Take it from Britain, folks: net zero amounts to government telling you to adjust your lifestyle, and play-like energy forms won't be able to step in and keep you warm

 Over in Albion, government is "recommending" "behavior change" to the subjects and folks need to step it up with making those changes :

this news (via the Daily Telegraph) is another reminder of how net zero is a step back:

Millions of families will be urged by a green quango not to heat their homes in the evening to help the Government hit its net zero target.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) said people should turn off their radiators at peak times as part of a wider drive to deliver “emissions savings”.

In a document on “behaviour change” the body recommended Britons “pre-heat” their houses in the afternoon when electricity usage is lower.

It said the move would save families money, but critics suggested the real reason was that renewables will not be able to provide enough energy to cope with peak demand.

“Critics” are almost certainly correct.

A quango (for those who don’t speak British-English) is, to quote Wikipedia,

an organisation to which a government has devolved power, but which is still partly controlled and/or financed by government bodies. The term was originally a shortening of “quasi autonomous NGO”, where NGO is the acronym for a non-government organization.

The CCC, explains the Daily Telegraph’s Nick Gutteridge,

is an independent body set up by ministers in 2008 to advise the Government on how to hit its climate targets.

In its latest report, the committee criticises No 10 over its “worryingly slow” action on climate.

It states that Downing Street’s support for new oil and coal exploration and the expansion of airports meant Britain was no longer a global green leader.

“No longer a global green leader.”

And this little aspect of the situation points up something I've long observed: that hypocrisy becomes a problem when pointy-headed overlords aren't doing what they'r telling the subject to do. It's especially galling when they admit that it's because they can't afford to:

The CCC, it seems, still clings to some remnant of British imperial nostalgia. And, as for its “independence,” all that that means is that the CCC has become a playground for climate fundamentalists. It also advises the U.K. government on an “appropriate” level for its “carbon budgets.” It is largely unaccountable, apart from the occasional embarrassment.

The Daily Telegraph:

The use of “carbon budgets”, which set the Government legally binding targets for reducing emissions, has increasingly come under fire from Tory MPs.

Last month the head of the CCC revealed that he still has a gas boiler in his own flat even though his committee is urging Britons to switch to heat pumps.

Chris Stark said more than four years ago that he was “keen” to switch to an electric heating system but admitted that he had not been able to do so.

He also acknowledged that heat pumps were too expensive for many people and that it was “very difficult” to install them in existing flats like his own.

Oh.

The reason why this issue needs to be front and center is not because there's some need for urgency in addressing a climate "crisis." It's because the overlords are bringing human advancement, comfort and convenience to a screaming halt. 

 

 

Liz Truss's resignation - initial thoughts

 I sure know how to pick 'em, don't I?

A little over three months ago, I wrote this post extolling her virtues and wishing her the best in the race to be UK PM. And now she holds the record for holding the prime minister office the shortest length of time in British history. 

But I still stand by what I said about her principles:

She's one of those - like Ronald Reagan - who shifted from left to right as she considered which side of the spectrum best aligned with her core values:

Truss, who grew up in Leeds, northern England, worked for 10 years in the energy and telecommunications sectors before entering politics.  

She is married to an accountant and has two daughters.

Her political journey began at the prestigious University of Oxford, where she graduated in politics, philosophy and economics.

But at Oxford, she was an active member of the Liberal Democrat party. 

By her own admission, her switch to the Conservatives shocked her left-wing maths professor father and nuclear disarmament campaigner mother, whom she accompanied to demonstrations as a child.

"One of his colleagues sent an email when he found out saying: 'I see your daughter's become a T***' (Tory)," Truss told The Guardian of her father.

Truss, though, saw the Tories as a better fit for her minimalist state beliefs and quickly became earmarked for success within the party.

Two quotes from her are really helping make the sale for me:

". . .liberating people to start and grow businesses without burdensome red tape is the key to our economic future".

