Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Sunday evening we will cover the West Point speech in detail. For now though we have Gabor Steingart from Germany’s der Spiegel.
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.
One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly. …
Christopher Hitchens thinks that we should be focusing more on strengthening ties with India.
…Monday’s New York Times carried an extensive report, based on deep-background diplomatic sources, of the likely contours of President Barack Obama’s Tuesday night speech at West Point. A salient paragraph read as follows:
“Officials of one allied nation who have been extensively briefed on the president’s plan said that Mr. Obama would describe how the American presence would be ratcheted back after the buildup, while making clear that a significant American presence in Afghanistan would remain for a long while. That is designed in part to signal to Pakistan that the United States will not abandon the region and to allay Pakistani fears that India will fill the vacuum created as America pulls back. [Underline mine.]”
If this interpretation is correct, then it is consistent with the report recently delivered to the president by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, in which our senior in-country military official spoke of Indian influence in Afghanistan as a danger to be combated. The visit of Prime Minister Singh should have been the occasion for a vigorous public debate on whether this growing tendency—the Pakistanization of U.S. policy in the region—is the wise or correct one.
India was supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban long before the events of 9/11, and it has been providing a great deal of reconstruction aid since the Taliban were removed. It has excellent sources of intelligence in the region and is itself a frequent target of the very same forces against which we are committed to fight. Its national parliament, the multifariously pluralistic and democratic Lok Sabha, was the target of a massive car bomb attack in the fall of 2001, its large embassy in Kabul has been singled out for special attention from the Taliban/al-Qaida alliance, and of course we must never forget Mumbai. Nor ought we to forget that India’s massive economic and military power on the subcontinent is accompanied by a system of regular elections, a free press, a secular constitution under which almost as many Muslims live as live in Pakistan, and a business class that extends all the way to Silicon Valley and uses the English language.
Of Pakistan, a state that has flirted with the word failure ever since its inception, it is not possible to speak in the same terms. Only with the greatest reluctance does it withdraw its troops from the front with India in Kashmir, the confrontation that is the main obsession of its overmighty and Punjabi-dominated officer corps. This same corps makes no secret of its second obsession, which is the attainment of a pro-Pakistani regime in Kabul. (This objective, too, is determined by the desire to acquire Afghanistan for the purpose of “strategic depth” in the fight with India.) The original Talibanization of Afghanistan was itself an official project of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and the CIA has spent the last eight years admitting, or in some cases discovering, what everyone else already knew: that the Taliban still enjoy barely concealed support from the same highly placed Pakistani institutions. …
You might have noticed we don’t let a day pass without something about the emails of the “warm mongers” in ”Climmaquidick.” (Thank you Mark Steyn, for adding to the language’s 600,000 words.) First we’ll hear from David Harsanyi who thinks it is a good idea to be skeptical.
…You may suppose that those with a resilient faith in end-of-days global warming would be more distraught than anyone over these actions. You’d be wrong. In the wake of the scandal, we are told there is nothing to see. The administration, the United Nations, most of the left-wing punditry and political establishment have shrugged it off. What else can they do?
To many of these folks, the science of global warming is only a tool of ideology. To step back and re-examine their thinking would also mean — at least temporarily — ceding a foothold on policy that allows government to control behavior. It would mean putting the brakes on the billions of dollars allocated to force fundamental economic and societal manipulations through cap-and-trade schemes and fabricated “new energy economies,” among many other intrusive policies.
… a conscientious citizen has little choice but to be uneasy when those with financial, ideological and political interest in peddling the most over-the-top ecological doomsday scenarios also become the most zealous evangelizers. …
Next item on climate is from Neal Boortz’ Nealz Nuze.
…OK … so you have all these half-assed third world countries with their dictators of various stripes eyeing the wealth of the developed, industrial nations. They want some of that wealth, though they aren’t willing to earn it. Why would some dictator tolerate a productive economy that might threaten his continued rule? Freedom – the necessary ingredient for a productive economy – has a way of causing domestic intranquility for dictators. So working through free markets isn’t going to cut it. They will simply have to arrange whatever wealth they cannot seize handed to them. The best conduit for this wealth would be the UN.
