More on the COVID-19 dishonesty

 From Judicial Watch.

More evidence that you cannot trust Government.

---------------------------------------------

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 5 pages of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that show an April 2020 email exchange with several officials in the bureau’s Newark Field Office referring to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China as including “gain-of-function research” which “would leave no signature of purposeful human manipulation.”

Judicial Watch obtained the records in response to a May 17, 2023, FOIA request for: emails and text messages of the Newark Field Office, including to Special Agent David A. Miller, containing the terms “gain of function,” “GoF,” “R01A|110964,” and/or “EcoHealth.” Judicial Watch sent the FOIA request to follow up on uncovering the FBI Newark Field Office’s investigation of the Fauci agency’s gain-of-function grants after the Covid-19 pandemic began.

On April 23, 2020, an email exchange with the subject “Follow up call” takes place between several unnamed Newark Field Office FBI officials. A person whose name is redacted writes:

Details of the current NIAID [Fauci’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases] grant for WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] bat coronavirus surveillance and WIV bat coronavirus gain-of-function research are available at: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=9819304&icde=49645421&ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=1&csb=default&cs=ASC&pball= [summary of NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance for Project 2R01AI110964-06]. The key activity for bat coronavirus surveillance is ‘Aim 1 … We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations. (Aim 3).’

The key activity for bat coronavirus gain of function is “Aim 3 … We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that 0/0 divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.” Translated into lay language, this equates to: “In Aim 3, we will use de novo synthesis to construct novel viruses encoding different spike proteins in an otherwise-constant genomic context, and we will test the ability of the resulting novel viruses to infect human cells in culture and to infect laboratory animals. We hypothesize that there is a direct correlation between the receptor binding affinity of the spike protein and the abilities to infect human cells in culture and to infect laboratory animals. We will test this hypothesis by asking whether novel viruses encoding spike proteins with the highest receptor-binding affinity have the highest abilities to infect human cells in culture and to infect laboratory animals.”

The reason I am writing is that the experimental strategy proposed in Aim 3 (“infectious clone technology”), if performed using commercial or in-house gene synthesis to prepare the infectious clones, *** would leave no signatures of purposeful human manipulation***.

A colleague replies:

Hey, are you going to be in office tomorrow? We just interviewed our person from [redacted] again and he provided us with some alarming new info. Give me call if you can.

The email thread is then forwarded by the Newark Office Assistant Special Agent in Charge-National Security Branch (ASAC-NSB), whose name is redacted, to then-special agent in charge of the Newark Field Office, Gregory Ehrie:

This is interesting. I’m following up with the squad tomorrow morning.

Ehrie replies:

[Redacted] Details when you can.

“These smoking gun documents showed the FBI quickly understood that Fauci’s agency funded the gain-of-function research that could disguise the resulting coronavirus as ‘natural,’” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These new documents further demonstrate the need for a comprehensive criminal investigation into Fauci’s gain-of-function scandal.”

Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuits and investigations have uncovered much of what the public knows about many Covid-19 controversies:

• Emails between U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and top Facebook executives in 2021 regarding the censorship of user posts about Covid controversies showed Facebook leadership seeking to “better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”

• Records from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed that a Pfizer study surveyed 23 people in 2021 to gauge reactions to its Covid vaccine booster before asking the FDA to approve it.

• Records from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) included the initial grant application and annual reports to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from EcoHealth Alliance, describing the aim of its work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to create mutant viruses “to better predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people.”

• HHS records included emails of then-Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Francis Collins showing a British physicians’ group recommended the use of Ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19.

• Heavily redacted HHS records showed that just two days prior to FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine a discussion was held between U.S. and UK health regulators regarding the Covid shot and “anaphylaxis,” with the regulators emphasizing their “mutual confidentiality agreement.”

• Judicial Watch obtained HHS records regarding data Moderna submitted to the FDA on its mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, which indicated a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine. The documents also revealed Moderna elected not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the laboratory test animals.

• Heavily redacted records from the FDA regarding the Covid-19 booster vaccine detailed pressure on Covid booster use and approval.

• HHS records detailed internal discussions about myocarditis and the Covid vaccine. Other documents detailed adverse “events for which a contributory effect of the vaccine could not be excluded.”
• Judicial Watch uncovered HHS records detailing the extensive media plans for a Biden administration propaganda campaign to push the Covid-19 vaccine.

• HHS records revealed previously redacted locations of Covid-19 vaccine testing facilities in Shanghai, China. The FDA had claimed the name and location of the testing facilities were protected by the confidential commercial information exemption of the FOIA.

• NIH records showed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also showed National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.

• Texas Public Information Act (PIA) records showed the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc, warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the Covid issue by Congress.

• HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the Covid-19 vaccines showed how a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection.

• Records obtained from HHS through a FOIA lawsuit related to hydroxychloroquine and Covid-19 revealed that a grant to EcoHealth Alliance was cancelled because of press reports that a portion of the grant was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

• HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID.

• NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces.

• HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international counsels as high level commitment from China.”

• Judicial Watch’s four-part documentary regarding the coordinated effort by the government and Big Tech to censor and suppress information on topics such as Hunter Biden’s laptop, Covid-19, and election debates is available here.

Unacceptable behavior of some academics and their institutions

 From Jonathan Turley.

