Thursday, March 22, 2018

As NJ State Closes 3 ‘Failing’ Charters, What About the Parents and the Children?

Under Governor Chris Christie, New Jersey greatly expanded charter schools, especially in urban districts where traditional public schools are the worst. This has given thousands of parents an opportunity to get their children into better schools—and parents have seized the opportunity in droves. Charter schools have been an educational lifeline for tens of thousands of kids.

But as I have argued, charters are not the long-term answer for people seeking better education. For one thing, charters are still government schools—albeit schools that are better because they enjoy more freedom to innovate and cater to needs of actual children. Parents who are lucky enough to get their children into charters (the demand for charters still way outstrips the openings) are still at the mercy of politicians.

We can see why in the NJ Department of Education’s decision last March to close three Newark Charter schools for “low performance”. Both the charters’ administrations and the parents are devastated. As Karen Yi reported at the time for NJ.Com (As charters face closure, 750 students need schools),

"Our parents are just devastated, we have a lot of students here, this is all they know," said Merit Prep Principal Ron Harvey [Merit Prep is one of the three charters]. He said he heard about the closure after a reporter called the school for comment on Wednesday.

"It definitely caught us out of the blue, it was very disturbing for us to hear it that way," Harvey said.

Merit Prep enrolls 483 students in grades 5-10 and opened in 2012. The school has 93 employees and was renewed last year on probation. 
"We've created a school over the last couple of years for (the students) that they've seen grow and change and improve over time," Harvey said. "They're upset; it just feels unfair to the kids, what are they supposed to do?
Another of the charters, Paulo Freire Charter School, sent a letter to parents and staff saying “the state's decision was ‘not reflective’ of the school's accomplishments.”

Families of students were devastated.

Hundreds of parents and students were left scrambling last week after news spread that the state was ordering three Newark charter schools to close at the end of the academic year.

"I am terrified for these children. I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to do at this point," said Frances Huggins, whose grandson attends Merit Prep. "Merit Prep was my light at the end of the tunnel two years ago when I was lucky enough to learn of an availability for my grandson."

The school administrators and staff, as well as the parents, were taken by surprise. This means that government bean-counters never consulted with parents and educators. Remember that charters are chosen voluntarily by the parents. But their opinions apparently have no reality to the state’s education bureaucrats. The students were to be “placed” in “new schools” determined by the state. 750 of them.

This is a reminder of how little control parents have over their own children’s education under government-controlled schools. Even with charters, which parents freely choose, students are vulnerable to arbitrary dictates, at any time, of government officials. That is, at the mercy of politics. And this, from an administration philosophically friendly to charter schools and parental school choice. What will happen under the new Governor Phil Murphy administration? Murphy has been openly hostile to charters, being a hack for the teachers union.

Charters are a form of parental school choice, and an improvement for parents lucky enough to get their child into one. But they are only a small step. As this episode demonstrates, justice demands that government get out of running the schools. The state was to reassign the 750 students beginning last April (2017). As far as I can tell, the plight of these families dropped out of the news: They are the forgotten victims of government-run schools.

The only solution, long term, is to move toward a fully free market, with schools run and funded privately. Only a free market recognizes and legally protects individual rights in education. Short of that, universal school choice through tax credits or education savings accounts (which give to parents the per-pupil cost of public school to spend as they judge best) would leave parents much less vulnerable to bureaucratic tyranny of the kind experienced by these three charter schools and families.
Related Reading:

Charter Schools – Good, but Not the Long-Term Answer

Real School Choice Depends on Free Exercise of Individual Rights

Newark's Successful Charter Schools Under Attack—for Being Successful

Charter Schools and their Reactionary Enemies--Part 1

Charter Schools and their Reactionary Enemies--Part 2

Charter Schools and their Reactionary Enemies--Part 3

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

‘Offensive’ Speech: Understanding vs. Banning and Princeton’s Unfortunate Retreat

Last month, Princeton University allowed the shut down of a course because some students complained about the professor using “offensive” speech—specifically, the “N” word—within the context of exploring the origins of bigotry and racism.

To its credit, the Times of Trenton editorialized in favor of the professor and the course. Understanding hate speech is the only way to defeat it is worth a read.

