GOP Rising Stars Not Rising Anymore

Daily Kos has a couple of good stories on Scott Walker and Chris Christie. They're so cool!

Walker:

Shit just got real.  "Scott Walker Involved in Criminal Scheme" is currently the BANNER headline on the front page of 18 Wisconsin newspaper sites.  The breath and depth of the coverage is simply devastating.  The story is engulfing Walker across the entire state, from cities to suburbia to even rural farm country.

Christie:

Just as we are digesting the news of Governor Scott Walker being in the center of a criminal scheme, I thought I'd check in on how the prosecutors are doing with Governor Chris Christie, and found Esquire is just breaking this this exclusive story. Scott Raab and Lisa Brennan report EXCLUSIVE: PROSECUTOR IS CLOSING IN ON GOV. CHRISTIE, saying "indictments against four cronies are near certain, sources say. Only question is if David Samson, Christie's longtime crony, will flip. They claim to have two inside sources.

Sure, I don't like the ideologies of Walker and Christie. I think, additionally, they're punks, bullies. The problems with punks and bullies is that they've been getting away with it -- in some cases, since they first started bullying in elementary school -- that they think they're immune.

Maybe they aren't.

Iraq Fault Lines: Mainstream Media Is Pro-War, Americans Are Not

IED blows up, al-Anbar province, 2006. We broke it, we can't fix it.

Whenever you hear any news at all in the mainstream media about the goings-on in Iraq these days, just remember that these same outlets -- even the New York Times -- were all-in with the Iraq War since before it started. So don't be surprised if all of them -- except perhaps the New York Times, which learned its lesson somewhat from the Judith Miller debacle -- are all-in for some form of reinvolvement or, at the very least, entertaining some idea that it's Barack Obama's fault. It's happening on his watch!

How did we get into this mess? Media Matters has a good rundown on the journalists responsible. Digby of Hullabalo reminds us in a Salon.com piece that Paul Wolfowitz and others in the Bush administration responsible for getting us in this mess are delivering outrageous lying hoping to distance themselves from their war crimes. Off the subject but concurrent with the war talk, Media Matters also has a piece listing all the Faux News and "talk" radio noise claiming that Hillary Clinton not only planned the Benghazi attack and the cover-up but also that she had a hand in the timing of the capture of the man most responsible for the attack itself. Though, now they're claiming that he's a "patsy." Sheesh, there's no pleasing these assholes. If Jesus came back for Judgement Day, they'd claim it was a liberal plot to distract from the monster IRS email scandal.

Just noting that it's not healthy listening to either the mainstream media -- in the tank for war, it's fun to cover -- or the right-wing noise machine, whose whole effort is essentially a fact-free zone.

Here are two fun videos of Presidents Mitt Romney and John McCain. Just wondering: Why do we even ask these people anything?

Fun with Paul Wolowitz, who's all over the tellie as an "expert" lately. Here he is in 2003 telling how cheap and easy Iraq will be now that we've "won." Start at 2:15 and stop at 7:00.

Here's John Stewart noticing -- as we all did -- that Paul Wolfowitz shouldn't have ever been listened to.

Here's Wolfowitz nowadays, playing his expert role to a fawning Niel Cavuto:

Here's Politico:
According to a Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday, 54 percent of voters say they agree more with the president on Iraq, compared with 28 percent who said they agree more with McCain.

American public 1, mainstream media 0.

Issues That Can Win: A Universal Carbon Tax

Reminder: why China would support efforts to reduce carbon-based pollution.

To kick off this discussion, a funny question: Why would "Communist" China support carbon reductions while the American Republican Party would not?

Weird thinking about that, huh? The answer is that China is beginning to understand that health is a vital component of stability, something the Communist Party desires above all else. It has, in the past, killed its citizens for stability. It's getting to the point, though, where China would rather win over its citizens with policy, not oppression. Why? The potential for revolution never goes away, regardless of how you work to cleanse the dissidents. Good paychecks, full tummies, and good housing -- and, yes, good health -- can be cheaper and easier than maintaining vast police states. Also, too, life is better, and with it so is productivity.

