Tuesday, June 30, 2020

SHELLENBERGER: On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare By Michael Shellenberger from Daily Wire

The following is the full text of an opinion piece written by climate activist and energy expert Michael Shellenberger which was originally published by Forbes but pulled a few hours later. Shellenberger, a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner, told The Daily Wire in a statement hours after Forbes deactivated the piece, “I am grateful that Forbes has been so committed to publishing a range of viewpoints, including ones that challenge the conventional wisdom, and was thus disappointed my editors removed my piece from the web site. I believe Forbes is an important outlet for broadening environmental journalism beyond the overwhelmingly  alarmist approach taken by most reporters, and look forward to contributing heterodoxical pieces on energy and the environment in the future.” 

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:
  • Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
  • The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
  • Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
  • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
  • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
  • Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations including Britain, Germany and France since the mid-seventies
  • Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
  • We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.
In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.
Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California.
In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.
Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”
But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.
But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”
Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.
As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.
I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.
And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.
Some highlights from the book:
  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
  • The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
  • 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
  • “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants
Why were we all so misled?
In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism
Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.
Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.
The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.
The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.
Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.
Nations are reorienting toward the national interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.
And the invitations I received from IPCC and Congress late last year, after I published a series of criticisms of climate alarmism, are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment.
Another sign is the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.
“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same.  Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets.  Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”
That is all I that I had hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.
I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins, June 30, 2020). He is a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and other publications. His TED talks have been viewed over five million times.


Hiker Self Rescue on the Castle Trail Philip Werner

If something bad happens to you on a hike and you’re alone or with a friend, would you be able to self-rescue, or would you need to contact search and rescue and request help? That is a question I ask myself whenever I go hiking. It dictates the routes I take and what I carry in my backpack. Calling for help is the last thing I want to do because our local search and rescue teams are volunteers and calling them out puts their health and safety at risk, especially now with the added complication of the Coronavirus Pandemic. I’d only do that if it was the last resort and I really mean as a last resort if I couldn’t crawl out of the backcountry by myself.

Badly Sprained Ankle

This topic is fresh on my mind because I seriously injured myself recently on a strenuous hike and hiked out on my own power without having to request search and rescue assistance. I was descending Mt Jefferson, the third highest mountain in the White Mountain National Forest when I heard a loud pop! and twisted my ankle, miles from the nearest road, just above treeline, or a very rocky trail called the Castle Trail. I was scrambling over one of the rocky outcrops on the trail called castles when I put my foot down on a tree route and my ankle collapsed under me, rolling my foot sideways way beyond its normal range of motion. That popping sound is a characteristic of a serious sprain, the most serious kind, and the one that takes the longest time to heal.
I knew it was a bad injury, but once I confirmed that there were no bones sticking out, I decided I would try to hike out on my own power or at least get as far as I could toward a road in case I had to be carried out on a litter. While I had some pain, the swelling hadn’t kicked in yet and I could still put weight on the foot. I thought about calling my wife or sending her a message on my inReach satellite messenger but decided not to, until or if, it was necessary. There was no point in worrying her if I could get out on my own power. She’s the person who I leave all my trip plans with and will call 911, which is how you initiate a search and rescue call in New Hampshire if I’m overdue on a hike or backpacking trip.
Accident Map

