Month: December 2010

Trenton, New Jersey, 5.44 pm

by Conor Friedersdorf

As far as this excerpt goes, George Will is exactly right:

In George W. Bush's 2004 speech to the Republican convention, he denounced the tax code as "a complicated mess" that annually requires "6 billion hours of paperwork" – now estimated at 7.6 billion. He vowed to "simplify" it. The audience cheered. Then he promised new complexities. There would be "opportunity zones" – tax relief for depressed areas – and a tax credit to encourage businesses to establish health savings accounts. The audience cheered.

This is perennial mischief – using the tax code not simply to raise revenue efficiently (with minimal distortion of economic behavior) but to pamper pet causes, appease muscular interests and make social policy. Since 1986, the tax code has acquired more than 15,000 complications. "Targeted" tax cuts are popular complexities because they serve a bossy government's agenda of behavior modification: You can keep more of your money if you do what Washington wants. The tax code, says Camp, "should not be a tool of industrial policy" or of "crony capitalism": "Politicians should not pick the industry of the day."

I endorse this quite apart from any arguments about the progressivity of the tax code or the overall levels collected. However much I have to pay, I'd just like to do so in a way that I can figure out quickly, painlessly and without professional assistance.

by Chris Bodenner

Condensed into seven minutes.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Rita from Feministe wrote: "It is not my responsibility to change them or educate them."

Pardon me, but bullshit.  If not you, then who?

It's true you don't choose your family and it's not possible to simply get rid of them. But for that same reason it's not possible to simply get rid of you.  This gives you a unique position in the world to push back against hate. Now, I don't spend the holidays making sure that my family is as PC as possible; that's not achievable (as our friends at Avenue Q say, we're all a little bit racist).  But I'll be damned if I let false information or outright hate survive. 

Demographically, you come from the same socio-economic background as your family.  You're the same race, you're roughly the same income level, you're from the same geographic area, you probably share a common religion, you are more likely to share similar political values.  When it comes to YOUR family, there is no one in the world who is better to tackle things than you.  If you're not going to do it, it's not going to get done.

Another writes:

It is really hard to reason with some people in my family, so I usually slither away into another room when I hear a vile conversation cranking up. And I have found that if I voice any opinion that might seem foreign, I am quickly branded a socialist. This past Thanksgiving I merely expressed my concern about circumcising my soon-to-be born son and I was quickly told that I needed to stop reading the New York Times. I am still not so sure what that meant, but it does illustrate quite elegantly the problem with actually voicing one's opinion around certain family.

The sad fact is that some of my loved ones have had their ability to reason replaced (via talk radio and the overarching Fox universe) with incoherent slogans that are spewed out in a completely meaningless fashion. But aside from their indulging in insane conspiracy theories and saying horribly bigoted and insensitive things, they are fun people. So I just try to keep the conversation trivial and pleasant. That might seem cowardly, but I consider it a shining example of pragmatism.

Our fabulous and affordable new $24 t-shirts from Rogues Gallery are longingly waiting for your impulse purchase here. $16 tote bags are here. Yes, that hard-to-read one on the left says "To See what Is In Front Of One's Nose Needs A Constant Struggle" – but you have to put one's nose very close to the shirt to read it. A bargain at $24! The beagle one is also a classic. There is no telling how long these shirts will stay in stock – so buy them while you still can!

Classic vintage, high-quality $50 T-shirt Dishness here:

C

Or buy the new reader-generated volume, "The Cannabis Closet," here for under $10 including shipping (use promo-code DISH)! 

