Federal Court to EPA: Stop Enforcing Water Rule

A federal appeals court delivered a big blow to the Obama administration’s attempts to use federal water regulations to amass unprecedented control over land use, The Wall Street Journal reports [subscription required]:

A federal appeals court on Friday issued a nationwide stay blocking a new Environmental Protection Agency regulation that seeks to expand the amount of water and wetlands under federal protection.

The Cincinnati-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a split ruling, said it was prudent to block the regulation while litigation continued over whether the Obama administration’s effort was legal.

“A stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new rule and whether they will survive legal testing,” the court said.

The court’s order was a preliminary boost for a group of 18 states that challenged the EPA regulation, which seeks to add smaller bodies of water under federal water rules.

“The sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the Rule’s definitional changes counsels strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo for the time being,” the court wrote. Therefore, EPA will have to stop implementing its Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule until further actions by the court.

“We should resolve the legality of the rule before having to fund the implementation of a very expensive, illegal rule,” said William Kovacs, U.S. Chamber Senior Vice President, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs.

In issuing the stay, the court concluded that there’s a good chance EPA’s regulatory overreach is illegal, writing that opponents of the water rule “met their burden of showing a substantial possibility of success on the merits.”

A federal judge in North Dakota came to a similar conclusion when blocking WOTUS in August.

The Sixth Circuit Court questioned whether WOTUS fits with previous Supreme Court rulings. As I explained in July, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s 2006 Rapanos opinion created the “significant nexus” test for determining a federally-regulated body of water:

In order to be considered a navigable water, a body of water must “significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of “waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.”

“[I]t is far from clear that the new Rule’s distance limitations are harmonious with” Justice Kenney’s opinion, the court stated.

The court was also critical of how EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers developed the final regulation, stating, “the rulemaking process by which the distance limitations were adopted is facially suspect,” and that EPA didn’t identify “specific scientific support substantiating the reasonableness” of its standards.

To use one example, under WOTUS, the federal government is claiming jurisdiction over waters, including ditches, canals, ponds, and wetlands, as far as 4,000 feet from a navigable water. That amounts to nearly every body of water in the United States. Any action that “pollutes” these waters, such as filling in a ditch or pulling weeds (activities an average person wouldn’t consider to be polluting) requires a costly federal land use permit.

This makes it that much harder for farmers, home developers, small businesses, factories, and pretty much anyone who owns land to complete projects that can create jobs, generate economic growth, and better peoples’ lives.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Fog of EPA’s Regulatory War on America

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a tractor along the bank of a catfish pond in Uniontown, Alabama. Photo credit: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg.

How do I find out if my town is targeted for Muslim refugees?

Because it is just me here (no staff, no interns), I’m going a bit crazy trying to keep up with your e-mail and phone requests.  So, I decided to put a little time into listing the usual questions I get and put answers here (in one place).

(There is no particular order to the following frequently asked questions):

How do I find out if my town is targeted?

You won’t get much of a warning.  If you hear a rumor (like the Idaho one we posted here), follow it up (and let us know!). Also be sure to see this map, click here, and this handy list, click here.  If you are within a hundred miles of  any of those resettlement offices, your town is fair game.  The legend on the map lists abbreviations of the nine major federal resettlement agencies.  BTW, they are running out of ‘welcoming’ places to resettle refugees so they are out scouting for fresh territory.

Who are the nine federal resettlement agencies choosing sites for refugee resettlement?

The nine VOLAGs are listed here.  VOLAG stands for Voluntary Agencies which is a joke because they are largely paid by the US taxpayer to do the resettlement.

What do I need to know if I do learn that refugees are planned for my town?

See this post we wrote some months ago, ‘Ten things your town needs to know.’

Where do I start to learn how the Refugee Admissions Program works?

Start with our fact sheet (sorry it is two years old, we need to work on updating it, but it is still useful).  I find the Annual Reports to Congress very very useful.  We also have a category with hundreds of posts in it entitled, ‘where to find information.’  Serious students of refugee resettlement should periodically scroll through it.

Also, I urge you to just follow my blog postings for awhile and you will learn as you go.  I try hard to link back to previous information every day.

You are always talking about doing data base research, where do I do that?

Go to the Refugee Processing Center, here and/or here and just play around with the data bases available.  I can’t explain exactly how to pull up all the information, but you will figure it out if you spend a little time exploring them.

I need information on ______, what do you know about it?

We have a very good search function here at this word-press blog.  Please type a few key words into our search window in the upper left hand corner.  Since we are now over 7,000 posts, I use it all the time to see what I know about a certain subject or resettlement location.  Please search here at RRW.  LOL! You probably will find plenty of information faster than e-mailing me with your question!

How do I find a ‘Pocket of Resistance’ near me? 

Contact Jim Simpson, resettlementresister@gmail.com.  Learn more about Jim here.

How do I get your book?

You can purchase it on Amazon, or go here to the Center for Security Policy where there is a free version to download.

Would you sign me up to get your post notifications?

WordPress doesn’t allow me to sign you up.  You need to follow directions to subscribe.  Or, if you want to see everything I post on your twitter feed, follow me on Twitter.  I also have a Facebook page but with the help of Kelly we post some other things there, and not all of my RRW posts.  If you don’t want your inbox filled with notifications, just visit RRW daily and scroll back through what I’ve posted during the day.

Do you take donations?

No, this is my charitable work. I do not make money writing this blog.  I may explore putting some advertisements on RRW in the future, but I’m usually too busy to research what I need to do to make that happen.

Can I interview you on my radio show?

I do some radio interviews, but honestly I think I am missing requests (and do apologize), but it is because my e-mail inbox is so full I miss them.   Please put very clearly in the subject line something like:  ‘MEDIA REQUEST’.  That goes for reporters too wanting interviews or questions answered.

If you have sent me a media request and have not heard back, please resend with ‘MEDIA REQUEST’ clearly in the subject line.

Will you speak to my group in _____?

I have been to lots of places this year to speak and have met some very wonderful people (South Carolina, Missouri, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, and Tennessee), but honestly I am not a speaker and it is very stressful to travel and speak.  And, when I travel I don’t get much blogging done, which I think is more important for the overall cause.  So I am not planning on taking any more trips (other than those I previously committed to that are fairly close to home).

If you contact me, I will be giving you the names of a couple of people knowledgeable about the Refugee Admissions Program that might be willing to travel (but be prepared to pay expenses and an honorarium, we don’t have the money in our movement as the other side has!).

Oh, and I am doing a couple of skype meetings coming up soon.

That is all for now.  Again, sorry I can’t get to all of your e-mails (at least a hundred a day).  I hope this helps.  I’ll be re-posting it from time to time, or adding new information as needed.

RELATED ARTICLE: World Relief confirms that they will NOT be resettling refugees in Northern Idaho

Florida: Open Carry Bill Passes 1st House Committee

Tuesday, October 6, 2015,  the House Criminal Justice Committee held a hearing on  HB-163 by Rep. Matt Gaetz.

The bill PASSED by a Vote of 8-4.

HB-163 is a bill to allow persons with a Concealed Weapons & Firearms License to carry firearms concealed or openly.

Sheriff Wayne Ivey (Brevard) and representatives of Sheriff Charlie Creel (Wakulla) expressed support for the bill at a press conference with bill sponsors Sen. Don Gaetz and Rep. Matt Gaetz, before the committee meeting.  Among other sheriffs who have expressed support for open carry are Sheriff Gordon Smith (Bradford) and Sheriff Chris Nocco (Pasco).

Voting FOR the bill were Republican Reps. Carlos Truijillo, Dennis Baxley, Jay Fant, Gayle Harrell, Ray Pilon, Scott Plakon, Ross Spano and Charles Van Zant.

Voting AGAINST the bill were Democrat Reps. Randolph Bracy, Dave Kerner and Sharon Pritchett — Rep. Clovis Watson did not vote.

The only Republican to vote against the bill was Chris Latvala (R-Clearwater).

BACKGROUND:

This bill will prevent CW license holders from being charged with the crime of violating the “Open Carry” law because a concealed firearm, being legally carried, accidentally or inadvertently became visible to another person.

