Here is the link.
Really blow your mind this time.
Wednesday, April 26, 2023
Richard Feynman: The Character of Physical Law – Part 4
Here is the link.
Some amusing and mind-blowing points.
Monday, April 24, 2023
The depths of deceit
Here is Jonathan Turley - on target again.
What do you think the probability is that Trump would have won the election without the deceit JT discusses? If you think that it is greater than 50%, would you have preferred no deceit and a Trump win or as it was?
What do you conclude from your answers to the above two questions?
---------------------------------
Antony Blinken and the ‘Made Men’ of the Biden AdministrationBelow is my column in The Hill on the recent disclosure that the organizer of the infamous “Russian Disinformation” letter on the Hunter Biden laptop was prompted by then Biden campaign adviser Antony Blinken. He is, of course, now our Secretary of State and he follows a pattern of the “made men” of the Biden Administration.
Here is the column:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken would really, really prefer to talk about grain in Ukraine this week. But many people are less interested in what Blinken is doing as secretary of state than in what he did to become secretary of state.
This week, Blinken was implicated in a political coverup that could well have made the difference in the 2020 election. According to the sworn testimony of former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell, Blinken – then a high-ranking Biden campaign official – was “the impetus” of the false claim that the Hunter Biden laptop story was really Russian disinformation. Morrell then organized dozens of ex-national security officials to sign the letter claiming that the Hunter laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
Morrell further admitted that the Biden campaign “helped to strategize about the public release of the statement.”
Finally, he admitted that one of his goals was not just to warn about Russian influence but “to help then-Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist him in winning the election.”
Help it did. Biden claimed in a presidential debate that the laptop story was “garbage” and part of a “Russian plan.” Biden used the letter to say “nobody believes” that the laptop is real.
In reality, the letter was part of a political plan with the direct involvement of his campaign, but Biden never revealed their involvement. Indeed, over years of controversy surrounding this debunked letter, no one in the Biden campaign or White House (including Blinken) revealed their involvement.
Of course, the letter was all the media needed. Discussion of the laptop was blocked on social media, and virtually every major media outlet dismissed the story before the election.
That was also all Biden needed to win a close election. The allegations that the Biden family had cashed in millions through influence peddling could have made the difference. It never happened, in part because of Blinken’s work.
Once in power, Blinken was given one of the top Cabinet positions. He was now one of the “made” men of the administration.
He was not alone. The 2016 election was marred by false allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Unlike the influence peddling allegations made against Biden, the media ran with those stories for years. It later turned out that the funding and distribution of the infamous Steele dossier originated with the Clinton campaign. The campaign, however, reportedly lied in denying any such funding until after the election. It was later sanctioned for hiding the funding as legal expenses.
Those involved in spreading this false story were rewarded handsomely. For example, the second collusion story planted in the media by the campaign concerned the Russian Alfa Bank. The campaign used key Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, who went public with the entirely false claim of a secret back channel between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
Sullivan was also a “made” man who was later made Biden’s national security adviser. Others who were implicated in either the Steele dossier or Alfa Bank hoaxes also later found jobs in the administration. The Brookings Institution proved a virtual turnstile for these political operatives.
Many signatories on the Russian disinformation letter continue to flourish. MSNBC analyst Jeremy Bash signed the letter and was put on the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board. As with Sullivan, it did not seem to matter that Bash had gotten one of the most important intelligence stories of the election wrong.
Former CIA head James Clapper was referenced by Biden on the letter and was also a spreader of the Russian collusion claims. Despite those scandals and a claim of perjury, CNN gave him a media contract.
They are all “made” men in the Beltway, but they could not have succeeded without a “made” media.
These false stories planted by the Clinton and Biden campaigns succeeded only because the media played an active and eager role. In any other country, this pattern would fit the model of a state media and propaganda effort. However, there was no need for a central ministry when the media quickly reinforced these narratives. This is a state media by consent rather than coercion. The Biden campaign knew that reporters would have little interest or curiosity in how the letter came about or the involvement of campaign operatives.
If Republicans did not control the House of Representatives, the Morrell admission would never have occurred. The Democrats repeatedly blocked efforts to investigate this story and the influence peddling allegations. Even this week, some Democrats called it a “tabloid story.”
Given the career paths of figures such as Blinken and Sullivan, there is a concern that other officials may see the value in “earning their bones” as “made” men and women. There is now a senior IRS career official who is seeking to disclose what he claims was special treatment given to Hunter Biden in the criminal investigation.
While the 51 former intelligence figures were eager to raise Russian disinformation claims before the election, most have become silent. After all, the letter served its purpose, as Morrell indicated, “to assist [Biden] in winning the election.” After the false stories planted before the 2016 and 2020 elections, the question is what is in store for 2024?
An existential threat
From aviationweek.com
NASA Ramps Up Efforts To Protect Earth From Space Impact Threats April 21, 2023
------------------------------------------------
HOUSTON—With the success of the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) and launch of the Near Earth Object (NEO) Surveyor on its agenda, NASA has devised a 10-year strategy for advancing efforts to protect the Earth from a devastating encounter with a Near Earth asteroid or comet.The April 18 release of the 46-page “NASA Planetary Defense Strategy and Action Plan” follows the April 3 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s 38-page “National Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan for Near-Earth Object Hazards and Planetary Defense.” These documents are intended to signal an effort to better organize and coordinate a protection strategy, updated from 2018.
Each of the reports is focused on enhancing the detection, characterization and responses to impact threats as well as improving coordination among government agencies and international cooperation. Concerns are focused on asteroids and comets that orbit the Sun and come within 30 million mi. of the Earth’s orbital path.
The objects of concern are Near Earth Objects (NEOs) that range in diameter from 10 m (33 ft.) to more than 10,000 m.
“The release of this strategy steps up NASA’s intentions for the next 10 years to ensure the agency works both nationally and internationally to protect our planet for the benefit of all,” notes Lindley Johnson, who leads NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO).
The cadence of impact threats to the Earth range from once in a decade for the smallest object to once per 100 million years for the largest recognized in the two reports. The corresponding damage ranges from detonation in the atmosphere with enough acoustic energy for widespread structural damage across the landscape below to global devastation and mass extinctions.
An example of a smaller impact occurred over Chelyabinsk, Russia, on Feb. 15, 2013. Undetected, the object was estimated at just more than 50 ft. in diameter and detonated at an altitude of 14 mi., shattering windows across a 200-mi.2 region and injuring more than 1,600 people.
It was an estimated 66 million years ago that an asteroid more than 6 mi. in diameter struck the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, triggering a global tsunami and long-term climate changes that were linked to the extinction of dinosaurs and much of the life on Earth.
Fortunately, the more numerous the objects that pose an impact threat, the smaller they are. But that renders them more difficult to detect. NEOs 460 ft. across, of which there are estimated to be 25,000, are calculated to be capable of unleashing 300-megaton blasts leading to regional devastation and mass human casualties, the PDCO says.
On Sept. 26, 2022, NASA achieved a milestone in efforts to address the threat as the DART spacecraft reached Dimorphos, a 530-ft. asteroid moonlet almost 7 million mi. from Earth, to demonstrate a kinetic-impact strategy for diverting an NEO on a course to strike the Earth. Dimorphos was not selected because it posed an actual threat, but rather because it and its larger parent asteroid, Didymos, could be observed from Earth before and after the encounter to assess the effectiveness of a kinetic impact. The White House report called it a success.
The earliest possible detection of NEO threats, however, with follow-up tracking and characterization, is critical to implementing the most effective defensive strategies, the two reports says.
Funding has been a challenge, the NASA report acknowledges. Currently budgeted at $138 million for 2023, NASA is seeking $251 million for 2024, with an increase to $400 million projected for 2026 and a decrease to $79 million by 2028.
In 2005, the George E. Brown Near-Earth Object Survey Act was signed into law. It designated NASA as the nation’s planetary defense lead and directed the agency to discover and catalogue at least 90% of NEOs at least 140 m in diameter by 2020.
The goal has proven elusive, and it is currently NASA’s goal to find at least two-thirds of NEOs 140 m or larger within five years of launching the NEO Surveyor. It is a $1.2 billion infrared space telescope to be positioned at the Sun-Earth Lagrange Point 1, nearly 1 million mi. from Earth in the Sun’s direction.
Though facing cost and schedule challenges that could affect the development and scheduling of other NASA science missions, the NEO Surveyor is planned for launch no later than June 2028.
The updated White House planetary defense strategy is focused on six goals over the next decade:
•Enhancing NEO detection, tracking and characterization capabilities.
•Improving NEO modeling, prediction and information integration.
•Further developing NEO reconnaissance, deflection and disruption technologies to hasten a threat response.
•Increasing international cooperation on NEO preparedness.
•Strengthening and routinely exercising NEO impact emergency procedures and action protocols to be shared with the public and the international community.
•Improving U.S. management of planetary defense with enhanced interagency collaboration.
NASA’s follow-up defense strategy and action plan lists eight responsive agency objectives:
•Enhancing NEO detection, tracking and characterization capabilities.
•Improving coordination on NEO modeling, prediction and information integration.
•Developing technologies for NEO reconnaissance, deflection and disruption missions.
•Increasing contributions to international cooperation on NEO preparation.
•Coordinating with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other agencies to strengthen and routinely exercise NEO impact emergency procedures and action protocols.
•Improving contributions to ongoing interagency coordination on planetary defense.
•Improving the organization of the agency’s planetary defense activities.
•Enhancing related strategic communications.
Sunday, April 23, 2023
How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science
David Young at judithcurry.com
More perspective on the sad state of affairs in our society.
--------------------------------------------
Much has changed in science since the pandemic and much of it is change for the worse. The pandemic has highlighted the loss of credibility of the public health establishment and the often toxic nature of current public discourse. John Ioannidis stands out as perhaps the best example of a fine scientist who was smeared and denigrated mercilessly both online and in the literature. There was also a flood of fraudulent papers and badly flawed studies. This made claims that we should follow the “The Science” almost laughable, given the extremely poor quality of much of the science. The use of coercion was inexcusable when there was no rigorous basis for it.John Ioannidis was perhaps the most famous victim of a broad ranging culture of censorship and suppression. As [1] summarizes:
“The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly ac- complished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.”
Epidemiology
One of the first things that became obvious to me during the pandemic was that viral epidemiology was a primitive science dominated by crude mechanistic explanations that lacked quantification. One article that led me to this conclusion was [2]. I reproduce a part of the abstract here.
“The epidemiology of influenza swarms with incongruities, incongruities exhaustively detailed by the late British epidemiologist, Edgar Hope-Simpson. He was the first to propose a parsimonious theory explaining why influenza is, as Gregg said,”seemingly unmindful of traditional infectious disease behavioral patterns. Recent discoveries indicate vitamin D upregulates the endogenous antibiotics of innate immunity and suggest that the incongruities explored by Hope-Simpson may be secondary to the epidemiology of vitamin D deficiency. We identify – and attempt to explain nine influenza conundrums:
• Why is influenza both seasonal and ubiquitous and where is the virus between epidemics?
• Why are the epidemics so explosive?
• Why do they end so abruptly?
• What explains the frequent coincidental timing of epidemics in countries of similar latitude?
• Why is the serial interval obscure?
• Why is the secondary attack rate so low?
• Why did epidemics in previous ages spread so rapidly, despite the lack of modern transport?
• Why does experimental inoculation of seronegative humans fail to cause illness in all the volunteers?
• Why has influenza mortality of the aged not declined as their vaccination rates increased?”
It is blindingly obvious that the spread of viral epidemics is riddled with unknowns, is a badly ill-posed problem and models will all be wrong, and mostly badly wrong. Yet modeling played a significant part in motivating the policy response to Covid19.
The Role of the Media in Spring 2020
The list of issues where pseudo-science was used to make decisions is long. Mask mandates, lockdowns, school closures, vaccination recommendations, vaccination requirements for employment or university attendance, and travel restrictions. The public was often bullied and/or manipulated into compliance based on fear and/or media generated panic. Early statistics on Covid cases and deaths were shown endlessly in the spring of 2020. These statistics seemed to imply that 10-15% of those who got Covid would die, often horribly. This was gravely misleading without stating that the case fatality rate is not meaningful when testing is scarce and that infection fatality rate estimates always go down (often dramatically) as an epidemic progresses because testing becomes more accurate and treatment methods improve.
The well known fact that the vast majority of those dying from Covid19 were already quite ill or elderly was systematically hidden. Scientists who said this were ridiculed by this same narrative driven media. The media in the US at least are little more than ideologically driven (and now partially state controlled) purveyors of carefully screened “information” backing the elites in the West and their preferred ideologies [3, 4] and the public is becoming more and more convinced that they cannot be trusted. The media was and is a full participant in the culture of censorship and cancellation described below. Often their “reporting” is based on a single anonymous leak whose reliability is unknown by readers and in some cases the reporters. Of course, leakers usually have a partisan purpose and like to leak selectively to give a biased picture and/or support their interests or those of their employer.
Marginalizing Expertise
A must read is [5]. “Imperatives like skepticism and disinterestedness are being junked to fuel political warfare that has nothing in common with scientific methodology.” Ioannidis carefully lays out in detail a sad history of abuses and indeed in some cases, outright fraud. Ioannidis published prolifically during the pandemic and endured a public caning by a mob of online trolls and even fellow scientists and politicians. His is not an isolated example. Scott Atlas, Jay Battacharya, Martin Kuhldorff and Marty Makary are four more academic scientists who received similar treatment. I believe that the response to Ioannidis was particularly harsh because of his sterling reputation for being totally non-political and his incredible accomplishments. Thus, the online mob and the public health establishment realized that discrediting him was critical to preserving their own credibility.
As it turns out, these tactics backfired on our “expert class” as shown by the public’s abysmal uptake on the new vaccines. Sanity has returned to some European countries such as Denmark, where they recommend that those who are under 50 and healthy need not take any more Covid vaccines. But in the US, the CDC is putting the new Covid19 vaccine on their recommended list of childhood vaccinations in spite of very strong evidence that the harms of this vaccine vastly outweigh the benefits in the children and young adults [6].
Now we have the ultimate irony, an economics professor asking for amnesty for the terrible decisions and epidemic of lying and disinformation during the pandemic [7]. I for one am unwilling to give them amnesty without a full confession, apologies, and changes of personnel in leadership positions.
Perhaps fed by the pandemic, a new and disturbing trend is the prevalence of “zombie” trials in which there is no evidence there is any real data underlying the results [8]. This is further evidence of how weak the peer review system has become. The idea that fraud is widespread in science has moved from the fringes to the pages of the BMJopinion [9]. Ioannidis [5] cites a couple of covid papers in leading journals that were essentially fraudulent. At least one of these was still being cited over a year later!!
A must read is [5]. “Imperatives like skepticism and disinterestedness are being junked to fuel political warfare that has nothing in common with scientific methodology.” Ioannidis carefully lays out in detail a sad history of abuses and indeed in some cases, outright fraud. Ioannidis published prolifically during the pandemic and endured a public caning by a mob of online trolls and even fellow scientists and politicians. His is not an isolated example. Scott Atlas, Jay Battacharya, Martin Kuhldorff and Marty Makary are four more academic scientists who received similar treatment. I believe that the response to Ioannidis was particularly harsh because of his sterling reputation for being totally non-political and his incredible accomplishments. Thus, the online mob and the public health establishment realized that discrediting him was critical to preserving their own credibility.
As it turns out, these tactics backfired on our “expert class” as shown by the public’s abysmal uptake on the new vaccines. Sanity has returned to some European countries such as Denmark, where they recommend that those who are under 50 and healthy need not take any more Covid vaccines. But in the US, the CDC is putting the new Covid19 vaccine on their recommended list of childhood vaccinations in spite of very strong evidence that the harms of this vaccine vastly outweigh the benefits in the children and young adults [6].
Now we have the ultimate irony, an economics professor asking for amnesty for the terrible decisions and epidemic of lying and disinformation during the pandemic [7]. I for one am unwilling to give them amnesty without a full confession, apologies, and changes of personnel in leadership positions.
Perhaps fed by the pandemic, a new and disturbing trend is the prevalence of “zombie” trials in which there is no evidence there is any real data underlying the results [8]. This is further evidence of how weak the peer review system has become. The idea that fraud is widespread in science has moved from the fringes to the pages of the BMJopinion [9]. Ioannidis [5] cites a couple of covid papers in leading journals that were essentially fraudulent. At least one of these was still being cited over a year later!!
A Culture of Censorship and Cancellation
My previous post at Climate, Etc. [10] provided some references for the sad state of science pre-Covid. Basically, the replication crisis was in full swing. That post pointed to the serious problems in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and offered some ideas for addressing them. Things have changed for the worse post-pandemic. Perhaps the most salient fact about the pandemic was how politicized the science became, just as with the AIDS epidemic. There was a remarkable coincidence between a desire to “stop” the epidemic by any means necessary (regardless of how many collateral causalities there were) and climate alarmism that seeks to control the climate by eliminating fossil fuels. The complete playbook that made climate science’s culture deteriorate was deployed to Covid science and epidemiology, making meaningful scientific debate virtually impossible [1]. As described out below, the Covid panic went well beyond the climate science playbook. [1] is long and very detailed and worth a full read.
“Creating a false consensus by censoring information and preventing scientific debates might lead scientists, and thus also policymakers, to sink into the ruling paradigm, causing them to ignore other, more effective options to cope with the crisis or perhaps even prevent it. Such a “consensus” leads to a narrow worldview, which impairs the public’s ability to make informed decisions and erodes public trust in medical science and in public health (Cernic 2018; Delborne 2016; Martin 2014, 2015; Vernon 2017).”
“Yet, there are three main differences [with previous instances of suppression]. First, when it comes to COVID-related knowledge, the censorship tactics used against dissenters are extreme and unprecedented in their intensiveness and extensiveness, with scientific journals, and academic and medical institutions taking an active and involved part in censoring critical voices. In fact, as one of our respondents indicates, even pre-print servers and academic social networking sites censor scientific papers that do not align with the mainstream narrative, and this seems to be a growing trend. Furthermore, what our respondents describe goes way beyond censorship, and includes a wide range of suppression methods intended to destroy their reputations and careers, solely because they dared to take a different position from that dictated by the medical establishment.”
As pointed out by Battacharya, this behavior is really analogous to the Middle Ages with ”The Science” being the new clerisy [11].
“We live in an age when a high public health bureaucrat can, without irony, announce to the world that if you criticize him, you are not simply criticizing a man. You are criticizing “The Science” itself. The irony in this idea of “science” as a set of sacred doctrines and beliefs is that the Age of Enlightenment, which gave us our modern definitions of scientific methodology, was a reaction against a religious clerisy that claimed for itself the sole ability to distinguish truth from untruth. The COVID-19 pandemic has apparently brought us full circle, with a public health clerisy having replaced the religious one as the singular source of unassailable truth.”
My previous post at Climate, Etc. [10] provided some references for the sad state of science pre-Covid. Basically, the replication crisis was in full swing. That post pointed to the serious problems in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and offered some ideas for addressing them. Things have changed for the worse post-pandemic. Perhaps the most salient fact about the pandemic was how politicized the science became, just as with the AIDS epidemic. There was a remarkable coincidence between a desire to “stop” the epidemic by any means necessary (regardless of how many collateral causalities there were) and climate alarmism that seeks to control the climate by eliminating fossil fuels. The complete playbook that made climate science’s culture deteriorate was deployed to Covid science and epidemiology, making meaningful scientific debate virtually impossible [1]. As described out below, the Covid panic went well beyond the climate science playbook. [1] is long and very detailed and worth a full read.
“Creating a false consensus by censoring information and preventing scientific debates might lead scientists, and thus also policymakers, to sink into the ruling paradigm, causing them to ignore other, more effective options to cope with the crisis or perhaps even prevent it. Such a “consensus” leads to a narrow worldview, which impairs the public’s ability to make informed decisions and erodes public trust in medical science and in public health (Cernic 2018; Delborne 2016; Martin 2014, 2015; Vernon 2017).”
“Yet, there are three main differences [with previous instances of suppression]. First, when it comes to COVID-related knowledge, the censorship tactics used against dissenters are extreme and unprecedented in their intensiveness and extensiveness, with scientific journals, and academic and medical institutions taking an active and involved part in censoring critical voices. In fact, as one of our respondents indicates, even pre-print servers and academic social networking sites censor scientific papers that do not align with the mainstream narrative, and this seems to be a growing trend. Furthermore, what our respondents describe goes way beyond censorship, and includes a wide range of suppression methods intended to destroy their reputations and careers, solely because they dared to take a different position from that dictated by the medical establishment.”
As pointed out by Battacharya, this behavior is really analogous to the Middle Ages with ”The Science” being the new clerisy [11].
“We live in an age when a high public health bureaucrat can, without irony, announce to the world that if you criticize him, you are not simply criticizing a man. You are criticizing “The Science” itself. The irony in this idea of “science” as a set of sacred doctrines and beliefs is that the Age of Enlightenment, which gave us our modern definitions of scientific methodology, was a reaction against a religious clerisy that claimed for itself the sole ability to distinguish truth from untruth. The COVID-19 pandemic has apparently brought us full circle, with a public health clerisy having replaced the religious one as the singular source of unassailable truth.”
Collusion of The Deep State, Corporate Media, and Big Tech
The latest instantiation of this authoritarianism is the rise of a vast industry devoted to ferreting out and censoring “misinformation” and “disinformation” [12, 13]. The first piece is an excellent deep dive into the way the leaders of this complex view themselves. Of course, science often is the subject of these censors [14]. There is a large industry devoted to framing oneself as a “disinformation” expert, a category that is largely meaningless and has no well defined credentials. Just as there was competition over the last 30 years among non-scientists and political activists and a few activist scientists to hype climate catastrophes and sniff out and cancel the more realistic scientists, now political operatives, activists, the media and often the deep state and some scientists compete to see who can be in the forefront of rounding up the witches who spread “disinformation‘’ and burning them. This is just a new and much more pervasive form of Red baiting [13]. The Twitter Files [4] proved the existence of a broad collusion between the FBI, CIA, big tech, “disinformation” NGOs and corporate media to censor voices that appear to be suspicious of or contradict the “authorities,” with their often false and destructive narratives acting to deplatform these voices.
The range of issues and “information” that attracts their attention is quite broad. It extends even to ordinary Americans who were flagged as Russian trolls by the fraudulent Hamilton 68 dashboard, an oft cited source that was said to “prove” massive and consequential Russian interference in American elections.
This is detailed in [15]. This Taibbi Twitter files summary begins:
“Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud. The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork.”
This largely unsupported narrative of Russian interference peddled by the Clinton campaign, the deep state, and assorted so-called disinformation specialists is debunked by Seigel and Gerth [13, 16]. However, this narrative was supported by literally thousands of largely false corporate media “stories” for over 6 years, some of which received the Pulitzer prize. This is a striking example of the corruption of the corporate media. There have been very few retractions and no apologies that I am aware of. The media doubles down by refusing to cover these scandals and insisting they are nothing new. There is strong evidence that the US government is at least partially funding these “disinformation expert organizations” who sometimes do the data collection and screening for “disinformation” – really just another term for often true information or opinion that challenges the “legitimacy” of our “institutions.” This latter category is very vague and can be stretched to almost anything the disinformation expert doesn’t like. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these disinformation “expert” organizations present corporate and publicly funded media as least likely to spread disinformation.
