Not a full politics post today. Just three quick comments.
Still a Long Way to Go – James Dean Bradfield
First, today June 19 is Juneteenth. We’ve come a long way, but still have a long way to go.
Second, last week I forgot to mention one of my favorite things about the Scooter Libby case. As you probably know, all his celebrity academic friends came to bat for him in filing an amicus brief arguing for the original decision to be overturned. Judge Reggie Walton permitted the brief, but appended a footnote as perfectly rude and awesome as you could ask for:
It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.
10 points for the argument and plus several million points for style.
Third, am I the only one deeply disturbed by the apparent cluelessness of Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary for Clinton) in his discussion of the options available to fight global warming? To whit:
The winning idea isn’t a cap-and-trade system, either. That system would allow companies to continue polluting, just require them to buy the right to pollute more from companies that keep their dirtying to a minimum. Today’s biggest polluters — those who’ve done least to reduce their emissions — would be the biggest winners because they’d get the highest caps.
The best idea I’ve heard is described as a carbon auction. Companies would have to bid for the right to pollute. And, most ingeniously, the money raised in the auction would be shared equally by all citizens in the form of yearly dividend checks — just like the residents of Alaska now get yearly dividends for their share of the state’s oil revenues.
I’m curious exactly exactly what former Labor Secretary Reich thinks the difference is between a cap-and-trade system and a carbon auction, given that the overwhelming consensus of those involved in climate politics is that the best method for distributing carbon allowances in a cap-and-trade system is…wait for it…an auction.
This doesn’t ultimately matter that much, I guess, but it frustrates me to no end to keep hearing all of this nonsense talked about cap-and-trade systems. It’s the most politically viable and effective means of cutting carbon emissions, and it does no good for people to keep mischaracterizing it. And frankly it’s a little worrisome that someone who was in such a position of power can reveal himself to be so ignorant of the basic issues at hand.