According to our attorneys, allowing license holders to carry openly is the only way to truly keep them from being arrested and/or prosecuted for violating the open carry ban if firearms are accidentally and unintentionally exposed.

IT IS UNFORTUNATELY TRUE that anytime you are carrying a concealed firearm you are in danger of being charged with a crime and treated like a criminal if your firearm accidentally becomes exposed to the sight of another person and law enforcement is called.

In 2011, we attempted to fix that problem.  We supported language that clearly says it is NOT a violation of the open carry ban “for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.”

Not only did that language NOT stop the abuse.  It has gotten worse.

In one case, a young man was arrested when his firearm was accidentally and unintentionally exposed.  Someone saw it and called 911.  It took law enforcement 5 minutes to arrive.  They arrested him because they said 5 minutes wasn’t brief.  It didn’t matter that it was accidental and unintentional.  He was prosecuted and convicted.

In another case a man was arrested, and convicted because the accidental and unintentional exposure of his firearm was for only 2 minutes.

Further, it has been reported that State Attorney Angela Corey’s office in Jacksonville says that exposure isn’t brief, if it is more than an instantaneous glance before being covered up again.

And to make matters worse, there is a case pending on a motion for review before the Florida Supreme Court — because a lower court didn’t think a young man was dressed appropriately to hide a gun when it accidentally became visible.

Concealed Weapons License holders whose firearms are seen by others seem to be targets in some jurisdictions.

This bill will only allow persons who have a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm to carry concealed or openly.  All of the provisions of the concealed carry law apply to those who chose to carry openly. Including:

  • You must have your license on you at all times when carrying and you must show it to a law enforcement officer who asks if you have a license.
  • You cannot carry a long gun — rifle or shotgun — concealed or openly under this law.
  • You cannot carry concealed or openly onto private property of any business or person who chooses to prohibit it.
  • You cannot carry openly in any place where concealed carry is prohibited.

THANK YOU for your email and phone calls to Committee members.  Taking a few moments to communicate with Legislators is very important.

Email addresses of the Committee members are below.

carlos.trujillo@myfloridahouse.gov,
charles.vanzant@myfloridahouse.gov
,
dennis.baxley@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Jay.Fant@myfloridahouse.gov
,
gayle.harrell@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Chris.Latvala@myfloridahouse.gov
,
ray.pilon@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Scott.Plakon@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Ross.Spano@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Randolph.Bracy@myfloridahouse.gov

Dave.Kerner@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Sharon.Pritchett@myfloridahouse.gov
,
Clovis.Watson@myfloridahouse.gov

UPDATE: Rep Gaetz is holding an Open Live Forum Conference on the “Open Carry Bill” that he proposed which passed in the subcommittee. The live event will be
Thursday, Oct 8th at 6:15 pm via telephone. Below is the link to “subscribe” to be able to participate.

https://vekeo.com/event/representativemattgaetz-19481/

Islamic Indoctrination in Georgia Public Schools

Yes, in “Jimmy Carter Georgia.”

Georgia Public Schools are teaching key components of Islamic dawah: “schools are reportedly forcing students to learn the Five Pillars of Islam—the creed one must learn to convert—and teaching students that Allah is the same God worshipped by Christians.” So far, unlike in Tennessee, they haven’t [yet] forced the students to actually recite the Shahada, the Muslim confession of faith.

Further, homework assignments are designed to indoctrinate students into accepting this assertion as fact, when it is a strongly contested point which many traditional Christians flatly reject, and with compelling reason.  In addition, the volume of Georgia school materials on Islam outnumber those on Christianity by up to 10 to 1, further highlighting the preferential treatment accorded Islam “in a way that could violate the U.S. Constitution.”

The “Same God” assertion is indeed a primary plank of Islamic dawah (proselytizing), and together with Islam’s claim to be an “Abrahamic Faith” is one of the main tools used by Muslim apologists to advance their agenda within unsuspecting Christian and Jewish communities.

Besides the theological issues with the “Same God” claim itself, Mark Durie explains some of the many dangers this and the “Abrahamic Faith” assertion conceals:

The many “Abrahamic Faith” conferences throughout the world is but one expression of the Islamicisation (sic) of Christian understandings of interfaith dialogue…

This historical negationism—appearing to affirm Christianity and Judaism whilst in fact rejecting and supplanting them—is a lynchpin of Muslim apologetics.

What is being affirmed is in fact neither Christianity nor Judaism, but Jesus as a prophet of Islam, Abraham as a Muslim, Moses as a Muslim, etc. This is intended to lead to ‘reversion’ of Christians and Jews to Islam, which is what [Shamim A.] Siddiqi  [author of the Muslim proselytizing guide, ‘Methodology of Dawah‘, which explicitly teaches Muslim preachers to withhold from potential converts the full truth about Islam’s violent and supremacist aspects until after they have professed the faith] refers to when he speaks of “the joint responsibility” of Jews and Christians to establish “the Kingdom of God”. By this he is asserting that American Christians and Jews should embrace Islam and work together to establish Sharia law and the dominance of Islam in the United States.

The traditional Islamic view is that if you want to know what the God of the Bible is like, then read the Koran. Not only must Muslims believe that “we worship the same God”, but this message is always a central component of the presentation of Islam to Christians and Jews.

[This message] provides the lynchpin of Muslims’ efforts to convert the “People of the Book” to the faith of Muhammad. In addition, this belief, once accepted, can lead Christians to support Islamic perspectives in ways other than conversion. For example, embracing this Islamic doctrine wins a measure of respect and even support for Islam from Christians.

—Dr. Mark Durie, Revelation: Do We Worship The Same God?, pp 50-51, 75-76 (emphasis added). (Dr. Durie’s highly recommended book has since been updated and expanded, and published in a new edition entitled Same God? Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity and Islam.)

See also: Tennessee openly promotes Islam: 7th-graders made to recite Islamic statement of faith

“Reports of Islamic Indoctrination Spread to Georgia Public Schools,” by Allison Fick, ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice), October 2, 2015:

“There will be a test, so repeat after me, ‘Allah is ___’” (Photo: Wikimedia).

Islamic indoctrination in public school is occurring right here in our backyard. As we previously reported, the core tenets of Islam are being taught in public schools in a way that could violate the U.S. Constitution. Other religions, such as Christianity, are barely covered. Recently, reports out of Georgia paralleled what has happened in Florida, Wisconsin, and Tennessee.

Georgia schools are required by the Georgia Department of Education to teach about Islam. For example, the Georgia Performance Standards mandate that students be able to “Compare and contrast the prominent religions in Southwest Asia (Middle East): Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.” Much like other states, the Georgia Department of Education sets state-wide education standards and the local schools decide the curriculum. Local schools in Georgia, however, are reportedly adopting curriculums that appear aimed at indoctrinating—rather than educating—students.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported on one local middle school that is taking their curriculum too far. The AJC reports:

“It is important that students understand the differences between each of these religions to help them understand the tensions that exist in the region,” the state standards, known as the Georgia Performance Standards, say.

In Walton County, that manifested itself in a homework assignment one parent found objectionable: “Allah is the [blank] worshiped by Jews & Christians,” the document said. The child filled in the blank with “same God.”

This is outrageous. State education standards require education on Islam, not indoctrinationinto the religion. Rather than explain the history of world religions, schools are reportedly forcing students to learn the Five Pillars of Islam—the creed one must learn to convert—and teaching students that Allah is the same God worshipped by Christians.

Unfortunately, this practice has been happening in schools for years. A spokeswoman for Walton County Public Schools stated that:

“We are teaching the same stuff that everyone else is teaching,” she said, adding that the district hasn’t changed its curriculum on the topic in nine years. Her son, a senior in high school, told her he remembers doing a quiz along the lines of the Allah is the “same God” back when he was in seventh grade.

“The same stuff that everyone else is teaching…”  That could work as the epitaph on the tombstone of American Education, and epitomizes the sheer ignorance of many of those trusted with public education, and their complicity in the accelerating Islamization of generations of American students, not to mention the progressive crippling of the intellectual vibrancy of the United States.

