New York State Democrat Senator Brad Holyman proposes legislation to curtail free speech in the name of Democracy

 Here is Jonathan Turley's blog entry on this.

Free Speech has been under attack for some time now.  What we need is for all of us to defend it against the woke and cancel culture and against anyone who advocates it.

JT quotes Justice Louis Brandeis: "the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding". But Brandeis failed to mention those who try to curtail liberty to gain personal power. Both lack of understanding and hunger for power are running rampant today. Do not be passive. When you see it, fight it.  Speak out.

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

The great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once warned that “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” New York State Democrat Senator Brad Holyman is one of those “men of zeal.” With the approaching anniversary of the Jan. 6th riots, he has proposed a new law that would legislate an even greater level of censorship to prevent the “social media amplification” of views that are deemed harmful or “disinformation.” It is only the latest example of our “whatever it takes” politics.

Under S.7568, there would be criminal liability for anyone who makes “a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.”

If this language is chilling for anyone who values free speech, Hoylman’s defense will freeze you to the bone. It is a censorship measure introduced on “the anniversary of the notorious January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and as vaccine hesitancy continues to fuel the Omicron variant.” It is a mix of algorithmic conspiracy theory and anti-free speech doublespeak:

“Social media algorithms are specially programmed to spread disinformation and hate speech at the expense of the public good. The prioritization of this type of content has real life costs to public health and safety. So when social media push anti-vaccine falsehoods and help domestic terrorists plan a riot at the U.S. Capitol, they must be held accountable. Our new legislation will force social media companies to be held accountable for the dangers they promote.”

"For years, social companies have claimed protection from any legal consequences of their actions relating to content on their websites by hiding behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Social media websites are no longer simply a host for their users’ content, however. Many social media companies employ complex algorithms designed to put the most controversial and provocative content in front of users as much as possible. These algorithms drive engagement with their platform, keep users hooked, and increase profits. Social media companies employing these algorithms are not an impassive forum for the exchange of ideas; they are active participants in the conversation.”

The rationale is perfectly Orwellian. It treats the failure to censor as being a participant in “disinformation.”

This is only the latest anti-free speech measure to be introduced on the federal or state levels. In one critical hearing, tech CEOs appeared before the Senate to discuss censorship programs. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, but then pledged to censor more people in defense of “electoral integrity.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, however, was not happy. He was upset not by the promised censorship but that it was not broad enough. He noted that it was hard to define the problem of “misleading information,” but the companies had to impose a sweeping system to combat the “harm” of misinformation on climate change as well as other areas. “The pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm,” Coons said. “But I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.”

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal also warned that he and his colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” He demanded “the same kind of robust content modification” from the companies – the new Orwellian term for censorship.

In the meantime, Facebook is continuing its creepy corporate commercials to try to convince a free people to embrace censorship (or “content modification”). It is working. Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.

The New York legislation would gut free speech by creating criminal penalties for views deemed “false” despite the continuing debates over issues like the efficacy of masks or vaccine protocols. The First Amendment is premised on the belief that this right is essential to protecting the other freedoms in the Constitution. It is the right that allows people to challenge their government and others on electoral issues, public health issues, and other controversies.

This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

The danger of the rising levels of censorship is far greater than the dangers of such absurd claims of the law or science — or in this case both. What we can do is to maximize the free discourse and expression on the Internet to allow free speech itself to be the ultimate disinfectant of disinformation.

The high power prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell contrasts with the apparent lack of zeal in prosecuting those who physically abused the girls

Jonathan Turley gets it right again. Here is his blog entry "
Transportation Versus Destination: Maxwell’s Conviction Leaves Glaring Questions Over the Lack of Prosecutions"

Justice is supposed to be blind.  It remains an open question (I am being diplomatic) whether it is simply blind when it comes to Elites committing crimes.

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

The conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell for five out of six criminal charges was heralded by many as bringing some justice for the girls abused through her actions. Indeed, the Southern District of New York correctly called the underlying conduct as “one of the worst crimes imaginable – facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of children.” However, that statement only begged the question of why none of the men listed on flights of the “Lolita Express” or on the guest lists of these parties have been prosecuted. That list includes former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump as well as Prince Andrew and an assortment of billionaires. It is not clear if these men committed criminal acts but it is also not clear that they have been formally questioned by the FBI.

As I discussed last night, this criminal enterprise was allegedly not only to bring girls and women to Epstein but to his powerful friends. Without pursuing those alleged “johns,” the Maxwell prosecution seems like arresting a getaway driver but letting the bank robbers escape.

The pictures of men on these trips are now well-known. They do not in themselves establish criminal conduct. For example, the pictures of Clinton getting a message from a 22-year-old woman is not illegal and she later described him as a “perfect gentleman.” However, Clinton has been accused of misleading the public on his number of flights with Epstein. The media has reported at least 26 flights with Epstein. Being a repeated guest with an infamous child molester raises obvious concerns. It is certainly enough to warrant questioning by the FBI.

Then there is Prince Andrew who has been pursued for questioning. Much of the litigation, however, has come from civil litigation. Prince Andrew recently put forward a novel defense in one such case.

Yet, there is a concern that the Justice Department has previously worked to scuttle rather than to pursue the underlying wrongdoing, including a disgraceful plea agreement. I was an early and vocal critic of that deal with Epstein. Despite a strong case for prosecution, Epstein’s lawyers were able to secure a ridiculous deal with prosecutors. He was accused of abusing more than forty minor girls (with many between the ages of 13 and 17). Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida state charge of felony solicitation of underage girls in 2008 and served a 13-month jail sentence. Epstein was facing a 53-page indictment that could have resulted in life in prison. However, he got the 13 month deal. Moreover, to my lasting surprise, former Miami U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta was inexplicably made labor secretary under Trump. He later resigned.

While the FBI aggressively (and correctly) pursued Maxwell, there is no evidence of such a concerted effort to investigate the men who may have been involved in sex trafficking. Given the all-out effort on Ashley Biden’s diary, it would be good to see an equal effort on Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators.

If Epstein allegedly transported women and girls to his island for visits with himself and these men, there is ample reason to interview them. It is not clear if Maxwell has further evidence to offer, but this is the time to produce it. While she is not practically looking at 65 years, she can easily receive a sentence around 15 years even as a first offender. That sentence could be reduced with cooperation credit. What is not clear is how focused the SDNY is on developing cases that focus not just on the “transportation” but the destination of these flights.

Red Queen justice is something for all of us to avoid

 Here is Jonathan Turley's column on The Hill: "With the New Year, Biden Should Resolve to Cease the 'Red Queen' Justice.

JT is on target - but his complaint goes far beyond Biden.  We should resist doing the same thing JT complains about.

The behavior he describes is unacceptable and one more reason to disavow the woke and cancel culture.

Let's celebrate the New Year by fighting to get our freedom back and get over-reaching Government out of our lives.

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

For most of us, New Year resolutions are the ultimate exercise of hope over experience, a type of virtue signaling to ourselves in the hope that this year it might actually work. For politicians, it is the same … just without the hope. With the start of 2022 President Biden will lead the nation in celebrations and reflections. He could truly turn over a new leaf with one resolution: to stop declaring the guilt or innocence of people before they are actually investigated or tried.

History has shown that politicians are rarely late to a hanging or a stoning. From the Dreyfus Affair to Leo Frank, the Scottsboro Boys to the Duke Lacrosse team, there is nothing more binding with the public than to join in expressions of disgust or anger. The difference between a politician and a statesman is that the former demands a result while the latter demands a process from the justice system.

Even before winning the White House, Biden refused to wait for the actual facts before reaching a popular conclusion. For example, after the protests in Lafayette Park in 2020, Biden repeated the now debunked claim that the park was cleared with tear gas to enable a photo op for President Trump. From the outset, there was ample evidence undermining that claim, but neither Biden nor many in the media waited for the investigation to establish the facts. (Later, the Justice Department’s inspector general disproved the claim).

Once in office, President Biden continued that “sentence first, verdict afterwards” habit by making comments that conveyed what he wanted to see happen on legal decisions to be made from agencies. Despite being told that it would be clearly unconstitutional, Biden called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to renew a nationwide moratorium on the eviction of renters.

