ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Afghanistan’s Heroin Problem

It seems to me that the link between the poppy trade and the Taliban in Afghanistan is often discussed in the US in a somewhat confused way. Just because the opium trade is a major source of funding for the Taliban doesn’t mean that cracking down on “the opium trade” hurts the Taliban. If I deal heroin here in DC than a crackdown on “heroin dealers” would be bad for me if and only if I actually get shut down. If, instead, the police shut down other heroin dealers then that’s good for me, the cops have shut down the competition. Now if what they’re primarily concerned with is reducing the overall quantity of heroin dealing in the city maybe they don’t care about that. But if the issue is that some heroin dealers are using drug money to buy televisions and other heroin dealers are using drug money to buy bombs that are used to kill Marines then it would make sense for the cops to be a good deal more discriminating.

And this is basically the situation in Afghanistan. The Taliban gets money from the poppy trade, but it’s not my understanding that they have a monopoly on it. Under the circumstances, crackdowns on non-Taliban poppy farmers or traffickers is a way of enhancing the Taliban’s revenue by choking supply and raising prices. The logic of fighting the Taliban is that we should offer assistance to anyone involved in the poppy trade who’s not involved in funding the insurgency. Think of the US and the Taliban as like rival mafia operations. We want people involved in poppy to pay protection money (i.e., taxes) to Hamid Karzai and to avoid paying protection money to the Taliban. We want to prove that we can protect our poppy farmers/smugglers from the Taliban while cracking down on people who collaborate with the Taliban.

The problem is that formally sponsoring a group of favored poppy entrepreneurs would go against our the policy commitment that we (and other relevant players) have made to keeping heroin illegal.

Climate Progress

Arctic sea ice is refreezing quite slowly. Go figure!

Arctic mutl 10-09

When records were being set for loss of summer Arctic sea ice area (2007) and sea ice volume (2008), the deniers spent all their time talking about how quickly the ice refroze in the ensuing months.  Now, they are strangely quiet on the remarkably slow refreezing we’re seeing.

Why the slow refreezing this year?  I’ll post the answer from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the end.  First, some background.

“The recent sea-ice retreat is larger than in any of the (19) IPCC [climate] models,” as Tore Furevik, Vice director at Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, pointed out in a May 2006 talk (big PPT here) on climate system feedbacks.

And that was before another staggering drop in Arctic sea-ice area in 2007 (see “Arctic Ice shrinks by an Alaska plus a Texas“).

And then we hit a record low volume in 2008 (see here), as this remarkable figure shows:

Read more

Media

Helicopter Journalism

800px-Westland_apache_wah-64d_longbow_zj206_arp 1

Michael Massing has an amusing and trenchant critique of what he terms “David Ignatius’s Helicopter Journalism.”

What a delight it must be to be a columnist for a major American newspaper. When traveling to distant, war-torn lands, you can enlist America’s top generals to show you around. That’s what David Ignatius of The Washington Post did on Sunday. He was shown around Baghdad by no less a figure than Centcom commander David Petraeus. Or, rather, he was shown it from the air. The two flew over the city in a Black Hawk helicopter. The general pointed out all the signs of recovery below. “See, the houses are occupied again,” he said as they passed over a neighborhood that several years ago had been largely abandoned. He pointed to the schools, police stations, parks, markets, and a traffic jam, which, he said was “good to see.”

The whole thing is worth a read. The larger issue, of course, is the problematic relationship between journalists and high-powered sources.

Politics

‘Nativist Extremist’ Minuteman PAC Endorses Hoffman For Congress

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate for New York’s traditionally Republican 23rd District, has just won the right-wing support of the Minuteman Political Action Committee — the political action arm of a “nativist extremist” armed vigilante group. The Minuteman PAC is currently running Independent Expenditure radio spots and predicts that Hoffman is “positioned to win a landslide victory” over Republican Party nominee Dede Scozzafava.

The Minuteman PAC’s Hoffman ad claims Scozzafava and Democratic candidate Bill Owens are tied directly to “the left-wing social agenda”:

You already know about ACORN — the corrupt organization scamming your tax dollars to promote a radical left agenda. And you’ve seen videos where Acorn officials offer to help a teenage prostitution ring involving illegal aliens. Now blogger Michele Malkin exposes yet another Acorn scandal: subsidized mortgages for illegal aliens. Acorn must be stopped, but how?

Two candidates for Congress, Dede Scozzafava and Bill Owens, are tied directly to Acorn and their far left-wing socialist agenda. That’s why voters all over Central New York and the North country are backing Doug Hoffman for Congress. Doug Hoffman is a CPA — a solid conservative and the only candidate for Congress opposed to amnesty and government handouts for illegal aliens. And only Hoffman will stand up to Acorn and the liberals. The choice is clear: Doug Hoffman for Congress — the wake-up call politicians in both parties need now.

Listen here:

The Minuteman PAC proclaims that it’s “THE ONE Political Action Committee that the open-borders, pro-amnesty lobby fears most,” but has been widely criticized for hoarding money and spending only a small fraction of its funds on political candidates.

However, Hoffman’s website indicates that he’s actually opposed to putting up a wall to “stop all immigration.” “The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here,” says his immigration platform. Agriculture is one of central New York’s main industries and many farmers depend on migrant labor. The New York Farm Bureau has expressed “deep disappointment” in “the failure of Congress…to come up with an immigration reform measure that addresses the pressing labor needs of agriculture in New York and across the nation.”

Politics

College student shouts ‘You lie!’ to Alberto Gonzales during speech.

Alberto Gonzales Former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales recently spoke at the University of Tennessee at Martin about “Living Legal History: Working with the White House, the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court.” Gonzales received a “mixed” response from students and residents, and he had a Joe-Wilson moment when a student interrupted his speech and shouted out “You lie!”:

At one point, Gonzales referred to America’s war on terrorism.

“President Wilson and Roosevelt engaged in massive collections of electronic communications during the first and second world war,” Gonzales said. “The collection performed by President Bush was much more narrow.”

At this moment, a student in the crowd interjected with: “You lie!” After some quiet applause the speech continued.

Gonzales is currently a political science professor at Texas Tech, where students and faculty have protested his appointment. (HT: TPM)

Climate Progress

Jon Stewart Argues That Concern About Global Warming Is Just A ‘Secular Religion’

On last night’s Daily Show, host Jon Stewart heaped praise on the contrarian approach to global warming taken by SuperFreakonomics author Steve Levitt, a University of Chicago economist. Stewart was baffled by the widespread criticism of Levitt and co-author Stephen Dubner, asking, “Have you stepped on a secular religion?” Stewart, often a tough interviewer, coddled Levitt, saying, “I’m sorry you’ve taken so much s**t for it.” He blamed the uproar over SuperFreakonomics on people who “feel you are betraying environmentalism”:

I’ve been somewhat surprised at how angry people are. The global warming chapter, you don’t deny global warming. You don’t say that CO2 isn’t a factor, but they feel you are betraying environmentalism or our world. Why are people so mad?

Watch it:

SuperFreakonomics mischaracterizes the field in order to argue that “moralism and angst” has blinded scientists and policymakers from pursuing the “cheap and simple solution” of geoengineering. Although the book condemns scientists for fearmongering and promotes a radical alternative to existing policy, Levitt tells Stewart, “I don’t try to pretend I know the science.”

In reality, the critics of Levitt’s treatment of climate science and policy are not “dogmatic” believers of a “secular religion” — they are highly respected climate scientists, energy experts, and economists, including climate scientist Ken Caldeira, who has said Levitt and Dubner misrepresented his views. The widespread criticism isn’t based on the book’s personal attacks on Al Gore or its mocking of global warming as a “religion,” but on the multitude of factual errors, misrepresentations, and false conclusions that the authors use to promote their mindless contrarianism. As science journalist Eric Pooley writes, “The book claims the opposite of what Caldeira believes.”

Levitt recommends untested, planetary scale geo-engineering to block the sun as a “band-aid” that “buys us time” if “we might need to do something,” because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time. However, scientists concerned that global warming needs to be reduced rapidly have already found a well-proven approach that’s cheaper and safer than pumping unlimited amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere: stopping black carbon emissions of soot from diesel and biomass burning.

Stewart hit the nail on the head when he concluded, “I really don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?” However, he failed to understand his mistake when he concluded that he had “apparently frightened our audience by suggesting that conservation isn’t the only way out of any of our problems.”

Stewart has excoriated other media darlings for their laissez-faire approach to serious issues, from Tucker Carlson to Jim Cramer, and just last week skewered CNN for its failure to do even basic fact-checking of its guests. Unfortunately, this time Stewart ended up being just like those he usually mocks — neither funny nor accurate.

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

If You Build It, They Will Come, But Only If They’re Allowed to Build More Stuff

Dave Murphy considers the proposal to extend the Green Line out to Fort Meade. The idea has some compelling promise largely because “Fort Meade is the largest job center in the state of Maryland, and it is currently unserved by transit” so that could bring some considerable benefits. But of course Fort Meade’s also a bit far away from where the Green Line currently goes, so an important question becomes whether you can make the intermediate steps into anything useful:


View Green Line Extension in a larger map.

Here I think the key thing to keep in mind is that when you’re talking about new heavy rail construction, the potential benefits can be quite large but you have to decide if you actually want to seize them. This is the area around one of the proposed stations:

greenexpansion

If you added a Metro station there, would the local area permit the surrounding quarter mile or so developed as a fairly dense walkable community? Or would people hear about proposals to build on the green space and up-zone the built-up area and decide that would lead to too much traffic? Maybe instead they’ll want to just turn the undeveloped patch into another parking lot. That’d be no good. And the existing land use patterns around Maryland’s Green Line stations don’t inspire a ton of confidence.

Climate Progress

University Of Kentucky approves new $7 million industry-funded dorm named after “Coal”

http://www.treehugger.com/epa-tougher-coal-plants.jpg

You can’t make this stuff up, as this Think Progress repost makes clear.