In fact, there seems to be a revolving door between the US security state and the executive ranks at big tech companies and corporate media, making the collusion easy to set up and nurture. I believe that this Russian interference narrative is the most consequential disinformation and election interference campaign in American history outside of war time. [13, 15–17] Some activist scientists have chosen to wade into this morass and to participate in this Disinformation Industrial Complex, further undermining their credibility. This climate of fear and censorship is similar to what happened in the US during WWI, when debate was criminalized by the Sedition Act of 1918, really an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917. This was totally unprecedented in American history. Even during the Civil War, with a few exceptions such as Maryland in 1861, the Constitution was in full force, and debate was often libelous and nasty. There was a very vigorous anti-war faction in the North and it was a full participant in the political process. In 1918, many opponents of the draft and the war were prosecuted simply for saying so. The demonization of Germany was as intense in the media as the media campaign currently directed against Russia.
The law was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Socialist Eugene Debs was prosecuted for opposing the War and was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He famously campaigned for President in 1920 from prison. President Harding commuted his sentence in 1921. There were a significant number of prosecutions under the Act, but most were offered clemency by 1920. It appears that Americans after the hysteria of war was over had a devotion to the Bill of Rights. The 1918 Sedition Act was repealed in December 1920. It is likely that the 1918 amendment would be held unconstitutional today. The 1917 law continues in effect and is used against leakers such as Snowdon and Assange, even though Assange merely did on a larger scale what hundreds of corporate media “journalists” do every day. Daniel Ellsberg was charged under it for leaking the Pentagon Papers. His case was dismissed after the plumbers broke into his psychiatrists office. But deep state leakers, who use the corporate media to spread “information” that supports their version of events and often do immensely more damage, almost always escape punishment.
It is not a coincidence that President Woodrow Wilson, a former President of Princeton University and an opponent of full participation of Blacks in American society and government, also wanted to replace the Constitution with the rule of the administrative state, i.e., the “experts.” This deeply un-American impulse didn’t die with Wilson but survives and flourishes today in the deep state and their allies and symbiotes in corporate media. The standards for using leaks in news stories have dramatically loosened over the decades since Watergate. And the sheer volume of leaks has grown almost certainly faster than the Federal agencies. Fortunately, America came to its senses and the 1918 Sedition Act amendments were repealed in 1920. Our recovery from our current culture of fear may not be so rapid.
What is disturbing is that some politicians and activists are quoting from outdated Supreme Court decisions to try to justify the current censorship collusion. According to the Supreme Court, it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to deputize a private organization to do what it cannot do. The Twitter Files prove that the Biden Administration is in massive violation.
The latest instantiation of this authoritarianism is the rise of a vast industry devoted to ferreting out and censoring “misinformation” and “disinformation” [12, 13]. The first piece is an excellent deep dive into the way the leaders of this complex view themselves. Of course, science often is the subject of these censors [14]. There is a large industry devoted to framing oneself as a “disinformation” expert, a category that is largely meaningless and has no well defined credentials. Just as there was competition over the last 30 years among non-scientists and political activists and a few activist scientists to hype climate catastrophes and sniff out and cancel the more realistic scientists, now political operatives, activists, the media and often the deep state and some scientists compete to see who can be in the forefront of rounding up the witches who spread “disinformation‘’ and burning them. This is just a new and much more pervasive form of Red baiting [13]. The Twitter Files [4] proved the existence of a broad collusion between the FBI, CIA, big tech, “disinformation” NGOs and corporate media to censor voices that appear to be suspicious of or contradict the “authorities,” with their often false and destructive narratives acting to deplatform these voices.
The range of issues and “information” that attracts their attention is quite broad. It extends even to ordinary Americans who were flagged as Russian trolls by the fraudulent Hamilton 68 dashboard, an oft cited source that was said to “prove” massive and consequential Russian interference in American elections.
This is detailed in [15]. This Taibbi Twitter files summary begins:
“Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud. The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork.”
This largely unsupported narrative of Russian interference peddled by the Clinton campaign, the deep state, and assorted so-called disinformation specialists is debunked by Seigel and Gerth [13, 16]. However, this narrative was supported by literally thousands of largely false corporate media “stories” for over 6 years, some of which received the Pulitzer prize. This is a striking example of the corruption of the corporate media. There have been very few retractions and no apologies that I am aware of. The media doubles down by refusing to cover these scandals and insisting they are nothing new. There is strong evidence that the US government is at least partially funding these “disinformation expert organizations” who sometimes do the data collection and screening for “disinformation” – really just another term for often true information or opinion that challenges the “legitimacy” of our “institutions.” This latter category is very vague and can be stretched to almost anything the disinformation expert doesn’t like. Perhaps it is no coincidence that these disinformation “expert” organizations present corporate and publicly funded media as least likely to spread disinformation.
In fact, there seems to be a revolving door between the US security state and the executive ranks at big tech companies and corporate media, making the collusion easy to set up and nurture. I believe that this Russian interference narrative is the most consequential disinformation and election interference campaign in American history outside of war time. [13, 15–17] Some activist scientists have chosen to wade into this morass and to participate in this Disinformation Industrial Complex, further undermining their credibility. This climate of fear and censorship is similar to what happened in the US during WWI, when debate was criminalized by the Sedition Act of 1918, really an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917. This was totally unprecedented in American history. Even during the Civil War, with a few exceptions such as Maryland in 1861, the Constitution was in full force, and debate was often libelous and nasty. There was a very vigorous anti-war faction in the North and it was a full participant in the political process. In 1918, many opponents of the draft and the war were prosecuted simply for saying so. The demonization of Germany was as intense in the media as the media campaign currently directed against Russia.
The law was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Socialist Eugene Debs was prosecuted for opposing the War and was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. He famously campaigned for President in 1920 from prison. President Harding commuted his sentence in 1921. There were a significant number of prosecutions under the Act, but most were offered clemency by 1920. It appears that Americans after the hysteria of war was over had a devotion to the Bill of Rights. The 1918 Sedition Act was repealed in December 1920. It is likely that the 1918 amendment would be held unconstitutional today. The 1917 law continues in effect and is used against leakers such as Snowdon and Assange, even though Assange merely did on a larger scale what hundreds of corporate media “journalists” do every day. Daniel Ellsberg was charged under it for leaking the Pentagon Papers. His case was dismissed after the plumbers broke into his psychiatrists office. But deep state leakers, who use the corporate media to spread “information” that supports their version of events and often do immensely more damage, almost always escape punishment.
It is not a coincidence that President Woodrow Wilson, a former President of Princeton University and an opponent of full participation of Blacks in American society and government, also wanted to replace the Constitution with the rule of the administrative state, i.e., the “experts.” This deeply un-American impulse didn’t die with Wilson but survives and flourishes today in the deep state and their allies and symbiotes in corporate media. The standards for using leaks in news stories have dramatically loosened over the decades since Watergate. And the sheer volume of leaks has grown almost certainly faster than the Federal agencies. Fortunately, America came to its senses and the 1918 Sedition Act amendments were repealed in 1920. Our recovery from our current culture of fear may not be so rapid.
What is disturbing is that some politicians and activists are quoting from outdated Supreme Court decisions to try to justify the current censorship collusion. According to the Supreme Court, it is a violation of the Constitution for the government to deputize a private organization to do what it cannot do. The Twitter Files prove that the Biden Administration is in massive violation.
Is the Internet the Proximate Cause?
Another must read is [18]. The subhead is “How the truth monopoly was broken up.” Their thesis is that the internet transformed modern society just as the printing press did in the 16th Century. What we are going through is our expert class panicking because their monopoly on “truth” has been broken. Just as the counter reformation led to bloody conflict, the new disinformation enforcers are going to generate a lot of conflict and lots of innocent people will suffer.
“We beg to differ. Fake news is not a perversion of the information society but a logical out- growth of it, a symptom of the decades-long devolution of the traditional authority for governing knowledge and communicating information. That authority has long been held by a small num- ber of institutions. When that kind of monopoly is no longer possible, truth itself must become contested.”
“This is treacherous terrain. The urge to insist on the integrity of the old order is widespread. Truth is truth, lies are lies, and established authorities must see to it that nobody blurs the two. But we also know from history that what seemed to be stable regimes of truth may collapse, and be replaced. If that is what is happening, then the challenge is to manage the transition, not to cling to the old order as it dissolves around us.”
This is a lesson that climate science should perhaps take seriously.
Another must read is [18]. The subhead is “How the truth monopoly was broken up.” Their thesis is that the internet transformed modern society just as the printing press did in the 16th Century. What we are going through is our expert class panicking because their monopoly on “truth” has been broken. Just as the counter reformation led to bloody conflict, the new disinformation enforcers are going to generate a lot of conflict and lots of innocent people will suffer.
“We beg to differ. Fake news is not a perversion of the information society but a logical out- growth of it, a symptom of the decades-long devolution of the traditional authority for governing knowledge and communicating information. That authority has long been held by a small num- ber of institutions. When that kind of monopoly is no longer possible, truth itself must become contested.”
“This is treacherous terrain. The urge to insist on the integrity of the old order is widespread. Truth is truth, lies are lies, and established authorities must see to it that nobody blurs the two. But we also know from history that what seemed to be stable regimes of truth may collapse, and be replaced. If that is what is happening, then the challenge is to manage the transition, not to cling to the old order as it dissolves around us.”
This is a lesson that climate science should perhaps take seriously.
Simple Minded Ideas about Science are Wrong
For me, the whole concept of science as a system of understanding the universe whose practitioners are honest and sincere truth seekers, as Bertrand Russell for example portrayed in his writings, is not believable. My training in the 1970’s if anything re-inforced Russell’s version. I did learn something about chaos in graduate school, but I was not really fully aware once I joined industry that when we switched from linear potential flow and electromagnetics to the full potential equation with coupled integral boundary layer, the Euler equations, and the Navier Stokes equations that we were entering a totally different world. This world is one of ill-posed equations, multiple solutions, and bifurcations, and often high uncertainty. This is not something that is readily evident either from typical graduate school education or the literature. It must be said that climate and weather scientists do a better job on this point.
Many of the most important topics in scientific research have hit a wall that constrains further progress, and that wall is uncertainty, in many cases caused by nonlinearlity and chaos, particularly in complex systems. The world may never yield to the kind of deterministic quantified explanations that many desire.
Most traditional scientific methods are provably effective only for well-posed problems. Many of the most important problems are not well-posed. Yet we train graduate students mostly using simplified well- posed problems and the numerical methods suitable for them. I believe new theoretical paradigms and methods will be needed for complex systems. Up until roughly 2000, scientists counted on rapidly increasing computing power to enable solution of more challenging problems. The frontier is now probably not going to be expanded just with more powerful computers. The underlying ill-posed nature of many of the problems will come to the fore.
Popular culture and the political left in the US (and their institutions) have become infested with an almost childlike faith in “The Science.” Faith in “The Science” is really scientism because it can only exist either with the suspension of the critical faculties or with ignorance of the real issues. The media have chosen to foster this ignorance and simplistic thinking as a way to manipulate public opinion in favor of certain political and cultural narratives or in the case of covid a set of “scientific” narratives as the Twitter files prove [4, 14]. [14] is the Twitter thread dealing with Twitter’s collusion with the US government to censor often correct information about Covid19.
Scientists often collaborate with these media driven narratives because they think they will get more funding and public adulation if the narrative is believed. They may also reasonably fear being ostracized and damage to their careers. Readers of this blog are well aware that this became true in climate science a long time ago. Some unscrupulous scientists have chosen to continue to support narratives that are even contradicted by the IPCC reports, particularly about extreme weather events. Some activist climate scientists were also among the alarmist camp concerning Covid19.
For me, the whole concept of science as a system of understanding the universe whose practitioners are honest and sincere truth seekers, as Bertrand Russell for example portrayed in his writings, is not believable. My training in the 1970’s if anything re-inforced Russell’s version. I did learn something about chaos in graduate school, but I was not really fully aware once I joined industry that when we switched from linear potential flow and electromagnetics to the full potential equation with coupled integral boundary layer, the Euler equations, and the Navier Stokes equations that we were entering a totally different world. This world is one of ill-posed equations, multiple solutions, and bifurcations, and often high uncertainty. This is not something that is readily evident either from typical graduate school education or the literature. It must be said that climate and weather scientists do a better job on this point.
