Month: March 2012

But Obama is tantalizingly close to the 50 percent mark for the first time against Romney.

"Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary, she said that it's important that we have contraceptives because that prevents pregnancy, and pregnancy is more expensive to the federal government. Going with that logic, according to our own Health and Human Services secretary, it isn't farfetched to think that the president of the United States could say, we need to save healthcare expenses, the federal government will only pay for one baby to be born in the hospital per family, or two babies to be born per family. That could happen. You think it couldn't?" – Michele Bachmann.

Kevin Drum unpacks the quote. Of course, it's also perfectly possible that Obamacare could mandate the infanticide of any heterosexual-acting baby, or limit whites to one, while allowing minorities all the family they want. Now let's see how long it takes for someone on the Christianist right to make those arguments. But, hey, it worked for Palin … up to a point.

A reader responds, "You must not have seen this from Glenn McCoy":

I think Daniel Henninger is onto something here:

Santorum's 35-minute speech in Cuyahoga Falls touched an array of subjects that drew applause. But at the halfway point, when he tore into ObamaCare, his mostly working-class audience exploded into applause and cries of "Rick! Rick! Rick!"

Mr. Santorum didn't get this response by discussing health-insurance exchanges and guaranteed issue. He told these people that ObamaCare "is usurping your rights. It is creating a culture of dependency. Every single American will be dependent on government, thanks to ObamaCare. There is no more important issue in this race. It magnifies all that is wrong with what this president is trying to do." His call for repeal produced the explosion.

He followed with an tight description of how he understands the terms of the election: "This race is coming down to the economy, the deficit and control of your life, which is ObamaCare." (There was no mention of contraception, gays or the role of women.)

He won't be able to avoid the contraception issue on healthcare which, as I've argued from the get-go, is a win-win for the Democrats (thanks to Rush and the Cardinals). But on the issue of the individual mandate, Santorum has, I think, a potential winner. Maybe this will be resolved by the Supreme Court and render the politics of this moot. But until then, Santorum's opposition to an individual mandate is a clear red line between him and Romney, resonates with the Tea Party, and obscures Santorum's own contempt for freedom when it leads to activities he regards as sins. If framed within an argument about government's more general over-reach because of the Great Recession, it's powerful way to rally the base. And God knows Romney has got nothing to counter it with.

And remember the other primary candidate who opposed the individual mandate? He's now president.

The Cannabis Closet

Urtak’s Marc Lizoain breaks down some of the results from the above survey we ran last week:

One of the worst things about the cruel prohibition of a plant that brings pleasure and comfort to so many is that it makes criminals and liars out of otherwise honest people. More than a third [of surveyed Dish readers] have lied about their marijuana use on an official form or application.

Readers submitted a dozen more questions to the survey since it was first launched, so feel free to answer all 23 above. Many readers also responded to the cannabis confession regarding the Department of Energy applicant confronted with prior drug use. One writes:

I have a good friend in DC who lost a new job with the Feds last year because he was honest about his past use of pot. His job was classified as part of the White House, so it involved a higher level of scrutiny than other executive branch positions. Of course, it is unbelievably ironic and unfair that having a White House job involves a higher bar that gets you fired for pot use when the man at the top of the White House smoked and proudly inhaled.

Another:

Before joining the U.S. Foreign Service, where I had a Top Secret (and at times TS/Special Compartmented Information) clearance, I underwent a background investigation, which included a question on drug use. I freely admitted that I’d smoked marijuana in college but no longer did. Even as I was giving the answer, you could see the security officer writing down the standard “limited experimentation in college” line. They didn’t care about marijuana use (and don’t now) as long as it’s in the past; however, current use will get you denied entry or bounced out if you’re already in. Same was true for the CIA, which finally caved on it because they realized they couldn’t hire anyone if they insisted on a no-use-ever standard. As long as it’s been several years since your pot use, you won’t be denied a security clearance. Better to admit it than to be caught in a lie about it.

Another:

 

On a related note, I was completing grad school and had to apply for individual medical coverage. I’ve always taken care of myself, eating well and exercising regularly, and other than a yearly physical, I rarely see a doctor. One would think I’d be an insurance provider’s ideal applicant – young, healthy, and with no history of previous conditions. However, when I came to the question, “Have you used illegal drugs in the past five years?” I decided to be honest and checked “Yes.” I don’t remember if the application asked for further explanation, but if it did I would’ve said that I’d smoked marijuana a few years back.

The next day I received a letter from the provider declining to provide coverage. The letter specifically cited the disclosure that I’d used illegal drugs as the reason my application had been rejected. My mother, who worked in the healthcare field at the time, told me I’d been stupid to answer honestly and that the question about drug use was basically asking whether or not I was a drug addict. (My response to this was that if I were a drug addict I obviously would’ve lied about it.) I eventually went through an agent who directed me to another provider and showed me the “correct way” to answer this question.

Another:

The story from the woman whose husband told the truth on a background questionnaire reminded me of a dilemma I confronted while applying for U.S. citizenship in the 1990s. I am European by birth and moved to the U.S. at the age of nine with my parents, who were both university researchers. We all received green cards, and my folks applied for – and were granted – citizenship as soon as they were eligible. But I kept putting off citizenship until I was in my mid-20s, when I realized it was time to make a formal commitment to the country I had called home for 16 years and where I had always planned to stay.

The naturalization application was easy, until I got to the one question that stopped me cold: “Have you ever committed a crime, other than a traffic violation, for which you were not arrested?”

The answer was yes. I had been a regular pot smoker for years, and had tried a few other illicit substances. I had occasionally even sold pot, in small quantities, to defray the cost of my own indulgence. I had been an underage drinker. In all these respects I was not any different from many of the privileged East Coast kids who were my friends at boarding school and my private liberal-arts college. I was a criminal in the eyes of the law, though I felt no guilt about this since the only person I had ever hurt was myself (I was a fairly bright but indifferent student, and being a stoner did not help in this regard).

It was a wrenching situation. I truly did not want to lie to the federal government, both as a practical matter and because it simply seemed like the wrong thing to do when I was petitioning for the right to swear an oath upholding our laws and Constitution. But I also did not want my application rejected. By this point I was an American in just about every respect, with my own home and a productive, rewarding career. Deportation would have been devastating.

I thought about telling an abridged version of the truth: Confess to drinking and smoking pot on a few occasions, without disclosing the fact that I’d also tried cocaine and LSD or that I had peddled a few grams of sativa to my freshman year dorm-mates. Surely a history of light pot smoking would not disqualify a person for citizenship?

But ultimately I rejected this plan. I would still be lying to the government, and now they would have a reason to investigate my life and, quite possibly, harass my friends and employers. I imagined my application being dropped in the wrong pile, and having an INS agent show up at my door demanding to know the names of everyone I never got high with.

So I consulted lawyers and family members, and talked things over with older adults that I trusted. I wrestled with my conscience. And then I answered “no.”

That was 15 years ago. My application sailed through the process, and I beamed with pride and patriotism as I took the oath in downtown Washington, just a few blocks from the Capitol. I’ve never regretted my decision. And every once in a while, after my wife and daughter have gone to sleep, I will put on some good music and take a few tugs of a joint.

(Image: Cover of The Cannabis Closet book, which can be purchased here.)

Omaha, Nebraska, 7.20 am

"I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol. I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded," – Pat Robertson, punctuating similar comments he made on "The 700 Club" last week. Great to have him aboard.

Yes, he's batshit crazy. But not as batshit crazy as Prohibition.

Nate Silver looks at the data to see how Santorum would have fared without Newt in the race so far. Bottom line:

Mr. Santorum would have carried four states that he actually lost.

But the delegate hill would still be steep. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the best way for Newt to exact revenge on Romney – and do his party a service – would be to withdraw now and endorse Santorum. If the GOP is going to nominate Romney, it shouldn't be by default.

A reader on the above compilation of Limbaugh's 70 smears against Fluke:

He is almost surreal in his foulness. I just sat here stunned – not because I didn't realize he was capable of it, but because it's inconceivable that anybody with at least one brain cell would buy his "it wasn't personal" apology as anything but the 71st insult to Sandra Fluke. And to women in general.

