ThinkProgress Logo

NEWS FLASH

New Korea, Colombia, And Panama Trade Agreements Advance In Senate And House | This evening, the House of Representatives voted to advance trade agreements with Panama, South Korea, and Colombia. The vote for the Colombian trade agreement was most contentious, with all but 31 House Democrats voting against the agreement and only 9 Republicans voting “no.” As of this writing, the Senate has also voted to approve both the Panama and Colombian trade agreements, with 66 senators voting in favor of the Columbian agreement and 77 senators voting in favor of the Panama agreement.

By Zaid Jilani on Oct 12, 2011 at 10:57 pm

NEWS FLASH

Al Gore Endorses Occupy Wall Street | “From the economy to the climate crisis, our leaders have pursued solutions that are not solving our problems,” former Vice President Al Gore wrote on his blog. “Instead they propose policies that accomplish little. With democracy in crisis, a true grassroots movement pointing out the flaws in our system is the first step in the right direction. Count me among those supporting and cheering on the Occupy Wall Street movement.”

By Brad Johnson on Oct 12, 2011 at 10:30 pm

Media

Wall Street Journal Executive Resigns Over Yet Another News Corp. Scandal

By Travis Waldron on Oct 12, 2011 at 8:10 pm

One of the top executives at the European branch of the Wall Street Journal, the flagship newspaper at Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corporation, has resigned amid a growing scandal that has called into question the paper’s journalistic ethics and jeopardized its reputation. Adding to the scandals News Corp. is already facing in Europe — alleged phone hacking, bribing of public officials — and a potential criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department, the Guardian reported today that Andrew Langhoff, the European director of Dow Jones and Co. (the subsidiary of News Corp. that owns the Journal), oversaw a massive scam that artificially inflated the circulation numbers in Europe in order to avoid losing investors, readers, and advertisers.

The scam was organized in London and focused on the paper’s European edition, and even when top executives in New York were alerted, they failed to do anything about it, the Guardian reports:

The Guardian found evidence that the Journal had been channelling money through European companies in order to secretly buy thousands of copies of its own paper at a knock-down rate, misleading readers and advertisers about the Journal’s true circulation.

The bizarre scheme included a formal, written contract in which the Journal persuaded one company to co-operate by agreeing to publish articles that promoted its activities, a move which led some staff to accuse the paper’s management of violating journalistic ethics and jeopardising its treasured reputation for editorial quality.

Internal emails and documents suggest the scam was promoted by Andrew Langhoff, the European managing director of the Journal’s parent company, Dow Jones and Co, which was bought by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in July 2007. Langhoff resigned on Tuesday.

According to the Guardian, the Journal contracts charged as little as one cent per copy, meaning a company like Executive Learning Partnership (part of one of the biggest deals) could sponsor 3.1 million copies at a cost of only 31,080 euros. The deals began to blow up when ELP and other organizations complained about not receiving their fair share of coverage, despite multiple pages of exclusive stories throughout the paper. When the deals appeared to falter, the Journal, led by Langhoff, funneled money through a middleman, effectively using its own cash to pay for the copies of the paper so as to avoid an immediate 16 percent drop in circulation, which would have scared advertisers, shareholders, and readers.

The scam only adds to the growing perception that News Corp. is a company out of control after a tumultuous summer in which it was caught in scandal after scandal involving its journalistic practices in both Europe and the United States. Fraud investigations were opened and British MPs called Murdoch and his son, James, to appear before Parliament to discuss details of the company’s phone hacking scandal came to light. The FBI and Department of Justice both opened investigations into the company over violations of American laws, and details emerged of News Corp. reporters hacking into the phones of families of 9/11 victims. Now, scandal seems to have spread to the company’s most prestigious publication.

Climate Progress

Flood-Gate: Perry Officials Try to Hide Sea Level Rise from Texans with “Clear-Cut Unadulterated Censorship”

By Joe Romm on Oct 12, 2011 at 8:00 pm

“We Live in the State of Denial, the State of Texas” Censored Rice University Oceanographer John Anderson Tells Climate Progress

In one of the most flagrant recent instances of scientific censorship, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) refused to publish a report chapter unless all mention of climate change and its impact on sea level rise were eliminated.  The author — Rice University oceanographer John Anderson, a leading expert on sea level rise with more than 200 publications — refused.  As a result, TCEQ killed his chapter in The State of the Bay, a regular publication of the Galveston Bay Estuary Program.