JT is on target.

--------------------------------------------------------

“Do Not Touch Me…I am a Faculty Member”: Cornell Professor Disrupts Coulter Speech.

Monica Cornejo, an assistant professor of interpersonal communication, was forcibly removed from a Cornell University event this week after disrupting a speech by conservative commentator Ann Coulter. She is only the latest faculty member to seek to prevent others from hearing opposing views. The question now is what Cornell will do about her conduct.

To its credit, Cornell resolved to reinvite Coulter to speak after a prior event was disrupted by protesters. On March 13, Cornell Provost Michael Kotlikoff stated that:

“Having been deeply troubled by an invited speaker at Cornell (any speaker) being shouted down and unable to present their views, I agreed that there could be few more powerful demonstrations of Cornell’s commitment to free expression than to have Ms. Coulter return to campus and present her views.”

Kotlikoff should be commended for taking a principled stance in favor of free speech.

The question, however, is how he will handle Cornejo. In a 36-second video posted by The College Fix officers indicate that she is under arrest for “disorderly conduct.” According to the site, she repeatedly responded“don’t touch me — do not touch me,” and tells them “I am a faculty member.” (I could not make out the last reported statement on the tape itself).

Cornejo is described in media reports as “one of the first undocumented tenure-track faculty members at Cornell.” She was interrupting a speech by Coulter titled “Immigration: The Conspiracy To End America.”

Her bio states that

“Dr. Monica Cornejo is an Assistant Professor in Interpersonal Communication in the Department of Communication at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Dr. Cornejo’s research uses qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine the structural barriers that lead to inequities among undocumented immigrants, how undocumented immigrants draw on communication identity management and advocacy strategies to challenge those barriers, and how those strategies relate to undocumented immigrants’ health and wellbeing.

…Dr. Cornejo focuses on teaching students about different ways in which interpersonal communication can reduce or create disparities and inequities in the United States (e.g., discrimination towards sexual orientation minorities and immigrant communities), as well as the strategies members of minoritized communities (and allies, co-conspirators, families) utilize to challenge the disparities and inequities that position minoritized group members in a second-class position.”

I have previously written that universities must draw a clear distinction between free speech and this type of disruptive conduct. Cornejo has every right to protest outside of the event. However, preventing others from speaking or hearing opposing views is not free speech. It is the antithesis of free speech. It will continue until universities show the courage to discipline faculty or students engaging in such conduct.

The removal of Cornejo showed a commitment to free speech by the school. Often schools remain passive or enforce a heckler’s veto in such cases.

Yet, removal alone is not sufficient. Protesters will often plan a series of disruptions to effectively shutdown an event. Moreover, the university stated publicly that it wanted to show that such an event could occur on campus without disruption. This faculty member defied that policy and elected to heckle and disrupt the event.

She is not the first.

Years ago, many of us were shocked by the conduct of University of Missouri communications professor Melissa Click who directed a mob against a student journalist covering a Black Lives Matter event. Yet, Click was hired by Gonzaga University. Since that time, we have seen a steady stream of professors joining students in shouting down, committing property damage, participating in riots, verbally attacking students, or even taking violent action in protests.

Blocking others from speaking is not the exercise of free speech. It is the very antithesis of free speech. Nevertheless, faculty have supported such claims. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned). Even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.

At Fresno State University public health professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher, recruited students to destroy pro-life messages.

At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.

At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.

She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”

Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.

Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.

Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.

It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.
Another recent example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.”

That of course is the point. She is a professor and was teaching these students that they do not have to allow others to speak if they oppose their viewpoints.

In watching their faculty engage in such conduct, one can understand why students believe that they have license to prevent others from speaking on campus. The only way to change that view is to suspend, fire, or expel those who seek to prevent others hearing opposing views by disrupting events. Again, the universities must show equal commitment in protecting their right to protest outside of events. Yet, disrupting a class or event from within these spaces is a denial of the essential commitment of higher education to the free exchange of ideas.

John Cochrane: Inflation Confusion

 JT is on target.

--------------------------------------

“Why Inflation Is Biden’s Most Stubborn Political Problem” by Andrew Restuccia and Sam Goldfarb at WSJ was one of those coffee-spilling articles that gave Grumpy his nickname. Not the article, which was well written, but the contents. In response to rising inflation,

Biden and his senior aides aren’t planning any major policy or rhetorical shifts. They plan to continue talking about the president’s proposals to lower the cost of housing and prescription drugs, while slashing student-loan debt and eliminating surcharges tacked on to everything from concert tickets to banking services.

The most simple and pleasurable lessons of economics show you how common ideas are precisely wrong. Econ 101: Don’t confuse relative prices — one price greater than another, and the forces that push one price up relative to others — with inflation, the rise in the average level of all prices. Inflation is really about a decline in the value of money. Trying to change individual prices is a classic game of whac-a-mole.

Econ 101 week 2. During inflation, many people’s wages don’t rise as fast as prices. Giving them borrowed or printed money to make up the loss, and buy things at higher prices is another common idea. In week 2 we learn it just makes inflation worse.

These basic points seem to have escaped an entire administration, though it has been facing inflation for four years and had plenty of time to think about it.

The White House … issuing a statement from the president that acknowledged the federal government has “more to do to lower costs for hardworking families.”

