Archive for 2011

DOING THE JOB THAT COMEDIANS WON’T DO: SCOTT OTT’S NEW BOOK , Laughing At Obama: Volume I, is out.

THINGS YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED THIS WEEKEND, if you were out, you know, having a life or something:

More people questioning Administration’s War Powers Act theories.

What happens when Syria explodes.

ATF Gunrunning Scandal Looking More And More Sleazy.

Alex Nunez loves the Prius V.

It’s still not too late to stock up on those deliciously evil incandescent lightbulbs.

Corruption and demosclerosis.

Deep questions about the sanity of at least one Texas judge.

Video: Failed glitter attack on Michele Bachmann.

They told me if I voted for John McCain we’d see savage reprisals against whistleblowers. And they were right!

A bad year for climate science.

Chinese-backed atrocities in Myanmar.

The New York Times’ lame hit piece on Clarence Thomas. And the construction of an ObamaCare “failure narrative.”

THIS STORY ON HOW THE FUNDAMENTALISTS IN PAKISTAN DROVE OUT THE PEOPLE WHO KNEW HOW TO RUN THINGS reminds me of Robert Heinlein’s dictum, often quoted on this blog and worth repeating once more:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

Pakistan has been experiencing bad luck for decades now.

WAR POWERS UPDATE: Obama, Bush, and the OLC:

During the Bush Administration, the White House did not seek Congressional approval of some anti-terror initiatives because some within the Administration — most notably, Dick Cheney — wished to establish the principle that the Executive could act unilaterally to address national security concerns. This approach was unwise, but it is easy to understand. But what is the explanation here? It is hard to see what larger legal principle the Administration is trying to vindicate. . . .

One possibility, suggested in the comments, is the principle that approval by a multinational entity (the UN, NATO, etc.) should be sufficient to authorize U.S. military action. One data point in support of this theory is the line of division within the Administration: attorneys at Justice and Defense versus Koh at State.

It’s not clear to me that this principle is in accord with the Constitution, or with U.S. national interest. Which isn’t to say that it’s not the one they’re championing.

EZRA LEVANT: Saudis have West over a barrel: And they don’t want to hear about oilsands development. “It’s pretty tough to like Saudi sheiks, Iranian ayatollahs and Russian former KGB agents. Which is why you don’t usually see those folks attacking the oilsands in public. Prince Al-Waleed’s comments were a rare Saudi public criticism of the West. Normally, they leave that sort of thing to their allies — professional environmental lobbyists.”

MICHAEL BARONE: Government looks to past, free enterprise to future.

Decision makers have responded as if they were facing liquidity crises (we don’t have enough cash to pay off debts immediately) instead of solvency crises (we will never be able to pay off these debts). Too often pain has not been prevented, but just postponed — and prolonged.

In retrospect much of the pain could not be avoided. As economist Tyler Cowen has put it, we were not as rich as we thought we were. Housing bubble prices did not turn out to be real wealth, unless you sold out at the peak and moved to a cave.

Trying to put everyone back in the position they once thought they were in simply won’t work. But it does sound attractive politically. People can remember what life was like in the past.

We don’t, however, know what it will be like in the future. Republicans want less government spending and more leeway for entrepreneurs to create new businesses and jobs. No one knows what innovative products and services will emerge.

That’s the beauty of free enterprise, but it also makes it a hard sell politically. Unless voters have figured out no amount of government spending is going to restore the old status quo.

Well, if they haven’t figured it out, they will. But the longer it takes them, the more damage will be done.

HOPE AND CHANGE: Obama Wins Nobel War Prize. “Among Obama’s list of war accomplishments, the committee highlighted Obama’s decision to double the number of troops and expand the number of private contractors in Afghanistan, as well as his dramatic escalation of drone strikes and targeted assassinations in Yemen and Pakistan. . . . Obama’s speechwriters are hard at work preparing the his acceptance remarks, and PolicyMic managed to obtain a preview of the speech from a source inside the White House. The president will begin by thanking congressional Democrats ‘for campaigning in 2006 on the antiwar agenda, and then turning around once in office and funding the war they claimed to oppose.’ He will also thank Congress for ‘stepping aside and allowing me to go to war in Libya without Congressional approval and once again approving the Patriot Act despite years of supposed opposition.'”

Hey, Rube!

UTAH TEA PARTY UPDATE: Entrepreneur warns against dangers of government in economics. “During the process of establishing a car company, Kirkham had several experiences that shaped his political views about socialism and the merits of a free-market system unfettered by government. When Kirkham visited the Polish MiG factory for the first time in 1995, the lights were off and the machines silent — there was not enough money to pay the electric bill. Each morning, thousands of men came to work, dressed in rags, and did nothing all day. They simply stood by their machines until it was time to go home. Kirkham was so moved by the experience that he took a photo of the darkened factory, only to have a guard point a machine gun at him, forbidding him from taking more photos.”