■ Will Proverbs 27:8 continue the winning streak of relevant wisdom?
Like a bird that flees its nest is anyone who flees from home.
Um… I guess not. Fleeing the nest is what birds do, right?
■ Well, if you're not a fan of corporate welfare, let Jesse Walker at Reason depress you. Trump's Budget Director Confirms: The Export-Import Bank Will 'Continue to Exist'.
Were you hoping, against the odds, that Donald Trump would do an about-face and decide that he wants to kill the Export-Import Bank? If so, I'm afraid I'll have to be the bearer of disillusioning news: OMB chief Mick Mulvaney has now confirmed that the White House wants the bank to "continue to exist."
As a bonus, Donald Trump is quoted in a WSJ interview saying that Ex-Im is a "very good thing". I am not disappointed, because I always thought that Trump had zero principles.
Veronique de Rugy, however…
If being a beneficiary means having your heart crushed, then yes we are . And yes, we will write millions words complaining about it. https://t.co/LRkAl7aEco— Veronique de Rugy (@veroderugy) April 12, 2017
■ Are Democrats the party of science? Jonah Goldberg answers that burning question: Democrats Aren’t the Party of Science. The occasion is Hillary Clinton's recent remark to a friendly crowd: “Before anybody jumps to any conclusions, I will state clearly: Women are not inherently more peaceful than men. That is a stereotype. That belongs in the alternative reality.”
That might be a feminist-friendly attitude, but it's completely at odds with reality. And (worse) it came immediately after Hillary had congratulated herself on her devotion to "research, evidence, and facts." Comments Jonah:
What’s annoying about Clinton’s cheap partisan preening isn’t simply that she’s wrong (and I suspect she knows it). It’s that she is perpetuating an infuriating tendency of liberals today to claim science is always on their side.
Yes. When it's convenient to do so.
■ A new book describing the inner workings of Hillary's campaign is coming out, and The Hill publishes some juicy excerpts: Clinton campaign plagued by bickering. A teleconference between Bill, Hillary, and the campaign's top staffers went poorly:
Hillary’s severe, controlled voice crackled through the line first. It carried the sound of a disappointed teacher or mother delivering a lecture before a whipping. That back end was left to Bill, who lashed out with abandon. Eyes cast downward, stomachs turning — both from the scare tactics and from their own revulsion at being chastised for Hillary’s failures — Hillary’s talented and accomplished team of professionals and loyalists simply took it. There was no arguing with Bill Clinton.
We can comfort ourselves with "thank goodness the country dodged that bullet." Unfortunately only to be nailed by a different bullet, but …
■ The WSJ's James Freeman has a thoughtful essay on Fighting Fake News, spurred by (1) First Lady Melania Trump's winning $2.9 million in damages and legal costs from the Daily Mail and (2) Rolling Stone's settlement (involving an unknown amount of cash) with Nicole Eramo, who was trashed in its bogus University of Virginia rape-hysteria story. Freeman notes that's a far more effective deterrent to "fake news" than…
Ostensibly in an effort to combat fake news, companies like Facebook and Google have lately allied with various liberal media outfits purporting to be disinterested fact checkers. The predictable result will be a concerted effort to block conservative sites and a less aggressive effort against those on the left. And fake news will likely continue to thrive. Not that any of us wants to live in a society where fake news has been completely eradicated, given the regulation of speech that would be required to achieve such a goal. The founders were often infuriated by fake news but they also understood that a free society comes with a price.
We are at the sorry state where the "fact checkers" need as much checking as those they pretend to check.