Obama's a Thug

Via Andrew Sullivan, I was introduced to the "once-judicious, meticulous, balanced columnist and political analyst" Michael Barone. Mr. Barone writes:

Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.

The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety.

And this is where it gets weird. Notice how he said "eight of the cited experts"? It's odd that there were eight experts cited. Appendix 1 of the Interior Department report begins:

The Department consulted with a wide range of experts in state and Federal governments, academic institutions, and industry and advocacy organizations. In addition, draft recommendations were peer reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.

In addition to the 7 experts identified by the NAE, another 8 "Other Experts" were consulted. 5 of the 7 NAE-identifed experts and 3 of 8 "Other Experts" signed a letter criticizing the final report. From the letter:

However, we do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors. The draft which we reviewed stated:

"Along with the specific recommendations outlined in the body of the report, Secretary Salazar recommends a 6-month moratorium on permits for new exploratory wells with a depth of 1,000 feet or greater."

Mr. Barone summarizes their letter as follows: "But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium." Mr. Barone needs to issue a correction, because this statement is factually false. The draft the eight experts reviewed included a "6-month moratorium on permits for new exploratory wells with a depth of 1,000 feet or greater."

It turns out that the eight experts are upset because, in the final report, this phrase was changed to "a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs." The experts all agree on the need for a moratorium. The debate is on whether it should apply to floating rigs, or exploratory wells with a depth of 1,000 feet or greater. A blanket moratorium does not appear either in the draft or in the final report. However, this does not stop the eight experts from insisting: "A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill." How does Mr. Barone summarize this? "Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and 'counterproductive' to safety." Mr. Barone's work is disgraceful.

p.s. Writing the title for this post, I just noticed for the first time the racial undertones to calling Obama a thug.

David Sanger Doesn't Understand Capitalism

I was first made aware of David Sanger because of the Biden beach party he attended with Marc Ambinder. His column on June 17 managed to

Along the way, he will have to avoid painting with such a broad brush that foreign and domestic investors come to view the United States as a too risky place to do business, a country where big mistakes can lead to vilification and, perhaps, bankruptcy.

What Sanger is condemning here is... capitalism. Big mistakes leading to bankruptcy? That's exactly what happens in a competitive marketplace. It's the creative destruction that fuels a capitalist society.

O'Hanlon's Update

Michael E. O'Hanlon and his co-workers at the Brookings Institute have put out the latest update to their chart on "The States of War". They have the chart colour-coded, with light grey for "More favorable conditions" and dark grey for "Less favorable conditions". However, their colour-coding appears to be seriously faulty. Under the heading "Judges in Kandahar Province (need: at least 50)", we discover that there were five in 2008, colour-coded as "Less favorable conditions". In 2009, there were 7, which O'Hanlon et al. decided to to colour-code as medium. And in 2010, there were 8 judges, which was colour-coded as "More favorable conditions".

And this is where the colour code breaks down. While hiring 3 extra judges in 2 years resulted in a "more favourable" ranking, while they are still 42 judges away from what is needed.

A further quibble: under the section "Trends in Pakistan", the "Number of Aerial Drone Attacks by U.S. (monthly average)" has changed from 3 in 2008, to 4 in 2009, to 8 in 2010. As the report was released by the Brookings Institute, the increase in drone attacks is considered movement to "More favorable conditions".