Not All Legislators Use The Poor And Minorities For Political Gain

Not All Legislators Use The Poor And Minorities For Political Gain

Authored by Dave Trabert via RealClear Wire,

Hypocrisy — claiming to have beliefs to which one’s behavior does not conform — has long been a defining characteristic of many politicians. But a few brave souls recently have bucked the official party line to stand up for their beliefs and constituents.

Georgia state legislator Mesha Mainor recently announced she is leaving the Democrat party to become a Republican, saying, “For far too long, the Democrat Party has gotten away with using and abusing the black community. For decades, the Democrat Party has received the support of more than 90% of the black community. And what do we have to show for it?  I represent a solidly blue district in the city of Atlanta. This isn’t a political decision for me. It’s a moral one.”

Minor says her Democrat colleagues crucified her when she decided to stand up for disadvantaged children in support of school choice.  

Kansas Democrat Marvin Robinson hasn’t changed party affiliation, but he is taking a lot of abuse from Democrats for supporting school choice for disadvantaged kids and protecting biological women’s right to compete in the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. He says one female Democrat in the Legislature told him he should die.

Mainor says, “The most dangerous thing to the Democrat Party is a black person with a mind of their own.”  

Kansas Democrats also pressure members to vote against children and for the unions.  

Rep. Brad Boyd, an Olathe, Kansas Democrat who serves on the Olathe School Board, says school choice “targets black and brown kids, who can’t afford to attend some of these prestigious private institutions when we take money away from public schools.”

School choice programs do target minorities and low-income students, but quite the opposite of how Boyd contends. First, seven of the eight studies on the effect of choice programs on integration found positive impacts; the other showed no visible impact. That’s because minorities comprise a disproportionate share of student enrollment in choice programs.  Second, most studies show that public school students have better outcomes after the introduction of choice programs.

Despite these irrefutable facts, Rep. Boyd and other choice opponents want to keep students trapped in public schools and condemn them to a lifetime of underachievement because that is the will of the teacher unions and other education officials. Only 13% of Black high school students in Boyd’s Olathe district are proficient in math, and more than half are below grade level.  

Shockingly low proficiency for Black students isn’t just a Kansas issue; it runs rampant nationwide. The 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows 62% of Black eighth-graders are below basic in math, and only 9% are proficient, for example.

Kansas Republican Mark Schreiber justifies his opposition to choice by saying the state should focus on providing more early childhood education programs. That might seem plausible at face value, but people like Schreiber who are familiar with the workings of the Kansas public school system know that won’t help low-income kids. Legislators have provided more than $5 billion in incremental funding to help those kids since 2005, but state audits consistently find that public school officials refuse to spend that money as state law requires. And the State Board of Education lets them get away with it.

Kansas legislators who oppose school choice know that the public system is consciously leaving behind poor kids in general and Black students in particular, but they refuse to talk about it. State Rep. Valdenia Winn (D-Wyandotte) sees it firsthand as a member of the Kansas City, Kansas, school board, which refuses to follow state law on spending at-risk funding and conducting student needs assessments. Sill, she contends that choice would “kill public education.”  

Choice has existed in states like Florida and Arizona for decades and has not ‘killed’ public education. Just look at 4th-grade reading results for low-income kids. Florida students were trailing the national average in 1998; today, they have the highest proficiency level in the nation. Arizona students were three points below the national average, but now they meet the national average.

Politicians know that the public education system harms the low-income families they purport to represent and who would benefit from school choice. Yet they use them as pawns to protect the party and institutional interests.

School choice is perhaps the most bipartisan issue in the nation today, with solid support from parents of all political persuasions. Legislators in both parties should stop protecting education systems and pass universal school choice in every state so that students can get a good education and succeed in life.

Dave Trabert is CEO of Kansas Policy Institute, a nonprofit research and education organization that promotes economic and educational freedom and protects constitutional rights.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/24/2023 – 20:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/dFpKw3J Tyler Durden

Visualizing All Of China’s Trade Partners

Visualizing All Of China’s Trade Partners

China stands as a formidable player in the global trade arena, wielding its influence as the world’s largest goods exporter.

With a complex network of trade partnerships spanning more than 200 countries, regions, and territories, the world’s second-largest economy has significant economic relationships with both allies and adversaries.

By using 2022 trade data from China’s General Administration of Customs, this chart from Visual Capitalist’s Truman Du and Omri Wallach breaks down the nation’s top trading partners through imports and exports by destination.


China’s Imports and Exports by Country in 2022

Over the course of 2022, China saw exports totaling $3.57 trillion and imports totaling $2.71 trillion, giving it a massive trade surplus of $857 billion.

ℹ️ Note: For products manufactured in two or more countries, China records the place where the last substantial working or processing occurred as the place of origin, including China itself.