Without condoning or disagreeing with the actual course, I left these comments:

It is a bad sign for the future of free speech in America that Rosen’s course was cancelled, thus letting cowardly intellectual thugs get the upper hand (or is it a fist?). Once it is accepted in the culture that “offensive” speech may properly be silenced, it is only a matter of time before political pressure is brought to bear for “hate speech” laws—censorship.

Anyone who is offended by what they consider “hate speech” should vigorously oppose laws restricting or banning hate speech. One should welcome the chance to expose the person espousing it. One should welcome the chance to challenge, rebut, and intellectually defeat it the only way it can be defeated—in the open light of intellectual freedom and public debate. History has shown, and common sense dictates, that driving bad ideas underground only fosters metastasizing of those ideas, paving the way for them to resurface again and again in unexpected places and in different—and often worse—ways.

More broadly, the importance of freedom of speech is not just utilitarian. Freedom of speech, including “hateful” or “offensive” speech, is an individual moral right derived from every individual’s right to use his own mind and think. If you can’t express your thoughts legally, then your thinking is effectively stifled. What’s the point, then, of schools and universities? Hate speech laws—which is where we are headed, if the “right” of offended kids to shut down a course of study is accepted—would put the government in charge of dictating what ideas can be expressed, and which cannot, effectively ending intellectual freedom.

It’s perfectly fine if a student wants to question the use of what he considers offensive language in the classroom, if he is willing to listen and debate the issue in the context of respecting the instructor, his classmates, and the university classroom. But apparently, the objectors were allowed to disrupt the class to such an extent that it “made it impossible for him to continue teaching the course.” How could the university administrators allow this? These “students” should have been kicked out of the class and out of the university.

I do not dispute the university’s right to cancel the course. What is horrifying is the reason. We should not let intellectual cowards who run like scared rabbits from ideas or speech or words they find “offensive” gain any traction whatsoever. After all, if the universities—those citadels of knowledge and reason and the “bodyguards” of a free society—won’t stand up to intellectual thugs, the rest of us are doomed.

Related Reading:

Budding Grassroots Campaign Against ‘Hate Speech’ is shallow, childish . . . and Dangerous

J.K. Rowling Laudably Defends Free Speech On Principle

“Hate Crime” Laws are Gateways for Censorship and Statism

The Tyranny of Silence—Flemming Rose

The Left Is Conditioning College Students To Hate Free Speech—John Daniel Davidson: From canceled classes at Princeton to sobbing undergrads at Stanford, colleges across the country are training students to be intolerant.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

Free Press Depends on Intellectual Freedom

In a letter-to-the-editor published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger shortly after Trump took office, “A free press is vital to democracy,” JoAnn D. Claps of Randolph, NJ wrote, in part:

Our Founding Fathers knew how essential a free press was to democracy; that’s why they protected it in the First Amendment. Our president lies repeatedly and has a willing cohort of supporters who will lie along with him in order to retain power. His authoritarian ways should alarm everyone and we should be grateful to and support the free press that reveals facts to us so that we can fulfill our rights as citizens: to make our voices heard.

I left these comments, edited for clarity:

Repeated lies? Authoritarian? A lust for power? At first reading, I thought Claps was confused, still thinking that the Obama Administration was still in office. The only evidence that Clap is referring to President Trump is a prior reference in her letter’s opening sentence to another letter published a few days earlier, Star-Ledger disrespects the White House, critical of the Star-Ledger’s coverage and commentary of the Trump Administration.

Yes, “Our Founding Fathers knew how essential a free press was to democracy.” But the Founders sought to build a free, constitutionally limited democratic republic, not an absolute democracy. In keeping with the principles of a free republic, the First Amendment they crafted protects intellectual freedom broadly, and a free press must be considered in this broader context. While a free press is essential to the democratic process in a free republic, intellectual freedom more broadly is essential to a free society. Intellectual freedom encompasses not just freedom of the press, but also freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to criticize the government, and freedom to express dissenting opinions, and so on, all without fear of legal reprisals.

How is repeatedly promising that “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it” just before outlawing millions of policies under ObamaCare not lying? How is the IRS targeting of private associations for their conservative ideological views; opposition to Citizens United and McCutcheon, two of the most pro-free speech SCOTUS decisions; laws imposing birth control mandates on Christian businesses, or laws forcing Christian businesses to provide services that conflict with their conscientious beliefs; and the AGs United for Clean Power coalition’s fascist-like prosecutorial assault on climate change dissenters consistent with intellectual freedom? They’re not. All of these initiatives have been orchestrated by the Democrats.

