Category Archives: Social Commentary

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Social Commentary

This Presidency’s Worst Enemy

8 Comments

…is the president:

Douthat is right that Trump could use a brain trust. But some of us were told that Pence or Reince Priebus or Paul Ryan would serve that role. Certainly they’ve tried. Moreover, there are countless policy agendas sitting on the shelf for Trump to choose among.

Why so much chaos, then? A common answer you hear from all corners is “the tweeting” — the horrible, horrible tweeting. But when you talk to people with more hands-on experience in, or with, the Trump White House, the better answer is that the tweeting is just a symptom.

Trump brings the same glandular, impulsive style to meetings and interviews as he does to social media. He blurts out ideas or claims that send staff scrambling to see them implemented or defended. His management style is Hobbesian. Rivalries are encouraged. Senior aides panic at the thought of not being part of his movable entourage. He cares more about saving face and “counterpunching” his critics than he does about getting policy victories.

In short, the problem is Trump’s personality. His presidency doesn’t suffer from a failure of ideas, but a failure of character.

Yup. As I said throughout the campaign, Trump is terrible, she’s worse.

Education, History, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Who The People?

1 Comment

Thoughts on the duty of the courts to enforce the Constitution and the law, from Glenn Reynolds. It’s based on new book by Randy Barnett.

[Late-morning update]

Actually, Neil Gorsuch is for the little guy:

It’s hard to see what Hirono, Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer and all the other Democrats are talking about when they say Gorsuch doesn’t stick up for the little guy. But if you look more closely at his cases and the Democrats’ charges, you realize what the Democrats mean.

First, in Yellowbear, Little Sisters, Makkar, Carloss and the burping case, Gorsuch was ruling against government overreach. In Kelo, he praised the ruling against the government. And there’s the issue. When Democrats talk about being for the little guy, they often mean being for government power. The two concepts are inseparable in the liberal mind-set.

And when they conflict, they go for the government power every time. That’s why they shouldn’t be called “liberals.”

Business, Economics, Education, General Science, Media Criticism, Philosophy, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary, Technology and Society

Science On The Hill

16 Comments

The hearing has started, with Judith Curry, Roger Pielke, John Christy, and Michael Mann.

[Update about 10:32 EDT]

Mann uses the BS 97% number, and complains that he’s the only one on the panel “in the mainstream.”

[Update early afternoon]

Here is Judith Curry’s written testimony.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here is all the written testimony. I’ll refrain from comment.

[Update a while later]

Here’s the story from Seth Borenstein:

At first Mann said he didn’t call Curry a denier. But in his written not oral testimony he called Curry “a climate science denier.” Mann said there’s a difference between denying climate change and “denying established science” on how much humans cause climate change, which he said Curry did.

But there’s this:

Former Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, who often clashes with mainstream science…

I don’t think she ever clashes with science, but I’m not sure what the hell “mainstream” is in this context.

[Monday-afternoon update]

The warm mongers’ five worst moments of that hearing.

[Bumped]

[Update a few minutes later]

Another point of view from an eyewitness:

The big obstacle: managing bodies of the NAS, formerly respected academic societies, and foreign national academies adopted statements that either outright support or do not contradict climatist pseudo-science. This is an important fact. Of course, there are two causes for that: internal corruption that has been happening over decades and pressure from the Obama administration and its counterparts in other Western countries. Democrat Congresspersons might congratulate themselves for their contribution to shutting up opposition views. But it is hard to convince Republicans that this happened in front of their eyes and under the watch of many of them.

The problem with the academia extends beyond the climate debate. My thoughts are that sometimes things are too broken for repair, and can be only replaced. A replacement should be built before the old thing is discarded.

Lawmakers should be aware that they might need to rebuild American scientific enterprise and academia almost from scratch: create new universities and national labs, extricate competent departments, teams, and individuals from the corrupt institutions, and let them to grow organically in the atmosphere free from the interference from the Leftist and hostile foreign bodies. This is where the federal research and education budgets should go, rather than on continuing support of morally, intellectually, and soon financially bankrupt institutions.

The small obstacle, limited to this panel, was a problematic panel of witnesses. From the outside, it seemed to consist of three skeptics and one “consensus scientist.” In fact, it consisted of Michael Mann, two lukewarmers, and respected Dr. John Christy who, nevertheless, shook hands with Michael Mann in front of my eyes. Thus, the climate alarmism was represented by its most extreme representative, while opposition to climate alarmism was hardly represented at all.

It’s long, but read the whole thing.

[Tuesday-morning update]

Mann destroys his own case for climate action.

Business, Economics, Law, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary, Technology and Society

Trump’s Climate EO

10 Comments

Ths hysteria on this from the Left has been some combination of frightening and hilarious.

But in fact, as Roy Spencer points out, the (illegal) “Clean Power Plan” was literally going to increase poverty and kill people, while almost certainly having no discernible effect on climate.