Month: May 2011

A couple days back Michael Gerson ranted against drug legalization. Daniel Larison goes to town:

Though [Ron] Paul did not frame his response [during the first GOP debate] in quite the same way that Gary Johnson did, their answers from the last debate were complementary. Paul addressed the question as a matter of whether or not it was appropriate to criminalize individual drug use, and Johnson advocated approaching problems with drugs other than marijuana as a public health issue rather than as a problem for law enforcement and the justice system. Gerson seems to view drug prohibition as a matter of expressing disapproval of drug use. Whether drug prohibition works as a matter of public policy does not interest him, and whether it is worth the significant costs and compromises of constitutional protections never comes up in his column.

And that's why Gerson is such a vivid reminder of the Bush administration. What matters are loud statements of morality, not pragmatic ways to address problems. The exception to this rule was PEPFAR, but even there, the imperatives of religious fundamentalism always tended to win out.

Reihan Salam argues that "the collective political influence of the upper-middle-class is greater than that of the ultra-rich":

To illustrate why the upper-middle-class matters in the tax debate, I recommend taking a look at this chart, which I found via the Hoosier Pundit. It measures the amount of total taxable income for all filers by adjusted gross income level for 2008, and it shows that the total taxable income for households earning $100,000 to $250,000 — comfortably beneath the upper bound of the “middle-class” — approached $1.4 trillion.

J-Pod praises Josh Green's piece and looks upon Palin with pathos:

In some ways, the story of Palin is a story of temptation. Rather than sticking to her guns and deepening her political credentials and her knowledge base, she embraced her celebrity instead. And in doing so, she didn’t defeat her critics and enemies; she capitulated to them. Listen, it’s her life and her fortune and she is free to do what she wishes with it. And there’s no telling what the future holds for anyone in America. But she had and has more raw political talent than anyone I’ve ever seen, and, alas, as phenoms go, it looks like she is headed for a Darryl Strawberry-like playing career.

Josh's piece will serve as balm to the right. And it will allow them to believe that their choice of veep in 2008 was not an indictment of them or the media – but just an unfortunate decision by Palin to change her colors. The only problem with this argument is that it is manifestly untrue. But we know that Palin lovers, like Palin herself, must perforce be wedded to mountains of untruth.

(Promo image via Joe My God)

Conor Friedersdorf reminds us of Social Security's history:

Old age pensions were a bottom up demand made by the citizens of a country far less accustomed to social welfare spending than is ours. Nor were they merely a leftist phenomenon. There were FDR Democrats and Upton Sinclair socialists, to be sure, but the Townsend clubs tended to support Republican candidates, and were seen by contemporaries and some historians as right-wing populists — that era's answer to Glenn Beck fans.

Conor warns those who wish to abolish Medicare and Social Security that such actions "would create the conditions for reintroduction of the very legislation just vanquished."

The bewilderment at and then sheer joy of freedom:

Scott Horton finds middle ground:

There is no reason why they need to be made public today, this month, or even this year. But the materials should be preserved carefully and passed to an archive. In good time they should be available to those who chronicle these events, so they can do so with a keen and impartial eye. The death of bin Laden marks the end of an era. This should not be marked with lies and secrecy; it should be marked with a strengthened commitment to acknowledge the truth, unpleasant as it may be in certain details. The passage of some time may be necessary, but in the end a democracy is nourished, not demoralized, when it looks the truth unflinchingly in the face.

Ezra Klein puts Boehner’s demands in context:

Extending the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years, which Boehner favors, will increase the deficit by twice as much as the $2 trillion in spending cuts he’s calling for will reduce the deficit. Conversely, adding the revenue increases in the Simpson-Bowles plan to his spending cuts would bring the deficit reduction to more $3 trillion. But Boehner isn’t using the debt-ceiling vote to reduce the debt. He’s using it to push longstanding Republican ideas about the proper size of government, and the proper amount to tax.

Chart from CBPP.

A reader writes:

As a Catholic, you should know that while the IUD may be seen as a viable alternative to the pill, Catholic women who use contraception would probably see the IUD as more problematic than the pill for one reason:  an IUD does not prevent conception.  With an IUD, conception occurs, but the IUD makes for a more "hostile" environment for the embryo to implant.  Since implantation does not occur, the embryo is "discarded" with the woman's next period. 

Now, to be fair, conception *can* occur when a woman is on the pill, but it is much less likely, since the goal of the pill is to prevent ovulation.  Obviously, many women have gotten pregnant on the pill.  But the difference for a Catholic would be that on the pill, ovulation is prevented, so most of the time, conception does not occur.  With an IUD, conception can occur at any time, and then you're dealing with an entirely different moral situation for a Catholic.

Another is more direct:

The IUD is a form of abortion.

Another:

I have moral uneasiness about the IUD. I am definitely pro-choice, but not really for myself (maybe at a younger age, but not now – age 33, mom to a 6-month old). I know the latest versions of IUDs are pretty safe, but it prevents implantation, not fertilization.  I feel weird about allowing eggs to be fertilized and then preventing them from implanting.  I guess I believe in souls and the sanctity of life, so I don’t know that I want to repeatedly create life (even if only a few cells) only to never give it a chance.

Chait spots one:

Donald Trump's implosion still leaves a huge opportunity on the Republican right. Trump was a horribly, horribly flawed messenger — his past was filled with support for Democratic politicians, causes like single-payer health insurance, and he horrified Republicans in his high profile first speech in Las Vegas by dropping a series of f-bombs. But Trump's message itself was deeply powerful. There remains a powerful demand for a candidate to fill it.

Palin! After Trump, whom she has showered with praise, she seems conventional.

The leading Christian progressive organization, Sojourners, has rejected the above ad, featuring a pastor welcoming a family with two moms. Dan Savage summarizes:

If progressive Christians can't unite behind the concept of welcome then, gee, what the fuck good are they? … The ad doesn't endorse gay marriage. It recognizes the existence of same-sex couples and the fact that many gay couples are raising children and it endorses welcoming them. Just welcoming them. A gay wedding doesn't break out, no rice is thrown, no bouquets reeking of the gay agenda are tossed, no groomsmen are bent over and fisted. It welcomes gay couples and their children—most of whom will grow up to be straight—to come to church and meet this Jesus person they've heard so much about. The same Jesus who welcomed lepers and prostitutes and Samaritans.

David Sessions glimpses the larger picture, and what it means for Jim Wallis, head of Sojourners and one of Obama's spiritual advisors:

Sojourners' attempts to keep the discussion balanced has inflamed progressive Christians, some of who say it is time for their movement to reconsider letting Wallis do the talking in Washington. Jim Naughton, who was involved in the Washington diocese of the Episcopal church and now operates a small communications firm, said people inviting Wallis to policy briefings and White House meetings should realize that he "is far to the right of the people he's allowed to speak for." And now, when liberal Christians "are making progress by the second," he added, is a particularly bad time to hedge on the church's welcome of gays and lesbians.