Zerohedge

Authored by Jonathan Lesser via RealClearEnergy,

A recent article published in Nature claims that climate liability lawsuits, such as the ones various U.S. states and municipalities continue to pursue, are on rock-solid legal grounds, thanks to the authors’ new research “proving” that the world would be $28 trillion richer today but for carbon emissions from fossil fuels over a 30-year period, 1991 -2020. Ignoring the emissions from developing countries, notably China, which today accounts for one-third of all energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the authors focus instead on oil companies, which they call the “carbon majors” – especially Saudi Aramco, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Gasprom.

For example, according to the authors Chevron has caused an estimated $2 trillion in damages, and perhaps as much as $3.6 trillion. Exxon Mobil is right behind at $1.9 trillion. Similarly, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom are each responsible for $2 trillion in damages. BP is the laggard, at just under $1.5 trillion in damages. Levying fines of those amounts, which greatly exceed these companies’ market values, would lead to their immediate bankruptcy. While the authors may consider such an outcome a “win,” bankrupting these companies would not change the physical and economic realities that the world depends on fossil fuels and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. (Moreover, it is not clear who would levy the fines and who would receive the monies received – other than trial lawyers.)

To derive their damage estimates, the authors combine bad science with bad economics. First, they use simplified climate models to predict what average world temperatures would have been had there been no GHG emissions from fossil fuels. Next, they use other models to determine how many fewer extreme heat events, which they define as the hottest five days of each year, there would have been absent GHG emissions from fossil fuels. Finally, they calculate the damages in terms of lost GDP based on a simplistic regression model that assumes lost GDP increases in proportion to the square of temperature increases, and which ignores the myriad other economic factors that affect economic growth. They justify this absurd specification, which has no economic basis, on “peer-reviewed research” – a previous article they published.

The approach used by these authors is a form of “attribution science,” which attempts to link specific weather-related events to GHG emissions. That approach, which was first developed about two decades ago to attribute a 2003 European heat wave to climate change, is statistical legerdemain that depends on counterfactual models, just as the authors use here.

Ironically, the authors acknowledge the benefits of fossil fuels, stating that “fossil fuels have also produced immense prosperity.” Yet, they purposefully ignore those benefits because, as they state, “these companies have already been handsomely paid.” This latter statement reveals further economic ignorance. Without fossil fuels, modern life would be impossible. The benefits of fossil fuels to modern society are probably incalculable, but they far exceed the profits these companies have made, and far exceed the damage estimates the authors calculate.

The authors claim that fossil fuel damages are what economists call an “externality” and that “Courts may need to consider how the benefits of energy use are balanced against its externalities and the potential duty of care these companies have to the public.” (They also raise the discredited claim that oil companies “knew” about climate change and hid the evidence from the public.)

Externalities are a real phenomenon of energy development and use. But in this case the externalities are unobservable and instead estimated based on theoretical models having little accuracy. Moreover, levying penalties to “internalize” an externality that would cause far greater economic losses is unjustified.

Ultimately, this article is simply an advocacy piece for specious lawsuits against oil companies with deep financial pockets. Nature should be ashamed of itself for publishing it.

Jonathan Lesser is a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics. His report, “The Social Cost of Carbon: A Flawed Measure for Energy Policy,” was released on April 23.

The mid-1990s feel like a different world. In the 30 years since, the global economy has shifted dramatically, across sectors and markets.

But headline stats like GDP, GDP per capita, or growth rates don’t always reflect what’s happening at the individual level.

So, has life actually improved over time?

To help answer that, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao visualizes figures from Our World in Data to show how daily median incomes have changed in 20 of the world’s largest economies from 1994 to 2024.

All figures are in PPP-adjusted International dollars per person. They are also adjusted for inflation, taxes, and benefits.

ℹ️ PPP-adjusted International dollars reflect purchasing power by accounting for local prices and cost of living.

Important note: #4 Japan, #11 South Korea, and #19 Saudi Arabia are excluded due to missing data. Poland, Taiwan, and Belgium are included in their place.

Countries by GDP, Daily Median Incomes, and Income Growth

There’s two different takeaways from this chart. One is which top 20 economies have the highest average incomes in 2024.

The other is where incomes have grown the most.

Note: *Australia’s change is between 1994–2023 due to data restraints.

For example, incomes in China have grown 6x between 1994–2024, after adjusting for inflation. However in 2024 this still only amounted to $12 (international dollars) per person on average.

ℹ️ Per capita income is attributed to all residents including children and retirees. The median income could theoretically be between 2–4x for a working individual.

In other developing countries (Indonesia, Poland, and Türkiye), daily incomes have tripled. Of these three Poland is the only one that’s moved from a low- to high-income country by 2024.

In the U.S., the daily average income has only gone up about 30% over the same period. But the country is second-richest in this dataset, after Switzerland.

How the U.S. Ranks in Income Growth vs. Peer Countries

Interestingly, the U.S. has the least median income growth versus peers like Germany, UK, and France.