“Our agenda to lower costs on behalf of working families is as urgent today as it was yesterday,” said Jared Bernstein, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. “We’re just going to keep our heads down and continue fighting to lower costs.”

One might forgive a flailing White House political staff for deliberately spinning unrealities in an election year, but CEA chairs should understand the difference between inflation and relative prices, and that one does not “lower costs” in individual markets to fight inflation. CEA chairs are also supposed to do a little bit better than repeat spin from the political crowd in the White House.

And not just the CEA. The vast majority of American Economics Association members are Democrats. Surely the White House and CEA have somebody who vaguely understands what we expect the dimmest of undergraduates to get?

The president has called on grocery retailers and other companies to lower prices, citing their high profits. But he can’t compel companies to take action.

In the 1960s, this was called “jawboning,” fighting inflation by applying political pressure to companies not to raise prices. Relative prices, since of course their costs are no lower. Just where is the difference supposed to come from? One would think the state of the art had improved.

He can indeed compel companies to take action. Nixon, after trying lots of jawboning, imposed price controls. They follows from the same basic misunderstandings.

Economists say trillions of dollars in spending approved by Trump and Biden cushioned the economy during the early months of the pandemic, then sped its recovery. Still, when the economy began to reopen in 2021, that demand collided with labor shortages and supply-chain bottlenecks to fuel inflation.

I’m glad “economists” are catching up to the obvious.

there isn’t a whole lot the White House can do to fix it.

Behind the scenes, administration officials said there was no magic bullet to slow rising prices immediately,...

Most economists don’t believe Biden can do much at this point to bring down inflation, absent major tax increases or spending cuts that could curtail consumer spending. Even those policies, which aren’t being seriously considered in Washington, would take time to work their way through the economy.

Nothing one can do? We have, now admittedly, a deficit fueled inflation. One could start by not pouring more gas on the fire. Such as cancelling billions of student loan debt, never mind the Supreme Court and the quaint idea that Congress votes spending. The CBO reports “The deficit totals $1.6 trillion in fiscal year 2024, grows to $1.8 trillion in 2025, …” with a 3.8% unemployment rate. Even in the simpleminded Keynesian economics that dominates left-of center Washington, there is no excuse for such stimulus.

There’s nothing we can do except the one thing that we all know would work. So we’ll rearrange the teacups on the side tables of the deck chairs of the Titanic instead. Which means nothing we want to do.

The quote here reflects the standard Keynesian view, deficit = aggregate demand = inflation with a lag. But we’re pretty clearly now in the situation that expected systemic deficits are the problem. Germany stopped a hyperinflation in a month. A credible announcement of spending, tax, and growth reforms that put the budget on a sustainable track would do the job. Scaling back the IRA, Chips, student debt river in recognition of inflation would help a lot more than complaining about how many potato chips are in a bag. Even just saying we recognize that’s needed would help.

Biden’s advisers have reviewed polling that shows criticism of Republicans for cutting taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations resonates with voters, and they intend to step up such an attack in the coming days and weeks.

Aha, now we see the central problem. Economic policy is being driven by what polling suggests “resonates with voters.” Not, for example, what basic economics suggests might actually work.

“We’re better-situated than we were when we took office, when inflation was skyrocketing, and we have a plan to deal with it,” Biden said during a press conference at the White House. “They have no plan. Our plan is one that I think is still sustainable.”

Three Pinocchios:

John Cochrane’s Adam Smith award speech

 JC is on target.

-------------------------------------

I am deeply honored to receive this award, especially given who it is named after. As a writer, I never know if people read and appreciate what I have to say. You have given me much encouragement.

Why is this important? Why is what I do, what you do, and what the Association of Private Enterprise Education promotes, so important?

I’m not quite sure what to call us. Private enterprise? Free market? Libertarian? Classical liberal? Or just liberal? As the left wing has started to use “progressive,” they are giving us a good word back, which I am happy to see more and more used.

Each is good, but each has some unfortunate connotations to the untrained ear. I’m starting to call it “incentive economics.” Fundamentally, we want a society and government that is organized to provide the right incentives. Private enterprise and free markets are means to that end. And fixing incentives matters even in purely public affairs such as taxes and social programs.

We are not just another ism in the smorgasbord of political philosophies. We are unique. We deserve our claim to a privileged space above “my truth” vs. “your truth.” Why? Because we have, and advocate, cause and effect understanding of how public policy works.

Consider rent control, a softball in this crowd. The left and right argue about what’s “fair” and “who deserves” to be paid what. We say, if you put in rent control, landlords will stop keeping up apartments. Developers won’t build apartments. Current renters who don’t want to move will benefit temporarily. But people who want to move, especially the most unfortunate and those seeking opportunity, will be hurt. Business will suffer, as new employees will not be able to find housing. Rent control is indeed the surest way to destroy a city short of bombing.

This is an objective, scientific truth. I didn’t say what the government should do. I just said if you pass rent control, here is what will happen. It’s not a philosophy, an ethical judgment, a moral stance. There is no morality play of good vs. evil. To the extent that it’s a theory, that theory organizes long, hard, painful, and sometimes bloody historical experience.

