Free Frank Warner

The war on financial regulation

If you’ll recall, the post-Enron-scandal accounting laws and regulations were passed to guarantee that corporations accurately report their assets, liabilities, income and costs.

But as soon as the “mark to market” rule forced banks to reveal how shaky their assets were, and reduced banks’ ability to lend money as a result, Congressman Barney Frank last year told the accountants to ignore the regulation.

Result: Banks are allowed again to make shaky loans based on shaky assets. Barney Frank is good at that game.

Retiree subsidy. Now, with the passage of the costly health-care law, companies like AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and John Deere are required, under other provisions of the accurate-accounting regulations, to tell their stockholders that the new law substantially reduces a federal subsidy to their retirees' health care benefits. They’ve announced that, because of the lost subsidy, the health-care law will cost the companies hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

With that, Congressman Henry Waxman demanded the CEOs of AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and John Deere come to Washington to explain why they told the truth.

The war on financial regulation continues.

Frank Warner

Obama to allow offshore oil drilling

Since we’re using 7.1 billion barrels of oil a year, and spending $340 billion a year to import 4.1 billion barrels of that from foreigners, it wouldn’t hurt to pump more of our own oil instead.

President Obama says he’ll consider leasing offshore areas in the Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the seas north of Alaska. This is CO2-based energy, but it could be part of the economic bridge to the C02-free energy of the future.

Frank Warner

900,000 hits

In my seventh year of blogging, I finally reached a total of 900,000 hits this week.

I think that was Monday. Thanks to Kevin, I was up to 902,000 on Tuesday.

Again, the 902,000 is the total for all 6 1/2 years. Some of the big blogs get that much traffic in one day, but heck, they have 3-D!

Frank Warner

1 British inquiry clears Phil Jones

An investigation by a British House of Commons committee has found, after considering one day of testimony, that climatologist Phil Jones' scientific reputation is "intact."

Two other British investigations into Jones are continuing. The most interesting appears to be the inquiry into the integrity of climate science. This one has the help of Kerry Emanuel, an MIT meteorology professor, and Huw Davies, former president of the International Association of Meteorology & Atmospheric Science.

Frank Warner

Uma Thurman 'Motherhood' movie bombs

In its first weekend, Uma Thurman's new motion picture "Motherhood" grossed $131.

Yep. Not $131 million. $131.

The film opened in Britain. Eleven people showed up. The movie was withdrawn.

Frank Warner

Obama’s speech to troops in Afghanistan: The Freedom Count: 0

Several pundits have given President Obama high marks for his comments yesterday to our troops in Afghanistan. It was a fairly upbeat pep talk, but I couldn’t help but notice that democracy and freedom never came up.

The president spoke for 20 minutes at Bagram Airfield:

And as I told President Karzai today, the United States is a partner but our intent is to make sure that the Afghans have the capacity to provide for their own security. That is core to our mission.

Is that all we’re fighting for? Security? Security based on what?

We are here to help Afghans forge a hard-won peace while realizing the extraordinary potential of the Afghan people, Afghanistan’s sons and daughters, from the soldiers and the police to the farmers and the young students. And we want to build a lasting partnership founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect.

A partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect? That’s all? Is there room here for democracy and freedom?

Everybody back home is grateful. And everybody understands the sacrifices that you have made and your families have made to keep America safe and to keep America secure in this vital mission.

What are we keeping safe in America? And would a similar atmosphere of freedom serve both security and human rights in Afghanistan?

If I thought for a minute that America’s vital interests were not served, were not at stake here in Afghanistan, I would order all of you home right away.

Doesn’t democracy in Afghanistan serve the interests of the Afghans, the Americans and the world? Or would you be content to kill everyone in al Qaida and the Taliban, but turn Afghanistan over to another tyrant?

Your services are absolutely necessary, absolutely essential to America’s safety and security.

Don’t those services also serve the overarching cause of freedom?

