The John Batchelor Show

Tuesday 26 April 2016

Air Date: 
April 26, 2016

Photo, left:  Chahbahar auto rally.  See Hour 3, Block C,  Gregory R. Copley.   Chābahār is a city in and capital of Chah Bahar County, Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran. It’s a free port on the coast of the Gulf of Oman. 
 Note clashing headlines:  “Chabahar port to harbor Chinese industrial town”  vs. “Chabahar opens new chapter in Iran-India relations” – oops.
JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW
Co-host: Larry Kudlow, CNBC senior advisor; & Cumulus Media radio; Steve Moore, Heritage Foundation Economist
 
Hour One
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 1, Block A: Rita Cosby, WABC political director, in re:  Today’s five primaries, where Trump won across the board, and Clinton won three out of five, with two still not clear.   Clinton-Sanders fight: Sanders voters resist up to the end.  Trump won on the basis of “who can fix the economy” and with Republican women.  He won with margins ‘way past his polling.  Nationwide, Trump has finally got to 50% nationally; has pulled essentially even with Hillary Clinton (5% margin error).  This race in the GOP is over.  Can Trump beat Clinton?  Tighter race than the polls are reflecting.  Grain-of-salt exit polls: which GOP candidate would you never vote for?   2-t-1 never Cruz.  The faux alliance between Cruz and Kasich, while Trump was on message on the economy.  The unbounded remain unbounded; the individual delegate decides based on his/her representation, or according to his own lights.  “This disenfranchises millions of voters. We ought to have direct primary elections.”  Voters seem to be rebelling against he system. The fifty states have different rules each time and change them frequently Btw, Trump benefitted greatly from the early-primary rules. LK: Want first-past-the-post in all states.   Sen Sanders won RI.
Tuesday    2016   / Hour 1, Block B:  Steve Moore, in re: Committee to Unleash Prosperity dinner last night: T Boone Pickens spoke.  US is ‘way ahead of the rest of the world in energy potential; need to release energy business from excessive restrictions. In five years we could be an energy-independent country for the first time in half a century, Dems want windmills and solar power – good for small patches of the country, but we  have so much natgas and oil; Mrs Clinton ahs sworn to kill gas, oil and coal, incl fracking. John Catsimatidis : oil will go to $50 Bbl; TBP says $60.  Fracking breakeven in $23 bbl.   It takes only 6 to 9 months for fracking to come back . The US has no, zero, energy policy – so we can't contend with our adversaries or working with Canada or Mexico (which latter can't dvp its  own wells).    Mr Obama wd not have been re-elected without the oil boom that brought him in on a good economy.  He does hat fossil fuels.  People speak of a mfring revival in the US – must center on energy: need pipelines esp East-West, and refineries. Get gasoline to the Northeast.    Last winter was cold, and New England had to import natgas from other countries because we couldn't bring in our own without a pipeline,  Btw, pipelines are safer than land transport Buffet wants the railroads to transport - $15 Bbl, as compared to $2 by sea.  This is probably our last chance – we won’t revive steel. Energy is it: need to make pipes, lay ‘em in the ground.   
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 1, Block C: James Taranto, Wall Street Journal editorial board & Best of the Web; in re:  Sanders has Rhode Island, strength is in New England; the whole Northeast is Trump’s – 50s and 60s.  A good night for Trump and Clinton. Does Mrs Clinton want Sanders to stay in? I think not.  LK: Trump is in the 60s – in all cases he handily beat his own polling expectations.   The big question will be Indiana next week, and then California (separate contest in each Congr district).  I’m the son, grandson and great-grandson of Hoosiers; I love Indiana; what I learn from my family is, don't get ahead of anything.   Kasich cant win less they change Rule 40B?  No – anyone’s name can be put in any time between ballots. And if a candidate gets  a majority any time, with or without name being officially nominated. Eight-state rule: has no effect on nomination.   They always change the rules of the convention. Trump’s VP? He says he needs a pro.  . . . Ohio?  Delegates are bound only on first ballot, or maybe up till third, depending on state. If Trump goes in with a narrow lead and bound delegates who aren't loyal, a VP could be forced on him.    Wild card: how many Dems and independents does Trump bring in Sanders voters? I’m not convinced Trump is a loser, although I’ve been skeptical.  Clinton gets one-third of white male vote.
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 1, Block D: Larry Kudlow, in re:  Trump will reduce taxes to three brackets, highest rate 15%. Remove loopholes, deductions and credits (for corporations and extremely rich).    Cruz and Trump would do the tax part of pro-growth.  Voters’s concerns are economy, govt spending. . . .
 
