Archive for science

acknowledge reality? it’s tough, sometimes.

Consider the war against smoking – tobacco – but not pot. Maybe that has something to do with it as many in the press seem to be high on something.

A newspaper editor confronts AP over fake news by Thomas Lifson – “The story of how much time and effort it took is expressive of how deep the biases against President Trump go.” cites Frank Miele as a must read. It provides a good insight into the insidious propaganda the president faces.

“Then I broached the topic of the “falsehoods” that the president was supposedly passing along willy-nilly. I pointed out that the reporter’s claim of finding such “falsehoods” amounted to planting evidence as she substituted Trump’s actual language (“Clinton Puppets”) with her own imaginary language (“Clinton”) and then established conclusively that Trump had not proven what he had never said in the first place.

Let the reader beware. Eternal vigilance is the price of not just liberty, but also truth.

Another example is 2017: The year angry populists rose to the top — and fell on their faces by the Washington Examiner – “Just in the past week, some of the vacuous populists have revealed the emptiness and ultimate impotence of their anger.” The word “anger” is used over and over again in the opinion. Any reader who is vigilant will look around to find that anger and only see it in opposition to the ‘populist movement’ that has “actually won a national election and gained real political power.” i.e. the ‘anger’ in the opinion piece is a fabrication of the writer’s warped perceptions.

Or consider this: “With Trump’s inauguration this year, this destruction-only populism gained real power. And with nothing left to destroy, it took down itself.” Who is it that is attempting to destroy to nothing by blocking government reform and the restoration of law? Who is rioting in the streets? Who is promoting evidence absent scandal and blocking evidence laden scandal?

Confronting this sort of bias is what prompted Miele to take one small step.

The Times Diversion by Scott Johnson provides another example – “In collusion news today, the New York Times has devoted six reporters to producing the “news” that the previously obscure Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos lies at the heart of the putative case.”

“I think the story is ludicrous on its face. The Times has served as a prime purveyor of the Trump/Russia hysteria. Yet reality has deflated it. Now the Times returns to pump it up. The names have changed, but the song remains the same.

How can any informed observer take this seriously? We await the disclosure of genuine evidence rather than obvious spin.

Betsy Newmark leads with another example – “With limited reporting out of Iran and misleading stories from some major media outlets, Twitter has actually become almost indispensable in following the story since we can see videos of the protests with translations of what people are chanting.”

Trump Is Right About the Obamacare Insurance Mandate by David Catron – “Its elimination won’t kill the law overnight, but it is definitely a poison pill.” This was a Congressional correction to a case where SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts twisted himself in knots that provides another example of trying to distort reality in allegations of lies. The deceit in trying to support such allegations is astounding.

“Trump merely reiterated the oft-stated opinion of countless Obamacare supporters concerning the mandate’s importance to the success of “reform.” Yet the very people who have repeatedly warned us that repealing the individual mandate would kill “reform” suddenly executed a vertigo-inducing pirouette.

President Trump was widely ridiculed by the left for his remark and the “ignorance” it revealed concerning Obamacare. And, of course, the intrepid “fact checkers” at PolitiFact joined the chorus by braying: “We rate Trump’s claim False.” But if the President is wrong, what about Professor Chemerinsky? Is he making a “false” claim when he describes the mandate’s demise thus:

In other words, as President Trump’s remark reminded everyone, a three-legged stool can’t stand on two legs.

It Is Time To Pull The Plug On Never-Trumpism by John Hinderaker – “As President Trump’s first year in office draws to a close, even the Democrats have been forced to admit that he has accomplished quite a lot.”

“I agree that from a particular point of view, a conservative can rationally be a Never Trumper. It requires a belief that the tone of our politics is important, and that the president contributes greatly toward setting that tone. I am fine with those views. But it requires something more: a belief that the tone (or style) issue is so important that it outweighs all of the policy fronts on which the Trump administration has moved the conservative ball forward.

To come to this conclusion requires, I think, a certain disconnection from reality. The Never Trumper cannot take seriously the possibility that North Korea might drop a nuclear bomb on San Francisco. He cannot find much to worry about in Iran’s potential domination over the Middle East. He must be blind to the critical difference between 1.5% economic growth and 3% economic growth, not to the nation’s elites, who will be fine either way, but to the middle class. He must fail to apprehend the dire threat to the rule of law posed by politicians, professors and–most important–judges who despise the Constitution and believe that law is merely another avenue for the exercise of power. The list goes on.

In short, Never Trumpism can make sense only if you don’t take seriously the importance of the issues with which the president grapples, and on which President Trump has made, I think, remarkable progress in the last 11 months.

It is time for the Never Trumpers to gain a sense of perspective, to throw in the towel, and to acknowledge reality.

NASA’s Rubber Ruler: An Update By Randall Hoven – “When you go to the NASA website, you can download temperature anomalies “1880-present.” But those data change every month.” NASA isn’t media but the same phenomena of distortion and deceit is still evident.

“NASA adjusts it. You cannot find any older versions. NASA makes available only its most recent version. And NASA does not explain how it adjusts the data. You must simply trust it.

I still have the data from 2012 only because I downloaded them to a spreadsheet and kept that spreadsheet.

How does one validate a climate model using temperature observations, if those “observations” were themselves adjusted using models? Real science means using the scientific method, which means using physical measurements to test a hypothesis.

The simple explanation is that NASA is reversing that method. It apparently uses the global warming hypothesis to adjust physical measurements. That is not science. It is the opposite of science.

The “temperature record” is not a record of thermometer readings. It is a summary of what government-funded people with science degrees think is OK for us to see.

“Raw water”: The latest dangerous “natural health” fad by David Gorski – “As an old year fades into its final days and a new year approaches, I always wonder what new quackery will make an appearance in the new year.”

“In pseudoscience, the naturalistic fallacy is everywhere. It’s not surprising, then, that there is profit to be made selling “raw” (i.e., untreated) water at very high prices for its nonexistent health benefits, those benefits all claimed to be due to the “naturalness” of the water. I can’t help but note that cholera, Giardia, amoebic dysentery, and a wide variety of waterborne illnesses prevented by modern water treatment techniques are all very, very “natural.”

Thanks to the New York Times the other day, I might know. It’s variant of many forms of pseudoscience based on the naturalistic fallacy (i.e., that if it’s “natural” it must be better, safer, and healthier, and that many of humanity’s health most intractable health issues are due to the products of modernity, such as industry and pesky public health measures that protect against disease, such as vaccines, pure water, and pasteurization), but it’s also yet another variety of a common form of nonsense that I like to refer to as water woo.

White House Press Secretary triggers haters with shotgun photo by Karen Townsend – “The woman is learning to master her Twitter account and the left falls for it every time.”

“One of the reasons I appreciate Sarah Huckabee Sanders as press secretary is her ability to set off her critics, which inevitably does not end well for them. It seems a well-rounded Southern woman brings out the worst of the left. The first working mom to hold the title of White House Press Secretary also bakes and shoots skeet. I like that.

She’s got a master for a mentor.

Leave a Comment

Not even moral?

This is a case not often made. Avoiding GMOs isn’t just anti-science. It’s immoral By Mitch Daniels — 

“Of the several claims of “anti-science” that clutter our national debates these days, none can be more flagrantly clear than the campaign against modern agricultural technology, most specifically the use of molecular techniques to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Here, there are no credibly conflicting studies, no arguments about the validity of computer models, no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.

And yet a concerted, deep-pockets campaign, as relentless as it is baseless, has persuaded a high percentage of Americans and Europeans to avoid GMO products, and to pay premium prices for “non-GMO” or “organic” foods that may in some cases be less safe and less nutritious. 
 …
This is the kind of foolishness that rich societies can afford to indulge. But when they attempt to inflict their superstitions on the poor and hungry peoples of the planet, the cost shifts from affordable to dangerous and the debate from scientific to moral.
 …
It’s not that the legitimate scientific community doesn’t understand the seriousness of the problem or the distortions of the naysayers. But too many keep what they know to themselves or, when they engage, observe the Marquis of Queensbury rules in what is essentially a street brawl. One can understand their reticence, facing an aggressive, often self-interested anti-GMO lobby that is indifferent to the facts and quick with ad hominem attacks.

The zealotry, tactics, and blindness as described here are all common traits seen in arguments like this, arguments that can only be sustained by a wealth that minimizes direct experience with the reality of the phenomena. 

 

Leave a Comment

Evidence? We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!

‘Junk science’? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire by Fred Lucas – “Scientific studies used by the Obama administration to help justify tough environmental regulations are coming under intensifying scrutiny, with critics questioning their merit.” Climate Catastrophe isn’t the only subject showing these behaviors that are worthy of skepticism.

In October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive to ensure that individuals serving on EPA advisory committees don’t get EPA grants and are free from potential conflicts of interest.

“Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn’t be political science,” Pruitt said in a statement. “From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.”

Environmental groups blasted the decision.

Pruitt has become one of the most controversial members of the Trump administration in its first year, cast by his detractors as battling the kinds of regulations his agency is supposed to be upholding. But his office suggests many of those rules were flawed from the start.

Here’s a look at some of the most controversial studies behind those regulations: …

Democrats’ case for Trump-Russia grand conspiracy crumbles with lack of evidence by Rowan Scarborough – “Mr. Schiff’s acknowledgment that collusion “still remains to be seen” shows that nearly a year after the House intelligence panel began its investigation, Democrats are left with a relatively small list of Trump campaign-Russia contacts on which to base a grand conspiracy.”

“The roster of contacts, some of them apparently innocuous, is a far cry from charges in the infamous Russia-Trump dossier. Paid with funds from the Democratic Party, writer Christopher Steele, a former British spy, told of a supposed “extensive conspiracy between Trump’s campaign team and the Kremlin.”

Mr. Schiff eagerly read Mr. Steele’s felony accusations into the record. Those charges remain unproven, the FBI has told congressional investigators, 17 months after it opened a counterintelligence probe that relied on the dossier. Republicans in Congress also say the dossier’s core collusion charges remain unproven.

For example, there has been no public evidence, as claimed by Mr. Steele, that Trump associates and Russian intelligence worked together to hack the Democrats and spread stolen emails.

Donald Trump is not attacking the FBI, even as he attacks the FBI by James A. Gagliano – “There is something purposely inaccurate about how some in certain media circles are attempting to frame the “battle royale” ongoing between the president of the United States and the world’s premier law enforcement agency — the FBI.” Gagliano demonstrates the phenomena himself in his post by the manner in which he describes and judges the president: “considerable ego is at war” – “impulsively” – “infuriated” – “loathsome” – these tell you very clearly that Gagliano is “no fan of Trump” and is in dire need of checking his perceptions and getting in touch with his inner self. The post does have a good rundown that clarifies that the media headlines are incorrect and that the issue is with selected leadership in the FBI for good reason and not with the organization itself.

“In the immortal words of Arsenio Hall, these are things that can fairly make a reasonable person go “Hmmm…”

Stage four of Trump Derangement Syndrome: Identifying the progress of a disease by Thomas Lifson – “Like AIDS three decades ago, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a new ailment, whose full course of development is as yet unknown.”

“Progressives love to adopt what they call a “public health perspective” on things they oppose, such as possession of a firearm. This results in pediatricians asking parents if they have a gun in their house, among other oddities. Two can play that game. It is time to face the mass psychosis that has swept the at-risk population of the nation since the election of Donald Trump as president.

It is pretty clear that the first stages of TDS include: … Denial … Anger … Shunning … Conversion …

Is there any recovery possible when TDS reaches this late stage? Does it permanently disable perception and logic?

The Mueller Test And The Paper Civil War On Trump by Daniel Greenfield – “A last ditch effort by the establishment to wrest control from the president.”

“New York and California’s #resistance apparatchiks aren’t rejecting the authority of Federal judges. They’re turning to them and relying on them. Instead they’re rejecting the authority of elected Federal officials. Their secession isn’t Federal, it’s democratic. They want a strong central government. They just aren’t willing to allow the American people to decide who gets to run it.

That’s what the civil war is about.

Will the American people govern themselves? Or will Mueller, Schneiderman, Watson, Yates and ten thousand other elites with law degrees be allowed to turn elections into a meaningless farce?

Government by litigation and investigation shifts power away from voters to lawyers. What was meant to be a last resort for redressing serious violations instead becomes the primary test for holding political office. When investigation and litigation become more powerful tools than en election, then a politician must court the political legal class ahead of the country’s voters and put his obligations to them first.

That intended outcome is also the cause of the conflict.

There is a big problem when a major part of the country’s citizenship does not even honor adherence to established law or the reality of evidence and puts political preference above any other consideration.

Leave a Comment

Woke Conservatives in a civilized society

The Politics of Meaningless Words By Sarah Hoyt – “Sometimes talking to leftists could better be accomplished with interpretive dance routines, or perhaps by miming our meaning.”

“The fact that these believers in “science” see as the only solution the establishment of socialism and strict government control over the lifestyle of the masses means they don’t believe in science, they believe in socialism. Which, granted, at one time was also called “scientific” with even less justification than computer models.

As for “no human being is illegal” it is on the face of it demonstrably false.

The sign bothered me for weeks because to someone who is a trained linguist, as I am, and who spent her youth studying not just languages but the mechanics of language, this was the equivalent of someone running around with a t-shirt that said: “I believe in semantic incoherence.”

But I didn’t think of the root of the trouble until I was recently involved in a (what else?) Facebook argument with someone who was clearly leftist.

But it leaves them as an impossible partner — or even opponent — in a representative democracy. It’s impossible to argue concepts such as “least harm” with people who are making noises to which they attach no fixed meaning.

Until they decide to join the human race — known for its use of language, among other things — it leaves us in the odd position of shouting across the political chasm “Second word, rhymes with “huff it”” and “Stomp your foot once for yes, twice for no.”

Moody’s Climate Change Delusion by Justin Haskins and H. Sterling Burnett – “Coastal cities and towns across the United States are now facing significant pressure from Moody’s Investors Service, one of the world’s most important credit agencies, to battle climate change.”

“If the evidence were to clearly show that future climate change is inevitably going to create additional extreme weather events and damage to coastal areas, then Moody’s analysis would make perfect sense. Increased risks should be met with more preparedness.

However, the climate change assumptions Moody’s has built into its forecasts aren’t based on the existing evidence, which shows dire extreme weather events have not substantially increased in recent years.

Moody’s is basing its analysis of future climate change risks on the credit agency’s commitment to climate change alarmist dogma, not on scientific data, and this isn’t the first time it’s happened.

By coercing communities to spend billions more to prepare for natural disasters that may never come, Moody’s is attempting to impose its climate change fantasies on the millions of American families who would have to shoulder the burden of added government costs made to prevent a downgraded credit rating.

Rather than indulge in climate alarmist fiction, Moody’s should instead stick to what the available data actually reveals when creating its credit assessments.

Woke Conservatives And The Awesome Power Of Not Caring by Kurt Schlichter – “Have you noticed that if you fail to do, think, and vote exactly the way that the liberals and their Fredocon minions demand, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids?”

“And you’ve probably also realized that if you do everything that the liberals and their Never Trump minions demand, you’re still a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids.

When you understand that, you’re on your way to being conservative woke.

And when you’re conservative woke, you’re ready to deploy the most powerful non-bullet firing weapon in your liberty-loving arsenal – your devastating capability not to give a damn what the liberals and their Conservative, Inc., cruise-shilling Benedict Arnold buddies say.

They hate you. Govern yourself accordingly.

John Hinderaker A Stain On America [with comment by Paul] and More Global Warming Fraud: This Time, It’s Sea Level – same behavior, different theaters. “It would be a full-time job to keep track of the Democratic Party media’s failed attacks on President Trump and his administration. … Maybe these reporters have been lying for a long time, and we finally have a Republican leader with enough guts to call them on it.” then there’s “Via No Tricks Zone, another instance of fraud perpetrated by global warming alarmists who have charge of data. This time, they are changing sea level measurements to make it appear that sea level is rising abnormally, when it isn’t.”

Net neutrality is communism, nationalization by Luboš Motl – “Skillful data transmission engineers need to be appreciated, rewarded, have the freedom to profit from their contributions according to their business plans.”

“The leftists are obviously insensitive to the difference between the shared ownership and the private ownership because they would ideally love to abolish the latter altogether. So they are already thinking about the ISPs as if they were assets controlled by some left-wing parties or NGOs, something that these harmful parasites have already successfully stolen. But in a civilized society, nothing like that should be allowed.

Civilized society?

Leave a Comment

An innocent victim, a guilty fantasy.

Kate Steinle and the Globalists By Susan D. Harris – “From Gonzalez’s characterization, it seems to me that the Steinle verdict was payback for a Trump presidency, and setting a murderer free for political payback is such an egregious act, it’s nearly inconceivable.”

