Displaying posts published in

2016

The Green Unreality Show Politicians from 175 countries agree to keep doing whatever they intended to do anyway. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

The climate deal negotiated in Paris and signed in New York Friday is not a treaty. It is not enforceable against the U.S. or anybody else. It waves vaguely at the idea of a $100 billion adjustment fund for poorer countries, to be filled in later by somebody else, maybe.

Like all such international agreements, it’s a giant PR exercise designed to put a global imprimatur on what domestic politicians want to do anyway. In China and India, that’s grow their energy output any way they can. In President Obama’s case, it’s continue to dish out green mandates and subsidies that please his entourage.

Economist Bruce Yandle coined the term bootleggers and Baptists for political coalitions of true believers and their more self-interested fellow travelers. The climate movement is the ultimate example.

Having ginned up a climate “crisis” in the first place, it’s almost as if the movement has ginned up a fake victory to keep the game going. This week’s signing was preceded by an outpouring of fishy studies in the press about how renewable energy is on the verge of solving the problem.

The most paradoxical claim, regularly aired in the New York Times, is that the fate of the planet depends on how you vote in the U.S. presidential race because solar power is falling rapidly in cost and is now competitive with fossil fuels.

Well, then it doesn’t matter how you vote. Cheaper solar energy will displace fossil energy for purely economic reasons.

The fragment of truth here is that the cost of solar collectors has come down thanks to Chinese production, but this represents a small fraction of the actual cost of integrating solar into the power system.

Solar is free; the sun does not send us a bill. But solar is only competitive to the extent that fossil-fuel plants remain on hand to provide backup power when the sun is not shining. Unfortunately, fossil-fuel plant economics deteriorate rapidly when plants must stop and start to make up for fluctuating wind and solar. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Optimistic Conservatism of Passover By Ruth R. Wisse

Rehearse the story of liberty gained and be humble—honor what has gone before.

I associate conservatism with optimism and its synonyms—hopefulness, sanguinity, positivity and confidence. American Jews are often associated with a gutted liberalism, but that is a caricature. A more intimate understanding of the Jewish experience connects it to an optimistic conservatism that could help secure America’s future.

I’m particularly reminded of that connection as Jews celebrate the eight days of Passover beginning Friday at sundown. Passover is the festival of freedom when Jews commemorate and re-experience the biblical story of their passage from slavery under Pharaoh in Egypt to freedom, first in the desert, then in the Land of Israel.
Emphasizing the importance of decentralized authority and individual responsibility, the escape from Egypt is celebrated not in the synagogue but in the home, among family and invited guests who join for the ceremony of the Seder, which means order. Following a ritual text called the Haggada, families retell the story as recounted in the Book of Exodus, and eat the unleavened bread that the Children of Israel took with them when they fled in the middle of the night.

When I took over from my mother the organization of Passover for our family what I felt most keenly was the paradox—the incongruity of it all. The cleaning and cooking preparations for Passover are so demanding that in the weeks leading up to it, obsessive-compulsive personalities come into their own. I could not get beyond these questions: If we were breaking for freedom, why these weeks of preparation? If we were recalling harsh conditions, which was it—the dry matzo and bitter herbs, or the chicken soup with matzo balls and the best meal of the year?

And that is how the association of conservatism with hopefulness began for me, and how it is further reinforced every year. Freedom was not decamping to Hawaii to become a surfer, not experimenting with drugs or with sexual conquests—not getting away from, but readying oneself for, the enjoyment of freedom. The Passover ritual of re-experiencing the Exodus helped me figure out the constituent elements of freedom that were crafted over many centuries:

First, a people is not defined by its experience of slavery, but neither does self-liberation happen once and for all. The temptation of slavery is always there, the part of us that wants to return to a stage of dependency, to the relative security of having the overseers regulating life. Those who do not reinforce the responsibilities of freedom will be returned to the house of bondage.

Second, the Passover ritual calls for humility—not to reduce our self-confidence, but rather to harness our capacities to the larger civic purpose of a free society. Friedrich Nietzsche was concerned that the Judeo-Christian tradition squelched the greatness of the emergent individual. The constitutional civilization that Passover celebrates is wary of the hubris of individuals who think themselves too good to “merely” reinforce what others have achieved before us.

