What Does It Feel Like?

 By Nicole Kucine, MD, MS

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

“What do you do?” they ask.
“I’m a pediatrician,” I say, my standard reply.
They follow with, “Do you have a specialty?”
Sigh. Here it comes.
“Pediatric hematology/oncology.”

The reply always starts with an “Oh.”
Pained, catching their breath in their chest,
like I’ve cut them.
“Oh, that must be so sad.”
Or “Oh, what is that like, is it awful.”
Or “Oh, what does it feel like to work with
such sick children?”

I smile and remind them of the generally
better outcomes in pediatric oncology,
of the resilience of children, and of the plethora
of crafts and treats in pediatrics.

What does it really feel like?

    Guilt
You called for the wrong dose, in the middle
of the code, as his small body shook.
You made a mistake.
Labs came back, mysteries revealed,
the right treatment identified.
He recovered quickly. You did not.

    Love
He looks up at me.
His parents had gone home to rest, and I was
taking call from his bedside.
He clearly had something on his mind.
“When I die, do you think I’ll go to heaven?”
Something heavy slowly squeezes
what’s inside me.
“I haven’t always been a good kid,
maybe I won’t get into heaven.”
Pause. Breathe. Eyes close.
Pause. Breathe. Eyes open.
I take his hand. “You’re a great kid; of course
you’re going to heaven.”
He smiles.

    Pain
She screams and squeezes the bedrail.
I freeze. My hand shakes.
“I’m so sorry that we can’t sedate you,” I say.
“The mass is too large.”
More pain medication. A small pinch. It burns.
Squeeze tighter. Take a deep breath.
She cries. Later, so do I.

    Love
She hands you the drawing she made,
glowing with pride. Birds. Trees. Color.
The words “I love you.”
She hugs you as you take the drawing.
You hold back warm tears.

    Loss
She stayed.
Longer than anyone expected,
longer than we thought she could.
In the quiet room in the corner, she refused to go.
Her mother held her hand and stroked her hair.
She leaned in close. A kiss. And a whisper.
“Mama’s gonna be okay. You can go now
if you need to. You can rest,” her mother said.
Stillness. And departure.

    Joy
He looked up at me from his tiny chair.
“Hi!” I said and waved.
He jumped up and grabbed my hand.
He began to dance.
Spinning, jumping, smiles and giggles.
Cheers and clapping
for our impromptu dance party.
He is light.

What does it really feel like?

Everything.

An experience with AI

 Here is my most recent experience with AI.

I subscribe to Xfinity's gigabite Wifi service. I have an Xfinity router (XB7, next to the most recent).

My iPhone and iPad show a download speed on my wifi network of 600mbs to 700mbs - about what it should be. This suggests that the Xfinity signal into my apartment is ok and that the router can provide the speed it is supposed to and that it is doing so to my Apple devices.

BUT my computer usually shows a download speed of about 100mbs, way too low.

When I reboot my router, my computer (less than a year old) it often shows a download speed of about 600-700mbs, but after awhile it drops to about 100mbs.

When I sign on to my son's Xfinity router (XB6), my computer always shows a download speed of about 400mbs, and that is through 4 inches of reinforced concrete.

So, the question is: where is the problem?

Naturally, I called the Comcast customer service number. Naturally, I was answered by an automated message system (AMS). I asked for an agent. The AMS recommended the Xfinity virtual assistant (VA) and said that if it could not help me it would connect me to an agent. So, I said ok.

The VA offered to check my router. I said ok.

The VA then went through a variety of checks with interactions of the following form.

I found a problem <stated the problem>. Do want me to fix it? I always answered  yes.

Following the fixing of all the problems, I had no internet connection.

END OF AI PART OF STORY

I called Xfinity again and chose to wait for an agent. The agent quickly got the internet connection back, but the low speed to my computer remained.

What do you think might be the problem?

What would you try at this point?

I scheduled an appointment for an onsite technician. When he arrived, he found the obvious - the router was putting out the proper wifi speed signal. He concluded that there was nothing wrong at the Xfinity end (can you see the logical fallacy in this conclusion?). I pointed out that my computer worked fine with my son's router and showed him my son's router. He said that it was the same as mine (it was an XB6, not an XB7). I aked him to swap out my router for a new one. He only had an XB6 in his truck and said that he was not authorized to do the swap.

I called Xfinity and connected with a knowledgeable person. She said that, since I was renting the router, I was entitled to swap it for a new one for any reason whatever. She recommended either a new XB7 or the latest XB8 router. She said not to get an XB6 because that provided only about 400mbs capability, less than I was paying for.

I swapped my XB7 for an XB8 at an Xfinity store, came home and installed it. I used the Xfinity app to activate it. BINGO - 600-1200mbs.

Later in the day - BINGO - 100mbs speed.

