About Me

Name:L Gravel
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

Warming is Bad, Except that it's Good

According to USA Today:
Pay now to fix global warming or risk a worldwide economic depression later, says a landmark British government report out Monday.

"The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs," concludes the 576-page Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. The report, authored by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, is called the most comprehensive projection of the economic impact of warming.
According to the Washington Times/AP:
Prudential Financial broker Aaron Kildow said prices for oil and refined products could continue to drift lower amid mild autumn temperatures. "This is mostly a weather-related market right now," Mr. Kildow said, adding that the U.S. is awash in fuel heading into winter.
We distort, you decide.

Bonus comment: apparently the Brits are entirely credible when they predict next decade's weather, but they're full of crumpets when they document Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger.

Bonus comment #2: global warming -- no end of possible calamities.  Embryonic stem cells -- nothing they can't possibly cure.  Therefore we should use the latter to cure the former?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Forms

I recently purchased a firearm.  The store had me fill out an ATF Form 4473.  I had to check a box to indicate my race.  There was no box for "American" or "other," and an answer to the question was required.  Institutional racism is alive and well.

I recently applied for term life insurance.  A nurse came to my house to get urine and blood samples.  She had me sign a page long form giving consent to testing for HIV.  I assume they also tested for things like cancer, hepatitis, tuberculosis, plague, etcetera.  No consent form was required for these; only for HIV.  It is strange that HIV is singled out for such privacy protections.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Axis of Oil

The Washington Times in a special report discusses the use of energy as a diplomatic tool:
Major producers such as Venezuela, Russia and Iran have teamed up with emerging energy consumers -- notably China -- in an "axis of oil" to frustrate U.S. foreign-policy objectives, according to Flynt Leverett, a former top Middle East adviser in the Bush administration, and Pierre Noel, a research fellow with the French Institute of International Relations.

"The political consequences of recent changes in global energy markets are posing the most profound challenge to American hegemony since the end of the Cold War," the two concluded in a recent survey in the journal National Interest.

Even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a veteran of both Bush administrations and a longtime foreign-policy scholar, conceded earlier this year she underestimated the ways the "energy question" distorted international relations.

"I can tell you that nothing has really taken me aback more as secretary of state than the way the politics of energy is -- I will use the word 'warping' -- diplomacy around the world," she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April.

"It has given extraordinary power to some states that are using that power in not very good ways for the international system, states that would have otherwise have very little power," she said.

Andrei Illarianov, top economic adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin before resigning last year in protest at the government's anti-democratic policies, said reform at home and cooperation with the West both declined sharply as the Kremlin seized control of the country's biggest energy companies.

"The correlation was very direct," said Mr. Illarianov, now a research fellow at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Go Away or I Shall Taunt You a Second Time

I stumbled across a paper by the Institute of World Politics (by way of the Competitive Enterprise Institute) entitled Ridicule: An instrument in the war on terrorism.  Included is this anecdote re: the American Revolution:

Despite their far superior training, discipline, skill and firepower, the British were unprepared for irregular combat with the colonists. The Americans were guerrilla fighters who had the bad form not to stand in formation on a battlefield and to shoot at enemy officers. 

The British handily won the first engagement, the Battle of Lexington in April, 1775, but suffered heavy losses during their march from Concord back to Boston with Americans shooting at them from behind trees and rocks. Bostonians jeered. Among the many poems and ditties circulating around Boston after the opening shots of the war at Lexington and Concord was this one:

    How brave you went out with muskets all bright,
    And thought to befrighten the folks with the sight;
    But when you got there how they powder’d your pums,
    And all the way home how they pepper’d your bums,
    And is it not, honies, a comical farce,
    To be proud in the face, and be shot in the arse.[16]

Such mockery stung: the British army at the time was the finest, most experienced and most formidable in the world, its officers and men proud of their history, in their view, of gentlemanly warfighting. The practically un-trained, mostly un-uniformed, often un-disciplined, frequently uncouth, and generally low-class American riffraff, in British eyes, were no worthy adversary at all.

