The Russian Collusion Narrative Continues to Implode

In this piece at AmericanThinker.com, Clarice Feldman puts together a nice summary of the state of the Russian Collusion narrative of the left. There is little point to rehashing what she said as it is well packaged and clear, so I will only summarize it in the form of key takeaways:

  • The entire Russian Conspiracy narrative has been a Democrat disinformation campaign from Day One – and the Democrats all know it. Creating that much chaos – literally pushing the country to the brink of open violence (and we aren’t past that, yet, either) – is certainly sedition and not much short of treason.
  • Lewis “Scooter” Libby was falsely convicted due to similar political machinations also intended to disrupt the functioning of an administration of a duly elected president.
  • The real scandal, under-reported for now, is the Islamist subversion of the Democratic Party.
  • David Corn, the discredited left-wing “reporter”, is still a scumbag and deserves prosecution and serious jail time.

To be clear on the last point, Ms. Feldman didn’t say that David Corn is a discredited left-wing reporter. That is based on his prior record at Slate and Mother Jones and his efforts to push the bogus Russian Trump dossier.

Movie Review: Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire


Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire

[Rating = 3]

This 4 DVD documentary from the History Channel covers the period from the end of the Roman Republic to the end of the Roman Empire. It is more or less divided up by Emperor, describing each in turn as it takes you through the rise, expansion, division and ultimate collapse of the Roman Empire. It provides a decent overview of the various stages and the Emperors in power at each point. While not as detailed as most, it is still sufficient to make one familiar with the overall history of the Roman Empire. A good starter for the student of Roman history.

 

Book Review: The Magic Furnace: The Search for the Origin of Atoms


The Magic Furnace: The Search for the Origins of Atoms

This book tells the story of the search for the origins of atoms, from the first concept of atoms as indivisible particles to our present day understanding. There is a great deal of the history of science in this book without it being overly technical or dry. The origins of atoms of various elements, from the big bang, in the hearts of stars or in their cataclysmic deaths as supernovae, are all addressed in an interesting and informative manner. If you are interested in the origins of atoms or physics or astronomy there is something in this book for you and you will enjoy reading it.

[Rating=5]

Book Review: The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850

The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850

[rating=4]

Published in 2000, this gives a historical account of climate conditions between the Roman Warm Period and the Industrial Revolution. Fagan describes the period of substantially cooler weather in terms of agriculture, habitable regions and weather patterns from an archeological perspective. He presents evidence for the natural causes of cooling – volcanic activity, solar activity – predating any manmade causes (albeit with a nod to Anthropogenic Climate Change claims, as any book from the early 21st Century must to in order to survive politically correct scrutiny) without making any unsubstantiated assertions.

All in all a good read.

Book Review: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud


Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud

Covering numerous topics including Joe Newman’s energy machine, cold fusion, homeopathic medicine, anti-vaccination movement, power line cancer, magnetic therapy and assorted other items ranging from questionable to absurd, this book from 2000 describes the lengths the self-deluded to criminal will go to in the pursuit of vindication or to perpetrate a scam. The various categories of voodoo science, be it pathological self-delusion, pseudoscience, junk science or plain old superstitious mumbo jumbo are discussed thoroughly in a humorous and perhaps snarky presentation (one of the best lines in the book is “the attempt to extract the oxygen you need from water is called ‘drowning'”) that will evoke a snicker or two. You will wonder why anybody, perhaps even you, fell for some of these claims. But you will like the book.

[Rating=4]

Book Review: The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear


The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear

Beckmann discusses the issues surrounding the use of nuclear power in this still-relevant book from 1976. He proceeds not by whitewashing the potential dangers of nuclear energy, but by comparing it to other existing sources of energy in an apples-to-apples fashion. Beckmann makes the case that nuclear energy, while not totally clean and not totally safe, is actually both cleaner and safer than viable large-scale energy production from other sources. Even though the book is now 40 years old, it provides a comprehensive analysis of the relative risks and rewards of nuclear power versus the others with a degree of prescience regarding the technological advances in the energy industry.

[Rating=5]

Classic Leftist Distortion

In a classic example of leftist misrepresentation by the hate rag bird cage liner Salon.com, asking that the police do the policing rather than campus administrators makes anybody doing so a part of the ‘Rape Lobby’ and an advocate of legalizing rape. Yes, read that again. In an article published March 25, 2015 Salon.com claims that FratPAC (more formally, the Fraternity and Sorority Political Action Committee), “the political arm of the nation’s fraternities and sororities … plans to lobby Congress this spring to make it more difficult for colleges and universities to investigate sexual assault allegations.”

They arrive at this conclusion in spite of the fact that what FratPAC is asking for is simply due process, a right guaranteed by the US Constitution in not one, but two different places. How are administrators of a college or university legally qualified to dispense justice regarding a criminal accusation? As far as I know, that is exactly what the justice system is for. The Founders must have had a reason for establishing it, after all.

Remember what happened to the Duke LaCrosse players when they were falsely accused of rape? Their lives were trashed, even though all the charges were eventually dropped. In fact, Crystal Mangum, the woman that accused them, was eventually convicted of murder, and we heard barely a peep about that until, uh, well, ever.

