ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Disabling Embedding

emiembed

Obviously I have various views about intellectual property policy that are genuinely at odds with the interests of incumbent record companies, so it doesn’t surprise me that those companies take positions that I think are wrong. But I’ve been puzzled for a while now by record labels’ habit of disabling the “embedding” function from music videos posted on YouTube. As a blogger, this is annoying for me because sometimes I want to embed videos. But for the labels, it seems like a losing proposition—basically preventing me from giving their artists free advertising.

Damian Kulash from Ok Go has an op-ed in today’s Times in which he lays out the record companies thinking—apparently they get a small slice of money from YouTube when people visit the main YouTube site and watch the video—but also offers his view that the policy is self-defeating, making it harder for his band to publicize itself and attract fans.

I assume that in the longer run, you’re going to see more and more bands basically bypassing the whole record label concept. A band with a ton of fans is going to have plenty of ways it can make money—concerts, t-shirts, posters, licensing of its songs, etc. Being famous and popular is inherently lucrative and it’s appealing in other ways as well. The idea of middlemen is that they get a cut of your earnings but in exchange do a lot to help you become famous and popular. If middlemen insist on business models that make it harder to become famous and popular, then they’re not providing much value.

Politics

Bolton Admits That ‘Things Could Go Wrong’ After Military Strike On Iran

Earlier this month, John Bolton claimed that “Iran simply has no intention of being talked out of its nuclear weapons program” and that “very severe sanctions” will not work. “There are two outcomes,” Bolton concluded, “one is Iran getting its nuclear weapons, the other is Israel or somebody uses military force to stop it.”

Back in December, Bolton argued that a simple “campaign of public diplomacy” would prevent Iranian civilians from rallying around the regime after a military strike on the country’s nuclear facilities. Yesterday at CPAC, ThinkProgress asked Bolton if this strategy would work if civilians are killed in a military campaign against Iran’s nuclear program. “I don’t accept that” civilians would be killed, Bolton replied. However, he later admitted that he’s unsure if civilians would die, but even then, his “campaign of public diplomacy” would still work:

TP: So if there is a military strike by us or the Israelis or whomever, you don’t think there’ll be any civilian casualties?

BOLTON: I can’t say that for sure. Things could go wrong.

TP: That’s what I’m saying. If they do, would a public diplomacy campaign work?

BOLTON: Yes! I think it would! I think it would. I think it has to be explained that this is, this will be an effort and that’s the military regime’s nuclear weapons program, not directed against the people of Iran at all.

Watch the interview:

Indeed, things could go wrong. “[I]f you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll love Iran,” retired Gen. Anthony Zinni has said about possible military action against Iran. ThinkProgress asked Bolton to respond to Zinni’s comment. “I don’t think there’s any prospect or any need for any kind of substantial ground forces by us or by Israel,” Bolton said. “I don’t know what he means by that. I’ve heard that comment and I just disagree with it.”

A top defense official told ThinkProgress last year that an attack probably would “incentivize the Iranians to go all the way to weaponize” their nuclear material and have “a number of destabilizing” consequences for the region. And, as the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss has noted, a strike on Iran would do much to “extinguish Iran’s reform movement.”

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Glenn Reynolds Urges Federal Default

Bruce Bartlett reports that Glenn Reynolds has hit upon the idea that conservatives should push for a default on the national debt, on the theory that this would raise the future borrowing costs of the federal government in a way that makes future deficit spending impossible. This is truly a case of one of those ideas that’s so wrongheaded you don’t know where to begin, but Bartlett has a good start on it.

This does kind of make me wonder how Reynolds’ money is invested, though. If this was your political program, how would you be trying to protect yourself? Gold bars in Zurich deposit box?

Security

NYT Profile Leaves Out McCarthy’s Bigotry, Conspiracy-Mongering

The New York Times runs a profile of former prosecutor, current National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy, presenting the NRO wackjob as a brave dissenter against using the U.S. legal system to deal with terrorism cases.

While the Times profile does touch on some of McCarthy’s extremist views, such as that lawyers who offer legal assistance to alleged terrorists detained by the United States are “volunteering their services to the enemy,” the article barely skims the surface of the conspiracy-mongering and anti-Muslim prejudice that characterizes McCarthy’s writing.

In October 2008, McCarthy asked “Did Obama write “Dreams from My Father”… or did [Bill] Ayers?”

I’ve finally read Jack Cashill’s lengthy analysis in The American Thinker. It is thorough, thoughtful, and alarming — particularly his deconstruction of the text in Obama’s memoir and comparison to the themes, sophistication and signature phraseology of Bill Ayers’ memoir.

There is nothing in Obama’s scant paper trail prior to 1995 that would suggest something as stylish and penetrating as, at times, Dreams from My Father is.

