Signalgate

The Atlantic journalist Jeffery Goldberg somehow found himself included in a Signal chat among high-ranking officials of the Trump Administration.  As such, he gleaned information about an attack on Houthi rebels that would take place shortly thereafter.  Clearly, this is a serious data breach, a security failure, a clear case of 'loose lips sink ships.'  So, how did the attack go?  Without a hitch.  Whew.  Dodged that bullet.  Now, let's make sure we don't invite reporters to the next chat.  That is not how the press is playing it.

No, Trump needs to fire Secretary Hegseth for using Signal to communication.  He needs to fire Mike Waltz for adding Goldberg to the chat.  Someone needs to be fired for this incident that resulted in no negative consequences other than embarrassment to the 2-month-old administration.  By contrast, when 13 Americans were killed during the Afghan withdrawal, billions in military equipment abandoned, and allied Afghans fell to their deaths from departing aircraft, these same folks didn't call for Secretary Lloyd Austin or Joint Chief Chairman Milley to be fired.  Interesting.

By and large, the press is a wing of the Democratic Party and will spin any story to best favor the Democrats.  That such a big deal is being made of Signalgate shows how effective the Trump Administration is so far.

The Border

Throughout the Biden Presidency, we heard that there was nothing he could do about the border.  He needed new laws to stop the flood of immigrants across the border.  Congress must pass new laws to stem the tide.  The president's hands are tied without additional legislation.  Really?

President Trump has been back in office for just over 6 weeks and border crossings have plummeted by 85% or more.  Amazingly, Congress has passed no new laws.  Nope.  Trump is just enforcing the laws that are already on the books.  It is illegal to enter the United States without permission.  The border crisis that Biden claimed to have no power to reverse somehow turned on a dime when a new president was inaugurated.  It is exactly events like this that destroy faith in media.  For the last four years, the media uncritically echoed the Biden Administration's claims of helplessness in the face of illegal immigration.  How does one trust what the media reports now when current events demolish previous reporting?  There is a reason that some have referred to the mainstream media as Democratic stenographers.

The Debate

Strangely, it often seemed as though Kamala was the challenger and Trump the incumbent.  She repeatedly said she had a plan for this or a plan for that.  She is part of the current administration.  President Biden is not really the president.  She is second in command, right?  Why doesn't she institute some of these plans now?

That aside, Kamala was much stronger than I expected.  She had been very weak against Pence in 2020, but proved to be quite good here.  Of course, I disagreed with almost everything she said but she delivered well and offered good counterpoints.  Her attacks on Trump landed quite often. In fact, she put him on the defensive more often than he put her on the defensive.  She wisely offered only brief rebuttals to his attacks and immediately shifted to the attack.  By contrast, Trump spent more time countering her attacks which limited his own offense.  Kamala was better practiced and focused.  Trump had some points that he hit repeatedly but was usually unfocused.

The moderators were on Kamala's side.  There were hard questions for Trump and attacks on Trump queued up as questions for Kamala.  The hardest questions against Kamala were about her changing positions.  By contrast, the questions for Trump were along the line of 'Are you a bad person or a horrible person?'  The moderators eagerly jumped in to dispute Trump claims and repeatedly fact-checked him, but let Kamala get away with the fully debunked (even by Snopes) "Fine People" Hoax.  Nor did they have a follow up for Kamala about how she lobbied for bail money for Minneapolis rioters.  It was a three on one debate, which Trump should have expected and been better prepared to counter.  It reminded me of the debate between Trump and Clinton back in 2016.

Overall, it was a wash.  If you are for Trump, Trump won.  If you are for Kamala, Kamala won.  It is unlikely this debate will shift any views.  Where Biden shattered Democrat voters' confidence in the last debate, Kamala reassured them that she's not the incoherent cackler that she has been accused of being.  This will probably do her more good than it will do Trump.

Greta admits Climate Crisis is a Hoax?

I ran into this YouTube video where Greta Thunberg says, "Since the climate crisis doesn’t exist, how can we expect people to want climate action?"  Freudian slip?  Has she just given up the game, admitting that she has been playing us for fools all along?  No, this is just another of those deceptive selective edits.  Donald Trump has often been on the receiving end of such deceptive editing (e.g., fine people hoax, drinking bleach hoax, etc.) but now it is Greta's turn.  Maybe those who accepted the misreporting on what Trump said will have their eyes opened by this obvious misreporting of Greta.  Probably not, but one can hope.