This sort of analysis can unite left and right. Left and right in the US do not actually differ that much on stated goals. To the extent they still might disagree after a rational discussion about cause and effect of policies, that often is because they haven’t really stated the goals. Their policies tend to be the same answers in search of new questions. “Tax the rich” is always the answer, why changes with the seasons. But cause and effect answers can force them to state goals, and construct policies that actually might lead to their goals.

My writing takes this principle to many problems. Focus on, and fix the incentives. Taxes? To raise revenue for the government with minimal economic damage, junk the current system and enact a simple consumption tax. If you don’t like that answer, let us know the purpose of the tax system and we can construct policies that work to those purposes. Social programs? The main problem is not compassion vs. money, “you want to throw grandma from the train” vs. “you’ll bankrupt the country.” The main problem is disastrous disincentives. People often lose more than a dollar of benefits for each dollar they earn. Fix the disincentives, and we will help more people with less money. The mess of US health care and insurance? Health care and insurance can be private, fiercely competitive, and innovative. Provide for the poor with voucher of state support, but do not screw up your and my health to do it. Financial bailouts? Equity financed banking and narrow deposit taking can end private sector financial crises forever. Climate? If you must, a carbon tax or tradable right, instead of massive crony subsidies and vanity projects, which do not save carbon. (If I buy an electric car, that just frees up gas for you to use.) Housing? Let them build. And more. All the objections are easy to meet.

If you state the question, and focus on incentives, a radical simplification and improvement of our economic life is possible. That offers hope to overcome creeping stagnation, which is our actual main economic problem.

Why is this so hard? We have a weakness, my fellow free marketers: A tendency to go to the bar, bemoan how dumb it all is, and have another beer. If we want to make progress, we must first understand how our country got in such a mess.

Understand the two central differences between politics and economics.

The first rule of economics is, don’t transfer income by distorting prices. A price is a signal wrapped in an incentive. If you want to transfer income, send a check; in as a lump-sum way as possible. (And quantity restrictions are worse even than distorting prices. Tariffs are not as bad as quotas, because quotas hide the size of the damage.)

The first rule of politics is, transfer income first and foremost by distorting prices! Why not just send current renter-voters a check to pay higher rent? Well, then all other voters would see what you’re doing. (And quantities better still for hiding the subsidy, and trading political support for exemptions.)

Economics is about incentives. We don’t have much to say really about transfers. Our expertise, our claim to truth that applies to everyone, is the analysis of incentives.

Politics is all about transfers. Government grabs resources from A and gives them to B, or distorts markets to benefit B. Look at any discussion of taxes. The newspapers are full of who gains or loses $100, but practically silent on incentives to work, save, invest. In many ways, managing transfers by force is the point of government.

This is all good news. In a discussion that is essentially about transfers, we can pop in, say “excuse me,” and have something genuinely different to say, rather than just jump in on the partisan scales of who gets what.

As we look at a typical regulatory mess, understand too that there is a certain logic to it. Many of our issues follow the old children’s rhyme: The little old lady swallows a fly, then a spider to catch the fly, a cat to catch the spider, and on we go until she swallows a horse. And dies. Of course. The Dodd Frank Act. As I look at taxes, health care, finance, and many other of decades-old regulatory tarpits, the lesson applies. There was one decision, one original sin, one somewhat sensible path taken -- the income tax, the tax deduction for employer-provided group insurance, bailing out depositors to stop runs. The original idea worked for a while, but had unintended consequences, and was patched and patched over and over again. Each patch, an expansion of the regulatory state, has a certain logic given how the last one failed. But inevitably fell apart requiring more patches.

That insight tells you why smart people looking at the latest fiasco, but without authority or imagination to go back to the beginning and start over, can only come up with more rules that will fall apart just as inevitably. It tells you that the answer has to be a clean slate reform from the beginning.

In my list of why did things get so screwed up, I deemphasized interests. Yes, there are a lot of people who profit from the current dysfunction, and are able to bend legislation and regulation their way. But if everyone understood clearly what good policy was, and just how much current policy was simply transferring money to those interests at great costs, they would have a much harder time of it. If, say, the editorial pages of the New York Times and Washington Post along with the Wall Street Journal decried a new “industrial policy” tariff or subsidy as a brazen transfer from taxpayers to politically connected interests, rather than pass along some obfuscatory bluster about how wise it all is, it would have a much harder time.

People naturally object to grand simplifications, “that’s not politically feasible.” But the alternative will never cure the problem. I think it is a great mistake for economists to tailor their advice to what we think is politically feasible. We have very little expertise on what is politically feasible and what is not. Many economists playing political analyst get it wrong. It can change quickly. Who would have thought gay marriage politically feasible, until it happened, basically overnight? Who would have thought that Argentina would elect a radical libertarian president? Should Friedman have shut up about school vouchers or a volunteer army, because in 1955 and 1965, Congress was unlikely to pass such legislation in the current term? And great politicians are looking for big ideas. Small plans have no power to stir people’s souls.

But most of all, if nobody ever signs praise of the promised land, if we confine ourselves to should we turn left or right at the next cactus, we shall surely never get to the promised land. Our job is exactly to describe the perfectly possible, to endlessly remind people of it, and let politically feasible catch up with us. Our job is to create a sphere of pubic discussion that routinely understands the perfect, and complains about current policies as imperfect approximations to it. Our job is to have a well thought out program ready for the moment, perhaps in crisis, that politically feasible knocks on the door and wants to know how to fix the mess.

