Dana expresses my state of disorientation on several fronts, such as…
- The Strait of Hormuz. The President says the U.S. doesn’t need an open Strait of Hormuz, but the rest of the world does. (For example, we have this headline: “Strait of Hormuz closure causes Diet Coke shortage in India.”) So why is the useless-as-usual United Nations sitting this out? I guess to ask the question is to answer it. The same applies to NATO, as far as I’m concerned. I’m increasingly drawn to Trump’s position that the U.S. funds most of NATO and it is not too much to ask for members to back up the U.S. in an international matter of national importance, like the war against Iran. I guess they have too many Muslims to pander to and they hate Jews too much. Good to know, and to Hell with the ingrates.
- The Federalist claims that as with the abortion decision, the SCOTUS pro-progressive distaff bloc intentionally “slow-walked” another Alito-written opinion, Louisiana v. Callais, which threw a metaphorical monkey wrench into Democrats’ race-based gerrymandering. I wrote posted on the Dobbs stunt here. But the logic in “After The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway’s new book exposed the dangerous delay of Dobbs, the liberal justices appear to have stalled again” makes no sense. Even though the article praises Justice Kagan, the Slow-Walking Justice, for her political chops, the delay of Callais has hurt the Democrats, leaving them little time come up with ways to maneuver around the decision. The reason Virginia’s high court striking down the dishonest referendum seeking to “restore fairness” by virtually ending the Congressional representation of conservative Virginians was so devastating is that the clock has almost run out.
I also don’t understand the last three posts attracting readers but almost no comments: Update on “Dog-Rapegate”: Israel Is Suing the Times , Ethics Dunce: D.C. Bar Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler and Comment of the Day: “What Exactly Are California’s ‘Values’? Can Anybody Explain?, especially the one about the D.C. Bar.
Anyway, moving on: it’s Friday, and I need your contributions. Contribute!
Ethics Alarms 
Strait of Hormuz. “Strait of Hormuz closure causes Diet Coke shortage in India.”
Yes, this is a horrible headline because the problem isn’t diet coke, the problem is the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz has stalled shipments of aluminum from the Gulf region so they can’t make the cans for the diet coke.
I’m not sure that the US doesn’t need the Strait of Hormuz open. “While the U.S. produces a significant portion of its own nitrogen and anhydrous ammonia domestically, the Persian Gulf region normally accounts for 40% to 50% of globally traded urea exports and roughly a third of all shipped fertilizer.” This has caused a significant spike in fertilizer costs for US farmers and will likely impact food prices.
I believe the UK was preparing to send a carrier to the region earlier in the Iran War (or conflict) and Trump said (to the effect) don’t bother. Here it is: “President Donald Trump rejected the UK’s offer to deploy its aircraft carriers, publicly telling the British government “don’t bother.””.
Yeah, he was reacting to the UK turning us down when he asked for help earlier. I have no problem with that, frankly. “Too late, you had your chance,” is a fair rebuke. Also, nothing is stopping the UK from keeping the Strait open if it chooses.
Farmer here. Yes the fertilizer and fuel prices are a concern, however the “spike in food prices” 1. Tends to happen for any conflict and 2. Farmers of commodities (soy, corn, rice, wheat, sunflowers, beans, canola, legumes, cattle, hogs, cotton, coffee, etc.) DO NOT SET PRICES. It is purely based on futures markets. Are they higher than last year when the price of wheat hit a 5 year low and the others were depressed? Yes. Is it because of fertilizer costs? No. Urea is also DEF fluid. Which is required for every diesel vehicle for emissions standards. That is likely the bigger concern.
Text to my fuel supplier.
“Jan 30: What is the price of farm fuel (dyed diesel) right now? $2.619
Yesterday: What is the price of farm fuel? $4.639”
The bigger issue is NOT war, input costs or anything other than widespread drought. That is why the price is increasing, regardless of the Mideast. It’s simple supply and demand economics. Demand for commodities is reasonably stable so anytime there’s fear of supply shortages (such as 2012) prices tend to increase quickly. We are currently at high stocks which is why last years prices were so low. Now for cattle… most people don’t realize that most cows live in pastures, again drought is a problem. If you don’t have pasture, you need alternative feed sources which you don’t raise without water, it’s quite regional since the freight is cost prohibitive. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to realize the cattle herds are not increasing like prices would suggest they should due to widespread and long term drought restrictions on feed supplies.
I can’t comment on the Mideast conflict because I’m too ignorant on it, but the “farmers are suffering” victimization is getting old. The truth is extremely complicated, particularly in the west where water is scarce and crop income is volatile. I can’t speak for produce or fruit farms, though my guess is at least in Colorado and surrounding areas, there will be very little fruit due to weather so I expect quality to be sub par, prices to be high and availability low. Are farmers suffering, yes, but it’s not just “fuel and fertilizer costs from the war” although that is part of it just like YOU are suffering from increased costs in your household.
I’m seeing some news that the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change) has rejected the RCP8.5 model as pretty much an impossible scenario. What is significant about this is how much research and how many policies were based on this scenario. With the IPCC actually stating that RCP8.5 is simply not plausible, the foundation for so much of the climate change hysteria has been ripped away.
To provide a little more detail, RCP8.5 is one of thousands of different models (computer simulations) trying to predict the impact of human activity on climate change up to the year 2100. These models try to take into account factors like human population growth, adoption or rolling back of climate policies, differing degrees of climate forcing due to carbon dioxide (because the science is definitely NOT settled on how much forcing CO2 actually contributes), and a host of other factors. RCP8.5 has always been one of the most extreme models, predicting an increase of 8.5 W/m^2 by 2100. There are scores of other models that are far more modest in their projections, and certainly observed data has favored models that project something closer to 3.4 W/m^2, though even those are diverging from observed data as time goes on.
The upshot, though, is the sheer scope of how much of the world’s climate policies are based on RCP8.5. From this article, we have
We have trillions of dollars worldwide tied into climate policies. Europe is practically destroying itself trying to achieve Net Zero targets. Industries are dying, people are facing energy insecurity, prices are skyrocketing, and the entire continent is growing in unrest over the devastation to livelihoods. All this comes from countries making policies based on a model that people have warned for years is unrealistic. But the good news is at least with the IPCC ruling the scenario implausible, there is no defense for anyone to keep using those high-end scenarios to craft policy.
Sadly, I’ll bet few policies are actually updated to reflect this ruling.
Thank-you. I saw this, was going to write about it (It’s a Fredo!) and then, as so often happens, I whiffed and got distracted. It’s infuriating, frankly. How long have unbiased people with a modicum of intelligence been saying that the models were crap, and because they are crap, basing policies on fear-mongering models is idiotic?
Comment of the Day.
The conflict over who should police the freedom of navigation has been raging since the Houthis shut down the Red Sea traffic. The Straights of Hormuz are just a new installment in the same issue.
Back then, the Axis of Unethical Conduct (hey, I do like your term) was upset about administration officials calling Europe freeloaders. In particular, the Telegram leaks where that term specific term “freeloaders” was used by multiple leaders, including by Vance. They specifically pointed out that Red Sea trade makes up 4% of US trade and something like 2/3 of European trade. If anyone cares, it should be Europe who cares the most. But they can’t help due to gutting their military to the point that they could not sustain Red Sea operations. Europeans were purported to be shocked that such language was used. Do you know who doesn’t mind such language? American citizens. By and large, American citizens DO consider the rest of NATO to be a bunch of ungrateful freeloaders. Those that support NATO, myself included, do so because we have to. We can’t have another despot take over Europe. They spread their wars around the world, and we don’t need a third one. So we support NATO. But we do so with resentment. I’m no Trump fan, but Trump is right on this. Trump was right on Germany and their buddying up with Russia back in 2016.
The reality is that the US is the least harmed by the closure. You can count on one hand the countries that are also the least harmed; Canada is an obvious one. Energy prices in the US are up, so is fertilizer and many other commodities. Counter that with the US experiencing the small end of the price increase. The commodities are all going to go up to reflect the energy prices, but less so in the US. US manufacturing is SOARING, especially in anything energy intensive. This is an already existing trend due to Europe’s suicidal energy policies.