“For now, all we can say is, “We tried, Kate.” Yet we must also add that such a miscarriage of justice has only sharpened our seething teeth against Soros organizations and progressives across this country that are willing to legalize murder in some deluded effort to promote social justice, peace and harmony.

The Unintended Consequences of the Steinle Decision By Roger L Simon – “the real villains in the Kate Steinle story are the San Francisco politicians who made the rules that prevented ICE from removing the already five-time deported criminal Zarate from the country.”

“A final area of interest is the jury system itself. Who were these people that made this decision? Supposedly, they came to the trial unbiased by (or ignorant of) the massive press coverage of this murder. Is that possible? Did they lie? Was this another case of jury nullification like the O.J. trial?

It will be interesting to see in the days to come.

Mark Steyn: Steinle Verdict a ‘Miscarriage of Justice’ in the Profoundest Sense By Debra Heine – “A jury found Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a 48-year-old illegal immigrant, not guilty on charges ranging from involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder — even though he admitted to shooting Steinle.”

Kate Steinle’s Killer Acquitted by Patterico – “I didn’t see the trial, so I don’t know if the verdict was rational or irrational. However, only in the last few days did I learn some facts that made it sound like a tough case. It was a single ricochet shot off pavement. The interview was poorly conducted and failed to clearly establish that he pulled the trigger, due to a translation issue. I am not shocked by the verdict and it may be right.” But that highlights the real source of the outrage which is the authorities in San Francisco and how they handled the case and its precursors.

Kate Steinle’s accused killer found not guilty on all but one count of possession of a firearm by John Sexton – “Garcia Zarate’s defense attorney contended the shooting was accidental.”

“Zarate’s other attorney, Francisco Ugarte was more blunt. “From day one this case was used as a means to foment hate, to foment division and to foment the threat of mass deportation,” he said. He added, “He was used to catapult the presidency along that philosophy of hate. And I believe today is a vindication for the rights of immigrants.”

Projection? Then try Ezra Klein for a “philosophy of hate” and how to “foment division.”

Vox: Don’t fear impeachment, normalize it by John Sexton – “Vox’s Ezra Klein published a lengthy piece Thursday arguing in favor of impeachment, at least in general.”

“I don’t know that America would get into a shooting war over Trump’s impeachment but it would certainly raise the prospects enormously. Many Americans would rightly see it as a left-wing power grab. Indeed, many American must already suspect all the talk about it is just that. And once that norm is wiped away, just as Democrats eliminated the filibuster for most votes in the Senate, you can bet that the next time Republicans control the Congress and face off with a Democratic president, he will be impeached as well. The cycle will perpetuate with each party pointing to the prior misdeeds of the other as justification for firing another torpedo at the sitting president. And somewhere in Russia, Vladimir Putin will be sitting back and laughing as he admires the collapse of American Democracy.

Simply put, this is a horrible, very bad precedent for Democrats to set. It is everything they warned against when Trump briefly seemed to refuse to accept the outcome of the election in advance. It’s no surprise to me that Klein can’t see what a blatantly partisan move this is. But be assured he’ll feel differently when the wrecking ball he has unleashed starts swinging back in his direction.

Did the NFL fumble a deal with players over anthem protests? By Ed Morrissey – “The league has committed to paying almost $90 million over the next seven years to support the players’ political and social agenda after a series of meetings with their representatives. In return, the league gets … nothing.” The NFL has now become the League of SJW. Football and sportsmanship be damned.

“For almost two years, the NFL has gotten hammered by fans and politicians over player protests during the national anthem, and commissioner Roger Goodell has been looking for a way to get players to end them for most of this season. The stakes could not be higher; two weeks ago, Outkick the Coverage’s Clay Travis — a big critic of the protests — claimed that the league and its partners could lose $500 million this year alone from erosion in TV ratings

What has the NFL managed to produce in this deal? Owners will spend $90 million to fund an effort by players to make the game more political. Weren’t they getting that for free with the current anthem protests? Don’t any of these owners know how to negotiate at all?

From an Angry Reader: So, let me get this this rig… by Victor Davis Hanson – setting the record on the NFL SJW rights, responsibilities, … and consequences.

Thoughts From The Ammo Line – “Ammo Grrrll looks out upon the land and sees LOOPNER NATION.”

“Men lie. Women lie. Children lie like rugs. Rose McGowan I believe. Ms. Tweeden I believe, even without the grotesque photographic evidence. But I have grave doubts about some of the #MeTooers. Mark my words: Turning America into a perpetual Salem Witch Hunt where any man can be destroyed just by accusations of incidents that allegedly happened 40 years earlier and can never be disproved will not end well. Ask not for whom the 10, 20, 30-year-old sexual assault accusation tolls, my brothers; it tolls for thee.

Liberals Attack Sen. Cotton For Wanting to Enforce the Law by John Hinderaker – “This is quite bizarre. Most people expect, and want, the CIA director to protect national security secrets.”

“One would also expect that he would want the Espionage Act enforced, so as to protect our troops and our agents in the field. Yet liberals apparently think that Senator Tom Cotton is disqualified from the office because he called for enforcement of federal laws when their violation by reporters at the New York Times endangered his troops in Iraq.

This is one more sign that craziness on the Left has burst all bounds.

An ugly new paper shows why the climate policy debate is broken By Larry Kummer – “An important (but fatally flawed) new peer-reviewed paper about climate change reveals much about climate science, the public policy debate, and the role of science institutions in America.” What is interesting is to compare this critique with those in climatista blogs condemning papers they don’t like. But then some of the criticisms of this paper highlights those methods.

“This paper follows the forms of science without its substance. In this respect is resembles pseudoscience more than science.

This paper demonstrates the often discussed institutional failures in modern science. Papers whose claims are easily disproven. Sloppy peer review. Politicization. These are the elements creating the replication crisis, slowly spreading through the science (details here). That would have been a small problem in 1817, but is one we cannot afford in 2017.

Let’s hope that scientists begin institutional reforms as soon as possible. The rot seen in this paper, directed as it is at a major public policy issue, can have ugly repercussions.

Scientifically Illiterate America by Henry I. Miller – “above all, science is a method to ensure that experiments and the data derived from them are reproducible and valid.”

Another equally worrisome trend is the increasing frequency of publishing of flawed advocacy research that is designed to give a false result to support a certain cause or position and can be cited by activists long after the findings have been discredited. The articles describing such “experiments” are often found in the predatory open-access journals.

Non-scientists are likely to be fooled or manipulated by such claims because scientific illiteracy runs deep. … Such widespread illiteracy has an impact on policy.

However, even when the science is sound and the data are “meaningful,” politicians and government officials commonly ignore them, often in the cause of bureaucratic empire-building, advancing some ideological goal, or capitulating to activists.

The beauty of the scientific method, when done right, is that it protects us from ideology and bias, and helps us understand what is true and what really works. At its best, science can inform sound public policy. But when we ignore or misinterpret science, we move backwards toward a time when irrationality and superstition prevailed.

3 ways to fix end-of-life care by Suneel Dhand, Md – “In no other country in the world would Mrs. Perkins be subject to such intense health care.”

When you sit down with her, she wants nothing more than to spend her remaining time as comfortable and dignified as possible. She doesn’t want to keep being admitted to hospital and doesn’t want to go through unnecessary scanners or be subject to any additional pain or discomfort. It’s time common sense prevailed, and we let her do so, and also shape our health care system to help her do so as well.

Too often, there is no guide for medical intervention other than ‘any cost to save a life’ and this may not be what the patient or the family desire. But nobody knows this unless it has been discussed and desires recorded. While there is some effort in this area, Dr. Dhand points out that the emphasis may be a bit lower in priority than it ought to be.

Leave a Comment

Where you live? Why? CFPB and matters of control

Choosing political bias over economic reality By Richard W. Rahn – “The debate about the tax rate cut proposal shows this same reality disconnect.”

“Why is it that those who have been right in the past are often ignored, while great attention is paid to those who have been wrong? Many “politically correct” forecasters’ words are accepted as gospel by the media despite dismal records.

The debate about climate change, the minimum wage and the proposals for tax reform illustrate why so many get it wrong.

The debate about the tax rate cut proposal shows this same reality disconnect. Minority party leaders Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer and many of their colleagues claim it is a tax cut for the rich when, in fact, almost all low- and middle-income people will receive a meaningful tax reduction. And yes, in Mrs. Pelosi’s San Francisco and Mr. Schumer’s New York, some of their fellow wealthy constituents might pay higher taxes.

The majority of economists claimed at the time that the economy could not grow nearly as fast as it did after the Reagan tax rate cuts — and they were wrong.

Most economists and even members of the media understand that high taxes on cigarettes and sugary drinks discourage consumption. Why then is it that so many seem to have such a hard time understanding (despite the empirical evidence) that lower tax rates on work, saving and investment will stimulate economic growth and grow the tax base? Why do members of the media (e.g., The New York Times editorial page) give more credence to those who failed in their past predictions than those who got it right? Is it political bias or ignorance of history that causes the reality disconnect?

Denzel Washington on black incarceration: ‘I can’t blame the system,’ ‘it starts in the home’ By Jessica Chasmar – “If the streets raise you, then the judge becomes your mother and prison becomes your home

“According to The New York Daily News, Mr. Washington expanded on his answer when pressed by reporters, saying, “It starts with how you raise your children. If a young man doesn’t have a father figure, he’ll go find a father figure.

“So, you know, I can’t blame the system,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that we make such easy work for them.”

In Draining The CFPB Swamp, Trump Finds Monsters by IBD – update on English v Mulvaney at the CFPB.

“If nothing else, this shows what a monumental, perhaps even Sisyphean, job it will be for Trump to drain Washington’s fetid bureaucratic swamp. It’s not the dirty water so much as the swamp monsters that make it such a perilous task.

Those who work in the CFPB, which was created by the Obama administration in 2010 as the right arm of the financially disastrous regulatory monstrosity known as Dodd-Frank, think of themselves as having a special mission: to regulate every nuance of the U.S. consumer financial world, supposedly to “protect” consumers.

As we’ve said before, the CFPB is basically a rogue agency, with virtually no accountability to Congress or to the American people for that matter. It was designed that way. And no, this is not just a question of governance style; it’s a question of constitutionality, of the rule of law.

In its current form, the CFPB is unconstitutional, as a federal court way back in October of 2016 already ruled.

The mainstream media have largely treated this as a kind of he-said/she-said spat. It’s not. It’s quite serious. If Leandra English can declare herself head of a major U.S. agency, then the chances of truly reasserting control over the administrative state would shrink to near zero.

Why Democrats are to blame for consumer agency debacle By Lorraine Woellert – “The CFPB turmoil highlights how Democrats shunned Republican efforts to broaden its governance to a commission that would have included diverse viewpoints.”

“In truth, the bureau has been mired in controversy since its creation. Warren has built a political career railing against Wall Street. Cordray infuriated industry and inspired lawsuits. And the bureau itself is unique, investing great power in one person with almost no accountability.

It was predictable that such a toxic mix would eventually explode. Now Democrats are facing the consequences of their decision to protect the agency’s powerful independent director. Anybody Trump nominates to replace Cordray will have the ability to undo a lot of his work. On Monday, Mulvaney wasted no time, imposing a regulatory and hiring freeze.

For Democrats, there seemed to be a political strategy.

Richard Cordray Delivers the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Punchline By Ronald L. Rubin – “The CFPB’s first director cared about consumers, but he was consumed by politics.”

“Obama installed Cordray by using an unconstitutional recess appointment, Democrats threatened to change the filibuster rules, and Republicans surrendered.

Perhaps it was this two-year ordeal that turned Cordray into a cynical partisan mercenary. … By 2017, there was no denying the ugly truth. Cordray cared about consumers, but he was consumed by politics.

Warren built a political battleship, and Cordray deployed it. The bureau’s powerful media division dictated policy to its regulatory professionals and relentlessly exaggerated the agency’s achievements in daily press releases and social-media posts. Political operatives used the CFPB’s super-independence to stonewall congressional subpoenas and hide unethical investigation tactics, internal discrimination problems, and other inconvenient facts. Republican critics were dismissed as Wall Street sycophants.

Meanwhile, millions of dollars were diverted from the CFPB to Democratic allies.

Cordray’s sickening stunt left no doubt about the absurdity of claims that he and the CFPB were ever politically independent. For this, we can all give thanks.

Watchdog Finds More Evidence Obama’s EPA Broke Federal Law by Chris White – “Judicial Watch obtained 900 pages of documents Monday showing the EPA used social media to lobby support for the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.”

“Federal law prohibits agencies from engaging in propaganda. It also forbids agencies from using federal resources to conduct grassroots campaigns that prod U.S. citizens into browbeating lawmakers to act on pending legislation.

“The Obama EPA knowingly did an end run around federal law to push another Obama environmental power grab,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a press statement Monday. “These documents show how these Obama-era bureaucrats seem to be more like social activists than public employees.”

“Credible” stories by neo-neocon – “what is with this “credible” business? I’ve seen it over and over to describe the Roy Moore allegations, as well as allegations against other figures in cases in which I don’t find the allegations especially credible although they might be true.”

“Each camp is going on “credible” evidence rather than anything even remotely approaching highly convincing evidence. Much of it is an emotional reaction to the accuser’s tale, and reflects a sort of hubris about our ability to detect a liar vs. a truthteller, based on that emotional reaction (and sometimes an over-identification based on personal experience). Almost any story about anyone can sound “credible” unless it contains obviously fanciful elements that are literally impossible. Are we all now required to believe any allegation by a woman against a man that is not impossible?

Science Moms Fight Fears with Facts by Harriet Hall – “a group of 15 women scientists, bloggers, and educators to send a letter to Paltrow, Gellar, and other celebrities asking them not to co-opt motherhood and wield their fame to oppose beneficial technologies, but to use their influence responsibly and ensure that their advocacy is supported by facts, not fear.” 

At the recent conference of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSICON) in Las Vegas, on October 28, 2017, I had the great privilege and pleasure of being in the audience for the American premiere of a new documentary, Science Moms, as well as for the following live panel discussion by the women featured in the movie. In the documentary, a group of scientists and science communicators who are also moms address misperceptions created by misinformation in the media about GMOs, vaccines, and other issues important to parents. They point out that “moms whose opinions are formed by fear and hype are so loud. But they’re the only people talking about it, the only resource people have.” With this documentary, people now have another resource based on science, a resource that is easily digestible and compelling.

The letter caught the attention of Natalie Newell, the host of “The Science Enthusiast” podcast. She contacted one of the letter’s authors. One thing led to another, and the result was this documentary.

The problem is that fears are irrational and facts aren’t. That’s two different worlds that humans seem to find difficult to move between.

Leave a Comment

You’d think it was the battle for Berlin in 1945

DOJ ruling gives Trump upper hand in fight with Democrats over consumer bureau By Stephen Dinan – this is another example of where Antifa has the wrong target and it is Trump that restoring the power balance described in the U.S. Constitution. You want facism? Here’s how to build it:

“At stake is one of the government’s most powerful positions at the head of the CFPB, which gives its director an incredible amount of independence. Under the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that created the bureau, the director cannot be fired except for good cause, and the CFPB’s budget is entirely independent of Congress and the president, making it impossible to rein the bureau in.

Republicans, who largely voted against the Dodd-Frank law, say the CFPB is not only a bad idea but also illegal. A federal appeals court has agreed with them, ruling the overwhelming power of one individual to be unconstitutional — though that ruling is stayed pending another appeal.

Even Allahpundit gets it – “The idea that a now-former agency head can monarchically pass his scepter to a successor over the president’s objection, making the seat (temporarily) hereditary, is ludicrous.”

“It’s a pander to progressives by a guy who wants to protect his left flank in a Democratic gubernatorial primary. The surest way to earn cheap goodwill from the left is to make a showy gesture of sticking it to Trump. That’s what Cordray did by deputizing English and forcing a court battle. The fact that he’ll lose isn’t the point. The fact that he “fought” Trump is the point.

What makes this especially egregious is how Cordray himself first came to lead the CFPB. “Those defending Cordray’s action apparently believe powerful agency should be headed by someone not nominated by any President [and] not confirmed by any Congress,” tweeted Jonathan Adler this morning.

Unhinged coverage of Trump is hurting the media By Kyle Smith –

“A year ago this week, I marveled at the pot-boiling-over frenzy of Donald Trump Derangement Syndrome in the media. Well, today, the media’s kitchen is a shambles. Spaghetti sauce is splattered all over the walls, and the Fourth Estate is pouring more Prego marinara into the pot while keeping the heat turned up to the level marked “thermonuclear.”

Not only is everything (still) hyper-politicized, but the lines between news media, lifestyle media and flat-out activism have faded into irrelevance.

The culture warriors’ incessant politicization of everything has reached new levels of the ridiculous.

The unhinged coverage of all Trump scandals, real and imagined, has cost the media in the eyes of the public, among whom only 39 percent said they had a “great deal” or even “some” confidence in news outlets last November.