Emergency Decision Making

I am trained in Wilderness First Aid and one of the realities that they drill into you is that it takes one hour for help to arrive for every quarter-mile you are from a trailhead. I was 2.7 miles from the nearest trailhead which meant I’d have a long wait for help to arrive. It’s not like a city with 7-minute ambulance response times. That’s why you need to be as self-sufficient as possible on hikes. I knew there was a caretaker at one of the RMC camps on Mt Adams about 1.5 miles away and he could probably get to me pretty quickly if it was an emergency and he had his radio on. But a fully staffed rescue team would probably take much longer to muster and arrive.  I’d packed enough extra insulation to spend the night out if I had to as a precaution, which I do on all of my above-treeline hikes.
I knew that the pain would increase when the swelling kicked in and that I needed to get a move on before that happened. I couldn’t turn around and climb back up the mountain because that would take me even farther away from a road. Continuing down the Castle Trail I was descending would have required 3.5 more miles of hiking to the highway at the Bowman Trailhead off Rt 2, but I decided that was too far and getting a litter up that trail if I needed one, would be difficult and very time-consuming. Even if I did make it to the Bowman Trailhead, I’d be stuck there without a car and without cell phone access, since I know there’s none there. Getting anywhere, especially during the Pandemic would be difficult since no one in their right mind is picking up hitchhikers, people are not giving friends rides, and there are no other means of transportation in the area, private or public. My wife and I have one car and I had it.
I reasoned that the best course of action was to hike out The Link Trail, which was 1.6 miles to the Caps Ridge Trail. That would put me 1.1 miles from a major trailhead, should I need to call in SAR assistance. I’d also parked my car there. That section of the Caps Ridge Trail is below treeline and reasonably easy to hike as White Mountain trails go. Getting a litter up and down it wouldn’t be trivial, but it seemed like the best option if a littler would be required. Time was of the essence because once the swelling kicked in, my ability to walk, let alone hike, would cease.
This topmost section of The Link Trail is a little challenging to hike, narrow, and full of roots and rocks, but I’ve hiked it before, so I had a good idea of what to expect. The trail maintainers have also been through this year and cleared out the winter debris. My ankle ached, but I still had decent mobility, and the swelling still hadn’t kicked in. I made to the Caps Ridge Trail after an hour and decided to keep going the 1.1 miles to the trailhead.
I was relieved when I made to my car. I drove home, praying that the injury would be minor and heal quickly. But by the time I got home, my ankle had swollen up and was the size of a Navel Orange. Bruising has started to appear on the skin around the ankle and it’s still swollen.  I iced it all last night, alternating with compression and elevation, but it hurts like the dickens this morning, and I can barely walk. We’ll see how today goes, but I’m thinking that a hospital visit may be warranted to see whether a cast is necessary to immobilize it. Yes, it bums me out because I’d had some big plans for hiking this summer, but it is what it is. I’m sure I’ll be back on my feet in a month or two. At least it will give me a chance to catch up on some fly fishing, while I strengthen my ankle again.
How prepared are you?
How prepared are you?

Can You Self Rescue?

I thought I’d lay out my reasoning for others to see in this article. I think it’s important that hikers and backpackers consider the risks they incur to themselves and others when hiking and have the ability to self-rescue themselves or their companions if necessary. It is easy to become complacent about your ability to get help in backcountry areas now that so many people have satellite messengers and personal locator beacons, but nothing has really changed except your ability to communicate. Search and rescue teams are still staffed largely by volunteers and it takes as much time to reach victims as it always has because they have to hike in on foot to reach them.
There’s a lot of emphasis in the hiker, backpacker, and trail runner communities about minimizing the amount of gear you carry in order to travel as fast as possible, but not so much on your ability to make good decisions in emergency situations or the need to carry enough supplies and gear that you can stabilize a patient, including yourself until help can arrive.
  • Do you have the wilderness first aid training necessary to make good accident mitigation decisions in the backcountry?
  • Do you have the right navigation tools and information to know which way to go?
  • Do you carry enough gear to stabilize a companion or yourself until emergency help can arrive?
Shit can happen to anyone in the backcountry, no matter how much or how little experience you have. But there are some outcomes you can influence if you’re better prepared.

New Report: Tech Could Fuel an Age of Freedom—or Make Civilization Collapse

New Report: Tech Could Fuel an Age of Freedom—or Make Civilization Collapse: Emerging technologies will disrupt the five foundational sectors underpinning society: information, energy, food, transportation, and materials.

Monday, June 29, 2020

NanoVNA V2 from http://m1kta-qrp.blogspot.com/


(my own V1 next to a V2)


First a tiny bit of history. The original nanoVNA that originated with a japanese engineer has seen a lot of interest, eddy555's original NanoVNA design has already been released for several years prior to the current NanoVNA popularity boom, but during those years eddy555 was only selling the product in small quantities as a DIY kitset.
The current low cost NanoVNA's available on the market now are mostly the "hugen" version known as the NanoVNA-H. Hugen is a ham who innovated on eddy555's original open source design, adding features like battery management, improved PCB layout, PC software and extending the frequency range from 300 MHz to 900 MHz. Then a group HCXQS put together and redesigned the low cost VNA and called it V2.

