AMNH and the NY Times hatchet job on Rebekah Mercer
I was wrong to call for a boycott of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). What’s the purpose of boycotting AMNH when the admission fee is voluntary? That’s right, you’re allowed to donate only a penny and still be admitted to the museum, because of an old agreement between New York City and the museum that AMNH (and other major museums in NYC) probably regret today.
So you should visit, but only donate a penny, and tell them the reason is because Ms. Mercer is being kicked off the board because she’s a Trump supporter, so if you don’t want to receive donations from the deplorables then you’re not giving any! If enough people do that, the message will funnel up to management.
What a shame that AMNH has become part of HRC’s propaganda wing. It wasn’t always like that. Republican Teddy Roosevelt played a big role in establishing the museum. I guess it’s only a matter of time before the Teddy Roosevelt memorial is replaced with a memorial to a more politically correct woman or minority.
Now, some will say that Ms. Mercer hasn’t been kicked off the Board of Trustees yet, she has only been the subject of a hatchet job in the New York Times, but I think that the New York Times carries immense weight with the kind of people who run the AMNH, and that she’s going to be gone.
* * *
Let’s examine the hatchet job more closely.
The connection of Ms. Mercer, the museum and the Mercer Family Foundation’s donation history came to light during an analysis by The New York Times of activities by cultural leaders who donated to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.
Why is the New York Times doing this “analysis”? Are they also doing an analysis of people who donated to HRC’s campaign? Very unlikely.
1. The New York Times is looking for some sort of nefarious connection that they can use to delegitimize President Trump.
2. They are looking to punish people who donated money to Trump, and the first person they have decided to punish is Ms. Mercer.
Why is the headline and half of the article about climate change? The headline: “Museum Trustee, a Trump Donor, Supports Groups That Deny Climate Change”
Ms. Mercer is not publicly on the record as being skeptical of climate change (and even though skepticism is part of science, you are considered “anti-science” if you are skeptical), and the NYT hasn’t even uncovered any donations to organizations whose primary mission is to be skeptical of climate change. But because she donated to various conservative think tanks, and among the many activities of the conservative think tanks they are either skeptical of climate change or opposed to excessive environmental regulations, the New York Times has spun this into Ms. Mercer being “anti-science,” which is therefore argued to be in direct opposition to the pro-science mission of the AMNH.
So in addition to punishing people for supporting President Trump, the New York Times is also looking to punish people for having even tenuous connections to climate change skeptics.
* * *
I’ve previously pointed out in my blog that philanthropy is the number one hobby for rich people. Ms. Mercer, the daughter of a billionaire, is very rich. To not be able to participate in philanthropy as a result of this New York Times article is the most horrible punishment for the very rich, third only to losing all their money or being put in prison.