The media are correct in thinking they have an important duty in the Trump era. But the people are correct in noticing that the media is filtering everything through an obsessive hatred for Trump.

For the love of God, why can’t Democrats leave the Little Sisters of the Poor alone? by Nicole Russell – “In an unusual political move, Pennsylvania and California sued the Little Sisters, demanding the same group who won at the Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell provide contraceptives in their state.”

“Sadly Josh Shapiro and Xavier Becerra [attorneys general in Pennsylvania and California, respectively] think attacking nuns is a way to score political points. These men may think their campaign donors want them to sue nuns, but our guess is most taxpayers disagree. No one needs nuns in order to get contraceptives, and no one needs these guys reigniting the last administration’s divisive and unnecessary culture war.”

On the call, I asked how the states were even able to sue the organization, given the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter. Rienzi said it was merely “political grandstanding.” In a follow-up email, Rienzi explained “This is a pretty unusual situation. It’s similar to a collateral attack — filing a second lawsuit to challenge what has already been decided elsewhere. The protection is, and should be, to let the people from the old lawsuit intervene and defend their rights in the new one.”

Let’s hope for the Little Sisters’ sake, these frivolous lawsuits end swiftly and decisively so they can continue their good work.

Ex-Cop Making Roy Moore Harassment Claim Is Leftist, Anti-Moore Opponent By Selwyn Duke – “Faye Gary created quite a stir last week with her comments, though she confessed to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that the claims about Judge Moore were “just rumors” and that “we never got a complaint on it.”

What didn’t come out during her media interview — in which she appeared sober and non-partisan — is that she has an ideological axe to grind with the judge.

After confirming with the City of Gadsden Personnel Office that Gary actually had served as a police officer, I contacted her via a Facebook message. The passion and anger quickly emerged, with Gary making clear she objected to Moore’s stances on homosexuality, Islam and the display of the Ten Commandments.

In fact, the venom leapt from the page. Gary insisted that Moore will, as she put it, “pay for his stance on gays, Muslims and most of all for hiding behind the Ten Commandments for his political gain.” She seemed to be implying that he’ll suffer some kind of divine retribution.

Gary also became vulgar.

Note that none of this means Gary’s claims are or aren’t true. But it hints at her motivation for coming forward and certainly makes her something less than an unimpeachable source.

In addition, the story of Moore’s most damning accuser, Beverly Young Nelson, has already unraveled. Meanwhile, rumor is helping obscure reality.

Glen Reynolds at Instapundit

“But I was pondering the weird behavior of people like Harvey Weinstein and Charlie Rose. This isn’t just about using the power of your position to get women. Instead, there was this weird stuff about walking around naked or in a bathrobe and expecting women to be impressed. So my thought: Instead of exercising traditionally male power, they were trying to exercise the traditionally female power of being desirable and desired. Maybe it’s because they were in industries where that power is especially prominent, but pathetically, they were acting like they hoped someone would find them . . . beautiful.

Also, at Instapundit, on the expression of hate in regards to net neutrality: – “Lefties will regret the precedent: Targeting Ajit Pai’s children, house. I contacted Pai, who confirms this happened, and adds: “Many other issues, too, from specific online threats to the kids to harassment of my wife on her work email accounts.”

The problem of sex By Richard Fernandez – “Commenting on the paralyzing spate of assault accusations roiling the West it seems that the sexual revolution begun in the 1960s has reached the Reign of Terror stage.”

If sex is finished it will be bad news for the human race not simply because homo sapiens, like nearly every other species, relies on it to stave off extinction but because sex has defined humanity hopes and posterity for millenia. … sex forms the bridge between a mortal individual and the immortal species. For generations there has been nothing so masculine as to die for the woman you love.

But like all powerful urges sex was dangerous. Only by taming it was civilization possible. Communities required the invention the family to form and at the family’s core lay the injunction against molesting women within it.

Suddenly a strange thing happened. The increased opportunities for sexual interaction promised by 60s prophets, rather than kicking off an endless party raised the curtain on a darker prospect. The 60s chant “if it feels good, do it” gave way to a new, more fearful phrase: rape culture.

Yale claims to have cured conservatives by turning them into liberals by Jazz Shaw – “With so many articles out there last week preparing people for the horror of having to talk to their “crazy Republican uncle” over Thanksgiving dinner, this announcement seems to have come a bit late.”

“And you wonder why people are increasingly turned off by institutes of higher education. This sort of pseudoscience doesn’t require a post-graduate degree to pick apart. Yale’s starting premise is that people who feel “unsafe” (or afraid) are more likely to adopt conservative viewpoints.

The conflation of immigration with illegal immigration is a hallmark of Democratic political speeches, not cognitive neuroscience. The study’s authors stretch the analogy from there

Putting unrelated information into the minds of survey participants prior to asking questions has a different name in political circles. It’s known as a push poll. Rather than getting an accurate impression of a person’s opinions, you’re poisoning the well in advance to sway their feelings. … This report appears to be little more than a phony attempt to festoon some bits of science onto a liberal, open borders manifesto.

Or, if they insist on traipsing down this particular path, I would suggest assembling a similar group of test subjects and showing them all a picture of Kate Steinle, followed by some grisly scenes of the handiwork of MS-13. Then ask them all about their feelings on immigration issues being sure to include the word “illegal.” Get back to us after you see how that works out. Who knows? You might even cure some liberals for a little while.

The Freddie Gray scorecard by Paul Mirengoff – “In sum, not a single officer was found by an adjudicatory body to have engaged in conduct that warranted punishment. The adjudicators who considered the matter were: a jury, an African-American judge, the police department’s administrative panel, and the police commissioner.”

The only procedure still pending in connection with the Gray case is a federal lawsuit brought by some of the officers against Marilyn Mosby, the city prosecutor, for malicious prosecution and defamation.

This is not a full accounting of the Gray matter, however. The family of Freddie Gray received $6.4 million from the city via a settlement agreed to by Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore’s hack Democratic mayor at the time.

The settlement figure was ridiculously high. Yet, Baltimore would have gotten off cheaply if that had been the sole price. Indeed, the city would have gotten off fairly cheaply if the only other price had been the riots that Mayor Rawlings in a sense invited after Gray’s death.

Instead, Baltimore suffered a huge upswing in violent crime, thanks to the unwillingness of its Democratic politicians to stand behind the police. Baltimore’s current mayor admits that violent crime is “out of control.”

And a quarterback is teaching the NFL to kneel to refute these findings and this history.

The Ultimate In Pettiness by John Hinderaker – “Perhaps you have heard about “Piegate.” It started when Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted a photo of a pie that she baked for Thanksgiving

Ryan kept the “controversy” going with numerous retweets of claims that Sanders didn’t really bake the pie. It was a stock image, or something. April Ryan’s Twitter feed is actually rather shocking. I think it is fair to describe it as a hate site. She hates President Trump, the Trump administration, and Republicans and conservatives generally.

You really have to scan Ryan’s Twitter feed to get the point. She is an ideologically committed warrior against the Trump administration and the Republican party.

That wouldn’t be shocking–some of us have relatives you could describe that way–but for the fact that CNN pays her to be a “political analyst,” and she is a member of the White House press corps. In America’s modern history, we have not seen anything like this. Certainly no one from CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, etc., declared war on the Obama administration. And when Barack Obama was president, no one started Twitter wars over the provenance of his press secretary’s Thanksgiving pies.

We are sailing in uncharted waters. The best we can say is, at least everyone knows now who our enemies are.

Elon Musk Made the Kessel Run in Less Than Twelve Parsecs by Coyote Blog – “I checked the first 10 sources in a Google search and not a single media outlet that routinely chastises climate skeptics for being anti-science seems to have questioned the oddball and nearly meaningless 100MW figure.” It was a choice between this and Mike Hughes cancels his rocket proof of Flat Earth by Luboš Motl – “Hughes would be an excellent example for the Darwin Award.” The confusion between units of power and energy wins because it is a favorite illustration of the ‘alternative energy’ fanatics’ ignorance and it is held by more people than the flat earth idea and it has a greater social adverse impact.

“A megawatt is a measure of energy production or transmission rate. As such, it is a perfectly appropriate way to size the capacity of a power plant that is assumed to have a continuous supply of fuel. However, it is an extremely odd way to size a battery. A battery has a fixed energy storage capacity, which is generally measured in watt-hours (or some conversion thereof). For example a 10 Wh battery would provide 10 watts for an hour before running out, or 5 watts for 2 hours, etc. It is not clear if this is just a typo, that they really mean 100MWh, or if 100 megawatts is the peak discharge rate and they are being silent on exactly how long this lasts (ie how long can those 30,000 homes be powered?)

I was going to compare the number on energy storage here and show that you could actually generate electricity from gas, not just store it, for well less than this. But it is sort of hard to make the calculation when they don’t get the units right.

Fear and Fantasy are tremendous motivators. Berliners, and most Germans, had a lot to fear in 1945 and that resulted in many tragedies. The Germans had good reason to fear the Russians. The Left’s fears, though, are not founded in reality and that makes them worse as the imagination can leap many boundaries.

Leave a Comment

The light of day, a time for war, the cognitive game, and growing up girl

A Time for War By David Prentice – “it was started by the hard left, and it’s a war to achieve power for them, for them to change the entire workings of our country.”

“It’s here. Now. Thankfully this is not yet the blood in the streets kind of war, but war it is. It’s a war for the soul of this country, it’s a war that will affect everyone; none will escape having to deal with it directly, or indirectly.

Examples of the current battles in the war:

  • Racialism, black lives matter, NFL kneeling, and the war on being white.
  • The new feminism, and the war on being male.
  • The new feminism, and the war on the unborn.
  • Turning sex into a cesspool. Weinstein, Hollywood, preying on children, rampant unfaithfulness, broken families, transgenderism.
  • Turning race baiting and sex allegation into weapons of mass destruction.
  • Environmental catastrophism.
  • Health care control.
  • Spending our grandchildren’s money.
  • Allowing immigration to strangle what’s left of our institutions.
  • Pretending radical Islam is okay, but Judeo-Christian culture is not.
  • Teaching that socialism is just another form of government and not a failure.
  • Teaching that our country is inherently evil, and must be changed throughout.


the important thing to understand is every one of these major battles is going on simultaneously. Our nation’s military command used to pride itself on being capable of handling two major war fronts. As you can see, we aren’t fighting two fronts at home, it’s dozens and all at the same time. And they’re hot battles, many of them being fought with the other side spending our own money to prop themselves up.

Unfortunately, we on the right haven’t had a good organization to counter the shock and awe tactics of the left. The party that is supposed to lead us doesn’t even know we’re in a war.

The left has taught the next generation white guilt. Alongside Uncle Tom guilt. Both lies. Racialism is mental slavery.

The left has convinced the next generation that socialism is good. That free enterprise is evil. That we are destroying our environment. All destructive lies.

They are lying about their own sexual moral superiority.

each battle is filled with lies from the left. It’s their MO. Tokyo Rose is their model. Hillary is their face.

Before there is bloodshed in the streets, we must beat them at their own game.

The left must be defeated before they can regroup. Bring. It. On.

Playing the Cognitive Game – The Climate Skeptic’s Guide to Cognitive Biases by John Ridgway – “I am getting pretty fed up with psychologists proclaiming the irrationality of climate change scepticism.”

“I hope to demonstrate how easy it is to conjecture upon a group’s psychological state and how easy it is to turn the tables and place the advocates of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis under scrutiny. The result may be so much psychological flimflam but I consider it no less worthy than the dubious speculation emanating from the supposed experts and the IPCC.

This is about bias and not about logical fallacies. A bias is often expressed as the use of logical fallacies and might be considered an interpretation of the motivation for the them. As such, the observer needs to be much more aware that a conclusion about a bias is more subjective than one about a fallacy. A fallacy is an observation of behavior that fits a category. A bias needs a case to be made to connect the behavior to a reason for its deviance from reality.

It’s great that Blue Planet II is pushing hard on plastic pollution in the oceans – but please use facts, not conjecture by Malcolm David Hudson – “Must we always talk for victory, and never once for truth, for comfort, and joy – Ralph Waldo Emerson.” This might be a story of another example of how Attenborough lost his creds. It is about propaganda by omission, by the use of partial and selected facts to make an argument. Hudson is hoping a propagandist will change his tune. Good luck with that.

“In the final set piece, narrator David Attenborough’s tone changed – as it does when he has bad news. He showed us grim images of a turtle tangled in plastic debris, a beautiful tropical fish sheltering among our waste, and most heartbreaking of all, a mother pilot whale unable to let go of her long-dead infant as the rest of her family grieved.

In the whole sequence, there was no direct link made between the death of the baby whale and the plastic debris we saw in parallel footage; no evidence that its mother’s milk actually contained contamination from plastics. Nothing.

My inner environmentalist convulsed with frustration at wildlife being killed by unnecessary human waste, but my inner scientist screamed foul at the lack of direct evidence shown on the programme.

Powerful environmental documentaries like Blue planet II can change views on the big environmental issues; just please use truth and scientific evidence.

100 years. 100 million lives. Think twice. By Mark Perry – “the title of a recent op-ed in The Harvard Crimson written by Harvard student Laura M. Nicolae, whose father at age 26 left his parents, friends, and neighbors behind when he escaped the oppressive Romanian Communist regime

Roughly 100 million people died at the hands of the ideology my parents escaped. They cannot tell their story. We owe it to them to recognize that this ideology is not a fad, and their deaths are not a joke.

Last month marked 100 years since the Bolshevik Revolution, though college culture would give you precisely the opposite impression. Depictions of communism on campus paint the ideology as revolutionary or idealistic, overlooking its authoritarian violence. Instead of deepening our understanding of the world, the college experience teaches us to reduce one of the most destructive ideologies in human history to a one-dimensional, sanitized narrative.

After spending four years on a campus saturated with Marxist memes and jokes about communist revolutions, my classmates will graduate with the impression that communism represents a light-hearted critique of the status quo, rather than an empirically violent philosophy that destroyed millions of lives.

The stories of survivors paint a more vivid picture of communism than the textbooks my classmates have read.

For an example, consider that UNR graduate who has destroyed the NFL by pushing his ignorance.

FCC net-neutrality astroturfing new analysis – and it is bad by Justin – “The FCC comment database has been analysed by someone who knows what they are doing and the comment stuffing is much more extensive than previously thought.” The conclusion is that the humans overwhelmingly supported government I’net control while automated stuffing opposed it. That should raise skepticism. The activists were for government regulation and, as seen in previous cites, quite well populated by the tech community. The implication of the conclusion is that ‘big corporations’ committed conspiracy and fraud. Such a major implication needs better evidence than innuendo. Hence, skepticism is warranted.

Thoughts From The Ammo Line – “Ammo Grrrll draws on painful personal experience to declare NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN…is not just a typing exercise!” Growing up girl presents special hazards.

“On an hourly basis, we learn of another woman making accusations of sexual harassment, assault, even outright rape. Other women claim to be “uncomfortable” or offended by a hand on a shoulder, a pat on the back, any human touch. I come from a warm “touchy” family, so I have tended to believe that a lot of those complaints are overwrought. But then I sat down and thought about my own experiences and got depressed. I wondered if ANY female person escapes unscathed? I am pretty tough, worldly, and unusually impervious to locker room talk, and still it’s not a pretty picture. I warn dear readers that what follows is a downer and I’m sorry. I will be funny again next week. And yet I feel lucky. I have seen only my husband in the shower and we own no indoor potted plants.

Can you good and decent men – whom I count in the vast majority – not somehow police the monsters? Every last lefty Hollywood “man” knew about Harvey. Every. Last. One. The moral cowards, busy Tweeting about the Republican “War on Women” stood by and were complicit for decades. Give me my “redneck” father and his shotgun any day. As Richard Pryor intoned, decrying racism by parodying a Psalm: “How long, O Lord, must this bullshit go on?”

The story she tells describes “how good and decent men” did police abuse of their daughters. The problem is that those men are under assault themselves. Society does not accept shotgun justice in any form anymore. Society is passing laws to protect and promote perverts under ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’ banners. Think about the unisex public bathroom laws controvery for an example.

One also needs to keep in mind that a traditional role of men is (or was) to protect wives and daughters – the virtue of their family. Abuse of boys has run on different standards but that is changing, too, as they are emasculated and equalized as victims. This is about the war Prentice describes above.

Leave a Comment

There are a lot of confused people out there.

Courts use Trump’s pontificating to rule against his policies By Stephen Dinan – it’s trying to rationalize rogue judges. It is one thing to use ‘pontificating’ to determine intent and motivation but another to use it instead of the actual order or action. The story is about the courts going from what someone actually does to what they say and think. That is a destruction of boundaries of free speech.

