Month: December 2011

Question? askandrew@thedailybeast.com Video archive here.

John Stoehr pulls a reverse Jonah Goldberg:

These conservatives aren’t conservative. The Republicans Party has gone so far to the right that it has arrived on the other side of the political spectrum…Over the years, a series of public policy choices as well as banking and tax legislation has redistributed wealth upwards. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, preferred trade status with with China, the Bush tax cuts, Medicate Part D, and the $7.7 trillion that the Federal Reserve loaned to big banks since 2008 — all of these have sucked wealth from the bottom for the benefit of the rich. Up or down, it’s all the same when government is responsible for moving wealth around. John McCain called it by name in the 2008 presidential race — for the wrong reasons. It’s socialism.

John Avlon is waiting to hear from Palin, McCain, Jeb Bush, Terry Branstad, Rubio, DeMint, Nikki Haley, Giuliani, Cain, and Rick Scott. Jamelle Bouie isn't on the edge of his seat: 

[T]he rise of Gingrich—and the real chance that he might win the nomination—highlights a major dilemma for the Republican Party establishment. For two decades, the GOP has attacked expertise and authority, and offered an emotional, reactive approach to politics—“You should go with your gut, and anyone who says otherwise is an elitist.” If Gingrich wins the nomination, against the wishes of seemingly everyone within the GOP nomination, it might be a sign that this approach worked too well. Republican leaders created a monster, and they’ve lost the power to control it.

(Photo: A supporter of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich wears a campaign button at a town hall meeting on December 3, 2011 in the Staten Island borough of New York City. By Michael Nagle/Getty Images)

Allow Ice Cube to celebrate the architectural genius of the Eames:

Funny thing how a series of circus acts – ending with ring-master The Donald – has deflated Republican intensity, according to Gallup:

Republicans' enthusiasm about voting in the election for president next year has decreased, with 49% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican now saying they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, down from 58% in September. This narrows the gap between them and Democrats, 44% of whom are more enthusiastic than usual, essentially the same as in September.

Many readers are rushing to defend Tebow. One writes:

Good lord, Andrew. Yes, Jesus said that, but he also prayed publicly. The point is that prayer is about the relationship between you and God, and NOT about what other people see or don't see in it. I don't see any evidence that Tebow is doing it for the reputation/holy appearance. People often pray before or after significant moments; Tebow's moments happen to be rather public. I don't think Jesus is prohibiting prayer if you are seen. I think he's endorsing prayer as a private ritual, something that Tebow's manner certainly conveys, however many cameras see it.

Here's my evidence. A prayer can be completely silent, conducted without any public display, let alone in front of a massive stadium on one knee. I don't doubt Tebow's sincerity and, as I wrote, I have no problem with him doing that, since others engage in far more elaborate celebrations after a touchdown, but there's a gratuitous display here that seems very counter to Jesus' directive to humility, privacy and simplicity in prayer. Another writes:

You seem to think that Tim Tebow, in bowing and praying publicly, "repudiates" Jesus' command in Matthew 6:1 ("Be careful not to practice your 'acts of righteousness' before men."). Having grown up in a fundamentalist subculture, perhaps I can explain why, in Tebow's mind, he's not.

We were always encouraged to pray publicly, especially before meals in restaurants, Matthew 10:32-33 being the proof text: "Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven."

Now it may very well be that given the historical context of each of these passages, neither of these scriptures are applicable to "Tebowing." But that doesn't stop us from trying to make them so. We all bring our biases, personal and cultural, to our readings of scripture. Perhaps Catholics value humility more than Southern Baptists. Perhaps Tim is concerned that if he fails to use this very large platform of his to "spread the word," Jesus will hold him in account.

Bottom line: we all pick and choose "cafeteria style" scriptures that, more often than not, tend to support our already-established views. So it has always been. "There is nothing new under the sun."

Another sends the above video and writes:

Football is a deeply religious community, and Tebow's Christianity is likely no more evangelical than the many former professional football players who are now pastors, and his Christianity is likely no more devout than people like NFL star Troy Polamalu, an orthodox Christian convert who has given interviews maintaining his belief in constant prayer, even while he is playing football. Football culture drips with Christianity, with players leading teammates in prayer on Sundays after virtually every game. Tim Tebow isn't even the religious or spiritual leader of his football team (as evidenced by this short video of the prayer circle after a recent game, only televised because of Tebow's presence, with his teammate Brian Dawkins actually leading the prayer).

Another reader:

I am a long time fan of the Denver Broncos and also a staunch atheist. I was not thrilled when the Broncos drafted him, partly because we gave up a lot to get him … and his overt religiosity. But he has somewhat won me over since he became the starting quarterback and the team now has an unexpected winning streak. From all reports, he has an incredible work ethic and the players really rally behind him, especially when he is compared to Kyle Orton (whom he replaced). Tebow's got that comeback drive that reminds many fans of John Elway. He has already set up charitable foundation that he is funding (he apparently donated all of his signing bonus to charity). The latest effort is building a hospital in the Philippines.

Good for him. One more:

I'm a life long Broncos fan.  I remember when Tebow was drafted by the Broncos I only knew him as the guy who appeared in that pro-life commercial during the Super Bowl.  I was not looking forward to having some right-wing nut job as the QB for my team.

