A Brazilian Weapon in the War on Terror?

From the Weekly Standard: USAF looking at Brazilian-made counter-insurgency aircraft? Embraer's Super Tucano bridges a gap between our jets and helicopters, in the mold of the AC130. I'll be interested to hear what the military has to say about them.

Global Warming Caused Darfur Genocide

Or so claims the UN. I'm not surprised to hear arguments about the existence of an environmental component to the troubles in the Horn of Africa, but acknowledging this won't end the suffering of people there any time soon. And going back to a previous post about the evils of oil, one of the reasons the UN is reduced to decrying climate change as a root of genocide is oil. The Chinese have cozied up to Khartoum and in exchange for their oil resources, have watched Sudan's back at Turtle Bay.

Paris Hilton, Arrowhead Ripper, Barry Bonds

Which of these things is not like the other? IBD slams the media for its paltry (and often distorted) coverage of Arrowhead Ripper, and suggests that it's got the potential to really change the dynamic. Just as important, it praises Michael Yon. Read up.

Fred and CAIR

It's times like this that I find myself liking Fred Thompson a lot. He's saying the right things on the big issues, but I'm still not certain if there's any substance behind all of this buzz.

CAFE Standards, Gas Taxes, and Winning the War on Terror

One of the rare times when I agree with Democrats (and in fact most of the political spectrum is united in this) is when they call for ending our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously the greatest flaw in our "war on terror" (a misnomer in my view: war on Islamo-fascism is better and too rarely used) is the fact that every time we go to the pump we fund our enemies. It is after all Saudi petrodollars that are flowing into the coffers of jihadist groups worldwide, where they are then spent to further their struggle against the US and the West. But the $64,000 question has always been what do we do about this?

Democrats have a rather wrong-headed approach to reducing our dependence on imported oil (remember, if it's not coming from the Middle East, it's likely coming from Venezuela, another unfriendly regime). The central plank of their new energy policy, passed 65-27 in the Senate this week, are increasing CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards and boosting ethanol production. as well as mandating that consumers be offered alternative-fuel cars. I have two big problems with this package and a host of smaller ones.

Obviously, I feel like this is too much government regulation of the auto industry - consumers demanding more fuel-efficient cars will deliver them too. I also feel that they're working towards the right thing (energy independence) for the wrong reasons (environmentalism) and through the wrong means (big government).

I also feel that their insistence on increasing ethanol production (sevenfold in the next fifteen or so years) is wrong-headed because it's done with an eye towards domestic lobbies, particularly in the Midwest. Yes, we have lots of corn. And yes, corn can be distilled into ethanol. But corn isn't the most efficient source of ethanol - however sugar is. So while it would make sense to produce sugar-based ethanol, that requires far more sugar than the domestic sugar industry could provide and would thus necessitate importing raw cane; it goes without saying that the domestic sugar lobby will not allow that (I hate agricultural special interests). In effect, everyone's embrace of corn-based ethanol is misguided and largely symbolic (it's a nasty side-effect of the Iowa caucuses being so prominent); some studies also suggest that producing ethanol from corn (because it's so inefficient) actually releases more greenhouse gases than are saved with the alternative fuel - which if you're wrapping yourself in the mantle of environmentalism when you call for these measures is rather self-defeating!

CAFE standards are also ineffective and misguided, as was pointed out in Opinion Journal last month. More efficient cars may actually cause consumers to drive more, thus negating much of the intended savings of both imported gasoline and exhaust emissions. It's also suggested that the smaller cars that CAFE produces are less safe and result in at least 3,200 more deaths a year. And increased CAFE standards won't save Detroit: just making them competitive with Asian imports in terms of economy don't solve the long-term issue of healthcare and pension costs, the real killers of the Big 3.

