Displaying posts published in

September 2017

Yes, the U.S. Navy Can Shoot Down North Korean ICBMs Its Aegis ballistic-missile defense system is already capable and can be more so with certain upgrades. By Henry F. Cooper

North Korea continues to test its nuclear weapons and its means to deliver them, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that can reach America. We clearly need the best ballistic-missile defense (BMD) systems possible.

Even with this urgent need, some think we still have time, because they think that North Korea still must develop greater accuracy and the means to reenter the atmosphere before it can threaten us.

In the Wall Street Journal, I recently observed that North Korea could detonate nuclear weapons above the atmosphere to produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and shut down the electric power grid indefinitely. Following such a burst over America, millions could die from starvation, disease, and societal collapse.

Guess what? North Korea recently highlighted its interest in a high-altitude “super powerful EMP attack” as a “strategic goal.” As in 2012 and 2016, it could launch a satellite to approach us from our mostly undefended south, this time with a nuke on board.

We need to enhance our limited ground-based BMD system in Alaska and California. Aegis BMD ships deployed around the world can augment that homeland-defense capability. But a false narrative is being spread in numerous articles: that these ships cannot shoot down ICBMs, except possibly in their terminal phase as they approach their targets.

That myth is a legacy of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which made it illegal to defend the American people against ballistic missiles. The United States bet on the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction,” or MAD, which promised that we would destroy the Soviet Union if it attacked us.

It was my privilege to serve as President Ronald Reagan’s chief defense and space negotiator, defending his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) while learning all about the ABM Treaty as the “cornerstone of strategic stability,” as the Soviets and the U.S. liberal elite described it. Then as President George H. W. Bush’s SDI director, I advocated a “global protection against limited strikes” mission, including a new role for theater-missile-defense (TMD) systems to protect our overseas troops, friends, and allies.

The ABM Treaty permitted TMD systems. So I advised Admiral Frank Kelso, the chief of Naval operations, to ensure that Aegis BMD efforts were limited to building a TMD capability; otherwise, MAD acolytes, who were committed to the ABM Treaty, would kill it in the cradle.

Fortunately, that strategy to secure the political viability of Aegis BMD worked — but perhaps too well. Many mistakenly think that Aegis BMD can do no more than provide TMD capability. Even after President George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, little was done to make Aegis BMD all that we thought it could be in the early 1990s.

Nonetheless, in early 2008, when a threatening satellite was shortly to reenter Earth’s atmosphere, President Bush chose Aegis BMD to shoot it down before its toxic fuel could threaten folks on the ground. In a heroic concerted effort, dubbed the “Burnt Frost” mission, the Navy succeeded in destroying the satellite, an uncooperative target traveling faster than an ICBM.

How Silicon Valley Turned Off the Left and Right After years of regulation immunity and radical profiteering, Silicon Valley mega-corporations are alienating their friends on both sides of the political aisle. By Victor Davis Hanson

When Left and Right finally agree on something, watch out: The unthinkable becomes normal.

So it is with changing attitudes toward Silicon Valley.

For the last two decades, Apple, Google, Amazon, and other West Coast tech corporations have been untouchable icons. They piled up astronomical profits while hypnotizing both left-wing and right-wing politicians.

Conservative administrations praised them as modern versions of 19th-century risk-takers such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, and other tech giants were seen as supposedly creating national wealth in an unregulated, laissez-faire landscape that they had invented from nothing.

At a time when American companies were increasingly unable to compete in the rough-and-tumble world arena, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook bulldozed their international competition. Indeed, they turned high-tech and social media into American brands.

The Left was even more enthralled. It dropped its customary regulatory zeal, despite Silicon Valley’s monopolizing, outsourcing, offshoring, censoring, and destroying of startup competition. After all, Big Tech was left-wing and generous. High-tech interests gave hundreds of millions of dollars to left-wing candidates, think tanks, and causes.

Companies such as Facebook and Google were able to warp their own social-media protocols and Internet searches to insidiously favor progressive agendas and messaging.

If the Left feared that the tech billionaires were becoming robber barons, they also delighted in the fact that they were at least left-wing robber barons.

