Room For Debate tackles the question. Garrett Peck ponders marijuana taxes:

The nation’s powerful alcohol lobbies have managed to rebuff any federal alcohol excise tax increase, last raised in 1991. States should be on the lookout for what will inevitably happen: the marijuana industry will go along with taxation as part of the grand bargain for legalization – just as the alcohol industry did in the 1930s – and then over time change its position to be anti-tax. They will claim that taxes are bad for business and bad for consumers, neither of which is true, given that products like alcohol, gasoline, marijuana and tobacco have a fairly inelastic demand. Here’s a bit of advice to states: index marijuana taxes to inflation, and you will avoid a lot of big debates over raising taxes.

Among other suggestions, Kleiman recommends a strict advertising rules:

Don’t allow marketing. The legal marijuana industry, like the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries, will have a financial interest directly opposite to the public interest. Responsible use is the goal, but dependent use generates sales volume. A public monopoly would probably work best; short of that, tight limits on advertising (the Supreme Court permitting) and keeping the industry fragmented to minimize its lobbying power might limit some of the damage.

Face Of The Day

May 23 2013 @ 7:47pm

US-POLITICS-WEINER-MAYOR

Former US Representative Anthony Weiner speaks to voters in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City on May 23, 2013 after he announced he is running for New York City Mayor. By Timothy Clary/AFP/Getty Images.

John McWhorter joins the debate:

[L]anguage can express a concept from various angles, positively or negatively, or with a noun or a verb. For example, a journalist once marveled that an obscure language of India has a verb referring to how a baby is fat and treats this as evidence of a unique “way of seeing the world”—neglecting that our term baby fat refers to exactly the same concept, just with a different part of speech.

In the same way, if Americans use the word decency less than before, since the sixties we have marked our awareness of exactly that concept with none other than asshole. As Geoff Nunberg’s clever book taught us last year, the word refers precisely to someone who transgresses rules in cognizance of doing so, such as cutting people off in traffic. The asshole transgresses decency, in which we are interested as the Victorians. We just happen to refer to it with a noun, and a negative one, and also with a certain pungency, because the sixties happened and changed how we process profanity.

As we discover more details about the DOJ’s investigation of Fox News journalist James Rosen, former FBI agent David Gomez compiles a list of best practices for journalists:

Take a lesson from the Mafia and never use phones for anything other than the most innocuous conversations — i.e., “Meet me at our usual spot” or “We need to talk.” Better yet, “I’m going out for pizza, so I won’t be around to meet you today ” — the last part being previously arranged code for “Meet me at our usual spot.” …

Like the phone, the Internet is a sieve, and a goldmine for lawful and unlawful penetration through technical means by law enforcement. Never use the Internet or email for any kind of contact with a source if your beat is national security because it creates too many electronic trails, all of which are traceable and usually recoverable by even the newest rookie FBI cyber-agent. Social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook are the worst because they are public, and even though you may direct message your source or delete a contact tweet, it can be recorded by any number of interested followers, including the FBI, and preserved for all time on Google.

Good Enough For Government Work?

May 23 2013 @ 6:33pm

Ezra wants the IRS to clean house:

A number of IRS employees developed criteria that was politically biased both in appearance and in effect. They were reined in once by their superiors, and then they changed the criteria again, and had to be reined in a second time. Their actions called the fairness of the agency into question and kicked off a national scandal. Even if their intent was pure, they showed bad judgment, more than a bit of incompetence, and perhaps even a touch of insubordination. That is reason enough to fire people, even if the process is difficult.

Daniel Foster doubts that Lois Lerner, director of the misbehaving IRS office, will get axed:

Read On

Tweet Of The Day

May 23 2013 @ 6:29pm

 

How Chait understands Obama’s remarks (seen above):

President Obama’s speech today defending his conduct in the war on terror was notable for what he was defending it against — not against the soft-on-terror (and maybe sorta-kinda-Muslim) attack that Republicans have lobbed against him since he first ran for president, but against critics on the left. … Politically, if not substantively, Obama’s speech today represents a watershed moment. For the first time in the post-9/11 world, the domestic political threat in the war on terror comes from the left rather than the right.

Matt Welch wants more than a speech:

There was much to like in Obama’s speech today if you like words, and share the broad worries he outlined above. And it is surely true that changing policy becomes easier after you make public arguments about changing policy. But the fact is Barack Obama is the president of the United States, and according to both the Constitution and especially the way executive power has accrued over the past century, Obama actually has quite a bit of latitude to impose his values on the waging of American war. After 52 months in office, it’s long since past time to stop judging the man by his words alone.