Parents are understandably outraged. As one frustrated parent told the local news, “We are seeing one page, five statements of Christian faith and 5 or 10 pages of Islamic faith, so there is no accountability to make sure it is equal.”

Something needs to be done. We at the ACLJ are working hard to investigate, expose, and end these unconstitutional practices, and are committed to fighting for the constitutionally protected rights of all public school students. We continue to receive contact from concerned parents and citizens.  We are working directly with our clients—parents of students in local schools—and preparing to send out demand letters to these schools if necessary. Moreover, we recently sent open records requests to every school district in Tennessee to find out exactly what is being taught in our schools.

The ACLJ will not stop until our students’ constitutionally protected rights have been restored.

To learn more about Shari’ah law’s threat to our constitutional freedoms, please see our booklet Shari’ah Law: Radical Islam’s Threat to the U.S. Constitution.

Sign the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) petition, Establishment Clause: Stop Islamic Indoctrination in School.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim gang rape victim stabbed in honor killing ordered by her own mother because she was “unclean”

Australia: Jihad murderer got his gun at mosque

Florida must become energy independent by 2020

What will promote human life? What will promote human flourishing — realizing the full potential of life? How do we maximize the years in our life and the life in our years? Answer: cheap and reliable power.

Organic Fossil Fuels are the Lifeblood of Civilization!

Florida’s Governor, Congressional delegation and state legislature must make it their number 1 priority to make the Sunshine State Energy Independent by 2020 or sooner!

Florida:

  1. Imports all of its natural gas and 99.9 % of its oil.
  2. Imports all of its refined petroleum based products (e.g. gasoline).
  3. Is the second largest user of natural gas, Texas being the largest.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

  1. Geologists believe there may be large oil and natural gas deposits in the federal Outer Continental Shelf off of Florida’s western coast.
  2. Florida was second only to Texas in 2014 in net electricity generation from natural gas, which accounted for 61% of Florida’s net generation; coal accounted for almost 23%, the state’s nuclear power plants accounted for 12%, and other resources, including renewable energy, supplied the remaining electricity generation.
  3. Renewable energy accounted for 2.3% of Florida’s total net electricity generation in 2014, and the state ranked 10th in the nation in net generation from utility-scale solar energy.
  4. In part because of high air conditioning use during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating during the winter months, Florida’s retail electricity sales to the residential sector were second in the nation after Texas in 2014.
  5. Electricity accounts for 90% of the site energy consumed by Florida households, and the annual electricity expenditures of $1,900 are 40% higher than the U.S. average, according to EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Even as human populations have grown dramatically and increased their use of fossil fuels, the world has become a much better place.

As CO2 emissions have risen so too have the GDP per person, life expectancy and the population.

Florida politicians are addicted to the precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”). It is a maxim embraced by government planners and regulators in the Sunshine state at every level. They do not even want to determine what organic fossil fuels lay off of Florida’s coastlines. The precautionary principle worked to stop the building of nuclear power plants in the United States after the 3 Mile Island incident. Today the same tactic is being used to stop off shore drilling using the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Off shore drilling naysayers use the example of the Deepwater Horizon spill to strike fear into the hearts of Floridians. But as FDR said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  An example of using the fear factor (precautionary principle) is what happened in Japan following the meltdown of a nuclear power plan in Fukushima. The facts are that no one has died from radiation, nor has cancer increased however, 1,600 did die of stress due to the unnecessary evacuation of people from the area.

Fear kills.

What off shore naysayers, fear mongers, don’t tell you is that mother nature is the greatest polluter in the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA over 2,500 barrels of oil naturally seeps daily from fissures in the Gulf. This seeping has been going on for tens of thousands of years, yet the Gulf is doing just fine. Would it not be better to capture this oil, and natural gas, than have it continue to seep into the Gulf?

Some argue that even if natural gas is discovered in Florida’s waters that building an on shore natural gas processing plant is not economically feasible or politically doable. There is an answer to this negative with a positive via new technology. Israel is faced with the same concerns about onshore natural gas processing plants. To solve the problem Nobel Energy and Shell Oil have come up with a solution. Process the natural gas using floating plants. According to Robert Sullivan of the New York Times:

It’s called Prelude, and it’s bigger than big. More than 530 yards long and 80 yards wide, it was constructed with 260,000 metric tons of steel, more than was used in the entire original World Trade Center complex, and it’s expected to displace 600,000 metric tons of water, or as much as six aircraft carriers. Even the paint job is huge: Most big vessels dry-dock every five years for a new coat, but Prelude’s paint is supposed to last 25 years. It will produce more natural gas than Hong Kong needs in a year. And it’s so big that you can’t really photograph it, at least not all at once.

[ … ]

What makes this giant liquefied-natural-gas enterprise feasible, paradoxically enough, is the miniaturization its construction represents. It’s much smaller than landlocked equivalents — imagine shrinking your local refinery until it fits on a barge. Shell Oil, which has the biggest stake in the project, describes Prelude as more environmentally friendly than an onshore site. There are no estuaries under threat, no shorelines to run pipe across and reduced risks to population centers, given the explosiveness of natural gas. And it is designed to ride out extreme weather, thanks to three giant 6,700-horsepower thrusters that can turn it into the wind and waves. “These are the things that the naval architects had to worry through,” says Robert Bea, co-founder of the Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, at the University of California, Berkeley. “It works like a big-ass weather vane.”

Read more.

Environmentalists use the fear factor when talking about drilling for natural gas and oil off of Florida’s shores. The same is true for some of Florida’s Congressional delegation, such as Rep. Vern Buchanan. Fear is not good public policy.

What is good public policy is insuring that Floridians have access to cheap and reliable power in the foreseeable future. Now it the time to take action. Waiting is not an option.

If Governor Rick Scott and Republicans are committed to creating jobs, then they must diversify the economy by promoting energy independence. Energy independence will lead to reduced costs for electricity, gasoline and diversify the economy. That is good public policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: Miami-Dade County school district accepts BP oil spill settlement, sets maximum tax rate

At Fukushima, Fear Was More Deadly than Radiation by Daniel Bier

The precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”) is a maxim embraced by government planners and regulators the world over, from GMOs to pharmaceuticals to the environment. The argument is that it’s better to act on fears preemptively than it is to “do nothing” and wait until there’s a problem.

But often, overreaction can be more costly than the original problem. Precaution becomes panic, and moderating risk devolves into the blind urge to “just do something.”

An article by George Johnson in the New York Times explains the deadly consequences of the Japanese government’s panicky stampede after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident.

No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.

But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant. …

“The government basically panicked,” said Dr. Mohan Doss, a medical physicist who spoke at the Tokyo meeting, when I called him at his office at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “When you evacuate a hospital intensive care unit, you cannot take patients to a high school and expect them to survive.”

Among other victims were residents of nursing homes. And there were the suicides. “It was the fear of radiation that ended up killing people,” he said.

Doss estimates that in the hot spots, with the highest levels of radioactivity, residents would have gotten 70 millisieverts of radiation over four years (a dose equal to one full body scan a year).

But those hot spots were anomalies.

By Dr. Doss’s calculations, most residents would have received much less, about 4 millisieverts a year. The average annual exposure from the natural background radiation of the earth is 2.4 millisieverts. …

A full sievert of radiation is believed to eventually cause fatal cancers in about 5 percent of the people exposed. Under the linear no-threshold model, a millisievert would impose one one-thousandth of the risk: 0.005 percent, or five deadly cancers in a population of 100,000.

About twice that many people were evacuated from a 20-kilometer area near the Fukushima reactors. By avoiding what would have been an average cumulative exposure of 16 millisieverts, the number of cancer deaths prevented was perhaps 160, or 10 percent of the total who died in the evacuation itself.

That would be bad enough, but it’s not clear if the “linear model” of radiation exposure is even accurate. The assumption is that all radiation is equally bad for you, and there’s no safe level of exposure, so your risk is in exact proportion with the level of exposure.

