The Role of Business

I've written about government and the oil companies at In Rare Form.

Good News

Manuel Marulanda, the longtime leader of the FARC, died in March according to several reports. I'd like to see a body, but as that may never happen let me just say that he was a bad man who deserved to die.

Good riddance.

Uribe v. Pelosi

I'm pulling for Uribe. Here's more on how Colombia continues to act in good faith, despite the disrespect paid to it by the Democratic leadership.

¡Ayúdela!

More Colombia stuff:

• This is an Op-Ed from the Wall Street Journal by former Secretary of State James Baker. It is further repudiation of the FTA's politicization.
• The announcement of a biofuel agreement between the US and Colombia is welcome news. Although relatively small in scope ($1 billion) anything that helps an improving democracy strengthen itself against regression to a a more violent time is a good thing.

A Raulity Check

My interest in Latin America coincides so well with Mary Anastasia O'Grady's weekly Americas column in the Wall Street Journal. This week she analyzes the real impact of the Raúl Castro government's supposed reforms.

In terms of a real improvement in Cuban liberty, there hasn't been one. Fortunately, in the tradition of oppressed people everywhere some Cuban's aren't waiting for the government to save them. From a recent event given by Ricardo Alarcón, communist bigwig:

Student Eliécer Ávila got most of the international attention with a line of inquiry he read from a notebook. He wanted to know why workers are paid in a worthless local currency, while things they want to buy, like shampoo, are priced in "convertible" pesos, which have the value of dollars. Why are hotels and resorts off limits to locals? Why can't Cubans travel to Bolivia to see where Che Guevara died?
Alarcón seemed stunned. In a rambling, 30-minute response, he defended the hotel ban by saying that as a Hispanic he had been barred from hotels in New York City. He also gave a bizarre explanation for the travel ban: "If all the world, some six billion people, could travel whenever they wanted, the jam in the skies would be enormous."

That last quote is hilarious. Either Alarcón is a complete idiot, or he thinks the Cuban people are.

When Fools lead the Blind

This is an important post.

I wish I could say that the Politicians pushing for the death of the U.S.-Colombia Free-Trade Agreement were merely ignorant. Instead I would say that it rises to a level of ideological corruption that indicates the real stuff that Pelosi, Obama, and Clinton are made of. Their stance is opposed by many other Democrats, as shown in today's Wall Street Journal.

Among the reasons given by the FTA's opposition is a stated concern about the union worker. This Boston Globe editorial by Edward Shumacher-Matos explains how the pact would actually benefit U.S. exports into Colombia by lowering tariffs on U.S. goods significantly:

US goods, however, still face tariffs of 35 percent and higher. Under the new agreement, 80 percent of US auto parts, medical equipment, and farm and other products will be duty free immediately. The rest will be phased in over 10 years.
The Colombian government is making the bigger sacrifice because a permanent agreement removes uncertainty for investors. Trade, combined with US support for Colombia's military and justice system, have helped Colombia beat back a leftist insurgency, largely demobilize right-wing paramilitaries, and spark a boom that has reduced poverty, unemployment, and the economic weight of drug mafias.

In fact, many Colombian Unions are in favor of the pact. Mary Anastasia O'Grady had a must-read article in yesterday's WSJ. The FTA will bring investment and should promote economic stability. In spite of the competition that it may expose them to, they recognize the net benefit of freer trade. For more see the video below.

I've had an interest in Colombia for many years. It's sad that this issue has been politicized to the point of jeopardizing the tremendous progress made in that country during this decade.

Props for Property

I think that Mary Anastasia O'Grady does a great job in her weekly Wall Street Journal article "The Americas." This week discusses the tremendous task of liberalizing Mexico's economy.

Mexico has real troubles ahead if they are unable to address their tremendous problems with property rights and monopolistic practices. Watch the video for more.

McCain, the Conservative?

There are three interesting articles demonstrating some things that I like from John McCain. He's growing on me, and I hope that continues. A lot will depend on his choice for Vice President.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120645482100762421.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120640701463560977.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657642878567071.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Colombia, Liberty, & Trade

I think U.S. support for Colombia's liberalizing government is vitally important to our economic and national security in this hemisphere. Democrats are abandoning Colombia at a critical time, in a ploy to shore up support among opponents of free trade. This is a bad idea, but continues Democrat's long tradition of doctrinal inconsistency.

Read the following for more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631596510858221.html?mod=todays_columnists

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120640555842961083.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

SPOTD #136

It has been far too long since the last SPOTD, so I bring you this short edition to get me back on track.

Today's phrase:
This will be a short edition. I have been busy on the SPOTD blog and In Rare Form. Be sure to check them out.
This is from Shakespeare:

Actual:
Brevedad es el alma de la agudeza

Phonetic with emphasis on bold syllable:
Bray-vay-dahd ess ell al-mah day lah ah-goo-day-zah

Translation:
Brevity is the soul of wit.

Lamenting your Lambo
This is an interesting piece on the drawbacks of supercar ownership.

Obeying the Law
I really enjoyed this interview from the Tygrrrr Express with Dr. Walter Williams. Dr. Williams is a prominent conservative economist. His views on the role of government and strict adherence to the constitution are very interesing.

Into Africa
President Bush is quite popular in several African countries. The policies that have made him so popular are in opposition to the conservative principles espoused by Dr. Williams above, but I'm not going to fault the Pres for them right now, and neither does Live Aid honcho Bob Geldof.

Link of the Day
If you were old enough to watch movies in the 1980's, you will not regret following this link.

¿El Fín?

Not really.

Fidel Castro's decision not to face "reelection" after 49 years in power will likely mean nothing for the people of Cuba, at least for the time being.

It has never been likely that Cuba would reform from the top down. Despite the decades-old embargo there is little incentive for Cuba's leaders to liberalize economically or politically in the dramatic way that many Cuban exiles hope for. This has left little room for citizen reformers in Cuba's tightly controlled society.

So what does this mean? Most people thing Fidel's brother Raul will assume control. but as this article explains, Raul may prefer to rule from behind the scenes. There are various potential candidates that would also promote a false idea of change, which could ease internal pressures on the transitional government.

This article from Pajamas Media agrees that little will change as a result of Fidel's resignation.

Fidel goes out a winner. Regardless of the state of the Cuban people, he is leaving on his own terms, thumbing his nose at America, and leaving his regime in place. U.S. policy towards Cuba has been a failure, and this can be traced quite clearly to the Kennedy Administration's failure to support the invasion force at the Bay of Pigs. Now that would have been a nice act of imperialism.

Now the Cubans will wait, as they have for so many years.

No hay respeto (There's no respect)

Hugo is at it again. He continues to deal with widespread food shortages in Venezuela socialistically, suggesting that the National Guard should seize "unproductive" lands.

Good luck with that one amigo.

Evil Corporations

This post from SeekingAlpha.com is a must-read. The gist:

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people!

Fascinating.

Perspective

This video is an outstanding example of how the media doesn't present the most accurate picture of our America:



I do have some worries. I worry that Americans swallow the media line about class warfare and the destruction of the middle class with too little skepticism.

Peligro en Venezuela (Danger in Venezuela)

I had a conversation with someone last week where we discussed the reasons for Latin America's failure to develop as rapidly as the emerging Asian economies. Among other things, the penchant of Latin Americans to elect demagogues like Hugo Chavez dooms many nations to perpetual mediocrity.

Recently Hugo Chavez recognized the FARC, or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia as a legitimate political actor, deserving the same recognition as a state. In the Wall Street Journal, Mary Anastasia O'Grady compares Chavez to the former Argentine dictator Galtieri. Galteiri orchestrated some sketchy foreign policy to cover the extremely poor state of the Argentine economy, among his moves the seizure of the Falklands from Great Britain. Chavez' recognition of the terrorist FARC seemed calculated to provoke a conflict with Colombia, timed to cover Venezuela's deteriorating economy.

As O'Grady explains, Colombia did not take the bait and instead made some smart diplomatic moves, including reaffirming the support of France, Spain, and E.U. officials. Fortunately for freedom-lovers (and unfortunately for Chavez) his political misfire has not gone unnoticed.