Within days of the shootings in Kenosha, Wis., then-presidential candidate Joe Biden had strongly implied that Kyle Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist” despite no evidence supporting that claim. Even after many claims about Rittenhouse were debunked and the jury acquitted Rittenhouse of all charges, Biden stated publicly that the verdict left “many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included.”

However, Biden’s Red Queen justice approach was most alarming with regards to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents who were falsely accused of “whipping” undocumented immigrants on the southern border. Before any investigation was actually started, Biden expressed anger at the agents and publicly pledged punishment: “It was horrible what — to see, as you saw — to see people treated like they did: horses nearly running them over and people being strapped. It’s outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay.”

“Those people” are federal employees who have a right to due process and a presumption of innocence, including from the man who heads their branch of government. However, the President of the United States declared them to be guilty as the matter was sent for investigation. That creates an obvious pressure on lower-ranked executive branch officials to reach the same conclusion — to not contradict the President.

Indeed, while the administration promised a quick investigation, it went into complete radio silence. The agents are reportedly still on administrative duties, while there are reports that the CBP Office of Professional Responsibility has completed its investigation.

What was most striking about the border investigation is that there was extensive videotape evidence. While many in the press used still images that made it look like one agent was about to whip a migrant, the videotape clearly showed the agent using the “strap” — actually the reins — to guide his horse.

For that reason, many of us were confused by Biden’s insistence that these agents allegedly “strapped” the Haitian migrants. Even if the investigation finds culpability, the videotape does not show such abuse, and even the photographer expressed surprise at the “whipping” claim.

Nevertheless, other Democratic politicians like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) denounced the whipping, claiming it was “worse than what we witnessed in slavery” and said that the videotape showed “the cowboys who were running down Haitians and using their reins to whip them.” Again, the videotape clearly refuted that claim. Yet that did not stop politicians like Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) from proclaiming the incident as evidence of “white supremacist behavior.” The media dutifully followed suit in reporting that the evidence showed agents “whipping Haitian asylum seekers.”

Much of the coverage was reminiscent of the false reporting of the incident involving former Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann and his encounter with a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial on Jan. 18, 2019; Sandmann later settled with the Washington Post, NBC, and CNN in defamation actions. There was widely available video of the incident showing that Sandmann did nothing wrong. He just stood there as the activist confronted him.

A president plays a critical role in reinforcing our system of justice. He not only represents our constitutional process of representative democracy, but he is given specific power to correct injustices through pardons and commutations. When passions turn to rage, a president can bring a needed voice for fairness and patience in allowing our system to function without prejudice or prejudgment. Conversely, if the president rushes to judgment, he becomes an enabler of mob justice.

Biden could skip the usual weight loss and work-out pledges this year in favor of something more tangible and meaningful. He could pledge to respect the legal process and withhold judgment on those accused. It may not make it easier to fit in those jeans, but he would fit better in the office that he currently holds.

Daniel Henninger gets it right about today’s culture – at the Wall Street Journal

 Here is DH's column.

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

With seven words Sunday—“This is a no on this legislation”— Sen. Joe Manchin sent Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer stumbling amid the ruins of Build Back Better. But it’s possible to argue that the Manchin refusal may be even bigger than that: What if Mr. Manchin’s “no” threatens the entire temple of progressivism?

In a next-day interview with a West Virginia radio station, Mr. Manchin pointed American politics and indeed its culture toward the long-term lesson of his stand:

“They just never realized it, because they figured, ‘Surely, dear God, we can move one person—surely we can badger and beat one person up, surely we can get enough protesters to make that person uncomfortable enough [that] they’ll just say: “I’ll go for anything. Just quit.” ’ ”

Why did it occur to a senator from West Virginia to describe his experience in that way—the belief by his opposition that if they threw enough flak at him, he’d break and give them what they wanted?

The short answer is: Joe Manchin has been there, seen that. Like uncountable other Americans whose politics don’t run to the far left, he has seen for at least a decade that what the American left tried on him has become the their modus operandi for everything.

Their tactics—whether used against politicians or average people—include relentless moral condescension, the messianism of mass protests, physical intimidation, social ostracism and demands that you simply shut up and give in.

People wondered what the White House thought it gained by putting out a statement Sunday afternoon that Mr. Manchin’s words were “at odds” with what he told President Biden days earlier, essentially calling the senator a liar. Impolitic as it might strike anyone in normal politics (a space Mr. Biden once inhabited), this ad hominem hammer is the way the left does politics. It’s the only thing they know how to do.

Commenting on Sen. Manchin’s call to her after the decision, House Progressive Caucus Chairman Pramila Jayapal said his “lack of integrity was stunning.”

The left never sleeps. Recall how several months ago liberal Justice Stephen Breyer became the target of a campaign to abandon his seat, until he pointedly told an interviewer he wasn’t stepping down. They’re back. CNN reported this week that “multiple Senate Democrats” say Justice Breyer “seems to have let his ego overtake him.”

Recall, for that matter, the Senate confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. We may assume Sen. Manchin (the only Democrat who voted to confirm Justice Kavanaugh) absorbed how low that strategy stooped. It included his Senate colleague and Kavanaugh supporter Ted Cruz and his wife being driven from a restaurant by a group called Smash Racism DC, which said: “You are not safe. We will find you.” The Build Back Better factions found Sen. Kyrsten Sinema in a Phoenix bathroom stall.

That sounds like the lunatic fringe, until you realize the extent to which participating in the progressives’ cancel culture became just another day at the office for many mainstream U.S. institutions. In October, the Justice Department announced investigative “measures” after complaints about parents objecting to unilateral impositions of progressive school curriculums.

The current strategy of obliterating opponents began of course on the campuses, a smart place for a test run because so many university leaders blow with the wind or are themselves on board.

Thus in 2017 Charles Murray was run off a stage at Middlebury College. Banning speech worked, so they’ve never stopped. In September, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology disinvited University of Chicago scientist Dorian Abbott, citing his article, “The Diversity Problem on Campus.”

One of the most used words in the progressive lexicon is “dialogue,” which they say it’s always “important to have.” That’s a cover story. After endless “dialogue” with the Biden White House and the congressional left, Joe Manchin nailed this one: Their goal is to get you to “just quit.”


After George Floyd’s killing in May 2020, the activist group Black Lives Matter rose to seize the commanding heights of American politics and culture. What some thought was supposed to be a “dialogue” with their supporters about police practices was in fact a strategy to defund or disarm the police.

It worked. Cops quit or stepped away from making arrests. The nearly instant urban chaos this abrupt change created now has even San Francisco Mayor London Breed sounding like the second coming of a law-and-order hard hat, denouncing the “bull— that has destroyed our city.”

Earlier this week, the inevitable coda to the Manchin decision surfaced on Twitter. Bette Midler, the singer, tweeted that Joe Manchin wants “us all” to be like West Virginia—“poor, illiterate and strung out.”

It was inevitable that eventually a counterrevolution would start somewhere against progressivism’s brand of politics—its cancellations, silencings and unearned condescension of anyone who isn’t them or won’t join them. Whether or not he intended it, that counterrevolution may have begun when Joe Manchin of West Virginia simply said no.

The Dangerous and Unprincipled Elizabeth Warren

 Jonathan Turley gets it right on Elizabeth Warren.

The same could be said on many Democrat leaders.

Politics today is a power struggle between two teams, Democrats and Republicans. Both fail to do what is best for the Country. Both have reduced our freedom and mismanaged our economy. Neither appreciates that a free market dominates a Government micromanaged economy.

The issue is not which party is good - neither is. The issue is which team is likely to do the most damage. The winning team on that issue is the Democrats.

Here is JT's blog entry.

