Government – artdiamondblog.com

Democratic New York Department of Environmental Conservation Raids Home, Seizing and Killing P’Nut, Internet-Famous Orphan Pet Squirrel

(p. A15) . . . P’Nut was an internet-famous squirrel who was seized and euthanized by New York State wildlife agents last week . . .

. . .

. . . Elon Musk lionized the rodent as a Jedi martyr — more powerful in death than in life.

“RIP Peanut,” read a post on a Trump campaign’s official TikTok account on Sunday [Nov. 3, 2024]. “Needlessly murdered by Democrat bureaucrats in New York.”

. . .

P’Nut’s journey from cowboy-hat-wearing Instagram cutie to conservative lightning rod began on Oct. 30 [2024]. That was when New York State Department of Environmental Conservation officers, responding to what the agency said were anonymous complaints, arrived at the home of his owner, Mark Longo, in Pine City in Chemung County. In New York State, it is illegal to house animals considered wildlife without a special permit; Mr. Longo has said he was in the process of applying for one.

D.E.C. agents seized the squirrel, which Mr. Longo had cared for ever since its mother was hit by a car seven years ago. Agents also apprehended Fred the raccoon. At some point, the squirrel bit a person involved with the investigation, according to a statement put out by the agency, leading its officers to swiftly euthanize both animals to test for rabies.

In tearful online posts, Mr. Longo and his wife, Daniela, railed against tax dollars being spent to kill the animals they considered pets.

. . .

In Macon, Ga., Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman, spoke at a Trump rally and compared Peanut’s fate to that of Laken Riley, a local woman who was killed by a Venezuelan man who had once lived in New York. She blamed Democrats in New York City, which is 200 miles from Pine City, for euthanizing P’Nut.

“Democrats in New York City went in and raided a home to kill a squirrel,” Ms. Greene said. “Yet it was the same State of New York that let the criminal illegal alien go that came to Georgia that murdered our very own Laken Riley.”

. . .

. . . the animals’ owner, Mr. Longo, 34, considers himself apolitical. He is not registered with any political party and said he has never voted in his life.

. . .

He has spent the past days grieving, he said, and when he found a stray almond that Peanut had sneaked into his pocket, he burst into tears. He was just grateful, he said, “that somebody is giving P’Nut a voice.”

“I don’t care if it was the blue side or the red side,” he added. “Somebody on this planet is fighting for my animals.”

For the full story see:

Sarah Maslin Nir. “Death of a Pet Squirrel Is a G.O.P. Rallying Cry.” The New York Times (Wednesday, November 6, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses, bracketed date, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Nov. 4, 2024, and has the title “How the Death of a Celebrity Squirrel Became a Republican Rallying Cry.”)

A Drug’s Lack of Randomized Clinical Trials Does Not Imply the Drug Lacks Efficacy

(p. D5) In 2013, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association issued a series of statin recommendations for primary prevention, relevant to adults up to age 75 who have high cholesterol or diabetes, or who for other reasons face an estimated 7.5 percent risk or greater of developing heart disease within 10 years.

Last year, the United States Preventive Services Task Force similarly recommended statins for primary prevention in people aged 40 to 75 who had risk factors like high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure or smoking, with a 10-year disease risk of 10 percent or greater.

But for people over age 75, both panels agreed, there was not sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. As with many clinical trials, the major statin studies mostly haven’t included patients at advanced ages.

. . .

But Dr. Paul Ridker, a self-described “statin advocate” who directs the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, gets irked at the argument that we don’t know enough to give statins to older patients without heart disease.

“I don’t believe there’s any doubt that statin therapy is effective for primary prevention in older adults,” Dr. Ridker said. He cites a recent reanalysis of data from two major studies showing that patients over age 70 taking statins experienced the same reductions in cardiovascular events and mortality as younger ones.

Dr. Orkaby and her Harvard colleagues hoped to help resolve such questions with their recent study, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, comparing physicians over age 70 who took statins for primary prevention with those who didn’t.