Another weakness is that we are boring. Many politicians want a New Big Idea as a core of their propaganda racket with a new name. Make America Great Again. Bidenomics. National Conservativism. Anti-Racism. To this cage fight we say, remove the regulatory roadblocks in real estate permitting. “New” on the package is the first lesson of marketing. “Stimulus,” write everyone a check, makes great politics. But our national life is a hoarder’s nightmare. We need a patient Marie Kondo cleanup, not stimulus. First the sock drawer, then the kitchen cabinets, and maybe next month we can look inside the garage.

We should stay boring. We should not bend to the desire for power and influence, to serve as the ideological fountain for people who strive for power. That is not the way our ideas will advance. They will find us when the time is right, as Reagan found Friedman.

Our ideas also seem old, and politics demands the fresh and new. But our ideas are better because many are old and well tested. But just because force = mass times acceleration is an idea from the 1670s doesn’t make it any less applicable today. Just because Adam Smith and David Ricardo showed tariffs were dumb centuries ago doesn’t make tariffs any smarter today. Old well tested ideas make a lot better policy. One of my greatest annoyances is economists who fly to Washington, with a clever new idea for Washington to spend a few trillions of dollars; the same Washington that can’t get a the existence of a supply curve, a budget constraint, or trade balance identity (trade deficit = capital inflow) straight. Policy should get the simple tried and true right, as boring as that might be for whiz economists.

I have emphasized incentives, efficiency, and historical experience for liberalism over political philosophy, because that is where I think we have the strongest objective case. But I am, like many of you, also philosophically devoted to freedom. I would object to large lump sum transfers. I think freedom does bring happiness, and virtue. Especially the left should understand that you can’t have personal freedom without economic freedom, at least because someday it just might happen that the deplorables vote you out of office.

Even in the philosophical realm though, I think we have a case for priority, that we are not just another ism among isms. And that is simple: The free market, liberal or classical liberal view, under constitutional order and rule of law, is the only fundamentally peaceful vision of society. It is the only one that at some point is not based on one group taking from another or forcing behavior by threat of violence. it’s the only ism that isn’t an ism.

If communism and central planning had worked, I would still be a liberal, because philosophically I value personal and political freedom. Fortunately I don’t have to make that case. Minding incentives simply works, to everyone’s goals, and freedom is necessary for an economy to provide the right incentives.

How will we get there?

Howling in the wilderness is not so bad. We liberals are like the Irish monks of the middle ages, keeping knowledge alive for when the world is ready to use it. But that does not just mean stashing a few copies of “Free to Choose” in a library where someone might find it. Knowledge has to be used, mulled over, applied, and passed on from person to person, not just written down somewhere. That’s what we do.

We should, I think, put some more attention into the grand question, how can our political system be reformed to produce economic policies more attuned to incentives? The founders did a great job in the 1790s, but they were concerned with political equilibrium — not letting the transfer hunt bog down to tyranny. They did not imagine the regulatory state, and likely would have been horrified. So they did not produce a structure that results in efficient economic policy. There are lots of good ideas: We need to reinforce the system of rights, not permissions. The process of economic law and regulation, the rules of the game, can be reformed to help Pandora, the voice of freedom and incentives, to get a word in. But this agenda could be clearer.

Many people ask me, that’s great, but how do we find a leader who will listen? I think that is fundamentally the wrong question. We are a democracy, and a responsive one. Leaders do what people want them to. They lead, perhaps, by giving voice and unity to those desires. I have known a lot of really smart people in power who get it totally. But they say, “John, if I do that I won’t get elected.” We do not elect kings and autocrats. Whispering in the Emperor’s ear is not the answer.

Our political system does respond to the chattering classes that surround politics, and to the wisdom of ordinary american voters. They need to know — to remember — to ask for freedom.

Recently in my home town of Palo Alto, a school wanted to rebuild. The usual uproar ensued. “Parking!” “Traffic!” “Gentrification!” “People will want to move here!” “Shut it down!” “Carbon emissions!” “That’s a better site for a homeless shelter.” What nobody said is, “It’s their property they can do what they want with it.” We have found the problem, as Pogo once said, and it’s us.

But I have some hope, even from Palo Alto. A YIMBY movement in the progressive left has figured out that the answer to our housing woes is simple: Let them build. Not just government provided housing, which costs $500,000 per homeless room. Not just “affordable” housing, one more income disincentive for a lucky few. Not more subsidies for new homebuyers or other protected classes, which just crash against a vertical supply curve and drive up prices even more without housing any more people. Just let them build housing, even detested “market rate” housing. If it can happen here, common sense can break out all over. At least eventually, and once the catastrophe is undeniable. Retail theft leading to all the stores closing might just be next.

That is why the work of this Association, and all of you, is so important. The great advantage of the free market is that nobody has to understand it for it to work. But a democratic political system needs people to understand at least some basics.

Your work is doubly important because economics teaching is such a disaster. Many people say to me “we need a mandatory economics course in high school.” I say, “have you seen what high school and college economics courses look like?” Typically there is a week on the hypothetical optimality of the free market, taught with eyes rolling and extreme attention to every assumption. Then 9 weeks of market failure, from monopoly to externality to public good to asymmetric information, each justifying perfectly crafted intervention by prescient regulators, aided of course by economists.

