The Boundless Deceptive Treachery of the Anti-Trump Media.

I get tired of saying I’m not a Trump fan. Didn’t vote for him in the primary or the general. But, 100 days in, here are a couple necessary observations. He is stomping the media in the war for hearts and minds and public opinion. Whatever his difficulties with public distrust and approval, the major media’s are worse. Second, if he were as awful and radioactive as all the cool kids insist he is, you would think the attack pack media could take him down without fabricating fake attacks. But fabricate they do. They can’t help themselves.

The latest is the kerfluffle over Trump’s comments to journalist Salena Zito about President Andrew Jackson. Trump made the interesting and tendentious claim that Andrew Jackson, rough character though he was, might have been able to avoid the Civil War “if he had been a little later.”  Trump’s words were: “I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War.” That chronological qualifier is critical here. It demonstrates Trump absolutely understood he was dealing in hypothetical anachronisms. Jackson died 16 years before the Civil War began.

That very clear caveat, however, did not stop many media bottom feeders from chortling that Trump had endowed Jackson with powers beyond the grave. Many pundits and outlets from the bottom of the food chain to the top (all still intellectual bottom feeders) digressed from addressing the merits of the political/philosophical question to first  indulge the easy drop kick: “Of course, Jackson wasn’t around for the Civil War. He died 16 years before it started. (Subtext: What a moron Trump is.)

I’m not a Civil War scholar and don’t know how to think about Trump’s claim that Jacksonian thinking might have averted the War of the States. But I do know that today, it was the media, not Trump, that bathed itself in disgrace. Not ignorant disgrace, rather, flat out dishonest disgrace.

Close But Not Quite Yet

It is extraordinarily tempting to call peak absurdity – but not quite yet..


James Cracknell is a two-time gold medal Olympian who engaged in this exchange:

Cracknell: “If you think of the two countries in the world who’ve got a handle on obesity, what do you think they are, which two countries?”

Talking Head: “I’m stumped there, I don’t know.”

Cracknell: “North Korea and Cuba.”


I suppose by that logic he can add Venezuela to his list by the end of the year?

Entitled Snowflakes Pretend to Hunger Strike

If you were cool enough to get into Yale University, you could make bold social statements by going on a “symbolic”  hunger strike where you don’t have to go hungry.

It’s like being a US Senator and you can filibuster just by announcing it. You don’t actually have to hold the mike for hours and hours. But, for a participation prize, you still get to hold up the business of the “world’s greatest deliberative body” in the upper chamber of the most powerful nation on earth.

America…whata nation!

Insta-Rant to Someone in Germany Who Says Global Warming is Not Up For Debate. We Just Need to Fix It.

How long was it settled science that fat and eggs and cholesterol are terrible for the cardiovascular system? So, eat lots of bread! And salt is bad, too.

The settled science was wrong and created an obese, diabetic generation. And this occurred in small, compact biological specimens–literally billions available–which could be easily observed over a span of decades. Observed and measured, not modeled and predicted.

Now, tell me how perfect the computer model projections are for something as infinitely more large and complex as earth, oceans, and atmosphere. Predictive models that have been wrong in every instance, but that demand that humanity, Americans in particular, give up the affordable energy that has lifted billions out of poverty and misery. Which, coincidentally, will funnel many billions, maybe trillions through manipulable, rent-seekable channels, enriching elites unimaginably.

The “science” is, shall we say, funded with a corrupt thumb on the scale, and eminently suspect.

Spring Snow Hits Denver. Warming Alarmists Hardest Hit…Literally.

The weekend is in the history books, but we’ll always have the memories. Like when the climate action marchers protesting the new administration and Americans’ stubborn refusal to carbon tax ourselves back to the stone age got hit by a Spring snowblast. Now, every adult with an IQ higher than his or her age knows that a weather event does not equal climate. But climatistas and some celebrities and politicians haven’t gotten the memo. They are so tediously predictable and wrong in jumping to blame every tornado, hurricane, forest fire, dry spell, hot spell, or flood on “climate change.”  Life must have been a paradise before indoor heating and the internal combustion engine.

Warm earthers making their point.
Photo credit: KUSA

So, when they take to the streets to protest how modern civilization is torching the planet, only to get a cold wet dumping two days before May, well, it’s hard not to have one’s heart warmed a little by the schnowdenfreude.

Coors Field the day warming passed the critical point.
Photo: Colorado Rockies.

It Is Absurd

Just this morning this was posted by a newspaper publisher friend whom I personally like – though we may disagree on a wide range of issues:

“It is our solemn responsibility to show that government can have both a head and a heart; that it can be both progressive and solvent; and that it can serve the people without becoming their master.”

I appreciate the sentiment expressed. As much as I appreciate the sentiment and wish it was true or could be true – I do not believe it to be true and I do not believe that there are a set of circumstances under which it could become true.

The foundational cause for why this is not true and can never be true – human nature.

We have given those in government great power – and year over year for many decades the power we have given to government has grown and grown. Here is the caveat on what I am about to say: not everyone in government is a bad person or corrupt or a psychopath. However not everyone, or even most, or even more than a few need to be for the entire enterprise to go bad and here is why: it is not human nature to wake up in the morning and think, “What can I do today to make my life as difficult as possible so that the life of everyone else will become easier?”

Those with great power inevitably make decisions that will make their life and job easier. That is human nature – by and large we are not even conscious that this is what we are doing. We are egocentric beings. People who wake up in the morning and think, “What can I do today to make the life if everyone else easier and mine more difficult?” are exceedingly rare and to assume that these rare people are the same people who populate legislatures and councils and bureaucracies is incorrect.

In a free market the check and balance on this behavior is that if you make your customers life more difficult they will take their business elsewhere. Government demands a monopoly and government has no hesitation in using force if you attempt to evade this monopoly – hence you cannot ‘take your business elsewhere.’ Example A: the DMV and the consequences of driving without a drivers license or without your car being registered. No matter how difficult they may make your life and no matter how illogical or arbitrary or unyielding their decisions are – you have little choice but to comply.

This is the essence of the argument for small government and for government with the least amount of power over your life. The essence of the argument for small government is not Auschwitz but it is the DMV. The essence of the argument is tens of thousands of government entities passing millions of laws and tens of millions of regulations – of which no person can possibly keep track or keep up with. The argument for small government is a 72,000 page Federal tax code. The argument for small government is that this country has 92,000 gun laws when totaled up at all government levels.

The argument for larger government is in attempting to make the compelling case that a tax code which is 72,001 pages rather than 72,000 pages will enhance your life. The argument for larger government is in attempting to make the compelling case that you are safer with 92,001 gun laws than you were with 92,000 gun laws. Go ahead – try and make that compelling argument. I am betting that you cannot.
It is absurd. There is simply no other word which applies. It is not that people in government are all bad people or corrupt or psychopaths – though there is no shortage of that in government – but it is a matter of giving great power to people when the natural tendency of human beings is to make their own lives easier with the power they possess. The government path to making the life of those in government easier is to pass a law, create a regulation, tax, spend, borrow.
As much as we maybe sympathetic with the sentiment expressed in the newspaper publishers post – we had better start dealing with what is true and what can be true rather than the fantasies which appeal to what we wish was true but can never be.