OK … so you’re going to use the United Nations to transfer wealth from the big, fat wealthy nations to the corruption-plagued third world. But you’re going to need a pretext? Hmmmmm. You need to come up with some way these nations are hurting you; some action these ugly rich nations are taking that is causing you harm. You’re not under military attack. Your property isn’t being conquered and seized … at least not by the U.S. and Western Europe. But there is one thing! Now I don’t have any idea how this idea was brought to fruition … but it’s brilliant! …
…Many of us already knew global warming to be a fraud. When scientists refuse to acknowledge the cyclical nature of solar activity in a discussion on global warming you have to scratch your head in wonder. Plus – when someone tells you that the science “is settled” and that there is “nothing left to debate;” you know that the science is anything but settled and there is plenty to debate. …
…None of this seems to be slowing down The Community Organizer. He’s heading to Copenhagen where the left and those after our wealth are going to try to cobble together a replacement for the hideous Kyoto Treaty. …
In the WSJ, John Cassidy discusses Arthur Cecil Pigou’s economic theories as they attempt to explain last year’s credsis.
…Mr. Pigou drew an important distinction between the private and social value of economic activities, such as the opening of a new railway line. The savings in time and effort that users of the railway enjoy are private benefits, which will be reflected in the prices they are willing to pay for tickets. Similarly, the railroad’s expenditures on tracks, rolling stock, employee wages are private costs, which will help to determine the prices it charges. But the opening of the railway may also create costs for “people not directly concerned, through, say, uncompensated damage done to surrounding woods by sparks from railway engines,” Mr. Pigou pointed out.
Such social costs—modern economists call them “externalities”—don’t enter the calculations of the railroads or its customers, but in tallying up the ultimate worth of any economic activity, “[a]ll such effects must be included,” Mr. Pigou insisted. In focusing exclusively on private costs and private benefits, the traditional defense of the free market misses out on a vital element of reality.
To correct the problems that spillovers created, Mr. Pigou advocated government intervention. Where the social value of an activity was lower than its private value, as in the case of a railroad setting ablaze the surrounding woodland, the authorities should introduce “extraordinary restraints” in the form of user taxes, he said. Conversely, some activities have a social value that exceeds their private value. The providers of recreational parks, street lamps, and other “public goods” have difficulty charging people to use them, which means the free market may fail to ensure their adequate supply. To rectify this shortcoming, Mr. Pigou advocated “extraordinary encouragements” in the form of government subsidies. …
…The mere existence of negative spillovers doesn’t necessarily justify government intervention, Mr. Pigou conceded. In some cases, the parties concerned might be able to come to a voluntary agreement about how to compensate innocent bystanders. A landlord, for instance, may reduce the rents for tenants who have to live over a noisy bar.
With spillovers from the financial industry, however, too many parties are involved for private bargaining to provide a practical solution. During the credit bubble of 2002-2006, the entire housing market turned into a speculative bazaar. Mortgage companies that were supposed to apportion credit on the basis of ability to pay distributed it willy-nilly. And banks and other financial intermediaries, which exist to channel capital to its most productive uses, misallocated resources on a vast scale.
When other industries do a bad job, the fallout is usually limited. If Budweiser and Miller marketed undrinkable beers, it would be bad news for those companies and their customers, but the rest of the economy would be largely unscathed.
In banking, the negative spillover can be catastrophic. Many millions of households and firms rely on credit to finance their expenditures. If this credit is suddenly curtailed, spending can fall precipitously throughout the economy. That is what we witnessed at the end of last year. …
Every so often, Thomas Sowell aggregates the notes to himself that didn’t make full columns. Here’s some more of his random thoughts.
…Since this is an era when many people are concerned about “fairness” and “social justice,” what is your “fair share” of what someone else has worked for?
Many colleges claim that they develop “leaders.” All too often, that means turning out graduates who cannot feel fulfilled unless they are telling other people what to do. There are already too many people like that, and they are a menace to everyone else’s freedom. …
…Government pressures on mortgage lenders to accept less than the full amount they are owed may win votes for politicians, since there are far more borrowers than lenders. But how much future lending can be expected when the lenders know that politicians are ready to intervene at any time to prevent them from getting their money back?