Trump speaks about the Alabama race by Paul Mirengoff – “Trump is right that when allegations of sexual misconduct arise, you should listen to both the accuser and the accused.” It is interesting that the President is one of the very few voices out there expressing temperance, moderation, and thoughtful consideration of reality.

Nothing in Trump’s statement today contradicts the original White House position, and Isenstadt doesn’t even attempt to explain how it might.

Trump’s enemies in the media are salivating at the opportunity to use Roy Moore, whom Trump did not support in the primary, to get at the president. Because Trump has thwarted them thus far, his media enemies have to misstate the facts.

The liberal ruse of feminism By Tammy Bruce – “The only thing that has changed for liberals is being caught as enablers and hypocrites.”

“None of these people now complaining about Mr. Clinton have had any sort of epiphany. They just realize their defense of sexual assault in the 1990s makes it impossible for them to continue the fraud of casting conservatives as the enemies of women.

Coming out over two decades after the damage is done is called being too late. It’s also a pathetic attempt to reclaim their supposed moral authority on women’s issues that the liberal establishment has claimed for generations.

What they’re doing now is worse than a simple fib.

The Illogical Attacks on Judge Moore by Jeffrey Folks – “If you thought politics couldn’t get any uglier, you were wrong.”

They play the race card. If that doesn’t stick, they toss out the gender card, as they have with Judge Moore. If the opponent survives these attacks, then it’s the class card, as it was with Mitt Romney. If none of this works, it’s the LGBT card. Then there’s the “E” card – just “too extreme,” as with Barry Goldwater and Judge Bork. When all of these fail, as they did against candidate Donald Trump – and all of them were played – the left freaks out and starts throwing things.

All of these attacks are versions of the same logical fallacy: the ad hominem argument.

Liberals are masters at using ad hominem and other cheap forms of attack. In their book, every conservative is automatically a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, or a madman ready to unleash a nuclear war until proven otherwise. Conservatives are by nature hesitant to use this kind of tactics, partly, I suppose, because they are too proud to stoop that low.

If we enter this new phase of politics, Judge Moore and Al Franken won’t be the last of it. Every candidate for public office will put his reputation at risk. Elections will be fought on the basis of who can concoct the most sensational story. We will have moved so far beyond logic that ideas will become irrelevant and character a mere figment of the imagination.

Vietnam veterans challenge Ken Burns on the accuracy of his epic documentary By Jennifer Harper – “a Texas-based interest group which includes military veterans, historians and authors in its membership — is challenging both the content and tone of the 10-episode, 18-hour epic.”

NY Times opinion: Capitalism is a threat to the world and must be replaced by John Sexton – “The NY Times published an opinion piece yesterday titled “The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid” which argues that capitalism is the real threat to the environment, a threat which must be eradicated if we are to survive.”

“There’s nothing subtle about this piece. The author, who is a professor at Arizona State University, says capitalism is the problem and environmentalism is the movement that can supersede it

The author is describing what he sees here and I think he’s right in this sense: Climate change rhetoric is anti-capitalist, which is one reason so many people reject it. It’s not the science people don’t like, it’s the politics behind it. In Europe, critics of this connection sometimes refer to the various Green Partys as watermelons, i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside.

The author makes clear that there is no way a capitalist society can regulate (through government) or create (through private industry) a better world. The underlying system is hopeless and must be replaced with democratic socialism.

There’s a reason true socialist states become totalitarian states. With every other means of exchange and advancement gone or heavily regulated, the one place where someone can still excel is the government itself. The lure of this power will always appeal to tyrants and psychopaths and with the state in absolute control from the outset, there is no alternative power center to challenge this authority. You don’t get Utopia, you get the USSR or Mao’s China or worse yet, North Korea.

The burden of justification should not fall on the shoulders of those putting forward an alternative. For anyone who has really thought about the climate crisis, it is capitalism, and not its transcendence, that is in need of justification.

Here’s the justification: Democratic socialism is an authoritarian nightmare waiting to happen. We should avoid it at all costs.

The Corruption of the Climatisatas by Steven Hayward – “Here’s a paradox that few people in the fawning green media seem to perceive: the more serious you think the problem of global warming may be in the future, the more farcical and unserious are the policy prescriptions of the “climate change community.

In fact I’ll go further: if perchance we do experience catastrophic, man-made global warming many decades from now, historians will look back and blame the environmental community for being the chief impediment to taking serious incremental action to reduce carbon emissions in a significant way—not the so-called “climate deniers.” Today’s wind and solar racket, and all of the fancy pieces of paper UN bureaucrats sign in Paris making promises that no nation is going to keep, will be looked at with the same disdain that we today look back at the League of Nations treaty and the disarmament efforts of the 1920s and 1930s.

Nebraska’s approval of new route for Keystone XL could be oil pipeline’s death blow By Ben Wolfgang – “Owner less likely to complete project if more environmental reviews needed.” This looks to be a case study in how politicians and regulation kill progress and action by tactic, evasion, diversion, and lack of leadership.

“The current route has been studied by the federal government for eight years, produced over 800,000 pages of Obama administration [review] documents I think these guys lost sight of the big picture and got caught up in minutiae and did not have the political courage to do what’s right and instead tried to split the baby,” Mr. McCown said. “In doing so, they’ve guaranteed another two- to three-year legal battle and probably have raised the cost of the project another $1 billion or $2 billion for no reason whatsoever.”

SJW to get some justice (and she’s not going to like it) By Thomas Lifson – “Kudos to the Riverside County (California) District Attorney’s Office for bringing justice to a crime committed in the name of politics.” This is about a UC Riverside student who stole a MAGA hat and made a big deal of it.

“By stealing the hat directly off the person of her victim, Macias opened the door to serious charges. There was talk of felony charges earlier, but instead it has been classified as misdemeanor grand theft, which so far as I know usually is for the theft of particularly expensive items, not trucker hats.

In my view, crime committed in the name of political causes is a graver offense than the underlying offense would be if done out of greed. Political violence, unpunished or mildly punished, begets more political violence. And once political violence becomes the norm, the consequences can be fatal to the stability of the polity and society.

Sex, lies & excuses: Partisan madness on predators By John Podhoretz – “Some of these efforts are necessary and involve making distinctions — distinctions between, say, felonious assault, which should lead to prison, and really gross workplace behavior, which should lead to serious disciplinary action but should probably fall short of complete ruination.” He makes a good point but spoils his argument when he cites allegations against Moore as “credible” and then goes on to assume guilt. There are many reasons to question that credibility but the big issue is a moral preener tossing aside the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ value for a criminal allegation.

“Stealin’ Be Ok, No Big Deal” – LeVar Ball Showcases Mentality Behind His Son LiAngelo Ball Shoplifting in China… by sundance – “After watching this bizarro interview with his father I can completely understand why LiAngelo Ball thought it would be perfectly okay to shoplift in China and live a life beyond the boundaries of ordinary moral behavior.” If you wonder about a prison population that is disproportionate by race and why racism is a big problem, this is a clue.

The kids aren’t all right. Violent students driving teachers out of schools by Jazz Shaw – “This year the state of Pennsylvania has been hit particularly hard, with nearly four dozen teachers quitting in the Harrisburg school district alone, many complaining that violence by students in the classrooms is out of control.”

The situation sounds dire. Teachers described incidents where both they and some of their students were being, “hit, kicked, slapped, scratched, cussed at.” Others described tables and desks being flipped over, rampant property damage and one teacher even had her finger intentionally broken by one of her students. And it was a second-grade child.

For their part, the school district responded by expressing their disappointment that the teachers had gone public.

In Maryland, dozens of teachers from Baltimore County showed up this week to protest the same problem. Five teachers have been taken out of the schools there with injuries caused by students and one of them is currently still on medical leave after suffering a concussion.

The teachers can’t be expected to act as makeshift law enforcement agents against students who outnumber them by a factor of twenty to one or more and are willing to engage in violent behavior. But such suggestions are frequently met with complaints about “militarization” of the schools, racial profiling and the rest of the usual protests we hear.

Sadly, the real solution should be better parenting. Children coming from homes with proper discipline and sound moral values are far less likely to engage in such behavior, as well as being far more likely to succeed. Sadly, that ship seems to have sailed in too many of our inner cities.

More MAGAnomic Winning – NY Fed Raises GDP Forecast, DOW Closes New Record… by sundance

Almost too much winning… almost, but I think we can take it. The New York federal reserve has raised their anticipated fourth quarter GDP growth forecast to 3.8%. That’s only a week after previously raising it to 3.2%.

The Stock Market closes again at yet another all time high today:

So much of what is important seems to be invisible in the public dialog.

Leave a Comment

Climate fraud, Educator hubris, Politics as usual

Democratic governors outsource climate campaigns to activist groups, emails reveal By Valerie Richardson –

“It turns out that the governors who descended this week on the Bonn climate summit had plenty of help — not just from state aides, but also from a kind of shadow staff supplied by climate change advocacy groups and funded by liberal foundations in support of the ambitious foreign policy effort.

The relationship raises questions about whether the governors have crossed an ethical line by bringing in privately funded advocacy groups to help staff a multistate operation — apparently at no charge — and whether their time and resources constituted a gift that would need to be disclosed to the public.

Special Interest Groups get condemned for interference in government but, apparently, that is only the other guy’s SIG’s. Here’s a case of the Left’s SIG’s and what may be a massive case of corruption intended to overturn the lawful expression of U.S. foreign policy. You’d think that’d be a concern?

Scientists Say Earth Is Doomed Without ‘Urgent’ Action — Just Like They Did 25 Years Ago, an IBD Editorial – “This week, thousands of scientists issued a bleak and terrifying “second notice” to mankind about how we will destroy the planet unless we take “urgent” action”. There is a nice list provided that illustrates just how far off the doomsayers have been in reality. Just who is in denial of reality is quite clear.

“In an article published in the journal Bioscience, 15,364 scientists warned that we are “jeopardizing our future” and that “immediate action” is needed to “safeguard our imperiled biosphere.”

“Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out,” the scientists say.

The article is meant to be an update on a 1992 notice — ominously titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” and signed by 1,700 leading scientists — that predicted environmental catastrophes to come if humans remained on the current course.

But the 1992 statement was wildly off the mark in its dire predictions.

What’s also interesting about the scientists’ 1992 warning is that it barely mentions global warming, which is the cause for all the current end-of-the-world predictions.

But today’s doomsday scientists are making the same fundamental mistake they made 25 years ago.

They are blind, apparently, to the fact that when people are emboldened by free-market capitalism they are amazingly innovative and will ceaselessly devise new technologies and new ways of doing things that are cheaper, less energy-intensive and less polluting. There’s no need for the massive central planning or worldwide austerity these scientists keep demanding.

Climate Change Alarmism Is Founded On Dishonesty by John Hinderaker – “I’ve said many times that I believe global warming alarmism to be the worst fraud in the history of science. What follows is just one of many illustrations of that point.”

Climate Litigation Needs to Become a Mass Movement by Ketan Jha – “Things are not going well for the Earth.” If the facts and measurements don’t sell the point; if propaganda and corruption don’t sell the point; try lawsuits. There has to be some way to force a fantasy on the public.

Democrat desperation to defeat recalls leads to lies, lawsuits By Victor Joecks – “We knew Nevada Democrats were desperate to defeat recall campaigns against three sitting state senators.”

Congressional talks on sex harassment boil with hypocrisy By Cheryl K. Chumley – it’s a part of that Matthew 7:5 problem. But then nearly all the teachings in the Bible and especially those of Jesus Christ are getting short shrift in the swamp these days.

Politics of Denunciation Will Soon Have To Stop Even If Moore Is Doomed By Conrad Black – here’s why Moore is getting the ‘treatment’ and why that treatment is more of significant issue than Moore’s behavior.

I don’t like Judge Moore as a candidate; I think it is outrageous for any candidate for a serious office to flourish about a firearm at an election meeting, and some of his comments, especially about gays, have been completely unacceptable for a candidate for the U.S. Senate. I have no problem with his putting a large and unauthorized monument to the Ten Commandments in the court-house rotunda as chief justice of Alabama, and the removal of him from that office for doing so is reprehensible.

Their application in this case is mitigated by the absence of authoritative corroboration, any seriously alleged pattern of repeated misconduct (as in the Weinstein allegations), and the fact that the alleged incident is violently denied by the former chief justice of the state, occurred 38 years ago, did not involve any direct physical grope or probe, was not reported to law authorities (and was not necessarily illegal if it happened at all and certainly is not actionable now) and was given instead to the trusty first battery of reliable Democratic artillery in the press.

As I wrote above, I don’t like Roy Moore as a candidate, but I don’t like premeditated political character assassinations either, and in a parallel of the fact that impositions on underage girls by grown men should be punished, if there is proof that they occurred, electioneering by severe partisan defamation unleashed at critically timed pre-electoral moments should not be rewarded with success. They have not been with the Steele dossier, which Kimberley Strassel correctly described in the Wall Street Journal on November 10 as the greatest political dirty trick in American history.

At some point, this practice of denunciation being insuperable and due process just an irritant and a useless antiquity, like an appendix — as it has been in the Weinstein and Moore cases — will have to stop, if the United States wishes to retain any credibility as a society of laws.

On unverifiable sexual allegations about political figures by neo-neocon – “It has become extremely common for people running for election (or newly-appointed to a political post) to be accused at the eleventh hour of sexual offenses.” This post provides a good summary of the situation and its implications.

John Podhoretz: If Roy Moore Squeaks By, It Will Be Because Of Democrats. via Instapundit – a bit of history and a bit of reality may sink in. Maybe.

Why Alabama voters must spite the experts again By Steve Flesher – “Up until one week ago, the worst thing one could claim about Judge Roy Moore was that he stood for the Ten Commandments as a judge and ticked off the ACLU.

While arguments exist constitutionally around that particular matter, Moore’s actions in doing so were certainly not indicative of a man with a weak character who would exploit young ladies. In fact, he stood for something and risked losing a political position.

This is why Alabama voters trust Moore, who has proven himself when he promises to stand on important issues: religious liberty, securing our borders (which includes building a wall), the Second Amendment, protecting the unborn, etc.

This is unlike a lot of the so-called holier-than-thou “Republicans” in Washington who had no problem working with Ted Kennedy, who left a woman to die in his car, and other liberals in Congress.

As such, we should understand why we find ourselves unfairly subjected to a brutal Catch-22 scenario concocted by the media and political establishment. Thus, we either accept the idea of a pro-abortion, open-borders liberal candidate being the better choice or resist the narrative based on our own thinking and risk being labeled as sympathizers to child-molesters.

We’ve been called lots of things that were untrue before. This, too, shall pass.

Yes, Virginia, there is vote fraud By Robert Knight – “If ever there were an election that proved the importance of accurate voter rolls, it was Virginia’s on Nov. 7.

Nobody knows how many fraudulent votes are cast in any election, but we do know that literally thousands of ineligible voters are on Virginia’s voter rolls, including illegal aliens and convicted felons.

All this to say Virginia’s voter rolls are not being maintained accurately as required by the National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter Law).

If they are as dirty as indicated by PILF’s study, then it’s a good bet that some of these contested races were decided by fraudulent votes.

The citizens of Virginia deserve to have their votes count, not to have them canceled out because election officials refuse to obey the law.

Let Down at the Top by Victor Davis Hanson –

“The problem with a dying media is not just new social media, the Internet, or 24-hour cable news. Those are just accelerants. The culprit is mostly politically driven ignorance. Today’s journalists graduate with majors that confer thinly disguised degrees in different sorts of activism.

The unspoken fuel that drives so many protests on campus is the self-awareness that so many students simply cannot do traditional college work and desire weaker courses, personal exemptions, and time off.

Our generation also, inevitably, became divorced from both nature and the muscularity of the physical, desperate ordeal of surviving.

It is hard to destroy the NFL or to discredit a liberal-arts degree from Yale, or to turn NBC or CNN into a bastard of Pravda or to make the Hollywood of John Ford, Frank Capra, and Alfred Hitchcock into that of George Clooney. But we managed it — and more still to come before we are through.

The Shame of America’s Public High Schools by John Hinderaker – “I grew up in South Dakota in the 1950s and 1960s, when such conduct would have been unthinkable. Today, it is not only thinkable, it is considered commendable in liberal school districts like Edina’s.” Read and weep, but so many don’t and seem rather proud of behavior that destroys civilization and humanity. That is distressing.

The ivory tower contemplates the world by neo-neocon – “how on earth could a person or persons “point the way to the world as it should be” without deeply studying and “grappling”with the world as it is?

So, “higher education”–and educators–ought to tell us how the world should be (and by implication, how to get it to that point) without “grappling with the world as it is” first (or simultaneously)? That would be like repairing a refrigerator without knowing how the refrigerator works.

