Sunday, August 28, 2016

What's the big secret?

I have a question about this article from ABC News: "Clinton Foundation Official Requests State Lunch Invitation, Special Seating for Foundation Allies, Emails Show."  Quote:
The State Department said it could not provide a list of attendees.
What?  The visit in question is a State affair for Chinese President Hu Jintao in January 2011.  Why can't we know who attended this official government event?  I find it interesting that the Chinese probably have all of Hillary's emails but we can't know who shared a butter dish with the Chinese delegation.

"Far short" = less than half

WashPost: "Health-care exchange sign-ups fall far short of forecasts."  "Enrollment in the insurance exchanges for President Obama’s signature health-care law is at less than half the initial forecast, pushing several major insurance companies to stop offering health plans in certain markets because of significant financial losses."

Bad quarterbacks don't matter

Hit and Run: "Is 49ers' QB Colin Kaepernick Right To Sit During the National Anthem?"

My feeling is: go ahead and ride the pine, buddy.  That's your right to free speech.  And if the endorsement deals dry up and the 49ers attendance starts to resemble the University of Missouri then, oh well, gotta break some eggs to make that omelette.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

That's our narrative and we're sticking to it

The New York Times had a problem.  Omar Mateen had killed 49 people at a gay nightclub, but they couldn't blame a Muslim, so it's time for the ol' standby:
Evidently, an Eighth Avenue blamestorming session was convened to alleviate liberal cognitive dissonance. The result was this postulate: if a) Islamophobia is evil, and b) homophobia is evil, but c) Islam is homophobic, then d) it’s all the Republicans’ fault. The news must be made to do its duty. When a story undermines, complicates, or merely fails to support the master narrative about the more and less privileged, facts in evidence are ignored, and ones not in evidence are assumed. The epistemological humility that led the Times to express uncertainty about Mateen’s precise motivations waxes and wanes at the paper. Columnist Paul Krugman, for example, needed mere hours after a lunatic shot an Arizona congresswoman to conclude that the crime was no “isolated event,” but the result of a “national climate” rendered “toxic” by conservatives’ “eliminationist rhetoric.”
The NY Times editorial page is an embarrassment.  Even their own public editor knows the paper has no integrity.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Bernie sells out

Minuteman: "The man who would be President."  Bernie Sanders is starting a new political group and half his senior staff resigned when they found out he would be accepting the "dark money" he railed against during his campaign.

John Oliver's sloppy and slippery schtick

I enjoy some of John Oliver's bits on "Last Week Tonight."  This commentary on sub-prime car loans was pretty eye-opening and I literally LOL'd at the lobster trying to sell the "devil car" to an unsuspecting fluke.

But his recent bit on charter schools was a litany of logical fallacies and sub-prime rhetoric.  Over at Ricochet, Jon Gabriel details the argument against charter schools that wasn't:
His argument, if you can call it that, is basically, “Here’s a bad charter school, therefore all charter schools are bad.” If he was truly interested in not taking a side on whether the model is good or bad, he would have spent at least as much time promoting the good examples.
Yes, that was the argument against charter schools, wrapped in incredulous f-bombs for maximum audience reaction.  Oliver found some charter schools behaving badly.  Guess what: there are public schools out there that are worse.  Furthermore, Oliver didn't deign to do an actual comparison of outcomes in the aggregate, almost certainly because the results didn't fit his narrative.

Influence-peddling at low, low prices

David Harsanyi: "New revelations show a nation for sale under Hillary Clinton."  "The Democratic Party often warns us that mixing big money and politics will corrupt democracy. They must have nominated Hillary Clinton to prove it."

Monday, August 22, 2016

I don't think those were all yoga routines

Hot Air: "State Dept: FBI uncovered 15,000 previously deleted Hillary e-mails during probe."  You're not going to believe this, but they don't appear to be chit-chat about Chelsea's wedding.  It's almost like Hillary was trying to hide evidence of her State-department shakedown operation:
Included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment. Abedin advised Band that when she went through “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours
You'll never guess what happened next.  Go on, and try to gue$$.
According to the Clinton Foundation website, in 2005, Salman committed to establishing the Crown Prince’s International Scholarship Program (CPISP) for the Clinton Global Initiative. And by 2010, it had contributed $32 million to CGI. The Kingdom of Bahrain reportedly gave between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. And Bahrain Petroleum also gave an additional $25,000 to $50,000.
Coming right on the heels of this story is this report from Fox News: "Clinton Foundation executive left 148 phone messages for Hillary Clinton's top aide."
A review of State Department call logs for Cheryl Mills, the longtime Clinton confidant who served as chief of staff for the entirety of Clinton’s four-year tenure as America’s top diplomat, reflects at least 148 messages from Laura Graham – then the Clinton Foundation’s chief operating officer – between 2010 and 2012. No other individual or non-profit appears in the logs with anything like that frequency or volume, the review found.
As the NY Post would say: Quid Pro Dough.  It's too bad other people in the State Department didn't have this kind of access.

Friday, August 19, 2016

Hillary has NOT admitted a mistake

This is from the conclusion of Chris Cillizza's column in the WashPost: "Hillary Clinton’s ‘Colin Powell did it’ defense of her email practices is just plain wrong"
For whatever reason — and despite the fact that Clinton has said on several occasions that she knows she made a mistake — she seems incapable of accepting that responsibility and moving on.
Like a blind journalist, has Cillizza stumbled upon the truth here?  Hillary "admits a mistake" in the sense that you, America, fail to understand that the rules were clarified later, or Colin Powell told her it was kosher, or other people in the State department knew she was using the private email account, etc.

But it's never her fault and she accepts no responsibility except in the sense that it affects her campaign.  Just once, I'd like to hear a journalist ask Hillary just what was her personal mistake.

Thursday, August 18, 2016