But Doss and others think low levels of radiation are not proportionally as bad for you as high levels, meaning that half the radiation is less than half as dangerous. In other words, a millisievert is not a thousandth as deadly as a full sievert — it’s much less than that, and it might not be bad for you at all.

“Better safe than sorry” sounds reasonable, but it can’t answer the question better for whom? When we’re talking about government policy, we have to remember that politicians and officials are not robots, blindly calculating the public good: they are people, with their own interests and incentives.

When there is a crisis (real or imagined), officials need to appear to do something. To keep us safe. To protect us from scary things, like radiation, toxins, and terrorists. That incentive is not identical to (and often not even compatible with) a rational cost-benefit analysis.

The evacuation of Fukushima was better for the officials in charge — they weredoing something — but it wasn’t safer for the people who died after being forcibly displaced.

There’s no perfect solution here. But it would have been much better to give people the freedom to move at their own pace and let them make informed choices about the risks, instead a rushed, terrifying evacuation from an inflated threat.

Johnson concludes, “We’re bad at balancing risks, we humans, and we live in a world of continual uncertainty. Trying to avoid the horrors we imagine, we risk creating ones that are real.”

I might add that when we mix them with politics, we risk inflicting them on everyone.

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.

Fossil Fuels Are the Lifeblood of Civilization by Aaron Tao

I never thought I would encounter a book titled The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. After all, in this day and age, it is the politically correct and fashionable trend for activists, media, politicians, and even the Pope to call upon each and every one of us to break our “addiction” to oil.

For as long as I can remember, my science classes from grade school through college carried some variation of the environmental message that warns of doom to future generations and our planet unless we embrace “sustainability” and drastically change our patterns of production and consumption. If we do not curb our usage of resource X and reduce humanity’s “impact” on the Earth, apocalyptic scenarios from overpopulation to reaching “peak oil” were bound to become reality.

But it’s now 2015, and the “population bomb” did not go off. And by every indication, we are nowhere close to running out of petroleum anytime soon (largely thanks to the shale revolution). Perhaps most astoundingly, even as human populations have grown dramatically and increased their use of fossil fuels, the world has become a much better place. This is the message that Alex Epstein emphasizes in his well-written, persuasively argued book.

What distinguishes Epstein’s work from so many other debates on climate change and energy policy is that his thesis gets to the core of the discussion: It is a moral argument. In making his case, Epstein presents a concrete and specific argument using human life and wellbeing as his moral standard of value:

What will promote human life? What will promote human flourishing — realizing the full potential of life? Colloquially, how do we maximize the years in our life and the life in our years?

Using this standard, Epstein clearly articulates the terms of the debate and lays out the costs and benefits of using fossil fuels versus alternatives.

He reminds us that fossil fuels are still the only source of abundant, cheap, and reliable energy (solar, wind, biofuels, and other “renewables” all fail in one or more of these categories), and that fossil fuel use is essential to industrial civilization and, in fact, made it all possible from the beginning.

Industrialization is what created the wealth and high living standards of the West. Today, China and India have experienced rapid economic growth and reduction of absolute poverty thanks to industrialization and the move toward freer markets. In short, billions managed to escape lives of misery imposed by Malthusian privation.

Furthermore, the countries that industrialized through increased use of fossil fuels saw not only a surge in economic prosperity, but also benefits such as increased life expectancy, cleaner air, cleaner water, decreased malnutrition, fewer deaths from infectious disease, and fewer climate-related deaths.

The dramatic improvement in both environment and climate thanks to increased fossil fuel use is counterintuitive for many, but Epstein marshals an impressive array of data from respected institutional sources to highlight these trends.

Screen Shot 2015-09-29 at 11.53.03 AMScreen Shot 2015-09-29 at 11.51.53 AMScreen Shot 2015-09-29 at 11.52.07 AMScreen Shot 2015-09-29 at 11.52.25 AMScreen Shot 2015-09-29 at 11.53.47 AMScreen Shot 2015-09-29 at 11.52.47 AM

Of course, detractors will almost certainly retort that the “greatest threat” of our generation, global climate change, will undo all this progress, and that the continued use of fossil fuels will hasten the inevitable day of judgment.

Epstein does not dispute the well-documented greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide emissions. However, he points out that the effect is logarithmic: Increasing carbon dioxide has resulted in a decreasing rate of warming.

Screen Shot 2015-09-29 at 11.53.12 AMFurthermore, Epstein raises crucial questions regarding the reliability of computer models in predicting future climate. For all intents and purposes, these speculative models have been failures.

Screen Shot 2015-09-29 at 11.53.18 AMDrawing upon his philosophy background, Epstein devotes a number of pages to explaining how people should find the truth by “treating experts not as authority figures to be obeyed but as advisors to one’s own independent thought process and decision making.”

(He makes only a passing reference to the field of nutrition, noting that it “can literally be deadly for a scientist to spread a hypothesis as fact” after government adopts it as gospel with disastrous social consequences. Knowing this story in detail, I’m glad he did.)

In the spirit of F.A. Hayek, Epstein reminds us that honest and responsible experts are straight with the public about what they know and how they know it, and that they freely acknowledge uncertainties and limits of their knowledge, especially in a field as complex as climate science. Unfortunately, history has shown that experts have too often understated the benefits of fossil fuels while greatly overestimating their costs.

One particular positive impact of increased carbon dioxide (more plant food!) in the Earth’s atmosphere is the explosive growth in vegetation all over the world. Literally, the planet has grown greener thanks to fossil fuel use. Yet, this beneficial “fertilizer effect” is virtually unmentioned in the public debate on climate change.

Unfortunately, when it comes to evaluating costs and benefits of a technology, “those who predict the most risk get the most attention from the media and from politicians who want to ‘do something.’”

Despite a history of failed apocalyptic predictions, environmentalist Bill McKibben, ecologist Paul Ehrlich, and other “experts” opposed to fossil fuels continue to endorse heavy limits if not outright bans on their use, as well as draconian population control measures to curb humans’ carbon footprint.

Going back to the moral argument, Epstein notes that the modern environmental movement argues on a completely different plane from his standard of human life. Instead of evaluating whether a given policy or technology benefits humanity, “green” activists tend adhere to the idea that “non-impact on nature is the standard of value.”

Thus, it’s really no surprise a strong anti-capitalist, anti-industrial, and misanthropic prejudice pervades the modern environmental movement.

Epstein decries the romanticizing of Mother Nature as a benevolent entity that looks after her children with their best interests at heart:

The natural environment is not naturally a healthy, safe place; that’s why human beings historically had a life expectancy of thirty. Absent human action, our natural environment threatens us with organisms eager to kill us and natural forces, including natural climate change, that can easily overwhelm us.

It is only thanks to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy that we live in an environment where the water we drink and the food we eat will not make us sick and where we can cope with the often hostile climate of Mother Nature.

Energy is what we need to build sturdy homes, to purify water, to produce huge amounts of fresh food, to generate heat and air-conditioning, to irrigate deserts, to dry malaria-infested swamps, to build hospitals, and to manufacture pharmaceuticals, among many other things.

That source of energy, of course, is fossil fuels. Only by transforming nature did human beings manage to create to a safer environment, boost productivity, and raise living standards.

The ability of humans to innovate and adapt to their ever-changing environments was made possible by fossil fuels, and our continuing progress as a civilization — including our lifting of billions out of dire poverty across the world — requires abundant, cheap, and reliable fossil fuel energy.

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is a much-needed counterpoint to the grossly one-sided ideological environmental crusade that too many people consider respectable and “mainstream.” I can’t thank Epstein enough for adding this valuable contribution to the public dialogue.

We can only hope that more students, journalists, and government officials read this book, understand the big picture, and boldly take a stand for human civilization against the misanthropic forces that would all but tear it apart.

This review first appeared at The Beacon.

Aaron Tao
Aaron Tao

Aaron Tao is the Marketing Coordinator and Assistant Editor of The Beacon at the Independent Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.

