On Life and Lybberty

Martin Feldstein: 'Obamacare Could Have Unintended Consequence Of Raising Premiums & Reducing Number Of Insured'

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:03:00 +0000

Ah, the perverse unintended consequences of government meddling in markets.

The Congressional Budget Office is required to estimate the cost of the law as it is written, not as it may evolve. But we as taxpayers will have to pay those future costs.

As with nearly every other government program, the cure is far, far worse than the disease.

(h/t Scott L.)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Soldiers Of Ft. Hood, RIP

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:04:00 +0000

Casualties in the War on Terror.

Whether here or in Iraq or Afghanistan, these soldiers gave their lives for the same country.

I thank them for their service and their sacrifice.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Thank Goodness For President Awesome's Stimulus That Saved Us From 10%+ Unemployment

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:05:00 +0000

Or not (via Greg Mankiw's Blog):

It's like someone said once, 'economics doesn't lie, but economists do.'

I'm sure the President's economic team--Tim Geithner, Lawrence Summers, Christina Romer, Austan Goolsbee--are perfectly fantastic economists in their own right. But when they join a political team, they, like everyone else, cherry pick the results to fit their worldview.

And that's how you get ridiculous graphs like the one above.

Remind me: How many jobs has Obama saved or created?

Also, for the interested, the NYT has this interactive unemployment graph. (h/t Matt L.)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

You Know How Pres. Obama & The Liberal Propagandists Said Conservatives Were Deluded About Government Funding Of Abortion?

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:53:00 +0000

They lied to you.

President Obama and other "fact checking" groups explicitly stated that the President's plan (really, whatever Speaker Pelosi put forward) didn't and wouldn't fund abortions. They wrote long articles and gave speeches about how conservative, right-to-lifers were wild eyed and deluded--that abortion was one of the "myths" of the Obama plan that wasn't really true.

You know, that it was a myth just like the death panels were a myth.

Fortunately, there are some life-loving, honest Democrats in the House of Representatives--63 of them, to be exact.

For months, the Michigan Democrat has been threatening to bring down any health-care bill unless the House was given the opportunity to vote to extend the ban on taxpayer dollars for abortion to the new federal programs being created. On Saturday night, Mrs. Pelosi caved and Mr. Stupak prevailed.

The result is one of the few, real up-or-down votes we ever get on abortion—and the only part of the health-care mess that shows any bipartisan consensus. In the end, 63 Democrats and Mr. Stupak joined all but one Republican on an amendment that does two things: prohibits federal funds for an abortion or for abortion coverage; allows (notwithstanding pro-choice propaganda) private insurers to offer abortion coverage so long as tax dollars are not involved.

Not that the press ever noticed. Up until almost literally the 11th hour, Mr. Stupak's push for a vote was treated as a sideshow. Nor was President Barack Obama ever called to answer for his flatly contradictory public statements on the place of abortion (the preferred term is "reproductive health care") in any health-care reform.

Mr. Stupak has just changed all that. On Sunday, the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, sent out an action alert asking supporters to tell Mr. Obama to "make good" on his "promise to put reproductive health care at the center of [his] health care reform plan." She should know: She was standing next to Candidate Obama in 2007 when he declared that "reproductive care is essential care, it is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose."

Unfortunately for Ms. Richards, during his recent appearance before a joint session of Congress, Mr. Obama promised something different: "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

Notwithstanding the president's promise, page 110 of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill authorized the secretary of Health and Human Services to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. All Mrs. Pelosi's preferred "compromises" left this undisturbed, using what in effect would be a money-laundering scheme to cloak the reality of a federal agency paying for abortion.

But Mr. Stupak stood firm, and Mrs. Pelosi realized something would have to give if she wanted to get a health-care bill passed. So she gave Mr. Stupak his vote—and his victory.

Big ups to Bart Stupak and his 62 fellow, pro-life Democrats.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Yes, Ronald Reagan Is One Of My Heroes

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:55:00 +0000

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Roger Kimball On The Fall Of The Berlin Wall

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:32:00 +0000

From The New Criterion:

Was there ever a more fitting monument to tyranny than the Berlin Wall? Conceived in desperation, this brutal barrier was erected in 1961 by the state not for the protection but for the incarceration of its citizens. . . . [It] was also an inescapable indictment, not just of a particular society but of an entire world view, the world view of Soviet Communism with its rhetoric of justice and class struggle in one hand and its reality of the Gulag and the systematic obliteration of human freedom in the other. . . .

What, finally, brought down the wall? The candidates for that honor are many, from the impersonal operation of History to the people-power of movements like Solidarity and the spiritual leadership of Pope John Paul II. Among Western academics, the role of Mikhail Gorbachev enjoys pride of place. His mantras of glasnost and perestroika ("openness" and "restructuring") became favored terms in English. In the late 1980s, Gorbachev, the true-believing Communist, was the hero. Never mind that he wished to salvage the Soviet empire: he spoke to the hearts and minds of the Western intelligentsia in a way Ronald Reagan never did. Reagan, after all, had the temerity early on in his tenure to describe the Soviet Union as an "evil empire." How the liberal establishment recoiled from, how it ridiculed that phrase. "The Western diplomatic firmament," William F. Buckley Jr. recalled in 1990, "shook with indignation." Then came "Star Wars" and Reagan's military buildup. How the Left scorned that. How the Soviets scrambled to keep up. After one of his chummy sight-seeing tours of Moscow in 1984, the Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote an article about his trip for The New Yorker. The Soviet's "great material progress" impressed him, as did the look of "solid well-being of the people on the streets."

Death to tyranny & tyrants wherever they may be found. And may their enablers, like John Kenneth Galbraith, hang their heads in shame.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Angela Merkel On The Fall Of The Berlin Wall On 9 November 1989

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:16:00 +0000

Via the WSJ:

[F]or me America seemed completely out of reach . . . then on the 9th of November 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.

And this border which had divided a nation, for decades, keeping people in two different worlds, was now open. And this is why for me, today is first and foremost a time to say thank you.

I thank all those American and Allied pilots who heard and heeded the desperate appeal of then-Mayor of Berlin Ernst Reuter, in 1948, who said, you, the nations of this world, cast your eyes towards the city.

For months, these pilots flew food to Berlin for the airlift, saving the citizens from starvation. Many of these soldiers risked their lives. Dozens lost their lives. We shall remember and honor them forever . . .

I think of John F. Kennedy, who won the hearts of the Berliners, when, during his visit in 1961, after the wall had been built, he reached out to the desperate citizens of Berlin by saying, "Ich bin ein Berliner." I think of Ronald Reagan, who, far earlier than most, clearly saw the sign of the times and, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, already in 1987, called out, "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." This appeal shall remain forever in my heart.

10 years ago Monday.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Bret Stephens: 'When No Means No'

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:53:00 +0000

When will they learn?

In October 2003, the European diplomatic troika of France, Germany and Britain extracted a promise from Iran to suspend most of its nuclear work and promise "full transparency" in its dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange, the EU3 offered a menu of commercial and technological incentives. Then-French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin hailed the deal as "a promising start."

It soon became apparent that Iran had no intention of becoming transparent, as repeated IAEA reports made abundantly clear. As for the idea that Iran could be made to abandon its nuclear ambitions, then-Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi was unequivocal: "We won't accept any new obligations. Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club," he said. "This is an irreversible path."

So there was the first Iranian "No." In November 2004, however, Tehran made a second deal with the EU3, this time with an even sweeter package of incentives for Iran. The so-called Paris Agreement lasted a few months, until Iran again spurned the Europeans. "Definitely we can't stop our nuclear program and won't stop it," former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani said in March 2005—a second resounding "No."

Still, the wheels of diplomacy kept spinning, thanks to a Russian offer to enrich Iran's uranium for it. The Iranians "studied" the proposal and even reached what an Iranian diplomat called a "basic agreement" with Moscow. But again they turned it down, on the basis that it is "logical that every country be in charge of its own fate regarding energy and not put its future in the hands of another country." Call that the third "No."

Four months later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium. Over the course of the next two years the Security Council approved four successive resolutions demanding that Iran cease enriching and imposing some mild sanctions. Ahmadinejad replied by insisting that all the Security Council resolutions in the world couldn't do a "damn thing" to stop Iran from developing its nuclear programs. That would be the fourth and clearest "No."

Yet even as Tehran's rejections piled up, a view developed that all would be well if only the U.S. would drop the harsh rhetoric and meet with the Iranians face-to-face. So President Obama began making one overture after another to Iran, including a videotaped message praising its "great civilization." Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei replied that Mr. Obama had "insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day."

I think Obama and his ilk believe that Iran is just like the former Soviet Union, that one can negotiate with them in good faith (though even that is debatable). I've learned a bit about the Cold War in the course of my studies. If Iran gets the bomb, there's a darn good chance they'll use it in downtown Jerusalem.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your line of thinking, Israel will do anything and everything it can to forestall Iran's planned judgement day.

Good thing the kewlest President ever decided to engage the Iranians directly. I'm sure this time they'll give up their nuke-producin', Israel-hatin' ways.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Ian Fisher: Images Of A Young Soldier

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:07:00 +0000

Via Ace, the Denver Post followed Ian Fisher as he went from Army recruit, through basic training, to Iraq and home again.

Check it out.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Traditional Marriage Wins Big In Maine

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:46:00 +0000

No blaming Mormons this time. (who supposedly burned a lot of political capital being on the wrong side of history and all h/t Morgan H.)

Or African Americans who voted "yes" for Hope & Change and "no" for Adam & Steve.

No one would accuse Maine of being a particularly conservative, redneck, backwater state. And yet against the odds--and the overwhelming funding of gay marriage advocates--traditional marriage won the day.

Congratulations to everyone who manned phones, donated what they could, knocked doors and voted to defend marriage.

Given events of a year ago, today is a good day.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

More Good News On Energy

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:37:00 +0000

Props to markets, again.

Much the same technology being used to get at shale oil is now being used to access natural gas. And the results are astonishing.

Equally dramatic is the effect on U.S. reserves. Proven reserves have risen to 245 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2008 from 177 Tcf in 2000, despite having produced nearly 165 Tcf during those years. The recent increase in estimated U.S. gas reserves by the Potential Gas Committee, representing both academic and industry experts, is in itself equivalent to more than half of the total proved reserves of Qatar, the new LNG powerhouse. With more drilling experience, U.S. estimates are likely to rise dramatically in the next few years. At current levels of demand, the U.S. has about 90 years of proven and potential supply—a number that is bound to go up as more and more shale gas is found.

To have the resource base suddenly expand by this much is a game changer. But what is getting changed?

It transforms the debate over generating electricity. The U.S. electric power industry faces very big questions about fuel choice and what kind of new generating capacity to build. In the face of new climate regulations, the increased availability of gas will likely lead to more natural gas consumption in electric power because of gas's relatively lower CO2 emissions. Natural gas power plants can also be built more quickly than coal-fired plants.

Some areas like Pennsylvania and New York, traditionally importers of the bulk of their energy from elsewhere, will instead become energy producers. It could also mean that more buses and truck fleets will be converted to natural gas. Energy-intensive manufacturing companies, which have been moving overseas in search of cheaper energy in order to remain globally competitive, may now stay home.

Along with shale oil and clean coal, natural gas is an energy game-changer.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Hey Global Warmists, How About Spending Money Where It Can Actually Save Lives?

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:43:00 +0000

If the climate change movement were actually about saving lives, then they would welcome cost/benefit analysis of their programs. But it's not.

For most of those in control of the climate change agenda, it's about control & power and making money. It is, for them, a way to reorder economies and society according to their vision of the world.

Bjorn Lomborg has a great piece in today's WSJ about the good just a fraction of the world's 'stop climate change' money could do for people dying of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa.

Ask what he wants to see foreign donors' money spent on, and he is quick to answer: better health care. When he is asked about global warming, Mr. Samson responds: "I have heard about it, but I don't even know how it would affect me. If I die from malaria tomorrow, why should I care about global warming?"

In the West, campaigners for carbon regulations point out that global warming will increase the number of malaria victims. This is often used as an argument for drastic, immediate carbon cuts.

Warmer, wetter weather will improve conditions for the malaria parasite. Most estimates suggest that global warming will put 3% more of the Earth's population at risk of catching malaria by 2100. If we invest in the most efficient, global carbon cuts—designed to keep temperature rises under two degrees Celsius—we would spend a massive $40 trillion a year by 2100. In the best case scenario, we would reduce the at-risk population by only 3%.

In comparison, research commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center shows that spending $3 billion annually on mosquito nets, environmentally safe indoor DDT sprays, and subsidies for effective new combination therapies could halve the number of those infected with malaria within one decade. For the money it takes to save one life with carbon cuts, smarter policies could save 78,000 lives. Mr. Samson has not done these calculations, but for him it is simple: "First things first," he says. Malaria "is here right now and it kills a lot of people every day."

Malaria is only weakly related to temperature; it is strongly related to poverty. It has risen in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 20 years not because of global warming, but because of failing medical response. The mainstay treatment, chloroquine, is becoming less and less effective. The malaria parasite is becoming resistant, and there is a need for new, effective combination treatments based on artemisinin, which is unfortunately about 10 times more expensive.

The extremists in the environmental movement have made no secret of their desire to see global population decline. To them, it is a necessary part of getting in line with the fickle demands of Mother Gaia.

To them, the sick and dying in places like Africa are only useful insomuch as they help them further their own agenda.

Once it is shown (as in Lomborg's article) that their anti-civilizational approaches to stopping climate change are more about reordering society than they are about saving human lives, then it's on to the next justification.

I find it ironic that the group arguing for science, ignores all rationality when deciding what to do about the supposed climate change consensus.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Ryan Decker: Obama & Trade

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:01:00 +0000

Friend of the blog, Ryan Decker, has a good piece in the latest edition of the BYU Political Review.

In it, he highlights the hypocrisies of President Obama's foreign policy--more particularly, his pledges to change course from the supposedly unilateralist approach of President Bush and move towards a foreign policy that would make him (& presumably the US) the koolest kid on the planet.

during the presidential campaign, Obama’s foreign policy promises were inherently contradictory. On the one hand, he promised a less unilateralist and belligerent foreign policy, supposedly in opposition to Bush. On the other, he promised to renegotiate NAFTA and slow pending trade agreements, prompting public concern from U.S. trading partners. For anyone who understands that trade policy is foreign policy, these promises were clearly crises waiting to happen. Closely related to the campaign was Obama’s bestselling book, in which he admitted that labor unions had been crucial to his political career and therefore deserve special treatment from him (page 119).

The other item of context is Obama’s careful behavior at international forums for addressing the financial crisis. At the G-20 and other venues, Obama and his deputies urged countries to avoid damaging trade protectionism. The lessons of Smoot-Hawley were fresh in the minds of officials concerned that protectionism could spark a race to the bottom.