Max Fisher focuses on the case Obama made for drones:

Although there’s a complexity to Obama’s moral case for drones, it reduces down to a binary: Using drones can kill civilians, but not using them would lead to even more civilians being killed. There are many, many more moral, ethical and legal issues related to drones, some of which are in the speech and some of which aren’t. And there is a wide range of gray areas in how they’re implemented, against whom, under what circumstances and what guidelines. But it’s this basic proposition – taking lives to save others – that seems at the heart of Obama’s case.

Ackerman’s bottom line:

Obama’s new approach to the drones in Year Thirteen of the war on terror should feel familiar. It contains an echo of how he wound down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars: not by drawing a hard and fast end to them, but by allowing military commanders to very slowly reduce the size of their forces. If it worked well enough for flesh-and-blood troops, Obama is basically saying it’ll work well enough for robots.

PM Carpenter praises the speech:

Read On

How Disasters Spur Democracy

May 23 2013 @ 5:45pm

After an earthquake struck southwest China earlier this year, social media and mobile phones proved instrumental in relief efforts. Patrick Meier considers the broader implications for the Chinese government:

Read On

Meme Of The Day, Ctd

May 23 2013 @ 5:12pm

Dogbeards – that’s more like it:

4ae8fdfac2b411e2962d22000a1f9aa0_7

Catbeards here.

(Photo by Laura Blanc)

“People With Power Have Power”

May 23 2013 @ 4:44pm

Jane Mayer narrates the struggle of two documentary filmmakers to produce their documentary Citizen Koch and get it aired on public TV. A sample:

The messages from [Independent Television Service] ITVS officials grew confusing. [Vice-president of programming] Aguilar again praised the film as “great,” and said, “I think you’ve preserved the anger of the film, which I love.” Other officials, though, kept urging the filmmakers to change the title, add negative material about Democrats, and delete an opening sequence that showed Sarah Palin speaking at a rally sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs’ main advocacy group. Several times, [filmmakers] Lessin and Deal asked ITVS officials if Koch’s trusteeship at WNET was a factor. During the phone meeting on December 7th, Vossen said, “I can absolutely assure you that ITVS does not want your film to be buried.” She said of the title, “I think you understand why it’s problematic. . . . We live in a world where we have to be aware that people with power have power.”

Alyssa questions the limits of true independence in public broadcasting:

Disputes like this one highlight the extent to which making PBS reliant on private charity calls into question the meaning of “public” television. A state of affairs in which television content is determined by the government is obviously undesirable and subjects programming to a partisan agenda in a way that would serve members of both parties ill by turns, and the public poorly at all times, given how timid the content choices would likely be. But a “public” television regime that’s established to give extremely wealthy people another way to buy programming power other than by purchasing affiliate stations is “public” only in a business sense, rather than serving a broadly-defined public interest.

Mental Health Break

May 23 2013 @ 4:20pm

She really wants that song dammit:

A 3D Printable Revolution, Ctd

May 23 2013 @ 4:10pm

Another possible use for the technology:

[Anjan Contractor] sees a day when every kitchen has a 3D printer, and the earth’s 12 billion people feed themselves customized, nutritionally-appropriate meals synthesized one layer at a time, from cartridges of powder and oils they buy at the corner grocery store. Contractor’s vision would mean the end of food waste, because the powder his system will use is shelf-stable for up to 30 years, so that each cartridge, whether it contains sugars, complex carbohydrates, protein or some other basic building block, would be fully exhausted before being returned to the store.

Ubiquitous food synthesizers would also create new ways of producing the basic calories on which we all rely. Since a powder is a powder, the inputs could be anything that contain the right organic molecules. We already know that eating meat is environmentally unsustainable, so why not get all our protein from insects?

Also, CNN reports on how a 3D printer saved the life of an infant with breathing problems:

Read On

An End In Sight

May 23 2013 @ 3:39pm

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-COUNTERTERRORISM

The challenges that Barack Obama faced upon taking office were, even his critics would admit, daunting: an economy tail-spinning toward a second Great Depression, two continuing, draining and tragically self-defeating wars, and an apparatus of vastly expanded executive power (including torture) which had only just begun to be checked by the judiciary. More to the point, the United States was formally at war in a conflict which seemed to have no conceivable end.

And so easily the most important thing the presidents said today, it seems to me, was the following:

We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” … The AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists] is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States.

Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.

“Ultimately repeal the AUMF’s mandate”. I wish the word “ultimately” were not there. But the announcement of an eventual, discrete, concrete end to this war may have been a step enough for now. For my part, I think it should be a critical goal of this administration to repeal that AUMF by the end of its second term. Our goal must not be an endlessly ratcheting of terrorist and counter-terrorist violence that creates more enemies than friends. Our goal must be normalcy and freedom, even as we continue strong counter-terrorism strategies outside of the context for warfare.

I’m glad the president defended the strike against Anwar al-Awlaki as forcefully as he should:

When a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team.

