Month: December 2011

Get through the cloying intro to enjoy some incredible dubstep:

Previous performance here.

Jonathan Cohn reviews, somewhat negatively, one proposal:

Under the Affordable Care Act, people with the economic means to pay for health care must obtain insurance or pay a modest fee to the government. (The government subsidizes the purchase for people who can’t afford the full price of a policy; it also exempts people with religious objections to formalized medical care.) Paul [Starr] suggests that, instead of imposing this requirement, the government could simply have offered everybody a choice: People could opt to refuse insurance, but only if they were willing to relinquish the benefits and protections of the new law for a fixed period of time: For example, they would not be guaranteed coverage if they had pre-existing conditions. (An alternative would be to charge people late-enrollment fees.) … It’s true that soft mandates work for the Medicare population. But does that lesson apply to the population that the Affordable Care Act's mandate targets? There's good reason to doubt it. 

Provincetown, Massachusetts, 11.49 am

Larison takes issue with Erick Erickson's complaint that Santorum "hurts Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry in Iowa:"

The reality is that Santorum is just now starting to get more attention because all of the other supposedly more competitive candidates have flopped, and in a fit of desperation some Iowa caucus-goers are turning to the candidate who has been living in their state for the better part of the last year.

The bad news for Santorum is that he has centered his entire campaign on Iowa, and at best he might finish third in a contest that is remarkable for the weak organizations of many of the other candidates. Erickson is upset that some social conservatives are rallying behind Santorum because it will make it easier for Romney to win the nomination, but Santorum’s supporters can’t be blamed for the failings of the other candidates that have made Santorum the only other remotely credible anti-Romney candidate in Iowa not named Ron Paul.

Meanwhile, Dan Savage goes headline hunting. Will Rahn provides good fodder.

(Photo: Members of Surfers Against Santorum hold a 'toilet protest' August 8, 2001 on Brighton Beach on the South coast of England. The protest was designed to highlight the fact that Britain''s coastline is one of the most contaminated in Europe, with raw santorum being pumped onto public beaches. By Sion Touhig/Getty Images.)

Weigel wonders why the homophobia in the newsletters hasn’t gotten much attention. Wise words from Dan Savage:

There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn’t beloved of religious conservatives, he isn’t out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he’s content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That’s an important difference.” 

Agreed. The attempt by the left and the neocon right to make Paul out to be the real bigot in this race is gob-smacking. Maybe one reason the gays are not so upset is because they have a better idea of what is threatening to them than Dave Weigel. (The exception is Jamie Kirchick, but he is as motivated by Israeli issues as gay ones). But Jim Burroway complicates the story:

It’s notable that the most prominent pastor in Iowa to endorse Ron Paul (an endorsement featured on Paul’s web site) is Rev. Phil Kayser, who has deep reconstructionist (also known as theonomist) ties. At Biblical Blueprints, a reconstrucitonist web site, Kaiser posted a book (PDF: 4.1MB/60 pages) in which he justifies the death penalty for homosexuality:

(page 24): …[I]n a society that was being converted, homosexuals could continue to be converted as they were in the church of Corinth. Even after a society implemented Biblical law and made homosexuality a crime, there are many checks and balances that would be in place. (See Appendix A page 40 for specifics.) The civil government could not round them up. Only those who were prosecuted by citizens could be punished, and the punishment could take a number of forms, including death. This would have a tendency of driving homosexuals back into their closets.

I think I have demonstrated how even capital punishment can be restorative. Other aspects of penology such as restitution, indentured servitude, etc. are certainly restorative.

I should think that those who accuse Biblicists of a theology that would cause a holocaust should be happy since we advocate standing law, not the Herem principle, and since standing law could be implemented even in a society like ours without the need for massive bloodshed. After a few speedy executions of non-repentant criminals, others would think twice before despising God’s law.

 

Keep trying. But remind me: which of all the candidates has refused to sign the anti-gay Marriage Pledge? Ah, yes, the real homophobe of the bunch.

Hard to beat Michael Medved, for whom Paul's non-interventionism simply cannot compute. Decades of marination in the view that America can do no wrong ever anywhere, means that Medved can simply appeal to what he calls "the mainstream", which, for him, includes those who want to "cure" gay people, deport 11 million illegal immigrants, invade Iran by land or by nukes, turn the US Congress into a part-time endeavor, increase defense spending while slashing entitlements, and reinvigorate the drug war. Yep: that's the mainstream, and Paul is clearly demented to challenge any of it.

Notice the pile-up of name-calling. Medved calls Paul "Dr Demento" for starters. His non-interventionism is "eccentric, detestable," but the Iraq war, which killed up to 100,000 Iraqis, 5,000 American soldiers, and was based on a false premise: well, that was just dandy. Paul is then called "the mad Doctor." He has zero chance of winning: "in the all-but-certain event that Ron Paul fails to secure the GOP nomination …" But Medved is not taking any chances:

By far the best outcome for those who yearn above all to replace the Democrat in the White House would be to witness the rapid, well-deserved fizzle of the Paulian insurgency.  This sort of quick collapse remains a distinct possibility—with a disappointing showing in Iowa followed by even more limited support that polls presently predict in the other early primary states.

Remember Frum's diagnosis of "full, unconcealed panic" if Gingrich were to win the nomination? Ratchet that up a few notches if Paul wins Iowa.

The sad, brutal truth here. And all to make their dicks look bigger.

Larry Greenemeier defends the unpopular FAA regulation. Two of his arguments:

2.    It’s less risky to let passengers use portable electronics (with the exception of cell phones) at cruising altitudes above 3,000 meters* because the flight crew would have more time to diagnose and address any possible interference than they would during takeoff or landing.

3.    Because passengers bring such a variety of portable electronics onboard in so many different states of function or disrepair, the FAA can’t assure that none of them will interfere with flight instrumentation. The agency thus tells carriers to prohibit their use completely during critical phases of flight.

Fallows continues to grump about it. Previous Dish discussion here and here.