Wednesday, 12 May 2021

Daily Digest

Daily Digest

Link to Power LinePower Line

Regarding JFK

Posted: 12 May 2021 05:04 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

Yesterday, Steve wrote about how the left has turned on John Kennedy. To me, the wonder is that it didn’t turn on him years ago.

Kennedy’s presidency might have been liberal as that term was understood at the time, but it wasn’t “progressive.” In fact, today it might reasonably be considered conservative.

Kennedy gave Americans a big tax cut on the theory that this would stimulate the economy. It did.

Kennedy proposed sweeping civil rights legislation based on the idea that individuals shouldn’t be discriminated against on the basis of race. Today, conservatives uphold this view. The left believes that “equity” requires discrimination against Whites.

Kennedy was stridently anti-Communist. He authorized an invasion of Cuba. He called for a substantial buildup of America’s military (claiming falsely that we had fallen behind the Soviet Union in terms of missiles). There is nothing for the contemporary left to like about any of this.

Regarding women, it’s not clear to me how the left should view Kennedy. The writer Steve quoted says that “Kennedy treated an unending series of other women as disposable receptacles for his lust.”

Should the left hold this against him? As far as I know, Kennedy never sexually harassed or assaulted anyone. What the quotation above really means is that Kennedy enjoyed casual sex.

Is this problematic for the left in the post-sexual revolution, hook-up age? Apparently so at least in certain precincts. For some, feminism has taken a puritanical turn.

If Kennedy’s sex life was truly problematic, that’s due to its recklessness. If, as president, Kennedy had an affair with Judith Exner, who was connected to the mob, that was reckless. If, as president, Kennedy had an affair with an East German spy, that was beyond reckless. However, I don’t know that it has been established that the woman in question, Ellen Rometsch, was either a spy or Kennedy’s mistress.

There’s no dispute that Kennedy had plenty of extra-marital sex. However, Kennedy is hardly unique among presidents in this regard. I doubt the left wants to toss him overboard for this.

In my view, Warren Harding is the president most analogous to JFK. I made that case in some detail here.

This is not to disparage Kennedy. Harding was a fairly good president during his limited time in office. So was JFK in my view, though I think Harding was probably better.

The Green Fantasy Is a Nightmare

Posted: 12 May 2021 03:21 PM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

California is cruising toward a 100% “green” energy future, or so the state’s leaders tell us. But how, exactly, will that objective be brought about? In March of this year, the responsible state agencies issued a plan to achieve 100% carbon dioxide-free electricity by 2045. That is an achievable goal if you use nuclear power. Unfortunately, California is trying to do it with wind and solar.

Francis Menton weighs California’s plan in the balance and finds it wanting:

[Wind and solar] don't work all the time, so to start with you need to build far more capacity than your peak usage. California's peak power usage is currently about 40 GW, and that is projected to increase substantially as more of the economy gets electrified, for example automobiles. So the Plans call for the addition of some 97.6 GW of solar capacity and 22.6 GW of wind capacity by 2045, on top of 26.5 GW of those two currently existing. … With the additions, California would have a total of some 146.7 GW of wind and solar capacity, which may be around triple peak usage after you account for incremental electrification of the economy by 2045.

Of course, the intractable problem with wind and solar is that most of the time, they don’t generate any electricity. California’s solution to this problem is battery storage. But this is where elementary mathematics comes in:

[H]ow much storage will we need? They give a very specific figure: 52.8 GW.

Which will cost, including the new wind and solar facilities, a mere $6.4 billion more per year. But there is a problem with California’s arithmetic:

All discussion in the Plans of storage needs and capacity is expressed in units of gigawatts (GW). Now, GW of capacity can certainly be relevant in this context, because assuring that power can be delivered from these massive batteries quickly enough to satisfy peak demand is definitely an important engineering challenge. But another whole subject is gigawatt hours (GWH); in other words, is the total amount of energy stored by the system sufficient to carry you through the longest possible period when demand will exceed supply? How about if there are entire seasons — like "winter" — when days are short, cloudiness is high, the wind has extended periods of calm, and batteries could be getting drawn down for weeks or even months on end? How much will you need in the way of GWH of storage capacity to support this entirely-wind-and-solar system; and how much will that cost?

Not to keep you in suspense, the answer is something like $6.7 trillion, given that electricity would have to be stored for up to seven or eight months. California’s gross domestic product is less than half that amount.

