Category: The Dish

Correction Of The Day

This morning I wrote:

First off, it still seems to me that the fury over banned contraception is de trop. Of the twenty forms of contraception mandated as covered in the ACA, Hobby Lobby agreed to fund all but four of them, the ones that could, in their view, be seen as abortifacients.

About an hour later, this item appeared on the AP:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

How one reader sees it:

To quote the Dude, “New shit has come to light”:

Also, make sure you read Jeffrey Toobin on the larger, long-term strategy at play here:

The Supreme Court concluded its term [yesterday] with a pair of decisions widely described as “narrow”—that is, of limited application except to the parties in the lawsuits. Don’t believe it. In fact, the Court’s decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn conform to an established pattern for the Roberts Court. It’s generally a two-step process: in confronting a politically charged issue, the court first decides a case in a “narrow” way, but then uses that decision as a precedent to move in a more dramatic, conservative direction in a subsequent case.

Is Uber Only For The Able-Bodied?

Ted Trautman worries that cutting-edge taxis like Uber and Lyft will leave the handicapped behind:

[T]hough wheelchair-accessible vehicles are rare both in the traditional taxi system and through rideshare services, traditional taxi companies are required in many cities to make some of their vehicles wheelchair-accessible. Companies like Uber and Lyft have no such obligation. … These startups, which are mostly unregulated, are recruiting drivers aggressively and luring experienced cabbies who hope to earn more working for Uber or Lyft than they do in a yellow taxi. As the few taxi drivers with wheelchair-accessible vehicles abandon the medallion-based taxi system (which, as I’ve mentioned, in many cities has a mandate to field a certain number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles) to join the less-regulated startup world using their own, non-accessible vehicles, it will become increasingly difficult to find the drivers to keep accessible cabs on the road. In San Francisco, a quarter of the city’s 100 wheelchair-accessible taxis already sit idle for lack of drivers.

Recent Dish on Uber here.

An Archbishop Heightens The Contradictions

Archbishop Nienstedt was Pope Benedict XVI’s kind of cleric. When he was Bishop of New Ulm,

he condemned some of the theological views of the man who had held the post before him for 25 years, Bishop Raymond Lucker, a noted progressive clergyman who died in 2001. Denouncing his predecessor’s views was an “extraordinary step,” the National Catholic Reporter noted in an article on the incident. As bishop in New Ulm, Nienstedt prohibited cohabitating couples from being married in Catholic churches. He barred female pastoral administrators from leading prayers at a semiannual leadership event. He once disciplined a priest for holding joint ecumenical services with a Lutheran congregation after the Catholic church had been destroyed by a tornado.

He also had a particular beef with homosexuals, of course. He favored barring them from speaking at Catholic institutions, and opposed even the sentiments of “Always Our Children”, a pastoral attempt to make sure that gay family members are cared for in the church. And he made no bones about it, writing in 2007:

Those who actively encourage or promote homosexual acts or such activity within a homosexual lifestyle formally cooperate in a grave evil and, if they do so knowingly and willingly, are guilty of mortal sin. They have broken communion with the church and are prohibited from receiving Holy Communion until they have had a conversion of heart, expressed sorrow for their action and received sacramental absolution from a priest.

He cautioned Catholics not to watch Brokeback Mountain:

The story is about two lonely cowboys herding sheep up on a mountain range. One night after a drinking binge, one man makes a pass at the other and within seconds the latter mounts the former in an act of wanton anal sex. This sets off a lustful passion in both men that “grabs hold of them” and which they find impossible to control. Rather than a sad symphony to a beautiful love that our homophobic society will not allow to show itself, this is a human tragedy in which their lust leads to the neglect of their work (i.e. sheep ravaged by wolves during the pair’s frolicking), infidelity against their wives (i.e. divorce, anger and grief) and the psychological harm inflicted on their children (i.e. sadness, alienation and grief).

And became quite an activist:

Before the 2010 midterm elections, Nienstedt turned his attention to the burgeoning gay-marriage movement. He recorded an introduction on a DVD opposing gay marriage, which was sent to four hundred thousand Minnesota Catholics. The same year a Catholic mother wrote to him pleading for acceptance for her gay son. He recommended she consult the Catechism. “Your eternal salvation may well depend upon a conversation of heart on this topic,” he replied. And in 2012, Nienstedt led a coalition of religious leaders pushing for an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Reportedly, Nienstedt committed $650,000 to those efforts.

