Today, we conclude Free Speech Week with Cato articles and blog posts about a variety of current events:
- “ ‘Teachable Moment’ Missed Lesson on Free Speech,” by Nat Hentoff. This article appeared in Metro West Daily News on August 6, 2009. Hentoff comments on the missed lesson on free speech in regard to the media frenzy over Sgt. James Crowley’s arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
- Cato Daily Podcast: “Chick‐Fil‑A Fracas,” July 31, 2012. “Is the speech of a corporate CEO grounds for punishing the company with delayed or denied permits they otherwise would’ve gotten? Cato Institute’s Senior Fellow Tom Palmer says no; he argues that the politicians threatening Chic‐Fil‑A should retract what they’ve said and apologize for threatening the company.”
- “False Statements, Free Speech, and Sniper Fire,” posted by Tim Lynch, March 29, 2011.
- “When ‘Free Speech’ as a Concept Vanishes,” posted by Julian Sanchez, September 19, 2012.
- Cato Institute senior fellow Nat Hentoff has a few thoughts on disclosure and the jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas.
- “Knox v. SEIU: An Important Free Speech Victory,” posted by Trevor Burrus June 21, 2012.
- “ObamaCare’s Threat to Free Speech,” posted by Michael Cannon, September 13, 2010.
Homeowner shoots criminal in self‐defense — so the criminal turns around and sues the shooter?
A 90‐year‐old Greenbrae man who was shot in the head during an alleged burglary has been sued by the alleged burglar.
Samuel Cutrufelli, who was also shot during the incident, claims Jay Leone “negligently shot” him during the confrontation inside Leone’s home.
Our new ebook, The Libertarian Vote: Swing Voters, Tea Parties, and the Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Center, is No. 1 on Amazon's Practical Politics bestseller list (at least as of post time.) Get your own Kindle version at Amazon or a variety of formats (.epub, .mobi, and .pdf) at the Cato store.
Last year Nate Silver of the New York Times wrote about rising libertarian trends on two questions regularly asked in CNN and Gallup polls:
Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?
Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?
I was especially interested since those are two of the questions that David Kirby and I regularly use in our studies of "the libertarian vote." CNN asked the questions again in 2012, and the combined libertarian support rose again. Here's a graphic depiction of those poll results, from Cato's Jon Meyers, which you can also find in our new ebook, The Libertarian Vote.
Buy it now! Find all our studies, plus lots more colorful graphs.
If you’re looking for something scary to do on Halloween, check out Cato senior fellow Johan Norberg’s documentary, “Europe’s Debt: America’s Crisis?” on PBS stations across the country.
It’s been running for awhile, and will be seen in Maryland and Michigan on Sunday night. But it will be seen in many markets, from Tampa to Fairbanks, next Wednesday, October 31.
The Free to Choose Network, which produced the film, describes it this way:
Four investigative reports, shot on location in Greece, Brussels, California and Washington DC, highlight this in depth examination of Europe’s current debt crisis and its connection to the U.S. economy. Narrated by Swedish author Johan Norberg, and George Mason University professor, Don Boudreaux, the investigative reports ask: “Where did Europe go wrong” and “is the United States now repeating the same mistakes?”
Participants include Cato friends Jacob Mchangama and Tanja Stumberger, as well as such key players as former comptroller general David Walker, former European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein, and Ann Johnson, mayor of Stockton, California.
For broadcasts in your area, check the listings here.
For Johan Norberg’s books and articles, click here.
Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
The good news keeps coming in about sea level rise — or more precisely, Antarctica’s (minimal) contribution to it. Last time, we reviewed recent scientific findings indicating Antarctica was on the verge of gaining ice mass (and thus acting to draw down global sea level) as a slightly warmer Southern Ocean results in increasing snow accumulation which acts to offset ice loss from its peripheral (marine‐terminating) glaciers. Without a contribution from Antarctica, alarming visions of a large and rapid sea level rise this century — upwards of a meter (and by some reckoning up to 6 meters) — are pretty much out the door. Sans Antarctica, we are looking at a foot to foot‐and‐a‐half of rise, give or take a few inches. Such an amount will undoubtedly require some adjustment and adaptation, but will not involve a wrenching transformation of society. Most of us probably wouldn’t even notice. Consider that, due to a combination of geology and oceanic warming, this same amount (or more) has been experienced in many East Coast locations in the last 100 years.
The good science news may be one reason why global warming has been so absent in the election debates. In response, last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists helped a collection of local government officials and scientists from Florida pen an open letter to the candidates imploring them to address the issue of sea level rise during their third and final debate (held in Boca Raton). They didn’t.
It is a good thing that they left the issue alone, for in this week’s Nature magazine comes more evidence that Antarctica is perhaps not going to be the great sea level rise contributor that other research as made it out to be (e.g. Velicogna et al., 2009; Rignot et al., 2011).
Matt King, from Newcastle University, and colleagues set out to refine the Antarctic ice mass change calculations that have been performed using data collected by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite. GRACE determines how the mass is changing underneath the satellite by measuring temporal variations in the pull of gravity. If the strength of the local gravitational attraction increases over time, then it is inferred that the local mass must be increasing (and vice versa). This is a handy tool for assessing trends in dynamic ice/snow mass in places like Greenland and Antarctica.
But, variations in the ice/snow burden are not the only thing that can change the gravitational pull observed by the GRACE satellite. The ground underlying the ice and snow may be changing as well. And, in fact, it is. The ground in many places around the world is still adjusting to the burdening and subsequent unburdening from the coming and going of the massive amount of snow and ice from the last ice age (and its termination). This process is known as glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).