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

This week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) finally buried her former persona as a law professor. In a transition that began in 2011, Warren has struggled with the demands of politics that often pit her against core legal principles. Warren’s final measure of devotion to politics came in her Boston Globe op-ed where she called for the Supreme Court to be packed with a liberal majority. She justified her call by denouncing the court for voting wrongly on decisions and, perish the thought, against “widely held public opinion.” Of course, the Framers designed the courts to be able to resist “widely held public opinion” and, yes, even the Congress. Warren’s solution is to change the Court to make it more amenable to the demands of public (and her) opinion. Some of us have been discussing the expansion of the Court for decades. However, there is a difference between court reform and court packing. What Democratic members are demanding is raw court packing to add four members to the Court to give liberals an instant majority — a movement denounced by figures like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.Last year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority. This follows threats from various Democratic members that conservative justices had better vote with liberal colleagues . . . or else.Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., recently issued a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or face a “revolution.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal previously warned the Supreme Court that, if it continued to issue conservative rulings or “chip away at Roe v Wade,” it would trigger “a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

For her part, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioned the whole institution’s value if it is not going to vote consistently with her views and those of the Democratic party: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

Warren seems to be channeling more AOC than FDR. Roosevelt at least tried to hide his reckless desire to pack the Court by pushing an age-based rule. It was uniquely stupid. The bill would have allowed Roosevelt to add up to six justices for every member who is over 70 years old. Warren, like AOC, wants the Democratic base to know that she is pushing a pure, outcome-changing court packing scheme without even the pretense of a neutral rule.

Despite the fact that the Court has more often voted on non-ideological lines (and regularly issued unanimous decisions), Warren denounced the Court as an “extremist” body that has “threatened, or outright dismantled, fundamental rights in this country.” Those “fundamental” values do not apparently include judicial independence.

What is most striking is Warren’s use of a clearly false premise: that the Republicans packed the Court first: “This Republican court-packing has undermined the legitimacy of every action the current court takes.” She is referring to the Republicans refusing to vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland during the Obama Administration. Many of us criticized the lack of a Senate vote at the time. However, that is not court packing. It did not add seats to the Court. The Senate has the constitutional authority to vote or not to vote on a nominee. It was perfectly constitutional. What Warren is advocating is the addition of seats to the Court, which the Congress can do but most voters oppose as unprincipled and dangerous.

For Warren to call the Garland controversy “court packing” is all that you have to know about her column. She knows that that was not court packing, just as she knows that court packing is fundamentally wrong. However, the Warren op-ed was her Rubicon where she crossed over from being a law professor to being a politician.

That transition has not been an easy one for Warren. As an academic, Warren was described as a “die-hard conservative” who was a leading advocate for corporations. All of that had to go when she decided to seek the Democratic nomination for the Senate. Even more has to go if you seek the Democratic nomination for president (an even greater priority now as Democrats and media figures seek alternatives to President Biden).

Academics often evolve in their views of constitutional or statutory issues. However, Warren never made the transition from a corporate defender to an anti-corporate activist in her academic writings. It came largely after her entry into politics without an explanation of the reasons for adopting the new positions. The fact is that Warren had some interesting scholarship in the business law area and it would be equally interesting to understand why she has moved away from those positions.

That however was not enough. In the age of rage, one has to show that you are willing to do what others are not willing to do . . . like put a bullet in the head of the leading judicial institution in our constitutional system. If you are going to run in the Democratic primary, you need to be a “made” politician who has demonstrated that you can dispense with the niceties of the Constitution and do what makes others cringe. After all, how does the Court “benefit us”? Those other candidates may support higher taxation or spending bills but they are weaklings if they balk at packing the Supreme Court.

There is an element of release to crossing that Rubicon. You are no longer burdened by the need to justify one’s actions in light of constitutional history or values. For example, during the confirmation hearing for Justice Kavanaugh, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) demanded that Kavanaugh promise to respect stare decisis on cases like Roe, but then called for overturning cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

It is the same glaring hypocrisy of democratic leaders like Warren denouncing the conservative majority as “partisan” while demanding the packing of the court to guarantee an immediate liberal majority.

The Warren column is perfectly Orwellian in declaring that the Supreme Court now “threatens the foundations of our nation” while using that claim to destroy our highest court. It is the judicial version of the explanation in the Vietnam War that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” Warren would open up the Court to continual manipulation by shifting majorities in Congress — recreating the Court in the image of our dysfunctional Congress.

So, on December 15, 2021, Elizabeth Warren finally transitioned to being a pure politician unburdened and unrestrained. From “Tax the Rich” to “Pack the Court,” Warren is now soundbite ready and principle resistant for 2024.

Scientific American Goes Woke: A case study in how identity politics poisons science

 Here is a link to an article by Michael Shermer at substack.

A sad story - Scientific American used to be one of the best examples of objectivity. For some time now that has not been the case.

Here are some excerpts from MS's article.

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

In April of 2001 I began my monthly Skeptic column at Scientific American, the longest continuously published magazine in the country dating back to 1845. With Stephen Jay Gould as my role model (and subsequent friend), it was my dream to match his 300 consecutive columns that he achieved at Natural History magazine, which would have taken me to April, 2026. Alas, my streak ended in January of 2019 after a run of 214 essays.

Since then, I have received many queries about why my column ended and, more generally, about what has happened over at Scientific American, which historically focused primarily on science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM), but now appears to be turning to social justice issues. There is, for example, the August 12, 2021 article on how “Modern Mathematics Confronts its White Patriarchal Past,” which asserts prima facie that the reason there are so few women and blacks in academic mathematics is because of misogyny and racism. Undoubtedly there are some misogynists and racists in mathematics, as there are in all walks of life, but we know that the number and percentage of such people throughout society has been decreasing for decades (see Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature and my own The Moral Arc). As well, this may be another example of base rate neglect: before indicting academic hiring committees as hotbeds of misogyny and racism, which they most assuredly are not (academics are among the most socially liberal people in any profession), we need to know how many women and blacks are applying for such jobs compared to whites. The percentage is lower, and according to a 2019 Women in Mathematics survey “senior faculty composition both reflects the BA and PhD pipeline of prior years, and also influences the gender composition of new graduates.” If “structural” causes are the culprits—for example, if base rate comparisons do not match population percentages because of differential educational opportunities or vocational interests—such variables should also be factored into any scientific analysis of causality, especially in a popular and respected science publication. Again, there is no denying that some bias against some women in some fields exist, but that this is the only explanation on offer is unscientific.

And, unsurprisingly, reverse asymmetries never warrant explanations of reverse biases. To wit, this same study reported that “women earned 57%, 60% and 52% of all Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral degrees respectively in the U.S. in 2013-14,” but proposed no reverse biases against men to account for such imbalances. Neither did a 2019 Council of Graduate Schools study that found for the 11th year in a row women earned a majority of doctoral degrees awarded at US universities (41,943 vs. 37,365, or 52.9% vs. 47.1%). Our attention is drawn to the lower percentages of female doctorates in engineering (25.1%), mathematics and computer sciences (26.8%), physical and earth sciences (35.1%), and business (46.7%), followed by discussions of systemic bias, but no such structural issues are on offer for the lower percentages of male doctorates in public administration (26.4%), health and medical sciences (29%), education (31.6%), social and behavioral sciences (39%), arts and humanities (48.1%), and biological sciences (48.6%). When the data is presented in a bar graph rank ordered from highest to lowest percentages for females earning doctorates (below), the claim that the fields in which women earn lower percentages than men can only be explained by misogyny and bias is gainsaid by the top bars where the valance is reversed, unless we are to believe that only in those bottom fields are faculty and administrators still bigoted against women whereas those in the top fields are enlightened.

Then there is the July 5, 2021 Scientific American article that “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy.” Because we are all from Africa and thus black, the author Allison Hopper avers, evolution deniers (AKA creationists) are ipso facto white supremacists. “I want to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies,” she begins. “The fantasy of a continuous line of white descendants segregates white heritage from Black bodies. In the real world, this mythology translates into lethal effects on people who are Black.” Setting aside what, exactly, Hopper means by “lethal effects”, or that the vogue reference to “Black bodies” seems to reduce African Americans to nothing more than mindless matter, her thesis is verifiably wrong. As I and other historians of science have documented extensively (see, for example, Edward Larson’s Summer for the Gods, Eugenie Scott’s Evolution and Creationism, Ronald Numbers’ The Creationists, Robert Pennock’s Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, and my own Why Darwin Matters), the primary motivation behind creationism is religious (and secondarily political), not racist. Again, no doubt some creationists in the first half of the 20th century were also white supremacists, as were many more people throughout America then compared to today, but the chain of reasoning Hopper employs—that the Genesis story of Cain and Able suggests that “the curse or mark of Cain for killing his brother was a darkening of his descendants’ skin,” ergo the Bible endorses white supremacy—is not an argument made by mainstream creationists then or now. In any case, the hypothesis is gainsaid by the fact that polls consistently show a larger percentage of blacks than whites hold creationist beliefs. Apparently they didn’t get the white supremacist talking points. Finally, since anecdotes are often treated as data these days, let me add that I personally know a great number of creationists and I can attest that they would be horrified at the accusation. They are creationists not because they are white supremacists who wish to perpetuate “violence against Black bodies” but because they believe that God created the universe, life, humans, consciousness, and morality, and that the design inference to a designer makes the most sense to them (however wrong in their reasoning I believe them to be).