That’s the same hubris that Communist true believers (the idealists among them, that is—and there were and are quite a few of those) have long operated under: that they could “fix” a complex system that they don’t understand. This is a common dream on the left. Hey, it’s a common dream of humans in general, which probably explains the continual and enduring appeal of leftism.

Well, yeah … the planet may not be doomed but there seem to be an awful lot of people trying to doom civilization.

Leave a Comment

False gods and so-called science

Here are a few more stories for a Monday overload. These look at the ideologies and fantasies behind the behavior.

The Media Doesn’t Want to Talk about the 26th Victim of the Texas Church Massacre By Paula Bolyard – “Media outlets across the country are apparently having difficulty counting. They can’t seem to get the number of victims right in last week’s horrific Texas church massacre.”

While many correctly reported that 26 people were killed during Devin Patrick Kelley’s maniacal rampage, many others went to great pains to avoid reporting that an unborn child died at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, last Sunday. Or, if they did report the baby’s death, they reported it as a footnote, careful to separate the unborn child from other victims.

Why can’t these media outlets simply say that 26 people — human beings — were killed in the attack? The answer should be obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention to the culture wars for the last 40 years. They can’t say it because they’re so firmly tethered to their lie — that the unborn child in his mother’s womb has no personhood and no rights.

The tragedy in Texas exposes their deception — and their desperation — as more an more Americans understand that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being made in the image of God.

The Wages of Social Justice Is Death By Michael Walsh – “In the aftermath of the Ferguson riots in Missouri and the Freddie Gray fiasco in Baltimore, the decriminalization of crime in the name of “social justice” — long a goal of the cultural-Marxist Left — got fully underway. The result was exactly what anyone not fully invested in Critical Theory would have expected.”

Baltimore, a city whose best years ended more than a century ago, is a prime example of what happens when citizens are categorized by skin color or cultural background, and then have differing standards of behavior applied to them by what should be an impartial justice system. Instead of “social justice,” the outcome is social disruption, mistrust, resentment, lawlessness and, if left unchecked, anarchy and civil war. The Marxists not only know this, they desire it, which is why they press so hard for it.

the “social justice” and “political correctness” mentality gripping so many elected or appointed officials– not to mention the entire American media — prevents them from taking the kind of direct action that’s needed to solve the problem. Until Real Americans cast off the foreign-import dictates of the cultural Marxist Left, cities like Baltimore will continue to suffer. And so will we all.

Trump Shines in Foreign Policy By James Lewis – “The U.S. media just rolled its eyes and yawned, but the Muslim world got the message loud and clear.”

Obama would never even name the enemy, and most importantly, under Obama the United States lost the moral high ground against child-murdering sadists; we started to support Sunni killer cults in Syria.

If ISIS is just a minor nuisance, as Obama tried to tell us, that would make the genocides of history meaningless.

Obama never, ever seemed to get that basic point of morality, nor did Hillary, nor did any other Democrat. Trump and Mattis obviously understand it,

Obama seemed to take the side of the enemy, and Bush just called the whole thing “the War on Terror,” totally ignoring the monstrous doctrine that runs Al Qaida and ISIS and other jihad killer cults. American military who were on the ground in Syria and Afghanistan were tremendously demoralized by U.S. failure to cast this war in the proper moral terms. Mattis in particular emphasizes morality in war, a concept liberals can’t even imagine. You kill people because they are beyond evil. You don’t kill innocents. Somehow the Democrats can’t seem to remember that.

Trump is supposed to be an idiot, but this idiot has been a success in the international hotel business for years, and people like that have to know about currencies and commodities.

The Wap-NYTs have always whipped up fear about strong U.S. presidents, never about foreign throwbacks like Kim III threatening us with nuclear weapons. They don’t care if it’s the Soviet Union, or the Nazis way back then, or Stalin, or the 9/11/01 Wahhabi killers. Our enemies are all victims of U.S. Imperialism, and if they’re mad at us we gotta just take the punishment we deserve.

This is a form of liberal insanity, of course, but the one positive is that the voters understand it all. The Trump voters include tens of millions of Americans who love their country, and wanted Obama and Hillary out of their lives.

The Democrats will lose as long as the current inner cult stays in charge. All we can do is encourage them to get as infantile as possible, and hope they’ll never bring in any adults.

Trump might just achieve that all on his own.

The Dark Side of Science By Robert Arvay – “Science has bestowed enormous benefits on mankind. But it has a dark side as well.”

What is most remarkable about science is not its gadgetry, but rather, what it tells us about ourselves, who we are, what is our purpose and destiny. Do we have inherent value? Or are we just another species of animal?

In other words, there is a powerful philosophy that underpins science. It affects us all.

Science is based on the premise that the universe has rules, unbreakable laws that do not depend on our opinion, but which are revealed to us by observation and reason. As far as we can tell, the universe is orderly; it has structure and hierarchy. Is that all just meaningless coincidence?

Until recent times, nature was correctly seen to be the work of a divine designer whose purpose, plan and meaning are revealed to us in the wonders of Creation.

Science is only as valuable as its foundation. If that foundation is not faith, then science is a house built upon shifting sand, and must collapse. Let’s stop worshipping the false gods of so-called science, before they demand the sacrifice of all that is truly sacred.

Science and God are on the same page and Arvay isn’t. That page is the matter of the ninth commandment (wikipedia). Arvay is not engaging in true witness in his conclusions about what science tells us. There are no “false gods of so-called science” by definition. Science is about true witness to what God lays in front of us whether that be a geological record or the structure of living beings. It is not about “purpose and destiny.”

Many current issues from vaccinations to anthropogenic climate catastrophe to alternative energy have people chasing false gods and trying to use science as their excuse. What they are doing is “so-called science” and not true witness to what science actually is. The problem Arvay highlights is about the nature of humanity that God gave us, not the nature of human inquiry into the Word of God that He placed in front of us and that we often call nature. Much as the commandments God gave Moses are understandable rules, true science accepts the concept that God is not irrational, perverse, or unreasonable as would be the case without rules. Science is about exploring what he gave us to better understand his Word.

Where Arvay should focus is on how he and many others have lost focus on the first of the commandments where they have enshrined a graven image of their favored ideology to place before the “Lord your God.”

Leave a Comment

whither they go?

NeverTrump Makes a Left Turn By Julie Kelly – “Several of the writers, grown-ups who love their country more than they love proving they were right, managed to move on in life, staying true to their conservative principles while praising and criticizing the president as the occasion warranted.” But others did not and revealed their true colors.

“So, where do these NeverTrumpers go from here? There seems to be a gradual split in the ranks and a recognition that the most fervent among them have lost their senses. There is also no compelling strategy to “take back” the GOP with any policy platform or candidate development effort. With a history of poor political prognostication, Kristol is hell-bent on making sure the Republican Party pays the price for nominating and electing Trump, even if it means the other side, with its destructive agenda of progressive policies, wins. Kristol, Rubin, Stephens, are now de facto, if not actual, liberals. We should stop allowing them to get away with calling themselves anything but that; the media will rub them in our faces until we do.

Soon, however, the Virginia election will be a memory, these NeverTrumpers’ social-media fist-bumping will end, and they will still be left with a president they detest, an electorate they ridicule, and lost integrity they won’t be able to recover.

Primal Scream By Richard Fernandez – “An earlier generation could probably quote 1 John 1:8 “if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” to remind themselves of this. Alternatively they might cite James Madison.”

“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help” was the usual warning. But somewhere along the line conventional wisdom discarded this injunction and media began to create the myth that there were special people to rule over us.

Not only does human frailty make the dictatorship of the party untenable, it makes even lesser forms of coercion such as virtue signalling and nudging ineffective.

Whatever happens now the progressives have lost decades of “gains” not to the alt-right, which is nothing special, but to the realization of their own human frailty. They will find equality intolerable.

Bill Clinton’s looming reckoning as a sexual predator By Thomas Lifson – “So far, there has not been much holding of Bill Clinton to account by progressives, despite the change in zeitgeist for sexual predation by the powerful.”

“But the inevitable is happening. At first a few progressives start mentally applying the post-Weinstein ethic to Bill Clinton. In the process, they eventually have to reflect on their own past and regret their support for him throughout Kenneth Starr’s revelations, impeachment, and beyond. But that will take a long time.

Rep. Charlie Dent: Taking the ‘fun’ out of ‘dysfunction‘ By Jerry Shenk – “In one of the whiniest, most amusing yet revealing accidental admissions ever, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) told Yahoo News, “You’ve got this administration that’s taken the fun out of dysfunction.”

“Rather than in Trump’s White House, dysfunction originated primarily from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. It was the dysfunction, passivity, and arrogance of Dent and his congressional colleagues – their willingness to go along with, even enable eight years of Barack Obama’s dysfunctional, often extra-constitutional presidency – that created a political environment in which someone like Donald Trump could prevail.

Accusing the president of introducing dysfunction to Washington is a classic case of psychological projection. … To “psychological projection,” add “deflection” and “passive aggression.” By blaming the president rather than his own contributions to congressional dysfunction, Dent is attempting to distract Americans from the fact that Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress haven’t honored a single campaign promise made in 2010, 2014, and 2016 to voters who gave them majorities.

What Will Mitch McConnell Do About the Democrats’ Disgraceful Senate Blockade? By John Hinderaker – “In one agency after another, they are carrying obstructionism to unprecedented lengths.”

“Elections have consequences, right?

Not anymore they don’t. The Democrats take the position that President Trump is not entitled to exercise the powers of his office. Here, as in many other instances, the Senate minority is holding nominees hostage to its demand that Obama administration policies not be changed. Barack Obama gets to be president forever, apparently.

This obstructionism is unprecedented in American history. The question is, what are Mitch McConnell and the other alleged leaders of the Republican majority going to do about it?

Like many others, I have just about come to the conclusion that Congressional Republicans are worthless. Time is running out for McConnell and his colleagues to show us that our votes and our financial support for Republicans haven’t been wasted. And please: don’t lecture us on the hallowed traditions of the Senate. Those traditions have been blasted to smithereens by the Democrats. This is a war, Senator McConnell, and if you are not interested in fighting it, then we need to find someone who is.

The presumption of guilt by Paul Mirengoff – “Boot, it seems, wants the Republican Party to die for the “sin” of nominating Donald Trump. Only that wish provides a rational explanation for his call that the GOP “die” because of its response to allegations against Roy Moore.” See Mirengoff also on The allegations against Roy Moore – “The Washington Post’s story about Roy Moore persuades me that, when he was in his early 30s, he liked to date teenage girls. It does not persuade me that he engaged in inappropriate sexual touchings with the 14 year-old girl who claims he did.”

There is a significant imbalance between the allegations and the rhetoric assuming guilt. Aslo see neo-neocon on The Roy Moore sex allegations. But Reynolds and Driscoll says Roy Moore didn’t help himself in an interview with Sean Hannity – “This Roy Moore interview is an example of why defense attorneys tell our clients to STFU.” That’s for law but this is politics and silence enhances presumed guilt. So what is a candidate to do?

Roy Moore Gets the Herman Cain Treatment by Daniel John Sobieski – “It was déjà vu all over again.”

It doesn’t matter if the charges are false. Accusations make page one while the truth later winds up at the bottom of the classifieds. Cain’s candidacy was derailed after repeated and unproven sexual harassment allegations by former employees. But like Harry Reid’s tax lies about Mitt Romney, it worked. That is the goal of Judge Roy Moore’s accusers. Why raise the charges now after being silent for decades?

Trump accuser Jessica Leeds’ accusation was accepted as credible immediately. Smear first, prove later. Guilty until proven innocent. It worked with Romney and Cain, why not Judge Roy Moore? But the rush to believe the claims of Moore’s groping stand in contrast to the blind eye given to the claims of Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and others, claims backed up by contemporaneous witness testimony and a victorious lawsuit by and with a cash settlement to Jones.

As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized in 2011, righteous indignation and claims of victimhood are a one-way street for the liberal grievance industry

Tell a Big Lie and Keep Repeating It by Norman Rogers – “Mother Nature is not cooperating with fake global warming science because the Earth has failed to warm for the last two decades.”

When a lie is backed by millions of government dollars, it is difficult for the truth to compete. The truth comes from scientists not corrupted by money, and from small organizations dependent on private donations. The truth is outgunned by government financed propaganda mills. The promoters of fake catastrophe depict themselves as disinterested idealists. The promoters of the truth are depicted as servants of evil industries, or as mentally disturbed crackpots.

If obvious, stupid lies, like the competitiveness of solar power, can gain popularity, how can more complicated lies be refuted?

It is much easier to make wild claims than it is to explain why these claims are fantasies or even to point out reasons for skepticism.

As the Italian philosopher Wilfredo Pareto pointed out, people form their opinions based on passion. Resort to logic and data is basically window dressing to support their previously adopted opinions. That’s why it is so difficult to make ideological conversions by means of logical argument.

Who Pays For “Green” Energy? By John Hinderaker – “These days, there is considerable obfuscation about the true costs of “green” energy–basically, wind and solar.”

“Politicians, regulators and sometimes utilities assert that wind and solar are efficient–that they actually are price-competitive with reliable energy sources like coal and natural gas. If you know anything about energy, you know this is an absurd claim. If it were true, we could do away with all subsidies for wind and solar, but no “green” energy advocate would dream of allowing that.

“Green” energy is, in my opinion, a scandal. Steve Hayward authored a great report on the subject for Center of the American Experiment (“Energy Policy in Minnesota: the High Cost of Failure”), which you can read here.

Heart of darkness: the baby killers by neo-neocon – “What state of mind allows a person to purposely target babies for killing, up close and personal?”

“What to do with a person like the Texas shooter before he goes on his rampage? There are two problems, of course. The first is that we cannot predict who will do this; we can only say who is more likely than others to do it. And the second is that until someone actually acts, we cannot detain that person preventively because that would be depriving them of liberty without cause.

But there is something so “other” about psychopaths’ makeup, so Bad-Seedish, that it remains hard to see them as people like other people with the same choices as other people.

I suppose that’s the nature of evil.

it’s in the nature of us all

Leave a Comment

The fall from grace: so many once so proud

Left can have Bushitler by Don Surber –

Reagan put America first. Trump puts America first. The Bushes? Well, they were better than Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry.

The two President Bushes now seek approval from people who not just disdain them, but who will dance on their graves when they die.

The Bush men can forgive those who call them Bushitler, but not Trump whose sin is he won the presidency as a Republican. No, they wanted to be “The Last Republicans” — honorably sinking with the party while the band played “Nearer My God To Thee.”

Instead, we have President Trump, a man who fights back when called Hitler.

Make America Great Again is as vulgar today as it was in 1980 when Reagan’s slogan was “Let’s Make America Great Again.”

In Latin, vulgar means of the people.

Considering the way the elitists have governed the past 30 years or so, it is time for the people to lead the way.

Another from Don Surber: 20 who feuded with Trump — and lost. “Feuding with Donald Trump is a bad idea. Too many people have wound up worse for the feud, the latest being Alec Baldwin.” A full score of cases is provided for example.

It’s not what President Trump does to them. It’s just that karma kneecaps so many of them.

Oh, not everyone winds up worse, I suppose. But enough do that a wise man would ask, why risk it?

Notice the pattern is hating Trump in public, and being a cretin in private.

Instapundit cites Camille Paglia – “In an abject failure of leadership that may be one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the modern Democratic party, Chuck Schumer, who had risen to become the Senate Democratic leader after the retirement of Harry Reid, asserted absolutely no moral authority as the party spun out of control in a nationwide orgy of rage and spite.” – and Matthew Continetti – “it is actually the Democratic Party that has been most disrupted by the realignment of American politics along class lines.”

Reynolds also notes Shelby Steele On The Exhaustion Of American Liberalism – “Today’s liberalism is an anachronism” and Dereliction Of Duty about another Trump victim – “We’re left to conclude, then, that the Colonel did, in fact, want to send the president a message. If that’s so, it’s a disgrace. It’s unlikely to be the last display of disgraceful conduct from those who have the misfortune of finding themselves in proximity to Bowe Bergdahl.”

New York Times’ coverage of Mueller is peak liberal bias by Michael Goodwin – “It sees its liberal politics not as a point of view, but as received wisdom that cannot be legitimately disputed.”

In the Times’ view, there are only two reasons to question Mueller’s credibility: insanity or treason.

The animating impulse for the assault is obvious — the Times is locked into its mission of destroying President Trump, and, like Hillary Clinton, still cannot accept Trump’s election as legitimate.

the paper, following a bad habit it developed during Barack Obama’s presidency, is not content with advocating its positions. Behaving like a party propaganda outlet, it takes a coercive approach to anyone with a different view. Objections are demonized as heretical.

His straw man is a diversion and his logic turns the concept of evidence on its head, making it required before an investigation can start.

The editorial page was even more venomous, calling criticism of the special counsel “crazy talk.”

The zeal to protect Mueller from any criticism raises the question of why the Times cares so much. With the mainstream media in lockstep with its jihad against Trump, why bother to smear a handful of skeptics?