I add this: I remember how Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf in a briefing ridiculed Saddam Hussein during Gulf War I.  Wikipedia has the quote:

As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man.

I loved it when he said that.  Anyway, the IPW paper concludes:

Ridicule is a powerful weapon of warfare. It can be a strategic weapon. The United States must take advantage of it against terrorists, proliferators, and other threats. Ridicule is vital because:

    * It sticks.
    * The target can’t refute it.
    * It is almost impossible to repress, even if driven underground.
    * It spreads on its own and multiplies naturally.
    * It gets better with each re-telling.
    * It boosts morale at home.
    * Our enemy shows far greater intolerance to ridicule than we.
    * Ridicule divides the enemy, damages its morale, and makes it less attractive to supporters and prospective recruits.
    * The ridicule-armed warrior need not fix a physical sight on the target. Ridicule will find its own way to the targeted individual. To the enemy, being ridiculed means losing respect. It means losing influence. It means losing followers and repelling potential new backers.
    * To the enemy, ridicule can be worse than death. At least many enemies find death to be a supernatural martyrdom. Ridicule is much worse: destruction without martyrdom: A fate worse than death. And they have to live with it.

P.J. O'Rourke, call the Pentagon.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Through the Fog

Are we winning in Iraq?  In the larger war?  The fog of war and media is especially thick these days.  Body counts and punditry are in surplus, while information is scarce.

I am mindful of a passage from James McPherson's history of the Civil War, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 661 (the illustrated version with all the cool pictures, of course).

(1864) After two months of fighting and 90,000 casualties on all fronts, Union armies seemed little if any closer to winning the war than when they started.  "Who shall revive the withered hopes that bloomed at the opening of Grant's campaign?" asked the Democratic New York World.  Even Republicans seemed "discouraged, weary, and faint-hearted," reported a New York diarist.  "They ask plaintively, 'Why don't Grant and Sherman do something?'"

Victor Davis Hanson writes in the National Review:

The odd thing is that, for all the gloom and furor, and real blunders, nevertheless, by the historical standards of most wars, we have done well enough to win in Iraq, and still have a good shot of doing the impossible in seeing this government survive. More importantly still, worldwide we are beating the Islamic fundamentalists and their autocratic supporters. Iranian-style theocracy has not spread. For all the talk of losing Afghanistan, the Taliban are still dispersed or in hiding — so is al Qaeda. Europe is galvanizing against Islamism in a way unimaginable just three years ago. The world is finally focusing on Iran. Hezbollah did not win the last war, but lost both prestige and billions of dollars in infrastructure, despite a lackluster effort by Israel. Elections have embarrassed a Hamas that, the global community sees, destroys most of what it touches and now must publicly confess that it will never recognize Israel. Countries like Libya are turning, and Syria is more isolated. If we keep the pressure up in Iraq and Afghanistan and work with our allies, Islamism and its facilitators will be proven bankrupt.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Post #100

And now the milestone we've all been waiting for -- post #100:

Check out RightRoots, an easy, one-stop shop to make a conservative difference in the coming election.  This includes funding the lady running against John Murtha.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This Guy Works for Us?

According to FoxNews/AP:

In an interview with Al-Jazeera aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the U.S. State Department [said] ... "We tried to do our best (in Iraq) but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq."

I think someone needs to be reassigned as ambassador to Antarctica.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oops

Talk about missing the call.  According to FoxNews/AP:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday called Israel's leaders a "group of terrorists" and threatened any country that supports the Jewish state.

"You imposed a group of terrorists ... on the region," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S. and its allies. "It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals... This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

"Nations will take revenge," he told a crowd of thousands gathered at a pro-Palestinian rally in the capital Tehran.

Ahmadinejad said Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon disappear.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Election

There's an election coming up, of course.  Much electronic ink has been spilled, with more to come.

Thought #1: Yes, Republicans deserve to lose.  However, conservatives don't deserve a Republican loss.

