Month: February 2012

Consumer protection

by digby

Tyler Cowan (who once expressed fear for his personal safety because I wrote that I was buying pitchfork futures) said a particularly ignorant thing on twitter yesterday and is justifiably getting skewered for it.

Oh how clevah.

Scott Lemieux writes:

[I]t’s remarkable how proud some conservative commentators are of the idea that if you support some state regulations that a conservertarian doesn’t you must presumptively favor all state regulations, given how utterly asinine it is.

Cowen does, however, have to be given credit in a way for choosing an example that makes the silliness of his premise particularly obvious. Yes, indeed, many of the people appalled by Virginia’s reprehensible forthcoming abortion regulations favor other regulations that provide information to consumers. The “contradiction” is not terribly hard to understand if one thinks about it for a tenth of a second or so. On the one hand, the typical consumer regulation does not require consumers to pay substantial direct costs to undergo humiliating and invasive medical procedures without their consent. And on the other hand, the “information” provided to women by the regulation is worthless, since women are generally aware of what pregnancy entails.

Yes. Women know very well that they are pregnant and, what’s more, they know very well that it will eventually result in the birth of a child. If they didn’t know this, they would not be taking proactive steps to end that eventuality. In other words, if she didn’t know what she was doing, she would do nothing. The idea that after a woman finds out that she is pregnant, decides that she doesn’t want to give birth, makes an appointment, arrives at the office for the procedure, then needs to be shown that she is pregnant is fatuous in the extreme.

There are only two reasons to support this: you either believe that women are mentally disabled and are incapable of understanding that they are pregnant and will give birth if they don’t have this procedure or you believe they should be punished for seeking the procedure by shoving a probe inside them while lecturing them about their decision and showing them pictures of the inside of their wombs. That’s it. My guess is that Tyler Cowan and the rest of these people making all these clever bon mots believe the second. But it doesn’t matter: you’re a jackass either way.

.

The Importance of Unemployment Trends

by David Atkins

Take this with a grain of salt (or several handfuls), but the implications of the model are certainly interesting:

A couple of economic researchers working for Yahoo say they have developed a forecasting model that predicts a win for President Barack Obama this November.

The model, created by David Rothschild and Patrick Hummel, predicts that Mr. Obama will carry 303 electoral votes this fall. At the same time, they say that several states contests remain virtual toss-ups.

In reviewing the last ten presidential cycles, the researchers say that their model correctly predicted the eventual winners in 88% of the 500 state elections that took place. Between now and mid-June, they they assume that personal income growth remains average for a reelection year and that the president’s approval rating remains at or above its current 48% range.

One aspect of the model that might generate controversy within the ranks of professional politicians and their handlers is the conclusion about the value of a campaign and a candidate: Rothschild and Hummel believe that it matters far less than conventional opinion has conventionally believed.

“One of the interesting findings of the research is, quite frankly, that you can predict outcomes of elections with pretty amazing accuracy pretty far away,” Rothschild said.

The researchers found that an increase or decrease in unemployment trend lines was a much more powerful predictor of election results than the unemployment rate itself. In particular, a key data point was the state-by-state growth in income in the first quarter of the election year. With the main economic indicators trending up, albeit at historically depressed levels, they say that’s an encouraging harbinger for an Obama victory.

“The net effect of campaigns are meaningful but not massive,” Rothschild said. He said that the economy’s first and second quarters (in an election year) “more strongly correlate with a president’s reelection chances.”

I dislike and distrust the notion increasingly trendy in academic and church-of-the-savvy sources that campaign structure and rhetoric make little difference to electoral outcomes, which are supposedly predetermined by a combination of voter registration, name ID, approval polling and economic numbers. That’s certainly not true of more local elections, though it may be more reflective of presidential campaigns. At the very least, campaigns and rhetoric influence the political ground on which the post-electoral legislative battles are fought–which is the only good reason to care about politics. Without the real implications for consequences in people’s lives, the horse race of political elections is a dreary business, a reality show far more corrupt and less entertaining than most sporting events.

Still, insofar as the model has credibility, it shows the importance of maintaining positive employment trends throughout the first half of a presidential election year. The Obama Administration would do well to keep that clearly in mind.

.

