ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Taxation without Representation?

Villepin, French Prime MinisterThose cheese-eating surrender monkeys are at it again. Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports:

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin … said the nation would push the European Union to create a carbon tax on non-Kyoto nations. In total, two industrialized countries chose not to ratify Kyoto: Australia and the United States.

Reaction from Australia was swift and strong:

Australian Prime Minister John Howard today … called the plan ridiculous. “That is a thoroughly silly proposal and utterly out of touch with reality,” Howard said.

Reaction from us was swift but bland:

At the U.N. climate change conference in Kenya, U.S. officials slammed the proposal. “We would not see in this case this kind of approach as being the most constructive one or the most effective one,” said Paula Dobriansky, the U.S. undersecretary of state for democracy and global affairs.

Hmm. Does this mean Dobriansky might consider the proposal the second most effective one–second, say, to the U.S. proposal to refuse to do anything whatsoever?

Seriously, though, while the tax proposal seems unlikely to go anywhere, sooner or later–probably sooner given the accelerated rate of climate change we are witnessing–nations that refuse to take action on climate will be seen as rogues and punished accordingly by the world community. We must join the fight soon, lest some French satricial TV show label us “Freedom-Fry-eating polar-bear killers.”

Politics

“Remember Larry Hanauer,

the Democratic aide on the House Intelligence Committee whose clearance was yanked because he was suspected of leaking the Iraq NIE?” TPM Muckraker notes, “House Intel Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) probably hopes you don’t, because, as Roll Call reports, Hanauer’s access to classified info has been quietly reinstated, ‘essentially clearing the aide of accusations that he leaked a sensitive report on the Iraq War to The New York Times.’”

Politics

Rice Was Against Iraq Group Before She Was For It

Last week, Salon ran a glowing piece about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s role in creating the Iraq Study Group, an independent panel meant to advise the administration on Iraq policy. The article credited Rice with taking Rep. Frank Wolf’s (R-VA) idea to create the panel and personally pitching it to President Bush:

“It was remarkable that Condi Rice took the lead,” said David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency in Washington, and one of four people in the November meeting, including Rice. The Iraq Study Group, he said, “happened with her going to the president.” [...]

Asked to comment on this article, a State Department spokesman would say only that Rice supported the idea of the Iraq Study Group from early on. “The department and the administration have embraced this effort from the beginning as a way to show and maintain public support for advancing our goals in Iraq,” said spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos.

But when a similar panel was suggested in 2002 — when a postwar plan would have been most helpful — Rice played a key role in blocking it. From New Yorker reporter George Packer’s book Assassins’ Gate (pp. 110-112):

In October 2002, Leslie Gelb, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, had approached Rice and Hadley with an offer of help. The council and two other think tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, would form a consortium that would gather a panel of experts to provide facts and options for the postwar… “This is just what we need,” Rice said… But she didn’t want the involvement of Heritage, which had been critical of the idea of an Irag war. “Do AEI.”

Chris DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute, where the administration’s neoconservatives drew their support and many of their personnel, neither consented nor refused when Gelb broached the possibility. On November 15, the representatives of the think tanks met with Rice and Hadley in Rice’s office at the White House. John Hamre of CSIS went in expecting to pitch the idea to Rice, but the meeting was odd from the start: Rice seemed attentive only to DeMuth, and it was as if the White House was trying to sell something to the American Enterprise Institute rather than the other way around. When Gelb, on the speakerphone from New York, began to describe his concept, DeMuth cut him off. “Wait a minute. What’s all this planning and thnking about postwar Iraq?” He turned to Rice. “This is nation building, and you said you were against that. In the campaign you said it, the president has said it. Does he know you’re doing this? Does Karl Rove know?”

Two weeks later, Hadley called Gelb to tell him what Gelb already knew: “We’re not going to go ahead with it.”

It’s too bad Rice wasn’t interested in outside help four years ago.

Yglesias

Try Everything — But Not That!

Leon Wieseltier on Iraq with some emphasis added:

We cannot quit on moral grounds, because we have an obligation to assist the secular democracy-builders in Iraq, the heroes in the wreckage, whose cause is not yet lost, and we have an obligation to protect the Kurds. And we cannot quit on strategic grounds, because of the gains to Iran and to the terrorist international. So what should we do? Briefly, anything and everything. An increase in troop deployments for the mastery of Baghdad, upon which a great deal depends (if order is not established, nothing good will be established); reform of the Iraqi military, or of what passes for the Iraqi military; redeployment to less provocative locations; a federal arrangement of the Iraqi state; an international conference (but about Iraq, not Palestine); an attempt to flip Syria to our side, which is not beyond the diplomatic imagination; anything and everything. If we leave, or if we stay the bleeding course, things will get even worse.

This is all a pony hunt as far as I’m concerned so on some level, whatever. That said, suppose Bush were to go pony hunting at a regional conference wherein Syria agrees to “flip . . . to our side” and various other actors agree to do ponyish things but they say that in order to sell it to their publics and in order to prove American bona fides they need us to, say, get the IDF out of Gaza. That’s off the table? Iraq is so important and leaving so bad that we should do anything — anything — to salvage some scrap of dignity their, but Israel is totally off the table for discussion in any respect. Total US backing for whatever Israel is just beyond all possible trading off? As I say, hypothetical pony hunt outcomes aren’t my top concern, but the general principle here seems obviously pernicious.

Media

Fox News Covered O.J. Interview As Much As CNN, MSNBC, Headline News Combined

Last week, ThinkProgress noted that Bill O’Reilly tried to distance himself from Fox’s upcoming interview with O.J. Simpson by falsely claiming that “Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel.” In fact, the two entites have the same chairman (Roger Ailes), the same owner (Rupert Murdoch) and Fox Broadcasting regularly airs Fox News content.

Days later, Bill O’Reilly attacked the “far left loons” who linked Fox News with the O.J. Simpson interview. According to O’Reilly, these people are “kool-aid zombies” who are “doing the bidding of far left fanatics” who want “to tie Fox News in with the O.J. Simpson situation.”

But there are close ties between Fox News and the O.J. Simpson situation. According to a database search, Fox News referenced the Simpson affair as many times in the last five days as the other three leading cable news networks combined. According to TVEyes, there have been 417 references to Simpson between Nov. 15 – Nov. 20 (3:30 PM). During the same period, there were 414 references to Simpson on CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News.

Date Fox News CNN MSNBC Headline News
11/15 43 46 19 44
11/16 77 79 11 47
11/17 100 30 12 18
11/18 90 24 22 13
11/19 86 17 17 5
11/20 21 6 2 2
Total 417 202 83 129

UPDATE: “After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled the O.J. Simpson book and TV special ‘If I Did It.‘”

Politics

Coincidence?

Election over, gas prices up again. One analyst says “the reversal in the 12-week pre-election slide shows that the market has ‘soaked up’ a ‘mini-glut’ of crude oil from August, causing a ‘normalization’ of supply and demand.”

Culture

Competitive Balance in the NBA

The idea that the NBA needs to implement revenue sharing in order to help small market teams and thereby maintain, restore, or create competitive balance is, I think, obviously absurd. The NBA really is one of the least-balanced major sports leagues around. But small market disadvantages have nothing to do with it. Neither the post-Ewing Knicks, the post-Jordan Bulls, nor post-Shaq Lakers have been able to leverage large markets into NBA success. The Spurs in tiny San Antonio (37 on the Nielson media markets list) are the most consistently successful team of recent years. Detroit is a modest-sized market at 11, as are the current champs in Miami at 17.

