16 thoughts on “News/Politics 5-15-19

  1. If the entire world outside of SC wanted Lindsey Graham to resign, it wouldn’t matter.
    I don’t see what the fuss is about.


  2. It’s on. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pot, meet Kettle. 🙂


  4. Inversion and revisionism.


    “Top Democrats’ defense of Rashida Tlaib’s Holocaust inversion and revisionism is unforgivable

    Tlaib falsely portrayed Palestinians as the true victims of the Holocaust who suffered by providing Jews ‘safe haven’ during and after the Holocaust. Yet Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer demand an apology not from Tlaib, but from her critics.”

    “The first point, portraying Palestinians as the true victims of the Holocaust, is a historically perverse and malicious claim. Six millions Jews died, Jewish communities throughout Europe were wiped out, yet it is the Palestinians — who backed the Nazi effort — who are portrayed as the victims. It is fair to consider this an offshoot of Holocaust Inversion, the attempt to portray the Jewish victims of the Nazis as the Nazis. It’s also a historical theft, an attempt to deprive Jews of their history and to repurpose that history to attack Jews.

    The second point, that Palestinians supposedly helped provide safe haven to Jews during and after the Holocaust, is a historical falsehood of immense magnitude. We explored this falsehood in our prior post, pointing out that the Arabs of the British Mandate (who did not refer to themselves at that time as Palestinians, a more recent term), boycotted, slaughtered, and discriminated against Jews throughout the time period, and did everything they could to prevent Jews from finding a safe haven. The Grand Mufti was a strong supporter of Hitler and the extermination of the Jews.

    Haaretz, a left-wing Israeli publication that regularly attacks the current government, investigated Tlaib’s claim by interviewing both Palestinian and Jewish historians. The result was that these scholars agreed that Tlaib’s ‘safe haven’ narrative had no historical basis, ‘Safe Haven’? What Israeli, Palestinian Scholars Think About Rashida Tlaib’s Holocaust Comments:

    Both Israeli and Palestinian scholars told Haaretz that they had great difficulty embracing any view of history in which the Palestinians played any part in providing a “safe haven” for Jewish refugees of the Holocaust.

    “Rashida Tlaib is either completely ignorant of the history or is a deliberate liar,” charged Prof. Benny Morris, one of the leading scholars of British Mandatory Palestine, the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the War of Independence in 1948-1949.

    Morris said Tlaib’s ancestors, meaning Palestinians, “did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Jews at Nazi hands. Rather, the opposite: The Arabs of [British Mandatory] Palestine, during the whole period — and supported by the neighboring Arab states — did all they could to prevent Jews trying to escape Nazi hands from reaching the (relatively safe) shores of Palestine.”

    The anti-British and anti-Zionist revolt launched by Palestinian Arabs between 1936 and 1939 both deterred European Jews from escaping to Mandatory Palestine and motivated the British rulers to prevent more refugee Jews from entering Palestine so as not to inflame the Arabs, Morris said.

    He also pointed out that the leader of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement, Haj Amin al-Husseini, during his exile in Berlin from 1941-1945, “called for the massacre of Jews in the Arab world on Nazi radio stations — an anti-Jewish ‘jihad’ — and helped the Nazis recruit Muslims from the Balkans for the SS and Wehrmacht.”

    Palestinian historian Dr. Adel Manna, a senior research fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, expressed bewilderment when asked about Tlaib’s “safe haven” reference.

    “I don’t know what she meant,” Manna said.”


  5. I doubt he has the decency to do so. But the R controlled General Assembly is another story…..


  6. Don’t worry, China loses this round too. But some pain for US consumers will be necessary for a nit yet. But the Chinese have no choice, they’ll come around.


    “China Loses More From This Trade War

    It is vulnerable because it is a much poorer country with more fragile political institutions.”

    “With the U.S.-China trade talks now at a halt, odds are that the recent U.S. tariffs on China will continue — and perhaps even rise and multiply. So it’s worth considering what effects those tariffs will have. One prominent argument, which can also serve as a criticism of President Donald Trump, is that the U.S. consumer is the loser. Yet in reality, China is probably in the more vulnerable position.

    To be clear, there are well-done studies showing that the recent tariffs have translated into higher prices for U.S. consumers. I am not contesting that research. The question is whether those studies give sufficient weight to all relevant variables for the longer run.

    To see why the full picture is more complicated, let’s say the U.S. slaps tariffs on the industrial inputs (whether materials or labor) it is buying from China. It is easy to see the immediate chain of higher costs for the U.S. businesses translating into higher prices for U.S. consumers, and that is what the afore-mentioned studies are picking up. But keep in mind China won’t be supplying those inputs forever, especially if the tariffs remain. Within a few years, a country such as Vietnam will provide the same products, perhaps at cheaper prices, because Vietnam has lower wages. So the costs to U.S. consumers are temporary, but the lost business in China will be permanent. Furthermore, the medium-term adjustment will have the effect of making China’s main competitors better exporters.

    Obviously, no final long-run estimates are possible right now. But it is quite plausible that China will bear the larger costs here, not the U.S.

    Another risk for China is this: As its access to U.S. markets becomes more difficult, China may be tempted to look to Europe. It remains to be seen whether the European Union will adopt additional protectionist measures, but China must consider that the possibility is more than zero.

    To understand another feature of the longer-term perspective, consider that the impact of tariffs can be felt in at least two ways. In highly competitive markets, prices have to match costs, and so a cost-boosting tariff really does translate into higher consumer prices. (This is the case with many of the recent U.S. tariffs on China.) But for profitable branded goods, the economics aren’t the same. If the U.S. puts higher tariffs on Mercedes-Benz, for example, the prices of those cars will still exceed their costs of production. Mercedes, wishing to keep some of its strong market position, will probably decide to suffer some of the cost of the tariffs in the form of lower profits, rather than passing them along to its customers.”


  7. Stating the obvious and sadly, in my view, true. 😦



    US journalism has become more subjective: study

    U.S.-based journalism has gradually shifted away from objective news and offers more opinion-based content that appeals to emotion and relies heavily on argumentation and advocacy, according to a new RAND Corporation report.

    In a unique analysis on news discourse and presentation, researchers found that the changes occurred over a 28-year-period (1989 to 2017) as journalism expanded beyond traditional media, such as newspapers and broadcast networks, to newer media, such as 24-hour cable channels and digital outlets. Notably, these measurable changes vary in extent and nature for different news platforms.

    “Our research provides quantitative evidence for what we all can see in the media landscape: Journalism in the U.S. has become more subjective and consists less of the detailed event- or context-based reporting that used to characterize news coverage,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior political scientist and lead author of the report, which is second in a series of research into the phenomenon of “Truth Decay,” the declining role of facts and analysis in civil discourse and its effect on American life.

    “News consumers can now see how the news has changed over the years and keep that in mind when making choices about which media outlets to rely on for news,” she added. …

    … Researchers analyzed content from 15 outlets representing print (The New York Times, Washington Post and St. Louis Post-Dispatch), television (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox and MSNBC) and digital journalism (Politico, The Blaze, Breitbart News Network, Buzzfeed Politics, The Daily Caller and The Huffington Post).

    The findings point to a gradual and subtle shift over time and between old and new media toward a more subjective form of journalism that is grounded in personal perspective. …


  8. I remember when Roone Arledge, the head of ABC sports, was named the head of the news division. People argued shifting him out of “entertainment” to the news department would be the demise of news.

    It looks like the critics were right. 😦


  9. Gowdy is confirming what thinking folks already figured out. So everyone but Dems, most of the media (but I repeat myself) and Never-Trumpers. 🙂



    “Former Republican South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy dropped a potential bombshell Tuesday regarding what information the FBI relied on to corroborate claims in the Steele dossier.

    Gowdy said when he was in office, he saw an FBI spreadsheet that cited news articles and information from longtime Clinton insider Sidney Blumenthal as corroboration for the dossier.

    Gowdy did not identify what information from Blumenthal was cited, but the Clinton ally shopped around a dossier of his own containing allegations about Donald Trump.”


  10. Like

  11. The criticism of Tlaib is an example of beating a strawman. She made no claim that Palestinians were victims of the Holocaust. Her claim was simple; Palestinians provided safe haven for Jews after the Holocaust. And on an individual level this is true; many Palestinians had excellent relations with their new Jewish neighbors. It was a win-win for both individuals….modernity in exchange for safe haven. It was the elites on both sides who poisoned the relationship. However, conservatives will use any excuse to attack the two Muslim ladies.


  12. China has a large internal economy which allows them to be less reliant of foreign markets. Tariffs only work on products designed for export (Bangladesh textiles) or a country reliant on foreign trade (Canada, Australia, etc) . China is a rapidly expanding economy with a large enough market to consume most of their products. Chinese steel manufacturers for example will last longer than a US soybean farmer who now relies on govt handouts.


  13. Oh please HRW.

    That supposed farmer has not yet lost one thin dime.

    “Now, he says he does not plan to vote for him again because of massive economic losses he expects to incur due to the escalating trade war with China.”

    Expects. Not has, not will, expects…….

    See the problem?

    More fake news.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.