Hour Two
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 2, Block A:  Rita Cosby,  in re: Mrs Clinton doing well in urban areas; Sanders, in less-populous.  GOP: Trump in PA won 57% to Cruz 27%. RI: 64% to Kasich 24%.  Trump: “I want to thank the media. You guys have been fair to me for the last two hours.” Sanders is 12% ahead in RI; Connecticut up for grabs. 
 
Mary Kissel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board & host of Opinion Journal on WSJ Video; David M Drucker, Washington Examiner Senior Congressional correspondent;  in re:  Trump comes out of the Acela corridor with a very strong showing.  Indiana is the contest-- arithmetically.  Hoosiers don't care for telephone polling; 35% of Indianans identify themselves as Evangelical.  Bad night for Cruz, great for Trump; so-so for Kasich.  . . .  Cruz finds a way to hang around, while Trump finds a way to mess it up. The big flop tonight was John Kasich.  . . . Clinton tonight reached out to “thoughtful Republicans,” whereas the first thing Trump did was attack his rivals.
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 2, Block B: John Fund, NRO; and Mona Charen, syndicated columnist; Senior Fellow, Ethics & Public Policy Center; NRO; in re:  . . . 538 didn't predict this. Combination of media inevitability and Trump has a string of NE states; and April was a Trump month, May will not because of how the states are lined up.  .. .  Indiana is the firebreak for the anti-Trump forces.  Mike Pence (Indiana gov):  he'll be forced to make a decision; he’s a conservative warrior – to let the leadership pass over with Pence silent wd be uncharacteristic. At the AIPAC conference, Trump gave an entire, correct speech; but did the teleprompter fool anyone?   
 
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 2, Block C:  Robert Zimmerman, behindtheblack, in re:  First Long March 5 begins assembly   The competition heats up: China has begun assembly of its first Long March 5 rocket, set for launch in September.  Yang Hujun, vice chief engineer, has spoken about the next steps for the Long March-5 project. “After the assembly is finished in the first half of this year, it will take a little more than a month to test it to ensure that the product is in good shape. The first launch will be made after it is out of the plant in the latter half of the year. “
The rocket will be able to put about 25 tons into orbit, making it one of the most powerful rockets in the world. They plan to use it on its first launch to put their next space station into orbit.
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 2, Block D: Robert Zimmerman, behindtheblack, in re: Vostochny’s first rocket on Launchpad   The competition heats up: The first rocket that will launch from Russia’s new spaceport, Vostochny, has reached the launchpad.  Launch is currently scheduled for April 27. The link has some nice pictures inside the assembly building as well as the rocket on the launchpad.
 
