Thursday roundup

Francis Menton at the Manhattan Contrarian has a piece called "The Climate Alarmists Definitely Don't Believe Their Own Propaganda." In addition to pointing up the hypocrisy of that crowd's jetting off to conferences to tell the rest of us to drastically alter the way we live (an ongoing exercise effectively done many times before, but here with fresh examples), he makes an important point: Yes, nuclear power would answer the climatistas' demand for a clean energy source (even though they continue to oppose it), but let's not go subsidizing that or otherwise giving it an artificial advantage in the marketplace. The plain fact is that a free market is going to ensure that fossil fuels remain predominant for several more decades at least. And that's fine.

Two views on what is to be done re: the vexing North Korea menace. Compare and contrast:

Joseph Bosco at The Diplomat says that Henry Kissinger, at age 93, is still coming up with fresh ideas on world problems, and has one for this situation to offer Trump. Kissinger's take is that the mutual respect established between Trump and Xi can ensure that there will be an ongoing economic squeeze on North Korea, with a Plan B in the wings that China will not stand in the way of:

Xi’s success in achieving Mao-like supremacy at the 19th Party Congress has given him the freedom to act more boldly in preventing Pyongyang from further souring Beijing’s relations with Washington. His private assurances to the U.S. president may well account for Trump’s comments, which were both upbeat and firmly expectant of positive results. With Xi at his side, he stated:

China can fix this problem easily and quickly, and I am calling on China and your great president to hopefully work on it very hard. I know one thing about your president: If he works on it hard, it will happen. There’s no doubt about it.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that Trump expects Xi to deliver in one of two ways. Under Plan A, China will continue its financial and economic squeeze until Kim agrees to scrap his nuclear and missile programs. If that does not yield the desired outcome, Plan B is for Beijing to stand by as the United States and South Korea “surgically” destroy those capabilities.

In fact, no less an authority on Chinese thinking than Trump adviser Henry Kissinger has suggested that kind of Washington-Beijing cooperation on a kinetic solution. During a 1994 interview, in one of his many defenses of China’s tolerance of the North Korean problem, Kissinger speculated that Beijing was passive “because they figure we will take care of the problem and they can take a free ride.”

Kissinger went further, saying that he himself once believed the United States should unilaterally “knock out the nuclear capability of North Korea, if necessary even by aerial strikes.” But he said he now thought it would be “too dangerous for us to do this alone given the general mentality that now exists in Washington and unwillingness to support it.” Nevertheless, Kissinger went one, we should “tell China that we are willing to go as far as you are willing to go in doing away with the nuclear capability… including a blockade and total economic isolation.”

Thomas Donnelly  at The American Enterprise Institute says that, because China would insist on calling the shots on any new regime arrangement should Kim fold, under the weight of either Plan A or Plan B, it's best to get on with Plan B, and do so quickly:

In sum, we find ourselves in a Macbeth-like situation: “If it is done when ‘tis done, ‘twere well it were done quickly” and cold-bloodedly. A war on the peninsula would “trammel up” many consequences, and the more we might summon a “blow [that] might be-all and end-all”—or at least the most powerful possible—the better. A less literary but more historical frame of reference might well be the invasion of the Japanese home islands, in which case a “reasonable” outcome also seemed to exceed America’s conventional military grasp.

Kevin Williamson at NRO says that  Capitol-Hill Republicans' fears of the reactions of various factions and special interests regarding how any bold, simple, pro-freedom moves on matters like taxation and health care keep legislative efforts so convoluted and wonky that nothing is going to get done.

Inspired by Trump, the Republicans have declared themselves agents of chaos, and have taken up the least conservative sentiment there is as their motto: “Hey, how could it get any worse?”

It can always get worse.

There is not going to be any certainty on the big domestic-policy items — taxes, health care, the entitlements, and much else — until there is a reasonable, sober, sustainable settlement on our national fiscal challenge. So long as the charade of ten-year sunsets and CBO-satisfying accounting shenanigans rule the day, there is not going to be any predictability — and that is going to impose real costs on economic growth, employment, wages, and future prosperity.

We don’t have regime uncertainty. We have a regime of uncertainty. And it is time to change that.

In other words, this supposed new era under Trump hasn't moved the needle at all. Yes, some of that is due to the inertia bias of legislative Pubs, but Trump has not exactly forged a productive relationship, based on a strong and consistent vision, with them.

Ted Cruz is squaring off against fellow Republican senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley over ethanol subsidies. This is a perfect illustration of the principle at work in the Williamson piece. Those two Iowa senators, Ernst especially, are supposed to be solid conservatives, but they're scared to death of the power of King Corn to jeopardize their jobs. It also proves once again that Ted Cruz is a man of consistent principle, and that it is nothing short of a tragedy that he's not our president.

The Alamo is a shrine to human valor, the notion of choosing to die with honor. When the famous 1836 battle occurred there, it was an outpost surrounded by wilderness. Within a few short years, the city of San Antonio grew around it. The Menger Hotel, still very much in operation, was built across the street in 1859. It may not occur to the average citizen that the site's upkeep needs a boost, but we can be encouraged that some folks are focusing on just that:

We finally have the leadership and the plan that we need. Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush has made preserving the Alamo his top priority. He has brought a talented team together to focus on saving the Alamo. His plan is simple: Preserve the Alamo's 1836 structures; close Alamo Street and recover the Battlefield; build the world-class museum that the Alamo deserves. Commissioner Bush is a son of Texas, and he will ensure that the Alamo always tells the story of 1836 faithfully.

Great short Erick Erickson video - looks like it was taken on the lawn of his home - about contemporary post-American Christianity's golden-calf problem.