And now, stay tuned for the program that has rated tops in popularity for a longer period of time than any other West Coast program in radio history. The Signal Oil program, The Whistler. Signal, the famous Go Farther gasoline.  I'm the Whistler, and I know many things before I walk by night. I know many strange tales hidden in the hearts of men and women who have stepped into the shadows. Yes, I know the nameless terrors of which they dare not speak. And now for the Signal Oil company, The Whistler's strange story. Man on the Run. It's night, but the usually quiet countryside near Connorsville is far from quiet. The man on the run could hear the sharp, baying cry of the dogs as he pushed through the marsh waters and darted behind a protective brook, drew back into the shadows, panting and fighting for breath as he peered out, saw the unmistakable glint of moonlight on a sheriff's badge, and knew that only a few feet away from him calling out orders was an officer of the law determined and persistent. You wonder if it's all over, don't you call it? If the dogs will somehow catch the scent, even though the marsh water has helped you so far, you'll be caught if the dogs change their course and let the sheriff and his troopers know how very close they are. You wait, frenzied and afraid, and listen as someone approaches the sheriff. Hey, who's there? Just me, sheriff. I got the farmer joining here. I wondered what's up. Oh, robbery. Inchwood place up in the hill. The old lady surprised the thief, tried to stop him. But he shot her down with her own gun. He's dead? Old Mrs. Anstrup? Well, she sure is. We'll get him out of way into this marsh here. You've got the dogs covering it? Uh-huh. Servant there in the place so I'm running. Dogs will have trouble, won't they? All this water. Well, it's not making it any easier for them. But my men are fanning up surrounding the swamp. Poor old Mrs. Anstrup. Well, I was talking to her the other day. He never could see why she didn't have her knees for somebody staying with her. I know. Just the servant and the chauffeur. The chauffeur was a way too, tonight? That's right. And the servant. Did he get a look at the man, sheriff? A good look so that you know who he is? No, that's one thing against us. We don't know the killer, but we'll get him. I say, those dogs are working fine. Well, this would happen in one of the few really heavy marsh areas in California. And the woods are joining. Won't be easy, sheriff. Sure like to help. Well, you knew Mrs. Anstrup pretty well? Sure did. Sold her that house when she moved here. That's why you're facing this marsh problem right now. She liked it. Reminded her of the swamps down south. Well, I'll settle for good solid ground, thank you. Especially when I'm conducting a manhunt. Guess I'd better get over there. I'll go along if you don't mind. All right, come ahead. Oh, but be careful. This man's desperate. It's dangerous. Yes, Corey, you are desperate, aren't you? We're the only relief you can feel resting in the sheriff's remark that they don't know who the killer is. They will know, won't they? And soon you're certain of that. Yes. Just as soon as they begin to wonder where the chauffeur is, search his room, your room, Corey. They'll find the packed suitcases. Realize that you had to run when all Mrs. Anstrup interrupted your plan set. They'll be able to put two and two together very quickly. And it will add up to Corey Evans. Wanted for murder. Get away. Get away. The train can only make it... Yes, Corey, it's a chance. Your only chance. And you start off toward the railroad tracks, running half-stumbling through the trees and the brush. And then you break into the clear and hurry alongside of the tracks, praying that it's a freight train and it's moving slowly enough. And then...   I'll put them up all right. All right, come on, get up.  What's this all about? A reminder that you ran out of the marsh, didn't you? I thought I saw somebody looking for a killer, you know? Sure are. You were. Well, wait a minute. I suppose you weren't running. But you didn't try to knock me out. Come on, you might as well tell your explainer to the sheriff. Oh. You get away.  I wasn't born yesterday. You've got any identification? Sure. Oh, wait a minute. This is slipped out of my pocket. Probably went on the ground here. It didn't drop anything, buddy. Come on, let's get going. You look up at him, Corey. See the glaring light of the approaching southbound train. It is a freight. And the deputy looking toward it momentarily is blinded a little by the light.  The train starts past. You leap for the open door of a boxcar. Yes, Corey, you've made it. And luckily it's headed south toward Denton, the next town where your girlfriend lives. You're sure she'll help you. You'll have to drop off there anyway, won't you, Corey? Because even the darkness of this boxcar won't mean very much. When that deputy gets a report back to the others and they phone ahead about you, you'll finally lean out and see that you're approaching the outskirts of Denton. You slip off the train, straighten your clothes as best you can, and calmly walk down the main street of the town to a movie theater and approach the ticket window. Yes, sir. How many, please? I wanted to talk to Ginny. How come she's not selling tickets? Ginny wasn't feeling well. I sent her home. Oh, I see. Thanks. Ginny, let me in. I've got to talk to you. Oh, wait. You shouldn't have come here. I said I'd come to you. I've heard all about it. What'd you hear? I heard all just now on the radio.  An old woman. Quiet, will you? Don't understand. Ginny, we've been a lot to each other. You've got to help me now. I won't. You always said you'd take that money. Now you've done it.  Poor Mrs. Ainsford. She never hurt anybody. You be quiet, Ginny. Go with me. God, I'm sick. I didn't get any money, Ginny. She surprised me. I had to run. Oh, they said on the radio.  I need some money. Where's your purse? I'm not giving you anything. I won't help a fugitive. Give me that purse. No! Tell me something I said. Oh, you get worse. There's nothing in here, huh? Don't you? There's nothing. I'm good. Listen to me, Ginny. I'm not giving up. You are going to help. You've got a telephone here, haven't you? It's right over there, but... Come on. I'm going to call the theater where you work. Theater? Get on the phone, Ginny. I'll tell you what to say.  You heard me. Go on. Get to that phone dial and number. I won't do you any good. It won't call you. Here. Dial. All right. Tell him you need some money. Relative with somebody at the doctor's building makes you want an advance in your salary down there.  He'll come in here. Tell him not to. Tell him you'll come after it. But I'm sick, Ori. I can't... Hello, Mr. McLean? This is Ginny. Good girl. Come on. Put the bite on him. Well, yes, I'm... I'm all right. Just a bit. Cool. What? Sick relative.  Well, Mr. McLean, I've got to ask a favor of you. Yeah. My relative is my... my cousin. He needs some money for medical attention. Quite a bit of money. That's it. That's it. I was wondering if I could get an advance on my salary. What? I don't know. 100 bucks. Tell him. Would $100 be too much to own me? What? Yes, Mr. McLean. All right. I'll wait. What's wrong? He's just going to check how much he has on hand. Okay. If it has to be less, it's all right, too, Ginny. This is the last thing I'll ever do for you, Cory. Oh, that's a good thing. Maybe you might even come along with me when I leave this bird. You don't have to... I might even arrange that... Let's keep it in, guy. I told you. He's taking a look in the safe and check the receipt. Look, if either of you try to pull anything off... How can I do it? I don't know, but I don't... Hang up. Don't answer it. Ginny? The landlady. Oh, it's going to be Cory. Tell her to go away. Tell her he's sick. Go on! I wondered if I could come in and take a look at your... No, no, no. Tell her to bring it back in the morning. Tell her? Hey, Mr. Chance. I really don't want to get up. Well, I suppose so. You're fishy. Something wrong out there. Cory might as well give up. He won't get away with it with killing somebody. Come on. Open up, young lady. Right now. This is the police. Announcers are always giving you good reasons for buying this or trying that. But tonight I'd like to suggest that you try something just for the fun of it. Try just one tankful of Signal Ethel just for the sheer fun it will put into your driving. Experience the fun of seeing how quickly Signal Ethel makes even cold engines spring to life. The instant you touch the starter.  And hear the fun of hushed, obedient power as Signal Ethel floats you in high over hills that used to call for shifting. Oh, sure, you can get along with less fun than you get from the premium grade of Signal's famous go farther gasoline. But wouldn't you like to know just how smartly your car will perform on the super fuel that's engineered to get the best out of any car of any age? In short, wouldn't you just for fun like to fill up next at a signal station with Signal Ethel? It's a dread frightening moment, isn't it, Corey? After killing all Mrs. Ainsford, your employer in an unsuccessful attempt to rob. Now with the police pounding on the door of your girlfriend's room, you wonder if your frenzied flight has been to no avail. I'll take you off to jail in certain debt. It's been a terrible few hours, hasn't it, Corey? The chase through the swamp near Connorsville, the struggle with the Sheriff's Deputy, your train ride to Denton, and the argument with Ginny, your girl. She doesn't want to help, does she? No one does. You're certain that the police are here because the manager of the theater recognized you when you asked for Ginny. After hearing the newscast, he must have informed the police. They've installed Ginny on the telephone, giving the police time to get here. And it all means something else, doesn't it, Corey? Yes. It means that your description and identity are well known by now. Corey Evans. The man wanted for murder. But there's still a chance, isn't it, Corey? The window and the fire escape. Only you can get another start on. Open up, lady. We'll break in if you don't. You're alone, contemptible. I won't help you anymore. OK, Ginny, don't help me. I haven't lost yet. Not when there's a fire escape. So long, sweetheart. You move to the window, raise it higher, and step out. At the second floor level, you stop short. See a police car parked on the other side of the street.  