Wishful thinking doesn’t do the job

This morning is a yin and yang raising the question about the difference. Why did the allegations against Weinstein (and Clinton et al) stick while those against Trump did not? Feldman takes off on the Weinstein mess while Taggart and Garrison push the plight of Trump’s accusers. The two essays might help clarify the question.

Take Back Your Diamonds, Take Back Your Pearls, What Makes You Think I Was One of Weinstein’s Girls? by Clarice Feldman – “The story has laid bare the hypocrisy of the media giants, Democratic biggies, and the Hollywood virtue signalers.”

Something like 32 women have come forward, now that Weinstein seems to be powerless, to confirm his inappropriate behavior, and as soon as more of them can find publicists to write statements for them, more are likely to show up.
His troubles are far from over. He’s under investigation by law enforcement officers in Los Angeles, New York, and Scotland Yard,

Watching Harvey Weinstein Fall, Trump’s Accusers Feel Frustrated by Kendall Taggart and Jessica Garrison – “When he won, I felt like I lost.”

For all the women who have cheered as accusations against the producer Harvey Weinstein force a public conversation about sexual misconduct, one small group of women has watched with frustration. They are some of the dozen women who publicly accused Donald Trump of groping or kissing them — accusations that Trump has denied.

In a sharp contrast to the women who accused Weinstein, Trump’s accusers did not see the public turn against him, the board of his company fire him, or the police launch an investigation. Instead, these women watched the man they say humiliated and abused them get elected president of the United States.

One thing that is obvious is the transaction. With Weinstein, there was fame and fortune on the line. With Trump? There is also the seriousness of the charges: rape or boorish behavior? Where was politics and power? Weinstein was a major figure in the Democratic Party for years. Trump is being lambasted as ‘lacking experience’ because he wasn’t that involved until deciding to run for President. Look for which tale is shallow and which has depth. There are reasons to be found and understood.

Trump doesn’t owe Obama anything by Michael Goodwin – “It’s nine months into the administration, and there is no rest for the hair-on-fire coverage.”

Every report is a parade of horrors that celebrates critics as truth-telling prophets. All the code words about cruelty to the poor and benefits for the rich are trotted out, capped with warnings about race and gender impacts.

The hyperbolic language is designed to stoke partisan fear and rally the resistance.
And so it goes, day after day, issue after issue. Stripped of policy fig leaves, the media reaction amounts to, “You can’t do that! That’s not how Barack Obama did it!”
Never mind that unemployment is at a 17-year low and the stock market is at historic highs, or that it’s boom times for consumer and business sentiment. The economic recovery is going global, but Trump, we are assured, deserves zero credit.
But policy-wise, he deserves a fair assessment of his actions. Instead, he gets automatic denunciation, as if anything he does is either stupid or corrupt.
Changes are not only welcome, they are necessary. Yet from most of the coverage, you get the idea that Trump is messing with perfection.
What’s truly reckless is the continuing bias of the media. They campaigned to defeat Trump last year, and now campaign to defeat his every action as president. Their version of Groundhog Day is that he doesn’t belong in the White House, democracy be damned.

The feel good story: As everything around him burned, one Napa man’s house somehow survived by Eric Ting – “It was 2 a.m. Monday morning … as flames from the Atlas Fire rapidly approached. He opened his car door and saw his 80-year-old mother sitting in the passenger seat, clutching a rosary and praying.”

Omlin returned to find his house and compound still standing, even though the trees and ground right next to the buildings were scorched. … Other than the ground and trees, only one thing burned on Omlin’s property: A statue of Mary.

“It was so surreal,” Omlin said. “Remembering my mom and the rosary, and then to see the Madonna sitting there.” … “I will never forget this moment,” Omlin said. “When I saw my mom and that rosary, I wanted to say, ‘I believe in prayer, but right now we need to move. This is not the time for praying.’ I felt so bad.

“But when I saw the statue, I said, ‘Shame on you Kenny.'”