Thought #2: You know, Iran sure has been quiet lately.  Ahmadinejad's a crafty guy; perhaps he knows any bellicosity on his part will only help the Republicans.  Either that, or his lawyers haven't figured out whether the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act applies to the Axis of Evil, so to be safe he's not airing any threats within the sixty days prior to the election.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PC War

Unhinged Substrate alerts me to a piece by retired Army officer Ralph Peters in the New York Post, in which Peters discusses recently formulated Army and Marine counterinsurgency doctrine:

Astonishingly, the doctrine ignores faith-inspired terrorism and skirts ethnic issues in favor of analyzing yesteryear's political insurgencies. It would be a terri- fic manual if we returned to Vietnam circa 1963, but its recommendations are profoundly misguided when it comes to fighting terrorists intoxicated with religious visions and the smell of blood.

Why did the officers in question avoid the decisive question of religion? Because the answers would have been ugly.

Wars of faith and tribe are immeasurably crueler and tougher to resolve than ideological revolts. A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can - or would wish to - change his blood identity.

So the doctrine writers ignored today's reality.

Thus far I've stayed away from discussing the tactical aspects of the war, since my only experience consists of watching the movie "Patton."  So my foggy idea of military doctrine is to identify our enemies and kill them with the utmost ferocity.  Beyond that I conveniently leave the details to someone who knows what he's doing.  If we had a civilized enemy, I would replace the word "kill" with "break their will to continue the fight" or even "negotiate with."  But we don't.

I hope Peters is wrong about our doctrine.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Misc.

I'm not trying to be a perma-link to the WSJ Opinion Journal here, but they've had some interesting stuff lately.

John Fund discusses the creative ways judges around the country thwart ballot initiatives.

Kim Strassel compares two state Republican parties -- a dysfunctional one (Ohio) vs. a functional one (Florida).  (Spoiler: conservatism wins.)

Finally, the Colorado Springs Gazette runs an AP... yes, an AP article in which they investigated various local government's response to requests for information under Colorado's public records law.  See if you can guess which outfits were the most hostile.

Of course it behooves me to add some commentary, so I offer the following.  Parents, if you want to keep your young children from spilling milk all over the dining room table, serve their beverages in coffee cups.  And I don't mean dainty, tea-cup-wanna-be's with curvy bottoms.  I mean stout, cylindrical office-type mugs, possibly with a corporate logo on them (Enron is fine; they won't know), that sit flat on a table.  Such coffee cups are designed not to tip over.  So use them.

You know those plastic sippy/tippy cups?  Once your kids are done sipping through the lids, throw those away.

You're welcome.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Microloans

Muhammad Yunus in the WSJ Opinion Journal discusses effective poverty relief:

Microfinance is one of the biggest success stories of the developing world, and proponents like me believe it could be just as successful in helping the poor in wealthy countries such as the U.S. The basic philosophy behind microfinance is that the poor, although spurned by traditional banks because they can't provide collateral, are actually a great investment: No one works harder than someone who is striving to achieve life's basic necessities, particularly a woman with children to support. Sadly, it is also true that in catastrophic circumstances, very little of the cash so generously given ever gets all the way down to the very poor. There are too many "professionals" ahead of them in line, highly skilled at diverting funds into their own pockets. This is particularly regrettable because very poor people need only a little money to set up a business that can make a dramatic difference in the quality of their lives.

FYI, I know of one Christian outfit that does this: Hope International.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Productive Talk

The WSJ Opinion Journal briefly recounts the North Korean nuclear saga:

[T]he cases of North Korea and Iran are revealing the limits of arms control treaties in restraining rogue states bent on gaining nuclear weapons and other WMD. In the wake of Korea's nuclear test, we are hearing renewed calls for "direct" talks between the U.S. and North Korea akin to those that took place in the 1990s. The idea is to get North Korea to sign another agreement promising to give up its nukes. But one reason we're at the current pass is because Kim Jong Il violated the many commitments he made to the Clinton Administration.

