SATURDAY,  DECEMBER 20,  2008

ANYONE NOTICING?

Posted at 9:28 a.m. ET

The amen corner has led the applause for Mr. Obama's appointments, one by one.  Each is a genius, an inspired choice, a pick for the ages, possibly the greatest public servant in history.

Maybe it's time to watch more closely.  The president-elect has chosen his science, energy and environmental chiefs, and a sense of unease begins to erupt.  It appears that Mr. Obama has consumed the global-warming Kool-Aid, and asked for seconds.  Still, the mainstream media is in applause mode.  After all, these people have letters after their names.

But John Tierney, one of the few cautious dissidents writing opinion pieces for The New York Times, blows the whistle.  The president-elect's science adviser, a Harvard professor, may be a certified crackpot:

Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports from DotEarth and ScienceInsider that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor on Saturday.

That wakes us up.

Dr. Holdren, now a physicist at Harvard, was one of the experts in natural resources whom Paul Ehrlich enlisted in his famous bet against the economist Julian Simon during the “energy crisis” of the 1980s.

In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be more expensive ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990.

Well, a little mistake...or five little mistakes. 

Now, you could argue that anyone’s entitled to a mistake, and that mistakes can be valuable if people learn to become open to ideas that conflict with their preconceptions and ideology...

...But I haven’t seen much evidence of such open-mindedness in Dr. Holdren.

Oh.  Well, the man must be bright.  He's at Harvard.  He's...

Consider what happened when a successor to Dr. Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, published “The Skeptical Environmentalist” in 2001. Dr. Holdren joined in an an extraordinary attack on the book in Scientific American — an attack that I thought did far more harm to the magazine’s reputation than to Dr. Lomborg’s. The Economist called the critique “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance”; Dr. Lomborg’s defenders said the critics made more mistakes in 11 pages than they were able to find in his 540-page book.

Hmm.  Now we see.

Dr. Holdren’s resistance to dissenting views was also on display earlier this year in an article asserting that climate skeptics are “dangerous.” (You can read about the response to that article at DotEarth.)

Tierney is spot on.  Declaring skeptics "dangerous" is not science.  It's medieval religious dogma.

Dr. Holdren is certainly entitled to his views, but what concerns me is his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions.

And...

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and the author of “The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics,” discussed Dr. Holdren’s conflation of science and politics in a post on the Prometheus blog:

The notion that science tells us what to do leads Holdren to appeal to authority to suggest that not only are his scientific views correct, but because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views.

That of course is the point.  Much of the talk about "global warming" isn't real science, it's political science, generated by people who simply want us to live different kinds of lives.

Tierney asks the basic question:

What kind of White House science advisor you think Dr. Holdren would make?

It's important that others start asking that question.  We've been sold a bill that says Mr. Obama is making "moderate" appointments to his administration.  There's nothing moderate about Holdren.  He could cost us trillions of dollars, do enormous economic damage, increase poverty and hunger...with no good result.

Oh, by the way, a very knowledgeable Urgent Agenda reader, a distinguished academic, refers us to a minority report, just issued by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.  It's here, and asks the most serious questions about the global-warming "consensus."  It's well worth reading.

December 20, 2008.      Permalink          

TRUTH TELLING

Posted at 8:45 a.m. ET

It's always refreshing when a public official tells the truth, the whole truth, unvarnished and unprotected by political correctness.

Britain's defense secretary, John Hutton, has spoken out about the nature of the Taliban, in Afghanistan.  What is remarkable is that the things he's saying are now considered in many Establishment circles here in the United States, especially as we're about to enter the Age of Obama.  Consider: 

Defence Secretary John Hutton has compared Taliban fighters in Afghanistan to the Nazis, saying British forces are defending Western values rather than borders as they did in the Second World War.

Mr Hutton said that the military campaign in Afghanistan was "a vital national security mission" just as the battle against Hitler was.

It's wonderful to have the air cleared.

"The argument is very clear. This is where our national security is determined. We must tackle the threat at source, it's not just going to go away," he told The Times this week. "It is a struggle against fanatics that may not challenge our borders but challenges our way of life in the same way the Nazis did."

I hope he doesn't try to say that in the precincts of an American university.  He'll be tagged 1) a racist, 2) Islamophobic, 3) a lackey of the United States, and 4) a neo-colonialist.

"We have to stay the course," he said. "The key thing now is not that the Taleban or al-Qaeda can defeat us in Afghanistan, their tactic is to outlast us. That's what we've got to deal with. That's the nature of this counter-insurgency operation. It doesn't lend itself to instantaneous results. This is a very complex, challenging environment for us to be operating in."

Truth telling, truth telling.

Finally, a great statement:

As to whether there is any likelihood of peace in a country with such a history of war, he said: "You've got to understand history but you can't be a prisoner of it. "We make history. History doesn't set precedents. You've got to be prepared to get involved when something is wrong."

