When opposition drives deranged thinking

Modern Medicine Bullies Indigenous Knowledge, Journal Argues With Straight Face by Alex Berezow – “And now, a fourth front has opened: A war on biomedical knowledge itself.”

“One front has fought against long-standing practices of public health meant to prevent disease, such as vaccination, pasteurization, and water fluoridation. A second front rages against those responsible for treating disease, such as medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies, who have been accused of conspiring against patients, for instance by withholding cures for cancer. A third front wages battle against agricultural biotechnology, the goal of which is to increase the safety and reliability of the food supply while minimizing environmental impact.

evidence itself is under attack. A new paper, published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, argues that modern medicine has bullied indigenous knowledge, and it needs to be protected. The authors write, “[T]raditional medicine treatments and practices have long been subjugated, devalued, co-opted, and in some cases decimated across the globe within the context of European colonization.” Furthermore, the authors lament that this issue “frequently goes unaddressed.”

There’s a reason for that: It’s historical revisionist nonsense.

A diversity of human culture makes life far more interesting, but we are fooling ourselves if we conclude that all cultural practices are equal in worth. They are not.

We don’t need to think long and hard about this to reach that conclusion. Some cultures practiced ritual human sacrifice. Other cultures, to this day, preach ethnic and racial superiority or practice female genital mutilation. If it is right and proper to denounce these cultural practices (and it is), then it should also be right and proper to denounce bogus “remedies” that don’t actually work. That’s not racism or colonialism; it’s scientific progress.

Bill Clinton: If it were a Democratic president, impeachment hearings would be underway by Rick Moran – “Former President Bill Clinton told CBS “Sunday Morning” that if it were a Democratic president in office instead of Donald Trump, impeachment hearings would have already begun.” (He’s out pushing his new book)

“Clinton is delusional. The notion that the media wouldn’t go all out to protect a Democratic president is absurd. Besides, what “facts” is the media covering relating to Russian “collusion” by the president of the United States? Every indictment, every charge, and all guilty pleas have been totally unrelated to “collusion” – most of the charges against Trump aides cover crimes committed before Trump was even running for the office. They have nothing to do with an investigation into Russian “collusion.”

The Scandal on the Other Foot by Victor Davis Hanson – here’s a contrasting hypothetical to consider.

“Imagine that it is now summer 2024. A 78-year-old lame-duck President Trump is winding down his second term, basking in positive polls. His dutiful vice president in waiting, Mike Pence, is at last getting his chance to run for president. Imagine also that Pence is a shoo-in, facing long-shot, hard-leftist, and octogenarian Senator Bernie Sanders. Polls show an impending Pence landslide.

New York Post: There’s a huge difference between the Trump and Clinton probes – “Clinton’s core wrongdoing was publicly established fact from the start — whereas the Trump investigation has always been an effort to find out if there was any wrongdoing.” (This is regarding Hillary, not Bill, but the same concept applies)

“At this point, you have to assume that two years of investigations have yet to come up with any significant evidence of Trump campaign misdoing with Russia — at least, not by the president or anyone now around him. It boggles the mind that Mueller would keep quiet if he has serious reason to fear Kremlin strings on the White House.

The bottom line: Hillary Clinton’s black eyes were entirely self-inflicted — whereas Trump has real reason to complain about a witch hunt.

Cleaning up after Obama and Hillary by Richard Jack Rail – “The most extraordinary thing about both, especially Obama, is a capacity for self-delusion. Their only real skill is skirting rules, subverting institutions, playing on resentments, destroying lives.”

Left comes to grips with Obama’s failure by Don Surber – “Not only is Obama’s legacy melting, but Trump is starving the liberal beast.” … “Trump is everything Obama is not. Trump is patriotic, experienced, and successful outside of politics.” This is one of several responses to Maureen Dowd’s Obama hagiography (NYT).

The Democrats Descend Into Farce by Andrew Klavan – “A farce is a comedy marked by buffoonery and crude, ludicrously impossible events. So is the Democratic party.”

The New York Sun: Could Trump Pardon Himself? – The idea had the NYT, WaPo, and CNN in vapors over the weekend. “It turns out that when, in 1787, the Framers considered the pardon, they reckoned the president might, on occasion, be guilty. Yet they voted to leave the power to pardon offenses against the United States solely with him — and unrestricted.”

““If he be himself a party to the guilt, he can be impeached and prosecuted.” To which Rufus King of Massachusetts chimed in with the thought that, as Madison put it, “it would be inconsistent with the constitutional separation of the executive and legislative powers, to let the prerogative be exercised by the latter. A legislative body is utterly unfit for the purpose. They are governed too much by the passions of the moment.”

Can the President pardon himself? Obviously by Jazz Shaw – “This morning the cable news talkers are predictably up in arms over the question of whether or not President Trump could write himself a pardon, despite a complete lack of any indication that he’s even considering it.” Responding to hypotheticals in a feeding frenzy because facts and evidence have gone overboard.

“As far as I can tell, this is yet another “open question” because, as Turley pointed out, there is no case law so there is no precedent to draw upon. But we surely have enough clues to say that case against the President being able to do it has some holes in it you could drive a truck through. Article II, Section 2 provides no exceptions to the power of the pardon other than to say it can’t be used to prevent the impeachment of an elected official. But if a president or governor is in that much trouble, they might be far more interested in avoiding criminal prosecution after leaving office. In that sense, the president could probably pardon his or her self and immediately resign from office. You can’t impeach an ex-president and having been pardoned, you couldn’t take them to court on federal charges.

The NFL: It’s Game Over by Emerald Robinson – “As they used to say: Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

“At a political rally in Alabama, the President decided to wade into the controversy the way a bullfighter waves a red cape in the arena. Where any other conservative politician would equivocate or apologize, the President shouts “Ole!” He brazenly declared that NFLowners ought to fire players for “disrespecting the flag.” He then quipped that the owners should say, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. He is fired!” Got that?

This was the kind of masterful media pivot that PR firms will be discussing for the next hundred years. More than 200 NFLplayers were so “outraged” that the President said they should be fired for something that they were not doing at the time — they promptly did that very thing two days later. You read that right. The President, engaging in a bit of NFLfantasy football rhetoric, actually made the NFLcharge the red cape. …

Do I even need to tell you who won? Where others see only bad publicity, the President sees opportunity.

SCOTUS supports freedom of religion 7-2 (CNBC). “The closely watched case before the Supreme Court, which in 2015 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, pitted gay rights against religious liberty.”

Border Security is also in the news. Texas Monthly reports on dealing with asylum seekers. Then there’s Interior Secy. Zinke orders park police and rangers to Mexico border by Andrew Malcolm – “Calling the border with Mexico an “environmental disaster,” Interior Secy. Ryan Zinke has ordered both U.S. park rangers and park police to Arizona and New Mexico to help stop the movement of illegal immigrants into the country.” … “He said two parks on the border — Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona and Amistad National Recreation Area in Texas — have become strewn with garbage and needles.”

California votes to expand Medicaid to illegal aliens by Jazz Shaw – “If they’re not careful, California is going to woke themselves right into bankruptcy.”

“Just one more example of the elected leaders in Sacramento scratching their heads and trying to think of anything else they can possibly do to bait the White House. But this program is going to cost them a bundle if they pass it. They’ll also likely attract illegal aliens from other states who want to move there and sign up for all the benefits.

On Global Warming, It’s Policy-Based Evidence by John Hinderaker – “Liberals often claim to be proponents of evidence-based policy, but when it comes to climate change, that formula has been reversed.”

“In the last forty years governments have become interested in universities’ finding academic support for what they are proposing or have in place. We are in an era of “policy-based evidence”. We are also in an era of a particular political correctness, where it is very difficult indeed to get funds for research if the purpose of the research seems antithetical to current government policy. “Curiosity-directed research” now comes with some serious barriers. Nowhere is this situation clearer than in the case of research on the Great Barrier Reef, in which Professor Ridd has been involved. A bucket-load of money has been devoted to “the Reef”, and another half-billion was forecast in the recent Budget, some of which will doubtless go the James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Reef, as is frequently said, is an Australian “icon”. An icon is a religious object. Professor Ridd is a scientist, not a priest.

But climate science is a religion. Worse, it is a religion that is also big business.

Then there’s the debate about snowmobile use in the Tahoe Forest. It’s an ugly argument, not a debate.

Comments are closed.