It’s true that Trump’s direct attacks on media outlets—which would be ok as a private citizen but not as president, the leading representative of the federal executive branch—implies a disturbing threat toward the press. It’s also true that hostility toward freedom of speech is not a monopoly of the political Left. And it’s true that Trump has an authoritarian streak. But Trump’s hostility toward the press pales next to the Democrats broader assault on intellectual freedom. We need not excuse Trump’s attacks on the press to realize that intellectual freedom is under attack from many sides, including from the Democratic Left. Generally speaking, whataboutism is not a counter-argument, and I do not like to use it. My point in using it here is to point out the futility of non-objectivity. True First Amendment defenders should fight all threats to this vital part of the Constitution, wherever those threats originate, regardless of political loyalties.

Related Reading:

Real vs. Pseudo-Censorship

Linda Stamato Smears (and Fears?) the Koch Brothers

Stamato vs. the Koch Brothers: Campaign Finance and the First Amendment

If Removing Cop Killer’s Memorial Violates Free Speech, What About Dem’s Amendment?

Freedom of Speech and Press are Linked

Friday, March 16, 2018

Collectivist Left on 'Pay Equity for Women'

The New Jersey Star-Ledger took the occasion of a failed gender pay “equity” bill to ridicule a man serving in the state senate.

In an editorial board post, N.J. senator gives rare insight into what a white man thinks about pay equity for women, the Star-Ledger wrote:
With all the attention focused on the massive protests by millions of women all over the world, let's not ignore the plight of a white man right here in New Jersey.

Just a few days after those marches for gender equality, a woman in our state Senate attempted to override Gov. Christie's veto of a bill to help bring women's pay into parity with that of men. It failed. Four Republicans who voted for it last year changed their minds, and three Democrats didn't show up. 
So Sen. Loretta Weinberg didn't have the votes to ban employers from paying women less "for substantially the same work." Her bill would have strengthened the penalties for wage discrimination and made it easier for women to recover the back pay that they are owed. Radical stuff.
Yes, it is radical—a radical departure from freedom of voluntary association, contract, and trade.

Weinberg was in the midst of comparing the pay of several demographics to that of white men when [NJ Republican State Senator Michael J.] Doherty, a white man employed as a patent attorney, felt the urge to speak. Stop picking on white men, he said. 
"It sort of hurts, it does, to be constantly told that you're the source of the problem," Doherty said. "Just because I'm a member of a certain group doesn't mean that I can be denigrated over and over again. It's got to stop at some point."

The Star-Ledger itself acknowledges that the demographic statistics are bogus. “Certainly,” the Star-Ledger writes, “there are issues worthy of debate here,” like the “exact size of the pay gap. An oft-cited 77-cent number is a bogus exaggeration.” Nonetheless, the Star-Ledger went on to ridicule Doherty about this statement:

"It sort of hurts, it does, to be constantly told that you're the source of the problem," Doherty said. "Just because I'm a member of a certain group doesn't mean that I can be denigrated over and over again. It's got to stop at some point."

I left these comments, slightly edited for clarity:

The Star-Ledger has picked the wrong villain here.

The collectivist Left forgets that human life is about actual individual human beings. It divides people by group identity, then villainizes some groups and victimizes others without any actual evidence of wrongdoing or harm related to actual individuals, other than meaningless statistics, which rank below damned lies for honesty.

And then the Star-Ledger has the gaul to ridicule a member of one of the villainized groups for reacting, based on the very standard established by the collectivist Left?

State Senator Loretta Weinberg’s so-called “pay equity for women” bill designed to impose “equal pay for equal work” not only violates the rights of employees and employers to set their own compensation agreements, it’s a ridiculous attempt to pretend that a simple law can somehow define what “substantially the same work” actually is for millions of people the legislators don’t even know anything about. As anyone who has ever done an honest days work in his life knows, there is no such thing as “equal work.” People technically doing substantially the same work can produce at vastly different rates for a variety of different reasons and thus be worth different pay scales. There can also be rational reasons for pay differences that have nothing to do with productiveness: People can have different employment goals based on life circumstances: One person may value higher pay, while another may value more work-time flexibility, for example. My daughter once negotiated more time working from home when her children were young rather than demand higher pay.