The team matched each group for 30 variables and found that over an average of seven years, statin-takers had an 18 percent lower death rate, though not a statistically significant reduction in cardiovascular events.

In the same issue, though, an editorial co-authored by Dr. Rich called statin use for primary prevention in older patients “an unresolved conundrum.”

The physician study was observational, so can’t establish causes, he pointed out.

For the full story see:

Paula Span. “The New Old Age; If You’re Over 75 and Healthy, Are Statins for You?” The New York Times (Tuesday, January 9, 2018 [sic]): D5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date January 5, 2018 [sic], and has the title “The New Old Age; You’re Over 75, and You’re Healthy. Why Are You Taking a Statin?”)

The article on the effect of statins on older physicians, co-authored by Orkaby and mentioned above, is:

Orkaby, Ariela R., J. Michael Gaziano, Luc Djousse, and Jane A. Driver. “Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Older Men.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 65, no. 11 (Nov. 2017): 2362-68.

Government Sugar Quotas Increase Demand for Harder-to-Metabolize Corn Syrup, Making Americans Fatter

For decades on the last day of every micro principles class I discussed the causes and effects of U.S. government sugar quotas. Government sugar quotas reduce the quantity of sugar that can be imported into the U.S., increasing the price of sugar. If the price of one substitute (sugar) rises, the demand for the other substitute (corn syrup) increases. As a result Americans consume more corn syrup which is harder to metabolize and easier to overconsume. Government sugar quota regulation thus increases obesity, and obesity-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

(p. D5) To clarify the effects of our high-sugar diet, I consulted an expert, Kimber L. Stanhope, a researcher in nutritional biology at the University of California, Davis, whose work is free of industry support and funded primarily by the National Institutes of Health. In a comprehensive 34-page review of research published in Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences in 2016, she linked consumption of added sugar to metabolic disease — cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease — as well as high blood levels of uric acid, a risk factor for kidney stones and gout.

In studies done in her lab among young adults consuming their normal diets, the risk for developing heart disease and kidney stones rose in direct proportion to the amount of high-fructose corn syrup they consumed.

. . .

“Fructose and glucose are not metabolized the same way in the human body,” which can account for the adverse effects of fructose, Dr. Stanhope said. Glucose is metabolized in cells throughout the body and used for energy. Fructose is metabolized in the liver, resulting in fat production and raising the risk of heart and fatty-liver disease. In addition, she explained, “fructose doesn’t stimulate the satiety-promoting substance leptin,” prompting some people to overconsume it, especially in soft drinks containing high-fructose corn syrup, and other tempting foods as well.

For the full story see:

Jane E. Brody. “The Sharp Bite of a Sweet Tooth.” The New York Times (Tuesday, July 23, 2019 [sic]): D5.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 22, 2019 [sic], and has the title “The Downside of Having a Sweet Tooth.”)

The review article on the effect of sugar consumption on metabolism and obesity, mentioned above, is:

Stanhope, Kimber L. “Sugar Consumption, Metabolic Disease and Obesity: The State of the Controversy.” Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences 53, no. 1 (2016): 52-67.

Diamond Op-Ed on Volunteering to Work the Polls on Nov. 5

My op-ed is: Diamond, Arthur M. “A Draft Avoider Finally Works the Polls.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Oct. 31, 2024): A13. The op-ed title was written by the editors, not by me.

Covid Loan Programs Passed by Congress Were “Comically Easy to Scam”

In a WSJ op-ed, I tell how a fraudster received a $42,200 Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan in my name for an alleged “Arthur M.D. Potato Farm.” As discussed in the NYT passages quoted below, there was also massive fraud in other related Congress-funded Small Business Administration Covid boondoggle programs. The NYT article blames the Trump Administration, but in my struggle to clear up the potato farm fraud case, a S.B.A. official told me that the Congress in 2020 put enormous pressure on the S.B.A. to get the money out the door as quickly as possible. The House of Representatives, which takes the lead in spending legislation, was controlled by the Democratic Party.