And

"Whether it's 'affirmative action', forced training on 'unconscious bias' or lectures on 'lived experience', the Left are in thrall to ideas that undermine equality at every turn."

Strongly supports Ukraine. 

Who wouldn't have high hopes for such a figure?

But following through was going to entail ripping the Band-Aid off on the policy level, and Britain was not willing to live through the period of disruption required to get to a full re-orienation to a conservative course:

Her Sept. 23 economic plan included a raft of tax cuts that investors worried Britain couldn’t afford. It pummeled the value of the pound and drove up the cost of mortgages, causing economic pain for people and businesses already struggling from an economy yet to emerge from the pain of the pandemic.

That financial tumult led to the replacement of Truss’ Treasury chief, multiple policy U-turns and a breakdown of discipline in the governing Conservative Party.

Truss resigned just a day after vowing to stay in power, saying she was “a fighter and not a quitter.” But she couldn’t hold on any longer after a senior minister quit her government amid a barrage of criticism and a vote in the House of Commons Wednesday descended into chaos and acrimony.

“It’s time for the prime minister to go,” Conservative lawmaker Miriam Cates said, echoing the sentiments of many others. 

And now the Tories are in circular-firing-squad-level disarray and the Liberal Party is blowing their doors off in the polls.

The same thing would happen here if an actual free-market champion started putting in place the policies that would be needed to right post-America's ship. So we keep our debate within the narrow parameters of what, if any kinds of moderations could be made to our current collectivist system.

I'll leave you with this. It's this morning's installment in Ben Sears's weekly POETS Day series at Ordinary Times. It's about an 1802 poem William Wordsworth wrote in which he yearns for a John Milton figure to come along to lift Britain out of what Wordsworth saw as its malaise. Sears closes with the poem, which I shall do here:

London, 1802

William Wordsworth (1770 – 1850)

Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword, and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
O raise us up, return to us again,
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power!
Thy soul was like a Star, and dwelt apart;
Thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea:
Pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free,
So didst thou travel on life’s common way,
In cheerful godliness; and yet thy heart
The lowliest duties on herself did lay.

y 

 

SHARE

 

So far, I'm impressed by Liz Truss as a replacement for Boris Johnson as UK PM

 She's one of those - like Ronald Reagan - who shifted from left to right as she considered which side of the spectrum best aligned with her core values:

Truss, who grew up in Leeds, northern England, worked for 10 years in the energy and telecommunications sectors before entering politics.  

She is married to an accountant and has two daughters.

Her political journey began at the prestigious University of Oxford, where she graduated in politics, philosophy and economics.

But at Oxford, she was an active member of the Liberal Democrat party. 

By her own admission, her switch to the Conservatives shocked her left-wing maths professor father and nuclear disarmament campaigner mother, whom she accompanied to demonstrations as a child.

"One of his colleagues sent an email when he found out saying: 'I see your daughter's become a T***' (Tory)," Truss told The Guardian of her father.

Truss, though, saw the Tories as a better fit for her minimalist state beliefs and quickly became earmarked for success within the party.

Two quotes from her are really helping make the sale for me:

". . .liberating people to start and grow businesses without burdensome red tape is the key to our economic future".

And

"Whether it's 'affirmative action', forced training on 'unconscious bias' or lectures on 'lived experience', the Left are in thrall to ideas that undermine equality at every turn."

Strongly supports Ukraine. 

I haven't seen a lot on the other contenders, but I like what I see here. 

 

 

Thursday roundup

State's Attorney Kim Foxx has done an about face re: the six new charges the special prosecutor has brought against Jussie Smollett - sort of. She's still saying that she "certainly hope[s] [the] decision made in this case was based on facts evidence & the law."

John Kelly treated an assemblage of students and guests at Drew University to some bracing candor the other night, letting loose on his view on how the Very Stable Genius has handled North Korea (saying the summits were pointless and merely bought Kim some time), made unrealistic generalizations about immigrants, intervened in the Eddie Gallagher case, and dealt with Ukraine. Kelly had this to say about Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman notifying his superiors when he became disturbed about the July 25 call to Zelensky:

“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly told the audience at the Mayo Performing Arts Center. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.”