In other social metrics, the U.S. is lagging its counterparts. Its life expectancy is a full four years below its high-income counterparts.

And this despite having the highest health expenditure in a similar group.

It also has one of the highest inequality scores amongst its peers.

While a lot of American media is focused on income and wealth inequality, U.S. incomes far outpace many other countries. Check out: Ranked: Daily Incomes of the Richest & Poorest in 25 Countries to see how much richer even the bottom 10% Americans are.

Authored by Ana Kasparian via RealClearInvestigations,

Smiley Martin should have been behind bars. 

A career criminal with a long rap sheet involving firearms, he was given a 10 year sentence in 2018 for punching, dragging and severely beating his girlfriend with a belt. In prison, Martin was found guilty of beating another inmate and engaging in other criminal activity. Nevertheless, he was freed just four years later, thanks to a plea deal that categorized him as a “nonviolent offender” and a California ballot measure that sharply reduced sentences for “good behavior.”

Just two months after his release, Martin and several accomplices, including his brother, were arrested for carrying out the worst mass shooting in Sacramento’s history – leaving six dead and 12 others injured on April 3, 2022. Martin was charged with three counts of murder and illegal possession of a firearm, including a machine gun. He will not stand trial on those charges, since the 29-year-old died in jail of a drug overdose last September.

Martin’s life and death have brought attention to the criminal justice reform that helped put him back on the streets: Proposition 57. The ballot measure was sold to the public in 2016 as a way to relieve the state’s chronically overcrowded prisons by rewarding “nonviolent” offenders for good behavior by shortening their sentences. It was supposed to be a humanitarian answer to what social justice activists described as an epidemic of “mass incarceration.” It has instead put tens of thousands of violent offenders such as Martin back on the streets.

Many of them have been rearrested. The latest Recidivism Report from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shows that nearly two thirds (64.2%) of the 34,215 inmates granted early release between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020 had been rearrested as of April 2, 2025.

Breaking down the recidivism rate for prisoners within three years of their release, it reported that “22.1% of the release cohort (7,567 individuals) were convicted of a felony offense, and 17.0% (5,828 individuals) were convicted of a misdemeanor offense.” The Department of Corrections also reports almost half the inmates granted early release had not earned any credits for good behavior.

Prop 57 critics are not surprised. In the run-up to the 2016 ballot measure – which was approved with the support of 65% of voters – the measure’s opponents warned that violent criminals like Martin would likely benefit from the initiative.

But they were denounced as scaremongers. When Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert warned that Prop 57 would free perpetrators of domestic violence, then-Gov. Jerry Brown, who was the top proponent for the ballot measure, shot back; “That’s a complete red herring, and it’s very disingenuous of these highly politicized prosecutors to make that claim.” Brown assured voters that each inmate’s crime and behavior in prison would be considered before release was granted. 

While supporters of Prop 57 described it as a humane response to a court order, critics say its proponents misrepresented the bill to secure its passage. At a time when President Trump is putting progressive criminal justice organizations in his crosshairs, the troubled history of Prop 57 highlights the challenges of rehabilitating inmates while also reducing prison overcrowding without building more prisons.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s Role 

The single most aggressive advocate for Prop 57 was former Democratic Gov. Brown, who had to contend with the consequences of a sentencing reform he had signed in 1976 during his first stretch as governor, when tough-on-crime measures were enacted. Now decades later, with Brown governor again, California’s prisons were housing nearly double the capacity of inmates they were built for. Facilities were so severely overcrowded that the U.S. Supreme Court found their conditions violated inmates’ Eighth Amendment Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. In May 2011, months following Brown’s inauguration, the court ruled in a split decision that the state must remedy the issue.

In writing for the five-member majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the state’s prison system was stretched so thin that it failed to provide basic medical care, which, as he wrote, was “incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in a civilized society.” Citing how one prisoner was dying every week due to deficient medical care, Kennedy declared that the courts “must not shrink from their constitutional obligation to enforce the rights of all persons, including prisoners.”

At the prison population’s peak in 2006, more than 165,000 inmates were locked up in a system meant to handle 85,000. But budgetary pressures meant that the state legislature wasn’t willing to allocate the funding necessary to build more space to house inmates. So, the court ordered them to reduce the prison population by 30,000 inmates in order to limit overcrowding to 137% capacity. While there is no specific constitutional level for overcrowding, the majority opted to give California a little more wiggle room than the 130% capacity recommended by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Brown, eager to get federal oversight off his back, joined the state legislature and sprung into action with the passage of AB109, which transferred inmates from crowded state detention facilities into county jails. But some county jails were riddled with the same problems and lacked the capacity to house an influx of inmates. With resources stretched thin, counties began releasing criminals years before they served their sentences. 

By 2014, a Los Angeles Times investigation found more than 13,500 inmates were being released early from county jails each month across the state. Although the public was assured that only those who posed little danger were let go, data shows that some counties completely halted incarceration of those convicted of crimes like domestic violence and child abuse. 

The early release of convicted sex offender Sidney DeAvila was one particularly gruesome example of the unintended consequences of AB109. After DeAvila was let out early from San Joaquin County Jail in February 2013, he went on to rape, kill and dismember his 76-year-old grandmother.

Undeterred by the impact AB109 had on public safety, Brown later campaigned for Prop 47, a 2014 ballot measure that was advertised to Californians as simply lowering penalties for nonviolent crimes like petty theft and drug possession. But the public was left in the dark about how the measure would also lower penalties for car thieves, drug traffickers and open-air drug markets. 

Nevertheless, Brown began promoting additional reforms aimed at lowering California’s prison population.

Officially known as the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, Prop 57 would, according to Brown, address the state’s prison overcrowding problem while keeping communities safe. Brown pitched the measure as an enlightened step that “orients the prison toward rehabilitation” while appreciating the human capacity for change. “All of us learn. I’ve learned in 40 years,” Brown said at the time. “I think prisoners can learn.” 

But Brown also assured voters there were limits to his progressive vision. He repeatedly noted the ballot measure’s language that only people “convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.”  Brown told the Mercury News newspaper in 2016 that“we had planned to offer parole to violent offenders, but we took that out.”

Brown estimated that only about 1,100 prisoners per year would qualify for the program. Prosecutors who opposed the measure in the run-up to the vote also underestimated the number of beneficiaries when they pegged it at 16,000.   

Critics, including some law enforcement groups, district attorneys, and victims’ advocates, argue that Brown’s miscalculation was part of an effort to mislead voters about Prop 57’s reach. Despite repeated assurances that violent criminals would not qualify for early release under the measure, the legislature’s previous crime reclassification efforts meant that only 23 specific crimes – such as murder, rape, arson and carjacking – were considered offenses that would disqualify prisoners from the measure’s benefits. Many crimes the public would consider violent, including Smiley Martin severely beating his girlfriend, are not included on that list.

“Dozens of serious crimes would be considered non-violent for parole purposes,” warned CalMatters columnist Dan Walters, including “assault with a deadly weapon, soliciting murder, intimidating or harming a crime victim or witness, resisting arrest that injures a police officer, violent elder or child abuse, arson with injury, human trafficking and several forms of manslaughter.”

Plea bargains also make some violent criminals eligible for early release. Martin, for example, was originally charged with kidnapping, which is identified as a violent offense in the penal code. But that charge was withdrawn in his deal.

Brown also assured voters that felons who had been convicted of various sexual crimes would not be considered for early release. However, rape of an unconscious person, sex trafficking and even the trafficking of children for sex are not considered violent felonies according to California’s Penal Code. In confirming the deceptive criminal classifications in the state, Attorney General Rob Bonta told CalMatters that these crimes “should be discussed and potentially changed under whatever the appropriate means is for Prop 57.” 

The state legislature agreed with Bonta on the prosecution of child sex predators. Soliciting minors under the age of 16 for sex was considered a misdemeanor in California up until September 2024, when Gov. Gavin Newsom finally signed legislation reclassifying it as a felony with tougher penalties. Previously, soliciting a minor for sex, or paying for it, was simply a misdemeanor punishable by two days in jail and a $10,000 fine.

In 2021, California’s Supreme Court weighed in on Prop 57 and unanimously sided with those who had argued that Brown falsely portrayed the measure’s reach. In writing the unanimous decision, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye stated that “there are portions of [Prop 57’s] opponents’ argument that the [Corrections] Department must concede were correct, including the characterization that individuals convicted of and currently serving sentences for offenses … like assault with a deadly weapon would be eligible for nonviolent offender parole consideration, or that an individual with a prior violent felony conviction for murder would not be excluded from nonviolent offender parole consideration.”

The Chief Justice addressed how perpetrators of serious sex crimes were also qualifying for early release under the measure. She wrote that “the initiative’s language provides no indication that the voters intended to allow the [Corrections] Department to create a wholesale exclusion from parole consideration based on an inmate’s sex offense convictions when the inmate was convicted of a nonviolent felony.”

While the Court didn’t mention Gov. Brown by name, his promotion of the ballot measure was subtly cited by the Chief Justice. “Had the drafters of Proposition 57, and by extension the voters, intended to exclude inmates from nonviolent offender parole consideration based on prior or current sex offense convictions,” the Chief Justice wrote, “it would have been a simple matter to say so explicitly.”

The court’s ruling made little difference, because mere weeks before its decision, voters overwhelmingly rejected another poorly written ballot measure that was supposed to close the violent crime loophole in Prop 57. The measure, known as Proposition 20, sought to alter Prop 57 by denying early release to perpetrators of violent crimes that had not been listed in the California Penal Code. 

However, the measure was misleadingly described as limiting “access to parole programs established for nonviolent offenders.” In other words, there was a fundamental problem with using the word “nonviolent” to describe the gaps in Prop 57 that the measure sought to remedy. Most voters were unaware that the state penal code listed violent crimes like the rape of a unconscious person as nonviolent offenses. So, they were under the impression that Prop 20 sought to impose harsh punishments for petty crimes, which many in liberal California are against. 