Robert Frost on progressive education 100 years ago by neo-neocon –

Two things in progressive education provoked Frost’s particular rage—their abandonment of the ancient Greek and Roman classics and their attempts to apply the scientific method to teaching. The latter separated form or technique from genuine content…

Frost experienced a sort of fractal of what was to develop into our current university woes, and recognized at once what the dangers were and what the denouement was likely to be.

The “Climate Science Special Report” is Highly Deceptive by Leslie Eastman – “Yes, the report really is “special”!”

The following muck from The Washington Post is a great example of the elite media spinning a narrative that is demonstrably false in scientific terms but that fits their politically-motivated agenda:

I will simply point out that the Climate Science Special Report, released by 13 federal agencies on Friday, is the product of Obama-era eco-activists who remain entrenched at those various agencies. No swamp has been harder to drain since Julius Caesar tried to get rid of the Pontine Marshes.

Furthermore, this news was released on Friday. Not only was it a Friday, but it was the day that President Trump was beginning a historic, 10-day trip to Asia.

In The Wall Street Journal, Koonin says the report “misleads by omission.”

Science, too, suffers a fall from grace.

Leave a Comment

Very difficult to understand.

Marxism: The Key To Health? by John Hinderaker – “The Lancet is a once-respected medical journal that has been taken over by leftists, in a sad illustration of O’Sullivan’s Law.”

Free societies produce prosperous, healthy citizens. Socialist societies produce a huge underclass of impoverished, undernourished and maltreated subjects, living under the boots of a small overclass of well-fed sociopaths. Horton’s suggestion that Marxism is positively associated with human health is, to put it as politely as possible, a lie.

Among U.S. millennials, socialism beats capitalism by Luboš Motl – “YouGov and Victim-of-Communism-Memorial-Foundation have surveyed over 2,000 millennials. 45% would prefer a “socialist country” while only 42% would prefer a capitalist country.”

The poll shows lots of other troubling things, ignorance about most things – over 60% have never heard of Maduro, for example – but it’s far from the first one of its kind (see similar results from February 2016, for example) and the U.S. is far from the only country spoiled by this mental disease selectively targeting the youth.

There are lots of things that should be said and questions that should be asked. First, where does it come from? Is it a spontaneous trend that this young generation has invented by itself?

I only know an extremely tiny number of intelligent youth that have realized that all this stuff is a pile of lies, propaganda for their stupid contemporaries. And I know no millennials who have broken the mouth of outrageous liars such as the global warming alarmists so that the latter wouldn’t talk again – and that’s exactly what should be happening everywhere if at least some of the millennials had the intelligence, decency, as well as the balls.

So no, it’s not their own conclusion. They have been indoctrinated. They have become a herd of stupid sheep.

will this trend really lead to the end of capitalism, democracy, and individual freedoms, as America’s electorate will be drifting in the direction with this pro-socialist, anti-freedom majority? I still hope it won’t. 

LEAK: Google Employees Defend Discrimination Against Conservatives by Allum Bokhari – “conservative Googlers who voice concerns about political bias are often belittled and ignored by fellow employees.”

Glen Reynolds cites Michael Barone: Keep Calm And Carry On – “Trump’s insult-laden style and constant tweeting strikes many people (including me) as repugnant” but “Trump’s actions, in contrast to many of his words, strike me as comparable to other presidents.” There is dissonance here, the kind that needs deep introspection.

The nonstop freakoutrage about Trump was intended to “denormalize” him, but it’s had the effect of denormalizing his opposition, which would be a lot more effective if it behaved normally.

Instead, they wear the badge of ‘he is repugnant’ with honor and show an utter contempt that they even acknowledge is out of place and irresponsible.

When scientists sue scientists by Jonathan H. Adler – “What is unusual, however, is for a scientific researcher to file a lawsuit against another researcher.”

The idea that academic researchers should turn to court when their work is criticized or contradicted by other researchers is a pernicious one, challenging the sort of robust inquiry upon which scientific research and the discovery of knowledge require. It is absolutely essential that researchers are free to posit hypotheses and subject others’ hypotheses to critique. This inevitably entails not just questioning other researchers’ confusions, but also pointing out potential errors and mistakes. Of course it’s true that strong critiques of one’s academic work may have an effect on one’s academic reputation but that does with the territory. The same goes for making erroneous allegations against other researchers. If the fear of such reputational harms is compounded by the threat of litigation, academic inquiry will be chilled as researchers become more reluctant to point out the problems in each others’ work.

It’s all argument. No debate allowed.

Leave a Comment

Prosecutor tactics, explaining economic systems, and confirmation bias

Mueller’s Indictment Of Manafort: Desperate Prosecutorial Hail Mary, Or Trap For Trump? IBD –

The point is, there appears to be two laws in effect here: One for Trump and Republicans, the other for the Clintons and Democrats. Because of this, we first made our call for the Russian investigation to be disbanded last summer. Mueller’s investigation was an obvious political fishing expedition. That’s still true today.

A branch of SJWs: deniers of Bitcoin miners’ power by Luboš Motl – it’s a lesson on capitalism vs communism and the meaning of accountabily and vested interests.

This far left loon says that a coder in some self-anointed Bitcoin organization is automatically smarter than the average miner, so the coder must decide. But that’s just completely missing the logic that makes capitalism work – and that makes communism fail. Everyone can claim he is smart but there must be mechanisms that actually choose who is right. And they only work if one’s well-being is affected by his results. And that only works if the owners are those who are actually making the ultimate big decisions (e.g. at the stockholders’ meeting).

How Google and MSM Use “Fact Checkers” to Flood Us with Fake Claims by Leo Goldstein –

The Left implemented a novel technique of the Big Lie that I will call a Flooding Fake here. This technique was especially widely used by climate alarmism. This is what it looks like:

The first Google search result says that Donald Trump is behind the hoax, created by the Time magazine four years ago, and links to a fresh Time article (6), repeating and amplifying the hoax. A Wikipedia entry (7) is the second result, and Snopes comes third. Snopes result is “fact-checked” by Snopes itself. Thus, Google simply cons a user with its “fact check.” This is a recurrent occurrence, not an exception.

The Flooding Fake is different from a strawman fallacy. The Flooding Fake is a political operation, rather than a fallacy. Accordingly, in a strawman fallacy, the strawman is not disseminated outside of the original debate, and does not convince the opponent. The Flooding Fake is disseminated very broadly and eventually takes over some opponents.

The Flooding Fake is related to two other PR techniques of the left: fake opponents (like “fossil fuels interests”), and fake debate subject.

This is just a matter of social confirmation bias. The search engine users have an interest in finding what they want to find. The search engines note this and put the most commonly used of its findings at the top of the list in related searches. This can provide a ‘Flooding Fake’ about what most searchers are searching for. It’s the phenomena behind the adage that a lie will travel the world before the truth even gets its pants on. 

Leave a Comment

Discrimination and equality

Byron York: In Trump media coverage, audiences left and right get what they want – that’s one way to rationalize it: pandering to their audience. The problem is that issues of Fake News™ and misperception are glossed over. The predominance of various outlets in the discussion is glossed over. One item did get note:

Pew discovered that one recipe for bias, in both directions, is focusing news stories not on policy but on the single person of Donald Trump. All the outlets, no matter their orientation, did that, Pew discovered.

Pew discovered that one recipe for bias, in both directions, is focusing news stories not on policy but on the single person of Donald Trump. All the outlets, no matter their orientation, did that, Pew discovered.

York provides an example of a destructive bias in his essay in that he is rationalizing to try to get to a ‘both sides do it’ equality rather than expose the differences and contrasts.

IBD: Do The Media Hate Trump? Yes, And From The Very Start Of His Presidency, New Survey Shows – “The mainstream media don’t like Trump, but it’s not really anything he did as president, a new survey by the Pew Research Center shows.”

Some 62% of the media coverage of Trump was negative, Pew found. For Obama it, was just 20%; for Bush, 28%; for Clinton, also 28%. In other words, the media from the get-go had decided Trump was a bad president — before any of his policies had a chance to take hold.

“And it’s not a case of overwhelmingly negative coverage on one subject drowning out some moderately positive coverage on other matters,” noted the political blog Hot Air. “It was resoundingly negative across the board.”

Or, as Pew put it, “Compared with past administrations, coverage of Trump’s early days focused less on policy and was more negative overall.”

Same report, different takes. That’s how bias works. Whether it is constructive or destructive depends upon whether you can learn anything or not about the underlying reality.

Sadly, there’s no solution for this. In the digital age, we can all self-segregate on the web by tuning out discordant voices. Increasingly, that’s happening across the country, leading to a kind of ideological Balkanization. There’s more shouting, and less conversation. And we’re all poorer for it.

For all this, the media deserve much of the blame. They have abandoned all pretense of fairness or objectivity in their reporting, in favor of rank politicization of the news and even basic facts. The Pew report on their biased coverage of Trump’s initial months in office, unfortunately, confirms this.

Peter J. Boyer: How Donald Trump Has Disrupted the Media – “Pew study shows not just expected biases but also that publications have become strikingly self-referential.” Yet a third take to consider.

The Pew researchers found that only 11 percent of the content about Trump and his presidency could be considered positive. Four times that number of stories, 44 percent, offered a negative assessment.

That will not surprise anyone who has paid any attention to the news since inauguration day. What might be surprising is the way Trump—to whom the news media constitute “the opposition party”—has disrupted the media’s rule book.

One of traditional journalism’s basic tenets was the need to maintain a distanced objectivity (or, at the very least, the appearance of it). Dan Rather’s 1974 confrontation with President Richard Nixon made a lasting impression precisely because it was a stark departure from the norm. But the Pew study found that, in the age of Trump, journalists increasingly consider themselves at liberty to directly refute the president or representatives of his administration. This happened in 10 percent of the stories studied.

“One of the things that was interesting to see was that, while the topic of the news media was not a huge percentage of overall coverage, journalists were both the second most common source type as well as the second most common ‘trigger’ of the stories,” says Amy Mitchell, director of the Pew Research Center.*

Betsy Newmark got away from her Trump hate problem in today’s Cruising the Web – for some clarification of the gerrymandering court case, the gun control arguments, California’s attempt to legislate nirvana, and Michelle Obama’s tribalism.

Jazz Shaw: Some possible gun legislation to consider – he had not been aware of the devices that enabled rapid fire from semi-automatic rifles. Allahpundit has the other half: Statistician: After researching gun violence, I no longer believe in gun control – “Alternate headline: “Statistician obviously never wants a job in media again.”

Her name is Leah Libresco, formerly of Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight site, where she crunched the numbers in a study of all 33,000 gun homicides in the United States annually. She went in thinking that the usual liberal menu of anti-gun policies would reduce that number dramatically. She came out concluding that “the only selling point [of those policies] is that gun owners hate them.” That’s an interesting way to phrase leftist conventional wisdom in an era when the right’s tribalism draws so much scrutiny. Often in the age of Trump it really does feel as though conservatism is defined as “whatever makes liberals cry.” Libresco’s takeaway on the efficacy of mainstream gun-control policies is that they’re appealing to the people who support them mainly to the extent they make gun aficionados cry.

Many of Libresco’s arguments will be familiar to right-wingers, but it’s one thing to endorse them as a matter of ideology and another to endorse them as a matter of hard data.

Her advice? Instead of focusing on feelgood policies that won’t do much of anything to reduce gun violence or on massively heavy-handed policies like confiscation, which have zero chance of passing, instead consider policies that will address the social pathologies that drive the three most common forms of gun homicides

Knee jerk gun control has a sister example: Houston Chronicle: Preaching Climate Alarmism Post Harvey – “What is physically possible can beat the odds, from time to time. It does not have to be God’s hand, the Devil’s paw, or fossil-fueled climate change.” But reality doesn’t make much difference for those who want to ‘feel good’ by passing a law or engaging in moral preening or whatnot.

In the days and weeks after, the Houston Chronicle inundated Houstonians with biased–even angry–news reports, unsigned editorials, guest editorials, (chosen) letters-to-the-editor, and cartoons blaming man-made climate change for the severity of this event. Even the headline editors have gotten into the spew.

Houstonian Charles Battig, a diligent student of the climate debate, documented the bias in the hometown paper in a September 6 post at MasterResource: “Politicizing Harvey in the Houston Chronicle.”

The Houston Chronicle can be surnamed The New York Times of Houston. The editors (Progressive all; there are no known conservative or libertarian members of the editorial board) had such arrogant editorials as this one (lead editorial, September 14): “Climate Change: Let’s Talk Openly and Honestly,” subtitled A warmer planet threatens wetter storms, higher surges and more Harveys. The verbiage miscited climate facts and got preachy:

Dr. Joy Bliss at Maggies Farm noticed an interesting poll result that suggested Conflicted: Women in medicine – “At the obvious risk of being assaulted for stereotyping and demeaning females in my profession, I will share some of my observations.”

When I was sent this article, Majority of U.S. Physicians Now Support Single-Payer, I thought “That’s the women!” Then I felt conflicted.

For better or worse, the coming dominance of American medicine by women will be changing the culture of the profession. Other influences, like the emergence of large group practices, and of hospital-owned practices, are changing the character of American medicine too.

Elise Cooper: ‘You Have Gone Too Far’: Vets Respond to the NFL – “The players are making a sham of the National Anthem by insulting the flag, the nation, those serving, and those who have served, as well as the police, who run into a crisis instead of away from one.

“We have tolerated your drug use and DUIs, your domestic violence, and your vulgar displays of wealth. We should be ashamed for putting our admiration of your physical skills before what is morally right. But now you have gone too far. You have insulted our flag, our country, our soldiers, our police officers, and our veterans. You are living the American dream, yet you disparage our great country.”

Taya Kyle, the widow of legendary Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, issued a bold challenge to the NFL via Facebook on Tuesday in response to the national anthem protests sweeping the league. Like many other NFL fans, she is tired of seeing the sport focus on “division and anger” instead of the message of unity that it once represented. “If you ever want to get off your knees and get to work on building bridges, let me know.

Another tragedy out of the Las Vegas massacre is that is illustrates so vividly just how corrupt and cowardly the NFL player protests really are.

Mike Konrad: Confusing the Evolution Debate – “Most Americans would not object to all sides of the evolution debate being taught to their children, and that is what should be allowed.” This is another example of the equality fallacy. There is also the binary positions fallacy. Konrad also engages in other disingenuous arguments.

Confusing the debate is what exactly is meant by evolution. To scientists, what is usually meant is the process of change, directed by natural selection and natural law, apart from any non-natural input. At the other side, are literal six-day creationists who feel the earth is only a few thousand years old, and everything was created by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, through the second Person of the Trinity,

To the academy, Evolution must be defined as 100% naturalistic. There must be no appeal to any divine input. To six-day creationists, one must accept the literal understanding of a Biblical six-day creation, roughly six thousand years ago, with a world-wide flood, et al. There is no room for compromise.

The fact is that evolution is a critical part of biology while creationism and its relations are a part of religion and philosophy. Evolution is an interpretation of the record that God has laid out in front of us in the real world and that puts it in the realm of science. Creationism is the word of God as expressed by prophets in the Bible and interpreted by believers. To conflate the two as Konrad does is false witness.

Leave a Comment

Going after the heretics – ackamarackus bordering on flimflam

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers – “A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus.” The “consensus” is a major flag. The hidden one is that the basic thesis is incorrect. The “contrarians” are more properly called skeptics. It is the alarmists who are positing a thesis and whose efforts at supporting their thesis are flawed. Those asking questions, such as just where that 97% consensus comes from, cannot express the flaws cited because they are not doing what the study tries to paste on them.

a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature?

You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming.

Human-caused global warming is the only exception. It’s based on overwhelming, consistent scientific evidence and has therefore convinced over 97% of scientific experts that it’s correct.

That 97% has been inspected and it is a consensus more in line with the “contrarians” than it is with the climate alarmism. It is a consensus that climate change is not fully understood and that there are very many factors involved only one set which is human related. Rather than go after heretics, the climate alarmists should answer questions about why their models don’t fit observations, why observation data sets are often manipulated and ‘adjusted’ in ways showing bias, about relative risks and benefits of their suggested actions, and other matters.

Jonah Goldberg: Oh Scientia! Oh Mores! – “The whole ‘science denier’ canard is a weapon wielded by people who often harbor their own doubts about the scientific consensus.”

I don’t want to debate global warming because a) it’s boring to me, b) you get screamed at by people who act like we have seconds to act before the world ends, and c) you — or at least I — also get screamed at by people who insist it’s all a complete hoax. For those interested, I’m basically in the Matt Ridley “lukewarmer”camp.

Now, back to my point. This whole “don’t believe in science” canard amounts to ackamarackus bordering on flimflam.

