Right, and those "filters" are explicitly motivated by an ideological agenda (members of the League included). There's something to be said for striving for objective reportage, even if that's an incredibly difficult goal to attain.
Just because it applies equally to both foreign and domestic goods doesn't make it "fair." The United States wasn't hobbled by carbon tariffs during its industrial revolution, so why should Third World countries have to contend with tariffs?
Intrinsically unfair by whose standards? Yours? I submit that most Third World leaders will beg to differ, pointing to the fact that no Western nation had to endure emissions restrictions during our developmental phase.
As I said above, carbon tariffs are a tool for modifying other countries' behavior. You may think the goal of forcing other countries to agree to greenhouse gas regulations is a worthy one, but the mechanism itself is still punitive. And, as I argue above, likely to be ineffective under current trade rules.
And economic sanctions aren't just about preventing proliferation, they're about reducing the risk of a nuclear strike on the American homeland.
As I said, the logic behind punitive sanctions and carbon tariffs is exactly the same. If you think the goal of carbon tariffs is a more worthy one, that's fine, but there just isn't a substantive difference between the two.
Both carbon tariffs and sanctions are punitive measures designed to change the target country's behavior. They may be aimed at different behaviors, but the mechanism is exactly the same.
No, a VAT applied to imports is designed to discourage the flow of foreign goods. In other words, it's still a punitive measure.
I agree that unilaterally enforcing domestic emissions controls is a bad idea, but imposing punitive tariffs to get other countries to follow suit is not a good solution either.
Of course they're punitive - they're designed to force other countries to reduce emissions! There wouldn't be much point otherwise.
To address your broader point, I think liberals have (rightly) stressed the value of engagement with countries like Iran. The fact that sanctions haven't done much to modify the regime's behavior is the same reason that punitive carbon tariffs are unlikely to convince India or China to mend their carbon-spewing ways.
I didn't say that you should *never* take prospects with big upside potential; only that there's a reasonable case for taking a surefire rotation player at number eight instead of a guy like Earl Clark who may or may not pan out. In the SI article I link to, the author seems to assume that the only option is to shoot for the moon with the unproven prospect. I think that's pretty silly, particularly in such a weak draft.
That's an interesting take. I just assumed that as a shoot-first point guard, Arenas would be OK with moving over to the 2 as long as he gets his touches.
Sounds about right to me, though it's easy to get infatuated with raw talent. I was watching Ricky Rubio highlight clips pretty obsessively before the Wizards decided to shoot themselves in the foot.
One factor that may contribute to the problem is that nobody is ever held accountable for bad draft picks. It's like the League has come to some bizarre consensus that the draft is basically a crap shoot and therefore no one is responsible for screwing up their picks.
I think that's basically correct, though the "luck" factor tends to get exaggerated with the benefit of hindsight. They were able to bang in a few chancy goals because they consistently put pressure on the defense, which is a welcome development from a team that looked anemic on the offensive end just a few weeks ago. If we score first in the finals, we'll have a good shot at holding on for the win.
On “are you kidding me?”
I think this is exactly right.
On “When Andrew met Sarah”
Sullivan is damn lucky to have such a loyal crop of interns.
On “Pop Quiz”
This post is begging for a Front Porch-style smackdown.
On “one scene play”
Nicely done.
On “Lament for a Dying Medium”
I still think it's something worth aspiring to.
"
Right, and those "filters" are explicitly motivated by an ideological agenda (members of the League included). There's something to be said for striving for objective reportage, even if that's an incredibly difficult goal to attain.
On “What John Schwenkler Said”
Fair point. I should have made it more clear that it's the treatment of her family that I deplore.
On “Talking Carbon Tariffs”
Just because it applies equally to both foreign and domestic goods doesn't make it "fair." The United States wasn't hobbled by carbon tariffs during its industrial revolution, so why should Third World countries have to contend with tariffs?
On “Too funny”
Wow. Nice find, Dave.
On “Talking Carbon Tariffs”
Intrinsically unfair by whose standards? Yours? I submit that most Third World leaders will beg to differ, pointing to the fact that no Western nation had to endure emissions restrictions during our developmental phase.
As I said above, carbon tariffs are a tool for modifying other countries' behavior. You may think the goal of forcing other countries to agree to greenhouse gas regulations is a worthy one, but the mechanism itself is still punitive. And, as I argue above, likely to be ineffective under current trade rules.
"
And economic sanctions aren't just about preventing proliferation, they're about reducing the risk of a nuclear strike on the American homeland.
As I said, the logic behind punitive sanctions and carbon tariffs is exactly the same. If you think the goal of carbon tariffs is a more worthy one, that's fine, but there just isn't a substantive difference between the two.
"
Both carbon tariffs and sanctions are punitive measures designed to change the target country's behavior. They may be aimed at different behaviors, but the mechanism is exactly the same.
"
No, a VAT applied to imports is designed to discourage the flow of foreign goods. In other words, it's still a punitive measure.
I agree that unilaterally enforcing domestic emissions controls is a bad idea, but imposing punitive tariffs to get other countries to follow suit is not a good solution either.
"
Of course they're punitive - they're designed to force other countries to reduce emissions! There wouldn't be much point otherwise.
To address your broader point, I think liberals have (rightly) stressed the value of engagement with countries like Iran. The fact that sanctions haven't done much to modify the regime's behavior is the same reason that punitive carbon tariffs are unlikely to convince India or China to mend their carbon-spewing ways.
On “Getting Hungry”
Nice requiem, Mark. Our first goal was absolutely lovely.
On “wedding pics”
Congratulations! Scott - you look like a freakin' pimp in that outfit.
On “Google’s Responsibility”
James and Jaybird -
Even if you think Google is correct on the merits of capitulating to the Chinese government, the sheer hypocrisy of it all continues to rankle.
On “Daft Draft Analysis”
Mark -
I didn't say that you should *never* take prospects with big upside potential; only that there's a reasonable case for taking a surefire rotation player at number eight instead of a guy like Earl Clark who may or may not pan out. In the SI article I link to, the author seems to assume that the only option is to shoot for the moon with the unproven prospect. I think that's pretty silly, particularly in such a weak draft.
"
That's an interesting take. I just assumed that as a shoot-first point guard, Arenas would be OK with moving over to the 2 as long as he gets his touches.
"
Sounds about right to me, though it's easy to get infatuated with raw talent. I was watching Ricky Rubio highlight clips pretty obsessively before the Wizards decided to shoot themselves in the foot.
One factor that may contribute to the problem is that nobody is ever held accountable for bad draft picks. It's like the League has come to some bizarre consensus that the draft is basically a crap shoot and therefore no one is responsible for screwing up their picks.
On “In search of realism”
I was referring to public perception, not the technical IR sense of the word.
On “Questions on Globalization and Trade Part One”
I'm all in favor of aiding displaced workers, but "pacing" is an awfully difficult thing to plan for.
On “In search of realism”
Jason -
I'm not familiar with that distinction; care to elaborate?
On “Eating Crow”
I think that's basically correct, though the "luck" factor tends to get exaggerated with the benefit of hindsight. They were able to bang in a few chancy goals because they consistently put pressure on the defense, which is a welcome development from a team that looked anemic on the offensive end just a few weeks ago. If we score first in the finals, we'll have a good shot at holding on for the win.
On “Reihan responds”
Interesting response, but this bit really got my goat:
"Re: Iran, I’d rather be on the side of the Mandelas than the Verwoerds."
I mean, really? So those of us not in favor of making meaningless symbolic gestures are akin to supporters of apartheid-era South Africa?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.