The Five Dumbest Things In The New York Times Coverage Of The Issuance Of The Mueller Report

The Mueller Report has been issued. At this moment, no one has actually yet seen it, other than a few top guys at the Justice Department — Barr, Rosenstein, maybe a handful of others. Nobody knows what’s in it, except for one thing: according to a “top Justice Department official” (probably Barr or Rosenstein), there are going to be no more indictments, whether relating to Russian “collusion” or anything else. Oh, wait a minute. Before today, there also had been zero indictments for anything having to do with “collusion” with the Russians by Trump or his campaign. So that one little thing that we know means that, after almost two years of investigation by Mueller and his team, and after another year plus of investigation by the FBI before that, the vast and awesome armies of our Justice apparatus have found exactly nothing in the way of criminal “collusion” between Trump or his campaign and the Russians.

Now of course, the New York Times cannot just pretend that this issuance of this Report is not happening. They have to cover it, and in a big way. (Same with the Washington Post. But, since I don’t get the Washington Post, I’ll have to let you read about their shame at other sites, for example at PowerLine.). Trying to live up to their readers’ expectations, the Times fills up oodles of space with “coverage” — about two-thirds of page A1 (three news articles), all of pages A14, A15, A16 and A17, the only unsigned editorial of the day on page A24, and an op-ed on page A25 by one Caroline Fredrickson (President of the American Constitution Society).

But what are we going to say? I mean, we are supposedly the most credible among credible mainstream media sources and we have now spent well over two years hyping this Russian “collusion” thing in dozens of pieces in an obvious attempt to damage if not bring down the President. And now it comes to nothing? Everything we’ve said about this for two plus years has been wrong? What are we going to say???? . . .

Read More

Comments On Andrew McCabe And The FBI's Coup Plotters

Disgraced ex-FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe has written a book, and of course then he’s out trying to sell it. On Thursday the Atlantic published an excerpt. Tomorrow McCabe is to appear on 60 Minutes in a pre-recorded segment, several snippets of which have become public in advance of the airing.

Plenty of people have already offered up comments. Here are some you might find interesting: Marc Penn at Fox News; Roger Kimball at Spectator USA; Andrew McCarthy at Fox News; Willis Krumholz at the Federalist; Julie Kelly at American Greatness; Byron York at the Washington Examiner.

Not wanting to repeat what’s already been said, I’ll just offer up a few thoughts. Most important, you really have to marvel at the deep state mindset exemplified by this guy — a combination of ignorance, stupidity, arrogance, and, more than anything else, sanctimony. Sanctimony. The total confidence in his own righteousness and holiness, even as he has wholly lost track of — or is completely ignorant of — all the applicable legal and ethical principles, even the very most basic ones.

Let’s look at a couple of quotes from McCabe’s book excerpt in the Atlantic: . . .

Read More

The Climate Scare: Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious

The Climate Scare:  Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious

The Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives! And, for their first act, how about some scary “climate” hearings? The New York Times, of course, takes the occasion to run a big front-page story with the headline (in the print edition — online is different) “2018 Continues Warming Trend, As 4th Hottest Year Since 1880.” Let’s apply a little critical analysis.

The Times adorns their article with a huge temperature graph, covering the period 1880 to 2018, that goes across two-thirds of the top of the front page. The overall trend looks up at first glance. But on not-very-much-closer inspection, it is obvious that 2017 was down from 2016, and 2018 was down from 2017. How exactly does that constitute 2018 “continu[ing the] warming trend”? I would have said that the last two years in a row down is the opposite of “continuing the warming trend,” but what do I know?

The Times’s graph derives from the systematically-altered NASA/GISS surface temperature series. Go to my 19-part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time” to learn more than you would ever want to know about the adjustments that NASA and NOAA make to the surface temperature record to lower earlier year temperatures and raise later year temperatures to create a fake enhanced warming trend. Since all reasonably-informed readers would know about the serious allegations of data alteration in the surface temperature records of NASA and NOAA, would you think that the Times would deign to mention the issue, let alone mention the existence of the far more accurate satellite record that exists since 1979 and shows something far different? . . .

Read More

On Being In With The In Crowd

Do you have a burning desire to be in with the in crowd? I do not. Maybe that’s what makes me a contrarian.

But the desire to be in with the in crowd is certainly a very common and powerful human instinct. You might even think that this desire is universal. If so, then you probably suspect that I must be lying when I say that I have no desire to be in with the in crowd. It must be that I have always been so nerdy and awkward that I was never going to be in with the cool people, so I had to develop this contrarian schtick in order to preserve some pitiful semblance of self-worth.

OK, you can go right ahead and think that. At least I don’t go around regularly making a fool of myself in a desperate quest for approval from the cool people. And our current in crowd is rather achingly dumb, which means that anyone pursuing their approval is regularly going to make a fool of him or herself.

Yes, I am talking about Mitt Romney. . . .

Read More

Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg A Good Supreme Court Justice?

Several months ago, it was "RBG," a documentary heaping praise on progressive icon Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Now in the past week we have seen released a new Hollywood bio-pic, “On the Basis of Sex,” with actors playing the Notorious RBG, her family, and other characters.  The reviews overall are pretty bad, but there's no question that the idea of the film is to heap praise and make an enduring heroine out of the great justice who stands up to Republican appointees like Brett Kavanaugh.  Here is a roundup of reviews from the left-wing British newspaper The Independent.  Example:

The Hollywood Reporter . . .:  "The dramatic approach here is clear, efficient and entirely on-the-nose, with little time for anything that might distract from the hagiographic effort in play. Its sole purpose is to ennoble and proclaim a hero, which its subject almost certainly is. But it makes for notably simplified drama."  

So is RBG a heroine worthy of great praise and adulation? . . .

Read More

George H.W. Bush And The Problem With The WASP Establishment

The passing of President George H.W. Bush has occasioned many reassessments of both his person and his presidency. On the side of his person, H.W. had a long and (almost) universally-recognized list of admirable qualities. There was no one more fundamentally decent, more honorable, more devoted to family and country, more patriotic, more dedicated to true public service. And although he certainly had his share of ambition — it would be impossible to become President without that — he did not have the sort of blind and desperate personal ambition that has characterized, for example, Obama and Clinton, or for that matter Nixon and Trump. Overall, what more could you ask for in a President?

But if you want an assessment of the success of his presidency, my answer would be, it was not particularly successful. Why? The simple answer is that he was too nice. The slightly more complex answer is that he thought that he was dealing in good faith with reasonable people in a loyal opposition, and that the right approach to dealing with those people was to compromise. Or to put it another way, his Establishment Wasp sensibility left him highly vulnerable. The result was that time and again, on the most important issues, he got taken to the cleaners.

Let’s consider three of the most important examples. . . .

Read More