Although Trump has long insisted his call to Zelensky was “perfect,” Kelly made clear that Trump indeed conditioned military aid on Zelensky’s help digging up dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

That amounted to a momentous change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine — one that Vindman was right to flag, because other federal agencies needed to know about the shift, Kelly said.

Madeleine Kearns at National Review points out how cowardice among Republicans in the South Dakota Senate advances civilizational rot.  A bill called the Vulnerable Child Protection ace has been  making its way through that state's legislature and three Pub Senators joined the Dem majority in basically killing it. The bill would . . .

. . . make it easier for gender-confused minors to attain financial compensation later in life — should they realize, before age 38, that the doctors who stunted their puberty, destroyed their fertility, and permanently impaired their sexual function had failed to meet the acceptable standards of (what are we calling it these days?) health care.

Witnesses in favor of the bill include some people who had had their crotches mutilated and had been pumped full of hormones not natural to their bodies and later gone through hell as a result.

Here's a taste of what the bill's opponents put forth as representative of their view:

A lobbyist for the ACLU began by greeting everyone with a “handshake from [her] heart,” introducing herself as a “queer indigenous two-spirit nonbinary” person. Another witness spoke on behalf of “Julian Bear Runner” of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, informing the Senate that Mr. Bear Runner (whose relevance and absence wasn’t explained) takes “great offense when our civil liberties come under fire by government officials [and] when laws are used as weapons to prohibit the movements and prosperity of [his] people.” 

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are in talks with Goldman Sachs about how they can serve as "brand ambassadors" for the financial giant. Last week, they gave a speech to a hoity-toity JP Morgan event for which they were paid around $1 million. Here's some sharp reaction to the first moves post-"stepping back" that the power couple has made:

The British morning TV host Piers Morgan, a former friend of the Duchess’, wrote in the Daily Mail of the JP Morgan appearance that “it’s hard to imagine a more ludicrously inappropriate first gig for them to take in their brave new progressive, planet-saving royal celebrity world. Sadly, this appears to be just the start of the Sussexes’ shameless nose-in-trough descent into banking ‘partnerships’.”

The revelations come after noted author Germaine Greer went on Australian television and offered her view that Meghan was “faking love” with Harry as she pursued a “glamorous life” according to The U.S. Sun’s account of the interview.

The provocative feminist told Australia’s version of “60 Minutes” that the outcome of Meghan and Harry’s marriage was “likely to be disastrous”. 

“If she’s been faking it all this time, oh boy, what misery. How many orgasms will it take? How many fake groans will get her through this?”

“She’ll bolt. She’s bolted before,” she continued, making a reference to Meghan’s first failed marriage to a Hollywood talent manager. 

What do leftists do when they encounter something that doesn't fit their narrative? They bolt in a huff:

Virginia state Democrats on Tuesday stormed out of the House chamber after a local black minister led the body in an opening prayer that openly and strongly condemned abortion and gay marriage.

Rev. Robert M. Grant Jr., who pastors The Father’s Way Church in Warrenton, used his few moments at the microphone addressing the newly Democrat-controlled House of Delegates to decry abortion, advocate for traditional marriage, and warn against God’s wrath if the state legislature goes against Biblical principles.

“I pray that you may understand that all life is precious and worthy of a chance to be born. God is the giver of life and people have no right or authority to take life. The unborn have rights and those rights need to be protected. They should never be denied the right to exist, the right to develop or the right to have a family,” he said from the podium.

“The word of God has given us a warning: woe to anyone who harms an innocent child," he added, telling state lawmakers that “every one of you sitting here today can guarantee these rights to these little innocent children of Virginia."

“Please do not ignore their little voices. I pray for a heart change today, and may the Lord God have mercy upon this leadership,” he went on.