Russia is a bit of an mixed bag in the benefit / harm scale. The Hormuz / Iran story is overshadowing developments in the Ukraine war, so many are missing what is going on. Ukraine has come online with several key indigenous defense industry sectors that are doing great harm to Russia. They have mid range 100km drones that are hitting the deep rear, swaying the kill ratio decidedly in Ukraine’s favor. They have long range strike drones and are annihilating Russia’s energy infrastructure. The oil price increase has offset the harm and is a net benefit for now. The increased revenue will no doubt let Russia drag the war out longer. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are managing to maim and kill 30,000 Russians a month. The longer this drags on, the more Russians will be maimed and killed… not much of a victory of Russia.
As a counterpoint to how “The Europeans earned Trump’s hate”:
https://abcnews.com/Politics/pentagon-abruptly-cuts-us-combat-forces-poland-officials/story?id=132972267
I’m saddened to see that. The Polish love us, and are more than pulling their weight when it comes to their NATO commitments. So are the Baltic states, Finland and Scandinavia.
I’d much rather see a nearly complete realignment of US deployments towards those countries that support us. We need to stay in the UK for our air and naval bases due to the strategic locations and have the ground troops needed to support them. Ditto of Italy. But the masses of troops in other locations really should be where they’re wanted, and Germany isn’t on that list.
I’m curious about participants thoughts on the SCOTUS actions around mifepristone?
I think Louisiana is taking the wrong tack in this though. I could be wrong, but from what I understand, it is out of state doctors that are prescribing mifepristone to Louisiana residents. Isn’t that practicing medicine in a state they’re not licensed in?
I ask, because I have a medical maintenance specialist that I teleconference with quarterly. In every call, he has to confirm where I am physically. State law requires that both he and I are physically in Oregon, and he can’t meet with me if that’s not the case. He can write prescriptions that can be filled online, but the delivery address must be to Oregon. I have been advised that if I’m traveling out of state and lose my pills, I need to visit an urgent care clinic and share my medical records so they can write me a local prescription.
How is this not different? Can’t Louisiana prosecute these out of state doctors for practicing medicine without a license in Louisiana? That would be devastating for any doctor convicted, as it would endanger their license anywhere once convicted. I would think a sting would be quite easy to setup, and once the prescription was delivered to Louisiana, they gain jurisdiction to prosecute. I would imagine certain states would resist extradition, but having an active arrest warrant makes life very difficult. Forget getting on an airplane or exiting the country with such a warrant active. Forget traveling to any state that would cooperate with such an extradition.
Curious about the duty to confront and it backfiring by confronting a pig that enjoys rolling around in the mud.
Took a spring walk with my dog, and a neighborhood property with an equally-medium sized dog behind a shock collar fence beached then bit my dog.
No persons around and was frankly puzzled that my loud yelling at the attacking animal brought no witnesses to the area. Snapped a photo after it retreated. Reported to appropriate authorities.
investigation conducted, declined to press charges because a good amount of (non-shedding breed) dog hair pulled was the only injury.
Weeks later and next walk in the area see dog unrestrained in the same manner (but self-confined to the porch). After passing through, Dog is photographed at the fence line about half the distance from the walk that a theathered dog must be. No persons present again (as also required when tethered)
Another couple weeks later, homeowner confronted me from the public road and tries to convince me that his dog wasn’t present when the attack photo was taken. He retreated to his driveway when he realized I had been recording his confrontation so I follow but remain on public property. He’s continuously yelling over my defense and assertions, (and pulls a backpack out of the trunk with two baseball bats affixed to it) so I leave.
I print out the city code regarding unfenced dogs, mail it anonymously to the address telling him that I intend to continue to record every instance I see the law violated, and suggest he personally test-wear the collar before relying on it, because if it fails a second time, everything gets reported and by law, a human injury could mean destruction of the animal.
Next walk, no attack dog or resident observed, but I flip off their camera.
Family is a household of two personal injury lawyers. They have me served a protection order listing every minor child as having been harassed by me, and reverse every element of the videotaped homeowner confronting me.
Now what!?
Bear spray for the dog and open carry for the owner?
I am neither a climate change denier nor an alarmist. I have often wondered, though, if we believe in the science of evolution – what if we are supposed to be affecting the planet’s climate? What if our activities are essential to the next developmental phase in the Earth’s evolution? Not a scientist, so don’t have a clue as to the answer. But I’ve never heard anyone discuss this concept. Of course if we are supposed to effect change, all climate models would be rendered irrelevant, the power base would crumble, trillions of dollars would not be available to corrupt world leaders and politicians, and they would have to find other ways to hoodwink and defraud us.
Never mind …
I’m fairly certain that no real-life scientist considers developmental phases of the Earth’s climate to be scheduled in advance, at least not in the way you describe that requires humanity to eventually discover fossil fuels and burn them all up. You could say that changes to the Earth are physically predetermined in the sense that they’re defined by cause and effect, and the causes are already set in motion and too large for humans to interfere with. However, I wouldn’t say it’s teleologically predetermined. If humans never used coal, petroleum, or natural gas as an energy source and never influenced the climate that way, I can’t picture an outside observer waiting around for climate change to happen and being disappointed. That’s probably why we’ve never heard anyone bring it up before.
Life on Earth evolves over time to adapt to changes in climate, as described by evolutionary theory from the science of biology. However, the Earth itself doesn’t evolve in the same sense of the word (through an iterative process of mutation, natural selection, and reproduction), only in the sense that “evolve” can simply mean “change”.
You do raise the important point that we need to consider what our goals are. Climate change activists assume 1) that humanity’s use of fossil fuels is causing climate change that would not otherwise happen, and therefore humanity can prevent climate change by dialing back that use, and 2) that the sort of climate change that would happen otherwise would be very unpleasant for humans in general.
It is worth considering how humanity could still survive and thrive under significant climate change, in case people decide that changing our energy sources and usage habits is just too darn inconvenient, or in case it turns out that climate change will happen no matter what we do.
“Too darn inconvenient” is a bit flip, don’t you think? How about economically disastrous, speculative in the extreme, wildly expensive, and impossible to enforce and coordinate without a world dictatorship? Combine that with models that have never panned out and dishonest, grant chasing,agenda-driven “experts,” and you have a disastrous ideologically-enforced fantasy.
You’re right, I was too dismissive of the amount of effort required to reduce fossil fuels.
I’m not trying to make the point that it is definitely necessary to transition away from fossil fuels. My point is that I get the impression that if it were conclusively established as necessary to survive, we still might not do it. We wouldn’t need a dictatorship to reduce fossil fuel usage, just the same sorts of laws people already have for overuse of resources like fish, wild game, or water. Banning leaded gasoline for automobiles didn’t have a catastrophic effect on travel.
I’m also not sure what you envision “crashing the economy” to look like. That sounds like a thought-terminating cliche. We can get a bit more specific than that. What standard of living are you afraid of imposing? What do people need or want that they wouldn’t be able to get?
The economy as it stands allocates resources to people by how much they deliver goods and services other people want. That means it depends on what people can do and what people’s expect they can obtain. Managing those expectations is something that we’ll need to do at some point, since they seem to be unrealistic. The economy is composed of not only costs, but habits as well.
Reply:
1. You’re right, I was too dismissive of the amount of effort required to reduce fossil fuels. Good for you. Thanks.
2 My point is that I get the impression that if it were conclusively established as necessary to survive, we still might not do it. If by “we” you mean enough of the world to actually change anything, I would junk “might.”
3 We wouldn’t need a dictatorship to reduce fossil fuel usage, just the same sorts of laws people already have for overuse of resources like fish, wild game, or water. Banning leaded gasoline for automobiles didn’t have a catastrophic effect on travel. You mean like we have effectively stopped the ongoing extinctions of African Elephants, whales and sea bass? Banning leaded gasoline was like banning absinthe in comparison to banning all carbon based energy.
4. “I’m also not sure what you envision “crashing the economy” to look like.” Like living in caves. Like the energy outages they are experiencing in Germany. Without energy, businesses go broke. Until there is a real alternative energy source (like nuclear), you’re talking no air travel and severely limited ground travel.
5. The economy as it stands allocates resources to people by how much they deliver goods and services other people want. That means it depends on what people can do and what people’s expect they can obtain. Managing those expectations is something that we’ll need to do at some point, since they seem to be unrealistic. The economy is composed of not only costs, but habits as well. Like personal liberty. Remember how the Soviet Union and China and Cuba ended the “habits” we associate with democracy and capitalism? They murdered people.
Hi EC – I probably should have used a tongue-in-cheek emoji. My comment was actually meant to be sarcastic about the money grab and power plays associated with climate change.
I am hopeful that a clean energy alternative will be developed, something that we don’t even know exists, or something like cold fusion that seems impossible now. I am cynical about a lot of things including their honesty and integrity, but still have faith in the ingenuity of scientists.
c
Good point. (??????????????)
That’s weird; I thought I undid that accidental change before submitting, but maybe it lagged a bit. (“Select all and copy” became “select all, copy, and replace with ‘c'” because I held down “c” too long. I like to keep a record of comments for occasions like this.) Thanks for calling my attention to that! I resubmitted my reply to Grandma Lisa below.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. Neither the content nor the tone of the comment were over-the-top ridiculous enough for me to register it as verbal irony.
Political scoop of the decade:
https://www.tmz.com/2026/05/13/spencer-pratt-staying-at-bel-air-hotel/
Liar! While this house is, in fact, burned to a crisp, he is not – NOT- living in an Airstream trailer. He’s in a hotel.
jvb
Anyway, moving on: it’s Friday, and I need your contributions. Contribute!
Here is Glen Greenwald setting things straight in regard to systemic sexual violence and torture by the Israelis.
It might not be much of a contribution but it is the role I have been assigned here.
Summation: There is no doubt that sexual violence and torture are in wide use by Israel’s military. It is widely reported and has been known of for decades. The use of dogs, whether occasional or systematic, is in keeping with the facts.
There you have it.
“Greenwald says so” isn’t proof of a fact other than that Greenwald says so. I asked you to provide information, Alizia. Linking to a 20 minute video isn’t an argument. Nobody has time for that. Your job is to quote or summarize the arguments made and to provide the source for anyone who wants to check. “In keeping with the facts” is weasel wording. Nobody doubts that Israel’s agents have used torture in dealing with terrorists—so did the US (and probably still does.)
Sorry I haven’t been seen here in so long. We started a restaurant. But I’m eagerly checking to see what you have to say about the recent BioEthics article suggesting that spreading a literal plague through ticks might be a neat idea. I was afraid your head would explode and the damage might be permanent this time.
It’s already permanent.
A bit late for a Friday’s Forum as it is already Saturday. From the article below;
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Friday a significant settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston over that hospital’s long practice of harming minors with cross-sex hormones and transgender surgeries.
The terms of the settlement are extraordinary, starting with the hospital’s commitment to open a detransition-support clinic for the growing number of young people who were given the false promise that they could change their sex or “gender.”
The hospital will also pay $10 million to the state for “billing Texas Medicaid for unallowable and illegal ‘gender-transition’ interventions,” while also agreeing to “fire, permanently and irrevocably terminate all existing privileges, and never again hire or credential five woke doctors who performed harmful medical interventions on Texans.”
https://thefederalist.com/2026/05/15/paxton-scores-a-10-million-victory-in-the-fight-against-the-trans-kids-industrial-complex/
My impression is that the trans fad or trans hysteria is coming to an end. There are many who regret their transition. This is a first eight figure lawsuit in a long sequence of lawsuits to follow, as those who unhappy with the transitioning will want to reverse it, and sue all those parties who provided the “medical” procedures, and who pushed them into these procedures. I hope they bankrupt one or more school districts as well. Adolescents struggling with their sexuality will be coming out as gay or lesbian again, as they did twelve years ago, before Obergefell.