The Dish

Marissa Mayer's here, apparently embedded in a Walmart logo. #Crappies vs. #Crunchies pic.twitter.com/WVM0KHfWjz

— Ellen Huet (@ellenhuet) February 11, 2014

When the emcee of your own awards ceremony gives you a dressing down, it’s time to take notice. Here’s John Oliver at this week’s Crunchie Awards:

You already have almost all the money in the world. Why do you need awards as well after that? It is absolutely ridiculous. You’re no longer the underdogs; it’s very important that you realize that. You’re not the scrappy people that people get behind. It used to be that people who worked in the tech industry were emotional shut-ins who you could root for. Now those days are gone. You’re pissing off an entire city – not just with what you do at work, but how you get to work.

Oliver also suggested that a modern-day Wolf of Wall Street would be set on the West Coast, with “all the money, all the opulence, and about 10 percent of the sex.” And that was inside the party; outside, protesters hosted an alternative “Crappies” ceremony, with categories such as the “tax evader award.” Bill Wasik urges the industry to take the critics seriously:

Unlike any other industry, tech relies on not merely trust but faith that a leap into the unknown will be rewarded. That’s why the recent arrogance of Silicon Valley honchos has been not just poisonous but deluded. … The entire business models of Google and Facebook are built not on a physical product or even a service but on monetizing data that users freely supply. Were either company to lose the trust and optimism of its customers, it wouldn’t just be akin to ExxonMobil failing to sell oil or Dow Chemical to sell plastic; it would be like failing to drill oil, to make plastic.

When William Gibson envisioned cyberspace as a “consensual hallucination,” he was right. Unsettle the consensus about the social web and you don’t just risk slowing its growth or depopulating it slightly. You risk ending it, as mistrust of corporate motives festers into cynicism about the entire project.

Previous Dish on the escalating image problem of Silicon Valley here.

A reader writes:

Arthur Machen wrote, “A man may be infinitely and horribly wicked, and never suspect it.” Cheney illustrates that to a T.  A friend of mine work for him during the second administration. He felt that Cheney was the nicest, sweetest man he’d ever met. There’s an amazing dichotomy on display here. Your reference to Nietzsche could not be more apt, but this is a case where the appearance of self-possession masks a veritable black hole of self-deception.

I wonder if all evil isn’t like that. Arendt’s point was not that evil was banal as such, but that it could be committed by individuals who simply did not think much about it. They made no anguished decision; they were unaware of any moral constraints; they just did it, and never began to absorb what it meant. The most penetrating recent investigation into this is Errol Morris’s brilliant documentary about Don Rumsfeld. With Rumsfeld, as with Cheney, you have the same refusal even to conceive of immorality in government. It’s all semantics. The grin almost never wavers. You get the impression that this is a morally unserious person, or someone who cannot even begin to believe that there were consequences to his own actions for which he might bear some resp0nsibility.

So in the critical scene when Morris links Rumsfeld’s authorization of torture techniques to the exact same torture techniques used at Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld simply says that no report of any kind had ever reached such a conclusion. Nothing that happened at Abu Ghraib or anywhere in the American gulag of torture camps had anything to do with him at all. He submitted his resignation after Abu Ghraib came to light not because he was in any way responsible for it in fact, but merely because he was responsible for the war in general. There’s a glibness and absolute certainty to Rumsfeld’s answer.

But Morris has done his homework – unlike so many “journalists” who have interviewed Rumsfeld on this question over the years.

He recites a passage from exactly one of the reports that Rumsfeld said had exonerated him – and it plainly concludes that the torture tactics at Abu Ghraib had indeed “migrated” from Rumsfeld’s waiving of Geneva and authorization of torture at Gitmo. What does Rumsfeld say in response? Nothing. He smiles nervously. He seems to get the brink of facing up to his own responsibility for evil and then decides to go get a cup of coffee. He never confronts his past. He just shrugs it off. He has obviously never even considered the question of his own moral responsibility for anything.

Similarly, look at the video in the first post and note how stumped Cheney is when asked to name his biggest fault. He simply has never thought of such a thing. In fact, he seems to regard any self-reflection as an irritating thing only liberals engage in – not manly, decisive men like him. In both these men, you see a kind of moral autism. Evil is defined a priori as something that others do. It is simply inconceivable to Cheney and Rumsfeld that they could ever commit evil themselves. Even when confronted by direct evidence, they simply blink as if they cannot see.

I think such an attitude is terrifying. But integral to all the great acts of evil in human history.

In fact, January sign-ups exceeded expectations:

The latest enrollment data from the Obama administration show that 3.3 million people have signed up for private health insurance through federal and state insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act. This figure represents all enrollment from Oct. 1 through Feb. 1. It includes both people who have and have not paid their first month’s premium. Of those people, 1,146,100 selected their health insurance plans in January, meaning there was a 53 percent increase enrollment last month alone.