Many of the most important topics in scientific research have hit a wall that constrains further progress, and that wall is uncertainty, in many cases caused by nonlinearlity and chaos, particularly in complex systems. The world may never yield to the kind of deterministic quantified explanations that many desire.
Most traditional scientific methods are provably effective only for well-posed problems. Many of the most important problems are not well-posed. Yet we train graduate students mostly using simplified well- posed problems and the numerical methods suitable for them. I believe new theoretical paradigms and methods will be needed for complex systems. Up until roughly 2000, scientists counted on rapidly increasing computing power to enable solution of more challenging problems. The frontier is now probably not going to be expanded just with more powerful computers. The underlying ill-posed nature of many of the problems will come to the fore.
Popular culture and the political left in the US (and their institutions) have become infested with an almost childlike faith in “The Science.” Faith in “The Science” is really scientism because it can only exist either with the suspension of the critical faculties or with ignorance of the real issues. The media have chosen to foster this ignorance and simplistic thinking as a way to manipulate public opinion in favor of certain political and cultural narratives or in the case of covid a set of “scientific” narratives as the Twitter files prove [4, 14]. [14] is the Twitter thread dealing with Twitter’s collusion with the US government to censor often correct information about Covid19.
Scientists often collaborate with these media driven narratives because they think they will get more funding and public adulation if the narrative is believed. They may also reasonably fear being ostracized and damage to their careers. Readers of this blog are well aware that this became true in climate science a long time ago. Some unscrupulous scientists have chosen to continue to support narratives that are even contradicted by the IPCC reports, particularly about extreme weather events. Some activist climate scientists were also among the alarmist camp concerning Covid19.
Threats to Democracy
Many of the tactics of our Disinformation Industrial Complex are rationalized as being needed to combat threats to Democracy. In fact, this Complex is itself the real threat to Democracy. [19] In an excellent Tablet article in January of 2022 Ioannidis and Schippers [20] explain how democracy cannot function if the public is fed a constant diet of half truths and even disinformation with dissenting voices systematically excluded. This was written before the Twitter files showed that this culture is deeply systemic in our elite institutions including science itself.
“Some people, organizations, corporations, and lobbyists (or combinations thereof) saw this crisis [Covid19] as an opportunity to establish some version of a desired ideological utopia, which, in reality, benefited only a zealous minority confident in their “truth”, “science” or whatever name they used to legitimate blind dogmas.”
We can with confidence include the Federal government departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Defense to this list of organizations.
“The population at large would benefit more from scientific skepticism (which doesn’t require a Ph. D.) than from the purging of “bias” by spurious information purifiers.”
“Concern about the manipulation of power and influence has also been exacerbated by the performance of media and social media. It is critical in free, democratic societies that media never become a vessel for a single, state-sanctioned, official narrative at the expense of public debate and freedom of speech. The same applies for social media: Removing content considered “fake” or “false” in order to limit the ability of ordinary people to judge information for themselves only inflames polarization and distrust of the public sphere.”
“This is especially important in the realm of scientific debate. Anyone who believes that it’s possible to cleanse “science” of error through brute force censorship has no understanding of how science works or how accurate, unbiased evidence is accumulated in the first place. The idea of arbitrators who select what is correct and dismiss what is incorrect is the most alien possible concept to science. Without the ability to make errors or make (and improve on) inaccurate hypotheses, there is no science. The irony is that scientists understand (or at least should understand) and embrace (or at least should embrace) the fact that we all float in a sea of nonsense; it is the opportunist influencers and pundits, lacking in any understanding of the scientific method, who believe in the possibility of pure, unconflicted “truth.” ”
[20] appeared nearly a year before the Twitter files were published but was prescient in many ways. They conclude:
“As the pandemic ebbs, the years ahead will help determine whether we as democratic citizens and free people are still capable of making our own decisions, pursuing happiness, and refraining from harm, without falling prey to the authoritarian temptations that have felled democracies in the past.”
Many of the tactics of our Disinformation Industrial Complex are rationalized as being needed to combat threats to Democracy. In fact, this Complex is itself the real threat to Democracy. [19] In an excellent Tablet article in January of 2022 Ioannidis and Schippers [20] explain how democracy cannot function if the public is fed a constant diet of half truths and even disinformation with dissenting voices systematically excluded. This was written before the Twitter files showed that this culture is deeply systemic in our elite institutions including science itself.
“Some people, organizations, corporations, and lobbyists (or combinations thereof) saw this crisis [Covid19] as an opportunity to establish some version of a desired ideological utopia, which, in reality, benefited only a zealous minority confident in their “truth”, “science” or whatever name they used to legitimate blind dogmas.”
We can with confidence include the Federal government departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Defense to this list of organizations.
“The population at large would benefit more from scientific skepticism (which doesn’t require a Ph. D.) than from the purging of “bias” by spurious information purifiers.”
“Concern about the manipulation of power and influence has also been exacerbated by the performance of media and social media. It is critical in free, democratic societies that media never become a vessel for a single, state-sanctioned, official narrative at the expense of public debate and freedom of speech. The same applies for social media: Removing content considered “fake” or “false” in order to limit the ability of ordinary people to judge information for themselves only inflames polarization and distrust of the public sphere.”
“This is especially important in the realm of scientific debate. Anyone who believes that it’s possible to cleanse “science” of error through brute force censorship has no understanding of how science works or how accurate, unbiased evidence is accumulated in the first place. The idea of arbitrators who select what is correct and dismiss what is incorrect is the most alien possible concept to science. Without the ability to make errors or make (and improve on) inaccurate hypotheses, there is no science. The irony is that scientists understand (or at least should understand) and embrace (or at least should embrace) the fact that we all float in a sea of nonsense; it is the opportunist influencers and pundits, lacking in any understanding of the scientific method, who believe in the possibility of pure, unconflicted “truth.” ”
[20] appeared nearly a year before the Twitter files were published but was prescient in many ways. They conclude:
“As the pandemic ebbs, the years ahead will help determine whether we as democratic citizens and free people are still capable of making our own decisions, pursuing happiness, and refraining from harm, without falling prey to the authoritarian temptations that have felled democracies in the past.”
Conclusion
In the year since Ioannidis’ article, much has been revealed about how pervasive the Disinformation Industrial Complex is by the revelations in the Twitter files. A deep analysis tracing the rise of this Complex whose beginnings arose out of the War on Terror and how this Complex is applying the propaganda tools of that war inside America (They have brought the War on Terror to the United States) is [13]. It is a long read but is the result of 3 years of research. Just as troubling is the rise of an exceptionally censorious public culture in the USA and in other parts of the English-speaking world.
The politicization of science, the honing of the activists tools for cancellation of people they don’t like, and the involvement of government in collusion with big tech and media to control ”disinformation” [really just another euphemism for state control of media] [4], and finally the conversion of the FBI into a domestic version of the CIA have me personally concerned about the future of the English-speaking world.
I hope a critical mass of scientists and the public is finally waking up to the dangers this culture of fear and censorship poses. The danger for the elites is that they may alienate and attack so many people that their supporters become a minority. The power of modern media and social media to spread misinformation (in many cases originating with leaks from the US security state) with political motivations is immense and is indeed a growing part of the crisis. The pushback does however seem to be growing. There are now some free speech media such as Rumble, Locals, and Substack. It is possible to financially support bloggers, including Judith, using Patreon. Public polling shows a near collapse of trust in corporate media. It is indeed ironic that those who claim to be squashing existential threats to democracy, have themselves caused a climate of growing acceptance of intimidation and threats, political violence and serious violations of Federal law. If everything is an existential threat and words are violence, real violence can seem more and more to be justified.
In the year since Ioannidis’ article, much has been revealed about how pervasive the Disinformation Industrial Complex is by the revelations in the Twitter files. A deep analysis tracing the rise of this Complex whose beginnings arose out of the War on Terror and how this Complex is applying the propaganda tools of that war inside America (They have brought the War on Terror to the United States) is [13]. It is a long read but is the result of 3 years of research. Just as troubling is the rise of an exceptionally censorious public culture in the USA and in other parts of the English-speaking world.
The politicization of science, the honing of the activists tools for cancellation of people they don’t like, and the involvement of government in collusion with big tech and media to control ”disinformation” [really just another euphemism for state control of media] [4], and finally the conversion of the FBI into a domestic version of the CIA have me personally concerned about the future of the English-speaking world.
I hope a critical mass of scientists and the public is finally waking up to the dangers this culture of fear and censorship poses. The danger for the elites is that they may alienate and attack so many people that their supporters become a minority. The power of modern media and social media to spread misinformation (in many cases originating with leaks from the US security state) with political motivations is immense and is indeed a growing part of the crisis. The pushback does however seem to be growing. There are now some free speech media such as Rumble, Locals, and Substack. It is possible to financially support bloggers, including Judith, using Patreon. Public polling shows a near collapse of trust in corporate media. It is indeed ironic that those who claim to be squashing existential threats to democracy, have themselves caused a climate of growing acceptance of intimidation and threats, political violence and serious violations of Federal law. If everything is an existential threat and words are violence, real violence can seem more and more to be justified.
Richard Feynman: The Character of Physical Laws Part 3: The Great Conservation Principles
Here is the link.
More stuff I appreciate but will never understand.
Entertaining and insightful - also funny.
Richard Feynman on The Character of Physical Law – Part 2: The Relation be-tween Mathematics and Physics
Here is the link.
Very worthwhile.
Richard Feynman on the Character of Physical Law - Part 1 The Law of Gravitation
Here is the link.
Lots of fun, insight, and humor.
Saturday, April 22, 2023
Guns: John Lott at the Washington Times
Dr. John Lott and Thomas Massie have a new op-ed at the Washington Times. The piece was the “most popular piece on the Washington Times website.
John Lott is the president of Crime Prevention Research Center. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie represents Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District and is the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus.
--------------------------------------
Earlier this month, cameras filmed Rep. Jamaal Bowman, New York Democrat, yelling in the halls of Congress that “Republicans won’t do s—- when it comes to gun violence.” It’s a common refrain from gun control advocates.
“Force [Republicans] to respond!’ Mr. Bowman shouted. “Why the hell won’t they do anything to save America’s children? And let them explain that all the way up to Election Day on 2024.”
That was when one of us, Rep. Thomas Massie, Kentucky Republican, happened to walk by and pointed out, “Did you know there’s never been a school shooting in a school that allows teachers to carry?”
“Carry guns?!” Mr. Bowman shouted back at the top of his lungs. “More guns lead to more death!”
When Mr. Massie tried to respond, Mr. Bowman continued shouting so loudly that Mr. Massie could not be heard. Mr. Massie reminded Mr. Bowman that, at that very moment, both of them were being protected by guns in the U.S. Capitol.
Mr. Bowman, seemingly forgetting his request from just a minute earlier for Republicans to explain, even physically pushed between Mr. Massie and the cameras to prevent Mr. Massie from being heard.
What facts are Mr. Bowman so scared of? Why is it so upsetting for him to learn there have been no shooting attacks in schools where teachers can legally carry?
That statistic comes from the other author of this piece, John Lott. According to Michael Bloomberg’s gun violence news website, The Trace, Mr. Lott is a “major factor” behind why the U.S. hasn’t passed stronger gun control laws — an assertion that suggests the policies Mr. Lott supports caused mass public shootings.
Here’s the reality: Guns in the hands of teachers and other responsible citizens can prevent mass shootings.
On March 27, a mass murderer once again attacked a place where guns were already banned. Six were killed at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
As with many other mass public shootings, people with guns actually deterred the school shooter from attacking another potential location. In the words of Nashville Police Chief John Drake: “There was another location that was mentioned, but because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much security, they decided not to.” It was soon revealed that she had passed up two different targets because “the security was too great to do what she wanted to do.”
Many other shooters have expressed similar fears of armed pushback. Last year, the shooter in Buffalo, New York, wrote: “Areas where CCW permits are low may also be good areas of attack.”
Most national media outlets refuse to report on that and also ignore similar explicit statements by other attackers. They also fail to report that 94% of mass public shootings occur in places where civilians are banned from having guns.