The most bizarre example of Scientific American’s woke turn toward social justice is an article published September 23, 2021 titled “Why the Term ‘JEDI’ is Problematic for Describing Programs that Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.”

Most plausible 2005-2040 emissions scenarios project less than 2.5 degrees C of warming by 2100

 Here is a link to the paper.

More evidence that the climate alarmists are just that.

Here is the abstract.

Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C. Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

An interesting article about the Webb space telescope

Here is a link to an article at quantamagazine.org about the Webb space telescope.  It is well worth reading.

Be sure to watch the video.

A Climate Scientist provides much needed perspective

 Here is a link to an interview of Judith Curry by Christopher Balkaran. JC is a climate scientist who is objective and has no agenda.

Here are some excerpts.

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

A model that simulates the warming since 1970 based on CO2 emissions does not constitute proof that CO2 has caused the warming. The latest post on my blogs cites some papers that show that solar variability can explain pretty much all of the recent warming. So you can have models that get the right answer or something close to the right answer for the wrong reasons.

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

And then if you go to energy security, I mean, what is the point of all this? If we destroy the energy security of the planet, by having electricity that’s intermittent, unreliable and too expensive, that’s not helpful to anyone. We’re headed towards a real reckoning here, you can’t run industrial economies on wind and solar. People are starting to realize this.

Within the last few months alot of people and some governments are suddenly saying nuclear is the answer. Well, yeah, it sort of is, but why are you just realizing this now? The realities of wind power are being realized. In the North Sea, they have all these offshore wind turbines. In 2020 these produced 25% of England’s power, which is fabulous. But in the first 10 months of 2021, they produced 7% of the power. So England and the rest of Europe is scrambling, having to pay too much money for natural gas and then with all the political problems with the natural gas supply from Russia. So, being able to produce your energy from within your country has a lot of appeal.

The one advantage of solar and wind as it gave some local autonomy to the countries, but wind and solar are not enough to run an industrial economy. And nuclear power gives you the best of both worlds. And also if the countries were to frack for natural gas, that’s another energy source that could be more local. The most important issue is energy security, so that its abundant and reliable, and you’re not held hostage to other countries or crazy price spikes.

I have no problem with going to cleaner energy sources. Everybody would prefer clean over dirty energy. But energy security has to be first and foremost, we have to have reliable, affordable energy. Otherwise, none of this makes sense.

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

Oh, but the science is ‘settled’ everyone knows that. They’ve been so brainwashed about global warming that there’s only one thing that’s going to change it. if I’m right about natural variability having sort of a cooling effect in the coming decades, this will be the one piece of evidence that people will have to pay attention to. If that transpires, I would say that would be the single most effective thing at bringing this dialogue back to some level of rationality, but how much confidence do I have in that prediction? How much money am I going to bet on that? I don’t know, but it’s a very plausible scenario that natural variability will lead to cooling in the coming decades, or at least slow down the warming. So we’ll see if that transpires. If it does, that would be the single most effective thing at bringing the dialogue back to normal in some sensible way, so people look at this problem more broadly. On the current path, we are not managing this risk in a sensible way that would leave our countries stronger and less vulnerable to whatever my transpire in the future.

Inflation and the government’s role in creating it

 John Cochrane explains why we are experiencing inflation.

If it weren't so serious it would be funny - politicians have created the inflation and propose to fix it by doing things that will exacerbate it.

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

Black Friday begins tonight, and Americans, after emerging from our collective turkey coma, will dive into our sacred, national ritual: shopping.

Those who haven’t shopped lately are in for a rude awakening: Many items will be out of stock, delayed or cost a lot more than they used to. Welcome to inflation, back from the 1970s!

As you look for a deal on a Peloton to work off your pandemic paunch, here is a brief explanation about what’s going on with our economy, why so many things are becoming more expensive, why this hurts all of us, and why the government can’t spend its way out of this mess.

Why are prices rising?

The news is full of “supply chain” problems. Shipping containers can’t get through our ports. Car-makers can’t get chips to make cars. Railroads look like the 405 at rush hour.

What’s underlying many of these problems is the fact that businesses can’t find enough workers. There aren’t enough truck drivers, airline pilots, construction workers and warehouse workers in the “supply chain.” Restaurants can’t find waiters and cooks. There are 10 million job openings and only seven million people looking for work. About three million people who were working in March 2020 are no longer working or looking for work.

But supply chains wouldn’t be clogged if people weren’t trying to buy a lot. The fundamental issue is that demand is outstripping supply.

Strawberry prices go up in the fall because the supply is lower; apples are cheap, because they are abundant. Prices of one good relative to another change, and induce us to shop effectively.

That’s normal.

Inflation is different. Inflation describes all prices and wages going up at the same time, straining supply throughout the economy. That’s the situation right now. Even the Dollar Tree stores just became the buck and a quarter stores, raising all prices 25%.

What’s driving current inflation?

Widespread inflation always comes from people wanting to buy more of everything than the economy can supply. Where did all that demand come from? In its response to the pandemic, the U.S. government created about 2.5 trillion new dollars, and sent checks to people and businesses. It borrowed another $2.5 trillion, and sent more checks to people and businesses. Relative to a $22 trillion economy, and $17 trillion of existing (2020) federal debt, that’s a lot of money.

People are now spending this money, the economy can’t keep up, and prices are rising. Milton Friedman once joked that the government could easily create inflation by dropping money from helicopters. That’s pretty much what our government did.

(I do not here argue the wisdom of this policy. The government helped a lot of people and businesses to get through the lockdowns. One can quibble that money could have been distributed more thoughtfully, but we’re here to think about inflation, not Covid policy.)

What’s wrong with inflation?

Prices and wages all rising at the same rate doesn’t sound so bad. But it’s never that simple. Inflation is chaotic! Some prices go up faster than others. You can’t get things you need. Neither can businesses. And wages tend to lag behind prices, so workers lose in real terms, as do those on fixed incomes.

What was the Fed’s role in all of this?

The Federal Reserve failed at its most basic job: to figure out how much the economy can produce, and to bring demand up to, but not beyond, that supply. To that end, the Fed controls interest rates. If people get a higher interest rate on money in the bank, they will leave it there rather than spend it. But the Fed failed to see inflation coming, and kept interest rates at zero, where they remain. The Fed says it is keeping interest rates low to improve “labor market conditions,” despite the widespread worker shortages and the eruption of inflation.

Will inflation continue?

It’s hard to say. If the Federal Reserve’s immense staff of economists can be caught off guard, so can you and I.

That said, there is some momentum to inflation, so further price increases are likely. Higher property prices will feed into higher rents; rising input costs and wages will lead to higher prices; trillions of those extra savings are still waiting to be spent.

Where inflation goes after that depends on how much more our government continues to print or borrow to send people checks and expand social programs. This doesn’t seem likely to end soon. And if people believe that monetary policy will never return to controlling inflation, and taxes and spending will never come into line so the government can start to repay mounting debts, inflation spirals out of control.

The good news is that long-term interest rates—the kind you pay to borrow for a mortgage or car—have not yet risen, as they tend to do when bond markets expect inflation. Bond markets think inflation will quickly subside. It’s still very cheap to borrow, a bright light for consumers. And low rates make it easier for the government to slow inflation.

Okay, so what can Washington do about it?

Simple: It has to stop printing and borrowing money. And it has to reassure people who hold our debt that there really is a plan for paying it off. And the Fed has to return to the unglamorous job of curbing inflation, rather than endless “stimulus” and “accommodation.”

