► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘WSJ’

Sleep with Crocodiles

by snork ( 24 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Politics, Progressives at February 5th, 2010 - 10:30 pm

In the WSJ, there’s an interesting piece by Kim Strassel; a case study of private industry getting in the sack with the socialists Democrats. A lot of non-Democrats have been wondering how it came to be that private industry, once reliable supporters of free markets, came to be seduced by their blood enemies.

Fortune 500 execs could stand up for a free market that benefits consumers and shareholders, or hitch their cart to the new Democratic majority. Pfizer’s Mr. Kindler is a case study in the hitch-and-hope mentality—a CEO who became the motivating force behind Big Pharma’s $80 billion “deal” on reform, and industry support of ObamaCare. With that health agenda burning, the choice isn’t looking so grand.

It seems the first ingredient is an executive with moonbat tendencies. That is beyond my comprehension, but they do seem to exist:

Already known as a Democrat and political junkie, Mr. Kindler was primed for the Obama ascendancy. Like many big CEOs, he started playing footsie with groups that had long despised business but would now have the president’s ear. Pfizer quietly created a board of “notables” to advise it on policy. A top recruit: Andy Stern, fiery head of the Service Employees International Union. (It also includes Newt Gingrich.)

Despite every rational reason to fear getting in bed with people with the economic equivalent of AIDS:

Pfizer was long a company that zealously guarded against government interference. Prior CEOs had seen how European governments had ruined its industry and recognized the threat. When the board made Mr. Kindler CEO in 2006—picking a relative newbie over insiders—it was a vote for shakeup. Mr. Kindler changed a lot more than the business.

I guess the directors hoped for change. They got it.

With these gestures, Mr. Kindler surely believed Democrats would treat his industry gently. The strategy: The industry would pledge $80 billion to reform. In return it would get greater volume and a requirement that people buy brand-name drugs. Democrats would also fight against drug reimportation and forgo price controls.

No one pushed harder than Mr. Kindler. The CEO made no fewer than five trips to the White House last year. He was the man prodding Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America head Billy Tauzin every step. He wrote an op-ed with the SEIU’s Mr. Stern demanding reform. He pressed the industry’s $150 million ad campaign promoting ObamaCare, rolled out with liberal activist groups.

Critics warned the legislation would lead to a government takeover and price controls. They warned Democrats would take the money and double-cross them. None of it fazed the industry, right up until ObamaCare imploded.

Brilliant plan there, Mr. Kindler! Just like the Kapo strategy: cooperate with the crocodile, and maybe he’ll eat you last.

Mr. Kindler and Co. are left with the ashes. Having got this far (with Big Pharma’s help), Democrats are more desperate than ever to pass “something.” It won’t include any upside for drug companies. There is talk instead of “popular” stand-alone legislation, including reimportation, Medicare price controls, and slashing the industry’s 12-year exclusivity on biologics.

Big Pharma can’t count on former conservative protectors. Republicans were sympathetic to its decision to “sit at the table,” but grew furious when it engaged in active advocacy of the Democratic agenda. One House Republican staffer predicts the next time drug companies “ask us to stand in front of the train,” the answer will be: “Since you were so happy to work with Democrats, call them. Go on, go: Call Rahm [Emanuel]. Call [Henry] Waxman.”

Public anger over ObamaCare doesn’t help the industry’s reputation. Many Americans now view drug companies in the same light as “crony capitalist” banks or energy firms that turn to government to bolster the temporary bottom line. Pfizer’s stock price has been decent (due mostly to Mr. Kindler’s business restructuring), but the industry faces threats from a slowdown in innovation.

D’oh! Maybe the Kapo plan wasn’t such a smart idea. Maybe socialists Democrats really are the sworn blood enemy of the private sector.

Mr. Kindler might take solace that he’s not alone. Insurers, hospitals, utilities—many chose to accommodate a president whose health-care and climate agendas are now comatose. There’s a lesson here for corporate America. Try standing up for the free markets and limited government that have always been the foundation of U.S. business. It might work out better.

And there’s a lesson here for people who want to sit down and reason with crooks and fanatics. Whether a fanatic such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a fanatic such as Barney Frank, you lay down with dogs and you wake up with fleas, but you lay down with crocodiles, and you get eaten. Time for boards of directors to understand this, and stop hoping for change, because the change that they seek is your complete demise.

Meltdown Mann loses strawberries

by snork ( 44 Comments › )
Filed under Climate, Free Speech, Science at January 1st, 2010 - 8:30 pm

Dementia seems to be contagious. It’s no secret that the blogmaster at a formerly interesting blog has undergone a descent into dementia suggestive of Capt. Queeg of The Caine Mutiny. Seems like he has competition.

In my previous post Meltdown Mann, I wrote about a WaPo column that he penned that sounded like a paranoid rant. At about the same time, WSJ had a not-very-friendly piece about Climategate, where Mann refused an opportunity to respond. After several weeks, he finally responded.

So on New Year’s eve, Mann belatedly replies, and the WSJ publishes it. It’s short, it’s non-sequitur, and a little bizarre:

In his Dec. 18 op-ed “How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus,” Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute falsely claims that work by him (and other fossil-fuel-funded climate change contrarians) has been unfairly blocked by me and others from appearing in mainstream science journals because the peer review process is supposedly biased against climate science deniers.

Right off the bat, he uses the politically-loaded term “denier” (interesting, because the term is never used in the CRUtape letters™). Secondly, the entire paragraph is a strawman, since the conspiracy to keep certain papers out of certain journals and the IPCC reports was incontrovertibly documented, and which ones were being kept out had not so much to do with whether or not they were generally “contrarian” (the term that they actually do use, to which I don’t object), as much as papers by whomever, making specific arguments that the “team” doesn’t want proffered.

But so far, he’s just being political and disingenuous. And there’s more of that here, but each paragraph gets increasingly wilder and more paranoid:

In truth, the only bias that exists at such publications is for well-reasoned writing that is buttressed by facts.

That is why climate skeptics such as Richard Lindzen of MIT or John Christy of the University of Alabama—who are widely regarded as credible and whose work contributes meaningfully to the scientific discourse—have no problem publishing their work in mainstream scientific journals.

And what about those who are not being published? Every scientist dealing with a major public issue must decide if he or she is going to be a scientist or a de facto politician.

Mr. Michaels and many climate science deniers have opted for the latter course of action. For example, presidential science adviser John Holdren notes that Mr. Michaels “has published little if anything of distinction . . . being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.” This makes Mr. Michaels a perfect candidate for a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a decidedly poor submitter to a serious scientific journal.

Now comes the strawberries:

Society relies upon the integrity of the scientific literature to inform sound policy. It is thus a serious offense to compromise the peer-review system in such a way as to allow anyone—including proponents of climate change science—to promote unsubstantiated claims and distortions.

Excuuuuuuuuse me??? If this were just chutzpah, this guy would win the international chutzpah competition. This is like Al Capone petitioning the church for Beatification.  Of course, the argument is absurd. He’s essentially saying that the peer-review process may fail, therefore we have to keep unapproved papers from being peer-reviewed.

But who, it is documented, has been caught red-handed, compromising the peer-review system?

The only remaining question, among the long-time followers of this story, is who is Lt. Keefer?

Bonus: We have this comment @ ClimateAudit from Ross McKitrick, the “silent partner” in the McIntyre and McKitrick team:

Ross McKitrick

Posted Dec 31, 2009 at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

Regarding Mann’s WSJ letter, how does one become a “climate science denier”? Does that mean you deny the existence of climate science? Talk about setting up an absurd dichotomy.

Of course what he really means is someone who denies the validity of his particular interpretation of what constitutes climate “science”, which is, “the stuff I publish.”

As for appealing to John Holdren’s assessment of the contribution of Pat Michaels to the field of applied climatology over the years, I doubt Holdren has even read any of it, let alone published anything himself of comparable value. And it’s rather rich for Mann to invoke the opinion of a politically-appointed advisor to a politician as part of his argument about the importance of keeping politics out of the discussion. The fact that Mann evidently didn’t see that invoking Holdren is a form of political rhetoric reveals Mann’s own political presuppositions.

Thank you, Ross.

~~~~~

Sorta related bonus feature:

It looks like the media has done a great job of analyzing and reporting on the Climategate scandal. No, not MSNBC, not CNN, not any of the American alphabet soup networks. Not BBC or CBC, either. For some reason, the English language media wasn’t interested. Or French. Or German. Or Spanish, or Italian, or any of the other media in any of the major languages. Until you get to Finland.

I showed earlier an expose on Finnish TV of the climate issue pre-Climategate. Again, they did what the big guys wouldn’t. You have to read English subtitles, but this is about the most correct and to-the-point expose on this subject that I’ve seen. It’s here in three easy pieces, totaling about a half hour. If you watch this, you’ll know what the “nontroversy” is all about, and what decline was being hidden, and from whom it was being hidden.

Watch it and curse.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Quiz after the break.