Country Imports (2022 USD) Exports (2022 USD) Balance (2022 USD)
🇺🇸 United States $177.7B $578.8B +$401.1B
🇭🇰 Hong Kong $7.8B $295.2B +$287.4B
🇳🇱 Netherlands $12.5B $117.4B +$104.9B
🇮🇳 India $17.5B $117.7B +$100.3B
🇲🇽 Mexico $17.4B $77.3B +$59.8B
🇬🇧 United Kingdom $21.8B $81.0B +$59.2B
🇻🇳 Vietnam $88.0B $144.4B +$56.4B
🇸🇬 Singapore $33.9B $80.0B +$46.1B
🇵🇭 Philippines $23.0B $63.9B +$40.9B
🇵🇱 Poland $5.1B $38.0B +$32.9B
🇪🇸 Spain $9.8B $41.6B +$31.9B
🇹🇷 Türkiye $4.5B $33.9B +$29.4B
🇧🇪 Belgium $8.7B $35.5B +$26.7B
🇧🇩 Bangladesh $1.0B $26.7B +$25.7B
🇮🇹 Italy $27.0B $50.5B +$23.6B
🇹🇭 Thailand $56.5B $77.7B +$21.1B
🇳🇬 Nigeria $1.6B $22.1B +$20.5B
🇵🇰 Pakistan $3.4B $22.9B +$19.5B
🇪🇬 Egypt $1.0B $17.1B +$16.0B
🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan $0.1B $15.3B +$15.3B
🇨🇿 Czechia $5.4B $18.2B +$12.8B
🇰🇭 Cambodia $1.8B $14.0B +$12.2B
🇬🇷 Greece $0.8B $12.9B +$12.1B
🇵🇦 Panama $1.2B $12.6B +$11.4B
🇨🇦 Canada $42.3B $53.4B +$11.1B
🇫🇷 France $35.6B $45.5B +$9.9B
🇨🇴 Colombia $7.0B $15.5B +$8.5B
🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates $45.4B $53.5B +$8.1B
🇰🇪 Kenya $0.3B $8.2B +$7.9B
🇱🇷 Liberia $0.0B $7.5B +$7.5B
🇮🇱 Israel $9.0B $16.4B +$7.4B
🇹🇿 Tanzania $0.5B $7.7B +$7.1B
🇸🇮 Slovenia $0.6B $6.8B +$6.3B
🇬🇭 Ghana $2.3B $7.8B +$5.5B
🇭🇺 Hungary $5.0B $10.5B +$5.4B
🇺🇿 Uzbekistan $2.3B $7.4B +$5.1B
🇩🇿 Algeria $1.1B $6.2B +$5.1B
🇯🇴 Jordan $0.7B $5.7B +$4.9B
🇲🇦 Morocco $0.9B $5.7B +$4.8B
🇩🇪 Germany $111.4B $115.9B +$4.5B
🇩🇰 Denmark $5.7B $10.2B +$4.4B
🇷🇴 Romania $3.1B $7.4B +$4.3B
🇦🇷 Argentina $8.6B $12.7B +$4.1B
🇲🇴 Macao $0.1B $4.2B +$4.1B
🇬🇹 Guatemala $0.6B $4.3B +$3.8B
🇩🇴 Dominican Republic $0.5B $4.3B +$3.7B
🇸🇳 Senegal $0.3B $4.0B +$3.7B
🇲🇭 Marshall Islands $0.0B $3.5B +$3.5B
🇱🇰 Sri Lanka $0.5B $3.7B +$3.2B
🇩🇯 Djibouti $0.1B $3.2B +$3.1B
🇮🇷 Iran $6.4B $9.4B +$3.0B
🇹🇬 Togo $0.2B $3.1B +$2.9B
🇵🇹 Portugal $3.0B $6.0B +$2.9B
🇨🇮 Cote d’Ivoire $1.0B $3.5B +$2.5B
🇨🇲 Cameroon $0.7B $3.1B +$2.5B
🇱🇧 Lebanon $0.1B $2.5B +$2.4B
🇸🇪 Sweden $9.1B $11.4B +$2.2B
🇻🇪 Venezuela $0.8B $3.0B +$2.1B
🇾🇪 Yemen $0.6B $2.8B +$2.1B
🇭🇷 Croatia $0.2B $2.3B +$2.1B
🇲🇿 Mozambique $1.3B $3.2B +$1.9B
🇲🇲 Myanmar $11.5B $13.4B +$1.9B
🇹🇯 Tajikistan $0.4B $2.2B +$1.8B
🇵🇾 Paraguay $0.1B $1.9B +$1.8B
🇪🇹 Ethiopia $0.5B $2.2B +$1.8B
🇱🇹 Lithuania $0.1B $1.8B +$1.7B
🇳🇵 Nepal $0.0B $1.6B +$1.6B
🇹🇳 Tunisia $0.3B $1.9B +$1.6B
🇧🇬 Bulgaria $1.3B $2.8B +$1.6B
🇭🇳 Honduras $0.0B $1.6B +$1.5B
🇧🇭 Bahrain $0.3B $1.8B +$1.5B
🇰🇿 Kazakhstan $14.8B $16.3B +$1.5B
🇧🇾 Belarus $1.8B $3.2B +$1.4B
🇧🇯 Benin $0.3B $1.7B +$1.4B
🇸🇻 El Salvador $0.2B $1.7B +$1.4B
🇲🇹 Malta $0.6B $2.0B +$1.4B
🇸🇩 Sudan $0.9B $2.0B +$1.1B
🇨🇾 Cyprus $0.0B $1.2B +$1.1B
🇬🇪 Georgia $0.1B $1.2B +$1.1B
🇸🇴 Somalia $0.0B $1.0B +$1.0B
🇦🇿 Azerbaijan $0.1B $1.1B +$1.0B
🇯🇲 Jamaica $0.0B $1.0B +$1.0B
🇺🇬 Uganda $0.1B $1.1B +$1.0B
🇲🇺 Mauritius $0.0B $1.0B +$0.9B
🇷🇸 Serbia $1.4B $2.2B +$0.8B
🇲🇬 Madagascar $0.6B $1.4B +$0.8B
🇰🇵 Korea, DPR $0.1B $0.8B +$0.7B
🇳🇮 Nicaragua $0.0B $0.7B +$0.7B
🇪🇪 Estonia $0.3B $0.9B +$0.7B
🇱🇻 Latvia $0.4B $1.0B +$0.6B
🇭🇹 Haiti $0.0B $0.6B +$0.6B
🇦🇱 Albania $0.2B $0.7B +$0.5B
🇦🇫 Afghanistan $0.0B $0.6B +$0.5B
🇲🇱 Mali $0.1B $0.6B +$0.5B
🇫🇯 Fiji $0.0B $0.5B +$0.5B
🇲🇻 Maldives $0.0B $0.4B +$0.4B
🇸🇾 Syria $0.0B $0.4B +$0.4B
🇬🇲 Gambia $0.0B $0.4B +$0.4B
🇧🇫 Burkina Faso $0.1B $0.5B +$0.4B
🇧🇸 Bahamas $0.0B $0.4B +$0.4B
🇳🇪 Niger $0.3B $0.7B +$0.4B
🇨🇷 Costa Rica $2.0B $2.4B +$0.4B
🇷🇼 Rwanda $0.1B $0.4B +$0.3B
🇧🇿 Belize $0.0B $0.3B +$0.3B
🇸🇷 Suriname $0.0B $0.3B +$0.3B
🇲🇼 Malawi $0.0B $0.3B +$0.3B
🇷🇪 Réunion $0.0B $0.2B +$0.2B
🇱🇺 Luxembourg $0.3B $0.5B +$0.2B
🇧🇴 Bolivia $0.9B $1.1B +$0.2B
🇲🇪 Montenegro $0.0B $0.2B +$0.2B
🇧🇹 Bhutan $0.0B $0.2B +$0.2B
🇵🇸 Palestine $0.0B $0.2B +$0.2B
🇵🇫 French Polynesia $0.0B $0.2B +$0.1B
🇹🇱 Timor-Leste $0.1B $0.3B +$0.1B
🇧🇧 Barbados $0.0B $0.2B +$0.1B
🇲🇩 Moldova $0.1B $0.2B +$0.1B
🇼🇸 Samoa $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇮🇸 Iceland $0.2B $0.3B +$0.1B
🇻🇬 British Virgin Islands $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇧🇮 Burundi $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🌏 Other Oceanian Territories $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇦🇬 Antigua and Barbuda $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇸🇨 Seychelles $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇨🇻 Cabo Verde $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇻🇺 Vanuatu $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇧🇲 Bermuda $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇸🇿 Eswatini $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇬🇵 Guadeloupe $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇰🇲 Comoros $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇦🇼 Aruba $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina $0.1B $0.2B +$0.1B