Saturday Night at the Movies

The cook, the epidemiologist, the thief and his lover

Cui Bono?

by digby

Here’s a great piece by Ari Berman about the % who are buying our current election. This strikes me as particularly important:

The Wesleyan Media Project recently reported a 1600% increase in interest-group-sponsored TV ads in this cycle as compared to the 2008 primaries. Florida has proven the battle royal of the super PACs thus far. There, the pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, outspent the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, five to one. In the last week of the campaign alone, Romney and his allies ran 13,000 TV ads in Florida, compared to only 200 for Gingrich. Ninety-two percent of the ads were negative in nature, with two-thirds attacking Gingrich, who, ironically enough, had been a fervent advocate of the Citizens United decision.

With the exception of Ron Paul’s underdog candidacy and Rick Santorum’s upset victory in Iowa — where he spent almost no money but visited all of the state’s 99 counties — the Republican candidates and their allied super PACs have all but abandoned retail campaigning and grassroots politicking. They have chosen instead to spend their war chests on TV.

This is part of a devil’s bargain between politics and media, isn’t it? All this money is going directly into the pockets of the television industry — which has every incentive to keep the gravy train going.

Maybe you can’t attack the money equals speech argument. But what about the costs? Isn’t there some kind of campaign reform that could specifically and narrowly target the pricing structure of political television ads? The status quo amounts to a form of political collusion between the wealthy magnates who are trying to buy our elections and the media corporations who stand to benefit from their contributions.

.

.

“I’m all for the government making women feel bad”

by digby

I love principled libertarians, I really do. Especially those who say things like this:

I think that abortion should be legal, but I also think that it should be a last resort, and I’m all for the government using any non-coercive methods it can to encourage women to carry their pregnancy to term, including things that will make them feel bad about aborting. I think, for example, that sonograms should be mandatory before termination, I’m in favor of waiting periods and parental notification laws, and I’m agnostic on spousal notification.”

Ever had an abortion? Considerably more invasive than a trans-vaginal ultrasound. In fact, there are lots of worse things that happen in women’s health clinics; be glad you haven’t experienced any of them.

Ever had a cop hit you over the head with a billy club? It’s considerably more painful than slapping you in the face. There are lots of worse things that happen while in custody; be glad you haven’t experienced any of them.

This is someone who used to call herself “Jane Galt.” And she wants the government to be in the business of shaming.

I’d also point out a little known fact about Virginia’s state rape law: they are to be used even for women who are having chemically induced abortions. They must be probed as well — in order that the government “make them feel bad” for what they are legally entitled to do. (And, by the way, if they refuse to look at the ultrasound, that’s supposed to be noted in their medical record — I’m assuming for some sort of future reference, the purpose of which is obscure.)

She does draw the line at “coercive” government power though, so that’s good.

This story is via Tbogg,who takes it on as only he can.

.

IOKIYAR

by digby

So a famous Republican law and order, anti-immigrant tough guy turns out to have an undocumented gay lover and there are pictures to prove it. Just another day in Arizona.

It’s interesting how willing so many right wingers are to defend him and blame “the left” for intruding into his private life. But it isn’t really all that unusual. They don’t want the government intruding on the private lives of their own. That would be wrong. But subjecting people who don’t agree or identify with them to the long arm of the law is perfectly fine. After all, they deserve it.

There’s a phrase for it: hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Put another way, hypocrisy is the tribute Republicans politicians pay to their equally hypocritical church lady constituents, also known as IOKIYAR.

I suspect that Sheriff Babeau will be easily forgiven by many right wingers, despite the fact that he has had a secret life as a gay man involved with a Mexican who is (apparently) illegally in the country. After all, he’s one of them — a card carrying, freedom loving, CPAC attending wingnut. On the other hand, a sheriff who was openly sympathetic to gay people and undocumented workers would be fair game to be outed and run from office. It’s one thing to sleep with an immigrant of the same sex, it’s quite another to advocate for the freedom of others to sleep with whomever they want or for the humanity and dignity of non-citizens. The first is just being a flawed human being. The second is being a liberal and that’s unforgiveable.