Given his campaign rhetoric and history with unions, there was always a chance Obama would be an anti-trade president. This concern has been magnified by his foot-dragging on the Colombian free trade agreement (and others), crucial to Washington’s relationship with the regionally besieged Latin American country, but angering to unions. Many had hoped, however, that Obama’s campaign rhetoric about careful foreign policy and his promises at the G-20 would prevent a U.S.-initiated, belligerent trade war.

Any countries that trusted Obama’s trade policies—and therefore foreign policies—have now been proven wrong.

Click the link to read it all; it's worth your time.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Weekend Happiness

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:08:00 +0000

No playoffs this year, but for the first time in a long time, with GM Jack Zduriencik running the show, there's a light at the end of the tunnel.

I don't really care who wins the World Series, but I do like former Mariners Raul Ibañez and Jamie Moyer. So, go Phillies.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

There Is An Alternative To Obamacare

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:28:00 +0000

Several, actually.

Republicans have done more this summer than just take pot shots at the economy-reorganizing plans coming out of Democrat controlled committees.

From the Chicago Tribune (h/t Scott L.), hardly a bastion of conservative, Republican-friendly commentary:

Over the summer and fall, Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced six -- yes, six -- health care reform proposals. You didn't hear? Well, those plans didn't produce much of a ripple because Democrats dominate the Congress.

We don't agree with everything in these bills. But the GOP proposals contain smart ideas to increase choice and competition in the health insurance market -- a powerful Republican counterpoint to the Democrats' expensive plans. The ideas include:

--Let insurers sell policies across state lines. That would loosen the strangling state-by-state regulations and unleash competition to drive premium prices down.

--Give people who buy insurance in the private market the same tax breaks as those who get it through employers. Now, employers that offer coverage get a tax break on the premiums they pay for employees. And employees don't pay taxes on the value of the coverage they receive. People who want to buy insurance in the individual market should get the same tax breaks. That would help millions of people acquire coverage.

--Expand the ability of small businesses, trade associations and other groups to set up insurance pools to offer coverage at more attractive rates.

--Control health costs in part by reining in the medical malpractice system that raises insurance premiums and forces doctors to order tests to protect themselves from lawsuits. Limiting certain kinds of damage awards would reduce spending on health care by about $11 billion in 2009, or about one-half of 1 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Think about that in human terms: Reform would save millions of patients the expense and trauma of unnecessary tests and procedures.

These excellent ideas could expand coverage for the uninsured without cratering the federal budget or curbing the competition and innovation that drive the U.S. health care system. Republicans should keep pushing them -- and ruling Democrats need to give them a full and fair hearing.

Look, if leftist Democrats' real goal were to insure health care for the 5% of the US population that remains uninsured and to lower the costs for the remaining 95%, they would at least consider the Republican plans.

But it's patently not their goal.

Some of them, maybe, are open to conservative, non-socialist solutions.

A few more don't care about the relative efficiency of the system or the inherence loss of liberty in a government-run plan.

The ones who really bother me are those who want more power and more control over their fellow Americans. These are the ones to whom I frequently refer whose condescending attitude knows no bounds.

They think they know better. Yet, they willfully ignore the lessons of the failure of the command & control economies of the 20th century (USSR, &c.). For these leftists, the plan always failed because the right people weren't in control or because the plan just needed to be tweaked or given more money.

But that's the problem with these grand social plans: The right people don't exist and eventually you run out of other people's money.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Bret Stephens' Superfreakonomics Review: 'Climatologists, Like Everyone Else, Respond To Incentives In A Way That Shapes Their Conclusions'

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:47:00 +0000

Spot on, per usual (h/t Scott L.).

This week, Stephens takes aim at the Holy Church of Climate Change (formerly the Holy Church of Global Warmism). In it, he reviews Steven Leavitt & Stephen Dubner's follow-up to their smash-hit, Freakonomics.

In Superfreakonomics, they point out, very clearly, the way climate researchers respond to incentives like everyone else--that they aren't entirely disinterested observers. Additionally, they provide an honest look at some of the real costs and real possible solutions to global warming. Theirs is a small foray into a cost/benefit analysis of the global impacts of warming.

The response has been predictable. For Gore and other members of the Holy Alarmist Church of Climate Change, the solutions cannot possibly be based on a cost/benefit analysis or be relatively easy (even if they are). Stephens:

All these suggestions are, of course, horrifying to global warmists, who'd much prefer to spend in excess of a trillion dollars annually for the sake of reconceiving civilization as we know it, including not just what we drive or eat but how many children we have. And little wonder: As Newsweek's Stefan Theil points out, "climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades." Who, being a professional climatologist or EPA regulator, wouldn't want a piece of that action?

Part of the genius of Marxism, and a reason for its enduring appeal, is that it fed man's neurotic fear of social catastrophe while providing an avenue for moral transcendence. It's just the same with global warming, which is what makes the clear-eyed analysis in "SuperFreakonomics" so timely and important.

