Saturday, January 21, 2017
Party of Science
While there had been rumors swirling for a while, I was still highly disappointed when I saw a tweet coming from the office of New York’s Governor this morning proclaiming his "victory" in moving to close the Indian Point nuclear power plant.Um...why?
And for what? Indian Point has an above average safety record and is one of the more profitable properties owned by Entergy. In fact, the plant was recently awarded the highest possible safety rating by federal regulators, as it has for a number of years running. What exactly is Cuomo worried about in terms of safety considerations… an earthquake? The last one to hit anywhere near here didn’t manage to knock over any lawn chairs. Is he perhaps worried about a tsunami? Take a look at where Indian Point is located. If a tsunami reaches that location you’ll have much bigger fish to fry because all of New York City will have been destroyed first.So, here's the deal, if you are a global warming alarmist, you don't get to oppose nuclear energy. It's really that simple.
Friday, December 30, 2016
Coolidge and Clinton
Blaming the Depression on Coolidge is moronic, but I have always wondered why liberal economists, to be consistent, don’t blame the dot.com collapse and ensuing recession on Bill Clinton, thereby negating the supposed economic achievements of his administration. That would make a lot more sense, actually. Not everyone remembers - most would prefer to forget - that the NASDAQ dropped from 5047 to 1114, a 78% decline, between March 2000 and October 2002. This was the mess that greeted George W. Bush when he took office. Funny how the press never uses that disaster to negate the achievements - which in a few respects were real - of the Clinton administration.
Playing Hardball at the UN
Martin Karo (via Scott Johnson at Power Line):
After the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, declaring that all Israeli building and activity in any territory captured in the 1967 war (the third war imposed on the Israelis) is illegal under international law, Donald Trump immediately vowed that things will be different come January 20. Virtually all Democrats in Congress immediately went on record opposing the Obama Administration’s feckless betrayal of Israel as well. Chuck Schumer purported to be particularly outraged. In order to convert outrage to action, herewith a modest proposal for the first law to be presented to and passed by the Congress under the Trump Administration:
Whereas, it is a bedrock principle of the United States, and a sound principle generally, that no peace deal may be imposed by outside parties on any party not directly involved in any conflict; and
Whereas, said principle is especially relevant in the context of Israel and the Palestinians, and the conflict that has embroiled that region since the passage of the UN plan partitioning the British Mandate;
The following provisions of law are hereby enacted:
Section 1. The United States does not recognize, and repudiates, UN Security Council Resolution 2334. Said act shall have no force whatsoever within the United States, shall in no way influence any action of the Government of the United States, and shall not be observed in any way by any company that does business in the United States, except as necessary to carry out the following provisions of law.
Section 2. The United States shall, at the next meeting of the United Nations Security Council, introduce a resolution formally revoking UNSC 2334 and reaffirming that any peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians must and shall be negotiated and concluded between those parties only. This resolution shall be reintroduced by the United States at every UNSC session until it is passed.
Section 3. The United States Treasury is directed to reduce all United States payments or transfers to the United Nations, and all constituent elements thereof, to match those of New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal, or Venezuela, whichever is least, until UNSC 2334 is revoked. The United Nations seeks to force the United States to follow the political contributions of those nations; consequently it shall be limited to the economic contributions provided by those nations.
Section 4. The United States shall revoke and withhold any direct or indirect aid to the Palestinians, or any organization that in any way assists the Palestinians, until UNSC 2334 is revoked pursuant to Section 2.
Section 5. No bank registered in the United States shall do any business whatsoever with any country that proposed, voted for or recognizes UNSC 2334, or with any bank registered in such countries, for any purpose, without an explicit waiver from the United States Congress. No bank registered in any country which recognizes UNSC 2334 shall do any business whatsoever in the United States or with any bank registered in the United States, without an explicit waiver from the United States Congress.
Section 6. The provisions of Sections 1 - 4 of this Act shall be effective immediately. The provisions of Section 5 shall be effective six months from the passage of this Act.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Creating the Narrative
What is going on here is painfully obvious. The New York Times and the Associated Press are collaborating in an attempt to smear and delegitimize Donald Trump by tying him to a purported "movement" of white supremacists called the alt-right. No doubt many other liberal news organizations will join in, in order to advance the interests of their party.
The "alt-right" is mostly a figment of the liberal media’s imagination. I have been active in the conservative movement for decades, and know hundreds, perhaps thousands, of conservatives of all stripes. Yet I had never heard of the "alt-right" until the Democrats started promoting it during the current election season. The supposed leader of the white supremacist movement is a young man named Richard Spencer. I learned this a few minutes ago by Googling. I had never heard of Mr. Spencer, and virtually no one had heard of him until the Democrats decided to portray him as the leader of a fictitious "movement" that they then tied to Republicans.
Disavowing nobodies like this, or nobodies like David Duke, who ran for office many years ago and now survives by being a "former KKK leader" whom the press can quote in order to discredit Republicans–forgetting, apparently, that the Ku Klux Klan was the militant arm of the Democratic Party in the South–is a fool's game. The more Trump does it, the more the press will report that he is disavowing such otherwise-unknown elements "again," in a futile effort to "distance himself" from people of whom, for the most part, he probably has never heard.
How should Trump respond to such demands for disavowal? Aggressively, as he did during the campaign, but too often has failed to do since being elected. How about Hillary Clinton, he should ask. Has she disavowed the support of the American Communist Party, which urged its followers to vote for her?
Mr. Hinderaker concludes,
So, Hillary, how about it? Communism has killed thousands of times as many people as the KKK. Is Hillary comfortable with enjoying the support of the Communist Party? Why doesn’t anyone ask her that question? Well, sure. The answer is obvious.
And has Hillary Clinton–or any other Democrat, for that matter–disavowed the rioters who have brought destruction to cities across America in the days since their candidate lost? I have not seen a single such disavowal from any prominent Democrat, let alone Mrs. Clinton. Has Hillary disavowed the support of the goons who beat a Trump supporter nearly to death in Chicago? Nope. Has she disavowed the support of the Democrats who are threatening to murder electors who cast ballots for Donald Trump, the winner of the presidential election? Nope.
Trump should tell the press to go talk to Hillary about her disreputable supporters. Once she has renounced them, they can come back to Donald with their questions.
Monday, October 31, 2016
It’s hard for me to imagine disliking someone to the point of being happy she sustained a serious injury. But then, I never had to work for Hillary Clinton.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Patterns of Offending
Andrew C. McCarthy:
First, she explains the elephant in the room that no one (including Donald Trump last night) wants to confront: Mrs. Clinton's "systemic bias" libel ignores that the statistical overrepresentation of blacks in the prison population (compared to their percentage of the overall population) is caused by patterns of offending.
Not only does crime reporting by victims bear this out. It is common sense. Outside of academia, the legal profession is second to none in its leftward bent and racialist worldview; and its conservative members believe in equal protection under the law. Participants in the system, particularly the judiciary, would not tolerate a situation in which black defendants were, as Clinton alleges, being given more severe sentences than white defendants for the same criminal conduct. Federal sentences (and sentences in most states) are computed under race-neutral guidelines that factor in both offense conduct and criminal history. The more crimes one commits, the heavier the sentence for any one crime. This is a recidivism thing, not a race thing.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
How about a Civics Test?
Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a "religious test" in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.Please read the entire article.
Thursday, July 07, 2016
Quote of the Day
I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment.