There has now been created a world in which the success of others is a grievance, rather than an example.--Sowell
Liz got home.
I'm tired today.
Chris got a good post-op check.
This story about Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan is really awful.
Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysics laboratory once calculated that if we could know all the variables affecting climate and plugged them into the world’s largest computer, it would take 40 years for the computer to reach an answer.
Political processes tend to concentrate benefits on the well-organized and well-informed, and disperse the costs on the unorganized and ill-informed. This is why despite centuries of economic thinking that has agitated against special privileges of any type, vested interests have been able to garner protections from government against the rigors of competitive pressures both foreign and domestic. But, consumers benefit greatly from access to open markets both foreign and domestic. Economic theory really does speak unequivocally on this down through the ages, but vested interests confuse the discourse.--Boettke
The god Apollo and the satyr Marsyas had a musical contest (in another version of the story it was the god Pan instead of Marsyas). The mountain-god Tmolus served as the judge and declared Apollo the winner. King Midas, in his kibitzing wisdom, favored Marsyas as the winner. This upset Apollo who said that Midas’s musical judgment implied that he had donkey’s ears and made his ears those of a donkey’s. Thus "Midas Eared," meaning inability to appreciate something, poor judgment.
(Then, Apollo, the symbol of the rational Western man, had his musical opponent Marsyas skinned alive.)
Not from the Babylon Bee. Journalists Alan Gignoux and Carolina Graterol were recently interviewed by Counterpunch. They looked at the absence of meat in Venezuela and praised the population for going vegetarian: “Mango trees are everywhere, so you can pick a mango whenever you want,” Gignoux enthused. As for the energy shortage, Graterol said, “During blackouts, people told stories, played music, or went out and talked on the streets. It was a paradise, no TVs, smartphones, but real human contact.”
These, presumably, are thinking people. And VERY spiritual.
Political processes tend to concentrate benefits on the well-organized and well-informed, and disperse the costs on the unorganized and ill-informed. This is why despite centuries of economic thinking that has agitated against special privileges of any type, vested interests have been able to garner protections from government against the rigors of competitive pressures both foreign and domestic. But, consumers benefit greatly from access to open markets both foreign and domestic. Economic theory really does speak unequivocally on this down through the ages, but vested interests confuse the discourse.--Boettke
The god Apollo and the satyr Marsyas had a musical contest (in another version of the story it was the god Pan instead of Marsyas). The mountain-god Tmolus served as the judge and declared Apollo the winner. King Midas, in his kibitzing wisdom, favored Marsyas as the winner. This upset Apollo who said that Midas’s musical judgment implied that he had donkey’s ears and made his ears those of a donkey’s. Thus "Midas Eared," meaning inability to appreciate something, poor judgment.
(Then, Apollo, the symbol of the rational Western man, had his musical opponent Marsyas skinned alive.)
Not from the Babylon Bee. Journalists Alan Gignoux and Carolina Graterol were recently interviewed by Counterpunch. They looked at the absence of meat in Venezuela and praised the population for going vegetarian: “Mango trees are everywhere, so you can pick a mango whenever you want,” Gignoux enthused. As for the energy shortage, Graterol said, “During blackouts, people told stories, played music, or went out and talked on the streets. It was a paradise, no TVs, smartphones, but real human contact.”
These, presumably, are thinking people. And VERY spiritual.
If the British government declared the abolition of sin by 2050, commentators would be rightly cynical. The announcement last week that Britain will enact a net-zero carbon target for 2050 was instead welcomed, especially by “faith leaders”. Yet without specifying how it is to be achieved, setting this target is about as wishful as pledging to eliminate sin. --Ridley
From Babylon Bee: In a special session called to order Friday, Congress voted unanimously to do a complete overhaul of Father’s Day, renaming the holiday “Toxic Masculinity Awareness Day” and redefining the day’s meaning to encourage citizens to heap shame and disgust on all fathers, current or potential. (They refer to Fathers as "vestigial parent.")
On this day in 1953, the Rosenbergs were executed.
On this day in 1953, the Rosenbergs were executed.
Code Name: Crossfire Hurricane
Jumpin’ Jack Flash Lyrics
[Intro]I was born in a crossfire hurricane
And I howled at the maw in the drivin' rain [Chorus]
But it's all right, I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's a gas, gas, gas
"...... the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign.
What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.
....the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.
The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.
Just because the two FBI cases are both referred to as “investigations” does not make them the same kind of thing.
The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence. Mrs. Clinton does have one legitimate beef against the FBI: Then-director James Comey went public with some (but by no means all) of the proof against her. It is not proper for law-enforcement officials to publicize evidence from a criminal investigation unless formal charges are brought.
In the scheme of things, though, this was a minor infraction. The scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged. She likes to blame Comey for her defeat; but she had a chance to win only because the Obama Justice Department and the FBI tanked the case against her — in exactly the manner President Obama encouraged them to do in public commentary.
By contrast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation. Unlike criminal cases, counterintelligence matters are classified. If agents had made public disclosures about them, they would have been committing crimes and violating solemn agreements with foreign intelligence services — agreements without which those services would not share information that U.S. national-security officials need in order to protect our country.
The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.
The Times averts its eyes from this point — although if a Republican administration tried this sort of thing on a Democratic candidate, it would be the only point.
Like the Justice Department and the FBI, the paper is banking on Russia to muddy the waters. Obviously, Russia was trying to meddle in the election, mainly through cyber-espionage — hacking. There would, then, have been nothing inappropriate about the FBI’s opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia. Indeed, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. That’s what counterintelligence powers are for.
But opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Russia is not the same thing as opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign.
The media-Democrat complex has tried from the start to conflate these two things."
(can't remember where this is from--maybe Nat Rev--but whatever is going on here, it ain't cool.)
No comments:
Post a Comment