Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Once again, the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal section comes through with must read content. This time, there are two articles on global warming, both of which address the recent Stern report from the UK.

Here's an excerpt from the first article:
"Unlike the Stern report and its patrons, those of us who take a skeptical approach to these doomsday climate scenarios aren't trying to end the discussion. The Earth is warmer now than it was in the recent past, and this may be partly attributable to human behavior. But everything else--from how much warmer, to the extent of mankind's contribution, to the cost of doing something about it--remains very much in dispute.

Some of the Stern review's recommendations, such as carbon trading rights, are also worth debating. But most of its proposals are merely openings for government to expand its role in allocating investment, raising taxes and otherwise controlling economic decisions. Socialism was supposed to have died with the Soviet Union, but it is making a comeback under the guise of coping with global warming.

Meanwhile, there are far more urgent, and far less speculative, problems that we know how to solve with the right policies. That message may not get scary headlines, but it would improve the lives of more human beings around the world."

Here's an excerpt from the second article:
"The report on climate change by Nicholas Stern and the U.K. government has sparked publicity and scary headlines around the world. Much attention has been devoted to Mr. Stern's core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest.

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off."

Please read them both, especially the second article by Mr. Bjorn Lomborg.
That noted walking pantheon of justice, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), breathlessly announces that the inspector generals for the Commerce Department and NASA had begun "co- ordinated, sweeping investigations of the Bush administration's censorship and suppression" of federal research into global warming.


"These investigations are critical because the Republicans in Congress have ignored this serious problem," Lautenberg said.

He said the investigations "will uncover internal documents and agency correspondence that may expose widespread misconduct." He added, "Taxpayers do not fund scientific research so the Bush White House can alter it."

Messages left Wednesday at the inspector general's offices, which serve as the agencies' internal watchdogs, and the White House Council for Environmental Quality were not immediately returned.
The forecast for Washington, DC tomorrow: high of 53; low of 34 degrees.

Isn’t it now undeniable that US Soldiers in the field
1) read and watch and listen to the media, and
2) are affected/have opinions about it, and
3) their morale is affected by what the media distributes?
The U.N. wants to take over control of ICANN from the US Government. This is not a promising start.
Contact Music quotes from an interview in Vanity Fair: (Sumner)Redstone concluded that his decision to axe (Tom) Cruise "sent a message to the rest of the world that the time of the big star getting all this money is over. And it is! I would like to think that what I did, or what we did, has had a salutary effect on the rest of the industry."

Hmmm. It would appear that moonbats everywhere are beginning to see that words and actions have consequences...
Captain Ed nails the Kerry flap.

Excerpt:

"I'm still pretty torn on this controversy. Had Kerry simply come out yesterday and said, Whoops, my bad -- I left out a couple of key words from the punchline and left the wrong impression -- my apologies!, I think the entire story would have died immediately. However, in his typically tone-deaf manner, he decided to brand the entire incident a Republican smear, despite the fact that he had been quoted accurately.

Now he's left with the argument that he misquoted himself while trying to show off his supposed intellectual superiority over George Bush, and that it's all Bush's fault despite being Kerry's intellectual inferior. Really, no one could have scripted a more hilarious scenario, and the longer Kerry continues this line of defense/offense, the more ridiculous a figure he becomes. It demonstrates clearly that the 'I was for the $87 billion before I was against it' gaffe was no fluke."

That's it in a nutshell: John Kerry misquotes himself and manages to make himself look even more ridiculous than ever.

Update: Drudge points out that the troops understand what Kerry meant.
Peter F. Schaefer writes "More MacArthur, Less Marshall" in TCS Daily that the approach taken in Japan versus that taken in Germany after WWII was more successful. Part of Schaefer's discussion includes the viability of the nation being rebuilt. He points out that the Sioux Indian nation is more of a nation that Tito's Yugoslavia.

This article is worth reading, and it inspired me to search anew for good books on the Marshall Plan and on MacArthur's plan for Japan.

Excerpt:
"Moreover, MacArthur's occupation plan was developed between 1942 and 1945 and then used during the occupation. It was produced by a large team working on the expectation of a hostile invasion and a process of pacification that would cost a million US casualties and millions of Japanese lives. MacArthur knew that he would not be welcomed as a liberator. His team knew there would be much hard work needed to keep the Japanese islands from descending into chaos and violence."

Update: it occurs to me that the Allies began planning for the post-war world long before 1945. Churchill discusses this in his fantastic six volume history of World War II. It would be interesting to know whether President Clinton or his cabinet directed planners in the government to plan for a post-war Iraq after passing the Iraq Liberation Act in October of 1998. If there were plans, why weren't they used? If there weren't, then why pass the bill other than as political theatre?