Hour Three
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 3, Block A:   Brian Blase, Mercatus, in re: Brian Blase's latest paper for the Mercatus Center and the corresponding Forbes column  on what happens to Obamacare now that gov subsidies have ended.  Politico:  STUDY: INSURERS LOST BIG ON 2014 INDIVIDUAL PLANS - Insurers lost more than $2.2 billion on individual Obamacare plans in 2014, despite $6.7 billion in reinsurance payments to subsidize particularly sick, expensive customers, according to a new analysis from George Mason University's Mercatus Center. Another grim finding: health plans would have needed to raise premiums for individual plans by an average of at least 26 percent in the first year of exchange operations to cover expenses. Full financial data for 2015 is not yet available, but the researchers suggest a similarly dismal performance in the second year of full ACA implementation. One insight that suggests where the retooled individual market is heading: narrow network plans typically had healthier bottom lines in 2014.  (1 of 2)
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 3, Block B:  Brian Blase, Mercatus, in re: Brian Blase's latest paper for the Mercatus Center and the corresponding Forbes column  on what happens to Obamacare now that gov subsidies have ended.  Politico:  STUDY: INSURERS LOST BIG ON 2014 INDIVIDUAL PLANS - Insurers lost more than $2.2 billion on individual Obamacare plans in 2014, despite $6.7 billion in reinsurance payments to subsidize particularly sick, expensive customers, according to a new analysis from George Mason University's Mercatus Center. Another grim finding: health plans would have needed to raise premiums for individual plans by an average of at least 26 percent in the first year of exchange operations to cover expenses. Full financial data for 2015 is not yet available, but the researchers suggest a similarly dismal performance in the second year of full ACA implementation. One insight that suggests where the retooled individual market is heading: narrow network plans typically had healthier bottom lines in 2014.  (2 of 2)
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 3, Block C:   Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs; in re:  East of Suez, the New Great Game Breaks into the Open  Finally, the great geopolitical rivalry between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and India has broken into the open. It is an ancient rivalry, pre-dating the modern states, and it is played out largely in the trade routes of Africa, the Western Indian Ocean, and the khanates and lands of the Northern Tier: Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia.  
India’s April 2016 deal to dominate the Iranian port and free zone of Chahbahar [25°17’31”N; 60°38’35”E], on the Gulf of Oman (Indian Ocean), and Pakistan’s high-profile arrest of an Indian intelligence officer in Pakistani Baluchistan, are tips of the iceberg in this new Great Game. And this time, it is a Great Game played at very close quarters. 
It was escalated considerably during the build-up of the US-led Coalition war against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, from 2001 onwards, and it is still being played out there, although India’s main preoccupation during this time was heavily focused on the “containment” or break-up of Pakistan. There were two main reasons for this: 1. The emotional animosity to Pakistan based on the 1947 Partition of British India; and 2. (and more importantly) the need to deny the PRC an overland access to the Indian Ocean (and also to deny the PRC the ability to contain India into the sub-continent and deny it access to Central Asia). 
There should be no distraction by the shibboleth that a nuclear-armed Pakistan poses an existential threat to the existence or security of India. Pakistan’s nuclear forces are logically, and of necessity, built to fulfill a counter-force doctrine; in other words, they are designed to blunt an Indian conventional armored assault across the Punjab plains and across the Rann of Kutch which otherwise (and despite Pakistan’s considerable Army strength) could quickly penetrate and overrun Pakistan’s major cities. Pakistan has no strategic depth. India, on the other hand, has considerable strategic depth, and therefore can utilize its own nuclear forces for counter-city strikes, easily destroying the Pakistani population and command centers. [A Pakistani nuclear strike on Indian cities would do little to diminish India’s dispersed military capabilities.] 
Through the Coalition war in Afghanistan — in which the US depended absolutely on Pakistan’s support and geography — India used its intelligence capabilities and US good offices to deploy anti-Pakistani assets inside Afghanistan to target Pakistan from its West. This was, and still is, significant and successful; it has kept Pakistan’s forces preoccupied in the Pakistani north-west and west, and away from the borders with India, especially within Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (Azad [or Free] Kashmir, the area which gives the geographic land-bridge between the PRC and Pakistan).
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 3, Block D:  Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs; in re:  Australia’s Submarine Decision: Politics Before Strategy?  The decision announced on April 26, 2016, by the Australian Government to buy 12 French DCNS Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A conventional submarines for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) showed how politics triumphed over strategy. 
And not just in the choice of the French submarine from a field which, as it was narrowed down, included a choice of a Japanese or a German design. 
How the Government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull handled the decision and its announcement has also cost Canberra heavily. Neither Japan — which had been given good reason to believe that its growing strategic closeness with Australia would give a real opportunity for the sale of a derivative of the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ Soryu-class design — nor the United States were given any hint that the decision would go to France. As a result, on April 25, 2016 (ANZAC Day), the Australian Ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, and his Defence Attaché, visited the Pentagon to explain the announcement, due a few hours later. Sources indicated that the US Government, which supported the growing tripartite US-Japan-Australia alliance, was unhappy. 
 
Hour Four
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 4, Block A:  Rock of the Marne: The American Soldiers Who Turned the Tide Against the Kaiser in World War I, by Stephen L. Harris (1 of 4)
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 4, Block B:  Rock of the Marne: The American Soldiers Who Turned the Tide Against the Kaiser in World War I, by Stephen L. Harris (2 of 4)
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 4, Block C:  Rock of the Marne: The American Soldiers Who Turned the Tide Against the Kaiser in World War I, by Stephen L. Harris (3 of 4)
Tuesday  26 April 2016   / Hour 4, Block D:   Rock of the Marne: The American Soldiers Who Turned the Tide Against the Kaiser in World War I, by Stephen L. Harris (4 of 4)
..  ..  ..