Unlike the steel, oil, and coal monopolies of the 19th century that out of grime and smoke created the sinews of a growing America, Silicon Valley gave us shiny, clean, green, and fun pods, pads, and phones.

As a result, social media, Internet searches, texts, email, and other computer communications were exempt from interstate regulatory oversight. Big Tech certainly was not subject to the rules that governed railroads, power companies, trucking industries, Wall Street, and television and radio.

But attitudes about hip high-tech corporations have now changed on both the left and right.

Liberals are under pressure from their progressive base to make Silicon Valley hire more minorities and women.

Progressives wonder why West Coast techies cannot unionize and sit down for tough bargaining with their progressive billionaire bosses.

Local community groups resent the tech giants driving up housing prices and zoning out the poor from cities such as Seattle and San Francisco.

Behind the veneer of a cool Apple logo or multicolored Google trademark are scores of multimillionaires who live one-percenter lifestyles quite at odds with the soft socialism espoused by their corporate megaphones.

Conservatives got sick of Silicon Valley, too.

Ohio State Student Refuses to Reveal Preferred Pronouns: ‘If It Looks Like a Duck…’ By Tom Knighton

Whoever thought pronouns, those innocuous little words that take the place of other nouns in the English language, would ever cause so much of an issue? It was pretty simple when I was a kid. If someone was a girl, you used “she” and if the person was a boy, you used “he.” Today, however, that’s problematic. Are you misgendering someone by assuming — because they have long hair, a dress, and boobs — they’re a girl?

So, to solve this “problem,” some have started stating their preferred pronouns so everyone will know what to use at any given point.

At The Ohio State University, this has become a thing among the student government, but one student is outright refusing. From The College Fix:

Nick Davis is someone who likes to stand up for common sense and his personal beliefs.

[…]

Today, he continues to buck left-leaning tendencies at the state’s flagship campus. Recently Davis, a member of the Undergraduate Student Government’s General Assembly, declined to put his preferred gender pronouns on his name tag.

Of the 40 student senators, Davis is the only one who did not go along with adding it.

The “He/him/his” “She/her/hers” additions to the name tags were not required. Nor, Davis said, did he think it was needed, at least in his case.

“I don’t think it is necessary when it comes to myself personally,” he told The College Fix.

He went on, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s safe to assume it’s a duck. I look like a male, I sound like a male, it’s safe to assume I’m a male.”

Seems fair enough.

While Davis doesn’t appear to be catching much of a backlash over his stance (at least not yet) this whole thing is stupid.

Narrative Fail: Russia Facebook Ads Showed Support For Black Lives Matter, Clinton By Debra Heine

The Democrat’s Trump/Russia collusion narrative took a major hit this week when Facebook leaks about Russia-linked ads forced disappointed Dems to walk back their anti-Trump messaging. Congressional leaders, in the meantime, have reportedly renewed their focus on team Obama’s election year political espionage.

The anti-Trumpers had a promising story-line — “Trump and Russia colluded on Facebook” — that had to be downgraded to merely “Russia sought to create incivility and chaos” when it was discovered that the Russia-linked group in question promoted issues and groups on both sides of the political spectrum.

According to Facebook’s investigators, the company sold up to $150,000 worth of ads to a Russian government-affiliated troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency which bought the ads through hundreds of phony Facebook pages and accounts.

The intelligence community describes the Internet Research Agency as “a state-funded organization that blogs and tweets on behalf of the Kremlin.”

At least one of the over 3,000 Russia-bought ads, which Facebook will soon turn over to Congress, promoted Black Lives Matter and specifically targeted audiences in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, CNN reported, Wednesday.

The Black Lives Matter ad appeared on Facebook at some point in late 2015 or early 2016, the sources said. The sources said it appears the ad was meant to appear both as supporting Black Lives Matter but also could be seen as portraying the group as threatening to some residents of Baltimore and Ferguson.

New descriptions of the Russian-bought ads shared with CNN suggest that the apparent goal of the Russian buyers was to amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos, though not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another. Facebook’s review of Russian efforts on its platform focused on a timeframe from June 2015 to May 2017.

