Tag: Premium

The Case For War: Tweet Reax

Threat Inflation And The Case For War

Fred Cole tries to apply the Powell Doctrine to the ISIS war, asking whether defending Iraq from the jihadist group is a vital American national security interest:

If we were talking about the fall of Iraq, as ISIS capturing Iraq’s land and resources, then I could see how that could threaten the vital interests of the United States, in time. But, frankly, a few months ago ISIS was an army of technicals, guys in pickups with guns on the back. Now they’ve captured some better gear, they’ve captured some money, but they’re a long way off from being able to threaten the United States. ISIS is far more likely to threaten the vital interests of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey than the United States. … They’re willing to massacre civilians. They’re willing to massacre prisoners. They’re willing to behead journalists. But hyperventilated claims of ISIS as an existential threat to the United States are nonsense. ISIS is unlikely to touch us here. They can’t capture Baghdad. They’re certainly not an existential threat to the United States.

Doug Mataconis draws the same conclusion:

Notwithstanding the hyperbole of the media, it seems rather apparent that IS is not an immediate threat to the United States despite the threats that they have made to bring the battle to America’s shores.

In no small part, this is because it seems clear that, leaving aside their military success against an Iraqi Army that doesn’t seem to want to fight and “moderate” Syrian rebels that are clearly weaker than IS forces, they don’t have the capability to strike in the same way that al Qaeda did (and even in  that regard it’s worth noting that that 9/11 attacks took several years of planning.) Additionally, though, it seems clear that IS’s ambitions lie elsewhere at the moment. If anyone should be concerned about the immediate threat from IS, it should be nations like Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, which bears at least some responsibility for all of this given their role in providing arms to the Syrian rebels regardless of whether they were “moderates” or jihadists. Given that, it seems fairly clear that describing IS as an immediate and grave threat as much of the current rhetoric has done is extremely hyperbolic to say that least.

But of course, the war cheerleaders are describing it just so. Nick Gillespie calls them out:

As with al Qaeda back in the day, our fears of ISIS suffer from massive threat inflation at every possible level. At the start of the summer, the number of ISIS fighters in Iraq was somewhere in the neighborhood of 7,000 to 10,000; those numbers have doubtless grown but they still face off against more than a quarter of a million Iraqi troops and somewhere between 80,000 and 240,000 peshmerga soldiers. Even the much-maligned Free Syrian Army numbers 70,000 to 90,000. And, it’s worth pointing out, ISIS is facing intense opposition (and some cooperation) from other jihadist groups, including and especially al Qaeda. If the Iraqi armed forces are in fact incapable of fighting successfully against ISIS after years of training and resources given them by the United States, there is in fact little we will be able to do to change things in Iraq[.]

Even among those who don’t overstate ISIS’s capabilities, however, some still favor going to war in order to preempt a future threat:

[I]n a thorough presentation on Sept. 3 at the Brookings Institution, outgoing director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, presented a less scary picture. ISIS has no cells in the U.S., Olsen said, “full stop.” Further, Olsen said, “we have no credible information” that the group “is planning to attack the U.S.” ISIS, Olsen said “is not al Qaeda pre-9/11.” …

[But] the potential threat of ISIS targeting the U.S. in the future is real, administration officials say. More conservative observers like Olsen agree that it is better to go on the offensive against ISIS now than to risk them becoming a bigger threat to Americans later. “ISIL poses a multi-faceted threat to the United States,” Olsen said at Brookings, and it “views the U.S. as a strategic enemy.” He says ISIS, “has the potential to use its safe haven to plan and coordinate attacks in Europe and the U.S.” Foreign fighters joining ISIS, “are likely to gain experience and training and eventually to return to their home countries battle-hardened and further radicalized,” Olsen says.

Weigel takes it all in and parts with this wry observation:

Does anybody remember the last time we were told that Iraq had produced an “imminent threat” to American lives? Better to just stain the sheets and hit the panic button, I guess. The long Democratic dream, from Kerry to Obama, of reducing terrorism from an existential threat to a managable nuisance, is just not an election-winner.

Two Critical Passages

Here are two passages from a released preview of the president’s imminent speech (stay tuned for live coverage):

So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.