To ease supply constraints, our government has to remove the sand in the gears. The ports are clogged because of countless regulations—like zoning laws that forbid stacking empty containers. Multiply anecdotes like this by tens of thousands throughout the economy and you’ll begin to get a picture of where we are. We need a long-overdue Marie-Kondoing of public affairs.

If inflation is as simple as you say it is, why are politicians singing another tune?

Politicians hate inflation because it means they can’t keep spreading money around. Supply constraints reverse political rhetoric. When a politician says a new program will “create millions of jobs,” those jobs are now a cost, not a benefit, because there aren’t any available workers.

So they offer a string of excuses, just as they did in the 1970s—including lots of talk about “supply shocks” and “bottlenecks” and “transitory” inflation —while hoping it all goes away.

The Biden administration, having just cancelled the Keystone pipeline, is now begging the Saudis and Russians to turn on the pumps, just as Richard Nixon pleaded with OPEC. The White House is accusing oil companies of colluding to raise prices. They will likely pressure other companies to limit price increases, as presidents from Kennedy to Ford did. This shouldn’t come as a surprise: Every past inflation has sparked a witch hunt for “speculators,” “hoarders,” “middlemen,” “price-gougers,” and other phantasms. Let’s hope the government doesn’t try price controls, as Nixon did, precipitating gas lines and shortages of everything.

Meanwhile, the administration is re-messaging its spending plans as inflation-fighters. It won’t work. Consider the childcare plan, to take just one example, which they say will lower costs. The government will subsidize childcare while mandating higher wages for staff, more licensing requirements and inspections. Childcare costs will inevitably rise for the country as a whole. One can believe that it’s a good policy, and that it’s worth the cost, but it will make costs higher, not lower.

Politicians don’t want to face the hard reality that inflation brings, but inflation has a way of forcing change, as it did in 1980.

So, should I try to buy things on Black Friday and Cyber Monday?

Only if you really need them. Prices are the neurons that transmit information in the economy. High prices tell you to wait and to let someone who values that Peloton more than you do have it. Most Americans should take this golden opportunity to build up some savings, look for a job or a better job, and enjoy those leftovers.

Losing confidence in the pillars of our civilization

 Victor Davis Hanson at the Jewish World Review

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

Millions of citizens long ago concluded that professional sports, academia, and entertainment were no longer disinterested institutions, but far Left and deliberately hostile to Middle America.

Yet American conservatives still adamantly supported the nation's traditional investigatory, intelligence, and military agencies – especially when they came under budgetary or cultural attacks.

Not so much anymore.

For the first time in memory, conservatives now connect the FBI hierarchy with bureaucratic bloat, political bias, and even illegality.

In the last five years, the FBI was mostly in the news for the checkered careers of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok. Add in the criminality of convicted FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.

The colossal FBI-driven "Russian collusion" hoax was marked by the leaking of confidential FBI memos, forged documents, improper surveillance, and serial disinformation.

Prior heads of the CIA and FBI, as well as the director of national intelligence, have at times either not told the truth under oath or claimed amnesia, without legal repercussions.

Mention the military to conservative Americans these days, and they unfortunately associate its leadership with the disastrous flight from Afghanistan. Few, if any, high-ranking officers have yet taken responsibility – much less resigned – for the worst military fiasco of the last half-century.

Instead, President Joe Biden and the top generals traded charges that the other was responsible for the calamity. Or both insisted the abject flight was a logistical masterpiece.

Never in U.S. history have so many retired four-star admirals and generals disparaged their president with charges of being either a traitor, a liar, a fascist, or a virtual Nazi, as occurred during the last administration.

Never has the proper advisory role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff been so brazenly usurped and contorted.

Never has the secretary of defense promised he would ferret out alleged "white supremacists," without providing any evidence whatsoever of their supposedly ubiquitous presence and dangerous conspiracies.

Conservatives have always been amused by the liberal biases of the old network news and big-city print media. But they grudgingly admitted that many liberal journalists of the last century were mostly professionals. News divisions mostly reported the news rather than simply made it up.

Not so now with Big Tech and 21stt-century "woke" journalism. Few reporters have yet offered apologies for helping hatch and spread the Russian collusion hoax that paralyzed the country for three years.

Few have admitted culpability for reporting as fact the various fantasies surrounding the Duke Lacrosse team's prosecution or the Covington Catholic kids deception.

Many in the media ran uncritically with the Jussie Smollett concoction and the "hands-up-don't shoot" Ferguson distortions. Journalists promulgated misinformation about the "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin encounter, and doctored photos and edited tapes.

They invented the myth of the supposedly brilliant – but now utterly disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo – as well as the "Russian disinformation" yarn that allegedly accounted for the missing Hunter Biden laptop.

Most recently, reporters spread serial untruths surrounding the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

For much of 2020 to even suggest that the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have played a role in the birth and spread of the COVID-19 earned media derision.

Few reporters suggested that federal health agencies such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases might be disseminating contradictory or even inaccurate information about the pandemic. To believe this was happening instead earned condemnation in the media as if one were some conspiracy theorist or nut.

Rarely have communication industries – veritable utilities in the public domain – so asymmetrically censored speech and applied such one-sided standards of suppressing free expression.

Conservatives used to oppose regulating larger corporations. Now, ironically, most are calling for regulating and breaking up multibillion-dollar social media monopolies and conglomerates that suppress as much as transmit private communications.

The American criminal justice system also used to earn the respect of conservatives. Prosecuting attorneys, police chiefs, and big-city mayors were seen as custodians of the public order. They were entrusted to keep the peace, to prevent and investigate crime, and to arrest and prosecute criminals.

Again, not so much now.

After 120 days of mostly unchecked riot, arson, looting, and violent protests during the summer of 2020, the public lost confidence in their public safety agencies.

District attorneys in several major cities – Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and St. Louis – have often predicated prosecuting crimes on the basis of ideology, race, and careerism.

In the current crime wave, brazen lawbreakers enjoy de facto immunity. Mass looting goes unpunished. Indictments are often aimed as much against those who defend themselves as against criminals who attack the innocent.

Conservatives now have lost their former traditional confidence in the administration of justice, in the intelligence and investigatory agencies, in the nation's military leadership, in the media, and the criminal justice system.

No one yet knows what the effect will be of half the country losing faith in the very pillars of American civilization.

A comment on racism

 Someone sent this to me.  I'll vote for this guy whatever he runs for.

Here is the video.

Freedom of speech? – surely you jest

 Jonathan Turley describes another case of Government de facto denying free speech.

Respect for the Constitution has been declining for many years.  Now, it is in shreds and a substantial proportion of the population does not appreciate the consequences for them.

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

Now That Rittenhouse is Acquitted, Can Officer Kelly Have His Job Back?

The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse produced a number of immediate changes beyond the custodial status of the 18-year-old himself. GoFundMe lifted its ban on people contributing to his defense . . . after his defense was over and the verdict was in. Some media outlets finally reported on evidence that supported his self-defense claims and one critic called for “revisiting” the clearly biased reporting in the case. However, there is one person whose status has not changed: Norfolk Police Officer William Kelly who was fired for simply donating to the Rittenhouse defense fund and writing a supportive note as a private citizen. He made the comment and donation anonymously. The only thing more shocking than Kelly’s loss of his job is that Norfolk City Manager Chip Filer and Police Chief Larry Boone have retained theirs.

I criticized the firing of Kelly last April as a blatant attack on free speech. The termination occurred after Kelly made a $25 donation to the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse. He made the donation anonymously and added the comment “God Bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank-and-file police officer supports you.”

Early in the Rittenhouse case, activists sought to cut off Rittenhouse’s ability to raise money for his defense by harassing donors and (successfully) pressuring companies like GoFundMe to block contributions. A criminal defense in any case (let alone a high-profile case with ramped up prosecution teams) is hugely expensive. That financial threat can prompt some to plead guilty. That is why people want to help fund such defenses to guarantee true access to a fair trial. Activists and GoFundMe did everything they could to block such efforts and increase the pressure on this teenager to just plead guilty.