I wonder how long this man will keep his job.  For years, I hope.

December 20, 2008.      Permalink          

PART OF THE DAMAGE - AT 7:47 A.M. ET:  From Fox Business:  ALBANY, N.Y.--Gov. David Paterson said Friday that the loss of tax revenue from just six Goldman Sachs' (G: 8.06, 0.39, 5.08%) executives will cost New York $178 million.  The executives complied with the urging of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and others who said in November that major Wall Street companies benefiting from federal bailouts shouldn't pay out the usual huge bonuses to executives.

COMMENT:  This shows us just how sick things had become.

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER 19,  2008

OUR HEARTS BREAK FOR HARVARD - AT 11:23 P.M. ET:  From the Harvard Crimson:   Harvard Management Company announced Friday that compensation for its five highest-paid officials and former president totaled approximately $26.8 million for the year ending June 30—a turbulent time for both the markets and the company’s leadership.

Former endowment chief Mohamed A. El-Erian earned $921,000, while his five employees earned between $3.9 and $6.4 million each. The total figure represents a significant increase of 20 percent over that of the previous year, which saw total compensation of $22.3 million.

COMMENT:  I would love to know how much federal aid Harvard receives each year, and how much of it goes to pay the wildly exaggerated salaries of these "managers."  The president of the United States is paid $400,000 a year, and there's no shortage of applicants. 

THE GOOD NEWS ON OIL - AT 7:54 P.M. ET:  From The Washington Post:  Oil prices continued their slide today as worries about the global economic slump trumped recent efforts by oil-producing nations to prop up prices with massive production cuts. Analysts said prices may even dip below $30 a barrel before reversing course.

COMMENT:  Why should they reverse course?   If we have a sound energy policy in place, oil prices can be kept low.  And low oil prices can help the auto industry sell cars - if they make cars that people want.  But beware of upper-crust "environmentalists" - the kind who meet in Aspen - who want to drive oil prices up to teach those ignorant peasants out there a lesson.  They may have Obama's ear, which would be tragic.

DRIVE-BY LOOTING - AT 9:21 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  WASHINGTON – President Bush on Friday announced $13.4 billion in emergency loans to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, and another $4 billion available for the hobbled automakers in February with the entire bailout conditioned on the companies undertaking sweeping reorganization plans to show that they can return to profitability.

THE CLINTON FORTUNE

Posted at 8:54 a.m. ET

The issue of Bill Clinton's financial sources, and their possible effect on his wife's decisions as secretary of state, has come up repeatedly.  Now, the former president has released details on where the money comes from.  As they used to say on Laugh-In...very interesting.

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton has collected tens of millions of dollars for his foundation over the last 10 years from governments in the Middle East, tycoons from Canada, India, Nigeria and Ukraine, and other international figures with interests in American foreign policy.

And they're not always the class of the field.

Lifting a longstanding cloak of secrecy, Mr. Clinton on Thursday released a complete list of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation as part of an agreement to douse concerns about potential conflicts if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state in the Obama administration.

Wait, wait.  Did the story say "douse concerns"?  Look at this:

Saudi Arabia alone gave to the foundation $10 million to $25 million, as did government aid agencies in Australia and the Dominican Republic. Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar and Taiwan each gave more than $1 million. So did the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and the Dubai Foundation, both based in the United Arab Emirates, and the Friends of Saudi Arabia, founded by a Saudi prince.

Also among the largest donors were a businessman who was close to the onetime military ruler of Nigeria, a Ukrainian tycoon who was son-in-law of that former Soviet republic’s authoritarian president and a Canadian mining executive who took Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan while trying to win lucrative uranium contracts.

How precisely does that douse our concerns?  Are your concerns doused?

Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said donations from “countries where we have particularly sensitive issues and relations” would invariably raise concerns about whether Mrs. Clinton had conflicts of interest.

“The real question,” Mr. Levitt said, “is to what extent you can really separate the activities and influence of any husband and wife, and certainly a husband and wife team that is such a powerhouse.”

It is, to some, a matter of perception:

Mr. Clinton’s office said in a statement that the disclosure itself should ensure that there would be “not even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

There is a memorandum of understanding between Mr. Clinton and the Obama team:

The memorandum...requires that if Mrs. Clinton is confirmed, the Clinton Global Initiative, an offshoot of the foundation, will be incorporated separately, will no longer hold events outside the United States and will refuse any further contributions from foreign governments. Other initiatives operating under the auspices of the foundation would follow new rules and consult with State Department ethics officials in certain circumstances.

That's good, and thoughtful.  But the key question is whether dubious sources can hide their contributions behind, say, American partners.  Hardly an unknown tactic.

Fairness requires us to point out that other former presidents have taken "library" contributions from foreign sources.  Carter is notorious, and Bush 41 has sources in the Middle East. 