These ranged from posts promoting Black Lives Matter to posts promoting gun rights and the Second Amendment to posts warning about what they said was the threat undocumented immigrants posed to American democracy. Beyond the election, Russians have sought to raise questions about western democracies.

According to the Washington Post, other ads showed support for Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.

“This is consistent with the overall goal of creating discord inside the body politic here in the United States, and really across the West,” said Steve Hall, a former CIA officer and CNN National Security Analyst. “It shows they the level of sophistication of their targeting. They are able to sow discord in a very granular nature, target certain communities and link them up with certain issues.”

Republican Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the committee, said Tuesday that there’s “no evidence yet” that Russians and Trump officials colluded on the Facebook ads, but said “it’s an area the committee continues to investigate.”

While the Trump/Russia collusion investigation ran into a speed bump, this week, the unmasking probe gained steam.

Congressional republicans have turned their attention to team Obama’s efforts to obtain highly classified intelligence information on Trump and his allies before the inauguration.

U.S officials familiar with the situation told the Washington Free Beacon that Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice’s recent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee “place renewed attention on the investigation” into why highly classified intelligence community reports were obtained and then leaked to the press.

Congressional leaders are also reportedly interested in finding out why former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power and other senior Obama officials made an unusually high number of unmasking requests during the final months of the Obama administration.

“It was understood in the Bush administration that unmasking was out of the ordinary; it was something rare that you might sometimes do but needed a special and easily defensible reason for doing,” said a former official who served in several Republican administrations. “You could not ask out of mere curiosity, nor obviously for political reasons. There needed to be a clear, direct national security justification.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Despite Legislative Setbacks, Trump Winning War on Regulations By Simon Constable

President Trump might not be winning when it comes to shuffling legislation through Congress, but the same cannot be said when it comes to regulatory rollback.

On the latter matter, his actions set a historic precedent. That is likely good for the economy and may help explain the surging stock market.

“There’s a massive movement on regulations in the first few months of Trump,” says David Ranson, director of research at HCWE & Co.

How massive? As Mr. Trump might say, it’s Bigly.

In the first place, the administration isn’t producing a ton of new regulations.

“By virtually any measure, dating back through two Democratic presidents and one Republican president, the lack of regulatory output is historic,” states a recent study by the American Action Forum, a right-leaning think tank.

“Actual output was just 8 percent of the historical average,” AAF says.

The study looked at data on regulations from 1994 through 2017, specifically focusing on the period Jan. 23 to May 23 during each year.

Better still, the White House team have been busy nixing regulations.

Under the Trump administration, 64 percent of reviews by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs “have resulted in withdrawn rules,” which compares with withdrawal rates of 25 percent in 2009 and 55 percent in 2001, the report says. Both 2001 and 2009 were the first years of the prior two administrations.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of all is that the cost of introduced regulations was a fraction of those in past periods. This time the AAF reviewed data for the years 2005 through 2017.

“There have been $4.2 billion in regulatory costs since January 23, 2017,” the report states. “The 2005 to 2017 average is $26 billion.” Figures include the costs of independent agencies.

Or put another way, costs imposed by the administration are running at just 16 percent of the historical norm.

“Across the board, the results indicate a significant diminution in the number of regulations approved and a notable uptick in the number of withdrawn measures (previous rules from the Obama Administration no longer under consideration),” the report reads.

So what?

The fact that the administration is rolling back regulations in this way is good for the economy.

“My impression is that heavy regulation might slow growth and it certainly increases costs,” says Dr. Ivo Pezzuto, professor of global economics at ISM Business School in Paris.

Put another way, when regulation gets rolled back then business costs fall, profits rise, and growth can accelerate. At least that is the theory.

Statistical analysis shows this to be true as well. CONTINUE AT SITE

Revisiting Orwell to Understand our Times When Big Brother is really watching you. Scott S. Powell

Just two or three generations ago, most Americans understood that George Orwell’s classics Animal Farm and 1984 were written to explain how freedom is lost to totalitarianism and the intolerance that accompanies it. “Big Brother,” a term that many people still casually use to describe an all-knowing governing authority, comes right out of 1984. In the society that Orwell describes, all citizens are continually reminded that “Big Brother is watching you,” by way of a constant surveillance through the pervasive use of “telescreens” by the ruling class.