I rebooted the XB8 and speed was back to 600-1200mbs. It stayed there for the rest of the day and a good part of the next day - then back to 100mbs.

What do you think might be the problem?

I opened Device Manager and searched for wifi devices. Found a Killer wifi device. I started looking for device settings for the Killer. I found a maximum speed setting. It was set to 1.0gbs. It struck me that the Xfinity speed sometimes exceeded this. I reset the Killer maximum speed to 2.5gbs, restarted the router, and was back to the 600-1200mbs speed on my computer.

If the speed setting is the problem, it explains why there is no speed problem when connected to my son's XB6 - that router can only provide a speed of less than the 1.0gbs maximum speed the Killer was set for.

It has been a day and a half now with no speed drop. We shall see.

Is There a Policy That Reduces Mass Public Shooting Deaths?

 Here is a link to a paper by Carlisle Moody, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.

The link must be copied and pasted into your browser for it to work.

Here are some excerpts.

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

Abstract

  

The fact that an individual is willing to commit the most serious crime that carries with it the most serious punishment means that that person is unlikely to be deterred by laws with less serious consequences. This situation is compounded by the fact that many multiple victim public shooters are expecting, even planning, to die in the commission of their crimes. Combining newly developed and traditional difference-in-differences methodologies, we analyze several policies that have been suggested as possibly effective in reducing deaths due to mass public shootings. We find that none of the proposed policies significantly reduce such deaths. However, we find evidence that mass public shooting deaths are lower in places that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

1. Introduction

Mass public shooting incidents are rare but horrifying events. Such incidents receive intense media coverage and become political events leading to demands that we do something. The obvious question is what should we do? The fact that an individual is willing to commit the most serious crime that carries with it the most serious punishment, life in prison or execution, means that that person is unlikely to be deterred by laws with less serious consequences. This situation is compounded by the fact that many of the shooters are expecting, even planning, to die in the commission of their crimes (Note 1). We analyze several policies that have been found to be effective, or suggested as possibly effective, in reducing deaths due to mass public shootings.

Most of the studies of mass public shootings have employed state-level panel datasets using Two-Way Fixed-Effects (TWFE) regressions with state and year fixed effects. Such regressions have recently been criticized by econometricians studying difference-in-differences analysis. For example, deChaisemartin and D‟Haultfoeuille (2020), henceforth CD, show that the sign of the difference-in-differences coefficient estimated using fixed-effects regression could so biased that the coefficient is negative when all the effects are positive. This finding potentially invalidates nearly all previous analyses concerning the effect of gun laws on deaths due to mass public shootings. Fortunately, CD and others have developed a new methodology which generates unbiased estimates of the difference-in-differences. To our knowledge, this is the first study to use this new methodology to investigate the efficacy of state laws with respect to reducing deaths due to mass public shootings.

The first analysis of mass public shootings was by Lott and Landis (1999) arguing that citizens carrying concealed weapons could deter such attacks because potential shooters would not know who might shoot back. In that study the authors studied multiple victim public shootings defined as two or more people killed, except for the perpetrator, in a public place, although they also considered alternative definitions with more people killed. They excluded incidents, “… that were the byproduct of another crime (e.g., a robbery or drug deal); shootings that involved gang activity (e.g., drive-by shootings); professional hits or shootings related to organized crime; and serial killings or killings that took place over the span of more than one day” (Lott & Landis, 1999, p. 7). A Lexis/Nexis search found 931 cases over the period 1977-1995. Using a Tobit regression, they found that Right-To-Carry (RTC) laws significantly reduced the number of mass public shootings, the number killed, and the number injured. They also found that waiting periods, firearm enhancement laws, and background checks had no significant effect on the number of mass public shootings or the harm they cause.

Duwe, Kovandzic, and Moody (2002), using a combination of FBI Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR) and Lexis/Nexis searches, identified 116 mass public shootings between 1976 and 1999, defined as four or more people killed, apart from the shooter, but including some that occurred during the commission of a crime. Using the negative binomial model on this more restrictive definition, they found that RTC laws had negative but insignificant effects on the number of incidents, the number killed, and the number wounded.

Gius (2015) using Mother Jones and SHR data, estimated the effects of federal and state assault weapons bans for the years 1982-2011, finding evidence that such bans significantly reduced fatalities in mass shootings. Gius (2018) found that state assault weapon bans were associated with lower fatalities in school shootings.