My colleague Isaac Orr carried out a similar calculation for just one state, Minnesota. Isaac found that to store enough electricity to meet Minnesota’s needs for one day would cost around $38.7 billion. He used a battery cost, $250 per kilowatt hour, that is in the same range that Francis used, based on pricing data from Tesla, which ostensibly will supply California’s batteries.

Battery storage is prohibitively expensive, and if you think it is expensive now, just wait until the world’s supplies of lithium and cobalt are further depleted by governments’ voracious appetite for “green” energy.

The idea that wind and solar power will ever fuel our power generation sector, let alone our entire economy, is ludicrous. But the amount of damage that will be done by pursuing that chimera will be incalculable.

The Blockbuster Book of 2021

Posted: 12 May 2021 11:10 AM PDT

(John Hinderaker)

That is what Mollie Hemingway’s forthcoming Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections promises to be. The Federalist has a lengthy description of the book by Mollie herself. You should read it all. Here are some quotes:

If questioning the results of a presidential election were a crime, as many have asserted in the wake of the controversial 2020 election and its aftermath, nearly the entire Democratic Party and media establishment would have been incarcerated for their rhetoric following the 2016 election. In fact, the last time they accepted the legitimacy of a presidential election they lost was in 1988.

After the 2000 election, which hinged on the results of a recount in Florida, Democrats smeared President George W. Bush as "selected, not elected." When Bush won re-election against then-Sen. John Kerry in 2004, many on the left claimed that voting machines in Ohio had been rigged to deliver fraudulent votes to Bush. HBO even produced and aired "Hacking Democracy," a documentary that added fuel to the conspiracy theory fire of conversations about the 2004 results. But nothing holds a candle to what happened in 2016 after Donald Trump's surprising defeat of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
***
"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you," Clinton told her followers in 2019.

"I know he's an illegitimate president," Clinton claimed of Trump a few months later. She even claimed during an interview with "CBS Sunday Morning" that "voter suppression and voter purging and hacking" were why she lost.

Former President Jimmy Carter agreed.

"[Trump] lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf," he told NPR in 2019. "Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016."

Their view was widely shared by most prominent Democrats in Congress. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, for example, said he was skipping Trump's inauguration in 2016 because he believed Trump was illegitimate, and that "the Russians participated in helping this man get elected." Lewis also skipped the inauguration of President George W. Bush, claiming that Bush, too, was an illegitimate president.
***
Not only did corporate media not condemn leading Democrats' refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election, the media were also super spreaders of wild conspiracy theories about how Trump and Russia colluded to steal the election from Clinton. They dutifully regurgitated false leaks from corrupt intelligence officials suggesting that Trump and his staff had committed treason. They ran stories suggesting that Republicans who didn't support their conspiracy theory were insufficiently loyal to the country.

Some even suggested Russia may have hacked voting machines and vote totals in a bid to steal the election from Clinton. It was all nonsense.
***
Rather than being shunned by their peers for peddling leaks and lies that had no basis in reality, the reporters who pushed this conspiracy theory were lauded by their peers, received raises and promotions, and were given Pulitzers for "reporting" that turned out to be detached from reality.
***
And then 2020 happened.

With the snap of their fingers, America's electoral system went from irredeemably corrupt and broken in 2016 to unquestionably safe in 2020. Voting methods that were allegedly used to steal elections in 2004 and 2016 suddenly became sacrosanct and impenetrable in 2020. Whereas so-called election experts repeatedly warned pre-2020 about the pitfalls of electronic voting and widespread mail-in balloting, by November of 2020, any discussion about the vulnerabilities of those methods was declared to be verboten.
***
Across the country at the state, local, and federal level, hundreds of significant structural changes to the manner and oversight of elections were instituted, resulting in what Time Magazine called a "a revolution in how people vote." Some of these changes were enacted by state legislatures, some by courts, and others by county and state election officials. Many changes were allegedly justified by the global pandemic, although Democrats had long advocated for them and now seek to make them permanent.
***
What happened during the 2020 election deserves to be investigated and discussed. It must be investigated and discussed, not in spite of media and political opposition to it, but because of that opposition. That is why I am writing a book about what happened before, during, and after the 2020 presidential election.

The American people deserve to know what happened. They deserve answers, even if those answers are inconvenient. They deserve to know the effect of flooding the system with tens of millions of mail-in ballots. They deserve to know how and why Big Tech and corporate political media manipulated the news to support certain political narratives while outright censoring stories they now admit were true.