Quote from wingnut commenter at Gateway Pundit:

“[Liberals will] clutch their pearls and go on and on about Babeu being a hypocrite, followed by wringing their hands as they go on and on about those who continue to support his run for sheriff also being hypocrites. They’ll tsk tsk those hypocrites as if behaving in a hypocritical way is the absolute worst sin a human being can possibly commit, worse than raping children and/or detonating the explosives strapped to ones body in the cabin of a commercial jet chock full of passengers and soaring thousands of feet above the Atlantic ocean. Typical libtard bullsh*t.”

There you go.

Update: There’s more to this story. Howie has it here. Yikes.

Priorities

by digby

An area Catholic food pantry whose mission is to feed the hungry says no to Planned Parenthood.

As part of its Martin Luther King food drive, Planned Parenthood collected 50 pounds of food. It hoped to donate the food to Paul’s Pantry.

“What was told to me was that they simply said we do not want any food donations from you period,” said Lisa Boyce, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

[…]

FOX 11 asked St. Norbert College religious professor Paul Wadell to provide context to the situation. He says since Paul’s Pantry is a catholic organization, Planned Parenthood shouldn’t have been surprised by its decision.

“In the Catholic Church there is such an emphasis on the dignity of life, the sacredness of life that it really is a cornerstone moral principle that there is a fear of wanting to do anything that might seem to compromise that principle or to weaken the church’s stance on it,” said Wadell.
[…]
While Paul’s Pantry won’t comment on its choice, Waddle says catholic principles for life often come first.

“It becomes for many people I think a defining issue of catholic morality and to the point where it can overrule other moral considerations,” said Wadell.

Apparently.

But it isn’t just the Catholics, as Sarah Posner pointed out last week at Religion Dispatches:

Last week at CPAC, Mike Huckabee, who has previously identified as a “Bapti-costal,” spread his religious wings a little further by declaring, “we are all Catholics now.” (Translation: this Southern Baptist pastor backs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposing the contraception coverage requirement under the Affordable Care Act as a mortal threat to religious freedom.)

Now Glenn Beck (a convert to Mormonism) has picked up the Catholic ball, reports Evan McMorris-Santoro. He’s urging his radio listeners and followers to call their member of Congress in support of the Blunt Amendment (a ridiculously broad proposal which would permit any employer to refuse to provide coverage or any medical service he or she finds morally objectionable) and include in their comments, “We are all Catholics now.”

A new New York Times/CBS News poll finds 66% of respondents support the contraception coverage requirement, and 61% support requiring religiously-affiliated institutions to provide the coverage, with 57% of Catholics supporting. With the American public, the contraception coverage is very popular, and a new Gallup poll finds President Obama experienced no decline in support even among Catholics since announcing the rule.

If you wonder where Republicans think they’re finding support for legislative proposals like the Blunt amendment, a new poll out from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life makes a telling discovery: evangelicals are more opposed to requiring religious institutions to provide coverage for contraception than Catholics are.

This is why I don’t believe the whole brouhaha is about religion at all, at least on the elite level. It’s about tribalism and politics. I’m sure that some of the people who are foolishly hating on Planned Parenthood have strong moral objections to abortion rights and contraception. But mostly, it’s just standard old groupthink — and an opportunity to make a point for your “side”. There’s nothing moral about turning away food for the hungry. For any reason.

h/t to bb
.

“I don’t see where it’s going to be that hard to apprehend her.”

by digby

When the Taser’s prongs hit her back, Danielle Maudsley spun backward and smacked her head on the pavement.

A nearby dashcam recorded the fall, even capturing the sound of her head cracking on the asphalt.

Maudsley, 20, clutched her head and struggled to rise. “I can’t get up,” she moaned, her final words.

Then she went still.

She has been in a vegetative state ever since. Doctors have told her family she likely will never wake up.

It happens. It happens a lot. If an allegedly life saving drug killed this many people, it would be banned:

This week, two state agencies cleared Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Cole of any wrongdoing in the September incident, which occurred as Maudsley tried to escape from an FHP station in Pinellas Park.

But several experts and researchers who reviewed reports and video of the incident said the case raises questions…

“It just doesn’t make any sense,” said Greg Connor, a professor at the University of Illinois Police Training Institute who specializes in use of force. “I don’t see where it’s going to be that hard to apprehend her.”

Cole, who at 267 pounds weighed about three times as much as Maudsley, told investigators he used his Taser because he was concerned one or both of them would be injured if he tackled her. He worried she was headed toward heavy traffic on U.S. 19.

The scrutiny of the Maudsley case comes amid calls from some national groups for police agencies to take a closer look at how and when they use Tasers.

The human rights organization Amnesty International called this week for stricter limits on Taser use after an intoxicated Georgia man died hours after police shot him with one. The group believes there should be a national policy on Taser use.

Florida has had 65 Taser-related deaths since 2001, the second highest total behind California, which had 92.

I will be shocked if the federal government issues a national policy. If there’s one thing the states’ rights fanatics guard heavily it’s their right to create their own policing policy. It would be a very heavy lift.

I’m counting on large punitive damage awards and public opinion to turn this one, and that’s a heavy lift too. When they don’t think tasering is a hilarious joke or well-deserved instant justice, most people think it’s a fairly harmless tool that doesn’t really hurt anyone. Educating them to the danger is going to take some work. And getting juries to hold the Taser manufacturer and lax police agencies liable to the point where it hurts is a long term project.

The good news is that it finally seems to be penetrating the consciousness a little bit. I suppose hundreds of deaths will do that.

Maybe a good place to start on this would be to convince Hollywood that using this deadly torture device for cheap laughs is sadistic and irresponsible.

.

Counting on Sanity

by digby

Tom Harkin:

“This Congress will be making a grave mistake — a grave mistake — and reinforcing a dangerous precedent,” Harkin said in a dramatic Senate floor speech late Thursday. “And I’m dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this, and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security.”

Harkin argued that Social Security had always been strong and protected because it was funded by its own dedicated tax stream that ensured every American would be guaranteed a basic income in their retirements, and that the program added not “even one dime to the deficits or the national debt.”

But he said now that Congress was going to pay for this cut with borrowed money from the general treasury funds, the best argument of the program’s defenders was gone.

“With this bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say that Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit,” Harkin said.

He argued that a far better plan would have been to simply grant working Americans rebates on their income taxes, the way Presidents Obama and George W. Bush had done in recent years.

Yep. Or send checks. Everybody loves getting a check.

Harkin’s right on this. And I have to say that I cannot see the path to raising this tax again. If anyone’s counting on the Republicans sticking with their current position, they’re cracked. They’ll be screaming “tax hike” the first time anyone tries to let it happen. And assuming that Obama wins the election, with the Bush tax cuts expiring we are already going to have a battle royale over raising taxes. What’s going to give?

.

Republicans Didn’t Have to Support the Bishops

by David Atkins

Many people have critiqued my and Digby’s assertions that the anti-contraception stance constitutes a victory for the GOP. Most of the comments and emails to me about this piece have indicated that I’m an avowed pessimist who cannot realize when the Republicans have overplayed their hand and lost an issue. In the critics’ opinion, the Bishops overreacted and have now created an issue that will be easy for Democrats to exploit, thus creating a pre-packaged defeat for the Republicans.

But keep in mind that the Republicans did not have to support the Bishops. The Bishops could simply have registered their objection and then meekly gone along with offering contraception as they have done so often before under various state laws. But the conservative establishment decided to kick in. Fox News, Limbaugh, and the other assorted factions of the reactionary media empire decided to make a big deal out of it, and their legislative puppets in the Republican Party dutifully stepped right in line to make hay of it.

These things don’t happen by accident. The conservative establishment decided early on that this was going to be a hill for them to die on. They weren’t forced to die on that hill. They could have let the Bishops stand alone. But they didn’t. They decided to run this ball all the way down the court.

And guess what? As Digby points out, it’s working. What just a few weeks ago was considered so mainstream as to an afterthought (providing contraception) is now seen as some sort of controversial touchstone, even as “religious freedom” has become a buzzword in the press.

Democrats can high-five one another about Republican overreach and laugh hysterically at the increased number of votes Barack Obama will receive in 2012 over Mitt Santorum. But ultimately the joke’s on us. It’s been on us ever since the Obama Administration decided to concede an inch to the misogynist conspiracy of extremist fanatics that are the Bishops, rather than mock them immediately for being out of touch with their own flock, to say nothing of the mainstream American public.

The political ground on contraception has suddenly shifted to the right faster than I have seen on any social issue in my lifetime. It’s incredible.

.