“Ultimately destroy.” Softened but still clearly putting the US on the hook if ISIS endures, as it surely will. And notice the thin reed of a “new Iraqi government” – with still critical posts to be filled, no real unity among the various sects and factions, and an army that dissolves into sectarianism or total capitulation when ISIS attacks. Then this:

I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.

“Partner forces” on the ground? I sure hope he names them – and how many troops they will bring to bear. That’s a pretty important factor right there, isn’t it?

Here’s one thing the American people also need to understand. Anything we do over there will win us no friends and make us infinitely more enemies than we now have. Let’s have no illusions about that. We cannot “win” in Iraq; we cannot destroy sectarian or Salafist militias from the air; we can only lose to a greater or lesser extent. Before we jump into any new war, we should ask: Are we prepared to lose indefinitely – and keep creating as many terrorists as we kill? Are we really ready for a forever war across the world? Because we’re just re-starting one in earnest – in the vortex of what’s left of Iraq and Syria.

The Trail Of Tear Gas

Yiannis Baboulias looks at the market for tear gas:

‘Non-lethal technologies’ are in demand, and governments are spoilt for choice. If you have been gassed in Egypt, Palestine or America, it was most likely with Combined Systems products made in the US. The Bahrainis use French tear gas. The Greek police is supplied by five different companies from all over the world; the canisters I have seen in use were made by Condor in Brazil. Tear gas is the perfect tool for governments increasingly inclined to look on the public as a potential source of disturbance, rather than the source of their democratic mandate. An independent study earlier this year estimated that the market is currently worth $1.6 billion.

He describes his own experience of the chemicals:

As soon as a canister explodes in your vicinity, your skin starts burning. It becomes hard to breathe because you’re producing so much mucus, your eyes shut involuntarily and it feels as if your head is about to melt. The canister itself is dangerous. It gets hot as the CS [2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, the most common type of tear gas], solid in the unopened canister, is turned into an aerosol; touch it without heavy-duty gloves, and it can burn. Prolonged exposure causes severe respiratory problems and heart attacks; it can cause pregnant women to miscarry and can kill people who suffer from asthma and other bronchial problems.

The Premium Slowdown Continues

Premiums

This is welcome news:

On Wednesday, the Kaiser Family Foundation published its annual survey on the health plans that employers are offering their workers. It’s large and comprehensive and generally regarded as the most reliable measure of what’s happening in the employer market.

The big finding is that the growth in health insurance premiums was only 3 percent between 2013 and 2014. That’s tied for the lowest rate of increase since Kaiser started measuring (this is the 16th year of the survey).

Cohn unpacks the survey:

Critics of the Affordable Care Act insisted it would cause employers to jack up premiums. There’s no evidence of that happening.

And of course this data is consistent with all the other recent data we’ve gotten on health care spending under Obamacare. National health care spending, the amount of money we spend as a country, is rising at historically low rates. Premiums inside the new Obamacare exchanges, where people buy insurance on their own, are generally rising at moderate rates and in some cases declining, which is highly unusual.

It’s hard to say exactly how much Obamacare has to do with these changes. But it makes the critics’ arguments look awfully shaky.

Drum chips in his two cents:

How long will this slowdown in health care inflation last? My guess is that it’s more or less permanent. It will vary a bit from year to year, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it hit 3-4 points above the general inflation rate in some years. But the downward trend has been in place for three decades now, and that’s long enough to suggest that it was the double-digit increases of the 80s and early 90s that were the outliers. Aside from those spikes, the current smaller increases are roughly similar to health care spending increases over the past half century.

Kliff explains “why, even with premiums rising slowly, it might not feel to workers they’re actually getting a better deal”:

Deductibles have grown 47 percent since 2009; 34 percent of workers are now enrolled in health insurance plans that have a deductible of $2,000 or higher. While premiums grow slowly, workers are essentially asked to spend money in other places with these rising deductibles.

Jason Millman also focuses on those increasing deductibles:

High-deductible plans are attractive to employers because they get to bear less of the insurance cost. Many economists also like the plans, because they’re supposed to make people spend more wisely on their health care.

The big question is whether employees are prepared to handle potentially big medical bills before they hit their deductible. As the The Upshot noted last week, people in employer insurance recently said they’re pretty happy with the services their health plans cover, but they’re much less satisfied with what they’re paying out of their own pockets.

