Tag: Premium

by Jonah Shepp

Marking Open Borders Day yesterday, Ilya Somin argues for liberalizing immigration policy:

Hundreds of millions of people live in countries where their probable fate is a life of poverty and oppression. Many of them could escape that terrible fate if only First World governments would allow them to immigrate. Economist Michael Clemens estimates that the economic gains from worldwide open borders are large enough to double world GDP. Enormous numbers of people currently live in poverty not because they are unable to be productive workers, but merely because they are forcibly prevented from working for First World employers who would be willing to hire them. In addition to harming potential migrants, these restrictions also inflict losses on First world employers, landlords, and consumers who would like to hire immigrants, rent to them, or purchase goods and services they produce.

But the benefits of open borders go far beyond purely material gains, great as they are.

Many potential migrants are also trapped in societies where they are denied basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and private property. Many of the women among them reside in societies with severe gender-based oppression and discrimination. For hundreds of millions of people living in undemocratic societies, emigration is their only realistically feasible way to exercise political freedom – the right to choose what kind of government they wish to live under.

Bryan Caplan takes a critical look at the arguments against immigration:

Most arguments for immigration restriction are equally good arguments for government regulation of natives’ fertility.  But I see that almost everyone favors immigration restrictions, and almost no one favors fertility restrictions.

I see that almost everything immigrants do makes their critics angry.  The critics are angry when immigrants work, and angry when they’re on welfare.  The critics are angry if immigrants are visible, and angry if immigrants keep to themselves.  The critics are angry if immigrants increase housing prices and angry if immigrants reduce housing prices.

by Patrick Appel

The Syrian conflict turned three on Saturday. Marc Lynch wishes the #WithSyria activists had clearer goals:

The premise of the “With Syria” campaigns is that the United States hasn’t acted to resolve the conflict in Syria because people aren’t aware of its horrors. But that’s probably wrong. To get a sense of how Americans think about Syria, I looked at every Syria question in the public opinion surveys collected in the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research database since January 2011 – 281 questions in all. Those surveys paint a pretty clear picture of an American public that knew perfectly well what was happening in Syria and whom to blame, and generally wanted to help, but absolutely rejected anything that smelled like military intervention. The activist campaigns might have more success translating a stand “with Syria” into meaningful action if they proposed specific ways for concerned individuals to make a difference without supporting war.

Borzou Daragahi expects the war to continue for the foreseeable future:

As the Syria war enters its fourth year, no question is perhaps more pertinent to the calculations of combatants inside the country and policy makers abroad than who is winning. Ominously for the prospects of ending the conflict that has left up to 140,000 people dead and displaced more than 9m in what the UN describes as the worst humanitarian catastrophe since the second world war, both sides claim they are.

“The fact that we’re in this intermediate situation where both sides can hope to win, but it’s not clear that they will, is the worst of all worlds,” says Jean-Marie Guehenno, former UN and Arab League deputy envoy to Syria. “Because all sides have an interest in continuing the fight rather than going for a political solution, all sides believe they can win.”

Vice is embedded with Syria’s rebels. Their first video dispatch is here.

by Jessie Roberts

Zadie Smith contemplates the ways we talk about climate change:

Although many harsh words are said about the childlike response of the public to the coming emergency, the response doesn’t seem to me very surprising, either. It’s hard to keep apocalypse consistently in mind, especially if you want to get out of bed in the morning. What’s missing from the account is how much of our reaction is emotional. If it weren’t, the whole landscape of debate would be different. We can easily imagine, for example, a world in which the deniers were not deniers at all, but simple ruthless pragmatists, the kind of people who say: “I understand very well what’s coming, but I am not concerned with my grandchildren; I am concerned with myself, my shareholders, and the Chinese competition.” And there are indeed a few who say this, but not as many as it might be reasonable to expect.

Another response that would seem natural aligns a deep religious feeling with environmental concern, for those who consider the land a beauteous gift of the Lord should, surely, rationally, be among the most keen to protect it. There are a few of these knocking around, too, but again, not half as many as I would have assumed. Instead the evidence is to be “believed” or “denied” as if the scientific papers are so many Lutheran creeds pinned to a door. In America, a curious loophole has even been discovered in God’s creation, concerning hierarchy.