In the passages quoted below, “P.P.P.” means “Paycheck Protection Program” and “E.I.D.L.” means “Economic Injury Disaster Loan.”

(p. B4) An emergency relief program hastily rolled out in the early days of the pandemic had such poor fraud protections that it improperly doled out nearly $4.5 billion to self-employed people who said they had additional workers — even those who made wildly implausible claims, like having one million employees.

The $20 billion program, called the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Advance, offered small businesses immediate grants of up to $10,000 in the months after the pandemic shuttered much of the economy. But hundreds of thousands of the grants it made were inflated because there was no system to catch applications with “flawed or illogical information,” Hannibal Ware, the Small Business Administration’s inspector general, wrote in a report released on Thursday [Oct. 7, 2021].

. . .

. . . the S.B.A. skipped an obvious safeguard: It did not require sole proprietors claiming to have employees to enter their Employer Identification Number, instead allowing them to use their Social Security numbers.

. . .

Some of the claims were outright absurd. Hundreds of applicants received the maximum grants after saying that they employed more than 500 workers, a number that would generally make them ineligible for the small business program. Fifteen said they had one million employees — a figure that would put them in league with Amazon and Walmart.

The Small Business Administration “never requested additional information from these sole proprietors to verify the number of employees cited on their grant applications before approving and disbursing the grants,” Mr. Ware said in his report.

. . .

. . . a Bloomberg article last year described how almost comically easy it was to scam the system. It cited how-to videos that circulated on YouTube with titles like “$10k SBA Loans & GRANTS Got The STREETS Going CRAZY!”

. . .

The Justice Department has already prosecuted hundreds of cases involving fraudulent claims across the government’s $1 trillion small business pandemic relief programs, reclaiming more than $600 million.

But that is only a sliver of the amount lost to bogus claims. A March memo by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis identified an estimated $84 billion in suspected fraud in the P.P.P. and E.I.D.L. programs after the Trump administration “refused to implement basic controls.”

Mr. Ware told a House committee in April [2021] that his office had opened more than 400 cases involving the agency’s assorted relief programs.

“Fraud investigations will be a decades-long effort,” he said.

For the full story see:

Stacy Cowley. “S.B.A. Paid $4.5 Billion on Bogus Grant Claims.” The New York Times (Friday, October 8, 2021 [sic]): B4.

(Note: ellipses, bracketed date, and bracketed year, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Oct. 7, 2021 [sic], and has the title “S.B.A. Overpaid $4.5 Billion on ‘Illogical’ Small Business Grant Claims.”)

$700 Million Deployed for Harris by an “Elusive” Expert on Randomized Clinical-Trials

“The biggest super PAC in American politics” (p. 1) is spending $700 million on ads to elect Harris, more than the combined expenditures of both the official campaign of Harris and the official campaign of Trump (p. 1). “Leading the group” (p. 19) is an “elusive” PhD named Chauncy McLean, who has “ascended in the party by displaying encyclopedic knowledge of randomized controlled-trials” (p. 19). If Harris wins will that be more due to her overwhelming advantage in funding or more due to the methods used to spend the funds? (Or will the results depend more on how much Americans remember the record of Trump compared to how much they remember the record of Biden-Harris?)

For the full story see:

Theodore Schleifer and Shane Goldmacher. “Super PAC Places $700 Million Bet On Harris’s Bid.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, October 20, 2024): 1 & 19.

“Mass Deportation” Is Not in Trump’s Heart, but Is a Warning to Future Illegal Aliens

I am stressed by the image of the “mass deportation” of those who entered the U.S. illegally, but otherwise have been decent hard-working people. My plausible hope is that deep in his heart, Trump does not really mean it or plan it. Why “plausible”? Read the passage quoted below describing Trump’s visit with The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

At this year’s Republican National Convention, Mr. Trump vowed to undertake “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” Editorial board member Kyle Peterson asks how large—does Mr. Trump intend to deport aliens who are law-abiding except for their illegal presence in the country, even if they have American spouses and children? Maybe not, Mr. Trump says: “We have a lot of good people in this country, and we have to do something about it, and I’d like to see if we can do it.”