Hackers Reveil How Volkswagen Secretly Cheated Emissions Tests by Gary McGath

Cars are part of the “Internet of Things.” They run not just on gas, which you’re free to analyze, but on computer code, which you aren’t. If this sounds worrisome, it is. Internal computers can greatly improve a car’s performance and safety, but they can have problems that show no symptoms under normal circumstances.

A couple of hackers, with a knowing volunteer at the wheel, took remote control of a Jeep Cherokee over the Internet and could have wrecked it at high speed if they hadn’t stopped when asked to. More recently, Volkswagen was caught rigging its emissions-control software to cheat during EPA testing, letting them publish false information about millions of cars.

Car computers are formally called “electronic control units” (ECUs). One car may have over a hundred of them, running millions of lines of code, networked together. Figuring out what they do takes determination; it’s necessary to pull out their memory chips, read them, and work backwards from machine code to the design logic.

But the biggest barrier may not be technical but legal; copyright laws make it illegal to do this kind of reverse engineering, and the EPA itself has helped automakers to keep their emissions-testing code secret.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act puts restrictions on extracting copyrighted information from computers, even for legitimate diagnostic purposes. Car makers like this; it puts serious limits on independently created diagnostic tools and gives the advantage to shops that pay for licenses.

The EPA has formally opposed a DMCA exception for car systems, arguing that it would let people modify the code to circumvent limitations on emissions. It said that “the majority of modifications to engine software are being performed to increase power and/or boost fuel economy.” That’s just what Volkswagen did, and it was harder to catch them precisely because of those prohibitions.

The Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, which includes Volkswagen, has taken the same stand. Ironically, their statement declares:

Many of the ECUs embodied in today’s motor vehicles are carefully calibrated to satisfy federal or state regulatory requirements with respect to emissions control, fuel economy, or vehicle safety.

Allowing vehicle owners to add and remove programs at whim is highly likely to take vehicles out of compliance with these requirements, rendering the operation or re-sale of the vehicle legally problematic.

John Deere explicitly opposes a free market in car software:

In contrast to the seemingly benign stated purpose of the proposed exemption, the practical effect of circumventing the TPMs [Technical Protection Measures] at issue will stifle creativity and innovation for vehicle software. Third-party software developers, pirates, and competing vehicle manufacturers will be encouraged to free-ride off the creativity and significant investment in research and development of innovative and leading vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and authors of vehicle software.

The way to promote creativity and innovation is, apparently, to make it illegal for anyone but themselves.

ECUs can be subject to external attacks as well as internal cheatware. Some devices are connected to the Internet for purposes like traffic alerts and entertainment. If they’re part of the car’s internal network, attackers might be able to subvert the whole car, as the Cherokee hackers did. Good design requires firewalls against such attacks, but developers struggling with requirements and hardware limits may neglect security. With no other eyes on their code, it’s easy to be sloppy.

People have tinkered with cars ever since they were first made. They swap in their own parts, making their cars faster, powerful, and sometimes a lot more annoying. This tradition has helped people to learn how the original parts work and catch problems with them. Spotting flaws and cheats in computer code isn’t as easy as catching bad brakes, but it’s easier when the only barriers are technical. When the government and car manufacturers combine to keep the software secret, the rest of us are stuck in the breakdown lane.

Gary McGath

Gary McGath is a freelance software engineer living in Nashua, New Hampshire.

How the Government Makes Data Hacks a Thousand Times Worse by David M. Brown

In May of 2015, the federal government suffered a massive data breach, a hack that exposed the names and Social Security Numbers of over 21 million people.

In a press release, the Office of Personal Management reported that as a result of its “aggressive effort to upgrade the agency’s cybersecurity posture,” the agency discovered the massive theft of background records, reportedly originating in China, including

identification details such as Social Security Numbers residency and educational history; employment history; information about immediate family and other personal and business acquaintances; health, criminal and financial history; and other details.

Some records also include findings from interviews conducted by background investigators and fingerprints. Usernames and passwords that background investigation applicants used to fill out their background investigation forms were also stolen.

This was a new breach — not the same looting of 4.2 million of records that the agency discovered in April of this year.

The news didn’t stop OPM Director Katherine Archuleta, appointed to the post in 2013, from congratulating herself for the agency’s great strides in security. It was her “comprehensive IT strategic plan” that led to the knowledge that these incidents had happened.

Sounds like congratulations are in order. But now it’s September, Archuleta is long gone (she lasted about one day after praising herself for noticing the theft), and the latest news is that the fingerprints of 5.6 million people were also grabbed in the mega-hacking of OPM’s “cybersecurity posture.”

OPM assures us that “federal experts believe that, as of now, the ability to misuse fingerprint data is limited.” As of right now… this second… as we hit the press… you probably have nothing to worry about if your fingerprints got stolen from OPM’s data banks. Hurrah.

Even Archuleta would probably concede that discovering a robbery is not quite as good as preventing it. Let’s even go so far as to say that she is less to blame for having failed to fix how her agency functions than is the nature of bureaucracy itself.

Of course, governmental organizations are not the only organizations vulnerable to being cyber-attacked in consequence of lax security. Other victims in recent years have included Target, Chase, and Sony.

But it’s the decades-old privacy-invading policies of the federal government that have routinely converted all such breaches of personal data into potentially limitless disasters for the victims.

The federal government which, decades ago, assured us on the cards stamped with our Social Security Numbers that these digits were “not to be used for purposes of identification” is the same government that now mandates the SSN’s ubiquitous deployment to monitor and tax us.

Today, the Social Security Number is like the number to a combination lock: perhaps not enough by itself to enable a bad guy to rob the safe, but a big, big help. Once your SSN-tagged info is out there in badland, your stolen data can be sold and re-sold and re-re-sold. And your cyber-housed, SSN-tagged stuff can be targeted again and again.

Yet it has become harder and harder to refrain from giving others that number. You can join a club without divulging your SSN. You can open an email account or buy a book, a hamburger, a refrigerator, or a gift card without reporting your SSN. But you cannot put ten dollars in the bank, nor open an investment account, nor apply for a credit card or a job without reporting it. Most often, you cannot rent an apartment or buy a house without reporting it.

Absent unusual efforts to protect your financial and personal privacy (of the kind outlined in J.J. Luna’s book How to Be Invisible), the most you can do by way of preventing cyber-assaults is to take such precautions as using different and non-obvious passwords for different cyber-accounts, and withholding your address, data of birth, and SSN from persons who may ardently request these data but will still do business with you if you refuse.

If your data has been grabbed, you can also — if and when you learn of the theft — arrange to monitor your credit and to block routine access to your credit reports, and perhaps take a few other barn-door-slamming measures. But you cannot, short of engaging in fraud, supply anything other than your actual Social Security Number when a government agency requires that it be supplied.

Our most personal information hasn’t always been thus exposed. Today we are so used to privacy-violating mandates like the Social Security Number tag that we take the necessity of such poisonous violations for granted. But poison does not become nutritious merely because it has become, for now, unavoidable.

David M. Brown

The Pill Whose Price Went Up 5000%? It Costs 5 Cents in India by Alex Tabarrok

The drug Daraprim was increased in price from $13.60 to $750, creating social outrage. I’ve been busy, but a few points are worth mentioning.

The drug is a generic and not under patent so this isn’t a case of IP protectionism. The story as I read it is that Martin Shkreli, the controversial CEO of Turing pharmaceuticals, noticed that there was only one producer of Daraprim in the United States and, knowing that it’s costly to obtain even an abbreviated FDA approval to sell a generic drug, saw that he could greatly increase the price.

It’s easy to see that this issue is almost entirely about the difficulty of obtaining generic drug approval in the United States because there are many suppliers in India, and prices are incredibly cheap.

The prices in this list (right) are in India rupees. 7 rupees is about 10 cents so the list is telling us that a single pill costs about 5 cents in India compared to $750 in the United States!

It is true that there are real issues with the quality of Indian generics. But Pyrimethamine is also widely available in Europe. I’ve long argued for reciprocity: if a drug is approved in Europe it ought to be approved here. In this case, the logic is absurdly strong. The drug is already approved here!

All that we would be doing is allowing import of any generic approved as such in Europe to be sold in the United States.