Back to Kelly. This is an officer who had served for almost 20 years when he decided to contribute to the defense. As a police officer, Kelly likely saw the defense grounds more clearly than most people. The jury ultimately agreed with his view that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Nevertheless, activists learned his identity and demanded his termination. Filer rushed to satisfy the mob. He fired Kelly with the support of Boone and declared “his egregious comments erode the trust between the Norfolk Police Department and those they are sworn to serve.”

The “egregious comments” were to say anonymously that there are officers who support Rittenhouse and believe in his defense. Kelly has pointed out that Boone was allowed in uniform to march with Black Lives Matter protesters. Yet, he was fired for anonymously making the supportive donation and statement to a legal defense fund.

Various public officials, including Vice President Kamala Harris, have contributed to the The Minnesota Freedom Fund, which “pays criminal bail and immigration bonds for those who cannot otherwise afford to as we seek to end discriminatory, coercive, and oppressive jailing.” They have the right to support such legal defense funds, which serve to assure that litigants have the means to defend themselves. So does Kelly.

When Kelly was fired, many on the left celebrated despite the fact that he was being denied his right to free speech and free association. It is a pattern that I have written about in the past as public employees are fired for statements on social media or associations in their private lives. This includes a New Jersey police officer fired for calling BLM protesters “terrorists” on her personal Facebook account. Most recently, a court reinstated Loudon teacher Byron “Tanner” Cross, who was fired for speaking publicly against gender identification policies.

As it stands, Kelly was fired for supporting (again anonymously) a teenager who was ultimately acquitted of all charges by a jury. He was fired for contributing to a legal fund that would guarantee that the accused would be allowed to put on a full defense. That is in the interest of justice.

Yet, Filer and Boone remain employed despite using their official positions to retaliate for the use of free speech. Kelly and his family continue to appeal his firing as they struggle to survive on the teacher’s salary of his wife. The dictator Idi Amin once proclaimed “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.” That seems the standard applied in Norfolk where even anonymous support for a legal defense is grounds for termination.

Another Biden scandal most of the media is ignoring

 Jonathan Turley gets it right on the Bidens.

Fair elections are not possible if important relevant news is buried and denied by the major media and Big Tech.

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

What Elephant? The Media Again Buries A Hunter Biden Scandal on Foreign Deals During the Biden Vice Presidency.

I previously wrote a column on the one year anniversary of the Hunter Biden laptop story that marveled at the success of the Biden family in making the scandal vanish before that 2020 election. It was analogized to Houdini making his 10,000-pound elephant Jennie disappear in his act. The Biden trick however occurred live before an audience of millions. Now, in an encore, a new major story on Biden’s Chinese dealings has surfaced. Once again, poof!

The media has made the story disappear except for a couple of the usual outlets. Even with the New York Times reporting on the story, the disclosure of Biden’s role in securing one of the world’s largest cobalt mines for China (a key component to electric battery production) has been ignored by the major networks and many other print outlets. Once again, ABC. NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and other media just cannot see the elephant.

What is most amazing about this continuing trick is that the story has all of the elements that the media longed to confirm during the Trump Administration on the financial dealings of the Trump children. The son of the President was involved in a successful effort to handover a strategically vital natural resource to the Chinese that would guarantee their dominance in one of the most important new industries of the “Green economy.” This occurred during a period when Hunter Biden and his uncle were accused of running a global influence peddling operation with foreign powers that cashed in on the Vice Presidency of Joe Biden. Then there is the fact that the story appears to contradict denials of continuing ownership in such foreign interests by the Bidens.

Finally, there is the fact that this windfall from the Chinese occurred in a field that Hunter Biden knew nothing about (much like his work on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma) and he was, by his own description, a hopeless addict. In his recent book, Hunter admits that he was a crack addict and alcoholic all the way up to the start of his father’s presidential campaign — in his words, “Drinking a quart of vodka a day by yourself in a room is absolutely, completely debilitating,” as well as “smoking crack around the clock.”

This elephant is truly difficult to unsee.

Hunter Biden established the firm Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) Equity Investment Fund Management Company with a few American and Chinese partners in 2013. He and his American associates controlled 30 percent of the Shanghai-based operation and served on the board. They then put together the purchase of the Congo cobalt and copper mine transfer from American company Freeport-McMoRan to China Molybdenum for the sum of $2.65 billion.

The Tenke Fungurume mine was considered a human rights nightmare. The Congolese military reportedly reduced workers to virtual slaves, torched homes, and killed dissenters. Amnesty International spokeswoman Sarah Jackson denounced “the long history of excessive use of force … unlawful killings.”

However, there was money to be made and Hunter Biden was there to lend the Biden name to the enterprise. BHR served as a minority stakeholder to buy out around $1.14 billion of shares from Lundin Mining of Canada, a partial owner of the mine. China Molybdenum then bought BHR’s shares two years later to give it 80% of ownership of the mine and control of the vital natural resources.

Biden controlled 10 percent of BHR through Skaneateles LLC but his lawyer reportedly insisted that, as of April 2020, he no longer had such interests in this foreign company. That may be untrue, according to the media reports. Chinese business records reviewed by Fox News in April 2021 allegedly show that Hunter Biden continued to hold a 10% stake.

If true, it means that through the election, Hunter Biden was still receiving money from a variety of companies with close ties to the Chinese, Russian, and Ukrainian governments. In this case, his alleged influence peddling was used to deliver a huge strategic advantage to the Chinese in the very area of electric cars that his father was making an American investment priority.

Of course, this is simply not the type of scoop that has drawn most of the media coverage.

None of these facts, however, can force the media to see the elephant. The key to the trick was involving the media in the original trick is that it invests reporters in the illusion. It is like calling audience members to the stage to assist in the performance. Reporters have to insist that there was nothing to see or they have to admit to being part of the original deception. The media cannot see the elephant without the public seeing something about the media in its past efforts to conceal it.

When is 50 million a drop in the bucket?

Biden and his associates are making a big deal about releasing 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gasoline prices.  This is less than 1% of the nation's annual consumption, according to eia.gov - so it will not lower them materially.

A reasonable conclusion is that the Administration is stupid or lying or thinks you are stupid.

Is Yale Law School going down the drain, too?

 Jonathan Turley describes some events at Yale Law School.

This kind of behavior is not limited to just a few schools.  It does not bode well for our society.

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

We have often discussed how dissenting faculty and students are increasingly subjected to retaliation for the exercise of free speech or free association on campuses. In many cases, such treatment involves shunning or blackballing by school administrators to prevent professors or students from participating in programs. That is the complaint by two law students (identified only John Doe and Jane Doe) who allege that they were blackballed for supporting Professor Amy Chua, who was previously discussed as embroiled in a controversy at the school after she defended Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The students make some shocking allegations against the Yale Dean and other administration officials.

In addition to Yale Law School, the students are suing Yale Law School’s Dean Heather Gerken and its Associate Dean Ellen Cosgrove, and the Director of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion Yaseen Eldik.

The use of the anonymous filing is interesting since the students claim that they were retaliated against by the law school, including being identified in a mysterious “dossier” circulated around the school. The anonymity would appear to protect them from the retaliation of lawyers and firms for bringing allegations against the school. John Doe is described as African American and Jane Doe is described as Asian American. They are seeking damages of not less than $150,000.

The complaint states that, because Yale does not use traditional grading (in favor of Honors, Pass, and Low Pass marks), there is intense competition for students to find other ways to distinguish themselves in the absence of a GPA: “While this system protects what would otherwise be the bottom half of a law school class, it makes competition tight for its more traditionally ambitious students, who often seek competitive federal clerkships or other government jobs, whose limited availability and competitive nature are considered highly prestigious and desirable.” One of the most sought after positions are “Coker Fellows” who work as teaching assistants.

The students say that Gerken was publicly critical of Chua for her defense of Kavanaugh and claim that she led an effort to gather derogatory information on Chua from students, faculty, and staff. Students were allegedly instructed to send such information to Cosgrove.

The two students met with Chua to discuss what they viewed as intolerance or unequal treatment for students of color. John Doe had resigned recently from Yale Law Journal over such complaints. The students met with Chua at her house and then allegedly got rather bizarre:

“Unbeknownst to Jane or John at the time, these two meetings somehow
became subject of pernicious law school gossip. One of their classmates went so far as to compile a bizarre 20-page document, the Dossier (Ex. A), that purported to document the “secret dinner parties” that Chua was supposedly hosting with John, Jane, and unidentified federal judges.”

