ROMNEY WORDSWORTH – The India Times recently reported a breakthrough in robotics technology being pioneered by researchers at Oregon State University.  New technology is now allowing robots to mimic the way humans walk and run.  The system is based on a concept called “spring mass” walking that combines passive sensors with a computer controlled mechanical system.


The result is a bipedal robot that can retain efficiency of motion and walk like humans do, even when having to react to blindly to “rough terrain” while maintaining balance.

This is a huge step forward to creating synthetic people.  Unfortunately, the implications for your continued employment are dire.  The combination of A.I., the ability to learn, and the ability to walk like a human on two legs spells doom for many job categories that are today held by humans.

The U.S. already has a record 102 million working age persons who are unemployed, putting us at a real unemployment rate somewhere between 25%-33%.  That’s already an astounding unemployment rate that exceeds that seen under the Great Depression in the 1930’s.  You don’t hear about it because the government unemployment statistics are a lie, the Media is complicit in maintaining the lie, and government EBT cards keep people off the streets instead of having to stand in bread lines or in front of soup kitchens like we had during the Great Depression.

The employment sector is in horrible shape, and it is going to get drastically worse in a short amount of time.  The trucking industry plans to start automating in 2018 and to have completely replaced human drivers with self driving trucks by the middle of 2022.  That will add another 3.5 million unemployed to the welfare rolls.

But robots that can move like humans threaten so many more jobs.  At the top of the list will be service jobs like Waiters, Waitresses, Cooks, Cashiers, and the like.  In other words, the bulk of jobs in the restaurant and service sectors.  Even tight spaces, like you would find in a typical Chinese restaurant, will not save your job once robots can mimic human walking.

The rush to automation is being driven by government mandates that continue to drive up the costs of human labor, such as Obamacare Mandates and several states who are jacking up the minimum wage to $15.00 an hour.  This is pricing human labor increasingly out of the reach of small businesses while making robotics a more economical investment.


Then there is also the issue of the declining quality of the human labor pool.  At a time when robots are on the cusp of invading the human workspace like never before, universities are churning out graduates of unprecedented emotional fragility, in the need of “trigger warnings”, who can’t cope with having their viewpoints challenged, who have difficulty thinking for themselves, dealing with ordinary problems of life, and who have extremely poor social skills—unable to hold eye contact in face to face meetings, poor writing and verbal skills, and often refusing to work any job that requires them to put down their smart phones for any length of time.  These are graduates who expect employers to indulge their demands for “personal time” but who cannot be expected to be able to calculate the amount of change due to a customer in their heads.

At a certain point, the trend lines of technology and cost are going to intersect the trend lines of increasing labor costs and declining skills.  When they do, massive human unemployment will follow.

It also means another major milestone has been reached on the road to creating a synthetic woman.  This is a development that is increasingly looked forward to by many men as the War between the Sexes has now erupted with a new ferocity, fueled by Radical Feminism’s demonization of all men as latent rapists and oppressors on college campuses.  As I have written before, the ongoing marriage strike by men, due to an intractable system of divorce laws that are punitive towards men, is pushing men to “go their own way”.  Synthetic women might well enable men to separate so far away from women, they never come back. 

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’