Twenty states already allow teachers to carry concealed handguns. In Utah and New Hampshire, any teacher with a concealed handgun permit can carry. In other states, it is up to school boards or superintendents to decide. And there have been no mass shootings under that policy.
Last week, Mr. Massie reintroduced the Safe Students Act to repeal the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. The national default should not be to advertise our children as sitting ducks.
Naturally, everyone wants to do something to prevent this type of violence, but many of the proposals being talked about would do nothing to stop these attacks.
For example, within hours of the shooting at The Covenant School, President Biden called for an assault weapons ban. But even The Associated Press’ Stylebook recognizes that the term “assault weapon” conveys “little meaning” and is “highly politicized.” It’s nonsensical to ban guns just because they look like military weapons when they function exactly like semi-automatic hunting rifles.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, didn’t reduce the rate of mass public shootings that involved prohibited weapons.
Another favorite proposal from gun control advocates is background checks on the private transfer of guns. But that wouldn’t have stopped the school shooting in Nashville. In fact, there is not one mass public shooting this century that such laws would have stopped, even if they were in place and perfectly enforced.
Meanwhile, many Republicans are backing the federal Safe Schools Act, which is different from Mr. Massie’s bill and which would fund armed school safety officers. Having an armed ally in a school could indeed stop some attacks, but the drawback is that readily identifiable officers are an easy target for mass shooters.
Mr. Biden is right that schools shouldn’t be like prisons and lockdown drills are a sad reality today. But there is another alternative. Instead of posting gun-free zone signs in front of schools, let’s post signs warning attackers that there are staff members with concealed handguns.
Earlier this month, cameras filmed Rep. Jamaal Bowman, New York Democrat, yelling in the halls of Congress that “Republicans won’t do s—- when it comes to gun violence.” It’s a common refrain from gun control advocates.
“Force [Republicans] to respond!’ Mr. Bowman shouted. “Why the hell won’t they do anything to save America’s children? And let them explain that all the way up to Election Day on 2024.”
That was when one of us, Rep. Thomas Massie, Kentucky Republican, happened to walk by and pointed out, “Did you know there’s never been a school shooting in a school that allows teachers to carry?”
“Carry guns?!” Mr. Bowman shouted back at the top of his lungs. “More guns lead to more death!”
When Mr. Massie tried to respond, Mr. Bowman continued shouting so loudly that Mr. Massie could not be heard. Mr. Massie reminded Mr. Bowman that, at that very moment, both of them were being protected by guns in the U.S. Capitol.
Mr. Bowman, seemingly forgetting his request from just a minute earlier for Republicans to explain, even physically pushed between Mr. Massie and the cameras to prevent Mr. Massie from being heard.
What facts are Mr. Bowman so scared of? Why is it so upsetting for him to learn there have been no shooting attacks in schools where teachers can legally carry?
That statistic comes from the other author of this piece, John Lott. According to Michael Bloomberg’s gun violence news website, The Trace, Mr. Lott is a “major factor” behind why the U.S. hasn’t passed stronger gun control laws — an assertion that suggests the policies Mr. Lott supports caused mass public shootings.
Here’s the reality: Guns in the hands of teachers and other responsible citizens can prevent mass shootings.
On March 27, a mass murderer once again attacked a place where guns were already banned. Six were killed at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
As with many other mass public shootings, people with guns actually deterred the school shooter from attacking another potential location. In the words of Nashville Police Chief John Drake: “There was another location that was mentioned, but because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much security, they decided not to.” It was soon revealed that she had passed up two different targets because “the security was too great to do what she wanted to do.”
Many other shooters have expressed similar fears of armed pushback. Last year, the shooter in Buffalo, New York, wrote: “Areas where CCW permits are low may also be good areas of attack.”
Most national media outlets refuse to report on that and also ignore similar explicit statements by other attackers. They also fail to report that 94% of mass public shootings occur in places where civilians are banned from having guns.
Twenty states already allow teachers to carry concealed handguns. In Utah and New Hampshire, any teacher with a concealed handgun permit can carry. In other states, it is up to school boards or superintendents to decide. And there have been no mass shootings under that policy.
Last week, Mr. Massie reintroduced the Safe Students Act to repeal the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. The national default should not be to advertise our children as sitting ducks.
Naturally, everyone wants to do something to prevent this type of violence, but many of the proposals being talked about would do nothing to stop these attacks.
For example, within hours of the shooting at The Covenant School, President Biden called for an assault weapons ban. But even The Associated Press’ Stylebook recognizes that the term “assault weapon” conveys “little meaning” and is “highly politicized.” It’s nonsensical to ban guns just because they look like military weapons when they function exactly like semi-automatic hunting rifles.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, didn’t reduce the rate of mass public shootings that involved prohibited weapons.
Another favorite proposal from gun control advocates is background checks on the private transfer of guns. But that wouldn’t have stopped the school shooting in Nashville. In fact, there is not one mass public shooting this century that such laws would have stopped, even if they were in place and perfectly enforced.
Meanwhile, many Republicans are backing the federal Safe Schools Act, which is different from Mr. Massie’s bill and which would fund armed school safety officers. Having an armed ally in a school could indeed stop some attacks, but the drawback is that readily identifiable officers are an easy target for mass shooters.
Mr. Biden is right that schools shouldn’t be like prisons and lockdown drills are a sad reality today. But there is another alternative. Instead of posting gun-free zone signs in front of schools, let’s post signs warning attackers that there are staff members with concealed handguns.
Friday, April 21, 2023
Criminalizing speech is alive and well in Europe. Coming here soon (wait a minute – it’s already here)
From Jonathan Turley.
Never underestimate intolerant people - especially those with power.
-------------------------------------------
The Tower for Twitter? UK Minister Calls for Jailing Social Media Bosses Who Do Not Censor Speech
As previously discussed, after Musk decided to buy Twitter, Hillary Clinton called upon European countries to force social media companies to censor Americans. The European Union quickly responded by threatening Musk and other executives. Now, Technology and Science Secretary Michelle Donelan has announced plans to jail social media executives if they fail to censor so-called “harmful” content on their websites. The government, of course, will determine what is deemed too harmful for citizens to see or hear.Donelan is seeking speech arrests under the UK’s Online Safety Bill, a draconian censorship bill that would effectively ban end-to-end encryption for private internet users.
The bill uses Britain’s broadcasting regulator Ofcom to censor “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred” based on various progressive characteristics, including transgenderism. So the government can censor anyone who it views as promoting or justifying hatred against virtually any group. Those who do not censor can now be rounded up by Donelan and her minions.
According to a report by The Telegraph, companies will also face fines of up to 10 per cent of their global revenue should they dare to ignore Britain’s demands to preemptively delete or obscure posts violating its coming censorship regime.
The decline of free speech in the United Kingdom has long been a concern for free speech advocates. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”
Recently we discussed the arrest of a woman who was praying to herself near an abortion clinic. English courts have seen criminalized “toxic ideologies” as part of this crackdown on free speech.
Donelan is only the latest voice of a rising generation of censors. These officials proudly parade their intent to silence or jail those with dissenting views. Yet, they do so in the name of tolerance. This is why free speech is in a free fall in Europe and why we must remain vigilant in this country to resist figures like Clinton who want to bring European censorship to our shores.
Thursday, April 20, 2023
Richard Feynman lecture: Los Alamos From Below
Really good. Both informative and funny.
Here is the link.
Wednesday, April 19, 2023
Disney's plans for the most entertainment in years
From Jonathan Turley.
JT is on target.
Woke, cancel, equity, etc. are signs of degeneracy, not progress. They have and will continue to hurt our society.
--------------------------------------------
Disney’s Wild Ride: DeSantis-Appointed Board Set to Declare Disney’s Unchecked Authority Null and VoidThis weekend, I contributed to an article for the New York Post with an exclusive on a move by the new board governing Disney properties to declare the recent transfers of power to the company to be null and void. Below is my column on the legal implications of that move and how Disney may be set for a truly wild ride in the weeks ahead.
Here is the column:
Walt Disney used to say, “The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis is about to put Disney’s own motto to the test — against Disney.
According to a high-ranking Florida official, the newly created Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is set early this week to call Disney on one of the worst bluffs of all time.
The result could prove the House of Mouse made a costly miscalculation.
For decades, Disney had reason to be the “happiest place on Earth.” Florida supported the company by giving it a unique status in controlling its own governance.
The Reedy Creek Improvement District controlled the Disney property, and Disney effectively controlled its board.
Technically, the board was elected by those living on the Disney property, which amounts to a small number of people living among the “cast members.”
It was a breathtaking deal for the company, which set its own building standards, granted its own construction permits and determined the scope of services, building codes, waste collection and other infrastructure matters.
Outside of the Vatican, such self-governance is little more than a fantasy for companies and organizations.
That favored status came to a crashing halt when Disney went public with a pledge to oppose Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act.
The legislation prohibited classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to third grade. It also required “age appropriate” material in other grades.
Then-Disney CEO Bob Chapek originally told workers the company would not take a public position on the legislation to stay out of politics.
Disney employees protested, and Chapek quickly caved, declaring the company would fight to have the law rescinded.
The company has long been “woke” in its policies. But this was a crossing of the Rubicon in plunging into politics.
Disney became the symbol of increasing corporate activism.
While going woke will not necessarily force Disney to go broke, it is facing unprecedented boycotts of its parks and movies, including controversial children’s films with same-sex characters and relationships. On two of those movies, Disney lost more than a quarter of a billion dollars.
Picking fights with people with general tax authority is rarely a winning strategy for a company.
The state responded by removing Disney’s favored status, gutting the Reedy Creek Improvement District and creating the new board with governing authority over Disney properties.
Disney could still have tried to find a compromise. Instead, it did something even more reckless.
In the final days of the Disney-dominated board, the members voted to transfer powers to the company.
Disney is used to being its own self-governing boss.
That history may have warped its judgment in attempting this power grab. It is a move that would make the pirates of the Caribbean blush.
The “declaration of restrictive covenants” gives Disney total control over development and even bans the new board from using Disney’s name or the names of any of its “fanciful characters.”
It added what is called a royal clause, used in England since 1692.
It specified this “Declaration shall continue in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this declaration.”
Disney may have been too clever by half. The “Hail Mickey” play appears fundamentally flawed.
I have been told the new board intends to treat the declaration as null and void. It appears to have strong grounds to do so.
Indeed, Disney’s legal case seemed no better planned than its political campaign.
First and foremost, under Florida Section 163.3225, a board cannot order such changes without giving a seven-day public notice and other conditions.
You are not allowed a jump scare like Space Mountain — you must give notice on your intended measures.
There is no indication the board did so.
That alone could nullify the declaration. Ordinarily, a board would simply reschedule the vote with proper notice, but the old board is gone.
There are also serious problems with a board using a declaration to nullify a state law and pass a development plan with no actual plan for development.
It is a curious legal claim that this now-defunct board could negate not just current state law but law for the next 30 years.
Instead, the new board will “quit talking and begin doing.” It will proceed with a vengeance.
Since the old board is no more, Disney will have to sue to try to enjoin the new board. For new CEO Bob Iger, this could make Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride look like a walk in the park.
Disney has no good options.
Even if it could sustain this dubious declaration, the state has myriad ways to impose added costs on the corporation.
When you are sitting on billions in a fixed, unmovable 27,000 acres (42 square miles) of real estate assets, declaring war on your host state is remarkably stupid.
Worse yet, this declaration does appear invalid, and I am told the new board is ready to give Disney a rude awakening this week.
Pro-Disney staff will be canned and public hearings planned on the range of new regulations for the Magic Kingdom.
There are a host of areas that will be subjected to inspections, from the elevators to the famed monorail.
There are also salaries for first responders and others, who may have been underpaid by the Mouse.
Likewise, decades of controlling its own environmental compliance will come to an end with the potential for considerable costs and changes.
The “Small World” is going to get a lot smaller with inspectors testing the water, boats and electrical systems.