The government can’t possibly be fair in mandating one-size-fits-all pay policies. This is not to say women are always treated fairly. But you cannot morally generalize discrimination without unfairly demonizing innocent people. I think that’s what Doherty was trying to say. Statistics say nothing about specific individuals or specific individual relationships and are thus useless in correcting wrongdoing.

The only proper standard for dealing with unfair workplace treatment is individual rights, which involves specific actions of specific individuals based on actual objective facts of the case. There is nothing wrong with private citizens publicizing statistics as a tool to draw attention to specific instances of unfair discrimination. Demographic statistics on pay undoubtedly harbor some instances of irrational and wrongful discrimination. But they also cover completely innocent individuals and rationally defensible pay practices. The two should never be wrapped in the same generality, which so-called pay-equity-for-women bills invariably do. In instances of fraud or breach of contract, such as if a company fails to deliver promised compensation, the government should properly step in. Otherwise, the government has no proper business interfering in private employer-employee contracts. But Weinberg’s bill actually sanctions breach of contract by empowering women to sue for back wages for a job she voluntarily agreed to perform based on mutually agreed-upon terms, simply because she discovers that someone else is making more. Demonstrably provable pay inequities in the private sector should be dealt with through social activism and persuasion or by allowing economic competition to equitize compensation, as it invariably will.

Laws that treat human beings as robotic drones, such as Weinberg’s wildly vague bill based on statistical demographics, is what should be ridiculed. This is the same lawmaker who once proposed a bill to monitor all homeschooling parents like paroled criminals because of an isolated incident of child abuse. Doherty’s pushback is a direct reaction to the collectivist Left. I think he should be applauded but also sympathized with for being put in a position of having to say what he said. People shouldn’t have to defend themselves because of some characteristic they share with some group. Hopefully we’ll see more of this kind of pushback against the Left’s demonization/victimization tribalism. It is contrary to the principles of America, a nation based on individualism and individual rights.

Related Reading:

A “Regulation-Free Zone for Home-Schooling Families” Comes Under Attack in NJ

This ‘Women’s History Month,’ Distinguish Between Just and Unjust Equality

Economic Equality vs. Political Equality: Which is Your America?

Freedom vs. Equality: It's Either/Or

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

QUORA: 'What is the main purpose of the electoral college?'

QUORA: What is the main purpose of the electoral college?

The main purpose of the Electoral College is as part of the checks and balances put into place by the Founders to prevent the rise of tyranny by preventing the concentration of political power—that is, the power of physical coercion—in any one branch or segment of government. The Electoral College serves both as a check on the power of the federal government over the states and on the dominance of large states over the entire nation. The Founders not only feared Kings but also majoritarian tyranny. The Founders studied history. One of the things they found was that democracies historically have given rise to factionalism, which inevitably leads to dominance by the most powerful electoral factions over weaker factions, manifested through elected legislatures or demagogic leaders.

Consequently, the Founders did not create an absolute, or what I call a fundamentalist, democracy. They created a free republic in which democracy is a constitutionally limited part. This is consistent with the fundamental principle of America. Contrary to the distortions of the so-called Progressives, the fundamental principle of America is the primacy of liberty based on individual rights, not the primacy of majoritarian democracy. (The term “democracy,” in fact, appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. That’s no accident.)

For more, see my comments here, here, here, and here.

Related Reading:

Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right

Monday, March 12, 2018

Still Peddling the “97%” Myth

Shortly after Trump took office, an op-ed appeared in the NJ Star-Ledger offering Advice for Trump from N.J.'s former EPA chief: Phone a scientist. The op-ed equated Trump’s intention to roll back Obama’s so-called “Clean Power Plan”—which is really a war on reliable energy more drastic than Germany's failed energy poverty scheme—with the rollback of “environmental policies that keep our air and water safe.”

Obamacare isn't the only major health reform on the chopping block under President Donald Trump. So are the environmental policies that keep our air and water safe.

The Clean Power Plan to limit the smog and soot flowing into New Jersey from other states, the Paris climate pact to help contain global warming, the hard-fought settlement with polluting companies to clean up the Passaic River -- all could become casualties of Trump.

The equation of policies to reduce harmless greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide in order to “contain global warming” with actual pollution that is harmful to human life is a common trick of environmentalists.

But the goal of Obama’s Clean Power Plan is to drastically roll back co2 emissions by restricting and ultimately outlawing fossil fuels, not contain pollution. The purpose of embedding global warming into a paragraph about pollution is to sneak in the real motive of the anti-reliable energy crowd by equating them. They do not equate.

Environmentalists claim to have science on their side. But if so, why the deceitfulness? Perhaps because the science doesn’t support them. So, they deceitfully distort the science, as well. In a section asking former Obama Northeast EPA administrator Judith Enck if she has “Any advice for the Trump administration?,” she answered

I think the best thing is for them to get briefed by scientists. If they objectively listen to the science, they will understand how serious a threat climate change is.

I often cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper in which the author surveyed about 13,000 scientists, and asked them, “Do you believe that climate change is real and is primarily caused by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and burning forests?”

Ninety-seven percent of the scientists said yes. What we need the Trump administration to do is listen to the science. The leadership, including the president himself, should randomly call up any credible scientist and have a conversation about climate change.

My emphasis. I left these comments:

Notice the bait and switch under the question “Any advice for the Trump administration?” [Former EPA Regional Administrator Judith] Enck first asserts that “science” will tell you “how serious a threat climate change is” if we will only “listen” to them.

But the actual question that 97% of scientists supposedly agree on says nothing about any threat, serious or not, posed by climate change. The question she cites asks, ““Do you believe that climate change is real and is primarily caused by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and burning forests?” The “97%” merely agrees that climate change is real and that human activity is a factor.

Climate change is real and humans are partly responsible? Even if "primarily" responsible—i.e., more than 50% responsible—so what? It doesn't say they agree there is a threat of catastrophe. It doesn’t say they agree that fossil fuels and other life-giving activities should be curtailed or eliminated. The question implies no moral evaluation at all. So why do environmentalists and their political allies keep regurgitating the 97% statistic? Because they want to establish the "big lie" that climate change in and of itself is bad if caused by human activity. They are anti-human race.

Environmentalists believe that human-caused environmental change—not negative change, but change as such—is bad and thus human impact must be curtailed at all costs. But non-impact is an anti-human flourishing standard, and we should reject it. Humans survive and thrive by changing the Earth from a danger-filled environment to a place hospitable to human life and flourishing. Life is better with climate change and fossil fuels than without either. Humans don’t need a stable climate. We need plentiful reliable energy and the freedom to produce it, in order to drive all of the industries that improve our lives. Climate change is not the threat. The Environmentalists’ war on energy and industrial development is the real threat.

I’m surprised that anyone still peddles the “97% of scientists agree” myth. That statistic has been debunked as meaningless ad nauseam. The truth is that, on proper analysis, only about 2-4% actually agree that catastrophic climate change is imminent and humans are the primary cause. Catastrophic climate change is pure speculation. What is scientifically demonstrated is that climate change is mild and is partly natural and partly human-caused, and has not led to more dangerous weather extremes despite decades of increasingly hysterical and failed predictions of disaster.

But even if global warming causes weather extremes to become a little more extreme, so what? The fundamental issue is not whether or not we should clean up actual pollution whose harm to humans is greater than the benefits. The fundamental issue is human non-impact on nature versus human well-being. The truth is life keeps getting better and safer for more and more people as fossil fuel energy usage increases. Someday, viable replacements for fossil fuels will become technologically and economically feasible, provided the energy free market that enables energy entrepreneurs to flourish is not totally crushed. That would not make environmentalists happy, but it would be great for humanity. In any event, rolling back reliable, industrial-scale energy production would cause a real catastrophe—for human life.

Trump should pay attention to the big picture, rather than be swayed by scientists who simply claim that “climate change is real and is primarily caused by human activities” and blindly accept that that is a bad thing.