This view explains nothing of our current regulation, hardly minimal technocratic interventions to remedy well understood market failures. It omits Hayek, who showed why the planner can never do as well as the market. We should teach the first welfare theorem not as, with a lot of economic assumptions the market can do as well as a planner. We should teach that with a lot of completely unbelievable assumptions, that planners have omniscient information, including of people’s private preferences and abilities, plus a seamless bureaucracy of people who don’t respond to incentives, the planner can do as well as the market. And then spend 9 weeks on those assumptions! It omits public choice which describes the two way capture of regulated industry and politicians. And most of all, it leaves out the long historical experience of unintended consequences, bright ideas gone bad, and reformers turned tyrants, as utopia was always around the corner. The one good thing I’ll say is that the standard course is usually so mind-numbingly boring, focused on moving graphs around and playing with equations, that not much of it sticks.

Not you. Good, practical, historical, experience-based economic education is the most important gift we can give our society. Thank you for doing it, and thank you for giving me this lovely award for my small part in spreading the word.

The Collapse in Law Enforcement

 From the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Here is the link.

Climate: The Movie. WATCH IT

 Here is the link.

Destroys the climate alarmists and their ilk. Exposes the intellectual dishonesty and corruption among many of the "accepted" climate researchers.

The important climate film Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) has now been released globally and you can watch it for free. The official website is: https://www.climatethemovie.net/. You can also watch the movie with different subtitles at the Clintel Youtube channel.

Last month, Clintel already made the Dutch premiere, in the Figi Theatre in Zeist, into a resounding success. It was a wonderful evening in a fully packed (570 people) theatre (see picture above). Following this successful premiere, Clintel has now been asked by filmmaker Martin Durkin and producer Tom Nelson to coordinate the further promotion of the movie. Hundreds of thousands of people have already seen it. But it appears that the film is now shadowbanned, by Youtube and Google for instance. This means that even when you search for the movie, you cannot find it. This of course means much less people will see the movie after all. Despite this, the movie has already generated a lot of debate (see the last item in this newsletter).

Flying

I always liked flying and got my pilot license at about 30 years old.

I had the good fortune to own an S35 V-Tail Beech Bonanza for several years. My marriage at the time was not good, but I couldn’t afford both my Bonanza and a divorce, and I chose the Bonanza until after about 20 years of marriage, the divorce became more important, and I sold the Bonanza.

I had lots of fun with the S35, including several “interesting” experiences.

On one night flight to my home airport (Republic on Long Island) after dinner on Nantucket, I flew through a region of light snow. Every time the plane’s strobes went off, it looked like we were immersed in a lattice of white dots.

For some years I owned a quarter of an island in Lake George NY which I used as a summer home. The house had an addition that my mother stayed in for the summer. One weekend, my mother and I had a “disagreement” related to my then wife. The result was that my mother decided that she wasn’t wanted and decided to return to her home in Florida. She insisted that I fly her back to New York, where she could get a flight back to Florida. She and I were not on speaking terms prior to the flight. The weather was not good, and I filed an instrument flight plan. It was before radar was available and the controllers could not warn us of storms. We were in clouds the whole way down to Long Island. As we passed Albany, we flew into a thunderstorm. Within 30 seconds, we were the best of friends.

I have always been somewhat afraid of heights, which shows up as a fear of structural failure. So, the higher I fly, the more structure I need to avoid anxiety. The anxiety begins at about 3,000 ft. in a small plane. But I liked flying enough to put up with the anxiety. I also liked instrument flying. Flying in “weather” meant I could not see the ground, so there was little or no anxiety. Besides, there is nothing more exhilarating than breaking out of the clouds at 200 ft and seeing the runway threshold right where it is supposed to be.

I like soaring (gliders), too. One time I went to Colorado Springs to do high altitude soaring. I stayed at the flight school for a week and soared near Pikes Peak. The idea was to get into “mountain wave” so that you could achieve a large altitude gain. We carried a recording barograph which recorded altitude versus time. The altitude gain was measured from the time you released from the tow plane to the maximum altitude reached. The way you knew the release point was by “notching the barograph” by diving a few hundred feet after release.

Naturally, I expected to be a bit anxious at high altitude. An ex-airline pilot named George checked us out and showed us, by example, how to notch the barograph. We flew in a Schweizer 2-32 sailplane for the demonstration.

As I checked out the 2-32, I noticed how massive it was compared to the other sailplanes and even to my Bonanza. The wing spar was so large that I figured the structure was more than adequate to alleviate most of my structural failure anxiety. After all, what’s a little dive?

Immediately after release, George showed me how to notch the barograph. He pushed the stick forward until we were headed straight down. In fact, so far forward that we were slightly inverted and pulling negative Gs. It occurred to me, at that point, that the wing spar was irrelevant, it was a matter of two seat belt bolts and the Plexiglas canopy.

That trip was fun. I reached over 28,000 ft.

I used to go to business meetings at nice places. One place was the Camelback Inn in Scottsdale, Arizona. The first thing I would do there is go out to the local glider port and get checked out. Then, during the meeting’s recreation times, I would offer to take attendees soaring as long as they paid the cost. That way, I got free sailplane time.

One of the attendees, a Finance Professor from the University of Virginia, had a wife, Shirley. She signed on, and she and her husband went out to the glider port with me.