It would probably best for former presidents to decline all foreign contributions to libraries, or at least make them public as soon as they're received.  Right now there is virtually no guaranteed transparency, and money does talk.

The effect on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?  We don't know yet, but decisions she makes involving countries from which checks came should be subjected to special scrutiny.

December 19, 2008.      Permalink          

DRIVE, THEY SAID - AT 8:07 A.M. ET:   DETROIT/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - General Motors Corp and Chrysler are close to securing emergency loans as part of a U.S. government aid package that would demand sweeping restructuring at the troubled automakers, according to sources familiar with the talks.  Bridge loans to carry the companies for several months could be announced as early as Friday, said the sources, who were not authorized to publicly discuss the negotiations.

COMMENTS:  That would place the ball in Obama's court about February.  Bailout out big auto is unpopular with the public, and the issue is how much political capital Obama would be willing to spend.

MINNESOTA MADNESS - AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- Sen. Norm Coleman saw his lead over Al Franken in Minnesota's U.S. Senate race dwindle to just two votes Thursday. Meanwhile, a key court ruling put hundreds of improperly rejected ballots in play and promised the recount would drag into the new year.

COMMENT:  Looks like it'll be Sen. Al Franken.  If he were a Republican, with the obscene things he's written about women, the political establishment would be up in arms.  But left-wing politics trumps all, so there is silence.   

EMBARRASSMENT

Posted at 7:33 a.m. ET

Readers have probably noticed that we've emphasized the Caroline Kennedy story, and for good reason:  Her appointment to the U.S. Senate by Governor David Paterson would be a national, even an international story.  She would immediately, voluntarily or not, be part of the presidential sweepstakes.  And she has three children approaching office-holding age. 

There is also the issue of propriety, of appearance.  The national press is still treating this as a bit of a feature story.  However, Judith Warner in The New York Times has written a fine piece articulating what many here in New York feel.  I never thought I'd be quoting Judith Warner, but give credit where it's due:

Caroline Kennedy is, by all accounts, a smart, decent and very capable woman. There is no reason why she shouldn’t enter politics and why she couldn’t have a good shot at winning an election.

That doesn’t mean she should be handed Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacated United States Senate seat.

Running for office and getting a high-class government handout are two very different things.

That's the point.  Even Hillary Clinton, no queen of propriety, ran for the Senate when she came to New York, in her last year as first lady.  It was widely calculated that, had the GOP put up a credible candidate, she could have been defeated.  The GOP did not put up a strong candidate.

We are living in a moment when all the machinations, the corner-cutting, the inside deals, mutual back-scratching and indifference to the larger world of our nation’s wealthiest and most interconnected have led us straight into the ground. We’ve just elected a president who’s sworn to clean things up. We’re in the middle of a political-appointment fiasco in Illinois.

Thanks for reminding us of Illinois.  We have one Senate-appointment scandal.  We don't need another.

With lawmakers and taxpayers eyeing bonuses and corporate jets with angry incredulity, we’ve arrived, after years of worshipping the very wealthy, at what could be a very positive time of reckoning. This change could go a long way toward restoring people’s faith in the fairness and decency of our leaders and institutions.

In keeping with the times, it would be an appealing act of humility if Caroline Kennedy aimed her first shot at politics a bit lower — say, at the House of Representatives.

Or, she could become an ambassador to a developing nation and try to do some good.

I do think that the next United States senator from New York ought to be someone who has worked for the honor. Clearly, Caroline can’t, for the sake of her political viability — or her likability with people like me — suddenly remake herself into someone who has worked for a living. But at this point, with so many people struggling so arduously just to get by, any effort at all would be appreciated.

Finally...

Caroline doesn’t have to be a fairy-tale princess anymore. She can be her own white knight, vaulting the Kennedys proudly into the 21st century, if only she plays by the rules and waits her turn.

I think that says it very well.  If Governor Paterson appoints her, it just will send a very bad signal at a very sensitive time.  If some hack is appointed in Illinois to fill the Obama seat, that signal will flash with double intensity.  Is this the change we can believe in?

December 19, 2008.      Permalink          

PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS - AT 6:58 A.M. ET:  From the New York Daily News:   Caroline Kennedy wants to be the next senator from New York, but her voting record is already spotty, the Daily News has found.  City Board of Elections records show Kennedy has failed to vote in many elections since she registered in the city in 1988 - including votes for the Senate seat she hopes to fill and numerous Democratic faceoffs for mayor.

COMMENT:  I'd love to see the spin on this:  "Well, she was so busy helping children that day..."  The press is starting to ask some tough questions, but she's not facing what Sarah Palin faced.

QUOTE OF THE DAY (SO FAR) - AT 6:55 A.M. ET:  From Charles Krauthammer, on Caroline Kennedy's possible appointment to the U.S. Senate:  "Every state is entitled to representation in the Senate.  Camelot is not a state."