Using data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, Fox and Fridel (2016) found that mass public shooting incidents were not significantly reduced during the Federal assault weapon ban from 1994-2004. However, Klarevas, Conner, and Hemenway (2018) found that bans on large capacity magazines (LCM, more than 10 rounds), including the 1994 Federal assault weapons ban which included an LCM ban, were associated with a significant reduction in the number of incidents and the number of fatalities in mass shootings where six or more people are killed. DiMaggio, Avraham, Berry, Bukur, Feldman, and Klein (2019), using linear and Poisson regression on national data, also found that the Federal assault weapons ban significantly reduced the number of mass public shootings. The authors used data from three sources, but according to Webster, McCourt, Crifasi, Booty, and Stuart (2020, p. 173),

Inexplicably, the researchers only included cases in their analyses that appeared in all three sources and thereby excluded many incidents of fatal mass shootings. This limited their data to only 51 public mass shootings that presumably were the most widely publicized. The study did not examine variation by state and thus did not consider state gun laws nor did it control for other covariates other than [a] linear trend.

Koper (2020) finds that mass public shootings in which the shooter used large capacity magazines result in more fatalities than those incidents where shooters did not use LCM‟s. He estimates that LCM bans, if effective, could reduce the number of mass shooting fatalities by 11-15 percent. Reeping, Cerdá, Kalesan, Wiebe, Galea, and Branas (2019) using SHR data find that states with more firearms and more permissive firearm laws have more mass shootings. However, SHR data misses many mass-shooting events, including Newtown, CT and Aurora, CO (Webster et al., 2020, pp. 172-173). On the other hand, Lin, Fei, Barzman, and Hossain (2018) using Mother Jones data, find no association between gun ownership or permissive gun laws and the number of fatal mass public shootings. Siegel, Goder-Reiser, Duwe, Rocque, Fox, and Fridel (2020) constructed a database of 143 incidents of mass public shootings of four or more fatalities from 1976-2018 using a variety of sources including SHR and media reports. The authors have made their data available online and we use it in this analysis. They analyze the effect of several policies: large capacity magazine bans, assault weapons bans, permit-to-purchase laws, red flag laws, universal background checks, may-issue laws (states without right to carry or permit-less carry laws), relinquishment laws (confiscating guns from individuals that become prohibited from owning firearms), and violent misdemeanor laws (prohibiting individuals from owning firearms who commit a variety of non-felony crimes). They find two of these policies have significant effects. Permit-to-purchase laws are found to significantly reduce the number of mass public shootings but have no significant effect on the number of fatalities associated with those shootings. On the other hand, state large capacity magazine bans are found to significantly reduce fatalities but have no significant effect on the number of incidents. A serious drawback to this analysis is that, although it is a panel data of state-years, the authors do not use state fixed-effects to correct for unobserved heterogeneity. As a result, the estimates are biased due to the correlation between the number and severity of mass shootings and unobserved time-invariant factors such as climate, culture, history, political attitudes, etc.

Webster et al. (2020) analyze a data set created by supplementing SHR data with data from the Stanford Mass Shootings in America and the Gun Violence Policy data sets. The threshold is four or more victims, not counting the shooter. They exclude gang-related and crime-related mass shootings but include domestic violence mass shootings as a separate category. They find that permit-to-purchase laws significantly reduce both the number of incidents and the number of fatalities associated with mass shootings. In the robustness section, they also find that LCM bans significantly reduce incidents and fatalities. Because of reporting difficulties with the SHR, they do not include observations from Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Montana. These omissions are problematic because both the Stanford and Gun Violence Policy datasets include both SHR and media search data, obviating the need to omit any states.

Thus, there is some evidence that permit-to-purchase laws, large capacity magazine bans, and assault weapons bans are effective in reducing deaths from mass public shootings. There is little support for any other gun control laws in this literature. Nevertheless, a cursory search of the internet on “mass shootings” and related phrases finds many other suggestions for reducing the death toll associated with mass shootings. Many sites suggest that universal background checks might be successful. Since many mass shooters, especially school shooters are quite young, some sites suggested that safe storage laws and bans on juveniles possessing firearms might be effective. Since many mass shooters are willing or committed to die in the act, policies designed to reduce suicide in general could reduce the number of people who adopt mass shooting as their suicidal act (Note 2). On the other hand, conservative, gun-rights, and libertarian sites suggest that right-to-carry laws and permit-less carry (also known as constitutional carry) laws would encourage ordinary citizens to carry concealed handguns, allowing them to intervene before police arrive. There is also some evidence that shooters tend to choose places that forbid firearms on the premises, presumably to reduce the probability of potential victims returning fire. If so, it is possible that reducing the number of these “gun-free zones” could save lives (Note 3).

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

Discussion

Using the latest difference-in-differences analyses and fixed-effects negative binomial regressions, we tested nine gun-related policies and four traditional crime-control policies. Despite the findings in previous studies that permit to purchase laws and large capacity magazine bans may be effective, we find that neither these, nor the other policies investigated in this study can be shown to be effective in reducing the number of people killed in mass public shootings. This result might be expected because criminals who are willing to commit the most heinous crime and who are also willing to die in the commission of that crime, are unlikely to be deterred by a safe storage law, for example. On the other hand, there is evidence that increasing the number of places where ordinary citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons could reduce the number of mass shooting fatalities.