Shirley and I flew in a Schweizer 2-33 sailplane. We took off and released from the towplane in good lift. Despite the location being in the desert, we were “lucky” enough to have really strong lift – as it turned out because a large thermal (our thermal) was turning into a large storm (Storm? Desert? Huh?). We got quite far from the glider port and those on the ground lost sight of us. We found out later that it stormed at the glider port and Shirley’s husband feared losing his wife.

Shirley and I did not get into the rain but were in the rising air that later developed into the storm. It was going up fast. As we approached cloud base I took steps to avoid being sucked up into the cloud (you cannot control an aircraft in clouds without the proper instruments.). I ended up having to dive the sailplane with full spoilers and slipping it to stay out of the clouds. However, just before doing that, as we flew in and out of some cloud wisps, I asked Shirley if she would like to touch a cloud. She said yes, so I opened the canopy and let her reach out and touch the cloud. Really cool!

Another time, after taking off and climbing through about 1,000 ft. in my Bonanza, I had a midair collision – with a seagull. It splashed on the leading edge of the left wing just like when an insect splashes on an automobile windshield. It put a dent big enough so that I had to replace the entire leading edge wing skin.

I also used to fly to Chicago Business School seminars. These flights were usually between Republic airport on Long Island and Meiggs Field on Chicago’s lakefront. Jack Treynor came along on several of these flights. On one return flight to Long Island, Jack and I arrived at the airport to find that it was socked in by a thick fog. You could only see about 50 ft. on the ground. Also, there were tall condos just north and east of the Meiggs runway. “Fortunately,” for us, the regulations allowed takeoffs in conditions like this for private flights. We found our way out to the north-south runway threshold (South end), got our clearance, and took off. Moments later, we broke out of the fog layer and had a wonderful view of Chicago’s skyscrapers sticking out of the fog bank, including the condos that we flew by on our right. Really cool again!

Disney and the Media vs Florida: Score one for Florida.

 From Jonathan Turley.

JT is on target.

--------------------------------------------

Let it Go: Disney’s Litigation Against Florida Collapses as the Media Shrugs

It is a familiar pattern. Media outlets pick sides in a legal dispute and then distort the merits of the claims in favor of that party. In the fight between Disney and Florida, the media not only misrepresented a popular Florida parental rights bill (including falsely calling it the “Don’t Say Gay” law) but heralded Disney’s decision to enter the political fray to oppose the law. It then portrayed Disney’s legal moves to block state efforts to regain regulatory control over the company as brilliant and overwhelming. Some of us disagreed on all of those points, including the prospects of Disney’s ill-considered litigation strategy. Last week, that strategy collapsed with a settlement in which Disney decided to just “Let it go” and these same media outlets simply shrugged and moved on.

In a raw muscle play, Disney had its hand-picked board (the Reedy Creek Improvement District) effectively transfer authority to the company just before it was disbanded. Many in the media were thrilled by the move despite the unlikelihood of its being sustained legally.

As I wrote at the time, it would be ridiculous for a court to rule that a company could stop a state from removing special treatment for a corporation like Disney. Even as the company racked up losses in court, the media and legal experts heralded its brilliance and toughness.

In the meantime, as Disney itself admitted that it was losing money due to its political agenda, the media heaped praise on the corporation.

When it came to the lawsuits, the media portrayed the moves as brilliant and mocked Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., as outgunned as some of us struggled with how Disney could possibly prevail in the long term.

NBC News chief political analyst Chuck Todd insisted that Republicans had “better be careful going after Disney.” MSNBC host and former 2020 Biden campaign aide Symone Sanders-Townsend agreed and said “Oh, my money’s on the Disney lobbyists, honey. My money is on the Disney lobbyists.”

On a “Morning Joe,” co-host Joe Scarborough insisted “you can’t beat Disney.” MSNBC contributor Donny Deutsch agreed: DeSantis is “fighting a fight he can’t win, and this, to me, is a precursor of him on a bigger national stage. And he’s just stupid. It’s a stupid, stupid play.”

Vox wrote that “Disney is proving to be the foe that will not die.” Another Vox headline read “How Disney just beat Ron DeSantis.”

The problem is that Disney was never winning, but viewers were not told that. The company was gushing money while losing in court. In the end, the Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act continued to garner overwhelming support in the state. DeSantis wrestled control away from Disney’s handpicked board and now Disney has dropped its challenge after suffering a series of losses in court. The Florida changes will be enforced, the new board will continue to regulated Disney, and the transferred authority from Disney’s board is null and void. So what did Disney gain?

The response from the media? Crickets.

For Disney’s part, it spent millions of dollars, alienated millions of customers, and created precedent against itself. It literally achieved nothing material from its litigation against the state beyond driving up its own costs and reinforcing the regulatory authority against the company. It then walked away.

The order from the top was clear, if belated:

Let it go, let it go
Can’t hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door

Cialis and Viagra reduce Alzheimer Disease risk

 Here is the link to the paper.

Sounds too good to be true. But check Figure 1 in the paper. Overall survival is not changed much. However, results would look better for a subgroup of older, high users.

Here are some excerpts.

---------------------------------------

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Repurposing phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) as drugs for Alzheimer disease (AD) risk reduction has shown promise based on animal studies. However, evidence in humans remains inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted a cohort study to evaluate the association between PDE5I initiation compared with nonuse and the risk of developing AD in men with erectile dysfunction (ED).

