Displaying posts published in

October 2020

Trump-Hating Journalists Write Fiction, Not News Itxu Diaz *****

https://spectator.org/trump-hating-journalists-write-fiction-not-news/

Hardly any journalists get scoops anymore because almost everybody already knows everything. A couple of afternoons ago, in the fruit shop, the lady who has worked there for as long as I can remember greeted me with arched eyebrows and arms locked in pre-election campaign position: “So you’re the one who writes all these fascist articles?” My answer was almost as stupid as her question: “Give me six ripe tomatoes too, if you please.” Information travels faster than my reflexes. And I’m starting to get used to the idea of journalists storming into newsrooms, sweating, bursting with some big exclusive, only to sit down, start writing it up, and discover, crushed, that someone has already been dancing to it for three days on TikToc.
 

The era of the journalism we saw in The Front Page has passed. Walter Burns was a scoundrel, but at least he did it to sell newspapers. These days, the most exciting thing that comes out of any of those old newspaper offices is the tweet of an intern who has published some personal obscenity by mistake on the newspaper’s Twitter feed. And the worst thing is that most of the followers won’t notice the difference. Without a doubt, authorial and analytical journalism is an honorable and pertinent way out of the eternal crisis that long ago left our business looking like Wile E. Coyote, right after the stick of dynamite went off in his face.

Unfortunately, not all the press has chosen to find an honorable way out. I’ve discovered these days, with certain surprise, that fiction-journalism is back, although in a much more tedious version. No, it is not the gonzo journalism of the great Hunter S. Thompson. For that you need talent. No, this is prophetical news. We didn’t see that coming. I would never have imagined that this prolonged crisis of journalism would lead to the horoscopes jumping out of the back pages onto the very front page. The new section chiefs will be witches!

5 Major Ways America Will Fundamentally Change If Biden Packs The Court By David Marcus

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/09/5-major-ways-america-will-fundamentally-change-if-biden-packs-the-court/

Joe Biden refuses to say whether he will support packing or expanding the Supreme Court to ensure a progressive majority if he is elected president. Given that such a move would be the most significant change in how America is governed in recent memory, and a break with 150 years of precedent, it is fair to conclude that his refusal to reject the option means he is open to it.

But the idea of “packing the court” is somewhat esoteric for many Americans not glued to the machinations of our federal government. Should the Democrats choose to expand the court by at least four members to provide for a 7-6 majority assuming Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed, it is important for Americans to understand how this drastic maneuver will change their lives and their country.

Let’s lay out five potentially major changes to American life and society that court packing would result in.

1. Gun Rights

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” This was written in an amicus brief from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and four other Democrats in a 2019 case involving the NRA and the State of New York. It was an implicit threat to pack the court if it refused to side with Democrats on restrictive measures that would not even allow people to transport unloaded guns to a gun range. So in this case, we have a very good idea of what Democrats have in mind.

A 7-6 progressive majority on the court would very likely overturn decades of precedent that have protected gun owners from both state and federal attempts to deny them their Second Amendment rights. Millions of American gun owners would be subject to these changes and the laws, which Democrats, some of whom are committed to confiscating guns, would impose.

Is Great Barrington Declaration a Solution to Endless COVID Lockdowns?By Alex Berezow, PhD

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/10/07/great-barrington-declaration-solution-endless-covid-lockdowns-15074

The proposal in the Declaration is certainly worth considering. If I was a policymaker, I would investigate how to implement it. As COVID cases spike in Europe, which once had the coronavirus under control, it’s becoming clear that our current on-again, off-again approach to containment isn’t working as intended. It may be time to try something new. 

Let’s be honest. As we approach late autumn and then winter in the northern hemisphere, nobody knows what’s going to happen. We may see another surge in coronavirus cases, or we may not. We may see flu season exacerbate the effects of COVID, or we may not. We just don’t know.

Making the situation worse is that this uncertainty is absolutely killing the economy. Go downtown in any major American city. It’s a ghost town. We can’t live like this indefinitely. Is there some other approach that we can take as a society to minimize the harm of COVID while maximizing productivity and happiness? A group of successful and respected infectious disease experts says yes, and they have written a statement that they have called the Great Barrington Declaration.

The authors refer to their approach as “Focused Protection,” the gist of which is “to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.” Not that this really matters (because public health policy shouldn’t be a popularity contest), but more than 10,000 scientists and medical practitioners have signed it.

Are the authors right? I certainly think so. Back in May, we reported on a Swedish epidemiologist who believed that lockdowns did nothing other than delay the inevitable; i.e., they simply push new infections down the timeline. Therefore, while lockdowns can be useful to avoid overwhelming hospital bed capacity, they may not lower the overall number of cases. In other words, we’re destroying the economy while essentially accomplishing nothing.

Yes, Hillary Clinton Ordered the Russia-Collusion Farce  By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/hillary-clinton-orchestrated-russia-collusion-farce/

The Clinton campaign dreamed up, paid for, and peddled the Trump-Russia collusion farce.

Did she or didn’t she?

Of course she did. In late July 2016, Hillary Clinton, in an effort to divert attention from the email scandal that was haunting her presidential bid, directed her campaign to peddle a political narrative that Russia’s suspected hacking and leaking of Democratic Party emails was in furtherance of a conspiracy between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to swing the election to Trump.

That is, as I argued in Ball of Collusion, the Clinton campaign dreamed up, paid for, and peddled the Trump–Russia collusion farce. And in promoting it, President Obama’s former secretary of state had a willing and able partner in the Obama administration — very much including its intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus.

Democrats Change Their Tune

It was amazing to watch Democrats play Twister this week, as National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe added documentary corroboration to the disclosure he’d made the week before. In that first revelation, via letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ratcliffe explained that, because our spy agencies have very effective foreign-intelligence-gathering methods, they were able to “obtain insight” into a Russian intelligence analysis that concluded Clinton orchestrated the damaging political narrative. That is, Clinton actually did what she accused Trump of doing: She colluded with Russians (through yet another foreigner she recruited to meddle in the 2016 presidential campaign: the ludicrous former British spy Christopher Steele) in order to damage Trump’s campaign and cinch the election for herself. 

Eyes + Ears = 50! By Joan Swirsky

https://canadafreepress.com/article/eyes-ears-50

Do these idiots think that after watching this criminality for five months, any sane American will vote for a Democrat?
Last March brought us the results of the caucus and primary votes of the Democrat 2020 contest for the U.S. presidency. Out of a U.S. population of about 330 million—some stats include 40 million illegals, which brings the total to 370 million—the best Democrats had to offer was about 15 unimpressive candidates who the public saw through and sent packing. Left in the contest were:

Senator Bernie Sanders, an energized 78-year-old white, Jewish Marxist from Vermont, a keen admirer of Fidel Castro and Mother Russia—who represents his constituents as an Independent—who had recently survived a heart attack. 
Joe Biden, a 77-year-old, white, pro-abortion Catholic, former senator from Delaware for 36 years, VP of the U.S. for eight years under Barack Obama, and, even last March, clearly in the early-to-mid stages of dementia.