Gateway Pundit has an excellent round-up of photos and articles about anti-FARC protests that took place in Colombia yesterday. Hundreds of thousands of Colombians marched in solidarity with their government and to protest the actions of the FARC (including kidnapping, drug trafficking, and extortion).

I have no doubt that FARC is a terrorist organization. The last two Colombian presidents have made consistent efforts to fight terrorism in their country. The current president, Uribe has been particularly impactful. We have an opportunity to stand in solidarity with their efforts in support of freedom and the rule of law by supporting trade agreements with Colombia. I hope you will urge your legislators to support that initiative.

Caucus Catch-up

I am a Mitt Romney supporter, therefore disappointed with last night's caucus results. Only time will tell if he fares better in other states. There is some interesting commentary worth reviewing:

• At In Rare Form we have had an interesting discussion on how we feel about Huckabee, and whether or not we would vote for a Democrat should he win the nomination.
• Michael Barone looks at the "16-year Itch." That is the name of the cycle that some see in the periodic rejection of establishment politicians from office (see Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter).
• Kim Strassel looks at the future of the Republican party and posits the continued relevance of the "Reagan Coalition."
• Peggy Noonan examines the defeat of "Inevitable Hillary" and Huckabee's acension. She is not kind to his campaign chair Ed Rollins. Her criticism is well-founded.

Finally, David Brooks wrote a piece in today's New York Times that I reacted to with a visceral concern. I'm going to quote liberally to indicate my concerns (any emphasis is mine):

Most importantly, [Huckabee] sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.

Huckabee attacked a conservative icon and the sitting president. He attacked Rush on influence and Bush on foreign policy. The former is unquestionably powerful. The latter is strongest in precisely the realm that Huckabee criticized. Conservatives don't doubt the President's broad initiatives, but their implementation.

A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.

Pays attention to? YES. Panders to? NO. And to indicate that a distrust of capitalists is a good thing? A conservative principle? In my mind this is heresy to the conservative movement. Conservatives distrust socialists and those who threaten property rights. In other words, economic liberals.

Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
So the race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike.
Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation.

Ick. I just discount this whole idea of a new conservatism. If such a thing exists, call it by a different name. I discount the idea that Huckabee has started something in Iowa. I don't want to be associated with that movement.

Tell it straight

As Venezuela descends into dictatorial rule, most of the western media ignores the situation. The King of Spain, Juan Carlos, allowed his frustration to show. From Barcepundit:

I'M NOT PRO-MONARCHY in the sense that I don't believe that any office should be hereditary, including the head of state. But I can't help but cheer on king Juan Carlos today:

‘Why don’t you shut up!’

The words of King Juan Carlos 1 of Spain to the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, in the closing session of the Latin American summit today.

The Spanish monarch lost his cool when Chávez called the ex Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar, a fascist on several occasions. King Juan Carlos then got up and walked out of the session in a gesture without precedent, and just in time to hear the Nicaraguan President, Daniel Ortega, criticising Spanish businesses and the role of Union Fenosa in Nicaragua in particular. The King was to return later, but was not present for the singing of the Chilean hymn which closed the debates.

This article from The Economist provides more insights into Chavez' efforts to subvert democracy.

Venezuelistan

Pakistan has been a source of great unrest for sometime, but the problems have intensified since President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency last week. The media has been following the story closely, which is appropriate given Pakistan's strategic importance and their status as an ally in the war on terror. Musharraf came to power via a military coup. His recent election may not have been free or fair. There is rightful concern about the decisions that he has made. I don't do dispute any of that.

What does concern me is the point addressed in this Investor's Business Daily editorial:

As Pakistan's tightening dictatorship draws global opprobrium, a curious double standard is emerging in Venezuela as democracy gasps its last and celebrities continue to file in. Where's the decency?
That's what was seen in the message sent by the latest visitor to Miraflores Palace, supermodel Naomi Campbell, who gushed "amazement" at the "love and encouragement" in the Venezuelan dictatorship as students battled riot police in the streets below.
...With a lousy record on holding free and fair elections, there's little doubt that by Dec. 2, the day of the vote, Chavez will have sealed his grip by permanently disenfranchising the opposition. There's also little doubt that if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll declare himself dictator.