From the product pages:
"S-A-A-2 NanoVNA V2
3GHz vector network analyzer, designed in collaboration with OwOComm. Under the LGPL license agreement, it is completely manufactured according to the v2_2 files issued by OwOComm at https://github.com/nanovna/S-A-A Development Department, in line with the original technical specifications designed by OwOComm.
The S-A-A-2/NanoVNA_V2 uses a similar user interface to the NanoVNA, but with a different technical architecture, the S-A-A-2/NanoVNA_V2 does not load the initial calibration data at startup, and does not automatically interpolate the calibration data after the user changes the frequency, and must recalibrate or call back the calibration data after each startup and frequency change. Please read the user manual carefully before use to avoid damaging the device.
User guide: https://github.com/nanovna/NanoVNA-QT/raw/master/ug1101.pdf

"
Specifications:
  • Frequency range: 50kHz - 3GHz
  • System dynamic range (calibrated): 70dB (up to 1.5GHz), 60dB (up to 3GHz)
  • S11 noise floor (calibrated): -50dB (up to 1.5GHz), -40dB (up to 3GHz)
  • Sweep rate: 100 points/s
  • Display: 2.8'', 320 x 240
  • USB interface: Micro USB
  • Power: USB, 300mA
  • Battery: not included. Includes charging circuitry. User can install a 1000mAh - 2000mAh lithium-ion battery with maximum dimensions 6 x 40 x 60 mm.
  • Battery connector: JST-XH 2.54mm
  • Maximum sweep points (on device): 201
  • Maximum sweep points (USB): 1024
  • Port 2 return loss (1.5GHz): 20dB typ
  • Port 2 return loss (3GHz): 13dB min
  • VNA-QT software supported platforms: Linux, Windows (7+), Mac OS planned
I would suggest that none of the original, later versions or even the V2 are what many might refer to as 'lab grade' equipment but they do provide a tool that will measure RF filters, tune antennas, measure coax cable loss, and find cable faults.

I have had a few of the original NanoVNA and now I have both an original of obtained from Tindie https://www.tindie.com/products/hcxqsgroup/nanovna-v2/ or https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/S-A-A-2-NanoVNA-V2_1600053848322.html
of the V2 and 'clone' from an alternate source (AliExpress) https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001055313532.html , all being in China, this blog post aims to show the similarity, or otherwise, of these two and what sort of measurements are possible.

I should point out that the design and all the supporting technical information on these is open source. So it is possible to clone them. That means that the original funds the designers the clones do not (not at this time anyway). The impact is that whilst the original might be properly supported the clones may not.

There have been other open source designs 'ripped off' in this manner and it is the responsibility of the purchaser to ensure that they are not unwityingly supporting piracy of this type.

My review of the devices will follow here.

Images of them as they arrived:
The original:







Side by side the clone (from AliExpress):






The clone had a small laser cut acrylic case (these photos are with the protective layer still in place), the pieces are clear.

I will test and compare mine briefly with current devices and the like. A review of this site https://www.rudiswiki.de/wiki9/nanoVNA#SimSmith_Coax_Cable_S11 might be useful.

I have that RF  board mentioned with unmodified U.FL connectors.

Of Marxism and Murder: The Professor in the Peruvian Prison He graduated from preaching Marxism in the classroom to practicing it in the field. by Lawrence W. Reed

To waste your life chasing delusions is bad enough. To sacrifice innocent lives without remorse as you pursue those fantasies is downright criminal. It defines you as a sociopath and a homicidal maniac.
Abimael Guzmán is all of that and worse. At age 85, he presently resides in a maximum-security prison at a Peruvian naval base near Lima. Unrepentant and unlamented but for a handful of radical sycophants, he is living testimony to the terrible power of socialist extremism. Thirty years ago, he was Peru’s most wanted man.
Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it,” economist Thomas Sowell once observed. “The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”
Guzmán came from one of those very institutions Sowell was describing. He was an academic.
I started my career as a college professor, so I am quick to note that academia isn’t monolithic, and its ranks aren’t universally rotten. Nonetheless, especially in the social sciences, it’s a world glutted with otherwise-unemployable, socially-dysfunctional pontificators.
Often protected from reality by tenure and taxes and dripping with self-importance, the worst of them revel in gossip, nit-picking and department politics—and that’s in their spare time when they’re not poisoning idealistic young minds with discredited dogmas.
Few of them could manage or market or strategically plan their way out of a soggy paper bag, which is why a smart hiring rule at productive businesses is to steer clear of academics. Many harbor a deep resentment of free enterprise; they hate that it rewards individuals not for the academic degrees they’ve purchased but for the value they create in the marketplace. Today, they are a significant source of the “ideas” that are laying waste to parts of our inner cities and college campuses.
Two years ago, faculty at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh held a bicentennial birthday bash for Karl Marx. As Grove City College’s Paul Kengor noted, addressing the 100 million killed by Marxist regimes was not on the agenda. Maybe this is what British philosopher Bertrand Russell had in mind when he famously said, “Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education.”
In the 1960s and ‘70s, Guzmán taught philosophy at a university in Ayacucho, Peru. From his earliest days in the classroom, he drenched his students in Marxism and became ever more radical as he did so. He was arrested more than once for participating in violent street protests. He enjoyed denouncing other faculty members and visiting speakers who did not share his viewpoint (intellectual integrity and objectivity were not his strong points). He formed an underground terrorist organization called Sendero Luminoso (“Shining Path”) and in 1980, he and his merry band of senderistas declared war on Peru—its government and any expendable peasants who stood in their way. The result was two decades of rampaging mayhem which claimed the lives of 70,000 Peruvians.
Also dead was a 25-year-old American named Gus Gregory of Torrance, California. He was in Peru to teach poor campesinos techniques for raising superior sheep and alpaca. The jeep he and a Peruvian veterinarian friend were driving was ambushed by Comrade Guzmán’s men. Gregory was shot in the back of the head as a warning to anyone not yet signed up for the “people’s” revolution. Ironically, Gregory considered himself a leftist but he wasn’t left enough for Shining Path.
For his thoughts on Guzmán I asked my friend Edwar Escalante, a native of Peru and now a professor (a good one!) at Angelo State University in Texas. He wrote:
Abimael Guzman became Peru’s number one enemy. Though his Marxist revolution promised a change to favor the poor, the Shining Path’s repression was ruthless against the most impoverished communities. Guzmán had a disdain for the peasantry’s local arrangements. He believed the poor would adhere to his cause without question. However, it was the poorest of the poor who rejected his rules and initiated the massive self-defense movement that defeated him.
Another Peruvian friend, Luna Vladimir of the Association for Economic Education in the Andes advised me that the 2001 Truth and Reconciliation Commission charged Shining Path with deliberate mass murder against any people it regarded as enemies to their plan for power:
This translated into slogans such as “beat the land”, which involved the murder of authorities, especially local ones: mayors, governors, judges. The diabolical characteristics of the Shining Path are described in its own political party documents, and in the directives to its militants, to “pay the blood fee” and “induce genocide” since they had calculated that “the triumph of the revolution will cost a million dead people”.
Guzmán’s trail of death and destruction included blowing up voting booths, bombing buildings and intersections, torturing for the sake of torture, and other “vanguard of the proletariat” amusements. Karl Marx was one of the former philosophy professor’s intellectual inspirations for these crimes but his God was China’s Mao Zedong. Guzmán visited China in 1965. He took the official sucker tour and departed with admiration for Mao’s brutal policies that killed 20 million people in the name of creating a socialist paradise. In 1988, during a rare interview amid the war, Guzmán said this:
With regard to violence, we start from the principle established by Chairman Mao Zedong: violence, that is the need for revolutionary violence, is a universal law with no exception. Revolutionary violence is what allows us to resolve fundamental contradictions by means of an army, through people’s war.
Theodore Dalrymple is an English psychiatrist, former prison doctor and a distinguished fellow at New York City’s Manhattan Institute. In a 2006 article for the New English Review, he wrote:
The worst brutality I ever saw was that committed by Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in Peru, in the days when it seemed possible that it might come to power. If it had, I think its massacres would have dwarfed those of the Khmer Rouge. As a doctor, I am accustomed to unpleasant sights, but nothing prepared me for what I saw in Ayacucho, where Sendero first developed under the sway of a professor of philosophy, Abimael Guzmán. I took photographs of what I saw, but the newspapers deemed them too disturbing to be printed.
Where the means justify the end, as they do for most ideologies, mass murder becomes more likely, perhaps even inevitable in ideologized states. The capacity for cruelty, and the enjoyment of cruelty, that lies latent in almost every human heart, then allies itself to a supposedly higher, even transcendent purpose. Original sin meets social conditioning. A vicious circle is set up: and eventually, viciousness itself is taken to be a sign both of loyalty and of higher purpose.
The greatness of a crime is thus a guarantee of the greatness of its motive: for who would order the deportation of whole nations, for example, cause famines, work millions to death, shoot untold numbers, unless he had some worthy higher purpose? And the more ruthlessly he did all these things, the higher his purpose must be to justify them. To participate in the worst of crimes is then to be the best of men.
Guzmán’s ivory red tower collapsed when he was arrested in September 1992 in the house of a Lima dance teacher. That event is loosely told in a 1995 novel, The Dancer Upstairs, and in a 2002 film of the same title produced and directed by John Malkovich. Guzmán was sentenced to life imprisonment for his murder spree; in 2018, he was retried and sentenced to a second life term.
If you’re interested in the details of the wasted, blood-soaked life of this nutty professor, you won’t be disappointed in the 2019 book by Orin Starn and Miguel La Serna, The Shining Path: Love, Madness, and Revolution in the Andes. It would make a great Christmas present for any Antifa friends you might have. A reader will see first-hand how bad ideas must inevitably produce bad results, even if the perpetrators think they have “the common good” as their motivation. I close with a paragraph from that book:
Everything began with praiseworthy, even noble intentions. The great Communist longing to redeem humanity from misery and injustice motivated Shining Path to its war. When the gaunt Franciscan friars came ashore in Peru with the Spanish conquerors, they offered salvation in the next life. The senderistas and their Communist faith promised the more immediate earthly heaven of a new socialist order…In the shiny new world, as Marx somewhat vaguely imagined it, a liberated humankind would renounce profit’s unhappy pursuit. The evolutionary destiny of our species lay in Communism’s blessed state of mutual responsibility and the common good.
If you take that last sentence with anything but a grain of salt, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
For additional information, see:
The Realities of Evil by Theodore Dalrymple
Shining Path by InSight Crime:

The Adverse Economic Consequences of Higher Tax Rates June 28, 2020 by Dan Mitchell

The good news is that Joe Biden has not embraced many of Bernie Sanders’ worst tax ideas, such as imposing a wealth tax or hiking the top income tax rate to 52 percent..
The bad news is that he nonetheless is supporting a wide range of punitive tax increases.
  • Increasing the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent.
  • Imposing a 12.4 percent payroll tax on wages above $400,000.
  • Increasing the double taxation of dividends and capital gains from 23.8 percent to 43.4 percent.
  • Hiking the corporate tax rate to 28 percent.
  • Increasing taxes on American companies competing in foreign markets.
The worst news is that Nancy Pelosi, et al, may wind up enacting all these tax increases and then also add some of Crazy Bernie‘s proposals.
This won’t be good for the U.S. economy and national competitiveness.
Simply stated, some people will choose to reduce their levels of work, saving, and investment when the tax penalties on productive behavior increase. These changes give economists the information needed to calculate the “elasticity of taxable income”.
And this, in the jargon of economists, is a measure of “deadweight loss.”
But now there’s a new study published by the Federal Reserve which suggests that these losses are greater than traditionally believed.
Authored by Brendan Epstein, Ryan Nunn, Musa Orak and Elena Patel, the study looks at how best to measure the economic damage associated with higher tax rates. Here’s some of the background analysis.
The personal income tax is one of the most important instruments for raising government revenue. As a consequence, this tax is the focus of a large body of public finance research that seeks a theoretical and empirical understanding of the associated deadweight loss (DWL). …Feldstein (1999) demonstrated that, under very general conditions, the elasticity of taxable income (ETI) is a sufficient statistic for evaluating DWL. …It is well understood that, apart from rarely employed lump-sum taxes and…Pigouvian taxes, revenue-raising tax systems impose efficiency costs by distorting economic outcomes relative to those that would be obtained in the absence of taxation… ETI can potentially serve as a perfect proxy for DWL…this result is consistent with the ETI reflecting all taxpayer responses to changes in marginal tax rates, including behavioral changes (e.g., reductions in hours worked) and tax avoidance (e.g., shifting consumption toward tax-preferred goods). …a large empirical literature has provided estimates of the individual ETI, identified based on variation in tax rates and bunching at kinks in the marginal tax schedule.
And here are the new contributions from the authors.
… researchers have fairly recently come to recognize an important limitation of the finding that the ETI is a sufficient statistic for deadweight loss… we embed labor search frictions into the canonical macroeconomic model…and we show that within this framework, a host of additional information beyond the ETI is needed to infer DWL …once these empirically observable factors are controlled for, DWL can be calculated easily and in a straightforward fashion as the sum of the ETI and additional terms involving these factors. … We find that…once search frictions are introduced, …DWL can be between 7 and 38 percent higher than the ETI under a reasonable calibration.
To give you an idea of what this means, here are some of their estimates of the economic damage associated with a 1 percent increase in tax rates.
As you peruse these estimates, keep in mind that Biden wants to increase the top income tax rate by 2.6 percentage points and the payroll tax by 12.4 percentage points (and don’t forget he wants to nearly double tax rates on dividends, capital gains, and other forms of saving and investment).
Those are all bad choices with traditional estimates of deadweight loss, and they are even worse choices with the new estimates from the Fed’s study.
So what’s the bottom line?
The political impact will be that “the rich” pay more. The economic impact will be less capital formation and entrepreneurship, and those are the changes that hurt the vast majority of us who aren’t rich.