Daily Archives: 27 November 2024

The ICC and a Dream Defense Team

Posted on by
Reply

Alan Dershowitz, a defense lawyer of some skill and renown, as well as a Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus, is assembling a dream team of defense lawyers to defend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant against the scurrilous charges of the International Court of Justice and associated ICC international arrest warrants.

The question is what would be the point. That Dershowitz’ team will make a strong—essentially irrefutable—legal case against the ICC is neither here nor there. The ICC has already arrived at its guilty verdict, as demonstrated by its continued use of a well-known Israel hater as the court’s lead prosecutor in this sham case.

This is why the case must be mounted anyway:

It will also be tried in the court of public opinion, both in the US and throughout the world.

However.

Even with resounding acquittal in that public court, the ICC’s guilty verdict will stand as the “official” outcome. This will necessitate physical protections for Netanyahu and Gallant against those arrest warrants, which will remain extant. The only way to get those undone is to disband the ICC, which has irretrievably poisoned itself, with those charges and arrest warrants, as a court of justice.

Why Would We Want To?

Posted on by
Reply

Toyota Motor North America’s COO, Jack Hollis, has a plan for how Trump Can Get EVs Back on Track. The question is why would Trump, or any of us average Americans, want to? Hollis’ subheadline is promising:

Ditch the mandates and subsidies. Let consumer choice drive the market.

Then he goes off the rails.

Our approach provides consumers with many choices: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel-cell electric, and battery-electric vehicles. We believe this is the best way to achieve meaningful emissions reductions while meeting customer needs.

What about the emissions from mining, transporting, smelting, transporting, transforming into relevant parts, transporting, assembling into the final vehicle that occur in the production of lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper—and all that oil that’s used for plastic materials production?

What about the other forms of pollution—from mining to spent battery disposal: all those tailings, the handling of those intrinsically toxic metals (lithium, cobalt, nickel, even copper), the pollution of landfills by all that lithium, cobalt, nickel in those spent batteries?

What about the false claim that atmospheric CO2—plant food—is a pollutant in the first place? That’s never addressed except via the pseudo-science of an erstwhile head of the EPA; this is an underlying assumption that is made only tacitly and conclusorily?

All of these are blithely elided by the pushers of EVs and the punishers of internal combustion engine-powered vehicles.

I haven’t even gotten to the need to expand our electric grid to support the demands a sound EV market would impose. We need to expand, upgrade, and harden our electric grid, along with our electricity production capabilities, for a whole host of reasons beyond just supporting battery-charging.

That brings me back to my opening question: why would we want to put EVs on any sort of track, much less on Hollis’ original one? Ditch the mandates and subsidies, and let consumer choice drive the market, indeed. Add into the free market decision that heretofore omitted information regarding the intrinsically destructive nature of EV production and disposal.

The Left loves to talk about externalities and the need for pricing them into the final product—except when that’s inconvenient to their demands on the rest of us.