Note that this in not a case of reimportation of a patented pharmaceutical for which there are real questions about the effect on innovation.

Allowing importation of any generic approved for sale in Europe would also solve the issue of so-called closed distribution.

There is no reason why the United States cannot have as vigorous a market in generic pharmaceuticals as does India.

Hat tip: Gordon Hanson.

Crossposted from Marginal Revolution.

Alex Tabarrok
Alex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Marginal Revolution with Tyler Cowen.

Social Justice in American Public Education

social-justice-walter-e-williamsIt has come to our attention:

The Florida Department of Education is not paying attention to the material given to our students.  Is your DOEd? Social Justice, the UNESCO ideology, is now taught in the classroom.  Social justice supports equality and solidarity in a society by designating a small group as a victim.

So that we are all on the same page lets agree on the definition of Social Justice: Social Justice is based on the concept of human rights and equality, and involves a great degree of economic affairs in which equality of outcome means all people have the same wealth regardless of work.  If wealth is not equal, then the government has the right to take from one and give to another.

Social Justice is a founding principle of various forms of socialism, communism, fascism, globalism, progressivism and cooperative economic organization, implemented through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

Notice now there is no need for students to know how to read or write, do math, know science, learn American history, nor to learn about America’s greatness, Bill of Rights, or Constitution.   Instead, so long as students can communicate the values of the teacher, they pass.  Since “grading” will make one student  feel  exceptional and others  feel badly about themselves,  they only ” pass” or “fail.”  This grading causes an unrealistic view of the world as we know “the world – life is not fair.”

On October 9, 2011 Jack Chambless, Economics Professor, Valencia College, Orlando, wrote to the The Orlando Sentinel on The American Dream.  His students had to write an essay explaining their definition of the American Dream and what they expected the federal government to do to help them achieve their version of this dream.

“When contemplating the role of Washington, D.C., in helping them achieve their goals in life, my students, most of whom were educated in America’s public schools, wrote that they wanted government to:

  • pay for my tuition
  • provide me with a job
  • give me money for a house
  • make sure I get free health care
  • pay for my retirement
  • raise taxes on rich people so that I can have more money, etc.

The idea of self responsibility and consequences for ones actions are skill sets no longer taught in school.  The future decision making process has been altered making the first choice reliance on government not self.

One student, who thought her American Dream could be best achieved with more government regulations, went so far as to say, “We all know that there are many bad side effects when regulations take place, but as human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts. So we need government to control those who don’t care about others. It makes sense that our freedom is reduced every day with the new regulations.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that for the first time in our nation’s history, 51 percent of Americans will not pay income taxes. It should also be noted that in 1983, just over 29 percent of Americans received some form of government assistance. Today the figure is 44.4 percent.

As a retired teacher, with a Masters Degree in Liberal Studies, I was not surprised at what “eductior” were saying. But I doubt if any of the students or parents actually understood what they were asking for in their dream.  Government control comes with a heavy price. Life will not continue along the same path we are accustomed to today. It changes drastically.

  • YOU will go to your government- approved apartment (flat)
  • in your sustainable development with
  • government- approved clothes,
  • eating your government- approved food,
  • going to your government- approved job on your bicycle.

Traveling is out.  Cars and gas will be too expensive. Healthcare is controlled and rationed by the government. Your electricity, energy, and food will be rationed.   Since you now pay for everyone and all services must be fair, the quality will be inferior.  Paying for quality services is out of the question –too expensive for all.  Services provided are mediocre.    Your only purpose in life is to work for the government.  You will never get out of debt for you salary will be substandard.

Economists teach that the economy needs you in debt to guarantee your work.  You work is leveraged for more borrowing.   The debt will never be paid, but the debtors will be happy to take your land and America’s resources. After all, these massive programs offering inferior services, must be paid by you.  When you drive by abandoned houses remember, if the stimulus money was used to help Americnas, there was more than enough to make every American whole. That was not the plan. The plan was foreclosure to level the playing field making it Fair. Net result: you will rent back your home and own nothing.  Ownership is not fair.

Poor quality education programs and grants like Race to the Top has brought us a National Data Base.  Your children will be required to “tell all in school”.  Tell:  how much you smoke, eat, drink, if you have a gun, your political associations, friends, sexual orientation. Now, all of your personal private information will be  reported into the National Data Base. If you are a Tea Party member, White males have been classified as terrorists and now, with bill like the

National Defense Appropriations Act, the government needs no excuse to pick you up and detain you indefinitely.  Not to worry – the TSA, the new Obama home army that he promised to create and fund, will come and get you.

Do students really understand Social Justice or do they think they are joining another social network?  Do you understand your new life? Let’s see how this social justice will work on a middle class family used to making their own decisions.

So what if:

Your Government has determined that you have accumulated more wealth than your neighbors?  That is not acceptable as the requirement of Social Justice demands that wealth be shared. You will be required to share your wealth to make room for other less- fortunate families.  In preparation of implementing Social Justice, you will now be required to register all bedrooms in your home. Many people already did this by answering Census surveys.

Your child will register information on the National Data Base, as required in the Race to the Top grant. This information will be stored on the National Data Base and will be shared with all government/corporate agencies (for your protection) to monitor your compliance with the program. Toady a chip with all of your private – banking, health, political etc. information is now embedded in your credit/debit/benefit cards, drivers license id cards etc. Eventually your net pay will be deposited on your card.  As long as you are good and say nothing derogatory, you will keep your money. Speak out and the government can debit your account.  (remember Greece)

According to sustainable development you and your spouse are entitled to 700 sq ft. 900 for a family of 4. Your family can occupy 1 bedroom. Each of the other bedrooms will be assigned to another family. This program is open to all residents of Florida, legal or illegal, working or not. You will be required to clothe, feed, educate, as well as to provide shelter, transportation and medical attention to all people living in your home.  The Pope is calling for this today.  Instead of fighting ISIS, they want you to share your wealth. Although I agree we must help the refugees that is a short term answer. In the long term, who as the funds and weapons to fight? you or the government? Yet the Pope says you must give up your wealth.

Continuing, your family can only have 1 car, which you will be unable to drive because fuel will necessarily skyrocket. You will be required to redistribute all other cars to those living in your home.

You will register your income so it can be divided equally among those living in your home. Under NO circumstances will those living in your home be required to pay or assist in any services required for the upkeep of your home. They are not obligated to you for any reason, it is just your obligation to pay for them since you accumulated too much wealth and wealth must be shared equally.

Once the registration is complete, you will transfer ownership of your home or business to the State. Private property is not acceptable under a Social Justice program. Don’t want to register, do not worry; your child will be able to complete this registration in the national data base required in Race to the Top.

If you need any references as to how this program works, we refer you to those models of implementation of Social Justice in Cuba, Argentina, Venezuela, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Hungary, China, and Poland.

If you feel that you have been selected unfairly, then contact the FLDOE and tell them that you live in the Constitutional Republic of America, not the Communist Republic of America. Demand that communist/socialist programs be removed from the schools. Demand that the Bill of Rights, American exceptionalism, nationalism, history, civics, and economics be returned to the Florida curriculum.

Teaching Social Justice is un-American.

Take Action

Homeschool whenever possible. Can home school? Go to your Pastor.  Tell your Pastor it is time to start a CCS free church school. Go to your school demand to see every piece of paper your child receives in school. Correct all mistakes and demand these boards and programs be removed from school.

Go to your school board and demand these books and programs removed form school Replace them with on of the many American exceptional curricula.   The test scores are in and CCS has failed miserably.  Why are we torturing our children year after year with programs that prepare them for NOTHING? Why are we forcing them to change their belief systems? The answer, MONEY POWER CONTROL.

Do you value your freedom of choice? Will you work for our children, our country?


The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
September 15, 2015

Executive Order — Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People

President Obama announced a new executive order on Tuesday which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives.

“A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights — research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them — can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people,” reads the executive order, released on Tuesday.

The new program is the end result of a policy proposal the White House floated in 2013 entitled “Strengthening Federal Capacity for Behavioral Insights.”

