Ready for (Mecha)Hillary: U.S. Military Developing High-Tech Exoskeleton

(AP)

The U.S. military is developing a high-tech exoskeleton that would allow mobility-challenged individuals to perform everyday tasks with little to no effort, the Washington Post reports. The news is yet another indication that elderly homeowner Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2016.

The so-called FORTIS suit, developed by Lockheed Martin, is being touted as   “human augmentation for the 21st century,” and promises to increase strength, endurance, and productivity. According to the Lockheed website:

FORTIS exoskeleton transfers loads through the exoskeleton to the ground in standing or kneeling positions and allows operators to use heavy tools as if they were weightless. An advanced ergonomic design moves naturally with the body and adapts to different body types and heights. Using the Equipois zeroG® arm, operators can effortlessly hold objects up to 36 pounds, increasing productivity by reducing muscle fatigue and avoiding muscle injury.

Hillary Clinton Chose an Unusual Venue to Finally Address the Ferguson Tragedy

(AP)

A mere 19 days after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Hillary Clinton has decided to weigh in, something liberal pundits have been urging her to do for some time. In other words, Clinton’s political team has finally concluded its focus group on the issue.

Clinton took a brave stance against tragedy, offering bold declarations, such as: “Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America.” The timing of the remarks—just as the media was beginning to acknowledge the Russian invasion of Ukraine—was interesting, as was the venue.

Paul Ryan Beats Hillary

Paul Ryan copy

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) is coming out with a new book and it will debut one spot ahead of Hillary Clinton’s “Hard Choices” on the upcoming New York Times bestsellers list.

You Won’t Believe Who’s Attacking Rand Paul for Being Insufficiently Hawkish

Rand Paul

On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal blaming the United States for the rise of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, while taking shots at “interventionists” like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well “hawkish members” of the Republican Party.

Beyond that, it is unclear what Paul is trying to argue, as the op-ed is only semi-coherent. As best I can tell, he is suggesting that U.S. policymakers talking about military intervention in Syria, and then ultimately deciding against it, is a major reason why ISIS came to power. Or something. He also comes out in favor of having both foresight and hindsight.

Paul’s column invited a lot of predictable criticism, but it was also trashed by an unlikely source: