Archive for 2019

ANN ALTHOUSE ON JOURNALISM’S TRUMP/CHARLOTTESVILLE LIE: “I suspect that they keep repeating the falsehood because they are so clearly wrong that they can’t find any way to back down. And I also think they’ve seen the effectiveness of this attack on Trump. It has worked as propaganda, so why stop now? The hit to their credibility has already occurred, so why not keep manipulating minds?”

Think of them as Democratic Party political operatives with bylines and you won’t be far wrong.

ONCE AGAIN, “TESTOSTERONE POISONING” TURNS OUT TO BE A THING, BUT ONLY IN WOMEN: Excess hormones could cause a condition that can lead to blindness in women, study finds. “Research led by the University of Birmingham has found that increased levels of hormones including testosterone could cause a brain condition that can lead to blindness in women.” What does this mean for women who are taking exogenous testosterone as they “transition” to being transmen?

BILLY BEER, THE NEXT GENERATION: Sam Adams beer names new brew for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Why is a beermaker publicly delving into politics, you might ask? It seems like a bone-head move, to paraphrase Joe Biden, but here we are. Boston Beer Company, brewers of Sam Adams beer, are dedicating a new brew to liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and are also supporting the ACLU at the same time.

Presumably Bader Beer contains zero corn syrup, supports wind power, and is a big fan of Bob Dylan.

PRESIDENT TRUMP NOMINATES STEPHEN MOORE FOR FEDERAL RESERVE SEAT.

YOUR DAILY HOURLY TREACHER: United Airlines Goes Gender-Neutral or Whatever. In over a century of manned airflight, there’s one nagging problem that has never been addressed: misgendering. That ends today:

 

What could go wrong?

In recent years, United has had a slew of bad publicity, including at least one passenger dragged off a flight, and another who was a 63 year old attorney, teacher, and human rights advocate forced to give up her first class seat for far left Rep Sheila Jackson Lee, only to be dubbed a racist (unexpectedly!) by Lee because she complained. The airline cast off a wide swatch of conservatives when it virtue signaled to the left that it was removing travel discounts for NRA members. Here’s a way for United to get the uber-woke crowd off their backs — at least for a little while.

WELL, THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY, YOU KNOW: The Navy Plans to Put HELIOS Laser Weapon on Destroyer by 2021. And this seems about right: “HELIOS is not a quantum leap above existing systems, but then again, early guns like the matchlock were in some ways inferior to the bow and arrow. Eventually, as firearms technology progressed, the gunpowder gun progressed to the point where it was clearly superior. As laser weapons become more powerful, they could quickly become much more effective than conventional gun and missile weapons.”

MARTIN FELDSTEIN: The Debt Crisis Is Coming Soon: To avoid economic distress, the government has to reduce future entitlement spending.

The most dangerous domestic problem facing America’s federal government is the rapid growth of its budget deficit and national debt.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit this year will be $900 billion, more than 4% of gross domestic product. It will surpass $1 trillion in 2022. The federal debt is now 78% of GDP. By 2028, it is projected to be nearly 100% of GDP and still rising. All this will have very serious economic consequences, and the CBO understates the problem. It has to base its projections on current law—in this case, the levels of spending and the future tax rules and rates that appear in law today.

Those levels don’t match realistic predictions. Current law projects that defense spending will decline as a share of GDP, from a very low 3.1% now to about 2.5% over the next 10 years. None of the military and civilian defense experts with whom I’ve spoken believe that will happen, given America’s global responsibilities and the need to modernize U.S. military equipment. It is likelier that defense spending will stay around 3% of GDP or even increase in the coming decade. And if the outlook for defense spending is increased, the Democratic House majority will insist that the nondefense discretionary spending should rise to match its trajectory.

Which makes no sense. I’m still worried about this stuff, but I’m kind of resigned to nothing being done about it until there’s an inescapable crisis — which, of course, is the worst time to have to do anything about it, but the only possible time politically.

UNEXPECTEDLY: Gavin Newsom’s death-row betrayal.

As a gubernatorial candidate, Newsom solemnly pledged to abide by the voters’ death-penalty decisions, despite disagreeing with them. He promised to be “accountable to the will of the voters” and not let his “personal opinions” interfere with “the public’s right to make a determination” about capital punishment. His spokesman last year told the San Francisco Chronicle that Newsom “recognizes that California voters have spoken on the issue and [would] respect the will of the electorate.” In editorial-board meetings, Newsom agreed that “it would be an affront for a governor to say ‘Here’s what I’m going to do by fiat.'”

His word was not to be trusted.

Why would Californians have ever trusted his word? Newsom has long enjoyed instituting his vision by fiat, something voters of the formerly Golden State evidently didn’t mind when they elected him.

BUT THE NARRATIVE: The Myth That Australia’s Gun Laws Reduced Gun Homicides. “The situation is more complicated than reporters suggest.”

It usually is:

Part of the reason that the collection of homicide data in Australia is so recent a phenomenon is because it has tended to be so rare. Politically, it simply wasn’t a national priority. Australia is a small country, with only a few more million people than Florida spread out over an entire continent. In the relatively high homicide days of the early 1990s, Australia’s homicides totaled around 300. This means in a bad crime year, in which homicides increase by only 20 or 30 victims, it could swing overall rates noticeably.

This brings us to our other problem with using post-1996 homicide data as definitive proof of anything. The numbers are too small to allow us to extrapolate much.

That won’t stop the usual suspects from doing just that, however.