Prop 20’s timing may have also led to its demise. Voters decided on the measure in the aftermath of George Floyd’s 2020 murder while in the custody of Minneapolis police and the country was amid what many referred to as a “racial reckoning.” The country, and especially liberal states like California, were less interested in public safety and more open to criminal justice reforms due to concerns over mass incarceration and what they saw as racist policing.

Credit Where Credit Wasn’t Due

Even if voters had been aware that those found guilty of trafficking children or strangling their wives would still be eligible for early release under Prop 57, no one was under the impression that felons would have their sentences cut short without enrolling in rehabilitation programs or earning good behavior credits. However, the latest CDCR report discloses that of the 34,215 inmates who were released early in fiscal year 2019, 13,833 did not earn any enhanced behavior credits to justify a reduction in their prison sentence. Some 44% of those who didn’t earn any credits would be convicted of a new crime following their release.

Even more damning is that the CDCR’s report concedes that the state released “high risk” inmates who are more likely to reoffend. Based on the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), a tool used to calculate the risk of a parolee committing a new crime, “high, moderate, and low-risk individuals recidivate at about 60 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent, respectively.” Yet in fiscal year 2019, “approximately 41.2 percent of individuals in the release cohort have a high-risk score according to the CSRA.”

Indeed, many of the inmates who were released under Prop 57 in 2019 went on to reoffend and get convicted of new crimes (44.0%). However, there were fewer convictions for those who did earn rehabilitative credits in prison (35.8%). 

Of the 39.1% of parolees in fiscal year 2019 who were convicted of other crimes within the first three years of their release, 22.1% were for felonies and 17% for misdemeanors. But only 17.4% of the convicted felons returned to prison. Even so, according to the report, “the percentage of individuals returned for crimes against persons increased by 2.9 percentage points, the largest increase of any return type.”

While overcrowding was the very issue that led to measures like Prop 57, state officials have shuttered several state prisons in recent years. Four were closed in 2021 alone, and it appears that state officials are intentionally avoiding prison time for convicts because their objective is to close more for fiscal and ideological reasons. 

A local Los Angeles publication reported last spring that “because of the declining inmate headcount, California can close up to five more of its 33 prisons and eight yards within operating prisons while still complying with a federal court order that caps the system’s capacity.”  According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state could save up to $1 billion a year by doing so. The cost to the public’s safety when there’s nowhere to detain perpetrators of violent crimes was not factored into its analysis. 

By November 2024, many Californians were fed up. More than 65% of Alameda County voters approved the recall of Oakland’s progressive District Attorney Pamela Price. Similarly, Los Angeles denied a second term to D.A. George Gascon, another criminal justice reformer. Gascon was replaced with his tough-on-crime challenger Nathan Hochman. Finally, nearly 70% of voters approved Proposition 36, which would reverse an earlier ballot measure that weakened punishments for certain offenses like shoplifting and drug crimes, including trafficking. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom was, and still is, vehemently against Prop 36, citing the financial burden of holding criminals accountable in one of the highest taxed states in the country. Nonetheless, Prop 36 is “an unfunded mandate” that will “set this state back,” according to Newsom. After all, if drug traffickers and repeat smash-and-grab thieves are met with harsher punishments like prison time, the spotlight would be on Newsom for preemptively closing the very facilities necessary to serve their sentences.

In a recent interview, Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell expressed frustration over serving the public safety demands of the community with less prison space available. “While the [District Attorney] will file cases that are now available to us through Prop 36, you still have a jail system that is decreasing in size continuously,” McDonnell stated. “When I was Sheriff, there were 18,000 beds available [in Los Angeles County]. It’s now down to 12,400,” he continued. Chief McDonnell argues that the lack of beds is the reason many offenders are back on the streets “without the resources or rehabilitation that we would have liked to have seen.”

While Gov. Newsom has claimed that he “absolutely will implement the will of the voters,” following the passage of Prop 36, the state legislature has refused to allocate the funding necessary to implement it. The truth is, even if the state’s lawmakers provided the money, Californians would still have a mountain to climb with all the various ways the state has chipped away at public safety, including Prop 57, crime reclassifications and prison closures.

Israel launched unprecedented airstrikes which targeted just outside the presidential palace in Damascus early on Friday, at a moment the Netanyahu government is using sectarian fighting as a pretext to intervene militarily in and further occupy Syrian land.

The complex served as the longtime center of the former Assad government, and Jolani (Sharaa) has since been using it as his base from which to rule the country, following Assad’s December ouster. Israel, which usually doesn’t confirm attacks on Syria, described that its military struck “adjacent” to Sharaa’s palace in Damascus.

While Israel had attacked Syria literally hundreds of times while Assad was still in power, it had never directly threatened Assad’s palace or presidential residence.