A group led by Alliance Coal CEO Joseph Craft recently proposed donating $7 million to the University of Kentucky for a new dorm for the men’s basketball team. The catch, however, is that the dorm would have to be named after Craft’s true love: coal. The proposed change sparked intense protests from local environmentalists and students. One professor said that as universities become “models for new energy sources,” putting “coal” on a prominent building could “make it difficult to attract top students and faculty members to the university.”

[JR:  Yes, coal industry will spend millions for a new dorm -- and yet Massey Energy refused to fund a new school so students can move away from coal processing plant!]

Yesterday afternoon, the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees voted 16-3 to approve the proposal for the new dorm, which will be named the “Wildcat Coal Lodge.” Significantly, two of the “no” votes were from faculty representative Ernie Yanarella and Student Government President Ryan Smith, who said he opposed the motion “as a voice for the student body.”

Students in the audience were reportedly not allowed to speak at the meeting. After the vote, people began chanting, “Move forward, not backward,” forcing the trustees to temporarily recess. More on the events at the meeting:

Read more

Politics

Lieberman Lies To Justify Health Care Filibustering: The Public Option Will Raise Premiums And Increase The Debt

This afternoon, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared on Fox News to defend his intention to filibuster any health care reform bill that includes a national public option. Lieberman argued that a public plan would “stifle” the economic recovery and increase “the debt.” “It’s just unnecessary,” Lieberman said. The public option is “a new entitlement program and the taxpayers and the premium-payers are going to end up paying for it, or else the debt will go higher.”

Responding to proponents of the public plan who argue that it would actually lower costs, Lieberman insisted that if the public option paid lower reimbursement rates than private insurers, medical providers would shift costs to Americans with private coverage:

LIEBERMAN: If the public option, the government run health insurance company negotiates hard to lower the reimbursement — the money it’s paying to hospitals, doctors — they’re [providers] going to have to get that money somewhere. And where they’re going to get it is from the 200 million Americans who today have private health insurance. Premiums will go up. It’s exactly what’s happened with Medicare and Medicaid. [...]

When people hear public option, I think they think it’s for free. It’s not for free. Somebody is going to have to pay for it and you can bet it’s going to be the taxpayers and the people who pay health insurance premiums now.

Watch it:

Contrary to Lieberman’s claims, the public option envisioned by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would be required to compete on a level playing field with private insurers and charge premiums “in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs.” Instead of stifling the “economic recovery” and increasing “the debt,” the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the self-sustaining public option (similar to the one envisioned by Reid) could actually save the government money and slightly lower premiums.

Like Lieberman, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — the insurance industry’s lobby — and the Business Roundtable have also argued that a public option that reimburses providers at lower rates than private payers would force providers to raise costs for Americans with private coverage in order to make-up the difference. MedPAC, the Congressional Budget Office, and numerous actuarial studies dispute the insurers’ claims.

These critics confuse cost shifts with price differentials. Economists point out that “price differentials are not necessarily the recouping of losses from one payer by overcharging another”; providers often “charge different prices to different market segments” to maximize profits, not to shift costs. MedPAC has concluded that “hospitals that are forced to run efficiently are adequately funded by Medicare payments. Therefore, increasing Medicare reimbursements to hospitals would not reduce rates providers charge to private insurers.” The research suggests that hospitals “are raising prices when they have the market power to do so,” not because they are reimbursed at Medicare rates.

Security

Is Congress Trying To Torpedo US-Iran Engagement?

Today the House Committee on Foreign Affairs is marking up H.R. 2194, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009. Rep. Steny Hoyer has “committed to moving the bill quickly to a vote once it is passed out of the committee.”

The American Enterprise Institute’s Iran Tracker website looked at the potential impact of the gas sanctions, and concluded that “the imposition of sanctions might generate no significant change in Iranian policy in the short term.” It also notes that “the group that should be the target of strengthened sanctions, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is least likely to be affected”:

Some analysts have argued that the IRGC actually benefits from a more economically isolated Iran because it no longer has to compete with foreign companies for government contracts. For example, one of the main engineering companies under IRGC control, Khatam al-Anbiya, has secured at least $7 billion in government oil, gas, and transportation contracts. Although IRGC companies do not always have the necessary technical expertise for some projects, they still generate revenue by acting as an intermediary between the government and international companies. IRGC members may continue to receive government contracts and subsidy money even if the government adjusted domestic economic policies.

So even the high church of U.S. aggression recognizes that not only would gas sanctions likely not have any effect on Iran’s nuclear policy, they could also end up empowering the very faction whose increased control over Iranian policy has resulted in Iran more aggressively pursuing its nuclear program. And that’s the upside. The downside is that the U.S. Congress moving forward with unilateral sanctions — with all the inevitable hawkish posturing that that entails — at an especially sensitive juncture in negotiations will provide opponents of a deal within the Iranian regime with precisely the demonstration of American bad faith — and thus a convenient excuse to walk away — that they’re looking for.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up