Suddenly you hear a voice coming through the half-open window at your elbow. You look inside the lighted room. It's empty. As you drop inside the bedroom, you can hear the sound of an electric razor close by. Catch a glimpse of a man standing before the bathroom mirror. Close the window.  They're just fine. The phone startled you, doesn't it, Corey? You jump back, step quickly into a closet, and leave the door slightly ajar. Oh, yeah, Betty, yeah. I tried to reach you earlier, but... Huh? No, no, I won't be able to make it tonight, honey. Look, I gotta think of the airline. Okay, so I just got one beat-up C-47 to my name. But to me, it's an airline, or at least the start of one. I gotta fly down to San Diego. I'm leaving in another hour. I can't put it off, Betty. A contract's a contract. Yeah, Benson and Hewitt Company flying some new equipment for them. Well, you know, old man Benson, he wouldn't hold still for... Oh, but... Yeah, but look, baby, I... Hello? Hello? Okay, get some. You can't help smiling, can you, Corey? As you watch him walk back to the bathroom mumbling to himself. Then with his wallet safely tucked away in your pocket, you tiptoe across the room, slip out the apartment door, hurry downstairs, step into an empty linen room, wait until you're certain the police have left, and then walk quickly to the bus depot. When's the next bus due in? Well, that depends on which way you're heading, Mr. Hewitt. Uh, south. Let me see. There's a bus due in 10 minutes. Farmington, Delhaven. Delhaven, yeah. Okay. Here you are. That'll be $1.20. Hey, mister. Never mind. Forget it. The police car pulling up in front of the bus station starts you on the run again, doesn't it, Corey?  It's not going to be easy getting out of Denton, is it? The police are watching the bus station. They'll be at the train depot, too. You're certain of that. And then an idea hits you. You pull the wallet from your pocket. The wallet you picked up in the apartment earlier. The identification shows that it belonged to Charles Trent, Charlie, who told his girlfriend that he was flying down to San Diego. Yes. You recall that it was for the Benson Hewitt Company. It's a chance, isn't it, Corey? You'll have to use another name, any name. But other than that, it will just take a phone call. Charles Trent? Yeah, that's right. This is Mr. Cartwright, J.B. Cartwright. I'm with the Benson Hewitt Company. Mr. Cartwright? Cartwright, yeah. This guy through talking with Benson, he wants me back in San Diego right away. Oh, is that so? Mr. Benson said since you're flying down there tonight, I might come along with me or a short thing, Mr. Cartwright. Good. Let me see, you're leaving at 11, huh? Yeah, that's 40 now. How long it's going to take me to get out of the field? Oh, you're calling from town? Yeah, the corner of Center and Pringle. Oh. Yeah, I know. I see at 11, Charlie. You know the place, don't you, Corey? Yes, Groves Field, a small private airport just a few miles away. Perfect, isn't it? And you're sure the police won't be watching there. You enter a sandwich shop, order, and as you sip your coffee, you can't help overhearing the conversation of the waitress and the truck driver sitting next to you. What Gus said, I don't know. He ran into a roadblock on the way in a few miles back at the top of the grave. That's so, uh, who are the cops looking for? Some guy knocked off an old lady over in Cornersville, but they really got a dragnet up for him. I'd say he ain't got a chance. Why do you knock off the old things, though? What else? Only you almost got grabbed. How to skip out without getting a dime. Yeah, I hope they get him. Oh, worry, they will. Sooner or later. Uh, more coffee? Yeah, half a cup. I gotta shove off in a few minutes. Okay. The cops hold me up for any time, and at roadblock I'm gonna have trouble keeping on schedule. How about you, mister? More coffee? Uh, no, thanks, I'm in a hurry. I'll take care of the coffee. Yeah, that sure doesn't... A roadblock, Corey. It complicates things, doesn't it? But you've got to get through somehow and reach the airfield. Then a solution hits you. A truck driver. You hurry out to his truck, unfasten the rear canvas, slip inside, and wait. In a minute, the truck is racing south along the highway. Then as it starts up the grade, you know the roadblock is not far ahead.  Start running across the open field to avoid the patrolman. A few minutes before 11, you arrive at the airport. Find a man in coveralls, tinkering with one of the engines of a tired-looking C-47. Hello there. Oh, howdy. Charlie Trent around? Nope. Can I help you? I'm his partner. My name is Cartwright. I'm with Benson Hewitt. Oh, yeah. Yeah, glad to know you. Anything I can do for you, Mr. Cartwright? Oh, no. See, I'm making the trip, too. Oh. Charlie didn't say nothing about any passengers. I told him just a while ago. Benson suggested it. Oh, I didn't mean it wasn't OK with me, Mr. Cartwright. Only if I'd known I'd fixed up a seat for you. Not much room in there with the cargo we're hauling. I'm sorry to manage. Yeah, not much of a trip down to San Diego anyway. Over for you, though, it's sure. Uh, you've been working for Benson Hewitt very long? Uh, no, no.  Yeah, I think he's fine. Good man to work for. Yeah, and a good man to do business with. Your salesman. Is that it? Well, I'm more of a field representative. Well, I guess you do business all over the state of California. That's right. Uh, what do you do for excitement around here? It's pretty quiet. Yeah, sure is. Charlie makes out. Kind of a Romeo, he thinks. Yeah. Me? I'm getting old. I just listen to the radio. Oh? News mostly. Been too busy loading the plane tonight, though. What's the word today? Same old stuff. Well, I guess I better get up front, warm up the ship. Make yourself comfortable. Yeah, do you think Charlie will be along soon? Sure, sure, any minute now.  You're anxious to get away, aren't you, Corey? Yes. And you keep clancing at your watch. 1115. 1120. And no sign of Charlie Trent. Can't understand what's holding him up, Mr. Cartwright. He's generally right on time. Maybe if you phone his apartment. Nah, he wouldn't be there now. I've got a hunch, uh... Yeah? Maybe I do know what's keeping him. Oh? Dame. Your girlfriend. Oh, I see. I was kind of worried about breaking it. Oh, here he comes now. That convertible coming across the strip. That's Charlie's car. At last. Okay, Mr. Cartwright, let's hop aboard. We'll be airborne before you know it. Fine. That's just fine. Assuming that the tires on your car are guaranteed, let me ask you a question. In case of tire failure, where would you have to go to get an adjustment on that guarantee? Would you have to go back to the same store where you bought the tire? Or to a limited number of outlets in a limited number of cities, open perhaps only during daytime business hours? Not so if your tires are Lee tires. No, indeed. Regardless of where you buy Lee tires, you can drive into any signal station throughout the seven Pacific Coast states, from Canada to Mexico. And they'll cheerfully make good on the Lee guarantee. Or if you're traveling east, you can stop at any of 19,000 Lee tire dealers throughout the entire country, and they'll honor the famous double guarantee on Lee super deluxe passenger tires. Guaranteed 15 months against all road hazards. Guaranteed for life against defects in workmanship and material.  And this extra satisfaction can be yours at no extra cost. If you'll just make sure your next tires are Lee tires bought from any Lee tire dealer or signal service station. You congratulate yourself, don't you, Corey? As you follow the mechanic aboard the plane, settle yourself as comfortably as you can. In almost no time, you're certain you'll be in San Diego, where you can use the wallet you stole from Charlie Trent to establish a new identification. You can use the money, too, after you've escaped the police dragon.  A few moments later, Charlie Trent comes aboard, followed by an officer in uniform. Hello, Mr. Cartwright. Uh, hello. You must be Charlie Trent. That's right. And this is Sergeant Stratton, Highway Patrol. Oh, Sergeant, this man fits the description of that killer Corey Evans pretty well, doesn't he? Do I see your identification, Mr. Cartwright? Identification. I, uh... Maybe you don't have any, huh? Oh, I see here. What's the meaning of it? Oh, I'd hold it you to. Your identification, Mr. Cartwright. Well, you see, Officer, I... Oh, save it, Evans. We just talked to Mr. Benson on the phone in the airport office. He never heard of Mr. Cartwright. You... you called Benson? I had to, to get him to identify me. Identify you? You know, you almost got away with this. I never would have called Benson, but when the police stopped me at the roadblock back there and asked to see my identification, well, I didn't have any.  Let that whistle be your signal for the signal oil program, the Whistler, each Sunday night at the same time. Signal Oil Company has asked me to remind you. The USO, which serves as a home away from home for our boys in uniform, is one of the many worthy services you'll be helping this year when you contribute to the Current Community Chest Campaign. Featured in tonight's story were Bill Foreman as the Whistler, Lamont Johnson, Gigi Pearson, Bill Boucher, Larry Dobkin, Joe Gilbert, Herbert Lytton, and Britt Wood. The Whistler was produced and directed by George W. Allen with story by Adrian John Doe, music by Wilbur Hatch, and was transmitted overseas by the Armed Forces Radio Service. The Whistler is entirely fictional, and all characters portrayed on the Whistler are also fictional. Any similarity of names or resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Remember to tune in at the same time next Sunday when the Signal Oil Company will bring you another strange story by the Whistler, entitled Three Minus One Equals Murder, in which an excitingly beautiful young woman turns an accidental meeting into the prelude for a bold murder scheme. Marvin Miller speaking for the Signal Oil Company. Stay tuned now for our Miss Brooke starring Eve Arden, which follows immediately over most of these stations. This is the CBS Radio Network.