Orwell’s warnings about totalitarianism written in novel form in Animal Farm and 1984 came shortly after Freidrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom was published at the end of World War II. But it took the shocking revelations from books on Nazism and Soviet Communism, by scholars like William Shirer and Robert Conquest in the 1960s, to really make Orwell relevant for teaching to the masses educated in American public schools. And it was not just an academic exercise insofar as Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, was at that time brutally crushing all resistance, enforcing the Soviet model of totalitarian control on East European countries that became satellite states of Moscow.

Reading Orwell, it was thought, would help American students appreciate their freedoms and gain perspective and critical faculties so as to understand socialist totalitarianism and its defining features: 1) the institutionalization of propaganda designed to warp and destroy people’s grasp on reality, and 2) the fostering of group think, conformity and collectivism designed to eliminate critical and independent thinking. By making the press subservient to the state, these two features would prevent the rise of an opposition movement or party and protect and perpetuate one party control.

Orwell described the scope of the totalitarian enterprise, noting in one section of 1984 that “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, and every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

The concepts of “newspeak” and “doublethink” in Orwell’s 1984 are fully manifest in what we now experience as political correctness. Newspeak is the distorted reality accomplished by manipulating the meaning of language and words, while double think is the conditioned mental attitude to ignore reality and common sense and substitute and embrace a distorted or false narrative to the exclusion of other views. As Orwell notes, “the whole aim of Newspeak and Doublethink is to narrow the range of thought.” This is the goal of political correctness, and it explains why its adherents tend to be so intolerant—shutting down speech from the politically incorrect on college campuses across the county, demanding that historic statues and monuments associated with the Confederacy be taken down, and demanding that people with opposing views on such subjects as climate change and gay marriage be silenced, fined or arrested.

Many assume there is a long way to go before the American government has the power of Orwell’s Big Brother. After all, the thinking goes, the press in the U.S. is not controlled by the government so Americans cannot be so easily brainwashed as they theoretically would be through state-controlled propaganda.

But what if the universities and the educational system and the major television and print media institutions embrace the groupthink that ingratiates them with the ruling elite? What if the culture shapers in Hollywood and the advertising industry on Madison Avenue follow a similar path in participating in and reinforcing the same groupthink norms?

Hollywood Chic The Emmys — and the earthquakes triggered by global warming. Herbert London

The Hollywood faithful turned out with all their finery to reward one another with self-reverential awards called Emmys. As the public now knows this event turned into a verbal auto de fe of President Trump.

That, of course, isn’t surprising. The anti-Trump vulgarity of Steven Colbert has already been on display before. But what always surprises me is the level of ignorance.

Last week the Hollywood Left was raising money to combat Global Warming. How these well meaning dupes intend to do so isn’t clear. Will DiCaprio give up his private plane? Stevie Wonder said if you don’t agree with these suppositions you either don’t care or you are dumb. This hardly seems like the right way to secure adherents.

But the celebrity who got my attention is Beyoncé. This self-appointed queen of pop said Global Warming, about which the Trump administration is presumably indifferent, causes earthquakes. Now this is a scientific breakthrough. Up until this “revelation” I assumed earthquakes were related to seismic waves that make the ground shake. When plates rub against each other they stick, the rocks break and earthquakes occur. However, I have been deceived; earthquakes develop from CO2 cast into the atmosphere. There is simply no telling where these scientific ideas will lead.

Now in order to be a star of the first magnitude, you have to have a cause. It must be bigger than the self. If it evokes tears, all the better. You might start in Africa, a continent in need of all kinds of aid. Angelina Jolie shows up there routinely as does Madonna. If I take off my cynical judgment, it is possible some of the Hollywood glitterati actually perform good deeds.

Nonetheless, it is best to maintain a wary eye where these devotees of good deeds are concerned. I make this claim because good intentions often foster bad results; in part because so many of these stars know so little. It is instructive that Sean Penn, a high school dropout, has arrogated to himself the role of environmental moralizer.