Blame the Republican

In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina smashed into Louisiana and left a path of devastation, the media piled on President Bush - a Republican - for his failure to respond in a timely fashion.  His poor leadership made a bad situation worse.  Governor Blanco - a Democrat - was hardly mentioned.  Mayor Ray Nagin - a Democrat - did receive some criticism for not evacuating New Orleans, but that was overshadowed by Spike Lee's claims that the levees were intentionally destroyed to flood black neighborhoods.

In 2022, when Hurricane Ian smashed into Florida, the media press Governor DeSantis - a Republican - regarding deaths and short-notice evacuations orders.  President Biden - a Democrat - is hardly mentioned in relation to the hurricane.

Regardless of the situation, somehow it is always the Republican's fault.  Threat of a government shutdown when the president is a Republican and the congress is Democratic?  The president is to blame.  Threat of shutdown when president is a Democrat, and the congress is Republican?  The congress is to blame.  Gridlock in congress when the house is Democrat, and the senate is Republican?  Senate at fault.  Gridlock when house is Republican, and senate is Democrat?  Clearly, the house is in error.  When a Republican does something wrong, the story is how the Republican did something wrong.  When a Democrat does something wrong, the story is how Republicans are making political hay over Democrat missteps.

A Democrat calls a Republican a Nazi or a fascist, he's speaking truth to power.  A Republican says anything negative toward a Democrat and he is accused of being uncivil and perhaps even encouraging violence.

It's a one-way street in most of the media.  Republicans bad, Democrats good.  It's a miracle Republicans ever win an election with the non-stop negative press.

Who Picks What is News?

There is a scene in A Beautiful Mind where John Nash (Russell Crowe) asks Alicia (Jennifer Connelly) to pick a shape.  She chooses an umbrella.  Looking at the stars, he then picks out a number of stars that form an umbrella.  She is impressed and asks him to find an octopus.  This reminds me of the news.  There are countless events that happen around the country and the world every day, but there is only so much room on the front page or the evening news.  Someone has to choose which of those countless events are newsworthy.  Let's just consider murders.  If the media gave every homicide equal weight, the picture that would be painted is thus (FBI Crime Statistics 2020):

Consider that the African American population is 14% of the nation but accounts for 50% of the offenders and 56% of the victims.  Black Lives Matter would have us believe that white cops are gunning down unarmed blacks.  In fact, gang members are killing other gang members.  Given the option between stopping all the cop shootings or all the gang shootings, which would result in a better outcome for the African American community?  What does the news imply?

Of course, the editors must pick and choose among the stories of the day, but it is incumbent upon the news consumer to realize that someone made this particular selection.  The selection inevitably reflects the views of the selector.  If one does not sample news from multiple sources with different points of view, the 'news' is, in fact, propaganda.  That may not be intentional, but that would be the effect.

Steering the Story

When I was a eleven or twelve, my brother and I spent a summer at our grandparents' house in Iowa.  Grandma was a skilled card player and we played many card games while there.  Grandma also had a magic trick.  You would select a card and place it in the deck and she would then ask you to select suits until you had only your suit left.  Then she would ask you to select card ranges until it finally narrowed down to YOUR CARD!  However, after a couple of times through, it became clear that she was really the one selecting.

Grandma: "Pick two suits."

Me: "Spades and diamonds."

Grandma: "That leaves you with Hearts and Clubs.  Pick one of those."

Me: "Clubs."

Grandma: "Among the clubs, pick face cards or numbers."

Me: "Face cards."

Grandma: "That leaves you with numbers.  Pick high or low numbers."

As you can see, Grandma either eliminated my selection or stuck with it, depending on what my card was.  She always steered me to my card.  The mainstream media does something similar.

BLM firebombs a police station in Minneapolis.

Media: Mostly peaceful protest

Tea Party protests tax and spend policies

Media: Intolerant racists hate black president

BLM blocks off part of Seattle and declares it the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ)

Media: Mostly peaceful protest.  Look! Someone has started farming!

Truckers protest mask & vaccine mandates in Canada by driving to Ottawa and honking horns

Media: Nazis!  Fascists!  Danger to democracy!