Grant then switched to gay marriage.

“We should never rewrite what God has declared,” he continued, praying that the state would “always protect the biblical definition of marriage” between one man and one woman.

Big-bucks Dem donors are bailing on Joe Biden.

Eric Kaufmann at Law & Liberty on why the Left is losing in Europe. 

Monday roundup

Great Allen Guezlo essay at Public Discourse on reconciling two views of America: creed and culture.

Pete Wehner at The Atlantic on how the GOP has been broken by Trump:

From a certain perspective, their timidity is understandable. They know that to publicly challenge Trump—to call out his ethical transgressions, cruelty, and indecency even as they support his policies—invites impassioned attacks from Trump supporters and, in some cases, a primary challenge. No one likes to be under attack, particularly by the base of one’s own party, and no one wants to lose a job.

Moreover, they will argue, they must defend the president in public so they can have influence in private. They have also convinced themselves that they are essential to the project of repairing the Republican Party post-Trump, and that this requires that they not be viewed as disloyal to Trump while he’s serving as president. “What good does it do to attack Trump?” they will ask. He won’t change his ways, and they will only weaken themselves in the process. (Many of them are happy to attack Trump in private conversations, citing, chapter and verse, things he has said or done that alarm them, showing that they both know better and are playing a cynical game.)

That, at least, is the story they tell themselves. Some of what they say is worth taking into account. But what they don’t tell themselves, probably because it would be too psychologically shattering, is that they have become fully complicit in a corrupt enterprise called the Trump presidency. (Romney is the rare exception.) They are defending actions they know are wrong and that, if they had been done by a Democratic president, they would be outraged by. More than that, they are validating Trump’s approach to politics—the hyper-aggression, the lawlessness, the mendacity, the shamelessness—and therefore guaranteeing imitators. It also happens that their influence on the president is far sm

aller than they tell themselves. They have made concession after concession after concession, justifying each one along the way. Then you look back at the road they’ve traveled, and it’s breathtaking. Donald Trump has changed them far more than they have changed Donald Trump.

Michael Strain, writing at Bloomberg, makes a point, focusing on economic policy, that LITD often makes in a broadly applied way: Yeah, we're facing a binary choice, and both options are rotten. That's especially so if the Dem candidate turns out to be Bernie Sanders.

For a presidential contender who makes her aversion to fossil fuels the centerpiece of her political life, Elizabeth Warren has some eye-opening connections to that industry:

So it’s worth noting that, for years, she and her husband reported modest income from natural-gas royalties in her native state of Oklahoma. Ms. Warren’s financial disclosure filed with the Senate in 2012 included $504 of income from “gas well royalty interests” in Latimer County. The next year it was $203. Drill a little deeper and the facts get even more interesting.

Ms. Warren’s campaign has posted 11 years of her tax returns, which show gas income from at least 2008. That year she filed jointly with her husband, Bruce Mann, who had $872 in royalties from gas wells in Oklahoma. There are smaller amounts—a few hundred dollars—reported over the next several tax returns, before the yearly earnings stop.

You might be thinking that we’re only talking about a few hundred dollars here and there, several years in the past, for someone who is a multimillionaire. What’s the big deal, right? Well, if you read on in the WSJ report, it goes deeper than what’s found on her tax returns. Property records show a 2011 sale of all the oil, gas and mineral rights for some of their property to none other than their own son, Alexander. (Keeping it in the family, I guess.)

The paper trail goes on further, including quite recent events. There’s a 2017 transfer of parcels of property in Hughes County, Oklahoma, including drilling rights, involving her son and three of her brothers. The agreements include the payment of royalties for any recovered resources. And those agreements were slated for three years, so they will still be in effect until at least this summer.

Paul Krause at The Imaginative Conservative says that revisiting Milton's Paradise Lost can broaden our sense of the full meaning of the term eros.