Speaking of his vocation, Archbishop Nienstedt once declared: “When I was yet a boy, I fell in love with a beautiful woman who was the bride of Christ.”

So I guess you kinda know what’s coming next.

Commonweal has a good round-up of the story. The gist from Grant Gallicho:

Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis is being investigated for “multiple allegations” of inappropriate sexual conduct with seminarians, priests, and other men, according to the archbishop’s former top canon lawyer, Jennifer Haselberger. The investigation is being conducted by a law firm hired by the archdiocese. Nienstedt denies the allegations…

“Based on my interview with Greene Espel—as well as conversations with other interviewees—I believe that the investigators have received about ten sworn statements alleging sexual impropriety on the part of the archbishop dating from his time as a priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit, as Bishop of New Ulm, and while coadjutor and archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis,” Jennifer Haselberger, [the archbishop’s top canon lawyer who resigned in protest in 2013] told me. What’s more, “he also stands accused of retaliating against those who refused his advances or otherwise questioned his conduct.” …

“I have never engaged in sexual misconduct and certainly have not made any sexual advances toward anyone,” Nienstedt told me. “The allegations are a decade old or more, prior to my service as archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis,” he continued, emphasizing that “none of the allegations involve minors or illegal or criminal behavior.”

Another case of a truly fucked up gay man who over-compensated by becoming a priest and insisting on Catholic doctrine to the letter?

Or another persecuted theo-conservative who is innocent on all counts?

And the beat goes on …

History Repeats Itself, Again

BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1

Ian Worthington looks back to Alexander the Great’s attempts to expands his empire into Persia and Central Asia, interpreting it as a cautionary tale for policy makers today. Then as now, initial military victories weren’t the end of the story:

When the last Great King of Persia, Darius III, was murdered, Alexander faced a dilemma: how to rule? There had never been a Macedonian king who was also ruler of Persia before. Alexander had to learn what to do on his feet, without a rulebook or foreign policy experts.

He couldn’t proclaim himself Great King as that would create stiff opposition from his men, who wanted only a traditional Macedonian warrior king. So he opted for a new title, King of Asia, and even a new style of dress, a combination of Macedonian and Persian clothing. In doing so he pleased no one — his men thought he had gone too far and the Persians not enough. Alexander also didn’t grasp — or didn’t bother about — the personal connection between the Zoroastrian God of Light, Ahura Mazda, and the Great Kings, whose right to rule was anchored in that connection. The religious significance of the great Persian palace centers were disregarded by the westerners, who saw them only as seats of power and home to vast treasuries. …

It is little wonder that Alexander was always seen as the invader, that his attempts to integrate his various subject peoples into his army and administration failed, and that “conquered” areas such as India and Afghanistan revolted as soon as he left so they could go back to how things used to be. Unwinnable wars indeed, then and now.

(Image: Detail of the Alexander Mosaic, representing Alexander the Great on his horse, via Wikimedia Commons)

Face Of The Day

Three Murdered Teenagers Buried In Israel

People attend the funeral ceremony held on July 1, 2014 for the three Israeli teenagers found dead on Monday in Modiin, Israel. The bodies of Eyal Yifrah, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16, were found north of the Palestinian town Halhul, near Hebron. The teenagers were reported missing since June 12. By Ilia Yefimovich/Getty Images.

Objectify Away! Ctd

A female reader quotes a previous male one:

The problem is that a guy who is not considered physically attractive is basically expected to “suck it up” and deal with it. We’re told to go to the gym, as if all the blame rests on the individual. No one would dare suggest such a thing about feminine beauty.

He’s got to be kidding, right? Maybe you could link to the thread sparked by the Louie episode with the actress doing the almost-monologue about being fat. I remember at least one reader comment about her having a choice in the matter and saw many more on other sites where I saw that clip.

Also, I’ve never written in about the discussions of short men. I’m 5’7 and have always been attracted to men about my height or shorter. I once asked out a guy who was 5’2. And I’ve many a time argued with girlfriends over their lack of interest in guys purely because of their height (or lack thereof), though I’ve never once changed anybody’s mind.

