A team of South Korean physicists say they have created the fabled room-temperature/ambient-pressure superconducting material that would revolutionize electricity and physics. Their studies have not yet been peer reviewed, but they have published two papers about it on the arXiv preprint server. Scientists across the world have been trying for more than a hundred years […]
Meet Aaron Berman: who spent his entire adult life working at @CIA, only to leave to become a top Facebook official responsible for censoring political speech.
Among other things, Aaron was the key Facebook official who censored Brazil's debates before its 2022 election: 🇧🇷 https://t.co/KeF57xjISE
In the summer of 2021, the White House and Joe Biden were in the middle of a major factual faceplant. They were not only telling people the Covid-19 vaccine was a sure bet — “You’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations” is how Biden put it — but that those who questioned its efficacy were “killing people.” But the shot didn’t work as advertised. It didn’t prevent contraction or transmission, something Biden himself continued to be wrong about as late as December of that year.
If you go back and give a careful read to corporate media content from that time describing the administration’s war against “disinformation,” you’ll see outlets were themselves not confident the vaccine worked. Take the New York Times effort from July 16th, 2021, “They’re Killing People: Biden Denounces Social Media for Virus Disinformation.” You can see the Times tiptoeing around what they meant, when they used the word “disinformation.” In this and other pieces they used phrases like, “the spread of anti-vaccine misinformation,” “how to track misinformation,” “the prevalence of misinformation,” even “Biden’s forceful statement capped weeks of anger in the White House over the dissemination of vaccine disinformation,” but they repeatedly hesitated to say what the misinformation was.
Any editor will tell you this language is a giveaway. Journalists wrote expansively about “disinformation,” but rarely got into specifics. They knew that they couldn’t state with certainty that the vaccine worked, that there weren’t side effects, etc., yet still denounced people who asked those questions. This is because they agreed with the concept of “malinformation,” i.e. there are things that may be true factually, but which may produce political results considered adverse. “Hestiancy” was one such bugbear. Note the language from the unnamed Facebook executive above, which describes the press lashing out “Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content,” not “disinformation.”
This is total corruption of the news. We’re supposed to be in the business of questioning officials, even if the questions are unpopular. That’s our entire role! If we don’t do that, we serve no purpose, maybe even a negative purpose.
Below is my column in The Messenger on what I called Biden’s “break-the-glass” option after the disaster in Delaware. After the column ran, Fox News asked White House Spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre about the possibility of a pardon. Jean-Pierre cut him off and responded unequivocally “no.” I hope that proves to be true but it would have been more assuring to come from someone who did not clearly misrepresent the President’s earlier denial just a day earlier and change his long-standing position. The President previously denied a series of facts that have been proven, including the fact that his son did make money in China and President Biden did have knowledge of (and interact with) his son’s business dealings. The real question is whether the fix in this case will fail and leave the President with the pardon option behind the glass.
Here is the column:
The collapse of the Hunter Biden plea bargain has left many in Washington shocked. After all, this is a city that knows how to fix a fight. After five years, the Biden corruption scandal was supposed to die with a vacuous plea bargain and no jail time. Most everyone was in on the fix, from members of Congress to the media to the prosecutors. The problem was the one notable omission: Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The sentencing hearing was a moment that made the Hindenburg disaster look like a seamless landing. Noreika asked a basic question on the implications of the agreement, and the entire deal immediately collapsed.
Now the Justice Department is in a bind. It could not admit in the hearing that Hunter Biden could escape future liability for a host of uncharged crimes. Yet, when a defendant backs out of a generous plea deal, federal prosecutors ordinarily will pursue all of the available charges — and jail time.
While President Joe Biden once declared, in more colorful terms, that no one messes with a Biden, the Justice Department may now find it has no choice. It could be forced to actually treat Hunter like an ordinary citizen.
The debacle in Delaware still could result in a plea deal. The parties have a month to “work things out,” and most judges sign off on deals, given the discretion afforded to the executive branch on criminal charging decisions. They just need to be clear about the terms, and clarity is something neither side seemed eager to establish publicly during Wednesday’s hearing. However, an agreement would require prosecutors either to fight to preserve a sweetheart deal — one without additional future charges — or to proceed, as they would in most cases, with a full prosecution.
That would include obvious potential charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Noreika forced the Justice Department to admit that it still could charge Biden as an unregistered foreign agent. That was the charge used against onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and the similarities between the cases are striking. It took little time for the Justice Department to use the charge against Manafort. Yet, in the Hunter Biden investigation, five years have passed, and the Justice Department seemed mired in doubt over applying the same standard to the president’s son.