Syria’s ‘interim’ President al-Sharra also confirmed “bombardment on the presidential palace” and said it marked a “dangerous escalation.” Of course, Syria no longer has anti-air defenses or an air force to speak of.

Israel has suddenly presented itself as taking up the cause of Syria’s Druze minority, who are the latest to be persecuted at the hands of Jolani’s Hayat Tahrir al-Sham Sunni militants. This also as Alawites and Christians come under attack.

Clashes in the Damascus suburb of Jaramana earlier this week saw HTS militants seek to root out Druze factions. After days of fighting, many reports indicate that over 100 have been killed in the anti-Druze clashes.

⚡️🚨 IOF spokesman: “Warplanes bombed the area adjacent to the Ahmed al-Sharaa Palace in #Damascus a short while ago.” pic.twitter.com/6dO7zUMAjm

— Middle East Observer (@ME_Observer_) May 2, 2025

HTS forces are said to be heading south to Druze-dominant communities Suwayda Governorate. Many observers fear clashes could grow and spread to other regions. 

While there are also many Arab Druze citizens of Israel, Tel Aviv have never shown this level of concern for Syria’s Druze before. Clearly the ‘protect the Druze’ mantra is largely a pretext for Israeli expansion and further meddling in Syria.

Israel’s military has since last December already occupied significant portions of southern Syria well beyond the Golan Heights.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a joint statement that Israeli military intervention has sent “a clear message to the Syrian regime: We will not allow (Syrian) forces to deploy south of Damascus or any threat to the Druze community.”

Syria’s presidential palace, which is perched overlooking Damascus…

Interestingly, in another unprecedented first, Damascus is signaling it’s ready to make peace with Israel and enter into full normalization – something the Assad family never so much as hinted at, given the state of war that persisted over the Golan since the very beginning of the modern Syrian state.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has advised new parents to research vaccines recommended for their children, as he also disclosed that health officials are looking into how some children start experiencing symptoms of autism shortly after vaccination.

During an April 28 town hall with Phil McGraw, also known as Dr. Phil, a mother asked Kennedy what his advice would be to new mothers with regard to vaccines.

“I would say that we live in a democracy, and part of the responsibility of being a parent is to do your own research,” Kennedy said. 

“You research the baby stroller, you research the foods that they’re getting, and you need to research the medicines that they’re taking as well.”

Kennedy, who heads the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said before becoming health secretary that no vaccines are safe. 

During his confirmation hearings, he described himself as “pro-safety” and not “anti-vaccine.” 

“I believe vaccines have saved millions of lives and play a critical role in health care,” he said at one point.

About one-third of respondents to a Gallup survey in 2021 said that they do their own research when their doctor gives them important medical advice.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is part of HHS, currently recommends that children receive 12 vaccine doses in their first four months of life, and dozens more before they become adults. Many of the vaccines are required to attend school.

The CDC’s last report on the four required vaccinations found that coverage declined between the 2019–2020 and 2022–2023 school years, while the exemption rate increased.

Additionally, just 13 percent of children have received the currently available COVID-19 vaccines, according to CDC data.

Kennedy confirmed during the town hall that he’s considering removing COVID-19 vaccines from the childhood vaccination schedule.

“We’re seeing a lot of adverse events from the vaccine—particularly in children—myocarditis, pericarditis, even strokes. … American people are trusting us to make a good risk-benefit judgment when we recommend these products, and we need to go back and look at that recommendation,” he said.

Kennedy also said that officials are examining whether there is a link between autism and vaccines.

A woman asked Kennedy to explain how the ingredients in the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause inflammation of the brain and autism.

“We’re in the process of researching all those questions. That’s something—because it’s so often reported by parents and physicians, that chain of events, where somebody … goes in for their 16-month or wellness visit, and they get the MMR and maybe a number of other vaccines at the same time,” Kennedy said.

“Many of them, many of the parents have reported that their kid, that their child developed autism immediately after the vaccine—so that’s something that we’re looking at right now.”

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has identified some cases of vaccine-induced brain injuries, and some vaccine experts have said there’s evidence that vaccines can cause autism. Others have said there is no link. The CDC states on its website that studies “show that vaccines are not associated with ASD,” or autism spectrum disorder.

The rate of autism, a disorder whose symptoms include difficulty learning, has been increasing in recent years. Officials said in April that the rate was up to one in 31 children, and Kennedy has vowed to identify the causes.

Kennedy on April 28 also reiterated his stance that health officials recommend receipt of the MMR vaccine to lower the risk of contracting measles, amid several outbreaks in the United States. However, he also said that the MMR vaccine has problems and that officials are studying it.

“The problem is really with the mumps portion of the vaccine and the combination, and it was never safety-tested—that combination was never safety-tested,” Kennedy said. 

“And people just assume that if three separate vaccines were safe, and when you combine them, they would also be safe. But we now know there’s some viral interference and the combination vaccine seemed to be linked to a lot of adverse events that they were not getting from the separate vaccines.”