There’s another one about pets. Dog survives wildfire, reunites with California family by Jonathan J. Cooper. It’s like Saving Private Ryan but, in this case, Izzy. Pets are taking it hard in the fires as their owners can barely get out with just nightclothes. Some pets are being rescued and many have severe injuries.

What does the $100 race really tell us? by John Sexton – “They found it to be touching and insightful and revealing. I found it to be dishonest and misleading.” It is about a race where the coach has those who have two parents and other ‘whiteness’ privileges are given a lead … and then told to be guilty about their privilege else they are fools.

At this point, the coach asks the people in the front to turn around. Again, the camera goes back to the starting line where several black people haven’t moved. And then comes the kicker: “Every statement I’ve made had nothing to do with anything any of you have done. Has nothing to do with decisions you’ve made,” he says.
The general idea is that this reveals how racial disparities in society are the result of people starting out with unearned advantages. But is that what this clip is actually showing? The commentary is explicitly racial but the questions are all about having a two-parent family and a steady income to pay the bills and put food on the table.

The coach is correct that the young people themselves aren’t directly responsible for any of these advantages. What he doesn’t say is that all of these advantages nevertheless come from someone’s individual choices. Whose fault is it that some people don’t have married parents or a father figure in the home? That’s the father’s fault or maybe it’s the mother’s fault or maybe both of them are at fault. You know who is not at fault? The fathers and mothers of the other kids on the field, the ones whose parents got married and stayed married.
When I see this video I essentially see someone glossing over all those hard choices and difficult experiences that made it possible for many of those kids to have advantages in life. And yes, it also glosses over the poor choices of the some of the parents who didn’t stick around for their kids.

This is the sort of insidious propaganda that attacks those aspects of western culture that has done so much for the state of mankind. People get ahead, gain privilege for themselves and their children, by taking charge of their lives and responsibility for their actions. Accepting victimhood is a characteristic of third world cultures.

Gun-control measures in Colorado and Washington about as effective as you’d expect by Ed Morrissey – “Three years after a hard push for gun control nearly cost Democrats control of Colorado, a new study suggests that they shouldn’t have bothered.” This tends to miss the idea that the stated arguments for gun control are not why it is being pushed by the Left.

The study concludes that in Colorado, Washington, and Nevada, the laws had little effect on increasing the number of background checks
the only issue studied was whether passing new laws would force greater compliance from already law-abiding gun owners on private transactions. Instead, it showed that people tend not to follow stricter mandates where government remains mainly unaware of the transactions in the first place.
Not only did it show that people tend to keep their private transactions private, it also showed that police tend to stay out of otherwise lawful private transactions, too.
Charles C. W. Cooke warns that gun-control advocates are pushing a police state, whether they realize it or not
Suggesting that government mandates succeed merely on the basis of compliance with them is the same logic that ObamaCare advocates used to claim success for having less than half of their projected enrollments materialize
Do laws like this reduce gun violence or don’t they? That’s the only measure that would justify pouring more regulation onto legal gun owners and requiring them to become an agent of the government to conduct private transactions. It’s very telling that this study completely avoids that question, choosing instead to measure success by the compliance of law-abiding citizens to ever-increasing regulation — and then failing even on that measure.

Speaking of sabotage by Scott Johnson – “When it comes to President Trump, hysteria is the only note the Democrats can strike. According to Nancy Pelosi, in terminating the subsidy payments Trump is guilty of “sabotage.” What else is new?”

During his two terms in office President Obama conducted an assault on the Constitution and on limited government in the name of the higher good as he saw it. Obama’s lawlessness was little noted in the mainstream media other than in disparaging accounts of the Republican and conservative reaction to Obama.

President Trump appears to be a bull in the White House china shop. He is portrayed as a kind of Strangelovian madman. Yet in many respects he seeks to restore the rule of law where it was abrogated by Obama. As a reaction to Obama’s lawlessness, Trump stands in relation to the Obama era as Jimmy Carter did to the Nixon era.

Trump’s cessation of subsidy payments to Obamacare insurers represents a perfect example.

Does anyone think anymore?

Comments are closed.