The Proximal Origin of a Scientific Fraud

 Michaael Barone at jewishworldreview.com

MB is on target.

Scientists and other supposedly smart people can lie along with the best of them.

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

"We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." That's the key sentence in an article published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, titled "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2."

It's also a prime example of eminently credentialed and government-subsidized scientists saying the exact opposite of what they believed, in an attempt — successful at the time, but now, three years later, exposed — to deceive the public.

The article appeared, as the date indicates, just as the spread of COVID was becoming apparent. It also appeared after Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said in January 2020 that the virus could have leaked from "China's only biosafety level-four super laboratory that works with the world's most deadly pathogens" in Wuhan.

Cotton was careful to say that a lab leak was not proven and that the virus could also have been transmitted through an animal, and he dismissed the possibility of an intentional leak.

A lab leak origin was quickly dismissed as a "fringe theory" by The Washington Post and a "conspiracy theory" by The New York Times. Those characterizations were attributed to government and government-financed scientists — the same bunch who would shortly produce the "Proximal Origin" paper.

The pushback against the lab leak theory has now been revealed as a fraud, thanks to the work of journalist Matt Taibbi, academic Roger Pielke Jr. and the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

The real conspiracy had roots in a February 2020 conference call led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the time, and Dr. Francis Collins, his boss as head of the National Institutes of Health, and including the four scientists who would co-author the "Proximal Origin" paper.

In February, as the House subcommittee documents reveal, all four were expressing thoughts directly contrary to what they put their names to in March.

— "I really can't think of a plausible natural scenario," wrote Dr. Robert Garry. "In the lab it would be easy."

— "The only thing here that strikes me as unusual," wrote Dr. Andrew Rambaut, "is the furin cleavage site," something much more likely to be produced by a lab than by natural transmission.

— Dr. Edward Holmes wrote he was "60-40 lab."

— The main work over the last couple of weeks, wrote Dr. Kristian Andersen, "has been focused on t(r)ying to disprove any type of lab theory, but we are at a crossroad where the scientific evidence isn't conclusive enough to say we have high confidence in any of the three main theories."

Not exactly "We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible," eh?

Why the change? As one conference call participant put it, "further debate about" a lab leak would "do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular."

Unstated, but known to every one of the scientists, was that Collins and Fauci had approved cooperation with the Wuhan lab and controlled millions in research dollars coveted by every scientist.

Their intentions were not in doubt. On April 16, Collins told Fauci he hoped "Proximal Origin" would put down "the very destructive conspiracy" of the lab leak theory, and on April 17 Fauci recommended it to reporters as the product of a "group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists," without mentioning his own role.

That same month, Andersen in emails admitted that a lab leak was possible and bragged about misleading New York Times reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr.

I found the cynicism revealed in these emails shocking, even though I have written critically, in July 2021 and March 2023, about government scientists' attempts to discredit the lab leak theory. I note that statistics guru Nate Silver, not a member of any right-wing conspiracy, is now similarly appalled.

"I'm deeply disappointed by the scientists' conduct here and how unmoored they were from any attempt at truth-seeking," he wrote last week. "The COVID origins story has also been a journalistic fiasco," he added, opining that "journalists are more prone toward being manipulated by bad apples in academia and science than they were ten or twenty years ago."

Evidence for that predilection comes from New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who last week tweeted that a House Republican hearing "raised thorny questions about free speech in a democratic society: Is misinformation protected by the First Amendment? When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods?"

Leave aside the deliciously Orwellian flavor of her verb "tamp down" and her astonishing ignorance of First Amendment law, and reflect on how "Proximal Origin" suggests that the government and government-financed credentialed experts are often better at generating misinformation and falsehoods than at detecting them.

The problem with Free Speech is that it does not mean Free Speech to many people

 From Jonathan Turley.

Too many US citizens do not appreciate free speech and seek to curtail it. What is particularly annoying is the active participation of Elites, e.g., many academics, politicians, and members of the media.

When people like the Dean of the Columbia University Journalism school approve of curtailing speech that is deemed misinformation, disinformation, etc., you know the country is in trouble.

Freedom is at stake - speak up.

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

We have often discussed the embrace of censorship by the left and many Democratic politicians, including President Joe Biden. However, the most distressing aspect of this trend has been the support of many in the media. That erosion of support for free speech was on display this week when the New York Times’ Sheryl Gay Stolberg said that this week’s effort by Democrats to censor Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “raised thorny questions” about whether misinformation is protected speech. The statement shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of the First Amendment as well as a lack of fealty for free speech values. There are no “thorny questions” over the censorship of this speech, because misinformation is unquestionably protected under the First Amendment.