All of this isn't to say that there are no solutions: there are, but they require political courage and entail something more than symbolic efforts and slaps at the auto industry. I am of course talking about a gas tax. Mort Kondracke had a great piece in yesterday's Roll Call, laying out all of the benefits while acknowledging the unlikelihood of any politician having the gumption to call for such a tax. We pay nothing for our gas compared to the rest of the world, and its low cost is one of the reasons we're such a vast consumer. But putting those very consumers on the hot seat would instantly produce the kind of pressure on the automakers that Washington's looking for. Currently, the US average for gas taxes (state and federal) is $.42 a gallon. Aka nothing. In 2003, the country used some 360 million gallons of gas; even a dollar per gallon tax would be a significant source of revenue, despite the necessary rebates to low-income drivers and likely the trucking industry (who would otherwise just pass the costs on to consumers). This revenue could be used for research as Kondracke suggests, though I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of government doing so because it'll be inefficient or paying down the deficit or any number of other useful things. Perhaps we could recognize that we need to stop buying foreign oil because those who sell it want us dead and instead funnel the revenues to the military, paying for better benefits for veterans or the like. Long-term, it will bring down our consumption of gasoline and the market will generate a demand for cheaper fuel sources and more efficient cars. All that's needed is some spine in Washington.

UPDATE: Check out Glenn Reynolds' take on the issue.

Book Review: Freakonomics

I'll admit that Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything came out more than two years ago and despite its being widely well-received, I only now got around to reading it. Sorry.

That being said, I found it much as promised: lacking a unifying theme, almost delightfully random, and really insightful. Levitt's work has clearly moved economics past its burdensome title of the "dismal science" into a more accessible and enlightening realm. I also found it noteworthy to show what economists can do given the right data. Anyways, a brief, shallow two cents.


Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Michael Yon on Arrowhead Ripper

Read it and pass it on. This guy's doing great work that the much of the rest of the media refuses to do.

You Just Can't Please Some Guys

From PJM:

Six long-held captives at Guantánamo were sent home, two to Tunisia and four to Yemen, the Pentagon said Tuesday, swiftly drawing denunciations from human rights groups.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York identified one of the Tunisians as detainee Abdullah bin Omar, 51, and said his return “put him at grave risk for torture and abuse.” (Miami Herald)

Democrats and the Media

Some Democrats have gotten it into their head that the media is biased. Against them. Yes to the first, an emphatic no to the second. Certainly conservative voices are the majority on talk radio, and yes Fox is a pretty successful cable news channel, but liberals still maintain their stranglehold on ABC/NBC/CBS, NPR (with our tax dollars, mind you), as well as the major print organs (mind you, the influence of all of these is waning, as Brian Anderson points out in South Park Conservatives, reviewed here).

But even these, some on the left (especially the far left) feel are anti-Democrat, Bush-hugging mouthpieces for those crazy Republicans to spread their gospel. Beyond reminding them to take their pills, here are some fun facts.

According to MSNBC, media figures favor Democrats with their political donations something like 9-1. If that's not a blatant sign of favoritism, I don't know what is. And the money is merely the most visible evidence. While not all reporters are as biased as say, Dan Rather, we're all human and thus largely unable to keep our prejudices from affecting the way we do our jobs (There's some discussion of this, especially how unconscious discrimination can be) in Freakonomics).

Returning to talk radio, Think Progress (a.k.a American Socialists) have released a report on the reasons for conservative bias on that medium and how to counter it. Their recommendations are almost laughable: increase diversity of ownership. Of course this will be the government's job in their eyes...But what I'm curious about is how they define "progressive" radio? Should we simply pipe in the news from Venezuela and Cuba? Or do we need to dig up Stalin's speeches and rebroadcast them? But what we have to remember in the first place is the reason that conservatives dominate talk radio is because the AM airwaves were empty and because conservatives couldn't get a say in the Old Media outlets. In essence, they circumvented the MSM and thus gained the wrath of the Left by not only spreading their message but doing so effectively.

Oh and MSNBC also released a list of all donating journalists (I don't know if they covered everyone): check to see if your favorite is on here.