The Republican Party has different priorities. As long as "it's a job killer!" polls well, regardless of the silliness of the rhetoric, Republicans will shill for the corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's the profit, stupid.

Political Animal points out that a carbon tax could work, if it was coupled with reduced taxes elsewhere. Making the idea attractive to Republicans is hard, but what if the corporations could get in on the tax tradeoff, as well?

This Bloomberg View article on how to sell a carbon tax makes sense: Use all  of the revenue from a carbon tax to reduce taxes elsewhere. Republicans might buy into that one.

I favor another approach, which may be harder to sell because its concept is so broad: a carbon-footprint tax. I first learned of this idea from a friend of mine, Tobi, when we were driving around the Swedish countryside last fall. Here's roughly how it works, as I recall:

• The tax would run from pretty hefty all the way to an earned tax credit. If you want to eat carbon, so be it. Have at it, but be prepared to pay the tax. If you want to reduce your carbon consumption to zero or even better, so much the better.
• Corporations and private individuals would both have an opportunity to reduce their tax rates by dumping high-carbon-use practices.
• If you are rich and want to own five cars, great. Pay the tax. If you're middle-class, live in the city, and don't have a car, great. Your taxes drop. If you own a certified "green" car -- electric, hybrid, low-mileage diesel, etc. -- you pay a reduced rate, depending on total carbon footprint.
• If your home is certified green -- meeting certain insulation standards, green appliances, etc. -- your taxes go down further. Have solar panels? Down go your taxes.
• At some point, taxpayers are green enough to actually receive income from going green. If properly structured, a carbon-footprint tax scheme could fight income inequality: If the rich want to live high on the hog, let them subsidize the poor or green-savvy citizens who would love the tax breaks, even credits.

I'll keep it simple for now. But imagine a world in which income distribution flows to more normal levels, while carbon is reduced further and further. If the rich resent high taxes because of their carbon-rich lifestyle, stop using carbon! The rich can't say, "We earned this money!" Of course you did, we're only taxing you because of the reckless way you're spending it. Keep your money if you want! Go green!

From a political standpoint, it's hard to attack the rich for being stinking rich. It's easier to attack them for being stinking polluters. Lifestyles of the rich and famous give your children asthma. That's a better campaign than give me some of your money!

A quick counter-counterargument in advance: This would be bad for the economy. No, it wouldn't! Companies that play to pay a lower carbon tax would lower their tax burden. Those that build greener plants, office buildings, low-emission fleets, etc. lower their tax overhead, which will match the cost of going green. If enough companies do it, the cost of solar, wind, electric cars, batteries, etc., etc., will drop while these green industries grow the economy along the way.

Who loses? Okay, there are losers. The oil companies. The coal-mine operators. The natural gas producers that can't adequately reduce leakage of methane (not technically carbon, but must be in the mix). But these companies have been running ads for years about how green they are, how they're with us humans who want to grow, thrive, and survive. Now they can walk the walk: Invest your billions now in green systems. Nobody is stopping ExxonMobil from becoming the largest swappable electric-car-battery operation in the world. Nobody is preventing Chevron from becoming the world's largest producer of biodiesel. BP can become the largest distributor of hydrogen, with the most hydrogen stations in the world.

You get the point. These ideas aren't crazy. They're innovative, and they lead to jobs, healthy workers, and higher productivity. The countries that get on-board will lead and thrive. Those who don't will be left behind and will end up scrambling to get a piece of the action in a reduced-carbon world. They'll look more like Beijing than Stockholm. C'mon, it's good business. Republicans should be first in line.

ExxonMobil wants to solve our energy challenges. We're with you, if you're for real.

Here's a link to a site that has thought about this, right up to including dividends (revenue distribution).

Iraq: The Worst War Plan in History Comes Home to Roost

The Iraq War Gang of Four: Missing? Condoleezza Rice.