McCarthy has often found himself to the right even of National Review’s editors. Last July, he protested the magazine’s attempt to put the birther conspiracy to rest, insisting that questions still remained about where the president was born:

What Obama has made available is a Hawaiian “certification of live birth” (emphasis added), not a birth certificate (or what the state calls a “certificate of live birth”)… This certification is not the same thing as the certificate, which is what I believe we were referring to in the editorial as “the state records that are used to generate birth certificates [sic] when they are requested.” [...]

Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.

McCarthy also challenged the president’s version of his own upbringing, accusing the president of having “airbrushed his personal history on the fly“:

It’s now apparent, however, not only that [Obama] was raised as a Muslim while living for four years in the world’s most populous Islamic country, but that he very likely became a naturalized citizen of Indonesia. [...]

There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam. Is that true? I don’t know and neither do you.

Reacting angrily to National Review’s admission last Augusts that Sarah Palin’s “death panels” claim was false, McCarthy claimed that “death panels” was a useful lie because “Obama is not a normal politician. He’s a visionary, and using health care to radically expand the scope of government happens to be central to his vision”:

The editorial’s contention was that there wouldn’t “literally” be death panels. To me, that’s not much different from quibbling over “what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” The stakes here couldn’t be higher, time is short, and “death panel” cuts to the chase… They are what we’re sure to get if Obamacare isn’t killed first.

In January 2009, defended Israel’s bombing of Gaza — which killed some 1300 people, including 300 children — as an attempt to “educate” the Palestinians, McCarthy suggested that the real “question is whether the Palestinian people are educable.”

The most important thing to understand about Andrew McCarthy is that he has parlayed his long-ago success as a prosecutor in a high-profile terrorism case into a second career as an “expert” on Islam, peddling various conspiracy theories combined with a comically biased and bigoted view of the Muslim peril that threatens America’s vital essence, and of the role of President Obama and The Left in exposing America to that peril. For some reason the New York Times left that part out.

Yglesias

Breitbart on Podesta

Dave Weigel reports:

“This is a concerted effort, politics of personal destruction,” said Breitbart. He leaned down toward my notebook as I wrote down quotes. “Fuck you, John Podesta. What’s in your closet, John Podesta? Big Podesta? Big Soros? Do you want us to play these games? Because we’re playing to win.”

Maybe we’ll finally get to the bottom of the whole UFO thing once Breitbart finishes his investigation.

Politics

Oklahoma declares anti-choice law posting details of women’s abortions online unconstitutional.

Last year, the Oklahoma legislature passed a controversial abortion law that mandated collecting personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and posting them on a public website. Although women wouldn’t have to disclose their name, address, or other specific identifying information, many were concerned that patients could still be revealed. The law was supposed to go into effect on Nov. 1, 2009, but delayed because of a legal challenge by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Yesterday, an Oklahoma County district judge ruled the law unconstitutional:

The court ruled that the bill passed by the legislature addressed too many disparate topics and therefore violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s “single-subject” rule which requires laws only address one topic at a time. [...]

The law also would have banned abortions based on a woman’s gender preference for her child; created new responsibilities for state health agencies to gather and analyze abortion data and enforce abortion restrictions; and redefined a number of abortion-related terms used in Oklahoma law. [...]

This is the second time in two years that the Oklahoma legislature has tried to restrict abortion in the state by bundling numerous provisions into one bill. In September, the Oklahoma District Court struck down another state law imposing various abortion restrictions, including the most extreme ultrasound requirement in the country, ruling that it violated the state’s single subject rule.

In October, ThinkProgress interviewed Oklahoma state Rep. Jeannie McDaniel (D), an outspoken opponent of HR 1595. She told us that the legislation — introduced by two men — demonstrated “a very strong feeling” in Oklahoma “that women aren’t capable of making reproductive decisions when it comes to terminating a pregnancy.”

Climate Progress

Full Disclosure: White House Addresses Climate Change With The National Environmental Policy Act

Written by Sarah Collins, intern with the Energy Opportunity team at the Center for American Progress and a graduate of the University of Michigan Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and Brad Johnson.

Iowa FloodThursday, the Obama administration took an initial step to require all federal agencies to consider global warming impacts in their actions. This year is the fortieth anniversary of the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements for proposed projects. Among three new draft guidance documents issued yesterday by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) with regard to the implementation of the NEPA was “Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (GHG). The draft guidance is two-fold:

MITIGATION: Agencies should “evaluate proposed mitigation of GHG emissions,” particularly for projects that would be responsible for “25,000 metric tons of direct CO2-equivalent GHG emissions.”

ADAPTATION: Agencies should take into account how “climate change impacts” could affect the project — for example, “climate change can affect the integrity of a development or structure by exposing it to a greater risk of floods, storm surges, or higher temperatures.”

