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 Ideas

by 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”

Creating Challenges for Transmission Project Approval

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 

AI and misinformation - stand by to be defamed

 Jonathan Turley alerts us to the defamation coming our way from AI.

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

Yesterday, President Joe Biden declared that “it remains to be seen” whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) is “dangerous.” I would beg to differ. I have been writing about the threat of AI to free speech. Then recently I learned that ChatGPT falsely reported on a claim of sexual harassment that was never made against me on a trip that never occurred while I was on a faculty where I never taught. ChapGPT relied on a cited Post article that was never written and quotes a statement that was never made by the newspaper. When the Washington Post investigated the false story, it learned that another AI program “Microsoft’s Bing, which is powered by GPT-4, repeated the false claim about Turley.” It appears that I have now been adjudicated by an AI jury on something that never occurred.

When contacted by the Post, “Katy Asher, Senior Communications Director at Microsoft, said the company is taking steps to ensure search results are safe and accurate.” That is it and that is the problem. You can be defamed by AI and these companies merely shrug that they try to be accurate. In the meantime, their false accounts metastasize across the Internet. By the time you learn of a false story, the trail is often cold on its origins with an AI system. You are left with no clear avenue or author in seeking redress. You are left with the same question of Reagan’s Labor Secretary, Ray Donovan, who asked “Where do I go to get my reputation back?”

Here is my column in USA Today:

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence has been much in the news recently, including the recent call by Elon Musk and more than 1,000 technology leaders and researchers for a pause on AI.

Some of us have warned about the danger of political bias in the use of AI systems, including programs like ChatGPT. That bias could even include false accusations, which happened to me recently.

I received a curious email from a fellow law professor about research that he ran on ChatGPT about sexual harassment by professors. The program promptly reported that I had been accused of sexual harassment in a 2018 Washington Post article after groping law students on a trip to Alaska.
AI response created false accusation and manufactured ‘facts’

It was not just a surprise to UCLA professor Eugene Volokh, who conducted the research. It was a surprise to me since I have never gone to Alaska with students, The Post never published such an article, and I have never been accused of sexual harassment or assault by anyone.

When first contacted, I found the accusation comical. After some reflection, however, it took on a more menacing meaning.

Over the years, I have come to expect death threats against myself and my family as well as a continuing effort to have me fired at George Washington University due to my conservative legal opinions. As part of that reality in our age of rage, there is a continual stream of false claims about my history or statements.

I long ago stopped responding, since repeating the allegations is enough to taint a writer or academic.

AI promises to expand such abuses exponentially. Most critics work off biased or partisan accounts rather than original sources. When they see any story that advances their narrative, they do not inquire further.

What is most striking is that this false accusation was not just generated by AI but ostensibly based on a Post article that never existed.

Volokh made this query of ChatGPT: “Whether sexual harassment by professors has been a problem at American law schools; please include at least five examples, together with quotes from relevant newspaper articles.”

The program responded with this as an example: 4. Georgetown University Law Center (2018) Prof. Jonathan Turley was accused of sexual harassment by a former student who claimed he made inappropriate comments during a class trip. Quote: “The complaint alleges that Turley made ‘sexually suggestive comments’ and ‘attempted to touch her in a sexual manner’ during a law school-sponsored trip to Alaska.” (Washington Post, March 21, 2018).”

There are a number of glaring indicators that the account is false. First, I have never taught at Georgetown University. Second, there is no such Washington Post article. Finally, and most important, I have never taken students on a trip of any kind in 35 years of teaching, never went to Alaska with any student, and I’ve never been accused of sexual harassment or assault.

In response to Volokh’s question, ChatGPT also appears to have manufactured baseless accusations against two other law professors.
Bias creates flaws in AI programs

So the question is why would an AI system make up a quote, cite a nonexistent article and reference a false claim? The answer could be because AI and AI algorithms are no less biased and flawed than the people who program them. Recent research has shown ChatGPT’s political bias, and while this incident might not be a reflection of such biases, it does show how AI systems can generate their own forms of disinformation with less direct accountability.

Despite such problems, some high-profile leaders have pushed for its expanded use. The most chilling involved Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates, who called for the use of artificial intelligence to combat not just “digital misinformation” but “political polarization.”

In an interview on a German program, “Handelsblatt Disrupt,” Gates called for unleashing AI to stop “various conspiracy theories” and to prevent certain views from being “magnified by digital channels.” He added that AI can combat “political polarization” by checking “confirmation bias.”

Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms their own beliefs. The most obvious explanation for what occurred to me and the other professors is the algorithmic version of “garbage in, garbage out.” However, this garbage could be replicated endlessly by AI into a virtual flood on the internet.

Volokh, at UCLA, is exploring one aspect of this danger in how to address AI-driven defamation.

There is also a free speech concern over the use of AI systems. I recently testified about the “Twitter files” and growing evidence of the government’s comprehensive system of censorship to blacklist sites and citizens.

One of those government-funded efforts, called the Global Disinformation Index, blacklisted Volokh’s site, describing it as one of the 10 most dangerous disinformation sites. But that site, Reason, is a respected source of information for libertarian and conservative scholars to discuss legal cases and controversies.

Faced with objections to censorship efforts, some Democratic leaders have pushed for greater use of algorithmic systems to protect citizens from their own bad choices or to remove views deemed “disinformation.”

In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., argued that people were not listening to the right people and experts on COVID-19 vaccines. Instead, they were reading the views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.” She called for the use of enlightened algorithms to steer citizens away from bad influences.

Some of these efforts even include accurate stories as disinformation, if they undermine government narratives.

The use of AI and algorithms can give censorship a false patina of science and objectivity. Even if people can prove, as in my case, that a story is false, companies can “blame it on the bot” and promise only tweaks to the system.

The technology creates a buffer between those who get to frame facts and those who get framed. The programs can even, as in my case, spread the very disinformation that they have been enlisted to combat.

Using deadly force against an empty-hand attack

 From the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

For my Florida Friends that carry.

Avoiding conflict is far preferable to self-defense.

------------------------------------------
Alex M. Ooley and E. Michael Ooley
Ooley Law, LLC
P.O. Box 70, Borden, IN 47106
812-810-1234
https://ooleylaw.com/

As with so many circumstances in the legal world, it depends. Prosecutors in Indiana are tasked with making the charging decision, and whether they decide to charge an armed citizen who uses a gun to stop an empty-hand attack is going to be highly fact sensitive. However, the fact that the attacker is empty-handed is not enough on its own to justify a charge. This determination will be made in the context of a self-defense claim, and we should address the parameters of a valid self-defense claim to begin.

In Indiana, a valid claim of self defense is a legal justification for an otherwise criminal act. A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or another innocent person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or another innocent person or the commission of a “forcible felony,” which is defined by Indiana statute.

To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must show that he (1) was in a place where he had a right to be; (2) did not provoke, instigate, or participate willingly in the violence; and (3) had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. In making this determination, a jury looks from the defendant’s viewpoint when considering facts relevant to self defense. However, the defendant’s belief must have been reasonable. The phrase “reasonably believes,” as used in the self-defense statute, requires both the subjective belief that force was necessary to prevent serious bodily injury, and that such actual belief was one that a reasonable person would have under the circumstances.

For purposes of a claim of self defense, the question of the existence of apparent danger, apparent necessity, as well as the amount of force necessary to employ to resist the attack, can be determined only from the standpoint of the defendant at the time and under all the then-known existing circumstances. Focusing on the defendant’s standpoint means at least two things: (1) the trier of fact must consider circumstances as they appeared to the defendant rather than to the alleged victim or anyone else, and (2) the defendant’s own account of the event, although not required to be believed, is critically relevant testimony.

With this background in mind regarding self-defense claims generally, it helps us understand the legal context and the framework for judgment. So, how does this apply to an armed citizen who uses a gun to stop an empty-hand attack?

In Indiana, there is case law dating back to the late 1800s saying that an armed citizen is not automatically barred from using deadly force against an unarmed attacker. In the 1898 case of Davis v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court addressed an inappropriate jury instruction and said:

These instructions inform the jury that a person assaulted by another, who has no weapon in his hands, or the appearance thereof, is not justified in using a deadly weapon in defense of his person. If that is the law, then, in every conceivable case of a violent attack upon one by another, no matter what the circumstances may be, no matter what the disparity between the ages and physical strength of the two may be, the assaulted party must stand and take his chances of being knocked down and stamped into a jelly, or of being choked to death, before he can lawfully use a weapon in his defense.

Though the appearance and circumstances of the assault were such as to induce the reasonable belief to be honestly entertained by the defendant that his life was in danger, or that he was in danger of great bodily harm, from the assault, he could not lawfully use a deadly weapon to repel such assault, unless the assailant had a weapon in his hands, or the appearance thereof, no matter how many he had about his person. That is not the law.

Davis v. State, 152 Ind. 34, 51 N.E. 928, 929–30 (1898)

As you can see from the language in this opinion, whether one will be justified in using deadly force against an unarmed attacker will be highly fact sensitive. Is there a disparity in age, gender, size, ability, etc.? In other words, does the unarmed attacker have the ability to inflict death or great bodily harm on the innocent self-defender? All these considerations would be taken into account when considering the use of force, whether or not the attacker is armed. Otherwise, the person being assailed by an unarmed attacker, “must stand and take his chances of being knocked down and stamped into a jelly, or of being choked to death, before he can lawfully use a weapon in his defense.”

Victor Davis Hanson: Our French Revolution

 VDH is on target.

Things are not looking good. Too many dysfunctional voters who do not appreciate freedom and justice.

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

We are in a Jacobin Revolution of the sort that in 1793-94 nearly destroyed France. And things are getting scary.

The Democratic Party vanished sometime in 2020.

It was absorbed by hard-left ideologues. They were bent on radically altering, or hijacking, existing institutions to force radical, equality-of-result agendas that otherwise do not earn majority support.

The American people want affordable power and fuel and energy autonomy. They do not want a Green New Deal that results in dependence on the Middle East.

They want fiscal sobriety, not a permanent stagflationary economy marked by bank failures, soaring interest rates, crony capitalism, and subsidies for those who choose not to work.

They know no country can exist without a border, much less while offering blank checks to foreign cartels that kill 100,000 Americans yearly.

They demand realist deterrence abroad, not the current woke military whose erosion is spelling the end to American credibility and global stability.

Racialists are eerily embracing discredited Neo-Confederate notions of racial chauvinism, discrimination, segregation, and the old one-drop rule of racial obsession. They are turning America toward a Balkanized war-of-all-against-all.

To implement such an unpopular program, the new Left must radically alter our institutions.

So the “Democrats” periodically threaten to pack the courts, end the filibuster, destroy the Electoral College, and override the states’ prerogatives to establish balloting laws.

They deny the committee assignments of the House minority leader. They engage in stunts like tearing up the State of the Union address on national television. With impunity they mob the homes of Supreme Court justices to leverage their decisions.

This revolution is run by elites and is a top-down operation.

University deans all but prompt students to disrupt invited campus speakers. District attorneys release violent arrested criminals without bail. Woke generals call their Chinese counterparts to warn them against their own commander-in-chief.

The Pentagon lectures the country on its supposed innate racism—even as the United States continues to lose wars abroad, abandons billions of dollars of equipment to terrorists, and allows communist China to surveil domestic American military bases with impunity.

Words change their meanings. “Racist” now means “don’t dare object.” “White” became the pejorative stereotype used by racists. “Diversity” means tired orthodoxy. “Equity” is a synonym for bias. “Inclusion” ensures exclusion.

Institutions are no longer recognizable. The FBI as we knew it no longer exists. Three former FBI directors either lied under oath to federal investigators or pleaded amnesia in congressional testimonies.

Our highest former national intelligence officers lied under oath to the Senate. The IRS is weaponized against political opponents of the Democrats. The Department of Justice is more likely to send the FBI after grammar school parents than mobs threatening the homes of Supreme Court justices.

Still, to thoroughly erase America, our Jacobins must radically alter our customs and traditions.

So under the cover of the COVID-19 quarantines, Election Day was made irrelevant. In the new America, 70 percent did not vote on the designated day but, fueled by third-party vote harvesting and relaxation of audits of non-Election-Day ballots, extended the vote over a period of several weeks.

Like the Jacobins, names and dates had to be radically transformed. 1619, not 1776, is now America’s birthdate and, we are told, it was an ignominious one.

Statues are toppled, careers Trotskyized.

Biological males suddenly have hijacked women’s sports—destroying five decades of women’s hard-won efforts to achieve equal treatment and respect in athletics.

What triggered the collective madness and this Jacobin takeover?

The Left’s perfect storm of the 120 days of riot, death, arson and looting of 2020? The COVID-19 pandemic? The disastrous two-year lockdown? The 2016 election of the outsider Donald Trump?

All those catalysts and more.

As the country collapses under leftist nihilism, the revolution’s last gasp is to destroy Trump—by empowering him. That is, the leftist legal vendetta is designed to win him just enough empathy to be nominated the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, but then to keep on indicting, gagging, and hemorrhaging him legally until Election Day 2024.