There's a plethora of threats to American democracy, the most obvious being voter suppression, a lack of a new voting rights bill, and on top of that election denialism by the GOP. But another massive threat to democracy is capitalism itself. Since Citizens United was decided, billionaires have increasingly spent more money to influence the outcomes of elections, all to support candidates who they can control and help grow their wealth. And this is something that I just don't think gets talked about enough. I think Americans have a sense that money in politics is increasingly a big issue, but they don't necessarily know how specifically billionaires are influencing elections, but a new analysis conducted by Americans for tax fairness are going to put this into perspective. So here's some of their key findings. A tiny group of 465 American billionaires have pumped over $881 million into federal midterm races. Even among the elite fraternity of billionaires the political spending is highly concentrated. The top 20 donor households have contributed nearly three quarters, 73% of all billionaire contributions this cycle, more than $643 million. With five weeks to go in the 2022 campaign, as of the time the data was collected, that $881 million was already a 44% increase in billionaire contributions over the entire 2018 midterm cycle, which totaled $611 million based on an earlier ATF analysis. After the flurry of fundraising that closes out a campaign season, billionaires might well have contributed close to $1 billion. By a 3-2 margin, more billionaire cash is supporting Republicans 59% than Democrats at 39%. Most of the remaining 2% has gone to super PACs backing supporters of Israel and cryptocurrency from both parties. Now I just want to stress that according to their key findings, this data was collected five weeks ago, so by now it could already be the case that billionaire contributions have surpassed $1 billion for a midterm election. And that is horrible considering that when you look back to Citizens United and when it was just decided, well, they're spending 27 times that amount now. Now for some additional details here, as you can see, billionaire contributions have increased substantially each subsequent midterm election after Citizens United was decided, specifically $32 million in 2010, $232 million in 2014, $611 million by 2018, and now $881 million and counting in 2022. Now looking at this table of the top 20 biggest billionaire donors, six contribute to Democrats while 14 donate to Republicans. The list includes George Soros, Ken Griffin, Peter Thiel, the Bloombergs, Paul Singer, Koch Industries, Miriam Adelson, the Schwab's, and this is just like a small portion of all of the billionaire buying elections, but this is just the top 20, most of them giving to Republicans. So if you're wondering why nothing seems to change and the GOP can continue to win elections after January 6th, after they got what they wanted by repealing Roe v. Wade, it's because Americans are constantly bombarded by propaganda. And that's why nothing ever changes because when the American people finally get fed up and they want to vote the ghouls out of office that are contributing to their suffering, well they get blasted with political ads and they see these mailers that are completely disingenuous and deceitful and they end up voting in the way that the billionaires want them to vote because propaganda unfortunately it's very effective, it works. Now Americans for tax fairness shared some additional mind-blowing facts so they write billionaires represent 0.0000002% of the American population, but they're responsible for 7.4% of all political donations so far this cycle. These contributions aren't just drowning out voters choices, billionaires are betting they're going to make great returns on investment and they are. For example, just look at the Eulene family and Diane Hendricks. These billionaires spent $20 million to get Ron Johnson re-elected in 2016. Their influence was rewarded with a special tax break secured by Johnson that saved them $80 million in taxes in 2018 alone. Another one, take a look at Ken Griffin. He spent $50 million to defeat a ballot initiative in Illinois that would have made the wealthy pay more of their fair share in taxes. The tax could have cost him $51 million a year. It's all about return on investment. Americans again as I stated are bombarded with propaganda and I wish that it didn't work, I wish that they weren't so easily duped into voting against their own self-interest, but this is what happens every single time and some billionaires are just choosing to cut out the middleman, right? We saw in 2020 how Mike Bloomberg became almost electorally viable simply by spending lots and lots of his own wealth and now it's happening once again. Rick Caruso in the LA mayor race is spending $80 million of his own worth and this could get him that seat compared to Karen Bass who only raised $6 million in comparison and this is a lot of money for a mayor race. I mean I get that this is Los Angeles but still $6 million is a lot of money but when you compare that to Rick Caruso a billionaire who's trying to buy his way to power it's genuinely nauseating. I mean imagine this, you're not getting elected now based on your policy ideas. You're just getting elected because you can blast your message out to more people. In the case of Rick Caruso a Democrat, he really just became a Republican or he just became a Democrat. He was a Republican I think so he can become electorally viable but he can blast his message out and get everyone in Los Angeles to at a minimum know who he is whereas Karen Bass is struggling just to get her name out there. It's genuinely infuriating to see the ways that billionaires are manipulating elections but this isn't the only realm of influence. If you think about it people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg they own social media websites so they are able to single-handedly filter out what we see. On top of that billionaires like Peter Till and JD Vance invest heavily in other platforms like Rumble and then they recruit propagandists on their platform like Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard under the guise of quote challenging the status quo when in actuality they're upholding the pro-billionaire capitalist status quo by saying exactly what these billionaire oligarchs want them to say and these billionaires are savvy they've adapted right they know that there's this anti-establishment presence currently in the United States right they know which way the wind is blowing they know that people are fed up and they know that the working class is getting increasingly angry at the ways that oligarchs are exploiting them exploiting their labor they see the labor movement they see this move towards unionization so what are they doing they're adapting their propaganda is getting a lot more intelligent so rather than just saying hey you know vote for this republican because social security is bad and it should be cut no they're really savvy they're funding candidates like Blake Masters who have these pseudo populist messages that are supposed to appeal to working class voters and somehow it works I mean he may not win but for him to even be electorally viable when this individual is bankrolled by someone like Peter Thiel it just it shouldn't happen but the message gets out and voters just don't see the puppeteers who are pulling the strings behind the scenes and that's genuinely disturbing so this is billionaires corrupting our democracy and even if the GOP just stops with their election denialism and stops with voter suppression not going to happen by the way but if they were to cease doing that immediately the threat to our democracy is still present because these oligarchs are buying our elections and we shouldn't tolerate this we should not tolerate this any candidate that's taking money from a billionaire should not have your support because these billionaires they are not looking out for you they're looking out for themselves so if a candidate gets a lot of money millions of dollars in political contributions from that billionaire do you think that they're going to give a shit about the five dollars that you donated no they're going to deliver for their donors so this report is not surprising at all but i just wish that americans would uh i don't know care about it and realize that when they're blasted with political propaganda it's all intentional to get them to vote against their own self-interest


We have already seen that regular expressions represent the class of regular languages and the regular grammars as language genetic devices are intended to generate regular languages. Now we will see an important concept or tool, final automata. Final automata are important tools to understand the regular languages better. We will introduce the notion of final automata and so that they model the class of regular languages. In fact, we observed that final automata, regular grammars and regular expressions all are equivalent and final automata can be used to model many different physical systems. For example, digital systems can be modeled or any software engineering problem can be modeled using final automata. Just consider the regular language, the set of all strings over a, b having odd numbers of ways. Already we have seen that the grammar for this language is e goes to b, e small b e or e goes to a o, o goes to small b o and or o goes to small a e or o goes to epsilon. This grammar we have seen that can generate the given regular language. We have also already given a diagram of representation of the same grammar which contains three nodes e labeled as e o and dollar and there are some transitions defined according to the rule of the grammar. Now consider this diagram representation of the grammar and let us traverse the diagram via a sequence of a's and b's starting at the node e. If we do that, we see that at the given point of time, if we are at the node e then so far we have encountered even number of a's. Similarly, if we are at the node o then so far we have traversed through odd numbers of a's via generation from e to o level a. Of course, if we are at the node dollar it has a same effect as that of node o that means regarding the numbers of a's and counter so far rather once we reach to dollar then we will have we will not have any further move that means we have to stay there only. Now in the diagram that models in this diagram that models a system which understands a language nodes holds some information about the traversal as its node is holding some information it can be considered as a state of the system and hence a state can be considered as a memory creating unit. As we are interested in the languages having finite representation we restrict ourselves to those systems with finite numbers of states only that means the idea or concept that we have used in the diagram to represent a grammar. We are now going to introduce the concept of finite automata the notion of finite automata will be explained with the help of the concept that we have already introduced in using the diagram model. So, in such system we have transitions between the states on symbols of the alphabet thus we may call them as a finite state transition system because we have finite numbers of states and there will be some transitions on symbols of the alphabet from one state to another. As the transitions are predefined in a finite state in a finite state transition system it automatically changes states based on the symbols given as input thus a finite state transition system can also be called a finite state automaton or simply a finite automaton that means it is a device that works automatically and the plural form of automaton is automata. We have a look at a special kind of finite automata which is deterministic finite automata or simply a DFA. DFA is a type of finite automaton in which the transitions are deterministic in the sense that there will be exactly one transition from a state out of an input symbol. Formally we define a DFA as a quintuple containing five components q sigma delta q naught and f where q is a finite state called the state of states sigma is a finite state called the input alphabet q naught which belongs to the state of states is called the initial state or start state of the system and capital F is of state of the state of states is called the state of final state or the state of accept states and delta is a transition function which is defined from q cross sigma to q and is called the transition function or the next state function. Now note that for every state and input symbol the transition function delta assigns a unique next state. So, in that sense this automaton is deterministic just consider an example say the state of states q is contains the elements p q r the input alphabet contains only two elements symbols say a b the state of states is simply contains one state the state of final states contains only one state from q that is the state r and delta the transition function is defined or expressed by the following transition table. So, delta on p when the DFA is in state p and input symbol is a it will transit to state q if it is in state p and input symbol is b then it will transit to state p. Similarly, on state q on input symbol a it will transit to r and so on that is how we define a transition function clearly this is a DFA because we have defined all these elements q sigma delta p and f. We normally use the small letters p q r with or without subscript to denote states of a DFA. Now instead of explicitly giving all the components of the quintuple of a DFA for example, the state of states q input alphabet sigma transition table delta say the final states f and so on. We will simply point out the initial state and the final states of the DFA in the table of transition function which is called a transition table. For instance we may use an arrow to point the initial state and we encircle all the final states. Thus we can have an alternative representation of a DFA as all the components of the DFA now can be interpreted from this representation. For example, the DFA that we have just given can be denoted with a following transition table. So, in this case p is a star state. So, we have written the same transition table. So, p is pointed by an arrow meaning that p is a star state and the state r is encircled indicating that r is a r is the final state or only final state. So, in this case all the elements of the quintuple can be found or can be determined from this transition table because the state of states contains only 3 states p q and r. Input interval for width contains 2 symbols a and b. Then the transition table is defined like this the star state is p and the set of final states contains only one state it is r. Therefore, we need not give separately or explicitly all the elements of the quintuple instead we can describe the DFA by using this kind of transition table. So, this is another representation for giving a DFA normally we associate some graphical representation to understand abstract components better. So, in this context also we have a diagram of representation for a DFA say containing these 5 tuples which is called state transition diagram or simply a transition diagram. So, to give the diagram representation every state in q will be dependent by a node if delta p a equal to q as different transition table then there is an arc from the node p to the node q leveled on a. If there are multiple arcs from level a 1 a 2 up to a k minus 1 a k one state to another state then we simply put only one arc leveled a 1 comma a 2 up to a k from one state to the other state. And there is an arrow with no source to the initial state q naught and all the final states are indicated by double circle. For example, consider transition diagram for the DFA that we have already given by the transition table which is as per rule that we have described. So, right now we can draw the transition diagram as below. So, the table is given by this delta on a and b we have 3 states p q and r p is the star state r is the final state p on a goes to q p this goes to r p and this is r r. Now according the rule that we have defined for constructing transition diagram for a given DFA we create nodes for the states. So, it is the star state we indicated by a circle from an arrow from nowhere to this state. We create a state for node for other states p q and since r is a final state we indicate by double circle. And as per the transition from p on a goes to q is indicated by giving an arrow level a from p to q. Similarly, p on b goes to p is indicated by giving a self loop to p on symbol b.  So, on a and b it remains at state r itself. So, instead of giving 2 loops over here we are using a single loop and we have labeled by a comma b. So, this is the given transition diagram for the given example. So, we have got this particular transition diagram for the example already destroyed. The two transitions from the state r on symbols a and b are represent by a single arc from r to r level a b as indicated earlier. Now the transition function delta assigns a state for each state and an input symbol. Naturally this can be extended to all strings in sigma star assigning a state for each state and an input string. That means we can have an extension function from q cross sigma star to sigma which is defined as below for all q belonging to q set of states and string any string x belonging to sigma star and some symbol belonging to sigma delta hat is an extension function and q on empty string will give q. That means without taking any input it will remain on the same state and delta hat q comma x a where x is a string and a is a symbol together x is a string can be defined as recursively delta of delta hat q x which will give us a state comma a. That means we first apply this x n transition function on x starting at q and then apply this delta original transition function on single input a. Now just consider this extended the same example that they have already given and let us consider how to compute this x n transition function on a string say a b a. So in this case this string a b can be considered x according to definition and we apply delta hat on the string a b.  That means we use the second rule. Next we can apply it recursively inside the same rule can we apply over here that means delta hat p a comma b and then apply delta on apply the same function delta on a. Similarly we can continue further since here after this a we have only epsilon we apply it delta hat on p epsilon and then we apply the first rule since delta hat p epsilon is p itself because it will remain the same state. Therefore the next step we will get from this we will get only p itself and hence it will be delta p a that is why we are getting here delta p a. Now since delta p a is already defined in our transition function p a gives you q. So the next step will be delta p a is q. So q b now apply delta q b delta q b is again p and it will be delta of p a. So delta of p a is now q. So it will give now q. Therefore applying delta hat extension function on a b a starting with this p we get the state q. So this is how we compute extension function. Now we are in a position to define the notion of acceptance of a string and consequently acceptance of a language by a DFA. A string x belonging to sigma star is said to be accepted by DFA a if delta hat q 0 x belongs to f. That means if we process the string x starting in the initial state q 0 then if we arrive at the final state then we say that the string x is accepted by the DFA a. Now the set of all such strings except by the DFA a is said to be the language accepted by a and it is denoted by L of a. That means L of a is a set of all strings x belonging to sigma star such that delta hat q 0 x belongs to f. Now consider the DFA which contains these five states with the following the traditions as given in the figure. Now if we look carefully the only way to reach from the initial state q 0 to the final states the final state q 2 is through the string a b because they follow the path from q 0 to q 1 and q 1 to q 2 that is the only path through which we can arrive at q 2 starting at q 0. And again from q 0 we can arrive at the other final states q 3 following the path q 0 to q 1 q 1 to q 2 then q 2 to q 3. So, where the level the path is a a b b. That means we can reach the final states either q 2 or q 3 by following the strings following the paths with levels as a strings a b and a b b. That means the language accepted by the DFA is only two strings a b and a b b no other strings will be accepted by the DFA. So, in this case it is a DFA because you have defined the traditions on every state on every input symbol. You see that here t is a trap state because there is no path out of t from t once we have arrived at t then there is no way to go out of t to any other state. So, you have to remain in a same state. Consider the example that we have already described. So, let us see the language of this DFA. If we observe carefully you find that if there is a a in the input is a and a a in the input then DFA leads us from the initial state p to the final state r. That means the string a a is accepted by the DFA. So, once we are in the state r then we continue to stay on r whatever the input we consider on any subsequent input we have to be in the same state r. So, if the input does not contain a a then we will be suffering between the state p and the state q because whatever we take it is a string of b is will be here in the same state p. If we take a single a we will come to a q and from q if we do not take an a any b will lead us again to p. So, we have to suffer between p and q. Therefore, the language except by the DFA is a set of all strings a b having a a a sub string which can be written as set of all strings out of form x a a y such that x y belongs to sigma star. So, that means any string which has a a a sub string will be accepted by the DFA and no other string will be accepted by the DFA. Let us consider some more examples just consider the example for which we have given a regular grammar. That means the set of all strings over a b set of all strings over a b having odd numbers of h. We have already given a regular grammar for this one and we have given a regular grammar for this one. Now, since it contains the set of all strings over a b containing odd numbers of h we need to remember the numbers of h encounters so far and the states has to remember that information. Note that if this is a star state say q whatever so if we first take b as an input you see that we have to be in a same state because it need not remember the numbers of bits you need to ignore the numbers of bits. So, therefore, on b it will remain on the same state. So, as soon as it reads the first a it has to go to some other state next state to remember that it has read odd numbers of h. So, on a it will enter under a state. So, call it as q odd and call this state as q even because the first set will in fact remember the odd numbers of h encounters so far and the second state will remember that it has encountered so far odd numbers of h and the first that first that will remember even numbers of h. So, in the second state that means q odd if it gets in b again so it need not do anything it will remain the same state because it need not to remember