Fareed Zakaria lays out the broadly accepted truth: A deeply flawed battle plan, coupled with a disastrous decision to remove Sunnis from power -- de-Baathification -- led to a Shiite-dominated government that broke all agreements with the Sunnis, then turned around and persecuted them, which included torture and execution.

Any attempt by the usual suspects -- McCain, Graham, and all the Chicken Hawks -- to lay this at the feet of Barack Obama is political claptrap and should be rejected out of hand. Zakaria:

If the Bush administration deserves a fair share of blame for “losing Iraq,” what about the Obama administration and its decision to withdraw American forces from the country by the end of 2011? I would have preferred to see a small American force in Iraq to try to prevent the country’s collapse. But let’s remember why this force is not there. Maliki refused to provide the guarantees that every other country in the world that hosts U.S. forces offers. Some commentators have blamed the Obama administration for negotiating badly or halfheartedly and perhaps this is true. But here’s what a senior Iraqi politician told me in the days when the U.S. withdrawal was being discussed: “It will not happen. Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them.” He reminded me that Maliki spent 24 years in exile, most of them in Tehran and Damascus, and his party was funded by Iran for most of its existence. And in fact, Maliki’s government has followed policies that have been pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian.

Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz
said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Right.

On the one hand, no one should be surprised that a Shiite, Maliki, would favor his sect in forming his government. However, wiser hands -- which the Bush administration did not have -- would have worked from the beginning to integrate Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites into a unity government. Or with really wiser hands, they could have decided not to invade Iraq at all. Once the Sunni-dominated power structure, one that had existed for centuries, fell apart, all the players ended up in Humpty-Dumpty Land. The result is a Sunni insurgency, in both Iraq and Syria, funded by Turkey and Saudi Arabia and resisted and counter-funded by elements in Lebanon, Iran, and Syria.

The potential for a regional war split along Sunni-Shiite lines, with Kurds thrown into the mix, was baked into the cake by the Bush/Cheney debacle beginning in 2003. The solution now? Stay the hell out. Boots on the ground? Won't happen. Bomb, bomb, bomb? Who? For how long? Toward what end? It will only stir the hornet's nest and build more hatred for America and the West.

We broke it, and it turns out we couldn't buy it. Real smart.

There she is, the belle of the ball. Nice work. And remember,
her title was National Security Advisor. Heckuva job, Condi!

How the Press Is Prevented from Legitimate Reporting in American War Zones

The New York Times bravely printed Chelsea Manning's op-ed on how the U.S. hides the truth of what goes on in American war zones. A principal inspiration for the system is to avoid a repeat of a free press causing Americans to turn against the Vietnam War.

Read it.

The California Teacher "Tenure" Decision That Won't Stand Scrutiny

How do you gauge effective teaching? His students look enthusiastic, but what
if he's asking "How many students want to ban homework for the rest of the year?"

As a former California teacher, I was horrified by the recent (tentative) ruling that might bring an end to California's so-called teacher tenure law. I was instinctively appalled by the decision, and after a few days I found out why my instincts were right. Here are some facts:

• The case was underwritten by a Silicon Valley billionaire named David Welch, who created a group called Students Matter, which is a subsidiary of StudentsFirst, which is, yes, Michelle Rhee's anti-union outfit. After choosing an attorney dream team, they went in search of students "harmed" by long-established teacher-protection statutes. This is a labor-law court action masquerading as an education reform effort.
• California doesn't have a "teacher tenure" law. Its teachers are granted permanent status after two years of teaching. They still need to undergo the continual administrative observation process which applies to all teachers at all levels of their careers. If an area of concern is discovered, the teacher is given time to correct it. If subsequent observations discover the problem is not corrected, steps are taken, sometimes including dismissal. The "permanent status" is merely a due process framework, one that all workers profit from. Who wants to get fired by a supervisor because WTF?
• The other process under fire is LIFO, or last in first out. That's a very common practice where the longer a worker has been on the job, the safer his or her position is. It's called seniority. It's a well respected criterion. It takes the randomness out of layoffs. Period. Enemies of this practice in education say this protects ineffective teachers. Proof?
• The reasoning of judge Treu in this case is extraordinarily shoddy and most likely won't stand scrutiny. Early commentary pointed to weak support for requiring strict scrutiny and problems with accepting plaintiffs' expert-witness testimony as fact, when in actuality the "facts" are admitted guessimates that presume there are 1 to 3 percent ineffective teachers in California. Even if there were, that means that 97 to 99 percent of California students receive an education from effective teachers. For this you eviscerate teacher protections that have worked well for decades?

Read this article by David Atkins for background on the case and this one on Atkins' first reaction to the decision. Slate's Jordan Weissmann has an important article today amplifying the weakness of Judge Treu's decision.

When you see the players involved in this case, you realize this is not about improving education. It's about dismantling teachers unions and privatizing education. It's straight from the conservative playbook, right up to including billionaires' money to destroy worker protections and government services. That's it in a nutshell. With luck, it won't work because of the weakness of their case. Next stop is the California Court of Appeals, often the graveyard of shoddy decisions.

StudentsFirst education grifter Michelle Rhee:
With the help of billionaires, you can grift big!

Update. More opinion pieces coming in on the decision. Here's a couple of graphs from a well-reasoned response in the NYTimes:

Everyone agrees that closing the achievement gap should be a high priority. But the remedy should fit the problem.

The lack of effective teachers in impoverished schools contributes to that gap, but tenure isn’t the cause. Teaching in those schools is a hard job, and many teachers prefer (slightly) easier jobs in less troubled settings. That leads to high turnover and difficulty in filling positions. Left with a dwindling pool of teachers, principals are unlikely to dismiss them, whether they have tenure or not.

Get that? Making teaching a less desirable profession will make it harder to remove ineffective teachers in impoverished schools. This has always been obvious to me. Make a job attractive -- higher salary, better benefits, better job security -- and better candidates apply. The opposite delivers the opposite. Duh.

Michelle Rhee loves the decision. Duh. Notice how she says "nine courageous young people who put their names on the lawsuit" and "the frustration that led these nine students to file a lawsuit." The suit was formulated, and then the billionaires' dream team went looking for some "perfect" plaintiffs. C'mon Michelle.

Here's a very telling reaction in the LATimes that hits the nail on the head:

As (NYU professor and education policy expert Diane) Ravitch points out, lawyers for the unions intervening in the case checked out the records of the teachers of the nine plaintiffs, who were all California public school students. "Two of the plaintiffs attend charter schools, where there is no tenure or seniority," she observes. Two others (the Vergara sisters) attend a pilot school in the Los Angeles Unified School District where teachers can be dismissed for any reason, including "ineffectiveness."

In other words, their teachers weren't even subject to the rules on teacher dismissal they were challenging.

As for the other plaintiffs, their testimony identifying some teachers as "bad" or "ineffective" only underscored the complexity and difficulty of making teacher evaluations. It's certainly not uncommon for a teacher to be detested by some students and adored by others. In this case, one of the teachers identified as bad by a plaintiff had been named a "teacher of the year" by the Pasadena Unified School District and others had excellent records.

Got that? This decision is toast, or had better be.

One Picture Will Convince You Solar Is the Future, and Why China Will Lead It

Question: Who is the largest producer of solar panels? China.

Question: Who currently leads in solar-panel installations? China.

Question: Who has the largest solar-energy production capacity? Germany. Second, China.

Question: Who needs to get away from coal energy because of crippling pollution? China.

Question: Who is lagging behind China in solar energy production? The U.S.

Question: Who is lagging behind China in solar-panel production? The U.S.

It didn't have to be this way, but there are definite pluses to the whole affair. One thing is certain: America -- I mean, uh, the Republican Party -- should stop pretending we can't work with the world on this. It doesn't even have to be "to save the planet." It could just be "to make life better." And, by today's standards, it's getting cheaper all the time. So all the "job killer" and "economy crusher" is just hot air.

Source: Department of Energy.