Faux Outrage

Imaginary Conflicts of Interest for Trump versus Actual Conflicts of Interest for Dems by Jack Hellner – “After the Trump Administration released its outline for tax reform I saw a lot of consternation that the tax plan may help Trump himself, and that could be a conflict of interest.”

Maybe we should hold all members of Congress to the new conflict of interest rules that seem to have evolved since Trump was elected. A farmer or someone with a family member who owns a farm could no longer vote on agriculture bills. Teachers could no longer vote on education bills and business people could never vote on anything that helps businesses.
…
It appears the media needs a lesson on what actual conflicts of interest are, because they seem very confused. So here are several examples:
…
The media seemed to care very little about these obvious conflicts of interest and ways that politicians enriched themselves, because the media continually supported Obama and the Clintons. Yet they somehow are against Trump no matter what he does, so they go after him for a tax reform proposal that might help him along with a huge majority of the people.

Andrew C. Mccarthy: Faux Outrage and Melodrama over Comey’s Pre-Election Letter – “FBI director James Comey’s testimony on Wednesday at a routine oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee was certain to be anything but routine.”

Several features of the hearing were especially worth noting. I have dealt with one of them in a separate column — viz., the director’s continuing defense of his assessment that there was insufficient criminal-intent evidence to warrant charging Mrs. Clinton. Now, let’s turn to another: the Democrats’ effort to skew or erase entirely the context of Comey’s October 28 letter.
…
October 28. In reality, the critical context of that day’s letter to Congress was the Comey press conference four months earlier …

You may recall the unrestrained Democratic glee over that particular breach of protocol.

Of course, smarter Democrats perceive this incongruity. Thus, rather than ignore the Comey press conference, they bowdlerize it, choosing to remember only the first three-quarters of Comey’s bravura performance.
…
What Democrats choose to forget, and hope you will too, is the closing section of Comey’s remarks.

LuboÅ¡ Motl has a rant on the Lonely Woman regarding Ann Nelson’s embarrassing essay about “minorities” in physics – “like so many women in physics, she became a part-time feminist activist. In the May issue of Physics Today, she “enriched” us with the following diatribe: Commentary: Diversity in physics: Are you part of the problem?”

What an amazing pile of junk, Ann. She complains that she doesn’t have a black colleague at the University of Washington’s physics faculty. If this particular comment were meant to be a tool to hire a smart black guy whom I knew as a Harvard graduate student, it’s a very painful way to push the pendulum in similar questions.
…
If you often get asked why there are few women in physics, it’s pretty painful that you have made no progress in understanding the answer – even though it’s so simple. The average women’s IQ is only smaller by 2-3 points than men’s and wouldn’t make a big impact. What’s more important is that the IQ distribution (much like distributions of many other quantities) is wider among men, by about 10%, relatively to the women. And this makes the number of men above the (math-related) IQ score of 140 greater than the number of women by almost one order of magnitude. …

Instead, Nelson tells her male colleagues that they’re the “culprits” responsible for the small percentage of women among physicists – or small percentage of physicists among women. Every male is guilty even if he claims to be innocent.
…
At the end, the existence of the “gap” is as transparent as the fact that the thermonuclear reactions are running in a smaller percentage of moons than the stars. Different, inequivalent groups of objects or humans simply have different statistical distributions and properties extracted from them.
…
The fact that totally different groups have totally different values of certain quantities may only be “shocking” to someone who has never understood a single problem of that kind in her or his life.

Then there’s the Kimmel fiasco that is part of the ‘pre-existing conditions’ deceit being used to assert that Republicans want to kill people or deny them things that the require to live. It’s getting to be quite predictable.

Comments are closed.