For them, global warming is a chance to reorder society entirely, earning huge profits (for Gore in Green Venture Capital and others in government rent-seeking--but it's all tied up together) and most importantly, acceding to themselves ever-greater amounts of power and control over the lives of men & women around the world.

Because they know better. Because they are smarter & more talented & more sophisticated & better educated & above all, more righteous than you.

So, if you don't want to be in the first group sent to the re-education camps (aka public schools where you're served small bits of reading, writing, & arithmetic, in between out-and-out global warming & other liberal indoctrination), you better prostrate yourself before the prophets of climate change destruction.

Oh, and don't forget to buy your carbon ~~indulgences~~ offsets

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Another Indictment Of Obama's Foreign Policy: Bret Stephens: We've Heard The Words, 'What's Been The Record?'

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:48:00 +0000

Obama's policy has been "engagement," to no positive result and to the utter ignorance of how despotic leaders view his appeasing posture.

It takes a remarkable presumption of good faith, or perhaps stupidity, to imagine that the Burmas or Sudans of the world would reciprocate Mr. Obama's engagement except to seek their own advantage.

It also takes a remarkable degree of cynicism—or perhaps cowardice—to treat human rights as something that "interferes" with America's purposes in the world, rather than as the very thing that ought to define them. Yet that is exactly the record of Mr. Obama's time thus far in office.

In Massachusetts not long ago, I found myself driving behind a car with "Free Tibet," "Save Darfur," and "Obama 08" bumper stickers. I wonder if it will ever dawn on the owner of that car that at least one of those stickers doesn't belong.

As my old man put it to me the other day, the Obama administration is still stuck in campaign mode. They're attacking Fox News (h/t Matt L.) rather than, you know, trying to bring on utopia like he promised in 2008.

Obama voters: This is what you get for listening to & believing his sweet nothings. Unfortunately, those who helped elect President Obama won't bear the true cost of his election--that's borne by the poor, starving, & liberty-less in China, Sudan, Iran, & Burma (to name but a few).

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Dr. Ronen Bergman: 'Specter Of Renewed Fighting Between Israel And Hezbollah Looms... Large'

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:17:00 +0000

Dr. Bergman has perhaps the best network of Israeli sources of any reporter in the world--certainly the best network of Israeli Intel sources. This is as clear-eyed of a look at the situation in the Middle East--specifically the situation involving Israel, Hezbollah-Lebanon, & Iran--as you will get:

in February 2008, Imad Mughniyeh, the organization's military commander and Nasrallah's close associate, was killed in a car bomb in Damascus. The assassination of the man who topped the FBI's most-wanted list prior to Osama bin Laden was a severe blow to morale, as well as to Hezbollah's strategic capabilities. Nasrallah was convinced that the Mossad was responsible, and vowed to take revenge "outside of the Israel-Lebanon arena."

The Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency, which is also responsible for protecting the country's legations abroad, has been on high alert ever since. But as of today, Hezbollah has not exacted its revenge. This fact was a topic of discussions at a high-level secret forum of Israel's intelligence services that took place from late July to early September.

Israeli officials raised four possible reasons for Hezbollah's failure to act, all of which reflect its current weakness.

First, no replacement has been found for Mughniyeh, whose strategic brilliance, originality and powers of execution are sorely missed by Hezbollah.

Second, Israel's intelligence coverage of Iran and Hezbollah is far superior today to what it was in the past. Planned attacks, including one targeting the Israeli Embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, have all been foiled. The Israeli security services have warned Israeli businessmen abroad of possible abduction attempts by Hezbollah. They also shared information with Egyptian authorities that led to the arrest of members of a Hezbollah network who intended to kill Israeli tourists in Sinai. The arrest of these operatives resulted in sharp public exchanges between Egypt, Hezbollah and its Iranian masters, when Nasrallah admitted that these, in fact, were his men.

Third, Nasrallah cannot afford to be viewed domestically as the cause of yet another retaliation against Lebanon. Any act of revenge that he contemplates needs to be carefully calibrated. On the one hand, it needs to hurt the enemy and be spectacular enough to stoke Hezbollah pride. On the other hand, it cannot be so murderous as to cause Israel to respond with force. To complicate matters further, Israel has made it clear that because Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, despite the fact that the party that it backed lost in the recent election, any Hezbollah action against Israel would be viewed as an action taken by the Lebanese government. Thus Israel would regard Lebanese infrastructure as a legitimate target for a military response.

Finally, there are the Iranians. Their primary focus is on proceeding with their nuclear program without unnecessary distractions. Tehran's main concern is that a terror attack that can be linked to Iran would result in the arrest of its agents overseas, who are currently procuring equipment for its uranium-enrichment centrifuges.