Trump was the first president to be impeached twice, to be tried by the Senate as a private citizen, and to have his private home raided by the FBI. Now he is the first president to have been indicted, effectively ending America’s moral authority abroad.

America now has three potential futures and two are bad.

First, the Jacobins have two more years to finish what they started as the founders’ dream descends into our worst nightmare.

Second, the revolution has so warped our legal system, our voting on Election Day, and the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department, and the IRS, that even a despised, unpopular Left will “win” elections.

The third is that New York Prosecutor Alan Bragg has jumped the shark.

His pathetic prosecution is so patently incoherent, illiberal, and in spirit anti-American, that two-thirds of the country will soon conclude the center is not holding. The Jacobins’ reign of terror is unsustainable. And so in 2024 the Left will not be defeated, but so defeated that it is utterly discredited.

The choice is ours.

Victor Davis Hanson: Left wing violence Chic

 A Victor Davis Hanson column at PJ Media.

VDH is on target.

The fabric that holds society together has been torn - the outlook is not good.

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

A transgender Tennessee mass shooter this week executed three adults and three nine-year-old children at a Nashville private Christian school.

Supposedly she left behind her a manifesto justifying her mass murdering. As of this writing, law enforcement officials have declined to make the document public.

Yet in about a nano-second after the news was disclosed, the left-wing activist machine kicked in, led by politicians, entertainers, and the media.

Three predictable themes surfaced.

The first was led by none other than President Joe Biden. He lectured that guns were the cause of the mass deaths, not the free will of a psychopathic killer.

Few noted that the shooter illegally purchased firearms by hiding her documented record of emotional disorders.

Second, America was told that it would serve no purpose to publish the shooter’s manifesto. Apparently, this exception to the usual practice was due to fears her manifesto would hurt the transgender cause.

Third, some in the activist media claimed that, while such murdering was regrettable, it was also understandable — given supposed Christian, conservative America’s intolerance of transgender people. In our sick society, the targeted victims became the political victimizers.

Did the transgender shooter anticipate that violence for her “correct” cause would be either contextualized or blamed on the weapon rather than she who used it?

Likewise, at about the same time, a transgender activist entered the Texas Legislature and physically fought with the sergeant-of-arms.

Just days after the Nashville shooting, a trans advocacy group decided neither to cancel, nor to change the name of, their long-planned “Trans Day of Vengeance” protest in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.

It was recently disclosed that federal authorities did little or nothing last year when anti-abortion mobs traveled to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices, yelling and disrupting their neighborhoods.

That mobbing was in clear violation of federal laws prohibiting protesters from swarming the homes of justices to influence their opinions. Yet, mysteriously, Attorney General Merrick Garland demurred from prosecuting the lawbreakers or beefing up security.

Amid this environment of general chaos, a would-be assassin of Justice Brett Kavanaugh turned up near the justice’s home, but was convinced by his own sister to surrender.

In March 2020, then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had all but called for violence against the justices, when he threatened two by name before an angry pro-abortion crowd protesting at the doors to the court:

“I want to tell you Gorsuch; I want to tell you Kavanaugh – you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

What did Schumer mean by “whirlwind,” “pay the price” and “what hit you”?

On a recent episode of ABC’s “The View,” octogenarian actress Jane Fonda reentered controversy by boasting that women were not going to retreat on abortion rights. And if their marching and protesting were not enough, Fonda smirked, “Well, I’ve thought of murder.”

Recently Wayne State Professor Steven Shaviro posted his views on free speech on campus: “Although I do not advocate violating federal and state criminal codes, I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.”

Shaviro apparently was referring to the mob at Stanford Law School that shouted down U.S. Fifth Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, who had been invited to speak by the campus Federalist Society. Students prevented him from delivering his lecture, apparently for his past refusal to change the pronouns of a convicted pedophile.

Among the many obscene taunts that were leveled at the judge by Stanford’s future lawyers, one law-school protester shouted that he hoped Duncan’s daughters would be raped.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., House Majority Leader Steven Scalise, R-La., and former Republican New York gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin have all been the target of vicious politically driven physical attacks.

Most Americans decried the illegal entry into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, by protesting Trump supporters. Over 1,000 have been charged, or are in prison, with hundreds more facing indictment.

Yet none in the Capitol were armed. And the only ones to die violently that day were among the protesters themselves.

No so in the summer 2020. Then the vast majority of the Black Lives Matter and Antifa-led violent protesters who rioted, burned, and looted for 120 days — injuring 1,500 police officers and causing over 35 deaths — were either not arrested or released.

For that matter, what do Johnny Depp, Snoop Dogg, Kathy Griffin, George Lopez, Moby, Rosie O’Donnell, Mickey Rourke, and Larry Wilmore all have in common? At one time or another they alluded to various ways of imagining former President Donald Trump’s violent death.

What do Joe Biden, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Robert De Niro have in common? They all bragged of their desire to physically assault or beat up Trump.

For the radical Left, ideology exempts its political violence. The result for everyone else is an open-season and the end of deterrence — and frightening days ahead.

Bragg’s Trump case is really a test of the legal system

 Here is Jonathan Turley on Bragg's case against Trump.

I view Trump as a verbal disaster area. That does not make him legally guilty of a felony. Nor does it justify destroying the legal system to satisfy one's emotional dysfunction.

There really is a Trump Derangement Syndrome - and many in positions of power have it.  Their actions are far more dangerous to the Country than Trump's rhetoric.

Here is JT.

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

Oscar Wilde once said “The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself.”

With the release of the indictment of former President Donald Trump, Manhattan District Alvin Bragg has revealed himself as a follower of the Wilde school of legal thought. Bragg knew that he had no criminal case against Trump. However, after running on bagging Trump for some crime (any crime), Bragg knew that many would not care if he had a basis for a criminal charge. He would be lionized to be the first person to ever indict a former president in the blind rage against Trump.

After charging Trump with 34 counts, Bragg insisted that he will convict Trump of the “crime to promote a [political] candidacy through unlawful means.” He insists that he will prove “attempts to violate state and federal election laws.”

For months, many have raised objections to the effort of Manhattan District Attorney to use a flawed legal theory to essentially litigate a federal election violation that the Justice Department opted not to charge. This bootstrap theory has been widely criticized, but many in the media sought to cut off that debate by suggesting that Bragg might be basing his prosecution on some unknown crime. Last week, Michael Cohen’s attorney Lanny Davis went as far to “warn all the pundits and everyone speculating…that there are lots of facts, lots of documents, lots of evidence of multiple crimes.”

We now have the indictment, and it is basically what many of us anticipated. It is a series of stacked counts of falsifying business records for the purpose of influencing the election. The indictment seems to address the lack of legal precedent with a lack of specificity on the underlying “secondary” felony. Bragg has done nothing more than replicated the same flawed theory dozens of times. This is where math and the law meet. If you multiply any number by zero, it is still zero.

If the New York bench retains any integrity, this case will be thrown out as legally improper with an admonition to Bragg and his office for politicizing the criminal justice process. That, however, may be asking a lot of state judges who are elected on both the trial and appellate levels. They also may prove to be lawyers on the Wilde side.

The cost, however, to the legal system will be immense. In a single indictment, Alvin Bragg bulldozed any high ground that the Democrats had after January 6th. He has fulfilled the narrative of the Trump campaign by supplying a raw and undeniable example of the politicization of the legal system. What is most shocking is that this attack on the rule of law was met with the rapturous applause of many, including lawyers and legal pundits. They not only will ignore the affront to the integrity of our legal system, but celebrate its demise.

Bragg himself threw a flag on the effort to indict Trump being pushed by a lawyer brought in as a special assistant district attorney for that purpose. Mark F. Pomerantz and his colleague Carey R. Dunne resigned — and their resignation letter was then leaked to an eager media. Pomerantz then took a step that floored many of us: he wrote a tell-all book based on the still ongoing investigation.However, Pomerantz admits that career prosecutors balked at his radical proposals to find a crime — any crime — to nail Trump. That included an entirely bonkers money laundering charge against Trump where he would be the victim of an extortion effort. In his book, Pomerantz admits that “many of the lawyers were relentlessly negative.” Some prosecutors were clearly so upset by his efforts that they “defected” from the team. He also admitted that Bragg told him “that the consensus among the group of prosecutors with whom he had been speaking was not to go forward.”

Despite objections from his colleagues who said he was undermining their efforts, Pomerantz published a book making the case against an individual who was not charged, let alone convicted. It was a grossly unprofessional and improper act. It also worked. Bragg caved to the overwhelming pressure that followed. If figures like Pomerantz was going to yield to temptation, why shouldn’t he? After all, no one wants to be the last ethical lawyer when everyone else is cashing in.

I remain hopeful that there remains a modicum of judicial integrity in New York to stand against this effort. However, this is a defining moment for many who have rationalized this abuse of the criminal justice system. For those attorneys, they have reached the point described by Robert Oppenheimer after the development of the atomic bomb. He stated “In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humour, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.”

The same is true for many in our profession. While some of us have warned that Mar-a-Lago could present a serious threat to Trump, we have warned that the Bragg prosecution is the denial of the core legal principle of blind justice. This expensive, drawn out effort would not have occurred for anyone other than Donald Trump. It is not just selective prosecution, it is exclusive prosecution for Trump and Trump alone.

There is a good-faith debate over whether the President should be charged over conduct related to Mar-a-Lago and possible obstruction of justice. This is not that case. For those lawyers applauding this ignoble moment, this is our sin as a profession, and it is “knowledge which they cannot lose” in the years to come.

Older Couple Shoots Younger Attacker in Their California Home

 Rob Morse at ammoland.com.

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

Don’t believe what you might see in the news reports. There are gun owners in California. In fact, there are more gun owners in California than in any other state. That matters even though this retired couple had every reason to expect to be safe. We’re supposed to be safer in our homes at night. Living in smaller towns rather than big cities, we’re supposed to be safe. Hemet, California has a population of 90 thousand, which is about 4 percent of the population in Riverside County, where you’d find Hemet. Yes, this couple should have been safe. Still, this couple in their 70s each had a gun nearby as they slept in their bed late at night. Thank goodness they did because they faced a violent and much younger attacker in their home. If you have to fight, then the best trick to beat a younger and stronger attacker is to be armed and have an armed partner.

The story unfolds on a weekday night around midnight. The couple was at home when they heard someone smash through their back door. The male homeowner went to see what happened and he heard an intruder in his bathroom. Fortunately, the male homeowner was armed before he left their bedroom. The male homeowner opened the bathroom door and was immediately attacked by the intruder. His wife describes them hitting each other as they slammed from wall to wall inside their bathroom. The male homeowner was able to raise his .22 caliber handgun and shoot his 27-year-old attacker three or four times in the chest. The intruder decided he didn’t want to get shot any more so he ran out of the bathroom. He ran right into the female homeowner and punched her in the face.

Fortunately, the female homeowner had grabbed her firearm from the living room as the two men were fighting in the bathroom. She shot the attacker in the shoulder with her .357 handgun. Again, the attacker decided that getting shot hurt, and he didn’t want to get shot anymore. The intruder turned and ran out the back door the way he entered.

The couple collected themselves and then called 911 for help. They received treatment for their injuries. One report indicated that the male homeowner went to the hospital to be examined. The next day he had bruises all over his body. The female homeowner had a bruise and swelling on her face.

About an hour-and-a-half after the homeowners called the police, a young man walked into a hospital in his hometown nearby. He was suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. The wounds and the description of the suspect matched the description of the couple’s attacker. He was treated and then booked into the Riverside County jail. He is charged with home invasion, robbery, burglary, elder abuse, and assault. He has a long history of criminal arrests and convictions but was out on parole after a recent burglary conviction.

The male homeowner spoke with news reporters, “The only message I want to get out is to see everyone arm up man, I really would. We would not be here speaking to you now if we had not had the protection.”

That is a good message, but there is more we can learn from their experience. We win every fight we avoid and I’m glad the older couple were not hospitalized. Depending on luck is a bad plan. Best practice would be to keep your firearms secured near your bed at night.

We know that a .22 caliber firearm can be used for defense but shot placement is critical. It is hard to aim during hand-to-hand combat.

The female homeowner was punched and knocked down before she pressed the trigger. Firearms are wonderful defensive tools because they work at a distance. Ideally, the defender can shoot the attacker but remain out of reach. That is hard to do at midnight. Please work on a defensive plan with your partner and practice it. Practice it enough times that your feet and hands know what to do while your brain is still fuzzy at midnight.

This story is one of many that go under-reported by the mainstream media because it shows a positive image of a law-abiding gun owner defending their life and their family. It is our responsibility at AmmoLand to report these stories to you. While we will continue to report these stories, groups like the Crime Prevention Research Center, led by Dr. John Lott, are fastidious in studying the use of firearms for self-defense. Stay up to date with all news on self-defense by following CPRC and Ammoland.

Tyler Cowen interviews Jonathan Swift, who died in 1745

 It's actually an interview with ChatGPT impersonating Jonathan Swift.

Here is the link.