge you, as Chairman of the Committee and pursuant to Section 6103(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, to submit a written request to the Secretary of the Treasury for copies of the President’s federal tax returns by February 15, 2017. These returns and all accompanying return information should then be made available for examination by all Committee Members in a closed executive session. I further request that the Committee then vote in this closed session to submit the President’s federal tax returns to the House of Representatives—thereby, if successful, making them available to the public. This Committee followed a similar procedure to release confidential taxpayer information in the past during its exhaustive investigation of the treatment of certain tax-exempt organizations.[10]

The Presidential campaign is over and the fear that a political opponent will try to use tax returns for electoral benefit is passed. President Trump is now governing while also owning a business with international investments. The Constitution faces unprecedented threats due to this arrangement. I believe the powerful Ways and Means Committee has the responsibility to use that power to ensure proper oversight of the executive branch by requesting a review of President Trump’s tax returns and moving towards a formal release of these documents to the public.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Bill Pascrell, Jr. Member of Congress

It's been reported Friday evening that the intel compiled by the former British spy has gained credibility among law enforcement.


The dossier that wouldn’t go away. Some got distracted by the urine aspects, but the real issue is whether or not Donald Trump has been compromised by Russia. It’s been reported Friday evening that the intel compiled by the former British spy has gained credibility among law enforcement.

In January, reports said the intel community was investigating claims that Russia had compromised Trump, and had damaging personal and financial information on then President-elect. Those reports haven’t gone away, and unlike accusations that they were false, they are gaining credibility among the law enforcement according to CBS and CNN.

CNN reported Friday evening, “For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN.”

The salacious aspects of the dossier haven’t been corroborated, but other aspects of the dossier have been corroborated. “The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement ‘greater confidence’ in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents, these sources say.”

In response, the Trump White House accused CNN of being.......... “fake news.”
(more)

Carlos Barria/Reuters/ZUMA

The Trump-Russia scandal has so far resided in the territory between smoke and fire. Donald Trump associates have reportedly been investigated for interactions with Russia, but the FBI has not released information on these contacts. Trump has pushed an America First policy, but he has curiously denied or downplayed the US intelligence conclusion that Vladimir Putin mounted an extensive covert campaign to subvert the 2016 election to benefit Trump and instead has cultivated an odd bromance with the Russian autocrat. A series of memos written by a former counterintelligence officer contained allegations that Russian intelligence had spent years cultivating or co-opting Trump and gathering compromising information on him and that the Trump camp had colluded with Russians, but the specifics have not been confirmed.

Yet now one piece of the Trump-Russia puzzle has been clearly depicted: Trump's national security adviser was in cahoots with Russia to undermine the US government's effort to punish Moscow for hacking the US election—and he apparently lied about it. If Trump does not fire him—and if Washington's political-media complex (including Republicans) does not go ballistic over this revelation—then the Putinization of America has taken another big step forward.

On Thursday night, after a long and wild day of Trump news (Trump attacking Sen. John McCain, Kellyanne Conway seemingly breaking the law, an appeals court ruling against Trump's Muslim travel ban, and much more), the Washington Post dropped a bomb: a thoroughly reported article with the headline "National Security Adviser Flynn Discussed Sanctions With Russian Ambassador, Despite Denials, Officials Say." It began:

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn's communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Here was Flynn working against US policy—against steps President Barack Obama had ordered in response to Putin's meddling in the US election. He was in essence telling Moscow not to fret over these sanctions and that Russia would be rewarded once Trump moved into the White House. He was explicitly aiding the enemy that had attacked US democracy.

This move was in sync with the approach taken by Trump, who has refused to criticize Russia for intervening in the election. After Trump's first call with Putin as president, the White House accounts of the call contained no indication that Trump had even raised the subject.

[font size="3"]The CIA denied a top aide to Trump's National Security adviser security clearance, just hours after Donald Trump's National Security adviser was busted for lying about the nature of his repeated contacts with a Russian ambassador.[/font]


All of that Russia Trump smoke is gathering steam.

The CIA denied a top aide to President Trump’s National Security adviser security clearance, Politico reported.

“The CIA freezes out top (Michael) Flynn aide. The agency denied a security clearance for a key aide to the National Security Adviser — ratcheting up tensions between Flynn and the intel community,” Kenneth P. Vogel and Josh Dawsey reported about top deputy to Flynn on the National Security Council, senior director for Africa Robin Townley.

~~
~~

Within the last 48 hours, President Trump’s National Security adviser Michael Flynn was busted for having repeated talks with Russia’s Ambassador about President Obama’s sanctions against Russia both during the campaign and the transition.

Friday, top Democrats demanded that President Trump fire Michael Flynn immediately, seeing as Flynn appeared to be in violation of the Logan Act by negotiating with Russia about American policy.
(more)

Elizabeth Warren went to the floor of the Senate and did something that, ordinarily, would not be controversial. She read a letter from Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow, Coretta Scott King.

These are not ordinary times.

The letter, penned in 1986, criticized the record of Jeff Sessions — who Trump nominated to attorney general — on voting rights. “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters,” King wrote.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell claimed that Warren, by reading the letter, had “impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama” and invoked an obscure parliamentary rule to force her to stop talking. Virtually every Republican senator then voted to formally silence Warren.