The administration action follows the recommendations made two years ago by the Center for American Progress and other organizations. On May 5, 2008, the Center released “An Executive Order to Require Consideration of Global Warming Under the National Environmental Policy Act,” proposing measures released today in the guidance documents. Recommendations in the report outlined an Executive Order for NEPA that would provide an essential foundation for public information, increase understanding of the costs and consequences of federal actions, encourage federal actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote investments that help adapt to the effects of global warming. The Center’s report was prepared by Christopher Pyke of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, and CAP environmental policy director Kit Batten, now Science Advisor in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

The Center’s recommendation followed up on concerns outlined in a February 28, 2008 petition of the International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club with the Council on Environmental Quality regarding the need for inclusion of global warming analyses in federal review documents.

Notably, however, the White House “does not propose to make this guidance applicable to Federal land and resource management actions.” This is a glaring omission, with respect to both climate change effects (for example, on wetlands and floodplains) and global warming emissions (for example, if the Energy and Interior departments coordinated on financing, planning, and permitting a series of projects on federal lands such as solar installations, wind farms, or oil and gas development).

This action is part of a comprehensive effort by the Obama administration for the executive branch to take climate change into account after eight years of inaction, above and beyond the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory steps and the State Department’s international diplomacy. These include new policies and considerations by the Department of Defense, the the Securities and Exchange Commission, and government-wide emissions-reduction plans.

Yglesias

The Spending Tug

Stethoscope

Gene Healy writes:

Ryan aside, it’s pretty clear that the GOP isn’t serious about reducing spending. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, distanced the party from the road map almost as soon as it was released, leaving reporters with the distinct impression that Ryan had soiled the punchbowl.

In the middle of the recent fight against socialized medicine, Republicans fought hard to protect the chunk of our health care system that’s already socialized. If there’s money to be saved trimming waste from Medicare, “we should spend it on Grandma!” insisted Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. GOP leader Michael Steele proposed a “contract with seniors” insulating Medicare from cuts.

But that’s no surprise. Politicians live to get re-elected, and they won’t change their behavior unless and until voters force them to. What this country desperately needs is a political movement that will pressure them to change their ways.

The Tea Partiers could become that movement — if they’re serious.

I’ve previously mentioned Kinder & Kam’s US Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion but it helps shed some light on this issue. They use National Election Survey data and show that if you restrict your attention to white Americans then ethnocentric views (both in terms of positive views of whites and negative views of non-whites) is correlated with hostility to means-tested welfare programs. The relationship remains statistically significant even when you control for partisanship and for self-described political beliefs regarding egalitarianism and limited government.

But if you look at views on social insurance programs—Social Security and Medicare—you get the reverse result. Ethnocentrism is associated with support for increases in Social Security and Medicare spending, again even when you control for partisanship and self-described political beliefs regarding egalitarianism and limited government. And what seems to matter here isn’t dislike for non-whites, but positive solidaristic feelings about other white people.

Which is just to say that in a rarified “I work at a think tank” kind of way, beliefs about entitlement spending ought to roughly line up with beliefs about means-tested welfare and it all ought to be driven by abstract beliefs about small government and egalitarianism. In the real world, however, there are significant other factors driving opinion that push views about these categories of spending in different directions.

Politics

Pawlenty disregards Bachmann: ‘I don’t think anybody’s gonna’ try to ‘abolish or reduce’ entitlement programs.

Earlier this month, ThinkProgress reported a comment made by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) in favor of eliminating entitlement programs. To deal with the national debt, Bachmann suggested that the government should ultimately “wean everybody” off Social Security and Medicare. In this month’s edition of Esquire magazine, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) seemed to rebuke Bachmann’s call for eliminating entitlements, saying Republicans should never try to “abolish or reduce” Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid:

ESQ: Or how about the Social Security Act? Is Social Security a proper role of government? How are those programs materially different from the health-care reform that has been the focus of the president’s attention?

PAWLENTY: Well, in 1965 I was only five years old. I think if you look at Medicare and Medicaid, the premise was that government needs to provide some assistance to people who aren’t able to take care of themselves. I think we all share that goal, Republicans and Democrats. I don’t think anybody’s gonna go back now and say, Let’s abolish, or reduce, Medicare and Medicaid.

Pawlenty isn’t only rejecting his state’s star conservative lawmaker, but also the vanguard of other Republicans members endorsing a new push to privatize and diminish Social Security as well as Medicare. In the past few weeks, Reps. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Jack Kingston (R-GA) have called for privatizing Social Security, and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) has proposed a Medicare privatization program. In fact, since 1991, House Republicans have cut over $1 trillion from Medicare.

Update

Americans United for Change launched a new radio ad this week denouncing Bachmann’s call to “wean everybody” off Social Security. Listen here:

Older

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

Sign Up