Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

The Tragedy of the Times The loss of advertising dollars is why a newspaper spends its credibility sucking up to readers. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tragedy-of-the-times-11566596465

Thank you, Dean Baquet. Readers who complain about articles they don’t like, and who assume they are written under pressure from advertisers, could do worse than to study recent comments of the New York Times executive editor.

Mr. Baquet was secretly recorded at a staff meeting. A transcript was posted at Slate.com. But he has made similar points publicly. The gist: It’s readers nowadays who pressure newspapers to toe a line. Publishers pine for the era when advertising dollars insulated us from such pressures.

Under fire from its public for an anodyne and accurate headline about Donald Trump after the El Paso shootings, which the paper later changed, Mr. Baquet almost pleaded with his crew: “We are an independent news organization, one of the few remaining. . . . Our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden. They sometimes want us to pretend that he was not elected president, but he was elected president.”

If he meant a newspaper’s job is to report the facts and arrange them in a logical fashion regardless of the howling winds of reader prejudice, he’s right. Unfortunately it’s not clear this is what he meant.

To his credit, the Times has been one of a few news organizations that have refrained from labelling Mr. Trump a racist, as if this quality can be factually determined between the lines of his tweets. What Mr. Baquet is up against was illustrated by one of his own reporters, quoted in the Slate transcript saying, “I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting.”

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s costs By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_c

Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the “hockey stick graph” that appears to show global temperatures taking a noticeable swing upward in the era when humanity has been burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The graph was first published in 1998, prominently featured in the 2001 UN Climate Report, and formed part of Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The graph’s methodology and accuracy have been and continue to be hotly contested, but Mann has taken the tack of suing two of his most prominent critics for defamation or libel. One case, against Mark Steyn, is called by Steyn likely to end up in the Supreme Court. But another case, against Dr. Tim Ball was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann’s case thrown out, and him ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs, no doubt a tidy sum of money. News first broke in Wattsupwiththat, via an email Ball sent to Anthony Watt. Later, Principia-Scientific offered extensive details, including much background on the hockey stick.

Mahmoud Abbas’s folly By David L. Rosenthal

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/mahmoud_abbass_folly.html

Mahmoud Abbas has lived a long time. He has said some stupid things. But perhaps the stupidest thing he ever said was that the people today calling themselves Palestinians are directly descended from the ancient Canaanites. 

In a visit to the Jalazone Refugee Camp near Ramallah earlier this month, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas claimed that the Palestinians “will enter Jerusalem – millions of fighters.” (snip)

Abbas went on to claim that the Palestinians are descended from the people of ancient Canaan, saying “This land belongs to the people who live on it. It belongs to the Canaanites, who lived here 5,000 years ago. We are the Canaanites!”

Watch the subtitled video on MEMRI here.

Left-Wing Institutions Mainstreaming Hatred By Fletch Daniels ****

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/leftwing_institutions_mainstreaming_hatred.html

The contrasting reactions of conservatives and liberals to the news that libertarian philanthropist David Koch died and that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is suffering from a serious health problem highlight a fundamental difference between them.

Liberal Reaction to Death of Koch

Prominent liberals exploded in vicious joy at the news that Koch had died.  Perhaps the worst reaction was Bill Maher, who said, “F‑‑‑ him…I’m glad he’s dead, and I hope the end was painful.”  An outlier?  Hardly.  His audience roared its approval.

Bette Midler got in on the act, wishing his brother were also dead.  She echoed Maher’s profanity-bomb language and directed it at Kay Cole James, the black American leader of the Heritage Foundation, showing once again that no insult directed toward a minority is too vile when it comes from a liberal.

Social media are on fire with these types of screeds from these tolerant Americans who regularly lecture and project at Republican lack of civility. 

Whatever you think of his policy positions, David Koch should not have been a particularly controversial figure.  He was a successful business leader who gave billions to charity.  He was neither hateful nor petty.

He once said, “I really want to put my money to work making the world a better place.” 

His primary crime?  He supported Republicans, the one offense that still infuriates the Left.

Conservative Reaction to Ruth Bader Ginsburg News

Saturday also broke the news that Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suffered from a malignant tumor on her pancreas.  President Donald Trump’s reaction to this terrible news about someone who has been a fierce critic?  He said, “I hope she does really well.  I’m hoping she’s going to be fine.  She’s pulled through a lot. She’s strong, very tough.”