The CDC’s website states that the MMR vaccine typically protects people against measles and rubella for life, “but immunity against mumps may decrease over time.”

Possible side effects include a mild rash and high fever that could cause a seizure.

Dr. Monica Gandhi, associate chief of the University of California, San Francisco’s Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine, told The Epoch Times in an email that the MMR vaccine does work for mumps.

“The vaccine is safe and efficacious,” she said, encouraging parents to take their children to receive the shot.

A Unitree Robotics H1 humanoid robot, developed and produced in Hangzhou, China, was seen exhibiting “erratic behavior” in a video circulating on X.

Footage circulating on X, shared by one user, alleged the incident was caused by “imperfect coding.”

“If you buy Chinese stuff, it might all end up like this… They might even deliberately make it this way to harm people...,” the X user said.

중국 Unitree H1 휴머노이드, 불완전한 코딩 → 돌발행동

중국꺼 사면 다 이리될지도….
일부로 이렇게 만들어서 사람 죽게 만들지도…. pic.twitter.com/iZVPGYxKWl

— 와썹🇰🇷🇺🇸🇯🇵 (@uimusog6125) May 2, 2025

Unitree’s H1 robot is listed for $90,000 on its website. A note underneath the price reads: “Not include customs duties. Please comply with local customs laws, pay customs duties, and clear the goods.” 

H1 humanoid robot…

While the authenticity of the footage remains unverified—and it could potentially be staged to create negative press around Unitree—it highlights the potential risks of deploying humanoid robots at scale.

As is the case anytime government is involved in a project funded with taxpayer cash, things are moving slowly and corruptly with Philadelphia’s renovation of its 30th St. Station. It’s a restoration that has been underway for the better part of a decade and is showing little to no signs of progress from the station’s exterior. 

In 2018, Amtrak proudly showcased progress on the $109 million restoration of Philadelphia’s historic station. “This is an iconic building in Philadelphia, and making it beautiful is going to increase the citizens’ pride,” project manager Ajith Bhaskaran told reporters. He called the work “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

What Bhaskaran didn’t say was that he had turned that opportunity into a personal payday — a bribery scheme involving luxury trips, gifts, and hundreds of thousands in illicit payments, according to a new article by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The project, originally budgeted at $58 million, ballooned after Bhaskaran signed off on expensive contract changes — including a $9 million amendment — while soliciting bribes from contractors. Just one day before the 2018 media tour, he emailed Mark 1 Restoration executives: “CEO approved.” That same day, a Mark 1 executive co-signed a New York apartment lease for Bhaskaran’s daughter. A month later, he bought Bhaskaran $2,000 Bruno Mars tickets.

Federal investigators say this was part of a three-year conspiracy in which Bhaskaran pocketed $323,686 in gifts from Mark 1, including meals at Del Frisco’s, trips to Atlantic City, a German shepherd puppy, vacations to India and Ecuador, and even a Tourneau watch — all paid for by inflated Amtrak invoices.

Where’s DOGE when you need them…

Meanwhile, Vega Solutions, a second contractor, paid Bhaskaran $150,000 in bribes, gave him credit cards for personal spending, hired his girlfriend and a relative, and provided two Ford Explorers. Vega, prosecutors say, defrauded Amtrak of over $786,000.

The Inquirer writes that Bhaskaran cultivated close ties with contractors early on. In one 2016 email, a Mark 1 executive wrote: “AJ shared this with me last night. Keep it tight… Steak dinner, cigars and whiskey…” Another Mark 1 VP reported Bhaskaran wanted “as much as possible” in a contract change order — and soon, Bhaskaran secured Amtrak’s approval for $13 million more.

Bhaskaran also helped Vega Solutions secure a $1.3 million oversight contract by slashing insurance requirements and then charging flights to the contractor’s credit card. The firm was led by siblings Sandeep Hardikar and Madhura Atitkar, with Atitkar listed as president so Vega could qualify as a woman-owned business.

In 2017, after receiving a luxury watch from Mark 1 executives, Bhaskaran approved millions more in project funds. That year, he vacationed in the Galápagos Islands — flights, lodging, and a cruise all covered by Mark 1. Later, they also bought him a $4,775 purebred German shepherd and covered its training.

All the while, he pressured contractors for more. “Deposited May payroll and extra 8000,” Atitkar texted her brother, who replied Bhaskaran had deposited the funds the next day.

In March 2018, an anonymous tipster alerted Amtrak’s inspector general: Bhaskaran was flouting ethics rules and had hired Vega — then started driving a new Ford Explorer. Investigators launched a sweeping inquiry, collecting emails, records, and even surveillance photos of Bhaskaran out with his dog or in a Hummer limo headed to Atlantic City, the Inquirer said. 

Emails revealed how openly the executives discussed the scheme. “He said we all know Mark 1 is significantly over billed,” one wrote. Yet publicly, they praised Bhaskaran. “I can completely trust them,” Bhaskaran said in a since-removed Amtrak video.