We can’t forget why we’re here. We did not choose this war. This was not an act of America wanting to expand its influence; of us wanting to meddle in somebody else’s business. We were attacked viciously on 9/11. Thousands of our fellow countrymen and women were killed. And this is the region where the perpetrators of that crime, al Qaida, still base their leadership.

But we did chase both al Qaida and the Taliban from power in Afghanistan? Isn't that enough? Or is it imperative that when we leave, we leave behind a democratic government, dedicated to freedom for all? Why is that important? Please explain.

And since the Indian wars, in which war was America simply “wanting to expand its influence”? Isn’t the fairly clear historical thread that, for more than 100 years, where America goes and wins, the influence of the local people expands, through democracy and freedom?

I will never send you into harm’s way unless it’s absolutely necessary. I anguish in thinking about the sacrifices that so many of you make. That’s why I promise I will never send you out unless it is necessary.

So if another government is killing and oppressing many more times the number of people that the Taliban and al Qaida have killed and oppressed, you wouldn’t ever send U.S. troops to defend the defenseless or free the oppressed?  If Americans aren't killed or enslaved, do we simply look the other way?

Our broad mission is clear: We are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al Qaida and its extremist allies. That is our mission. And to accomplish that goal, our objectives here in Afghanistan are also clear: We’re going to deny al Qaeda safe haven. We’re going to reverse the Taliban’s momentum. We’re going to strengthen the capacity of Afghan security forces and the Afghan government so that they can begin taking responsibility and gain confidence of the Afghan people.

The mission: Defeat al Qaida and its extremist allies, strengthen Afghanistan’s security forces. What if the new democracy falls apart and a new dictatorship provides basic “security”? How important is democracy?

And our strategy includes a military effort that takes the fight to the Taliban while creating the conditions for greater security and a transition to the Afghans; but also a civilian effort that improves the daily lives of the Afghan people, and combats corruption; and a partnership with Pakistan and its people, because we can’t uproot extremists and advance security and opportunity unless we succeed on both sides of the border.

OK, we’re against corruption and for security and opportunity. How about liberty and its institutions? Are they important at all?

And here in Afghanistan you’ve gone on the offensive. And the American people back home are noticing. We have seen a huge increase in support in -- stateside, because people understand the kinds of sacrifices that you guys are making, and the clarity of mission that you’re bringing to bear.

So we Americans back home are happy only because our troops have gone on the offensive? Or are we happy because the “clarity of mission” has nothing to do with freedom?

The United States of America does not quit once it starts on something. You don’t quit, the American armed services does not quit, we keep at it, we persevere, and together with our partners we will prevail. I am absolutely confident of that.

What exactly did we start on in Afghanistan after the Taliban and al Qaida were tossed out of power? Do we have to prevail only because we're there now? Or do we have to prevail because a better, safer future for Afghanistan depends on its remaining democratic?

You’ve been there for us, tour after tour, year after year, at a time when too many American institutions have let us down, when too many institutions have put short-term gain in front of a commitment to duty and a commitment to what’s right. You’ve met your responsibilities, you’ve done your duty -- not just when it’s easy. That’s why you’ve inspired your fellow Americans.

It would help to be clear here. Which American institutions "let us down" year after year? Democratic institutions? Are you accidentally telling Afghanistan to forget about that whole freedom idea? If you’re talking about Barney Frank’s control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, say it. Don’t let the Afghans think you're condemning democracy.

And all of you represent the virtues and the values that America so desperately needs right now: sacrifice and selflessness, honor and decency. That’s why you’re here today. That’s what you represent.

Sacrifice and selflessness, honor and decency. So the war isn’t just about self-interest?

There’s no daylight when it comes to supporting our troops. That brings us together. We are all incredibly proud. We all honor what you do. And all of you show all of America what’s possible when people come together, not based on color or creed, not based on faith or station, but based on a commitment to serve together, to bleed together and to succeed together as one people, as Americans.

We’re proud that our troops serve together, bleed together and succeed together “as one people.” Is that all we’re proud of? Don’t our armed forces represent something bigger than fighting? What is America for?

Make no mistake, this fight matters to us. It matters to us, it matters to our allies, it matters to the Afghan people. Al Qaeda and the violent extremists who you’re fighting against want to destroy. But all of you want to build -- and that is something essential about America. They’ve got no respect for human life. You see dignity in every human being. That’s part of what we value as Americans. They want to drive races and regions and religions apart. You want to bring people together and see the world move forward together. They offer fear, in other words, and you offer hope.

Americans are for building, for human life, for human dignity. We’re against driving races and regions and religions apart. We’re for hope. And under which kind of government are all these ideals best protected?

And that’s why it is so important that you know that the entire country stands behind you. That’s why you put on that uniform, because in an uncertain world, the United States of America will always stand up for the security of nations and the dignity of human beings. That’s who we are. That is what we do.

America is for the security of nations and human dignity. “That is what we do.” OK. How do we do it? Isn't it through democracy and freedom? Isn't it for democracy and freedom?

Much has happened to our country and to the world since 9/11. But I’m confident that so long as brave men and women like you -- Americans who are willing to serve selflessly half a world away on behalf of their fellow citizens and the dreams of people they’ve never met -- so long as there are folks like you, then I’m confident that our nation will endure, and hope will overcome fear. And I am confident that better days lie ahead.

So our troops go to battle not just for Americans, but also for “the dreams of people they’ve never met.” How are those dreams given the best chance of success? Democracy? And doesn’t every dream include a life in freedom?

“The better days lie ahead.” How can we be confident of that? Because America wins wars? Or because America wins wars for freedom, and because freedom is the best hope for a world at peace?

In Afghanistan, the president couldn't find the words. I voted for President Obama. Now I vote that he develop a freedom agenda.

Frank Warner

Michael Mann: 'I'm a skeptic'

Here's my interview with Michael Mann, and here's the story about it.

Frank Warner

Slaves of the Caribbean

A replica of the former slave ship Amistad sailed into Havana, Cuba, two days ago. Babalu recalls the Spielberg movie of the same name and its compelling story of an 1839 slave rebellion.

As compelling, however, is the realization of how much things have changed and have not changed after 171 years. In a complete reversal, the Amistad arrived in Cuba on Thursday with 19 free men and women on board who were greeted by slave masters who, 171 years later, hold 11-million+ Cubans as slaves.

Communist Cuba is the old Amistad. When will these slaves rebel?

Frank Warner

North Koreans tire of the dictator’s Big Lie

Not all North Koreans have been deceived all these years by the Big Lie of their Communist dictatorship, but the totalitarian system has given them no room to challenge the repression.

Now professor B.R. Myers says more North Koreans than ever are waking up to realize that Kim Jong Il is just another bloody tyrant and their neighbors in free South Korea are far better off.

North Koreans are hearing the truth on the Voice of America, the BBC, some are catching the facts on South Korean TV transmissions; and some are reaching the outside world with Chinese cellphones.

Myers writes:

What the masses are learning is incompatible with their decades-old sense of a sacred racial mission. They have known since the 1990s that their living standard is much lower than South Korea’s. The gap was explained away with reference to the sacrifices needed to build up the military.

What the North Koreans are only now realizing, however—and this is more important—is that their brethren in the “Yankee colony” have no desire to live under Kim Jong Il. In 2007, after all, they elected the pro-American candidate to the South Korean presidency. Why, then, should the northerners go on sacrificing in order to liberate people who don’t want to be liberated?

Why indeed? Myers believes there’s a chance the regime will collapse within 10 years, possibly in a nuclear flash of suicidal glory. I’m not so sure it will collapse at all. The people of Cuba have known for 50 years that the Castro regime is starving them, but the Castro mob has held on with its full control of the police, the army, the press, the courts, the bureaucracy and the block watches.

With the right checks and balances against human rights, even the most obvious of failure dictatorships can hang on for decades. And even if Kim Jong Il is overthrown, how likely is Communist China next door to allow a free election in North Korea?

Frank Warner

Tomorrow

Tomorrow, check out my interview with Professor Michael Mann. I'll give you the link as soon as I have it.

Frank Warner