Bush > Congress

At least so far as Gallup is concerned, that is. Their latest shows Congress's approval rating at a dismal 14%, the institution's lowest since Gallup began polling in 1973. The other period when its ratings were so dismal was in the years preceding the Republican Revolution; why is it Democrats seem unable to run Congress effectively? Someone recently proclaimed this a lame-duck Congress and I'm beginning to agree with them.

In other news, the RCP average has Bush at 31.3%

More Ron Paul

Of everyone running or possibly running for president, I've had the dubious honor to meet only two: Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel. I've met Paul twice, once when he spoke to a group I was with and once when I (quite literally) wandered into his office. Though I disagree with him on a wide array of things, I do think he's that rarest of things, an honest pol. Therefore I'll link to this American Conservative article about him.

Democrats and Choice

I've come to realize that when Democrats talk about "choice," you usually have to get suspicious. Like the "Employee Free Choice Act," involving unionization procedures. For decades now, the standard has been secret balloting by employees as they decide whether or not to unionize. But Democrats, in what they illogically describe as choice, want it to be conducted by the so-called "card-check" method which is less secret and thus more open to intimidation. I'd suggest you call your Senators - this little bit of ugly is up for a vote this week.

John Fund had a great piece in yesterday's OpJo here.
Senator McConnell has an op-ed on it here.

More Russian Shenanigans

So I noted last week that Vladi Putin's Russia is selling diesel submarines to Venezuela. Now it comes out that they're also selling advanced warplanes to Syria. As the Economist has ably noted for months now, Russia has been throwing its economic weight around in Europe through manipulation of its natural gas exports. What's also emerging is a pattern of their trying to influence world affairs without using their military, which is hardly able to do so anymore. I'll have enormous respect for any presidential candidate that find the cajones to publicly denounce Putin and his meddling.

Obama's Dirty Laundry

From CQ: Apparently Obama's ties to indicted Chicago fundraiser Tony Rezko are deeper than the junior Senator from Illinois previously admitted.


Hillary should do her competitor a minor favor and tell him to do a better job of hiding his dirty laundry.

Let's see if this thing's got legs.

An Unseen Timewarp?

I often feel like between the West and much of the Muslim world, there is an unseen timewarp that one passes through. Certainly, we could dismiss misogyny (including limits on their freedom and genital mutilation) as traditional or embrace it thanks to multiculturalism, to name one example. But I think a prerequisite for modernity is freedom of expression and religion. Just to cite another example, see the brouhaha over Queen Elizabeth's knighting of Salman Rushdie. He's an important author, therefore he deserves to be knighted. But because he also dissed Islam (pretty easy to do, I've probably already done so), the Muslim world is screaming bloody murder. There's the obligatory flag and effigy burning (Queen and Rushdie) in Pakistan, where the religious minister also said the act justified suicide bombing. The Iranian government has claimed it's a sign of institutional Islamophobia in the West - which goes to show how delusional these folks are.

This hasn't gotten too much traction in the MSM, no doubt because it disturbs their vision of Islam as a "religion of peace." But imagine their outrage if homophobic groups had loudly protested the Queen's knighting of Sir Elton. A bright spot (so far) is that in contrast to the Danish cartoons fracas, European Muslims haven't gotten in on the act yet.

I think I miss the days when burning the Queen in effigy would result in the Royal Navy putting aboard a landing party to chastise the cheeky natives. The world may not have been kind back then (it never has been) but at least it was somewhat predictable and controllable.

Nifon Disbarred

After resigning Friday, Durham County DA Mike Nifong was disbarred yesterday. While on some level he is an utterly pitiable sight - unemployed, unable to work in his field now, etc. - but in my eyes he deserves it. He set out to wreck the lives of three entirely innocent Duke students, for nothing more than pure political gain. He deserves every bit of this, including the public shame.

Karma

Looters raid Arafat's home, steal his Nobel Peace Prize.

h/t Instanpundit