Climate Progress interviewed Anderson along with other Texas scientists who revealed that this is not the first time officials removed references to climate change in a state report.  Dr. Wendy Gordon, a scientist who spent 8 years working for the TCEQ and its predecessor agencies, told me she was not surprised by this censorship at all.  She related the story of one of her colleagues whose attempt to incorporate climate change into a state water planning report was “eviscerated by the higher-ups.”

Governor Rick “4 Pinocchios” Perry is a proud denier of climate science, as is his appointed head of TCEQ, Bryan Shaw, so it’s no surprise his entire administration walks in lock step.  No doubt this is what the country should expect from a Perry presidency.  After all, we saw similar climate science censorship the last time an anti-science Texan was in the White House.

What makes this especially tragic is that Texas is one of the states most at risk from unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions — because of its vast low-lying shoreline, its vulnerability to hurricanes, and, of course, its vulnerability to devastating drought and heat wave.

But this is censorship of sea level rise, which is why I call it Flood-Gate.  Indeed, Anderson told me that “In Texas, I find people far less informed on sea level rise than even in Louisiana.   The state is not allowing this information to get out there.”  As he told Mother Jones:

“Sea level doesn’t just go up in Louisiana. We’re the next in line.  We are in fact starting to see many of the changes that Louisiana was seeing 20 years ago, yet we still have a state government that refuses to accept this is happening.”

Here is a 2009 analysis of the “The Socio-Economic Impact of Sea Level Rise in the Galveston Bay Region” by Texas scientists of what a Category 2 Hurricane like Ike would do after sea level rise (SLR) of 0.69 meter (27 inches) — click to enlarge:

And 27 inches is, optimistically, half the current business-as-usual SLR projection for 2100 (see here).

Anderson was particularly “shocked” at how ham-fisted all of this was.  His discussion of sea level rise is focused entirely on  peer-reviewed data that isn’t controversial at all.  Indeed, his discussion focused on sea level rise estimates from thermal expansion of the ocean — even though he is an expert on the West Antarctic ice sheet and thinks we are at great risk of catastrophic sea level rise this century.

The paper stated in the Summary (page 19):  “Current rates of sea level rise … are  approaching 3 mm per year and may well exceed 4 mm per year by the end of this century.”  In fact, SLR is projected to be several time faster than that by the second half of the century.  Anderson was bending over backwards to avoid exactly what happened.

“We can’t even present a conservative viewpoint,” he told me.  Below is the final draft he submitted and the stunning line edits demanded by senior TCEQ officials :
Read more

Economy

Bachmann Tells New Hampshire Speaker She’ll ‘Twist Anybody’s Arm’ To Pass Anti-Worker Legislation

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 12, 2011 at 7:15 pm

Earlier this year, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) vetoed a bill that would have made the Granite State a “right-to-work” state, eroding the ability of workers to collectively bargain. The bill would have made New Hampshire the only state in the Northeast with such a law.

The speaker of the New Hampshire state house has been trying to override the veto, but has so far been unsuccessful. Today, GOP 2012 presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann told the speaker, William O’Brien, that “I’ll twist anybody’s arm you want me to” in order to drum up enough votes to make right-to-work a New Hampshire reality. Watch it (via Granite State Progress):

During a speech before the New Hampshire legislature, Bachmann claimed that right-to-work laws boost both employment and economic growth, causing the divided legislature to erupt in both cheers and very audible boos:

BACHMANN: Just a few more votes and we’ll be there New Hampshire. Because you see it’s a proven fact that right-to-work states have created more jobs than those that are not. Facts are stubborn things. Facts are stubborn things and right-to-work states have experienced more economic growth than states that are not right-to-work states.

Watch it:

Facts are indeed stubborn things, and Bachmann has had plenty of experience in playing fast and loose with them. Contrary to her assertions, economist Gordon Lafer has found that right-to-work laws “have no impact in boosting economic growth.” “Research shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth,” he found.

All they do is undermine the ability of workers to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, and worker protections. In fact, “right-to-work laws lower wages — for both union and nonunion workers alike — by an average of $1,500 per year.”

Yglesias

What’s Not Next For Apple

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 12, 2011 at 6:15 pm

Jamelle Bouie linked to this interesting take on what’s next for Apple, foreseeing moves into the payments business, a true Apple television, search, and even a deep delve into cars.

Maybe so. What I think is interesting, however, is a scenario that we can be completely confident won’t be next for Apple. The company definitely will not return its existing stockpile of cash to shareholders, announce a plan to quietly plug along in its existing profitable business lines, sharply raise dividends, and generally resolve to slowly fade into the darkness as a hugely profitable investment for its owners that’s doomed to be overtaken by some newer more innovative company. Instead, like all the other cash-rich profitable tech companies it’s going to fight for the interests of the firm as such. Rather than parking a nice quiet landing that ensures its owners make money but the firm goes extinct, it’ll furiously try to enter new lines of business in hopes of living forever. Microsoft doesn’t just say “well, Windows and Office are fantastic moneymakers so we’re set.” It takes that money and spends on it trying to get into the mobile phone and online services businesses. With the XBox it even succeeded.

Firms want to live forever! And while some of these gambit succeed, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the general instinct toward firm-level survival causes more losses than it avoids.

Economy

Pressed About His Plan To Raise Taxes On Food, Herman Cain Says Poor People Should Just Buy Used Goods

By Marie Diamond on Oct 12, 2011 at 6:05 pm

The clear winner of last night’s Republican presidential debate on the economy was Herman Cain’s 999 plan, which received more attention and coverage than any candidate or economic proposal submitted by the GOP field.

In response to sharp questioning from the moderators and his fellow contenders about the effects of his plan, which would raise taxes on common food items to pay for a massive corporate tax cut, Cain seemed to have settled on a simple solution: the poor should just eat used food and buy used goods.

Asked to “explain why under your plan all Americans should be paying more for milk, for a loaf of bread, and beer?” Cain noted that under his plan “there is no tax on used goods.” Cain repeated this “used goods” suggestion in two interviews after the debate, insisting that his plan is not regressive. Instead, he explained, the new tax structure would give families the “flexibility to decide on how much they want to spend it on new goods [and] how much they want to spend it on used goods.”

Watch it:

In a Bloomberg interview, Cain claimed that under 999, “prices don’t go up” because “consumers have the option to stretch their dollar because of buying used goods instead of new.” Cain failed to explain how this solution would apply to food, which families might have difficulty buying “used” unless they rummage through garbage. Clearly he considers relying almost entirely on secondhand items for everyday life a perfectly reasonable idea for poor families.

As a former CEO of a pizza company, Cain should know that a hike in taxes on food products will be a heavy blow for the millions of families who are already having a hard time making ends meet. Thirty-one states charge no sales tax on food, and others tax food at a lower rate than other goods or provide rebates for lower-income families to offset the tax. Only two states, Mississippi and Alabama, charge full sales tax on food.

As ThinkProgress has explained, 999 would slash taxes on the wealthy, drive up deficits to their highest levels since World War II, and force low-income Americans to pay nine times their current tax rate.

Security

Right-Wing Think Tankers Use Alleged Assassination Plot To Push For War With Iran

By Eli Clifton on Oct 12, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Details of the alleged plot by an Iranian-American to hire Mexican drug cartels to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington remain few and far between. But that hasn’t stopped analysts at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Heritage Foundation from calling for a military response.

The Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano weighed in with a blog post promoted at the top of the center’s website. Carafano lists actions “required” in response to the Justice Department’s allegations against Texas used car dealer Manssor Arbabsiar. The first action is:

Take strong measures to respond. The U.S. is fully within it rights to conduct a proportional military response against suitable, feasible, and acceptable targets in Iran. (In many ways, the situation is similar to military operations conducted against al-Qaeda in Pakistan.) The Iranian government knows full well that the Iran Qods Force is a terrorist group that has provided material support to the Taliban and other groups. The Tehran government has not restrained this organization and is responsible for its conduct.

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at AEI, called for an end to diplomatic outreach to Tehran, colorfully writing in the New York Daily News:

The terror plot was no rogue action. Obama may hold an olive branch, but the White House must recognize the Iranian regime’s fist holds only blood.

The time for talk has ended.

And FDD executive director Mark Dubowitz taunted the White House for what he anticipates will be an indecisive reponse to a “brazen attack” — albeit ineptly planned and nowhere near a point of execution — in Washington. While coming up short of explicitly endorsing military action, he writes in the Huffington Post:

What will be a surprise to the Iranian regime is if the United States, in the face of a brazen attack on its capital, finally responds decisively.

Under Obama’s watch the U.S. has imposed tighter sanctions on Iran than those implemented during the George W. Bush administration. Perhaps more importantly, assuming the Attorney General’s indictment holds up, federal law enforcement agencies were highly effective at breaking up a terrorist plot well before it was operational or posed an immediate threat to the U.S. or diplomatic targets in Washington.

Now, with analysts and the media still scratching their heads over what to make of a convoluted plot alleged to have been hatched by an Iranian American in collusion with Mexican drug cartels, FDD, AEI and Heritage analysts — along with their friends in Congress — are quickly declaring the end of diplomatic strategies to curb Iran’s nuclear program and regional ambitions.

Climate Progress

Perry-Appointed Agency Censors Global Warming

By Brad Johnson on Oct 12, 2011 at 5:39 pm

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), an agency whose three commissioners are appointed by climate denier Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), has censored a Texas climate scientist’s attempts to warn the public about the threat of global warming to the state’s residents. Rice University oceanographer John Anderson withdrew his article on the Galveston Bay from a collection commissioned by TCEQ after the agency stripped all mentions of climate change, sea level rise, and other man-made impacts on the environment. In an interview with Raw Story, Dr. Anderson said this was a “clear-cut case of censorship“:

This is a clear-cut case of censorship. It’s not scientific editing. It was strictly deletion of virtually any information that related to global change.

Among other deletions and re-writes, the agency altered Anderson’s text from “Sea level rise is one of the main impacts of global climate change and has accelerated” to “Sea level has changed over time”:

Part of the text censored by the Texas Council on Environmental Quality.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the co-editors of the project, Houston Advanced Research Center Vice President Jim Lester and scientist Lisa Gonzalez, have “informed TCEQ they did not want their names associated with the TCEQ version, fearing it would hurt their credibility as scientists.”

“It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it,” TCEQ spokeswoman Andrea Morrow told ThinkProgress Green in a written statement. “And here, information was included in a report that we disagree with.”

“I refer to Texas as a state of denial, and I don’t think we’re the only coastal state that’s in denial,” Anderson told Raw Story. “As long as we live in the state of denial, we’re just passing the check to our grandkids to deal with.”

Yglesias

We Need Explicit Guidance

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 12, 2011 at 5:29 pm

The September FOMC minutes are out today and let us know that “A couple of members noted that they would prefer to change the Committee’s forward guidance to provide greater clarity about the economic conditions that would be likely to warrant maintaining exceptionally low levels of the target federal funds rate, but no decision was taken on this point.”

This couple of members is correct. They’re correct for two reasons — sensible guidance would boost the economy, and non-sensible guidance would clarify the situation for the rest of us.

Sensible guidance would indicate that the Fed is prepared to allow for some “catch-up” inflation until the unemployment rate drops substantially. This would help spur investment in a variety of ways. It’s perhaps best illustrated with an example. Right now, I might look at the economic situation and say, “if the economy grows a bit, new household formation will resume and rents will go way up so I should invest in building new multi-family structures.” But I also might look at the economic situation and say, “if the economy grows a bit, new household formation will resume and rents will go way up so the Fed will raise interest rates so I should stand pat.” Sensible guidance puts us onto path one where I invest in the new apartment buildings, and the increased investment becomes the impulse that creates the potentially inflationary situation.

Non-sensible guidance would let people know who to blame. Suppose the Fed says this: we expect the economy to stay super-weak for a while but if by some miracle growth picks up and then rising demand for gasoline pushes inflation up to 2.5 percent we’re going to raise interest rates to nip it in the bud. That’d be nuts. But then we could at least debate this plan, as a democratic society, and understand that the Fed’s forward-looking guidance makes rapid reductions in the unemployment rate impossible. If the only kind of growth the Fed will tolerate is the kind that doesn’t put any upward pressure on energy prices or rents, then the Fed is mandating slow growth.

Either way, the people deserve to know.

Older

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

Sign Up