How the media uses the phrase, :without evidence", is a shame and a shame.

Commentators on NPR and other outlets frequently include the phrase, "without evidence", when they mention a claim made by Donald Trump. I frequently hear variations of these two examples.

1. Trump claims, without evidence, that the election in 2020 was plagued by fraud.
2. Trump claims, without evidence, that the charges against him are political witch hunts. 

Using this phrase is a sham and a shame for two reasons. First, some evidence exists for almost all the claims made by Trump. Second, the commentators apply a double standard; they use the phrase when talking about Trump but not when talking about Biden or other Democrats. 

The evidence that fraud occurred in 2024 exists when you recognize that Trump includes acts he thinks unfairly rigged the election against him as fraud. Remember, weak evidence is not the same as no evidence. Some fraud occurs in all elections. He cites biased reporting in the major news outlets, the suppression of the story on Hunter Biden's laptop, Zurkerbucks used to get public officials to increase voting in areas that tend to vote for Democrats, and late changes in voting procedures as tactics that rigged the election against him. 

An honest account could note that no credible evidence that substantial fraud occurred or that sufficient fraud occurred to affect the outcome of the Presidential election. The honest account could also note that Trump's claims that the election was rigged have some merit.

The double standard occurs when they do not add the phrase when Biden makes a claim. Here are a few of possible examples.

1. Biden claims, without evidence, that the story about Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation.
2. Biden claims, without evidence, that inflation was 9% when he came into office. (This claim is veritably false, not simple without evidence.)
3. Biden claims, without evidence, that Trump is an existential threat to democracy.

I realize that an honest account could note that 50ish national security officials signed a letter saying the laptop had all of the earmarks of Russian disinformation. The account could continue by noting that the letter was organized by Blinken, then working for the Biden campaign, and that the FBI had the laptop and knew it was authentic.

An honest account could note that inflation was below 9% when Biden came into office, rose to a high of 9%, and then fell.

An honest account could note that Trump sought to stop the certification of Biden's victory and failed to quell quickly the riot on January 6. To many people, this may be strong evidence that he is an existential threat to democracy. However, his actions and the actions of the majority of the rioters are consistent with democracy. They were attempts to implement what Trump and his followers thought was the will of the people as expressed in the results of the election; not attempts to implement their own will. Most of the rioters thought that Trump has won the election; they wanted the certification to follow the will of the people. Asking a Secretary of State to double check for votes is also consistent with following the will of the people.

What Paul Samuelson wrote about the Soviet Union is a sham and a shame.

Bryan Caplan wrote: "I learned my Econ 1 from Samuelson’s 1989 textbook which told us that 'the Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive'!" Dr. Samuelson pioneered the modern approach to economic theory. However, he lacked a good grasp of history; perhaps ideology led him to see what he believed.

Biden's claim that tens of millions of people would lose insurance coverage if he ended the public-health pandemic emergency is a sham and a shame

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) report, “Although Medicaid enrollment is expected to decrease significantly,” CMS explains, “many individuals who were not disenrolled from Medicaid during the public health emergency already had comprehensive coverage from another source (such as through an employer) and thus remain insured even when disenrolled from Medicaid.”

Hat tip to the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal.

Gerad Leval says that reparations for slavery is a sham and a shame

In this editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Gerad Leval discusses the reasons NOT to pay reparations to descendants of slaves some 150 years after the cessation of slavery. Two key passages follow below.

"It is appropriate to punish a perpetrator or exact restitution from an individual who may have benefited directly from the acts of the perpetrator. Yet more than 1½ centuries’ distance makes such punishment for slavery incompatible with justice. Similarly, individuals separated by many generations from a vile act suffered by distant ancestors can’t have a justiciable claim for suffering they didn’t endure directly or indirectly."

"The best and most equitable reparations lie not in cash payments but in remembering and teaching the lessons of slavery—of its terrible consequences and of the suffering of those who endured it. Such an approach is fundamentally just, constructive and unlimited by time."

The EB of the WSJ says that focusing on median wages to measure discrimination is a Sham and a Shame

The Editorial Board (EB) of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) notes that the median woman on Biden's staff earn 80% of what the median man earns. It goes on to point out that this one statistic does NOT demonstrate discrimination or sexism. Here are three nuggetts.

1. "How can this be, since the salaries are public and people with equal titles get equal pay? The answer is that there’s a composition effect: Among 269 female and 179 male White House staff in Mr. Perry’s spreadsheet, there are more women in lower-paid roles such as staff assistant." 
2. "Many trends feed into the aggregate wage gap, including people’s free choices. To take one example, more than 90% of workplace deaths in 2021 were men, and dangerous jobs like repairing power lines command a wage premium."
3. "Lumping all these people together and then cutting the data set by gender is not a way to understand what’s truly going on in the world."

Leor Shapir fears that the Systematic Review of "Gender-Affirming Care" will be a Sham and a Shame

Leor Shapir asks "Two key questions: Will the systematic review follow a transparent, impartial scientific process? And what should the [American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)] do in the meantime?"

Mr. Shapir's fears that the process will not be a transparent, impartial scientific process and that the AAP will make a bad decision in the meantime stems from several factors. The grounds for his fears are:

1. "The AAP is, first and foremost, a trade union ... [and] has strong incentives to defend its own interests and those of member doctors—especially those who have publicly endorsed or facilitated sex-trait modification—even when that is harmful to patients."
2. "The existing systematic reviews on the benefits and risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, conducted by health authorities in three European countries, all found “very low” quality evidence for these interventions."
3. "the AAP should immediately recommend extreme caution in the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries in treating youth gender dysphoria. This is a no-brainer; health authorities in the U.K., Norway, Sweden, Finland and France have done it. 'There is not enough evidence to support the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness to make the treatment routinely available at this time,' said the statement from England’s National Health Service."
4. The process will exclude or demean the comments from opponents of gender-affirming care.
5. "The organization’s consistent attempts to suppress debate on this sensitive issue, the recent remarks of its chief executive, and its profound conflict of interest as a trade association don’t inspire confidence that it will act scientifically and in the best interests of children and families."

Harold Hamm says that Government Interference in Energy Markets is a Sham and a Shame

Here are seven nuggets from Harold Hamm. 

1. "Every time government intervenes in unpredictable energy markets, politicians get it wrong."
2. Proponents passed the Fuel Use Act of 1978 because because so-called experts were sure the U.S. was running out of oil and natural gas.
3. "When Ronald Reagan let the market work by deregulating energy, oil production soared and prices tumbled. No one worried about running out of oil anymore."
4. "Mr. Obama said that 'we can’t just drill our way out of the problem' [because he] worried that America was going to run out of places to drill" and "spent millions on now bankrupt propositions such as the solar-energy company Solyndra."
5. "The politicians weren’t paying attention to the amazing shale revolution." ... "Yet Mr. Biden still says wind and solar are the future."
6. "I like to call the shale revolution the 'trillion-dollar swing.'”
7. "We can all agree that when it comes to the most valuable natural resource—energy—it’s far smarter to trust markets than politicians to ensure a bountiful future."