A little smug but really clever way to get your competitors to advertize for you:
Update from a reader:
DHL actually had nothing to do with that advert that you embedded – the video was a result of an internal creative competition held by German advertising agency Jung von Matt. There is an original German version, though the English version is the one that has gone viral. DHL is thrilled with the free publicity, and the message is very much in line with what the company believes about itself, but DHL was as surprised as anyone to see these videos when they were first uploaded on YouTube.
Helen Thomson assesses research suggesting that cannabis was the only possible cause of death in a handful of cases:
Benno Hartung of University Hospital Düsseldorf in Germany and his colleagues conducted post-mortems on 15 people whose deaths were linked to cannabis use. To rule out other factors that might have contributed to death, such as alcohol use or liver disease, they performed numerous tests, including an autopsy, a toxicology exam, genetic tests and histological analysis of all organs. “It’s a diagnosis of exclusion so you have to rule out all other possibilities,” says Hartung.
Two of the deaths could not be attributed to anything but cannabis intoxication. Both were men who died of cardiac arrhythmia – when the heart beats too quickly or slowly. The team surmises that this was triggered by smoking cannabis. Both men had enough THC – an active chemical in cannabis – in their blood to suggest they had taken cannabis within hours of death. Neither had a history of cardiovascular problems or channelopathies – diseases that increase the risk of heart problems by affecting ion channels. “We did every test we could,” says Hartung.
But zoom out for a second. We’re talking two alleged deaths out of how many millions and millions of joints that have been passed around? Late last month, David Nutt, a former chief drug advisor to the UK, voiced skepticism about one pathologist’s ruling that cannabis was the cause of death for Gemma Moss:
I cannot begin to understand the pathologist’s certainty that cannabis killed Gemma Moss, but neither do I wish to contradict him outright. Taking any amount of cannabis, like all drugs, like so many activities, puts some stresses on the body. Cannabis usually makes the heart work a little harder and subtly affects its rate and rhythm. Any minor stress on the body can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, the butterfly’s wingbeat that triggers the storm. Ms Moss had suffered with depression, which itself increases the risk of sudden cardiac death. It is quite plausible that the additional small stress caused by that cannabis joint triggered a one-in-a-million cardiac event, just as has been more frequently recorded from sport, sex, saunas and even straining on the toilet.
Exactly. The need to find some kind of terrible fate for the responsible pursuit of pleasure has been a Puritan fixture for aeons. In this particular case, they’ve come up completely empty.
Glenn Kessler looked at the facts behind the latest Americans For Prosperity anti-Obamacare ad (above), which tells the story of Obamacare “victim” Julie Boonstra:
The claim that the costs are now “unaffordable” appeared odd because, under Obamacare, there is an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 for an individual plan, after which the insurance plan pays 100 percent of covered benefits. The Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in Michigan that appear to match Boonstra’s plan, as described in local news reports, all have that limit.
Meanwhile, Boonstra told the Detroit News that her monthly premiums were cut in half, from $1,100 a month to $571. That’s a savings of $529 a month. Over the course of a year, the premium savings amounts to $6,348—just two dollars shy of the out-of-pocket maximum.
He gives the ad a preliminary rating of two Pinocchios. Kevin Drum asks the obvious question:
[I]f this is the best AFP can do, does that mean that no one is truly being harmed by Obamacare?
Hell, I’m a diehard defender of Obamacare, and even I concede that there ought to be at least hundreds of thousands of people who are truly worse off than they were with their old plans. But if that’s the case, why is it that every single hard luck story like this falls apart under the barest scrutiny? Why can’t AFP find someone whose premiums really have doubled and who really did lose her doctor and who really is having a hard time getting the care she used to get?
The broader GOP strategy is explicitly all about building a national narrative populated only with wrenching horror stories — people who have lost coverage and seen premiums soar, and, now, desperately ill people who have seen their lives disrupted — thanks to the heavy handed big government recklessness all these Dems stand for. In this narrative, people who have had their lives improved by the law and are now enjoying health coverage for the first time — and the security and peace of mind that accompany it — simply don’t exist, and indeed, Republicans have actively discouraged such stories from coming into being. Meanwhile, many of the horror stories are turning out to be hyped, bogus, or distorted. But they will have huge sums of money behind them. And scrutiny of them will be met with charges of insensitivity to the victims.
Nugent apologizes – although it took some prodding for him to do so directly to the president. Then this:
Nugent said he apologizes “for using the streetfighter terminology of ‘subhuman mongrel’ instead of just using more understandable language, such as ‘violator of his oath to the Constitution’.”
That is not “streetfighter terminology”. It’s the rhetoric of white supremacists. And it was extremely understandable language – directed straight at racist bigots. My full take here.
Even the Anti-Defamation League is freaked out by the anti-gay bill that passed the Arizona state House yesterday and is now headed to Governor Jan Brewer’s desk:
Under Arizona’s law, the ADL says, a business owner could refuse to hire someone of a different religion, an employer could refuse to pay men and women an equal wage, or a cab driver could refuse a fare to a house of worship different from their own, as long as they say doing so would “substantially burden” their excercise of their religious faith.
Bill Konigsberg says the bill opens up new forms of discrimination:
That which is already prohibited (not hiring a person because of their race, for instance), remains prohibited. That which is NOT prohibited (you can decide not to hire me, or you can fire me, because I am gay) remains that way. And now, because of this bill, a new form of discrimination will be allowed: exclusion.