The media’s embrace of censorship was on display on various channels after the recent opinion finding that the Biden Administration had violated the First Amendment in “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” However, the New York Times immediately warned that the outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.” Yet, no one expressed it more simply and chillingly than CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly who stated that it “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.

The most recent controversy arose after Democratic members responded to a hearing on censorship by trying to censor Kennedy. Not only did members object to his being able to discuss his censorship on social media, but Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz (who has led previous attacks on witnesses on censorship) sought to move the hearing into executive session so that the public could not hear what he had to say.

What followed were unrelenting attacks on Kennedy who was repeatedly asked questions by Wasserman Schultz and others but then denied the ability to respond. As in the past, Democratic members asked insulting questions and then reclaimed their time to prevent the witness from defending himself.

Democratic members made clear that they supported barring people from social media and even congressional hearings for opposing views on Covid. One member told Fox News “I am not afraid of anything that he would say, I just do not want to hear him.”

After watching this abusive treatment, the only “thorny question” for Stolberg was whether Kennedy’s speech and misinformation in general has any protection under the First Amendment.

Misinformation is generally defined as information that is false, but the person who is disseminating it believes that it is true. In other words, others believe that a speaker is mistaken. Yet, Stolberg believes that such mistaken beliefs may fall outside of the First Amendment. Of course, this leads to the Zen-like question of whether the mistaken belief that the First Amendment does not protect mistaken beliefs is itself protected. But down that road lies either enlightenment or madness.

Note that Stolberg was not discussing whether social media companies can legally censor speech. While that is a denial of free speech, these companies often note that they are not covered by the First Amendment as private entities. (In reality, that is not accurate since they can be agents of the government, which I previously discussed in my testimony in the first of these censorship hearings).

Stolberg was discussing whether misinformation in general is protected under the First Amendment.

What makes the statement chilling is that it is part of a growing chorus from the left suggesting that hate speech and now disinformation may be exceptions under the First Amendment. Indeed, when I testified before this same committee,

I was taken aback by the opening statement of the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.). Besides opposing an investigation into the role of the FBI and other agencies in such censorship, Plaskett declared that “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.

Hate speech is indeed a scourge in our nation, but it is also protected under our Constitution. Yet many politicians and pundits are using this false constitutional claim to defend potentially unconstitutional actions by the government.

Recently, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer, said that “if you espouse hate … you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”

Now the New York Times is poising the question of whether misinformation is protected. It is. When false information is used to steal money, it is called fraud. Speech can also be the basis of other crimes like conspiracy. However, simply stating something that others view as misleading or wrong is protected under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly stating: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It does not say “good speech” or “factually correct speech.” It says speech. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has declared even lying about military honors is protected. The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act. In United States v. Alvarez, the Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies — in that case involving “stolen valor” claims.

Likewise, spewing hate-filled lies is protected. In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.

Yet, at the New York Times, the most “thorny issue” was not the effort of Democrats to censor a witness at a censorship hearing, but whether his speech has any protection under the First Amendment.

Ironically, the government could have raised this “thorny issue” when the New York Times published the Pentagon Papers, claiming that it was just “misinformation” that was harmful to the public. While that was a prior restraint case, would the government have had a stronger case if it argued that the Times was publishing information that it thought was true but was misleading or false?

Yet, it is not a thorny issue when a Democratic member admits that she sought to prevent Kennedy from speaking publicly because “I just do not want to hear him.”

What is so troubling is how the “legacy media” has jettisoned the most noble aspects of its legacy and has become that enabler of censors.

An example of systematic racism at the highest levels

 From Jonathan Turley.

JT is on target.

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

In July 1991, Clarence Thomas, a relatively unknown D.C. Circuit judge, was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to replace Thurgood Marshall on the United States Supreme Court. Thomas soon found out that the only thing more perilous than replacing a historical icon on the Court is replacing a liberal with a conservative. Thomas would become an icon in his own right for conservatives: an unyielding defender of textualism and conservative jurisprudence. Yet, liberals seem more preoccupied by his race than his rigidity. This week, a leading Democrat, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison unleashed another openly racist attack on Thomas and neither the media nor the political establishment condemned the remarks.

Ellison condemned Thomas as a house slave working for white people, analogizing him to the vile character “Stephen,” played by Samuel L. Jackson in the film “Django Unchained.” (Jackson himself called Thomas “Uncle Clarence” after the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade). Ellison added that, because he disagreed with Thomas’ conservative opinions, the justice is “illegitimate” and “needs to be impeached.”

That is, of course, nonsensical from a constitutional standpoint. However, what was most striking is the response to statements. The racist attack from the top lawyer in the state of Minnesota was not condemned by a single democrat.

Not Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who previously falsely declared that hate speech is not constitutionally protected under the First Amendment and declared himself a champion against bigotry and racist rhetoric.

Not from senior Senator Amy Klubuchar, who has repeatedly denounced racist tropes and rhetoric of Republicans.

Not from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who rightfully condemned the comments of Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville on white nationalism but made no comment on a racist attack of Thomas in the same week.

Not from President Joe Biden, who has repeatedly denounced racial rhetoric and “codes” by Republicans.

Indeed, the day that Ellison’s comments were being aired nationally, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre went to the press room to denounce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at length for his statements suggesting that Covid-19 may have been engineered to spare Jewish and Chinese people. Jean-Pierre declared that “it is important that we essentially speak out” when such racist or anti-Semitic comments are made, but then made no mention of the racist attack on Thomas as nothing more than a house slave.

Thomas knew that being a conservative black jurist would not be easy when he was nominated for the bench. Thomas replaced Robert Bork on the D.C. Circuit. Bork was also savagely attacked when he was nominated for the Court. Indeed, “borked” is now a term of art for destroying nominees in the confirmation process.

Thomas’ confirmation became a battle royale after Anita Hill accused him of of sexual harassment. What followed was famously described by Thomas as “a high tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.”

The attacks on Thomas would never end. His very presence on the Court seemed to disgust liberals who made continual reference to his race. One Democratic legislator on the Georgia Senate floor called him an “Uncle Tom” who “sold his soul to the slave master.”

The Smithsonian’s African American museum even skipped over Thomas in its selection of great African Americans at its opening despite being the second African-American appointed to the highest court. (His Senate confirmation-hearing accuser, Anita Hill, did make the cut.) It was only after a public outcry that the Smithsonian relented to include Thomas.

The media has been unrelenting in its hostile and one-sided coverage of Thomas. While running gushing pieces heralding the backgrounds of liberal justices, there has been a virtual news blackout on Thomas’ amazing life story, one of the truly most inspirational accounts of overcoming every possible obstacle in life.

Thomas was born on the Georgia coast in Pin Point, Georgia and grew up speaking Gullah, the creole dialect. He was raised in a one-room shack with dirt floors, no plumbing, and no Dad. When he was eventually sent to a Catholic school, he had to learn to read and write in English. He overcame segregation and prejudice to eventually go to Holy Cross and then was offered admission to Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania law schools. He would become the chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982, a federal appellate judge, and the second African American to join the Court.

Few of these critics could have walked the path of this man from Pin Point to Capitol Hill. He did so by being his own man — relying on his faith and his intellect to face seemingly insurmountable barriers before him.

Some 32 years ago, Thomas objected to the treatment of an “uppity black” jurist who thinks for himself. Others have made the case for him. For years, commentators have singled out Thomas for his race among the conservative majority. Now, in the face of yet another raw and racist attacks, the political and media establishment is again silent.

Ironically, the thing that made Stephen hate Django in the movie was that he would not yield to the demands of the white owners. Django defiantly admitted that he was “that one [black man] in ten thousand.” For the liberal establishment, Thomas was a threat because others might emulate him. That is why other black leaders like Sen. Tim Scott from South Carolina have faced continual racist tropes from the left, including a Maryland Delegate Gabriel Acevero stating that “Tim Scott isn’t naive, he’s cooning” to please white people.

The bitter irony is that Thomas is the antithesis of the Stephen character. He has always refused to yield to the demands of others on how he should think as a jurist due to his race.

The attacks are meant to chill others from even considering conservative or libertarian views. Ellison has long valued intimidation as a political weapon. He previously praised the ultra-violent group Antifa as useful to “strike fear in the heart” of Trump and Republicans.

Of course, Django is all about righteous rage as a license for the most extreme actions.

That is why Ellison may have had the right movie, but the wrong character. Call it the Django syndrome. When you are “one in ten thousand” who refuses to yield, you become not simply an annoyance but an obsession.

Lifestyle Enrichment in Later Life and Its Association With Dementia Risk

 From the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Authors: Zimu Wu, PhD1; Danushika H. Pandigama, BSc(Hon)1,2; Jo Wrigglesworth, PhD1; et al

Here is the link.

Here are the key points and abstract.

Does this imply that certain activities will reduce dementia risk? If not, why not?

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

Key Points

Question Are socially and mentally stimulating activities associated with reduced dementia risk among older adults who have reached age 70 years in relatively good health?

Findings

In this cohort study of 10 318 older individuals in Australia, more frequent participation in adult literacy activities (taking education classes, using a computer, and writing letters or journals) and in active mental activities (playing games, cards, or chess and doing crosswords or puzzles) was associated with reduced dementia risk over 10 years. However, social outings and interactions were not associated with dementia risk.

Meaning

These findings suggest that certain types of cognitively stimulating leisure activities, including adult literacy and active mental activities, may help prevent dementia in older age.
Abstract

Importance

Lifestyles enriched with socially and mentally stimulating activities in older age may help build cognitive reserve and reduce dementia risk.