Venezuela is not strictly related to the war on terror, but Hugo Chavez is a major potential source of instability in our hemisphere. He also continues a sad trend of oppressive leaders in Latin America, and that is unfortunate. Also unfortunate is the failure of luminaries to call Chavez out for who he is.

Quejas for Cuba

The eventual death of Fidel Castro will likely mean that Raúl Castro, his brother, takes full and open control of the country. Most expect that Cuba might then enjoy some economic liberalization, without initial relaxation of dictatorial control over Cuba's politics. There are signs that the government may allow some of that economic change to occur even sooner than that, though rumblings do not a permanent change indicate. From last week's Economist:

“WE HAVE a system in which anything you do is either forbidden or compulsory,” complains Miguel, an academic and a member of Cuba's ruling Communist Party. “Perhaps we need to change that to become more efficient.” He notes angrily that what he earns in a month, a trainee waiter can pick up in tips in a day in the island's tourist hotels. It is a common complaint, and only one of many. But now it is Cuba's government that is encouraging everyone to grumble.
...How will Raúl Castro respond to all this? Unlike Fidel, he is thought to favour the course pursued by China and Vietnam, in which markets and private investment have been combined with Communist political control. Even before the debate began, government economists had been studying measures such as allowing more self-employment and private or co-operative ownership of small and medium-sized businesses, as well as reforming land tenure and freeing agricultural markets.

In both China and Vietnam, the relaxation of state economic control has led to to incremental improvements in political freedoms, though neither country is near to being called "free." This may be all we can hope for in the present. It's better than nothing.

Ignoble Nobel, part 2

I felt like rehashing my stance on Global Warming. My first post on the subject was this one, and I broke down the different Warming beliefs this way:

1. Global Warming is caused in large part by man, is a grave crisis, and man must act immediately to prevent disaster (Al Gore).
   
2. Global Warming is real, may be caused by man and could be problematic for the future.
   
3. There is no "Global Warming," aside from the normal cyclical changes in climate that have occurred many times in history.
   
4. There is no warming. There may even be cooling.

I stated then that #3 was closest to my personal belief. I feel comfortable with that viewpoint, and it is supported by people like Dr. William Gray, one of the most prominent hurricane forecasters in the world:

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
...Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place. However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

Writer Mark Steyn weighs in on Gore's pseudo-religion:

A schoolkid in Ontario was complaining the other day that, whatever subject you do, you have to sit through Gore's movie: It turns up in biology class, in geography, in physics, in history, in English.
Whatever you're studying, it's all you need to know. It fulfils the same role in the schoolhouses of the guilt-ridden developed world that the Koran does in Pakistani madrassas. Gore's rise is as remorseless as those sea levels. I assumed Gore's clammy embrace would do for the environmental movement what his belated endorsement had done for Howard Dean's 2004 presidential candidacy: kill it stone dead. But governor Dean was constrained by actual humdrum prosaic vote tallies in Iowa and New Hampshire. The ecochondriacs, by contrast, seem happiest when they're most unmoored from reality.
That's where Gore comes in. No matter how you raise the stakes ("It might take another 30 Kyotos", says Jerry Mahlman of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research), Saint Al of the Ecopalypse can raise them higher. Climate change, he says, is the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced. Ever. And not just humankind, but alienkind, too. "We are," warns Gore, "altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe".

It is interesting how anyone who questions liberal orthodoxy on Global Warming is labeled as anti-environment. It seems like anyone who swallows Belief #1 is anti-reality. Even if you think warming is caused by man, to act like we know EXACTLY what will cause it is absurd. It presumes a great deal more than we know. Want to know why this propaganda has reached such a level of acceptance? Dr. Gray has the answer:

It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong. But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.

This illustrates the need for skepticism and a questioning mind. It is at the heart of real scientific discovery.