Antifa tosses firebombs in both Berkley and Portland, deface buildings, break windows

Media: Antifa are activists and protesters who oppose Trump's fascist agenda

Parents attending school board meetings demand removal of Critical Race Theory curriculum

Media: Domestic terrorists threaten teachers

After a while, it becomes clear that the media describes violent rioters who lean left as mostly peaceful and generally justified in their actions, though perhaps a bit overenthusiastic.  However, non-violent protesters who lean right are domestic terrorists and insurrectionists.  These wrongheaded radicals need to feel the full force of the law and be denounced at every opportunity.  The media selects the adjectives and positive or negative coverage based more on the politics of the 'protesters' rather than the actions.

Some Rapes aren't as Important as Others

When Tawana Brawley reported that she had been raped, it was a media firestorm in 1987.  It was headline news and was the crime that launched Reverend Al Sharpton onto the national stage.  It later turned out she lied about the incident to avoid punishment from her mother for staying out.  Of note, Brawley is black and she accused white men of raping her.

When a stripper claimed that the Duke lacrosse team had raped her, it became a media firestorm that saw lacrosse canceled for the season and the coach forced to resign.  A year later, the charges were dropped when the stripper was shown to have lied.  Of note, the stripper was black and she accused white college students of raping her.

When Rolling Stone published a story about a fraternity raping a girl as part of initiation at UVA, a media firestorm followed in which rape culture was denounced, especially the members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.  Unlike the other two instances, this one flamed out quickly since the story was appallingly sourced and easily disproven.  Of note, the accused rapists were white college students.

 

Late last year in Kansas, a 13 year old girl was raped.  No firestorm of media attention followed.  Of note, the accused rapist was an illegal alien who had repeatedly been deported.

 

Last week in Maryland, a high school girl - 14 years old - was raped.  There has been no media firestorm.  Yes, it has been reported and then mostly forgotten.  Of note, the accused rapist is an illegal immigrant.

 

There is a pattern here.  If the rape confirms the narrative of racism or campus rape culture, the firestorm follows even though it is almost always a hoax.  If the rape would confirm Trump's claim that rapists are illegally crossing the border, crickets.  The media will obsess on stories that confirm its biases and overlook those that challenge them.

Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

Many years ago, I worked at a dry cleaners.  It was not a demanding job but I soon had a working knowledge of the business.  Most interesting was that a liquid was used to clean the clothes!  Sometime while I was working at the cleaners, the local TV news had a story on the sexist pricing practices of dry cleaners.  Huh?  The reporter noted that skirts cost more than slacks and that blouses cost more than shirts.  Proof!  Of course, that was nonsense.  So many slacks came through the shop that we had a special press that was designed to press slacks.  By contrast, skirts had so much variance that they needed to be hand pressed.  A woman's blouse in the 1980s often had shoulder pads and was silk or rayon where a man's shirt was just cotton and run through a normal laundry machine.  Likewise, we had a special press for business shirts but blouses had to be hand pressed.  This doesn't even consider the pleats!  The reporter didn't have a clue.  I shook my head but then watched the next news segment as though it was accurate, thus experiencing the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

 

As the years accumulated, I would again come across news stories that happened upon a subject where I was knowledgeable and it would be biased, inaccurate, or completely wrong.  And yet, I would continue to read the newspaper or watch the news to get informed, assuming that the sources were accurate regarding subjects where I had no expertise.  It took about a decade after the dry cleaners incident before I learned to distrust the media.

 

A good rule is to find a source of news that has demonstrated accuracy in fields I know and trust that they are equally accurate in fields I don't know.  As long as the source demonstrates accuracy and knowledge, I'll watch, listen, or read even when I disagree with the conclusions.  I'll even accept bias, as long as it's out in the open.  Interpreting the facts differently is fine, misrepresenting the facts is unacceptable.

Worse than Watergate?

Mark Levin, a conservative talk show host and former member of the Reagan Administration, makes the case of Obama Administration spying on the Trump Campaign by citing left-leaning news sources.  Of course, citing these same sources with equal brevity, one can make the case that Trump's Campaign was deeply entangled with the Russians.  However, which story is more prevalent?

