Tag Archives: politics

Misleading NLMSM

Posted on by
Reply

Again.  On 22 Jun, CNN published, as part of its pseudo-journalism series on alleged ties between President Donald Trump and his associates and Russia, a claim that Anthony Scaramucci, an informal advisor to President Donald Trump, was tied to the Russian Direct Investment Fund, a sovereign fund of the Russian government and led by Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, with whom readers might have a passing familiarity.  The fund has been sanctioned by the US government (by the Obama administration; although it’s not under Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, then or now, another of CNN‘s false claims), hence the nefariousness of Scaramucci’s alleged association and the depth of CNN‘s smear against him.

After Breitbart, et al., exposed the misleading, anonymous, single-source rumor nature of CNN‘s hit piece, CNN further assaulted the public’s ability to know by deleting the piece from the Internet, rather than merely admitting it was false and retracting it.  CNN with this move has chosen to censor the news in addition to making it up.

But that’s not all.  CNNMoney Executive Editor Rich Barbieri sent a memo to CNN staff requiring that, henceforth,

No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason [VP of Premium Content Video Farkas] first.

There’s less to that, though, than meets the eye.  The editors now demanding pre-publication review are the same editors who allowed the carefully unsubstantiated story to be published in the first place.  These are the same editors who set that standard in the beginning. Too, given the volume of writing and the pace of publication, how carefully will that “review” be done on all those stories, even on a single subject? They’ll just get a lick and a CNN promise. And what about all the unsubstantiated rumors on other subjects these guys publish or repeat?

There’s more to it, too, than meets the eye.  CNN is adding some seeming scapegoats to its “corrections:”

CNN announced late Monday that Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris have left the network.
Frank wrote the story. Lichtblau edited the piece, and Haris oversaw the CNN department, which is a new investigative unit.

More importantly, there’s still no requirement for corroboration by on-the-record sources of those “anonymous” sources’ claims.

Nothing is changing at CNN.

Universal Basic Income

Posted on by
Reply

Emeritus Professor Richard Wallace, of Wofford College, is enamored of Mark Zuckerberg’s universal basic income proposal.

Here’s the quick and dirty of the thing, beginning with a quote from Wallace’s letter.

The strongest arguments for universal income center on its elimination of work disincentives by the unconditional nature of such grants.

Leave aside the fact that free money is its own disincentive to work. A UBI will only increase demand—all that seemingly added money with which to buy stuff from necessities to goodies—without increasing supply. The resulting price inflation will very quickly reduce the buying power of the UBI to the same level that the current poverty-ridden man possesses. A UBI will not make anyone better off.

On the other hand, it will make everyone, including the poverty-ridden man this is intended to help, worse off: the UBI will come out of the pockets of everyone in the form of current taxes, future taxes to pay the borrowings, and/or devalued dollars. This will reduce monies for investment and innovation, truncating economic growth and reducing economic mobility.  The latter will act to confine the poverty-ridden man to his poverty.

“Pre-Crime”

Posted on by
1

Another word for Government’s prior restraint of private citizens, a word used by Holman Jenkins in his Friday op-ed to disguise this assault on our freedoms.

Let’s face it, with big data, with impersonal algorithms that could track every earthly resident’s web activity, travels, purchases and electronic interactions with the world, it might be quite possible to know whose life and personality are disintegrating, who might seek to resolve the impasse by going on murder binge.

Jenkins saw this favorably as the basis of a “pre-crime” era of law enforcement, however pessimistically he also saw it as coming to pass anytime soon.  I see that unlikelihood less sanguinely, but to the extent it’s slow to come or doesn’t come at all, that’s a good thing.

Then Jenkins closed his piece with this:

The more the average citizen can understand and recognize the pattern, the more such incidents likely will be avoided without us even knowing it.

Indeed, and yet Jenkins completely ignored the implication of this. We don’t need Big Brother looking over our shoulder everywhere we are, in the real world or the virtual world of social interactions, nor do we need a Hoover-esque FBI peering in through our windows, real or virtual, nor can we support any other excuse for Government extend its regulation of our lives through this new version of prior restraint.

What we need is a return to a sense of community, where private citizens look out for each other at the local level. Local problems dealt with locally are much less likely to become national problems. And even those don’t require the assault on liberty that is prior restraint, which can only be done from politicians’ definitions of alleged need for the prior.

“Melting Snowflakes”

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Post wrote about some a bit over a week ago—maybe is one itself.  Citing Ben Rhodes, “a foreign policy aide to former president Barack Obama” on the Cuba situation:

“[P]ersonally, part of what makes it difficult [to accept] is that we were six years into the administration and spent a year and a half of exhaustive negotiations before announcing” the Cuba opening….

And the poor dear didn’t even get a participation ribbon.  He went on:

They seemed to do this in such a slipshod way. Years of work and painstaking negotiations are countered by what feels like very minimal work and thought.

Or, the Trump administration did things at the speed of business instead of the speed of bureaucratic politicians, and maybe his staff have been working this out since the election.

Wendy Cutler, former Acting Deputy US Trade Ambassador on Trump’s walking away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal:

I felt short of breath and like there was a dagger in my heart[.]

Frankly, I agree that Trump was wrong to walk away from the TPP, but dramatically overwrought?  No, I claim to be an adult.

She, too, had to go on about her (and others’, she claims) angst:

When I give speeches, a lot of Asian colleagues are stunned.  They cannot come to terms with how quickly this happened.

Yeah, there’s that speed of business, again.  And perhaps preparation that actually began before 20 Jan.

Kristin Tate, on a recent Fox & Friends segment, has the right of it:

It’s pathetic that The Washington Post would spend time and resources on a story about melting snowflakes while there are so many critical issues that are worthy of coverage[.]

Or, she’s being generous in the level of credit she gives the paper.  WaPo, after all, has remade itself as a tabloid, in the mold of the National Enquirer or the Globe; many of us no longer expect journalism out of this organization.

Another Refusal to Engage

Posted on by
Reply

…rather, another decision by the Progressive-Democrats in Congress to turn their backs and obstruct.  In follow-up to the March meeting between the Congressional Black Caucus and President Donald Trump, Trump invited the CBC to another meeting.  The CBC refused.

CBC Chairman Congressman Cedric Richmond (D, LA) wrote in a letter to Trump that proposals in the president’s budget would “not only devastate the communities that we represent, but also many of the communities that supported your candidacy.”

Richmond listed some of those proposals which include reductions to funding for Pell Grants, repealing and replacing Obamacare, and so on.  Reasonable men can debate the merits of these proposals, and here would have been an excellent opportunity for those who disagree with them to do just that.

But the CBC refused to talk.  Instead, they disparaged the meeting as nothing more than “a social gathering.”  In refusing to debate the questions, all the CBC has left is obstruction.

On the other hand, I could simply rail at the apparent racism inherent in a group of black Congressmen refusing to meet with a white President.  However, I’m not of the Left; I’m a conservative writer, so I won’t engage in the racism of manufacturing a racist beef where no grounds exist.