Many readers are taking issue with my assertion that "No one is involuntarily exposed to [Limbaugh's] poison." One writes:

I make all sorts of efforts to not listen to Rush Limbaugh – namely, I don't like his bullshit and don't want to hear it so I don't listen to it on the radio.  The closest I ever got to regular exposure was a janitor at a church I used to work at who would listen to Rush on a private radio while cleaning the Fellowship Hall, and even then I could usually bear about two minutes of it before I found another place to eat my lunch.  It's not that hard, really, by and large, to avoid Rush Limbaugh's poison.

But now your blog lights up with his vitriolic misogynistic garbage, as does the rest of the Internet. Even in Lent, where I've limited my hours spent reading Internet people, I can't escape it; my Daily Show/Colbert Report wind downs in the evenings are mired in it; Maddow is talking about it; there's no escape in CNN.  I suppose I could limit my television to, I don't know, Top Chef and RuPaul's Drag Race, but I like to stay reasonably connected to the news.

And what Rush Limbaugh says, for whatever damn reason that is beyond me, is news. In order for me to consume any amount of news, in almost any medium I regularly stay attuned to, I'm exposed to Rush Limbaugh.

Another writes:

I love you Andrew, but you are so wrong on this, and for reasons you yourself have pointed to repeatedly.  Does the term "epistemic closure" not ring any bells? 

Do you really think the things Limbaugh says can be argued against, debunked, etc?  This isn't a debate where the person with the most persuasive facts wins.  Goodness, I wish that were the case – if it were, Rush would have been off the air decades ago.  Do you really think a persuasive argument backed up by research would have any effect on Rush or his listeners?  Do you think it hasn't been tried?

Does economic pressure come from an "illiberal place", as you claim?  I'm not so sure.  One thing I am sure about is that the only pressure Limbaugh, and those in his business, will respond to is economic.  Please keep in mind that they say the things they say for money.  It is their job.  I call them "outrage mongers." In order to keep their listeners coming back they crank the outrage and sense of victim hood up to 11.  You don't stop that kind of behavior via facts and reason; you stop it by taking away the incentive.

Another:

Well, actually we are "involuntarily exposed to his poison." Because Limbaugh isn't just any old foul radio personality. He's a man with a great deal of influence on one party of a two-party system. He is one of their loudest megaphones and one of their bosses, and the rest of us are constantly involuntarily exposed to his poison, or the ramifications of it, whenever the representatives of his party vote – as they have been doing recently to relieve all of us "sluts" of our reproductive rights. 

And as for the "right way to counter his speech, in my view, is with speech, not threats to his livelihood. " Well by that logic, the boycott of bus drivers in Alabama wouldn't have happened. How else can people make it clear that they've had enough and they're fed up? Money talks. Because obviously all the counter speech in the world, and there's been plenty, against Limbaugh and the degeneracy of the far right that he spews and reinforces hasn't worked. Boycott has a history in America of making the point. It is speech by another name.

By the way, I wouldn't worry about his livelihood; AshleyMadison.com (yes, that Ashley Madison) has offered to buy up ALL of his ad inventory.

Another:

I'll tell you at least one person involuntarily exposed to Rush Limbaugh: Sandra Fluke. I'll tell you a few more: her family and friends. Fluke went from testifying on behalf of herself and other like-minded people to being smeared in the most revolting and obnoxious manner available by Limbaugh.  In addition, her family was forced to be brought into this by having her become the newest target of the right wing media.  She testified about a friend using birth control to avoid losing an ovary.  Because of this, she's been ridiculed as a slut and a prostitute.

I take the point on Fluke. I remain hostile to campaigns to counter hate speech with anything other than speech.

Yesterday I linked to a post from one of the Koch brothers' candidate for CATO's Board that provided context that largely exonerated him from some of the more anti-libertarian things he has written over the years. I wonder what the full context of this sentence was:

As the campaign for gay marriage continues its relentless march toward a place where even Rome in its deepest debauchery didn’t tread, I’m tempted, when I think about this issue, to capitulate.

Well, you can read it here. Woodlief is an implacable foe of marriage equality. CATO is one of the very few institutions on the right that is still friendly to gay people. I wonder if the Kochs are intent on changing that. Ezra, meanwhile, zooms in on the core issue:

On policy, I probably agree more frequently with the Heritage Foundation than with Cato. But I can’t trust Heritage. I trust Cato.