Rape is a terrible crime. And we don’t even know how many occur as many, perhaps 2/3, are never reported by the victim for a variety of reasons. That number, fortunately, seems to be declining and reporting rates are increasing. Compounding that is some number of false accusations that do occur. According to some feminist groups that number is only 2%, but an actual study, albeit a small one, places the number at 41%. I’m pretty sure that neither of those is particularly accurate given the nature of the data, but at least the 41% number actually has data to support it.

Notorious race-baiter Al Sharpton couldn’t let this one pass, as the accused rapists are ‘privileged’ white kids and the accuser herself black. He appeared on the O’Reilly Factor to defend Mangum but later recanted. Tawana Brawley, anybody?

And, as far as the victims of the accusation are concerned, the whole mess is a gift that just keeps on giving. Even though the accuser’s claims have been discredited, the charges dropped and the District Attorney removed from the case and eventually disbarred for his misconduct, there are those still trying to rewrite the story and to make them appear guilty after all.

Back to the point: the idea that some administrative body not constitutionally empowered to enforce and adjudicate the law should have the primary responsibility for doing so is ridiculous, and, in fact, unconstitutional. If the campus police aren’t up to it then the appropriate thing to do is to send it to the town or county or state police, depending on the circumstances, location and nature of the alleged transgression. What’s so hard about that?

The Wisdom of Ron Paul Supporters

Posted by ‘Jay’ in response to criticism of Ron Paul supporters that did not like the outcome of the 2012 Republican primaries who were undermining support for Mitt Romney:

“Let’s play this out shall we? If positions were reversed, and Ron Paul was the nominee…do you think we would still be telling you Romney is stupid? Do you think we would insult and alienate folks of the same political party with slightly different views? You both (Al and William) have a demeaning way of talking to folks. Your sarcasm and insulting nature shine through brilliantly, now only if you were to use your brilliance to try to win people over instead of informing us silly children. RP is stupid? You do know he has been a leader in the party you give your allegiance to for almost 30 years right? And in actuality the only position that Romney has that prevents me from jumping on the team is that he thinks the Federal Reserve is “doing a fine job” words from his mouth not made up. The only thing the Fed has been doing a fine job of for almost 100 years is raping the American taxpayer. No William as you stated above we are not all that different but that one position is enough for a lot of people to turn their back on the party all together.”

And my response:

Jay, if Ron Paul was the Republican nominee (presumptive) and Romney was the one foot-dragging and undermining the party, I would be supporting Paul and condemning Romney. And I would still think Paul’s foreign policy was suicidal. I agree with many of Paul’s positions, but those happen to be in the areas where Paul and Romney also agree to a large extent. I do believe, however, that instead of saying Mitt Romney is stupid and a bad choice for the Republicans as the presumptive nominee, Paulists would be saying “Paul was the right choice *because* Romney is stupid.” I don’t think you can help yourselves. And if Paul lost you would find something other than Paul’s political positions to blame.

If Ron Paul were elected he could only do so much. The President relies on Congress for, essentially, *permission* to do most things. In the areas where the Executive branch can act unilaterally, Obama has done a great deal of damage. Ron Paul would go to the opposite extreme and do just as much damage. Or more. Meanwhile, Obama has seized power via illegally bypassing Congress with EOs, and that will catch up with him, hopefully before it is too late. Paul can’t fix that, all he can do is drag down the Republican Party and give Obama 4 more years to consolidate power.

Just because you don’t like what I say, Jay, does not make it demeaning. I have tried logic and reason with Paul supporters, and, whenever I point out a flaw in their reasoning, they just redirect to another topic. Then the next time they make a groundless accusation or distort a fact or engage in outright conspiracy mongering, it’s the same set of non facts, delusions and baseless accusations.

You don’t have to like my sense of humor, either. I’d say that since it bothers you when I make a sarcastic comment, there must be some nugget in there that you recognize as truth, but it has not been my experience so far that there is any comprehension going on, just cognitive dissonance.

And please explain to me why this is so: I have not encountered a single – not one – Paul supporter that will vote for Romney. Not a single one. They say they will vote third-party, or stay home, or even that they will ‘vote Obama to bring on the Revolution.’ That last one, to me, reeks. How many of those people are just stooges of Obama doing their best to undermine the Republican Party? I have to say, most of them IMO. The ones claiming they will vote third-party on principle, I get that, even if I think it is wrongheaded and hypocritical (in your hypothetical scenario you would expect me to vote for Paul, right?) Where are the principles in voting for Obama? Was Obama running in the Republican primaries like Paul was? Why not just write in Paul instead of trying to wreck the country? It is those people who rob the rest of the Paul supporters of *any* credibility and make you all look like a bunch of spoiled children.

And that is your answer as to why you are mocked. Not by only me, but by many people who have already *completely* given up on you and won’t even bother to talk to you. That silence is not the adoring fans waiting on Paulist wisdom, it’s perdition. Wake up.