I think the main thing about competitiveness in the NBA is that as these dudes note there are very, very few people in the world with the appropriate physique to be NBA-quality big men. As a result the variance in big man quality is gigantic and this is semi-intrinsic to the sport. At the same time, the max salary rule ensures that the very best players in the league are underpaid, as are the very youngest stars. So there’s a lot of essentially luck-based imbalance (i.e., Dwayne Wade is worth max money, but LeBron is worth even more money, but they both make the same, so Cleveland gets a better player but has the same cap room to find a supporting cast) playing out. Then, the combination of guaranteed contracts and the salary cap means that it’s hard to undue the consequences of management fuckups so that even a great hoops genius probably couldn’t turn, say, the Knicks around.

Politics

Fox News plans right-wing Daily Show.

“Fox News Channel, a primary source of material for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, is teaming with the exec producer of “24″ to try its hand at a news satire show for conservatives to love.” “The way I look at it, almost every comedy show or satire show I see uses the same talking points against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney,” “24″ co-creator Joel Surnow said. “The other side hasn’t been skewered in a fair and balanced way.”

Culture

Oh, The Humanity!

I’ve been having a hard time coming up with what to say about Wire 47 since the episode was basically so fantastic that I have nothing to grouse about. The signature moment, on reflection, has to be Chris’ savage beating-to-death of Bug’s dad. The distinctive thing about the Marlo-Chris-Snoop troika from the beginning is that they’ve presented themselves, from the beginning (i.e., Marlo’s hilarious “what’s you name again?” query in the back seat of his car after meeting the girl who was supposed to seduce him and lead him to his demise) as essentially inhuman characters. Chris’ breakdown, monstrous as it was, was also human. Killing that dude was more than a job to him — it was vengeance for some demons in his own past; a murder that, perversely, makes Chris seem more normal and less like the ultimate drug soldier.

It was, however, just that inhuman quality that had made the Stanfield crew so effective. Chris not only lost his head, but violated the corpse-hiding procedure that’s been integral to keeping the heat off.

West Baltimore, as we see, is trapped in a spiral. Weak, soft kids like Namond are too week, too human to avoid the game. The strong ones (Michael) resist its temptations better but are also much better prospects who get more attractive offers and wind up signing up at the end. But even the best, most professional among them (Chris) have their moments of humanity and trip up. Meanwhile, the descent of Major Crimes into ineptitude is frustrating, but having seen Marlo rise from the ashes of the Barskdale crew we know perfectly well that Colonel Daniels and a revivified CID will only open up space for a new player if they ever do bear down. Everyone is, in essence, doomed. Which is, it seems, the general POV of the show as we see as well in the Hall plotline.

From the beginning, though, there’s been a counternarrative: Prop Joe always wins. He tricks Avon, brings in a ringer, and wins his basketball game. He has an out-of-town “product” hookup facilitated by a smuggler who enjoys protection from the FBI. The Baltimore PD never focuses on him no matter how central he becomes to the Charm City drug trade — indeed, it’s not clear they even know who he is. Marlo comes to him for help as to those fleeing from Marlo. Is Joe just lucky, or has he figured something out nobody else on either side of the thin blue line knows?

Yglesias

On Credibility

Josh Marshall says that “the argument about the need to maintain ‘credibility’ when deciding whether to withdraw from an ill-fated engagement is not one that, I think, can be dismissed out of hand,” before dismissing it in a non-out-of-hand kind of way. I think it sort of can be dismissed out of hand. Credibility isn’t an all-purpose commodity and, indeed, it’s not especially fungible. Whether or not the United States “has credibility” is rarely the issue, rather what matters is whether or not particular threats or promises we make are seen as credible.

This, in turn, is going to overwhelmingly be determined by our objective capacity to fulfill promises rather than by subjective assessments of our badassness. Under the circumstances, it’s very hard to see what kind of credibility benefit accrues to us from keeping the bulk of the US Army’s fighting strength in Iraq. Objectively, that only diminishes our capacity to do things in the world. What would really increase our credibility vis-a-vis, say, Iran would be for our threats to actually be credible the odds that we can somehow trick Teheran into believing we have the capacity to invade and conquer their country seem poor.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up