Objective

To investigate the association of leisure activities and social networks with dementia risk among older individuals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This longitudinal prospective cohort study used population-based data from the ASPREE Longitudinal Study of Older Persons (ALSOP) for March 1, 2010, to November 30, 2020. Community-dwelling individuals in Australia aged 70 years or older who were generally healthy and without major cognitive impairment at enrollment were recruited to the ALSOP study between March 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023.

Exposures

A total of 19 measures of leisure activities and social networks assessed at baseline were classified using exploratory factor analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Dementia was adjudicated by an international expert panel according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria. Cox proportional hazards regression examined dementia risk over 10 years, adjusting for education, socioeconomic status, and a range of health-related factors.

Results

This study included 10 318 participants. Their median age was 73.8 (IQR, 71.6-77.2) years at baseline, more than half (52.6%) were women, and most self-identified as White (98.0%). In adusted analyses, more frequent engagement in adult literacy activities (eg, writing letters or journaling, using a computer, and taking education classes) and in active mental activities (eg, playing games, cards, or chess and doing crosswords or puzzles) was associated with an 11.0% (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85-0.93]) and a 9.0% (AHR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.95]) lower risk of dementia, respectively. To a lesser extent, engagement in creative artistic activities (craftwork, woodwork, or metalwork and painting or drawing) (AHR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]) and in passive mental activities (reading books, newspapers, or magazines; watching television; and listening to music or the radio) (AHR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86-0.99]) was also associated with reduced dementia risk. In contrast, interpersonal networks, social activities, and external outings were not associated with dementia risk in this sample.

Conclusions and Relevance

These results suggest that engagement in adult literacy, creative art, and active and passive mental activities may help reduce dementia risk in late life. In addition, these findings may guide policies for geriatric care and interventions targeting dementia prevention for older adults.

Supreme Court Justice Jackson’s statistical incompetence

 From Ted Frank at the Wall Street Journal

TF is on target.

The sad part is that Justice Jackson is so confident about something she knows little about. She is not alone in this. It is seems relatively rare that people have much idea about what they don't know.

The consequence is, as in this case, important decisions based on strongly held opinions that are wrong. Such decisions are not likely to make things better.

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

Even Supreme Court justices are known to be gullible. In a dissent from last week’s ruling against racial preferences in college admissions, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson enumerated purported benefits of “diversity” in education. “It saves lives,” she asserts. “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”

A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%.


How could Justice Jackson make such an innumerate mistake? A footnote cites a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges, which makes the same claim in almost identical language. It, in turn, refers to a 2020 study whose lead author is Brad Greenwood, a professor at the George Mason University School of Business.

The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians).

The AAMC brief either misunderstood the paper or invented the statistic. (It isn’t saved by the adjective “high-risk,” which doesn’t appear and isn’t measured in Greenwood’s paper.)

Even the much more modest Greenwood result—which amounts to a difference of fewer than 10 Florida newborns a year—is flawed. It uses linear regression, appropriate for modeling continuous normally distributed variables like height or LSAT scores but not for categorical low-probability events like “newborn death.” The proper methodology would be a logistic model. The authors did one, hidden deep in an appendix rather than the body of the paper.

There, the most highly specified model still shows an improvement in black newborn survival. But if you know how to read the numbers—the authors don’t say it—it also shows black doctors with a statistically significant higher mortality rate for white newborns, and a higher mortality rate overall, all else being equal.

So we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization of a flawed study. Her opinion then urges “all of us” to “do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together.” Instead we should watch where we’re going.

Squatter Nation: How Cities are Allowing an Epidemic of Home Invasion to Rage Across the Country

 Jonathan Turley - on target again.

Behavior is all about incentives - and some incentives destroy society. That is the trend we have been seeing for awhile. It is a shame that only a minority of people really appreciate this.

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

In Texas, a homeowner says she was locked out of her house by a squatter who claimed to have a lease after moving to the state with her family (the woman previously had been evicted from three other homes).

In Maryland, a woman returned from vacation to find two squatters in her bed. They were not only living in her house but also had sold about $50,000 of her furniture.

It is a pattern being played out in many cities in the United States. It also is common in Europe, where squatting has become a political movement with support from the left.

Some squatters enter legally and then just stay. In Long Island, New York, Guramrit Hanspal, 52, has not paid his mortgage for 25 years. The mortgage was foreclosed, but the company that now owns the home has struggled for decades to evict Hanspal, who continues to change lawyers and file lawsuits to delay proceedings.

“I think (squatting is) a fairly big problem, and I think it’s pretty hard to avoid,” Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation, told Fox News.

