Author: Andrew Sullivan

Will Paul Run Again?

Josh Green has a long profile of Ron Paul in the new Atlantic. He calls Paul the Tea Party's brain:

Paul says he hasn’t decided whether he’ll run for president again. But it’s hard to believe he won’t. He has emerged as a force at the kind of insider events that once ignored him. After winning the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he came within a single vote of repeating the feat two months later at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. In June, he traveled to Iowa to raise money for local politicians, which is what you do when you’re thinking about running for president. He was greeted with PRESIDENT RON PAUL 2012 signs.

It does not seem at all far-fetched to think that Paul could have a much greater impact on the race than last time.

The Republican primaries are sure to be about economic and size-of-government issues. The subject that hurt him last time, foreign policy, will probably take a backseat. Paul will not lack for resources, thanks to his legion of online donors. Reagan, the Republican hero, once endorsed him. And the party’s energy right now is at the grass roots, which also bodes well for him. If his economic message connects in Iowa and New Hampshire—well, who can say?

 I just don't buy the idea that the Tea Party isn't Christianism in faux-fiscal drag. Paul is the real thing – and he won't stop being the anti-Palin and anti-Romney on foreign policy. But I sure hope Josh is right. I know Paul is a bit of a crank, and some rather seedy associates in the past, but he has conviction and integrity, which must count for something, no?

“Lifestyle Choice”

Those are the words Obama aide Valerie Jarrett uses to describe one of the recent gay suicide victims. "Lifestyle choice." Yes, the Obamaites mean well, even if they've done so little. But they really are completely clueless, utterly tone-deaf, and completely out to lunch on gay issues, aren't they? Lifestyle choice? A 15 year old boy is gay, and has a sexual orientation, not a "lifestyle choice," for Pete's sake. What's next: sexual preference?

A Child Psychiatrist’s Fears, Ctd

A reader writes:

One reason alcohol is so much harder to come by for teenagers – despite its greater public availability in supermarkets and convenience stores – is its sheer size.  While you can stuff enough pot in your pocket to get a roomful of teenagers stoned, this simply isn't true with alcohol (especially beer).  What this means is that the high school dealer is unlikely to go away if pot is legalized, and that with all the fancy new varieties increasingly available as a result of legalization, he may well be dealing in much more powerful stuff than I could ever hope to get my hands on when I was in high school.

The child psychiatrist writes:

I should say that the responders are probably right; legalization won't necessarily lead to more teenagers having access to pot, and may very well mean that fewer use it. It was hyperbole to write that. Here's a link to a nice little summary on the (largely unknown but trending positive) effects of decriminalization that some hard-working legislative aide in Connecticut put together.

When Common Sense Fails

Alex Tabbarok targets systemic economic biases:

Bill Goffe recently (2009) surveyed one of his macro principles classes and found … that the median student believes that 35% of workers earn the minimum wage and a substantial fraction think that a majority of workers earn the minimum wage (Actual rate in 2007: 2.3% of hourly-paid workers and a smaller share of all workers earn the minimum wage, rates are probably somewhat higher today since the min. wage has risen and wages have not).

When asked about profits as a percentage of sales the median student guessed 30% (actual rate, closer to 4%).

When asked about the inflation rate over the last year (survey was in 2009) the median student guessed 11%.  Actual rate: much closer to 0%.  Note, how important such misconceptions could be to policy.

When asked by how much has income per person in the United States changed since 1950 (after adjusting for inflation) the median student said an increase of 25%.  Actual rate an increase of about 248%, thus the median student was off by a factor of 10.

 

The Dish At Ten: Matt Yglesias

Yglesias's contribution:

I know this has a bit of an air of “village” circle jerk to it, but I think [Andrew's] very un-village integrity is underscored by the fact that literally the first time I met him was over lunch when he was recruiting me to join the Atlantic. Part of the essence of village dysfunction is that it’s extremely unusual to get assistance in moving up the professional ladder from someone who you’re not tied into through some kind of crony network and the world would be a better place if more people had his kind of approach to such matters.

The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin XCVI: Giving Birth Two Weeks After Announcing Her Pregnancy

Well, we thought we had it straight, however bizarre. But Palin will not let the Trig story alone and is now bragging about one of its stranger details:

"I didn't tell anybody for a long time. In fact, I think I probably had the world record. I went seven months without telling anybody I was pregnant, except for Todd, our doctor and a nurse. And matter of fact to this day if I didn't tell anybody … up there in Alaska, it's so cold you just put on more layers, more clothes, and here I am chunking out and my staff is like "Governor, are you really that cold? Do you really want another coat?" "Yes it's chilly in here." But to this day, because my son Trig was born prematurely at seven and a half months and I didn't tell anyone I was pregnant for seven months, to this day, a lot of the haters, a lot of the bloggers out here, still say "'That couldn't have been her kid, because she was only pregnant for two weeks!' And I say, don't make me show you the stretch marks to prove it!"

Yes, please, don't show us. Just a medical record will do. And, by the way, the first person to make this kind of joke was not a "hater" but Palin herself in the New York Times:

At her baby shower, Ms. Palin joked about her months of secrecy, Ms. Lane said. “About the seventh month I thought I’d better let people know,” Ms. Palin said.

“So it was really great,” she continued. “I was only pregnant a month.”

Hence the new odd lie. She now says above that she announced she was pregnant at seven months and gave birth at seven and a half. But that is verifiably untrue in the public record. Palin told the world she was pregnant – to universal disbelief – on March 6, 2008. Trig Palin was born on April 18, 2008. That's six weeks, not two. The story has changed before as well. She gave birth in Wasilla, but recently said it was in Anchorage. You'll also notice that she says she hid her pregnancy under coats and clothes and layers even indoors, blaming the cold. In her original telling of the story, she said she thought her staff had already suspected the truth because they could see her clothes getting tighter and tighter. From the Anchorage Daily News at the time:

"I thought it was becoming obvious," Palin said. "You know, clothes getting snugger and snugger."

Now all of this could be explained – as with everything else – by Palin's generally cavalier attitude toward reality. In fact, that's the likeliest explanation. Every time she tells the story, it gets embellished a little, or changed by bad memory, or just because it has become a schtick. But would it be beyond a reporter to ask her to explain the increasing discrepancies in a story that she keeps telling in stump speeches across the country? And could I really go an anniversary week without a Trig relapse?