I seriously have not drawn a conclusion yet on this one. Was Nigel Farage's farewell address to the European Parliament, replete with Union Jack flag-waving, hours before Brexit became official, a gratuitous stunt that merely increased the sum total of yay-hoo-ism in the world, or was it the perfect outgoing message to send to Brussels? It sure brought out the pinched-face-schoolteacher in Parliament VP Mairead McGuinness. What do you all think?

 

The EU still does not seem to get what Britain is doing

The EU still seems to think that the UK wants to be guided by pointy-headed bureaucrats in Brussels. The fact that there short-lived Teresa May era gave way to Boris Johnson becoming PM and Labor taking its worst drubbing in nearly a century doesn't appear to be sinking in:

. . . the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier . . .  in a recent essay shares his vision of the future relationship. Mr. Barnier begins by expressing regret at Britain’s determination to exit but, in a spirit of equanimity and good will, looks forward to the “opportunity to forge a new UK-EU partnership.” Taking a page from former premier Theresa May, he reiterates that though the “UK may be leaving the EU … it is not leaving Europe.”

Instead, Mr. Barnier outlines three areas of mutual interest. One such step will be “to work together and discuss joint solutions to global challenges.” Another, “to build a close security relationship.” Can anyone contend against these aspirations? Britain pursues its international agenda with myriad intergovernmental agencies, be it the United Nations, NATO, or World Trade Organization. No serious impediments exist from extending its collaborative reach to former colleagues in the EU.

Mr. Barnier’s third area for cooperation, however, sets the cat among the pigeons. “We need an economic partnership that reflects our common interests, geographical proximity, and interdependence.” Innocuous, so far as it goes. Even praise for competition in the areas of “skills, innovation, and quality” would not raise an eyebrow among Mr. Johnson’s Conservative cabinet.

Trouble emerges only when the EU’s Brexit mandarin hoists his true colors. “We know that competing on social and environmental standards … leads only to a race to the bottom,” a race that places “workers, consumers, and the planet on the losing side.” Such assertions may be common parlance among the Brussels bureaucracy, but at Westminster they’ll raise a raucous. The Labour Party took such a stand at December’s general election; its trouncing at the ballot box speaks of its limited appeal among weary Britons.

Neither will the British government be sanguine as to Mr. Barnier’s ultimatum for a future deal, “Any free-trade agreement must provide for a level playing field on standards, state aid, and tax matters.” It is as if the 2016 referendum to leave never happened, an “exit” commitment reaffirmed two short weeks ago.

Mr. Barnier’s line-in-the-sand makes a mockery of Tory reforms. Mr. Johnson went to the polls promising to cut unnecessary red tape, use state spending to source infrastructure and training schemes, and lower taxes to unleash entrepreneurial innovation, thus encouraging employment and economic prosperity. The EU’s chief negotiator would have all this at naught.

Mr. Barnier’s “poison pill” is doubtless administered to those in the City of London who aspire to turn their capital into “Singapore-on-the Thames.” (Arch Remainer Philip Hammond pooh-poohed the Singapore model when Chancellor of the Exchequer.) This Asian economic powerhouse consistently ranks in the top five of the Heritage Foundation’s “Index of Economic Freedom,” scoring high marks on rule of law, regulatory efficiency, government size, and open markets. (The UK currently ranks #7, while America scores a respectable #12. As for the EU’s major players, Germany ranks #24 with France a distant #71.)

Is there any mistaking why Mr. Barnier has singled out as “non-negotiables” those very measures essential to economic dynamism? Measures that Mr. Johnson has made the foundation of Britain’s post-EU future, measures on which most of the EU-membership fail abysmally. (Ireland is a notable exception.)

A prescient Prime Minister will see in these EU moves to frustrate Brexit the shadow of Brussels bureaucrats that use intimidation and obfuscation (for example, ignoring populist pushback in member states) to spook conformity from countries that run counter to their will. 