One other item of Passover consolidated my conservative hope for change—the section about the relation of optimism to evil. It’s one that makes liberals queasy. “Pour Out Thy Wrath!” is a collection of verses from Psalms and Lamentations that calls on God to punish not the Jews who obey his laws but—for a change!—the evildoers who want to destroy them.

Needless to say, this section about confronting the enemy was the first part of the Passover Haggada that was eliminated by self-styled Jewish progressives, by the Bernie Sanders constituency of the Jewish people. That constituency gets very angry—but it pours out its wrath on its own people instead of on its destroyers. And let’s acknowledge that when you have no incentive for aggression, it is hard even to voice aggression.CONTINUE AT SITE

Two British Men Sentenced to Life for Terrorism Plot Senior officials say on average there is one arrest a day of Syria-linked terror suspects in the U.K. By Alexis Flynn

LONDON—Two British men convicted of plotting Islamic State-inspired shooting attacks on the streets of London were each handed life sentences by a judge on Friday, concluding a high-profile case that was among the first to show how extremists returning from Syria were targeting European cities.
The sentencing came as U.K. authorities warn of an unprecedented threat posed by hundreds of fighters on foreign soil who have started to return to their homes, some intending to carry out mass atrocities like those in Paris and Brussels.
Tarik Hassane, a 22-year-old former medical student nicknamed “The Surgeon,” and Suhaib Majeed, 22, an Iraqi-born physics student, were last month found guilty of planning to kill a police officer or soldier with a silencer-equipped pistol.

“It is shocking, tragic and deplorable that you, two British young men, educated through the U.K. system, undertaking university courses, should be so influenced by the bloodthirsty version of Islam presented by ISIS and other similarly minded groups, that you decided to take up arms against your fellow British citizens and those charged with protecting them in the streets of your own city,” said Judge Alan Wilkie.

The plan by the self-styled “Turnup Terror Squad,” as the men named a WhatsApp group where they discussed their plans, was foiled when authorities arrested them in the fall of 2014.

Police and security sources have said the plot was among the most serious that they had uncovered in recent years, and one of the first to be linked to the conflict in Syria.

Mr. Hassane, who is of Saudi Arabian and Moroccan origin, said he traveled to the war-torn country in 2013, where he associated with foreign fighters. Authorities say they believe he received training there. Mr. Hassane admitted in a pre-sentencing submission to the court that he had handled firearms while in Syria. CONTINUE AT SITE

Dr. Haim Shine: Our Exodus continues

Under the heel of suffocating tyranny, we became a nation of survivors who will not give up our faith, our religion and our right to live.

When the sun sets and the first stars appear on Friday evening, more than 6 million Jews in Israel will gather around their Passover Seder tables.

Sitting at beautifully set tables in cities, villages, kibbutzim and outposts, we will tell the story of our Exodus from Egypt. We will describe how persecuted, oppressed, exhausted slaves decided that they were a nation, woke up at midnight, and began the longest journey in the history of mankind, a journey that is still ongoing and will never end. The children of slaves turned overnight into the children of kings, ready and willing to pay the price of freedom.

It has been thousands of years since the Exodus. The call to “Let my people go” moved hearts and nurtured the yearning for freedom. Freedom fighters adopted the songs of the liberated slaves, adding a new dimension to human dignity, equality and basic humanity.

For 2,000 years, the Jews wandered around the world without resting. Tyrants and villains made every effort to wipe the Jews out of existence. No other nation could have survived the pressure, the horrors, the destruction and the genocide.

Under the heel of suffocating tyranny, we became a nation of survivors who will never give up our faith, our religion and our right to live. The Jewish ability to survive finds its source in the same feeling of freedom that has beat in the heart of every Jew since the Exodus. It is impossible to defeat the children of kings, whose spirit rises up even if their bodies are downtrodden. The Jews spoke of the Exodus each day, and their prayers expressed hope to return to Jerusalem, the eternal city.

Oxford, Cambridge Threatening to Break Ties With National Student Union Over New President Accused of Antisemitism, Supporting ISIS

Top universities in Britain are threatening to break ties with the country’s National Union of Students (NUS) following its recent election of a new controversial president accused of making antisemitic, anti-Israel and terror-sympathizing comments, the UK’s Daily Mail reported.

Students at Cambridge and Oxford announced on Thursday that they would be holding referendums on whether to split from the NUS following the election of Malia Bouattia, the report said. In 2014, while speaking at a “pro-resistance” event celebrating “Gaza and the Palestinian revolution,” Bouattia asserted that it is “problematic” to consider that “Palestine will be free” only by means of “non-violent protest.” In 2011, while attending the University of Birmingham, she called the school “a Zionist outpost” with the “largest [Jewish Society] in the country.” Bouattia has also previously attacked what she called “Zionist-led media outlets,” the report said, and more recently, voted against a NUS motion condemning ISIS because it would be “blatant Islamophobia.”

Prior to her election, Bouattia’s candidacy caused an uproar across many universities in Britain. Fifty-seven Jewish student leaders penned an open letter to the would-be president, asking her to clarify her positions. In response, Bouattia claimed she was not an antisemite, rather an anti-Zionist. “I want to be clear that for me to take issue with Zionist politics, is not me taking issue with being Jewish,” she wrote.

NUS members have now launched a campaign to disaffiliate from the student organization, the Daily Mail reported, following Bouattia’s election. Students from the universities of Durham, York, Westminster, Birmingham, Edinburgh, King’s College of London and the London School of Economics have offered their support for the disassociation campaign. On social media, Facebook pages are encouraging students to cancel their memberships with NUS.

MY SAY: TODAY IS EARTH DAY AND THE BEGINNING OF “CLIMATE EDUCATION” WEEK

Earth day 2016 TURN LIGHTS OFF
Earth Hour 2016 will be held on Saturday 19 March between 8.30PM and … The first thing anyone can do to get involved is to turn off their lights on Saturday. … the lights are turned off at the end of the business day the Friday before Earth Hour …
My Earth Day Message:
Keep the home lights burning…..RSK

The President’s Climate-Change Agenda Will Cost American Families : Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas District 21)

Last December, President Obama and his environmental-activist political appointees traveled to Paris to persuade other nations to sign up for his radical climate-change agenda. This administration doesn’t care that many Americans believe climate change is exaggerated, that the scientific justification used for his regulations are flimsy, or that the models he uses to predict climate-change impacts are often biased. Instead, the administration recently launched investigations to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them.

If climate change is the real threat the Obama administration says it is, and the science is as “settled” as we are told by the liberal national media, why does the administration need to use tactics often reserved for the mafia to try to protect its own interests? What is the administration afraid of?

A few days ago, the president signed the United Nation’s Paris climate-change agreement, knowingly entering America into a contract that puts us at an economic disadvantage. Hardworking American taxpayers don’t want their government to work against their economic interests. And the president’s promises will do little to impact climate change.

The former head of the Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy Office, Charles McConnell, testified before the House Science Committee that the Clean Power Plan, the cornerstone of the president’s climate agenda, will reduce sea-level rise by the thickness of three sheets of paper. The same regulation would also reduce global temperatures by a measly 0.03 degrees Celsius, yet the plan, if implemented, would cost billions of dollars annually. That is all pain and no gain.

Another Obama Legacy: Americans Will Pay Billions for a Useless Climate Agreement By Oren Cass

Today, Earth Day, President Obama will attach America’s name to the Paris Climate Agreement. Greatly affected, according to gushing accounts in the press, will be the president’s “legacy.” Unaffected, according to math, will be the threat of climate change. And left holding the bill, as seems to happen with each new acquisition for the Obama presidential library, will be the American people.

The agreement’s uselessness stems from its negotiating structure. Each country submitted a pledge of climate action, each pledge was accepted without question, and the sum of those pledges became the deal. Doe-eyed diplomats at the United Nations envisioned this process creating an “upward spiral of ambition,” as they phrased it during the 2014 Bonn Climate Conference. But the major developing countries, whose rapidly rising greenhouse-gas emissions are the driving force behind fears of climate change, care more about economic growth for their impoverished populations. So, as I wrote at National Review Online in December, they submitted pledges to continue with business as usual.

China pledged that its emissions would peak “around 2030,” precisely when the U.S. government’s national laboratory had already estimated the peak would occur. India’s pledge amounted to a slowdown from its current rate of progress. Pakistan said simply that it would “reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible,” which offers nothing beyond a definition of the word “peak.”

Unsurprisingly, the sum of many pledges to do nothing is: nothing. When the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compiled the pledges and compared them with its own preexisting projection, it found a temperature reduction by 2100 of only 0.2°C. When the analysts compared the pledges with the projection created by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000, they found no improvement at all.

GOP Convention’s Task: Find a Party Unifier By Jonah Goldberg —

What are political conventions for?

If you’ve ever been to one, you might think the purpose is for attendees to schmooze, drink, and drink some more. That holds true both for the delegates and for the journalists, who usually outnumber them by at least three to one.

But that’s not actually why political conventions exist. They’re sort of like volunteer fire departments that almost never get a call. It’s not that the firefighters don’t want to put out fires, but until they’re needed, they’re pretty happy to play cards, watch movies, and eat chili. They understand that when the call actually comes, the game ends, the TV goes off, and the boots go on.

Originally, conventions were partly a technological solution to a real problem. Phones didn’t exist and mail was too slow to coordinate the desires of the party faithful across a whole nation. (Also, few negotiators want to put all of their bargaining positions in writing.) You needed lots of face-to-face meetings.

By the 1960s, the telephone started to erode this function of conventions, as my American Enterprise Institute colleague Michael Barone has written.

Barone also notes that the media took one of the key jobs away from party bosses: counting delegates. The first media delegate count wasn’t until 1968, by CBS News.

Not long thereafter, conventions started to resemble infomercials. A political party throws a surprise party for the nominee that isn’t a surprise, because the nominee was determined well before the convention. In fact, the nominee is actually the party-planner-in-chief, choosing who sings his praises and when. The ending is no more in doubt than the question of whether the Ginsu knife in the TV ad will really be able to cut through the can.

But the core purpose of conventions never disappeared. It just got buried under all of the bunting and balloons. Even the communication function of the convention was a means to an end, not the end itself.

The real goal was to pick a nominee who could unify the party. That’s it. It wasn’t to pick a nominee who could win in November. That’s a huge consideration, but it was only one (very important) factor in deliberations over who should get the nomination.

Obama’s Cuban Policy Is Changing the U.S. More Than It’s Changing Cuba By John Fund —

After President Obama moved on his own to normalize relations with Cuba, White House officials told reporters they were confident that the thaw between the countries would result in positive change in Cuba. How’s that working out?

Not well. Political dissidents were rounded up before and after Obama’s visit last month. The Columbia Journalism Review noted that last week’s Communist Party Congress was “a particularly opaque affair, even by Cuban standards. Raúl Castro emphatically rejected new reforms during the opening speech.” “Julie Martinez,” a Havana secretary who asked that her real name not be used, told the Financial Times: “The same [80-year old] leaders and the same [lack of] reforms. . . . Am I supposed to wait till I’m their age to see some real change?”

Castro supporters are crowing that the Cuban regime has gained new credibility and legitimacy without having to make more than surface concessions to openness. Indeed, the evidence is that the U.S. policy on Cuban dissidents has, if anything, gotten worse since Obama’s opening. “Obama said his policies would help change Cuba, but instead the evidence is that Cuba is changing America more,” concludes Thor Halvorssen, founder of the Human Rights Foundation, an internationally respected organization fighting authoritarian and totalitarian rule of both the Right and the Left.

Consider the following three examples of U.S. interests’ kowtowing to the Cuban regime, and discriminating against Cuban Americans, in just the last month.

Paquito D’Rivera, a Cuban-American jazz musician who has won 14 Grammys, had already played at White House events. He was invited to perform there again, on April 29, by the renowned Thelonious Monk Institute — but was then told by the White House that he wouldn’t be attending, because he was “not passing the vetting process.”

D’Rivera quickly smelled a Castro rat, and expressed his belief that Cuban officials had intervened and tried to have him banned. In February, he had told the Miami New Times that Obama’s openness to Cuba would result only in “cosmetic” changes, mostly improvements in the Cuban elite’s access to the West: “Maybe now, some people, some elites, have the chance to go play with American musicians, like Wynton Marsalis going and playing there . . . but that doesn’t change much.”