Trade Wars: The Empire Strikes Back By David P. Goldman

https://pjmedia.com/spengler/trade-wars-the-empire-strikes-back/

Wars happen because the opposing sides have different views of the likely outcome. In the case of wars between Asians and the West, the West chronically underestimates the Asians. The Romanov Dynasty fell in large part because it lost its entire fleet in two catastrophic engagements with Japan’s Imperial Navy, at Port Arthur in 1904 and the Tsushima Strait in 1905. Britain would have lost the whole of its Asian Empire to Japan after the fall of Singapore in February 1942, except for the United States. Just before Singapore fell, Churchill told a journalist (as Andrew Roberts reports in his new Churchill book) that the Japanese were “the wops of Asia” and would fold like the Italians. Never before in the course of human events did such a smart man say anything so stupid.

So at the risk of spending the next month dodging rotten eggs and ripe tomatoes, I’ll say it: The way things stand, we’re going to get our heads handed to us, and President Trump’s chances of re-election will drop considerably. I’m a Trump supporter, and I want him to be re-elected, but I think he’s walking into a Chinese trap. Remember, Xi Jinping doesn’t have an election in 2020.

Today’s announcement of Chinese tariffs on $75 billion of U.S. goods and President Trump’s promise of retaliation may mark a turning point. China has taken the offensive. In fact, it did so August 6 when it allowed the RMB to depreciate to less than 7 RMB per U.S. dollar, as I explained in an Asia Times analysis at the time (below).

China appears to believe that it can win a trade war against the United States. Of course, no-one wins. Both sides lose. The question is how each side deals with the consequences of losing. For the past year, I’ve argued that the time is long past when the U.S. can inflict sufficient pain on China to impose our will. Since the 2008 crisis, China has been shifting its economy toward the home market and away from exports. Only 5% of its manufacturing now goes to the U.S., and most of that is on the low end of the value-added spectrum. When President Trump tweets that we don’t need China, by contrast, he appears unaware of the vast network of specialized manufacturers, skilled engineers and workers, and suppliers that produce the computers and consumer electronics we buy from China. You can’t wave a magic wand and replace twenty years’ worth of investment and training.

Help Hong Kong by Defending Taiwan By Matthew Continetti

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/hong-kong-crisis-taiwan-defense/

The future of democracy in the Indo-Pacific depends on our reinforcing Taiwan.

In October 1950 the People’s Liberation Army entered Tibet. The Communists made short work of the Tibetan military. The following year, representatives of the Dalai Lama signed a treaty with the People’s Republic of China (then all of two years old). The “Agreement of the Central People’s Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet,” or the “Seventeen-Point Agreement” for short, promised that Beijing would uphold Tibetan autonomy, refrain from interfering with Tibetan politics or with the affairs of the Dalai Lama, and respect the religious freedom of Tibetan Buddhists.

These were words on a page. Before long, the Chinese Communists began to exert pressure over the Tibetan people. Occupation forces spread throughout the region. The authorities collectivized agriculture and broke down institutions of civil society. Farmers and militia rebelled. The resistance was quashed, and the Dalai Lama began an exile that continues today. Tibet, like Xinjiang province to its north, is a cantonment of the People’s Republic.

The Seventeen-Point Agreement is the model for Chinese territorial acquisitions. Verbal pledges of freedom are meaningless. What matters is the correlation of forces and facts on the ground. Communists have no trouble speaking of autonomy and local control. Until the moment Beijing dominates the councils of government and independent power centers have been crushed.

McCabe and Papadopoulos: Two-Tiered Justice By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/andrew-mccabe-george-papadopoulos-two-tiered-justice/

“Equal justice under the law” is not supposed to be an aspiration or a quaint slogan. It is supposed to be a guarantee.

The date of a meeting, that’s all the lie was about.

George Papadopoulos claimed that a meeting he’d had with the mysterious Maltese professor, Josef Mifsud, happened slightly before the green-as-grass 28-year-old was recruited into the Trump campaign. In reality, it was slightly after.

It wasn’t a very important lie. It was of no consequence to the FBI or the special counsel’s investigation. Papadopoulos was such an afterthought that the Bureau did not bother to interview him until late January 2017 — about 10 months after he met Mifsud. By the time Papadopoulos was charged, the Trump–Russia investigation had been ongoing for well over a year — it was already clear that there was no conspiracy.

Yet that didn’t stop Mueller’s staff and Rod Rosenstein, their Justice Department superior, from indicting Papadopoulos on a felony charge. Nor did it stop them from exhorting a federal court to impose a sentence of incarceration. (The judge thought so little of the case, a prison term of 14 days was imposed.)