Read it all.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Bret Stephens: Far From Being An Aberrant Choice (For The Nobel), President Obama Was The Ideal One, Scandinavianally Speaking'

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:45:00 +0000

Per usual, Stephens is spot on:

The peace Nobel is a much misunderstood prize. With the exception of a few really grotesque picks (Le Duc Tho, Rigoberta Menchú, Yasser Arafat), a few inspired ones (Carl von Ossietzky, Norman Borlaug, Andrei Sakharov, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Aung San Suu Kyi) and some worthy if obvious ones (Martin Luther King, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk), most of the prize winners draw from the obscure ranks of the sorts of people the late Oriana Fallaci liked to call "the Goodists."

Who are the Goodists? They are the people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding. Who think that the world's evils spring from technologies, systems, complexes (as in "military-industrial") and everything else except from the hearts of men, where love abides. Who mistake wishes for possibilities. Who put a higher premium on their own moral intentions than on the efficacy of their actions. Who champion education as the solution, whatever the problem. Above all, the Goodists are the people who like to be seen to be good.

Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler, who won the Peace Prize in 1931, was a Goodist. In 1910 he wrote that "to suppose that men and women into whose intellectual and moral instruction and upbuilding have gone the glories of the world's philosophy and art and poetry and religion . . . are to fly at each others' throats to ravage, to kill, in the hope of somehow establishing thereby truth and right and justice is to suppose the universe to be stood upon its apex."

The First World War, which began four years later, rendered a less charitable judgment on the benefits of moral and intellectual instruction. Yet Butler later became a leading campaigner for the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war as "an instrument of national policy." This monument to hope, which won U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg a Nobel in 1929 (France's Aristide Briand had already won it in 1926 for the equally feckless Locarno Pact), was immediately ratified by dozens of countries, including Japan—which invaded Manchuria in 1931; and Italy—which invaded Abyssinia in 1935; and Germany—which invaded Poland in 1939.

Characteristically, the Nobel Committee awarded no Peace Prizes for most of the Second World War: not to Franklin Roosevelt for turning America into an arsenal for democracy; not to Winston Churchill for rallying Britain against the Nazi onslaught; not to Charles de Gaulle for keeping the flame of a free France alive; not to the U.S. Army Rangers for scaling the heights of Pointe du Hoc on a June morning in 1944; not to Douglas MacArthur for turning Japan into a country at peace with itself and its neighbors.

These were the soldiers and statesmen who did more than anyone else to assure the survival of freedom in the 20th century. Being Goodists, however, the Nobel Committee chose instead to lavish its honors on people like the wan New England pacifist Emily Greene Balch (in 1946), the tedious British disarmament obsessive Philip Noel-Baker (1959) and the Irish antinuclear campaigner and Lenin Prize Winner Seán MacBride (1974).

These names don't exactly spring to mind as having made a lasting and genuine contribution to world peace. Nor, one suspects, will history lavish its highest honors on Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter, Wangari Maathai, Mohamed ElBaradei, Al Gore or Martti Ahtisaari, to name some of this decade's winners. They are merely the Frank Kelloggs and Seán MacBrides of the future.

Ah, the "Goodists." All that Hitler/Stalin/Ahmadinejad/Chavez/Jong-il/bin-Laden chap needs is a little diplomacy--a little hope & change.

Sound familiar?

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Markets Solve Energy Crisis, Natch

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:21:00 +0000

Don't listen to the Luddites and Malthusians. They're wrong, again.

Even if demand were still at pre-recession levels, advances in technology brought on by high prices would have sated world energy demands for generations.

America is not going to bleed its wealth importing fuel. Russia's grip on Europe's gas will weaken. Improvident Britain may avoid paralysing blackouts by mid-decade after all.

The World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires last week was one of those events that shatter assumptions. Advances in technology for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have quickened dramatically, altering the global balance of energy faster than almost anybody expected.

Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, said proven natural gas reserves around the world have risen to 1.2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, enough for 60 years' supply – and rising fast.

"There has been a revolution in the gas fields of North America. Reserve estimates are rising sharply as technology unlocks unconventional resources," he said.

This is almost unknown to the public, despite the efforts of Nick Grealy at "No Hot Air" who has been arguing for some time that Britain's shale reserves could replace declining North Sea output.

Rune Bjornson from Norway's StatoilHydro said exploitable reserves are much greater than supposed just three years ago and may meet global gas needs for generations.

"The common wisdom was that unconventional gas was too difficult, too expensive and too demanding," he said, according to Petroleum Economist. "This has changed. If we ever doubted that gas was the fuel of the future – in many ways there's the answer."

The breakthrough has been to combine 3-D seismic imaging with new technologies to free "tight gas" by smashing rocks, known as hydro-fracturing or "fracking" in the trade.

The US is leading the charge. Operations in Pennsylvania and Texas have already been sufficient to cut US imports of liquefied natural gas (LGN) from Trinidad and Qatar to almost nil, with knock-on effects for the global gas market – and crude oil. It is one reason why spot prices for some LNG deliveries have dropped to 50pc of pipeline contracts.

[...]

The US Energy Department expects shale to meet half of US gas demand within 20 years, if not earlier. Projects are cranking up in eastern France and Poland. Exploration is under way in Australia, India and China.

Texas A&M University said US methods could increase global gas reserves by nine times to 16,000 TCF (trillion cubic feet). Almost a quarter is in China but it may lack the water resources to harness the technology given the depletion of the North China water basin.

Needless to say, the Kremlin is irked. "There's a lot of myths about shale production," said Gazprom's Alexander Medvedev.

If the new forecasts are accurate, Gazprom is not going to be the perennial cash cow funding Russia's great power resurgence. Russia's budget may be in structural deficit.

As for the US, we may soon be looking at an era when gas, wind and solar power, combined with a smarter grid and a switch to electric cars returns the country to near energy self-sufficiency.

This has currency implications. If you strip out the energy deficit, America's vaulting savings rate may soon bring the current account back into surplus – and that is going to come at somebody else's expense, chiefly Japan, Germany and, up to a point, China.

Please, when listening to 'Prophets of Doom,' take their alarmist warnings with a healthy dose of skepticism. This applies specifically and perhaps most importantly to the High Priests of the Holy Church of Climate Change (long live Mother Gaia).

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Obama's Nobel: I Saw This And Thought It Was A Joke (UPDATED)

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:20:00 +0000

But then I remembered that they also gave one to Jimmy Carter.

And Al Gore.

And Yasser Arafat.

And I said to myself, "yeah, makes sense."

Like Ace said, somewhere (h/t Matt L.):

High school kids want to be popular. Nations want to be prosperous, secure and in America's case, a force for good in the world.

And like Bob & Tom said on the radio this morning (also, h/t Matt L.):

isn't this a bit like awarding super bowl MVP right now?

&

The Europeans are so mad that they weren't the ones to elect Barack Obama.

Or, like My Old Man said:

Is today April 1? This shows what a joke this [the Nobel Peace Prize] is.

But wait, there's more: I just got an invite to join someone's Facebook group (yup, I'm popular too): Help Barack Obama win the Heisman Trophy!

Then, of course, there's this: Nobel Peace Prize For Awesomeness

This is so utterly ridiculous, I almost wonder if this is a send-up of Obama. But then I remember how seriously these Nobel folks take themselves and realized that no, it is not a joke.

This is so outrageous, I almost feel bad for President Obama--I mean, this makes two weeks in a row that the Europeans (who are more in love with him, even, than the leftists) have made a clown of our President.

For shame. Does the office of the President of the United States mean nothing to these people?

UPDATE 10 October 1:09am BDT: Jansen G. does me one better and writes something intelligent about Obama's Prize:

So, Obama got awarded a peace prize for yet another promise, this time for promising a nuclear free world. After having added this venerable achievement to his trophy case, I have to say, Obama has done quite well making promises. US Senator? Check. President of the United States? Check. Nobel Peace Prize? Check. Though, all this makes me wonder: are any of these promises contractually enforceable? Because I'm not seeing much, if any, performance.

As for the substance (if you can call it that) of this Nobel Peace Prize, Obama promised reconciliation in the M-E, climate change, and a world free of nuclear weapons. Has there been any performance of any of these promises? No! Obama's speech in Egypt has had little affect on the contentious realities in the M-E, largely b/c it failed to address the real source of conflict (US involvement in anything related to or impacting M-E oil flow).
Performance on climate change? The conference on climate change doesn't start until December and its a virtually guaranteed failure given the interests of BRIC et. al.

And while Obama may believe in the ideal of a nuclear free world, he knows just how dangerous in addition to impractical an ideal it is. No one in their right mind believes disarming nuclear arsenals will do anything but create even stronger incentives for horizontal proliferation, further destabilizing already pressing crises. And that's just the catch. Obama either (A) disingenuously attempts a halfhearted, impractical endeavor to dismantle nuclear arms resulting in planned failure that potentially destabilizes a system that's fenced-in the powerful incentives of the prisoner's proliferating dilemma, or (B) he abandons the thought of an attempt to rid the world of weapons and goes down as one of the world's most undeserved Nobel Peace Prize winners. The obvious and preferable option is B, to continue to indulge in the proven double standard of the "powers-that-be." But one has to think that eventually these myriad of catch-22's that Obama promises his way into will expose him for the 'serial breachor' of promises he is.

Obama is an archetype with which, thanks to teen movies, we are all familiar: the popular kool kid who only hangs out with the leftist dork when no one else is around. And then, because the dork has a crush on the kool kid, he/she endlessly makes excuses for Obama.

Obama's apologists will always have a reason for why he was/is unable to deliver on his sweet nothings.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Checking In With General Petraeus

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:12:00 +0000

From the NYT's Military Memo:

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the face of the Iraq troop surge and a favorite of former President George W. Bush, spoke up or was called upon by President Obama “several times” during the big Afghanistan strategy session in the Situation Room last week, one participant says, and will be back for two more meetings this week.

But the general’s closest associates say that underneath the surface of good relations, the celebrity commander faces a new reality in Mr. Obama’s White House: He is still at the table, but in a very different seat.