That is the secret of spin, slant, and fake news.  When the accusation comes on page 1 and the retraction on the following day appears on page 20, how many readers will have read the former but not the latter?  Is that by accident or intention?  For weeks on end, the news will report about a hate crime, but when the victim turns out to be the perpetrator, silence.  The news had given the impression that rape is common and widespread on college campuses but every story that gets wide coverage turns out to be false.  The media picks which stories will go viral and which will get a mention - so they can honestly say they covered it - and then never go anywhere.  The majority of the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.) are staffed with Democrats.  It's an echo chamber run on confirmation bias.  The fact that the word 'narrative' is so popular in news coverage today speaks volumes.  The Op Ed page has invaded the whole of the news industry.

 

The Russia story is bogus.  It was used as a means to get a FISA judge to approve surveillance.  Russia had no reason to prefer Trump over Hillary.  Obama was the best US President Russia ever had.  He stood by with empty words when Russia invaded the Crimea.  He was flexible on weakening the US military.  He stood by as Russia sent forces into Syria.  He managed to improve the relationship between Turkey and Russia, which is not beneficial to America.  He gave billions of dollars to Iran - a Russian ally in the Middle East - and lifted sanctions, again benefiting Russia.  He nixed our missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic, which pleased Russia.  While Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary approved the sale of 20% of the US uranium mines to a Russian mining company, Rosatom.  With a series of victories like that, why would Russia want an erratic real estate mogul who keeps saying, "Make America Great Again" rather than Obama's chosen successor?  It sure looks like the Russia story is a clear case of projection.

 

As for the spying, one must ask what did Obama know and when did he know it?

Target: Milo

The noted polemicist who was recently run out of Berkeley by rioters has spoken in favor of older men have relations with young boys.  Or so it is reported.  Milo states that he offered imprecise language and is demonstrably opposed to pedophilia, having exposed several.  However, his definition of pedophilia appears to only cover prepubescent youths.  He states that he lost his virginity at 13 and feels he was sufficiently mature to make that decision.  Uh huh.  He does say that the current legal age of consent is "about right."  This is not a good topic to offer equivocation and it has opened him to a barrage of criticism.

 

Milo has risen like a rocket in the last year.  He is a Free Speech absolutist, an evangelist for the 1st Amendment, a man who delights in goring the sacred cow of Political Correctness.  I first took note of Milo in October 2015 when he was ejected from the Amber Rose Slut Walk.  Since then, he has gained infamy for his college appearances and his outspoken support for Donald "Daddy" Trump.  His growing popularity and recent book deal demonstrated that he was having an impact.  As such, he should expect to be a target - effective advocates always draw the most fire - and he has provided excellent fodder that has already canceled his book deal, gotten him kicked out of CPAC, and may cost him his gig with Breitbart.  Live by the outrageous comments, die by the outrageous comments.

 

Of course, this sort of career-ending faux pas only happens to those on the right.  Lena Dunham wrote about sexually abusing her younger sister and also wrote about an easily debunked rape by a 'Republican' at Oberlin College but HBO greenlit another season of Girls in the wake of these stories.  Bill Clinton settled with Paula Jones in a sexual harassment case and the blue dress proved he did have 'relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky' but he remains a revered figure in the Democratic Party.  Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo to drown in his car and went on to be the Lion of the Senate.  Robert Byrd had been a member of the KKK and also had a very successful career in the Senate.  Milo says something stupid that he recants immediately and all must denounce him and ostracize him as a pariah.  Those on the left can be forgiven for their errors but those on the right must be destroyed.

 

I suspect Milo will recover from this foot in mouth blunder but his brand is damaged.  Unlike 'Daddy,' he doesn't have a Twitter account - they banned him - and he can't sign executive orders and call press conferences.  College invites are likely to dry up after this too.  However, all publicity has value and he will surely be able to find another publisher for his book.  He may be down but he's not out.

Leaking is Bad except when it's Good

In the wake of Trump's victory, the story arose that the Russians had hacked the election.  That vague declaration is intentional.  What is alleged is that the Russians managed to hack the DNC server and tricked John Podesta into revealing his email password.  The trove of emails were provided to WikiLeaks who published them throughout the campaign.  They were very embarrassing for the Democrats and Hillary.  However, we were repeatedly told by the media and the Democrats that the content of the emails was secondary to the hacking.  The people who provided the emails were very bad people.  Pay no attention to the emails and instead focus your indignant rage on those who revealed them.  Yes, it may all be true but the voters have no right to know.  Okay, I accept your terms.