Pressed for specifics, he demurs: “Well, I don’t want to go too much into clarification, because the nicer I become, the more people that come over illegally.” When he was president, “I said, ‘We’re going to separate your family.’ . . . It doesn’t sound nice, but when a family hears they’re going to be separated, you know what they do? They stay where they are, because we couldn’t handle it. . . . But the interest from the heart, yeah, something’s going to be done. . . . I mean, there’s some human questions that get in the way of being perfect, and we have to have the heart, too. OK?”

The implication is that the optimal immigration policy is a happy medium between restriction and openness. That’s certainly true and perhaps a truism. Mr. Trump suggests that he, the bully with a heart of gold, is just the man to strike the balance.

For the full commentary/interview see:

James Taranto. “The Weekend Interview; Trump Tangles With the Journal’s Editors.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, October 18, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses in original.)

Europeans Tire of Costly and Ineffective Climate Transition Policies

(p. A15) The 2015 Paris Agreement aspired to “reduce the risks and impacts of climate change” by eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions in the latter half of this century. The centerpiece of the strategy was a global transition to low-emission energy systems.

. . .

U.S. and European governments are trying to induce an energy transition by building or expanding organizations and programs favoring particular “clean” technologies, including wind and solar generation, carbon capture, hydrogen production and vehicle electrification. Promoting technological innovation is a worthy endeavor, but such efforts face serious challenges as costs and disruptions grow without tangible progress in reducing local, let alone global, emissions. Retreats from aggressive goals are already under way in Europe, with clear signs of mandate fatigue. The climbdown will be slower in the U.S., where subsidies create constituencies that make it more difficult to reverse course.

. . . It means that today’s ineffective, inefficient, and ill-considered climate-mitigation strategies will be abandoned, making room for a more thoughtful and informed approach to responsibly providing for the world’s energy needs.

For the full commentary see:

Steven E. Koonin. “The ‘Climate Crisis’ Fades Out.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, June 11, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 10, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

Koonin’s commentary, quoted above, is related to his book:

Koonin, Steven E. Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, 2021.

Charter School Founder Stood Up to “Education Bureaucrats”

The NYT ran an inspiring obituary for Joseph H. Reich last Tuesday. Reich and his wife were pioneers in the Charter School initiative. The obituary quotes them as saying that they were able to afford to send their own children to private school, but poor parents who want better for their children than what is on offer by the government public schools could not afford a similar option. They were quoted as saying “We recoil against this injustice.” They created one of the first charter schools and also donated $10 million for general support of charter schools. The obituary says that they stood up against “vigorous pushback from education bureaucrats.”

For the full obituary see:

Trip Gabriel. “Joseph H. Reich, 89, Pioneer of New York City’s Charter Schools, Dies.” The New York Times (Tuesday, October 15, 2024): A21.

Green Energy Subsidies Do Not Reduce Fossil Fuel Consumption

(p. A13) Regular readers may feel vindicated by a new study this week in the prestigious journal Science. It examines 1,500 “climate” policies adopted around the world and finds only 63—or 4%—produced any emissions reductions. Even so, press accounts strained to muddy the study’s simple lesson so let’s spell it out: Taxing carbon reduces emissions. Subsidizing “green energy” doesn’t.

In fact, this should be old hat. One of the most cited papers in climate economics is 2012’s “Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” by the University of Oregon’s Richard York. His answer: not “when net effects are considered.”

Mr. York and a colleague returned with a 2019 empirical paper showing that while “renewable energy sources compose a larger share of overall energy production, they are not replacing fossil fuels but are rather expanding the overall amount of energy that is produced.”

. . .

The 2023 data have arrived. Fossil-fuel use, emissions and green energy all have grown right alongside each other, as economics predicted. Global emissions finally broke the 40 gigaton threshold, having doubled since 1984.