numbers of bits, but once it gets an input as a. So, it has to transit from this state to the under state which is nothing but the first state because in such a case the numbers of h will be even. Therefore, it is very clear that if the d f a remains in the state q even the numbers of h in the strings read so far or process so far will be even and the numbers of h process so far will be odd if it is in the state q odd. Therefore, if we make q odd as a final state then this d f a will accept all strings having odd numbers of h. So, therefore, these are required d f a for a given language over a b set of all strings over a b having odd numbers of h. Similarly, instead of making this state as final state if we make this state as the final state first one then clearly this d f a will accept all those strings having even numbers of h. Just remember that the diagram preparation that have given for the language the set of all strings having odd numbers of h was like this is e o. So, this was the diagram preparation for the given language which we constructed for from the given regular language. Now, we see that these two are identical if we assume that this is a final state. So, in this case of course, the differ by this state and this transition epsilon and we do not allow normally in d f a this kind of transition on input epsilon, but later on we will see that we if we allow this kind of transition we get some other toss of final automata which we discussed later. Let us consider another example of a d f a. Say this d f a has q 0 as a first state on input b suppose it remains a same state on a it transits to q 1 then on a it remains in the same state on b it goes to the state q 2 and say q 2 is a final state on b it remains a same state and on a q 2 goes to state q 3 which is again suppose a final state. So, on q 3 on a it remains in q 3 itself and on b it goes to say q 4 and q 4 on a b it remains in a same state. Now, let us see the language accepted by the d f a we will see the behavior of this d f a by observing what its states represents or what information its state retains. It is clear that if the input contains only b is that the d f a remains in the initial state q 0 on b q 0 on b will remain in the same state. On the other hand if the input has an a then the d f a goes to state q 1 from q 0 it goes to state q 1 on input a and on any subsequent is it will remain in the same state q 1. Thus the role of state q 1 is to remember that or understand that the input has at least one a. So, that is what information will be remembered by the state q 1 further the d f a goes from state q 1 to q 2 by a b. So, on input b the d f a will go from q 1 to q 2 and remains in the state q 2 on any further input which is b. Thus q 2 recognizes that the input has an occurrence of a b because once it arrives at q 2 the input must have an occurrence of a b and since on any input in any further b remain in the same state q 2.  If it has one occurrence of a b in the string then they are stringly accepted by this d f a. Subsequently we see that if we have a number of a's q 2 on a it will go to q 3 and q 3 on any further a's will remain on the same state q 3 itself and q 3 is also a final state. So, all such strings will be accepted if it has one a b subsequently terminated by any number of b's or any number of a's but from q 3 if it takes input b then arrive at state q 4 here q 4 is a trap state because from q 4 on any input it will remain in the state q 4 itself and q 4 is not a final state or accepted. So, therefore, we see that the language of this d f a is nothing but the set of all strings x belonging to a b such that the number of a's such that the sub string a b occurs exactly once. So, this is what the language accepted by the given d f a. So, here the roles of the states are very clear in recognizing language consider another example. Suppose the language the set of all strings over a b such that say numbers of a's in a string a is debatable by say 3.  Now, this automaton need not remember how many b's it has raised so far. So, the states has to remember the numbers of a's only if the numbers of a's in the string is debatable by 3 then it should accept otherwise it should reject should not accept. So, q 3 on b it will remain in the same state it simply ignores the numbers of b's in the input. So, once it gets an input as input a as an input then it will go to under state say it is q 1. That means, in q 1 it is clear that instead whenever it arrives at state q 1 the numbers of a's raised so far is at least 1 a it has raised that what will remember at this point. So, again it will ignore any b's that it has raised again on input a it will arrive at state say q 2 instead q 2 instead q 2 it is clear that it has raised 2 a's so far. So, again it will ignore any b's it has raised that means and it will remain the same state q 2 on q 2 if it gets an a's and input it should go to q 0 because at the point it has raised 3 a's. So, any numbers of b's but it has got so far 3 a's. So, therefore, if you make q 0 as the final state you see that. So, numbers of a's raised so far will be divisible by 3 because we can take the same path again from q 0 q 1 that means if we from q 0 again after taking it once if it goes from q 0 to q 1 there will be 4 a's from q 2 to q 1 to q 2 when goes on input a it has got 5 a's from q 2 to q 0 again it has got 6 a's. So, as soon as it is in state q 0 the numbers of a's raised so far will be multiple of 3. Similarly, the same automaton can be modified to accept the state of all strings over a b such that numbers of a's when you divide by 3 it gives 1 as remainder. So, to accept this language simply what you to do instead of this as final state we need to make q 1 as a final state. Similarly, if you want to have a's if you divide the numbers of a's by 3 and the remainder is 2 in such a case q 2 has to be a final state instead of q 0 or q 2. So, therefore, here the roles of the states are very clear remembering what information or what input it has raised so far. Now, just consider the example or language x belonging to a b c star the state of all strings over a b c such that numbers of a's and numbers of b's is divisible by 3. Just considering the concept that we have described in the previous example we can easily construct a DFA for this language. Similarly, you can have many other variations. So, the roles in our a b c such that numbers of x and numbers of b's in the string when you divide by 3 say it is 2 is the remainder and you can have any combinations from this. Now, you want to give the behavior of a DFA in formal way, but prior to that we first see since we have described we have said that a DFA is a computing device we introduce the notion of computation. We first depict the behavior of a DFA by using a figure that will facilitate to understand how it behaves. Just consider we are going to explain the behavior of DFA by using this kind of figure. So, DFA contains normally an infinite tap. So, these are infinite tap and this tap is left justified that means left side is justified and to the right side it can goes to infinity there is a reading head which reads the input from the input tap the reading head and there is a finite control the input tap is normally divided into some cells. So, to the right side it is infinite. So, there will be infinite numbers of cells in it. So, every cell can contain a symbol from the input input of habit say it is a b a a b and so on and the reading head can read one symbol at a time from the input tap. The reading head is connected to the finite control with the finite control finite control contains various states of the finite automata say it is q 0 q 1 q 2 and so on how to say some q n and there is a pointer to point to a particular state the state which the finite automata will be in at any given point will be pointed to by this pointer. Now, with this diagram we can describe the behavior of the d f a or finite automata in informal manner. So, as shown in the figure there are mainly three components namely input tap, reading head and finite control we assume that the d f a has a left justified infinite tap to accommodate the input of any length because towards the right side it is it may go to infinity. The input tap is divided into cells such that it is can accommodate one input symbol from a input of habit and the reading head is connected to the input tap from the finite control which can read one symbol at a time from the input tap. The finite control has the states and the information of the transition function along with the pointer that points to exactly one state. At a given point of time the d f a will be in some internal state say p called the current set pointed by the pointer and the reading head will be reading a symbol say a from the input tap called the current symbol. That means at any itself time it is reading a symbol a from the input tap and it is a particular state suppose it is instead p pointed to by the pointer this p is the current set and a is the input it is reading from the input tap. Now, there is transition defined by this d f a which is defined as delta say p a. So, based on the transition this automaton or this d f a will transit automatically suppose delta p a equal to q then it will automatically go to the state q and the pointer will now point to that particular state q to which it has transit to and the reading head will move one cell towards the right to read the next cell on the input tap. So, that is how the automaton d f a will behave. So, if delta p a equal to q then at the next point of time the d f a will send its internal state from p to q and the pointer will point to q and the reading head will move one cell to the right. Now, we can initialize the d f a with an input string x by initialization we mean that x is placed on the input tap from the left most first that means the first cell of the tap with the reading head placed on the first cell. So, x will be placed on the input tap starting from the left and the reading head will point to the very first cell that means it will be reading the first input and the pointer in the finite control will point to the initial state or the start step and that is the current state of the d f a. Now, since every transition is defined on any state on any input symbol some transition is defined. Therefore, the d f a will transit to a next to the next state as the variable transition table automatically and will continue until the input is exhausted. So, by the time the input is exhausted the current state of the d f a is a final state then the input x is accepted by the d f a there is a notion of acceptance by the d f a. Similarly, if the current state after exhausting the input is not a final state or accepted then we say that x is rejected by the d f a. So, that is how the d f a behaves. Now, we will see how we can compute by using a d f a to see the computation we first described configurations the notion of configuration of a d f a. A configuration or an instance of description of a d f a gives the information about the current state and the person yet to be read. Formally a configuration is an element of q cross sigma star. Now, for a given input string x the initial configuration will always be q 0 x because the initial state is q 0 and the person yet to be read is x the whole input string. And the final state will be the final configuration of d f a will be of the form p epsilon that means the input string is exhausted this x is exhausted that is why we have got epsilon and we have arrived at some state p. So, this is the initial configuration and this is the final configuration the notion of the computation in a d f a can be described through configurations.


To think tech, I'm Jay Fidel. This is Keeping the World Company. We're gonna talk about isolationism and look at whether it may be gaining ground. My co-host, Tim Epicella, and our special esteemed guest, Jean Roosevelt. Thank you so much for being here, both of you. Morning. So we've seen the threat of isolationism coming through the Republican Party. It hasn't stopped Joe Biden in his efforts, although it seems to have slowed down the funding, especially for Ukraine. And so the question is to look at where it's going politically in this country to see what isolationism means, how prominent it is now, how prominent it is likely to be, and who's leading that particular phenomenon. Jean, you spotted an article and by a fellow named Christopher McCallion, which has been reported here and there, and it is of some concern. So Jean, can you tell us, can you tell us the four corners of that article, and then we can discuss what it signifies and where it's likely to go? Well, in terms of this discussion, I'll make it very brief, but I will write, and perhaps you may post, an article based on his points and my attempted reputation of him. Christopher McCallion apparently was hired by a think tank established by libertarians, specifically Rand and Ron Paul, with the backing of billionaire Charles Koch in 2016. He was hired from apparently his only position has been a three year, three and a half year position at Hunter College as an adjunct lecturer, which is like a junior academic just starting out, historian. He writes persuasively and supposedly in a moderate tone and he advances points against American current foreign policy, which could be extremely damaging to the United States down the line, but which have a rhetorical appeal to a large segment of the American electorate who are becoming weary of war stories and who would like the United States to spend its money domestically on the various issues and problems that we have. Now, no one can argue with that. However, withdrawing from our position of primary superpower in the world is a very dangerous position to take at a time when China and Russia are united in being more aggressive than they have been for many years. His points are directly in line with what Putin has advanced at his Valdai Club conferences, which are held to attract unaligned nations. Remember that China and Russia together have potential influence and control over 40% of the world's population. They are making advances in Latin America, in Africa, in the South Pacific, and China has been more aggressive than one would expect in taking over actual maritime territory in the South China Sea through a trade route that controls one third of the world's trade while Russia has been building military bases in the Arctic, which is warming up and is a potential trade route that it's sharing with China over one half of the territory in the Arctic. This is background to McCallion's very naive statements that our distance from Eurasia is going to make us secure. We can withdraw from the Middle East. We can withdraw from our Pacific alliances into the secure bastion of the United States. Now that was fine in 1830, but today with the development of the delivery by hypersonic missiles of nuclear weapons and Russia and China's advances in cyber space and in actual satellite space, that is a ridiculous assumption. We cannot withdraw from the world. We are part of the world. And we need to recognize that the idea that we could withdraw our support from Ukraine and from Israel in those vital areas where Russia is aggressing against Eastern Europe and is aligned with Iran in aggressing against the Sunni Arabs in the Middle East who are trying to make agreements with Israel is ridiculous. A second ridiculous assumption that he makes and this think tank that the Cox and that the Pauls established is that we can withdraw from the Middle East and from our alignment with Israel. Israel can defend itself against all of the powers aligned against it back by Russia if we withdraw from Israel. And given the fact that Gaza, ruled by Hamas, has actually started a war that it's planned for two years with the knowledge of Iran, which is backed by Russia, I don't see how our withdrawal could contribute to regional stability when our presence there has actually enabled Israel to make peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. So these assumptions that somehow Western Europe can support itself against Russian energy aggression, which was well on its way to controlling politics in Western Europe and against Russian actual aggression in Ukraine when Ukraine established its bona fides by electing democratically a president and overthrowing a Russian puppet. I just don't see how this libertarian think tank can come up with a foreign policy in alignment with Russia that is going to make the United States more secure, the world more stable and ourselves more safe. So, Tim, as Gene said, this would appeal to an existing thread within the MAGA and GOP, but it would also appeal to the left-wing liberals too. It's both sides of the extremes that are the target of this article and this initiative, which is called the Defense Priority Initiative. That's the name of the think tank they've created. So a query, does that properly reach both sides, both extremes? Is that likely to gain traction in this country? Well, I think to some degree with the MAGA GOP, as you said, it has, and thanks to Donald Trump initiating these concepts back when he first became president with trying to shake NATO down to its foundations and threatening withdrawal from NATO and its support, threatening all the nations that they better pay their fair share or else. That was the spark I thought when it occurred that he was introducing the concept of isolationism and certainly has since then. And the big push, and you've heard this from Taylor Greene, Congresswoman Taylor Greene, about we need to stop supporting Ukraine because we need to take care of America first, specifically down at the southern border. That has always had an echo within the United States. America first take care of America before we send money to other foreign nations either for military defense or humanitarian reasons. Talk to any very conservative GOP person and that comes up in their discourse, America first, and forget about other nations. So as far as on the liberal side, I don't have a pulse on that market. I don't know if this concept will appeal. They may be so far extreme that they're right where the MAGA GOP is on this issue. I just really don't have a feel for that, Jay. Yeah, it's very ironic that the article and the GOP mantra is that we ought to deal with domestic issues first, but they're the ones who have blocked any legislation to solve any of those issues. They've locked up Congress. That's a hypocrisy of it all. Tremendous hypocrisy. So by talking about hypocrisy, Gene, you have Koch, Charles Koch, the survivor of the Koch brothers, who just a couple of days ago put his approval on Nikki Haley. And Nikki Haley has said as part of her platform that she will support aid to both Ukraine and Israel. So here's Charles Koch supporting a candidate who takes that position. At the same moment, he's behind this defense priorities think tank, which has had McKillian write this article and advance the notion of isolationism. Can you reconcile those two steps by the same Charles Koch? In a power sense, yes, because they're backing a potential viable candidate for president at the same time. They are backing a viable potential reversal of foreign policy to appeal to younger conservatives. And it's the youth vote that they're after in reestablishing a newly aligned Republican party. I don't think that billionaires are that advanced in their knowledge of foreign policy that sophisticated or that concerned about it. I think they're mostly concerned with domestic power and that means controlling the offices, which govern the United States. Well, we have a hypocrisy going left and right, but it seems to me from what Gene says that what they're doing is reforming, reorganizing the Republican party, that's what they wanna do. They wanna get a younger candidate in for president, woman candidate. And as we discussed before the show, the fact that she's a woman is not all that much of an impediment. The fact that she's Asian is not all that much of an impediment. And they're trying to gain the diversity vote, if you will, and the people who would vote for women, if you will. They're trying to reach a younger age group of the electorate at the same time. Taking a position that might appeal. Let's get out of these foreign engagements. Let's be pacifist. Peace is always good. I suggest that may appeal to some of the voters on the left side of the spectrum. Peace is always good. Let's do peace. But the question is, can they achieve, Tim, this reorganization in the face of Trump's numbers in the polls? Yeah, I think they can. Again, the root of all evil is the love of money. And the more money, the more you can influence through social media, to direct mailers, ads, doorbell knocking, it just takes resources. And resources can certainly shape public opinion. And it just depends on what organization wants to dedicate how much of their resource to the formation of a change of attitude or a value. Or in the case of politics now, belief system. But nevertheless, all three attitudes, values, and beliefs can be changed with proper, I won't say propaganda, but with proper media attention. So the answer is yes. And speaking of media, I recall this as an article in today's times to the effect that Joe Biden, who has been trying to get the social media companies to avoid disinformation, especially from Putin, from overseas. So we don't have a recurrence of what happened in 2016 in the November election. He was stopped and I don't know the status of the case by some Louisiana judge a couple of months ago from doing this more formally. But he's been in fact doing it informally, talking to these various social media executives and asking them to be really careful about accepting disinformation. But the article