Democracy Now has the video interview Leaked Memo Reveals U.S. Plan to Oppose Helping Poor Nations Adapt to Climate Change.

Newly leaked documents have revealed how U.S. negotiators at the U.N. climate summit in Warsaw are opposing efforts to help developing countries adapt to climate change. According to an internal U.S. briefing memo seen by Democracy Now!, the U.S. delegation is worried the talks in Warsaw will “focus increasingly on blame and liability” and that poor nations will be “seeking redress for climate damages from sea level rise, droughts, powerful storms and other adverse impacts.” We speak with Nitin Sethi, a journalist with The Hindu newspaper who first reported on the leaked document.

This seems typical of the U.S. strategy, say one thing in public, but be a roadblock in private, and here we are talking about a Secretary of State from a Democratic administration. Also we don’t want to allow messy lawsuits from people seeking that pesky concept called justice.

Also of interest is some talk about India’s role in climate change. The interview tries to mask, a little bit, the problem that India has as both a sufferer from climate change and a cause of climate change. Developing countries, rightly or wrongly, do not want their economic development constrained by rules that did not constrain the already rich countries when they were in a similar stage of development. Of course, we would all like to reap only benefits without taking on responsibility (as shown by the U.S. position). This is one reason this is such a tough issue to resolve.

Maybe this is the only way these international negotiations can work, but going in with a preconceived notion of what you want to get and what you are willing to give may prevent the discussion of the best and most equitable way to achieve the most success. For instance, if you wanted to achieve the least amount of global warming pollution, maybe the solution is to concentrate your efforts where the worst sources are. If some of those polluting sources are in or will be in developing countries, maybe the developed countries need to spend their money in helping the developing countries generate and use power more efficiently.

Talking Points Memo has the article Harry Reid Threatens ‘Nuclear Option’ — And Soon.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday threatened to “go nuclear” on filibuster reform in his strongest terms yet, one day after Republicans completed a triple-filibuster of President Barack Obama’s most high-profile judicial nominees.

“I’m considering looking at the rules,” said the Nevada Democrat. “All this [talk of the] sacred nature of the filibuster — I think what we need, and the American people want, is to get things done around here. I’m not talking about changing anything dealing with the Supreme Court or dealing with basic legislation. I am talking about executive nominations.”

“I’m at the point where we need to do something to allow government to function,” he said. “The obstruction we’ve seen in the last five years is nothing like we’ve ever seen before. … This is not how democracy is supposed to work, or function, and the American people are sick of this.”

An aide to the majority leader told TPM that “Reid’s keeping the whip count in his head and talking with each of his colleagues directly. When he feels ready, he’ll do it. Could be soon.”

Just reading the headline, I would have said, “It’s about time.  What’s he waiting for, the end of Obama’s term?”

I think the last paragraph of the excerpt makes it clear that Reid is just waiting until he has enough votes.

When someone mentioned this to me in passing in an email, I thought it might be a joke.  I decided to just Google it.  Surprisingly, I came up with this Worcester Telegram and Gazette article, Sturbridge selectman resigns citing town’s priorities at odds with his faith.

Thomas R. Creamer, a selectman since 2009 and whose second three-year term ends April 2015, dropped the bombshell Monday night, but not before he chastised his fellow board members and the community as a whole.

Calling the past year, a “journey,” Mr. Creamer said he was unable to escape the reality his personal relationship with Christ was at a “spiritual void” and “needed to become the single most important thing” in his life. He said he couldn’t achieve this goal if he remained a selectman.
.
.
.
Despite alleging that the needs and suffering are so prevalent in Sturbridge, Mr. Creamer said the 60 or so attendees at town meeting continue to approve every single expenditure and tax increase presented them, “based not upon validated need or true merit, but rather the social circles that they identify themselves with.”

As I read the first two paragraphs, I was having a hard time figuring out how this was going to connect to what I know about Tom Creamer’s political views.  The last paragraph excerpted above, makes the connection.  It must have been a half-gainer with a double twist that he made to get from the start of his remarks to the end.

I do hope Tom is alright. He has done a lot of good work in Sturbridge.

Truthout also has the article Greg Palast: Rand Paul’s Zombie-nomics Versus Janet Yellen.

Unbowed, Paul contends he is channeling Friedman from beyond the grave, invoking the Nobel Prize economist to support the senator’s quest against Yellen’s well-known commitment to easy money policies at the Fed.

I feel almost psychic for having posted my previous post, Paul Krugman | Alan Greenspan, Doing His Best to Make Things Worse.  Well, now the secret is out about which award in particular that I disparage.

As follows, I posted my feelings about Greg Palast’s article on the Truthout web site.

Greg, glad to see you correct the record that it was Friedman, not Keynes, that thought you could end a depression by pumping liquidity into the economy. Since you were his student, perhaps I can understand why you still think Friedman was correct, and that he deserved the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, Keynes is still right about how to fix depressions, and Friedman is full of baloney. He even had to fake the data to prove his point. Even Yellen complained about the Congress working at cross-purposes to the Fed. In this complaint she meant that the Congress was not providing the Keynesian stimulus the economy needs. The monetarism the Fed is practicing, is at best a very weak tool beyond a certain point, and that fiscal stimulus is really what is needed. This is all according to Keynes Theory, which Friedman unsuccessfully tried to contradict.

If Friedman had been right, certainly the trillions of dollars that the Fed has pumped in would have solved the problem by now. What the Fed has done is far larger and far longer lasting than the puny fiscal stimulus Obama tried, and then counteracted after the first year of the stimulus. The deficit has been falling under Obama since his first year in office. Infrastructure spending is at historical lows. Perhaps Friedman would have applauded this, but Keynes would have been trying to warn us against such folly.

I don’t know if Keynes said this, but the current experience has validated the idea that pushing on a string does not get you very far.