Download Full Content – Printable Pickings
Mark Steyn likes God and guns.
I think a healthy society needs both God and guns: It benefits from a belief in some kind of higher purpose to life on Earth, and it requires a self-reliant citizenry. If you lack either of those twin props, you wind up with today’s Europe – a present-tense Eutopia mired in fatalism.
A while back, I was struck by the words of Oscar van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay humanist (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool). Reflecting on the Continent’s accelerating Islamification, he concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved, but what could he do? “I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”
Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. If you don’t understand that there are times when you’ll have to fight for it, you won’t enjoy it for long. That’s what a lot of Reade’s laundry list – “gun-totin’,” “military-lovin’” – boils down to. As for “gay-loathin’,” it’s Oscar van den Boogaard’s famously tolerant Amsterdam where gay-bashing is resurgent: The editor of the American gay paper the Washington Blade got beaten up in the streets on his last visit to the Netherlands.
God and guns. Maybe one day a viable society will find a magic cure-all that can do without both, but Big Government isn’t it. And even complacent liberal Democrats ought to be able to look across the ocean and see that. But, then, Obama did give the speech in San Francisco, a city demographically declining at a rate that qualifies it for EU membership. When it comes to parochial simpletons, you don’t need to go to Kansas.
Something fun this way comes. Baracky.
Samizdata post on acceptance of libertarianism.
As suggested by a Samizdata reader called Hugo, I am going to kick off a Friday discussion which takes the following line: “A barrier to people accepting libertarianism is the notion that we’d let people starve in the streets.”
I think the contention would be grossly unfair, to put it mildly. Libertarians oppose the welfare state, we do not oppose welfare. …
… The one place where starvation of the poor is a likely occurrence, of course, is under collectivism. Just look at the great socialist disasters of the 20th Century.
Great piece on the media’s reaction to the last debate from John Harris and Jim VandeHei from Politico.
… Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.
(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and The Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through detox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)
(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama’s speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he’s on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the Clintons and their paint-by-polls approach to governing.)
All this is hardly the end of the world. Clinton is not behind principally because of media bias; Obama is not ahead principally because of media favoritism. McCain won the GOP nomination mainly through good luck and the infirmities of his opposition. But the fact that lots of reporters personally like the guy — and a few seem to have an open crush — did not hurt.
But the protectiveness toward Obama revealed in the embarrassing rush of many journalists to his side this week does touch on at least four deeper trends in the news business. …
Patrick Michaels in the WSJ tells what is wrong with out climate numbers. First of all, they are a product of government effort. That right there should tell you they are bogus. This could have been better written, but we pulled out a few gems.
… it was discovered that our orbiting satellites have a few faults. The sensors don’t last very long and are continually being supplanted by replacement orbiters. The instruments are calibrated against each other, so if one is off, so is the whole record. Frank Wentz, a consulting atmospheric scientist from California, discovered that the satellites also drift a bit in their orbits, which induces additional bias in their readings. The net result? A warming trend appears where before there was none. …
… The removal of weather-balloon data because poor nations don’t do a good job of minding their weather instruments deserves more investigation, which is precisely what University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick and I did. Last year we published our results in the Journal of Geophysical Research, showing that “non-climatic” effects in land-surface temperatures – GDP per capita, among other things – exert a significant influence on the data. For example, weather stations are supposed to be a standard white color. If they darken from lack of maintenance, temperatures read higher than they actually are. After adjusting for such effects, as much as half of the warming in the U.N.’s land-based record vanishes. Because about 70% of earth’s surface is water, this could mean a reduction of as much as 15% in the global warming trend. …
… Finally, no one seems to want to discuss that for millennia after the end of the last ice age, the Eurasian arctic was several degrees warmer in summer (when ice melts) than it is now. We know this because trees are buried in areas that are now too cold to support them. Back then, the forest extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean, which is now completely surrounded by tundra. If it was warmer for such a long period, why didn’t Greenland shed its ice?
This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there’s little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you’re liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn’t such a threat, who needs all that funding? Who needs the army of policy wonks crawling around the world with bold plans to stop climate change?
But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes – raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland’s ice – we should be talking about reality.
Speaking of government failure, WSJ has more on the current air travel mess.