John Stossel: The Climate Alarmists Are Wrong – “Two big storms don’t mean much.”

So the real unanswered questions are:

1. Will climate change become a crisis? (We face immediate crises now: poverty, terrorism, a $20 trillion debt, rebuilding after the hurricanes)

2. Is there anything we can do about it? (No. Not now; the science isn’t there yet.)

3. Did man’s burning fossil fuels increase the warming? (Probably. But we don’t know how much.)

I resent how the alarmists mix these questions, pretending all the science is settled. Notice how Trevor Noah, above, tossed out the words “man-made,” as if all climate change is man-made?

Tom Randall: The Way We Get Electricity Is About to Change Forever – “Superior batteries are on the way, and they could disrupt power markets within the next decade—Sooner Than You Think.” This provides an example of wishful thinking that drives much of the irrational thinking. First is the gospel of human caused climate catastrophe. That means humans much change. That leads to prognostications that a miracle will break out Real Soon Now. Maybe. But it’s been a bit over 100 years for batteries and even longer on the chemistry behind them to get to where we are. There have been some refinements in materials and productions but the physical nature of a battery has its limits. Remember cold fusion, the last big miracle for politically correct energy?

The key to much of this is the ‘in your face’ approach. Consider stories in the Washington Times this morning. Joseph Curl: Even the Miss America pageant is political now – “ABC could have made the annual Miss America pageant on Sunday night an escape from reality, if just for a moment. Instead, the network went hard core into politics.” Bradford Richardson: ESPN gives anchor who called Trump a ‘white supremacist’ slap on the wrist – “ESPN issued a meek statement on Tuesday in response to Jemele Hill, one of the network’s anchors, calling President Trump and his supporters “white supremacists.”” Victor Morton: Black Lives Matter protesters deface Jefferson’s statue at UVa. in Charlottesville – “According to local media in Charlottesville, about 100 students, faculty and local residents shrouded the statue in black and hung a banner on it saying “Black Lives Matter” and that “White Supremacy” should commit a sexual act.” Cheryl K. Chumley: Quack attack: 27 psychiatrists pen anti-Trump book – “Real psychiatrists are probably squirming in their office chairs at this.” Valerie Richardson: Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes – “Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.”

Note that all of these actions are based on frauds, are in your face, and, usually, are personal attacks. When that fraud is called, then you have Tammy Bruce: Why Democrats fear voter fraud investigations – “Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity leaves the left in a panic.”

Then there’s Eric Althoff: Ken Burns goes back to war: Vietnam documentary tells uneasy story from all sides – “Novick helps ‘unpack’ repressed memories from defining, divisive conflict.” Burns has a history of black privilege racism and this topic is ripe for other left leaning anti-American tropes. Consider: “What we call fake news now are things that we don’t agree with but which happen to be true,” he said. Not a matter of fact that results in many mea culpa episodes but rather just opinion? Cronkite preceded Rather and neither accepted their role in fake news. There’s good fake news and right fake news and note which gets the soft treatment and excusing?

Sundance: Irma Recovery: Day #2 – Life as a Starfish Kid… The fuel situation is a refutation of the price gouging accusations.

Scott Johnson: The Franken Factor – “With his his descent to crude and dishonest attacks on judicial nominees in the Judiciary Committee, or in his capacity as a member of the committee, Minnesota Senator Al Franken degrades the Senate and the high office he holds.” This is the sort of irresponsible behavior that destroys civility and respect customs in the Senate. The Democrats should keep in mind the adage “abuse it and you lose it.”

Newmark takes note:

Democratic senators’ questioning of professor Amy Coney Barnett’s religious beliefs and how they would influence her potential decisions if she is approved to be on the 7th Circuit has raised questions about whether or not those senators were imposing a religious test on her. As Kevin Daley points out, this episode also has exposed the influence of interest groups on the confirmation process. As Daley explains, neither the senators nor their staff have the time to read all a candidate’s writings or speeches. So they depend on groups that summarize the candidate’s words. However, it becomes a problem if that group lies about a candidate. And that is exactly what has happened as the senators based their questions on a report by the Alliance for Justice. Since the report is public, it’s possible to match up the senators’ questions with the report.

She panders to the ‘both sides do it’ fallacy with a caveat: “Republicans do the same thing, of course, though I haven’t heard of their following a report that was so demonstrably dishonest. It shows what a joke that confirmation battles have become – they’re basically a battle between outside groups with U.S. senators used as mouthpieces.” The inability, or unwillingness, to accept important distinctions in behavior is an inappropriate bias.

Eric Worrall: Extreme Poverty USA: The True Cost of Climate Madness – “While various US governments continue to waste unimaginable sums of public money on pointless climate schemes, real problems ranging from third world poverty in Alabama to an explosion of the skid row population of Los Angeles are being allowed to fester.”

California’s push for 100% renewables is a major factor driving up the cost of living. Poor people spend around 40% of their income on energy. Anything which drives up the cost of energy is a big deal. A high energy bill can make the difference between being able to pay the rent, or being evicted onto the street.

another story noted that 1 in 5 Californians were below poverty level. Yet another reported on San Diego problems with its homeless population and its efforts to fight fecal born disease with street cleaning efforts.

Leave a Comment

Arpaio, Climate Change, Free Speech, Voting, IRS … the pot is near boil

The limit was hit after only a review of the first tier in the news. So much. Texas is drowning and needs your prayers and support but that is a different sort of too much, a more immediate and pressing too much. Here’s what else is going on. “I could swear that I saw Vladimir Putin in a Confederate uniform the other night sneaking into my yard to plant poison ivy.”

Consider this whopper in a story about freedom of speech:

Meanwhile, supporters of a president who routinely rails against the free press have enthusiastically donned the mantle of first amendment freedom fighters.”

The President rails against fake news but plauds a free press. See What Trump gets about the media. “As is often the case with Trump, the rhetoric is so insulting and extreme that it’s hard to take the underlying point seriously. But, as also is often the case with Trump, he’s onto something real.” Lies, deceit, and distortion, especially in the Press, should be a concern of everyone and the Major Media has demonstrated a low regard for such intellectual integrity.

Julia Carrie Wong does have a good essay if you can get around the bias such as shown by that whopper. The far right is losing its ability to speak freely online. Should the left defend it? – “Free speech was the left’s rally cry. But the fate of the Daily Stormer, a hate site ‘kicked off the internet’, signals the increasing irrelevance of the first amendment.”

That’s when the chief executive of website security company Cloudflare [Matthew Prince] “woke up … in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet”, as he told his employees in an internal email.

Critics charge that technology platforms have enabled a disparate network of racist extremists to seek one another out, raise funds, and plan and execute such rallies. But unlike consumer facing companies such as Facebook, YouTube, PayPal and Discord, and even as liberal voices – including the Guardian editorial board – applaud it, Cloudflare won’t defend its actions.

“I am deeply uncomfortable with the decision we made,” Prince said in an interview. “It doesn’t align with our principles.”

“This is a really terrible time to be a free speech advocate,” said Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It’s a ‘First they came for the … situation,” she said, referring to the famous Martin Niemöller poem about the classes of people targeted by Nazis, “only in reverse”.

But the fate of the Daily Stormer – as vile a publication as it is – may be a warning to Americans that the first amendment is increasingly irrelevant.

American technology companies that were once imbued with the ethos of Twitter’s famous sobriquet – “the free speech wing of the free speech party” – have changed the rules, or at least decided to start selectively enforcing rules that are technologically unfeasible to apply across the board.

If the left does abandon its free speech principles, it may come to regret it.

“I’m really surprised to see liberals talk about what speech needs to be taken down, and not take that conversation a step further and talk about who is actually doing the censoring,” York said, questioning whether we should trust either the government or “unelected white Silicon Valley dudes” to make such decisions.

Or as Keller says: “We should not expect the new speech gatekeepers to be benign forever, or to enforce rules that we agree with forever.”

Charles Hurt: There are no decent plans in Congress, just lies, intraparty squabbling – “We are witnessing some of the most spectacularly absurd political gambits in American history unfold right now before our very eyes.”

The first comes from Democrats in Congress, who want to somehow blame collapsing Obamacare on Republicans. … The Democrats who huddled in darkness with powerful lobbyists to write the Obamacare bill. The Democrats who hid the Obamacare bill from the public and even their own members in Congress.

To be sure, Republicans in Congress should be humiliated — if politicians were capable of such a thing. They had seven years to come up with an actual plan to repeal Obamacare.

Now they have the chance to do just that right this second and they flinch.

But somehow blaming Republicans for the catastrophe that President Obama, Mrs. Pelosi and the entire Democratic Kleptocratic Regime gave us? That’s insane.

The second spectacularly absurd political gambit we are watching this season is this open effort by Republicans to somehow blame all of their problems on Mr. Trump.

how it is Mr. Trump’s fault that the professional, experienced politicians in Congress failed to repeal Obamacare is beyond any rational thinking.

It is almost as if Republicans in Congress — along with Democrats — are determined to find a Republican somewhere to blame for it.

Robert Knight: The death of parody – “Because of its shrillness and excess parodying the left is nearly impossible.”

Ever since Donald Trump’s election, we’ve been awash in such cultural and political lunacy that it defies attempts at parody.

It’s not just the concerted assault on anything reminding us of the Confederacy, or the numbingly constant messaging that only bigots oppose giving boys access to girls’ locker rooms. The very idea of America as an imperfect but good and decent country is under daily assault. Plus, the president can’t even brush his teeth correctly. You can read all about it.

The real thing on CNN looks like a daily sendup from the satirical site The Onion.

The Washington Post under Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has been turned over to editors who are apparently about 12 years old, smoking dope and stoked in cultural Marxism.

How do you satirize the left’s general, ongoing hysteria? It’s starting to affect me because I could swear that I saw Vladimir Putin in a Confederate uniform the other night sneaking into my yard to plant poison ivy.

Dave Boyer and David Sherfinski: Trump’s pardon of Arpaio sends strong messages to immigrant advocates, Mueller team, loyalists – “President Trump’s pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has set off a new round of recriminations, with Republicans saying they disagreed with the decision and Democrats saying it was an unforgivable abuse of power that presages still more political mischief.”

The last administration instituted a policy of requiring pardons to be vetted by the Justice Department before President Obama would grant them. Mr. Obama set records for clemency in cutting sentences of drug dealers and users and repeat felons — including those who used guns in the commission of their crimes.

Mr. Obama also issued end-of-term decisions to commute sentences of a member of a Puerto Rican terrorist group, and of Chelsea Manning, who before undergoing sex-change surgery was Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, serving 35 years in prison for leaking government secrets to WikiLeaks.

Mr. Trump’s first pardon signals he won’t be beholden to the Justice Department process that Mr. Obama followed.

“The Arpaio pardon was an easy call on the politics,” Mr. Corallo said. “The Trump haters are going to keep hating him regardless. The president’s base approves of it wholeheartedly. The people in the middle are not concerned with it.”

He added, “The president was fully within his authority to issue this or any pardon. Regardless of whatever process exists at DOJ, the constitution grants the president plenary power to pardon anyone. The remedy for those who disagree with the pardon is at the ballot box.”

Mr. Franks said the pardon was neither unprecedented nor outrageous, as critics suggested, and he compared it favorably with Mr. Obama’s commutation of Manning’s sentence.

“While no one can dispute Manning acted to undermine our country’s national security, Joe Arpaio has spent a lifetime trying to maintain it. Comparing the two, it is easy to discern that Arpaio is a patriot while Manning is a traitor,” Mr. Franks said.

“I think the Arpaio pardon is pretty straightforward,” Mr. Bossert said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “Just about every modern president ends up with some controversial pardons, but I think the president’s been pretty clear on it and I certainly don’t think it’s fair to characterize him as not caring about the rule of law.”

Daniel John Sobieski: RINOS Wrong on Arpaio – “House Speaker Paul Ryan also headed for the tall grass, echoing McCain’s sentiments.

Arizona Sen. John McCain’s limited understanding of the law and the Constitution was on display when he falsely claimed that President Trump’s pardon of former Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio undermined the rule of law. McCain was joined by his Arizona colleague, Sen. Jeff Flake, who is up for reelection in 2018:

Indeed, as McCain acknowledges, the power of the President to pardon anyone for any reason is absolute.

Arpaio was found guilty by a Clinton-appointee after he was denied a trial by jury based on the relative minor nature of the charge, a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail. The ruling reeks of politics, with the decision to prosecute Arpaio on profiling charges made by an incoming Obama administration bent on throwing open the nation’s borders to illegal aliens

As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized at the time, the decision to prosecute Joe Arpaio smacked of hypocrisy, injustice, and legal gymnastics involving one Thomas Perez, current foul-mouthed head of the Democratic National Committee and former Obama administration DOJ official

The fact is that Joe Arpaio was in fact enforcing federal law as originally written, only to have the Obama administration rewrite the law in order to prosecute Arpaio.

Perhaps if Arpaio had given away the nation’s secrets, or been an international felon like the Clinton-pardoned Marc Rich, or been a New Black Panther intimidating Philadelphia voters in 2008, McCain, Flake, and Ryan might have a case. But they don’t. Joe Arpaio was and is a patriot fighting to protect our nation’s borders from invasion and was acting in good faith in enforcing federal laws it was originally written, not as reinterpreted by a liberal judge.

Anthony J. Sadar: Why the skeptics reject ‘human-induced’ climate change – “The stark reality does not support the unsettled settled science of man-made global warming.”

Many campus scientists are dismayed at what they see as unreasonable skepticism of the scientific establishment and the denial of the edifice of scientific facts that include disastrous global warming resulting from excessive human carbon emissions. In the coming decades, such emissions will apparently doom the planet, according to some high-level sources.

Step off campus and confident predictions of climate calamity are confronted by the world of reality where there are no safe spaces. The reverberations from the college echo chamber are damped by wide-open reality.

Antics, such as marches on Washington for ostensibly protecting scientific integrity, only serve to accent the politics and juvenility involved with modern scientific practice.

Campus science elites should at least try replacing patronizing arrogance with humble confidence. After all, there is a chance that elitist knowledge of the state of global climate decades from now might be wrong.

Don Surber: Why was health agency pushing the climate change lie? – “I will flat out call it a lie.”

For 30 years now, the United Nations and other Marxists have pushed the unhinged theory that man is causing the world to burn out of control. That is what global warming (now called climate change) is all about.

No serious scientist would back this quackery if not for the billions in taxpayer money governments use to pay of scientists in the guise of funding research.

Not one prediction has come true.

After 30 years of getting it wrong, anyone who is not a skeptic is either a fool or a liar (in some cases, both).

President Trump is draining the swamp.

That’s the climate that needs changing.

Arnold Steinberg: Not the Perfect Storm – “To CNN, Schumer, et al.: Now is NOT the time for politics.”

“As millions of people in TX and LA are preparing for the hurricane,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), leader of the Senate Democrats, proclaimed in a series of Friday night tweets, “The President is using the cover of the storm to pardon a man who violated a court’s order to stop discriminating against Latinos and [to] ban courageous transgender men and women from serving our nation’s Armed Forces. The only reason to do these right now is to use the cover of Hurricane Harvey to avoid scrutiny. So sad, so weak.”

And, so low-life for Schumer.

There’s more.

All this would be a sick ploy, if it were true. Our fellow Americans are in distress. … We are still one nation with a resurgent sense of community. Help our fellow citizens, even if their historical statutes are politically incorrect and presumably worthy of Orwellian revisionism.

Jenny Beth Martin: Trump, McConnell, Obamacare and the tea party – “The media just don’t understand.”

“It is with that message in mind that we are heading back to Capitol Hill on Saturday, September 23rd to rally in support of the agenda that the American people supported in last year’s election. We’re going to send a message to Washington politicians: “Keep Your Promises,” and we invite all Americans who want to see the America First policies come to fruition.”

Stephen Moore: ‘Keep it simple, Stupid’ – “The key to tax reform is avoiding bills with too many moving parts.”

Larry Kudlow, Steve Forbes and I (founders of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity) have been pleading with Congress to keep the debate focused on three simple reforms:

1) cut tax rates for large and small businesses to 15 percent to make America competitive and create jobs.

2) repatriate $2.5 trillion of money held by American companies back to the United States at a 10 percent tax rate.

3) double the standard deduction for every family and individual tax filer.

The good news for Republicans is that the three components of this tax plan are all things that Mr. Trump campaigned on and are popular with voters.

Thomas Lifson: Chicago had 14,000 more votes than voters in 2016 general election – yet “President Trump continues to receive scorn over his assertion last year that vote fraud accounted for Hillary Clinton’s raw vote majority.”

They really, really don’t want anyone looking closely at vote fraud. They claim there is none of any significance.

That must be why this report from Chicago City Wire has been so thoroughly ignored by the mainstream media:

But we can expect that Democrats will continue to dismiss the possibility that vote fraud worked for them on a significant scale. The fact that they resist investigation is telling.

