omissions and the underlying assumptions

Tired, Boring—and Dangerous—Celebrity Death Wishing. Victor Davis Hanson – “Our elite entertainers do not just limit themselves to imagining the violent demise of conservative presidents like George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Any conservative elected official or their family will do.” … “So why do left-wing celebrities express such political hatred?

“If one believes the beachfront of Malibu reflects the norms of American behavior or thought, then he is seriously delusional. So expect celebrity-driven assassination chic to continue until either the country collectively says “enough”—or such sick rhetorical murder leads to the real thing.

Why Are Democrats Obstructing Justice? Julie Kelly – “In what can only be described as legitimate obstruction of justice, unlike the vague allegations against Donald Trump in the Mueller report, Democrats are frustrating Barr’s investigative efforts with a number of procedural maneuvers coupled with public ad hominem attacks against the attorney general.

“So, for two years, we were told that any criticism of Robert Mueller met the legal threshold for obstruction of justice. The commentariat class insisted that any harsh tweet, comment, or facial expression by Trump about Mueller or his team was intended to thwart his investigation. Even a casual conversation allegedly documented by Comey about former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn is contained in volume two of the Mueller report as possible evidence of obstruction of justice by the president.

But now Democratic lawmakers are openly smearing the attorney general and no one objects?

The very subjects of a criminal investigation into abuse of power, illegally leaking classified information, misleading a federal court, and violating the rights of private citizens are permitted to publicly denigrate the man in charge of the investigation, and that’s not obstruction of justice? Imagine if Republican lawmakers had made the same comments about Robert Mueller: the outrage would have been nonstop.

Let’s hope Barr—or John Durham—gets the last word.

Scorched Earth’: Mueller’s Targets Speak Out. Paul Sperry – “They were clearly on a fishing expedition

“Now that Mueller has ended his probe finding no election collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, 10 witnesses and targets of his sprawling, $35 million investigation agreed to speak with RealClearInvestigations because they are no longer in legal jeopardy.

Their firsthand accounts pull back the curtain on the secret inner workings of the Mueller probe, revealing how the special counsel’s nearly two dozen prosecutors and 40 FBI agents used harshly aggressive tactics to pressure individuals to either cop to crimes or implicate others in felonies involving collusion.

Former special prosecutors say the tactics used by Mueller’s team appear excessive.

But, the 10 witnesses swept up in the inquiry say those facts and figures, as well as the final determination that there was no conspiracy or collusion with the Russians, do not begin to account for the human toll of the Mueller probe.

They want their stories told as a public record of the broken lives Mueller’s team has left in its wake.

Trump’s Legal Authority to Impose Tariffs. David Post – “I suspect that because this issue is now seen as being all about Mr. Trump and is all entangled in the Trump/Anti-Trump miasma, there’s probably no chance of any revision in the law until a new Chief Executive is in place. But one can still hope.” What the Democrats and many economists appear to be missing is the alternative. Trump is using Tariffs as a replacement for more drastic and uglier methods. Consider Obama’s drone targeting or troop engagements, for example. If a war needs to be fought, tariffs are probably better than bullets.

Changing minds: How do you communicate with climate change skeptics? WUWT – “UNLV researcher develops new method for categorizing climate change beliefs and shares tactics for communicating with deniers

“You don’t want to view your dialogue partner as inferior. I think it’s a problem when environmentalists or climate scientists are dismissive, or potentially patronizing to climate skeptics. I think that kind of dialogue can lead to climate skeptics feeling isolated and silenced. You may not agree with the skeptic, but you should still respect the person who holds the beliefs. We must listen, not just for a talking point to jump in on, but to understand the perspective they’re coming from, and what values or identities they feel are threatened by environmentalism.

This gets interesting because of the omission and the underlying assumption. The science part is missing. Not the science of climatology but rather the science of method and values: measurement, accuracy, precision, experimental verification, and careful definition of terms and concepts. There is a bad case of projection illustrated as well. Threatened by environmentalism? Deniers driven by religious belief? Just who is engaged in logical fallacies, distortion of evidence, and emotional outbursts, and who is plagued by outrageous claims of doom and catastrophe?

Comments are closed.