The problem is that while we understand that GIA is taking place, we really don’t precisely know the details, like where, when, and how fast — especially over sparsely monitored and studied places like Antarctica.
Two years ago, a study was published that showed that the GIA model used in most GRACE‐based studies was in error, and that when it was corrected, the rate of calculated ice mass loss from across Antarctica declined by some 40 percent (from ~150 gigatons/yr to ~87 Gt/yr). Since it takes about 374 Gt of melted ice to produce 1 millimeter of global sea level rise, these findings indicated that Antarctica was contributing to sea level rise at a rate of about one‐quarter of a millimeter per year (or about 1 hundredth of an inch per year). We detailed that finding, by Xiaoping Wu and colleagues, in a Cato Current Wisdom article in October of 2010.
Now along comes the new study Matt King et al. (2012) that further refines the local GIA over Antarctica. Here is how they did it:
Here we applied a new GIA model (W12a) to GRACE data to estimate the ice‐mass balance for 26 independent Antarctic drainage basins from August 2002 to December 2010. The W12a model comprises a glaciologically self‐consistent ice history constrained to fit data that delimit past ice extent and elevation, and an Earth viscosity model chosen such that GIA predictions from W12a best fit a suite of relative sea‐level records around Antarctica. The advance of W12a on previous models applied to GRACE data is illustrated by the misfit to GPS uplift rates being halved. Our use of W12a addresses the dominant GRACE‐related error in previous Antarctic analyses.
With this new model in hand, they were able to produce a new estimate of the rate of ice mass change over Antarctica from 2002 through 2010. That estimate is a loss of only 69 Gt/yr (+/- 18Gt/yr). And further, they found no statistically significant change in this rate when averaged over the whole continent — in contrast to other prominent studies (e.g. Rignot et al., 2011) which claimed a significant acceleration was taking place.
So King and colleagues’ latest refinement puts the Antarctic contribution to global sea level rise at a rate of about one‐fifth of a millimeter per year (or in English units, 0.71 inches per century).
Without a significantly large acceleration — and recall the King et al. found none — this is something that we can all live with for along time to come.
King, M., et al., 2012. Lower satellite‐gravimetry estimates of Antarctic sea‐level contribution. Nature, doi:10.1038/nature, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11621.html
Rignot, E., et al., 2011. Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L05503, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046583.shtml
Velicogna, I., 2009. Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L19503, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
Like almost everything about the 2012 presidential campaigns, the bickering between the major party candidates over who is most responsible for shipping jobs overseas has been banal and utterly uninformative. While politicians have scared many Americans with hyperbolized sales pitches about the costs of foreign outsourcing, most people remain in the dark about the causes and benefits of outsourcing. What is foreign outsourcing anyway? Why do some businesses invest in sales operations, research and development, production and assembly operations, or the provision of services abroad? Are low wages and lax environmental and safety standards in poor countries really the magnets attracting U.S. investment? If so, why is 75% of U.S. direct investment abroad in rich countries? What explains the fact that the United States (high‐standard, rich country that it is) is the number one destination in the world for foreign direct investment? Doesn’t the fact that businesses have options in our globalized economy serve to discipline some of the worst government policies?
As I suggested in this recent post:
In a globalized economy, outsourcing is a natural consequence of competition. And policy competition is the natural consequence of outsourcing. Let’s encourage this process.
Answers to the questions raised in this post and some other thoughts about outsourcing are expressed in this cool 4+ minute video produced by Cato’s Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg:
Josh Rogin had a chance to interview Tennessee’s Bob Corker, likely to be the next ranking member or chairman (depending upon whether the Republicans regain the majority) on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In an interview with The Cable, Corker said he wants the job, that he has been making preliminary preparations just in case he gets it, and that he has a vision of restoring the committee to a place of renewed prominence in the foreign‐policy discussion in Washington and around the world.
“We understand the decision about who leads the Foreign Relations Committee is up to the caucus, but in the event I end up being the person, quietly we’ve done a significant amount of travel throughout the world to understand issues more deeply, we’ve had meetings and briefings with numbers of people with varying backgrounds and have really tried to immerse ourselves in such a way that if I am the person, I have the ability to be effective,” Corker said.
I was puzzled by this, however.
Without much fanfare, Corker has visited 48 countries over the past two years, often traveling commercial.… Here in Washington, he’s been meeting with conservatives and realists alike. Some of his briefings and social events have been organized by the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka, a former staffer for SRFC chairman Jesse Helms, who declined to comment for this article. (my emphasis)
I wasn’t aware that Pletka knew many realists. More substantively, her foreign policy views don’t seem to align very closely with Corker’s, so it is curious that she would be helping him build a staff‐in‐waiting for the committee.
For example, Corker has exhibited a welcome degree of pragmatism and prudence when it comes to intervening in civil wars, and he appears to share the public’s distaste for having U.S. troops carry out open‐ended nation‐building missions. Pletka, by contrast, was an early advocate for U.S. intervention in Libya and Syria. She championed the war in Iraq at every stage. She has scorned any suggestion that the United States should eventually withdraw from Afghanistan. And she complained that American leadership “cannot be subcontracted” to other countries, even though those other countries might have actual interests at stake. Most Americans want the U.S. government to intervene less often abroad, and they welcome other countries stepping forward, and assuming greater responsibility for their own security, and in their respective neigborhoods. I’m guessing that Sen. Corker does as well.
There is a healthy debate brewing within the Republican Party over the purpose of American power, and there does appear to be some movement toward the public’s view, which is increasingly skeptical of being the world’s armed social worker. If Bob Corker becomes the new face of GOP foreign policy, I expect that he will listen to a broad range of views, including actual realists.