🇨🇼 Curaçao $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇾🇹 Mayotte $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇹🇴 Tonga $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇲🇰 North Macedonia $0.2B $0.2B +$0.1B
🇰🇾 Cayman Islands $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🌎 Other Latin American Territories $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇵🇼 Palau $0.0B $0.1B +$0.1B
🇲🇶 Martinique $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇰🇮 Kiribati $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇬🇫 French Guiana $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇱🇸 Lesotho $0.0B $0.1B +$0.0B
🇱🇨 Saint Lucia $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇩🇲 Dominica $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇹🇻 Tuvalu $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇫🇲 Federated States of Micronesia $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇨🇫 Central African Republic $0.0B $0.1B +$0.0B
🇧🇶 Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇬🇩 Grenada $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇦🇩 Andorra $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇻🇨 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇬🇮 Gibraltar $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇸🇹 Sao Tome and Principe $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🌍 Other European Territories $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇰🇳 Saint Kitts and Nevis $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇳🇷 Nauru $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇨🇰 Cook Islands $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇹🇨 Turks and Caicos Islands $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇲🇫 Saint Martin $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🌏 Other North American Territories $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇸🇲 San Marino $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🌍 Other African Territories $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇮🇨 Canary Islands $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇼🇫 Wallis and Futuna $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇳🇫 Norfolk Island $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇪🇭 Western Sahara $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🌏 Other Asian Territories $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇲🇸 Montserrat $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇪🇺 Ceuta $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇻🇦 Holy See $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇪🇺 Melilla $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇵🇲 Saint Pierre and Miquelon $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇧🇶 Bonaire $0.0B $0.0B +$0.0B
🇲🇨 Monaco $0.0B $0.0B -$0.0B
🇨🇺 Cuba $0.5B $0.4B -$0.0B
🇳🇦 Namibia $0.6B $0.6B -$0.0B
🇸🇸 South Sudan $0.2B $0.2B -$-0.1B
🇸🇧 Solomon Islands $0.3B $0.2B -$-0.1B
🇫🇴 Faroe Islands $0.1B $0.0B -$-0.1B
🇱🇮 Liechtenstein $0.2B $0.1B -$-0.1B
🇧🇼 Botswana $0.4B $0.2B -$-0.2B
🇿🇼 Zimbabwe $1.3B $1.1B -$-0.2B
🇸🇱 Sierra Leone $0.8B $0.6B -$-0.2B
🇹🇹 Trinidad and Tobago $0.8B $0.5B -$-0.2B
🇲🇷 Mauritania $1.2B $0.9B -$-0.2B
🇦🇲 Armenia $0.8B $0.5B -$-0.3B
🇪🇷 Eritrea $0.5B $0.1B -$-0.3B
🇵🇷 Puerto Rico $1.3B $1.0B -$-0.3B
🇬🇱 Greenland $0.4B $0.0B -$-0.4B
🇪🇨 Ecuador $6.8B $6.3B -$-0.6B
🇱🇾 Libya $2.9B $2.4B -$-0.6B
🇫🇮 Finland $5.3B $4.5B -$-0.7B
🇬🇾 Guyana $1.3B $0.6B -$-0.7B
🇹🇩 Chad $1.1B $0.3B -$-0.8B
🇺🇦 Ukraine $4.3B $3.3B -$-1.1B
🇱🇦 Laos $3.4B $2.3B -$-1.1B
🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea $1.5B $0.2B -$-1.3B
🌏 Unknown Countries (Territories) $1.4B $0.0B -$-1.4B
🇧🇳 Brunei $2.2B $0.8B -$-1.4B
🇺🇾 Uruguay $4.5B $3.0B -$-1.5B
🇳🇨 New Caledonia $1.9B $0.2B -$-1.7B
🇬🇳 Guinea $4.5B $2.3B -$-2.3B
🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea $3.8B $1.4B -$-2.4B
🇳🇴 Norway $8.0B $5.2B -$-2.8B
🇦🇹 Austria $8.2B $5.1B -$-3.1B
🇸🇰 Slovakia $7.7B $4.4B -$-3.3B
🇬🇦 Gabon $3.9B $0.6B -$-3.4B
🇨🇬 Congo $5.6B $1.0B -$-4.6B
🇿🇲 Zambia $5.7B $1.0B -$-4.8B
🇲🇳 Mongolia $9.3B $2.9B -$-6.5B
🇳🇿 New Zealand $16.0B $9.1B -$-6.8B
🇮🇩 Indonesia $77.9B $70.9B -$-7.0B
🇿🇦 South Africa $32.4B $24.0B -$-8.4B
🇹🇲 Turkmenistan $10.3B $0.9B -$-9.5B
🇵🇪 Peru $24.1B $13.4B -$-10.7B
🇨🇩 Democratic Republic of Congo $16.6B $5.1B -$-11.5B
🇯🇵 Japan $184.4B $172.5B -$-11.9B
🇮🇪 Ireland $18.1B $5.7B -$-12.4B
🇲🇾 Malaysia $109.9B $92.2B -$-17.7B
🇶🇦 Qatar $22.6B $3.9B -$-18.6B
🇦🇴 Angola $23.2B $4.0B -$-19.2B
🇰🇼 Kuwait $26.5B $4.9B -$-21.6B
🇨🇱 Chile $44.4B $22.4B -$-22.0B
🇮🇶 Iraq $39.4B $13.8B -$-25.6B
🇴🇲 Oman $36.2B $4.2B -$-32.1B
🇰🇷 Republic of Korea $199.1B $161.3B -$-37.8B
🇷🇺 Russia $114.4B $75.6B -$-38.7B
🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia $78.1B $37.7B -$-40.4B
🇨🇭 Switzerland $49.7B $7.6B -$-42.1B
🇧🇷 Brazil $109.4B $61.8B -$-47.6B
🇦🇺 Australia $142.1B $78.5B -$-63.6B
🇨🇳 China $121.9B N/A -$-121.9B
🇹🇼 Taiwan $237.2B $81.5B -$-155.8B