Members of the deep state, likely holdovers from the Obama Administration, have been leaking the contents of secret phone calls that President Trump and his staff - notably Michael Flynn - to the media.  By the recently established rules, the media should blast the leakers for letting the public know about these phone calls.  No?  It turns out that now the leakers are heroes to be praised while the media reports with gusto about the content of the leaked phone calls.  Huh.

It is this sort of reporting that has led to the precipitous decline in trust for the media.  We have heads I win tails you lose reporting.  It reminds me of how government shutdowns are always the fault of the Republicans.  Republican president and Democratic Congress?  President is at fault for shutdown.  Democratic president and Republican Congress?  Congress is at fault.  The media too often functions as the PR department for the Democratic Party.

Muslim Ban = Fake News

As someone who favors a Muslim ban because Islam is an evil ideology that happens to have religious aspects, there is no Muslim ban.  What we have is a ban on people from Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran.  Yes, these are all majority Muslim countries.  So are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, none of which are covered by the 'Muslim' ban.  QED, we are not banning Muslims, we are banning certain nationalities.  Ergo, a Muslim ban is a misnomer.  Imagine if, during World War II, a ban on Germans and Italians traveling to the US was described as a Caucasian ban.  Idiotic!

There is a subset of Muslims from countries that have been infiltrated with ISIS operatives.  ISIS has openly stated its desire to sneak terrorists into Western countries as part of the refugee flood.  Stopping the flow of people from these regions is common sense.  Until we can weed out the terrorists, it is more important for the government to protect American lives than to harbor refugees.  If the choice is between the safety of Ma and Pa Kettle of Syracuse or the well being of Muhammad from Syria, the Kettles should be chosen every time.

 

Calling it a Muslim ban gives an impression that is demonstrably false.  Fake news.

Unopposed?

Throughout the campaign season, there was a steady and growing fear that Donald Trump was the American Hitler, a dictator who would be elected and then impose some form of fascist rule in which he was President for Life (kind of like the much mourned Fidel Castro).  Such fears came from those on the left and those on the right.  At each new claim, I rolled my eyes and sighed because Trump was going to have more opposition than any president in living memory.  The majority of the media were cheerleading for Hillary and hammering Trump.  The Democrats, who have always played hardball with Republicans, would ally with their friends in the media to pummel a President Trump.  Furthermore, elite conservative pundits were so opposed to Trump as to call for Hillary's election.  Even the Republican Party only offered support begrudgingly, often with codicils.  Fresh off a real Electoral Landslide, Obama had the media and both houses of Congress on his side and yet didn't get much done.  How would Trump get more done with considerably less support?  The growing panic, which continues today, perplexed me.  But now I see a potential flaw in my reasoning.

 

The media has spent a considerable amount of time since the election beclowning itself.  It's anti-Trump bias has overwhelmed their sense of solid reporting.  The Trump Dossier with the ludicrous golden shower story is only the most egregious.  The anti-Trump attitude is so strong that they jump at stupid stuff.  Trump yells squirrel and they run off like mindless dogs, giving him peace and quiet to consider the latest executive order.  Do they really think Trump cares about the crowd size at the inauguration?  Whether he does or doesn't, it provides an empty story that harms the prestige of the press more than it does Trump.  The media cannot currently influence Trump supporters and their ranting only makes Trump foes make fools of themselves (e.g. Madonna, Ashley Judd, Shia Lebouf).  Tired of the lapdog media that had nothing but praise for Obama, I was looking forward to the return of an attack dog media.  Instead, there is the stupid media that keeps chasing the squirrel.  Sigh.

 

Then there are the Democrats.  Thanks to strong support from the media, the Democrats have always been able to fight tooth and nail without a constant barrage of demands for bipartisanship.  Bipartisan has long meant Republicans agreeing to Democrat policies (e.g. John McCain) while partisanship is when Republicans actually try to implement their agenda.  With trust in the media at an all time low, the Democrats find themselves on a somewhat more even field.  Years of being trounced in midterm elections has convinced them to stick with the same stable of leaders who led them to this cul-de-sac.  Worse, they erased the power of the Senate minority party to resist the majority.  With the filibuster declawed, the Republicans can mostly pass their agenda with a simple majority vote, just like in the House.  Still worse, the Democrats face a difficult election map for the Senate in 2018, meaning they are in big trouble.  They are down to rhetoric as a means of opposition and they have only themselves to blame.  Well, Harry Reid can shoulder most of it.

 

The Republicans are still spineless.  While Democrats practice party loyalty and rarely have a 'maverick' who trashes fellow Democrats, the Republicans eagerly eat their own.  John McCain was a media star who appeared regularly on Hard Ball where he attacked the policies of his party.  Oh, the media loved him until he was the nominee vs. a Democrat.  Then he was the latest coming of Hitler.  With this history of attacking and opposing allies, Trump was an ideal target for such opposition from the beginning.  But the Republicans are still spineless.  It Trump can get enough voters (5 or so) to call Congress, the Republican will fold.  The history of the Republican party is to fold unless they have a strong leader (Reagan, Gingrich, etc.).  Trump may be an irresistible force to the backbone-impaired.

 

That leaves the Never Trump crowd who supported the embarrassing candidacy of Egg McMuffin or allied with Hillary.  They have hamstrung themselves with regard to anyone who voted for Trump.  One can admire the principles for which they stood while also recognizing that it was a political blunder.  If the guy you hate wins, you want to still be in the tent so your voice will be heard.  By leaving the tent, they abandoned much of the base that remained in the tent and lost much of the influence they had.

 

As time passes, all of these groups will - one hopes - adapt and prove to be effective bulwarks against authoritarian impulses from Trump.  Right now, they are all almost useless.  If Trump wants to prove his detractors right, now is the time.  The steamroller will never have a better opportunity.

Biased Introduction

I listened to a short debate between Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and a woman from Politico.  When Julian Marshall of the BBC introduced his two guests, he labeled Glenn as 'right-leaning' but offered no such label for Heather from Politico.  Before either person has said a word, it has already been established that Glenn is biased and Heather is not.  This is not accidental.  Though Politico is viewed as relatively unbiased in the Republican vs. Democrat axis, it is immensely biased in the establishment vs. outsider axis.  Politico is all about the insiders, the palace intrigue, the parliamentary plots.  How might the audience have reacted if Marshall had instead labeled Instapundit as outsider-leaning and the Politico as insider-leaning?  Now the biases of each are revealed.  That he didn't do so reveals his bias.

Outraged by the Predictable

Of late, I have seen several stories about how Trump has 'lashed out' or 'attacked' or otherwise spoken ill of this person or that person.  However, it is always in response to those very people speaking ill of him.  Meryl Streep took the opportunity of her lifetime achievement award to criticize the president-elect and he responded by calling her overrated.  Obviously, that is a juvenile attack as Streep is clearly the most talented actress of her generation.  Then there was CNN being called fake news after joining the BuzzFeed Trump Dossier story.  Now it is John Lewis who called Trump an illegitimate president-elect and Trump responded in kind.  This is all entirely predictable.  We have seen the pattern for almost 2 years now.  Trump is like a 10 year-old on the playground.  Call him a "doo doo face" and you can expect to be called a "big dummy" in return.

 

Of course, all these outraged people must know that Trump is going to reply with his customary insults and belittling comments.  They also know that the majority of the media (e.g. CNN) will report the story to make Trump look like the instigator.  It all seems very childish on both sides to me.  However, Romney did not reply to attacks and lost.  Trump replies to EVERY attack and won.  Is there a lesson to learn there?

Media Suicide

During the campaign, an intelligence report that could not be corroborated was circulating.  No one published because nothing could be confirmed.  The report revealed that the Russians were in frequent contact with Trump to provide him dirt on his opponents.  If this was to be believed, Trump is a traitor.  The most spectacular bit in the report had Trump hiring Russian prostitutes to urinate on a bed in the Moscow Ritz Carlton because Barack and Michelle Obama had slept there.  Still unable to prove any of it, Buzzfeed ran with the story and CNN covered Buzzfeed.  Pranksters on 4Chan and Reddit reveled.

 

It turns out that a Trump supporter wrote the report and sent it out to see if anyone would report it.  Weeks went by and no one took the bait.  Responsible journalists desperately wanted to report something this juicy but none of it could be proved.  In fact, some of it was demonstrably false.  Even so, Buzzfeed finally decided to go with the story, even declaring that it was unproven hearsay from entirely anonymous sources.  Trump pounced!  A clearer case of fake news would be hard to find.  By offering a fake story that was this outlandish, the media has shattered an already fractured credibility.  If Trump now sells arms to Russia and China, he can just claim fake news again.  As I have said in a previous post, trust is fragile and the media has been exposed through the Podesta email hacks (the contents of which have not been refuted) and now this.  Why trust anything the media has to say about Trump?