… Indeed, the fundamental problem with most regulation is that the regulatory agency does not have sufficient information, flexibility and immunity from political pressure to regulate firms’ behavior effectively. Fortunately, the market, and in some cases the liability system, provide sufficient incentives for firms to behave in a socially beneficial manner.
Consider why economic regulation of the U.S. airline industry failed. The Civil Aeronautics Board used to be responsible for regulating fares and the number of carriers serving each route. …
… In a nutshell, the CAB did not have sufficient understanding of industry operations and strategy, the flexibility to facilitate and account for possible changes in industry competition, and immunity from political pressure to set efficient fares. When fares and entry were deregulated, market competition accomplished in large measure what the CAB could not.
Airline safety presents similar problems for the regulator. The FAA knows much less about aircraft technology and airline operations than do the airlines and aircraft manufacturers. In principle, the agency can be educated about such matters, and through consultation with the airlines, aircraft manufactures and expert advisers can develop certain rules and procedures that the airlines agree to follow.
But the airlines will always be far more informed than the FAA is about the condition of their planes. …
…Unfortunately, the FAA’s inadequacies are shared by other federal agencies that attempt to regulate safety. In our research on the subject, examining available empirical evidence, we could not find any discernible improvement in safety that was associated with regulations promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Mine Safety and Health Administration, among others.
At first blush, the FAA appears to differ from these agencies because its drawbacks do not include stimulating consumers and workers to engage in “offsetting behavior” that compromises efforts to improve safety. Maybe so. But in response to the FAA’s overly aggressive actions that caused American Airlines to cancel thousands of flights, many travelers shifted from air travel to highway travel. In the process, they greatly increased their probability of dying in an accident on their journey
Speaking of government failure, (we love doing that) The Economist this week centers on the food crisis. Their lead article starts calling for the usual government efforts and then in the final four graphs comes to grip with the real culprit.
… In general, governments ought to liberalise markets, not intervene in them further. Food is riddled with state intervention at every turn, from subsidies to millers for cheap bread to bribes for farmers to leave land fallow. The upshot of such quotas, subsidies and controls is to dump all the imbalances that in another business might be smoothed out through small adjustments onto the one unregulated part of the food chain: the international market.
For decades, this produced low world prices and disincentives to poor farmers. Now, the opposite is happening. As a result of yet another government distortion—this time subsidies to biofuels in the rich world—prices have gone through the roof. Governments have further exaggerated the problem by imposing export quotas and trade restrictions, raising prices again. In the past, the main argument for liberalising farming was that it would raise food prices and boost returns to farmers. Now that prices have massively overshot, the argument stands for the opposite reason: liberalisation would reduce prices, while leaving farmers with a decent living.
There is an occasional exception to the rule that governments should keep out of agriculture. They can provide basic technology: executing capital-intensive irrigation projects too large for poor individual farmers to undertake, or paying for basic science that helps produce higher-yielding seeds. But be careful. Too often—as in Europe, where superstitious distrust of genetic modification is slowing take-up of the technology—governments hinder rather than help such advances. Since the way to feed the world is not to bring more land under cultivation, but to increase yields, science is crucial.
Agriculture is now in limbo. The world of cheap food has gone. With luck and good policy, there will be a new equilibrium. The transition from one to the other is proving more costly and painful than anyone had expected. But the change is desirable, and governments should be seeking to ease the pain of transition, not to stop the process itself.
More on food shortages and how they can be overcome from the Telegraph,UK.
It is remarkable how rapidly the world has moved from worrying about deflation to worrying about inflation; from cheer to despondency about the reduction of poverty; and from concern about food surpluses to panic about shortages.
The hand of rising food prices is suddenly seen everywhere: in the riots in Tibet against Chinese rule; in drastic measures in the Philippines, Egypt, India and many African countries to restrict food exports; in calls for more aid; and even in the Bank of England’s reluctance to cut interest rates as fast as its American counterpart.
For agricultural commodity prices (what we call “food”) to have more than doubled in the past three years is an astonishing and worrying turn of events. But in responding to it, we need to understand the true nature of the problem.
And we must recognise that a big part of this problem is our own fault – because of our ill thought-out enthusiasm for using food to fuel cars as well as stomachs; and because of our longer-established but also ill considered opposition to the use of genetic engineering to help us grow more food. …