Of the 47 invoices Mark 1 submitted during Bhaskaran’s tenure, he approved every one. He rejected all extra funding requests from another architecture firm — the only one not accused of bribing him.

Bhaskaran was arrested in November 2019 for unrelated wire fraud but admitted to accepting bribes. He died of heart failure in 2020, leaving behind four luxury cars, fake IDs, and thousands in cash.

Prosecutors later added Social Security fraud charges, alleging Bhaskaran had illegally collected $252,000 in benefits meant for deceased in-laws.

Since then, five contractors — including three Mark 1 executives and both Vega siblings — have pleaded guilty. The sixth, Mark 1 owner Mark Snedden, is expected to do the same. Vega repaid the full $786,000.

Prosecutors say the scandal highlights how infrastructure projects can become “lucrative targets for fraud.” An Amtrak spokesperson said the company took “swift and definitive action” and has since overhauled its contract oversight.

Just when you thought you’ve seen it all…

A new musical comedy centered on accused killer Luigi Mangione is set to premiere in San Francisco next month, drawing backlash for what critics see as a tasteless glamorization of violence, according to the New York Post.

“Luigi the Musical” opens June 13 at the Taylor Street Theater, promising a “bold, campy and unafraid” portrayal of the 26-year-old alleged gunman charged in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson—a crime that left two young children without a father. Tickets for opening night are already sold out.

Promotional materials describe the show as “a wildly irreverent, razor-sharp comedy that imagines the true story of Luigi Mangione, the alleged corporate assassin turned accidental folk hero.” The tagline: “A story of love, murder and hash browns,” references Mangione’s arrest while eating at McDonald’s.

The Post writes that in the musical, Mangione shares a fictional jail cell with convicted crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried and embattled hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, who together become part of his bizarre journey through infamy. “With real-life cellmates Sam Bankman-Fried and Diddy by his side, Luigi navigates friendship, justice, and the absurdity of viral fame,” the synopsis reads.

“If you like your comedy smart and your showtunes with a criminal record, Luigi is your new favorite felony,” the producers boast.

The production is the work of songwriter Arielle Johnson and director Nova Bradford, who cite the musical Chicago as inspiration. Behind-the-scenes clips feature lyrics such as, “…flash those pearly whites, there were cameras there that night, and that’s what let the po-lice take me in,” referencing Mangione’s alleged mistake of removing his mask at a New York hostel, allowing authorities to identify him.

Despite the show’s flippant tone, Bradford defended its creative direction in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle: “We’re not valorizing any of these characters, and we’re also not trivializing any of their actions or alleged actions.”

Mangione is currently on trial in Manhattan for the murder of Thompson. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, which could mark the first federal execution sentence handed down in Manhattan in 70 years.

Authored by J.Peder Zane via RealClearPolitics.com,

The Department of Government Efficiency noticed a snag: the sign-in button on the IRS homepage wasn’t where it ought to be. Instead of the upper right-hand corner where we, the people, have been trained to look for logins, it was stacked with other buttons in the middle of the page. It was not too hard to find, but its unusual placement disrupted the interface between taxpayers and tax collectors.

It was a simple fix.

Yet an IRS engineer reportedly estimated that it would take at least 103 days to move the button. 

Thankfully, Elon Musk’s team posted last month on X:

“This engineer worked with the DOGE team to delete the red tape and accomplished the task in 71 minutes.”

If DOGE has revealed anything in its first 100 days, it is the depth of government dysfunction. While Musk’s detractors are reveling in his most obvious shortcoming – to date, it has cut an estimated $160 billion in government spending instead of the promised $2 trillion – the urgent need for reform is clear. The difficulty smart and dedicated cost-cutters are encountering in paring the mounds of federal waste is the canary crying in the coal mine.

To take a favorite word of progressives, the issues we face with government inefficiency are systemic. Fraud and abuse are real problems, but, as the IRS button example shows, the deeper issues involve what passes for standard operating procedure. We have built a leviathan that is strangling us with process.

Fred Kaplan provides a telling example in his New York Review of Books piece on Raj M. Shah and Christopher Kirchhoff’s new book, “Unit X: How the Pentagon and Silicon Valley Are Transforming the Future of War.”

As a U.S. Air Force captain, Shah was flying missions over Iraq in 2006, Kaplan writes, when he noticed that his F16’s display screen did not “indicate his location in relation to coordinates on the ground.” Back in his barracks, Shah loaded a pocket PC he had for playing video games “with digital maps and strapped it to his knee while he flew. The software in that $300 gadget let him see where he was – basic information that the gadgetry on his $30 million plane could not provide.”

A decade later, Shah was tapped to lead a small Pentagon start-up, the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx), that sought to apply Silicon Valley innovations like the pocket PC to the military. An early challenge was coordinating the refueling of planes in midair.

Kaplan wrote that this is a “very complicated task … Yet to plan these operations, they were moving magnetic pucks around on a whiteboard, just as their forebears had done during World War II.”