This makes January the first month that the Obama administration has beaten an enrollment target. Back in September, way before HealthCare.gov’s botched launch, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projected that 1,059,900 people would sign up for private health insurance in January. However, the Obama administration still falls short of projected, cumulative enrollment by 1 million people, largely due to the anemic sign-ups in October and November.

Benen sees the numbers as evidence that the system is stabilizing. Sprung worries that only those who qualify for subsidies seem to be signing up:

Fully 82% of the 3.3 million people who have selected a marketplace plan are eligible for subsidies. That would be 2.49 million.  Overall, 7.27 million people have been determined eligible to enroll in a marketplace plan.  Of those, 4.16 million, or 57%, are eligible for subsidies. 60% of them (2.49 out of 4.16) have pulled the trigger and selected a plan Of the 3.11 million who have completed applications and been found ineligible for subsidies, just 594,000 — again, 19% — have enrolled in plans.

The low signup rate thus far for the subsidy-ineligible is perhaps unsurprising. Unsubsidized insurance on the exchanges is expensive. In New Jersey, a single 27 year-old earning a bit over $32,000 will pay $249 per month for the cheapest silver plan; two 60 year-olds earning $63,000 will pay $1,346 per month.  Perhaps many of the unsubsidized will sign up near the deadline; perhaps a significant percentage have bought insurance off the exchanges.

Cohn looks at the big picture:

We don’t know how many of these people have paid premiums. We don’t know how the demographics compare to what insurers had expected. And we don’t know how many of these people had insurance previously. Those are some pretty big unknowns.

But on that last point, at least, we have one more, very small hint that the law is making real progress. It comes from Gallup, which regularly polls on the question of whether people have insurance. According to its latest round of polling, which includes 19,000 survey responses between January 2 and February 2, the proportion of Americans without health insurance has fallen to 16 percent—lower than it was in the first quarter of 2013 and lower than its been anytime since Obama first took office.

Sargent talks to Kaiser’s Larry Levitt about those Gallup numbers:

“It’s an early possible sign of success,” Levitt told me. “There’s been a lot of uncertainty about the affect the ACA is having on the number who are uninsured. Clearly people are signing up, and clearly Medicaid coverage is expanding. But many had their policies canceled. This is the first sign that the net of all that is still likely a decrease in the number of uninsured — it may be moving in the right direction.”

Still, Levitt added: ”I would emphasize that it’s noisy.”

Philip Klein points out the huge discrepancies in enrollment from state to state:

In 11 states including Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Maine and New Hampshire, signups are more than 100 percent of projected enrollments. On the other hand, in 13 states signups are tracking at less than 50 percent of original targets.

Though supporters of the health care law have tried to point fingers at Republican states for trying to sabotage enrollment efforts, the worst-performing states were among those that were most gung-ho about implementing the law, including Massachusetts, Oregon, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

If these numbers hold up, the could lead to some interesting decisions for insurers, who may try to back away from exchanges in states that haven’t proved viable, while increasing the number of carriers offered in other states.

Matthew Herper thinks the ACA is looking less and less repealable:

The point is that even with all the law’s problems, there may be a substantial number of people who come to depend on it before there is any political chance of repealing it — before the midterm elections. A more likely outcome than repeal, [Austin] Frakt believes, will be that Republicans, or the government as a whole, will eventually find a way to give more freedom to the states to change some of the parameters of the ACA, bringing states that have resisted marketing their own exchanges or enrolling patients in Medicaid into the fold. Says Frakt: “It may be a conservative means to a progressive ends.”

Even Obamacare critic Avik Roy admits there won’t be a “death spiral” at this rate:

In some quarters, there has been a kind of intellectual laziness, a belief that there’s no need for critics to come up with better reforms, because Obamacare will “collapse under its own weight,” relieving them of that responsibility.

Obamacare isn’t good for the country. But it’s not going to collapse.

Yesterday in Kentucky, US District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled that the state was constitutionally obligated to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, citing Windsor and other new laws and rulings that have struck down state bans in recent months:

Although the judge said he was bound by precedent in his judicial region (the federal Sixth Circuit) to apply only the easiest-to-meet constitutional standard — that is, “rational basis” review — he said that Kentucky’s refusal to give equal treatment to validly married same-sex Kentuckians could not satisfy even that low-level test.  He canvassed all of the arguments made for treating same-sex married couples differently, and found none of them to have merit.

A noteworthy part of Judge Heyburn’s opinion was a studied effort to explain to those who would be offended by his ruling, especially on the basis of their religious or cultural beliefs, why he was led to his decision as a constitutional matter.  That section of the ruling read very much like a basic civics lesson about the way that the Constitution’s protection of individual rights may sometimes override traditional moral and political preferences, and even trump the expressed wishes of a political majority.