My view entirely. I’m struck too by his Niebuhrian grasp of the inherent tragedy of wielding power in an age of terror – a perspective his more jejune and purist critics simply fail to understand. This seems like a heart-felt expression of Christian realism to me:

Read On

Maybe not:

It’s tempting to assume that climate change is responsible for an increase in the number devastating tornadoes, like those that ravaged Joplin, Missouri, in 2011, and Hattiesburg, Mississippi, in February. But if these tragedies are indeed becoming more common, it’s mainly because of population growth. Sixty years ago, yesterday’s tornado might not have killed anyone at all: Moore had a population of 942 in 1950, but today has more than 56,000 residents.

There has been an increase in the number of reported tornadoes: Since 1950 (or even over just the last two decades), the U.S. has added Doppler radars capable of detecting tornadoes, and population growth has increased the number of on-the-ground observations. But it’s unclear whether tornadoes have become more frequent, let alone because of climate change.

Enten has more on the subject.

And Now A Message From Buzzfeed

May 23 2013 @ 2:59pm


Sponsored Content Pretty Fucking Awesome

If you want to support online journalism that is not thinly-veiled corporate branding, subscribe!

We really are trying to find a business model for online writing and thinking that can stand on its own independent feet, and be able to challenge corporate and government power, without fear or favor. We really do hope that if we succeed, others can follow.

Non-sponsored content may not be as pretty fucking awesome as sponsored content. But it isn’t quite as corrosive. So if you’ve been on the edge of signing up, please take a few moments to help us shift the parameters of the media future a little – for just $1.99 a month. Our success or failure is entirely dependent on you.

Cap-And-Trade Coming To China

May 23 2013 @ 2:41pm

Reports from China indicate plans to pilot a carbon trading program next month in the southern city of Shenzen, as part of a regional rollout in 2014 and a potential countrywide cap in 2016. Katie Valentine calls the announcement a “bombshell”:

If the cap is adopted, it would be a major step for the world’s top CO2 emitter, which desperately needs to slow its carbon production. China is experiencing the world’s fastest growth in energy production and CO2 emissions, while production and emissions in the U.S. and Europe are flat-lining or decreasing. China uses 47 percent of the world’s coal, a number that’s only going up: in 2011, China’s coal consumption grew by 9 percent, accounting for 87 percent of the world’s 374 million ton increase in coal consumption that year. …

The possibility of a carbon cap in China has been hailed as “potentially transformative” in the fight against climate change, as other major emitters such as the U.S. have historically cited China’s inaction on climate change as reason to avoid implementing meaningful greenhouse gas regulations. Previously, China has shied away from cuts in emissions, saying its main priority was the growth of its economy. In November 2012, the state-owned Xinhua quoted Xie Zhenhua, China’s chief negotiator to the UN climate change talks, as saying it was “unfair and unreasonable to hold China to absolute cuts in emissions at the present stage, when its per capita GDP stands at just 5,000 U.S. dollars.”

Claire Thompson agrees that the move “seriously weaken[s] one of the U.S.’s go-to excuses for climate inaction”:

Like sparring siblings, China and the United States — the world’s two biggest carbon dioxide emitters — keep passing the climate-action buck back and forth: “Why should I cut emissions if they don’t have to?” Well, China is either the more mature of the pair, or just majorly sucking up to Mama Earth.

The Caged Bird Sings, Ctd

May 23 2013 @ 2:15pm

A reader writes:

The video and story of Mohamed Assaf reminded of something I’ve been meaning to send you. It’s a music video by activist Israeli-Palestinian hip-hop group DAM, for a song called”If I Could Go Back in Time.” DAM is Tamer Nafar, Suhell Nafar and Mahmoud Jreri, who are from the wrong side of the wall in Lod, a town southeast of Tel Aviv where most of the Palestinians were expelled in 1948. (Yes, there’s an actual wall now separating Arabic and Jewish neighborhoods in Lod, although it was built just a few years ago.) For more than a decade they’ve been rapping about Israel-Palestine issues – home demolitions, discrimination, being painted with the terrorist brush – about drugs and violence in their community and more.

“If I Could Go Back in Time” is beautiful and heartbreaking protest song about a girl who is honor-killed by her father and brother for refusing to marry the man chosen for her. The chorus is sung by the wonderful Amal Murkus, a Christian Israeli-Palestinian who has long been a highly vocal advocate for women’s rights, thereby pissing off both extremist Muslims and extremist Jews.

It’s in Arabic, so be sure to turn on the closed captioning. Know tissues.