According to a document released by the White House at that time, the program was modeled on one implemented in the U.K. in 2010. That initiative created a Behavioral Insights Teams, which used “iterative experimentation” to test “interventions that will further advance priorities of the British government.”

The initiative draws on research from University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein, who was also dubbed Obama’s regulatory czar. The two behavioral scientists argued in their 2008 book “Nudge” that government policies can be designed in a way that “nudges” citizens towards certain behaviors and choices.

The desired choices almost always advance the goals of the federal government, though they are often couched as ways to cut overall program spending.

In its 2013 memo, which was reported by Fox News at the time, the White House openly admitted that the initiative involved behavioral experimentation.

“The federal government is currently creating a new team that will help build federal capacity to experiment with these approaches, and to scale behavioral interventions that have been rigorously evaluated, using, where possible, randomized controlled trials,” the memo read.

That document cited examples from the U.K. which showed that sending out a letter to late taxpayers which read “9 out of 10 people in Britain pay their taxes on time” led to a 15 percent increase in compliance.

The new executive order encourages federal agencies to “identify policies, programs, and operations where applying behavioral science insights may yield substantial improvements in public welfare, program outcomes, and program cost effectiveness,” as well as to “develop strategies for applying behavioral science insights to programs and, where possible, rigorously test and evaluate the impact of these insights.”

To jump-start the programs, agencies are encouraged to recruit behavioral science experts to join the federal government and to develop relationships with researchers in order to “better use empirical findings from the behavioral sciences.”

A fact sheet sent out by the White House on Tuesday shows that researchers at numerous universities and think tanks — from MIT, Harvard, and the Brookings Institute, to name a few — have signed on to the program.

The executive order specifically directs federal agencies to develop nudge programs that help individuals, families, communities and businesses “access public programs and benefits by, as appropriate, streamlining processes that may otherwise limit or delay participation.”

This can be achieved by “administrative hurdles, shortening wait times, and simplifying forms,” the order suggests.

The initiative also urges agencies to tinker with how information is presented to individuals, consumers, borrowers, and program beneficiaries.

The “content, format, timing, and medium by which information is conveyed” should be taken into consideration as those characteristics affect “comprehension and action by individuals.”

In programs that offer choices for consumers, agencies are instructed to “consider how the presentation and structure of those choices, including the order, number, and arrangement of options, can most effectively promote public welfare.”

The order also suggests that agencies fiddle with whether to label certain expenditures as “benefits, taxes, subsidies” or other incentives to “efficiently promote” programs.

President Obama’s federal health care law, Obamacare, is replete with “nudge” language and experimentation.

In its fact sheet, the White House noted that reminding individuals who had started to sign up for Obamacare led to a 13 percent increase in completed applications.

To help determine which presentation was more effective, the Department of Health and Human Services “sent one of eight behaviorally designed letter variants to each of more than 700,000 individuals who had already begun the health insurance enrollment process but had not yet completed an application.”

The most effective version of the letter generated the 13 percent improvement. Other less effective letters only increased enrollment rates by around four percent.

Another nudge contained in Obamacare was brought to light in the debate over whether the individual mandate contained in the law was a tax hike.

Republicans insisted that it was a tax increase, but the White House portrayed it as a penalty on the logic that the word “tax” has a negative connotation.

While the Obama administration touts nudge policies, others are hesitant to get on board.

“I am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies,” Michael Thomas, an economist at Utah State University, told Fox News in 2013.

“Ultimately, nudging…assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them.”

Real Clear Markets: The Sooner the Fed Gets Unstuck, the Better

Last week the Fed announced it would once again delay liftoff from its zero interest rate policy. During her press conference, Fed Chair Janet Yellen noted that “[the housing market] remains very depressed.”

Has the Fed missed the housing liftoff? July existing home sales were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.6 million, the highest level since the end of the peak of the housing bubble in December 2006. Home sales are up 23 percent from July 2012 – just before the Fed’s announcement of its last round of quantitative easing known as QE3 in September 2012. This strength has been more than fully reflected in the home loan market, a market dominated by FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government agencies.

The spring home finance market has also been booming.

Agency unit home purchase volume in August is up by double digits over the same months in 2013 and 2014. This boom has been influenced by outsized gains for first-time buyers (FTB): up 26 and 20 percent over 2013 and 2014 respectively. In August, FTB accounted for 57 percent of primary owner-occupied home purchase mortgages with a government guarantee – representing healthy increases from both August 2013 and 2014.

Home prices are seeing a second liftoff – inflation adjusted home prices are up 12.5 percent since September 2012. This should come as no surprise. Research as far back as the 1950s has shown that the liberalization of credit terms creates demand pressure that easily becomes capitalized into higher prices, especially when undertaken in a seller’s market. This is economics 101, pure and simple. Link to continue reading The sooner the Fed gets unstuck, the better.

Also read how the GAO report on mortgage reforms fails to address impact of QM and QRM

Dear Principal: Stop Turning Our Schools into Prisons by Alex Tabarrok

Here is a letter I wrote to principal of my son’s high school:

Dear Principal _____,

Thank you for requesting feedback about the installation of interior cameras at the high school. I am against the use of cameras.

I visited the school recently to pick up my son and it was like visiting a prison. A police car often sits outside the school and upon entry a security guard directs visitors to the main office where the visitor’s drivers license is scanned and information including date of birth is collected (is this information checked against other records and kept in a database for future reference? It’s unclear).

The visitor is then photographed and issued a photo pass. I found the experience oppressive. Adding cameras will only add to the prison-like atmosphere. The response, of course, will be that these measures are necessary for “safety.” As with security measures at the airports, I doubt that these measures increase actual safety, instead they are security theater, a play that we put on that looks like security but really is not.

Moreover, the truth is that American children have never been safer than they are today. Overall youth mortality (ages 5-14) has fallen from 60 per 100,000 in 1950 to 13.1 per 100,000 today (CDC, Vital Statistics).

Yet we hide in gated communities, homes and schools as never before.

When we surround our students with security we are implicitly telling them that the world is dangerous; we are whispering in their ear, “be afraid, do not venture out, take no risks.”

When going to school requires police, security guards, and cameras, how can I encourage my child to travel to foreign countries, to seek new experiences, to meet people of different faiths, beliefs and backgrounds? When my child leaves school how will the atmosphere of fear that he has grown up in affect his view of the world and the choices he will make as a citizen in our democracy?

School teaches more than words in books.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Tabarrok

This letter was published at Marginal Revolution.

Alex TabarrokAlex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Marginal Revolution with Tyler Cowen.

VIDEO: How Do We Get Rid of the Fed? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

When, if ever, will there be reform of the money system?

Smart people have been urging sound money — and calling for the restraint or abolition of the Federal Reserve System — for a century. It became apparent early on that this new machinery did not serve the cause of science, as promised, but rather the state and its friends.

Something needs to change.

The problem is this: interest groups benefit from the status quo. The largest banks, the top-tier bond dealers, a deeply indebted government, and myriad special interests all benefit from the power to print. They have an investment in discretionary monetary policy and in fiat money.

F.A. Hayek’s thesis in his 1974 essay “The Denationalization of Money” was that liberty won’t be safe as long as the central bank controls money. At the same time, nationalized money will never be reformed, because all the wrong people love the system as it is. Hayek’s solution: total privatization through displacing rather than reforming the Fed.

Still, the cries for reform are growing ever louder and ever more passionate.

As they should.

Jackson Hole, Wyoming, has emerged as the implausible center for the most important debate in economics and politics today. For 35 years, world central bankers have met there in August to discuss strategies and methods. In the past, they have met alone. This year, their monopoly on ideas was challenged head on.

I saw it as I stepped off the plane into the airport in Jackson Hole. There were the greeters from the Federal Reserve, welcoming dignitaries and big shots. Close by, there were greeters for the people who invited me: sound-money advocates for free markets, many influenced by the supply-side school. Our group was made up of economists, journalists, historians, and other independent intellectuals.