China had individual trade surpluses with the overwhelming majority of its trade partners: 174 of the 234 countries and territories listed.

These trade surpluses are especially visible in China’s trade relationships with many of the world’s largest economies, including the U.S. and India, with $401.1 billion and $100.3 billion surpluses respectively.

Meanwhile, a good sum of the country’s trade deficits are with major Asian economies. Its largest deficit is with Taiwan, primarily coming from integrated circuit imports. China also has deficits with Japan (-$11.9 billion) and South Korea (-$37.8 billion), the region’s second and fourth-largest economies respectively, largely due to electronics and machinery imports.

The country’s other trade deficits stem from fulfilling strategic needs. For example, China has deficits with oil-producing countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia. It also has a trade deficit with Australia, a key supplier of raw goods such as iron, gold, lithium, and liquefied petroleum gas.

China’s Evolving Trade Partner Relationships

China’s trade relationships extend far beyond just economic considerations; they reflect historical, geopolitical, and strategic factors as well.

Taiwan’s major role in the semiconductor market, for example, makes it both a valuable trade partner and a contentious rival. China considers Taiwan a part of its territory, while Taiwan operates as a separate, self-governed entity.

Likewise, China’s increasing investments in infrastructure across parts of Asia and Africa are starting to reflect growing trade balances with developing countries set to become major trade partners in the future.

As the Chinese economy evolves (and potentially weakens), its relationships with both allies and potential enemies may only grow more complex.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/24/2023 – 20:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/93ZLSMv Tyler Durden

Should Libertarians Support School Choice? A Soho Forum Debate


8245441-thumbnail | Illustration: Lex Villena

Education activist Corey DeAngelis and attorney Stephan Kinsella debate the resolution, “Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians.”

Taking the affirmative is Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Federation for Children. He is also the executive director at Educational Freedom Institute, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a senior fellow at Reason Foundation, and a board member at Liberty Justice Center. He was named on the Forbes 30 under 30 list for his work on education policy and received the Buckley Award from America’s Future in 2020.

Taking the negative is Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney. He was previously general counsel for Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., and an adjunct law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. His publications include Against Intellectual Property, International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution, and a forthcoming book Legal Foundations of a Free Society.

The debate was held at New York City’s Sheen Center and hosted by The Soho Forum, which receives fiscal sponsorship from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason.

    The post Should Libertarians Support School Choice? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest https://ift.tt/GFyxaq2
    via IFTTT

    Governor Josh Shapiro’s Wrong Approach To Grid Reliability

    Governor Josh Shapiro’s Wrong Approach To Grid Reliability

    Authored by Gordon Tomb via RealClear Wire,

    Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has asked regional power grid operators to enhance the electricity system’s dependability—and he’s got ideas about how to do it. But his premises are flawed, and his suggestions misguided. Shapiro wants reliable power, yet he’s banking on unreliable sources to provide it. That approach isn’t just wrongheaded; it’s a recipe for failure.

    “Here in the Commonwealth, we are embracing the advantages that cheaper, lower carbon fuel sources offer,” Shapiro wrote in a letter to the management of PJM Interconnection, the non-profit which maintains the electric grid for Pennsylvania and a dozen other states.

    The governor was referring to wind and solar power, which aren’t cheaper than traditional fossil fuel plants and can, in some cases, increase overall carbon emissions. In short, they add costs for consumers and undermine reliability. This scenario has played out dramatically in places like Europe and California, where power outages and soaring prices are undisputed facts. Pennsylvanians have, so far, avoided the worst of this because wind and solar still account for only a small amount of PJM’s power supply—low single-digit percentages.

    That changes if Shapiro gets his way. His letter effectively urges PJM to expedite the installation of new wind and solar projects to prevent shortages caused by the expected retirement of coal-fired power plants—closings currently accelerated by the governor’s refusal to remove the threat of a carbon tax on fossil fuels.

    PJM sees its surplus generating capacity, reserved for meeting peak demand, falling significantly below the federal requirement in the coming years. PJM has warned that energy rationing might become necessary by 2026 to manage supply shortages. In other words, Pennsylvanians could expect rolling blackouts in the near future.

    While Shapiro is right to worry about the power grid, his solution worsens the problem because wind turbines and solar panels are woefully inadequate replacements for coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants.

    David Stevenson, an energy analyst with the Caesar Rodney Institute, explains that each lost gigawatt of baseload electricity generated by coal and natural gas—as well as by nuclear fuel—requires three gigawatts of wind and solar to replace it. To replace the 40 gigawatts of baseload generation to be retired by 2030, we’d need to build 120 gigawatts of wind or solar power.

    That’s far more than the 94 gigawatts in the pipeline.