Related Reading:

Unreliable Energy, Not ‘Dirty’ Energy, Threatens New Jersey

World’s CEOs are Right to Demote Climate Concerns, Worry About “Over-Regulation”

Obama's War on Energy Producers and Consumers by Ari Armstrong

King Obama's Carbon Emission Mandate

Saturday, March 10, 2018

“Not-so-Sane” Environmentalists are Perfectly Sane--and Anti-Humanist

A bill just proposed in New Jersey would mandate that the entire state be 100% “renewable” energy for electricity generation by 2035, less than 17 years from now. NJ Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine shreds the idea in his column New Jersey fossil-fuel free by 2035? Climate-change alarmists are environmentally ill.

Mulshine’s practical argument is irrefutable. But I think his reading of the two sides is off base.

“There are sane environmentalists,” he writes. “And then there are environmentalists who have lost all touch with reality,” which describes as “the not-so-sane crowd.” “Senate President Steve Sweeney [D] is among the sane ones,” Mulshine observes, because he favors nuclear power and natural gas (which is replacing coal for electricity generation) and opposes the bill.

As for the crazy ones, the Statehouse was packed with them last week.

At a rally on the Statehouse steps the sponsors of a bill to end all fossil-fuel use by 2035 stood behind a banner that read: "New Jersey - 100 percent renewables now."

Now? That's impossible. At the moment the state gets a mere 3 percent of its electricity from renewables. The banner was an overstatement.

The actual bill isn't much more realistic, however. It calls for the state to get all its electricity from renewables by a mere 17 years from now.

That's a fantasy for a few reasons. One is that 39 percent of our electricity comes from nuclear power. Even though nukes are carbon-free, they're not considered "renewable" under the bill's definition.

Another reason is that New Jersey is part of the PJM grid, a transmission network that began with Pennsylvania, Jersey and Maryland - hence the initials - but now links 13 states and the District of Columbia. We can't stop electrons at the state line and ask them how they were generated.

Mulshine also observes that the cost of electricity would skyrocket under this initiative.

I left these comments:

I agree wholeheartedly but I view the divide differently.
I would divide the two environmental camps not as “sane” vs. “not-so-sane,” but between environmentalism (lower case “e”) vs. Environmentalism (upper case “E”). The “environmentalists” value prosperity and human flourishing with cleaner industrialization, with the emphasis on the human over the natural environment. The “Environmentalists”--that is, professional ideological Environmentalism--value nature with minimal (ideally no) human impact and thus no industrialization (or as close to no industrialization as possible), caring little for human well-being.
Since human beings survive and thrive through technology and industrial development specifically designed to transform the natural environment for human benefit, the Environmentalists are, on principle, anti-human. They’d be just fine reducing human life to the level of wild animals living “in harmony” with nature.
Sweeney is correct about the intermittency (read unreliable) problem. Barring unforeseen, major technological breakthroughs which can make solar and wind cheaper and as reliable as fossil and nuclear (in which case you wouldn’t need a law because people would voluntarily switch), “renewables” make no sense--unless viewed from the Environmentalist standard. Why else would the Environmentalists favor only the fantasy of “100% renewable energy?” Why else would they oppose fracked natural gas, which releases less greenhouse gases; or nuclear, which produces no greenhouse gases? Why support only unreliables? Can they be that stupid? Can they be that lacking in common sense? No. It’s because they know “renewables” as they define it can’t possibly support an industrially flourishing economy, no matter how many subsidies they throw at it.

Ideological Environmentalists won’t fully get their way. But they can make life a lot harder in NJ through vastly higher electricity bills, regularly imposed life-disrupting blackouts and brownouts, and economic decline. Judged from the standard of human flourishing as a value, the “not-so-sane” environmentalists do look crazy. But viewed from the Environmentalists’ naturalist standard, they are perfectly sane-- and the “renewable now” law makes perfect sense. Environmentalists love it because it would slow down and/or block life-serving industrial progress and economic growth--and thus human impact on the environment. And of course statists love it because it will give the state, and thus politicians, more power over our lives. The big losers of the “renewables now” fantasy will be individual liberty and prosperity.


Related Reading:

New Jersey Conservation Foundation vs. Our Life-Enhancing Energy Needs

NJ Climate Witch Doctors Prepare to Assault NJ Residents’ Energy

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century—Ronald Bailey

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels Hardcover—Alex Epstein

Related Viewing:

(Mulshine concluded his column with this short clip.)