No longer does the man who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings, as he did when Mr. Bush gave him 20 minutes during hourlong weekly sessions to present his views in live video feeds from Baghdad. No longer is the general, with the Capitol Hill contacts and web of e-mail relationships throughout Washington’s journalism establishment, testifying in media explosions before Congress, as he did in September 2007, when he gave 34 interviews in three days.

The change has fueled speculation in Washington about whether General Petraeus might seek the presidency in 2012. His advisers say that it is absurd — but in immediate policy terms, it means there is one less visible advocate for the military in the administration’s debate over whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

(h/t Matt L.)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Checking In With Tim Pawlenty

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:55:00 +0000

All you guys who hate social conservatives (Mike Huckabee), conservatives whose positions have changed/evolved over the years (Mitt Romney) and otherwise smart people who occasionally say dumb things (Sarah Palin--but you still love Average-Joe Biden!), are going to love Tim Pawlenty.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been quietly assembling the blueprint of a presidential campaign and will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants, POLITICO has learned.

Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.

The moves underscore, and will lend credence to, the emerging belief among many establishment Republicans that Pawlenty is becoming the sole viable alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican primary rival. The Minnesota governor has even gone so far as to contact some of Romney’s former supporters.

Congratulations to Liz Mair, a friend of this blog, who has joined Gov. Pawlenty's PAC.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Bret Stephens: Return Of The Neocons

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:23:00 +0000

Bret Stephens is always good. He's just good-er than usual this week:

... neocons are back because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il and Vladimir Putin never went away. A star may have shone in the east the day Barack Obama became president. But these three kings, at least, have yet to proffer the usual gifts of gold and incense and myrrh.

Instead, the presents have been of a different kind. North Korea claims to be in the final stages of building a uranium enrichment facility—its second route to an atomic bomb. Iran, again caught cheating on its Nonproliferation Treaty obligations, has responded by wagging a finger at the U.S. and firing a round of missiles. Syria continues to aid and abet jihadists operating in Iraq. NATO countries have generally refused to send more troops to Afghanistan, and are all the more reluctant to do so now that the administration is itself wavering on the war.

As for Russia, its ambassador to the U.N. last week bellyached that the U.S. "continues to be a rather difficult negotiating partner"—and that was after Mr. Obama cancelled the missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Thus does the politics of concession meet with the logic of contempt.

All this must, at some level, come as a surprise to an administration so deeply in love with itself. "I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world," Mr. Obama told the U.N.'s General Assembly last week with his usual modesty. He added that those expectations were "rooted in hope—the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change."

Yet what sounds like "hope" in, say, Toronto or Barcelona tends to come across as fecklessness in Warsaw and Jerusalem. In Moscow and Tehran, it reads like credulity—and an opportunity to exploit the U.S. at a moment of economic weakness and political self-infatuation.

For those much-scorned neocons, none of this comes as a surprise. Neoconservatives generally take the view that the internal character of a regime usually predicts the nature of its foreign policy. Governments that are answerable to their own people and accountable to a rule of law tend to respect the rights of their neighbors, honor their treaty commitments, and abide by the international rules of the road. By contrast, regimes that prey on their own citizens are likely to prey on their neighbors as well. Their word is the opposite of their bond.

That's why neocons have no faith in any deals or "grand bargains" the U.S. might sign with North Korea or Iran over their nuclear programs: Cheating is in the DNA of both regimes, and the record is there to prove it. Nor do neocons put much stock in the notion that there's a "reset" button with the Kremlin. Russia is the quintessential spoiler state, seeking its advantage in America's troubles at home and abroad. Ditto for Syria, which has perfected the art of taking credit for solving problems of its own creation.

Where neocons do put their faith is in American power, not just military or economic power but also as an instrument of moral and political suasion. Disarmament? The last dictator to relinquish his nuclear program voluntarily was Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, who did so immediately following Saddam Hussein's capture. Democratization? Contrary to current conventional wisdom, democracy is often imposed, or at least facilitated, by U.S. pressure—in the Philippines, in the Balkans and, yes, in Iraq. Human rights? Anwar Ibrahim, the beleaguered Malaysian opposition leader, told me last week that "the only country that can stand up" to abusive regimes is the United States. "If they know the administration is taking a soft stance [on human rights], they will go on a rampage."

None of this is to say that neoconservatism represents some kind of infallible doctrine—or that it's even a doctrine. Neocons have erred in overestimating the U.S. public's willingness to engage in long struggles on behalf of other people. They have erred also in overestimating the willingness of other people to fight for themselves, or for their freedom.

But as the pendulum has swung to a U.S. foreign policy based on little more than the personal attractions of the president, it's little wonder that the world is casting about for an alternative. And a view of the world that understands that American power still furnishes the margin between freedom and tyranny, and between prosperity and chaos, is starting to look better all the time. Even in France.

One thing is clear: No amount of 'Hope' & 'Change' & 'Blame George W. Bush' can make Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, &c., go away.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

From Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's Remarks To The UN

lybberty@gmail.com (lybberty) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:14:00 +0000

A little clarity:

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past 30 years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others.

Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism. . . .

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.