So I would be sympathetic … except. It’s not like there’s a huge number of guys willing to date a woman taller than them. Look through any dating site and the vast majority of profiles have a height cutoff for potential partners of their height or shorter. (Don’t get me started on their age cutoffs …)

A male reader has a very different take:

The elephant in the room here is another Dish-themed topic: male steroid use. All the evidence shows male objectification leads to youth steroid use, especially among gay teens, a development that ought to surprise no one at Jezebel who have cover the same effect on young girls. To me, steroids show why the ogling double-standard is the most egregious hypocrisy of feminism.

It usually results in stunningly half-baked logic, such as one writer who quite literally claims that “dangerous health risks and blatant exploitation” of steroid culture are real but ultimately don’t resonate because, when it comes to televised abs: “I LOVE IT. I LOVE IT SO MUCH.” Well, some of those players are gay. Do those writers condone the pressure on gay (or straight) teens to ‘roid up because of the images they might see on Jezebel?

The most basic test of an ideology is if it’s generalizable. When a child has body issues because of our culture, that’s unacceptable – whether that child is a girl or a boy, gay or straight. That’s the feminism I can rally behind. But anything short of this generalizable standard is just factional politics, another de facto interest group extracting cultural rents for their narrow benefit – “fairness” be damned.

Another woman:

I just watched the Orphan Black clip and yep! That’s the way we do it. So men be aware: we look. We just aren’t pigs about it.

Another might disagree:

I was stuck in the doctor’s office yesterday where the TV was tuned to The Talk. The guest was True Blood‘s Joe Manganiello. The hosts had trouble controlling the rowdy, entirely-female audience, which at one point chanted “take it off!” (CBS’s website is an ad-filled purgatory, but here’s the video.)

Yes, sex is Manganiello’s stock in trade, but it was interesting to think about the criticism a show would receive if the genders were reversed – an all-male talk show audience howling for a female guest to get naked would be creepy and vaguely threatening, and rightly held up as just another example of how our culture objectifies women. But because the “object” here was a big strapping man, it was treated as cute.

Viva La Resistance

NSFW, because George Carlin:

The “hygiene hypothesis” posits that “for many children in the wealthy world, a lack of exposure to bacteria, viruses, and allergens prevents the normal development of the immune system, ultimately increasing the chance of disorders within this system down the road”:

“A child’s immune system needs education, just like any other growing organ in the human body,” says Erika von Mutius, a pediatric allergist at the University of Munich and one of the first doctors to research the idea. “The hygiene hypothesis suggests that early life exposure to microbes helps in the education of an infant’s developing immune system.” Without this education, your immune system may be more prone to attacking the wrong target — in the case of autoimmune diseases, yourself.

It’s still a matter of active debate among scientists, but evidence for the idea has been slowly accumulating over time, both in humans and animal subjects. Most recently, a new study published earlier this month found that babies who grow up in houses with higher levels of certain bacteria — carried on cockroach, mouse, and cat dander — are less likely to develop wheezing and asthma by the age of three.

Will Washington Weed Get Whacked?

The state’s licensed cannabis stores are set to open next week, but “they won’t have much to sell,” Sullum says:

A slow state licensing process for marijuana producers, combined with the difficulty of obtaining local approval for grow operations, will result in shortages that are apt to be more severe than those seen in Colorado after recreational sales began there in January. The result could be prices almost twice as high as those charged by medical marijuana dispensaries and black-market dealers. … [P]ot store customers will face taxes that are projected to make retail prices about 60 percent higher than they would otherwise be. Add to those factors the costs of establishing businesses that comply with state and local regulations, and the upshot, as I explain in my recent Reason cover story about legalization in Washington, is that prices for legal pot will be substantially higher than current black-market prices.

Hobby Lobby: Your Thoughts, Ctd

A reader quotes me:

I hope at least some liberals grasp that being required to finance something you believe to be murder is a legitimate area of conscientious objection.

Alito’s opinion said that the alternative was to let the government pay for this coverage. What’s to stop Hobby Lobby from embracing your argument and saying “Hey wait a minute! What’s the difference between us paying for this directly through the health insurance that we had been forced to buy, and now having to pay for it indirectly through taxes?” Yes, Alito said that was an exception, but how soon will it be before that is overturned? We’re talking nuclear minefield!

No we’re not. The argument against Hobby Lobby would then be quite simple: you can no more object to your taxpayers’ money going to health insurance subsidies than pacifists can with their tax dollars going to the Pentagon (a point Alito explicitly made on page 47). And look: until the ACA, there was no government subsidy for contraception. Now there is – with a few religious exemptions. It’s had to see how the change over the last few years isn’t a big victory for liberals, with a small silver lining for religious conservatives. So take a deep breath and get some perspective. Another reader also finds my argument “specious”:

At what point does religious belief trump scientific fact and understanding?  The science, with about the same level of agreement as on climate change, says that none of these forms of contraception cause fertilized eggs to fail to implant or prevents implantation.  The belief that these types of contraception are also abortifacients is based on old hypotheses that have pretty much been disproved.  Those hypotheses though lit a fire under the pro-life movement – a movement not known for really following, understanding or believing in science – and they have stuck with it. These are real women’s lives, real women’s healthcare and bodies we are talking about, being put aside over a debunked hypothesis that has been taken as gospel.

That’s a perfectly valid point, since much of the abortifacient debate centers on the precise definition of pregnancy:

The plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby define conception as the point when the sperm and egg come together to make a zygote, which is why they object to these birth control methods—they can interfere after an egg has already been fertilized. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on the other hand, defines conception as the moment when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. The Supreme Court noted in its decision that federal regulations also define conception this way—“pregnancy encompasses the period of time from implantation to delivery,” one reads.

But not everyone agrees on this definition, and the court did not weigh in on the timing of conception or what kinds of birth control may or may not be abortifacients. “It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable,” the decision reads.

If the federal regulations have the same definition, then we’re in murky territory. For my own part, I don’t think IUDs are abortifacients. In fact, the Dish has closely examined in the past whether Plan B could cause what some consider to be abortion: “Indeed, an overwhelming number of studies in the past decade back up the reader’s point that Plan B does not prevent implantation.” Aaron Caroll addresses similar concerns over the IUD:

Research does not support the idea that they prevent fertilized eggs to implant.

The journal Fertility and Sterility published a study in 1985 that followed three groups of women for 15 months. One group had an IUD, one group had their tubes tied, and one group was trying to get pregnant. They then measured hormone levels to see if fertilization occurred. It did so only in the group trying to get pregnant.

Another study found that a telltale sign of fertilization — a surge of the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin — occurred in only 1 percent of 100 cycles in women using IUDs. This would be consistent with the failure rate of IUDs in general. In other words, IUDs do not appear to work by aborting a fertilized egg.

So there is an extremely small area of gray. A reader adds:

The reason the FDA cannot say with 100% certainty that the drugs do not prevent implantation is there is no means of conducting an experiment to prove it. But logic says it is unlikely. My IUD would have to fail to prevent ovulation, at the same time it fails to prevent fertilization, within a window where there was sperm available. That’s statistically almost impossible. Also consider that fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant all the time, and many of those that do are incapable of cell replication and get, um, flushed out with the menstrual cycle.

Back to readers on the question of conscientious objection:

If you as a corporation want the tax break for providing insurance, provide the insurance. You don’t get to pick and choose what is in the package. If you as a corporation sincerely believe you can’t in conscious participate in providing insurance that includes medicine you consider to be morally wrong, then don’t. Don’t take the tax break for providing insurance. Pay the fine. Let your employees go onto the individual market and buy their own.

Sounds like a good idea in principle. But in practice, junking the whole thing because of an objection to four out of 20 contraception methods? Seems a little drastic to me. Another reader asks a “sincere question, not snark”:

If an employee of Hobby Lobby buys an IUD out of pocket or through a separate insurance policy she’s paid for herself, hasn’t Hobby Lobby actually paid for that anyway, since they’re the ones providing her with the money through her salary? Health insurance is just another form of compensation, so why can they put stipulations on that but not on her salary? No one’s suggesting that a company can make a potential employee sign a contract that stipulates they can’t use any part of their salary to fund what they consider abortion, but why isn’t that a logical conclusion of this decision?

Another notes:

I grant that this is a legitimate area of conscientious objection, but when Hobby Lobby’s 401(K) funds have invested in companies manufacturing some of these same devices, it seems more about exerting power than moral objections.  (Can you say hypocrisy?) Or perhaps it’s about sticking it to Obama. Here’s an article in Forbes – which isn’t a liberal source – discussing this issue.

I agree that there appears to be a whiff of political posturing here as well.