Alan Ramo

I would like the bombing to stop, but tactically, if the US govt. goal is to destroy the nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, how can it do so without boots on the ground given Iran's underground and hardened facilities? That's why I worry there will be ground troops landing in Iran.

Proximity to nuclear power plants associated with increased cancer mortality | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health U.S. counties located closer to operational nuclear power plants have higher rates of cancer mortality than those located farther away, according to a new Harvard Chan School study.

hsph.harvard.edu/news/proximi...

It will be interesting to see how the repeal of the Endangerment Finding will affect this case. If the Federal Clean Air Act, as argued by EPA, no longer addresses greenhouse gases, these cases should not be preempted.

@volts Correct in a normal legal system. Supreme Ct. in Mass. v EPA (2007) said Clean Air Act includes greenhouse gases. Ct. normally assumes if this were wrong, Congress will correct. But note, none of the Mass. majority are on the court now. Three dissenters still are, plus 3 Trump appointees.

SCOTUS, in its current instantiation, will very significantly stand in the way of a Dem administration bringing in new regulations.

Scams, Schemes, Ruthless Cons: The Untold Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich

Exhaustive reporting finds that his wealth was from scamming many prominent people; so why did he get away with it (many scammed were not involved with the sex trafficking) www.nytimes.com/2025/12/16/m...

Every case after Roe v. Wade upheld the abortion right , including Roberts, until overruled. Every case upheld the Voting Rights Act, until reversed. I appreciate statutory stare decisis may save EPA's authority, but this Court w/3 Mass v. EPA dissenters and 3 Trump judges is aggressive.

Why are environmentalists so confident about defeating the endangerment finding rejection in the US Supreme Ct. when all the majority in Massachusetts v. EPA are gone, Roberts, current Chief Justice, dissented joined by current justices Alito & Thomas. Will 2 of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett keep it?

The Bay Area’s most-fined air polluters: Explore 10 years of environmental violations We scoured Bay Area Air District records to find out who the worst violators are. The biggest offender blew the competition away.

"The SF Bay Area’s most-fined air polluters: Explore 10 years of environmental violations" - Berkeleyside, a local news site, says Valero, Chevron and Tesore were fined the most. www.berkeleyside.org/2026/01/29/b...

As Trump Destroys Climate Programs, Gates Warns ‘Market Forces’ Not Enough The billionaire also said the world needs to put more of an emphasis on adapting to global warming as impacts worsen.

My latest for @bloomberg.com

www.bloomberg.com/news/article...

Treaties to become law in the US must be approved by the Senate and the President, which this treaty was. Whether a future President can simply withdraw without Senate consent is uncertain. I would like to see more discussion about it.

Obama did not have a US Supreme Court majority ready to back him, a Democrat, exercising Trump's view of executive power.

Big "IF".

Yes, but, my understanding is that the NATO countries must unanimously find an attack has occurred. A Trump led US can veto the finding an attack has occured. Even if the US agreed, individual countries determine what response if any is required.

When I was doing law school admissions, there was a correlation, though not strong, between LSAT scores and law school performance. A stronger correlation when adding in undergraduate GPA. Even stronger correlation w/ bar passage. But little if any evidence between LSAT+GPA w/ attorney performance.

Reading it now. Very engrossing, to say the least. Important history that echoes in importance today. Thanks for writing it.

it Is crazy to me that they call themselves climate advocates while demanding people support oil and gas. So gross.

But do not claim, @jessedjenkins.com, that these strategies have "failed" & "will fail." Because that's a bogus, lazy generalization that can be said of every strategy designed to address (at least in part) the climate crisis, including the Inflation Reduction Act.

"Climate pollution is a justice issue for a host of reasons, including the disproportionate impact of the local co-pollutants on marginalized groups ... [C]limate vulnerability, for example, to extreme weather events, is [also] higher among marginalized groups."

Cancer risk may increase with proximity to nuclear power plants | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health In Massachusetts, residential proximity to a nuclear power plant was associated with significantly increased cancer incidence, with risk declining by distance, according to a new Harvard Chan School s...

The researchers state findings show "the importance of acknowledging & addressing nuclear energy’s health impacts, particularly at a time when its expansion is being promoted as a solution to climate change." hsph.harvard.edu/news/cancer-risk-may-increase-with-proximity-to-nuclear-power-plants/

Behind Newsom’s U-turn on nuclear Behind Newsom’s U-turn on nuclear

How politics, lobbying, money and value judgments affect energy planning and decision-making
eedition.sfchronicle.com/infinity/art...

Yet, from NEPA adoption to the present, US GDP continued to steadily grow. Somehow projects & the economy moved forward. The far more profound restraints on the economy/ projects, have been depressions, epidemics, flawed financial investments and products, not process, & on the plus side, wars.

The big problem with NEPA reform -- which I'd like to see NEPA reformers grapple with a bit more -- is that if you open the thing up, most of the legislators doing the "reforming" are hostile to it & just want to get rid of env. review entirely. It's not a good-faith process.

"Dems must pivot to energy affordability and also embrace nuclear power" is a take I've read several times just today, and not a single time did the author pause to contemplate the dissonance.

Senator Kelly is correct.

Plus a Public Service Announcement:

KEY section of Department of Defense's Law of War Manual is 18.3.2.1.

The VERY rule on the "requirement" to refuse illegal orders gives as its paradigmatic example of what is "clearly illegal:
"orders to fire upon the shipwrecked."

2/2 link:

Statement of the “Former JAGs Working Group” on Media Reports of Pentagon “No Quarter” Orders in Caribbean Boat Strikes

www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/u...

• If the U.S. military operation to interdict and destroy suspected narcotraFicking vessels is a “non-international armed conflict,” as the Trump Administration suggests, orders to “kill everybody,” which can reasonably be regarded as an order to give “no quarter,” and to “double-tap” a target in order to kill survivors, are clearly illegal under international law. In short, they are war crimes. • If the U.S. military operation is not an armed conflict of any kind, these orders to kill helpless civilians clinging to the wreckage of a vessel our military destroyed would subject everyone from SECDEF down to the individual who pulled the trigger to prosecution under U.S. law for murder.

Highlighted sentence at the end of the document reads: Again, the bottom line is that, since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are “patently illegal,” anyone who issues or follows such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both.

Former US military lawyers speak out:

"The Former JAGs Working Group unanimously considers both the giving and the execution of these orders, if true, to constitute war crimes, murder, or both."

Statement on Media Reports of Pentagon “No Quarter” Orders in Caribbean Boat Strikes

1/2

A purple air map showing hazardous air quality in the East Bay

Bad day for anyone who breathes air in Oakland & the East Bay. Remember to mask up if you go outside & also help dismantle the fossil fuel dependency which leads to dangerous air and an unstable climate