Click on WORD or PDF for full content
He doesn’t say so, but Jonathan Tobin’s reaction to Pope Francis follows the canary in the coal mine theory.
One didn’t have to be a Catholic to be impressed by the demeanor and grace shown by Pope Francis after his election yesterday at the Vatican. The media is full of pundits and so-called experts giving the pope advice as to how to deal with his church’s problems or even on how best to adjust its doctrines to suit their beliefs. That seems to me to be not only absurd but also a waste of time. As the first South American and the first Jesuit pope, Francis is a symbol of change. But if there is anything that observers should take away from the drama that has unfolded in Rome this last week it is that the Catholic Church remains firmly in the hands of those who love its teachings and are determined to both preserve them and to help ensure that they continue to serve the needs of the faithful and the world in general.
That is good news indeed, since in the last century the church has reasserted itself as a force for good. Especially under the leadership of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II, the church has become a beacon of conviction against anti-Semitism. As a disciple of John Paul II and someone who had warm relations with Argentine Jewry, Pope Francis appears to be very much part of that movement. While that might appear to be a parochial concern for Jews, it is actually very significant. …
Women can also be canaries. Tobin posts on how our policies subsidize the Egyptian war on women.
The contradictions at the heart of the Obama administration’s approach to the Middle East are approaching the level of parody. For the past four years under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we were constantly told that protecting the rights of women was an integral element in U.S. foreign policy. That was laudable, yet the same State Department that touted its feminist bona fides to the press was also the champion of engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt. While the administration has dug in its heels on their policy of continuing to shower Mohamed Morsi’s regime with U.S. taxpayer dollars, there doesn’t seem to be any more pushback against Egypt’s policy toward women than its attempts to crush political opponents or its anti-Semitism.
An article in today’s New York Times that discusses the Brotherhood’s policies toward women illustrates the raging hypocrisy of the American stand on Egypt. There was never much doubt about the misogyny that is at the heart of the Islamist group’s worldview, but by issuing a public critique of a proposed United Nations declaration opposing violence against women, they have elevated the topic to one of international significance. The regime’s stance on women is scaring Egyptian moderates and liberals who are rapidly losing any hope that the toppling of Hosni Mubarak’s government would usher in an era of democratic reform. But the specter of the most populous Arab state’s government moving slowly but surely toward an Iran-style theocracy is an ominous development for the rest of the region. Indeed, this makes it clear that what President Obama is doing in Egypt is nothing less than a U.S.-subsidized war on women. …
Jennifer Rubin on the Israeli reaction to the president.
… Liberals remain even more confused as to why Israelis don’t like the president. Well, if you select Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, make disparaging remarks about the elected prime minister to the French president, tell Israelis they don’t know what is in their best interests, condemn them for building in their own capital, encourage Palestinian rejectionism by inflating the settlement issue, radiate antipathy toward use of military force even if needed to prevent Iran from going nuclear and give a big speech in Cairo omitting the mention thousands of years of Jewish attachment to the land of Israel and its repeated efforts to offer Palestinians their own country, the vast majority of Israelis aren’t going to like you.
Can one trip solve that? Who knows. But unless the president can establish a better rapport with Israelis and engender more trust from the country’s elected government, the United States will have little influence in restraining Israel from acting unilaterally against Iran or in inducing any “risks for peace.” You see, the Bush administration had it right: Israel becomes more willing to take risks and to exercise restraint when it has high confidence in the U.S. administration and believes in its collective kishkes that the president has their interests at heart. When they believe the opposite, the reverse will follow.
Walter Russell Mead reports amazingly good news that may be more important than the gains resulting from fracking technology.
Cheap, clean water may soon be available for the whole planet. According to Reuters, defense contractor Lockheed Martin has developed a filter that will hugely reduce the amount of energy necessary to turn sea water into fresh water. The filter, which is five hundred times thinner then others currently available, lets water pass through but blocks all salt molecules. It will use almost 100 times less energy than other methods for making salt water drinkable, giving third world countries another way of expanding access to drinking water without having to create costly pumping stations. …
Marc Perry argues for kidney sales.