Here is the opening of the BuzzFeed story:

A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.

This is the kind of introduction that sees an editor kill the story, not print it.  Of course, the story has over 5 million views.  True or not, it has been a boon for the website.

Crying Wolf

Followed a link from Scott Adams blog to Slate Star Codex.  Here is a very long article that debunks the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic stories about Donald Trump that have been ubiquitous.  What is really interesting is that the writer is clearly anti-Trump.  He holds that the media has spent so long accusing Republicans of being racists that the accusation has lost its bite, especially since it isn't true.  He repeatedly asks what will happen if a real racist shows up?  No one will believe the accusation.  It is a long read but worth your time.

Silver Linings

America managed to dodge catastrophe only to crash into disaster.  Still, there are some silver linings from this dark cloud of an election year.

1. The Clinton Dynasty is done.  Though it is possible that Chelsea will make a run at some future date, both Bill and Hillary are going to retire to private life.  That neither of them holds public office means that the Clinton Foundation will see its funding evaporate.  Without the play, there will be a lot less pay.

2. The Bush Dynasty was foiled.  If there is one thing Trump did for which I am truly grateful is that he crushed JEB!  These dynastic families are a threat to the country.  The growth of an elite establishment in Washington, DC is strengthened by these dynastic families.  Sadly, JEB's son, George P Bush, is currently Texas Land Commissioner and doubtless on a path toward higher political office.  They're like roaches.

3. The adversarial press is back.  Where Obama and Hillary have had a largely fawning media, Trump will have to endure a hostile media.  I like that.  Yes, the media remains biased but I am much happier when the media is biased against government rather than for it.  If Trump's Secretary of State tries a private email server, there will be hell to pay immediately.  If the IRS starts targeting MoveOn.Org or the Huffington Post, the media will rightly demand investigations and firings; they will not be satisfied with early retirements and 5th Amendment invocations.  The president should not have a comfortable relationship with the media.

4. The Rule of Law is valid again.  This is related to the adversarial press but also applies to the Democrats.  When the rule of law was an impediment, the Democrats flouted it.  Now that it can be a cudgel to be used on the ruling Republicans, the Democrats are going to call for respecting the laws.

 

5. No more excuses for the Republicans.  Though not a Republican myself, I generally side with them on most issues.  The Republicans have had a string of victories since Obama's election and have somehow failed to capitalize on any of them.  The 2010 retaking of the House led to... nothing.  They couldn't do anything without the Senate.  Right.  Have you guys read the Constitution?  Apparently not.  In 2014, the Republicans captured the Senate which led to... nothing.  They couldn't do anything without the Presidency.  Seriously?  You really need to read the Constitution.  Now they have the Presidency, the Senate, and the House.  Implement some of that stuff you promised back in 2010.

 

6. Speaking of past promises, Obamacare repeal!  Obama promised that my premiums would drop $2500 a year and I could keep my plan.  Neither of those came to pass.  In fact, my costs went up.  Repeal Obamacare and don't replace it.  Let the market work.  Government regulations always drive prices up and make it harder to innovate.

 

Yes, it's bad but it's not all bad.

Cheaters Never Prosper?

The right has complained for decades that the media is bias against it.  WikiLeaks has undermined the endless denials.  It is crystal clear that the majority of the media is nothing more than a branch of the Democratic Party.  Case in point: Donna Brazile provided the questions that would be asked in debates during the primaries to the Clinton Campaign on multiple occasions.  Not only was the DNC trying to sabotage the Sanders Campaign, there were also efforts to boost Hillary by giving her an unfair advantage.

 

This win at all costs mentality might achieve a victory but it also means the candidate is not as prepared for a real crisis.  If you have gotten to the pinnacle of power because the answers were handed to you, what are you going to do when you must deal with China or Russia?  There won't be someone available to put a thumb on the scale for you.

 

For years, Democrats have been getting softball questions from the media and glowing praise for unremarkable careers.  By contrast, Republicans, Libertarians, and even Greens are subjected to hard ball interviews and great achievements receive tepid reviews.  Again, this may benefit the Democrats in winning but it also leaves them unprepared for real adversity.