As I see it, the time has come for these folks to get over themselves. Rather than spend time telling me and others how to live our lives, they would be better off making good films. By the way, there are very few good films that are made as reduced Hollywood profits attest. The producers of the Emmys might also take notice of the fact this recent fiasco of Trump-bashing led to the worst rating for any of these shows. Don’t these people realize the U.S. has Trump supporters? America isn’t Hollywood, even if George Clooney, among others, doesn’t know that.

Brooklyn College: Advocating Genocide and a Third Intifada SJP issued demands for “Zionists off campus”. Sara Dogan

As revealed in recent congressional testimony, Students for Justice in Palestine is a campus front for Hamas terrorists. SJP’s propaganda activities are orchestrated and funded by a Hamas front group, American Muslims for Palestine, whose chairman is Hatem Bazian and whose principals are former officers of the Holy Land Foundation and other Islamic “charities” previously convicted of funneling money to Hamas. The report and posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign titled Stop University Support for Terrorists. Images of the posters that appeared at Brooklyn College and other campuses may be viewed at www.stopuniversitysupportforterrorists.org.

Brooklyn College:

Brooklyn College is home to a Students for Justice in Palestine chapter which has repeatedly promoted Hamas propaganda and defended terrorism against Israel. BC SJP posted an advertisement titled “The Third Intifada” on its Facebook page, and has also used the slogan “From the River to the Sea” which is a genocidal threat to destroy Israel and its Jewish population. BC SJP continues to promote the Hamas-inspired and funded Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel and held an event to discuss its policy of refusing to dialogue or establish “normalization” of relations with pro-Israel organizations and students. A gang of 10 campus activists affiliated with SJP stormed a campus faculty meeting, calling one faculty member a “Zionist pig” and issuing demands for “Zionists off campus.” In spite of these actions, Brooklyn College President Michelle Anderson ordered posters exposing the links between SJP and Hamas be immediately torn down and called them “hate speech,” while defending SJP’s right to continue its operations on campus.

Supporting Evidence:

In January 2017, BC SJP shared an announcement from NYC SJP about a protest on its Facebook page. The protest announcement stated “Fight Trump, Free Palestine, From the River to the Sea.” The statement “From the River to the Sea” is a genocidal call for the elimination of the entirety of Israel and its Jews which lie between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

In November 2016, Brooklyn College President Michelle Anderson responded to posters exposing the links between the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and Hamas by tearing them down and denouncing their sponsor, the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Anderson’s response included lofty passages about the importance of free speech and intellectual diversity on a college campus, yet she exempted the Freedom Center from these protections by calling its posters “hate speech” and accusing the posters of “target[ing] individual SJP leaders with the aim of bullying them and making them vulnerable to additional harassment or worse.”

In May 2016, Brooklyn College SJP held a demonstration at City Hall Park in New York to commemorate “Al-Nakba.” Nakba is an Arabic term meaning “catastrophe” that is used by Hamas and its supporters to describe the creation of Israel. For the record, Israel was created by the United Nations on land that belonged to the Turks (who are not Arabs, let alone “Palestinians”) for 400 years previously. Israel was created in the same way Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were created, without becoming the targets of terrorist aggression.

On April 15, 2016, the Doctoral Students Council of the City University of New York (CUNY), of which Brooklyn College is a subsidiary, voted 42-19-9 in favor of a resolution calling for a boycott of “Israeli academic institutions for as long as the Israeli state continues to violate Palestinian rights under international law,” thereby endorsing the Hamas-sponsored BDS movement and its false claims that Israel violates Palestinian rights. In fact, the million plus Arabs who are Israeli citizens have more rights than the Arabs of any other Middle Eastern state, including the territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

On April 03, 2016, Brooklyn College SJP posted an article defending terrorism and the BDS movement.

On February 17, 2016, a gang of approximately 10 anti-Israel activists stormed a campus faculty meeting, calling one faculty member a “Zionist pig” and issuing demands for “Zionists off campus” and for an end to supposedly “racist” course offerings. Some of the faculty present applauded the student demands.

On November 26, 2015, Brooklyn College SJP shared a video link on its Facebook page purporting to show the “loss of land” that occurred through a series of maps as Jews allegedly colonized Palestine. These fraudulent maps which begin with a map showing a non-existent “Palestine” in 1947, were created by Hamas to justify its terrorist war against the Jewish state.

Free Ebook: A Fractured Civilization The European Union’s failed world government. Daniel Greenfield

Once upon a time, the Ottoman Empire was known as the “Sick Man of Europe”. These days the sick man of Europe is… Europe. Or rather the European Union.

The ambitious plan for a regional government that would incorporate the hopes for a future world government look shakier than ever. Brexit dealt a severe blow to the credibility of the EU. And rumblings remain of other countries preparing to follow the Brits out of the “Prison of Nations” and into free market freedom.

As the EU reaches its senescent sixty, the Freedom Center’s own Bruce Thornton has a new ebook, A Fractured Civilization: The European Union at Sixty.

Bruce Thornton has written frequently about the foibles of the EU and his latest ebook is a detailed examination of a failed system. Like the USSR, the EU was an ideological ambition that was always bound to shatter against the sharp rocks of reality.

Financial, economic, cultural and political tensions threaten the EU. Issues from the unequal fiscal status of member countries to the flood of Muslim migrants spreading through the EU shake the very ideals that it was founded upon. But those ideals never had more than a passing familiarity with the tensions of the real world.

As Thornton writes in, A Fractured Civilization, “Decades of crises large and small are seemingly propelling the E.U. and Europe in general toward the point where the stresses become unsustainable and lead to dissolution or a reconfiguration of the union. This “bold, far-sighted” experiment has been troubled from its birth, and the “European Dream,” as one champion has called it, may be nearing its last days.”

A Fractured Civilization examines the economic stresses of a union that is almost as business friendly as North Korea. As Thornton points out, “On the World Bank’s “ease of doing business” scale, with 1 awarded to economies that are the friendliest to business, the U.S. earns an 8, while the two largest economies in the E.U., Germany and France, rank 17 and 29 respectively. The E.U. as a whole ranks 30.”

And then there is the European Union’s shocking lack of… Europeans. Low birth rates are threatening the future of Europe as anything more than a new Turkey. “It takes an average of 2.1 children per woman just to replace a population; Europe’s average is1.55, and it’s that high in part because of more fecund immigrants.”

And then there is the lack of political representation and the unsustainable commitments to ideological projects such as environmentalism and open borders.

The European Union was born out of a rejection of nationalism that, as Thornton argues, was an irrational overreaction. And nationalism is making a comeback because it can offer Europeans what the European Union cannot. Nations offer meaningful representation, identity and interests. The European Union provides none of these. Ideological projects cannot substitute for nations.

“No one will die for the E.U. flag or a shorter work week, or a longer vacation, or afternoon adultery, or more porn on the Internet. And that lack of a unifying ideal worth dying for is why the Eurocrats have failed at their mission to create a united Europe,” Thornton concludes in his penetrating diagnosis.

Good News for Diabetics: Israeli Scientists Engineer Super Enzyme to Detect Glucose Levels Hana Levi Julian

A team of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev life sciences researchers
recently engineered a new super enzyme that can detect glucose in the
blood stream much more precisely – an important capability for those
with Diabetes.

People with Diabetes must continually check their glucose levels to
make sure their insulin levels do not tip too low or too high. The
enzyme detects glucose but is not sensitive to other commonly found
substances in the bloodstream such as vitamins or pain killers, which
often mislead glucose measurements.

The findings of the research have just been published in the Journal
of the American Chemical Society.

In addition to much clearer readings, the enzyme produces much quicker
responses, thus lowering the test-taking time.

Standard tests have generally relied on a protein to cause a chemical
reaction and oxidize the glucose and turn it into a different
molecule. That process sends electrons to an electrode and the current
is interpreted as the glucose level. However, other substances in the
blood can also raise the electrical current level and provide
inaccurate readings. Now, the enzyme selectively oxidizes glucose and
offers a much more accurate reading.