The End Of Britain? Ctd

A reader responds to my take:

Well you may be indifferent to the Scots gaining independence, but in our family it’s Gilbert Johnstone Jr. pistolsabsolutely thrilling!  We were Jacobites who participated in the 1690, 1715 and 1745 rebellions.  We were at Culloden and the entire family had to flee to the Cape Fear River region in North Carolina after the battle.  They hid out at Brompton Plantation, which was owned by the Royal Governor Gabriel Johnston, a brother to my sixth great grandfather.  During the Revolution they were officers in the NC Militia, and then after the Tories burnt their home to the ground, they moved to South Carolina, where they fought a guerilla campaign with General Francis Marion (aka the Swamp Fox) against the English.  I have the pistols my gggggg-grandfather carried at Culloden and during the American Revolution next to my bed (photo attached).  To finally win independence and get from under the thumb of the English would be bloody brilliant and a long time coming!

Another takes a step back:

I am an agnostic on Scottish independence. I get the impulse; I get your possible acceptance. But how can anyone looking at our current world situation not be anything but appalled by the possible positive vote? If it passes, won’t every active independence movement – Quebec, Catalan Spain right away – get a boost? Doesn’t it give an easy way for Putin to insist that eastern Ukraine vote for the same? Wouldn’t it give a boost to parts of the U.S., particularly if Dems some time in the near future gain control of all levels of the federal government, that might start talking secession? As a true conservative (not tea-partier or corporatist), shouldn’t you be worried about the larger impact of a positive vote?

Yes, I can see those concerns. And that’s why I hope in my rational mind that they don’t secede. But given the existence of a separate nation, and given the peaceful, democratic manner in which this divorce could take place, I don’t see much of an analogy except for Catalonia. A reader notes:

More than 500,000 have actually signed up to participate in the V for Vote demonstration for Catalonia’s independence, with their IDs. And many, many more will come.

Another drills down into the Scottish question:

I wonder if the Scots might not end up shooting themselves in the foot? There’s a triumvirate of failures they are setting themselves up with:

1) I’m with the Betfair people. It’s easy to say “yes” to a pollster with no consequences, but much harder in a ballot box. I suspect a “no” vote is much the more likely.

2) If they do lose, they can’t come whining back to the table for a good 15 or 20 years.

3) They have, without thinking too much about it, aroused English nationalism, as you detected on your recent visits. I have always been mildly ticked off by the “West Lothian question”, as it used to be known: Scottish MPs voting on wholly English matters. However, since devolution and now with this independence debate, I am convinced that it is an injustice of titanic proportions on me and 53 million other English men and women who put up with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs (the latter two to a lesser extent) having a say on matters that have no impact upon the people they represent. They can vote without personal consequence. The reverse would never be allowed.

As a natural Labour supporter, I can see that me and mine need the Scottish Labour vote to drive a left-of-centre agenda, but frankly, and you hit the nail on its head, all this self-serving “we want to be independent, but thanks England, we need you to bank-roll us,” has made me agree: “fuck ‘em”. I’m not sure I want them anymore. My public services are on their arse because of Tory cuts, yet Scotland’s flourish, not because of extraordinary financial management on the part of the Scots, but because my English pounds get spent disproportionately across the border. The Treasury reports that it spends £10,152 for every Scot. It spends £8,529 for every English man or woman. Here in the East Midlands where I live, it spends a miserly £8,118. It spends 25% more on a Scot than it spends on me. (See this linked pdf.)

What on earth is Scotland going to do without my money? I am completely convinced that if they do go their own way, Westminster will cave in and agree to bankroll them for years to come.

Whatever comes of this independence movement, one thing seems certain, and that is that they will lose a substantial amount of influence, either by becoming independent, or by the certainty that Scottish MPs must – must – be prevented from voting on wholly English matters. I might have to suffer a lifetime of damned old-Etonian, Oxbridge power and influence, but at least it’ll be English power and influence.

A final aside. I travel to the US a lot. About 20 years ago, when I first starting going to North America, I would take great pains to tell people I was British, or from the UK. Not anymore. I realised that in the last few years, I am English when asked. No conscious decision to change; I just did. I am more and more English and less and less British everyday.