You can preview the book here.  It's a compilation of first-person pot use testimonials, from top executives to responsible parents, from entrepreneurs to A-students, from unwinding suburbanites to the very sick. In more than 120 personal stories, it demolishes every hoary "stoner" stereotype of the regular pot-user. It doesn't glide over the downsides of pot-use, but it does explain more graphically and powerfully how marijuana-use has become as American as, er, brownies and milk. It shows how responsible pot-use is already compatible with middle-class life and its obligations. Browse and buy it here.

by Chris Bodenner

Ezra Klein reacts to the release of a letter from Senate Democrats to Reid demanding reform:

It's no surprise that some Senate Democrats want to see the practice reworked. What's remarkable is that all Senate Democrats want to see it reworked. It's not just the young senators like Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall and Michael Bennett, but the older veterans like Barbara Mikulski and Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin. Their unity stems from an unlikely source: Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has mounted more filibusters in the past two years than occurred in the ’50s and ’60s combined.

Uncontroversial bills like an extension of unemployment benefits that passed 97-0 and food-safety legislation that passed with 73 votes frequently faced multiple filibusters and months of delay. The minority has been so relentless and indiscriminate in deploying the once-rare failsafe that the majority has finally decided to do something about it.

They may not do much — at least this year. But even doing a little matters. It puts the minority on notice that the filibuster is not sacrosanct.

William A. Jacobson doubts there will be any meaningful reform:

So if Democrats change the filibuster rule, will they be shooting themselves in the foot? In 2012 there is a reasonable likelihood of a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.  If Obama loses, and Republicans find themselves in the position Democrats have been in the past two years, things could get very interesting with relaxed filibuster rules.  Even if Obama wins, the ability of a Republican Senate to pass on legislation to Obama — requiring a veto — will be an important political tool.

by Conor Friedersdorf

A reader writes:

As a former athlete and wrestler, and as a parent of a wrestler, I find the alleged behavior abhorrent, plausibly criminally abhorrent. If the coaches were not aware of the broader situation of bullying — and if that broader allegation is true — then the coaches were negligent. If they WERE aware, then they were complicit and deserve to be fired.

While I too am nervous about involving the criminal justice system too readily in schoolyard disputes, bullying of teammates has no legitimate place in sports. It should not be tolerated. This story, as framed by Conor, treads dangerously closely to blaming the alleged victim.

It certainly isn't my intention to blame the victim or, presuming his account is accurate, to excuse the behavior of the instigator. By pointing out the ubiquity of locker room antics and aggressive physicality within the culture of high school sports, I wasn't justifying it or implying that the status quo is desirable, or that it shouldn't be brought under control. At the same time, I don't think the kid should be thrown in jail and put on a sex offender list.

Another reader writes:

I wrestled at both the high school and college level and the butt drag is a very well-known and effective move if executed properly. However, there are some unspoken rules about using it properly and fairly and not every wrestler/team/coach abides by those unspoken rules.  You aren't supposed to use your fingers and no penetration should ever occur.  The move is effective in trying to gain control of your opponent by getting behind him (resulting in either a takedown or reversal).  I learned the move from a former Olympian and he taught us to use an open palm and place the backside of your thumb in the opponents "crack".  Then you use that leverage to get behind your opponent.  Occasionally I would wrestle a kid that would just try to grab a buttcheek and maybe stick his finger or thumb in my butt.  This didn't work and usually meant my opponent wasn't a very experienced wrestler and didn't fully learn the move or it was taught to him wrong.  

From what I gather, the kid who is being charged with sexual batttery did the move wrong, while he was horsing around and not during a competitive match.  He obviously wanted to inflict pain on and embarrass the much younger kid who he wrongly performed the move on.  He should be kicked off the team and not allowed to return until he admits what he did and apologizes to the kid and the entire team.

Says this former wrestler:

The butt drag is indeed a common wrestling move, has been forever. But it has nothing to do with the case you mentioned. The butt drag is simply grabbing an opponent's butt cheek for leverage. If your finger penetrates his anus, it is accidental and, in my experience, very rare.

Whereas another veteran of the sport disagrees:

Finally! A discussion that I can contribute to.  I wrestled competitively for 20+ years and can say without hesitation that the butt drag is entirely common.  We called it "checking the oil" and used it just as much as the "ball grab".  I would often times get questioned whether I was ever concerned that I would end up in a match with a homosexual who was just out there to get a feel- and the question always came from someone who had never wrestled.  It's really a ridiculous question on a number of levels.  Putting aside the silly stereotype assumed in the question, I always answered the same way – if someone wants to get on the mat with me and take the physical abuse that comes with it- just to cop a feel – then I'd say they earned it.

