Archive for November, 2009

A Step Forward

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

Via The Leiter Reports:

Apparently, The American Philosophical Association has adopted a new policy on religious institutions that discriminate against gay men and women:

The American Philosophical Association rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, or other professional activities in which APA members characteristically participate. This includes both discrimination on the basis of status and discrimination on the basis of conduct integrally connected to that status […]

There has been no official announcement yet, but according to an unofficial report by Professor Alistair Norcross:

This statement will be displayed on the page where institutions buy ad space for JFP, and they will be asked to check a box to indicate that they are in compliance with our statement. If they do not check this box, a flag (i.e. a symbolic marking, like the dagger sign currently used to flag censured institutions) will automatically be added to the ad. The flag will say something like this: this institution has not indicated that it complies with the APA Nondiscrimination Statement.

In addition, the APA will fully investigate any complaints about institutions that may not be in compliance with our nondiscrimination statement, a flag will be used to mark ads taken out by any institution that is found not to be in compliance, and this flag will state that, following a full investigation, the APA has determined that the institution is not in compliance with the APA Statement on Nondiscrimination.

This is good news and about time.

She’s Back

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Since Sarah Palin is back in the news, it’s worth revisiting some golden oldies from last year.

Juan Cole shows how closely the beliefs of Sarah Palin resemble those of fundamentalist Islam.

On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God’s will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick. 

McCain pledged to work for peace based on “the transformative ideals on which we were founded.” Tolerance and democracy require freedom of speech and the press, but while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her. Book banning is common to fundamentalisms around the world, and the mind-set Palin displayed did not differ from that of the Hamas minister of education in the Palestinian government who banned a book of Palestinian folk tales for its sexually explicit language.

Read the whole article.

And here is a wonderful review of Sarah Palin’s “book”:

Now we are faced with the daunting task of wrapping our minds around the Palin memoir Going Rogue, appearing atop a bestseller list near you. Millions of copies will be sold of a book written by someone who can’t write, intended for an audience that doesn’t read, about the thoughts of a person who doesn’t think. God is dead.

She is fun and she is scary.

Cap and Trade Success

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

While the U.S dithers about climate change legislation, Europe’s cap and trade system, despite initial judgments that it was a failure, now seems successful.  Via the New Republic:

Right now, the best example of an up-and-running cap-and-trade system is in Europe. And, for years, the continent was seen as a hopeless failure at cutting emissions. But judging by the latest data, the evidence is fairly encouraging that a carbon cap can actually work. […]

Initially, the program got ensnarled in all sorts of embarrassing mishaps: Regulators gave away way too many pollution permits (so that companies could easily comply with the cap without making any cuts) and utilities were allowed to hike up rates without having to reduce emissions. The whole plan looked like a total flop. But, by 2007, the kinks were getting smoothed out, and, as a Lehman Brothers analysis concluded, the system “succeeded, and fairly quickly, in imposing a price on carbon.”

That carbon price appears to have had an impact. According to new data from the European Environment Agency (EEA), all of the EU-15 members except Austria are now on track to exceed their Kyoto obligations. In fact, the group as a whole will likely slash emissions more than 13 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Creative accounting notwithstanding:

Even if you exclude iffy measures like offsets for developing-world clean-energy projects and tree-planting, the EU-15, on the whole, is still expected to cut emissions 8.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 just through existing and planned energy measures—including the cap-and-trade system

So what are the chances the U.S. will follow Europe’s lead and develop a similarly effective cap and trade system? If health insurance reform is an indicator of our willingness to adopt European models, the chances are not so good.