… The situation for those with renal failure waiting desperately to receive a kidney continues to worsen every year under the current policy that prohibits any form of donor compensation. The only realistic, long-term and truly compassionate solution to address America’s worsening kidney shortage is to legalize some form of donor compensation. That would require Congress to amend the outdated National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 so that people who give kidneys could receive a benefit, perhaps a tax credit, tuition voucher, lifetime health coverage or a contribution to a retirement plan.
We know from basic economic principles that congestion, shortages, and surpluses are always caused by a failure to apply market pricing. The market for kidneys is no different in principle than the market for crude oil, Justin Bieber tickets, old coins, soybeans, or unskilled labor. Because the demand for kidneys exceeds the supply by a factor of almost 6 times under the current policy, it seems obvious that the deadly kidney shortage is artificially created because the current “price” of $0.00 for kidneys is way below the market-clearing price. The current system of kidney allocation that relies exclusively on altruism is obviously not working, and thousands of patients needing a kidney transplant will continue to die every year until some type of market pricing is allowed.
US News wonders if the president will get out of the way of the energy boom.
President Obama says that he is “proud of the fact” that domestic oil and natural gas production is increasing. The reality, however, as the Congressional Research Service explains in a new report, is 100 percent of the increase in domestic oil and natural gas production since 2007 has occurred on nonfederal lands. In fact, oil and gas production in the United States has fallen on federal land since 2007. Considering that the federal government owns almost two thirds of all lands onshore and offshore in the United States, many of which hold vast energy resources, this is a glaring discrepancy and a blight on the administration’s so-called “all of the above” energy strategy.
Energy production is experiencing a huge revitalization period in the United States, surging faster than many seasoned analysts predicted. Oil production in the United States last year experienced the largest amount of growth since the oil industry began here in 1859, with the biggest gains coming from shale oil formations like the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas. Congressional Research Service’s report noted that oil production has increased 1.1 million barrels per day over the 5.08 million barrels produced in 2007—an increase of 22 percent. All of that increase occurred on nonfederal lands. Similarly, natural gas production has increased by 4 trillion cubic feet—or 20 percent—since 2007, and the report states that all of the increase has occurred on nonfederal lands, like the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania. …
Stanley Kurtz wonders if the fix is in on the Keystone pipeline.
… The Bloomberg report makes it clear that Obama’s order opens the way for further litigation and substantial delays on Keystone, whether the federal government officially blocks construction or not. That’s because NEPA allows citizens and environmental groups to file claims against projects even after they win government approval.
So the Obama administration could green-light the pipeline, file a report that stops short of calling Keystone a major global-warming hazard, and still find the project delayed for years by environmental groups bringing court challenges under the new NEPA guidelines.
In this scenario, headlines loudly proclaiming Obama’s approval of Keystone would shield him from Republican attacks. Simultaneously, the president could mollify the left by claiming credit for guidelines that effectively allowed his allies to stop the pipeline. And that would be right. Obama can publicly “approve” Keystone, while simultaneously handing the left the tool they need to put the project on semi-permanent hold. Environmentalists would take the political heat, while Obama would get off scot-free. Pretty clever. …
In The Telegraph, UK, Mark McKinnon writes on the sale of access to the White House.
Once, only nobles were granted an audience with the King.
In America, we’ve prided ourselves on abandoning those privileges of class some 237 years ago, following that little uprising in the 13 colonies.
And we again congratulated ourselves at 12:01 pm Eastern Time on January 20, 2009, just moments after Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States and as he committed to making his administration the most transparent and open in history.
But more than four years later it is time to ask questions. The most transparent administration ever? The most transparently political, yes. The most open government? If you have the money to buy access, yes.
Since last weekend, Mr and Mrs Regular Citizen have been denied the access people used to be granted to tour the White House, purportedly because of the clampdown on federal spending since the “sequester” that imposed cuts across the board.
These tours, most recently guided by volunteers though monitored by paid Secret Service staff, have been an American tradition since John and Abigail Adams, the first White House residents, personally hosted receptions for the public.
And their cancellation is an austerity measure that saves a pittance, while more frivolous taxpayer funding for items like the White House dog walker continues.
Meanwhile, noble Americans can buy time with the president for a suggested donation of $500,000 to his new campaign group, Organising for Action.
Yes, the announcement offering access to the president for cold, hard cash was made openly and with total transparency. But it was also made without shame. …