Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

Much political buzz lately has revolved around support by Senators Clinton and McCain, and opposition by Senator Obama, to a "federal gas tax holiday".

According to year-old data from the Department of Energy, "The average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year." So, the average American uses about 9.6 gallons per week. Let's round it up to 11 gallons for the summer driving season.

The federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. And, let's assume that if a "gas tax holiday" were implemented, it would be between Memorial Day and Labor Day, as McCain and Clinton have called for. That's a total of 98 days, or 14 weeks.

As of April 28, 2008, the average retail price across America for regular gasoline was $3.60 meaning the average driver spends just under $50 per week on gas.

If the gas tax were implemented, and making the unlikely assumption that 100% of the gas tax reduction would find its way to the price at the pump, that driver would save $2 per week, or about 5% of the total spending on gas. (More likely, only a part of the gas tax would make its way to the pump price, with the actual savings to drivers closer to $1.25 per week.) Even a liberal Democrat could not believe this amount, $2 per week, will be economically significant in terms of
consumer spending.

That said, the total amount of revenue forgone by the government would be approximately almost $8 billion. With consumer spending of $2.8 trillion estimated for the 98 days of the holiday, the gas tax savings, we're looking at Americans keeping an amount under 0.3%, and more likely under 0.2%, of their spending for that period. Again, not enough to make a difference in anyone's economic behavior.

But we can predict what will happen after the gas tax holiday is over: Federal and state governments, construction unions, and other groups with a vested interest in increasing highway spending will tell us that the highway trust fund is dangerously underfunded. We will be told that cars will be collapsing into sinkholes on interstate highways and that more bridges will collapse unless we make up the shortfall. So, Congress will propose an increase in the gas tax. It won't sound like much, maybe just 2 cents a gallon...and who will blink at 2 cents when the gas price is already over $3, but that increase is forever. In a couple of years, all the benefit of the "holiday" will have been wiped away, with gas taxes permanently higher. It's like taking a holiday to the tropics and having a great time only to come back and learn you've contracted malaria...the kind that lives with you forever even if it doesn't produce acute symptoms every day.

The "gas tax holiday" is a bad idea. It's obvious political pandering with no clear economic benefit, and a reasonable chance for it to cause problems in funding federal road and bridge maintenance. If anything, Use Taxes (i.e. you use the road, you help pay for its maintenance) are among the most fair taxes we have.

It's not surprising that one Democratic candidate would come out for it; either Obama or Clinton had to, just to try to differentiate himself or herself from the other. And it's not surprising that McCain would support it because he has admitted that he doesn't know much about economics. (I just wish he'd stop proving it so often.)

Clinton and Obama pressed the issue in Indiana, Clinton adding the twist of wanting to "take some of the windfall profits of big oil to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer" even though raising taxes on oil companies would simply boost pump prices, effectively raising taxes on all Americans who drive. Obama properly calls it a "classic Washington gimmick".

The fact that two out of three presidential candidates think the "gas tax holiday" makes good politics shows their low estimation of Americans' understanding of economics and the rule of law. But Clinton's tiny margin of victory in Indiana shows that, for once, people were not fooled by her Robin Hood costume.

This is the fourth in a series of articles with "Stand-up Economist" Yoram Bauman taking the pro-global-warming-alarmism position and being debated by me and other more expert people such as the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor and the Heartland Institute's James Taylor. The entire series should be able to be found by searching my blog for "Bauman", with this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a?s=bauman&sentence=AND&submit=Search

If you missed it, please read Yoram Bauman's reply to Jerry Taylor, at this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a/2008/05/09/jerry_taylor_responds_libertarians_and_g#c19663

Here is Taylor's response:

Fine – it’s Dr. Bauman. I meant no offense.