He continued: “Northrop Grumman had won a contract to overhaul this system; by the time Shah saw the whiteboard, the company had spent $745 million – twice the original estimate – over ten years with nothing to show for it, and the Air Force was now asking Congress for more. ”

Kaplan reports that Shah connected with “a small Silicon Valley firm” that developed “a working product … in four months, at a cost of $1.5 million.” Needless to say, “they faced intense resistance from the Air Force officer managing the Northrop Grumman program and from staffers on the House subcommittee overseeing the defense budget.” Happily, an advocate in the Pentagon brass helped them “break through the blockage.”

No one knows how many $745 million problems can be solved with a $1.5 million solution, but it seems safe to assume that the answer is plenty. As much as DOGE has drawn attention for firing federal workers and closing a few government programs, its most significant contribution has been exposing the jaw-dropping patterns of waste and inefficiency that bloat the size and cost of government.

One more example: On March 21, DOGE reported that “the IRS has the transaction volume of a mid-sized bank, running similar infrastructure. Those banks typically have an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget of ~$20M/yr. The IRS has a ~$3.5B O&M budget (which doesn’t include an additional $3.7B modernization budget).” Keep that in mind when you read the next scaremongering headline about job cuts at the IRS.

Error is inevitable in human action. DOGE has certainly made mistakes. But a bigger blunder is pretending that every government worker and government contract is essential. That is the implicit argument of Musk’s detractors. Even if that risible claim were correct, our current spending trajectory is unsustainable. Something has to give.

Still, there is reason for hope. Instead of just celebrating those who found a way to move a homepage button in 71 minutes, let’s identify and eliminate the layers of bureaucracy that would have turned it into a 103-day ordeal. If software engineers can solve Pentagon problems on the cheap, let’s compile and void a list of stupidly expensive contracts – before increasing its annual budget north of $1 trillion. It can be done.

This effort might even be bipartisan. As the Trump administration has proposed funding cuts to scientific research, his opponents have argued this will kneecap one of America’s greatest strengths: our unrivalled ingenuity and know-how. Why don’t we all agree to use that dynamism to create a government as smart and effective as our nation?

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) launched into a conspiracy-laden diatribe over the 2024 presidential election results, suggesting subpoena power would be necessary to discern whether foreign adversaries—with an assist from Department of Government Efficiency leader Elon Musk—stole the race for President Donald Trump.

“Elon Musk has done nothing in the last five months to make me think that we shouldn’t ask questions about what the hell he was doing in 2024,” Swalwell said on a recent podcast, uncovered by Breitbart News, when asked about an alleged U.S. data leaked through Elon Musk’s Starlink services.  

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) stokes 2024 election denial on a far-left podcast (check the host’s shirt) and vows to use “subpoena power” on @elonmusk about whether Starlink gave election data to the Russians if Democrats win the midterms

“Elon Musk has done nothing in the last 5… pic.twitter.com/mt35ud4OKA

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) May 1, 2025

“Maybe we gave him too much of the benefit of the doubt after the election, but the way that he’s conducted himself with DOGE, and the way that he’s exposed us to so many hackers outside, and the way that he’s taken data, you know, from Americans, from our records — whether it’s Social Security or health care records, the only way that we can understand, you know, what the hell Elon Musk has been doing is to be in the majority,” the the lawmaker added, emphasizing that Democrats regaining a House majority to secure subpoena power would be a critical step in determining whether interference occurred in the 2024 election.

Swalwell’s rhetoric isn’t new. Back in 2016, he was a vocal proponent of the now-debunked narrative that Russia colluded with Trump to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Swalwell pushed investigations into Trump’s campaign ties to Russia, citing contacts with Russian operatives and the DNC email hacks. “The Russians wanted Donald Trump to win, and they took steps to make that happen,” he told CNN in 2019, referencing the Mueller Report. Critics, however, note the report found no evidence of direct collusion.

Swalwell previously faced intense scrutiny due to his past ties to Christine Fang, a suspected Chinese spy who targeted up-and-coming U.S. politicians. According to a 2020 Axios investigation, Fang, also known as Fang Fang, operated in the Bay Area from 2011 to 2015, cultivating relationships with local leaders who had potential to rise on the national stage. She reportedly engaged in sexual relationships with at least two Midwestern mayors to gain influence. Fang acted as a “bundler” for Swalwell’s 2014 congressional campaign, raising significant funds while he was a Dublin, California, city councilmember. She also attended events with Swalwell, including a 2013 Lunar New Year banquet and a 2012 student event at CSU East Bay, as documented in photos uncovered by Axios.

Fang’s activities raised red flags with the FBI, which had been monitoring her as part of a broader counterintelligence operation targeting Chinese espionage. She abruptly fled the U.S. in 2015 amid the FBI’s investigation, leaving unanswered questions about her influence. While Swalwell’s office claimed he cooperated with authorities and cut ties with Fang upon learning of the probe, critics argue his association with her casts doubt on his judgment—especially as he now accuses others of foreign collusion.

Projection much, Swalwell?