The horse is out of the barn, Mr. Barnier. Britain wants to move in the other direction, toward sovereignty, economic liberty and common sense. As other European nations see the results of Brexit, they, too, may opt for being in charge of their own destinies, and you may have to find some other line of work besides cajoling them into acting against their best interests.

And just like that, Albion reasserts its sovereignty

Now, here's a history-making development if I ever saw one:

Members of Parliament have just voted overwhelmingly to approve Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Brexit plan by a vote of 358 to 234.

Brexit's approval was widely expected following the conservative victory in the UK election last week.

Brexit has been in gridlock for over three years. Former Prime Minister Theresa May has made several failed attempts to get Brexit through Parliament since the country voted in favor of Brexit in 2016. May ultimately failed to get a deal through, and she resigned in May over her inability to broker a deal that could win a majority of Parliament.

According to the Associated Press, the departure of the UK from the EU "will open a new phase of Brexit, as Britain and the EU race to strike new relationships for trade, security and host of other areas by the end of 2020."

Boris Johnson considered the vote a moment of closure. “The sorry story of the last 3 1/2 years will be at an end and we will be able to move forward together,” Johnson said. “This is a time when we move on and discard the old labels of ‘leave’ and ‘remain.’ Now is the time to act together as one reinvigorated nation.”

Why has this occurred in such a resolute and brisk-paced manner after the ultimately failed grind that May put the nation through? There will be no shortage of analysis of the matter, but a short answer that occurs to me presently is that she was too accommodating, trying to dot everyone's i's and cross their t's. She just couldn't muster the nerve to make the clean break with Brussels. She took a simple sentiment that most of the Queen's subjects were on board with - leaving the EU - and bogged it down with complications to avoid possible ruffled feathers.

Brits like their leaders to act resolutely on decisions.

Brits greenlight Johnson to get Brexit done

Albion overwhelmingly goes for sovereignty:

The polls have closed. The exit polls are projecting the Tories getting 368 seats in the House of Commons (326 needed for a majority), to 191 for Labour—the largest margin for the Tories since Thatcher’s 1987 landslide.

The Tories appear to be outperforming their pre-election poll estimates, and Labour underperforming. What a surprise.

Recriminations already starting. One early tweet of note: ‘Labour source: “This is a damning verdict on the Corbyn project. If the exit poll is accurate then jeremy Corbyn, Karie Murphy and Seamus Milne will have done more to bring about the end of the Labour Party than the Conservative Party ever could. Their position is untenable.”’

The Left is howling all over Twitter.  "Racists over people of color" type dog vomit.

Hee hee.

The Very Stable Genius continues to ruin US foreign policy

At some point last week, I saw a question posed somewhere - it might have been Twitter, or in some short opinion-site piece - that began with the observation that we'd been seeing "good Trump" for a little while. The question was whether that could be maintained during the NATO 70th anniversary gathering in London.

It's clear that we now have our answer. After indulging himself in lengthy pressers (52 minutes, 39 and 30) after meeting with some of the leaders present, at least one (the one with French president Emmanuel Macron) of which was acrimonious, he abruptly cancelled what was to be the official end-of-summit press conference and flew home.

About that Macron one-on-one, here's a taste of the vibe:

Macron tried to parry the flow of words, making clear that he disagreed with Trump on Turkey's intervention in Syria.

When Trump tried to joke about France taking back its citizens captured in the region — “Would you like some nice ISIS fighters? I can give them to you” — Macron responded.

“Let’s be serious,” he snapped back. “The very large number of fighters you have on the ground are ISIS fighters coming from Syria, from Iraq, and the region.”

“This is why he’s a great politician, because that was one of the greatest nonanswers I’ve ever heard,” Trump said, to Macron’s clear irritation.

There were several other blurting of note at that get-together, responses to media questions rather than barbs directed at Macron.

He would not commit to coming to any NATO member's defense if the nation was attacked, saying that in the case of countries paying less than the agreed-upon 2 percent of their defense budgets, saying, in his signature word-salad style, "Why is it they owe us for this year, but every time a new year comes along, they don't have to pay?" Um, they don't pay "us," they pay NATO, an organization that all the nations in question belong to.

The Very Stable Genius said of Chinese president Xi, "I don't think he likes me so much anymore, but that's okay." Probably the best face to put on the relationship given that the big trade deal the VSG has been saying was right around the corner is in fact still mired in sticking points, a development that cause the stock market to slide 250 points in real time.

About the Kurds in Northern Syria, he said, "We have taken the oil. I have taken the oil. We should have done it in other locations, frankly, where we were. I can name four of them right now, but we've taken the oil."

What caused his take-his-toys-and-go-home pout was an informal cocktail-party gathering of heads of state at which there was a chuckle had over the VSG's disregard for niceties like promptness:

The video, which quickly went viral online, showed Trudeau, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron and others speaking at a Buckingham Palace reception. The video begins with Johnson looking toward Macron and asking, "Is that why you were late?"

Trudeau jumped in, "He was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference off the top."

After a cut in the footage, Trudeau adds, "I watched his team's jaws drop on the floor."

In addition to this NATO fiasco, the VSG is applying his customary hot-headedness to Brazil's and Argentina's currency devaluations:

President Donald Trump announced Monday that the US will "restore" steel and aluminum tariffs on Brazil and Argentina, citing a "massive devaluation of their currencies." 

"Brazil and Argentina have been presiding over a massive devaluation of their currencies. which is not good for our farmers. Therefore, effective immediately, I will restore the Tariffs on all Steel & Aluminum that is shipped into the U.S. from those countries," Trump tweeted early Monday morning from Washington. He also called on the Federal Reserve to "act so that countries, of which there are many, no longer take advantage of our strong dollar by further devaluing their currencies." 

Formal notices of the tariffs were not immediately announced by the Treasury or Commerce Departments or the Office of the US Trade Representative. Both Brazil and Argentina were exempted from 25% steel and 10% aluminum tariffs last year when Trump was attempting to avoid a trade war with those countries. 

Brazil's President, Jair Bolsonaro, said Monday that he has an "open channel" of communication with Trump, according to state news agency Agencia Brasil.

Bolsonaro said he would meet with Brazilian Finance Minister Paulo Guedes Monday to discuss the issue and make a call to Trump if needed. 

Argentina's Production and Labor Minister called Trump's decision to impose the tariffs "unexpected."

"There was no sign given to our government, to the Brazilian government or to the public sector that there would be a change in the deal with the United States," Dante Sica told state-run news agency Telam on Monday.

Sica said he met with Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie after seeing the tweet in order to "analyze the course of action" and told Telam that he had contacted the US Embassy in Argentina, as well "all contacts in Washington DC" to get more clarity on the situation.

The President's decision amounts to retaliation against two countries that have served as alternative suppliers of soybeans and other farm products to China, grabbing market share away from American farmers, a key constituency the President will need to win reelection in 2020.

Just great.

Two points among those that comprise a generally agreed-upon understanding of basic conservatism are an understanding of the supreme importance of US leadership for maintaining the world-order framework established at the end of World War II, and a fealty to free-market economics. This guy is obliterating both.

The consensus grows that Iran blatantly attacked Saudi Arabia

There's an avalanche of breaking developments this afternoon, and so there are going to be a flurry of LITD posts in short order, but I think I'll lead off with this rather remarkable joint statement by the leaders of France, the UK and Germany:

We, the leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, recall our shared common security interests, in particular upholding the global non-proliferation regime and preserving stability in the Middle East.

We condemn in the strongest terms the attacks on oil facilities on Saudi territory on September 14th, 2019 in Abqaiq and Khurais, and reaffirm in this context our full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its population.

It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack. There is no other plausible explanation. We support ongoing investigations to establish further details.

These attacks may have been against Saudi Arabia but they concern all countries and increase the risk of a major conflict. They underline the importance of making collective efforts towards regional stability and security, including finding a political solution to the ongoing conflict in Yemen. The attacks also highlight the necessity of de-escalation in the region through sustained diplomatic efforts and engagement with all parties.

In this regard, we recall our continued commitment to the JCPoA, agreed with Iran on July 14th, 2015 and unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council. We urge Iran once again to reverse its decisions to reduce compliance with the deal and to adhere fully to its commitments under it. We call upon Iran to cooperate fully with the IAEA in the framework of the JCPoA and its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.

Conscious of the importance of collective efforts to guarantee regional stability and security, we reiterate our conviction that the time has come for Iran to accept negotiation on a long-term framework for its nuclear programme as well as on issues related to regional security, including its missiles programme and other means of delivery.

We are committed to continuing our diplomatic efforts to create conditions and facilitate dialogue with all relevant partners interested in de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East, in the interest of preserving international peace and security, building upon our joint declaration on July 14th, 2019 and G7 conclusions adopted in Biarritz. We urge Iran to engage in such a dialogue and refrain from further provocation and escalation.

And I know Donald Trump is about to get a rather big dollop of something new on his plate (in about 50 minutes, in fact; stay tuned), but he did give a UN speech today that on the subjects of Iran and the Middle East generally, was spot-on:

Trump . . . sought in his UN speech to rally world opinion against Iran, saying no responsible government should “subsidize Iran’s blood lust.” 

Trump said Iran’s leaders were fanatical about acquiring nuclear weapons and vowed that U.S. sanctions won’t be lifted until Iran’s “menacing behavior” continues. 

And he served notice that it's time to make the realignment of power dynamics in the region more official:

"There is a growing recognition in the wider Middle East that the countries in the region share common interests in battling extremism and unleashing economic opportunity. That is why it is so important to have full, normalized relations between Israel and its neighbors."

It's good that he squeezed that into his busy day, because he has his hands full with other matters as evening approaches.

But to return to the main point, it's heartening to see that there's growing clarity on the world stage about what Iran is really all about

Barney & Clyde - episode 14

It's here.

Welcome back to the Libation Station! Pour yourself something bracing, pull up a bar-stool, and get in on the fortnightly exchange of libertarian and conservative perspectives on the weighty matters of the day. Specifically: 1. The Green Leap Forward - Dems break out the ban hammer against meat. 2. Maybe Someday We'll Try a Free Market - The Trade War with China is just another tax. 3. The Lights are Going Out on the Bay - San Francisco declares the NRA a terrorist organization. 4. Resisting Centralization is Futile - The Brits are still fighting for independence amongst more Brexit Chaos. Send your feedback to barneyandclydeshow@gmail.com

Hong Kong and the UK: the common theme of how to regard centralized authority

Two stories are currently unfolding, in disparate places, with different kinds of developments at present, but it seems to me there's an underlying theme.

Boris Johnson's own Conservative Party turned on him to join with Labor in taking control of Parliament and forcing Johnson to resume talks within the framework of the Treaty of Lisbon's Article 50, which establishes the two-year time frame for an EU country negotiating to leave that body. Boris was hot, pointing out that the move empowers the hard-left Jeremy Corbyn. Hot enough to call for snap elections, a move he'd rather forcefully spoken against.

And Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam has withdrawn from legislative consideration the extradition bill that triggered huge protests that at one point shut down the Hong Kong airport. In recent days, reports of private moments at odds with her public face of steely resolve had emerged. She seems pretty sincere in her heartbreak over what had happened to her nominally independent land.

Particular circumstances in each case, obviously, but the common element is the question of what degree of centralized authority does or does not serve an independent entity's flourishing.

For the moment, it looks like in the latter case, the move is in the direction of greater freedom and sovereignty, while in the former case, the cattle-masses who are fine with submitting to a bureaucracy in Brussels have at least a momentary upper hand.