Month: October 2011

Bruce Bartlett thinks it has to do with race: 

Republicans really hate it when Democrats accuse them of racism simply because they oppose liberal policies for reasons that have nothing to do with race. And in their hearts they truly believe that cutting back government spending and regulation will do more to help African Americans than a continuation of liberal policies such as the minimum wage that actually harm blacks under the guise of helping them.

… [Cain] is the first black Republican in memory to really connect with the way white Republicans think about race. Cain is living proof that the GOP is open to blacks and that Republican policies will benefit them. And with our first African American president in the White House, many Republicans crave an opportunity to finally have a real debate on which party’s policies are better for racial minorities. The thought of a presidential debate between Cain and Barack Obama excites many Republicans to the point of ecstasy.

A wonderfully sensitive and eloquent Catholic interpretation of Terrence Malick’s ground-breaking movie:

Radley Balko lists examples of violence related to the drug war. Among other bloody incidents:

The United States has a long history of turning a blind eye to human-rights abuses and unintended consequences in the name of eradicating illicit drugs overseas. Between 2001 and 2003, the United States gave more than $12 million to Thailand for drug interdiction efforts. Over 10 months in 2003, the Thai government sent out anti-drug “death squads” to carry out the extra-judicial executions of as many as 4,000 suspected drug offenders. Many were later found to have had nothing to do with the drug trade. Though the U.S. State Department denounced the killings, the United States still continued to give the same Thai regime millions in aid for counternarcotics operations with little control over how that money was spent.

Chris Ladd likewise wants to end the war on drugs.

A little dark and twisted for an MHB, but 'tis the season:

Or, how to teach about science and warn against the undead menace in one fell swoop.

A pumpkin gets the Dalek treatment:

(Via BuzzFeed)

Update from a reader: "Here's an even better one."

Dreher e-mails a response to a Dish reader:

Did your smart-ass reader not bother to read my actual blog entry? I said flat-out that we were going to end up packing our stuff ourselves and driving the truck to Louisiana ourselves, because it's the only affordable option? I had already publicly committed myself to following his pissy advice before he even gave it. As I wrote, I haven't had to move like this since 1992, almost 20 years ago, before my back went south.

I wish I did have the money to pay somebody else to do it, but with the interstate tariffs, we just can't justify that kind of expense. And that was the whole point of my post. It's easy for a guy in his 20s to scare up a crew of friends to load and unload the U-Haul. Not so easy for guys in middle age to do the same. If you're too old to tote boxes yourself, or have a bad back, or any other disability, you're going to have to pay somebody to do it, and the existence of these tariffs, which I never knew existed until this, adds significantly (and prohibitively) to the expense.  

Brad Plumer has a fuller explanation of interstate tariffs and whether moving costs are hurting the economy.

That's how Alyssa Rosenberg reads the new blockbuster:

In Time is a perfect example of how science fiction, by displacing us from our present circumstances, can create space for us to talk more directly about them. It’s striking to see what movie characters can say when the word “money” is replaced with “time” that they’d never say without the linguistic switch,. “For a few to be immortal, many must die,” warns the wealthy Henry Hamilton at the beginning of the movie. “Everyone can’t live forever…Where would we put them?…The cost of living keeps rising so people keep dying…But the truth is, there’s more than enough. No one has to die before their time.”

Jamelle Bouie calls it "a full-on Marxist critique of capitalism:"

It’s no exaggeration to say that more than anything else on screens right now, In Time seems to be the movie that most captures the mood of the moment. Millions are furious with a system that rewards the rich at the cost of everyone else, and In Time offers one possible solution—the forced redistribution of wealth at the hands of ridiculously attractive people.vFor my part, I think we should approach this movie as Hollywood’s contribution to Occupy Wall Street; flawed, but still worth the engagement.

Caleb Crain is unsure about the film's Marxism:

If this movie were an economist … it would be the sort of economist who believes that the lower classes only take jobs when threatened with starvation, and that recessions and depressions occur because workers have been spoiled by welfare and have come to think of themselves as morally superior to the unpleasantness of toil. Is this movie Marxist or isn’t it? I began petulantly to wonder. 

Tyler Cowen and Robin Hanson debate the economics of the flick.

Cain, rocked by scandal, took a moment at his press conference today for song:

Rush goes berserk over the sexual harassment story. Contra Jeffrey Lord, Quin Hillyer is taking the allegations seriously:

In Cain's case, the allegations actually came five years before he ran for any office, 12 years ago now. There was no way they were politically motivated, because Cain had never been a candidate for anything. Furthermore, the allegations came not just from one disgruntled employee, but from two separate women. One allegation can be a misunderstanding, or an oversensitivity, or a case of job-related payback. Two allegations, separate and distinct from each other, are at least the beginning of a pattern.

Jennifer Rubin fisks Cain's claim that he was unaware of any settlement agreement reached to resolve the sexual harassment charges:

For that to be true, many things would also have to be true: Herman Cain never asked the NRA how the claim got resolved; Cain never had to sign a settlement agreement or any other document; He trusted the NRA to obtain a complete release on his behalf, and the women never demanded that Cain release potential counterclaims (e.g., for defamation); He never agreed to keep the matter confidential — for example, after he left the NRA. (Arguably the association could bind him while he was still employed, but wouldn’t it have had to tell him to ensure compliance?); and in his role as CEO, Cain never had to approve a settlement, was never told the cost of the settlement and never saw a budget entry confirming a settlement. 

Philip Klein argues along similar lines: 

It seems unrealistic that if a settlement were reached concerning his behavior that he'd be unaware of it. And if it is possible that a CEO can be totally unaware of a settlement, how could he be "absolutely" sure that no such settlements were made at his other employers? To be clear, overall, I think Cain did pretty well on Fox. If all there is to the story is anonymous accusers from back in the 1990s versus his emphatic denial, I think he'll be able to survive this without many problems, especially given natural conservative distrust of the media. If, however, more details emerge that begin to contradict his initial statements, and the situation turns out to be a lot broader than he lets on, it will become a major problem.

Kevin Williamson is more definitive:

I got a lot of grief for writing that, based on my interaction with Mr. Cain, I would have hesitated to hire him to run a pizza company. I am feeling more comfortable in that judgment.

Harper's publishes Wade Davis' 1983 study into the pharmacology of zombies. Davis investigated the source of Haiti's belief in the living dead:

From ethnopharmacological investigations, we know that [tetrodotoxin] poison lowers the metabolic rate of the victim almost to the point of death. Pronounced dead by attending physicians who check only for superficial vital signs, and considered dead by family members and by the zombie maker, the victim is buried alive. Undoubtedly, in many cases the victim does die, either from the poison or from suffocating in the coffin. The widespread belief in the existence of zombies in Haiti, however, is based on those instances where the victim receives the correct dosage of the poison, wakes up in the coffin, and is dragged out of the grave by the zombie maker.

You can read an excerpt from the new (paywalled) Harper's piece on zombies in Haiti. Mother Nature's own versions here. The above video – not for the faint of heart – illustrates how to un-make a zombie.