Shareholders are likely to raise a familiar question over Disney executives’ priorities in pursuing social and political agendas.
This has already cost the company, and those costs are likely to grow in the coming weeks.
Disney will be demanding it alone among companies dictate its own rules as if it were an Indian reservation that comes with its own faux Indians.
Disney is not alone. In recent days, Bud Light and Nike have faced backlashes and boycotts after aligning their brands with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
In the case of Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light’s parent company, the immediate impact was the loss of $6 billion in value.
It joins a long list of corporations embracing political and social causes despite significant opposition from their consumers.
The fight over governance is a no-win situation for Disney, but the corporate leadership didn’t seem to care. That may trigger a long-needed discussion of shareholders’ and consumers’ ability to push back on political or environmental, social, governance (ESG) policies.
Once again, the company seems oblivious to economic consequences of its aggressive postures toward the state.
While this may be popular for executives, it is not popular with a sizable number of consumers, particularly in Florida.
If, as I have been told, the new board proceeds with its plan, Disney will have to make a choice. It can abandon this effort and seek terms with the state.
Or it can move to enjoin the new board. That will again play to the advantage of DeSantis, who has made the struggle with Disney a core part of his legacy.
Litigation would keep Disney in the news in a negative and polarizing way. It would also expose its operations — and relations to this board — to discovery and public scrutiny.
Unlike its opposition to education law, this move lacks any principle, precedent and prospect to succeed.
Even if a court allows a company to effectively grant itself unchallenged authority, even one the size of Disney cannot win in the long run against the third-most-populous state in the union.
With four theme parks, two water parks, 25 hotels and about 80,000 employees, the state has a host of areas where “leveling the playing field” with other companies will cost Disney dearly.
Indeed, DeSantis and the board just might enjoy this. It’s a fight they’ll likely win legally and politically cannot lose.
They will be fighting to force inspections of monorails and elevators, enforce environmental standards, raise salaries of first responders and oppose a company demanding its own laws.
They’ll be seeking to apply the same laws in the same way to Disney as other large corporations.
Disney will have to argue against such a level playing field and demand to be treated as a virtual sovereign over its own “Kingdom.”
That is a fight DeSantis clearly welcomes. As Mary Poppins said, “In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun.” Whatever happens early this week, it is likely to be fun for everyone but Disney.
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Greenthink
Here is Russ Schussler at judithcurry.com
RS is on target. Too much Green thinking is too sloppy to take seriously - unless the Greens are successful in forcing its implementation. Oh, oh, isn't that what is happening?
With respect to California's proposed fixed rate billing scheme, even first year microeconomics predicts a fiasco.
-----------------------------------
Renewable Experts: Undeterred and Unmoved by Failed Ideasby Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
“Green” ideas and their proponents can create problems. Like the antagonist in Terminator 2, green arguments and proponents don’t go down easily. With serious challenges, they retreat, hibernate sometimes, morph, transform and come back. It’s hard to argue with many “green” energy ideas. They are often huge in scope but severely limited in details. Focusing on a couple key factors and ignoring or leaving so much to be worked out later. Painfully naïve or unaware of so many factors associated with the provision of energy, feedback and often even human behavior. They see the flaws in current efforts, but are blind to the drawbacks which will necessarily emerge from their proposals. The offer conjectures with a lot of dots to still be connected. They speak of things that may be possible, without any handle on the probabilities.
Usually, “green” ideas are packaged with threats of doom, promises of superior technology or both. The media are drawn to both those themes and many policy makers are attracted as well. Attention is a great thing for new ideas. The themes of urgency and the scope of change, gives these ideas more weight and seeming gravitas. Unfortunately, the needed incentives to dig down and look critically as these ideas are generally lacking. Woefully, those promulgating “green” ideas don’t have much incentive for engaging with their critics or broadening their understandings. They generate the feeling that we need to move forward with the big, new important thing – no time for distractions.
Death of the Grid
Consider the following example. Predictions for the death of the grid have held some prominence during the last decade. It started around 2012 with forecasts of ‘death spirals” for utilities. The theory was that as customers found self-generation options preferable, more and more would leave the grid, thus raising costs for those who remained. This grid defection or load defection would lead to rising costs which would lead to further load/grid defection. Searching “grid defection” and/or “load defection “brings up a host of warnings proclaiming a coming green energy transition which would be accompanied by the demise of the grid.
Financial analysts joined in and issued warnings as well:
- Morgan Stanley, Clean Tech, Utilities & Autos [March 2014] “Our analysis suggests utility customers may be positioned to eliminate their use of the power grid.”
- Barclays, Utilities Credit Strategy Analyst Report [May 2014] “We see near-term risks to credit from regulators and utilities falling behind the solar + storage adoption curve and long-term risks from a comprehensive re-imagining of the role utilities play in providing electric power.”
- Goldman Sachs, Analyst note on Tesla stock [March 2014] “…decreased reliability from an aging distribution infrastructure, a broadening desire to reduce the carbon footprint, and perhaps most importantly, the reduction of solar panel and battery costs could also work together to make grid independence a reality for many customers one day”
This “idea” or “forecast” of potential grid obsolescence caused challenges in the real world of electric utilities planning. At the time, I was seeking the approval of annual grid construction budgets running into the hundreds of million dollars per year. My Board asked: why are we putting so much into a grid that Morgan Stanley and others say might go away? I shared my perspectives with the board, arguing the need for continued grid expansion. Some of those perspectives can be read in these two articles I co-authored some years later, titled Reports of the Electric Grid’s Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated and The Grid End Game.
At the time, our Board (and many others) were in a tough position. Who are you going to believe? Academics, government experts, renewable specialists and recognized financial experts, or your own local guy? From my perspective, I had a strong understanding of electric supply, consumer needs, issues around availability and deliverability, and I worked hard to understand what the arguments of the other “experts”. The renewables people seemed to have so much faith in themselves that they didn’t need to be bothered by the details of providing electrical service or understanding why their predictions might be wrong. Financial experts were relying on renewable experts without paying attention to many of the broader issues involved in power delivery. While to me it seems clear, that considerable respect should go to those in the field versus the potential disruptors, that has been a hard argument to make historically. Despite their poor record of forecasting in the past, those who’ve made bad predictions continue to gain considerable attention and respect.
What did we do to help our board? At strategic planning meetings we took the other side. We assumed the need for the grid would wither away. We looked at what might happen to our billions in investment. We argued that our resources would still have value. For example, some of our transmission ties would be valuable for energy exchanges between distributed networks. Many of our transmission substations could house batteries and serve to support smaller networks. Other right of ways we owned might have value for communication pathways, pipelines, roadways or the like. That provided enough comfort for going forward with continued transmission investment in the interim.
Overwhelmingly it’s a good thing that many entities continued to build transmission, despite the dire warnings of grid obsolescence. Less optimal results likely ensued when project support was stymied by the cautions of “experts”. The “green” consensus now seems to be that enhanced robust grids are essential to increasing the penetration of renewables. The existing grid elements , including projects completed back then despite the warnings, are foundational to any serious efforts at expanding renewable resources.
Experts at Conferences
Back then, there were various conferences, symposiums and working groups centered around the demise of the grid. I went to several to make sure I was aware of their best arguments and well informed on recent and potential developments. At one sponsored by the Department of Energy, Ernest Moniz in 2013, the US Secretary of the Department of Energy welcomed us. Unfortunately, such gatherings usually failed to provide significant platforms for dissenting views and were a little heavy handed in touting grid fears. My experience with one large “working group” illustrates generally how these meeting would go. Here to the best of my memory is what happened at a working group held at Duke University, which had around 100 participants, government sponsorship and was run by high priced consultants. I asked questions suggesting the grid had a lot of value and that distributed “green” resources would struggle mightily in its absence. Those on the agenda were super confident, they had it all figured out. Those questioning the “wisdom” were seen as oddballs, but some people would come up and whisper to me during breaks that they were wondering the same things.
One task introduced for the large working group in attendance was figuring out what we might do to make the grid more relevant as demand for the grid decreased. I sensed a disconnect, if the group felt the grid did not have value, why work to preserve it? I passionately explained, “I work for a transmission only entity. I believe the grid had great value and will continue to provide great value. But if you are right, perhaps the grid should be allowed to fade away.” I explained that, “my goal is to meet the needs of our distribution customers and end-use consumers. If they have better options than retaining the grid – I would encourage them to use those options. ” I asked then, “Why if you think the grid is not needed, do you care about its continuance? What’s the purpose of this working group? Why isn’t our goal to help the transition?” The room got silent and eventually the facilitator noted that was an interesting perspective worthy of consideration.
What the group decided to do (likely pre-ordained by the facilitators) was model a bunch of different future generation scenarios showing where new generation would come from to see what they showed about timing and the need for the grid. There were a number of different scenarios proposed, some dominated by large distant wind, other more supported by dispersed solar and so on. All potential scenarios were heavily or exclusively renewables based. I asked shouldn’t we have one scenario where new natural gas plants played some role. (Much like what has actually played out in the last decade.) The leaders quickly came back and said, “NO, fracking might be banned! So, gas scenarios may be worthless.” I replied that I certainly understood that as a possibility, but that every other scenario suggested faced similar challenges and roadblocks. Wouldn’t a scenario showing some addition of natural gas plants be worthwhile for comparison purposes? When we broke into smaller working groups with differing tasks, I wasn’t assigned to the one refining and selecting the the scenarios. Not surprisingly additional natural gas resources were not included in in any of the scenarios. ( I suppose I don’t need to tell the readers that any additional nuclear wasn’t represented as a possibility in any of the scenarios either.)
Real work responsibilities prevented me from attending the follow up sessions. While I looked forward to reading the reports that came out of the group, no reports or formal outputs ever materialized. By the time they were finishing up, I suspect the handwriting was on the wall and it had becoming clear enough that the findings they originally anticipated would not be defensible. Unfortunately, it’s often the case that when these type groups don’t find the results they want, they don’t admit mistakes or publish a lesson learned from their endeavors. They just move on to something else.
Deja Vu: The Ideas Changed but the Same Experts Remained
I recognized many of the individuals and groups who were pushing the end of the grid, from various conferences, symposiums and working groups I had attended years earlier on the topic of Integrated Resource Planning (IRP). It was like seeing the same actors in a slightly different play. Reading new scripts but still ushering in “green” change and creating problems for those actually trying to support the grid.
One of the entities involved in both was the Rocky Mountain Institute. They, like many of the other “experts” pushing the demise of the grid, earlier were busy pushing Integrated Resource Planning. The Rocky Mountain Institute touted the great value of negawatts (a unit of electricity save by conservation). They characterized the traditional utility approach to planning as blindly looking at load growth and building resources as needed. They proposed that considerable benefits would accrue from treating load, generation, efficiency and distributed resources on equal footing in all stages of planning. The argued that utilities could see significant savings by paying customers to improve efficiency and thus lowering their need for costly infrastructure improvements. They thought negawatts should be a prime option for addressing system needs and avoiding infrastructure. Buying negawatts could save on infrastructure.
They encouraged the expectation that forecasts of expensive upgrades for transmission lines should preferably be addressed by targeted localized efficiency programs. It’s hard to estimate potential efficiency gains on a system wide basis, let alone in targeted load areas. Deploying programs with such precision is huge problem because of all the uncertainty in load growth, efficiency program impacts and other interrelated factors. Due to the complexity and unknowns, it was likely impossible for any utility to do defer individual projects by using the recommended IRP approaches.
Back in the mid-90s, regulators would ask if you looked at delaying a transmission uprate by implementing a program to incentivize replacements of older refrigerators with more efficient ones. They were not impressed when you told them, this did not seem like a workable solution. All these experts were telling everyone utilities should do this, but looking across the nation (and globally) no one had achieved any kind of success suggesting this was remotely possible. I was very pleased when I heard the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) was undertaking a huge program to demonstrate the state of the art as to how such things could be done.
EPRI selected a community in Oregon and they were going to follow the best advice of “experts” to demonstrate the proposed concepts. I naively felt that either they would give us guidance as to how this might realistically be accomplished, or more likely force them to publicize the limitations of such approaches. I expected they would encounter numerous unwieldly real-world challenges. The program was launched with a big fanfare at with a considerably large budget. I followed the early efforts as the program implementation began. The early documentation was frequent and very impressive, explaining the great things being undertaken. As results should have been emerging, suddenly there was silence. I heard the program was having some trouble, but nothing was being published. I searched and searched over time. Finally, years later, I found a comprehensive listing of cancelled EPRI projects. For the targeted efficiency program there were only about two lines in that listing. It stated the project name and said only that the project was cancelled because the target city had become the wind surfing capital of the east coast and the resultant load growth in the area had made the project infeasible.
That’s the way the world works most of the time. Something big comes along that you didn’t anticipate, or many small things, or a combination of factors. Having overly complicated plans dependent on getting multiple variables right, is not a good recipe for success. I wish EPRI had provided some follow up. With all the investment and efforts put into place, before they realized their hoped-for plans were dashed, they could have provided some documentation of the challenges and successes (if any) they encountered before the project “blew up”. But unfortunately, it is not common for to write of the demise of their cherished ideas. The promoters just withdraw and let their dreams hibernate to maybe come back another day. The obvious lessons aren’t learned. The experts that pushed for these ideas found a new wagon to hitch to their horses, and for many of the IRP/negawatt experts it was the idea of grid defection.
It’s a Game
What was gained by forecasting the death of the grid? What was gained by making utilities prioritize using negawatts? Claiming disaster or a new superior approach grabs attention. Extreme criticisms of existing approaches can get attention as well. This attention can help entities promote other related objectives. Predicting the end of the grid is pretty bold and it attracted a lot of press. It helped focus attention on “green” projects and industries and no doubt helped their funding. If the claims are bold and the consequences large, it seems that the strength of supporting evidence is irrelevant.
Historically we’ve had an excellent power system, but there will always be emerging needs and challenges. Arguing for continued incremental improvements makes sense. Saying the grid is worthwhile and will be needed for a long while, though is not as exciting as forecasting the grids end. Looking at the world more realistically is suitable for boring articles in the trade publications. Talk of enhancements to existing technology while carefully nurturing new technology is not near as exciting as most “green” proposals. It perhaps should not be surprising that such plans do not garner as much attention or support. But that is unfortunate, because projects conceived with such understandings have proven, and will likely continue to be proven, to be the best options in the future.
When green ideas seem credible to unquestioning minds, they have shown that they can attract crowds, attention and money. With political support their proponents can avoid engagement with critics. When the real world intrudes and some ideas seem less credible, the appropriate lessons aren’t learned; rather the same flawed ideas merely hibernate. Those pushing the discarded ideas then find new ideas to push. Sometimes “green” advocates switch gears to advocate renewable energy ideas that are directly contradictory to what they were advancing before. That type thing goes on untouched without observation or notice.
Where are We Now?
Most “green” entities now see the grid as central to achieving CO2 goals. The Rocky Mountain Institute is currently much less bullish on grid defection then they were before and they now observe that, “the grid has been growing in importance for decades as a driver of economic growth, and recently as a key enabler for meeting economy-wide decarbonization targets through electrification with renewable energy.” However, they note that “historical approaches to ensuring grid security in the United States are proving to be poorly suited to the emerging, catastrophic threats facing the grid.” Now they warn that, “A grid outage can mean not being able to access critical health services, water supply, communications, and more, negatively affecting people’s well-being and our country’s economic growth.”
By now almost all “green” advocates have figured out that the grid is central to allowing the increased penetration of renewable resources. Rather than proclaiming the death of the grid, they see the grid now as needing their help. They don’t praise the grid for what it has done, but rather are critical of the supposed shortcomings of the grid. They speak of modern grids as being “third world grids”. They insist that new ideas are needed and they encourage the expansion of the grid with the development of enhanced capabilities. Suddenly they are the defenders of the grid and the experts who know what must be done with the grid to protect us from the looming crises.
The truth is that integrating increasing amounts of solar and wind is complicated, expensive and poses reliability risks. Renewable advocates want to blame the grid for the problems inherent in asynchronous intermittent wind and solar generation. Their ideas for the future grid are more about transferring and hiding costs rather than about providing technical solutions to the problems posed by integrating wind and solar.
The grid has seen substantial changes over the years. It has become stronger, more robust and continues to use new technology to enhance its functioning. The grid is “smart” now, it was “smart” in the past and it will continue to be “smart” in the future. Nevertheless, integrating large amounts of wind and solar will create significant problems for the power system. Changes to the grid can help integrate more wind and solar, but only with increasingly greater costs and increasing reliability concerns. It’s not an exciting message, but it’s one that should be heard. We shouldn’t let talk of emerging technological breakthroughs or apocalyptic threats distract us from serious considerations. The grid should grow and evolve as it always has by balancing economics, reliability and public responsibility. That will likely happen slowly and bit by bit, not by a top-down politically mandated grand redesign.
Postscript: Just after completing this posting it was reported that California is considering moving to fixed rate billing (based on income) which would completely uncouple electric consumers from usage concerns. I remember that once upon a time smart meters giving real time data to customers paired with real time pricing was the key for efficiency and better use of of distributed resources. In fact, RMI wrote in 2015 that:
“The grid of the future will be centered on the customer, enabling customers to understand and manage their energy use more efficiently. Personalized, transparent, and actionable data availability to customers and to the marketplace is a key factor enabling that transition… (P)ersonalized feedback has been described as the “holy grail” of energy efficiency, and yields the greatest percentage of customer responses and energy savings.”
I’m afraid that emerging problems triggered by California’s “green” efforts are behind this terribly ill-conceived proposal. I wait to see how RMI and other “green” advocates will react to California’s fixed cost proposals. My guess is that they may like fixed costs billing because consumers can be completely separated from the consequences of their personal energy use allowing “green” energy initiatives to be pursued with less transparency and interference.
Saturday, April 15, 2023
SCOTUS moves against the Bureaucracy
Jan Wolfe and Dave Michaels at the Wall Street Journal.
It's probably a good thing to curb the power of Administrative Judges. Too often, they just side with the bureaucracy that employs them.
-----------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Opens Path to Curbing FTC, SEC Powers
The Supreme Court on Friday issued an opinion that will make it easier for businesses to challenge the way government enforcers use special in-house courts to block mergers, punish stockbrokers and money managers, and go after allegedly unfair business practices.
In a unanimous decision, the justices said people and businesses subjected to administrative proceedings at the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission can seek to enjoin, or block, those proceedings by suing in U.S. District Court and raising constitutional arguments there.
The opinion dealt with two related cases, Axon Enterprise v. FTC and SEC v. Cochran. While it addressed a narrow jurisdictional question, it highlighted the court’s increasing skepticism toward administrative tribunals run by federal agencies.
“This foreshadows hard days to come” for the FTC, said William E. Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University who was the commission’s chairman from 2008 until 2009. “There is evident discontent in the court about the structure and operations of the FTC.”
Writing for the court, Justice Elana Kagan said all the relevant factors “point in the same direction—toward allowing district court review of…claims that the structure, or even existence, of an agency violates the Constitution.”
Plaintiffs in both cases will now move forward in lower courts with arguments that administrative law judges are too difficult for the president or his appointees to remove, violating the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution. Friday’s decision didn’t address those questions.
Justice Kagan wrote that the FTC isn’t well-suited to deciding constitutional questions about its own power.
“The Commission knows a good deal about competition policy, but nothing special about the separation of powers,” Justice Kagan wrote.
While joining the unanimous decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion to reiterate his long-held concerns about tribunals run by administrative agencies. He said in a future case the court should address the “serious constitutional issues” raised by granting these administrative tribunals too much authority over people’s rights and livelihoods.
The FTC enforces competition and consumer-protection laws and frequently sues to block mergers using its in-house court. The agency in December challenged Microsoft Corp.’s purchase of Activision Blizzard Inc. in its administrative court.
The SEC’s domain is focused on investor-protection laws, and for years it used the administrative courts to sue regulated professionals such as stockbrokers, money managers and public-company accountants. Some brokers and money managers complained the deck was stacked against them and have waged a yearslong battle to oppose the SEC’s use of the special courts.
The FTC and SEC argued that the parties to the administrative proceeding must wait to lose at the agency tribunal before they can raise such constitutional questions in federal court.
The FTC case dates back to 2018, when Axon Enterprise, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., said it was buying a smaller competitor in the market for police body cameras, Vievu LLC, for $13 million. In January 2020, the FTC brought an administrative action to unwind the consummated merger, saying the deal had lessened competition in a concentrated industry.
Sunday, April 09, 2023
The Supreme Court Is Harming Public Health and the Environment
Here are Lawrence Gostin, JD, and Sarah Wetter, JD, MPH at jamanetwork.com. Both are at the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Their Viewpoint article is a good example of supposedly educated and knowledgeable professionals going off the rails because they fail to understand fields outside their profession - and even their profession.
I've added some comments in italics to focus on points that might be interesting to think about.
--------------------------------------
A fundamental shift in the Supreme Court was set in motion in 2020 with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett as his third appointee, forming a conservative 6-3 supermajority. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is having a profound effect on public health, safety, and environmental policy. This Viewpoint looks back at the Supreme Court’s 2021 and 2022 terms and forward to the 2023 term and beyond.Public Health Powers During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Rather than deferring to scientific decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court often struck them down. The justices invalidated New York and California’s restrictions on religious gatherings (eTable in the Supplement) despite considerable evidence that congregate settings pose a high transmission risk. The Supreme Court similarly overturned the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eviction moratorium despite findings that evictions contribute to the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
The issue for the Supreme Court is upholding the law, not whether the science correct. The focus on transmission risk ignores important tradeoffs. The failure to consider important tradeoffs is a fundamental analytical flaw.
The financial cost of eviction moratoriums selectively impact landlords. If an eviction moratorium is deemed desirable by society, Isn't it society that should pay, not only landlords? Why would politicians penalize only landlords - only for their own self-interest. An eviction moratorium is economically similar to a randomly applied substantial tax on landlords. Isn't the long-run response to this substantial risk to move the supply curve of rental residences to the left? Doesn't that reduce quantity and increase price?
The justices similarly blocked an Occupational Safety and Health Administration emergency temporary standard ordering large businesses to either require COVID-19 vaccination or regularly test employees. Scientists from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration estimated it would prevent 6500 deaths and 250 000 hospitalizations over 6 months. The Supreme Court narrowly upheld a mandate from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for health care workers to be vaccinated or undergo testing.
False and Misleading Scientific Information
Public trust in science is vital not only for an informed populous but also to enhance compliance with public health guidance. Yet, §230 of the Communications Decency Act protects social media companies against lawsuits regarding users’ posts even if they are false, misleading, or extremist.
The Supreme Court will decide whether §230 should shield giant technology companies from accountability. The Supreme Court is also considering whether to hear challenges to laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from removing certain political content. The outcome of these cases could upend the internet with vast significance for regulation of online media content.1
As we have seen over and over again, those who proclaim both truth and the necessity of stopping what they view as non-truth have been wrong on the former and produced much damage with the latter - including a loss of freedom that benefits those in power at the expense of others.
Environmental Health
The air we breathe and the water we drink have profound effects on health. Last term, the Supreme Court invalidated the Clean Power Plan, which would have required power plants to install energy-efficient devices and demonstrate progress toward sustainable energy. The justices relied on the “major questions” doctrine, which holds that Congress must explicitly authorize agency actions with major social or economic effects.
False and Misleading Scientific Information
Public trust in science is vital not only for an informed populous but also to enhance compliance with public health guidance. Yet, §230 of the Communications Decency Act protects social media companies against lawsuits regarding users’ posts even if they are false, misleading, or extremist.
The Supreme Court will decide whether §230 should shield giant technology companies from accountability. The Supreme Court is also considering whether to hear challenges to laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from removing certain political content. The outcome of these cases could upend the internet with vast significance for regulation of online media content.1
As we have seen over and over again, those who proclaim both truth and the necessity of stopping what they view as non-truth have been wrong on the former and produced much damage with the latter - including a loss of freedom that benefits those in power at the expense of others.