Mark Joseph Stern points out that Antonin Scalia’s premonitions about Windsor were absolutely right:

Now, for the second time in two months, a federal judge has taken Scalia at his word and struck down state-level anti-gay laws. This time, the unlikely state is Kentucky, and the judge is John G. Heyburn, a George H.W. Bush appointee recommended by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell. Heyburn’s opinion mostly follows the emerging pattern of these kinds of rulings: He wavers on the scrutiny question, finds that the law was driven by anti-gay animus, and strikes it on Equal Protection grounds. The ruling itself is narrow; Heyburn was only asked to invalidate the portion of Kentucky’s law that bans recognition of out-of-state gay marriages. But the judge added that should the entire ban be challenged, “there is no doubt that Windsor and this court’s analysis” would likely hold it unconstitutional.

The path to a final resolution of this seems shorter by the day. That’s not because of judicial tyranny, but because of the logic of seeing gay citizens as equal under the law.

(Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)

Last week, Pete Wehner warned that “the challenges facing the Republican Party, at least at the presidential level, are significant and fairly fundamental.” Among the facts he marshals to make that argument:

In 2016, if there is not a dramatic reduction in African-American turnout, a Republican presidential candidate will need to get 60 percent of the white vote, plus a record-high share among each portion of the non-white vote (African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and others) to win a bare 50.1 percent of the vote.

In response, Trende pooh-poohs the importance of Hispanic voters:

If the GOP reduces the Democrats’ share of the Hispanic vote to 67 percent, Florida goes Republican. At 56 percent, New Mexico flips. Nevada and Colorado flip at 51 percent and 50 percent, respectively. Incidentally, Mitt Romney is still losing the Electoral College, 283 to 255. It isn’t until the Republicans win 63 percent of the Hispanic vote that Pennsylvania finally flips, handing Romney the presidency.

There are very good reasons to pursue the Hispanic vote from both moral and policy perspectives, and of course every vote does help. But from a cold electoral calculus, the Democrats’ gains among Hispanics at this point yield very little fruit.

Chait counters Trende by focusing on Florida:

A reader writes:

I think you and Dreher are missing something here. You are assuming that the Moral Mondays people are just now deciding to take a Christian message into politics, but that’s not what is happening. Their religion has always been in their politics. These liberal Christians are just adjusting their language for a Christian audience.

I grew up in Lynchburg, Virginia as a Christian, though I was not a member of Jerry Falwell’s church. For years I tried to argue with people you would call Christianists about one issue or another using secular sources: scientific studies, statistical analyses, the Constitution, whatever. What I did not realize was that only source that matters to Christianists is the Bible. Their obsession with the Bible (or at least approved translations of the Bible) borders on idolatry.

Eventually I figured out that if I wanted to make a point, I needed to be working from the same source material.

For example, if I wanted to convince Christianists that women were equal to men, I had to point to Deborah, Phoebe, and Junia, not to Thatcher and Palin (though mentioning those two doesn’t hurt). The best way to convince a Christianist that climate change is a problem is to remind her that God gave humanity dominion over Earth and to frame her responsibility for the environment as a Christian duty given to her by God.

You and Dreher assume that liberal Christians have not already brought religion into politics. You are wrong. Liberal Christians have always brought their religious beliefs into politics. Recently though, they have just been making their arguments for their beliefs in secular language, which is important for court battles, but it is not the language Christianists speak. If liberal Christians only use secular terms to make an argument, there is a sizable portion of the population that they will never reach because we will be dismissed out of hand.

Religion is, and always has been, a part of politics for both sides. Remember when Obama referenced being our brother’s keeper in his 2004 convention speech? What about abolition? That was all about what the Bible said, and both sides used the Bible as a source of support for their arguments. These liberal Christians are just using different source material to back up their assertions in order to reach a different audience. If your definition of Christianist is now so broad as to include anyone who cites the Bible as a source in making a political argument, we are, and always have been, a majority Christianist nation.

Yes, we have been. I don’t deny that. And in an entirely Christian context, debating whether this or that verse of the Bible requires this or that response is something no one would object to. But Moral Mondays do not exist in a purely Christian context; they exist in a secular context. And they do so because discussion about policy and politics in America in 2014 takes place within a multi-faith and multi-cultural country. And when you start making political arguments from explicitly religious fiats, you are leaving the entire premise of secular politics behind. You treat non-Christian citizens as if they do not exist. You attempt to persuade them by citing verses of a Holy Book they may well regard as a fairy tale. You are, in fact, legitimizing the very basis for the Christianist right – and their conflation of religion and politics.

If that’s your intent, you are both undermining your ability to make your case to non-Christians or to Christians who do not share the premises of Christianism; and you are fighting on a battlefield where fanatics and extremists will almost always win. The battle between Christianist right and Christianist left is not, after all, evenly matched. The Christianist right would crush their opponents in any fight you can name.

My view remains that all public policy and political arguments should remain in secular terms, appealing to citizens qua citizens as opposed to members of any religious grouping. Yes, of course those of us who are Christians will reach our varied political positions after filtering them through the prism of our faith. But we have a moral duty to translate those positions into wholly secular public arguments. Or risk turning our democracy into a sectarian screaming match. I’d leave that to the Middle East.

More from readers here.