Archive for 2017

JOHN KASS: New focus on Clinton, dossier on Trump rocks Democratic Media Complex.

Once you lose your name and credibility, where are you?

I hope all this worries you, no matter what political tribe you belong to, because for more than a year now, that Democratic Media Complex has been shrieking about Russia this and Trump that and collusion this and collusion that.

The Trump-Russia collusion theme has been a chorus of barking dogs everywhere you turn, in online news hyped to feed anti-Trump appetites, on cable, where the appetites are sated, and even in happy-talk banter of radio and TV news anchors.

The driving force has been a partisan desire to excuse Hillary Clinton for losing her 2016 election to Trump. It’s been aggressive and passive and all Russia-Trump all the time.

Many, but not all, of the Russia stories have been debunked, and precious little, if any, evidence has come out of the congressional investigations directly linking the president to an alleged effort by the Russians to steal Clinton’s presidency.

The irony is that the New York Times broke the Clinton Foundation/Russia/uranium/pay-to-play story back in 2015, yet the media still went whole-hog for Hillary’s post-election Russia narrative. So if the media has indeed lost its credibility, they have no one to blame but themselves.

21ST CENTURY LAWYERING: Lisa Bloom wanted to hand over ‘files’ on Rose McGowan’s sexual history and listened to Harvey Weinstein boast of sleeping with actresses who wanted Academy Awards back in January.

The Daily Beast reports that Bloom told Ronan Farrow of the dossier while he was writing his exposé on Weinstein, who McGowan has accused of raping her in 1997 at the Sundance Film Festival.

Bloom wanted to hand over this material despite the fact that McGowan cannot legally speak about the incident because she signed an NDA after receiving a $100,000 settlement from Weinstein.

‘I don’t know if you’ve talked to Rose McGowan, but we have files on her and her sexual history,’ Bloom allegedly told Farrow according to NBC sources.

Bloom would not comment on that claim, but did write on Twitter: ‘Attorneys must maintain confidentiality even when awful, untrue things are said about us. Welp, I did sign up for this.’

It’s a dirty job.

I HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE: Rupert Darwall writes in the WSJ (paywalled, sadly) about the parallels between the acid rain scare of the 80s and global warming alarmism today. Here’s his conclusion:

To this day, the zombie science of acid rain lives on at the EPA’s website, which falsely states that acidification of soil, streams and lakes is caused by emissions from power stations. The EPA reckons the annual cost of anti-acid-rain measures in the U.S. will reach $65 billion in 2020, but it no longer claims that the money will prevent ecosystem damage. Now it just claims to be improving public health.

In its approach to the science of global warming, the EPA under current Administrator Scott Pruitt couldn’t offer a greater contrast with the acid-rain coverup perpetrated by the EPA during the late ’80s and early ’90s. Instead of attacking dissident scientists, Mr. Pruitt’s proposal to hold red-team/blue-team appraisals would put dissenters on the same footing as consensus-supporting scientists. This will enable proper debate between both camps to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific consensus on global warming.

Open debate is as crucial to science as it is to democracy. Capping sulfur-dioxide emissions is an economic pinprick compared with the multitrillion-dollar cost of cutting emissions of carbon dioxide. If people’s way of life is to be forcibly changed in an expensive attempt to decarbonize society, at the very least it should be done with their informed consent.

At the very least.

 

STEVEN RATTNER: Why ‘Medicare for All’ Will Sink the Democrats.

Privately, many moderate Democratic senators are harshly critical of Sanders’s tactics. “It’s radioactive for me,” one Democrat facing re-election in 2018 told me.

But publicly, even Democratic senators who have declined to endorse Medicare for All have done so in measured terms to avoid antagonizing the progressives.

“The first thing has to be to protect the health care people have now and stabilize markets,” said Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Instead of Medicare for All, we Democrats should be focused on “Better Jobs for All” — big ideas for addressing our most pressing economic challenge. That is: the wage stagnation that has left too many Americans behind, particularly white working-class men.

That’s not an easy problem to solve, but we know the solutions revolve around people-centric initiatives like improving education, providing more training and retraining and increasing worker mobility.

To buttress those programs, it’s time to move ahead with rebuilding our infrastructure and restoring government investment spending on research and development.

In doing so, let’s not forget that only about a quarter of voters consider themselves liberals; the balance self-identify as moderates or conservatives.

Our model of democratic capitalism has stood us well for more than two centuries; now is not the time to embrace the kinds of ideas, often involving deep government economic intervention, that have often fallen short elsewhere, notably in much of Europe.

Usually even moderate Democrats seem eager to hold up Europe as an example for us to emulate. There must be something in the polling winds.