While I don’t think libertarians (or economists) have anything to contribute to the scientific debate as libertarians (or economists) – and while I don’t think accepting standard narratives from the IPCC conflicts with libertarian principles – I do think that environmental scientists have erred frequently within their own field. See the link I provided earlier regarding professional biases for a good case-study of those errors when it comes to soil erosion. The same story could be told by veterans of the cancer wars which once raged around industrial chemical use; by veterans of the hysteria that once raged over “the population bomb”; or by veterans of the debate surrounding the resource limitations to growth. Scientific alarmists didn’t err by treading into fields (like economics) that they knew nothing about. They erred in their assessment of the threat and those errors were made in their own fields of expertise.

Whenever politics is freighted with science, these errors seem to pop up (read this essay by climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr. for a good explanation for why that is). For a non-environmental example, see the link I provided earlier to the bit about information cascades. For decades, nutritionists have been wedded to the idea that dietary fats are the great heath Satan when, in fact, the dietary evil appears to lie elsewhere. Deferring to experts in fields you have no training in is, of course, a necessary evil, but history suggests that consensus – particularly when we’re dealing with issues that have political or cultural implications – is less “argument settling” than some might otherwise think.

Moreover, skepticism is always a healthy thing in whatever field we find ourselves in. Whenever I see people getting red-faced and angry at the very existence of skeptics, I have to wonder whether we’re leaving a world of science for a world of religion. The scientific method is all about the skeptical treatment of hypotheses and science couldn’t exist without skepticism – nobody would critically examine anything! Religious cults, on the other hand, can’t survive within a culture of skepticism.

Note – I am not accusing you, Dr. Bauman, or anyone else in particular of cult membership. I simply hope to rebut the idea that healthy skepticism about scientific pronouncements in political arenas is a hanging offense for non-scientists.

What to do when the science is uncertain? There is no obvious or objectively correct answer here because it depends on what your risk tolerance might be, your willingness to pay to reduce risk, and your discount rates. All three matters, however, are subjective preferences where no “right” or “wrong” answer exists.

Regardless, uncertainty does not necessarily imply the need for ambitious public policy insurance. If it did, we would all be enthusiastically endorsing the Bush foreign policy, which is predicated on the very same precautionary principle that many embrace as an important guiding principle for climate change policy.

Would foreign aid and other cross-border wealth transfers assist in the global adaptation to climate change? You clearly think so, but what evidence do we have to suggest that past efforts to promote “good policies” or “good projects” abroad have had any positive impact? Goklany remains on agnostic on this issue, but I am a bit more … skeptical.

These qualifiers aside, let me reiterate: I agree with your argument that libertarians who blindly refuse to even consider the possibility that climate change is happening, that industrial emissions are an important cause, and that public policy might be required to address it, are demonstrating their own cult-like instincts that don’t reflect well on libertarianism. I also agree with you that such libertarians (and conservatives, for that matter) exist. But informed and thoughtful skepticism is a different matter entirely.

Over at the Gang of Four blog, Gloria Neal asks why Hillary is still in the race. Here's my answer:

Gloria,

Let me take a stab at your question.

Hillary can’t close the deal because although Obama has been weakened lately, Hillary is still dogged by her perception as a congenital liar and because people are as tired of the Clintons as they are of the Bushes.

Obama can’t close the deal because Hillary really does have a strong case to make regarding electability.

Two other reasons: Hillary can’t close the deal because the Democratic Party is justifiably scared to death of an outcome that makes blacks feel like the black candidate had the nomination stolen from him, even if it was not only within the party’s rules but actually exactly what those rules were designed for if the people were about to nominate someone who wouldn’t win in November. Democrats believe, and I think they’re right, that Hillary getting the nomination means a decade of lessened black support for the party.

Obama can’t close the deal because he’s lost many of the most important Democrat states.

I don’t think you can say Obama is “getting the white vote”. He lost by 20 points or more among white voters in both Indiana and North Carolina…and by a similar amount in Pennsylvania.

I’m not looking to characterize that vote as racist or as not racist, any more than I’d try to characterize the over-90% support for Obama by blacks. It is what it is. But it explains a lot why superdelegates are not rushing to Obama even though Clinton can’t close the deal: they realize they have a true electability issue.