As an openly gay person, this bill terrifies me. Imagine walking into a local restaurant and being told you had to leave because they don’t want to serve people “like you.” If Governor Jan Brewer signs this into law, that will become a real possibility every time I walk into a business. I’ve heard people say, “Well, just don’t walk into that business.” That’s a lot easier to say than to live.
Burroway points out that the law creates a special right:
It also adds a new element of discrimination into the law: atheists would have no grounds to claim protection for refusing to serve gay people in a restaurant or rent to Latinos or hire Jews. This law and others like it carve out a special privilege available to religious people only.
One Arizona business is already highlighting the absurdity of the bill, as seen in the photo above:
Rocco’s Little Chicago Pizzeria, a locally-owned pizza/pasta/wings restaurant in Tucson, Arizona, wants bigoted state lawmakers to know that if they’re going to legalize discrimination in the Grand Canyon State, they’d better be prepared to receive a taste of their own medicine. Shortly after last night’s vote, the restaurant took a stand for equality by posting this photo to their Facebook page. The caption: “Funny how just being decent is starting to seem radical these days.”
The Dish sounded off on this and other discrimination laws here, and explored the “religious liberty” argument here.
Sorry, Andrew, but you’re dead wrong. Why? The existence of the filibuster. There is nothing wrong with a Senator saying, “Hey, I don’t like raising the debt ceiling clean, but I realize that if I take Ted Cruz’s position, then the country is screwed because we’ll default. So I vote for cloture – avoiding the disaster – but vote no, because I really don’t like the clean bill.” That’s not corrupt or insincere; it is realism at its best. It is like the votes we’ve seen on Supreme Court Justices, where Senators vote for cloture because they think the filibuster is inappropriate in such a circumstance, but vote no on the nominee – again, it’s not corrupt or insincere. If you don’t like it, get rid of the filibuster and/or the debt ceiling, but don’t think it would have been more honorable for McConnell or McCain to vote like Cruz. It would have ended in disaster. They knew it, and avoided it. They deserve kudos.
I can see how my point could have been misread and apologize for the compression. Lots of readers objected. So let me try again.
In this case, yes, the premise for the disingenuousness among McCain, McConnell, et al. is the filibuster, whose abuse is, I agree, a problem. And in so far as McConnell wanted to avoid a filibuster, I agree with many readers that it was a good thing. But McConnell’s motive was not opposition to filibuster abuse. It was not wanting to vote for something he actually supported, for fear it could damage him for re-election. Of course, that kind of maneuvering is necessary now and again. It can be a regular tactic in tough political choices. But when it becomes completely reflexive – when so much of public policy is determined not by sincere positions on policy but almost entirely by cynical, self-interested positioning, it’s no surprise Americans loathe Washington so much.
That’s my point. And on that one, Cruz’s critique – if not Cruz himself – is not one to be dismissed. Or under-estimated.
The Caracas Chronicles calls itself “the place for opposition-leaning-but-not-insane analysis of the Venezuelan political scene since 2002.” The Dish linked to it several times yesterday. The site has a useful primer on the current protests.
Adam Martin summarizes that latest news from Ukraine:
Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovych signed a deal with protest leaders in Kiev on Friday, agreeing to early presidential elections, a coalition government, and a constitutional reduction of presidential powers. The deal, brokered by European Union and Russian mediators, restores the 2004 Ukranian constitution “with a rebalancing of powers towards a parliamentary republic,” Yanukovych said. The Ukranian parliament approved the reversion to the old constitution on Friday evening.
Radek Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, made the case for compromise to the opposition with characteristic bluntness:
Some good news for the former president, Yulia Tymoshenko:
#Tymoshenko can be free in about 10 days, with zero criminal record. welcome her to the presidential candidates’ club #Ukraine
Hayes Brown wonders if the protesters will abide by the agreement:
Despite the leadership’s willingness to sign onto the agreement, it is unclear whether the protesters in the Maidan will follow their lead and clear the square they have held for months on end.
According to the Kyiv Post, when opposition leader Oleh Tiahynbook addressed the crowd asking “Do we agree to this?”, referring to Yanukovych remaining in office, “the thousands of people assembled overwhelmingly shouted ‘no’ in response.” Kyiv Post’s CEO Jakub Parusinksi tweet out “If deal info true, #EU just exchanged minor diplomatic victory for the safety of #Ukrainian people.”
Demonstrators may continue to make demands, specifically Yanukovych’s immediate exit, feeling they come from a position of strength at the moment. On Friday a group of police officers from the city of Lviv, which has been a secondary hotbed of anti-Yanukovych sentiment, joined protesters in Kyiv, providing the opposition with a morale boost.
It would be good if the accord sticks, in order to prevent further fighting, but at this point it is far from clear that it will do so. It was only on Wednesday, after all, that a previous truce had been announced, and then just as promptly broken. It is clear, however, that at least for now Yanukovych has temporarily disappointed his backers in the Kremlin by refusing to declare “emergency powers” and call in the army to clear out demonstrators from central Kiev after his police force failed to get the job done.
A small glimmer of hope.
(Photo: Tributes are placed at the spot where an anti-Government protestor was shot by a sniper near to Independence square, on February 21, 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine. Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych is thought to have reached a deal with the opposition to end the crisis, after all-night talks in Ukraine mediated by EU foreign ministers. By Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
The Dish 