The American people deserve to know why courts, without the consent of the accountable legislative bodies charged with writing election laws, were allowed to unilaterally rewrite the rules in the middle of the game. Voters deserve to know why so many in government so vociferously fought to avoid audits and recounts and hide the vote-counting process from the public.

Republicans also screamed bloody murder about tech censorship of conservative voices and news stories about Democrats that the public had a right to know. They were horrified by a media complex that moved from extreme partisan bias to unabashed propaganda in defense of their preferred political party. They watched as a completely legitimate story about international corruption involving the Biden family business — and implicating Joe Biden himself — was crushed by media and tech companies colluding to suppress it.

None of those problems went away after the election. If anything, the concern grew as tens of millions more Americans saw the problems associated with sloppy elections in which it takes days to find out just how many people voted, much less how they voted.
***
The fact of the matter is that the elite powers did whatever it took to make sure that Trump lost re-election in 2020. They admitted as much in a victory lap masquerading as a news article in Time Magazine that referred to the individuals and institutions behind the efforts to oust Trump as a "well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information."

Mollie says that she has interviewed many of the principals involved in the 2020 election, including President Trump, and her book will explore, among other things, “what went wrong during the electoral challenges in battleground states, and who was responsible for them.” She concludes with a prediction that no doubt will come true:

I have no doubt that the same powers that worked to oust Trump in 2020 will do everything they can to suppress this book in 2021, but I don't care. The story has to be told.

You can preorder Rigged here. Publication date is September 21.

Twitter has banned Trump, but permits celebration of attacks on Israel

Posted: 12 May 2021 08:37 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)

Donald Trump, the former president of the Untied States and the current de facto leader of the Republican Party, is barred from Twitter. The ban is permanent. Twitter says that even if Trump were to run for president again, he could not use its platform.

The ban is for “inciting violence.” I think it’s true that Trump’s words inspired violence on January 6. However, Trump did not advocate violence, nor did he celebrate it.

Hamas, by contrast, is engaging in violence and celebrating it on Twitter. Here is what Hamas’ leader posted:

The bombing of Tel Aviv and the oil pipeline facility between Ashkelon and Eliat [picture attached]. God is great and glory is to God alone.

Then, there’s Iran’s leader, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He funds the violence against Israel and backs it on Twitter with these words:

Palestinians are awake and determined. They must continue this path. One can only talk with the language of power with these criminals. They must increase their strength, stand strong, confront the enemy, and force them to stop their crimes. #FreePalestine

Nor is this the only time the Ayatollah has urged Palestinians to attack Israel. Philip Klein provides a sampling.

Will Twitter ban Khamenei and Hamas for inciting and supporting violence on its platform? I doubt it, given Twitter’s tolerance of the Ayatollah’s past writings and what I take to be its sympathies and biases. But we’ll see.

Aggravating Chauvin’s sentence

Posted: 12 May 2021 08:02 AM PDT

(Scott Johnson)

Having been convicted of second-degree murder at trial for the death of George Floyd, Derek Chauvin is subject to a presumptive sentence of 12 and 1/2 years under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Prosecutors moved for an aggravated sentence in the case based on five so-called Blakley factors and applicable Minnesota law. Sentencing is scheduled for June 25.

Chauvin chose to submit the required findings of fact to Judge Cahill in place of, or rather than, the jury. The court has just posted Judge Cahill’s findings here. In his findings Judge Cahill adopts four of the five grounds urged by the prosecutors for aggravation of Chauvin’s sentence. He makes each of his four findings beyond a reasonable doubt. He rejects the fifth proposed finding.

The findings are based on the evidence at trial, the facts the jury must have found to convict Chauvin, and on the verdict itself. By the time we reach finding 4 — “Defendant committed the crime as a group [sic] with the active participation of three other persons” — they take on an absurd quality.

All public filings in the case are accessible via the court page dedicated to the case here. The prosecutors’ memorandum supporting aggravation of the sentence is posted here. Chauvin’s memorandum in opposition is posted here.

Judge Cahill adopted the the procedure to resolve the issue of aggravation in his January 26 order posted here. As I read paragraph 2 of the order, Judge Cahill has yet to determine whether his findings constitute “substantial and compelling circumstances justifying an aggravated durational departure from the presumptive sentence…” We will accordingly hear the rest of the story when he sentences Chauvin at the June 25 hearing, but the suspense on this point cannot be great.

No comments:

Post a Comment

BREAKING: North Carolina automotive group acquires 7 Upstate dealerships

Breaking news from GSA Business Report Click here to view this message in a browser window. ...