It wasn’t enough that prosecutors and agents had scared the bejesus out Papadopoulos by scheming to arrest him as he disembarked from a flight in the early evening – after the court was closed, ensuring that young George would spend the night in jail. The fact that he had voluntarily spoken to the feds, that he had counsel who’d made themselves and him available to Mueller’s prosecutors, that he was no flight risk – none of that counted for anything. After all, what fun would it be to call his lawyers and arrange his surrender for processing and quick release on bail? Not when government officials could flex their muscles and show him who’s boss, right?

Bill Maher on David Koch Death: ‘I’m Glad He’s Dead’ and ‘I Hope the End Was Painful’ By Rick Moran

SHAME ON HIM!! RSK

https://pjmedia.com/trending/bill-maher-on-david-koch-death-im-glad-hes-dead-and-i-hope-the-end-was-painful/

Bill Maher made his bones in the entertainment world as a comedian. He should have stuck with stand-up.

His monologue from Friday’s Real Time on HBO simply can’t be believed:

Fox News:

“Real Time” host Bill Maher minced no words Friday night regarding the news that Republican megadonor and billionaire philanthropist David Koch had died at age 79 following a long battle with cancer.

“F— him… I’m glad he’s dead,” Maher said.

“And now, some funeral news to report. Yesterday David Koch of the zillionaire Koch brothers died .. of prostate cancer,” Maher said during his opening monologue, sparking some applause from his mostly liberal audience.

“I guess I’m going to have to re-evaluate my low opinion of prostate cancer.”

The HBO star joked that Koch’s family expressed gratitude that he “lived long enough to see the Amazon catch fire” and that condolences poured in “from all the politicians he owned.”

“As for his remains, he has asked to be cremated and have his ashes be blown into a child’s lungs,” Maher quipped.

After briefly acknowledging the “harsh words” he had for Koch and predicting condemnation, Maher doubled down on his disdain for him and his brother, Charles Koch.

“He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades. So f— him, the Amazon is burning up, I’m glad he’s dead, and I hope the end was painful.”

Forget ideology. Forget politics. How does a civilized human being get to the point where voicing such sentiments is believed to be accepted by anyone in society — even political allies?

Thinking such thoughts is bad enough. Most of us would be ashamed of ourselves for celebrating anyone’s demise and hoping “the end was painful.” It’s barbaric. The words are disconnected from conscience in a way that makes Maher less human.

Stacey Abrams benefits from a ‘voter suppression’ tale By Lisa Boothe

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/458562-stacey-abrams-benefits-from-a-voter-suppression-tale

Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams lost her 2018 gubernatorial bid to Republican Brian Kemp by nearly 55,000 votes, but she still refuses to concede. Instead, she claims the election was stolen from her. She has uncritically peddled that falsehood in countless interviews on national television and has capitalized off of it, by starting the group Fair Fight.

Fair Fight just launched a multimillion-dollar “voter protection” initiative for the 2020 election in 20 competitive states. As the face of the group, Abrams stands to benefit politically from the increased national presence. This begs the question: Is Fair Fight about fighting voter suppression or raising Abrams’ profile?

The Associated Press recently raised this conundrum by pointing out that the “organization has paid for advertisements featuring Abrams and some of her travel and organized national watch parties when she delivered the Democratic rebuttal to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union.” And while there is no evidence of illegality, Abrams’ actions “could prompt questions about whether the nonprofit is inappropriately supporting her political ambitions,” the AP’s report stated.

Climate Change Divides Dems as DNC Plots 2020 Strategy . By Susan Crabtree –

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/23/climate_change_divides_dems_as_dnc_plots_2020_strategy_141086.html

SAN FRANCISCO­ — With their presidential standard-bearer far from certain and the country’s Rust Belt once again pivotal to winning the White House, Democrats are already wrestling with how hard to push their green agenda.

The Democratic National Committee, at its summer meeting here this week, rejected a resolution by activists to back a climate-specific television debate, sparking angry protests from environmentalists who interrupted the meeting. Besides displaying the party’s seams on the issue, the move also risks alienating young voters whose energy and turnout are essential for victory in November 2020.

Symone Sanders, a top strategist for former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign, was the leading voice against the resolution during Thursday’s DNC summer meeting. Sanders argued that having single-issue debates would be disruptive to an already lengthy debate process that forces candidates to spend more time prepping for the face-offs instead of talking to voters.

“This would throw the whole process into a free for all,” she said, also referring to the issue as “dangerous territory in the middle of the primary process.”

Tad Devine, a leading Democratic media strategist, backed her up on Twitter.