Thursday morning links

People capable of feeling shame would not have immediately followed up the Russiagate hoax fiasco with another transparently phony—and in “substance” nearly identical—attempt to remove President Trump from office, overturn the 2016 election, and shower deplorable-Americans with contempt and hatred. But our ruling elites have no shame.

That is not to say, however, that they are entirely cynical. The means by which they’ve so far tried to crush the Trump presidency may be nasty and illegitimate, but our overlords are 100% convinced of the righteousness of their cause, and of themselves. Hence they do not even need recourse to the cliché that the ends justify the means. The means are good because the end is sacred; they cannot countenance even the thought that the means might be suspect or (ahem) trumped up.

Brit Hume: One Of The Wonders Of Modern Media Is Its Failure To See Through Adam Schiff

Bartiromo on FISA abuse: The lies are real, people will be prosecuted…

Boris Johnson's Great Victory

THERE WAS NO “SECRET WAR ON THE TRUTH” IN AFGHANISTAN

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:30 | Comments (20) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Happily New England will have to “improve transportation” and “save the planet” without taxes from NH. good work Gov. Sununu. NH says no thanks!

#1 Annie on 2019-12-19 09:34 (Reply)

The entire climate scam is such a transparent attempt to extort money from productive people. It is nothing more than that. No one believes it will either affect the climate or reduce pollution. It is a money and power grab and nothing more.

If the left really believed in cutting fossil fuel use they would end all air traffic. Air traffic uses extraordinary amounts of fuel mostly for pleasure travel. End it all, 100%. Second end all ocean shipping. The big ocean ships also use extraordinary amounts of fossil fuel. Third, require that ALL public/government entities pay the fuel taxes that they are no exempted from. After all you cannot simultaneously argue that taxing fuel will reduce pollution and then exempt large users of fuel.

#1.1 Anon on 2019-12-19 10:44 (Reply)

Ocean-going ships are hands down the most fuel efficient way to move cargo. By far.

I agree with your sentiment that the left is unserious; and I also agree that most of what they pretend to be interested in is really just a sham to cover up their desire to micromanage other people's lives. But you are wrong about shipping.

#1.1.1 Thos. on 2019-12-19 11:29 (Reply)

90,000 cargo ships facilitate global shipping. A single Maersk container ship emits 50,000,000 times more pollution than a car does annually. Multiply that by 90,000 and you see the problem. The point is NOT that moving cargo by ship is efficient or not. The point IS that if you actually believed pollution from fossil fuel was the problem THEN you would go after the biggest polluters first. But they do not because they do NOT believe that the pollution is the problem they believe that the easily generated hysteria about pollution is exploitable to their benefit. They have ZERO intent to fix this non-problem they merely want to benefit from it.

P.S. Every ship on the ocean could tomorrow cut their pollution in half be simply reducing their speed by 50%. Everyone who has run a motor boat knows this from experience. My boat could travel 12 miles at 2 knots on one gallon of gas but it would travel about 1.5 miles at 12 knots on a gallon of gas.

#1.1.1.1 Anon on 2019-12-19 11:57 (Reply)

But cutting speed in half means twice as many ships to move the same amount of cargo in the same time.

#1.1.1.1.1 Another Guy named Dan on 2019-12-19 14:39 (Reply)

Fighting global warming is worth it if you actually believe it. The right thing to do is end all shipping, wouldn't you agree? Seriously, they want to put a tax on energy is though that will solve the problem. We all know they would put a tax on their grandparents just to get their money. This is not about stopping fossil fuel use or stopping global warming. And that is my point. If this was really about pollution and global warming they would attack the problem and not raise taxes.

I would actually be OK with ending all plane flights and all shipping. We can grow or make anything we need we don't need shipping. But I can guarantee you the elite have no intention of giving up their private jets or lucrative trade.

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Anon on 2019-12-19 15:18 (Reply)

I found this story to be really, really comical: https://www.wbur.org/earthwhile/2019/12/17/new-hampshire-coal-train-protest-climate-change

A group of protestors occupies the train tracks to stop a coal train, and are shocked - shocked - when their calls to the railroad's Emergency Hotline were disregarded and they actually had to move off the tracks from the oncoming train.

…” Activists stationed about a mile and half-mile away tried to warn the driver with flags, but the train gave no indication of slowing down.

With the train about 50 feet away, the group ran off the track.

"If we were locked to the tracks, they wouldn't have had time to slow down by the time they saw us," one of the protesters said. "They went through two sets of flaggers."”

Oh, the outrage. Rodney Dangerfield had no comment.

#1.2 Aggie on 2019-12-19 12:08 (Reply)

heh.

One wonders if their next tactic will be to derail the train?

#1.2.1 feeblemind on 2019-12-19 13:29 (Reply)

Re: impeachment

It is not unusual in a suit for the defense to ask the judge for a directed verdict when there is the reasonable supposition that a reasonable jury could not rule any other way.

The Democrats' impeachment proceedings denied due process to Republicans and the president. The articles themselves are vacuous but even if they weren't, they are not supported by the facts (even the Senate Democrats admit that the House Democrats have not made their case since they want to call their own witnesses), and the public does not support impeachment in recent polls and other circumstantial evidence. Indeed, the polling for the president has improved since the Houuse's impeachment hearings began. Lastly, the chance of a conviction in the Senate is essentially zero.

Can the president petition the Chief Justice for a directed verdict?

#2 mudbug on 2019-12-19 10:18 (Reply)

Impeachment: In my opinion, which is not unique to me, the danger is that so many Americans do not grasp how an Impeachment, without a bipartisan super majority, undermines a government of three separate and coequal branches. Especially, in a case, when Impeachment is used as a tool for frivolous and narrow partisan ends, based on convoluted charges and half-baked evidence, lacking a crime. By subverting the executive function to the Legislature, it derails the impact of the Electoral College which, as you know, is meant to ensure the president has a wide base of support, geographically and demographically. Compare and contrast that to the Speaker of the House, who is only accountable to the narrow interests of one district. Using Pelosi, as an example, she represents 300K voters in one of the country's wealthiest urban districts, not very representative of the country as a whole. If these people prefer a parliamentary form of government, that's fine, but if they are going to change the social contract, in a sneaky, underhanded way, without our consent, we aren't obliged to go along with it.

#2.1 Exasperated on 2019-12-19 15:08 (Reply)

Bue...but...but...Ms. Nancy says the House is superior to the Senate, Executive and Judiciary because it makes the laws. Doncha know yer Constitution? Oh yeh, Lawrence Tribe rewrote that part in the middle of the night. Social Justice ya know.

#2.1.1 jma on 2019-12-19 19:05 (Reply)

Re: Jewish Christmas music
It's not just composing. Plenty of Jewish artists have recorded Christmas Albums. In a twofer, Barbra Streisand's "Ave Maria" is one of my Midwestern, Protestant mother's favorite Christmas songs.

#3 Another Guy named Dan on 2019-12-19 10:51 (Reply)

Realizing I am a guest here and not wanting to spam the thread, I nevertheless want to mention that if you're a FoM (Friend of Maggie's) you might be familiar with Stilton Jarlesberg (http://stiltonsplace.blogspot.com/) where there is a bit of a Christmas exchange going on with the new Johnny Optimism book - a free e-book download or matching donations on the $5.99 (Cheap!) paperback price in exchange for a request for a friendly Amazon review. If you're not familiar with SJ or Johnny, you should be, I think the site is cited here often enough.

(Note: Jarlsberg noted Gahan Wilson's passing recently in an appreciation of his dark sense of humor so the Johnny book might not be to your taste in humor if you've ever uttered the words "That's not funny, that's sick!" without realizing that's an actual book title.)

#4 Jerryskids on 2019-12-19 11:08 (Reply)

Re #Shampeachment
Remember "Don't normalize Trump?"
Nancy should have normalized Trump when she had the chance. Now they've gone and normalized impeachment.

https://ordinarilyskeptical.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/hey-nancy-you-should-have-normalized-trump/

#5 JaneG (Link) on 2019-12-19 11:26 (Reply)

RE: Bending The Cost Curve for Higher Education

The suggestion to end football programs is not on solid footing. For power 5 schools TV contracts, product endorsements, ticket sales, etc. More than pay for facilities and often fund the non profitable Title IX sports.

#6 LB412 on 2019-12-19 11:37 (Reply)

The title IX sports are generally speaking not even sports. Perhaps it would be the easiest and best thing for the college to rid themselves of the title IX dead weight if they eliminated all sports.

#6.1 OneGuy on 2019-12-19 12:06 (Reply)

Your kind of missing the point. If the football programs are self-sustaining (and would they continue to be with out the tax exemptions and non-profit statuses afforded by their university affiliations) then let them sustain themselves outside the university.
Secondly, it may be that many if not most of the power-5 schools are operationally profitable, but this same argument can't be made for the mid-major, Championship division, and below programs that are subsidized by the universities, either operationally, or at the very least through capital funding for facilities. Back when I lived in Madison, there was a lot of speculation that the Wisconsin Badgers were losing money on their then appearance in the Pinstripe Bowl, when the meager stipend from the ticket sales and network broadcast rights didn't pay for the cost of transporting the entire (not just travelling) team out to New York City along with the band and a number of administrators who suddenly found it necessary to travel with the team. (One of whom when interviewed couldn't answer the question of which end of a football was pointy)

#6.2 Another Guy named Dan on 2019-12-19 15:24 (Reply)

Debbie Dingell is outraged that Trump joked that her dead husband may be looking up at them and not down. What a terrible thing to say she complains. But in context Trumps point was right on. Debbie was really nice and polite when she wanted a favor from Trump but once the impeachment train left the station Debbie said terrible and untrue things about Trump. And yet a simple harmless remark that John Dingell might be looking up rather than looking down on them can be played as terrible. I might add that given our political system and the fact that congressmen, all of them, do trade their power for money and other things of value I doubt any of them would qualify to get into heaven.

#7 Euripides on 2019-12-19 15:24 (Reply)

Louis Meyers: Bending the cost curve on higher education.

QUOTE:

1) Stop building gargantuan new football stadiums and arenas, with varsity locker rooms and training facilities more opulent than an exclusive country club. Wealthy alumni donors should be encouraged to donate instead to academic buildings, research programs, or academic scholarships.

While this is a good suggestion, NONE of his suggestions make any mention of the increase of administrators being much greater than the increase in students. That should be number one on reducing the cost of college.

#8 Gringo on 2019-12-19 18:31 (Reply)

The spam filter doesn't allow a four-character answer, so I stretched it out.

Yep.

#8.1 Assistant Village Idiot on 2019-12-19 20:12 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, December 19. 2019

Thursday morning links