The civilized world represents the victory of persuasion over force.
Plato
Law of the Sea Treaty Defeated: Thumbs UP!
I had been planning to post a commentary on LOST for some time now, but a current development led me to address it now.
Three GOP senators (from New Hampshire, Ohio, and Georgia) added their names to a list of 31 opponents compiled by Sen. DeMint (R-SC) opposing the long-pending Treaty of the Sea, effectively killing treaty approval, requiring a two-thirds vote.
I realize that a string of Secretaries of State (including Republicans) support the Law of the Sea Treaty, not to mention the Chamber of Commerce. Why would I oppose it? Let me point out a few reasons:
- Americans would have to pay royalties for mineral extraction off our own coasts, constituting a de facto tax to an unaccountable authority
- Americans will pay a disproportionate amount of costs (including enforcement)
- Unaccountable international law (e.g., environmental restrictions), not to mention international scope creep, can override existing liberties or regulations of American people and companies
- There is moral hazard of freeloader nations/groups sharing in royalties without sharing in the costs/risks of seamining
- What compelling reasons are there for expanding laws beyond existing freedom of the seas doctrine? The current treaty is dated, ill-defined and raises more questions than answers. It is no panacea; for example, China and nearby Pacific nations are signatories to the treaty with no clean resolution of competing territorial claims. This is a straightforward application of Ockham's razor.
- The UN has been notoriously corrupt (remember the Food for Oil scandal?) and hopelessly wasteful with financing and accountability to date. The UN needs significant reforms before we could ever have confidence in the International Seabed Authority.
Is the GOP Catching Up to Dems on Campaign Technology?
Clinton's win over incumbent President GHW Bush in part was based on an aggressive "instant response" team. It seems that Dems often exploited technological change to the point of a competitive advantage, most recently in the 2008 Obama campaign's remarkably affected fund-raising via the Internet. But FTN moderator Bob Schieffer was stunned by a Romney campaign ad running during Face the Nation which featured a clip of Schieffer earlier in the program putting Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod on the spot, asking whatever became of "hope and change"...
Just a note here on the campaign: Stephanie Cutter of the Obama campaign has annoyed me enough now on a couple of occasions (e.g., during the June 24 FTN) that I think it's time to debunk her politically spun nonsense as well like I've done to Plouffe and others. It's time that conservatives take the gloves off. I will say this much for the Romney campaign: I've now heard Eric Fehrnstrom on a couple of occasions, and he is probably one of the most impressive GOP political advisers I've seen, politically astute like Karl Rove, but someone whom won't hesitate mixing it up with the Obama campaign talking heads. He and I would disagree over RomneyCare (although I admire the process of what Romney did, especially in fending off more radical, dysfunctional reforms and navigating a major piece of legislation through a Democratic-dominated legislature). I still believe that the real issue in Massachusetts is, and has been, an overregulated system sorely in need of free market reforms.
Video Editorial: Lee Doren, 33 Times to Repeal ObamaCare? Thumbs UP!
I recently discussed this topic when Speaker John Boehner was questioned on Sunday talk soup recently. I know that this was a gross exaggeration and intellectually dishonest of the mainstream media. Perhaps it's an artifact of my Internet search; I know Doren mentions Ezra Klein. I see a Twitter feed on July 11 mentioning more than 30 ObamaCare votes and 0 replace. I see a July 9 Sarah Kliff post on Klein's blog to the same effect. I do know White House
It is utterly irrational, of course, to believe that the House would vote on the measure 33 times, as if the first 32 didn't count, which is clearly implied by lumping apples and oranges in the same total. This is deceptive, disingenuous Democrat abuse of statistics as usual. Most of the other votes dealt with specific aspects of the 2700-page bill, as Doren points out, not the bill as a whole.
I've noticed since the abominable ObamaCare decision that there are the noxious condescending "let's move on" opinions (by ObamaCare proponents, of course). Not a chance: we had 4 justices say that the whole law should be thrown out--and we're talking about 17% of GDP. And if you look at the long string of weekly Rasmussen ratings on ObamaCare, the highest proponents have ever listed is 44% approval (post-ruling: 39-42%) Let's put it this way: if the "let's move on" folks were correct (and not simply engaging in wishful thinking) and were correct in seeing the issue as a loser for the GOP, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be putting the repeal bill up for a vote. There's only one real reason why he won't: because a number of Democrats are up for reelection this fall, and that law is unpopular in their states. The last thing these senators want to do is to be put on the spot and give their opponents another vote to run against. Whereas Democrats are quick to point out, as I have, that Senators and the President would likely kill the House repeal, they aren't confident that independents and moderates are with them; many people, in fact, have seen premiums go up over the past year attributed to ObamaCare implementation after being promised that Big Government would bring DOWN health care costs...
The "33 times" rhetoric, Doren points out, includes various aspects of the law (e.g., the highly unpopular $600-threshold transaction small business 1099 reporting requirement). I have said all along: since ObamaCare had been tied up in court almost immediately after its passage, there was a possibility that the repeal would take place through the courts giving Democrats the equivalent of a political "free play": they could argue with angry constituents that their votes didn't count anyway (beyond current session funding).
New Kings of Sand Castles:
Dig, Baby, Dig!
One of the few bright spots in the economy has been the natural gas boom, made possible by revolutionary hydraulic fracturing in new energy boom states like North Dakota, Texas, and Pennsylvania: this has resulted in sharply lower prices for operating relevant household appliances and power plants, allowing household income to stretch a little further (and, for environmentalists, a bittersweet message: the US's carbon emissions have plummeted, as natural gas power generation as in many cases replaced coal-fired plants, which Mark Perry of Carpe Diem regularly points out, e.g., here).
The technology uses a mix of water, chemicals, and silica sand (also used for glassmaking and other industrial applications). The mix is pumped at high pressure at shale rock containing trapped oil and gas; frac sands basically prop up openings for the oil and gas to escape into the wellbore.
Silica sands are particularly abundant in southeastern Minnesota and west-central Wisconsin, and privately-held mineral rights have created new "sand millionaires" and an infusion of good-paying jobs. Of course, the environmentalists and other local protesters aren't happy, protesting related traffic congestion, the effects of mining on the local ecology, local businesses, public health, and competing land uses, etc.
Political Humor
California is so broke that Mexico fixed the hole in the fence to keep us from crawling back in again. - Jay Leno
[California is so broke that it has started recycling old politicians at the governor's mansion.]
In an interview with CBS, President Obama said the biggest mistake of his first term was not telling a story to give Americans a sense of unity. In response, Americans were like, “Yeah, fixing the economy would’ve been cool too.” - Jimmy Fallon
[Gee, and Bill Clinton said, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."...
No, Obama is the most overexposed President in history and has damaged the prestige of the office he holds with nonstop campaigning and frequent, poorly chosen appearances on television shows, public criticisms of his predecessors, his political opponents and the Supreme Court, apologies to anti-American audiences. etc. What we need is less political spin and more straight talk, fewer addresses and more leadership, fewer vacations and rounds of golf and more action on solving problems of economic uncertainty, chronic overspending and unsustainable entitlements....
Relevant Excerpt: A Little Less Conversation by Mac Davis and Billy Strange
A little less conversation a little more action,
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me,
A little more bite a little less bark,
A little less fight and a little more spark,
Close your mouth
Don't procrastinate,
Don't articulate,
You just sit and wait around.
]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Who, "Who Are You?"
