Category: Issues of the Day

I sure hope the government doesn’t take over my Medicare.

James Fallows is dismayed to learn that 44% of Americans think China has the world’s largest economy. An excerpt.

You could address this point with, you know, “facts.” Almost no one in the United States is a peasant farmer. Most people in China are. Nearly everyone in America has indoor plumbing. Most people in China don’t. Japan has one-tenth as many people as China, yet its economy is larger — the second largest in the world. America’s is of course largest of all, three times larger than Japan’s and about four times larger than China’s. Name 20 large American corporations that do business worldwide. Without trying, you can probably name 50. Try to name even 10 from China. Name the most recent winner of a Nobel prize in science from a Chinese university or research institution. (Hint: this is a trick question.)

He’s got more.

And check out this visual aid I found elsewhere.

When it comes to global warming, however, this is precisely why we’re headed off a cliff, why the Copenhagen talks that open this week, almost no matter what happens, will be a disaster. Because climate change is not like any other issue we’ve ever dealt with. Because the adversary here is not Republicans, or socialists, or deficits, or taxes, or misogyny, or racism, or any of the problems we normally face—adversaries that can change over time, or be worn down, or disproved, or cast off. The adversary here is physics.

Physics has set an immutable bottom line on life as we know it on this planet. For two years now, we’ve been aware of just what that bottom line is: the NASA team headed by James Hansen gave it to us first. Any value for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible “with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.”  That bottom line won’t change: above 350 and, sooner or later, the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, hydrological cycles are thrown off kilter, and so on.

And here’s the thing: physics doesn’t just impose a bottom line, it imposes a time limit. This is like no other challenge we face because every year we don’t deal with it, it gets much, much worse, and then, at a certain point, it becomes insoluble—because, for instance, thawing permafrost in the Arctic releases so much methane into the atmosphere that we’re never able to get back into the safe zone. Even if, at that point, the U.S. Congress and the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee were to ban all cars and power plants, it would be too late.

Oh, and the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already at 390 parts per million, even as the amount of methane in the atmosphere has been spiking in the last two years. In other words, we’re over the edge already.  We’re no longer capable of “preventing” global warming, only (maybe) preventing it on such a large scale that it takes down all our civilizations.

From a longish piece by Bill McKibben, The physics of Copenhagen: Why politics-as-usual may mean the end of civilization.

To repeat, “not compatible ‘with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.’”

Whether Washington rode in a boat or walked across ice or walked on the damn river doesn’t matter. Whether polar bears are dying or thriving doesn’t matter. Whether all the pines in Colorado are dying doesn’t matter.

We’re fucking with the atmosphere and that fact is undeniable.

Un-de-ni-able.

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”

At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

The Guardian

The sobriety check or roadblock has passed U.S. Supreme Court muster as constitutional. Under the Fourth Amendment we are protected “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” When the good of society is at stake however, the search is no longer deemed unreasonable.

In New Mexico, a sobriety check has to meet eight criteria established by the court of appeals.

1. the selection of the site and procedures for conducting it must be made and established by supervisory law enforcement personnel rather than officers in the field. Ideally, roadblock decisions should be made by the chief of police or other high-ranking supervisory officials
2. the discretion of field officers be restricted … As nearly as possible, each motorist should be dealt with in precisely the same manner
3. the safety of the motoring public and the field officer should also be given proper consideration [minimal traffic congestion]
4. the location of the roadblock is significant in determining the degree of intrusiveness and safety of the public and police…Obviously, a location chosen with the actual intent of stopping and searching only a particular group of people, i.e., Hispanics, blacks, etc., would not be tolerated
5. time and duration [e.g., late evening, not during morning rush hour]
6. the official nature of the roadblock should be immediately apparent. Officers in the field should be uniformed; police cars should be marked; and warning or stop signs, flares and pylons are advisable. The roadblock scene should strike an appropriate balance to provide for high visibility at the roadblock, yet minimize the potential fear and apprehension to
   the public
7. the average length of time that a motorist is detained at the roadblock and the degree of intrusiveness should be minimized
8. the deterrence value of any roadblock and its reasonableness for sobriety checks will be enhanced if given widespread advance publicity

City of Las Cruces, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Elizabeth Betancourt, and Henry J. Baca, Defendants-Appellants (1987)

You do have to produce identification and registration. You do not have to answer any questions. One problem with answering questions is that it opens the door to more questions.

Another problem with answering questions. You have a beer at 5 and get stopped at 10. What’s the answer to the question, “Have you had a drink?” Lying to a police officer is not good. Qualifying an answer may be even worse.

The answer many advocates suggest is, “Officer, I prefer not to discuss my personal affairs.” They can’t legally hold you because you chose not to engage in small-talk. And refusing to chit-chat is not probable cause.

And if you think, well I never drink, the officer at the one check point I visited also asked about drugs and (if I remember it correctly) medications. What’s the answer to that question?

[Sobriety checks are unconstitutional under state law in Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.]

Andrew Sullivan explains the President’s Afghan policy with a visual aid.

Tom Friedman begins his column:

Let me start with the bottom line and then tell you how I got there: I can’t agree with President Obama’s decision to escalate in Afghanistan. I’d prefer a minimalist approach, working with tribal leaders the way we did to overthrow the Taliban regime in the first place. Given our need for nation-building at home right now, I am ready to live with a little less security and a little-less-perfect Afghanistan.

He goes on to explain. Worthwhile.

Anyone in a position of authority who is aware of a gay or lesbian individual has 24 hours to inform police or face jail time. Individuals found to engage in efforts to sexually stimulate another for the purpose of homosexual relations, or found touching another for that purpose, will face life in prison. Those who engage in “aggravated homosexuality” — defined as repeated homosexual relations or sexual contact with others who are HIV/AIDS infected — will face the death penalty.

Andrew Sullivan quoting a summary of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009.

Rick Warren: “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.”

John F. Kennedy: “Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.”

… but Elizabeth Warren should.

Warren Winning Means You Won’t Sell It If You Can’t Explain It

The criticism doesn’t bother her, Warren said. She learned to shake things off growing up in Norman, Oklahoma, with three older brothers “in a family of car parts and fist fights,” she said. “It was get tough or die, and I decided to get tough.”

Good profile.

Michael Lind has written a really provocative piece about the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ironically, the Pledge of Allegiance, which today is most fiercely defended by white conservative Southerners whose Confederate ancestors tried to destroy the United States in the 1860s, was written by a Yankee socialist from New York in the 1890s.

Just go read it.

The Official Google Blog describes an important new source:

As many of us recall from our civics lessons in school, the United States is a common law country. That means when judges issue opinions in legal cases, they often establish precedents that will guide the rulings of other judges in similar cases and jurisdictions. Over time, these legal opinions build, refine and clarify the laws that govern our land. For average citizens, however, it can be difficult to find or even read these landmark opinions. We think that’s a problem: Laws that you don’t know about, you can’t follow — or make effective arguments to change.

Starting today, we’re enabling people everywhere to find and read full text legal opinions from U.S. federal and state district, appellate and supreme courts using Google Scholar. You can find these opinions by searching for cases (like Planned Parenthood v. Casey), or by topics (like desegregation) or other queries that you are interested in.

Click the Official Google Blog link above to learn more. Attorneys must be used to this kind of access, but the cross referencing seems new to me. At least new to have it for free.

At nine tonight Eastern time Virginia is expected to execute John Allen Muhammad, the senior of the two Washington-area snipers in 2002. Muhammad was tried in Virginia for one of the at least 10 sniper killings he carried out with Lee B. Malvo, who was 17 at the time and has been sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Muhammad was tried in Virginia first because it was the jurisdiction with the second most active execution chamber (after Texas). The particular killing was of Mr. Dean H. Myers at a Sunoco station in Manassas, Virginia.

The New York Times has the details.

I’m generally opposed to capital punishment, but I see no sense in keeping Mr. Muhammad around taking up space.

… being a citizen of the United States.

The estimated number of juveniles serving life without parole in the United States is 2,574. The number of prisoners given life without parole for nonhomicide offenses is 111—77 of them are in Florida. Nine is the number of people serving life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed at age 13. And two is the number of 13-year-olds serving the sentence for nonhomicide offenses. Oh, and one is the number of countries that allows life without parole for teenagers.

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate Magazine has the details.

Tom Friedman has a thoughtful column today.

“I congratulate President Obama on receiving this prestigious award. I join my fellow Americans in expressing pride in our President on this occasion.”

Senator John McCain

Go look. Take tissues.

Discourse.net

The Europeans hurt Obama’s feelings by not giving Chicago the Olympics, so they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize as a consolation.

… have below average intelligence.

Sixty-two percent of McCain voters, 59 percent of self-described conservatives, and 62 percent of self-described Republicans think government should stay out of Medicare as against (a still distressingly high) 20 percent of Obama voters, 25 percent of self-described liberals, and 24 percent of self-described Democrats. Among independents, 31 percent agreed that government should stay out of Medicare.

Timothy Noah – Slate Magazine has more.

For my part I sure hope Obama doesn’t let the government take over the Army and Navy or the National Park Service.