Some people think that the Obama administration is going to get rid of Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, making him the scapegoat for its economics failures. This would be consistent with the President’s acting as if the people under him are not carrying out his policies. But if they get rid of Geithner too early, that will not help if things still do not get better after he is gone and before the 2010 elections. …
The Economist’s – Democracy In America interviews Radley Balko about problems in the justice system, and about being a libertarian.
DIA: A lot of politicians pay lip service to the principles of smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom. Yet the result is often the opposite. As a libertarian, do you ever get frustrated with the lack of representation for your views in the halls of government? Is there anything that can be done to improve the standing of libertarians?
Mr Balko: In theory, libertarians share about half of our positions with the right, and about half with the left. Broadly speaking, we’re social liberals and fiscal conservatives. The problem is that once in power, neither side pays much heed to the issues they have in common with libertarians, because that would require them to voluntarily put limits on their own power. And politicians don’t generally seek higher office for the purpose of limiting what they can do when they get there. So the libertarian stuff is where they’re most willing to compromise. And it’s what they’re least willing to spend political capital defending.
So we saw George W. Bush hold the line on social issues, but completely sell out on federal spending, regulation, and general growth of government. We’re seeing the same thing with Barack Obama, only in reverse. I put up a blog post at Reason about this a few months ago. Obama’s holding fast to his campaign promises that expand the size, scope, and power of government. The few promises he made that involve limiting government in some way—generally on social and civil liberties issues—are the promises he’s been less interested in keeping. This isn’t really surprising. But it speaks to the difficulty libertarians have in getting their ideas taken seriously. It’s made worse by the fact that libertarians by definition generally aren’t interested in seeking political power. That leaves public office and the reins of power open to those who crave it.
That said, I think there’s reason for some optimism for libertarians. The generations raised on the internet will be more educated, aware, and informed than any before them, and I think that has instilled in them some naturally libertarian instincts, particularly when it comes to issues like government transparency, accountability, censorship, and police power. Perhaps I’m a bit pollyanna-ish, but it’s at least possible that once the Obama administration proves just as inept, corrupt, and hopeless as the Bush administration, the younger people who flocked to Obama will start to understand that the problem isn’t who’s running government, it’s that government power itself corrupts–and that we’re better off keeping as much of our lives as possible off limits to the whims of politicians instead of this repeating cycle of putting all of our hope into the idea that someday, the right politicians will finally get elected. …
In Slate’s Books, Jon Meacham reviews Paul Johnson’s new biography of Winston Churchill.
In November 1940, on learning of Franklin Roosevelt’s defeat of Wendell Willkie, Winston Churchill composed one of his many flattering and importuning telegrams to the president in Washington. He had, he told FDR, prayed for the president’s re-election. “Things are afoot which will be remembered as long as the English language is spoken in any quarter of the globe,” Churchill wrote, “and in expressing the comfort I feel that the people of the United States have once again cast these great burdens upon you, I must avow my sure faith that the lights by which we steer will bring us all safely to anchor.” It was a brilliant and lovely note—and Roosevelt never replied, an omission that bothered Churchill for years. …
…In this small incident, we glimpse the human Churchill beneath the grandeur of the deity of history he has long since become. The human Churchill is Paul Johnson’s chief concern in his brief new biography, Churchill, but I raise the Case of the Unacknowledged Telegram because it contains one of Churchill’s finest forgotten phrases: “Things are afoot which will be remembered as long as the English language is spoken in any quarter of the globe.” It is an interesting test of the significance of any event, that: Will the problem or crisis of the hour be remembered—cue kettle drums—as long the English language is spoken? Damn little will meet that criterion, but Winston Churchill is among the things that will. …
…In his 166 pages, Johnson gives us what amounts to an elegant survey with a maxim-filled epilogue: in essence, the best possible dinner conversation about Churchill one could ever have with a gifted interlocutor, followed by what PowerPointers might think of as “take-away points.” The book’s most original offering is—in characteristically vivid prose and a consistent intelligence and urbanity—Johnson’s distillation of life lessons from Churchill’s storied career. This is biography as commencement speech—think highbrow how-to. (Examples of didactic wisdom: “always aim high”; “there is no substitute for hard work.”) …