Several other emails from wrestlers are at odds with one another when it comes to how common the more invasive version of the butt drag is or isn't. I am beginning to suspect that there are regional variations in the sport.

by Chris Bodenner

An astonishingly sane stance on cannabis from Pat Robertson (yes, that one):

Scott Morgan remarks on this incredible cultural moment.

by Patrick Appel

Ezra Klein asks:

The question is why the Republicans didn't just drag their feet and let things expire and then come back to everything in 2011, when they'll have more allies in the Senate and control of the House? …

The answer, I think, is that there are plenty of Senate Republicans who aren't too comfortable with the class of conservatives who got elected in 2010. These legislators knew they had to stick with McConnell before the election, as you can't win back the majority by handing the president lots of legislative accomplishments. But now that the election was over, the bills that had piled up were, in many cases, good bills, and if they didn't pass now, it wasn't clear that they'd be able to pass later. 

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

This argument really gets under my skin. 

How is it more sane to prefer "skilled" immigrants to the ones currently here?  The first supposition is that by "skilled" they really mean educated and therefore more desirable.  So people like my husband – who has built his own moving labor company, helped employ Americans, and the many, MANY other hard working immigrants that would not fit into Frum's category – are less desirables.  And even though we employ legal immigrants and citizens, the work we have seen done by illegal immigrants is vastly superior.  I am not against more people with different skills coming to make this country their home, but to imply that they are better candidates for immigration demeans the many, including my ancestors, who came over with no education and built a life for themselves and their families and built businesses.

Matt Yglesias makes my point better when he says:

I do agree with Frum that America would do well to increase the number of high-skill immigrants that we permit to enter the country. I’m not a supporter of reducing the volume of low-skill immigration (indeed, wouldn’t mind seeing more of it) but the purely economic case is even [clearer] that more immigration by educated people would be beneficial to most native-born Americans as well as to most low-skill immigrants to the USA. It seems particularly silly that people who come to the US on student visas and successfully obtain degrees here don’t automatically garner permission to work in America. 

Frum seems to have a lot on his mind and not all of it makes sense- like this passage:

 Imagine if your kid's classroom went from zero non-English-speakers to 10 in just a couple of years. Then you are told that this turmoil is adding just fractions of a penny to the national income? Surely you'd ask: Why are we doing this?

 What?!? Turmoil?!?   Imagine if your kids had to learn along with non-native speakers and actually had to grow and learn to communicate better?  The horror!  How dare are kids have to deal with this – he seems to be saying, and then supports his argument by showing that this type of immigration isn't adding more than 1% to the national income.  Huh?!?  What does your kid having to learn beside non-native speakers directly have to do with future earnings of the parents of these non-native speakers?  American kids are taught they are victims from childhood, that they shouldn't have to bend or stretch or learn outside of their comfort zone.  I personally think it is great for kids of many languages to mix and learn together.  

America isn't Canada, Mr Frum.  "Their immigration systems are race-neutral and favor prospective immigrants who arrive with language skills, advanced degrees or capital to invest"– America is a place where regardless of your class, or place of birth you can make something of yourself.  His qualifications would mean that the poor in every single country of the world would NEVER have an opportunity to come here and make a future for themselves or their families.  Only the rich could come here because in much of the world only the rich get educated.  My husband made it through public school in Pakistan and he learned so very little academically.  Yet here he is, a citizen as of July 23rd, with a successful business adding to the economy.  Whether driving a cab (something we city folks need), running a 7-11 or gas station, or being a doctor- all types of immigrants contribute.  Frum seems to think that only one type truly matter but last time I checked it is the store owners and business owners of America, not the doctors and engineers, that employ more Americans.  That give them jobs.