Now a year later I'm rooting for the guy, and not just because he's been helping to win games for my team.  The guy has shown an amazing fortitude in dealing with the spotlight and controversy over the last year.  Yes, he's very religious, but other than dishing out "god bless" routinely and praying on the sidelines, he's really the kind of religious person I like: somebody who lives by example.  He's not out there judging people or telling others how to live their lives; he's living a good life, showing strength of character, and a faith in himself, his team, and, yes, his God.  I wish that the very religious in this country would take a page out of Tebow's book.

More reader feedback here. The debate continues on our Facebook page. Kevin Sessums also sounds off.

Josh Barro recently switched to a high-deductible plan. He's now more aware of medical pricing, but finds that it's virtually impossible to figure out how much doctors visits and medical services actually cost: 

High-deductible plans are supposed to help control medical costs, because consumers, with "skin in the game," will make frugal medical choices. But how can we exercise frugality if we have to make the choice to buy medical services before we know what they cost? How can we comparison shop if we can’t easily find out competitors’ prices? It doesn’t have to be this way. We could legally obligate hospitals and medical practices to disclose their full price lists—both the inflated list prices and the rates negotiated with each insurer that the practice accepts. This would enhance price competition between medical providers and significantly strengthen the Health Savings Account model. HSAs and high-deductible plans give health care consumers an incentive to impose price discipline. Pricing transparency would give them the tools they need to do so.

A reader muddies the debate:

One reason for the bad rap is that many people do not know what a Pit Bull looks like, and they are often misidentified. It is really sad, since they seem like really great companions. The only way to help is to educate the public (and the press).

The reader then points to this page of 25 photos of various dog breeds, only one of which is the American Pit Bull Terrier. See if you can find it. (Many of the choices are excerpted above.) Another reader:

My wife has two gentle giants. Cane Corso is the breed. Everyone who visits does a double take and stammers "are those Pit Bulls?"  I've seen Presa Canario, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, Catahoulas, Bull Terriers, Bandogge Mastiffs, Alano Espanols, Ca De Bou, Boxers(!), Dogo Argentinos, Rhodesian Ridgebacks and various mutts described fearfully as "Pit Bulls".

A dog aficionado might have a hard time distinguishing them, let alone a traumatized attack victim. That emergency room worker can't tell by the bite marks what kind of dog it was, and has to take the word of the victim that it was a "pit bull".

Another:

I would just like to point out that people frequently misidentify dogs as pit bulls.  I have a four-year-old hound/boxer mix.  A genetic test turned up no pit bull in her.  And yet, people often stop me to ask if she's a pit.  When I say no, they express incredulity.  One guy – a slightly sketchy looking fellow who claimed to be an expert on pits – said that there was "no freaking way" she was anything but pure pit.  However, I met both her parents and her siblings (she was the result of an accident when a nice family adopted a hound they believed had been spayed).  They weren't pit bulls. 

I've heard from friends who have mixed breed dogs that people often assume that their dogs are pits or pit mixes.  It seems if you have a dog with some boxer or mastiff in her (thus, the blocky head and muscular body), people automatically assume pit.  So, I'm wondering how many of those "pit bull attacks" are actually attacks by dogs that just kind of look like pits but may not actually share any DNA.

Luciano Floridi wonders [pdf] whether just war theory applies to cyberspace:

The body of knowledge and discussion behind just war theory is detailed and extensive. It is the result of centuries of refinements since Roman times. The methodological question we face today is whether information warfare is merely one more area of application, or whether it represents a disruptive novelty as well, which will require new developments of the theory itself. For example, within the jus ad bellum, which kind of authority possesses the legitimacy to wage cyberwar? And how should a cyber attack be considered in terms of last resort? And within the jus in bello, what level of proportionality should be attributed to a cyber attack? Or, how do you surrender to a cyber enemy?

Michael Tanji critiques the application of concepts from conventional war to the Internet more broadly:

The stupidity of phrases like “digital Pearl Harbor” doesn't require further elaboration. “Cyber deterrence” only makes sense if there were any meaningful analog between the lasting impact of using nuclear weapons versus digital ones. “Digital arms control” is such a non-serious idea as to be laughable. Legacy futures make for great newspaper copy and think-tank literature, but proposing solutions for a world that doesn't exist isn't helping the world that actually does.

Ben Mathis-Lilley isn't concerned about the career of Miley Cyrus following a leaked video of her copping to her weed habit: 

For one, hard drugs aren’t something "accessible" celebrities do. "I bet if we met we would really get along, just talking and smoking meth and getting arrested" is not a thing people think about their favorite singer or actor. Furthermore, even for those with very flexible professional schedules, uppers have a problematic tendency to totally incapacitate—see the wasted years of talents like Lohan and Robert Downey Jr. 

By contrast, if you’re an artist who has employees to schedule appointments and pay bills, the typical drawbacks of weed-smoking (slovenliness, excessive listening to Otis Redding) can be made irrelevant or even useful. If Jack Nicholson, Tom Petty, and Brad Pitt are any indication, it seems possible to have a long, consistently productive marijuana-fueled career. 

But if you aren't rich and famous, you're screwed of course, especially if you're black or Latino.