It’s argued that because He placed humans above “things”—above animals and plants and the ocean—we can, with a clean conscience, let all those things go to hell. (In England, traditional Christian love of the land has been more easily converted into environmental consciousness, notably among the country aristocrats who own so much of it.)

But I don’t think we have made matters of science into questions of belief out of sheer stupidity. Belief usually has an emotional component; it’s desire, disguised. Of course, on the part of our leaders much of the politicization is cynical bad faith, and economically motivated, but down here on the ground, the desire for innocence is what’s driving us. For both “sides” are full of guilt, full of self-disgust—what Martin Amis once called “species shame”—and we project it outward. This is what fuels the petty fury of our debates, even in the midst of crisis.

by Patrick Appel

Nate Silver introduces us to his new site:

The breadth of our coverage will be much clearer at this new version of FiveThirtyEight, which is launching Monday under the auspices of ESPN. We’ve expanded our staff from two full-time journalists to 20 and counting. Few of them will focus on politics exclusively; instead, our coverage will span five major subject areas — politics, economics, science, life and sports.

Our team also has a broad set of skills and experience in methods that fall under the rubric of data journalism. These include statistical analysis, but also data visualization, computer programming and data-literate reporting. So in addition to written stories, we’ll have interactive graphics and features. Within a couple of months we’ll launch a podcast, and we’ll be collaborating with ESPN Films and Grantland to produce original documentary films.

The site won’t be all data all the time:

We’re not planning to abandon the story form at FiveThirtyEight. In fact, sometimes our stories will highlight individual cases, anecdotes. When we provide these examples, however, we want to be sure that we’ve contextualized them in the right way. Sometimes it can be extraordinarily valuable to explore an outlier in some detail. But the premise of the story should be to explain why the outlier is an outlier, rather than indicating some broader trend. To classify these stories appropriately, we’ll have to do a lot of work in the background before we publish them.

All of this takes time. That’s why we’ve elected to sacrifice something else as opposed to accuracy or accessibility. The sacrifice is speed —  we’re rarely going to be the first organization to break news or to comment on a story.

by Jonah Shepp & Patrick Appel

It’s semi-official: Scott Brown is running for Senate again:

In a speech that threw out red meat to conservative activists—praising the late Ronald Reagan and ripping ObamaCare, the IRS, and the 2009 stimulus package—and a call for both parties to come together for the betterment of the country, Brown announced Friday that he has formed an exploratory committee to prepare a campaign for the U.S. Senate. “A big political wave is about to break in America, and the Obamacare Democrats are on the wrong side of it,” said Brown, while noting that “There has to be a time and place where we act as Americans first, putting our country first.”

Sean Sullivan calls Brown a potential game-changer:

New Hampshire instantly becomes more competitive by virtue of Brown’s decision. Up until now, no other Republican with a prayer of defeating Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) had entered the race. Brown’s name recognition and his ability to raise big money make him a potentially formidable foe.

Something similar happened in Colorado when Gardner, a sitting member of Congress, announced last month that he would take on Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.). And while Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) is still a substantial frontrunner in Virginia, Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chairman who announced his run in January, gives Republicans a glimmer of hope in Virginia that did not exist before he decided to run.

In short, Republicans now have more possible routes the the majority.

Molly Ball sizes up Brown’s chances:

The most recent public poll, released this week by Suffolk University, showed Brown losing to Shaheen by 13 percentage points; others have shown a closer race, though none has shown him winning. Still, New Hampshire, a state Obama won by about six points last time, is certainly friendlier territory for Brown than Massachusetts, which Obama won by 23.

A poll out today finds Brown behind by 12. Harry Enten bets against Brown:

[F]orget Shaheen’s strength; Brown is weak. His net favorability, an average -10 points in the two polls, shows that more Granite Staters dislike him than like him. In fact, Brown’s net favorable ratings are lower than every other GOP contender included in the January UNH poll. A less famous but more well-liked nominee might give Shaheen a stronger challenge.

 

Jazz Shaw chatted with a couple of New Hampshire GOP officials about the primary:

Both agreed that Brown seemed “like a very nice man” but expressed the same opinion that he isn’t really a New Hampshire guy. One went so far as to say, “Don’t get me wrong, Scott’s a good man. But he’s no Bob Smith.” (Smith, a former Senator, is also expected to get into the primary race.

The second official I spoke with brought up a different concern. After agreeing that Brown was a great guy, she leaned in a bit and said, “He’s really not right on guns, you know.” This is an issue which the media has already noted will likely dog Brown in his quest for the nomination.

Antle wonders if Brown’s Massachusetts baggage will hurt him:

The history of out-of-state political candidacies is decidedly mixed. Robert Kennedy, Jim Buckley, and Hillary Clinton all managed to parachute into New York and win Senate races. Former Tennessee Sen. Bill Brock was soundly defeated in Maryland, while Maryland transplant Alan Keyes failed even more spectacularly in Illinois.

John Fund doubts the carpetbagger attack with do much damage:

For now, Democrats are mostly tarring him as a carpetbagger, releasing a 48-second-video replete with Brown referencing his close ties to Massachusetts. But Brown is ready for the face-to-face campaigning New Hampshire demands and is quick to point out that he was born in New Hampshire, has owned property there and moved back in part to be close to his mother who lives there. His former “state of mind” isn’t likely to be a big issue, according to Andrew Cline, editorial page editor of the Union Leader, New Hampshire’s only statewide newspaper. “Over half of the state wasn’t born here,” he notes. “They root for Boston teams, watch Boston television and often work in Massachusetts, so it’s a porous border.

Bernstein entertains the idea that carpetbagging could catch on:

Politicians (and political operatives) are copycats: If Brown wins, then the odds are someone else will try something similar, and we’ll have another bit of evidence for the nationalization of U.S. politics. My guess is that although there is a chance he could win, Brown is more likely to become a punch line (like wannabe carpetbagger Harold Ford).

By Chas Danner

Shane Bauer is an investigative journalist and photographer who was one of the three American hikers imprisoned in Iran after being captured on the Iraqi border in 2009. He spent 26 months in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison, four of them in solitary confinement. Following his release, he wrote a special report for Mother Jones about solitary in America’s prison system. (The Dish’s ongoing coverage of the subject is here.) Shane and his fellow former hostages, Sarah Shourd (now his wife) and Josh Fattal, have co-written the memoir, A Sliver of Light, which comes out tomorrow. You can read an excerpt here.

In our first video from Shane, he explains how hard it was to readjust to a life of freedom after being an Iranian hostage for two years:

Following up that answer, Shane admits that while he’ll never be glad he went through the experience of being imprisoned, he’s still grateful for the perspective it’s given him:

(Archive)

by Chris Bodenner

In case you missed Andrew’s sign-off post and are confused by the various bylines, he’s off the blog until Monday:

It’s ten years since Aaron and I met and we’re taking some time in the sun by ourselves to celebrate. The Dish crew will take care of the joint while I’m away, as they take care of the joint while I’m not. You know what I most crave? Not having to have an opinion about the world every day.

Speaking of joints, a reader wrote to Andrew late Saturday night:

My fiancée and I were always curious what pot was like, but we’re too “straight laced” and (connected to law enforcement) to actually try. Damn, that took a long time to type that because of how interesting the iPhone keypad is. Anyway, you get the point. I’m high right now. Baked I guess? Is that a thing we still say?

Fiancee’s asleep on the couch, so the only other person I thought to contact was you. After all, you’re the only person besides my fiancée with whom I’ve been able to share a mature and nuanced dialog about the ethics and legality of pot. Thank you for helping us build the confidence and understanding to see this as a recreational activity akin to social drinking. We deserved to be able to try this in relative comfort and know what all the fuss has been about. Honestly, I don’t think it’s for us, but I can’t believe it took me so many years to even feel like it was ethically, even religiously acceptable, to want to find that out for myself.

I can’t think of a good line to end on. The Princess Bride is sure funny.

Especially with lightsabers:

Our main email account at andrew@andrewsullivan.com is still very much active this week, so keep the emails coming. It’s your blog too, after all.

by Jonah Shepp

The story keeps getting weirder, but there are no answers yet:

Over the weekend, the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 became a criminal investigation as Malaysian officials said they had “conclusive” evidence that the flight had been hijacked. They also said that a final message had been received from the pilot after the plane’s signaling apparatus had been disabled, raising suspicion that the flight was intentionally diverted by crew. There have also been numerous reports this morning that plane may have flown as low as 5,000 feet, in order to avoid all radar detection, a maneuver that would require considerable skill from the pilots, while also putting the plane itself in considerable danger, as it is not designed for long travel at that altitude.

Passing along the map seen below, Derek Thompson notes that the clues about where the plane might be are still very broad:

The precise location of the flight at 8:11 AM is still a mystery. But officials provided a map (above) that shows the plane’s possible location along one of two red semi-circles, based on a “ping” from a satellite orbiting 35,800 kilometers above the Indian Ocean. As you can see, this final data point indicates two possible flight paths: one northwest stretching toward Kazakhstan and another southwest into the Indian Ocean.

The northern flight path is above land, which would raise the odds that officials find the plane or its remnants. But The New York Times points out that it’s unlikely that air-defense networks in India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan failed to pick up on a rogue 777. This makes the southern path more likely. Bloomberg‘s analysis of the last satellite “ping” tracked the plane’s last known location to about 1,000 miles west of Perth, Australia.

Patrick Smith addresses some misconceptions regarding the plane’s transponder:

The media is throwing this term around without a full understanding of how the equipment works. For position reporting and traffic sequencing purposes, transponders only work in areas of typical ATC radar coverage. Most of the world, including the oceans, does not have ATC radar coverage. Transponders are relevant to this story only when the missing plane was close to land. Once over the ocean, it didn’t matter anyway. Over oceans and non-radar areas, other means are used for position reports and tracking/communicating (satcomm, datalink, etc.), not transponders.

Many readers have asked why the capability exists to switch off a transponder, as apparently happened aboard Malaysia flight 370. In fact very few of a plane’s components are hot-wired to be, as you might say, “always on.” In the interest of safety — namely, fire and electrical system protection — it’s important to have the ability to isolate a piece of equipment, either by a standard switch or, if need be, through a circuit breaker. Also transponders will occasionally malfunction and transmit erroneous or incomplete data, at which point a crew will recycle the device — switching it off, then on — or swap to another unit. Typically at least two transponders are onboard, and you can’t run both simultaneously. Bear in mind too that switching the unit “off” might refer to only one of the various subfunctions, or “modes” — for example, mode C, mode S — responsible for different data.

Previous Dish on the missing plane here, here, and here. Update from a reader, who ramps up the wild speculation:

Check this out.  It’s the most convincing thing I’ve read in the last ten days about the flight’s disappearance. He’s an aviation hobbyist who plotted times and air routes and came up with a theory that Flight 370 shadowed a scheduled flight (appearing with it as a single signal) over all the countries that should have picked it up on radar.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader makes an important point:

While I’m sympathetic to Andrew’s broader argument that liberals are far too quick to attack opponents with the sexist/racist/homophobic label, and am even sympathetic to his narrower argument that Paul Ryan’s statement wasn’t really all that exceptional or offensive, I think he’s missing the point of what gets liberals so riled up about statements like Ryan’s. It is not that he critiques the culture of the urban poor (a well-established code for black people); it is that Ryan does so to the exclusion of everyone else. Various reports (such as this one – pdf) track the poverty rates between urban and non-urban centers and tend to find a persistently higher poverty rate in non-urban areas:

A higher proportion of nonmetropolitan households (28.2 percent) are near poverty as compared to metropolitan households (24.0 percent).

Half of all rural African Americans (50.5 percent) live near poverty; rural Hispanics are at 47.0 percent, followed by whites at 23.5 percent, and Asians at 19.9 percent. In nonmetropolitan areas, 38.2 percent of children under the age of 18 live below 150 percent of the poverty line compared to 32.5 percent in metropolitan areas.  Over one quarter (26.2 percent) of elderly people live near poverty in nonmetropolitan areas, up by 1.5 percent from 2009. In metropolitan areas 20.6 percent of the elderly live near poverty.

Now, are poverty rates the whole story? Of course not. There are intersections of unemployment, family structure, race, and a whole host of other things to explain the difference. However, when you look at the statistics between urban and rural areas, you kind of have to ask yourself: “Why is Ryan only focusing on black people when the problems of poverty and poverty culture clearly impact millions of rural whites as well?”

Does he do that because he’s a racist? Probably not. However, it’s pretty clear he’s doing that because it’s “safe” for someone from his party to bash heavily-Democratic minorities like blacks. If he applied the same critique to rural whites, part of his party’s base, he would likely be losing votes and support from people he needs to win elections.