in the paper today was really interesting. He has on his own motion stopped doing that. He isn't approaching them anymore. He decided not to. This is not a judicial edict or anything. He decided not to try to stop them in efforts to avoid disinformation from outside the country. And I find that extraordinary. The reason given was that, and maybe the reason given by organizations that would lobby against such an effort by the White House is that it's not consistent with the First Amendment. That's why some of the social media companies said that too. Your thoughts about this, because what we have is that we have Joe Biden backing off and being stopped also on efforts to avoid disinformation including disinformation from Russia who would like to see this isolationist initiative succeed. The progressives are very concerned about their First Amendment rights as all Americans should be. I think they're a little more sensitive to it. And I don't think they recognize the threat of Vladimir Putin or and or Russia and its influence on social media. They just see the main issue is that government is trying to intercede in the social media platforms and trying to restrict their First Amendment rights. So they're rearing up, if you will, on that particular issue. Joe Biden has every right to say disinformation is not healthy for this country. I'm sure that the progressive left would look at it as he's self-interested only in his reelection and that's why he's doing it. I don't believe so. Look at how disinformation took over on the how we look at COVID and the treatment of COVID. A million Americans died and a lot of them died partly to misinformation, disinformation, directly spread through social media and Donald Trump. This is interesting because, you know, that the First Amendment argument appeals to the liberals and yet it's something that the right wing would like to see. They would like to be able to speak on social media and have Putin speak on social media as we get closer to the election. So all of these factors, Gene, seem to play in favor of, you know, a greater attention to isolationism. And I don't know if Biden can stop that. What do you think? I'd like to put on my history hat for a minute, even though I'm not primarily a historian of 20th century politics. I was hoping you would, Gene. I have lived through some of it, although this is a little bit earlier than my parents on earth. That is the 1930s. I am becoming increasingly alarmed at parallels, historical parallels with the 1930s. And I've said this before. We may be in 1938, we may be in 1939. Christopher McCallion brought this up himself in his article when he was talking about the Munich appeasement argument that is, that is utilized to support American military involvement in the world. And I went back and looked a little bit at the Munich situation. You remember that we gave Hitler what he wanted. And I think it was 1938 when he was demanding the Sudetenland parts of Czechoslovakia with German speaking individuals. He wanted control over it. And the allies said, yeah, okay, go ahead. Thinking they could buy him off just like Israel thought it could buy him off before they recently attacked. And it didn't work. But we don't just use this argument for a one type of example or situation. Well, before Hitler demanded the Sudetenland, he was already doing things that should have raised red flags like remilitarizing the Rhineland. And, you know, like taking over other areas as well. We have now seen indications of Russian aggression since especially 2014 in terms of his grabbing from Crimea. But he's also made aggressive moves in adjacent areas like Moldova, Belarus. Obviously he's taken over. He's a puppet in Belarus. He established a puppet in Ukraine who was overthrown and that instigated the current aggression. He's been aggressing against Armenia. He's been aggressing in Georgia. All of these things are red flags.  And it isn't just a one-off with Munich. If we concede Ukraine to Russia, McCallion says, oh no, he's not going to aggress against the Baltic States in Poland. Well, maybe he doesn't need to aggress militarily, but he can aggress politically, giving the right wing mood in some of those countries and he can aggress in terms of energy. We now know that it's the Ukrainians that sabotaged the second Russian pipeline, energy pipeline to Europe. And that was a strong move. It's a move like Israel would like to make against Iran, but maybe they were seeing something we can't see. And that would be concession to a weakening of NATO, concession to Russian energy control over Western Europe, concession to Russian placing its puppets in its areas of supposed control and hegemony. All the while crying to the rest of the world that we have to get rid of American influence, that the yuan should replace the dollar, and that China and Russia should build up their militaries and that we need to get rid of American hegemony because as Christopher McCallion echoes, we have done more to provoke them than they have done to provoke us. Of course, he doesn't give any specific examples and it's an untenable argument. But he says framing this as Biden does in terms of autocracy versus democracy is the reason why they're provoked. Well, think about that for a moment. Who has aggressed against democracy? Well, yeah, it's extraordinary when people say that the United States is responsible for Russia's aggression. We've had discussions of that on the show. Or that, yes, please. You know, where we're on this topic of history and isolationism back in the 30s in Germany, I guess I'd like to get Jean's responses. When 2014, when Putin did go into Crimea and the United States didn't respond quite nearly as forceful as it could have, but we certainly have now since the recent invasion of Ukraine. And I guess did United States learn a lesson from 1939? I mean, what would the world look like had on September 1st, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, had United States gotten very aggressive to fund with military equipment, France and England? What would World War II have looked like had we got in then versus 1941? And I think it would have been a different war. I don't think it would have been as expansive as it did turn out to be, but we'll never know that. But here it is where being proactive in Ukraine was certainly better than just sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what would happen. And that's what isolationism is all about, sitting on the sidelines, seeing how things will unfold. And you could pay now for military aid for Ukraine or you could pay 10 times more when there's a full blown and, you know, aggressive Russia invasion of other European nations. So pay now or pay more? Jay, can I respond to that? Because I think Tim has really hit the nail on the head. I think he's absolutely right. This is what deeply concerns me. In 1938, 39, had we been able to rearm earlier? And by the way, Christopher McCallion thinks we should disarm rather than rearm. And that we couldn't, we're using up our finite resources in Ukraine. He's never lived long enough to understand how fast we reproduced arms once we got into World War II and what we can do when we need to. The fact is isolationism and not building up our armaments earlier in the face of Hitler's very obvious aggressions actually did not save lives. It took lives. It did not shorten a war. It prolonged a war. It was tragic. And it would be tragic if we did this again. And if we backed off from Ukraine and we backed off from the Middle East, if that happened, where would unaligned nations turn? And where would the pressures be? He says, you know, in Asia, if we stop basically countering the moves that China is making in the South China Sea, or if we didn't make those Quad alliances and other things, there would also be more stability and we would be more secure because after all we have, we're between two oceans. Again, that could have worked out in 1830, but it's not gonna work out today. And the fact is that our withdrawal from foreign policy against aggression in the late 1930s was tragic. We need to raise the red flag again today because unfortunately, McCallion's article appeared in CNN. And I think we have to engage when things like that happen, even with the risk of building a name or defense priorities. It's gonna be, I think, an appeal to a lot of young people who haven't lived long enough to learn the lessons that we had to learn then. And I must say this, one of the reasons why Joe Biden's foreign policy is more effective than Donald Trump's is because Joe Biden remembers what happened in the 1930s and 40s. He got it straight from the horse's mouth from his uncles and his father and from everybody else, just as I did.  Well, maybe more than naive, maybe he's getting instructions on what to say and how to say it. As you mentioned, he writes well and I have this sense that it went all through the Koch organization before it ever got published. Who knows who wrote that? Anyway, Tim, and for that matter, Gina, when I ask you both the same question, that is, what's the level of alarm here? Putin, and I think of Putin primarily because he's more visible somehow is running an asymmetrical war. It's not just the kinetics on the battlefield. It's not just the tanks and the drones and the missiles and all that. He's hacking. He's hacking into all the countries that Gene mentioned. He's putting puppets wherever he can. He's trying to undermine Europe in general. That's part of his war. And okay, and this is the question, he's trying to undermine the United States in order to have us sort of leave the field. He's done that with Trump. My God knows what compromise he has on Trump that would make Trump vulnerable to that. But Trump certainly has taken the position that if elected on day one, he would terminate the support of Ukraine. Mike Johnson, who works for Trump has said pretty much the same thing. No support for Ukraine, even if support for Israel, no support for Ukraine. And now we have this article in the Koch Brothers and they're also talking about withdrawing any support of many of our allies that are under contention right now. And I feel that we have 10 months to go. Joe Biden has 10 clear months to continue his efforts, including dealing with the attacks by Iran and Syria. We read about that in today's news. And in doing that, he has to contend with this movement, this isolationist movement. And that movement may actually make him less popular. And that movement may cost him the election to either Trump or Nikki Haley. And the result would be at the end of the day, Nikki Haley may change her position to more isolationist. Koch would like that, the GOP may go that way and some liberals may go that way. So what is the level of alarm here? Is this a five alarm fire or is it something that will pass? Tim? I think all left-leaning Democrats, middle of the road Democrats, independents and moderate GOP, this is a 4.5 alarm. And that is just to your point, if Donald Trump becomes president again, you can guarantee he will be an isolationist nation. He will get us out of NATO. He'll detract or retract from the United Nations. You can forget about Ukraine support. We will be an isolationist nation. So to what degree is that an alarm? 