A FARA charge could further expose Hunter’s alleged influence-peddling operations, with what House GOP investigators say were millions in foreign payments from a virtual rogue’s gallery of foreign officials. The Justice Department also would face pressure to seek the same long jail sentence given to Manafort; he was sentenced to 73 months of imprisonment, which included the statutory maximum 60 months for a conspiracy to violate FARA. (That same year, political consultant W. Samuel Patten pleaded guilty to lobbying and consulting on behalf of the Opposition Bloc, a Ukrainian political party, and received 36 months of probation.)
That is not even including potential felony charges for the original gun violation, money laundering, or other crimes. If the Justice Department were to show the same aggressive effort toward Hunter Biden that was shown to figures like Manafort, Hunter could be looking at a real possibility of years in jail.
There is, however, the ultimate “break-the-glass” option that I raised previously if the Bidens and their supporters could not rig the process: Joe Biden could pardon his son and then announce that he will not run for reelection.
Facing an impeachment inquiry, low public support, and a son in the legal dock, Biden could use the case to close out his political career. Of course, a pardon would be what I consider another abuse of the pardon power for personal benefit. President Bill Clinton waited until the end of his second term to pardon his half-brother. Biden could do the same by acknowledging that the pardoning of his son is a form of raw self-dealing. However, as he has said throughout the scandal, he loves his son and blames his crimes on his struggle with addiction and grieving.
With that, Biden could bow out of the election without admitting (as many on both sides are saying) that old age has taken its toll on his mental and physical capacity. He would end his political career with an act as a father, which some would condemn but most would understand. That would clear the way for a new generation of Democratic candidates who would have a better chance of defeating Donald Trump or another Republican presidential candidate.
President Biden could even give Hunter a preemptive or prospective pardon. That would effectively end any federal investigation, although the pardon would need to cover the waterfront of possible charges. By resigning and becoming a lame-duck president, Biden also would undermine congressional Republicans’ impeachment calls. And it would allow his own allies to declare the scandal over, with Biden taking responsibility by giving up a second term in office.
Of course, there is no guarantee that the congressional investigation would end. Even if such a move dampened the demand for an impeachment inquiry, it would not likely stop Republicans from pursuing answers about the official handling of this investigation and claims of political interference.
Yet, any damage would be contained by Biden offering himself up as a sin-eater for his family. Democratic candidates would not likely face backlash for their opposition to investigating the scandal; their chances of retaking the House could be substantially increased. Likewise, the media would not have to face the mounting evidence that it has steadfastly ignored for years.
The pardon-and-apology approach might appeal to Biden not only as an effort to convert vice into virtue but to justify his withdrawal from the election as a selfless act.
Everyone in Washington would win — except, of course, the public: The Bidens would keep alleged millions in influence-peddling profits; Hunter would not even have to pay his full taxes; members of Congress and the media could avoid taking responsibility for burying the reports of corruption.
That is what is called a “happy ending” in Washington.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Some people brag about their fat paycheck, their cool car, their hot girlfriend or boyfriend, or their beautiful family. I brag that Thomas Sowell sends me things in the mail. At 93, he is still writing. May he still be writing when I’m 93. pic.twitter.com/JD7PBs95Vj
November 2013: Hunter joined with Chinese investors to create Bohai Harvest RST Equity Investment Fund Management Co., Ltd. (BHR), an investment fund controlled by the Bank of China. One month later, then-Vice President Joe Biden traveled with Hunter on Air Force 2 to China and met the CEO of BHR, Jonathan Li. Soon after that, BHR’s business license was approved and Hunter had become a board member.
February 5, 2014: Kenes Rakishev, a Kazakhstani businessman, met Hunter Biden at a Washington, D.C., hotel.
April 23, 2014: Rakishev’s Singaporean company wired $142,300 through his Latvian company to a Rosemont entity. Soon after, that entity wired $142,300 to a car dealership in New Jersey for a new sports car for Hunter Biden.
May 12, 2014: Ukrainian gas producer Burisma announced that Hunter Biden had joined its board of directors.
If you visit Iceland’s Keflavik Airport, you may see a huge advertisement showing a shirtless man holding a baby. The man’s torso and arms contain large areas of pucker-patterned skin. He looks half-aquatic, like a variation on Aquaman. As Hakai Magazine notes, The baby-holding man, Pétur Oddsson, is a power station worker. In 2020, he […]
This just in: The judge won't accept the proposed plea deal at least for now. Some thoughts: Now we know why DOJ didn’t show us the plea agreement terms. What didn't they want us to know ahead of time? A) a global immunity deal for Hunter; B) A binding plea (that is, the judge…
I value clean air, clean water, forests, rivers, lakes, jungles, and wide-open wild spaces and well-used, well-conserved means of enjoying them. Always have. Probably always will.
And this is why I find the issues raised by so many of the self-described “greens” today who have been so subsumed and outright eaten by the “anthropogenic global warming” story so problematic:
Because they have become the enemies of actual environmentalism and ecology by setting their goals and demands in opposition to those which actually support the environment.
And this has become absurd and malformed to the point of being truly dangerous and counterproductive.
These dogmatic eco-warriors have become an actual threat to a cleaner, greener world, and they are sucking all the air out of the room, the money out of the system, and both discrediting the valid aims of what I view to be an important bottoms-up movement and championing top-down actions and mandates that will set it back a century if they don’t knock it off.
Their watermelon religion run by green-grifters and totalitarians is not progress, it’s anti-progress. It seeks to champion only the most expensive, unreliable, and unsound means of energy production to thereby make energy hideously expensive. This will impoverish us all.
And that will harm the environment because, like it or not, “environment” functions in every way like a “luxury good” in the economist’s sense of the term. Before people start howling about “The environment is not a luxury,” let me explain what that means because in the economic lexicon the meaning is very specific and not always initially intuitive:
As defined in economics, a luxury good is a good with high income elasticity of demand. Consider “Ski vacations in the Alps.”
Those with low income will choose to consume little or zero of this good. It’s expensive, and they are focused on food, shelter, health, education, and less costly entertainments than dropping $10,000 on a family weekend shooshing in Gstaad. Many want it, but most cannot afford it. However, when income rises, people begin to disproportionately select to purchase trips like this. It’s a desirable thing, and past income X, this sort of consumption rises rapidly when wealth increases.
And in human decision-making, “environment” works just like this.
It’s just a function of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. People desperate to feed their malnourished children are a lot less worried about what they dump in the river than rich people are. Always will be. It’s just a fact, and there is no changing it.
Until the more basic needs are met, you cannot make them care about less pressing desires.
The only way to do this is to first evolve economies to generate plenty. And that takes energy because energy is wealth.
There are no nations that got rich without using a lot of energy. That’s HOW you get rich. And early on, it’s a messy process. Find me a country that went from “poor” to “rich” in any generally applicable fashion without going through a period of nasty environmental degradation. (And no, becoming a banking haven or city-state trade emporium does not count as this neither scales to large populations nor are they universally applicable.) It’s just not a thing. Those inept at generating and using power do not fare well. It’s a path to penury and misery. It’s a path to societal failure.
Bienvenue en Haïti…
And failing societies tend to be filthy societies. Pollution and poverty go hand in hand. They have to grow out of it, and that too can be messy.
Societies reach a stage of organization, see lots of opportunity to generate/acquire wealth, and they go for it. They make the omelets and worry about the broken eggs later. But they DO worry about it later, and that’s the important takeaway: once you cross an income point, the mess you’re making is suddenly on everyone’s mind and they not only want to do something about it, they can afford to do something about it.
Like exotic ski trips, this was a good many wanted but most could not pay for. Then one day, they could. So they did. The US, UK, Germany, even China, all crossed this line and started cleaning up. And it’s working. Air and water quality has been on the rise for decades in the West. And green cover/forests have been increasing in the rich West for decades.
It’s poor countries that strip and slash/burn them.
It’s poor countries that are dumping all the plastic into the sea.
Rich countries do not do this.
In unfortunately typical fashion, the Western climate warriors are all focused on the non-problem and ignoring the real one. Such myopic missing of the forest for the trees seems the oddly universal focus of this whole movement.
They’ll advocate anything except something that might actually work.
Despite the posturing and profession of ignorant pastoral aboriginalism, I really doubt people want to go back to scratching out mud hut-level subsistence. Doing so would be such a setback in lifestyle, life expectancy, and the ability to sustain and feed humans that we’d have ~90% fewer humans around. Odd how those professing to be truly committed to such Malthusian causes never seem to wish to lead by example on “dehumanization.” Somehow it’s always us and not them that constitutes the carbon that needs to be reduced.
It’s all just self-indulgent delusion.
The simple, unavoidable fact is this:
In anything resembling a remotely modern society energy use is wealth and wealth, in turn, is environmentalism in pretty much every meaningful sense.
For the developing world to start caring about the environment, it’s first going to have to develop, just like we did. and we need to get out of their way and let them.
You cannot fix the environment by keeping poor people poor and “Green energy for the 3rd world” is just a nasty new way to say “Let them eat cake.”
Sorry, that’s just how it is.
Stunts and stratagems to keep them from moving to modern levels of economic output and energy consumption are simply not going to work.
No one worries about where dinner for their kids is coming from (or if it’s coming at all), cares about greenbelts and dumping stuff in rivers, or putting a little more plant food into the atmosphere.
If you don’t like it, take it up with physics and biology.
(and good luck with that…)
This endless harangue of meaningless mitigation is either the result of deeply unserious people having no idea what they are talking about or the use of trumped up claims about CO2 used to push for funding or to foist ulterior “Green on the outside red on the inside” collectivist agendas of economic dictatorship and central planning upon unsuspecting dupes. (Most likely a complex combination of the two, see the “rule by rube” Gato postulate and “Democracy dies in data adulteration.”)
And it’s certainly doing absolutely nothing positive for the world.
Wealth is also survival. Wealth is adaptation. The “heat deaths” issue is hilariously overblown. Most of the current “record heat wave” in the EU is a fabrication or the result of data being tortured until it confesses to crimes it did not commit, and cold kills FAR more people than heat, but there is another factor here as well.
To the (dubious) extent that this is actually a problem, the very air conditioning they love to vilify solves this. it’s just not widespread in the EU because, after decades of socialist policy suppressing growth and wealth accumulation, most of the EU is too poor to afford it.
These “heat deaths” are really deaths of poverty.
And that’s a very important perspective to maintain because this gang wants to cure problems of poverty with economic suppression.
And that will be an environmental, economic, and human disaster.
The social control vectors they got a taste of under covid have left them hungry for more.
They are not even trying to hide it.
Suddenly, “climate is the new covid” and in just the manner that certain internet felines have long been yowling about, they are going to play all the same stupid games and try to hand you all the same stupid prizes.
They are selling you poison and penury as panacea. The new absurdist push into “We need blackouts and climate lockdowns and 15-minute cities” is an idea as dangerous as it is deluded. It will not save. It will kill.
It’s anti-progress, anti-human, and anti-environment.
It’s also another horrendous foray into anti-science reality denial.
We just had a massive global experiment on this from covid lockdowns. Travel dropped precipitously, offices were empty, few people flew or drove, factories were idled. We experienced a level of human suppression and a drop in activity of unprecedented (and unsustainable) magnitude.
The effect on global CO2 levels was zero. Nothing changed. The rise was perfectly average and you cannot pick it out of the surrounding data no matter how hard you squint.
The most aggressive implementation of purported mitigation in human history occurred and it had no impact.
It was probably the most expensive intervention in human history and it did not move the needle even a micrometer. All cost, no benefit.
I went on a two-week trip around the country recently and saw enough network television to make me gag, especially since "Barbenheimer" is all the rage in the mainstream media.
His name? Dr. William Allen, and, among his myriad other distinguished accomplishments, he was a member of the National Council on the Humanities from 1984 to 1987 and chairman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights from 1988 to 1989. How lucky was Florida to be able to have him work on this immensely important project?
He’s also a black conservative. You can hear the gnashing of race-baiting teeth from your chairs.
A major network news organization finally went in search of Dr. Allen, and interviewed him Saturday night. ABC News was apparently so perturbed by his comments regarding the Vice President’s assertions re: FL curriculum, that they didn’t have the moral courage to air the entire interview. They provided a mere snippet of his rebuttal.
Well, The Narrative must be maintained. It’s not as if the network news is there to tell people the truth about the world.
Related:
Yesterday, @abcnews aired a very small section of their interview with a member of Florida’s African American History Standards Workgroup, Dr. William B. Allen.
Here’s more of the interview, where Dr. Allen debunks @VP’s narrative and calls her criticism “categorically false.”🧵 pic.twitter.com/hPFbKNZPs1
NOW THEY TELL US: Nate Silver: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources —including scientists. “Here’s the scandal. In March 2020, a group of scientists — in particular1, Kristian G. Andersen the of The Scripps Research Institute, Andrew Rambaut of The University of Edinburgh, Edward C. Holmes of the University of Sydney, and Robert F. Garry of Tulane University — published a paper in Nature Medicine that seemingly contradicted their true beliefs about COVID’s origins and which they knew to be misleading. . . . In the Slack and email messages, the authors worked to manipulate the media narrative about COVID-19’s origins and to ensure that their private uncertainty wasn’t conveyed in conversations with reporters. They also thought they were going to get away with it.”
Plus:
The COVID origins story has also been a journalistic fiasco, with the lab leak having been dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” and as misinformation even though many prominent scientists believed it to be plausible all along. Perhaps it’s tempting to give the media a pass — they were manipulated by the “Proximal Origin” authors, after all. But I’m not inclined to, for two reasons.
First, the coverage of the recently leaked emails and Slack messages at major center-left outlets like The New York Times has been pathetic. The Times portrayed Andersen as the victim of a Republican witch-hunt — rather than someone at the center of a major scientific scandal of his own making.
And second, journalists ought to have decent bullshit detectors — including toward scientists, academics and other experts.
Related: Elite Journalists Love Big Brother: Prominent reporters and powerful officials know each other, share attitudes, and trust each other. Even Nate Silver says so: “I also think journalists are more prone toward being manipulated by bad apples in academia and science than they were ten or twenty years ago. As a result of increasing educational polarization, both journalists and the expert class of scientists and academics are far more aligned politically than they once were (the very large majority are left-of-center and vote Democratic in American elections).”