    “PJM experts report that wind and solar projects entering the queue for acceptance into the grid historically have only a one in twenty chance of being built,” said Stevenson. “Developers literally submit 20 projects when only one is planned for construction because of uncertainties of available transmission capacity and uncertain local zoning approval. PJM currently has 94 gigawatts of wind and solar awaiting approval, but only about five gigawatts will likely be built—or about two gigawatts of baseload power.”

    In other words, plans exist for only 2% of the new “renewable” generation needed.

    Wind and solar require many times the material and land area to produce equivalent amounts of electricity from traditional sources. Expecting to replace efficient, reliable sources of electricity with expensive, unreliable technologies is a “lopsided” transition that defies logic.

    Shapiro also calls on PJM to reform market procedures for reliability but ignores a fundamental flaw that prevents the most reliable energy sources—baseload fossil fuel plants and nuclear power—from adequate compensation. Annual payments to ensure reliability have collapsed from $8.3 billion to $2.2 billion in the last three years. Meanwhile, penalties for just one day of non-performance during a cold spell last December were $1.8 billion, nearly equal to an entire year of capacity revenue.

    The decline in these revenues is largely the result of state and federal policies that provide subsidies to wind and solar, and the long-term impact of those policies is emerging.

    PJM’s failure to “keep the lights on” with as little drama as reasonably possible during December’s cold snap is just the beginning of the reliability issues Pennsylvanians will face if the grid operator continues to accommodate more “renewable energy” while endorsing policies that speed the retirement of nuclear or fossil fuel baseload capacity.

    Meredith Angwin, in her book Shorting the Grid, explains mandates for renewable energy “will not succeed in building grids that are 100% renewable” but instead will make “the grid more fragile and more expensive.”

    Decades of programs like Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards, which subsidize expensive and unreliable energy and discourage the development of reliable fossil fuels, are failing Pennsylvanians. Shapiro should end energy subsidies and allow free markets to determine the path to cheap, clean, and sustainable power.

    Gordon Tomb is a Senior Fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank, and a senior advisor with the CO2 Coalition in Arlington, VA.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 08/24/2023 – 19:50

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/lN9qkmB Tyler Durden

    Trump Surrenders In Georgia For Booking As Scores Of Supporters Show Up

    Trump Surrenders In Georgia For Booking As Scores Of Supporters Show Up

    Former President Donald Trump surrendered at the Fulton County jail on Thursday on state charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

    According to the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office, Trump is 6’3″ and 215 lbs.

    Watch Live:

    Meanwhile, Trump supporters have been waiting for hours outside the jail:

    Trump and 18 other people were indicted last week after being accused by Fulton County DA Fani Willis of participating in a scheme to flip the results of the election – many of whom have already turned themselves in, including Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis on Wednesday and John Eastman and Mark Meadows on Tuesday.

    As the Washington Times reports;

    the scene outside the jail was anything but normal Thursday.

    It included supporters of the former president such as Cliff MacMorris, 66, from Naples, Florida, who held a flag that read, “Trump Won Save America.”

    He and his wife, Georgine, spent the night in Atlanta.

    You don’t have the right to persecute somebody unjustly,” Cliff MacMorris said.

    His wife said the indictments against the former president were politically motivated because of the four years of “prosperity, safety, freedom” that Trump achieved in the White House.

    “They must be worried about him for some reason,” she said.

    Sharon Anderson, 67, from east Tennessee, was outside the jail for a second straight day. She had spent the night in a car with the air conditioning running.

    “I’m here to support Donald J. Trump. I want him to see some of the millions that show up at the polls for him.”

    Trump faces 13 separate counts in Georgia, including a racketeering charge and several fraud and false statement count. Trump had until Friday to turn himself in.

     

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 08/24/2023 – 19:32

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/J6u8TN9 Tyler Durden

    Americans Panic Search “Live Off Grid” As Housing Crisis Worsens And Democrat Cities Implode

    Americans Panic Search “Live Off Grid” As Housing Crisis Worsens And Democrat Cities Implode

    What’s piqued our interest is the sudden panic by some Americans searching ‘live off grid’ on the internet, hitting the highest level in five years. The driving force behind finding a rural piece of land for dirt cheap, buying or building a tiny home, installing solar panels, and sourcing your own food and water might have to do with the worst inflation storm in a generation while Democrat cities implode under the weight of soaring violent crime. 

    We’re not going to speculate on the exact cause, but we’ll give readers an understanding that a combination of the worst housing affordability crisis in decades plus out-of-control crime in progressive-run cities could be some of the largest drivers pushing people to explore living in the ‘sticks.’ 

    With the introduction of SpaceX’s Starlink in 2019, remote workers no longer have to live in crowded, dirty, and dangerous metro areas — many found this out during the exodus of major cities during Covid. 

    Capitalizing on off-the-grid living is Home Depot, which now sells tiny homes called “Getaway Pad.”

    We’ve also seen the RV Industry Association report multiple times this year that parked mobile home shipments are surging on a monthly basis versus the same months last year — yet another indication of housing affordability issues. 

    Living off the grid can have many benefits, including financial independence, self-sufficiency, preparedness, and security, as well as promoting an active lifestyle, better sleep, and a healthier diet (no need for a Peloton bike or Eli Lilly’s fat drug “Ozempic”). 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 08/24/2023 – 19:25

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/svpfOuw Tyler Durden

    States Unite To Protect Minors From Brain-Altering Pornography

    States Unite To Protect Minors From Brain-Altering Pornography

    Authored by Jackson Elliott via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A screen displays a “no under-18s” sign with the logo of a pornographic website, as regulators consider requiring such sites to ensure they are preventing minors from being exposed to their content. (Lionel Bonaventure/AFP via Getty Images)

    Graphic, violent, deviant, and harmful online pornography that can permanently affect brain development can be easily accessed by children.

    And the federal government is doing little to stop it, experts and lawmakers told The Epoch Times.

    Although showing pornography to children is illegal under federal law, federal rules don’t require porn websites to verify the age of users.

    But recently, bipartisan efforts in state legislatures have intervened to protect children in a handful of states.

    It’s important—and urgent—because watching violent porn damages children, therapist Jon Uhler and psychologist Amy Sousa told The Epoch Times.

    “Being shown violence alongside a reward system is incredibly problematic because it is sending the body a signal that this violence is pleasurable,” Ms. Sousa said.

    By teaching children to associate sexual pleasure with pain, she said, pornography can rewire a viewer’s brain to want pain or want to inflict pain.

    This rewiring undoes the body’s natural response of feeling distressed when seeing someone get hurt, she explained.

    And porn-watching is more common than many might realize.

    Porn gets more yearly “watch hours” than all Hollywood, Netflix, and Viacom programming combined, Ms. Sousa said.

    Psychologist Amy Sousa speaks at a “Save Women’s Sports event in Nashville, Tenn., on April 27, 2023. (Jackson Elliott/The Epoch Times)

    Normalizing Violence, Creating Psychopaths

    Eighty-eight percent of porn videos contain violence against women, which basically translates to 5.1 billion of those visits per month,” Ms. Sousa said.

    “Porn represents a massive propaganda arm that is normalizing and desensitizing violence against women.”

    Viewing pornography teaches men to see women as objects, said Mr. Uhler, who has 15 years of counseling experience and thousands of hours of experience in treating sex offenders.

    Children who admit to watching porn also admit to feeling guilty about it, he said.

    Over time, repeatedly engaging in behavior that violates one’s conscience can turn a person into a psychopath, he said.

    “As you impact conscience, you will negatively impact remorse and empathy,” he said. “Those three things are the basis of psychopathy.”

    And this, he said, can open the gateway to becoming a sexual predator.

    In counseling thousands of sexual predators, Mr. Uhler has seen a pattern. For all of his patients, the road to sexual deviancy involved viewing porn, he said.

    “A lot of good researchers have looked at the effects that pornography has on the brain,” Mr. Uhler said.

    “It’s identical to drugs, literally in terms of the impact on the structure itself and the way it processes.”

    With an unprecedented number of boys watching violent porn, Mr. Uhler said, the future will likely yield a massive crop of men who have learned from childhood to defy their conscience.

    “We are in uncharted territory.”

    Conflicting Views on Restrictions

    Despite these dangers, the federal government has done little to prevent children from accessing online porn, Sousa, Uhler, and lawmakers said.

    “The federal law [banning pornography access for children] is not enforced,” Utah state Sen. Todd Weiler, a Republican, told The Epoch Times.

    Ian Andrews, a spokesman for Pornhub, told The Epoch Times that the company supports measures to restrict children from viewing porn by verifying the age of users. But he doubts new laws requiring age verification of users will help protect minors. Pornhub is the world’s 12th-most-visited website, with more than 2.5 billion visitors yearly, according to the consumer research firm Similarweb.

    Mr. Andrews argued that the laws may have the opposite effect.

    We hypothesized for years that, if only certain platforms were forced to verify user age, or if a law is not regulated properly, the results would see users flocking to the platforms that do not verify age,” he said.

    “This is no longer hypothetical. Since we became one of the few platforms in Louisiana to comply with the law and institute mandatory age verification, we have seen an approximately 80 percent drop in our traffic in the state.”

    Amping Up Laws

    Lawmakers in some states are determined to amend state laws to block children from viewing porn. 

    In May, Utah passed a law requiring pornographic websites to verify that users from that state are at least 18. Louisiana, which enacted a similar law in 2022, was the first state to demand age-verification measures to access pornographic websites, Mr. Weiler said.

    “We made a few minor tweaks, but we basically copied Louisiana’s” law in Utah, he said.

    The Louisiana law demands that porn websites perform “reasonable age-verification methods” for Louisiana users.

    For Mr. Weiler, the fight to protect children from porn websites began in 2016.

    I ran the first resolution in the country to declare pornography to be a public health crisis,” he said.

    While the resolution declared that child viewing of pornography was a public health crisis, resolutions don’t have the force of law or any law enforcement effects.

    “And since that time, about 15 other states have basically copied” the resolution, Mr. Weiler said.

    Five states have joined Utah and Louisiana in going farther.

    Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, Montana, and Arkansas have added age-verification laws for pornography websites.

    Arizona, California, South Carolina, Minnesota, and New Jersey all have bills for age verification under consideration, according to data gathered by the Free Speech Coalition (FSC).

    Support for the bills is largely bipartisan, Mr. Weiler said.

    This is not just a Republican issue,” he said. “I think many Democrats agree that children shouldn’t be viewing this content.

    Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri, Alabama, and Tennessee have considered bills requiring age verification for porn users, but they failed to pass, according to FSC. 

    Relying on Honest Answers

    According to federal law, the crime of  “knowingly” using computer services to display obscenity to minors is punishable with imprisonment, fines, and sex offender registration.

    But the word “knowingly” provides a loophole, Mr. Uhler said.

    Under federal law, if a teen lies about his or her age to access porn, porn distributors can’t be blamed for believing the age verification information provided by the child, he said.

    Like a kid who wants to access porn is going to be honest,” Mr. Uhler said wryly.

    This system puts the responsibility on minors to be truthful, rather than on porn website operators to ascertain the truth, Mr. Weiler said.

    Companies have “taken steps to make sure that 14-year-old girls in Topeka, Kansas, aren’t accessing online gambling sites,” he said. “They’ve taken steps to make sure that 14-year-old girls in Topeka, Kansas, aren’t buying vaping and nicotine products online. And those companies are not directly shipping wine to 14-year-old girls.”

    But the porn industry hasn’t received the same regulatory pressure to protect children from its products, he said.

    Any company actually interested in blocking minors from accessing the porn it offers could use a third-party company to screen users before they’re allowed to access the site.

    “The technology’s there,” Mr. Weiler said. “It would take about 30 seconds” to verify a would-be user’s identity and age.

    Utah’s laws demand that verification on porn websites require more proof than simply a user’s assertion that he or she is 18 or older.

    Still, there are ways tech-savvy children can get around it, Mr. Weiler said.

    But even if new measures don’t stop all minors from accessing porn, he said, it will at least protect the youngest and most vulnerable children from seeing graphic images that can do them permanent harm. 