“She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted,” McConnell said of Warren.
(more)

During his presidential campaign Donald Trump frequently talked about how he used campaign contributions as payoffs to advance his business interests. He boasted that if you give politicians money they have to do what you want. In an apparent effort to further advance his business interests, Donald Trump is pushing a plan that would allow him to get taxpayer subsidies for these payoffs.

According to The New York Times, he’s proposing a plan that would overturn current law, so that tax-exempt churches could get directly involved in political campaigns. (The Times’ article is inaccurately headlined, saying that Trump would end “law banning political endorsements by churches.” There is no law that blocks churches from making political endorsements. The law only blocks endorsements by organizations with tax-exempt status.)

If Congress follows the path proposed by Trump, he would be able to make tax-deductible donations to a church-like organization, [font color="red"]which would then pass them on as payoffs to politicians of Mr. Trump’s choosing[/font]. This would mean, for example, that he could donate $100 million to the First Church of Trump. Since this donation would be tax deductible, he would get 40 percent, or $40 million, written off of his taxes. The Church of Trump would then make contributions to the candidates of Trump’s choosing. He would then call upon these politicians for favors he needs to boost his businesses profits.

It will be interesting to see if the same Congress will be able to vote for both cuts to people’s health care and subsidies to Donald Trump’s political payoffs.

On Wednesday, Republicans in Congress will get started dismantling President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy — deploying a rarely used tactic to overturn two big federal regulations around coal mining and methane leaks (as well as three other rules).

The background here is that it would be tricky and time-consuming for the Trump administration to repeal many Obama-era regulations all by itself. But Congress can easily wipe out a subset of Obama’s agency rules using the 1996 Congressional Review Act, which allows the House and Senate to nullify any recently finalized federal regulation[font color="red"] by a simple majority vote in both chambers[/font] — so long as the president agrees.

What counts as “recently finalized” here gets complicated, but Congress can basically use the CRA to repeal any rule finished by Obama after mid-June 2016 — a list that spans more than 50 major regulations. This week, the GOP will focus on killing two big environmental rules plus three others:

1. The stream protection rule for coal mining. This regulation, finalized in December 2016, would sharply restrict coal-mining companies from dumping debris and waste into nearby waterways in the future. Also, before starting a new mine, coal companies would have to develop a plan and set aside money to restore affected streams once finished. Advocates say the rule is crucial to protect fragile ecosystems and limit the dumping of toxic heavy metals into water supplies. But the coal industry — which is already in sharp decline — says it would put large swaths of the nation’s untapped coal reserves off-limits and further crunch mining companies.

2. The methane waste rule. This Department of Interior regulation, finalized in November 2016, would require oil and gas companies to reduce methane leaks from operations on federal and tribal lands. Instead of just flaring it or letting it waft into the air, companies would have to capture the methane and sell it off. This rule was a component of Obama’s climate plan, which aimed to reduce emissions of methane — a powerful greenhouse-gas — from oil and gas drilling 40 percent by 2025. But the oil industry preferred this be regulated at the state level (which is typically looser).

3. The “resource extraction rule.” This SEC regulation, finalized in June 2016, would require publicly traded oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose payments they make to foreign governments. It was done under the auspices of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Its supporters say the increased transparency would deter corruption from oil companies working abroad. But oil companies hate it — when Trump’s new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was head of ExxonMobil, he flew to DC to lobby against it, arguing it would put US energy companies at a competitive disadvantage.

(more)

It's no secret that the United States has a glaring—and growing—problem with inequality. The Great Recession made things worse, and the recent economic recovery remains uneven, and unevenly distributed. Families in the bottom 99 percent of households have recovered just 60 percent of their income losses from the economic slump, according to a recent analysis of tax data by University of California-Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez.

Meanwhile, the superrich keep getting richer: The average family in the top 1 percent of earners makes 40 times more than the average family in the bottom 90 percent of households. Families in the top 0.01 percent—the 1 percent of the 1 percent—make, on average, a whopping 198 times more than those in the bottom 90 percent, according to Saez and fellow economist Thomas Piketty's data.

It's no wonder, then, that despite millions of jobs being added under President Barack Obama and an economy that looks good on paper, many voters who felt left out of the recovery turned out for Donald Trump. "An economy that fails to deliver growth for half of its people for an entire generation is bound to generate discontent with the status quo and a rejection of establishment politics," Saez, Piketty, and fellow economist Gabriel Zucman recently wrote in a post for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Trump tapped into that discontent—now we'll see if he and his billionaire-packed Cabinet can recover those decades of lost prosperity for most Americans.

Here's a closer look at the current state of income and wealth inequality:

The middle class is still struggling

First, some good news: Last year, middle-class households reaped an income gain of 5.2 percent, the highest level since 2007. Now the bad news: Despite such overdue gains, average American households are barely making more than they did in 1980. Median household incomes have risen just 17 percent (in real dollars) during the past 35 years, lagging far behind GDP growth. Meanwhile, the corporate profits and the average income of the top 1 percent of earners has skyrocketed.

click to see chart

(more)