Then there was a third group made up of left-wing activists who want the power to print democratized — inflationists who see the Fed as their magical tool to bring about their dream of an egalitarian utopia.

The Sound Money Camp

The talks at our opposition conference were exceptional — the best two-day conference on gold and sound money I’ve attended. Speaker after speaker chronicled the problems with the Fed. The board of governors meets, and the whole world waits to see whether rates will go higher, lower, or stay the same.

Billions and trillions are held hostage to their whims, purportedly rooted in science but actually based on no more or less knowledge of the future than you and I have.

It is incredible how much our economic structures have become dependent on the whims of this group of unelected monetary dictators. But their main dependent is actually government itself. The Fed stands ready to print all the money government needs in the event of any crisis. That promise itself has meant the elimination of all fiscal discipline.

Politicians talk and talk about restraint, about cutting the budget, about bringing revenue in line with spending. But as long as the Fed is there, it’s all talk. There is no need for authentic discipline. In a strange way, the Fed has usurped even the power of the president and the Congress.

Consider the effects. Without a Fed, the US would have been far less likely to invade Iraq because the government would not have been able or willing to pay for it (at least without politically impossible tax hikes). And without that invasion, there would have been no rise of ISIS and no refugee crisis in Europe today. The crisis is giving both the radical right and left in Europe a huge political boost, displacing not only the establishment but the classical liberals, too.

The spillover effects are endless.

It’s been the same with every war in the last hundred years. They’ve all been underwritten by the power to print.

To see the relationship between the rise of Leviathan and the power of the central bank requires a few steps of logic, and some economic understanding. Even more difficult to comprehend is the relationship between the Fed and economic instability. When the Fed monkeys with interest rates, it distorts investment patterns, diverting resources from rational economic ends toward those with far less merit.

People think of the Fed as the benefactor who saved us from the housing crash. But to get at the truth, look at the history leading up to the crash. What provided the implicit bailout guarantee for the entire banking sector? What incentivized the reckless lending that goosed up housing prices for so long? However you ask the question, the answers point back to the central bank.

The institution that caused the problem cannot also be a reliable fix for the problem.

Can the System Be Reformed?

What reforms? At the conference I attended, there were many ideas, from gold-price rules to full privatization.

Solving the problem from the point of view of economics is not difficult: get rid of central banking.

The real problem is political: how do we get from here to there?

None of the existing presidential contenders are capable to forming two coherent sentences on the topic. In fact, they are more frightened by the subject of monetary policy than they are of the civil war in Iraq. And journalists don’t ask about the subject because their own economic ignorance exceeds even that of the candidates.

My own contribution to this conference was to discuss the innovation of cryptocurrency and bitcoin. Hayek had a glimpse of the possibility that private markets could reinvent money. He speculated that it could happen with the initiative of banks. What he could not have imagined was the invention of a distribution network and an open-source protocol that has no central point of failure. It is “owned” by everyone and no one. It is the basis of a monetary system for the world.

When? Not soon but eventually.

I sat on a panel with the mighty George Gilder, one of the truly prophetic voices over the last three decades. He rightly sees the potential of this technology, and he is super excited about it.

These monetary reformers who organized the event deserve congratulations for understanding the crucial role of digital technology in reforming money. I’m all for the gold standard, but never has the prospect of sensible monetary reform seemed more remote. Meanwhile, the reality of bitcoin is all around us.

Bonus: Here’s an outstanding interview with the author of the best single book on the topic in print today:

Jeffrey A. Tucker
Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

Homeschooling Is a Threat to Public Education: But Not for the Reasons You Might Think by B.K. Marcus

According to my local government, I’m just now beginning my fifth year as a homeschooling dad. That’s how long state law has required us to file the paperwork.

In that time, I’ve heard homeschoolers called elitists (because not everyone can afford to educate their own children), snobs (because it is assumed that we look down on those who send their kids to group schools), religious fanatics (because, well, aren’t all homeschoolers Bible-thumping snake handlers or something?), hippies (because if you’re not locking your kid up with a Bible, you must be one of those barefoot, patchouli-scented unschoolers), negligent (because what about socialization?), and just plain selfish.

All the epithets sting, but that last one feels the most unfair.

We are selfish, apparently, because we’re focused on the well-being of our own children and families instead of the larger community. But not only do many homeschooling families devote their time to volunteer work and charity, and not only do we evolve spontaneous extended community co-ops, but some parents also become ardent activists, making homeschooling a political movement and not just a personal choice.

That activism has at least one academic calling for greater government scrutiny of homeschooling families.

In a recent City Journal article, “Homeschooling in the City,” Matthew Hennessey quotes Georgetown law school professor Robin L. West, who “worries that homeschooled children grow up to become right-wing political ‘soldiers,’ eager to ‘undermine, limit, or destroy state functions.’”

I assume that for West, the “right-wing” label subsumes all of us who seek to “undermine, limit, or destroy state functions” — you know, people like John Locke, Tom Paine, and Henry David Thoreau.

I almost wish West’s fears were better founded.

Very few of the homeschoolers I know, whether on the right or the left, are eager to curtail the growing scope of government — except when the bureaucracy tries to reach into their homes and families. Many of the homeschooling dads I know are in the military, many of the moms drive cars with Obama bumper stickers, and many of the kids started out in public school before their parents decided they would be better educated outside the system. The activists are focused on education and on parents’ rights. Beyond those immediate issues, there’s little consensus on the proper scope of government power in areas outside of education.

It used to frustrate me that there are so few classical liberals in evidence in the diverse and active homeschooling community where I live. But there’s something to be said for a nonideological movement away from the state’s education cartel.

The American Founders (whom West, no doubt, considers “right-wing”) saw the future of freedom in the idea of decentralization: small governments should have to compete for citizens, akin to businesses having to compete for customers. Citizens who were dissatisfied could vote with their feet, leaving behind the territorial government that failed to serve their needs. It was, after all, such freedom of movement that had allowed individual liberty and general prosperity to grow, however imperfectly, in late-medieval Europe.

That liberalization was not the result of ideology. It was the effect of exit.

If landlords were too rough on the peasants, the peasants could seek a better situation elsewhere. Feudal law said they couldn’t, but the reality was that they could — especially in the post-Plague era. So compensation grew and working conditions improved, despite a widespread belief in the Great Chain of Being, a doctrine that stood against such changes.

If local princes interfered too much with nearby markets, merchants could pick up and leave. Other principalities welcomed them into freer local economies. Again, this liberalizing migration was not the result of enlightened rulers or ideologically motivated migrants; it was the consequence of fragmented authority and easy exit.

We live in an era when territorial authority has grown larger and ever more centralized. There is less political power behind the threat of departure when the rules are so similar everywhere you go. But there are other ways to leave Leviathan. Technology helps us outcompete the state, drawing ever more people away from government regulations and cartels. These defectors are savvy and self-interested; they are not necessarily ideological. The “gap economy” couldn’t thrive if it depended on philosophical converts.

Homeschooling took off before the advent of digital peer-to-peer technology, but the idea is similar: those who think they can do better than the monopoly system simply choose to leave that system, whether or not the law acknowledges that option. Through peer networking, homeschoolers, like generations of migrants before them, have sought alternatives outside the norm, leading to the kind of innovation that centralized systems inhibit.

Between 1970 and 2012, the number of American children educated at home grew from 10,000 to 1.77 million, according to economist Walter Williams.

Professor West and other advocates of big government are right to be worried by those numbers, but not because homeschooled kids are learning any anti-government ideology at home. The greatest threat that homeschooling poses to the government system is its diversity, its resiliency, and its undisputed academic success.

Homeschooling looks ever more appealing as an alternative to public education. That pressures public schools to make staying put more attractive. It pressures legislatures to explore options such as charter schools and school choice. As the government schools lose their monopoly status, the competition benefits even the families who never consider the alternatives.

I’m too new to homeschooling to take much credit, but we can thank those thousands of pioneers in the 1960s and ‘70s, and the millions of families over the decades since then, who quietly withdrew their children and their consent, and selfishly attended to the well-being of their own families.

B.K. Marcus
B.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is managing editor of the Freeman.