Obama has won states with large black populations and states which had caucuses rather than primaries. Many of these, especially the latter category, will go Republican in November regardless of which Democrat is nominated.

Hillary has won primaries, whose turnout (in comparison to a caucus) is far more likely to be like the general election, in Ohio, Florida (yes, Florida), Pennsylvania, California, New York, and New Jersey.

I agree with Hillary that she’s more electable…and I agree with the unspoken fear of Democratic superdelegates that they must nominate the less electable candidate, accepting a lower chance of winning in 2008 instead of lower black support for the party for the next decade.

So, to get back to answering your question: Hillary is still in the race because she rightly believes she’s more electable and because she knows that if Obama wins she’ll probably never have another chance whereas if she wins she gets her chance or if McCain wins she could try again in four years instead of eight. And don’t forget, she’s a Clinton, so her desire for power just for its own sake is stronger than you or I can probably imagine.

I've responded to a couple of posts by other "Gang of Four" participants, including continuing a debate with John Andrews about whether or not I could vote for John McCain.

I hope you find it interesting:
http://www.politicswest.com/24438/responding_david_nancy_and_john

Note: If you want to leave a comment, you need to click on the article title and then on the comment link on the page for just that article. Clicking on the "Add new comment" link on the main Gang of Four page gives an error.

This is the third in a series of articles with "Stand-up Economist" Yoram Bauman taking the pro-global-warming-alarmism position and being debated by me and other more expert people such as the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor and the Heartland Institute's James Taylor. The entire series should be able to be found by searching my blog for "Bauman", with this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a?s=bauman&sentence=AND&submit=Search

This response is by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute to Yoram Bauman's article:

Dr. Bauman’s post makes clear that he either misunderstands the nature of the skeptical position or he is deliberately setting up a straw man argument that does not reflect the best arguments that the sky is not falling.

His initial assertion is inaccurate. While some “skeptical” scientists believe humans are incapable of altering global climate, the consensus opinion among skeptics is that humans are capable of altering global climate, but current levels of carbon dioxide emissions are not causing a global warming crisis. Some skeptical scientists assert the sun and other natural factors are responsible for all or nearly all of the warming of the 20th century. Other skeptics believe that humans may be responsible for much of the moderate warming of the latter half of the 20th century, but the current pace of warming (0.6 degrees Celsius for the entire 20th century, and no warming at all during the past decade) does not constitute any cause for alarm. For most skeptical scientists, the key issue in the debate is not whether the planet is warming or whether humans may have had some role in the very modest 20th century warming, but rather whether humans are causing a global warming crisis.

Bauman’s second point makes clear that he is not very familiar with the makeup of the IPCC. Bauman claims that IPCC is “the consensus statement of almost all the world’s best scientists.” Such an assertion is simply not true. IPCC is a branch of the United Nations. UN governments choose the participants. Not all participants are scientists, and those that are scientists are not selected according to any kind of objective merit system. They are selected by political entities, with predictable results. Nor does the IPCC final report represent the opinion of all the IPCC “scientists,” let alone “almost all the world’s best scientists.”

Among IPCC’s 2,600 participants, many are not even scientists. Many are NGO advocates and other non-scientist activists. Among the relative handful of lead authors that have sole discretion over the final document are staff members of Greenpeace and Environmental Defense. To assert that Greenpeace and Environmental Defense are the objective voice of the world’s best scientists is little different than if I were to cite a report, claiming that global warming is a myth, in which the lead authors were the staff of ExxonMobil and the National Coal Association. Can you imagine how the alarmists would react to that one?

Here is another example of how flawed the United Nations IPCC process is. Dr. William Gray is the world’s foremost hurricane expert, who for years has been authoring seasonal hurricane forecasts so reliable that the insurance industry has relied on it for setting insurance rates. The Weather Channel for years made him the face of its hurricane coverage. And the U.S. government funded his work as a means of better understanding hurricanes. IPCC, however, did not invite Dr. Gray to participate in its hurricane research because he is on record as stating that global warming is not a human induced crisis. Instead, far inferior scientists and non-scientists comprise IPCC’s hurricane research participants. Such blatant political selection processes are rampant throughout the UN selection process. This is “the consensus opinion of almost all the world’s best scientists?”

Moreover, the final IPCC document is not even the opinion of the biased IPCC participants, let alone “almost all the world’s best scientists.” In 2007, for the first time, IPCC released the comments and critiques by the 2,600 IPCC participants. There were literally thousands of critical comments from participating scientists that were rejected or simply ignored. Only a relative handful of biased participants, some on the staff of Greenpeace and Environmental Defense, produced the final document, while thousands of critical comments from participating scientists were ignored. And yet the IPCC document is the “consensus statement of almost all the world’s best scientists?”

Bauman’s third point is a veritable journey into the looking glass, where black is white and white is black. One of the defining characteristics of the alarmist camp is their adamant refusal to in any way engage in the critical inquiry which is so essential to science and the scientific method. Bauman asserts that skeptics want “no serious scientific engagement.” Such an assertion makes me laugh out loud.

Want an example? In late February the Professional Engineers of Colorado (PEC) held their annual meeting Denver. Facing a Climate Action Plan from the governor’s office that would significantly affect their trade, they sought to devote one day of their conference to global warming science. Susan Solomon, a vocal proponent of alarmist global warming theory who was selected as science co-chair of IPCC despite having authored no peer-reviewed papers on climate science, at first indicated a willingness to speak at the event. When she was later informed that the panel would be scientifically balanced, including such highly qualified skeptics as the aforementioned Dr. William Gray, she refused to participate, claiming that such a forum was not a proper forum for the discussion of science. When asked if she could recommend any of her colleagues to speak at the event, she refused to recommend any, and further said she would advise them NOT to participate. For two weeks PEC searched high and low for any scientist to come give the IPCC side of the equation, but nobody would participate after learning that scientists such as Dr. Gray would be allowed to present contradictory evidence. I can report from first-hand experience that such comedy is repeated all the time, with IPCC apologists routinely looking for the nearest chair to hide under whenever they are invited to debate the science against learned skeptics.

Why do you suppose the alarmists are so afraid of fair and open debate? Consider the following. In March 2007 the prestigious New York City debating society Intelligence Squared held a public debate, broadcast on national radio, among six of the world’s leading global warming experts. Three alarmists and three skeptics were given a lengthy amount of time to present the best available scientific evidence. Before the debate, a poll of the attending audience indicated that by a 2-to-1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent), the audience believed that global warming is a crisis. After hearing the best science from experts on both sides of the issue, the audience voted by a 46-percent to 42-percent margin that global warming is NOT a crisis. No wonder the alarmists become more scarce than vegans at a Texas cattle roast when skeptics seek to engage them in serious scientific engagement.

Bauman’s final, curious assertion is that the merit of the two positions should be determined by real-world predictions and results. The assertion itself is not necessarily curious, but the fact that it is coming from an alarmist is. Skeptics have long predicted that 21st century warming will be no more than half, at most, of IPCC predictions. Some skeptics, such as Dr. Gray, have for years been predicting that temperatures will cool during the first quarter of the 21st century. The alarmists used to publicly laugh at that, but nobody would take Dr. Gray up on his public offer to make a sizeable wager on the proposition.

IPCC has predicted that temperatures will rise 3.0 degrees Celsius during the 21st century, and at least 0.2 degrees Celsius during each of the first few decades of the 21st century. However, temperatures have not risen at all since 2000, and even IPCC scientists now report (in a recent Nature study) that temperatures will likely cool for at least the next decade. The empirical evidence fully supports the skeptics and is making a mockery of alarmist predictions that temperatures during the 21st century will warm 5 times faster than temperatures warmed during the 20th century. Bauman says “you should either put up or shut up.” He needs to follow his own advice or switch sides while he can still save face in doing so.

Should Bauman be too stubborn to see the writing on the wall, I will wager this: global warming (as measured by objective satellite measurements rather than subjective James Hansen adjustments of the ground temperature data) during the first half of the 21st century will be closer to 0.3 degrees Celsius than to the 1.5 degree Celsius halfway point of IPCC’s projected 21st century warming. Any takers on this bet?

This is the second in a series of articles with "Stand-up Economist" Yoram Bauman taking the pro-global-warming-alarmism position and being debated by me and other more expert people such as the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor and the Heartland Institute's James Taylor. The entire series should be able to be found by searching my blog for "Bauman", with this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a?s=bauman&sentence=AND&submit=Search

Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute has been generous enough with his time to respond to yesterday's "guest posting" by Yoram Bauman about "Libertarians and Global Warming". I hope you find it interesting, as we continue this debate. If you're interested in the discussion, I recommend you also read the comments to the articles in this series, beginning with the first article, linked above.

I actually agree with almost all of the above despite the fact that the author went out of his way to single out a speech I made in 1998 for ridicule. I am not at all embarrassed by the speech in question: I think it was a fair and reasonable summary of the science at the time and of the uncertainties that lingered as of 1998. As the scientific literature has evolved, of course, the summary of the science should evolve as well. Hence, as we learned more about the orbital drift that distorted the satellite readings of earth's temperature, we were able to resolve some of the mysteries that existed at that time.

The author is correct to note, however, that I made "a totally wrong claim that 4000+ scientists signed an anti-global-warming statement." I meant to say 400+ scientists signed the statement in question (the so-called Heidelberg Appeal). It was an honest (albeit annoying) typographical error.

While I don't pretend to speak for libertarians in general, I think an honest examination of the libertarian community would find that the beliefs Mr. Bauman is attacking are not as widely spread as he thinks. For instance, Prof. Pat Michaels - a senior fellow here at Cato who holds a PhD in climatology and who is widely published in the scientific literature on this matter - agrees that anthropogenic emissions are the main driver behind the warming trend of the past several decades. Moreover, he thinks the IPCC reports are fairly reasonable (albeit not perfect) summaries of the scientific literature (which maybe shouldn't surprise - he is a member of the IPCC). He believes, however, that future warming will be at the lower end of the IPCC forecasts and that the economic costs will prove modest given the distribution of that warming.

Moreover, Cato's latest salvo addressing this issue - Indur Goklany's "What to Do about Climate Change" - makes none of the arguments Mr. Bauman chastises libertarians for making. If Mr. Bauman gets a chance to read the piece, I would be interested in his comments.

That having been said, let me note that there are very good reasons for people (not just libertarians) to be skeptical of expert scientific consensus regarding environmental doom given the track record of that community. Consensus from that community once told us that industrial chemicals were the cause of a modern cancer epidemic; that population growth would outpace food production and usher in a Malthusian apocalypse; that mineral scarcity would soon turn off the industrial engines of the Western world; ad infinitum. Conspiracy theories are not necessary to explain the proliferation of such views – information cascades and professional biases will do nicely.

Moreover, while no one I know doubts that externalities are real in the modern world, many of us doubt our ability to quantify them with any certainty or to remedy them through the political process in an efficiency-enhancing manner. One recent survey of the literature, for example, found that estimates regarding the externalities imposed by a ton of carbon emissions range from $9-200. If politicians were ever inclined to internalize those externalities through some set of public policies, the figure they would settle on would undoubtedly be driven more by politics than hard science or economics, which introduces the very real threat that they would make the economy more – not less – efficient as a consequence.

I've invited "stand-up economist" Yoram Bauman to contribute a piece on his views about why libertarians (though I think the discussion could easily apply to people of any political view) are incorrect in their approach to the global warming issue. Following is Yoram's article. Tomorrow I'll post my rebuttal. For the record, I believe Yoram is almost 100% wrong, and I'll explain why. Even so, someone as smart as Yoram deserves a serious listen, and it should make for a good debate. I look forward to comments from readers with any interesting position on the issue, and would be willing to post very good longer responses as their own full postings if requested. The first response, the day after this note, is from Cato's Jerry Taylor.

The entire series should be able to be found by searching my blog for "Bauman", with this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a?s=bauman&sentence=AND&submit=Search

Rossputin kindly agreed to let me say a few words to libertarians who are amused by my stand-up economics routines but surprised by my concern about climate change. He asked me to respond in particular to an article in The Australian, but my comments apply more broadly.

I’ve just finished traveling through Israel with my father, so the famous Three No’s (no recognition of Israel, no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel) have been on my mind. With some poetic license I think they are analogous to libertarian views on climate change, and I think the results are likely to be just as disastrous.

The three libertarians No’s are: (1) No recognition that climate change is a theoretical possibility; (2) No peace with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); and (3) No negotiation about climate change science, i.e., no serious scientific engagement. Looking at the three libertarian No’s in more detail will help explain why libertarians find themselves in an ever more remote political wilderness in which their views are ignored and their positions are mocked.

(1) No recognition that climate change is a theoretical possibility.

Forget about the science and just think about the economics and how free markets work: Do you agree that it’s theoretically possible for something like carbon emissions to be a problem? The article in The Australian answers No, or at least it suggests as much with statements like “The delusion that by… catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.”

No Recognition deserves to be mocked because the economic theory of externalities is rock-solid and is disputed only by morons. I often tell environmentalists that they should take a course in economics, and I’m tempted to tell libertarians who take climate change as a personal affront to their beliefs that they should take a second course in economics.

(2) No peace with the IPCC.

The article in The Australian predicts the “impending collapse of the global warming paradigm”, a view that runs totally counter to the main thrust of the IPCC’s most recent report in 2007. (The 2007 report said that human-caused climate change was “very likely”, up from “likely” in IPCC 2001, “the balance of evidence suggests” in IPCC 1995, and maybe-yes-maybe-no in IPCC 1990.) Libertarians need to realize that the same invisible hand that makes collusion difficult in business also makes collusion difficult in academia or in journalism, and therefore that their core beliefs run counter to the idea of a vast left-wing conspiracy in the media and academia.

No Peace deserves to be mocked because only the economically illiterate would choose to advise policymakers to reject the consensus statement of almost all of the world’s best scientists in favor of conspiracy-theory statements about how “global warming stopped a decade ago, [but this fact] is virtually never reported.”

(3) No negotiation about climate change science, i.e., no serious scientific engagement. As a policymaker you’d be irresponsible to reject the IPCC, but as a scientist you’d be totally within your rights… as long as you play the game by the rules. And the rules of the scientific method say that you need to come up with theories and hypotheses that can be tested against the real world, not just engage in elementary-school tactics like cherry-picking the scientific data. (Saying that “there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your reference point” is like saying that Israel has been relatively peaceful since 1948.)

No Negotiation deserves to be mocked because you should either put up or shut up. My suggestion---indeed, my hope---is that you create a Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) and actually get in the game. Can you can come up with theories that explain the warming seen in the 20th century? Can you make predictions that beat out the IPCC predictions for the 21st century (e.g., roughly half a degree F warming per decade)? Until you make predictions that can be tested against actual data, I will not be the only person in the free world mocking you for putting your faith in folks who have PhDs in biology or folks who believe in intelligent design or folks with a background in classics, journalism, and the design of geometric “Eternity” puzzles.

Heck, I think it would have been great if the NPCC had been around back in 1996, when Julian Simon wrote that “my guess is that global warming is likely to be simply another transient concern, barely worthy of consideration ten years from now.”

Or back in 1998 when Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute wrote a speech that has not aged well, full of hullabaloo about satellite data---remember that one? Ah, the good old days!---plus a totally wrong claim that 4000+ scientists signed an anti-global-warming statement.

Or back in 2001 when University of Houston economists Roy Ruffin and Paul Gregory wrote a principles textbook claiming that “the debate over global warming shows that no matter how much contrary evidence is presented, it just doesn’t matter.” (Read my hilarious email exchange with Ruffin and Gregory.)

Or back in 2007 when the Wall Street Journal editorialized (incorrectly) that the IPCC was “backpedaling on some key issues” such as sea level rise and the hockey stick.

Listen up, my libertarian friends. You have a lot to contribute to the climate change discussion, in particular by emphasizing the superiority of markets and market mechanisms over the inefficient and often ineffective command-and-control policies that are beloved by lefties. But first you need to take a seat at the table instead of taking pot-shots at something that economists know is theoretically possible and that the scientific consensus says is “very likely”.

Of course, “very likely” is not the same thing as “absolutely certain”---but do you really want to bet the farm on a lousy hand? Just because environmentalists are wrong about many things does not mean they’re wrong about all things, and in the case of climate change there’s good reason to think that they’re right.

PS. Rossputin pointed me towards the March 2008 report by the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change). But this document is a sad joke: it makes no predictions about future climate, instead offering up false or misleading statements (e.g., that the IPCC “no longer makes use of the hockey-stick paper”---not true) plus the usual conspiracy theories, e.g., that “the Executive Summary of [a U.S. government] report inexplicably claims… the opposite of what the report itself documents.” In order to avoid this possible problem in the future, I recommend following the NIPCC’s clever strategy, which was to produce a document called “Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the NIPCC” without actually producing the Report itself!

Ivan Eland from the Independent Institute has written a short essay discussing the excesses of claimed power by the Executive Branch during the Bush Administration.

You can read it here:
"Executive or Imperial Branch?", Oakland Tribune column by Ivan Eland, 4/13/08
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2170

This is an area in which I frequently differ with some of my more conservative readers. It's also an area that some other readers (notably Bob P.) think I haven't written enough about, especially in comparison to how strongly I scold McCain about his lack of respect for the Constitution.

For the record, I agree with Eland's position and believe Bush has exceeded his authority and has overstepped what is good for the nation in the long run by essentially claiming the right to do anything that he claims to be in pursuing the War on Terror.

Grabbing power during war is one of the favorite reasons of leaders through history to go to war. I don't believe that Bush had anything like that in mind, even as a minuscule factor, in the decisions to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. And, unlike Eland, I am not convinced that the idea of taking out Saddam Hussein was a bad idea even with the hindsight of the poor prosecution of the war after its first few days. My issue is therefore not that we're at war...especially because it's clear to me that war was declared on us by Al Qaeda. It's that we should not allow the Constitution to be consistently weakened in the name of the war. A vigorous prosecution of the war, even with a Democratic congress, should not require wrecking our civil liberties, or our system of checks and balances without which our government would be even more of a mess than it is.

For today's reading, please see my article at Human Events about the non-food related problems with ethanol.

see "Ethanol, Starvation, and other Liberal ideas", Ross Kaminsky, HumanEvents.com, 5/5/09
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26348

For the record, I generally don't select my own titles, and this title isn't perfect for the reason that I specifically point out that our current ethanol policy is not solely the fault of liberals (though it is more their doing than not.)

Thanks to Christopher for bringing this to my attention.

For today's offering, I recommend to you this 3-part interview with Simon Deng, a former slave from Sudan. It's eye-opening, compelling, and is yet another stake in the worthless heart of the UN.

The personal stories of slavery and pain are almost unimaginable.

I was also pleased to hear, in the third part, Mr. Deng compliment Israel, talking about how Sudanese people were being killed in Egypt, so they walked through the desert to Israel, where they're being treated well. Their thoughts when they arrived in Israel: "Thank God".

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3: