Paul Krugman’s recent column, “An Affordable Salvation,”
gushes about how, now that the “junk science”-loving (and Nazi-hugging)
former occupant of the White House is gone, we can finally start saving
the planet.  And it won’t cost much, either!  That is, if only we can
get cap-and-trade skeptics to stop practicing “junk economics.”

“The best available estimates,” according to Krugman, suggest that
turning industrial civilization green will basically be painless, and
in the end will actually be good for us.  Perhaps his “best available
estimates” include the recent, breathless press release
from the Environmental Defense Fund: “For about a dime a day we can
solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save
billions in imported oil.”  New EDF slogan: Saving the planet and 90
cents will get you a cup of coffee!

In the Rube Goldberg scheme of alternative energy sources, permits,
taxes, carbon credit swapping, and rebates known as “cap-and-trade,” I
count at least six additional charges consumers will directly or
indirectly face.  First, there is the cost of less efficient
“green” energy production, which will be passed on to consumers. 
Second, there is the charge for emissions permits, which will also be
passed on to consumers.  read more »

In celebration of Obama’s first 100 days in office, PolitiFact.com published a series, “The Obameter: Tracking Obama’s Campaign Promises.” 
The site compiles 514 promises Obama made during the campaign and
tracks his daily progress in fulfilling them.  PolitiFact assigns each
promise one of the following outcomes: Kept, Compromise, Broken,
Stalled, In the Works, No Action, and Yes We Can (just kidding on the
last one).  They also identify his “Top 25” most important promises.

This seems like such an even-handed, nonpartisan way to evaluate
Obama, one we can all agree on.  Indeed, as of Day 96, PolitiFact, the
St. Petersburg Times-housed, Pulitzer Prize-winning site, lists only 5%
of Obama’s promises as Kept, 12% as In the Works, and 79% as No Action.

It’s interesting, however, that for PolitiFact, the baseline for
success is whether Obama keeps his promises.  The assumption is that
his promises are worth keeping.  As Obama said, “You can’t just listen
to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”

A better way to track Obama’s performance might be to first classify
his threats—er, promises—into three categories: Harmful, Inoffensive,
and Worthy.  By this system, I determine that 15 out of 25, or 60%, of
Obama’s Top 25 promises are Harmful, 24% are Inoffensive, and 16% are
Worthy.  Off to a great start!

Second, let’s give Obama 1 point for every Worthy promise he’s kept,
a ½ point for every one that’s compromised, stalled, or in the works,
and 0 points for every one that’s broken or not acted on.  Give him 0
points for every Harmful promise, no matter what stage it’s in, except
let’s give him a ½ point for every Harmful promise he’s broken, because
he might just have been appeasing his base during the campaign (though
he still loses credit for scaring us).  Inoffensive promises get no
points.  read more »

The New York Times recently published an editorial titled “In the Spirit of Openness.”
It begins, “When he was vice president, Dick Cheney never acknowledged
the public’s right to know anything. Now, suddenly, he has the full
disclosure bug.”

How did Cheney catch this “full disclosure bug”? Could it in fact be
an allergic reaction to some recent event or another—I don’t know, say,
the Obama administration’s censorious partial disclosure of the
enhanced interrogation memos with all of the spoilers blacked out?

The Times mocks Cheney’s statement that the decision to release the
memos “inspired” him to ask the CIA to release full transcripts of the
interrogations. Might “inspired” be a euphemism for “forced”?

The Times continues: “Mr. Cheney was not being entirely honest… and
his logic is confounding. If releasing the memos leaves this country
open to a devastating terrorist attack… imagine the potential harm from
revealing all of the secrets gleaned from the three most ‘high value’
terrorists captured since Sept. 11, 2001.”

Let’s examine Cheney’s supposed breakdown in logic. Releasing the
memos, which detail the nature and limits of the U.S.’s enhanced
interrogation techniques, inarguably makes our country more vulnerable
to attack, because it increases terrorists’ understanding of our
methods and what is needed to resist them.  read more »