■ Is Proverbs 16:18 the most well-known one of all? If not, it's right up there.
18 Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall.
If you want "goeth", though, you have to goeth to other translations.
■ I was both amused and disgusted by a short article in my local paper, Foster's Daily Democrat. Panelists oppose offshore oil drilling in New England.
Yes, it's the usual advocacy article, thinly disguised as "news". But my soon-to-be-ex CongressCritter, Carol Shea-Porter was in attendance. And…
The discussion was briefly interrupted, however, when an audience
member loudly protested Shea-Porter’s support of a defense spending
bill, saying she was “increasing climate change.”
Ben Chichester of Rye, son of the late Guy Chichester, a longtime leading Seacoast environmental activist, criticized Shea-Porter for backing the defense funding bill.
“I came here to speak and I’m going to speak,” he said as he raised his voice. “I’m speaking. You don’t like what I’m saying but Carol Shea-Porter is increasing climate change by voting for the largest military in the world that has the largest imprint. So don’t make me raise my voice by trying to shout me down people.”
So, Amusement 1: CSP being subjected to the same sort of treatment that she once enjoyed meting out to Republicans. As James Pindell of New Hampshire Magazine reminds us:
She protested President Bush when he came to the Seacoast, and she was ejected from the event. She hounded incumbent Republican US Representative Jeb Bradley at several of his town hall meetings before she decided to challenge him as a candidate.
On to Amusement 2: audience members reflexively demonstrated their Progressive dedication to Speaking Truth To Power:
Other audience members quickly pushed back, with one suggesting to Chichester “why don’t you shut up.”
CSP offered to "talk about this afterwards", but…
[Chichester] was eventually removed from the event by two Shea-Porter congressional staffers and the panel discussion continued.
No word on how the promised "afterward" discussion went.
That was as far as the amusement went. The article added a new twist at the end though:
No one who supports the Trump administration’s offshore drilling proposal spoke at the event.
Er, maybe because CSP didn't invite them? It would be surprising if she had. Nevertheless, the reporter decided to quote someone not in attendance:
But earlier this week, Americans for Prosperity New Hampshire state director Greg Moore said in a statement that “New Hampshire has some of the highest energy costs in the country, so we need to look at every avenue to make the state more competitive, and the administration should be commended for beginning this process. ... We should embrace an all-of-the-above energy strategy and explore any opportunity to lower costs and give our citizens and employers rate relief.”
An attempt at balanced even-handedness? Not really. Here's the punchilne:
AFP is a national conservative advocacy group funded by the Koch brothers, whose family has made billions in the energy industry.
Once again, the Koch Konspiracy is invoked to assure the readers that they need pay no attention to what they've just read: it's just some paid shill. Was any similar analysis provided for the anti-drillers? Where's a list of contributors to the organizations they represnt? Do you even need to ask?
It's apparent that the "even-handed" effort was a sham, predestined to discredit any contrary argument. Foster's should be ashamed, but won't be.
■ At Cato, Peter van Doren asks: Why Does AT&T Want Net Neutrality Regulation? Here's a hint:
Whereas Title II regulations disadvantaged AT&T, new legislation could create regulations that would benefit it by reducing the number of dimensions over which firms can compete and differentiate themselves. This would disproportionately hurt smaller companies and new market entrants and aid larger companies with larger networks and economies of scale allowing them to offer lower prices than competitors.
Net Neutrality advocates, being largely Progressives, have a hopelessly sentimental attachment to regulation.
■ Let's take a small break from politics and look at a sage observation from Jennifer Doverspike at the Federalist: ‘The Orville’ Isn’t For Everyone, But It’s Better Sci-Fi Than Critics Think.
Critics panned “The Orville” upon its premiere, mostly because
they saw it as a parody show that fell flat when it tried to be
serious. “Galaxy Quest,” that wonderful cult movie that spoofed Star
Trek fandom, worked, they argued, because it pointed gentle,
affectionate fun at sci-fi tropes without actually trying to
replicate a “Star Trek” episode. “The Orville,” they said, couldn’t
make up its mind. Is it a parody, or is it a really bad “Star Trek”
Fans immediately saw what critics didn’t. The show is not a parody at all. “The Orville” is its own earnest show about humans in space, without the Rodenberry directive that humans have “evolved.” On the U.S.S. Orville, we haven’t evolved at all. We’re the same snarky, meme-ing, soundbite culture we are in the 2000s. Just in space.
I was expecting Airplane!-meets-Star Trek. And was somewhat shocked in later episodes to realize, hey, this is pretty good on it's own terms. I'm not quite sure what those "terms" are yet, but I'm on board for more.
■ The Babylon Bee reports: Medical Marvel: Cecile Richards Is Somehow Able To Sleep At Night.
Most of the world knows her as the lame duck CEO of Planned Parenthood, but there’s another side of Cecile Richards you might not have heard of: she’s a verified medical marvel, baffling the medical community for over a decade as she has somehow managed to sleep at night while simultaneously being the head of an organization responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 unborn babies annually.
Additional comment unnecessary.
■ And,finally, a different sort of humor from Remy: Wedu Nagivafaka