Lyrics after the jump:

Read On

The Paranoid Style

May 23 2013 @ 1:40pm
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive – Bill O’Reilly Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Let me explain why I remain genuinely baffled by the framework of the current discussion of the IRS scandal. There is little doubt, after the Inspector General’s report, that the Cincinnati office in charge of 501 (c) 4 scrutiny unfairly and unreasonably – even outrageously – seemed to apply political criteria for screening such groups. The question remains why they did this, what their motivations were, to what extent scrutiny of such groups was actually an important task to accomplish, how far that got distorted, and how far up the chain this decision went. These are very important questions, which is why I hope hearings can uncover more evidence than the actual report – and hold specific people accountable, apart from the resignation of the acting head of the IRS (which nonetheless has occurred).

But here’s where I do a double-take, which is roughly what happened as I was curled up on the couch last night watching Bill O’Reilly argue – with no evidence whatsoever – that the Obama administration had decided after the 2010 mid-terms to target Tea Party groups by using the IRS as a politicized bludgeon. This utterly unsubstantiated claim (see above) is now the dominant meme, the working assumption of the propagandists at Fox News. When pressed to defend this extraordinary reach, O’Reilly admitted he was purely speculating – or in his weasel words, “educated speculation.”

Then I read Mitch McConnell arguing that the GOP and its donors are “intimidated” by the Obama administration – because of its desire to see that those exercizing explicitly political speech after the Citizens United decision actually be identified by name. It’s funny, but “intimidated” is not the first adjective that springs to mind when contemplating the Senate Minority Leader. For McConnell, the First Amendment includes protection for extremely wealthy people’s total anonymity even as they funnel unlimited funds toward a political campaign. And the idea that the House Republicans or the Tea Party or the 501 (c) 4s or Karl Rove were in any way seriously intimidated does not seem, shall we say, to be reflected in their extravagant expenditures in 2012 and their evident joy in attacking their sinister, coffee-colored pinata one more time right now. And it’s worth pointing out that getting that 501 (c) 4 approval was not necessary for the entities to spend their money from the get-go. Which they did. To little avail.

Then we hear pundits like George Will and Peggy Noonan actually bring up Watergate as the closest historical analogy – which is, to put it bluntly, deranged. Remember, for example, that this scandal was not exposed by Woodward and Bernstein (although anecdotal complaints were aired in the press at the time) – but was exposed by the IRS itself. The IRS moreover also attempted to end this practice, and when that failed, set up an Inspector General report into the outrageous screening. In such an investigation, the Obama administration properly maintained an ethical distance for fear of seeming to affect the investigation’s findings. Watergate? Are they out of their fricking minds? Or cynics trying to gin up a story in a not-so-great season for ratings?

Then comes the Wall Street Journal with the coup de grace: because the White House kept itself scrupulously distant from the IG report, there is, apparently, no accountability in government:

Alexander Hamilton and America’s Founders designed the unitary executive for the purpose of political accountability. It is one of the Constitution’s main virtues. Unlike grunts in Cincinnati, Presidents must face the voters. That accountability was designed to extend not only to the President’s inner circle but over the entire branch of government whose leaders he chooses and whose policies bear his signature.

What you immediately notice is that under this scenario, Obama cannot win.

Read On

Cicada, It’s What’s For Dinner

May 23 2013 @ 1:20pm

Brian Reis spoke with entomologist Louis Sorkin about how to eat cicadas:

Hors d’oeuvres! I’ve seen much worse. But James Hamblin gets queasy:

Some will mention that cicadas are arthropods, like shrimp and lobster. Eating them is just a step away. Just like how cats and cows are both mammals, so it’s okay that you eat cats. Cats that have been living underground for 17 years. And that really is the thing. I’m sure I’ve eaten things that have been underground for 17 years, but not knowingly, not happily.

Cultural differences and social etiquette aside, are they safe to eat?

Read On

Ending The Perpetual Emergency, Ctd

May 23 2013 @ 12:54pm

Rosa Brooks asks Obama to channel his inner law professor and offer a concretely legal defense of his war powers during his speech this afternoon:

Speaking not just as a law professor but as a citizen: It would be nice to know if President Obama thinks the [Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)] authorizes him to use military force in Boston, wouldn’t it? Not whether he would as a matter of policy refrain from using military force in Boston, but whether as a matter of law he believes that Congress has authorized him to use military force in Boston if “the enemy” turns up there. … President Obama should tell us if he agrees that the 2001 AUMF gives him open-ended authorization to send U.S. troops into combat anywhere on Earth, as long as he asserts that their mission is to fight al Qaeda or “its associates.” Or does he think there is some limit — geographical, functional, or temporal — on the scope of his authority under the AUMF? And: If there are some limits, how can Congress and the American public be sure his administration is abiding by those limits?

And, Mr. President? “Trust us, we have very careful procedures” is not the right answer here. Convince me that “checks and balances” refers to something other than the federal budget.

Stay tuned. I’ll be listening closely.