Even as it allowed inspectors at its Yongban nuclear facility, Pyongyang was pursuing a separate and secret bomb-building effort. When the world objected once that effort was exposed, North Korea responded by shutting off the U.N. cameras at Yongban, expelling the inspectors and withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Meanwhile, because the 1994 Agreed Framework had allowed North Korea to keep its plutonium under U.N. "safeguards," Pyongyang was then free to make a bomb with that nuclear fuel. Now it apparently has done so, unless this too turns out to be another lie.

It's clear that any U.N. "action" will be worthless in resolving this mess.  It's also clear that China supplies North Korea with, well, sustenance; and that China can pull that string any time they want to get the Kim Jong Il to behave.  At least for now.

So perhaps the question the United States of America needs to put to China is this: who will take responsibility for North Korea?  Acceptable answers from China are "we will" or "we will not."  Unacceptable answers are "six party talks" and "U.N. 'Security' Council," which means no one is responsible.  Within the realm of the acceptable, if China takes responsibility, then we hold them accountable.  But we also allow them to do whatever they want, including militarily, to North Korea.  A North Korea as an annex to a deterrable China is better than a province of a rogue with nukes (some for sale).  On the other hand, if China does not want to take responsibility, then we are allowed to do whatever we want to North Korea, including militarily.

Your move, Middle Kingdom.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Last Words

The Houston Chronicle/ NY Times relays some of Novaya Gazeta's last column:

Thursday's events together served as a sort of coda on her life, reminders of the lingering chaos and human costs of the war in Chechnya, which Russia maintains has been won.

Her final article, a column under the headline "We Declare You a Terrorist," presented allegations of the use of torture to exact confessions and manufacture good news from the war.

"When prosecutors and the courts work, not for the sake of the law, but on political commission and with the only goal of providing good reports for the Kremlin, then criminal cases are baked like pancakes," she wrote. "An assembly line producing 'open-hearted confessions' effectively guarantees good data on the war on terror."

She asked: "Are we, the lawful, fighting against the unlawful? Or are we battling 'their' lawlessness with 'ours?' "

The article described the case of Beslan Gadayev, a Chechen migrant deported from Ukraine to Chechnya, where he claimed to Politkovskaya that he was asked if he had committed certain unsolved slayings.

When he said he had not, he wrote, he was beaten, tied up, hung from a pipe and then connected to electric cable, whose current was switched on. In time, he said, he confessed, and the next day he was told to confess again in front of journalists and to say that his injuries were the result of an escape attempt.

Gazeta was the courageous, well-known reporter recently assassinated in Russia in broad daylight.  Vladimir Putin declared they would find her killer.  Meanwhile, O.J. Simpson still searches for his wife's killer.

I'm sure the NY Times sees in Gazeta's last article an indictment of the Bush Administration and his waging of the war in Iraq.  But unlike in Russia, our journalists don't become mysteriously dead when they criticize the administration.  And our Gitmo detainees are war captives, not citizens.  Furthermore, they gain weight in captivity and show no signs of physical abuse.

Once again we are reminded how different and rare is this nation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Immaculate Conception

A co-worker of mine (we'll call him Unhinged Substrate) alerted me to an article by Wendy McElroy on FoxNews:

[Viola] Trevino's fraud began in 1999 when she and her former husband Steve Barreras divorced. Trevino claimed she had given birth to a child after the divorce and sued Barreras for child support, claiming he was the father. This fraud dissolved in 2004, when it was finally discovered that there was no such child. But Barreras, who works as a corrections officer in law enforcement, was forced to spend the ensuing years trying to make the New Mexico courts and child welfare service even look at evidence that the child for whom he was paying support did not exist.

More than $20,000 in payments later, a judge finally did the obvious. Trevino was ordered to produce the disputed child, then supposedly 5-years-old. On her way to the court appearance, Trevino snatched a 2-year-old off the street to pass off as her own daughter; the ruse collapsed when the infant's distraught grandmother trailed Trevino into the courtroom.

Your government in action.  Universal health care anyone?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »