Obsolete, Arrogant, and Parasitic

Writing for The Guardian - a Brit paper that's definitely never-Trump - a columnist pens an interesting view of the relationship between Europe and the US.

Washington considers Europe to be obsolete, arrogant and parasitic.

So, is that a fair appraisal? Let's consider the evidence, is Europe obsolete? It seems clear its great days of world dominance and empire ended nearly a century ago, and are unlikely ever to return. 

Is Europe arrogant? It is trying to force US companies to comply with its overly bureaucratic and stifling regulations. It's politics are post-democratic, having completely surrendered to the bureaucratic blob in Brussels. It is trying to force Net Zero on the world, when nearly everywhere not-Europe isn't buying what they're selling. 

Is Europe parasitic? It has allowed the US to provide their defense; most of its nations have token militaries. It has given up on tech leadership, and to a large extent on manufacturing. They're largely "retired on the job."

I conclude that whether or not Washington considers it so, Europe is actually obsolete, arrogant, and parasitic. They've decided hard work, long hours and having children aren't worth it. They're going to take it easy and enjoy life, be satisfied with less, and let the future take care of itself when the time comes.

Europe has chosen the path they're on, a choice they are free to make. It does not, however, deliver the great power status to which they were accustomed and appear to feel entitled. 

Another Politician Plagiarizing

Economist Mark Carney replaced Justin Trudeau as the leader of the Liberal Party in Canada, and thereby became PM. He has an impressive resume' and held high level positions in the Canadian and British governments 

He has called a "snap" election happening soon. Before the plagiarism accusations surfaced, Carney was favored to win the PM job in his own right. 

Someone ran his doctoral dissertation against a plagiarism checker. They found 10 or more examples of Carney using others' words without making clear they were borrowed.

Joe Biden was famous for borrowing other pols' speeches to give as his own, so maybe the bar is lower for politicians. Or more likely, Carney cut corners. 

Don't give his adviser's claim that the work is original too much credit. Not catching the plagiarism makes her look bad too. 

See this long column in Canada's National Post for multiple examples of Carney playing fast and loose with citation of others' works. I'd expect to see this kind of shoddy citation in undergraduate work, not in a dissertation.

Signalgate

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York posts this quote by the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, (behind NYT’s paywall) and I take the liberty of reposting it here for the good sense it reflects. 

No leading officials were fired over the Iraq/W.M.D. debacle. There were no notable resignations when Barack Obama’s Libya intervention turned that country into a war-torn terrorist haven. No heads rolled when the Afghanistan papers revealed official dishonesty, and Biden’s foreign policy team did not quit after the Afghanistan withdrawal became a bloody rout.

Given that record you can argue that Hegseth or Waltz should resign over operational security failures even if those failures didn’t have tragic consequences—but it is silly to act shocked when they do not.

What a chronicle of screw-ups in two short paragraphs. Such missteps appear to be almost the disgusting norm in DC.

Saturday Snark

Images courtesy of Power Line's The Week in Pictures

and its Comments section.

We Share the Blame

In conservative media you will see columns like this one at Red State that bemoan limitations on free speech being openly practiced in Germany. These limitations act to the detriment of the increasingly popular conservative Alternative for Germany Party (AfD). 

What most such don’t tell you is that Germany limits speech because we (the US and allies) required them to do so following the collapse of the Third Reich. Our concern then was forestalling any resurgence of the Nazi Party that had held sway under Hitler. So any depictions of Nazi regalia or symbols were banned, and the stating of nationalist positions were sanctioned.

Germans in particular but many European polities as well (e.g., Netherlands, France, etc.) have national agreements among all centrist and leftist parties that they will not join parliamentary coalitions with openly rightist parties. The effect is to require a right wing party to get an absolute majority to form a government, nearly impossible to do.

Since parliamentary systems tend to feature more than two parties, often four or more, the effect has been to freeze conservative parties out of government even when they might be the most popular party in the nation. A plurality of seats in parliament is insufficient if no other party will join yours in coalition.

This obviously has been a great boon to the left. The left therefore ends up in most European governing coalitions and has had undue influence on European government policies. 

Yes, European political parties refuse to join coalitions containing openly conservative, anti-immigration parties. And yes, that makes their political system biased toward the left. But understand part of the guilt for establishing those policies had US collaboration and encouragement in those long-ago, post-World War II days. 

We in the US tend to forget that substantial numbers of Norwegians, French, Dutch, Czechs and Poles actively and enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis. We forget, but the Europeans have not forgotten. Those memories still bias their politics.

Excellent News

Some amazing news tonight, the White House announces President Trump has signed an Executive Order ending collective bargaining for all federal agencies with a national security mission. These include the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, Energy, Health and Human Services, all federal Information Offices, Treasury, most of Justice, and FEMA. 

His rationale is that our national security requires there be no work stoppages in any of these agencies. Collective bargaining is therefore inimical to the nation's security. You need to realize the unions here banned will sue to stop this order, and the issue will likely be settled at the Supreme Court.

In my opinion this move is long overdue. I'd favor banning unions for all federal workers. Trump may view a wholesale ban as the proverbial "bridge too far."

Friday Snark

Images courtesy of Politico's 

The Nation's Cartoonists on the Week in Politics.

Tough Love Indicated

In a column criticizing German state governments for banning police officers joining or supporting the conservative AfD Party, David Strom concludes with a statement I like and endorse.

I love Europe in the way any family member loves an alcoholic family member. It pains me no end to watch the continent destroy itself, but at some point, you have to recognize that we are enabling, not helping them.

I generally share that view of the ancestral homeland.

Conflict of Interest

This article alleges the left-wing CEO of National Public Radio (NPR) Katherine Maher sits on the board of directors of Signal. It is the platform which gave Jeffrey Goldberg the White House chat about bombing the Houthis. 

That at least suggests perhaps someone who hates Trump at Signal arranged the hookup. It is possibly sabotage by the company or one of its bent minions.

An Unusual Story

A very interesting minor story on the wires today. President Trump has withdrawn the name of Rep. Elise Stefanik to be UN Ambassador. That isn't what is unusual, other names have been withdrawn.

What makes the story news is that the White House concluded she was more valuable to its policy goals staying in her House seat representing upstate New York. The Republican majority in the House is so slender that literally every vote counts.

A poor turnout in a special election to name a successor for her seat could be won by a Democrat. So whoever gets the UN job won't be a sitting member of Congress.

Something Brewing

Diego Garcia is an island in the Indian Ocean located roughly halfway between Singapore and Dar es Salaam. This article and another similar one suggest US long-range bombing assets are massing at Diego Garcia. The means one of two things.

Either they are there to add weight to the pressure Trump will put on Iran to reach a no-nukes deal, or they are there to bring pressure and, if the diplomatic effort fails, bomb to destruction Iran's nuclear program using (non-nuclear) ground-penetrating high explosive bombs. Carrier based assets will aid in this latter effort.

The intelligence behind this article comes from open-source unclassified civilian satellite look-down video. There is not a lot of overhead privacy in this modern age.

Greens Can't Do Abundance

Ruy Teixeira writes a Substack column called The Liberal Patriot. Today he is on about "abundance," the title of a recent book and a policy which several keen observers are recommending the Democrat Party adopt as a mantra. 

Today Teixeira writes that the Dems are too committed to Net Zero and the green agenda to stomach the fast, efficient growth which the abundance agenda envisions. Some key quotes:

From the profound shortage of housing where America needs it most, to our shockingly expensive and slow infrastructure projects, this country is not delivering what its people need.

In some alternative universe there may be a Democratic Party for whom this (abundance) would be an easy sell. But this Democratic Party in this universe? I have my doubts.

The culprit is a Democratic Party that puts ideology and special interests ahead of good governance. It is committed to ensuring that development is not socially harmful in any way, and does not transgress the interests of any “stakeholders.” In reality, that amounts to a promise that nothing will get done.

Cheap, reliable, plentiful energy must necessarily underpin any abundance agenda worthy of the name.

The Democrats’ base is now educated liberal whites, especially women, for whom a vision of lovely green abundance that doesn’t include distasteful things like “big-ass trucks” is an article of faith. (snip) This vision is not shared by massive numbers of Latino, young, and working-class voters.

The more I read what Teixeira writes, the more I see a man talking himself out of being a Democrat. He even admits Trump is pursuing some of the abundance agenda. My question is can he allow himself to become a MAGA Republican where the abundance agenda is known as "common sense"? Full disclosure: I've happily owned six of those "big-ass trucks," one after another since 1983, driven them all over North America, and loved them all.

Oops, I Missed the Equinox

Apologies, dear readers, I forgot to note the spring equinox which occurred a week ago. Days will keep getting longer, and nights shorter, until the third week in June.

Here on the eastern edge of the Mojave spring-like weather arrived in late February and I’ve been comfortable in short sleeves for a month or more. Winters here on the desert are more or less like anyone else’s early spring. 

Back home in Wyoming there is still snow everywhere but they are getting daytime temps above freezing so I suppose the thaw is slowly happening. We’ll get there in early May which is mud season and we’ll probably see the aspens leaf out after we arrive. Our property is aspen forest so we arrive to bare sticks and a few days later, magically we have leaves everywhere.

Weird Pharmacological Science

Fox News reports mothers’ use of acetaminophen during pregnancy is associated with greater incidence of ADHD diagnosis in children.

"Compared with no exposure, detection of acetaminophen in maternal blood during pregnancy was linked with three times the likelihood of the child developing ADHD," lead author Brennan Baker, a researcher at Seattle Children’s Research Institute, told Fox News Digital.

"Three times" greater is no small effect. What’s worse is that acetaminophen is what doctors push because it doesn’t attack stomach linings as aspirin does. My own GP recommends it. 

A possible caution with the study is that anxious mothers are more likely to experience discomfort (e.g., headaches) prompting NSAID use, and are also more likely to have neurodivergent children.

Russia Then and Now

Thinking about tariffs and diplomacy — the relations between nations — I want to look at the relations between the US and Russia, during the Cold War and now. Once again we find ourselves at odds, but it is far from “same old, same old.”

That Russia, a mini-empire styling itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was the “Rome” of a would-be-world-wide quasi-religious evangelical ideology called Communism. It sought converts everywhere with some success. Even the US had a small Communist Party.

Practitioners of that ‘faith’ remain in power in North Korea, Vietnam, China and possibly Laos, although most other one-time adherents have shed its trappings and rituals. The Russian branch of the ‘faith’ collapsed under its own weight in 1991 and Communism has not made many new converts since.

Today’s Russia is merely a nationalistic authoritarian regime with no ‘missionaries’ out seeking converts. It has ambitions to return to its imperial past by becoming the military power in its “near abroad which seeks to include Ukraine and the other former SSRs., some of which (e.g., Belarus) are willing, others (e.g., the Baltic republics, Ukraine) not at all. A fair few former SSRs (e.g., the "Stans") fall somewhere in between those extremes.

Today’s Russia under Putin has tried to make itself an ideological force by arguing for conservative values in a world where those are under attack by social progressives. This has had limited success as it lacks Communism’s evangelical fervor. Thus, the new antagonism between our countries falls far short of the vigor which the Cold War inspired. Perhaps we are fortunate Putin is not especially charismatic.

Why Tariffs?

You may be wondering at President Trump’s fondness for tariffs, which of course are taxes on imported goods, having the effect of raising the price of said goods to the US buyer. For example he just announced a 25% tariff on imported autos.

I note the media are not explaining why he is doing this, beyond observing that it makes it more likely that those goods be made in the US as it thus becomes cheaper to do so to avoid the tariff. I thought I might take a stab at explaining his motives, which begin with having more manufacturing done here in the US.

Under 20 years of Obama/Biden/Bush free trade policies, the US has become a place that imports most of its manufactured goods. We don’t make a lot here. As long as the world is at peace and not under threat, this isn’t a huge problem. We get cheap goods from abroad, send money there and everybody is happy.

Except a very large percentage of our manufactured goods come from China. China is also viewed as our main competitor for hegemony — the military adversary which poses a credible threat to us and makes no bones about it. 

This is problematic because wars grind through a vast amount of manufactured stuff - most notably arms and explosives. Thus wars are won by manufacturing nations. Russia is prevailing against Ukraine because it manufactures arms and Ukraine must import most of theirs from the US and to a lesser extent Europe.

A US that doesn’t manufacture much stuff - which we are now - isn’t a credible military threat. A credible military threat is exactly what we need to be to keep others with hegemonic ambitions (mainly China) from attacking us. 

This is a major reason why President Trump wants to bring manufacturing back to the US. It will help restore our military credibility. The more credible our threats of force, the less likely they are to be challenged, the less likely we have to fight. It is “if you would have peace, prepare for war” in action.

It is also true that as a major customer of China’s manufacturing sector, our buying much less from them reduces their income stream and creates economic problems for them. This is a secondary benefit.

Manufacturing jobs tend to pay good wages to the blue collar workers who are the backbone of Trump’s coalition of supporters. A healthy home-grown manufacturing sector will go a long way toward improving the lifestyles of our blue collar workforce.

Finally ... a Possible Name

A lot being said and written about the inappropriate inclusion of Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic on a Signal group chat about military tactics - actually air strikes - on the Houthis. Something I find mildly interesting surfaced in the comments on a podcast of talking heads bloviating about this error.

@derek2966
1 day ago
Alex Nelson Wong, not Mike Waltz, set up the group. Wong is Deputy National Security Advisor. Wong invited Goldberg to join the group. Why did Wong invite Goldberg? I don't know. It may have something to do with Covington & Burling LLP losing their security clearance.

This is the first thing I've seen that names a possible perpetrator. I notice Wong's Wikipedia entry doesn't mention which Washington law firm he worked for before becoming a government official.

Wednesday Snark

Image courtesy of Lucianne.com.

Image courtesy of Instapundit.

Gender Gap Has Exploded

Ezra Klein interviewed David Shor, a pro-Democrat data guy for a polling outfit about last November's presidential election. The original is behind the New York Times paywall, but others have quoted large chunks thereof, and I take the liberty of citing one of those. Shor says:

For voters over 30, the gender gap was fairly stable at around 10 percent, which is roughly where it’s been in American politics.

[If] you look at people under the age of 30, the gender gap has exploded. Eighteen-year-old men were 23 percentage points more likely to support Donald Trump than 18-year-old women, which is just completely unprecedented in American politics.

Causing some to conclude that Democrats have lost a generation - the Zoomers - of young men. As a conservative, I'm savoring it.

Poll: Some Canadians OK With US Merger

Some very interesting polling data from the Great White North (aka Canada). The scare headline below is the most radical finding. Hat tip to RealClearWorld for the link.

Nearly half of young Canadian men would take US citizenship from Trump if offered.

Who were those most likely to agree? The young men, the educated, the affluent, and the English speakers. 

Those who would try to tell you there are no Canadian supporters of the off-hand Trump suggestion of merger of our two countries are clearly exaggerating.