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.

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.

Richard Feynman lecture: Los Alamos From Below

 Really good. Both informative and funny.

Here is the link.

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 Void

This 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.

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.