Methods

Using electronic health records from IQVIA Medical Research Data UK (formerly known as the THIN database), we identified men aged ≥40 years with a new diagnosis of ED between 2000 and 2017. Individuals with a previous diagnosis of dementia, cognitive impairment, confusion, or prescription for dementia symptoms were excluded. The occurrence of incident AD was identified using diagnostic read codes. To minimize immortal-time bias, PDE5I initiation was treated as a time-varying exposure variable. Potential confounders were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CIs. A secondary analysis explored the association between AD and the cumulative number of PDE5I prescriptions. Sensitivity analyses included lag (delay) periods of 1 and 3 years after cohort entry to address the prodromal stage of AD.

Results

The study included 269,725 men, with 1,119 newly diagnosed with AD during a median follow-up of 5.1 (interquartile range 2.9–8.9) years. The adjusted HR in PDE5I initiators compared with nonuse was 0.82 (95% CI 0.72–0.93). The associated risk of AD decreased in individuals issued >20 prescriptions: HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.43–0.73) for 21–50 prescriptions and HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.49–0.87) for >50 prescriptions. Sensitivity analysis with a 1-year lag period supported the primary findings (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72–0.94), but the results differed with the inclusion of a 3-year lag period (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80–1.08).

Discussion

PDE5I initiation in men with ED was associated with a lower risk of AD, particularly in those most frequently issued prescriptions. The differences between primary and sensitivity analyses highlight the need to explore the optimal lag period. To enhance the generalizability of our findings, a randomized controlled trial including both sexes and exploring various PDE5I doses would be beneficial to confirm the association between PDE5I and AD.

Alaska 737-9 Door Bolts Left Behind At Boing?

 From aviationweek.com.

Boeing used to be run by technical people. Now it is run by the Bean Counters.

The fall of a giant.

----------------------------------------

Bolts needed to secure the exit door plug that ripped off an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-9 in January were removed on the Boeing factory floor as part of an unrelated pre-delivery repair and never re-installed, a preliminary NTSB report on the accident suggests.

Analysis by investigators revealed that damage to the mid-exit door (MED) plug and related hardware “indicate that the four bolts that prevent upward movement of the MED plug were missing before the MED plug moved upward off the stop pads,” the report said. This means the bolts did not break during the Jan. 5 flight that included a rapid decompression and required an emergency landing.

More digging determined the MED, which stays bolted in place except during maintenance or non-routine repairs, was not opened from the airplane’s Oct. 31, 2023, delivery to Alaska and the accident flight. This period includes time spent at AAR Corp’s Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, facility where a Wi-Fi antenna was installed.

“The manufacturing/human performance group has done a complete records review from the time the event airplane left the Boeing factory to the time of the accident and found no evidence that the left MED plug was opened after leaving Boeing’s facility,” the NTSB said.

Investigators are focusing on a repair done on Boeing’s factory floor as the period when the bolts were forgotten.

Fuselage and door plug manufacturer Spirit AeroSystems shipped the affected fuselage with several damaged rivets just in front of the left side MED plug that blew out, the NTSB found. The fuselage arrived at Boeing’s Renton, Washington, 737 production facility on Aug. 31. A day later, Boeing flagged the rivet problem and ordered it repaired.

Spirit workers assigned to the 737 factory completed the work on Sept. 19, the NTSB said. But the bolts were apparently never replaced, setting the stage for the Alaska accident.

A Boeing-supplied photo taken before the work started shows the retaining bolts in place. Photos pulled from communications between Boeing “team members” sent just after the rivet fixes were done and included in NTSB’s report show a photo of the plug in the closed position without the bolts.

Investigators don’t know exactly what happened in between or in the weeks leading up to the aircraft’s delivery.

“The investigation continues to determine what manufacturing documents were used to authorize the opening and closing of the left MED plug during the rivet rework,” the NTSB wrote.

The NTSB preliminary report does not analyze the investigators’ findings. It is not clear whether Boeing or Spirit personnel were ultimately responsible for putting the bolts back.

Boeing’s quality assurance process and its FAA-approved safety management system (SMS)—effective enough to detect the original rivet non-conformances—did not flag the missing bolts.

“Whatever final conclusions are reached, Boeing is accountable for what happened,” company CEO Dave Calhoun said in a statement. “An event like this must not happen on an airplane that leaves our factory.”

Investigators are still gathering facts that will help them understand what happened.

“Interviews of Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems’ personnel will be scheduled at a future date,” the NTSB said. “The group will also be looking at Boeing’s SMS and Spirit AeroSystems’ ongoing development of its voluntary SMS program. The group will also assess the FAA’s involvement in the manufacturers’ development of their respective SMS programs and the level of oversight applied to each.”

Fallout from the accident and related quality problems at Boeing and Spirit have both companies under intense scrutiny. The FAA has sent a team to Renton to inspect aircraft and records as part of a wave of new surveillance and review of 737 MAX production. It also is limiting deliveries of newly built 737s to 38 per month as part of voluntary production-rate freeze.

Boeing has added internal inspections as well as more oversight in Spirit’s Wichita factory as it struggles to get its arms around chronic issues within its walls and those of its most important supplier.