For the full commentary see:

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. “Business World; Follow the Science: Biden Climate Policy Is a Fraud.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Aug. 24, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date August 23, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

The recent Science paper mentioned above is:

Stechemesser, Annika, Nicolas Koch, Ebba Mark, Elina Dilger, Patrick Klösel, Laura Menicacci, Daniel Nachtigall, Felix Pretis, Nolan Ritter, Moritz Schwarz, Helena Vossen, and Anna Wenzel. “Climate Policies That Achieved Major Emission Reductions: Global Evidence from Two Decades.” Science 385, no. 6711 (Aug. 22, 2024): 884-92.

York’s 2012 paper mentioned above is:

York, Richard. “Do Alternative Energy Sources Displace Fossil Fuels?” Nature Climate Change 2, no. 6 (June 2012): 441-43.

York’s 2019 paper mentioned above is:

York, Richard, and Shannon Elizabeth Bell. “Energy Transitions or Additions?: Why a Transition from Fossil Fuels Requires More Than the Growth of Renewable Energy.” Energy Research & Social Science 51 (May 2019): 40-43.

People Thinking about the Rules They Have to Obey, Are Not Thinking about the Problems They Have to Solve

(p. A18) . . . I looked into the growing bureaucratization of American life. It’s not only that growing bureaucracies cost a lot of money; they also enervate American society. They redistribute power from workers to rule makers, and in so doing sap initiative, discretion, creativity and drive.

Once you start poking around, the statistics are staggering. Over a third of all health care costs go to administration. As the health care expert David Himmelstein put it in 2020, “The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy.” All of us who have been entangled in the medical system know why administrators are there: to wrangle over coverage for the treatments doctors think patients need.

. . .

In every organization I’ve interacted with, the administrators genuinely want to serve the mission of the organization, but the nature of their jobs is to enforce compliance with this or that rule.

Their power is similar to what Annie Lowrey of The Atlantic has called the “time tax.” If you’ve ever fought a health care, corporate or university bureaucracy, you quickly realize you don’t have the time for it, so you give up. I don’t know about you, but my health insurer sometimes denies my family coverage for things that seem like obvious necessities, but I let it go unless it’s a major expense. I calculate that my time is more valuable.

As Philip K. Howard has been arguing for years, good organizations give people discretion to do what is right. But the trend in public and private sector organizations has been to write rules that rob people of the power of discretion. These are two different mentalities. As Howard writes, “Studies of cognitive overload suggest that the real problem is that people who are thinking about rules actually have diminished capacity to think about solving problems.”

. . .

. . ., Mark Edmundson teaches literature at the University of Virginia. The annual self-evaluations he had to submit used to be one page. Now he has to fill out about 15 electronic pages of bureaucratese that include demonstrating how his work advances D.E.I., to make sure his every waking moment conforms to the reigning ideology.

In a recent essay in Liberties Journal, he illustrates how administrators control campus life . . .

. . .

Organizations are trying to protect themselves from lawsuits, but the whole administrative apparatus comes with an implied view of human nature. People are weak, fragile, vulnerable and kind of stupid. They need administrators to run their lives. They have to be trained never to take initiative, lest they wander off into activities that are deemed by the authorities to be out of bounds.

The result is the soft despotism that Tocqueville warned us about centuries ago, a power that “is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild.” In his Liberties essay, Edmundson writes that this kind of power is now centerless. Presidents and executives don’t run companies, universities or nations. Power is now held by everyone who issues work surveys and annual reports, the people who create H.R. trainings and collect data. He concludes: “They are using the terms of liberation to bring more and more free people closer to mental serfdom. Some day they will awaken in a cage of their own devising, so harshly confining that even they, drunk on their own virtue, will have to notice how their lives are the lives of snails tucked in their shells.”

Trumpian populism is about many things, but one of them is this: working-class people rebelling against administrators. It is about people who want to lead lives of freedom, creativity and vitality, who find themselves working at jobs, sending their kids to schools and visiting hospitals, where they confront “an immense and tutelary power” (Tocqueville’s words) that is out to diminish them.