There has always been one trouble for me with the books Ann Coulter writes. No sooner do I start one than I have reached the last page. No one, and I do mean no one, writes like her. And while there may have been, now and then, something she has written I didn’t quite agree with, nothing of that kind comes to mind at the moment. Her latest is In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! from which you can find an excerpt here. This section of the book, I’m afraid, truly made me laugh. Go to the link but I will put up the premise she begins with and then you can see what she does.
If we were in the laboratory, designing the perfect presidential candidate, it’s unlikely we would have produced a tasteless, publicity‐seeking, coarse, billionaire, reality TV star.
Ha! Look at how wrong we were. It turns out, that is exactly what we needed.
Now go and read it all, and if you still want to vote for Hillary after that, then do your worst you sour misbegotten fool. I’ll let you know what I thought of the whole book when I finally have had it in my hands plus the one additional day I will need to read it.
Here is Ann Coulter discussing the distortions and lies of the journalistic profession in a column titled, How the media work. It is, as always, an interesting column that gets to the point, but this is I think particularly true. She is discussing the reporting that surrounds Donald Trump, but she could mean anyone on the right who actually gets political traction. The actual example she gives is about herself, but the general principle is the point.
Even sensible people can’t think straight in the middle of one of these [media] hate campaigns.
It can be very difficult for people to overcome whatever meaning the press superimposes on what someone has said, no matter how psychotic. Throw in incessant repetition and uniform agreement among the pundits (Hillary cheerleaders versus Never Trumpers), and completely deranged interpretations become historical facts.
We treat media corruption and its cultural Marxism like bad weather, as just the way things are. But the vile misrepresentation of the world they are reporting on is one of the most important of the entrenched problems we face. The Western world – our way of life – is in mortal danger because the media wilfully distort the world they describe. It is not that they do not know any better. The know exactly what they are doing, which is unmistakeable given what they consistently leave out and what they do say about what they decide to discuss. There is nothing haphazard or accidental about it. Here is Donald Trump discussing the problem as part of a more comprehensive speech he gave last week. What makes Trump so unique is that he will raise this at all. Who else does? Not another politician I have ever seen. And every word of the following is unarguably true.
The establishment media doesn’t cover what really matters in this country, or what’s really going on in people’s lives. They will take words of mine out of context and spend a week obsessing over every single syllable, and then pretend to discover some hidden meaning in what I said.
Just imagine for a second if the media spent this energy holding the politicians accountable who got innocent Americans like Kate Steinle killed – she was gunned down by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.
Just imagine if the media spent this much time investigating the poverty and joblessness in our inner cities.
Just think about how much different things would be if the media in this country sent their cameras to our border, or to our closing factories, or to our failing schools. Or if the media focused on what dark secrets must be hidden in the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton deleted.
Instead, every story is told from the perspective of the insiders. It’s the narrative of the people who rigged the system, never the voice of the people it’s been rigged against.
And here is one more article that discusses this same problem where the sub-head reads: Honest Reporting Died Long Ago. Yet even if you know it, how many are capable of suspending judgement on things they see in the press? And just to pile a bit more on, there is now also this from The New York Post: American journalism is collapsing before our eyes. On the off chance you need a bit more reminding, there is then this, although I’m not sure I quite agree with the first sentence:
The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.
The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.
Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.
By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.
It’s not simply that they do it that is the worry, but that they are so ignorant that in acting this way they believe they are doing good.
In a sense you could say I have spent thirty years writing this paper which will be given twice in Shanghai the following week. The proper understanding of supply-side economics is found in late classical economic theory which I date from 1848-1936, that is, from the publication of Mill’s Principles until the publication of Keynes’s General Theory. If you would like to come, please email Dr Sveta Angelopoulos on email@example.com to let her know. These are the details:
You are warmly invited to attend the School of EFM Brown Bag Seminar Series presentation by Associate Professor Steven Kates: Classical Economics Explained: Understanding Economic Theory Before Keynes.
Abstract: Since the publication of The General Theory, pre-Keynesian economics has been labelled “classical,” but what that classical economics actually consisted of is now virtually an unknown. There is, instead, a straw-man caricature most economists absorb through a form of academic osmosis but which is never specifically taught, not even as part of a course in the history of economics. The paper outlines the crucial features that differentiate classical theory from modern macroeconomics. Based on the differences outlined, a model of classical economic theory is presented which explains how pre-Keynesian economists understood the operation of the economy, the causes of recession and why a public-spending stimulus was universally rejected by mainstream economists before 1936. The classical model presented is an amalgam of John Stuart Mill’s 1848 Principles and Henry Clay’s 1916 first edition Economics: an Introduction for the General Reader, a text which was itself built from the economics of Mill.
RMIT Building 80
Level 10 Room 44 & 45
445 Swanston Street
Date: Tuesday 23rd August
Time: 1.00 – 2.00pm
I think we are at the stage where those of us at a certain age reckon we will get our three score and ten in before the deluge. I am not particularly tolerant, but the will to fight does dissipate as time goes by. I cannot see current trends ending well since far too few any longer understand the virtues of the social arrangements that have been inherited from the past – which had required tremendous battles along the way – but which are now taken as the way things are and can never change. We are, alas, all too soon going to find out how not true that is, and the Dark Age that is descending may last a very long time. This is the sentiment that got me to think about these things:
I came across the quote above first which may seem a bit cryptic, but not if seen in the context of this one which was close by. Caring about such matters requires a philosophy of freedom which is disappearing into a blur of licensed self-absorption.