    A Generation of Porn-Watchers

    Pornhub works like YouTube, the online video-sharing platform. Anyone can upload videos, and anyone can watch them. In 2021, the company says it removed more than 53,000 videos because they contained child sex abuse, 6,000 videos that included incest, more than 1,000 videos for animal abuse, and more than 5,000 videos for other obscene content too graphic to describe.

    To her horror, sexual-abuse victim Victoria Galy discovered that footage of her rape had been posted to Pornhub and viewed 8 million times.

    Ms. Galy told the Canadian House of Commons ethics committee in February that Pornhub made it difficult for abuse victims to take down videos of crimes against them.

    To delete some of the videos, she testified, Pornhub requested a copyright infringement notification from her.

    According to Pornhub’s policy, anyone asking for a video’s removal must give the site his or her name, postal address, telephone number, and email address.

    Teens often are the consumers viewing pornographic videos, according to a survey by Common Sense Media. Researchers found about 70 percent of teens ages 13-17 admitted to watching porn online.

    The survey asked more than 1,300 participants in that age group about their experience with porn. The average teen admitted to encountering porn by the age of 12, the survey found. Some started watching as young as 10.

    A majority of porn-viewing teens have watched violent porn showing rape, choking, or pain, survey results showed.

    While 45 percent of teens said that porn gives “helpful information about sex,” about 50 percent reported feeling ashamed about the porn they watch, the survey found.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 08/24/2023 – 19:00

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/8ZaOcJu Tyler Durden

    Netanyahu Forbids Israeli Defense Chief From Meeting Biden Officials During US Trip

    Netanyahu Forbids Israeli Defense Chief From Meeting Biden Officials During US Trip

    Via The Cradle,

    Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has been forbidden from meeting with US government officials during his current trip to Washington by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to Israeli media reports.

    Gallant set off for the US capital overnight on Thursday where, according to his official agenda, he will meet with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan.

    “Minister Gallant will hold a security briefing for the ambassadors of the member states of the UN Security Council and will visit the procurement delegation of the Ministry of Defense in New York,” Galant’s office said in a statement. 

    However, no meetings with US officials are part of Gallant’s agenda, as Netanyahu reportedly imposed a veto with the directive, “if I’m not invited to Washington, no one gets a meeting there.”

    Since his return to power late last year, Netanyahu has been left out in the cold by US President Joe Biden, who has refused to invite the Israeli premier to the White House in a public show of discontent with the policies pursued by Jewish supremacist authorities from Israel’s governing coalition.

    Israel’s Channel 12 news reported in March that Netanyahu vetoed two US visits to which Gallant was invited as he awaited his own invite.

    Nonetheless, Gallant has previously met with senior US officials, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, on the sidelines of a NATO gathering in Brussels in June and earlier in the year in Israel. He also met with the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, in Israel this week.

    No information was made available about their discussion; however, last week, western media reports revealed that Milley was traveling to Israel to “assess the army’s fitness and readiness” in the wake of widespread mutiny by volunteer reservists who oppose Tel Aviv’s planned judicial overhaul.

    Meanwhile on the extreme opposite side of Biden’s Israel snub…

    Gallant and Netanyahu publicly butted heads over the judicial overhaul in March, as Gallant publicly called on the premier to scrap the contentious legislation. One day later, Netanyahu announced his decision to dismiss the defense minister.

    However, Netanyahu had to walk back his decision two weeks later. “I decided to put the differences we had behind us,” he said during a televised speech on 10 April. “Gallant remains in his position and we will continue to work together for the security of the citizens of Israel.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 08/24/2023 – 18:40

    via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1s0Ntxz Tyler Durden

    What Does “Maliciously” Mean, When an Extortion Statute Bans “Maliciously Threaten[ing]”?

    From Tomlinson v. State, decided today by the Florida Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice John Couriel:

    Kevin Tomlinson threatened to ruin the reputation of two fellow real estate brokers unless they paid him. Must the State prove that Tomlinson made this threat with hatred for the complainants in seeking a conviction under Florida’s extortion law? …

    In April 2015, Kevin Tomlinson filed a complaint with the Miami Association of Realtors (MAR) alleging that two brokers, Jill Hertzberg and Jill Eber, known in the market as “the Jills,” were preventing other brokers from courting their clients by manipulating data in a listing service that MAR operated. In their response to the complaint, the Jills took responsibility for altering the data. Nonetheless, the grievance process continued.

    Tomlinson demanded that the Jills pay $400,000, or else he was “going to ruin” them “by, among other things, ‘call[ing] the Wall Street Journal’ and convincing the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation to take away the Jills’ real estate licenses.” “He told [Hertzberg] that her reputation was at risk, and that he did not want her ‘beautiful career to be marred.’ He also mentioned that other brokers were interested in filing similar complaints, but that he had no desire to ‘corral all these people who want to bring down the Jills.'” They agreed to the $400,000 (apparently as part of a police-supported arrangement to gather evidence against him), but he upped the demand to $800,000.

    Tomlinson was convicted of extortion under Florida Statutes § 836.05, which at the time provided (emphasis added):

    Whoever … maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree ….

    The court analyzed the statute thus:

    The word “maliciously” is not defined in section 836.05 or chapter 836. The standard jury instruction acknowledges that Florida’s district courts of appeal have adopted different definitions of the word. One district court has read the statute to require proof of ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent (what some courts have called “actual malice”). And other district courts have read the statute to require proof that the threat was made intentionally and without any lawful justification (or “legal malice”)….

    When, in discerning what a statute requires, we encounter a word with more than one meaning, we look for the original meaning of the statutory text to keep us from overriding the bargain struck in the Legislature and signed by the Governor, that is, the law that governs us…. Here, the contextual clues bearing on the meaning of “maliciously” in section 836.05 affirm the Third District’s insight that the term does not denote a hatred of the complainant. Adjacent language requires the State to prove “intent … to extort money or any pecuniary advantage” or to make a complainant or another person “do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will.” That provides a clue about what the word “maliciously” does in the statute: it directs the reader to the meaning of the word that fits most readily with an intent to take pecuniary advantage of, and not necessarily to hate, the complainant—that is, to act “intentionally and without a lawful justification.”