What follows are extremely serious and shocking allegations:

49. Jane and John became aware of the Dossier in late April 2021, when it had begun to circulate among the Yale Law School student body.

50. Shortly thereafter, beginning on April 23, 2021, Cosgrove and Eldik contacted Jane and John concerning the Dossier. However, they were not investigating the fact that a Yale Law School student was circulating such a document for an apparent harassing purpose, or even investigating the allegations made in the Dossier.

51. Instead, Cosgrove and Eldik pressured Jane and John to make a formal statement confirming the allegations against, and lodge their own formal complaint, against Chua.

52. Despite Jane and John repeatedly denying the Dossier’s assertions, Cosgrove and Eldik pressured Jane and John to make such a statement, even calling them on a daily basis over the course of a week in April 2021, insisting that Jane and John had a “moral obligation” to “future generations of students” to make the false statements against Chua.

53. Cosgrove and Eldik also made references to Jane of the “effort against Professor Chua” and insisted that if Jane would “just give them” a statement, they would have “enough” against Chua.

54. During the course of this week, Jane and John consistently refused to make false statements, and instead repeatedly asked Cosgrove and Eldik for assistance against the troubling invasion of privacy and resulting harassment that they suffered.

55. Cosgrove and Eldik ignored these requests to help and discouraged Jane and John from filing a formal complaint concerning the harm the Dossier and its creator had caused Jane and John.

56. Instead, Cosgrove and Eldik ratcheted up the pressure. On a joint call including Cosgrove, Eldik, and Jane, Eldik told Jane that the Dossier would likely end up in “every judges’ chambers,” “following [her] even after [she] graduates,” effectively sabotaging any hopes of her securing a clerkship whether she applied now or in the future.

57. In a joint call including Cosgrove, Eldik, and John, Eldik and Cosgrove strongly suggested that John should not apply for a clerkship in the summer of 2021 because of the Dossier’s wide publicity.

58. It was suggested that, for these reasons, Jane and John should cooperate by making a statement against Professor Chua.

59. Cosgrove also directly threatened Jane, claiming that Yale Law School was receiving complaints about her potentially serving as a Coker Fellow due to the Dossier, and further suggested that such complaints would be moot if Jane made a statement against Chua.

60. That threat having no effect, Cosgrove became more direct, telling Jane that if Jane accepted a Coker Fellowship with the professor—despite Jane’s repeated denials that she had received an illicit offer from the professor—Cosgrove or another member of the Yale Law School administration would approach the professor with the allegations.

What follows is much of the same as the students detail allegedly direct action to block them from opportunities like the Coker Fellowships. What is most notable is that some of these allegations involve third parties, including a professor who was allegedly encouraged to reject the two Does for the fellowships. That means that this professor is likely to be called as a witness in depositions and any trial if the case survives a motion to dismiss. However, in ruling on such a motion, the court must assume all facts in favor of the students.

They allege a mix of contractual and tort claims: Cause of Action 1 (Breach of Contract), Cause of Action 2 (Promissory Estoppel), Cause of Action 3 (Intentional Interference With Prospective Business Relationships), Cause of Action 4 (Defamation), Cause of Action 5 (Unreasonable Publicity), Cause of Action 6 (False Light), and Cause of Action 7 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress).

How Media Misinformation Can Fuel Social Unrest

 Jonathan Turley gets it right again.

A simple test of someone's credibility is whether they still believes Rittenhouse should have been convicted.  Why?  Because the videos and testimony made the truth of lawful self-defense clear.

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

Below is my column in USA Today on the Rittenhouse trial and the role of media coverage in fueling anger in such cases by misrepresenting or ignoring key evidence. After the verdict, a riot was declared in Portland and protests erupted around the country. Fortunately, there was not the type of arson and destruction seen in Kenosha last year. While the media often denounces “misinformation” or “disinformation” (and even supports censorship in some cases), it rarely acknowledges its own distortions from the Russian collusion scandal to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy to the Lafayette Park incident. Indeed, after the verdict, many of these same figures doubled down in denouncing the decision without acknowledging the evidence supporting the reasonable doubt of these jurors.

Here is the column:

The full acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse is now in. The result was hardly a surprise to many of us who watched the trial rather than the media coverage. The jury spent days carefully considering the evidence and could not find a single count that was supported beyond a reasonable doubt.

In rendering its verdict, the jury fulfilled its core function in our legal system. The jury was designed to protect an individual from becoming the grist of a criminal justice system. As the Supreme Court noted in Duncan v. Louisiana (1968):

“Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.”

The American jury is designed to stand between the mob and a defendant; between the government and the accused. The thin line of a dozen citizens can prove the most unassailable wall for justice in our system.

The media’s guilty verdict

There was, however, a second verdict in that courtroom for those who have been maintaining a distorted or incomplete account to this trial. From the outset, politicians and media figures insisted that this was a case of murders committed by a white supremacist. Then-presidential candidate Joe Biden labeled Rittenhouse a “white supremacist” in a tweet showing his photo and demanded to know why then-President Donald Trump did not “disavow white supremacists.” Much of the media followed suit with an echo chamber of coverage that led some people to believe that these were essentially executions on the streets of Kenosha. Columnist Elie Mystal called the trial a sham.

The pressure clearly had an impact on the prosecution, which overcharged Rittenhouse (including with a count that was invalid). The case began to fall apart as the prosecution called its witnesses, who contradicted the core elements of these charges.

What happened next was even more chilling. Faced with a collapsing case in court, many of the same media outlets struck out at the judge, the jury, and the legal system. MSNBC host Tiffany Cross advocated for the judge’s removal. Rittenhouse was mocked for his “male, white tears” on national television. Georgetown law professor Paul Butler called the trial “white privilege on steroids.”

The danger of such reckless legal analysis is now evident. Judging from the coverage, one could have easily concluded that a conviction in this case was inescapable. Many reports prioritized still pictures of Rittenhouse walking menacingly with his rifle and omitted many of the countervailing facts that occupied much of the trial. Many viewers may not have learned that Rittenhouse spent his time cleaning graffiti off the high school.

The prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse provoked his first victim, 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum. Videotapes show the opposite, that Rosenbaum clearly pursued Rittenhouse. Casual trial observers would be unaware that Rosenbaum was a convicted sex offender who witnesses described as threatening to kill Rittenhouse.

A racist trial in a racist justice system?

Most people seem to disagree with the decision of Rittenhouse and others to show up at the protests armed. However, many also perceived the alleged victims as rioters who were engaged in violent acts, including attacks on Rittenhouse.

In our siloed society, people rely on news sources that tend to confirm their bias and presuppositions in such trials.

The problem is that such coverage is self-fulfilling.

By misrepresenting and not reporting key facts, media increased the likelihood that the acquittal will be read as confirmation of a racist trial in a racist justice system. That fuels the type of rioting that we saw in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake in a scuffling with police. Ironically, that case was also widely misrepresented in much of the media.

The Blake case was the subject of both state and federal investigations that rejected charges against the officer. Yet, the inaccurate coverage of that case continued to enrage viewers who were not fully informed of the facts leading up to the use of force. The various investigations found that the officers were required to arrest Blake on charges of third-degree sexual assault, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. Two different officers used a taser on Blake, which failed. Investigations also found that Blake was armed and resisting arrest.

The growing disconnect between actual crimes and their coverage is unlikely to change in our age of rage. Rittenhouse had to be convicted to fulfill the narrative and any acquittal had to be evidence of a racist jury picked to carryout racist justice.

That is what occurred in the Rittenhouse trial. The jury stood between a mob and a defendant to see that objective justice was done. On that chaotic night on Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha, few things were clear. What is clear however is that the shooting – and those killed and accused – became vehicles for broader narratives. Those popular portrayals crashed in Kenosha on a wall of 12 jurors who ruled by proof rather than passion.

Unsettled science – more on the fall of science in favor of agenda

 Here is Judith Curry on her blog.

JC is one of the climate scientists who you can trust.

More likely than not anyone who has a propensity to accuse those who disagree with them about anthropomorphic climate change of being a climate denier either is misinformed, doesn't appreciate what they don't know, or worse.

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

“The field of Sun-climate relations . . . in recent years has been corrupted by unwelcome political and financial influence as climate change sceptics have seized upon putative solar effects as an excuse for inaction on anthropogenic warming” – Lockwood (2012)

“We argue that the Sun/climate debate is one of these issues where the IPCC’s “consensus” statements were prematurely achieved through the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions.” – Connolly et al. (2021)

The impact of solar variations on the climate is uncertain and subject to substantial debate. However, you would not infer from the IPCC assessment reports that there is debate or substantial uncertainty surrounding this issue.

The Sun goes through cycles of approximately 11 years (the Schwabe Cycle) in which solar activity goes up and down. Above the Earth’s atmosphere, the difference in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, measured in Watts per square meter W/m2) between the 11-year maxima and minima is small, on the order of 0.1% of the total TSI, or about 1 W/m2. A multidecadal increase in TSI should cause global warming (all else being equal); similarly, a multidecadal decrease in TSI should cause global cooling. Researchers have speculated that multi-decadal and longer changes in solar activity could be a major driver of climate change.

Exactly how TSI has changed over time has been a challenging problem to resolve. Since 1978, we have had direct measurements of TSI from satellite. However, interpreting any multi-decadal trends in TSI requires comparisons of observations from overlapping satellites. Substantial uncertainty exists in the TSI composites during the period from 1978 to 1992. This is mostly due to the fact that the ACRIM2 solar satellite mission was delayed because of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986 (ACRIM2 was eventually launched in late 1991). This delay prevented this record from overlapping with the ACRIM1 record that ended in July 1989. The ACRIM-gap prevents a direct cross-calibration between the two high-quality ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 TSI records. [link]

This rather arcane issue of cross-calibration of two satellite records has profound implications. There are a number of rival composite TSI datasets, disagreeing as to whether TSI increased or decreased during the period 1986-1996. Further, the satellite record of TSI is used for calibrating proxy models, so that past solar variations can be inferred from sunspots and cosmogenic isotope measurements. Velasco Herrera et al. 2015 As a result, some of the datasets for past values of TSI (since 1750) have low variability, implying very low impact of solar variations on global mean surface temperature, whereas datasets with high TSI variability can explain 50-98% of the temperature variability since preindustrial times.

The IPCC AR5 adopted the low variability solar reconstructions, without discussing this controversy. The AR5 concluded that the best estimate of radiative forcing due to TSI changes for the period 1750–2011 was 0.05 W/m2 (medium confidence). For reference, the forcing from atmospheric greenhouse gases over the same period was 2.29 W/m2. Thus, the IPCC AR5 message was that changes in solar activity are nearly negligible compared to anthropogenic ones for forcing climate change.

The IPCC AR6 acknowledges a much larger range of estimates of changes in TSI over the last several centuries, stating that the TSI between the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and second half of the 20th century increased by 0.7– 2.7 W/m2, a range that includes both low and high variability TSI data sets. However, the recommended forcing dataset for the CMIP6 climate model simulations used in the AR6 averages two low variability data sets (Matthes et al. 2017).

The uncertainties and debate surrounding solar variations and their impact on climate was the topic of a ClimateDialogue, a remarkable blogospheric experiment . ClimateDialogue was the result of a request by the Dutch parliament to facilitate the scientific discussions between climate experts representing the full range of views on the subject. The Dialogue on solar variations (2014) included five distinguished scientists with extensive publication records on the topic. One participant was in line with the IPCC AR5, thinking that solar variations are only a minor player in the Earth’s climate. Two participants argued for a larger and even dominant role for the Sun, and the other two emphasized uncertainties in our current understanding.

More recently, a review article was published in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics by Connolly et al. (2021). The article has 23 co-authors with a range of perspectives, but who were united by their agreement not to take the consensus approach of the IPCC. Rather, the paper emphasized where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as identifying where there is scientific agreement. The authors found that the Sun/climate debate is an issue where the IPCC’s consensus statements were prematurely achieved through the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions.

Of direct relevance to projections of 21st century climate is whether we might expect a substantial change in solar activity. On multidecadal timescales, proxy reconstructions of solar activity reveal occasional phases of unusually high or low solar activity, which are respectively called Grand Solar Minima and Maxima (Usoskin et al., 2014). Grand solar maxima occur when several solar cycles exhibit greater than average activity for decades or centuries.

Solar activity reached unusually high levels in the second half of the twentieth century, although there is disagreement among reconstructions as to whether this maximum peaked in the 1950’s or continued into the 1990’s. It has been estimated that about 20 grand maxima have occurred over the last 11 millennia (Usoskin et al. 2007), averaging one per 500 years. During the last 11 millennia, there have been 11 grand solar minima, with intervals between them ranging from a hundred years to a few thousand years. The most recent grand minimum was the Maunder Minimum, during 1645-1715. [link]

There are several reasons to expect lower solar activity during the 21st century, relative to the 20th century. The recently completed solar cycle 24 was the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24. Further, a grand maximum is more likely to be followed by a grand minimum than by another grand maximum (Inceoglu et al., 2016). Empirically-based projections imply a new solar minimum starting in 2002–2004 and ending in 2063–2075 (Velasco Herrera et al. 2015) It has been estimated that there is an 8% chance of the Sun falling into a Grand Minimum during the next 40 years (Barnard et al. 2011). However, the depth and length of a phase of low solar activity in the 21st century is largely uncertain.

If the Sun did fall into a minimum during mid 21st century of the magnitude of the Maunder Minimum, how much cooling could we expect? Estimates from climate models and other analytical models expect the cooling to be small, ranging from 0.09 to 0.3oC (Fuelner 2010). These models assume that solar-climate interaction is limited to TSI forcing alone.

However, there is growing evidence that other aspects of solar variability amplify the TSI forcing or are independent of TSI forcing, which are referred to as solar indirect effects. Candidate processes include: solar ultraviolet changes; energetic particle precipitation; atmospheric-electric-field effect on cloud cover; cloud changes produced by solar-modulated galactic cosmic rays; large relative changes in the magnetic field; and the strength of the solar win. Solar indirect effects can be classified as ‘known unknowns.’ While these indirect effects are not included in the CMIP6 21st century projections, we can make some inferences based upon recent publications. Recent research suggest that solar indirect effects could amplify an anomaly in solar insolation by a factor of up to 3-7. Shaviv (2008), Scafetta (2013) Svensmark (2019). If such an amplification factor is included, then a surface temperature decrease of up to 1oC (or even more) from a Maunder Minimum could occur.

So, what are plausible scenarios for solar-driven global temperature changes in the 21st century? These three scenarios pretty much cover the plausible range:

• CMIP6 Reference scenario: approximately -0.1oC (Matthes et.al 2017)

• Intermediate: -0.3oC, corresponds to high Maunder minimum estimate without amplification effects (Fuelner 2010), or a weaker minimum with amplification effects

• High: -0.6oC, a low solar scenario (which is not a Maunder Minimum) with amplification by solar indirect effects Solheim

The next 20 to 30 years of observations should reveal a lot about the role of the Sun in climate.

JC reflections

The IPCC acknowledges substantial uncertainty in changes of TSI over the last centuries, stating that the TSI between the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and second half of the 20th century increased by 0.7– 2.7 W/m2, a range that includes both low and high variability TSI data sets. However, the recommended forcing dataset for the CMIP6 climate model simulations used in the AR6 averages two low variability data sets (Matthes et al. 2017).

The implications of such large uncertainty in TSI on equilibrium climate sensitivity and attribution of 20th century warming are ignored by the IPCC. If the high variability data sets are correct, this has substantial implications for estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2, and attribution of 20th century warming. This issue can’t continue to be swept under the rug. Other authors are not ignoring this. Here are three recent publications for discussion:

Scafetta: Testing the CMIP6GCM simulations versus surface temperature records from 1980-1990 to 2010-2020 [link]

Connolly et al: How much has the sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate [link]

Girma Orssengo: Determination of the sun-climate relationship using empirical mathematical models for climate data sets. [link]