Rick Moran wonders: Is the IRS Scandal About to Break Wide Open? – “Lost emails, destroyed hard drives, foot dragging, stonewalling, and a smirking, sneering IRS commissioner doing his best to obscure the truth

this has largely been the response by the Internal Revenue Service to investigations by Congress and FOIA requests from conservative groups trying to discover the truth about the IRS targeting scandal.

But one federal judge appears to be just as curious as the rest of us about what exactly the IRS was up to when it targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny in approving their tax-exempt status.

tantalizing hints emerged last week that whatever the truth is may be recoverable.

More names means more witnesses to be deposed under oath. Perhaps some promises of immunity are in order so that the truth can be wrung out of an agency that has been used to target the political opponents of a president and materially affect the ability of conservative groups to exercise their rights.

As for the flood, the Cajun Navy and many other volunteers are flooding into Texas and Louisiana to aid and assist. It’s going to be a management headache but practice is honing solutions for constructive cooperation. It’s not over yet and there is much work to be done.

Leave a Comment

What is “The Whole Truth?”

The American Council on Science and Health has two of note this morning. Ruth Kava writes that These Chickens Can’t Cross The Road – “The Organic Consumers Association avers that organic foods since they supposedly contain no pesticides, GMOs or other such “dangerous” items, are better for you.”

But an exposé recently published in the Chicago Tribune begs to differ.

Writing specifically about Herbruck’s Poultry Ranch, located in Saranac, Michigan, journalist Peter Whoriskey notes that Herbruck’s is probably responsible for around ten percent of all the eggs sold in the US. His information belies the common misconceptions about organic chicken production.

while organic proponents may feel good about the supposed lack of pesticides and GMOs in their chickens, as far as the birds go, being raised organically isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

Alex Berezow: Call junk science by its rightful name: Fake news – “The future of our republic depends on a properly informed electorate.” He takes up a list of his ten favorite junk fads and buzzwords.

By dumping these and other buzzwords, our society will be smarter, healthier and more scientifically savvy. In a world in which alternative facts are gaining ground, it’s past time to junk junk science.

Robert Knight: Rooting out vote fraud – “Why the vote fraud panel frightens the left.” It is getting so easy to compare and contrast the hypocrisy, double standards, and bullying behavior.

Judging by the unhinged reaction this past week to the first public meeting of President Trump’s blue-ribbon voter fraud panel, progressives are terrified.

They’re fearful that these election experts are actually going to do the job they’ve been given — uncovering the extent to which the nation’s voter rolls are vulnerable to fraudulent activity. How else to explain the panic and shots fired before the commission even met?

but surely he’s heard about the Democrats’ and the media’s obsessive Russian conspiracy theories. Bet he won’t tell them to shut up and get a grip.

Falsely accusing their opponents of racism, homophobia or jingoism has become the left’s default tactic when they aren’t rioting in the streets, shutting down campus speakers or shooting Republicans at a softball practice.

The progressive left is certainly afraid. They loathe scrutiny, and honorable men and women revealing the truth. We’re still waiting for that “civility” and “tolerance” that we heard so much about before Mr. Trump was sworn in.

Meanwhile, let’s hope and pray that the vote fraud commissioners, like the man who appointed them, have thick skins.

Rowan Scarborough: Fact-checkers drawn into heated debate over number of noncitizens who vote illegally – The defense of the Left is an assault on all fronts.

A right-leaning fact-checker is fighting critics on the left who say its conclusion that a lot of noncitizens vote illegally is bunk.

The online battle of debunking and rebuttal is playing out as a much larger war has erupted between President Trump’s commission on election integrity and Democratic state leaders. They are refusing to provide the panel with public voter registration data. Left-wing groups are suing to stop the commission’s work, which could settle the noncitizen debate by collecting enough data.

One way to settle the noncitizen debate could be the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The co-chairmen, Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, want the states to provide what is normally public voter registration data.

Democrat-led states are stonewalling the commission, and a leader of this resistance is Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

Bruce Fein: Recasting Trump’s election integrity commission – “Supreme Court, Constitution offer guidance for voter fraud probing.” The argument offered here brings to mind the special prosecutor investigation and just how far down the tubes an expectation of responsibility in government has gone such that excess micro-managing is needed.

The EO should be narrowed to examining whether a cluster of federal laws prohibiting non-citizens from registration or voting have been adequately enforced by U.S. Attorneys or the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. The President, after all, is constitutionally entrusted with of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed under Article II, section 3.

Concrete evidence of non-citizen voting is not required to justify an Advisory Commission investigation.

Enforcement of our federal prohibitions on non-citizen voting is too important to be left to conjecture or speculation.

Jeffrey Folks: To Sink Trump Is to Sink Ordinary Americans – “The left is determined to sink the Trump presidency.”

Obviously, the left hates Trump with a vengeance, but what they despise even more is the average American with his dream of freedom and opportunity.

Hillary Clinton let it slip when she mocked the “basket of deplorables,” those whom she accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. Having at first insisted that “half” of Trump voters fall into these categories, she then retreated from that figure: it was somewhat less than half who are deplorable.

Rarely has a presidential candidate been so candid and so obtuse at the same time, for “deplorable” is exactly what the left thinks of average Americans. And for that reason, Trump’s presidency cannot be allowed to succeed, even if sinking Trump means sinking the country. The left is willing to savage our economy, trash health care, weaken our national defense, and lose the fight against terrorism just to see that the deplorables are kept in their place. That is the central motive of the anti-Trump forces.

It is important to understand the true source of the left’s disdain. It has nothing to do with policy or the good of the country. It is, in effect, closely aligned with the psychology of racism – the need of defensive groups to transfer their uncertainties to an object of scorn.

This is a dangerous state of affairs. The left’s brazenness is something new, and something that holds the potential for great danger.

In order to remain a cohesive movement, leftism, which has no positive agenda, must continue to ramp up hatred of its opponents. It has come to resemble a “pack” motivated by instincts of power rather than a source of civil debate.

Chicago Tribune: The bill for treating a gunshot wound: $21,000 for the first 35 minutes – It is about the costs of gun violence as if it is the weapon used that is the problem. Why the medical expenses are so high and the role of government sponsored payments for those expenses in the costs are only considered to emphasize the problem. Then there is the elephant in the room:

The data are further confirmation of how skewed gun violence is along racial and socio-economic lines. Nearly two-thirds of the hospital inpatients treated for injuries suffered as a result of firearm assault were black males ages 15 to 44, the data showed.

That is the second part of the problem that is being ignored. Putting up gun laws is so easy and makes one feel so good it doesn’t matter if they have any impact or not. Trying to address the underlying problems is hard and brings the pain home in the form of dashed dreams and fantasies.

The Washington Examiner is showing its bias in asking for The whole truth. It is assuming it doesn’t have it. This is what someone does when they don’t get the answers they want:

Perhaps the only way for Trump to prevent an ever-expanding investigation, to keep things focused narrowly on questions of alleged collusion with Russia, and to make sure nobody gets dragged into side matters, is for all the president’s men to tell the whole truth rather than either to invite perjury investigations or to give technically true answers that actually conceal the real story and thus invite futher probing.

The fact is that the administration has been remarkably open and transparent. The fact is that witch hunts like the Russian Collusion Conspiracy are never prevented by reality and facts or even by a complete lack of foundation – as is readily visible in this case. For example:

This was not illegal, as far as we can tell, although seeking dirt from such a source was politically boneheaded and morally compromising. Nor is it illegal, unseemly though it is, to veil the truth in one’s public statements. Trump Jr. could even argue that he said nothing clearly false.

i.e. there is nothing there so we have to cast judgments such as “boneheaded and morally compromising.” The request for “the whole truth” is revealed as a never-ending demand for a falsehood that supports preconceived judgments and desires and a denial of reality. It’s gotcha’ politics.

Leave a Comment

Behavior matters. It cannot be ignored.

Kiera Butler: A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data—and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer – “A World Health Organization group called RoundUp a “probable carcinogen,” but it didn’t have all the facts.”

RoundUp has long been considered a benign alternative to harsher weedkillers. After extensive reviews, most regulatory agencies—the US Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, and those of many other nations—have come to the conclusion that it does not cause cancer. So when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the UN’s World Health Organization, declared RoundUp a probable carcinogen in 2015, there was an international outcry. Shortly after, 184 plaintiffs in California filed a legal case against Monsanto, saying that the company failed to warn them about the risks of its product. Since then, in a separate suit, hundreds more plaintiffs have claimed that RoundUp caused their cancers, citing the IARC’s findings as evidence.

So why on Earth would a scientist fail to mention his own work—and blithely let a powerful agency come to a conclusion that his own data suggested was wrong?

“This is a board of people whose job it is to assess evidence, so they should be able to do that before it’s published,” he said. “The broader issue is that they seem eager to have reached the conclusion that they reached.”

“Despite the existence of fresh data about glyphosate,” reported Reuters, the agency is “sticking with its findings.”

meanwhile, worries that IARC’s handling of this case will damage public perception of the group. “This is going to end up undermining people’s confidence in this agency’s ability to do this well,” he said. “They don’t seem interested in getting to the bottom of these things. These decisions seem based in politics.”

Sound familiar? How many fields of inquiry and prestigious scientific bodies have been corrupted by Left wing politics accompanied by trying to use lawfare to impose ideological fantasies? Consider the emoluments lawsuit with hundreds of Democrats signing on as another expression of this same tactic.

Sally Persons: Bipartisan call for Trump to cool tone – “As lawmakers search for a new tone in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats eyed President Trump as a necessary part of the solution Thursday, saying he has the power — and even the duty — to lead a change in the conversation.”

Rep. Mark Sanford, South Carolina Republican, said Mr. Trump was “partially” to blame for the hostile rhetoric that has consumed politics since the 2016 election, and which many analysts said helped set the stage for this week’s horrific baseball field attack on GOP lawmakers.

Rep. Joseph Crowley, who, as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, is one of the party’s chief message-makers, also looked to Mr. Trump for reasons the political debate has become venomous.

The balance Mr. Crowley tried to strike is emblematic of the challenge faced by members of Congress. They represent a deeply divided country with fiercely held views and a tendency to look at the other side as “what has gone wrong” in national politics.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said Republicans were being “sanctimonious” about the causes of the shooting, and demanded they accept part of the blame.

One Republican acknowledged his own contribution to inflaming the political debate in the aftermath of the shooting. Rep. Chris Collins of New York apologized for his remarks Wednesday blaming Democrats for the attack.

At the first level, it is the people who commit violence, who cannot control their anger, and are uncivil who need to be called out and condemned. At the second level, it is the people who condone, accept, or even praise misbehavior that need to be called out for their contribution supporting that misbehavior. At the third level is the people who try to ignore what they see because to do otherwise is uncomfortable.

The key item to note about this call on Trump is that it isn’t specific behavior but rather subjective perception – tone – that is being used as the stimulus. If clarification for that perception is demanded, then the logical fallacies and witch hunt is put on parade. This should be enough to make it very clear to any honest person that it isn’t Trump that needs to ‘cool it’ but rather those engaged in false witness and otherwise participating in trying to pretend reality is not what is in front our faces.

But some do notice, do describe what they see, and explain their perceptions.

Peggy Ryan: Americans Learning to Live with Treason – “We are watching, in real-time, a palace revolution, an overt effort to remove the president of the United States.”

Just as James Comey proudly admitted he leaked privileged communication to the press, so these insurgents brazenly brag that they want to harm the president, to impeach him, to overthrow our government. The American people seem shockingly oblivious to the looming danger.

How did we get here? Well, let’s give credit where credit’s due: the left has its ducks in a row. Leftists are carrying out a carefully planned, well executed plot to take control of our government.

Oh, it’s not soldiers bursting through the White House gates to forcefully remove the president, or, as the left says, not yet. No, they’re using a form of behavior therapy, systematic desensitization, to numb the American people to their insurgence.

These are just a few of the unacceptable transgressions by our corrupt leaders. Each time, outraged conservatives demand that the perpetrators be brought to justice. Each time, the press gaslights the American people with a media blackout, acts as though the incident never happened. Each time, the cabal rides out the news cycle until the story fades, and everyone’s home free.

Time and again, the deception, lawlessness, violation of the Constitution, or open act of sedition is met with disbelief.

Lies and fake news are the norm these days, the once unthinkable and now the expected. This cabal is a powerful alliance. If we don’t stop them, if we continue to allow this open treason, they’ll eventually reach their goal, and there will be no way back.

Ronald Reagan warned: “You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, ‘There is a price we will not pay.’ ‘There is a point beyond which they must not advance.'”

I pray he’s right. Their price is our freedom, their next stop tyranny. And they’re moving ever closer.

Daniel Greenfield says Impeach Trump’s Impeachers – “They’re dirty and crooked as hell.”

The rush to impeach President Trump is on by an opposition party that lacks the votes, evidence or legal basis for such a move. But since when did an illegal left-wing coup need any of those things?

No Dem has been more honest about the real motive for impeachment than Congressman Ted Lieu.

“We should not give him a chance to govern,” Lieu had declared after Trump had been in office for ten days. And he predicted that, “I do believe that if we win back the House of Representatives, impeachment proceedings will be started.”

That’s not how things work in the United States. But the left is running America like a banana republic.

John Sexton: Extremism experts are just starting to worry about the left now? – “My reaction: It’s about damn time.”

Somewhere in the middle of the article, Vice points out that violence is nothing new on the far left. In the 1960s groups like the Weather Underground ran domestic terror campaigns.

Earlier today the Daily Caller published a list of left-wing attacks on conservatives which contains 35 bullet points, all of them since last July.

And there seem to be plenty of people on the left spurring others on to this kind of violence. In January I wrote about a Black Lives Matter protester who gave a speech saying “we need to stark killing people.” Seven years ago, progressive cartoonist published a book whose premise was that violent revolution (by the left) was necessary. So, yes, I think it’s past time to start taking a hard look at left-wing violence and those who encourage it.

VDH is wondering Can a Divided America Survive? – “History has not been very kind to countries that enter a state of multicultural chaos.”

Either the United States will return to a shared single language and allegiance to a common and singular culture, or it will eventually descend into clannish violence.

America barely survived the Civil War of 1861–65, the Great Depression of 1929–39, and the rioting and protests of the 1960s. But today’s growing divides are additionally supercharged by instant Internet and social-media communications, 24/7 cable news, partisan media, and the denigration of America’s past traditions.

All Americans need to take a deep breath, step back, and rein in their anger — and find more ways to connect rather than divide themselves.

Steven Hayward has The Week in Pictures: Civil War Edition – “does the left really want open warfare in America? For all their talk of “fighting in the streets,” they might want to think how that would actually turn out.” Pictures emphasize the captions. Consider a few examples. “Seriously. Conservatives own 200+ million guns, 12 trillion rounds of ammo. If we were violent, you’d know it.” or “If Conservatives trust God, why do they need so many guns? Because they don’t trust Democrats.” or “Liberals think conservatives are violent because we own guns. When was the last time a group of conservatives blocked a freeway, turned over cop cars, rioted, looted, threw Molotov cocktails, burned buildings?” Many more. Go see.

Oh, and “What do we learn from cows, buffaloes & elephants? It’s impossible to reduce weight by eating green grass and salads and walking.”

For an example of the ‘ignore it in hopes it will go away school’ (level 3) is the Coyote and his new rules. He has always had a penchant for moral preening about standing above the fray where ‘both sides do it.’ His new rules proclaim “it has been a point of pride that I read from both sides. But these folks are all crazy, all the more so because they waste so many electrons arguing their side is sane and the other is crazy.” There is a difference between arguing and describing and a good part of critical reading is being able to make distinctions in the integrity and quality of the presentation. What the Coyote is doing is analogous to these protesters who actively seek to silence any opinion they don’t like. The method here is not to go after the dissenting voice but rather to self censor and avoid.

Daniel John Sobieski: The Democrats’ Deadly Rhetoric – “Bernie Sanders … and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have spent the time since President Trump’s election yelling fire in the political theatre we call democracy, warning endlessly that people will die because of the Trump agenda, painting apocalyptic visions of planetary doom.”

But as former Arkansas Governor and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has pointed out, in order to dial down the rhetoric, one must have a working moral thermostat. That the Democrats do not have. What they have is venomous anger stemming from Donald Trump’s theft of their inheritance, his cessation of their fundamental transformation of America. Donald Trump denied them the power to control every facet of our lives.

The day after the Scalise shooting and calling for unity on the House floor, Pelosi was back stirring the pot and, not looking in the mirror, took a shot at Fox News for inspiring the crazies

In one sense, Pelosi, Sanders and Jerry Brown are right that people will die because of GOP policies. Last Wednesday a group of Republican Congressmen almost did thanks to the hatred Democrats inspire.

Behavior matters. It cannot be ignored.

Leave a Comment