All Dish coverage of Scottish independence here.

Is Russia Withdrawing From Ukraine?

All eyes are on the impending ISIS war today, but things are still happening in Ukraine as well. Five days after the announcement of a ceasefire, Kiev now claims that most of the Russian forces that had invaded the country have left, while Poroshenko is making some concessions to separatist sentiments in the east:

President Petro Poroshenko told a televised cabinet meeting Ukraine would remain a sovereign, united country under the terms of a peace roadmap approved last Friday, but said parts of the east under rebel control would get special status. “According to the latest information I have received from our intelligence, 70 percent of Russian troops have been moved back across the border,” he said. “This further strengthens our hope that the peace initiatives have good prospects.” However, Poroshenko said the ceasefire was not proving easy to maintain because “terrorists” were constantly trying to provoke Kiev’s forces. Ukraine’s military recorded at least six violations of the ceasefire overnight but said there were no casualties. Five servicemen have been killed during the ceasefire, Ukraine says. A civilian was also killed at the weekend during shelling of the eastern port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov in eastern Ukraine.

But Morrissey is skeptical of this supposed Russian retreat:

The “terrorists” may be rebels attempting to keep Russia from retreating. Moscow may not need much of a provocation, either. Yesterday, Sergei Lavrov accused Ukraine of building up forces for an attack on Donetsk, and multiple reports of artillery fire put the truce into serious question … Hopefully, the retreat of Russia from Ukraine is real and will continue. With Lavrov looking for an excuse to return and the rebels perhaps desperate to provide it, I wouldn’t count on it.

Alec Luhn remarks on the chaotic battlefield, noting that neither Moscow nor Kiev has enough control over its fighters to enforce an airtight ceasefire:

Both the rebel and government forces are comprised of a potpourri of fighting units, most of which center around an individual leader. This has led to a chaotic command structure that makes such truces difficult to enforce on the ground, according to Vladimir Ruban, a former lieutenant general in the Ukrainian Army who has been negotiating prisoner exchanges on behalf of Kiev and persuaded the rebels to participate in peace talks. “Some people aren’t interested in a cease-fire … on both sides,” Ruban said, suggesting rogue actors may keep fighting, despite their leadership’s intentions. Slovo i Delo, an NGO that monitors Ukrainian politicians, recently compiled a list of 37 volunteer battalions fighting on the side of Kiev, many of which include radical fighters who say they don’t trust the military leadership. Members of the Azov Battalion, which is defending the coastal city of Mariupol, griped last week about the cease-fire that was then being negotiated, with one calling it a “political game.”

Alina Polyakova is pessimistic about the effectiveness of the West’s response:

As a long-term strategy, sanctions could eventually constrain Russian action. But the Ukrainian crisis requires short- and medium-term solutions, which the West has been reluctant to explore. NATO’s plan to deploy a 4,000-strong rapid reaction force to the Baltic States is a step in the right direction, but it may come too late to influence Russian policy in Ukraine. Western leaders squandered a key opportunity to take a strong stance against Russia after the Crimean annexation in March. If the NATO force was deployed six months ago, Putin may have thought twice about invading Ukraine. Putin has exploited this tactical mistake masterfully. As Russia continues to set the agenda on Ukraine and the West continues to implement the same ineffective strategy, Ukrainians feel increasing abandoned. The crisis has reached a point of no return, and Poroshenko is left with no options.

Marc Champion scrutinizes the purpose of the EU’s sanctions on Russia:

Putin is claiming the right to determine the foreign and trade policies of his neighbors. He has claimed the right to intervene militarily in any country where Russian-speakers live. He has said as a matter of policy that Russia is the heart of a separate civilization, defining it against the values of Europe, and leaving open the question of where that civilization begins and ends. This is frightening stuff when carried out by a nuclear power that is re-militarizing. So the sanctions policy shouldn’t be seen as an attempt to secure victory for Ukraine (it will have to cut a deal). Nor should it be seen as an attempt to make Putin unpopular at home, or to get his inner circle to revolt (a ludicrous hope), as sometimes suggested. The sanctions should demonstrate what behavior Europe is unwilling to accept in a partner and what rules it will stand up for — even at the cost lost business and a bad relationship with Russia.

But at the same time, the West is also squeezing that partner. Josh Cohen warns that the IMF is doing the same thing to Ukraine today that it did to Russia in the ’90s:

Ukraine’s government is in the middle of implementing a set of stringent economic reforms agreed to in April with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in exchange for a $17 billion bailout. Although Kiev has been commended by the IMF for a “bold economic program,” the loan’s terms, combined with Ukraine’s political and economic crisis, are a recipe for disaster. We have seen this story before. During the 1990s, when I worked at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in the office charged with managing economic reform projects in the former Soviet Union, I observed that the type of austerity now being required of Ukraine was the standard prescription for countries in economic crisis. The leading Washington financial institutions, such as the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department, were passing out this one-size-fits-all solution. And it almost never worked.

Meanwhile, Poland is reporting a mysterious 25 percent drop-off in its gas supplies from Gazprom, and Putin is beefing up Russia’s military defense capabilities and testing ICBMs:

Putin also took greater control of a commission that oversees the defense industry and made a new call for Russia to become less reliant on imported Western equipment. He said NATO was using rhetoric over the Ukraine crisis to “resuscitate itself” and noted that Russia had warned repeatedly that it would have to respond to such moves. Shortly before he spoke, Russia successfully tested its new submarine-launched Bulava intercontinental missile, a 12-metre- long weapon that can deliver a nuclear strike with up to 100 times the force of the atomic blast that devastated Hiroshima in 1945.

Larison sighs:

At each stage in the Ukraine crisis and for many years before that, Russia hawks in the West have urged the U.S. and its allies to goad and provoke Russia on the assumption that Russia won’t respond. Then each time that Russia responds more aggressively than they thought possible, the same people insist on more goading and provoking in order to “stop” Russia from what it is doing, which of course just leads to another harsh Russian response. It doesn’t occur to them that Russia will most likely keep matching any action that the U.S. takes by taking even more aggressive measures of its own. The country that stands to lose the most from continuing this back-and-forth is Ukraine.

Making Sense Of The Midterms

Sargent dwells on the finding that “62 percent of Republicans — and 67 percent of conservative Republicans — say a reason for their vote is to ‘express opposition to Obama'”:

[T]he high percentages of Republicans who flatly state that their vote is about Obama are pretty stark, and help explain GOP midterm strategy. The key to winning is all about getting out the base, even as core Dem voter groups like minorities, younger voters and single women drop off, helping ensure that the electorate is older and whiter than in presidential years. And one key to that — in a year that seems to fall somewhat short of the seismic levels of rage we saw in 2010 — is keeping Republicans and conservatives worked up about Obama.

Cillizza highlights how Obama’s numbers are dragging the Senate Democrats down:

In short: Alison Lundergan Grimes could win — not would win but could win — if President Obama’s approval ratings in Kentucky were at, say 38 percent. At 28 percent, it’s almost impossible to see how she ends up on top. The hardest thing about that reality for Senate Democrats is that there isn’t much they can do about it; they simply need to wait and hope that Obama’s numbers in 57 days time don’t look like they do today. If his numbers stay the same or erode even further, Democrats’ chances of holding the Senate disappear.

But the GOP’s own unpopularity isn’t holding it back:

[I]t’s always important to note that the GOP brand is worse than the Democratic brand in large part because of members of their own party. While 63 percent of Democrats approve of their party’s congressional members, just 34 percent of Republicans say the same. Among independents and members of the opposite party, it’s almost exactly even. And those other Republicans, we’ll bet you, will still vote GOP in 2014. So, again, the practical effect of the GOP’s poorer brand is probably more negligible than people think.

Stu Rothenberg expects Republicans to do very well:

After looking at recent national, state and congressional survey data and comparing this election cycle to previous ones, I am currently expecting a sizable Republican Senate wave. The combination of an unpopular president and a midterm election (indeed, a second midterm) can produce disastrous results for the president’s party. President Barack Obama’s numbers could rally, of course, and that would change my expectations in the blink of an eye. But as long as his approval sits in the 40-percent range (the August NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll), the signs are ominous for Democrats.

538’s forecast also favors Republicans:

The GOP’s odds of winning the Senate ticked down a bit on the Democrats’ strong poll in Michigan, but FiveThirtyEight still has Republicans with a 62.2 percent chance of taking control of the chamber.

But Sam Wang continues to argue that Democrats have a good shot a keeping the Senate. He currently calculates a 70 percent chance of a Democrat-controlled Senate:

Fundamentals can be useful when there are no polls to reference. But polls, when they are available, capture public opinion much better than a model does. In 2012, on Election Eve, for example, the Princeton Election Consortium relied on polls alone to predict every single Senate race correctly, while Silver, who used a polls-plus-fundamentals approach, called two races incorrectly, missing Heidi Heitkamp’s victory, in North Dakota, and Jon Tester’s, in Montana.

The Princeton Election Consortium generates a poll-based snapshot in which the win/lose probabilities in all races are combined to generate a distribution of all possible outcomes. The average of all outcomes, based on today’s polls, is 50.5 Democratic and Independent seats (two Independents, Bernie Sanders and Angus King, currently caucus with the Democrats).

No other major forecast is as favorable to the Democrats. Andrew Prokop explains why the different election models diverge. One significant caveat from the end of his piece:

[E]ven though models like these have performed well in recent years, they’re still all vulnerable to the possibility of a broad-based polling failure. “The volume of polling is way lower than it was 2 and 4 years ago, and the quality of polling is problematic,” Silver says. “The response rates get lower and lower every year. Pollsters have still been managing to get decent results, but sooner or later, something’s gonna break.” One particular problem Silver mentions is that “pollsters tend to herd, or copy off each other. Then, instead of having random variation around some mean, you can get weird patterns where you can be right for several elections in a row, and then you might have fat-tailed errors.”

“That does make me really nervous,” Silver adds. “Maybe it won’t be this year, but sooner or later you’re going to have a year when things were way off.”

A Libertopia?

9607555893_31107979d9_o

A reader writes:

Grover Norquist’s story from Burning Man is great, and while it seems silly to have a political argument, I do feel compelled to take one teaching moment regarding Denver Nicks’ argument that Burning Man isn’t libertarian:

And the government is everywhere at Burning Man, since the whole time you’re dancing or body painting or riding an enormous flame-spitting octopus or whatever in a landscape protected from spoilage by the Bureau of Land Management. And Black Rock City actually has lots of really important rules, like not dumping water on the ground and not driving. There aren’t persnickety rent-a-cops running around staking out potential litter bugs, but rules are enforced by Burning Man Rangers and more directly by the community itself through feelings like shame, withholding participation in taco night at camp or giving you a terrible “playa name” like Moophole or something.

The landscape is protected by the Bureau of Land Management, but it could just as easily be private property, like, say, Woodstock. But the main point is the fact that it has “rules” does not make it unlibertarian – libertarian does not equal anarchy.  This is what gets me when people make lazy characterizations of libertarianism.

The truth is, a libertarian utopia and a communal utopia would actually look pretty similar. Indeed, some of the most libertarian societies you can imagine are not things like Somalia (gangs of armed thugs trying to rob everyone of life, liberty and property), which is the liberals favorite gotchya, but rather things like the Amish, the Internet, and hippy co-ops.

It’s not the existence of rules that separates out libertarian from non-libertarian, it’s when there are agents of enforcement with a monopoly of force pointing a gun at your head demanding you adhere to the rules whether you agreed to them or not. That’s the great thing about Burning Man, and that’s what makes it libertarian.  Precisely as Nicks says, there are not rent-a-cops enforcing community standards – rather, there is the community.  And if you don’t like it, or are appropriately shamed, you can always GTFO.

Libertarianism, despite the popular misconception, does not mean anybody anywhere is free to be an asshole without consequence.  It’s the nature of the consequences that separate it.  A person who runs afoul of community standards finds themselves a pariah. If you act like an asshole, people won’t want to hang out with you, and so they won’t.  A product that is bad doesn’t make money.  A company operating practices that offend sensibilities loses customers and goes broke.  Speech that is unpopular is not sanctioned, but not banned; it’s just unpopular.  A governing body that doesn’t represent its constituents gets voted out of office.  A group of people can set up their own festival and tell whomever they like to take a damn hike for whatever reason they like (and those people can then go set up their own festival).  You can associate with, or not associate with, whomever you chose, and as long as you aren’t hurting anybody can do whatever you like – albeit paying whatever societal consequences are in play in that situation (i.e. talking loud in a movie theater gets you kicked out, being jerky at a dinner party gets you disinvited from other ones, carrying a gun to a place that doesn’t allow it bars you entry, throwing shit around Burning Man gets you run off).

A Burner shares his experience:

I just read your short account about Burning Man and I was actually touched by it, and by the paragraph before last I had tears in my eyes, as Burning Man caused big changes in me.

There were many incredible moments. One in particular is still very fresh in my mind. I visited the Temple of Grace several times. One time I went by myself and I was caught in this amazing and a bit scary white out sandstorm. As I trudged through the storm on my bike, I reached the temple and went inside into this calm and relaxing safe haven. There were many people solemnly and quietly seating and/or standing around. I went around observing and admiring the temple and I reflected on what I wanted to do at the temple. I left several messages on the walls and nooks and crannies of the edifice.

When I walked in the temple I noticed this beautiful woman kneeling near the center of the temple. She was clearly reflecting on a painful aspect or person in her life, as she seemed to meditate and would quietly cry and draw on a pad. After almost an hour that felt like 5 minutes, this lady started singing a very soul wrenching song. She had the sweetest voice and so much feeling and sentiment pouring out with the words and melody. Everyone else was quiet and all you could hear was this angelic voice. When she finished the song she got up and left the temple, she was done and you could see the peace on her face. I felt renewed.

Black Rock City and the Playa definitely felt like home. It did change me profoundly and thoroughly. I will definitely go back. I am a Burner now.

Welcome back to the default world. As I understand it from my veteran Burner friends, it will take some time for full decompression.

(Photo by BLM Nevada)

Sponsored Content Watch

A reader says “it’s getting worse” and points to new evidence:

“Good Morning America” interviewed model Gisele Bundchen and Olympic athlete Lindsey Vonn this week about their new Under Armour campaign, but not necessarily for the pure news or entertainment value of it all. At the end of a segment on Friday morning, a voiceover told viewers that “This segment was brought to you by Under Armour.”

In a pair of dual interviews, one that aired Thursday and the other Friday, the women discussed partnering with Under Armour, the power of women, their workout regimens and their own careers. “GMA” has also posted the videos online without mention of any Under Armour support, although Friday’s video has the straightforward headline “Lindsey Vonn and Gisele Bundchen Promote the ‘I Will What I Want’ Campaign.”

An ABC spokeswoman said segments brought to you by marketers are not unusual for “Good Morning America,” but could not point to other examples.

Watch the “segment” for yourself here. Another reader:

I’ve been following the gossip blog, Lainey Gossip, for a while. And they do this thing with sponsored content where they talk about it openly and freely. And they make it fun. But that’s sort of part of the problem with sponsored content. On the other hand, the way they do it feels much more honest and open. And I continue to trust the blog because of their transparency. Here’s the latest example:

Butt season continues! As I mentioned last week Cottonelle approached us to highlight their bum-pampering products by highlighting the best celebrity butts in Hollywood.

This job doesn’t suck. Jacek was quite happy to do extensive research on the subject and eagerly forwarded several recommendations. JLO was our first. Next? Let’s make it fair and celebrate on the men’s side…

Channing Tatum.

Obviously.

And you know, just like JLO, who’s making videos about her “Booty”, I really don’t think Channing Tatum would mind. After all, he gave us an entire movie – over two hours! – to appreciate this body part. He worked hard on this body part. He trained it. He molded it. He danced with it. He TOOK YOUR MONEY WITH IT.

When it’s that valuable, you have to protect it. Even the bums that might not be as perfect as Channing Tatum’s. Cottonelle takes bum service very seriously with their industry-leading products. This is premium bum care, the gold standard of bum appreciation and indulgence.

Then there was HuffPo’s gleeful but very carefully parsed defense of the same practices. I took solace only in the reader comments. Two faves:

Oh, I get it. This is an advertisement for advertisements masquerading as news articles, which is itself masquerading as a news article- about advertisements masquerading as news articles. Very meta. Also kind of nauseating.

And:

I like that the only comment positive about this piece is from the Head of Operations for the site…

Read all of our coverage on the scourge of sponsored content here.