4.5. And even if Donald Trump doesn't use his influence right now on isolationism, there will be other influencers. God knows where they'll come from. Will they have popularity, fame? I mean, look at the 1920s and 30s. Who was the great influencer of isolationism back then? Charles Lindbergh. And who is the next Charles Lindbergh in 2023? I don't know, but you can rest assured that there will be a continual movement for this feeling of isolationism. And they are gonna go to the young minds that don't remember history or never were taught the history. So they will try to influence the younger minds, Gen Z, the millennials, and even some Gen X. I think most boomers really do know their history about World War II and how that all came to be. But I don't want to assume that, but there you go. We're in, as you like to say, Jay, we're in deep kimchi. Well, Jean, you know, you talk about history in the 30s and I recall that in Radio City Music Hall in New York in the early 30s, day 33, 34, they had a Nazi rally. And like 10,000 people showed up a few years later and gave the Hitler salute and all that. A few years later, they had another rally at Radio City Music Hall and something way more, like 30,000 people were involved in the second rally. So the number of Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in the country grew. And their thing was, stay out of what's going on in Europe, Hitler's a good guy. And they would have sought isolationism. They were seeking isolationism, Lindbergh and all that. And were it not for Pearl Harbor, you know, our stance, you guys have both referred to this, our stance would have been entirely different. Pearl Harbor was the catalytic agent for us, for Roosevelt, for the country. And seems to me that if the Republicans get back in office, we will have a Republican administration and we will not have a leader like FDR and we will not have a catalytic agent that will draw the United States into the fray or frays as the case may be. So I'm pretty worried. How about you? Well, if I weren't worried, I wouldn't have brought the article to attention because the best thing to do with things like this is to let them just sort of die on the vine and not get the PR. The think tank, which is Defense Priorities Foundation has an arm of lobbyists. They now are lobbying. And I don't know how much influence they are having right now on members of Congress who are isolationist in terms of the MAGA Republicans who are isolationist and want to get out of Ukraine and the far, far progressive ones who look at the United States as being the main provocateur in late history with all the wars we have been involved in from Afghanistan. One of the major hires for Defense Priorities has been a fellow named Ruger, who was the chief whistleblower in Afghanistan and wanted us out of Afghanistan. So he has, he doesn't have the same view as McCallion, but he's on board. And I think they could put together a coalition politically in the country that would be as appealing as it was in the late 1930s. Now, of course, Pearl Harbor happened, but we have to remember that after Pearl Harbor, Germany also declared war on the United States. And eventually it will arrive on our shores. So this is only a holding action by people who really have not paid attention to history and who have their own interests at heart. And in terms of gaining power and influence within the United States by taking over a major political party and governing the judiciary system and governing the major offices in the United States, Speaker of the House, President, and et cetera. I think we have to remember that charismatic leaders in a situation of polarization and high anxiety among an electorate, the charismatic leaders are very, very dangerous because people just wanna put it on some father figure or mother figure who is going to take this fear away from them and make them feel secure. And the fact that defense priorities is using the word security and stability in league with American withdrawal is alarming. I'm not gonna put a number on it, but I seem to have a facility for finding things early on that are going to develop a constituency as we go and become front page news. Well, we're almost out of time. So I wanna ask you guys for your final thoughts based on our discussion so far. And the question I would put to you to consider dealing with in your final thoughts is what should Joe Biden do between now and November? He's kind of in a dilemma. The more overseas he goes, the more he tries to do aggressive foreign policy, the more he's gonna be attacked by the GOP. And in any event, the GOP and the isolationists, as Gene said, are really getting it together and they're gonna try to affect public opinion and the electorate to sort of vote for isolationism, whoever speaks for it in the campaign and in the election in November. What should Joe Biden do between now and then? Tim? Very quickly, he should use the bully pulpit, not to lecture the American public, but to educate them gentilly and remind them what isolation is brought to the United States even before World War I, during after World War I, certainly what led up to World War II and basically remind people how we got into the mess that we got into and what Donald Trump's philosophy will bring us in the future to come. That's the one thing he can do and then remind everybody that he's still viable as a candidate and he's not too old to conduct the job and conduct world policy because right now, credibility is everything for Joe Biden and he needs to increase his credibility so that his message gets out and is accepted. But without credibility, it's just air in the wind. Yeah, and people, everybody in the country has to see that if we are going to retain our influence and protect ourselves, we're gonna have to sacrifice. You know, right now the country spends $150 billion on beer and chips. We're gonna have to make some sacrifices. So Jean, what are your final comments? I think that Joe Biden's speeches recently have been an attempt to educate the American public. I think that's why he's speaking out. He has a congenital stammering problem. He is not a good public speaker but if you listen to what he has to say, he's a very wise man. One of the reasons why we made a mistake with Syria and allowing Russia to come in at that time that Obama made that mistake is because he's too young. Joe Biden is not too old. He's old enough to deal with these particular challenges which the young are not able to deal with. And we need to reverse that argument and that campaign needs to make that argument. Secondly, you have to always counter someone who's coming up with these harebrained ideas. And remember that Ron Paul is sort of a guy who is an inmate in an asylum that sort of taken it over and he's aligned with a lot of very questionable ideas. He is not a wise man and he's behind all of this. So you need to counter this type of misinformation by real information, loud and clear repetitively. You have to engage the debate. You have to give the people a real choice while you're educating them. You have to make it very clear and you have to reverse that age argument. I'm three years older than Joe Biden. I feel just fine when dealing with these things. And I know Joe Biden is too. And it's not how fast he walks or how he talks that matters. It's his thought processes and how he handles other leaders in the world. He just had a meeting with Xi Jinping which I think was a very effective meeting and a very smart meeting to make. The outreach to Xi Jinping was great in its timing right now and in its execution. Those are the things we have to look at. We have to look at how he behaves in his execution of things. And we have to get rid of all the rhetoric that is clouding the airwaves and listen to the main message because this is a wise man. We need his leadership. And there's nobody else on the horizon with the chops to do it right now. Gene Rosenberg, Tim Apichela, we're out of time. Thank you so much for this discussion. I can't say I feel better now, but I also feel that if necessary, Gene can run for president. Thank you very much. Aloha. Thank you.


This paper presents a new approach to predicting the mechanical properties of 3D-printed concrete. The authors developed for machine learning models Gaussian process regression, decision tree regression, support vector machine, and XG boost regression to predict the flexural and tensile strengths of 3D-printed concrete. The models were tested on six different mixed proportions from the dataset and found to be accurate. The results showed that the SVM model outperformed the other models in terms of R2, RMSE, MAE, and MSE. Additionally, the authors noted that the lack of ML-based predictive models for the flexural and tensile properties of 3D-printed concrete in the literature makes their work a novel innovation in the field. This article was authored by Amar Ali, Raja the Lavarrias, Umair Jaleel Malik and others.