In the case of Rabbi Meyer Leifer, 90, he simply gave Roselee Moskowitz, 67, a place to live when she found herself temporarily homeless during the pandemic. She then just stayed and refused to leave. Mosokowitz reportedly occupies the rabbi’s living room and sits on his couch watching his television.

Prosecutors and politicians play a critical role in these scams. Local authorities have done little to assist homeowners for a variety of reasons – from political calculations to negligence. Instead, they force landowners to go into overtaxed housing courts with notoriously slow dockets. It often takes months or years to get an eviction order.

The resulting lack of deterrence is evident in the brazen attitude of these criminals. A retiree friend of mine was away from her home in Sarasota, Florida, when a squatter moved in and refused to leave. The woman falsely claimed that she had a lease and trashed the home. Eventually, she was arrested but promptly released. She then returned and stole my friend’s car. The police said there was likely little that would happen to the squatter.

The people involved are committing crimes, from breaking and entering to fraud to forgery. Yet, they are rarely prosecuted.

Squatting is not a particularly difficult problem to solve. It simply requires police and prosecutors to enforce existing laws.

In a recent case in Houston, a teacher, Amberlyn Prather, reportedly squatted in a luxury home for months with her family. The property owner said she repeatedly changed the locks only to have the squatters gain entry by climbing on the roof and entering through upper windows. In this case, authorities have a person accused of forging a lease. That should not be difficult to prosecute.
Cities can speed process of reviewing property owners’ rights

Cities can create new legal avenues to address this crime. The key is to force action at the outset. Cities can set up rapid response teams with prosecutors making immediate judgments on lawful possession. They also can fast-track the cases to bring parties into court rapidly.

If a car owner called police to report that someone was sitting in their vehicle without permission, police would make a decision on the spot about ownership based on the registration and other documents. They would not allow the person to drive off and tell the owner to work it out in court.

And it is far less important to return the possession of a car than a home.

Yet, authorities in New York did little to help Marjorie Martin as she sought for three years to evict squatters. It didn’t matter that Christine Rock allegedly filed fraudulent paperwork with the forged signatures of Martin’s mom, father and sister – all of whom had been dead for more than a decade. Rock was accused of putting the utilities in her name and then ignoring the bills.

When Rock was finally arrested, the city hit Martin with a more than $25,000 water bill that was left unpaid by the squatter.

She is not alone. Owners are told that they must continue to pay taxes and other costs for their property, and squatters delay any final orders through failures to appear, changes of counsel and other practices. In the case of Lia Hatzakis, 29, a squatter offered to make up for not paying for the utilities he used by dating her while he lived in her home. She declined.

There is little evidence of legislative action in many cities. However, Democrats in Congress have moved to pass a federal housing law − to bar landlords from learning whether potential tenants have criminal records, which would include past squatter offenses.

The common nuisance of squatting reflects a breakdown in basic deterrence of our laws. Property offenses have been steadily downgraded as priorities in many cities, while prosecutions are viewed as politically risky for officials who do not want to be viewed as targeting people who are homeless.

Before these cases become a movement like the one in Europe, local and state authorities will have to act. Squatters defend their actions as proper when done according to their own standards. When a woman in England called her squatter to object to his conduct, “Michael” was insulted and left her a message stating, “Just so you know, I’m not doing anything wrong. I’ve done it the right way.”

Some Statins may reduce the incidence of Parkinson’s disease in women

 Published in Neurology.

Here is the link.

Here is a summary.

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

BACKGROUND

Statins represent candidates for drug repurposing in Parkinson's disease (PD). Few studies examined the role of reverse causation, statin subgroups, and dose-response relations based on time-varying exposures.

OBJECTIVES

We examined whether statin use is associated with PD incidence while attempting to overcome the limitations described previously, especially reverse causation.METHOD

We used data from the E3N cohort study of French women (follow-up, 2004-2018). Incident PD was ascertained using multiple sources and validated by experts. New statin users were identified through linked drug claims. We set up a nested case-control study to describe trajectories of statin prescriptions and medical consultations before diagnosis. We used time-varying multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine the statins-PD association. Exposure indexes included ever use, cumulative duration/dose, and mean daily dose and were lagged by 5 years to address reverse causation.

RESULTS

The case-control study (693 cases, 13,784 controls) showed differences in case-control trajectories, with changes in the 5 years before diagnosis in cases. Of 73,925 women (aged 54-79 years), 524 developed PD and 11,552 started using statins in lagged analyses. Ever use of any statin was not associated with PD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67-1.11). Alternatively, ever use of lipophilic statins was significantly associated with lower PD incidence (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.51-0.98), with a dose-response relation for the mean daily dose (P-linear trend = 0.02). There was no association for hydrophilic statins.

CONCLUSION

Use of lipophilic statins at least 5 years earlier was associated with reduced PD incidence in women, with a dose-response relation for the mean daily dose. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.