Mueller's Weird List Of Questions For The President

What in the hell is going on with this weird Mueller investigation?  Am I the only one wondering that?  Here we are, just a couple of weeks away from the one-year anniversary of Mueller's appointment, and we still don't have any idea what crime, if any, the guy might be investigating.  "Collusion with Russia"? -- not a crime.  "Obstruction of justice" by the President, in asking Comey to "go easy" on Flynn (or even in explicitly directing Comey not to investigate Flynn, or not to investigate someone else, if that occurred) -- not a crime.  Indictments and guilty pleas come down, and one after another they are for nothing more than "lying" to Mueller and his people (Flynn, Papadopolous, van der Zwaal) -- in other words, crimes that Mueller and his people themselves created and would never have existed if there had been no investigation.  Except of course for things that occurred way before the 2016 election and had nothing to do with it (Manafort, Gates), or the meaningless joke of indicting thirteen Russians who will never show up in the U.S. to face the charges.

Well, we have learned one thing from this:  Do not talk to Mueller under any circumstances.  The main focus of his whole endeavor is to maneuver people into inconsistencies with other people's testimonies or recollections, however trivial, in order to manufacture indictments for lying to the prosecutors.  It's a dirty game in which no sane person would participate.

Which leads me to this morning's big New York Times story.  Mueller and his team have prepared a list of some 44 questions that they would like the President to answer, and the list has been provided to the Times.  Now we'll finally find out what this is all about!

Read More

Complete Polarization In The World Of Politics: Climate Change Edition

Perhaps you think that science, of all things, should be above politics.  After all, the whole idea of the scientific method is to divorce our efforts to understand the physical world from the misdirecting influences of political power and groupthink.  In science, there is only one relevant question:  Does the best available evidence support or refute the hypothesis at hand?  How could politics possibly get mixed up in that?

The simple answer is, this is human affairs.  And in human affairs, when money and power are at stake (and sometimes, even when they are not), people are going to form themselves into teams and tribes to fight it out.  Evidence?  What's that?

You probably have seen polls showing very large gaps in opinions on the subject of "climate change" between Republicans and Democrats.  For example, this Gallup poll from March found that 66% of Democrats "worry a great deal about climate change," while only 18% of Republicans do so.  That's rather a huge divide, although not quite complete polarization.  

However, as things are now playing out in our Congress and in the courts, the polarization on the issue of climate change is nearing one hundred percent.  Democrats are in complete unanimity in declaring climate change to be a crisis and demanding massive government-directed "solutions," while Republicans have fewer and fewer non-skeptics in their ranks.  I'm old enough to remember that the Republican presidential candidates in both 2008 (McCain) and 2012 (Romney) had drunk the climate Kool Aid.  (I actually went to a fund-raiser for Romney in 2012, only to hear him deliver a talk that was largely about how he was going to solve the climate crisis by some kind of new coercive regime.)  Those days are over.  Can anybody name a member of the younger generation of Republicans in Congress who is not a skeptic? 

Read More

This Is Not A Post About Global Warming

This is definitely not a post about global warming.  Except that it is.

A friend this morning sent me a link to the Quillette website, which a few days ago posted an edited version of a speech that was to be delivered at Kings College, London, by a guy named Adam Perkins.  The title of the speech is "The Scientific Importance of Free Speech."   Unfortunately, Kings College canceled the speech at the last minute because it was deemed to be too "high risk."  Perkins thus joins the ranks of Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, and -- as of just two weeks ago -- Josh Blackman, as people who have been run off campus or shouted down for holding views deemed by contemporary progressives as too offensive to be heard.

Try reading the Perkins piece, and see if you can figure out what about it is so offensive.  I'll give you a few excerpts that summarize the theme:

Read More

How To Run For Governor Of New York

How To Run For Governor Of New York

So you want to run for Governor of New York?  No problem -- it's easy!  We can look to the emerging re-election campaign of current Governor Andrew Cuomo to see how it's done by the pros.

There are a few basic rules.  Rule number one is, every time the New York Times comes up with some kind of ridiculous new regulatory initiative or spending program to solve the problems of humanity, you implement it immediately (with other people's money, of course).  This is the functional equivalent of the magician's diverting the observer's attention while the real activity goes on somewhere else.  The progressive do-gooder will fall for it every time!  

Read More

Why I Have A Problem With Earth Day

Why I Have A Problem With Earth Day

When I went out last night for my walk with the dog, the Empire State Building was lit up in brilliant green, presumably in honor of Earth Day. . . . The spire on the new One World Trade Center was a similar shade of bright green.  We should all join in feeling warm and fuzzy that we are saving the planet!

Call me a grinch, but I don't want to be associated with the people who promote Earth Day.  Not that I have anything against being a good steward of the environment.  I even picked up the litter on the sidewalk as I walked down the block!  But Earth Day has a very unfortunate association with people who have used the promotion of phony environmental scares in the effort to impose authoritarian government on the people.  Forty-eight years after the first Earth Day in 1970, the scares that got the thing going look, frankly, ridiculous in retrospect.  Yet somehow, instead of developing a healthy skepticism of those who promote scary sin-and-redemption fantasies to aggrandize their own power, we've just moved on from the old fantasies to a whole crop of new and equally phony scare stories.  And even more people seem to have bought into them.  Is there any chance that today's environmental scare stories will look any less ridiculous forty-eight years from now?

Read More

The Laydown Criminal Case Against Comey

It seems that the very sanctimonious former FBI Director, James Comey, is out on a tour, promoting his book "A Higher Loyalty."  Comey has the idea that he was treated shabbily by the President when he was fired in May 2017, and that he occupies the moral high ground with respect to the President.

You would think that, of anyone, the Director of the FBI would know what constitutes a federal crime.  Don't be so sure.  Consider just one example where Comey has committed a clear and obvious crime and yet doesn't seem to have a clue.

Read More