The previous two were accompanied by this which is relevant to the previous two. Bit by bit we are losing everything that has made our civilisation what it is.
Ages of high technology are well known for being culturally barren.
Were it not for Andrew Bolt, I would have no idea that Nikki Savva is still going on about Malcolm, but there she is: As the real game begins, Malcolm Turnbull needs quick runs. You would think she would finally get the point why anyone who had previously seen Malcolm in action could not possibly have supported him. And to tell the truth, though I tried, I could not get through her column, but I did manage her hilarious first para:
As he approaches his first anniversary as Prime Minister, the number of items on Malcolm Turnbull’s to-do list continues to multiply. His singular achievement so far has been to win the election, if only by a whisker, but it would help his standing inside and outside the government if he could score a few more runs and quickly.
If that is all he has done, he has done less than nothing, his contribution has been entirely negative. He won only because of Tony, but his almost losing the lot was entirely due to his own incompetence. I eventually skipped to the end of her column where there was this exhortation:
Individual ministers have to drive their issues, but they can do it only if the Prime Minister is in the forefront. A year into the job, and almost two months since the election, he needs to pick up the pace. He cannot give eloquent speeches (unfortunately marred by protesters) or drop ideas, then vacate the field for a few days before reappearing.
He has to be a persistent as well as persuasive advocate using all media, particularly radio and from the office, not home, so that there are visuals as well as audio. He needs to convince the public, then, having convinced them, use that to exert pressure on parliament. It is circular and never-ending.
Turnbull has to be relentless and show he is the one in charge, not Abbott, not Shorten, not Xenophon, not even Barnaby Joyce.
By now, Malcolm is completely gun shy since he has shown time and again that his own ideas are poison for most of those who vote for the Coalition. Every time he opens his mouth, three-quarters of the back bench roll their eyes. He’s in the wrong party, should not even be on the back bench, never mind its leader.
Australia is about to lose the world’s greatest central banker and it will make a difference. Others may have watched him in action over the years, but unless they have understood things properly, they cannot have seen what he’s been doing. We may have some of the worst fiscal policy found anywhere, but our monetary and interest rate policies have been second to none. Where else can you get such good sense as this?
“Australia wants to be open to foreign capital. That’s our national philosophy. I think in that discussion it would be helpful to think about the kind of foreign capital we want.
“Foreign capital that builds new assets — like some of the capital that funded the mining boom — that’s one thing. Foreign capital that buys up the existing assets, I’m not saying that we should be closed to that, but that’s not creating new capital for the country. That’s just altering the allocation of who owns the capital that’s here now.
“When we all talk about ‘we want capital inflow’, we can probably have a bit of nuance and subtlety over what kind of inflow we mean and ask ourselves whether we’re attractive enough to the kind of capital that actually builds new assets.”
The distinction he makes is between capital in the form of money and capital in the form of things. It’s a distinction that was once at the core of economic theory but has absolutely disappeared from view. Stevens is one of the few remaining who would even understand the difference and why it matters. But there are shifts going on in central banking orthodoxies since what is crystal clear is that the low interest rate policies of the last few years have been disastrous. This is from The AFR today: .
A new economic reality calls for a new approach to central banking. . . . In the new low-natural rate environment, the Fed’s policy of targeting low inflation will no longer make sense, he said.
It actually never made sense, but they are only just beginning to figure it out. And what has also not made sense is lowering interest rates to zero (and even into negative territory). With such low rates of interest we are actually riding a tiger and I have no idea how we will ever escape this dilemma without a serious “economic restructuring”. But unless we are going to continue down this path of low productivity and sinking real incomes, interest rates at some stage are going to have to rise.
This is Donald Trump talking directly to America’s black communities:
Republican Donald Trump made his most direct appeal yet Tuesday for black voters in the presidential race, pushing forward an agenda to restore law and order and revitalize inner-city neighborhoods that he said suffer from years of misguided Democratic policies.
In a speech delivered not far from Milwaukee neighborhoods rocked by anti-police riots, Mr. Trump laid the blame for urban despair and conflict between police and minorities at the feet of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
“I am running to offer you a much better future,” Mr. Trump said in a speech in West Bend, Wisconsin. “Crime and violence is an attack on the poor and it will never be accepted in a Trump administration.”
He said the policies holding back minority neighborhoods were part of the “rigged system” led by Mrs. Clinton, who he said pandered to black voters but didn’t really care about their suffering.
“The political class that Mrs. Clinton has been a part of for 30 years has abandoned the people of this county. They only care about themselves,” he said. “I am going to give the people their voice back.”
And there’s more at the link. There is also no doubt he means it. What has disappeared into history is that the entire Ku Klux Klan was Democrat. This really does look like America’s last chance, but it’s a genuine one.