Environmental Health
The air we breathe and the water we drink have profound effects on health. Last term, the Supreme Court invalidated the Clean Power Plan, which would have required power plants to install energy-efficient devices and demonstrate progress toward sustainable energy. The justices relied on the “major questions” doctrine, which holds that Congress must explicitly authorize agency actions with major social or economic effects.
This is another issue of law for the Supreme Court. The authors ignore tradeoffs here, too. Installing energy efficient devices does not necessarily make sense. If it makes economic sense it would be done without a requirement - assuming Government had not already screwed up the economic setting.
Because most federal regulations have wide social and economic effects, the Supreme Court’s reasoning could prove fatal to many health, safety, and environmental regulations. Laws grant agencies broad discretion because Congress cannot anticipate every health threat, thus relying on agencies to confront new challenges. Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency have far more subject matter expertise than Congress or the courts.
Because most federal regulations have wide social and economic effects, the Supreme Court’s reasoning could prove fatal to many health, safety, and environmental regulations. Laws grant agencies broad discretion because Congress cannot anticipate every health threat, thus relying on agencies to confront new challenges. Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency have far more subject matter expertise than Congress or the courts.
And, as we have seen, Federal Agencies also have a substantial amount of self-interest that effects their decisions and hurts others. Economists did not invent the "agency problem" for no reason.
This term, the Supreme Court could further weaken the Environmental Protection Agency by narrowing the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.2 The Supreme Court is widely expected to supplant the agency’s expertise with the court’s own judgement. The narrowed definition would exclude wetlands and the oil, gas, mining, and agricultural industries would be able to discharge pollutants into wetlands without even needing a permit. This would threaten natural habitats as well as waters for recreation, fishing, and drinking. Just as climate change has become a defining issue, the Supreme Court is curtailing regulatory action to ensure a cleaner environment.
This term, the Supreme Court could further weaken the Environmental Protection Agency by narrowing the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.2 The Supreme Court is widely expected to supplant the agency’s expertise with the court’s own judgement. The narrowed definition would exclude wetlands and the oil, gas, mining, and agricultural industries would be able to discharge pollutants into wetlands without even needing a permit. This would threaten natural habitats as well as waters for recreation, fishing, and drinking. Just as climate change has become a defining issue, the Supreme Court is curtailing regulatory action to ensure a cleaner environment.
The Environmental Protection Agency has provided many wonderful examples of the damage that cam be caused by economic agency issues and the failure to address tradeoffs in a reasonable manner. What makes the authors think that the current practices and laws get it "just right"? If Government and Agency history is a guide, it's more likely to be too much now.
Firearm Safety
A conservative majority has drastically expanded the reach of the Second Amendment, limiting government action to prevent gun violence. Last term, the Supreme Court invalidated a New York law that, since 1911, has required a person to show proper cause for a license to carry a handgun outside the home. Lower courts have used this precedent to invalidate other long-standing, common sense gun laws.
On February 2, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional a federal law banning gun possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders.3 Guns, now the leading cause of death in children and adolescents aged 1 to 19 years, have already taken more than 4000 lives in the US in 2023, with mass shootings occurring every day.4
Firearm Safety
A conservative majority has drastically expanded the reach of the Second Amendment, limiting government action to prevent gun violence. Last term, the Supreme Court invalidated a New York law that, since 1911, has required a person to show proper cause for a license to carry a handgun outside the home. Lower courts have used this precedent to invalidate other long-standing, common sense gun laws.
On February 2, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional a federal law banning gun possession by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders.3 Guns, now the leading cause of death in children and adolescents aged 1 to 19 years, have already taken more than 4000 lives in the US in 2023, with mass shootings occurring every day.4
The authors' comment reflects an almost total misunderstanding of the impact of gun laws. Virtually all the best academic papers show this. In particular, many "common-sense" gun laws have been statistically shown to be either ineffective or to worsen the problem. If you want to get the real story, try "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. Pay particular attention to the sections where he goes through the lies and lousy statistics of those who try to discredit him. also check out the Center for Crime Prevention Research.
Abortion Rights
Last term marked the first time in history the Supreme Court withdrew a constitutional right, finding that a right to abortion was not “deeply rooted in our Nation’s history.” At least 13 states have fully banned abortion and 5 states have partial bans on abortion while proposed abortion bans remain blocked in 8 states. These restrictions have caused a patient’s average travel time to an abortion facility to more than triple.
Abortion Rights
Last term marked the first time in history the Supreme Court withdrew a constitutional right, finding that a right to abortion was not “deeply rooted in our Nation’s history.” At least 13 states have fully banned abortion and 5 states have partial bans on abortion while proposed abortion bans remain blocked in 8 states. These restrictions have caused a patient’s average travel time to an abortion facility to more than triple.
I love it. Competition among the States for population is what might work best, just as it often does elsewhere. By the way, can you find any right to abortion in the Constitution. That said, I am for allowing it under broad circumstances.
Abortion bans have the most significant effect on individuals who lack the resources and support to travel longer distances as well as minors, racial and ethnic minority individuals, non-English speakers, and migrants. The ruling spurred crucial legal questions, including whether emergency medical care must include abortion services. Litigation is also ongoing over approval of abortion medications by the Food and Drug Administration.
LGBTQ+ Rights
Last term, the Supreme Court ruled that a city-funded Catholic social services agency could deny same-sex couples the opportunity to foster children in defiance of Philadelphia’s antidiscrimination law. The unanimous decision centered on a technicality in the law. More alarming was a concurring opinion by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas that argued for overturning the 1990 ruling in Employment Division v Smith,7 which established that generally applicable laws do not require religious exemptions. The justices’ advocacy for religious rights could undermine vaccination mandates, while also legitimizing discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.
Abortion bans have the most significant effect on individuals who lack the resources and support to travel longer distances as well as minors, racial and ethnic minority individuals, non-English speakers, and migrants. The ruling spurred crucial legal questions, including whether emergency medical care must include abortion services. Litigation is also ongoing over approval of abortion medications by the Food and Drug Administration.
LGBTQ+ Rights
Last term, the Supreme Court ruled that a city-funded Catholic social services agency could deny same-sex couples the opportunity to foster children in defiance of Philadelphia’s antidiscrimination law. The unanimous decision centered on a technicality in the law. More alarming was a concurring opinion by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas that argued for overturning the 1990 ruling in Employment Division v Smith,7 which established that generally applicable laws do not require religious exemptions. The justices’ advocacy for religious rights could undermine vaccination mandates, while also legitimizing discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.
If the law is upheld, so be it. And if some organizations have adoption practices you don't like, why not go elsewhere? Better to have more freedom for individuals and groups than less - unless it eliminates choices (as opposed to simply "going down the street") or threatens substantial harm to others (e.g. assault by activists).
This term, the Supreme Court will decide whether businesses open to the public can refuse to serve LGBTQ+ individuals. If the Supreme Court places commercial expression above LGBTQ+ rights, it could relegate LGBTQ+ individuals to a disfavored class, further narrowing access to goods and services. LGBTQ+ people already face higher rates of violence and discrimination, putting them at risk for physical and mental harms.
This term, the Supreme Court will decide whether businesses open to the public can refuse to serve LGBTQ+ individuals. If the Supreme Court places commercial expression above LGBTQ+ rights, it could relegate LGBTQ+ individuals to a disfavored class, further narrowing access to goods and services. LGBTQ+ people already face higher rates of violence and discrimination, putting them at risk for physical and mental harms.
Refusing to serve is not equivalent to violence. I favor freedom over tyranny - even when the freedom allows behavior I don't like to persist.
Medicaid
This term, the Supreme Court will decide whether Medicaid recipients can challenge state denials of federally guaranteed benefits. A federal law known as §1983 has long granted individuals denied benefits access to the courts.8 Decades of precedent support a judicial pathway to enforce rights under federally funded programs (eg, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Yet the Supreme Court may find these programs are simply contracts between states and the federal government, with no enforceable rights. Low-income individuals would have federally protected rights, but no remedy when states deny benefits for which they are eligible. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program are among the few safety nets for low-income individuals, and are used by 90 million individuals in the US. Especially as states wind down COVID-19 protections, Medicaid enrollees need an outlet to safeguard benefits wrongfully denied.
Speculation? Guilty until proven innocent?
Health Equity
This year, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on cases that go to the heart of equity in US society. In 2 consolidated cases, the Supreme Court is expected to invalidate affirmative action designed to increase diversity and opportunity in higher education. Yet as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated, education is a major social determinant of health. American Indian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations remain vastly underrepresented in higher education. These groups experience less economic opportunity, less representation in the health care workforce, and fill fewer leadership positions.
Medicaid
This term, the Supreme Court will decide whether Medicaid recipients can challenge state denials of federally guaranteed benefits. A federal law known as §1983 has long granted individuals denied benefits access to the courts.8 Decades of precedent support a judicial pathway to enforce rights under federally funded programs (eg, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Yet the Supreme Court may find these programs are simply contracts between states and the federal government, with no enforceable rights. Low-income individuals would have federally protected rights, but no remedy when states deny benefits for which they are eligible. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program are among the few safety nets for low-income individuals, and are used by 90 million individuals in the US. Especially as states wind down COVID-19 protections, Medicaid enrollees need an outlet to safeguard benefits wrongfully denied.
Speculation? Guilty until proven innocent?
Health Equity
This year, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on cases that go to the heart of equity in US society. In 2 consolidated cases, the Supreme Court is expected to invalidate affirmative action designed to increase diversity and opportunity in higher education. Yet as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated, education is a major social determinant of health. American Indian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations remain vastly underrepresented in higher education. These groups experience less economic opportunity, less representation in the health care workforce, and fill fewer leadership positions.
Ok, let's have diversity in higher education. Hire more Conservatives. I favor merit, not diversity or equity. The history of actions to increase diversity and equity suggests less diversity, less merit based decision making, less freedom, more cancelation, and is probably a large contributor to our current steep cultural downtrend.
Forbidding racial- and ethnic-based decisions could also derail public health programs designed to reduce health inequities by prioritizing underserved populations. The Supreme Court could also overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that prioritizes placement with tribal families when American Indian children are removed from their homes. The ICWA was enacted in 1978 in response to a history of forcibly removing American Indian children from their families to send them to boarding schools as a form of cultural genocide.10 Medical organizations argue that the ICWA promotes stability, helping children overcome trauma.
Forbidding racial- and ethnic-based decisions could also derail public health programs designed to reduce health inequities by prioritizing underserved populations. The Supreme Court could also overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that prioritizes placement with tribal families when American Indian children are removed from their homes. The ICWA was enacted in 1978 in response to a history of forcibly removing American Indian children from their families to send them to boarding schools as a form of cultural genocide.10 Medical organizations argue that the ICWA promotes stability, helping children overcome trauma.
Hmm, removing children from their homes and placing them on a priority basis in homes that may be less than the best choice? The past is the past. What makes the most sense now? How about leaving the priorities up to those involved instead of mandating them?
Conclusions
The Supreme Court’s 6 conservative justices are bringing vast changes to the public health legal landscape. The Supreme Court is impairing the government’s ability to act in the public interest and undermining safeguards for groups that have been historically marginalized. Yet far from affecting only a subset of US individuals, the justices are weakening public health, with health and equity on the line.
Conclusions
The Supreme Court’s 6 conservative justices are bringing vast changes to the public health legal landscape. The Supreme Court is impairing the government’s ability to act in the public interest and undermining safeguards for groups that have been historically marginalized. Yet far from affecting only a subset of US individuals, the justices are weakening public health, with health and equity on the line.
Yes, we've seen what happens to public health as a consequence of Government micro-management - and it is not pretty.
Is it the Supreme Court that is impairing the Government's ability to act in the public interest? Is law supposed to be upheld or is it supposed to be subjugated to what the authors and their ilk want?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)