    And then there is the history. The legislative bargain that eventually found its way into section 836.05 of our statutes was first struck in 1868…. At the time, “maliciously” had developed a settled legal meaning at English common law, of which we are mindful in interpreting the statute. Early in the eighteenth century, Lord Chief Justice Holt stated that hatred and malice are “distinct passions of the mind.” Malice “is a design formed of doing mischief to another,” so that one who “designs and useth the means to do ill is malicious.” Two opinions from around a century later, influential in early American law, also distinguished between hatred and malice in the legal sense. See R. v. Harvey (1823) (“The legal import of [malice] differs from its acceptation in common conversation. It is not, as in ordinary speech, only an expression of hatred or ill-will to an individual; but means any wicked or mischievous intention of the mind. Thus, in the crime of murder … it is neither necessary … to shew that the prisoner had any enmity to the deceased, nor would proof of absence of ill-will furnish the accused with any defence, when it is proved that the act of killing was intentional, and done without any justifiable or excusable cause.”); Bromage v. Prosser (1825) (“Malice in common acceptation means ill will against a person, but in its legal sense it means a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse.”). One common law scholar, writing about twenty years after the enactment of our first law of extortion, concluded that “malice” “seldom if ever bears its natural sense (except it may be in some of the rules as to libel).” James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 120 (1883). This Court, citing English authorities, provided its definition of the term one year before the extortion statute was first enacted, writing that a “wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse, is said to be done maliciously.” [Further historical evidence omitted. -EV]

    We cannot say this nineteenth-century understanding of “maliciously” in the context of extortion did not even then coexist with a sense of the word denoting hatred or ill will, as there are of course significant nineteenth-century illustrations of that usage. Indeed, there were legal contexts in which the meaning advocated by Tomlinson was sometimes used—though not in the context of extortion. In Lovett v. State (1892), for instance, this Court approved a jury instruction in a murder case providing in part that an act is “maliciously done when it is done on purpose, and with evil intent.” Yet the instruction also recognized that “malice,” even in that context, “is never understood to denote general malevolence or unkindness of heart, or enmity towards a particular individual, but it signifies, rather, the intent from which flows any unlawful and injurious act, committed without legal justification.”

    And in prosecutions for criminal mischief, some courts interpreted “maliciously” to mean ill will or enmity, or to describe intentions of cruelty, hostility, or vengeance toward the complainant. In a roundabout way, these usages of “maliciously” to denote ill will or hatred wind up supporting the Court’s conclusion today: English common law provides some support for that meaning of the word in the context of malicious mischief, but points to another meaning in the context of other crimes, including extortion. {Malicious mischief offenses criminalized damage to private property motivated either by a “spirit of wanton cruelty, or black and diabolical revenge.” William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.} …

    The Legislature has fiddled with the statute a few times since 1868, but its revisions do not suggest that it altered which meaning of “maliciously” applied in the context of extortion. To the contrary, we find in the continuity more support for our decision today….

    Kseniya Smychkouskaya represents the state.

    The post What Does "Maliciously" Mean, When an Extortion Statute Bans "Maliciously Threaten[ing]"? appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest https://ift.tt/XnAgWOk
    via IFTTT

    Stop Publishing Mug Shots—Even Donald Trump’s


    Two rows of mug shots with blacked out faces | Illustration: Lex Villena; Midjourney

    What may become the most famous mug shot in history is slated to be taken tonight. You’d be forgiven for forgetting why such images are taken in the first place.

    That amnesia might be particularly pronounced after the last 24 hours, as a slew of defendants in the Georgia indictment related to allegations that former President Donald Trump and company conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election have surrendered in Fulton County, Georgia.

    Their mug shots have been the center of intense media attention, news articles, commentary, and online mockery, which is odd when considering what a mug shot is, or, rather, what it’s supposed to be: a banal step executed by law enforcement as a record-keeping measure post-arrest.

    The fascination with these defendants’ mug shots is a (perhaps counterintuitive) reminder of why the media should decline to publish such photos and why governments should limit their release. That these defendants are in many ways unsympathetic does not change the principle of the matter: that mug shots are not taken to humiliate a defendant before they’ve been convicted of a crime. The events of this week serve as a reminder, however, that that’s the function they serve in wider society.

    That’s not to say that the defendants in the Georgia indictment should be held to a different standard than other criminal defendants. It’s the standard itself that needs to change, which will benefit the people who are much less powerful and who stand to lose much more by having their faces splashed across the press before they’ve had a chance to state their case.

    It’s an effort that several states across the country have undertaken in various ways. Last year, Louisiana passed a law hamstringing law enforcement’s ability to release certain mug shots pre-conviction for nonviolent crimes, with several exceptions in place for more serious crimes and if the person in question is deemed a fugitive. “Though society may be accustomed to mugshots, the time has come for us to question their social value,” wrote state Rep. Royce Duplessis (D–New Orleans), who filed the legislation, in an op-ed for The Advocate. Several states—including Arkansas, Florida, Montana, New York, and California—have implemented various guardrails against the unfettered access to and publication of mug shots, and the sky is yet to fall.

    The circulation of the Georgia defendants’ mug shots may seem like a peculiar hill to die on. They are, after all, some of the most connected people in the country, with support from many Republican partisans nationwide. But it’s that fame that highlights how far the mug shot as a concept has been perverted. I’m willing to venture that the outlets gleefully publishing Rudy Giuliani’s shot already knew what he looked like, and knew most of their dedicated readers did as well. But that wasn’t the point.

    One of the paramount constitutional promises in the United States is the notion that you’re innocent until proven otherwise. That applies to the poorest defendants, and it also applies to Trump. When the latter’s mug shot is released, it will almost certainly saturate the airwaves and the web. He’ll bounce back.

    Others in his situation, whose names you’ll never hear, might not.

    The post Stop Publishing Mug Shots—Even Donald Trump's appeared first on Reason.com.

    from Latest https://ift.tt/ytIh8X4
    via IFTTT