Bernie’s Q&A: Richard Branson, Sean Hannity, Joe Biden, and more! (7/23) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)
Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.
Editor’s note: If you enjoy these sessions (along with the weekly columns and audio commentaries), please use the Facebook and Twitter buttons to share this page with your friends and family. Thank you!
Now, let’s get to your questions (and my answers):
Sir Bernie, As evidenced in this video, some progressive pundits claim that the U.S. embargo on Cuba is what’s causing these protests by the Cuban people. Do you think this is true? What are your thoughts on this? –“End The Embargo” Regards from The Emperor
What’s causing the protests is that the Cuban people are losing their fear of the dictatorship. It takes a great deal of courage to protest against people with guns. As for the embargo, it hasn’t done much good to get rid of the bad guys, has it?
I don’t know if you have been following much this walk-out of the legislative session by Texas Democrats due to new voting legislation under consideration. What is your opinion of this tactic – brave and gutsy move by the minority party or a spineless dereliction of duty? How do you think this will end – Will Dems stay gone long enough to wait out this session until August 2022? They certainly have the monetary backing to do so with the wealthy-white-privileged-empty-golf-shirt known as Beto O’Rourke providing funding. How will this play regionally and nationally in the 2022 mid-terms? — Steve R.
Taking off for DC doesn’t help the Democrats in Texas — or anyplace else. Sooner or later they’ll be back home and even if the governor has to call a special session of the legislature, the vote on the new voting law will proceed — and will pass. My main thought, Steve is this: If they were Republicans and flew on a private jet … without masks … and several of them came down with COVID … and they could have exposed the VP to the virus … the media would be all over the story and play it just the way you think they’d play it. And when someone calls them on their bias, they dismiss it. And their approval numbers continue to plummet.
I equate Biden winning fair and square with the earth being flat. We have seen these people in action for many years, why would you be surprised by anything they do? Need hard proof? I watched it happen right before my eyes. The FBI? Don’t make me laugh. I have also witnessed their selective adherence to law and order and have come away far less than impressed. Love you Bernie but you are not being fair. — Thomas C.
You can deny the obvious all you want, Thomas. But Trump lost and Biden won, and it wasn’t because the Democrats cheated. If there was proof of that, Trump’s lawyers wouldn’t have lost more than 60 times in various courtrooms in front of judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. Were there some shenanigans? Probably. But not enough to throw the election. But if it makes you feel better thinking Trump got robbed, that’s your choice. It’s a free country. But I’m guessing you don’t buy that either.
Bernie, I want to encourage you and others to read Dr. Steven Koonin’s book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters.” Pretty darn interesting, especially when the President, the EU, world leaders, and others are using the phrase “existential threat” with frequency and planning to act on that, and yet the technical reports prepared and reviewed by scientists do not (remotely) make that forecast.
Recently, Angela Merkel said that the heavy rains in her country are due to “climate change,” but Koonin points out several times, with numerous supporting citations, that all recent weather events are within the past historical variations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), through it’s most recent Assessment Report (AR5) and the U.S. Government’s National Climate Assessment 2018 indicate, using 20 economic analyses of worst-case scenario RCP8.5 in climate models (40 models) forecast >3% economic impact in 2100 – the US is forecast to grow at 2.00%/yr. and the worst-case climate change scenario would cause that growth, on average, to reduce to 1.96%/yr. Does that seem to be ‘existential’? The EU just heralded a proposal in which import tariffs on goods will be imposed on countries not meeting specific CO2 emission targets set by the EU. The Biden Adm. is preparing multi-trillion-dollar spending programs to address this ‘existential threat’ of -0.04% GDP annually. Is it worse that human’s contribution of CO2 grow from 0.043% (0.00043) to 0.056% of greenhouse gases, or to have multi-trillion-dollar programs implemented based on wild speculation (note: models’ accuracy ratings by IPCC and UD Gov = low confidence, and model uncertainty ranges from 17% to 83%)? Koonin is not some right-wing denier, he was Obama’s chief scientist in the Dept. of Energy after spending 20 years at Cal Tech and a stint at BP. We are betting a lot of money on who knows what! (apologies for the length) — DonEstif
They call it an “existential threat” either because they honestly believe the world will end if we don’t act right now on climate issues … or they use that term because it scares people and they can get tax dollars for the green world they dream about. In some cases, it’s both. But politicians often buy into issues simply because they think it’s a good political move. Too bad we don’t have journalists who’ve done as much research as you, Don.
Under your Monday column, a longtime commenter on your website (others pointed out that he’s been here 10 years) concluded that you — Bernard Goldberg — “seem to assume that the Mainstream Media are entirely objective”.
In reality, you’ve been one of the country’s top alarm-sounders and consummate critics of mainstream media bias for over 20 years (books, television, columns, radio, etc). Does it ever get you down that in today’s crazily tribal political environment, people manage to memory-hole literally everything you’ve ever said about the “other side” the very moment you say something critical about someone on “their side” (which in this case was Fox News)? –Jen R.
Thanks for asking, Jen. It used to bother me more than it does now. I used to have more faith in people who read columns about the media, politics and the culture generally. But over time I’ve come to understand that some people only want their side represented … and if I acknowledge that the other side may have a point, I suddenly become a “typical liberal.” It’s hard to take stuff like that seriously. In the example you mentioned, I never said anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I assumed that the mainstream media are “entirely objective.” So his observation doesn’t really bring me down. It does make me shake my head and then … simply move on.
While Tucker Carlson continues to give anti-vaccine conspiracy theories a platform on his show, I noticed this week that other Fox News commentators including Sean Hannity and Steve Doocy have suddenly gotten VERY pro-vaccine in their rhetoric, actually PLEADING with Fox viewers to get vaccinated. I don’t think either of those guys were ever necessarily “anti-vaccine,” but they’re now taking on a pro-vaccine advocacy role, which was quite a change. GOP leaders including Mitch McConnell and Steve Scalise have started doing it as well (this after Scalise had been holding off on getting the vaccine himself for quite some time). Do you think these people are having a Come to Jesus moment in that they’ve realized that rhetoric on their side of the room has contributed to a lot of Americans not getting vaccinated (and suffering because of it)? — Ben G.
Maybe … but a wise man once said: The answer to all questions is money. So, I’m thinking there’s a ratings angle someplace in here. I hate to be cynical but that’s what cable news people do to me.
What are your thoughts on Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk taking a lot of criticism from the left for spending their and their corporations’ money on space travel as opposed to earthly aid type issues like poverty, cancer research, etc? Personally, I’m all for people spending their money however they want to, as long as it’s not MY money. But the left also seems to forget that these individuals and companies also dedicate a lot of money to the very issues they’re talking about. — Alex D.
I’m with you, Alex. It’s their money so they can do whatever they want with it. And you’re right when you say they also spend money on things the left likes. I’m sure they give a lot of money to worthy charitable causes. The left isn’t happy unless we’re all making decisions based on what they think is right.
Bernie, I’m on vacation at the moment, and am too busy turning heads on beaches to come up with one of my trademark brilliant questions. So, I’m going with this one today: What’s the song that you’re most embarrassed to admit that you really like? — John D.
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow by the Shirlelles. I’m well aware that it’s a “chick song” but I love the arrangement and the strings — the work of Carole King and Jerry Goffin. There I said it. And if I get heat for admitting it, I’ll kick your ass to prove I’m not a girly man.
Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.